
TWO PRESIDENTS ELIMINATED,
ONE HUNDRED DAYS OF SLAUGHTER,
THOUSANDS CRYING OUT FROM THE GRAVE!
In Nick Hugh's turn of the century film, 100 days, he portrays a turbulent country bitterly divided into two quietly brewing nationality groups before the death of their president. After his assassination its another story. One of these groups, the Hutu's, comprise the majority of Rwanda's population who have experienced years of second-hand treatment from the Tutsis, the nation's minority. The film only goes so far as mentioning that Hutus were cheated by the Tutsis in the local shops. While this can't be ignored, the genocide that follows the president's election remains a vague reason and wholly imbalanced reaction to such treatment.
As the film moves along in an apathetic tone towards the Tutsi's situation, the Tutsi's are vacated to a local catholic church and are impregnated with the U.N.'s pithy lies to defend them against Hutu raids. When the U.N. soldiers abandon them, leaving them completely defenseless, you can read hopelessness on the Tutsi faces, as if it was written there with bamboo shoots. They don't embrace this death sentence, they aren't like a madman who believes that a July brushfire surrounding him on all sides will suddenly extinguish itself. Was it their sense of peaceful resistance that brought about their deaths that same night? Or was it something a great deal less subtle, like their lack of defensive weapons?
The catholic priests in this film were elements used to passify the Tutsis, keeping them from leaving the church, because of the church's corroboration with the Hutu terrorists. Their payment? The "right" to molest young Tutsi women who caught their eye. Mainly though, this factor added to the demobilization of a defensive strategy by the Tutsi. Although, what weapons did they really possess that would have meant anything in such a strategy? Since the mayor of the town and the Rwandan government were supplying Hutus with weaponry its a logical assumption that they were also keeping those tools out of the hands of the Tutsi. In essence, all that placing Tutsis in the church did was provide a non-recognizable barrier to their freedom. It was only mildly different than the road blocks for the fact that they were not blockaded inside of the church and instantly shot down by Hutus if they stepped outside the doors, whereas this would be their fate if any of them attempted to pass through road blocks that led out of town. Keeping them clustered in the church also allowed the Hutus to burn down a building with Tutsi children in it and encounter less resistance. Regardless of this, however, none of villagers watching the conflagration attempted to rescue these children who were screaming with the anticipation of what they knew would be their horrifying deaths. One of the watching townspeople, at the very least, would have been a sympathizing Hutu. Maybe, just maybe putting a riffle in their hand would have given them a chance to redeem their conscience and the reputation of their people.
One man, a wealthy shop owner, kept denying over and over again that there would be any violence against his town or family because, as he said: "This has never happened here before." And yet his wife was trying, on multiple occasions, to wake him up to the leering possibility that it just might because, as she put it: "Everybody knows we are Tutsi." Can this be a case of misplaced ecumenicalism verses the sobering instincts being echoed by thousands of worried people at the departure of the U.N.? Exactly. How can her reaction equate to anything but a petition to her husband to either flee the country, defend themselves, or defend themselves as they left the country? She knew automatically that the second option would be out of the question.
Perhaps the recoiling shock of this diabolical escapade wouldn't have existed before it began if the people had an adequate means of obtaining weapons for their defense. Or maybe their lack of weapons had nothing at all to do with their genocide. But this is impossible to prove without generating unsupported philosophies about the advantages of masses of dead corpses with no legitimate weapons to be found among them.