المقاومة اللاعنفية والحركات الاجتماعية في السياق السوداني الحالي - ١ من ٣

حتعامل في هذا المقال بجميع اجزاءه بناء على فرضية انو الحركات الاجتماعية (او الشعبية او القاعدية) في السودان تتبنى فكر المُقاومة اللاعنفية.

---

تعريف الحركات الاجتماعية (او الشعبية او القاعدية)

في تعريفات كتيرة للحركات الاجتماعية (او الشعبية او القاعدية) بعض علماء الاجتماع زي روبرت قولدبيرغ بيعرف الحركات الاجتماعية (او الشعبية او القاعدية) بأنها "مجموعة منظمة الناس تتصرف بوعي وبشكل مُستمر لاحداث تغيير ما او لتحسين وضع ما من خلال فعل جماعي."[1] بيل موير يُعرف الحركات الاجتماعية (او الشعبية او القاعدية) في كتابه ممارسة الديموقراطية "بأنها فعل جماعي يحفز الجموع ويُثقفها ويحشدها، على مدى سنوات او عقود احيانا، لتتحدى أصحاب السلطة والمجتمع بأسره بهدف مُعالجة القضايا الاجتماعية أو المظالم واستعادة القيم الاجتماعية المهمة."[2]

---

أصل فكرة المقاومة اللاعنفية في التاريخ الحديث ديني واتطورت الفسلفة دي خلال القرن الماضي وانقسمت لنوعين رئيسين:

المقاومة اللاعنفية الاخلاقية (المبدئية)

وهي ومدرسة تعتمد فلسفتها على ان يكون اللاعنف مبدأ ثابت في حياتك الخاصة والعامة وينعكس في تعاطيك مع خصومك، العالم من حولك، وشركائك في الانسانية وكيف تتعايش معهم. يعني اقرب للتصوف بمعناه الكبير ما المقتصر على الاسلام ومُهتم بتشذيب النفس من الحاق الضرر بأي شيء أو أي شخص. فمارتن لوثر كينج يرى بأن المقاومة المدنية هي "مواجهة شجاعة للشر بالمحبة."[3]  المؤمنين بالطريقة دي مقتنعين تماما بحقهم البيطالبوا بيه بس ما بيبرروا لانفسهم الحاق الضرر بالخصم مهما تعرضوا للعسف او الظلم او حتى القتل. اللاعنف في نفسو مبرر كافي، يعني اللاعنف ما وسيلة بل غاية وطريقة حياة. 

أي نعم المدرسة دي فيها نوع من المثالية والتشبه بأخلاق النبوة، إلا انها بتكسب شعبية وبتترك أثر لأنها بتخلق في النفوس صورة مُتمناه للأنا العليا وبتلاقي مؤيدين ليها حتى لو ما ما قدروا يوصلوا روحياً للمرحلة المتقدمة، غاندي مثالاً. أنا شخصيا بافتكر انو المهاتما غاندي كان برقماتي لحد ما - وده ما أمر سيء بالمُناسبة.

المقاومة اللاعنفية الاخلاقية بتقول انها ما بتوقع أذى على الخصم، بس فكرة الأذى دي نسبية وبيحددها الخصم ما انت، مثلا لما تجبرني كمُستعمر مستفيد من خيرات بلدك مجانا من اني ارضخ ليك وتخسرني قروش وسُلطة انت اذيتني، بغض النظر عن منو البدا الأذى هنا، انا اتأذيت. يعني انا افتكر استبعاد فكرة الاذى من مواجهة الخصم فيها مثالية غير واقعية، مافي خصم بيستسلم ليك كان ما لويت يدو (بالعربي اذيتو وآلمتو للحد البيخليهو يقدم تنازل يقلل من حدة الألم). والمدرسة الغاندية (نسبة لمهاتما غاندي) ليها نُقاد بيروا المدرسة دي في النظم الديموقراطية بتسقط دور القانون في ضبط الاوضاع وبالتالي بتقود للفوضى. صحة النقد ده محتاج نقاش مفصل في وقت تاني لانو محتاجين نفكك طرق الحفاظ على الديموقراطية ودور المجتمع المدني وقصور المؤسسات ووهن مفاصلها في الديموقراطيات لدرجة انها بتدخلك بحمد وتمرقك بخوجلي زي ما حاصل حاليا في أمريكا مع (بابا ترمب). الشاهد، المقاومة اللاعنفية الأخلاقية بتكون صبورة وعندها تؤدة وبتخش في صراع مع الخصم بهدف كبير بعيد المدى هو تغير الواقع المرفوض من خلال تغيير السبب الجوهري. الخلاصة انو فلسفة اللاعنف مُبتغى وهدف واسلوب حياة.

---

المقاومة اللاعنفية التكتيكية (او الاستراتيجية أو البرقماتية)

طيب، خلصنا من ناس اللاعنف المبدئي والاخلاقي نجي على ما يلينا من المقاومة اللاعنفية في سياق التحليل السياسي والمقاومة المدنية. المقاومة دي بتتعامل مع اللاعنف كتكتيك ما طريقة حياة، يعني استخدام اللاعنف هو خيار استراتيجي وبرقامتي. جين شارب بروفيسور العلوم الاجتماعية والاب الروحي لعلم المقاومة اللاعنفية التكتيكي (مات الاسبوع الفات بالمناسبة) بيؤيد النوع التاني البرقماتي وبيرى انو النوع الثاني اقرب للواقعية وانو المقاومة اللاعنفية في سياق سياسي الاجدى انها تكون وسيلة لا غاية في حد ذاتها. النوع ده الكنته فيه هي التفكير الاستراتيجي بمعنى انك تفكر بشكل مُستمر في كيف تحارب بدون سلاح وفي نفس الوقت تكسب نقطة في كل معركة ضد الخصم وتتأكد من انك الحقت أذى - ولا تنكروا ولا تتبرأ منو - بالخصم علشان تجبروا يستمع ليك ويحقق مطالبك. الفكرة الاساسية انو استخدامك للاعنف بيخت خصمك في خانة اليك وبيكسبك تضامن شعبي لما تتعرض للقمع وبالتالي بيوسع دائرة حلفائك وكمان بيقلل خسائرك (المقاومة اللاعنفية بشكل عام خسائرها أقل ونسب نجاحا أعلى من المقاومة المُسلحة) بس لانو محتاجة نفس طويل، لازم تكون عندك استراتيجيات لكل مرحلة.

Source: New York Times

---

المقاومة اللاعنفية ليست مُرادف للسلبية وتصعير الخد الآخر

هناك قول مغلوط مفاده أن المقاومة اللاعنفية، والأخلاقية تحديداً هي طريقة سلبية أو ضعيفة كونها لا تُمارس العنف ولا ترد عليه بعنف مقابل. طبعا القول ده قول عار من الصحة لأن المقاومة اللاعنفية (اخلاقية كانت أو برقماتية) في الحقيقة بتواجه الخصم وبتحول الصراع من كامن latent إلى ظاهر وبتحدد ساحة المعركة (المطالب) وما بتكون سلبية تجاه الخصم. المقاومة اللاعنفية بتجبر الخصم يعترف بالمشكلة وبيهم. ردود افعال المقاومة اللاعنفية بتكون ما حادة وبتعرف تصعد متين وكيف، وغالبا ما تستخدم قمع الخصم لمصلحتها (لكسب التعاطف، سحب الثقة من الخصم، كشف الخصم الخ) وبالتالي تعاملها مع القمع ما بس من باب رد الفعل بل من باب توظيف القمع نفسه لخدمة القضية وعلشان كدا بتكون محتاجة ضبط للنفس ورباطة جأش (جأش ايوة جأش)

Banksy's

---

الفرق بين اللاعنف الاخلاقي واللاعنف الاستراتيجي

النوعين من المُقاومة اللاعنفية مختلفين في فلسفتهم في التفاصيل والسلوك الفردي في الخاص والعام والاهداف بعيدة المدى (الاخلاقية بتستهدف السبب الجوهري وانهاء جميع انواع العنف - البرقماتية هدفها انهاء عنف محدد بعينة ومبتشوف البينفع شنو في المعركة المحددة دي) فكرة التسامح مثلا عند المدرسة الاخلاقية جزء اصيل من الصراع ووسيلة لاستمالة الخصم وتغيير السبب الجوهري بينما النوع البرقماتي بيتعامل مع التسامح والتصالح كتكتيك لكسب المعركة (ما معناها بيغشوا الخصم بس ما بيسامحوا لانهم طيبين ويلا الناس تحب) النقطة الاساسية البتجمعهم هي انو التعامل مع القمع يكون سلمي، ليه بقى دي كلام كتير زي ما وضحنا فوق .(الجدول ده بيبين الفروق بين النوعين بالتفصيل على مستوى الاهداف والوسائل والشخصي والعام.)

---

المقاومة للاعنفية وفض النزاعات وصناعة السلام: تكامل ما تشابه

النقطة الأخيرة والمهمة جدا انو في فرق كبير بين المقاومة اللاعنفية وصناعة السلام او فض النزاعات، المدارس دي مختلفة تماما من ناحية التعاطي مع الصراع. المقاومة اللاعنفية بتخلق صراع لاعنفي وفض النزعات بيجي داخل الصراع الكامن او المنفجر بمبدأ باركوها يا جماعة. اللاعنف بيجي من تحت لفوق بمعنى انو مُلتحم بالجماهير اكتر وبيمثلهم اكتر وفض النزاعات بيجي من فوق لتحت يعني عبر القوانين والاجراءات واذرع الدولة. الاتنين (المقاومة اللاعنفية) و(فض النزاعات و\أوصناعة السلام) بيتقاطعوا وممكن يكلموا بعض بس ما كلهم واحد سيم سيم صديق لا في الاساليب ولا الجمهور ولا الجهات الفاعلة ولا مدى التغيير.

---

اسئلة وجودية

هل كل مقاومة لا عنفية هي بالضرورة مبنية على الاخلاق؟ ولا اي مقاومة عنفية بالضرورة فيها جزء تكتيكي؟ وايهما افضل لسلام مُستدام؟ لاعنف تكتيكي ام لاعنف مبدئي؟

يُتبع

هوامش

[1] Robert Alan Goldberg, Grassroots Resistance: Social Movements in Twentieth CenturyAmerica. (Belmont CA: Wadsworth, 1991), p. 4.

[2] Moyer, Bill. Doing Democracy: The MAP Model for Organizing Social Movements. (Gabriola Island, B.C.: New Society Publishers, 2001), p. 1).

[3] King, Martin Luther, Jr., Stride Toward Freedom; the Montgomery Story. (New York: Harper & Row, 1958. Print.), p. 80.

‪#‎Sudan‬, the invisible county ... an appeal for international media

In case you don’t know what Sudan is, it is an African country- well, identity aside, this might be the only thing Sudanese people would agree on, its location. It shares boarders with Egypt and Ethiopia, among other countries, but you’d properly know these two countries if you live in the northern hemisphere, or anywhere to be frank. Our president, Omar al-Bashir, is the only sitting head of state wanted for genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity for his crimes in Darfur. That might ring a bill.

This plagued country rarely makes it to the headline unless million of people die, a UN official issues yet another press release expressing concern about escalation of violence and calling on the Khartoum regime to bla bla bla, or a reporter manages to get his/her piece to print/wire for the lack of more worthy news ... only then, Sudan may make it to the news, and you’d see it in a shy corner under Africa affairs. However, more often than not, we are forgotten. We don’t exist. But the painful truth is, we do. And our live in Sudan is not that great and lack of media coverage exacerbates our agony.

The thing is, our stories are not sexy, and by that I mean they are not appealing to international media or audience. We are not ‘exotic’ enough, or at all. We fit the stereotype of an African country: poverty, inter-communal conflicts, kakistocracy government, and so many complex issues that no one has the time to unpack, or cares to do so. And for that, we are not making it to the headlines most of the time thus we circulate our miseries among us, Sudanese. We are consumed by tragedies; we enjoy interval moments of peace until the next blow. We have some uplifting stories from time to time but they too, go unnoticed.

Sudanese gathered at a graveyard burying a Student who was shot on April 27. Photo published on Twitter with little or no background info.

To be fair, we share some part of the blame. We, Sudanese, are not good at communicating with the world. We talk among us, we don’t think of non-Sudanese as audience. We often post photos with phrases only a Khartoumi or an urbanized Sudanese can decipher. We are insular; as a defense mechanism or as a copping one, it doesn’t matter, at the end of the day it keeps us out of the picture. And we are convinced that we are to face our daily promise of death alone. We’ve learnt that we are destined to mourn our victims alone. We learnt to express our sorrow in the most esoteric way for a foreign to understand what the hell is going on: fill our newsfeed with photos of young victims’ bodies covered with blood and faint phrases with no substance to tell the whole story; we share weeping poetry to refers to historical days or event, and you, non-Sudanese, will not know what we mean or what the hell is going on. We pay back for ignoring us by isolating you, which hurts us more than it hurts you. It gives us more reasons to indulge in our self-loathing rituals. 

We know that we have no Tahrir square to fill up with of thousand of energetic people holding funny signs that could go viral; we don’t’ have many savvy social media activists who have enough social capital to relay on to drag the attention. So we grew insular. We adjusted ourselves to the fact that we are left alone to deal with it on our own. We also think no non-Sudanese cares, so why bother to make our pain and stories accessible?

But we need international media to look our way; we need international media outlets to give us a line or two to tell our story. The few times our stories were heard, many lives were saved.[1] & [2]

3ayin Sudanese news website with focus on Nuba Mountains

Finding the right contact in Sudan might not be easy, I know. He or she might not have all the facts; but why don't you try to reach more than one person? I'm a journalist myself and I know tracing complex issue is hard, and we, journalists, function under tight deadlines and we tend to reach out to handful of names that we gathered over the years for each country. But, I hope you’d do more next time you cover Sudan. Spare an hour a week to follow some Sudanese social media. Believe me, one of the random photos with Arabic description might be your gate to a worthwhile story. Sudan has more to tell than what UN press releases or officials of other countries say about Sudan. Sudanese have a lot to share, and it will help you connect the dots. Try to reach out to them. Try. It will make our live better if our stories are heard. Just try, please.

[1] "An Idealist on Death Row," Foriegn Policy, October 3, 2012

[2] "Sudan 'apostasy' woman Meriam Yahia Ibrahim meets Pope," BBC, July 24, 2014

The general in his labyrinth or should I say denial?

I have written this article in response to the interview of the Sudanese President with Kevin Sieff of the Washington Post published on December 23, 2014. My response was published in Sudan Tribune, on January 5, 2015.

First of all, I should congratulate Kevin Sieff not only for  having the opportunity to meet with our bloodthirsty President , but also for escaping the fate hovering over most journalists in Sudan i.e. detention and intimidation.  I hope he makes it safe after all; you cannot trust the Sudanese government, that I know for certain.

The online edition of the interview welcomes the reader with a photo of the Sudanese President, Omer Al-Bashir, smiling sheepishly with wandering eyes that are not directed at the camera.  I went back to photo after reading the interview and I reckon that his evasive look suits the fallacy he had told in the interview.

What is intriguing about this interview is that the President bluntly told sated lies and artlessly twisted facts.  He was deeply indulged in self-victimization and blamed all his victims for their own misery.  It was the Southerners Sudanese who did not fulfil their end of the CPA agreement, the Darfurian refugees who like the easy life in camps and do not want return to their intact homes, Rapid Support Forces existence is a military necessity and a product of asymmetric conflict with fluid rebels, and finally Sep 2013 demonstrators were terrorists and the government was forced to react.

I must admit that I admired how much the President tried not to use his usual jingoistic slur he generously offers in Sudanese media.   But I wished if he had shared his genius conclusion he recently claimed that Sudan Call is orchestrated by the CIA and Mossad, who are instigating Sudanese political oppositions' dissention from the government-sponsored national dialogue.  The President assured the interviewer of the oppositions' soon return to the government national dialogue, although his security forces detained two significant signatories of Sudan Call, Chairman of the opposition National Consensus Forces Faruq Abu Issa Abu Issa and Amin Makki Madani .

So, let's take a look at the black comedy play our president staged on Washington Post pages:

Nonsense # 1: UNAMID Is Not Needed, Darfur is Safe Now

Cartoon by Sudanese cartoonist Nayer 

My nonsense tally is not in order of the questions the President had answered but rather based on relevance to current affairs.  Therefore, I will start with the  answers he gave in the third question about demanding the depart of United Nations-African Union Mission in Darfur (UNAMID). Sudan has taken a habit in disrespecting the international community every time it feels cornered. It was first UNAMID Human Rights Office in Khartoum, and then  expelled two senior U.N. officials on Dec 24, one day after the Washington Post interview was published.  

As for the claims that UNAMID is incapable of providing protection, Mr. President seems to act as if he is not an integral part of the conflict that necessitated the presence of UNAMID, and limiting its ability at the same time.  Albeit our criticism of UNAMID performance, we cannot turn a blind eye to the governance lack of respect of the UNAMID’s mandate or its rule.  The government decision to evict UNAMID is part of its ongoing attitude towards conflicts. Prolonging them.

Mr. President yet gave a false statement about the peace process in the region and claimed that the peaceful areas in Darfur are expanding.  The President, who expressed his concerns about the Internally Displaced People IDPs, did not know that they are not only hundreds of thousands.  As of December 2013, and according to the UN, there are  2.9 million IDPs in Sudan. Mr. President, please check your facts.  

And Mr. President cannot actually understand that IDPs are not migrating birds and their transition from IDP camps to their villages is not a picnic or enjoyable road trip. Those IDPs, whom the President accused of loving ‘easy life in camps’ and aid dependent, actually have no place to return to, and their villages are burnt down with no sign of any public services.   Many refugees in Chad,  had taken then step voluntarily to return, as they did in 2012, only to lose once again what they had hoped for: peace, and they went back to Chad in influx that the international community still dealing with its ramifications.  Let’s assume that today all IDPs repatriated to their homes, and for the sake of the argument we will hypothetically assume that their houses are still standing.  How easy it is for war survivals to return to normal life? what about the trauma? what about the economic well-being and rebuilding? What guaranties that catalysts for the past conflicts are now resolved? For one, the governance style has not change.

The President lightheartedly said “they went back and it was safe and they farmed their lands.” I wish life was that simple Mr. President. IDPs returnees, if we were to shake a magical wand and return them to their homes, won’t find the ability to farm or the sense of security to do so. And farming takes more than a man and fertile soil.

Nonsense #2: September 2013: We Only Killed 80 People, Not 200

As for September 2013, the President blamed the victims, as usual.  First, he dehumanized the victims and shortened them to numbers, by referring to them as “number of people who died.” “Who died”?  They were killed.  Using the past tense "died" suggests that those armless protesters died of natural causes not police intentional "shoot to kill" conduct.   He was so fixated on the correcting the number more than answering the way in which those number were counted as causalities.   When finally he decided to answer the question of their dead circumstance, he claimed that the 80 people who 'died', died of their clashes with the police.   This what the president is promoting in his self-victimization campaign: Unarmed people lost their mind and clashed with heavily armed police. They attacked the police therefore they deserves to meet their demise for trying. I am relieved he did not say they were high or stoned to justify his allegations. The interesting thing is that he pictured the demonstration as a scene in a si-fi movie. Demonstrators attack police stations and courts.  All courts mind you in Khartoum. But only 80 died? how many courts and police stations do you have in your capital Mr. President? The President went on claiming that the “people who died” killed people and destroyed property with no mention of number of victims as he was very meticulous about the number of demonstrators “who died.”

Another fascinating analogy the President made is comparing Sudan with the U.S. The funnier analogy was describing the demonstrators as terrorists, who are Qaeda ally, which is quite interesting if we reflect on the reasons that put Sudan on U.S. sanctions list in the first place.

Nonsense # 3: Sudan-South Sudan Conflict is Patrimonial

Answering a question about the impact of the American sanctions on Sudan, the president answered another question he heard in his head.  The question specifically asked about the impact of U.S. sanctions on Sudanese people and Sudan’s economy.  The answer had no mentioned of Sudan people or their economic well-being for the matter.

Al-Bashir claimed that lifting sanctions was contingent to ending war with the South, which he thinks had been delivered. Nevertheless, the president got touched by a historical fairy and said that the conflict actually, which he just claimed ending it with diligence and willing to compromise, tracks back to the mists of time for which he blamed the British Colonization. First of all Mr. President, Sudan-South Sudan conflict might had been inherited from colonization, but all consecutive governments reproduce the same tactics of exclusions. The two decades wars during your reign were international and ideological. The South war and the ramifications of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA), and its ramifications in form of the South Sudan independence in 2011, fulfilled the Sudanese government's quest for “purging” the country from all aspects of diversity, in race or religion. Evidently, you, Mr. President, wanted the secession to happen.  Demanding lifting sanctions in return for what in fact serves your ideological goals, is dishonest and distortion of truth.

Nonsense # 4: We delivered peace, therefore, we should be rewarded

Answering the same question about the sanction, the president  went on in lamentation about how the U.S. had tricked them into signing many agreements to end conflicts with the promise of lifting the sanctions. I am not sure if the president has a PR person or someone sensible to advise him on how to portray himself.  All I know is that argument made him sound like a toddler mad at his teacher for denying him his perks for not cleaning his desk.  It is your desk. You made it dirty. Take reasonability.  Hello?! Mr. President, you should not demand or need an incentive to end conflicts you have started and fueled for years. Period. Get over yourself.  Conflict in Darfur had been, and still is, a pressuring  card for the Sudanese regime. It is money-generating conflict in which the governments keep reselling to different stakeholders for different prices.  So, Mr. President, please!

Nonsense # 5: When Revenge Is Actually not a Revenge at All

Do we remember the question about the sanctions' impact on Sudan’s people and the country’s economy that the president turned it into tears bond on unfulfilled promises? Here how he concluded his irrelevant answer, which I consider a masterpiece and indicative of the political and intellectual capacities, or the lack thereof, of our President:

"And, of course, we need to see very clearly the loss incurred on the United States by the economic influence of china. It is a loss. That’s why we say the sanctions hurt us. But they also hurt the United States."

Amazing! Right? How could the president think that he made the U.S. tastes it's own poison, and that Sudan and  inflicted any economic losses on America by establishing a partnership with the largest foreign holder of U.S. debt i.e. China, which owns more about $1.2 trillion of U.S. debt.

There is much more to this interview than what an op-ed could handle. But I hope the facts are checked and people get to hear the many sides to the story.

Racism in Sudan: The Elephant in the Room

Reading  "Americanah" by  Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie prompted me to write this blog. If you hadn't read it, please do so! **

________

Since my move to the U.S. in early 2012, the issue of race has always been present.  I hear it in radio/TV talk shows, stand-up comedies, movies, grad school classes, and open mike events. I read it in newspapers and books, and it is always present when Obama’s name comes up. I have walked in several marches pertinent to police cruelty against black and listened to African-American speakers sharing their thoughts and demanding change. But does that make America a better place now for blacks or colored people? of course not, and indeed there is much more to be done.  But at least the topic is not a taboo or avoided by the colored themselves.  Social change is a process not a destination.  We become what we aspire for as we proceed. So you find “race” right there front and center wherever you find a black person, even if many would like this topic to be left behind in the past.  But people still do talk about race and racism, and the discussion should never stop. Never. Otherwise, laws, and people could easily slack and go back to the world of white supremacy.

Sugarcoating: Is it racism or tribalism in Sudan? 

The first sign that this topic is a taboo in sudan is that it is not called in its real name.  It is mitigated and called  gablia قبيلية  [Arabic for tribalism]. While tribalism is indeed a toxic ingredient that jeopardizes social harmony and social justice,  it is not the same as racism or Arab supremacy in Sudan.  Why? Because tribal characteristics of Arab tribes, albeit their difference, at the end of the end of the day, they collectively, triumph over African tribes. And this is the case in Sudan.  Jaalai [ جعلي] and Sahigi  [شايقي] might scuffle about each one's avarice or  temerity stereotypes,  but they are still considered awlad Arab اولاد عرب [Arabic for Arabians], which has positive connotation  thus spontaneously place them on the top of social hierarchy compared to those less Arabs.

Illusion

By Sudanese cartoonist KhalidAlbaih [1]

I often hear people say that old Sudanese people were never racist.  Or that they if they were racist, they never explicitly acted on their racism. That people were race-blind so to speak.  I find it hard to believe that race was not an issue until the current government came to power.  Or that racism in Sudan is just another manifestation of the present global wave of tribalism.  Nor that I think the government is innocent of instigating differences along racial lines.  But I rather suggest that the regime is using what is already latent and implicit within the social setting.  Racism, prejudice, and the notion of Arab supremacy do/did exist in Sudan.  Why am I so fixated on saying that we are racist? Because you cannot tackle what you think it doesn’t exist. So, first we need to admit the existence of racism to be able to embark on a journey to find its root, and to address it eventually.

Race has always been an issue in Sudan, and it will also be as long as Sudanese people are in limbo about their Africanism.  Race was always there, but we try to sweep it under the carpet.  If you need to know how race is significant in our collective conscious, please read the history of slavery in Sudan, and it  might shed light  on this reality.  

Reading kitab al tabagt by daifallah [2] طبقات ود  ضيف الله,  one would find profuse contents to get a feel of the presence of race long before the creation of the modern state in Sudan.  In page 108 of the fifth edition, the biography of one of the scholars indicates that his mother was Sudnaia سودانية, which was explained in the footnote that the name was the prevalent references for the indigenous people of the land i.e. the blacks. Two things caught my attention: one, the maternal lineages gained significant due to its ties to negro race. I did not find another reference in the book that mentioned a mother from the Arabian background. Two: the origin of the country's name "Sudan" should had given supremacy to the black race since they are the indigenous, but this is not the case as we all know.

Avoidance

I rarely heard any candid  discussion about race or racism among Sudanese.  Those who are on the receiving end of prejudice prefer not to talk about it with the racially-charged knowing how sour the conversation could go. In more than one occasion, I was in social settings where the Arabized Northerners entertained light discussions form the position of the privileged, charged with more vanity than sympathy. They share anecdotes of so and so marrying form the “others” and how they see it as an indication of the collapse of racial barriers. I usually do not fancy telling them that this is an oversimplification of racial issues in Sudan. Intermarriage could be a result of socioeconomic reconfiguration not the ebbing of racism.     

Sometime it seems to me that people resorted to unspoken codes of race/class classifications, of who is who, and who belongs where. The privileged enjoy their privileges and those in the lower ranks of social hierarchy either accepted their position and admired the inherent  privileges the privileges enjoy, or resented the unfair racial compartmentalization, however, they still could not change it.  

Can we change it?

Changing the perception of race and prejudice works in multiple levels and dimensions. First, it requires a state that is not a patronage system. Because a patronage system needs social classification to sustain loyalty, therefore, it enacts adequate regulations to keep a tap on who belongs to what. Also, fear is necessary for people to endure a corrupt regime. What is best than making one fear the “other” whose image is systematically portrayed as an inferior and ambush to attack his master? Second, changing perception of race needs a change in power dynamics, which cannot be accomplished under totalitarian control. Third, racism should not be treated as a myth, it needs to be brought up and disarmed. There should be enough foundation of deep understanding of what racism means and its impacts on people’s live. Racism is not only calling someone A’ab عب [Arabic for slave]. Racism is thinking that some’s life is not as worthy as yours.  Whatever that entails, including the right to “be” free of prejudgment and limitation to power or opportunities based on race.

I am always delighted when the topic of racism is brought up in a cognitive context for it makes people relate.  Recently,  youth started to bring those topics up in poetry or on stage.  It is a good start to build the foundation of understanding although  the privileged indeed opt to look the other way when the word onsoriah عُنصرية [Arabic for racism] peeks its head in conversations.  

________

** It was hard for me to finish the novel in one week due its richness in topics and its complex plot.  While the topic I will highlight in this blog is race, I was moved by other aspects the writer brought up about what African women face when they come to the U.S.: sexuality, identity, African-American v.s American form Africa, belonging, fitting, interracial relationships, and redefining oneself, among other issues.  Maybe I will get to write about those issues someday!

[1] Two Sudanese people calling one another 3ab (Slave or black)  -  by KhalidAlbaih

[2] The author of the book, Mohamed Alnour bin DaifAllha  said to be born in 1727 and died in 1810. The book is considered one of the major primary references to the Fung Sultanate, (also known as the  Black Sultanate). The book was aimed to be an encyclopedia of religious scholars of that era.