I am reading a fascinating book in which author David Rieff makes the distinction between a moral and political/military responses to genocide in Rwanda (1994) and the atrocities in Somalia (1993) . In At the Point of a Gun: Democratic Dreams and Armed Intervention Rieff claims that the United Nations has responded to such crises using military and political means, but has left out morality. This issue has fallen upon the humanitarian agencies and cultural icons. But Rieff also upholds that the seemingly moral crusade and the political decisions of the UN frequently get confused and muddle the minds of the public. How does a humanitarian agency's work, for example the Doctors Without Borders, coincide with UN action? Is having separate moral and political action a workable compromise? Rieff says these separate goals haven't worked, and will not work in the future.

What does this accomplish?

George Clooney and his father, Nicholas Clooney, a prominent journalist, went to visit the Sudanese region to raise awareness about the atrocities there. What does this accomplish for the individuals that live his documentary every day?

A proposal

I will explore the heightened attention that the Sudanese region of Darfur is currently receiving because of the genocide occurring there, and why this alleged concern has not led to a significant change in the conflict. I will further examine this situation by looking at pop culture’s definition of genocide, the United State’s definition of genocide, and why both of these definitions have not translated into progress in Darfur. My research will include, but is not limited to the perspectives of the Sudanese on America’s pop culture’s obsession with the cause, the perspectives of the main leaders of the pop culture push, the implications of pop culture’s obsession on aid for Darfur, and pop culture’s role in past genocide awareness in Africa.My research will point to the underlying question of how pop culture ploys affect international crises.