The Problem With the Save Darfur Coalition

In his new book Saviors and Survivors: Darfur, Politics, and the War on Terror, Mahmood Mamdani “attacks the Save Darfur Coalition as ahistorical and dishonest, and argues that the conflict in Darfur is more about land, power, and the environment than it is directly about race.” Guernica magazine interviewed the controversial author about the historical roots of the Darfur conflict, the similarities between Darfur and Iraq, and the proper role of the International Criminal Court (ICC) in Sudan and elsewhere. [%comments]


Unfortunately, having read the book, I found that Mamdani has a pretty clear agenda of his own with his intentional obfuscation and omissions.

Where are this noted scholars solutions? The irrelevancy of noted academics writing things which have never in history solved these problems, should be noted, as should the agendas of their scholars

Eric M. Jones

There are situations like Darfur that are simply so dangerous that the press stays away. Haiti is another..

Very few journalists want to brave the environment. I speculate that many great disasters get little press--in some instances, simply because so many have fallen. Many WWII battles were under-reported for this reason. The only people to tell the story were dead in the next battle.

Read Graham Greene's THE COMEDIANS, or better yet see the Taylor-Burton movie.


Olivia, I know Mamdani as much as I know you. Nevertheless the same way i would no accuse you without any proof of having a "pretty clear agenda", we should not with him either.
This blog is about bringing new thoughts away from the conventional understanding, and this post is just doing that. Sometimes this posts leads to nowhere, and sometimes to new discoveries.
All writers have an agenda, that is why they write about a topic they are interested, but portraying that as bad thing is no the way to go.


I have to agree with Edel above - what exactly is his agenda?

This is not an endorsement of Mamdani (whose book I have not read), but having studied history and politics my impression over years has become that most conflicts that are presented to us as being based on race/religion and good/evil etc etc really just boil down to politics and raw competition for resources at the end of the day.

That's not to say that race/religion conflicts and horrible genocides don't exist, just that often the reasons are more complex and there's a tendency to simplify the sides and their motivations.