| Zionism and Slavery in Sudan |
| Shemon Salam | |
|
In the 1920s, Marcus Garvey’s Universal Negro Improvement Association (UNIA) created perhaps the largest movement of black people in the U.S. An important aspect of the Garveyite movement was the idea of emigrating back to Africa. One of the places considered for emigration was Liberia. Liberia was an independent nation in West Africa created by former American slaves. However, not only did these former slaves constitute a new Creole ruling class, but the ironic existence of slavery in Liberia undermined the legitimacy of this project in freedom. Attempting to discredit Garvey, the U.S. government highlighted the existence of slavery in Liberia, declaring the hypocrisy of the movement to dare to stand for freedom. The fact that the U.S. government presided over racial terror and segregation in its own country and imperialism abroad seemed to be beside the point. Nevertheless, Garvey's Back-to-Africa-Movement was undermined partially by its own failings to ask sufficient questions about the meaning of slavery in that country.1 Today a new campaign with some momentum has appeared on American college campuses citing the evils of slavery. The target is the Islamic state of Sudan. Behind this campaign are a handful of Zionist and right-wing organizations, the liberal media and those who appear to be the provisional and progressive State Department. A strange gathering of forces indeed! Not only have there been a host of conferences about Sudan at various universities, but many student front groups, religious right and liberal human rights organizations have appeared, holding rallies and setting up literature tables. Recently, Harvard even divested from Sudan—a sign of things to come. Despite the fact that the U.S. government currently has friendly relations with Sudan, Zionist groups have begun a campaign for divestment from it. Much in the same way that U.S. official society has gone into high gear proving the backwardness of Muslim, Arab, and African people as unfit for self-government, this campaign directly seeks to destabilize Palestine solidarity and the call for divestment from Israel. Their goal is to cover up the reality of Zionist apartheid and once again establish Israel as a progressive, if flawed, state in a false hierarchy of oppressions on a world scale with itself and the U.S. in the lead. To give a comprehensive analysis of slavery in Sudan or a history of the civil war there is not within the scope of this essay. Instead this essay seeks to philosophically reframe how we might think through this issue as a problem for international solidarity for those who oppose all oppressions, not only those we can cynically manipulate to justify others. Modernity, Class Struggle, and Feudal Social Relations Before looking at the character of slavery in Sudan and examining the Zionist reasons for an anti-slavery campaign, it is important to lay out some basic propositions on how certain notions of modernity are used selectively by official society to justify empire and the state. This is the case whether such justifications are couched in liberal or conservative terms. It will become clear that several points come into play in an unusual constellation of realpolitik and naiveté when unraveling the Israel, Sudan, and slavery question: middle class standards of oppression, radical notions of progress and civilization, and a lack of independence from states and ruling classes. These have created unlikely allies in a common objective for the freedom of Sudanese slaves. In terms of the Sudan and slavery question, this is especially true of how imperialism is justified in these times. Such a dilemma is really about middle class management of the modern working class, and how they convince everyday people what are acceptable limits of oppression. The existence of a large and historically oppressed and backward class below middle class society holds back human progress and development. So the managerial class wields the sentiment: “You have it better here so pipe down.” This suggests that working folks should not point out the barbarisms of their own ruling class, but as good citizens they should fight historically outmoded forms of oppression across the sea, such as slavery, and leave their own ruling classes to do as they wish. Historically, feudal social relations in the non-Western world have been used by racists and imperialists, liberals and socialists alike (and these are not mutually exclusive categories when discussing modernity, civilization and barbarism) to justify the subjugation of many peoples and nations to the political and economic control of Western states. Importantly, this same justification was used by the rising bourgeoisie to mandate its leadership in eradicating feudalism from Europe. As the old caste system was buckling under the pressure of innumerable peasant movements and an emerging working class whose revolutionary religious character eventually combined with more secular-derived ideas, rural and traditionally religious ways of life became undermined but not erased. Two contending powers—new national ruling classes and everyday people from below—gave birth to two rival meanings of modernity and democracy. Since that time, it is the former’s conception of modernity and democracy that has dominated, albeit continually contested. This means the whole spectrum of human dignity ranging from freedom to oppression have been dominated by the needs of these ruling classes. In the case of Sudan today, a hierarchy of oppression has been created by presumed enlightened ruling elites to justify empire as they see themselves as the only force capable of saving slaves in Sudan. The managers of society cannot recognize that slaves are capable of their own liberation in their social and cultural setting on the basis of an international solidarity from below. The complicity of the United Nations in this whole affair is not to be overlooked, especially its role in allowing ruling classes to use comparative human rights arguments in the name of promoting and expanding empire. In fact, the U.N. has become the vehicle for many of these ideas to be carried out. However, the exact dates and names and an exhaustive record of the various parades that have lined up need not be recalled to understand what is at work here. Today, Israel and the U.S., like past empires and racist systems, are desperate to bolster the legitimacy of white supremacy and empire. Zionist and rightwing organizers have dutifully answered the call. Highlighting examples of feudal relations in modern Muslim societies—like slavery in Sudan—they attempt to characterize whole societies in racial terms as static representations of “outmoded” social relations, whose antidote is modernized development in the hands of the United States, Israel and the U.N. Reflecting back on the ideals associated with Rudyard Kipling’s “White Man’s Burden,” (Mr. Kipling would lament it is not easy being charged with bringing civilization and self-government to those he believed to be inferior) the Zionists propose a civilizing mission in which Western states impose their control through various means in order to remake these societies. Thus they may become more efficient and compliant in adhering to their own exploitation. If Western states have supposedly brought their own working classes to heel, why not the rest of the world? This vision has given many middle class students a global purpose beyond drinking and spending their parents’ money. And the progressive mind has been vulnerable to the suggestion that slavery in Sudan is central to a world system where atrocities have been largely ameliorated. It’s important to understand what’s at stake in Sudan as it has been constructed for the progressive mind. There are many modern and feudal obstacles to freedom and a better way of life. These exist not on a hierarchal scale of civilizations as composed by Marx and many progressive-minded people (not merely bold racist thinkers) in a mechanical stages of history scheme that evolve one after the other suggesting inferiority and superiority.2 Rather, a complex combination of modern and feudal oppressions exist side-by-side that are all equally irrational and struggled against (or not) by ordinary people. From Chicago, Illinois to Nairobi, Kenya, Western and non-Western states have often encouraged tribalism or feudal patronage contributing to the division of working people along ethnic lines and sanctioning increased burdens on women and children. While it is fact that feudal oppressions justify modern ones, it is equally true that feudal oppressions are enabled by modern ones. Indirect imperial foreign policies are one example of how oppressive customary authority is reinforced and even invented (in the name of promoting false ethnic autonomy). As in the case of apartheid South Africa and in colonial Israel, bantustans, unviable and dependent ethnic homelands have been historically invented to be subject to indirect rule. In the U.S., middle class and working class ethnic competition can be viewed as a type of “backward” tribal or customary authority. Where are the campaigns to eradicate these scourges? Union and political party patronage, which is often merely a system of ethnic payoffs or a favor-giving system between subordinates and authorities that sanction the subordination of others, is a major obstacle to the defeat of both white supremacy and capitalism in American society. Women here continue to find themselves struggling against the informal caste work of childcare, housework and less pay. The idea that they are part of a modern family distinguished by human rights obscures this travesty. The gimmick is that they should be loyal to such oppressive relations for at least they are not subject to polygamy. This is too often the thinking of comparative concepts of progress, civilization, and human rights. Official society in the West tries to cover up its own inevitable failure to fix these problems by pointing to other societies as less “progressive” or “developed,” roughly based on Marx’s and other more boldly capitalistic hierarchical sketches of civilization and history. Such chronologies or ordering of time into historical stages obscure much. They justify the superiority of some societies over others by suggesting some are signposts of ancient outmoded eras which are more oppressive. Of course all economic societies, such as hunter-gatherer, slavery, or feudalism, deemed of a bygone era in fact exist side by side within the contemporary capitalist epoch. This would not be so treacherous if such debates led to arguments for direct democratic liberation struggles from below in all societies and against all oppressive social relations. Instead, our minds are molded around a lesser evil conception where comparative freedom is to be found in the most powerful imperial centers and in the ruling class. Sudanese Slavery Much has been said about the situation in Sudan. The truth is a mix of unsavory truths and sad realities of real world power politics trapped in the hypocrisies of ruling class ambitions and morality. Slavery in Sudan is not a derivative of the civil wars that have ravaged the country over the past twenty years. Slavery is a practice that has been institutionalized via Arabs and Muslims over the course of hundreds of years. Although it is different than the chattel-plantation or “industrialized” kind that many Americans have come to understand, it is none-the-less a humiliating experience denying the very basic notions of human dignity and freedom. Slavery in Sudan is riveted with contradictions that defy America's own unique experience of slavery. Parents are known to have sold their own children to Northerners or Sudanese Arabs just so they do not die of starvation. Many slaves are captured during raids and can be purchased back by their families. In the U.S., slaves were bought for explicitly economic purposes, although racist ideology underpinned the justification of such practices. In Sudan, it is not mere economics that facilitate the existence of this social practice but also a lack of recognition that what is happening is even slavery. To many Northerners these black and non-Muslim slaves are used for day-to-day housecleaning and sexual favors. Sadly, the slaves hold little value for Northerners, as they are an easily replaced source of labor. In addition, Sudan's economy is not dependent on the labor of slaves or the slave trade; so whatever limited sustenance was given to slaves in the U.S. is often inconsequential to a people who do not justify slavery on economic grounds. This is not meant to be apologetics for facts on the ground that clearly point to the existence of slavery, but is meant to illustrate the complications when discussing how sincere anti-racists are to go about addressing such an issue. The following basic points need to be grasped to put the situation in perspective: instead of a clear racially-based foundation of slavery rooted in skin color, it rests on a cultural, ethnic, and religious bedding which sets the notion of Arabness and Islam at the very top. It is North Sudan that considers itself to be the latter, while Southern Sudan identifies with black Africa. Importantly, similar to Swahili coast cultures, who is African or Arab has little to do with skin color, although it is not to say that skin color does not play some role in creating an identity. White supremacy (and hence a strong basis of separating civilized humans from the barbarian horde is less on skin color) being next to non-existent in Sudan means it is culture, religion, and tribe that determine loyalties for many people. Manipulation of the racial and religious sensibilities of American audiences, who have a different historical experience with race and slavery, can lead to distortion and misunderstanding. The play is not as much on skin color as it is on the religious divide between Northern and Southern Sudan. Raving Muslim lunatics incapable of devising a democratic and peaceful way of life are common images many Zionists, liberals, and Christian-Evangelicals conjure up when conceptualizing their understanding of the situation. Slavery has been practiced in underground markets more or less as the Islamic government of Sudan has declared the practice illegal. However, it has done little to curb the practice as it has fought a brutal civil war with Southern Sudanese. Southern Sudan from the day of independence from the British in 1956 has been against a unified Sudan due to fears of Northern chauvinism. This chauvinism extends to some Egyptian nationalists who imagine Sudan as lower-Egypt and part of a greater Nile River region. The conduit of slavery has been through Dinka-Baggara tensions. With Baggara militiamen (darker skinned Africans with an Arab identity) backed by various Sudanese governments in power for over twenty years, the latter have exacerbated the conflict over water, cattle, and grazing land with cultural overtones of Baggara/Northern superiority over their Dinka/Southern Sudanese counterparts.3 What’s Islamic about Sudan’s Islamic State? The question of defending the character of Muslim peoples has been intimately tied to the status of slavery in Sudan. This has been the case because the state identifies itself as an Islamic state. At the same time Sudan is used as an example to prove that there is something inherently anti-democratic and backwards in Islam. Unfortunately, in debates among Muslims there is not always sufficient clarity in separating the idea of religion as a contributor to political and social philosophy, democracy and freedom, and the depravity of the Sudanese ruling class. There is a sentiment to be found in the Koran that honorable individuals are charged with treating their slaves well. This essay recognizes both the oppressive limitations and the comparative modern justifications of such views. American empire and Israeli colonialism through the discourses of human rights and development claim to be treating their “slaves” well all the time. But of course we are being introduced to an argument through the slavery in Sudan charade that there are slaves (an unacceptable variety of oppression) and thus those subordinated under capitalism should be comparatively thankful. Yet many people seeking to defend Islam as personal heritage argue that the “Islamic” state of Sudan is not “true” Islam. If only a state would advocate and practice such an Islam, this thinking goes, then true social harmony and equality would thrive. The problem is that ever since the establishment of the Caliphate, Muslim states and elites have always used Islam to justify their control of society. These aspiring and existing rulers advocate class collaboration with themselves in the lead as the path towards solving society’s problems. The moral regeneration of the elite will not solve these problems as the very existence of this class above society denies the best principles of Islam. Yet this is not just an obstacle of understanding in Muslim communities. Others of a more secular and radical persuasion have failed to understand that the reformation of the state and ruling class in secular “progressive” terms is not an avenue of freedom, but just another denial of ordinary people’s struggle to take control of their society and govern. These are the fundamentals of a people-to-people foreign policy, where we work to defeat our own ruling classes. The defeat of slavery in Sudan will not come any other way. Slavery in Sudan as Justification of Israel The core of this analysis will be applied to several articles typifying the standard methods used by organizations such as the Campus Conservatives and CAMERA (Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America) to spin a human rights violation crisis in Sudan with the result that nothing intelligent can be said in criticism of Israel. Three lines of thinking emerge from these articles. First, Israel commits lesser crimes than other states; subsequently it should not be the target of any anti-racist or anti-colonial solidarity campaigns. Second, Israel is the only democracy in the Middle East and is equally a model for Africa. Third, although Israel imagines itself as a Western state, it is treated unfairly compared to most non-Western states. Zionists are so focused on slavery in Sudan from a public relations point of view that they seek to exploit how race politics works in the United States and ensure the continuing apartheid in Israel can go unnoticed as activists fight oppression every other place on earth. In claiming to be against slavery, Zionism supports the purchase of slaves and their assimilation into “free” society, which in reality is a racist society with its own contemporary forms of race and class-based oppression. There are serious political oversights if this action is taken at face value. First, these freed slaves are toured around the country as circus animals highlighting feudal oppression in Sudan that merits more urgent attention than anything that could be possibly happening in Israel and Palestine. The implication of such a method is to further degrade slaves. It is suggested they don’t have the ability to rise to “civilization” and free themselves from bondage. Many folks who are purchasing slaves compare themselves to abolitionists of the past attempting to create a lineage of activism and heroism. This comparison has serious defects as it ignores the fact that abolitionists like John Brown and Harriet Tubman did not buy slaves and were willing to foment civil war against the U.S. government. A true student of historical and comparative slavery and not an opportunist would have to admit that not only did abolitionists work hand in hand with slaves, but slaves have been the primary abolitionists when it came to their own liberation! The power of abolitionists in the 19th century was really in the confidence and courage they gave to slaves around the country. Slaves could see themselves as liberators and creators of their own destiny and not merely as objective beneficiaries of someone's benevolence. Abolitionism as a class above slave society seeking to administer a correct way of life of course has always existed, but has been nothing but a form of liberal racism. Another political oversight follows. The anti-slavery claim works best in spaces where there is a consensus that however oppressive modern institutions might be, feudal and slavery relations are much worse, are relics of the past and thus easily condemned as heinous and abolished. Zionism's position towards slavery in Africa is an empty ruse that many progressives get caught in because of their shared notions with other ideologies. There is a historical overlap between racism, progressivism and Marxism on beliefs of progress and civilization. This embarrassing oversight that is rarely discussed out in the open, is the missing link bringing the parties together. The monkey in the wrench for many progressives is their painful contradiction of supporting the right of Palestinians to resist apartheid and their implicit or explicit support of Palestinian or Arab ruling classes. In an attempt to defend oppressed people or their own homelands, many sincere individuals conflate everyday people with the state and ruling class. This situation has developed into an opportunity for Zionists to correctly point out that many activists are not as equally committed to ending oppression everywhere. Whether it be Muslim, Arab, or Black activists, some are soft on respective ethnicities, nations, or religions they may identify with abroad, hoping to receive some sort of patronage from whatever party or regime happens to be in power. In doing so, the Zionists manipulate this gross failure into a scheme that lets Israel off the hook by pointing out (and rightly so) the hypocrisy of some activists. This failure opens up other avenues for defense of Israel by Zionists. The lesser evil argument mentioned earlier posits Israel as an unfair target for political action since there are numerous places in the Middle East with much more serious human rights violations. Chana Shavelson’s article from CAMERA is an excellent example of this method: National Geographic’s September 2003 article by Andrew Cockburn entitled “21st Century Slaves” fails to mention the world’s leading human-rights and slave-trafficking offender, Sudan, while unfairly highlighting with a double-page photograph Israel’s relatively insignificant prostitution rings. Frantz Fanon in Black Skins, White Masks states as a principle, “A given society is racist or it is not.”5 He suggests issues of racial justice or injustice are as clear as night and day, regardless of sociological studies that might provide nuances to the various levels of racism, human rights or slavery. In effect, these studies serve to create a hierarchy of oppression in comparative locations where attention needs to be prioritized over other cases. This should not be allowed to negate racism and oppression. In this logic, Israel uses sociological studies to show how much worse human rights conditions are in Sudan in comparison to Israel, and on that basis Sudan should be prioritized over Israel as a focus of solidarity work. As innocent as this may seem, it is no different than the arguments Northern and Southern racists wielded during the Jim Crow era of U.S. history. “The Negroes have it better here than anywhere else,” was the language used as an excuse not to fight racism, and it is the same thinking Zionists apply to Sudan. This, I argue, exposes what their real intentions are: slavery in Sudan is a shield for Israel. Zionists say, “Why are you only picking on our human rights abuses when a slew of Muslim and Arab countries in the region have just as many, if not more, violations as we do.” They have a valid point. Why is Israel picked on when there are plenty of violations of basic democratic practices by Arab states and ruling classes in the region or, as this paper discusses, slavery in Sudan? Unable to perceive the self-activity of people as a basis for democracy and freedom, and trapped between choosing the lesser of two evils in a broader geo-political context, many activists are incapable of criticizing an Arab regime without having a feeling of playing into the hands of Israel because many sincere people cannot formulate politics which are independent of states and ruling classes. Zionists justify oppressions in Israel and the United States by pointing to oppressions abroad. Injustices in Sudan mandate exploitations against Palestinians or working people in America. At the same time, they oscillate between equating whole societies with the degeneracy of their rulers and portraying people as hapless victims. What they must attempt to cover up at all times is the activity of ordinary people in daily and at times epic collective struggles to overcome the oppressions they face and build new social relations in their place. This creativity of people in response to disasters is always a stark reminder to all governments of their own failings in the administration of society. Moving on to the second line of defense, aptly described by Jodie Saperia in Campus Conservatives: Israel is the lone democratic government in the region. …these haters of Israel and America have no perspective on international affairs. They choose to focus their attention and resources on condemning two of the greatest liberal-democracies in the world…6 Their claims are naked; Zionists are audacious enough to claim that Israel is a bastion of democracy in the Middle East as if Muslim people have no conception of democracy. Are we supposed to believe that democracy is a by-product solely of Western civilization? Or that in all of history never has a Middle Eastern society built democratic institutions without the intervention of Western imperialism? Zionists will continue to promote this image that Israel is a shining city on the hill on top of barbaric hordes. Take for example, Saperia who one-ups the Zionists by claiming Israel and the United States are “the freest countries in the world:” …haters of Israel and America are not truly interested in the "global justice" and "anti-racism" which they purport to stand for. If they were truly for "global justice" or "anti-racism" they would speak out about the horrendous atrocities being committed in Sudan. University professors would use their podiums to denounce the Khartoum government and Arab militiamen who are perpetrating these heinous crimes against the Black Sudanese instead of two of the freest countries in the world.7 Let these imperialist hacks live in their castles made of sand. It is demanded that oppression abroad be focused on while the crimes committed in the U.S. and Israel go unchecked. Zionists want every oppression pointed out in solidarity campaigns. This is inconceivable and impractical for any sensible person to demand. It would destroy any coherent message a campaign might have, leaving it a jumbled message of “stop oppression everywhere.” And while the crimes in Sudan are worthy of international intervention, atrocities—apartheid in Israel or the massive prison population in the U.S.—in “two of the freest countries in the world” do not merit divestment or any morally sanctioned punishment, according to these newly self-proclaimed abolitionists. Oppression exists in a cultural, social, political, and economic setting determining what roles states play in a broader agenda of U.S. empire. In Israel's case, it is the frontline of American Empire serving as a military outpost in the Middle East and an ideological wedge to drive the key issue home—the claim that Arabs and Muslims are not capable of a democratic society and thus need American and Israeli tutelage. The next standard Zionist line of defense, if the previous two fail, is the complaint that different standards of equality are applied to different nations and communities around the world. In the case of Israel, standards that are applied to it are not applied to neighboring countries. Jodie Saperia claims: In reality, haters of Israel and America are only interested in "racism" seemingly perpetrated by Americans or Zionists against non-Americans or non-Zionists. Racism committed by non-white, non-American, non-Zionists does not count as racism to these haters of Israel and America—nor does it fit into their ideology.8 Saperia is on to something important. This is the inability of many American activists to deal with oppressors who have been historically oppressed, such as Muslims, Black people, and Arabs. Not only are American activists handicapped but so are the latter groups, which refrain from criticism in fear of being denied patronage from their respective states and ruling classes. Hence dirty laundry is never aired in public, leaving it a private matter that can be handled through channels of official society. Without a direct-democratic perspective, the Sudan space that is currently taken up by Zionists will always be reduced to a matter of being loyal to one's ruling class. Finally, another aspect of the public relations scam: Sudan’s slavery issue is also very profitable from a public relations point of view. The Zionists hope to strike a particular chord with an African American community and an American audience that had to struggle against chattel slavery. It is at this point that it becomes clear where Marx’s notion of civilization and progress intersect with Zionism, imperialism, and progressive thought. It is public relations gamble that Zionists hope will pay from a society that has forged a consensus even among the racists who lead official society—even they no longer have a tolerance for slavery. Isn’t that nice? Our modern statesmen have recently arrived at a previous stage of civilization. What does Anti-Racism Mean? Obviously a lack of tolerance for slavery is critical for any freedom loving community, but there is a special meaning to the Zionists hand-picking this issue out of all the contemporary problems facing the world. Zionists are not totally incorrect in pointing out this oppression but their intentions need to be analyzed to get a better understanding of what it means in their larger strategy of supporting American imperialism in the Middle East. Zionism, without the broader context of U.S. empire and white supremacy, abstracts itself from all political discussion and avoids the real consequences of its role in maintaining these institutions. The Zionist campaign to divest from Sudan is predicated on racist and imperialist assumptions of progress and civilization that give Israel a carte blanche to commit crimes against Palestinians. A sincere divestment campaign would have to function on a principled basis of being against colonialism, empire (which would include the Israeli and U.S. regime) and racism; something which Zionists cannot but fail to do considering the basic tenants of Zionism are in direct contradiction with anti-racism and anti-imperialism. Having a historical record of collaboration with Nazism, Fascism, and U.S. empire, Zionism has proven itself no friend to these democratic principles, or to any struggle from below where everyday folks attempt to throw the yoke of oppression off their own backs. In Sudan, the reality is Zionists are not as much concerned about slavery as much as making sure Gaza, the West Bank, and every Palestinian in Israel is swept under the rug. Does slavery exist in Sudan today? If Zionists want that question answered, the answer is undoubtedly yes. However it does not mean that Arabs, Muslims, or Africans are backward dogs unfit for self-rule. Zionists, whose conception of freedom includes apartheid and racism in Israel/Palestine, cannot possibly help Sudanese slaves to find racial justice and freedom. Ultimately, understanding the Sudan and slavery question is not just mere historical inquiry but requires political analysis of the nature of Zionism, class struggle, and U.S. Empire. Notes
1. For further reading on this important subject, see Ibrahim Sundiata’s Brothers and Strangers: Black Zion, Black Slavery, 1914-1940. Durham: Duke University Press, 2004. |
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|