I am a hard core liberal, but I could not stand Shake Hands With The Devil, a well-meaning but ultimately stupid documentary about the Rwandan genocide of 1994. The film is chock full of limousine liberal guilt and tries to make the United States the fall guy in this horrible world tragedy. I say the film is stupid because it reduces a very complex situation down to ridiculous platitudes. I fear people will think it's true just because it's a documentary.
The history of how Rwanda, a small Central African country literally turned in on itself with one group, the majority Hutu nationalists literally hunting down minority Tutsis in the street and chopping them to death with machetes is a complicated story. It starts with Rwanda being put under Belgian control as part of World War One war reparations and eventually leads to the bloody independence of the country in 1962.
But the racial and political divides thrust upon the population from their inept and brutal colonial masters made for a very unstable situation. In fact, Rwanda has seen bursts of violence with mass killings and forced exiles twice before in 1964 and 1974. Was it really such a surprise that this happened again in 1994?
The film Shake Hands With The Devil is based on the book by Canadian General Romeo Dallaire who was head of the United Nations peacekeeping forces in Rwanda at the time of the genocide. When the violence began, the good General tried to get the United Nations to intervene, yet the United Nations felt strangely helpless and for a variety of complicated reasons, did nothing. This was particularly devastating to General Dallaire and he details his frustration, guilt and subsequent depression in a very moving way in his excellent book.
If the film had just told the story of General Dallaire and his failed peacekeeping mission and then focused on how Rwanda has changed in the decade since the horrific genocide, it would have been a very good documentary. But the filmmakers have decided to point a blaming finger at the "West" particularly the United States for ignoring the plight of the Rwandans and allowing the genocide to happen.
The film smugly claims there is an inherent shallowness in the American public because at the time of the Rwandan killings we were more interested in the O. J. trial to pay attention to anything else. It never occurs to the filmmakers that the O.J. trial was not a celebrity freak show like the current Michael Jackson trial. With O.J., American jurisprudence itself was on trial. Of course we were interested.
Also, despite what the documentary claims, I remember distinctly hearing radio reports and reading newspaper accounts about the descent into madness Rwanda fell into from April to July of 1994. Yes, the O. J. trial was mostly on page one, but Rwanda was always on page two at least. The information was out there; it was reported.
However, awareness about something horrible happening and knowing what to do to stop it are two different things. The majority Hutus and the minority Tutsis in the country had a peace agreement of sorts, but the Interahamwe (Hutu Militias, well regulated, no doubt) didn't want peace and evidence shows they had planned in advance for genocide.
General Dallaire alerted the United Nations about the deteriorating situation and tried to stop it, but did not have anywhere near the force of troops needed. But I don't think it would have mattered. The Hutu fundamentalists didn't want peace or a political settlement; they only wanted to see Tutsis dead. That's it. All the troops in the world would only have stopped the slaughter temporarily.
Now let's be very blunt, look around you; how many young Americans would you send into harms way to only temporarily halt, not stop the eventual killings? How many would you be willing to sacrifice for a country of little strategic value, no natural wealth and no great political objectives to speak of? I am aware of the "doing it for humanity" argument, but is it possible to stop every insane group determined to kill off parts of their own population? Are the superpowers supposed to be the world's police? Can they be everywhere all the time?
This is what annoyed me about Shake Hands With The Devil. The film ignored every important question to focus on making western audiences feel guilty. The movie even claims the Catholic Church could have stopped the bloodshed if only the churches had just preached, "thou shalt not kill" with more vigor. My intelligence was personally insulted by that foolish statement.
Rwanda suffered a terrible genocide, but was it preventable? History has shown that stopping genocide once it starts is as impossible as stopping an avalanche. It seems that all you can do is try to contain it and then pick up the pieces once it's over. Is the USA to blame for not invading the country and stopping it? Would we have had any right to go in there?
Shake Hands With The Devil offers trite and ridiculous answers to all the wrong questions about Rwanda. If sensible liberals acquiesce, the suffering of the innocent victims of this genocide will be appropriated by flaky limousine liberals just so they can show off their humanity by wallowing in guilt at cocktail parties. And as much as I like to see annoying liberals suffer, the Rwandan dead deserve better.
The history of how Rwanda, a small Central African country literally turned in on itself with one group, the majority Hutu nationalists literally hunting down minority Tutsis in the street and chopping them to death with machetes is a complicated story. It starts with Rwanda being put under Belgian control as part of World War One war reparations and eventually leads to the bloody independence of the country in 1962.
But the racial and political divides thrust upon the population from their inept and brutal colonial masters made for a very unstable situation. In fact, Rwanda has seen bursts of violence with mass killings and forced exiles twice before in 1964 and 1974. Was it really such a surprise that this happened again in 1994?
The film Shake Hands With The Devil is based on the book by Canadian General Romeo Dallaire who was head of the United Nations peacekeeping forces in Rwanda at the time of the genocide. When the violence began, the good General tried to get the United Nations to intervene, yet the United Nations felt strangely helpless and for a variety of complicated reasons, did nothing. This was particularly devastating to General Dallaire and he details his frustration, guilt and subsequent depression in a very moving way in his excellent book.
If the film had just told the story of General Dallaire and his failed peacekeeping mission and then focused on how Rwanda has changed in the decade since the horrific genocide, it would have been a very good documentary. But the filmmakers have decided to point a blaming finger at the "West" particularly the United States for ignoring the plight of the Rwandans and allowing the genocide to happen.
The film smugly claims there is an inherent shallowness in the American public because at the time of the Rwandan killings we were more interested in the O. J. trial to pay attention to anything else. It never occurs to the filmmakers that the O.J. trial was not a celebrity freak show like the current Michael Jackson trial. With O.J., American jurisprudence itself was on trial. Of course we were interested.
Also, despite what the documentary claims, I remember distinctly hearing radio reports and reading newspaper accounts about the descent into madness Rwanda fell into from April to July of 1994. Yes, the O. J. trial was mostly on page one, but Rwanda was always on page two at least. The information was out there; it was reported.
However, awareness about something horrible happening and knowing what to do to stop it are two different things. The majority Hutus and the minority Tutsis in the country had a peace agreement of sorts, but the Interahamwe (Hutu Militias, well regulated, no doubt) didn't want peace and evidence shows they had planned in advance for genocide.
General Dallaire alerted the United Nations about the deteriorating situation and tried to stop it, but did not have anywhere near the force of troops needed. But I don't think it would have mattered. The Hutu fundamentalists didn't want peace or a political settlement; they only wanted to see Tutsis dead. That's it. All the troops in the world would only have stopped the slaughter temporarily.
Now let's be very blunt, look around you; how many young Americans would you send into harms way to only temporarily halt, not stop the eventual killings? How many would you be willing to sacrifice for a country of little strategic value, no natural wealth and no great political objectives to speak of? I am aware of the "doing it for humanity" argument, but is it possible to stop every insane group determined to kill off parts of their own population? Are the superpowers supposed to be the world's police? Can they be everywhere all the time?
This is what annoyed me about Shake Hands With The Devil. The film ignored every important question to focus on making western audiences feel guilty. The movie even claims the Catholic Church could have stopped the bloodshed if only the churches had just preached, "thou shalt not kill" with more vigor. My intelligence was personally insulted by that foolish statement.
Rwanda suffered a terrible genocide, but was it preventable? History has shown that stopping genocide once it starts is as impossible as stopping an avalanche. It seems that all you can do is try to contain it and then pick up the pieces once it's over. Is the USA to blame for not invading the country and stopping it? Would we have had any right to go in there?
Shake Hands With The Devil offers trite and ridiculous answers to all the wrong questions about Rwanda. If sensible liberals acquiesce, the suffering of the innocent victims of this genocide will be appropriated by flaky limousine liberals just so they can show off their humanity by wallowing in guilt at cocktail parties. And as much as I like to see annoying liberals suffer, the Rwandan dead deserve better.