As Enlight06 stated, this is not a new topic. This issue has been the topic of discussion in certain circles for some time.

One thing...why are you singling out African Americans. African-Americans are not the only group who should take an active part in protesting this atrocity.

Its not worth taking. Too many countries, and too much of a border to defend. I like South America better. Once you take, you can look to invade Africa or North America.

Rudey,

Neither do I. But I agree with your assessment.

Possibly the average African American doesn't identify with Sudan. In DC, the predominant African immigrants are Nigerians, mostly Igbo and Yoruba. Sudanese are few and far between. So, the issue isn't as personalized in my community.

The teaching of African history and principles on the primary and intermediate levels tends to be Pan-African. Prime example is Kwanzaa. It is an African American cultural celebration, and not really "African" -- it's elements are African, but not especially "Nigerian" or "Ghanaian."

There are lots of countries in Africa, and we don't do a good job at giving them each a unique identity when educating black children about Africa.

This also goes back to parenting....if the parents don't know, the children won't know.

I don't really have a solid answer to your question, though. It bothers me also, and I won't pretend as though most African Americans I know are aware of this issue or care to make it a pet cause. I would dare say that it is considered a "fringe" among the average black folks I see every day.

What circles? Is it on the same level as South African Apartheid?

As for singling African Americans out for an African issue, I think it's fair. I guess maybe Americans - white or black - are so mixed that their origins outside of this country are dead. Maybe I dont' understand because of that. But what I do understand is that other issues internationally are emphasized but not this. That's what I want to know.

And yes all groups should be active in protesting this atrocity and I loathe the fact that the world let another genocide happen.

-Rudey

I would say that most universities does a piss poor job in teaching African Study. I never liked the fact that it's "African Study." Why you might ask? I would say that AFrica is a huge continent. If you look at Asian Studies, most big universities divide them into different regions. Cornell has East Asia, South East Asia, South Asia and Middle East Concentration. Yet, they only have African Concentration. All the region are vastly different from each other. They all also have their own regional grouping. East Africa has ECOWAS. North Africa has the Maghreb Union. Southern Africa has SADC. I wish the universities would do a better job in specializing of African regions.

Well, I guess my circle. My undergraduate degree is in history (concentration:Africa) and I completed graduate level studies in African history. So, the situation is not new to me. Is it the protest on the same level as Apartheid?...no. But consider how long it took for people to become outraged about that system. How long did it take for people to really take a stand against that? Protests didn't intensify until the 1908s. Apartheid existed as a system in South Africa from the late 1940s until the first free elections. That's almost 50 years!! Why did it take so long? People knew what was going on, and no one did anything.

This is a human problem. However, I simply disagree that African Americans should be more outraged. African Americans are no more responsible for leading the cry to end this then any other group. Everyone should care about this. As Dr. King stated, "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere."

Well, while the countries are different from one another (heck, differences within the country are just as glaring), most African countries are bonded by common experiences unique to the continent (well, sub-saharan Africa at least). I never really had a problem with the set-up.

But, I agree...universities should do a better job of teaching African History.

I'm talking about the level of outrage among the black community in America towards South Africa. You are taking this back to the 1940s before the civil rights movement in America. That doesn't make sense.

You know what? If I came from a region, I would care more than people that didn't come from there. If my history in America was so effected by slavery, then I would care more about the current slavery there. But hey that's me.

And Senusret, I still don't see lots of protests about what happens in Nigeria.

Chinese members of the Falun Gong protest daily across the country.

On any given day, Jews protest the fact that our brothers and sisters are slaughtered and murdered by Arab terrorists.

I see protests against the war.

I see protests to legalise drugs.

I see protests for affirmative action.

I see protests for reparations for US slavery.

So why don't I see these protests to prevent ethnic cleansing of blacks in Africa? Why don't I see these protests to stop slavery in Africa?

And I am using what I see because I'm not in a particular circle. I walk by the Federal building, downtown, was a college student, etc. I am not using outraged emails on a listserv or quiet conversations among my friends, because if I did that then that would mean that everyone was as smart as my friends.

-Rudey

Being informed and acting on a situation are two different things.
I don't want to say the African-Americans are not informed or acted, because that's saying all African Americans. How about some African Americans aren't informed or active. One reason could be, the results of slavery. Although knowing we are of African descent, probably more identify with being American from a certain state than identifying with a particular region in African. Many AA's can't pinpoint just where in African our families are from. That history has been lost to many African Americans as a result of the slave trade. Many whites can break down their family genealogy 15 generations, most AA's can't, so that could contribute to the what you feel to be the lack of action being taken by AA's.

Also there are so many issues going in my homeland, that I do embrace, my passion is making a difference in the lives of the countless numbers of homeless and AIDs stricken children living in the country, but that also doesn't mean I'm not aware or active in other issues that affect my people as a whole.

I guess my question, would be, why has America be so slow to step in and take action to liberate as we have done with so many other countries?

You're right we should. I guess the only thing I can say is that there would be tons of protests about America going into another country. Regardless we should and so should the rest of the world.

And I don't buy the whole not knowing your roots thing because evidently African Americans still could protest Apartheid in South Africa.

-Rudey

The New York Times

Magboula's Brush With Genocide
By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF

Published: June 23, 2004


ALONG THE SUDAN-CHAD BORDER — Meet Magboula Muhammad Khattar and her baby, Nada.

I wrote about Ms. Khattar in my last two columns, recounting how the Janjaweed Arab militia burned her village, murdered her parents and finally tracked her family down in the mountains. Ms. Khattar hid, but the Janjaweed caught her husband and his brothers, only 4, 6 and 8 years old, and killed them all.

Ms. Khattar decided that the only hope for saving her two daughters and her baby sister was to lead them by night to Chad. They had to avoid wells where the Janjaweed kept watch, but eight days later, half-dead with hunger and thirst, they staggered across the dry riverbed that marks the border with Chad.

That's where I found Ms. Khattar. She is part of a wave of 1.2 million people left homeless by the genocide in Darfur.

....

As for Ms. Khattar, she is camping beneath a tree, sharing the shade with three other women also widowed by the Janjaweed. In some ways Ms. Khattar is lucky; her children all survived. Moreover, in some Sudanese tribes, widows must endure having their vaginas sewn shut to preserve their honor, but that is not true of her Zaghawa tribe.

Ms. Khattar's children have nightmares, their screams at night mixing with the yelps of jackals, and she worries that she will lose them to hunger or disease. But her plight pales beside that of Hatum Atraman Bashir, a 35-year-old woman who is pregnant with the baby of one of the 20 Janjaweed raiders who murdered her husband and then gang-raped her.

Ms. Bashir said that when the Janjaweed attacked her village, Kornei, she fled with her seven children. But when she and a few other mothers crept out to find food, the Janjaweed captured them and tied them on the ground, spread-eagled, then gang-raped them.

"They said, `You are black women, and you are our slaves,' and they also said other bad things that I cannot repeat," she said, crying softly. "One of the women cried, and they killed her. Then they told me, `If you cry, we will kill you, too.' " Other women from Kornei confirm her story and say that another woman who was gang-raped at that time had her ears partly cut off as an added humiliation.

One moment Ms. Bashir reviles the baby inside her. The next moment, she tearfully changes her mind. "I will not kill the baby," she said. "I will love it. This baby has no problem, except for his father."

Ms. Khattar, the orphans, Ms. Bashir and countless more like them have gone through hell in the last few months, as we have all turned our backs — and the rainy season is starting to make their lives even more miserable. In my next column, I'll suggest what we can do to save them. For readers eager to act now, some options are at www.nytimes.com/kristofresponds, Posting 479.

The rest of the article is at the above link. Now you've read this, thought about it...Are you going to act or are you OK with being quiet?

-Rudey

Don't buy it if you so wish, but I agree with Reds6. As a matter of fact, I was scrolling to the bottom of the screen to post a response saying pretty much what she said shen I saw her post.

It's pretty hard to explain, probably because the effects of history on Black Americans is not even quite thoroughly understood by many as it is, but I do have a sense of disconnect from the continent of Africa and although I do tend to pay more attention to the affairs of the region than I do to other parts of the world because of my heritage, I recognize that I don't have a whole lot in common with black africans other than our skin color. I am AMERICAN. I know a lot about what is going on and what has gone on in this country regarding black Americans. That is me. I know for a fact that there are plenty of black Americans who are very well versed in affairs of the African diaspora and the continent itself and I respect and appreciate their willingness to protest and fight for more adequate funding and attention to matters over there.

The best way I can explain my viewpoint is to say that black americans are basically a group in and of ourselves who function in America, obviously, because of our ancestors having been brought here, but not really integrated into mainstream american society for most of our history here. We also were taken from our homelands in Africa so long ago that our connection to the history, culture, etc. there has been distorted. This is why you hear about how black americans tend to be slightly less patriotic than other groups (in the sense that we often are mistrustful of the government's intern'l policies because we look at our history here and what is going on in other parts of the world where the population is heavily black and wonder how in the world "America" puts forth their ideals of freedom and equality when they've treated their own people so badly. So we have sort of deduced that we were never really considered American people) So it's sort of like, and again I am speaking more for myself because I am sure people have other views, we have been so busy fighting social battles right here for so long that we aren't as eager or able to fight the battles in other places. So while I do care deeply about what is going on in Africa, I feel that there are so many differences between my group here and the Africans there or the Sudanese, that I really can't feasibly see what to do...just like during our struggles here a few decades ago, there wasn't a huge outcry, I don't think, from African nations that really affected American policy.

I hopes thats clear, if not sorry. I can't explain it much better than that. Reds6, abaici, jump in if you want and fill in any gaps.

Are YOU going to act?

I understand that. I understand the fact that in general Americans are devoid of culture and roots. It's not completely a black thing. In Chicago you do see the Irish, but when you've got someone talking about how they are one part Irish, one part Fleming, one part milkman, and two parts Swedish...they are nothing and can only talk about their American roots...and even that barely. These people are plain old "White Americans".

Anyway, back to Africa. What was it that made the African American community act out about Apartheid but not slavery and ethnic cleansing? That is an explicit question that I am really interested in understanding.

-Rudey

Yes. I have and will continue to do so. The bare minimum I can do is try and get other people involved about it as well.

-Rudey

From my understanding of what apartheid was, it was much more closely related to the racial oppression that black americans recieved during the pre-civil rights era/civil rights era and many more black americans who lived and suffered through that could relate to the plea of the black africans who suffered through apartheid so it was a more immediate outcry. Basically, there was more of an identification to this system then there was/is to the whole issue of slavery.

If that is the case and the African American community can't identify with slavery and its effects then I never ever want to hear a single word about reparations.

-Rudey

That's an entirely different discussion and don't exxaggerate what I said. I did not say black americans CANNOT identify with slavery. I am not going to get all of into the lasting effects and all that right now.

So what about that whole trend with people wearing things with Africa maps? Those people who are all Africa this, and Africa that and I wear these colors for the blood and yada yada...are they not walkers but talkers?

-Rudey

I would have to say it was before WWII, even. Some of the strictest WWI-era immigration controls were placed on Eastern Europeans for several reasons, and since most of Eastern Europe didn't go Communist until after WWII, I'm going to take a gander and say that there has been pro-Western European sentiment since before WWII.

But, what do I know?

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...udan_powell_dc

Well, this may be the spotlight that this situation so badly needed.

Go Colon!

They covered dafur tonight on the Newshour on PBS. A guy said that they need to get humanitarian aid in, or a few hundred thousand people will die by the fall. They can't get the humanitarian aid in because the Arab militias won't let it in.

So far, the United States and the world have done precious little in response. The Bush administration fears that, if it alienates the Khartoum government over Darfur, it will undermine one of its signature African achievements--the potential end to the 21-year civil war in southern Sudan. China and France have resisted a U.N. Security Council resolution demanding that Khartoum halt the violence and allow immediate humanitarian access because they have oil investments in Sudan. Russia and rotating Security Council member Pakistan, both of which are combating insurgencies, object that a resolution would infringe on Sudan's sovereignty. U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan last week agreed to visit Darfur soon but made no further commitment.

http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=20040...ditorial070504

-Rudey

The UN = worthless.

Which UN?

Good point.

Well, the UN Security Council has time and again proven themselves to be ineffective when dealing with things like this. The inaction by certain members on this is offensive. In my opinion, they are just as culpable as those who are actually ordering the removal of these people from their homes.

Here's something that sounds a little like what we had in Iraq:
"China and France have resisted a U.N. Security Council resolution demanding that Khartoum halt the violence and allow immediate humanitarian access because they have oil investments in Sudan."

China, France, Russia, Pakistan, and the U.S. are about to have the blood of a lot of innocent people on their hands.

The talkshop in New York have always frustrated me and other UN workers who are in the ground. I know the guy who is trying hard to get the UN HQ to say something about Sudan. He said that the HQ kept on getting blocked by other nations. In essence, the weakist link are the State members.

The specialized agencies (WFP, UNICEF, UNDP) have been calling for more access and more aids from countries. So far, that calls has been ignored by most. Even been silenced. Like my previous post, this problem could escalate into the next Rwanda, and it still can.

ETA: Here is a very depressing statistic when it come to funding in Sudan.

As far as apartheid and the African American reaction, what I witnessed was "right place, right time" issues... Several African Americans started to realize something about themselves at that time and when they discovered they were "black" (in so many words--'cuz there are a lot other descriptions I could use), AND they found out what was going on in the South Africa and what the government was sanctioning, there was an outcry among the educated... That is one viewpoint I could give you.

Who knows? It could have been the decline of communism at the time. And while there was "pull out" of the communist regimes from the Soviet Union in Africa, then an increased interests of capitalism from western European countries--leading eventually United States--the atrocities that were going on in this "alleged democratic government" in South Africa was a quandry for many fortune 500 companies investing there... So when divesture was demanded, especially by South Africans that lived in other countries, i.e. in England and France, the voices got heard??? Maybe that is how the US African Americans got involved? I dunno?

As far as Sudanese Ethnic Cleansing and piss poor outcry from African Americans is because some folks just are tired of fighting other folks battles.

Basically, the African Intelligenesia just do not give a hoot about them "thin assed" black folks waay ova dere...

You could say, "capitalism at its best!" and go from there...

Then there are many an American that are a shade or two darker in complexion and it is well known that their ancestors did come from the Continent of African 200-500 years ago, that are really not called "African" in the truest of sense because they have lost their DAYUM mind... They could care less about another, much less you and me put together... ;)

Some of "us" call the culturally ignorant, "negroes"... I am not talking about the illiterate--I am talking skrait out IG-NANT!!!

They make much money, only to put it on their "hoopt-dees" big "twanky twos" spinner rims... Negros, I tell yah... Racist white folks use derogotory expletives when describing these individuals...

And somehow, we all get lumped together into one group--just like at the bottom of the slave ship--the Intelligenesia, The sellouts, the IG-NANT--all of their anscentors from various African countries--narrowed down to a few changes in amino acid sequences--that are really not that much different than most of the "brightest" Europeans... But, well... :rolleyes:

It makes you wonder, hmmmm???

Anyhow, you need to read about Nkrumah and Jomo Kenyatta and what they did when they found out what MLK was doing during the start of Civil Rights... Then you will discover why many African Americans--the ones who do know--are reticent about speaking out against these atrocities when you realize what the Untied States did to folks like that... Look at what Kwame Ture had to do as well as W.E.B. DuBois... And why Marcus Garvey did what he did so long ago--WEB fought tooth and nail with Marcus until WEB visited Ghana--in the early 1900's... Hmmmm???

Jan Pronk, the UN Envoy to Sudan/Dafur will go and live there for the next two years. Not really sure if he will be living in Sudan or Dafur specifically.

"U.S. Congress passes resolution declaring a genocide is occurring in Sudan, in order to pressure UN to take action"

-Rudey

"Sudan Warns Britain, U.S. Not to Interfere in Darfur"

This shouldn't be new news to anybody but, of course, it is!





By the way, this is an interesting article I read a couple of weeks ago...

Arab nations and Sudan are very distraught at world intervention to stop a genocide in Darfur.

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.j...toryID=5848864


Sudan Army Says Ready as Govt. Works on Resolution
Mon Aug 2, 2004 02:53 PM ET

By Nima Elbagir
KHARTOUM, Sudan (Reuters) - Sudan's army is prepared for "whatever developments take place" but the government is working to meet the conditions of a U.N. Security Council resolution threatening sanctions, a Sudanese official said Monday.

Sudan's military thinks the United Nations has not given Sudan enough time to disarm the Janjaweed militias, who are accused of genocide by the U.S. Congress, the Sudanese Foreign Ministry official told Reuters.

"It is an operation that must be carried out in degrees, therefore the military high command believes it is better to be in a state of preparedness to confront whatever developments take place," said the minister of state for foreign relations, Najeeb al-Kheir Abdul Wahab.

The semi-official Sudanese Media Center Monday quoted army spokesman Mohammed Bashir Suleiman as saying the U.N. resolution, drafted by Washington and passed Friday, was an "American declaration of war."

The resolution called on Sudan to disarm the Janjaweed and prosecute militia leaders. It said the Security Council could consider economic and diplomatic sanctions on the oil-producing country in one month.

Abdul Wahab said Sudan would appeal against the U.N. Security Council resolution on the grounds it would hamper peace talks between the government and the rebels.

He said the resolution's threat of sanctions sent "a misleading message to the other party and will obstruct the ongoing efforts ... to return both sides to the negotiating table."

But State Department spokesman Adam Ereli reiterated Washington's call for immediate action.

"There is no excuse for not taking action now. The Security Council calls for action now. And that's what we want to see. And we will evaluate the situation again in 30 days."

CLOSE COOPERATION

The Sudanese government has used the Arab militias as auxiliaries against two main rebel groups who started a revolt in Sudan's western Darfur region in early 2003.

The Janjaweed have long competed with the settled population for land but are accused of going on the rampage in response to the revolt, setting fire to villages, killing, raping and driving more than a million people off their land.

Aid agencies say 30,000 people have been killed so far in Darfur and more than 1 million have been displaced in the violence since the revolt began. The United Nations has described the situation in Darfur as the world's worst humanitarian crisis.

A survey of Darfur refugees at camps in Chad by the U.S.-based Coalition for International Justice indicates that militias and official Sudanese forces cooperated closely in violence in Darfur.

Stefanie Frease, head of the Darfur Documentation Project, told Reuters in the Chadian town of Abeche, said trends were emerging in the group's interviews with hundreds of refugees.

"One of them has been the close coordination between government of Sudan forces and the Janjaweed (militias) in the attacks -- (an) extraordinarily high percentage," Frease said.

Sudan's government has denied it controls the Janjaweed and has branded them outlaws.

CEASE-FIRE EXTENDED

The Arab League, which has already complained about suggestions Western troops would be sent to Sudan, said Arab foreign ministers would hold an emergency meeting in Cairo on Sunday at Sudan's request to discuss the situation in Darfur.

Egypt's official Middle East News Agency reported the Arab world's most populous country dispatched five military planes loaded with humanitarian aid to Darfur.

Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmed Aboul Gheit echoed the Sudanese position Monday when he told reporters that 30 days "might not be enough."

Abdul Wahab said although Sudan was not happy about the resolution, the government was working to implement its demands.

He added there was no set date for talks between rebels and the government but consultations were under way. The last attempt at talks broke down when the rebels set preconditions.

Adam Ali Shogar, a senior official in the rebel Sudan Liberation Movement, said a cease-fire between Khartoum and rebels in western Sudan, who both accuse each other of violating the deal, was extended Monday.

The truce, signed on April 8, was automatically renewed because neither the rebels or the government had raised objections, he said.

AID AIRDROP

The U.N. World Food Program said it had begun aid airdrops in the town of Fur Buranga in an area in Western Darfur state about 1,150 km (720 miles) southwest of Khartoum.

It said the airdrops had started Sunday and would continue in six more locations, delivering a total of 1,400 tons of food to assist a combined population of 72,000 local and displaced people.

The organization added it had only received about half the funds it needed for its Darfur emergency work this year.

Read the rest at the link above.

-Rudey

So France has agreed to send 200 troops to guard the border between Sudan and Chad. Sounds like typical UN symbollic BS to me.

Well at least there doing something... not waffling around like Canada or the US:mad:

Sending 200 troops to effectively accomplish what?

Well more than our countries have so far... the 200 troops while a pitiful amount, is still greater than our collective commitment so far. Ideally they will provide security for fleeing refugees, and deter the infiltration of more arms or guerrillas (well by that route).

I agree that the amount is pitiful. It is sad that other countries have not committed forces to this. But why is France offering such a pitiful force to an operation that obviously needs a greater response for anything noticable to happen?

So...China and Pakistan abstained from voting on a UN resolution, right? a UN Resolution that is tantamount to shaking a finger in disapproval (and not even the finger it SHOULD be.)

China, i can't believe you. i thought you were cool...but to think... that you...CHINA...would have a problem with HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATIONS...i mean, i expected this kind of thing from Pakistan...but not you. i'm apalled. i was wrong about you. consider yourself un-invited to my birthday bash, China.

i feel like we've become complacent after arguing about who'll be better in the oral office come november. as if that were an issue so urgent of my attention, that kids die of diarrhea and other ailments so preventable, like lack of water, while their mothers and sisters were being raped and murdered. i was so sure that the world wouldn't stand by and watch it happen, again...and to allow Sudan to have a seat...it's ****ing sickening.

i don't want to diminish the good that can come from France sending 200 humanitarian soldiers, but why is the number so small? what is the rest of France's army doing, that they're too busy?

This does not improve my feelings towards the Arab-Muslim world.