posted 08 August 2004 12:25 PM            

2) Sudanese Contrast of Identities

A leading Sudanese scholar, in almost encyclopedic detail, confirms the importance of
identity in the above examples. This scholar describes the conflict in Sudan as centered
in contending visions of identity. The north is seen as “assimilationist” given the
ideology of legitimacy through Arab genealogy, whether real or imagined. This ideology
is tied to a dominant religion, Islam, which is further expressed through dominant
families now in alliance, now at odds, all contending to maintain control of the state. The
northern Arab-Islam self-perception seeks to extend control of the state through
assimilation where it can or by force where it cannot. This self-perception, however, is
many-layered. The northerner while speaking to itself of a racial (Arab) purity denies its own biological connection to African origins and acts with varying degrees of prejudice
toward southerners. Francis M. Deng writes (1995):

But since certain African racial and cultural elements are still visible in the
assimilated Sudanese Arabs, it does not require a professional social
psychologist to resume that such a disdain for elements visible in one's
own physiognomy must at some degree of consciousness be a source of
tension and disorientation. Indeed, the northern Sudanese tendency to
exaggerate Arabism and Islam and to look down on the negroid races as
slaves could well be the result of a deep-seated inferiority complex, or, to
put it in reverse, a superiority complex as a compensational device for
their obvious marginality as Arabs.

http://www.cdainc.com/rpp/publications/casestudies/Case04NSCC.pdf

Zaghawa, Fur, and Masalit are ethnically related to the Kanuri people of Chad and Nigeria, whom I am a part of maternally. So-called Shuwa 'Arabs' are not Semitic Arabs but are Arabized black Africans with little, if any, Arab ancestry, the same for the Janjaweed in in Darfur who are killing Fur, Masalit, and Zaghawa. Janjaweed are Baggara 'Arabs' mostly, with small amount of Arabized Fur people. Physically ALL of these groups are indistinguishable from one another. I cannot understand this genocide. I wish Arabization would have never came into Africa. Islam is ok, but Arabization needs to go.

posted 08 August 2004 12:33 PM            

Egyptian ( Mesr al-Um): Pharos give up Arabization
Egypt, Politics, 11/6/2003

Scores of Egyptian intellectuals and vocational members formed a party called "Egypt the motherland" ( Mesr al-Um) for dismantling Egypt from its Arab identity.

Lawyer Mohsin Lutfi said that he will apply to the Parties affairs at the Shoura council after Eid al-Fiter for licensing the party. He explained "we are a party which says: we are Egyptians and not Arabs.. The Arabs are our friends and neighbors and we have common destiny.. but we are not Arabs."

However, there are in Egypt some 18 political parties with the majority are margined and some of them are frozen over differences among their leaders, but there is no one party among them that denies Egypt's Arabization or raises doubt on this issue despite the fact many of them call in its programs to revive the values of the ancient Egyptian civilizations.

Lutfi, the nephew of the late liberal intellectual Ahmad Lutfi al-Sayyed said "we are Egyptians speaking the Arabic language for historical reasons like the Franchophony in Africa which speaks French. But no one says he is French."

Lutfi calls for reviving the Heoglyphic and Coptic languages and has been teaching scores of students the Heroglyphic language in his house since 10 years. He studied Heroglyphic language at the French Surrbornne university after he had graduated in 1948 from the law faculty, Fouad 1st university ( the current Cairo university). He also studied at London's university for more than 3 years.

The Egyptian writer Jamal Badawi strongly criticized the idea of the new party in the Egyptian daily al-Wafd issued on Tuesday, saying "those of the Pharos trend do not care what form of government there is, rather what is of concern to them is to cancel the Arab era from Egypt's history." He added they "are not brave to show off their hostility to Islam, and therefore they concentrate their arrows on Arabization, and put the Arabs in one bunch along with the foreign forces which occupied Egypt."

Lutfi said "the idea of implanting this party emerged when we saw in the talks of President Mubark an inclination to the majority party which he presides over towards democracy permiting the foundation of new parties."

One of the founders of the party, Talaat Radwan, said we will ask for "abrogating the word ( al-Arabyia ) from Egypt's name to become "The Republic of Egypt"instead of "the Arab republic of Egypt." In the 1970s the late Egyptian president Anwar al-Sadat abrogated the name of the United Arab republic launched by the late President Gamal Abdul Nasser for use on Egypt and Syria following their unity of 1958 and Egypt kept the name after the cessation.

posted 08 August 2004 12:44 PM            

quote:

---

Indeed, the northern Sudanese tendency to
exaggerate Arabism and Islam and to look down on the negroid races as
slaves could well be the result of a deep-seated inferiority complex, or, to
put it in reverse, a superiority complex as a compensational device for
their obvious marginality as Arabs.

---

posted 08 August 2004 01:23 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:
Keenly observed.

---

The thing about it thats sad is that physically the people are the same. What constitues being an 'Arab' or 'African' in Sudan? Check this out too:

Second, despite their shared racial and cultural characteristics, conflicts and ensuing animosities have predisposed people to see little if any in common. As a result, shared elements are ignored and actively dismissed, differences highlighted, and the national vision blurred and even distorted. Indeed, the more marginal the identity between the Arab-African dichotomy, the more the divisive labels are accentuated to prove the contrary. The Sudanese Arabs, who are visibly black, must prove beyond doubt that they are indeed Arab. And the related adherence to Islam must also be highlighted to reinforce that composite identity. Southerners on their part have tended to exaggerate their “pure” African, even negroid identity, in denial of any admixture.

http://wwwc.house.gov/international_relations/107/deng0605.htm

The funny thing about this is the last sentence. Southerners as well as Northerners are not really significantlty "mixed" in any way. The northerners do have some mixture, but only among the higher class and prominent Northern Sudanese families. Arabs married into these families. most of these people are indistinguishable from each other.

posted 08 August 2004 02:20 PM            

http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/Forum8/HTML/000767.html

posted 08 August 2004 03:07 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by S.Mohammad:
The funny thing about this is the last sentence. Southerners as well as Northerners are not really significantlty "mixed" in any way. The northerners do have some mixture, but only among the higher class and prominent Northern Sudanese families. Arabs married into these families. most of these people are indistinguishable from each other.

---

posted 08 August 2004 03:12 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by ausar:
S. Mohammed,did you read my post about the Fellahin vs. the Arab?

http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/Forum8/HTML/000767.html

[This message has been edited by ausar (edited 08 August 2004).]

---

posted 08 August 2004 03:26 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by supercar:
That is the problem...the Arab admixture among North African elites. They (elites) use their power to effectively utilize the media to disseminate this "Arab" identity of the nation, as if it were their place to choose for the average citizens, which culture they ought to identify themselves with, other than the indigenous ones!

---

posted 08 August 2004 03:31 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by S.Mohammad:

I have read it before. What i do not understand is this tendency by some Africans to identify as 'Arabs' when they have little to no 'Arab' ancestry. To be an Islamic African country one does not have to identify as Arab or claim descent from Arabs to bring themselves closer to Allah. Indeed, even the Prophet(PBUH) said that race or ethnicity plays no part in the salvation of man's soul. Arabized Africans who claim to be Arabs are about as silly as African-Americans claiming to be Scottish based on small or perceived Scottish ancestry

---

posted 08 August 2004 03:39 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by supercar:
As mentioned in your introductory notes; it has something to do with "inferiority complex". These "Arab" Africans strongly emphasize their identity as such, as a need to identify themselves with anything other than "African", which they consciously or subconsciously deem "inferior". As silly as it may sound, the additional reason may well be that, they feel somehow it makes them more devout Muslims than other Africans!

---

I really don't want to sound too anti-Arab but I just don't see the need to identify strongly with anything 'Arab'. Though Islam was supposedly started in Arabia, identifying as 'Arab' holds no significance. The Sudanese, in particular, the Nubians(Jaaliyn and Juhanya peoples) had a far more advanced civilization than anything found in the Arabian Peninsula, how could they look down on those who refuse to be Arabized? I think European colonialism played a big part in people chosing to identify as Arabs, for the fact that Europeans gave them better treatment.

posted 08 August 2004 04:23 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by S.Mohammad:

I really don't want to sound too anti-Arab but I just don't see the need to identify strongly with anything 'Arab'. Though Islam was supposedly started in Arabia, identifying as 'Arab' holds no significance. The Sudanese, in particular, the Nubians(Jaaliyn and Juhanya peoples) had a far more advanced civilization than anything found in the Arabian Peninsula, how could they look down on those who refuse to be Arabized? I think European colonialism played a big part in people chosing to identify as Arabs, for the fact that Europeans gave them better treatment.

This complex can also be seen in some people in Zanzibar and some of the other Swahili peoples. You have people there who are heavily black in phenotype, but will identify as 'Arab' because he had a relative in his family 600 years ago who was Arab, only ONE Arab at that. Thats pathetic.

---

posted 08 August 2004 04:40 PM            

quote:

---

Misreading The Truth In Sudan
By SAM DEALEY

EL FASHER, Sudan — Tucked behind the featureless hills that rise abruptly from the Saharan sands outside El Fasher, Musa Khaber sits cross-legged beneath a parched tree in the early dusk. Clothed in a flowing white djellaba and turban, Mr. Khaber, a Janjaweed militia leader, is guarded by armed followers, their guns trained nervously on the meeting spot.

Mr. Khaber is a wanted man. It is Janjaweed bands like his that the international community accuses of waging a proxy war for Sudan's government against rebellious African tribes in Darfur. Seventeen months into this conflict, some 30,000 people have died and more than one million have been forced from their homes.

It is also bands like Mr. Khaber's that expose three myths of one of the worst humanitarian crises - that the Janjaweed are the sole source of trouble and are acting only as proxies for Khartoum; that the conflict pits light-skinned Arabs against black Africans; and that the Sudanese government can immediately end the war whenever it wishes. Until the international community puts aside these simplifications, no sustainable solution can emerge.

Last month, the United States Congress denounced Khartoum for genocide in Darfur, and the United Nations Security Council last week adopted a resolution giving Khartoum 30 days to disarm the militias. "Since they turned it on, they can turn it off," Secretary of State Colin Powell has said, summarizing the conventional view.

It may be clear to Washington that Khartoum controls the conflict, but in Darfur the situation is more complex.

Mr. Khaber, for one, denies that his Janjaweed are aligned with anyone. "We are not with the government, we are not with the rebels," he said. "We are in hell. We want what is due." For 25 years, he said, he and his gang have waged war against a succession of regimes that failed to adequately care for his people.

Mr. Khaber's group is made up of Arab and African tribesmen. A dark-skinned Berti African, Mr. Khaber describes himself as an Arab.

The Darfur crisis is as much a problem of regional and national instability as it is local. A principal rebel group, the Justice and Equality Movement, is said to be backed by a Sudanese opposition leader, Hassan al-Turabi. Khartoum says the movement also receives munitions and support from elements within Chad, and indeed several rebels have been captured with Chadian identification papers and arms.

The other rebel group, the Sudanese Liberation Army, is said to have backing from Eritrea, another of Sudan's uneasy neighbors. Until last year, the group was known as the Darfur Liberation Front, engaged in low-level insurgency for decades.

After these rebels launched lightning strikes in February 2003 against military and civilian targets across North Darfur, a surprised Khartoum unleashed Arab tribal militias as a line of defense. Viewing this as carte blanche for vigilantism, these militias now pursue age-old vendettas.

Pressured by international attention, Khartoum now vows to disarm militias like Mr. Khaber's. Some captured Janjaweed have been tried and sentenced, and some have received the death penalty. But disarming the Janjaweed will not be easy. The area is awash in small arms, and even in the best of times Khartoum holds only titular control.

As despicable as Sudan's regime is, the international community may wish to restrain from setting early deadlines for intervention. Such deadlines only encourage rebel intransigence in pursuing peace deals, as last month's unsuccessful talks in Ethiopia proved. With outside action threatened, there is little incentive for the rebels to negotiate a lasting cease-fire.

Likewise, the threat of international peacekeeping troops could provoke further violence in an already unstable Muslim world. Lately, fliers have appeared in Khartoum mosques urging jihad.

"We refuse to let Darfur be like Iraq and occupied," says Mr. Khaber. "We hate the foreigner; we will fight the foreigner, more than the mujahedeen in Afghanistan." And then, noticeably fearful that his interviewers have been followed by Sudanese troops, he and his men abruptly slip into the wide Sahara.

Sam Dealey is a former editorial page writer for The Asian Wall Street Journal

---

posted 08 August 2004 04:48 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by S.Mohammad:

I really don't want to sound too anti-Arab but I just don't see the need to identify strongly with anything 'Arab'. Though Islam was supposedly started in Arabia, identifying as 'Arab' holds no significance. The Sudanese, in particular, the Nubians(Jaaliyn and Juhanya peoples) had a far more advanced civilization than anything found in the Arabian Peninsula, how could they look down on those who refuse to be Arabized? I think European colonialism played a big part in people chosing to identify as Arabs, for the fact that Europeans gave them better treatment.

This complex can also be seen in some people in Zanzibar and some of the other Swahili peoples. You have people there who are heavily black in phenotype, but will identify as 'Arab' because he had a relative in his family 600 years ago who was Arab, only ONE Arab at that. Thats pathetic.

---

Well actually the reason why I'm so hard on the Arab side is because a lot of African-Americans just aren't aware of the damage so-called 'Arabs' caused, especially in regards to slavery. I once questioned a follower of the Nation of islam about this and he got so upset. Arabs did just as much damage as Europeans did and still more if we look at Darfur. Alot of that has to do with the grandiose attitudes of Arabs themselves, but some of that was influenced by European colonists.

Overall, i think American blacks should know more about the Arab side. its correct that Europeans did do alot of damage, but most are unaware of the damage Arabs and Arabization.

posted 08 August 2004 05:02 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by neo*geo:
[QUOTE]
It is also bands like Mr. Khaber's that expose three myths of one of the worst humanitarian crises - that the Janjaweed are the sole source of trouble and are acting only as proxies for Khartoum; that the conflict pits light-skinned Arabs against black Africans; and that the Sudanese government can immediately end the war whenever it wishes. Until the international community puts aside these simplifications, no sustainable solution can emerge.

[/i]

.

---

posted 08 August 2004 05:09 PM            

In Egypt during the Middle Ages,some bedouins tribes were brought into Egypt by the Abbasaid and Umayyad Caliphte to arabize the population.Many of these tribes still exist around Middle and Upper Egypt but only married within their own line. Very rarely does a rural Egyptian Fellahin intermarry with an Hawwwara,Asfraf,or Ja'afrah. The system is set up in favor of the hierarchy of the bedouin or the person with bedouin origins. So some tribes exist but they are not in the majority nor never replaced the overall Fellahin Egyptian population.

Contrary to Arab nationalist,Arab ancestry was during the Middle Ages determined by racial purity. If you were not a pure Arab then you would never be accepted. Not only did this happen to Egyptians but Persians,Berbers[Imazigh],and other groups.

You must study Sudan during the Middle Ages to understand the current situlation. It's has a long history,and is relevent to the modern occurence in these nations.

posted 08 August 2004 05:20 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by ausar:
S. Mohammed,have you read about a concept during the middle ages called Mawali? The concept f Mawali said that if an non-Arab converted to Islam he/she had to become a client of an Arab in order to be fully accepted. In pre-Islamic times Mawali was apart of Arabs usually slaves or captured tribes who were assimilated into Arab soceity but only a low class status.

In Egypt during the Middle Ages,some bedouins tribes were brought into Egypt by the Abbasaid and Umayyad Caliphte to arabize the population.Many of these tribes still exist around Middle and Upper Egypt but only married within their own line. Very rarely does a rural Egyptian Fellahin intermarry with an Hawwwara,Asfraf,or Ja'afrah. The system is set up in favor of the hierarchy of the bedouin or the person with bedouin origins. So some tribes exist but they are not in the majority nor never replaced the overall Fellahin Egyptian population.

Contrary to Arab nationalist,Arab ancestry was during the Middle Ages determined by racial purity. If you were not a pure Arab then you would never be accepted. Not only did this happen to Egyptians but Persians,Berbers[Imazigh],and other groups.

You must study Sudan during the Middle Ages to understand the current situlation. It's has a long history,and is relevent to the modern occurence in these nations.

---

posted 08 August 2004 05:29 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by S.Mohammad:
Those 'Arabs' are hardly lighter-skinned or even more so than those they kill. Its interesting that Mr Khaber, a Berti(Bertis are nothing more than the Zaghawa people, Berti is what they call themselves, Zaghawa is an Arab name) identifies himelf as an Arab. He is confused.

---

I think ausar posted something about Arab bedouins bringing the ideaology of "vendetta" to the fellahin of upper Egypt. Well the editorial I just posted seems to be pointing out that the violence in Darfur is driven by the same ideaology. The Arab tribesman in Sudan are culturally bedouins and have applied vendetta in their regional war.

posted 08 August 2004 05:31 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by neo*geo:
I think ausar posted something about Arab bedouins bringing the ideaology of "vendetta" to the fellahin of upper Egypt. Well the editorial I just posted seems to be pointing out that the violence in Darfur is driven by the same ideaology. The Arab tribesman in Sudan are culturally bedouins and have applied vendetta in their regional war.

---

posted 08 August 2004 05:41 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by ausar:
It's called tar[vendetta] which means that you disrespect or kill one family member I can kill one of your family. Eventually it turns into a chain of violence much like it did in Upper Egypt with El Kosheh. Regional violence like this goes on all the time in Upper Egypt with less casulatiies. Most people in these battles never go to jail and under law it's justifiable.

---

posted 08 August 2004 05:53 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by S.Mohammad:

Interesting information, but Sudanese just like Egyptians are NOT overly Arabized. I've talked to some Egyptians and some even see themselves as superior to Arabs.

---

posted 08 August 2004 09:29 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by S.Mohammad:
We all know about how Arabization and pan-Arabism causes problems in Egypt, lets look at Sudan:

2) Sudanese Contrast of Identities

A leading Sudanese scholar, in almost encyclopedic detail, confirms the importance of
identity in the above examples. This scholar describes the conflict in Sudan as centered
in contending visions of identity. The north is seen as “assimilationist” given the
ideology of legitimacy through Arab genealogy, whether real or imagined. This ideology
is tied to a dominant religion, Islam, which is further expressed through dominant
families now in alliance, now at odds, all contending to maintain control of the state. The
northern Arab-Islam self-perception seeks to extend control of the state through
assimilation where it can or by force where it cannot. This self-perception, however, is
many-layered. [b]The northerner while speaking to itself of a racial (Arab) purity denies its own biological connection to African origins and acts with varying degrees of prejudice
toward southerners. Francis M. Deng writes (1995):

But since certain African racial and cultural elements are still visible in the
assimilated Sudanese Arabs, it does not require a professional social
psychologist to resume that such a disdain for elements visible in one's
own physiognomy must at some degree of consciousness be a source of
tension and disorientation. Indeed, the northern Sudanese tendency to
exaggerate Arabism and Islam and to look down on the negroid races as
slaves could well be the result of a deep-seated inferiority complex, or, to
put it in reverse, a superiority complex as a compensational device for
their obvious marginality as Arabs.

http://www.cdainc.com/rpp/publications/casestudies/Case04NSCC.pdf

Zaghawa, Fur, and Masalit are ethnically related to the Kanuri people of Chad and Nigeria, whom I am a part of maternally. So-called Shuwa 'Arabs' are not Semitic Arabs but are Arabized black Africans with little, if any, Arab ancestry, the same for the Janjaweed in in Darfur who are killing Fur, Masalit, and Zaghawa. Janjaweed are Baggara 'Arabs' mostly, with small amount of Arabized Fur people. Physically ALL of these groups are indistinguishable from one another. I cannot understand this genocide. I wish Arabization would have never came into Africa. Islam is ok, but Arabization needs to go.

[This message has been edited by S.Mohammad (edited 08 August 2004).][/B]

---

Well they are being "brain-washed" like some of the "coloured" South Africans were.

I look at it like this: If the Arab minority can gain the support of a group of "brain-washed-arabized" blacks, then they will become a "majority" and are hence able to promote their ideal of an Islamic state. Definitely "racial-cleansing". Kind of reminds mor of America's "one-drop" rule in reverse- if you have "one-drop" of Arab blood then you "think" you're Arab.

It's ridiculous, but that struggle for autonomy is also going on in some parts of North Africa (although not to this extinct) to identify themselves as Berber.

It angers me that they would try to "force" their ideals and culture in this day and time, when people are freely converting to Islam.

posted 08 August 2004 09:57 PM            

Arabs have always had a system of ethnocenism in their culture. Hints that can be found from pre-Islamic times down to the modern era. No matter how racist Arabs are towards black people they all seem to mix and produce offspring with them.

While we are at it,the situlation in Mauritania is twice as worse as Sudan but nobody really cares about it. People in Mauritania are being enslaved by real Arabs who came from Yemen around the Middle Ages and drove blacks from their land in Mauritania.

Why doesn't the Arab league speak out against such atrosities. Mauritania and other nations in the Arab league are full of human rights violations. Egypt is number one on that list for very bad treatment of rural Fellahin Egyptians.

Here is a link to an interview with an ex-Mauritanian slave:

http://www.meforum.org/article/453

Although both the Torah and Quran grant poeple the right to own slave,both of them grant certain ways slaves should be treated.

posted 08 August 2004 10:02 PM            

quote:

---

Arabs sometimes are not even religious but use their religion as a spirtual weapon much like Europeans used Christianity.

---

I was going to post this link on Mauritania's history of Arabization but thought better of it....but, now that you've brought it up: http://countrystudies.us/mauritania/8.htm

posted 08 August 2004 10:03 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by ausar:
We should not make this into a battle between religons when it's simply an ethnic conflict between Arabized people and non-Arabized. Arabs sometimes are not even religious but use their religion as a spirtual weapon much like Europeans used Christianity. What the Arab pratice of cultural imperilism is not sanctioned by either the Hadiths,sunna,or Quran. Mohammed himself said that ''an arab is not superior to a non-arab,nor is a non-Arab superior to an Arab or a white to a black''.

Arabs have always had a system of ethnocenism in their culture. Hints that can be found from pre-Islamic times down to the modern era. No matter how racist Arabs are towards black people they all seem to mix and produce offspring with them.

While we are at it,the situlation in Mauritania is twice as worse as Sudan but nobody really cares about it. People in Mauritania are being enslaved by real Arabs who came from Yemen around the Middle Ages and drove blacks from their land in Mauritania.

Why doesn't the Arab league speak out against such atrosities. Mauritania and other nations in the Arab league are full of human rights violations. Egypt is number one on that list for very bad treatment of rural Fellahin Egyptians.

Here is a link to an interview with an ex-Mauritanian slave:

http://www.meforum.org/article/453

Although both the Torah and Quran grant poeple the right to own slave,both of them grant certain ways slaves should be treated.

---

posted 08 August 2004 10:07 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by ausar:
We should not make this into a battle between religons when it's simply an ethnic conflict between Arabized people and non-Arabized. Arabs sometimes are not even religious but use their religion as a spirtual weapon much like Europeans used Christianity. What the Arab pratice of cultural imperilism is not sanctioned by either the Hadiths,sunna,or Quran. Mohammed himself said that ''an arab is not superior to a non-arab,nor is a non-Arab superior to an Arab or a white to a black''.

Arabs have always had a system of ethnocenism in their culture. Hints that can be found from pre-Islamic times down to the modern era. No matter how racist Arabs are towards black people they all seem to mix and produce offspring with them.

While we are at it,the situlation in Mauritania is twice as worse as Sudan but nobody really cares about it. People in Mauritania are being enslaved by real Arabs who came from Yemen around the Middle Ages and drove blacks from their land in Mauritania.

Why doesn't the Arab league speak out against such atrosities. Mauritania and other nations in the Arab league are full of human rights violations. Egypt is number one on that list for very bad treatment of rural Fellahin Egyptians.

Here is a link to an interview with an ex-Mauritanian slave:

http://www.meforum.org/article/453

Although both the Torah and Quran grant poeple the right to own slave,both of them grant certain ways slaves should be treated.

---

Ausar, that just proves that there are a lot of things some of these Arabs are getting away and no one recognizes it. But they are the first to scream that all westerners are anti-islamic, while they try to shove it down people's throats. I'm sorry, but it IS a religious thing. They are of course abusing the religion to justify some of the Sh*t they are doing. Sorry I get pissed off everytime I read something new about them still enslaving blacks to this day.

And where the HELL is the UN while this stuff is going on??????????????

posted 08 August 2004 10:10 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by homeylu:
Ausar, that just proves that there are a lot of things some of these Arabs are getting away and no one recognizes it. But they are the first to scream that all westerners are anti-islamic, while they try to shove it down people's throats. I'm sorry, but it IS a religious thing. They are of course abusing the religion to justify some of the Sh*t they are doing. Sorry I get pissed off everytime I read something new about them still enslaving blacks to this day.

---

posted 09 August 2004 03:01 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by S.Mohammad:

I'm very aware of Sudan's history, it is long storied one. But i do not understand how a country like Sudan can overexaggerate Arabism to the extreme that is now. Sudanese Arabs are very aware that they are very dark complexioned compared to their Semitic counterparts, but they don't see themselves as dark as western and southern Sudanese. Basically I'm heavily against Arabization in Africa, especially in Egypt and Sudan. these two countries have some of the longest and most clorful histories in Africa and I don't want to see crap like Arabization and pan-Arabism destroy this storied past. Nigerians in the North are very islamic as are most west Africans, but are NOT Arabized. I think thats more or less what i was alluding to, that to be an islamic country one does not have to be Arabized. Arabization declares that anything before Arab Islamic contact was inferior. Certainly Arabs have not contributed much of anything significantly to Africa, therefore this claim is baseless. there is nothing in Arabia comparable to anything in Ancient Egypt and Sudan.

---

I AGREE,amen.i am not a christian anymore but you get the point.i really do not believe in any faith at the moment,but the ancient nubian one is the one i would prefer or some other african faith.at least in islam there is no son of god,and if they found out that christ was really not black,i do not think i could take it,that is why i am not christian any more and believe in something clearly african,that just me.arabization really has to be stopped and must go.sudan is the frontline defense and other africans must help,and help fast.
just imagine african troops being sent to the sudan.that will be a blow to the brainwashed ones and other arabs.i am very upset that this arab thing even got as far in the sudan.the brits were the ones who gave sudan to the arabs.the arabs never won the wars.a leader was nubian in the years 1968 to 1985,and i wish he did more to stop this crap,but it is up to the southern sudan,africans who live in the northern and central sudan and other africans in other states.i can't not see why more black americans can't see this.i do not care about the israel-arab conflict any way.they deserve each other anyway. many black americans and some other blacks try to be on the arab side when it comes to the west and israel but are afraid to say anything about the arabs in the sudan,north africa and some other places in africa.IN ancient times the berbers were the most pain in the necks in egypt,nubia and other places in africa.in the middle ages it was the arabs and berbers,and now mostly arabs,and some berbers, the west and the white south africans.just because you have conqured your enemies,you can't take your eyes off them.that was the mistake the ancient egyptians and some other africans made.the nubians always knew thier foes,that is why i liked the nubians better than the ancient egyptians and of course the nubians were and are blacks,clearly.

by the way i seen the president of the sudan and he is a black arab.all of the recent presidents of sudan were black arab,but one was a nubian,and to certain extent brainwashed too. i am aware that before the arabs, africans fought other africans in the sudan as well and others.
i heard that african troops will be going to the sudan,maybe they would take it over and give back fully to the africans.you got to have hope.

posted 09 August 2004 06:45 AM            

quote:

---

just imagine african troops being sent to the sudan.that will be a blow to the brainwashed ones and other arabs

---

I think the psychological effects of this would be more important than the military effects.

It says to the Sudanese government:

Where are you?
What are you?

It would show a united African front. It would expose the fallacy of the "Arab world", which does not exist really except as an excuse for racism, terrorism and other uncivilized forms of behavior.

The Arabs are absolutely nothing for any self respecting Africans to emulate.

They united against one country -> Isreal, and got absolutely stomped on during the 6 day war.

There greatest leader in the 20th century, African, Anwar Sadat....they murdered.

I sympathize with how lost and confused they are, and with the injustice done to the Palestinian.

posted 09 August 2004 07:07 AM            

quote:

---

once you have conqured your enemies,you can't take your eyes off them.that was the mistake the ancient egyptians and some other africans made.the nubians always knew thier foes,that is why i liked the nubians better than the ancient egyptians and of course the nubians were and are blacks,clearly.

---

I think Africans, deep down, always want peace and equality with non African people who...deep down, in turn...want supremacy over the African. Just have to learn to face that fact, anticipate it and defend yourself accordingly.

On the Nubians vs. Egyptians I partly agree.
But we should not surrender Egypt (either contemporary or ancient) to the Middle East, because it is still a part of Africa. Also the defeat of Egypt makes the conquest of Nubia possible, and so on.

Same with discussing history. Egypt is Nubia's daughter, and those who wish to claim that ancient Egypt was not Black African must/need turn their attention on Nubia.

Examples:

Western Eurocentrist intellectual Arthur Schlesinger argues that Egypt was not black, because Egypt was not Nubia, and the original Nubians were not black (!).

Anti-africanist Mary Lefcowitz argues that Africans never developed writing. How so?
Easy, she claims that things like the Merotic script are ultimately based on Egyptian writing, and plays the fake geography game of dividing Africa into north and sub-saharan.

But note: some linguists argue that their are only 3 "truly independant" writing systems in the world....Egyptian (which presently records the oldest written document), Sumerian, and Chinese.

This means that Africans developed writing, and Europeans did not. Europe gets it's writing by "DIFFUSION" from Africa and elsewhere, to use their pet term against them.

The point is, these anti-African arguments are a set piece and go together and follow one another, like famine and pestilence.

posted 09 August 2004 07:54 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by neo*geo:
I see no one has attempted to answer my question.

---

Neo*geo, African ethnic groups have historically had conflicts with one another, perhaps based on land and/or resources, but never used "race" as the reason for this. If you have evidence that suggests that "race" was the dominating or central factor, before the advent of foreigners, please feel free to fill me in on it. After foreign conquests and colonialism, usually after bitter battles with varying durations, Europeans in particular, tried to put population portions of different African ethnic groups within a small region, only to be separated by imaginary boundaries from another population mix of the same kind or of different composition. This is called the "divide & rule", for anybody familiar with history. Thus "ethnic" wars were for the most part, brought about colonizers. This "racial" crap was unkown to Africans before the Advent of foreigners. It was more about which "culture" or "society", and which "leadership", gained advantage over the other. This is where I have a problem with you equating divisions between Africans before the advent of foreign groups, with the kind now happening in Sudan! In Sudan, "race" is used as the excuse for the conflict. Ever since colonialism, tribal conflicts had become more widespread in Africa, than before colonialism. Pre-colonial Africa, was a totally different environment.

posted 09 August 2004 08:18 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by neo*geo:
I see no one has attempted to answer my question.

---

If you must know, I ingored it because you clearly "begged" the question, and I was not interested in the 15 back and forth posts with you that past experience has shown it takes to illustrate your penchant for logical fallacy.

posted 09 August 2004 08:21 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by supercar:
Neo*geo, African ethnic groups have historically had conflicts with one another, perhaps based on land and/or resources, but never used "race" as the reason for this.

---

Race is almost always part of ethnic conflicts. Our concepts of race are not the same as people in other parts of the world. Just because people look the same doesn't mean they will see each other as part of the same race. Keep in mind that before there were broad racial groups like "negroid", "caucasion", etc., races could be defined by one's ethnicity. This still goes on today. I think in Sudan, more than race, there is a cultural clash between the ethnic groups who are culturally Arab and the groups who still maintain indigenous African cultures. Again, this takes us back to the traditional ethnic definition of race, not the modern-day definition. My belief is that Arab bedouins merely exploited the tribal differences that had long existed in Sudan.

quote:

---

Originally posted by supercar:

This is called the "divide & rule", for anybody familiar with history. Thus "ethnic" wars were for the most part, were brought about colonizers.

---

I agree and the British deserve as much blame as any other outside parties for ethnic conflicts today between India and Pakistan, in Iraq, in Israel-Palestine, and in Sudan. The British were negligent in the way they handed over power to local groups in the 20th century.

quote:

---

Originally posted by supercar:

Ever since colonialism, tribal conflicts had become more widespread in Africa, than before colonialism. Pre-colonial Africa, was a totally different environment.

---

I can't say whether you're right or wrong because so little is known about greater Africa prior to colonization. However, one well-known example of ethnic conflict in Africa prior to colonization was the displacement of the south African Khosian people by the Bantus.

posted 09 August 2004 08:39 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by neo*geo:
I can't say whether you're right or wrong because so little is known about greater Africa prior to colonization. However, one well-known example of ethnic conflict in Africa prior to colonization was the displacement of the south African Khosian people by the Bantus.

I'm not saying we should let Arabs off the hook in the Sudan crisis. My point is that the finger-pointing at Arabism is being blown out of proportion. Which is understandable because Sudan's history is very complicated to understand. The fact is that ever since the fall of the Merotic state, Nubia/Sudan has lacked a national identity comparable to what we see in Egypt, Ethiopia, Somalia, Eritirea, etc.. Each of those countries have experienced some form of Arabization. Heck, Eritrea has recently joined the Arab League. Despite some of their ruiling classes intermixing with Arabs they still have a national identity and are still proud of their heritage whereas some leaders in Sudan of mixed Nubian/Arab ancestry [b]chose to reject their Nubian heritage. This is a very complicated issue indeed and if it was as simplified as you guys are making it out to be it wouldn't have lasted this long... [/B]

---

I can see the value in Rasol's earlier assessment of Neo*goe's comment! What is Arab culture, other than "Arabic language" and "Islamic" values/laws used as a regulation tool by ruling elites in "Arabic" speaking countries from North Africa to West Asia? I bet you'll speak about select West Asian food,and music again, that has really nothing to do with Arab. Or that North Africans in America sit with and speak to West Asians, as proof that it is about the common Arab culture. There is no doubt that there are deluded people in Africa, like in Sudan, who view Arab as a "race", rather than a mere culture. It is that simple in Sudan; that these deluded people think the are biologically different from other Sudanese, and think they are "superior", and should given such authority by the "African" Sudanese. In their minds, they are the one's doing the "Arabization" of Africans. You are confusing "Arabization" of indigenous Africans with a whole new culture replacing the indigenous African one's, among Africans within the same nation. In Sudan and elsewhere, conflicts between "Arabs" and "Africans" is talking long because of the "simple" fact that not all Africans are brain-washed to the extent of making "Arabic" into a culture or race! This division of Africa into Arab culture and African culture or North African race and Sub-Saharan African race, is simply ludicrous.

posted 09 August 2004 08:45 AM            

quote:

---

"My belief is that Arab bedouins merely exploited the tribal differences that had long existed in Sudan."

---

That isn't saying much, since most colonialists, imperialists and racists do that. For example, the NAZI's did not invent anti-semiticism. They just exploited it. etc.. How does that diminish their responsibility for their crimes?

Your opinion reflects little more than a selective willful blindness based on moral obtuseness.

quote:

---

I'm not saying we should let Arabs off the hook in the Sudan crisis.

---

quote:

---

My point is that the finger-pointing at Arabism is being blown out of proportion.

---

There IS Arabisation. Genocide is being committed in its name, and it must be stopped. Your argument (which you insist on pressing) is intellecually inept and morally obtuse. As usual, I might add.

posted 09 August 2004 10:31 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by supercar:

I can see the value in Rasol's earlier assessment of Neo*goe's comment! What is Arab culture, other than "Arabic language" and "Islamic" values/laws used as a regulation tool by ruling elites in "Arabic" speaking countries from North Africa to West Asia? I bet you'll speak about select West Asian food,and music again, that has really nothing to do with Arab. Or that North Africans in America sit with and speak to West Asians, as proof that it is about the common Arab culture. There is no doubt that there are deluded people in Africa, like in Sudan, who view Arab as a "race", rather than a mere culture. It is that simple in Sudan; that these deluded people think the are biologically different from other Sudanese, and think they are "superior", and should given such authority by the "African" Sudanese. In their minds, they are the one's doing the "Arabization" of Africans. You are confusing "Arabization" of indigenous Africans with a whole new culture replacing the indigenous African one's, among Africans within the same nation. In Sudan and elsewhere, conflicts between "Arabs" and "Africans" is talking long because of the "simple" fact that not all Africans are brain-washed to the extent of making "Arabic" into a culture or race! This division of Africa into Arab culture and African culture or North African race and Sub-Saharan African race, is simply ludicrous.

---

All this debating over Arab culture/ethnicity is trivial. The simple fact of the matter is that the Sudanese do not have a single national identity which unites the different ethnic groups. The Nubians had a great past but Sudan is a country stuck in the Middle Ages. Basically, these tribal/ethnic groups would be fighting each other over something else if the Arabization element was subtracted from Sudan. Culturally Arab nomads in Sudan are just one element of the socio-economic crisis in that country.

As for Arabized blacks, it's really not difficult to understand why they identify with Arabs. For example, blacks in Palestine and Gulf Arab countries are just as aware that their ancestors were African slaves as black Brazilians. However, Arab/Islamic society has allowed them to fully assimilate which is why 90% of these Afro-Arabs simply identify themselves as Arabs.

posted 09 August 2004 10:55 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by ausar:
You forget it was bedouin Arabs who make Nubia fall in the first place. Medevil Nubia was properous and independent untill bedouins started mixing with Nubian creating offspring that ultimatley were on the Arab side. This is just facts,and even if the nation was not united the northern Sudanese Nubians were able to hold off the Arabs in their territory untill the 14th century. You forget the Arabs made a baqt agreement that Nubians could go in their land was they please and had to pay a tribute of slaves. Many historians believe this to be a farce and something the Arabs made up.

The Nubians beat the Arabs so bad they called thems pupil smitters because of their accuracy with the bow and arrow.

---

I agree with everthing you said however, Nubia was no longer united at the end of the Merotic period. Different ethnic groups were becoming more seperate although distinct tribal groups already had existed for centuries. Secondly, as I pointed out earlier, the children of mixed Nubian/Arab often marriages chose to reject their Nubian heritage. This wasn't forced upon them. We need to move beyond what happened in the past in order to help that country get into the 21st century.

posted 09 August 2004 11:04 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by neo*geo:
As for Arabized blacks, it's really not difficult to understand why they identify with Arabs. For example, blacks in Palestine and Gulf Arab countries are just as aware that their ancestors were African slaves as black Brazilians. However, Arab/Islamic society has allowed them to fully assimilate which is why 90% of these Afro-Arabs simply identify themselves as Arabs.

---

Your comparison is interesting to say the least! Sudanese Blacks are still in Africa, they are not "lost" people who are descendants of African Slaves taken away from Africa. You talk about them, as if they were on some other continent. Wake up! They are still in Africa and are still Africans, whatever their mentality. You cannot compare them to descendants of Africans in Asia or Americas. The environment in which African descendants of Asia, America, or Europe live is different from their African counterparts.

Which conflict in Sudan is going on among Sudanese who consider themselves Africans, but of different ethnicity...please point it out for me! I am only familiar with the one going on between "Arabized" Sudanese, and ordinary Sudanese Africans!

quote:

---

Originally posted by neo*geo:
Secondly, as I pointed out earlier, the children of mixed Nubian/Arab often marriages chose to reject their Nubian heritage. This wasn't forced upon them. We need to move beyond what happened in the past in order to help that country get into the 21st century.

---

We can't forget about the past. It is what happened in the past, that is affecting what is happening today! How can you solve a problem without knowing it's history or root?

posted 09 August 2004 11:27 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by supercar:

Which conflict in Sudan is going on among Sudanese who consider themselves Africans, but of different ethnicity...please point it out for me! I am only familiar with the one going on between "Arabized" Sudanese, and ordinary Sudanese Africans!

---

posted 09 August 2004 11:38 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by ausar:
[B]You forget it was bedouin Arabs who make Nubia fall in the first place.

---

Arabisation by definition creates a caste conflict between those who are Arab and those who are not. (ex. Sudanese Blacks, Iraqi Kurds)

posted 09 August 2004 11:38 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by supercar:
We can't forget about the past. It is what happened in the past, that is affecting what is happening today! How can you solve a problem without knowing it's history or root?

---

Well the root is the inability of the Sudanese to settle their differences. This is a problem which predates the overwhelming influence of Islam:

"Eventually the authority of the Nubian kings declined. Increasing power was assumed by local chiefs, who began to put more effort into building castles than churches. Churches became increasingly smaller, while castles, as in Europe of the same period, became the most common monuments of the age - as well as symbols of Nubia's growing instability. By 1400, Nubia had become a "maze of warring principalities" and now lay vulnerable to immigrants bearing Islam."

"1. The Islamization of Nubia

The Christian kingdoms of Makuria and Alwa gradually destabilized and fragmented into fiefdoms of independent warlords. Bands of bedouin Arabs, forced out of Egypt by its rulers, simultaneously pushed southward along the Red Sea hills and up the Nile and quickened the process of political decay. The influx of large numbers of Muslim nomads into Nubia undermined what little influence the Christian church still retained, and the divided Christian territories gradually fell into the hands of Muslim chiefs, either by violence or through their intermarriage with the ruling Nubian families.

Traditionally in Nubian society a man left all his property not to his own sons but to his sister's eldest son. This explains why, in ancient times, the Nubian throne so often passed to a king's nephew. As the Arabs increasingly intermarried with the Nubian women, all property in time passed into the hands of the Arabs, who left all their property to their own sons. Because the Arabs became dominant both socially and politically, their children began to identify exclusively with their Arab ancestors while ignoring or suppressing knowledge of their pre-Islamic Nubian ancestors.

posted 09 August 2004 12:01 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:

Arabisation by definition creates a caste conflict between those who are Arab and those who are not. (ex. Sudanese Blacks, Iraqi Kurds)

---

Iraqi Kurds aren't in a caste conflict. They are an ancient people who want their own nation. They have been oppressed by the Turks and the Persians as well as Iraqi Arabs(BTW, they were gassed by Saddam Hussein for siding with Iran in the Iran-Iraq war). As I pointed out earlier, the British negligently drew up borders for the regions of the former Ottoman empire without taking into consideration the ethnic differences in each region. Iraqis couldn't care less about Arabizing the Kurds. The British and now the US decided that the Kurds must be part of Iraq, not the Arabs.

posted 09 August 2004 12:14 PM            

quote:

---

Iraqis couldn't care less about Arabizing the Kurds.
[/B]

---

You don't seem to understand Arabisation at all.

Arabisation is not only "conversion" but also "annihilation". It's methodologies include, murder, rape, terror, forced migration, and brainwashing.

Gasing the Kurds is a form of Arabisation.

Driving the Kurds out of Kirkuk and then replacing them with Shia Arabs is a form of Arabisation.

It's not surprising that you can't face the facts of Iraqi Arabisation of the Kurds, any more than you can face the facts of Sudan.
You always argue by way of obtuseness...you simply pretend not to understand the obvious, for as long as you possibly can.

I suggest you go testify before the UN to the effect that Iraq doesn't practice arabisation against the Kurds.

posted 09 August 2004 01:32 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by rasol:

I suggest you go testify before the UN to the effect that Iraq doesn't practice arabisation against the Kurds.

---

I suppose the Turks practice Ottomization against the Kurds and the Iranians practice Persianization. And let's not forget the US stepping in to force the Kurds to stay part of Iraq when they clearly want their own soverign nation. The reason all these groups want Kurdish land as part of their countries is because of the oil. Yes, half of Iraq's oil supply is in the northern part of Iraq.

To think that the war with the Kurds was ethnic and not political and economic is as silly as thinking Saddam invaded Kuwait because he believed it was a legitimate part of Iraq. Kuwait was invaded because Iraq was broke after the war with Iran...

posted 09 August 2004 01:52 PM            

Please note I am not anti-Arab nor do I wish to see Arabs die. I just want to clarify that Egyptians are not Arabs. It's just a matter of idenity and correcting the labels that western people and the Nasserites have forced upon us. Many ethnic groups have done terrible things to people including even the anceint Kemetians. However,what the Arabs have done in the form of ethnic imperilism is just as wrong as what Europeans did over the years. Neither one are excuseable.

People should be allowed to chose an idenity without being superimposed a false one. Self recognition is only one of Maslows hierarchy of Needs.

Anyway,Egyptians consider themselves by religion first and Egyptians second.