caribb
Posts: 1504
Joined: Mon Nov 08, 1999 6:33 am

Hotel Rwanda Film

Tue Jan 18, 2005 2:30 am

I saw this movie last night - very emotional and tense.. quite an amazing film.. anyone see it yet? If so what did you think of it?
 
MaverickM11
Posts: 15324
Joined: Thu Apr 06, 2000 1:59 pm

Hotel Rwanda Film

Tue Jan 18, 2005 3:43 am

Haven't seen it yet but I asked the same question on this forum about two weeks ago; no one responded:-(. Regardless, I really do want to see it. Is it worth it? No one is playing the movie in the Denver area yet which is odd though.
E pur si muove -Galileo
 
CaptOveur
Posts: 6064
Joined: Thu May 06, 2004 3:13 am

Hotel Rwanda Film

Tue Jan 18, 2005 5:32 am

I stayed there for a few nights last year. It was nice but there was a place down the street I liked better.

Signed,
AAplatnumflier
Things were better when it was two guys in a dorm room.
 
caribb
Posts: 1504
Joined: Mon Nov 08, 1999 6:33 am

Hotel Rwanda Film

Tue Jan 18, 2005 6:46 am

MaverickM11 - sorry I didn't see your earlier post. Is it worth it? Yes I thought it was a very powerful movie. Hard to watch but yet you have to see it to believe it. It's amazing how the "West" pretty much writes off Africa. The film focused on the hotel manager, a Canadian general, Sabena employees in Brussels and a Red Cross social worker as the only people who really stood up for them in the end. Quite an amazing story and kinda shakes you to the core when you realize in the end a minimum of 500,000 people were killed and the world barely noticed.


[Edited 2005-01-17 22:48:33]
 
iakobos
Posts: 3255
Joined: Wed Aug 06, 2003 6:22 pm

Hotel Rwanda Film

Tue Jan 18, 2005 7:35 am

800,000 actually, and since then approximately 1,000 per month in the subsequent clashes in the NE of RD Congo.
About 5 times more than the Asian tsunami.

...and the world still barely notices...
 
aio86
Posts: 910
Joined: Sat Sep 16, 2000 12:16 pm

Hotel Rwanda Film

Tue Jan 18, 2005 8:56 am

I saw the movie last night. I thought it was excellent. Showed enough violence and terror to get the point across but it was watered down enough for an American audience. I wish that Western leaders would watch this movie and be inspired to take action in Sudan, but somehow I don't see that happening.
 
BN747
Posts: 5344
Joined: Thu Mar 28, 2002 5:48 am

Hotel Rwanda Film

Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:09 am

Aio86,

Agreed. Just when you think you have a handle on what really went on over there... this film does a fantastic (and enteratining) job of explaining just how this unfortunate event occured and how much you DON'T know! It's one of those flicks that put you to the 'What I would I do if I was in this situation' test... unbelievable!

BN747
"Home of the Brave, made by the Slaves..Land of the Free, if you look like me.." T. Jefferson
 
User avatar
aerorobnz
Posts: 7486
Joined: Sat Feb 10, 2001 3:43 pm

Hotel Rwanda Film

Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:17 am

It sounds well worth a look. I wonder if it is playing here yet?
Flown to 120 Airports in 44 Countries on 73 Operators. Visited 55 Countries and counting. Wanderlust is like Syphilis, once you have the itch it's too late for treatment.
 
L-188
Posts: 29881
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 1999 11:27 am

Hotel Rwanda Film

Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:44 am

Sorry, not going to a lot of movies, until I find another job.

OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
 
User avatar
yyz717
Posts: 15689
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2001 12:26 pm

Hotel Rwanda Film

Fri Jan 21, 2005 9:15 pm

I saw this movie last night. The plot was interesting. Basically, it followed the travails of a wealthy mixed Rwandan family (father Hutu, mother Tutsi) seeking refuge in the hotel where the father is a hotel manager, as the mass carnage of Tutsi's engulfs the capital Kigali. The hotel becomes a refuge for Tutsi refugees.

The movie though was also just a big sickening propaganda piece. Despite an estimated 1.2M Hutus who actively sought out and killed (mainly with machetes) over 1M Tutsi's, the Hutu's were still painted as "innocent victims" of white racism and colonialism from centuries ago. In other words, whites are somehow responsible for 1M blacks mass killing another 1M blacks.  Insane Gimme a break!

I live in the real world. This movie confirmed to me that this genocide was nothin more than black Rwandans killing black Rwandans. Black racism at its worst, in other words. No non-Rwandans were even remotely responsible for this carnage.

As bad as this genocide was, I still say let Rwanda (or any African country) solve its own damn problems. African genocides need to be stopped by Africans. Here in Canada we solve our own problems. So should Rwanda.





I dumped at the gybe mark in strong winds when I looked up at a Porter Q400 on finals. Can't stop spotting.
 
flyboy36y
Posts: 2897
Joined: Sun Mar 19, 2000 1:45 pm

Hotel Rwanda Film

Mon Jan 24, 2005 6:10 pm

ACtually, I did not see the plame placed on whites much. Sure, it was whites who caused the schism, but those Rwandans are responsible for the genocide...
 
iakobos
Posts: 3255
Joined: Wed Aug 06, 2003 6:22 pm

Hotel Rwanda Film

Mon Jan 24, 2005 6:28 pm

Sure, it was whites who caused the schism

For your information, the fight between Tutsi and Hutu ethnies is ancestral.
It dates back from times where there was nothing such as a white man in black Africa.
When the region was colonized (200 years ago) the scenario was already in place.
The country was a Tutsi Kingdom and they were ruling the Hutu (their slaves).

The Germans and later the Belgians did not want to change the scenario, it is after independence that they had a free rein to fight each other openly.
 
BN747
Posts: 5344
Joined: Thu Mar 28, 2002 5:48 am

Hotel Rwanda Film

Mon Jan 24, 2005 6:33 pm

Well said Flyboy36y

The movie though was also just a big sickening propaganda piece. Despite an estimated 1.2M Hutus who actively sought out and killed (mainly with machetes) over 1M Tutsi's, the Hutu's were still painted as "innocent victims" of white racism and colonialism from centuries ago. In other words, whites are somehow responsible for 1M blacks mass killing another 1M blacks.   Gimme a break!

I live in the real world. This movie confirmed to me that this genocide was nothin more than black Rwandans killing black Rwandans. Black racism at its worst, in other words. No non-Rwandans were even remotely responsible for this carnage.

As bad as this genocide was, I still say let Rwanda (or any African country) solve its own damn problems. African genocides need to be stopped by Africans. Here in Canada we solve our own problems. So should Rwanda.


Yyz717, your 'real world' apparently doesn't comprise of very much 'real world' history. When WWII was over a hordes of frenchmen took revenge against fellow frenchmen who had ingratiated themselves with the Nazis. The difference in Rwanda is .. the damaging impact of the former colonial power lasted far longer than Nazi reign over France (Vichy). So what would you call the french situation? French propaganda? French racism at it's worse? Either the confines of your 'real world' are willfully restricted (or selective) when it comes to actual historical accounts or previous historical occurences have no meaning whatsoever to you.

BN747

[Edited 2005-01-24 10:36:33]
"Home of the Brave, made by the Slaves..Land of the Free, if you look like me.." T. Jefferson
 
User avatar
yyz717
Posts: 15689
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2001 12:26 pm

Hotel Rwanda Film

Mon Jan 24, 2005 6:57 pm

So what would you call the french situation? French propaganda? French racism at it's worse?

I'd call it a topic for another thread. This topic is about RWANDA, not the French after WW2.

The difference in Rwanda is .. the damaging impact of the former colonial power lasted far longer than Nazi reign over France (Vichy).

So says who? As mentioned above, the Hutu-Tutsi conflict existed long before the Belgians arrived. The Belgian colonial impact in Rwanda, if anything, was minimal.

Either the confines of your 'real world' are willfully restricted (or selective) when it comes to actual historical accounts or previous historical occurences have no meaning whatsoever to you.

Or, perhaps you're one of those bleeding heart liberals who can't see black racism even when a genocide happens.





I dumped at the gybe mark in strong winds when I looked up at a Porter Q400 on finals. Can't stop spotting.
 
BN747
Posts: 5344
Joined: Thu Mar 28, 2002 5:48 am

Hotel Rwanda Film

Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:15 pm

So says who? As mentioned above, the Hutu-Tutsi conflict existed long before the Belgians arrived. The Belgian colonial impact in Rwanda, if anything, was minimal.

Says history if you care to check it out.. Leopold, in particular was notoriously ruthless over all belgian colonies!

What the hell does liberal/conservative have to do with historical fact? instead of wasting your time on a.net making crap up.. you may want reseach the subject or just stay stupid about it... and it seems you've made your choice.

BN747

"Home of the Brave, made by the Slaves..Land of the Free, if you look like me.." T. Jefferson
 
iakobos
Posts: 3255
Joined: Wed Aug 06, 2003 6:22 pm

Hotel Rwanda Film

Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:18 pm

It was and still is tribalism, and the concept is still alive and well.
An African has two identities, tribe (the root) and country (superficial).

 
User avatar
yyz717
Posts: 15689
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2001 12:26 pm

Hotel Rwanda Film

Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:23 pm

Says history if you care to check it out.. Leopold, in particular was notoriously ruthless over all belgian colonies!

Leopold's focus was in the Congo, not Rwanda.

instead of wasting your time on a.net making crap up.. you may want reseach the subject or just stay stupid about it...

1.2M Hutu's (African blacks) killed over 1M Tutsi's (African blacks). Blacks killing blacks. Black racism at its worst. It's factual. Can you handle black-on-black racism? Well.....it happened.
I dumped at the gybe mark in strong winds when I looked up at a Porter Q400 on finals. Can't stop spotting.
 
iakobos
Posts: 3255
Joined: Wed Aug 06, 2003 6:22 pm

Hotel Rwanda Film

Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:33 pm

Leopold, in particular was notoriously ruthless over all belgian colonies!

Congo was Leopold II 's personal property for a rather long time before it became a Belgian Colony, and the only colony at that.
Ruanda and Urundi were protectorates (under administration of) "inherited" from the German East African territories after the WW.
 
BN747
Posts: 5344
Joined: Thu Mar 28, 2002 5:48 am

Hotel Rwanda Film

Mon Jan 24, 2005 9:15 pm

Blacks killing blacks. Black racism at its worst. It's factual. Can you handle black-on-black racism? Well.....it happened.

And pro-Nazi french kiling anti-nazi frenchmen is white-on-white racism, muslim serbs vs non-muslim serbs white-on-white racism? Shiite vs Sunni is it arab-on-arab racism?... NOT! The word racism coming out of your mouth is like a4 year old trying to discuss sex-- he has no clue what the hell he's talking about. At best is simply, tribal warfare. Racism is the oppression of one race over another, not within itself. Yyz717, you woudn't know 'black-on-black racism if it 'leaped up and bit you in the ass!' And apparently it did.

BN747
"Home of the Brave, made by the Slaves..Land of the Free, if you look like me.." T. Jefferson
 
greasespot
Posts: 2955
Joined: Sat Apr 24, 2004 10:48 am

Hotel Rwanda Film

Mon Jan 24, 2005 9:20 pm

Read the book "Shake hands with the Devil", by Romeo Dallaire. He is the Canadian General who was in charge of the UN mission during that period. In typical hollywood fashion Nick Nolte played a character losely based upon him and they made it well "Hollywoodish". Dalaire does not have a lot to say about the movie other than it is very losely based upon events.

Shake Hands with the Devil is a really heavy book and takes a lot to read it. But in the end you see how the world Fucked up at that time. I wonder have we learned anything since?




GS
Sometimes all you can do is look them in the eye and ask " how much did your mom drink when she was pregnant with you?"
 
caribb
Posts: 1504
Joined: Mon Nov 08, 1999 6:33 am

Hotel Rwanda Film

Mon Jan 24, 2005 9:55 pm

Ok guys, lighten up, I just asked if you liked the movie. I don't want to start a war here LOL...
 
User avatar
yyz717
Posts: 15689
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2001 12:26 pm

Hotel Rwanda Film

Mon Jan 24, 2005 11:06 pm

Racism is the oppression of one race over another, not within itself.

The Hutu's and Tutsi's are different in appearance. The Hutu's are dark, short & muscular. The Tutsi's are tall, lighter skinned and slim. The Tutsi's were hacked to death on site based on their features. Roving gangs of Hutu's were killing anyone who looked Tutsi. THIS is racism. Within one race.

Yyz717, you woudn't know 'black-on-black racism if it 'leaped up and bit you in the ass!'

Just go see the movie. You'll learn alot about black-on-black racism.
I dumped at the gybe mark in strong winds when I looked up at a Porter Q400 on finals. Can't stop spotting.
 
iakobos
Posts: 3255
Joined: Wed Aug 06, 2003 6:22 pm

Hotel Rwanda Film

Tue Jan 25, 2005 12:27 am

"....within one race..." yes and no, among blacks yes.
Hutus are Bantu in origin (bushmen), probably originating from West Africa, the Tutsis are Ethiopoïds originating from Abyssinia. The only historic natives are the Twa (1% of the pop.).
Both Hutu and Tutsi settled in Rwanda and Burundi somewhere between the 10th and 12th century.

When the Germans colonized the place at the end of the 19th, the situation was already as we know it, Tutsi king and their elite running the place.
When the Belgians got the mandate in 1922, they did not change anything to the local system, and this until just before independence ('59) when they realized that the transition from a country run by a minority (18%) to a system where automatically the 80% Hutus would take not only the power but also a long awaited revenge would be catastrophic.
Catholic missionaries are directly at the origin of Hutu emancipation.

There was already a massacre in '59, described (by the Pope) at that time as the biggest genocide in modern times apart from WW2.

Though, it not that simple, nor is it simply one ethny against the other.
Quite a lot of Hutu were politically moderate and thereby close to the Tutsi, too close in the eyes of extreme Hutu elements who easily manipulated the population. So, if there is undoubtedly an old recurrent ethnic factor, petty politics played their role as well, regardless of ethnic appartenance.

Hutus killed about as many Hutus as they killed Tutsis.
 
MaverickM11
Posts: 15324
Joined: Thu Apr 06, 2000 1:59 pm

Hotel Rwanda Film

Tue Jan 25, 2005 2:19 am

" As mentioned above, the Hutu-Tutsi conflict existed long before the Belgians arrived. The Belgian colonial impact in Rwanda, if anything, was minimal."

True, but colonial powers oftne used the divisions to their ends and exacerbated the problem.
E pur si muove -Galileo
 
BN747
Posts: 5344
Joined: Thu Mar 28, 2002 5:48 am

Hotel Rwanda Film

Tue Jan 25, 2005 12:41 pm

The post above this says it all...

Tribal warfare has been going on in Africa since the 1st two groups went their separate ways. However the clashes never reached the scale of the Hutu/Tutsi conflict, wholesale slaughter by the likes of Idi Amin aside.

... but colonial powers oftne used the divisions to their ends and exacerbated the problem.

The continent with it's century long skirmishes was functioning within reason on it's own until the colonial powers moved in and went absolutely beserk, raiding, raping, looting, kidnapping, murdering and occupying the place. When political correctness kicked it and colonialism was recognized by a more enlightened global society as the brutal, barbaric system that it was... the powers all left. Colonialism was the equivalent of a rape of a woman, you take what you need and maybe.. just maybe you leave her barely alive. The body traumatized and in complete shock. After the Colonial powers packed their ill-gotten gains, years of playing one tribe against another and simply left... just what do you think was left in it's wake? A vaccum.. it's like if the US left Iraq right now... what would happen??? The same net effect. Absolute mayhem would rule this day and every single day thereafter until the biggest bully with biggest stick (aka most guns) lays down the most bodies... then there is order.

The only positive to emerge from the colonial period -- and it kills me to say this-- is the Roman Catholic Church and other religious organizations. They at least stayed and began to formulate some type of organizational structure (albeit the most basic services) to the millions of shattered pieces left behind by the powers, giving the survivors some semblance of order and direction. As bad as 'believe in god or starve' is... a hungry belly has no conscious.


BN747

"Home of the Brave, made by the Slaves..Land of the Free, if you look like me.." T. Jefferson
 
User avatar
yyz717
Posts: 15689
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2001 12:26 pm

Hotel Rwanda Film

Tue Jan 25, 2005 1:02 pm

When political correctness kicked it and colonialism was recognized by a more enlightened global society as the brutal, barbaric system that it was... the powers all left. Colonialism was the equivalent of a rape of a woman, you take what you need and maybe.. just maybe you leave her barely alive. The body traumatized and in complete shock. After the Colonial powers packed their ill-gotten gains, years of playing one tribe against another and simply left... just what do you think was left in it's wake? A vaccum..

This is an extremely one-sided, and hence incorrect view of colonialism. Colonialism actually did not affect 99%+ of the local inhabitants of any African country. The Europeans invariably built cities in then-remote areas on the coast or on major waterways. Some Africans were enslaved, but many more were educuted by the Europeans. The Europeans built infrastructure (roads, cities, buildings, railways) that were handed over to newly independent African countries free of charge.

The rot in Africa largely set in after colonialism ended. Yes indeed -- as politically incorrect as it is to say -- MOST African countries were better off economically as European colonies.

I dumped at the gybe mark in strong winds when I looked up at a Porter Q400 on finals. Can't stop spotting.
 
caribb
Posts: 1504
Joined: Mon Nov 08, 1999 6:33 am

Hotel Rwanda Film

Wed Jan 26, 2005 2:31 am

Ahem... Don Cheadle has just been nominated for an Academy Award as Best Actor for this film. Good for him, he was excellent. He's been so good in so many films I'm glad to see him recognized and especially for this role.
 
iakobos
Posts: 3255
Joined: Wed Aug 06, 2003 6:22 pm

Hotel Rwanda Film

Wed Jan 26, 2005 4:43 am

Sorry BN but your post is so far from field reality that I have to react.

Agreed that greed and power were the initial factors of colonization, with a pinch of "bring the knowledge of God" to make good measure.
But our forefathers were not stupid, they knew that a balance had to be found, local hands were needed and there were not that many around, better take good care of them. Murdering is not an asset in the productivity column.

As soon as the field was cleared of the "make a quick buck" adventurers and organized by the colonial power (administration of territories) and the church,
things settled rather quickly. Of course, it was about using the resources of the country but not with the view of making it dry. Development was more important than exploitation.

With these came education, health care, social care, religion and the complete battery of "positive" ingredients modern civilisation could bring.
It took only two generations to change the tribal societies into a structured society where most babies have a chance to live, mothers have a chance to survive to carry more babies, children go to school - learn a trade, most diseases are eradicated, nobody dies from an appendicitis, adults have an occupation - an income that they can spend freely - clothes - a house - drinking water - a vehicle - food - free medecine - hope to live until they are 60 and over, the better student go to university, some go on to reach the higher layers of the administration and politics.

And then hell broke loose....the whites, the ones who were not hacked in pieces that is, had to pack their bags, and guess what happened ?

Black Africa in general is closer to square one (1910-1920) than to the pre-independence period (1960-65). In ancient times they could only wage war with their neighbours using arrows and spears, now they can move around by plane, heli or 4x4 carrying modern weaponry.

Was colonization that bad ?


 
BN747
Posts: 5344
Joined: Thu Mar 28, 2002 5:48 am

Hotel Rwanda Film

Wed Jan 26, 2005 10:30 am

Lakobos, nice try... but that's all yak and no 'shaq'...

But our forefathers were not stupid, they knew that a balance had to be found, local hands were needed and there were not that many around, better take good care of them. Murdering is not an asset in the productivity column.

You can possibly be serious with whaty you wrote... first all colonism could only be successful at the barrel of a gun, and continuous exhibitions of ruthlessness to show would 'not be tolerated', and iron fisted rule to show who was the boss. Secondly, not that many around??? Are you nuts, there was and endless suply of them... 'too many' for comfort for the invaders! Their lives meant nothing to the conquerers... only their damn near free labor (after abolishment of slavery) was all that was important!

As soon as the field was cleared of the "make a quick buck" adventurers and organized by the colonial power (administration of territories) and the church,
things settled rather quickly. Of course, it was about using the resources of the country but not with the view of making it dry. Development was more important than exploitation.


Listen to yourself...'using resources'... you make it sound like they borrowed a lawn mower or something...

but not with the view of making it dry,

Excuse me!!?? But what dimension are you pulling this from??? It cannot be from this world! Are you even aware what 'exploiting resources is all about??? You make it sound like miners for gold,diamonds, and other elements under went a scrutinizing Environmental process with forsight of a projected outcome in mind. The mindset of the day was 'take, take and take until you can't possibly take anymore! The photograph of mountains of slain Buffalo with the proud hunters sitting on them with their rifles perfectly captures the 'there is no end to this wealth' mentality of the people of the day. Power then and power today is no different in it's impetus. But today we have things like safeguards, rights of workers, environmental concerns, health cares issues and a lot more... NONE of those existed during colonialism. Please show me where it did... this I gotta see!

Development my ass! The only development was for the comfort of the interlopers, the locals segregated and relegated to their huts or teepees (not to mention forced off their ancestoral homelands as it was prime and choice properties and deemed needed by the 'newcomers') and they were forbidden to interact with the 'conquerers' except upon request (such as to work-- not have tea and socialize in 'white social clubs and cafes!'

It took only two generations to change the tribal societies into a structured society where most babies have a chance to live, mothers have a chance to survive to carry more babies, children go to school - learn a trade, most diseases are eradicated, nobody dies from an appendicitis, adults have an occupation - an income that they can spend freely - clothes - a house - drinking water - a vehicle - food - free medecine - hope to live until they are 60 and over, the better student go to university, some go on to reach the higher layers of the administration and politics.

Was colonization that bad ?


It's absolutely stunning that you make such a erroneous generalization...

All of you positives have been accomplished without the brute force of colonialism! China (except Hong Kong) and many other nations are proof that all the above can be accomplished sans the horrors of colonialism (or as westerners like to say 'discovery')...

The Europeans took care of the locals the same way the American Indians were 'taken care of', the same way local Indians (of India ) were taken care of.. at the barrel of a gun. They lived under constant duress and 3rd class citizenship.. in their own homelands.

Was colonization that bad ?

I only wish there were some way, some how... you could go back and re-live it as a local native and then come back and say to me... 'Colonialism.. it's not so bad.'

BN747
"Home of the Brave, made by the Slaves..Land of the Free, if you look like me.." T. Jefferson
 
BN747
Posts: 5344
Joined: Thu Mar 28, 2002 5:48 am

Hotel Rwanda Film

Wed Jan 26, 2005 11:20 am

Lakobos,

Recently PBS aired an experiment where several people volunteer to live for 1 month or so people did 200 years ago.. it was called 'Frontier House' perhaps you saw it..any way I hope you did. Especially afterwards when the volunteers spoke of just the daily hardships and how ungainly it was. Now compound that with being raided, subjegated, forced from your home or village (because it's prime real estate) and living under armed occupiers for the rest of your life... yep I wish you could go back and experience it 1st hand...

BN747
"Home of the Brave, made by the Slaves..Land of the Free, if you look like me.." T. Jefferson
 
jaysit
Posts: 10186
Joined: Thu Jun 01, 2000 11:50 pm

Hotel Rwanda Film

Wed Jan 26, 2005 11:28 am

THIS is racism. Within one race.

Actually, the Hutus and Tutsis are different races.
This business of lumping people together as one race because of skin color is absurd, because the hutus and tutsis don't see each other as being of the same racial origin.

As far as Hutus and Tutsis being historically at each others throats are concerned, that is not entirely true. The Hutus were always subservient to the Tutsis, but the Belgians exacerbated the rivalry. The Belgians created the Hamitic hypothesis to justify the minority Tutsi rule over the majority Hutu population by formally stating that the Tutsis were the cursed Caucasian descendants of Ham. Absurd, but thats what the crazy Belgians did. And the Belgians further institutionalized Tutsi superiority over the Hutus once they took over conventional Tutsi superiority. To lay absolute blame on the Belgians is as absurd as exonerating them of any mischief that further heightened the problem.

Was colonization that bad ?

You assume (incorrectly, I believe) that the benefits of modern Industrial civilizations would never have occurred were it not for colonization. That is incorrect. Look at Thailand. It was never colonized, and it is one of the most prosperous and peaceful of the SE Asian nations other than Singapore. African nations would have developed at a different pace, perhaps, but indigenous civilizations would have had to engage the West and modernity in their own way, rather than being viciously exploited first by the colonial powers, and then by the so-called African leaders who basically appropriated the military infrastructures left behind by the colonial powers. This revisionist exoneration of colonialism has only been brought about by those who compare the best of the colonial experience to the worst of the post-colonial experience.
Atheism is Myth Understood.
 
BN747
Posts: 5344
Joined: Thu Mar 28, 2002 5:48 am

Hotel Rwanda Film

Wed Jan 26, 2005 5:36 pm

Thanks for the input J. but as Yyz717 puts it, then every anglo/slav war or saxon/slav conflict is then 'white-on-white racism' and so on. Sure there were conflicts between these groups (one race against another) and many many more. But it's never referred to white-on-white or black-on-black, brown-on-brown racism or any other misnomer. It's a mis application on his part. Genocide is the correct term. Yyz717 was simply attempting stealthly interject his own racist perspective as subtle as possible in an effort whitewash and absolve the far reaching negative influence of the colonialist.

Was colonization that bad ?

Recommendation... watch the movie 'A Passage to India' (1984-brilliant pic about Brit colonial rule in early 1900s India.


BN747
"Home of the Brave, made by the Slaves..Land of the Free, if you look like me.." T. Jefferson
 
User avatar
yyz717
Posts: 15689
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2001 12:26 pm

RE: Hotel Rwanda Film

Wed Jan 26, 2005 8:17 pm

Yyz717 was simply attempting stealthly interject his own racist perspective as subtle as possible in an effort whitewash and absolve the far reaching negative influence of the colonialist.

Nice try. I just refuse to follow the politically-correct mantra that colonialism is the cause of most third world attrocities. The Europeans left Rwanda generations ago. Rwandans (both Hutus and Tutsis) are grown men and women who are responsible for their own actions, whether its economic mismanagement or genocide.

Was colonization that bad ?

I only wish there were some way, some how... you could go back and re-live it as a local native and then come back and say to me... 'Colonialism.. it's not so bad.'


Actually, it wasn't that bad. The European colonizers rarely accounted for more than 1% of the local population at the height of colonization, whether it was Africa or India. Hence, the overwhelming majority of natives never even saw a white, let alone were negatively affected by them. Most natives continued living unaffacted as they had for centuries. Of course this truth about colonization will not fit in your "all colonization is bad" and "all white people are the cause of 3rd world conflict" mindset.

Just go see the movie BN747. You'll see vicious black-on-black violence and genocide. It happened in 1994, and fellow African countries, despite having huge armies, did nothing to stop this genocide of fellow blacks.

I dumped at the gybe mark in strong winds when I looked up at a Porter Q400 on finals. Can't stop spotting.
 
iakobos
Posts: 3255
Joined: Wed Aug 06, 2003 6:22 pm

RE: Hotel Rwanda Film

Wed Jan 26, 2005 8:29 pm

Observing that all of the Rwandan people in authority appeared to be Tutsi, the German settlers concluded that the Tutsi, who were typically tall and slender, were superior to the Hutu, who tended to be short and stocky.
The Germans’ thinking actually derived from several European “theories” that were, in reality, racist explanations for the existence of advanced civilizations south of the Sahara. One particularly far-fetched rationale was that the Tutsi were Noah’s son Ham’s descendants, who were supposedly banished from the Promised Land because Ham exposed his father’s sin. According to this theory, as Ham’s descendants moved south into Africa, their skin became darker, but they maintained their other Caucasian attributes. Possibly influenced by such theories, the Germans, and later the Belgian colonialists, favored the Tutsi, giving them access to education and administrative posts denied to those of Hutu ethnicity.
from U of Alabama website, an article supposedly based on a book by Dr Taylor.

It is everyone's right to write a book or publish an article, even when you are not well versed on the subject. It is also everyone's right to believe what they read or not. So far, so good.

My parents lived there from 1953 onwards and I was raised in a small town in the neighbouring region. I went to school and spoke the local language.
All of the extended family (100+) were in the region, some as far back as '46. One of my uncles was the very first victim of the troubles surrounding the independence, he was put to a wall in front of a huge crowd and literaly blown to pieces by a machine gun to make an example. (he was an accountant)
I have always been interested by Africa, visited most of it and read probably over a couple of hundred books on the subject, including many of the official reports from the territorial administration, various parliamentary comitees and most of the literature of the period '60-'70.
I confess I am not a Google educated pseudo-anthropologist with a 10' background.

 
BN747
Posts: 5344
Joined: Thu Mar 28, 2002 5:48 am

RE: Hotel Rwanda Film

Wed Jan 26, 2005 8:55 pm

Just go see the movie BN747. You'll see vicious black-on-black violence and genocide. It happened in 1994, and fellow African countries, despite having huge armies, did nothing to stop this genocide of fellow blacks.

Yyz717, if you read my post you can see that I did see the film. And no argument... there is not no question about the all out black-on-black violence! I knew that before the film was ever made... I knew it when Idi Amin was slaughtering people back in the day. You're terming it black-on-black racism was the area of contention. You came across (and still do) as if to nullify the racism practiced by the former colonialist and redirect the 'racist aim' at the black warring parties.. which it isn't.

and fellow African countries, despite having huge armies, did nothing to stop this genocide of fellow blacks.

Yes, exactly like the well-armed, well-organized and European huge armies sat and watched 1000s slaughtered in the Balkans before the Americans stepped in.

The African Union, formerly the OAU (Org. of African Unity), is nowhere near as cohesive as the UN (if I could say that) they worry about the appearance (as sorry of an excuse as it is) of being seen as siding with one group over the other. The African armies you speak off collectively probably have about 5 C-130s (two that work) plenty of out-dated and inoperable F-227s and C-119s Boxcars. And marching into the territory isn't the smartest idea either. I can see the pamphlets describing what a Hutu and a Tutsu looks like... in the hands of each soldier!?!

Yes Lakobos, and what you saw in the 1950s vs achievements over the last 30 years.. it can't be the same. What's there today was not in place in 1950. In the 1950s there were only 2 independent African states. The rest were virtual gigantic modern day plantations. Yyz717 can't possibly begin to understand the effects of colonization (all he has do is look at state of true natives of America,Australia and few other places.) But for you to sign off and endorse colonization given you indepth perspective, I must say... is quite shocking.

BN747
"Home of the Brave, made by the Slaves..Land of the Free, if you look like me.." T. Jefferson
 
User avatar
yyz717
Posts: 15689
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2001 12:26 pm

RE: Hotel Rwanda Film

Thu Jan 27, 2005 12:21 am

In the 1950s there were only 2 independent African states. The rest were virtual gigantic modern day plantations.

Umm no. The "rest" were largely rural hunter-gatherer societies as they were before the Europeans arrived. Most African blacks then had never seen a white person.

But for you to sign off and endorse colonization given you indepth perspective, I must say... is quite shocking.

Im merely giving a balanced perspective to colonialism. It wasnt all bad or all good. The very small # of whites in Africa and India had no impact on the vast majority of local people. The whites also left a good infrastructure of cities, railroads etc when they left. Overall, the effect of colonialism in most areas was benign.
I dumped at the gybe mark in strong winds when I looked up at a Porter Q400 on finals. Can't stop spotting.
 
jsnww81
Posts: 2301
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2002 3:29 am

RE: Hotel Rwanda Film

Thu Jan 27, 2005 1:13 am

I don't normally participate in Non-Av discussions, but this one is pretty compelling. I haven't seen the film yet, but I'm eager to.

I'd argue that only one of the problems in Rwanda (and other parts of Africa) can be blamed on the colonial powers. The UK, France, Belgium, etc. drew lines separating their territories with little regard for tribal loyalties or traditional settlement patterns. The result is that today you have large groups of people who reside in separate countries, or two traditional rivals (like the Hutu and Tutsi) forced to share a single nation. I'm sure if it had been up to the Africans, the political boundaries of present-day Africa would look much different. That's really the ONLY effect of colonialism where I think some stones can be cast at Europe.

Yyz717 is correct, however, on a few points. When the European powers pulled out of Africa in the late 1950s and 1960s, they left most of their territories on a fairly good footing to join the 'modern' world. Infrastructure was decent, most large cities were in fairly good shape and democracy was definitely en vouge. In some of the more 'favored' colonies, like Kenya and Senegal (which had long been the pet colonies of the UK and France, respectively), the standard of living in cities was very high.

Today, most of Africa is still in the same state it was in when the Europeans left. To a certain degree, you can blame a lack of foreign investment (and perhaps some inherent racism therein), but the lion's share of the blame goes to corrupt regimes seeking to enrich themselves off the backs of their people. In some extreme cases, like post-1975 Mozambique and Zimbabwe in 2001-2002, the government even took steps to eliminate colonial infrastructure that was vital to the economy.

It's been 40 years since most of Africa gained independence, and a lot of those nations haven't made a speck of progress since. The time for blaming colonial powers has long passed.
 
iakobos
Posts: 3255
Joined: Wed Aug 06, 2003 6:22 pm

RE: Hotel Rwanda Film

Thu Jan 27, 2005 1:30 am

The name is iakobos, no offense, the capital I is confusing.

You have climbed two steps at once, I have missed the sentence where I said that colonization was a good thing, as far as I can read I only notice "was it that bad ?", and specifically in reference to Rwanda-Burundi-Congo, and in reaction to your The only positive to emerge from the colonial period ... is the Roman Catholic Church and other religious organizations

As always a profit & loss sheet can be drawn, and the profit column shows many other things that the (actual) humanitarian actions of religious organisations.

Since Rwanda was at the center of the topic, just note that between 1948 and 1970 the native population doubled. Under a well structured regime/organisation this can only be achieved if and when a number of factors are present, including the pillars of human development, health and education.

Back to the Tutsi/Hutu hate and no love affair, the ethnic confrontation is constantly brought forward (fashion headline of the day = genocide ?) but never the fact that nearly as many Hutu were killed as Tutsi, and they were killed by their "brothers". It was, at the level of the "authorities" in charge, more politically motivated than anything else. I guess it would not have sold as well.

As to the UAB article, this is utter ignorance.
School (6 then 8 years) was compulsory for everyone from the age of 6, irrespective of color or ethnic family.
Tutsi Caucasian attributes and Noah's descendants ??? lol
There is a fact however, Tutsi were largely "superior" to the Hutu as far as intelligence is concerned. Remember that for 7 to 9 centuries they ruled eventhough they were a small minority. Genetics.
So there is no surprise that more Tutsi gained higher positions than Hutu and there were proportionally more T in university than H.
So far for the "favored the Tutsi, giving them access to education and administrative posts denied to those of Hutu ethnicity." which is just non-sense.

Yyz17, as far as (sub-Saharan, except SAf) African armies are concerned, forget it, they are merely better than paper statistics.

And I agree on the OAU, only the A is valid, O is a dream and U is science-fiction.
 
MaverickM11
Posts: 15324
Joined: Thu Apr 06, 2000 1:59 pm

RE: Hotel Rwanda Film

Thu Jan 27, 2005 1:38 am

"Zimbabwe in 2001-2002, the government even took steps to eliminate colonial infrastructure that was vital to the economy.
"

Which has worked really well for Zimbabwe's neighbors that are receiving all that fleeing infrastructure.
E pur si muove -Galileo
 
BN747
Posts: 5344
Joined: Thu Mar 28, 2002 5:48 am

RE: Hotel Rwanda Film

Thu Jan 27, 2005 4:26 pm

Yyz717 is correct, however, on a few points. When the European powers pulled out of Africa in the late 1950s and 1960s, they left most of their territories on a fairly good footing to join the 'modern' world. Infrastructure was decent, most large cities were in fairly good shape and democracy was definitely en vouge. In some of the more 'favored' colonies, like Kenya and Senegal (which had long been the pet colonies of the UK and France, respectively), the standard of living in cities was very high.

Today, most of Africa is still in the same state it was in when the Europeans left. To a certain degree, you can blame a lack of foreign investment (and perhaps some inherent racism therein), but the lion's share of the blame goes to corrupt regimes seeking to enrich themselves off the backs of their people. In some extreme cases, like post-1975 Mozambique and Zimbabwe in 2001-2002, the government even took steps to eliminate colonial infrastructure that was vital to the economy.

It's been 40 years since most of Africa gained independence, and a lot of those nations haven't made a speck of progress since. The time for blaming colonial powers has long passed.


Great post Jsnww81... however, you overlook the biggest problem of all...

what the hell good comes of leaving a great the infrastructure behind and along with a 'how to manage it' manual in cantonese??? First the Europeans financed the infrastructure.. the africans built it. And it was being built for European use with the intent to stay for quite along time. The US civil rights US triggered a massive guilt-attack upon the Europeans and they were smart enough to read the writing on the wall! Now since the Europeans didn't share their infrastructure with the africans-- as the africans viewed everything from the 'outside looking in' (janitors and lowest level of help excepted of course) is one thing.. but had the Europeans gone in and duplicated the same BUT seperate infrasture for the africans (since the africans could not use theirs) then once they left... the transition would be a piece of cake. The Europeans might as well had left the Africans a pile of sand and said 'you can built a computer with this and here's a cantonese instruction manual.... good luck' [I stand corrected ... africans were allowed to built and SHARE the Prisons and Penal Colonies].

The oldest trick in the book (of ruling over the masses) is 'Conquer and Divide.. and the europeans did it in splendid fashion. Accept when they left.. they forgot to do or selectively decided not to.. was to put back together what they divided (or took was divided and created a far greater chasm). The void they created and left behind was not one condusive or fertile for cohesion, unity and self-reliance. It left a hungered people wanting the best of what they saw the europeans enjoying (at their expense) and they went for it from all directions-- and thus the makings for mass confusion, contempt, a deepening hatred and ultimately internal strife and warfare! All previous conquers have done this, sure they live behind nice building and crap.. but they leave the people in shambles only to turn and point at them and say 'See, they are useless...' Alot like your auto mechanic borrowing your car, bring it back and saying... 'gee, I'm sorry.. but I really needed it.. but here it is...' you look and see it's not the same-- it's in a million pieces! He hands you the 'manual' and wishes you good luck-- while snickering to himself and muttering under his breath 'He's fcuking useless...' The difference in that analogy is that instead of the people.. you are in good shape... but the property is not.. just the opposite of the african situation but the net effect is exactly the same.

Those conditions were breeding grounds of perfection for the all the corrupt dictators/regimes that surely followed... even in Kenya! South Africa is a perfect example... if the whites had bailed after one man-one vote.. that place would be like Baghdad and Fallujah today! Mandela or not.. no difference! Why? Because, the black africans were left entirely out of the process! On the outside.. looking in. We the US... did the exact same thing in the Philippines.. we planted the seeds for Marcos. Manila was the Pearl of the Orient.. when Hong Kong was a nothing but a glamorous sewer. Tokyo was the equivalent of 'Cleveland', and Singapore was the red light district! Now look at it, given all the US dollars in Manila (back then).. Today, Manila should be light years ahead of Tokyo, Hong Kong and Singapore--collectively.. it's just NOW starting to jell there.

When you use and abuse the people... that's exactly what you leave behind.. abused individuals without a clue on how to recover.. they know the final product/picture.. but have no idea how to get there and desperation soon kicks-in and mayhem and chaos follows.

It's no wonder the place the looks EXACTLY like it did in 1950 when the euros left...

Infrastructure and property is nice.. but subjecting millions of people to what occured after the powers left to the recent Hutu/Tutsi slaughter is inexcusable.. and therein lies the biggest flaw in Colonialism! They should have never put placed in that situation in the 1st place, the decision was made for them. It's easy to sit and comfort and point and say. well, they could have and should have done this... if you yourself had been one of the victims it's almost assured you be one of the victims of desperation as well.

BN747

"Home of the Brave, made by the Slaves..Land of the Free, if you look like me.." T. Jefferson
 
iakobos
Posts: 3255
Joined: Wed Aug 06, 2003 6:22 pm

RE: Hotel Rwanda Film

Thu Jan 27, 2005 8:11 pm

BN,

Where did you find the model that helped you build up that "vision" ?
Tarzan in Hollywood ?

A long time before the 60's it was clear TO the colonial powers (in black Africa) that they would relinquish their sole authority in some point in time, however through a long and hopefully smooth process. This is a natural outcome when you offer the benefits of education (all of it incl. university) to the locals and when you chose to progressively involve their elite in the administration of the country.

There were local junior ministers, members of parliament, businessmen, doctors, teachers and bishops. Remember that only two generations before 0% of the locals were literate. Not that bad if you ask me, and totally inconsistent with the professed idea of total exploitation.
The infrastructure (roads, airfields, dams, electric grid, water, sewage, hospitals, schools, etc...) was for everyone's usage and benefit, commerce was thriving, in populated areas lethal diseases were a thing of the past.
A fisherman made enough money to build himself and his family a brick house with electricity, water, sewage,... if he choose to do so.
Locals were trained in a trade of their choice, they had also financial support to create enterprises.
There was no systematic segragation, society was naturally divided into classes according to education, profession or personal achievement.
A nurse was a nurse and a bishop was a bishop. Except for the posts directly appointed by Brussels (very few), the rest was a matter for meritocracy or personal endeavour.

My primary school was a single building, with identical classes for natives and for non-natives, and the only physical separation was the flower beds between the two football fields.
Knowledge of the local language was encouraged though not formally teached.

The strategic intent of the colonial power at that time was obviously not to give it all back to the natives. The idea was that the locals would play a more important role and at some point in time even the leading role locally, the power would remain the supervisor and CFO, provider of expertise and finished goods.

And then came Moscow and Washington....the first reckoned that Africa was a great ground to propagate communist ideology, and suited very conveniently their geostrategic and economics interests; the latter could not be left behind and did not watch happily British and French influence grow strong.
Want a shortlist of the Africans who were "educated" (no trade, just revolutionary ideas) in Moscow ? simple, 90% of the political figures that were going to shape the period and be the direct instigators of the local revolutions.

At the very least 20 years too soon. African societies were totally unprepared, and actually there was not much in term of "society", the notion of nationality
was a fresh concept teached by the white, it had no meaning for a native, except for the very few who were quickly teached how to make good use of it for their personal and their mentors' interests.
Desperation ? where did you find that one ?

...the place does not look like it was in 1950, if you knew something about it you would know that the place was never like that before.
 
User avatar
yyz717
Posts: 15689
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2001 12:26 pm

RE: Hotel Rwanda Film

Fri Jan 28, 2005 12:18 am

The void they created and left behind was not one condusive or fertile for cohesion, unity and self-reliance. It left a hungered people wanting the best of what they saw the europeans enjoying (at their expense) and they went for it from all directions-- and thus the makings for mass confusion, contempt, a deepening hatred and ultimately internal strife and warfare! All previous conquers have done this, sure they live behind nice building and crap.. but they leave the people in shambles only to turn and point at them and say 'See, they are useless...'

It was not quite like this. All the European colonists trained many blacks to work in the bureaucracies and colonial governments effectively training them as successors when the countries became independent. The Europeans set everything up to work as a smooth transition. Indeed, many whites intended to stay in the newly independent countries, but 2 things happened:
1. Non-democratic corrupt dictators took over with no understanding of how to run working infrastructures and government. Many of the trained blacks were pushed out of government and the jobs give to loyalists with no training, which results in a slow but steady breakdown in the infrastructrure.
2. The whites who intended to stay were made unwelcome and were appalled at the corruption of the new governments and left, hence leaving something of a skill vaccum in their wake.

However you slice it, the Africans were handed well-managed colonies and they blew it.
I dumped at the gybe mark in strong winds when I looked up at a Porter Q400 on finals. Can't stop spotting.
 
BN747
Posts: 5344
Joined: Thu Mar 28, 2002 5:48 am

RE: Hotel Rwanda Film

Fri Jan 28, 2005 3:43 am

It was not quite like this. All the European colonists trained many blacks to work in the bureaucracies and colonial governments effectively training them as successors when the countries became independent. The Europeans set everything up to work as a smooth transition. Indeed, many whites intended to stay in the newly independent countries, but 2 things happened:
1. Non-democratic corrupt dictators took over with no understanding of how to run working infrastructures and government. Many of the trained blacks were pushed out of government and the jobs give to loyalists with no training, which results in a slow but steady breakdown in the infrastructrure.
2. The whites who intended to stay were made unwelcome and were appalled at the corruption of the new governments and left, hence leaving something of a skill vaccum in their wake.

However you slice it, the Africans were handed well-managed colonies and they blew it.


Total BS Yyz717... try dismantling the US/Canadian or any other police force and military and see how long the republic would stand??? I don't care how many trained 'bureaucrats' you have .. if you don't have some serious muscle behind it-- law/order are non-existant.

Now you're going to suggest, they armed and trained black police and soldiers.. if they did.... an armed insurrection would have taken place along time ago.. uh huh.. place guns and weapons into the hands of the people and land you illegaly occupied... the Colonialist weren't that stupid!

BN747
"Home of the Brave, made by the Slaves..Land of the Free, if you look like me.." T. Jefferson
 
BN747
Posts: 5344
Joined: Thu Mar 28, 2002 5:48 am

RE: Hotel Rwanda Film

Fri Jan 28, 2005 3:58 am

Iakobos, just saw your post...

There was no systematic segragation, society was naturally divided into classes according to education, profession or personal achievement.

Have completely taken leave of your senses???

Where was there no systematic segregation???? You're aying that the natives were considered equals to their colonial masters... something which everyone knows is a complete lie!

The strategic intent of the colonial power at that time was obviously not to give it all back to the natives. The idea was that the locals would play a more important role and at some point in time even the leading role locally, the power would remain the supervisor and CFO, provider of expertise and finished goods.

Probably.. but when the 'hand-over is fast tracked' due to changing political winds... the timing goes off and it happens sooner than expected-- where's plan B for that? There was none! No, I'm certain as with all conquers the attitude of 'we'll leave when we are damn good and ready' was deeply entrenced in the minds of all-- not most-- but all colonialist.

Iakobos. you're doing a great job of making the case (and whitewashing the heck out of it)... now make the case how the natives welcomed this...

BN747
"Home of the Brave, made by the Slaves..Land of the Free, if you look like me.." T. Jefferson
 
iakobos
Posts: 3255
Joined: Wed Aug 06, 2003 6:22 pm

RE: Hotel Rwanda Film

Fri Jan 28, 2005 5:51 am

Simple, try to find a native who is over 55 years old and ask him.
Just avoid asking present day native politicians and major businessmen, aka the ones who are in control of their "masses".
If you think the colonial period was hard exploitation of the locals (close to slavery), try to inform yourself about today's situation, that is, if you dare.

I don't say everything was great and glorious, I maintain that as far as Congo-Rwanda and Burundi are concerned, the situation was very good, and had Congo not been a playing ground for Moscow and Washington by proxy, a lot of lifes would have been saved and the country would have taken a very different path. There was no need for a plan B, we did not have the power to decide and in truth not even the determination.

Tell me another place on earth were the vast majority of its inhabitants went from tribal life in the village (including anthropophagy) to modern day citizens in the lapse of just over 40 years ?

And you are completely wrong about the police or other armed forces.
There was only an embryonic municipal police in the largest city, the rest was the Force Publique, of which only the officers were whites. All NCOs, with the only exception of some specialists, were natives and of course all soldiers.
Note that Belgium never had an empire like the French and British and that there was never more than a couple of hundred thousands in a country 80x its own size. Léopold II before his death obliged the parliament to accept Congo as his legacy (true) and independence was given without a war and within months of the first claims. Idiots we were...

From its birth as a single entity (1830), Belgium has been a country of consensus (with proportional representation in parliament, no single party being able to lead, 2 communities, 3 regions). That is not a recipe for the kind of powerful leadership that would have been needed by a strong colonial power.

And yes, under the principle of meritocracy, we were all equals.
The difference in the field being that the whites were occupying the top positions almost across the board, not so much because of their color but because they had the required expertise and leadership, and you know what, it was working terribly well. Ask the Brits and the Americans how much did Congo contribute to the war effort.

I leave you to Hollywood, 36mm never lies.
 
BN747
Posts: 5344
Joined: Thu Mar 28, 2002 5:48 am

RE: Hotel Rwanda Film

Fri Jan 28, 2005 11:32 am

Tell me another place on earth were the vast majority of its inhabitants went from tribal life in the village (including anthropophagy) to modern day citizens in the lapse of just over 40 years ?

Ummm the most populous on the planet... China. They were living the way they had been for centuries until 1911 lead by Dr. Sun Yat-Sen out of the imperial age to the modern age (on paper) over the 30+ years the place exploded in commerce and civic advancement, exceeding what was accomplished in all of Africa at the time (and today) all without colonialism.

And you are completely wrong about the police or other armed forces.
There was only an embryonic municipal police in the largest city, the rest was the Force Publique, of which only the officers were whites. All NCOs, with the only exception of some specialists, were natives and of course all soldiers.
Note that Belgium never had an empire like the French and British and that there was never more than a couple of hundred thousands in a country 80x its own size. Léopold II before his death obliged the parliament to accept Congo as his legacy (true) and independence was given without a war and within months of the first claims. Idiots we were...



Yeah... and we see how well that's working at this very minute in Iraq. If the US bails now, or even 6 months from now, that place will collapse like a wet cardboard box!

From its birth as a single entity (1830), Belgium has been a country of consensus (with proportional representation in parliament, no single party being able to lead, 2 communities, 3 regions). That is not a recipe for the kind of powerful leadership that would have been needed by a strong colonial power.

That's nice, so are a lotta things 'on paper.'

And yes, under the principle of meritocracy, we were all equals.
The difference in the field being that the whites were occupying the top positions almost across the board, not so much because of their color but because they had the required expertise and leadership, and you know what, it was working terribly well. Ask the Brits and the Americans how much did Congo contribute to the war effort.

I leave you to Hollywood, 36mm never lies.


And I'll leave you with illegal drugs you're obviously hording. No, belgians and rwandans were not equal. You weren't there and neither was I. But one things for sure if the relationship was egalitarianistic as you try to portray it... the belgians should have been the 1st ones there to 'help out' there 'EQUALS' former friends.

But they weren't.

Your view of Belgian Occupation:

Belgians arrive: Hi we're the Belgians, we're here to bring your 'civilization' and from the age old tribal-life into the industrial age.

"We won't stay long." (the africans -hearing how other nations were savagely beaten into colonialism) welcomes the Belgians with open arms.

"We'll build schools, hospitals, roads, shops, country clubs and adminstration bldgs for all to enjoy. But we need the best land tracts to accomplish this."

"We'll build a police force, but we'll be in charge and you guys do as we say."

"Is that fair?"

Natives: Oh sure, come on in, we'll gladly move our homes to the shittier sections of the country, we'll be happen to do your laundry, wash your feet, fan you when you're too hot and serve you tea at the Polo Lounge."

Reality check!!!

No one had reached (or cared to bother) the Rwanda/Burundi areas.. so not to be left out the Belgians seized what's left..

BLAM!!! BLAM!! BLAM!!!

Belgians: Anyone have any questions? We're here and we aren't leaving until we're damn good and ready!

"You people are now subjects of the Belgian Crown. Well not really 'subjects because that would grant you citizenship...' Let's just say 'we're in charge' and you'll do as we say....or else!"

After seeing bodies strewn about... the natives submit.

"We're in-charge, you people all pick and move... anywhere but here.. we need the nice fertile area for our farms,plantations and townships.... wait.. we need you guys to build them.. but you can't live here!"

"You are to honor our king/queen and worship our gods... out with the heathen ways"

"If you see a white person you are to step aside."

Political Winds of Change blows in (plus the UN is about be formed).

The Belgians: "Guys' it's been nice.. but we gotta run.. we've raped the country of all that it's worthy, so why stick around? (an attack of guilty conscious kicks in..) Plus everyone else is doing it." Here is where 'Plan B' would have been extremely handy!

"we've left you guys a few cops, a few troops and adminstrative clerks who'll know what to do... best of luck"

Simple, try to find a native who is over 55 years old and ask him

Wrong! Dead wrong, a 55 year-old is born after the fact.. someone who witness the invasion as an accurate source of feelings of the era.

In the 1930s, many american ex-slaves were interviewed... and just like your suggested 55 year-old... a surprising number of them longed for the return to slave life... they had never been re-educated in preparation for the life of a citizen. All they could think about was their stomachs and where they'd get their next meal. Society had no use for them any longer.

Whom would you rather speak with someone taken from freedom and sold into slavery or someone born within the system and never knew freedom??? Don't answer that.... you already did.

Yes, leave me to Hollywood... and I'll leave you to Follywood or Foggywood because you're making no kind of sense whatsoever with dreams of a elegant colonial occupation that all sides agreed as harmonious! That's one for the books!

BN747


"Home of the Brave, made by the Slaves..Land of the Free, if you look like me.." T. Jefferson
 
komododx
Posts: 1734
Joined: Tue Jan 27, 2004 4:40 am

RE: Hotel Rwanda Film

Sat Feb 05, 2005 6:12 pm

As bad as this genocide was, I still say let Rwanda (or any African country) solve its own damn problems. African genocides need to be stopped by Africans. Here in Canada we solve our own problems. So should Rwanda.


I still believe it is the responsibility of the West (especially former colonizers) to go to the aid of the needy. Even if the fight goes far back before Belgium colonized those countries, it is imperative that the West intervenes in the act of Genocide in the 20th century.

SNB
I'm homeless and unemployed
 
BN747
Posts: 5344
Joined: Thu Mar 28, 2002 5:48 am

RE: Hotel Rwanda Film

Sat Feb 05, 2005 10:48 pm

Agreed Komododx...

The westerners created that mess, they broke it... you own it ... now put back the way you found it. Even if it means grass huts for everyone and tribal warfare was limited to a few slain bodies here and there vs the millions in post colonial Africa.

It's like Bush and Iraq, he broke it... now let him fix it. Even after these dubious elections... if that place goes to hell, it's gonna stick to Bush for the rest of his days... because no one more than him wanted to do what he just did. He owns it.

Here in Canada we solve our own problems. So should Rwanda.

WTF does that mean??? What problems in Canada are you talking about??? Is there a rift between Polar Bears and the canucks I'm not aware of....?

BN747


"Home of the Brave, made by the Slaves..Land of the Free, if you look like me.." T. Jefferson
 
BN747
Posts: 5344
Joined: Thu Mar 28, 2002 5:48 am

RE: Hotel Rwanda Film

Sun Feb 06, 2005 4:40 pm

Seriously though, I just saw the movie and was deeply moved by it (but not shocked). As an African it's easy for me to blame the West for the problems that led to the genocide, but I have to be realistic; the Hutu's did not have to resort to massacring their fellow citizens to solve their problems.

Agreed 5NEOO,

But it's their (Europeans) fault that most of the continent is in the fragmented, disfunctional state of disarray that it is in. Many places have certainly made incredible strides on their own to correct the mess..... yet most have a very long way to go!

The acts of the Hutus are savage and of their own volition. But westerns are solely responsible for exascerbating and exploiting any preconditioned rift that existed between the two tribes. And that's just one of the many horrendous situations they are to blame for due to their involvement.

When people asked such a dumb question like 'why is Africa all screwed up...maybe they should investigate before asking...'


BN747

"Home of the Brave, made by the Slaves..Land of the Free, if you look like me.." T. Jefferson

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Aesma, akiss20, ContentCreator, LittleFokker and 11 guests