Hotel Rwanda

  • Thread starter Thread starter Mom_of_one
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I just saw this movie by the way and found it extremely disturbing and evil, what happended there and is happening now in Sudan. It seems as though we all agree that the movie is accurate on the genocide.

Whether or not we (USA) should have intervened militarily is up for debate and I am not informed enough to give an answer. However, shouldn’t we at least have sent in troops to defend the innocent until they could flee? Not to fight the Hutu or the Tutsi but only to protect the innocent. Couldn’t we (the western world) at least granted asylum to and readily given visas to the refugees?
Maybe I am beign to idealist here? If I am, help me to see why I am wrong.
 
Traditional_Ang said:
On top of that, one side in Rwanda was MUSLIM. The other side was Christian. The side that had been in power and got slaughtered were CHRISTIAN Tutsis, and those who “Got even” were Muslim “Hutus” who slaughtered some 800,000 of their neighbors in 6 months.
Click to expand...
That’s the first I heard events in Rwanda described as a Christian faction being slaughtered by a Muslim majority. Cozy on this forum but is it true?

"A 2001 study conducted by researchers from Johns Hopkins University reported that 49.6 percent of the population were Catholic, 43.9 percent Protestant, 4.6 percent Muslim, 1.7 claimed no religious beliefs, and 0.1 percent practiced traditional indigenous beliefs…There is no indication that religious belief is linked directly to membership in any political party. "
from US Dept of State International Religious Freedom Report
state.gov/j/drl/rls/irf/2001/5743.htm

Neighboring nations were involved but the neighbors have similar demographics. The Hutus are the solid majority, roughly 85% or 17 out of every 20 Rwandans then and now are Hutu. And when Euro colonists arrived, they redefined the distinction based primarily on wealth. You could upgrade to Tutsi class by obtaining livestock. No religion involved in the segregation. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tutsi

You cannot have 4.6% of the population fill an 85% vacancy. We had Catholics killing Catholics.
 
Did the movie explain the background as to why the Hutus and the Tutsis were fighting? As I understand it, the Belgians certainly contributed to it by favoring the Christian tribe over the Muslim one - creating a systematic oppression that would not be forgotten.
 
VeritasLuxMea said:
Did the movie explain the background as to why the Hutus and the Tutsis were fighting? As I understand it, the Belgians certainly contributed to it by favoring the Christian tribe over the Muslim one - creating a systematic oppression that would not be forgotten.
Click to expand...
In the movie they said the Belgians were the cause of the two groups being segregated but no mention of religion underlying their method unless I missed a line of dialog. I should probably rewatch it on blu-ray for good audio and listen closer. Early in the film when US reporters show up at the hotel, they inquire and are told the Belgians used to hand pick people who had a certain look. Nose shape and skin lightness played a part in the decision. And then everyone was given ID papers by the Belgians, like passports or visas with photos and info and a big rubber stamp on it saying HUTU or TUTSI. These ID papers were still in use years later after the Belgians left, during the genocide. There were other kinds of visible signs to distinguish as well.

The history I read about it said the title Tutsi had long been given to a minority African ruling class in Rwanda who used unpaid labor to force payment of taxes. This is a common early practice in many cultures. If true, then the Belgians simply retained that structure and class names when they arrived but adjusted the membership based on physical features and reinforced the segregation to their liking such as by the requirement to carry ID papers.

In the film it is explained that after the Belgians were present for many years they leave Rwanda, leaving the majority group, the Hutu, in charge or they happened to be in charge when the Belgians left. The details about the switch of power, Tutsi to Hutu, was not explained in the movie. In the movie it sounded like the Belgians could have done differently, like they had the means, perhaps there was social unrest and the Belgians could have stayed until things were quiet but left the servant class in charge and returned to Belgium. There had been tension for years between the Hutu and Tutsi but now it came to a head. The Hutu did not want the Tutsi to have a chance to lord themselves over the Hutus in the future, and they also harbored resentment over the past. In the film, hatred was sited as the primary reason for the genocide. Before the killing began the film showed the people in charge, the Hutu, accepting bribes. So there was corruption in the Hutu government.

The only religious mentions were visual suggestion, no statements. We saw a gold cross, as jewelry, on the neck of the main character’s wife. Her cross repeatedly came into the camera frames view. She was a Tutsi. The same woman also prayed on a rosary ring one time. Also nuns were among those in danger with the Tutsi. In my mind, it was not enough to show that the majority of the Tutsis were Christian or Catholic. The Hutu militants wore traditional African ethnic clothing. I did not see burqas or mention of Allah or anything even bringing up the idea of Islam. I could have missed something though, with only one viewing.
 
Traditional_Ang said:
Momofone:

The truth in this instance is even worse than the allegations. I’ll start from the beginning, and from memopry, and see how far I get before I have to close down.

In 1993, we had the disaster in Somalia. A lot of what contributed to that disaster was a President who kept on asking the military to do more and more but kept on turning down their requests for the equipment they felt they needed to do the new, enhanced missions (Spectre gunships, light and heavy armor, helicopter gunships and attack helicoptors).

After the disaster (American servicemen’s bodies were desecrated and dragged through the streets of Somalia), President Clinton ordered the American military to leave.

It turns out that was Al-Queda’s first victory over the USA!

After President Clinton issued that set of orders, he ordered US troops on peacekeeping missions all over the place (including in RWANDA where a fragile peace had been in place for 2 years) to stand down and to assume a much more defensive posture. and, Then he ordered them to LEAVE.

Kofi Anon (The present President of the UN) was the Head of the UN peacekeepers in Rwanda at the time. Seeing the military that was backing the UN peacekeepers up, was leaving him high and dry, he ordered the UN to “Stand-Down” and to stop returning fire unless they themselves were fired upon. Those orders led to an exodus of the peacekeeprs which led to an exudus of the humanitarian organizations.

On top of that, one side in Rwanda was MUSLIM. The other side was Christian. The side that had been in power and got slaughtered were CHRISTIAN Tutsis, and those who “Got even” were Muslim “Hutus” who slaughtered some 800,000 of their neighbors in 6 months.

Because the UN peacekeepers had DISARMED the Tutsis and then fled the scene themselves, The Hutus had almost NO opposition as they were doing this.

That situation was aweful.

Continued on next post, Michael
Click to expand...
Uh, most Hutus, like their victims, were Catholic. the remainder were historically Protestant, which has increased in the years since. Islam has made inroads today, yes, but in 1994, Rwanda was predominantly Catholic.
 
The most impactful movie I’ve ever seen.
We watched it in 9th grade religion class, it forever changed me.
 
This thread has been dormant for a considerable period. With rare exceptions, reviving threads after a protracted period of inactivity is discouraged because:
Code: 
the issues that spurred them are often no longer "hot" or current topics, explaining why thread activity ceased originally.
posters originally involved in the discussion are sometimes no longer active on the forum and, therefore, unavailable to reply to comments added to the thread.
Our experience suggests that, when a topic merits revival, it is best accomplished by initiating a new thread that draws on recent events and can be posted to contemporaneously. This eliminates the baggage of folks being frustrated by asking and not receiving responses to issues raised in early posts (because the new poster didn’t notice that the post he was responding to was made a long time ago).

Posters are very welcome to open a new thread on the subject or any other topic, as well as to actively participate in the myriad active threads in the fora.

Thank you to all those who have participated in this discussion. This thread is now closed.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top