This is sad coming from a Wazua. ....are they monkeys? So today you see them as the British "explorers" saw our grandfathers?

@Rahatupu, I use the word in its literal meaning and not as a derogatory term. I would also like to point out that our grandfathers were savages to the British who came just like the South Sudanese are to us and I mean that not in a madharau kind of way but just as a description. I would also use the word uncivilized in the same way. Unfortunately the world is developing in a certain direction and some societies are more advanced on that path than others. For people to govern themselves they need to be in agreement on some things and they come together and form laws that they all agree to abide by.

If I was to be overly simplistic I would define a civilized society as one with the highest level of agreement amongst its members. If I was to put it another way more civilized societies have more laws and therefore more crime than uncivilized societies. This is because a crime is only a crime when a law is broken. If there is no law there is no crime. So in a place where people have not come together and agreed that a certain action is not allowed then people who engage in it are not criminals. This agreement over a long time becomes what we call customs and traditions and eventually what becomes culture. And agreeing does not mean they are superior or better but they create harmony and peaceful coexistence in which many good things can happen.

In a place like South Sudan with all the fighting they have had for such a long time and the ethnic differences they have not lived together in peace long enough to agree and bind themselves to their own laws. If you ask people who work there they will tell you stories of people who are laws unto themselves. There are many Lords who each have their own followers and often they clash.

I could not agree more with you Masukuma. It sure is tough. I was even reading further and discovered things that make it even more difficult. The original leaders almost have nothing in common. John Garang who was Dinka went to secondary school in Tanzania then college in the US then back to University of Daresalaam Tanzania and then joined Sudanese Army during which he spent more time in the US studying. Salva Kiir his deputy and current leader as far as I have researched has never left Sudan. He actually started as a young man in the Anyanya rebel army which later joined forces with others like John Garang who came from the Sudanese Army to form SPLA. So like you say not just in life but even in his working life the only time he was ever in a formal system is when he was a mature adult as Vice president. So the only bond he and Garang had is that they were both Dinka.

On the other side is Riek Machar. A Nuer and son of a chief. He goes to school in Sudan and University of Khartoum and then off to Britain. While akina Salva Kiir have been fighting the Sudanese Government all their life Riek Machar has had a cozzy relationship with the Sudan government and at some point even as akina Kiir were fighting he was part of the Sudan government. I can imagine that he too being an elite has strong ethnic ties to his commanders on the ground who are people who have never left Sudan ama the furthest abroad they have gone is Kakuma in Kenya.

I can only imagine that there must be some deep seated madharau between Kiir and Machar. Machar must see Kiir as uneducated, unpolished and unsuitable while on the other hand Kiir probably has unwavering support among his Dinka fighters who have been with him on the ground for years while akina Garang and Machar were reading books and addressing press conferences.

why? what they are going through is an important part of human development and nation building. Just because Kenya dodged that bullet does not civil war is an exception. Civil war is more a rule than an exception. But I see the narrative of "if they haven't figured it out in 5 years" they should cede control to a bunch of different looking guy - who know better than them". Oh... Wakoloni should have stayed for 50 more years - who told you wakoloni were here for us? Who told you the Arabs from the north were there for the south sudanese people? Let them figure it out on their own... they have been dealt some cards let them play them. Today is not the final age of humanity., the pen that is writing history is not out of ink...not yet.. we are not getting marked tomorrow! life moves on... ticks on!! We are not the goal, the culmination of all our predecessors commissions and omissions - we are predecessors to others who have their own lives to live. Let S.S. figure it out.

for wakoloni in kenya I think it would have worked better if they had stayed on for exactly another 15 years,
For south sudan I think its only prudent to split the country up again into 3 or even more, let those who wish to join together do so, but give each region their independence.

Zimbabweans got independence but nothing changed and the whites continued owning all the land and farming as usual using the blacks for cheap labour. Basically they had got independence but nothing had changed on the ground. Then Mugabe told the blacks, "I will take the land from your white masters and give it to you so that you can farm it as land owners and not as squatters as you have done for ages. And infact the land belonged to you before the white man took it from you". Then the west imposed sanctions since Mugabe had disposessed their white descendants off their land and given it back to the original black owners. The west killed the Zimbabwean currency but Mugabe being a genius adopted the US dollar as the zim currency and brought things under control. The US was unable to devalue the US dollars circulating in zimbabwe.
The fact is that a black Zimbabwean is better off tilling his own 5acres to earn a living than toiling on a mzungus 10,000 acre estate in a "prosperous white controlled zimbabwe" while being a squatter and being paid slave wages. I have a lot of respect for Mugabe for empowering his people. Infact he said he wouldn't pay for land that had been stolen from Africans. Someone can't steal your car and then tell you that you must pay (to compensate the thief) for you to get it back.

I think just as a child must fall while taking the first steps and gets back again - we must do the same in whatever circumstances we find ourselves as a nation or as cultures. Colonialism was not to our benefit. The tragedy of colonialism is that at a macrolevel everything looked nice and dandy. Zimbabwe, Namibia, Botswana types - but the truth is the mwafrika in that setting does not do much coz of the system. I dare say - Africans in SA are better off now than they were under mzungu! better off is a matter of perspective - having your future in your hands is fairly better than relaying on someone whose people made the same mistakes you will make and treats you as a sub human. Africans there may not have all they want but are better off. Prior to Mandela dying I visited SA and overheard some fishermen talking about how nothing really changed (perceivable) after 94, they looked at uncle bob and said - afadhali hao... shamba ni yao sasa - everything else can be worked on. in SA land ownership really didn't change. I am so happy mkoloni went when he did and allowed us to make the mistakes we did back then before social media times.

Ethiopia wasn't colonized. Is it much better?

Google a region called guinea Papua in Indonesia .that region wasn't colonised and has people of the same dark pigment as we do. They have nothing much and live on harvesting honey and bush meat. If you have Netflix search for documentary called pururambo or youtube it .colonialism helped bring light even though there are sad side of it but it lit up .
Even America was colonised by the same British and changed the life of native americans to "prosperity".

PNG is not in Indonesia. It is still 'colonized' by Australia.You know who is the Head of State of PNG? Queen Elizabeth!

Ati native americans prospered? They were virtually wiped out!