You still have not substantively addressed any of the points raised in the articles I posted. The question is not whether the people who died are 'inncocents' or not. It is a matter of understanding the actual political realities that obtained in the Great Lakes region - not just Rwanda in the 1990s and the role and interests of the West, especially France and the United States. I am certainly not saying that "[ they] somehow 'brought it upon themselves,' and nothing that I posted remotely suggests this, quite the contrary - but yes I am saying that "they (sic) whole events (sic) needs to be re-examined if not altogether questioned." and I have presented material that makes a case as to why. People can accept or reject the material, but resorting to scurrilous 'holocaust denial' accusations etc. is unfortunate to say the least.
When you write stuff like "No matter what these claims may or may not be, nobody deserves to be hacked to death with his family by a machete wielding mob." It suggest to me that you are not relly interested in ration debate. Of course no one deserves to be hacked to death. But the claims about who hacked (or bombed for that matter) who to death and why *DO* matter, and international courts are adjuducating these questions as we speak - making it all the more important for those accused to defend themselves and for those with information to come forward.
I notice in your posts about Rwanda that you fail to allude to the situation in the Congo - anywhere from 5-10 million people have perished in the Congo in the last decade - and the crisis in the Congo was a direct outgrowth of the crisis in Rwanda - the odd thing about the 'never again' narrative that has been constructed around the events in Rwanda is that it cuts the Congo out of the equation. Why do Rwandans (read Tutsi) lives matter more than those of the Congolese? This same paticularism pervades the discourse around Darfur. Western interventionists want to pick and chose which Africans to feel sorry for while Africans - and others in the West wonder why.
There are always going to be competing narratives about these sorts of conflagrations, but I think responsible intelletuals rather than simply dismissing one narrative as 'holocaust denial' etc., will offer a substantive critique of the other narrative - no? Otherwise its back to kindergarden - of course you can, as you have take refuge in the idea that the very conception of a competing narrative is 'beyond the pale' and insulate yourself from the obligation to explain your position. This works well in some contexts, but not so well in others. From my experience it generally does not work on this list - on most issues anyway. So, do you have a critique of the material I presented?
Joe W.
----------------------------------------
> Date: Mon, 1 May 2006 11:26:05 -0400
> From: sokol at jhu.edu
> Subject: RE: Re: [lbo-talk] Re: "Save Darfur" etc (and other responses)
> To: lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org
>
> Joe W:
> These are rather strong and nonsensical words Mr. Wojtek. Can you please
> elobarate as to why you would characterize my remarks in such a bizzare
> fashion?
>
> [WS:] The way I read your postings on the subject, including the one you
> posted after this one, is that the victims of Rwanda genocide are not
> walking innocents as the Western media tend to portray them, which may
> stipulate that they somehow "brought it upon themselves," or that they whole
> events needs to be re-examined if not altogether questioned.
>
> My view is much more simplistic and rather unsophisticated in this era of
> pomo, spin, and relativistic nihilism: killing one million people is wrong,
> period. The political claims and counter-claims surrounding that killing
> are simply irrelevant. No matter what these claims may or may not be,
> nobody deserves to be hacked to death with his family by a machete wielding
> mob.
>
> Unlike you, who probably have never lived outside the US and know about the
> outside world and its history mostly from books - where I am coming from
> there are people around who still remember death camps. They may be
> approaching the subject with gallows humor to cope with the experience, but
> nobody seriously questions the absolute horror and, indeed, one
> dimensionality of it, as there is no other side to it, no spin, no
> relativism, no pomo deconstruction, no if, buts, and political
> qualifications.
>
> There are certain things in the world that the only appropriate response is
> to shut up and remain silent. Many yanks are yet to learn that basic truth.
> Sorry if this sounds harsh - I did not mean it personally - I am just very
> tired of spin in general
>
> BTW: A co-worker of mine spent some time in Rwanda after the genocide, so
> the personal details of that event come mainly from her - and add a very
> disturbing dimension to the media accounts.
>
> Wojtek
>
>
>
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk