Chelsea Feuer APHG/Period 7 February 12, 2012
Hotel Rwanda Discussion Questions 1. What kind of person does Paul initially appear to be to us, the viewers? v iewers? Paul appears to be an arrogant and dominant man who is the manager of a hotel. He also gives off a very confident demure. Evidence Ev idence supporting this initial impression is his sense of style and cleverness when associating with businessmen. When interacting with these wealthy men, he gives them Cohiba cigars from Havana, Cuba which is worth 10,000 francs as he mentioned in the movie m ovie because they are more stylish than giving a rich man just 10,000 francs. This also shows that he is a well-educated and well-respectful person amongst others. 2. What event seems to start the genocide? Is the political & historical background handled by the film adequately? (Was enough information given to explain why the genocide occurred?) occurred?) Explain. The tension leading up to the genocide was because Belgium colonized Rwanda and divided the people into two groups known as the Tutsi and Hutu. The Belgium favored the Tutsi even though they were the minority tribe in Rwanda. When Rwanda gained independence and the Belgium left, the Hutu began to hold the leadership positions in government. On April 6, 1994, the genocide began with the murder of President Juvénal Habyarimana. The Hutu extremists blamed the Tutsi rebels for shooting down the president’s plane killing everyone on board. The Hutus responded by beginning the slaughter of 800,000 people within 24 hours of the plane crash. The political and historical background was depicted accurately, but simply in the film. For example, the conversation between the journalist and a Rwandan at the hotel bar leads the viewer to believe b elieve that there were no social so cial distinctions between the Tutsi and Hutu tribes prior to Belgian colonial rule in R wanda. Historically, distinctions between the Tutsi and Hutu were economic rather than racial prior to colonization. 3. What do you think UN Colonel Oliver means when he says, “We are peace-keepers, peace-keepers, not peace-makers.”? peace-makers.”? Is there a difference? If so, what is it? If not, why does he say this? UN Colonel Oliver was ordered that troops were no t to use weapons unless in self-defense. They are there to stabilize the situation without intervening. There is a difference between acting as a peace-maker and acting as a peace-keeper. A peace-keeper attempts to prevent fights, violence and disputes, while a peace -maker is one who attempts to get them under und er control once they do occur. 4. Why does the UN withdraw its forces and the non -Rwandan inhabitants?
Initially, the UN withdrew most of its forces leaving only 250 UN troops compared to the 2,500 original troops deployed in Rwanda following the murder of 10 Belgian soldiers. This decision was made by the United Nation Security Council in order to take out citizens of the countries in the United Nations. 5. Explain the UN Colonel’s disturbing comments on the UN’s decision not intervene. What do you think he means when he tells Paul, “you’re not even a n---er”? The UN Colonel’s comments were particularly disturbing and racist especially when he said, “You’re not even a n---er. You’re an African.” By this, he meant that the Western world was apathetic towards the genocide in Rwanda. The superpowers of the world did not care enough about the Africans to stop the slaughter which is why the UN had decided to withdraw its soldiers and non-Rwandan inhabitants. 6. Describe your reaction to the scene immediately after P aul’s meeting with George Rutaganda (in car w/ Gregoire). Why do you think filmmakers decided to film the genocide this way? After Paul’s meeting with George Rutaganda, the dead bodies lying on the ground made me feel disgusted and sympathetic towards the innocent Rwandans that were slaughtered like cattle. I literally felt sick to my stomach knowing that this actually h appened in real life. It really made me think that people can be very cruel if their hatred is strong enough. The filmmakers probably filmed the genocide in this wa y to give the audience an image that actually showed just how many peoples’ lives were taken during this genocide. They also wanted to trigger emotions of sadness and aversion towards the mass murder of so many innocent people. 7. Recall the convoy of Rwandans who have obtained visas to leave. What are your thoughts on the conflict between Tatiana & after he decides to stay. Place yourself in one in one of the two characters position. What are they feeling during this scene? Why? Is there one person who is more “correct” than the other? Why? I believe that Paul did the right thing by staying behind to keep the refugees safe. At the same time, I feel as though it was selfish of him to disregard his family’s feelings. The Hutu Army would have killed all of the refugees at the hotel if it wasn’t for Paul who saved them by contacting the General to get his men to protect them. Paul is feeling brave, yet helpless in this moment because as much as he wants to be with his family, he can’t bear to live knowing that he left the refugees unprotected. He thought his family would be safe and better off even if they may never see each other again. Tatiana knows that Paul may die which means that she will never see him again, and would have to raise their children by herself. This causes her and their children to feel very sad. It’s a very conflicted situation to say which person is more “correct” than the other. If Paul were to leave the refugees in the hotel behind, the emotional toll on him and his family would be equal to the emotions present if he and his family were to remain separated. Either way, th e questions and doubts of what could’ve been the right decision in this situation would stimulate emotions of hurt, sadness, and possibly even guilt.
8. How is Paul able to convince General Bizimungu into helping him at the end? What does this say about how the outcome of the war might have ended differently? Paul convinces General Bizimungu by o ffering to get him supplies at the other hotel called The Diplomat. While they were there, Paul told the general that he was on the list of military criminals in America. He basically blackmailed him by saying that the general would be convicted of war crimes. The general replies by claiming that he did not commit the crimes that he is accused of. Without Paul’s help, the general would most definitely continue to be on the list of America’s military criminals based on his status in the Rwandan Army. Paul would have the ability to tell the Americans that the general actually helped the refugees back at the hotel. This says that the general could’ve been bribed earlier to put an end to the war which would ultimately save hundreds of thousands of lives. 9. To what degree do we witness the Rwandan genocide in the film? The Rwandan genocide is witnessed by its audience to the fullest degree in that all events are historically depicted, and the horrors during this time seem to show the graphic images that were present in real life. However, the movie is p artially fictional and dramatized for the Hollywood effect. The conflicts between Paul and his family didn’t necessarily take place, and provided an emotional trigger for viewers. Moreover, the violence that took place in Rwanda was not fully represented for the mere fact that it was a very ghastly scene that even the Hollywood movie industry couldn’t fully take on . 10. How, in general, are Rwandans represented b y the film? Rwanda itself? Compare these representations with how WWII-era Germans were portrayed in the documentaries, readings, etc. you have seen. Rwandans are represented in a cruel and hateful manner due to their inability to keep peace amongst its people. Rwanda itself is a less developed country (LDC) with a disorganized military that has no support from more developed countries (MDC). The two tribes at conflict are the primary cause for the lack of development present in this country. During the genocide, supplies and communication become scarce. If people do not die due to the mass murders of the Tutsi rebels or Hutu extremists, they are likely to die due to lack of proper health care. These representations deal with the harsh realities caused by genocide. During World War II, the Holocaust is a well-known example of genocide compared to the less known Rwandan genocide. The Germans were led by a single man who was responsible for the killing of 6 million Jews. In the Rwandan genocide, conflict occurred between many people so that not one person could be held responsible. Germany also thrived during the WWII-era as the Germans claimed much of the territory in Europe as their own. Rwanda on the other hand remained a poor country without much empathy from the West. Contrarily, the West played a substantial role in trying to stop the Nazis from killing millions of people. The Rwandan genocide resulted in the murders of 800,000 to 1.7 million people. The Holocaust killed 6 million people throughout the c ourse of 4 years. Killings in Rwanda were spontaneous and took place more publicly whereas the Germans took many precautions to hide their actions by using concentration camps for example.
11. Rwanda was widely considered the most “Christianized cou ntry” in Africa. Close to 90% of Rwanda claimed to be Christians. How do you account for the genocide which occurred in light of this information? The genocide in Rwanda was not primarily due to religious conflict although it cou ld be attributed to be a minor cause of the big picture. The main factor that stimulated the Rwandan genocide was the ethnic conflict between the Tutsi and Hutu tribes. However, it is known that 90% of the population was Hutu which probably means that the majority of the Hutu made up the Christian population. Therefore, religious beliefs could have played a part in why the Tutsi and Hutu could not maintain a peaceful environment. Differences between these ethnicities are attributes that contribute to the conflicts behind the genocide that took place. 12. Based on the end of the film, what might you speculate about Rwanda’s future (from the perspective of 1994)? I believe that Rwanda’s future based on the end of the film would be very depressing. The scars from this 100 day genocide would have to be healed, and it would most likely take a long time for this happen. A new government and stable military would have to be enforced. This would be very difficult because conflicts between the two tribes would have to be forgotten. A long road to a peaceful nation would be ahead of them. This would be especially difficult if they did not receive help from the Western world.
