Sudan and the Capacity for More Tragedy

by

I was already feeling guilty about not blogging about Sudan (The Times Nicholas Kristof has been covering it well, but you gotta pay for most of these now) when Gary Farber directed me to his excellent series of posts about the tragic events happening there (and don’t worry Gary, you didn’t make me feel more guilty…in fact, you helped me see something parallel but also important):

From Gary’s April 26, 2004 post

For 14 months, the government has fought a merciless war against rebels in the remote Darfur region. Sudanese warplanes and the feared Arab militiamen known as the janjaweed, who attack on horseback, have depopulated much of an area larger than California, driving roughly 1 million villagers into a few spots like Mornay. In January the town had some 2,000 inhabitants; by March there were 80,000. Every village within 30 miles has been leveled, says Coralie Lechelle, a nurse with the relief group Medecins sans Frontieres. Refugees are stuck there, she says: “In fact, it is a prison.”

Now it certainly does me no credit to admit that I skim the Kristof updates on the situation in Sudan when they come along, but then actually make a conscious decision to not post about them. And not only has that tugged hard at my conscience, making me question my values, my latent racism, my laziness, it’s also led me to dream up rationales like “I only have the capacity for so much empathy” or, worse, “when it gets really bad, then I’ll start paying attention or get involved.”

It’s really bad right now.

U.S. Sees ‘Brewing Disaster’ in Sudan’s Darfur

And yet, even with that headline, this article ends on such a bureacratic note and mixed message:

The United States has a special interest in oil-rich Sudan because of Khartoum’s record of hosting militant Islamists, including Osama bin Laden in the early 1990s.

Rice said the talks between G8 leaders and the Africans would probably also deal with renewed fighting in Congo that has flared near the eastern city of Bukavu.

But she said Africa was “not just a place that we should look at the various humanitarian problems.”

“We should be looking to the opportunity that is there for Africa to grow and prosper. There are a number of countries that have done it, and I think that you will see more do it with these approaches that come out of NEPAD that put responsibility on African leaders to take good decisions,” Rice said.

But, really, why isn’t this a much bigger story in the US? Are we emotionally tapped out as a nation? Are we only captivated by certain kinds of tragedies? Simple ones? (The Peterson trial certainly gets plenty of air play.) Why does my brain turn on its self-defense forcefield each time I read one of these stories? The lack of blogging on this (Gary excepted) indicates it’s not just me (or maybe I’m blocking out the blogging stories, as well). What’s our capacity to get involved with yet another tragedy? Once I dedicate myself to this story, I’m hooked, I know that. Does that explain my reluctance? Am I hoping it will find a nice resolution before I can no longer ignore it?

I’ve never been to Sudan. I know that’s a big part of it. There are no Sudanese celebrities that I know of highlighting the problem to me. I believe Angelina Jolie is currently working there, but I’ve only seen images of her handing out food; I haven’t heard her speak. Is it all in the marketing?

I don’t even know what compelled me to make this post about me, rather than about the tragedy in Sudan (other than an overly developed sense of honesty [guilt? ego?], perhaps). But if it spurs anyone else to become more aware of the plight of the Sudanese refugees, perhaps it doesn’t matter. If it contibutes in some small way a global solution, that’s justification enough. But either way, thanks go to Gary for that. Gary and Kristof.

7 thoughts on “Sudan and the Capacity for More Tragedy”

  1. What I should have quoted in my e-mail was this last paragraph from my most recent post on the topic:

    You have the power to agitate about this. To your friends. To your neighbors. To your local media.
    Most of all, to your politicans.
    You can help, yourself. Oxfam is trying to help; find out how to donate here.

    Feel free to throw that into your main text, if you’d like.
    “… Nicholas Kristof has been covering it well, but you gotta pay for most of these now.”
    No, you don’t.
    Good post, Edward. I don’t think there’s anything wrong with self-examination, and these are critical questions we all ask ourselves — or need to– given the amount of tragedy in the world (along with some joy, fortunately), and our physical, economic, and emotional limits as individuals.
    “Compassion fatigue” is a term thrown around, and it’s real. And one of the tougher questions there is is to ask “how much of myself will I invest in saving the world, even one step at a time”?

  2. I agree with Gary Farber that it is possible to feel compassion fatigue, as well as outrage burnout on US politics.
    I can’t think of any reason why these African massacres seem to always be ignored until almost everybody is dead, except persistent and straight-forward racism (with perhaps some compassion fatigue thrown in). Cambodia’s killing fields also come to mind in this regard.
    We have a new ‘white man’s burden”: we ignore genocide in Africa and Asia.
    It is reassuring however to know that the Sudan was just reelected to the UN Commission on Human Rights.

  3. I hate to agree with Jim on this, but I think it’s largely because the massacres are in Africa and we, as a nation, have a rather large blind spot there. The fact that the situation is, well, complicated — witness Free Republic’s attempts to force it into a canonical narrative — just exacerbates the situation.
    We used to have a blind spot in Asia but I think that’s finally beginning to go away, in part because the Asian economies have a meaningful impact on the US. Although Aceh and Burma/Myanmar could well prove me wrong.

  4. I certainly wouldn’t say it’s racism as such. Certainly if 10,000 Africans were massacred in Orlando, people would go nuts.
    I think it’s more the perception that Africa is simply a barbaric place, and this sort of thing ‘just happens’ there. Probably for the same reason that a mugging in Spokane, Washington is a huge event followed by weeks of newspaper editorials analyzing the state of crime and punishment, while a mugging in Detroit is a yawner.
    Why the societal context of a genocide or any other crime should affect our sympathy and condemnation I don’t know, but that’s how the mind works.

  5. I think it’s more the perception that Africa is simply a barbaric place, and this sort of thing ‘just happens’ there.
    I think you’re right. My first gut reaction to most “alarming” tragedies is something like “That sort of thing just doesn’t happen there.” Your Spokane mugging being the perfect example. It upsets our sense that we know what to expect where. No one is suprised to hear about another refugee emergency in Africa, but that’s a pity.

  6. There’s some truth to the contextual or geograhical argument that some things excite attention in one place that wouldn’t in another.
    But in the case of Africa, there’s more than this at work (as hinted by sidereal’s comment: “perception that Africa is simply a barbaric place”, which I think many share).
    However, without any evidence, I think perhaps most of us somehow think that life is less significant (worth less) in Africa, and less worthy of risking our people and treasure for.
    (excuse the sentence ending in a preposition).
    All this is largely subliminal in our minds. Our media and politicians certainly don’t do anything to change our perceptions – until hundreds of thousands have died.
    The fact other African nations don’t make an issue of these things also doesn’t help either.

Comments are closed.