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.worldEnglish
    66·
    6 months 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.caEnglish
    45·
    6 months ago

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

    • AdamEatsAss@lemmy.worldEnglish
      21·
      6 months 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
        19·
        6 months 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.worldEnglish
          6·
          6 months 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
            2·
            6 months 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
            1·
            6 months 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.worldMEnglish
              2·
              6 months 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
                2·
                6 months 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.worldEnglish
                  3·
                  6 months 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.worldMEnglish
                  2·
                  6 months 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.socialEnglish
                  1·
                  6 months ago

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

              • Deway@lemmy.worldEnglish
                2·
                6 months 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.zipEnglish
    25·
    6 months 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.worldEnglish
    20·
    6 months ago

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

        • Gsus4@mander.xyzEnglish
          3·
          6 months 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
      10·
      6 months 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.

    • mlg@lemmy.worldEnglish
      7·
      6 months 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.worldEnglish
          1·
          6 months 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.worldEnglish
        2·
        6 months 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.caEnglish
        1·
        6 months ago

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

        • Crashumbc@lemmy.worldEnglish
          2·
          6 months 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.

  • machineLearner@lemmy.worldEnglish
    13·
    6 months 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.worldEnglish
        5·
        6 months 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.worldEnglish
          3·
          6 months 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.worldEnglish
            2·
            6 months 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?

  • fiat_lux@kbin.social
    13·
    6 months ago

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

    • assassin_aragorn@lemmy.worldEnglish
      3·
      6 months 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.

  • mechoman444@lemmy.worldEnglish
    9·
    6 months ago

    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.

    • protist@mander.xyzEnglish
      15·
      6 months ago

      I was a ~12 year old child when the Rwanda genocide was happening and remember hearing about it on the news all the time

      • dubyakay@lemmy.caEnglish
        1·
        6 months ago

        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.

        • Drusas@kbin.run
          5·
          6 months ago

          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.

      • mechoman444@lemmy.worldEnglish
        1·
        6 months ago

        Prior to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022, several conflicts were ongoing globally. Significant among them were:

        1. Syrian Civil War - A devastating conflict since 2011 involving multiple factions and foreign interventions.
        2. Yemeni Civil War - Starting in 2014, this war involves the Houthi rebels and the internationally recognized government, with significant Saudi and Iranian involvement.
        3. Afghanistan Conflict - The long-standing conflict saw a significant shift with the Taliban’s return to power in 2021 following the U.S. withdrawal.
        4. Ethiopian Tigray War - A brutal conflict beginning in 2020 between the Ethiopian government and the Tigray People’s Liberation Front.
        5. Libyan Civil War - A multifaceted conflict ongoing since 2014 between various factions vying for control of the country.

        These conflicts have caused significant humanitarian crises and geopolitical tensions, impacting millions of lives.

        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.

        • protist@mander.xyzEnglish
          4·
          6 months ago

          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

          • mechoman444@lemmy.worldEnglish
            2·
            6 months ago

            Several conflicts and humanitarian crises in predominantly non-white majority countries have been overshadowed by events in predominantly white majority countries. Examples include:

            1. 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.

            2. 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.

            3. 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.

            4. 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.

            5. 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.