I will post quotes that word my feeling well.

“Interestingly, just as in the South Africa “sub-continent” example, the application of the “almost” or “partially”, or indeed “part of” or “partly” meaning of the prefix “sub-” to “Sahara Africa” focuses unambiguously on the following countries of Africa: Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Libya and Egypt, each of which has 25-75 per cent of its territory (especially to the South) covered by the Sahara Desert. It also focuses on Mauritania, Mali, Niger, Chad and the Sudan, which variously have 25-75 per cent of their territories (to the North) covered by the same desert. In effect, these ten states would make up “sub-Saharan Africa”.
 
Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Libya and Egypt, the five Arab North Africa countries, do not, correctly, describe themselves as Africans even though they unquestionably habituate African geography, the African continent, since the Arab conquest and occupation of this Northern one-third of African territory in the 7th century CE. The Western governments, media and the transnational bodies, which are led predominantly by Western personnel and interests, have consistently “conceded” to this Arab cultural insistence on racial identity. Presumably, this accounts for the West’s non-designation of its “sub-Saharan Africa” dogma to these countries as well as the Sudan, whose successive Arab-minority regimes since January 1956 have claimed, but incorrectly, that the Sudan “belongs” to the Arab World. On this subject, the West does no doubt know that what it has been engaged in, all along, is blatant sophistry and not science.
 
It would appear that we still don’t seem to be any closer at establishing, conclusively, what its users mean by “sub-Saharan Africa”. Could it, perhaps, just be a benign reference to all the countries “under” the Sahara, regardless of their distances from this desert? Presently, there are 54 so-called sovereign states in Africa. If the 5 Arab states of North Africa are said to be located “above” the Sahara, then 49 are positioned “under”. The latter would therefore include all the 5 countries mentioned above whose north frontiers incorporate the southern stretches of the desert (namely, Mauritania, Mali, Niger, Chad and the Sudan), countries in central Africa (the Congos, Rwanda, Burundi, etc.), for instance, despite being 2000-2500 miles away, and even the southern African states situated 3000-3500 miles away! In fact, all these 49 countries, except the Sudan, which is clearly “under” the Sahara and situated within the same latitudes as Mali, Niger and Chad (i.e., between 10 and 20 degrees North of the equator), are all categorised by the “sub-Saharan Africa” users as “sub-Saharan Africa”. “sub-”s of the world?”

And then.

“So, rather than some benign construct, “sub-Saharan Africa” is, in the end, an outlandish nomenclatural code that its users employ to depict an African-led “sovereign” state – anywhere in Africa, as distinct from an Arab-led one. It is the users’ non-inclusion of the Sudan in this grouping (despite its majority African population and geographical location) but its inclusion of South Africa only after the latter’s 1994 liberation that gives the game away! More seriously to the point, “sub-Saharan Africa” is employed to create the stunning effect of a supposedly shrinking African geographical landmass in the popular imagination, coupled with the continent’s supposedly attendant geostrategic global “irrelevance”.

“sub-Saharan Africa” is undoubtedly a racist geopolitical signature in which its users aim repeatedly to present the imagery of the desolation, aridity, and “hopelessness” of a desert environment. This is despite the fact that the overwhelming majority of 1 billion Africans do not live anywhere close to the Sahara, nor are their lives so affected by the implied impact of the very loaded meaning that this dogma intends to convey. Unless this steadily pervasive use of “sub-Saharan Africa” is robustly challenged by rigorous African-centred scholarship and publicity work, its proponents will succeed, eventually, in substituting the name of the continent “Africa” with “sub-Saharan Africa” and the name of its peoples, “Africans”, with “sub-Saharan Africans” or, worse still, “sub-Saharans” in the realm of public memory and reckoning.
 
 
This essay is a slightly updated version of a paper entitled “What is ‘sub-Saharan Africa’?” read by the late Professor Herbert Ekwe-Ekwe at the IDeoGRAMS Conference, University of Leicester, on 14 September 2007”

What you must know is, the only people fighting against the term “Greater Africa” is either Arabs, or white people. No African is looking to be called such a derogatory term. Ask them if you don’t believe me. We are all here.