Navigation
Calendar
Quicksearch
Flickr Photostream
 |  |
 |  |
 |  |
Support Us
What I'm Reading
Facebook's "Highlight" Feature Lets You Pay To Send Messages To Friends - Business Insider
TED and inequality: The real story - TEDChris: The untweetable
The Facebook Offering: How It Compares - Interactive Graphic - NYTimes.com
Your startup?s top 3 priorities. | ex post facto
Pretty Lights - You Get High NYE 2011 Denver Video Recap - YouTube
Going East For Money, Pinterest Refuses To 'Bow At The Alter Of Amazon Or Google' - Business Insider
Where The Wild Avengers Are
05/17/12, 35
TED and inequality: The real story - TEDChris: The untweetable
05/17/12, 05
The Facebook Offering: How It Compares - Interactive Graphic - NYTimes.com
05/17/12, 44
Your startup?s top 3 priorities. | ex post facto
05/17/12, 40
Pretty Lights - You Get High NYE 2011 Denver Video Recap - YouTube
05/17/12, 11
Going East For Money, Pinterest Refuses To 'Bow At The Alter Of Amazon Or Google' - Business Insider
05/17/12, 19
Where The Wild Avengers Are
05/17/12, 51
Archives
Categories
Syndicate This Blog
Saturday, July 23. 2005
Review: Hotel Rwanda
Last night I watched Hotel Rwanda, and I'm still digesting it. The film was a real eye-opener, and very relevent to what is happening elsewhere like Darfur. It is probably one of the best films I've seen this year. If you need a synopsis of the movie, check my last article about Hotel Rwanda. The following review is not spoiler free; however, the things that I "spoil" are already recorded in history, and they're widely known. I'm commenting at a high level on this movie, so you'll have to decide if you want ANYTHING spoiled about the movie.
One of the most horrific things about the genocide is how quickly society degenerated. Literally overnight, neighbours started killing neighbours based on their race. In the movie, one of the journalists was asking a person about the roots of the conflict, ie Hutus VS Tutsis. The journalist looked over to two women at the bar, and asked what race they were, and one was a Hutu, and one was a Tutsi. To the journalist, he couldn't tell the difference. Apparently the only difference is that one race has a slightly wider nose. Other than that, they are indistinguishable. In either case, society is scary when anarchy breaks out.
Another creepy thing throughout the whole movie is the Hutu radio station. It was used to promote hate and propaganda. It was also used to coordinate and direct machete wielding gangs to different targets in the country. The radio station was essentially the central command and control structure, people would call in to report where Tutsis were, and the radio would direct the gangs to those areas. In the back of my mind, I was wondering why didn't the U.N. jam that radio station? It would have been relatively safe to fly an airplane with radio jamming capabilities over the country, and it would probably not violate the peacekeeper's mandate of not engaging the enemy. I did a little background research into this, and apparently President Clinton denied Dallaire's request for a radio jammer because it would be too expensive. Radio jamming costs $8500 per hour per plane. I'm going to cynically cite President Clinton's famous policy of, "it's the economy stupid."
A part of the movie that made the West look very bad was during the evacuations. The killings had already started, and the UN peacekeepers were low on supplies, ammunition, and men. Belgium, the only Western power that had peacekeepers on the ground had withdrew its soldier because 10 of their soldiers had already died. Then, like a miracle, a thousand French soldiers appear to reinforce the country. The Africans are glad to see the reinforcements; however, their hopes are shattered as they find out that the French aren't here to stay. The French soldier's mission is to extract all European/Western citizens from the country. There's one scene that made me angry. They show all the Western tourists get on a bus that is secured by the French, and they're going to leave the country. A bunch of Tutsis want to leave the country as well, but the French say they can't take anyone else except Western citizens. As the busses depart, you see this one European lady with her dog in the bus. I thought to myself, my God, that dog's life was valued more than the life of an African, that is how much the West cares about Africa
.
A quote that caught my attention was when the Canadian general yells out, "we're peacekeepers, not peacemakers!" This was when a gang of drunken machete wielding militiamen come up to the hotel, and the Canadian general orders his men to put down their weapons because they're not allowed to engage the enemy. The UN's policy of staying neutral in conflict is more important than saving the lives of innocent civilians, how screwed up is that?
The other chilly scene is when parents plan to kill their children, as they believe it is more humane than having them killed by militia who will slowly hack them to death. Very troubling reality that these people had to go through.
In either case, I think history is somewhat repeating right now with respect to Darfur. In Rwanda, when the general was asking for troops, ammunition, and food, the UN sends a "fact gathering team" to assess what's happening. The very same is happening in Darfur, the UN has deployed its might fact gathering team to Darfur. Rwanda was initially not labelled as genocide, but merely tribal killings. If it was actually genocide, the UN charter dictates that they must intervene. Tribal killings though, the UN can sit on its duff and observe from afar. Right now, in Darfur, they say genocide hasn't happened, it is merely ethnic cleansing. Dallaire demanded well-equipped troops as reinforcements, and all he got was a handful of ill-equipped soldiers from Bangladesh and Ghana (both third world nations). Darfur needs more peacekeepers, and all they have are a few hundred soldiers from the African Union (tremble before the mighty armies of the African Union?). What has the West done? NATO is flying African Union troops into Darfur, and that's it. So the West's contribution right now is a taxi service essentially, we give rides to people. It's like we learned nothing from Rwanda.
A part of me is struggling over diplomacy versus military intervention in cases of genocide (or whatever you want to call it). In foreign policy, we hate to hear the phrase "violate a nation's soveignty." For example, Sudan says it doesn't want any non-African troops in Darfur, but if we deploy our troops there, we violate Sudan's soveignty. With only a handful of African troops in Sudan, that's good news for the people doing the killings because the African troops are so poorly equipped and undermanned, that there's no way to prevent the killings. Is it ethical for the West to go in with guns blazing to stop the killings? Internationally speaking, it's considered uncool to invade a country and occupy it. If we go in, how long do we have to stay before the country is back on its feet? Are we willing to even stay? How many soldiers are we willing to lose? These are all questions that prevent us from doing the right thing in my opinion. Diplomacy is great and all, but in the case of Rwanda, they signed a freaking peace treaty and it did nothing to prevent the genocide from occuring. That peace treaty isn't even worth the paper that it's written on. I'm horrifed to learn now that it would have only taken 5,000 Western soldiers to stop the genocide, and it could have saved the lives of a million people.
In either case, I think watching Hotel Rwanda was a great experience. I'm still thinking about the movie all the time. For a movie that is about genocide, I thought it was quite tame. The director did a good job of balancing tastefulness, and violence to get the point across.
I'll end this post with a quote I saw from the movie, Tears of The Sun (a fictional movie that touches on the subject of genocide as well.), "Evil prevails when good men do nothing."
One of the most horrific things about the genocide is how quickly society degenerated. Literally overnight, neighbours started killing neighbours based on their race. In the movie, one of the journalists was asking a person about the roots of the conflict, ie Hutus VS Tutsis. The journalist looked over to two women at the bar, and asked what race they were, and one was a Hutu, and one was a Tutsi. To the journalist, he couldn't tell the difference. Apparently the only difference is that one race has a slightly wider nose. Other than that, they are indistinguishable. In either case, society is scary when anarchy breaks out.
Another creepy thing throughout the whole movie is the Hutu radio station. It was used to promote hate and propaganda. It was also used to coordinate and direct machete wielding gangs to different targets in the country. The radio station was essentially the central command and control structure, people would call in to report where Tutsis were, and the radio would direct the gangs to those areas. In the back of my mind, I was wondering why didn't the U.N. jam that radio station? It would have been relatively safe to fly an airplane with radio jamming capabilities over the country, and it would probably not violate the peacekeeper's mandate of not engaging the enemy. I did a little background research into this, and apparently President Clinton denied Dallaire's request for a radio jammer because it would be too expensive. Radio jamming costs $8500 per hour per plane. I'm going to cynically cite President Clinton's famous policy of, "it's the economy stupid."
A part of the movie that made the West look very bad was during the evacuations. The killings had already started, and the UN peacekeepers were low on supplies, ammunition, and men. Belgium, the only Western power that had peacekeepers on the ground had withdrew its soldier because 10 of their soldiers had already died. Then, like a miracle, a thousand French soldiers appear to reinforce the country. The Africans are glad to see the reinforcements; however, their hopes are shattered as they find out that the French aren't here to stay. The French soldier's mission is to extract all European/Western citizens from the country. There's one scene that made me angry. They show all the Western tourists get on a bus that is secured by the French, and they're going to leave the country. A bunch of Tutsis want to leave the country as well, but the French say they can't take anyone else except Western citizens. As the busses depart, you see this one European lady with her dog in the bus. I thought to myself, my God, that dog's life was valued more than the life of an African, that is how much the West cares about Africa
.A quote that caught my attention was when the Canadian general yells out, "we're peacekeepers, not peacemakers!" This was when a gang of drunken machete wielding militiamen come up to the hotel, and the Canadian general orders his men to put down their weapons because they're not allowed to engage the enemy. The UN's policy of staying neutral in conflict is more important than saving the lives of innocent civilians, how screwed up is that?
The other chilly scene is when parents plan to kill their children, as they believe it is more humane than having them killed by militia who will slowly hack them to death. Very troubling reality that these people had to go through.
In either case, I think history is somewhat repeating right now with respect to Darfur. In Rwanda, when the general was asking for troops, ammunition, and food, the UN sends a "fact gathering team" to assess what's happening. The very same is happening in Darfur, the UN has deployed its might fact gathering team to Darfur. Rwanda was initially not labelled as genocide, but merely tribal killings. If it was actually genocide, the UN charter dictates that they must intervene. Tribal killings though, the UN can sit on its duff and observe from afar. Right now, in Darfur, they say genocide hasn't happened, it is merely ethnic cleansing. Dallaire demanded well-equipped troops as reinforcements, and all he got was a handful of ill-equipped soldiers from Bangladesh and Ghana (both third world nations). Darfur needs more peacekeepers, and all they have are a few hundred soldiers from the African Union (tremble before the mighty armies of the African Union?). What has the West done? NATO is flying African Union troops into Darfur, and that's it. So the West's contribution right now is a taxi service essentially, we give rides to people. It's like we learned nothing from Rwanda.
A part of me is struggling over diplomacy versus military intervention in cases of genocide (or whatever you want to call it). In foreign policy, we hate to hear the phrase "violate a nation's soveignty." For example, Sudan says it doesn't want any non-African troops in Darfur, but if we deploy our troops there, we violate Sudan's soveignty. With only a handful of African troops in Sudan, that's good news for the people doing the killings because the African troops are so poorly equipped and undermanned, that there's no way to prevent the killings. Is it ethical for the West to go in with guns blazing to stop the killings? Internationally speaking, it's considered uncool to invade a country and occupy it. If we go in, how long do we have to stay before the country is back on its feet? Are we willing to even stay? How many soldiers are we willing to lose? These are all questions that prevent us from doing the right thing in my opinion. Diplomacy is great and all, but in the case of Rwanda, they signed a freaking peace treaty and it did nothing to prevent the genocide from occuring. That peace treaty isn't even worth the paper that it's written on. I'm horrifed to learn now that it would have only taken 5,000 Western soldiers to stop the genocide, and it could have saved the lives of a million people.
In either case, I think watching Hotel Rwanda was a great experience. I'm still thinking about the movie all the time. For a movie that is about genocide, I thought it was quite tame. The director did a good job of balancing tastefulness, and violence to get the point across.
I'll end this post with a quote I saw from the movie, Tears of The Sun (a fictional movie that touches on the subject of genocide as well.), "Evil prevails when good men do nothing."
Wednesday, July 20. 2005
Free Movie Night - Hotel Rwanda
My young adults group is hosting a two part discussion about conflict in the world, in particular, the genocide in Rwanda, and more recently Dafur, Sudan. Part 1 of this starts this Friday night (July 22, 2005) at 8pm, North Douglas Church where we will be showing the movie, Hotel Rwanda on the big screen. The cost is completely free, and it is open to anyone interested. Bring snacks if you like. The movie will be the basis of part 2 of the discussion happening the following Friday (July 29, 2005), same time, same place.
Some of the things we want to talk about:
The following is a synopsis of the movie Hotel Rwanda from imdb.com:
I am personally looking forward to these discussions. I haven't seen Hotel Rwanda before, but all of my friends have told me that I have to see it because it's a powerful movie. I'm also told that there's a character in the movie that loosely resembles our Canadian hero, Romeo Dallaire, the Canadian commander of the peacekeepers in Rwanda during the genocide. (I had an article about Dallaire and Rwanda two months ago if you want some context.) For those who are squeemish, this film is PG-13, and I've been told that the movie is fairly tame especially considering that the movie is about genocide.
I think this movie will also be quite an eye opener especially considering how much the news sanitizes its reports. More over, a lot of us are completely oblivious to what is happening around the world because the wars and genocide happen so far away. This should be a good opportunity to raise awareness about such issues. It is especially important as the Canadian government and parliament will have to formulate a strategy in dealing with Dafur when the Fall session starts.
Anyways, come on out this Friday. No one's going to try to harass you and convert you, it's a fairly casual night. Our primary audience is probably around 16-30 year olds for this event. Feel free to bring friends. Heck, if you're not interested in the talks the week after, that's fine, why not come out and enjoy a free movie? Worst case scenario, you can meet me in person
.
Conclusion
Movie: Hotel Rwanda (PG-13)
Place: North Douglas Church, 675 Jolly Place, Victoria, BC
Time: Friday, July 22, 2005, 8pm
Cost: Free
What to bring: Snacks if you like
Directions: We're near the intersection of Glanford Ave and Mackenzie Ave. Enter Jolly Place road through Glanford Ave.
See you there.
Some of the things we want to talk about:
- Awareness of the conflicts that are happening around us as we speak.
- Why would a loving God allow genocide to happen in Rwanda?
- The spiritual background of these conflicts (especially Dafur).
- The history of these conflicts.
- How should we respond to this?
The following is a synopsis of the movie Hotel Rwanda from imdb.com:
Ten years ago some of the worst atrocities in the history of mankind took place in the country of Rwanda--and in an era of high-speed communication and round the clock news, the events went almost unnoticed by the rest of the world. In only three months, one million people were brutally murdered. In the face of these unspeakable actions, inspired by his love for his family, an ordinary man summons extraordinary courage to save the lives of over a thousand helpless refugees, by granting them shelter in the hotel he manages.
I am personally looking forward to these discussions. I haven't seen Hotel Rwanda before, but all of my friends have told me that I have to see it because it's a powerful movie. I'm also told that there's a character in the movie that loosely resembles our Canadian hero, Romeo Dallaire, the Canadian commander of the peacekeepers in Rwanda during the genocide. (I had an article about Dallaire and Rwanda two months ago if you want some context.) For those who are squeemish, this film is PG-13, and I've been told that the movie is fairly tame especially considering that the movie is about genocide.
I think this movie will also be quite an eye opener especially considering how much the news sanitizes its reports. More over, a lot of us are completely oblivious to what is happening around the world because the wars and genocide happen so far away. This should be a good opportunity to raise awareness about such issues. It is especially important as the Canadian government and parliament will have to formulate a strategy in dealing with Dafur when the Fall session starts.
Anyways, come on out this Friday. No one's going to try to harass you and convert you, it's a fairly casual night. Our primary audience is probably around 16-30 year olds for this event. Feel free to bring friends. Heck, if you're not interested in the talks the week after, that's fine, why not come out and enjoy a free movie? Worst case scenario, you can meet me in person
. Conclusion
Movie: Hotel Rwanda (PG-13)
Place: North Douglas Church, 675 Jolly Place, Victoria, BC
Time: Friday, July 22, 2005, 8pm
Cost: Free
What to bring: Snacks if you like
Directions: We're near the intersection of Glanford Ave and Mackenzie Ave. Enter Jolly Place road through Glanford Ave.
See you there.
Friday, July 1. 2005
Canada Day Quiz
I found this quiz via Myron today, it's a quiz on Canadian history. The CBC reports that the average score of the quiz is only 40% (spoiler warning, take quiz before reading the CBC article). They conducted this quiz by telephone, and had a sample of 1,000 people. Apparently only one guy scored 20 out of 20 on this quiz.
Anyways, Myron scored 18 out of 20 on this thing, and I scored a 16 out of 20. My knowledge of Canadian history before the first world war isn't what it used to be. I got questions 2, 4, 5 and 9 wrong.
My favourite question from the quiz is this:
"Q. What major Canadian economic policy of Pierre Trudeau’s government sparked the creation of a bumper sticker proclaiming 'Let the Eastern bastards freeze in the dark?'"
That would be a good party slogan for the next election I think.
In either case, I always joke that immigrants know more about Canadian history than Canadians, simply because immigrants need to learn the history before they get citizenship. Perhaps one is MORE Canadian if they flunk the history test.
Anyways, Myron scored 18 out of 20 on this thing, and I scored a 16 out of 20. My knowledge of Canadian history before the first world war isn't what it used to be. I got questions 2, 4, 5 and 9 wrong.
My favourite question from the quiz is this:
"Q. What major Canadian economic policy of Pierre Trudeau’s government sparked the creation of a bumper sticker proclaiming 'Let the Eastern bastards freeze in the dark?'"
That would be a good party slogan for the next election I think
.In either case, I always joke that immigrants know more about Canadian history than Canadians, simply because immigrants need to learn the history before they get citizenship. Perhaps one is MORE Canadian if they flunk the history test.
--Abraham Lincoln (1809-1865), 16th President of The United States