The article already seems discredited in the first few sentences by claiming the name was given by European colonists in the 1300's. Just by virtue of knowing the Roman military leader Scipio Africanus existed, and knowing that he was named after the place rather than the other way around, I feel like that can't be the case.
this post was submitted on 31 Aug 2024
-24 points (22.7% liked)
Interesting Shares
814 readers
22 users here now
Companion community of [email protected] to share interesting articles, projects and research that doesn't fit the definition of news.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
The origins are disputed, but it has been called Africa for over a thousand years, absolutely.
From the internet: 'The origin of the name “Africa” is greatly disputed by scholars. Most believe it stems from words used by the Phoenicians, Greeks, and Romans. Important words include the Egyptian word Afru-ika, meaning “Motherland”; the Greek word aphrike, meaning “without cold”; and the Latin word aprica, meaning “sunny.”'
I kept hoping to find some evidence that this was a satirical piece... Nope, someone seriously wrote something this dumb
Wow 🤯
I feel dumber having read that.
“Anaesia” may have Igbo origins, but it sounds too Latinate. If one had to guess what it meant, a reasonable first guess would be the condition of not having a nose, or believing oneself to not have one.
Having said that, the idea is not without merit. See also: decolonised names like Aotearoa (New Zealand), Uluru (Ayers Rock) and Turtle Island (what some call North America).
I'm not sure whether should I upvote this because it is an interesting share or downvote because I really hate the idea of renaming the continent that the author of the paper promotes
Either works. It's engagement and opening a discussion was the reason I posted this.