Email Our Editor

Join Our Mailing List

View Our Archives

Search our archive:



The Last 20 Days' Editorials

5/21/2018 "The Black Economy 50 Years After The March On Washington"


Email This Article  Printer Friendly Version

An Open Letter To The Black World Today, The “Anonymous” Group and Everett Minga Regarding Sudan


We appreciate your written communication regarding, in part, some of our writings regarding events taking place in the Sudan and some of the intense controversy that has swirled around such.

We appreciate your communication even though, on the surface, it is harmful to the unsuspecting and uninformed reader. Your communication is loaded with slander, libel, assumptions, stereotypes, bias and prejudice – from beginning to end. It also is written in a very deceptive style that presents a false front that you are somehow interested in a dialogue with us. Any reasonable person can tell that the presentation is phony, fueled by a motive that is suspicious, to say the least.

Yet and still, we appreciate it and embrace an opportunity to engage its contents and your mindset because we believe and are convinced that anyone who thoroughly reads our respective communication(s) will be lifted in consciousness and brought closer to the truth of not just this particular matter but of life itself. All of this is that serious.

It is obvious that your ability to reason correctly has been damaged by your emotions. The Holy Qur’an (which you refer to frequently in your communications) warns us to not let hatred of a people incite us to act inequitably. It is clear from your loaded language, incomplete arguments and contradictions that you violate this principle.

The basis of your emotional reaction or hatred, in part, is the treatment that you have received as well as your perception of reality. Your hatred is directed at the Khartoum government, but it(your anger/hatred) is so out of control that you assume that everyone who disagrees with you or the Sudan People’s Liberation Army (SPLA) is the same as Khartoum. You then move out of the realm of the real (your life experience regarding events in the Sudan), to the unreal and that which cannot be proven (that we are somehow agents of the Sudanese government and working hand-in-hand with them as well as other organizations). You reaction is paranoid. Can I prove this? Absolutely.

What is the basis of your effort to take what we have written at BlackElectorate.com, and which I have signed as publisher, and turn it into a communication of the Nation of Islam? Furthermore, what is the basis of your arbitrary and inaccurate depiction of what we have written as the combined work of an entity “AMC-NOI”. Where is that organization? When and where and how and why did it start? What is my relationship with such an entity? Where is the paper trail; the evidence; the proof that verifies such?

Your writing in that vain is ridiculous, silly and can’t be proven. You have lied. Your lie is the byproduct of your hatred of the Sudanese government which I, BlackElectorate.com, the Nation Of Islam and the Honorable Minister Louis Farrakhan have nothing to do with. You are in a world of illusion and possibly delusion when you speak of a relationship between “AMC-NOI” and BlackElectorate.com. We have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. You have made this up, imagined it and then reacted to what you have concocted as if it is real. Again, you have lied. Prove otherwise and we will gladly turn over this space to you at BlackElectorate.com. Again, don’t shout, whine, rant, rave and lie. Prove what you charge in a reasonable and clear manner. People will be able to tell the truth from the lie. I am outright stating that you have lied about the nature of our communications, their source, my affiliations and motives. I am outright, in public, challenging you to produce any evidence that supports your spurious charges. Your failure to produce a shred of evidence will reveal how dishonest and unreliable you are to the viewers of BlackElectorate.com and The Black World Today. Your actions are the sign of desperation. But all you have to do is present your case and invite people to your cause and you can be successful, if you stand on Truth. But your tactics and strategy toward us are in and of themselves a sign that you don’t have confidence in your stated position and have to resort to devices that mask that fact.

In addition, you have insulted the intelligence of the viewers/readers of The Black World Today and BlackElectorate.com who you think are unable to overcome the force of your loaded language and disconnected facts, half-truths and lies about what we have written and what is taking place in the Sudan.

Some may have even been “shook” by what you have written to us. Some of the ignorant, uninformed, weak-minded and casual observers may have panicked, become confused and acted impulsively over what you have written. Some may have even accepted what you have written as accurate simply because of the manner in which you signed your communication. It is a shame, but some Black people in the Diaspora still see themselves as junior partners and inferiors in their relationship with their Brothers and Sisters from Africa and feel as if they are unqualified to speak about Africa. Sadly, some of our people have been known to think that the person who presents the most data and minutiae in an argument has the most knowledge, wisdom and understanding. Many raise their ignorance of an issue to the level of positive knowledge. Others allow their envy and jealousy toward individuals color their perception in a manner that causes them to become unable to recognize the truth in an argument put forward by the one they are envious or jealous of. And still, others, do not really read what has been presented in public debates and as a result are swayed by the “latest” argument and the emotion and intensity with which it is presented. Such people go back and forth in whatever direction the intellectual wind blows. It is obvious that you have counted on that reaction – that you are depending, even preying upon the ignorance of our people which began when we were sold into slavery and separated from one another over 400 years ago.

You have miscalculated.

While we are based in the Diaspora, our worldview, thinking, viewers and network are well beyond the confines of the United States of America and yes, are in the Sudan, and yes, even in Southern Sudan. The days of the disconnected family are over. You have now encountered a group of people who are feverishly working to reunite the family that was once one on African soil. The days of ignorance and lack of contact between those on either side of the Atlantic Ocean are over, which will result in the disintegration of the lies and half-truths that you think you can fool Blacks in America with. Again, you are actually relying upon the ignorance of Blacks in America and Blacks in Africa, of one another, and our daily realities, in order for your deceptive argument(s) to be accepted. Your entire effort rests on the premise that Blacks in Africa and Blacks in America are and always will remain two different people. That premise has already been eroded, whether you realize that or not. It is interesting that you claim to be in the Diaspora but represent yourself the way you do. That is a sign of something.

Furthermore, as we will reveal in this communication, although the manner in which you represent yourself and sign your communications indicates otherwise, you do not speak for all Southern Sudanese in the Diaspora or in Southern Sudan. Your efforts to demonstrate expertise on the Sudan can not only be easily counteracted by us, but also by your fellow Southern Sudanese. Related to this point, you should look into the history of the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) in America. You seem to share their spirit, in more than one way. In particular, you act by the Southern Sudanese in a manner similar to how they act by American Jews. They(the ADL)claim to speak for Jews in America, however, it is not difficult to find a majority of Jews who reject their arrogant appropriation of leadership and representation of American Jews. Likewise, it is not hard to find Southern Sudanese in the Diaspora or on the continent who outright reject your arrogant appropriation of leadership and representation of them.

But we really encourage you to study the ADL, while they themselves are American Jews, they do not represent the sentiment of American Jews. While you style yourself as Southern Sudanese (we will accept that you are, on face value, although you don’t prove it) you certainly do not speak for all Southern Sudanese. We knew this before you even wrote what you did at The Black World Today. By the end of this communication, every reasonable person who reads it will know this to be the case.

Again, your hatred has caused you to make errors, mistakes and to even lie about us and the facts of what we have presented. It has even caused you to take liberties with both our viewing audience in the Diaspora who are unaware of the fallacies of your argument(s) as well as with Southern Sudanese who are aware of the fallacies of your argument(s) but unaware of your communications. We hope to end both forms of “unawareness” in what we have written, including, this response.

We have maintained that what is happening in the Sudan is first and foremost a civil war which has caused the loss of life of over 2 million people. We recognize that in a civil war human rights will be violated even trampled upon. We believe that the Sudanese government has violated human rights and we believe that the rebel opposition groups have done the same. However, the picture of the conflict in the West has been framed first and foremost over whether or not “slavery” exists. The civil war is always made a secondary issue, in the West. And because the United States and England do not like the regime in the Sudan they focus their attention on the human rights violations of the Sudanese government and the allegations of such. Some violations naturally do exist. However, some of the charges being made against the Sudanese government lack credibility and evidence. Many are outright lies. In addition, the mainstream international media has almost turned a completely blind eye to the human rights violations being committed by rebel groups like the SPLA. We have a problem with the imbalance because it lends itself to a coup whereby the U.S. and England are able to use rebel groups in the Sudan to accomplish their foreign policy objectives. We noticed how effective the propaganda against the Sudanese government was in 1998 when a pharmaceutical factory in Sudan was unjustifiably bombed and there was no outcry against the event although there was no evidence that the factory was making biological and chemical weapons as the CIA and President Clinton had charged. Sadly, because of their hatred for the Sudanese government, many of the opposition groups did not even speak out against the United States. It is a sad day indeed when one truly considers the enemy of their enemy to automatically be their friend. Some actually did not even mind that the U.S. had dropped bombs in Sudanese territory. We would be very interested in knowing what your position was regarding the United States bombing of the Sudanese pharmaceutical plant.

Had the country not been in the midst of a civil war, we doubt that such U.S. action would have been taken or that such action would have been met with such silence and little consequence for America. Our desire is that the war be ended and that the people of the Sudan be allowed to determine their own destiny through the activities of civil society and the political mechanism of their choice. We believe that the Khartoum government and the opposition groups have legitimate grievances with one another and that both parties are necessary components of a lasting peace. Unlike those who have written what they did in The Black World Today we do not believe that any of the principal combatants in the North or South of Sudan is illegitimate to the peace process. We do however believe that there exists great danger in the recent movement of the SPLA closer and closer into the bosom of the United States government as well as the apparent unwillingness by some to be just as critical of the SPLA and its practices as they are of the Khartoum government.

It is in that context that we respond to your writing.

You outright lie about our characterization of the “slavery” issue.

You are deliberately misleading in how you handle and represent our position on the issue of “slavery” in the Sudan. We would say that you are woefully ignorant but that would not be true. You have received the several thousand words of writings that we have put forth on this subject. You indicate that you have read them. Therefore, your mischaracterization of what we have written is deliberate and intentional. In our writings, even in the few quotes you include in your communication, of what we have written, you demonstrate that you are cognizant of the fact that we often put the word slavery in quotations. We do so and explain why in our editorial “On Slavery In The Sudan”, which you have. Why didn’t you quote the following from what we wrote? What were you trying to hide from the readers as you worked to misrepresent myself and the Nation Of Islam? We wrote:

The reason why we have placed the word slavery in quotations throughout this editorial is because we recognize what is happening in the Sudan first and foremost to be a civil war and we recognize that any "slavery" practices stem first and foremost from warfare and an economic depression, exacerbated, in part, by the conditionality imposed by the IMF and health problems, exacerbated, in part, by the US bombing of a Sudanese pharmaceutical factory, which by some estimates, took care of 60% of the health needs of Sudan.

In fact, we recognize that much of what is being loosely depicted as "slavery" would be more accurately described as "mutual abductions" taking place on all sides. And to be more accurate and to look at the situation in the Sudan from history, we know that many of the tribes in the north and south who attracted government and opposition groups as benefactors in the 80s and 90s, have for years been abducting members of each others tribes and forcing their captives to work for them for free. This is nothing new. When these tribes became armed militias, so to speak, for the North and South they continued their activities but with sponsors. Again, the core activities of kidnapping, raping, "enslaving" and ransoming are nothing new and preexisted the Islamic regime in the Sudan by decades.


Again, why didn’t you reveal the above in what you wrote? You used several thousand words. What would it have hurt to include this paragraph? Simply put, it would have hurt the majority of your deceptive argument. We challenge you to refute any of the above with facts. But first, we ask you to focus in on the fact that in nothing that we have written have we ever said that slavery does not exist. You have lied about this. Your charges are baseless. Our writings on the subject are all over the world. They are available through our search engine. You have read them all. Now, show us one paragraph, one sentence, one phrase where we deny the existence of slavery. You can’t. Instead you lie about it and say that we deny the existence of slavery. Why is it so easy for you to lie?

All you had to do was lift the above quoted paragraph and you would have had the crux of our entire argument on the issue. You would have had an accurate rendering of much of our analysis of the issue. But you couldn’t do that because the deception that you run through The Black World Today would have disintegrated, right before the eyes of the reader(s).

We have maintained that some of the allegations of slavery have been curious and suspicious because, in the West, we do not learn of the charges of slavery unless Christian Solidarity International is involved in the effort. The anti-slavery coalition, the Baltimore Sun, BBC, Rev. Sharpton, Michael Horowitz, Joe Madison and just about everyone in the West learns of slavery via Christian Solidarity International, who finances the trips of those who seek to learn whether or not slavery exists. Don’t you find that to be peculiar? We certainly do. Therefore, we openly question the veracity of the claims. You interpret our efforts at critical thinking about the issue as an outright rejection of the slavery argument. You do so because your hatred of the Sudanese government has left you imbalanced, emotionally out of control and thinking selfishly. In many respects you are no longer reasonable.

In an effort to challenge and test the popular arguments of slavery we included, in one of our writings, an interview of a Christian who is knowledgeable of the slave redemptions and CSI. We also included an open letter from the European-Sudanese Public Affairs Council (ESPAC), which directly questions the work of CSI and the manner in which the slave redemptions are arranged. They also question the relationship between the SPLA and CSI. We think their questions and arguments are at least legitimate, if not persuasive. We notice that in all of the thousands of words that you use to “respond” to our writings, that not once do you address the challenging arguments made by the European- Sudanese Public Affairs Council. Why do you avoid their arguments?

In one of your communications you attempt to dismiss the European Sudanese Council’s questions because they are connected with David Hollie, for whom you describe your distaste. In the process you quote from Holy Qur’an 49:6.

Yet, in doing so you violate the principle of Holy Qur’an 49:6 which you advise us to follow. Holy Qur’an 49:6 reads:

“O you who believe, if an unrighteous man brings you news, look carefully into it, lest you harm a people in ignorance, then be sorry for what you did.”

Certainly you should look carefully into what the ESPAC writes in order to test the accuracy of its claims. But you decide to embark upon your favorite strategies of ad hominem and ad populum attacks. You attempt to attack and discredit the messenger rather than to refute the message. Many people may miss this method which you utilize ad nauseum but once it is identified, your entire missive breaks down. Because at the root of your writing is not truth or a thoughtful engagement of what we have actually written but rather an expression of hatred for the Sudanese government and Arabs and even Islam (although you try to shield that) which you project onto me, personally. Later, in this writing, I will reveal how wicked your effort really is.

If you did not possess an attitude so bent on seeing anyone who does not legitimately agree with you as your enemy, you would have been able to recognize that we do agree that “slavery” exists. We very clearly state in our writings that according to the definitions used by the numerous human rights groups that slavery is occurring in the Sudan. However, you don’t like the reality that if those definitions are accepted, the SPLA would have to be considered as guilty of such. But let’s not just rely upon the definition of others, we can use your own words and definition of slavery to show that under your requirements/view the SPLA is guilty as charged. Here is a portion of the information that you have sent to us:

"NOI-AMC Baptises and Spiritualises/refines Slavery in Sudan as abductions.

The question NOI-AMC must answer in no uncertain terms is thus simple and straightforward. How does slavery begin ? Doesn't it start with abductions ? Do you make one a slave(enslave) first before you carry one off illegally(abduct) or Do you abduct before you enslave? Unless truth means different things to different people, enslavement is a sequence of events that must necessarily begin first with abduction and ends in enslavement of people whose status is nothing but slaves. The illegal act of abduction that makes up national islamic front government's so-called abductions end up in enslavement, and enslavement means dealing with people as slaves. This and only this holds Sudan and NOI-AMC by their neck. Weighed against these facts, what more arguments does NOI-AMC have against the existence of slavery in Sudan ? Slavery in Sudan is a reality. Denying it on one hand and baptising it as abductions on the other confirms and spiritualizes it."


Again, who is “NOI-AMC”? It does not exist. It is a production of your imagination. If you had not used my name in your writing their would be no reason to respond to a writing aimed at “NOI-AMC”. Any relationship between BlackElectorate.com and the mysterious “NOI-AMC” is a lie, that you or those who back you have concocted. Prove otherwise. Your creation of “NOI-AMC” and attempt to link it to myself leads one to legitimately wonder about the condition of your mind.

However, let’s look at what you have written and compare it to what we have written. If you will remember, we wrote:

In fact, we recognize that much of what is being loosely depicted as "slavery" would be more accurately described as "mutual abductions" taking place on all sides. And to be more accurate and to look at the situation in the Sudan from history, we know that many of the tribes in the north and south who attracted government and opposition groups as benefactors in the 80s and 90s, have for years been abducting members of each others tribes and forcing their captives to work for them for free. This is nothing new. When these tribes became armed militias, so to speak, for the North and South they continued their activities but with sponsors. Again, the core activities of kidnapping, raping, "enslaving" and ransoming are nothing new and preexisted the Islamic regime in the Sudan by decades.

The abductions which you claim are the genesis of slavery preexisted the current near 20-year civil war by decades. Do you deny that? The abductions were taking place by numerous tribes, who today are backed by the SPLA or the Sudan government. We very clearly state that at least by association, the Sudanese government and the SPLA, for example, have become a party to these mutual abductions that were already taking place. Furthermore, mutual abductions and even slavery are acts of war. They are evil and are wrong wherever they occur. But the war itself is evil. You wink at the abductions that have taken place under the auspices of the SPLA while you strain your eyes looking for government transgressions. Why the double-standard?

You very cleverly depict what is happening in Sudan as between the Arab North and the Black South. You think you can get away with that because our audience is made up largely of Blacks who live in the United States of America. But your hubris, in this regard, has caused you to underestimate our research, analysis and network as well as the intelligence of our viewers. We know for a fact that the people in the north are as Black or darker than Blacks in the United States. The Blacks in the South are darker. But still no Black in this country would see the majority of those living in the North as light-skinned Arabs if they saw them walking on the street. Blacks see Arabs every day in the innercities. They know what they look like. You continue to attempt to prey on the perceived ignorance of Blacks in the Diaspora. It will not work.

To test the depths to which you have gone we have a question for you: Why haven’t you mentioned the fact that the Dinka and Nuer tribes, both of whom live in the South of Sudan, have been abducting each other’s members for years? Did you fail to bring it up because it would ruin your argument that the abductions are strictly the activity of Northern Arab tribes against Southern Black tribes? Do you deny that this practice of abductions, which you associate with slavery, occurs among Black tribes in the south? Remember it was you who very clearly linked abductions and slavery. In addition, you also curiously avoid what we wrote in E-Letter To The Washington Post and William Raspberry Re: The Am-I Dreaming Team,which you have read and refuse to address.

We wrote:

Everyone that we have spoken to who has traveled to the Sudan, who has lived there and come to the US, or who still lives there now, informs us that the dichotomy being projected by the anti-slavery movement is not accurate. They clearly indicate that the vast majority of the people in the north of Sudan are Black-skinned and those in the south are Black-skinned. Both groups are as Black or "Blacker" than the vast majority of Black people in the United States.

They also refute the clear distinction made by the anti-slavery coalition that those who are enslaving others or who are slaves are either light-skinned Arab Muslim or dark-skinned Black Christian - with the "Arab Muslims" bearing the brunt of the association as slave masters. This is simply not accurate. The practice of "slavery" in the Sudan precedes the current government in Khartoum today by decades and was carried out by various tribal militias. In fact, the Sudanese government and the Sudanese opposition have actually helped to aggravate tensions and the "slavery" or "mutual abductions" that were taking place between tribes. Their support of these tribes and supply of weaponry to them has only made the pre-existing "slavery" problem worse.

Again, the portrayal of this as a light-skinned northern Sudanese Arab Muslim slavery exercised upon Black-skinned southern Sudanese Christians is a creation of the West and Christian Solidarity International, and unfortunately the anti-slavery coalition has bought into it, completely. In many cases there is no recognizable physical differences in terms of skin color between the northern Muslim and Arab influenced tribes like the Baggara, and the southern Christian or animist influence tribes like the Dinkas. In fact, many such tribes operate along the "north-south" border and have been intermarrying and interacting for years.


This quote, from a letter written and published in May of this year, disproves your lie that we do not recognize slavery, as you define it. That is painfully obvious to anyone who reads your communication and compares it with the body of work that we have put before the public for the last 3 months. Why did you ignore it and write as if it does not exist?

You are shamefully deceptive in painting this matter as Arabs against Blacks. Again, you are counting on the general ignorance of Blacks in this country about Africa to provide the fertile ground necessary to receive such nonsense. But we are pleased to know that you believe human rights organizations to be reliable sources of information regarding what is going on in Sudan. How do you handle the following? We think it blows a hole entirely through your Arab North vs. Black South concoction. Tell us if we are wrong. But remember, the source is a March 2001 report from the trusted Human Rights Watch:

Recent experience in southern Sudan has demonstrated that the fighting now in progress will provoke a new humanitarian disaster, unless immediately checked.
The Nuer are already conducting inter-Nuer warfare. In addition, the Nuer and the Dinka are currently poised to go to war against each other; the Dinka are the largest tribe in southern Sudan, and the Nuer, the second largest. They are neighbors and cousins, sharing many customs and beliefs. History has shown that peace in the south is impossible if these two tribes are fighting each other.

The way that inter-Nuer and Nuer-Dinka war have been conducted recently is in violation of both traditional Nuer and Dinka practices of war and international humanitarian law, namely: burning homes, villages, community structures, and grain, and killing women and children. These types of abuses have been the proximate cause of several famines in recent years. One example was the famine that hit the East Bank of the Nile in 1993, where tens of thousands died in the “Hunger Triangle” (formed by Adok, Waat, and Kongor, villages straddling the Nuer/Dinka divide). This crisis was precipitated by Nuer/Dinka fighting (1991-93), also in disregard of tribal and international rules of war, which grew out of the 1991 split in the Sudan Peopleīs Liberation Army (SPLA) led by Riek Machar.

The fighting in 2001 is not traditional tribal conflict, because many other actors with their own agendas have inserted themselves. In addition to the government army, the other organized military players sharing the blame for this looming disaster are the government-backed Nuer militias, particularly the militias of Gordon Kong Chuol and Simon Gatwich; the Sudan Peopleīs Democratic Front/Defense Forces (SPDF) of Nuer leader Riek Machar; and the SPLA. In Eastern Upper Nile, the Nuer government militias and Sudan army are fighting against Riek Machar SPDF (Nuer) forces and the SPLA. Militia Cmdr. Gordon Kong of Nasir is active in trying to drive out these forces from areas adjacent to oilfields that are in development. In the process many civilians have been killed and forcibly displaced. His militia has even placed landmines in the compounds of relief organizations.

In Central Upper Nile, other SPLA (Nuer) forces have fought the SPDF (Nuer), with the result that government forces have captured towns not in government control for more than a decade. Cmdr. Simon Gatwich, another Nuer pro-government militia leader, joined the fighting, and reportedly threatened to lead a Nuer retaliatory attack on the Dinka.

Riek Machar, formerly military and political leader of the rebel Nuer, has compounded these Nuer divisions. He started out as a rebel, split from the SPLA (and began cooperating with the Khartoum government) in 1991, and in 1996 reached a formal agreement with Khartoum. In 2000 he resigned from the government and formed another rebel faction, the SPDF. However, he made so many enemies that it now appears that the Nuer government militias and other Nuer joined informally with the SPLA to put an end to Riek Macharīs career. The Riek Machar SPDF forces initially received some SPLA military supplies, but when those dried up in mid-2000, they turned back to the government, their supplier of last resort. In recent months, SPDF forces are accused of carrying out scorched earth campaigns in the Nuer villages of Nhialdu and Mankien (the base of rival SPLA Nuer forces under Cmdr. Peter Gatdet).

The situation was further exacerbated by the SPLAīs entry into the fray, which threatens to broaden the conflict into a Nuer/Dinka clash. Nuer commander Peter Gatdet defected from a government militia in 1999 and joined the SPLA. His followers, the Bul Nuer and others, are strategically situated on the edge of the oilfields currently under development by international oil companies in Western Upper Nile. While Cmdr. Peter Gatdet in 1999-2000 attacked these targets – where civilian population is thin due to prior forced displacement by the government – in 2001 the Peter Gatdet SPLA forces ranged far from the oilfields. Apparently with SPLA logistical support from Rumbek and possibly with Dinka SPLA soldiers, the Gatdet SPLA forces attacked heavily-populated Nuer territory more than one hundred miles to the south of the oilfields – a considerable distance in view of the lack of roads and surfeit of flooding and swamps. There, in Pabuong and Nyal, the Peter Gatdet (Nuer) SPLA fought against Riek Macharīs SPDF troops and burned out the civilian population, forcing them to flee. Members of Peter Gatdetīs forces suggest this was in retaliation for similar raids earlier this year on Peter Gatdetīs home turf by SPDF Cmdr. Peter Paar.

The immediate danger of SPLA (Nuer) versus Riek Machar/SPDF (Nuer) fighting is that many Nuer see the SPLA as a Dinka army and consider this SPLA advance into Nyal a Dinka advance into Nuer territory. Now Nuer talk of taking “revenge” on the Dinka and attacking Dinka villages. This imperils not only Dinka civilians who have moved back to their border villages on the West Bank of the Nile, trusting in Wunlit. It also exposes to danger of retaliation the tens of thousands of Nuer internally displaced persons who took refuge in Dinka areas, likewise trusting in Wunlit. These displaced Nuer were expelled from their homes by the Khartoum government in 1999-2000 to erect a cordon sanitaire for the oil companies.

Another complicating factor is the presence of international relief. The SPLA (Nuer) see their attacks on the Riek Machar forces as a type of “getting even” for the fact that the SPLA (Nuer) have been starved and denied their “fair share” of international aid by the Riek Machar faction. There is no doubt that the SPLA (Nuer) area has not been receiving as much aid as other areas; there are many reasons for that.

One reason is that the international aid community has not been diligent enough in the past year and a half in addressing this situation. Judicious attention to this real or perceived grievance could play a large role in smoothing the waters. In 1991, the perceived lack of fairness in distribution of relief among Dinka and Nuer led, in part, to a devastating series of raids by Nuer into Dinka Bor County, known as the “Bor Massacre,” where an estimated 2,000 Dinka civilians were killed.


If nothing else, the above article reveals just how much of a disservice you do in portraying what is going on in Sudan in terms of a simple Arab-Black dichotomy.

Again, part of our challenge to you, is that you do not associate the SPLA with the very same practices that you claim to abhor and which they are associated with, even though the sources of information that you trust support that conclusion.

Your emphasis on what you call the “Al Dien massacre” notwithstanding, you don’t prove that the Islamic Sudanese government is the source or origin of slavery practices. You can’t prove such because the practice predates not only the Islamic government but the existence of Sudan, as we know it. You write, “Evidence of slavery emerged from following the investigation of the Al Dein massacre”. This is a lie. All of the evidence of slavery as you define it was available well before Al Dien. Again, tribes were perpetuators of the practice long before the arrival of Saddiq Al-Mahdi. Why can’t you be balanced in your view of the origination and evolution of slavery practices? Have you invested so much in bringing down the Islamic government(s) of Sudan to the point where you cannot even review history properly? The practice of abductions and slavery in both the north and south precedes the “Al Dien massacre” by centuries. Some say it goes back 500 years. Do you expect us and the viewers of BlackElectorate.com and The Black World Today to believe that slavery began in 1986 or 1987?

Please, the viewers of BlackElectorate.com and The Black World Today would not even be in America if slavery had not been in existence in Africa before 1986, 1987. Of course, while they were not the chief architects and executors of the plan, or even fully aware of what they were sending us into, Africans, of various tribes, did indeed sell us into slavery. Our presence in the Disapora is the most visible proof that abductions were taking place among Black tribes in Africa. Of course, we know that Arabs were involved in our enslavement as well. Be balanced.

Returning to another problem that we have with your writing, you seem to have no problem whatsoever with the relationship between the SPLA and CSI. Unfortunately, you even consider CSI to be your friend. How mistaken you are and will be proven to be. Because you apologize for the SPLA and think that the CSI is the friend of the Southern Sudanese, you ignore the very real and serious questions regarding the relationship between CSI and the SPLA as well as the views of those who have been troubled by the manner in which the SPLA and CSI organize and coordinate the so-called “slave” redemptions which are flashed on TV all over the West. The SPLA is being used as a pawn in CSI’s war against Islam which they do not hide. You can’t seem to realize or admit that.

We suggest that you re-read the ESPAC letter regarding this issue available in our editorial “Asking The Right Questions And Thinking Critically About Slavery In The Sudan” as well as the report of Richard Miniter who actually went to Sudan to observe the slave redemption process. Mr. Miniter’s writing raises very serious questions about the entire process as well as the suspicious relationship between the SPLA, CSI and the anti-slavery coalition. We will provide a link to the article at the end of this writing for your review.

You apologize for the SPLA and don’t mind their close association with the United States Military Industrial Complex.

In your written communication, you offer a very weak apology for the SPLA, by briefly admitting that the SPLA has committed “some mistakes”, but you ignore what we have already offered as evidence that they are involved in abductions and “slavery” according to your own definition. In On Slavery In The Sudan we wrote:

The entire debate over what is happening in Sudan is filled with one of the deepest mixtures of half-truths, misinformation and religious bias to be found anywhere. This is particularly true in the United States where the discussion usually boils down to whether or not slavery exists in the Sudan. The simple answer to that question is yes. "Slavery" as defined by White conservatives and Christian fundamentalists in the West and increasingly by a growing number of Black civil rights activists does exist in the Sudan and it has for some time. The question is why are these interested parties only recently interested in "slavery" in the Sudan, and maybe more importantly, why are they ignoring the practices when they have and continue to take place among the non-Muslim opposition group, the Sudan People's Liberation Movement/Army led by John Garang?

There is no denying it. If one accepts the working definition of "slavery" as defined by Human Rights Watch/Africa then the Sudan people's Liberation Movement/Army is without question tied to the practice of slavery and has been since the early 1980s, well before the latest coalition of White conservatives, Christian fundamentalists and Black civil rights leaders who oppose "slavery" in the Sudan was formed and showed a united front against the issue.

But "slavery" then and "slavery" now was not the exclusive domain of any particular religious group or region.

The West itself provides the evidence that destroys the myth that "slavery" in the Sudan is a practice whereby Muslims in the north enslave Blacks in the south. According to the US State Department's "Country Reports on Human Rights Practices" published in 1990, " the SPLA/M often forced southern men to work as laborers or porters or forcibly conscripted them into SPLA ranks. In disputed territories this practice was implemented through raids". In the State Department's 1991 report the SPLA/M is connected with having "forcibly conscripted at least 10,000 male minors". And in 1994 Human Rights Watch/Africa documented the SPLA's documented "forced unpaid farm labor on SPLA-organized farms".

To this date, according to the US State Department and human rights advocates, the SPLA has forcibly taken thousands of women and children from areas in Southern Sudan and held them as hostage, forced them to perform labor and/or join their military force.


What from the above do you feel bold enough to deny? How is that a lack of evidence? It is from the same sources of information that you trust. Have you read the 1991 State Department report regarding the SPLA? Have you read Human Rights Watch/Africa’s report and that of Amnetsy International regarding the SPLA? Now, please don’t claim that these are invalid sources because in your communication on The Black World Today you wrote that Amnesty International, UNICEF and reports by UN Envoys, SHRO and uncountable number of organizations were valid sources of information regarding slavery, when it was practiced by the Sudanese government. Are they no longer valid when they indict the SPLA on chargers of abductions, forced conscriptions and the use of child soldiers? Are you prepared to apologize for their recent refusal to release 7,000 child soldiers from armed duty. Children as young as 8 years old? They are being made to stay in the army and fight. Is that not a form of slavery? Keep in mind, they are forcing Black children to do this. Yet you have nothing to say about it other than the pathetically weak, “It is true, the SPLA committed some mistakes”. Is that the best you can do? Well, as an example, from the sources you trust we found the following:

From a January 8, 1998 commentary from Amnesty International:

The Sudan People's Liberation Army (SPLA) has also been responsible for abuses against the civilian population, including arbitrary killings, the looting of villages and the diverting of humanitarian aid intended for famine victims.

The Sudanese government has taken no action against those responsible for human rights violations and continues to claim that large-scale civilian deaths in southern Sudan are the result of inter-ethnic fighting over which it has no control. The SPLA has also turned a blind eye to abuses committed by its own forces.


This is from the 2001 Amnesty International Report:

Children continued to be forcibly recruited by the SPLA, despite the fact that the SPLA had informed UNICEF that it would demobilize all child soldiers in its forces and end the recruitment of children.

You denied our assertion that according to the definition of slavery provided by the various human rights organizations, the SPLA was guilty of “slavery” practices. You were incredulous to our charge. You acted as if it was unimaginable. You seemed offended. But we have to ask you what does “forcibly recruited” mean to you. These are Black children being taken from their tribes in the South being forced to fight by the Black SPLA, against their will. If that is not slavery what is? Is it because “Arabs” aren’t involved that you can’t recognize it?

Your weak slap on the wrist of the SPLA for committing “some” mistakes is pathetic.

If you defer to Amnesty International or accept their analysis, why don’t your written communications include the above charges made by Amnesty International against the SPLA? You are the worst type of apologist although you place that label on others.

Here is what the 2001 Human Rights Watch Report had to say about your beloved SPLA:

As for the Sudan People's Liberation Movement/Army (SPLM/A), the principal armed movement of the south and of all Sudan, its forces continued to loot food (including relief provisions) from the population, sometimes with civilian casualties, recruit child soldiers, and commit rape.

...Despite church peacemaking efforts between the Didinga of Chukudum in Eastern Equatoria, and the Bor Dinka who dominated the SPLA garrison in Chukudum, hostilities continued. Sometime after the August 1999 cease-fire, the SPLA assigned commanders of local origin to the garrison, but the local population remained reluctant to return to their homes and fields because of the landmines that the SPLA promised to remove but did not.

Even though SPLA leaders promised to stop their troops' looting, the confiscation of relief food from civilians by SPLA soldiers and officers continued. In March 2000, an SPLA commander in Bahr El Ghazal took the entire contents of a relief warehouse, valued at $500,000, according to an investigation carried out by the SPLA's relief arm and international relief agencies. Several looting incidents, at or after relief food distributions, occurred in Eastern Equatoria. When angry civilians on one occasion tried to prevent the SPLA from taking the food, the soldiers fired into the crowd, killing several.

In 2000, negotiations on a memorandum of understanding (MoU) between the SPLA's Sudan Relief and Rehabilitation Association (SRRA) and the nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) operating in SPLA territory-in which the SPLA sought to impose new demands and operating conditions on relief organizations-foundered. Some eleven of forty NGOs operating in SPLA territory refused to sign for fear of compromising their neutrality and safety. They had to withdraw from that territory by the SPLA deadline of March 1, 2000. The SRRA's executive director claimed he did not care if 50,000 or 100,000 southerners died as a result of the NGO pullout. In later months, several nonsignatories signed the MoU or restarted operations in SPLA territory. Some NGOs did not return. Meanwhile the E.U. withheld funding from NGOs who signed the MoU.

Visitors to rebel areas continued to see armed youth who looked younger than eighteen. Cooperation with UNICEF's program for demobilization of child soldiers was uneven. One SPLA commander remobilized several hundred boys when UNICEF failed to provide promised school books and other supplies for the boys.


Now remember, the above was written by Human Rights Watch Africa, not Khartoum, not the Nation Of Islam, not BlackElectorate.com. How are you going to handle that? Are you going to avoid it, ignore it, lie about it or deal with it? Again, it is from a source that you trust as reliable, when they are criticizing the Sudanese government. Is their critique suddenly invalid when applied to the SPLA? By the way, if Human Rights Watch/Africa is correct, then don’t you think this sounds like the SPLA has done more that commit “some mistakes” as you put it?

Here is what the U.S. Department of State said about the SPLA in its 2000 report on Sudan human rights violations:

Insurgent groups continued to commit numerous, serious abuses. The SPLM/SPLA continued to violate citizens' rights, despite its claim that it was implementing a 1994 decision to assert civil authority in areas that it controls, and in many cases, has controlled for many years. The SPLM/SPLA was responsible for extrajudicial killings, beatings, rape, arbitrary detention, and forced conscription. SPLM/SPLA officials were guilty of, or complicit in, theft of property of nongovernmental organizations (NGO's) and U.N. agencies operating in the south.

Again, we ask you what does “arbitrary detention” and “forced conscription” mean to you? If these charges were levied by the U.S. State Department against the Sudanese government you would be calling it proof of the existence of “slavery”. By the way we think that it is very interesting that even the U.S. government which supports the SPLA, can be more open than you can about the transgressions of the SPLA.

Here is what the UN which you say provides evidence of what is going on the Sudan, had to say about the SPLA:

The long and continuing war in the south of the country had affected all aspects of the lives of Sudanese citizens, with the most impact on children. Great efforts were being made by the Government, UNICEF, and international and national NGOs to alleviate the sufferings of children in war zones. The Tutuchan Trauma Centre had been established in Juba in 1993 to rehabilitate war-affected children. The rebel groups SPLA/SPLM had closed down 1,077 primary and secondary schools in the south. They were conscripting school children and minors and using them as child soldiers in the front lines. As recorded by human-rights organizations, some 76,000 minors were being kept in rebel controlled areas. Unfortunately, despite several resolutions by the Commission, only 2,500 youngsters had been retrieved and reunited with their families.

Certainly, if you are as concerned about the Southern Sudanese as you say you are you would openly and publicly denounce what the UN says is going on in Sudan with the SPLA. Again, to be repetitive we have to ask you what is “conscripting school children”, as the UN puts it?

Here is more of what you downplay as “some mistakes” committed by the SPLA. This is from a 1998 Human Rights Watch Report:

The SPLA says the few SPLA soldiers caught taking food aid from civilians have been tried by court martial. It claimed, AWe have our own resources and have our own needs. We are selling our own resources to feed our soldiers. While the SPLA has access to valuable timberland around Yei near the Ugandan border, it is not clear what resources, if any, it has hundreds of kilometers north in Bahr El Ghazal. Kerubino denied that any SPLA soldiers were taking food meant for civilians. He said the problem was that there was not enough food reaching the famine-stricken region.

Despite SPLA claims to the contrary, many displaced in rural Bahr El Ghazal complained to relief workers that the SPLA was taking relief food from them. One complained in April that there was no food in Mapel, and whatever little came in had to be Ashared@ with the SPLA soldiers. A fifty-year-old man who fled to Wau in search of food complained that after the Arab raiders stole all his cattle, the little he had to eat was Astolen by everyone, including the rebel soldiers. A chief complained, "Our homes have been looted...(The SPLA) took everything away." At the same time, some displaced entering Wau said that the SPLA tried to prevent men from leaving some areas, going so far as to shoot them.

Estimates of the amount of food diverted by the SPLA in Bahr El Ghazal in 1998 started at 10 percent and ranged up to a high of 65 percent made by Bishop (now Archbishop) Cesar Mazzolari of the Diocese of Rumbek (Buheirat or Lakes state). Aid workers said that in some areas where the SPLA did not have widespread support, it demanded 10 to 20 percent of the food given to needy families. The press began to pick up these complaints.


So that you won’t be so tempted to lie on us again, I must repeat that this information does not come from BlackElectorate.com, the Nation Of Islam or Minister Farrakhan. It comes from the source that you value and trust, Human Rights Watch. If you have a problem with the information, take it up with them. We just ask why, in all of the thousands of words you have wasted slandering me and others, have you had NOTHING to say about the SPLA’s notorious penchant for stealing relief food directly from and intended for Black civilian Southern Sudanese?

It was interesting to see that you had absolutely nothing to say about the $3 million that the SPLA is set to receive from the United States government in support. And you had absolutely no response to what we exposed of how the U.S. government is sending in Dyncorp to help the SPLA. We hope that you are not foolish enough to consider Dyncorp your friend as you consider CSI. But evidently you may. Well, you can’t say you weren’t warned as we sent you our editorial, “The Military Industrial Complex Comes To The Columbia And the Sudan.” If the SPLA and you are true freedom fighters, as you claim, there is no way that you could stand shoulder to shoulder with Dyncorp. Your support of the SPLA in that regard is lamentable and a sign that you are oblivious as to how your hatred of the Khartoum government is being used by the United States and England. You now have been given Dyncorp, a group of private mercenaries as your companion (The Holy Qur’an speaks of this type of arrangement). We predict that you will regret making such a partnership or accepting such.

Your support of the SPLA has placed you in perfect harmony with the United States and England. You want an independent Southern Sudan that will be separate. England has long sought that. The U.S. wants that too, so that its oil companies, which are currently prevented from doing such due to the sanctions placed on the Sudan, can reenter the Sudan. You rail against the Canadians, Malaysians and Chinese oil firms there now, but the SPLA has already discussed allowing American firms to take their place, if the Sudan is divided in two as you desire. If you believe that the United States is backing the SPLA because it sees them as “freedom fighters” you are absolutely out of your mind. We suggest that you examine the history of the Contras in Nicaragua, the Bay of Pigs in Cuba and the Afghan rebels in the old Soviet Union to see how the United States assists those who are so-called “freedom fighters”. Your hatred is blinding you to the fact that the United States is preparing to use you and discard you once it gets to the oil that it so badly wants out of the Sudan. If you are true freedom fighters of the Sudanese people then publicly denounce the SPLA’s relationship with the Dyncorp as well as any financial support offered by the United States. Do you have the courage to do so? If you have nothing to say about the matter in future writings then we are justified in thinking that you are in agreement with Dyncorp, and the U.S. Government’s arrangement with the SPLA and that you are comfortable with the designs that the United States and Britain have for Sudan.

You do not speak for all Southern Sudanese or even a majority of them.

Unlike you, we bifurcate the policies and actions of the SPLA from that of the people of Southern Sudan. We are not so arrogant or naïve to think that this one group which so often finds itself isolated as an obstacle to the efforts to make peace in the Sudan is the true voice of the Sudanese people, who live in the South. Again, you attempt to position the SPLA as “freedom fighters” and liberators because you are banking on the belief that Blacks in America will believe you simply because you claim to be from the Sudan and therefore, should know better. But a simple review of the SPLA reveals that they and their leader John Garang have been one of the greatest hindrances to the formulation of a lasting peace in Sudan. How you can style them in the manner that you do is beyond us, in a sense. But in another sense we know exactly why you view them in the manner in which you do. You embrace the SPLA as you do because your sole interest is the downfall of the Khartoum regime and not the creation of a better reality. You are so narrow-minded in your view that you really don’t want peace with the Khartoum regime. You want the complete rupture of the Sudan in half and you don’t care if that places you on the same side as the United States and England. Your emotional reaction has caused you to misperceive and has made you judge the events in the Sudan rather selfishly. You aren’t able to realize that your assist to the United States and England works against not just against the Sudan but against the best interests of Africa. Or, maybe you don’t care because your hatred of the Sudanese government must be fed, one way or another.

One of the signs that you are going off the deep end is the title you appropriate and use to sign your written communication to us. You write “Signed on behalf of
'Victims of Sudan oppressive, genocidal and enslavement policies/ New Sudan”. That is interesting because your view does not reflect the wishes or the thinking of the Southern Sudanese that we are familiar with. You take great liberties to think that you represent the opinion/view of those in the South of Sudan. We do concede that you do a very good job of representing the view(s) of the SPLA. But as we stated earlier we don’t see the SPLA and the Southern Sudanese as one in the same. Just like we do not see the ADL and American Jews as one in the same. You really should study the ADL (Anti-Defamation League). You share their spirit in more than one way. As a result of your attitude toward the Khartoum government, you are unable to be a party to the process of ending the war. But more importantly, you are unable to produce a solution to the real problems that plague the Sudan, even those in the South that you claim to speak for. That is a natural result of your lack of clear thinking on the matter. Your fallacious reasoning and selective review of the facts causes you to come up with ideas that are dangerous, impractical, ineffective and counterproductive. We wrote about this in “Asking The Right Questions and Thinking Critically About The Sudan. We quoted from the writing of Minister Jabril Muhammad in his book, This Is The One. If you can, take the time to review what he has written about the research and thinking process and its impact on making decisions and solving problems and compare it to how you have handled this volatile issue:

Here is what he wrote:

"The aim and purpose of the research process is to uncover truths by the means of the principles of scientific investigation. The first step involves the determination of what questions can or should be answered. Now the steps of the research process are of such nature that they merge one into the other. The interrelatedness of the steps in any effort of research are such that the nature of the first step greatly fixes the nature of the last step. Errors or mistakes in the beginning steps of investigation may produce problems which result in the prevention of the successful conclusion of the research effort. Worse, conclusions rooted in errors fallacies, etc., can end in death and destruction, when they are applied to such serious problems as the "race" issue. The more important the issue the greater the care that must be exercised, from the formulation of the theme to be studied, to the collection of data, to the final presentation and use made of the conclusions. This does not mean that care need not be used in small matters.

It is well known among scholars and students that the seeker of truth must maintain thoughtful attention between his studies, and their relation to the accessible knowledge that there is, and to the emerging views and even to possibilities. Researchers also know that the applications of the results must be anticipated from the start of a study, if the research is intended to resolve an immediate and practical problem.

What the investigator determines that can or can't be measured or weighed will influence what elements he selects or omits as he forms his approach to the problems he faces. This in turn greatly influences the type of evidence seen as relevant to the answer the researcher seeks. After the data has been gathered and the research design or pattern has been fixed, several irreversible decisions are built in, which substantially determines the type of analysis and interpretation of the findings.

This brings us to the fact that an overemphasis of certain factors, or omitted information, can result in the total failure of the seekers of truth to realize their objective. The omission of relevant facts must result in the same thing as deliberate discarding of facts - something less than the truth or no truth at all. It goes almost without saying that the purpose with which one approaches the subject, influences the selection and use of material in any research project.

...Fallacies in our thinking make our conclusions wrong. When we try to walk in the false light cast by incorrectness in our thinking, our line of reasoning, our beliefs, we can get ourselves into big trouble. Fallacies are dangerous. Why? Because they often appear as truth. They may seem reasonable when they are senseless. They frequently look right when they are wrong. They resemble sound thinking but are really unsound. Sometimes a speaker makes a point in such a way that one may be led to think he has supported his point with evidence, when he has not. Sometimes he will give a few examples, and from that speak of other things as though the few are typical of the rest. Sometimes he will make comparisons between things of which there are critical differences. Giving the impression that a minor relation between two things is bigger than it really is, and that this caused that, when it hasn't, are two often used fallacies. Taking what seems to be the sign of one thing to be the sign of something different is another instance of a fallacy. Another example involves being vague or using a word in a vital area that hides the true meaning. Using loaded language - emotional language - to establish a point for which the speaker has no proof, is another fallacious device. Name calling is an example of this. Some speakers simply avoid facts that have a direct bearing on a subject. On the other hand, he may bring in things that have no bearing on the issue. The reader may have seen speakers - especially preachers - repeat a thing over and over to try to win his point. But repetition is not proof of truth. Sheer noise is used by some. Personal attacks rather than attacks on what the other has to say, is still another device. Agreeing with another's conclusion while denying the base of that conclusion, even though it necessarily flows from the premise put forth by the other, is a fallacy. Playing on the imagination and feeling of the listeners by appealing to what may be popular is fallacious. Or, he may knock down an argument that the other has not put forth. Or, again, he may ask the other a loaded question: Have you stopped stealing yet? Have you stopped beating your wife?

We've seen speakers in debates take advantage of the fact that an audience, or most in the audience, may not have enough knowledge to see that one speaker may be taking advantage of the other, because of the lack of knowledge on the part of the audience on that subject. One man may say such and such can not be true because, "We have never heard of that before." For instance, uninformed people at one time said that the telephone was impractical because "we all know you can't talk over wires." Another example that used to cause those in the know a hard time was that knowledge of the atom was not widespread. So when talk of cracking the atom came up, people who were not in the know said, "Of course you can't crack an atom; how can you possibly crack something that you can't see?"

It is hard enough when the audience, or most of it, are not in the know on a subject. One of the speakers may have a hard time, though he may be very much in the know. This means he will have to work harder than the other. But when the other is also not in the know, then, we really have a problem.


In our opinion all of the above applies to the manner in which you have handled this issue and our written communications – from the selective nature of your research/perspective to the loaded language and manner of argumentation that you have used in your effort to sway an otherwise unsuspecting audience.

You think that you can get away with positioning yourself as the spokesperson for the Southern Sudanese and you do so in a manner that links you closely with the SPLA. But that is not true. You are not the definitive voice of the people of Southern Sudan. There are other Southern Sudanese, on the continent and in Africa who do not share your view at all. To punctuate our point we include below a May 31, 2001 release from the South Sudan Relief Agency (SSRA). They don’t share your view at all. We wonder why. Here is what they wrote:

SOURCE: South Sudan Relief Agency

The South Sudan Relief Agency (SSRA) Represents the South Sudan Defense Forces (SSDF)
May 31

South Sudan Relief Agency today announced the following:
As is clear to everyone who has been following the events in the Sudan, the people of Southern Sudan went to war for a good cause -- the cause of justice and self-determination.

The April 1997 Khartoum Peace Agreement stated very clearly that the South shall have the right of self-determination and that there should be freedom of religion, and it was signed by representatives of the government and all the warring factions and tribes including SPLA/NDA leader John Garang's own tribe of Dinka. On this basis, we and all of the other factions and groups in Sudan (except John Garang) are willing to make peace with the government in Khartoum. The willingness of the government to make peace with the Southern Sudanese has been proven recently by the formation of a new administration in the South under the leadership of Brig. Gatluak Deng and with a cabinet that includes all the Southern tribes.
It has never been an objective to prolong this war, nor even to overthrow the government in Khartoum, but only to have self-determination in Southern Sudan.

We did not go to war for hatred of the Islam and the Moslem people nor the hatred of the Arabs of the Sudan.

We did not go to war for religion, or slaves or cattle.

We did not go to war for power, or money, or because of the discovery of oil.

We went to war because of our identity, injustice and to be able to live in our land peacefully.

We consider it, therefore, a very great mistake for people, especially outsiders, to attempt to mix up papers and forget the real cause of the war; or to ignore the reasons that it continues now.

People should understand that tribal raids existed in the Sudan for many years, especially in the South between The Nuer, Dinka and Dinka, Murle and in Bahar El-Gazal some tribes lost their identity because of the practice. Slave traders have raided into Sudan from Egypt and the North since the time of the Pharaohs. Dinka and the Murahaleen live together since the Arab tribes migrated to Sudan some five hundred years ago, and since then, tribal raids have existed. Only a comprehensive peace, justice and prosperity will permit the tribal raiding to be stopped.

The Operation Lifeline Sudan has stopped sending food to the whole Upper Nile. Schools and health clinics are built in the areas of the SPLA while other areas are ignored and are suffering. International aid should not be used as a weapon or to discriminate against regions and groups. We applaud the Bush administration's decision to more equitably distribute food aid, even into Northern Sudan and areas around Khartoum.

The people of Southern Sudan are ready for peace now, but it has become clear that John Garang is not ready for peace: he rejects the Khartoum Peace Agreement signed by everyone else and offers nothing in its place except his dreams of personal wealth and power.

We will make peace with the government in Khartoum regardless of their ideology as long as they are willing to guarantee our right of self- determination. The people of South Sudan have no interest to change the government in Khartoum.

We will make peace with the government in Khartoum because of their willingness and seriousness to achieve peace and to end the war.

Riek P. Riek

SSRA -- Washington D.C. – USA


SOURCE: South Sudan Relief Agency

I will conclude by demonstrating how unreasonable you have become. I have quietly received several threats from your group via e-mail. I do not worry about such because Allah is my Protector and you can only harm me if He permits it. But I am interested in your threats because it reveals the irrational approach that you have taken toward our writings on Sudan. To use your own words to demonstrate my point I would like to address an e-mail that I have received.

Here is an excerpt of an e-mail that I received from “Everett Minga” on 7/13/2001 at 9:57:27 AM:

Below is some evidence of slavery and declaration of Jihad against African Sudanese both Muslims and Christians alike. Let it be clear to you that Southern Sudanese can and will fight any one who stands in our way by any means necessary. To us, you Mr. Cedric and the Khartoum regime is responsible for the death of over 4 million of our people from 1956- to the present day. To us, you are now our enemy and we will treat you as such until you come forward and apologize to our people

How am I responsible for the death of over 4 million people? Look at how ridiculous you sound; how irrational you look; how unreasonable you appear; how irresponsible you are. You have slandered me. You have told a lie. Please prove that I am responsible for the deaths of over 4 million people. There is no way that you can, but I am open to listen to your argument. You say that I am now your enemy and that you will fight anyone who stands in your way by any means necessary. It is Everett Minga who has put that phrase in bold print. What does this mean? Does this mean that if you can’t defeat me in argument that you will then turn to physical violence? Are you going to roll up on me one day and shoot me? Please, you have to do better than that, Mr. Minga, and those who are with you. You may have been able to frighten us with that type of threat years ago but some of us are losing that today. You will have to come better, with more intelligence than that. You are not thinking clearly about this. It is obvious.

It is interesting that a person who was not even born in 1956 is being held responsible for the deaths of 4 million people in the Sudan. This is even more peculiar considering that I am from the group that was sold into slavery from Africa. It is obvious that you do not yet recognize me or our viewers as your Brothers and Sisters or as a victims of the genocide of African people. The manner in which you write reveals that you think that the Sudanese civil war is the beginning of the suffering of Black people on the continent. Your pain and emotional reaction has caused you to judge selfishly. It is even more interesting that you do not even mention the role of the United States, England, France, Germany, Belgium and the Dutch in the destabilization of Africa and the Sudan. That in and of itself is a strong indication that you share a great measure of the mind and spirit of our slavemasters and colonizers. Your e-mails are revealing. You do a disservice to the group you claim to represent. Can’t you see how cloudy your perception has become? Your perception of reality is so bent that you now number me, Cedric Muhammad, as your enemy. At the same time, you consider The United States Government, Dyncorp, and Christian Solidarity International(CSI) to be your friends. With friends like that you don't even need me as an enemy.

Since you do seem to be familiar with the Holy Qur’an and at least act like you respect it, I ask that you turn your attention to the 16th Surah and the 125th verse of that book which reads,

“Call to the way of thy Lord with wisdom and goodly exhortation, and argue with them in the best manner. Surely thy Lord knows best him who strays from His path, and He knows best those who go aright.”

Mr. Everett Minga, and your group, where is the wisdom and goodly exhortation in your communication and e-mail(s) sent to me, like the one that I have quoted above? Where is the best of arguments from you? Do you know how to argue in the best manner? Look at how your presentation has degenerated to the level of veiled and not-so veiled threats. If I am as wayward as you claim that I am, where is the compassion for my ignorant state? If you know more and are correct shouldn’t you demonstrate compassion and raise me in consciousness?

Instead, you and your group attempt an approach that reflects the base level that you have fallen to as a result of your uncontrollable rage. You are so out of control of yourselves that you now have placed the deaths of 4 million people on my shoulders. It would be hilarious if it weren’t so sad. It would be humorous if it weren’t a sign of spiritual and emotional disease on your part. You are sick, indeed.

Your recklessness and emotional response play right into the hands of our mutual enemies. Now, suppose that our mutual enemy wanted to do me harm, physically. Your reckless e-mails circulating around the Internet now provides the cover story for my injury or death to be orchestrated by our mutual enemy and then have such blamed on you, Mr. Minga or your entire group. Do you see how blinded you have become? You are vulnerable to be used as a tool by our mutual enemy. And in a way that harms us both.

You are reckless and you are out of control of your ownselves. Just look at how you attempt to make myself, Minister Farrakhan, and the Nation Of Islam accept the responsibility for what is happening in the Sudan. How are we a part of any of your grievances against Khartoum, which you say began in 1956? Just think over how fallacious your argument is. Anyone who is swayed by such an argument would have to be insane, ignorant, or thoroughly filled with the spirit of envy toward myself, Minister Farrakhan or the Nation Of Islam. Your effort is wickedly motivated. You are filled with the spirit of our former slavemasters, in what you are doing, which shows that you are not yet free of what was done to us over 400 years ago in Africa. Your hatred has caused you to act inequitably to all of us. It is you who owe us an apology, although I do not ask for one nor do I expect to receive one. Nevertheless, you are a slanderer of human beings who are absolutely innocent of what you charge. As a result, it is you that may receive the punishment that you wish for us. That is a law of nature, well beyond you or I. The heavens and the earth actually cry out for justice when an innocent man is accused of that which he did not do. If I were you I would apologize for slandering the Minister, the Nation and myself.

The manner in which you have conducted yourselves throughout the last few weeks has been disgraceful. The manner in which you lie about a few e-mail exchanges and attempt to craft them as a dialogue between the Nation Of Islam and Southern Sudanese is dishonorable. The lie that you tell in public about the existence of an “AMC-NOI” entity is outrageous. The lie that you told that I am somehow the head of such an organization is even more shameful. The lie that you tell that we are connected with the Khartoum government is absolutely false and a figment of your imagination. We can only wonder how you were able to get by the editors of The Black World Today with such lies and misrepresentations. Your ability to deceive and lie is startling.

If you can’t even accurately represent the nature of a very brief series of e-mail exchanges between BlackElectorate.com and yourselves why should we trust you with your account of events in the Sudan. If you can’t do the small thing how can you perform the large? If you can’t lift five pounds how can you lift fifty? Again, all of this points to the perception of reality that you have developed as a result of your attitude toward what is going on in the Sudan. You perception of everything, even a simple e-mail correspondence, is being colored by your feelings. You are actually being consumed by your rage.

To show you how much you are now given to lies, we ask one question: If this was a dialogue between you and the Nation of Islam or you and BlackElectorate.com where is the other side of the e-mails. Aren’t dialogues two-sided? Since you mention me by name and refer to some of what I have written in your e-mails why don’t you run my responses and replies to you via e-mail? You did call this a dialogue didn’t you? So where is my side of the dialogue? Where are my e-mails to you? And finally, how did I sign my e-mails? If you were honest, which you are not, you would state that everyone of my e-mails wished you best regards and was signed by me as “Publisher, BlackElectorate.com”. The very fact that you do not include any of my responses shows that you were up to no good from the very beginning of our very brief discussions.

It also is a strong indication that you have a need to use the Nation Of Islam in your effort(s). It also makes me wonder who and what forces may be behind your “anonymous” group. Are you a front? Or perhaps, you are not who you say you are at all. I guess we may never know as The Black World Today does not mind accepting such anonymous misrepresentations. We wonder does this policy apply to any and all who may wish to get information published by The Black World Today, or only if there is a specific target of such “anonymous”, unverified communications.

Are you that desperate for attention and headlines that you will stoop to such low levels? Instead of attacking people who are not even your enemies why don’t you spend your energies on building a website to get your message out in a dignified manner in which you are in total control of the dissemination of your message. Perhaps then, you will not have to slander and lie just to become famous and get a reputation. Perhaps then, you will not have to threaten people in e-mail and over the Internet who do not agree with you.

It appears that you always had in mind to establish a “phony” dialogue that you could use to publish somewhere. Is this really about “freedom-fighting” to you and the Sudanese people or is it just another “hustle”?

I hope that you will perform a bit of introspection and carefully review all that I have written to you and check and double check it for accuracy. Do the same with your own writings. And then, perhaps, we can reason with one another and work together for peace in the Sudan.

I do look forward to that day, if it is possible.

If it is not possible, so be it. There are numerous Brothers and Sisters from the South of Sudan who do not share your worldview. We can work with them, as it is abundantly clear that you are not their representative. Indeed, it would be a shame if your poor, sloppy and scandalous manner of representation was indicative of how our people in the South of Sudan think and feel.

Fortunately, we know better. We believe the viewers of BlackElectorate.com and The Black World Today do as well.

Sincerely,

Cedric Muhammad

Publisher

BlackElectorate.com


Below are an extensive set of links that were provided to us by the “anonymous” group. In addition we include everything that BlackElectorate.com has written on the subject as well as a few other links. Our purpose in doing so is to provide the widest range of opinions on this controversial subject to our viewers.

Links Recommended By The Anonymous Group:

Sudan Update

Slavery in Sudan Bibliography

Coalition Against Slavery in Mauritania and Sudan

About The Sudan Campaign

SSFI Issues page about slavery in Sudan

War and Slavery in Sudan

HRW Background Paper on Slavery and Slavery Redemption in the Sudan

Human Rights Organization Presents Documentary on Slavery in Sudan

Gang Rape in Sudan

Sudan: Oil in Sudan: Deteriorating human rights

Measures taken since May 1999 to eradicate forced labour and slavery in Sudan

Additional Sudan-related Links

The False Promise of Slave Redemption

An OPEN LETTER To Joe Madison About Sudan

John Garang And The Sudan People

BlackElectorate.com’s Sudan editorials/commentaries

On "Slavery" In The Sudan

Asking The Right Questions And Thinking Critically About "Slavery" In The Sudan

The Military Industrial Complex Comes To Colombia And The Sudan

E-Letter To Jane Perlez And The New York Times Re: Suddenly In Sudan A Moment To Care

E-Letter To The Washington Post and William Raspberry Re: The Am-I Dreaming Team


Monday, July 16, 2001

To discuss this article further enter The Deeper Look Dialogue Room

The views and opinions expressed herein by the author do not necessarily represent the opinions or position of BlackElectorate.com or Black Electorate Communications.

Copyright © 2000-2002 BEC