An Open Letter To The Black
World Today, The “Anonymous” Group and Everett Minga Regarding Sudan
 You
have now encountered a group of people who are feverishly working to
reunite the family that was once one on African soil. The days of
ignorance and lack of contact between those on either side of the
Atlantic Ocean are over, which will result in the disintegration of the
lies and half-truths that you think you can fool Blacks in America with.
We appreciate
your written communication regarding, in part, some of our writings
regarding events taking place in the Sudan and some of the intense
controversy that has swirled around such.
We appreciate your communication even though, on the surface, it is
harmful to the unsuspecting and uninformed reader. Your communication is
loaded with slander, libel, assumptions, stereotypes, bias and prejudice
– from beginning to end. It also is written in a very deceptive style
that presents a false front that you are somehow interested in a
dialogue with us. Any reasonable person can tell that the presentation
is phony, fueled by a motive that is suspicious, to say the least.
Yet and still, we appreciate it and embrace an opportunity to engage its
contents and your mindset because we believe and are convinced that
anyone who thoroughly reads our respective communication(s) will be
lifted in consciousness and brought closer to the truth of not just this
particular matter but of life itself. All of this is that serious.
It is obvious that your ability to reason correctly has been damaged by
your emotions. The Holy Qur’an (which you refer to frequently in your
communications) warns us to not let hatred of a people incite us to act
inequitably. It is clear from your loaded language, incomplete arguments
and contradictions that you violate this principle.
The basis of your emotional reaction or hatred, in part, is the
treatment that you have received as well as your perception of reality.
Your hatred is directed at the Khartoum government, but it (your
anger/hatred) is so out of control that you assume that everyone who
disagrees with you or the Sudan People’s Liberation Army (SPLA) is the
same as Khartoum. You then move out of the realm of the real (your life
experience regarding events in the Sudan), to the unreal and that which
cannot be proven (that we are somehow agents of the Sudanese government
and working hand-in-hand with them as well as other organizations). You
reaction is paranoid. Can I prove this? Absolutely.
What is the basis of your effort to take what we have written at
BlackElectorate.com, and which I have signed as publisher, and turn it
into a communication of the Nation of Islam? Furthermore, what is the
basis of your arbitrary and inaccurate depiction of what we have written
as the combined work of an entity “AMC-NOI”. Where is that organization?
When and where and how and why did it start? What is my relationship
with such an entity? Where is the paper trail; the evidence; the proof
that verifies such?
Your writing in that vain is ridiculous, silly and can’t be proven. You
have lied. Your lie is the byproduct of your hatred of the Sudanese
government which I, BlackElectorate.com, the Nation Of Islam and the
Honorable Minister Louis Farrakhan have nothing to do with. You are in a
world of illusion and possibly delusion when you speak of a relationship
between “AMC-NOI” and BlackElectorate.com. We have absolutely no idea
what you are talking about. You have made this up, imagined it and then
reacted to what you have concocted as if it is real. Again, you have
lied. Prove otherwise and we will gladly turn over this space to you at
BlackElectorate.com. Again, don’t shout, whine, rant, rave and lie.
Prove what you charge in a reasonable and clear manner. People will be
able to tell the truth from the lie. I am outright stating that you have
lied about the nature of our communications, their source, my
affiliations and motives. I am outright, in public, challenging you
to produce any evidence that supports your spurious charges. Your
failure to produce a shred of evidence will reveal how dishonest and
unreliable you are to the viewers of BlackElectorate.com and
The Black World Today. Your actions are the sign of desperation. But
all you have to do is present your case and invite people to your cause
and you can be successful, if you stand on Truth. But your tactics and
strategy toward us are in and of themselves a sign that you don’t have
confidence in your stated position and have to resort to devices that
mask that fact.
In addition, you have insulted the intelligence of the viewers/readers
of The Black World Today and BlackElectorate.com who you think are
unable to overcome the force of your loaded language and disconnected
facts, half-truths and lies about what we have written and what is
taking place in the Sudan.
Some may have even been “shook” by what you have written to us. Some of
the ignorant, uninformed, weak-minded and casual observers may have
panicked, become confused and acted impulsively over what you have
written. Some may have even accepted what you have written as accurate
simply because of the manner in which you signed your communication. It
is a shame, but some Black people in the Diaspora still see themselves
as junior partners and inferiors in their relationship with their
Brothers and Sisters from Africa and feel as if they are unqualified to
speak about Africa. Sadly, some of our people have been known to think
that the person who presents the most data and minutiae in an argument
has the most knowledge, wisdom and understanding. Many raise their
ignorance of an issue to the level of positive knowledge. Others allow
their envy and jealousy toward individuals color their perception in a
manner that causes them to become unable to recognize the truth in an
argument put forward by the one they are envious or jealous of. And
still, others, do not really read what has been presented in public
debates and as a result are swayed by the “latest” argument and the
emotion and intensity with which it is presented. Such people go back
and forth in whatever direction the intellectual wind blows. It is
obvious that you have counted on that reaction – that you are depending,
even preying upon the ignorance of our people which began when we were
sold into slavery and separated from one another over 400 years ago.
You have miscalculated.
While we are based in the Diaspora, our worldview, thinking, viewers and
network are well beyond the confines of the United States of America and
yes, are in the Sudan, and yes, even in Southern Sudan. The days of the
disconnected family are over. You have now encountered a group of people
who are feverishly working to reunite the family that was once one on
African soil. The days of ignorance and lack of contact between those on
either side of the Atlantic Ocean are over, which will result in the
disintegration of the lies and half-truths that you think you can fool
Blacks in America with. Again, you are actually relying upon the
ignorance of Blacks in America and Blacks in Africa, of one
another, and our daily realities, in order for your deceptive
argument(s) to be accepted. Your entire effort rests on the premise
that Blacks in Africa and Blacks in America are and always will remain
two different people. That premise has already been eroded, whether
you realize that or not. It is interesting that you claim to be in the
Diaspora but represent yourself the way you do. That is a sign of
something.
Furthermore, as we will reveal in this communication, although the
manner in which you represent yourself and sign your communications
indicates otherwise, you do not speak for all Southern Sudanese in the
Diaspora or in Southern Sudan. Your efforts to demonstrate expertise on
the Sudan can not only be easily counteracted by us, but also by your
fellow Southern Sudanese. Related to this point, you should look into
the history of the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) in America. You seem to
share their spirit, in more than one way. In particular, you act by the
Southern Sudanese in a manner similar to how they act by American Jews.
They(the ADL)claim to speak for Jews in America, however, it is not
difficult to find a majority of Jews who reject their arrogant
appropriation of leadership and representation of American Jews.
Likewise, it is not hard to find Southern Sudanese in the Diaspora or on
the continent who outright reject your arrogant appropriation of
leadership and representation of them.
But we really encourage you to study the ADL, while they themselves are
American Jews, they do not represent the sentiment of American Jews.
While you style yourself as Southern Sudanese (we will accept that you
are, on face value, although you don’t prove it) you certainly do not
speak for all Southern Sudanese. We knew this before you even wrote what
you did at The Black World Today. By the end of this
communication, every reasonable person who reads it will know this to be
the case.
Again, your hatred has caused you to make errors, mistakes and to even
lie about us and the facts of what we have presented. It has even caused
you to take liberties with both our viewing audience in the Diaspora who
are unaware of the fallacies of your argument(s) as well as with
Southern Sudanese who are aware of the fallacies of your
argument(s) but unaware of your communications. We hope to end both
forms of “unawareness” in what we have written, including, this
response.
We have maintained that what is happening in the Sudan is first and
foremost a civil war which has caused the loss of life of over 2 million
people. We recognize that in a civil war human rights will be violated
even trampled upon. We believe that the Sudanese government has violated
human rights and we believe that the rebel opposition groups have done
the same. However, the picture of the conflict in the West has been
framed first and foremost over whether or not “slavery” exists. The
civil war is always made a secondary issue, in the West. And because the
United States and England do not like the regime in the Sudan they focus
their attention on the human rights violations of the Sudanese
government and the allegations of such. Some violations naturally do
exist. However, some of the charges being made against the Sudanese
government lack credibility and evidence. Many are outright lies. In
addition, the mainstream international media has almost turned a
completely blind eye to the human rights violations being committed by
rebel groups like the SPLA. We have a problem with the imbalance because
it lends itself to a coup whereby the U.S. and England are able to use
rebel groups in the Sudan to accomplish their foreign policy objectives.
We noticed how effective the propaganda against the Sudanese government
was in 1998 when a pharmaceutical factory in Sudan was unjustifiably
bombed and there was no outcry against the event although there was no
evidence that the factory was making biological and chemical weapons as
the CIA and President Clinton had charged. Sadly, because of their
hatred for the Sudanese government, many of the opposition groups did
not even speak out against the United States. It is a sad day indeed
when one truly considers the enemy of their enemy to automatically be
their friend. Some actually did not even mind that the U.S. had dropped
bombs in Sudanese territory. We would be very interested in knowing what
your position was regarding the United States bombing of the Sudanese
pharmaceutical plant.
Had the country not been in the midst of a civil war, we doubt that such
U.S. action would have been taken or that such action would have been
met with such silence and little consequence for America. Our desire is
that the war be ended and that the people of the Sudan be allowed to
determine their own destiny through the activities of civil society and
the political mechanism of their choice. We believe that the Khartoum
government and the opposition groups have legitimate grievances with one
another and that both parties are necessary components of a lasting
peace. Unlike those who have written what they did in The Black World
Today we do not believe that any of the principal combatants in the
North or South of Sudan is illegitimate to the peace process. We do
however believe that there exists great danger in the recent movement of
the SPLA closer and closer into the bosom of the United States
government as well as the apparent unwillingness by some to be just
as critical of the SPLA and its practices as they are of the Khartoum
government.
It is in that context that we respond to your writing.
You outright lie about our characterization of the “slavery” issue.
You are deliberately misleading in how you handle and represent our
position on the issue of “slavery” in the Sudan. We would say that you
are woefully ignorant but that would not be true. You have received the
several thousand words of writings that we have put forth on this
subject. You indicate that you have read them. Therefore, your
mischaracterization of what we have written is deliberate and
intentional. In our writings, even in the few quotes you include in your
communication, of what we have written, you demonstrate that you are
cognizant of the fact that we often put the word slavery in quotations.
We do so and explain why in our editorial “On Slavery In The Sudan”,
which you have. Why didn’t you quote the following from what we wrote?
What were you trying to hide from the readers as you worked to
misrepresent myself and the Nation Of Islam? We wrote:
The reason why we have placed the word slavery in quotations
throughout this editorial is because we recognize what is happening in
the Sudan first and foremost to be a civil war and we recognize that any
"slavery" practices stem first and foremost from warfare and an economic
depression, exacerbated, in part, by the conditionality imposed by the
IMF and health problems, exacerbated, in part, by the US bombing of a
Sudanese pharmaceutical factory, which by some estimates, took care of
60% of the health needs of Sudan.
In fact, we recognize that much of what is being loosely depicted as
"slavery" would be more accurately described as "mutual abductions"
taking place on all sides. And to be more accurate and to look at the
situation in the Sudan from history, we know that many of the tribes in
the north and south who attracted government and opposition groups as
benefactors in the 80s and 90s, have for years been abducting members of
each others tribes and forcing their captives to work for them for free.
This is nothing new. When these tribes became armed militias, so to
speak, for the North and South they continued their activities but with
sponsors. Again, the core activities of kidnapping, raping, "enslaving"
and ransoming are nothing new and preexisted the Islamic regime in the
Sudan by decades.
Again, why didn’t you reveal the above in what you wrote? You used
several thousand words. What would it have hurt to include this
paragraph? Simply put, it would have hurt the majority of your deceptive
argument. We challenge you to refute any of the above with facts. But
first, we ask you to focus in on the fact that in nothing that we
have written have we ever said that slavery does not exist. You have
lied about this. Your charges are baseless. Our writings on the subject
are all over the world. They are available through our search engine.
You have read them all. Now, show us one paragraph, one sentence, one
phrase where we deny the existence of slavery. You can’t. Instead
you lie about it and say that we deny the existence of slavery. Why
is it so easy for you to lie?
All you had to do was lift the above quoted paragraph and you would have
had the crux of our entire argument on the issue. You would have had an
accurate rendering of much of our analysis of the issue. But you
couldn’t do that because the deception that you run through The Black
World Today would have disintegrated, right before the eyes of the
reader(s).
We have maintained that some of the allegations of slavery have been
curious and suspicious because, in the West, we do not learn of the
charges of slavery unless Christian Solidarity International is involved
in the effort. The anti-slavery coalition, the Baltimore Sun,
BBC, Rev. Sharpton, Michael Horowitz, Joe Madison and just about
everyone in the West learns of slavery via Christian Solidarity
International, who finances the trips of those who seek to learn whether
or not slavery exists. Don’t you find that to be peculiar? We certainly
do. Therefore, we openly question the veracity of the claims. You
interpret our efforts at critical thinking about the issue as an
outright rejection of the slavery argument. You do so because your
hatred of the Sudanese government has left you imbalanced, emotionally
out of control and thinking selfishly. In many respects you are no
longer reasonable.
In an effort to challenge and test the popular arguments of slavery we
included, in one of our writings, an interview of a Christian who is
knowledgeable of the slave redemptions and CSI. We also included an open
letter from the European-Sudanese Public Affairs Council (ESPAC), which
directly questions the work of CSI and the manner in which the slave
redemptions are arranged. They also question the relationship between
the SPLA and CSI. We think their questions and arguments are at least
legitimate, if not persuasive. We notice that in all of the thousands of
words that you use to “respond” to our writings, that not once do
you address the challenging arguments made by the European- Sudanese
Public Affairs Council. Why do you avoid their arguments? In one of your
communications you attempt to dismiss the European Sudanese Council’s
questions because they are connected with David Hollie, for whom you
describe your distaste. In the process you quote from Holy Qur’an 49:6.
Yet, in doing so you violate the principle of Holy Qur’an 49:6 which you
advise us to follow. Holy Qur’an 49:6 reads:
“O you who believe, if an unrighteous man brings you news, look
carefully into it, lest you harm a people in ignorance, then be sorry
for what you did.”
Certainly you should look carefully into what the ESPAC writes in order
to test the accuracy of its claims. But you decide to embark upon your
favorite strategies of ad hominem and ad populum attacks.
You attempt to attack and discredit the messenger rather than to refute
the message. Many people may miss this method which you utilize ad
nauseum but once it is identified, your entire missive breaks down.
Because at the root of your writing is not truth or a thoughtful
engagement of what we have actually written but rather an expression of
hatred for the Sudanese government and Arabs and even Islam (although
you try to shield that) which you project onto me, personally. Later, in
this writing, I will reveal how wicked your effort really is.
If you did not possess an attitude so bent on seeing anyone who does not
legitimately agree with you as your enemy, you would have been able to
recognize that we do agree that “slavery” exists. We very clearly state
in our writings that according to the definitions used by the numerous
human rights groups that slavery is occurring in the Sudan. However,
you don’t like the reality that if those definitions are accepted, the
SPLA would have to be considered as guilty of such. But let’s not
just rely upon the definition of others, we can use your own words
and definition of slavery to show that under your requirements/view the
SPLA is guilty as charged. Here is a portion of the information that
you have sent to us:
"NOI-AMC Baptises and Spiritualises/refines Slavery in Sudan as
abductions.
The question NOI-AMC must answer in no uncertain terms is thus simple
and straightforward. How does slavery begin ? Doesn't it start with
abductions ? Do you make one a slave(enslave) first before you carry one
off illegally(abduct) or Do you abduct before you enslave? Unless truth
means different things to different people, enslavement is a sequence of
events that must necessarily begin first with abduction and ends in
enslavement of people whose status is nothing but slaves. The illegal
act of abduction that makes up national islamic front government's
so-called abductions end up in enslavement, and enslavement means
dealing with people as slaves. This and only this holds Sudan and
NOI-AMC by their neck. Weighed against these facts, what more arguments
does NOI-AMC have against the existence of slavery in Sudan ? Slavery in
Sudan is a reality. Denying it on one hand and baptising it as
abductions on the other confirms and spiritualizes it."
Again, who is “NOI-AMC”? It does not exist. It is a production of your
imagination. If you had not used my name in your writing their would be
no reason to respond to a writing aimed at “NOI-AMC”. Any relationship
between BlackElectorate.com and the mysterious “NOI-AMC” is a lie, that
you or those who back you have concocted. Prove otherwise. Your creation
of “NOI-AMC” and attempt to link it to myself leads one to legitimately
wonder about the condition of your mind.
However, let’s look at what you have written and compare it to what we
have written. If you will remember, we wrote:
In fact, we recognize that much of what is being loosely depicted as
"slavery" would be more accurately described as "mutual abductions"
taking place on all sides. And to be more accurate and to look at the
situation in the Sudan from history, we know that many of the tribes in
the north and south who attracted government and opposition groups as
benefactors in the 80s and 90s, have for years been abducting members of
each others tribes and forcing their captives to work for them for free.
This is nothing new. When these tribes became armed militias, so to
speak, for the North and South they continued their activities but with
sponsors. Again, the core activities of kidnapping, raping, "enslaving"
and ransoming are nothing new and preexisted the Islamic regime in the
Sudan by decades.
The abductions which you claim are the genesis of slavery preexisted the
current near 20-year civil war by decades. Do you deny that? The
abductions were taking place by numerous tribes, who today are backed by
the SPLA or the Sudan government. We very clearly state that at least by
association, the Sudanese government and the SPLA, for example, have
become a party to these mutual abductions that were already taking
place. Furthermore, mutual abductions and even slavery are acts of war.
They are evil and are wrong wherever they occur. But the war itself is
evil. You wink at the abductions that have taken place under the
auspices of the SPLA while you strain your eyes looking for government
transgressions. Why the double-standard?
You very cleverly depict what is happening in Sudan as between the Arab
North and the Black South. You think you can get away with that because
our audience is made up largely of Blacks who live in the United States
of America. But your hubris, in this regard, has caused you to
underestimate our research, analysis and network as well as the
intelligence of our viewers. We know for a fact that the people in the
north are as Black or darker than Blacks in the United States. The
Blacks in the South are darker. But still no Black in this country would
see the majority of those living in the North as light-skinned Arabs if
they saw them walking on the street. Blacks see Arabs every day in the
innercities. They know what they look like. You continue to attempt to
prey on the perceived ignorance of Blacks in the Diaspora. It will not
work.
To test the depths to which you have gone we have a question for you:
Why haven’t you mentioned the fact that the Dinka and Nuer tribes, both
of whom live in the South of Sudan, have been abducting each other’s
members for years? Did you fail to bring it up because it would ruin
your argument that the abductions are strictly the activity of Northern
Arab tribes against Southern Black tribes? Do you deny that this
practice of abductions, which you associate with slavery, occurs among
Black tribes in the south? Remember it was you who very clearly linked
abductions and slavery. In addition, you also curiously avoid what we
wrote in E-Letter To The Washington Post and William Raspberry Re:
The Am-I Dreaming Team,which you have read and refuse to address.
We wrote:
Everyone that we have spoken to who has traveled to the Sudan, who
has lived there and come to the US, or who still lives there now,
informs us that the dichotomy being projected by the anti-slavery
movement is not accurate. They clearly indicate that the vast majority
of the people in the north of Sudan are Black-skinned and those in the
south are Black-skinned. Both groups are as Black or "Blacker" than the
vast majority of Black people in the United States. They also refute the
clear distinction made by the anti-slavery coalition that those who are
enslaving others or who are slaves are either light-skinned Arab Muslim
or dark-skinned Black Christian - with the "Arab Muslims" bearing the
brunt of the association as slave masters. This is simply not accurate.
The practice of "slavery" in the Sudan precedes the current government
in Khartoum today by decades and was carried out by various tribal
militias. In fact, the Sudanese government and the Sudanese opposition
have actually helped to aggravate tensions and the "slavery" or "mutual
abductions" that were taking place between tribes. Their support of
these tribes and supply of weaponry to them has only made the
pre-existing "slavery" problem worse. Again, the portrayal of this as a
light-skinned northern Sudanese Arab Muslim slavery exercised upon
Black-skinned southern Sudanese Christians is a creation of the West and
Christian Solidarity International, and unfortunately the anti-slavery
coalition has bought into it, completely. In many cases there is no
recognizable physical differences in terms of skin color between the
northern Muslim and Arab influenced tribes like the Baggara, and the
southern Christian or animist influence tribes like the Dinkas. In fact,
many such tribes operate along the "north-south" border and have been
intermarrying and interacting for years.
This quote, from a letter written and published in May of this year,
disproves your lie that we do not recognize slavery, as you define it.
That is painfully obvious to anyone who reads your communication and
compares it with the body of work that we have put before the public for
the last 3 months. Why did you ignore it and write as if it does not
exist?
You are shamefully deceptive in painting this matter as Arabs against
Blacks. Again, you are counting on the general ignorance of Blacks in
this country about Africa to provide the fertile ground necessary to
receive such nonsense. But we are pleased to know that you believe human
rights organizations to be reliable sources of information regarding
what is going on in Sudan. How do you handle the following? We think it
blows a hole entirely through your Arab North vs. Black South
concoction. Tell us if we are wrong. But remember, the source is a March
2001 report from the trusted Human Rights Watch:
Recent experience in southern Sudan has demonstrated that the
fighting now in progress will provoke a new humanitarian disaster,
unless immediately checked. The Nuer are already conducting inter-Nuer
warfare. In addition, the Nuer and the Dinka are currently poised to go
to war against each other; the Dinka are the largest tribe in southern
Sudan, and the Nuer, the second largest. They are neighbors and cousins,
sharing many customs and beliefs. History has shown that peace in the
south is impossible if these two tribes are fighting each other.
The way that inter-Nuer and Nuer-Dinka war have been conducted recently
is in violation of both traditional Nuer and Dinka practices of war and
international humanitarian law, namely: burning homes, villages,
community structures, and grain, and killing women and children. These
types of abuses have been the proximate cause of several famines in
recent years. One example was the famine that hit the East Bank of the
Nile in 1993, where tens of thousands died in the “Hunger Triangle”
(formed by Adok, Waat, and Kongor, villages straddling the Nuer/Dinka
divide). This crisis was precipitated by Nuer/Dinka fighting (1991-93),
also in disregard of tribal and international rules of war, which grew
out of the 1991 split in the Sudan People´s Liberation Army (SPLA) led
by Riek Machar.
The fighting in 2001 is not traditional tribal conflict, because many
other actors with their own agendas have inserted themselves. In
addition to the government army, the other organized military players
sharing the blame for this looming disaster are the government-backed
Nuer militias, particularly the militias of Gordon Kong Chuol and Simon
Gatwich; the Sudan People´s Democratic Front/Defense Forces (SPDF) of
Nuer leader Riek Machar; and the SPLA. In Eastern Upper Nile, the Nuer
government militias and Sudan army are fighting against Riek Machar SPDF
(Nuer) forces and the SPLA. Militia Cmdr. Gordon Kong of Nasir is active
in trying to drive out these forces from areas adjacent to oilfields
that are in development. In the process many civilians have been killed
and forcibly displaced. His militia has even placed landmines in the
compounds of relief organizations.
In Central Upper Nile, other SPLA (Nuer) forces have fought the SPDF (Nuer),
with the result that government forces have captured towns not in
government control for more than a decade. Cmdr. Simon Gatwich, another
Nuer pro-government militia leader, joined the fighting, and reportedly
threatened to lead a Nuer retaliatory attack on the Dinka.
Riek Machar, formerly military and political leader of the rebel Nuer,
has compounded these Nuer divisions. He started out as a rebel, split
from the SPLA (and began cooperating with the Khartoum government) in
1991, and in 1996 reached a formal agreement with Khartoum. In 2000 he
resigned from the government and formed another rebel faction, the SPDF.
However, he made so many enemies that it now appears that the Nuer
government militias and other Nuer joined informally with the SPLA to
put an end to Riek Machar´s career. The Riek Machar SPDF forces
initially received some SPLA military supplies, but when those dried up
in mid-2000, they turned back to the government, their supplier of last
resort. In recent months, SPDF forces are accused of carrying out
scorched earth campaigns in the Nuer villages of Nhialdu and Mankien
(the base of rival SPLA Nuer forces under Cmdr. Peter Gatdet).
The situation was further exacerbated by the SPLA´s entry into the fray,
which threatens to broaden the conflict into a Nuer/Dinka clash. Nuer
commander Peter Gatdet defected from a government militia in 1999 and
joined the SPLA. His followers, the Bul Nuer and others, are
strategically situated on the edge of the oilfields currently under
development by international oil companies in Western Upper Nile. While
Cmdr. Peter Gatdet in 1999-2000 attacked these targets – where civilian
population is thin due to prior forced displacement by the government –
in 2001 the Peter Gatdet SPLA forces ranged far from the oilfields.
Apparently with SPLA logistical support from Rumbek and possibly with
Dinka SPLA soldiers, the Gatdet SPLA forces attacked heavily-populated
Nuer territory more than one hundred miles to the south of the oilfields
– a considerable distance in view of the lack of roads and surfeit of
flooding and swamps. There, in Pabuong and Nyal, the Peter Gatdet (Nuer)
SPLA fought against Riek Machar´s SPDF troops and burned out the
civilian population, forcing them to flee. Members of Peter Gatdet´s
forces suggest this was in retaliation for similar raids earlier this
year on Peter Gatdet´s home turf by SPDF Cmdr. Peter Paar.
The immediate danger of SPLA (Nuer) versus Riek Machar/SPDF (Nuer)
fighting is that many Nuer see the SPLA as a Dinka army and consider
this SPLA advance into Nyal a Dinka advance into Nuer territory. Now
Nuer talk of taking “revenge” on the Dinka and attacking Dinka villages.
This imperils not only Dinka civilians who have moved back to their
border villages on the West Bank of the Nile, trusting in Wunlit. It
also exposes to danger of retaliation the tens of thousands of Nuer
internally displaced persons who took refuge in Dinka areas, likewise
trusting in Wunlit. These displaced Nuer were expelled from their homes
by the Khartoum government in 1999-2000 to erect a cordon sanitaire for
the oil companies.
Another complicating factor is the presence of international relief. The
SPLA (Nuer) see their attacks on the Riek Machar forces as a type of
“getting even” for the fact that the SPLA (Nuer) have been starved and
denied their “fair share” of international aid by the Riek Machar
faction. There is no doubt that the SPLA (Nuer) area has not been
receiving as much aid as other areas; there are many reasons for that.
One reason is that the international aid community has not been diligent
enough in the past year and a half in addressing this situation.
Judicious attention to this real or perceived grievance could play a
large role in smoothing the waters. In 1991, the perceived lack of
fairness in distribution of relief among Dinka and Nuer led, in part, to
a devastating series of raids by Nuer into Dinka Bor County, known as
the “Bor Massacre,” where an estimated 2,000 Dinka civilians were
killed.
If nothing else, the above article reveals just how much of a disservice
you do in portraying what is going on in Sudan in terms of a simple
Arab-Black dichotomy.
Again, part of our challenge to you, is that you do not associate the
SPLA with the very same practices that you claim to abhor and which they
are associated with, even though the sources of information that you
trust support that conclusion.
Your emphasis on what you call the “Al Dien massacre” notwithstanding,
you don’t prove that the Islamic Sudanese government is the source or
origin of slavery practices. You can’t prove such because the practice
predates not only the Islamic government but the existence of Sudan, as
we know it. You write, “Evidence of slavery emerged from following the
investigation of the Al Dein massacre”. This is a lie. All of the
evidence of slavery as you define it was available well before Al Dien.
Again, tribes were perpetuators of the practice long before the arrival
of Saddiq Al-Mahdi. Why can’t you be balanced in your view of the
origination and evolution of slavery practices? Have you invested so
much in bringing down the Islamic government(s) of Sudan to the point
where you cannot even review history properly? The practice of
abductions and slavery in both the north and south precedes the “Al Dien
massacre” by centuries. Some say it goes back 500 years. Do you expect
us and the viewers of BlackElectorate.com and The Black
World Today to believe that slavery began in 1986 or 1987?
Please, the viewers of BlackElectorate.com and The Black World Today
would not even be in America if slavery had not been in existence in
Africa before 1986, 1987. Of course, while they were not the chief
architects and executors of the plan, or even fully aware of what they
were sending us into, Africans, of various tribes, did indeed sell us
into slavery. Our presence in the Disapora is the most visible proof
that abductions were taking place among Black tribes in Africa. Of
course, we know that Arabs were involved in our enslavement as well. Be
balanced.
Returning to another problem that we have with your writing, you seem to
have no problem whatsoever with the relationship between the SPLA and
CSI. Unfortunately, you even consider CSI to be your friend. How
mistaken you are and will be proven to be. Because you apologize for the
SPLA and think that the CSI is the friend of the Southern Sudanese, you
ignore the very real and serious questions regarding the relationship
between CSI and the SPLA as well as the views of those who have been
troubled by the manner in which the SPLA and CSI organize and coordinate
the so-called “slave” redemptions which are flashed on TV all over the
West. The SPLA is being used as a pawn in CSI’s war against Islam which
they do not hide. You can’t seem to realize or admit that.
We suggest that you re-read the ESPAC letter regarding this issue
available in our editorial “Asking The Right Questions And Thinking
Critically About Slavery In The Sudan” as well as the report of Richard
Miniter who actually went to Sudan to observe the slave redemption
process. Mr. Miniter’s writing raises very serious questions about the
entire process as well as the suspicious relationship between the SPLA,
CSI and the anti-slavery coalition. We will provide a link to the
article at the end of this writing for your review.
You apologize for the SPLA and don’t mind their close association
with the United States Military Industrial Complex.
In your written communication, you offer a very weak apology for the
SPLA, by briefly admitting that the SPLA has committed “some mistakes”,
but you ignore what we have already offered as evidence that they are
involved in abductions and “slavery” according to your own definition.
In On Slavery In The Sudan we wrote:
The entire debate over what is happening in Sudan is filled with one
of the deepest mixtures of half-truths, misinformation and religious
bias to be found anywhere. This is particularly true in the United
States where the discussion usually boils down to whether or not slavery
exists in the Sudan. The simple answer to that question is yes.
"Slavery" as defined by White conservatives and Christian
fundamentalists in the West and increasingly by a growing number of
Black civil rights activists does exist in the Sudan and it has for some
time. The question is why are these interested parties only recently
interested in "slavery" in the Sudan, and maybe more importantly, why
are they ignoring the practices when they have and continue to take
place among the non-Muslim opposition group, the Sudan People's
Liberation Movement/Army led by John Garang?
There is no denying it. If one accepts the working definition of
"slavery" as defined by Human Rights Watch/Africa then the Sudan
people's Liberation Movement/Army is without question tied to the
practice of slavery and has been since the early 1980s, well before the
latest coalition of White conservatives, Christian fundamentalists and
Black civil rights leaders who oppose "slavery" in the Sudan was formed
and showed a united front against the issue.
But "slavery" then and "slavery" now was not the exclusive domain of any
particular religious group or region.
The West itself provides the evidence that destroys the myth that
"slavery" in the Sudan is a practice whereby Muslims in the north
enslave Blacks in the south. According to the US State Department's
"Country Reports on Human Rights Practices" published in 1990, " the
SPLA/M often forced southern men to work as laborers or porters or
forcibly conscripted them into SPLA ranks. In disputed territories this
practice was implemented through raids". In the State Department's 1991
report the SPLA/M is connected with having "forcibly conscripted at
least 10,000 male minors". And in 1994 Human Rights Watch/Africa
documented the SPLA's documented "forced unpaid farm labor on SPLA-organized
farms".
To this date, according to the US State Department and human rights
advocates, the SPLA has forcibly taken thousands of women and children
from areas in Southern Sudan and held them as hostage, forced them to
perform labor and/or join their military force.
What from the above do you feel bold enough to deny? How is that a lack
of evidence? It is from the same sources of information that you trust.
Have you read the 1991 State Department report regarding the SPLA?
Have you read Human Rights Watch/Africa’s report and that of Amnetsy
International regarding the SPLA? Now, please don’t claim that these
are invalid sources because in your communication on The Black World
Today you wrote that Amnesty International, UNICEF and reports by UN
Envoys, SHRO and uncountable number of organizations were valid sources
of information regarding slavery, when it was practiced by the Sudanese
government. Are they no longer valid when they indict the SPLA on
chargers of abductions, forced conscriptions and the use of child
soldiers? Are you prepared to apologize for their recent refusal to
release 7,000 child soldiers from armed duty. Children as young as 8
years old? They are being made to stay in the army and fight. Is that
not a form of slavery? Keep in mind, they are forcing Black children to
do this. Yet you have nothing to say about it other than the
pathetically weak, “It is true, the SPLA committed some mistakes”. Is
that the best you can do? Well, as an example, from the sources you
trust we found the following:
From a January 8, 1998 commentary from Amnesty International:
The Sudan People's Liberation Army (SPLA) has also been responsible
for abuses against the civilian population, including arbitrary
killings, the looting of villages and the diverting of humanitarian aid
intended for famine victims.
The Sudanese government has taken no action against those responsible
for human rights violations and continues to claim that large-scale
civilian deaths in southern Sudan are the result of inter-ethnic
fighting over which it has no control. The SPLA has also turned a blind
eye to abuses committed by its own forces.
This is from the 2001 Amnesty International Report:
Children continued to be forcibly recruited by the SPLA, despite the
fact that the SPLA had informed UNICEF that it would demobilize all
child soldiers in its forces and end the recruitment of children.
You denied our assertion that according to the definition of slavery
provided by the various human rights organizations, the SPLA was guilty
of “slavery” practices. You were incredulous to our charge. You acted as
if it was unimaginable. You seemed offended. But we have to ask you what
does “forcibly recruited” mean to you. These are Black children being
taken from their tribes in the South being forced to fight by the Black
SPLA, against their will. If that is not slavery what is? Is it because
“Arabs” aren’t involved that you can’t recognize it?
Your weak slap on the wrist of the SPLA for committing “some” mistakes
is pathetic.
If you defer to Amnesty International or accept their analysis, why
don’t your written communications include the above charges made by
Amnesty International against the SPLA? You are the worst type of
apologist although you place that label on others.
Here is what the 2001 Human Rights Watch Report had to say about your
beloved SPLA:
As for the Sudan People's Liberation Movement/Army (SPLM/A), the
principal armed movement of the south and of all Sudan, its forces
continued to loot food (including relief provisions) from the
population, sometimes with civilian casualties, recruit child soldiers,
and commit rape.
… Despite church peacemaking efforts between the Didinga of Chukudum in
Eastern Equatoria, and the Bor Dinka who dominated the SPLA garrison in
Chukudum, hostilities continued. Sometime after the August 1999
cease-fire, the SPLA assigned commanders of local origin to the
garrison, but the local population remained reluctant to return to their
homes and fields because of the landmines that the SPLA promised to
remove but did not.
Even though SPLA leaders promised to stop their troops' looting, the
confiscation of relief food from civilians by SPLA soldiers and officers
continued. In March 2000, an SPLA commander in Bahr El Ghazal took the
entire contents of a relief warehouse, valued at $500,000, according to
an investigation carried out by the SPLA's relief arm and international
relief agencies. Several looting incidents, at or after relief food
distributions, occurred in Eastern Equatoria. When angry civilians on
one occasion tried to prevent the SPLA from taking the food, the
soldiers fired into the crowd, killing several.
In 2000, negotiations on a memorandum of understanding (MoU) between the
SPLA's Sudan Relief and Rehabilitation Association (SRRA) and the
nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) operating in SPLA territory-in
which the SPLA sought to impose new demands and operating conditions on
relief organizations-foundered. Some eleven of forty NGOs operating in
SPLA territory refused to sign for fear of compromising their neutrality
and safety. They had to withdraw from that territory by the SPLA
deadline of March 1, 2000. The SRRA's executive director claimed he did
not care if 50,000 or 100,000 southerners died as a result of the NGO
pullout. In later months, several nonsignatories signed the MoU or
restarted operations in SPLA territory. Some NGOs did not return.
Meanwhile the E.U. withheld funding from NGOs who signed the MoU.
Visitors to rebel areas continued to see armed youth who looked younger
than eighteen. Cooperation with UNICEF's program for demobilization of
child soldiers was uneven. One SPLA commander remobilized several
hundred boys when UNICEF failed to provide promised school books and
other supplies for the boys.
Now remember, the above was written by Human Rights Watch Africa, not
Khartoum, not the Nation Of Islam, not BlackElectorate.com.
How are you going to handle that? Are you going to avoid it, ignore it,
lie about it or deal with it? Again, it is from a source that you trust
as reliable, when they are criticizing the Sudanese government. Is their
critique suddenly invalid when applied to the SPLA? By the way, if Human
Rights Watch/Africa is correct, then don’t you think this sounds like
the SPLA has done more that commit “some mistakes” as you put it?
Here is what the U.S. Department of State said about the SPLA in its
2000 report on Sudan human rights violations:
Insurgent groups continued to commit numerous, serious abuses. The
SPLM/SPLA continued to violate citizens' rights, despite its claim that
it was implementing a 1994 decision to assert civil authority in areas
that it controls, and in many cases, has controlled for many years. The
SPLM/SPLA was responsible for extrajudicial killings, beatings, rape,
arbitrary detention, and forced conscription. SPLM/SPLA officials were
guilty of, or complicit in, theft of property of nongovernmental
organizations (NGO's) and U.N. agencies operating in the south.
Again, we ask you what does “arbitrary detention” and “forced
conscription” mean to you? If these charges were levied by the U.S.
State Department against the Sudanese government you would be calling it
proof of the existence of “slavery”. By the way we think that it is very
interesting that even the U.S. government which supports the SPLA, can
be more open than you can about the transgressions of the SPLA.
Here is what the UN which you say provides evidence of what is going on
the Sudan, had to say about the SPLA:
The long and continuing war in the south of the country had affected
all aspects of the lives of Sudanese citizens, with the most impact on
children. Great efforts were being made by the Government, UNICEF, and
international and national NGOs to alleviate the sufferings of children
in war zones. The Tutuchan Trauma Centre had been established in Juba in
1993 to rehabilitate war-affected children. The rebel groups SPLA/SPLM
had closed down 1,077 primary and secondary schools in the south. They
were conscripting school children and minors and using them as child
soldiers in the front lines. As recorded by human-rights organizations,
some 76,000 minors were being kept in rebel controlled areas.
Unfortunately, despite several resolutions by the Commission, only 2,500
youngsters had been retrieved and reunited with their families.
Certainly, if you are as concerned about the Southern Sudanese as you
say you are you would openly and publicly denounce what the UN says is
going on in Sudan with the SPLA. Again, to be repetitive we have to ask
you what is “conscripting school children”, as the UN puts it?
Here is more of what you downplay as “some mistakes” committed by the
SPLA. This is from a 1998 Human Rights Watch Report:
The SPLA says the few SPLA soldiers caught taking food aid from
civilians have been tried by court martial. It claimed, AWe have our own
resources and have our own needs. We are selling our own resources to
feed our soldiers.@223 While the SPLA has access to valuable timberland
around Yei near the Ugandan border, it is not clear what resources, if
any, it has hundreds of kilometers north in Bahr El Ghazal. Kerubino
denied that any SPLA soldiers were taking food meant for civilians. He
said the problem was that there was not enough food reaching the
famine-stricken region.224
Despite SPLA claims to the contrary, many displaced in rural Bahr El
Ghazal complained to relief workers that the SPLA was taking relief food
from them. One complained in April that there was no food in Mapel, and
whatever little came in had to be Ashared@ with the SPLA soldiers.225 A
fifty-year-old man who fled to Wau in search of food complained that
after the Arab raiders stole all his cattle, the little he had to eat
was Astolen by everyone, including the rebel soldiers.@226 A chief
complained, AOur homes have been looted. . . . (The SPLA) took
everything away.@227 At the same time, some displaced entering Wau said
that the SPLA tried to prevent men from leaving some areas, going so far
as to shoot them.228
Estimates of the amount of food diverted by the SPLA in Bahr El Ghazal
in 1998 started at 10 percent and ranged up to a high of 65 percent made
by Bishop (now Archbishop) Cesar Mazzolari of the Diocese of Rumbek (Buheirat
or Lakes state).229 Aid workers said that in some areas where the SPLA
did not have widespread support, it demanded 10 to 20 percent of the
food given to needy families.230 The press began to pick up these
complaints.
So that you won’t be so tempted to lie on us again, I must repeat that
this information does not come from BlackElectorate.com, the Nation Of
Islam or Minister Farrakhan. It comes from the source that you value and
trust, Human Rights Watch. If you have a problem with the information,
take it up with them. We just ask why, in all of the thousands of words
you have wasted slandering me and others, have you had NOTHING to say
about the SPLA’s notorious penchant for stealing relief food directly
from and intended for Black civilian Southern Sudanese?
It was interesting to see that you had absolutely nothing to say about
the $3 million that the SPLA is set to receive from the United States
government in support. And you had absolutely no response to what we
exposed of how the U.S. government is sending in Dyncorp to help the
SPLA. We hope that you are not foolish enough to consider Dyncorp your
friend as you consider CSI. But evidently you may. Well, you can’t say
you weren’t warned as we sent you our editorial, “The Military
Industrial Complex Comes To The Columbia And the Sudan.” If the SPLA
and you are true freedom fighters, as you claim, there is no way that
you could stand shoulder to shoulder with Dyncorp. Your support of
the SPLA in that regard is lamentable and a sign that you are oblivious
as to how your hatred of the Khartoum government is being used by the
United States and England. You now have been given Dyncorp, a group of
private mercenaries as your companion (The Holy Qur’an speaks of this
type of arrangement). We predict that you will regret making such a
partnership or accepting such.
Your support of the SPLA has placed you in perfect harmony with the
United States and England. You want an independent Southern Sudan that
will be separate. England has long sought that. The U.S. wants that too,
so that its oil companies, which are currently prevented from doing such
due to the sanctions placed on the Sudan, can reenter the Sudan. You
rail against the Canadians, Malaysians and Chinese oil firms there now,
but the SPLA has already discussed allowing American firms to take their
place, if the Sudan is divided in two as you desire. If you believe that
the United States is backing the SPLA because it sees them as “freedom
fighters” you are absolutely out of your mind. We suggest that you
examine the history of the Contras in Nicaragua, the Bay of Pigs in Cuba
and the Afghan rebels in the old Soviet Union to see how the United
States assists those who are so-called “freedom fighters”. Your hatred
is blinding you to the fact that the United States is preparing to use
you and discard you once it gets to the oil that it so badly wants out
of the Sudan. If you are true freedom fighters of the Sudanese people
then publicly denounce the SPLA’s relationship with the Dyncorp as well
as any financial support offered by the United States. Do you have the
courage to do so? If you have nothing to say about the matter in future
writings then we are justified in thinking that you are in agreement
with Dyncorp, and the U.S. Government’s arrangement with the SPLA and
that you are comfortable with the designs that the United States and
Britain have for Sudan.
You do not speak for all Southern Sudanese or even a majority of
them.
Unlike you, we bifurcate the policies and actions of the SPLA from that
of the people of Southern Sudan. We are not so arrogant or naïve to
think that this one group which so often finds itself isolated as an
obstacle to the efforts to make peace in the Sudan is the true voice of
the Sudanese people, who live in the South. Again, you attempt to
position the SPLA as “freedom fighters” and liberators because you are
banking on the belief that Blacks in America will believe you simply
because you claim to be from the Sudan and therefore, should know
better. But a simple review of the SPLA reveals that they and their
leader John Garang have been one of the greatest hindrances to the
formulation of a lasting peace in Sudan. How you can style them in the
manner that you do is beyond us, in a sense. But in another sense we
know exactly why you view them in the manner in which you do. You
embrace the SPLA as you do because your sole interest is the downfall of
the Khartoum regime and not the creation of a better reality. You are so
narrow-minded in your view that you really don’t want peace with the
Khartoum regime. You want the complete rupture of the Sudan in half and
you don’t care if that places you on the same side as the United States
and England. Your emotional reaction has caused you to misperceive and
has made you judge the events in the Sudan rather selfishly. You aren’t
able to realize that your assist to the United States and England works
against not just against the Sudan but against the best interests of
Africa. Or, maybe you don’t care because your hatred of the Sudanese
government must be fed, one way or another.
One of the signs that you are going off the deep end is the title you
appropriate and use to sign your written communication to us. You write
“Signed on behalf of 'Victims of Sudan oppressive, genocidal and
enslavement policies/ New Sudan”. That is interesting because your view
does not reflect the wishes or the thinking of the Southern Sudanese
that we are familiar with. You take great liberties to think that you
represent the opinion/view of those in the South of Sudan. We do concede
that you do a very good job of representing the view(s) of the SPLA. But
as we stated earlier we don’t see the SPLA and the Southern Sudanese as
one in the same. Just like we do not see the ADL and American Jews as
one in the same. You really should study the ADL (Anti-Defamation
League). You share their spirit in more than one way. As a result of
your attitude toward the Khartoum government, you are unable to be a
party to the process of ending the war. But more importantly, you are
unable to produce a solution to the real problems that plague the Sudan,
even those in the South that you claim to speak for. That is a natural
result of your lack of clear thinking on the matter. Your fallacious
reasoning and selective review of the facts causes you to come up with
ideas that are dangerous, impractical, ineffective and
counterproductive. We wrote about this in “Asking The Right Questions
and Thinking Critically About The Sudan. We quoted from the writing
of Minister Jabril Muhammad in his book, This Is The One. If you
can, take the time to review what he has written about the research and
thinking process and its impact on making decisions and solving problems
and compare it to how you have handled this volatile issue:
Here is what he wrote:
"The aim and purpose of the research process is to uncover truths
by the means of the principles of scientific investigation. The first
step involves the determination of what questions can or should be
answered. Now the steps of the research process are of such nature that
they merge one into the other. The interrelatedness of the steps in any
effort of research are such that the nature of the first step greatly
fixes the nature of the last step. Errors or mistakes in the beginning
steps of investigation may produce problems which result in the
prevention of the successful conclusion of the research effort. Worse,
conclusions rooted in errors fallacies, etc., can end in death and
destruction, when they are applied to such serious problems as the
"race" issue. The more important the issue the greater the care that
must be exercised, from the formulation of the theme to be studied, to
the collection of data, to the final presentation and use made of the
conclusions. This does not mean that care need not be used in small
matters.
It is well known among scholars and students that the seeker of truth
must maintain thoughtful attention between his studies, and their
relation to the accessible knowledge that there is, and to the emerging
views and even to possibilities. Researchers also know that the
applications of the results must be anticipated from the start of a
study, if the research is intended to resolve an immediate and practical
problem.
What the investigator determines that can or can't be measured or
weighed will influence what elements he selects or omits as he forms his
approach to the problems he faces. This in turn greatly influences the
type of evidence seen as relevant to the answer the researcher seeks.
After the data has been gathered and the research design or pattern has
been fixed, several irreversible decisions are built in, which
substantially determines the type of analysis and interpretation of the
findings.
This brings us to the fact that an overemphasis of certain factors, or
omitted information, can result in the total failure of the seekers of
truth to realize their objective. The omission of relevant facts must
result in the same thing as deliberate discarding of facts - something
less than the truth or no truth at all. It goes almost without saying
that the purpose with which one approaches the subject, influences the
selection and use of material in any research project.
… Fallacies in our thinking make our conclusions wrong. When we try to
walk in the false light cast by incorrectness in our thinking, our line
of reasoning, our beliefs, we can get ourselves into big trouble.
Fallacies are dangerous. Why? Because they often appear as truth. They
may seem reasonable when they are senseless. They frequently look right
when they are wrong. They resemble sound thinking but are really
unsound. Sometimes a speaker makes a point in such a way that one may be
led to think he has supported his point with evidence, when he has not.
Sometimes he will give a few examples, and from that speak of other
things as though the few are typical of the rest. Sometimes he will make
comparisons between things of which there are critical differences.
Giving the impression that a minor relation between two things is bigger
than it really is, and that this caused that, when it hasn't, are two
often used fallacies. Taking what seems to be the sign of one thing to
be the sign of something different is another instance of a fallacy.
Another example involves being vague or using a word in a vital area
that hides the true meaning. Using loaded language - emotional language
- to establish a point for which the speaker has no proof, is another
fallacious device. Name calling is an example of this. Some speakers
simply avoid facts that have a direct bearing on a subject. On the other
hand, he may bring in things that have no bearing on the issue. The
reader may have seen speakers - especially preachers - repeat a thing
over and over to try to win his point. But repetition is not proof of
truth. Sheer noise is used by some. Personal attacks rather than attacks
on what the other has to say, is still another device. Agreeing with
another's conclusion while denying the base of that conclusion, even
though it necessarily flows from the premise put forth by the other, is
a fallacy. Playing on the imagination and feeling of the listeners by
appealing to what may be popular is fallacious. Or, he may knock down an
argument that the other has not put forth. Or, again, he may ask the
other a loaded question: Have you stopped stealing yet? Have you stopped
beating your wife?
We've seen speakers in debates take advantage of the fact that an
audience, or most in the audience, may not have enough knowledge to see
that one speaker may be taking advantage of the other, because of the
lack of knowledge on the part of the audience on that subject. One man
may say such and such can not be true because, "We have never heard of
that before." For instance, uninformed people at one time said that the
telephone was impractical because "we all know you can't talk over
wires." Another example that used to cause those in the know a hard time
was that knowledge of the atom was not widespread. So when talk of
cracking the atom came up, people who were not in the know said, "Of
course you can't crack an atom; how can you possibly crack something
that you can't see?"
It is hard enough when the audience, or most of it, are not in the know
on a subject. One of the speakers may have a hard time, though he may be
very much in the know. This means he will have to work harder than the
other. But when the other is also not in the know, then, we really have
a problem.
In our opinion all of the above applies to the manner in which you have
handled this issue and our written communications – from the selective
nature of your research/perspective to the loaded language and manner of
argumentation that you have used in your effort to sway an otherwise
unsuspecting audience.
You think that you can get away with positioning yourself as the
spokesperson for the Southern Sudanese and you do so in a manner that
links you closely with the SPLA. But that is not true. You are not the
definitive voice of the people of Southern Sudan. There are other
Southern Sudanese, on the continent and in Africa who do not share your
view at all. To punctuate our point we include below a May 31, 2001
release from the South Sudan Relief Agency (SSRA). They don’t share your
view at all. We wonder why. Here is what they wrote:
SOURCE: South Sudan Relief Agency
The South Sudan Relief Agency (SSRA) Represents the South Sudan
Defense Forces (SSDF) May 31
South Sudan Relief Agency today announced the following: As is clear to
everyone who has been following the events in the Sudan, the people of
Southern Sudan went to war for a good cause -- the cause of justice and
self-determination.
The April 1997 Khartoum Peace Agreement stated very clearly that the
South shall have the right of self-determination and that there should
be freedom of religion, and it was signed by representatives of the
government and all the warring factions and tribes including SPLA/NDA
leader John Garang's own tribe of Dinka. On this basis, we and all of
the other factions and groups in Sudan (except John Garang) are willing
to make peace with the government in Khartoum. The willingness of the
government to make peace with the Southern Sudanese has been proven
recently by the formation of a new administration in the South under the
leadership of Brig. Gatluak Deng and with a cabinet that includes all
the Southern tribes. It has never been an objective to prolong this war,
nor even to overthrow the government in Khartoum, but only to have
self-determination in Southern Sudan.
We did not go to war for hatred of the Islam and the Moslem people nor
the hatred of the Arabs of the Sudan.
We did not go to war for religion, or slaves or cattle.
We did not go to war for power, or money, or because of the discovery of
oil.
We went to war because of our identity, injustice and to be able to live
in our land peacefully.
We consider it, therefore, a very great mistake for people, especially
outsiders, to attempt to mix up papers and forget the real cause of the
war; or to ignore the reasons that it continues now.
People should understand that tribal raids existed in the Sudan for many
years, especially in the South between The Nuer, Dinka and Dinka, Murle
and in Bahar El-Gazal some tribes lost their identity because of the
practice. Slave traders have raided into Sudan from Egypt and the North
since the time of the Pharaohs. Dinka and the Murahaleen live together
since the Arab tribes migrated to Sudan some five hundred years ago, and
since then, tribal raids have existed. Only a comprehensive peace,
justice and prosperity will permit the tribal raiding to be stopped.
The Operation Lifeline Sudan has stopped sending food to the whole Upper
Nile. Schools and health clinics are built in the areas of the SPLA
while other areas are ignored and are suffering. International aid
should not be used as a weapon or to discriminate against regions and
groups. We applaud the Bush administration's decision to more equitably
distribute food aid, even into Northern Sudan and areas around Khartoum.
The people of Southern Sudan are ready for peace now, but it has become
clear that John Garang is not ready for peace: he rejects the Khartoum
Peace Agreement signed by everyone else and offers nothing in its place
except his dreams of personal wealth and power.
We will make peace with the government in Khartoum regardless of their
ideology as long as they are willing to guarantee our right of self-
determination. The people of South Sudan have no interest to change the
government in Khartoum.
We will make peace with the government in Khartoum because of their
willingness and seriousness to achieve peace and to end the war.
Riek P. Riek
SSRA -- Washington D.C. – USA
SOURCE: South Sudan Relief Agency
I will conclude by demonstrating how unreasonable you have become. I
have quietly received several threats from your group via e-mail. I do
not worry about such because Allah is my Protector and you can only harm
me if He permits it. But I am interested in your threats because it
reveals the irrational approach that you have taken toward our writings
on Sudan. To use your own words to demonstrate my point I would like to
address an e-mail that I have received.
Here is an excerpt of an e-mail that I received from “Everett Minga” on
7/13/2001 at 9:57:27 AM:
Below is some evidence of slavery and declaration of Jihad against
African Sudanese both Muslims and Christians alike. Let it be clear to
you that Southern Sudanese can and will fight any one who stands in our
way by any means necessary. To us, you Mr. Cedric and the
Khartoum regime is responsible for the death of over 4 million of our
people from 1956- to the present day. To us, you are now our enemy and
we will treat you as such until you come forward and apologize to our
people
How am I responsible for the death of over 4 million people? Look at how
ridiculous you sound; how irrational you look; how unreasonable you
appear; how irresponsible you are. You have slandered me. You have told
a lie. Please prove that I am responsible for the deaths of over 4
million people. There is no way that you can, but I am open to listen to
your argument. You say that I am now your enemy and that you will fight
anyone who stands in your way by any means necessary. It is
Everett Minga who has put that phrase in bold print. What does this
mean? Does this mean that if you can’t defeat me in argument that you
will then turn to physical violence? Are you going to roll up on me one
day and shoot me? Please, you have to do better than that, Mr. Minga,
and those who are with you. You may have been able to frighten us with
that type of threat years ago but some of us are losing that today. You
will have to come better, with more intelligence than that. You are not
thinking clearly about this. It is obvious.
It is interesting that a person who was not even born in 1956 is being
held responsible for the deaths of 4 million people in the Sudan. This
is even more peculiar considering that I am from the group that was sold
into slavery from Africa. It is obvious that you do not yet recognize me
or our viewers as your Brothers and Sisters or as a victims of the
genocide of African people. The manner in which you write reveals that
you think that the Sudanese civil war is the beginning of the suffering
of Black people on the continent. Your pain and emotional reaction has
caused you to judge selfishly. It is even more interesting that you do
not even mention the role of the United States, England, France,
Germany, Belgium and the Dutch in the destabilization of Africa and the
Sudan. That in and of itself is a strong indication that you share a
great measure of the mind and spirit of our slavemasters and colonizers.
Your e-mails are revealing. You do a disservice to the group you claim
to represent. Can’t you see how cloudy your perception has become?
Your perception of reality is so bent that you now number me, Cedric
Muhammad, as your enemy. At the same time, you consider The United
States Government, Dyncorp, and Christian Solidarity International(CSI)
to be your friends. With friends like that you don't even need me
as an enemy.
Since you do seem to be familiar with the Holy Qur’an and at least act
like you respect it, I ask that you turn your attention to the 16th
Surah and the 125th verse of that book which reads,
“Call to the way of thy Lord with wisdom and goodly exhortation, and
argue with them in the best manner. Surely thy Lord knows best him who
strays from His path, and He knows best those who go aright.”
Mr. Everett Minga, and your group, where is the wisdom and goodly
exhortation in your communication and e-mail(s) sent to me, like the one
that I have quoted above? Where is the best of arguments from you? Do
you know how to argue in the best manner? Look at how your presentation
has degenerated to the level of veiled and not-so veiled threats. If I
am as wayward as you claim that I am, where is the compassion for my
ignorant state? If you know more and are correct shouldn’t you
demonstrate compassion and raise me in consciousness?
Instead, you and your group attempt an approach that reflects the base
level that you have fallen to as a result of your uncontrollable rage.
You are so out of control of yourselves that you now have placed the
deaths of 4 million people on my shoulders. It would be hilarious if it
weren’t so sad. It would be humorous if it weren’t a sign of spiritual
and emotional disease on your part. You are sick, indeed.
Your recklessness and emotional response play right into the hands of
our mutual enemies. Now, suppose that our mutual enemy wanted to do me
harm, physically. Your reckless e-mails circulating around the Internet
now provides the cover story for my injury or death to be orchestrated
by our mutual enemy and then have such blamed on you, Mr. Minga or your
entire group. Do you see how blinded you have become? You are vulnerable
to be used as a tool by our mutual enemy. And in a way that harms us
both.
You are reckless and you are out of control of your ownselves. Just look
at how you attempt to make myself, Minister Farrakhan, and the Nation Of
Islam accept the responsibility for what is happening in the Sudan. How
are we a part of any of your grievances against Khartoum, which you say
began in 1956? Just think over how fallacious your argument is. Anyone
who is swayed by such an argument would have to be insane, ignorant, or
thoroughly filled with the spirit of envy toward myself, Minister
Farrakhan or the Nation Of Islam. Your effort is wickedly motivated. You
are filled with the spirit of our former slavemasters, in what you are
doing, which shows that you are not yet free of what was done to us over
400 years ago in Africa. Your hatred has caused you to act inequitably
to all of us. It is you who owe us an apology, although I do not ask for
one nor do I expect to receive one. Nevertheless, you are a slanderer of
human beings who are absolutely innocent of what you charge. As a
result, it is you that may receive the punishment that you wish for us.
That is a law of nature, well beyond you or I. The heavens and the earth
actually cry out for justice when an innocent man is accused of that
which he did not do. If I were you I would apologize for slandering the
Minister, the Nation and myself.
The manner in which you have conducted yourselves throughout the last
few weeks has been disgraceful. The manner in which you lie about a few
e-mail exchanges and attempt to craft them as a dialogue between the
Nation Of Islam and Southern Sudanese is dishonorable. The lie that you
tell in public about the existence of an “AMC-NOI” entity is outrageous.
The lie that you told that I am somehow the head of such an organization
is even more shameful. The lie that you tell that we are connected with
the Khartoum government is absolutely false and a figment of your
imagination. We can only wonder how you were able to get by the editors
of The Black World Today with such lies and misrepresentations.
Your ability to deceive and lie is startling.
If you can’t even accurately represent the nature of a very brief series
of e-mail exchanges between BlackElectorate.com and yourselves why
should we trust you with your account of events in the Sudan. If you
can’t do the small thing how can you perform the large? If you can’t
lift five pounds how can you lift fifty? Again, all of this points to
the perception of reality that you have developed as a result of your
attitude toward what is going on in the Sudan. You perception of
everything, even a simple e-mail correspondence, is being colored by
your feelings. You are actually being consumed by your rage.
To show you how much you are now given to lies, we ask one question: If
this was a dialogue between you and the Nation of Islam or you and
BlackElectorate.com where is the other side of the e-mails. Aren’t
dialogues two-sided? Since you mention me by name and refer to some of
what I have written in your e-mails why don’t you run my responses and
replies to you via e-mail? You did call this a dialogue didn’t you? So
where is my side of the dialogue? Where are my e-mails to you? And
finally, how did I sign my e-mails? If you were honest, which you are
not, you would state that everyone of my e-mails wished you best regards
and was signed by me as “Publisher, BlackElectorate.com”. The very fact
that you do not include any of my responses shows that you were up to no
good from the very beginning of our very brief discussions.
It also is a strong indication that you have a need to use the Nation Of
Islam in your effort(s). It also makes me wonder who and what forces may
be behind your “anonymous” group. Are you a front? Or perhaps, you are
not who you say you are at all. I guess we may never know as The
Black World Today does not mind accepting such anonymous
misrepresentations. We wonder does this policy apply to any and all who
may wish to get information published by The Black World Today,
or only if there is a specific target of such “anonymous”, unverified
communications.
Are you that desperate for attention and headlines that you will stoop
to such low levels? Instead of attacking people who are not even your
enemies why don’t you spend your energies on building a website to get
your message out in a dignified manner in which you are in total control
of the dissemination of your message. Perhaps then, you will not have to
slander and lie just to become famous and get a reputation. Perhaps
then, you will not have to threaten people in e-mail and over the
Internet who do not agree with you.
It appears that you always had in mind to establish a “phony” dialogue
that you could use to publish somewhere. Is this really about
“freedom-fighting” to you and the Sudanese people or is it just another
“hustle”?
I hope that you will perform a bit of introspection and carefully review
all that I have written to you and check and double check it for
accuracy. Do the same with your own writings. And then, perhaps, we can
reason with one another and work together for peace in the Sudan.
I do look forward to that day, if it is possible.
If it is not possible, so be it. There are numerous Brothers and Sisters
from the South of Sudan who do not share your worldview. We can work
with them, as it is abundantly clear that you are not their
representative. Indeed, it would be a shame if your poor, sloppy and
scandalous manner of representation was indicative of how our people in
the South of Sudan think and feel.
Fortunately, we know better. We believe the viewers of
BlackElectorate.com and The Black World Today do as well.
Below are an extensive set of links that were provided to us by the
“anonymous” group. In addition we include everything that
BlackElectorate.com has written on the subject as well as a few other
links. Our purpose in doing so is to provide the widest range of
opinions on this controversial subject to our viewers.
Links Recommended By The Anonymous Group:
Additional
Sudan-related Links
BlackElectorate.com’s
Sudan editorials/commentaries
(Cedric Muhammad is the Publisher of BlackElectorate.com,
a publication that focuses on the dynamics of Black culture,
economics and politics.)
|
