The first time that I had ever even heard of the mass genocide in Rwanda was when the movie, Hotel Rwanda, was released. I was probably in seventh or eighth grade and had a pretty good understanding of what took place during the Holocaust but no knowledge whatsoever of other genocides. After reading several articles online, I would say that the movie accurately portrays the sentiment the Western world had towards Rwanda. Being an extremely poor country with few natural resources to offer, there was nothing in it for other countries to come to their aid. It simply wasn’t worth the time or effort, but watching Brazil kick ass in the World Cup was. Rather early on in the film, Don Cheadle’s character is sitting at the hotel bar with Joaquin Phoenix, and Cheadle is explaining to him the difference between the Hutus and the Tutsi’s. Phoenix then asks the two girls at the next table what they are. He is in amazement that one is Hutu and the other Tutsi, because there appears to be no difference between the two. The genocide only lasted one hundred days, but the death toll was close to a million, compared to the Holocaust’s, which was around 11 million (some say it could be around 20 million) in the time span of twelve years. The Hutu’s managed to “exterminate” almost a million “cockroaches” in about a third of a year. The novel, Murambi, came about through the initiative of African writers in hopes of commemorating and reflecting on the atrocities that happened in Rwanda. The novel’s main character is Cornelius Uvimana, a young history teacher who returns home to Rwanda four years (1998) after the genocide. The sole survivor of his family is his uncle Simeon Habineza. Both men try to continue living their lives. Cornelius attempts to work through his inner issues by turning his (the genocide) story into a play. Even though he was able to seek asylum in Djibouti, once he returns home he has no knowledge of what happened to his family and friends. In a way his absence can be seen harmful in the sense that it has left him so disconnected from what has happened to his people, compared to his uncle who stayed and endured the pain. Another issue that reappears throughout the novel is the idea of the victim versus the perpetrator. At one point Cornelius refers to himself as “the perfect Rwandan: both guilty and a victim.” He then goes on to say, “Maybe it was absurd of the victims to keep proclaiming their innocence so obstinately.” With this it is implied that in order for the victims to “redeem themselves as subjects of history” they must move on positively towards forgiveness.
Fisher - Comment on Cardon
ReplyDeleteI remember that the first time I heard about the Rwanda Genocide was when the movie Hotel Rwanda came out, so I can relate to that. However, the movie came out in 2004, when I was fourteen, ten years after the event had happened. At first I was saddened by this fact. That no one had heard about or was really concerned with the ongoings in this poor country. But then I had the realization that if I had known about it any sooner, it would have confused me greatly. I would have had hundreds or questions. Some as simple as "why are they doing that?" It would be bold for me to say this but I feel like most of the world's populace became familiar with what happened in Rwanda through this movie. I never had heard of Murambi, the Book of Bones so I can only assume that it reached a much smaller number of people, most likely due to the medium as a text.
Nice photo choice.
Shaw:
ReplyDeleteAngela, I really like your point about Cornelius that, "In a way his absence can be seen harmful in the sense that it has left him so disconnected from what has happened to his people." A lot of times when I read stories of genocide I find myself thinking, "why didn't they leave, why didn't they just get out before it started?" In this situation seeing a person who left and then returned, it's a little difficult to recognize him as a victim since he never had to endure any of the suffering that his community did. It's hard to reconcile the fact that he survived by escaping when the rest of his family endured so much suffering. It makes me wonder what the perception would be of others who escaped genocides and then returned afterwards.
Pauli comment on Cardon
ReplyDeleteI agree with you that the only reason other nations did not interfere in the killings is because Rwanda does not offer any sort of resource worth defending. The world was obviously preoccupied with other affairs and the mass killing of innocent people was not important enough. I did not hear about the genocide in Rwanda till I assigned to watch the movie in high school, which is interesting because students learn about the Holocaust early on in school. Something that was taking place at that current time was not even reaching the public's attention!
Two good points: That nobody really heard about the genocide until the film HR was made, and that the country did not have much to offer the West, so no reason to get involved.
ReplyDelete