I've got a critical essay due on Rwanda's genocide of 1994, and I am searching for a narrower topic. The focus can be anything, as long as it relates to the overall thing above
( Read more... )
That's an idea. Although, critically viewing the information I've read about the genocide to date, the movie Hotel Rwanda appears to tell only one tiny segment of the story. There was also a Frontline documentary on the people within Rwanda at that time, and o h m y g o d. It was horrifying in a not visual, but deeply back-brain sort of way. I think it's the first documentary that I've ever seen that was an actual documentation of what happened - complete with unretouched footage of dying, dead, and decaying corpses - not to mention some footage of the bad guys actually hacking up people with machetes, and crushing heads like melons with their boots...
eeee.
I'd rather talk about the politics of the thing and stay away from the nightmares I've been having ever since I saw that documentary.
Interestingly, a couple of documentaries I saw touched on that question (see reply to 7patches (Ghosts of Rwanda) and Frontline's Triumph of Evil, as well as Shake Hands With The Devil, and Flowers of RwandaIn and among these, here are some of the quotes
( ... )
Why is the lack of world reaction stunning to you? You might also want to read about what happened in Burundi 20 years before the Hutus started slaughtering the Tutsis in the mid 90s.
I don't doubt that the US's disaster in Somalia and at best mixed success in former Yugoslavia contributed to a lack of enthusiasm about getting involved in Rwanda.
Daniel suggests that simple logistics played a role - events in Rwanda played out so fast that by the time the US could have figured out what was going on an devised an appropriate response, things would have been mostly over.
Following on from that, and refreshing my mind on the timeline from Wikipedia, it looks like the US government was extremely slow to label what was going on in Rwanda as genocide, not using the term internally until May 21, and not using it publicly until a few weeks later. It might be interesting to look at the question of whether the US government genuinely didn't intervene because they didn't think there was genocide, or if they denied that there was genocide because they didn't want to intervene.
Yeah, I wonder just how much significance Somalia played in the decision to be hands-off with others not playing nicely internally...
Oddly, from the documentaries I've seen, and research of press conferences from '94, and the odd sound byte here and there - I am led to believe, while events did occur quickly once they began, that the US knew exactly what was going on, refused to label it genocide (because then they would have to do something) [and you should have heard the WH Press Secy dance around using the 'g' word].
I'd like to be as generous as Daniel, but I am finding the more sound bytes and direct government quotations I find, the harder it is for me to be generous. Although I do not believe it was the US's responsibility to stop it, I think they should have engaged the UN in dialogue - maybe shamed the international community a bit more so they would act
( ... )
It might be interesting to look at the question of whether the US government genuinely didn't intervene because they didn't think there was genocide, or if they denied that there was genocide because they didn't want to intervene.
Actually, according to some FOIA docs I found, the word 'genocide' was mandated as verboten in relation to Rwanda from the gitgo. In addition, relating to what the US Gov't knew/didn't know, it was the latter. No saying 'genocide, on account of then they would have to act. And, according to those same declassified internal docs, they knew exactly what was going on by about day three. Not day 100.
Comments 7
Reply
eeee.
I'd rather talk about the politics of the thing and stay away from the nightmares I've been having ever since I saw that documentary.
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
Reply
Fodder:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocides_in_history
Reply
*hangs head in shame*
Reply
Daniel suggests that simple logistics played a role - events in Rwanda played out so fast that by the time the US could have figured out what was going on an devised an appropriate response, things would have been mostly over.
Following on from that, and refreshing my mind on the timeline from Wikipedia, it looks like the US government was extremely slow to label what was going on in Rwanda as genocide, not using the term internally until May 21, and not using it publicly until a few weeks later. It might be interesting to look at the question of whether the US government genuinely didn't intervene because they didn't think there was genocide, or if they denied that there was genocide because they didn't want to intervene.
Reply
Oddly, from the documentaries I've seen, and research of press conferences from '94, and the odd sound byte here and there - I am led to believe, while events did occur quickly once they began, that the US knew exactly what was going on, refused to label it genocide (because then they would have to do something) [and you should have heard the WH Press Secy dance around using the 'g' word].
I'd like to be as generous as Daniel, but I am finding the more sound bytes and direct government quotations I find, the harder it is for me to be generous. Although I do not believe it was the US's responsibility to stop it, I think they should have engaged the UN in dialogue - maybe shamed the international community a bit more so they would act ( ... )
Reply
Actually, according to some FOIA docs I found, the word 'genocide' was mandated as verboten in relation to Rwanda from the gitgo. In addition, relating to what the US Gov't knew/didn't know, it was the latter. No saying 'genocide, on account of then they would have to act.
And, according to those same declassified internal docs, they knew exactly what was going on by about day three. Not day 100.
Reply
Leave a comment