Bones from the Rwandan Genocide. This could have been stopped.
After reading Murambi and watching "Hotel Rwanda," it was clear that it is believed that Western powers could have stopped the genocide. In 100 days, between April and July of 1994, 1 million lives were taken. It was one of the bloodiest atrocities in the twentieth century, and no Western powers even tried to intervene. There was clear early warnings about what was to happen, but they were ignored. The articles by Murigande and Moller made me be embarrassed of living in the West. A great point was brought up, and was the same thing that was brought up by Elie Wiesel, "silence and indifference in the face of such horrific crimes only emboldens the killers and makes worse crimes possible." The Western powers turned a blind eye on Rwanda and was worried about other political matters, instead of 1 million innocent people who were brutally slaughtered. This was by far the most impactive genocide on me. However, Murigande took what was left of the genocide and viewed it as a learning experience. This was a fantastic way to look at it. One cannot change the past, and the Western powers know that they did not interfere to help stop this genocide. However, Murigande took a bold and empowering step, he learned from the genocide. Rwanda was rising up and he stated that Rwanda "rose from the depths to which it had fallen, and continues to rise today, then I believe there can never be a hopeless case in terns of postconflict recovery." Yes, one can spend their entire lives thinking about how each of these genocides should have been stopped. However, instead of letting those 1 million die in vain, it is important to not allow this to happen again and to recover and rebuild. Rwanda's experience can be used as a teaching tool to help prevent further genocides, let's hope that people can learn from the past.
In "Hotel Rwanda," one can truly see the horrors of this genocide. If one was a Tutsi, then they had a death sentence marked on them. It is important to still realize at how well thought out this genocide was. When the Western powers were not looking or paying attention, that is when Hutu extremists slaughtered the Tutsi people. The manager of the hotel, Paul was the main character in the movie. He was a Hutu and his wife was a Tutsi. The movie was about how he would bribe others in order to save his wife and other Tutsis. He had a strong influence and with the urging of his wife, he uses it. As violence escalates, one can see the horrors of this genocide. Paul could not just stand and watch the innocent people get slaughtered and puts his own life in danger for the good of mankind. While the rest of the world was not eager to intervene, Paul made his hotel a refugee camp. He diverted the Hutu soldiers when everyone was evacuated, except the Tutsis, the targets of the genocide. After ambushes and attempted bribes, Paul was able to blackmail the Rwandan Army General and get everyone to safety. This made me think, Paul was one person who as reported to save 1,268 people at the end of the movie. Now imagine if Western powers and others would have stepped in. The 1 million death toll would have dwindled down. There is strength in numbers and silence and indifference is what allows these types of tragedies to happen. Western powers were always known as the "power houses" of the world. When they would rather focus on politics instead of intervening with mass homicide, it is disturbing and infuriating. Rwanda did not stand a chance. They had a corrupt government and did not have self-sustaining powers to stop the genocide. It was one versus the other. This is when other countries should interfere.
Now, after making these points, I will answer the blog post question. In Murambi, the truth, innocence, genocide, and tragedy were all evident throughout the writings. It was also evident that people tried to coverup the genocide. This is an outrage. I believe that this assignment envoked more emotion in me than any of them. I believe because tis genocide was one of the most current ones, the most gruesome, and no one intervened. It was 1994, people should have known better than to let this happen! There is a resounding theme that I keep catching onto. Only humanity can save everyone. That is relying on the good of mankind and expecting people to do the right thing. This does not happen and it is evident all over the world with these genocides that we learn about. Like the Jews, relying on one's neighbor who is German, or in this case Hutu, to keep them alive usually ends up in death. This is the most disturbing thing about the world in which we inhabit. Relying on someone else to keep you alive is as good as relying on a dog to feed and take care of its owner. Disturbing. Murambi is about Cornelius who is a Rwandan teacher. He comes back after exile in Djibouti in order to come to terms with the death of his family. However, coming back shows that life is not black or white. Cornelius learns that there is not only victims or perpetrators, there are also people in between. This is a hard lesson to learn. Diop, who wrote the novel unveils and unmasks the truth of this genocide which is hard to face.
The character, Uncle Simeon Habineza revealed many truths in this novel. He was the Uncle of Cornelius. Diop used this character to explore victimhood in the violence of Rwanda. When the villagers of Murambi set out to destroy the home of a man who organized their relatives massacre, it was Simeon who told them that every act of vengeance in Rwanda's history enabled new acts of revenge to occur. It was a never ending cycle. It was interesting to see this viewpoint. One wants to root for the victims and see the bad guy lose and suffer, however, it is important to see that even victims can make matters worse and keep the cycle going. Simeon sees the victims suffering but does not want their morals to become corrupt and to act on vengeance to help heal their grief. My favorite quote I found was, "I want to tell you this: you have suffered, but that doesn't make you any better than those who made you suffer. They are people like you and me. Evil is within each one of us. I, Simeon Habineza, repeat, you are not better than them. Now, go back home and think about it: there comes a time when you have to stop shedding blood in a country. Each one of you must have the strength to believe that that moment is here. If someone among you is not strong enough, then he's no better than an animal." Simeon is wise beyond his years. He does not excuse their victimization for them to disregard their ethnical responsibility to not act out of retribution. This feeds the roots of hatred and keeps the cycle going. This is the spark that ignites genocide. If the characters rose up and killed every person who killed them, then it would be two genocides with many more lives lost. This does not make it right. Simeon recognized how victimhood could turn into a cult-like experience. Simeon helped explain why there was such intense celebrations over death by the victims. Simeon discovered the key to recovery: forgiveness. Ending violence and rebuilding societies come from forgiveness and moving forward. Forgiveness is not so much as an act to please God, or whoever one's higher power might be, but a survival method. It demands victims to not retaliate in a violent way in order to redeem themselves. When they kill in response, empathy disappears and one is just as bad as the other. Simeon's role was to distinguish this. Anyone can learn from this character and see how helped stop a vicious cycle instead of fueling. He was probably my favorite character in any book that I have read. The most important part of the novel was when Cornelius discovers that the perfect Rwandan is "both guilty and a victim" and that it was absurd that victims kept proclaiming their innocence so obstinately." The most tragic part was the fact that Cornelius' father was the one who orchestrated of one of the worst massacres in the Rwandan genocide and that included his mother and two siblings. Simeon helped Cornelius find peace with what happened. The tragedy did happen, the West did not interfere, but one should forgive and rebuild, not fuel it.
** Sorry for the long post, this just had so many items essential to discuss.
*** The most interesting fact that I found was that Tutsis were distinguished from the Hutus by their taller, slimmer bodies, longer noses and lighter skin.
Tran: Comment on Tregre's week 7 blog.
ReplyDeleteAs we've seen in other genocides, one person can really make a difference. As you said, Paul was able to save over a thousand people, so if Western forces tried more, they could have saved even more people. I think if a few Western countries had sent in troops then more people could have survived. Materials from the articles we read strong suggest that the West knew what was going on and when all of the whites were being evacuated out of the country, then if they didn't know before they did when that happened. That should have been a clear indication that the country was unstable and they shouldn't have just watched as the events unfolded.
The quote you have by Simeon Habineza is one of my favorite quotes from the novel. I think he sums up the cycle of violence well and how to stop it. If people had come to Joseph's house to destroy, then they would only contribute to the cycling the violence and keeping it alive. It makes them no better and then the other side would want revenge and so on again and again. I like how Simeon wants to make it an orphanage for children, where any child who doesn't have a home can go and where they won't have to identify themselves as either Tutsi or Hutu.
I agree, Sara. This weeks content really struck me the most as well. You state, "In Murambi, the truth, innocence, genocide, and tragedy were all evident throughout the writings. It was also evident that people tried to coverup the genocide." Adding a little bit more to this, it was not only just covering up, but making an active decision to ignore and turn a blind eye to this outlandish events against humanity. The UN was guilty of this among others. People within their community were guilty of this as well, such as the Hutus that were viewed to be the "traitors" against fighting the extermination of the "cockroaches." The Tutsis were often begging for their lives for an exchange of money in the film, even. Humanity needs to be involved. In my blog, I mentioned that action is needed to keep the peace and that passiveness can be the best supporter of genocide, and this applies here. This can't continue, which means that behaviors have to change. I think both the film and the novel for this week call for a greater attention to the actions of humanity that are needed to protect humanity-- which seems to be a tall, but necessary, order.
ReplyDeleteI like how you alluded to Elie Wiesel's quote about the importance of not being silent and indifferent. It is really disturbing as you suggest that if one man Paul Rusesabagina, a hotel manager, could save so many people with cunning and charisma how is it that "super-powers" of the world could not find a way to disssipate such action and save the lives of so many innocent people. It’s understood that we are not the world’s police; and how have we the audacity to know what is right for every country. But as Jonathan states in his post it is a matter of politics and resources when a country decides to get involved. Rwanda is small and its resources deficient; so countries just ignored the innocent lives that were to be destroyed so gruesomely and the horrendous fear that preceded it. But without starting a war, the West could have certainly found the likes of a Paul Rusesabagina – someone or some country to take a stand to at least protect the innocent; then to diffuse the imminant situation and offer diplomatic solutions for the future. It gives a lot of food for thought as to how countries and individuals can become involved, rather than be indifferent and have to face our inhumanity in hindsight.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteWhile I believe that Murigande had an interesting and valid point about learning from mistakes, but haven't we had enough "teaching tools?" And doesn't that slightly demean the innocents caught up in the carnage, since the last thing humans seem to do is learn from these "mistakes?" The Siege of Sarajevo was going on at the same time that the Hutu's were slaughtering Tutsi's. And it isn't like the two tribes haven't been fighting since the 1950's.A ceasefire in Darfur only came about a year ago. Also, what about the Holocaust perpetrated by the Nazi's? Wasn't that supposed to teach everyone some sort of lesson?
ReplyDeleteYou mention at the end of your blog that the Tutsi's were distinguished by their taller, slimmer bodies, longer noses and lighter skin tones. But, as the Rwandan reporter tells Jack Daglish in the film: those were the physical characteristics that the European colonists used to separate the Hutus from the Tutsis. Basically, the Belgians knowingly chose Rwandans with whiter features and more money and then made up bogus European lineages for them which lead to the class warfare that resulted in the genocide in 1994. As Daglish illustrates through his naiveté when he questions the two equally beautiful women at the bar, there is no real difference between the two tribes, only that which has been ascribed to them by whites.