The reason I often defend them is because they're fallaciously lumped together by morons. Seriously though, Leauki, and many others on this site tend to just put them all in the same pile - which makes them easier to dismiss. I mean hell, why would anyone want to address their arguments, lets just group them together and be done with it. If you're going to talk about liberals, then you need to address the varying degrees of liberals (progressives, social democrats, etc. ) - not as a group.

Present the arguments. I'll address them.

Draginol is also good at taking apart arguments point by point with actual numbers and his own experiences.

The Massalith have in no way chosen to be slaughtered by their Arab government.

Neither did the Dinka happily accept slavery for the heck of it.

Some people are weaker than others. And then the others will rule. If we are lucky, those others are civilised. If we are very lucky, they are more civilised than the people they rule. But in some cases imperialism is just evil.

Sorry, but you ultimately have the ability to take the shit you're given, or to turn it into roses; they couldve moved, appealed for help, etc. In the end they just dealt with it.

Where could they have moved?

They did appeal for help. The world ignored them. Anybody who spoke up against the Arabs was an evil imperialist Zionist or, unless that is included anyway, a racist.

And they were dealt with, all right: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darfur_genocide

400,000 dead in just a few years while the world was looking at Gaza, worried because 1000 Arabs died. Four billion dollars have been pledged to "rebuild Gaza". And the genocide in Sudan is going on.

Yes, some people care. Notably liberals care. But they don't manage to organise protests that even remotely resemble those they can organise against Israel or for Saddam.

And what disappoints me most is that Obama doesn't care. I didn't expect much from him, but I thought he would at least care about Africa. Perhaps I fell for my own bias, thinking that the son of an African would feel a connection with Africa. But he doesn't have to feel such a connection. He's right. He is American, not African. It's still sad though because Africa celebrates him (like they did George Bush before him, but Bush was popular because of what he did for Africa).

Obama wants to make peace in the middle east, but like others before him, he is focused on the smallest war and thinks that problems can be solved by giving more money to the enemy and rebuilding his infrastructure.

He doesn't care about black on black violence, only white on black issues. The Gates affair demonstrated that. Besides, those poor blacks can't send his campaign money (through back doors of course).

Sudan is a classical white on black issue.

It has a genocide and slavery and poverty and black Africans oppressed by a foreign power. It has absolutely everything the left claims it is interested in, except evil Zionists that can be declared responsible.

I think it is time not to differentiate between "black" and "white" but between "American" and "African". African-Americans are not poor and oppressed in the sense that African-Africans are.

You wouldn't think so when the issue comes up here in the US. Very unfortunate we can seem to get past this. I don't know what more could be done than elect a black man to POTUS and have black man at the head of the RNC. Some folks are never happy. Had McCain won they would have been hundreds of articles about how the US is a rascist country.

Another reason (IMO) that Obama doesn't want to support Africa is he doesn't want his white supporters to feel he is all for blacks, and leave them out. After all even if every eligible black voter voted for Obama he still would need his white supporters to get elected.

I wonder, if we may employ such a meaningless differentiation, whether the percentage of whites who want the President to do something to help the Africans in Sudan is higher or lower than the percentage of blacks who want the same.

Well from my perspective, I believe it is good practice to help Africa. Of course dumping money is always a bad idea, as most of this aid goes into the pockets of the dictators (or politicians). I like the idea of micro loans (a Clinton imitative).

One of the problems with Africa is the local resentment that the US or others want something in return (I'd settle for stability) or they are interfering. This is especially true of peacekeeper, the Somalia fiasco comes to mind. I think a lot of people say why bother they don't want or appreciate help.

Bill Clinton was the first president who made Africa a subject, George W. Bush then focused on it.

George Bush was/is very popular in Tanzania and other sub-Saharan countries (except in South-Africa for some reason). The Africans in Sudan are very much pro-American. The US could also use their influence with Morocco to force the king to compromise with the native (Tamazight) population. (I will never understand why Arab rule over native Africans is never a problem for anti-imperialists!)

Obama seems to have given up and relies simply on being half-black for popularity.