reduced and recycled

A short question: what’s the utility of ascertaining the real death toll in Darfur to-date? Imagine experts tussling over the exact figures. What’s the going rate these days? I read “70,000” in some reports, and I’ve read about others disputing the figure: they say “200,000”. Some say “400,000”. In the meantime, George Clooney tongue-lashes the UN. It’s another Rwanda, he’s said earlier this week. I agree. The UN probably agrees, though they wouldn’t want to do anything about it. Heck, why else have official figures hover around 70,000? Ahh.. because only 70,000 deaths can be substantiated.

But 70,000 is quite a figure, don’t you think? I mean, think about it for a moment. Some time back I wrote something about deaths and statistics. I think I said, basically, that deaths only become tragic if their numbers remain small. Is that true? One person dies, the papers fill two front pages with massive details and gory explanations; two people die and they smell a conspiracy; ten people die and it’s a massive, nation-wide tragedy. Now, 70,000 die and it’s an interesting statistic. I’ve said before, maybe the mind refuses to acknowledge the enormity of such a tragedy.

Or maybe 70,000 is a convenient figure because it doesn’t breach that imaginary threshold that separates a statistical anomaly from a full-blown genocide. It floats in that liminal space between the statistical and the tragic, maybe? See, because if it remains a not-so-easily definable something it can’t really be anything, can it? It can’t be a genocide, it can’t be used to justify invading a sovereign state, and it most certainly can’t be used to dissuade Sudan’s big brother, China.

The figure, “70,000”, in other words, has all the utility of a limpid dick.

George Clooney and dad know this. People who support the Save Darfur campaign know this, and the politicians know this. These politicians though, they can’t set a precedent; they can’t allow an international organization to invade sovereign borders, can they, because that would be sufficient justification for invading other failed states and what-not.

(Not that it makes much difference since the invasion of Iraq. I’m not a true-blue liberal, mind, but I’ll just like to say that Saddam deserves what he’s getting – only, I wish God had a say in that whole mess, not George Bush, Jr. Maybe George Bush, Jr. was channeling Napoleon Bonaparte or Hitler, who knows?)

So: Darfur. The figures matter little, and even if the politicians wrangle and writhe over the need to invade Darfur, we little people can and should do something, even if it means sending large quantities of emails to George Bush, Jr. and Sec-Gen Kofi Annan. I know these causes come up now and then, but it takes only a few minutes, and it may do some good, you never know.

Go to Save Darfur now.