Analysis of Jean Hatzfeld's novel, The Antelope's Strategy: Living in Rwanda After the Genocide,
James L. Fisher HIST 300-01 Dr. McClellan April 20, 2012 The Antelope Strategy Living in Rwanda After the Genocide Works Cited Hatzfeld, Jean. The Antelope Strategy: Living in Rwanda After the Genocide. New York. Picador. 2007. Print. Fisher 1 The genocide that occurred in 1994, in the African country of Rwanda, was a deliberate and structured attack by the Hutu tribe in which they sought to fully exterminate the Tutsi tribe. Post-genocidal Rwanda implemented a reconciliation strategy for the two tribes so that the country may progress peacefully. The Hutus and Tutsis struggled tremendously after being forced to live amongst each other once again without being allowed to speak of the massacre. Their difficulties are illustrated in Jean Hatzfeld's novel, The Antelope's Strategy: Living in Rwanda After the Genocide, in which Hatzfeld interviews both Hutus and Tutsis about their emotions and opinions towards the genocide and reconciliation. The Hutus and the Tutsis have had a difficult and strenuous relationship for decades that is fueled by politics. The Rwandan president, Juvénal Habyarimana, was in office from 1973 until his death in 1994. Habyarimana was a Hutu and therefore favored and supported them above the Tutsis. He warned the Hutus that if the Tutsis were to reclaim the throne, the Hutus would suffer just as their
Konrad Adeneur. Adenauer understood that rearmament was an essential step in his policy of pursuing West German sovereignty through integration into the West.
After World War two Germany was a defeated ruined and occupied nation. The cities of Germany were reduced to rubble after numerous bombs and the country was full of jobless, penniless refugees. Adenauer fought for his country’s revival with “tremendous pertinacity.”[1] . Adenauer had an excellent way with people which strengthened his fight for West Germany. He was polite, friendly and charming while still maintaining a certain amount of reserve. This effectively kept his relations professional and meant he was always taken seriously. His charisma and social skills lead to the Federal Republic being viewed positively by the allies Adenauer’s success during his reign cannot be denied, the labour force underwent a huge increase, millions of houses were built the cost of living was made extremely favourable and the German mark became one of the strongest currencies in Europe. The miraculous recovery Germany underwent is in no doubt connected with the hard work of Adenauer and his triumph in achieving rearmament and aligning the Federal Republic with the West Adenauer believed that an aggressive policies such as rearmament would help improve economic trouble such as unemployment. Adenauer understood that rearmament was an essential step in his policy of pursuing West German sovereignty through integration into the West. Rearmament under NATO played an important part
Discuss how and why British culture changed so dramatically during the 1960s. Evaluate its influence both within British society and globally.
25885723 Discuss how and why British culture changed so dramatically during the 1960s. Evaluate its influence both within British society and globally. “The 60s have been described by historians as the ten years having the most significant changes in history. […] The 60s were influenced by the youth of the post-war baby boom – a generation with a fondness for change and far-out gadgets.”[1] The 60s had a big impact on the society in many different areas. It was a decade with many personalities and some important events. To name only a few, there was John F. Kennedy, Martin Luther King, the first human on the moon, the Beatles, the creation of ARPANET. The whole world was affected by this decade; however, this essay will focus on what happened in Britain and how these changes affected the country itself and the rest of the world. First of all, a short history of the country is needed to understand better the context in which the changes took place. There was a period when the British Empire was really powerful: it is called the Victorian era.[2]” By the end of Victoria's reign, the British Empire extended over about one-fifth of the earth's surface and almost a quarter of the world's population at least theoretically owed allegiance to the 'queen empress'.”[3] However, this could not last forever: the colonies wanted their independence more and more, and this
What would you consider the most decisive or influential forces to bring down apartheid in South Africa?
What would you consider the most decisive or influential forces to bring down apartheid in South Africa? The dark days of Apartheid finally came to an end in 1990 when the “Father” of South Africa, Nelson Mandela was released from prison. In many ways it can be argued that the abolishment of apartheid is attributed to Mandela and in part this is true. However, the factors which led to the downfall of the repressive Apartheid regime are not as simple as assigning it to one sole determinant, but a combination and culmination of varying factors. The main influential forces herein discussed can be classed into 3 categories. Firstly, internal pressure from the black protest and its political parties; secondly, the international isolation which enforced economic sanctions and sporting boycotts; and finally, the collapse of communism in the Soviet Union as the cold war relaxed (US Department of State, 2001). As such this essay will briefly outline these main influences which brought down Apartheid and assess which played the most profound part in its demise. The oppressive actions of the government inflicted on the black community were well known before the 1960’s. However, the most prolific years in the anti-apartheid movements occurred after this time in the form of internal resistance from small and isolated groups (Louw, 2004). These groups were unable to join forces due
Banning public executions was hailed by the Daily Telegraph as an end to 'a fragment of medieval barbarism,' was this a reasonable assessment?
Banning public executions was hailed by the Daily Telegraph as an end to 'a fragment of medieval barbarism,' was this a reasonable assessment? In May 1868 Parliament passed the Capital Punishment Amendment Act which abolished the practice of public executions in the United Kingdom. Instead the Capital Punishment Amendment Act required that all prisoners sentenced to death shall now be executed within prison walls and their bodies should also be buried within the grounds of the prison.[1] The fenian Michael Barrett who was convicted for his involvement in the Clerkenwell prison bombing in 1867 was the last prisoner to be publically executed in Britain in May 1868. Two days later the new capital punishment bill was passed and the so called 'Spectacle of the Scaffold' was over. The Daily Telegraph described the banning of public executions as an end to 'a fragment of medieval barbarism'. There was much debate in the nineteenth century and there is still debate in recent times between historians such as V. A. C. Gatrell, David Cooper and Randall McGowan over the decision by Parliament to abolish public executions in 1868. To an extent it is reasonable to describe the abolishment of public executions as an end to 'a fragment of medieval barbarism' as to execute prisoners in a brutal way such as hanging in front of the general public is barbaric, uncivilised and backward.
The Cold War
In April 1950, the Secretaries of State and Defense published a document that was known by the name "NSC 68." NSC 68 was a report on the objectives and programs the US should pursue in its dealings with communism. It outlined the weaknesses and strengths of both the United States and the Soviet Union, the two nations it identified as world super powers. With warring ideologies and high tensions, these two countries were the primary combatants in the conflict known as "the Cold War." However, the conflict between these two countries spread to other nations, and created other situations. The Cold War became a world war, affecting regions and nations far removed from either the United States or the USSR. In judging NSC 68, it becomes necessary to examine incidents in which the document's objectives and programs could be applied. Such a task is relatively simple, as there are a multitude of incidents of conflict between communism and capitalism during the period of 1950 to 1975 (when NSC 68 was released to the public). In this report, evidence will be shown that, during the period of 1954-1961, government officials were sporadic in their applications of NSC 68. Using the Guatemalan Coup of 1954, the Suez Crisis of 1956, and the Bay of Pigs incident of 1961, this paper will show that the United States government of this time applied the principles expressed in NSC 68 in
The Vietnam War
The Vietnam War The 1960s manifested a period of transformation and societal revolution for scores of citizens in the United States. The Civil Rights Movement was in full force, humans took the first steps on the moon, anguish concerning the murders of both President Kennedy and Dr. King Jr... Furthermore, the rising of countercultures, which facilitated communal living, hippies, drugs, and rock and roll. The Anti-War movement began and became the focal point of several university and college campuses where they protested the Vietnam War and The Draft. Antiwar demonstrations were going on across the country and the demonstration at Kent State University on May 04, 1970, had students assembled to protest the Vietnam War and the assault on Cambodia. In The Vietnam Era 1963 -1965 (2005), it was found James Rhodes the Ohio state Governor at the time called upon the U.S. National Guard with the purpose of putting an end to the demonstration and demanding the students to disband. The student protesters would not comply and the U. S. National Guard discharged weapons into the crowd of people gathered. This caused the death of four students and injuries to nine other students, some of which were students not even involved with the demonstration. This confrontation at Kent State became the fuel of the antiwar movement of the 1970s. Furthermore, In The Vietnam Era 1963 -1965 (2005),
Why Was There A Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962?
Why Was There A Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962? There are many factors that lead to the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962. I do not think that the crisis would have taken part without all of these points working together; they all resulted in the increase of tension between the United States and the Soviet Union. Some of the factors are the growing hostility towards Fidel Castro and his 'communist' ideas and actions, the Cuban Revolution, the Bay of Pigs invasion, the Arms Race, and the nuclear missiles. The Cuban Revolution played quite a large part in the build up to the Cuban Missile Crisis. Between 1934 and 1939 General Fulgencio Batisita ruled Cuba, he was sure he did not do anything that would displease the American government. Fidel Castro, however, led a successful revolution against Batista and took control over Cuba in 1939. The US government had suspicions that Castro was a communist, these suspicions grew as Castro began a thorough programme of reform of Cuba's economy and society, for example the government began to nationalise industries and to take over land and redistribute among the peasants. Castro was aware of the danger of falling out with the US government but was determined to carry out reforms. The Cuban Revolution and the take over of the 'communist' Castro built up the US hostility towards him. President Eisenhower refused to meet Castro when
