First, I can't speak highly enough about the quality of Gourevitch's prose. He's a superb writer. I started flagging the phrases and insights that he had with little tags, and the book began to look like a battlefield!
"Genocide, after all, is an exercize in community building. A vigorous totalitarian order requires that the people be invested in the leader's scheme, and while genocide may be the most perverse and ambitious means to an end, it is also the most comprehensive."
"Killing Tutsis ws a political tradition in postcolonial Rwanda; it brought people together."
I'm sure those comments were, in part, written sardonically -- but there was enough truth underlying them to make them obviously true.
My reaction was one of disgust -- not just for a society so easily manipulated to behave like this, but in the responses of the Western World or, more correctly, the lack of response.
The international aid agencies, too, it seems to me, were like EMTs intent on patching up victims, that they had no interest in preventing further bloodshed or drawing attention to the situation. (The book makes it clear that there was profit to be made from large international efforts, if not by the organizations themselves, then by their major suppliers.)
France and Belgium come out looking particularly crass. The US looks bad for having turned its back on the situation.
That said, I don't know that any country, or group of countries, can or will invest great amounts of money in trying to be policemen to the world. My heart says countries should, but my head says we can't and shouldn't.
I do think that globalization and the profits it offers will cause things to continue as they area -- in a neo-neo-colonization world order. Sad.
---
Changes to the movie? Show that neighbors attacked neighbors, and family members killed family members, if one happened to be Tutsi and the other Hutu. (The Tutsis were mostly vicitms, but we see that its isn't over.) The movie made it look as though most of the attrocities were by uniformed members of the Hutu army or militia. It was also everyday Hutus, neighbors and family people!!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
Great post Walter. The movie did a good job, but you realize after reading the book that so much wasn't told. Philip is definitely a great writer and was intent on telling this story as detailed as he could. I've read several reactions about people feeling sick or disgusted from watching the movie. The movie, I think, showed very little violence in comparison to the book. I'm glad I watched and read and was able to compare. The book is a must read.
Awesome post, Walt. It's a shame that the West is motivated by political gain...certainly depicted throughout the reading, etc. I'm not sure that will ever change that's why it's so important to have people like Paul in Hotel Rwanda and the so many others stand up against cruel, selfish intentions.
I agree with the others, Walter, that this is an awesome post. I agree with you about how the movie portrayed the murders, but I don't think I could have stood seeing famly members massacreing each other. Maybe the commercial appeal is one reason this was not really shown in the film. This is the only film we have seen that kept me awake at night...
"Show that neighbors attacked neighbors, and family members killed family members, if one happened to be Tutsi and the other Hutu...The movie made it look as though most of the attrocities were by uniformed members of the Hutu army or militia."
Walter, you are so right! Not all the killing was done by the uniformed.
The lack of response was disgusting. But it still goes on...what are we to do?
Post a Comment