Rwanda Genocide: Process and Outcomes

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Table of Contents

Introduction
Historical Background
The Colonial Political System
Post Independence Rwanda
Process and Outcome of the Genocide
Comparison with Tasmanian Genocide
Conclusion
Works Cited

Introduction

The Rwanda genocide of 1994 is regarded as the largest genocide since the mass killings of the Second World War. While the killing of the Rwandan president Juvénal Habyarimana in April 6, 1994 sparked this event, historians assert that ethnic differences and identity politics played a significant role in this genocide, which resulted in the death of over 800,000 people in the span of a few weeks. This paper will present the anthropological elements that led to the horrendous Genocide of 1994 in Rwanda. It will describe the Tutsi-favored political system and land distribution system that contributed to the occurrence of the Genocide. The paper will conclude by comparing the Rwanda and Tasmania genocide in order to show their similarities and differences.

Historical Background

Rwanda is an African state located in the Great Lakes Region of central-east Africa. The country was first colonized by Germany but the responsibility for governing it was passed along to Belgium following Germany’s defeat in WWI (Amstutz 543). It has three ethnic groups: the Hutu majority, and the Tutsi and Twa minorities. The early European who encountered the Rwandese people noted the pronounced differences between the Tutsi and Hutu ethnic groups. The Hutus were Bantus and their primary economic activity was farming while the Tutsis were cattle-herders. Historically, Rwanda was ruled by a monarchy headed by the Tutsi leading to a condition where the Tutsi ruled over the Hutus around. This created the perception that the Tutsi rulers were the superior group. However, De Heusch notes that there was little difference between the Hutu elite and the Tutsi upper class (3). The social structure in Rwanda was flexible and people could move from one ethnic group to the other since it was a mixed society.

The Colonial Political System

The Colonial powers failed to see the fluid and mixed aspect of the Rwandan society. Instead, they focused on the differences among the people and established social structures on this basis. The Europeans were of the opinion that the Tutsi did not originate from the region. Instead, they theorized that the Tutsi were not indigenous Africans but a superior people who had migrated to the region. Hintjens declares that during colonial rule, “Church, school, administration and the army were organized around the assumed racial superiority of the Tutsi people” (253). The policies adopted by the colonizing power greatly advantaged the Tutsi minority. This led to a situation where this ethnic group considered itself inherently superior to the Hutu in Rwanda.

The Belgian colonial powers radicalized the ethnic identities of the Rwandans in a number of ways. To begin with, the Belgian administrators came up with a method of ascribing a single ethnic label to each citizen. Cohen argues that this single label, which was traced though the male line, ignored the complex ways in which social identities were traditionally constructed by the people of the Region (87). Before the Belgians came up with this administrative device, an individual could be both Tutsi and Hutu due to intermarriages. However, the official imposition of a single label led to the development of a more rigid ethnic identity. The colonial administration was responsible for introducing the identity card system in Rwanda.

Belgian bureaucrats introduced this system to enable them to easily distinguish the ethnicity of the Rwandese subjects. Hintjens observes that contrary to popular assumptions, it is not easy to differentiate the Hutu majorities from the Tutsi minorities primarily based on physical appearances (247). These two tribes share physical attributes, language, and religious beliefs making it difficult to tell them apart. Belgium introduced these cards in 1935 as a way of identifying the Tutsi and providing them with preferential treatment over the other groups. After attaining independence, the African rulers choose to maintain the colonial identity card system. The identity cards played a part in the genocide as they helped the Hutu militia to identify the Tutsi minority.

Land has always been a crucial asset in Rwanda as a big segment of the population relies on it for sustenance. Historically, the Tutsis owned most of the land in Rwanda and they operated a feudal system where poor Hutu farmers worked for their Tutsi masters in return for access to land. During the colonial era, the Belgians perpetuated the land inequality policies by placing the Tutsis as administrators. The Tutsi took the opportunity to seize land from the poor Hutu farmers leading to greater inequality. This created great resentment against the Tutsi by the Hutu who felt exploited and disenfranchised. Boudreaux asserts that historical land inequality grievances contributed to the genocide as Rwandan farmers stood to gain the land resources of the Tutsis once they killed them (86).

Post Independence Rwanda

Amstutz notes that when Rwanda gained its independence in 1962, the Hutu ethnic group gained political ascendance (544). After independence, the Hutu started to gain some power from the Belgian trusteeship power system that had until then benefited the Tutsi. One of the actions undertaken by the new government was to impose reverse discrimination. Since the colonial authorities had favored the Tutsis, the Hutu leadership engaged in policies aimed at disadvantaging this group. Tutsi’s were denied access to civil jobs and politically marginalized. The Hutu government stated to impose strict secondary and tertiary education quotas to ensure that the Tutsi had limited access to higher education.

In the years following the Independence of Rwanda, thousands of Tutsis fled to Uganda to escape repression. These refugees were resentful of the social, political, and economic discrimination perpetrated against them by the Hutu rulers (Cohen 87). They formed the Rwandan Patriotic Front (RPF), which was a political party representing Tutsi concerns. This party formed an armed wing and engaged in incursions into Rwanda in 1990. The Hutu elite viewed the RPF as a threat to their rule and the signing of the Arusha Accords of 1993 reinforced this views. The Arusha Accords were essentially a power sharing deal between the Tutsi and the Hutu making it undesirable to Hutu radicals. The Hutu elite used the rigid ethnic identities created by the colonizers to promote the genocide.

Process and Outcome of the Genocide

The colonial introduced notion that the Tutsi were not indigenous Africans contributed to the genocide of 1994. During the colonial era, this argument was used to demonstrate the superiority of the Tutsi and justify the economic and political privileges given to this ethnic group. The Tutsi held to this notion as a defense for their natural right to rule over the Hutu and Twa. Hintjens notes that the genocide planners used this notion of foreign origins, perpetuated by the Belgium colonizers, to justify their plans to eliminate the Tutsis from Rwanda (256).

By early 1994, Rwanda was a country at the brink of a civil war due to the poor economic conditions in the country and widespread insecurity. The government had been using the historical animosities between the Hutus and the Tutsi to encourage hatred in the country. The assassination of the Hutu president by suspected RPF fighters led to the start of the genocide (Cohen 88). The Hutu led government started the genocide with its primary perpetrators being the national army and government backed Hutu militias. At the onset of the genocide in April 7, 1994, the military and militia forces carried out the quick execution of Tutsi leaders who were in government. Hutu leaders who sympathized with the Tutsi or held moderate views were also killed. After this, the forces set out numerous checkpoints through which Tutsis were identified and killed. In addition to this, ordinary Hutu citizens were incited to engage in violence against Tutsis and any Hutu who sympathized with the Tutsis (Amstutz 544).

The most significant outcome of the genocide is that it led to the death of about a million Rwandans, most of who belonged to the Tutsi ethnic group. Amstutz remarks that in a period of 100 days, some 800,000 persons were killed in a genocide that had been planed at the national and regional levels (541). The war also led to an end of the Hutu domination of Rwanda’s political life, which had taken place since the country gained independence. The RPF, which had played a significant part in ending the genocide and saving the lives of many innocent civilians, became a dominant political party in the country.

Comparison with Tasmanian Genocide

A significant genocide carried out in the 19th century was the Tasmanian genocide. In this case, the British settlers engaged in the killing of almost all of the 6,000 native Tasmanians in Australia. A similarity between the two genocides is that they were both aimed at eliminating an entire population based on ethnicity or race. The intention of the Rwanda Genocide was the complete elimination of the Tutsi, who were considered a racial enemy. Verwimp confirms that the Main organizers of the genocide were Hutu elite who sort to achieve regime survival by eliminating the Tutsis (327). In the Tasmanian genocide, the British settlers set out to eliminate the Tasmanian aboriginals from the land. Through this mass elimination, the British would have complete control of the land previously owned by this group.

A key difference in the two genocides is that while the Tasmanian genocide was perpetrated by foreigners, the Rwandan was carried out by citizens against each other. The Tasmanian aboriginals were brutally attacked by British settlers who were foreign to the country. On the other hand, people who were native to the land carried out the Rwanda genocide. Both the Tutsi and the Hutus had occupied the geographic region that makes up Rwanda for centuries in harmony (Cohen 87). The genocide was therefore a civil affair where citizens of the same country turned on each other.

Conclusion

Over the years after 1994, different explanations for the occurrence of the Rwanda genocide have been provided. This paper set out to discuss the anthropological elements that included Tutsi position in society and the effects of measures instigated by the Belgium powers in colonial Rwanda. It began by providing a historical account of Rwanda and the impact that Belgian rule had on the society. The paper then showed how the Hutu majority marginalized the Tutsi after independence. A review of the process and Outcome of the Genocide was then provided. The paper has concluded by showing that the Rwanda genocide is similar to the Tasmanian genocide in that both were aimed at eliminating one ethnic group. The two differed in that foreigners carried out the Tasmanian genocide while citizens of the country carried out the Rwanda genocide.

Works Cited

Amstutz, Mark. “Is Reconciliation Possible After Genocide? The Case of Rwanda.” Journal of Church & State 48.3 (2006): 541-565. Web. 26 Nov. 2014.

Boudreaux, Karol. “Land Conflict and Genocide in Rwanda.” The Electronic Journal of Sustainable Development 1.3 (2009): 85-95. Print.

Cohen, Herman. “Rwanda: Fifty Years of Ethnic Conflict on Steroids.” American Foreign Policy Interests 34.1(2012): 86–92. Web. 26 Nov. 2014.

De Heusch, Luc. “Rwanda: Responsibilities for a Genocide.” Anthropology Today 11.4(1995): 3-7. Web. 26 Nov. 2014.

Hintjens, Helen. “Explaining the 1994 genocide in Rwanda.” The Journal of Modern African Studies 37.2 (1999): 241-286. Print.

Verwimp, Philip. “Development ideology, the peasantry and genocide: Rwanda represented in Habyarimana’s speeches.” Journal of Genocide Research 2.3(2000): 325–361. Web.

Click Here To Order Now!