Genocide in Rwanda - Page 2 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Political issues and parties in the nations of Africa.

Moderator: PoFo Africa Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please. This is an international political discussion forum, so please post in English only.
User avatar
By anarchist23
#14439472
It is Nelson Mandelas birthday today. He would be 96.
"Education is the most powerful weapon which you can use to change the world."
User avatar
By anarchist23
#14439914
France went far beyond merely doing nothing. They lured tens of thousands of Tutsi refugees to an area where they guaranteed their safety and then they let the Hutu génocidaires prowl all over them massacring people, without making any attempt to tell refugee their safe zone wasn't in fact safe.

And there were instances of active, hands-on cooperation with the génocidaires.


And the Catholic church was complicit in the genocide as well.
User avatar
By Gletkin
#14465029
Decky wrote:The Tutsis should have armed themselves

Right next door in Burundi, it was the Tutsis who were "genociding" the Hutus.
Although the Rwandan genocide would end up being over 10x as bad as the one that had been going on in Burundi.

For whatever reason(s), the Tutsis in Burundi were frequently able to stay on top as opposed to their brethren in Rwanda. Back in '72 the Burundi Tutsis were able to kill ~80-200,000 Hutus. Even though in both Burundi and Rwanda Hutus have always substantially outnumbered Tutsis.
By Rich
#14465038
Decky wrote:The Tutsis should have armed themselves. A worker without arms is a worker living on time that others have granted him.
Funny you should say that because it was the Hutus who were associated with the exploited workers and peasants and the Tsutsis with the hated Bourgeois. Some liberal-leftie self hating Tsutsis were actually complicit in the genocide of their own people. Its like the lefties here won't be happy till Sharia law rules the land. If there's one lesson that history teaches us its never rely on the hope that lefties will follow self preservation.

Overall though genocide by both sides is rational policy. Africa is over populated. Anyone who things that Africa can turn into a multitude of Singapores and Hong Kongs is deluded. there are simply not enough resources in the world for everyone to become post industrial super productive, service based economies.
User avatar
By fuser
#14465041
Rich wrote:Africa is over populated


Africa's population density is less than South America and Asia and less than half of Europe, once again Rich, you have absolutely no idea about the things you talk about.
User avatar
By anarchist23
#14465043
"there are simply not enough resources in the world for everyone to become post industrial super productive, service based economies."

This is the same for all third world/developing countries throughout the world. This inequality economically will be a source of world instability and insecurity for all of us.
#14465085
The main lesson is that ordinary people are not necessarily pure of mind/spirit and may allow themselves to be gripped by the madness of envy and hatred. Also, even cultural (the Tutsis and the Hutus shared the same culture) and racial similarity (they were not always phenotypically distinguishable from each other) provide no guarantee that two ethnic groups will be able to get along with each other and lay the foundation for stable societies. Sadly, the Holocaust and the Balkan conflicts of the 1990s also testify to the ease of creating dividing lines, often of an arbitrary nature.

As for French involvement – it’s very unfortunate that the French administration gave the wrong signals to the Hutu extremists, but I don’t think that there has been any evidence of French participation in the actual genocide (even Kagame hasn’t tried to advance such claims despite his government’s strained relations with the French). For all its faults (mainly its timing and the lack of mandate to capture genocide perpetrators), Opération Turquoise did save some lifes. I remember a quote from a French soldier along the lines of him being tired of being cheered on by murderers (referring to the friendly reception the French troops that were involved in the Turquoise invasion received – at least initially - by the Hutus).

@Rich, well put, I was going to say that the genocide was in part an example of the dangers of seeing oneself as the one and only victim. Some of the Hutus were able to justify their brutal acts based on the reasoning that the Tutsis could enslave them and turn them into subjects rather than citizens. In some respects, Hutus internalized the identity of downtrodden people and regarded themselves as less morally culpable (whatever atrocities they committed) than the Tutsis by definition.

Regarding Burundi – I am not too knowledgeable about the history of that country, maybe the ruling Tutsi elite enjoyed the support of a substantial proportion of Hutu (was skillful in co-opting informal Hutu community leaders), which would explain why the majority group in Burundi was not as susceptible to the Hutu power ideology. I have to say that one thing that I fail to grasp is why the Tutsi-led government of Burundi did not send troops to Rwanda while the genocide was still ongoing in order to assist the RPF.
User avatar
By Rejn
#14465094
fuser wrote:Africa's population density is less than South America and Asia and less than half of Europe, once again Rich, you have absolutely no idea about the things you talk about.

Just because Africa's population density is low doesn't mean its not overpopulated. If you have a huge amount of unusable land, you need to take it into account.

Land isn't the only factor anyway. If a country has no infrastructure and low economic potential, it won't be able to support as many people as a neighbouring country that is more built up.
User avatar
By fuser
#14465106
Just because Africa's population density is low doesn't mean its not overpopulated


No but still its a major indicator.

If you have a huge amount of unusable land, you need to take it into account.


And Africa still isn't overpopulated if we take in account lands that are permanently (at last for foreseeable future) unusable. While a vast area can be made usable with little effort. As the data from my previous post shows, you will have to somehow make half of Africa completely unusable to make Africa come closer to Europe and it still be behind Europe.

Land isn't the only factor anyway. If a country has no infrastructure and low economic potential


Again, Infrastructure can be build, its not a factor frozen in time. Problem is lack of development and not overpopulation.


Africa is not overpopulated by any of criteria and much much less than asia.

http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/the-staggers/2010/07/population-index-overpopulated

Research newly published lists the most overpopulated countries. When we talk about "overpopulation" (as opposed to population size), we are referring to the link between the human population and its environment. Therefore, it's not just the size or density of the population that matters, but how that population relates to sustainable resources.

The Overpopulation Index is thought to be the first to rank countries by these criteria -- looking at how dependent they are on other countries, and whether they consume more than they produce.

Here's the top ten:

Top ten overpopulated countries

According to these figures, the world as a whole is overpopulated by two billion. The geographical location of countries deemed overpopulated is interesting -- there are nine Middle Eastern countries in the top 20, and eight European. Despite popular perceptions of China and India, these countries come in much lower, at 29th and 33rd, respectively. This shows, again, that population size or density is not the key measure.

The UK comes in at a slightly less respectable 17th. Its self-sufficiency rating is 25.8 per cent, meaning that Britain could only support a quarter of its population -- about 15 million -- if it had to rely on its own resources.

It's worth noting at this point that overpopulation is a hotly contested issue. The index was compiled by the Optimum Population Trust, which advocates a voluntary "stop at two" policy on children in the UK, and has lobbied for stricter controls on immigration, saying that "immigration has brought no overall benefit to the UK". I won't get into these debates here -- you can read Philippe Legrain's excellent critique of the "Britain is full up" argument if you want the other side of the story on that particular point.

The key point here is sustainability. Even if population growth were to level off in the UK, we would still, by these measures, be unable to support ourselves unless the population shrank drastically, or food production grew. A situation where all imports disintegrate is unlikely, but improving food sustainability can only be a good thing.

There's an old Chinese teaching said, "the f[…]

:lol: :lol: :lol: You are not very good at th[…]

Yes, by all means Youtube can be arbitrary. Facebo[…]

@Rancid Everything in moderation is a pretty goo[…]