from DolphinMath@slrpnk.net to world@lemmy.world on 28 May 2024 22:50
https://slrpnk.net/post/10016237
Aid workers fear a new disaster as militia forces close in on a major Darfur city.
On a sunny April afternoon in 2006, thousands of people flocked to the National Mall in Washington, D.C., for a rally with celebrities, Olympic athletes, and rising political stars. Their cause: garner international support to halt a genocide in Sudan’s Darfur region.
“If we care, the world will care. If we act, then the world will follow,” Barack Obama, then the junior Illinois senator, told the crowd, speaking alongside future House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. That same week, then-Sen. Joe Biden introduced a bill in Congress calling on NATO to intervene to halt the genocide in Sudan. “We need to take action on both a military and diplomatic front to end the conflict,” he said.
#world
threaded - newest
Foreign Policy – Bias and Credibility
Bias Rating: Least Biased
Factual Reporting: High
Country: USA
Press Freedom Rank: Mostly Free
Media Type: Magazine
Traffic/popularity: High Traffic
MBFC Credibility Rating: High Credibility
About MediaBiasFactCheck.com
Methodology
Ad Fontes Media Rating: Middle / Reliable
Article By Robbie Gramer
I mean, they’re ignoring the one in Palestine and the one in China, and even taking sides against Ukraine, so how is this any different?
Palestine seems like 60% of what I hear about in national news and on Lemmy. Ukraine, though, no so much. People can’t use it to talk shit about Biden, after all.
The Kremlin is pumping social media full of anti-Biden propaganda, using Israel’s genocide as a wedge to split the Democratic vote so they can get Trump elected again.
Why won’t anyone think of the real victims, American liberals!
If they succeed, Palestine and Sudan and Ukraine will be every bit as fucked, but so will America with all its money and rockets.
Or, you know, peace protesters…
theguardian.com/…/trump-donors-israel-gaza-palest…
that snark is not going to sound so great when abortion is banned and Israel annexes Palestine with trump’s blessing. And the best part: you won’t even be able to protest anything!!
Yes, 100% agree. No coincidence Netanyahu is a far right fascist and would prefer Trump himself.
Yes, people act like they’re going to piss off Israel’s government by not voting for Biden. Bibi says thank you.
No. The Kremlin and Trumpers are using it to single out Biden so people will forget them and trade Bad for Much Worse.
???
It’s impossible to go on any social media without hearing about it.
But no one is stopping it, so they’re ignoring it
We can’t even handle the genocides we have now. Someone wants another? Ffs.
Could it be our weakness to act that is encouraging more genocides?
Yeah probably. But what do we do? “Vote?” “Protest?” That’s just thoughts and prayers. We have very little control over our governments in the short term and no control of—or right to control—another country. What is there?
Agitate, educate, organize. Vote, protest, unionize, build political coalitions, support local progressive politicians, etc. We need to do everything, and anything helps. We, the people, have all the power. To use it, we need to act collectively.
That sounds great for making your own country better. But how do we influence 100 or more countries in the next 30 days to condemn Israel, and any other country engaging in genocide?
Answering that question honestly would violate the rules of the instance hosting this community.
I hear you. 👍
Because ignoring genocides is what the world does.
Pulls out Peter Griffin skin tone threat chart
tbf they didn’t care about the bosnian genocide either
They should update that meme with a list of money sources
Same issue as now, a democrat was involved so it was ok to ignore.
Could you elaborate? This was the only conflict I think where NATO took action outside of Article 5. The Democrat president in question here supported attacking the people committing genocide, so I’m not sure what your point is.
I think my workmate was in Bosnia as a peacekeeper. I may have the wrong Bosnian conflict, though.
After most of the killing/dying was over the UN did send peace keepers, but even then they stayed away from areas were ethnic cleansing was still going on.
I mean, who is “they” in this case? NATO took an offensive action, potentially their only one in history, to disarm the Serbs and stop the genocidal side. It certainly wasn’t ignored. Kosovo exists because of NATO involvement, and they’ve named streets and erected statues to that end even.
The United Nations has been reporting the famine and war crimes in Sudan for decades.
I hate to say it but it’s been going on for too long, most people don’t care anymore. New conflicts have taken the spotlight.
Doesn't really explain it, I mean the underlying Palestine/Israel thing has been going on for decades too.
The current Sudanese Civil War has only been going on for 6 months longer than the current Israel vs Gaza hostilities.
The Israel/Palestine thing has been going on for thousands of years, lol. Literally.
No one here has been hearing about it in the news for hundreds of years tho (unless some of you are undead/vampires).
Arguably the roots of the Sudan conflict go back to the 1300s.
But in both cases the modern nation-state conflicts kicked off after the colonization of the 19th centuries, and in both cases most of us have been aware of it for decades.
As an American, I can tell you that is not at all true about Sudan here, sadly.
Is it naive of me to think American news must have at least reported on the international intervention into the 2004-2005 genocide?
And the separation of Sudan into two countries in 2011? Those were both pretty big; I thought that would be why the person above was calling this an old conflict.
It reported on it sparingly and not with enough detail to make it clear about the history of the region. And it certainly hasn’t been in the news since, so it’s out of the national consciousness at this point. Many people alive today were too young to even remember that genocide. I was in my late twenties and I’m not young.
I think it was more reported in News, not news. Actual News has been getting harder and harder to find as “news” providers shift toward entertainment or outrage. If it doesn’t drive clicks, it’s not worth the cost. Not many people go far out of their way to find actual News
US news absolutely did but all i remember is that early YouTuber who made sweet hiphop remixes of Bush speeches
Boston Legal did an episode about in 2005, as a non-American that’s all I know about the media coverage in the US. But that should have been seen by at least 2 million people. Plus reruns.
Israel didnt exist for about 1900 out of the last 2000 years…
Thats an easy one, America isn’t openly funding the side committing genocide and threatening to liberate anyone who doesn’t like what they do back into the stone age, in Sudan.
Its really not hard to see, if you’re prepared to see it.
Definitely. The US isn't likely to like either side given one of them is tight with Iran and the other one has dealings with Russian mercenaries.
Because neither side is America's aIly of course.
I went on tiktok yesterday and noticed a bunch of Gen Z mentioning Sudan and DRC as well as the Gaza Genocide. So that was better than usual.
Looming? Sudan is past the looming stage. When do known verified atrocities reach "current reality" status?
The honest answer is that I can only care about so many ongoing genocides at once before I go numb towards it. And I am more invested in the one happening two countries over. And the absurdly cynical one committed by a people who had plenty of genocides happen against them over the course of history.
The world has a tendency to ignore genocides that include mostly brown people killing eachother off.
Point and case: the genocide in the old Yugoslavian block was front page news. Rwanda on the other hand barely a blip.
I was a ~12 year old child when the Rwanda genocide was happening and remember hearing about it on the news all the time
Curious, are you from the UK?
I was living in Hungary at that time, and of course ex-Yugoslavia being the southern neighbour, the news was non stop about it. However I have only learned of the genocide from watching Hotel Rwanda.
Not the person you asked, but I was a similar age at the time and I was in the US. It made the news regularly.
I used to live in Texas. Still do, but used to, too
Although all of these had some kind of coverage in the news, the invasion of Ukraine completely shadowed all of these by a significant margin. Also take note that every single conflict listed above is from non-majority white countries fought by non-majority white combatants.
The genocide in Rwanda of course had some coverage but not remotely is provident as the genocide in Yugoslavia.
I’m not trying to be racial or anything like that. This is just the pattern that we see consistently in stuff like this. Military engagement in predominantly white countries has better coverage than in military engagements and predominantly non-white countries.
Syria and Libya dominated the news when their civil wars started and for some time afterward, but just like it has with Ukraine, coverage lessened over time. I’ve regularly seen Afghanistan in the news too, but what is there to report there besides what everyone expected the Taliban would do?
Russia’s invasion of Ukraine was genuinely different than all of these other conflicts, which were mostly ethnic or sectarian in nature. The scope and scale of the Ukraine invasion dwarfs these other conflicts by a significant margin, and it’s being perpetrated by an influential geopolitical adversary of the entire western world that poses a threat beyond this conflict
Several conflicts and humanitarian crises in predominantly non-white majority countries have been overshadowed by events in predominantly white majority countries. Examples include:
Rwandan Genocide (1994): Despite the mass slaughter of the Tutsi population by the Hutu majority, the international community and media were slow to respond and provide comprehensive coverage. The genocide claimed approximately 800,000 lives in just 100 days.
Darfur Conflict (2003-present): The genocide in Darfur, Sudan, has seen the systematic killing, displacement, and starvation of the non-Arab population by government forces and allied militias. Despite its scale and brutality, it has often been eclipsed by other international events.
Democratic Republic of Congo Conflicts (1996-present): The series of wars and ongoing conflicts in the DRC have resulted in millions of deaths, primarily due to violence, disease, and starvation. These conflicts have received sporadic and often insufficient coverage compared to conflicts in Europe or the Middle East.
Yemeni Civil War (2014-present): Despite being one of the world’s worst humanitarian crises, the war in Yemen has not received consistent media attention. The conflict has led to widespread famine and suffering, exacerbated by the blockade and bombing campaign led by Saudi Arabia.
Ethiopian Tigray War (2020-present): The conflict in the Tigray region of Ethiopia has resulted in significant civilian casualties and displacement. While it has been reported, it has not garnered the same level of media attention as conflicts in Europe or other Western-centric issues.
These examples highlight a troubling trend in global news coverage, where atrocities in non-white majority regions are often underreported, leading to a lack of international awareness and delayed action.
Why does this read like an AI response?
When you read this after their previous comment, you might notice a lack of engagement with the conversation lol
Because it is.
It’s better than googling.
“Because it is” lmao
So completely disconnected from the conversation
Hell no. LLM hallucinate all the time.
This is true. Luckily all the information above is verifiable.
Rwanda had no oil.
If you don’t accept my freedom, I’m going to force it on you!
Because we’re all anti-semites. Every single one of us. We only care because Jews are doing it.
You’re going to get there, might as well speed it up.
What are you talking about?
A wee bit of projection
I hate that there’s a voice in the back of my mind saying I’m gonna get called an anti-semite again. Damn you.
Sorry, Ill go fix it now that you’ve brought it to my attention.
No Jira ticket, no fixy.
It isn’t trendy and I don’t get to cosplay like I care about it.
Who’s going to recognize the Darfur flag when I put it in my Facebook profile?
Some people put their politics ahead of genocide. They’ll deny it’s a genocide if it doesn’t fit their agenda. They’ll take an absolute stance if it does fit their agenda.
It’s a tale as old as time. Chomsky is a very good example of this.
Didn’t he come out pro-Russian?
Ironically, pro imperialist even. He holds the position that Ukraine should’ve stayed a buffer for Russia, instead of acknowledging that Ukraine is its own sovereign country that gets to choose its own destiny.
You either die a hero or live long enough to become a villain I guess.
Because the world always ignores every catastrophe in Africa since forever.
Hmm yes, like the Arab Spring or Apartheid or the Rwandan genocide, definitely unknown.
I know you meant that sarcastically, but yes. Exactly and without the irony.
There’s a major difference between something being unknown, and people being ill-informed.
shouldn’t that be “why is the world ignoring a looming genocide in sudan again?”
How many concurrent genocides do we have going on right now in the world? Like four? Five? I’m not sure.
…wikipedia.org/…/List_of_ongoing_armed_conflicts plus whatever is happening in Xinjiang.
Not all armed conflicts are genocides.
Indeed, but normally you need a suspension of normal life like a war to make a genocide possible, so it is more useful to look at this very comprehensive list to be aware of potential or ongoing genocides than wait for one to have been officially confirmed. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_genocides find one that isn’t associated with a war.
@victorz - The "fast"/ big obvious ones are Darfur and Gaza, but there's also probably Oromia, slow genocide in West Papua, Western Sahara, Xinjiang, and I think Nagorny-Karabakh and Tigray could start up again at some point. There is obviously a genocidal component to the Tatmadaw's activities in Myanmar but right now they seem to be getting their asses kicked by the alliance which includes ethnic minority armies.
Then there are the more obscure genocides that are mostly only mentioned outside western and english-language news media, for example the ongoing slow genocide of the Baloch people in the Balochistan region.
Sudan isn’t popular because it’s difficult to tie either side of the conflict to a specific political party. No one gets too many political points for speaking for/against.
There is oil.
Yeah, but gas prices are currently considered reasonable and tying those to politics is also a bit unfavorable now since everyone blamed the president when they were extra high but then it actually went back down and then no one knew what to do.
In the US at least, our policy today doesn’t affect this genocide. Outside of Sudan, the important parties are Egypt, the UAE, and factions in Libya. Whereas in Palestine US missiles and funding to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars are directly involved, US policy today does not affect Sudan materially.
Still though, the UN and other international organs are documenting and attempting to aid. It’s just not disputed by far right fucks in our government.
Get in line behind Palestine and the Uyghurs so we can ignore you too!
Myanmar?
You mean Burma? Cause I dig their take on Buddhism.
The genocidal take?
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rohingya_genocide
Don’t forget Yemen. I know, it’s a measly 350 000 dead so far, which apparently rate much less than Israel-Palestine conflict losses.
This is literally the first time I’m hearing about it