Post Genocide Question

1. In what ways did genocide impact the development of this “developing” country?

The genocide made the UN and foreign governments more apt to help in the future, made them feel guilty and more concerned. The development stunted their growth as a country because they lost so many people during the genocide. Due to the mass killings and the tattered government system, Rwanda's development has been put on hold because they are trying to rebuild Rwanda to what it used to be first before they can move forward.

2. Where does the rebuilding of a country shattered by genocide begin? What can the people do? What can the government do? What can the international community do?


It begins with having closure through justice. The people that went through the genocide need closure through the trials of the people that committed the genocide. The government then should focus on making Rwanda a better and safer place for the people living there. They need to focus on getting the population of Rwanda back to what it was before the genocide. The international community can show that they will be willing to help if a genocide is to every occur again. They would need to take actions that would show that they have concern for Rwanda and won't just leave them out to dry.

3. How can justice be found in post-genocide Rwanda?
The trials of all the people that are still being held in prisons in Rwanda need to be processed. These people have been waiting in prison for over ten years and instead of just leaving them in prison to rot, they need to tried and then sentenced.

4. Which can bring justice to the people of Rwanda more effectively – international courts or community courts? Explain.
Cooperation between both international and community courts would bring about effective justice. To bring criminals back to the place where they committed horrible crimes and to have them tried in that area would have a powerful effect on their guilt. On the other hand, the international courts have much more power and control of a larger scale.

Thoughts after Maus II Disucssion

An image that emotionally shocked me is the bottom block on pg. 72 of Maus II. Spiegelman depicts the Jews burning in either one of the crematoriums or a cremation pit. The caption above says, "Prisoners what worked there poured gasoline over the live ones and the dead ones". This terrifies me because the prisoners were forced to help on, or essentially kill the other prisoners. They were forced to pour gasoline on them! When really those prisoners that were pouring the gasoline would be the next to die. It is unthinkable what the prisoners were forced to do. The lower text box says, "And the fat from the burning bodies they scooped and poured again so everyone could burn better". This is really shows the frankness Speigelman writes with. It is almost as if he is being sarcastic about the way they would re-use the fat to help the other bodies burn more easily. Perhaps Speigelman is not using sarcasm, but more along the lines of complete and utter truth and therefore it comes out in a way that one is not sure to take it so seriously.

Reflection on Human Rights Activity

A statement that where I noticed my thinking changed was: It is wrong to torture another person. I feel like before I really thought about this statement, I felt that if someone committed a horrible crime, they deserved to be tortured for it. But once I heard Kelly say that out loud, it did not make sense. It seemed a bit silly actually. That actually led me to realize that, in my opinion, in most cases it is wrong to torture another person. When Olen and Sarah were talking about how a life is still a life, what is torturing going to accomplish? People will say anything to make the pain stop. Also, torturing someone will not cause them to realize the extreme, horrific nature of their crime. This also swayed me toward my opinion. However I did start to lean toward it is always wrong to torture another person because like Olen pointed out: a person will say anything to get the pain to stop. So if the CIA, for example, is torturing someone for information, the person could give them fake information to make the torturing stop, but then the CIA will have achieved nothing and received no important, helpful information. I am not quite sure what this reflects about the type of person I am.

Current Events in the Democratic Republic of Congo

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/04/world/africa/04congo.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1&sq=the%20democratic%20republic%20of%20congo&st=cse&scp=1

This article is from the New York Times, written by Jeffrey Gettlemen. The title is Frenzy of Rape in Congo Reveals U.N. Weakness. Gettlemen discusses the raid which took place on October 3 by rebel forces. They came into a village and raped at least 200 women. There were dozens of UN peace keepers stationed up the rode, but failed to respond. The peace keepers said the responsibility to respond was left to the Congolese Army. The questions this article brought up for me were: If the UN has invested so much money in the Congo, why are they struggling so much to keep peace? With over 1,500 peace keepers in the Congo, why can they not protect the citizens? It is very disturbing to me that with so much outside influence from the UN, the Congo is still very unsafe and the citizens are in terror. I do not know how the UN should continue or pursue a course of action in order to take the Congo in the right direction.


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-11469140

This article is from the BBC, there was no author. The article is title DR Congo: Joseph Kabila critic's 'suicide' doubted. The article addresses the man that threw a stone a President Joseph Kabila's convoy had committed suicide in prison. It was said that he was arrested and then taken to prison. In the prison, he killed himself by using a pillow case. Jacob Baluish of the Congolese Observatory of Human Rights told the AFP news agency suspects fowl play! How could he have committed suicide by a pillowcase when we all know there was no pillowcase!? This article brought up the questions: Why are the Congolese officials trying to cover up this instance? Why are they trying to make it seem like the man committed suicide? Did they kill him just because he threw the rock or was there more involved? This is makes me think, if a man is killed for simply throwing a rock in the Congo, what other simple things are people being punished for?

Idea that Stuck!

Question #5: There were many comparisons made between the Belgian colonizers in the Congo and the Nazis in Auschwitz. What are the similarities and differences between the two events?

The idea that monsters really do exist. The Europeans would justify what they were doing by saying the Congolese were uncivilized and sub-human so they deserved it or it did not matter what they did to them. The Nazis vs. The Force Publique Soldiers. The Nazis considered the Jews sub-human and they were considered that way because of they were Jewish. The Europeans were the same way with the Africans. They just felt they were uncivilized and needed enlightenment.

Pg. 33-60 KLG reading #2. Quotes

Leopold:

"But there was something fox-like about the manner in which this constitutional monarch of a small, increasingly democratic country became the totalitarian ruler of a vast empire on another continent"(34).
-This quote is foreshadowing of King Leopolds empire in the Congo and in what manners he rules it.

"Stanley's journey solved another geographical mystery...the Congo begins and ends below the equator, but the top part of its great half-circle lies above the equator"(53).
-This shows that Stanley not only was completely engulfed in exploring Africa, but he also was dedicated to bringing back his findings to prove he was not as illigitiate as his birth.

Challenge/Affirm
"At last his long-dream-of production could reach the stage, and Stanley would be its star"(57).
-I would challenge this statement from Hochschild because how, after Leopold's dreaming was he able to know that Stanley was the key to his success?

Pg. 1-32 KLG Reading #1

          During this reading I found that I was more drawn in during the parts of the reading where Hochschild discussed the gruesome parts of the slave trade. I think it is because I find it interesting how the Europeans thought that they were superior beings so they could just do whatever they wanted, not to mention how greedy they were. Also it did not help that the Africans as well wanted to new goods so they were willing to trade slaves to the Europeans to get these little trinkets and knick-knacks which were abundant in Europe. This particularity drew me in because I cannot even fathom the condition these slaves were in. How they were transported all the way across the Atlantic in chains! I read a statistic once that the conditions became so bad that at one point almost a third of every slave convoy died before reaching port. These slaves were literally treated like objects! I supposed this draws me in because I cannot believe that one human would treat another, unknown, foreign human in that way. If anything the Europeans should have been trying to please the Africans.


Discussion Questions:
Why was Affonso so eager to become more like the Europeans? Why did he feel like he needed to be more like them?

Why did the Europeans automatically think they were better than the Africans?