South Sudan: The Nation of the Traumatized (Part 3)
Intellectuals – Manipulating Our People in South Sudan
Thiik Mou Giir, Melbourne, Australia
August 15, 2016 (SSB) — Following my last article, one of those who made some comments expressed his disapproval of my use of the term, “Intellectuals” to apply on those who are engaged in such kind of writings. One out of four dictionary definitions he provided reads, an intellectual person is “an extremely rational person; a person who relies on intellect rather than on emotions or feelings.” He went on to suggest that those who are inciting violence and promoting hatred as “War mongers” or “Propagandists.” This is a good point but I would continue using the term “Intellectuals” for the sake of consistency.
The use of the Internet comes with responsibility or the lack of it. We, who use the Internet in Diaspora, can use it to help our people build bridges (strengthen relationships) and that is a good thing. We can use it in order to share ideas, ideas that would help us mature and let us make sense of our world, and that is a good thing. We can use it, moreover, to help us resolve the issues we have had for so long and issues that have surfaced after South Sudan gained its independence, and that is a good thing. In short, we can use it to build our new identity and that is a good thing.
On the other hand, we can use it – in fact, we are using it now – to destroy ourselves, in South Sudan as well as in Diaspora. The destructive use of it has become a prevalent, addictive habit of the Internet warriors. I had already highlighted the destructive factor that those writings do to our people who live in Diaspora in my last article, part two. In this article, however, I am focusing on the destructive factor that those messages do to our people who live in South Sudan.
Our people in South Sudan think that those in Diaspora, those in the so-called first world, know better than they do for the obvious reasons. The fact that those in Diaspora live in the so-called first world gives them special status. They are thought of as being more educated, more knowledgeable of the ways of the world and more financially well off than they do locally. Because of this, the messages they write are taken more seriously in S. Sudan than messages written by those who live within the country. They do not use messages only, but they also use images for greater impact.
Whoever they advocate for, SPLM/A-IG or SPLM/A-IO, the readers in South Sudan are likely to follow suit without looking at those messages critically. They read messages; the messages worked on their minds to hate a particular tribe; they feel fired up; they take action and the action is usually destructive.
The trend of writing nowadays is destroying lives, is breaking down trust between people, and is bringing our people down on their knees. The world is a wrong place for people who are on their knees, surrounded by the untapped natural resources. Outsiders normally come in the pretext of saving them from themselves, but, in truth, they rob them of their natural resources and, in the end, leave them worse than they had ever been.
Readers of those messages in South Sudan take action without realizing that, whereas a person in Diaspora takes up a pen to write, he, or she, in South Sudan is taking up a gun to kill or to be killed. That is a grave difference.
Then, what happens? The reader in South Sudan participates in activities that will continue to traumatize our people whereas pen users in Diaspora continue to live somewhat comfortable lives: they have paid jobs, they send their children to good schools, they own or rent houses, they own cars and so on and so forth. The majority of the so called Internet warriors do not and will never know what bush life is, never fought as Anya Nya nor SPLM/A soldier, yet they are madder than they had ever been during Any Nya 1, Any Nya 2 and SPLM/A.
Why? The perils of fighting the formidable, non-South Sudanese enemy in the bushes was greater than the perils of spending hours and hours, nowadays, sitting in the comfort of their homes with nothing but the Internet connected computer.
Our people in S. Sudan think of those who are engaged in such hatred inciting writings, not as bad people, but as people who love and care for them. They think of them as their own brothers and their own sisters. What the writers and the readers have in common is the fact that they are members of the same tribe. Nationhood here is irrelevant; tribe is everything. “They are on our side”, readers in S. Sudan would tenderly think of them. “Let us do what they expected of us; in the end, all of us will win this war”, they would decide.
There is no question that the writers in Diaspora love the readers in our home country. There is no question that their love is sometimes reciprocated by the actions readers take after they read those messages. The question is: do those who write in order to incite violence know what the impact of violence on the people they think they love would be?
If they can mentally visualize by putting everything they hate, Jieng or the current regime, on one side of the scale and by putting all the outcome of violence: the killings, the trauma that may last for a hundred years, the fleeing of our people into UN refugee camps, the disruption of our children’s schooling, child soldiering, etc., which side of the scale would outweigh the other?
If the outcome of violence outweigh the animosity and hatred they bear against Jieng and the current regime, would it, therefore, be worthwhile to subject Jieng, Nuer and all other South Sudanese people to such scale of violence? What is the point of inciting violence?
Those messages have succeeded in creating negative and stifling environment both in South Sudan and in Diaspora. In South Sudan such an environment created, no one feels safe from being subjected to traumatic events. The danger is, or will be, at every man’s and every woman’s door.
Is there no other way out from such environment? Is inciting our people to violence the best thing that those who are Internet literate can do to help our people come out from this traumatic environment? Without a vision, there is no other way out of this. The closest vision to my heart and mind is that we should embark on CONSTRUCTING OUR NEW IDENTITY.
Through this vision we can be creative; through this vision we can win hearts and minds of our people; through this vision we can win even those people we think of as enemies; through this vision we can create a positive environment where our people heal from acute trauma they are currently suffering from and, through this vision we can restore the trust our people have had.
Through this vision the education we have gained over the years can be used for the advancement of our people, not only in South Sudan, but also in Diaspora.
Traumatized, Part four, Rays of Light in the Darkness of Trauma, will be posted in the near future. You can reach the author via his email: Thiik Giir <thiik_giir@hotmail.com>
The opinion expressed here is solely the view of the writer. The veracity of any claim made are the responsibility of the author, not PaanLuel Wël: South Sudanese Bloggers (SSB) website. If you want to submit an opinion article or news analysis, please email it to paanluel2011@gmail.com. SSB do reserve the right to edit material before publication. Please include your full name, email address, city and the country you are writing from.
About Post Author
