Content deleted Content added
Line 24:
Lapaz you wrote: "''The context of the 1994 Rwandan Genocide continues to be an important matter of historical debate with charges of revisionism often lifted''" do you mean "made" instead of "lifted"?
:"made" is probably better.
How do these two references:
* http://www.un.org/WCAR/statements/rwanda_hrF.htm
* http://www.assemblee-nationale.fr/12/propositions/pion0300.asp
which are in French, explain the sentence above. Using http://world.altavista.com/ to translate the pieces I do not see the direct relevence. They seem to be general pieces on the genocide not articles on historical revisionist. Please place the sentence from the articles (in the French original) on this talk page which you think are describe "''with charges of revisionism often made''".
:The [http://www.un.org/WCAR/statements/rwanda_hrF.htm UN statement] was made at Durban during the 2001 [[World Conference against Racism]] by [[Gasana Ndoba]], president of the Rwandan National Commission of Human Rights. Among other things, he declared:
::"The time has come for us to become familiar with another word to name horror [after Holocaust, Shoah and apartheid]: ''[[itsembabwoko]]'', a word from [[kinyarwanda]], the national language of Rwanda, forms from the verb ''gutsemba'', which means 'to exterminate' and ''ubwoko'', which means 'clan, ethnic, race, specie, genre' and many other things. A polysemical word that colonial [[scientific racism]] and its postcolonial avatars have specialized in order to express the prison of "ethnic or racial membership" in which they wanted to corner each Rwandan person, thus ignoring all other sides of his identity, which is necessarily multiple as that of any human being. (...) ''Itsembabwoko'' is the term submitted to your attention because it constitutes a key for the recognition and the understanding of the singularity of the genocide committed in Rwanda, a weapon against incredulity and forgetness, against negationism, revisionism and downscaling, an instrument for the prevention of the 'crime of crimes'."
:The [http://www.assemblee-nationale.fr/12/propositions/pion0300.asp French law proposition] was made in 2002 by MP Roland Blum. It is a law proposition to enforce the already existing law on revisionism and to permit prosecution of people guilty of denying ''genocides'' recognized by France or by an international body of which France is member. It thus states:
::"But to the evidence the actual law is too restrictive, as it limit itself to those acts accomplished during World War II. The demonstration of those limitations has been done when historian Bernard Lewis, who qualified the Armenian genocide as an "armenian version of this story", and ''Le Monde'' newspaper were assigned in justice by a defense comity of the Armenian cause and three survivors of the genocide, on the basis of articles 24 bis and 48-2 of the July 29 1881 law [concerning freedom of press] modified by the July 13, 1990 law [Gayssot law]. In his October 14, 1994 judgement, Paris' 'tribunal correctionnel' [a type of court] rejected the complaint. In effet, only the negation of the genocide of the Jews may be penally sanctionned. This legislative and jurisprudence position is therefore problematic. What happened today with this juridical decision concerning the Armenian genocide may repeat itself, tomorrow, for this same genocide or for those one committed in Rwanda, Bosnia or, doubtlessly, tomorrow in Chechnya. There can not be two categories of genocide, and all of them must be condemned and their negation fought in an equal manner."
Links to other language wikipedia are usually discouraged and definatly should not be put in as an ordiary link:
:[[:fr:Mission d'information parlementaire sur le Rwanda]] (French Parliamentary Commission))
Besides which I am not sure what you are trying to say here. "''Suspicions against French and United Nations (UN) policies in Rwanda between 1990 and 1994 led to the creation'' Suspicions of what? How is the sentence to historical revisionism?
:A link is better than no link. Someone (maybe me, maybe another one) will eventually translate it. "Suspicions against the legitimacy of the policies" might be better expressed. The suspicions concerns the French support to the Hutus during this period.
"''Some, such as [[François-Xavier Verschave]], former president of French NGO ''[[Survie NGO|Survie]]'', have accused the French army of protecting the [[Hutu]]s.''" Please explain why this is this to "Historical Revisionism"? Using Babel Fish Translation the http://www.amnistia.net/news/articles/negrwand/negrwand.htm article says: "Memory and revisionism of the Rwandan genocide in France" by Jean-Paul Gouteux
:''Recently (in September 2003) [[Dominique de Villepin]], Foreign Minister of Jacques Chirac, following François Mitterrand, spoke about "genocides" in Rwanda. This plural expressed the public adhesion of the former President of the Republic, like it expresses that of the current person in charge for the French diplomacy, with the theory revisionist known as of the "double genocide".''
Which is much more pertaintant to this article than the rest of the above.
::Complete transl: "Recently (in September 2003), Dominique de Villepin, Foreign Minister of Jacques Chirac, following François Mitterand, spoke about "genocides" in Rwanda. This plural expressed the public adhesion to the revisionist theory of the "double genocide" of the former President of the Republic, as well as that of the current responsible for French diplomacy. According to this theory, the genocide of the [[Tutsi]]s in Rwanda would have been the counter-part to a 'genocide of the [[Hutu]]s'' by the [[Rwandese Patriotic Front]]. This take-over in 2003 of this revisionist theory by an official voice shows that it represent for French politics a major, deep and permanent problem. The explanation hereafter proposed points out at the military, diplomatic and financial implication of French authorities in the [[Rwandan genocide]] [note the singular]."
::As you see, this theory of a "double genocide" is the same "counter-genocide" theory supported by [[Pierre Péan]]. The support of this theory by the French government (both by left-wing François Mitterrand and now by right-wing Dominique de Villepin) shows that it is not a simple matter of political fights, but is indeed related to matters directly concerning the state and therefore the French Republic itself. Of these matters, its responsibility during the genocide heavily weights on its support of revisionist theories claiming that two genocides took place: i.e. that the Tutsis were not only victims, but murderers, and that the Hutus did not only make themselves responsible of a genocide, but have themselves been victims of another "counter-genocide". This argument is the same used by Nazis when they say the bombings of [[Dresden]] were counter-genocides. It is not the fact that [[François-Xavier Verschave]] and others have accused the French state from protecting the Hutus during the genocide that constitutes revisionism; it is, of course, to contest the fact that the Tutsis were massively murdered by the Hutus because of their ethnic membership, which is done by claiming that a "double genocide" happenned (to my knowledge, no one yet went as far as saying that the Tutsis were'nt victims of ethnic cleansing, although it would be possible; but the claims of a counter-genocide ''are examples of revisionism'').
''In 2005, a controversial book by while journalist [[Pierre Péan]] accused the Tutsis of "counter-genocide". ''
Line 45 ⟶ 63:
None of these are what I would call [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources|reliable, published sources]]. There are articles on his hatchet job on "Le Monde" eg: [http://www.guardian.co.uk/france/story/0,11882,903267,00.html] [http://www1.economist.com/displayStory.cfm?Story_ID=S')H4-PQ%2F*!P%22%3C%0A&tranMode=none] but that Péan's book "Black Furies, White Liars" has not been mentioned in the English language press ("Black Furies, White Liars" site:uk - did not match any documents") suggest to me that it is not a good example to place on this page. Has the book been published in English? --[[User:Philip Baird Shearer|Philip Baird Shearer]] 12:01, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
::As may be showed above by the Amnistia article, this thesis of a "counter-genocide" is not limited to Pierre Péan. However, a book supporting this claim written by this renowned journalist of course lit up a political storm in France, in particular since its closely followed the death of [[François-Xavier Verschave]], who was instrumental in showing up the complicities of France with the Hutus during the genocide and thus in the creation of the Parliamentary Commission. Why do [http://www.genocidewatch.org] and [http://allafrica.com] do not qualify as reliable, published sources? Beside, Péan's book on ''[[Le Monde]]'' was certainly not considered in France as a "hatchet job". Please do consider that this more than POV ''Guardian'' article almost exclusively bring forth Edwy Plenel's (member of the newspaper' editorial board) point of view. Again, if Péan's books each time make such a mess, it is because he's not just any journalist, and while his ideological stances may be questionned, his work usually deserves some credit, although he practices [[advocacy journalism]] and thus sometimes allows himself simplistic reductions (in other words, i want to point out that although his books are usually controversial, they are just as often not dismissed as complete non-sense). Again, PBS, I do have to admit your good faith as the interest you have shown in looking up unknown subjects does show that you are genuinely interested by this question. However, since you agree that you somehow lack some understanding of the Rwandan genocide, I do not know how you consider yourself competent enough to judge if there is effectively a case of revisionism. I actually congratulate you for not believing me "on sight" and of looking up things - if everybody was as sceptic as you are, I'm sure propaganda would have a harder time. However, I would also appreciate if you also recognized my good faith, and that, maybe, it is sometimes not utterly stupid to rely on the knowledge of someone else. When I care about my health, I do more than simply eating oranges: I ask advice to a doctor, as I trust his knowledge and good faith (i don't believe he will try to rob my organs - although I could - in other words :). I also notice that one of your main argument against this inclusion of the [[Rwandan genocide]] is that you consider it an "internal French matter" (which thus explains why most of the info about it is in French). But, if you agree that a genocide happened there, how you can you allege that the negation of this genocide through the thesis of "double genocides" is only a "French matter", and not a [[universality (philosophy)|universal]] matter which has a lot more to do with the universal [[Human rights]] than with this country named France? And must I remind that before allegedly being a "French matter", it is a Rwandan matter? The lack of available sources in English concerning this genocide is certainly not a proof of its inexistence or secondary importance, but rather of the lack of moral responsibility from editors. [[User:Lapaz|Lapaz]] 17:53, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
==Yugoslavia==
| |||