The issue of identity is doubtlessly the most controversial with regard to the 'Sudan'. The term does not have the same meaning today as it had a hundred years ago, and within the next five years, it could mean something quite different from today. Thus, before defining the Sudanese identity let us first consider the historical background of Sudan.

Historical background of the Sudan and the case for Darfur 

Long time ago, the Arabs (from the Arabic Peninsula) referred to the whole of the African region situated south of Egypt and beyond the Red Sea as 'Arad - Assudan' - the land of blacks. Later, Turkish and European colonialists determined the borders of what we now know as Sudan.

Before the independence of present day Sudan, there were two Sudans: the British Sudan and the French Sudan. The former is what is now referred to as the Republic of Sudan, while the latter referred to Mali, Chad, Senegal and Niger. Of these countries, ours ( the Republic of Sudan) was the first to be granted independence and the third in Africa, after Liberia and Egypt. At the time, we had to negotiate with these countries to give up the use of Sudan in our favor. Therefore the term Sudan became ours. Had Sudan obtained her independence before 1916, the Darfur region would not be part of the expansive country. At that time, Darfur was an independent Sultanate with its own embassies all over the world before the British occupied and annexed it to Sudan in 1916.

The above background is meant to justify my definition of the Sudanese identity. From my point of view any national identity consists of two sub - identities: the ethnical identity and the cultural inheritance. In this regard, Sudan has no unique identity, but consists of various identities, as it is ethnically and religiously heterogeneous with hundreds of languages in use beside the Arabic language.

The ethnic problems in Sudan

The main problem in our society is that we live in a segregated society, in which there are two types of segregation: the official segregation and the unofficial segregation. Official segregation is clearly manifested in our cities where there are first and second class zones. The quality of public services and infrastructure is directly dependant on the class of zones. The first class zones are reserved for government officials as well as rich people. Here you are the best hospitals, school, roads and infrastructure, while the worst services and infrastructure are offered to the second-class zones. The third class has nothing, because the population lives on the margin of the society. So the segregation and the discrimination among the citizens are official. If there were social justice, all residential areas should have the same public services and infrastructure, independent of their class. This is however, corrected by private service providers who reserve the right to do what they want and hence the presence of private schools and hospitals among others. These private institutions do discriminate against those from second class and third class areas.

Unofficial segregation comes in the form of groups. In Sudan, we still live in groups: wherever you go (cities, villages or even in the capital), each 'hay' (zone) is inhabited by a specific tribe or different tribes within the same ethnic group. Consequently, the city sectors are named according to their inhabitants; for instance, 'Hay Al-A'arab refers to the Arabic zone, 'Hay Al Fallatah' is the Fulani sector among others. One of the best examples is the capital of Sudan, Khartoum, where some areas of the city are exclusively inhabited by a certain ethnic group. Those outside the respective ethnic group are considered as 'strangers." What is strange is that majority of the Sudanese people accept this situation and consider it normal. Consequently, some ethnic groups are strongly rejected, especially if they try to get married from other ethnic groups.

The country's provinces also are divided in classes: Khartoum is first class, Al Jazira and Northern provinces are second class, while Darfur and the Southern provinces are third class. As public services and infrastructure depend directly on this classification, little wonder that Darfur and southern Sudan are greatly disadvantaged and the people in these regions have suffered all kinds of discrimination over the decades. Indeed, since independence, no attention was paid to these regions by the central government with regard to the improvement of the lives of the citizens. Instead, the government exploited the resources in these regions to build the first class regions (Khartoum and its neighboring regions). The Darfurians were particularly used by successive central governments as soldiers to fight against the southern that stood up for their rights demanding justice. The result of this neglect has been poverty and misery, especially where millions of the sons of these regions were killed in the battlefield while many others were physically incapacitated.

It is no wonder; therefore, that power in Sudan is controlled by specific ethnic groups - those who live in the first class provinces and first class zones. These groups impose their own identity as unique in complete exclusion of the other identities. Moreover, they despise the indigenous Sudanese people and their identities. This has often led to ethnic disputes, as it strengthens tribalism and weakens the real integration among the Sudanese ethnic groups.

However, after decades of war, starvation and misery, the Darfurians realized that they were dying for nothing, since  they continued to suffer in the same way as their neighbors in the southerners, took up the arms and went on to demand justice. Given the fact that the majority of soldiers in the Sudanese army are Darfurians, the doctorial regime dared not use them against their brothers. Instead, it exploited the benefits of the segregated societal system and armed some people who belong to the Arabic ethnic group so as to fight against the indigenous people - attacking their bases and killing civilians, burning their huts and destroying their resources.

The grey identity

Some indigenous Sudanese people confuse between ethnic identity and religious identity; they hold that they are Arabs due to the fact that they are Muslims. However, the Arabic groups refer to the indigenous people as 'Zourga' (blacks). It is due to this that I divide the identity into two sub-identities: an ethnical identity and a cultural identity, both of which are susceptible to transformation. Actually, there is neither a pure race nor a pure ethic group, except for some oriental societies like the Chinese and the Japanese that continue to resist the "racial globalization" (even though they lead in commercial globalization). The following examples serve to illustrate this:

In South America, the grandsons of the Spanish colonialists (comprising those who conquered America with Christopher Columbus in 1492, demanded their independence from the Spanish crown some centuries later after living in their new homeland. They felt more American than European but were proud to be Spanish. They distinguished themselves from the American native citizens by their Spanish blood, despite the fact that they are a mix of Spanish settlers, native Indian Americans and black people. Finally they got their independence and are now composed of the countries that are known by the name "Latin America" among which are Cuba, Mexico, Argentina, Peru and Santo Domingo.

Many of these people still have relatives in Spain. But whenever they visit Spain, either to see their relatives or on vacation, they get a rude shock from the discrimination that they are subjected to. They are called "sudacas" (South Americans) and "mulatos" (mixed)- a racist connotation in spite of the fact that they speak Spanish and have the same religion as the Spanish people (catholic). Their skins are no longer as clear as their brothers' in Spain.

Nevertheless, while in America, they call themselves Spanish and consider themselves as white people, they in turn discriminate against the indigenous Red Indians and black people.  In reality, were they to go to Sudan, they would be called " khawajat" (white European), say by the racist dictator Omar Al Bashir who calls the indigenous Darfurians "Zourga" (blacks). He himself would be called " negro"(black) by the south Americans, who suffer discrimination in Spain themselves.

With regard to grey cultural identity, there are many Afro- American in South America and the Caribbean Islands who still keep their ethnic group intact; they have not mixed with any other ethnic groups (at least their appearance looks like the African people). Though they no longer speak their African languages; they speak Spanish, French or English. So, they call themselves "Latinos" and they are not proud of their African origin, except very few of them. This is the reason why the majority of the black people in America do not feel close to Africa and the African people.

In Sudan, some indigenous people in Darfur and in other parts of the country no longer speak their native languages, because they were born in big cities where Arabic is spoken. Moreover, their languages have been extinguished like dinosaurs and they now consider themselves Arabic, even though their appearances clearly indicate their indigenous origin.

In sum, everybody has the right to be proud of his or her region, religion or ethnic group, but nobody has the right to despise those who do not belong to his or her ethnic group. I do believe that the Sudanese identity should not be a unique identity that only represents a sector of the society, as it is today. But, an identity made up of various sub-identities that include all the ethnic groups' identities and cultural diversities.

This article also appeared in the New Path, a publication of the Africa Research and Resource Forum (ARRF).