top of page

"How Can an Emotional Narrative Contribute to a Formal Argument?" by Hannah Krutz

How Can an Emotional Narrative Contribute to a Formal Argument?

Hannah Krutz, Southern Connecticut State University



Abstract: This paper looks into Samantha Power's 'A Problem from Hell': America and the Age of Genocide as well as the films Hotel Rwanda and Welcome to Sarajevo to analyze how works of art can use their creative license to portray a formal argument. Power's book focuses on some of the largest tragedies in world history, including the Rwandan and Bosnian Genocides, and analyzes supposed reasons for nonintervention. Upon reviewing the aforementioned films, they form very similar arguments to what Power presents in her book; I use Power's narrative to explain various scenes in the two films.


 

In her book “A Problem from Hell”: America and the Age of Genocide, Samantha Power recounts the narratives of several significant tragedies that exist within American history, examining the underlying reasons for their occurrence. The book delves into various instances of genocide in the twentieth century, including the Rwandan and Bosnian genocides. Power critically analyzes the reasons behind the U.S. government’s often inadequate and inconsistent efforts to prevent or intervene in cases of mass atrocities. As seen on countless occasions, these enormous acts of destruction often amounted to the creation of widely celebrated works of art, such as paintings, poetry, books, and film. Often, these works encapsulated some of the most prevalent issues surrounding genocide, analogous to the purpose of Samantha Power’s book. Some of these works include Hotel Rwanda, which is a powerful film that depicts the true story of Paul Rusesabagina’s heroic efforts to shelter and save hundreds of Tutsi refugees during the Rwandan genocide. Another example is Welcome to Sarajevo, which follows the experiences of a group of journalists during the conflict in Bosnia. While Samantha Power’s “A Problem from Hell”: America and the Age of Genocide analyzes the complexities of international response to genocide, these films serve as unique reflections on the arguments she presents because of their ability to encapsulate the emotional narrative of the same event. 


In Chapter 10 of her book, Power unfolds the complicated history of the Rwandan people and the events that led to the genocide of the Tutsi people. The history of Rwanda is deeply intertwined with the complex relationship between the Hutus and the Tutsis, two of the major ethnic groups found in Rwanda. Despite making up a small amount of Rwanda’s population, the Tutsis were generally held in higher regard due to both their role in Rwandan society and their stereotypically desirable physical attributes. While this imbalance was present pre-colonialism, Belgian rule only exacerbated the divide. The Belgians favored Tutsis because of their more “European-looking” features; eventually, they created race cards for the entirety of the population, forcing their differences to be at the threshold of their society. The doctrine of Tutsi superiority was taught in schools and became increasingly present in everyday life. However, once Rwanda gained independence from Belgium in 1962, the Hutu majority found its way to power and immediately began to flip the switch by antagonizing Tutsis for their role in Belgian rule. The Hutu government became extremist and implemented policies to socially and economically marginalize the Tutsi community. In April of 1994, President Juvénal Habyarimana was assassinated. To this day, it is unknown who was behind the assassination. However, it was used as a catalyst to disrupt whatever peace remained between the Hutus and Tutsis, and in less than one hundred days, nearly one million Tutsis and moderate Hutus would be murdered at the hands of Hutu extremists. 


One of the most significant arguments Power raises about nonintervention was Rwanda’s low priority for other countries and how it significantly influenced international response, contributing to the tragic outcomes of the genocide. Just prior to the start of the Rwandan genocide, the United Nations (UN) got involved in a conflict in Somalia, and their efforts were unsuccessful. So, the world powers were not only apprehensive about getting involved in a similar conflict, but it didn’t strike them as important in terms of their own interests. Power quoted members of the Pentagon saying, “Look, if something happens in Rwanda-Burundi, we don’t care. Take it off the list. U.S national interest is not involved, and we can’t put these silly little humanitarian issues on lists” (Power 342). It was attitudes such as this, according to Power, that played a pivotal role in shaping the apathetic international reaction. This notion of national interest--- the values of an individual nation--- evolved as the events in Rwanda continued to unfold, particularly when international bodies (journalists, humanitarian aid, etc.) came to Rwanda to assess and report on the crisis. The conflict in Rwanda quickly escalated and it was clear to many aid workers that a genocide was taking place. However, these workers and journalists were ordered to evacuate by UN officials who justified their decision by saying, “I don’t think we have any national interest there. The Americans are out, and as far as I’m concerned, in Rwanda, that ought to be the end of it” (Power 352). It became clear through their actions and words that “national interest” was not only a self-centered stance but also implied a lack of sufficient concern for others and the wellbeing of their nations. This perspective ultimately influenced the decision-making process and contributed to limited intervention during the genocide, which proved to be highly detrimental for the Tutsis.


Hotel Rwanda exemplifies these exact ideals while utilizing its creative license to portray a much more emotional narrative. In “A Problem from Hell,” Power highlights the complexities surrounding Western intervention, which extended beyond governmental capacities. Although not explicitly stated in the chapter, it is evident that racism played a pivotal role in the decision not to intervene; Power even cites a similarly recurring statement, “Rwanda is in an unpreferred class” (Power 274) which reiterates the indifference governmental figures expressed in regard to intervention in Rwanda. This idea is further illustrated in the film Hotel Rwanda. As the plot unfolds, it becomes apparent to Paul Rusesabagina and the other refugees that the supposed “peacekeepers” (UN armed forces) and other figures from the West were not committed to ensuring their safety. As the news of their removal comes to light, General Dallaire (the head of the peacekeepers) bluntly tells Paul that “the West thinks you’re dirt” (50:07), which turned out to be their ulterior motive for evacuation. This idea progresses later in the film when all of the workers from the West actually leave Rwanda. As the busses arrive at Paul’s hotel to take them away, it becomes clear to all of the Rwandan refugees that their presumed saviors are abandoning them. Paul exclaims to the confused crowd, “It is of no use. They are not here to help us” (55:10), and he watches as the white people leave Rwanda for good. The scene ends with the Rwandan refugees standing in the rain outside of Paul’s hotel as the people of the West stare off at them from the safety of their getaway car. The pain and disappointment of Paul, the other Rwandans, and even some of the Westerners, are abundantly clear in this scene, illustrating Power’s narrative that the Rwandans were inconsequential to the rest of the world – so much so that they packed themselves up and left the Rwandans to fend for themselves. This scene is particularly heart-wrenching due to the articulate decisions of the director, Terry George. The addition of rain in the scene serves as a visual metaphor, emphasizing the apparent sadness and desperation of the characters. As the orphans arrive hopeful of their safety, this feeling is juxtaposed with a haunting yet hopeful song sung by children in the background of the scene. However, as the people from the West leave, the sound of the children does as well, and it is replaced by a sad instrumental. These choices by the director are clearly deliberate and help drive the narrative of disappointment of the West’s departure. These decisions further contribute to the portrayal of arguments relayed by Power in her book, particularly the notion of disinterest in Rwanda and prioritizing one’s own people.


In Power’s chapter on Bosnia, she examines the failures of the international community in responding to the genocide that occurred during what is known as the Bosnian War. After the collapse of Yugoslavia in 1992, Bosnia and Herzegovina declared independence. This move for independence was opposed by Bosnian Serbs because it meant their ethnicity was no longer a majority, and they desired a Serb-dominated nation. Thus, the Bosnian War erupted, involving mainly Bosnian Serbs, Bosnian Muslims, and Croats. While this conflict is still known as the Bosnian War, it is recognized and remembered today for the widespread human rights violations and ethnic cleansing that was aimed at Bosnian Muslims and Croats. 


While she explores the political complexities surrounding humanitarian efforts during this genocide as she does with others, Samantha Power highlights the argument that the media played a significant role in both the public’s perception of the Bosnian conflict and the pressure to act felt by government officials. While Power underscores the intricateness of the event, she asserts that “No other atrocity campaign in the twentieth century was better monitored and understood by the U.S. government” (Power 264), which was largely due to journalists and their defiance of political policy. Power explains that the evidence and reports from journalists served as a catalyst for public outrage and increased pressure on the government to intervene: “Journalists not only began challenging U.S. policy, but they supplied photographic images and refugee sagas that galvanized heretofore silent opinion. Crucially, the advocates of humanitarian intervention began to win support” (Power 269). The efforts of journalists to convey the gravity of the situation aimed to hold government officials accountable, supposedly making their nonintervention policy “politically untenable” (Power 269). However, Power asserts that while the U.S government acknowledged the need to act, this acknowledgment did not “come with a plan to stop it” (Power 281). Power explains throughout the remainder of the chapter that although it was clear that something had to happen, none of the major world powers, particularly the United States, could seem to find the justification to act, and they found countless ways to deflect attention away from Bosnia. This attitude proved to be harmful for the Bosnian Muslims who, despite their constant cries for help through the journalists, couldn’t seem to get people to care.


Welcome to Sarajevo additionally navigates the role of journalism and the media in covering the Bosnian genocide, emphasizing the transformative impact press coverage can have on both the political scene and the emotional well-being of all parties involved. The movie follows the experience of a group of journalists covering the conflict in Sarajevo (the capital of Bosnia and Herzegovina) but specifically centers itself on reporter Michael Henderson who becomes emotionally attached to a Bosnian orphan named Emira. The film closely follows the orphanage where Emira resides, and the journalists continually share stories of the children within. Henderson pledges to continue sharing stories about the orphans until the world takes action to get them out of Sarajevo (28:00), which reveals his desire to place political pressure on the governments of the world. Similar to Power’s analysis in her book, the movie portrays the enormous battle of urging the world powers to intervene, and how, despite the relentless efforts of the journalists, little progress ensued. Halfway through the film, director Michael Winterbottom makes the creative decision to incorporate real footage that aired during the genocide in Sarajevo. The footage alternates back and forth between images of tortured Bosnians and governmental figures making empty promises. The first clip is of Bill Clinton who says, “History has shown us that you can’t allow the mass extermination of people and just sit by and watch it happen,” (43:31) which, as Power relays as well, is an example of political rhetoric that falls short of meaningful action. The next clip which features Pentagon Spokesman Pete Williams highlights the skepticism and denial exhibited by politicians when he says, “We do not have enough information to say this constitutes as genocide” (44:00). Despite the media’s constant efforts to both report on the event and help the nation in distress, it becomes clear in these clips, as well as Power’s book, that it is up to the politicians to determine the course of intervention.


Through covering different instances of genocide, Hotel Rwanda and Welcome to Sarajevo portray many similar elements concerning the world power’s means of nonintervention. As Power dissects in “A Problem from Hell,” one of the most prevalent issues surrounding the neglect of the Rwandan genocide was an inherent lack of interest; no one cared enough about the people in Rwanda to do anything. In her chapter covering the events in Bosnia, Power underscores the efforts of journalists and the media to urge action from political figures and relays that despite the clear evidence of genocide, it was not enough to elicit a meaningful response. Hotel Rwanda and Welcome to Sarajevo depict these same ideals, but by using their creative narrative, are able to extract the vulnerable feelings associated with these terrible events. Using their resources, the directors of these films are able to say what Power did and more. 


I have read Power’s book multiple times now over the past few years, and I can safely assert that her most important message is, “Why do we keep letting this happen?” How can we see all of the signs of genocide and sit idly by while it happens again and again? Despite what we should have learned through the countless horrific events over the last century, genocides are occurring at this very moment. And we must ask ourselves, when faced with atrocities like war crimes and ethnic cleansing, why are we so quick to deny their validity? Why are we waiting until the number of deaths reaches a new high to debate whether or not something is genocide? Every day, it becomes more and more important to stay informed and get involved, and I encourage all of us to do just that. 


Works Cited 


George, Terry, director. Hotel Rwanda. 2004, digitalcampus-swankmp-net.scsu.idm.oclc.org/southernct371176/play/0996DE34DAD05582. 


Power, Sarah. “A Problem from Hell”: America and the Age of Genocide. Basic Books, 2013. 

Winterbottom, Michael, director. Welcome to Sarajevo. 1997, www.amazon.com/Welcome-Sarajevo-Woody-Harrelson/dp/B008UWBMZW. 



Comentários


bottom of page