Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Ankur

Is Darfur part of SSA?

Recommended Posts

i dont know how one can consider darfur 'sub-saharan'.... when its part of the sahara desert.

 

unless your plan is to take the water from this lake and give it to the people of sub-saharan africa, in which case you are just an amoral <insert expletive> fool.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
i dont know how one can consider darfur 'sub-saharan'.... when its part of the sahara desert.

It depends on the map, geographically you are right, politically I am pretty sure it is considered sub-saharan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yeah, i dont think so. the only part of Sudan which is 'sub-saharan' is the tropical high forest near the south. Darfur is PART of the sahara desert. It is in no way sub-saharan

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sub-Saharan Africa is limited to the following list of countries

 

Trent ‘02

(Rebecca, JD Candidate – Northwestern Law, Northwestern Journal of International Law and Business, Fall, 23 NW. J. INT'L L. & BUS. 213, Lexis)

n19. The countries of sub-Saharan Africa have since been defined in the African Growth Opportunity Act ("AGOA") as the following countries or any successor political entities: Republic of Angola, Republic of Benin, Republic of Botswana, Burkina Faso, Republic of Burundi, Republic of Cameroon, Republic of Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Republic of Chad, Federal Islamic Republic of the Comoros, Democratic Republic of Congo, Republic of the Congo, Republic of the Cote d'Ivoire, Republic of Djibouti, Republic of Equatorial Guinea, State of Eritrea, Ethiopia, Gabonese Republic, Republic of Gambia, Republic of Ghana, Republic of Guinea, Republic of Guinea-Bissau, Republic of Kenya, Kingdom of Lesotho, Republic of Madagascar, Republic of Malawi, Republic of Mali, Islamic Republic of Mauritania, Republic of Mauritius, Republic of Mozambique, Republic of Nambia, Republic of Niger, Federal Republic of Nigeria, Republic of Rwanda, Democratic Republic of Sao Tome and Principe, Republic of Senegal, Republic of Seychelles, Republic of Sierra Leone, Somalia, Republic of South Africa, Republic of Sudan, Kingdom of Swaziland, United Republic of Tanzania, Republic of Togo, Republic of Uganda, Republic of Zambia, Republic of Zimbabwe.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

like I said it depends on what map you look at: geographically Darfur is not Sub-saharan but politically it is considered sub-saharan. Let's just let the T debate figure this one out, shall we?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
yeah, i dont think so. the only part of Sudan which is 'sub-saharan' is the tropical high forest near the south. Darfur is PART of the sahara desert. It is in no way sub-saharan

a few things:

 

a) The political/geography debate around Sudan is a good reason why getting into a debate over T would be bad. A lot of the smarter sudan teams will have many, many cards that will indict the very geographical teasing that you are using to limit sudan out of the political debate. This would be a great and very, very winnable reason why "T is geNOcide, juuuuuuuuuuudge".

 

B) Your teams won't win this T debate as much as you are hoping. Not only do you ahve to rely on a racist/colonialist interpretation of the topic, and then a contextualized defintion that says "Sudan is NOT part of SSA" and then some great reason on the limits debate about why we shouldn't debate Sudan you have to also realize that there are more contextual defintions of why we should debate sudan than not (from a political stand point we include sudan, so any defintion that includes sudan from a political point of view, not geographical, should be accept in debate since we are in policy debate; the debate about the political ;) ).

 

c) you're just on the wrong side of this debate.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, if Sudan is part of the desert, and the lake is under said desert, the policy would be literally sub-Saharan, would it not?

 

...kidding, of course. The sick part is that I have to clarify that I'm not serious for some people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This would be a great and very, very winnable reason why "T is geNOcide, juuuuuuuuuuudge".

 

 

I knew the day would come when this would happen....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

note: at no point did i ever say that sudan isnt sub-saharan. i only said that darfur is not. there is a very big difference. in fact, i specifically identified a region of sudan which is sub-saharan.

 

my point by commenting was that it is not entirely correct to define sub-saharan by the political boundaries of states which contain any sub-saharan terrain.

 

there are still different, valid interpretations.

 

 

 

tommy,

 

your response is why i said on the other thread that i dont put it past you to respond critically. racist colonialist what? defining 'sub-saharan africa' as 'all points in africa south of the sahara irrespective of political borders' is not colonialist or racist.

 

you lose.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All of Sudan - even the northern edge - is always categorized as part of Sub-Saharan Africa. The fact that this doesn't match a literal reading of the term is irrelevant. Nobody uses the term SSA as though it actually ends at the edge of the Sahara. Look into the topic literature. Go to any of the think tanks or NGOs that groups their publications by region, and Darfur will be flagged as SSA.

 

EDIT: Also...

 

http://www.house.gov/bradmiller/Darfur.htm

"Rep. Brad Miller visited the Darfur region of Sudan in sub-Saharan Africa."

 

http://www.usaid.gov/our_work/humanitarian_assistance/disaster_assistance/countries/sudan/template/fs_sr/DARFUR_HE_FS18-08-13-2004.pdf

"Darfur is among those sub-Saharan regions with severe P. Falciparum malaria – considered to be among the top killer diseases in Africa."

 

http://www.state.gov/s/d/former/zoellick/rem/56654.htm

"But this city is surrounded ' as it has been for centuries ' by impoverished sub-Saharan expanses in Darfur, in the South, and among the Beja of the East."

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And many sources will say that Sudan is included in countries whose political boundaries overlap with the Sahara desert

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nubian_Desert

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/africa/explore/sahara/sahara_topography_lo.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darfur

 

 

look people. all i am saying is that an interpretation can be made that darfur is NOT SSA. i dont care which one is 'right' because there are two ways to look at it - political and geographical. and i dont think either is incorrect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, it also depends on your definition of "sub." If you feel that it literally means "south of" the Sahara Desert, that's one thing. But "Sub-Saharan" could also refer to the climate of the area or some other topology.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

tommy,

 

your response is why i said on the other thread that i dont put it past you to respond critically. racist colonialist what? defining 'sub-saharan africa' as 'all points in africa south of the sahara irrespective of political borders' is not colonialist or racist.

 

you lose.

 

Thats fucking stupid. The very debate around the political and geographical area known as the Sudan is always charactarized as "its not our problem, because its outside of what we wanted/needed to do". Example: why Iraq when nearly every SSA country has equal or worse atrocities going on at the same time. To say that talking about the political mindset that we have to Sudan and Darfur is outside of discussion at its heart is racist. There are many, many authors who would say that you lose and i win. I dare you to try to win that debate on this topic.

 

And many sources will say that Sudan is included in countries whose political boundaries overlap with the Sahara desert

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nubian_Desert

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/africa/explore/sahara/sahara_topography_lo.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darfur

 

 

look people. all i am saying is that an interpretation can be made that darfur is NOT SSA. i dont care which one is 'right' because there are two ways to look at it - political and geographical. and i dont think either is incorrect.

 

Because, wikipedia should be taken over the state department. You would never win the limits debate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thats fucking stupid. The very debate around the political and geographical area known as the Sudan is always charactarized as "its not our problem, because its outside of what we wanted/needed to do". Example: why Iraq when nearly every SSA country has equal or worse atrocities going on at the same time. To say that talking about the political mindset that we have to Sudan and Darfur is outside of discussion at its heart is racist. There are many, many authors who would say that you lose and i win. I dare you to try to win that debate on this topic.

 

We both know that's a ridiculous argument. It's not like Ankur's trying to "exclude" Sudan because he doesn't want to talk about it. We all acknowledge that Sudan is an issue. However, that's like saying he doesn't care about political repression in Cuba or another communist country just because he doesn't define Cuba as being part of sub-Sarahan Africa. If he doesn't recognize Sudan as being part of SSA in the first place, it's not like he just "removed" it from his definition to avoid dealing with that problem.

 

Debate itself and the resolution would be the "racists" here, not Ankur. Ankur's not saying we cannot discuss Sudan. He's saying that this is not the right time in debate to discuss it, because there are lots of issues to be discussed. Is he sexist for not trying to help out womens' rights in America on this topic?

 

Because, wikipedia should be taken over the state department. You would never win the limits debate.

 

Ankur was just pointing out that there are a lot of alternative points of view (and Wikipedia represents a lot of points of view).

 

In reality, Ankur would always win that he's over-limiting, which is probably the better way to argue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i didnt really want this to turn into a T argument with everyone bitching, but i guess thats unavoidable....why cant people just realize that maybe this event is a little more important than whether its topical or not..? this could potentially save many lives and i was more interested in talking about how this whole thing could go down and how the water could impact the lives of africans

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Everyone-

 

I am NOT making a claim that one interp is right and one is wrong. Only indicating that you should be prepared to argue either side of the debate.

 

I couldnt care less if you think one interp is better or not. I want to see it in the round, not on this site.

 

Deal.

 

 

 

Tommy,

Read. Comprehend. I have had it with your trolling.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And many sources will say that Sudan is included in countries whose political boundaries overlap with the Sahara desert

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nubian_Desert

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/africa/explore/sahara/sahara_topography_lo.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darfur

I'm not quite sure what that sentence means (Sudan is included in countries?), but not one of those sources even uses the term Sub-Saharan Africa, let alone explain whether it includes Darfur.

 

I am NOT making a claim that one interp is right and one is wrong. Only indicating that you should be prepared to argue either side of the debate.

 

I couldnt care less if you think one interp is better or not. I want to see it in the round, not on this site.

This seems a shift from your earlier posts ("Darfur is PART of the sahara desert. It is in no way sub-saharan"), but whatever. The entire political academic world uses the term SSA to include all of Sudan - not just the southern tip. You can argue that they're technically incorrect, but this is a bit like arguing that the "United States" doesn't include Washington DC because it's not a state. I would rather not see that in the round, thank you.

 

There really is no debate here. You have provided zero arguments supporting your supremely literal reading of the term. You aren't going to find a justification for it. All regional data listed as covering SSA includes data on Darfur. All think tank web sites that have a SSA publication pages put their Darfur articles there. Every speech on SSA inevitably includes Darfur. I included three casual quotes from USFG pages implicitly defining Darfur as part of SSA. Now can we quit the sophistic semantic jujitsu and just agree that "Sub-Saharan Africa" is a pretty well-understood term and that it refers to the brown part of this map?

 

Look, I don't want a fight. Arguments over terminology bore me to no end. Can we just shake hands and end this here?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

what i was implying is sub-sahara = south of sahara. if something is encapsulated by the sahara, it cannot be, by definition sub-saharan.

 

the evidence demonstrates that darfur is part of the sahara desert. though not everyone agrees with that and some say only part of the darfur is.

 

i dont need to define darfur != sub-saharan if i can define darfur = saharan.

 

but yes. we shake hands.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is just an inital thought, so sorry if it's dumb.

 

I haven't read the literature on Sub-Saharan Africa as a racist term extensively, but I think I've seen counterplans that say define sub-saharan africa geographically because it avoids the racism or whatever. Could this argument be combined with a Sudan topicality? In other words, If Sudan is topical you are racist, but if it isn't then you are...untopical. If thats unclear ill try to clarify.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
i didnt really want this to turn into a T argument with everyone bitching, but i guess thats unavoidable....why cant people just realize that maybe this event is a little more important than whether its topical or not..? this could potentially save many lives and i was more interested in talking about how this whole thing could go down and how the water could impact the lives of africans

 

Because debate rounds don't matter. Whether or not a team discusses Darfur doesn't affect their views on the issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sure. The vast majority of people in debate are already politically aware. They don't need to have a debate round on it to know about the conflict there.

 

agreed...and the T argument that because the AFF chooses to defend a region, not the entire Sudan, means that their region must be sub-saharan, even the nation is politically ssa, the region is geographically not, therefore, they are untopical. They pick their ground, and they picks NT ground.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Half of it is...the part that is in the Sahara is not part of sub-Saharan Africa.

 

"Sub-Saharan Africa" shouldn't be based on political borders...it should be based on the Sahara's borders.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...