Darfur Crisis and Controversy?

Question

I need a good topic for my informative speech in a few weeks. I've been watching the darfur crisis for a few years and it's starting to get more attention in the news. But the topic for the speech has to be controversial and I don't know exactly how I can turn it into a controversial topic. So I'm just looking for some suggestions!!!!

I thought about the u.s. intervention thing, but I don't think we should directly intervene. We did that once and we're still fighting that war. I do think that someone besides their government should intervene to put a stop to it. Make the U.N. suggestion could work. It's for a college speech class, and as long as the topic is approved I don't think I'll get kicked out of the class hahaha

Answer 1

There is definitely a lot of controversy in Darfur itself -- within the government. The Sudanese (the government in the North) fails to recognize much of the chaos and genocide that is taking place in Darfur and it is rumored that the government is even secretly responsible for carrying out the acts of genocide, and there are a lot of facts to suggest this, however, they will never admit it.

A lot of people have a misconception that there is a racial issue or even a religious issue, or even the north vs. south issue in Sudan (where the north has taken control of the oil and the money away from the people of the south and has cut them off from essential resources -- therefore making them starve. The south also is a region that is predominantly Animist and Christian, and their government was taken over by Muslim Arabs in the north. There have also been battles between these Arabs and Muslim black tribes that live in eastern Sudan)

The biggest thing that makes Darfur a controversy is whether or not this is an act of genocide, or if it is a tribal civil war taking place within Sudan.

It is clear to many that there are hundreds of thousands have been slaughtered but the government refuses to admit that this is genocide (obviously) and says it is a civil war "tribal quarrels"

There is even debate about how much the Western world should become involved (since right now, involvement is practically nothing, and the US has occupied itself elsewhere for other things like Israel and Iraq......*cough*)

There is controversy over whether countries like the US or European wealthy nations should take an ACTIVE stance to help end this genocide (which the suggestion is mainly through military means, as was the case with Rwanda because peace negotiations don't usually work when there is a group of militant, merciless, violent tribes attacking and murdering people left and right) or should these countries not get involved and call other neighboring countries to step up to the plate and give humanitarian aid.



This is such an in depth topic. It is hard to discuss in just one yahoo answer. There is so much you could do for this. I recommend going to Google Scholar.com and searching for Darfur articles. Or try Lexis Nexus, JSTOR, or Wilson Web, or some other research database that will give you more information than you ever thought was out there about Darfur and they are from legitimate educational sources.

Good luck!


P.S. the UN accomplishes NOTHING

Answer 2

I'd research why the United Nations hasn't intervened and only offered token help. If you really want to create a controversy, suggest that if the UN can't help a country in those circumstances, what good are they? I'd leave the US out of it...after all, we're not the police of the world, are we?

Answer 3

So because of the fact there is racism and hatred contained in united statesa. that makes the choose of a team of youngsters for humanitarian help and intervention in what has became out to be the 1st genocide of the twenty first century hypocritical? i'm uncertain i'm seeing the form of fantastic judgment here. Are you asserting that each and every social unwell in this united states must be solved earlier a teenager can ask that some thing be finished approximately injustice someplace else? Are you asserting that, working example, countries could have finished no longer something to help end Apartheid because of the fact racism nevertheless existed of their very own lands?

Answer 4

The controversy is how much the U.S. should intervene. One might even argue that the U.S. should have gone as far as invading Sudan in order to stop the slaughter and mass starvation of innocents.

Answer 5

The US thing is controversial because I think that western countries should intervene and the reason that they're not is that there's nothing in it for them.
good luck :)

Answer 6

Emphasize or suggest that the reason little is heard about the genocide is that it's Muslim on Christian violence...probably get you thrown out of the room.

Answer 7

is not the problem
once again muzzlimms killing their neighbors?
I mean if the truth isn't controversial what is?