Video
The Rwandan Genocide is a tragic example of money taking precidense over morality. I don't think the Red Cross should be at all blamed because that is technically against their code of action and had they broken that code, it might have ruined the whole orginzation, which in my opinion would be a tragesty to the human race. However, I do believe that the United States, along with some of the other G-8/20 countries should be to blame. I don't want to just point my finger at the high up officials however, because from what I've seen, anoyne can truely make a difference. Its sad however that there are probobly realistically 10 million or so people who could have started a movement to stop this, yet not a single person acted. While it is true that some people, such as US officials, probobly could have done something easier, they shouldn't be the only ones to be blamed. Something interesting I learned on the G-20 is that they are responsible for more than 80 percent of the global gross national product. I think that should mean they have some responsibility to care for the rest of the world who is obviosuly not as financially set as they are. However, sadley this is not the case. The United States didn't intervene in the Rwandan Genocide because no one wanted to use tax payer dollars to fund something that wouldn't directly benifit the United States. What saddens me is, had they exposed the problem to the general public on a broad scale, I'm positive that the public would have sympathized enough to take action.
Moving on and somewhat backwards, I would like to compare what caused the Rwandan Genocide to my two novels I read that take place in Africa. I don't think its fare to call the people who killed the kids ruthless, soulless, people, because many don't know their backgrounds. From my knowledge on Africa, war between tribes has always been very traditional thing, although many people in most civilized countries today would disagree, it is alot more common in some places of Africa. The reason this is I believe is because most Africans weren't exposed to the powerful weapons of destruction created by the White Men which allowed them to violenetly settle their disputes on a very small scale war. When White people introduced guns to the Africans, they didn't realize it, but their readiness for war was now unsafe for everyone because they couldn't fully appreciate the destructive properties of the machine gun. One machine gun can do more damage than 50 men with shields and swords.
To simplify the previous paragraph, the generation that held the genocide observed their parents fighting time and time again, they basically did the same thing, except they had guns, something their parents didn't have, and I believe it was irresponsible to give them so many guns wihtout care.
So in conclusion, not only could the genocide have been stopped by G-20 countries, it could have actually never started had G-20
The Rwandan Genocide is a tragic example of money taking precidense over morality. I don't think the Red Cross should be at all blamed because that is technically against their code of action and had they broken that code, it might have ruined the whole orginzation, which in my opinion would be a tragesty to the human race. However, I do believe that the United States, along with some of the other G-8/20 countries should be to blame. I don't want to just point my finger at the high up officials however, because from what I've seen, anoyne can truely make a difference. Its sad however that there are probobly realistically 10 million or so people who could have started a movement to stop this, yet not a single person acted. While it is true that some people, such as US officials, probobly could have done something easier, they shouldn't be the only ones to be blamed. Something interesting I learned on the G-20 is that they are responsible for more than 80 percent of the global gross national product. I think that should mean they have some responsibility to care for the rest of the world who is obviosuly not as financially set as they are. However, sadley this is not the case. The United States didn't intervene in the Rwandan Genocide because no one wanted to use tax payer dollars to fund something that wouldn't directly benifit the United States. What saddens me is, had they exposed the problem to the general public on a broad scale, I'm positive that the public would have sympathized enough to take action.
Moving on and somewhat backwards, I would like to compare what caused the Rwandan Genocide to my two novels I read that take place in Africa. I don't think its fare to call the people who killed the kids ruthless, soulless, people, because many don't know their backgrounds. From my knowledge on Africa, war between tribes has always been very traditional thing, although many people in most civilized countries today would disagree, it is alot more common in some places of Africa. The reason this is I believe is because most Africans weren't exposed to the powerful weapons of destruction created by the White Men which allowed them to violenetly settle their disputes on a very small scale war. When White people introduced guns to the Africans, they didn't realize it, but their readiness for war was now unsafe for everyone because they couldn't fully appreciate the destructive properties of the machine gun. One machine gun can do more damage than 50 men with shields and swords.
To simplify the previous paragraph, the generation that held the genocide observed their parents fighting time and time again, they basically did the same thing, except they had guns, something their parents didn't have, and I believe it was irresponsible to give them so many guns wihtout care.
So in conclusion, not only could the genocide have been stopped by G-20 countries, it could have actually never started had G-20
RSS Feed