The Magna Carta

Kelsey Hutchins
April 12, 2012
Adv World Studies

    The Magna Carta has been around since the year of 1215, and was influencing events all the way into the 1700s. It was a charter, created first in 1100 by Prince Etheired the Peaceful, song of Prince Edgar the Peaceful, and a group of his subjects in order to limit his power and give rights to the people. It helps to protect all rights of the subjects and doesn’t allow the ruler of that country to have as much power as they would have before it was created.
    The Glorious Revolution, otherwise known as the Revolution of 1688, was the overthrow of King James II of England by a union of Parliamentarians who strongly opposed King James’ II low tolerance of religion and was led by Dutch stadtholder William III of Orange. He and his fleet of Dutch and English invaded the kingdom successfully, and took the throne of England with his wife, Mary II of England.
    This contributed to the American Revolution because the colonists wanted to be free from King George III and also his low tolerance of religion. He wanted everyone to practice just one, and there was no freedom to believe in whatever you wanted. His taxes were high, he was not treating his subjects right, and he had too much power. So a large group of people fled on boats, and created their own country here in what is now America.
    They needed to create their own rules, what they wanted their new country to be like. They didn’t want anything like the Glorious Revolution, or what they had just ran away from. So they looked back to the Magna Carta, an extremely old document even back then, and that is how they created the rights that they have today. Freedom of religion, and speech, it all was influenced by the Magna Carta.

Research Question:

Was the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand a leading cause of WWI or just a small spark?

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.

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.

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.

Hutus & Tutsis.

Why did the Belgians create a rigid system of racial classification?
They created that racial classification system because they wanted to strengthen their control, and they needed a system in order to divide a united Rwanda into three different groups.

Which group of people did the Belgians think were a superior group? Why did they think they were a superior group?
The Belgians thought the Tutsis were a superior group because they were more, "white". Not in their appearance, just the way of life.

Which group declared an independent republic in 1959?
The Hutus declared independence after violence between them and the Tustsis erupted.

What was the name of the first Hutu president?
His name was Habyarimana.

Did the Hutu leadership end the system of racial classification?
No, they absolutely did not. If anything, they made it so way worse, and even took it to the level of the genocide of the Tutsis.

aljazeera film points two.

What sources of tension, new and old, in the Middle East are revealed by this film?

    Traders started betting, and that basically factors in with the future prices of oil. In the country of Bahrain, protesters took to the street, calling for economic reform and political equality on February 14. They want a rebirth, “The Arab Spring”. Labeled Agents of Iran. U.N. called in shocking, and more than 30 people have been killed since the protest began. Everyone really just wants to know, why hasn’t the U.S. done more? If the U.S. likes the dictator of a country, we don’t want to get involved in protesting against the government. But if we don’t like a country or the dictator, we will jump right on it and get involved, preaching for justice and peace and equality. This frustrates people; it’s not fair. In the U.S. defense, apparently we can’t be expected to jump in like a hero for every single problem that happens in countries around the world.
    People who have spoken to Aljazeera have been beaten, gone missing or injured. But some are still willing to speak. People are losing their jobs for participating in the protests. So many resources come out of the Middle East, and Bahrain, that’s why it’s so important to protect. Also, because we don’t want countries like Iran, which we “despise” so profit from these resources. Wealthy businessmen are completely biased, and believe that protesting because you’re unhappy with your standard of living is “a joke”. Not all maybe, but probably most. But he thinks life should stay the same, he wants the rich to stay rich and the poor to stay poor.
    The U.S. is standing right by, there are so many of them on that island, and they aren’t doing anything. They can’t really do anything. This man’s brothers are missing, and nobody, not even his own people with help him because he could go missing also.    
    U.S. fighter jets are standing by, letting everyone know that they’re always near by. It costs a million dollars a day to have one of those up and running there. The U.S.S. Ronald Reagan sits in the between of Saudi Arabia and Iran, one being a friend of the U.S. and another a sworn enemy of Washington, D.C. with many trades going through.
    The U.S. is only doing things to our benefit. We don’t want to upset those countries that give us imperative resources, but are totally willing to get involved with those countries we don’t like and that "don’t matter".