The Sociological Review of Hotel Rwanda Paul Rusesabagina, a hotel manager, was living in Rwanda in the year 1994. During that year, Rwanda, a small country in Africa, went into a civil war between the Hutu and the Tutsi. The Hutu rebels went and assassinated the President of Rwanda and started the massacring the Tutsi. Paul Rusesabagina, a Hutu, was against the killing the Tutsi, since his wife and neighbors were Tutsi. Throughout the movie, Paul brought in survivors and attempted to get them into safety and try to escape the attempt of genocide that was happening in Rwanda.
One of the biggest social structures that created throughout this movie was the difference between ascribed and achieved status. An ascribed status was status you were born with, and for the most part, it cannot be changed. In the movie, the ascribed status that affect the war was the ascribed status of being a Hutu or a Tutsi. And for the achieved status, it was the political power the Tutsi had in Rwanda. Most of the power in the politics in Rwanda was held by Tutsi, from the president to their congress. Through this, the Hutu was the minority of …show more content…
The reasoning why this is the best sociological theories for film is due to the severe disadvantage the Hutu had over the Tutsi over resources like good jobs and money that they decided attack to ensure that their fair share of the resources in Rwanda. Rwanda was depicted as third world country in the film, with most of the roads being gravel and a lot of houses being made from scrap. So in Rwanda, resources were scarce, and the Tutsi had most of the resources. Also, since the Tutsi held most of the power in Rwanda, the Hutu did not feel like they could do anything to be able to help get them get the resources they need without attacking. Due to this, the conflict theory would be the best fit for the sociological theory for this