Peretz Does Darfur

August 13, 2008 RSS Feed Print
  • Comment (1)

For a chuckle, check out Marty Peretz’s post from Monday titled: “Not ‘Never Again!’ But ‘Yes, Again and Again and Again’.” That, gentle reader, is the sound of The New Republic editor-in-chief’s self love.

The post is full of cringe-making lines, including:

I’ve put a lot of my conscience and energy into making [TNR] a publication that dares to tell the truths others avoid.

And:

…It is with some pride that I claim [TNR] to have been one of the true actors (or factors) in the Western intervention against Milosevic’s crimes…

But for those interested in the catastrophe that is Darfur—ostensibly the subject of the piece—the biggest cringe comes when Peretz attempts to define the conflict. “Let’s face facts,” he writes, “the war in Sudan is a war of its Arabs against its blacks.”

For the last four years I’ve spent a great deal of time reporting on—and most importantly from—Sudan. I’m hardly alone in this. Since the conflict erupted in 2003, there’s been a lot of good journalism from Darfur but also a lot of nonsense. And the surest way to determine if a writer knows anything about Darfur is if he characterizes the conflict as Arab against “black.”

Let’s face facts indeed: Anyone who’s spent any time in Darfur knows that “black” is a groundless description. Broadly Darfur can be defined as a struggle between “African” and “Arab” tribes, but after centuries of inter-marriage any distinguishing physical characteristics between the two are largely blurred. Plenty of Arabs are “blacker” in appearance than Africans. Indeed, the terms “African” and “Arab” have less to do with ethnicity than with lifestyle: Darfur’s Africans are largely settled tribes, while its Arabs are both settled and nomadic. (But even this African-vs-Arab characterization fails: Most Arab tribes play no part in the conflict and even sympathize with the African tribes.)

So beware of Darfur’s “black” champions, no matter how sincerely they emote. You just know they’re trying to re-create Selma, and have little understanding of what is in fact an enormously complicated and nuanced conflict in which both African and Arab thugs have claimed both African and Arab victims.

Tags:
Darfur

Reader Comments Read all comments (1)

Add Your Thoughts
Your comment will be posted immediately, unless it is spam or contains profanity. For more information, please see our Comments FAQ.

Marty is quite the character. Self-important and supremely overconfident, his stewardship of The New Republic is most notably defined by his uberbearing support of Israel. His chief nemisis, Eric Alterman, makes the case that Marty traces all of his foreign policy positions to Israel. In Darfur's case, he supports doing something lest the US start going isolationist and proceeds to stop supporting Israel. His knee jerk support of the Iraq war likely forced him to sell control of the magazine. The new owners share his Israel views, so he is allowed to continue with his usual blather on the Spine where he can be avoided by online readers weary of his tirades.

Darrell of TX 8:04PM August 13, 2008

Sam Dealey

Sam Dealey

Sam Dealey, former editor of the Washington Times, is a principal at Monument Communications, a public-relations consultancy in Washington, D.C.

advertisement

advertisement