Skip to main content

Why continents never really had names.

Before modern transport, people likely stayed in the same region for most of their lives so they usually named their nations & surrounding nations but never their continents. When Europe was named by the Greeks, they most likely meant the places in Europe that the Greeks & Romans had mapped which was around the Mediterranean not necessarily northern Europe. It was only much later on that the term Europe came to refer the whole modern-day continent of Europe. 

The name "Asia" has a similar origin. Asia was originally just the middle east & the Levant. It was given this name by the Greeks. Today,  people reference the "near East" (Turkey & Lebanon), the Middle East (Arab states & Israel), south Asia (India & Bangladesh) & Far East Asia (China, Korea & Japan). All these regions likely had their own native names but ultimately fell under the uniform Greek name "Asia".

Africa comes from the Phoenician word Ifrīqiyyah. When the Romans conquered Carthage & the surrounding regions (i. e. Ifrīqiyyah), they Romanised it to "Africa". It later became the word for the whole continent & not just the Roman province of Africa. Arabs referred to Africa as Al-Kebulan (Al-Kiblan) i. e. "land of black people" or "land of ancients" & even then, they likely meant the region in north Africa they were in & not the entire expanse of the continent. The native black tribes of Africa never gave Africa a name & usually only named the regions that they lived in. European explorers even called Africa "Ethiopia" & west Africa "Guinea" due to not knowing who existed further than those lands. They realised much later on that we are not all Ethiopians & Guineans then often called us by our native names & gave the continent the name "Africa". It is only today that people are questioning what Africa means & there are movements to rename Africa in a process of decolonization.

America was named after Amerigo Vespucci, Australasia & Oceania are self-explanatory. 


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The problem with a single African currency.

Preword: It's funny because one of the main reasons I found the courage to blog on African matters was due to a West African(?) gentleman who proposed the concept of a said "swal" & "zul" as a continental African currency in a blog. His boldness & conviction in his idea just captivated me & today I have to debunk this idea of his. But, hopefully, Africa sees why. African technologies & financial solutions Oh, Africa. We are so romantic; "United States of Africa", "Single African currency", "African unity", "Ubuntu"... all these fluffy, lovey-dovey concepts that will be ripped to shreds in the globalised world.  I debunked why a United States of Africa would likely collapse as soon as it sees the light of day. Today, I will debunk the concept of a "Single African currency" & explain why it would leave our enemies salivating.  I can't blame people who like stuff like United States of Africa...

A viable single African currency concept.

The original reason why I believe a single African currency would not work. Below is how we could attempt to make it work.  The many currencies of Africa. To prevent destabilization of the continent's economy, there could be two currencies: The Lami  for countries lying mostly north of the equator & the Ng'ombe  for countries mostly south of the equator. Both currencies would be independent with the Lami having it's bank & headquarters in Addis Ababa while the Ng'ombe could have it's bank & headquarters in Nairobi.  N.B.: Gabon, Congo-Brazzaville, DRC & Kenya would use the Ng'ombe currency while Uganda & Somalia would use the Lami currency.  North of equator = Lami  South of equator = Ng'ombe   More stable countries with higher GDP per capita could be first to use the new currencies i.e. Seychelles, Mauritius, Gabon, Botswana, Libya, Equatorial Guinea, South Africa, Algeria, Na...

What did King Shaka look like?

I've heard some people quoting from King Shaka's praises claiming that he was "like the sun" therefore light-skinned. But I'd like to ask how comparisons with the sun equate with being light-skinned? If anything, if King Shaka was light-skinned, they'd compare him to something terrestrial like the colour of a cow hide, wood or other object because very few extraterrestrial objects have the colour of any human skin. Even white people are called "ondlebe zikhanya ilanga" ('those who have translucent ears") & not  "abakhanya okwelanga" ("those who shine like the sun"). King Shaka's mother was from Elangeni & there is the Langa clan in KZN, all of them are black with many being exceptionally dark-skinned so I don't think the comparisons comparing King Shaka with the sun have anything to do with his complexion. Even the whites who first saw him & drew him wrote that he was dark & fairly tall. I also don...