There was Roméo dallaire a french canadian who was in charge of the UN or ONU peace keeper . he wrote a book named "j'ai serré la main du diable " wich mean i shook the hand of the devil. Deep shit nigga
>>567098 He is a french Canadian (like me) military officer and he did not had thé right equipement , not enough man , not trained for that kind of conflict / war theater and he receive questionable ordre like doing nothing to help a village who was completly killed by tutis and then hé got there and saw all the kid killed with matchet or bricks , violents shit man, then there like 75 pages of guilt trip
>>567062 Except he has a point (that he may not realize). Why would whites give a shit about blacks? There's genociding going on in northern Nigeria as we speak (amongst other places) and nobody gives a shit about that either.
>>567046 The biggest thing to remember is it happened devastatingly fast.
It lasted 100 days. For comparison, the U.S. in holy terror mode took 27 days to launch an invasion of Afghanistan after the September 11th attacks.
So even if we had uniform political consensus, and responded the moment it started, it would be a slow response.
Second, it wasn't a clear situation on the ground. The Rwandan Genocide didn't happen out of the blue. There WAS fighting in Rwanda, and foreign actors WERE helping. This was a huge cause of the genocide.
The RPF had invaded Rwanda in 1990, and there had been fighting up until shortly before Habyarimana was killed. Habyarimana was killed for trying to broker peace, by parties unknown. And then the fighting started up again.
Which also raises the question of who exactly is going to run Rwanda afterwards. Not always a good plan.
Historically, the aftermath of the Rwandan civil war was and still IS messy. More people died in the aftermath. Rwanda killed more people after the genocide by repeated campaigns into the Congo to secure their borders from Hutu militias then died in the genocide.
Not to mention the effects on Burundi that are STILL happening.
>>567098 France refused to abandon the Hutu government even after the Genocide came out. It took them the better part of a decade to stop shielding them and stop trying to engage in /pol/ tier denial and moral equivalency.
The problem was that we didn't allow the war to finish. There is a current push in global politics to end wars before they can start. Instead of letting the weaker side be crushed, we arm and defend the initial weaker side who then becomes the stronger side and fucks shit up. This is EXACTLY what happened in the Rwandan Civil War. The Hutus were prevented from finishing their business, we armed the Tutsis who then did the exact same thing to the Hutus and then more.
Their involvement in the Second Congo War ended up killing nearly 5,000,000 in the early 2000s.
>>567133 International shit hole i guesse people where more concern about other things around the globe at that time and its only rwadan ,i mean there prime exportation around the world must be AIDS , like nothing that attract country attention , if they had oli pit it would have been à differents question
>>567159 Casting it as Hutu vs. Tutsi is a tired old oversimplification. The outgoing government was Hutu. The plan was for there to be a consensus government of Hutus and Tutsis. The UN backed the consensus government. The French backed the outgoing Hutu government. The outgoing Hutu government stirred up racist Hutu militias to kill anyone who wanted the consensus government to come in. This is why you sometimes hear people say that the people murdered were "Tutsis and moderate Hutus". But yeah, as noted by >>567158 the French continued to shield the outgoing Hutu government, even as they moved into DRC and started causing all kinds of shit there. So as usual, colonial powers continue to fuck shit up.
>The two ethnic groups are actually very similar - they speak the same language, inhabit the same areas and follow the same traditions.However, Tutsis are often taller and thinner than Hutus, with some saying their origins lie in Ethiopia. >When the Belgian colonists arrived in 1916, they produced identity cards classifying people according to their ethnicity. >The Belgians considered the Tutsis to be superior to the Hutus. Not surprisingly, the Tutsis welcomed this idea, and for the next 20 years they enjoyed better jobs and educational opportunities than their neighbours.
I realized I fell into the "RPF versus Hutus" narrative myself.
>>567228 Partially, but not entirely. Obviously the agency of African actors takes absolute primacy.
Also, the Tutsi were not exactly great to the Hutus before the arrival of the Belgians. We talk about "ethnic groups" but it can also be useful to talk about the Tutsi and Hutu as "castes". It was possible at least in some points in Great Lakes history, to shift from being a Hutu to a Tutsi just by owning cattle.
So on the one hand, the Belgian's likely racialized a situation, on the otherhand, it was a shitty situation to begin with. And again, it was commited by the Africans themselves, for African reasons.
The British tried to racialize India's internal conflicts, and it didn't take.
>>567235 Sure. The RPF were armed initially by Tanzania to fight against Uganda. Once they were on the 'winning side' in Uganda, the new Ugandan government decided a bunch of well armed Tutsis hanging around was a bad idea, so they pointed them at Rwanda.
From Uganda and Tanzania's perspective, it was a win win.
If the RPF is successful, they have a buddy in charge (As Kagame would prove to be). If the RPF is unsuccessful, they can raise and lower aid to them as a way to put pressure on Rwanda. It's a common tactic throughout Africa to apply pressure and interest on other states.
>>567250 Oh yeah. I'm not saying the British were swell, or that India's relations are a model in any way, but India AFAIK, never took to the model of Aryans versus Negroids, and entered into rigid, racialized extremism over it.
>Land locked country in the centre of africa surrended by jungle and nothingness How would the world help them again? ISIS is a few km away from the mediterranean sea and sourrounded by military bases and we cannot do anything.
>>567320 The other factor to consider is the anti-colonial angle.
On Tanzania this support is coming from Nyerere, from Uganda, Obote. These were first generation African socialists. Support of the RPF and later their 'duty' against Mobuto was also seen in terms of a longstanding conflict against semi-colonial regimes.
Western indifference. None of the UN countries care about the ideals they claim to uphold. Some pretty horrible shit was going down in Yugoslavia, Congo, Rwanda, Sierre Leone, and Somalia during the nineties. It didn't matter. It wasn't terribly relevant to the interests of most Western nations, so nothing was done.
>ISIS is massacring Yazidis and Mandeans by the hundreds right now and the best most of the international community can do is to say that they find such actions disagreeable >This is going to keep happening
>>567468 The people of those countries do stand for those ideals but don't trust their governments to do so. Look at Iraq it was suppose to be a humanitarian liberation to bring freedom but was just a way to get rid of someone interfering in the buisness interests of the us and the gulf states
>>568148 I didn't think Eritrea ever had its shit together enough to actually project power against other African states. I thought they were kind of irrelevant after breaking away from Ethiopia. Care to explain?
I've spent the last 2 hours reading about the Rwandan Genocide and the Congo Wars and my question is: did the Tutsis do anything wrong? >Get empowered by colonials >Get power taken away by colonials >Newly empowered Hutus persecute you >Fight back as RPA and take control of Rwanda once again >Bitch ass Zaire/Congo keeps funding génocidaires that fled to overthrow your government >Have to enter the Congo to avoid another genocide
Were they that bad to the Hutus during the era of colonial rule? Or is this just some classic tribal antics where group A and B hate eachother because of "muh tribe"?
to summarize my understanding of the thread: rawanda isnt an isolated example, "we" allow many attrocities to happen, we do help out, just not enough, we dont help out more because it doesnt really bother us
so, for me, the question is why dont "we" care more. and by "we", i refer to the culture of civilized contries that like to think we care.
i feel like im the perfect example. i feel bad where i hear about nasty things in the world around be, but i do little to help out.
so my question becomes, why doesnt this bother me enough to motivate me to be better? or, for a stronger question, how can people pay more attention to movies and food than to attrocities, while still thinking they care?
i think its cultural delusion. self-delusion as a normal thing for people to do on a daily basis may not be generally accepted by people, but i use it to support this idea. the delusion is "we are good, generous, caring people, even though we pay more attention to things like tv shows than genocide and war", and while this is often observed by people in their own lives as irrational, the real reason it is so easily accepted by so many is because it is supported by the attitudes of everyone else.
so, a simple lie that we tell ourselves, that we are good people that care about issues like this when we dont really, becomes a cultural delusion.
and thats as far as ive gotten, how am i going, what do you think
Thread replies: 53 Thread images: 5
Thread DB ID: 432145
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the shown content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows their content, archived. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content, then use the post's [Report] link! If a post is not removed within 24h contact me at firstname.lastname@example.org with the post's information.