Zionist Propaganda vs Sudan

by Hashash

Sudan is such a case, and a subject very extensive and complex to be realized in opposition to the simplistic and bad semantics of zionist propaganda.

The picture being sketched is one in which Arabs are alleged an entity of some kind in opposition to another alleged entity called Blacks.

This picture has significant implications in the psychologies of those sensitive and volnourable to such propaganda, for instance: It implies that there is some sort of pigmentation difference between the parties in conflict.

This difference allows for manipulation toward conclusions such as: race being a factor in the issues at hand, similar to the historical western encounters.

Neither this conclusion nor the implication bringing them forth are correct, beginning with the fact that: there is no significant pigmental segregation between the Arabs in question and the alleged "Blacks".

Today in news are the Janjaweed and the inhabitans and refugees of Darfur, and yesterday it were the north in general and the southernerns.

The Janjaweed I found few pictures of unfortunatly, other than this one:

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/40088000/jpg/_40088895_janjaweed203_afp.jpg

Arabs are a geneological and cultural people that do not express a solid entity in physical appearance including pigment and can therefor not be put logically against anyone defined by pigment.

As the people of Sudan are also a people of varying appearances, misconceptions regarding to the relations amongst all these people easily infiltrate the weak mind under a good portion of zionist propaganda.

The reality however is that these are the Sudanese Arabs mentioned:

http://www.sudan101.com/images/suarabsticks.jpg
http://www.sudan101.com/images/Boys%20and%20Mangos.jpg
http://www.sudan101.com/images/JMerchant.jpg

Yes certainly we can engage in discussions in Arabic terms which ones are Aswad (black) and which ones Asmar (brown) but the reality is that all of them are significantly darker than the average "Black" African-Amerikan and deserve no segregation of such sort in the media only because they are Arab: that sounds like anti-semitism if you ask me.

But it gets worse, even on the site showing the Janjaweed picture we can see articles referred to as: Women accuse pro-government Arab militia of systematic rape of black Africans.

Here the implication is not only made that Arabs cannot have skin common identified as black (which itself is actually everything in between white and black) but they are somehow not Africans either.

Yes many decend from Arabians going back to the times of our Prophet and before, but how does that make them not African? If it does, then what consequences would this have for other Semites such as Ethiopians? They are non-African as well?

There is no doubt that the Sudanese Arabs are African, whether they are decendands from Arabian settlers throughout times or the first man to have set foot in Africa. Denying them their nativity is to tthreaten their right to be and exist.

The crisis of Darfour has been the latest opportunity for the spread of zionist propaganda in global demonization of Arabs, however the longlasting crisis in the south has offered much as well including a third allegation: black slavery.

Yes there is slavery, and yes black-skinned people are enslaved: However Arabs are not the priper engagers in this act, and the traders are not significantly different in pigment as the enslaved.

Yet this world-wide propagation of Arabs trading slaves, already of the historical racial prejudices and relation made with western slavery, has a great effect on the Arab world-wide status amongst all those "liberals" that are traumatized by the systems of their own ancestors.

Adding to this the implication that comes along with the term Black Africans and another series of allegations, can bring those weakminded amongst those identifying themselves as "Black" into conflict against the Arabs.

To make the point clear, these are the slavetraders in question:

http://img33.exs.cx/img33/432/slavetraders.jpg

The lack of religious mentioning brings the average person brainwashed by all previous mentioned premises might assume that the LRA is some "Islamist" group of Arabs going around killing/raping/enslaving "Black Africans" from Uganda.

The reality is that it is some pseudo-Christian militant cult

Well the conflict in Sudan has much more to do about religion then race, the conflict in Sudan is real 2 million have died in decades of fighting. Sudan like every other African state is a fallacious state that was a result of British map making. The battles of Sudan are symptomatic of post-imperialist rejection of those borders. There is no doubt that the Muslim government in Khartoum has wrought a lot of death on the South, and with the exploration of oil the government has more leeway with dealing with the Christians.

M-16, it's wonderful that you are fighting against racial stereotypes, everyone should be free to rape, kill and destroy another ethnic group regardless of their "pigmental" qualities.

Well I can imagine certain zionist elements are pleased to show the world just how evil the arabs are by nature using sudan as example, but fact of the matter is that the people in Darfur are just the palestines of africa.

Genocide etc. is seen throughout history amongst all races and colours and usually faccillitated by religious or political movements and we should rather adress these movements rather than say bad arabs or bad jews or bad germans or bad serbs....

Israel would greatly benift aswell if the Western countries get their way with Sudan
thats why they are so interested