African...and "African".

Earlier this week I was going over a geography lesson in a classroom and noticed that the text book separated Africa into "Northern" and "Sub Saharan". Strange  that the map of Asia included all of Asia, the map of North America didn't say "Canada" and "Sub Canadian America".  South America wasn't partitioned off into "Brazil" and "Spanish South America". The book was trying to assert that the countries of Egypt, Libya, Algeria, Tunisia and Morocco were culturally more middle eastern than African because of the influence of Islam.
                     On the surface that's easy to buy, then you realize that Islam exist in the Congo, in Nigeria, and EVERYWHERE in Africa south of the Sahara desert.  Some would say that the book makes a difference because there were civilizations in  Libya and Egypt during the time of Alexander the Great and the Romans. That is true, but the learning center in Timbuktu existed before Philip of Macedonia's son Alexander was born and far before Hannibal elected to attack a fledgling Roman state with his battle elephants.  The Kingdoms of Mali and Kush stood before Europeans knew they existed as did the Observatory in Zimbabwe and the Kingdom of Ethiopia. Why then is Africa treated as two completely different planes of existence?
                    This may just be one man's opinion, but it may have something to do with the fact that Europeans saw Africa south of the Sahara as a treasure trove of Ivory, gold, diamonds and people who could be bought sold and exported. If the darker skinned African was given the same regard as the Egyptian or the Tunisian the theft of his land and resources and the oppressing of him into bondage could be viewed as immoral.  The dark skinned African had to be dehumanized so that the invasion of his land and wealth could be called "Discovery". He had to be regarded as an animal with the ability to speak so that it could be viewed as acceptable to own him as one would an oxen or an ass.
      This is generally where the tired arguments of slavery in Africa before Europeans arrival and it's existence in modern Africa will be brought up.  Slavery did exist in Africa before the arrival of Europeans, that is very true. An enemy captured in battle became one's slave. In the Muslim parts of Africa one Muslim could NOT own another and many converted rather than be slaves.  The tired argument then points out that blacks were sold TO Europeans into slavery. That IS true, but there exist in many African cultures and within Islam ways of treating one's slaves that are a stark contrast of the way slaves were literally worked to death in the Caribbean and Americas.  Mistreating slaves in parts of Africa was a punishable offense.
        Regardless,  while Europe has left her African colonies and the cultures which spent centuries raped by the powers of Europe fight among themselves for wealth that could be used to build the roads, bridges, hospitals and schools that the Europeans DIDN'T build as their only interest were railways to transport their stolen goods from the countries interiors to their coasts, the divide remains. The average American student if asked which continent Egypt was on wouldn't be able to tell you as popular Western culture all too often portrayed the Africans who irrigated the Nile and built the pyramids as Caucasian.  Even in the 21st century when one mentions Africa to the Average American the images they have are of deep jungles, half naked  men and women with bones through their noses and westerners being thrown into large pots and eaten.  The Amazing part is they never explain where the giant pot comes from.
        Why does this continue? It WAS conscious at one point; whereas, now I think it's been done for so long that westerners don't even realize it's being done.  Speaking out to correct it will have armies of ignorant people who don't know history up in arms because the "liberals" want to make text books more "politically correct" but at the end of the day we as a society are  afraid of change and very lazy.  The cruelest part is that our lazy culture ENABLES those who print inaccurate, possibly unconsciously racist text books to continue business as usual and because it does another generation of American students will see Egypt, Libya, Algeria, Tunisia and Morocco as something OTHER than Africa.