To:

Zcom_simple
Home » Z Blogs » Justin Podur's Blog » Crisis in Darfur (too)

Hello,

Blogs are a familiar feature on the internet - where users post content in an accumulating manner, with comments, and search options, etc. They facilitate expression and exploration, and via attached comments, also debate and synthesis.


Reading and
Navigating Blogs

Our blogs are quite powerful. Each writer can post, as is typically the case. Sustainers who have the option can also post, however. All Blogs appear in the blog system, and sometimes also in content boxes the top page of ZNet - and always via the left menu of the top page - and can be found via searches, etc.

Commenting on blogs follows the blogs, attached at the bottom, and blog comments, like all others, are also visible in many places that show comments including in the forum system. In addition, the entire blog system gathers content for everyone - but one can look at the accumulating content in many ways.

  • For example one can look at one writer's efforts - so one is seeing what is effectively a blog system for that one writer, or Sustainer.
  • One can also look at the content by topic, seeing blogs that are tagged as being about a certain topic - or place, as well. Thus, when doing that, it is a blog system about a topic, or a place, with many contributors.
  • One can look at only writer blogs, or only sustainer blogs, as well.
  • One can look at blogs for particular Groups, too.

All this is easily done using the left menu. Searches allow even more variables and refinements.


Creating Blog Posts

If you are a Sustainer with permission, and are logged in, you will see a link in the left menu for you to post a blog - and you can use that to post one, and then tag it various ways (such as with a topic or place, or a group tag), and once you do, it is in the system with you as the author.

You can also use the console button to the left to post a blog - anytime and from anywhere in the site, as long as you are logged in.

Meanwhile, enjoy the blogs - and, by the way, if you are a Free Member or a Sustainer with a ZSpace page, of course you can put one or more content boxes on it, pulling blog links of any sort you may want to filter for, for example, by you or by your friends or by others - and by topic, about places, for groups, etc.

Blogs

72

Justin Podur's Blog

Web Address: http://www.zcommunications.org/zspace/justinpodur
Bio: Justin Podur is a writer and editor for ZNet (www.zmag.org), part of Z Communications, an alternative media organization dedicated to political analysis and support for movements for social change.... (More)

All Podur Blogs

Recent Podur Content

Znetarticle_icon ZNet Articles
Zmagarticle_icon ZMag Articles
Zcommentary_icon ZCommentaries
Zaudio_icon ZAudios
Zvideo_icon ZVideos
Zblogpost_icon Blog Posts
Zvideo_icon ZStores

Crisis in Darfur (too)

By Justin Podur at Oct 02, 2004

PDF Version

Printer Friendly Version
Change Text Size a- | A+
I have appreciated David Peterson's blogging about the 'humanitarians' and their 'interventions' about Sudan. So when I read his latest, referring to my own recent piece on the subject (a piece which made good use of his own previous blogging), I thought it a good time to blog on the topic myself. I think David, like Ed Herman, is a very forceful and well-informed anti-interventionist. He takes the hard cases (Sudan, Kosovo) and relentlessly goes after even the more sympathetic liberal interventionists -- folks like Samantha Power, Louise Arbour, Human Rights Watch -- for their genuine inconsistencies that seem always to favour the powerful. My own instincts are also pretty much always in the anti-interventionist direction. There are various reasons. One is the old moral truism (where have I heard that phrase before?) that we should hold ourselves (or our own societies) to the same standards we claim to hold others. Another is that the US and the West are by far the most powerful, and that makes them the most dangerous, and the stakes very high, even for people outside. But, if David's recent post exposes the double-standards of the interventionists, in my own response I'd like to ask a more difficult question of ourselves. Why are those of us who are, for what I think are right reasons, anti-intervention -- why are we so ineffective? Why did we anti-interventionists fail so badly to convince even the whole 'left' about Kosovo? Or Afghanistan? And, upcoming, Sudan? We have to examine this carefully. Part of it is our lack of a megaphone and the power of propaganda, of course. Part of it might also be that if we can't get 'beyond hypocrisy', meaning beyond accusing the hypocrites we both cite (Powell, Blair, etc.) of hypocrisy, we allow the interventionists to claim the high ground, in this sense: they can say "all you are saying about Palestine might be true and it might not, but I am the only one with a plan to address what is happening in Sudan -- or Kosovo, etc. -- right now. You can call me a hypocrite for not caring about Haitians, Palestinians, Iraqis, or whoever, but what about the Sudanese (Albanians), now?" At which point, in fact, our own side -- the anti-interventionist side -- divides. Some of us become apologetic for the crimes that are going on, minimizing them or trying to put them in context ("What would the US do if a violent secessionist movement arose in Texas?"). Others repudiate the crimes, declare stridently things like "Milosevic is a thug" (You remember that line, right?) but that that doesn't justify intervention. I think maybe our weakness in situations like these is that we don't actually press our competitive advantage over the interventionists. Our competitive advantage is that we *actually* care about the victims of crimes, because we are against crimes, while they are selectively indignant and only care about crimes of other people. In rebutting them, we usually feel the need to emphasize our own side's crimes to the same degree that they emphasize the crimes of others, and de-emphasize others crimes to the same degree they de-emphasize US crimes. That might be a mistake, because it makes us a mirror image of their callousness: we care about all people, but we sound like we only care about some. They care about none, but because they have more outlets and scream louder, they sound like they care about all. This doesn't mean we have to start our every discussion with ritual denunciation of the Sudanese regime (or Slobodan Milosovec, or the Taliban, or Saddam, or Zarqawi, or Bin Laden, etc. etc.). But maybe we have to do something differently.

Comment On This Blog Post  See All Comments (1)

Person

By Steppling, Steppling at Oct 26, 2004 11:50 AM
There has already been intervention in Sudan....mostly covert....and people have been dying there for twenty years (and John Garang is an Iowa state grad, by way of fort benning).....and in the DRC a whole lot MORE people have died....but it stayed off the radar...why? Sending in the marines (or subcontracting the UN) solves nothing. Milosevic's trial is proof of the propaganda machine a work (and now they wont let him defend himself...cant imagine why?)....and the disinformation on Sudan (like Rwanda) is substantial. So its not isolationism....its a longer historical view that makes one realize just how counterproductive intervention by Empire is. Trace back US involvement in Sudan.....JOhn Laughland has written on it....and I know others....and when one sees the interests of big oil, China, and the desire for more military bases, one tends to get a bit cynical. And again, why no discussion of the DRC? Nothing good comes from intervention....and in the case of the Sudan, exactly who is going to be stopped from what and how? I would submit any military force in the area will only intensify violence in other neighboring regions.

Reply this comment

Loading_border