Prof Mamdani is sober, critical and frank! The kind of a scholar our society should try to emulate. SPEAK TRUTH TO POWER! Unapologetic scholar! A critical scholar.
Hi So I'm reading the book, and in spite of the hesitations I posted here, it's brilliant, probably the best background about Sudan I've come across, and beautifully written. Mamdani makes a lot of devastating points about the US that are only too friggging true. I figured I ought to post this because I was so free w/ my criticism... I don't know about this Prendergrast stuff, but anyway. Get that book, it's worth it
It's very disappointing to hear a lot of the questions accusing Pr Mamdani of defending genocide. Like so many political debates on very serious issues, it seems that the "right" side is only the one who criticizes the most and champions the most extreme action, and anyone who can't keep up with the acceptable level of criticism or keep up with the proposed action (here it is invasion) is automatically "sympathizing with criminals". It's ridiculous. Not one time did Pr Mamdani defend any atrocity, not one time does he question the existence of the atrocity - he is questioning the motives of those who claim to want to help, and he questions the cause of the conflict and with this how to solve it.
Mamdani presents the truth about the intentions of Save Darfur involvements and its allies in the Sudan political instability. A patriotic minds is beclouded by judgement rather than logic. I hope this presentation is a lesson to us all.
People, i urge you all to please visit the Savedarfur website, scan the "Board of Directors", John Prendergast is listed. He just denied any association with the group when in fact he's been a member for at least 2 years prior to this debate. So why should anyone believe what this liar says? His denial is typical of Savedarfur's behavior and only further proves Mamdani's points about the group.
Hey where did the rest go Oh well. Anyway, I'm picking up Mr. Mamdani's book to explore what he says in better detail, but I'm very, very uneasy about this (and bloody hell, I'm no neocon, thanks)
There's an excellent article in The New Republic about this. Do a google search for "We Can't Just Do Nothing New Republic". URLs can't be posted in comment sections, unfortunately
Fiinal thing: if you responsed to my comment about the New Republic article (that interventon can't solve it), actually the article's an informed review of the professor's book. It's something I wish I'd read before purchasing it.
You could directly replace the participants in Sudan with Russia and Ukraine The Sudan Gov was doing precisely to the people what Kiev Ukrainian Gov was doing to ethnic Russians and its startling how different people place the participants and rights of victims and role of outside forces This just highlight how disingenuous the claims that Russia i”invaded” Ukraine for no reason when of course that was not the truth and we know as a matter of fact the Russian gov had done everything possible to get Kiev gov to stop targeting/murdering Russian speaking Ukrainians outside of the west and to give them their rights yet Russias patience was continually abused so Russia finally saw no other options and took action to protect Ethnic Russian Comminities from ethnic cleansing of Western Ukraine/Kiev and of course U.S.
the tantrum outburst by the "Black Darfurians" was a bit insensitive and irrational. But, It confirms some of what I believe. Popularly held Academic views on African conflicts are far removed from the reality. Drawing comparisons with Rwanda, Mamdani's conclusion that the US responded indirectly on the side of the RPF is inconsistent with some of his previously held views. I don't know when he made the detour.
Remember Hutus fled to Goma & other relief camps over the Rwandan border in the DRC/Zaire? That's what I meant. As for oil -- to the east, nods, but in *Darfur*? Are you sure? Please don't forget that the motives driving the West drive China, India, Russia & the ME as well -- it's so important to consider ALL players, not just the usual suspects. Suggestions for book titles would be great. I've quite a few now, but I may have missed some. Thanks for your reply
Well, wait. 1. We don't know who shot down Habyarimana plane. Interahamwe leaders & Kagame stood to benefit, but one benefited a lot more sooner than the other. 2. US indifference to Rwanda's genocide & the refugee camps in Zaire are a little strange for a country backing the insurgency. What's your source? I don't mean to be rude, and it's possible that I've missed a few things -- at this point, it just doesn't fit. That could change, though.
What percentage of the donations did Save Darfur send to the victims? INGOs play good role, but they often oversimplify conflict contribute to loss of money. Prendergast had few credible points to support his points, which are valid but poorly, poorly articulated. I hate when NGO types simplify conflict to Arab-African; Ethinic and such. It's condescending and shameless!
OK, listening to this a second time, I'm deeply disturbed by the presentation of facts. A lot of this just doesn't add up, guys. It's true that almost all the NGO's in Rwanda (well, back then, Zaire) were irresponsible. They may be here, too, and maybe there IS something to their own profit motive. It's also true that there may be some interest due to Sudan's oil fields (not in Darfur, further to the east), even if said pressure forced some Western comps to sell, as opposed to buy & wait. cont
A thoughtful review on Mamdani's psychology and how it compromises the integrity of his analysis can be found at Piero Scaruffi's blog. Just google "piero scaruffi mamdani."
Other powers have their own interests, and can behave just as cynically as the West. Another thing that doesn't add up is the timing: why would we agitate to get into yet *another* conflict, further widening the conflagration in the ME (Sudan is just across the Red Sea)? How can it be considered succesful when Bashir's still doing the same thing the Sudanese gov't has been doing for about 60 years now? Rwanda did trigger more interest in Darfur: so did the Internet.
Being a Muslim from North Sudan with Arab ethnicity, not just Arabised Nubian, I can say confidently that most of what Prog Mamdani said is incorrect. It was genocide orchestrated by the current head of the military council Burhan and carried out by Janjaweed who are not Beduins from the north displaced by desert expansion, they were Bedouin tribes moving between west Sudan, Chad , Libia and Mali. They were provided with weapons by Al Basheir’s ousted government as part of their effort to “purify” Sudan and make it as much Arab as possible despite most north Sudanese being Arabinised Nubians rather than true ethnic arabs. Villages were burnt, women were raped and Maserati and Foors were displaced and pushed into UN camps. Al Basheir also used Janjaweed to kill peaceful protesters in Khartoum in 2013 and also to join Saudi and UAE armies to fight in Yemen.
Kagame's gov't has been causing all sorts of hell in the DRC -- that's absolutely true -- but we're looking at it with the benefit of hindsight: is it really likely that he foresaw all of this? Also, I'm not so sure the French have drawn back, if you check the BBC site, they still sound pretty involved to me (not as involved as they used to be)... It'd be interesting to know what other business(mining esp) interests are operating in the DRC.
I think that the case of Rwanda is a case which cannot be solved by any intervention. Let me explain in different levels. Locally, The problem between Hutu and Tutsi already started after Tutsi monarchy was overthrew and Tutsi insurgency (sponsored by Uganda and of course, Uncle Sam) for several decades. In the early 90s', the Euro/American troops were there for stopping Tutsi rebels. Everything changed after Paul Kagame assassinated the Tutsi president that provoked the wide violence.
Then, the West switched side from Hutu to Tutsi. Let's talk about international level. After Tutsi rebels took over Rwanda, the reign of Rwanda switched from French (who supported Hutu majority) to the US/UK. Do you think that Tutsi government was clean after 1994? Paul Kagame had waged two wars against Congo, took natural resources there and exported them from Rwanda. Yes, Rwanda was, and is an important spot for colonizers in Eastern Africa.
Rwanda was never Zaire. You had DR Congo in Mind. There is Oil in Darfur, vast reserves. Its not talked about much in the media because that would be the final 'dot' you need to solve the puzzle; to understand the motive that drives the West. I encourage you to do some research. In addition to Oil, Sudan is of immense geo-strategic importance to the U.S.... It's building its largest embassy yet in Khartoum.
I have seen many kinds of shallow thinking and constructive stupidity but Mamadi in this debate exceeded my imagination very disappointing. My home keeps bleeding for nothing just because people like Mamdani still claims themselves as experts in Darfur. I am not expert but what you are saying in the subject is my story. Mamdani is bulshit John is right dispite the fact that his arguments not well constructed
What percentage of the donations did Save Darfur send to the victims? INGOs play good role, but they often oversimplify conflict contribute to loss of money. Prendergast had few credible points to support his points, which are valid but poorly, poorly articulated. I hate when NGO types simplify conflict to Arab-African; Ethinic and such. It's condescending and shameless!
Tiffany FitzHenry sent me here. The Professor is clearly on point.
Prof Mamdani is sober, critical and frank!
The kind of a scholar our society should try to emulate. SPEAK TRUTH TO POWER! Unapologetic scholar! A critical scholar.
Hi
So I'm reading the book, and in spite of the hesitations I posted here, it's brilliant, probably the best background about Sudan I've come across, and beautifully written. Mamdani makes a lot of devastating points about the US that are only too friggging true.
I figured I ought to post this because I was so free w/ my criticism... I don't know about this Prendergrast stuff, but anyway.
Get that book, it's worth it
It's very disappointing to hear a lot of the questions accusing Pr Mamdani of defending genocide. Like so many political debates on very serious issues, it seems that the "right" side is only the one who criticizes the most and champions the most extreme action, and anyone who can't keep up with the acceptable level of criticism or keep up with the proposed action (here it is invasion) is automatically "sympathizing with criminals". It's ridiculous. Not one time did Pr Mamdani defend any atrocity, not one time does he question the existence of the atrocity - he is questioning the motives of those who claim to want to help, and he questions the cause of the conflict and with this how to solve it.
Mamdani presents the truth about the intentions of Save Darfur involvements and its allies in the Sudan political instability. A patriotic minds is beclouded by judgement rather than logic. I hope this presentation is a lesson to us all.
People, i urge you all to please visit the Savedarfur website, scan the "Board of Directors", John Prendergast is listed. He just denied any association with the group when in fact he's been a member for at least 2 years prior to this debate. So why should anyone believe what this liar says? His denial is typical of Savedarfur's behavior and only further proves Mamdani's points about the group.
Thankyou for the truth Mahmood
Hey where did the rest go
Oh well. Anyway, I'm picking up Mr. Mamdani's book to explore what he says in better detail, but I'm very, very uneasy about this (and bloody hell, I'm no neocon, thanks)
There's an excellent article in The New Republic about this. Do a google search for "We Can't Just Do Nothing New Republic". URLs can't be posted in comment sections, unfortunately
interesting. It's a take I haven't heard (Mamdani).
Fiinal thing: if you responsed to my comment about the New Republic article (that interventon can't solve it), actually the article's an informed review of the professor's book. It's something I wish I'd read before purchasing it.
You could directly replace the participants in Sudan with Russia and Ukraine
The Sudan Gov was doing precisely to the people what Kiev Ukrainian Gov was doing to ethnic Russians and its startling how different people place the participants and rights of victims and role of outside forces
This just highlight how disingenuous the claims that Russia i”invaded” Ukraine for no reason when of course that was not the truth and we know as a matter of fact the Russian gov had done everything possible to get Kiev gov to stop targeting/murdering Russian speaking Ukrainians outside of the west and to give them their rights yet Russias patience was continually abused so Russia finally saw no other options and took action to protect Ethnic Russian Comminities from ethnic cleansing of Western Ukraine/Kiev and of course U.S.
John this has nothing to do with New York,get it!!! 35.35 sec
the tantrum outburst by the "Black Darfurians" was a bit insensitive and irrational. But, It confirms some of what I believe. Popularly held Academic views on African conflicts are far removed from the reality.
Drawing comparisons with Rwanda, Mamdani's conclusion that the US responded indirectly on the side of the RPF is inconsistent with some of his previously held views. I don't know when he made the detour.
Remember Hutus fled to Goma & other relief camps over the Rwandan border in the DRC/Zaire? That's what I meant. As for oil -- to the east, nods, but in *Darfur*? Are you sure?
Please don't forget that the motives driving the West drive China, India, Russia & the ME as well -- it's so important to consider ALL players, not just the usual suspects.
Suggestions for book titles would be great. I've quite a few now, but I may have missed some.
Thanks for your reply
Well, wait. 1. We don't know who shot down Habyarimana plane. Interahamwe leaders & Kagame stood to benefit, but one benefited a lot more sooner than the other. 2. US indifference to Rwanda's genocide & the refugee camps in Zaire are a little strange for a country backing the insurgency. What's your source? I don't mean to be rude, and it's possible that I've missed a few things -- at this point, it just doesn't fit. That could change, though.
What percentage of the donations did Save Darfur send to the victims? INGOs play good role, but they often oversimplify conflict contribute to loss of money. Prendergast had few credible points to support his points, which are valid but poorly, poorly articulated. I hate when NGO types simplify conflict to Arab-African; Ethinic and such. It's condescending and shameless!
It seems to me that paradigm of development has world as to be,had been predetermine
OK, listening to this a second time, I'm deeply disturbed by the presentation of facts. A lot of this just doesn't add up, guys. It's true that almost all the NGO's in Rwanda (well, back then, Zaire) were irresponsible. They may be here, too, and maybe there IS something to their own profit motive. It's also true that there may be some interest due to Sudan's oil fields (not in Darfur, further to the east), even if said pressure forced some Western comps to sell, as opposed to buy & wait. cont
I don’t disagree with the part of colonial impact on Sudan though
A thoughtful review on Mamdani's psychology and how it compromises the integrity of his analysis can be found at Piero Scaruffi's blog. Just google "piero scaruffi mamdani."
You lost me when the moderator acted to control speech. Also, the tonality of the American is disingenuous at best.
John who wants the oil??? BP? Shell? or your tailor/hair dresser!!!
Other powers have their own interests, and can behave just as cynically as the West. Another thing that doesn't add up is the timing: why would we agitate to get into yet *another* conflict, further widening the conflagration in the ME (Sudan is just across the Red Sea)? How can it be considered succesful when Bashir's still doing the same thing the Sudanese gov't has been doing for about 60 years now? Rwanda did trigger more interest in Darfur: so did the Internet.
Being a Muslim from North Sudan with Arab ethnicity, not just Arabised Nubian, I can say confidently that most of what Prog Mamdani said is incorrect. It was genocide orchestrated by the current head of the military council Burhan and carried out by Janjaweed who are not Beduins from the north displaced by desert expansion, they were Bedouin tribes moving between west Sudan, Chad , Libia and Mali. They were provided with weapons by Al Basheir’s ousted government as part of their effort to “purify” Sudan and make it as much Arab as possible despite most north Sudanese being Arabinised Nubians rather than true ethnic arabs. Villages were burnt, women were raped and Maserati and Foors were displaced and pushed into UN camps. Al Basheir also used Janjaweed to kill peaceful protesters in Khartoum in 2013 and also to join Saudi and UAE armies to fight in Yemen.
Kagame's gov't has been causing all sorts of hell in the DRC -- that's absolutely true -- but we're looking at it with the benefit of hindsight: is it really likely that he foresaw all of this? Also, I'm not so sure the French have drawn back, if you check the BBC site, they still sound pretty involved to me (not as involved as they used to be)... It'd be interesting to know what other business(mining esp) interests are operating in the DRC.
His "Daughter", not his real daughter.
As in like, I consider these people my 'family".
I think that the case of Rwanda is a case which cannot be solved by any intervention.
Let me explain in different levels. Locally, The problem between Hutu and Tutsi already started after Tutsi monarchy was overthrew and Tutsi insurgency (sponsored by Uganda and of course, Uncle Sam) for several decades. In the early 90s', the Euro/American troops were there for stopping Tutsi rebels. Everything changed after Paul Kagame assassinated the Tutsi president that provoked the wide violence.
Then, the West switched side from Hutu to Tutsi.
Let's talk about international level. After Tutsi rebels took over Rwanda, the reign of Rwanda switched from French (who supported Hutu majority) to the US/UK. Do you think that Tutsi government was clean after 1994? Paul Kagame had waged two wars against Congo, took natural resources there and exported them from Rwanda. Yes, Rwanda was, and is an important spot for colonizers in Eastern Africa.
Rwanda was never Zaire. You had DR Congo in Mind. There is Oil in Darfur, vast reserves. Its not talked about much in the media because that would be the final 'dot' you need to solve the puzzle; to understand the motive that drives the West. I encourage you to do some research. In addition to Oil, Sudan is of immense geo-strategic importance to the U.S.... It's building its largest embassy yet in Khartoum.
Chlorinated water?
John looks a good wrestler.
John Bar-bar, bar-bar, bar-bar service to Baal 43.03 sec's
Nice psychological ad hominem there. And the Scaruffi piece is a joke.
Who actually is able to ACTUALLY HELP AFRICA?
HeReigns only themselves. Get organized and then ask
mahmood mamdani try to speak out words you don,t know any words about darfur to say
I have seen many kinds of shallow thinking and constructive stupidity but Mamadi in this debate exceeded my imagination very disappointing. My home keeps bleeding for nothing just because people like Mamdani still claims themselves as experts in Darfur. I am not expert but what you are saying in the subject is my story. Mamdani is bulshit John is right dispite the fact that his arguments not well constructed
John offers a much clearer understanding of the conflict. Mamdani reverts lazily to the notion of Western conspiracy; unfortunate.
What percentage of the donations did Save Darfur send to the victims? INGOs play good role, but they often oversimplify conflict contribute to loss of money. Prendergast had few credible points to support his points, which are valid but poorly, poorly articulated. I hate when NGO types simplify conflict to Arab-African; Ethinic and such. It's condescending and shameless!