Apologies for that. Let’s just say some super concerned parties got too concerned and I had to make them happy or my headache would have worsened super greatly. Anyways… I’m super busy nowadays but at least I’m enjoying what I do. I’m going to bed. Good night.
SudaneseThinker
SudaneseThinker
{ 11 comments… read them below or add one }
ever heard of black holes ? Whatever falls into them will either disappear or change into something weirder.
Take care, bro
Drima,
Can you explain in a few sentences what this Darfur crisis is about, actually? Though I did some research on your country, it was nevery really clear to me and I wonder, actually if it is clear to anyone. (Perhaps you already wrote an article about it, then I’d like to have the link of course!)
Furthermore, check out Hillel Neuers contribution as director of UN watch in these (shocking) films:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1_niYYxEWNU
(Denying Darfur: UN Watch Confronts Sudan and Allies)
and
http://www.unwatch.org/site/apps/nl/content3.asp?c=bdKKISNqEmG&b=2580257&ct=3698367
(BANNED UN speech)
He’s brave. Spread the word!
I feel uneasy about this headache of yours. Stay safe!
Halalhippie & Path2Hope thanks!
Suzanne, read this link. I wrote all the pages there.
And ya thanks for the videos!
Drima,
but why is the area neglected (and/or are the people oppressed)? I understand it is a power thing, but what is it based on? Has it to do with oil (in southern darfur)? Is it religiously, is it ethnic? In other words, why is the Khartoum government the way it is acting?
Why try the hard way (oppress and let people rebel) instead of the soft way (cooperate, building the area, making it flourish, making sudan as a whole
flourish)?
And lol … the story in washington post doesn’t make it easier for me (concerning the misconceptions).
Suzanne, opression is in fact the easy way. It doesn’t require thought, or effort, and if one cares little for the lives of those you are meant to protect, it also becomes the leadership’s first choice.
Dictatorships are easy. It’s the mental juggling required to run a democratic country that is hard.
Also, I doubt the current leadership of Sudan cares for the long term in any way. They simply care about their power, pleasure, and profit today. Tomorrow is for someone else to clean up.
If that is so Roman, it’d sure be time for some leaders who are willing to catch up with the world.
Last week I had an interesting conversation with a Kenian doctor (from Doctors without Borders) and he was also saddened by the fact that almost where-ever you go in Africa, they fight each other. And if there is a country, e.g. Mozambique, who try to get out of their shit every year, they get the shit of nature all over them (drought, flood, you name it). He said that some people say that God cursed Africa when the world was created. I dont want to believe that
I do believe in the power Africans have in their hands and in their minds. I do believe that some day it will develop for the better (than how it is now). How and when I have no clue. If only the corrupt leaders would step aside for a young non-corrupt fresh and eager to develop generation.
This doctor also stated btw that, though the French speaking part of Africa is usually more pragmatic (mentally developed), the English speaking part of Africa is more materially developed (better roads e.g.). It was odd hearing him to make reference to Africas colonial past, to be hones; yet the difference he mentioned did not surprise me. In an article not so long ago I read that in Belgium the two languages (it actually had three, but German was not mentioned) Dutch and French caused also a difference of acting. The French speaking Belgians were more “lazy” (not so active), but more pragmatic and political. Good in story-telling, you can say. While the Dutch speaking Belgians, were more hard-working (active), less pragmatic and political and just wanted to have their things done.
The researchers thought this had to do with the language. The Dutch language (I guess like English) knows more “active words”. Verb-use. While the French language has many non-verb words.
“This doctor also stated btw that, though the French speaking part of Africa is usually more pragmatic (mentally developed), the English speaking part of Africa is more materially developed (better roads e.g.).”
I’m not sure what that means.
When I think “developed” African (non-Arab) coutries, I think South Africa, Botswana, and Namibia. They are both materially and mentally developed.
(Botswana has now been hit hard by the AIDS catastrophe. And in Africa tribal superstitions really help the spread of AIDS. It’s NOT the European’s fault. If the Africans followed the European’s advice, AIDS would be under control as it is in Europe.)
The most “mentally developed” country in Africa I see is Ethiopia. And it is neither English-speaking nor French-speaking.
In general, when I look at the world I see that English-speaking countries do much much better than others. If language is a representation of culture, and I believe it is, and if culture makes the difference, and I believe it does, I find that the English culture (in its American and Commonwealth aspects) seems to know best what to do.
Second is Scandinavian, then Hebrew*, then Japanese, then Korean, then German or French, then French or German, then most other European cultures. India is as powerful and sophisticated as it is English-speaking, I think. The Kurds are coming now. I expect them to be a surprise like the Hebrew culture.
(*What Israel has accomplished in the last 60 years is nothing short of astonishing. Perhaps Israel did have G-d’s help.)
It has nothing to do with race or “African” or “white”, only with the culture the society employs. A black English-speaking nation will apparently outperform a non-English-speaking white nation. (Look at what the short-lived Biafra was able to do!).
I don’t see people trying to move to Spanish-speaking countries (except Spain) or the Arab world (except temporarily to the Gulf states where everybody understands English). But everybody is trying to get to America.
And incidentally, the Arab countries doing best are those that have a strong French influence and did not try to get rid of it: Lebanon** and Morocco.
(**Lebanon is like Israel. What the Lebanese have managed to do is quite astonishing considering that, like Israel, they have been invaded by all their neighbours much too often.)
To me it looks like the world’s cultures are involved in a struggle between nationalism (brings the country down) and trying to be as English (or, alternatively, as French) as possible (helps the country). Both the English and the French world have the quaint little advantage that their nationalism is not very harmful.
English nationalism doesn’t exist as a dominant force because the traditions of the empire were always about a cultural rather than racial advantage. And French nationalism seems to fail to become harmful when the French remember that their culture is mostly about sitting in cafes.
I assume you’re talking about approx. 150 years, because before that I believe it to be a bit different.
Arabs have flourished. Persians have flourished. Polish have flourished. Dutch have flourished and Portugese have flourished. So perhaps its not quite correct to state that it is only valid for some cultures to develop themselves.
Btw, dont forget that before colonialism, there were also rich communities in Africa, Australia and the Americas. It’s not that “we Europeans” taught them how to live better, but to live in a different way.
And yes, perhaps we managed to advance quicker in technological aspect, e.g., this does not necessarily mean for the better. E.g. many European agricultural technologies appeared not to be useful on the African soil.
The Dutch, Portuguese, and Polish still flourish. Arabs and Persians are currently below their usual standards.
Many of the rich communities that existed before colonialism were tribal and nomadic, i.e. people died when they were 30.
Leave a Comment