MUST READ: Deontologist Gets Pwned*
I’m not a genius – unless you count comedic genius, obviously – but Neha Erasmus clearly is, and in a recent post on Making Sense of Darfur she discusses some of the themes I only half-assedly touched on in some previous posts. Specifically, she discusses the psychology of victimhood and possible problems with how the Darfur advocacy movement may shape the way Darfuris view themselves. The highlight for me was:
In an article criticising Mamdani, Chad Hazlett recently asserted that Mamdani’s argument about Save Darfur advocacy lacked evidence and suggested that a content analysis of Save Darfur messaging would have been prudent. I thought this an excellent idea and undertook a crude and preliminary analysis, using the search function on the Save Darfur website. This yielded some interesting results:
The word “victims” generated 130 entries
The word “survivors” generated 70 entries
The word “help” generated 530 entries
The word “empower” generated 14 entries
The word “genocide” generated 799 entries
The word “counterinsurgency” generated 5 entries
Whilst this analysis took all of about five minutes, the results indicate the following: Save Darfur’s advocacy generates a discourse of victims who are in dire need of help within a system of victims against perpetrators (or good against evil) in which the former are wholly innocent and the later wholly guilty.
Why didn’t I think of doing that?! It’s so simple and brilliant! SDAP sucks.
*I can’t believe I have to clarify this. Yes, that’s spelled correctly. “Pwn” is a corruption of “own,” meaning “dominated or bested in some way.” Do none of our readers speak leet? Lolcats must confuse the hell out of you! What’s that? You don’t know what a lolcat is? Oh dear, you need to seriously reexamine your life.