Skip to main content

http://news.bhonline.org

Former Ambassador Speaks on the Troubles in Sudan

Conditions in Sudan, and particularly in Darfur, are key areas of concern for many around the world as debate rages over whether or not "slavery" and "genocide" are accurate terms to describe what is happening in the strife-filled African nation. During the late 1990s, Western media outlets confidently painted a picture of what was widely reported as "slavery" in the country and recent reports have tied the term "genocide" to what is occurring. Are such reports reflective of what is actually happening? The Black House News (BHN) put these questions and more to former Sudanese diplomat Babiker Ali Khalifa (BAK) who served as Sudanese Ambassador to Korea from 2001-2005.


Now a resident of Denver, Colorado, Dr. Khalifa is a part-time professor of African American studies at Metropolitan State College. He originally came to America in 1979 as a diplomat to the Sudan Mission in New York and then moved to Denver in 1991 for his post-graduate studies. In 1993, he returned to Africa to work in Somalia but moved back to Colorado in 1996.
Although he no longer holds an official post with the Sudanese government, he continues to work with
the United Nations (UN) in the Sudan and other African countries. The 52-year-old husband and father
spoke by phone to BHN about Sudan, the country in which he was born and raised
(Read the full article)

(excerpt)

quote:
[BHN] - What is one of the most misunderstood things about the Sudan because in past years there was an uproar about alleged slavery in Sudan and now they're calling it genocide going on in Darfur.

[BAK] - Regarding slavery, slavery was an institution which was accepted a long time ago by the whole world. In fact, historically it was the European slave trader who enslaved our people when more than 40 million people were brought as slaves from Africa. Half of them died in the Atlantic Ocean and the rest arrived in the new found land of North or South America, or the Caribbean. Most of them are coming from the West African area and even from inside the Sudanic area. The Sudanic belt extends from Sudan, Chad, Niger, up to Senegal and Ghana.

Slavery now is not practiced in Sudan, [however], it is true there is a kind of servitude that when certain tribes attack other tribes, they take people as prisoners and make them like servants. What is happening in Darfur, in order to categorize anything as a genocide, genocide has to be determined by the United Nations, by a multilateral institution not by a single country. Genocide is elimination of a certain tribe or race, for example what happened between the Hutu and Tutsi in Rwanda, that was genocide. It means elimination of a certain race and what is happening in Sudan, it is very complicated and people have to know the area.

What is happening in Darfur you can call it – not genocide – [but] ethnocide. Genocide means elimination of a certain race while ethnocide means disputes, fighting and killing among people of different ethnicities. It is not genocide, it is ethnocide.........


(Read the full interview at: http://bhonline.org/index.php?topic=273.0)
Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

quote:
Originally posted by 1milehi:
http://news.bhonline.org

Former Ambassador Speaks on the Troubles in Sudan

Conditions in Sudan, and particularly in Darfur, are key areas of concern for many around the world as debate rages over whether or not "slavery" and "genocide" are accurate terms to describe what is happening in the strife-filled African nation. During the late 1990s, Western media outlets confidently painted a picture of what was widely reported as "slavery" in the country and recent reports have tied the term "genocide" to what is occurring. Are such reports reflective of what is actually happening? The Black House News (BHN) put these questions and more to former Sudanese diplomat Babiker Ali Khalifa (BAK) who served as Sudanese Ambassador to Korea from 2001-2005.


Now a resident of Denver, Colorado, Dr. Khalifa is a part-time professor of African American studies at Metropolitan State College. He originally came to America in 1979 as a diplomat to the Sudan Mission in New York and then moved to Denver in 1991 for his post-graduate studies. In 1993, he returned to Africa to work in Somalia but moved back to Colorado in 1996.
Although he no longer holds an official post with the Sudanese government, he continues to work with
the United Nations (UN) in the Sudan and other African countries. The 52-year-old husband and father
spoke by phone to BHN about Sudan, the country in which he was born and raised
(Read the full article)

(excerpt)

quote:
[BHN] - What is one of the most misunderstood things about the Sudan because in past years there was an uproar about alleged slavery in Sudan and now they're calling it genocide going on in Darfur.

[BAK] - Regarding slavery, slavery was an institution which was accepted a long time ago by the whole world. In fact, historically it was the European slave trader who enslaved our people when more than 40 million people were brought as slaves from Africa. Half of them died in the Atlantic Ocean and the rest arrived in the new found land of North or South America, or the Caribbean. Most of them are coming from the West African area and even from inside the Sudanic area. The Sudanic belt extends from Sudan, Chad, Niger, up to Senegal and Ghana.

Slavery now is not practiced in Sudan, [however], it is true there is a kind of servitude that when certain tribes attack other tribes, they take people as prisoners and make them like servants. What is happening in Darfur, in order to categorize anything as a genocide, genocide has to be determined by the United Nations, by a multilateral institution not by a single country. Genocide is elimination of a certain tribe or race, for example what happened between the Hutu and Tutsi in Rwanda, that was genocide. It means elimination of a certain race and what is happening in Sudan, it is very complicated and people have to know the area.

What is happening in Darfur you can call it – not genocide – [but] ethnocide. Genocide means elimination of a certain race while ethnocide means disputes, fighting and killing among people of different ethnicities. It is not genocide, it is ethnocide.........


(Read the full interview at: http://bhonline.org/index.php?topic=273.0)


fro How very sad..tell me who will cry for Africa?7 Hasn't she gone through enough? fro
quote:
Originally posted by Kocolicious:
quote:
Originally posted by 1milehi:
http://news.bhonline.org

Former Ambassador Speaks on the Troubles in Sudan

Conditions in Sudan, and particularly in Darfur, are key areas of concern for many around the world as debate rages over whether or not "slavery" and "genocide" are accurate terms to describe what is happening in the strife-filled African nation. During the late 1990s, Western media outlets confidently painted a picture of what was widely reported as "slavery" in the country and recent reports have tied the term "genocide" to what is occurring. Are such reports reflective of what is actually happening? The Black House News (BHN) put these questions and more to former Sudanese diplomat Babiker Ali Khalifa (BAK) who served as Sudanese Ambassador to Korea from 2001-2005.


Now a resident of Denver, Colorado, Dr. Khalifa is a part-time professor of African American studies at Metropolitan State College. He originally came to America in 1979 as a diplomat to the Sudan Mission in New York and then moved to Denver in 1991 for his post-graduate studies. In 1993, he returned to Africa to work in Somalia but moved back to Colorado in 1996.
Although he no longer holds an official post with the Sudanese government, he continues to work with
the United Nations (UN) in the Sudan and other African countries. The 52-year-old husband and father
spoke by phone to BHN about Sudan, the country in which he was born and raised
(Read the full article)

(excerpt)

quote:
[BHN] - What is one of the most misunderstood things about the Sudan because in past years there was an uproar about alleged slavery in Sudan and now they're calling it genocide going on in Darfur.

[BAK] - Regarding slavery, slavery was an institution which was accepted a long time ago by the whole world. In fact, historically it was the European slave trader who enslaved our people when more than 40 million people were brought as slaves from Africa. Half of them died in the Atlantic Ocean and the rest arrived in the new found land of North or South America, or the Caribbean. Most of them are coming from the West African area and even from inside the Sudanic area. The Sudanic belt extends from Sudan, Chad, Niger, up to Senegal and Ghana.

Slavery now is not practiced in Sudan, [however], it is true there is a kind of servitude that when certain tribes attack other tribes, they take people as prisoners and make them like servants. What is happening in Darfur, in order to categorize anything as a genocide, genocide has to be determined by the United Nations, by a multilateral institution not by a single country. Genocide is elimination of a certain tribe or race, for example what happened between the Hutu and Tutsi in Rwanda, that was genocide. It means elimination of a certain race and what is happening in Sudan, it is very complicated and people have to know the area.

What is happening in Darfur you can call it – not genocide – [but] ethnocide. Genocide means elimination of a certain race while ethnocide means disputes, fighting and killing among people of different ethnicities. It is not genocide, it is ethnocide.........


(Read the full interview at: http://bhonline.org/index.php?topic=273.0)


fro How very sad..tell me who will cry for Africa?7 Hasn't she gone through enough? fro


Enough is an understatement. 7 I was watching the BBC a few days ago and I found out that the LRA in Uganda have finally agree to a peace deal. Yet the 'Arabs' of Sudan won't stop killing African citizens.
George Clooney seems to be the only celebrity I see speaking out against these horrific crimes Mad.

http://act.darfurgenocide.org/DG/rssDarfur.cfm
Last edited {1}
quote:
Originally posted by cypress:
Enough is an understatement. 7 I was watching the BBC a few days ago and I found out that the LRA in Uganda have finally agree to a peace deal. Yet the 'Arabs' of Sudan won't stop killing African citizens.
George Clooney seems to be the only celebrity I see speaking out against these horrific crimes Mad.



i think we have to be careful when we speak on what is going on in africa because like amb. khalifa said, what's going on is very complex and you have to know the area - which most of us here do not.

when you say "Yet the 'Arabs' of Sudan won't stop killing African citizens..." aren't the people you're talking about all african citizens? so what does your statement mean? khalifa said the ones fighting and killing each other all look alike so how do you know who is "arab" and who is "african?" they're all african.

he indicated that what's going on is not so much about muslim vs christian or arab vs african - it's more complex than that so aren't we doing the issue a disservice when we try to simplify it to an unreal matter of arab vs african, or some are trying to make it a muslim vs christian thing?

he said there is also the issue that sudan is sitting on a lake of oil/uranium - you don't think that has something to do with what's going on? and possibly why the US has an agenda of wanting to mis-portray what is actually going on there?
quote:
Originally posted by 1milehi:
quote:
Originally posted by cypress:
Enough is an understatement. 7 I was watching the BBC a few days ago and I found out that the LRA in Uganda have finally agree to a peace deal. Yet the 'Arabs' of Sudan won't stop killing African citizens.
George Clooney seems to be the only celebrity I see speaking out against these horrific crimes Mad.



i think we have to be careful when we speak on what is going on in africa because like amb. khalifa said, what's going on is very complex and you have to know the area - which most of us here do not.

when you say "Yet the 'Arabs' of Sudan won't stop killing African citizens..." aren't the people you're talking about all african citizens? so what does your statement mean? khalifa said the ones fighting and killing each other all look alike so how do you know who is "arab" and who is "african?" they're all african.

he indicated that what's going on is not so much about muslim vs christian or arab vs african - it's more complex than that so aren't we doing the issue a disservice when we try to simplify it to an unreal matter of arab vs african, or some are trying to make it a muslim vs christian thing?

he said there is also the issue that sudan is sitting on a lake of oil/uranium - you don't think that has something to do with what's going on? and possibly why the US has an agenda of wanting to mis-portray what is actually going on there?


The on going genocide is mostly because of religion,skin colour and the percentage% of Arab admixture.I don't claim to know the whole situation,but I do know people are being killed. I say 'Arabs'because thats what they call themselves,before they call themselves African.

Arab summit:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4853286.stm

http://www.joshuaproject.net/peopctry.php?rop3=109571&rog3=MU
okay. so when you say ongoing genocide - what definition of genocide are you going by? if the UN has not declared that genocide is happening, what authority have you accepted as being qualified to designate that genocide is going on? a key definition of genocide is the deliberate, planned destruction or annihilation of a racial, ethnic or political group. since all parties in this are "black" there is no racial group being destroyed. according to khalifa, a lot of the conflict is between nomads (cattle herders) and other groups who are sedentary agriculturalists. if the killing is over land, territory, etc. - how does that qualify as genocide in your book when no particular "race" or ethnic or political group is being singled out or targeted?

also, if what khalifa said is accurate, most of those in darfur are muslim so the conflicts going on would have little to do with religion.
quote:
Originally posted by 1milehi:
okay. so when you say ongoing genocide - what definition of genocide are you going by? if the UN has not declared that genocide is happening, what authority have you accepted as being qualified to designate that genocide is going on? a key definition of genocide is the deliberate, planned destruction or annihilation of a racial, ethnic or political group. since all parties in this are "black" there is no racial group being destroyed. according to khalifa, a lot of the conflict is between nomads (cattle herders) and other groups who are sedentary agriculturalists. if the killing is over land, territory, etc. - how does that qualify as genocide in your book when no particular "race" or ethnic or political group is being singled out or targeted?

also, if what khalifa said is accurate, most of those in darfur are muslim so the conflicts going on would have little to do with religion.



See this link:

http://www.imdiversity.com/villages/global/Global_Politics/Darfur.asp

This conflict started Many,Many years ago.Arabs actually came into Sudan and force their religion, Lifestyle and culture on the original population,along long time ago(Lets not forget).

The reason this conflict is not look at from an invasion on African people and their country point of view,is because Arab Sudanese have so much control in Sudan and its Government.Plus they have intermarried with the original citizen along time ago.Giving the image that they are all Sudanese , all citizens of Africa. The fact that they call themselves Arabs and share African bloodlines, while still in a historically African nation is proof that they had/have intentions of domination through Arab culture only. Most of them are not full Arabs,Some are more African. Sudan should not be a Arab only nation.

a Nuba:




If you don't call it genocide, then I will call it a long forgotten about Arab invasion and destruction of African culture and religion. Why only blame Europeans for Colonization? Arabs did their part too.The fact that it happen a long long time ago still doesn't change things.
quote:
Originally posted by 1milehi:
okay. so when you say ongoing genocide - what definition of genocide are you going by? if the UN has not declared that genocide is happening, what authority have you accepted as being qualified to designate that genocide is going on? a key definition of genocide is the deliberate, planned destruction or annihilation of a racial, ethnic or political group. since all parties in this are "black" there is no racial group being destroyed. according to khalifa, a lot of the conflict is between nomads (cattle herders) and other groups who are sedentary agriculturalists. if the killing is over land, territory, etc. - how does that qualify as genocide in your book when no particular "race" or ethnic or political group is being singled out or targeted?

also, if what khalifa said is accurate, most of those in darfur are muslim so the conflicts going on would have little to do with religion.


fro For me it doesn't matter who's killin' who. The fact is innocent people including children are being slaughtered....for what? It's genocide however way it is comfortable to acknowledge. Killing is Killing is Killing is Killing is Killing, bottom line! fro
quote:
Originally posted by cypress:
quote:
Originally posted by Kocolicious:
quote:
Originally posted by 1milehi:
http://news.bhonline.org

Former Ambassador Speaks on the Troubles in Sudan

Conditions in Sudan, and particularly in Darfur, are key areas of concern for many around the world as debate rages over whether or not "slavery" and "genocide" are accurate terms to describe what is happening in the strife-filled African nation. During the late 1990s, Western media outlets confidently painted a picture of what was widely reported as "slavery" in the country and recent reports have tied the term "genocide" to what is occurring. Are such reports reflective of what is actually happening? The Black House News (BHN) put these questions and more to former Sudanese diplomat Babiker Ali Khalifa (BAK) who served as Sudanese Ambassador to Korea from 2001-2005.


Now a resident of Denver, Colorado, Dr. Khalifa is a part-time professor of African American studies at Metropolitan State College. He originally came to America in 1979 as a diplomat to the Sudan Mission in New York and then moved to Denver in 1991 for his post-graduate studies. In 1993, he returned to Africa to work in Somalia but moved back to Colorado in 1996.
Although he no longer holds an official post with the Sudanese government, he continues to work with
the United Nations (UN) in the Sudan and other African countries. The 52-year-old husband and father
spoke by phone to BHN about Sudan, the country in which he was born and raised
(Read the full article)

(excerpt)

quote:
[BHN] - What is one of the most misunderstood things about the Sudan because in past years there was an uproar about alleged slavery in Sudan and now they're calling it genocide going on in Darfur.

[BAK] - Regarding slavery, slavery was an institution which was accepted a long time ago by the whole world. In fact, historically it was the European slave trader who enslaved our people when more than 40 million people were brought as slaves from Africa. Half of them died in the Atlantic Ocean and the rest arrived in the new found land of North or South America, or the Caribbean. Most of them are coming from the West African area and even from inside the Sudanic area. The Sudanic belt extends from Sudan, Chad, Niger, up to Senegal and Ghana.

Slavery now is not practiced in Sudan, [however], it is true there is a kind of servitude that when certain tribes attack other tribes, they take people as prisoners and make them like servants. What is happening in Darfur, in order to categorize anything as a genocide, genocide has to be determined by the United Nations, by a multilateral institution not by a single country. Genocide is elimination of a certain tribe or race, for example what happened between the Hutu and Tutsi in Rwanda, that was genocide. It means elimination of a certain race and what is happening in Sudan, it is very complicated and people have to know the area.

What is happening in Darfur you can call it – not genocide – [but] ethnocide. Genocide means elimination of a certain race while ethnocide means disputes, fighting and killing among people of different ethnicities. It is not genocide, it is ethnocide.........


(Read the full interview at: http://bhonline.org/index.php?topic=273.0)


fro How very sad..tell me who will cry for Africa?7 Hasn't she gone through enough? fro


Enough is an understatement. 7 I was watching the BBC a few days ago and I found out that the LRA in Uganda have finally agree to a peace deal. Yet the 'Arabs' of Sudan won't stop killing African citizens.
George Clooney seems to be the only celebrity I see speaking out against these horrific crimes Mad.

htt
p://act.darfurgenocide.org/DG/rssDarfur.cfm


fro Yes he is. Until, of course, it happens somewhere near European travels or investments. Then it becomes a crisis. And then you will see everybody shipping in help. Cuz the blanket of European isms have almost completely destroyed Africa. It has deveined its people on land and aboard....there is no sympathy there. And it will continue killing "justifiably" until the very last culture of Africa exist. And then the mad scientists will continue its racist study indicating that the first/original "man" comes from/derived from China i.e. Asia [instead of Africa] cuz the way war/attack and such things are going, there will be no African culture to refute it. And again, massa has won! fro
quote:
Originally posted by Kocolicious:
fro For me it doesn't matter who's killin' who. The fact is innocent people including children are being slaughtered....for what? It's genocide however way it is comfortable to acknowledge. Killing is Killing is Killing is Killing is Killing, bottom line! fro


well, i hear you but innocent people, including children, are being killed everyday in america. do you also call that genocide? killing is killing but killing is not necessarily genocide - no matter how much some might want it to be.

if the definition of genocide is that an attempt is being made to annihilate a people because of their race, ethnic, tribal or political affiliation - you just can't show that to be the case in what's going on in sudan.

so, you might be well-meaning in wanting to call what's going on "genocide" but that doesn't mean you are being accurate or rational on this.
i'll try again cypress:

quote:
so when you say ongoing genocide - what definition of genocide are you going by? if the UN has not declared that genocide is happening, what authority have you accepted as being qualified to designate that genocide is going on? a key definition of genocide is the deliberate, planned destruction or annihilation of a racial, ethnic or political group. since all parties in this are "black" there is no racial group being destroyed. according to khalifa, a lot of the conflict is between nomads (cattle herders) and other groups who are sedentary agriculturalists. if the killing is over land, territory, etc. - how does that qualify as genocide in your book when no particular "race" or ethnic or political group is being singled out or targeted?

also, if what khalifa said is accurate, most of those in darfur are muslim so the conflicts going on would have little to do with religion.


you still haven't shown that people in darfur are being killed because of their race, ethnic/tribal or political affiliation. and i'm still interested in knowing what definition of "genocide" you are going by and what authority you believe has accurately declared that is what's going on in darfur.

the UN hasn't declared it so are you saying that just because you say so is reason enough to establish that genocide is going on?
quote:
Originally posted by 1milehi:
i'll try again cypress:

quote:
so when you say ongoing genocide - what definition of genocide are you going by? if the UN has not declared that genocide is happening, what authority have you accepted as being qualified to designate that genocide is going on? a key definition of genocide is the deliberate, planned destruction or annihilation of a racial, ethnic or political group. since all parties in this are "black" there is no racial group being destroyed. according to khalifa, a lot of the conflict is between nomads (cattle herders) and other groups who are sedentary agriculturalists. if the killing is over land, territory, etc. - how does that qualify as genocide in your book when no particular "race" or ethnic or political group is being singled out or targeted?

also, if what khalifa said is accurate, most of those in darfur are muslim so the conflicts going on would have little to do with religion.


you still haven't shown that people in darfur are being killed because of their race, ethnic/tribal or political affiliation. and i'm still interested in knowing what definition of "genocide" you are going by and what authority you believe has accurately declared that is what's going on in darfur.

the UN hasn't declared it so are you saying that just because you say so is reason enough to establish that genocide is going on?


The genocide started a long long time ago. With the Arab invasion of Sudan.
While everyone pretends that this is just 2 African neighbours arguing and fighting for Sudan.
I'll say its the illegal occupation of a African nation and a cultural domination plus genocide of the original people of Sudan.
cypress is correct.

Here is an example that may make it easier to understand.

Imagine we are in New Orlean about 200 years ago. The 'Creole' class, (which we all know are a mixture of African and European peoples, that recieved legally designated privilege because of such European admixture) started to oppress, rape, and murder(specifically to lighten and 'Europeanize'or get rid of) the African/Black class.(The lowest of the caste system set up by slavery and white supremacy at the time)... They were all already dominated by Euro-X-tian religion and culture, but the Creole's thought it their duty to destroy the remaining African ethnicity and culture even further for the goal of White supremacy and European dominance?

Aren't those intentions 'genocidal' in nature?

This is basically what is going on in the Sudan.

In Arab dominated culture one identifies with one's patralineal line. So even if one's mother was raped by an Arab, the offspring identify with their Arab parentage, and the Arab accepts the child as an Arab as long as they self identify as such and agree to be used to support Arab domination. Some of these folks that identify as Arab had a grandmother who was raped but they still cling to their "Arab Identiy".

This is a somewhat foreign concept in the racial system we are used to in Amerikkka where your 'slave status'(Africaness/Blackness) was determined by who your mother was and one was often not acknowledged by the 'Master' who sired you, albeit some privilage was given. We go much more off of phenotype than the Arabization process does.

Basically, Arab culture has an even more insideous "Willy Lynchism" at play. But don't be mistaken, it is genocidal and coplonial in nature.
Arabs invaded sudan centuries ago.
the sudanese arabs are now black, because they took black women as slaves and forced sex on them. Their children were bought up as arab. Today, because of many years of interbreeding, it is hard for outsiders to tell the diference between sudanese arab and sudanese african, but not impossible. It is mainly a cultural difference between arab and african.
quote:
Originally posted by cypress:
I think Oshun and Josh B have proven, that what is going on in Sudan is at least a cultural genocide. A really sad situation .


LOL - let's not be overdramatic here. what proof did josh b or oshun provide when they only stated their own personal opinions? what factual evidence was provided? you want so much to believe that genocide is really going on that you're now settling for "cultural genocide" instead of the "genocide" you came in talking about.

i believe we're all at a disadvantage here because we know little about what we're going back and forth about. it's like the ambassador said, what's going on over there is very complicated and people really need to know the area - and the history. i don't think very many of us in america are qualified when it comes to those 2 things.

we're sitting over here helplessly reacting to what has been reported in the media even though we have no first hand experience or understanding of the full story.
quote:
Originally posted by Oshun Auset:
Imagine we are in New Orlean about 200 years ago. The 'Creole' class, (which we all know are a mixture of African and European peoples, that recieved legally designated privilege because of such European admixture) started to oppress, rape, and murder(specifically to lighten and 'Europeanize'or get rid of) the African/Black class.(The lowest of the caste system set up by slavery and white supremacy at the time)... They were all already dominated by Euro-X-tian religion and culture, but the Creole's thought it their duty to destroy the remaining African ethnicity and culture even further for the goal of White supremacy and European dominance?

Aren't those intentions 'genocidal' in nature?

This is basically what is going on in the Sudan.



okay. what is your proof of the intent of the "arabs" you are suggesting wanted dominance over the africans?

there's just a tad bit too much of the anti-arab/islam thing going on here for my taste. are you from sudan and have personal experience with what you're stating or are you only repeating what you've read about this subject?
quote:
Originally posted by 1milehi:
we're sitting over here helplessly reacting to what has been reported in the media even though we have no first hand experience or understanding of the full story.


Sorry to dissapoint you but I have personally attended 3 Save Dafur educational rallies and helped to facilitate one of them. I am involved with the Sudanese refugee communittee through Pan Africanism and social connections. The only reason I am not an official memeber of the 'Save Darfur" organization is because I don't like the concept of petitioning one imperialist oppressor(Amerikka) to go into the region and save African people from the other one. This isn't 'News bites' from the media I am taking about. It is from people actually from the Darfur region(Indigenous, Arabized, X-tian, and Muslim) who spend their free time educating and rallying against the GENOCIDE taking place. Plus, I have done my own independent research long before my friends gave me personal accounts...and I came to the same conclusions.

Not everybody sits idoly by and watches the tel-lie-vision.

quote:
okay. what is your proof of the intent of the "arabs" you are suggesting wanted dominance over the africans?

there's just a tad bit too much of the anti-arab/islam thing going on here for my taste. are you from sudan and have personal experience with what you're stating or are you only repeating what you've read about this subject?


As an stolen Africa person(in Amerikkka) I draw solidarity with all people suffering from foreign invasion and colinization of Africa by Europeans and Arabs.

Arabs actually invaded Africa first and oppressed and exploited 'us' in the East African slave trade as well as the North African colinization which actually spread into the West by the Fulani and Hausa Jihadists(The Arabized African of the Western Saharah(The Sahel)...which destabalized the region making it easier for the blood sucking Europeans to get a foothold in the region. The Massai prevented them from moving further inland from the East. The Arab colinization of North African culturally subjugated and largely pushed the indigenous Black Africans South. If you fought cultural/religious subjugation you were killed or enslaved and turned into an 'abd' exported the Arab/Persian/Indian locals. Islam came by the sword. The Berbers went through hell. 'Arab' means native to the land of Arabia...prey tell how they are in such large numbers on the African continent? Do you think this was achieved peacefully? Do we not see a historical pattern here? The Sudan/Darfur crisis is just the continuation of this. Basically, it never ended.

Right now the current global climate has both Arabs and Africans(as well as other non-European peoples) suffering from Western Euro-Amerikkan imperialism. So, on that level I do draw solidarity with the Arabs and those Africans who are confused enough to identify as Arab because 'my enemy's enemy is my man'. But I am not going to forget about the historical oppressor/oppressed relationship and genocidal activities that Arabs have perpetuated on Africans either.

BTW they are also de-nubianizing Egypt.

And let me not forget the Chinese. They also have imperialist tendencies towards Africa. They are helping to fund the Janjaweed because of the possiblity of large oil deposits in the Sudan region. China's economic/political involvement is the main reason that the U.S. hasn't attempted to 'convinced' the U.N. to step in under the righteous guise of 'genocide' of the African 'identified' inhabitants(at least the U.S. imperialists don't have to fake like they give a rat's ass about Black Africans). The vampires don't want to fight each other.

As far as their being an ati Arab/Islam sentiment in some of my posts. You detected right. It's not that I hate Arabs?Islam or European/X-tianity for that matter...Well I do kinda hate Europrean X-tianity...lol. It's just that I know history and what is currently taking place... And I do not seperate religions from the cultures or the people's they are birthed from or acculturized under. To do so would be somewhat suicidal. But that is another conversation.
quote:
Originally posted by 1milehi:
quote:
Originally posted by cypress:
I think Oshun and Josh B have proven, that what is going on in Sudan is at least a cultural genocide. A really sad situation .


LOL - let's not be overdramatic here. what proof did josh b or oshun provide when they only stated their own personal opinions? what factual evidence was provided? you want so much to believe that genocide is really going on that you're now settling for "cultural genocide" instead of the "genocide" you came in talking about.

i believe we're all at a disadvantage here because we know little about what we're going back and forth about. it's like the ambassador said, what's going on over there is very complicated and people really need to know the area - and the history. i don't think very many of us in america are qualified when it comes to those 2 things.

we're sitting over here helplessly reacting to what has been reported in the media even though we have no first hand experience or understanding of the full story.


I actually did some research on Sudan,and I know that Arabs invaded Sudan many years ago.Sudan is a African nation,not Arab.I'm not anti-Arab or Islam. I just think we can't forget that Sudan is African nation.
You don't seem to be taking the situation seriously ,when thousands and thousands of people are dead ,in a conflict you can't figure out(but still discuss).

People learned to take Rwanda seriously ,as complicated as it seem to be ,and those were 2 African neighbours fighting against each other.
quote:
Originally posted by Oshun Auset:

Sorry to dissapoint you but I have personally attended 3 Save Dafur educational rallies and helped to facilitate one of them. I am involved with the Sudanese refugee communittee through Pan Africanism and social connections. The only reason I am not an official memeber of the 'Save Darfur" organization is because I don't like the concept of petitioning one imperialist oppressor(Amerikka) to go into the region and save African people from the other one. This isn't 'News bites' from the media I am taking about. It is from people actually from the Darfur region(Indigenous, Arabized, X-tian, and Muslim) who spend their free time educating and rallying against the GENOCIDE taking place. Plus, I have done my own independent research long before my friends gave me personal accounts...and I came to the same conclusions.

Not everybody sits idoly by and watches the tel-lie-vision.


no need to be sorry because i'm not disappointed and i don't know why you would think that i would be disappointed by any response you would give. it seems i should have been a little more specific in that my point is that unless you have been to sudan in order to assess the situation for yourself, then all you really "know" about what's happening there is what you've been told or what you have read or seen from others who have had actual hands on experience and whose word you trust. that was my point. if you've never been there to assess for yourself then the level of what you actually and truly "know" of the situation from personal experience is not high at all. that's my point.

and again, people voicing their opinions that GENOCIDE is happening and putting the word in capital letters on an internet message board is not equivalent to proof that "genocide" is actually happening nor is it doing anything to produce a solution to the problems over there. one article put out by the council of foreign relations said that the hopes of some were that putting "genocide" into the mix would be enough to bring an end to what's going on over there but the scheme failed as it appears there is no end in sight and there is more debate about whether or not "genocide" is an appropriate term to use than there is action towards bringing an end to what's going on.


quote:

As an stolen Africa person(in Amerikkka) I draw solidarity with all people suffering from foreign invasion and colinization of Africa by Europeans and Arabs.

Arabs actually invaded Africa first and oppressed and exploited 'us' in the East African slave trade as well as the North African colinization which actually spread into the West by the Fulani and Hausa Jihadists(The Arabized African of the Western Saharah(The Sahel)...which destabalized the region making it easier for the blood sucking Europeans to get a foothold in the region. The Massai prevented them from moving further inland from the East. The Arab colinization of North African culturally subjugated and largely pushed the indigenous Black Africans South. If you fought cultural/religious subjugation you were killed or enslaved and turned into an 'abd' exported the Arab/Persian/Indian locals. Islam came by the sword. The Berbers went through hell. 'Arab' means native to the land of Arabia...prey tell how they are in such large numbers on the African continent? Do you think this was achieved peacefully? Do we not see a historical pattern here? The Sudan/Darfur crisis is just the continuation of this. Basically, it never ended.


well i am not well versed on this history and therefore cannot comment much. i do know that with blacks in america still being victimized and living a continuation of the centuries long experience of racism, discrimination in this country, we can do very little about what is going on in africa. we can't even unite here in america for our own collective needs yet some are in an uproar about africa. slavery continues in the form of the ever expanding prison industrial complex, AIDS is affecting us disproportionately yet we can't do anything for ourselves. what can we do about anything going on in africa other than as you say "draw solidarity with people suffering?" that's about it. maybe if we got ourselves together in america we would be in a better position to go to africa and make a difference but as it is now, i still say that for the most part we're sitting helplessly by and allowing ourselves to be played by those who had an agenda and played this out in the media as a "genocide."

quote:
Right now the current global climate has both Arabs and Africans(as well as other non-European peoples) suffering from Western Euro-Amerikkan imperialism. So, on that level I do draw solidarity with the Arabs and those Africans who are confused enough to identify as Arab because 'my enemy's enemy is my man'. But I am not going to forget about the historical oppressor/oppressed relationship and genocidal activities that Arabs have perpetuated on Africans either.


so do you consider the rwandan, hutu vs tutsi, genocide as having been arab against african, or do you view it as an african on african genocide?

quote:
BTW they are also de-nubianizing Egypt.


"they" meaning arabs, right?

quote:
As far as their being an ati Arab/Islam sentiment in some of my posts. You detected right. It's not that I hate Arabs?Islam or European/X-tianity for that matter...Well I do kinda hate Europrean X-tianity...lol. It's just that I know history and what is currently taking place... And I do not seperate religions from the cultures or the people's they are birthed from or acculturized under. To do so would be somewhat suicidal. But that is another conversation.


hmmm - well it would seem that your anti-arab/islam position makes you unqualified to be objective on this situation. the problem is not "islam" -it is PEOPLE and their actions. the problem is not "christianity" - it is people and their behaviors and actions. since not all arabs claim to be adherents of islam, like saddam hussein, i think one is on a wrong path to take an anti-arab/islam postiion since the two are not necessarily to be tied together.
quote:
Originally posted by 1milehi:
well i am not well versed on this history and therefore cannot comment much.[quote]

Well why are you arguing the non-genocide perspective with people who are 'versed well' in the history of conflicts in Africa? Are you just playing devil's advocate for entertainment sake while thousands of people are slaughtered because of 'ethnic' difference and greed?

[quote]i do know that with blacks in america still being victimized and living a continuation of the centuries long experience of racism, discrimination in this country, we can do very little about what is going on in africa. we can't even unite here in america for our own collective needs yet some are in an uproar about africa. slavery continues in the form of the ever expanding prison industrial complex, AIDS is affecting us disproportionately yet we can't do anything for ourselves. what can we do about anything going on in africa other than as you say "draw solidarity with people suffering?" that's about it. maybe if we got ourselves together in america we would be in a better position to go to africa and make a difference but as it is now, i still say that for the most part we're sitting helplessly by and allowing ourselves to be played by those who had an agenda and played this out in the media as a "genocide."


Like I said, not everyone is sitting helplessly by. As Molefi Asante stated at a recent conference I attended. "Pan Africanism is not in the discussion stage any longer. It is in the iMplemetation stage. As Africans in Amerikkka we need to decide if we are going to participate" One's level of involvement depends on what organizations you are a part of. If you are trying to 'do something' for African people here or abroad without being in the front line struggle by not being involved in some kind of progressive Pan African organization then you would be ignorant to who and what is being done to unite economically and politically globally with the continent. Just because some or even the masses of Africans in Amerikkka may be ignorant of what is being done by other Africans in the States and/or abroad in relation to the Continnet doesn't mean that 'nothing' is going on.

quote:
so do you consider the rwandan, hutu vs tutsi, genocide as having been arab against african, or do you view it as an african on african genocide?


It was GENOCIDE period. And the hatred between these two African groups was actually fostered by the divide and conquor crap forced on the people by the Belgium colinizers. What's your point?

quote:
BTW they are also de-nubianizing Egypt.


"they" meaning arabs, right?{/quote]

Yes.

quote:
hmmm - well it would seem that your anti-arab/islam position makes you unqualified to be objective on this situation. the problem is not "islam" -it is PEOPLE and their actions. the problem is not "christianity" - it is people and their behaviors and actions. since not all arabs claim to be adherents of islam, like saddam hussein, i think one is on a wrong path to take an anti-arab/islam postiion since the two are not necessarily to be tied together.


I'm anti-oppressor. It is fine for Arabs to be Mulim. The religion spirings out of their culture. It is a foreign religion to African people and the Arab cultural domination that is a major part of it's spread in Africa has been f-ing us up for quite a while. Religion is the deification of culture and cannot be removed from the worldview of the people it was formed or developed under.
quote:
Originally posted by Oshun Auset:
Well why are you arguing the non-genocide perspective with people who are 'versed well' in the history of conflicts in Africa? Are you just playing devil's advocate for entertainment sake while thousands of people are slaughtered because of 'ethnic' difference and greed?


i'm not arguing the african history you mentioned thus there really was no need for you to even ask your second question.

quote:
It was GENOCIDE period. And the hatred between these two African groups was actually fostered by the divide and conquor crap forced on the people by the Belgium colinizers. What's your point?


my point was that i wanted to know your view since you were so much emphasizing the arab aggression toward and domination of africans as the root of the sudan "genocide". now on the rwandan genocide you don't want to get as specific and are saying the root goes back to white belgiums and not arabs. also, am i detecting some defensiveness in your answer? if you can take time to emphasize what you say is the arab on african genocide, what is the deal about saying the rwandan genocide was african on african without any assistance from arabs? it's like you don't want to blame the africans for anything but can pass the buck to arabs, white belgiums, etc. sure, the root of all of this will go back to some white folks but along the way, there are some black africans who have also been low down & dirty. do you agree with that?

quote:
I'm anti-oppressor.


okay. you also previously said "As far as their being an ati Arab/Islam sentiment in some of my posts. You detected right." if you are anti-arab/islam, i just think there is no way you can be completely unobjective and balanced in this.

quote:
It is fine for Arabs to be Mulim. The religion spirings out of their culture. It is a foreign religion to African people and the Arab cultural domination that is a major part of it's spread in Africa has been f-ing us up for quite a while. Religion is the deification of culture and cannot be removed from the worldview of the people it was formed or developed under.


i hope you're not suggesting that africa was problem free before islam. if you're not suggesting that, what is to be blamed for the problems africa was enduring prior to the introduction of islam?

islam is growing more rapidly than any other religion with adherents all over the world many of whom are not arab. islam as described in the quran is not for any one group of people including arabs, it is for all people. the "islam" that most people think of when they see arab culture/tradition is not the "islam" of the muslim book of scripture and i think that's where a lot of confusion arises.

that's why my position is that "islam" is not the problem nor is real & true "christianity." the problem is people and their actions and behaviors. one person can claim to be "muslim" and do wonderful things in life and another can claim to be muslim and do terrible things. it's not islam, it's the people and how they interpret or misinterpret the religion they claim.
Last edited {1}
also oshun, i applaud any and everybody who is attempting to bring about a change. sadly, when it comes to what's happening in sudan, it's just not enough as conditions have worsened - or continued at the same pace - even since the "genocide" alarm was sounded.

the point i was making is that we in america still aren't united as a black people and are still fighting our own battles for freedom, justice and equality in america. it's hard to fight a battle on 2 fronts, let alone more than 2, and that appears to be what's going on for black people collectively worldwide. yes, a group here can form and do some things, as can a group over there, as can another group back there but in the end - we're all still suffering, disjointed and disunited on many levels. that's the sad part about it.
another article/editorial to take into consideration concerning sudan is:

http://www.finalcall.com/perspectives/sudan_bec05-27-2001.htm

quote:

Asking The Right Questions And Thinking Critically About "Slavery" In The Sudan

WEB POSTED 05-30-2001


by Cedric
Muhammad
-Guest Columnist-

As many of you know, at the very least, we are not satisfied with the manner in which members of the US Congress, White conservatives, Black civil rights leaders and members of the "mainstream" press have handled the issue of "slavery" in the Sudan. Thus, we have not joined in with those who have jumped on the "slavery" in the Sudan bandwagon. For the most part, we think those who have been the most vocal on this issue have either only looked at the issue superficially, or have embraced the cause because they have hidden agendas. In order to explain exactly why we think as we do, today we look at the words of Minister Jabril Muhammad, Charles Carlson of We Hold These Truths, and an open letter from The European-Sudanese Public Affairs Council.

One of the most striking aspects of this issue is the almost total lack of investigative reporting and the imbalanced manner in which the facts have been weighed. In many cases, we have noticed important pieces of information totally and we believe, willfully omitted from news reports. Some of it stems from religious bias, some from superficial or even stupid reporting and some, we think, grows out of a deliberate effort to keep information from entering into the public discourse - particularly in the West.

But regardless to what one may think of the Sudanese government or the principals in this issue, how should this issue or any subject, for that matter be approached? Again, regardless to the subject, how can and should we approach anything that we wish to learn the truth of?....
for those unaware of the "slavery in sudan" scams, here is an article and excerpt:



http://www.issues-views.com/index.php/sect/23000/article/23037



quote:
....The modern practice of raiding began in earnest in the 1980s, and Human Rights Watch (HRW) claims that the primary motivation of the raiders was to acquire cattle, "with slavery as a secondary consideration." However, once the practice of raiding and abduction caught the attention of certain Westerners, foreign funds began to flow into the region to buy back the captives. HRW claims, "The availability of foreign funds poses the risk that those who already conduct the slaving raids on Dinka villages may make abduction the primary motivation, or may abduct children and women for the explicit purpose of gain from the sale or redemption of abductees, even if cattle remain the primary war spoils attraction."


This, indeed, is exactly what many observers, African as well as foreign, claim is happening. Declan Walsh, a journalist for The Scotsman newspaper, who made several visits to Sudan, claims that, "Some genuine slaves have been redeemed--nobody can say how many--but in other cases the process is nothing more than a careful deceit, stage-managed by corrupt officials of the Sudan People's Liberation Army." He then describes how the SPLA rounds up children to pose as "slaves" for the camera, pays some pittance to a light-skinned African or Arab, to act as the "slaver," and then demands $35 to $50 a head from the willing Western redeemers.


Walsh, as well as others, recounts the story of missionary Father Mario Riva, who has lived among the southern tribesmen for over 40 years, and expressed his shock and disappointment after witnessing a fake "redemption" ceremony. He watched as Dinka children, whom he knew by name, were coached in stories of abduction and abuse, that they were supposed to repeat to the money-bearing foreigners. Father Riva recognized other faux slaves as members of his parish, and told reporters, "The people told me they had been collected to get money. It was a kind of business."


Several other newspapers have sent journalists to investigate. The Irish Times reports, "According to aid workers, missionaries, and even the rebel movement that facilitates it, slave redemption in Sudan is often an elaborate scam." The newspaper describes what happens after a successful expedition on the part of a redemption group: "After their plane takes off, the profits are divvied up--a small cut to the 'slaves' and the 'trader,' but the lion's share to local administrators and SPLA figures....."
1milehi,

It seem to me that your whole objective is to undermind the entire situation in Sudan.Its like you're going around the basic issues,as if your trying to say,"well blacks are fighting each other everywhere"."So lets move on with our lives". I have alot of family members and friends in America and some in Canada too,and I care about their future, even if I don't live with them. During Hurricane Katrina some nations donated money even though there part of the developing world.I don't think people are saying the situation in Sudan is as clear as the day,but knowing the history of Sudan can give a better view of things.Learning about any history,(African/black or others could only open someones mind more.

If you don't have a interest in Sudan then thats find,but to make this conflict look like 2 African/black people going at each other is not really true. Sudan is a African nation under "Arab" domination. I'm not just talking about race,because some 'Arab'sudanese could easily go to Saudi Arabia and fit in. A nilote dinka would have a better chance living in Kenya or another African nation.But some people have a different view of things.
cypress, it appears that you completely misunderstand me and my position and motive - but i'm gonna let it ride.

i am not disturbed by you posting articles and links and info that, IMO, is aimed at getting people to emotionally react to the situation. therefore, i hope you are not disturbed by me posting info that is aimed at getting people to think more critically about sudan, as the title of the article said.

i didn't say i didn't care but i'm being realistic in my life. if you can take up every cause that is worthy to be taken up, more power to you but i know that i can't and i'm not trying to.

i cannot do much about what's going on in sudan but i can do even less about it when i have not thought critically about what is said to be going on there. i don't appreciate that some used the situation there to stage slave redemptions which duped many folks around the world about the real conditions going on. i hope you and others are not suggesting that folk should now just blindly trust and emotionally react still in 2006, like many did in the 1990s because they didn't take the time to critically think about things.
quote:
Originally posted by 1milehi:
cypress, it appears that you completely misunderstand me and my position and motive - but i'm gonna let it ride.

i am not disturbed by you posting articles and links and info that, IMO, is aimed at getting people to emotionally react to the situation. therefore, i hope you are not disturbed by me posting info that is aimed at getting people to think more critically about sudan, as the title of the article said.

"i didn't say i didn't care but i'm being realistic in my life. if you can take up every cause that is worthy to be taken up, more power to you but i know that i can't and i'm not trying to".


i cannot do much about what's going on in sudan but i can do even less about it when i have not thought critically about what is said to be going on there. i don't appreciate that some used the situation there to stage slave redemptions which duped many folks around the world about the real conditions going on. i hope you and others are not suggesting that folk should now just blindly trust and emotionally react still in 2006, like many did in the 1990s because they didn't take the time to critically think about things.



Who can take-up every cause? You can do even less by not learning the complete history and situation in Sudan.Everything is not completely clear of course. Conspiracy theories aren't good either.

When you say 'in the 1990s' I believe you're refering to what went on in Rwanda. The thing about Rwanda is that people didn't even know that a genocide was going on,its probably why some people are so quick to react to Sudan today. Everyone one has a different opinion.
cypress, when i referred to the 1990s, i was talking about the "slavery in the sudan" campaign which caused a lot of folks to jump on that bandwagon. they later found out they'd been duped when it was discovered that many of the so-called slave redemptions were fake and staged. (the slave redemptions/stories that got masses of people to emotionally react to what they were told was happening in sudan.)

a more accurate timeline would be to say this was the late 1990s into the early 2000s.
quote:
Originally posted by 1milehi:
cypress, when i referred to the 1990s, i was talking about the "slavery in the sudan" campaign which caused a lot of folks to jump on that bandwagon. they later found out they'd been duped when it was discovered that many of the so-called slave redemptions were fake and staged. (the slave redemptions/stories that got masses of people to emotionally react to what they were told was happening in sudan.)

a more accurate timeline would be to say this was the late 1990s into the early 2000s.




Theres a possibility that theres no genocide/slavery in Sudan because some sudanese, 'Arabs' and Dinkas were faking it in the late 1900s and early 2000.We must think about that before over reacting to the situation. This could be a case of crying out wolf again. This is what I'm getting from you.

The only thing I'll say after reading about Sudan's complete history, is that Sudan is under 'Arab' domination.
other things to consider when attempting to think critically about the "slavery in sudan" issue are the questions of who stood to gain from falsifying reports and staging redemptions and what was their motive? why have someone dress up "like" an arab - not that they were an arab - and play the role of slave trader?

this is from the thinking critically about sudan article:

quote:
...The Harker Report also detailed how fraudulent "slave redemptions" were being used to raise money for the SPLA, money which he stated is used to purchase arms and ammunition:

"Several informants reported various scenarios involving staged redemptions. In some cases, SPLM officials are allegedly involved in arranging these exchanges, dressing up as Arab slave traders, with profits being used to support the SPLM/A, buy weapons and ammunition...We did speak with an eyewitness who can confirm observing a staged redemption and this testimony conformed with other reports we had from a variety of credible sources. The 'redeeming group' knew they were buying back children who had not been abducted or enslaved. The exchange was conducted in the presence of armed SPLA guards. The 'Arab' middle man/trader delivering the children for 'redemption' was recognized as a member of the local community even though he was dressed up in traditional Arab costume for the event....." (10)


apparently, the SPLA gained from the fake slave redemptions which appear to have been one way their anti-government activites were funded. who else stood to gain by their actions?

who stands to gain by misrepresenting the conditions between the "arabs" and africans in sudan? if there are/were real arab slave traders there, why was there a need to find an "african" to dress up like an arab and perpetrate a fraud?

if the SPLA is/was made up of black "africans" and not arabs, where is the outrage over their behavior and their staging the fake redemptions? and why is it that some can't seem to see that it's not just "arabs" who are to blame for certain conditions in sudan?

and again, why has so much effort been put forth to deceive the world about conditions in sudan?

Add Reply

Post
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×