The Rwanda Genocide

When Belgium brought in colonialism they also brought in the Catholic Church. This irritated the Tutsi and they started to get agitated against Belgium authority. The Tutsi felt that Rwanda was just fine and there didn’t need to be anything changed. The negative response towards the new colonial economy and the Catholic Church that the Belgians brought in will end up coming back at the Tutsi. The Belgians saw this negative attitude and because of this attitude from the Tutsi the Belgians switched there support toward the Hutu. Since the Tutsi did not treat the Hutu with much respect in the past years the Hutu could take advantage of this support from the Belgians and payback the Tutsi’s for how they treated them in past years.

The Tutsi tribe was historically seen as the ruling class of Rwanda while Hutu were considered farmer folk. Following World War I the Belgians were authoritarian rulers in the region, fueling further disputes between the Hutu

The two ethnic groups that were include in the Rwanda Genocide was the Tutsis and Hutus. The Tutsis were the minority population in Rwanda, but they held all the positions of authority. On the other hand, the Hutu made up around 85% of Rwanda’s population, but held no political power, they were denied higher education and land ownership. The size of the nose and the color of the eyes were the factors that determined whether a person was Hutu or Tutsi. The Tutsis disapprove of the colonial rule of the Belgians and demanded to become more independent. After World War II, the Tutsis felt impatient and that it was time they took matters in their own hands to pursuit their independence. In 1959, the tension and violence between the Tutsis and Hutus were greatly increased.

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.

Before Rwanda became an independent African run country, it was under Belgian control. In the 1930s Belgium imposed indirect rule and put Tutsis in control of government. The Belgians did not invent the two ethnic groups, Hutu and Tutsi, but colonial intervention enforced a new meaning for the two ethnicities and thus engrained a hierarchy among the Rwandans . The Tutsis could be determined by their taller slighter build, lighter skin and thinner noses; in conclusion, they were the whitest Africans . By 1994 the two groups were visibly indistinguishable because of mixed parentage. This is portrayed in the movie Hotel Rwanda when a journalist asks two women what ethnicity they are; he discovers that one is Hutu and the other Tutsi. The journalist replies that the women could be twins. In the 1950s the newly established United Nations began to pressure Belgium to vacate Rwanda. Belgium introduced reforms to increase Hutu representation in politics, so from the 1950s until 1962, when Rwanda achieved independence a Hutu movement was born. The Hutu movement was gaining momentum and national recognition; the violence conducted during this period forced thousands of Tutsis to leave the country. In 1961 Belgium sponsored the federal election and a Hutu man, Gregoire Kayibanda was elected to power. This Hutu revolution excluded Tutsis from government and military. Kayibanda’s successor,

Rwanda was a small country in Africa that had two ethncitys occupying it. The superior ethncity. The Tutsi mistreated the Hutu. When the Hutu were repersented with the chance to retaliate they took it. For a while the Hutu and the Tutsi lived as equals, and lived peacfully. Until power fell into

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

This investigation will seek to answer the question “How Did the Rwandan Genocide of 1994 Effect the Hutu and Tutsi?” I chose this question because last year I read the book Left to Tell and I wanted to know more about the two different types of groups, the Hutus and the Tutsis. This was and still is an important topic because many died that day just for belonging to a specific group. This topic shows how much our world has changed since 1994. In order to answer my historical investigation question, I have structured my analysis section using the following method. First, I will answer how the two groups are different? And how these differences began the Rwandan Genocide? Next, I will talk about a survivor and her experience, then, the survival rate of Hutus and Tutsis. There are two main sources this paper will cover, first, a website called the United Human Rights Council, then, a book called Left to Tell.

According to the book Peacemaking in Rwanda, Hutus and Tutsis had prior hate towards one another due to “wealth, military prowess, family, and control over a precious commodity, or occupation of a prestigious social position.” (Jones, pg. 18) This meant at any time my children that Tutsis could become Hutus and Hutus could become Tutsis. Due to this my children, I come before to tell you never to hate your very own people. Clan lineage in Rwanda was were, power and status placed a role in the leading of the people as that determined who was a high authority amongst the different yet similar clans. While clan lineage played a role in who would lead the different clans, Rwanda before World War I was colonized by Germans. Sadly my kids, after World War I colonization moved on to the Belgium and this is was the day, when I saw my life flash before my eyes. The once peaceful Rwanda had changed within a day. When the Belgium came into power they “imposed on the contrary an intellectual and administrative simplification that equated “Tutsi’s” with “ruling class”.”(Jones, pg. 19) Throughout the Belgium ruling, Tutsis were the chosen ones to do all of the administrative work for the League of Nations Mandate. Due to this Belgium’s required for Tutsis to carry around cards that specifically showed and

At the end of World War I Germany was forced to give up certain colonies under the Treaty of Versailles. Rwandan was one of those colonies, and the League of Nations gave Belgium the power to govern it. Rwandan’s population consisted of Hutus, Tutsis, and Twas. Eighty-five percent of their population were Hutus and fourteen percent were Tutsis. Even though the Hutus were the majority, the Tutsis were powerful, they were seen as the elite in today’s terms. When Belgium was governing they made everyone carry around an identification whether they were Hutus, Tutsis, or Twas. This made the Hutus furious, which later on led to the Hutus rebellion in 1959. Tension remained for years between the Hutus and Tutsis, which led to the fastest slaughter

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).

In 1994, Rwanda was in its darkest days. 800,000 people died in a matter of 100 days. But it was all because of a simple separation between the Rwandans, the Hutu and the Tutsi. To understand the topic we must first look at the topic from the beginning. Who were the Hutu and the Tutsi?

Similar to the events of 1994, rumors were a catalyst in this upheaval. These took the form of false reports, that Tutsi extremists had murdered Hutus. The underlying cause of this breakdown of order was the Hutu’s need for independence, freedom and equality. It also had to do with the fact that things were bad enough for Hutus that they were ready to believe that it was possible for the Tutsis to commit terrible crimes that might go unpunished by the Belgians. The consequence was that 300,000 Tutsis were driven out of the country, thereby making them an even smaller minority. In 1961, the Hutus forced the Belgians to replace Tutsi chiefs with those of Hutu and declared Rwanda a republic. The Rwandan Revolution of 1959 was a warning that the existing inequality and social tensions would eventually escalate into more

To really understand the Rwandan Genocide and the Final Solution, one must understand the background of the two exterminated peoples. The Tutsis are an ethnic group that resides in the African Great Lakes region. During the Europeans settlements in Rwanda, the colonists need an identifier to separate the population of Rwanda. Belgium settlers defined “Tutsi”

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.