Rwanda: Sometimes in April

I chose to view Sometimes in April because I already viewed Hotel Rwanda. Though Hotel  Rwanda is a great film, its focus is too narrow with the horrifying events of the Rwandan genocide kept somewhat the background. Hotel Rwanda does not reveal the day to day struggle of the man on the street. The true horror of Rwanda is a bit glossed over in the film. The reason for that, perhaps, was to make the film viewable, digestible and sterile enough for American audiences who prefer popcorn Indian Jones blockbusters and mind numbing TV programming. Most Americans have probably never heard of Rwanda. Some may consider the genocide as nothing more than a vigorous housecleaning.

Sometimes in April left me more than stunned. I was flabbergasted and speechless. To comprehend an average of 8500 deaths per day is more than what can be imagined. Sometimes in April does not spare the audience of the rapes, slaughters, body heaps, and infanticides. The film is not easy to watch.

From the film we discern that Hutu feel hatred and resentment towards the Tsotsi. The resentment is a consequence of the Belgian colonists’ beliefs and imposition of those beliefs that Tsotsi (minority population) is a superior race of African; above the Hutu (majority population). When the Belgians left, the angry Hutu sought vindication and vengence, resorting to violence to assert their power. Since that time, the racial violence has unfolded many times throughout Rwandan history.

In the film, Hutu and Tsotsi relations are obviously strained. There is a feeling of apprehension. When the Rwandan president's plane is shot down by rebel forces, all hell breaks out—the violence gets underway. The genocide was fast, sweeping and merciless. No class, gender, or lifestage was spared. If you were Tsotsi, you were dead. Popular participation was recruited thru radio broadcasts and propaganda. Warlords, militia,  and farmers “went to work” each day with the goal of killing Tsotsi in mind.

Sometimes in April implicates the international community for their failure to respond. As the film shows, Rwanda doesn’t have any marketable extractive resources and the United States has no interests there. Thus, the international response was minimal; only Americans and Europeans were evacuated. The film illustrates the prevailing American perception that it was just Africans killing Africans, a sentiment fueled by recent memories of the Somalian conflict and our failed mission there.

It’s hard to observe any clear “norms” in the film because the film’s focus is  the 100 days of genocide. It is observed that the population was required to carry ID cards to indicate one’s race: Hutu or Tsotsi. I observed fairly nice middle-class neighborhoods, good schools, happy kids, friendly neighbors. With the exception of the tension and uncertainty among the film’s characters, the  few minutes of film before the genocide resembled any middle-class neighborhood anywhere. We heard of the characters’  historical consciousness; they had already suffered violence and loss of family members in previous violent outbreaks. We also watched husbands packing up kids and wives while they remained at home to defend.