For several decades various cultures have been rich with history and traditions that transcended time. However these cultures go through very dark times such as genocide. Genocide is the deliberate killing of a large group of people, specifically those of a particular ethnic group or nation. On one hand neutrality is a positive alternative of genocide because if a country stays neutral, that country would likely have peace. On the other hand being a bystander or being neutral is letting thousands of innocent lives die at your hands. This inaction by the decisions of a country influences people to deem their self interests more important than the unity and prosperity of the human race as a whole. Neutrality is a very hard decision and can have a number of different impacts both positive and negative, which is highly controversial but neutrality should not be used as a decision for a country. …show more content…
For instance people in a country controlled by genocide are scared to take action because they think they would be targeted. Before the genocide, there were 7 million people in Rwanda divided into three different ethnical groups. The three groups are the Hutus, Tutsis, and Twas. After the genocide the population decreased to 1.4 million people. As stated in Outreach programme Rwanda genocide and the United Nation, “Thousands died of waterborne disease and they continued to target civilian populations which caused deaths, injury and harm.” This shows that many people in Rwanda died from diseases and some died from being targeted during the genocide. This evidence is significant because it shows the population decrease in Rwanda and also shows the negative impact of genocide in Rwanda. This genocide impacted the history of Rwanda and also the people in
Click here to unlock this and over one million essaysShow More
leaders, and U.N. officials that the U.S. ulti- mately could have done a lot more to help the genocide in Rwanda. Power has most definitely impacted my thinking and views on this topic as I did not realize the U.S. had such an immense role in the genocide of Rwanda. This assignment has provided me with an interesting insight and that is, I did not realize how effective evidence and the use of appeals would help an argumenta- tive piece of writing so much. Davami 4 Work
In the Rwanda genocide and Bosnia, nationalists were exterminating the local relationships. The guards in the prison camps in Bosnia wanted to make sure that Muslims and Serbs would never bond with each other again. Prisoners would fear of becoming recognized because a nationalist recognizing them meant that they would get tortured (Fujii 2015, 4). Guards beat up Serb prisoners because the prisoner had ties with Muslims before or after the war. Nationalist did not only want demolish Muslims and Serbs relationship, but establish a new meaning of being a Serb (Fujii 2015, 8).
Throughout the semester this class has presented information that wasn’t known to me, for example that there is a specific definition for the term genocide, there are deeper reasons into committing genocide, and that there are other genocides besides the Holocaust. With my new found knowledge I plan on discussing and answering two question that have been presented after completing this course, first, while studying the Holocaust, the Armenian Genocide, and the Rwandan Genocide, one has to notice that all three incidents take place during times of war whether from outside aggressors or internally between one another, so one must question why are genocides (these in particular) more likely to occur during wartime? The next question that must be answered deals with the first-person accounts of these acts and how the accounts reflect the events that took place? Do the recollections help explain what truly took place, are they truly accurate or do they contradict anything we’ve learned and introduce more questions than they answer. To ultimately answer the first question of why genocides tend to take place during times of war, one has to think that there is some type of advantage of committing genocide during times of war and for this question I have decided to compare two cases to help answer this question, The Holocaust and The Armenian Genocide.
No, the shooting down of President Habyarimana’s plane did not initiate the genocide but rather, the genocide was affected by the deep rooted tensions between two groups who inhabited Rwanda, the Hutu’s and the Tutsi’s. These two groups had gone through a long period of power struggles which will be explored throughout this essay. Showing that the genocide did not occur as a result of one assassination. “It is buried too deep in grudges, under an accumulation of misunderstandings...’ . Although it is argued that the plane crash did indeed initiate the genocide and that the genocide was merely a reaction to the plane crash.
The Rwandan genocide was a mass slaughter of the Tutsi population that lasted 100 days from the 7th of April to the 15th of July in 1994. Although the United Nations Assistance Mission for Rwanda existed at the time, Canada and the international community still failed to help Rwanda as a whole, as individual countries, and by not doing what they could to aid Roméo Dallaire. As an international community as a whole, there was far more that could have been done to help Rwanda through the United Nations and as individual countries. UNAMIR, or United Nations Assistance Mission for Rwanda, was made to keep peace in Rwanda and started a year before the genocide occurred.
C. Introduction The Rwandan genocide lasted three months and in those three months it is said that 1 million Tutsis were killed. The Holocaust lasted 4 years and 6 million Jews were killed. Bearing this in mind it would be expected that The Rwandan genocide should be extremely well known because of the loss of lives, impact and brutality of the event and the similarities it holds with The Holocaust. The fact is that the Rwandan Genocide is not very well known and is not thought to be in the same category as The Holocaust, where in fact it is.
Subsequently, the biggest difference between the Rwandan genocide and the Holocaust is the methods used by the
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).
Genocide is a very serious matter and should not be taken lightly. It is a horrible crime that no government should ever instill on their people. Genocide is the destruction of an entire human group based on nationality, religion, race, and ethnic identity. In 2007 the Montreal conference pressured politicians to take genocide from other places seriously. General Romeo Dallaire’s forces were in Rwanda to stop a genocide, but due to lack of resources they had to stop the mission.
In Germany, during the 1940’s, most people stood by as these events happened. Their behaviour is not unique to Germany and has been repeated throughout history. As the bystanders displacement of human weakness contributes to the genocide itself. More recently this type of behaviour was demonstrated in Rwanda. The film Hotel Rwanda articulates the significant impact that speaking truth to authority can have.
World Without Genocide states, “Over 480,000 people have been killed, and over 2.8 million people are displaced.” Using cultural relativism in the Darfur genocide, we can improve or stop the situation. Cultural relativism is understanding other cultures on their own terms, in their own context. A World Without Genocide says, the Darfur genocide started in 2003 and is being carried out by Arab militias called the Janjaweed.
The Rwandan genocide was a mass murder of thousands of Tutsi people by the Hutu people, they were viciously killed and scared out of their country, partly due to the rumor that a Tutsi man ordered the death of the Rwandan President. To begin, from April to July 1994, members of the Hutu ethnic group in the East-Central African nation murdered 800,000 men, women, and children from the Tutsi ethnic group. During this period Hutu civilians were forced by military soldier and police officers to kill their neighbors, friends, and family (“10 facts About the Rwandan Genocide-Borgen”). Radio stations encouraged ordinary civilians to take part in the killings (“10 facts About the Rwandan Genocide-Borgen”).
official describing the decision to not intervene in Rwanda. The U.S. official is quoted as saying that, “it was a foregone conclusion that military intervention was not on the table for discussion; it was automatically concluded that the United States would not take part in stopping the Rwandan genocide.” Which showed that, all deaths are not the same. The emotionally effect that the genocide caused on the people of Rwanda was massive. During a 100-day period, the people were tortured and terrorized as they saw those they love die and feared the loss of their own life.
The genocide was an after affect of the scramble for Africa by European countries who help no regard for the people who already lived their. In the scramble for Africa many European countries raced to make claims on land in Africa that was already lived on by natives, they mistreated the natives and killed and enslaved many of them. This was prevalent in Rwanda when the belgians imperialized the land. The belgians sent the Hutus who were the majority of the population into slavery and lead to mass deaths of their people. But they lead the land through another ethnic group the tutsis who made up about 15% of the population compared to the 85% population of Hutus.
In fact, Rwanda has a long history of politicization of land: those who held political power often intervened and appropriated land for their own purposes” Thus struggle for power by both ethnic groups is what we ultimately see on the outside as to why this conflict occurred, however it is in fact because those who owned the land had the power that we know that this issue was more of a territorial one. This conflict turned into such violent one as the Hutus believed that the only way to gain ownership of the land and of the power was to exterminate the Tutsi. Land belonging to Tutsi was distributed to Hutu after they were killed or exiled. It is because of the twos deep rooted hatred and resentment of one and other that the violence escalated to such a horrific