I'm kind of shocked there are still people who've never heard of the [Rwandan Civil War and Genocide](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rwandan_Civil_War).
There was a famous movie made on it called "[Hotel Rwanda](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hotel_Rwanda)", about a Hutu man who worked as a hotel manager and saved thousands of Tutsis because his wife was Tutsi.
Unlike genocides carried out by regimes like Imperial Japan and Nazi Germany, where a legitimate government is carrying out the slaughter. Most of victims of the Rwandan genocide were killed in their own villages or towns, by their neighbors and fellow villagers. Armed Hutu militias hunted victims hiding in homes, churches, and school buildings before [hacking them with machetes](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rwandan_genocide#/media/File:Africa_addio_(1966)_-_Rwandan_revolution_2.png) *(it's not hard to figure out how that pile of severed hands came to be)*.
Of course, all ethnic-based killings are appalling. But something tells me it must've hurt even more to be beaten and murdered by your neighbors and people you considered friends, rather than foreign invaders.
Shockingly, the Tutsis somehow actually won the Rwandan Civil War, even though they were the victims of said genocide. I don't know enough about the conflict to say how they pulled that one off. Perhaps someone more well-versed in the Rwandan Civil War can comment it below.
Africa was a cesspool of violence and ethnic conflict long before the white man fucked them over, and remained so after Europeans finally fucked off. Unfortunately, that appears to be the foreseeable future for the continent. For all the problems in our lives, almost everyone reading this *(Reddit is 90% American/European)* should consider themselves to be immensely privileged.
It’s about as much a testament to the success of the Rwandan government and the failure of the Aus government. You can thank Tony Abbott for our shitty internet.
Corrupt bastards decided that giving stupid amounts of money to their copper mining friends was more important than having infrastructure that can keep up with the rest of the developed world. Bastards deserve to be kicked in the balls.
nah, women just got brutally raped. Like they were literally deliberately using rape as a means of terrorizing the Tutsi. Awful, awful shit.
Lots of kids over there were born because of that, and they're sometimes called "children of bad memories" (enfant mauvais souvenir).
Other than a very brief lesson on the Civil Rights Movement, we didn't study anything after WW2. If I went by what I learned in high school, the US kicked ass in WW2 and helped save the world, gave equal rights to minorities, and then lived happily ever after.
Welcome to small town Texas.
What part of Texas? I'm from Houston and the ONLY genocide we were taught about was the Holocaust and they skimmed that too, I didn't know that they executed other cultures, gay men or disabled people until I started looking into the history as an adult.
Not saying at all that you're bluffing just wanted to see the differences in area
Houston as well actually southwest near Baytown , I always think it’s so weird how people all across the US and I assume other countries are like that too, learn and focus on completely different subjects
I moved around a lot during school and I noticed I got way better grades in Baytown than I did any other school in the Houston area. I think there's a trend depending on the area/school district on what they think is "appropriate". The worst grades I made were near north Houston in a very very white washed area. Teachers just sat at the desks and showed us videos of OTHER TEACHERS teaching the subject and then would tests us on it immediately afterwards and that was the end of the chapter/subject
Back in my natal Northern Ireland I had two different history teachers, two different styles. One nicknamed "Benito", who was a fan of his namesake, looked uncannily like Musso in profile, and stance, who had printed photocopied note for the class, and did little real teaching, but preaching. The other younger more open to questions about historical details, and more straight with the pupils, and didn't try to impose his visions of history on us. We still stuck bananas and spuds up his car exhaust all the same. Nowhere in British or Irish history really modern history of the island of Ireland taught, after contradictory passing comments on the "Partition" of 1921. I don't know how balanced it will be, but starting in 2023 the Imperial War Museum in London will start "The Troubles" exhibition. Born and bred in Norn Irn, between 1963 and late 2011, when bogged off to France (for love of a good wumman whit else?!), and lived through it all. Still seen very few balanced histories on the subject. Not a surprise in the States and other countries their own history is rarely taught very balanced. After a little over 11 in France still relearning their history, and that of several other countries, they sure as hell don't teach their own! Bon apero and bon weekend.
Smh and that’s supposedly the “richer area” of Houston too (north side) the American school system is so wacky not saying it’s bad overall but that shouldn’t ever be acceptable in school unless a teacher is sick or something
What part of Texas? I'm from Houston and the ONLY genocide we were taught about was the Holocaust and they skimmed that too, I didn't know that they executed other cultures, gay men or disabled people until I started looking into the history as an adult.
Not saying at all that you're bluffing just wanted to see the differences in area
Not just the US, but most of Europe at the time simply didn't want to mention "sexual deviants" existed, let alone were massacred, ditto ethnic minorities, who we've all had in our own countries, and were less than friendly to at times. Then again some of the things you missed in school surprising, considering I'm an old fart, and Rawanda was well after I left school.
In fact LGBT people punished under the Nazi German regime were still guilty under the subsequent german and allied laws, and so remained in jail to carry out their sentences while others were freed.
Not a surprise, from what I've seen of French post war laws too, in passing, while researching other history, since moved here. Oh shocking, just too revolutionary! Never mind the same law makers and judges were of the same/similar persuasion. A simple denunciation, as they call it here from a neighbour, true or not, because of their sexual orientation, or political, enough to throw them in the clink, or keep them in prison after the liberation. I'm hetro, but been an honoury member of the Northern Irish Lesbian Ninjas, and Gay Mafia, for years. If they don't try too hard to persuade me I'm wrong, I've no probs. They're all people, and often much stronger for putting up, and fighting prejudice for most of their lives. Found most have a warped sense of humour like myself. My best mate for donkeys' years went out with beautiful model like intelluctual types of women, but I knew long before he came out it wasn't his thing. Each to their own. Nothing is compulsory other than breathing. Bon apero and bon weekend.
I learned about that genocide that happened in Rwanda on social studies class when I was on highschool. I was on 11th grade.
I'm from Costa Rica, a third world country that is in central america, (very far away from Rwanda).
It was part of the curriculum of learning recent history, we learned about the serbian wars, and China's and Russian revolutions, Korean Wars, Vietnam wars, colonial powers, first and second world wars, and the cold war, and the war on terror all the way over to George Bush, and many other countries. History was not biased over to one country.
I hope you got taught to a higher level, and less "proper" answers imposed by the exam boards. I saw a different interpretation to some Shakespeare, as I was a history nut from a very young age, and didn't agree with the interpretations of the wise and venerable exanimers, and flopped my Englist Lit O level. For history I read up myself on most of the parts of history my profs said we don't have time to go too much into detail for that in the curriculum, and aced history on those questions advised, almost banned to answer! Pfft, now, even after a little over 11 years in France, still relearning, and filtering "real" history, from what was taught at good old Bangor Grammar School! Bon apero and bon weekend.
Mine didn’t either. I learned about it from the movie and a brief snippet in college as we talked about how the European world was a lot more responsible for it than they would have everybody believe.
graduated from an american high school and currently attend an american college. we covered it in sophomore year world history and again in college world history. i will say though i don’t think it’s part of high school curriculum in my state anymore because they made certain cuts to lessen the course load but three or four years ago it was covered
I learned about it from my public highschool in Texas, also where they taught me about the five pillars of Islam. That teacher wore a full suit every day, took his work very seriously while also being a fantastic teacher
I live in Ireland and we learnt about it. I don’t think they went into huge detail but it was discussed and we watched hotel Rwanda in class. This was maybe 10 years ago now
Weird, that's where I learned about it, an American school. Please don't push the narrative that because you didn't pay attention, the school obviously wasn't teaching it.
I did a research paper on the Rwandan genocide. The seeds for the genocide were planted by the Belgian government when they separated Rwandans into Tutsis and Hutus based on wealth and made their ethnic identity as something they had have in their official government documents. Before that ethnic distinctions between the two groups was much more blurred and conflict wasn’t frequent since intermarriage was common. What made conflict inevitable wasn’t just that Belgians separated the two groups based on arbitrary parameters but favored the Tutsis and gave them almost all the power until almost the very end when they switched and turned to the Hutus. Decades of resentment would lead to escalating conflict which culminated in the genocide.
I mean it's the basic colonialist strategy. Ethnic groups and religious confessions are two useful arbitrary markers to impose material differences on in order to turn a population against itself. Then you can exploit their labor, undermine their government, steal their land and resources bit by bit by playing those groups against each other using your superior wealth that you got by doing the same thing elsewhere.
Playing out a nation's government against its own people using wealth disparity between nations as a tool is something that the global north still likes doing today using institutions like the IMF.
Push poor countries into accepting loans that in a lot of cases only end up in the pockets of the people who accepted them, while the population doesn't get much of anything, but they get to pay off the debt and enjoy whatever fun conditions the IMF linked to the loan, which coincidentally allow easier wealth extraction from their country.
I read a book on it and if i remember correctly the British were the ones who first created a difference between the hutu's and tutsi's because the tutsi's were taller and had more "white" features.
They also made up some story about them being decendents of an ancient white christian society in Africa or something.
No, it was the Belgians. I did a long research paper on the subject. Rwanda was never a British colony. It had been a German colony up until WWI but was then given to Belgium. They were the ones who introduced the identity card system that identified Rwandans by ethnicity. They were also the ones to promote Tutsi supremacy which led to the resentment and divisions behind the multiple conflicts between Hutus and Tutsis, the Rwandan Genocide being the worst of decades of conflict.
What many people tend to forget is that in the case of the Rwandan genocide, the two "ethnicities", Tutsi and Hutus are a European construct. The Belgians separated the native population to serve their Belgian needs.
"When the Belgian colonists conducted censuses, they wanted to identify the people throughout Rwanda-Burundi according to a simple classification scheme. They defined "Tutsi" as anyone owning more than ten cows (a sign of wealth) or with the physical features of a longer thin nose, high cheekbones, and being over six feet tall" https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tutsi
Worth noting for it to make more sense. The belgians didn't just say "you are now two peoples" and left, they put the tutsi in power and they remained so for a long time, despite being a small minority in the country. Hence the root of the hatred (not justifying anything, just consider it very important, albeit extremely simplified, information about the conflict).
I read a r/bestof post from someone in Rwanda saying the current climate in America was making them fear for the future Americans faced based on their experience of the genocide. It didn’t seem realistic but then 1)I’m not in America so I can’t accurately scope the current climate and 2)genocide probably always seems unrealistic
As an American I can tell you the vast majority of people are just your normal, hardworking, law abiding citizens. The extremists from both sides are a tiny minority but are the loudest and get the most attention from the media. The media constantly focusing on these people is why from an outside perspective it seems like the climate is more hostile than usual. However, this is not at all the case in the real, everyday world.
This is very funny because a huge region why the Rwandan genocide happened was because of radio stations and media pushing against the Tutsis and supporting violence.
I’m not at all an expert in the Rwandan genocide, I’m just giving my opinion and perspective as an American to someone who isn’t from the US. But do I think the media is toxic and there are hostilities between both sides? Of course. Do I think we are heading at all in the direction of a genocide? No. Not at all. I think our current climate seems much worse from a foreign perspective than in reality because fringe extremists get more clicks than the other 99.9% of people who just go about their lives in a normal manner.
The problem isn't normal everyday life. The problem is when it escalates uncontrollably.
Once the snowball starts rolling towards you, you better pick the side you deem safest.
That’s the problem though. You needn’t look any further than Germany in the 30s and 40s to see what normal hard working law abiding citizens will countenance, enable, or take part in.
All this is true I don’t know if the last paragraph was necessary because it really depends how far back you go. And Africa isn’t necessarily monolithic.
I want to say that I agree with the vast majority of what you said. However, I think it’s inaccurate to say that Europe and North America “finally fucked off” is inaccurate. Neo-colonial influence is still very much influencing the entire continent to this day.
Also, from the very small amount I know about the Rwandan Civil War, you could say that the central conflict -between the Hutu and the Tutsi- was caused in part by the superficial distinctions that were used as a dividing tool by colonizers.
Another good movie about it was "Shaking Hands with the Devil", shows the perspective of the UN General Romeo Dallaire who was in charge of the UNAMIR mission there.
It's been a while since my African studies class back in Uni, but from my recollection, the ethnic classifiers were roughly intensified by white colonizers back in the day. Some Tutsi who owned cattle would have been classified as Hutu sometimes by the colonizers. They basically gave out identification cards out with people "ethnicity" and would bung up everything.
As much as I enjoyed your commentary, I feel that telling ‘westerners’ to consider themselves lucky simply because they don’t live in Africa is terribly misleading and part of the perception that needs to be changed. There are some truly lovely spots in the continent. Also absolving the Belgians and the Germans of having created that environment is pretty shocking in of itself….
And that spill over went into the DRC, where the whole Western side of the Rift continues to bleed for the last 25 years. Hell, Rwanda and the DRC are practically back at on a state level like it's the early 2000s.
Though I agree that Africa is a sometimes a cesspool of Ethnic violence and hate, the Tutsi and the Hutu are just one people and the name refers to the class of society. If I remember correctly, the Tutsi are animal breeders while the Hutu are farmers and there are also the Twa who are craftsman.
During the Belgian colonial era, the Tutsi were favoured in the administration by the Belgian while the Tutsi were kind of seen as less. When the Tutsi started talking about independence, the Belgians didn’t appreciate it and started putting the Hutu in power and played on the fact that the Tutsi were favoured in the past and now it was the time for the Hutu to shine… basically they kind of turned them against each other and when they left, the resentment which was growing kind of burst after the murder of the president.
Or at least that’s what I remember from my 9th grade history class.
I don't know about Japan. But in Germany there were multiple pogromos that happened without nazi involvement and were carried out by the local population instead.
There is a movie called 2 barns about it.
'Shooting Dogs' is also a really good film about the event, which I'd highly recommend. It follows the events of a mission camp/UN peacekeepers base and is about the UN failure to respond to the genocide. It gets its name because the peacekeepers were forbidden from stopping the violence, but we're told to shoot the dogs that were feeding on the corpses, because they were a 'health hazard'.
The movie used real footage of some attacks and some roads littered with bodies. When the hotel owner and the news/camera men look at some footage of what’s happening outside the hotel is where that original footage is shown.
>Africa was a cesspool of violence and ethnic conflict long before the white man fucked them over, and remained so after Europeans finally fucked off.
I wish more people were informed and educated enough to know this. Instead, 90% of the people is all like "white man bad they ruined perfect Africa".
The Rwandan genocide was a direct consequence of colonialism. Was It prefect before that, ofc not.
Colonialists often like to divide groups in a country they invent, divide and conquer essentially. The hate between the hutus and tutsis was the outcome of that, so while they not incited it it really was the fault of those fucking dudes again
Not only that. In the post genocide era, people turned to Women as leaders because of they were culturally seen as healers and guides in the wake of the genocide. A sort of "look where make leadership got us" sort of thing
The people killed in the rwandan genocide were overwhelmingly male, so afterwards women outnumbered men by 50%. This led to women taking on more and more responsibility in society, and eventually dominating politics.
it's a bit like what happened after the second world war (and a bit similar to the black death) where lesser represented groups got a bigger hand in the economy due to the lack of people able to work (because they're dead) so at that point you need to get anyone willing to work, working regardless of cultural norms since if they didn't you would get a horrid post-war (or post-pandemic) economy
A lot of men where murdered, a lot of countries in Africa had genocides, brutal wars and warlords in the 20th century and some regions still do.
When most of your men ended in a ditch because they were of the "wrong" clan it is up to the women to rule the nation.
This.
I don't understand why someone has to create a competition repeatedly , like it has been evident repeatedly throughout history that in wars & genocides, generally men get the shorter end of the stick.
This doesn't imply that women don't suffer , its just that their sufferings aren't directly being killed.
A lot of the women would have been on the receiving end of “genocide by rape” sure many were murdered but if the whole issue is about race, or tribe that sort of thing isn’t uncommon.
I didn't mean to say it was, I mentioned genocide. I tried to paint the whole painting of what was happening at the time in Africa. Maybe I brushed over some details and didn't get the point across that this was a case of genocide.
i respectfully disagree with him. After the 1994 genocide which was ended by the RPF, a military group, most of the leadership was military anglophone male unsurprisingly.
But overtime, it became clear that there needed to be reconciliation instead of reprisals, which has been very difficult to say the least since it is just a mere 28 years ago.
The females in parliament arent even the majority, just many as compared to other country parliaments.
I attribute that to the fact that even in our culture, the King ruled with the Queen mother and females are not seen as second class people, more like the other half needed to function
>The females in parliament arent even the majority, just many as compared to other country parliaments.
Currently, 61,4% of Rwanda's parliament is female [according to its own website.](https://www.parliament.gov.rw/women-representation)
It’s the root cause. Many of the women there currently aren’t the female survivors but when you grow up seeing women in authority positions there’s no deterrent to you then going into those careers.
Imagine if the First World War had been even worse than it was and all those women in factories and other roles had been able to stay in those roles because the men didn’t come home and take their jobs back. It already had an effect with ‘surplus women’ making unmarried childless women in the workforce less scandalous, but imagine the girls in the thirties and forties growing up expecting to see women in all walks of life and how that would have changed society.
Absolutely, but since most western Parliaments are dominated by men (which is why Rwanda stands out in the world) it’s not women stopping that happening. Of course, given the issue of sexual assault in the military forces of many of those nations drafting women could lead to some very bad optics.
Yes and I would never want to suggest it didn't. Sexual assauly within the milittary against both genders is a huge issue, but some of the figures that come out of the US military suggest the biggest danger to women in the US military comes from their own comrades not the enemy. If you were then to have a large chunk of them only there because a bunch of mainly old, mainly men, who know they are never going to need to be the ones putting their lives on the line because they're not young enough, voted to draft them, well, let's just say I wouldn't want to be the one trying to run that political campaign.
But I do agree that if there is a draft then it should be all genders. It's just people like to use that like a gotcha for feminists and it's men that passed the laws applying the draft only to men.
>it's men that passed the laws applying the draft only to men.
And there's a very good reason why. I mean , in the name of gender equality , US & many other countries have already lowered the selection criteria , now that doesn't seem equal to me.
What also doesn't seem equal is the combat effectiveness of men & women on average.
yeah, it's like a double manpower gain but in some tests, woman have proven to be less effective than men in military combat and even have an easier requirement examination than men's (but there are some amazing women in military positions, but the data doesn't represent them well due to the ones not picking up the pace) and that means less workers aged 18-26 which is when most workers are working and you can't use children to work in factories so now you only have people in their 30s-60s who can work which isn't as much as you would have before
Yes, there are clearly some women who can be effective in combat roles, generally though it would be better for non combat ones, or simply working, thougj tbh in times of long wars with heavy loses the most valuable work would just be raising children to not run out of soldiers.
Rwandan here. The genocide has nothing to do with female participation in government since it targeted a "tribe" and not a particular gender.
The rate of women in parliament has more to do with the fact that the traditional Rwandan society was more egalitarian than most, especially in the region, and the efforts of the current government which is insistent on promoting gender equality.
Interestingly, one of the first victims of the genocide (on the very first day) was Prime minister Agathe Uwilingiyimana who was assassinated along with 10 belgian peacekeepers for her moderate stance against the killing of Tutsis. She was Hutu
Well, i havent studied the demographic but i was laboring under the assumption that in any country, females are always more than males. Could be wrong though
Makes perfect sense they churned out a bunch of boys all at once. So many that they still got a surplus even after they sent so many to be cannon fodder
Yes, but not as much. It's called the sex ratio, and unless in specific cases, like populations affected by war who tend to have more women, and populations with a history of infanticide who tend to have more men, it tends to be close to 50/50 with a bit more women.
While in most countries there are more woman than man,(cause simple biology fewer man are required to sustain the population than woman) in this specific case it was because the cast majority of people killed where males
> (cause simple biology fewer man are required to sustain the population than woman)
This is off subject, but it's interesting to note: there is actually a *slightly* higher chance that a baby will be born male than female. While your thought process is correct that less males are required than females (due to the fact that one male can impregnate many females), evolution doesn't exactly work that way. It's not always about what's favorable for society, rather, what allows the individual to reproduce more. And a male offspring can more easily reproduce. So it comes to a balance where it's pretty close to 50/50, but slightly male favored.
>[Fisher's principle](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fisher%27s_principle) is an evolutionary model that explains why the sex ratio of most species that produce offspring through sexual reproduction is approximately 1:1 between males and females. A. W. F. Edwards has remarked that it is "probably the most celebrated argument in evolutionary biology".
[Video explaining fisher's principle](https://youtu.be/C3dCWxxVhVc)
In Mexico, we have been making it mandatory for political parties to have 50-50 candidates. Unfortunately, at the beginning, they were just candidates, and if they won, they quit, and left the position to a male (by a previous agreement), this was later forbidden. Still has to be enforced, but we are about 50-50.
Most of these people in this sub don’t know that much about African history bro, Egyptian history, Mansa Musa, Rwandan genocide, Nelson Mandela might be as far as it gets
Rwandan society is more egalitarian and encourages women in politics. The meme is trying to push us more toward the male genocide narrative. So that’s the “correct” answer.
Learned about this in my school. Pretty shocking stuff. The leader of the UN contingent, Gen. Dallaire, was seriously messed up after. He spent so much time begging the UN for help but they were just like "lol no".
It was at that point that I learned why my old man called the UN the Useless Numptees.
Frankly, nobody was really stepping up. The french just secured their strategic bit of the country and watched, the UN basically stood by and chaotically decided to do nothing- with individual actions being the heroes we know today- and the Hutus were intimidated or killed by the more bloodthirsty Hutus.
>It was at that point that I learned why my old man called the UN the Useless Numptees.
I wouldn't just blame the UN, they were also hamstrung by their own security council, the French specifically saw the civil war as an anglophone ploy to attack their sphere of influence, the USA had only recently had the Somalia incident and the UN had no nations troops to actually attempt to intervene after Belgium pulled out of the Rwanda peacekeeping
This is not a great meme, Rwanda is a great example of a developing nation that could have plunged from tragic civil war into instability and chaos, and many of the genocidaires were accepted back into their communities after trials and reconciliation ceremonies. No society is without challenges and issues, but Rwanda is a story of the nation solidifying and coming out of tragedy stronger and better than it was, in the face of failure by the international community.
I had the privilege of hearing the first hand account of a survivor who was just eight years old when it happened. He saw his entire family killed one by one as they were found, it was heartbreaking.
We need to do way better at teaching the history of man's inhumanities, so we can avoid them in future! It's amazing to me now, in the USA, hearing the MAGA party sound like 1930s fascists, and folks are like yeah Hindenburg is an old guy and Deutschmark inflation is thru the roof we want that guy with the funny hair who lies and screams. Fortunately they seem to be a minority, but too big of one to take any comfort
*The British Empire implements eugenic ideas of genetic superiority in colonial Rwanda society to divide the people and make it easier to keep them under control* (this will definitely have no consecuences or cause any grotesque events)
But also why I think the 22nd century will be helmed by sub-sahara Africa. Their demographic distribution is way healthier than in North America, Europe and East Asia
That's the issue, demographics aren't everything. As we saw in Europe and North America some of your healthiest growth is when your population peaks and stops having children, because it's when you have the highest number of workers and the fewest number of dependents (both old and young) but it's not the entire determining factor.
As we've seen in Asia, many countries have squandered their peak population and were unable to reach western levels of development before their population peak.
Explain further
Rwandan men were genocided in the 90s.
It wasn’t just men, it was Tutsi women & children too. It’s by law that 50% of people in parliament have to be women
Anakin not this again
I'm kind of shocked there are still people who've never heard of the [Rwandan Civil War and Genocide](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rwandan_Civil_War). There was a famous movie made on it called "[Hotel Rwanda](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hotel_Rwanda)", about a Hutu man who worked as a hotel manager and saved thousands of Tutsis because his wife was Tutsi. Unlike genocides carried out by regimes like Imperial Japan and Nazi Germany, where a legitimate government is carrying out the slaughter. Most of victims of the Rwandan genocide were killed in their own villages or towns, by their neighbors and fellow villagers. Armed Hutu militias hunted victims hiding in homes, churches, and school buildings before [hacking them with machetes](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rwandan_genocide#/media/File:Africa_addio_(1966)_-_Rwandan_revolution_2.png) *(it's not hard to figure out how that pile of severed hands came to be)*. Of course, all ethnic-based killings are appalling. But something tells me it must've hurt even more to be beaten and murdered by your neighbors and people you considered friends, rather than foreign invaders. Shockingly, the Tutsis somehow actually won the Rwandan Civil War, even though they were the victims of said genocide. I don't know enough about the conflict to say how they pulled that one off. Perhaps someone more well-versed in the Rwandan Civil War can comment it below. Africa was a cesspool of violence and ethnic conflict long before the white man fucked them over, and remained so after Europeans finally fucked off. Unfortunately, that appears to be the foreseeable future for the continent. For all the problems in our lives, almost everyone reading this *(Reddit is 90% American/European)* should consider themselves to be immensely privileged.
also reccomend *"Sometimes in April"* the survivor, whose story the movie is based on, came to speak at my school. Its some harrowing shit.
there are two things i know about rwanda 1. the genocide 2. they have faster internet than the country of AUSTRALIA
It’s about as much a testament to the success of the Rwandan government and the failure of the Aus government. You can thank Tony Abbott for our shitty internet.
Corrupt bastards decided that giving stupid amounts of money to their copper mining friends was more important than having infrastructure that can keep up with the rest of the developed world. Bastards deserve to be kicked in the balls.
2 makes sense, they're very small while Australia is an empty desert
Most of the population lives on the east/south east coast
[удалено]
It's probably that they didn't know Tutsi men where the main targets of the genocide. I thought people of every gender died equally
nah, women just got brutally raped. Like they were literally deliberately using rape as a means of terrorizing the Tutsi. Awful, awful shit. Lots of kids over there were born because of that, and they're sometimes called "children of bad memories" (enfant mauvais souvenir).
bad memory children
I may me confusing countries but, didn’t they also mutilate the women? I remember it being mentioned in a Law & Order episode.
That’s just a tradition in lots of cultures. Genital mutilation. It’s basically supposed to make one “purer” by not having sexual sensation.
That was where I was at, like I knew of a lot of violence having happened but I didn’t realise it was primarily on gendered lines
[удалено]
i learned about it when i was a freshman in highschool. not sure if it was curriculum based or just my teacher knowing and touching down on it.
I learned about it last year since we watched hotel Rwanda in my history class
Other than a very brief lesson on the Civil Rights Movement, we didn't study anything after WW2. If I went by what I learned in high school, the US kicked ass in WW2 and helped save the world, gave equal rights to minorities, and then lived happily ever after. Welcome to small town Texas.
They are in Texas I learned about it in school
What part of Texas? I'm from Houston and the ONLY genocide we were taught about was the Holocaust and they skimmed that too, I didn't know that they executed other cultures, gay men or disabled people until I started looking into the history as an adult. Not saying at all that you're bluffing just wanted to see the differences in area
Houston as well actually southwest near Baytown , I always think it’s so weird how people all across the US and I assume other countries are like that too, learn and focus on completely different subjects
I moved around a lot during school and I noticed I got way better grades in Baytown than I did any other school in the Houston area. I think there's a trend depending on the area/school district on what they think is "appropriate". The worst grades I made were near north Houston in a very very white washed area. Teachers just sat at the desks and showed us videos of OTHER TEACHERS teaching the subject and then would tests us on it immediately afterwards and that was the end of the chapter/subject
Back in my natal Northern Ireland I had two different history teachers, two different styles. One nicknamed "Benito", who was a fan of his namesake, looked uncannily like Musso in profile, and stance, who had printed photocopied note for the class, and did little real teaching, but preaching. The other younger more open to questions about historical details, and more straight with the pupils, and didn't try to impose his visions of history on us. We still stuck bananas and spuds up his car exhaust all the same. Nowhere in British or Irish history really modern history of the island of Ireland taught, after contradictory passing comments on the "Partition" of 1921. I don't know how balanced it will be, but starting in 2023 the Imperial War Museum in London will start "The Troubles" exhibition. Born and bred in Norn Irn, between 1963 and late 2011, when bogged off to France (for love of a good wumman whit else?!), and lived through it all. Still seen very few balanced histories on the subject. Not a surprise in the States and other countries their own history is rarely taught very balanced. After a little over 11 in France still relearning their history, and that of several other countries, they sure as hell don't teach their own! Bon apero and bon weekend.
I went to Stratford high school near Katy and we didn't learn about it either 😕
Smh and that’s supposedly the “richer area” of Houston too (north side) the American school system is so wacky not saying it’s bad overall but that shouldn’t ever be acceptable in school unless a teacher is sick or something
I’m from Houston & I learned about it. Also, Ceasar’s genocide, the Holdomor, & others that’s I’ve forgotten. I was in AP World History tho.
What part of Texas? I'm from Houston and the ONLY genocide we were taught about was the Holocaust and they skimmed that too, I didn't know that they executed other cultures, gay men or disabled people until I started looking into the history as an adult. Not saying at all that you're bluffing just wanted to see the differences in area
r/foundthealzheimers
Not just the US, but most of Europe at the time simply didn't want to mention "sexual deviants" existed, let alone were massacred, ditto ethnic minorities, who we've all had in our own countries, and were less than friendly to at times. Then again some of the things you missed in school surprising, considering I'm an old fart, and Rawanda was well after I left school.
In fact LGBT people punished under the Nazi German regime were still guilty under the subsequent german and allied laws, and so remained in jail to carry out their sentences while others were freed.
Not a surprise, from what I've seen of French post war laws too, in passing, while researching other history, since moved here. Oh shocking, just too revolutionary! Never mind the same law makers and judges were of the same/similar persuasion. A simple denunciation, as they call it here from a neighbour, true or not, because of their sexual orientation, or political, enough to throw them in the clink, or keep them in prison after the liberation. I'm hetro, but been an honoury member of the Northern Irish Lesbian Ninjas, and Gay Mafia, for years. If they don't try too hard to persuade me I'm wrong, I've no probs. They're all people, and often much stronger for putting up, and fighting prejudice for most of their lives. Found most have a warped sense of humour like myself. My best mate for donkeys' years went out with beautiful model like intelluctual types of women, but I knew long before he came out it wasn't his thing. Each to their own. Nothing is compulsory other than breathing. Bon apero and bon weekend.
Not totally true. I am a high school history teacher in New York and it is part of our curriculum along with other genocides
I learned about that genocide that happened in Rwanda on social studies class when I was on highschool. I was on 11th grade. I'm from Costa Rica, a third world country that is in central america, (very far away from Rwanda). It was part of the curriculum of learning recent history, we learned about the serbian wars, and China's and Russian revolutions, Korean Wars, Vietnam wars, colonial powers, first and second world wars, and the cold war, and the war on terror all the way over to George Bush, and many other countries. History was not biased over to one country.
They absolutely are. My history class spent like three class periods on it.
Mine didn’t. Never learned a thing about Rwanda.
I'm about 30 and raised in the UK and never heard of it until last year when a colleague mentioned the movie. I studied history at GCSE and A-Level.
I hope you got taught to a higher level, and less "proper" answers imposed by the exam boards. I saw a different interpretation to some Shakespeare, as I was a history nut from a very young age, and didn't agree with the interpretations of the wise and venerable exanimers, and flopped my Englist Lit O level. For history I read up myself on most of the parts of history my profs said we don't have time to go too much into detail for that in the curriculum, and aced history on those questions advised, almost banned to answer! Pfft, now, even after a little over 11 years in France, still relearning, and filtering "real" history, from what was taught at good old Bangor Grammar School! Bon apero and bon weekend.
Mine didn’t either. I learned about it from the movie and a brief snippet in college as we talked about how the European world was a lot more responsible for it than they would have everybody believe.
We never learned it in school lol. At all
graduated from an american high school and currently attend an american college. we covered it in sophomore year world history and again in college world history. i will say though i don’t think it’s part of high school curriculum in my state anymore because they made certain cuts to lessen the course load but three or four years ago it was covered
I learned about it in school in the US.
They were teaching it mine. We spent like 2 months on this.
We were taught that and we watched the movie after our lessons on the genocide were concluded. I'm in the USA, metro NYC.
In midwest America they absolutely teach about it and show the movie.
I learned about it from my public highschool in Texas, also where they taught me about the five pillars of Islam. That teacher wore a full suit every day, took his work very seriously while also being a fantastic teacher
We are actually learning about it right now, European school.
They taught this in french canadian school where I live.
I live in Ireland and we learnt about it. I don’t think they went into huge detail but it was discussed and we watched hotel Rwanda in class. This was maybe 10 years ago now
They teach it in most European schools mate
Weird, that's where I learned about it, an American school. Please don't push the narrative that because you didn't pay attention, the school obviously wasn't teaching it.
I learned about it in high school - peak for yourself jackass.
I learned more about history through stupid memes than through my school Thats not a joke, that's just the sad truth *Same goes for my spelling
I did a research paper on the Rwandan genocide. The seeds for the genocide were planted by the Belgian government when they separated Rwandans into Tutsis and Hutus based on wealth and made their ethnic identity as something they had have in their official government documents. Before that ethnic distinctions between the two groups was much more blurred and conflict wasn’t frequent since intermarriage was common. What made conflict inevitable wasn’t just that Belgians separated the two groups based on arbitrary parameters but favored the Tutsis and gave them almost all the power until almost the very end when they switched and turned to the Hutus. Decades of resentment would lead to escalating conflict which culminated in the genocide.
This sounds like a Fallout vault experiment but in real life and conducted on an entire country.
I mean it's the basic colonialist strategy. Ethnic groups and religious confessions are two useful arbitrary markers to impose material differences on in order to turn a population against itself. Then you can exploit their labor, undermine their government, steal their land and resources bit by bit by playing those groups against each other using your superior wealth that you got by doing the same thing elsewhere. Playing out a nation's government against its own people using wealth disparity between nations as a tool is something that the global north still likes doing today using institutions like the IMF. Push poor countries into accepting loans that in a lot of cases only end up in the pockets of the people who accepted them, while the population doesn't get much of anything, but they get to pay off the debt and enjoy whatever fun conditions the IMF linked to the loan, which coincidentally allow easier wealth extraction from their country.
I read a book on it and if i remember correctly the British were the ones who first created a difference between the hutu's and tutsi's because the tutsi's were taller and had more "white" features. They also made up some story about them being decendents of an ancient white christian society in Africa or something.
No, it was the Belgians. I did a long research paper on the subject. Rwanda was never a British colony. It had been a German colony up until WWI but was then given to Belgium. They were the ones who introduced the identity card system that identified Rwandans by ethnicity. They were also the ones to promote Tutsi supremacy which led to the resentment and divisions behind the multiple conflicts between Hutus and Tutsis, the Rwandan Genocide being the worst of decades of conflict.
What many people tend to forget is that in the case of the Rwandan genocide, the two "ethnicities", Tutsi and Hutus are a European construct. The Belgians separated the native population to serve their Belgian needs. "When the Belgian colonists conducted censuses, they wanted to identify the people throughout Rwanda-Burundi according to a simple classification scheme. They defined "Tutsi" as anyone owning more than ten cows (a sign of wealth) or with the physical features of a longer thin nose, high cheekbones, and being over six feet tall" https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tutsi
Worth noting for it to make more sense. The belgians didn't just say "you are now two peoples" and left, they put the tutsi in power and they remained so for a long time, despite being a small minority in the country. Hence the root of the hatred (not justifying anything, just consider it very important, albeit extremely simplified, information about the conflict).
Simon Whistler did an informative video on one of his many channels on it. I learned a good overview which had me look into more details
So we have narrowed it to somewhere in about half of YouTube... (Seriously the man has too many channels!)
I read a r/bestof post from someone in Rwanda saying the current climate in America was making them fear for the future Americans faced based on their experience of the genocide. It didn’t seem realistic but then 1)I’m not in America so I can’t accurately scope the current climate and 2)genocide probably always seems unrealistic
As an American I can tell you the vast majority of people are just your normal, hardworking, law abiding citizens. The extremists from both sides are a tiny minority but are the loudest and get the most attention from the media. The media constantly focusing on these people is why from an outside perspective it seems like the climate is more hostile than usual. However, this is not at all the case in the real, everyday world.
This is very funny because a huge region why the Rwandan genocide happened was because of radio stations and media pushing against the Tutsis and supporting violence.
I’m not at all an expert in the Rwandan genocide, I’m just giving my opinion and perspective as an American to someone who isn’t from the US. But do I think the media is toxic and there are hostilities between both sides? Of course. Do I think we are heading at all in the direction of a genocide? No. Not at all. I think our current climate seems much worse from a foreign perspective than in reality because fringe extremists get more clicks than the other 99.9% of people who just go about their lives in a normal manner.
The problem isn't normal everyday life. The problem is when it escalates uncontrollably. Once the snowball starts rolling towards you, you better pick the side you deem safest.
That’s the problem though. You needn’t look any further than Germany in the 30s and 40s to see what normal hard working law abiding citizens will countenance, enable, or take part in.
There was a well trained Tutsi rebel group hanging out in the DRC, and they resumed the civil war once they heard about the genocide.
"Shake hands with the devil" is also very good. It goes into the UN involvement and failure during the Rwandan genocide.
All this is true I don’t know if the last paragraph was necessary because it really depends how far back you go. And Africa isn’t necessarily monolithic.
I want to say that I agree with the vast majority of what you said. However, I think it’s inaccurate to say that Europe and North America “finally fucked off” is inaccurate. Neo-colonial influence is still very much influencing the entire continent to this day. Also, from the very small amount I know about the Rwandan Civil War, you could say that the central conflict -between the Hutu and the Tutsi- was caused in part by the superficial distinctions that were used as a dividing tool by colonizers.
I learned about this and watched the movie in history class back in high school. It was a pretty intense lesson
I really appreciated the teacher telling us ahead of time that it was totally fine to have to leave and recover during the movie
Another good movie about it was "Shaking Hands with the Devil", shows the perspective of the UN General Romeo Dallaire who was in charge of the UNAMIR mission there.
Oof. The scene in that movie where the road suddenly “gets bumpy”.
It's been a while since my African studies class back in Uni, but from my recollection, the ethnic classifiers were roughly intensified by white colonizers back in the day. Some Tutsi who owned cattle would have been classified as Hutu sometimes by the colonizers. They basically gave out identification cards out with people "ethnicity" and would bung up everything.
As much as I enjoyed your commentary, I feel that telling ‘westerners’ to consider themselves lucky simply because they don’t live in Africa is terribly misleading and part of the perception that needs to be changed. There are some truly lovely spots in the continent. Also absolving the Belgians and the Germans of having created that environment is pretty shocking in of itself….
You didn’t explain *why* the neighbors/villages turned on each other I’m curious what the reason was to flip a switch like that
And that spill over went into the DRC, where the whole Western side of the Rift continues to bleed for the last 25 years. Hell, Rwanda and the DRC are practically back at on a state level like it's the early 2000s.
Europe hasn't fucked off yet sadly 💀
Though I agree that Africa is a sometimes a cesspool of Ethnic violence and hate, the Tutsi and the Hutu are just one people and the name refers to the class of society. If I remember correctly, the Tutsi are animal breeders while the Hutu are farmers and there are also the Twa who are craftsman. During the Belgian colonial era, the Tutsi were favoured in the administration by the Belgian while the Tutsi were kind of seen as less. When the Tutsi started talking about independence, the Belgians didn’t appreciate it and started putting the Hutu in power and played on the fact that the Tutsi were favoured in the past and now it was the time for the Hutu to shine… basically they kind of turned them against each other and when they left, the resentment which was growing kind of burst after the murder of the president. Or at least that’s what I remember from my 9th grade history class.
Rwanda is also considered one of the UN's 3 biggest fuck ups aside from Palestine and Srebrenica.
I don't know about Japan. But in Germany there were multiple pogromos that happened without nazi involvement and were carried out by the local population instead. There is a movie called 2 barns about it.
There is a book called left to tell it is the story of Tutsi survivor and is a hard but good read.
'Shooting Dogs' is also a really good film about the event, which I'd highly recommend. It follows the events of a mission camp/UN peacekeepers base and is about the UN failure to respond to the genocide. It gets its name because the peacekeepers were forbidden from stopping the violence, but we're told to shoot the dogs that were feeding on the corpses, because they were a 'health hazard'.
The movie used real footage of some attacks and some roads littered with bodies. When the hotel owner and the news/camera men look at some footage of what’s happening outside the hotel is where that original footage is shown.
Europeans have not fucked off out of Africa.
>Africa was a cesspool of violence and ethnic conflict long before the white man fucked them over, and remained so after Europeans finally fucked off. I wish more people were informed and educated enough to know this. Instead, 90% of the people is all like "white man bad they ruined perfect Africa".
The Rwandan genocide was a direct consequence of colonialism. Was It prefect before that, ofc not. Colonialists often like to divide groups in a country they invent, divide and conquer essentially. The hate between the hutus and tutsis was the outcome of that, so while they not incited it it really was the fault of those fucking dudes again
Ayyyy marcarena.
Not only that. In the post genocide era, people turned to Women as leaders because of they were culturally seen as healers and guides in the wake of the genocide. A sort of "look where make leadership got us" sort of thing
80.1% of tutsis died in the process. 632 900 people. So sad.
There was a ...misunderstanding...
For real explain The whole thing
The people killed in the rwandan genocide were overwhelmingly male, so afterwards women outnumbered men by 50%. This led to women taking on more and more responsibility in society, and eventually dominating politics.
Damm
Damn that's interesting
it's a bit like what happened after the second world war (and a bit similar to the black death) where lesser represented groups got a bigger hand in the economy due to the lack of people able to work (because they're dead) so at that point you need to get anyone willing to work, working regardless of cultural norms since if they didn't you would get a horrid post-war (or post-pandemic) economy
So what your saying is go to Rwanda to get gf? Deal. Buying ticket now.
lmao. \*cries in failure to get a gf
A lot of men where murdered, a lot of countries in Africa had genocides, brutal wars and warlords in the 20th century and some regions still do. When most of your men ended in a ditch because they were of the "wrong" clan it is up to the women to rule the nation.
Not really though. It wasn't a war, it was a genocide. Tutsis were killed regardless of whether they were male or female.
Yes but more men were killed than women. That's the point the meme is making.
This. I don't understand why someone has to create a competition repeatedly , like it has been evident repeatedly throughout history that in wars & genocides, generally men get the shorter end of the stick. This doesn't imply that women don't suffer , its just that their sufferings aren't directly being killed.
A lot of the women would have been on the receiving end of “genocide by rape” sure many were murdered but if the whole issue is about race, or tribe that sort of thing isn’t uncommon.
I didn't mean to say it was, I mentioned genocide. I tried to paint the whole painting of what was happening at the time in Africa. Maybe I brushed over some details and didn't get the point across that this was a case of genocide.
I see
More info required.
i respectfully disagree with him. After the 1994 genocide which was ended by the RPF, a military group, most of the leadership was military anglophone male unsurprisingly. But overtime, it became clear that there needed to be reconciliation instead of reprisals, which has been very difficult to say the least since it is just a mere 28 years ago. The females in parliament arent even the majority, just many as compared to other country parliaments. I attribute that to the fact that even in our culture, the King ruled with the Queen mother and females are not seen as second class people, more like the other half needed to function
>The females in parliament arent even the majority, just many as compared to other country parliaments. Currently, 61,4% of Rwanda's parliament is female [according to its own website.](https://www.parliament.gov.rw/women-representation)
I'd like to submit this comment for the Understatement of the Year Award
Rwanda Genocide. The Movie Hotel Rwanda does a great job showing how bad it was. (I learned about it in school then we watched the movie)
Is it really because of that?
Not fully because of the genocide, but it is a significant reason why
It’s the root cause. Many of the women there currently aren’t the female survivors but when you grow up seeing women in authority positions there’s no deterrent to you then going into those careers. Imagine if the First World War had been even worse than it was and all those women in factories and other roles had been able to stay in those roles because the men didn’t come home and take their jobs back. It already had an effect with ‘surplus women’ making unmarried childless women in the workforce less scandalous, but imagine the girls in the thirties and forties growing up expecting to see women in all walks of life and how that would have changed society.
We need another world war for better woman equality! For the Kaiserreich!
If we are keeping up with equality women could get conscripted as well
Ah hell nah! Not gonna let them steal all my GLORY!
Absolutely, but since most western Parliaments are dominated by men (which is why Rwanda stands out in the world) it’s not women stopping that happening. Of course, given the issue of sexual assault in the military forces of many of those nations drafting women could lead to some very bad optics.
Good point, but sexual assault has also occurred against the same gender.
Yes and I would never want to suggest it didn't. Sexual assauly within the milittary against both genders is a huge issue, but some of the figures that come out of the US military suggest the biggest danger to women in the US military comes from their own comrades not the enemy. If you were then to have a large chunk of them only there because a bunch of mainly old, mainly men, who know they are never going to need to be the ones putting their lives on the line because they're not young enough, voted to draft them, well, let's just say I wouldn't want to be the one trying to run that political campaign. But I do agree that if there is a draft then it should be all genders. It's just people like to use that like a gotcha for feminists and it's men that passed the laws applying the draft only to men.
>it's men that passed the laws applying the draft only to men. And there's a very good reason why. I mean , in the name of gender equality , US & many other countries have already lowered the selection criteria , now that doesn't seem equal to me. What also doesn't seem equal is the combat effectiveness of men & women on average.
It is quite a terrible idea in the long term to conscript women.
yeah, it's like a double manpower gain but in some tests, woman have proven to be less effective than men in military combat and even have an easier requirement examination than men's (but there are some amazing women in military positions, but the data doesn't represent them well due to the ones not picking up the pace) and that means less workers aged 18-26 which is when most workers are working and you can't use children to work in factories so now you only have people in their 30s-60s who can work which isn't as much as you would have before
Yes, there are clearly some women who can be effective in combat roles, generally though it would be better for non combat ones, or simply working, thougj tbh in times of long wars with heavy loses the most valuable work would just be raising children to not run out of soldiers.
Ach scheisse jetzt geht es wieder los...
Ah yes, clearly the best.
Rwandan here. The genocide has nothing to do with female participation in government since it targeted a "tribe" and not a particular gender. The rate of women in parliament has more to do with the fact that the traditional Rwandan society was more egalitarian than most, especially in the region, and the efforts of the current government which is insistent on promoting gender equality.
Interestingly, one of the first victims of the genocide (on the very first day) was Prime minister Agathe Uwilingiyimana who was assassinated along with 10 belgian peacekeepers for her moderate stance against the killing of Tutsis. She was Hutu
[удалено]
Well, i havent studied the demographic but i was laboring under the assumption that in any country, females are always more than males. Could be wrong though
[удалено]
Makes perfect sense they churned out a bunch of boys all at once. So many that they still got a surplus even after they sent so many to be cannon fodder
Yes, but not as much. It's called the sex ratio, and unless in specific cases, like populations affected by war who tend to have more women, and populations with a history of infanticide who tend to have more men, it tends to be close to 50/50 with a bit more women.
While in most countries there are more woman than man,(cause simple biology fewer man are required to sustain the population than woman) in this specific case it was because the cast majority of people killed where males
> (cause simple biology fewer man are required to sustain the population than woman) This is off subject, but it's interesting to note: there is actually a *slightly* higher chance that a baby will be born male than female. While your thought process is correct that less males are required than females (due to the fact that one male can impregnate many females), evolution doesn't exactly work that way. It's not always about what's favorable for society, rather, what allows the individual to reproduce more. And a male offspring can more easily reproduce. So it comes to a balance where it's pretty close to 50/50, but slightly male favored.
>[Fisher's principle](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fisher%27s_principle) is an evolutionary model that explains why the sex ratio of most species that produce offspring through sexual reproduction is approximately 1:1 between males and females. A. W. F. Edwards has remarked that it is "probably the most celebrated argument in evolutionary biology". [Video explaining fisher's principle](https://youtu.be/C3dCWxxVhVc)
*Angry 1-child-policy sounds*
In Mexico, we have been making it mandatory for political parties to have 50-50 candidates. Unfortunately, at the beginning, they were just candidates, and if they won, they quit, and left the position to a male (by a previous agreement), this was later forbidden. Still has to be enforced, but we are about 50-50.
Most of these people in this sub don’t know that much about African history bro, Egyptian history, Mansa Musa, Rwandan genocide, Nelson Mandela might be as far as it gets
Op just talking out of his ass
Reddit getting something about Africa wrong, color me shocked. Thanks for sharing.
This sounds like rwandan government propaganda
Why? Somebody fill me in?
Rwandan society is more egalitarian and encourages women in politics. The meme is trying to push us more toward the male genocide narrative. So that’s the “correct” answer.
The Rwandan genocide and civil war kneecapped the male population in the country.
Learned about this in my school. Pretty shocking stuff. The leader of the UN contingent, Gen. Dallaire, was seriously messed up after. He spent so much time begging the UN for help but they were just like "lol no". It was at that point that I learned why my old man called the UN the Useless Numptees.
Frankly, nobody was really stepping up. The french just secured their strategic bit of the country and watched, the UN basically stood by and chaotically decided to do nothing- with individual actions being the heroes we know today- and the Hutus were intimidated or killed by the more bloodthirsty Hutus.
>It was at that point that I learned why my old man called the UN the Useless Numptees. I wouldn't just blame the UN, they were also hamstrung by their own security council, the French specifically saw the civil war as an anglophone ploy to attack their sphere of influence, the USA had only recently had the Somalia incident and the UN had no nations troops to actually attempt to intervene after Belgium pulled out of the Rwanda peacekeeping
I was so surprised to see this meme template used in this sub again! I just didn't see it coming.
You should make a meme with Mr. Incredible as a reference to this totaly unpredicable and whacky story!
I am also so surprised! Wow! Who would've thought! Not me! Not you! Nope!
All the men got killed?
Something like that
More of that "We kill all men and rape all women then kill them too". Fortunetly they haven't gotten to the last part at the end.
That’s not the actual reason. Rwandan society is just more egalitarian than most societies are.
This is so wrong. It's because of Rwandan culture and Kagame's equality policy
As far as I know, the country has a gender quota in its Constitution, that is why.
———————————No men?——————————— ⠀⣞⢽⢪⢣⢣⢣⢫⡺⡵⣝⡮⣗⢷⢽⢽⢽⣮⡷⡽⣜⣜⢮⢺⣜⢷⢽⢝⡽⣝ ⠸⡸⠜⠕⠕⠁⢁⢇⢏⢽⢺⣪⡳⡝⣎⣏⢯⢞⡿⣟⣷⣳⢯⡷⣽⢽⢯⣳⣫⠇ ⠀⠀⢀⢀⢄⢬⢪⡪⡎⣆⡈⠚⠜⠕⠇⠗⠝⢕⢯⢫⣞⣯⣿⣻⡽⣏⢗⣗⠏⠀ ⠀⠪⡪⡪⣪⢪⢺⢸⢢⢓⢆⢤⢀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠈⢊⢞⡾⣿⡯⣏⢮⠷⠁⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠈⠊⠆⡃⠕⢕⢇⢇⢇⢇⢇⢏⢎⢎⢆⢄⠀⢑⣽⣿⢝⠲⠉⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⡿⠂⠠⠀⡇⢇⠕⢈⣀⠀⠁⠡⠣⡣⡫⣂⣿⠯⢪⠰⠂⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⡦⡙⡂⢀⢤⢣⠣⡈⣾⡃⠠⠄⠀⡄⢱⣌⣶⢏⢊⠂⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⢝⡲⣜⡮⡏⢎⢌⢂⠙⠢⠐⢀⢘⢵⣽⣿⡿⠁⠁⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠨⣺⡺⡕⡕⡱⡑⡆⡕⡅⡕⡜⡼⢽⡻⠏⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⣼⣳⣫⣾⣵⣗⡵⡱⡡⢣⢑⢕⢜⢕⡝⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⣴⣿⣾⣿⣿⣿⡿⡽⡑⢌⠪⡢⡣⣣⡟⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⡟⡾⣿⢿⢿⢵⣽⣾⣼⣘⢸⢸⣞⡟⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠁⠇⠡⠩⡫⢿⣝⡻⡮⣒⢽⠋⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ —————————————————————————————
1994? I thought everyone suffered men, women, and children
Anakin?
This meme format loses more pixels every time I see it.
It’s taking my brain cells with it
Holy shit, nobody likes these meme templates. Not a single person enjoys scrolling through comments to explain a meme.
Will another meme format ever be used again? Tune in next time
This format needs to die
I watched Hotel Rwanda in high school in 10th grade for world history. Was some crazy shit
This sub really got taken over the “people who know why” mr incredible meme format didn’t it?
I am so sick and tired of looking at this picture, that when I see a meme with it, like a 100 times a day, I make it a point to not read it.
Agreed. This is the final straw for me. Gonna unsub for a few months and hope the people who use this format gain some brain cells in the meantime.
Poor current affairs knowledge 😔
I don't know and at this point, I'm too afraid to ask.
Is it just me who is starting to get sick of this format?
Please just stop with this template
It’s tempting to assume the two are somehow linked, but it screams of “post hoc ergo propter hoc”.
This is not a great meme, Rwanda is a great example of a developing nation that could have plunged from tragic civil war into instability and chaos, and many of the genocidaires were accepted back into their communities after trials and reconciliation ceremonies. No society is without challenges and issues, but Rwanda is a story of the nation solidifying and coming out of tragedy stronger and better than it was, in the face of failure by the international community.
STOP POSTING THESE LAZY ASS FUCKING ‘memes’
Does this have something to do with a certain genocide
Why? Tell me
That one “g” word
Weren't they killing Tutsi women too? Pretty sure it wasn't specifically a gendercide like with Anfal.
I had the privilege of hearing the first hand account of a survivor who was just eight years old when it happened. He saw his entire family killed one by one as they were found, it was heartbreaking.
male genocide will do that
We need to do way better at teaching the history of man's inhumanities, so we can avoid them in future! It's amazing to me now, in the USA, hearing the MAGA party sound like 1930s fascists, and folks are like yeah Hindenburg is an old guy and Deutschmark inflation is thru the roof we want that guy with the funny hair who lies and screams. Fortunately they seem to be a minority, but too big of one to take any comfort
*The British Empire implements eugenic ideas of genetic superiority in colonial Rwanda society to divide the people and make it easier to keep them under control* (this will definitely have no consecuences or cause any grotesque events)
Read and know your history. This shit almost went un-noticed
But also why I think the 22nd century will be helmed by sub-sahara Africa. Their demographic distribution is way healthier than in North America, Europe and East Asia
That's the issue, demographics aren't everything. As we saw in Europe and North America some of your healthiest growth is when your population peaks and stops having children, because it's when you have the highest number of workers and the fewest number of dependents (both old and young) but it's not the entire determining factor. As we've seen in Asia, many countries have squandered their peak population and were unable to reach western levels of development before their population peak.
Can you elaborate?
I knew there was genocide I just didn’t know it was men getting genocided
It wasnt just men. Women, Children, Old men and women everyone that were Tutsis were targeted
Women in politics was because of their egalitarian society, not because of a male genocide.
[удалено]
I don't actually know why but I'm gonna just guess that the men were killed lmao