When I was doing some more research on Darfur a few nights ago, I came across this article. I have been thinking about it ever since.
What is exactly is the best term to apply to the crisis occurring in the Darfur region of Sudan? Is it genocide in the traditional sense, or is it some new breed of genocide? Is it really genocide at all, or is it tribal warfare?
I personally do not presume to know the best answer to these questions.
I had previously believed that it was most definitely, without a bit of doubt, a terrible instance of genocide. In fact, I have to admit that I was initially rather offended by the aforementioned article because I was not willing to concede the ambiguity of the situation.
After thinking about it for a few days, though, I have come to realize that the author of the article does have a point. I'm still not ready to say that genocide is not happening in Darfur, but I cannot deny that the situation is not quite as black-and-white as I had been convinced.
However, the more important conclusion I have drawn is that aside from the fact that it is closely tied to the degree of international response, the question is relatively insignificant.
Maybe we do not how to properly handle the taxonomical details, but we certainly can have no doubt as to the existence of the problem. One photo of a burning village or an emaciated child is enough to reveal its severity.
The real point, then, is that we just need to act. An understanding of the nuances of the situation is indeed important, but it is better to work with what we do know than to waste time debating semantics.
Human suffering caused by civil war is no less unacceptable than human suffering caused by genocide.
Leave a comment