I’ve refrained from commenting on Mahmoud Mamdani’s new book because – well, primarily because I’ve had more important things to do. But I wanted to take the opportunity to provide a few thoughts. People may know that it is part critique of the Darfur advocacy movement and part history of Darfur and Sudan. Actual scholars of Sudan – which Mamdani is not – have begun to eviscerate the historical section due to fundamental errors of fact and Mamdani’s almost exclusive (and selective) reliance on secondary sources. The book is not, in other words, a work of scholarship. Those familiar with the Darfur advocacy movement likewise have begun to eviscerate that part of the book – again for fundamental errors of fact and almost exclusive (and selective) reliance on secondary sources. In both cases, he started with his theory and then searched for bits of information that could be used – in some cases, twisted – to support that theory. I generally agree with my former colleague Bridget Conley-Zilkic on the need for a conversation about how the work of scholars and experts can better inform advocacy and activism: “The conversation we need today would involve activists and scholars speaking frankly about where the conflict stands, where the greatest threats to civilians are in Sudan (not just in Darfur), and what we need to know in order to intelligently engage on the issues.” Unfortunately, Mamdani’s slovenly polemic doesn’t do anything to promote that conversation and indeed — by enveloping all of us in a haboob of distortion and misdirection — impedes it.
The opinions expressed here are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the position of the Save Darfur Coalition.
