Friday, June 17, 2005

Poster for "Hotel Rwanda"

Hotel Rwanda
I have watched this movie Hotel Rwanda 3 times, and have researched the history of the country a bit. It brings some many things to mind that I had to tell yall about. First, make sure you see this movie. It is a visual account of what happens when one group of group of Africans sells out another, and the price paid for selling out. Before I analize the movie, lemme give you some Rwandan history. Rwanda borders Lake Tangyanika, one of the great lakes of Central Africa.This area, as yall know, is the birthplace of modern man. There are four groups that make up the population today: the Twa [pygmy], who are the oldest men on earth, and live a totemic and pre-totemic nomadic life in the deep forest, the Hutu, who were farmers who emigrated there in pre-history [maybe 1000 bc], Hutu are short, very Black, with big noses/lips, and were peaceful. Next came the Tutsi, who arrived from either Uganda/Kenya, or from Nile Valley, i aint sure which. The Tutsi was cattle herders, tall, lighter than the Hutu, with finer features, and they arrived about 500 to 1500 ad, prolly closer to 500. The record of Hutu/Tutsi relations before the whites was clearly one that had the Tutsi on top, but no record of ant physical persecution. The last group is the europeans, the belgiums, french, and germans, who colonized the area and did their usual crimes. The krakkas set up an aparthied system, but the Tutsi was exempt from the worst of it. The Tutsi were used by the krakkas to control the Hutu and the land, Hutu being the vast majority of the population [85%]. The krakkas, as always, ruled by death and fear, and the Tutsi served as the krakkas henchmen. krakkas rewarded the Tutsi by educating them, allowing them access, giving them the best jobs/opportunities, the usual divide and conquer tactics. When the Africans finally removed the colonial status and gained independence, in 1962, it was the Hutu that took control of Rwanda. Having gained power, the crimes commited agaisnt the Hutu for all those centuries began to be repaid. The Hutu could not attack the whites since they had mostly returned to europe, but the whites stooges, the Tutsi, was right there. In addition, since the Tutsi was sambos and had received sambo pay thru the centuries, tutsi had far more wealth than the Hutu, although not nearly the wealth that the whites stole. Tutsi living in american style houses. Hutu living in tin shacks. The usual. Naturally, once in power, the Hutu wanted to redistribute the wealth/resources of Rwanda to the population of Rwanda, which is 85% Hutu. This was/is completely unacceptable to krakkas and tutsi. So the Tutsi, backed from europe by krakkas, began to "rebel" agaisnt the Hutu govt. The fighting went back and forth, and the krakkas sought to protect thier "investment" in Rwanda by having the u.n. broker peace, but the u.n. really just protected krakkas property and stooges. when the Hutu president signed for peace, he was assasinated by the tutsi rebels, and the Hutu snapped.

What is policy for sambos?

The Hutu policy became death to all sambos, death to all tutsi. The Hutu felt that true independence from whites could only be achieved if the whites agents were no longer in Rwanda. This meant that Tutsi could leave. Or die. Many tutsi fled, but thats another story. The Tutsi that stayed had thier property "redistributed" or stolen, depending on your point of view, they was rounded up, jailed, shot, killed......the Tutsi that stayed paid a heavy price for the "priviledge" of being Tutsi. The whites, arming they old sambos, the Tutsi "rebels", had the Tutsi invade Rwanda to "stop the genocide" and the Tutsi won. Tutsi now runs Rwanda again for the whites, and Hutu persecuted once again. The movie "Hotel Rwanda" is the "true" story of the biggest Hutu uncle tom in Rwanda.


When you see this movie, please keep some of these observations in mind. The main character, Paul, is the Hutu manager of Rwanda`s 4 star hotel. He is the only Hutu portrayed positively in the whole movie. He spends the whole movie protecting, at risk to himself and his family, the whites, the whites property [the hotel], rich Tutsi guests, and the Tutsi family and friends of his Tutsi wife. His wife is Tutsi, he lives in a house in a Tutsi neighborhood, he speaks proper english, he wears suits, he is, for a Hutu, rich. He is shown loving, depending on, and serving whites, and as a good capitalist, but when the Hutu ask him to attend a pro Hutu rally, he "doesnt have time for politics". His character, with its 'culture and contacts", is shown as the ideal for a good Rwandan. In contrast to this are the other Hutu portrayed, the Hutu hotel worker is shown as a lazy, conniving thief who jacks the presedential suite when the krakkas evacuate. The Hutu army general is shown as totally corrupt, he can be bribed with whiskey, not even money, just some liquor buys him. The Hutu militia, which carried out the killing of Tutsi civilians, are shown wearing clown wigs! with bunny rabbits on the bayonettes of thier rifles! They also show them as savage, bloodthirsty babykillers, there is only one positive Hutu in the whole movie. And that got nominated for an oscar. The krakkas are portrayed as both the victim, and the mastermind of it all. They shown as so powerful that one phone call from a krakka stops an army, one shot from a krakka scatters 50 soldiers, but also shown as victims, so the Hutu tom Paul can be seen saving whites. The mastermind part is were this gets tricky. The natural inclination of a Black is to concentrate on the whites behind the war, the controller. I think a more useful concentration can be found looking at how an African dealt with traitor/sell-outs. This movie seeks to have the viewer identify with the Tutsi, and to applaud at the end when Tutsi rule has been established. But when you see the Hutu, wearing red, black, and green, having protest marches,living in ghettoes, you gonna feel like you are Hutu. The thing is, how are YOU gonna deal with sambos? we talk about about no sambos and revolution, but when you see some of the images in this movie,you gotta think that in a real revolution..........blood is shed. Do you cry at the sight of 300 dead Africans? And if those 300 are sambos, do you still cry? Do you kill the son of a sambo? What if the sambo your father spared comes to kill you? You cant even get to the whites until you deal with these sambos, how can you attack belgium if you cant even rid your house of cockroaches?
Peace and Love
Akintunde Amenosis


Blogger Quantum Consciousness said...

Another analysis of the film might yield a different view on the of heartbreak at the idea of more Afrikans being confused by the classification and 'perceived priviledges' established by outsiders and consequently doing the work of our common enemy.

6:27 AM  
Blogger Born Understanding said...

QM, of course another analysis would yeild a different view, the analysis I gave was was what I saw...and who I identified with....I feel like within that movie, I was a Hutu. I felt that an "american " Tutsi would be colin, or leeza. I was far more impressed with the reaction of an oppressed group agaisnt its perceived sell-outs than I was saddened by the Black vs Black violence. I see Black vs Black violence everyday, but I never see sambos and sell-outs get punished. One thing in all this is clear, the Tutsi [11%]have traditionally been the whites[1%] allies agaisnt the Hutu [85%] and the Twa [3%]. QM, I know I see this movie differently than others, thats why I posted this. Thank You, QM, for everything! DONT STOP.CANT STOP

8:00 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home

What HAS to be done, WILL be done