i saw the "ghosts of rwanda" dvd today in the lecture. to be honest i didn't really know that much about what happened in rhwanda, i just knew that there were two different ethnic groups, the tutsis and the hutus and that there was a lot of violence.
not only was what actually happened terrible and shocking, but the fact that (most of?) the world knew about this, and did nothing, seems to be unforgivable.
i think what happened in rhwanda seemed to have some similarities with what the nazis did in WW2...people turning against their fellow rwandans, and killing people (everyone - including children) simply because they were members of a different social group. what i keep thinking about is the fact that there is a good chance (i am really just guessing here) that all rwandans, both tutsi and hutu share common ancestors. so genetically they are probably very similar, the only thing which separates them is the social idea of ethnicity. i need to find out more about just what the differences were between tutsis and hutus. i'm not sure if religion came into it, but i wouldn't be surprised.
this is my first real blog posting so please comment or ask me any questions or share your own thoughts.
thanks all
bk
15 August 2007
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comments:
hi bk, thanks for getting the ball rolling with reactions to the DVD. in many ways, i think you're right in that it boils down to socially constructed ethnicity. i'm not sure either as to exact origins of the distinction b/w tutsi and hutu - but it does appears to be have been based more on social class than ethnicity per se e.g., going by info at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tutsi
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hutu
Post a Comment