The sub Saharan African map introduction is wrong on many levels. For instance it labels it as black Africa especially when north Sudan, Mauretania, North Mali have more Arabs living there than blacks therefore the whole map can't be black Africa; that is wrong. Somalia, Djibouti, Comoros and Mauritania are geographically part of Sub-Saharan Africa, but also part of the Arab world so another reason why calling it black Africa is wrong.Sub Sahara Africa is neither a sub continent so that part is just wrong.

"Sub-Saharan or Black Africa is a subcontinent that is being bullied by high crime,poverty,civil wars,dictators,famine,low life expancty,genocides,political conflicts,natural disasters and extreme drug users....
But the habitants still hope for a better future "

The bit on extreme drug users and natural disasters is also wrong as most drug users are in western countries where they can easily afford such drugs. Natural disasters occur more in asia.


Genocides that have occurred are the results of European divisions created in Africa.

As for the rest on high crime, poverty, civil wars, dictatorships, low life expectancy are they necessary to be included.

It seems to me this map description does nothing but perpetuate the description of sub-sahara Africa as a continent of failure which we should keep pumping aid to(aid that clearly isn't helping).Such a description for the region is full of wrong information and a negative view of the region.

Ps the ma also made a map I started a lot of work on redundant.

Agreed.

I really don't see why a description of what's on the land mass is pertinent anyways, it seems to me like the map maker was just making the map as an opportunity to spout his views on warlight.

Most maps don't do that