posted 09 August 2004 01:52 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by neo*geo:
I suppose the Turks practice Ottomization against the Kurds and the Iranians practice Persianization.

---

I suppose Saddam could offer your excuses at his upcoming war crimes trial when asked about the Arabisation policies resulting in over 100,000 Kurdish civilians dead and more than 4,000 villages destroyed.

But only if he wants to be certain to be quickly found guilty, and sentenced to the harshest possible judgement...which is pretty much where you are now, with your ineffectual defense of Arabisation.

posted 09 August 2004 01:54 PM            

(Actually the fundamental stories and philosophies of both the Bible and Koran, are African in origin, they were merely 're-packaged')

posted 09 August 2004 01:58 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:
Wally: Bishop Tutu used to say that.

They gave us the Bible and took the land.

---

posted 09 August 2004 02:08 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:
I suppose Saddam could offer your excuses at his upcoming war crimes trial when asked about the Arabisation policies [b]resulting in over 100,000 Kurdish civilians dead and more than 4,000 villages destroyed.

But only if he wants to be certain to be quickly found guilty, and sentenced to the harshest possible judgement...which is pretty much where you are now, with your ineffectual defense of Arabisation.

[This message has been edited by rasol (edited 09 August 2004).][/B]

---

Not defending Arab colonization, just keeping the debate honest. Saddam used brute force against the Kurds but they were not innocent themselves and the root of the ethnic problems in Iraq can be traced back to failed British Imperialism.

Historically, Arabs haven't been as powerful as you're making them out to be. They have historically been unsuccessful at waging war and they were nearly wiped out by Ghengis Khan. If it weren't for the Ottoman Empire, the Islamic world and the Arab world would be much smaller. Speaking of the Turks, I have yet to see mention of Muhammed Ali's expansion of Egypt all the way to central Africa and the havoc he wreaked in Sudan.

posted 09 August 2004 02:09 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ayazid:
I think, the worst thing is not arabisation,but AMERICANISATION of the world!

---

You're a damn genius you know that?

There is nothing more terriblethan having a democracy, civil rights, and freedom of choice, God forbid if the rest of the world is allowed that opportunity, we will burn in hell

posted 09 August 2004 02:12 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wally:

History also teaches how the Arabs colonized the great Western Sudanic civilizations, in the same manner in which they subjugated both Egypt and the Sudan - they converted the ruling elite to Islam, and then 'Arabicized' them (study the civilizations of ancient Ghana, Mali, and Songhay for evidence of this process).

---

posted 09 August 2004 02:22 PM            

The conflicts are over an islamic state, this is NOT the same thing ging on in the Congo where several etnic tribes are fighting amongst eachother.

Rather than arabization, maybe we should be using the term "islamization", since there have been ARABS that have fought against this as well, and many "arabic" countries have "secular" states.

There are eople on both sides, muslims and christians who do not want to be ruled with the iron fist of Islamic rule, the resistance is so that they will not become another Afghanistan. On both sides there are people that DO NOT want the laws of the government to be the laws of ISLAM.

Imagine a government, where even if you are not muslim, you are forced to abide by all the laws of Islam, which takes away all your other ethnic freedoms, this is what the coflicts are about, and they are perpetuated by the government, using other methods to "bully" the rebels into submission.

And Neo*geo, FYI, Sudan is NOT majority Arab, Arabs are a MINORITY, which is why they know that in a "democratic" state, many of their ideals would not follow through.

And keep in mind, even in the arab world, there is not a total Islamic state, except in countries like Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia. And even the arabs that are muslim, do not want their entire lives governed by how certain leaders decide to INTERPRET the koran, as some scholars disagree over interpretation.

So like I said, just because some of the Blacks are "muslim" does not mean they want their lives governed by a strict Islamic rule, and some are fighting against the "unfair" distribution of the country's natural resources, just government corruption in general.

posted 09 August 2004 02:27 PM            

quote:

---

Darfur [Darfour, Dar Fur ] was an independent Muslim sultanate, the Kingdom of Darfur. While the Mahdist revolution of the nineteenth century attempted to create an Islamic state, the Mahdi's rule (and that of his successor Khalifa Abdullahi) faced armed resistence from the remnants of the Fur Sultanate. The Fur were never fully subjected to the strict Islamic rule of the Mahdist state. In the area of procedural law, Darfur's Sultans adopted Islamic law. In other areas the Sultanate remained firmly a sacral state based on Fur ethnicity.

The sultans operated the slave trade as a monopoly. They levied taxes on traders and export duties on slaves sent to Egypt, and took a share of the slaves brought into Darfur. Some household slaves advanced to prominent positions in the courts of sultans, and the power exercised by these slaves provoked a violent reaction among the traditional class of Fur officeholders in the late eighteenth century. The rivalry between the slave and traditional elites caused recurrent unrest throughout the next century.

---

posted 09 August 2004 02:34 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by neo*geo:
[B] Not defending Arab colonization, just keeping the debate honest.

---

quote:

---

Saddam used brute force against the Kurds but they were not innocent themselves

---

quote:

---

Historically, Arabs haven't been as powerful as you're making them out to be.

---

quote:

---

They have historically been unsuccessful at waging war and they were nearly wiped out by Ghengis Khan.

---

quote:

---

Speaking of the Turks

---

quote:

---

The more complex issue is how do we look forward and get this country modernized?

---

posted 09 August 2004 02:38 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by homeylu:
What everyone needs to understand is that these conflicts have less to do with race and MORE to do with religion.

---

Remember. Dafur is largely Muslim.

In Dafur the reason for war is perceived by many as ethnic, not religious. This is in contrast to the broader Sudanese civil war. Sudan's Muslim government consists mostly of Arabs who are accused of backing Arab militias there, and according to many observers, are the ones trying to push black Muslim tribes out. http://www.fh.org/sudan050504

posted 09 August 2004 02:55 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:
Remember. Dafur is largely Muslim.

In Dafur the reason for war is perceived by many as ethnic, not religious. This is in contrast to the broader Sudanese civil war. Sudan's Muslim government consists mostly of Arabs who are accused of backing Arab militias there, and according to many observers, are the ones trying to push black Muslim tribes out. http://www.fh.org/sudan050504

---

Are we just concentrating on the "DARFUR" region or the country as a whole. The Darfur region is largely BLACK as well.
You have Black muslims fighting Black muslims, it's a little more complex than just race. It' about the "black muslims" rebelling islamic rule by other "black muslims". Trust me this is not a simple one.

posted 09 August 2004 02:55 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by neo*geo:
[B] Not defending Arab colonization, just keeping the debate honest.

---

Point out where I've defended any form of colonization. All I'm saying is that the problem isn't JUST Arabization. Afterall, Egypt too has been Arabized as Sudan, and for a longer stretch of time(600 years for Sudan, 1200 years for Egypt) yet Egyptian Christians and Muslims are still are united under a common culture and national identity. There is some ethnic violence in Egypt as Ausar pointed out, but no where near the scale we see in Sudan.

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:

[QUOTE] Saddam used brute force against the Kurds but they were not innocent themselves

---

Let's not forget about those Iranian-backed Kurdish militias. Look, I'm not about to get into a debate over whether killing civilians is just or injust in war(the US killed millions of civilians in Germany and Japan alone) because to me it's not a black and white issue. I just don't buy the idea that Saddam targetted Kurdish villagers just because they weren't Arabs. (BTW, he killed over a million Arabs as well which should make you proud)

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:

[QUOTE]Historically, Arabs haven't been as powerful as you're making them out to be.

---

posted 09 August 2004 02:58 PM            

Disguising Arabization

The long-standing civil war in Sudan is often represented as a conflict between the Arab and Muslim North and the African and Christian South. While there is some truth in this, it fails to account for the social and cultural complexity of either the North or the South. The NIF government is an Islamist regime, and part of its explicit and stated policy is the full islamization of Sudan. The NIF uses the term "jihad" to describe its war against the Southern Sudanese rebels, who are referred to as "infidels." Yet in Western Sudan, where all the people are Muslims, it has become apparent that the discourse of islamization is a code word for something else.

Behind the banner of islamization in Northern Sudan is a deeply racist policy of arabization. As a part of the logic of this policy, the non-Arab ethnic groups of Western Sudan have come under attack. Despite their deep roots in Islam, and their traditional loyalty to the Umma Party, the NIF regime considers non-Arabs to be potential fifth-columnists in the civil war because of their "African" identity and cultural heritage. Consequently, the NIF regime has sought to destroy the traditional bases of authority in these communities and change the ethnic composition of Western Sudan to preempt this imagined danger.

The government argues that the violence in Western Sudan in the 1990s is the result of tribal conflicts that have always existed. It is true that Western Sudan is a multiethnic region where numerous ethnic groups live side by side. It is also true that ethnic tensions and conflicts have periodically occurred because of competition over resources, especially between the semi-nomadic pastoralist peoples and sedentary farmers. Traditionally, however, conflicts of this sort were effectively mediated by traditional means. If the current violence in Western Sudan is but the continuation of long-standing tribal conflict in the region, as the NIF argues, one would expect to find that this sort of violence has long characterized the region. But this isn't the case.

Since as far back as the colonial period, Western Sudan has been relatively peaceful. The real reason that violence has torn apart the lives of so many people in Western Sudan in the 1990s lies in NIF policy. By arming and financing local Arab paramilitary groups, the NIF has quite intentionally created ethnic (and in fact racial) conflicts across Western Sudan. Furthermore, the NIF has disarmed non-Arab groups, making them virtually defenseless against the well-armed government militias. The NIF has instigated nothing short of a racial war against the non-Arab inhabitants of Western Sudan.

A Systematic Campaign

The specific troubles of the Massaleit began five years ago when the NIF created 30 new positions (carrying the title of emir) in the traditional administrative structure of the Dar Massaleit area. The majority of the offices were filled with people from Arab ethnic groups (in particular from the Umm Jallul Arabs). Many Massaleit saw this action as an attempt to undermine the power of their community and their traditional leadership role in the area, by raising members of minority indigenous Arab groups above them.

The Massaleit reacted angrily, and tensions mounted between them and local Arabs. Communal hostilities broke out and acts of violence became common. The government reacted by replacing the governor of Western Darfur, Muhammad Ahmad Fadul, with General Hassan Hamadein, thereby putting the area under de facto military rule. The new governor began a massive campaign of arrests, imprisonment, and torture targeted at prominent members of the Massaleit community, including those with education and members of the state council.

In this context of state repression, government-supported Arab militias began to attack Massaleit villages in the area beginning in August 1995. In one of the earliest incidents, a group of Massaleit villages -- known as Majmari -- to the east of the regional capital, were attacked by Arab militias. The villages were burned to the ground and 75 people were killed, 170 were injured, and 650 heads of cattle were stolen. In a similar incident, Arab militias attacked the village of Shoshta, southwest of Geneina, on the evening of July 5, 1996. At least 45 people were killed, most of them women and children. Similar attacks occurred in villages such as Gadier, Kasay, Burta, Mirmta, Kadmoli, and the villages of the Birirabt Mountains.

posted 09 August 2004 03:00 PM            

quote:

---

Are you all not aware of the fact that were it not for the barrier of the Sahara, Arab colonialization may have very well reached the Cape!

---

Well,Omani Arabs along with Portugeese were in the interior of Africa around the 1800's selling and enslaving Africans. Before this the Ottomans had pushed all the way to Uganda to traffic slaves.

quote:

---

History also teaches how the Arabs colonized the great Western Sudanic civilizations, in the same manner in which they subjugated both Egypt and the Sudan - they converted the ruling elite to Islam, and then 'Arabicized' them (study the civilizations of ancient Ghana, Mali, and Songhay for evidence of this process).

---

You have to be careful here,for Islam reached Western Sudanic Africa by traders and not by force. The first people to convert to Islam were the Soninke people who are the direct desendants of those who founded ancient Ghana. The people who crushed and destoyed Ghana were Islamcized idiot Berbers tribes called the Almoravids who came from southern Morocco and Mauritania. In later times these tribes would found Marrakesh which provides the modern name of Morocco.

No Arabs went into Western Sudan except the fringes of regions like Mauritania when the Beni hassan yemani Arabs migrated there. Matter of fact,Arabs had no knowleadge of Africa past the Western Sudanic states or past the Sahel. The forest regions of modern day southern Nigeria were unknown to them.

Eventually,Arabs did lead to the downfall of the Sudanic states when Moroccans invaded in 1591 destoying and kidnapping prominent scholars at Timbuktu.

Sudan and Egypt are two different senerios. When the Arabs invaded northern Africa in 640 AD most of the area was contolled by Byzantine Melkite Christians who hated and despised the local Fellahin of Upper and Lower Egypt. The only people who resisted were the Byzantine and some loyalist Christian groups. The majority of the urban population in Egypt did not resist the Arabs,and the Fellahin in Upper Egypt were largely unaware.

Later,the Arabs attempted to invade northern Sudan[then Christian Nubia] and was repeled so bad that the Arab chroniclers called the Nubians pupil smitters.

Under the rulership of Amr Ibn Alas things were equal for a while for the indigenous Egyptians but things started to sour as the Arabian Caliphtes took controll over the country. Understand that under Islamic law the religious minorities of Jews,Christians,and quote people of the book is called Dhimmi which means protected. Under this obligation people must pay what is called a jizya.

In later times there was a land tax imposted upon the rural Fellahin that made several revolt in Upper and Lower Egypt. The result of these revolts were that they were smashed and the revolters were sold into slavery in Bagdad the capital of the Arabian Caliphtes.

Nubia was not ultimatley Islamicized untill the 14th century. There was even a time when Nubians captured certain parts of Upper Egypt up to Akhmin ultimatley freeing most of Upper Egypt.

In Medevil Egypt you have the rulership of the Umayyad,Abbasaid,Ikhansids,Tunlinids,Mamelukes,Ottomans,and Mohammed Ali who was Albanian.

The Ottomans operated differently because their system of goverment was called a millet which meant each religious minority could govern as they chose. Mohammed Ali allowed Christian Egyptians to build their own schools and go as they pleased. The only people who struggled during this time was the ethnic fellahin both Christian and Muslim.

[The Christians brought the Bible to Africa and the Muslims brought the Koran, and the Africans were left holding the 'holy books'
while these foreigners held the land.
The study of history is supremely important...]

The ultimate conspirators are the people both Europeans and Arabs who use religious doctrine as a means of nationalism. None of these doctrines hold such into account but Europeans and Arabs are very crafty as using spirtuality as a weapon. You should not blame the religious doctrine but the people behind it using it for power. Mankind corrupts spirtuality.

[
[(Actually the fundamental stories and philosophies of both the Bible and Koran, are African in origin, they were merely 're-packaged')]

Yes,along with Mesopotamia,Zoroasterian,and other principles as well.

posted 09 August 2004 03:13 PM            

quote:

---

Historically, Arabs haven't been as powerful as you're making them out to be.

---

quote:

---

Red herring.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by neo*geo:
How so?]

---

quote:

---

The survival of Arab culture outside the Gulf has not been due to their effectiveness at waging war. Rather, it's been due to their effectiveness in using Islam.

---

You really need to take some lesson's in logical discourse, because almost every sentence your utter is undermined by broken logic, internal contradiction and mismatched
premises.

If your, albeit irrelevant premise, is that the Arab's are not "powerful", then it does not help you to argue that they acheive power by using Islam instead of waging war. Your argument assumes wrongly that power only equates to war, but since that is wrong...the evidence you offer does not support the conclusion you reach. And the conclusion itself is irrelevant to the issue of the harmful effects of Arabisation.
See subject!!!!!!!!! lol.

posted 09 August 2004 03:24 PM            

"The People

Ethnic distinctions in Darfur, as is the case for Sudan in general, are not that clear cut. Following the two main sub-divisions, the population in Darfur can be broadly divided into those of Arab descent, and the local, non-Arab indigenous inhabitants of the region. Although some of the Arab groups claim an unmixed Arabic stock, it is important to note that they are Arab only in a cultural rather than a racial sense. The name Arab, therefore, stands for those Arabic-speaking people who, through a long historical process, have mixed with the indigenous non-Arab Sudanese.

The indigenous Darfurian tribes consist mainly of settled farmers and small-scale traditional cultivators generally referred to as the Fur. They are the largest ethnic group in Darfur and were the founders of the Fur Sultanate and the traditional rulers of the region. The other non-Arab ethnic groups are the Zaghawa nomads, the Meidob, Masalit, Berti, Tama, Mararit, and Tunjur. These non-Arab groups established The Darfur Development Front (DDF) in the mid-1960s to the exclusion of all other ethnically non-Darfurian people. The main objective of the DDF was to protect and lobby for the interests of the indigenous Darfurians in the political scramble for power at the centre.

The Arab tribes in Darfur (mainly pastoralist nomads) consist of the Habania, Beni Hussein, Zeiyadiya, Beni Helba, Djawama, Rezeigat, and the Maharia, in addition to the Arab urban merchants and government officials mainly of Jellaba origin. These communities formed what is known as the Arab Congregation in the mid-1980s, an alliance designed to lobby for official and financial backing from both the central government and the national political parties in support of the cause of the Arabs in the region.

As suggested by Ahmed and Harir (1982), the population in Darfur can also be divided using a different classification into four groups: the Baggara (cattle nomads), the Aballa (camel nomads), the Zurga (the local name for non-Arab peasants derived from the Arabic word for black), and the inhabitants of the urban centres.

-----------------------------------------

Rasol if we are just going to concentrate on Darfur, then THAT conflict is over the distribution of natural resources, and I did state that in my earlier pargagraph, the one that was left out of context. But if we're talking about SUDAN in general then it's more about religion than race.

Since by my definition, just because you speak arabic, does not change your racial identity. It's still blacks fighting blacks. Some that identify with the pastorial farmers and some that identify with the arabic nomads. In any case its about who SPEAKS arabic and who doesn't and NOT the color of their skin.

posted 09 August 2004 03:31 PM            

quote:

---

Are we just concentrating on the "DARFUR" region or the country as a whole. The Darfur region is largely BLACK as well.

---

Homeylu:

Somehow, the point is not being taken that the Arabs of Sudan themselves are mostly what you/I and most of the world would regard as Black.

This was indicated in your earlier statement about the Arabs being a minority.

They are for you, because you are counting "Arab" as one thing and "Black" as another. I might even tend to agree. But.....the Black Africans who are also Arabs do not regard themselves as such. They refer to blacks as "abid". They regard themselves in some cases as white, although they are as dark in some cases as Nelson Mandela, and may not have any actual Arab blood.

quote:

---

You have Black muslims fighting Black muslims, it's a little more complex than just race.

---

You and I might see the Sudanic Arabs as largely Black, (I know I do). In fact, I refer to them as feign (fake) Arabs.....but, we are not the ones fighting!

It is as much of a misnomer to imagine that the Janjaweed are involved in a relgious dispute as to imagine that the Christian Knights of the Klan in America are involved in protecting Christian values.

Hopefully this will help in terms of facing the facts of the ethnic dynamics involved: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A16001-2004Jun29.html

posted 09 August 2004 03:38 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:
If your, albeit irrelevant premise, is that the Arab's are not "powerful", then it does not help you to argue that they acheive [b]power by using Islam instead of waging war.[/B]

---

You need to take a course on reading. I never said that they achieved power through Islam. Here's what I said if you missed it through your selective reading:

"The survival of Arab culture outside the Gulf has not been due to their effectiveness at waging war. Rather, it's been due to their effectiveness in using Islam."

You look really dumb trying to look smart...

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:

Your argument assumes wrongly that power only equates to war, but since that is wrong...the evidence you offer does not support the conclusion you reach.

---

Power is measured by a nation or group's ability to effectively wage war. This is a law of nature since the beginning of time unless you can point out an empire that didn't have the world's most powerful military in their time. The Arabs had their arses handed to them many times as they attempted to invade the kingdoms of Nubia. They couldn't overpower the Nubians militarily.

Arabs have themselves been powerless up until WWI when European Imperialists gave them self-determination after centuries under Turkish rule. Arab nationalism, an invention of the late 19th century, failed miserably after humiliating defeats by Israel. And most Arab governments are still reliant on the West for their infrastructure and to keep their economies afloat.

Arabization is still a factor in Sudan's problems but it's an invisible one. Definately in the mental.

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:

And the conclusion itself is irrelevant to the issue of the harmful effects of Arabisation.
See subject!!!!!!!!! lol.

---

posted 09 August 2004 03:55 PM            

quote:

---

I never said that they achieved power through Islam.

---

I know that. You stated that they advance their Arab identity through Islam.... "The survival of Arab culture outside the Gulf has not been due to their effectiveness at waging war. Rather, it's been due to their effectiveness in using Islam.".....
what you continue to fail to grasp, is that that what you just described is as much a form of power, as waging war. Can't you see that?

quote:

---

You look really dumb trying to look smart

---

posted 09 August 2004 04:04 PM            

quote:

---

Power is measured by a nation or group's ability to effectively wage war.

---

Oh dear. Where to begin correcting this little rhetorical disaster.

Let's start with elementary example:

Japan has a pacifist constitution that forbids it from waging war....therefore Japan is the least powerful country in the world. Right Neo?

Power ! = WAR, silly.

posted 09 August 2004 04:32 PM            

quote:

---

Sudan hits back over Darfur allegations
by Roshan Muhammed Salih
Wednesday 04 August 2004 4:44 PM GMT

Sudanese officials and an alleged militia leader have poured scorn on international claims about the conflict in western Darfur.

They told Aljazeera that Darfurian rebels, who are widely perceived to be the victims of the conflict, had to share the blame for the crisis.

And they say the international media is wrongly portraying events in Darfur as a racial war, when it is really a dispute over land.

The comments come as the Sudanese government is bearing the brunt of world condemnation for the crisis in its western province.

Powerful western nations, as well as the United Nations, human rights groups and Darfurian rebels, say Khartoum is directly responsible for the killing of more than 50,000 people and the displacement of more than a million others.

They accuse the government of training and arming a militia, known as the Janjawid, to wipe out opposition to its rule in the province.

UN resolution

The situation is so acute that the UN Security Council has given Khartoum a month to disarm the Janjawid or face punishment.

A UN resolution last Friday also required Khartoum to facilitate free access for humanitarian groups and to allow about 1.2 million displaced people and 150,000 refugees in neighbouring Chad to return home.

Western nations have further raised the possibility of military intervention to protect the Darfurians.

But Sudan has reacted with indignation to the accusations.

Khartoum, which has called the Janjawid "bandits", says the Darfur rebels are prolonging the conflict to force a foreign intervention.

It says Washington is using the crisis to try to topple its government, and that any military intervention may lead to the disintegration of the country.

Darfur marginalisation

The Darfur conflict erupted in February 2003 when two rebel groups - the Sudan Liberation Army/Movement (SLA/M) and the Justice and Equality Movement (JEM) - demanded an end to alleged economic marginalisation and sought power-sharing within the Sudanese state.

The movements, which are drawn from members of the Fur, Masalit, and Zaghawa tribes, also sought government action to end alleged abuses by their rivals - pastoralists who are driven on to farmlands by drought and desertification.

But an Arab tribal chief, who Washington accuses of being the most senior Janjawid leader, told Aljazeera.net his tribe was only defending itself.

Musa Hilal, speaking from house arrest in Khartoum, said: "When the rebellion began last year, the government approached us and armed us. My sons were armed by the government and joined the Border Intelligence.

"Some tribesmen joined the Popular Defence Force. I called my tribe to arms as well. We were caught up in an uprising the rebels began - what should I have done?"

He added: "We had camels stolen and young men murdered - banditry performed by the Zaghawa. When we retaliated, the Zaghawa joined with the Fur. When the tribes retaliated, they called in the world community. Now Zaghawa support the rebels - they are enemies."

'Janjawid' denials

Hilal, who denies his tribe has committed any atrocities, says his force will disarm when the Darfurian rebels respect a ceasefire.

He added: "Rebels constantly talk to human rights groups and aid workers as if the Janjawid were some kind of organised army. There is no political or military common policy for the tribes that are fighting rebels for their very existence. They started this war.

"Janjawid means nothing, but it is a word used to encompass all evil. A convenient way for Americans to understand who are the good guys and who are the bad - it is easier to sell policies that way."

A Sudanese official, who refused to be named, told Aljazeera the Darfur crisis was being turned into a race issue by much of the media, which portrayed it as "Arab tribes" attacking "black Africans".

But the official says the tribes, which are all Muslim, are of mixed ethnic stock and the conflict is a land issue between nomads and subsistence farmers in the region.

Jan Egeland, the UN Emergency Relief Coordinator, has also said the war is more complex than is generally reported.

Ethnic cleansing?

In an interview with the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, he said: "There are many armed groups and many criminal gangs in Darfur...

"I believe that all sides are involved [in attacking civilians] -the so-called Janjawid militias, organised militias, too many unemployed men with too many guns, government forces and definitely also rebel forces."

He added: "It's complex because some have said it doesn't fit the legal definition of ethnic cleansing. The same tribes are represented both among those who are cleansed and those who are cleansing."

Nevertheless, human rights groups say the Sudanese government is responsible for "ethnic cleansing" and crimes against humanity in Darfur.

In a report in May, New York-based Human Rights Watch (HRW) said Khartoum and the Janjawid militias "it arms and supports" had committed numerous attacks on civilians among the Fur, Masalit and Zaghawa tribes.

HRW said government forces oversaw and directly participated in massacres, summary executions of civilians, burnings of towns and villages, and the forcible depopulation of wide swathes of land.

Rebel pleas

It said the government and "its Janjawid allies" killed thousands of Fur, Masalit, and Zaghawa, raped women, and destroyed villages, food stocks and other supplies essential to the civilian population.

The militias have also driven more than one million civilians, mostly farmers, into camps and settlements in Darfur where they live on the very edge of survival, the report said.

In response to the crisis, the Darfur rebel movements have called for rapid international action.

They have demanded that Khartoum should disarm the Janjawid, bring those who allegedly committed crimes to justice, allow unimpeded humanitarian access to the region, and free prisoners of war.

Mahjub Husayn, external liaison officer for the Sudan Liberation Movement, told Aljazeera the rebels only sought to globalise the crisis because of the "overwhelming crimes perpetrated against the Darfur people".

"We view all the measures taken by the Sudanese regime as superficial and characterised with procrastination and deception," he said.

'Genuine grievances'

"The Janjawid are a government institution like the interior and foreign ministries, mainly designated for [ethnic] cleansing, genocide, rape and subduing under the direct auspices of the vice president's office."

He added: "We call for the liberation of Sudan from the current attitude of... marginalising [Darfur], from injustice, from servitude, from slavery and from all the culture that has no respect for human rights."

Meanwhile, the Sudanese government, which has pledged to disarm the Janjawid, acknowledges the rebels in Darfur have genuine grievances.

Hasan Abd Allah Bargu, a Sudan government representative and a negotiator with the Darfur rebel movements, told Aljazeera: "Darfur is underdeveloped like other regions of Sudan... but we don't agree on using armed struggle to resolve this matter."

He added: "The issue of economic development has been exploited by some political parties."

Other Sudanese officials, such as Khartoum's envoy to the African Union (AU), have accused Washington of using the Darfur crisis as a pretext to topple the Sudanese government, which Washington has long opposed.

---

posted 09 August 2004 04:35 PM            

quote:

---

You have to be careful here,for Islam reached Western Sudanic Africa by traders and not by force. The first people to convert to Islam were the Soninke people who are the direct desendants of those who founded ancient Ghana. The people who crushed and destoyed Ghana were Islamcized idiot Berbers tribes called the Almoravids who came from southern Morocco and Mauritania. In later times these tribes would found Marrakesh which provides the modern name of Morocco.
[/B]

---

posted 09 August 2004 04:38 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:

Japan has a pacifist constitution that forbids it from waging war....therefore Japan is the least powerful country in the world. Right Neo?

---

No. Japan can still effectively wage a defensive war plus they have an alliance with the best war wager on the planet, the USA. The least powerful country in the world is probably Costa Rica but they too have the protection of the US...

posted 09 August 2004 04:45 PM            

I find it unlikely that you are actually that non perceptive.

posted 09 August 2004 04:48 PM            

People in Sudan have a different notion of color than people in the western world. In pre-Islamic Arabic really dark African people were actually called the Arabic word for Green.

Most of these people in Darfur actually believe they are Arabic people,and not black Africans. That's the sad truth. Still I would hate to see the region get gobbled up by the Western powers. I would like to see an indigenous solution that comes from the people living in Sudan. Unfortunatley,the Sudanese are know asking the Arabs to join in against the battle.

Where's the African Union when you need it?

Thanks for the compliment,rasol. I study all areas of Africa and not just ancient Kmt. History is best qualified to teach one parapharsing a famous German philsopher Schopenhauer[sp]

posted 09 August 2004 04:55 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:
If your understanding of the nature of power is honestly limited to ability to wage war, then it's no wonder that you fail to comprehend Arabisation, Africa, the Middle East, and politics and history in general for that matter.

---

My understanding of those things is quite simply, superior to yours, which is why you haven't been able to make a decent rebuttal. I've studied all of Western civilization and self-taught myself about ancient Egypt so I know a little bit about power.

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:

I perfer to believe that you enjoy making patently silly arguments, even about very serious issues.

---

posted 09 August 2004 05:08 PM            

quote:

---

My understanding of those things is quite simply, superior to yours,

---

Remember, the last time you self-stroked, your very next reply to me was plagiarized. Your insecurity is obvious. Think about it.

quote:

---

I've studied all of Western civilization and self-taught myself

---

posted 09 August 2004 11:33 PM            

http://reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=worldNews&storyID=5904311

Sudan Seeks Arab Help in Avoiding Sanctions
Sun Aug 8, 2004 11:11 AM ET

By Tom Perry
CAIRO (Reuters) - Sudan sought Arab help Sunday to
head off possible sanctions threatened by the United
Nations if Khartoum fails to rein in marauding
militiamen accused of genocide and ethnic cleansing in
its western Darfur region.

Sudan has about three weeks left to show the U.N.
Security Council it is serious about disarming the
Janjaweed militia. Darfur rebels say Khartoum is
backing Janjaweed attacks to drive non-Arab villagers
from their homes.

Sudan's Foreign Minister Mustafa Osman Ismail said
Khartoum was seeking political support from Arab
ministers "which will lead to the halting of any
attempts to target Sudan or issuing of sanctions
against it."

The ministers were meeting at the Arab League in Cairo
on Sunday for emergency discussions on Darfur, where
the United Nations says fighting has killed 50,000,
displaced 1 million and left 2 million short of food
and medicine.

Arab League Secretary General Amr Moussa said the
Arabs were inclined toward helping Sudan avoid
sanctions. The League has said the sanctions threat
will not help resolve the humanitarian crisis.

Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmed Aboul Gheit said
Khartoum, which has agreed a plan with the United
Nations to tackle the crisis, was proving its
credibility.

The plan sets out steps to disarm the Janjaweed and
other outlawed groups, improve security in Darfur and
address the humanitarian crisis.

Jan Pronk, the U.N. secretary-general's special
representative to Sudan, told reporters in Cairo he
hoped the Arab League meeting would provide political
support for the plan's implementation.

But New York-based Human Rights Watch urged the Arab
League to put pressure on Sudan's government, not to
protect it.

"Allowing the Sudanese government to hide its crimes
behind Arab solidarity would be an insult to more than
1 million Muslim victims in Darfur," said Peter
Takirambudde, executive director of the group's Africa
division.

"The Arab League should stand behind the victims in
Darfur and take concrete steps to ensure that
civilians are protected from further crimes," he said
in a statement

PEACE TALKS
A long smoldering conflict between nomadic Arab
herders and African villagers erupted in early 2003
when two Darfur rebel groups took up arms against
Khartoum.

The Arab Janjaweed began their campaign of killing in
response, rights groups say.

The rebel Justice and Equality (JEM) movement said
Khartoum was seeking Arab League protection to carry
out "oppression and slaughter in Darfur." In a letter,
JEM called on the Arab League to be neutral and to
pressure Khartoum to give in to the will of the
international community.

The African Union said Sunday that Khartoum and the
two rebel groups, JEM and the Sudan Liberation Army
(SLA), had agreed to peace talks in Abuja, Nigeria on
Aug. 23.

But JEM Secretary-General Bahar Idriss Abu Garda told
Reuters neither JEM nor the SLA had been told of the
date and rebel leaders were due at a conference in
Germany on Aug. 23.

The AU said the group's chairman, Nigerian President
Olusegun Obasanjo, would mediate the discussions
between Khartoum and the rebels, which would be a
continuation of a dialogue started in Addis Ababa on
July 15.

Those talks failed when the rebels set six conditions
for negotiations and Khartoum rejected them. The chief
demands included Sudan's demilitarization of Darfur
and an inquiry into genocide charges.

Sudan's Foreign Minister Ismail said the government
would participate in the talks without conditions.

The 53-member AU is proposing to send up to 2,000
troops to protect its cease-fire monitors in Darfur
and to serve as peacekeepers.

Sudan said Saturday it would permit African troops to
protect their monitors, but that its own troops would
handle peacekeeping.

posted 10 August 2004 03:49 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by S.Mohammad:

I really don't want to sound too anti-Arab but I just don't see the need to identify strongly with anything 'Arab'. Though Islam was supposedly started in Arabia, identifying as 'Arab' holds no significance. The Sudanese, in particular, the Nubians(Jaaliyn and Juhanya peoples) had a far more advanced civilization than anything found in the Arabian Peninsula, how could they look down on those who refuse to be Arabized? I think European colonialism played a big part in people chosing to identify as Arabs, for the fact that Europeans gave them better treatment.

This complex can also be seen in some people in Zanzibar and some of the other Swahili peoples. You have people there who are heavily black in phenotype, but will identify as 'Arab' because he had a relative in his family 600 years ago who was Arab, only ONE Arab at that. Thats pathetic.

---

CORRECTION.THE jaaliyn are really nubians that had become arabized,and i think they call themselves arabs or nubians who have been arabized with still a basic nubian culture,but i am not sure.i have to look up this group some more.

THE juhanya are really arabs,but some groups have black members.

posted 10 August 2004 09:49 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by kenndo:

THE juhanya are really arabs,but some groups have black members.

[This message has been edited by kenndo (edited 10 August 2004).]

---

CORRECTION, the Juhayna are NUBIANS also read:

Traditional genealogies trace the ancestry of most of the Nile Valley's mixed population to Arab tribes that migrated into the region during this period. Even many non-Arabic-speaking groups claim descent from Arab forebears. The two most important Arabic-speaking groups to emerge in Nubia were the Jaali and the Juhayna (see Ethnic Groups , ch. 2). Both showed physical continuity with the indigenous pre-Islamic population. The former claimed descent from the Quraysh, the Prophet Muhammad's tribe. Historically, the Jaali have been sedentary farmers and herders or townspeople settled along the Nile and in Al Jazirah. The nomadic Juhayna comprised a family of tribes that included the Kababish, Baqqara, and Shukriya.

http://reference.allrefer.com/country-guide-study/sudan/sudan14.html

posted 10 August 2004 10:23 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by ausar:
Baggara are arabized Nilotic people. Most Baggara don't racially look different from southern Sudanese.

---

You are very correct, read:

The two largest of the supratribal categories in the early 1990s were the Juhayna and the Jaali (or Jaalayin). The Juhayna category consisted of tribes considered nomadic, although many had become fully settled. The Jaali encompassed the riverine, sedentary peoples from Dunqulah to just north of Khartoum and members of this group who had moved elsewhere. Some of its groups had become sedentary only in the twentieth century. Sudanese saw the Jaali as primarily indigenous peoples who were gradually arabized. Sudanese thought the Juhayna were less mixed, although some Juhayna groups had become more diverse by absorbing indigenous peoples. The Baqqara, for example, who moved south and west and encountered the Negroid peoples of those areas were scarcely to be distinguished from them.

http://reference.allrefer.com/country-guide-study/sudan/sudan49.html

posted 10 August 2004 01:06 PM            

Shilluk

Dinka

Beja

[This message has been edited by neo*geo (edited 10 August 2004).]

posted 10 August 2004 01:37 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by neo*geo:
To believe that is to fall for the belief that Arabs, and not indigenous Africans, were responsible for the great cities in Mali and Ghana. I'm not sure about Mali but I don't think people in Ghana consider themselves Arabs as north Eastern Sudanese do.

---

Ancient Ghana, Mali, Songhai, were indeed civilizations created by Sudanic-Black-African peoples which were subsequently subverted by the Arab-Islamic colonization of Africa. The following is an excert from a text on Askia the Great:

quote:

---

More astute and farsighted than Sunni Ali Ber, he (Askia) identified Islam's potential to usurp traditional Songhai religion. Askia decidedly courted his Muslim subjects, particularly in Timbuktu, where the clerics and scholars who fled from Sunni Ali Ber had returned. Askia orchestrated a program of expansion and consolidation, ultimately extending the empire from Taghaza in the north to the borders of Yatenga in the south; and from Air in the northeast to Futa Toro in Senegambia. Askia was also setting the stage for the Askia dynasty, systematically removing the surviving members of the preceding dynasties.

Within three years, he solidified his position to the extent that he could leave the country for two years. For political and pious reasons, he made the hajj (pilgrimage) to Mecca. In Cairo, he consulted with scholars and examined legal and administrative methods. In addition, an ambassador to Songhai was appointed and Askia was made caliph, thus becoming the head of the Islamic community in the Western Sudan. He returned to Songhai where he embarked on a program to reinforce and refine Islam.

---

Got a few questions: Do you think it's simply an empty religious practice that muslims bow down, what is it, five times a day towards Arabia? And why is it that the Koran can only be appreciated fully only if it is read in its "original" Arabic?

Does the term Cultural-Religious-Ethnic imperialism seem appropriate here?

...

posted 10 August 2004 02:34 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wally:
Does the term Cultural-Religious-Ethnic imperialism seem appropriate here?

---

Atleast we agree on something. I had commented on that earlier in this thread:

"The survival of Arab culture outside the Gulf has not been due to their effectiveness at waging war. Rather, it's been due to their effectiveness in using Islam."

Arab culture and values are spread through Islam the same way western culture and values are spread through Christianity. However, Islam is more Arab-centered than Christianity is Rome-centered...

posted 11 August 2004 01:45 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by neo*geo:
Nomadic "Arab" Sudanese

---

This boy probably has not any negroid admixture,he looks like dark-skinned Saudi or Yemeni Arab.

posted 11 August 2004 02:04 AM            

Lots of Saudi Arabs have admixture from slaves,africans who mad hajj,and from mixing with Eastern Africans. Southern Yemani Arabs like the Haddara and others are hard to tell apart from eastern African people.

The original people of Yemen were Veddoid/Negrito people that were absrobed by Proto-Semetic migrarts. Lots of people in Oman have signs of this archiac race in the Arabian Peninsula.

posted 11 August 2004 02:11 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by ausar:

Lots of Saudi Arabs have admixture from slaves,africans who mad hajj,and from mixing with Eastern Africans. Southern Yemani Arabs like the Haddara and others are hard to tell apart from eastern African people.

The original people of Yemen were Veddoid/Negrito people that were absrobed by Proto-Semetic migrarts. Lots of people in Oman have signs of this archiac race in the Arabian Peninsula.

---

I am aware of that,but still many Saudis or Yemenis are dark-skinned like this boy,without any significant negroid admixture.

posted 11 August 2004 06:09 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ayazid:
I am aware of that,but still many Saudis or Yemenis are dark-skinned like this boy,without any significant negroid admixture.

[This message has been edited by Ayazid (edited 11 August 2004).]

---

posted 11 August 2004 07:00 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by kenndo:
that boy looks black to me.

---

Maybe to you,but actually he hasnt any visible "black" admixture. He looks rather like a dark-skinned bedouin Arab.

He is a member of the bedouin tribe Rashaida,which migrated to Sudan 150 years ago,so they havent so big negroid admixture like other Sudanese Arabs.

The Rashaida

The Rashaida are closely related to the Saudi Arabia Bedouin, who migrated to Sudan from the Arabian Peninsula about 150 years ago. Many Rashaida also live in the neighboring country of Eritrea; in fact, they make up five percent of the population of Eritrea (3.75 million people). In Sudan, they number around 68,000, and live mostly in the northeast part of the country on the outskirts of the city of Kassala, one of the most frequently visited spots in Sudan.

The Rashaida are a nomadic people who live in tents made of goatskins. They are herdsmen, breeding primarily goats and sheep. Since they are largely illiterate, they memorize in great detail the pedigree of their animals, keeping mental records of their herds over seven or eight preceding generations of the flock, although they usually only emphasize the female lines.

Besides herding, the Rashaida also gain income through jewelry making. It is the veiled Rashaida women who craft much of the silver jewelry sold in the Kassala souq, or market, which is said to be one of the best in Sudan. Along with the jewelry, the Kassala souq supposedly markets some of the best and juiciest fruits Sudan has to offer.

http://www.sudan101.com/rashaida.htm

posted 11 August 2004 08:39 AM            

quote:

---

but still many Saudis or Yemenis are dark-skinned like this boy,without any significant negroid admixture.

---

posted 11 August 2004 08:58 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:
@ Arab race myths.

---

There are some these "myths":

http://www.pbase.com/image/25215246
http://www.pbase.com/image/25215250
http://www.pbase.com/image/25215240
http://www.pbase.com/image/25405581
http://www.pbase.com/image/25215235
http://www.pbase.com/image/24618095
http://www.pbase.com/image/24618116

posted 11 August 2004 09:09 AM            

You really need to stop deluding yourself.

Some hard truths for you:
It happens frequently that the word Arab is misused on purpose for political strategy: 1) by applying this term as an ethnic definition to the Arabized peoples (mainly North-Africans), in order to increase the number of the Arab population,

this is also a half-truth because the Arabian ethnicity and culture arose from an original Kushite stock that was subsequently assimilated by the Semitic tribes that came after them, and even the Ismaelites were a mixed groups with a strong Hamitic component, as we will see in this essay.

No "Negroid" admixture, right. How do you get thru the day feeding yourself on nothing but lies?