|
The movie did not attempt to address the particulars. I did not have a problem with that due to the fact that the generalities have never been widely discussed. And without the generalities, the particulars are irrelevant.
Although the Tutsis were not portrayed as significant aggressors (other than the Tutsi rebels being responsible for the death of the President immediately after the peace accord, no small act) I did not feel, watching the movie, that anyone other than the dead in the streets and the refugees in the hotel (who were both Hutu and Tutsi) were victims. The real criminals were the international community for abandoning the situation.
Paul Rusesabagina, the hotel manager and focal point of the movie is Hutu, his wife is Tutsi.
Having said that, the Hutu militia were certainly responsible for the vast majority of murders.
I have to wonder how the U.S., the U.N., France, etc. would react if 90% of the U.K. systematically murdered the other 10%. I doubt very much those governments and organizations would turn their backs. And I doubt very much the press would be as silent about it.
|