Survival and the Approval Motive in Hotel Rwanda Hotel Rwanda is a film based on the autobiography of The Ordinary Man by
The film depicts events that happened in the Rwandan genocide were about eight hundred thousand people were killed in 1994. The Rwandan Genocide was the mass murder of the Tutsi by Hutu extremists. The Hutu extremists were resentful of past Tutsi government officials and thought all Tutsi were the cause of social imbalance. Tutsi were the main victims of the genocide but Hutus that opposed the genocide were also killed. The film is centralized in the life of a Rwandan hotel manager named Paul Rusesabagina. Paul uses his hotel as a place for refugees while he tries to make it appear as it is still a luxurious hotel and …show more content…
Survival is also a biological concept, there is evidence that suggests our ancestors engaged in the equivalent of “social insurance” or what can be called cooperation as a tool to insure survival (Peterson, Sznycer, Cosmides, & Tooby, 2012). In the film, most Hutus cooperated with the extremists and tried not to publicly talk about the issue to ensure their survival. In one scene Paul bribes some officials with money and alcohol in return of the extremists not to kill his family and friends. When cooperation does not go as intended or one acts parasitic, humans biologically can posses agression and will not be as compassionate ( Peterson et al., 2012). The nations that could have helped did not because they could not receive anything in return, they did not benefit from stopping the genocide and ignored the issue for a …show more content…
The frustration-aggression hypothesis explains that animals become aggressive when their desires become frustrated (Schacter, Gilbert, Wegner & Nock, 2015). The film contained an abundance of aggression because of the tension and fear that both the Tutsi and Hutus felt. The aggressive behavior the Hutu extremists reflected the fear of the Tutsi uprising. Rwandans saw the violence become more apparent because it did not happen all it once, giving them little time to adjust but their culture already had some violence embedded therefore it was one of the reasons the genocide was not a surprise to the Rwandans. Altruism was seen in the film by Paul’s actions. Altruism can be defined as a behavior that benefits others but does not benefit oneself (Schacter et al,. 2015). Paul did not benefit from helping all the people that were refuged in his hotel, he had more to lose therefore he was truly altruistic. The argument that some say that altruism does not exist because one still gets a “good feeling” after helping others cannot be used in Paul’s case because the consequences could outweigh the emotions he would feel after
The film depicts events that happened in the Rwandan genocide were about eight hundred thousand people were killed in 1994. The Rwandan Genocide was the mass murder of the Tutsi by Hutu extremists. The Hutu extremists were resentful of past Tutsi government officials and thought all Tutsi were the cause of social imbalance. Tutsi were the main victims of the genocide but Hutus that opposed the genocide were also killed. The film is centralized in the life of a Rwandan hotel manager named Paul Rusesabagina. Paul uses his hotel as a place for refugees while he tries to make it appear as it is still a luxurious hotel and …show more content…
Survival is also a biological concept, there is evidence that suggests our ancestors engaged in the equivalent of “social insurance” or what can be called cooperation as a tool to insure survival (Peterson, Sznycer, Cosmides, & Tooby, 2012). In the film, most Hutus cooperated with the extremists and tried not to publicly talk about the issue to ensure their survival. In one scene Paul bribes some officials with money and alcohol in return of the extremists not to kill his family and friends. When cooperation does not go as intended or one acts parasitic, humans biologically can posses agression and will not be as compassionate ( Peterson et al., 2012). The nations that could have helped did not because they could not receive anything in return, they did not benefit from stopping the genocide and ignored the issue for a …show more content…
The frustration-aggression hypothesis explains that animals become aggressive when their desires become frustrated (Schacter, Gilbert, Wegner & Nock, 2015). The film contained an abundance of aggression because of the tension and fear that both the Tutsi and Hutus felt. The aggressive behavior the Hutu extremists reflected the fear of the Tutsi uprising. Rwandans saw the violence become more apparent because it did not happen all it once, giving them little time to adjust but their culture already had some violence embedded therefore it was one of the reasons the genocide was not a surprise to the Rwandans. Altruism was seen in the film by Paul’s actions. Altruism can be defined as a behavior that benefits others but does not benefit oneself (Schacter et al,. 2015). Paul did not benefit from helping all the people that were refuged in his hotel, he had more to lose therefore he was truly altruistic. The argument that some say that altruism does not exist because one still gets a “good feeling” after helping others cannot be used in Paul’s case because the consequences could outweigh the emotions he would feel after