How did the Tutsi rebels defeat the Hutu-lead government forces despite being already the minority ethnicity, and then having something like 70% of their population wiped out in the Rwandan Genocide? It seems like such a devastating loss would have doomed the Tutsis. In any other conflict, if you lost 70% of their population, you'd lose the war hands down. It sounds like one of the greatest military comebacks in history. Did Paul Kagame have a big part in this victory?
how did these wars effect your family and your life? and if you werent born yet then how did it change your families? and if you lived in places that werent involved in these wars like in south africa or saharan north african countries (most) how was the perception of it in your countries? and which sides do you think were good and bad? or maybe there was no good side? thank you! i love alot of africa spacificlly culture,food and nature! and my teacher had a very good time visiting ethiopia and egypt!
As far as I know, both conflicts involved ethnic clashes between the Hutus and the Tutsis. France was not the former colonial power of either country, but it intervened in Rwanda. What motivated France to do so? What was different about Burundi, which is just next to Rwanda, that caused the French not to intervene?
Rwanda, having finally reached a tipping point, has plunged into another armed conflict. The Alliance of Democratic Forces for the Liberation of Rwanda (AFDLR) has formed an alliance with the National Republican Alliance for Democracy & Development (REALNADD) and the People’s Liberation Army of Rwanda. These rebels have begun calling themselves the Allied Front of Democratic Forces and are claiming that they represent the true interests of the people and intend on implementing democratic reform should they come to power.
- AFDF strength: 16,200
- AFDLR: 6,700
- REALNADD: 5,000
- PLAR: 4,500
The strongholds for the Allied Front of Democratic Forces are in the Eastern and Southern provinces of the country, where moderately sized areas are outside of government control.
My topic is: To what extent did Belgian colonialism pave the way for the Rwandan Civil War?
I want to section my essay into Belgian colonization and then Rwandan Civil War. My teacher said I should focus more on Belgian colonization because I need to explain the extent part of the question. How belgian colonization in a way, caused the civil war in Rwanda. Any type of non-fictional sources would help me, as part of the IA, I need to mention my sources, but it will not be the entire component of the paper.
Sources need to be from books, 8 of them that I can use. They have to be contemporary sources, as I would like to eliminate any possibility of outdate or in other words, the possibility that my sources have been debunked or updated. And I am allowed 2 online resources. So you can see how, as a 17 year old who has never done this before nor has had something like this explained to or guided (and this is my entire IB graduating class we have not been helped..), could be stressing.
So far, I have: "Africa's World War" by Gerard Prunier "King Leopold's Ghost: A Story of Greed, Terror, and Heroism in Colonial Africa" by Adam Hochschild. (If you guys can tell me if these are professional and credentialed and I can count on these, that would be of great help.)
If any of you can help me, I would be most grateful.
P.S.: I, along with my entire class of 2016 IB students, have not been taught how to write something of such massive historiological proportion. We are are scrambling to find 8 qualified sources in a span of two days. She told us about the deadline last minute, and we know not a knick of contemporary history, I mean, none whatsoever. I'm scared and I want to do a good job, and I can't turn to anyone else because I don't know any historians. My teacher does not offer help, I have asked and received none, she just threw this on us.
Sorry if this is a bother, I just really need some help.
Thank you to all.
With much regards, TheAndromedaGalaxy
The leader of the UN Mission in Rwanda, considered by many to be a failure in that it did not prevent the Rwandan Genocide of 1994-1995, has claimed that one of the biggest problems he faced at the beginning of the mission were lack of funding/support due to First World nations being tired of providing for the UN after Somalia and Yugoslavia.
If the UN were in Rwanda first, would the outcome have been different? Would there still have been a genocide? Would the Somalia and Yugoslavia missions ended poorly/worse?
And surprise you need internet for crypto…
Coming from a person living in Lebanon (a country on the verge of political, economical, and civil collapse) I can tell you that only a self centered asshole will look at what's going on Kazakhstan and just think of Bitcoin.
They're having much bigger problems than mining, I can assure you that.
And if you really want to bring crypto into it, this might be the chance for alts to finally decouple from BTC.
It’s slowly but surely happening and I already bought some DeFi alts like Curve cause I think its the best DeFi project and some BitDAO considering how much they’ve been investing in the DeFi space recently.
Many are the times that BTC has ruined an uptrend cause it went down 0.01%. So this might actually be good for the market long term if you all care about is crypto in this humanitarian disaster…
TL;DR: The US will not be in conventional war with itself. If anything, it is going to Balkanize. It will be ugly and not a good time.
Few people want to read books on reddit so I am going to keep this one short(er). If you want the long version, I wrote^1 them^2 here.^3 If you don't like reading, Robert Evans' podcast "It Could Happen Here" is a good introduction to these concepts. All sources are linked at the bottom.
Anyway, the term "civil war" has been in mainstream new cycle as of late. Of course many people balk at this idea because they cannot imagine this happening. It must be impossible in today's modern world with all its complexities. The problem is that those people still view "war" in the way it happened in the 1940s: two big sides, attacks and counter-attacks over lines on a map, money and fuel and infantry on the ground trying to outlast each other, etc. It doesn't work like that. War hasn't worked like that for at least the past 50 years.
The signs of a coming civil collapse can be watered down to four indicators:
1. Freedom and rights are disappearing.
The two wings of our neoliberal political system have refused to return liberties to common people and have only intensified their assault on the unalienable rights in the Declaration of Independence: Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. Healthcare, the right to one's own body, a living wage allowing one to own a house.
2. Polarization, hate, and violence are on the rise.
The 2024 presidential campaign started on January 20, 2021 at 12:00. White supremacy is now mainstream.^4
3. Access to information is limited.
An information silo is a business management term for information that is self-contained and walled off from everything else. I'm not getting into business jargon here, so think of it like a grain silo. Yes, that giant tube with a dome on top next to a barn. It's full of grain and on the top you can even stand on it (don't do that). It looks good, sturdy, stable, just like a new theory you are exposed to. But if you start poking around, there are a lot of holes, cavities, voids. If one of those collapses, then you go do
... keep reading on reddit ➡
