Darfur deserves election attention

Media's indifference to genocide prevents public awareness of tragedy

October 30, 2006 —

Wanton acts of rape are capable of terrorizing a community. Now imagine that the rapists patrolling your neighborhood are actually part of the government.

No, you aren't watching the opening to V for Vendetta. You are witnessing the Darfur genocide, where more than 400,000 people have been murdered in the past three years.

The United Nations refuses to call it genocide, preferring the language of a "Darfur conflict." And all countries have conflicts, so why should we care about this one, especially in a part of the world so alien and remote to the average American?

Quick, how many of you know where Darfur is? It's okay, pull out your atlas. For those of you without atlases, Darfur is the region of western Sudan, primarily bordering the nation of Chad to the west. The land stretches from the outskirts of the Sahara to the vast savannas of north-central Africa, an arid region where arbitrary political boundaries divide tribesman from tribesman and language from language.

Here's a quick primer on the genocide in Darfur: the Arab-dominated north of Darfur is fighting the black-dominated south. While not monolithic, both ethnic groups are primarily Muslim; the south of Darfur also has some Christians and animists.

The fighters from the north, known as the Janjaweed, are receiving assistance from the Arab-dominated government to exterminate the southern black tribes. This policy is known as Arabization, where a dominant Arab government tries to replace native, indigenous cultures with Arab cultures, both demographically and linguistically.

If you haven't heard of Darfur, it's not entirely your fault. The media would rather cover the homoerotic fantasies of Mark Foley than actually pay attention to what's occurring across the oceans. Why worry about genocide when you need to be told on the news that gas prices have dropped 12 cents in the past week? You could obviously never find this information out by driving by any gas station.

Why is it that the media so thoroughly ignores yet another genocide? Is a campaign of systematic rape not something that warrants our coverage? The United States can rattle its bonebox about how Darfur is a tragedy, but as long as we sit on the sidelines, we are abetting slaughter. Condemnations do not stop bullets. Regrets are no substitute for rape.

Genocide isn't as sexy of a topic as our "war" between Tastycrats and Fingerlicans that culminates on Election Day, the momentous occasion where both parties harden their forces for the two-year stalemate that lies ahead. I highly doubt this issue cracks the top 20 list of either of the parties, who would rather scream at each other about gay marriage and abortion rather than discuss topics that aren't simply rhetoric.

After the Holocaust, victims and perpetrators alike vowed "Never again." Never again would the world sit idle as one ethnic group slaughtered another. Never again would the superficiality of religion be allowed to justify murder on a mass scale.

Well folks, the world has sat on their thumbs the past 60 years, making these words merely another self-righteous promise that no one actually upholds.

The Sudanese have no powerful lobbying groups in Washington that can pressure lawmakers to take a more proactive stance on the genocide.

You would think that some of these lobbying groups that have members who survived the horrors of Auschwitz would now be trying to stop the horrors of Darfur. This is not an attack on the Jewish community in America but rather a gentle prodding for those who have seen genocide firsthand to realize it is occurring now - and to take action against it.

Is there any easy answer to the genocide? Probably not. As long as there are different ethnicities around the world, there will always be racial tension. But if President Bush wants to truly spread freedom around the world, we should be looking in Sudan's direction.

After all, what's a more basic liberty than the right to life?