The comparing and contrasting of Hotel Rwanda and 1947 Earth In the film Hotel Rwanda and 1947 Earth you see many similar features such as tensions between 2 or more parties, friends betraying one another, rioting and military coups. Though rooted in different times and nations the two share very common attributes. And with respect to the viewer each story is told through the eyes of neutral parties such as Paul and his Hutu heritage and his wife’s Tutsi heritage, and Lenny-baby and her neutral Parsi family. Lenny-Baby is raised in a well off Parsi family in India. She lays perfect groundwork to be the eyes and ears of this film. Her family’s neutral stand point keeps her safe from any direct aggression, being a young child leaves us with …show more content…
Exactly like how Hari became Himmat Ali by converting to Muslim. Though this was an option it was not as simple as it may seem. Conflict of Shanta’s friends shine light on more than just the conflict in India but also jealousy over Shanta’s hand in marriage when Hassan is murdered, most likely by Dil. Also when Dil shows up to the Sethna’s home looking for Shanta and manipulates Lenny-Baby into giving up where Shanta is hiding. Lenny-Baby will forever hold this as her fault as she never sees Shanta again. In Rwanda you could lose your life by the type of Rwandan you were classified as. We see thousands flock to the Milles Collines Hotel in Kigali to meet their savior Paul Rusesabagina. He put his life and his family’s on the line for refugees he barely knew because he knew there was no chance of survival had he turned them away. In 1947 Earth the men and woman are burdened with these 3 options: convert, leave, or ultimately die. At least the were given the opportunity to live as messed up as that seems its better than dying at the hands of your aggressor for something you cannot change. After all Rwanda was a genocide on the Tutsi heritage and its …show more content…
Essentially, each nation was left to their devices. A difference though was how, the Belgium left the power in the hands of the Tutsi. The Tutsi were the smaller of ethnic groups in Rwanda, the Hutu’s were not fond of being controlled by the smaller population because the Belgium’s favored the Tutsi’s physical features over the Hutu’s. The British left India in such a hurry they had left everything to be settled by their own people from independence down to whether there will be a Pakistan (land of the pure). In the very beginning of 1947 Earth the movie opens up to a dinner at a dinner at the Sethnas whom were Parsi, at this dinner there were two other couples, the Roger’s whom were British and the Singh’s whom were Sikh. At this dinner tension is very apparent between the two guests, the saying “you could cut the tension with a knife” was an understatement with the under the breath comments and hidden insults shared between the two. The men were in a disagreement whether the British could even survive without the British, let alone settle differences. Mr. Rogers was clearly doubtful that this independence could be handled by the people of India with out the the consultation and assistance of the British. Mr. Singh was claiming that the people of India had lived in peace and harmony for hundreds of years before the British had
The film sends several clear messages to viewers. First, the Belgian colonialism significantly impacted on the fate of the nation. As the film indicates that when Rwanda became a protectorate of Belgium in 1919,
While the book “Left to Tell” by Immaculée Ilibagiza and the movie “Hotel Rwanda” by Terry George shows its share of similarities, both portray the Rwandan Massacre of 1994 in diversified ways. First, while both characters share similarities portraying the perspective of the genocide, they also show some major differences in the point of view as the main character in the movie was a hotel manager while the other main character from the book was a young, Tutsi woman. Also, while they face similar conflicts and hardships, both have their own personal field of adversities to face.
The ethnic division within the Rwandan culture played an integral role during the genocide. In 1918, Belgium is given the authority to govern the territory of Rwanda-Urundi under the Treaty of Versailles. Under Belgian rule, the traditional Hutu-Tutsi relationship was morphed into a class system favouring the Tutsis over the Hutus. The Belgians eventually created a system of ethnic identity cards differentiating Hutus from Tutsis. This would become a central driver of the Rwandan genocide. In the movie there are many instances where Rwandan citizens are asked to show their identity cards. In most cases, those who were not Hutu would be punished. Another example of the geopolitical struggle between these two ethnicities was illustrated through the media. Media is used as a platform to convey a message that influences the thoughts and actions of individuals around the world. Since Hutus are the majority in Rwanda, they were able to exert their influence over the Tutsis through mechanisms such as the media. Throughout the country, local Hutu power radio stations were aired calling for the extermination of Tutsis. The station would often find ways to dehumanize the Tutsis. In most cases they would refer to Tutsis as ‘cockroaches’. In order to create an accurate portrayal of the genocide, the film used the exact recordings from the Hutu power radio.
The Rwandan genocide occurred due to the extreme divide between two main groups that were prevalent in Rwanda, the Hutu and the Tutsi. When Rwanda was first settled, the term Tutsi was used to describe those people who owned the most livestock. After the Germans lost control over their colonies after World War I, the Belgians took over and the terms Hutu and Tutsi took on a racial role (Desforges). It soon became mandatory to have an identification card that specified whether or not an individual was a Hutu, Tutsi, or Twa (a minority group in Rwanda). The Tutsi soon gained power through the grant of leadership positions by the Belgians. Later on when Rwanda was tying to gain indepe...
During the 1900’s two deadly wars were raging on, the civil war in Sierra Leone and the genocide in Rwanda. The civil war in Sierra Leone began in March 1991, while the genocide began in 1994. Combined these two wars killed upward of 1,050,000 people, and affected the lives of all the people that lived there. The conflicts in Sierra Leone and Rwanda occurred for different major reasons, but many little aspects were similar. Politics and Ethnicity were the two main conflicts, but despite the different moments rebellions and the murder of innocent people occurred in both places.
The genocides of the 20th century which occurred in Rwanda and Germany had striking similarities, something that should have alerted the world to stop them. At the core of these two massacres, patterns existed that outlined how similar thinking and reasoning could lead to something as horrible as these two events. One can see how both groups used their command of knowledge as a way to control the people, how the rest of the world refused to step up to stop the killings, and how the people were thought of as less than humans to provide a just cause for such terrible acts.
The Rwandan Genocide was a terrible event in history, caused by a constantly weakening relationship between two groups of people. The country of Rwanda is located in Africa and consists of multiple groups of people. The majority of Rwandans are Hutu, while a smaller number of people are Tutsis. The genocide started due to multiple events that really stretched the relationship between the two groups to its end. One of the starting factors was at the end of World War 1.
Africa has been an interesting location of conflicts. From the conflict between Ethiopia and Eritrea to the revolutionary conflict in Libya and Egypt, one of the greatest conflicts is the Rwandan Genocide. The Rwandan Genocide included two tribes in Rwanda: Tutsis and Hutus. Upon revenge, the Hutus massacred many Tutsis and other Hutus that supported the Tutsis. This gruesome war lasted for a 100 days. Up to this date, there have been many devastating effects on Rwanda and the global community. In addition, many people have not had many acknowledgements for the genocide but from this genocide many lessons have been learned around the world.
When the Rwandan Hutu majority betrayed the Tutsi minority, a destructive mass murdering broke out where neighbor turned on neighbor and teachers killed their students; this was the start of a genocide. In this paper I will tell you about the horrors the people of Rwanda had to face while genocide destroyed their homes, and I will also tell you about the mental trauma they still face today.
Watching the film, Hotel Rwanda, can make one wonder how cruel the humanity can be. The film is suitable as a focal point for discussing evil because the genocide that the film is based has been widely condemned as a result of its wicked aspects. The main protagonist, Paul Rusesabagina, has been viciously awakened by the level of evil that has possessed his ethnic community. During the entire genocide, he is the only Hutu who has sympathy toward the Tutsis. With the desire to do what is morally right in the society, Paul risks his life to hide close to 1000 Tutsis in his hotel. He has to bribe the local Hutu militia leaders to protect the Tutsis, including his wife and family. Although the society regards bribery as unethical, one can consider it as a lifesaver in the film. This is because giving bribes in form of cigars is the only way Paul can save hundreds of lives. The Hutu militia leaders are so inhuman that they value cigars more than the life of a human being. These events depict the rotten nature of the society, as even human life has to be saved through corruption.
When the Belgian colonizers entered Rwanda in 1924, they created an ethnic classification between the Hutu and the Tutsi, two tribes who used to live together as one. After independence in 1962, there was a constant power struggle between the two tribes. Former Canadian Prime Minister, Jean-Pierre Chrétien described the situation as “tribalism without tribes.” (Destexhe, 1995) There were many signs leading towards genocide, yet the nations in power chose to ignore them. From April 6, 1994 until mid-July, a time spanning approximately of 100 days, 800,000 people were murdered when the Hutu attacked the Tutsi. No foreign aid came to the rescue until it was too late. Ten years after the genocide the United Nations was still involved in Rwanda, cleaning up the mess that was left behind because of man’s sinful nature. Could the Rwandan Genocide have been prevented, or is it simply a fact of life? Even though the international community is monitoring every country and race, such an event as the Rwandan Genocide could occur again because the European colonizers introduced ethnic classification where it did not exist and the nations in power chose to ignore the blatant signs of genocide.
Rwanda, a little territory residing in east-central Africa, resembles close to the size of Maryland. Many believe that the Kingdom of Rwanda was founded by European explorers in 1854. It was occupied by Belgian troops during World War I. On January 28, 1961 it became known as Rwandan Republic. On July 1, 1962 they established their independence from Belgium and then on June 4, 2003 it became known as the Republic of Rwanda. Rwanda has come a long way since its founding. Now one of the largest regions in Africa as far as population and economic growth, Rwanda continues to grow. Though some say that the poverty level remains much more than any other region, it is still a place I want to visit.
Realism is one of the oldest and most popular theories in International Relations. It offers a perspective about competition and power, and can be used to explain the actions between states. An example of realism is the U.S. reaction – or lack thereof – during the 1994 Rwandan genocide.
Middleton, John. "Rwanda." Africa: an Encyclopedia for Students. Vol. 3. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 2002. Print.
The decision to grant independence to India was not the logical culmination of errors in policy, neither was it as a consequence of a mass revolution forcing the British out of India, but rather, the decision was undertaken voluntarily. Patrick French argues that: “The British left India because they lost control over crucial areas of the administration, and lacked the will and the financial or military ability to recover that control”.