MySpace Organizes Sudan Fundraiser 164
tanman writes to tell us CNN is reporting that MySpace is sponsoring a series of 20 concerts as an effort to raise awareness about the humanitarian relief efforts in Sudan. From the article: "The concerts will take place October 21. Artists include TV on the Radio in Philadelphia, Alice in Chains in Winston-Salem, North Carolina, Ziggy Marley in Medford, Oregon, Citizen Cope in Seattle, Gov't Mule in Spokane, Washington, and Insane Clown Posse in St. Petersburg, Florida."
Fox? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:For those of us who aren't geography geniuses.. (Score:4, Insightful)
The way the west has dealt with Africa since pretty much the beginning of time is shameful, and it doesn't look like it's going to improve any time soon.
Great. (Score:3, Insightful)
Doesn't Matter (Score:2, Insightful)
MySpace needs the PR. (Score:5, Insightful)
Why would News Corp give a damn about people in Sudan? Here's a hint: they don't.
The only reason they're raising money for people in Sudan is that it's the least-offensive cause some focus group could come up with. Right now, MySpace needs the most heart-warming, family-friendly but not totally-unhip image resuscitation that money can buy.
We can do better (Score:3, Insightful)
Next year: Murdoch Family Bake Sale (Score:5, Insightful)
As they are not doing that and are conducting a fund raiser, however ironic, I think it's safe to assume that the ultimate goal of the process is not, in fact, sending money to Sudan.
As to what the real motive might be, I'll leave that up to you to consider.
If it were the other way around (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Great. (Score:3, Insightful)
I bet you you'd be just as dissapointed if those same teens didn't care at all.
Re:What needs to happen... (Score:3, Insightful)
Humanitarian assistance was not one of the reasons stated. Nor was Saddam's ghastly human rights record a reason for the invasion: he was just as bad back at the time of the handshake [gwu.edu].
>Then there will be protests at a University, but that's ok.
>If I might suggest a situation for history to repeat itself, I propose Kent State.
The people who moderated this up may be unfamiliar with the event he is proposing to repeat. In 1970 the National Guard opened fire on students at Kent State. Not "opened fire on protestors", because they killed and wounded people who were nowhere near the protest. William Schroeder's entrance wound was in the lower back, and his exit wound was in the upper body. This is because he was lying on his face when he was shot, having hit the dirt as he'd been trained to in the ROTC.
Re:What needs to happen... (Score:3, Insightful)
The US doesn't want to send troops because their soldiers would just end up becoming the targets. So instead of pacifying the situation it would only become worse (see Somalia 1993). The UN had promised 20,000 troops in the area but Sudan openly objected and declared that such a force would be seen as invaders. The UN then backed down with the hope the AU would increase its forces and extend its stay.
As far as your argument that the "Left" would appear as hypocrites for a supporting an excursion into Darfur because they opposed the invasion of Iraq, I don't understand your line of thought. Darfur and Iraq appear to be two very different situations.
Re:Lame (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Let me rephrase this for you (Score:2, Insightful)
I would say because they are different sorts of colonies. Our Asian possessions tended to be fairly organised nation states before we got there, and our colonialism was more about the control of trade and overseeing the local administration than the wholesale resource stripping we indulged in in Africa. That's not to say that we didn't rip the locals off for what we could, we just couldn't get away with as much as we could in Africa. In Asia therefore we allowed stored wealth to build up: we couldn't treat the people simply as machinery to extract raw materials as we did in Africa (the Belgian Congo being the most notorious example). When the empires were gone therefore there was an economy still running. In Africa we extracted it all and stuck the cash back home, where our no-longer-subjects wcouldn't get their hands on it.
In Africa we imposed nations and borders on the local tribes (sometime squishing antagonists into a single state, sometimes cutting tribes in two) and administered directly. Under the wonderful White Man's Burden we basically gave ourselves largesse to treat the locals as we wanted as we were civilising them along the way.
As to the period of time between decolonisation and now: actually it's just over 26 years since the last European decolonisation (Zimbabwe). The peak year was 1960, which is more than 40 years ago, but there are plenty of examples of decolonisation leading up to the late 70s. I think the point you're making is that forty years should be plenty time to get your nation up and running. I would have thought the experience of the United States, which took nearly 100 years to settle its internal politics and free a sizeable percentage of its population would have shown that politics runs a bit slower than expectations.