I am tired of reading Subsaharan Africa. It is racist.
From the Latin sub, meaning under
1. under, beneath (examples: subterranean, submarine)
2. subsidiary, secondary (example: subplot)
3. almost, nearly (example: subhuman)
Under the Sahara: water, oil, gas, rocks? But not Black Africa.
Subsidiary or secondary Sahara? Almost, nearly Saharan? Make no sense... unless you are using it like subhuman.
It is all based on a caprice, the Eurocentric convention that places the north on top in most maps. But defining a huge region of the world based on that is stupid and never has happened before. A much more correct term (always from the Eurocentric position) would be Ultrasaharan (beyond the Sahara), Transaharan (beyond or across the Sahara, like in transaharan caravan or transatlantic cruise but also like Transalpine Gaul) or (less Eurocentrically) Sudsaharan (with d): south of the Sahara. Tropical Africa is also somewhat valid but excludes parts of Southern Africa.
I normally use Sudsaharan Africa, that is easily understood, or simply Black Africa, that is much more historical and has not the dismissive connotation of sub.
But while the world becomes aware, I may well use the term Supersaharan Africa, just to make a point.
From the Latin super
1. above, over, or upon
2. superior in size, quality, number, degree, status, title, or position
After all placing the North on top of the maps is nothing but a cartographic convention:
Peters (equal area) projection
If not you, who? If not now, when?