One thought ... if a generic "first reaction" 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.
Alright, so, the book is pretty serious right from the start, despite the fact that the Pygmy is a native and had learned english not too long ago so it wasn't very fluid. The beginning is rather dark with the whole bar scene and everyone around Philip is pretty much passed out. I got a pretty creepy vibe from "the eyes of the three soldiers...color of blood oranges"(5). Moving on, Philip arrives at the classroom and sees all of the horrifying deaths and he began to explain what had seen. He saw a woman whose "torso was hollowed out...ribs and spinal column poked through the rotting cloth" (16).
I think the thing that has stood out to me the most is the quote "How many hacks to dismember a person?" (17). After reading that paragraph, I got pretty bad images of the whole seen with the man butchering a man with a machete, and figured I should probably take a short break.
It's a pretty sweet (not literally..) book, but it is one of those books that is so detailed and really brings me into the situation, that I'll probably read a little slower than usual, which is alright.
I agree with Tom, that the description of the machete hacking was gruesome. The idea of killing even a single person with a machete, hacking away that many times, is gross. To commit genocide through these methods is simply morbid.
What resonated most with me was the story about the Tutsi’s watching the Hutu Power parties training and meeting constantly, and how Dr. Gerard lead the Hutu’s and used his father to gather the Tutsi’s in the church so that they were easier to slaughter. I think what I want to see is some sort of explanation as to how and why the Hutu’s could go as far as to slaughter human beings in a church without displaying any equivocation. Samuel Ndagijimana tells the story, starting out by saying “We were simple Christians” (26). The Tutsi’s and the Hutu’s cannot have been terribly different from each other, as they lived in a common environment, so what was it that makes one race ‘simple Christians’, and the other shameless killers? I am equally concerned with the loss of human life on the side of the Tutsi’s as I am with whatever caused the loss of humanity within the Hutu’s.
DISCUSSION PROMPT #2: What sentence did you come across that you found most shocking? Why did you choose this line? How did you react (besides, uh, being shocked)?
Although the line is not a part of the main story, I found it fascinating about how paranoid the Rwandans were. “…Or when a drink is to be shared, the provider must take the first sip, like a food taster in a medieval court, to prove that it is safe” (80). I found myself not only shocked, but relieved that they were. I am not sure why, but I think it was mostly relieving because I realized that the Rwandans were apparently not normal, average people, but were actually very paranoid people. It is kind of sickening that I could normalize the genocide that occurred, but the paranoia they suffer from honestly could be seen as an excuse for the occurrence of the genocide. I would never say that the genocide was okay, but if they were in court, they may be able to get away with an insanity plea.
That is the first paragraph on page 179. This is written after a description of village life, and is followed by Courevitch's commentary on how he knew that the people around him were mostly Hutu, but did not know who. He could not distinguish between the two groups; all he saw was people living their lives. He saw them as individuals living together, and not as a group. This passage, and especially that quote, represents the inalienable right of all humans to live. That is the issue with genocide; it violates the human right to live. There is no excuse for genocide, but as Rachel said, the entire situation is insanity. Genocide violates the right that all humans have, including those committing genocide. In this sense, genocide is truly insane because it is taking away the most important right that all humans share, so it does not matter if the killing is isolated to a single group, because all are hurt.
"Walking back to my hotel, I passed the corner where Thomas had expected to be killed" (123)
When coming up with the question for this week's blog, part of me thought, "uh oh, I'm probably going to find a crazy quote that will haunt me forever.." Well, this won't haunt me forever, but it definitely stopped me in the middle of my reading. It was just startling to know that people EXPECTED to die, and in certain places. It was like they knew what was going to happen already. (even though he didn't end up getting killed there.)
For some completely random reason, when I read this, I though of Reagan, when he got shot on the corner of that street where the hotel was in DC (real, specific, I know.. haha)--Completely irrelevant, but I've been to that corner in DC, and it sort of put an idea of a picture of when Philip was walking passed the corner..
DISCUSSION PROMPT #3: How do you think influences of Hutus, Tutsis, and Europeans affect Rwanda? How do you think they might have wound up without European Imeperialism?
Throughout the story and the descriptions of the troubles between the Hutu’s and the Tutsi’s, Europeans are mentioned several times. They are certainly not a central focus, but they do seem to have been a catalyst of sorts for the current state of affairs. I wonder what the Rwandans were like before European involvement. Perhaps in Europe’s attempt at advancing its own power, the imperialism of each nation, is what taught the Rwandans to put the needs of a small group, like the Hutu’s or the Tutsi’s, ahead of the needs of a larger group, such as the Rwandans, or even the entire continent. I also wonder if war and hatred is a natural symptom of human weakness. The differences between the two did not simply go away at the end of the genocide, and Hutus were killed in response to it the killing of Tutsis. Violence is met with violence. Atrocious, grotesque killing, is returned, rather than taken as a lesson. At the same time, they all seem to be fighting for a better Rwanda, and the conflict between them is an obstacle. As Tito Ruteremara says, “the struggle was against the politics in Rwanda, not against the Hutus” (216). Would the politics be in the same disarray had the Europeans never been involved? Or perhaps all governments are subject to some form of disarray.
I would have to add that I think it is interesting how the Tutsis talked about their lifestyle as foreigners in other countries. Outside of Rwanda, they were treated as a whole, there were no Hutus and no Tutsis. However, inside Rwanda, there was so much hostility between the Hutus and the Tutsis, it is impossible to imagine that outside of Rwanda, the Rwandans themselves allowed them to be categorized as a whole with each other. If I had to guess, I would have to answer Andy’s question about the disarray, and say that I think Rwanda would have been much worse without the European involvement. Like the nurse had said the “’Hutus [were] killing Tutsis, doctors [were] killing doctors, doctors [were] killing patients, patients [were] killing doctors, nurses, everybody’”(195). Practically no one was safe, without the European involvement, it was possible that the Rwandans would all be killed, and no one would be left. As Goureitch points out, “Ninety-five percent of the species of animals and plants that have grace the planet since life began are said to be extinct,” and perhaps without the European involvement, the Rwandans would become extinct with them.
Well, France specifically was a very large supplier to Rwanda of military equipment. Although, it's also not JUST Rwanda that France has a role in. It seems like in a lot of southern African countries, the French language is prevalent. It is very tough to tell what Rwanda would have been like without European involvement, because France got involved to help the RPF against the president. However, with that help, the RPF was hated more. So, I think Rwanda COULD have been better off without French involvement, but at the same time, it could have been worse..
One of the stories that stood out to me was a short one about a man who took revenge. On page 312, Gourevitch recalls a story about a man who killed three people and wounded two. What happened was that the men, who were wounded and killed, had killed the killers’ family. (Does that make sense?) The man told the soldiers who arrested him that he must explain his story as to why he killed the men, before being executed. He said, "'I've been seeing killers...and nobody takes action against the. Well, I decided I cannot take any more of that, so I killed them'"(312). Tying this story into the whole book, a major theme that I have noticed is revenge. Every story I have read has some sort of revenge, and ultimately, that was what the genocide against the Tutsi's was about. The Hutu's were taking revenge on the Tutsi's for being, in their eyes, "better" than the Hutus.
I think the story that Samuel Ndagijimana tells in the beginning was the most jarring. I went into this with almost no knowledge of what happened, and the personal anecdotes from Gourevitch and his interaction with the pygmy did not have much to do with the actual events, just responses, so Ndagijimana’s story was the first real description of what happened. The most striking line is “the refugees wondered whether these men had forgotten their God” (27). Ndagijimana’s story establishes the theme of godless cruelty. Not to say that religion solves all problems, but the idea brought up by the quote is that people are acting with no regard to power or principles above themselves, which fits into Rachel’s idea, of everything being about revenge. Much of the book describes revenge, and on the same page a Rachel’s quote, they are describing that same man, saying that he could have easily killed hundreds in a marketplace, that he no longer cared about life, his own or others, and was insane. The main theme of the book is that when people lose respect for life, regardless of whose life, they are forsaking their own humanity and are capable of cruelty, with no regard to higher power or principle.
One of the stories that stood out to me was about the shootings at Kibeho that Alexandre talked about.
"Thousands and thousands of people. I was up on the roof, watching. And I saw this one woman, a fat woman. In thousands and thousands and thousands of people, this one fat woman was the only thing I saw. I didn't see anyone else. There were just thousands. And this fat woman, pressing along with the crowd...One second she was standing, one second she was falling the the people, and I watched this happening. She disappeared" (197).
"...The gate...People started throwing babies over. You just catch them. You'd do things you'd never want to see a picture of" (197).
It stood out to me because it stood out to him. He put so much emphasis on the lady who was trampled, and how it looked like she was drowning. He talks earlier about how there aren't many pictures of what went on, because everyone was too in-the-moment to step back and take pictures. It reminds of of pretty much any story, and how people's stories can be so much deeper than pictures can show. Even though "a picture tells a thousand words," a good story tells more. (or if you want to be literal, it tells as many words as the person says..). The description Alexandre told painted a vivid picture of mayhem in my head, and sort of reminded me of how piranhas attack their prey, or anything for that matter. Even though she was not being attacked by the crowd, and she was just running and pushing with it, she was entirely engulfed until she was no longer seen. And Alexandre put so much emphasis on the fact that she was fat. I just thought of how many people total were crushed, even though she was the only one Alexandre noticed.
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: What were your first reactions to the reading? Do you think it made Rachel cry?
ReplyDeleteOne thought ... if a generic "first reaction" 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.
ReplyDelete- Rachel
Alright, so, the book is pretty serious right from the start, despite the fact that the Pygmy is a native and had learned english not too long ago so it wasn't very fluid. The beginning is rather dark with the whole bar scene and everyone around Philip is pretty much passed out. I got a pretty creepy vibe from "the eyes of the three soldiers...color of blood oranges"(5). Moving on, Philip arrives at the classroom and sees all of the horrifying deaths and he began to explain what had seen. He saw a woman whose "torso was hollowed out...ribs and spinal column poked through the rotting cloth" (16).
ReplyDeleteI think the thing that has stood out to me the most is the quote "How many hacks to dismember a person?" (17). After reading that paragraph, I got pretty bad images of the whole seen with the man butchering a man with a machete, and figured I should probably take a short break.
It's a pretty sweet (not literally..) book, but it is one of those books that is so detailed and really brings me into the situation, that I'll probably read a little slower than usual, which is alright.
[I don't think it made her cry]
[..yet.] :) just kidding.
~Tom
I agree with Tom, that the description of the machete hacking was gruesome. The idea of killing even a single person with a machete, hacking away that many times, is gross. To commit genocide through these methods is simply morbid.
ReplyDeleteWhat resonated most with me was the story about the Tutsi’s watching the Hutu Power parties training and meeting constantly, and how Dr. Gerard lead the Hutu’s and used his father to gather the Tutsi’s in the church so that they were easier to slaughter. I think what I want to see is some sort of explanation as to how and why the Hutu’s could go as far as to slaughter human beings in a church without displaying any equivocation. Samuel Ndagijimana tells the story, starting out by saying “We were simple Christians” (26). The Tutsi’s and the Hutu’s cannot have been terribly different from each other, as they lived in a common environment, so what was it that makes one race ‘simple Christians’, and the other shameless killers? I am equally concerned with the loss of human life on the side of the Tutsi’s as I am with whatever caused the loss of humanity within the Hutu’s.
DISCUSSION PROMPT #2: What sentence did you come across that you found most shocking? Why did you choose this line? How did you react (besides, uh, being shocked)?
ReplyDeleteAlthough the line is not a part of the main story, I found it fascinating about how paranoid the Rwandans were. “…Or when a drink is to be shared, the provider must take the first sip, like a food taster in a medieval court, to prove that it is safe” (80). I found myself not only shocked, but relieved that they were. I am not sure why, but I think it was mostly relieving because I realized that the Rwandans were apparently not normal, average people, but were actually very paranoid people. It is kind of sickening that I could normalize the genocide that occurred, but the paranoia they suffer from honestly could be seen as an excuse for the occurrence of the genocide. I would never say that the genocide was okay, but if they were in court, they may be able to get away with an insanity plea.
ReplyDelete(and I haven't cried... yet, Tom) haha
-Rachel
"Life."
ReplyDeleteThat is the first paragraph on page 179. This is written after a description of village life, and is followed by Courevitch's commentary on how he knew that the people around him were mostly Hutu, but did not know who. He could not distinguish between the two groups; all he saw was people living their lives. He saw them as individuals living together, and not as a group. This passage, and especially that quote, represents the inalienable right of all humans to live. That is the issue with genocide; it violates the human right to live. There is no excuse for genocide, but as Rachel said, the entire situation is insanity. Genocide violates the right that all humans have, including those committing genocide. In this sense, genocide is truly insane because it is taking away the most important right that all humans share, so it does not matter if the killing is isolated to a single group, because all are hurt.
"Walking back to my hotel, I passed the corner where Thomas had expected to be killed" (123)
ReplyDeleteWhen coming up with the question for this week's blog, part of me thought, "uh oh, I'm probably going to find a crazy quote that will haunt me forever.." Well, this won't haunt me forever, but it definitely stopped me in the middle of my reading. It was just startling to know that people EXPECTED to die, and in certain places. It was like they knew what was going to happen already. (even though he didn't end up getting killed there.)
For some completely random reason, when I read this, I though of Reagan, when he got shot on the corner of that street where the hotel was in DC (real, specific, I know.. haha)--Completely irrelevant, but I've been to that corner in DC, and it sort of put an idea of a picture of when Philip was walking passed the corner..
(just read Andy's post, and I flipped to that page)
ReplyDeleteThat's a pretty strong "paragraph."
(Just saying.)
DISCUSSION PROMPT #3: How do you think influences of Hutus, Tutsis, and Europeans affect Rwanda? How do you think they might have wound up without European Imeperialism?
ReplyDeleteThroughout the story and the descriptions of the troubles between the Hutu’s and the Tutsi’s, Europeans are mentioned several times. They are certainly not a central focus, but they do seem to have been a catalyst of sorts for the current state of affairs. I wonder what the Rwandans were like before European involvement. Perhaps in Europe’s attempt at advancing its own power, the imperialism of each nation, is what taught the Rwandans to put the needs of a small group, like the Hutu’s or the Tutsi’s, ahead of the needs of a larger group, such as the Rwandans, or even the entire continent. I also wonder if war and hatred is a natural symptom of human weakness. The differences between the two did not simply go away at the end of the genocide, and Hutus were killed in response to it the killing of Tutsis. Violence is met with violence. Atrocious, grotesque killing, is returned, rather than taken as a lesson. At the same time, they all seem to be fighting for a better Rwanda, and the conflict between them is an obstacle. As Tito Ruteremara says, “the struggle was against the politics in Rwanda, not against the Hutus” (216). Would the politics be in the same disarray had the Europeans never been involved? Or perhaps all governments are subject to some form of disarray.
ReplyDeleteI would have to add that I think it is interesting how the Tutsis talked about their lifestyle as foreigners in other countries. Outside of Rwanda, they were treated as a whole, there were no Hutus and no Tutsis. However, inside Rwanda, there was so much hostility between the Hutus and the Tutsis, it is impossible to imagine that outside of Rwanda, the Rwandans themselves allowed them to be categorized as a whole with each other. If I had to guess, I would have to answer Andy’s question about the disarray, and say that I think Rwanda would have been much worse without the European involvement. Like the nurse had said the “’Hutus [were] killing Tutsis, doctors [were] killing doctors, doctors [were] killing patients, patients [were] killing doctors, nurses, everybody’”(195). Practically no one was safe, without the European involvement, it was possible that the Rwandans would all be killed, and no one would be left. As Goureitch points out, “Ninety-five percent of the species of animals and plants that have grace the planet since life began are said to be extinct,” and perhaps without the European involvement, the Rwandans would become extinct with them.
ReplyDelete-Rachel
Well, France specifically was a very large supplier to Rwanda of military equipment. Although, it's also not JUST Rwanda that France has a role in. It seems like in a lot of southern African countries, the French language is prevalent. It is very tough to tell what Rwanda would have been like without European involvement, because France got involved to help the RPF against the president. However, with that help, the RPF was hated more.
ReplyDeleteSo, I think Rwanda COULD have been better off without French involvement, but at the same time, it could have been worse..
~Tom
DISCUSSION PROMPT #4: Of the stories told, talk about one that stood out to you. What happened? Tie it to a bigger theme in the book.
ReplyDeleteNote from Ms. K: Don't forget to quote the text and respond directly to each other. It's okay to disagree, too; it keeps things interesting!
One of the stories that stood out to me was a short one about a man who took revenge. On page 312, Gourevitch recalls a story about a man who killed three people and wounded two. What happened was that the men, who were wounded and killed, had killed the killers’ family. (Does that make sense?) The man told the soldiers who arrested him that he must explain his story as to why he killed the men, before being executed. He said, "'I've been seeing killers...and nobody takes action against the. Well, I decided I cannot take any more of that, so I killed them'"(312). Tying this story into the whole book, a major theme that I have noticed is revenge. Every story I have read has some sort of revenge, and ultimately, that was what the genocide against the Tutsi's was about. The Hutu's were taking revenge on the Tutsi's for being, in their eyes, "better" than the Hutus.
ReplyDelete-Rachel
I think the story that Samuel Ndagijimana tells in the beginning was the most jarring. I went into this with almost no knowledge of what happened, and the personal anecdotes from Gourevitch and his interaction with the pygmy did not have much to do with the actual events, just responses, so Ndagijimana’s story was the first real description of what happened. The most striking line is “the refugees wondered whether these men had forgotten their God” (27). Ndagijimana’s story establishes the theme of godless cruelty. Not to say that religion solves all problems, but the idea brought up by the quote is that people are acting with no regard to power or principles above themselves, which fits into Rachel’s idea, of everything being about revenge. Much of the book describes revenge, and on the same page a Rachel’s quote, they are describing that same man, saying that he could have easily killed hundreds in a marketplace, that he no longer cared about life, his own or others, and was insane. The main theme of the book is that when people lose respect for life, regardless of whose life, they are forsaking their own humanity and are capable of cruelty, with no regard to higher power or principle.
ReplyDeleteOne of the stories that stood out to me was about the shootings at Kibeho that Alexandre talked about.
ReplyDelete"Thousands and thousands of people. I was up on the roof, watching. And I saw this one woman, a fat woman. In thousands and thousands and thousands of people, this one fat woman was the only thing I saw. I didn't see anyone else. There were just thousands. And this fat woman, pressing along with the crowd...One second she was standing, one second she was falling the the people, and I watched this happening. She disappeared" (197).
"...The gate...People started throwing babies over. You just catch them. You'd do things you'd never want to see a picture of" (197).
It stood out to me because it stood out to him. He put so much emphasis on the lady who was trampled, and how it looked like she was drowning. He talks earlier about how there aren't many pictures of what went on, because everyone was too in-the-moment to step back and take pictures. It reminds of of pretty much any story, and how people's stories can be so much deeper than pictures can show. Even though "a picture tells a thousand words," a good story tells more. (or if you want to be literal, it tells as many words as the person says..). The description Alexandre told painted a vivid picture of mayhem in my head, and sort of reminded me of how piranhas attack their prey, or anything for that matter. Even though she was not being attacked by the crowd, and she was just running and pushing with it, she was entirely engulfed until she was no longer seen. And Alexandre put so much emphasis on the fact that she was fat. I just thought of how many people total were crushed, even though she was the only one Alexandre noticed.