Dear class,
Please cut and paste the following links into your browser and read the article and power point relating to the Rwandan genocide.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/1288230.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/3594187.stm
Hotel Rwanda portrays the enormous suffering which can flow when people identify strongly with an identity-position. Indeed, it was the firm belief in difference which led to the massacre of 800,000 Rwandans, mostly Tutsis.
As you read through the material and consider the film, think about the following questions and leave your thoughts in the comments section.
1) Rwandan society is divided into two different groups - the Hutus and the Tutsis - is this a natural division? If not, how was this division created?
2) Why did the Belgian colonial power create this difference?
3) How is difference marked? (consider the first article you read on the Croat and Serb who separate their identities through cultural symbols - such as a cigarette.
4) In the film, we view the importance of media processes in helping to create the classification, describe how meanings were being attached to each identity through this system of representation (consider the radio broadcasts and how the Tutsis were described).
5) Think about how identity ideologies led to both the genocide, and also in terms of how the West reacted (or didn't react). For instance, ideological meanings about the Tutsis contributed to how the Hutu people perceived the Tutsi people... Also, Western ideologies about Africans affected the response of Western nations.
Finally, feel free to reflect on the film... It is certainly a difficult and harrowing film to view.
18 comments:
I thought that this was movie was very made movie and it portrayed the horror and malevolence that took place during the 100 days of genocide in Rwanda. What struck me the most was the abandonment that the Rwandans felt when they realized that they were on their own and that none was coming to help them. It broke my heart to see the families struggling to survive under such horrific conditions. The worst scene was when Paul was collecting the money from the group of people that were at his home to “buy” their lives from the soldiers. The worst part of the all was that the Belgians were the ones out of everyone that should have stepped in and helped first because they were the ones that started the whole mess. They pitted these groups against each other for their own benefit and then acted surprised when chaos ensued. The filmmakers did a really good job putting the audience into the thick of the conflict and getting the audience to experience the emotions of all sides of the conflict.
Historically, these two tribes have always been divided. Some patterns suggest the Hutu originally inhabited Rwanda and the Tutsi traveled south from Ethiopia and the cultures blended. In either case, the two tribes have lived in peace with remarkably similar cultures and languages. This original distinction between the tribes is not necessarily a natural division, many theorists believe that the two tribes were once very closely related. The true difference was perpetuated by outside forces giving one tribe more dominant characteristics and the other tribe lesser traits. Without these outside forces, the distinctions between the two tribes would be trivial at best.
The Belgians originally promoted the tribes' differences in an effort to pick sides and take advantage of the country. By bestowing "power" and "authority" to one tribe, the Belgians were able to sway the entire community by controlling what was viewed as the dominant people. Then, by leaving the country and reversing the powers, the Belgians intensified this difference by promoting, once again, that some were superior to others.
the Belgians used minor physical appearances to differentiate between the tribes. Originally, the slim features and height of the Tutsi prompted the Belgians to bestow superiority on them. The Hutu, being shorting with wider features, were viewed as less sophisticated and worthy of power. Based on non-influential physical characteristics, the Belgian powers fabricated signs of strength and dominance. Even more apparently, identification cards were put in place to mark people as either Hutu or Tutsi. What could form a stronger identity than an identification card, after all?
A huge force behind the Hutu arms during the Tutsi genocide was the country's pro-Hutu radio station. The station propagated anti-Tutsi ideologies and terms like "Tutsi cockroach" to embolden the Hutu forces and repress the Tutsi. This station reinforced the identities already partly in place from the Belgians: the superior Hutu need to take control of the inferior Tutsi cockroaches.
The ideologies of the Hutu are what began the terrible genocide, but it was not the only discriminating ideology involved in the genocide. Because of predetermined ideologies in the West concerning black Africans and African countries, many countries like the United States and the UK had no intention of becoming involved in the massacre of the Tutsi. The West already viewed Africans as inferior to themselves in exactly the same way the Hutu viewed themselves superior to the Tutsi. It would be against their ideologies to assist any African conflicts, despite any allies that may have been involve. Essentially, the Tutsi genocide was gravely extended because of the ideologies in the West.
In reaction to the film, it's one of the most powerful films I have seen. I wasn't previously familiar with the genocide in Rwanda, so to learn it happened in such a graphic and raw manner was intense. It is also crystal clear why this is such a powerful example in the discussion of differences and ideologies.
I agree with everything said thus far. There was no major difference between the two types of people. When it came down to identifying who belonged to which (Hutu or Tutsi), they relied on the identification cards. Without them, there would be no real apparent difference. The fact that such shallow difference could cause such horrifying massacres is heartbreaking. That the Belgians could see that they had caused it, and then do nothing about it is unbelievable. Unfortunately, situations like this happen often in every niche of the world. It is events like this that we learn about, that open our eyes and minds to the terrible things that are happening to many innocent people. Sadly, it doesn't have the effect it needs to because of predetermined ideologies that everyone possesses, and I don't think that's going to change any time in the near future.
Everything that has been said is GREAT!! Just like with the Serbs and Croats the only difference was cigarettes with them and besides some physical characteristic difference it would be hard to distinguish the difference between the Hutu and Tutsi people so the use of identification cards was needed to be able to tell the difference between the two. It is horrible to think that such pre-determined ideologies used by the Hutu on their own radio station that was anti-Tutsi could wear off on the minds of most Hutu's to totally hate the Tutsi people to massacre all of them.
It is really unbelievable that people can hate a person so much that they have lived with for so long time and can't even tell the difference between the two. But that is the way it is all through history from the Civil War to Iraq today. Every conflict has some sort of identity crisis that forces people to choose sides and either be on the winning or losing side and this is so unfortunate, but the truth.
Most people might or might not agree, but most countries hate the U.S even though we supply and help almost all countries that are in trouble. Such as the genecide that was happening in Somolia and we stepped in and that blew up in our faces and look what is happening to this country because of just that one conflict. It is really sad what happens in these countries, but look what is happening now in Iraq. The Sunni's have been massacring the Shiites for the longest time and we step in for all different reasons, but this can be one of the reasons that I will discuss. So we step in and take Saddam (Sunni) out of power that has massacred thousands of Shiites and people still have a major problem with us going to war and losing the many lives that we have. So if people are so against this war the same thing would occur if we stepped in the Rwanda situation and started losing lives there. people are all for something and helping other countries until "our" own lives starting getting lost and then everyone all the sudden is against war.
So stepping into another countries problems creates more conflicts in a way. It will always be "us" and "them" in this world and it shouldn't matter, but identities are a very very strong aspect to life and war. This conflict and all conflicts prove this and are mostly about for power and who is better than who and about politics and who has the power holds the key. So many innocent lives will always be lost because of this sense that people and countries have about themselves and some people are sick to try and create a dominant species because they think their tribe or group or whatever is a superior species. Its a competitive world and its very sad, but true and peoples ideologies will sometimes carry over to effect the next generation. Meaning like the Civil war was suppose to end slavery and legally it did, but there are still racists and people that work for under minimum wage. Would people consider these people slaves? I think some people would and so this is just the way the world works and you can change policies and rights, but sometimes ideologies are so strong that you cannot kill the things people believe and think. Hopefully this came out the way I wanted it to and makes sense to everyone!
This is the second time I have seen the film 'Hotel Rwanda' and I think my reaction to it this time was even more powerful than before. I think the film was made very well and dealt with such a horrendous atrocity in a very respectful manner that allowed the audience to be drawn into the story and almost feel what the invididuals were going through, while at the same time presenting the horrible truth that was Rwanda in 1994.
It is horrendous to think that people can be so easily swayed into thinking that their own neighbors and countrymen are so "different" from them that they can justify the killings. The scenes where the Hutus were listening intently to the radio and responding to whenever the term 'Tutsi cockroaches' was used were disturbing. The entire warfare, complete with machetes and other barbaric means of killing, seemed so inhumane and almost hard to believe that it was really happening.
I think it is an absolute atrocity that the rest of the world basically turned their backs on what was going on in Rwanda. I think that there are too many times in history (and even in our current situation in the Middle East) where we can point out that the U.S. was at fault for getting involved in international situations and making them worse. However, I feel that this is one instance where we absolutely should have gotten involved immediately and done something to help stop what was, without a doubt, absolute inhumane genocide created by false senses of difference that were perpetuated by the use of identification cards and the media, which promoted the feelings of resentment between the Hutus and Tutsis and absolutely helped spur the conflict.
There seems to be no real reason that the Rwandans are divided into two different groups so it can by no means be considered a natural division. There are perceived differences between the two groups which are often exaggerated. It was explained that one group has larger noses and I don't see how that could be used as the basis of any type of division.
The Belgian colonial power created this difference because it allows them to have more power. It is easier for them to create two groups that will fight each other than try to fight Rwanda as a whole. Once they fight each other there is half as many people left for them to worry about. It seems like such a horrible way to go about things.
The difference between the two groups is marked by extremely little things. Each group is brought up to look a certain way and do certain things. Anyone who is different must not be in the same group as you. But the differences are so little that they can often go unnoticed unless pointed out.
Through radio broadcasts, it was very easy for the Hutus to make the Tutsis appear as a bad group of people. This led the Hutus to feel pride for their own group while willfully fighting the group they were supposed to be opposing. People who didn't feel they were superior eventually ended up feeling that way because they were continuously told so through mass media.
It was clear that the Hutus felt superior and that led to the genocide. Also, Western nations felt superior. They viewed the killings as barbaric and felt as though nothing could be done to stop them. They thought the best way to go about it was to let them kill each other off because if that's what they wanted to do then they were not worthy of rescue. It's sad that educated Western nations could act so cold during such a terrible time.
I had never seen this movie before and I was shocked by how good it was. I never really knew too much about the conflict in Rwanda and it seems unbelievable to me that such a thing could ever happen. It is unfortunate that people are willing to go to such lengths for their identity. This was a great film to watch after what we had been discussing because it definitely shows how extreme things could get based solely on identities.
Considering the horror and the horrible interruptions that situation caused, this movie and conflict are definitely something to reflect upon. This situation is a grand example of a couple of things about Western society as it relates to Africa. First off, this situation is an example of how we as citizens are mal informed about what goes on over there. The media and what is presented here definitely shapes how we establish our group and individual identities and what is important to us in life. To this point, I have never heard of this conflict in any social studies or history class I have taken up to this point. This just goes to show what I was taught about modern Africa, and quite frankly in has only been two things: people there are poorly nourished and have AIDS except for all of the wealthier nations to the north of the continent. To say the least, the presentation of this conflict to me has given me a new perspective on what has occurred in Africa and how identity and difference could possibly lead to other humanely terrifying conflicts elsewhere on this planet.
As for the identity and difference in this situation, the identity and difference between the Hutus and the Tutsi is not one of natural creation. According to the article, the Belgians division of the Rwandans based on tensions in ethnicity was the impetus of the conflicts escalation. I would suggest that this conflict might not have existed had it been for the intervention of the Belgians in Rwanda. This is because, according to the article, “The two ethnic groups are actually very similar - they speak the same language, inhabit the same areas and follow the same traditions” On the other hand, had it not been for the Belgians being in Rwanda, people might have not had jobs and life for everyone might have been difficult. Belgian intervention between the Rwandan sects shows that there have been long standing ethnic tensions in the area.
From what has been read and seen from this situation, it is clear that the Belgians had an influence in the Rwandan sectarian behavior. In the movie Hotel Rwanda, the hotel provided jobs that seemed to help the tourism industry for international travelers. They also helped to bring jobs to citizens as well. The movie did not do a good job of pointing to the original historical source of this tension since it started with the killing of the Rwandan president. However, the article comes out to state that it was the Tutsis that received these jobs and not the Hutus. Belgians also furthered the segregation by issuing identity cards in order to tell the groups apart. It is the use of such symbols, similar to the identity cards that are used to distinguish the differences between the two identities. This just goes to show that trademark symbols, such as Croat, Serb, or even Cuban cigars are key in being able to distinguish what it means to be a particular culture.
While I cannot remember the exact words, the Tutsis were called really horrible names in the radio broadcasts. They were literally called savage beasts with intent to do harm to the good of the people. In terms of the systems of representation, it is the association of such characteristics on the Tutsis that helped to create the escalation of the conflict through the use of the media. Since the association of such characteristics makes a negative impact on ones identity, it only made the Tutsis that much more negatively associated. It seemed that the Hutus had total control of the media in the movie, which made the conflict all the more worse. Also with respect to the genocide, it was most likely the ideology of the Hutus of being less respected than the Tutsis established by Belgium that eventually led to this conflict. As stated in the article, the Tutsis had received better jobs and educational opportunities for a twenty year period before the genocide.
With respect to the international perspective, America and European countries have always been known for their intervention in Africa ever since the beginnings of the Columbian Exchange in the late fifteenth century. Now I go back to that particular instance because they were the beginnings of slave trade, where the ideologies of Western cultures had begun to view the blacks as slaves, or otherwise working machines and not humans. Such ideology probably led to little intervention from the Western countries, not to mention that the conflict was in a small country compared to some other countries out there. However, it is probably the non-support of sectarian conflicts such as this one that led to the decision of the UN to not support intervention in the Iraq War. While the main reason might have been no sighting of any weapons of mass destruction, I’m sure that potential sectarian violence between Shiites and Sunnis might have come into play as well. While the UN tried its best to help to extinguish any tensions, morale from the big five members of the UN seemed to be low. Seeing that the French sided with the Hutus didn’t help one bit either. In general, because of the way the Belgians took this on, this was a conflict to be had that could not be stopped, which is, in light of humanity, unfortunate!
On the lighter side of things, I hope everyone is enjoying their Spring Break! See you all back in class on Monday!
The radio broadcasted to the Hutus that the Tutsis were spying/invading privacy and being manipulative. It seems hypocritical. Many of the individuals didn't do anything. By being Tutsi, they were stereotyped into being some other idea where they should not continue their lives. :-/
-Fallon
1. The Hutu and the Tutsis have always been two separate tribes, however they are remarkably similar in culture, the share the same language, areas of living, and traditions. They lived in peace until the Belgium's colonized Rwanda. The Belgium's encouraged differences between them and gave and make everyone care identification cards stating which tribe they were. The colonizers claimed that the Tutsis were of a high class and above the Hutu.
2. The Belgiums created this seperation in order to more successfully, and easily rule the people of Rwanda. If there are two different classes of people then the country will be much easier to control. One class can lead the other.
3. The difference was marked mainly by their identification cards, the Belgium's also used the width of an individuals nose to determine the difference in class.
4. Radio broadcasts were used to send the signal that triggered the genocide, the radio broadcast used propaganda techniques to make all Tutsis the same, the movie showed the announcer referring to Tutsis as cockroaches almost every time he referred to them. This would make anyone listening to the radio think that all Tutsis are the same, nothing more than bugs and that killing them is a good thing.
5. Because of the established ideologies that the Hutu possessed about the Tutsis is the reason why the genocide occurred in the first place. and the west probably did not feel obligated to help in the first place because of their own ideologies about being superior to all other nations, especially poor African ones.
I agree most things above.Even though these two ethics are very similar, outside force, Belgians made distinct difference between them. This was a big problem, I think. They speak same language, inhabit the same areas and follow the same traditions. This means that they can live together without significant conflict of differences. However, Belgians made difference that the Tutsis as superior to the Hutus.
This ideology made conflict. So, their separation was not naturally created, but created by outside force.
I think that outside countries should not interfere other countries. It often makes mess.
It is very sad that people are just distinguished by thier identification cards.
As everyone said, the effect of radio was huge. By manipulating the radio, it could largely influence the behavior of people.
In reaction of film, it was very shocking that innocent people were killed and survivors didn't know when they were killed. They didn't have any protection, no help.
Also, I felt the power of money. Even though, they wanted to kill Tutsi, they dealt their lives with money. If they didn't have such big money, they would have killed without hesitation.
As stated by other members of the class the tribes were aready established when the Belgian's coloniezed the area, the reason they made these differences so distinct (even though the only real difference between the tribes was an identification card)was to be able to set up easily maintained social castes as were set up in in many countries as well as colonized areas, (Spain, India, etc.) This eventually caused major rifts heavily influenced by the media which was blindly one-sided, in most cases calling all "Good Hutus'" do get rid of the "Rebel cockroaches," the Tutsis' in the once very integrated tribes unfortunately ending in massive violence. The aspect that really apalled me was the fact that the west refused to help these people. I really cannot say that I am suprised considering There are very similar circumstances happening currently in places such as Darfur and in Columbia(FARC, not necessarily a genocide but definately not ideal conditions)as well as many others. It is just really discouraging to see how leaders of countries in a position of power veiw so many people as expendable, and essentially not worth their time.
The Tutsi and Hutu division was not at all a natural one. It was created by the Belgian colonial power in terms of things such as skin lightness, nose width, etc. in order for them to gain and maintain power over the country. In colonialization, the actual colonial power cannot hold enough people to govern all of the countries it colonizes, and therefore creates a government, designating certain people of the group power, and others to be governed by these individuals. That is what happened in the case of the Hutu and Tutsi division.
The only way the difference could actually be told was through papers each Hutu and Tutsi was designated to carry around.
In Hutu radio broadcasts, the Tutsi were proclaimed to be cockroaches, that needed to be squashed by Hutu power. This reflected the anomosity left over the colonial division in which the Tutsis were in power.
The West didn't seem to care much because Rwanda was a poor, black nation - and so decided not to concern themselves because of the ideologies that go along with blacks... in this case, they didn't think they were worth saving because of it.
I thought the film was very well done and informative... but also very sad to see humans mindlessly kill other humans, especially in such a graphic manner. However, I did like the film.
1) The division between the Hutus and Tutsis was not a natural division. Influence from the Belgians in the early 1900s split up the two groups by giving them identification cards. The Belgians perceived the Tutsis as more superior than the Hutus. Naturally, the Tutsis had a better education, better jobs, and a generally a better life than the Hutus. I could see why animosity would be created. If I were in that situation I would feel that it would not be fair whatsoever. One could say that the Belgians were the foundation for the genocide.
2. This seperation became distinct because when the Belgians came it would be very difficult to control two large groups. However, they could not treat them as one group regardless if they have the same language and similar cultures then they would lose their identity.
3.The only difference between the two groups was the identification cards the Belgians issued. And maybe going from the movie, the distinct patterns on their clothes the Hutus wore during killings.
4. Media played a big role of when the killings would happen. The Hutus would communicate via radio to make everyone believe that Tutsis are generally bad people and should be murdered. By getting the Hutus fired up the radio would often refer the Tutsis as cockroaches.
5.The fact that the Tutsis were perceived more superior by the Belgaians over the Hutus and over time their identity was established. The West did not want to get caught up in conflict and thus maybe cause a bigger war...Also the West had their idealogy of being superior over poor africans in Rwanda...So why would they care if they already think they are better than them?
The film told the key elements of the genocide and how everything happened. Having a family being the story showed how the genocide hit families and personally hit individuals. I'm happy the movie was horrific and gory because if it wasn't the movie would be almost lying about what really happened and the movie should depict what really happened so the viewer would be emotionally affected.
I watched a different movie about the Rwandan genocide last year in my composition class. It was about the brother of the man who was broadcasting all the hate messages on the radio, and his struggle as a Hutu military man with a Tutsi wife. I do not remember the name of it, but it was very similar to Hotel Rwanda.
One thing that was in each was the news broadcast in which a politician was dodging the word genocide by saying it is possible that acts of genocide have been committed. When questioned what the difference was she stumbled on her words and began repeating herself.
This shows how we will try to avoid the reality of an atrocity by simply using softer words, or taking all feeling and emotion out of describing the event.
The Hutus had no problem leaving the emotion in their radio broadcasts when they called for extermination of the tutsi cockroaches.
1)The difference between the Hutus and Tutsis was not a natural one whatsoever. In fact, both ethnicities spoke the same language, lived in the same areas, and shared the same traditions. It was the Belgians who created this difference by giving the power to the Tutsis. By doing so, it created a difference in power between the two ethnicities.
2)I'm not quite sure why the Belgian colonial power created this difference..
3)Difference is marked by what one group or persons is or isn't compared to another group or persons. The difference here was marked by the Tutsis having power, better jobs, better lives, and the Hutus not having any of that.
4)Meanings such as cockroaches and good-for-nothing people were being attached to the Tutsi people through the hate propaganda on the radio.
5)Well the meanings that were given to the Tutsi people caused the Hutus to kill and murder the Tutsi people. The West's reaction to the genocides that were occurring was very slow and didn't produce any help or effort for Rwanda at all. That was probably a result of the meanings attached to Rwandans. For example, the West might have figured that the Rwandans do not affect them at all and therefore the West wanted nothing to do with the Rwandans.
Hotel Rwanda was a very depressing, horrific, and eye-opening movie. I had no idea that the genocides had even occurred. It truly is a horrific thing that happened to the people of Rwanda and what they suffered. No one should ever have to go through something like that. I really hope that things are much better over there right now and I have so much empathy for those who suffered and died during the mass killings.
This was my second time watching the film and it was just as hard to watch as the first time. But I didnt experience the same shock as I did last time. When I first saw it, I remember I had thought, how could I not know about this? How could we have let it happen? Its terrifying to think that we were sitting at home, going through or day to day actions, while somewhere around the world people were getting killed because of the word that was placed on their ID. Children being killed senselessly, families seperated...I just cant understand that though the world says "Never forget" in reference to the horrors of the Holocuast we can let something like this happen. We seem to have very short memories...
After looking back at all the comments i saw that i didn't have one. I had written this long response but i don't know where it went, it probably didn't publish.
Anyways i thought i would just do a short response about the movie. This movie was very eye opening. I always hear the tern, genocide, but can't put a picture to what is happening. This movie showed me how awful and horrible the world can really be. The Hutu and Tutsi's were no different then one another. They all grew up in Rwanda and lived similar lives. I was disgusted at the fact that people could turn on one another so easily. This conflict should have been prevented. It reminds me a lot of what is going on today in Darfur. These people are fighting for really no good reason. Nothing politically has changed and thousands and thousands of people are dying.
This movie was very eye-opening to the world that we live in.
-chelsey m
The division in Rwandan society into two different groups- the Hutus and the Tutsis is not a natural division. It was created by Belgians during colonization of the country in 1916. Even though the two groups have been in conflict for some time, the Belgian colonists made a distinct division and difference by producing identity cards separating people and giving one group superiority over the other. Belgian colonial power created this difference to make it easier to control the country. Also, by concentrating people’s anger and frustration against each other provides the cushion and safe ruling for Belgians. This way one group of people can blame the other one for their misfortune.
It is interesting to witness that there is no apparent difference between Tutsis and Hutus. They speak the same language, and follow same traditions. There is no apparent physical difference as well. So the created by Belgians symbol – the identity card is the only difference between the two groups.
The media was playing a major role in helping to create the classification. The radio was constantly broadcasting negative messages toward one group, calling Tutsis cockroaches, something insignificant and less than people. That way it made it easier for Hutus to hate Tutsis and by dehumanizing them made it easier to murder Tutsi.
The most difficult part of the movie to watch was killing of the little children at the orphanage. And the explanations of Hutus murderers of such horrible act as to exterminate any Tutsi bloodline…. I don’t care how upset one is about the superiority of the other group, but to kill innocent children and somehow justify it… It takes a heartless man, somebody who is inhumane, a monster and a coward.
Natalia K
Post a Comment