A Clash of Narratives

Abstract: “Darfur” has come to be a place invoking many different interpretations and is more politically and emotionally charged, than just a territory on the map. The past events of Darfur during the years of 2003-2007 have been understood to constitute genocide, a violent conflict, a story about the struggle of “good vs. evil”. I have employed the theory of Hayden White which asserts that through the uses of “emplotment” facts (past events) become structured in a plot, so they become components of a particular narrative. This theory is adapted to examine how narratives have used facts to present their version of history. The findings are, that in many of the accounts facts are omitted to benefit the overall explanation and the authors have indirectly assigned responsibility to different actors. Some accounts have reduced complexity regarding the identity of people and therefore created narratives told as “Arab vs. Black”. There are discrepancies in which label should be applied to explain the events of Darfur and I have found that the choosing of label is connected with how the narrative is told.