No it was a civil war.
And yes civil wars be like that. Regardless of country.
Yes, that is cultural too. Nobody is contesting that. But nobody was hunting down other people and hacking them to death with machetes. The culture in Rwanda was far different.
There were pedophiles and other assorted cultural ■■■■ bags trying to chase down the Kenosha Kid once. It went swell. 
3 Likes
If hacking people to death with machetes is a reflection on this kid’s parents, then aren’t the rioters in Minneapolis a reflection on you? But I think that’s silly. I would never want someone in Rwanda or anywhere else judging you based on what rioters did in Minneapolis.
1 Like
In Britain that statement might have the thought police out after you.
2 Likes
You were good until there.
No it was not. The massacre occurred during the Civil war, but it was nothing more than an extreme venting of anger by people of one culture against the people of another culture. Hundreds of thousands of men, women and children slaughtered for no other reason than that they were Tutsis. This atrocity was not conducted by the rebel Hutu government, it was committed by blood-lust filled civilians. Stop trying to excuse that it was cultural by claiming it was political.
No.
…
I mean…….
Why not?
John Brown forced his son to hack a man up with a sword before the civil war was commonly believed to have started.
What do you mean? That a holocaust can’t occur if there is a war going on? We know that isn’t true.
Well, that was a race/ethnic war and massacre. Was the knifing race/ethnic based?
If I wondered whether there was a cultural aspect to this, I would look to see if the violent crime rate was historically much greater under one culture than the other.
I do see a more peaceful culture accepting masses of people from an area where violence is much more prevalent as taking on to themselves a new problem that they should consider not doing.
It was tribal.
Rwanda much like America has many cultures. Painting every Rwandan with the same brush is silly
It was civil war. Massacres happen during civil wars. It’s not a Rwandan thing. It’s a teenage boy thing.
This thread goes better with the Andre Tate thread than people think.
A culture that is relatively peaceful that accepts large masses of people from a culture where violence is much more common is doing a foolish thing. They are likely to pay for it.
1 Like
What aspect of English history makes you think that they are more peaceful than Rwanda?
25 years ago the English had clubs of people who would stab and beat each other during soccer games. Without even watching a minute of soccer. The English riot all the time.
Trying to view everything through an American prism without knowing foreign cultures is silly.
The English aren’t a relatively peaceful culture. They riot. They mame. They stab each other at soccer games and call themselves outfits when they do so. It’s ok not to know but stop viewing things through an American prism.
What is the violent crime rate among English from a long historical background compared to Rwanda? I was speaking as a general principle, but I would not be surprised if this were such a case.
You are guessing because Rwanda is Africa because Rwanda is an unknown to you
There is no general principle in which it is acceptable for a Rwandan teenage boy to walk into a room with little girls and stab them.
While that’s violent and a crime. That’s a random unpredictable attack and blaming it on his parents country of origin is ignoring the plethora of other factors that led to it. It’s also the easiest thing to do. To wave it away as if only “those people” will do it.
