Karl Marx believed that all societal conflicts arose due to class differences. In the case of Rwanda, he would have been correct. The distinction between the Hutus and the Tutsis was one of resource ownership before Belgium arrived in the country and made people card-carrying members of one or the other group, the divergence being the number of cattle owned. Upon arriving in the country, the Belgians, acting as any colonial power, decided to do business through the local ruling class, the Tutsis. When the Belgians withdrew, the country became two; Rwanda and Burundi. In Burundi, the Tutsis remained in power; while in Rwanda, the majority Hutus, gaining strength from numbers, took over the country politically. In 1972, the ruling Tutsis in Burundi killed over 100,000 Hutus (rebels and otherwise) to retain power. In Rwanda, the killings were reversed; the ruling Hutus killed Tutsis as well as moderate Hutus. Over 500,000 people were murdered.
Colonization played a large part in creating the situation which allowed these murders to take place. By rigidly separating groups which had semi-fluid membership, the colonial power began driving the thin edge of the wedge between the Hutus and the Tutsis. Separation of groups is one of the best ways to dehumanize the other's membership. If individuals from group A believe that they have little in common with individuals from group B, group A members feel more comfortable shunning and disenfranchising group B members.
Colonization also brought Rwanda onto the world stage like never before which lead people (especially those who became the recipients of violence) to believe that fraternity would lead to intervention. One of the double-edged swords of Statehood is sovereignty over the geographic region which one rules and the exclusion of other States interference. Neighbour States tend not to interfere with internal matters; similar to the way that neighbours in apartment buildings do not always phone the police when they hear suspected family violence.
We can use the term 'genocide', prefixed with 'cultural', to what has happened here in Canada to Native people. There was a deliberate and systematic destruction of the language, culture and way of life. One would not go so far as to say that many of the deaths of Native people in Canada could be attributed to physical genocide because they were not specifically planned.
Genocide is an ongoing problem in the world. Fear, mistrust, lack of education and understanding and laziness lead to genocide. The suspicious view of one group by another, coupled with ignorance toward their culture and way of life can lead to genocide. The laziness to challenge one's own views as taught by fearful people can lead to genocide. The view of 'others' as being fundamentally different from the self can lead to genocide. The term 'ethnic cleansing' should never be used to describe genocide. Linguistically, it lends itself better to describing a mikvah than mass murder.
This reading and topic were an important one to the course because too little is taught about genocide. The problem is dismissed as 'too big' a topic in people's minds and they dismiss it, thinking “what can one person do?” It is important to remind people of the horrors and atrocities which have occurred and continue to occur. The Caplan article addresses the problem that one can not take on every cause and even every version of one cause. It is okay to not be an expert on every genocide, as long as one acknowledges the problem and works to find a better answer.
Genocide is a hugely relevant topic for Native people in Canada. States are not mononational. They contain people who claim different cultures, ethnicities and national memberships. The First Nations of Canada represent a significant portion of the population of Canada and can act as a significant lobby group upon the Provincial and Federal governments. People everywhere have an obligation to speak up for the rights and safety of others when they cannot do so themselves. Native people in Canada could become a powerful lobby for international peacekeeping action, to help prevent genocide from being a three paragraph story at the back of a newspaper.
References:
Caplan, G. (2004). The genocide problem: “Never again” all over again. The Walrus. October 2004. pp. unknown.
Maybury-Lewis, D. (2002). Indigenous peoples, ethnic groups, and the state. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
(P.S. My favourite line is "Linguistically, it lends itself better to describing a mikvah than mass murder.")
(P.P.S. Genocide = Bad, in case anyone was wondering.)
0 comments:
Post a Comment