HOTEL
RWANDA
&
COLLAPSE
extra-credit assignment
(extracredit1)
EXTRA-CREDIT
WORTH: 750 Fritz-points (or the equivalent
of 3 regular assignments)
MINIMUM GRADE TO RECEIVE EXTRA-CREDIT: C+ (extra-credit
in this class can only help you -- it can not hurt you. I simply add
points to your final score. But you must always cross a certain grade
threshold in order to receive those extra-points.)
1)
This assignment, like ALL assignments in this class, must be typed.
See handout on class expectations
2)
You MUST use blackboard's digital dropbox (details here)
to submit this homework; if you do not use microsoft word,
be sure to follow these directions
3 ) BE
SURE TO FOLLOW THE FILE-NAMING CONVENTIONS FOR THIS COURSE.
All files should be saved on your computer
as: your last name, followed by an underscore ("_"),
followed by the first two letters of your first name, followed
by an underscore ("_"), followed by the
assignment number. So if a student named Saddam Hussein were to submit
assignment extracredit1, the file name would be:
hussein_sa_extracredit1.doc
THIS
IS ASSIGNMENT EXTRACREDIT1
In 1994 almost one million people were killed in a systematic genocide
in the central African country of Rwanda.
This
extra-credit assignment will compare two different interpretations
of the genocide: the first is found in a recent popular film, Hotel
Rwanda; the second is from a chapter in a recent book by Jared
Diamond
-- a
Pulitzer Prize-winning scholar -- entitled Collapse.
Moreover, the assignment makes use of interviews with some of the
Hutu killers convicted for their involvement in the genocide that
appear in a recent book, The
Machete Season.
For
this extra-credit paper you will need to:
A)
watch the film Hotel Rwanda (available at the 3 Hour reserves
in the John Jay Library and from Blockbuster)
B)
read a chapter from Jared Diamond’s book, Collapse
(available on electronic reserves)
C)
read a chapter from The Machete Season (available
on electronic reserves)
D)
Answer the short-paragraph, pre-writing questions
E) write a 750 - 1000 word paper.
Diamond’s
book Collapse can be a little complex, so you will ABSOLUTELY
want to look at the following READING HINTS
| READING
HINTS (important!)
A) Between pp. 314 – 318, Diamond sketches out
the “usual interpretation” of the genocide;
but as he says (p. 314), “I shall mention later some respects
in which this usual interpretation is wrong, incomplete,
or oversimplified”). So, don’t get confused between
Diamond’s summary of other, "usual" interpretations
and his own interpretation. To make matters even more complex,
these “usual accounts” of the genocide themselves
critique popular accounts that attribute the genocide to “ancient
tribal hatreds.”
So, in Diamond's
book one finds:
1)
“popular accounts” that stress “ancient
tribal hatreds”
2) “usual accounts” (such as that by
Human Rights Watch) that stress “deliberate choice of
a modern elite to foster hatred and fear to keep itself in
power” (see p. 317)
3) Diamond’s own analysis, which begins on
p. 318 (starting with “But there is also evidence that
other considerations contributed as well…”)
Do not confuse Diamond's own analysis with either the “popular
accounts” or with the “usual accounts." There
are three distinct set of "accounts" that Diamond
describes -- only one is his own. Moreover, make sure you
understand how and with what evidence
Diamond critiques the other explanations for the
genocide.
B)
Be sure you understand why the Kanama province is so important
to Diamond’s analysis and critique of other explanations
(see 1,2, and 3 from above). You
absolutely should include your understanding of these issues
in your paper. In short, be sure you know
how and why the evidence from the Kanama province challenges
both the (1) "popular accounts" and (2) the "usual
accounts"
C) Be sure you understand why Andre and Platteau’s
data is so unusual and valuable (and absolutely
include your understanding in your paper).
|
Pre-Writing
Questions
If
you do not answer these questions correctly, you will receive no credit
for your extra-credit assignment.
There is no text from the readings, however, that you can copy
or even rephrase to answer these questions. You will have to both
read carefully and think hard in order to answer the questions.
1)
In the film Hotel Rwanda, the characters in the bar with
the camera man in the scene with the bar girls attribute the cause
of the Hutu/Tutsi hatred to which specific historical episode in Rwanda's
history? In the explanation for the cause of the genocide provided
by the film's characters, who is ultimately responsible for the killing?
2) Why does Diamond employ Malthus' name in the title for this chapter?
3) In the Diamond reading, what is distinctive about the ethnic make-up
of the Kanama province?
4)
What did Andre
and Platteau investigate
in Rwanda between 1988-1993?
5)
What relationship did Andre
and Platteau discover
between the data they collected in 1988-1993 and the various fates
of Kanama's inhabitants in 1994? That is, the data they collected
in 1988-1993 suggested an explanation as to who who would survive
and who would not. What is that explanation?
ESSAY
The film Hotel Rwanda and Collapse employ and provide
differing explanations as to why the genocide
in Rwanda occurred.
In this paper of 750 - 1000 words, you will compare their interpretations
by contrasting what each considers to be the ROOT
causes of the conflict.
(obviously,
the downing of the President's plane sparks the genocide -- but what
are the underlying causes?).
So,
here is the CENTRAL question you are to answer:
Using the information contained in the readings, including
the oral interviews from The Machete Season, as evidence,
which interpretation (Hotel Rwanda or Collapse)
is more compelling and-- more importantly--why?
A)
Be sure to use direct quotations of 10 words or fewer in your paper
- if you are unsure how to omit unnecessary
information from a quotation, see here.
(very useful)
B) be sure that you have at least 15 points of evidence, with at least
5 points coming from the film and 10 from the readings. You must have
at least 4 pieces of evidence from each reading.
BUT ABOVE ALL ELSE – DO NOT SIMPLY SUMMARIZE THE MOVIE’S
INTERPREATION AND THEN SUMMARIZE DIAMOND’S (if you do, you will
decidedly get less than a "C+" on the paper). RATHER,
ANALYTICALLY COMPARE THE TWO. HOW AND WHY DO THEY DIFFER?
Why is one interpretation more sound than the other?
Some Writing
Hints
1) Be sure to organize your paper around a thesis
that answers the “how” and “why” questions
we have discussed in class.
2) Be sure to identify your cl/ev/wa structures
3)Remember,
Machete Season does NOT explicitly offer an interpretation
as to the root causes of the genocide, NOR is it one of the two interpretations
you are comparing. You should employ the evidence from Machete
Season to help support your argument regarding why one interpretation
(Hotel Rwanda or Collapse) is more sound than the
other.
4) To write this paper, you must clearly understand
how both the film and Diamond interpret the root cause of
the genocide. Be sure you think carefully about this idea
before moving on to write the paper. In particular, Diamond's
interpretation -- as distinct from either the “popular accounts”
or “usual accounts”--will require some thinking to grasp.
.
5 ) It is very unlikely that you will be able to
get a "C+" or above on this paper if your essay (and thesis)
do not reflect a thorough understanding of issues B and C from the
reading hints above.
6) Be sure when asserting that interpretation
x locates the root cause of the genocide in cause y that
you provide evidence in the form of direct quotations from that interpretation
that clearly states such. In short, don't put words in the mouth of
either Diamond or Hotel Rwanda.
Here's
a sample outline and thesis you might use when writing this paper.
I. Intro
A. Background Information (no more than a few sentences)
B. Brief explanation of each of the two interpretations. No more
than a sentence for each interpretation.
C. Thesis: Interpretation X is more compelling than Interpretation
Y for Reasons A, B, and C
.
II. The two interpretations: spend no more than a
paragraph describing the two interpretations, but provide the best
two quotations from the film and the book that capture each interpretation
III Reason A
IV Reason B
V Reason C
VI Conclusion
FINALLY, you will notice
the question does NOT ask for the interpretation of the Machete
Season because, well, Machete Season doesn't offer one
explicitly. Rather, use the evidence from Machete Season
to help support your argument regarding the other two interpretations.