Rwandan Genocide: The Causes and the Response

Philip Gourevitch’s We Wish To Inform You That Tomorrow We Will Be Killed With Our Families and Suzanne Buckley-Zistel’s “Remembering to Forget: Chosen Amnesia as a Strategy for Local Coexistence in Post-Genocide Rwanda” identify the culture of fear, conformity, and intolerance as causes of the Rwandan genocide. They propose that in the aftermath of war and genocide Rwanda has developed “chosen amnesia”, which attempts to create peace, but really only perpetuates ignorance, anger, and discrimination. Together, these articles form a cohesive and convincing argument; however, I believe the authors failed to consider biological predispositions that contribute to the formation of biases and eventually become the root causes of genocide. These biological causes in conjunction with the authors’ beliefs create an accurate scope of why the genocide occurred and why chosen amnesia fails to achieve peace.

In We Wish To Inform You That Tomorrow We Will Be Killed With Our Families Gourevitch’s thoughts are provoked after noticing “a man butchering a cow with a machete” (Gourevitch 17). He realizes that killing is hard labor, especially murder on such as grand scale as the Rwandan genocide. Theorizing what motivated the killers to continue committing such heinous crimes does not constitute a simple answer. The chaos of war and extermination is not spontaneous, rather “great and sustained destruction requires great ambition” (17). For genocide to be successful, extensive planning must occur to make the ideology “compellingly simple and at the same time absolute” (17). The leaders must be capable of convincing their constituents to accept an “absolute belief system” in which they share the singular belief that enemy death is undoubtedly necessary. In Rwanda the Tutsi people were considered a common enemy of the Hutu’s since the ethnic divide was created under pre-colonial German and Belgian control; under the power of the Hutu regime in 1994, leaders were able to convince their followers that death was the only means of dealing with the divide. They created a bloodthirsty society in which death was surely a necessity; this mentality was maintained by many societal factors. In Rwanda “conformity is very deep, very developed” (23), it is a distinct characteristic of their culture and profoundly influences their response to authority. As a general rule, Rwandans obeys authority; thus, they are susceptible to evil rooting itself in society due to unquestionable trust and revere for the influential. An “us or them” belief system had been ingrained in Rwandan society for many years, so when Hutu Power advocated mass extermination as the means of revolution, Rwandans were more than receptive. Even the morally opposed were overpowered by the culture of fear; they either had to kill to prove their devotion to Hutu power or be killed by the regime. Beyond these broad, societal generalizations I believe there is an even more compelling reason Rwandans, among others, are so compliant to discrimination and are willing to go to such grand measures to punish the “others”.

In a recent studies, Yale psychologist Karen Wynn, director of the Infant Cognition Center and Paul Bloom, also a psychologist at Yale, have found evidence that babies are born with an innate sense of justice. Through various studies, Bloom concludes that, “there’s a universal moral core that all humans share. The seeds of our understanding of justice, our understanding of right and wrong, are part of our biological nature” (CBS, 2). In one specific study, babies were given the choice between two breakfast cereals. After they chose, they were shown one puppet choosing the same cereal as they did and another puppet choosing the other cereal. When asked which puppet they liked better, an overwhelming majority of infants chose the puppet that liked the same cereal as them. Not only did the babies show a preference for the puppet with whom they had something in common, but they also seemed to want the “different” one to be punished. Wynn adds, “we are predisposed to break the world up into different human groups based on the most subtle and seemingly irrelevant cues, and that, to some extent, is the dark side of morality” (3). As minor as breakfast cereal preference may seem, it was enough to justify punishment in an infant’s eyes. Seemingly, it is human nature to “at the drop of a hat, create us and them” (3), we identify with those who are similar to us and alienate those who are not. Wynn adds,

to some extent, a bias to favor the self, where the self could be people who look like me, people who act like me, people who have the same taste as me, is a very strong human bias. It’s what one would expect from a creature like us who evolved from natural selection, but it has terrible consequences (3).

So, is the human’s inclination to form irrational biases an unavoidable biological characteristic of the human race? We are born with an innate ability to discriminate, and genocide is, it can logically be argued, a consequence of such biological predispositions. We identify a difference, say the varying width of a nose, and cling to those similar to ourselves while alienating the other group. In Rwanda, when Europeans introduced differing Rwandan “ethnicities” based on barely differing physical characteristics, the Rwandans were receptive. Why would a nation of people allow outsiders to introduce ideas that divide their society? It seems strange and a bit too simplistic to blame it solely on conformist values. Rwandans’ conformity played a large role in causing the genocide, but I also believe that it is human nature to discriminate. It is undeniable because as time goes on, genocide has not disappeared from society’s landscape. If there were not some biological cause, all types of discrimination would have disappeared years ago, as we would learn from our mistakes. Genocide’s continual occurrence in history can be attributed to the human desire to distinguish between “us and them” and an innate need to punish the different.

In Zistel’s “Remembering to Forget” she identifies “chosen amnesia” as a result of the Rwandan genocide. Chosen amnesia is the conscious decision of Rwandans, both Hutu and Tutsi, to forget the causes of the genocide. All too recent memories of war and genocide ware on the minds of all Rwandans, many of whom were soldiers and victims themselves; therefore, chosen amnesia seems to be the only “strategy to cope with living in proximity to ‘killers’ or ‘traitors’”(132). They must rely on each other regardless of Hutu of Tutsi affiliation because their home has been destroyed by war. In the wake of mass destruction and widespread death, it has become extremely difficult for any Rwandan to access necessary resources, such as food and water. Rwandans have indicated through their ability to conveniently “forget” the many crimes committed against humanity that their will to survive is stronger than the hatred contained in their hearts. The lingering problems plaguing Rwanda, such as trauma, depression, and HIV/AIDS, affect all Rwandans, not one specific group. As a result, putting differences aside is a necessary measure for the recovery and survival of Rwanda. Thus, the tensions leading up to the genocide were forgotten in hopes for peaceful coexistence. Although the intentions are ultimately good, chosen amnesia impairs Rwanda’s chances for full recovery and enables similar situations to arise in the future.

One Rwandan claims “remembrance has a coercive force, for it causes identity and a sense of belonging”(133). In this sense, chosen amnesia is actually a tool employed by Rwandans to fight the biological tendency to discriminate. Ignoring the past allows anger to subconsciously build up and contributes to the discrimination and hatred that caused the genocide in the first place. Zistel even argues that “ethnic identity in Rwanda is even more important today than it was before the mobilization for the genocide” (138) because all suffering needs recognition. By avoiding the suffering and refusing to address the betrayal and atrocities that occurred in Rwanda, the problem continues to grow. Contrary to what chosen amnesia suggests, we cannot fight our inclination toward discrimination by simply “forgetting”. To prevent the continuance of such biases, all Rwandans should understand the causes of the genocide. They need to understand that Europeans created the “divide” between the Hutus and Tutsis with no evidence of differing ethnicities. They need to understand how and why hatred escalated into genocide. They need to understand to “what extent racism is a natural part of humanity”(CBS 3). They need to accept the horrifying past and be able to talk about their hurt, their betrayal, and their struggles. Healing cannot take place through ignorance; it will only ensue through real, honest conversation. Chosen amnesia “prevents the transformation of the society into one that will render ethnicity-related killings impossible”(Zistel 147). If they cannot even acknowledge the genocide’s occurrence, how can we expect them to conquer the biases that caused it in the first place? Without accurate understanding, discrimination is perpetuated, the hate endures, and peace is impossible.

Together, Philip Gourevitch and Suzanne Buckley-Zistel analyze the causes of the Rwandan genocide and “chosen amnesia”, which developed as a healing method in response to the genocide. The presence of overpowering prejudice is consistently recognized as an significant cause of genocide. In conjunction with other factors, humanity’s biological predisposition to discriminate caused the genocide. In the aftermath of war and genocide, Rwandans saw no other path to recovery than forgetting. They developed “chosen amnesia” in which they forgot the very causes of the genocide in hopes of peaceful coexistence. While this may seem like a plausible solution, ignoring the causes only perpetuates hatred and discrimination because Rwandans are never given the opportunity to resolve their feelings. If peace is to be achieved, the past must be confronted so that people can heal. Without this, understanding will never be found and Rwanda will remain vulnerable to the relentless tides of discrimination.

Disclaimer:This is my student work submitted for a course. “We Wish to Inform You” is a class material I was assigned to critically analyze. I chose to compare the work with a recent 60 Minutes segment about infant cognitions and innate prejudice. I am not an expert on the Rwandan Genocide, but am informed on the subject. Thank you.