MovieChat Forums > Sometimes in April (2005) Discussion > It's truly an eye-opener...

It's truly an eye-opener...

posted 17 years ago by tuffvie
9 replies | jump to latest

Almost 1000000 people dead i.e 77% of the entire Tutsi race is killed and we are hardly aware of it! Living in a developing country has its own disadvantages or maybe I never bothered to dig deep, whatever the case am ashamed of myself.

The Rhwanda crisis is a reflection of our general attitude towards the poor and the needy. It goes beyond color and race, it's a much serious issue of prejudice that we come across in all walks of life. During the movie, I could'nt help but draw parallels to crisis in Iraq and the one in Rhwanda.

Coming to the movie, it's a well thought off idea. They covered most of the genocide like the UN's refusal to commit itself, the gruesome killing in churches and schools, hiding in swamps, the RPF's lack of will to confront the rebels and of course the hate radio.

The story offers a lot of brutality but it was relatively trimmed down in the movie to reach a wider audience. Almost all the extreme shots were cut off just in time. The cast did a fine job and suited the roles perfectly.

Although the movie targets one particular country, I think the underlying message is for all the developed nations. It's a fantastic movie and a real eye-opener.

[–] al1793 17 years ago

We didn't know about it because Slick Willie was scared to do anything after the debacle in Somalia. The liberal media protected him and by their silence, the murderers in Rwanda.

[–] inthepalemoonlight 17 years ago

As if the Rush crowd would have cared at all even if Clinton had gotten involved. Limbaugh recently said on his show that, unlike with Iraq, there is no true benefit or reason for America to interfere in African conflicts such as the one in Darfur. Get real.

And by the way...at least Clinton owned up to his blunder with Rwanda. Bush will never admit to any of his numerous missteps. And the conservative/corporate media will cover his butt every step of the way.

[–] blackchineygal 16 years ago

Unfortunately, we have another president who isn't doing anything about the real problems in this world. The genocide of Rowanda in 1994 is happening again RIGHT NOW. In Darfur. There's genocide in Darfur as we speak. Bush knows what's going on. Half the world does. Yet no one is doing anything to stop it, just like before. What's *beep* up is he has the army over in Iraq *beep* killing people and for what? Instead of having the army over in Darfur to end the genocide. Anyone who says this country isn't run by a greedy, tyrannical prick is lying to themselves.

[–] aroian_99 16 years ago

This is incredibly naive. You can't ignore that outside forces that play a part in these situations. The Chinese don't want us in Darfur because they have a special relationship with the government. Therefore the UN is powerless to do anything, due to the Security Council's charter. The Sudanese government doesn't want us there either. How many Americans are you willing to have die in that God-forsaken land before we realize that we can't solve all of the world's problems by ourselves? If this is truly about money and oil and the fact that they are black, how do you explain President Bush's decision to send in food and soldiers to Somalia? What in the world did they have to offer us?

It is not only this country that is run by greed, but rather the whole world. By the way, it's not greed, it's called competition. Everyone is out to benefit themselves. If we go into Sudan, we are going into another Muslim run nation who doesn't want us there. To topple a Muslim government who is allowing the murder of civilians in the midst of a civil war atmosphere. Haven't we played that game before? Hell, aren't we playing it now? Where is your exit strategy for that one?

[–] eva-catharina 16 years ago

I hope that there will soon be a movie about Kongo and what happened there in the aftermath of the genocide i Rwanda...4 000 000 casualties, and barely anyone has heard about it.

[–] blackchineygal 16 years ago

Aroian:

The truth is I don't really know all of the intimate details like you know. I didn't know all of what you just said. But if all you say is true, when this genocide in Darfur is over, I don't want to hear that the Americans suck for not helping us. Thanks for the heads up though.

[–] zanchema 16 years ago

Aroian:

To draw exact comparisons between Iraq and Darfur is short-sighted and oversimplified. Intervening in Darfur would, hypothetically, be for STRICTLY humanitarian purposes, whereas we know Iraq was some combination of humanitarian (giving this the benefit of the doubt) and for our own self-interest.

Additionally, if you take a look at public opinion polls in the Muslim world of the Khartoum government, there is no clear support or opposition. So, to say we'd be automatically make more enemies is just conjecture.

To address this "If this is truly about money and oil and the fact that they are black, how do you explain President Bush's decision to send in food and soldiers to Somalia? What in the world did they have to offer us?" ... Just because we provide aid and military support in one instance does not prove that we are not a generally racist (the black question) and greedy (the money and oil question). Ultimately, Somalia is a massive risk in the War on Terror, which is why we are so quick to provide aid. They do, in fact, have a lot to offer the United States ... and Somalia is stable then there is an exponentially less chance terrorists will station themselves there.

[–] aroian_99 16 years ago

Zanchema, I respect your opinion, but I don't think you understood my point. I was speaking of the first President Bush and the original Somalia aid 20 years ago. That was one of the only times in our nation's history that our help seemed strictly humanitarian.

"Ultimately, Somalia is a massive risk in the War on Terror, which is why we are so quick to provide aid. They do, in fact, have a lot to offer the United States ... and Somalia is stable then there is an exponentially less chance terrorists will station themselves there." By the way, couldn't you replace Somalia with Iraq in that sentence and make the same argument that the U.S. government made as to why we can't leave Iraq yet?

"Additionally, if you take a look at public opinion polls in the Muslim world of the Khartoum government, there is no clear support or opposition. So, to say we'd be automatically make more enemies is just conjecture."

Couldn't you also have said that about Iraq before the invasion? It isn't the governments where our enemies are coming from. At least not yet.... they are smart enough to know they need our money to thrive.

By the way, what's wrong with self-interest? I have yet to see anything that motivates people or nations better than self-interest. It's naive to think that most nations are willing to act and risk the lives of their youth for anything less than self-interest.

[–] Freestate 15 years ago

Can such self interest include easing your conscience, submitting to your morality ?

P.S. I know the thread is old.