Talk:Slavery in Sudan
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The first two sections are fair enough, they have sources and so forth. The third section, "Western responses to slavery in the Sudan", goes like this:
"Slavery in Sudan is a controversial topic in the West, because most people there can't believe that modern Africans would or could still enslave one another. Typical thinking focuses on the Anglo-American slave trade and the two and a half centuries of North American slavery which gave an economic boost to the original Thirteen colonies.
The Congressional Black Caucus has historically denied or downplayed reports that blacks are enslaved in the Sudan, and Jesse Jackson dismisses such reports as politically motivated.
Anti-slavery activism in the US is largely the province of white Christians, although Al Sharpton is a notable exception."
I'm not disputing the factual accuracy of this; it seems a fairly accurate unofficial summary. But as part of an encyclopaedia entry it's woeful. Firstly, it doesn't have any western responses to slavery in the Sudan, just a lot of editorial. Secondly, it should be called "North American responses to slavery in the Sudan". Ninthly, "Slavery in Sudan is a controversial topic in the West" is fine, but the second half of that sentence and all of the second sentence are opinion and require sources. The second paragraph is opinion and requires a very good source - and who is Jesse Jackson, what is a 'Congressional Black Caucus'? The third paragraph is opinion and needs a source, and who is Al Sharpton? Yes, I know who they are, but the hypothetical 'Dear Reader' doesn't.-Ashley Pomeroy 22:55, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
The section is especially bad because there is no actual facts in the document showing that there is actually slavery in Sudan at present. As a personal opinion, I do dispute the fact that there is. Still, the least that can be done is trying to substantiate that there is, before jumping to the "western" responses to it. Besides, "Slavery in Sudan is a controversial topic in the West, because most people there can't believe that modern Africans would or could still enslave one another.". Is that the only reason? That they can't believe, or that the reports of such slavery are frequently in dispute? --Karouri 18:47, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Usful links
This is from human rights watch from march 2002 http://www.hrw.org/backgrounder/africa/sudanupdate.htm hopeing to add more and to get this article into shape.Hypnosadist 00:15, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Adding info
I've beefed up the modern slavery section. Took this out, as it contained no refs:
==Western responses to contemporary slavery in the Sudan== Slavery in Sudan is a controversial topic in the West, because many people in Europe and the USA can't believe that modern Africans would or could still enslave one another.
The Congressional Black Caucus has historically denied or downplayed reports that blacks are enslaved in the Sudan, and Jesse Jackson dismisses such reports as politically motivated.
Anti-slavery activism in the US is largely the province of white Christians, although Al Sharpton is a significant exception. Organizations like Christian Solidarity International and American Anti-Slavery Group are working in Sudan to free the enslaved people.
IronDuke 17:47, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
