Monday, November 26, 2012
Rwandan Genocide Writing Assignment
Answer
the following questions in paragraph form:
1) Judging from what you have seen, read, and heard, could genocide occur again, in Rwanda or other parts of the world? Why or why not?
2) What is the nature and limit of personal responsibility in the 21st century? Support your personal view with evidence from the film and/or from your own knowledge of current events.
3) "The events of Sept. 11, 2001 changed how America views its responsibilities in the world." Agree or disagree, supporting your view with evidence from the film and/or from your own knowledge of current events.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
My name is Anthony Ibrahim and I want to make something very clear to all who are reading this – “America has no permanent friends or enemies, only interests.” These are the words of Henry Kissinger, former United States National Security Advisor and Secretary of State as well as winner of the Nobel Peace Prize (1973). If telling the truth was equivalent to gold, Henry Kissinger’s words would be deemed a national treasure. I have been told this exact statement by the Assistant Secretary of State for Africa Affairs (George Moose who you all saw in the film Ghosts of Rwanda), former standing United States Ambassador to Rwanda (Laura Lane who you all saw in the film Ghosts of Rwanda), heads of state, the Policy Director for the House Budget Committee, the U.S. Ambassador to Burma, the U.S. Ambassador to Malawi, the Head of International Government Affairs for Citigroup, the Deputy Assistant to Richard Nixon, the former U.S. Global AIDS Coordinator, George W. Bush’s Chief of Staff, senators, congresswomen and congressmen. This list simply does not do the aforementioned statement justice. All you need to do to comprehend what it means to have “interests” is to look at a country’s history of action and inaction. Every time a country takes a stance on an issue and is moved to action, it is because said country feels strongly enough about the circumstance due to certain interests (whether it be resources, spreading an ideology, opposing an ideology, or other ulterior motives). Whatever the case may be, our history proves this to be the case. Even a remedial course taken in International Relations or Global Affairs will teach you that every country operates based on a grand strategy and this strategy is the foundation for all decisions made and all actions taken.
ReplyDeleteNow that I have glanced over how a country operates at the most basic level, let me now move on to the pith of my blog post – the Rwandan Genocide. But before I go into the oversimplified and overlooked conflict of one African majority tribe killing another African minority tribe, I must give you the history of Rwanda before anything else. Any woman or man trying to understand the genocide that happened in the tiny Central African nation must first understand Rwanda’s history. For all those familiar with United States history, you may remember a man by the name of Marcus Garvey. A former teacher at Pacific Ridge regarded him as the crazy black guy who wanted to send all Africans back to Africa. This is me paraphrasing of course, but I think it captures the sentiment of what Mr. Rachlin wanted us to know for the AP test. Even though this is probably the only thing that comes to mind when you hear the name Marcus Garvey, he said something very prolific regarding the concept of history. He said, “A people without the knowledge of their past history, origin and culture is like a tree without roots.” One cannot simply read a book or watch a movie about the Rwandan Genocide to fully comprehend Rwanda. One must understand Rwanda as a whole – the people, the culture, the language, the geography, the economy, the government, and the history – while supplementing this knowledge with books and movies. In a perfect world, this all must be done before even trying to remotely summarize what happened in Rwanda. Now this isn’t a perfect world and not everyone is going to catch the next plane to Rwanda. This is actually highly impractical for the vast majority of people so all I kindly ask is that you err on the side of caution before making claims or generalizations about either ethnic group or country’s responsibility for that matter. But I too am nowhere near where I would like to be in terms of my studies of the country so I must also proceed with caution because who am I to talk about what can and cannot happen in a country on the other side of the world.
So let us begin on our journey through the history of Rwanda. We will start around the late 19th century. From the years 1895-1916, Rwanda was colonized by the Germans. Let me make something else very clear. Rwanda did not choose to be colonized. If they controlled their own destiny, I know with 100% conviction that Rwanda would not have faced the 1994 Genocide. But how could a colonial power such as Germany invade other countries if the victims had the opportunity to say “No thank you Mr. Adolf. We prefer to take care of ourselves.” This simply is not how the world works and this is definitely not how colonization works. It is based off a power inequality model. If I am bigger, stronger, better equipped, and more intelligent than you are, I will take advantage of you whether you like it or not. This can be translated into modern day society regarding monopolies in business, persons who are driven to use rape as a means of asserting authority, and other aspects of our everyday life. So a few years into the First World War, Belgian troops invade Rwanda. After the war ends, the League of Nations grants Belgium authority over Rwanda in the year 1923. The Belgians are able to maintain authority and keep Rwanda under colonial occupation until the year 1962 when Rwanda achieves independence.
ReplyDeleteRwandans were associated with 18 different clans. The categories of Hutu, Tutsi, and Twa were socio-economic classifications within the clans where were subject to change. Let me reiterate that the different clans were primarily based off of socio-economic standing. After conducting research in Rwanda and questioning Rwandans from the city to countryside, not even they could tell me what the distinctions were between Hutu and Tutsi. Tutsi were thought to be lighter skinned with more European facial features and rather tall while Hutus were thought to be darker skinned with more African features and much shorter in stature. Even with this simplified description, there have been many marriages between Hutus and Tutsis which only complicated distinguishing the two groups. There are many arguments out there regarding genealogy, migration, language, and other factors to separate the two but at the end of the day, even Rwandans had trouble identifying if someone was a Hutu or Tutsi if they were not familiar with the person. This was also one of the driving reasons why the Belgians issued identity cards in 1932. The Belgians were a colonial power and wanted unrest in the central African nation. The most logical way of creating unrest is by establishing an imbalance in power. The law went as follows:
Anyone with more than 10 cows was Tutsi
Anyone with less than 10 cows was Hutu
This first attempt at creating a divide was rather flawed because if a Rwandan had 10 cows, they more or less had to default to the identity that their family sided with. Also if a Rwandan acquired more cows, it was possible for them to obtain a new identity card (though this was a rare occurrence). The Catholic Church attempted to solidify the divide by implementing extremely racist “Hamitic” ideology. This practice portrayed Hutus as a superior group. This idea that portrayed Hutus as an inferior people did not last long. With the Second World War coming to a close and Belgium realizing that they needed to change the balance in power currently in place, they decided to favor Hutus as the superior party. This was done for a number of reasons. One of the most important reasons was that Hutus were the majority with 84% of the population while Tutsis were the minority with 15% of the population. The other 1% of the population was categorized as other – Twa took up a large portion of this 1%. Col. Logiest Guy is quoted with saying “I deemed it necessary to rapidly out in place a local militia fore officially composed of 14% Tutsi and 86% Hutu but in eddect and for all practical purposes 100% Hutu.” The colonel wrote a book called “Missin au Rwanda” showing the increasing imbalance of power starting in 1960 in favor of Hutu Power prior to independence in ’62. In 1959, the Tutsi King, King Rudahigwa died, and massacres of Tutsis were organized. Thousands were killed, the 1961 elections took place, and Hutus filled the entirety of the government. A year later independence is achieved. Juvénal Habyarimana (Hutu President) established the MRND (Mouvement républicain national pour la démocratie et le développement). This political party translated into the National Republican Movement for Democracy and Development. The president’s MRND party was responsible for establishing the Interahamwe – an extremist Hutu Youth Militia. The Interahame advocated for Hutu Power and Hutuness at the expense of Tutsi lives. By 1990 the genocidal ideology of Hutu power had been perfected.
ReplyDeleteBefore I continue, allow me to give a quick summary on the etymology of the word “Interahamwe”. When you think of the Holocaust or of Nazism or of Hitler, what image comes into your mind? Usually you would think of a Swastika. And a Swastika usually elicits feelings of disgust or hatred or reminds you of groups of military men wearing the symbol on their arms. Well Swastikas were never paired with any of these things before Hitler came along; Swastikas were actually paired with feelings of joy, luck, and being good. Swastikas are said to have been used for over 300 years. Specifically, they are used throughout Indian culture in regards to the religions of Buddhism and Hinduism. These religions revered the swastika as a symbol which was directly correlated to successful outcomes. The word actually derives from the Sanskrit word svastika. If you break the word up into three parts you get – “su” meaning “good, “asti” meaning “to be”, and “ka” is the suffix. So a word that is associated with the killing of approximately 11 million people actually meant “to be good.” This is about as sick and repulsive as it gets. Now back to the etymology of the Interahamwe. You might even see where I am going with this. Interahamwe is Kinyarwanda (the native language) for “those who work together as one.” After speaking with the director of an organization whose mission was to spread awareness about the genocide through the arts such as paintings and theatrical performances, I was informed that “Intera” meant “work” and “hamwe” meant “together” and “rimwe” meant “one.” Just as the Swatiska went from the meaning “to be good” to a symbol of the holocaust, so too did the word Interahame which went from the meaning “to work together as one” to a symbol of the Rwandan Genocide.
One more note on the parallel between the Holocaust and the Rwandan Genocide. In class, Stanley Milgram (one of the most renowned social psychologists in America) was brought up along with his infamous Obedience to Authority experiments. After reading his several hundred page book cover to cover I was simply dumbfounded. Now I was not taken aback by the ethical dilemmas posed by Mr. Milgram’s experiment even though critics denounce this as one the worst ethical models to follow when conducting an experiment. I was not even startled when I found out that 79% of people delivered the final and massive 450 volt shock. Yes, 79% of people administered the ultimate and deathly 450 volt shock. It was not 30% of people as some may logically conclude; it was not 50% of people, but it was an astonishing 79% of people. You must be wondering where I was dumbfounded in an experiment that resulted in the vast majority of participants administering what they believed to be the final death blow. Stanley Milgram being the intelligent professor that he is decided to survey 14 Psychology Majors at Yale University (the university that Mr. Milgram was a professor at) and asked them out of 100 participants, how many would deliver the maximum shock. From the 14 Psychology Majors, the responses ranged from a minimum of 0 persons to a maximum of 3 persons would deliver the maximum shock. Stanley Milgram then went on to survey 40 Psychiatrists and asked them out of 100 participants, how many would deliver the maximum shock. I dare you to guess what they said? 100%? No that is way too high Tony. Ok what about 80%? No humans are much more decent than that Tony. Ok Ok fine. What about 30%? Everyone seems to love this number because anything above this would be absolutely atrocious. Ok 30% sounds good to me. Well guess again because the Psychiatrists predicted that one tenth of one percent would deliver that maximum blow. That is how confident they were in their professions, their belief systems, and moreover their belief in the goodness of humans. They said one tenth of one percent would deliver the maximum blow. Well to add a little comedy into the mix and to quote a man whose work we all know and love, Mr. John Ghazvinian would say that “shit has hit the fan!” But the psychiatrists and the psych majors and everyone else wasn’t idiotic or ill prepared to answer Mr. Milgram’s question. They believed that humans had decency and our friend from the movie Tsotsi would agree. You would deem someone psychotic if they believed that practically 80% of participants in an experiment would listen to a random authority figure and administer a death shock to another stranger who never did anything to the participant to elicit such a punishment. We all know and were raised with the golden rule “treat others how you would like to be treated.” As much as we would like to believe in this almighty rule, when put in a situation where you believe you must be obedient to authority, you tend to do things you would have never imagined doing in your life.
ReplyDeleteAnyways…Back to our historical overview, over 700,000 Tutsis were exiled from Rwanda between the years 1959-1973 as a result of ethnic cleansing encouraged by Belgian Colonists. The most noteworthy piece is that all refugees were barred from returning to their homes. Many decided to take up arms and join the Rwandan Patriotic Front (RPF) who on October 1st 1990, invaded Rwanda. Despite the French being fully aware of the massacres and practice genocides taking place, France continued to show its support for the Hutu government. In the same year that the RPF launched its attack, the “10 Commandments of the Bahutu” were established. This lists was filled with the most racist and sickening claims a person can think of.
Below is the full text which I encourage you to take a look at closely. This just goes to show you the extent to which “hate speech” played in the Rwandan Genocide.
ReplyDeleteTen Commandments of the Bahutu
1. Every Hutu male should know that Tutsi women, wherever they may be, are working in the pay of their Tutsi ethnic group. Consequently, shall be deemed a traitor:
Any Hutu male who marries a Tutsi woman;
Any Hutu male who keeps a Tutsi concubine;
Any Hutu male who makes a Tutsi woman his secretary or protégée.
2. Every Hutu male must know that our Hutu daughters are more dignified and conscientious in their role of woman, wife or mother. Are they not pretty, good secretaries and more honest!
3. Hutu women, be vigilant and bring your husbands, brothers and sons back to their senses.
4. Every Hutu male must know that all Tutsi are dishonest in their business dealings. They are only seeking their ethnic supremacy. “Time will tell.” Shall be considered a traitor, any Hutu male:
who enters into a business partnership with Tutsis;
who invests his money or State money in a Tutsi company;
who lends to, or borrows from, a Tutsi;
who grants business favors to Tutsis (granting of important licenses, bank loans, building plots, public tenders…) is a traitor.
5. Strategic positions in the political, administrative, economic, military and security domain should, to a large extent, be entrusted to Hutus.
6. In the education sector (pupils, students, teachers) must be in the majority Hutu.
7. The Rwandan Armed Forces should be exclusively Hutu. That is the lesson we learned from the October 1990 war. No soldier must marry a Tutsi woman.
8. Hutus must cease having pity for the Tutsi.
9. The Hutu male, wherever he may be, must be united, in solidarity and be concerned about the fate of their Hutu brothers;
The Hutu at home and abroad must constantly seek friends and allies for the Hutu Cause, beginning with our Bantu brothers;
They must constantly counteract Tutsi propaganda;
The Hutu must be firm and vigilant towards their common Tutsi enemy.
10. The 1959 social revolution, the 1961 referendum and the Hutu ideology must be taught to Hutus at all levels. Every Hutu must propagate the present ideology widely. Any Hutu who persecutes his Hutu brother for having read, disseminated and taught this ideology shall be deemed a traitor.
Approximately three years following the establishment of the Ten Commandments of the Bahutu, President Habyarimana and the RPF were able to broker a ceasefire. This ceasefire was part of the peace process known as the Arusha Peace Accords. In August 1993, the accords were signed and called for:
- A democratically elected government to be put in place
- A neutral force to be deployed
- All French troops to evacuate Rwanda
- All refugees to be allowed back home
- An integrated Hutu/Tutsi army to be created
Meanwhile President Habyarimana allegedly entered the largest-ever Rwandan arms deal with a French company for $12 million dollars. Rwanda couldn’t afford this deal so the $12 million was fully financed by the French government. The French simply told Habyarimana and his party to consider it as a loan. In layman’s terms, France donated $12 million dollars of arms to Rwanda for the imminent and quickly approaching genocide. Not surprisingly after this arms deal went through, Habyarimana managed to broker another arms deal – this time with Egypt. On January 26th, 1994 Egypt allegedly sold weapons to Rwandan for $4 million pounds according to the New York Human Rights Watch. The famous French bank Crédit Lyonnais is believed to have underwritten the check.
ReplyDeleteOh and before I continue, let me rewind 16 days when something miraculous or what seemed to be miraculous happened in Rwanda. On January 10th, 1994 an informant code-named “Jean-Pierre” who was a former member of the president’s security guard came forward with information. He reported that the Interahamwe was registering all Tutsis in Kigali for an extermination plan which would kill up to 1,000 Tutsis every 20 minutes. Jean-Pierre was willing to release all his information in exchange for protection by the United Nations. Unsurprisingly, the U.N. was not able to and Jean-Pierre disappeared.
Now let’s fast forward to April 6th, 1994 when the president of Burundi (Cyprien Ntaryamira), the president of Rwanda (Juvénal Habyarimana), 7 staff members, and 3 crew members were shot down in their Falcon 50 aircraft. Within seconds gunshots were heard throughout the country, within minutes screams pierced every part of Rwanda, and within hours roadblocks were set up across the land of 1000 hills.
Roadblocks were a principal tool of population control. Any Tutsi who tried to pass was humiliated, beaten, mutilated, murdered, raped, and dumped by the roadside. Neighbors turned on neighbors, friends on friends, even mothers on their own children. It is perplexing how far a human will go to stay alive. Whether it is hiding amongst dead bodies for 43 days covered in blood and coated with the death or killings hundreds of community members because of a fearful idea of “kill or be killed.” Rwanda had turned into a nation of brutal, sadistic, merciless killers and of innocent, questioning, and harmless victims overnight.
General Roméo Dallaire, head of the U.N. Assistance Mission in Rwanda (UNAMIR), cabled New York shortly after the president’s plane crashed and stated, “Give me the means and I can do more.” Refugee camps were set up in Burundi, Tanzania, Uganda, and Zaire. The number of refugees was well over 2 million.
Recap
Rwanda had a population of 7 million at the time
2 million refugees outside Rwanda
1 million killed
2/3 the population fled
Which left a few million people left who were comprised mainly of children and elderly people.
A few quotes which have stuck with me from my travels are:
“Genocide is never spontaneous.”
“Its perpetrators do not respect age, gender, occupation, religion, or status.”
“If you really knew me and you really knew yourself, you would not have killed me.”
Now for the fun part, answering Mr. Webber’s Blog Post Questions.
ReplyDeleteIn regards to the first question, there is a famous quote that says “History never repeats itself, but it can rhyme.” I think this just about sums everything up. Will genocide ever happen in Rwanda again? No. Not at least for several hundred years. As long as Rwanda remembers its tragic history, and the youth continue to be knowledgeable about what happened, genocide will never happen again in Rwanda. Sadly, as each generation comes and goes, even the most tragic events such as genocide tend to get desensitized. After meeting with the equivalent of Rwanda’s Board of Education, a large problem they will be facing is that the youth are slowly disconnecting from the events of 1994. For one generation it is very tangible and emotional “my mother/father died in the genocide.” The next generation comes and it turns into “my grandmother/grandfather died in the genocide.” Soon after that the connection dissipates and it is up to the previous generations to stress the importance of what is to be learned from the genocide and what actually happened. But for all intents and purposes, genocide will never happen again in Rwanda for several hundred years. The reason I keep saying this is because I can never be sure of what the future holds. With conflicts in Libya, and Syria, and Sudan, it seems as if genocide can happen anywhere and anywhere. But for any outsider trying to claim that Rwanda will face genocide in the coming decades is lying to him/herself.
There was a man by the name of Raphael Lemkin, a Jewish-Polish Lawyer who introduced a new word to describe the Nazi policy of systematic destruction of European Jews. He used a combination of Greek and Latin. He used the word “Geno” meaning “race or tribe” and the word “Cide” meaning “killing.” He proposed this to the United Nations convention of 1948 which was readily approved. Out of this convention came the official definition of genocide by the United Nations Convention of 1948. It read:
“Genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
- Killing members of the group
- Causing serious bodily or mental harm to member of the group
- Deliberately inflicting conditions calculated to bring about its physical destruction
- Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group
- Forcibly transferring children of this group to another group
Any one of these bullet points could happen / is happening to some degree around the world. As much good as there is in the world, there are always moments of darkness that tend to cast a shadow on a generation or two, fade out, and then a new kind of darkness fills its place.
The role of America in the international community is one that has been long debated and will continue to be debated at length until the end of time. Do I agree with the statement "The events of Sept. 11, 2001 changed how America views its responsibilities in the world.” Well to a degree yes. We decided that the logical global position to take was to fight fire with a firestorm and solve our problems in the Middle East through aggression. If it were not for 9/11, I would hope that we would not be neck deep in quicksand in the Middle East. There aren’t many more fronts we could be fighting wars on anyways – the ground, the sea, the sky, and the sector of unmanned aircrafts are all being used as we speak. Now if someone asked me if I think the United States will be more inclined to help other countries after suffering from 9/11, I would firmly have to say no. Despite the aid, the condolences, and the international unity that came from the tragedy of 9/11, I do not think the U.S. is any more inclined to lend a helping hand. In the 21st century, I would like to think that the value of human life is of the utmost importance to human beings but in all actuality it seems to have lost quite a lot of value in the recent years. I think any sane human being can agree that genocide is bad. But what I think is truly egregious is that there are millions of people on this earth who wholeheartedly deny a specific genocide from happening. Now this is not even that they are all evil people who plan to do evil things in the world – no it is much more complex than that. The color of your skin, the god(s) you believe in, the geography of where you were raised, the ethnic ties you have, all play into whether you believe a certain thing happened or not. I have mentioned this before, but I was at a Hands of Peace fundraiser with my former teacher Mr. Silk and a few seniors from Pacific Ridge when we heard the story of a boy being told the Holocaust didn’t exist. This Jewish boy told us how he sat directly across from another boy who wholeheartedly did not believe the holocaust happened and rather it was a conspiracy theory. Well I don’t think it is fair to simply blame the boy. The boy was speaking “his” version of the truth which was passed down from his parents. The Jewish boy couldn’t believe what he was hearing because his grandmother died at Auschwitz because of the Holocaust. The story goes on but the harsh reality is that even in the 21st century, there are millions of people who deny things so graphic and so real as the Holocaust.
ReplyDeleteThe majority of Turks were ignorant of the killings of 1.5 million Armenians during the Armenian Genocide while it was happening and have remained so. The European Parliament recognized the Armenian genocide in 1997, as did the Russian Parliament in 1994. France followed suit in 2001. The Turkish government has consistently denied the Armenian genocide. The U.S. has not fully come to terms with accepting the Armenian genocide and neither has the United Kingdom.
The majority of Namibians of German decent deny the 65,000 Herero people who were killed and the 10,000 Nama people who were killed in the Herero Genocide. Germany expresses its regrets but also hasn’t fully come to terms with accepting it as genocide.
Despite all the evidence, several Arab world leaders deny the events of the Holocaust and many more Middle Easterners believe that statistics from the holocaust are exaggerated.
I can go on for days but the fact of the matter is that as much as we chant “genocide never again” there are also people who chant “genocide never happened.” And there are even those who are in favor of modern day ethnic cleansing, most notably the extremist neo-nazis.
All and all genocide is a very controversial topic which I think is downright idiotic. I still can’t come to rest in my heart how people can argue different viewpoints of the systematic cleansing of a certain group or people. Human life is human life and I don’t think a white Christian American male should have any more value that a black agnostic Zimbabwean female even though it still seems to be that white life is more valued than black life.
ReplyDeleteI want to end this blog post with the words of a man named Rick who I met in the State Department in the Office of African Affairs. This man and his team were responsible for relaying all information they could get their hands on about Rwanda to the DOD, CIA, NSA, and others. Basically, Rick who was and still is the chief analyst of African Affairs at the State Department, could have done as little or as much (to a degree) as he wanted in regards to U.S. involvement in Rwanda. He told me directly (in a very cordial manner) that the main reason for not getting involved was not only because the United States did not have any interests in a tiny African nation void of resources, but that there was no way to prove the negative. I asked him what he meant by this and he said “If America was able to stop the genocide, how could we have said we stopped ‘what would have been the killing of 1 million people?’’’ In essence, the US justification for not entering Rwanda was based on what we call a negative proof or proof of impossibility. Further questioning of Rick and his team ended with this response, “Within the confines of the flip chart, we did what we could.” This man said he did his best because he was bound by a flipchart! This thinking shows a lack of understanding of what occurred and more importantly, a lack of preparation for prevention. I decided to go to Rwanda with Carl Wilkens (the only American who stayed behind in 1994 to help save lives) because I wanted to see the firsthand account of how one man can made a difference - how one man was able to reject U.S. orders and touch the lives of hundreds without lifting up a single weapon.
With the genocide that occurred in Rwanda and hearing of how it came to be a genocide, I definitely think it could happen again. Though I do flip flop on this topic because I am unaware of what the current relationship is truly like in Rwanda. People say that the relationships between the two groups is much more civilized, but looking at how much they were fighting and all of the killing that occurred because of all of the conflict between the two groups makes me think twice about a recurring genocide in Rwanda.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, when it comes to responsibility by those that are not involved with a conflict and the those that are do not want others intruding into their issues should not be intruding. Looking at the current wars that we are involved in makes me think could we have chosen not to be in these wars. What could we, as citizens, to stop the conflict that others have with us? All of the conflicts and wars that we are involved in are extremely complicated and when we want to change the way we do things it is too late. As people of the 21st century, we should be aware and prepared to change our ways before something horrible can happen again.
"The events of Sept. 11, 2001 changed how America views its responsibilities in the world."
This is a great quote that did happen to America. After 9/11, we changed our responsibilities to protecting our country even more instead of focusing on our personal desires. And relating to the genocide in Rwanda, even though we weren't involved a lot, we, as citizens of America, have seen the disaster and we were affected by it.
Certainly genocide can happen again. There seems to be a lack care for the general well being of citizens from countries that do not pose an economic threat to the developed countries. From the movie, and even based upon recent events, it was utterly clear that the developed international community only responds when their own citizens are threatened, and even then they refuse to intervene for those who live in a different country. In America people are born and taught based upon a set of morals and respect; everyone should be treated the same, everyone should show common respect for others, and everyone is equal. However, when it comes to international affairs the developed countries throw away their apparent morals and try to save their own citizens. Due to a lack of overall care for others and due to a lack of morals, it is completely possible for a genocide, like the Rwandan genocide, to occur again. Unfortunately, the developed countries hold themselves above those from undeveloped countries, which results in a lack of action.
ReplyDeletePersonal responsibility in the 21st century seems to be less focused on helping others, and more focused on personal success and freedom. To some intervening in the Rwandan genocide was essential, however the politicians and powerful figures in the White House refused to intervene. This lack of action demonstrates just how selfish and goal oriented some people are in the 21st century. Personally, personal responsibility means that one is aware of and interested in helping those who are in need. However, my idea of personal responsibility seems to be not common. It has been clearly demonstrated by the politicians and those in power that the idea of personal responsibility and national responsibility is simply based on the idea of personal sovereignty. This ideal causes people to turn their heads when there is an international crisis or major humanitarian crisis occurring around the world.
I cannot agree or disagrees with this statement. I think that America has become more limited in their thinking and involvement. Meaning, when there is a situation with extremist groups involved they will intervene with military power. However, when there is an issue that does not involve extreme governments, extreme religious groups, or an issue that does not pose any sort of threat to the United States of America there will be no intervention. Unfortunately, issues in sub-Saharan Africa are not focused on, including issues of genocide. In general, I think that the American government changed their views from somewhat involved everywhere internationally, to strictly involved in the places that only pose an economic, political, or physical threat to the United States of America.
I definitively believe that another genocide could possibly occur. We learned from the video that international intervention was not present during the first attack. It would seem that international communities would learn from the past genocide in Rwanda, but countries would still fear aiding a country entirely. Hopefully the international communities would assist the countries by donating supplies, somewhat similar to what the Red Cross was doing during the time of the genocide. This would also create a pathway that allows international communities to claim that they were involved in helping the problem at hand, but in all reality they are just providing minimal support. The best-case scenario would be that counties would send their own troops in order to protect the people of that country; but because of this fear many countries may not be willing to send their troops.
ReplyDeletePersonal responsibility exists in the 21st century but is not displayed throughout all people. It takes certain characteristics for a country or even an individual person to take accountability for either their own actions or in more general terms to help others. It is unfortunate that countries and people wouldn’t sacrifice themselves, for the result of helping others. I do believe that responsibility has become more evident in society but not as much as it should.
I do definitely believe that September 11th, 2001 changed American perspectives of their responsibilities in the world. The attack was a wake up call that told America to watch out for its country and its people. If the September 11th, 2001 attack happened before the genocide America might have been more willing to send American troops to aid Rwanda during the genocide. America would have realized that when a country is under attack or in desperate help, to assist them in any way. I feel that if anything like this occurred again America, and hopefully other countries, would be willing to step and help the country in need.
Based on what we have been seen with the film I think that genocide could defiantly happen again in the world. I am not sure though, if it could happen again in Rwanda. With everything that happened in Rwanda, I feel like the world would have a more acute sense to what was going on in the country, and would do more to stop something like the genocide to happen again. In the other parts of the world, I feel like it is totally possible for genocide to happen, if you look at situations like Rwanda and Darfur then it is totally feasible.
ReplyDeleteI think that the nature of personal responsibility in the 21st century is very hands off. People want to think that things are not really their fault and there is nothing they could do about it. Take the film for example, the Genocide took place over a mere 100 days, and I am sure people have the mindset that it happened so fast that there was nothing they could do. Also, with the American soldiers being gunned down just months before, it makes sense that the American government would not want to have the responsibility of more American deaths on their hands.
I do definitely think that the events of September 11th, 2001 changed how America views its responsibilities in the world. With everything that happened in 9/11, the American government and American people saw it as something that went wrong in the world. It was almost as if we could have prevented it, and now we feel like we must stop all “terrorism” This event essentially vested Americas interest in the middle east and helping potently unstable countries.
Judging from the video, and the rest of the world’s response to the genocide that occurred in Rwanda, I think that genocide could very possibly occur again. During the genocide in Rwanda, the world essentially said, “we do not care.” If anything, the genocide in Rwanda increased the chances of a genocide happening again. While people were brutally killing their neighbors, friends, and relatives in Rwanda, the rest of the world just sat in their respective hemispheres and watched. What happened in Rwanda has sent a message to any country that may be on the brink of mass murder or genocide that they will be able to get away with it. It is absolutely preposterous that when a genocide is clearly happening, the western world, who prizes itself for its humanitarian ideals or would not do anything. If there was a genocide happening in America, for instance, the rest of the world would without a doubt get involved. But in the case of a tiny African country, the rules for involvement change? That doesn’t make sense. This possibly brings up an underlying problem that western countries are reluctant to admit: race. What is an American or Belgian life compared to the life of a Rwandan? They are both human beings. Shouldn’t that be enough to say that they both deserve to be saved from being killed in genocide? In short, until the rest of the world can resolve this issue, and take a look a their morals when it comes to stopping a genocide that could kill thousands of people in a country that may not mean anything to them, genocide could happen again.
ReplyDeletePersonal responsibility has taken on a twisted, and more selfish life of it’s own in the late 20th and 21st century. People are so focused on themselves, and their own well being that the sometimes forget that there are 7 billion people out in the world that have to survive too. Especially in the western world, people have become so driven by money, and success to the point where they will not do anything to help someone unless there is something in it for them. This is what caused many countries, namely the United States, not too get involved in Rwanda’s genocide. There were no “investments” in Rwanda, as a government official had said, and they had no reason to involve themselves. Well, from my standpoint, I think that something such as a genocide or extreme human rights violations is a good enough reason to go into a country. It is plain sad that we cannot help people anymore without some type of economic reward or investment. As fellow human beings, it is our duty to help people if we have the ability to. That should be our incentive to save human lives, not money. I hope that sometime in the future, people will be able to break away from this messed up and materialistic idea when it comes to the way in which we treat other people.
I think that what happened on 9/11 did definitely change the way in which America views its responsibilities in the world. People began to view the world with a mindset of who is the enemy, who has the money, and who are our allies. The war in Iraq started soon after that, and the way that Americans viewed their responsibilities as a world citizen narrowed even more. As time has gone on, the involvement of America in the outside world has been restricted to countries that we have investments in, or that pose a possible threat to us. I would hope that if genocide were to ever happen again, this country would get its act together to try to stop it. But sadly, due to our “interests” driven government, the chances of this country involving itself in stopping something like genocide may have actually decreased. Maybe it is time for this country to re-examine the way in which we should feel responsible for the outside world on a more humanitarian based level.
After the Holocaust ended, people all over the world promised that “never again” would something so horrific occur, and that if it did, the rest of the world would collectively try to stop it immediately because it was agreed upon that genocide was always wrong and the worse case scenario. Although the Holocaust was much more easily seen across the world because many countries were involved in World War II, the conditions in Rwanda, which turned out to eventually be known as a genocide, were very well known by major developed nations who had the ability to help. Over time there have always been genocides and genocide-type massacres throughout all parts of the world and in my opinion, it should continue to happen in the future. History shows us that humans have the capability to have pure hatred of another person or group of people are the capability to act with hate against those people. Therefore, I think that it is highly possible for another genocide like this to occur, especially if other nations look the other way and do not try to prevent it or even stop it.
ReplyDeleteI believe that if someone has the ability or opportunity to contribute to a cause or to help someone else in need, they should always try to do so. For example, in the film, Laura Lane said that she wanted to stay back in the U.S. Embassy because she felt that it was cowardly to flee, and that if even one Rwandan life were saved because of her, it would be worth it to stay. I completely agree with her statement because I think that if you are able to possibly save someone you should always try to. However, there are chances that helping others can be dangerous to one’s self, and although I do believe that people should always do their part to help others, it would be understandable if someone decided to protect themselves, or especially their loved ones first, because that is human nature.
I disagree with the statement, “The events of September 11, 2001 changed how America views its responsibilities in the world.” Before the attacks on September 11th, America had a confident, and perhaps incorrect view of themselves, thinking that they were the safest and most powerful nation in the world. I feel that this caught the United States off guard in an almost embarrassing way. This sort of event made the United States lose a little trust for the rest of the world. Ever since the fall of 2001, the United States has focused on making sure that another attack like this will never occur again, and that the American people are always safe. This also means that when Americans are in another country and are in danger, the United States government will focus all of their efforts on making sure that those Americans can come home safely. Although all of this is true, it is not a result of only the September 11th attacks. As seen with the Rwandan genocide, the United States always puts its own citizens first, as every country would. However, the U.S. failed to put any effort in trying to stop the genocide in Rwanda after it had its citizens safe and sound. As we discussed in class, the United States has shown, for many years even before 2001, that the more involvement the U.S. has in a country, the more we can gain from that country. Because Rwanda did not pose any threat to us, nor did it provide us with any economic gains, we, and many other countries, chose to turn the other cheek. Therefore, although the September 11th events have made the United States much more careful and made it lose a lot of trust in the world, history shows us the that U.S. has always put in time and effort in countries that can benefit us economically or politically.
A mass genocide can occur very easily in either Rwanda or in another part of the world. The 1994 Rwanda genocide in particular was a complex and twisted issue that is rooted deep within Dutch colonialism and racial tension between the Tutsi and Hutu. The assassination of the President of Rwanda, who was a Hulu, sparked the initial violence. In class, we compared Rwanda to the Holocaust, when in reality they are much different. Yes, they were both genocides, but the locations, generations, parties, cultures, and causes were all furthest from each other. Unlike Rwanda, the holocaust originated from WWII and began with a goal of global extermination of jews and non-aryan races, by Adolf Hitler and the Nazi Party. Often times genocides stem from cultural issues, which often leave two or more groups competing for the upper hand. We also discussed a unique issue-- if the group targeted were white, there would without a doubt be more european 3and US attention since often times “dominant” races are favored whereas the minorities are left to die. It is actually very likely for a genocide of millions to occur in the future, because history tends to repeat itself. In addition, people will continue to argue and clash beliefs, there is no way that there will not be another atrocity.
ReplyDeletePersonally, I believe that it is a humans moral and ethical duty to help any person in need whether they are of any race or color. A human in suffering or hardship should always receive aid, but in some situations it can become very complicated and sometimes impossible. For example, in the Rwandan genocide, all but two americans (Laura Lane and Carl Wilkens) fled the country for sake of their safety. Reporters only received a glimpse of the terror before sprinting back into their secure jeeps. Ms. Lane and Mr. Wilkens risked their lives for the betterment of the people. These selfless individuals act as a model for many in their courageous efforts to instill peace onto the country. In my opinion this is the limit that many will go to help others. It is very easy to just take a flight back home, but instead, as mentioned in the film by a french red cross worker, “it was impossible to just leave.” Seeing the helpless faces of Rwandan locals was something very difficult to digest for even the strongest aid forces.
September 11th shook up the US and the rest of the world. It made some Americans increasingly hostile of anyone looking of middle eastern descent. In some ways America became more isolationist to the rest of the world, yet the Afghanistan War began because of this attack.There became a sense of hate among schools, the workforce, and society in general. I remember last year when my friend mentioned to me that he was bullied in his elementary school after the Twin Towers fell. He was seven years old, terrified to go to class for fear of being called, “sand nigger.” Being a middle easterner, he was not directly affiliated with the twin towers, but this became a cultural stereotype that applied to all people. This is a similar issue with the continent of Africa. Many assume it is a place with only black people, who congregate in tribes, or as it as one large country. They couldn't be more wrong, in fact, it is the most diverse place on the planet. Almost every single race and nationality is present somewhere in Africa and it is a very complex and rich area.
After looking at an atrocity such as the Rwandan genocide it is only natural that the question arises: could this happen again? I think something similar to the Rwandan genocide could unfortunately happen again. Though the conditions in Rwanda regarding colonialism and racial tensions are unique, something similar to this could happen because of the inappropriate response by the international community. In essence, the international community responded with a small amount of troops that didn’t stay long. Not only did this send a message to future perpetrators but it more importantly shows the negligence that will continue in to the future by the rest of the world. Most countries are concerned with their “interests” and as a result will not lead a helping hand. This is why the international community did not take a more aggressive role in stopping the Rwandan genocide. These attitudes of protecting “interests” will unlikely change into the future. This means that any other future atrocities that may be committed may not receive significant international opposition. Essentially, since other countries are concerned with their own welfare, as evidenced by the lack of international response, I think there is a possibility that events like those that occurred in Rwanda could happen again.
ReplyDeleteAs it was made obvious in the film and what I have touched on above, countries are clearly self motivated and self serving. There is a grey area on where and when counties should put their motives in second position and put the safety of other counties or peoples in first. Firstly, it is important to establish the two sides of government intervention. On one side, there is the point that a country does not have sovereignty, jurisdiction, or even the right to “aid” a country the way they see fit; there is the selfish argument that countries should handle their own problems before trying to help others; and of course the point that is concerned with the safety of our soldiers or citizens when we try and intervene. On the other hand, there is the moral arguments that are strong and clear that call for government intervention. After looking at the surface of some of these arguments, it is clear that it is difficult to say when it is appropriate for an external government or organization to intervene. I think the moral arguments are very compelling and should be acted on in instances like the Rwandan genocide. Governments should intervene to try and prevent atrocities from occurring. No matter their interests, there must be a force to stop genocides and brutalities alike from happening. After watching the footage from “Ghosts of Rwanda” it is obvious that there should have been some sort of intervention done to stop the massacre. I understand the unique circumstances countries like the U.S. were in at the time, but this was no reason that the UN or peace organization alike could not have stepped in.
After the tragedy of 9/11 many have seen the United State’s involvement in the world as different. It is hard to say whether or not this is true, but I think there has been a shift in how the U.S. sees its responsibilities. I think after 9/11 there has been a shift in that the U.S. prioritizes their interests even more. That is, the U.S. acts more strategically to protect any kind of interests it may have. This should come as no surprise, as the U.S. was attacked and is trying to protect it self by guarding it’s interests. Though the U.S. is involved with many good humanitarian efforts, strategic interests are definitely kept high on the list. If it had to be summed up, I would say there is more a swing towards prioritizing national security interests more than anything else.
1) I feel it is entirely possible that another genocide could be planned and executed in the future. It may not take place in Rwanda, seeing as the world’s eye has witnessed the 1994 Rwandan genocide and staying out of this well-known issue a second time around would be extremely difficult; however, I am sure there is some way in which another genocide may occur. During the rise of the Third Reich, for example, many nations thought the restrictions placed upon Germany by the League of Nations would stop the country from ever regaining its former power. In hindsight, it was there efforts to hinder Germany that Adolf Hitler used as propaganda for the German people, telling them to rise up above the nigh-oppressive limits the League had enacted upon Germany. In a way, the legacy of Germany in World War I helped pave the path to the rise of the Third Reich, the Holocaust, and WWII. I feel this shows that no matter what the circumstances may be, no matter who is policing whom, there is always the chance that some group steps out of the spotlight and partakes in terrible acts, such as genocide, while the world’s focus is elsewhere.
ReplyDelete2) It would appear that personal responsibility in the 21st century is limited to just that: a personal level. Governments seem only to take action when it directly benefits them. For example, during the Rwandan genocide, the few U.N. peacekeeping troops positioned in the country were not permitted to engage in direct combat, so as not to exacerbate the tense situation. However, taking a more direct approach to the attack Hutu insurgents may have resulted in less widespread, merciless killing of the Tutsi. Another such instance would be the many revolutions during the Arab Spring. While the United States of America took a meek diplomatic approach in Egypt, merely suggesting Hosni Mubarak appease his people’s wishes, the U.S. Air Force was among the members of the NATO strike teams against the regime of Muammar Gaddafi in Libya. One difference between the two countries which may have stirred the U.S. to compete for the place of Libya’s “knight in shining armor” is Libya’s status as an OPEC member. Libya’s oil resources could directly benefit the United States if it was on the good side of whatever power rose from the ashes of the revolution. If the U.S. was inactive or supported Gaddafi and the rebels subsequently won, Libya would likely be bitter in trading oil to the U.S. This economic dependency on oil and, possibly, the trademarked American trait of rooting for the underdog, may have been the factors needed to push the U.S. towards supporting the rebels. We may have done it solely to protect our continued economic wealth.
3) I do not feel the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, changed America’s views on its responsibility. The 9/11 attacks merely changed the ways in which the U.S. approached its problems. I feel the U.S. generally acts out of self-interest in terms of foreign policy. In both World Wars, the United States was slow to act until its own were attacked (the torpedoing of the Lusitania and the attack on Pearl Harbor, respectively). In both instances, the United States allied itself with other countries to combat a threat that had already been in full-scale tumult for years. During the Cold War, the United States took the guise of helping countries resist the communist standpoint the USSR would likely thrust upon them; in reality, the U.S. was simply been preventing the Soviets from strengthening their own philosophy and creating an entire continent of anti-democracy fanatics. The 9/11 attacks had little change on the country’s views of responsibility: we have been threatened, and we must retaliate. This time, the United States held point, with no proxies and no strong allies fighting the U.S.’s fights for it. No viewpoints were changed by these attacks. All the 9/11 attacks did was stir the U.S. to buttress its defenses with the Department of Homeland Security and take the fight to its aggressors, Al Qaeda.
1) As most everyone else has said, it's absolutely possible, if not even likely. The atrocity of the Rwandan genocide was allowed to happen because the international community claimed ignorance, and then when that was not possible, that the conflict has escalated to far to get involved. There is no reason this could not be repeated today. We compared the Holocaust to the genocide in Rwanda, and while these conflicts are obviously very different in their own ways. the similarities make them easily comparable. The international community is easily at least partially at fault in both situations. Whether pleading ignorance, or closing their eyes and hoping it all works out, countries stood by and watched these horrors play out. It would be just as easy, if not easier, for something like that to happen today. With so many conflicts and tensions all over the world- from the Arab Spring to the Palestine conflict, tension is certainly not lacking. Furthermore, with so much internal pressure coming from so many world economies, it would not be difficult for the international community to simply claim that they are all to busy with their own problems, much less that of some small country that has no effect on it's economy.
ReplyDelete.
2) Personal responsibility as a concept has become warped and removed. Thought of as purely a person to person thing, things like morals, a "good citizen", and generally just doing what your parents thought you- help those in need, think of others, etcc. But currently, and when applied to a country or the international community, that seems not to be the case. Instead, it becomes something turned internally. Whatever directly affects us, or our direct allies, is then considered an interest, something that falls to us to control or fix. Whether it be personal interest in protection against imaginary weapons that got us so heavily involved in Iraq, or having a vested interest in the exports or political situations of some small country, personal responsibility has become a selfish concept in recent times.
3) This statement is most definitely true, and the change resulting from it is not a wholly good thing. During our xenophobia research, I found quite a bit of information on xenophobia manifesting is modern day United States- the attacks on synagogues, and widespread anti-Islamic attacks being at the forefront. This is a bit more internal than the countries position in the world, but I think still matters, and the mindset of the citizens most definitely has some affect on the way to country is seen and how it fits in with the international community. Our world view changed to, as Annika nicely put it, "who is the enemy". Our world view shifted from who can help us, how is this playing out, to who do we have to protect ourselves from, and who can we get involved with now to prevent them from becoming a threat. A great example of this would be the Iraq war- a few people in the government decided that Iraq had some weapons and technology that could potentially be used to harm us at some point, so the only option became to insert ourselved into the country, creating a massive mess.
I believe that there is going to be another kind of genocide occurs in this world. Most of people still judge people by appearance, backgrounds; even though in the same country, some specific cities people don’t like others from other states (provinces) or other cities people; people can hate each other just by feeling. I heard some people say people from New York City are very rude to others. I don’t know the situation in this country, but base on what I have seen, so many people threw nasty sentences to others whom they don’t even know. It let me remind the story about the Chinese students were killed outside of USC, many people mourned for them, but do you know what did I see in the Chinese websites’ comments? I saw at least ten comments said they felt so happy, the students should be dead. I know at least ten thousand people hate us in our country, just because my family is wealthier than theirs. Holocaust was because of Hitler’s hate of the Jews, and the genocide began as a political conspiracy to take over Rwanda, but things went on, Hutus started to kill all Tutsis. As Tony said “Anyone with more than 10 cows was Tutsi, Anyone with less than 10 cows was Hutu.” How funny they define their own kind by judging their properties. What a tragedy, people can kill others just because others are richer than them. What can I say? Maybe next genocide will occurs in next second. The dark side of human beings is the evilest thing in this world.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, in 21st century, personal responsibilities are helping others, fighting for democracy and freedom. The lack of democracy always cause a country many troubles, only a country with democracy can be steady developing. Well, my own country is a country which is lack of democracy, but democracy is not that easy in China, the large population and some extremely poor areas are the biggest obstacle in the way. With the developing middle class, more and more people realized we need to have a democracy country, but the communist party’s democracy is so narrow, and communist party is the main party in China, so change the party will cause a civil war. Despite the democracy, helping others is always human beings’ responsibility, several centuries, so many people, so many organizations are trying to help this world, injury, hunger, homeless… like the Red Cross in Rwanda, officials stayed for saving people, what a pleasure for us to honor them.
I think the Sep 11, 2001 event does change American views, the foreign policies paid more attention on terrorism. Before the events, American didn't send that large amount number soldiers before 2001, and after this event, the war broke out in mid-eastern countries and American. Also, Americans are always afraid of there is going to be another attach form Russia, North Korea or China, which is pretty funny for me. Examples can be the video game called “Call of Duty”. On the other hand, I think America gets more involved into mid-eastern countries because of its awareness of fear. Everyone says there is possibility for the terrorism to attack America again. For an example, the reason why America sent troops to Iraq is Iraq has nuclear bomb, so America was afraid Iraq is going to attack America. But the truth is Iraq didn't have nuclear bomb, but many Iraqis died because of this action. Who really cared about them? The Iraqi citizens.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI think that genocide could definitely happen again. But, I think that with world events becoming more and more publicized and news can spread quicker, the genocide probably wouldn't get so bad without the rest of the world stepping in. Also, the perpetrators of said genocide would be more hesitant because they know how quickly it all will be exposed. I think that it is less likely to happen in European countries because European countries are more developed and are “watched” by the rest of the world a lot more. African countries tend to get less attention and are less “watched”, giving radicals a bit more “wiggle room” to commit such atrocities. Many people said that no mass killing like the holocaust would ever happen again, but it did. So why won’t it happen again.
ReplyDeleteI think that responsibly of a country is to its people and itself. A country has the responsibility, first and foremost to protect and provide for its people and invest in alliances, either political or economic. Anything outside of that is not that country’s responsibility. A country might have a moral obligation/drive to help another country unrelated to it, but that country is not responsible for what happens. Yes, America can be criticized for just watching as the Rwandan genocide occurred for humanitarian reasons, but the United States has no responsibility for what happened, and had no responsibilities in Rwanda when it occurred. A country needs to factor in its own needs first to be successful. The reason why the United States hasn't sent troops to Egypt or Syria is because a lack of resources. America just simply couldn't afford to intervene.
I don’t think that the events of 9/11 changed how the United States views it responsibilities. The US has always been reluctant to enter into a conflict until they are brought into it (example World War Two). 9/11 caused the US to go into war because it brought violence to the US, causing the US to act. You can see that the US hasn't changed its reluctance to step into a forgiven conflict unless it directly involves the US (example: Egypt and Syria). The US didn't get involved in Rwanda because the US had no interest/relation with Rwanda, as said in the video we watched. This hasn't changed. The US still doesn't get involved unless it directly effects the US government, economics, or its people.
1.) Large-scale genocide, such as the Rwandan Genocide in 1994, is almost certain to happen in the twenty first century. In many ways, Rwanda acts as the template for modern day ethnic conflicts. The shooting down of Juvénal Habyarimana’s plane triggered the ethnic tension that existed underneath the county’s surface to explode into an orgy of violence. However, the events that kick-started the genocide did not create the ethnic hatred that fueled it. The shooting down of Juvénal Habyarimana’s plane gave Hutu radicals an excuse to do what they always have wanted to do, to exterminate the Tutsi people. As long as deep ethnic hatred exists within a county’s people, there is always a possibility of large-scale genocide because any minor event can give certain individuals the excuse to commit the heinous crimes they have always wanted to commit.
ReplyDelete2.)A nation’s personal responsibility should be to ensure that crimes against humanity, such as those committed in Rwanda, never happen. However, at the same time, nations need to learn to mind their own business because mindless intervention can sometimes make a conflict worsen. A great example of intervention gone from bad to worse is the United State’s role in Iraq. The United States invaded Iraq in 2003 because of the crimes against humanity committed by Saddam Hussein and his regime “developing of weapons of mass destruction.” Shortly after the US invasion, large scale Sunni-Shi’a violence broke out across the country because of instability caused by the removal of Saddam’s regime, resulting in the deaths of thousands. The genocide in Rwanda could be considered the opposite of the intervention in Iraq because it resulted from the international community not having enough involvement. While it is the world’s reasonability to prevent genocide and other crimes against humanity, in order to do this, the intervention must be carefully planned to prevent additional bloodshed.
3.) The initial impacts of the 911 attacks, in regards to United State’s foreign policy, was to have an increased role in Middle Eastern politics and adopt a “strike first” ideology in regards to its enemies in the region. The American people were, at first, highly supportive of this new strategy, however, this all changed when the United States suffered a large number of causalities fighting the insurgency in Iraq. These losses, compounded with the fact Saddam Hussein had no weapons of mass destruction or connections to the 911 attacks, made the Bush administration’s aggressive foreign policy, referred to as “cowboy foreign policy”, increasing unpopular with the American people. In fact, many Americans wanted to adopt an isolationist foreign policy in regards to the Middle East, viewing the region as nothing more than a cesspool of religious violence. However, the revolution in Libya and the recent conflicts between Israel and its neighbors has shown that the United States still wishes to have a strong presence in the region. As long as the United States depends on middle eastern oil and there are conflicts between Israel and its neighbors, it appears the United States will have a strong presence in this part of the world.
1) The genocide in Rwanda was able to be of such a monumental magnitude because of a variety of other events that happened in the same time period. America didn’t intervene because of the recent American lives lost in Bosnia as well as Somalia. It is possible for a similar genocide to happen again, but it would have to be another perfect storm of tragedies for other developed nations to not step in. In conclusion, there would have to be reasons for developed nations to not involve themselves or, their help would have to be useless for another genocide to happen.
ReplyDelete2) In the 21st century, technology enables us to attain more knowledge about the world and other countries’ doings. The role of responsibility HAS been increased because of this knowledge. It’s not moral to know of horrible atrocities and stand silently by. Unfortunately, much of the developed world did exactly that during the Rwandan genocide. It politically makes sense to not want our own soldiers dying in foreign lands, but I still believe something should have been done to save innocent civilian women and children. In my own personal views, I think that we should not intervene (and put our own soldiers in harm’s way) for wars that do not directly correlate to us. But in the case of the Rwandan genocide, the global community as a whole should have responded better.
3) I think that 9/11 changed many things, but not how America views its responsibilities. If anything, the thousands of our soldiers who died in Iraq and Afghanistan changed how we think of our responsibilities. For certain issues, it is just simply not worth risking the lives of our military personnel.
1. I believe that genocide could easily occur again, if not in Rwanda, then somewhere else. Humans are good at a lot of things – getting along with one another is not one of those things. As long as we are so fiercely divided by things like race, ethnicity, and religion, we won’t ever be able to peacefully co-exist as a species. Modern technology has had both negative and positive effects on the impact of genocide. The prevalence of video cameras, even in the poorest parts of the world, means that getting away with any sort of crime has become harder, and social media allows for coordinated uprisings and protests. This new technology has also brought things like tanks – although it is easy enough for today’s rebels to get their hands on AK-47s, only the group leading the genocide (usually part of the military) has access to tanks, jetfighters, and helicopters. I think violent conflict is a part of human nature, but hopefully we can eventually learn to overcome our instinctual violence and learn to live together.
ReplyDelete2. Personal responsibility in the 21st century is not really any different that it ever has been. It is the collective responsibility of governments as a whole that has been changed. Policies like isolationism, once practiced by America, are things of the past. The most powerful countries have a responsibility to step in and act as the world’s peacekeepers – to a point. While each country is entitled to be divided and scarcely functional as they’d like, no group has the right to start mass-murdering another. Although it’s not my personal responsibility to stop something like the Rwandan genocide, it is my responsibility (and the responsibility of every one of my countrymen) to make our government take responsibility and put an end to gross human rights violations like genocide.
3. I don’t think the 9/11 attacks changed America’s responsibilities. Since America took the lead as the world’s greatest superpower following WWII, it has had the responsibility of being a protector of the weak thrust upon it. 9/11 certainly has changed our view on the countries/governments we give aid to – Osama Bin Laden was once an ally of the United States, and we provided millions of dollars in weapons and training to he and his men to fight against the Soviets. 9/11 has also made us more cautious of how we respond to a crisis – the invasion of the Middle East has gone incredibly poorly. In the days following 9/11, we had the support of nearly the entire world. Over 10 years, millions of civilian deaths, and thousands of American lives later, that is certainly no longer the case.
Genocide, unfortunately, does have the potential to be a reoccurring event. It is difficult to say what will be the catalyst for the world’s next genocide, but we can only hope that there will be help next time. After watching the movie, it seems clear that genocide not only can happen again but is very likely. As long as there is a hatred for a race or group of individuals, then genocide seems to be right around the corner. With this in mind, Africa seems to be the most likely target for the next genocide. Since the colonizing of Africa, Africans, as a whole have been greatly influenced by Europeans. Rwanda and Belgium is the perfect example of how normal Africans can turn against each other because of a physical difference that was not even distinguished by them.
ReplyDeleteAs said in the film, countries get involved because of interests. Although it is not other countries responsibility to get involved in international affairs, it is ethically justified. With this in mind, I cannot say that the United States’ decision to not intervene was a good idea, however, sub Saharan Africa cannot be made into a charity case. I know this sounds bad, but people need to understand that politics rule all. This is the way that the world works and I do not think it will ever be changed. Another point is that the US cannot be the only one responsible to intervene. The US was involved else ware and it would have been a poor decision to not only spread our countries’ resources too thin but to put American lives on the line in a country where, to be frank, there is nothing there for us. It is selfish and conceded of the United States, but I do understand why we did what we did.
September 11th absolutely changed the way we look at our involvement in the world. The United States realized that the attack needed to be revenged and our battles need to be fought overseas and not on our turf for the safety of American citizens. Then and now there is nothing in Rwanda that interests the United States. No dire resources and no dire alliances. Although I do not agree, I unlike others, do not believe the United States is in the big five in terms of morals. We did not become the most powerful country in the world by throwing time and money at Africa… That is a fact.
Genocide is possible, but not likely. A fair amount of critical countries in the world are more or less driven by the people. Now this is relevant because if an issue is pushed enough by the people, the government will eventually take notice and perhaps act. Statements like, “America has no permanent friends or enemies, only interests,” actually somewhat offend me, and I am far from a patriot. It was an obvious mistake to not have done something about the genocide in Rwanda and in hindsight the majority of politicians involved in the issue will admit that. Yes, it is impossible to perfectly police the world, but an event like a Genocide could, most likely, not go unnoticed. If another genocide were to begin at the least one country, or the UN would step up while other countries would impose sanctions on the perpetrating country or group. I would like to say that the world would not let another event like the holocaust or Rwandan genocide happen again, and in today’s world i would hope it would be quite difficult to do so.
ReplyDeleteThere is truly no way to truly determine what is right and wrong. This seems petty and obvious but it the truth. I would like to say that the world has a set moral code, or a personal responsibility to preserve basic human rights, but the ambiguous nature of ethics proves that we cannot superimpose beliefs and ideas on one another. This seems like an irresponsible statement but there is no true way to know.
Now with that said and my little knowledge of the world, I believe that people should at least attempt to uphold basic human rights. Now, responsibility is quite tricky. If say, someone is living in England in the 21st century and they hear about a nasty violation of human rights going on in a faraway country, and he/she does nothing, is this person morally liable? It’s hard to say. I would say people are responsible for one thing, sympathy. I do not hold people accountable for empathy, action, or even spreading the word. As long as one feels for the situation and is okay, within themselves, with not taking action, they are in the moral clear.
Of course 9/11 changed the way America viewed it’s responsibilities in the world. Middle-Eastern Xenophobia skyrocketed, both socially and politically. Most of all though this event proved that the United States was vincible. As a result the US has become much more cautious in foreign affairs. It changed the opinion the whole country had, the idea that the land of the brave was not as indestructible as we had all thought. It is difficult to base this question off of the Rwandan genocide, considering that it was nearly 10 years prior to the attacks on 9/11. If anything, the U.S. has probably became even more cautious than it was during the Genocide. Events like 9/11 cause a country to pull back and hesitate when involving themselves in foreign affairs.
1. The first challenge in stopping something like genocide is in spreading the word and gaining the support of people throughout the world for action. By making a genocide part of everyday conversation and confronting people in the developed world early and often about the realities and horrors that are occurring, more people will begin to speak out and call for action. In the absence of political or economical interest in the genocide on the part of the government, popular support for action will be the next best way to get another nation involved in stopping genocide, as it forces governments to keep their populace happy.
ReplyDeleteHowever, while societal activism would be a good way to get nations to act and stop future genocides, it is unreliable and could in the end accomplish nothing at all. In the case of the Invisible Children Kony 2012 which attempted to gain mass support through an internet campaign, many people became angered at its method of broadcasting and ended up protesting against the movement. In the end, Invisible Children had some success, but a long lasting effect was not made upon the US or LRA.
Overall, people and governments are just as likely to do nothing about the next genocide that occurs. If nations do not have any geopolitical interest in a country where genocide is occurring, they will most likely intervene. The next thing would be to get popular calls for action; however, if not enough citizens of a nation call for action from the government as a result of whatever reason, be it personal bias, inattentiveness, or too many personal problems, no action will be taken. There are too many things that can go wrong in campaigns designed to get a huge number of ordinary people to do something extraordinary; in the end, chances of success are low.
2. People in the 21st century deal with many problems. Most people in the world are struggling to get basic necessities for life. Others worry about maintaining their livelihoods and caring for their families. In the modern world, people tend to keep to themselves and focus on attaining success in their own lives; there is no learned bond toward the larger community, most people learn to care for themselves and their loved ones. This most likely makes it difficult and unnatural for people to go the extra mile and devote time and energy to solving problems in a far off, probably intangible land. In Ghosts of Rwanda, when the killed Belgian soldiers came home, Belgians were focused on the losses they observed right in front of them. The reality the families of the soldiers saw was the deaths of their loved ones. This was the most real and hard-hitting tragedy in their eyes, not the genocide in Rwanda. Likewise, it is difficult for people in other developed countries to focus on global issues when they often deal with more tangible problems of their own every day.
3. Between the end of the Cold War and September 11, 2001, the US participated in peacekeeping operations in Cambodia, Somalia, and Bosnia. In the early 1990s, as the US came out as the victor of the Cold War, there was a high level of idealism and optimism, and the US undertook these peacekeeping operations as a result. As the 1990s passed and the US was faced with the “Black Hawk Down” crisis in Somalia and decreased public support for peacekeeping operations, the US began to take a smaller role in overseas operations and in some cases stayed did not intervene at all. When the events of September 11 occurred, the US shifted its foreign policy to one that was focused on combating terrorism. Throughout the 2000s, the US undertook operations in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Yemen with its stated goal of fighting terrorism. Thus one can see a definite shift in the US’ view on its responsibilities in the world after 2001. Before, the US was focused on peacekeeping before it began to not intervene at all. Afterwards, the US embarked on operations throughout the Middle East in a protective stance.
1) The film, “Ghosts of Rwanda,” showed that genocide is still a threat to modern world society. The fact is that as long as there are racial prejudices there can and will be a threat of genocides on a countrywide scale. Although many people argue that as technology advances the threat of acts like this dissipate, it obviously did not make a difference in 1994 where the only comparable situation was in the 1940’s. I think as long as there are underlying racial prejudices, such as between Israel and Pakistan, the threat of genocide is ever present.
ReplyDelete2) I believe that U.S. involvement should be limited, however i think that if a peoples basic human rights are being infringed on that not only us, but others as well, should step in. We need to put other motivations and past experiences to the side and help in situations as extreme as that in Rwanda. Once the ball in Rwanda got rolling, the situation had gotten so out of hand that with all the red tape in Washington D.C. there would not be time to get the resources and manpower to even affect the situation. The only course of action is to stop something like this pre-emptively. I also believe, that while it is a reality in today's world, it is morally wrong to only get involved in something like this if you have a financial interest. That being said I believe it isn’t realistic to try and police the world as just one country, I personally believe that Europe is just as, or more, responsible for this atrocity as the United States.
3) I believe the events that transpired definitely changed America, however I also believe that over time it has had a neutral effect on our involvement overseas. The war initially caused us to take action in the middle east, however all of the casualties there was a stark reminder of how gruesome combat can be. I think that while 9/11 reminded us that these terrorist acts happen all over the world fairly frequently, the subsequent invasion also showed us the toll we pay when we get involved. The events that happened on 9/11, I believe, cemented our stance of not getting involved unless we had something to gain, or an interest in the conflict.
1)In my opinion, genocide could happen again, in Rwanda. I do not think that any international views have changed on this small African country. With the amount of press this tragedy was given, one would think that action would be taken, but it was not.
ReplyDeleteThe fact that governments knew what was happening deeply concerns me; they did not care. From their actions, I conclude that they did not value the lives of the people living in Rwanda.
I acknowledge that America was currently recovering from their actions in Somalia and Bosnia, but it still shocks me that politics won over humanity.
2. In the 21st century, responsibility has a new definition. Technology, specifically the internet, make it possible for news to not only reach government, but citizens. With news so accessible to citizens, responsibility and expectations have increased. That includes personal responsibility. In the film, the American ambassador took it upon herself to help as many people as she could. She did this by making people "Americans for a day", in order to take them to safety. Though that may not have been politically correct, she took it upon herself to do the right thing and fulfill her personal responsibility
3. "The events of September 11, 2011 changed how America views its responsibilities in the world", could not be closer to the truth. Post 9/11 America is a completely different culture. I think that this attack allowed, not make, the American government to generalize the Middle East as being hostile and cruel. I also think that the value of America's security appreciated, for example, the security process in airports. After 9/11 America took it upon itself to have a say in the worlds conflicts.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI often hear people say that in order to achieve success, one must learn from one’s mistakes. I agree with this statement: sometimes failure is far more valuable than success, for where would we be if Thomas Edison had not persevered through his hundreds of failed attempts to construct the incandescent bulb?
ReplyDeleteIn the case of genocide, however, the human race seems incapable of learning from its mistakes. After the Holocaust, Jimmy Carter stated that “never again will the world stand silent, never again will the world... fail to act in time to prevent this terrible crime of genocide.” In the wake of such terrible crimes against humanity, this seemed true. It was as if the international community had come to the harsh realization that if it did nothing in the face of evil, it would become guilty solely because it stood there and watched. Yet, in 1994, mass genocide arose yet again, this time in the small and seemingly insignificant African state of Rwanda. Despite the promises the human race made in the years following the Holocaust, the international community stood there and watched as over 800,000 people were slaughtered by their own countrymen.
There is no doubt in my mind that genocide can and will occur again. However cliché it may sound, it is self-evident that history repeats itself. Genocide has existed in this world for hundreds of years. Though the world we live in now is entirely different from those of past genocides, genocide will continue to exist—possibly forever.
Though I believe that society will always be faced with genocide, I do not believe that we should not try to stop it. As a human being, I believe that it is my responsibility to uphold basic human rights. When distanced from the conflict, I admit I am unsure of how to do just that; if I were somehow associated with the conflict, be it by geographical or other means, I would feel personally obligated to help anyone I could. Even if I could only save one person, I would try my best to do so—this is an opinion I share with Laura Lane, who was in charge of the American Embassy in Kigali before it was shut down during the genocide, and Carl Wilkens, who chose to stay in Rwanda when the chaos began and consequently became the last American left in the country. I find Wilkens’ actions admirable and brave, but more importantly, I believe that what he did was the right thing to do.
As a nation, I believe that the course of action in the face of genocide is far more unclear. In a country like the United States, it is the duty of the government to protect its own people in any way it can and to act in the best interest of the nation as a whole. It is not the obligation of the country to try to save the world; this cannot be done. At the same time, however, I feel that any country that puts forth that it stands for the rights of the people and then fails to take reasonable action in the face of human rights violations is hypocritical.
The events than transpired on September 11, 2001 certainly did change the United States’ opinion on its international responsibilities. I believe that the government took a more self-oriented stance on the matter and decided that it needed to prioritize its own security before that of others. To some extent, this was the opinion that the US held during the Rwandan genocide, in the wake of the troubles in Somalia known as Black Hawk Down.
Though the opinion of the US government on international responsibility may seem to be mostly self-oriented, I do not think that the US will actually remove itself entirely from international issues—it did not do so during the Arab Spring, when it became involved in Libya. I don’t really think that the US should remove itself entirely from international issues; though it seems that human rights violations should be addressed in the same manner on all levels (from personal to international), I am sure of what the responsibility of the individual should be but indecisive of that of a nation or international community.
1. In short, history repeats itself. From the Salem witch trials, to the Holocaust and to the Rwandan genocide human beings have a history of killing one another for a wide variety of reasons. Be it "ethnic cleansing" or an all out war based on race/culture as is true in Rwanda, the human race does not have a good history when it comes to such matters. Frankly, there is a distinct possibility that there will be another genocide. As horrible as it seems, it has happened too frequently in the past, and frankly is still happening to a degree. Look at Syria. Thousands of civilians are being mercilessly killed, and the international community has done nothing extreme enough to drastically change anything. As the documentary said, nations intervene when they have an interest. The United States had an interest in Libya. They do not have one in Syria, and did not have one in Rwanda, and nothing was changed. As much as it would be lovely to say that we as a progressing world are human-rights minded, and could never allow such an atrocity to continue- we would be naive to take this stance. Regardless of the technology that exists, we as human beings are inherently similar to the way we were say 20 or even 300 years ago. As horrific as the thought is, genocide is definitely a strong possibility in the future.
ReplyDelete2.Personally, I feel that personal responsibility is something that could be looked at from a national perspective. I believe that nations have the duty to protect their citizens, but more so to protect the rights of those nationally. Mass amounts of innocent individuals should not be held at the mercy of unbelievably violent and cruel dictatorships. It's idealistic to say that when one nation sees a blatant violation of human rights being committed, the observing nation should do something about it- but that is honestly how I feel. Now this is a line that needs to be walked very gently, and nations to be very conscientious about the potential to impede on other nation's sovereignty and culture; but as stated in the "Universal Declaration of Human Rights" (a document released by the UN) all people on this planet are entitled to a basic level of needs. And from that, the international community should keep one another in check to make sure that this is being achieved. Just because a person is unfortunate enough to be born in a place where genocide is rampant, or that their government is more than corrupt and they therefore have no access to food or water, does not meant that they deserve to suffer. Especially when so many nations have so much excess, they should help to provide without. There is an argument to be made for the idea of survival of the fittest, and encouraging competition, but frankly all humans deserve a chance. And I think that is where personal responsibility should play in.
ReplyDelete3.Absolutely the events of 9/11 changed America's view on it's role in the world, and the responsibilities it as a nation carries. Frankly, the subsequent wars showcased beautifully the country's stance (at least at the time) on the role America should play on the world stage. The invasion of both Iraq and Afghanistan can arguably be brought back to oil, and in the context of the bigger picture, 9/11 proved America's ego-centric attitude to an extreme. Not to say that these policies were not present in the past, but it is to say that the views became cemented directly after the attacks on 9/11.
Post 9/11 the United States has had to reevaluate the position that America was immune to such attacks. That the sheer size and strength of the nation would deter such acts of terror away from our soil. As much as the United States claims to be helping other nations through various foreign policy interactions, the majority can be linked to personal interest. Not to say that it is necessarily a bad thing- it is understandable that a nation would put itself first. But from an idealist's perspective, it is not a great place to be.
Essentially, 9/11 turned.. or rather cemented the United States as a very self-centered nation.
1) Judging from what you have seen, read, and heard, could genocide occur again, in Rwanda or other parts of the world? Why or why not?
ReplyDeleteGenocide is, scarily, a very plausible thing. What happened in Rwanda can barely be described as an ethnic conflict. Without a doubt, it was influenced by a set of factors not found in the modern era—colonialism, for example—but the nature of the disaster was in itself an issue of social tension and class conflict. Personally, I would say a genocide would be less likely to happen in Europe or North America, as that would be closer and more relevant to the powers of the world, but I believe nothing is impossible. What is scary, however, is that while the Rwandan genocide is now well documented, the Second Congo War in the country bordering Rwanda could be classified somewhat as a counter-genocide, although it is even less publicized. The event, started by Paul Kagame after the Rwandan genocide had ended, involved mainly vengeful killing of the Congolese Hutus. From this, I believe a genocide is not only possible, but can be hidden and undocumented as well.
2) What is the nature and limit of personal responsibility in the 21st century? Support your personal view with evidence from the film and/or from your own knowledge of current events.
There is not a doubt from my mind that all nations of the United Nations should have been enforcing the declared rights of human beings, which involves a right to safety, amongst other things. I find it ridiculous that nations like the US or Britain even petitioned to withdraw troops—and that is unforgivable. However, personal responsibility is another issue. While the case should be that everybody should actively prevent and help these situations, the hard truth is that individuals can be too disconnected from these issues for them to be directly affected, making it difficult for them to drop everything and help. That said, people should be strongly encouraged to involve themselves in the aid process and rescue process, but asking people to have a responsibility for all world problems would be extremely time-consuming and implausible.
3) "The events of Sept. 11, 2001 changed how America views its responsibilities in the world." Agree or disagree, supporting your view with evidence from the film and/or from your own knowledge of current events.
I absolutely disagree. The only thing that events of September 11, 2001, sparked Americas involvement in Afghanistan, and increased airport security. Looking backwards before the incident, America was involved in many wars—like the Gulf War for example—and only added the War on Terror to its list of ongoing conflicts. However, as the movie mentions, "America has no friends, only interests." What the other countries offered, (debatably) oil, political, and military advantages, Rwanda could not.
1. It is completely within the realm of possibility for genocide to occur once again in either Rwanda or another part of the world. However, after the events of the holocaust were brought to light I believe that the chances of another genocide in Europe are very slim. Sadly this does not promise anything for less developed parts of the world, where genocide may be already more likely to occur. The growth of the media over the years since recent genocides hopefully promises that if something were to happen we would not be left in the dark. Yet, the international community knew what was happening in Rwanda and nothing came of this. Hopefully we may learn from our mistakes of appeasement and ignorance that occurred during the early days of the holocaust and the entire genocide in Rwanda. Humanity has never before proven to be able to effectively use history to prevent tragedies such as these from reoccurring, however it is not impossible.
ReplyDelete2. We live in a global age, the Internet has served to connect much of the world and the economies of countries are intertwined with other thousands of miles away. Our modern media gives us breaking news from the other side of the world and the earth seems smaller every day. Surprisingly however, personal responsibility seems to have a hard time thriving in this global age, people may seem more connected however they frequently care less and less about others internationally. The United Nations was created with the intent of being a global force that would protect human rights and attempt to mediate or prevent conflict. So far, the UN has failed at its duties in most circumstances. The United Nations had a responsibility to step in during the genocide in Rwanda and end it before it really even started. However, its ineffective policies on peacekeeping served only to showcase the apathy of European nations in African affairs.
3. I cannot say that the events of 9/11 greatly changed how America or others views the United States’ responsibilities in the world. Some may argue that the U.S. became more involved internationally, specifically in the Middle East, however this international involvement had been America’s style since the end of World War two. The United Stated came out of the war on top, expected to take on global responsibilities. The U.S. attempted to rise to meet these demands on many occasions, and this international watchdog mentality has prevailed throughout the decades. If anything, 9/11 made America more aware of its personal problems, rightfully encouraging the nation to look after itself first. The U.S. does not involve itself in foreign conflicts for altruistic reasons, no nation does. Altruism is merely a side effect of the active search for personal gain.
Judging from what I have seen in the movie “Ghosts of Rwanda”, read, and heard, I have come to the conclusion that it is very possible that genocide could occur again in the world. In history, genocide has occurred multiple times. Some of the biggest genocides in history include the Holocaust in the early 1900s, the Cambodian genocide in 1975, and more recently, the Rwandan genocide in 1994. As shown through out history, genocide can occur over and over again. Another reason that genocide could occur again in the world is because during the Rwandan genocide, the international community did not put an end to the mass killings. Without this fear of being stopped, the leader of genocide would have no worries of facing the consequences. Although, it is not shown that genocide would occur multiple times in the same place. It is not as likely that a genocide would occur again in Rwanda because of the progress that has been made in the country and because of the public eye on Rwanda due to the genocide.
ReplyDeleteThe nature of personal responsibility in the 21st century has become disconnected and egotistical. Many people today see personal responsibility as being accountable for your own actions. For these people, if helping other in situation where they are in need does not benefit them in some way, then they do not feel personally responsible for the outcomes of the situation. To me, personal responsibility means that if you are capable of helping others in need, then you should be willing to help them and active in doing so as best you can. For example, in the film, Ghosts of Rwanda, Laura Lane wanted to stay at the US Embassy when she was ordered to leave. She personally tried to save as many people as she could. This is an example of true personal responsibility because she did everything she was capable of doing to try and help as many people as possible.
I agree that what happened on September 11th, 2001 did change the way America views its responsibilities in the world. After this event, America changed its international interactions to only deal with issues that directly affected, benefited, or threatened the United States. The events of September 11th greatly affected the trust America currently has in the international community. Right now the US is not willing to take risks to help other countries. Not only has America become more reserved with their affairs in the international community, but the events of September 11 caused the United States to take greater precautions within its own country. In the event of millions of innocent people being killed in mass numbers, the United States was capable of and should have intervened and saved the lives of many. We would hope that if genocide did ever occur again, that the international community would do much more to help.
Genocide of course could happen again, however, I believe the international response to it would be much more severe and also more publicized. The problem still remains though, how do you help some countries that do not want to be helped? This not necessarily the case for all genocides, but it is often treading in dangerous waters. A country, or the UN, could go in to aid a group of people and end up causing a larger problem in the country than how it started. However, the super powers in the world should feel obligated to step in and help people in need, a case like what happened in Rwanda, should never happen again. It comes down to a country personally deciding to step in and help the people who are being persecuted, and then once the deed is done the country should leave. For instance in the case of Rwanda; America should have stepped in, or the UN should have not only saved the white people but also Rwandans being attacked because of their race.
ReplyDeleteSeptember 11, 2001 changed the way many Americans see the world, and especially changed their views on whom we should help and why. America used to be the savior; the war was starting to get out of control so in comes America to save the day! Power and safety, America provided a world safety net. After the events of September 11, and the War on Terror after, America has started to hold back on protecting and has become more introverted. Thinking more for the long-term for America rather than the world. Which is good and bad; America no longer plays the dominating role in wars it does not belong in, but when countries or certain people need help America is going to be a little more skeptical of how and why they should assist.
It is possible that a genocide would occur again. This is possible because as we see in our history genocides have repeated themselves. It stems from the hatred and jealousy towards a group of people. There is no way to control other feelings except for helping educate people to not think as rationally. If another genocide were to occur our personality responsibility would have us help the problem. The weight of the problem should not fall only on America but the rest of the world. We should all come together for the better of humanity and help educate and stop these genocides to occur. The film expresses how people wish they could of helped more with the genocide. My expectations of those people would be to help out in a more effective way if another genocide were to occur. I feel that after September 11th America feels like they have to help with most world problems because they already invested themselves so much after the towers fell. They may not want to be as involved but feel like the worlds aid.
ReplyDeleteGenocide could absolutely occur again, and it probably will. Genocide is a result of a combination of ignorance, prejudice, and competition for resources. Until the world has both acknowledged and resolved these issues, genocide will continue to occur. Furthermore, humans are prone, biologically, to jealousy and fatal competition. While some would argue that our species has essentially ‘outsmarted’ natural selection and survival of the fittest, as long as these violent tendencies are a part of our genome, we continue to evolve and exist under control of nature’s most intrinsic principles. That being said, we are inherently designed to pick out easy targets, (minority groups, etc.) make them an ‘other’ group or a scapegoat, and then attack them. Perpetrating genocide aside, many argue that when faced with a genocide occurring, they would interfere. However, this concept has been repeatedly proven faulty on a much smaller scale. The concept of bystander apathy can be applied to genocide and the lack of interference on behalf of uninvolved parties or countries. Bystander apathy is a psychological phenomenon that occurs when a group of people feels that every other person in the group should be responsible for helping an individual in need. Research into the phenomenon was catalyzed by the murder of Kitty Genovese. In March of 1964, the 28 year old woman was attacked on her way back to her apartment in Queens, New York, and over the course of a half an hour, stabbed to death. It was reported that 38 witnesses who watched the stabbing and heard her pleas for help, failed to help her, call the police, or intervene in any way. Although research on this particular case and the principle it represents was published and widely popularized at the time of the Rwandan genocide, America still stood by and did nothing, providing the world with a tragically salient example of bystander apathy.
ReplyDeletePersonal responsibility in the 21st century primarily revolves around how much a situation actually affects the individual. People tend not to feel responsible for a situation unless it also affects them. That being said, it is not enough to appeal, through pathos, to people’s value of human life. Despite all the civil rights movements and battles for equality, and calls to attention of how little the people of the 21st century value human life, people and nations repeatedly fail to take responsibility. Because the U.S. had nothing tangible (ie: natural resources) to gain from helping a sub-Saharan African country, the country did not intervene. That is essentially the nature of and limit of national responsibility in the 21st century. The film demonstrated that where there is no personal gain, there is no personal involvement. The people of Rwanda felt the lack of interest from international powers, and were left defenseless against their own government. Although it is a despicable fact of the U.S.’ value system, it is a fact nonetheless.
I mainly disagree. Although after 9/11, America did become slightly more internationally involved, it was not so much an increase in involvement as it was an increase in publicity of said involvement. America started making a bigger deal out of its international involvement, and in turn, it seemed as though we were becoming a bigger international player while actually maintaining our previous level of engagement. However ironic, it seems that the U.S. has contrarily become more isolationist. The country is more invested than ever in getting ahead, and selfish motivations keep the U.S. from getting involved in anything that doesn’t directly benefit it. The film proved that the U.S. was like that during the genocide, and the continued apathy on behalf of the U.S. proves that not enough has changed to make a significant difference.
1. Genocide could almost certainly happen in the world again if the right conditions are met. Ethnic tensions and other complex factors must be present to create a recipe for a genocide to start, but not much has to happen for a genocide to start once these factors are present, as we saw in the Rwandan President's assassination in 1994.
ReplyDelete2. The limit of personal responsibility is the notion of what responsibility people of the world have to help their fellow humankind. In the 21st Century, the limit of personal responsibility is created by the desire to look after self interest while wanting to help others.
3. Much is made of September 11th as a turning point for the United States--both as a military change as an ethical change. But September 11th neither started the war on terror nor changed the US ethical justification for international engagement.
1. A genocide is likely to occur again. Throughout history, practices of ethnic cleansing have taken place without stop. One can look at the Holocaust during World War II, Christopher Columbus’s oppression of the Native Americans in 1492, and Saddam Hussein’s extermination of the Kurds in the late 1980’s. The term “Never again shall such an atrocity occur” is absolutely false. As long as divisions in society like ethnicities, religion and culture exist, people will continue to clash in support of their ideals. Other genocides may not be instigated in the same fashion as the one in Rwanda, but if tensions exist and pass a certain threshold, then genocide is inevitable.
ReplyDelete2. Personal responsibility in the 21st century should mean what an individual can do for the world and humankind. However, this notion personal responsibility has been cast aside as humans view the world in where an individual should help themselves before others halfway around the world. A factor that has continually plagued this concept is apathy. People watch the news and feel now obligation to help those suffering just because it is the right thing to do. Countries and people now value self-interest greater than the value of human life. If a country has precious recourses, then that place will have a higher probability of international aid and intervention. In contrast, if a country like Rwanda with no precious resources or economic power is experiencing a humanitarian crisis, outside countries are less likely to intervene.
3. I disagree with this statement. The events in September 11th, 2001 spurred an increase of American security in airport and a greater wariness towards Muslims in the general public. 9/11 may have influenced the War of Terror in the Middle East, but it was not the root cause for the US’s actions. In addition, the US looked inward in order to protect themselves.