Isagani Dionela

2010-0064

Hotel Rwanda

Facts About the Movie:

The story of the movie revolves around Paul Rusesabagina in his gamble to save his family in the

bickering civil war but then resolved finally to save another thousand. He is a manger of a Rwandan hotel

owned by a Belgian. Paul is a Hutu while his wife, children and extended family are all Tutsi.

Before the colonization of Rwanda at the end of the 18th century, the three groups (Tutsi, Hutu

and Twa) were more of social groups rather than ethnic groups. In the past one is considered a Hutu if he

is engaged in agriculture and a Tutsi if he had cattle. If one changed from farming to herding, he also

changes from Hutu to Tutsi (Hardy, 2007).

When the Belgian colonists arrived in 1916, they produced identity cards classifying people

according to their ethnicity. The Belgians considered the Tutsis to be superior to the Hutus. Not

surprisingly, the Tutsis welcomed this idea, and for the next 20 years they enjoyed better jobs and

educational opportunities than their neighbors (BBC News, 2008).

In 1926, they abolished the local posts of "land-chief" and in doing so stripped the Hutu of their

limited power. Belgians attempted to divide groups based upon race and migratory patterns, but by this

time the groups had intermarried, changed ethnic groups and possessed similar features.

Whatever communal cleavages existed were sharply heightened by Belgian colonial policy. Using

physical characteristics as a guide, the Tutsi who were generally tall, thin, and more European in their

appearance than the shorter, stockier Hutu the colonizers decided that the Tutsi and the Hutu were two

different races. According to the racial theories of the late 19th and early 20th centuries, the Tutsi, with

their more 'European' appearance, were deemed the 'master race.’ By 1930 Belgium's Rwandan

auxiliaries were almost entirely Tutsi, a status that earned them the durable hatred of the Hutus (Prunier

in Genocide in Rwanda,1994).

Shortly after the death of the President, Hutus who were in the power then started purging Tutsis

and even those Hutus who made peaceful co-existence with the former were not exempted from

slaughter. The responsibility over the death of the President was blamed to the Tutsis.

Paul ably negotiates with the Hutus for his Tutsi and moderate Hutu refugees. With the region's

few U.N. peacekeeping troops, led by their Colonel Oliver, trapped by restrictions, little stopped the Hutus

from pursuing a colonial blood feud against the Tutsis. Paul bribed the aggressors with cash, liquor, and

other favors in order to save his family and other refugees stuck at his hotel. They were then brought to a

U.N. camp where they were brought to other countries as refugees.

Reaction:

The movie is based on a true story and happened only in 1994 in the age of swift exchange of

information. But, how did the situation in Rwanda came that worse if not the worst?

What may be inferred about the movie is that it focused only to Paul and the colonel and not the

whole genocide. But I think, resonating the reality of what happened in Rwanda, the movie tries to depict

the truth during the genocide, only a few responded. It illustrates the apathy of the international

community in treating Rwandan strife or upon the willful blindness, which allowed the slaughter and

displacement of many hundreds of thousands.

What Colonel remarked to Paul when he questioned why would the international community not

intervene to the Rwandans is very apt to describe the UN’s discrimination of its members, or maybe for

the reason that what is it for them to afford help. “They think you’re dirt, dung, black. You’re not even a

nigger – you’re African. They’re (European intervention troops) not going to stay!” Moreover, Paul also

had an occasion to see the footage Jack, a European journalist was able to record. He said, “I am glad

that you have shot this footage and that the world will see it. It is the only way we have a chance that

people might intervene. Then Jack replied, “Yeah and if no one intervenes, is it still a good thing to

show?” Then Paul inquisitively responded, “How can they not intervene when they witness such

atrocities?” and Jack answered, I think if people see this footage they'll say, "oh my God that's horrible,"

and then go on eating their dinners.

How and why had it come that these super power nations are the keepers of Rwanda? The

Universal Declaration of Human Rights proclaimed by the United Nations General Assembly of which

these super power nations are also members speaks of a common standard of achievements for all

peoples and all nations. It sets out the fundamental human rights to be universally protected. 

In one occasion the Colonel of the UN Peacekeepers said, “We are peacekeepers and not

peacemakers.” This statement draws attention to what really is the role of the U.N.? Moreover, there

seem to be a conflict on the remark, an absurdity. What would they keep if there is no peace? So it

follows that they should first be peacemakers for them to attend to the next role of being peacekeepers. In

this instance, I would like to contrast two situations. On September 11, 2001 the world was surprised by

an attack on the U.S. where 2,973 people died (CNN, 2006). U.S. then as retribution or what they

propagandized as “war against terrorism” instigated war against the Taliban in Afghanistan and Iraq who

they said cuddled and supported Bin Laden, the mastermind of the attack. The U.N. as a body

advocating for world peace and human rights, in response to the terrorism decided to help the U.S. in one

way or another. On the other hand, in not too distant past just seven years prior to the US attack, in

Rwanda, on April 1994, an estimated 800,000 Rwandans were killed in a span of 100 days because UN

did not intervene. Can the reason of state sovereignty be made as a cloak to justify willful blindness?

Definitely not. So why is it that the UN in response to U.S.’s call immediately responded while in Rwanda

they did not? Is UN only created to serve the interests of the rich nations? I smell a double standard in

such situations. It must be either racial or economic bigotry. In the words of Gandhi, “the test of pudding

is on the eating.” Experience taught us that of course, they can bake the cake and eat it too. Given that

my interpolation is true, how can these poor member-nations expect genuine help from these rich nations

or the so called UN? I think what Paul said during the time when they were deserted by the U.N. is

appropriate to answer this question. “We must shame them into sending help.”

Might makes right. This was one of Hitler’s founding principles of the right to exterminate the

Jews. In the same manner, the Hutus also rediscovered this principle and used it against their Tutsi

brothers. Then a cycle of hate begins. The aggrieved side would then avenge the death of their fellow.

An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth (Code of Hammurabi) would then ensue. But Mahatma Gandhi

believed otherwise, “an eye for an eye would only make the whole world blind.

All things said, I had come to the opinion that we, humans, are really incapable of understanding

each other for I believe, as long as we love, there would always be hate. And as long as this kind of

system we are in thrives, there would always be discrimination.

Sources:

Frank W. Hardy, Hutu and Tutsi Genocide: Ethnic Cleansing in Rwanda and the Democratic Republic of

Congo,2007, on the World Wide Web: www.suite101.com

Case Study: Genocide in Rwanda, 1994, on the World Wide Web: www.gendercide.org

Rwanda: How the Genocide Happened. 2008, on the World Wide Web: www.news.bbc.co.uk

CNN, U.S. Deaths in Iraq, War on Terror Surpass 9/11 Toll, September 3, 2006 on the World Wide Web,:

www.cnn.com