Skip to main content

The Rwandan Genocide and Socially Constructed Ethnicity

On April 6th, 1994, the President of Rwanda was killed when his plane was shot down by an unknown group. This incident led to the Rwandan genocide, where roughly 800,000 people from the minority ethnic group known as Tutsi were killed by the majority ethnic group known as the Hutu within the span of three months. An additional two million people fled Rwanda seeking refuge. The devastating events in Rwanda and the enormous swell of refugees fleeing Rwanda led to an international crisis, as the international community struggled to pick up the pieces left behind by the Hutu and Tutsi conflict. However, the conflicts between the Hutu's and Tutsi's have not always existed, but were created by the colonization of Rwanda by Belgium. The events leading up to the Rwandan genocide reinforce the idea that ethnicity is a created rather than inherent concept.
Before the Belgians colonized Rwanda, the only difference between the Hutu's and the Tutsi's were economic differences. The Tutsi's became cattle herders and were generally economically superior to the Hutu's. Ethnically, “‘the Tutsi and the Hutu are the same people. They are all people–large grouping or communities which go from seven regions of Cameroon to Uganda–all the way to South Africa, in the same culture’” (PBS). In 1920, when the Belgians instituted colonial rule in Rwanda, they established Tutsi people as more superior, removing all Hutu's from power, only allowing Tutsi's to receive higher education, and making people wear identification cards to distinguish them from one another. “By assuring a Tutsi monopoly of power, the Belgians set the stage for future conflict in Rwanda” (Human Rights Watch). The question remained, what distinguished a Tutsi from a Hutu? Because there were no real ethnic divisions between Hutu and Tutsi, these differences had to be made, and therefore people were designated into a specific group when they were born. After this formal distinction, it was found that only about 15 percent of the population was actually Tutsi, while 84 percent were Hutu. The Belgians raised the Tutsi status, wealth, and power, thereby creating an ethnic distinction between the Tutsi and Hutu where none previously existed and causing major strife between the two groups. When the Belgians decolonized Rwanda, they left behind a deep seated ethnic hatred of the Tutsi on part of the Hutu. This hatred led to the Rwandan genocide.
In class, we discussed the disintegration of Yugoslavia, and how important ethnicity and ethnic conflicts were during the war between Bosnians, Croats, and Serbs. We discussed the idea that ethnicity is mainly a social construct that is generally created and exacerbated for political gain. In Yugoslavia, while many people believe the conflict was between strong ethnic tensions within the country, the deeper roots of the conflict seems to have actually stemmed from political leaders creating ethnic tensions in order to gain the land and power that they wanted.Similarly, the Belgians purposefully created tensions between the Hutu and Tutsi because it was a way for them to better control inhabitants of Rwanda. If the inhabitants of a country are fighting internally then they are less likely to rise up against the colonial power ruling them. The Hutu's hatred of the Tutsi prevented the two groups from joining together to fight off Belgium. Not to mention the fact that the Tutsi's “welcomed these ideas about their superiority” because they embraced the opportunities to gain political power and wealth. The Tutsi's allowed for the creation of these ethnic differences because they benefited from them. On the other hand, the Hutu's resented the fact that the Tutsi were gaining wealth and power while they stayed poor and powerless. The ethnic division was essentially created because both groups wanted power, but only the Tutsi's were deemed privileged enough to access it.
While the Belgians created these tensions, they were also powerful enough to prevent any real violence from breaking out. However, when the Belgians left Rwanda, the Tutsi's were not strong enough to defend themselves or prevent a Hutu uprising. Therefore, in accordance with the political events that unfolded in both Rwanda and Yugoslavia, ethnicity is something that is created by people for political gain.

Comments

  1. I enjoyed the connection you made between the events in Rwanda and the situation in Yugoslavia. When I was reading your post, I kept thinking about the many different forces behind the Belgian government's decision to support the Tutsi's over the Hutu's. I wonder if the Belgians really made an arbitrary choice or if they took into account the precolonial socioeconomic statuses of both tribes? I also think that it was strategic for the Belgians to create this conflict to distract the media from their behavior towards the native population of Rwanda, especially with Belgium's past with King Leopold II and the Congo. I find it concerning, yet fascinating, how different political groups with different agendas use things like ethnicity and religion to further their own interests.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Stability of Insecurity: China and North Korea

The supportive relationship China has with its neighboring country North Korea dates back to the Korean War. China’s political approach to supporting North Korea arose from the mindset of ‘the enemy of my enemy is my friend.’ During the Korean War, China fought in support of Communist North Korea in retaliation of the United States interfering in South Korea. While the US and China have an unspoken pact to try and keep peace, it is quite clear that the two super powers disagree far more than they agree. Ultimately, China supports North Korea merely because they do not want to suffer from the instability it might cause if the state were to collapse under its current regime. While the human and individual security in North Korea is at risk from all the humanitarian injustice it’s people are enduring, the national security of the state has been far more constant with this regime. The insecurity of its people is only one cost of maintaining stability of the nation. To the North Korean g...

Security Revision

Like most things in this world, opinions are bound to change with the times that they live in. Before this class, I put security to be for the common good, with the common good saying that the national security is over other types of security. After taking the class I would say my opinion is unmoved by what it started. The opinion I had on national security as the greater good since this is what keeps the world as we know it flowing is what I still stand by. The cases that support this stance would be the problems within Sierra Leone and also the problems with Tuvalu. Both have cases that can easily argue for the human security but I still stand towards the greater good over individuals.     In the instance of Sierra Leone, national security must be protected to ensure those within the nation are able to have human and ontological security. In this case, the national security would have been able to enforce borders so that the pillaging of the resources would not have occurre...

Implications of Religion within the Balkan Conflict

       In the 1990s, at the end of the Cold War when tensions in eastern Europe were easing and western Europe and the United States were enjoying a period of relative peace, the notion of ethnic cleansing or conflict of cultures was not prominent in the international community. After World War II, the international community set forth policies and law to ensure a genocide or unification of a single race would never plague any nation and that global diversity was a positive implication. However, the fall of the Soviet Union and the ending of the Cold War appeared to usher in a period of progressive ideas to promote stability in eastern Europe; however, ironically, the sudden independence of the former Soviet-controlled Balkan States led to a rise in nationalistic pride where religion was used as justification for war and ethnic cleansing.  The reunification of Germany and the fall of the Berlin Wall, both symbols of the fallout after World War I...