just wondering how this can possibly be a discussion of rwanda and not want to take into account any of the particular circumstances that either enabled the genocide or drove it?
of the two mid-level contexts manx talked about
: the international arms trade is obviously a big deal--the united states is the worlds largest arms exporter by a mulitlpe of ten.
as for the word colonialism--there are enough smeantic problems raised by using the word that it seems pointless to try to sort them here. neocolonialism more. different structure of domination.
france (one of those nation-states so dear to american rightwingers) played a pivotal role in all this--they knew what was coming but radically underestimated it--unlilke bush, they were not interested in looking for pretexts, true or false, for war--they were caught off guard. ia am sure the conservatives here will argue that cowboy george would not have been, but that is speculation and refuting it is a waste of time.
the main driver was the radio--radio broadcasts were fundamental to ordering, controlling the pace of, and providing a rationalization for genocide.
look here for example:
http://www2.rnw.nl/rnw/en/features/m.../rwanda-h.html
the role of mass media in rwanda--which used nationalist and militarist slogans to trigger genocide--should give folk in the states pause. it is not only folk in rwanda who allow radio or television to structure the ways in which they hate people different from themselves.