The Rwandan genocide has often been portrayed as an inevitable ethnic conflict that was born out of tribal differences and ever present ‘ancient hatreds’. The most common place in which this portrayal of the genocide has been given space is in journalistic accounts or political explanations of the genocide. Primordialism has served a purpose in explaining the genocide by ‘romanticising’ the conflict without requiring a specific perpetrator; without needing apologies from unresponsive governments and international organisations such as the UN. It is clear that ‘‘ethnicity or ‘tribalism’ is frequently used as an auto- explanation of political events in Africa’,particularly by the media. However, the space given to Primordialism to explain the
In chapter two of the order of genocide, the author, Scott Straus, evaluates the course of commentary on the Rwandan genocide, by exploring already existing literature by other authors that tries to elucidate the reasons that led to genocide in the first place.
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?
Hotel Rwanda tackles a recent event in history where the Hutu extremists of Rwanda initiated a terrifying campaign of genocide, massacring approximately
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.
Rwanda is a country located in the middle of the African continent. The two ethnic groups present in the country lived in peace under their monarch until the arrival of Europeans. The Belgians arrival into Rwandan is what split the two ethnic groups of the Tutsi and Hutus, making them identify themselves with ID cards. This caused tension between the two groups as the Belgians favored the ethnic Tutsi, and made them the head of the government. Decade’s later Hutu extremists would take over the government and have revenge on the Tutsi. The new government would send out broadcasts calling on Hutus to kill their friends and neighbors. The Rwandan genocide would become the worst genocide to ever happen in Africa and one of the worst in the world. Today Rwanda’s recovery is surprisingly fast with the help of multiple nations and organizations. Rwanda’s recovery is nothing short of a miracle and is an amazing story of a war between two peoples.
Throughout human history, mass killings have occurred on groups of people purely based on false stereotypes or rumors, built up aggression, power dominance, or physical attributions such as race. In the past 150 years, there has been a spike in the number of genocides, despite the culture that the killing takes place in. Therefore, it is impossible whether to deem these monstrous acts are of natural human, cultural, or sociological nature. The purpose of this paper is to analyze the causes, processes, and effects of the Holocaust and the Rwandan Genocide in terms of reification when comparing and contrasting the two horrific events. Additionally, elements of the logic of illogic and a doctrine of false concreteness will be discussed in an in-depth effort to uncover the mindset of these horrific atrocities.
Thesis: The Rwandan Genocide is one of the lesser known, quickest, and most inhumane genocides this world has ever seen, and it is still affecting the people of Rwanda till this day.
George Santayana once said “Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.” The Rwanda Genocide is a contemporary representation of the events that occurred during the Armenian Genocide. It is an unforgiving circumstance that even after massacres from the latter and the Holocaust that Genocides still emerge in a world who far too often shuts their door to the idea of intervention. Countries can have an abundance of supplies, unmatchable man-power, and exceptional military equipment, however, with interests in absentia, countries will be reluctant to deploy forces despite exclamations of help. The culmination of the Rwanda Genocide is absolutely an unforgiving portion of history that will be remembered by the victims, the witnesses, and the decision-makers.
How many people need to be killed before a crisis becomes a genocide? How many sections of article 2 Of the UN convention needs to occur to be considered a genocide? Is the sterilization of hundreds of Puerto rico women taking imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group considered Genocide? Is police targeting and killing certain grips of people more often a form of genocide? What are the key differences between civil wars and genocides? When should other countries step in to prevent such atrocities? SURF Survivors funds states that, “Over the course of 100 days from April 6 to July 16 1994, an estimated 800,000 to 1 million Tutsis and some moderate Hutus were slaughtered in the Rwandan genocide. A recent report has estimated the number to be close to 2 million”. In the book We wish to inform you that tomorrow we will be killed with out families stories from Rwanda, The author Phillip Gourevitch writes “The French Foreign Minister-had taken to describing the slaughter in Rwanda as “Genocide”. But the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights still favored the phrase”possible genocide (Gourevitch,152)”. It is without a doubt the civil war in Rwanda was a genocide. It qualifies as such because it fits all the criteria under article 2 of the UN genocide convention.
Twenty years ago in the small east African country of Rwanda, eight hundred thousand people, mostly those of the Tutsi tribe, were slaughtered by their own government. The Hutu and the Tutsi tribes followed the same traditions and inhabited the same territory for over a thousand years. The rise of conflict between the Tutsi and the Hutu dates back to 1918, when the Germans lost their colonies following World War I, and the Belgians took control of Rwanda. In 1933, the Belgians establish the superiority of the "Tutsi" over the "Hutu" which lead to a great divide between these two groups (Admin of PBS.org). When the Belgians handed over power to the Hutu majority, a deep resentment of
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.
Genocide is “the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, ethnic, political, or cultural group”. In Rwanda for example, the Hutu-led government embraced a new program that called for the country’s Hutu people to murder anyone that was a Tutsi (Gourevitch, 6). This new policy of one ethnic group (Hutu) that was called upon to murder another ethnic group (Tutsi) occurred during April through June of 1994 and resulted in the genocide of approximately 800,000 innocent people that even included women and children of all ages. In this paper I will first analyze the origins/historical context regarding the discontent amongst the Hutu and Tutsi people as well as the historical context as to why major players in the international
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.