Fisher - The Scars of Genocide Run Deep

This weeks blog is on the genocide that occurred in Rwanda over a 100 day period in 1994. Over this period of time 800,000 were reported dead, not including any disappearances. The total death toll was 1,000,000+ ; if you do the simple math, that is an average of 10,000 people a day being killed. Much like Sarajevo of last week's blog, these events went on unnoticed. They were muffled by the media as they pushed the 1994 World Cup, held in America for the first time, to the front headlines. The world was captivated by the build up to the largest attended World Cup to date. Needless to say, Rwanda did not qualify, had they, maybe the headlines would have been different. This is the second event that we have discussed in two weeks whose story was hidden from the public. I am sensing a correlation here between genocide and media cover-up. One would think it would be the opposite. Does not bad news and death catch the public's attention easier than good news? Would not the reporting of mass genocide put your company to the top? And they could still cover the World Cup. I see no reason to stifle these stories. They contain graphic images, survival stories, mass killings, all things that would fascinate an average human being. Food for thought.

In order to get a better picture of the happenings in Rwanda, the class was assigned to read Murambi, the Book of Bones and watch Hotel Rwanda. These follow the lives of a few who were involved in these horrific events. The book, written by Boubacar Boris Diop a journalist and nine other African writers, was an attempt of remembrance of what happened during the genocide. To do this, the writers went to Rwanda in order to see and hear for themselves in order to do justice to the story. The story is split into four parts, but follows Cornelius Uvimana, a young history teacher who returns to Rwanda from exile to find his family, except for his uncle, dead. His uncle, Siméon Habineza, was present when all this happened yet he remains vigil each day as he bears the weight of his experiences. The book speaks to the reader with voices of the victims and the perpetrators. It also rejects the idea of retaliation as a way of repentance. This is very forward thinking and would be difficult for any man/woman/child who was wronged in this manner to do. However, it is a good idea to preach as retaliation would only lead to more suffering and death which would most likely continue the circle of violence and vengeance.

The movie follows Paul Rusesabagina a Hutu hotel manager. He works at a European hotel in Rwanda and is left to run the place after all the white managent leaves, fearing for their lives. He turns the hotel into a shelter, saving the lives of 1,268 Tutsis including his own wife and children. The movie contains many graphic images and scenes that attempt to shock the viewer into the realization of what was actually occurring. It was full on hate crimes being committed again the Tutsis by the Hutus. This came from the Tutsis having precedence over the Hutus due the their more angular features, heighth, and lighter skin. Therefore, they received better education, living quarters, and working conditions. The Hutus took up arms (supplied by China) against the Tutsis in attempt to "exterminate the cockroach infestation", referring to the Tutsis as insects. And they were treated as such, without any regard for human life. This can be compared to the Nazi's subjugation and eradication of European Jews. The Nazis viewed Jews as less than human or "life not deserving of life" and saw their own race as superior. In Rwanda there was the difference that the Tutsis originally were held in higher regard and the lower class tribe took the initiative. How odd would it have been for the Jews to have subjugated the German people? Scary right?

Fuhrer: Rwanadan Genocide

This week we cover the Tutsi Rwandan Genocide. It is important to note that even before the Genocide in Rwanda tensions had already been strained between the two native tribal groups of the land. In fact one could trace the conflict to even before the country gained independence (1962) all the way to European colonial rule when Belgium (and many other European countries) scrambled to colonize the valuable land and resources of Africa.

At the time of their occupation The Belgians favored the Tutsis and gave them an advantage over the Hutus socially and economically this sparked the animosity between the two groups which reached its breaking point on April 6 th 1994 when President Juvenal Habyarimani is assassinated. His death is blamed on the RPF (Rwanda Patriotic Front) and its mostly Tutsi members although Hutu extremists who wanted to use President Habyarimanis death as an excuse to take power could have just as easily carried out the assassination.

 In any case what comes next is a horrifying attack on Tutsi citizens that lasted a hundred days carried out for the most part by the Interahamwe a militia made up of young men not connected to the army but never the less instructed by the new Hutu government to carry out the attacks. In those hundred days nearly a million Rwandan’s are killed (the death toll is said to be 800,000 but other reports insist it is more.) and as the quote from Murambi rightly indicates “the rest of the world was watching Soccer in America…”commenting how unlike in the cases of the more well known genocides carried out in Europe, foreign assistance (and by foreign I mean Europe) closed itself off to Africa even though the conflict itself could be traced back to them.

The novel Murambi, Book of Bones is a story written by Senegalese Journalist Boubacar Boris Diop who along with 9 other prominent African writers travelled around in post genocide Rwanda to see what they as artists could do to make sure that the stories of those who suffered through are told.  The story itself centers itself around an ethnically mixed Rwandan named Cornelius Uvimana a History teacher who after nearly a long period of exile from his home in Djibouti finally is allowed to come back in 1994, four years after the Genocide. The novel itself is made up of four parts.

The first and third parts contain snippets of narratives that follow people who each had their own part to play in the Genocide this it seems to highlight that no ones hands were entirely clean of what had happened and demonstrates a human beings capacity to do good and commit evil. This idea most notably seen in Part three where Cornelius's father a well respected doctor of Hutu descent, betrays the trust of not only the Tutsi people he promises to save but also his wife and two children (His wife being of Tutsi descent) when he offers them sanctuary at a Polytechnic college (located in Murambi) but then allows the militia to surround it and kill everyone inside. This despicable act from someone who obviously must have been a good person at one point shows the very cold blooded nature that war insights in people and the fact that Joseph is not only willing but wanting to get rid of his Tutsi wife and his own children shows just how strong the hatred between the two groups really were.

Hotel Rwanda on the other hand tells the tale of Hutu hotel manager Paul Rusesabagina who like Joseph (Paul’s wife is also Tutsi) is given the chance to help hundreds of his Tutsi neighbors by allowing them refuge in the hotel he works in. The neighbors are then joined by hundreds more refugees who are sent to the hotel from over populated Red cross and United Nations refugee camps. His struggle to care for them, to negotiate their safe keeping and that of his family is contrasted by the UN peace keepers to assert themselves in to conflict as they are obliged to not intervene in Genocide. Instead they began to evacuate all expats living in Rwanda. This reluctance to help I believe is shown to its most dramatic effect when a journalist Jack Daglish who is just about to leave the hotel is asked by a Tutsi woman who he had a one night stand with to take her with him. He apologizes and tells the crying woman that he cannot then as he leaves he tells his friend “I feel so ashamed.” The comment itself seemingly directed at both the journalist’s and the foreign powers that didn’t find it necessary to intervene.