10 Reasons Why "Save Darfur" Is Bullshit1. It wouldn’t be the first Big Lie our government and media elite told us to justify a war
2. It wouldn’t even be the first time the U.S. government and media elite employed “genocide prevention” as a rationale for military intervention in an oil-rich region.
3. If stopping genocide in Africa really was on the agenda, why the focus on Sudan with 200,000 to 400,000 dead rather than Congo with five million dead?
“The notion that a quarter million Darfuri dead are a genocide and five million dead Congolese are not is vicious and absurd,” according to Congolese activist Nita Evele. “What’s happened and what is still happening in Congo is not a tribal conflict and it’s not a civil war. It is an invasion. It is a genocide with a death toll of five million, twenty times that of Darfur, conducted for the purpose of plundering Congolese mineral and natural resources.”4. It’s all about Sudanese oil
Sudan, and the Darfur region in particular, sit atop a lake of oil. But Sudanese oil fields are not being developed and drilled by Exxon or Chevron or British Petroleum. Chinese banks, oil and construction firms are making the loans, drilling the wells, laying the pipelines to take Sudanese oil where they intend it to go, calling far too many shots for a twenty-first century in which the U.S. aspires to control the planet’s energy supplies. A U.S. and NATO military intervention will solve that problem for U.S. planners.
5. It’s all about Sudanese uranium, gum arabic and other natural resources
Uranium is vital to the nuclear weapons industry and an essential fuel for nuclear reactors. Sudan possesses high quality deposits of uranium.
6. It’s all about Sudan’s strategic location
7. The backers and founders of the “Save Darfur” movement are the well-connected and well-funded U.S. foreign policy elite
Washington Post: “The “Save Darfur (Coalition) was created in 2005 by two groups concerned about genocide in the African country - the American Jewish World Service and the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum… “The coalition has a staff of 30 with expertise in policy and public relations. Its budget was about $15 million in the most recent fiscal year…
8. None of the funds raised by the “Save Darfur Coalition”, the flagship of the “Save Darfur Movement” go to help needy Africans on the ground in Darfur, according to stories in both the Washington Post and the New York Times
“None of the money collected by Save Darfur goes to help the victims and their families. Instead, the coalition pours its proceeds into advocacy efforts that are primarily designed to persuade governments to act.”
9. “Save Darfur” partisans in the U.S. are not interested in political negotiations to end the conflict in Darfur
The slick, well financed and nearly seamless PR campaign simplistically depicts the conflict as strictly a racial affair, in which Arabs, generally despised in the US media anyway, are exterminating the black population of Sudan. In the make-believe world it creates, there is no room for negotiation. But in fact, many of Sudan’s ‘Arabs”, even the Janjiweed, are also black.
10. Blackwater and other U.S. mercenary contractors, the unofficial armed wings of the Republican party and the Pentagon are eagerly pitching their services as part of the solution to the Darfur crisis
12 comments:
Give it a rest. Last time I checked Barbara Lee was not a product of the military-industrial complex. First off, this piece isn't even yours. It's the red herring laced work of Bruce Dixon and its ultimately irresponsible. The NAACP is a member of the Save Darfur Coalition. Are they wrong? Africa Action and Trans Africa both have strong Darfur programs -- is Danny Glover in search of Sudanese oil. It's one thing to take issue with a group's tactics or tone. But you make the fatal mistake of challenging a cause without offering one alternative idea. No credible group is calling for the invasion of Darfur -- whose oil and minerals are not as certain as this propaganda piece claims. The Darfur conflict has lasted more than five years -- yet folks like you would have it last for five more. So... what's your answer? Pointing to the Congo as a reason to not care for Darfur? What sense does that make? So, because one house is burning you shouldn't attend the other burning house? I just want to make sure I'm clear: Maxine Waters, Donald Payne, Hillary Shelton, Barbara Lee and others are tools of the crusading white man? In fact, that means EVERY member of the Congressional Black Caucus (including Lee who was a hero of spaces such as yours when she voted against war in Afghanistan) has been hoodwinked or are Manchurian negroes who are eyeing Darfuri resources. Come on. You can do better. If you are going to offer ideas, do so. But don't sit there and throw rocks without offering some real solutions. The people of Darfur -- about whom you pretend to be concerned -- deserve more. By the way, I note the fact that you appropriate Denmark Vessey's name. I'm sure you do it to show your militancy, which is clever. It's a shame though, because Denmark was a man of action who was actually working to "save" his people. What are you doing?
"The NAACP is a member of the Save Darfur Coalition. Are they wrong?" Anonymous
HaaaaHaaaa ROFLMBAO
They are wrong as hell. And have been for years.
What "Anonymous"? You think just some Negro front organization like the "NAACP" gives credibility to a propaganda scheme by groups seeking to exploit Africans of their natural resources?
Look man. This aint 1954. It takes more than a puppet organization like the NAACP to pull the wool over the eyes of people actually paying attention.
"But you make the fatal mistake of challenging a cause without offering one alternative idea." Anonymous
Here's an idea for you.
Stop cherry picking conflicts in Africa to champion that JUST HAPPEN TO FIT THE POLITICAL AGENDA OF THE ISRAEL LOBBY.
If you want to stop "Genocide" start in The Congo where the lives of 5 million people have been lost in the scramble for precious natural resources that end up in European and American cell phones. (more lives than were lost in the Jewish Holocaust of WWII)
"The Darfur conflict has lasted more than five years -- yet folks like you would have it last for five more. So... what's your answer?" Anonymous
Ahh shut up with that nonsense.
The "conflict" in Darfur is perpetuated by the same people who claim to wish to stop it.
"
Who do you think is arming the so-called "rebel" groups in the south? Poor Sudanese farmers are suddenly walking around armed with M60 machine guns and American Army BDU uniforms. Guess from where they come?
The formula is old and tired.
Cause conflict in oil rich nations - and then drum up bullshit humanitarian" PR campaigns as an excuse to invade, occupy or place a puppet government that allows access to the oil.
(If it weren't "genocide" you people would be claiming Sudan had WMD's)
"Maxine Waters, Donald Payne, Hillary Shelton, Barbara Lee and others are tools of the crusading white man?" Anonymous
No. Just ignorant House Negros who could be straightened out with one conversation.
Ask Maxine Waters why we are spending millions pressuring Sudan where the lives of 200,000 have been lost, yet we are largely ignoring the Congo where millions have been lost?
"that means EVERY member of the Congressional Black Caucus" Anonymous
So Gotdamn what?
Them same Negros wouldn't dare vote against ANYTHING supported by the Israel Lobby.
"It's a shame though, because Denmark was a man of action who was actually working to "save" his people. What are you doing?" Anonymous
ROFLMAO.
Ahh man. This is great.
1) I'm edifying ignorant fools like you.
2) I'm confronting bullshit, hypocrisy and deceit at every turn.
I mean ... "Anonymous" ... DO YOU REALLY believe this bullshit you've just posted?
Come on man. Really? Between me and you. You think the sudden interest - the multi-million dollar PR campaign, spearheaded by Ruth Messinger and the Israel Lobby is AN INNOCENT ALTRUISTIC QUEST TO SAVE AFRICAN MUSLIMS - with absolutely NO INTEREST IN SUDANESE OIL?
LOL ... man. This is some funny shit.
I didn't know people like you really existed. I thought Fox News was lying when they include opinions like yours in their polls.
I notice you didn't refute one factual claim in my response to your plagiarism. Again -- this piece isn't even yours. Okay, now I understand: the NAACP is corrupt, the black church is corrupt, the Congressional Black Caucus is corrupt, who else? Do you have an idea? Do you have an alternative? What's your solution? You did a lot of laughing at my piece but didn't seem to do too much thinking. You said you will school me? How can you school anyone if you don't know what time it is, spend all day long regurgitating someone else's college sophomore year militant rantings -- without offering a single solution? Let me offer you a tip: every bright educated mind, militant or otherwise, wasn't just about throwing rocks -- they had ideas for the uplift of the community and the Diaspora. What are yours? This will be my last post. The fact that it took you six times to respond to one piece of commentary speaks volumes. Good luck with your blog. But, try to come up with some ideas. The last thing our community needs is another angry man devoid of ideas who thinks everyone but him is corrupt.
Damn, looks like Anonymous (circa 2008) took you behind the woodshed and wailed on that ass with a switch.
Had you stuttering off post after post....wonder who that cat is, and if he'll come back.
Impressive.
The NAACP is a member of the Save Darfur Coalition."
well that settles it save darfur must be a crock of shit. talk about puppets
Darfur was saved, we got our trillions back from the bailouts, troops back home (anybody clear on exactly what our wars were about?) Where Don Cheadle and George Clooney at? Why they on mute? They going to be late for the victory celebration.
anonymous said "I notice you didn't refute one factual claim in my response". but his factual claims seem to mostly be that black people and organizations of black people support intervention in darfur, therefore it must be the right thing to do. i do not see how that is any more logical than world powers flexing military muscle to control natural resources. it is not like that has never happened before right? he does bring up a good point though: solutions? personally i am against US intervention in other countries, but is leaving other countries to the likes of china and russia entrusting them to a better fate? and if russia and china did end up with monopolies petroleum resources, surely they would not use them benevolently towards the US. is there a way to keep every country sovereign and all outsiders out? --onelove
Post a Comment