Tears of the Sun is about a man who made the choice to save a group a refugees while risking his life, and the life of his men. Lieutenant A.K. Waters and his group of men are given the assignment to go to Nigeria in order to rescue a doctor, Dr. Kendricks, who is working at a remote village. They are also assigned to rescue two nuns and a priest, but it is up to them whether they chose to leave or not. Waters and his men run into some trouble; Kendricks will not leave unless they promise to help to local villagers there get to the border where they will be safe. Although, he has been told to only retrieve the doctor from the village, he agrees to her demand. He, his men, Dr. Kendricks, and the local villagers begin a journey to safety. Along the way they run into many obstacles, but no obstacle is as shocking as when Waters finds out that he is harboring the assassinated president’s son; it was reported that the entire presidential family had been assassinated, but that was not true. The rebels tracking Waters and his men through the jungle have been ordered to kill the son because he is the only one from the ruling family still alive, and that ultimately makes him the ruler of the Hebrew nation. The movie portrays a cause that is currently paralyzing many countries around the world, and I believe that this movie is a very accurate portrayal of the reality of the situation; it is a very good way to educate people around the world about what really happens when rebels rise up and take control.
In the beginning of the movie it shows segments of people fleeing to the streets, people being shot as they run, and children crying. It states early in the movie that the conflict arose due to the rebel’s disagreement with the democratic government. There were many ethnic groups in Nigeria, some say around 250 different groups, and the goal of the rebel soldiers was to have an ethnic cleansing. Which basically means the rebels are going to kill every single person that is not a part of their ethnic group. There was no word yet on what the United Nations reaction was and if they were going to take any action, but US forces had already begun evacuating their citizens. The movie begins here with the US navy trying to evacuate a doctor who became a US citizen by marriage. However, their simple task of evacuating the doctor becomes a much more dangerous journey when the doctor demands that they help her people get to the border, where they will be safe.
The movie was extremely violent and gruesome at some parts. However, the most appalling scene of the whole movie was a young woman covered in blood. The guerilla soldiers would cut off the breasts of women who were nursing young children so they could never again feed their own child. If that is not disturbing, and that does affect you then I could easily say that you have no heart. The soldiers acted as if killing these people was a game. They would rape the women, take the children and turn them into soldiers, brutally torture people by covering them in gasoline and lighting them on fire and laugh as they burned, but more importantly they went on with their lives trying to find more people to kill because in reality the ethnic cleansing was nothing but a game for them. It was fun for them, but it cost many people their lives. There were many scenes throughout the movie that showed rebel soldiers torturing people and then laughing till they cried. Many people say that when one life is taken another one is reborn, but that is not true in this movie because they murdered so many people. The rebel soldiers had no hearts; they were ruthless and they slaughtered innocent people who had never harmed them all because they were of a different ethnicity. Another disturbing image was when one of Water’s men shot a soldier in self-defense. He caught the soldier as he fell to the ground, but when he caught him he stood there in awe. The soldier was a child. I don’t think one can fully understand the situation until child, rebel soldiers are shown. Then, I think people finally begin to see the reality of the situation.
In the end, everything happened as it should have because it was a movie. However, saying everything happened as it should doesn’t mean that it is in the rest of the world. This movie is an example of what the US needs to do in many other African countries where rebel soldiers are rising up and taking innocent lives. The rebel soldiers in Nigeria, in this movie, were after people of different ethnicities. But the movie focused more on the rebels search for the president’s son, the heir to the Hebrew nation, because if they did not kill him then he would rule the people and carry on his father dream of a democracy. In the end the rebels failed, because good men like Lt. Waters put down their orders and went and fought for humanity. Once they reached the border the US navy finally was able to get some planes in the air to help. They basically blew up the Nigerian rebel army. Waters and his men fought for the lives of innocent people who were being subjected to ethnic cleansing. The rebels lost, and the good people won. At the end of the movie they placed a quote from Edmund Burke on the screen saying “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.” That is the truth, if good men like Lt. Waters and his men had stood by and done nothing, then this movie would have been about a mass genocide that took place in Nigeria. However, this movie is an example of what could be done and needs to be done in other countries. It is an example of how people can save the lives of others at their own risk.
The people of Nigeria were at great risk because the rebels wanted them dead, plain and simple. No one lives when rebel soldiers are out to clean house of all the other ethnic tribes. The rebels were out for blood; there is no other description that can be given except that. They wanted everyone different from them dead; they wanted to be the dominant group that prevailed throughout Nigeria. Many say that when rebels rose up in Rwanda that it was the same as in Nigeria and it was, except in this case good people, American people, stood up and fought for the lives of others, and that’s what needs to happen around the world, especially in Darfur. The movie was amazing; it was the seventh time that I have watched it. I love movies like this because I know the directors of these movies have good intentions. These are the types of movies that make people think and take action and that is great because there are too many people in the world who watch a movie like this for the gore and violence. Movies like these are made for a cause. We need to rise up as a nation together and take action.
Labels: GLR #5
Is there really a difference between rural and urban poverty? In my eyes there is no difference because no matter what form it takes poverty is poverty. Poverty exists everywhere around the world. Some think just because we live in the United States that there is no poverty. However, that is entirely false. Poverty exists in various places around the world in the form of rural poverty and urban poverty.
One of the biggest distinctions between those living in rural poverty and those living in urban poverty is their race. Statistics show that those who live in rural poverty are predominately white while those living in urban poverty are more racially mixed consisting of Latin Americans, African Americans, and many other races. Rural poverty is a huge problem in many Latin American countries. However, Latin America is not the only place experiencing rural poverty. Rural poverty is evident in many developing countries and some more developed countries like the United States. Another differing characteristic between rural and urban poverty is their location. Rural poverty is experienced more in the countryside and outside of the city limits. Urban poverty is experienced more in the city. Currently, many believe, and the statistics do show, that rural poverty is more of a problem. However, many claim that as people begin to urbanize, which means they migrate more into the cities, that urban poverty will begin to increase while rural poverty declines. However, the problem of poverty will still exist in both forms in numerous places around world.
When it comes to poverty there are many issues that are extremely problematic. For instance, those living in urban poverty, most of the time, have a better access to sanitation systems, while those living in rural poverty have limited access. Also, there is an extreme difference in child mortality rates. Children living in urban poverty tend to have a longer life expectancy than children living in rural poverty. To put it simply those living in urban poverty seem to fare better than those living in rural poverty because those living in urban poverty have a more limited access to basic essentials needed to survive. Also, it is evident that there are more people living in poverty in rural areas than in urban areas.
One issue that is causing such a major problem for those living in poverty is education. People living in urban poverty experience a lack of education, but not to the same extent as those living in rural poverty. People in rural areas have restricted access to an education. Most times they have little to no access to an education mainly because there is either no school or no qualified teachers. Those living in rural poverty are located outside of cities; therefore, there access to schools is extremely limited. Those living in urban poverty may not have the best educational opportunities, but they have more access to an education than impoverished people in rural areas. They, sometimes, can receive an education, however, their dropout rates are extremely high, and the chances of them going to college are very slim. Those living in urban areas are more likely to get more education than those in rural areas; however, it is by no means a full, twelve year, education.
Another huge problem for those living in poverty is unemployment. Unemployment rates for those living in rural poverty are slightly worse than in urban areas. Again, those in rural areas do not have many employment opportunities within a reasonable traveling distance around them. Therefore, they may have to travel farther to pursue job opportunities. The problem with having to travel to find jobs is they may not have the resources to travel, therefore, they will likely remain unemployed and in poverty until more job opportunities become available closer to them. Unemployment rates for those living in urban poverty are a problem but not to the same extent and not for the same reasons. Those who are unemployed in urban areas may remain unemployed because they have little or no education. They also may not have the qualifications necessary to perform a certain job that would be required of them. The problem of education and unemployment for those living in urban and rural poverty are correlated. Access to a better education would lead to lower unemployment rates, which would in turn reduce the poverty levels. However, without a better education there will be no chance at a reasonable job opportunity.
The problems that those living in rural poverty face may not be problems for those living in urban poverty and vice versa. However, I do believe the problem of rural poverty is far worse than urban poverty mainly because rural poverty is not in the city; therefore, your opportunities to better your life are far more limited. Any way you look at it, whatever form of poverty it is, they are all the same. Those living in poverty do not have the essentials required to live a healthy, prosperous life.
Labels: GLR #4
Child labor is a problem in many countries in the developing world. However, it is especially devastating in China. It is very common to see young girls, rather than young boys, involved in child labor. Child labor has existed ever since China began. In the beginning child labor was not viewed as wrong. In the 20th century those opinions began to change and the first law that dealt with child labor was passed in 1923, however, this law was not strictly enforced until the Chinese Communist Party began its rule in 1949 (Schmitz, Traver, & Larson, 41). The CCP in a way made the situation better if only temporarily. They enforced the laws that needed to be in order to ensure that children had promising futures. In China, like the U.S., they believe that children are the future. They believe the government is responsible for the well being of their children. Unfortunately, the CCP was overthrown and things went back to the way they used to be. The government has still pursued laws that ensured the safety of children and made sure that they were not subjected to child labor. However, despite all their efforts child labor is still seen in China, but today they are very secretive about it.
Some say that child labor was not necessarily bad in the earlier years, but things are beginning to change. The exploitation of children in China is far worse than it has ever been. The jobs that these children are given are not very hard; the tasks are jobs that they are very capable of doing physically. However, due to industrialization, there have been many openings of new factories and mills and here the children are being exploited (Burton, 53). Child labor in China is still present today, and it is only going to get worse. However, it seems that there are a few ways that this can be prevented.
Children are the future of the world, no matter where they live. Many children in the developing world have far less educational opportunities than those in the U.S. I believe that children should have the same rights and opportunities everywhere. In the U.S. we have a great education system; we know that when we grow up we are going to have the opportunity to make a name for ourselves. Children in china and in many developing countries are destined to work in factories, under oppressive conditions, with low pay for the rest of their lives and even laws cannot change that. I think one possible solution would be to improve the educational systems in China. We all know that Chinese people are very intelligent and those kids working in factories and mills in China are just as smart. I think an improved educational system would help, but I also believe that more foreign aide would be beneficial. A lot of the kids who are apart of the child labor movement have dropped out of school to take on these jobs to support their families. I believe foreign aide would help the economy, which would in turn help the children of China.
Problems that are developing in the developing world, I believe, stem from one thing: poverty. Poverty has taken its toll heavily on women and children there forcing them to work under oppressive conditions. China, like many other countries, needs to find a way to deal with this. However, they cannot change on their own. They need the help of bigger countries, with stronger economies, like the U.S. If we do not help, no one else will. And if no one else will then children in China are going to be stuck working in factories and mills already knowing that one day their children will be working there as well.
Sources:
Cathryne L. Schmitz, Elizabeth Kim Jin Traver, and Desi Larson. Child Labor: A Global
View. Greenwood Press: Westport, CT. 2004.
Burton, Margaret. Women Workers of the Orient. Harvard University: Massachusetts.
2005.
Labels: GLR #3
Hutus and Tutsis were the two main ethnic groups in Rwanda during the time when the genocide broke out. The Hutu held the majority and the minority group was the Tutsi. All people, from both groups, were supplied with an identity card that clearly identified which ethnic group they belonged to. Both the Hutus and the Tutsis spoke the same language and had the same traditions, but the Belgians considered one group to better than the other, and this caused a great deal of animosity among the two groups. Any person that had more than ten cows, a long, pointed nose, lighter skin, and a relatively skinny body was considered to be Tutsi. The Hutus, on the other hand, were considered to be any person who had less than ten cows, more muscular features, and met an average height.
In the beginning of the movie a lot of focus is on the possible signing of the peace accord. Eventually the president signed the peace accord, which was between the Tutsi military and the Hutu militia. However, the peace accord did not last long because the Tutsi military, according to the Hutu militia, murdered the president by shooting down his plane. The death of the president was the breaking point that started the beginning of a horrific genocide that killed almost a million people.
The Hutus used the radio as a means of communication to talk about their plans of a great slaughter. In the movie Paul’s brother in law, Thomas, warned him that the Hutu militia had a signal. The signal was “Cut down the tall trees,” once the signal was given the brutal slaughter of the Tutsi cockroaches would begin. Unfortunately the signal was given and the Hutus began burning down houses and slaying innocent Tutsis men and women mercilessly. They even went as far as to slaughter Tutsi children. They hoped by slaughtering the Tutsi children that they would be getting rid of the next generation of Tutsis “cockroaches”. The Hutu not only killed the Tutsis but they also began killing their fellow Hutus, who were more moderate, because they would not kill their Tutsi friends and neighbors.
The UN military was there foremost to see that no weapons were entering the country. However you see very early in the movie that they were not doing a very good job at monitoring the weapons that came into the country. Paul Rusesabagina, the hotel manager at the Hotel Mille Collines, was picking up some food and alcohol from a local supplier. When they were transporting a wooden crate on a forklift the crate fell and broke revealing many machetes. Obviously they either turned a blind eye or Hutus were especially sneaky at getting weapons into the country.
I do not think that in any way the response to the devastating genocide in Rwanda was appropriate, or even helpful for the matter. Their lack of response killed many innocent people. The UN was their to help, however, what help are you going to be if you are not allowed to fire your gun? The only time that the UN military personnel were allowed to fire their gun was in self-defense. Eventually the UN troops were forced to withdraw when some of their soldiers were killed. The news media crew that was staying at the hotel during the beginning of the genocide showed live footage of the slaughtering that was taking place in Rwanda, yet, no one offered a helping hand, especially the U.S. If countries such as France, Belgium, and the U.S had intervened the genocide may have ended sooner, and many Hutu and Tutsi lives may have been spared. However, they never had the gal to stand up and take action, which resulted in a genocide that lasted 100 days and the brutal killing of more than a million people.
An appropriate response would have been any kind of intervention. It did not have to be a full intervention, but even a minimal intervention from any country would have been extremely beneficial and definitely life saving. The U.S. acted cowardly. They feared that after what happened in Somalia that the American people would not look highly upon an intervention in Rwanda. Therefore, they decided against any intervening action. However, France and Belgium were, like the U.S., extremely reluctant in offering assistance. When Paul contacted the President of Sabena, he in turn contacted the prime minister of France, but after much begging he could not get them to budge. He then called Paul and told them that they were all cowards and that unfortunately they were going to be left to fend for themselves, and that is exactly what they did. One man had more courage than three powerful countries. Paul used bribes and stored up favors to save his family and many of the refugees staying at the hotel. He had no guns, no machetes, however, he did have his integrity and he vowed not to let those people die. The U.S., France, and Belgium had no conscience because they were willing to sit back and let all these innocent people die because it did not affect them. President Clinton made a dreadful error in not sending relief to Rwanda, and now the result almost one million people are dead.
The end of the movie was the most touching part. You were able to see Paul and his family, along with many other moderate Hutus and Tutsis cross the border into a refugee camp that was already full of refugees. The heroic efforts of one man saved all those people. He sheltered them in the hotel, he constantly bribed the militia, and used his connections to by him some time to save his family and the refugees that he was protecting in the hotel. One man did all of this. Imagine if the U.S., French, and Belgian governments had sent their armies over to help contain the genocide. Would the outcome have been any different?
In many ways I think the outcome would have been considerably different. Obviously, it would not have saved every, single life, but I believe that it would have sparred a few hundred thousand. Watching this movie made me realize that even though we are a super nation and we have a lot of power we are constantly at fault because we continue to make stupid decisions. President Clinton made a comment that he did not want to send troops into Rwanda because people were still trying to deal with the events that occurred in Somalia. However, I think the real reason is because he did not want to hurt his reputation.
We have troops currently in Iraq; a majority of the public does not agree with that, yet, they are still there. President Bush does not seem to care that his popularity rating is considerably low; he is in it to win it and finish the job. Why couldn’t President Clinton do that? The American public may not have wanted the U.S. to intervene but I still firmly believe that we should have sent relief to Rwanda to stop the mass genocide that occurred. Who cares what the American people wanted? I know that sounds horrible, and very unpatriotic, but we have numerous benefits like education, health care, a stable democracy, and a strong army, and the people of Rwanda have nothing that even remotely resemble that. The movie made me think about what could have happened if we intervened and I believe the outcome would be extremely different. We’ll never know though, cause countries like France, Belgium, and the U.S. acted cowardly and left millions of innocent people to die and I believe that we are doing the same thing again in Darfur. Darfur is a repeat of Rwanda because again, we are leaving innocent people to die in a mass genocide.
Labels: GLR #2
