Whitney A. Bryant 2/15/12 ENGL 1102 Ms. Caruso Historical Inquiry Paper Politics is power, Hutu power.

Here is a quote from the DVD Film Hotel Rwanda in 2004. This film depicts the Rwandan genocide, and the revenge of the Hutu. Rwanda is a small island composed of three ethnic groups: Hutu, Tutsi, and Twa. On this very island in 1994, and very well before, many were killed, hundred thousands of men, women, and children. There are many causes of this genocide, and there are also sideline accusations, and inferences of what caused the mass killing. Here is how the genocide initiated. The Twa, the Hutu, and the Tutsi were originally well integrated. They shared the same culture the same language, believed in the same God, belonged to joint clans, and lived side by side throughout the country. iIf a person claimed there was no difference between Hutu and Tutsi, or that the difference was one of class, the speaker was most likely a Tutsi (Mamdani p.41). Mahmood Mamdani, author of When Victims Become Killers: Colonialism, Nativism, and the Genocide in Rwanda, searches for origins and the migration process, to narrow down three studies to support the difference between studies were height, genotype, and the memory of people of region. These ethnic groups were different in size because the Hutu were known as squat and medium (Mamdani p. 44), the Tutsi were known as slender and tall and the Twa were short. Through genotype, blood factors, sickle cell traits, and being able to digest lactose were considered for distinguishing the differences between the three ethnic groups, and lastly the memory of people of region as their cultural archive.

Though Tutsi were on average taller than the Hutu, they were in more respects more different from Europeans than were Hutu; after all they were darker than the Hutu in skin color, had thicker lips, while their hair was almost as spiraled as that of the Hutu.(Mamdani p.47) Even though there were many studies developed to tell the differences between the two ethnic groups, the Hutu and Tutsi were house neighbors, some also were intimately married. But still, everyone is either distinguished as a flat out Hutu or a flat out Tutsi. The Hutu and the Tutsi were seen as political identities that changed with the changing history of the Rwandan state, but a main political identity, the Hutu, was constructed as a consequence of the state of Rwanda (Mamdani p. 73). ii About 100 years ago, another ethnic group entered Rwanda, coming from central Europe. This fourth ethnic group from Rwanda were called the Bazungu, this name was used identify whites. This name is said to be based a lot more off of lifestyle rather than skin color. While the Bazungu are not even one percent of Rwandas population, the Bazungu came to own the largest share of the countrys purchasing power, vehicles, status symbol and possessions. The newly arrived Bazungu (first Germans and then, from 1916 Onward Belgians) conquered Rwanda by means of force and diplomacy (Uzin p.16). With the help of the Belgians, the Tutsis control over Rwanda increased. Small Hutu kingdoms and tenure systems were annexed and brought under Tutsi control. The Belgians felt that the Tutsi were more intelligent, reliable, and hardworking rather than the Hutu (Uzin p.16). iii Even though the Belgians knew that the Hutu and the Tutsi were different in origin, they went as far as creating a system of rigid ethnic classification. This system used methods measuring the nose and skull sizes, introducing identification papers stating ones ethnicity. The Belgians were in complete favor of the Tutsi, and never showed interest in the

Hutu. The Bazungu reserved education and special jobs in the army for the Tutsi. The social hierarchy of the Rwandan island was evident; it went from the Bazungu, the Tutsi, the Hutu and the Twa, with all higher level groups.iv For this reason, Independence was marked by ethnic violence, leading to the Tutsi kingdom being overthrown. A June 1962 UN General Assembly resolution terminated the Belgian trusteeship and granted full independence to Rwanda (and Burundi) effective July 1, 1962. The Social Revolution was classified as the abandonment of the Bazungu political power and the overthrow of the Tutsi monarchy by a few educated scholars who were educated at catholic schools. vThis specific event happening was the beginning of the cycle of violence. The Bazungu never thought that they would abandon control over the African territories, but they were really in hot water with the United Nation and part of the Tutsi establishment. On July 1, 1962, the Bazungu handed all sovereignty and power over to local authorities. Before the Bazungu left, they handed the authority of Rwanda to the Hutu, in fear of lack of democracy and the Tutsi elite, this process took place in three phases. In late 1959, localized anti Tutsi violence and small programs took place in some provinces; hundreds were killed and quite a few Tutsi fled country. In 1960 and 1961, legislative elections led to a massive victory of Parmehutu, a radically anti Tutsi party, and the subsequent replacement of the monarchy by a presidential regime, more Tutsi fled the country. Lastly from 1961 to 1964 some of the Tutsi refugees attempted to return militarily, launching small guerilla assaults from Burundi and Uganda (Uzin p.19-20). These three phases led up to the mass killings of innocent Tutsi civilians thirty years later. So Tutsi lost almost all of their powers and privileges, and over half of the Tutsi either fled the country or were killed. viAbout 10,000 Tutsi still remained in the country, the majority were educated and were very wealthy. But the previous rules and laws initiated by both the

Bazungu and the educated Tutsi were completely eliminated. Although there were certain Hutu that were educated and now ruling the Rwandan political system, a large mass of the Hutu were as poor and powerless after 1962 (the social revolution), just as they had been before. Since the Independence Rwanda has seen two different regimes. According to dictionary.com, a regime is one a mode or system of rule or government: a dictatorial regime, two a ruling or prevailing system, and three a government in power. The Kayibanda Regime took place right after Independence to 1972. This regime chased or killed Tutsi power holders and Tutsi politicians, even the most moderate ones, as well as many opposition Hutu politicians who did not join Parmehutu. Parmehutu which was mentioned once before is the Party of the Hutu Emancipation Movement. The second regime was under General Habyarimana. This regime killed many power holders of the first regime. Torture and imprisonment were regularly used. The elections were rigged because election results always turned in which Habyarimana was always reelected with 98 percent of the vote. However the main strength of Rwandas regimes lay not in their oppression but in their capacity to legitimize themselves to internal and external forces. (Uzin p.23) Two forms of conforming to rules and laws were initiated by ethnic social revolution discourse which was designed to legitimize the elites hold on power and undercut any demand for power sharing. Second was the development of Legitimization, which was aimed at the internal Bazungu audience and the actual national audience. The ideology of the Social Revolution purposes on showing the power of the Hutu and how the laws of the Tutsi before independence were irrelevant and the new laws were to be learned immediately. Rwandan alive has firsthand experience of the pure Tutsi rule that existed before the arrival of the colonizer. By 1994, more than 80 percent of the population had been born after independence, and the social revolution had never known the Tutsi rule.
vii

From 1964 onward,

the Hutu and Tutsi intermarried, went to the same church, lived in similar houses, and earned roughly the same wages. This shows that many people were blind to the one of the most prime examples of why the genocide began. On the eve April 6, 1994, the airplane carrying Juvnal Habyarimana (president of Rwanda), Cyprien Ntaryamira (president of Burundi), and assistants and employees of both presidents was shot down supposedly by the Rwandan Patriotic Front (RPF). viiiEven though many people are positive that the RPF was responsible for the attack, this data is not conclusive. This attack dealt with the 1990 invasion of Rwanda by the Tutsi refugees (RPF). The intentions for the 1990 invasion failed and the outcome of was the signing of the Arusha Accords to create a power sharing government. This invasion also headed towards the collapse of the Habyarimana regime, and it led to the Rwandan president being criticized about delaying a peace agreement. The assassination of Juvnal Habyarimana also led to the direct order of the Hutu to cut the tall trees. This order meant to kill all of the Tutsi. Before 8:20pm, Habyarimanas jet circled the Kigali airport, before coming down for final approach in clear skies. A surface-to-air missile hit one of the wings of the jet, then the second missile hit the tail seconds after. In mid-air the plane engulfed in flames, before landing on the presidential palace garden and exploding on impact. A Rwandan officer cadet at the airport who was listening to the Radio Television Libre des Mille Collines heard the announcer state that the presidential jet was coming in to land. The spoken broadcast then stopped suddenly in favor of a selection of classical music. As soon as the jet exploded, chaos erupted. A Rwandan colonel who called the army command about 40 minutes after the crash was told that there was no confirmation that the president was dead. About half an hour later, the situation was still confused at army command,

though it appeared clear that the presidential aircraft had exploded and that it had probably been hit by a missile. News then arrived that Major-General Deogratias Nsabimana, the army chief of staff, had been on the plane. The officers present realized that they would have to appoint a new chief of staff in order to clarify the chain of command and began a meeting to decide whom to appoint. Col. Bagosora joined them soon afterward. At about 10 pm, Ephrem Rwabalinda, the government liaison officer to UNAMIR, called Dallaire to inform him that a crisis committee was about to meet. After informing his superiors in New York of the situation, Dallaire went to attend the meeting, where he found Theoneste Bagosora (one of the main components to the genocide) in charge. Once again, the assassination of the Juvenal gave the notion to kill the Tutsi, cut the tall trees. This single event of assassination led to the mass killing of innocent Tutsi. This complete genocide is based off of abused power. If the initial Tutsi power of the Rwandan government wasnt abused, there wouldnt be angry Hutu who believed that they were mistreated before Independence. After Independence, the Hutu gained power and they began to abuse the Tutsi for revenge of previous endeavors. There should be a lesson learned from this genocide for future power holders of Rwanda, and other governments from numerous countries. This mass killing should be a precedent for future dealings with civilians. When we see men of worth, we should think of equaling them; when we see men of a contrary character, we should turn inwards and examine ourselves (Semujanga p. 397).

Works Cited Hotel Rwanda. Dir. Terry George. Perf. Don Cheadle, Sophie Okonedo, Joaquin Phoenix. Afro Celt Sound System and Rupert Gregson-Williams. 2004. DVD. Mamdani, Mahmood. When Victims Become Killers: Colonialism, Nativism, and the Genocide in Rwanda. Princeton: Princeton UP, 2002. Print. Rwandas Himmler: the man behind the genocide. McGreal, Chris. 18 December 2008. The Guardian. 6 February 2012. <http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/dec/18/rwandagenocide-theoneste->. Semujanga, Josias. Origins of Rwandan Genocide. The Western Journal of Black Studies 28.2 (1994): 397-398 Uvin, Peter. Aiding Violence: The Development Enterprise in Rwanda. West Hartford, CT: Kumarian, 1998. Print.
For my final product I want to bring out these ethnic groups. I want to show the initial relations between them, and show the audience that they shared MANY differences, but they also were alike. ii Here I want to show the things that happened before Independence so my audience will know some of the real reasons why the genocide occurred. Many people do not know the true reasons. They just believe that everything is the Hutus fault but in all actuality this controversy started with the Tutsi. In my final product this is one of the main things that need to be revealed. iii The audience of my final product will witness a big event in the book showing the arrival of the Bazungu. This will also be an eye opener to people who really do not know the beginning of the Rwandan story. iv Through our narrator, we will see how the Tutsi became infamous of the Hutu, and how the Tutsis were very excited about being put into charge, and how much they loved the Bazungu. v The narrator will show how the tables turn and the power is shifted to the Hutu. The narrator is Hutu so this will show the grief and fear of the Tutsi for all the things that they did while in power. It will also show the excitement of the Hutu, and it will reveal their secret plans, and how to eliminate the Tutsi. vi This will be brought into the book, to show the fear of the Tutsi and why most of them fled. It will also show fate for some of the Tutsi who remained in Rwanda. vii Here is where I want someone in my book to inform the young narrator of the previous reign of the Tutsi. The narrator would not know this because he/she is born after Independence during the Social Revolution. viii This is a VERY BIG EVENT in my book; it is kind of like the second turning point in the book. This chapter would be called Cut the Tall Trees it will explain the assassination of both presidents after the narrator finds out. The assassination will be initially presented by the narrator by word of mouth but the narrator will eventually tell the actual story. This event will shape the entire event of my story. It will also soon reveal the death of my narrator and her family.
i