With all due respect, we must study African history in order to develop a correct understanding of any given current African political situation. But, there are huge volumes on African history. One could spend an entire lifetime wondering and stumbling through these volumes and never really learning anything of much value in terms of understanding our current situation and how to chart a proper path into the future. So, it is not enough to simply have knowledge of disjointed pieces of historical data. To truly learn from our history, we must, at a minimum, study our history through correct methodology.
In other words, we must study history by use of scientific method. In the AAPRP, we spent years developing the correct methods. We called it historical materialism and dialectical materialism. These are big words that no doubt confused some people. So, let us not get caught too much on such big words. Let us just say that we must use the scientific method in the study of African history. This means first and foremost, that we must avoid European opinions and rely instead on hard primary sources for our data.
Anyone who has successfully completed high school is familiar with the scientific method. It is widely used in mathematics and all of the physical sciences. However, when it comes to the social sciences, the powers that be tend to divert our attention away from using scientific method. This is because they have hidden agendas to confuse us on key facts regarding the social sciences. They tell us outright lies about our history. For instance, they allege an Arab "invasion" of Africa. They tell us this lie using the “big lie technique” of repeating it over and over again knowing it is not true but betting that we are too lazy to go and find out for ourselves what is true. Then they use that as a basis for arguing for such non-sense as the political balkanization of Sudan and other African countries.
Nevertheless, thanks to the modern availability of vast amounts of historical information, for those of us who are not too lazy to think for ourselves and do a minimum amount of research, we can figure out what's what in any given situation. Usually, all that is necessary is to do a googlesearch to get down to the nitty-gritty of the scientifically correct historical information. But, we must have enough prescience to know how to do a correct googlesearch.
Now, let us take the issue at hand and see how it works using the correct method of study. We are talking about "understanding Sudan". It is sad but true that most Africans in America, not to mention non-Africans, know virtually nothing about the Republic of Sudan. If we proceed from a lie, namely that "Arabs dominate Sudan", we will be off track from the very beginning. So, it would be wise of us to do a googlesearch on Sudan and try to determine if there is any proof of an “Arab invasion” of Sudan.
Earlier, I posted data proving that the Berbers have been in Africa for at least 200,000 years. Knowing this, I think it is safe to assume that there is no “Arab invasion” of Sudan; nor, of any other African country. If anyone has information to the contrary, please share it.
The first two most prominent references on Sudan are Wikipedia and the CIA factsheet. For most work in the USA, the CIA information is adequate. But, we cannot be 100% satisfied with what the USA government has to say about Sudan. For one thing, Sudan has recently discovered huge quantities of oil reserves. American interest is to get access to that oil, especially now that new economies in Asia are competing for those resources. For this reason alone, we cannot exactly trust what the CIA has to say about Sudan. Their job is to facilitate American business interests in getting that oil as cheaply as possible. To be blunt about it, it is in American business interests to have all kinds of civil conflicts to prevail in Sudan because the more competitors/wars there are the cheaper they can get the oil. It is about supple and demand: the more suppliers, the cheaper the price. Stated simply, the price of Sudanese oil is cheaper if the so-called rebels in Darfur can supply it in competition with the government of Sudan. This is not rocket science.
So, a much better starting point on our study of Sudan would be Wikipedia. Generally, encyclopedias are among the very best sources of historical data. This is what Wikipedia says about Sudan: “Sudan (officially the Republic of Sudan) (Arabic: السودان al-Sūdān) is a country in northeastern Africa. It is the largest country in the African continent and, as member of the Arab League, also the largest country in the Arab World and tenth largest in the world by area.” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sudan
) But, even this has a twist against us as the emphasis seems to be on Sudan as an Arab country. Nevertheless, we know Sudan is Africa’s largest country. The fact that it is a member-state of the League of Arab States does not make it any less of an African country than the same fact would make Somalia less of an African country. We see Sudanese and Somalis around us every day. And, we all know objectively that these Africans. Yet, we allow ourselves to be brain-washed to think that somehow Sudanese are not Africans or even that Somalis are not Africans.
The current issue also involves Museveni. To really understand what Museveni is all about, we must know his background in the context of Ugandan history. This is what Wikipedia has to say on that: The inhabitants of Uganda were hunter gatherers until 1,700 - 2,300 years ago. Bantu speaking populations, who were probably from central and western Africa, migrated to the southern parts of the country. These groups brought and developed iron working skills and new ideas of social and political organization. The Empire of Kitara in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries represents the earliest forms of formal organization, followed by the kingdom of Bunyoro-Kitara, and in later centuries, Buganda and Ankole .
Nilotic people including Luo and Ateker entered the area from the north, probably beginning about A.D. 120. They were cattle herders and subsistence farmers who settled mainly the northern and eastern parts of the country. Some Luo invaded the area of Bunyoro and assimilated with the Bantu there, establishing the Babiito dynasty of the current Omukama (ruler) of Bunyoro-Kitara. Luo migration proceeded until the 16th century, with some Luo settling amid Bantu people in Eastern Uganda, with others proceeding to the western shores of Lake Victoria in Kenya and Tanzania. The Ateker (Karimojong and Teso) settled in the north-eastern and eastern parts of the country, and some fused with the Luo in the area north of Lake Kyoga.
Arab traders moved inland from the Indian Ocean coast of East Africa in the 1830s. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uganda
See, Arab traders moved into Sudan, not “invaders”. In fact, “Arab traders” have come to every country in Africa. Furthermore, one of the best source, a primary source, of African history are Arab traders and travelers. Ibn Batuta recorded much of what we have now as African history. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ibn_Batuta
) Ibn Khaldun is another major source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ibn_Khaldun
) In fact, we owe a tremendous debt to Ibn Khaldun for teaching us to study history from a scientific perspective.
At independence, “The constitution (of Uganda) was changed in 1963 to satisfy an alliance between the Uganda People's Congress and the Kabaka Yekka Party, during the elections in 1962. This created a post of a titular Head of State called the President and a position of a Vice President. The UPC government appointed Edward Muteesa II, Kabaka (King) of Buganda, as the President and Commander in Chief of the armed forces. William Wilberforce Nadiope, the Kyabazing of Busoga (paramount chief), was appointed Vice President. In 1966, Milton Obote overthrew the king. A UPC-dominated Parliament changed the constitution, and Obote became president. The elections were suspended, ushering in an era of coups and counter-coups, which would last until the mid-1980s. Obote was deposed twice from office, both times by military coup.”
“Idi Amin (1925-2003) seized power in 1971, ruling the country with the military for the coming decade. Idi Amin's rule cost an estimated 300,000 Ugandans' lives. He forcibly removed the entrepreneurial Indian minority from Uganda, decimating the economy. His reign was ended after the Uganda-Tanzania War in 1979 in which Tanzanian forces aided by Ugandan exiles invaded Uganda. This led to the return of Obote, who was deposed once more in 1985 by General Tito Okello. Okello ruled for six months until he was deposed after the so called "bush war" by the National Resistance Army (NRM) operating under the leadership of the current president, Yoweri Museveni...
“Museveni has been in power since 1986. In the mid to late 1990s, he was lauded by the West as part of a new generation of African leaders.
“Conflict in the northern parts of the country continues to generate reports of abuses by both the rebel Lord's Resistance Army and the Ugandan army.” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uganda
Notice that there is no “Arab invasion” in Ugandan history, unless we want to call selling camel milk and “invasion”. But, there was an invasion from Tanzania under Uncle Julius Nyerere. Nobody ever mentions this fact. Understand? Uganda was not “invaded” by Arabs. But, Uganda was invaded by a British proxy, namely Uncle Julius. In fact, Uncle Julius imposed Obote upon Uganda for a third time. So, Museveni looks relatively good compared to what Uncle Julius and the British did to Uganda.
With this in mind, it should not be all that surprising to notice that Museveni has never been of much use to the Pan-Africanist agenda. Like Uncle Julius, he tries to give a litty bitty oflip service to Pan-Africanism. But, he knows what side his bread is buttered on. He is a willing tool of the British because he knows that if he displeases the British, they will use the Tanzanian Army to kick him back into line, just as they have always done in Ugandan history.
Now, we can understand what is really going on here. Museveni is scared to death of British and American interests. Not surprisingly he finds himself embroiled in a conflict over the oil reserves in Sudan. Being the sorry coward that he is, he is betting that the British and Americans will prevail in the foreseeable future. If he has the brains of a mouse, he knows that he will loose in the long run. But, he is a very old man. And, he is probably correct to think that by the time the Chinese and other Asians and Muslim countries get all of that Sudanese oil to American and British disadvantage, he will be dead; and, some other leader will have to figure out how to get things right.
The key issue in Sudan is oil. At one point in time, the USA had an opportunity to benefit from that oil. But, a certain fool, whose name I shall not mention, bombed Sudan without proper cause. That act alone alienated the legitimate government of Sudan, namely Al-Bashir’s regime. So, when it came time to develop the oil reserves, it was too much to expect H.E. Brother Al-Bashir to give American interests first pickings. Instead, he turned to the Chinese and the Muslim countries. To add insult to injury, he made a deal with the Southern Sudanese Christians and completely cutoff western interests in Sudan. The only way for the west to benefit under Al-Bashir is to balkanize Sudan into a bunch of little non-viable states, such as Darfur.