Eric Reeves

Dr. Eric Reeves (born 1950) professor emeritus of English Language and Literature at Smith College in Northampton, Massachusetts, where he taught courses in Shakespeare, Milton, and the history of literary theory and the history of literacy. As of 2019, Reeves also holds the status of a Senior Fellow at Harvard University’s François-Xavier Bagnoud Center for Health and Human Rights. Reeves has carried out research for several decades into the politics and human rights situation in Sudan.[1]

This article is about the Sudan commentator. For the North Carolina state senator, see Eric Miller Reeves.

Education

Before being employed at Smith College, Reeves received degrees in English Literature from Williams College and the University of Pennsylvania.

Sudan research

Reeves started studying politics and human rights in Sudan in 1998.[1] He testified several times before the United States Congress, has lectured widely in academic settings, and has served as a consultant to a number of human rights and humanitarian organizations operating in Sudan. Working independently, he has written on several aspects of Sudan's recent history, in particular the Darfur genocide, and the role of the Sudanese and Chinese governments in perpetuating it. He was described as "a fierce critic" of former American President Barack Obama's policy of reconciliation with Sudan.[1]

Reeves received a generous grant from Humanity United (Redwood City, CA) to support his research and travel. A collection of his essays on ongoing war and human destruction in Darfur appeared as A Long Day's Dying (Key Publishing, 2007). He later published a lengthy eBook about five crucial years in the history of Sudan: "Compromising with Evil: An archival history of greater Sudan, 2007 - 2012" (www.CompromisingWithEvil.org).

Publications and awards

His work has appeared in The New York Times, The Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal, as well as numerous academic journals. This work has led to Reeves receiving a number of honorary degrees, and many other forms of national and international recognition.


gollark: > i'd support banning it straight through, independent of any mechanisms, as peer-reviewed research has showed it's shitIf you go around banning it, though, *there is clearly a way your government can ban that stuff*, hence meaning there's a mechanism for and/or support for it. And that's bad.
gollark: If there was a mechanism in place to stop people doing that sort of only-self-harming-maybe stuff, which there is now, it *would* (and *has*) been affected by political pressure.
gollark: Thing is, this mechanism for banning things would be controlled by a *government* or something, which means that when a sufficient mass of people complain that something is Clearly Immoral™ (see: homosexuality, drugs, whatever else) it would be banned.
gollark: Too bad!
gollark: Maybe require a warning or something, at most?

References
  1. "Donald Trump ducks a decision on sanctions on Khartoum". The Economist. 13 July 2017. Retrieved 15 July 2017.



This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.