http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fj4hWU3VNr0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f9odkmRuLSw
Please consider the informative videos loaded on their Youtube page by the Valentino Achak Deng Foundation:
http://www.youtube.com/user/vadfoundation
Saturday, April 10, 2010
Videos -- History of Modern Sudan and the Civil War
These brief videos are a much needed cultural-historical background to What is the What. How is Dave Eggers's book, his literary rendering of Valentino Achak Deng's autobiography, different than the journalistic account of Sudanese history and culture? The journalists featured in these news reports are from The Economist Magazine and The Al Jazera.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteFirst time I heard about the plight of Sudanese people was from M.I.A. music (singer/song writer from UK). From then on, I've become curious about the event and searched through the internet about Sudan. What really interests me is the attempts at imposing one religious standard to a very diverse cultural country. In not only Sudan, but Indonesia (The world’s largest Muslim population country) has been experiencing sort of similar situation with many fundamentalists wanting to turn the government as a Muslim country and embrace Shar’iah law. However, this attempt has so far failed due to Indonesia’s diverse cultural background.
ReplyDeleteThe question remains the same with Sudan situation. Could Sudan become an Islamic state? Human rights institutions and many parts of the worlds have been heavily criticized the Sudanese Islamists. In my opinion, it will be very difficult to turn Sudan as a Muslim country due to the diverse society (racial and religious) –similar to situation in Indonesia. Knowing about the diversity of Sudan, the government ruled the region in divided planned strategy (North: Muslim, South: Non-Muslim) because it is impossible to put Sudan only in one Islamic umbrella.
“Arabs” (in the novel) terror houses and killing non-Muslims under the purpose of Jihad. Many people (mostly in media) interpret Jihad as “Holy War”. It’s kind of upsetting me that many people view the terminology only in that aspect. Jihad is a struggle to do well and defeat one’s own desire in life. From what I’ve learned in early schooling, a Mother who is delivering a baby or students acquiring knowledge and spread the knowledge on to others are also form of Jihad. My favorite quote from the Holy prophet (peace be upon him) is: “The ink of the scholar is more holy than the blood of the martyr.” This simply means “the pen is mightier than the sword” (or AK 47 to be precise). Therefore, limiting Al-Jihad-ul-Akbar to “Holy War” is incorrect. (Note: I can’t tell you precisely where this quote appear in the Quran/ hadist… just like Achak, I’m really embarrassed with my lack of memorization).
In addition, the videos touch upon about the oil revenue only trickles down to people in Khartoum and center of Sudan. Why is this so? From what I’ve learned in my intercultural com class, African culture has strong sense of family and kinship. The culture has limited understanding of patriotic of one’s country. Instead, the family, extended family and tribe are their belongingness. For that reason, the Northern Sudan elites are the one whose benefit the most from the profit because they place their family and tribe first than anything else.
Two years ago, I started to join an organization called Save Darfur (although, I’m not a very active member). You can make a change by creating an account with them and they will inform you regularly about current news of Sudan (especially Darfur) via email. You can click here: http://www.savedarfur.org/ if you’re interested in making a difference.
I think central difference between Egger's portrayal of Valentino and the approaches taken by the journalists from The Economist and Al Jazeera is the issue of focus as dictated by audience. Whereas Egger's is making a literary, humanitarian appeal from a Dinka's perspective to readers, The Economist and Al Jazeera are catering to their own particular readers: For The Economist, that is mostly economically-liberal business and political types interested not only in foreign affairs for its own sake, but also as a means of judging business climate; for Al Jazeera, it is a largely Muslim audience seeking current affairs information.
ReplyDeleteThe effect of this difference in audience is clear: The Economist covers arable land, political turmoil, oil production, international trading partners, shifts in national revenue, etc., while Al Jazeera makes it a point to present the perspective of the Islamic Arabs of North Sudan.
Both journalistic efforts diverge in a similar way from Egger's novel as they are not restricted to the scope of a single man, and can thus highlight more recent events in Sudanese history, such as Darfur (which is mentioned in What Is the What, but is far from the story's central conflict). Both journalistic pieces also spend much time discussing the role of oil in Sudan's civil war -- something that is mentioned in WItW, but not so thoroughly explored.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThe differences between the three informative videos are very apparent. In the Economist Magazine, we see that is very informative and talks about the separation between the north and the south of Sudan. Especially when the borders were set out by the British Explores farming in the south (because of wetter climate) and the north is mostly of the desert. Talks briefly but closely about religion; the south, Christian/animist tribe and the north is Arabic/Muslim tribe. The fuel of the war for oil is found in both The Economist and Aljazeera as on of the main motives of this war. While in Aljazeera, the separation of Sudan is based upon central Sudan and the fight for the right to the oil found in certain areas. The agreement does not last long after the discovery of oil in the country. The oil issue of oil is not well navigated in the book and certain events in the book are secluded to certain issues in Sudan. It’s mostly isolated to the Lost Boys because Valentino Achak Deng being a Lost boy himself he has a different perspective of the events that unfolded from the 1980’s when he escaped from Marial Bai to his long years traveling without his parents.
ReplyDeleteWitw has a more sensitive side to the report of the events that unfolded throughout the years of the more that twenty year old war in Sudan. It explores the events upon the views of a lost boy from Sudan. It focuses mostly of the customs of the Southern Sudanese, who seek refuse in other countries such as Ethiopia, Kenya amongst other places. Some even fled to the United States and Canada; all have a different point of view.
The reports in the Economist and Aljazeera are very informational but it lacks a certain element that makes it easier to empathize with the story. Yet it gets straight to the point and gives you a clear and straightforward explanation of the history and culture of the Sudanese.
I believe that all three points of view are subjective in the messages they are trying to get across. The Economist for obvious reasons the differences and potential of monetary gain for Sudan and any other potential partner in Sudan's economic growth. This is done in a benign way showing "friendly" computer graphics to show, geography, resources, fire and smoke. It dehumanizes Sudan and objectifies it simultaneously. It makes Sudan seem "trivial" or some place not really significant.
ReplyDeleteAl Jazeera on the other hand starts with real soldiers and rockets blazing talking about war and destruction and the "loss of human life." Brave Muslim soldiers praying, Christian babies crying and starving children paints the Christian Sudanese in a negative light. The human skull at the end of the piece is a foreshadowing of what could be, a haunting picture of dire the circumstances. Yet this also humanizes Sudan, slapping you in the face to say look this is REAL.
Dave Egger in WITW, paints a human face with pain and suffering Sudan is a real place and it is a current event. This is not seen in the economist because humanity is still not as important to their reader not so much as the potential for money that could be made from investment in Sudanese oil.
I believe the gift that Dave Eggers gives us like any other tragic story that has happened in the past, hope. Regardless of how inhumane, destructive and vicious humanity can be a tree can still grow in the desert. The two journalistic points of view are "politicized" as their best interest and their constituents alone. Egger tells us Achak's best interest is all of ours. Because Achak’s journey is a human tragedy that we can all learn from.