Watching Hotel Rwanda from a Historical Perspective

Hotel Rwanda - the story of how a Rwandan hotel manager hid hundreds of refugees from genocide - is a memorable and moving tale. It easily accomplishes its main goal of raising awareness of the 1994 Rwandan genocide and, by extension, the current genocide in Darfur.

However, it also raises a series of lessons that teach us about genocide, civil wars, insurgencies, and international politics. It is a great source of thought provoking questions as important for the average citizen as they are for a Social Studies class.

Genocide is Not a Thing of the Past

Perhaps the clearest lesson of the movie is that genocide - as barbaric and outdated as it may seem - is no relic of the past. History certainly holds its share of genocides. Columbus exercised great cruelty on the Native Americans in the Caribbean, and the Belgians decimated the central African population long before the more recent atrocities in Rwanda.

Yet the 20^th century has seen its fair share of despicable deeds. The Holocaust may be the most famous 20^th century genocide, but it is not the only one. While Hitler was busy killing a paltry eleven million people, Stalin's purges led to the deaths of as many as twenty million people. In other Communist countries, Mao's Cultural Revolution led to thirty million or more deaths, and Pol Pot's Khmer Rouge was responsible for the deaths of about 25% of Cambodia's population.

All of these incidents could be forgotten - remnants of a bloody past. If only they hadn't continued into the 1990's. The events depicted in Hotel Rwanda took place in 1994 - as many as one to two million Rwandans were massacred under the watchful eye of UN soldiers and western television crews. In the same time period, Serbs were killing Bosnians - culminating in the 1995 massacre at Screbrenica.

Then, of course, there's the Darfur. No, genocide is hardly a thing of the past - and Hotel Rwanda highlights that fact for us above all others.

Although Genocide Continues, It Is Never Named in the Present

Watch the way politicians talk of genocide. It is always careful. Perhaps too careful.

At one point of the movie, a radio broadcast of a news conference can be heard. The government spokesperson says that "acts of genocide" had certainly occurred. A reporter asked how many acts of genocide it would take to justify the singular term genocide, and the government spokesperson was at a loss for words.

This conversation is an eerie foreshadowing of Darfur. For years, politicians have hemmed and hawed about what is going on. No single incident has deemed it genocide - there are simply little, incidental acts of genocide.

None of these acts alone call for international intervention - so why should the west intervene? Oddly enough, it's the same argument that defense attorneys used to get Rodney King's assailants released. No single stroke of the police baton was overly brutal - so no police brutality had occurred!

Time and again, the lesson is that the world reacts too slowly. It is all to quick to dismiss reports of murder - in the Belgian colonies, in Nazi Germany, in Rwanda, and in Bosnia. We need to see a genocide for what it is - and call it that before it is too late.

Civil Wars Aren't Fought For Free

About halfway through the movie, soldiers arrive at the hotel prepared to execute all of the Tutsi guests. Paul calls his boss in Belgium, who promptly phones the President of France.

What's the connection? France was supplying weapons to the Hutu militias (according to the movie). Regardless of whether this was a true or dramatized scene, it illustrates a very real principal - no civil war is fought without monetary support.

This lesson has deeper resonance considering the current situation in Iraq. The Shia militias in Iraq are getting weapons from somewhere - presumably Iran. Rather than banging heads against an amorphous enemy, the United States should be focusing on diplomacy with Iran. Without supplies, there can be no civil war.

Hyper-nationalism is Dangerous

Patriotism is fine and dandy - to a point. The level of Hutu hyper-nationalism is evident in the movie. There are constant rallies, political speeches, and emphases on the division between Hutu and Tutsi.

It is a perfect example of the psychological effect of an enemy on a group. By identifying an enemy or outsider, a group can radically strengthen its coherence. Rally around the idea of the enemy, and suddenly you all have a lot more in common.

In some ways, this evokes images of Nazi Germany - rallying against the twin enemies of Judaism and Communism. In subtler ways, it echoes the hyper-nationalism of McCarthy's witch hunts, Bush's War on Terror, and Israel's attitude towards its Arab neighbors.

It is important not to build a nation's identity on its opposition to another group. This type of militant hyper-nationalism can only end in one thing - bloodshed.

Take Aways

Hotel Rwanda is a terrific movie. It supplants the public image of genocide - placing Rwanda alongside the well known Holocaust. It also raises a series of questions that are essential for democratic citizens to ponder.

Why do genocides continue today, and why do we only identify them in hindsight? When countries degenerate into infighting and civil war, why fight the unbeatable enemy when you can cut the supply line?

Finally, why do our leaders want to feed us fear and demonize our enemies, instead of building a firm national identity on our own strengths and assets?