We missed the panel today, but in case you missed it, you can check out his article in the London Review of Books which caused considerable controversy at that time as well.
It seems a remarkable aspect of current campus activism that many schools have seen vociferous and militant campaigns on divestment from Darfur while anti-war movements on these same campuses have remained weak or non-existent. Does Darfur offer a cause which is morally compelling while remaining politically neutral? Does this reveal a fear of politics, or a depoliticization of student activism and the left on campuses?
Tuesday, December 4, 2007
Professor Mahmood Mamdani on Darfur
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
To say that Darfur is politically neutral is incorrect. To join in the activist movement shows political awareness.
A better distinction between Darfur and Iraq is that the anti-war in Iraq movement directly contradicts the U.S. policy. The Darfur movement, however, faces no opposition from the powers that be, at least in this country.
Perhaps a better explanation for why people focus on Darfur is because they feel that students can have a real, measurable impact on University policy, whereas the anti-war movement is relegated to vague "consciousness raising" and self-congratulatory marches in Washington.
that's absurd! The CCAW divestment campaign, if properly supported and organized, could have a "real, measurable impat on University policy"; but, because it involves criticism of the Columbia administration and the government's military campaigns, it is considered taboo by Darfur liberals.
The people who fight for humanitarianism in Darfur but not anywhere else in the world are not apolitical, I would argue that they are entirely political. Their political line is that they agree with US imperialism fundamentally, so they support humanitarian efforts where US imperialism is not at stake but not in other parts of the globe (Middle East, Latin America) where it is.
No matter how much one disagrees with activists who are involved in the Darfur movement, I think it is a overstatement to say that "their political line is that they agree with US imperialism." While your point is well taken, I think that it would be more appropriate to say that their politics of humanitarianism blinds them to the power dynamics of imperialism. Because their ideological approach to the issue fails to appreciate the centrality of American hegemony, they see Iraq and Darfur as essentially different, and they believe in the potential of a truly humanitarian intervention.
Post a Comment