CLICK HERE FOR THOUSANDS OF FREE BLOGGER TEMPLATES »

Tuesday, December 11, 2007

Hotel Rwanda

SOURCE A
“… The United States has been a driving force in the provision of humanitarian assistance, in condemning the violence and in trying to organize a U.N. mission designed not simply to promise, but to deliver what it promises. Sending a U.N. force into the maelstrom in Rwanda without a sound plan of operations would be folly … Emotions can produce wonderful speeches and stirring news editorials. But emotions alone cannot produce policies that will achieve what they promise. If we do not keep commitments in line with capabilities, we will only further undermine U.N. credibility and support. The actions authorized last night will help. They may save lives. But ultimately, the future of Rwanda is in Rwandan hands.”
Anthony Lake, American National Security Advisor during a press briefing on May 25, 1994

SOURCE B
Frontline - Another example. Over 2,000 Tutsi refugees took shelter at a United Nations troops compound guarded by Belgian soldiers who then abandoned them, went to the airport, left them to die. How do you feel about that?
Riza - “Just as anyone who had any responsibility for this would feel. Terrible, sad, but I was not on the ground, I don’t know what the circumstances were. Maybe those Belgian soldiers also realized that resistance was futile. It’s quite possible. Maybe you feel that they should have gone down firing and been killed. Well, I do not know whether their commander gave them the order to withdraw, or whether they themselves decided. They certainly didn’t telephone New York.”
Iqbal Riza quoted in a PBS Frontline interview. During the events in Rwanda, he was deputy head of U.N. peacekeeping.

SOURCE C
“This was not the first time, nor would it be the last, that General Dallaire (the Canadian in command of the UN forces in Rwanda) would learn that Kigali–designated a “weapons-free zone” in the Arusha Accords–was a Hutu Power arms bazaar. It was hardly a secret: grenades and Kalashnikov assault rifles were openly displayed and affordably priced in the central city market; planes carrying French, or French-sponsored, arms shipments kept arriving; the government was importing machetes from China in numbers that far exceeded the demand for agricultural use, and many of these weapons were being handed around free to people with no known military function–idle young men in zany interahamwe ( A Hutu Power group) getups, housewives, office workers–at a time when Rwanda was officially at peace for the first time in three years.”
Excerpted from Chapter 8 of Philip Gourevitch’s book, We Wish To Inform You That Tomorrow We Will Be Killed With Our Families.



According to the sources and the film, how did individuals, groups of people and the world community fail the people of Rwanda?

  • First off, the whte people left when the Rwandan people needed them most. Rwandan people were left to take care of their own problems. They were deep underwater.
  • Secondly, the Hutu people failed Rwanda by killing just about anybody. They didn't kill the supporters of their own kind, the people that went with them, but they did kill the Hutu refugees as well as the Tutsi refugees.
  • Thirdly, General Bizimungu was close to not helping just because Paul wasn't able to give anything in return. The General was being really SELFISH and would oly help on account of receiving something in return.
  • Fourthly, Gregoir was a traitor when he told the Hutus(that were killing everybody) about Paul and that the U.N. was trying to get people out in trucks.
  • And finally, when the refugees were calling people to sign for them to get out of the country, only about 1/4th of the people replied/helped the people get out.

Monday, December 3, 2007

African Footprint Reflection


  1. What are the main visual elements?
  2. What issue is this political cartoon about?
  3. What is the cartoonist’s position on this issue?
  4. What evidence in the cartoon supports your opinion regarding the cartoonist’s position?
  5. What other techniques could the cartoonist have used to make this cartoon more persuasive?
  • The main visual elements in this picture is, of course, the footprint on Africa and the propaganda colors.
  • That people are just taking over Africa without realizing what they are f=doing to Africa. The people, the land and the culture. They just think that people can take over Africa and not care. They just want to leave their mark.
  • The cartoonist's position on this issue would be negative against the people that have and are presently taking over Africa. This person does not like the fact that people are taking advantage of Africa. But the cartoonist could also think that it is OK to take over Africa by putting his own footprint on Africa.
  • Well, the negative part of the cartoonist's position would be just mainly because he posted this on the world wide web to spread that it's not good to do this kind of stuff to people and land. But the positive evidence would be that he's saying he has left his mark, and then once again, he put in on the world wide web and thought " OK, this is cool, why don't I spread the news that people can take over Africa."
  • The cartoonist could have given more backup on what they think about this subject because there are two sides to this confrontation. Like saying on the footprint... NO. Just plainly on the footprint, he/she could've written that.