International Rwandan genocide: 25 years later (today)

[The ScorpioN]

Ah yes excusing because they built some buildings. God bless Mao for doing the same thing in China.

As opposed to hundreds of years of slavery, death, exploitation and subjugation without schools, hospitals, roads and electricity.

 

[58miles]

As opposed to hundreds of years of slavery, death, exploitation and subjugation without schools, hospitals, roads, electricity and basic hygiene.

Not to mention introducing wonderful things like Apartheid and cutting peoples hands off for not meeting rubber quotas.

 

[Phr3121]

It as special becouse it took them only 100 days to kill 800,000 people.

Too slow. In the Battle of Gettysburg during the American Civil War around 51,112 soldiers died over a 2.5 day period.
. Gettysburg = 20,445 a day
. Rwanda = 8,000 a day

 

[Phr3121]

Well, lets see, timewise, here is how many people died in less than 1 second. 99% were mostly innocent men, women, and children. The idea was not to hit a military target but to kill people who worked at a military factory. War crime?
. Hiroshima: 70,000
. Nagasaki: 40,000
* This number was doubled within the first 2 months.

 

[Colchonero]

As opposed to hundreds of years of slavery, death, exploitation and subjugation without schools, hospitals, roads and electricity.

African empires had schools, hospitals and roads. Most of the ones built by colonials were not built for the locals, and nor were any of the natives treated to their benefit. If any of the natives were educated prior to being given independence, a stray generation of idiots that knew nothing but war wouldn't have butchered the few that actually went to school (i.e Patrice Lumumba).

 

[Colchonero]

What is so special about Rwanda?
. Rwanda genocide deaths: 800,000
. Armenian genocide deaths: 1,500,000
. Cambodian genocide deaths: 1,700,000
. Bangladesh genocide deaths: 3,000,000
. Holocaust genocide deaths: 6,000,000
. Ukrainian genocide deaths: 7,500,000
. Chinese Cultural Revolution (genocide) deaths: 50,000,000+

It's special because the way it unfolded and the effects that it had on the continent. Most of the genocide took place in the streets in no organized way. People were getting butchered in the streets by random people for their ethnicity. It also was a major catalyst in the "African World War" which led to the 2nd one a few years later. The wide ranging instability it caused also caused the downfall of Mobutu Sese Seko, one of the most prominent African dictators, at the time. It completely changed the geopolitical landscape of Africa and its effects are still felt. It's easily one of, if not, the most important events in post-Colonial African history.

 

[Maaj19]

African empires had schools, hospitals and roads. Most of the ones built by colonials were not built for the locals, and nor were any of the natives treated to their benefit. If any of the natives were educated prior to being given independence, a stray generation of idiots that knew nothing but war wouldn't have butchered the few that actually went to school (i.e Patrice Lumumba).

Everyone assumes Africa was fuck all prior to Western colonisation.

 

[My2Cents]

THe west watched and didnt do shit because there was No oil. God damn shame

 

[Joe265]

Horseshit. Before colonialism, they had a history of hatred against each other and the Rwanda genocide may have never happen if it wasnt for the 1959 Hutu revolution. Even Ugandan scholar Mahmood Mamdani stated that there is clear historical evidence that both tribes have had a history of conflict going back over 1000 years and that the notion that it was the colonialists that "created" the difference is nonsense and there is even DNA evidence showing that.

Both the Y-DNA and Autosomal DNA show that they are two different people's.
"Trombetta et al. (2015) found 22.2% of E1b1b in a small sample of Tutsis from Burundi, but no bearers of the haplogroup among the local Hutu and Twa populations.[6] The subclade was of the M293 variety, which suggests that the ancestors of Tutsis in this area may have assimilated some South Cushitic pastoralists"

Even the history of Burundi shows this as the kingdom of Burundi was led by a Tutsi king from 1680 to beyond colonization.

Sounds like you’re running away like a coward from all the evidence that suggests colonization did contribute to it. Cherry picking evidence is for emotional losers that should remain as spectators. On the sidelines.

 

[Joe265]

Tale as old as time tbh
People peacefully coexisting in abundance and prosperity, then colonial tactics of bringing hospitals, schools and roads ruin yet another African paradise.
Sad.

Sounds like you’ve studied history for all of 30 minutes. Sad how people think having an emotional response adds up to a meaningful statement. Nope. You just sound like a weak, passive aggressive fool.

 

[EradiatedHaggis]

Sounds like you’re running away like a coward from all the evidence that suggests colonization did contribute to it. Cherry picking evidence is for emotional losers that should remain as spectators. On the sidelines.

Sounds like you need to attack personally to cover for your lack of actual refute.

 

[avenue94]

Well, lets see, timewise, here is how many people died in less than 1 second. 99% were mostly innocent men, women, and children. The idea was not to hit a military target but to kill people who worked at a military factory. War crime?
. Hiroshima: 146,000
. Nagasaki: 80,000

Setting aside obvious trolling:
-You suck at reading as your figures include cancer deaths
-comparing using atomic bombs to try and shorten a war vs genocide is a bad comparison
-why even compare death tolls the way you're going about it?

 

[Patrick Carey]

I'm amazed to read this thread and see the anecdotes of forgiveness. Based on my preconceived ideas of African ethnic violence , I would have expected never ending retributions.

 

[Phr3121]

Setting aside obvious trolling:
-You suck at reading as your figures include cancer deaths
-comparing using atomic bombs to try and shorten a war vs genocide is a bad comparison
-why even compare death tolls the way you're going about it?

Not trolling 'hero'. You are too stupid to know the difference.
. No, my figures do not include cancer figures. Those numbers come from roughly a two month period. If you add cancer deaths over the years, the figures would be much higher.
"Over roughly the next two months, the acute effects of the atomic bombings killed roughly 146,000 people in Hiroshima; roughly half of the deaths occurred on the first day."
. I was not referring to war or genocide, but the time it took to kill 146,000 people. You completely missed the point.
. It is a comparison -- that's it. Don't like it, move on...

 

[avenue94]

Not trolling 'hero'. You are too stupid to know the difference.
. No, my figures do not include cancer figures. Those numbers come from roughly a two month period. If you add cancer deaths over the years, the figures would be much higher.
"Over roughly the next two months, the acute effects of the atomic bombings killed roughly 146,000 people in Hiroshima; roughly half of the deaths occurred on the first day."
. I was not referring to war or genocide, but the time it took to kill 146,000 people. You completely missed the point.
. It is a comparison -- that's it. Don't like it, move on...

Funny, because you said "here is how many people died in less than one second." So I can only assume you have a very strange sense of time where less than a second is the same as weeks/months. Bottom line, one can make a moral argument for Hiroshima. You can't make any for Rwanda. Hence your comparison is apples and oranges and bizarre.

 

[Phr3121]

It's special because the way it unfolded and the effects that it had on the continent. Most of the genocide took place in the streets in no organized way. People were getting butchered in the streets by random people for their ethnicity. It also was a major catalyst in the "African World War" which led to the 2nd one a few years later. The wide ranging instability it caused also caused the downfall of Mobutu Sese Seko, one of the most prominent African dictators, at the time. It completely changed the geopolitical landscape of Africa and its effects are still felt. It's easily one of, if not, the most important events in post-Colonial African history.

This is nothing new for many African countries within the last 35 years. The death toll varies by country. Civil war, genocide, and ethnic cleansing. With very few exceptions, Africa as a continent has been a 'shithole' post-colonial era. Most governments and leadership are corrupt.
. South Sudan's war death toll: 383,000.
. Democratic Republic of Congo: 5.4 million people have died since 1998 because of conflict.

 

[Phr3121]

So, what’s the deal with Africa? Africa has some of the most resource rich nations in the world, with major exports including oil, gas, diamonds, precious metals, and agricultural products, and yet the top 10 poorest countries in the world are all in Africa.

. Africa has the highest number of landlocked countries of any continent.
. Economies based primarily on resource production and extraction are inherently volatile.
. African nations haven’t been around for very long.
. African nation borders are artificially imposed and do not align with community / ethnic divisions.

The main takeaways of this are:

• Africa’s problems are in many ways adverse effects of colonialism, and the exceptionally good governance that’s needed to successful manage countries with large national resources, ethnic divisions / sectarianism, etc.
  
• African nations have some challenges that are unique to the continent. There’s some things about the history of these countries which can be fairly generalized across the continent (since it all fell under European colonial rule), which is why I think understanding it as an “Africa problem” is more fair than considering it a “black nations” problem.

@Colchonero

 

[Phr3121]

Funny, because you said "here is how many people died in less than one second." So I can only assume you have a very strange sense of time where less than a second is the same as weeks/months. Bottom line, one can make a moral argument for Hiroshima. You can't make any for Rwanda.

Had you read the thread from the beginning you would have known what I was referring to and to whom. We were discussing different genocides and the time each one took. Later the issue of how fast and how many people could be killed came up.

You can certainly make a moral argument for the Rwandan genocide (Civil War), specially if you were a Hutu during the killings over a 100 day period in 1994.

Going back to WWII Japan. I favor the use of the nuclear bomb by the Americans, just not they way they went about it. Hiroshima was not a legitimate military target. Pearl Harbor was a legitimate Japanese military target that killed mostly sailors on the ground. U.S. and British bombing of Dresden in Germany was another blunder. Dresden was also not a legitimate military target and yet it was bombed 4 times over a 3 day period killing 30,000 innocent men, women, and children. I'm not anti-American. I retired from the U.S. Army. Veterans have a different point of view on war and killing.

 

[58miles]

At least this time we are discussing a real genocide in Africa and not that imaginary white genocide in South Africa.

 

[avenue94]

Had you read the thread from the beginning you would have known what I was referring to and to whom. We were discussing different genocides and the time each one took. Later the issue of how fast and how many people could be killed came up.

You can certainly make a moral argument for the Rwandan genocide (Civil War), specially if you were a Hutu during the killings over a 100 day period in 1994.

Going back to WWII Japan. I favor the use of the nuclear bomb by the Americans, just not they way they went about it. Hiroshima was not a legitimate military target. Pearl Harbor was a legitimate Japanese military target that killed mostly sailors on the ground. U.S. and British bombing of Dresden in Germany was another blunder. Dresden was also not a legitimate military target and yet it was bombed 4 times over a 3 day period killing 30,000 innocent men, women, and children. I'm not anti-American. I retired from the U.S. Army. Veterans have a different point of view on war and killing.

OK, I should have probably been more specific and added the caveat "reasonable" to person. But the point was your original comments were not really helpful and bizarre.

What target would you have preferred as far as using the atomic bomb? Not a lot of targets left by that point of the war. And I'm not going to say opposing what happened is unAmerican. That's idiotic.