Genocide in Cambodia and Rwanda essays

Genocide in Cambodia and Rwanda essays The definition of Genocide can be found in Article II of the 1948 United Nations Genocide Convention and in it acts of Genocide are categorised into five main areas. The reason for this was to make it easier to identify the victims and the perpetrators. The definition seems to hold all the essential elements but it is clear that this definition is sorely lacking in some part. It is reasonable on the part of the United Nations to narrow down the sphere of Genocide but their reluctance to broaden their definition over the years is unacceptable. An issue of great contention is the exclusion of the victims of political genocide. The two case studies that are to be discussed deal with issues of ethnic genocide as well as political mass killings. Rwanda in 1994, in the eyes of the international community, was clearly in the throes of mass genocide. The victims were clear and the perpetrators were clearly marked. In 1975 Cambodia however, a case of genocide could not be so easily proven. Although the perpetrators were acknowledged, the victims could not be plainly targeted. Why is this? Why are political massacres not covered under the law of Article II? The situation in Rwanda and Cambodia share many of the same characteristics of an act of Genocide, but both were not approached in the same way. The question is how many elements of Genocide need to be in place before the international community can intervene. An attempt will now be made to compare and contrast the Genocide in Rwanda and the mass killings in Cambodia and try to uncover the reasons why some acts are considered Genocide and why some others are not. One of the factors that classify a mass killing as Genocide is the identification of individuals as belonging to a certain group. In Nazi Germany, these lines which separated Aryan from Jew, Black and Homosexual were clear. In Rwanda and Cambodia however, victims did not necessarily fit into neat little boxes. The restrictive...

The Modern Theatre

The Modern Theatre The modern theatre and film industry have helped familiarize people with the reality of the world, emotions people go through and happy, as well as sad situations. Historically, one of the first forms of entertainment which evolved into movies today was theatre.Advertising We will write a custom essay sample on The Modern Theatre specifically for you for only $16.05 $11/page Learn More People went to all the plays that were in their towns and greatly valued this form of art. At the same time, there were many prejudices that were a part of the society, which today might seem harsh and unacceptable. One of these is the way gender and races were viewed by the theatrical population and people viewing the plays. The present society has seen many advances in the way people are treated and how the differences between individuals are viewed. Today, people are given an equal opportunity to participate in theatre and media, but even though there are laws that prohibit discrimination due to race or gender, there is still prejudice and stereotyping. In the past, women were not allowed to perform plays. Men would play their parts and from one perspective, this enforced the common views that were abusive towards a certain group. Even though it changed the atmosphere of the theatre, people were not aware that anything could be different, so they accepted it as it was. It would be reasonable to assume that women realized how unfair and humorous it was that men had to play women’s roles, but the dominant social views could not allow anything different. The same can be said about different races, as people were not used to people who stood out from the crowd. Their own insecurities and fear led them to believe that they must not allow anyone who looked different into the industry. Right now, the world has changed and the theatres, as well as other forms of entertainment have become greatly â€Å"colorblind†. It is obvious that the theatre culture is more old fashioned, so prejudices still exist there, but other forms of media and entertainment, especially in the western world, are a clear example that people from all cultures can become successful and accepted. Hollywood has seen many prosperous and world famous people from other races, who are loved and respected all over the world. The theatre is slowly adjusting to the change and this is most obviously seen in relation to gender. Women’s roles are played by women and it would be ridiculous to even image a man playing a woman’s role in the modern world. The society needs diversity in all its parts of entertainment, as people should realize that everyone is equal and there are no real differences between people.Advertising Looking for essay on art? Let's see if we can help you! Get your first paper with 15% OFF Learn More Everyone wants to do what they love and have a talent for, and entertainment industry has shown that there a re many actors who are of same or even greater talent in relation to â€Å"white only† population. The mixing of all societies into one will allow for greater acceptance and cooperation, and because theatre and other media are viewed by so many people, it would be most beneficial to display the unity there. Even though the times are changing slowly, it is clear that gender or race should not matter in theatre or films. The whole world must see that entertainment comes from emotions and people’s soul and looks are unimportant, as people should be judged by their character and not how they appear to be.

British Avante Garde Films Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 2000 words

British Avante Garde Films - Essay Example In spite of their seeming records for a status in a new anti-realist genre (including crime films and science fiction film), most of them were placed in the sunset world of lukewarm black and white B-movies. Such censures ultimately could stir the scholars and experts a bit and in recent times there is a sturdy growth in publications on British cinema although compared to the American scene the subject is still suffers from a relative lack of material. The tidy and wide contours the Hollywood cinema attained during the fifties and sixties and profited from the growth of film studies in the seventies. This is yet to be imitated in British cinema. Among the many revealing dealing of British film history Sarah Street's book British National Cinema (published in 1997). Street shows that "there is no such thing as a typical British film" (198). She , in this book has made a much more fascinating study by explaining the range in British movie making while revealing its evident historical trends - a study that could really snub those critics who always jeer at British cinema for not being "particularly interesting or worthy of study" (199). Here, she has traced the growth of the British Film industry, from the Lumiere brothers' first viewing in London in 1896, the manipulative power of Hollywood and the harsh financial disasters that affected British films. Sarah Street uses the ideas of 'official' and 'unofficial' cinema showing how British cinema has been both 'respectable' and 'disreputable' and eventually making us reveal why British cinema has constantly been treated indifferently by the authority and administration. Comparing Britain and Hollywood, Sarah asks what was the real historical and social function of the British 'star system'."British films" are always films that have been produced in England rather than Scotland, Wales and Ireland, or to be even more exact films made in London and its outer suburbs. Another interesting point here is the way "British Cinema" clutches "British-ness", the historical, cultural, social and psychological factors, traditions and values that most frequently linked with the British identity involving the duty to rebuild the British cinematic image implying the national identity. British film industry had the same starts and novelties as its foils in Europe and America and that all through its history it was both part of a larger cinematic society and it had to deal with same challenges as other national film industries. The British cinema has a history as lengthy as the history of cinema itself. There are also directors i n British cinema that can gloriously be entitled as "the inventor of cinema", the most remarkable among them being William Friese-Greene (1855 -1921), a portrait photographer turned film director, who, just like his French and American matching parts, was working for the creation of the cinematographic tools and is referred by many as the initiator in motion photography. He was a creator who conducted tests with moving image devices at the beginning of cinema that, after his death, was claimed