Genocide Persuasive Essay
The genocide of Rwanda that killed almost a million people in 90 days could have been prevented. The Belgians; people from the country of Belgium in Europe, went to Rwanda; a country in Africa and set up a government where the Tutsi; minority group of cattle herders had power over the Hutu; majority group of farmers. The Belgians did this not knowing the difference of Hutu and Tutsi, being they were just social classes and not races. This led to an oppressed majority and then an armed machete revolution from the Hutus that was the genocide. Any other country could have stepped in and stopped the Hutu uprising or the distribution of machetes, they could have given protection for Tutsi. There are so many things that could be done to stop genocide.
…show more content…
When the Germans in 1884 started to colonize but then lost it after WWI, Rwanda was given to the Belgians.
The Belgians wanted to set up a government with the superior people in power. But in Rwanda there were just the Hutus and Tutsi two social classes but no superior race. So the Belgian made the Tutsi the leaders based on nose size and eugenics. This was the first step in genocide: Classification
The Hutus were upset by this and did not approve of the Tutsi government. The tribes were only split by social class but also the Hutu were the majority by a massive amount of 80% more. The Hutus were very angry. They formed a militia called the “Impuzamugambi” who were responsible for killing 70% of the Tutsi which was 20% of the total Rwanda population in a 90 day period (History.com).
Since international law requires it to be never happen, genocide will forever need prolonged attention. We know about the social and political reasons that lead to genocide, but still are struggling to identify genocide like acts during times of violence like civil war. The 1948 United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (UNCG) made a standard of proof suitable for prosecution. However, present legal standards used to identify genocide as it is occurring holdup policymakers from stopping the intricate dynamics that lead to organized mass
killing. The UNCG defines genocide as “an assortment of aggressive acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group.” Deliberate group annihilation sets genocide apart from crimes against humanity, war crimes, and other mass atrocities, which are looked at according to the person responsible for its behavior, rather than intention. Intentional annihilation “that is, the purposeful destruction of a group, rather than its violent” is difficult to determine. We found just how difficult it was when the United Nations Security Council started a study to look into the government of Sudan to see if they were committing genocide in Darfur. The study found that two essentials of the crime of genocide were apparent. First was the existence of two particular groups, “Africans” and “Arabs,” ethnic groups for the purposes of the UNCG. Second was evidence of related violent acts, including killings by government forces of “African” Darfuris.
Ultimately, the report said that there was no genocide: “The Commission concludes that the Government of Sudan has not pursued a policy of genocide,” because “one central element appears to be missing, at least as far as the central Government authorities are concerned: genocidal intent”. Another quote says: “The problem with the Commission’s finding was its reliance on a notion of intentionality that required a clear and explicit prior master plan of purposeful destruction by the major decision-makers in Khartoum and their subordinates”. Though, proven by many historians and sociologists, genocide is rarely the first choice a leader has to make. It is usually after other strategies have failed or already are been put in action. This has been proven by many historians and sociologists. So, how do we identify and stop genocide if there are few or even no exact indications of the prior planning. People looking to stop genocide do not have the advantage of remaking genocidal intentionality; they make decisions in the present, when killings are going on and information on the killer’s intentions is difficult to make sense of or is simply not available Its probably easier to assume the intent of the actions by analyzing killers’ ability to do the violence and their behavior. Their ability is what kind of access they have weapons and other deadly materials and ability to gather and distribute things around, such as the Hutus and there access to machete.
At the end of the day, figuring out if genocide is occurring and having the political will to stop it is a highly challenging task. But we can remove some of the trouble by using more sociologically educated ways for understanding the ways of group-targeted destruction. The fight to prevent genocide and maybe even stop it is one of your fights. You may be asking yourself: How? Well it’s all in these three steps. First sound the alarm and demand action. Preventing atrocities requires political will. We must demand that government leaders make the right choices to prevent and stop atrocities. Second and this one might require you to do more personal work is to stop the enablers. Perpetrators of genocide and atrocities cannot be successful without the support of other governments and corporations. We follow the money and apply public pressure to stop companies and governments that finance violence. Lastly, make core values in U.S. foreign policy with human rights and genocide prevention. A series of actions to make the United States better at preventing and responding to genocide and atrocities were made by the president in 2012. The announcement came after years of pressure from people and their organizations just like you who wanted the U.S to be able to better respond to atrocities then they have in the past.
When the Germans in 1884 started to colonize but then lost it after WWI, Rwanda was given to the Belgians.
The Belgians wanted to set up a government with the superior people in power. But in Rwanda there were just the Hutus and Tutsi two social classes but no superior race. So the Belgian made the Tutsi the leaders based on nose size and eugenics. This was the first step in genocide: Classification
The Hutus were upset by this and did not approve of the Tutsi government. The tribes were only split by social class but also the Hutu were the majority by a massive amount of 80% more. The Hutus were very angry. They formed a militia called the “Impuzamugambi” who were responsible for killing 70% of the Tutsi which was 20% of the total Rwanda population in a 90 day period (History.com).
Since international law requires it to be never happen, genocide will forever need prolonged attention. We know about the social and political reasons that lead to genocide, but still are struggling to identify genocide like acts during times of violence like civil war. The 1948 United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (UNCG) made a standard of proof suitable for prosecution. However, present legal standards used to identify genocide as it is occurring holdup policymakers from stopping the intricate dynamics that lead to organized mass
killing. The UNCG defines genocide as “an assortment of aggressive acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group.” Deliberate group annihilation sets genocide apart from crimes against humanity, war crimes, and other mass atrocities, which are looked at according to the person responsible for its behavior, rather than intention. Intentional annihilation “that is, the purposeful destruction of a group, rather than its violent” is difficult to determine. We found just how difficult it was when the United Nations Security Council started a study to look into the government of Sudan to see if they were committing genocide in Darfur. The study found that two essentials of the crime of genocide were apparent. First was the existence of two particular groups, “Africans” and “Arabs,” ethnic groups for the purposes of the UNCG. Second was evidence of related violent acts, including killings by government forces of “African” Darfuris.
Ultimately, the report said that there was no genocide: “The Commission concludes that the Government of Sudan has not pursued a policy of genocide,” because “one central element appears to be missing, at least as far as the central Government authorities are concerned: genocidal intent”. Another quote says: “The problem with the Commission’s finding was its reliance on a notion of intentionality that required a clear and explicit prior master plan of purposeful destruction by the major decision-makers in Khartoum and their subordinates”. Though, proven by many historians and sociologists, genocide is rarely the first choice a leader has to make. It is usually after other strategies have failed or already are been put in action. This has been proven by many historians and sociologists. So, how do we identify and stop genocide if there are few or even no exact indications of the prior planning. People looking to stop genocide do not have the advantage of remaking genocidal intentionality; they make decisions in the present, when killings are going on and information on the killer’s intentions is difficult to make sense of or is simply not available Its probably easier to assume the intent of the actions by analyzing killers’ ability to do the violence and their behavior. Their ability is what kind of access they have weapons and other deadly materials and ability to gather and distribute things around, such as the Hutus and there access to machete.
At the end of the day, figuring out if genocide is occurring and having the political will to stop it is a highly challenging task. But we can remove some of the trouble by using more sociologically educated ways for understanding the ways of group-targeted destruction. The fight to prevent genocide and maybe even stop it is one of your fights. You may be asking yourself: How? Well it’s all in these three steps. First sound the alarm and demand action. Preventing atrocities requires political will. We must demand that government leaders make the right choices to prevent and stop atrocities. Second and this one might require you to do more personal work is to stop the enablers. Perpetrators of genocide and atrocities cannot be successful without the support of other governments and corporations. We follow the money and apply public pressure to stop companies and governments that finance violence. Lastly, make core values in U.S. foreign policy with human rights and genocide prevention. A series of actions to make the United States better at preventing and responding to genocide and atrocities were made by the president in 2012. The announcement came after years of pressure from people and their organizations just like you who wanted the U.S to be able to better respond to atrocities then they have in the past.