Why is African violence ignored?

New York Daily News ^ | 4-10-2003 | Stanley Crouch

[jocon307]

A couple of days ago, I went to a lunch to celebrate Paul Theroux's new book, "Dark Star Safari: Overland From Cairo to Cape Town."

"One of the epiphanies of my trip," he writes, "was the realization that where the mode of life had changed significantly in the Africa I had known, it had changed for the worse."

When Theroux and I talked, he observed that he had noticed something very strange in The New York Times in the last couple of days - a short Associated Press story about "966 victims [who] were killed in an April 3 assault on the Roman Catholic mission in Drodro and 14 surrounding villages, 50 miles northeast of Bunia, the provincial capital [of the Democratic Republic of the Congo]."

Theroux was disturbed because he had seen another story in the same edition - twice as long, by my word count - in which great concern was expressed about the declining gorilla and chimpanzee populations of Central Africa; they are being killed off by the Ebola virus and poaching.

To me, his observation is not about a greater concern for animals than for people. It is about the double standard for oppressive behavior. In other words, if those 966 people had been victims of a white colonial regime as opposed to being victims of tribal warfare, it would be a front-page story.

Black journalists, TransAfrica, the Congressional Black Caucus, the NAACP, the Revs. Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, the Nation of Islam and every leftist periodical and radio station would be screaming bloody murder, and for good reason: It would be bloody murder. But it takes some imagination to blame everything, yet again, on the white man as opposed to the ever-ready demons of human nature. So such atrocities are met with silence.

That silence was also exposed on Oprah Winfrey's March 12 show about the female sex slaves of Africa who have been kidnapped, raped, mutilated, made into erotic toys and slaughtered by the thousands by tribal warriors and rebel units as brutal as any violent men in recorded history.

Again, if those women were the victims of Europeans, you can be sure American Negroes and their leftist compatriots would, correctly, scream down the moon.

But it seems we have no loud concerns about what is going on in Sierra Leone or Uganda, the two examples discussed on the Winfrey show with Naomi Wolf, the writer and journalist, and Catherine Wiesner, head of child protection programs for the International Rescue Committee in Sierra Leone.

Wolf described what she saw in Sierra Leone as an unprecedented sexual holocaust, then introduced Wiesner, whose team sends videotaped messages between abducted girls and their families. The emotional tapes have led to the release of 50 girls. "It's the most rewarding job I can think of having," Wiesner said.

Such atrocities prove that we need a single standard, let the chips fall where they may. Or we need to shut up and stop pretending we are so concerned about the troubled fates of Africans.

[KingKongCobra]

I'll tell you why Africa is ignored (but I'll bet you already know).

There is NO vital interest there for the USA. We have no business there.

If the UN weren't a bunch of commie/socialist/dictator loving wimps, this would be what they were created for. But alas, they are a worthless organization.

There you have it -
1) not our job
2) can't be done by the people whose job it is

[mhking]

Black conservative ping

If you want on (or off) of my black conservative ping list, please let me know via FREEPmail. (And no, you don't have to be black to be on the list!)

Extra warning: this is a high-volume ping list.

[KeyWest]

Since April 1, 2003

Welcome to FR.

Total BS. Nice try.

[TAIPAN22001]

Agreed. Only a naive fool wearing rose colored glasses, or in other words, a liberal, would insist that we're all the same and there are no cultural differences.

[Anamensis]

Most of African has fallen under the rule of Marxists. THAT, in my humble opinion, is why those who usually yell loudest about human rights, aren't making much noise. They don't care what socialist Ba-athists do to their own people, they don't care what Kim Jong Il does to his people, they don't care what Castro does to his people, they don't care what happens in China, South America, the Maghreb.... it's all overshadowed completely by the "atrocities" in Israel, dontchaknow.

[bert]

Mainly, nobody cares.

Why bother?

[Lost Highway]

You are dead on. Especially with no 3. Can you imagine the reaction from the left if we did in Africa what we are doing in Iraq? Make no mistake, the only solution is the "aggressive use of force".

[happygrl]

Are you referring to the lack of financial interest the US has in these areas ? My own take, sadly, is that it is because these are not people of "European" heritage.

To their credit, the only sector which has been interested in these stories are the Christians in this country.

[Anamensis]

It must be nice to have a simple, stupid theory of how the world works.

Oh my, I didn't realize I was addressing the morally and intellectually enlightened and illuminated. Pardon me for not recognizing you, milord. So what's your complex, subtle, nuanced and sophisticated theory? "They don't care cause they're racist" or "They don't care cause there's no oil there?" And of course, you'll explain just how either of those slogans are more sophisticated than "liberals ignore marxist atrocities because they are marxist."

[Anamensis]

By the way, have you ever gone to the Wall Street Journal and searched for... oh, say... "Mugabe"? Why don't you run do that real quick and then come back and tell me all about how the Wall Street Journal doesn't care about violence and misery in Africa? No, of course you won't.

[ninenot]

Your cynicism is overtaking your judgment.

We ignore the African problem because we have NO NATIONAL INTERESTS at stake: unlike Saddam, no African country finances terrorism against us, nor trains terrorists to work against us, nor is producing C-B-R weapons for use against us, or anyone else.

Thus, the African problems are quite properly the province of the United Nations, whose task is to render humanitarian assistance and, if necessary, military force to implement justice.

Complain to Kofi Annan

[ninenot]

Actually, there are some oil reserves in Africa in which US Companies have interests. Africa also supplies a number of other valuable minerals and substances.

Iraq has a LOT more oil, but...

The question is not so much money as it is the other interests. The USA just does NOT have justification for shooting people (and getting shot at) over there.

It's not really too satisfying, but it is the answer.

[ninenot]

And the reason is simple. Racism

Horsehockey.

In the case of the USA, the reason is National Interest. We have NO National Interests in the affected areas of Africa.

The RACIST here is Kofi Annan, who ignores the UN's mandate to assist in civil-order maintenance as required.

[ninenot]

the pig Francois Mitterrand replied, "in a country like Rwanda, a genocide is not that important."

Here's your RACIST.

[Fraulein]

(3) The only effective solution in most of those places involves shooting a few thousand black folks. Which no Republican administration would dare to do. And the Democrats aren't interested in military power projection

Bingo!

[ninenot]

Bingo. Complete and Perfect Answer.

Of course, nobody will belive it...

[jayadams]

Africa had no chance once the colonial powers were "invited" to leave - anybody ever seen Kinshasa, Lusaka, or Kampala? It is a disgrace what these cities once were and now they are deteriorating while the natives run the show.

[Under the Radar]

So, crossing an imaginary line on a map would solve all the problems, eh?

[RJayneJ]

No impression. Just making a comment and you seemed handy. };^D )