Thursday, March 29, 2012
Research Question:
Was the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand a leading cause of WWI or just a small spark?
Wednesday, March 14, 2012
United Nations Law
United Nations Law:
Every country, not just those in the United Nations, should be aware of the following statement:
Concerning the topic of genocide, any country in the world that has a mass killing of a minimum of one hundred citizens will be politically and officially labeled as genocide. No matter third world or first world country, rich or poor, no country will be refused help. Such as The American Red Cross Relief, shelter, soldiers, or supplies required to assist them. No matter the method used to eliminate that certain race or people, the parties involved will still be held responsible.
Every country, not just those in the United Nations, should be aware of the following statement:
Concerning the topic of genocide, any country in the world that has a mass killing of a minimum of one hundred citizens will be politically and officially labeled as genocide. No matter third world or first world country, rich or poor, no country will be refused help. Such as The American Red Cross Relief, shelter, soldiers, or supplies required to assist them. No matter the method used to eliminate that certain race or people, the parties involved will still be held responsible.
Tuesday, March 6, 2012
Group Three: The International Community's Response
1 - When did UN officials receive warnings about the genocide?
They received the warnings about the genocide three months before it actually happened, but they ignored them. They did not take any sort of action to try and stop it, or made any indication that they actually took it seriously.
2 - Besides the warning given by one of the planners, what were other warning signs of the genocide?
Apparently the warning wasn’t enough, but seeing the people of Rwanda involved in the genocide openly distribute weapons like guns and machetes in the open should have been. Also, the government sponsored hate propaganda throughout Rwanda through the radio, newspapers and schools. “Death lists” were made, and openly circulated with names and addresses of targets for murder that were Tutsis.
3 - How did state-sponsored propaganda present the Tutsi group?
They propaganda showed the Tutsis and described them as evil and manipulative people who were snakes and cockroaches, and that their major goal was to regain power in Rwanda with the rule that mistreated the Hutus again. Also, Tutsis were supposed to be taller than the Hutus. So on the radio when they would say, “You have to shorten the Tutsis” everyone understood that as that you have to kill them.
4 - What prevented the international community from called the violence in Rwanda “genocide”? What would have happened if they did?
The international community didn’t consider this genocide because they didn’t consider it genocide. They weren’t wiping out an entire community, and other littler details that forced them not to think they would take action. If they had, I’m most certainly sure that non of it would have continued and it would not have intensified. Not has many lives would have been taken. Because once the Hutus knew that international involvement would not happen, they kicked the violence up a notch.
5 - Once the international community withdrew its troops, what did the militia do?
After the troops were gone, the militia made the massacre worse. They began escalating in violence and brutality, and they even started killed those to resisted, and those who opposed.
6 - Who does President Clinton say must share the responsibility for the genocide?
He said that the international community, as well as nations in Africa, should take the blame, too. They didn’t think it was genocide, so they didn’t help. They sheltered and fed the killers in refugee camps, helping them. They were just as responsible as the next.
They received the warnings about the genocide three months before it actually happened, but they ignored them. They did not take any sort of action to try and stop it, or made any indication that they actually took it seriously.
2 - Besides the warning given by one of the planners, what were other warning signs of the genocide?
Apparently the warning wasn’t enough, but seeing the people of Rwanda involved in the genocide openly distribute weapons like guns and machetes in the open should have been. Also, the government sponsored hate propaganda throughout Rwanda through the radio, newspapers and schools. “Death lists” were made, and openly circulated with names and addresses of targets for murder that were Tutsis.
3 - How did state-sponsored propaganda present the Tutsi group?
They propaganda showed the Tutsis and described them as evil and manipulative people who were snakes and cockroaches, and that their major goal was to regain power in Rwanda with the rule that mistreated the Hutus again. Also, Tutsis were supposed to be taller than the Hutus. So on the radio when they would say, “You have to shorten the Tutsis” everyone understood that as that you have to kill them.
4 - What prevented the international community from called the violence in Rwanda “genocide”? What would have happened if they did?
The international community didn’t consider this genocide because they didn’t consider it genocide. They weren’t wiping out an entire community, and other littler details that forced them not to think they would take action. If they had, I’m most certainly sure that non of it would have continued and it would not have intensified. Not has many lives would have been taken. Because once the Hutus knew that international involvement would not happen, they kicked the violence up a notch.
5 - Once the international community withdrew its troops, what did the militia do?
After the troops were gone, the militia made the massacre worse. They began escalating in violence and brutality, and they even started killed those to resisted, and those who opposed.
6 - Who does President Clinton say must share the responsibility for the genocide?
He said that the international community, as well as nations in Africa, should take the blame, too. They didn’t think it was genocide, so they didn’t help. They sheltered and fed the killers in refugee camps, helping them. They were just as responsible as the next.
Friday, March 2, 2012
Group Four: Rwanda Post-Genocide
1 - In what ways did genocide impact the development of this “developing” country?
After the genocide was over with, there was no government, food programs, schools, shelters or hospitals. The water and electricity were not working. That’s because most of those in charge were killed in the massacre, or and fled away to other countries. People were traumatized by the violence they saw, and things were falling, if not already in, pieces.
2 - Where does the rebuilding of a country shattered by genocide begin? Why can the people do? What can the government do? What can that international community do?
I believe one thing that every single one of those groups can do is be strong. All the people in Rwanda are struggling, and if you show them that you’re strong, and that they can be strong too then they will. Also, the obvious would be relief efforts. Maybe a few pointers on how to take care of the trials, and to rebuild an economy to get things running again. Have them finally be a functioning country. But that takes time. A lot of time, but with the right amount of help, it’ll be... easy for Rwanda to get there. Not easy in the sense that forgetting everything and moving on. Just helping them go through it. It’s tough. But it’s easy-tough.
3 - How can justice be found in post-genocide Rwanda?
The most justice they have at the moment is the trials. Having those to committed such horrific crimes finally get what they deserve: A life behind bars. Or where they’re meant to have, which would be in the same state that all those people they killed are in. DEAD. But so far, they’re working on it. It’s a really hard job for them, and they’re slowly coming up with systems that work for them.
4 - Which can bring justice to the people of Rwanda more effectively --- international courts or community courts? Explain.
I think that community courts will do them the best. Having the international courts deal with it isn’t really giving them closure. It was their own people who were brutally murdered, and the international courts don’t really know how it effects them. But then again, the international courts will not be lenient and give them what they deserve, no exceptions.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)