Sure, but at the end of the day you've got to pick a frame of reference and people have settled on North being the 'top'. You can draw a map that ignores this convention and still have it be valid but you're going to confuse a lot of people.
For what it's worth there's more landmass and population in the Northern Hemisphere so make of that what you will.
Explicitly stating direction rather than something that only refers to it with the aid of outside knowledge (the common orientation of maps) would be better. Otherwise, why don't we spin the map 180 degrees? Now the "correct" term would be "Super-Saharan Africa." Which is just as silly.
Yes there do seem to be a lot of Eskimo supremacists around.
I'm just going to start calling it Super-Saharan Africa. When people point out the issue on their map, I'll just flip it 180°. Google Maps conveniently reorients text.
The real fun begins when you decide to make longitude the horizontal aspect. Is it Dexterous Africa or Sinister Africa?
No need to wonder, it's because I see it as a farce. The idea that the top / bottom aspect is something that needs to be re-evaluated because it implies hierarchy is something so inconsequential that I just can't bring myself to take it seriously. And, if you really wanted to flip the hierarchy then you've got the same 'problem' just in reverse.
I know you really want to change the way people think but adopting the term "Super-Saharan Africa" is just going to make you look strange. I guarantee you no one will think "oh, this person means the southern part of Africa, but from the reference point of the equator to the South Pole." They're going to think "Wait what? A bigger Sahara? Desertification? What?"
Now, I'll ask you to take it seriously. If it's not a matter of concern for you, but it is for me, it would seem most fair to address my concern (since it's apparenty beneath your care). But if you do care, I'm happy to have that conversation. As stated, I would like to remove hierarchy (or the connotation of hierarchy) from the terminology altogether, and more explicitly refer to directionality. If you disagree with this course, please say why (beyond, "It shouldn't matter," because at this point we'd have agreed that it does).
I will say this, it is perfectly fine to worry about hierarchical structures and the impacts they have on people. But the mere existence or implication of hierarchy is not a problem in-and-of itself. Especially in this context, where I am certain the impact of North being considered 'up' and South being considered 'down' has not materially harmed anyone living down under. I also see no evidence that this paradigm/convention is actually harmful. Only speculation that it could be, in an indirect way, and for reasons I don't find compelling.
I'm also concerned that we're going to slip into one of the least productive kinds of argument, trying to define, redefine, and shift the meaning of words. So I'd like to avoid all of this and let bygones be bygones.
And that's fine. But you're putting a lot of energy into trying to convince me of that.
Do you see the contradiction? You claim that the nomenclature isn't a big deal, but then you go on to defend it - and even in this defense, you make an effort to wash your hands of the entire matter as quickly as possible. It's a weird appeal to the status quo, which I don't understand. Either the terminology matters to you or it doesn't. Does it? Do you prefer to refer to a "Sub-Saharan Africa"? If you do, why? And if not, why can't we just call it something else?
I am really curious. I think this sort of discourse is perfectly reasonable because it unpacks the meanings behind our initial reactions.
You'll just confuse people and look like a joker when you explain to them that you've decided to change universally accepted geographic nomenclature on your lonesome because you took a whiff of maybe possibly who knows racism.