Part of the confusion over this arises from the fact that some of the language invoked has ( Americanized ) racial overtones. So a common epithet used by “Arabs” is zurga, i.e. black. However the term seems to have morphed from a color descriptor to generalized term for settled non-Arabic speakers ( I have a reference for that somewhere, but I’d have to dig around ). Certainly opposing tribal groups in Darfur like the Baggara and Zaghawa are in fact pretty similar in skin tone.
To be sure, you certainly could call the struggle partly racist, based on a linguistic definition of race. Many Arabs in the Sudan apparently do consider themselves to be culturally superior to non-Arabs ( despite the fact that any given Zaghawa and Baggara tribesman from Darfur probably have vastly more in common culturally than either has to an Arab in Arabia or even Khartoum ). But a hazy term like supremacist might be a better in this instance, the reason being that in the U.S. ( and the West generally, probably ) the popular image of racism tends to revolve around skin tone, which is a dicier distinction in that part of the Sudan. Splitting hairs maybe, but I think it is a little less obfuscatory in everyday conversation ( well, maybe not, since you would probably have to explain your meaning anyway ).
I think I got into an argument about this in the pit at some point. Hopefully I’ve explained my meaning more clearly this time :).
We’d love to - honest. But what with all of our troops being used to sort out Iraq, Sierra Leone, Cyprus, Yugoslavia and even our own back yard in Ireland we simply haven’t got any spare capacity.
As for the continentals - they talk a good game but are functionally useless at projecting force.