This was a well clear and truth documentary about the long hidden reality in Rwanda. My sincere honor to Professor Allan Stam for his great effort in search for the truth. As someone who survived that genocide tragedy I can 100% testify that most of what Profesor Allan explain here all are coincidental, chronological, logical and correlational of what exactly happened in Great Lakes (Rwanda, Burundi, and Zaire) I am biomedical major student, but I am really interested in taking lecture from you. You are really such a great and enlightening professor to expose the lie kagame has been using as tool to stay on power.
ohh how "shame" can awaken your need to take a course...i think you just need your parents to learn genocide denial pseudo-science ..no need to look elsewhere,,wa nterahamwe we
And the reason people call him a genocide denier is that he straight up calls the genocide at 30 minutes a civil war. That is genocide denial via Turkish methods.
This dude is so inaccurate I don’t understand how they’d let him teach this nonsense at a university with false info only… so offending to watch for people like us who lost family and friends from the 1994 Genocide against the Tutsi
Exactly. He’s so preoccupied with the position of RPF during the killings that he completely overlooks the positions of the civilian militias…. In a genocide where the PRIMARY GENOCIDAIRES WERE CIVILIANS. It’s a baffling omission. I also don’t think he mentioned anything about the akazu or the mountains of evidence showing the logistical planning of the genocide prior to April. It really makes you wonder what this guys motivations for this is….. I guess it shouldn’t be shocking though, literally the first point this guy attempts to make is “guys I’m NOT a genocide denier I swear!” He also calls Habyarimama “great” and “beautiful” in what can only be called the war crime apologists equivalent of a Freudian slip.
You do understand that white people aren’t a mobility, right…? Scholars have every right and also an obligation to both study and assess any mass killing in human history. If you want someone to blame than look into Bill Clinton and how he expressly denied help to Rwanda.
It's so horrible like honestly I'm trying my best. This isn't even close to an alternate view. This is like filled with distortions and half truths. "The relevant parts of history" totally skipping how colonialism racialised what was traditionally two social economic groups. Like that doesn't matter at all totally not relevant.
Oh my god we have reached peak levels. At 53:30 he literally has a slide insinuating that it was not a genocide and claiming that it was a civil war while at the same time presenting on a slide the Armenian genocide as an example of actual genocide, A genocide which the Turks vehemently claim was not a genocide but instead civil war. You can't make this stuff up.
You purport yourself as an authority on the Rwandan Genocide. Which documentary, professors, and/or books display the most accurate rundown of this tragedy, according to your expertise?
@@B-K920 Well I myself wrote a 120 page book on this topic discussing the causes and repercussions however my comments on this video are not in support of alternative hypothesis, I am simply pointing out this gentleman's many contradictions and not so subtle manipulations. The issue with asking about a good source for a topic like this is that there is not a definitive authoritative narrative. Many sides will have different facts they focus in on but hypocrisy and blatant lies are totally separate from that altogether. In short read as many sources as you can.
There is no comment because there are no words that can describe this genocide denier as he called himself in the beginning of his unfortunate presentation. He selected his message for an audience that has no knowledge of Rwanda history by completely omitting important information to prove his case of there are no good guys. This is a slap in the face of genocide survivors.
Allan should speak more carefully. And Wikipedia is problematic. I use it for main facts having to do with names and dates. I don't trust it beyond that because special interests can meddle with the entries. Common sense - that's informed - tells us that the RPF wasn't simply pushed out of Zaire/Congo (Zaire is the older name) and the Rwandans weren't just 'found', through unfortunate circumstances, to be in Congo (and therefore Allan's narrative, which overlooks that, is suspect). To put it another way, To the extent that Tutsis were 'found' in Uganda, that was simply a factor taken into account by the US, hovering and scheming in the background, who would use (well armed) Tutsi forces in Uganda to destabilize Rwanda and add it to the already destabilized, resource-rich Congo, as a prize to taken from both France (former colonizer) and the inhabitants. The cost to the people there didn't matter one bit. The official narrative is somewhat right, as long as you remember to reverse the image. The Hutus were the victims of what is being called genocide. And imperial tools who denounce genocide deniers are not denouncing them for denying that there was mass killing of an identifiable group, with a view to disappearing it, but rather, the deniers are denounced because they are identifying the actual victims of that, US-inspired, carnage.
@@fabbeyonddadancer Lots. Do you think that I desire to have a conversation on ThemTube. My blog is called A Yappy Trade Barrier. It has a contact form...
Two names I would associate with truth and honesty in connection with this dark episode are Keith Harmon Snow and Anthony Black. Probably Yves Engler would cover this well, if he has. I'm not sure. Global Research will no doubt have the unofficial (propaganda) story on it, for which reason Michel Chossudovsky has been, reportedly, threatened with lawsuits by imperialists (African and genocide experts) like Gerry Caplan. Allan casually enlists the aid (in how he quotes them) of imperialists like Samantha Powers and Alison Des Forges. By ignoring the background of the US and it's imperial designs, even implying that they wanted to intervene, a la R2P (right to protect which should be regarded as an imperial right to plunder, as Chomsky has explained well, including at the UN), Allan encourages the people to also not see that. He can't go so far as to exonerate Paul Kagame, but he does a good job of trying to, primarily be demonizing and dehumanizing the Hutu. Only Hutu would slaughter each other. Not.
Another distortion. He tries to say the RPF is responsible for the genocide for not ending it fast enough. This is like saying the Americans are responsible for the genocide against the Jews because they didn't reach Berlin fast enough. Like seriously this is a hand full of straw.
Look to really understand who did it and how it began . Look at Rwanda Urundi before colonial, during colonial and rise to independence. My families escaped that shit since the 50’s. Watusi(Tutsi , Abatutsi ) , Wahutu ( Abahutu , Hutu ) it has never been an ethnic tribes . It was always been a social class.
RPF invaded because all efforts to return home peacefully after being refugees for 30 years had been exhausted. The Habyarimana govt used to say that Rwanda was full like a glass of water. My question to you is, was the tusti refugees supposed to remain eternally in refugee camps in order for their kin in Rwanda not to be killed. That is the line of Genocide perpetrators and the French that supported them. Mr. Stam, you are a disgrace to the academia.
@Richard SANDE BARYA I am Congolese and I have read your comments and you’re absolutely right. Exactly and then the only arguments they can put up are Ad hominem and straw men. They don’t care about the truth, they just want to impose their will on others. What he “believe” in and what is put into practice regarding human rights in Rwanda, are two different pair of shoes. I don’t think that it is “unbrainly” thought of nor “un-constructive criticism” saying the regime is faking statistics, promoting divisionism, and killing critics. Indeed boring. I don’t many things about the Hutu genocide but please I want you to educate me on this. Feel free to send me a text message via email: dortmoon805@gmail.com or search me on Facebook: Kenzo DeBen
to those that lost their lives during the genocide against the tutsi we honor you and we shall never forget, we carry your memories with us and no matter what such people like this despicable professor who shamelessly deny or distort what happened to you, only reminds us that we only have one option which is to keep being strong because their motif that they share with their genociders' sympathizers or customers is much alive..and may they suffer from seing us prevail and not wiped out as they so wish...
17:00 The "moderate" Hutu solution is to kill people who have influence and replace them with yourself. 22:45 Moments after Habyarimana is assassinated by having his plane shot down as it approaches Kigali, the RPF implements a well-coordinated plan to invade Rwanda. The invasion starts less than two hours after Habyarimana's death. 48:30 Political organization of Rwanda. It enables the tracking of foreigners, such as Stam and Davenport. 1:01:00 General Paul Kagame wanted to conquer the country by himself, so he said that his troopers would shoot at intervening US marines. 1:01:30 CIA knew that mass violence would happen, resulting in 75 to 150 thousand deaths. They just underestimated the scale. 1:07:05 Kagame's regime is authoritarian. His portrait is everywhere. 1:07:35 Kagame had all the "truth-seekers" murdered.
Yes, as one notable person said, "It was the most obscene mind control experiment." ELF waves beamed down on one side....... uncontrollable rage ensued.
Please do, i'm trying to understand and a lot of what he says makes sense and i also came to the same conclusion in my own research before finding out about him. Please tell me what are the flaws and lies. Im talking specifically about the military operations after the plane got shot down, wether the rpf wanted to save the population or just take power even if it meant more death should happen for the power taking to be more efficient and legit IN THEIR EYES (didn't have to resort to that actually, was a bad choice). They moved slowly and that's a fact, it's also a fact that the hutu army was weak and rpf was strong, rpf did fast movement to kigali to the parliament in 4 days going from uganda... They had capacity to take the whole country fast but did nothing deliberately. This conclusion is highly probable based on this and many other documented facts that i won't elaborate here in a youtube comment, that would be too long.
@@_sunfish I mean come on cites Wikipedia as an accurate source, in an academic talk. I can go edit a Wikipedia page right now and if he happens to read the page while my edit is still active does that mean that my opinion is the truth now? It's shoddy at best.
@@secondfoundation4137 but those wikipedia pages are sourced from official documents, it's a thorough page, I know some wikis aren't fully well made but that big one actually is, big subjects on wiki are often heavily reviewed for truth and sources reliability so. The plane shooting isn't sure but it's certain that kagame was way slower than what he could have been, you have to think of why, did you also know that he rejected an UN intervention at the end of april claiming that everyone was already dead when it was clear that it wasn't true ? Then they take more than 2 months to stop things and claim that they stopped the genocide when 98% of the targets where met and killed... Come on...
@@_sunfish okay let's play out the logic you are using. The Holocaust against the Jews is the fault of the American army because they took to long to get to Berlin. That's what your saying. It's a type of genocide denial. "It's not the fault of the people who committed the genocide, it's the fault of other people, who made them do it, or who didn't stop them from doing it, etc etc. It's rubbish. Also it doesn't matter your opinion about the reliability of specific articles on Wikipedia is universally agreed upon in academia that Wikipedia is not a valid source and if your using wp as your source then you cannot claim to be giving an academic perspective. That is not my opinion that is the universally agreed opinion across all academia for the exact reasons that I stated above. It's inherently biased and not a reliable source. I have left other comments on this video explaining the multiple holes in this presentation. Instead of replying to this comment go back to the video and read the other comments I left. It's not a good presentation.
