Perspective: On Slavery In The Sudan (interesting reading!)
The Final Call, May 8
By Cedric Muhammad
(Cedrid Muhammad is the Publisher of BlackElectorate.com, a publication
that focuses on the dynamics of Black culture, economics and politics)
The effort to portray what is happening in the Sudan in a convenient Muslim
north and Christian south; light-skinned north and Black-skinned south
dichotomy, is being led by Christian Solidarity International.
The entire debate over what is happening in Sudan is filled with
one of the deepest mixtures of half-truths, misinformation and
religious bias to be found anywhere. This is particularly true in the
United States where the discussion usually boils down to whether
or not slavery exists in the Sudan. The simple answer to that
question is yes. "Slavery" as defined by White conservatives and
Christian fundamentalists in the West and increasingly by a
growing number of Black civil rights activists does exist in the
Sudan and it has for some time. The question is why are these
interested parties only recently interested in "slavery" in the Sudan,
and maybe more importantly, why are they ignoring the practices
when they have and continue to take place among the non-Muslim
opposition group, the Sudan People's Liberation Movement/Army
led by John Garang?
There is no denying it. If one accepts the working definition of
"slavery" as defined by Human Rights Watch/Africa then the
Sudan people's Liberation Movement/Army is without question
tied to the practice of slavery and has been since the early 1980s, well before the latest
coalition of White conservatives, Christian fundamentalists and Black civil rights leaders
who oppose "slavery" in the Sudan was formed and showed a united front against the issue.
But "slavery" then and "slavery" now was not the exclusive domain of any particular
religious group or region.
The West itself provides the evidence that destroys the myth that "slavery" in the Sudan is a
practice whereby Muslims in the north enslave Blacks in the south. According to the US
State Department's "Country Reports on Human Rights Practices" published in 1990, " the
SPLA/M often forced southern men to work as laborers or porters or forcibly conscripted
them into SPLA ranks. In disputed territories this practice was implemented through raids".
In the State Department's 1991 report the SPLA/M is connected with having "forcibly
conscripted at least 10,000 male minors". And in 1994 Human Rights Watch/Africa
documented the SPLA's documented "forced unpaid farm labor on SPLA-organized
farms".
To this date, according to the US State Department and human rights advocates, the SPLA
has forcibly taken thousands of women and children from areas in Southern Sudan and held
them as hostage, forced them to perform labor and/or join their military force.
The depiction of "slavery" in the Sudan as a purely Muslim undertaking is erroneous and
part of a much larger agenda.
The fact of the matter is that many of individuals who believe that they are doing the Lord's
work in opposing "slavery" in the Sudan, especially those who operate from the US, are
woefully misinformed and being used as tools by individuals, organizations and governments
which have a religious and geopolitical agenda for Africa and which is not in Africa's best
interests. One of the means by which this agenda is being carried out is the effort to make
Blacks in the Western Hemisphere, and otherwise sincere and progressive Whites in this
country believe that Africans are more different than they really are. This is taking place in
the Sudan with a high level of success. Any one who knows the Sudan or who is from there
can explain that in many cases there is no recognizable physical differences in terms of skin
color between the northern Muslim and Arab influenced tribes like the Baggara, and the
southern Christian influence tribes like the Dinkas. In fact, many such tribes operate along
the north south border and have been intermarrying and interacting for years. However,
those who are driving the pressure against the Sudanese government never reveal, reflect or
admit this reality.
The effort to portray what is happening in the Sudan in a
convenient Muslim north and Christian south; light-skinned
north and Black-skinned south dichotomy, is being led by
Christian Solidarity International, an organization which
operates out of England led for years by Baroness Cox. The
organization has raised enormous amounts of money to
heighten awareness on the issue of "slavery" in the Sudan and
has skillfully and consistently depicted the conflict in the Sudan
as one of Muslims attacking Christians. It is the talking points
of Christian Solidarity International (CSI) that many White
Conservatives, Christian fundamentalists and Black civil rights
activists are reading from. It is also Christian Solidarity
International that is financing the trips to Sudan for such
groups and others who seek to purchase slaves in Sudan.
And it is also Christian Solidarity International that supports
the SPLA who are known "slave" traders themselves. For
years CSI has called for international support of the SPLA
after it has been documented by the US State Department and
human rights organizations that the group was abducting young
boys and women in the South and forcing them to labor,
among other things.
Why does Christian Solidarity International attack "slavery" practices in the Sudan when
they are said to be performed by Muslim and Arab influenced groups and looks the other
way when they are documented among a supposedly Christian-influenced group? Where
are the White Conservatives, Christian fundamentalists and Black civil rights leaders when it
comes to condemning "slavery' among the SPLA? If you are against "slavery" in the Sudan
doesn't that include the slavery practiced by Black southerners on other Black southerners?
Why does the new broad-based coalition which compromises the "Stop Slavery in the
Sudan" movement, only have eyes for the human rights abuses of Muslims and Arabs?
And why, if the conflict is an "us" against "them"; "Arab" vs. "Black"; "Muslim" vs.
"Christian" affair, have over 2 million Black southerners fled into the North, into Khartoum,
for refuge from the civil war? Surely 2 million "Black Christian Southerners" would not
willingly run into the arms of the evil " Arab Muslim Northerners". And lastly why does the
presence of 12,000 to 15,000 Sudanese in forced labor camps trump the loss of 2,000,000
Sudanese altogether in the civil war? Which is the larger problem? The war or "slavery"?
Which is the cause and which is the effect? In our estimation, "slavery" can't end unless the
Civil War ends. Why isn't this position being taken by those who want a spotlight placed on
the Sudan now?
With the exception of Rev. Al Sharpton, we have heard not so much as a peep from
anyone in the "Stop Slavery in the Sudan" movement on the score of Blacks in the Southern
Sudan and part of the SPLA "enslaving" their Brothers and Sisters in the South. After his
recent trip to the Sudan, which was financed by Christian Solidarity International, Rev.
Sharpton revealed that he was informed of instances of forced labor occurring among rebel
groups in Southern Sudan. Why can't his fellow Black civil rights leaders and the White
Conservatives and Christian fundamentalists and missionaries match his fairness and balance
on the issue?
The reason why we have placed the word slavery in quotations throughout this editorial is
because we recognize what is happening in the Sudan first and foremost to be a civil war
and we recognize that any "slavery" practices stem first and foremost from warfare and an
economic depression, exacerbated, in part, by the conditionality imposed by the IMF and
health problems, exacerbated, in part, by the US bombing of a Sudanese pharmaceutical
factory, which by some estimates, took care of 60% of the health needs of Sudan.
In fact, we recognize that much of what is being loosely depicted as "slavery" would be
more accurately described as "mutual abductions" taking place on all sides. And to be more
accurate and to look at the situation in the Sudan from history, we know that many of the
tribes in the north and south who attracted government and opposition groups as
benefactors in the 80s and 90s, have for years been abducting members of each others
tribes and forcing their captives to work for them for free. This is nothing new. When these
tribes became armed militias, so to speak, for the North and South they continued their
activities but with sponsors. Again, the core activities of kidnapping, raping, "enslaving" and
ransoming are nothing new and preexisted the Islamic regime in the Sudan by decades.
What is new is the large magnifying glass being applied exclusively to the mutual abductions
that are taking place on the northern side. Thanks to Christian Solidarity International and
its public relations campaign, what has been taking place across the country is now being
assigned an Arab/Muslim, light-skinned character while the practices are being ignored
when they occur among other groups. Indeed, CSI has even seen fit to partner with the
southern opposition group, SPLA, which has a documented history in the very acts that
CSI says it wants to stop. And like sheep being herded, American Black civil rights leaders,
cultural conservatives, fundamentalist Christian groups and missionaries are all made to
believe that the SPLA are "freedom-fighters" fighting for the cause of Jesus Christ and
democracy.
And then that same argument is repackaged and aimed at Black Americans in a way that is
designed to appeal to their wounds about the slavery that they experienced. And White
conservatives who have fought these same Black Americans, tooth-and-nail for every form
of civil rights advancement and who are foremost in opposition to the reparations movement
today, are now attempting to bully and shame these same Blacks into supporting the end of
"slavery" in the Sudan.
To say the least, we find their position disingenuous and hypocritical. The same group that
treats ex-slaves in America with such callousness is now the best friend of "slaves" in the
Sudan? With friends like that, we wonder, who needs enemies?
... ... ...
finalcall.com |
