October features two themes that seem to describe a needed intervention in the case of Darfur--Diversity Awareness and Domestic Violence Awareness Month. Many journalists and analysts have depicted the horrifying violence in Darfur as a case of Arabs murdering Africans.

But does the categorization of mass murder in racial terms obscure a more complex reality? If so, what is that reality?

Merriam-Webster defines race alternatively as "a category of humankind that shares certain distinctive physical traits" and "a class or kind of people unified by shared interests, habits, or characteristics." The first definition emphasizes biology and genetics, the second culture and behavior.

In Darfur, where an estimated 200,000 people have been killed and at least two million more displaced since 2003, Western journalists have tended to use that first definition of race in order to distinguish the killers from their victims. In the October 29, 2006 issue of the New York Times, for example, columnist Nicholas Kristof reported that gunmen funded by Sudan's Arab government had "shout[ed] epithets against blacks" as they "heave[d] babies into bonfires."

But relying on terms like Arab and black, or African, can be extremely misleading. According to the overview of the World Conflicts Today report on Darfur:

Using them without making extensive qualifications and clarifications wrongly implies that there are no significant linguistic, economic, or cultural differences within each group. It also conceals fundamental similarities between the groups, namely that the membership of each is overwhelmingly black, African, and Muslim. Essentially, the terms are a convenience; they have been adopted by journalists and politicians because it would be impractical to name every tribal group involved in the conflict.

Some Darfur observers, including a minority of journalists and several aid workers, have cautioned against representing the mass killings in Darfur as something like racially motivated terrorism. Instead, using the second definition of race, they have described the violence as a fight over natural resources, notably water and farmland.

For these observers, the conflict in Darfur is less an attempt by one racially distinct group to eliminate another than it is a low-intensity civil war, brought to a head by years of drought and pitting farmers (who tended to be "African") against pastoralists (who tended to be "Arab").

Why is it important to correctly categorize the conflict in Darfur? No one disputes that the situation there is appalling, so why not leave the debate over terms to philosophers and just do something to end the violence?

There is a highly practical answer to this question: if journalists represent parties to a civil war as racist terrorists and helpless victims, then there is a danger that the natural sympathy felt for the "victims" will embolden them and make them less willing to compromise in talks aimed at resolving longstanding grievances. This, according to the Guardian's Jonathan Steele, may have happened in Darfur.

Activity: Read through the World Conflicts Today report on Darfur. Answer the following essential questions for critical thinking with reference to specific examples from the text:

• Is the violence in Darfur best characterized as "Arab" terrorism or a struggle between farmers and pastoralists for scarce resources?
  
  
• If you decide that the violence is mainly "Arab" terrorism, then how do you account for the fact that some respected UN observers have said the "African" rebels now represent the biggest obstacle to a lasting peace?
  
  
• If, on the other hand, you decide that the gruesome violence is simply the intensification of a longstanding struggle for water and land, then how do you account for the racial epithets that Kristof and other respected journalists have reported hearing?
  
  
• Similarities between Darfur's "Arabs" and "Africans" and differences within "Arab" and "African" groups highlight the difficulties of using race-based categories. Select two racial categories that you use (e.g., black, white, Hispanic). Do they hold up any better than the categories used to describe the violence in Darfur?