Category: Civil War

War has been a constant presence throughout human history, leaving permanent impacts on communities, civilizations, and individuals alike. It has stirred a plethora of emotions, stimulated philosophical discussions, and offered fertile ground for contemplation as one of the most profound and momentous human experiences. Essays on war, as windows into the human condition, provide a chance to investigate the many facets of armed conflict.

The subject of war has continually altered, from ancient battles engraved on stone tablets to modern violence witnessed through the prism of technology, yet its essential essence remains immovable. Essays on war investigate the causes that drive nations and people to engage in violence, revealing the complex interplay of political, economic, social, and ideological variables that culminate in these cataclysmic events.

These writings, however, go beyond just presenting historical facts. They seek to shed light on the deep emotional toll taken on troops and civilians, the moral quandaries confronting those caught up in conflict, and the long-term consequences that resonate long after the dust falls.

Essays on war, at their core, attempt to challenge our ideas, challenging us to accept hard facts and understand the need of finding alternatives to warfare. We engage on a journey of learning, compassion, and a global ambition for a more peaceful world by analyzing the tragic facts of war and considering its intricacies.

War Essay 1 (100 words)

Beyond the physical wreckage, war leaves an indelible mark on humanity. Its tentacles reach deep into the human mind, changing perceptions and influencing society. Among the broken relics of combat are compassion, understanding, and trust. Families are shattered, and hopes are dashed. The cost of war cannot be measured only in terms of monetary costs and casualties, since it cuts to the heart of our existence. Healing these buried wounds necessitates unity and reconciliation across borders and ideologies. Only by realizing the invisible costs of war can we hope to construct a future based on compassion and peace.

War Essay 2 (200 words)

In the 21st century, the landscape of warfare has undergone a profound transformation, shifting from conventional battles on open fields to a more nuanced and intricate form of conflict. Modern warfare, characterized by its digitization and interconnectedness, transcends borders and manifests itself in cyberspace, economic warfare, and information manipulation.

The rise of cyber warfare has blurred the lines between traditional combatants and civilian populations. Now, hostile entities can launch devastating attacks on critical infrastructure, financial systems, and even political processes, all while remaining hidden behind a screen. The virtual battlefield knows no boundaries, making attribution and retaliation challenging, further complicating the nature of conflicts.

Moreover, economic warfare has emerged as a potent tool, where nations employ sanctions, trade wars, and financial pressure to exert influence and cripple adversaries’ economies. These tactics have far-reaching consequences, affecting not only governments but also ordinary citizens, amplifying the impact of warfare in ways not seen before.

Another powerful weapon in modern warfare is the manipulation of information and public opinion. Disinformation campaigns, fake news, and social media manipulation can sow discord and instability within a target country, weakening it from within without the need for traditional military intervention.

In the end, the growth of contemporary warfare has revealed an invisible battlefield in which the distinctions between war and peace, soldier and civilian, are becoming progressively blurred. This shift throws into question conventional ideas of warfare and necessitates new tactics and actions to ensure global stability and security. To effectively traverse this dynamic terrain, states must adapt and embrace creative tactics, while also encouraging international collaboration to confront the complex issues of contemporary conflict.

War Essay 3 (300 words)

Introduction

War, a destructive force that has plagued humanity throughout history, leaves indelible marks on both the victors and the vanquished. From ancient battles fought on open fields to modern conflicts waged with advanced weaponry, wars have shaped societies, altered political landscapes, and resulted in profound human suffering. This essay delves into the impacts of war, shedding light on the consequences that reverberate far beyond the battlefield.

Impacts of War

The impacts of war are far-reaching, encompassing every aspect of human existence. One of the most immediate consequences is the loss of lives. Soldiers and civilians alike fall victim to the relentless violence of war, leaving families shattered and communities bereft of their loved ones. 

Beyond the human cost, war wreaks havoc on infrastructure and economies. Cities reduced to rubble, vital resources depleted, and industries disrupted, war leaves a trail of destruction that hampers progress for generations to come. Rebuilding after conflict requires tremendous effort, resources, and time, diverting attention and investment from education, healthcare, and other crucial sectors.

Additionally, war often fans the flames of hatred and enmity between nations and ethnicities, perpetuating cycles of violence and conflict. The scars of past wars can endure for centuries, influencing political decisions and diplomatic relations.

However, amidst the darkness, glimmers of resilience and humanity can emerge. Wars have sometimes brought about positive societal changes, such as advancements in medical technology or social progress catalyzed by the need to support and empower those affected by conflict.

Conclusion

War is a formidable force, reshaping history and rewriting the fate of nations. Its impacts reverberate across generations, leaving scars that can be seen and felt long after the battles have ended. It is incumbent upon humanity to learn from the devastating consequences of war, striving to find peaceful solutions to conflicts and promoting understanding, tolerance, and cooperation among nations. Only by working together can we build a world where the ravages of war are but a distant memory, and peace prevails for the prosperity and well-being of all.

War Essay 4 (400 words)

Introduction

War, an age-old conflict and a testament to humanity’s darkest tendencies, has plagued our history since time immemorial. It is an unequivocal enemy of peace, progress, and human prosperity. Despite the undeniable reality that war has shaped civilizations and left lasting marks on our collective consciousness, it remains an undesirable aspect of human existence. In this essay, we shall delve into the detrimental aspects of war and the necessity to seek alternatives to resolve conflicts without resorting to violence.

War is an Enemy

War is the antithesis of harmony and cooperation, often born out of disagreements, territorial disputes, or ideological differences. When diplomacy fails and communication breaks down, nations have historically turned to armed conflict to settle their disputes. The consequences are catastrophic, leaving behind a trail of destruction, loss of life, and suffering. Families torn apart, cities reduced to rubble, and landscapes marred by the scars of warfare are haunting reminders of the horrors of war.

Beyond the immediate devastation, war sows the seeds of long-term enmity between adversaries. Bitterness, revenge, and deep-seated animosity can linger for generations, perpetuating cycles of violence and instability. The resources and energy expended on war could be better utilized in addressing pressing global challenges like poverty, disease, and environmental degradation.

Moreover, the human cost of war is immeasurable. Soldiers and civilians alike bear the brunt of violence, experiencing physical and psychological trauma that may haunt them for the rest of their lives. Innocent lives are lost, and those who survive may carry psychological scars that reverberate throughout their communities. The emotional toll on families and communities affected by war is profound, leaving lasting impacts on society as a whole.

War not only destroys physical structures but also erodes the foundations of trust and international relations. Diplomacy, negotiation, and dialogue are often overshadowed during times of war, leading to misunderstandings and perpetuating further hostility. The world needs cooperation and collaboration to tackle global challenges, and war undermines this essential framework for progress.

Conclusion

In conclusion, war is an unyielding enemy, a force that disrupts the harmony and progress of societies. While history may have shown war as a means to an end, we must evolve beyond such primitive solutions to conflicts. The path to lasting peace lies in understanding, dialogue, and diplomacy. We must strive to build bridges instead of walls, seeking solutions that promote understanding and reconciliation.

War Essay 5 (500 words)

Introduction

War, a tragic and centuries-old phenomenon, has brought untold suffering and destruction to humanity throughout history. The consequences of armed conflicts are far-reaching, impacting not only the combatants but also civilians caught in the crossfire. This essay delves into the disadvantages of war and takes a closer look at the Russia-Ukraine conflict, a recent and troubling example of the destructive power of war.

Disadvantages of War

War casts its long, dark shadow over every aspect of human society. One of the most significant disadvantages is the loss of countless lives on both sides. Soldiers and civilians alike endure immense physical and emotional trauma, leaving scars that last for generations. The destruction of infrastructure, homes, and cultural heritage devastates communities and economies, hindering progress for years to come.

Beyond the immediate consequences, war often breeds hatred and animosity, fueling a vicious cycle of revenge and further violence. Diplomacy and communication take a backseat, making it difficult to find peaceful resolutions to conflicts. The economic toll is immense, with funds that could be used for development, education, and healthcare redirected towards military efforts. War can lead to displacement, refugee crises, and a breakdown of social structures, leaving vulnerable populations at risk.

The environmental impact of war is equally grave, as ecosystems are ravaged, and toxic substances are released into the environment. The use of chemical weapons and explosives harms not only combatants but also innocent civilians, including children, leaving behind a legacy of suffering and disabilities.

Russia – Ukraine War

The Russia-Ukraine war, which began in 2014, has been a stark reminder of the horrors of war. This ongoing armed conflict has led to thousands of deaths and a massive displacement of people in Eastern Ukraine. The annexation of Crimea by Russia further escalated tensions and resulted in international condemnation and sanctions against Russia.

The war has caused a severe humanitarian crisis, with civilians facing continuous violence, food and medical shortages, and limited access to basic services. The conflict has deeply divided communities and led to a rise in nationalism and ethnocentrism on both sides. Diplomatic efforts to find a peaceful resolution have faced obstacles, and the situation remains precarious.

The Russia-Ukraine conflict has also strained international relations, with different countries taking sides and expressing divergent opinions on how to address the crisis. The complex geopolitical nature of the conflict has made it difficult to find a quick and lasting solution.

Conclusion

In conclusion, war represents one of the gravest challenges facing humanity. Its disadvantages are profound and enduring, leaving a trail of destruction, suffering, and despair in its wake. The Russia-Ukraine conflict serves as a harrowing example of the devastating impact of war on societies and individuals.

As we move forward, it is essential to prioritize peaceful dialogue, cooperation, and diplomacy to prevent future conflicts and address existing ones. The world must strive to learn from the past and work towards building a future where disputes are resolved without resorting to violence. Only through collective efforts can we hope to create a more peaceful and prosperous world for generations to come.

What led us to the Civil War of 1861? Was it all about slavery? To understand this, we need to go back when the United States of America was created. Throughout all of American history, there has been great division in our political parties, which Ironically is the very thing George Washington warned us about in his farwell address. George Washington warned of “the baneful effects of the spirit of party” in his farewell address. Washington feared the unity will lie in the party and not in the nation. George Washington was quoted saying this in his farewell address: “In governments of a monarchical cast, patriotism may look with indulgence, if not with favor, upon the spirit of party. But in those of the popular character, in governments purely elective, it is a spirit not to be encouraged. From their natural tendency, certainly, there will always be enough to that spirit for every salutary purpose. And, there being constant danger of excess, the effort ought to be, by force of public opinion, to mitigate and assuage it. A fire not to be quenched, it demands a uniform vigilance to prevent its bursting into a flame, lest, instead of warming, it should consume”.

The pattern of crisis was clear as it shared the common attributes which are war starting the conflict, weak governmental leadership, poor governing decisions, the feeling of distance between the government and the people, Active opposition to the government, new political voices, explosive political voices, explosive political writing, s significant change in communication, economic distress, explosive event plus controversial government reaction plus galvanized opposition, blood in the streets, and a unforeseen trigger event propelling government actions that lead to more tension.

Slavery had a big part to play in the civil war, but it was not the only reason. With this being said slavery was always a problem in the United States. When the constitution was written it had laws against slavery, but it was later taken out of the final draft as all of the states needed to agree to constitution. It was said that the decision to remove references to slavery was political necessity. They thought it to be better to remove the section dealing with slavery than risk a long debate over the issue. They needed the support for independence from the southern states. Slavery was always an issue and they didn’t have the time to deal with it. They decide to set it aside and come back to it at a later date and time as they had more pressing issues at the time.

The road to the civil war ends up in discussions of states’ rights to slavery and differing economic systems. Specifically, whether or not those economic systems ought to involve slavery, and also the election of Abraham Lincoln. Specifically, how his election wedged slavery, however none of these things would have been problems without slavery. The most disputed section of the compromise of 1850, the fugitive slave law. With this new law, any citizen was required to turn in anyone he or she knew to be a slave to authorities. Which created every person in new England into a sheriff, and it additionally required them to enforce a law they found repulsive. Additionally, this law affects the folks of color in the North, because even if you’d been born free in Massachusetts, the courts might send you into slavery if even one person swore before a judge that you simply were a particular slave. And lots of individuals of color responded to the fugitive slave law by moving to Canada, that at the time was still technically an English colony, thereby additional problematizing the total concept that England was all about tyranny and the united states was all about freedom. But anyway, the foremost important results of the fugitive slave law was that it convinced some Northerners that the government was within the hands of a sinister “slave power.” A conspiracy theory about a secret cabal of pro-slavery congressmen. That conspiracy theory is going to grow in importance.

Railroads created shipping cheaper and a lot more efficient and allowed folks to move around the country quickly. And they had an enormous backer within the form of Illinois congressman Sir Leslie Stephen Douglas, who wanted a transcontinental railroad because he felt it might bind the union together at a time when it could use some binding, and he figured it would go through Illinois, which might be good for his home state. However, there was a problem: to make a railroad, the territory through that it ran required to be organized, ideally as states, and if the railroad was aiming to run through Illinois, then the Kansas and Nebraska territories would need to become states. So, Douglas suggested the Kansas Nebraska Act in 1854. The Kansas-Nebraska Act formalized the concept of popular sovereignty, that meant that white residents of states may decide for themselves whether or not the state ought to permit slavery. Douglas felt this was a pleasant means of avoiding saying whether or not he favored slavery; instead, he could simply be in favor of letting people be in favor of it. Previously bartered Missouri compromise prohibited slavery in new states north of this here line. And since in theory Kansas or Nebraska may have slavery if folks there determined they wished it underneath the Kansas-Nebraska Act despite being north of that their line, this in practice repealed the Missouri Compromise. As a result, there was quite a heap of violence in Kansas, most so that some folks say the civil war really started there in 1857. Also, the Kansas Nebraska Act led to the creation of a brand new political party: The Republicans.

So, Douglas’s law helped to form a brand new coalition party dedicated to stopping the extension of slavery. It had been made from former free-soilers, northern anti-slavery whigs and a few know-nothings. It had been also a completely sectional party, which means that it drew supporters nearly completely from the free states within the North and West were tied together by common economic interests, and also the railroad. And now we come back at last to “slave power.” For several northerners, the Kansas Nebraska Act that repealed the Missouri compromise, was yet more proof that Congress was controlled by a sinister “slave power” cluster doing the bidding of wealthy plantation owners. By 1854, the North was much more populous than the South; it had nearly double the South’s congressional representation however in spite of this advantage, Congress had simply passed a law extending the power of slave states, and potentially as a result of two new states meant four new senators creating the federal government even more pro-slavery. And to abolitionists, that didn’t appear to be democracy. The other reason that a lot of northerners cared was that having them become slave states was seen as a threat to northerner’s economic self-interest. The west was seen as an area where specifically white people may become self-sustaining farmers. As Lincoln wrote: “The whole nation is interested that the most effective use be manufactured from these territories. we would like them for the homes of free White race. they can’t be, to any significant extent, if slavery is planted inside them. New Free States are places for poor folks to travel to and higher their condition”. So, the real question was: would these western territories have massive slave-based plantations like happened in Mississippi? Therefore, the new republican party ran its initial presidential candidate in 1856 and did remarkably well. John C. John C. Fremont from California picked up 39th of the vote, all of it from the North and West, and lost to the Democrat James Buchanan, who had the virtue of getting spent much of the previous decade in Europe and therefore not having a position on slavery.

Meanwhile, Kansas was attempting to become a state by holding elections in 1854 and 1855. The reason I say attempting is because these elections were dishonest. Part of the Kansas drawback was that hundreds of so called border ruffians flocked to Kansas from pro-slavery Missouri to cast ballots in Kansas elections, that led to people coming in from the northern states to cast their ballets to make it a free state. Fighting eventually broke out and over 200 people were killed. In fact, in 1856, pro-slavery forces ordered siege to anti-slavery lawrence, Kansas with cannons. In the end Kansas passed two constitutions. The pro-slavery Lecompton Constitution went to the U.S. Congress and it had been supported by Stephen Douglas as an example of common sovereignty at work, except that the person who oversaw the balloting in Kansas referred to as it a “vile fraud.” Congress delayed Kansas’ entry into the Union until another, more honest vote occurred. And subsequently vote, Kansas eventually did join the U.S. as a free state in 1861, by which time it had been honestly too late. While all this was happening in Kansas and Congress, the Supreme Court was busy rendering the worst call in its history.

Dred Scott had been a slave whose master had taken him to live in Illinois and Wisconsin, each of which barred slavery. So, Scott sued, his argument was that if slavery was outlawed in Illinois, then living in Illinois created him definitionally not a slave. The case ended up being many years until it went to the Supreme Court and eventually, in 1857, chief justice Roger B. Taney, from Maryland, handed down his decision. The Court held that Scott was still a slave, however it went even more, trying to settle the slavery issue once and for all. Taney ruled that “black individuals had for more than a century before been regarded as beings of an inferior order, and altogether unfit to associate with the white race, either in social or political relations; and so far inferior that they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect; and that the negro might justly and lawfully be reduced to slavery for his benefit”. Taney’s ruling primarily said that every black individual anyplace within the united states might be thought of property, which the court was within the business of protecting that property. This meant an owner may take his slaves from Mississippi to Massachusetts and that they would still be slaves. That meant that technically, there was no such thing as a free state. At least that’s how folks in the north, particularly Republicans saw it. The Dred Scott case helped persuade even more of those who are in the government, Congress, President, and currently the Supreme Court, were within the hands of the awful “Slave Power.”

In 1859, john brown led a disastrous raid on the federal arsenal at Harpers Ferry, hoping to capture guns and then provide them to the salve. Who he thought would rise and use those guns against their masters. But Brown was a horrible military commander, and the raid was an abject failure. Several of the party were killed and he was captured. He stood trial and was sentenced to be hung. On the morning of his hanging, he wrote: “I, John Brown, am currently quite sure that the crimes of this guilty land can never be purged away but with blood”. And, so the stage was set for one of the most necessary Presidential elections in American history. In 1860, the party chose as its candidate Abraham Lincoln. Lincoln lost that election, however the debates made him famous, and he might appeal to immigrant voters, The Democrats, on the opposite hand, were a mess. The Northern wing of the party favored Stephen Douglas; however, he was unacceptable to voters within the deep south. Therefore, Southern Democrats appointed John C. Breckinridge of Kentucky, creating the Democrats, the last remaining actually national party, no longer truly a national party. A third party, the Constitutional Union Party appointed John Bell of Tennessee, they wanted to preserve the Constitution as it was meaning keeping slavery the way it was. President Abraham Lincoln received zero votes in nine American states. However, he won 400th of the popular vote, including majorities in several of the most inhabited states, thereby winning the electoral college. So, anytime a man becomes President who failed to appear on your ballot, there’s probably going to be a problem. And indeed, Lincoln’s election led to many Southern states seceding from the Union. Lincoln himself despised slavery, however he repeatedly said that he would leave it alone within the states where it existed. However, the demographics of Lincoln’s election showed Southerners and Northerners alike that slave power to whatever extent it had existed, was over. By the time he took office on March first, 1861, seven states had seceded and formed the confederate states of America. And therefore, the stage was set for the fighting to start, and that it did, once Southern troops fired upon the Union garrison at Fort Sumter in Charleston harbor on April twelfth, 1861. So, that’s when the civil war started, however it became inevitable earlier, perhaps in 1857, or maybe in 1850, or even in 1776.

A Republic is defined as “A state in which the supreme power rests in the body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by representatives chosen directly or indirectly by them” (by Dictionary.com). In order to understand what it means to live in a Republic we need to ask why the government was built as a Republic. The American people where fed up with the monarchy they had just left, and it was clear to them the flaws. The founding fathers knew people could not handle an absolute democracy meaning every person would have to vote on every little decision made within the government. With this as well as the founding fathers wanting to keep a lot of the power with the people they created a Republic which over time has giving people the locke freedom without a strict government watching over them all the time as well as a Hobbes government where the central government has power over the states and as the ability for example to handle tasks without needed everyone in the country to vote. This is all kept in check the citizens voting for people who have their best interests in mind.

Society today has been changing over the years, and in this day and age, we can equally stand together as a nation. Although racism and types of discrmination still occur, society has become more developed and socially aware unlike the times of the civil war. The civil war was a pivotal point in history regarding slavery. It was constantly kicked under the rug until tensions increased. One of the most popular and important politicians that played a huge role is Abraham Lincoln. He is probably one of the most well known men taught in history class. From his upbringing to the end of his time, he has made many impacts for the nation as a whole through trial and error. From the beginning of Lincoln’s upbringing and experience in law that lead to his utmost diligence in the Republican Party, his role in preserving the union during the era of the Civil War, and his process in abolishing slavery, and overall impact on the future America, Lincoln is most arguably the most influential president to be seated in office.

To start off Abraham Lincoln’s life long journey, he was born on February 12th, 1809, in Hardin County, Kentucky. His parents were Nancy Hanks Lincoln and Thomas Lincoln, but unfortunately Nancy ends up passing away leaving Abraham devastated. Until then his father remarries another widow just like his father, her name was Sarah Bush Johnston. She ended up becoming the mother figure that Abraham lost; she also became very close with Abraham . She was an important figure in shaping the way how Abraham behaved and how he will later become one of the most famous presidents. Sarah motivated Abraham to read and write, and he willingly obliged and would walk miles from home to bring back books to read. Sarah, Abraham’s father, and his biological mom were all illiterate but they still (both of the mothers) motivated Abraham to read and write. Sarah also believed that Abraham was a very honest boy and patient which is how he presents himself in the Lincoln-Douglas debates. Abraham’s father then takes the family to move to different places, but they finally end up in Illinois. By that time Abraham is old enough to leave the house; he then specializes and becomes well known in axe wielding. He makes money from manual labor, but eventually heads to New Salem, Illinois. Where he becomes a shopkeeper, postmaster, and later on a general store owner. These jobs helped Abraham acquire social skills which obviously he will need later. Another thing that happened before he got into the political world, was him getting selected for the Illinois militia to fight against the Native Americans. He then was selected by his peers as captain; he ended up not fighting. Which led him to avoid the spread of Cholera, that ended up killing many soldiers who fought. Maybe things would’ve turned out differently if maybe he did fight in the war? Nonetheless these events of Abraham‘s up bringing were very important to the way he starts to present himself in the political field.

Now, we move onto the start of his political years before he became president. This is where he starts to gain political experience and applies his traits. As he grew up the hard labor he did when he was younger made him hate it even more. Then in August of 1832 is when his political ambitions began. He was defeated in a run for a seat on the general assembly as a nominee of the Whig party (General assembly=part of legislative branch, legislative branch of the state government). In 1834 he then gets elected for the Illinois state legislature(the general assembly); he represents Sangamon County as a member of the Whig party. This was his second time running for political office. Abraham also becomes a lawyer. Abraham’s lawyer-career isn’t as well known or as “significant”, it was most likely because it was already expected of every politician to have some foundation around law. Abraham was a self-taught lawyer, and in 1836 he gained his lawyer’s license at age 26. While he was a lawyer he partnered with many experienced lawyers, John T. Stuart (his wife’s cousin), William Herndon, and Stephen T. Logan. It was also to be said that he believed in compromises and arbitration instead of litigation. In one of his cases, there were two merchants and the dispute was over quality of flour. In this case, Abraham told them to resolve conflicts without leading to litigation. He believed talking out the problem is better. The way he responded is also similar to how he was going to bring the South back in after the civil war ended, try to make peace and not lead to serious matters(but he ends up dying before applying that method). During the case, Lincoln told his client that if the dispute was solved there would be no fee to Lincoln’s services. This reflects his personality as a calm man who just wants peace and unity(somewhat even though he was racist). Lincoln continues to serve in the Illinois legislation for 8 years, while fueling good things to his reputation as a lawyer. Then in August 3rd, 1846 (presidency of James K. Polk), he was elected for a seat in the thirtieth congress of the U.S. House of Representatives as a Whig. He served one two-year term (March 4, 1847-March 3, 1849). One of the most well known things he does is the “spot resolution”. During the Mexican-American war, James K. Polk (president at that time) claimed that Mexico had killed Americans on U.S. soil. Lincoln then kept questioning where was the specific “spot” of where American blood was shed. Which led to his “Spot Resolutions”, he then got the name “spotty Lincoln”. He as a member of the Whig party brought it up to stall the Democrats from acquiring more land for slave states. This congressional seat was the only one he held since he got less popular after and decided not to run a second term. This doesn’t necessarily stop him from entering the political field again. After he finished his term he heads back to Illinois and practices law, still surrounding himself with politics and such but not getting as involved. Lincoln’s experiences and beliefs through his career as a lawyer and involvement in the Illinois’ general assembly, Thirtieth Congress, and House of Reps. is going to give him platform when he enters the political ring as a republican.

After Lincoln leaves, a couple years later the Whig party died out because of the Kansas-Nebraska Act. This Act leads to the birth of the Republican party, which most definitely sparks Lincoln’s way back into running for political office. He then joins the Republican party in 1856. The year after Lincoln joined the Repubs. Came the Dred-Scott case happened. The Dred-Scott was a case over a slave who was in free territory and sued for his freedom, but lost the case and led to slaves as property everywhere (repealing Missouri Compromise and calling it unconstitutional). Lincoln’s opinion, was that although he did not think blacks were equal to whites he still believed every man had their own rights that should not be stripped away. But, in the end he really viewed slavery as a hinderance towards economic developememt and not that it’s morally wrong. After the Dred-Scott case in 1858, he decides to run for U.S. senate a second time (first time was in 1854), but he lost. Although when running for senate, it lead to important debates he had with another running candidate. Stephen Douglas, he was the opposite of Lincoln and was part of the Northern Democractic party. They both lived in Illinois and both ran for Senate. Lincoln ends up challenging Douglas to a debate, and people would think that Lincoln would get his butt kicked, but actually Lincoln makes good points and does gain popularity for himself. The important things that came out of these debates were the “Freeport question” and the “Freeport Doctrine”. These were brought up after the Dred-Scott, and since Douglas believed in popular sovereignty Lincoln decided to ask a “controversial question” also known as the Freeport Question during the debate. The question was that “if a territory does not want slavery, but the Supreme Court allowed slavery. Who will win?”. Douglas’s response was important, and it was called “The Freeport Doctrine”. His response was that if a territory has majority vote of no slavery the it will keep slavery out, and history has even backed up his response. If majority of the people do not approve they have power to overthrow, like the American Revolution. Although it seemed that Lincoln bringing it up was not significant, it actually was. This leads to the southern Democratic party to be pissed off at Douglas’s response. The southern Democratic party’s response later leads to why they lose to the Repubs. in the election of 1860. Even though he ends up losing the senate spot to Douglas, the debates still gave him popularity in the North. His beliefs and claims appealed to a lot of groups up north who didn’t like slavery for different reasons. Now after joining the republican party, and building his reputation. He can now use his popularity to be selected as a candidate for the Republicans in the election of 1860.

The election of 1860, where Abraham Lincoln runs for president and the time where the Civil War starts. Why? It was because the conflict over Douglas’s response caused separation between the party; also gave Lincoln somewhat most of the votes and he becomes 16th president. The South was furious with him and South Carolina became the first state to secede which will be in total 11 states that leave. During this period of time the “Crittenden Amendments” were proslavery compromises proposed to appease the South from seceding. When it was Lincoln’s turn to approve, he ends up turning it down. Even though he really focused on unity and bringing the South together, he did get elected to abolish slavery not encourage it. This strengthens the moral cause of slavery, encouraging the moral cause was also smart because it blocked European countries from defending the South. Although the South still seceded and formed the Confederate States of America, violence did not breakout. Until one of the last Union forts in the South was resupplied since Lincoln needed to supply the fort even though knowing that it could piss off the South. In the eyes of the South, they saw it as a declaration of war. Which led to the first shots to the civil war, well technically, they were bombs. April 12th, 1861, Fort Sumter, South Carolina is where the Confederates began to bomb the fort to kick the Union out. The South really did not want to fight but just wanted the Union to back off. Abraham however in response bulks up the military which makes the war go even deeper because it pisses the South off. During the war, Lincoln had gone through many officers, this choice of being picky also lengthened the war since all his officers did not find Lee and his men and stomped them down in the beginning. Another thing Lincoln did in office was that he used/gained more power since congress mainly contained Unionists and it wasn’t in session at the time. What he did was proclaim a blockade which only the legislative branch could do, he also then suspends Writ of Habeas Corpus. Allowing him to arrest anti-unionists who spoke against the Union, this obviously goes against the first amendment. All of these bends of powers Lincoln made was later dismissed by the Supreme court and Congress. In the beginning of the war, Lincoln told the Border States (Delaware, Kentucky, Maryland, West Virginia, and Missouri) that if they stayed in the Union he would allow them to keep their slaves. The decision of the Border States deciding to stay were very significant, especially Kentucky, Kentucky had good resources that benefited the Union. Also most of the southern population rested on the Border states. Three years later into the bloody civil war, Lincoln finally releases the Emancipation Proclamation after the battle of Antietam because this battle assured the Union’s victory even though many died in that battle. The Emancipation Proclamation did not apply to the border states but it did apply for the Seceded states, but the South did not listen. It was too late, the Proclamation already set forth the end of slavery. Lincoln’s release of the Emancipation Proclamation led to the thirteenth amendment. Finally after the fourth year, Robert E. Lee – guilt-filled and traumatized after Gettysburg – surrenders his army to Ulysses S. Grant and this gives Union the ultimate victory. Finally the war ended, then in 1864 Lincoln runs again as president and defeats a former general he booted off George McClellan. Lincoln through his first presidency up until now was very successful even though he had failed sometimes, he still had the persistence to get up back up and succeed. Unfortunately, Lincoln was assassinated on April 14th, 1865, at Ford’s theater. This was bad, at least for the south because the presidents after Lincoln were not going to go easy on the South. Lincoln, if he was alive, initially planned to slowly and surely bring back the South and heal the wounds from the war. Despite the fact that Lincoln passed away, it was still important because what if Lincoln didn’t die? Maybe things would’ve changed for the South and the Union. Regardless his whole political career has impacted the two groups in some form.

In summary, Lincoln has been very influential person even if it took him awhile to get to where he was. A lot of things have made him who he is, like his not so great upbringing after his mother died, but he gets treated well by his step mom. Who also encourages him to study. Learning how to read and write and being self taught, brings him into law. Although in the beginning he wasn’t very popular and failed at some times. He still gradually became more successful and came back strong into politics and ran for president. Being successful in not only that but also keeping a stronghold of abolishing slavery with the Emancipation Proclomation. Learning about Abraham Lincoln and how he impacted history is a lot, but I believe it’s important to know about the man who stood forward for freeing slaves and brought us a new step of equality.

The United States’ involvement, or lack thereof, in the Rwandan genocide of 1994 has been a topic of much public interest and research in the last two and a half decade since the genocide. The United States is faulted for not only having failed to act appropriately to prevent the genocide, but also having failed to intervene accordingly and having misrepresented what was transpiring in the media. As a result, there have been insignificant to no bilateral relations between the two countries ever since. While president Paul Kagame of Rwanda has never shown resentment towards the United States for this betrayal as he did with France by cutting diplomatic ties and removing French as the official language, a policy that addresses the issue and devises a way forward between the two countries would be beneficial to both parties. There should be a policy that creates a task force that monitors ethnic tension and conflict in the entire East African region, an area prone to violence and conflict. This policy would not only mend the relationship between the two countries but also be a safeguard against future violence.

In 1994, ethnic Tutsis and a considerable number of Hutus in the East African country of Rwanda were massacred over 100 days in what is considered “the fastest, most efficient killing spree of the twentieth century” (Wertheim 152). The killings began on April 6th, 1994 when President Juvenal Habyarimana’s private plane was shot out of the sky, killing him. No later than fourteen hours after his assassination, Prime Minister Agathe Uwilingiyimana and her husband were assassinated, marking the official start of the genocide. In the following hundred days, ethnic Tutsis in the capital of Kigali and surrounding regions were massacred, including men, women, and children. Hutus considered to be moderate and those who were affiliated with Tutsis were also killed. The massacres were orchestrated in an incredibly sophisticated way, with propaganda news and radio shows convincing ordinary Hutus that were otherwise not radicalized to kill their Tutsi neighbors by spreading vitriol, hate, and using divisive language, among numerous other plans and tactics. By the end of the genocide around mid-July, the country had rid itself of nearly all Tutsis, with the death toll surpassing 800,000.

At the beginning of the 1990s, the United States had a strong intervention policy, and was involved quite heavily in humanitarian efforts around the world. “The practice of wielding force primarily to stop slaughter dates to the nineteenth century if not earlier” (Wertheim 150). The prevailing belief was that the United States was not only capable, but willing to intervene on issues of genocide and ethnic conflict. Wertheim describes those who supported this policy as human interventionists. Their focus during the time period directly preceding that of the Rwandan Genocide was how genocidal regimes and regimes that promoted ethnic cleansing and devastating mass murders could be eliminated altogether. This made the United States’ lack of involvement in the Rwandan Genocide stand out. The evident lack of motivation and will to even discuss what options may be possible to stop the genocide was a stark contrast to their policy of interventionism and humanitarianism. “This is the outcome that needs explanation: not some deliberative decision against intervention, but the fact that intervention was scarcely contemplated.” (Wertheim 153). The main reason Wertheim cites for this is a lack of motivation. The United States had engaged in efforts similar to this before but was not yet prepared for a policy through which they would always be willing to help and intervene. This is also why while other governing bodies did intervene and act, President Clinton did not even have an official meeting with his Cabinet on the possibility of intervening (Wertheim 153). Furthermore, they avoided the topic altogether. It is no secret that the US avoided the term ‘genocide’ while these events were happening and did little in the way of acknowledging that there was a major issue in the region (Bushnell 159). Using the word ‘genocide’ would have put pressure on them from the media and surrounding countries to intervene, which they had no intention of doing.

The US media, specifically the New York Times, is faulted for having been complicit in the denial of these events as well. As the “Representation or Misrepresentation? The New York Times’ Framing of the 1994 Rwanda Genocide” article cites, the NYT was at the time and still is one of the most recognized and reputable newspapers. It arguably led the way in how the genocide was being framed and led the conversation about the events. It is why their participation in denying and ignoring the suffering of thousands of people had strong consequences. The major issue was that the NYT failed to properly convey to readers the background information that led to this, relying rather on common Western stereotypes of Africa as a guide. They minimalized why the killings were happening and in which fashion they were being organized, attributing the events to tribalism and tribal conflict. In doing so, they painted a picture of just another African country in turmoil like all the rest. The message conveyed was essentially this was indistinguishable from other conflicts and was thus not important enough to attempt to fix or resolve. Through this, they made their readers indifferent to the plight of the people in Rwanda that were being massacred. The word genocide did not even come up that often, being replaced for “tribal slaughter” “tribal warfare”, “mayhem”, and etc. (Chari 341). Another quote in which the article conveys that is “There were nearly no mentions of genocide in the covering of these events in US newspapers, and the New York Times specifically has been criticized for having distorted the events and presented them without proper context” (Chari 333).

In the following two and a half decades since the genocide, relations have mainly only been small business deals. Rwanda is arguably one of the most technologically advanced countries on the continent, and one of the easiest countries in the world to do business with. In the years since the genocide, president Kagame has moved the country forward with a surge of tourism that has increased investments, an increase in international business such as the Marriott and a Volkswagen plant, and etc. As it stands with Trump’s administration, however, business deals and trades between the two countries are limited. Per the Rwandan Embassy for the US, The US invests in a small list of Rwanda businesses, and exports few products. It imports even less products. Bush’s administration was a stark contrast to Clinton’s. He gave millions in aid to help Rwandan soldiers that were monitoring the conflicts of Darfur and stated that there should be some lesson learned from the events of 1994. Still, however, there were no concrete plans to help rebuild Rwanda or even amend for what happened. Same for Obama. Were there to be a policy that addresses and attempts to fix the wrongs committed by the US in the genocide, there could be an even stronger relationship.

While he and other foreign policy leaders of his administration may have expressed remorse, different policies should be considered that address what should happen and how to move forward will move the two countries forward. The first policy option is one that focuses on strengthening the United States’ academic research and knowledge of ethnic tension and ethnic conflict in East Africa. Between the Hutus and Tutsis alone, just two tribes out of thousands in East Africa, there have been dozens of killings and murders since the early 70s. An in-depth understanding of colonial rule’s impact on these tensions and how the State Department can address them would be beneficial in case there were to be another large-scale massacre. The potential issue with this is that research would not be enough to motivate people to act in these circumstances. An in-depth understanding of the issue will not necessarily lead to action. The New York Times led other major news sources in the irresponsible framing of the genocide and did the same thing Clinton’s administration did, which was covering up the issue and minimalize it. The second policy option would be one that demands responsibility from American media sources to abstain from racist and outdated tropes of the continent and conduct actual research into conflicts. The policy would prohibit articles that are written with insufficient research and those who trivialize issues, leading to indifference to the topic from viewers. While ideal, this policy pushes to restrict what media can and cannot do, which goes against the first amendment. It would need to be carefully crafted so as to still allow media sources to have freedom. The third option would be the creation of a special task force, perhaps one that works in tandem with other UN programs in the region, that monitors ethnic violence and tension in the region. These areas would include countries in East Africa that have suffered the worst of casualties due to tension, including Somalia, Ethiopia, Burundi, and Rwanda. This policy also has potential for issues. For one, there could be conflict if the East African Community decries it as paternalistic and refuses to cooperate. While the first and third policy options seem feasible, the second one pushes against freedom of the press, one of our first amendment rights. The best policy would be the task force. East Africa is an ethnic tension hot spot. In Burundi, Rwanda’s southern neighbor that also shares its language, Tutsis have been targeted for small-scale assaults and a few murders since 2015, when president Pierre Nkurunziza elected himself for an unconstitutional third term. This policy would closely monitor issues such as this to ensure that there is not a second Rwanda genocide, or a second Mogadishu. This will significantly improve the relationship between the two countries and address the wrongdoings.

In conclusion, the United States government and media failed to act with urgency and motivation in response to the Rwandan Genocide of 1994, a genocide that killed more than 800,000 people. Clinton’s administration has admitted to this error, and there is significant proof that the New York times wrote multiple articles between the start of the conflict that April to the end of that year that trivialized what transpired and made readers indifferent to these issues. One could argue that aid to the country was significantly affected because of those two things. A policy that addresses the wrongdoing in writing and creates a special taskforce that deals with ethnic tension in the region could impact the relationship between the two countries and mend wounds. Additionally, this taskforce would serve to prevent any repeated mass casualties such as this genocide.

Works Cited

1. Wertheim, Stephen. “A Solution from Hell: The United States and the rise of humanitarian interventionism, 1991-2003.” Journal of Genocide Research. Sep-Dec2010, Vol. 12 Issue 3/4, p149-172. http://web.a.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.uta.edu/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=11&sid=79ac188c-7ec9-4cd1-bb24-4692232cf489@sessionmgr4007.
2. Bushnell, Prudence. “Leadership and Policy-making: Lessons from the U.S. Government.” Brown Journal of World Affairs. Spring/Summer2019, Vol. 25 Issue 2, p159-167. https://eds-a-ebscohost-com.ezproxy.uta.edu/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=17&sid=71c5a684-f8a9-4206-809f-268b92a203ae@sessionmgr4008.
3. Chari, Tendai. ‘Representation or Misrepresentation? The New York Times’ Framing of the 1994 Rwanda Genocide.” African Identities. Nov2010, Vol. 8 Issue 4, p333-349. https://eds-b-ebscohost-com.ezproxy.uta.edu/ehost/detail/detail?vid=3&sid=7fd2a718-55ba-44e5-af66-e8bb29e5ee83@sessionmgr101&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ==#db=a9h&AN=55308366
4. “The Embassy.” The Embassy of the Republic of Rwanda- USA, https://rwandaembassy.org/the-embassy/bilateral-relations.

The word ‘genocide’ is used for describing violence against members of a national, ethnic, racial or religious group or those with contrasting political opinions with the intention of destroying the entire group. In the Rwandan genocide, members of an ethnic group known as the Tutsi were killed because of their ethnicity. Their killers were extreme members of a similar ethnic group known as the Hutu, other than the Tutsi, the Hutu killers also killed other Hutus with less extreme or different political views.

The Rwandan genocide started in April of 1994 and lasted 100 days (7 April-15 July) in which 800,000 people were killed. An average of 8,000 people were killed per day, making the Rwandan genocide one of the fastest genocides in history. Initially, almost all Rwandans were Hutus (85%) and there were about 1.1 million Tutsis (although the Tutsis ruled the country). However, after the genocide 10% of the population had been killed (800,000 out of 7.9 million, 300,000 of which were children), 2 million (25%) ran away to other countries, another 2 million escaped to other parts of Rwanda and 95,000 children were orphaned. In the end, only 300,000 Tutsis were left in the country meaning that almost three out of four Tutsis were killed during the genocide.

Tutsis and Hutus actually have no significant racial difference. Anthropologists say that they are ethnically indistinguishable. They both share the same language, religion, culture and inhabit the same areas. However, Tutsis are taller than Hutus, have higher cheekbones and longer necks. They are also often thinner and have lighter skin when compared to Hutus making them seem more ‘European’.

In 1916 the Belgian colonists arrived and made identity cards for the Rwandans splitting them up into two groups depending on their ethnicity – the Hutus and the Tutsis. The Tutsis were treated more favorably as they were seen as better, higher-ranking and more sophisticated than the Hutus. Thus, for the next 20 years they had access to more privileges like better jobs, more opportunities and finer educations than their fellow mates, the Hutus.

Long before the genocide began there were conflicts between the Hutus and the Tutsis. However, almost 25 years ago, on April 6 1994, the Presidents of Rwanda (both Hutus) were fatally shot while travelling in airplane. The killer remains unknown, but the RPF believes that the Hutu fanatics wanted to use this as an excuse to start killing the Tutsis. A half an hour later, the Hutu militias blocked all the roads and started killing every Tutsi they found. That is how the Rwandan genocide began.

The Rwandan genocide has resulted in a lot of damage. Including the state of biodiversity, deforestation, farming and agricultural activities, housing and the construction of new facilities, fuel and energy sources, and the spread of malaria. Research has shown that malaria has now become common in places like Cyangugu where it was previously relatively rare. Leaders reported that after the genocide, malaria has become a major issue with crucial outcomes. PRB confirmed that the rate of malaria has increased from 3.5% (1982) to 48% (2003) because of the poor environmental management and poverty. This has lead to diseases resistance, population density and population movements which help with the breeding of mosquitoes.

Over 20 years later, Rwanda is starting to rebuild itself in various fields including justice, youth, women’s rights, the economy, and the government. Fortunately, Paul Kagame came in just when Rwanda needed a quality leader. He saw a vision for Rwanda and persuaded the people to believe him alongside with his team of advisors. He told Rwandans that they could make it through if they had each other’s back through thick and thin. As the years passed by, things gradually got better. Although Rwanda hasn’t really been able to attain its goals yet, it has greatly improved given what had happened in the past.

ABSTRACT

This paper talks about the Rwandan Genocide. In April 1994 an event would take place scarring thousands of people around the world. I used this genocide to gain insight into what genocide is and why people choose to participate in them. Also, to talk about the severity of this event.

The first have of this paper will provide information on what genocide is. I will then go onto talk about when the genocide started and why it took place. Also, stating a few facts about what brought about the genocide. Next going more in-depth about what happened the first couple of days and what people already in Rwanda did. I also talk about a lady named Laura Lane who tried to evacuate as many people as she could and how a man named Carl Wilkins played a big part in the genocide.

Lastly, I talk about what happened after the genocide was over. What others in Rwanda are doing today to honor the victims that are found. Furthermore, talk about if the perpetrators are sentenced for their actions or left free. If Rwanda is still in shambles or working on rebuilding.

A Historical Tragedy

Throughout the past three decades, the world has experienced a multitude of genocides. The Rwandan genocide being one of the top 10 horrific ones. For the most part, it is was intentional act towards the Tutsi. “Genocide is understood by most to be the gravest crime against humanity it is possible to commit. It is the mass extermination of a whole group of people, an attempt to wipe them out of existence.” (BBC News, 2017)

The Rwandan genocide took place on April 7, 1994, and lasted a gruesome 3 months (July 1994). It was an act to slaughter the Tutsi. The Hutu and the Tutsis were enemies because the Hutu were put in charge in the early 60s. The Tutsis didn’t take a liking to that because they wanted to run Rwanda themselves. Eventually, they would have to come to an agreement and run Rwanda together. What started as coalition then took a dreadful turn on April 6, 1994, when an aircraft carrying Juvénal Habyarimana the president of the Hutu was stroke by a missile, it still unclear to this day who targeted the plane. However, the Hutu used this event as an excuse to eliminate their enemy. A Hutu informant then planned of attacking the Tutsi and all of their leaders. They would also go onto killing the Belgian soldiers. The next day “[a]round 3,000 Tutsis sought safety at the base of a Belgian contingent in Kigali. But after 10 commandos were killed by forces from Rwanda’s regular army, Belgium decided to pull its troops out. The Tutsis were left with no protection, and thousands were slaughtered on April 11 on a hillside called Nyanza.” (Daniel Pelz, 2009).

What happened next was something that can never be forgotten. “The Rwandan genocide witnessed the death of nearly 500,000 to 1,000,000 Rwandans, accounting for nearly 20% of the country’s population and 70% of the country’s Tutsi populace.” (Nag, 2018). Troops were sent in to save Caucasians and the Rwandans were told that they couldn’t be taken to safety. Sooner or later all the Americans and anyone else in the country began to evacuate. Laura Lane who was a counselor officer for the U.S. embassy in Kigali and a contact between the U.S. ambassador and the Rwandan government sought out to get as many people out of Rwanda before all the conveys left she said “I remember calling all the Americans and saying here’s your evacuation point – here’s where you need to go, and I remember making the call to Carl and he said, ‘Laura, there’s people here, they’re depending on me. I can’t go.” (Micheal Montgomery, 2004). Carl Wilkins one of the few Americans that stayed to help as many people as he could with the help by partner Romo Alex who volunteered to deliver food and water to people who rooming the streets. After most of the Americans left the Tutsi were left with little to no help. “On July 4th, 1994, Tutsi rebels seized Kigali. That’s when United States troops finally arrived.” (Micheal Montgomery, 2004).

After the genocide was over the United Nations persecuted people who were involved. The United Nations “[c]onducted more than 70 tribunal cases, Rwanda’s courts have tried up to 20,000 individuals, and the country’s Gacaca courts have handled some 1.2 million additional cases.)” (Board, 2014). Most of the Hutu extremist went into hiding to not be sentenced. Some still live among the victims today. Few perpetrators apologized to the victim’s family others went about their life with no remorse for what they had done. The thousands that stayed began to start their new life. “World Vision began working in Rwanda in 1994, providing life-giving emergency aid to displaced people and helping them to resettle. The organization cared for many children who had lost their parents.” (Reid, 2019). The RPF was determined to take control of Rwanda. No one wanted the United Nation to take over again due to the fact that when the genocide began there first action was to evacuate and not send anyone to help. Bodies are still being found and when they are found they are brought to a church that stores more than 40,000 victims killed during the genocide. They also keep the clothes and personal belongings found of the victims to honor them. To this day Rwanda is still trying to rebuild what was destroyed during the massacre.

In conclusion, the Rwandan genocide was one of the most horrific events to take place in history. It was also an act to deliberately get rid of anyone associated with the Tutsi. All because someone shoots down a plane with the Hutu president abroad. Not knowing who targeted the plane it was a chance for the Hutu to get rid of the enemy including millions of innocent children. Some believe that the genocide could have been avoided if the United Nations would’ve stood their ground and fought.

Reference Page

1. BBC News. (2017, March 17). How do you define genocide? BBC News, pp. 1-6.
2. Board, T. E. (2014, April 8). After Rwanda’s Genocide. The New York Times.
3. Daniel Pelz, D. C. (2009, July 4). Rwanda: Why the international community looked away. Worlds.
4. Micheal Montgomery, S. S. (2004). The Few Who Stayed. Minnesota: American Public Media.
5. Nag, O. S. (2018, May 5). The Worst Genocides In History. World Facts.
6. Reid, K. (2019, March 1). 1994 Rwanda genocide, aftermath: Facts, FAQs, and how to help. From the Field.

No logic, no reason, no explanation. Just a prolonged nightmare in which fear, loneliness and the unexplainable walk hand in hand through the shadows. In a moment we will start to gather clues as to the whys the whats the whens and the wheres. We will not end the nightmare we’ll only explain it because this is the Rwandan Genocide. The Rwandan Genocide was an ethnic cleansing in the Rwanda following the death of its Hutu president with deep political, social and historical meaning that shows just how far peoples can be pushed until they’ve reached other breaking point and simply lose it. The goal of this essay is to prove that the government of Rwanda claimed to have justified the attempted extermination of its ethnic Tutsi minority in 1994 by claiming that it was necessary in order to end the instability in Rwanda, by exterminating the Tutsis the government claimed that it was justified due to the Tutsis relations with their past colonial overlords and felt that their crimes were justified due to long standing ethnic differences that had been building up over the years.

The first body paragraph will explain how the Hutu peoples of Rwanda felt towards the idea that it was because of the Tutsi that most problems were happening in Rwanda. This connects to the thesis because it views how the Hutu peoples viewed the minority and how the majority led government (a Hutu government was in charge of Rwanda at the time) was able to justify their crimes against humanity by claiming that by getting rid of the Tutsi minority that all of the people’s problems would simply disappear with them. For starters, it was widely believed at the time that their economic problems and unemployment rate skyrocketing were due to the Tutsi minority of the Rwanda and not due to any other factor. At the time The Hutu majority still believed that even after losing most of their influence throughout the years leading to a majority led government, they were still convinced that the Tutsi minority had better access to education, land, as well as rights under the colonial rulers from the 19th to the 20th century due to racial bias and how the local hierarchy was set up at the time[footnoteRef:1]. The local hierarchy was set as the Tutsis were considered the upper classes and the rest were considered peasants. Furthermore to add to the belief that ridding Rwanda of the Tutsis would benefit the Hutus was the overall difference that the Tutsis had over the Hutus. The Tutsi and the Hutu, although sharing the same religion, language and culture for centuries, the colonial officials of Germany divided them into two groups: the “whiter” Tutsis and the “blacker” and therefore inferior Hutus[footnoteRef:2]. This division of groups not only allowed the colonials to have better control over the two main ethnic groups and in doing so, turned the groups against each other so that they could not unite under a single force and hence, the Tutsi minority was viewed as a great evil to the majority of the country due to their abusive power and control over the country. The last point that justified this clause was that of the way that the ruling class was set up. Before the 14th century, the Hutus were the leading class of the region until the arrival of the Tutsis and then the Hutus became the lower class whereas the Tutsi became the wealthy landowners. The Tutsi were already the leading class in Rwanda long before the Germans and Belgians came to take over the country, but the colonial authority only made it worse. Under colonial administration, the Hutus were heavily separated from the Tutsi elite and were left with very few options in terms of betterment of livelihood and education and so caused massive unemployment amongst the lower classes during the time of Rwanda’s foreign occupation. This minority led administration and way of life has caused many issues amongst the Hutu community of Rwanda since the most important jobs were given to the Tutsis or foreigners while leaving the Hutus out of the picture which angered them and due to the economic distress the country went through from 1962 to 1993 it was blamed on the Tutsis having control of the economy prior to them and so it must have been their fault. In conclusion, the Government of Rwanda justified their atrocities on their ethnic minority by claiming that it would rid them of not only their past privileges, their chosen status as representatives over the rest of Rwanda and their past positions that they held which they blamed for their troubles which occurred throughout the years. [1: ‘What You Need To Know About The Rwandan Genocide.’ Vox. N. p., 2014.] [2: NewsHour, PBS, and PBS NewsHour. ‘The Heart Of The Hutu-Tutsi Conflict.’ PBS NewsHour. N. p., 1999.]

The second body paragraph will talk of the colonial administrators who were in charge of managing the Rwanda at the time used the already established monarchy of the region in order to help bring order to their rule over the country. These relations between colonizers and Tutsis almost completely alienated the Hutus and left them out with very few opportunities to advance in society and were quite segregated by the colonials and the Tutsi hierarchy[footnoteRef:3]. This connects to the thesis because it explains one of the main reasons for why the Hutus hated the Tutsis and why the government resorted to crimes against humanity. During that time, most of Europe believed in a racial theory called the “Hamitic theory” which was the theory that the indigenous tribes of fairer skin must be superior to those of darker skin. The European settlers were quite biased when it came to determining who to choose as administrators in their stead in the Rwanda. They went to the Tutsi peoples because they were fairer of skin, taller and were already considered to be part of the wealthy and ruling class in the Rwanda. Under Belgian rule this was extended by taking measurements of body parts in order to determine who was a “Tutsi” or a “Hutu”. Second point to mention as to why the European occupants only worsened the tensions between the ethnic groups, the Belgians officially took over Rwanda after WW1 as part of the “treaty of Versailles”. In 1933, the Belgians held a consensus and decided to further divide the Hutus and Tutsis by classifying them and further using the Hutus for labour while expanding the privilege of the Tutsis and further degrading the Hutus and treating them like objects. Furthermore, the Belgians used a classic technique called “divide and conquer”. When the Belgian authorities took over they used Hutus as extra labour to be sent into mines or to various plantations throughout the Belgian territories. This only further angered the Hutus since the Tutsis were viewed as a ruling class and so were not subject to forced labour and were permitted to rule over the Hutus with colonial backing.[footnoteRef:4] In conclusion, the European treatment towards the ethnic groups in Rwanda were used as a justification to attempt and eliminate the Tutsis due to colonial favouritism, their classification of ethnic groups in the region and specifically the division of groups, favouring one to rule and one to plow. [3: Hutu, Tutsi, and the Germans: Racial Cognition in Rwanda under German Colonial Rule, Anton Sholz 2015] [4: Hutu/Tutsi Relations Before The Genocide In Rwanda | Imaging Genocide.’ Genocide.leadr.msu.edu. N. p., 2018. ]

The final paragraph will talk about the ethnic differences that were mainly kept in check prior to 1994 by either colonial forces, tribal groups or strong dictatorships. These ethnic tensions go more over than territorial disputes, it goes even further beyond to the point of religion, past ruling classes and even the time at which the ethnic groups settled the land. To begin with, Huts and Tutsis do share a religion and it is christianity, although that religion is only shared by 60% of the populaces. 39% are known to still practice traditional religions and 1% practice Islam. [footnoteRef:5] This can be seen as a long standing issue since the population is fairly divided amongst themselves and so extremist groups would tend to rise up and tend to enact their own version of justice which is an issue which would heavily divide the two groups. Religion isn’t the only thing that separated the two groups in Rwanda. The past was still a fresh feeling to the heart of the Hutus and Tutsis alike in the terms that a lot of Hutus still resent the Tutsis for proclaiming themselves superior to the Hutus and Twas but for also proclaiming themselves the monarchs of the Hutus. [footnoteRef:6] This caused issues amongst the Hutu majority government and population due to extremist propaganda that was meant to harbour hatred towards the Tutsi peoples in Rwanda in order to solidify not only their rule but their alleged “birthright” which was the Rwanda. The long standing argument of which group first dominated the region of Rwanda is still being debated although from historical evidence it is largely believed that the Hutus were first to settle the region and around the 14th century AD, the Tutsis arrived and quickly came to subdue the Hutus and then became the “wealthy class” whereas the Hutus became part of the “lower class”. [footnoteRef:7] This can still cause some issue amongst the groups since some Hutu nationalists were still angry over the fact that the minority Tutsis took over the region and so would not accept that fact. Taking into consideration that the government of 1994 was a Hutu led government and so the fact that the Tutsis once ruled them and couldn’t accept any types of claim to their power. [5: .independent.co.uk/news/world/history-of-ethnic-tension-between-hutus-and-tutsis-in-one-of-worlds-poorest-countries-1] [6: Rwanda: The Origins Of Social Class.’ Teaching.quotidiana.org. N. p., 2018. ] [7: ‘History Of Hutu – Tutsi Relations.’ The Rwandan Genocide. N. p., 2012.]

In conclusion, the Rwandan Government justified their crimes against humanity and their own people in 1994 by claiming that it was not only to settle long standing ethnic differences, the overall colonial segregation of the two major ethnic groups in the region, forever separating them and never to be the same and to the Hutu extremist government that blamed the Tutsi minority for all of their problems and believed that if the Tutsis were to simply vanish than so would their problems. No logic, no reason, no explanation. Just a prolonged nightmare in which fear, loneliness and the unexplainable walk hand in hand through the shadows. We have gathered the necessary clues as to the whys the whats the whens and the wheres. We did not end the nightmare we only explained it because this is the Rwandan Government’s justification for their crimes against humanity.

Annotated Bibliography

1. Arnot, Chris ‘What caused the genocide in Rwanda?.’ the Guardian. 30 Nov. 2010.
2. Encyclopedia Britannica. ‘Rwanda genocide of 1994.’ Encyclopedia Britannica. n.d.
3. Writepass. ‘Examine the causes of the Rwandan genocide. – The WritePass Journal.’ The WritePass Journal. 7 Mar. 2015. Web.
4. Outreach Programme on the Rwanda Genocide and the United Nations.’ Un.org. n.d.
5. What You Need To Know About The Rwandan Genocide.’ Vox. N. p., 2014.
6. NewsHour, PBS, and PBS NewsHour. ‘The Heart Of The Hutu-Tutsi Conflict.’ PBS NewsHour. N. p., 1999.
7. Hutu, Tutsi, and the Germans: Racial Cognition in Rwanda under German Colonial Rule, Anton Sholz 2015
8. Hutu/Tutsi Relations Before The Genocide In Rwanda | Imaging Genocide.’ Genocide.leadr.msu.edu. N. p., 2018.
9. .independent.co.uk/news/world/history-of-ethnic-tension-between-hutus-and-tutsis-in-one-of-worlds-poorest-countries-1
10. Source 10: Rwanda: The Origins Of Social Class.’ Teaching.quotidiana.org. N. p., 2018.
11. ‘History Of Hutu – Tutsi Relations.’ The Rwandan Genocide. N. p., 2012.

The Rwandan genocide began in the 2nd week of April 1994 and by the 3rd week of May 1994, about 5-10 percent of Rwanda’s population had been killed, mostly by the Hutus. Beneath all the propaganda and clichés lies reality- the patholigization of ethnic identities. An unbiased study and understanding of why these people died is the only fitting memorial that can be given to them.

The study of identity has become and is a cornerstone of contemporary sociological and political discourses. Authors such as Cooley and Mead introduced identity studies, and these have since expanded into a broad study of the relationship between identity construction and violence. The recent genocides in Rwanda, Burundi, Kosovo, Bosnia and Darfur have reawakened scholarly interest in the subject. However, this in no way suggests that the area of identity conflicts has been an understudied subject in sociology and political science. It is a fact that majority of the conflicts in the world today have spurned because of ethnic differences.

History shows us that even in the 6th century BC, there were ethnic conflicts in the Balkans. In fact, I posit through my own personal observations (which I must confess are not necessarily accurate per se) that religion and ethnicity have been two of the main causes of wars from pre-historic till modern times.

The notion that identities are socially constructed is indisputable in social psychology and political science studies. It is the most basic criteria for studying ethnic politics. But the mere observation that ethnic identities are socially constructed does not by itself explain ethnic violence, (Fearon & Laitin, 2000). The purpose of this paper is not to reiterate this widely accepted notion. My focus is to understand the relationship between socially constructed identities and ethnic violence. In other words, how does the social construction of identities lead to ethnic violence?

Identities are marked by ethnicity, gender, class and race. The central idea is the concept of ‘difference’. This notion of difference categorizes into ‘us’ and ‘them’. The notion that we as a group share similar characteristics and the ‘others’ are different from our group, is the dominant idea. Simon (2011) examines the social construction of the self and the particular ways in which we convince others that we are who we appear to be. Generally, the notion of identity is shaped in relation to some other group. In fact, Goffman (1968) gives us a sense of how identities are constructed by others and also the “patholigization” of certain identities by society.

Tajfel and Turner (1981) posit 3 stages of identity formation; social categorization, self identification and social comparison. They argue that in extreme cases, differences or prejudices may lead to racism and other forms of intolerance such as xenophobia. In this light, one might argue that these xenophobic or racist feelings may easily lead to aggression and violence. Nevertheless, this might not necessarily be true, and even if true, this assertion will need to be proven. In this paper, I intend to use the Rwandan genocide between the Hutus and Tutsis as a case study in understanding how socially constructed identities led to ethnic wars that deteriorated into genocide. The researcher has developed a hypothesis: Identities are constructed by the elites in order to serve their political and economic interests, and at any given point in time may incite violence to achieve these interests.

PROBLEM STATEMENT

The notion of the social construction of identity is a vastly researched topic in political science and social psychology. Many constructivists argue that identities are socially constructed, and there is no debating this fact. The focus of this work is to understand how identity contributed to the Rwandan genocide. In order to achieve this, I pose the following questions:

• How were identities constructed in Rwanda?
• Why were these identities constructed or better still, what was the rationale behind the construction of these identities?
• How did these constructed identities lead to ethnic war and genocide?

By answering these questions, I believe I would be able to understand how the construction of identity led to the Rwandan genocide.

CONCEPTS AND DEFINITIONS

IDENTITY CONSTRUCTION: Identity is one’s conception of oneself and group affiliations as compared to others. “Constructing identity literally involves life experiences, relationships and connections, a solid mental or emotional stamp on a human” (Dowling, 2011). These constructed emotions and thoughts create a conceptual visual representation.

GENOCIDE: (Palmer, 1998), defines genocide as “a form of one-sided killings in which the state or other authority intends to destroy a group, as that group and membership in it are identified by the perpetrator”. An important aspect attached to the definition of genocide is the fact that it should be planned and systematic (Hitjens, 1999). The term was coined by a Jewish-Polish lawyer Raphael Lemkin in describing the murder and destruction of European Jews by NAZIs. He combined geno (Greek word for tribe or race) and cide (Latin word for killing). He also emphasized on the aspect of coordination with the aim of extermination.

LITERATURE REVIEW

Many scholars have researched on the notion of identity construction (Wendt; Spencer; Wolf; Simon B; Leowey M; Brass; Prunier; Goffman) just to name a few. This research work accepts the notion of identity construction and would discuss some of the contributions of these authors and others to the literature of identity construction and violence.

“…ethnic identities are often not so much acquisitions inherited at birth but ascriptions engendered by the need to anchor artificial states in collective identities” (Taras &Ganguly, 2007). This book argues that the colonial legacy of the Germans and Belgians played a large role in the construction of identities between the Hutus and Tutsis. John Bowen even posits that the differences between the Hutus and Tutsis were almost inexistent in pre-colonial eras, but that the little differences that existed were politicized by the colonial administrations to serve their interests.

Taras & Ganguly postulate that “the prerequisite for fomenting ethnic schism and therefore divide and rule tactics was cultivating ethnic markers between groups”. This explains why the colonial powers developed a strategy of constructing differential identities between the Hutus and Tutsis during the colonial period. (Comas-Diaz et al, 1998) argue that ethnic conflicts are fundamentally related to ethnic identities. This work goes further to assert that there is the existence of a straightforward social psychology of liberation to native social psychologies.

(Fearon & Laitin, 2002) explain the meaning of the statement: ‘identities are socially constructed’. They respond to this by positing a definition which stipulates that the content of social categories, the valuation and membership rules are products of human speech and action, and as such can change over time. Thus, identities can be constructed and do change over time.

(Brass, 1991) in his book “Ethnicity and Nationalism: Theory and Comparison” argues that ethnicity and nationalism are not ‘givens’ but are a consequence of political and social constructions. He goes further to outline the roles that the elite play in the construction of these identities. Although his focus is on the origins of ethnic identity and modern nationalism, it is nonetheless important to this work because it provides a unique perspective into the modernist approach to the construction of ethnicity.

(Kapferer 1988 & Prunier 1995), argue that ethnic groups are conditioned by ethnic discourses that make them susceptible to violence against others. This meaning that ethnic discourses, may shape the minds of their followers to commit violence against persons whom they consider are not alike. Moreover, Fearon & Laitin postulate that differences between extremists and moderate elites of an in-group, sometimes pushes the extremists to provoke violence against an out-group in order to increase their hold on power.

(Nagel, 1994) stipulates that the construction of ethnic identity is as a result of agency and structure. Whilst comparing the NAZI holocaust to the Rwandan genocide, Hintjens argues that the similarities between the two lies in the military and ideological preparations before the genocides, and also in the use of myths and conspiracy theories to justify slaughters (Hintjens, 1999). She proposes that the genocide in Rwanda was as a consequence of the colonial construction and radicalization of identities, the fight for political power within the Rwandan state, and the susceptibility of the Rwandan population to following commands.

I must admit that after reading Hintjens’ work, my understanding of the Rwandan conflict widened. However, her insistence on the fact that the Rwandan state and not necessarily the construction of identities by colonial powers (although she admits it played a role) was responsible for the genocide, is at loggerheads with my own thinking. The researcher imposes the majority of the blame on the colonial powers for radicalizing identities. I however, also admit that the Rwandan state also played a role in creating conditions that led to genocide.

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

I employ constructivism as my theoretical framework. Constructivists assert that reality is constructed and that things such as identity are not givens. A person’s sense of who she/he is is dependent on their group memberships. However, because constructivism is such a wide field, I have narrowed my theoretical framework to two sub-branches of constructivist theory: social identification theory by Tajfel and the concept of symbolic interactionism by George Herbert Mead.

SOCIAL IDENTITY THEORY

This theory is based on the extent to which persons identify themselves to groups. This theory posited by Tajfel proposes that a person’s sense of who he/she is is dependent on their group memberships. “Social identities provide status and economic self-esteem” (Deaux, 1993). Hence, we would always want to increase our self image and enhance our group’s status to the detriment of others. Social identities make persons to highly evaluate themselves and there by discriminate against other persons whom they perceive as threats to their social identities.

(Fordham & Ogbu, 1986) explore the psychological consequence of social identification and even argue that persons will always act in accordance with the attributes of their social identifications. For instance, it was observed by (Arroya & Zigler, 1995) that African-American students prefer lower grades in order to maintain solidarity with their social groups and culture. Those African-Americans who excel academically become ‘raceless’ and develop interpersonal conflict and ambivalence.

The social identity theory states that groups give us a sense of belonging; belonging to the social world. This leads to conformity with the norms of the group and social categorization (them against us). Hence, the in-group will discriminate against the out-group in a bid to booster its self image and status. Tajfel posits that there are three processes involved in the social identity theory: social categorization, social identification and social comparison. In the first stage, we categorize ourselves as a group; Muslim, Christian, African, Caucasian. In the second stage we identify ourselves as members of our group and therefore act as such. In the third stage, we compare and contrast our group with other groups; Christian v Muslim, African v Caucasian. These prejudiced opinions may lead to extreme forms such as racism and xenophobia which may in turn lead to violence as was the case in Rwanda and Burundi.

SYMBOLIC INTERACTIONISM

The second theory employed in this research work is the concept of symbolic interactionism by George Mead. This perspective holds that society is socially constructed through human interpretations. It argues that people have subjective meanings of objects, events and themselves as opposed to objective believes. Language plays a central part in this process. Hence, through this process of interactionism identities are constructed through mutual definitions of situations. “Identities are thus strategic social constructions created through interaction with social and material consequences” (Howard, 2000).

Thus, I will use the social identity theory and the concept of symbolic interactionism as my theoretical frameworks in explaining the construction of identities in Rwanda. However, the fact that these identities were constructed does not proof that there is a relationship between the construction of identity and ethnic violence as was the case in Rwanda.

METHODOLOGY

The relationship between identity construction and ethnic violence is a widely researched topic in social psychology and political science. My work aims to contribute to the already existing literature. For the purposes of this study, I would lay emphasis on quantitative and qualitative methods of collecting data. This would involve observations and criticisms of already existing literature. This research would also focus on secondary sources of information like journals, books, articles, dissertations and media. A main focus of this research will be the analysis of existing information on the causes and course of the Rwandan genocide.

DISCUSSIONS

Any study of the Rwandan genocide of 1994 must take into account psychological factors, domestic pressures, social conformism of the Rwandan citizenry and manipulation by external actors. This section, will analyze the different actors involved in the construction and patholigization of the ethnic differences between the Hutus and Tutsis; – pre-colonial, colonial, post-colonial, Rwandan state, conformism by Rwandans and economic pressures all played roles in this process.

External factors

Under colonial rule by Germany then Belgium, the army, church, administration and school were organized around the Tutsis. The colonial powers considered them superior to the Tutsis. German evangelists and historians exaggerated the differences between the Tutsis and Hutus. Some accounts said that the Tutsis had migrated from Ethiopia and were descendants of Noah. They also exaggerated the height differences between the two groups, there by implanting racial superiority and resentment between the two.

Western religious and racial value systems were imposed on the Rwandan society and gave credence to the notion of immutable racial differences in the make-up and abilities of both groups. (Van de Meeren, 1996) claims that when the Belgians decided to implement identity cards in Rwanda, this created problems as it was practically impossible to differentiate between Hutus and Tutsis. Hence, any man having 10 cattle was declared Tutsi, and any below 10 was declared Hutu.

Also, in schools and administration, height quotas were implemented. The taller persons were regarded as Tutsis and given preferential treatment. This racialization of ethnicities caused a lot of social tensions and even led to a revolution by the Hutus against their Tutsi overlords in 1959. The Hutu growing elite was particularly resentful of the overt racial discriminations superimposed by the colonial powers. This resentment and hatred for Tutsi over lordship and exploitation continued till the pre-genocide months when the Hutu elite manipulated this resentment into violent killings of Tutsis. By the end of Belgian rule, Hutu-Tutsi divisions had been established as inherited and immutable and their relationships had become tensed and overtly coercive than before colonial rule.

Also, in the years that preceded the genocide, the French well aware of these constructed social cleavages exploited it to their benefit. They continuously armed and covertly supported the repressive Habyarimana regime in its marginalization and social and political ostracization of the Tutsis. As (Bayart, 1994) puts it, “the Belgian desire for administrative and ideological simplicity was to have lasting consequences…ethnic markers on all identity cards made it possible to identify Tutsis and implement quotas and ultimately to implement selective killings.” Before colonial rule, a man could be Hutu to his clients and Tutsi to his patrons. This was how interwoven the Hutus and Tutsis were. But colonial rule changed all of this.

Domestic Pressures and Rwandan State

(Rene Lemarchand, 1996) suggests that the interplay between ethnic realities and subjective reconstruction (manipulation) by political entrepreneurs lies at the heart of the Hutu-Tutsi conflict. Politicizing and inflating ethnic differences served as a convenient guise by President Juvenal Habyarimana to cover the real struggle which was over fundamental aspects of power and resources. In a bid to cling to power and control over domestic resources, the Rwandan state deflected attention and pathologized the differences between the Hutus and Tutsis. (Foucault, 1997) analysis of the relationship between power and knowledge gives us an understanding into how identities are socially constructed by the elite in order to serve their political and economic interests. The desire by the regime to remain in power led to the creation of ‘a state within a state’ with the formation of para-military youth organizations that worked in tandem with the armed forces and other state institutions at all levels.

Racist ideologies served as justifications for the more rudimentary goals of regime survival under harsh social and economic conditions existing at the time, coupled with political opposition. The Rwandan state used racial politics as a means of gaining support- ‘us’ against ‘them’. This definition of national identities based on ethnic lines served as the bases for the future conflict and genocide that ensued. The Hutu government imposed strict quotas in secondary high schools and public employment on the Tutsis. They were marginalized and many Hutus were taught to believe that they were superior to the Tutsis. (Uvin, 1997) argues that by 1994 in Rwanda, this elite brainwashing was so severe that the murder of a Tutsis was common and acceptable.

The Hutus blamed the Tutsis for the death of Habyarimana in a plane crash in April 1994. Amidst all the tension, the Hutu elite covertly and systematically planned to cleanse Rwanda of the Tutsis. However, it was so skillfully orchestrated such that the Tutsis were given a false sense of security prior to the genocide. When the killings began, the media was used to spread propaganda and Hutus were forced to kill Tutsis, those who refuse were in turn killed.

However, one cannot also ignore the susceptible and conformist nature of the Rwandan people. Internal family and state socialization had been so effective such that many Hutus carried out the violence without hesitation. (Lemarchand, 1970) even argues that most Rwandans before the genocide showed a remarkable obedience to their authorities. Obedience had been internalized to the extent that terror was rarely used as a means of ensuring obedience.

The role of economic and social pressures cannot be ignored as well. The imposition of the Structural Adjustment Programs (SAP) had hit many African countries hard and Rwanda was no exception. These economic pressures coupled with over population contributed in creating social tensions and the necessary conditions for violence and conflict. One therefore bears in mind as stated by (Mamdani, 1996)that no matter how externally influenced or constructed the identities of Rwandans were, it must be acknowledged that the Rwandan state and its people also played a role in constructing ‘sp-called’ identities and racialization that eventually led to genocide.

CONCLUSION

Persons implicitly believe mistakenly that social categories are inevitable, unchanging and natural. However, (Ernest Gellner, 1993) argues that the ideas of ethnicity and nationality became attractive in the modern era because of economic and social changes. In fact, according to him, the effects of macro historical forces on politics and psychology gave birth to modern national identities. Fewon posits that it is the internal logic of discourses that drives the construction of identities rather than genes.

Nevertheless, as earlier stated, the recognition that identities were constructed is not sufficient reason for the escalation of violence. Why then did it become violent in Rwanda?

Based on research findings from previous literature and the discussions above, the researcher concludes thus;

The researcher takes into account the findings that pre-historic Rwanda had the Tutsis as overlords, and these overlords mostly took Hutu women as their concubines. This created a sense of hatred and jealousy in the Hutu camp. Even after independence and prior to the genocide, this proprietoral use of Hutu women by Tutsis had not yet been forgiven. This provided the elite with the opportunity to manipulate this hatred and resentment in the build up to the massacres.

One also takes into account the polarization and racialization of ethnicity by the German and Belgian colonizers in favor of the Tutsis. This created hate amongst the Hutus as the Tutsis were given preferential treatment. Again, economic and social pressures and the susceptibility of the Rwandans to their authorities also contributed in creating conditions that led to violence.

The final stroke that broke the Carmel’s back was the fact that the Rwandan state (elite) inherited racialization techniques of the colonizers and the notion of 2 exclusive ethnies; Hutus and Tutsis, through the exploitation of all available avenues of Hutu resentment toward the Tutsis. This patholigization of ethnicity by the Hutu elite led to violence which in turn became genocidal. All of these circumstances; social construction, patholigization and domestic pressure created conditions that led to genocide.

Generally, at the end of such works, recommendations are given, and under normal circumstances I would discuss on the decategorization of socially constructed identities. However, this is absent in this work because the researcher at this stage, lacks the expertise in this field. So, I would leave that for a later work.

The definition of culture is as follows. The customs, arts, social institutions, and achievements of a particular nation, people, or other social group. Every place has its own culture. For instance, some of the customs, and values that we hold true in America today, are vastly different than they were in 1865. However we do see examples of cultures that are very similar. For instance, America and Canada are very close together geographically, and the traditions and ways of living, are very similar. We also see examples of this in South America, where two countries that are very close together geographically may share a lot of the same cultural values. However, this was not the case in the Civil War. The North and the South were truly completely separate in not only their culture, but separate in their morals as well. We know that in the Killer Angels we are given the opportunity to see both sides of the spectrum, and with that opportunity comes a way to compare and contrast the cultures of the Confederate States of America, and the United States of America. The Civil War was much more than just a war of battle, death, and hardship. The Civil War was a battle of wills, a battle of beliefs, and overall a clash of two cultures that would ultimately lead to the death of 620,000 men. This essay is going to be dedicated to the examples of culture, and the cultural contrasts that we are able to find throughout the book.

Multiple times throughout the book the phrase of an “englishlike” is used to describe the overall nature of the South. A lot of this has to do with a sort of class structure, that of which is mainly referred to as aristocratic. This is something that is easily comparable to the nature of the English, and we see examples of this throughout the book. Such as when Freemantle, an outsider, as well as an Englishman himself, sees the uncanny resemblance of the customs in the South and in his country of origin. The reason I took this as an example of Southern culture and especially how it is resembled in this particular situation, is because if anybody would know what an Englishlike culture would be, it would most likely be an Englishman. To see an Englishman himself compare the culture, traditions, and customs of a place he’s foreign to, to the place he comes from, shows a lot about the similarity between the two culturally. The North is less accepting and comfortable with these Englishlike customs, and instead attempt to stray away from it in a way. As a matter of fact, a lot of the North consists of mostly immigrants, especially those that are seemingly trying to remove themselves from the class structure system in their country. These immigrants take up a decent chunk of the Union army, and a decent chunk of the North in general, Seemingly, we can already see examples of cultural clashes in the Civil War, that are being portrayed throughout The Killer Angels.

Speaking of the class structure, and aristocratic nature of the Southern culture. Some of the dialogue and passages from the novel, show that some of the Southerners really took a lot of pride in the respect that was given to them by the people surrounding them, you may even call that, honor. However, would it be this very “pride” and “honor” that seemed to have plagued the culture of the South, that would end up ultimately losing the Confederates this battle. We know that Lee himself had many opportunities to turn this battle around for the better of the Confederate army. No matter how right Longstreet was about taking a defensive approach to the battle, General Lee seemed to be completely unmoved by the matter, this is because he believes that no man of honor turns his back to his enemy. To be proud of your accomplishments is never a bad thing; after all, they’re called accomplishments for a reason, they deserve to be respected and you deserve to be content with your accomplishments. However, to be prideful, or to be so filled with this idea that your accomplishments make you who you are, or that you as a person are nothing without your accomplishments, is the very reason that the South would ultimately fall in this war, mainly because pride is not logic. And even more importantly, honor will not win you the battle. Within the book we get dialogue of Fremantle and Longstreet. Longstreet recapitulates that, “So now Garnett will have to die bravely to erase the stain.” he is referring to the loss of Garnetts honor, and claiming that in order for his honor to be restored, he will have to die bravely. This just emphasizes the point that Southern culture was still stuck in the mud on Old World ideas, traditions, and values.

After discussing a bit on the culture of the South, and the Old World and somewhat Englishlike nature of the land just below the Mason and Dixon line, one should talk a bit about the beliefs, customs, and values of the North. Colonel Josh Chamberlain of the Union Army, seems to believe that the war is more of a struggle for what the future of America really was. The North seem to be at ease with the New World traditions and values, however the South still seems to be accustomed to these Old World, aristocratic ways. Afterall it was that very aristocratic belief, and wanting to make a new name for yourself that brought these people to the New World in the first place. Chamberlain believes that America is a place that, “a man could stand up free of his past.” something that probably wouldn’t stand too well in the South, afterall we just heard that a man would ultimately have to give his life in a brave manner in order to remove the stain off of his legacy. That is two vastly different extremes, one being that a man was not defined on his previous actions, and one being that a man would have to lose his life to restore his notability. This only goes to show that the North and South were two vastly different places, however with the idea of contrasting the two, also comes the idea of comparing the two. Throughout The Killer Angels we get an idea of how horrible the war can be, even for somebody who is experienced in battle. Afterall the war was one of the most deadly wars that the United States, or even that the world had ever seen. We get this dialogue on page 118, “… lay there all night in the dark, in the cold among the wounded and dying. Piledup bodies in front of you to catch bullets, using the dead for a shield; remember the sound? Of bullets in dead bodies? Like a shot into a rotten leg, a wet thick leg. All a man is: wet leg of blood. Remember the flap of a torn curtain in a blasted window, fragment-whispering in that awful breeze: never, forever, never, forever.” in my opinion this shows that all the men, North and South, were thrown into a terrible, and easily preventable battle, that would take the lives of one too many of our own citizens. Before the war, Leeroy Pope Walker stated that all the blood spilt could be wiped up with a single handkerchief. We now know that this was one of the most traumatic and awful wars that the United States ever experienced, and not only was it on our own soil, but it was on our own people. With this the comparisons of the cultural and moral values of the North and South are concluded.

Throughout the research throughout the book, one can realize that this truly was a cultural divide just as much as it was a geographical divide. Going into reading this book with no prior knowledge of the Civil War whatsoever, one came out of it to be a good grasp on retained information, and throughout reading, and searching for examples of the cultural divide throughout the reading, helped the overall understanding of the Civil War exponentially. It is certain now, that no matter how close two places are geographically, even if they’re in the same country, city, or even street, everybody has a different culture. We see these examples of cultural differences in The Killer Angels on multiple occasions, but it’s not until you look deeper that you will truly be able to compare and contrast the war culturally, and be able to tell that this battle was more than just a war of arms, death, and horror; it was also the clash of two cultures, that would ultimately decide the future fate of the American values.

The Civil War was during a time period that saw many new methods and inventions being used for the first time. The inventions were used to help quickly advance the war being over which caused more complex injuries. Therefore, medical practices had to evolve to treat these injuries and the diseases caused by poor medical practices. Most of the inventions used were in the weaponry category, however, some of the others included the railroads and the telegraph. Medical advances could include hospitals, the U.S. Sanitation Commission, and the use of chemical anesthetics for amputations. The most devastating part of the war was the weaponry.

Weaponry saw many advancements. The minié ball was developed. This is a bullet-like projectile fired out of a rifle. It is better than the previous ammunition for the rifle because the ball not only made reloading a bit easier but also the minié ball improved range and accuracy. This was a devastating development because of the damage it could cause. “The soft lead caused it to smash or splinter bones. It would cut through internal organs without exiting the body.” It could even “cut down riders and their mounts.” The next development in weaponry was the breechloader. This type of gun allowed the person to be prone on the ground while they loaded the gun thus making them a smaller target. This was an improvement from having to stand up straight while one shoved ammunition down the barrel of the gun. This gun also used “tighter-fitting bullets” which helped increase accuracy and range. Breechloaders load ammunition at the breech of the gun. The location of the loading site also allowed for a quicker loading time. This allowed for more shots to be fired when compared to the fire rate of muzzleloaders. Next came the invention of machine guns. These were guns that could fire off a high number of shots and in a short amount of time. The two most commonly known are the “Coffee Mill Gun” and the “Gatlin Gun.” “The Gatlin Gun could fire 150-200 shots per minute.” Musket Shells were also used during the civil war. They were usually intended to blow up artillery cartridges; however, sometimes people would be caught in the crossfire. Essentially, these Musket Shells were bombs. They were “rifle cartridges designed to explode once it contacted with a target.” Someone in the Union improved the design to allow for a time delay thus making a time bomb. This improvement on these musket shells allowed them to be used from afar. If a musket shell were to be detonated near a person, the injuries could include “flesh being ripped apart, mangling or tearing the victim to pieces.” Landmines were briefly used in the Civil War particularly by the South. Their use was frowned upon as barbaric. All these weapons were used to try to bring the war to an end. Most of the weapons didn’t instantly kill the victim. In fact, most of the weapons just caused severe bodily harm. If the initial shot didn’t kill them then the soldiers were more than likely to die from the complications of their wounds.

Other inventions included the Telegraph and Railroads. The telegraph system allowed commanding officers to give the command to distant troops. It made communication easier and for battle plans to be given out over long distances. It also allowed for the reporting of advances and retreats up until the last minute. It did not come without its risks though. Civilians were often the people to translate the messages and if they died their families would not get a pension. Railroads were also heavily used. “Railroads were the arteries of the war.” They “transported goods such as ammunition, artillery, horses, mules, cattle, wagons, tents, blankets, food, water, etc.” Most of the battles in the war were over control of railroads. Railroads allowed supplies to be transported over long distances. It was imperative to have control over these systems because you can blockade a region and wait for them to run out of supplies. If they run out of supplies, they will have to surrender. This blockading tactic was devastating. It would stop them from receiving food, medicine, and other goods essential to survival. Weapons were also transported on the railways. It was very beneficial to stop the transporting of goods to a region because without weapons there is no war. The “garrison at Chattanooga” would have been lost if reinforcements were not sent by train.

The other major development that happened in the war was the advancement of medical practices. Letterman made a bunch of advances in how medical practices could be improved. One advancement was in the requirements of physicians. He required all physicians “to carry a standardized medical kit.” This kit included the material needed to treat wounds like bandages. The next advancement was the system of medical evacuations. He made it where the wounded soldiers would have a slightly better trip by organizing a chain of command for the makeshift ambulances. The U.S Sanitation Commission was the next major development. It was made up and run by civilians. Their purpose was “prevention of diseases.” They went from camp to camp and “noted” the different conditions of various things like water and rations. If they saw something was not up to standard then, they would give advice on what needed to be done to bring them back up to code. Hospitals were also advanced during the war. Before the war, there were not a lot of hospitals in general. The severe number of injuries caused many different places to be “converted into makeshift hospitals.” When new hospitals were constructed, they were done in the “pavilion style.” This style spread the patients out therefore they were no longer on top of each other. The hospitals were also constructed with good ventilation in mind. These two allowances helped stop the spread of disease.

The physicians of the Civil War did not have a lot of medical knowledge. This caused the “trade-mark” medical practice on the battlefield to be amputated. Amputations were the most common option because of the severity of injuries and the complications that followed suit. The type of bullets used in the civil war shattered bones on impact, and typically the bullets did not leave the body. The complications from the injuries arose in the form of disease and infection. “Gangrene, septicemia, or osteomyelitis” were the most common infections that happened after a soldier was shot. During this time period, there was no other effective treatment besides amputations. Another reason amputation was widely used was because “surgery knowledge was rudimentary.” The “only surgical procedure that could be done successfully was amputation.” This practice of amputation comes with the question of what type of pain reducer does surgery comes with. Before anesthesia, the patients didn’t have anything to numb the pain except alcohol. In this situation, “speed was emphasized to limit the amount of pain the patient had to endure.” “Anesthesia was widely adopted” a little later in the war, however, patients were “only lightly anesthetized to improve the safety of the patient.” The typical anesthetic on the battlefield was “Chloroform.” “Ether was more common in a hospital setting.” Amputations were not perfect and complications could still arise from this surgery. Infection was a common occurrence after surgery. In most cases, the solution was to just give the infection time to resolve itself. For a majority of cases, this worked; however, there were times when the infection didn’t go away and turned into “blood poisoning” which would often lead to death. “Amputation was also used to treat compound fractures.” If the fractures were left to heal on their own, then they would often never heal correctly and would cause future complications. There was a big controversy on the use of amputations. A lot of people during the war claimed that amputations were overly used when it was not called for. This criticism left surgeons “hesitant to perform them even when necessary.” Other people in looking back claimed that they were not used enough. For example, William W. Keen said, “taking the army as a whole, I have no hesitation in saying that far more lives were lost from refusal to amputate than amputation.”

Overall, the major development that occurred in the civil war was weaponry. It advanced quickly and was improved in such a way that injuries were higher. The increase in range and accuracy as well as the loading time made it to where more shots could be fired thus injuring more people. Railroads were heavily used as well. It aided the devastation of the war by transporting weapons and other material over long stretches of land in a shorter period of time than what was capable of wagons and horses. Medical practices were eventually advanced to accommodate for germs, however, this mostly occurred toward the end of the war and the damage had already been done. In conclusion, the technological advances and advancements of medical practices during the civil war impacted the outcome of the war.