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.

  • carl_dungeon@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    65
    arrow-down
    9
    ·
    27 days ago

    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?

  • Frog@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    45
    ·
    26 days ago

    The United Nations has been reporting the famine and war crimes in Sudan for decades.

    • AdamEatsAss@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      21
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      26 days ago

      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.

      • livus@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        19
        ·
        26 days ago

        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.

        • undergroundoverground@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          26 days ago

          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.

          • livus@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            25 days ago

            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.

          • livus@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            26 days ago

            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.

            • Flying Squid@lemmy.worldM
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              26 days ago

              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.

              • livus@kbin.social
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                26 days ago

                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.

                • AA5B@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  ·
                  26 days ago

                  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

                • Flying Squid@lemmy.worldM
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  26 days ago

                  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.

                • Match!!@pawb.social
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  26 days ago

                  US news absolutely did but all i remember is that early YouTuber who made sweet hiphop remixes of Bush speeches

              • Deway@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                26 days ago

                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.

  • GregorGizeh@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    25
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    26 days ago

    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.

  • Victor@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    20
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    26 days ago

    How many concurrent genocides do we have going on right now in the world? Like four? Five? I’m not sure.

        • Gsus4@mander.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          25 days ago

          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. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_genocides find one that isn’t associated with a war.

    • livus@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      26 days ago

      @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.

  • fiat_lux@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    13
    ·
    26 days ago

    Looming? Sudan is past the looming stage. When do known verified atrocities reach “current reality” status?

  • machineLearner@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    13
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    26 days ago

    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.

  • tsonfeir@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    13
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    27 days ago

    We can’t even handle the genocides we have now. Someone wants another? Ffs.

      • tsonfeir@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        26 days ago

        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?

        • rockSlayer@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          26 days ago

          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.

          • tsonfeir@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            26 days ago

            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?

    • cygnus@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      26 days ago

      Hmm yes, like the Arab Spring or Apartheid or the Rwandan genocide, definitely unknown.

    • mlg@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      26 days ago

      tbf they didn’t care about the bosnian genocide either

      They should update that meme with a list of money sources

      • assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        26 days ago

        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.

      • corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        26 days ago

        I think my workmate was in Bosnia as a peacekeeper. I may have the wrong Bosnian conflict, though.

        • Crashumbc@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          26 days ago

          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.

        • assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          26 days ago

          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.

    • assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      26 days ago

      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.

  • BarbecueCowboy@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    26 days ago

    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.

      • BarbecueCowboy@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        25 days ago

        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.