One thought ... if a generic "first impression" is hard to get your head around, consider posting the most memorable moment in the book so far, and why you think it's important. Have fun!
It’s hard to describe my first reaction. To sum it up, I would have to say that I feel horrified. I am horrified at the tremendous amount of detail that is described about the mass murders. I could never imagine the pain and suffering that occurred from the cutting of “Achilles tendons and necks...[and how] cats and dogs were there, just eating people”(31). I am also horrified by the fact that people could fathom such savage behavior and allow so much death to occur. Statistics like “in the province of Kibuye, Tutsis counted…at least one out of three people…[and] a month later most of them had been killed,” is heart breaking and inconceivable (29). Although I am looking forward to reading the rest of the book, I think I will start to pace myself. I’ll probably take long breaks after reading at least a chapter, so that I might clear my mind of the horrific scenes.
To anonymous poster...I agree with you completely that there is certain pain that we, as Americans, cannot feel nor pretend to feel. Having not been in the situations that the Tutsi experienced, i cannot fathom to pretend like i know what it is like to no longer fear death, but to hope for death "not by machete ... but with a bullet." But then again, should we be pretending that we understand how these victims feel? What would this accomplish?
Referring back to your final statement, i feel as if, by what you are saying: "I'll probably take long breaks after reading at least a chapter, so that i might clear my mind of the horrific scenes," you are becoming a witness. With only the first few chapters read in this novel, we are all witnesses. Like Gourevitch, we perceive Rwanda to be a beautiful place, with lush banana groves...etc. But, why?
Because, it is new to us. As for myself, having traveled to places i had never been before, i can relate to the feelings that Gourevitch had entering a new world; wonder, curiosity, excitement. However, as soon as Philip is trapped within his vehicle on the "unpaved mess" (32) of a road, and he is told by soldiers that he would make "an easy target," he no longer becomes a witness of the genocide. All of his emotions of beauty and wonder are replaced with fear; and i cannot relate to such feelings. There would be no purpose for me to pretend that i know what it is like to hear the screams of a women about to be raped. If i were to do so, i would only be shielding myself from the truth; i would remain a witness to the Rwandan genocide; i would remain the witness that so many other nations played the roles of during this genocide.
So i am encouraging you, anonymous poster, try not to pause in between chapters to censor the atrocities. If we all take the same journey that Gourevitch seems to be leading us on, then we may possibly break this barrier between being a witness and a victim, and we may gain a stronger understanding of what it feels like to be Tutsi.
My first impressions of this novel thus far include: 1. Fear of the society in Rwanda at the time of the genocide. One thing that really struck me towards the end of the first chapter was when Nkurunziza said "Conformity is very deep, very developed here... In Rwandan history, everyone obeys authority. People revere power, and there isn’t enough education" (23). The quotation almost sums up everything i am learning or have learned in other classes dealing with social issues. The power of authority from psychology an the essential identity and integrity and not conforming have been focal points of my academic experiences.
2. The journeys people went through, and the pain/suffering caused by the Hutu onto the Tutsis. in the middle of the reading they describe congregations of Tutsis meeting at points along the roads "trying to avoid the countless militia checkpoints" (27). Over the summer with Maus and First They killed my Father, the characters are escaping capture, enduring capture or just avoiding capture. This theme of running and trying not to be caught is prevalent in this book.
One thing that really stood out and horrified was when fear filled the narrator on page 34: "Are the rapes often averted, and rapists capture, in this way in your place? I was deeply impressed. But what if this system of communal obligation is turned on its head, so that murder and rape become the rule? What if innocence becomes a crime and the person who protects his neighbor is counted as an 'accomplice'?" For some reason the idea of these heinous crimes becoming the "norm." Actually it isn't for some reason, it's very logical to feel the way I do. The book is quite impressive so far, and I really get the sense of the horrors of the genocide thusfar, but there are about 300 pages left, so I am pretty sure there will be more to come.
So i am encouraging you, anonymous poster, try not to pause in between chapters to censor the atrocities. ahhaha just kidding
In beginning to read this book I think I truly gained a much better sense of what a true atrocity the Rwandan genocide was. The first thing that stood out to me was that the atrocity comes through by the use of very specific words. The first instance of this is when he his talking about the bodies. He describes a body, saying “Her head was tipped back and her mouth was open: a strange image—half agony, half repose” (16). This stands out because he is not describing the body as a thing, but as a person, which personifies the bodies. You are forced to imagine them as people with lives like ours, rather than just as an object. There is also the statement “Every survivor wonders why he is alive” (21). This emphasizes how true to the definition of genocide it was. The intent to destroy the group in whole was so clear that survivors cannot fathom how they managed to stay alive. The other major thing that stood out to me was “It was a process,” with reference to the genocide (19). I don’t think I realized how true this was of genocide and also how horrible that makes it seem. The fact that killing can be described so simply and as a process makes you understand how mindless it was. In relation to other genocides this statement is also very applicable. Overall, I think this is a very revealing book about genocide.
I found most of my examples of how the racism relates to racism in America in the beginning of the book. Two of the most potent examples for me were about how the government condoned and encouraged racism. When the village counselor talks to Odette he says, “We like you, and we don’t want you to die, so we’ll make you a Hutu” (65). This relates to racism in America in that if you had even a drop of non white blood you were labeled as black, and discriminated against accordingly. A person who appeared completely white could be subject to the segregation that ruled blacks. Odette remembers that her father had a fake identity card that allowed him to be labeled as Hutu by the government. Similarly, people with black origins would lie or receive fake identification cards in order to avoid segregation. In both of these cases the government had a systematic way of labeling people for the purpose of discriminating against them. The next example of discrimination is less similar to America, but both cases have the same intent. In Rwanda, “to bolster the proportional power of the majority, census figures were edited so that Tutsis counted for just nine percent of the population, and their opportunities were restricted accordingly” (66). This is a deliberate attempt by the government to limit opportunities of Tutsis. It appears that Tutsis account for less of the population, and therefore they are given less opportunities in order to maintain the same proportions in the government and in businesses. In America, African Americans were forced into segregation, and blatantly denied many of the opportunities white people had. Most colleges did not accept African Americans. Another example of the ways in which the Rwandan government inhibited the opportunities of Tutsis is when Odette was expelled from her secondary school for being a Tutsi. When she gained admittance to a different secondary school she only remained there by lying about her identity.
I did not notice any other instances where Gourevitch directly relates events of the Rwandan genocide to Cain and Abel. One instance that I felt demonstrated the story of Cain and Abel was when he describes of Tutsis “the answer was always opaque: in normal times we lived normally” (72). He then describes that “Hutus often volunteered their memories of life’s engrossing daily dramas, and these stories were…normal” (72). The Hutus’ memories were not affected by the genocide. They were allowed to continue living their life, and they could think back with out remembering painful facts of the genocide. Even though they had committed a mass genocide, they seemed unaffected. Similarly, Cain was allowed to continue his life as if nothing had happened. The immediate effects upon his life, whereas Abel is obviously permanently scarred by the experience.
An excerpt from the book really made me think. Dr. Ntaki points out that "If President Kennedy had been assassinated in this country by a black man...the American population would have most certainly killed all the blacks" (39). He was giving an example of how the genocide or "chaos, chaos, chaos" (39) as he stated, related to America. While i do not like to believe Dr. Ntaki's statement is true, i cannot help but realize the validity of his statement.
For example, look at Japanese internment in America...Because of Pearl Harbor, and Japan's attacks on America, Americans jumped to the conclusion that every Japanese person living in America was a spy working for Japan. Because one faction of people of Japan disliked America and wanted to attack, Americans made incorrect assumptions by placing all Japanese persons in the same category as those working against America. I feel as if Dr. Ntaki's point is very well made, for i feel as if America is a country that at times thinks irrationally, and if a black person had assassinated President Kennedy, Americans would have quickly categorized all blacks as dangerous.
I like to point out how Dr. Ntaki--in his earlier statement--noted how Americans would "kill every black." His mind is set on a path of destruction because of his involvement in the genocide. When Dr. Ntaki said this to Gourevitch, Gourevitch seemed slightly taken aback, and i think this is the attitude that many Americans would feel. Racism in America does not usually instigate massacres or extreme acts of violence; however, for Rwanda, racism used as the perfect reason to begin murder and violence.
Like Amanda, I did not find any real concrete extended metaphors of Abel and Cain in the readings that we had these past few nights. But the connection to American is very prevalent throughout the novel.
Instead of how the racism really relates to America's racism, I found that it actually differs much more. I think that how the racism differs is incredibly stronger in connecting the Rwandan genocide's discrimination to America's history in discrimination. On page 96 it is said that "we the people are obliged to take responsibility ourselves and wipe out this scum." See in America, we may be obliged to take responsibility for our actions, but in discrimination, we have never been ones to advocate wiping out another race. Never in American history has there been a national conflict as such where it is up to the people to destroy another.
Another reason why i believe that we, as Americans DO NOT relate to the discrimination is because in the chapters we have read, we learned that the fudes between the two groups were created, fueled by other peoples (defining quotation):
"Whatever Hutu and Tutsi identity may have stood for in the precolonial state no longer mattered; the Belgians had made 'ethnicity' the defining feature of Rwandan existence. Most Hutus and Tutsis still maintained fairly cordial relations; intermarriages went ahead, and the fortunes of 'petits Tutsis' in the hills remained quite indistinguishable from those of their Hutu neighbors" (57). This is so important because the two "different" groups were pretty much made to fight. "Speke found a 'superior race'...comprised many tribes, including the Watusi - Tutsis - all of whom kept cattle and tended to lord it over the Negroid masses" (52)
Right here, this distinguishes America to Rwanda. Our discrimination issues and prejudices evolved from our own ideas. The Rwandans had an idea pressed upon them, while America is to blame for its own segregation and tension. Though there are a few similarities, I really felt that this book personifies more differences.
One thing that stood out to me as a similarity between the Rwandan Genocide and the Nazi Genocide, and that would have stood out even just looking at one case, was the way in which the genocides were fueled by an economic crisis. Gourevitch states, “Then, in 1986, the prices of Rwanda’s chief exports…crashed on the world market…and the competition was intense among the north westerners” (76). The economic crises gave the country a reason to be unhappy, which gave them someone to want to blame. As Gourevitch states, the Tutsis generally had more wealthy positions than the Hutus, which meant that they were a natural scapegoat. Similarly, the Germans were in an economic crisis due to the Treaty of Versailles. Hitler promised to fix the economy, which is one of the main reasons he was elected. It also made the German people generally unhappy, and as a result they searched for a scapegoat.
The most shocking thing to me in the book so far was the clear denial of the atrocities that had occurred. The Commission states that RDP personell “had subjected people in the camp to ‘arbitrary deprivation of life and serious bodily harm,’” which Gourevitch describes as “hacking unarmed children with machetes or shooting them in the back” (204). They refuse to admit that they had done something horrible wrong, and instead covered it up with diplomatic language. This will prevent them from ever facing what happened, and it will forever remain buried under words. I think that Rwanda should face what happened and accept their history.
Relating back to what our class discussed last week, i feel like propaganda also plays an enormous role in instigating the two genocides--Holocaust and Rwandan. If we look at the Holocaust, Germans influenced their nation by promoting aggression and hatred towards minority groups like Jews, homosexuals and the non-Aryan population. Germans used propaganda in the forms of posters, magazines, and books to discriminate against such minority groups, and as a result, many non-Nazi Germans soon became involved in the attacks towards minorities. When minorities such as Jews read propaganda promoting hatred towards their ethnicity, they became aware of what kinds of discrimination they were going to and were being faced with. They felt powerless, for if the government was against them, who would protect them?
Likewise, in Gourevitch's novel, the government used forms of propaganda to influence Hutus to attack and eliminate the Tutsi population. However, unlike the Holocaust, most of the Rwandan people were illiterate, so they could not put up posters or print books as propaganda. For Rwandans, the main way that they spread knowledge throughout the country was by means of radio. But, the radio was controlled by a Hutu government, thus it became a crucial tool for propaganda against Tutsis. The influence of the radio can be see: "He disliked the Hutu Power station's violent propaganda, but the way things were going in Rwanda that propaganda often served as a highly accurate political weather forecast" (110). As shown in this excerpt, even Tutsis and those opposed to the Hutu power listened in on the radio to hear what was next; what would happen to their lives next. Both in the Holocaust and in the Rwandan Genocide, propaganda became the means of telling many would happen to [minority] lives in the future.
The most shocking thing that i found within the book is that historians and other people have denied or refused to admit, that that the Rwandan genocide was a genocide. The book states that "ethnographers and historians have lately come to agree that Hutus and Tutsis cannot properly be called distinct ethnic groups" (48). I feel like historians and these people who claim that the genocide was not a genocide, are doing so, only so that they do not have to intervene in the affairs. Because the definition of a genocide is "acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group" (Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide), I feel like by classifying the Hutus and Tutsis as one ethnic group, instead of two different ones, people are trying to say that it is not a genocide and asking how can one ethnic group destroy itself and be considered a genocide?
Are there any other claimed genocides in the world that have been solely one ethnic group? What defines and ethnic group and what are its boundaries?
Some similarities I found between the Rwandan Genocide with the Holocaust and Nazi Genocide included one very important one: On page 196 of Gourevitch's novel, there is an example of people using the slogan "Genocide. Bury the dead, not the truth." He then says "i doubted the necessity of seeing the victims in order fully to confront the crime" (196). This also proves the point that people are not afraid to confront what they did. Nazi soldiers did not deny their killings, and even in the documentary we watched in class, spectators and even those who ratted other out came forth about it. Yet somehow, to the outside world, everyone is blinded. America, France, the allies all did not pay attention to Germany in the late 1930s. The truth was hidden from beyond the boundaries of Germany until they impacted other nations. In Rwanda, the truth about the brutal slaughtering was masked to the outside. The horrors were not real to Alexandre until he looked at his pictures of what had happened. Just like in Germany at the time, the world was shocked when they had seen photos of what had gone on after the monstrosities were committed. They had "no idea" until solid proof was their to clear their vision.
The most shocking moment of the reading appeared coincidentally on the next page. When Gourevitch describes Alexandre describing a fat woman in a crowd. For some reason, this moment made me really sad. "One second she was standing, one second she was falling in the people, and I watched this happening" (197). Then saying that "one real image" will be "that fat woman drowning in thousands and thousands of people" (197). Not only was this unbelievably touching, but at the same time is yet again amplified the devastation of the time. Though he is blunt, Alexandre does reveal how bad it was the fact that someone as large as her could fall and die in the sea of people. Anyone could fall... This also made me very emotional because without being graphic and gory, I was truly saddened by this, while reading I pictured the scene and watching someone end that way would be very upsetting. By far the most stand-out part. I took a Late day for this also :) - sorry i had a busy weekend
If a country was to intervene into another nation's affairs without the inclination to do well and help the foreign nation, and without proper qualifications both militarily and structurally as a nation, which in turn would provide aid to the foreign nation, than the outcome of such an intervention would not be positive. I think that many countries are hesitant to enter into other nation's affairs because of similar issues as noted above. Countries that do not feel powerful militarily do not want to enter a war or intervene into a violent situation for fear that their own nation will be affected negatively. Looking at this in a smaller scale, it is hard to persuade someone who is not confident in a certain element, to perform at that element. How can you convince someone who has never skied before to ski down the hardest slope? Peer pressure? Sure...countries HAVE been pressured by foreign countries into intervening in other foreign nation's affairs. For example, the UN was harassed by foreign nations in 1993 for not intervening in Somalia. When the UN complied, they entered Somalia with the ambition to stop killings and restore a government. However, there peace plans become failures, and many UN forces became targets in Somalia for attack. The UN ended up leaving Somalia with lost men and as a disappointment in the eyes of the rest of the world for not having completed any of their peace-making goals. Countries are wary to intervene because they have so much at risk if an intervention were to fail. I think that countries need to realize the importance of a successful and positive intervention--the United States intervening in the Nazi Regime--and to build upon the future of intervention and its potential as a means of doing good. If countries did not feel so disconnected from foreign conflicts, and if more nations were apt to agreeing to provide aid, i think the amount of countries intervening would increase. Whether a country intervenes successfully or not is decided on the countries strength as a nation and as an influence on other nations.
Belgium was Rwanda's European ally. Unfortunately, Belgium intervened into Rwanda's political and social structure as a nation in a negative way. As i mentioned earlier, if a country is to intervene into another nation's affairs, than the country intervening must be READY as a nation; Belgium, as read from the novel, was not ready: "Belgium itself was a nation divided along 'ethnic' lines, in which the Francophone Walloon minority had for centuries dominated the Flemish majority" (58). By intervening into Rwanda, and literally forcing its beliefs into Rwandan structure as a nation, Belgium infected Rwanda with a detrimentally run society. Rwanda was too weak of a nation to respond to Belgium's entrance into its nation, and was forced to abide by Belgium's laws. These laws only further weakened Rwanda, causing factions to arise between ethnic groups such as the Tutsi and Hutu, as well as creating tension within the government. Belgium's lack of qualifications and readiness to intervene into Rwanda caused Rwanda to adopt Belgium's own crumbling political structure and lose track of its own individuality as a nation. The collapse of unity within Rwanda between the Rwandan people was a direct result of poor intervention.
Hey guys, by the way, my article tonight that is due tomorrow for homework, is actually going to be on modern-day Hutus and how the newer generation of Hutu has changed since the genocide.
I think that the main characteristic that a country needs to intervene with issues such as genocide is understanding and acknowledging the situation. In life itself, jumping the gun or acting without information is something that frequently occurs. Just today, the UN has issues with confirming a situation as genocide. Because it is such a serious problem measures are required to be taken so labeling something as genocide causes an uncomfortable obligation for nations. It takes bravery and a passion to wanting to fix the problem for a country to intervene. Along with this bravery and passion, the nation also must follow through with their plans. Should they begin an intervention, the country must continue with it because genocide intervention usually results in battle, and backing away will not solve anything. It is probably harder to decide to intervene than to do the task at hand.
I know Alex said: “Countries are wary to intervene because they have so much at risk if an intervention were to fail.” And I do not think that is necessarily true. I do not think the US stalled because of them believing they would fail; we did not intervene because we did not have a valid reason to enter the war yet. Only after Pearl Harbor and the Zimmerman note did we actually take action because we were threatened. The US intervened out of aggression and anger, and it was not a ‘let’s think about the consequences’ situation – we wanted to get revenge and to put a stop to the maddening war.
I also think that with Rwanda and Belgium, Alex does make a good point: “if a country is to intervene into another nation's affairs, than the country intervening must be READY as a nation.” But at the same time, I feel that the country’s readiness is not as important as its intent to enforce good in the foreign nation. Belgium was putting its views where it sought fit though at the same time, I don’t consider this an intervention. I call this imperialism, so the ideas we’ve discussed do not really apply.
The character I connected with a lot was Paul Rusesabagina, the man at the hotel who helped refugees from being slaughtered: “I was using drinks to corrupt people,” Paul says when he feeds Hutus liquor so those Tutsis around him will not be harmed (127). It truly enjoyed reading these few pages because he talks about being open with people about his views. “I kept telling them, ‘I don’t agree with what you’re doing,’ just as openly as I’m telling you now. I’m a man who’s used to saying no when I have to” (127). Although he is one of many who helped refugees, he played dirty and would corrupt others to save those in need. It goes on to say that he “sought to save everybody he could, and if that meant negotiating with everyone who wanted to kill them – so be it” (127). Of course I do not think I would be able to have the strong character as him, but he reminds me of heroes from almost every story of war and death I have ever read, and for that he got my vote for most “connectable.”
I find that am forced to respectfully disagree with both Conor and Alex. I do think that a country must be ready in order to intervene. However, I do not think that Belgium was not ready when they intervened. Instead, I think that the drastic consequences of their actions were due to their neglect to care what happened to the country. They were ready to take over a nation, which they successfully did. They did not care what happened to the dynamic of the country as a result. I must disagree with Conor when he says that “But at the same time, I feel that the country’s readiness is not as important as its intent to enforce good in the foreign nation.” Although the negative results of Belgium’s were due to the fact that it did not intend to do good things, this does not mean that every country that intends to do good will succeed in doing so. If a country intervenes with the intent to stop genocide, but it does not have the resources or the ability to deal with the ramifications and the political situation, then it will not succeed.
I agree with Conor to some extent that a country needs to acknowledge a situation in order to intervene. However, the United States only intervened in World War II because it was under a threat. Before Pearl Harbor occurred, the war had very little effect on the United States, and therefore it had no incentive to intervene. In Rwanda, the United States refused to publicly state that the situation was genocide, since that would legally require that they act, as stated in the Genocide Convention. However, it was more than apparent that the situation was genocide. Gourevitch describes a conversation he had with “a school teacher named Vuillemin employed by the United Nations in Butare [who] described the massacres in December of 1963 and January of 1964 as a ‘veritable genocide’” (65). Even in 1963, it was apparent that the situation was genocide. If it was that apparent in 1963, it had to have been even more apparent in 1994. However, the United States did not acknowledge that it was genocide because then it would be required to act. The fear of punishment by the international court is what provided the incentive for the United States to intervene. It was a desire to protect its own country’s reputation and government from law and not a desire to be humanitarian that caused the United States to intervene. Only when it was painfully obvious that the situation was genocide did the United States admit it was genocide and then intervene.
I would just like to briefly comment on the second question. I think that the atrocities endured by the Rwandan people can never be understood by the rest of the world. I think that their experiences and their lives are so different than ours that we cannot possibly claim to relate to them.
I was born and raised in Saint Louis, Missouri and first moved to Massachusetts to attend Amherst College, where I majored in both English and Russian literature. After graduation, I accepted a Fulbright Scholarship to the University of Tartu in Estonia, where I studied children's literature and semiotics ("the study of signs and symbols"). I returned to the United States to spend a few years exploring the wide world of business, but the classroom kept calling. It was high time to earn my Masters in Education from Tufts University and join the staff at Arlington High School.
Please don't hesitate to email me; I love to hear from my students and their caregivers. I look forward to getting to know you!
Just a friendly reminder that class calendars are subject to change. Sometimes I make mistakes (it's true!) and sometimes we just move a little more or less quickly than predicted. I will announce any changes in class and try to post them as quickly as possible on the blog. You are responsible for any updates made in class.
DISCUSSION PROMPT #1: First impressions? Explain, use details and quotations.
ReplyDeleteOne thought ... if a generic "first impression" is hard to get your head around, consider posting the most memorable moment in the book so far, and why you think it's important. Have fun!
ReplyDeleteIt’s hard to describe my first reaction. To sum it up, I would have to say that I feel horrified. I am horrified at the tremendous amount of detail that is described about the mass murders. I could never imagine the pain and suffering that occurred from the cutting of “Achilles tendons and necks...[and how] cats and dogs were there, just eating people”(31). I am also horrified by the fact that people could fathom such savage behavior and allow so much death to occur. Statistics like “in the province of Kibuye, Tutsis counted…at least one out of three people…[and] a month later most of them had been killed,” is heart breaking and inconceivable (29). Although I am looking forward to reading the rest of the book, I think I will start to pace myself. I’ll probably take long breaks after reading at least a chapter, so that I might clear my mind of the horrific scenes.
ReplyDeleteTo anonymous poster...I agree with you completely that there is certain pain that we, as Americans, cannot feel nor pretend to feel. Having not been in the situations that the Tutsi experienced, i cannot fathom to pretend like i know what it is like to no longer fear death, but to hope for death "not by machete ... but with a bullet." But then again, should we be pretending that we understand how these victims feel? What would this accomplish?
ReplyDeleteReferring back to your final statement, i feel as if, by what you are saying: "I'll probably take long breaks after reading at least a chapter, so that i might clear my mind of the horrific scenes," you are becoming a witness. With only the first few chapters read in this novel, we are all witnesses. Like Gourevitch, we perceive Rwanda to be a beautiful place, with lush banana groves...etc. But, why?
Because, it is new to us. As for myself, having traveled to places i had never been before, i can relate to the feelings that Gourevitch had entering a new world; wonder, curiosity, excitement. However, as soon as Philip is trapped within his vehicle on the "unpaved mess" (32) of a road, and he is told by soldiers that he would make "an easy target," he no longer becomes a witness of the genocide. All of his emotions of beauty and wonder are replaced with fear; and i cannot relate to such feelings. There would be no purpose for me to pretend that i know what it is like to hear the screams of a women about to be raped. If i were to do so, i would only be shielding myself from the truth; i would remain a witness to the Rwandan genocide; i would remain the witness that so many other nations played the roles of during this genocide.
So i am encouraging you, anonymous poster, try not to pause in between chapters to censor the atrocities. If we all take the same journey that Gourevitch seems to be leading us on, then we may possibly break this barrier between being a witness and a victim, and we may gain a stronger understanding of what it feels like to be Tutsi.
hey i used fathom incorrectly. How about, "I cannot attempt to fathom..."
ReplyDeleteDon't forget to sign your posts with your first name or Ms. Kitsis will go crazy!!
ReplyDeletethe last post was alex t
ReplyDeleteMy first impressions of this novel thus far include:
ReplyDelete1. Fear of the society in Rwanda at the time of the genocide. One thing that really struck me towards the end of the first chapter was when Nkurunziza said "Conformity is very deep, very developed here... In Rwandan history, everyone obeys authority. People revere power, and there isn’t enough education" (23). The quotation almost sums up everything i am learning or have learned in other classes dealing with social issues. The power of authority from psychology an the essential identity and integrity and not conforming have been focal points of my academic experiences.
2. The journeys people went through, and the pain/suffering caused by the Hutu onto the Tutsis. in the middle of the reading they describe congregations of Tutsis meeting at points along the roads "trying to avoid the countless militia checkpoints" (27). Over the summer with Maus and First They killed my Father, the characters are escaping capture, enduring capture or just avoiding capture. This theme of running and trying not to be caught is prevalent in this book.
One thing that really stood out and horrified was when fear filled the narrator on page 34: "Are the rapes often averted, and rapists capture, in this way in your place? I was deeply impressed. But what if this system of communal obligation is turned on its head, so that murder and rape become the rule? What if innocence becomes a crime and the person who protects his neighbor is counted as an 'accomplice'?" For some reason the idea of these heinous crimes becoming the "norm." Actually it isn't for some reason, it's very logical to feel the way I do. The book is quite impressive so far, and I really get the sense of the horrors of the genocide thusfar, but there are about 300 pages left, so I am pretty sure there will be more to come.
So i am encouraging you, anonymous poster, try not to pause in between chapters to censor the atrocities. ahhaha just kidding
In beginning to read this book I think I truly gained a much better sense of what a true atrocity the Rwandan genocide was. The first thing that stood out to me was that the atrocity comes through by the use of very specific words. The first instance of this is when he his talking about the bodies. He describes a body, saying “Her head was tipped back and her mouth was open: a strange image—half agony, half repose” (16). This stands out because he is not describing the body as a thing, but as a person, which personifies the bodies. You are forced to imagine them as people with lives like ours, rather than just as an object. There is also the statement “Every survivor wonders why he is alive” (21). This emphasizes how true to the definition of genocide it was. The intent to destroy the group in whole was so clear that survivors cannot fathom how they managed to stay alive. The other major thing that stood out to me was “It was a process,” with reference to the genocide (19). I don’t think I realized how true this was of genocide and also how horrible that makes it seem. The fact that killing can be described so simply and as a process makes you understand how mindless it was. In relation to other genocides this statement is also very applicable. Overall, I think this is a very revealing book about genocide.
ReplyDeleteDISCUSSION PROMPT #2:
ReplyDelete(1) Discuss the extended metaphor of Cain and Abel. What are specific individual examples of how this is true (i.e., Dr. Ntakirutimana)?
(2) Relate one aspect of the discrimination between Hutus and Tutsis (or how it developed) to racism in America.
I found most of my examples of how the racism relates to racism in America in the beginning of the book. Two of the most potent examples for me were about how the government condoned and encouraged racism. When the village counselor talks to Odette he says, “We like you, and we don’t want you to die, so we’ll make you a Hutu” (65). This relates to racism in America in that if you had even a drop of non white blood you were labeled as black, and discriminated against accordingly. A person who appeared completely white could be subject to the segregation that ruled blacks. Odette remembers that her father had a fake identity card that allowed him to be labeled as Hutu by the government. Similarly, people with black origins would lie or receive fake identification cards in order to avoid segregation. In both of these cases the government had a systematic way of labeling people for the purpose of discriminating against them. The next example of discrimination is less similar to America, but both cases have the same intent. In Rwanda, “to bolster the proportional power of the majority, census figures were edited so that Tutsis counted for just nine percent of the population, and their opportunities were restricted accordingly” (66). This is a deliberate attempt by the government to limit opportunities of Tutsis. It appears that Tutsis account for less of the population, and therefore they are given less opportunities in order to maintain the same proportions in the government and in businesses. In America, African Americans were forced into segregation, and blatantly denied many of the opportunities white people had. Most colleges did not accept African Americans. Another example of the ways in which the Rwandan government inhibited the opportunities of Tutsis is when Odette was expelled from her secondary school for being a Tutsi. When she gained admittance to a different secondary school she only remained there by lying about her identity.
ReplyDeleteI did not notice any other instances where Gourevitch directly relates events of the Rwandan genocide to Cain and Abel. One instance that I felt demonstrated the story of Cain and Abel was when he describes of Tutsis “the answer was always opaque: in normal times we lived normally” (72). He then describes that “Hutus often volunteered their memories of life’s engrossing daily dramas, and these stories were…normal” (72). The Hutus’ memories were not affected by the genocide. They were allowed to continue living their life, and they could think back with out remembering painful facts of the genocide. Even though they had committed a mass genocide, they seemed unaffected. Similarly, Cain was allowed to continue his life as if nothing had happened. The immediate effects upon his life, whereas Abel is obviously permanently scarred by the experience.
An excerpt from the book really made me think. Dr. Ntaki points out that "If President Kennedy had been assassinated in this country by a black man...the American population would have most certainly killed all the blacks" (39). He was giving an example of how the genocide or "chaos, chaos, chaos" (39) as he stated, related to America. While i do not like to believe Dr. Ntaki's statement is true, i cannot help but realize the validity of his statement.
ReplyDeleteFor example, look at Japanese internment in America...Because of Pearl Harbor, and Japan's attacks on America, Americans jumped to the conclusion that every Japanese person living in America was a spy working for Japan. Because one faction of people of Japan disliked America and wanted to attack, Americans made incorrect assumptions by placing all Japanese persons in the same category as those working against America. I feel as if Dr. Ntaki's point is very well made, for i feel as if America is a country that at times thinks irrationally, and if a black person had assassinated President Kennedy, Americans would have quickly categorized all blacks as dangerous.
I like to point out how Dr. Ntaki--in his earlier statement--noted how Americans would "kill every black." His mind is set on a path of destruction because of his involvement in the genocide. When Dr. Ntaki said this to Gourevitch, Gourevitch seemed slightly taken aback, and i think this is the attitude that many Americans would feel. Racism in America does not usually instigate massacres or extreme acts of violence; however, for Rwanda, racism used as the perfect reason to begin murder and violence.
Like Amanda, I did not find any real concrete extended metaphors of Abel and Cain in the readings that we had these past few nights. But the connection to American is very prevalent throughout the novel.
ReplyDeleteInstead of how the racism really relates to America's racism, I found that it actually differs much more. I think that how the racism differs is incredibly stronger in connecting the Rwandan genocide's discrimination to America's history in discrimination. On page 96 it is said that "we the people are obliged to take responsibility ourselves and wipe out this scum." See in America, we may be obliged to take responsibility for our actions, but in discrimination, we have never been ones to advocate wiping out another race. Never in American history has there been a national conflict as such where it is up to the people to destroy another.
Another reason why i believe that we, as Americans DO NOT relate to the discrimination is because in the chapters we have read, we learned that the fudes between the two groups were created, fueled by other peoples (defining quotation):
"Whatever Hutu and Tutsi identity may have stood for in the precolonial state no longer mattered; the Belgians had made 'ethnicity' the defining feature of Rwandan existence. Most Hutus and Tutsis still maintained fairly cordial relations; intermarriages went ahead, and the fortunes of 'petits Tutsis' in the hills remained quite indistinguishable from those of their Hutu neighbors" (57). This is so important because the two "different" groups were pretty much made to fight. "Speke found a 'superior race'...comprised many tribes, including the Watusi - Tutsis - all of whom kept cattle and tended to lord it over the Negroid masses" (52)
Right here, this distinguishes America to Rwanda. Our discrimination issues and prejudices evolved from our own ideas. The Rwandans had an idea pressed upon them, while America is to blame for its own segregation and tension. Though there are a few similarities, I really felt that this book personifies more differences.
DISCUSSION PROMPT #3:
ReplyDelete(1) Relate this genocide to the Nazi Genocide.
(2) Talk about a moment that stood out to you.
One thing that stood out to me as a similarity between the Rwandan Genocide and the Nazi Genocide, and that would have stood out even just looking at one case, was the way in which the genocides were fueled by an economic crisis. Gourevitch states, “Then, in 1986, the prices of Rwanda’s chief exports…crashed on the world market…and the competition was intense among the north westerners” (76). The economic crises gave the country a reason to be unhappy, which gave them someone to want to blame. As Gourevitch states, the Tutsis generally had more wealthy positions than the Hutus, which meant that they were a natural scapegoat. Similarly, the Germans were in an economic crisis due to the Treaty of Versailles. Hitler promised to fix the economy, which is one of the main reasons he was elected. It also made the German people generally unhappy, and as a result they searched for a scapegoat.
ReplyDeleteThe most shocking thing to me in the book so far was the clear denial of the atrocities that had occurred. The Commission states that RDP personell “had subjected people in the camp to ‘arbitrary deprivation of life and serious bodily harm,’” which Gourevitch describes as “hacking unarmed children with machetes or shooting them in the back” (204). They refuse to admit that they had done something horrible wrong, and instead covered it up with diplomatic language. This will prevent them from ever facing what happened, and it will forever remain buried under words. I think that Rwanda should face what happened and accept their history.
Relating back to what our class discussed last week, i feel like propaganda also plays an enormous role in instigating the two genocides--Holocaust and Rwandan. If we look at the Holocaust, Germans influenced their nation by promoting aggression and hatred towards minority groups like Jews, homosexuals and the non-Aryan population. Germans used propaganda in the forms of posters, magazines, and books to discriminate against such minority groups, and as a result, many non-Nazi Germans soon became involved in the attacks towards minorities. When minorities such as Jews read propaganda promoting hatred towards their ethnicity, they became aware of what kinds of discrimination they were going to and were being faced with. They felt powerless, for if the government was against them, who would protect them?
ReplyDeleteLikewise, in Gourevitch's novel, the government used forms of propaganda to influence Hutus to attack and eliminate the Tutsi population. However, unlike the Holocaust, most of the Rwandan people were illiterate, so they could not put up posters or print books as propaganda. For Rwandans, the main way that they spread knowledge throughout the country was by means of radio. But, the radio was controlled by a Hutu government, thus it became a crucial tool for propaganda against Tutsis. The influence of the radio can be see: "He disliked the Hutu Power station's violent propaganda, but the way things were going in Rwanda that propaganda often served as a highly accurate political weather forecast" (110). As shown in this excerpt, even Tutsis and those opposed to the Hutu power listened in on the radio to hear what was next; what would happen to their lives next. Both in the Holocaust and in the Rwandan Genocide, propaganda became the means of telling many would happen to [minority] lives in the future.
The most shocking thing that i found within the book is that historians and other people have denied or refused to admit, that that the Rwandan genocide was a genocide. The book states that "ethnographers and historians have lately come to agree that Hutus and Tutsis cannot properly be called distinct ethnic groups" (48). I feel like historians and these people who claim that the genocide was not a genocide, are doing so, only so that they do not have to intervene in the affairs. Because the definition of a genocide is "acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group" (Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide), I feel like by classifying the Hutus and Tutsis as one ethnic group, instead of two different ones, people are trying to say that it is not a genocide and asking how can one ethnic group destroy itself and be considered a genocide?
Are there any other claimed genocides in the world that have been solely one ethnic group? What defines and ethnic group and what are its boundaries?
Some similarities I found between the Rwandan Genocide with the Holocaust and Nazi Genocide included one very important one: On page 196 of Gourevitch's novel, there is an example of people using the slogan "Genocide. Bury the dead, not the truth." He then says "i doubted the necessity of seeing the victims in order fully to confront the crime" (196). This also proves the point that people are not afraid to confront what they did. Nazi soldiers did not deny their killings, and even in the documentary we watched in class, spectators and even those who ratted other out came forth about it. Yet somehow, to the outside world, everyone is blinded. America, France, the allies all did not pay attention to Germany in the late 1930s. The truth was hidden from beyond the boundaries of Germany until they impacted other nations. In Rwanda, the truth about the brutal slaughtering was masked to the outside. The horrors were not real to Alexandre until he looked at his pictures of what had happened. Just like in Germany at the time, the world was shocked when they had seen photos of what had gone on after the monstrosities were committed. They had "no idea" until solid proof was their to clear their vision.
ReplyDeleteThe most shocking moment of the reading appeared coincidentally on the next page. When Gourevitch describes Alexandre describing a fat woman in a crowd. For some reason, this moment made me really sad. "One second she was standing, one second she was falling in the people, and I watched this happening" (197). Then saying that "one real image" will be "that fat woman drowning in thousands and thousands of people" (197). Not only was this unbelievably touching, but at the same time is yet again amplified the devastation of the time. Though he is blunt, Alexandre does reveal how bad it was the fact that someone as large as her could fall and die in the sea of people. Anyone could fall... This also made me very emotional because without being graphic and gory, I was truly saddened by this, while reading I pictured the scene and watching someone end that way would be very upsetting. By far the most stand-out part. I took a Late day for this also :) - sorry i had a busy weekend
DISCUSSION PROMPT #4:
ReplyDelete(1) What does it take for a country to intervene?
(2) What character did you connect with the most and why?
Don't forget to quote the text and respond directly to each other. It's okay to disagree, too; it keeps things interesting!
If a country was to intervene into another nation's affairs without the inclination to do well and help the foreign nation, and without proper qualifications both militarily and structurally as a nation, which in turn would provide aid to the foreign nation, than the outcome of such an intervention would not be positive. I think that many countries are hesitant to enter into other nation's affairs because of similar issues as noted above. Countries that do not feel powerful militarily do not want to enter a war or intervene into a violent situation for fear that their own nation will be affected negatively. Looking at this in a smaller scale, it is hard to persuade someone who is not confident in a certain element, to perform at that element. How can you convince someone who has never skied before to ski down the hardest slope? Peer pressure? Sure...countries HAVE been pressured by foreign countries into intervening in other foreign nation's affairs. For example, the UN was harassed by foreign nations in 1993 for not intervening in Somalia. When the UN complied, they entered Somalia with the ambition to stop killings and restore a government. However, there peace plans become failures, and many UN forces became targets in Somalia for attack. The UN ended up leaving Somalia with lost men and as a disappointment in the eyes of the rest of the world for not having completed any of their peace-making goals. Countries are wary to intervene because they have so much at risk if an intervention were to fail. I think that countries need to realize the importance of a successful and positive intervention--the United States intervening in the Nazi Regime--and to build upon the future of intervention and its potential as a means of doing good. If countries did not feel so disconnected from foreign conflicts, and if more nations were apt to agreeing to provide aid, i think the amount of countries intervening would increase. Whether a country intervenes successfully or not is decided on the countries strength as a nation and as an influence on other nations.
ReplyDeleteBelgium was Rwanda's European ally. Unfortunately, Belgium intervened into Rwanda's political and social structure as a nation in a negative way. As i mentioned earlier, if a country is to intervene into another nation's affairs, than the country intervening must be READY as a nation; Belgium, as read from the novel, was not ready: "Belgium itself was a nation divided along 'ethnic' lines, in which the Francophone Walloon minority had for centuries dominated the Flemish majority" (58). By intervening into Rwanda, and literally forcing its beliefs into Rwandan structure as a nation, Belgium infected Rwanda with a detrimentally run society. Rwanda was too weak of a nation to respond to Belgium's entrance into its nation, and was forced to abide by Belgium's laws. These laws only further weakened Rwanda, causing factions to arise between ethnic groups such as the Tutsi and Hutu, as well as creating tension within the government. Belgium's lack of qualifications and readiness to intervene into Rwanda caused Rwanda to adopt Belgium's own crumbling political structure and lose track of its own individuality as a nation. The collapse of unity within Rwanda between the Rwandan people was a direct result of poor intervention.
Hey guys, by the way, my article tonight that is due tomorrow for homework, is actually going to be on modern-day Hutus and how the newer generation of Hutu has changed since the genocide.
ReplyDeleteI think that the main characteristic that a country needs to intervene with issues such as genocide is understanding and acknowledging the situation. In life itself, jumping the gun or acting without information is something that frequently occurs. Just today, the UN has issues with confirming a situation as genocide. Because it is such a serious problem measures are required to be taken so labeling something as genocide causes an uncomfortable obligation for nations. It takes bravery and a passion to wanting to fix the problem for a country to intervene. Along with this bravery and passion, the nation also must follow through with their plans. Should they begin an intervention, the country must continue with it because genocide intervention usually results in battle, and backing away will not solve anything. It is probably harder to decide to intervene than to do the task at hand.
ReplyDeleteI know Alex said: “Countries are wary to intervene because they have so much at risk if an intervention were to fail.” And I do not think that is necessarily true. I do not think the US stalled because of them believing they would fail; we did not intervene because we did not have a valid reason to enter the war yet. Only after Pearl Harbor and the Zimmerman note did we actually take action because we were threatened. The US intervened out of aggression and anger, and it was not a ‘let’s think about the consequences’ situation – we wanted to get revenge and to put a stop to the maddening war.
I also think that with Rwanda and Belgium, Alex does make a good point: “if a country is to intervene into another nation's affairs, than the country intervening must be READY as a nation.” But at the same time, I feel that the country’s readiness is not as important as its intent to enforce good in the foreign nation. Belgium was putting its views where it sought fit though at the same time, I don’t consider this an intervention. I call this imperialism, so the ideas we’ve discussed do not really apply.
The character I connected with a lot was Paul Rusesabagina, the man at the hotel who helped refugees from being slaughtered: “I was using drinks to corrupt people,” Paul says when he feeds Hutus liquor so those Tutsis around him will not be harmed (127). It truly enjoyed reading these few pages because he talks about being open with people about his views. “I kept telling them, ‘I don’t agree with what you’re doing,’ just as openly as I’m telling you now. I’m a man who’s used to saying no when I have to” (127). Although he is one of many who helped refugees, he played dirty and would corrupt others to save those in need. It goes on to say that he “sought to save everybody he could, and if that meant negotiating with everyone who wanted to kill them – so be it” (127). Of course I do not think I would be able to have the strong character as him, but he reminds me of heroes from almost every story of war and death I have ever read, and for that he got my vote for most “connectable.”
I find that am forced to respectfully disagree with both Conor and Alex. I do think that a country must be ready in order to intervene. However, I do not think that Belgium was not ready when they intervened. Instead, I think that the drastic consequences of their actions were due to their neglect to care what happened to the country. They were ready to take over a nation, which they successfully did. They did not care what happened to the dynamic of the country as a result. I must disagree with Conor when he says that “But at the same time, I feel that the country’s readiness is not as important as its intent to enforce good in the foreign nation.” Although the negative results of Belgium’s were due to the fact that it did not intend to do good things, this does not mean that every country that intends to do good will succeed in doing so. If a country intervenes with the intent to stop genocide, but it does not have the resources or the ability to deal with the ramifications and the political situation, then it will not succeed.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Conor to some extent that a country needs to acknowledge a situation in order to intervene. However, the United States only intervened in World War II because it was under a threat. Before Pearl Harbor occurred, the war had very little effect on the United States, and therefore it had no incentive to intervene. In Rwanda, the United States refused to publicly state that the situation was genocide, since that would legally require that they act, as stated in the Genocide Convention. However, it was more than apparent that the situation was genocide. Gourevitch describes a conversation he had with “a school teacher named Vuillemin employed by the United Nations in Butare [who] described the massacres in December of 1963 and January of 1964 as a ‘veritable genocide’” (65). Even in 1963, it was apparent that the situation was genocide. If it was that apparent in 1963, it had to have been even more apparent in 1994. However, the United States did not acknowledge that it was genocide because then it would be required to act. The fear of punishment by the international court is what provided the incentive for the United States to intervene. It was a desire to protect its own country’s reputation and government from law and not a desire to be humanitarian that caused the United States to intervene. Only when it was painfully obvious that the situation was genocide did the United States admit it was genocide and then intervene.
I would just like to briefly comment on the second question. I think that the atrocities endured by the Rwandan people can never be understood by the rest of the world. I think that their experiences and their lives are so different than ours that we cannot possibly claim to relate to them.