The Rwandan genocide vs. the Holocaust
“Genocide is an attempt to exterminate a people, not to alter their behavior.” Jack Schwartz. Genocide is mass murder, it happens in all parts of the world. A common known genocide is the Holocaust. Where a group known as the“Nazis” (lead by Hitler) murdered more than six million people (many were Jewish). Another is the Rwandan genocide, the Belgians split Rwanda's tribe as “Hutus” and “Tutsis”, based on the width of their nose. When the Belgians left Rwanda the Tutsis were left in charge. This angered the Hutus so they tried to exterminate them with machetes after they ran out of bullets. Both of these examples are horrible mass killings, very similar, but also very different.
For instance, one difference is where they took place. The Holocaust was mostly in Europe and the Rwandan genocide was in Africa (Rwanda). The fact that they were so far away from each other proves that genocides can happen anywhere. Some just because one person doesn't like a group (Hitler in reference to the Holocaust). Both groups took their “victims” by surprise per-say. If either had known what was coming they could've gotten help sooner. No
…show more content…
Both groups took innocent lives. Mothers, fathers, and children. Some weren't even the age to know right from wrong. Genocides all (usually) target a specific group of people. They still happen today, if you think about it these two mass murders weren't that long ago. They both occurred in the nineteen-hundreds. It's much easier to save lives before a group becomes strong enough to take them. That's why we have the UN (United Nations). The UN was created after the Holocaust, multiple countries working together so one doesn't become too powerful. As a hope to prevent or stop further genocides. The problem is that the UN can't help much in certain countries like Rwanda. Otherwise, more people wouldn't have