I caught this New Times piece about a group of Harvard kids who toured Rwanda and met with the president. One of them told the reporter, “Frankly speaking, the portrayal of Rwanda in the Western press does not equal what we have seen here, so we are very enthusiastic about becoming ambassadors and taking the message back to our countries.”
Seriously? What is that kid reading?
I agree with your reaction, Jina. Here’s what I think when I read this:Most of what I come across about Rwanda (aside from criticism of the President’s harsh tactics) applauds the country for its post-genocide progress as a tiny tiger economy, and also because you would think that MPA candidates would inform themselves about where they were visiting and thus gather the same impression of the glowing Western press about Rwanda’s recent economic and social progress. So yeah, strange…
It seems fairly clear to me that the ‘kid’ you speak of was referring to the perception amongst westerners that Rwanda must still be an awfully violent and horrific place in the post-genocide era. The ‘kid’ (Mark Tracy – who, by the looks of his linkedin profile, http://www.linkedin.com/pub/mark-tracy/16/92b/a45, is probably older than you, Jina) was probably quite impressed by the kindness of Rwanda’s people and the general level of peace he found upon visiting the country for a few days.
The snark in this post was unnecessary.
It’s not snark; I’m totally serious. I want to know what that guy was reading. (And as someone who was well above the age of “kid” when constantly referred toas such in her own public policy program, the label sticks — though I appreciate your willingness to assume my youth. A girl will take that as long as she can get it.)
The media image of Rwanda is not at all that it’s violent and awful; any quick check of the clips would show you stories that laud the country’s redevelopment, its infrastructure, its rapid change. The idea that it “must still be an awfully violent and horrific place” is not one you get from the media, I would suggest; it’s one people impose without having read anything that’s been published from Rwanda in the last, say, five years. You simply won’t find anyone describing Rwanda, in journalism, as “awfully violent and horrific” any more — although I find a lot of people who show up here expecting it to be those things. That incorrect assumption is not about the media.
Which is why I’d love to know what he was reading. On the other hand, I can vouch, every day, for the kindness of the Rwandan people, and I agree with you that it shouldn’t be taken for granted.
I took the “Rwanda is different from what I’ve read about it” to be more like “I’ve read that democracy isn’t very strong here, but it turns out Kagame is really a cool guy” which is a different tack but equally problematic. Too bad Mark doesn’t have a blog so we could ask for clarification…
Brett, that’s really interesting. This is like the Rorschach test for Rwanda-followers!
Hi, Jina. I wish you a happy new year. We just keep “cool” and it is not the right time to be angry. We go on being zen. People don’t want to listen. So going shouting “hear me”…