Remember this post I wrote a few days ago?
The majority of my blogging when I first started was aimed at explaining the complexities and correcting the inaccuracies, the most famous ones being the whole “Arabs Vs Africans” and “rebels: good, government: bad” narratives.
Well, JMac (someone who understands well what Darur is about) just wrote a review about a documentary on Darfur called The Devil Came on Horseback which she recently watched (and which I haven’t watched yet)
I’ll preface by saying that I appreciate all that Brian Steidle did while in Sudan and the fact that he was interested enough in what was going on there, to volunteer to work with the AU. But so many things in the film didn’t sit right with me.
… he introduces the 2 major rebel groups (there are now at least 10), and actually says something to the effect of “these groups are fighting for their rights under a repressive government, this is why they fight.” If you knew little about the situation in Darfur, you’d walk away from this film thinking those groups were somehow heroes in all this. RUBISH. Again, there is no “good” or “bad” guys here, toting guns around. They are all BAD GUYS.
Read the whole review here.
I wasn’t surprised at all about what the movie portrayed according to JMac’s account. It’s unfortunately the same simplistic narrative spiced up with the “if the US government sees these photos, they’ll send troops and end this right now” type of very heartening but dangerously naive thinking all too commonly associated with the Darfur cause in America.
US intervention could (and I strongly suspect will) stop the killing - but only momentarily. After that, the conflict will only get worse. Why? Two main reasons. Strong nationalistic sentiments and jihad (you can read more here).
Towards the end of the review JMac asked a very good question:
(I am still trying to learn how to be an effective advocate. Perhaps repeating simple phrases about a complex situation IS the best way to be effective?)
I’ve come across unique opinions saying the main reason the American people didn’t care about Congo as much as they care about Darfur now is because the marketing was bad. A simple “black and white” narrative is apparently much more effective to market than an accurate yet complex one.
Many consider it a dilemma. I don’t. Uninformed opinions have the potential to develop into an effective lobbying force demanding horrible solutions as we are currently witnessing.
The current dominant Darfur narrative needs some “tweaking”. Maintaining its emotional impact is easy. A picture speaks a thousand words.
Done. It’s not difficult.
On a related note, what I find funny and so ironic about the Darfur cause in America is that most of those calling for US intervention in Darfur are the same people calling for withdrawal of US troops from Iraq!