African Tribes
African tribes have been killing each other since the beginning of time, just like every other region in the world.
And your point is?
The HUTU hated the TUTSI because the Belgians favored the TUTSI tribe for their so-called "European" features that were almost non-existent.
They made the HUTU feel like they were lesser than the TUTSI because their noses were wider and eyes were bigger.
Are you to tell me that the Rwandan genocide is just an example of African tribes killing each other and that it doesn't go much deeper than that?
Get real please.
It makes me sick when I see and hear about the ignorance of people that believe "It is just Africans killing each other." I personally have lived and worked in these parts of the world. Until you personally feel the fear and terror that these mass killings and lack of world attention cause, anyone who is so blunt by thinking that this is normal politics in Africa needs a one-way ticket to these places. The tribes that were forced onto new lands when colonial rulers drew lines on the map were forced to attempt to assimilate to new cultures and rulers and of course that is going to cause problems. I am by no means saying that the French, Germans, British, etc are clean of the problems.
I lived in Cote d'Ivoire during their first-ever coup on Christmas 1999 and stayed through the bloodshed and attempted takeovers over the next several years. I saw a second-world country at the cusp of joining the world economy fall apart and become a sorry shell of itself. I witnessed people getting shot in the streets not because of their tribe, but because of their religion. We lived in fear not because we were American, but because we were white in a country that was despising the French rule of 40 years ago.
I firmly believe the only reason that we aren't helping in African politics is because it is Africa. We have thousands of troops killed in the mid-90s in the shell of Yugoslavia, but we do not send help to the genocide in Sudan, Somalia, CAR, and other countries. I honestly believe it is because of their skin color and their religion...we do not care about the people living in terrible fear and conditions because their ID card is another tribe.
Lastly, chew on this. Go to Africa. View the war children in these countries. Try to get into places like Liberia and Sierra Leone where if you were in a different tribe, your limbs were cut off in the middle of the night. Try to experience a new level of fear when you see their faces and only imagine what their eyes have seen and the screams their ears have heard. Try to sleep at night after those images are burned in your head and their stories are seared into your heart and body. I have pictures from my work there, but they rattled me so much that I locked them into a safe and still cannot look at them without breaking down.
If you are able to muster up the courage and face the fact in 20 years, Africa will be out of control due to AIDS and civil problems, go there and help. I think your DisneyWorld money will go a lot further to change lives and build schools and clean water wells rather than a generic 10-day "amusement" trip. If you are able to see the eyes of a tiny West African child when he sees that you are an American and want to help teach him or her how to read or to get healthy, that will change your life in ways you can never imagine. But for God's sake, you must realize the global community helped create the mess in Africa and we must stop with the blind ignorance and help. These experiences changed my life in ways I could never imagine and I am a better person by far for seeing and feeling it. I recommend that everyone does the same.
Well, I'm getting off of the soapbox now. I just get angry beyond belief when I see people that just don't care about the global scene and who don't want to help clean up the world for everyone.
By the way...I'm American and white.
I take it you supported US intervention in Afghanistan and Iraq then. You said something interesting: "The tribes that were forced onto new lands when colonial rulers drew lines on the map were forced to attempt to assimilate to new cultures and rulers and of course that is going to cause problems." I know a lot of Africans that have come to the US and have had no trouble assimilating to this country's culture, which I suspect is a lot more alien to them than that of their neighbors' back home. No, you can't lay the blame squarely at the feet of the colonial powers. (Though that is a favorite tack of African dictators--"Look what the white people made me do!"--and those white people that are embarrassed at how Africans have managed their own affairs over the last fifty years.) They only took control of the continent in the mid-to-late 19th century (which begs the question of what Africa was like before the Europeans took power), and they've been gone since the middle of the last century. (Plus, colonialism doesn't explain why Liberia has slid into chaos and anarchy.) If the borders are artificial vestiges of colonial rule, then why not redraw them to suit the people living there? That sounds like a good idea. All the African heads of state could have a summit and agree upon new borders like the civilized men that they are, right? And maybe at that same meeting, the African leaders can convince Thabo Mbeki that HIV causes AIDS. Africans have been in charge of Africa now for a long time, which is as it should be, and it is their responsibility. When Rwanda exploded, other African countries should have intervened, instead of doing nothing for eight months while a million people were killed.
shareHow could you be so dumb!
Yes, Europeans didn't colonize Africa until the 1800s but let's not forget their presence since the early 1400s. Before then Africans were just fine in their system of government. They were even civilized well before European countries. But when the Europeans got there, their idea of civilization was different than that of the Africans. THAT'S WHEN THE PROBLEMS STARTED. So don't get off trying to prove that European powers don't deserve blame. Don't forget about the Castle at El Mina in present day Ghana. The different European powers that took control of that region in the 1400s enslaved and raped Africans and left their mixed children to believe that they were better than the pure Gold Coasters. CONFLICT! Let's not forget about Freetown in Sierra Leon, established in the 1700s. The blacks from Britain (Krios) became the elite in Freetown and thought that they were above Sierra Leone natives because they were British educated. CONFLICT! No! it wasn't until the Berlin Conference when the Europeans called for "effective occupation" that official colonies began to form, but from Africa as a gateway to India in the earlier half of the millenium followed by "legitimate trade" a little later, Europeans have been causing trouble in that rich continent. So let me reiterate, Europeans were present in Africa WELL BEFORE colonization! CONFLICT! CONFLICT! CONFLICT!
SIGNED
EDUCATED BLACK CHILD
"How could you be so dumb!"
That is certainly the best way to respond to someone with whom you disagree with in a debate. Bravo.
"Yes, Europeans didn't colonize Africa until the 1800s but let's not forget their presence since the early 1400s."
Actually, let's not forget the European presence in Africa of the Romans, the Vandals, et al. (But what's a couple millennia, give or take?) Why did the problems only start with those pesky Portuguese? Because they found that they could exchange guns and liquor to African chiefs for slaves? Why would the indigenous Africans, with their "just fine" system of government tolerate such behavior?
"But when the Europeans got there, their idea of civilization was different than that of the Africans. THAT'S WHEN THE PROBLEMS STARTED."
I notice you didn't outline the difference. As an educated black child, perhaps you could clarify how the concepts of European and African civilization diverged. And implicit in your conclusion is that Africa was problem-free before those Euros arrived. If, indeed, you believe that is the case, then I propose you put down the books by Molefi Asante, Ivan van Sertima, and John Henrik Clarke, and instead read some factual history. Afrocentrism may be good for your self-esteem, but you'll be ill-equipped for polemical discourse.
"So don't get off trying to prove that European powers don't deserve blame."
For what? For the fact that Africa is today a disaster-area, completely on the periphery of the world economy and marked by political repression and a tendency for intertribal genocide? Here is my point, and read it slowly and carefully: Europe, the West, the White Devil, whatever your preferred nomenclature, is not to blame for Hutus killing one million Tutsis. Who is? The Hutus themselves.
"The different European powers that took control of that region in the 1400s enslaved and raped Africans and left their mixed children to believe that they were better than the pure Gold Coasters."
OK, now we've compartmentalized from the entire continent of Africa to the Gold Coast. Things are pretty *beep* up there today, true. But, to get back to the germane part of the discussion: Rwanda ain't in the Gold Coast. And why would civilized Africans with their "just fine" governments subscribe to mulatto superiority? Did they think that the Euros with their big ships, firewater, and boom-sticks were somehow superior? Hmmm...it just doesn't add up.
"it [sic] wasn't until the Berlin Conference when the Europeans called for "effective occupation" that official colonies began to form, but from Africa as a gateway to India in the earlier half of the millenium followed by "legitimate trade" a little later, Europeans have been causing trouble in that rich continent."
Earlier half of the millennium? You must be confused. (The sentence overall is muddled, but nevertheless.) My original post stands: Europe only enveloped Africa in the 19th century, and they were mostly gone by 1960. (Those pesky Portuguese were the real holdouts!) You highlight the trouble the Europeans caused in Africa. If they were unique in their destructivity, you might be able to pin the blame on them. But let's recall the depredations that the Arabs wrought, starting on the East coast of Africa, dating from the...9th century! (They're still in Sudan, by the way...enslaving and murdering blacks...they must of picked that up from the Portuguese, right?) And let's not forget the trouble caused by...the Africans themselves! Were you aware that the British almost single-handedly stopped the trans-Atlantic slave trade? Did you know that a commission of Africans from Senegal was sent to Europe to protest this, because it negatively affected their economy? No, you probably didn't know that...I doubt that the books you've read and the teachers you've listened to have made mention of this interesting factoid.
"CONFLICT! CONFLICT! CONFLICT!"
Yes, and? What about conflict? I mean, we all know it to be universal, and all. So...what's your point? I think you left off one important qualifier to your nom de plume, my friend: "Somewhat".
Turing, you spit a lot of history but I doubt you really know anything about Africa. I am an African history major at the University of Michigan and it is my opinion that nearly every recent war in African can be linked to European causes. With that said, the conflicts are also complex in that they are NOT just due to outside influence.
Let me give you an example of one you were specifically wrong on: the Liberian civil war. Liberia was started as a colony for freed American slaves. Basically the US gov just dropped off a bunch of ex-slaves and put them in power in a new society. Unfortunately, there was also another population of people living there. The conflict between the 'ex-slaves' and the 'natives' started way back when and still continues today.
You are also confused on the actual history of the Atlantic Slave Trade. Between the 15-18th centuries, the Euros pushed the Atlantic Slave Trade onto Africa, which caused DRASTIC changes. Slavery has existed in Africa since the beginning of society but it was an entirely different situation than what Euros changed it into. Ancient African slaves were integrated into the societies and had high possibilities of getting freedom. Europeans changed this system and then forced slave-trade onto African societies like the Dahomey. In response (in order to survive), African kindoms/states started slave-raiding/trading with Europeans. The abolition of the slave trade in the mid-18 century was only started because British capitalists needed a labor market. This in turn led to the establishment of colonization. It is true that some African kingdoms continued to smuggle slaves out of Africa but that was because their economy was now molded around it. Also, as European capitalists started to develop cash farming in Africa after the abolition, they ended up INCREASING domestic slavery in the continent.
You are also underestimating the colonial impact, despite the fact that it was short in length. Europeans (obsessed with eugenics and racial order) grouped African people into so-called "tribes" even if they didn't live together before. They also SOLIDIFIED tribal lines which is hugely significant because before European domination, tribal indentities were fluid. For example, in ancient Rwanda "Hutu" and "Tutsi" were economic terms, meaning 'farmer' and 'herder' respectively. It was possible to change professions just by acquiring cattle. When the German and the Belgium colonized however, they became obsessed with the Tutsi and their supposed "hamitic" or superior/whiter characteristics. They eliminated Hutus from positions of power and taught all Rwandans about the differences between the two 'tribes'. They measured the noses/skulls of the Rwandans to label them and gave them ID cards for further separation. When the end of colonization came, they realized they would have to put a democracy in place and since Hutus are the majority there, they gave all the power to them. The Hutus, after being infected by the poisonous lies of the Belgian, were eager to seek revenge against their former leaders (Tutsis). Fast forward to 1994 and you have a genocide. With that said, there were Hutus who manipulated the situation in 1994 in order to gain power. But the root cause is European! I wrote a research paper on this if you'd like more information.
Colonialism was not the only influence on Africa. The Atlantic Slave Trade devastated the continent, and the West continues to play a meddling role in conflicts. In Angola during the civil war, the US and USSR were funding the seperate sides of the conflict which escalated and prolonged and intensified the war.
I am not going to claim that there were no wars in Africa before European/Arab contact. There definately were, but there were no more than there were in Europe at the same time. The fact that there is a lot of conflict there now has historical links to outside influence.
I'm sorry kid, but you really can't spout off about a history you know nothing about. This is my field, you can try and fight back if you want but I'd rather you take a class on ancient African history.
[deleted]
I'm not black, I'm white...not that that should matter.
Did you actually take any African history courses while at U of M? If so, who were your teachers?
I study African history because I'm going into the humanitarian field and I believe that understanding history is essential in really grasping the complexity of conflicts.
Like I said before, Africa and its history is complex. Almost all of the current conflicts can be traced to European causes but African agency is also to blame for manipulation and corruption.
Rubbaducky, you're the one...
You make debatin' lotsa fun...
You're going into the humanitarian field? Good Lord, you certainly don't act like a humanitarian. I shudder to think what the overt hostility and anger that you've demonstrated in this forum will bring to bear in that sensitive field. It isn't too late, you know...I'm sure your parents would spring for another degree, this time in something marketable.
What hostility? That's just my Sicilian blood. I really just want you to learn more about African history. I think you are smart alright, but you're too affected by Western bias.
I'm actually working in the humanitarian field right now. I am interning for one of the largest ngo's in the world. You can ask my boss if I "act like a humanitarian" or not.
You're right, the point of college and higher education is just so I can become marketable. Maybe I should go into communications or something.
No matter what happens over the course of the remaining debate, Signora, I respect the fact that you are still here, still advocating your point of view. I'll interpret these latest epistles as a symbolic olive branch (apropos, given your background...all things considered, I'm lucky to still be alive, aren't I?), which I reciprocate in full. Now, let's get right back into the (more-cordial) fray:
"What hostility? That's just my Sicilian blood."
Uh-oh, you're treading on thin ice here...just because you're a Sicilian (and a female, I assume), doesn't mean that you are necessarily hot-blooded...right? And, madame, forgive me, but please: your initial post was quite hostile in tone, which led to the unpleasantness that ensued.
"I really just want you to learn more about African history."
Understandable, given that you have such an appreciation for the subject that you decided to focus on it in college...but, believe me, I know a great deal of African History (if I didn't, I would be out of my league in this forum and you'd have de-pantsed me long ago), and I've reached the point of diminishing returns. Now, we certainly have varying viewpoints on certain aspects of causation and rank-importance vis-a-vis the genocide in Rwanda and the state of Africa today...but that is to be expected. Professional historians still can't agree on what caused World War I. They can't agree on much of anything, except the basic facts (even here there are some disputes), and so we see a constant re-appraisal, and re-assessment, of historical events. There is no such thing as double jeopardy in history, and so there will never be the truly definitive account. You encountered my opinion and didn't care for it, so you automatically assumed that it was a result of lack of information. Well, I hope you've been disabused of that notion by this point. We have each entered the realm of analysis, which entails value judgments and normative thinking. So you see, impugning my intelligence or making the debate personal is not a constructive thing to do.
"I think you are smart alright, but you're too affected by Western bias."
I think you are too...you're a WESTERNER! Are you going to tell me, white girl who attended the University of Michigan, that you've transcended your biases because you took sixty-odd credits of African History? Give me a break! Of course I'm biased, and so are you. But just because I see things filtered through my own cultural prism doesn't mean that I can accept that up is down and black is white. Let me ask you this, my non-biased friend: How do you feel about the widespread African cultural practice of female circumcision? I guess if you are truly unbiased, you have to accept it. If not, then you are biased, and if you want to end it, then you are a cultural imperialist.
"I'm actually working in the humanitarian field right now. I am interning for one of the largest ngo's in the world. You can ask my boss if I 'act like a humanitarian' or not."
First off, just out of simple curiosity, which NGO? Second, my dear, I can't base any impression I have about you from anywhere besides this forum. And the signals you were sending out were loud and clear...and at variance with how the humanitarians I've met have behaved.
"You're right, the point of college and higher education is just so I can become marketable. Maybe I should go into communications or something."
Well, if there was ever any question before as to whether you were an idealist or a realist, that's been answered. God bless you, my dear.
First of all, I studied in Senegal at the University of Cheikh Anta Diop in Dakar for a year where I learned African history from Africans; that is not "Western" bias.
As to how I feel about female circumcision, well that is a very complex subject. I recently had very long and detailed discussion with a Ghanian GSI at U of M on the subject after viewing a film by the name of "Moolade" (you should check it out). On one hand, it is undeniable that the practice is very dangerous health-wise and can be considered as repressive to female rights. On the other hand, it is an age-old tradition that is necessary in certain African cultures for girls to transform into women. There are examples in Kikuyu society (a group that lives in present day Kenya) of young women revolting against their chiefs (who were influenced by white missionaries) after they decided to outlaw the practice. These women demanded to keep their tradition alive.
I don't have a definate answer on the subject. Right and wrong is too easy, especially in the context of African history.
I don't know if I should mention this or not considering the creepy stalkerishness that is the internet, but I work for the IRC--the International Rescue Committee. I don't know why you are stereotyping us "humanitarians." We are very very diverse in terms of personality characteristics and lifestyles.
It is true that I started out as an idealist when I first became interested in the field a few years ago. My views have definately changed. I took a great class from a brilliant teacher on the history of humanitarianism in Africa and we read critiques on humanitarian policy from all different points of view: "Famine Crimes" by Alex de Vaal, "In the Shadow of Just Wars" by Fabrice Weissman, etc. Humanitarians have not always been in the right in the past and we continue to play a ambiguous role in the world. But so far, after my extensive work and research on the subject (which I will continue as long as I'm in this line of work), I still believe in the basic ideals behind humanitarianism.
You shouldn't judge me as a person from an online debate. I care deeply about my work and the people I work with.
[deleted]
[deleted]
Wow, I can't believe I provoked such a long and impassioned response, rubba (or do you prefer ducky?). Who said anything about a "fight"? I don't have to fight back, because there is no cause or ideology or spoils at stake (at least from my perspective...but your tone suggests that you, perhaps, feel otherwise). What are they teaching you in the African History department at UM that makes you characterize debate in martial terms? Nevertheless, here is my non-violent rebuttal:
"Turing, you spit a lot of history but I doubt you really know anything about Africa."
I like the glaring irony in that sentence...and the use of a pejorative. I did spit a lot of history...and you puked up a great big glut, too!
"Let me give you an example of one you were specifically wrong on: the Liberian civil war."
When was Liberia founded as an independent entity? The 1840s right? That's twenty-five years after those evil white Americans dropped off a bunch of ex-slaves in Africa, when Heaven knows they would have rather been back on the plantation, picking cotton or sugarcane. When did the *beep* hit the fan in Liberia? In 1980...I repeat: 1980. That's when illiterate NCO Samuel Doe led the coup that pulled then-President Tolbert from his bed and disemboweled him. (Hey, I guess I know something about African history after all!) So you have 130 years of stability, and then an eruption of chaos. (I bet you know what happened to Doe a few years later...perhaps you watched the tape of him being gradually hacked to death? And by a fellow black guy too!) How could this happen? It was a black African tribal thang, baby. Same ol', same ol'. Where was the European (or, should I say, American) influence in all of this violence? If it had happened in 1850, maybe you'd have a case; but, baby, the statute of limitations had expired. I'll tell you what the white devils did give to Liberia: democratic institutions. Quite a novel concept for an African country. If the black folks couldn't run the ship of state, it ain't nobody's fault but their own. They were in charge, and they managed to hold it together for a good, long while. But when Doe and his thugs murdered Tolbert, the grandson of a slave, they re-established the African paradigm, and put the kibosh on democracy.
"You are also confused on the actual history of the Atlantic Slave Trade."
How so? You're gonna have to delve into specifics if you level that charge.
"Slavery has existed in Africa since the beginning of society but it was an entirely different situation than what Euros changed it into."
A kinder, gentler slavery, yes? Good Lord, what kind of nutty Afrocentric hogwash have you been indoctrinated with?
"Ancient African slaves were integrated into the societies and had high possibilities of getting freedom."
So, too, were ancient European slaves. So, too, were modern American slaves. What's your point? You were aware, I hope, that there were free men of color in the antebellum South? (Many of whom were quite well off...and owned slaves!) You are also familiar, I would like to think, with the fact that American slaveowners constantly freed their slaves. It was not an uncommon thing, and it represented quite an economic sacrifice on the master's part. (If you were ignorant of these facts, then you get a dispensation: it is American history, not African, after all.)
"Europeans changed this system and then forced slave-trade onto African societies like the Dahomey."
The Europeans didn't force jack *beep* on anyone until they well and truly took over Africa in the 19th century. (Did they also force the North Africans to raid Western Europe for slaves at the same time?) Prior to this point, the Euros--who would have been dead ducks had they ventured far inland--hugged the coasts and traded with the locals for a commodity the Africans had that was both abundant and valuable: human beings. Recall that the African leaders had no moral qualms about slavery. Nor did the Europeans, obviously. Nor did 99% of the populace at that time. The Dahomey were no exception. (Could you have picked a worse example in support of your argument?) The bulk of their economy was based on trading captured prisoners-of-war to white slavers in exchange for guns and alcohol so that the king could further his imperial aims and get piss-drunk. No one forced him to do anything! And, irony of ironies, the neighboring African tribes hated the king and his rule so much that they helped the French conquer Dahomey in the 1890s! (Whoops! I spit up some more history...sorry about that.)
"The abolition of the slave trade in the mid-18 century was only started because British capitalists needed a labor market."
This is a very revealing statement. Who wrote that, Cornel West? Cheikh Anta Diop? Probably not Henry Louis Gates. (I don't think he's a Marxist.) The British charge against slavery was morally-based, and initiated by the government. The capitalist class--including wealthy merchants, slavers, and plantation owners--weren't exactly leading the bandwagon for manumission. The Tories were bitterly opposed to any interference in the slave trade, and it took social reformers in the House of Commons (many of them deeply religious) until 1833 to finally abolish slavery.
"You are also underestimating the colonial impact, despite the fact that it was short in length."
With all due respect, I'm not. I'm completely cognizant that a few European countries took a lot of wealth out of Africa, and committed many heinous acts against the natives. (In fairness, some colonial masters were less egregious than others.) However, this dominance was indeed short, and it extended not just to Africa, but also to Asia. In the 1960s, Ghana had a higher GDP than South Korea (also a former colony). Look up what the GDP figures are for both countries today. Do the same with oil-rich Nigeria and Taiwan. Do the same with Tanzania and Hong Kong. Do the same with Kenya and Singapore. Do the same with Uganda and Malaysia. Notice the pattern emerging? Africans are running the show, baby, and it might be a blow to your worldview or self-esteem, but the numbers don't lie.
"The Hutus, after being infected by the poisonous lies of the Belgian, were eager to seek revenge against their former leaders (Tutsis)."
Also a revealing statement. Those poor, innocent Hutus were so manipulated by the Belgians that, after gaining independence and all political power in 1962, they killed almost a million Tutsis in 1994. What, were they on colored people time? You said "fast forward to 1994". What about those thirty-two years? Were the Hutus spending all that time mulling over what the Belgians--who ruled Rwanda only after 1918--had told them about the Tutsis? In trying to remove responsibility from the Africans and pin it on the Belgians, you are only infantilizing the Hutus, and perpetuating the stereotype of the dumb African. I see what you are attempting to accomplish, but if you think about it a little more, you'll see that it is quite counterproductive for your contention.
"Colonialism was not the only influence on Africa."
Gee, that's a real 180, given the rest of your post.
"I am not going to claim that there were no wars in Africa before European/Arab contact."
Good...I'd hate for you to look foolish, like the self-described EDUCATED BLACK CHILD from two posts ago.
"I'm sorry kid, but you really can't spout off about a history you know nothing about. This is my field, you can try and fight back if you want but I'd rather you take a class on ancient African history. "
And what a thunderous coda. Ah, the insouciant overconfidence of youth. You are presented with a point of view that doesn't jibe with yours, so obviously I MUST be wrong. After all, I'm spouting off about a subject which, given the paucity of factual underpinning that I've provided, I am totally ignorant of. (That was sarcasm...I think it's necessary that I make that clear to you.) Now, I hope you respond in turn--you don't have to "fight back" sugar-plum, that sounds so ghetto--but before you do, I'd rather you sue your professors at UM for negligence.
You truly are laughable buddy. I have rebuttals to all of the above but unlike you, I have a life and a job to attend to.
Seriously though, if you would like to try to overcome some of your ignorance, sign up for a class on African history at the local community college.
Or, check out crisisweb.org and read the detailed historical reports on Liberia and Rwanda. Oh I'm sorry, do you know more than these professionals too? My bad.
"You truly are laughable buddy."
Likewise, my friend...reading your posts has given me a great deal of amusement.
"I have rebuttals to all of the above but unlike you, I have a life and a job to attend to."
Gee, what a trite cop-out...but whatever: if the fry-machine is callin' your name, hie on to it!
"Seriously though, if you would like to try to overcome some of your ignorance, sign up for a class on African history at the local community college."
I'd probably be better off doing that than enrolling at your alma mater, given the level of intellect you've displayed....such a shame.
"Or, check out crisisweb.org and read the detailed historical reports on Liberia and Rwanda. Oh I'm sorry, do you know more than these professionals too? My bad."
OK. I read the conflict history for Rwanda...Hutus killed Tutsis...in great numbers...and? Where is your bombshell refutation? Let me give you some advice, Sparky (and I'll get serious here for your benefit): when fabricating an argument, put some effort into it. Don't resort to silly sandbox ad hominems, or fallacious appeals to a single authority (no one is infallible, even the "professionals"). It'd also be helpful if you took off your ideological blinkers and cast your intellectual net a bit wider. Diversity is not just a buzz-word: it should be put into practice. Lastly, and this goes toward your integrity: if you step up to the challenge, be prepared to see it through. Don't walk away in the middle like a petulant child.
Damn you your name calling. The way you argue with me reminds me a lot of my boyfriend. You both know how to rile me up.
Anyway, as a historian, I take great care in looking at ALL angles of a situation. Nothing is black and white, and I definately recognize that.
Here is a paper I wrote about a year ago. Forgive my inferior intellect, all I could find was my rough draft. The basic ideas are there. All of the facts are well researched--taken from a variety of sources--so if you want to argue over them, argue with the sources.
Question: To what extent did the ethnographical policies of the Belgian colonial administration in Rwanda lead to the outbreak of genocide in 1994?
Reinterpreting Rwanda
In Rwanda, April of 1994 marked the beginning of the systematic killing of Tutsis and moderate Hutus by the extremist Hutu government and militias; the deaths numbered over eight-hundred thousand and the United Nations later classified it as genocide (International Crisis Group). The rest of the world was shocked at this excessive display of violence, and sought to make sense of it all by investigating the causes. Unfortunately, the history of the conflict has been reduced to being another mindless war between different tribes in Africa. Hutus and Tutsis were seen as being different ethnicities coming from ancient history. Although the distinction between Hutu and Tutsi existed in pre-colonial Rwanda, to a great extent it was the manipulation and solidification of these “ethnicities” by the Belgian colonial government that led to the genocide in 1994.
The history of ancient Rwanda is instrumental in order to understand the genocide in the 1990’s. The three races classified in present day Rwanda are the Twa or pygmy, the Hutu, and the Tutsi. Some historians claim that the three groups came to Rwanda in three separate waves, ending with the Tutsi, while others argue that they had lived together in the region since the 10th century. Whatever the case may be, the fact is that the Hutu and the Tutsi were not categorized as being different races before the colonial conquest. ‘Hutu’ and ‘Tutsi’ were economic terms, as Hutus were mainly farmers and Tutsis were mainly pastoralists (Jezequel). A Hutu was able to acquire cattle and become a Tutsi, while a Tutsi could just as easily lose cattle and become a Hutu. Fluidity was an important aspect in the society. Hutus and Tutsis also both spoke the same language, kinyarwanda, practiced the same traditions, and often intermarried with each other (Jezequel). Distinction between inhabitants was based not on the Tutsi/Hutu/Twa categories, but instead on clan membership.
Before colonization, political organization in Rwanda was limited to weak statelets, ruled by the dominant clan in the region, which could be either a Hutu or Tutsi. The Mwami, or king, headed the statelets and was mainly a symbolic leader. There was little need for centralization, and so no statelet dominated the others (Gell 10). This all changed in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, when a climatic difference in the country led to new political organization. The ecological change especially hurt the Hutus, as they were mainly farmers. This climatic change allowed Tutsis to become more dominant and start to control the power in Rwanda. Rwabugiri, or Kigeri IV, was a Tutsi who ruled between 1860 and 1865, just before the colonial conquest, and who launched a series of attacks on Hutu statelet neighbors, incorporated them into his kingdom, and thus united Rwanda (Gell 45).
Even with the Tutsi lineages rising to power, the Hutus were far from being a dominated race. Some Hutus were able to rise to power within the Tutsi governance through the acquisition of wealth (Steding 234-235). Other Hutus lived in autonomous regions or, if living in the kingdom, they often contested Mwami authority. Furthermore, not all Tutsis were in positions of power. There were a lot of Tutsi peasants who were in the same social position as Hutu farmers. And once again, clan membership was still the most important method of identification.
The Germans reached Rwanda in 1890, the first Europeans to make contact with the country. In 1896, King Yuhi IV signed a treaty to allow them to settle in the area. Upon surveying the region, the Germans interpreted Rwanda as being a feudalistic society, with the ruling Tutsi and the Hutu peasants. They were convinced that the Twa, Hutu, and Tutsi were actually different races. The Europeans were especially taken with the Tutsi, who they described as being too tall, refined, and intelligent to be ‘negroes’ (Prunier 6). They wrote that the Tutsis had beautiful courts, and that they were superior over the Hutu. They developed theories that the Tutsi were a highly advanced people originally coming from Ethiopia. This analysis is an example of the European’s imposition of ethnography, the anthropological description of human races, which they used all over the continent.
The Germans reorganized Rwandan society to fit their policy of indirect rule. Due to a lack of funds and people, they knew they needed to put a puppet Rwandan agency in power. Therefore, they increased centralization, decreased Hutu power in the government, and gave all authority to Tutsi chieftaincy (Prunier 25). Belgium conquered Rwanda and officially took over the kingdom in 1919. The Belgians continued the German’s use of ethnography and gave even more power and preference to the Tutsi. By 1959, forty-three of forty-five chiefs and five hundred forty-nine of five hundred fifty-nine sub-chiefs were Tutsi (Prunier 27). This was extremely different from pre-colonial Rwanda, when Hutus were able to partake in the government.
The European’s use of ethnography in Africa had specific reasons, as is the case with Rwanda. For colonial administrators, in was an effective way to organize and govern their new kingdoms. It was easier to give the Tutsis absolute supremacy instead of trying to understand to complexity and fluidity of Rwandan society. Also, by emphasizing the differences between Hutu and Tutsi, the Belgians and Germans were able to focus their fighting and hatred on each other, instead of the against the colonial government. Economically, it was advantageous as the segregation helped the colonial administration extract Rwandan resources without using many facilities (Semujanga 139). In all, the Europeans used ethnography in order to more easily and inexpensively exploit Rwanda.
For European missionaries, making the Tutsis into rulers offered two important advantages. Using the theory that Tutsis originally came from Ethiopia, a Christian kingdom since the 4th century, the missionaries were able to call the Tutsis ancient Christians who had merely forgotten their faith (Semujanga 141). This, in turn, would make them even easier to convert. Also, having Tutsis as Christian leaders of the country would make it even easier for the missionaries to convert the rest of the Rwandan population.
The Belgian colonial administrators didn’t limit their use of ethnography to merely governmental policies; they completely reshaped Rwandan culture. Tutsis were given preference for education, so illiteracy among Hutus was high. Hutus who did manage to graduate from school were often denied employment, causing frustration which led to social tension (Prunier 33). In the schools themselves, children were being taught a revised history of Rwanda, a history of the dominated and the dominate. The “racial” differences between Hutus and Tutsis was emphasized in every facet of culture. The most symbolic form of ethnographical policy was the imposition of identification cards by the colonial government in Rwanda. No longer was society fluid--a Rwandan was now officially labeled as either a Twa, Hutu, or Tutsi, with no way of changing their “race” (Semujanga 103).
By 1960, the tide was turning all over Africa. Countries were gaining independence and the Belgian colonial government took notice of this. Instead of giving Rwanda outright independence, Belgium decided to first create a republic. Hutus had always been a majority of the population in Rwanda, and the establishment of democracy would inevitably put them in power. Taking notice of this, the Belgian administration, with the support of the Roman Catholic Church, began to switch their position and support Hutu leadership instead. In 1960, Colonel Logiest replaced all Tutsi chiefs with Hutu administrators (Semujanga 22). The PARMEHUTU, a Hutu political organization, swept the elections and massacres of Tutsis, which had started as early as 1957, intensified. Hutus, brainwashed by colonial education and enraged at being oppressed for more than fifty years, reacted in violence.
The genocide in 1994 was an almost inescapable event, after decades of fighting between the Hutu government or militia and Tutsi rebels, who often launched attacks from neighboring countries. Triggered by the assassination of the Hutu president and the propaganda from Hutu extremist radio, the Hutu militia, the Interhamwe, started the mass killing of moderate Hutus (those who weren’t aiding the cause) and Tutsis in the summer of 1994. After so much intermarriage and shared culture, it was extremely difficult to distinguish the difference between Hutu and Tutsi during the genocide. The identification cards, left over from colonial policy, decided who was killed and who was saved. Further evidence of the colonial legacy during the genocide was the practice of throwing the Tutsis into north-flowing rivers. The Hutus claimed that they were trying to send the Tutsis back up to Ethiopia. Hutus and Tutsis both thought of each other as being a different race, despite their shared land, culture, and language.
The real ancient history of the Hutus and the Tutsis is slowly being realized both inside and outside of Rwanda. With this new understanding, it is important to implicate the colonial power in their role in the 1994 genocide. This phenomenon is not limited to Rwanda--countries all over Africa are recovering from or enduring civil wars that have definate connections to colonial legacy. Whether it was the solidification of fluidity between tribes, or the creation of a new group of people, the European’s usage of ethnography is still being felt today.
First things first, a little housekeeping: if you decide to reply to both of my most-recent posts, please conflate them and post a single reply here. Cuts down on the clutter. And, once again:
"The way you argue with me reminds me a lot of my boyfriend. You both know how to rile me up."
No comment.
"Anyway, as a historian, I take great care in looking at ALL angles of a situation. Nothing is black and white, and I definately recognize that."
I do as well, otherwise I'd be quite the fool. Just because we start at the same spot, however, doesn't mean we'll end up at the same spot too. But I don't know if you really believe what you said. If you did, you wouldn't have been riled up when you came across my posts. Knowing that history is choc-a-bloc with grey area should not have immediately led you to such a binary conclusion as "I'm right, so he's wrong."
Okay, now as to your paper. It is about what I would have expected, but I feel that your instructor is more culpable than you are for its deficiencies. There is a lot of political agitprop masquerading as scholarship contained within--I'd love to see your syllabus, and your list of required reading--but that is par for the course in the humanities departments nowadays; I encountered it myself as an undergrad. I like this line:
"Unfortunately, the history of the conflict has been reduced to being another mindless war between different tribes in Africa."
Why is this "unfortunate"? A mindless war between tribes basically sums up what happened...and it ain't reductive to say so! Also, I noticed large, unexplained gaps in your chronology, and things that made little sense: The Germans signed a treaty with the king to settle in Rwanda, and the next thing we know, they are reorganizing society! How'd they manage to do that? Your reference to the use of ethnography is true--the Hutu were "Bantu", the Tutsi "Nilotic", the Twa "Negrito"--and was a long-established scientific custom...and applied to all races. (Are you a Nordic, an Alpine, or a Mediterranean? I guess you're a Mediterranean.) But if the Hutu and Tutsi didn't have existing separate ethnic identities, the Europeans could have never fomented them. (Ironically, you give TOO much credit to the Europeans if you believe this.) That they used these indigenous divisions to consolidate control over Rwanda's populace is both nothing new, and quite an intelligent way to go about colonialism. (Now you or I probably wouldn't be able to tell the difference between a Hutu and a Tutsi, but I bet you they could. I couldn't tell an Indian from a Pakistani, either. But I bet you they can.) The Germans were very benign colonial overlords, but I'll grant that the same was not true with the Belgians. The Belgians tended to act ruthlessly, whether in Rwanda or Congo. (I would argue that the experience of the Congo was much worse.) But in any event, they were out the door in the early '60s. Now, we get back to the infantilism of the natives, as you put forward, being "brainwashed" into hating each other based on an external categorization that had no basis in historical truth. Nonsense. I give the Africans more credit than you do. The Tutsis were about 10% of the population, the Hutu about 90% (the Twa a negligible 1%). After being the privileged comprador class under the Belgians, the Tutsi were SOL when the pith-helmets vanished and left them in the wind, as it were, a decidedly powerless minority. But wait? What happened to all that bottled-up anger on the part of the oppressed Hutu masses? Why didn't they exact revenge once the coast was clear? Why, in other words, did the Tutsi live for thirty years in peace with the Hutu, intermarrying with them constantly, and not suffer mass-reprisals? You devote hardly any space to that time period, and then we have the genocide and this line:
"The genocide in 1994 was an almost inescapable event, after decades of fighting between the Hutu government or militia and Tutsi rebels, who often launched attacks from neighboring countries."
How was it "inescapable"? My God, the greatest lingering tragedy of the whole affair is just how escapable it was. Let's see why, both pragmatically and etiologically. Pragmatically, had Gen. Romeo Dallaire been given 5,000 soldiers by the UN, the massacre would have been stopped before it got into full swing. Etiologically, the Hutu and Tutsi had co-existed for three decades after independence, with the majority tribe fully in power. There was no reason for the Hutu to feel resentment. There was no lack of political representation for the Hutu. There was, in fact, no reason for the Hutu to slaughter a million Tutsi in a violent spasm of retribution. What happened was ethnic cleansing, pure and simple. The president's death in a plane crash was just a pretext used by some evil, cynical Hutu to conduct a campaign of mindless internecine extermination.
"The real ancient history of the Hutus and the Tutsis is slowly being realized both inside and outside of Rwanda. With this new understanding, it is important to implicate the colonial power in their role in the 1994 genocide."
This is laughable pap. The history of the Hutu and Tutsi was never lost; the colonials never sent the Rwandans to re-education camps, and forty years of Belgian rule is not sufficient, I would argue, to erase historical consciousness from peoples who had inhabited the area for centuries. I think it is more important to implicate the Hutu thugs who used machetes and clubs to hack babies to death than the long-absent but politically and psychologically convenient Belgian scapegoat. Look: I'm not trying to convert you to any particular worldview. But I do want you to think about what you've written, and whether it corresponds to history or ideology. If you think that you are somehow aiding the Rwandans by trying to assign undeserved blame to the Belgians, you are wrong. When you do that, you leave the door wide open to future genocides, because the people committing them are, in your eyes, not responsible. If you want to read a book that would no-doubt challenge your prejudices, and give you another angle on things, I suggest Out of Africa, by Keith Richburg.
Sorry, I saw this post second so you're going to have to deal with two separate replies.
It is unfortunate that the conflict has been reduced to a "tribal war" because calling it a "tribal war" downplays its significance. It was the same way that we reduced the massacres in the former Yugoslavia to being "ethnic warfare." If we simplify these wars, then we lessen the monstrosities that are happening. If we do this, then us Western countries don't have to take a role in doing anything to stop the killing. We failed in Rwanda and we took way too long to do anything in Bosnia. Don't try and tell me that there are different ethnicities in Yugoslavia. Some of my greatest friends fled during the war, and it is their point of view that shapes my opinion.
I'm sorry I didn't hold your hand through the history of Rwanda but I thought that some things were implied. Once the Germans signed a treaty, they settled in the area. Once they settled, they took it upon themselves to reorganize Rwandan society, which they did using ethnographic principles.
About the differences in Hutus/Tutsis and the Europeans "being able to tell them apart." First of all, there was intermarriage in ancient Rwanda. It wasn't as if Hutus and Tutsis were these pure absolute categories. Second of all, do you really think that measuring someone's nose and skull with an instrument would be enough to categorize them? Yes, Hutus and Tutsis did probably know the difference but like I've said a million times, they were mainly ECONOMIC and not physical terms. Clan membership distinguished a Rwandan person up until the colonial empire.
Also, you are completely wrong about the Hutus waiting to exact revenge until 1994. If you would read a more detailed history of Rwanda you would realize that ultra-patriotic Hutus were killing or punishing Tutsi right before and after independence. This tension/fighting led Tutsis to periodically flee Rwanda between independence and 1994. Some of the Tutsis that fled regrouped in refugee camps and formed rebel groups like the RPF. These groups also periodically launched attacks into Rwanda which led to backlash violence against Tutsi civilians.
Here is an outline provided by BBC if you don't believe me:
1957 - Hutus issue manifesto calling for a change in Rwanda's power structure to give them a voice commensurate with their numbers; Hutu political parties formed.
1959 - Tutsi King Kigeri V, together with tens of thousands of Tutsis, forced into exile in Uganda following inter-ethnic violence.
1961 - Rwanda proclaimed a republic.
1962 - Rwanda becomes independent with a Hutu, Gregoire Kayibanda, as president; many Tutsis leave the country.
1963 - Some 20,000 Tutsis killed following an incursion by Tutsi rebels based in Burundi.
1973 - President Gregoire Kayibanda ousted in military coup led by Juvenal Habyarimana.
1988 - Some 50,000 Hutu refugees flee to Rwanda from Burundi following ethnic violence there.
1990 - Forces of the rebel, mainly Tutsi, Rwandan Patriotic Front (RPF) invade Rwanda from Uganda.
Satisfied?
All it takes is one generation that lived under the colonial regime. One generation to erase a history. If you really believe that the genocide only happened because of "one cynical Hutu" then you aren't as intelligent as I thought. Yes, there were actors that manipulated sentiment and used colonial legacy to set off the killings in April of 1994. These people should be sentenced and punished for their wrongdoings, as well as the Hutu who took part in the killings. But where do you think the Hutus get this kind of hatred from? Ancient history? Think again.
I've read "Out of Africa" and our main textbook for the basic history courses is written by Robert July if you woule like to check it out.
Good Lord, I came back to check for typos before I went to bed, and now I have to respond again--twice in one day. Well, if I'm late for work tomorrow, it'll be on your conscience (and I know you have one, a great big whopper). All right...I'll take it upon myself to respond to both of your posts here.
POST #1:
"First of all, I studied in Senegal at the University of Cheikh Anta Diop in Dakar for a year where I learned African history from Africans; that is not "Western" bias."
Let me get this straight: I reference Diop in an earlier post, and then you, who attended his eponymous university, accuse me of being ignorant about African history? Call me an a**hole, call my analysis faulty, but don't call me an ignoramus...I knew who Cheikh Anta Diop was. Go out tomorrow and find fifty random people and ask them if they've ever heard of him...if you find ONE, I'll eat my hat. I guess that Latin temper of yours got the better of you beforehand...but it is always better to take a couple seconds and aim carefully than to just start firing off shots wildly...your chances of hitting the mark increase with the former, while the latter leaves you extremely vulnerable to return fire. Now, I respect the fact that you spent time in Africa...but one year does not obviate the other twenty-some years of your existence. You are a Westerner, the product of Western society, with Western values inculcated throughout your entire life. You've been exposed to alternative forms of culture (as have I), but that doesn't negate who we innately are: Westerners. You spent two semesters at Diop University--which I must admit to being skeptical about as an institution, given the namesake's reputation: it is akin to hearing about an L. Ron Hubbard University--but how many were spent at Michigan? Six? And where were those Senegalese professors educated...where did the Africans learn African history? I would guess that most were schooled, just as Diop was, in France. So I'm not sure you escaped Western influence even there.
"As to how I feel about female circumcision..."
I cannot believe what you said here. Actually, the sad thing is, I CAN believe it. (It's funny how non-judgmental you are on this subject, but on others...) You said it was an age-old tradition...so was foot-binding. So was slavery. So was sati in India. That's no justification. You said it "could be considered repressive"...yeah, and bears do defecate in the woods. Why do they do it? Why do they slice off the clitoris and sew up the labia? Let me see...to repress women? Bingo! Let me ask you, whitey, would you allow this procedure to be performed on your daughter...at age five? No? Yup, that Western bias is rearing its head again. And it doesn't surprise me that some women fight to keep the practice alive...especially the ones that make their living performing them for money. (There are women that lobby to keep the burka mandatory, and restrict the right of Saudi females to drive. Go figure.) Put aside your nagging white relativism for a second and just think about female circumcision...and whether it's "right" or "wrong." Or is that concept no longer valid in our post-modern world?
"I don't know why you are stereotyping us 'humanitarians.' We are very very diverse in terms of personality characteristics and lifestyles."
Ah, this was good for a chuckle. I have little doubt that you are acutely aware of all the minute characteristics that separate yourself from your colleagues...but the broad contours are basically the same, am I right? I know plenty of quote-unquote humanitarians (one currently with the UNV in Kosovo), and, baby, the similarities outweigh the differences.
"I still believe in the basic ideals behind humanitarianism."
Well, if you didn't, you'd either be a fraud or miserable at your job. My own philosophy is much more hands-off and pessimistic. As long as human beings hate each other, you'll have a job, I guess.
"You shouldn't judge me as a person from an online debate. I care deeply about my work and the people I work with."
Well, I have to play the hand I'm dealt, sweetheart. I don't exactly have a copy of your annotated autobiography lying on my coffee table.
POST #2:
"Don't try and tell me that there are different ethnicities in Yugoslavia."
Ok, since you asked so politely...but the Serbs, the Kosovar Albanians, and the truest losers in the region, the Rom, might beg to differ. Again: you and I, confronted with a Serb, Croat, Macedonian, Gypsy, etc. would most likely be at a loss to differentiate amongst them...but they can, and, based on events that took place at Srebrenica, they aren't playin' around.
"I'm sorry I didn't hold your hand through the history of Rwanda but I thought that some things were implied."
Well, it was your paper, not mine, and you purported it would illumine the darkness of my ignorance. (Was your grade implied by the intructor?)
"Also, you are completely wrong about the Hutus waiting to exact revenge until 1994."
I didn't say that all was peaches and cream. (Is it anywhere in Africa?) My point was that if your argument is that it was pent-up rage due to social inferiority (caused by the Belgian Svengalis) that spurred the genocide, you have to account for the years between independence and 1994 when the erstwhile colonial masters were not around to play the role of Iago to the Hutu Othello. Why the delay? Why the lapse?
"If you would read a more detailed history of Rwanda you would realize that ultra-patriotic Hutus were killing or punishing Tutsi right before and after independence."
A more detailed history...as opposed to an implied history, right kiddo?
"All it takes is one generation that lived under the colonial regime. One generation to erase a history."
Well, I won't discount that that could occur...but it didn't happen in Rwanda. There was a paradigm shift, to be sure, but are you gonna tell me with a straight face that the Rwandans forgot their history because the Belgians showed up for a few decades? Was the colonial regime trying to assimilate the locals, trying to turn them into pseudo-Belgians? Not at all. They were there for one reason: money. (Plus, I'm sure Leopold got a hard-on when he considered his "empire.")
"If you really believe that the genocide only happened because of "one cynical Hutu" then you aren't as intelligent as I thought."
Since when did you think I was intelligent? I seem to recall words to the effect that I was an ignoramus fit only for the local junior college. At any rate, I guess I'm making progress...maybe soon you'll give me the ultimate compliment by anointing me "not retarded." Now: I didn't say ONE cynical Hutu. I used Hutu in the plural sense, like using "moose" to mean a "group of moose." Does anyone truly know why the genocide happened? Maybe the Hutu were just really bored one day. You seem to think that the Belgians should get a lion's-share of the blame. I think that the episode was endemically created and carried out, and thus the Hutu are responsible. I don't think we'll ever reach a resolution, or agree one-hundred percent. Life will just continue. One thing is clear: no white Belgians will be tried at the Hague...but quite a few black Rwandans will.
"But where do you think the Hutus get this kind of hatred from? Ancient history? Think again."
Well, I would first of all state that the origin of the hatred is irrelevant. I know, I know, you want to "understand" how such a thing could happen, and "empathize" with the poor, oppressed Africans. God forbid you are forced to say to the Hutu: "You are monsters. Look what you've done. These people were your friends, your neighbors, your wives, your countrymen. Look at them now...look at the skulls, the bones. There is no redemption for you." Tribalism predated colonialism...by a long shot. All the way back to Homo Habilis, in fact. Hell, all the way back to Australopithecus, if you really want to go back a'ways. In your zeal to paint the Belgians as the baddies, you make the Africans out to be witless non-entities who were so gullible that a foreign attitude promulgated by colonial usurpers was all that determined their post-independence history. That is faulty reasoning, and very contemptuous of the Rwandans themselves, I must say. We've not yet talked about how the Hutu felt towards the Belgians...they HATED them. So to say that it was the specter of Belgian influence that explains their behavior doesn't pass the smell test.
"I've read "Out of Africa" and our main textbook for the basic history courses is written by Robert July if you woule like to check it out."
If Keith couldn't crack your shell, then there is no hope that I'll be able to. Maybe time will.
[deleted]
I'm aware of Ann Arbor's reputation, and I believe I can identify with the atmosphere...having attended college in Missoula, MT. (Your second sentence applies to that city in spades.) I give a damn what they think--and what this individual in particular thinks--because, like it or not, they reflect on us as Americans. If she goes over to Africa, in a humanitarian capacity, with the mentality of "You poor abused souls who've been helpless victims of white people (like me)...what can I do to validate you?", then the situation there will remain horrendous and we'll suffer blowback. That mentality will perpetuate wars, famine, lack of responsibilty, dependence on foreign aid, terrorism, and Islamic radicalism. That is the truly important thing at stake.
On an infinitesimally smaller, personal, scale, it is always good to challenge the comfortably-held assertions of other people...most are usually outraged that there can be any divergence of opinion at all, and that's what occurred here. When she initially posted, she said, in response to something I had posted, "Fight back if you want to, but it won't matter," or words to that effect. (Check the original post for the exact quote.) That was a very smug and immature thing to say, and I naturally assumed that the person saying it wasn't a serious intellectual. Well, now we've learned that the person who wrote those lines is a college graduate. That's even scarier. (To her credit, her hostility didn't last too long, and she revealed herself eventually to be thoughtful, serious, and truly concerned about many topics, not just the genocide.) If she managed to get through four years of higher education with that kind of attitude, then the only conclusion to draw is that her professors failed her. Imagine the kind of echo-chamber she must have floated through, being told the same thing over and over again. Frankly, the fact that she acted so dogmatically is an indictment of the current state of academe. (Though, yes, some schools are much more egregious than others.)
On a brighter note, that artificially-implanted dogmatism evaporated, and she began to argue in good faith. But she still chooses what she wants to believe, and the fact that part of her identity is wrapped-up in her value system means that nothing I can say will ever be enough to alter her worldview...it may get her to reconsider certain aspects, but I think it will take something empirical for her to really emerge from her college cocoon. I don't think insulting her is constructive. Her heart is in the right place, I feel, and I hope that she truly makes a difference. Being an enabler or a dupe of the Africans making life miserable for Africans will just preserve the status quo.
[deleted]
Actually you yourself said something interesting: " I know a lot of Africans that have come to the US and have had no trouble assimilating to this country's culture, which I suspect is a lot more alien to them than that of their neighbors' back home.” As a Canadian, I can tell you that a forced marriage to someone only slightly different than you is sometimes worse than a culture that is completely “alien”.
Perhaps the Africans you know who came to the United States were looking for a fresh start, and actually wanted to embrace the exotic (to them) culture called America. Whereas back home, they are forced into an alliance with African neighbours they have always resented.
Our analogy in Canada is this: I love meeting and getting to know Canadian immigrants from places like India or the Philippines or Pakistan. But put me next door to the French-Quebecker with whom I have generations of “baggage” and … well, you don’t want to know.
Do you understand? I think that is what <theflyersfan> is getting at, that African tribes have “baggage” with each other, and remained separate over the centuries for a good reason. Suddenly though, the European comes along, draws an artificial map, and these 2 tribes – separated for centuries – now are quickly expected to live under the same roof.
Uh-uh. Doesn’t even work in a young country like Canada, mixing languages, so why should it work any better in ancient Africa mixing tribal cultures?
Powerful post, theflyersfan. Thank you.
shareFirst these are not tribes they are political stand points like Democrats and Republicans. They are also the way Belgians saw them, so they separated them into two groups not tribes.
Second, people are mistaking the fact that 1,000,000 people died in 100 days, now yes we have countries that have dealt with mass killings but many were not broadcasted on public televsion for millions to see and beleive or not this was shown on CNN, BBC and FOX News for people to see. I see alot of people mentioning the US and its efforts...but don't you mean the UN, aren't they the world court that protects countries from harm and danger. The general pointed out in the movie that..."is it a black situation?" I'm black and I really don't believe that, I just believe that if there is not a political or economical motive that there is no help and that the one of the biggest atrocities in this world.
The WORLD and not just US or Britain or France or Russia or Japan or China must take responsiblity for ANYTHING that took place that dealt with this multitude of genocide and terror