What an Activist Should Be: On Mamdani's Critique of Save Darfur
Published April 15, 2009 @ 06:15PM PT
I've come to the defense of the Darfur activist movement more than once on this blog --- and here it goes again:
In his new book by Mahmood Mamdani, goes after the Save Darfur movement for creating an overly-simplified activist campaign that condenses and distorts the complicated history and geopolitics of Darfur, that glorifies suffering with ad campaigns, and that presents "action" in terms of stark moral choices. Even more, Mamdani accuses the movement of the more insidious aims of serving as the "humanitarian face of the War on Terror," of feeding into racial rhetoric of "bad Arabs," and acting as a "war mobilization" force, seeking military intervention as its sole solution, rather than a peace movement.
I have not read the book yet myself, but Mamdani's recent media blitz gives me enough to go on. Bec Hamilton does an excellent job at picking apart Mamdani's many, many factual inaccuracies --- and I would encourage you to read her entire post before jumping on the Mamdani bandwagon. Eric Reeves takes him to task on his analytical history of Darfur.
(A particularly interesting note from Bec's blog: Mamdani claims to look at the "history, organization, and message" of the Save Darfur movement, without bothering to speak to anyone in the movement, at all.)
A few points:
First, "Save Darfur" --- which Mamdani uses interchangeably to refer to the Save Darfur Coalition, and the movement as a whole --- maintains that the credible threat of force must be kept on the table as an option of last resort, but that's exactly what it is: An option of last resort. No one is advocating for American commandos to bust into Darfur, guns blazing, as if there would be no consequences.
Second, "Save Darfur," the coalition nor the movement, is not the monolithic, singularly motivated, top-down structure that Mamdani makes it out to be. The level of coordination it would take to be a tool in the War on Terror...definitely lacking.
But most importantly, to accuse the activist movement of such insidious, imperialistic aims is not only factually inaccurate, but misconstrues the point of activist movements more generally. Have mistakes been made? Yes. Could Save Darfur have run a more sensitive campaign? Absolutely. Nothing is ever perfect, and Save Darfur is constantly faced with trying to build momentum in a country with an incredibly short attention span and an astonishingly low interest in foreign affairs. It's a process of trial and error, and hopefully --- hopefully --- reflection and reevaluation.
We cannot expect every grassroots activist to have a nuanced understanding of Sudanese history --- it's not necessary, and it's not their role, nor is it reason to write off the movement. Lead organizations could do a better job of conveying nuance and encouraging more education, but the role of an activist is to bring sufficient voice and attention to a cause to support and/or pressure those who do understand the complexities and are in a position to address them.
This is by no means, of course, a completely harmonious relationship --- policymakers are tasked with evaluating possible consequences for any sort of action and may have to reject activist demands, but the important, overarching goal is the have those policymakers evaluating the consequences and looking for the best way forward. The point is to put it on the agenda.
A crime against humanity is thus named because it is a crime so egregious, so offensive, that it is an affront to us all. This is what an activist understands, this is what an activist gives voice too, and no amount of political complexity negates the validity of --- and the need for --- that voice. The Save Darfur movement, from top to bottom, is comprised of individuals who believe that no one deserves to suffer as Darfuris have been made to, and who believe that the imperative to seek an end to that suffering is, in fact, unequivocal.
How that end comes about, is a different issue --- and if you bother to speak with anyone at Save Darfur and its allied organizations, you'll find yourself face-to-face with the most intelligent and deliberative advocates who grapple with complexity and nuance every day. Question the method, point out the mistakes, but don't misinterpret the intentions or misconstrue aims.
Share this Post
Facebook
Twitter
Digg
StumbleUpon
Delicious
EmailRelated Posts
-
The Presidential Principle of "Make Me Do It"
-
Can We Overcome Our Short Attention Spans?
-
Rumbling On: Opportunity, Responsibility, and Another Defense of Activism
Comments (11)
Comments on Change.org are meant for further exploration and evaluation of the ideas covered in the posts. To that end, we welcome constructive comments. However, we reserve the right to delete comments that are offensive, abusive, or off-topic; that contain ad hominem attacks; or that are designed to subvert or hijack comment threads rather than contribute to them. Repeat offenders may be permanently removed from the site at our discretion.
Author
-
Michelle became involved in the anti-genocide cause at a young age, and has been involved in various activist endeavors, including the Teach Against Genocide pilot campaigns, ever since.
The latest call to get investors to pressure Khartoum is pathetic. No economic pressure can nfluence that regime. There is only one thing that is going to save the people of Darfur, and that is to send in a special ops team to take out the Janjaweed and the supporting troops of the Khartoum regime.
Never make the mistake of calling the Janjaweed "militia". Militia is defense activity of persons broadly representative of all the people. The Janjaweed are armed partisans, the opposite of militia.
Posted by Jon Roland on 04/16/2009 @ 06:08AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Jon, what you are suggesting is basically War... The Janjaweed don't number in the dozens, or even hundreds. There are thousands of Janjaweed soldiers, paid and armed by the Sudanese government, to carry out the mass killing and rape of Darfur people. To send in a "special ops" team to take down the Janjaweed is (1) a declaration of war on Sudan, (2) forcing U.S. soldiers to go all across the enormous region of Darfur (think the size of Maine or larger) and hunt down Janjaweed, and (3) only going to create more violence. We've learned from great leaders like Gandhi and MLK that we don't need violence to stop violence. We just need to be as passionate and active as the people who followed and believed in those two great activists.
In any event, great post Michelle. One of my favorites I've read here. Everyday in my high school I argue with a lot of cynics about Darfur and how we can help, and they all waste time being critical and judging every statement or action we make. Thinking of something better, or more importantly, doing something, however, they never do.
Keep up the great work Michelle.
Nate
Posted by Nathaniel Bessa on 04/16/2009 @ 04:59PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Michelle, How can you criticize a book that you have not read? This is really not acceptable in a serious intellectual debate. I did read the book, and my (much more positive) reactions are here:
http://blogs.nyu.edu/fas/dri/aidwatch/2009/04/did_save_darfur_lose_darfur.html
All the best, Bill Easterly
Posted by William Easterly on 04/18/2009 @ 06:03AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Speaking as someone who's been on the SaveDarfur email list for over a year, I feel that it's the responsibility of the individual to educate herself about the issue, not the duty of the organization to spoon-feed her. Also, it's important to judge each suggested action against one's personal morals and opinions before blindly signing petitions. I don't sign anything I don't agree with or anything I don't understand. SaveDarfur is doing the best it can to bring and sustain attention on an issue that many, many Americans would unfortunately just ignore because it is far away and they just don't care. Great post, Michelle.
Best wishes,
Michelle B.
Posted by Michelle Bak on 04/18/2009 @ 10:43AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
If I understand the situation in Darfur correctly, what we have is a religious civil war. This Janjaweed are Islamic extremists who seek out and attack Christians. If I am mistaken, forgive me. I know that slavery is involved and that this all rests on the shoulders of the leader of the Sudan who will do nothing to stop it.
The simple fact is this needs to be stopped, not justified. I don't care who wrote books or how eloquent they are and how much they blame the agencies providing aid to refugees. Excusing murder is imoral and cannot be allowed.
Say, didn't Hitler use to make speaches justifying his extermination of the Jews (and all those others)?
Posted by John Davis on 04/20/2009 @ 04:32PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
You are, in fact, mistaken: Most of the victims in Darfur are Muslims.
But you're right that excusing murder cannot be allowed.
Posted by Michelle . on 04/20/2009 @ 04:42PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Yes, as Michelle said, the people of Darfur are mostly Muslim, making race (black versus Arab) one of the main reasons for genocide.
What you're saying is true, though. We spend a lot of time using words and speeches to either promote or attack a cause. The U.N., for example, spent weeks in Sudan just to determine if "genocide" was the appropriate word to describe what was going on instead of doing anything about it. In our judicial system prosecutors must spend weeks or months putting together an effective court room presentation just to have someone legally convicted of a crime when everyone already knows he or she is guilty (any names ring a bell?)
However, we can not deny the power of words in inspiring people. For example, although Hitler's motives were horrible and unjustifiable, the power and eloquence of his speech still inspired millions of people to rise up out of almost unimaginable hardship and become the strongest power in Europe.
Today, as some of us try to inspire others to act and put a stop to genocide, we use words and speeches to inspire and impassion. It would be great if everyone on Earth would naturally stand up to the call, but with busy and stressful lives, that is not always the fortunate case we have to work with.
So, as I ask many of my friends and classmates when they tell me they are saddened by genocide and wish for it all to be stopped, John, what will you do to help stop it?
Posted by Nathaniel Bessa on 04/20/2009 @ 06:20PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Actually, the black vs. Arab characterization is not right either. Isn't part of activism getting well informed on the cause?
Michelle, I still would like some response on the issue of whether it's legit to criticize a book without reading it? Best regards, Bill
Posted by William Easterly on 04/21/2009 @ 03:40AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
The entire conflict in Darfur cannot be boiled down to just the Arab/African divide, but it cannot be dismissed as an important factor.
I very clearly state that I am referring to Mamdani's public comments on his critique of the movement. One need not read the book to have an opinion on what he's said in the media, and I'm honest about that.
I think that activists should be well-informed --- and many are --- and I agree that the organizations could have done a better job of conveying nuance, but I'm arguing that it's unrealistic to expect everyone to understand the fully complexities of the situation. However, I do not think that invalidates the call to end mass atrocity, nor do I think that the Save Darfur movement as a whole can be accused of this. I speak with the policy staff at the organizations on a regular basis --- you cannot have a conversation with Omer Ismail at ENOUGH, for instance, and not say that he doesn't understand the complexities of his own country's political dilemmas. The are the people that formulate policy options and work behind the scenes to pursue peace in Sudan, but it is the loud voice of the activist movement that gives them their foot in the door with the government officials they seek to work with.
I would encourage you to read Samuel Totten's book, Genocide in Darfur, for another perspective.
Posted by Michelle . on 04/21/2009 @ 04:16AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
What we have in the region is a lawless state, in which the official government in Khartoum has abandoned any pretense of lawful governance, and given the Janjaweed a license to kill any denizen they find of a different tribe than themselves. In legal terms they are pirates, subject to being killed by anyone who can catch them. You don't get such people to become peaceful by singing Kumbaya to them. You need to understand that they kill and torture for the fun of it. Most civilized people have trouble getting into the heads of such people, who become addicted to the thrill of killing. There is only one cure for that addiction.
It wouldn't take that many spec ops guys to take them out. Maybe 200, with logistical and air support. I know a lot of guys who could do it, and would probably be willing, although I would recommend they get letters of marque and reprisal to provide a legal cover.
Posted by Jon Roland on 04/20/2009 @ 10:15PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
William, are you sure that the "the black vs. Arab characterization is not right either"? Pretty snappy today are we, people...
http://www.sudantribune.com/article.php3?id_article=11445
Three of the main factors that have influenced this genocide are race/ethnicity, oil, and desertification. The man in the following video has explained it pretty simply:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=USLDoIiFzzg
I can pull up the 135,000 other results on google for "causes of genocide in Darfur" if you need me to.
Posted by Nathaniel Bessa on 04/21/2009 @ 07:07AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.