The Beginning of the Rwandan Genocide

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.

At its roots, the Rwandan genocide was caused by colonization. Belgium had imperialized the nation after WWI and ruled through its kings, selecting the Tutsis ethnic group to lead. The decision to give the Tutsis power was based off the fact that they were more “white looking” with their lighter skin and long noses, which, in the eyes of the European string-pullers, meant they were better suited to ruling. It was also speculated that the Tutsis could be the descendants of a lost Christian tribe, and thus belonged to the “superior” bloodline. When the Belgian colonists settled in 1916, they assigned race cards to distinguish the Hutu from the Tutsis. Despite being the minority, comprising only 15% of the population, the Tutsis held most of the wealth. Tension between the two groups rose, with animosity becoming rampant. In 1962, Rwanda was granted independence from Belgium, and the Hutu regained

On April 7th, 1994 in the small East African country of Rwanda the darkest and most brutal tragedy occurred, the Rwandan genocide. 800,000 Tutsi’s and Rwandan men and women were grossly slaughtered by the Hutu government. This was one of the worst genocides in history and yet not many people spoke about it, why? I believe many people did not say anything is because they were scared that they would be caught and then killed. A man by the name of Philippe Gaillard was a part of the Red Cross international committee in Kigali. He was one of the few people who spoke up about the tragedies occurring in Rwanda. He told his friend who was a news reporter for the BBC in France and published his story. By Gaillard not “shutting up” about the situation it made the Hutu extremists embarrassed and this lead to the Hutu government allowing the Red Cross committee to have safe passage throughout Rwanda. “America, the beautiful America, the brave”, was what America was known for being, but after the ethnic cleansing of the Rwandan people it changed.

The Europeans regarded Hutu and Twa (about 3% of the population) as inferior to Tutsi. Sixty years of such prejudicial fabrications inflated Tutsi egos inordinately and crushed Hutu feelings, which coalesced into an aggressively resentful inferiority complex.”

With over eight hundred thousand to one million deaths, the Rwandan genocide is undoubtedly one of the most sad and shocking examples of the lack of intervention by not only the US and the UN, but by other countries as well. The ongoing tensions between the Hutu, the largest population in Rwanda, and the Tutsi, the smaller and more elite population is what eventually lead to the Rwandan genocide. The killings began quickly after President Habyarimana 's plane was shot down. After hundreds of thousands of deaths, the US did not intervene in Rwanda because being a landlocked country with no natural resources to benefit the US, there was no economical benefit, and the risk of sending in troops simply outweighed the rewards. The aftermath of the genocide has not only impacted those who lived through it, but it has also impacted future generations as well. At the end of the genocide, the ICTR was formed by the UN to find justice. The Rwandan genocide has shocking similarities between the Holocaust and the Armenian Genocide as well. Overall, the Rwandan genocide was a terrible event that escalated far beyond what it should have if there had been intervention from other countries and the UN.

When Belgium took control of Rwanda in 1916 the Hutu’s and the Tutsi’s had a slight differentiation of the ethnic groups, the Hutu’s were farmers and the Tutsi’s were cattle herders. Though they both spoke the same language and had similar traditions. The Tutsi were seen as a higher class of people, only because it took more money to buy cattle, but it was possible to have upward movement in society through changes in jobs or through intermarriage (Jones).

Under the power of Tutsi King Rwabugiri, ethnic differences were established when the King implemented a system in which, in return for labour, access to land was given. However, this system only applied to Hutu farmers and exempted Tutsi farmers (Eriksson, 1996). During the German colonization and later the Belgian trusteeship, the Tutsi were also favoured and viewed as superior (Eriksson, 1996). The Belgians increased the emphasis on the distinction of ethnic identity by issuing cards bearing the nationality designations of Rwandans (Klinghoffer, 1998). The colonisation by both Germany and Belgium contributed to an ethnic jealousy in Rwanda through treatment of the Tutsi (O’Halloran, 1995). The general decolonisation in Africa led to the Hutu revolution in which Rwanda underwent the transition from a Tutsi dominated monarchy to a Hutu led independent republic, which resulted in tens of thousands of Tutsi fleeing into exile (Eriksson, 1996).

RWANDA- Yesterday, during the brutal massacres of the Tutsi people a young man courageously protected countless bystanders and civilians against the Hutu. The young man risked his life for the civilians, and managed to save a majority of the town.

The Rwandan genocide occurred during the period of April to July of 1994. This genocide was as a result of the Hutu ethnic majority slaughtering the Tutsi minority. During this period as much as 800,000 Tutsis were killed. The genocide was started by Hutu extremists in the capital of Kigali and the genocide soon spread across the country. Despite all of this there were several survivors of the genocide. Immaculee Ilibagiza is one of those people.

In the late 1800s Africa was divided amongst the Europeans and Rwanda became colonised by Germany, however after WW1 Belgian forces occupied Rwanda. The Belgian found the Tutsi tribe easier to get along with so in 1993 ethnic identity card were introduced to ensure most of the jobs and education went to the Tutsi’s. In the late 1950s the Hutu’s being 85% of the population called for a change in Rwanda's power structure to give them a voice. Belgian decided to side with the Hutu’s and the Tutsi King was overthrown resulting in many Tutsi’s fleeing and becoming unwanted refugee’s in neighbouring counties like Uganda.

Now that Rwanda had independence, the Tutsis began to take over and have important roles in the Rwandan society, because they were the most educated and organized tribal group in Rwanda. Since important roles in government were automatically given to Tutsis, because they were strongest and most educated tribal group, jealousy and distinctive hatred began to develop in the Hutus, against the Tutsis.

Genocide has been plaguing the world for hundreds of years. Millions of innocent lives have been taken all for the sake of prejudice. One of the most atrocious aspects of genocide is that a large percentage of them are sponsored by the state in which they are taking place. Over the years scholars have studied just what motivates a state to engage in such awful behavior. What motivates them? Why would they do such horrendous things to their own citizens? Is it solely for some economic incentive, or is it simply out of hatred? Most importantly, how is it possible that they get away with it?

When the Belgians left, the Tutsi were left in control. This unfair amount of power the Tutsi had bothered the

The Tutsis were generally wealthier, but not all Hutus were poor. In Rwanda and many other areas, the moderate Tutsis ruled the Hutus, and social standards set the people of these particular groups apart from each other. For instance, “if you were close to the king, you owned wealth, you owned a lot of cattle, you are a Tutsi. If you are far away from the king, you are a cultivator, you don’t own much cattle, you are a Hutu” (Admin of PBS.org). This shows how the two groups were separated: by the individual’s wealth and social status in society. They were different groups but they still lived peacefully together. There were social differences, but not deeply imbedded ethnic differences. To further cement the differences between the Hutus and the Tutsis, the Belgians did not permit the Hutus to attend school, own land, or hold government posts. When Belgium took control of Rwanda and Burundi in 1933, the people of Rwanda were forced to carry identity cards that clarified if the individual was a Hutu or Tutsi (Choe 8), which just separated the two groups even more. The Belgians treated the Tutsis better as a psychological tactic to keep the two groups separate; this was beneficial because it strengthened the Belgians’ power, as divided people do not propose as much of a threat. When the Belgians removed themselves from Rwanda, they left the Hutus with a deep hatred of the Tutsis. Conflicts between these

Prior to colonial era, Rwanda had larger population of Hutus compared to Tutsis and Twa. Rwanda as a country was divided into three ethnic groups i.e. Hutu (approximately about 85%), Tutsi (14%) and Twa (1%) (United Nations). Although, Tutsis were the minorities, they belonged to the higher strata compared to the other ethnic groups; Tutsis were privileged and had power and control over the Hutus and Twas. “Hutus were formerly bound to their Tutsi patrons via client ship” (Sinema, 2012). When Rwanda was colonized by Germany followed by Belgium, they favored Tutsis as they represented the upper class prior to the colonization. These created a social system like feudal system where there was a power difference between the Hutus and the Tutsis. Tutsis were considered as lord and the Hutus on the other hand, were considered as peasants. As a consequence, this created an ethic tension between the Hutus and the Tutsis and created a system more like apartheid. Nonetheless, they managed to co exist in Rwanda until they were decolonized. Although there is no social distinction between the Hutus and the Tutsis, the conflict between these tribes increased tremendously after the independence from Belgian that led to mass murder and ethnic cleansing of the Tutsi by the Hutu.