>I also see no evidence that this paradigm/convention is actually harmful.

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.