Recently in a genocide class, my teacher brought this up. For the final project, which can be done on basically anything, I have decided to write a paper about why this is so. I would like to get some other people's opinions on what comes to mind when I ask you, why? In Haiti, there is this horrible earthquake killing thousands of people. Is this bad? Of course it is. The news is just flooding with Haiti reports and what not. Any search engine you go onto, there is a spot in the corner to donate to Haiti relief organizations, not to mention the countless other websites that are available. Basically, most people(can't say everyone) knows about Haiti, and cares. In Darfur, for years there has been a genocide that has killed hundreds of thousands of natives and displaces roughly two million others. Yet, many people do not even know about this, and the people who do know have yet to do much of anything to help. Again, my question to you is why?
If US troops entered Darfur, there would probably be a political firestorm, especially in Washington. "Imperialism" would be on the tongues of many. I'm no fan of imperialism, but the US involvement in WWII is almost unanimously hailed as a good thing because the divide between right and wrong was so clear. Darfur isn't one of those clear cases because not everyone thinks invading is a good idea. If we invade Haiti with troops and aid then no one will call us invaders. Haiti is far too poor to pull itself out of this mess. This is a case of right and wrong being clear. If Haiti was ignored it would undoubtedly become a landfill, graveyard, and mark of absolute shame for the rest of the world, the US especially.
I understand that. I didn't say why are we helping haiti when we should be helping darfur, I am asking why do we not help both? Either way, how can you possibly say that right vs. wrong does not come in to play here? I think that when people are getting raped and killed everyday, and villages are being constantly burned down and looted, there is little area for why this is 'right'.
I answered those questions in my post. I'm not saying we shouldn't go to Darfur. To me it is a clear case. But surely you can imagine what arguments Congressmen would have debating whether to invade Darfur. To them it's not a clear case. To them, it's a "But we haven't won our other wars yet!" kind of thing. They'd argue that the US is more interested in invasions than in victories.
I honestly wish I knew. It just seems like nobody cares about genocide. How it is any 'less' than other horrible events, I don't know (I think it's one of the worse possible). But if you look at virtually every genocide, nobody has ever stepped in. During the Armenian genocide, virtually nobody came to the Armenians aid, except France, but they certainly didn't do enough when over a third of all Armenians were wiped out. During the Holocaust, nobody helped again. It's amazing to me how many people think that the United States (or really any government) actively fought the Nazis for the Jews. I mean, the Evian Conference basically established the fact that nobody cared, and we all know that information about concentration camps was well known long before anything was done to stop them. Rwanda...well we know what good those fucking 'peacekeepers' are. Nobody seems to care about genocide...it's sickening. I wish we knew why.
I wouldn't say that. The Armenian Genocide was and Darfur is well known. I don't think there are many Americans who haven't heard of Darfur, and the Armenian Genocide was well publicized during it's time.
I don't think most americans know about darfur. I also don't really think genocides are generally publicized, I mean a HUGE majority of people have no idea about the cambodian genocide.
Nobody cares about genocide? Think of the reality of stopping every genocide. The US or what ever country would have to invade fight off rebel armies, destroy tons of shit then be stuck the next 20 years nation building. You can't expect nations to police outside there borders. Yeah genocide is fucking horrible, but what do you want done? Logistically, obviously you want it stopped.
I completely agree. My best guess is that people like to hear new things. The media portrays what the people want to hear which is a new story, which gets people going. Although, I am not sure if there was ever a time where darfur was flooding the newspapers and tv with the atrocities.
Mark my words, in one month the media will cease all reporting about Haiti. They did the same thing with the Indonesian tsunami, and the earthquake in China a few years back.
Though there are more to it, the simple but cynical answer is; it do not concern us. When the Israelis and palestinians duke it out, it gets the attention of the entire western world. For two reasons, realists see Israel as an outpost of democracy, idealists see the palestinians as innocent oppressed. Both are true in one sense, and false in another. In either case we have vital interests in the region, and the conflict do suit well to various ideological and historical narratives we have lulled ourselves into after the fall of communism. Not so with, to be blunt, tinpot little african countries. We have no vital interests there, so conflicts there fall almost entirely off our radar. Yet, when you get down to it, the Israeli/palestinian conflict is a very minor one. The casualties per year reach maybe 3000 when particularly intensive. By all means 3000 too many, but compared to the hundreds of thousands a year in present and recent conflicts in Darfur, Rawanda, Burundi, Somalia and so on and so forth, there is no death-toll justification for the lack of coverage of those conflicts and the extreme coverage of the Israeli/palestinian conflict. The only focus on Somalia for example, is to protect shipping going through somali waters from piracy. That islamists in Somalia are performing an ongoing genocide, we just shrug at. We can't quite simply relate to those conflicts. On some level, we know they are there, we know it happens, but we just don't really care. To be extra, super duper cynical, a case can be made for us taking advantage of these conflicts. We do not care much who lands on top, but we do care about weapon exports in exchange for various natural resources excavated by slave labour from the various warring factions. Diamonds come to mind, gold, platinum and silver is also received in abundance as payment. A rotten deal for sure, but it do ensure very cheap access to such resources. And we deal with both sides, so it make no economic sense to stop the hostilities by intervention. That means a strong central government that may just demand fair prices according to world market prices... By we here, I do not just mean the west as in the US and EU. Also the other major powers, Russia, China, Arab states, India. Africa is much a free for all with only a few islands of relative stability. And to be perfectly honest, it is their own goddamned fault. For whatever reason, they have not shed backwards and often tribal culture in order to create viable modern societies. The recipe for modernization is not a secret one, but it do require a cohesive society where national interests take precedent over tribal.
We don't care about Haiti anymore than Sudan, it's just the flavor of the week. If anything we care about it less, Obama just has to take advantage of this political opportunity, he would be insane not to. Furthermore, the only reason you'll hear about places like Sudan and not a place like, say, the Congo, where millions more have died in their civil war, is because the Congo is not sitting on a sea of oil... like Sudan. You'll rarely see the media discussing, or congress passing, legislation for troubled nations that aren't resource rich, as they do for potentially lucrative areas like Darfur.
I think it's the contrast between conflict and natural disaster. Those who Haiti see it almost unanimously as a humanity uniting under a common goal for a common good, effecting changed after an indiscriminate tragedy. The only different between that outlook and the situation in Sudan is that it is taking a stance on a conflict, and you are suddenly in opposition to another group of humans. The general public doesn't like geo-political conflict, especially when it's very foreign and removed from their daily lives. It's a strong and long-standing trend in public opinion research.
Because the human race is too ashamed of itself to admit its cannabalistic patterns? A natural disaster can only be said to be nature's fault, killing humans, so we find the need to enslave it and take energy from it. Plus it distracts the media from concern with genocides and human cruelty.