In reflecting on the idea that western powers could have easily set-up safe zones, wouldn’t we be looking at a different version of the conflict? Perhaps the two groups could have been separated for a while, then what? Western occupying powers on the hook for eternity to keep the peace? Or, they eventually leave and the two groups go ahead and attack one another at that point (e.g. Iraq) a few years later - today.
I am not supporting the idea that western powers should not have done something, but with the law of unintended consequences so clearly laid out in other, recent, conflicts, it makes me wonder what would have been the “best” intervention for Rwanda.
“Dancing in the Glory of Monsters: The Collapse of the Congo and the Great War of Africa” is a recent history of the Congo, but it necessarily discusses the Rwandan genocide as well. Basically, it tracks everything even sven said upthread.
I don’t know. There was already a peace-negotiation framework on the table that everyone had been participating in (the Arusha Accords), which fell apart when the President’s plane was blown up. It’s possible that the Accords could have been used as the basis to negotiate some new power-sharing agreement during a safe-zone period, allowing for a gradual pullout. That’s very different than Somalia, and it’s a bit different than Iraq as well, where a number of factions (such as Baathists) were left out the Constitutional negotiations.
I was personally disappointed in that movie. There’s another movie called “Sometimes In April” that I thought was much better. It’s also EXTREMELY violent, unlike “Hotel Rwanda”, and was filmed on location, in Kigali and other areas of Rwanda, and had quite a few Rwandans as actors and extras.
He never talked to the peons about high level activity, so I couldn’t say. I instinctively disliked the man on sight and tried to have as little to do with him as possible.
The accounts of the genocide and the history of the region posted above are good. I do have one objection.
While there has been a substantial amount of intermarriage between Hutu and Tutsi over the centuries, they are still largely physically and genetically distinct groups. The Hutu are Bantu, and look it. The Tutsi are a mixture of Nilotic and Afro-Asiatic, and look it.
Paul Kagame, for example, is obviously Tutsi. Pretty much anybody who looks like he looks in Rwanda or Burundi is Tutsi.
The difference between the two groups probably made the genocide worse, though there was certainly confusion for some of the victims as to which group they belonged to.
This is true to a degree, but only to a small degree. The reality is there is no history of ethnic genocide in Africa prior to the coming of Europeans. Just as there’s no history of genocides being carried out over religion prior to the coming of Europeans. There were wars, of course, but no different than the wars all peoples have fought among themselves throughout history.
At it’s core, the genocide in Rwanda was a proxy war between France and the US over the control of the mineral wealth of that region. No different than what’s going on today in the Congo, Iraq, Syria, etc.
There’s alot of info., real info., about what happened in Rwanda if you’re serious about finding out what it was all really about.
The Hutu/Tutsi genocide has not been restricted to Rwanda.
Something similar took place years earlier in Burundi - a Southern neighbour of Rwanda.
Incidentally I heard that Rwanda was a German ‘colony’ which was taken over by the Belgians after the First World War fiasco.
The Belgians then issued tribal identity cards, and cleverly used physical characteristics to decide which ‘tribe’ the individuals belonged to. A bit like defining all people with blond hair as Aryan and anyone with brown hair as Semitic - a dodgy distinction, and not particularly bright. (New game - name three intelligent Belgians).
Rwanda was part of what was called German East Africa, a large area that included Rwanda, Burundi, Tanzania (Tanganyika to the Brits), Kenya and Mozambique. After the war, Britain and Belgium divided up the largest part, with Belgium getting Rwanda, apparently for their astounding role as the worst soldiers in Africa. Portugal ended up with Mozambique and another small area. While the Germans were generally well-liked by east Africans during their rule, the Belgians were universally reviled as cruel and capricious.
What you think means zero, but I’m sure you’ve been told that before. My initial impression of him was borne out over the next two years, and echoed by those who worked closest with him.
Kenya (British East Africa) and Mozambique (Portuguese East Africa) were not part of German East Africa. Britain’s share of Germany’s African colonies was most of German East Africa (Tanganyika), slices of Kamerun and Togo, and (via the Union of South Africa) German Southwest Africa. Portugal took over a tiny sliver of German East Africa, the Kionga Triangle. Belgium got Ruanda-Urundi, which became Rwanda and Burundi.
Look up how the Belgians handled the Congo in the late 1800’s. Incentives like chopping hands off those locals who failed to produce enough - certainly a lesson in making friends and influencing people.
Africans can give you their history going back many thousands of years.
Even when we’re talking about the different migrations, not all were peaceful, this is true, but this is no different than the migrations of any other people throughout history.
There were wars, like I said, but there weren’t genocides based exclusively on ethnicity before the coming of Europeans.
