Rwanda Genocide Politics

Genocides happen when ethnic divisions become apparent. Many times, these ethnic divisions were due to colonization from people of different race. These cases are especially true in Africa when Europeans colonized their territory, with clear racial divisions between them (Gavin). These genocides go on because of nations acting on ignorance and refusing to help out the nations in turmoil, allowing the genocides to continue, without wasting their own resources. These nations purposefully ignoring the slaughter of people cause the nations to also be guilty of the genocide underway (“The Heart”). The genocide occurred in Rwanda in Central Africa during 1994. The decades of Tutsi oppression of Hutus and the assassination of President Habyarimana in 1994 led to the genocide in Rwanda.

This investigation studies two of the causes of the 1994 genocide of Rwanda. The two causes are examined in order to see to what extent each contributed to the genocide. The social and ethnic conflicts between two Rwandan groups called the Hutus and the Tutsis caused violent disputes and riots. The assassination of President Juvenal Habyarimana is often thought of as the event that sparked the mass murders. Did the assassination of President Juvenal Habyarimana influence the Rwandan genocide of 1994 more than the ongoing social and ethnic conflicts?

Along with the Belgians support toward the Hutu came the Hutu Revolution in 1959. It all started with the Belgians getting the Hutu more political positions, getting them into secondary schools, and getting them to just participate in more public life. This scared the Tutsi. The Tutsi, feeling that there power was being jeopardized, decided they had to do something. Feeling that they were in a desperate situation they ended up killing a Hutu sub-chief. The vivid Hutu, feeling that it was time to take a stand, attacked Tutsi officials, who in return attacked the Hutu. This turned into one of many small

In 1994, a tragedy occurred in Rwanda where millions of Tutsis’, the minority, were brutally murdered by the Hutu, the majority. This event is known as the Rwandan genocide and left many people wondering what could have caused this devastating event to occur. Over the years, many theories have surfaced and among those were the theories of Peter Uving. In both Why Did People Participate in Genocide? A Theoretically Informed Synthesis and The Condition of Structural Violence Peter Uvin seeks to explain why violence occurs in society. Nevertheless, the two articles are different in the sense that Why Did People Participate in Genocide? A Theoretically Informed Synthesis is primarily focused on the other theories which include political scientists,

Rwanda is a country located in Central Eastern Africa, with an extensive history of colonization, after Belgium attained control in 1924. Belgium’s rule however also marked the beginning of a lengthy ethnic rivalry between the Hutu and the Tutsi people. Belgium favored the Tutsi the minority at 14 percent of the population over the Hutu, the majority at 85 percent, simply because the Tutsis were more resembling of the Europeans. “Colonial policy helped to intensify bipolar differentiation between Tutsi and Hutu, by inscribing “ethnic” identification on identity cards, by relegating the vast majority of Hutu to particularly onerous forms of forced cultivation and corvee, and by actively favoring Tutsi in access to administrative posts, education, and jobs in the modern sector,” (Newbury, 12). Belgium’s control fueled the Hutu’s resentment towards the Tutsis because the Tutsis received superior treatment for decades. Thus, when Rwanda finally acquired independence in 1962, the Hutus fought for control over the government, highlighting the first warning sign of the genocide to come. Many Tutsis were killed afterwards, while many others fled to neighboring countries to escape the violence.

In 1994, genocide unfolded in Rwanda claiming the lives of more than 700,000 Tutsi massacred at the hands of Hutu extremist, while the entire world stood by and watched. Some would argue this event was a result of civil unrest between the Tutsi and Hutu stemming from ancient

The analysis of the genocides that took place both in Rwanda and Sudan’s Darfur region exhibit some similarities as well as differences. The character of violence was similar in both cases, but in Rwanda the violence was more intense, participatory, and extraordinary. The violence in these two places took place in an environment that had experienced civil wars. It was a period of political transition which was further aggravated by ethnic nationalism and a conflict of ethnic populations that were living in close proximity. However, in the Rwandan genocide, the state is more centralized, compact, and effective. This is what explains the intensity and variation. The international response to these genocides through observers emphasized on

The Rwandan Genocide was one of the most horrific acts of genocide since the Holocaust during World War II.  Lasting only one hundred days it claimed the lives of over 800,000 people and had lasting effects on global civilization to this day. Even though the world had been consumed by many travesties before, the Rwandan Genocide exposed that violent human injustices on a grand scale could still happen regardless of the advancements made within “global society”. Decades of internal conflict within Rwanda because of colonialism, class, and clan played a great role in marring cultural identity and thusly created a foundation for the genocide.  The homogeny of cultures evolved, separating the population of Rwanda into three distinct groups: Hutu, Tutsi, and a marginal group of Twa that made up one percent of the population. Hutu ultimately came into power and with the help of the Interahamwe (a Hutu militia group) and the Rwandan Armed Forces committed atrocities towards Tutsi peoples under the ideal of 'social revolution ' and extermination of perceived 'enemies ' of the Hutu race. The planning and execution to erase and exterminate the culture and identity of Tutsi people is a classic and legal example of Genocide.

The world’s history has been tainted by many instances of violence targeted at specific groups of people due to either their ethnicity or beliefs. This paper will discuss the characteristics of the Rwanda Genocide and the Jewish Holocaust. The Rwanda Genocide targeted the Tutsis because of their ethnicity, while the Holocaust targeted the Jews because of their ethnicity and religion.

Ethnicity has played a major role in the country since it was a kingdom in the 1800’s. During those times it did not pose much of a threat, the Hutu farmers and the Tutsi herders lived integrated lives. Both shared a place in government, lived together, and bore children together. This way of life was radically changed during the colonial era. Since the Europeans required delineation between superior and inferior people in order to impose indirect rule in their colony, segregation arose between the two peoples. Begun under German rule, but intensified by the Belgians, lineation lead to dislike and distrust between the people. This dislike and distrust lent itself to hatred after many laws were put onto the Hutu, eventually removing all capacity to have any power within the kingdom they once had influence in. This constant abuse formed during colonial rule caused a divide between the Hutu and Tutsi, which eventually caused the majority to rise against the minority, and eventually try and wipe them out for good during the genocide of 1994. The impacts of these events are still very present today, but progress is being done to bring trust back between the Hutu and the

The Belgians also decreed that Tutsis should be the only ones in power and thus removed Hutus from positions of power and excluded them from higher education (Arraras). “By assuring the Tutsis’ monopoly of power the Belgians set the stage for future conflict in Rwanda” (Arraras). The Tutsis were enjoying their status as being superior to the Hutus but all that changed in 1959 with the Hutu revolution and so in 1960 and 1961 the Hutus won the elections. Since then, ethnic tensions had always been brewing between the Hutus and the Tutsis. However the tensions escalated when Rwandan President Juvenal Habyarimana, a Hutu, was shot down above Kigali airport on April 6, 1994. I consider this to be a form of political violence because someone or a group that opposed this President which represented only the political interests as well as the viability of the Hutus had to be killed in order for another group possibly the Tutsis to fill the vacuum of power left by the Hutu president. The Hutus blamed the assassination of their president on the Tutsis and in turn sparked an all out massacre waged on to the Tutsi people.

“One ugly, deadly and recurrent reality check persists: genocide. Genocide has occurred so often and so uncontested in the last fifty years that an epithet more apt in describing recent event than the often chanted “Never Again” (Power 1998, p. 1). Genocide is one of the most devastating phenomena in the international community it is so often unchallenged that the occurrences continue to repeat. While envisioning the impending danger of these incidents, it is necessary, through cross-country comparison to understand what drives and sustains genocide. This essay will analyze three paradigms that are suggested causes of the phenomena, idealism, political, and state interest while assessing the genocides in both Rwanda and Darfur in order to prevent

The Tutsis aren’t very different than the Hutus. The Tutsis made up a mere 15% of Rwanda. Hutus made up 84%, and the Twas made up 1%. The Tutsis were outnumbered population wise. Their economic advantage was they were mainly herders, so they had a lot of meat for if they ever need it. Both groups spoke the same language, had the same religion, and had the same culture. Really the only difference is the Tutsis arrived later than the Hutus. Both groups were willing to fight for as long as it takes for someone to be a

With this conceded class distinction came the fight for reigning ability, and amidst this power vacuum, Rwandans fell victim to conflicting groups and crime, the eventual building blocks that lead to the massacre of 800,000 civilians. The origins of this ethnic loathing and in turn ethnic genocide can be secured to European colonialism, where those who arrived to colonize and yield the wealth of western knowledge, instead carried racist beliefs. Through this haunting event in history, when foreign governments unfittingly place their ideologies in unknown territory, revealed is how uninvited nations can destabilize a state by stimulating ethnic warfare, causing it to collapse and crumble through conflict.

Is there a difference between genocide and war? The idea and concepts of conflict are often misunderstood. To many, any form of conflict is war. War can be defined as a direct violent encounter between two or more opposing parties with a view to gaining access to an object of their mutual interests. It is usually accompanied by the use of weapons such as guns, bows and arrows, machetes, sticks, biological weapons, and weapons of mass destruction. (Insert bibliography #1). Genocide has been described as a specific term, referring to violent crimes committed against particular groups, with the intent to destroy the existence of such groups (insert bibliography #1). Having said that, one common factor often exhibited by genocide perpetrators is to destroy a group perceived to be a threat to the ruling power. The purpose of this paper is to take a look at both the historic and political causes for the Rwanda Genocide, and to distinguish whether ethnicity was the cause or was it the aspect of the conflict.