FAO Quotables

"But being right, even morally right, isn't everything. It is also important to be competent, to be consistent, and to be knowledgeable. It's important for your soldiers and diplomats to speak the language of the people you want to influence. It's important to understand the ethnic and tribal divisions of the place you hope to assist."
-Anne Applebaum

Monday, March 12, 2012

On Revising Well or “Taking the ax to your work” or “Getting the words right”



On Revising Well or “Taking the ax to your work”[1] or “Getting the words right”[2]

“For me and most of the other writers I know, writing is not rapturous. In fact, the only way I can get anything written at all is to write really, really shitty [awful] first drafts.”
- author Anne Lamott

“Have the courage to write badly.”
-  author Josh Shenk

“I have never thought of myself as a good writer. But I’m one of the world’s great rewriters.”
-author James A. Michener

“Books aren’t written- they’re rewritten.  It is one of the hardest things to accept, especially after the seventh rewrite hasn’t quite done it.” 
- author Michael Crichton

Why do we revise?
      In an interview with the “Paris Review,” Hemingway responded to a question about the concluding page in Farewell to Arms as follows: “I rewrote the ending to Farewell to Arms, the last page of it, thirty-nine times before I was satisfied.”  When further questioned as to the problem that led to the plethora of revisions, he responded, “Getting the words right.”[3]

On peer editing or, if T.S. Eliot can cut back, so can you:
      When T.S. Eliot asked Ezra pound to edit a draft he was working on for a poem called “The Wasteland,” she had this to write on the first page:  “Too loose [. . .] rhyme drags it out to diffuseness.”  At another part of the poem she commented, “Verse not interesting enough as verse to warrant so much of it.”[4]

On Perseverance:
James Joyce’s Finnegan’s Wake went through 16 drafts![5]


Create your system/checklist

-  Create your own checklist.  What are your problem areas?  What are the mistakes you commonly make?

-  Better yet, steal and / or revise someone else’s checklist!

FUUO Checklist:

1.  Print out that really, really, really, really, really awful first draft. 

2.  Let it sit for an hour or two—better yet a day or two. 

3.  Read through your paper with a pen in hand; make obvious corrections.

4.  “Block” your paper.  This means creating a quick outline with sticky notes or just drawing blocks on a piece of paper.  Try to capture the point of each paragraph with a sentence at the most. 
            a.  Does the order of the blocks make sense logically?
            b.  Do the blocks flow smoothly from one to another?  Are any missing transition             sentences to link them together? 

5.  Make corrections from step 3 on your computer.  Make any additions or changes from step 4. 

6.  Have your spouse / peer / friend read your paper.  Encourage them to be ruthless. 

7.  Make corrections as necessary.

8.  Command (or Ctrl) +f. 

9.  Print out paper.  Have a drink.

10.  Read your paper, checking for material / sentences / ideas that are not footnoted.  Circle them.

11.  Find the proper sources for material that you failed to cite.

12. “Ibidize” your paper.  Check footnotes against bibliography and vice versa.

13.  Print your paper; have a drink; read through one last time.

Command + f Appendix:

The fact that / In the event that / For the reason that / In order to / By means of

That (can the sentence stand without it?) (use with essential info)
Which (use with non-essential info; could often be in parentheses) (descriptive)

This (at beginning of the sentence when subject wasn’t just mentioned at the end of the previous sentence)

Not (make it the positive version)
none (S&W p. 10)

Would, Should, Could, May, Might, Can (do these weaken my paper?)
Rather, Very, Little, Pretty, quite (do these weaken my paper?)

Who is, Which was
Who (subject-he)
Whom (object-him)
I, me, my, we, us, our (strike these from my paper)

‘ (no contractions! )

one of (normally should have a plural verb)
ion (watch out for these when a verb could be used instead)
it (am I overusing it)

Names/places (am I using the same name too often?  Ex: LBJ/Johnson/the president/he)

and, but, or, nor, for, so, yet (coordinating conjunctions)—need comma
however, therefore (coordinating adverb)—need semicolon

By/was/were (passive)

( (Overuse of parentheses for other than acronyms—replace with two commas)

Parallelism (and/or lists)

.02
  Only ignorant and lazy writers believe their first effort to be their final one.  Revision is the opportunity for writers to read through their work and make necessary corrections.   During this process, authors ferret out derelict passive phrases and inspect each sentence for variety in length and structure.  At this point, the best writers put down their papers and walk away, for at least an hour or two, or, better yet, a day or more.   This distance and time allow writers to return to their work with a fresh eye, providing them better context in which to edit their work.  Key to all of these elements is time.  The polish of a superior paper reflects the lengthy and dedicated process of revision and correction.  While writing well is a difficult endeavor, reading should not be.

*FUUO owes a debt of gratitude to the professor of his writing course for her excellent handbook; I adapted several parts of my own checklist from her excellent material.  

[1] Frank Kersnowski and Alice Hughes, ed., Conversations with Henry Miller (University Press of Mississippi, 1994), 86.

[2] David Calonne, “Creative Writers and Revision,” Revision: History, Theory and Practice, The WAC Clearinghouse, accessed March 5, 2012, http://wac.colostate
.edu/books/horning_revision/chapter9.pdf, 149.

[3] Ibid., 149.

[4] Ibid., 164.

[5] Ibid., 167.  

Sometimes in April Review (footnotes incorporated)

BONUS LINK:  My entire (so far) grad school notes collection can be found here. 

I wrote an earlier footnoted version of this essay here.  In this version I incorporated the footnotes and made a few minor changes.


Sometimes in April: The Guilt of the Silent

            In 2004’s Sometimes in April, director Raoul Peck creates a graphic and accurate account of the genocide that began after Hutu extremists and members of the Presidential Guard shot down a plane carrying Rwandan President Habyarimana and Burundian President Ntaryimira on 6 April 1994.  This event ignited a killing spree that spread from Kigali throughout the country, claiming the lives of over 800,000 people—507,000 of them Tutsis (77% of registered Tutsi population), in the span of 100 days.  While the film’s examination of these 100 days reflect years of careful research by the director, Peck neglects several key elements whose inclusion would strengthen his story’s purpose.  From the start, the movie falls short in offering deeper context to the relationship between the Hutus and Tutsis throughout Rwanda’s history.  While the film captures the inaction of the international community throughout the genocide well, the director’s decision to ignore the negligence and lethargy of specific individuals and administrations is a disservice to all those killed.  Lastly, the film fails to address the significance of current Rwandan President Paul Kagame’s decision to initiate countrywide gacaca “grass courts” in 2001 in the midst of continuing deliberations by the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR). 
            There is little to criticize, however, in the Peck’s portrayal of the events occurring in Rwanda during the genocide.  The movie’s action hinges on the relationship between fictional characters Augustin, a moderate Hutu captain in the Rwandan military (married to Jeanne, a Tutsi), and his brother Honoré, a popular “Hutu Power” radio DJ for Radio Télévision Libre des Mille Collines (RTLM).  During the genocide, the international community protests RTLM as “hate” radio; its DJs regularly list the names and addresses of Tutsis and moderate Hutus so they can be targeted and killed.  As violence erupts, Augustin fears for his life and that of his family.  After much pleading, he convinces his brother to take his family to the Hotel Mille Collines where they will be safe, deciding that his brother’s reputation gives them the best chance to make it through the deadly roadblocks in the capital city Kigali.  After successfully negotiating a few roadblocks run by civilian militia, Honoré comes to one run by the military that he is unable to pass or bribe his way through.  Helpless to intervene, he watches in anguish as Rwandan soldiers murder his brother’s family.  Honoré sneaks back to the pit under the cover of night—miraculously finds Jeanne alive, and carries her to a local church.  Jeanne survives and is later taken by Rwandan soldiers and gang-raped repeatedly.  In a fitting piece of justice (one based on similar actual events), she grabs a soldier’s grenade and kills herself and a group of them after a brutal rape session, to include a complicit priest (also based on actual events). This narrative draws to a close as the Rwandan Patriotic Front (RPF), led by General Paul Kagame, defeats the Rwanda military and militias, restores order and brings the genocide to an end.  The other story told by the film, in parallel, focuses on Honoré’s trial at the ICTR ten years later, and the two brothers’ reconciliation.  The director uses their rapprochement to illustrate the complex nature of Rwanda’s post-genocide growth and progress toward normalcy. 
            The film itself begins by tracing the onset of ethnic conflict in Rwanda from the post-World War II handover of colonial control from Germany to Belgium, noting that for centuries Hutu, Tutsi, and Twa “shared the same culture, language and religion.”  While it is true that they all shared a common language, Kinyarwanda, whether all three are part of the same ethnic group is a matter widely debated by scholars, as Alison Des Forges notes in her seminal work Leave None to Tell the Story: Genocide in Rwanda. Furthermore, this opening statement paints too rosy a picture, as it fails to acknowledge the Tutsi’s marked centuries-long subjugation of the Hutus.  While these details do not excuse the genocide, including them would offer insight into the psyche of the Hutus and the way in which it was manipulated, ultimately leading to decades of horrific violence.  In Africa Since Independence, historian Paul Nugent remarks that the disagreement among scholars centers on the argument that a better description of the Hutus and Tutsis is one of different ethnic groups living in the same society as part of a feudal or caste system. Regardless of the debate, what is clear is that they lived in the same region among each other for more than a thousand years.  In the book Genocide and Covert Operations in Africa, author Wayne Madsen relates that as different groups (belonging to different families and following different leaders) settled into the area, the cattle-herding pastoralists (the Tutsi people) consolidated power and militarily established a rule (under mwamis, or kings) over the region, creating an elite class that would evolve over the centuries.  Des Forges points out that not every cattle-herder was part of the ruling class, however, and some farmers (Hutus) also rose to prominence (especially those skilled in battle).  In general, a Hutu could become a Tutsi if he bought enough cattle to elevate his social position.  Although even if a Tutsi lost all of his cattle, he would not then become a Hutu.  So until the 1800’s, Des Forges notes that the terms Hutu and Tutsi retained a degree of fluidity, and people were more apt to define themselves by a specific region or lineage than by the term Hutu or Tutsi.  It was at the end of the 19th century, as society in Rwanda became more developed and complex, that a degree of rigidity emerged in how the ruling class defined itself.  Des Forges observes that the Tutsi ruling class came to define itself by power and wealth (typically measured by the number of cattle owned). The masses and peasants did not own cattle and were thus defined as subjects, or Hutus.  It is worthwhile to note, that while historians typically recount the relationship between ruler and ruled with a degree of ambivalence, conquest and violence was an essential part of it.  Madsen notes that in the next century for instance, Hutus would call for a ban on the kalinga, the royal Tutsi drum decorated with the testicles of defeated Hutu princes.
            It is then unfortunate that this consolidation and modernization by the ruling class coincided with European conquest. Madsen shows that in an effort to maintain control and maximize economic benefit, the Belgians torqued the system already in place, choosing to conduct official communication only with the ruling class, this belief stemming from their own warped ideas about racial superiority.  This interaction carried over to the religious side as well until the 1930’s when Flemish priests replaced Belgian Catholic ones.  These typically poor Flemish priests more closely related to the Hutus economically.   So while educational opportunities came, they were the second tier ones available through the Catholic Church.  In contrast Madsen notes, Tutsis received the superior French education available through the Belgian government.  It is at this point that the film describes well the racial classification system put in place by Belgium, one that included identity cards that listed the bearer as “Hutu” or “Tutsi.”  In removing any chance for upward mobility among those ruled (Hutus), the Belgians fostered a growing resentment that would fester for several decades.
            This bitterness manifested itself in 1959, when Belgium rule ended, and power was turned over to majority rule.  On 28 January 1961, the majority (Hutus) spoke and deposed Tutsi King Kigeli V, replacing him with Hutu president Grégoire Kayibanda.  Over the next several decades, hundreds of thousands of Tutsi would flee the country; Nugent states that by 1994 an estimated 400-700 thousand Rwandan Tutsis lived outside Rwanda.  It is in this long history that one finds the fuel for the fire that became the genocide. 
            And It is in his description of the international response to this fire that Peck falls short.  The film primarily focuses on the international responses through the actions of Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs Prudence Bushnell, and through her efforts to influence the United States to act to intervene.  True to the historical record, she is roundly rebuffed by the administration above her when she tries to motivate action.   The film never names those squelching her effort, however, nor does it delve into the specific details of President Clinton’s blind eye.  These details are important because they offer insight into the U.S. decision-making process and the efficacy of the United Nations.   A day after the president’s plane is shot down, the film shows Bushnell referring to a 9-week-old CIA report that warned of the potential for widespread violence.  Bushnell is reprimanded by an older white gentlemen (one assumes this to be Secretary of State Warren Christopher) “not to bring up the CIA report again.”  The pacing of the film’s cuts to the inaction in Washington exacerbates the lack of detail.  In offering only infrequent cuts, Peck fails to tell the viewer the scene’s place in the genocide’s timeline.  Thus when the film shows an internal USG debate via teleconference regarding the possibility of jamming the radios (a measure that the DoD deemed “too expensive and illegal”), the viewer doesn’t know that this debate occurred, and is documented in a declassified DoD memo, on or about 5 May, nearly a month after the killings (roughly 200,000 dead by then) began.  Other than a few news clips of State Department officials playing semantics with the term genocide on Day 65 of the crisis (620,000 killed), and a final shot of a nameless White House official thanking Bushnell for her team’s work on the U.S. belated humanitarian response (which actually aided the escape of many of the murderers), no other evidence of America’s action is investigated.  
            This omission is unfortunate because there are hundreds of previously classified documents (all available at the time of the filming) that make it clear that the U.S. was aware of the slaughter and murder of civilians at the highest levels, and not only did nothing, but in some cases made efforts to ensure others did nothing as well.  As journalist Samantha Powers unveiled in her 2001 article “Bystanders to Genocide,” partly in response to a request from the Belgian government for “cover’ in their withdrawal, Christopher sent a cable on 15 April (64,000 now dead) to the U.S. Mission to the United Nations.  Powers reveals that In it he stated the U.S. position that the United Nations Assistance Mission in Rwanda (UNAMIR) must be withdrawn, an imperative that would be echoed during a Security Council meeting at which the Rwandan ambassador was present and able to communicate the information back to the genocide’s perpetrators.  The Clinton administration, through National Security Advisor Anthony Lake, continued to receive intelligence reports on the killing to include a 26 April one stating that at least 100,000 had been killed.  Perhaps most damning, however, is a 21 April letter from Rwandan human rights activist Monique Mujawamariya to President Clinton; in the letter she writes that is genocide is occurring and that a UNAMIR drawdown would have a dire effect.  Clinton had met Mujawamariya the previous year and when she went missing in Rwanda in early April, Powers states that finding her became a central task for the president’s staff.  After she managed to escape Rwanda and was found, however, her pleas—and her letter, went ignored by the White House.  At the United Nations, the U.S. continued to stymie efforts to intervene.  In a 28 April memo to Madeline Albright from Deputy Political councilor to the UN John Boardman, he cautions her to remain “mostly in listening mode… not commit [the] USG to anything.”  Early wording in the same memo makes it clear that the U.S. was aware of “atrocities” being committed in Rwanda.  The ambivalence and impotence of the White House is best shown in Jared Cohen’s observation in One Hundred Days of Silence: American and the Rwanda Genocide: Rwandan assets in the U.S. were not frozen, and diplomatic relations with the genocidal government were not cut off until 15 July, 11 days after the genocide’s end.  During the films final seconds, the words, “Of those who watched the genocide unfold and did nothing to stop it, no one has been charged” appear on the screen. By using these documents, and countless others available, Peck could have made clear exactly who those who watched the genocide unfold were.
            Finally, the film shows both the ICTR, as well as the gacaca courts taking place in the countryside villages where the genocide occurred. Philip Gourevitch points out in his article, “The Life After: A Reporter at Large,” that the gacaca courts were instituted to address the backlog of 110,000 alleged genocide perpetrators in 2001.  Widely criticized by human rights activists, the informal courts (led by ‘judges’ with only a modicum of legal training) were held in the villages where the crimes occurred, and allowed victims to confront their attackers directly.  Peck fails to show these controversies, however, nor does he counter Gourevitch’s claim that in some cases the criminal’s confession itself was his only punishment (in many cases it was a combination of confession and time served).  While the competing ideas of retribution and justice in post-genocide Rwanda may have been too large a project to address in an already long (2 hour and 15 minutes) film, the director could have made clear Gourevitch’s point that the gacaca courts were a deliberate effort by Tutsi President Kagame to help rebuild a sense of normalcy and an ability for Rwanda to move forward.  In one of the most densely populated countries in Africa, it was clear that Hutus and Tutsi would have to live amongst each other as their country recovered. 
            Given an event as large and complex as the genocide in Rwanda, Peck does an admirable job in addressing the ways in which the extremist elements of the Hutu military and political militias took advantage of the Tutsis’ past systemic subjugation of Hutus.  The pervasive power of this propaganda is well illustrated in the character of hate radio DJ Honoré.   As Peck superbly captures the graphic and explicit imagery of genocide, he is in his element, creating scenes that cannot be ignored, nor ever forgotten by the viewer.  Thus it is all the more unfortunate that the film’s beginning words by Martin Luther King Jr., “In the end, we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends,” are not fully honored by naming those silent offenders in the United States. Perhaps by holding these mute transgressors accountable, future atrocities can be prevented.   

Note:  For the sake of simplicity, and due to a wide range of dissonant sources, all facts and figures came from the PBS “Frontline: Ghosts of Rwanda, Timeline” and Alison Liebhafsky Des Forges’ definitive work, Leave None to Tell the Story: Genocide in Rwanda.

That Spring in 1994: What I Remember—Recollections of the Rwandan Genocide

Newest rewrite (previous version available here):


That Spring in 1994: What I Remember—Recollections of the Rwandan Genocide

That spring in 1994, I was 15 years old and a freshman at Bedford High School in Massachusetts.   Searching my memory of that period, I can't uncover even a faded polaroid recollection to give witness to the murder of almost a million men, women, boys, girls and babies. 

That spring

I remember working as a bagger at the grocery store on Hanscomb Air Force Base. 
I remember fleeing the base theatre with my friend CJ after we lit up cigars during a movie.
I remember the field where I would play soccer by my school.

What I can recall

I close my eyes and I can smell the dusty paper of the grocery bags.
I close my eyes and I can feel my heart racing as we were chased out of the theatre.
I close my eyes and I can see the long and overgrown green grass of the soccer field.

That same spring

Nearly a million people's last breath and smell was rotten and rife with
sweat, urine, and blood.
Murderers crushed and ripped apart nearly a million hearts.
Murderers smashed shut nearly a million sets of eyes. 

That same spring

Millions of people

knew.

And millions of people did

nothing.

Today
            Today
                        Today
                                    Today
                                                          and everyday

I trudge with the grief of my own ignorance
like an iron yoke
on the shoulders
of my soul.









Wednesday, March 7, 2012

I Paid a Bribe and Killing Kony 2012

Updated 1045PM 7 MAR 2012

Two links for you to check out today:

"I Paid a Bribe" is a fascinating idea.  People upload there stories of paying and resisting bribes by government officials in India.  It would be interesting to see sister websites in every country.
http://ipaidabribe.com/

Killing Kony.  Let's face it:  Kony is a despicable murderer.    This film gets the word out and seeks to mobilize.  You can check out one of my past posts that talks a little about Kony:


Here you can see a rare inverview with him:
http://www.rocketboom.com/rb_06_aug_16/

It's also worth noting that before you donate your money to ANY charity you should examine their financial statements and see what percentage of your donation reaches the intended cause.  I think with Kony 2012 only 31% does which seems paltry.  That said however, if the movie gets the whole world concerned about stamping out Kony, creating a coalition of international pressure/action, it could be worthwhile.  It could also send us down a rabbit hole...

http://pomee.tumblr.com/post/18899601760/kony-2012-causing-more-harm-than-good



http://s3.amazonaws.com/kony2012/kony_all.html



Tuesday, March 6, 2012

Adopting a baby!

Adopting a baby!

My wife and I began the process of adoption a few months ago and we got a call a few days ago that a birthmom had chosen us...and that she's due in 10 days!

Needless to say, I probably won't be posting too much here for the next few weeks.

****ON THAT NOTE, PLEASE GO TO THE LINK ABOVE AND SIGN THE PETITION TO MAKE ADOPTION MORE AFFORDABLE!

Thursday, March 1, 2012

Read Gettleman's article on "Africa's Dirty Wars"

Gettleman is an incredible writer--I can't believe I haven't read him before!  

Take a few minutes to read his latest article:  Africa’s Dirty Wars from the New York Review of Books today (and follow him on twitter: @gettleman).   His article closes with his observation following a massacre in Niangara:


I walked under the mango trees and into an old house, the field clinic. A young woman sat on an iron cot. She had been fetching water when she was attacked, apparently for no reason. The rebels had pinned her down in the dirt and sliced off her lips. She was twenty-three. Now her mouth will forever be open, like a scream.

He uses a picture from the Richard Mosse's newly released photobook Infra; an examination of the ongoing conflict in the DRC.  






http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2012/mar/08/africas-dirty-wars/?pagination=false