Pales in Comparision
 

Ten years ago this week was the massacre in Bruendi and Rwanda. Both presidents were on a plane that was struck by two missiles. Source unknown. But what followed in the largest massacre in the history of mankind.

As a direct result of the Somolia fiasco, no one wanted to get involved. The aggressors apparently had this all figured out. They said, all we need do is kill 10 whites and the rest will leave. They even got the number correct. Ten Belgium soldiers were killed. The western powers abandoned their protectorates even as the masses of machette armed killers massed on the ridges above - just waiting for white westerners to leave. It is a story about racism - in a country where two races could not even be distinguished if not for one simple piece of government information.

A few stayed. Those very few people may have saved as many as 65,000 lives by simply saying to the killers, "You will not harm these people". This is a stunning lesson that really was little reported by domestic news.

Most stunning is a comment made by virtually everyone who confronted the aggressors. Variations of "You could see the blackness in their eyes and knew immediately that this was a killer you were talking to". Did they really see satan in those eyes?

Lets not forget the Catholic Bishop would even conspired to arraign for a massacre of those he promised to protect. And the Catholic Church who tried to protect the Bishop rather than admit their man did the crime .

Frontline on PBS will air a documentary on Thursday, 1 April 2004 on this historical event. Remember, the Halocast pales in comparision. What happened in Bruendi and Rwanda is a worst case example of what can go wrong when world leaders just don't understand and just don't have the willpower. Many made major mistakes. And those many (curiously) acknowledge their mistakes in public. Again only making this event so unique or curious. Just look inside those eyes. Curiousity does not do this major world disaster justice. But you should at least know details of this story. Frontline on PBS Thursday at about 9PM. Your time may vary but your need to understand this event should not.

Why did this recieve so little attention from the West, why did everyone just leave? 3 guesses and the first two don't count. Those countries had nothing of interest to offer the US or Western Europe - no special oil reserves, no raw materials we just couldn't live without. The same was true for Sri Lanka (how many here know about the atrocities that have gone on in THAT third world country? Don't all raise your hands at once). The US is interested in fair play and human justice only in countries which pose a direct threat or have resources we feel we need. Everybody else can go to the end of the line, thank you.

Hey, be reasonable. We're just too busy to kill them all, so we just kill the ones that offend US.:p

Actually, I think we are so indifferent we don't even care about killing them (or if they kill one another), that's unless we are offended, of course. In that case, its white gloves and seconds, and pistols at dawn, except that the US side shows up with 120,000 armed troops.

I think we should all realize that if the US had gone in to stop the African atrocities, we would have been castigated for meddling. If we stay out of it, we'll be castigated for doing nothing.

We're the US. We're fucked no matter *what* we do because, well, we're the US, and we are inherently sucking the life out of the rest of the world from most points of view.

I nearly shouted at a Catholic priest once, during mass. (I occasionally get dragged along to the creepy-god "church" thing.)

He was bemoaning the atrocities in Kosovo. Fine. Then he says (parphrasing) "The world hasn't seen the horrors of genocide on this scale since the Holocaust."

I wanted to shout at him, haven't you ever heard of Rwanda? Of Cambodia? Of the Sudan? Iraq?

Or do Albanians count more, because they're white?

I have never been so offended at ignorance in my life.


- Pie

I typed nearly the exact same post but then decided 'why bother?'

Christ tw, do you have to post the cover of every Economist?

What happened in Rawanda was a classic case of mismanagement. People tried to ignore it and did things way too late.

If anyone is to blame it the Belgians and the racial class system they introduced.

Well, there you go, Jag. I think we in the West have the tendency to charge into other countries, create horrendous societal messes (the Palestinian situation is just one obvious example of this, as well as the African situation cited originally in this thread), and then skedaddle on out without a backward glance. We may be able to get away with this for a while, but sooner or later birds come home to roost. Our children or our children's children will pay the price. 9/11 was just the first installment. Americans just don't seem to get the fact that we are not exactly beloved by other countries and that there's a good reason for this.

As for what other posters noted about the US being damned if it does and damned if it doesn't, our leaders could avoid this by cutting the hypocrisy when we do interfere with the internal workings of other nations. We don't do it for "their" good, we do it for ours. Does anyone really believe that we would give a rat's ass about whatever atrocities might be going on in the Middle East were it not for our insatiable demand for oil? Surely, the members of this board are not so naive!

Anyone look at Uganda lately?

North Korea

It is worth noting that system dates from colonial times, mindsets were a little different and I doubt the colonial administrators had a dad of sociologists to analyze the future impact of their management style.

That said tinpot shithead African dictators have no basis now for blaming internal strife and economic depravity on colonial era happenings. A much better target is current agricultural policy in the first world if they want to play the blame game.

I have indeed looked at Uganda, I no longer want to look at Uganda. Uganda is not on the same scale as Rwanda yet, barely a blip on the Africans-killing-each-other radar.

Er....Ut....Can you point me to a recent example of tribal/ethnic conflict causing widescale slaughter by ordinary people in North Korea?

I agree, Jag, that the blame game is a pointless exercise whether its played by third world leaders or bleeding heart liberals in the first. I do wonder, however, if "Well, we didn't have sociologists then" and shrugging our shoulders and walking off is an appropriate response. There is such a thing as accountability, whether personal or national. "I didn't know any better" is unlikely to get you far in a court of law. There WERE sociologists around when Great Britain ignited the whole Palestinian mess, but our British cousins never seem to learn.

Which brings me to my next point. An awareness of the results of our past actions and a mature assumption of responsibility for past mistakes will help to avoid similar mistakes in the future. This is true for nations as well as individuals.

I'm just saying, in N Korea they have concentration camps with horrible atrocities and millions upon millions of dead and nobody seems to care or really notice.

Exactly, my earlier point. We don't give a damn because N. Korea has nothing we want. It is of interest to note that Korea is yet another country where outsiders (both Chinese and Western) mucked around in its internal affairs and then split. The U.S. does still have a military presence in S. Korea, not for humanitariun concerns but for strategic ones. So far as I know, there are fewer atrocities in the south. This is a by-product of our presence though, not its intent.

Not in a few days.

There is no question the issues in Africa are in various ways, the result of colonial era decisions, particularly dividing the country up with a ruler and a pencil. There really is nothing we can do to resolve those issues now though.

Isreal is another issue entirely, but I'd prefer not to open up that can of worms, the thread will dissolve into partisan sniping in seconds.

I think we largely do learn from those mistakes but both the reasons and results are many and varied. One could argue that there is merely a higher level of international morality these days. It just ain't PC to invade some backward state and work the coffee plantations with slaves anymore.

Commies get a free pass. Except Pol Pot.

Didn't see any mention of Stalin's atrocities upthread, for instance. Even though his were largely committed upon white people.

Remember, it's all the US's fault. If it's not the US's fault by action, it's the US's fault by inaction. In the rare event that blame cannot be pinned on the US, another Western European nation is at fault. Oh yeah, and because it's all the US's fault, the US deserved 9/11 and all that comes after it.

Well someone forgot their medication this morning.

This is a mindset that I find disconcerting (The sarcasm behind it, I mean, the actual text is a strawman). It seems to follow this pattern:

1) If someone makes a mistake that contributes to a negative result,
2) then they deserve the full brunt of that result.
3) We didn't deserve 9/11,
4) therefore we must not have done anything to incite it.

I believe that 1) to 2) is not valid, therefore 4) does not follow from the obviously true 3). We've done a ton of stuff in the Middle East that exacerbates the problems that have always existed there. That doesn't excuse terrorism, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't stop doing it.

Quite frankly, this is an example of the sort of mindless patriotism that gets us into one international fix after another. Nobody who has posted so far has tried to make the argument that the old communist regimes should be an example to us all. Not hardly. Its a fairly poor exercise in logic to attempt to imply that people who call for Western accountability do so because they are pinko commie lovers. Nice try, but its a completely irrational conclusion.

If I make the observation that the US has acted in such a manner as to make itself hated by Moslem cultures, this hardly means I am a Bin Laden groupie or that I think terrorist attacks (on EITHER side) are an appropriate solution. If I note that the actions of Western nations have contributed to the destabilization of certain 3rd world nations and make the observation that Western culture (never mind the third world)would be best served if the US and Europe avoided such actions in the future, this hardly makes me a Stalin hugger.

If you can't make a valid point, don't waste your energy.

I believe a most important history lesson is being missed here; being lost because so much is being assigned to blame rather than viewing the bigger picture. "Ghosts of Rwanda" at 9 PM tonight on PBS should be a story about hate. Why hate happens. How easy hate can be promoted. Remember, how does one tell the racial difference between a Hutu and Tutsi? Racism and the associated hate is not about genetics - as the spin doctors of hate would have us believe. Hate is more about first impressons - an emotion permitted when logic is subverted.

Why could Hilter kill Jews? Why was Pol Pot so effective? Why could the religious right get the same thing to happen in America by promoting hate of gay? Yes, that is the question. How long would it take the religious right to get us so called righteous Americans to start killing gays?

We called the black man sub human. Why? What were we trying to justify? The question about Rwanda is and again a question about that 'blackness in the eyes'. Easy to hype hate. So easy that we may just be in denial of how easily the righteous religious extremists could promote hate of gays. George Sr did same with the famous lie about "babies were removed from incubators and place on the cold floor to die". No one questioned that testimony so that the lie was even presented, unchallenged, before Congress and national TV. Again, how to promote hate as even Hitler could do in Germany. As the Spanish President Anzar tried to do against the Basques. As NYC police did against a Haitian immigrant only because they believed Haitians create aids and sodomy - again more hate promoted by righteous religious rhetoric.

Sometimes it works. Sometimes it does not create the hate. Why?

Why was hate in Rwanda so successful that Hutus were hacking Tutsi before the first day had ended? A disturbing question not even asked here.

Reason and religion (or contemporary politics for that matter) don't go together. Asking someone to give the up their place in heaven for a little tolerance is asking too much.

The Rwandan genocides *were* in the news a lot when they were going on, and I often wondered then why there was so little effort to stop it.

I think I put the situation out of my mind by force, though, and the reason I had to do it was so incredibly stupid, that I feel compelled to share it. And I *am* being serious about what I'm about to say, and it *is* going to sound like I'm an idiot, but I assure you that I had no control over what went through my mind (and what started going through my mind once again when this thread got goint).

Whenever I heard about the Rwandan situation and the tribes involved, I could *not* suppress my mind from playing an Al Jolson soundtrack, with him singing "Hutu-Tutsi, goodbye! Hutu-Tutsi, don't cry!"

I know, I know...it is sick, but it isn't like I tried to think it up on purpose.

If the voices only want to sing and have a good time ... no problem. Worry when those voices keep telling you to do something.

You are the master Bruce.

Quite frankly, this is an example of the sort of mindless patriotism
 

Oh christ, another one of your type is all we need here.

Wasting energy.

Re: Quite frankly, this is an example of the sort of mindless patriotism
 

Hey, anytime. Glad to be of service. Nothing gives me more pleasure than calling you smug, ultra conservative types on your BS.

Quite frankly, you wouldn't know a mindless patriot if one bit you on the ass. There's a world of difference between not being a mindless patriot and mindless anti-Americanism or anti-Westernism.

Claiming that 9/11 was merely the "birds coming home to roost", a "first installment" on all the evil America has done, falls under that second category.

Go back and read my original reply to you. If all you can do is repeat your original hysterical accusations, I'm not especially interested.

Re: Pales in Comparision
 

Bishop Misago Briefs Pope on Rwanda

VATICAN, Sept. 8 (CWNews.com) -- Bishop Augustin Misago, who spent a year in a Rwandan prison before being acquitted on war-crimes charges, met privately with Pope John Paul II (bio - news) on Friday, prior to returning to his Gikongoro diocese.

Bishop Misago, who was found innocent of all charges in June after a lengthy trial, had said that he hoped to visit the Holy Father before returning to his pastoral assignment. He had spent three months in Europe, undergoing medical treatment, after his release.

The Rwandan bishop said that he wanted to brief the Pope personally about the situation in his country, where charges and counter-charges are still circulating over the massive ethnic slaughter that took place in 1994. He also wanted to thank the Pope for the support he had received from the Holy See during his imprisonment and trial.

Bishop Misago had been arrested on April 14, 1999, shortly after being denounced by the president of Rwanda. But prosecutors failed to provide any substantial evidence that he was involved in the ethnic killing, and in fact his defense team introduced several witnesses who testified that the bishop had done his best to cool ethnic tensions and prevent violence.

Nevertheles, the Rwandan government continued the prosecution, forcing several delays in the trial as they tried to find more evidence, and in May 2000 announced that they would seek the death sentence for Bishop Misago. At that point, Pope John Paul sent a personal telegram to the imprisoned bishop, expressing his solidarity and saying-- as the Holy See had previously said-- that the prosecution appeared to be an effort by the government to make the Catholic Church a scapegoat for the 1994 massacres.

Throughout the trial the bishop was confined in prison. The government of Rwanda has left thousands of people in jails, awaiting trial on war-related charges, for months at a time. The ordeal of Bishop Misago finally ended on June 15 when the Rwandan court found him innocent, and ordered his immediate release.

"In returning to my country I will be running some risks," Bishop Misago has confided to the Fides news agency. "New difficulties are waiting for me. But I am ready to accept them."

"The arrest, the imprisonment for a year, and the request for a death sentence showed the drive to eliminate me," the bishop continued. "Many of my friends here in Europehave told me not to go back to Rwanda, because it would be too dangerous. But I feel that I have to go back."

Bishop Misago explained his determination: "I didn't run away when I was first accused; why should I run away now, after my innocence has been established? If I don't go back, some people will begin to doubt my innocence again."

I went back and read your original messages. My so-called "hysterical accusations" are supported well by what you said there.

Gentlemen. Glad that each knows what the other had posted. Because I don't have a clue. Both posts were so short that I could find at least two or three different interpretations of each post. Posts too short with subjective interpretation that anyone could find a perspective to disagree with.

Suggestion. Please restate your positions and only your ideas so that, at least, 'I' understand each person's perspective. Currently, one's unique interpretation of the other's post is not appreciated - so much so that only insults remain. Instead, repost what each is trying to say.

OK. I'm a gentleWOMAN, by the way - minor point, but it does matter to my boyfriend.

The way I see it, the US government decries outrages that go on in other countries only when something of national interest is at stake - oil in the Middle East, for example. The US then uses these atrocities as an excuse to go in and get rid of the leaders of these countries and install ones who are more willing to go along with the US game plan. The US government does not concern itself with atrocities in Africa or elsewhere because those countries have no strategic significance and/or have nothing the US needs.

Just because I make this observation, it does not follow that I think Bin Laden is a great guy or that I'm going to name my first born child, "Saddam." What I am saying is that hypocrisy on the part of the US is recognized by the people of other nations and does little to help us in the game of winning the "hearts and minds" of individuals from other cultures. Both the American people and those of other nations would not be left with this feeling of extreme dissonance that we now experience when we hear of outrages in places like Rwanda and see the US doing nothing while our politicians mouth phrases like "peace keeper for the world."

I don't believe the US CAN be peace-keeper for the world. I don't think the US should even attempt this. Its a nice thought, but we have plenty of other problems, and I don't want to see my tax payer dollars spent in such futile attempts, especially when back home, "Johnny can't read."

However, I do feel that the US and Western Europe should take responsibility for messes we have helped to create, be they ever so inadvertant. I also believe that it is incumbant upon Western nations to act as concerned global citizens and not turn a blind eye in the face of other nations' acts against human rights and uncivilized and inhumane treatment of their own peoples. I think that atrocities in other countries can best be countered by a combination of economic sanctions and UN human rights surveilance among other things.

Just because I observe instances in American foreign policy where I feel the US could be doing better hardly make me a "commie lover" as some want to imply.