Rwandan Genocide: Why it happened and Why it shouldn’t have happen The year 2004 marked the 10th anniversary of the Rwandan Genocide in which 1,000,000 Rwandans were slaughtered over the course of 100 days, although some officials reported a span of 8 weeks. The memorial was shortly followed by quaint revelations from European and American governments who freely admitted to having being able to prevent the slaughter, but for their own obtuse reasons, which they never directly answer to anyway-did not act.
Official estimate now is that it would have taken as few as 5,000 ground troops-presumably from the UN-to prevent the bloodbath. An issue that is even more provoking, but lacks public dialogue, is how the events that lead to the genocide was a direct product of European capitalism, colonialism, slavery, exploitation and the racist ideology that was deliberately developed to justify it.
The ‘age-old tribal and ethnic hostilities’ lie was perpetuated to deflect blame from where it belongs, when infact prior to 1959, there are no records of systematic violence against one group or the other. The colonial created national myth of Rwanda is that the Tutsis and the Hutu are two groups who came from elsewhere on the African continent. This myth has it that the Twa (pygmy) people are the original inhabitants, and that the Hutus came from the Bantu people of the South and the West, while the Tutsis are Nilotic people from the North. Although both groups are African in any sense, in racial terms, this means that the Hutus are “Black Africans” and the Tutsis are of Ethiopian stock, with lighter skin, narrower noses and ‘better’ hair (undoubtedly meaning it was less kinky/coarse). Be that as it may, before the European Colonials arrived, this petty difference did not matter much for the two groups lived together, spoke the same language, shared the same religion, shared power and married each other-meaning that before colonialism and the ushering of racial categories for Africans, the Hutu and the Tutsis were already mixed with each other-indeed by the time the first European arrived in Rwanda in the end of the 19th century, it would have been easy to assume a person who was Hutu to be Tutsis, and a Tutsis to be Hutu. The Tutsis were the herders while the Hutus were the cultivators, because cattle are highly valued, the Tutsis had become economic and political elites.
The title ‘Hutu’ then took on social-economic connotations, becoming a trans-ethnic identity associated with subjugation, not ethnicity. Infact, one could Kwihutura, or shed hutuness by accumulating wealth and rising through the social hierarchy. (Wikipedia.com) This petty difference went through an intense social stratification in the mid-1800’s as the European superpowers scrambled for Africa, converting the continent into the energy source which would be used to power that enormous machine called European Capitalism (and it’s Euro-America(n) relative).
Rwanda was porous and ethnicity was not the only factor that designated ones social status and social power, until the Germans then later the Belgians. The end of the 19th century marked the arrival of Europeans explorers and would-be colonialist in Rwanda, who rationalized what they saw as best as they could-forming a picture of a stately race of warrior kings surrounded by herds of cattle and what could only be described through their lenses of ‘scientific racism’ as a subordinate people-thus they saw exactly what they wanted to see. Of course, as it was/is rationalized everywhere Europeans encountered mulit-hued populations of various physical phenotypes, the Africans resembling themselves were considered superior while the ones with visible and discernable physical differences (typically the darkest of skinned peoples) would be relegated to the bottom of the evolutionary ladder in every colonized African country. Accordingly, the Tutsis fell in place to be cultivated and nurtured as the ‘pet Africans’ serving as the bureaucratic and security ranks of the colonial government, a successful divide and conquer strategy for the colonial rulers. Rwanda was first a German colony. Tutsis leaders were enlisted as collaborators and rewarded with patronage from the then colonist.
The Colonial powers made the Hutu the slaves, and put the Tutsis in leadership positions to be the ‘over-seers’. Rwanda was well polarized by the time the Belgians took over after World War l, who sent armies of missionaries to Christianize the country, with scientists who would weight the brains and noses of the Hutus and Tutsis, and put the results through comparative analysis further polarizing the Hutu’s and the Tutsis, and just as they surmised, the Tutsis were more ‘noble’ and ‘aristocratic’ than the Hutus who were considered ‘coarse’ and bestial’. It was with the collaboration of the Catholic Church that the Belgians would reconstruct Rwanda along racial lines, and by the 1930’s after conducting a census the best they could, they then issued ethnic identity cards. Catholic schools in turn educated Tutsis exclusively indoctrinating every school child with the notion of racial superiority.
After the holocaust and pressure from the UN for independence, a new European rhetoric of ‘equality’ came ushering in with a wave of Belgian priest preaching Hutu ‘empowerment’ as a preparation for Rwandan independence. Of course, it was never about ‘equality’, it was and always was about power and ultimately retribution. By the time independence was granted to Rwanda by the Belgians, the damage was done, and sores were freshly open as the Hutu majority was given sole political power after the ‘Rwandan Revolution’. There were countless programs against the Tutsis put in place from then on leading up to the Genocide. And from then on, the condition of the Tutsis was constantly up and down depending on the particular Hutu leader in power. After the Cold War, all bets were off and done for, and the West no more had an ‘interest’ in Africa. All the ‘pet’ leaders were left to their own devices as the plug was pulled, and various leaders inherited (from their colonial rulers no doubt) the social, economic and political fallout resulting from 500 years of European colonialism, and slavery.
The end result unfolded in April of 1994 when the political will of the West to intervene-send a mere 5000 troops-to prevent a monstrous genocide from happening. They didn’t care, and they didn’t need too since their national ‘interest’ had left Africa. The Rwandan Genocide stands out as significant, not only because of the sheer number of people massacred in such a short period of time, but also because of United Nations’s (UN) inadequate response. Despite intelligence provided before the killing began, and international news media coverage of the true scale of violence as the genocide unfolded, most first-world countries including France, Belgium (which held Rwanda as a colony after World War I), and the United States declined to intervene or speak out against the planned massacres. Race and History.com It is time the world woke up to the truth about the war in central Africa and the events of April through July of 1994. These events parallel the attacks on Yugoslavia and the accusations of genocide against the Serbs and other Slavs.
Moreover, these events had the same objectives, used the same strategies and tactics and were planned and controlled by the same Great Powers. Their lust for control of the world knows no bounds. They are willing to murder millions so they can make billions. In the West we are told that this tragedy involved genocide by Hutus against Tutsis and that the U.S. and other Western powers sinned by failing to intervene. Many people, including some on the Left, denounced the supposed Western failure to intervene, arguing that it demonstrates indifference to the suffering of Black Africans.
The lies and propaganda against the Hutus, condemned as “genocidaires,” whose only crime was to defend their small country against a foreign invasion by Tutsis from outside Rwanda with the backing of the United States, Britain, Belgium, Uganda, Tanzania, Burundi and the United Nations itself.
This invasion had the objective of restoring the tyranny of minority Tutsi rule while reducing the majority Hutu people to serfdom and a life of terror and that was supported by the great powers in order to take control of all of central Africa and its vast and incalculable resources. The propaganda against the Hutus is racist to the core and is generated by the Tutsi claim to be a superior race, more white than the “primitive” Hutus, a Bantu people, and it fits nicely with the racist attitudes of the Americans, British and Belgians who took part in the invasion and helped murder the Presidents of both Rwanda and Burundi on April 6, 1994 The Truth Turned Upside Down The violence started with a series of raids against Hutus in Rwanda, conducted by the so-called Rwandan Patriotic Front (RPF), a U.S.-sponsored, Tutsi paramilitary organization. These raids occurred during the period 1990-1993. The raids were repelled; even so, they gave the RPF valuable information about the government’s capacity to defend Rwanda. Based on this information, the U.S.-backed forces successfully invaded northern Rwanda in 1993, driving a million people from their homes. This massive campaign of terror, directed against civilians, is never mentioned in the Western media.
The second stage of violence was launched on April 6, 1994. At that time, the invading Tutsi RPF shot down the airplane carrying the Presidents of Rwanda and Burundi, both Hutus. The main victims of the widespread fighting that followed were Hutus and moderate Tutsis. The western-backed Tutsi invaders of Rwanda murdered between one and a half and two million Hutus in the four months between April 6 and July 4, 1994 and have murdered more than two million more since then by attacking Hutu refugees in the Congo.
It is a tragedy made more macabre by the Tutsi claim that their Hutu victims were really Tutsis, a claim they use to justify their dictatorial stranglehold on the people of that beautiful country by portraying themselves as the victims. This macabre reversal of the truth is supported by various intellectuals, NGOs and western governments who easily fall into the racist trap of believing the lies of the Tutsi regime in Rwanda, and the lies of the Americans who, while actively involved in the murder of millions, claim to have had no involvement and to add insult to injury, ‘admit’ the lie that they were negligent in not taking steps to stop the war and the killing when in fact they were the sponsors.
The Rwandan genocide of 1994 was one of the defining events of the twentieth century. It ended the illusion that the evil of genocide had been eradicated and spurred renewed commitment to halting genocides in the future-hopefully.