Question
Review "We Wish to inform you that tomorrow we will be killed with our families" by Philip Gourevitch.
What lessons do we learn from the Rwanda genocide and other cases of political violence discussed in class? How would you apply those lessons to preventing conflicts and violence from erupting in Kuwait?
S00052830
ReplyDeletePart one:
It took only 100 days in the spring of 1994 for Hutus to slaughter 800,000 Tutsi’s. But such a statistic does not cover the ugliness of the genocide where unarmed civilians were purtily killed with swinging machetes. Throughout "We wish to inform you that tomorrow we will be killed with our families” Philip Gourevitch, the author managed to interview survivors, killers, politicians and generals, with a remarkable method of analysis, the author proves the fact that Rwandan culture helped shaping the massacre. "Never before in modern memory had a people who slaughtered another people, or in whose name the slaughter was carried out, been expected to live with the remainder of the people that was slaughtered, completely intermingled, in the same tiny communities, as on cohesive national society." the author elaborated more about the motives and the conditions that led to the final event. In my review, I will focus on the following points, starting with a discussion of the victims and perpetrators of the genocide, and what are the defining social characteristics of the groups involved, comparison on the description to the U.N. definition of genocide. And an evaluation of how the book organization, strengths and weaknesses, and lastly, how the book influenced my thinking.
First, to define the social characteristics of the groups involved in the Rwandan genocide, we need to understand the community itself. Hutu’s were estimated around 9,500,000 in the late 20th century, and they form majority in Rwanda. While, the Tutsi form the second largest population, they entered Rwanda in the 14th or 15th century and gradually obtained dominance over the resident Hutu by being more advanced and skilled warriors than the Hutus, forcing them to be lower-class citizens in their own society. The Tutsi remained dominant in Rwanda until the period 1959–61, when the Hutu expelled most of the Tutsi from the country and took over control of the government, relations between the two groups led to the genocide. However, the Hutu and Tutsi had a shared modern history, culture and the same religious beliefs. Furthermore, the Tutsi domination lasted until the European colonial period of the late 19th century. Until then relations between the Hutu and their Tutsi intersected and had been relatively manageable but giving higher authority to the Tutsi by the Belgian colonial administration enlarged the social distance between the two peoples. The Tutsi kept their dominant position over the Hutu in Rwanda until 1961, when the monarchy was overthrown. The Tutsi managed to keep control of the government in the face of periodic Hutu revolts, until the criminal revenge in 1994. However, after every genocide, the international community collaborate in their detached Luxurious conference rooms and screams "never again" repeatedly. This book demonstrates the historical context of the genocide and how extremists used the culture of obedience and high poverty rates to pit neighbor against neighbor.
In addition, the organization of the book reflects the author's effort to help the readers understand the situation completely, even if they do not have enough acknowledgement about the African situation. The book was divided into two main parts; starting first with the events that led up to the massacre, to the second part, which is about the aftermath and recovery efforts been taken relatively. The book kept on an effective continuous attempt to link all of elements together to form the reality of 1994 Rwanda, the genocide itself, which is the main plot or event of the book, have been addressed objectively in an informative way, even though, the author added many comments but did not came out as enforcement or manipulation of the sequences of the crime, that was felt by this balanced writing style throughout the entire book.
Part Two:
DeleteThe book influenced me personally in many levels, it is shocking and emotionally heavy to read, but an important book that inspired me what we need to take into consideration when covering social tragedies. Furthermore, reading scalars research about Rwanda will make you understand the situation, but this book helps you to put things into perspective. Especially when we as regular people subconsciously believe that this extreme level of criminal acts would not occur during our lifetime or among our community. At the same time, Gourevitch reminded us that the perpetrators were ordinary people just like any normal community, but with the right conditions, politics, power and class, all of these factors facilitated changing people against each other.
On the other hand, the Holocaust and Rwandan genocide, both occurred in the twentieth century, to document and promote wider understanding of genocide, it is important to compare the situation of the Holocaust with the Rwandan genocide. The main purpose is not to compare the level of suffering, but to understand the essential role and the complexity of the social aspect of both crimes. By outlining the main stages that led to both genocides, in comparison, it was estimated that, Hutus killed between 700,000 and 1 million Tutsis in three months, and that is three times the rate at which 6 million European Jews were killed by Nazis during WWII. The similarities between the Holocaust and the Rwandan genocide appears in different aspect, for instance, in both the killing motivated by a racist hatred speech promoted by the government that manipulated the majority's feelings. The Hutu leaders visualized greater Rwanda, which would be achieved only by exterminating Tutsis, just like greater Germany. Rwandans had families, husbands and wives from different ethnicity and they both shared the same religion and language historically, until the European colonists occupied Rwanda in the late 1800s, bringing racist methods with them to enforce upon the natives in order to differentiate between them. The Tutsi, who were tall, thin and light-skinned, must had a European ancestor, the colonists assumed, while the Hutus, who were shorter and darker, should be lower class to the Tutsis, and that superiority which was given to the Tutsi facilitated the hatred and class system in Rwanda. As a result, when the actual mass killing started in April 1994, many of the Hutus participated even if they did not fully commit to the cause, they killed their neighbors, coworkers and people who shared their lives with. From this angle, they can be compared to the German troop who followed the work tasks and felt detached of the mass killing processes, mainly when it had been justified by Nazi’s centralism and bureaucracy. Both groups of perpetrators were struggling to admit responsibility of their criminal actions and claimed they were manipulated and brainwashed.
This book provides focused perspective to demonstrate history and arranged timeline of events to make it easier for an outsider and poorly educated people in the matters of African colonization to form an understanding. Personally, I appreciated reading the real personal side of the story by the Rwandans that the author interviewed as part of his research and reporting. From both - Tutsis and Hutus – they both had the right to be listened to and represented, however, that does not change the fact that, Tutsis stories shaped the history of the genocide. These stories provided a humanized perspective which is more effective to create human empathy more than analytical political report, which are important of course, but in more statistic and abstract level. Moreover, the book was too informative and powerful, but at the same time tragic and painful to read.
Part Three:
DeleteThe author shows how passionate he is, not only about Rwanda genocide itself, but also about the history of Rwanda and its relations with Uganda, what-was-then-Zaire, Burundi, and other African countries. In Rwanda, a Tutsi was called an inyenzi, a cockroach, as a result, when the government motivated its Hutu citizens to cleanse Rwanda, they responded enthusiastically, they got their weapons and went to work.
By comparing the UN definition of genocide and the Rwandan genocide it is possible to fill the gaps, as mentioned in second article of the Genocide Convention; “genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such; Killing members of the group, Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group, Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part, Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group, or Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group”. This applied in the Rwandan genocide, where there was an aggressive planned propaganda against Tutsi’s, which covered the mental element, and led to intent destroy of the oppressed ethnic group. Also, the physical element, started with the actual Killing and the mass rap of the Tutsi’s women. Moreover, hundreds of thousands of Tutsis had been forced to evacuate their villages and ask for asylum in Uganda and Congo. Also, there have been imposed measures intended to prevent births among the Tutsi’s by encouraging Hutu men that have been diagnosed with AIDS to participate on the sexual crimes. And, the Rwandan genocide had proven intent from the perpetrators side to physically destroy a national, ethnical, racial targeted to the Tutsi’s as a group.
The book had many strengths but also some weaknesses as well, for instance, one of the main strengths that the author writing style will keep you interested and motivated to continue reading with such a tragic subject. He is a great storyteller, and that the fact that he sheared his own emotional inner thoughts to communicate with the readers made it easier to interact with such tragedy and sadness, “I had never been among the dead before," he writes. "What to do? Look? Yes. I wanted to see them; I suppose; I had come to see them . . . Yet looking at the buildings and the bodies, and hearing the silence of the place, with the grand Italianate basilica standing there deserted, and beds of exquisite, decadent, death-fertilized flowers blooming over the corpses it was still strangely unimaginable. I mean one still had to imagine it.” And this reflects the brilliantly accomplishment of the book. And the fact that he is basically a journalist, he reached out to everyone agreed to say the side of their story, no matter of their position in the event, whether it was survivors of the genocide, military officials, humanitarian pace keeper, politicians, or even convicted war criminal. The author did not hesitate to cover the overall story from every possible angle. But in order to analyze the book we need to recognize the weaknesses pointes such as the fact that it has no index at all, which may limit the usage of the book as an academic reference. personally, I hoped that he would focus more on the women’s survival stories not focusing on the fully detailed description of the horrors of the sexual violence they been through. Also, the book could handle to dig deeper into the motives of the perpetrators.
To conclude, this is not an easy book to forget, what I read will stay in the back of my head sadly forever. Although, this is a book about genocide, war and politics, it’s mainly a story about the people who faced all of that horror of one of the worst crimes of the modern history.
Philip Gourevitch’s New York Times bestseller, we wish to inform you that tomorrow we will be killed with our families, is a well executed book that discusses Rwanda’s genocide in detail. A critical analysis of this book will showcase the author's effort, credibility and integrity in addressing Rwanda’s story. This review will include a discussion about the book’s: organisation, strengths and weaknesses, portrayal of victims and perpetrators and their defining characteristic and influence on my thinking. An examination of the author's main argument and purpose in addition to a comparison between the genocides that took place in Rwanda and Germany will be included whilst also taking into consideration the UN’s definition of genocide.
ReplyDeleteGourevitch’s book is somewhat organised. It roughly follows Rwanda’s genocide in a loose chronological order, starting from Rwanda's rich history before colonizers intervened to the genocide itself and then concluding with the aftermath. It is fairly easy to follow and the story is woven together in such a way that the reader can connect the dots as to how and why such an atrocity can happen. It illustrates how corruption, radical polarization, propaganda, indifference of the outside world and myths such as the Hamitic myth can actually lead to a genocide (180).
One truly noteworthy strength that can be found in this book is the raw, genuine interviews he conducted and the method in which the author collects evidence through primary sources; thus highlighting the credibility of his evidence. The people’s heart-wrenching stories held so much truth and pain and knowledge in them that it forms the backbone of this book. He gave a humanistic side to genocide and empowered people to speak up. Reading about genocide from people's point of view teaches more than a textbook ever will. It gives a new understanding and helps prevent the reader from looking at genocide from a narrow, restricting legal view.
Another strength is the fact that Gourevitch’s evidence is also well-rounded. He interviews bystanders, both in Rwanda and outside Rwanda, representatives from the UN, victims like Odette, perpetrators, Hutus that supported the genocide like Girumuhaste (304), Hutus that denounced the genocide such as Paul Rusesabagina (107) and Thomas Kamilindi (110) , Tutsis that sought revenge and retaliated by joining the RPF , Tutsis that refused to kill, refugees, women, men, leaders and priests. In addition to using primary sources, the author also uses secondary sources (although not really cited), both published and unpublished, from a myriad of authors that offered Gourevitch valuable information that can be seen in the dates, locations and extensive history provided (355).
A weakness I found in this book is the fact that the author oftentimes did not exercise any form of journalistic objectivity. It felt jarring and off-putting to have the author tell the reader his opinion when it was unwarranted. This leads to some bias. This can be seen in the chapters about Paul Kagame whereby the author admires the general’s accomplishments and in turn forces us to admire him too. I also could not help but feel like this book was one horror after the other without much emphasis on the solutions or ways in which we can avoid this from happening again. It felt unsatisfying and disappointing that after all this research on Rwanda, the author still didn’t quite reach a conclusion as to how to prevent it from happening again. There wasn’t really any strong call to action or hope for the reader to hold onto. The conclusion was perhaps meant to be hopeful, at least that’s what I think that author’s intention was, but it still included death and loss.
S00045045 - PART ONE
Upon examining the victims and perpetrators, it’s actually important to note that they were initially just two collectivities living peacefully together. Even though Tutsis were considered more “elite” due to the fact that they were herdsmen, they still lived and interacted with Hutus. However, with colonization came “race science” and myths that spread (50). Identity cards allowed for boundaries to be created whereby the two groups could no longer see eye to eye (57). The defining social characteristics of both these groups only became distinct after colonization because the Belgian colonials “radically engineer[ed] Rwandan society along so-called ethnic lines” (56) . As
DeleteGouvretich says: “power consists in the ability to make others inhabit your story of their reality- even, as is so often the case, when the story is written in their blood” (48). The story of who ended up being defined and labelled as Hutu and Tutsi was nothing but a power move that did contribute to a genocide taking place...even if it was years later.
Although Hutus and Tutsis are often framed as political groups (perhaps for the sake of avoiding accountability under the genocide convention), they actually are not. “Ethnographers and historians have lately come to agree that Hutus and Tutsis cannot properly be called ethnic distinct groups,” although they are mainly seen as such (48). They don’t fall under one specific, distinct category, since they are also viewed as classes and castes (48). However, generally speaking, the terms Hutu and Tutsi are usually labelled as an ethnicity.
As for the book’s impact, it most definitely influenced my thinking. There is one quotation that stands out to me: “A single death is a tragedy, a million deaths is a statistic” (201). This book showed me how the unthinkable can be made thinkable through so many complex intertwined factors and components. This book made me realize that even though there are still genocides taking place at this very moment, we are none the wiser because it’s all just a “statistic” now. It also showed me the daunting reality of the so-called “international community” that somehow successfully managed to fund the killers themselves through the camps and get away with it. Perhaps what this book made me realize the most is that the prevention of genocides starts with me. You. To rely on governments to help or neighboring countries to help is to rely on nothing. The UN did nothing, and countries did nothing. If anything, they probably made it worse. It starts and ends with the people because it is the people who end up suffering, the people who end up obeying rules and agreeing to kill, and the people who can help stop this.
S00045045 - PART TWO
Through reading the book, it is clear that the author's main goal is to inform. “The best reason I have come up with for looking closely into Rwanda’s stories is that ignoring them makes me even more uncomfortable about existence and my place in it” (19). Gourevitch’s main argument is simple: genocides, such as those that happened in Rwanda, should not be ignored. They should be actively talked about, examined and analysed to prevent it from happening again. It’s crucial to speak up, discuss genocides and raise awareness.
DeleteOne argument that is not explicitly stated, but can be seen in the book, is the fact that there is nothing simple about genocide. It needs to be seen holistically due to its complexity. There are victims on both sides, perpetrators on both sides, colonizers involved, corruption, triggers and subtle priming markers that should have been identified long ago.
The mass murder in Rwanda, according to the genocide convention, would not be considered a genocide, for “political groups” (at least that’s what Hutus and Tutsis have been framed as) are not included in article 2. The authors and signers of the Genocide Convention “knew perfectly well that they had not fought World War II to stop the Holocaust, but rather to contain fascist aggression” (149). The Genocide Convention was already based on wrong grounds, intentions and mentalities- therefore, it would not be surprising for Rwanda’s genocide to slip through the cracks and loopholes found in article 2. The West’s post-Holocaust pledge that “genocide would never again be tolerated proved to be hollow” (170).
In conclusion, despite the book having some minor shortcomings, the fact that the author set out to find evidence and raise awareness is already applaudable in and of itself. The book's strengths definitely overshadow any weaknesses it may have had because he has done the victims stories justice and told the world about an atrocity we all need to be more well-informed on.
S00045045 - PART THREE
PART ONE - S00033978
ReplyDeleteApril 1994, Rwandan state officials authorized Hutu majority to eliminate as many people as possible from the Tutsi minority. In just 100 days, 800,000 people had died. What made this possible is the large number of civilians who participated in this massacre. In his book, We wish to inform you that tomorrow we will be killed with our families – Stories from Rwanda, Philip Gourevitch sheds light on important incidents that have led up to the Genocide.
Throughout Rwandan history, the Tutsi were considered the elite group, who became kings, and controlled state power. They were considered highly militant, pertaining much of the country’s wealth, regardless of them being a minority. While the Hutu were considered to be lower class citizens, also known as peasants. “Hutus were cultivators, Tutsis were herdsmen (Gourevitch, 48) Most of their differences were a result of physical appearances, Hutus were describes as “round-faced, dark-skinned, flat-nosed, thick-lipped” while Tutsis were known to be “long-faced, not so dark-skinned, narrow-nosed, and thin-lipped” (Gourevitch, 50) Ironically, the two groups “spoke the same language, followed the same religion, intermarried, and lived intermingled.” (Gourevitch, 47) Ethnographers and historians including Gourevitch himself, believed that their differences did not suffice to their cultural similarities. He then relates the happenings of the genocide as an effect of colonization and “race science”. Rwanda was colonized by the Belgians who arrived at Rwanda in the late 19th century and tested their theories by “measuring Rwandan cranial capacities” and using the features of an existing civilization to “fit their own ideas of mastery and subjugation”. (Gourevitch, 55) Therefore, Rwandan history of colonization plays a large role in dividing the nation against itself, by making “ethnicity a defining feature of Rwandan existence”. Such ideals led to the creation of the “Hutu Manifesto” in the 1950’s that argues democracy between the groups, and “getting rid of ethnic identity cards (Gourevitch, 58) Since then, conflict between the two groups emerged into a political and economic power struggle, leading to a Hutu revolution where a large majority of Tutsi’s fled the country. In the early 90’s many Tutsi’s who left, had demanded the right to return to Rwanda, but were rejected by Hutu control. Evidently, the revolutionary incidents that took place throughout Rwanda’s history had led to the outbreak of a civil war, which built the political rhetoric between the two opposing groups, and eventually leading up to the genocide. The oppression and dehumanization of Tutsi people, that was formulated by the “Hutu power Ideology” which promoted violence and expressed a “kill or be killed” mentality.
A side from the Hutu and Tutsi groups, there were also the Pygmies, who were Rwanda’s first inhabitants, known as “forest people” – today known as Twa people – “marginalized and disenfranchise group that counts for less than a percent of the population.” (Gourevitch, 47) And whether you were a minority, or majority, In Rwanda people were likely to conform to authority, and due to lack of education, the poorer populations became a target of control, and brainwashed with Hutu ideologies. In the beginning, the killings took place within the capital who had stronger opposition against the Hutu, and connections abroad. Then eventually made its way into the rest of the Tutsi population, and the general public leading to total impoverishment. By breaking the backbone of the Tutsi population, destroying its national spirit, those who have the power to protect, civic leaders, mayors, and the president, it was made easier, to attack the weaker ends of the Tutsi population.
PART TWO - S00033978
DeleteIn relation to the UN convention Definition of genocide, which was defined shortly after the occurrences of the Holocaust – as “certain actions that are committed with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, national, ethical, racial, and religious groups”. Such as killing members of a group and causing bodily and mental harm. Evidently, based on Gourevitch descriptions of the genocide, such acts had clearly taken place in the Rwandan genocide. Where “Hundreds of thousands of Hutus had worked as killers in regular shifts” (Gourevitch, 17) However despite being well aware of such crimes against humanity, The United Nations lacked initiative and resources in saving Rwanda. He claims that “When Rwanda had a genocide, the worlds powers left Rwanda to it.” Where other humanitarian organizations such as USAID, RPF, and UNICEF (all mentioned in the book) were unable to help and were no less than bystanders. The author says sarcastically, that even Mars would have been a “greater strategic concern” to the UN, emphasizing on the lack of attention that was given to Rwanda at the time of its crisis. (Gourevitch, 149)
Through writing, Gourevitch shows a great amount of sympathy for Rwandan culture, scenery, and beauty. He emphasized on its losses, through depth of storytelling, and giving voice to survivors he had met during his visits to Rwanda which began in May of 1996. His approach is to record and listen to local stories, and grasp what Rwandans understood of what happened to their country. He questions the sameness and differences in humanity and “the human struggle to conquer nature” (Gourevitch, 8) He too agrees that mass violence is an ongoing process that “must be organized”. He dedicates an entire chapter to an informant named Odette; who’s family were protected because they were given the opportunity to change their identity cards from Tutsi to Hutu. Which was very humiliating for her family, who were never able to feel safe again. When Odette spoke of the genocidaires, she referred to them as “cockroaches” which would have probably not been known, if it was not for Gourevitch subtle ethnographic approach, and a genuine attraction in rewriting the story of Rwanda. He claims that “Rwandan history is dangerous” (Gourevitch, 48) and its political conflicts have spiraled due to struggles for power.
All in all, the book was organized into two main parts, and within these parts, shorter chapters; the first part focused mostly on the events that took place before the Genocide, and mainly what led up to it, and detailed descriptions of the incident. The second part goes into depth on the aftermath of the genocide, genocidaires, international involvement, and local opinion. The book was written in a very thorough manner; however, it did not include an index, content page, or glossary. Personally, I found myself googling many of the references that the author was making. The author succeeded in storytelling, and dialogue among his subjects; developing an authentic understanding of Rwandan locals, sensitivity to culture, and clear descriptions of situations.
This book is a very relevant read. It is a tribute to the losses of Rwanda, as well as an educational read on genocide as a whole. As quoted from one of the locals that Gourevitch converses with “Rwandan culture is a culture of fear.” – Coming to think of this statement, I cannot imagine how it would have been like to live through such incidents. In being able to read about and gain knowledge about a specific case of genocide; Rwanda, I begin to question humanity on several levels. To lose hope in one’s culture, to feel shame for one’s identity, and to experience fear on a daily basis should not be the reality of the human condition.
An author’s main purpose is to deliver a message, an idea, a story. The purpose of this book is to raise awareness to the atrocities committed by perpetrators and aiding agents in genocide. By conducting countless interviews with perpetrators and victims of the Rwandan genocide, visiting key grounds in which massacres took place, researching and reading and diving deep into all the political, social, ideological elements, Philip Gourevitch seeks to share the true story of what happened in 1994 in Rwanda and everything that came before and after. His extensive research serves to expose the perpetrators for carrying out, or allowing, the murder of a whole ethnic group. By writing We Wish to Inform You the author also consoles the victims as they could see now that their story is out for the whole world to witness and hopefully get their justice from those who oppressed them. Readers are allowed an emic view of all that happened in Rwanda over the course of three months, how it was primed to occur and the devastating after effects it had.
ReplyDeleteThe book’s organization is generally quite simple; it is divided into three parts. The first part is where the history of the ethnics groups in Rwanda, Hutus and Tutsis, is introduced and the events and factors that led up to the mass murders. The second part includes all that happened during the genocide from massacres to outside intervention to refugee camps and everything in between. The last part addressed the consequences and issues made by the atrocity after it had commenced. Integrated through the story, are flashbacks and references to different periods of time other than the chronological order the book was following.
We Wish to Inform you won several awards for a reason. One of the main strengths of this book is the detail it provides the readers which encompasses the before, during and after periods of the atrocity and the interviews with survivors; both perpetrators and victims. Depth of insight helps readers to fully immerse themselves in the tragedy, move them on a personal level and urges them to learn from this genocide and prevent future ones. The author also includes a lot of historical context and is honest in the information and research delivery. In the first part, we walk through the important parts of the history of Hutus and Tutsis preceding the incident and that allows the audience to understand the context well before getting to the core of the book. Moreover, fidelity can be seen by the research that went into it and information presented; the author relies on his primary sources such as interviews. The author does well as he lays out the story in an understandable way despite it being such a complicated story of genocide and it being so dense and long. This is one of the strongest aspects of this book as its influence can be extended to a larger audience.
Even though the book is to be praised for its detail and integrity, we still do not get enough from the Hutus point of view. We read plenty about the Tutsis’ struggle and because of that we sympathize with them as victims of injustice and make us despise the Hutus for what they did; “[n]eighbors hacked neighbors to death in their homes, and colleagues hacked colleagues to death in their workplaces. Doctors killed their patients, and schoolteachers killed their pupils” (115). One wished to scream the question at them; how could they turn against their own neighbors, friend, family and what could have possibly caused them to commit such a thing? We never fully find out which leaves us feeling like the book was slightly biased as the focus was on the favored group rather than a holistic view of everyone involved. The ending was quite underwhelming and just as depressing as the beginning; it starts with death and ends with death. Perhaps there is a point in that; Gourevitch wants to make a final attempt at a wakeup call. But what about giving hope too? The author has so much knowledge and insight on the Rwandan genocide and he could have used that to offer some solutions to prevent such crime in the future but he does not and the ending feels hopeless.
DeleteWe Wish to Inform You has personally impacted me by making me witness the raw horrors and hardships that the Tutsis went through and that every genocide in history included. It supplied me with a great amount of Rwandan history and its people. I was able to witness the priming of genocide, how it could be carried out even with weapons as basic as a machete compared to the advanced weaponry we have today, and the devastating effects it leaves behind on the country, and the scars marking the society as a whole and on individuals. All these elements created a vivid image of what genocide looks like and birthed a fire in me to try to prevent it in the future. The book also made me think of a scenario, as unthinkable and heart wrenching as it would be to construct, where my friends, family, colleagues could and would turn against me in any given moment of time for any difference we might have and becomes my enemies forever. This does not make me mistrust the close people to me but its makes me wonder what did it really feel like for the Tutsis and how did they recover from that?
Enemies are not gained overnight. There is a long history between the Hutus (perpetrators) and Tutsis (victims) that guided them down the path of hatred and mass killing. Despite having differences between them, and the Hutus being the major population while the Tutsis being the minority, they had lived peacefully and side by side for generations. It was not until colonization came into the picture and elicited the current divides between the two people that whatever differences they had, was intensified to the point of hate. One destructive action the Belgians made was that they favored the Tutsis over the Hutus; as they were supposedly more closely related to the Europeans and gave those identity cards to bestow privileges on them that the Hutus were stripped away from (56). Hatred brewed between the two ethnic groups and after Rwanda established independence and President Habyarimana took over, he allowed- even encouraged- the murder of Tutsis until “…killing Tutsis was a political tradition in postcolonial Rwanda…and it brought the people together” (96) and the victims themselves became psychologically ready to die (23). Finally, the on switch of the genocide began the moment Habyarimana fell dead from the sky and Hutu extremists used this planned excuse to execute the pre made plans on exterminating the Tutsis population once and for all. An acknowledgment has to be made for the Hutus who tried to act as mediators in the conflict but lost their lives instead.
The Hutus and Tutsis were not political groups, though at the time they were framed as such to avoid falling under the definition of the genocide convention and face the deserved punishment. Class is not really the characteristic that defines the two people even if part of their distinction is their ‘royal’ or European ancestry but it is definitely not what sets them apart or the feature that motivated the genocide. So it can be concluded that they were an ethnic group and as mentioned before, they co-existed peacefully despite that distinction until colonialism took place and amplified that difference. Apparently we cannot even be sure of that since the International Criminal Tribunal faced a problem in categorizing the Hutus and Tutsis “could not be easily be defined as a racial, ethnic, religious, or national group” (Hinton 5).
DeleteWhen comparing the Rwandan case of murdered Tutsis to the U.N. definition of genocide, one cannot help but pinpoint all the similarities in the situation and the written down wording for it and conclude that the convention very much applies to the Rwandan genocide. “Killing members of the group”? Check. “Causing serious bodily or mental harm”? (“Text of the UN Genocide Convention” 44) Positively confirmed. Perhaps the elements where it addresses birth control measures and the transferring of children is not obviously present but I am sure that the elimination of children and ripping babies out of their mother’s bellies counts for something of destroying the continuity of the Tutsis. The convention mentions “intent to destroy, in whole or in part…” (“Text of the UN Genocide Convention” 43) and from several examples in the book, I can tell you that ‘intent’ was very much there and the perpetrators did not even attempt to hide the fact. In a Hutu magazine, an article began with “[n]othing happens that we did not predict” (109) regarding the death of president Habyarimana. Also, when Hutu soldiers resided in the Mille Collines hotel for a while and a newspaper correspondent stumbled upon them, this is was he described, “[i]t looked like the whole military command was in there, plotting strategy and genocide” (117). Yet, the contracting parties that signed the convention did not move a muscle they pretended it was not a genocide because they did not want to act (153).
Throughout our course, we have discussed the horrors of genocide by revisiting past genocides, hitting it close to home by imagining it happen to people in Kuwait, and exploring its long lasting effects. By reading We Wish to Inform You, all these horrible scenarios of genocide were confirmed and reaffirmed. In addition, as disgusting as it is, from scenes in the book, certain elements of genocide were demonstrated such as the carrying out of murder by machetes, rape, betrayal and so on. A passage from the book says, “genocide was promoted as a way not to create suffering but to alleviate it” (95) and that reminded me so much of Bauman and his argument about genocide being an act of creation rather than destruction. I ask the question now, after finishing the book and reading about all the horrors the victims went through, how? How can such a despicable act of taking a precious life be considered hopeful?
Philip Gourevtich writes a book educating readers on the Rwandan genocide took place in 1994 called We Wish to Inform You That Tomorrow We Will Be Killed With Our Families. The author himself traveled to Rwanda, one of the smallest African country, and had interviewed several people involved or affected to get a better understanding of this case and cover all aspects that took place during this massacre. Upon reading this book, we learn that it was the division of two African tribes, Hutu and Tutsi, was the main conflict. The two tribes share similar in culture, language, as well as religious beliefs and their main difference was their physical features. Prior to the division, during the 18th-19th century, Belgium colonized Rwanda and low key created this conflict, as they associated the Tutsi tribe with being European (for their features) and offered them privilege and leadership, while they were stripping away rights to the Hutu tribe. This automatically causes a class division due to unfair decision making, as the Tutsi tribe gains privilege and ultimately social power and control, while the Hutu tribe suffer being labeled as inferior and ranked in a lower class. The Hutu tribe was treated unfairly and once Rwanda gained its independence from Belgium, they slowly gained control, and it’s no surprise they would want to take revenge and exclude and eventually wipe out the Tutsi tribe violently. Although these two tribes shared social characteristics (culture, religion and language) they were able to go against each other brutally, creating normalcy towards violence, death and murder. The social characteristic that tore them apart was class and power, as the two were fighting towards being labeled as superior, resulting in death, hatred and division. Gourevitch leans toward blaming colonization for the split of these tribes as he points out the many similar social characteristics. He believes that the two tribes may have not split if it wasn’t for Belgium’s attempt at changing the nations beliefs and taking advantage of their weaknesses, such as having a poor population and an absence of education, according to Francois Xavier Nkurunziza, “In Rwandan history, everyone obeys authority. People revere power, and there isn’t enough education. You take a poor, ignorant population, and give them arms, and say ‘it’s yours, kill.’ They’ll obey” (13). But colonization is not the only thing that Gourevitch claims caused this genocide as many factors played in; the civil war that the Tutsi Rwandan Patriotic Front led, the use of radios, the massacres in 1960, the military- but none of them directly lead to the genocide as much as the Hutu government did. Gourevitch discusses the unjustified and unnecessary crime was executed through the channels of the state as it was looked at as a failed state, and the genocide was a result of many years of present day political conjecturing and influence, and one of the most carefully controlled states ever.
ReplyDelete- He gives full structure to the little framework of individuals who coordinated the slaughtering, their utilization of radios, their dependence on ineffectively equipped locals, and the job France played in moving the destructive system. What's more, today, at a second when mediation has never appeared to be so disagreeable – and is saved for upsetting psychological oppressor systems – Gourevitch's book gives one of the most clear delineations of the manner in which the west may have halted the Rwandan destruction. On the off chance that France had chilled out, and if the US hadn't; if the UN had consented to the proposition of its authority for such basic goes about as closing down the radio broadcast, or holding onto weapons reserves; if the US and the UK had sent soldiers to ensure uprooted individuals, and if the global framework had not supported the destructive system, its military and state armies in the displaced person camps, a huge number of lives could have been spared, and at moderately little hazard or cost toward the west. Philip Gourevitch clearly put in a lot of effort towards writing this book, and I feel as if his message is extremely clear towards raising awareness to not only this genocidal case, but genocide in general. Not a lot of authors would not only travel to the place they’re going to writing about but manage to interview several of people in the process, and making sure they’re heard. Not to mention, managing to keep an unbiased profile in these interviews as well as show empathy. He was able to physically and mentally see how much pain and trauma this case had caused to people’s lives as well as sharing their stories. Regarding his main argument, it seems a little unclear to me, but it is obvious that he believes Belgium’s colonization should be treated as a crime and that the international/west seem to offer no help towards Rwanda as a state. He shows sympathy and sensitivity towards this genocide case and all the people affected and involved. The weakness in this book, personally, I feel as if the organization of the book could have been cleaner, keeping up with names was difficult, but maybe if there was a page dedicated to all the people he interviewed with their traits and characteristics. For example including name, age, which tribe they were in, occupation (and maybe even include page numbers like a table of context for them). That would have been a little more helpful to me, but all in all this book was beautifully written and the idea itself is amazing as it’s educational and genuinely interesting to see him so involved and caring. It’s also a very easy read, which is great for people who are slow readers, like me. He’s also really good at explaining himself and being able to give voices to the people he interviewed. This book has more pros and strengths than weaknesses in my opinion, which is a great thing. This book has showed me the damage that can be done during genocide, as he gives a raw feel when reading.
DeleteIn this class we learn the United Nations Genocide Convention’s definition of genocide; “ acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial and religious group, such as killing group members, causing serious bodily or mental harm, prevent birth, or transferring childrens to different groups”. I feel as if the Rwandan genocide can fit into the UNGC’s definition perfectly as Gourevitch see’s first hand pain that has been caused. The once known country Rwanda has been left broken, destroyed and divided causing the tribes to live an uncomfortable life and go against each other. The two tribes share so many similar social characteristics and were able to go against each other violently and aggressively. This case resulted in destruction and trauma as the tribes tear each other apart, ignoring just how similar they are. The crimes that were committed should not be taken lightly and it must be known that these crimes fall under genocide as the tribe’s intention was to genuinely wipe out and destroy each other, and I find it sad just how far they went and how political they became. Fortunately, the only crime that was not committed was preventing birth and physically transferring children, but that does not cancel the fact that they were killing their families right in front of each other causing trauma. Many genocide cases are relatable to this one such as the holocaust or the Armenian genocide, as these groups violently go against each other just to get a point across causing serious physical and mental harm and trauma to the oppressed, so one can not compare as the intention and harm is present. This actually reminded me of Syria in the present day, as the country is going against itself as we see one group supporting the president and one group against the president, throwing bombs, destroying homes, and tearing each other apart. The two groups are both Syrian and should be able to unite together, similar to Rwanda, regardless of beliefs, because at the end of the day this is your country and you should do anything possible to keep it together, yet the two countries fail to work together due to the smallest and dumbest differences (in my opinion). To conclude, this book is amazing, and I believe all genocides should be studied and shared how author Philip has done, as it sheds light to such a sensitive and significant topic. Genocide should not be taken lightly, and I’m glad I took this class in order to educate myself and learn just how serious and harmful it is. Gourevitch was lucky to interview these people, and be able to see how much pain it caused and share it.
DeletePART ONE
ReplyDeleteJournalist Philip Gourevitch in May 1995 made his initial trip to Rwanda. Throughout this and following trips Gourevitch spoke with the masses regarding the genocide which had happened in Rwanda in 1994. Fronted by a whim called Hutu Force, Hutu Rwandans massacred roughly 75% of Rwanda's Tutsi populace also, an undetermined amount of Hutu who were reluctant to take part in the killing. Numerous people have sought to correlate the genocide to an attack by the RPF (Rwandan Patriotic Front), an armed forces comprising primarily of Rwandans who had taken shelter in Uganda after prior genocides, or to the demise of Rwanda's president Habyarimana in a plane accident on 6 April 1994. The author, nevertheless, reveals that the genocides had been arranged so earlier than that and that these incidents only functioned as a launching position for the massacres. Gourevitch correlates the genocide to a record of troublesome colonial rules, the political framework after decolonization, and, as of 1990, a meticulously constructed propaganda system encouraging animosity against Tutsi folks. Gourevitch as well highlights that the global community decided to overlook reports about the arrangements and was, for many purposes, loath to respond when the massacres commenced.
The book is mostly focused on the memory of the genocide. Such memory seems haunting; much in dialogues through which no mention is made of it, the genocide frequently one way or another shapes the point of reference. The author does not use these references to set up a sequence of incidents or a accurate account, but concentrates on the methods in which Rwandans recognized and comprehend their existences for the duration of and after the massacres. As Gourevitch goes on to say: ". . . this is a book about how people imagine themselves and one another--a book about how we imagine our world" (p. 6). Gourevitch uses this point far. Subsequently clarifying that genocide is not essentially linked to the amount of individuals murdered, but concerns the intention to annihilate an entire people, he say as well much later in the book: "What does suffering have to do with genocide, when the idea itself is the crime?" (p. 202).
The first portion of the book tackles with the reports of survivors. In gruesome detail, these people describe how they were threatened, lost loved ones, fled and ultimately endured the genocide. Thes interviews with survivors emphasize the closeness of the experiences: this is not only their realm, but also our realm. Even though for the most part of the narratives comes from people who were close to victims of the murders, the author additionally provides an interview with a pastor who has been alleged of heading the massacre of hundreds of his gatherings at Mugonero hospital. The fact that the pastor was interviewed in the United States where he was staying at his son's place, makes it even brighter that no one can reject this as a problem which does not concern people outside Rwanda.
The second portion of the book does not talk about the present, but with life after the massacre. The author explains the condition in Rwanda, the happenings in Zaire where many Hutu supporters escaped following the RPF takeover, and the expulsion of many of these people. This phase involves both the murders at Kibeho camp, in the course of which several Hutu Rwandans were slaughtered and the killing of Tutsi refugees in Mokoto church, Zaire. The conflict and aggression during this time suggest that even though the genocide of 1994 has come to an end, such incidents can occur all over again. The author had conversations with survivors of the genocide who feel misinterpreted by returnees who have lived almost all their lives in Uganda, with a man who manned a roadblock throughout the genocide, with a woman whose family were slaughtered by this very man and now lives with him in the same village, with UN workforces who suffer from the memory of having walked on the dead to pull out survivors.
PART TWO
DeleteThe strength of the book lays within the sequencing of the narratives. I felt as if the jarring details were mentioned excellently as well. Perhaps the only weakness I can see within the context of the book comes off in the form of the lack of objectivity. I did feel many times while reading the accounts as if the author were still managing to push some subtle agenda behind his writing. This is also a weakness in terms of the sequencing as well. I also found that a job was well done by the choices of interviewees that were picked for the purposes of this book. As if the author made sure to take into account all of the variables surrounding this specific genocide, in terms of the people.
Regarding the UN genocide convention in 1946, shortly after the holocaust, the second article defined genocide as the following: “certain actions that are committed with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, national, ethical, racial, and religious groups”. Whether it was forcing a group of children to another group, imposing birth control measures, manipulating the group conditions to bring about their destruction , killing members of the group or causing physical or mental harm to members of the group as the article mentions. It is clear that most of the terms of that article applies to the Rwandan situation. However, the UN failed to take any measures to control or put a stop to that specific genocide and left it to Rwanda to sort it out. The author mentions the indifference of the United Nations in regards to the Rwandan genocide in a chilling way. Which makes one think what would it take to make those powers move?
The book impacted my cognitive process by raising awareness that maybe not all parts of the world are equally valuable to the eyes of the UN. Another way it did impact me is that it forced me to look locally for other means of subtle genocide. That perhaps genocide can be linked to an economical manner or political manner without any killings but by enforcing some governmental violence to keep the people quiet about said corruption. After reading this book I definitely convinced that this is the case when it comes to some local powers as I intend to investigate the matter myself.
Philip Gourevitch, an award-winning author, wrote a story titled “We Wish to Inform You That Tomorrow We Will Be Killed with Our Families”, which calls attention to the 1994 Rwandan Genocide which killed about a million Tutsis and Hutus. A year after the genocide, Gourevitch when to Rwanda in order to learn more about what happened and to be able to talk to some of the victims/perpetrators. In his book, the first thing about the victims and perpetrators that struck my attention was when Gourevitch explained that the killers and the dead were classmates, neighbors, and colleagues before this genocide happened, (27). But when we notice that in 3 months almost a million people were killed, it’s obvious that the perpetrators were planning this massacre for a while, despite some Hutus having close relationships with some Tutsis. Gourevitch went on to explain that the Hutus killed all day, and in the case that there were survivors, they would cut off their Achilles tendons so that they could lay there helpless and in pain until they died, (28). A survivor of the genocide, Theodore Nyilinkwaya, recalled that Hutus had to kill at least once. If they notice that a Hutu hasn’t killed yet, they immediately start thinking that he might betray them, so they keep pressuring him to kill, and once he kills a Tutsi, it starts getting addicting and he’ll keep killing more and more every day, (39).
ReplyDeleteIn every genocide, it’s obvious that there has to be a certain characteristic that makes the victims the victims. When it came to the Rwandan Genocide, the first people who were killed were the Hutus who opposed the genocide, (28). A Kigali lawyer also told Gourevitch that in Rwanda, everyone obeys higher power because of how poor and uneducated they are. So, if someone with a high socio-economic standing tells them to kill, they’re going to obey, (38). Gender and age also played a role in who were amongst the killed, for example, in Bisesero where thousands of Tutsis met and defended themselves, the Hutus ended up killing women and children mostly due to the men being resistant and fighting back, (51). In addition, the most obvious social characteristic was the ethnic difference between the Hutus and the Tutsis which made the Hutus the perpetrators and the Tutsis the victims.
The UN Genocide Convention officially stated that what happened in Rwanda was indeed a genocide. But what made them come to this decision? Well first off, looking at the definition given by the UN Genocide Convention, it states that “acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group”. Since Hutus decided to mass murder about a million Tutsis because of their ethnic group, it immediately falls under the definition of genocide. As well, there are several other factors that made what happened in Rwanda considered a genocide. For instance, they locked up pharmacies and refused to treat the injured and the ill due to them being Tutsis (46), which violates the second and third bullet point which follow the UN Genocide Convention definition, which state causing serious bodily harm, and deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life. There were also countless cases of mass rape of women and little girls which occurred before they killed them, which falls under the second bullet point which states “causing serious mental harm to members of the group”. However, while the genocide was happening, the UN Security Council ordered that 90% of the troops in Rwanda would head back to their countries, which gave Hutus so much more power and they just continued doing what they were doing, (273-274). In addition, the US didn’t want to intervene which caused the rest of the world to not want to intervene either, which made the genocide so much worse and escalate a lot faster.
After reading this book, I didn’t feel like the author had one specific main argument, I felt like his main point was just to raise awareness about what happened in the Rwandan genocide in order for the world to prevent it from happening again. The fact that his book was titled “We Wish to Inform You That Tomorrow We Will Be Killed with Our Families” proves that he wanted people to be drawn to the book just by reading the title, and to make the title sound as serious as the genocide was without trying to sugarcoat it. I thought that the book was recognized well because in the beginning it starts off with him arriving at Rwanda and explaining what the genocide was with details. He then goes on to interview people there and elaborates on the genocide more and more. Furthermore, we can clearly see that the book was in chronological order as well, for example, chapter five was based around the 1960’s, chapter six 1975-1986, chapter seven 1987, chapter 8 1991, etc. The book was also divided into two parts, the first part talked about years before the genocide happened, and the second part talked about what occurred after.
DeleteThis book was incredible to read, and one of the biggest strengths I found was that he actually went to Rwanda and talked to people who were present during the genocide, instead of researching on his own and giving us information that may or may not be accurate. Another strength is the amount of people he interviewed, which made me imagine the massacre in several different point of views. Although it was hard for me to think of a weakness, I would say that the thing I disliked about this book is that at times it was too unnecessarily detailed when it didn’t have to be. For example, describing mud as “slick, shin-deep mud” (55), which at times made it feel like reading a fictional story. Apart from that, this book influenced my thinking to a great extent by making me understand more about the details that happened during this massacre and made me more aware of what Tutsis went through. It also made me have so much compassion for the many cases of people Gourevitch talked about who lost their whole families. On top of that, I was surprised to find myself feel sorry for some of the Hutus that didn’t want to kill but were forced to. Although some may argue that they could’ve done something to get out of it, it’s hard to say unless we’re put in the same situation that they were in. Ultimately, after reading the book, I found myself wondering if killing is truly as addictive as the Hutus say, and if this addiction is present in every human being.
(All pages cited are from the online book, so they're numbered differently).
The book “We Wish to Inform You That Tomorrow We Will Be Killed With Our Families” by Philip Gourevitch discusses the Rwandan Genocide and the underlying factors that took place. Gourevitch discusses many stories of how Rwandans were affected and how they lived with it. This genocide was between the Hutus and the Tutsis who are both ethnic Rwandan groups that are separated by their economic and political status. Hutus were the ones farmers and cultivators while Tutsis were herdsmen and the ones who managed livestock (48). The majority of the Rwandan population was Hutus and the distinction between the two slowly began to become ethnic differences. During the Colonial period the Belgiums expressed a fondness towards the Tutsis that created tension between them and the Hutus. They also created the ethnic distinction between the two groups by giving them identity cards and treating them differently (57). After this division was caused between the two groups and Rwanda gained its independence it’s not surprising that the Hutus wanted to climb up the class and status ladder for all the exclusion they faced. In a way, Gouvrevitch implied that colonization was the main reason behind the tension and hatred that resulted later on.
ReplyDeleteThe UN definition of genocide states, “acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial and religious group.” Which fits perfectly with the Rwanda genocide because the whole intent behind the mass murder was to wipe out the Tutsi tribe. They also caused an absurd amount of mental and physical harm such as the mass rape of the Tutsi women. Adding to the mental harm the Hutus caused, the Tutsi’s that weren’t killed were forced to flee to nearby countries asking for asylum while leaving everything else behind.
The author’s main argument is to portray the atrocity of this genocide and raise awareness about this huge genocide that took place, how it unfolded, and the aftermath. Genocide examples like these should be used to inform people about the severity of cases like this and to analyze the factors that caused it in order to prevent it. He was explaining the genocide not only from his point of view but also from the point of views of the people who experienced it and lived through it. He tries to illustrate how it ruins everything for everyone and how it’s not as black and white as we think.
Gourevitch’s book has strengths and weaknesses as everything does. In my opinion some of the weaknesses were that it was not very easy to read at is was not very straightforward and some of the chapters didn’t really transition, but that’s not the point of the book. The book has a lot of strengths and although I just stated that it wasn’t easy to read it was very eye opening and shows the true darkness of humanity. He included many stories of people who lived through this genocide and how death affects people. It’s almost as if he’ll get anyone he can to talk about their experience with this genocide no matter who they are or what their title is to encompass the full image and feeling of the Rwandan population even though there are no words to describe how terrible it was. Another very big factor that strengthened this book was the organization of the book. Although it was sometimes hard to follow I think the two parts of the book were useful, it puts everything into perspective. Another thing I wish the book included is an index, it would’ve made finding specific topics a lot easier and faster.
The book influenced my thinking a lot; it made me realize that this genocide isn’t talked about as much as it should be. Before reading this book I barely knew what the genocide was about and after reading it I was shocked that I never knew what actually happened. It made me grasp the fact that anyone can turn on their own people because of the privilege one group has over the other. This book has impacted my thinking by making me understand that power is what everyone wants and it can make people turn against each other and can even cause genocide.
Part 1
ReplyDeletePhilip Gourevitch’s informative journal-ethnography on the Rwandan genocide is emotionally moving and enlightening. He uses his knowledge of Rwandan history, colonization, internal conflict, and power relations to provide a holistic scope of genocide as a crime conducted by humans against humanity. Gourevitch’s general argument is to explain how Rwandans understood what happened in their country, and how they were living in the genocidal aftermath (1998, 7). The author did an excellent job at connecting images of the nameless and numberless victims shown on the news to real stories that realistically portray the affects of genocide on the perpetrators, the victims, nearby African countries, and the international community. At the same time, Gourvetich includes various perspectives of the genocide from different figures, like the UNAMIR doctors, RPF soldiers, Mobutu in the DRC, and Burundi Tutsis. The author includes a diverse mixture of evidence and opinions to illustrate how the genocide not only affected Rwanda, it’s survivors, and it’s returnees, but it also affected the image of the UN, the purpose of humanitarian aid, and the lack of immediate response from both the international community and neighboring African countries to help their fellow “African brothers.” The book sheds light on atrocities and events beyond the mass murdering of the Tutsis, like the Tutsi revenge killing sprees of the Hutus, the role of Rwandan Christian priests and political leaders in the protection (or lack of) of victims, the Kibeho massacre, the post-genocide massacres in Mokoto against Rwandan and Zairean Tutsi’s, and other events that aren’t covered in the news about the Rwandan genocide. Although Gourevitch includes his personal opinions, feelings, and commentaries throughout the book that might be biased, he gives 353 pages worth of holistic emic and etic information to help the reader make their own opinions/conclusions about the Rwandan genocide and if there was a possibility for early prevention.
The book is organized into sections that focused on Rwanda pre-genocide, during the genocide, and post-genocide. I believe that the author uses an abundance of information to help the reader understand events that led to the genocide, the preparedness of the Hutu Power during the genocide, how the victims handled the killing-sprees, the results of the UN refugee camps, the response of the international community, and the struggle between the “new order” and the old order of Rwanda. However usefully descriptive Gourvetich’s book is to our understanding of the complexity of genocide, his frequent shift of tone and subject in his writing are somewhat distracting and it diffuses the focus of his argument. A general organization is present but the book still lacks some order and coherency which prompts me to question whether some information is relevant to his objective. It seems like he is trying to make use of all the information he had gathered during his fieldwork (for example, when he discusses President Museveni and his plans for Uganda), but I assume it adds to the larger understanding of genocide and its aftermath.
Part 2
ReplyDeleteIn part 1 of the book, the author makes it clear that the Hutu and Tutsi divisions were magnified by the Belgian colonization and the Hamitic hypothesis which instilled extreme hatred for the Tutsis. Because of this hypothesis, ethnicity equaled identity and the Belgians issued ethnic identity cards amongst Rwandan Hutus, Tutsis, and Twa to administer their new colony based on Tutsi superiority (Ibid, 57). From this division, the social revolution, or plainly-speaking the killing sprees, between Hutus and Tutsis occurred long before the genocide, in 1959 (Ibid). However, the mass killings initially began from the Hutu outrage following Habyarimana’s assassination (154). I believe that the author sides with the rest of the world and positions the Hutus (specifically the Hutu Power and interhamwe members) as the main perpetrators of the genocide and the victims being non-Hutu Power groups like the Tutsis, moderate Hutus, the Twa, and UN volunteers and doctors. By interviewing numerous individuals of different identities, Gourevitch’s language continuously views Hutus as the perpetrators and the Tutsis as the victims. The author’s choice of informants and his descriptions of them, like Girumhaste (309), portrays his clear opinion of the Hutus as the perpetrators, while using sad and emotional Tutsi stories to portray them as the victims.
There are many discussions and unreliable records of pre-colonial Rwanda that makes the groups inhabiting the country difficult to socially define. Gourevitch makes sure the reader knows this before stating that the pygmies, known as the Twa people, were the first inhabitants of Rwanda and the Hutus and Tutsis came after. The Hutus are known as Bantu people and cultivators while the Tutsis are known as Nilotic people and herdsmen (Ibid 47-48). These groups share the same language (Kinyarwanda, Swahili, French), the majority share the same religion (Christianity), but like any group of people, they have class hierarchies in which the Tutsis became “synonymous with a political and economic elite” before the genocide (48). The Hutus gradually gained political and military power by attacking the Tutsis until their genocide brought them extreme power which is also evident post-genocide.
The social characteristics of these groups could fall under the UNGC’s definition of genocide as an intent to destroy ethnical groups, since the word “ethnic” is the most applicable to describe the Hutu and Tutsi groups. The author implicitly explains that the UN recognized Rwanda as unstable due to its civil war before the genocide, and established the UNAMIR to keep peace. Gourevitch also includes the decisions made by the UN during the genocide and he questions why the countries that signed the Convention were not willing to help and take action. I believe his blunt explanations and questions, mostly about the inability for the international community to take action and gradually stop the violence, is effective for the reader to understand why the conflicts between the two ethnic groups in Rwanda wasn’t stopped before the genocide and why the UN hadn’t taken early action according to their Convention. The author effectively illustrates why the UN hadn’t taken preventative action when the Hutus began killing the Tutsis before the official genocide in 1994, when the actions are a clear match to their Convention. However, I also believe that the author is trying to show the difficulty of identifying a clear perpetrator and victim since the Tutsis also killed the Hutus at certain periods of time as revenge. His book allows the questioning of the UNGC and the UN’s fulfillment of their goals as well as the possibility of actually preventing future genocides rather than sustaining them.
Part 3
ReplyDeleteGourevitch’s book has various strengths and weaknesses, some which I have already mentioned in the paragraphs above. A strength is his informal, possibly humorous, style of writing that makes it easy to understand his ideas about certain topics. He uses witty transitions between topics that seem irrelevant to genocide and topics that certainly connect to genocide (a perfect example of this is found on pages 147-49 when he talks about the scarcity of dogs are due to the UN’s decision of “the corpse-eating dogs as a health problem” and the UNAMIR were using their guns to shoot the dogs instead of the perpetrators). Additionally, the book doesn’t only focus on the event of genocide, but it also includes stories and situations of post-genocide experiences of coping with the losses and scars of the genocide in a political, economic, and social sense. The author chooses powerful interviews/conversations to include in this part of the book to realistically portray the struggles Rwandans are continuously going through because of this genocide. He also uses conversations he had with Hutu perpetrators to understand why they killed, which was a very chilling read. Another strength is that the author, very implicitly, gives possible solutions to this genocide while explaining certain decisions made by the international community (if the French troops didn’t enter Rwanda, if the UN followed General Dallaire’s proposals, etc., the genocide could have gradually stopped before thousands were killed). Some weaknesses of the book was that Gourevitch’s writing often sounded biased towards the Hutus and towards certain politicians he was interviewing. I’m not saying that the Hutus that participated in the genocide are innocent, but when writing a journalistic or ethnographic book, the author must be objective no matter how emotional the event is. It's very likely that a lot of people blame the Hutus for the genocide, but this book could have given another perspective of the internal social affairs of these ethnic groups rather than siding with the Tutsis. Additionally, the author’s bluntness in his writing is effective to understand the underlying factors of the genocide but it isn’t necessary when talking to an informant. In various interviews/conversations with people, especially Hutus, Gourevitch is extremely straightforward and somewhat rude with his speech and responses with his informants. It seems like he is trying to prove his ideas and opinions right by projecting his personal thoughts onto the informants, and his interviews often sounded like interrogations. For example, his interview with Sindikubwaboo, in my opinion, was extremely rude and disrespectful (the author says “why anybody should negotiate with the man who was considered to have instigated the massacres at Butare” (263)). Luckily, the author’s snarky comments were handled well by the informants and the interviews didn’t seem to result in arguments or fights.
I’m appreciative to have had the opportunity to read this book because I was blind to the complexity and conflicts that constitute genocide before reading the book. I am now aware of how conflicts, like those between the Hutus and Tutsis, could form in any country where there is an imbalance of power and rights between groups living together. Thinking about the act of genocide is sad, but reading about the ways the Hutus killed and tortured people and how the victims forcefully lived with their attackers after the genocide, was truly horrific. I’m more aware of the functions and intentions of the international community, especially the UN, when they are faced with helping their fellow countries with inhumane crimes like genocide. I am gradually becoming more aware of the political decision making in my country and the imbalances of power and rights that affect minority populations. I am truly emotionally touched by this book that showcased, in extreme detail, the extents of humanity and whether humans can live together in harmony to focus on creation rather than destruction.
Part 1
ReplyDeleteThe Rwandan genocide was one of the largest, most horrific acts of coordinated violence, with nearly a million deaths, and is widely mentioned in the study of genocide. Philip Gourevitch's book, we wish to inform you that tomorrow we will be killed with our families, is an interesting account that explores the Rwandan genocide through personal experience and interviews structured with all of the victims, perpetrators, and the others. In analyzing Gourevitch's book, a discussion of perpetrator and victim and their defining social features are imperative, as well as an overall evaluation of the techniques used in the book, are necessary in order to present a full review.
To provide some sort of context, In Rwanda, the Hutu and the Tutsi coexisted in peace with many shared characteristics that link them to one another, such as religion and language. They even intermarried and cooperatively took part in the army. However, the colonization of Rwanda by the Belgians, in attempt to bring and impose order, in their own terms, is what primed the Hutu and the Tutsi for genocide. They did so by introducing IDs, which ultimately served to segregate the Hutus and the Tutsis and act as an identification marker (57). This 'order' that they were after is a bureaucratic one indicative of greater, systematic violence, that fosters an indifferent mindset.
In most genocides, there is a clear dominant group and a targeted group. What makes Rwanda’s case unique in its example is that the discussion of the victims and the perpetrators was never as explicit as other cases when compared. Here, limitations of the UN Genocide convention’s definition are demonstrated. I can also see that the definition was absolutely ineffective in preventing future genocides, as it was made after the Holocaust, yet did not deliver that ‘utpoian premise’ and ‘moral imperative to prevent efforts to exterminate whole peoples’ (169). This comes to show that the UN itself is counted as a bystander, who’s role, or lack of, in such circumstances actually worsens the problem. Article II of the UN’s definition declares genocide as a set of actions aiming to destruct a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group, either partly or in whole, with examples listed under this definition as an illustration of acts of genocide. Now the conflicting nature of the legal definition can be seen in the case of Rwanda, where the identification of perpetrator and victim is not a simple task. Who are the perpetrators, victims, and others? In Rwanda, it was an ongoing cycle where the perpetrators were the victims, and the victims became the perpetrators. Revenge as a motivating factor makes these two almost switchable. This history of perpetrator and victim reversing themselves periodically as an ongoing cycle of revenge makes one wonder who established these norms in the first place? In examining this question, the tremendous role that Colonialism played in instigating this vicious cycle is made visible. There had been good relationships between the Hutu and Tutsi, up until that point. The Belgians basically set these two populations on a crash course when they came in and reorganized their society. There definitely was a scientism and a selection, so perhaps ideas like Bauman’s, for example, can be linked and understood more broadly to look at global relationships and relationships between outsiders that come in as well. This sort of calculative thinking in administering a set of rules and procedures over a population, creates dehumanization, indifference, and deals with people in an extremely impersonal way as they are reduced to numbers and expressed in technical terms. Not only that, but the use of the media as a tool to drive this conflict further by broadcasting messages like ‘you cockroaches,’ ‘we won’t let you kill. We will kill you’ comes to show the modernity of the tactics of genocide (114).
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeletePart 2
ReplyDeleteYou can definitely see the categorizing of the people into Hutus and Tutsis. The difference between the two is based on a long-time subsistence strategy difference, where the Hutus were agriculturists (farmers) and Tutsis pastoralists (herders). You see this conflict over and over again, and violence between the two, as they become ethnocized, especially under the modern nation-state in which the relationship to territory has changed. Where land becomes scarce, pastoralists can no longer move through land, and conflicts arise. This is a common trope you can see in many parts of the world. Furthermore, the event that occurred on the 6th of April, 1994, where the president’s airplane was targeted, shot, and had him killed, was the stimulus the Hutus took to go all out and kill the Tutsi minority, blaming them for his death (114). From there on out, the situation escalated and was a continuous cycle of revenge and extermination, where for every minute that went by, about five and a half lives were terminated (133).
Overall, Gourevitch’s book is a collection of narratives written beautifully. What makes it strong, apart from the tears and the emotions it floods you with, is that everything written is from first-hand, personal accounts of data. You see a lot of Major General Paul Kagame, who led the Tutsi and RPF, candidly voicing his thoughts, for example (158). It does an outstanding job in relaying the complexities of a genocide and everything in between. It acts as an extensive case-study on Rwanda, and from this story you learn quite a lot. The author aims to make visible not only the history of the two groups, and the chronological series of events that led up to the genocide, and the aftermath, but the motives behind why they were doing what they were doing, the role of media (RTLM), colonial powers, the absence of international intervention, indifference, and that people under pressure and power are susceptible to committing terrifying acts they never thought they’d once do. It showed me how much of a collective effort a genocide is, in which the community is responsible, and how much an individual is likely to do something they're not proud of. For example, ‘doctors killed their patients and schoolteachers killed their pupils’ (115). Moreover, it was a fairly light read, for such a rich account, the information was not too overwhelming and the language was simple. He also relays questions back to readers, when reflecting on the role of the UN for example, by saying ‘but whose world were the drafters of the Genocide Convention - and the refugee conventions, which soon followed - thinking of?’ (169). This style of writing made me stop, think for a moment, and reflect, which I find powerful.
However, as with any book, I did identify some weaknesses. I believe if I was to read this book on its own, perhaps I wouldn’t have been as affected as I am after the knowledge I acquired from this course. What I mean is that this book certainly is a perfect introduction to an analysis of genocide and its complications, but I appreciate this book much more now that I can actually make connections to people and ideas like Bauman and modernity, Hannah Arendt’s banality of evil, indifference, the UN Genocide Convention’s legal definition, the anthropological perspective of genocide, Freeman, and all our lectures in class. Gourevitch’s book lacked theory, and was more or less a story of experience. It is an excellent supporting material, in my opinion, but I question whether someone who doesn’t know the first thing about genocide will appreciate it the way I did. It will certainly move them, but I believe I was more interested making connections while reading, than I was just reading to read.
S00047607
Philip Gourevitch, the author of the book, traveled to Rwanda many times to gather information for editing this book together. During the course, I learned that genocide was defined as Geno from Greek meaning race or tribe, cide from Latin meaning to kill. Genocide is an international crime that was recognized on Dec 9, 1948. Signatory nations agreed to prevent and punish genocidal actions. Genocide is any action that intends to destroy the whole or part of a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group. According to Lemkin’s definition of genocide: it is a coordinated plan of different actions aiming at the destruction of the life of national groups to annihilate the groups (Linton 2002). Genocide's first actions, against the targeted groups, are killing members, causing serious bodily or mental harm to members, imposing measurements intended to prevent birth with the targeted group, and transferring by force children of the group to another group. Lemkin, who is from a Jewish background, believes that genocide is an act of reversion to barbarism and how it is an illegal war in which Hutus had power and weapons to kill Tutsis, who had nothing to fight with. He illustrated that acts of barbaric extermination occurred in civilizations before, so in that respect, he opposed Bauman's idea of civilization. Freeman also sees that genocide is indeed a civilized process, which is more dangerous, as it is organized, planned, and carried out with specific intentions. "We Wish to Inform You That Tomorrow We Will Be Killed with Our Families" is an exciting book as it tells us about a horrible genocide planned and carried out by the Belgians and the tribes of Hutu and Tutsis were the victims. In 1994, the genocide started between the Hutus and Tutsis and lasted for ninety days. About 800,000 victims of Tutsi were slaughtered. It is considered the most massive genocide after the Nazi extermination of the Jews during World War II. There are three sections in that book: Before, During, and after the genocide. The book includes many testimonials from different groups, individuals, and nations. Genocide is a destructive weapon for nations, but at the same time, a way to be civilized and educated for our future.
ReplyDeleteThere is a brief overview of what colonization had done in Poland by the Germans and in Rwanda by the Belgians. Both of them tried to destroy everything in the people targeted lives like culture to control them for their benefit as Lemkin had said: genocide is a return to barbarism (Linton 2002). Regarding the standard of living, the Belgians chose the Tutsis to get high positions according to their similar features with the Europeans, and ethnocide began from this point in Rwanda. Tutsis became richer than Hutus. New German comers took the polish houses and settled in them. Hutus also took Tutsis houses and properties after killing them.
Regarding language, culture, and religion in Poland, the French language was taught only in high schools. The German language became essential in the primary stages. Without territorial distinctions, the Rwandans should have been two bodies with one soul for having the same language, religion, and social and political culture. The Hutus and Tutsi fought together in the Mwamis armies. Many of its citizens are multilingual, but Kinyarwanda is the only language of all Rwandans.
part 1/S00040645
As I have read in the book, regarding the standard of living, ethnic identity cards were invented by the Belgians, and raising the children on the doctrine of racial superiority and inferiority led to the division followed by the horrible genocide. It was the cause of the genocidal attack. According to the book, tribalism begets tribalism (Gourevitch 2015). Belgium was divided into ethnic lines. The Francophone Walloon minority had, for centuries, dominated the Flemish majority as what happened with the Tutsi and Hutu. Ethnic identity cards labeled every Rwandan as either Hutu (85%) or Tutis (14%) or Twa (1%). These identity cards made it impossible for Hutus to become Tutsis and allowed the Belgians to not unite the Rwandans according to their apartheid system rooted in the myth of Tutsi superiority. Like the way, the Germans changed every reminder of polish culture, even commercial signs, and inscriptions, into their German form. When the genocide started in Rwanda, all people were busy killing their past friends who became their enemies, fleeing from their country to neighboring countries, or thinking of their death time. The Flemish priests who began to turn up in Rwanda after World War II identified with the Hutus and encouraged their aspirations for political change.
ReplyDeleteGenocide destroyed many things in Rwanda, as it has been mentioned in our course about Lemkin's discussion, and in his writings, there were impacts of genocide mentioned by Lemkin. For socio-politics, In Rwanda, the genocide was planned to demolish Rwanda's Tutsi and Hutu populations who refused extremist politics. It was not just deep ethnic hatred, but it had complex roots. For the economy, massacres were everywhere, so there was no economy. The increasing pressures of population caused many crises. For culture, The Rwandan genocide was not a simple matter of mutual hatred between tribes erupting into irrational violence. Nkongoli said everyone obeys authority. People revere power, and there isn’t enough education. If You take poor and ignorant persons, and give them an arm and ask them to kill, they’ll obey (Gourevitch, 2015). In these quotes, Nkongoli proved that Lemkin’s point of view about the Overall destruction that happened as a result of genocide, and when there is no aspect of natural life, we return to barbarism.
For the environment, the genocide has made mass clearing and removal of forests to make more land available for refugees and the homeless. Firewood, logging for settlements and road construction, additionally overgrazing and cultivation have led to deforestation. Genocide destroyed biodiversity. Most of all creatures and plants died. For building new houses, large areas of forests were simply killed during the genocide, and there were severe adverse effects on the environment. Wood and charcoal were and still the primary source of fuel and were used for cooking and lighting. As a result of killing more than 800,000, malaria became a significant problem with serious consequences for much of the population.
Part 2/S00040645
The book title comes from one of these stories, in which the parishioners had written to their pastor and local officials asking them to interfere, but they were told that God's will, for them, was their death. The title itself suggests a kind of brutal, heart-stopping sadness that many readers would prefer not to read it. The story of the Rwandan genocide is told wonderfully and was written with anger and insight. From the beginning, the writer confronted his own very mixed emotions as he toured a schoolhouse where he saw decomposed bodies everywhere at Kigali airport on Apr 6, 1994. The death of the Hutu president was the last pin of Rwanda's coffin. It was the changing point in the natural life of Rwanda. The RPF was accused of the attack, immediately a campaign of violence led by the Hutu government began to spread from the capital throughout the country against the Tutsis. Rwanda witnessed three months of horrible slaughter and genocide and the death of 800,000 Tutsis. In July, peace was declared, and the RPF captured Kigali. The arrival of UN troops and aid workers helped to maintain order and restore essential services. The massacres were over, but the remains of genocide continue, and the search for justice had been long and difficult. Many of those guilty of genocide were captured in Rwanda, but some of the leaders could escape from capture, and many of those who lost their loved ones were still waiting for justice.
ReplyDeleteThe author had done many interviews. He talked to survivors, killers, politicians, and generals. Gourevitch helped to bring understanding and even, improbably, hope to the madness. He was interested when speculating on the fate of Rwandan society. In a remarkable bit of analysis, he suggests that the Rwandan culture helped guide in the killing. Rwandans tendency to do as they are told may help restore calmness. As one Hutu stated, many people killed to save their own lives (Gourevitch 2015). Nearly a million Tutsis were slaughtered within three months. Nkongoli said, one hopes not to die cruelly, but one expects to die anyway. Not death by machete, one hopes, but with a bullet". There were four thousand Tutsis killed here at Kacyiru, a neighborhood of Kigali. The soldiers brought them here and told them to sit down because they were going to throw grenades. And they sat. Rwandan culture is a culture of fear, more than ten thousand Tutsis had taken refuge in the town hall, and the mayor had brought in truckloads of police officers and soldiers and militia with guns and grenades to surround the place and killed them. An Adventist pastor and his son were said to have worked closely with the mayor in organizing the slaughter at Rwamatamu. I had eighteen people killed at my house (Gourevitch 2015). These interviews show us how horrible the genocide was and how it turned a secure life into a place full of victims and dead bodies everywhere.
The role of the United Nations was that the UN peacekeeping forces were hardly used and were not reinforced despite General Romeo Dallaire’s call for more troops and assistance. The international community criticized the lack of movement of the United Nations and States such as the United States, the United Kingdom, and Belgium, to stop this conflict. In January 2017, Media reported that the French government deliberately provided the Hutu government with supplies after the start of the massacre. The genocide finally came to an end when the RPF gained control of the country.
Part 3/S00040645
The book was arranged in a beautiful way that attracts any ordinary person to complete until its last word. It had three main issues; before, during, and after the genocide. While reading, you find yourself so attracted as it is based on suspense. It has very detailed scenes that make you able to imagine what was going on as if the reader was there. On the other hand, these scenes were so disgusting, such as killing a cow with a machete and drinking much more bear to kill your relatives and friends from Tutsis and killing thousands of Tutsis by bombs.
ReplyDeleteIn conclusion, the Rwandan genocide was a real tragedy in which over 800,000 were killed in the destructive ethnic genocide. It was a tragedy full of disasters and horror. There were many genocides in the world, but the Rwandan one was so complex and had multidimensional causes and effects. Many circumstances led to this horrific genocide, such as land scarcity and the increasing pressures of the population on the land, which were from environmental causes. During and after the genocide, the mass movement of refugees and the internal displacement of people caused severe environmental damage. What I learned from reading this book, is that when I read books about physical violence, horrors, genocides, and such, I have to pay attention to the human story. I thank Philip Gourevitch for collecting great information about the Rwandan genocide, but I wanted to read more stories. I never liked reading about the political atmosphere, but this book taught me more and more about the bad side effects of genocide to avoid its causes in the future. I think that he did an excellent job due to his in-depth coverage of the situation and anybody can learn something from reading this story. What made my eyes full of tears is the West's conspiracy in both turning a blind eye to the Tutsi's difficulty, and in encouraging conflict in the region to begin within the process of colonization.
Part 4/S00040645
PART ONE:
ReplyDeleteThe Book “We wish to inform you that tomorrow we will be killed with our families; Stories from Rwanda” written by Philip Gourevitch talks about the most recent genocide; Rwandan genocide that took place in 1994. It is sad to mention that the perpetrators and victims of the genocide belong to the same nation-state; in other words, they share the citizenship which means that whatever has happened in 1994 is a tragedy. The three different cultural classes that were involved were the Hutu, Tutsi, and the Twa which were the aboriginal pygmy race. Tutsis and Hutus have different cultural background (Hutus belonged to the agricultural class and Tutsis to more pastoral lifestyles), but they do share the same religion (Christianity), ethnicity and language. Rwanda is one of the states whose majority of population belongs to the Christians of course with different sects.
The UN definition of genocide is somehow similar to the description. As was mentioned in page 202 of the book, there was made a distinction between crime and genocide and was stated that it is the intent that makes genocide different from all others inhuman acts. Rwandan genocide made a clear point that everything that was mentioned in the UN Convention on Genocide, article 2 can be implemented to the case of Rwanda for the following reasons; first it was intended and was planned (a year before) to destroy Tutsis by killing them by using the most easy means, they caused bodily(the ones who died ) and mental harm (survivors), sexual violence such as rape was used specifically to cause harm to the women and girls and children as well were killed with machetes or gunfire.
The author’s main arguments were that the genocide was going to happen either ways because of the chaotic atmosphere in a somehow failed state and the authoritarian regime that controlled even the thoughts of people, the reaction of the international community to the genocide; US’s failure to recognize the genocide as a genocide and its failure to interfere and stop whatever was happening in Rwanda ,France’s long support to Hutus which led to a genocide and most importantly UN’s peacekeeping role .
The book’s organization is the following; the first part deals with the events that prepared Tutsis to Genocide, the second part is the genocide itself and the final part deals with the aftermath of the genocide based on the interviews with survivors. The book was well detailed and researched and can be used as a first hand source example because of the interviews that were conducted with the main characters and also the survivors, to better understand from each side’s perspective. The structure was well designed because before each part there was quotations that gave an overview about that part through the quotation. To state some of the strengths and the weaknesses of the book, I personally believe that the strengths were way more than the weaknesses because whatever weakness that could have the book eventually it is one of the best sources that can be read by everyone to understand what has happened during 1994; the events that led to it and how was life after the genocide. An example to state that each word in the book carried a meaning which can be considered as a strength is in page 17 when it was mentioned that “mass violence must be organized; it does not occur aimlessly; and great and sustained destruction requires great ambition.” Another example to clarify what it means to kill people was “The ideology of genocide in Rwanda went by the bald name of Hutu Power.” Another example is the interviews itself with the survivors that made the reader understand the genocide from the experience of the victim. A drawback of the book is that it lacks a timetable in the beginning before heading to the chapters and glossary for the political terms that was going to be used. For me, as a scholar of International Relations it was very easy to understand but for someone who does not have a background it could be hard.
PART TWO
DeleteThe book influenced me and somehow touched on my unhealed wounds from the Armenian Genocide when he explained all the horrific actions in details (death bodies lying in middle of a classroom for example, raped women and girls, unburied human beings and so on). For me, the most incredible part was the last part of the book; the chapters that dealt with the aftermath of the genocide; how people had to co-exist with their murderers that could be their neighbors, family member or a friend. Also, the neglection of the international community of what was going on in Rwanda; their failure to recognize and most importantly their will to cover the events of 1994 just to move on because that was best suited for their interest. Usually, from the perspective of a great-grand daughter of a genocide survivor and a scholar of IR, I believe that states support powerful states and neglect the weak because to them, powerful can help them when they are in need unlike the weak who cannot.
I would like to highlight some of the key sentences that impacted me while I was reading the book and are worth mentioning. For example, in the page 315, when he was talking about the survivors and said “It was impossible to give survivors what they really wanted; their lost world as it was in the time they called “Before”.” Or when he talked about reconciliation because survivors had to move on. Another phase that affected me on page 316 was “Genocide survivors regret that they were not killed” and “ There could be no complete closing of the wound for the generation that suffered it”. “ For values to change, there has to be an acknowledgment of guilt, to accept your mistakes and seek forgiveness”. All of these phases carry a lot of meanings that only someone who has experienced will understand.
The book is highly recommended, it clearly states everything that everyone should understand when it comes to topics about genocide not only about Rwanda but genocide as an international phenomenon. It clearly states the positions of the so called “big powers” when we talk about inhuman acts about a certain group of people. It shows how interests make their way and morals disappear. I believe that if the previous cases of Genocide was recognized but all states, then Rwandan genocide would not take place and history would stop repeating itself.
Bibliography
“ We wish to inform you that tomorrow we will be killed with our families.” Super Summary
http://www.supersummary.com/we-wish-inform-tomorrow-we-be-killed-families/summary/
UN Convention on Genocide
S00028891-Part one
ReplyDeleteThe book We Wish to Inform You That Tomorrow We Will Be Killed with Our Families chronicles of Philip Gourevitch’s, travels through Rwanda in the wake of the 1994 Rwandan genocide that led to the killing of one million people. The book’s title derives from a letter written to the then president of the Seventh-day Adventist Church in Rwanda, who was also complicit in the genocide. Gourevitch’s encounter with the survivors and witnesses of the brutality and the demolished houses, trees, roads, and carcasses lying all over was proof of the mass destruction that had occurred. It was clear that the assassinations, massacre, rape, torture, enslavement, and beatings resulted from intercultural differences between the Hutu and Tutsis. From the hierarchical stories, Rwanda is a diverse culture, Hutus are Bantus, and their main source of income is cultivating. The Tutsis are Nilotic, and herdsmen which translated to better economic status, and this was the source of the genocide, the Hutus felt the need to eliminate the Tutsis. The men were trained as militia while the mayors, police officers, and the rich financed the operations, and the media communicated that they were determined to kill the Tutsis. Instead of formal education in Rwanda, people were given weapons and looked up to the people in high offices for orders. The victims had strong religious beliefs; whenever war broke out, the Tutsis hid in the church as they had faith it was the safest place, and no harm would locate them, in addition, the book title was a letter to the bishop pleading with him to pray that God may intervene and spare them.
There are three critical sections in the book, discussing the events that transpired before, during, and after the genocide. The author debunks the myths widely circulated by Western press that the conflict between the two warring groups – Hutus and Tutsis – was an age-old struggle with either groups seeking to annihilate the other. He portrays Rwanda as a place not naturally split but instead unified through one language, religion, and territory. In the book, Gourevitch acknowledges that there were various contributing factors leading up to the genocide, such as the colonial and post-colonial meddling of the Belgians. However, none inevitably led to the genocide. The genocide was a gratuitous crime planned by the Hutu government and executed through channels of the state. Gourevitch (1998) calls it a product of “order, authoritarianism, and decades of modern political theorizing and indoctrination.” Therefore, genocide served the purpose to eliminate perceived threats to a community and its political power in the country. The current report builds on this notion by asserting that genocide is an exercise in community building implicating the law.
S00028891-Part 2
DeleteGenocide imposes measures of preventing birth within a group where they kill men, enslave women, and rape them. The conjunction of war, rape, and genocide in Rwanda is evidence of disturbing reinforcement of abuse through media and propaganda. As men would go to war while women and children were left behind, and those men would return to only find their women and children either dead or the women were taken in for prostitution and forced marriages since Tutsis women were inaccessible to Hutu men.
Article II of the UN Genocide Convention defines genocide as engaging in acts, such as killing and causing serious bodily injury targeted towards listed protected groups, with the intent to wholly or partly destroy those groups (Fein 1999; United Nations 2020). The Stories from Rwanda concisely detail how the majority of the Hutu population had consistently targeted the Tutsis ever since independence. Logically, the Tutsis were the victims of the genocide. However, accounts of the event also consider some tens of thousands of Hutu people murdered by other Hutus for not supporting their actions in the genocide. Hence, it is also prudent to consider the survivor experiences of Hutu victims. While definitions, such as the one provided by the United Nations, label this “ancillary” violence “politicide.” Whitehead et al. (2009) explore more flexible definitions, including social or political groups, as potential victims of violence. Hence, it would also be appropriate to define genocide as including political groups in the Rwandan case, since it mirrors how the organizers defined targets. Among the first people to die were Hutu members of moderate political parties, Hutu journalists critical of the extremist Hutu Power movement, and Hutu human rights activities. The primary theme surrounding these targets was the lack of commitment to the Hutu solidarity, essentially creating a community of people with shared values and doctrines – an identity through politics.
The flexible definition of genocide coincides with the earlier definitions of the term. According to Raphael Lemkin, the term genocide referred to coordinated plans involving different actions aimed at destroying the essential foundations of the life of national groups to annihilate them (Lemkin 2013). According to Lemkin, the objective of such a plan would to disintegrate of the political and social institutions of culture, language, national feelings, religion, and the economic existence of national groups. Additionally, such actions also seek to destroy the personal security, liberty, health, dignity, and individuals belonging to the targeted group. It is a critical observation as it validates the point that the genocide victims were mostly those perceived as not sharing in the commitment to Hutu solidarity.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteS00028891-Part 3
DeleteFurther, the observation corroborates Gourevitch's assertion (1998) that the genocide helped strengthen one community at the expense of the other. The killing of the Tutsis had become a political tradition in post-colonial Rwanda, and it brought people together as a form of social stratification (Rosenblatt 1995). The genocide was strategic by Rwanda’s Hutu Power leaders because they understood that if they could swing the people, then they would develop a considerable advantage in cementing their power in Rwanda. It was critical, especially since they had been inferior to the minority group Tutsis, as held by the Belgians. It contributed to a closer relationship between the Tutsis and the Belgians. Eventually, the Tutsi population would gain control over the Hutus, having the best jobs, living in better houses, and benefiting from a higher social status (Gourevitch 1998). The assertions prove that the genocide in Rwanda was a form of community building, with the vigorous totalitarian regime in place requiring that people align themselves with the leader’s schemes. Ideally, it was a matter of perceived loyalty to the government.
The most compelling thing about the book is the intimate reporting that Gourevitch provides his readers. The author always insists on being articulate, letting readers understand the mindset and mechanism of the killing in Rwanda. Dividing the book into three sections also help contribute to clarity. The author allows the readers to imagine, with uncomfortable immediacy, about the unimaginable inhumanity that occurred during the genocide. The only downside to reading the book is that it may come off as upsetting or triggering to some readers. However, the book helps one understand the lived experiences of the genocide, those that died, and the darker side of humanity. Gourevitch’s book helps conceptualize human rights violations by involving people that lived through the genocide period, allowing the reader to understand that humans are capable of committing heinous and immoral acts and have a justification for it. Violation of human rights occurs when people take on actions that contribute to it, or through inaction by those with the ability to prevent the violation. Nevertheless, after reading Gourevich’s book and a series of articles on genocide, it comes to my mind that the interference of the “West” such as colonialism, seems to contribute cultural damage and assimilation rather than the development of a nation because of the Belgians gave power to the Tutsis leaving the Hutus to be at the bottom of the hierarchy. While reading the book I kept questioning whether the victims are considered to be perpetrators for defending themselves against the perpetrators by fighting back, and vice-versa? Reading Gourevitch's book granted me so much insight on the Rwandan genocide in a very heart warming manner. This class educated me in many different aspects such as how the Holocaust is too focused on while other genocides are neglected and not talked about such as the Rwandan genocide.
Part 1
ReplyDeletePhilip Gourevitch demonstrates the complexity behind the mass violence and genocide that took place in 1994 through the accounts of Rwandan’s experiences, retelling their stories from different parts of Rwanda in order to describe the atrocities before and after the events of 1994 in his book. By weaving the interviewees’ narratives into his retelling of Rwanda’s histories and legends, as well as those imposed onto the region, Gourevitch grounds the unimaginable number of deaths during 1994 in the turbulent political and social atmosphere leading up to that year.
The book is organized into two parts; the first discusses the history of Rwanda leading up to and including the events of 1994, and the second discusses the aftermath of that genocide. This format makes the complicated history of Rwanda easier to follow. However, the organization within the parts is difficult to follow, especially since Gourevitch jumps back and forth in time, throwing me off on the timeline of events in many instances where I had to search for the date provided to place what is in the page I’m on in the appropriate context of events.
In the first part, the book primarily follows the accounts of Odette, a Tutsi woman, to navigate and ground the history of Rwanda into tangible experiences. By doing this, and including others’ accounts in the events on 1994, Gourevitch’s retelling depicts an array of experiences from the genocide, not only from the perspective of Tutsis, but of moderate Hutus as well as the enablers of the genocide.
The Rwandan genocide involved two groups, the Tutsis and the Hutus. These are imposed ethnic identities which were established into the social and economic stratification of the region by Belgian colonists. The Belgians favored the Tutsi minority for their lighter skin, slender stature and smaller noses, ascribing them the Hamitic mythology, a supposed master race in Africa descended from Caucasians. Before colonization there was no distinct social or political division in ethnicity, only strong national unity under the pre-colonial monarchy. The Belgians introduced race-science and with it fragmented the population’s nationhood by instilling the ethnic caste system. During the events of 1994, the Hutu majority organized mass killings of Tutsis. But this event is laden with decades of systemic violence and retaliation. Gourevitch’s description of the turmoil throughout Rwanda’s history leading up to 1994 provides a complete picture of the genocide, demonstrating the various stages and points of structural violence in Rwanda. This depiction adheres to Lemkin’s framework of genocide, which understands genocide to be a sociocultural process that builds its way into policy to destroy the target group politically, socially, culturally, economically etc… (Genocide, p. 27-33). In contrast, this understanding of the genocide in Rwanda goes beyond the scope of the UN’s definition, be that “the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group” which lists acts such as killing, seriously harming, deliberately inflicting conditions of life that aim to destroy the group or its members (as well as complicity or incitement of the aforementioned) as examples of punishable acts of genocide. (UN General Assembly, Genocide, p. 43-44). Gourevitch’s accumulation of ethnographic data and formation of a complex historical narrative supported by those accounts results in a nuanced depiction of the events leading up to and continuing beyond the assassination of President Habyarimana in 1994.
Part 2
ReplyDeleteIn the second part Gourevitch uses the aforementioned approach of interweaving interviews and official facts to tell the events following 1994, notably interviewing Kagame and Girumuhatse, to discuss the retaliation of the RPF, the events at Kibeho camps, and the efforts for reconciliation and punishment by the new government.
One of the books main themes is the role outsiders played in the events that took place in Rwanda. This is brought up in the discussion of the colonial history, to the emphasis on the role the international community played in allowing the genocide to continue, and in the US’s attempt at an apology for not intervening and supporting the Hutus in the aftermath. Much of this was the result of willful ignorance and the idea of equally bad actors fighting amongst one another. This failure to acknowledge the history of the violence resulted in inaction from powerful members of the UN such as the USA, as well as the French siding with the Hutus during the events of 1994, adopting the narrative put out by Hutu Power organizations of a continuation of the history of victimization by the Tutsis at that time. The international organizations’ unwillingness to be involved in Rwanda resulted in their inability to comprehend the fluctuating nature of power relations and struggles that Rwandans experienced up to that point, understanding Rwanda’s case only to be the result of two equally unjust actors, not a nuanced interaction between Rwandans and the outside influences taking a stake in its resources.
Gourevitch’s work has put into question the basic interpretation I had of Rwanda’s genocidal history. His nuanced exploration reminds me not to hastily impose simplistic notions of right and wrong onto Tutsis and Hutus- this level of questioning and nuance should be used in the analysis of other genocides to prevent actions based on underdeveloped ideas of perpetrator and victim, as the international community did in Rwanda.
S00046211 - Part One
ReplyDeletePhilip Gourevitch’s book details the genocide that occurred in Rwanda, in just 100 days eight hundred thousand people were killed. This took place in the spring and early summer of 1994, but it started before that – with Tutsi’s being herdsmen and Hutu’s being cultivators. Due to this, Tutsi’s already had higher political, military and financial positions in the country and were considered the elites. When the Belgian colonial powers arrived in Rwanda, they attributed this as proof of Tutsi’s superiority, as well as proof of ‘race science’ beliefs and the Hamitic myth. The two groups were distinguished based on physical appearance, with Tutsi’s being declared superior and of Caucasoid Ethiopian tribal origins [51]. It was these ethnic and class divides that would haunt Rwanda for many years and what ultimately led to the genocide, serving as the basis of the ‘Ten Hutu Commandments’ which proclaimed that Hutu’s must unite against their common enemy.
The genocide against Tutsi’s did not happen overnight, there were numerous markers; they were referred to as cockroaches [32], labelled as arrogant and thinking themselves superior to Hutu’s [210], called devils with “horns, hoofs, tails, and all” [94] and consistently dehumanized and demonized. By killing Tutsi’s the Hutu population aimed to fix a ‘problem’ [68] and that problem was to be fixed with machetes and mass rape. In 1973, when Habyarimana became president, this hatred officially became state sponsored. Hutu power ideas were spread through newspaper and radio propaganda [25;85], Tutsi’s homes were marked [22] and lists of their names were made [125]. Their dehumanization was furthered by the language used to describe their murder; “clearing the bush” [123] and “selling cabbages” [115]. The propaganda aimed to enforce the idea that all Hutu’s must be against all Tutsi’s and called on Hutu’s to kill any Tutsi, whether neighbor, friend, doctor or patient. After the genocide had ended the Hutu’s who admitted to their involvement would claim that they had no choice, the state had ordered it, and that they were simply following these orders [123].
Barring the transfer of Tutsi children to Hutu parents, the Rwandan genocide as illustrated in Gourevitch’s work fits into all the categories of genocide listed in article II of the 1948 genocide convention. But it was only in October of 1994, after the genocide had ended, that the UN named what happened in Rwanda a genocide [203]. Nonetheless, with the UN admission or without, what the Tutsi’s had endured was mass killing and harm done to them on both a physical and emotional scale. It was a clear systematic attempt at the destruction of their group as a whole. While all this transpired, the UN and the international community ignored it for the sake of saving face and avoiding humiliation, the only response they gave to the killings was to send blankets and set up camps that hosted the perpetrators of the genocide. Undeniably, “Rwanda became a case study in international negligence” [326] and perhaps just as the American officer Gourevitch had encountered stated, all the UN Genocide Convention did was provide good wrapping for a cheese sandwich nobody cared about [171].
The book jumps back and forth between different times, places and individuals. Through this it creates a comprehensive report of the genocide in Rwanda and imbeds personal stories while doing so. However, due to this stylistic choice it becomes difficult for the reader to organize the time frame of events. Rather than simply just detailing the events of the genocide the author does
S00046211 - Part Two
Deletea great job of providing context and background information of Rwanda’s history and neighbouring countries involvement that helps explain the situation and the events that played a role in it. Gourevitch opts to insert his opinions and comments on the situation throughout the book, with the overarching pattern of the international community being indifferent and neglectful it seems only necessary for the author and onlookers to form their own opinions rather than be passive observers to injustice.
However this approach presents some issues, while it becomes increasingly clear that Tutsi’s were the victims of the genocide the authors complete focus on one group makes the reader question how much of the truth they are getting. This unease is mostly addressed when Gourevitch clarifies how the Rwandan genocide was portrayed by popular media coverage; as a rivalry between two ethnic groups where both were killed, rather than a genocide that led to a violent response by the RPF, “the impression created by such reports is that because victims on either side of the conflict suffer equally, both sides are equally insupportable” [185]. The media’s decision to portray the two groups as equally responsible for the sake of being ‘unbiased’ and ‘objective’ when there was a clear victim and perpetrator present the genocide as something it wasn’t. Gourevitch’s decision to present an honest account of the event that played out rather than attempt to create a false sense of neutrality that often comes across as spinelessness is infinitely more important in my opinion. A critique of the book could certainly be based on his apparent justification of the actions the RPF took in the camps, but his thought process and reasons for not equating the violence of the Interahamwe with the RPF is explained well – whether the reader agrees or not.
This account of the genocide in Rwanda reaffirmed many of the ideas explored in the readings, the techniques of genocide Lemkin [1944] outlines, the bureaucratic rationalization and indifference Bauman [1989] and Barnett [1997] discuss, Arendt’s [1963] discussion of the perpetrators attempt to justify their actions as simply following orders and Fein’s [1999] assessment of political violence directed towards women during genocide. It was helpful to see these elements applied to a genocide besides the Holocaust. Gourevitch states at the beginning that this is a book about how we imagine the world. About how the Hutu’s imagined the Tutsi’s, themselves and the world they wished to create and how it ultimately led to genocide. Gourevitch makes a point of this, how easy it is to exercise one’s imagination, how states have and will continue to do so with the inefficient response of the international community.
After the Holocaust, the UN and several states made statements, continue to make statements, about protecting targeted groups. And yet when they were faced with obvious signs of genocide in Rwanda, they did nothing. Later, when the genocide had occurred, they sent blankets. What is the point of a genocide convention that does nothing? Of ‘never again’? And of the promises made post-Holocaust? They all proved to be meaningless. As Gourevitch puts it “denouncing evil is a far cry from doing good” [170], and in Rwanda’s case the international community couldn’t even denounce it. An international community that sends humanitarian aid to convince itself its good, that builds memorials and museums and prays for the victims does this only to absolve itself of guilt and responsibility. Above all else, the point Gourevitch aims to make is that it has happened once and that it can happen again – everywhere and anywhere, and that we must start taking action to prevent it, rather than commemorate it.
PART 1
ReplyDeleteAuthor Philip Gourevitch in his book, we wish to inform you that tomorrow we will be killed with our families, narrates his trips to Rwanda after the atrocious genocide that took place on April 6, 1994 after the assassination of Rwandan Hutu president Juvénal Habyarimana. Gourevitch carefully discusses and analyzes the cause of the genocide and provides the readers with a chronology of the events leading up to it. The ethnic tension between the Tutsis and the Hutus was sparked after the Belgian colonists arrived in Rwanda, issuing ethnic identity cards that classified Rwandans according to their ethnicity; as either Hutus (Majority 85%), Tutsis (14%) or Twas (pygmies, only 1%) (39). Historically, the Tutsis were of Nilotic origin and had always been the ruling class prior to the European colonization due to their possession of cattle and advanced knowledge of warfare, whereas the Hutus were of Bantu origin and were cultivators, so they were seen as subjects or lower class (32). However, the relationship between the two was fluid, as they spoke the same language (Kinyarwand, Swahili), followed the same religion (Christianity) and mixed and intermingled peacefully; basically one and the same (32).
However, during the colonization, the Tutsis were highly favored by the Belgians for their political power, which they needed to enforce their rule; They also considered the Tutsis to be biologically superior to the Hutus based on their physical attributes (Tall, sharp features, light skin) and they came to believe that Tutsis had Caucasian ancestry, which deemed them qualified to be placed in important administrative positions and have access to western education, thus assuring a Tutsi monopoly that set the stage for the Rwandan genocide (41). In 1959 -1960’s, following the assault on a Hutu sub-chief named Dominique Mbonyumutwa by a group of Tutsi extremists; rumors spread that he had been killed which brought about an anti-Tutsi Hutu revolution that launched a series of attacks against Tutsis, resulting in the final ousting of the Tutsi monarchy and a mass Tutsi exodus. Gourevitch mentioned that up until that point, there had never been political violence recorded between the two groups, implying that the revolution created a new ethnic conflict, even after Rwanda was granted full independence and that the violence resumed until the assassination of Habayrimana on April 6, 1994 that led to the genocide that killed more than one million Tutsis and moderate Hutus (the ones that opposed Habayrimana’s extremist ideologies; were viewed as “traitors”).
PART 2
DeleteThe book also draws on the failure of the international community in preventing and stopping the Rwandan genocide. The Genocide Convention was drafted succeeding the Holocaust, persuaded by Raphael Lemkin’s proposal, the inventor of the word “genocide”. Article II of the genocide convention defined the term as actions committed with the intent to destroy national, ethnical, racial or religious groups, but as we’ve discussed before, the definition was heavily limited and exclusive of other social entities such as political and economic groups. Gourevitch explored the idea that all aspects of the Rwandan genocide fell under the Convention’s definItion: A specific ethnic group was targeted, the Hutus caused serious bodily and mental harm to the Tutsi population, they were also driven and forced to flee to other neighboring countries and thousands of women were raped and murdered along with their children, yet the international community failed to intervene due to the bureaucratic nature of the United Nations and lack of political will and the UN peacekeepers just stood by powerlessly and did nothing as the massacre proceeded.
The book was thorough and thought provoking; I believe the author’s purpose was to show that the massacres had long been planned and that the United Nations and the international community could have prevented and stopped them, had they not chosen to ignore the warnings and had they been willing to react when the killings began. The author spent 9 months in Rwanda interviewing Rwandans that have experienced the genocide firsthand as well as other observers and witnesses such as: government officials, doctors, hotel managers, the perpetrators as well as the victims and UN peacekeepers, focusing on how the Rwandans remember and understand the events the took place before during and after the genocide and adeptly showing the subjects feelings towards the killings. Gourevitch’s inclusion of tangible details provided information and historical context that helps readers fully understand how the genocide took place, it also evokes a full sense of the time and the setting of the stories in a way that elicits an emotional reaction from the reader. The book definitely influenced my thinking and helped me understand that there can always be a backward approach to justice and that jealousy and revenge can be very powerful emotions that shouldn't be taken lightly. However, the only problem I had with the book was the lack of Hutu interviews; how did the Hutu killers feel about killing their neighbors, friends and even in some cases, their families? At the end of the day the killings were instructed and some of them carried out the killings because they feared for their families and their children, since those who opposed shared the same fate as the Tutsis.
Part 1:
ReplyDeleteThe book We Wish to Inform You That Tomorrow We Will Be Killed With Our Families, written by Phillip Gourevitch, is about a genocide that took place in Rwanda in 1994 during the civil war. It was one of the most shocking acts of mass killings to have been recorded in history. Hutus and Tutsis are the two ethnic group who dominate the population. Tensions between them have been rising, especially after the Belgian colonial regime. The genocide started not too long after the Rwandan President, Juvénal Habyarimana, got shot down while in a plane. The Hutu ethnic members gathered around to kill as many Tutsis with the intent of wiping them out completely. The Hutus were oppressed, they rebelled and decided to take the matter into their own hands. They were like the servants while the Tutsis were the elites. Christianity and Animism appear to be the most commonly practiced religions by both ethnic groups. While the churches were supportive to both ethnic groups, they decided not to get too involved with the genocide when it started because they reject the idea of violence.
According to the U.N definition of genocide, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such, killing, causing serious bodily or mental harm, deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part, imposing measures intended to prevent births, forcibly transferring children of the group to another group. The Hutus absolutely have committed an act of genocide. They picked up whatever they have as a weapon like mostly machetes and to kill as many Tutsis. They have caused an immense amount of harm and certainly brought its physical destruction. Over 800,000 people were killed in over 100 days. Genocide is a process and it does not happen over a single event or in a few days. There are events that first must lead up to the killings.
Gourevitch made his way to Rwanda and has gathered first-hand information from Hutus and Tutsis including survivors of the genocide. He claims that Rwanda is ‘decimated’ since about 10% percent of the population has been killed. He starts off with stories of the victims and perpetrators of the genocide, but doesn’t speak about the genocide itself yet. It is only later in the book, specifically chapter 4, when he actually decides to talk about the genocide. The places he visits are disturbing as he describes the “evil” atmosphere he feels as he describes the haunting scenery. The author had a somewhat unusual way of painting the picture of the situation since his book didn’t necessarily follow a traditional method. His words portrayed the events in his own way, which at some points came out a little snarky, especially in the beginning. This was not too of an negative approach since he cares to retell stories of holocaust survivors in ways that he felt would be most comfortable. As comfortable as you can be, of course, when you are discussing mass murders.
Part 2:
DeleteAs I kept reading, it started to make more sense why the book was organized the way it was. Gourevitch wanted to give us a glimpse of what he has gotten himself into before we begin to digest his analysis of the genocide and the emotional stories the survivors had to share. This book gave me a better understanding of how serious the Rwandan holocaust was. It truly puts you in the perspective of others so you can empathize with what just some people have gone through. The book made me feel a little uncomfortable at times with some of the stories which only adds to the intensity of the situation. Gourevitch did a great job at linking all his analysis and descriptions in one book that tells one story. He also did a good job at expressing how complex the situation is yet how truly simple it could have been. It really manages to shed light on horrific acts that happen even until today and I can only recommend the book in hopes of more people reading it in order for their awareness of the situation increases. The book manages to combine a little bit of everything involved for all parties and connected together in one reading which is why I believe it is deserving of both the awards it has received.
-S00034954
Ridaab Y Marzuq
ReplyDeletepart 1:
“We Wish to inform you that tomorrow we will be killed with our families” is a fascinating collection of stories provide and written by award winning author, Philp Gourevitch. Philp Gourevitch has been traveling to Rwanda during and after the 1994 Rwandan Genocide. He had collected and composed a number of stories of the Rwandan people during and after the conflict. He provided different aspects and perspectives, regardless of whether he interviewed Hutus or Tutus, he equipped his novels with an altitude of viewpoints and perspectives. He was a catalyst for Rwandans contributing their narratives and stories.
The Rwandan Genocide toke place in the spring of the year 1994, “the government of Rwanda called on everyone in the Hutu majority to kill everyone in the Tutsi minority. Over the next three months, (an estimated number of) 800,000 Tutsis were murdered.” (Gourevitch). Rwanda was created by a very special society, in which there were different types of ethnicities that made up the Rwandan society (although the idea of Rwandans being of different ethnicities was later debunked in his book, as both the Hutus and Tutsis share very similar langues, cultures, and a very similar history. However for the sake of this paper, we will obtain the usage of the terminology ethnicity p.47). The history of the Hutus and the Tutsis was created centuries before the genocide ever occurred. Chapter four of Philp Gourevitch’s explains in depth the complex history of the Hutus and Tutsis. In the beginning of the Rwandan civilization, the Tutsis were beloved to have derived from royal blood who have originated from the Ethiopian lands. While the Hutus were beloved to be farmer villagers. When the Hutus and Tutus were among the first civilizations to live in the beautiful country of Rwanda, the Hutus used to work for the Tutus. Although the Hutus and Tutus have originated from similar origins, they had different physical attributions, this will later be one the reasons the genocide happens. The Tutsis were taller, had lighter skin tones than that of the Hutus, they had smaller, and slimmer noses and it had a tall and lean nose Bridge, it was supposed that the Tutsis had more European physical looks. While the Hutus on the other hand, were shorter, they were dark, and darker than the Tutsis. They had wide nostrils and almost no nose bridge. Again, based off of European standards , it was assumed that the Hutus were viewed as much more African, thus more uncivilized. (6). When the Belgium’s began to arrive to Rwanda in the late 1800’s, they began to interpret their own realities on to the already vulnerable society of the Rwandans. They began to favor the Tutsis, for their ‘European-like’ physicality’s’. They began to hand out identification card with specific color coding on it. They would measure the Rwandan’s nose size and determine whether one Rwandan was more superior than the other. The Belgians would then put the Tutsis in charge of governing the country, and proving laws. After Rwanda had gained her independence from Belgium, the Hutus began to regain power, they suddenly became the rulers and law enforcers of the Rwanda. From the 1960’s leading up to the genocide in 1994, the Rwandan government would impose subtle messages to determine further more segregations towards the Tutsis. Then in 1994, the Rwandan government would literally impose actual discriminatory actions on the Tutsis. Although it is widely believed that the Genocide was able to happen due to the Belgims conflicting with a vulnerable society, and although that is true to an extend, upon further research, it turns out that the Republic of France was heavily involved in supplying the Hutus with weaponry and soldiers. (Rwanda, story of a genocide foretold, France 24 English).
RYM part 2:
DeletePhilp Gourevitch does a great job representing a situation while remining unbiased, however with that being said, when he was interviewing the different Rwandans it becomes clear who was the perpetrators and whom were the victims. The adjects that was used for the victims were very dehumanizing. “Tutsis were known in Rwanda as inyenzi, which means cockroachs” (32). The Rwandans are a religious society, the priests would also tell Tutsis that they are “you( the tutsis), must be eliminated, (as) God no longer wants you.”(28). The Tutsis were describes as the that of being spawns of hell, they would be described as the utter most despicable animals. This is very similar to the Nazis and the Jews in the late 1930’s and early 1940’s, during World War Two. The Nazi Germen would describe the Jews as disturbing animals, as well as creepy people who would attempt negative actions towards the Germen women and children. Similarly, through propaganda both the Jews and the Tutsis were almost immediately eliminated from their societies, and ought to seek refuge in countries that are not their given homes, but their adopted homes.
When it comes to the social defying characteristics of the both groups, the Tutsis and Hutus. Many of them,in both groups were well educated, and well versed oj the Christian religion. Both members of either groups were Rwandans, Christians, Africans, and active members of their society. The main difference, as provided above, lays in their Physical appearances, while the Tutsis were taller, slimmer and lighter in skin color, they also had distinctively smaller noses and facial built. While the Hutus were dark in color, shorter, and had wider noses. However due to the fact that Hutus and Tutsis have “intermarried” with each other (47), many Rwandans could not really tell a big of difference anymore. This genocide was almost caught by surprise not only by the Global stage, but also by Rwandans themselves, because as many of them had explained in the book, the Hutus and Tutsis had lived among each other for generations. They were each other neighbors, their children had played and grew up together.
Article two of the United Nations “CONVENTION1 ON THE PREVENTION AND
PUNISHMENT OF THE CRIME OF GENOCIDE.
ADOPTED BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE
UNITED NATIONS ON 9 DECEMBER 1948” has described genocide as the following:
“(a) Killing members of the group;
(£) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(e) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to
bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(rf) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group”
In the Rwandan Genocide, the Hutus did indeed kill off an entire members of the Tutsis group, as a result many Tutsis became refugees in neighboring countries such as Uganda, and some were lucky enough to flee off to different contents, such as the Americas or Europe. The Hutus, did also cause bodily as well as mental destructions to the Tutus, however the Hutus killed regardless of the gender, as long as someone was assumed to be a Tutsis.
Philp Gourevitch, once again excelled at his presentation of different human’s life and perspective, and he tried to remain as bias less as one can be. The way hehad organized and presented the book is excellent. He first gives off a brief history of the area in Rwanda in which the Genocide begins, he allows proves a map of Rwanda, and the area.
RYM
DeletePart 3:
I felt like this book did a good job in what it is supposed to do, which is provide a outlet for the people, on either side of the genocide, whether the perpetrators or victims, and allowed each interviewee to just tell their story. Gourevitch also does a good job in providing well and enough history, that describes the relationship between the Tutsis ans Hutus from the beginning of Rwanda’s habitation. Healso provides history on the European colonization of not onlyRwandam but neoghboring countries as well. He includes the fault of the United Nations during this Genocide, and briefly mentions The Republci pf France, which plays an immense role oj the Rwandan genocide. However, there were some weaknesses that Gourevitch expressed. For one, he only provides the readers with one map, and over time, it becomes confusing to the readers to envision the situations aroused. Like many books out there, Gourevitch begins his book in an unknown area, therefore readers who are unfamiliar with Rwanda’s history might zone, and become confused, thus a little bit of background research on the reader’s end is needed. Another weakness, is the fact that Gourevitch has introduced the French and United Nations later on in his book, and it almost becomes misleading, as the readers begin to learn about a new component of knowledge much later than needed. Over this was a great book and I would highly recommend it to those who are interested in history. What influenced me the most was the sickening imagery of the dead people, it made me reevaluate life, and it made me appreciate some of my ancestors more, Although my family and I have been American for more than half a century, ethnically my family are Arab Palestinians, and my great grandma, as well as my great aunts became refuges to Syria, before fleeing to Syria, they were living in a very privileged and luxurious life in Palestine. Then, they had their house burn on them, when they fleed to Syria, they fleed while having first degree burns on them.
The book "We wish to inform you that tomorrow we will be killed with our families" by Philip Gourevitch is an excellent combination and organization of stories of the Rwandan Genocide. They are described in their various aspects, collectively indicating the torture and horrors the Tutsis experienced at the hands of the Hutus. These stories describe one act - genocide in its various stages and steps of transition. As mentioned by Gourevitch, the Hutus and Tutsis existed with differences in social status. The position in social status of the Hutus and Tutsis changed throughout history. During the pre-colonial period, Rwanda Kings were Tutsis. Historically, the Tutsi’s had an upper hand and control in the society; however, after the independence from the Belgians, the Hutu majority gained power over the Tutsis and began ostracizing them (1998, p 7-8).
ReplyDeleteThe Hutus were agricultural people while the Tutsis were a nomadic group. The majority Hutus intended to slaughter the ethnic group of Tutsis who were a minority. Gourevitch mentions that almost eight hundred thousand people were slaughtered in a hundred days (1998, p 3). The difference in ethnicity was prominent. It is necessary to note that the oppressing was not only on the Tutsis, but also certain Hutus that opposed the Hutu power ideology. Tutsis were massacred mercilessly, however the Hutus that did not give in to the ideology were labeled as accomplices of the Tutsi people and were among the first to be killed (Gourevitch, 1998, p 18). This shows the features and characteristics of genocide. The prime motivating factor may have been the difference of social status and class between the Hutus and the Tutsis. However, the extermination of the Tutsis showed no regard for the members of the 'in-group'. They killed anyone that hindered the application of the oppressive system or regime. The consideration of ‘in-group’, ‘out-group’ or the 'others' was not present. Military officials were not the only perpetrators; threats and calls for violence turned neighbor against neighbor, as civilians picked up machetes and guns and slaughtered each other.
The occurrences and instances taking place against the Tutsi people, in the form of well planned steps and actions, overtime or specifically over a span of days showed an intense presence of ambition. This correlates to the definition of genocide by the UN Genocide Convention that considers genocide as acts intended to destroy, in part or in whole a national, ethical, racial or religious group (UNGA, 1946, p 43-44). In the case of Rwanda, the majority Hutus intended to slaughter the ethnic group of Tutsis who were a minority. As described by Gourevitch, the violence against the Tutsis was very much organized and not aimless in nature. Moreover, such sustained, wide ranged destruction requires consistency and strong ambition. It must be conceived as the primary means to achieve new order, a new society (1998, p 17). Genocide is another process of community building and the construction of an ideal society without flaws is the aim of many genocidal programs. Here, the flawed in the society are the Tutsis, who as indicated by Gourevitch are regarded as ‘cockroaches’ (1998, p 96). This shows that their group identity was reduced to a low level, labeling them as futile or worthless, like marks or stains in the society. They are subject to hateful marginalization and suffering as described by Gourevitch in various chapters of the book. Each chapter represents different situations including social and political, which were characteristics of the genocide. The aims of the Hutus are very much absolute, specific and simple even though terrible, immoral or unethical in nature (1998, p 17).
part 2
ReplyDeleteConsidering genocide, even a small unresisting and willing population is capable of oppressing the victims, causing catastrophe through mass extermination (Gourevitch, 1998, p 18). Successful subjugation of the victims and inflicting terror to weaken the group is enough to give the oppressors the strength to eliminate them. As per Gourevitch, it is not necessary and must not be a direct perception that the perpetrators enjoyed massacres and torture inflicted on the Tutsis. Due to the pressure by members of the community, one may feel obliged to carry out the negative actions. The Hutus aims and ideologies to annihilate the Tutsis were open and clear; however due helplessness and hopelessness, all they could do is try to escape or flee and were tied from acting otherwise. In attempts to escape and seek refuge from the perpetrators, they were even tricked by the Mayor, who later annihilated them along with his men (1998, p 18). Genocide and mass killing was made normative and the perpetrators got desensitized to the suffering of the people. Gourevitch states that before Nyarubaye, the slaughtering started in Kigali and with time it spread in districts like a plague. Sergeant Francis described this as a process of gradual and coordinated set of aims leading to the ultimate accomplishment of their purpose, the total destruction of the Tutsis (1998, p 18).
The Tutsis, men and women were both targeted. However, the manner in which they were imposed with violence differed. Men were mercilessly massacred with machetes, while the women were not killed immediately. The UN description of genocidal acts includes causing bodily and mental harm to a community or group. As describes by the author, there were numerous women that were first sexually tortured and raped before being murdered (Gourevitch, 1998, p 16). No regard was given to younger women, mothers or their children. The gendered perspective of genocide has been well depicted, wherein women faced prolonged torture and actions against them are more symbolic as the purpose was to degrade the honor of the community, forced impregnation by oppressors which leaves a permanent mark in the society of the horrors the victims faced. The mental torment and psychological damage is long lasting. Although the UN Convention does not mention sexual violence against women specifically, it mentions the measures to prevent births of a community (UNGA, 1946, p 44). As mentioned by Gourevitch, the resulting orphans are a symbol of the genocide and are the sign of the violence committed against women (1998, p 21).
The book has been structured and organized by mentioning the history of Rwanda in the beginning including the positions of the 2 communities and the shift in power. The author then describes his personal experience on visiting Rwanda. He includes short descriptions of incidents during the genocide and the role of the government and powerful individuals in the massacre. Adding with these details, he mentions his knowledge and interpretation of the symbolism of the events.
part 3
ReplyDeleteThe book has several strengths. Gourevitch responded to the Rwandan massacres both professionally and personally. He takes the position of the victims and describes their experiences with a sense of empathy. He mentions how societal influence can change a person’s psyche and nature to an extent that produces normative reactions towards killings and being assigned to kill. He gives a detailed description of the discrimination against the Tutsis in terms of support and help. He focuses less on the plain historical facts and data and instead puts his effort in illustrating the hidden meaning of the Rwandan genocide. He also mentions the personal stories and terrific experiences of the victims that survived. It seems as some of the analysis has involved psychological understanding. The Rwandan genocide is one of the most notorious genocides apart from the genocide of the Jews under Nazi Germany and the emphasis is maintained by the author.
On reading the book, I have been influenced by the plight of the Tutsis and the various kinds of marginalization in terms of economic, social and ethnic grounds. Lack of education and awareness contributed to the events and to the irrational conformity to power. To the perpetrators, these actions are rational as they are getting rid of ‘the dirt in society’. The influence of Hutus drove people to kill the Tutsis. Obedience to authority as mentioned by the author is a part of human nature. People are attracted to power and implement measures and efforts to obtain power. This outweighs morality and humanitarian consideration. Anyone can be the perpetrator. States deny intervention in situation of crises and human rights abuses. Policy makers in foreign states and international organizations like the United Nations were aware of the extermination yet chose not to intervene. The Rwandan genocide was not considered as genocide by international communities and was only regarded as genocide many years later by the United Nations. International communities failed in the judgment of the nature of events in Rwanda.
Philip Gourevitch's book We Wish to Inform You That Tomorrow We Will Be Killed with Our Families, first published in 1999, documents the horrible genocide that took place in Rwanda in 1994. The Rwandan genocide is considered as one of the cruelest in history with estimated number of victims of 800,000 of Tutsi population, who were cruelly slaughtered by their fellow Rwandans of the Hutu. The genocide was an extension of the civil war that started in Rwanda in 1990 when a front of Tutsi refutes called Rwanda Patriotic Front (RPF) invaded northern Rwanda, launching a civil war against the Hutus who previously dislocated them out of Rwanda. Although the civil war came to a ceasefire by 1993, when President Juvenal Habyarimana signed a peace accords with the RPF, his death a year later reignited the fire of the civil war and turned it into a huge massacre for the Tutsis who were massively killed by Hutus' soldiers, police and militias. In his book, which depends on field investigation that was carried out through his many visits to Rwanda, Gourevitch documents the events of the genocide, by interviewing hundreds of individuals involved in the genocide, including perpetrators, survivors, victims, generals and politicians, who witnessed it.
ReplyDeleteThe Rwandan genocide, as documented by Gourevitch in his book, typically fits into the UN definition of genocide as mentioned in the UN Article 2 of the Genocide Convention, as ''any of the acts that are committed to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial, or religious group'' (UN Genocide Convention, 1986). Having up to 10% of the Rwandan population, and up to 70% of the Tutsis population brutally killed during the genocide, it's a typical example of an act that is committed to destroy a whole racial group. As Gourevitch explains the genocide was deliberately planned to eradicate the Tutsis race, which means that the motivations behind the genocide was racial, and the defining social characteristic for the targeted victims was mainly belonging to the "Tutsis" race. Although individuals of the Hutus, particularly moderate politicians who favored the peace accords with the Tutsis, were also targeted during the genocide, but according to Lemkin (2012), these individuals can be excluded from the definition of the "genocide" because their targeting was based on their individual affiliations or political tendencies, which don't fall into the definition of "genocide", but rather individual political assassinations.
In his book, Gourevitch presents the Rwandan genocide as a typical act of racial eradication, targeting to ultimately get rid of the Tutsis from Rwanda. This brings to the mind similar genocides which were mainly targeting the eradication of certain races, like the Nazi's Holocaust. During the time of the World War II, 1941-1945, the Germans carried out massive killings movement against the Jewish population of Germany as well as of European regions occupied by the Germans. I remember reading it was estimated that this genocide ended up in killing up to two thirds of the living Jewish population in Europe during that period, hence the big size of the victims is a strong resemblance between the two genocides. Moreover, just like the Tutsis in Rwanda, the Jewish in Germany, were massively murdered by their fellow Germans, on racial and ethnic ideologies. The Jewish in Germany were killed in order to cleanse the German society from their race, which was believed by the Nazis to constitute a biological threat to the healthy nation of Germany in time of Great War. In addition, the two genocides happened during time of war, the civil war in Rwanda, and the WWII in Europe.
(part 1)
S00039235
Although tackling a tough topic, Gourevitch manages to make his book interesting for readers. The division of the book into three parts: Before, During, and After the genocide, creates an interesting plot, with rising actions towards the beginning of the genocide, reaching the climax in the second part during the genocide, and then the falling actions in the aftermath. Also, he uses an interesting beginning for the book, preparing the readers to get into the theatre of the bloody event, "in the spring and early summer of 1994 a program of massacres decimated the Republic of Rwanda" (Gourevitch 1999: 1). Then, he starts with light interviews with individuals, discussing other topics than the genocide,
Delete“He asked my name in stern, robotic English, each syllable precise and abrupt. I told him, “Philip.” “Ah.” He clutched my hand. “Like in Charles Dickens.” (Gourevitch 1999: 2).
He thus brings the readers closer to the people, whose catastrophe will be revealed in the following pages. Then, the whole initial three chapters are devoted for interviews with witnesses of the genocide, telling stories about what happened during it, bringing readers into vividly described scenes from the massacres, as if helping them to relive it and see its cruelty for themselves. By chapter four, Gourevitch starts analyzing the genocide's causes, shifting the readers from feeling for the victims and sympathizing with them, into thinking about what happened and contemplating in its causes. Hence, the most interesting merit about this book was to bring the scenes of the genocide live into the head of the readers, documenting it by eye witnesses and stories from within, and then shifting to analysis to give readers the chance to understand and evaluate what happened.
Another interesting merit about this book is Gourevitch's style of analysis. He doesn't only document what happened in Rwanda in 1994, but he adds his own analysis to the direct and indirect causes behind the scene. While the direct cause of the genocide was the civil war between the Tutsis and the Hutus, there were further deeper causes like economic, social and cultural situations in Rwanda. According to Gourevitch poverty and ignorance were behind the impulsiveness of simple villagers to obey the orders of soldiers and militias in killing their fellow villages of the Tutsis, "If you take poor and ignorant persons, and give them an arm and ask them to kill, they’ll obey (Gourevitch 1999: 6).
(part 2)
S00039235
For me, the book influenced me to a great deal, starting from its capturing title, till all stories about the genocide it included, and finally Gourevitch's insightful analysis of the genocide. The title in the beginning was high capturing my interest, whereas it actually summarizes the catastrophe of Rwanda, having people massively and brutally killed in their own villages. Also, the book was a typical application of what we learned during the course about genocides, illustrating the definitions of genocide offered by Lemkin and by the UN, as well as illustrating the horrible incidences of a complete genocide and the destruction that follows it. The book also influenced me in understanding how civil war can be destructive, because unlike war between two armies, having regular citizens facing eachothers, can be very destructive to the whole nation. Also, the concept of racism is typically illustrated in this genocide, whereas people are massively killed because of their racial background. Although this book was very brutal to read, I genuinely enjoyed it as it gave me sight and helped me truly understand what happened during the Rwandan genocide. I found myself jaw-dropped with my hand covering my mouth during the read from the devastating things found in the book. The author did give them a voice that I heard during reading this book.
DeleteIn conclusion, Gourevitch presents in his book a complete, interesting and useful documentation of one of the cruelest genocides. With up to 70% of the Tutsis population and up to 10% of the whole nation's population victimized during this genocide, it's apparently a complete disaster. Interviewing eye-witnesses; detecting incidents before, during and after the genocide; and offering his own analysis of its causes and aftermath Gourevitch brings the readers into live scenes of the genocide, influencing them into understanding what a genocide means, as well as understanding the possible consequences of racism, poverty and ignorance.
Bibliography
Gourevitch, P. (2015). We Wish to Inform You That Tomorrow We Will Be Killed with Our Families: Stories from Rwanda. Picador Classic, London.
Lemkin, R. (2012). "Genocide." In, Jacobs, SL (ed.). Lemkin on Genocide. Lanham, Lexington Books, US.
UN Genocide Convention. Washington, D.C.: Bureau of Public Affairs, Dept. of State, 1986. Print.
(part 3)
S00039235
In the Book "We Wish to inform you that tomorrow we will be killed with our families" by Philip Gourevitch talked about the Rwandan genocide case that happened in April 1994. Where the Rwandan state gave the Hutu clan permission to kill 800,000 people from the Tutsi clan which were the minorities. It took them 100 days to kill all these people. The book gave us a lot of important things on what brought the genocide. It had three sections, first the history of both groups, second, what happened during the genocide, and last the issues and consequences after the genocide. The book can also teach us on our reality if other cases are in the threat of having a genocide. Philip Gourevitch did a great job in interviewing many assets in the Rwandan case like survivors, politicians, victims, and perpetrators. The book allows us to imagine the uncomfortable image of humanity. Although the book is uncomfortable it helps a lot to understand the Rwandan case tragedy due that it was caused because of the Rwandan culture, which has helped a lot to end up with genocide. The book mentions that the Hutu was the largest population and the Tutsi where the second largest but had more skills and held power, were more developed and higher in class than the Hutus. Until the Hutus moved on and expelled the Tutsi to take over the country at around 1956-61. They both acquired the same religion, they had the same language, they were married to each other, and mixed. There only difference was there physical appearance. What led to genocide then? The author mentions that the Rwandan history of colonization had a big influence in dividing both groups and leading up to genocide. When the groups got divided ethnicity became a key role in the Rwandan tradition. This led up to “BaHutu Manifesto” which is a racial problem in Rwanda. This led to conflict between the two groups in political and economic power. Many of the Tutsi flew out of the country, and when they wanted to come back, the Hutus rejected them. In addition, a civil war happened in Rwanda which led up to the genocide. The Tutsi had more power at first, but after the Hutsi gained power it was sort of revenge, maybe they also found the Tutsi to be a threat, because back then, the Tutsi were more powerful and were higher class, so class and power seperated these two and genoicde was an answer to delete this threat. Like what happened with the Nazis and the Jews, the Jews were a threat to the Nazis, and ofcourse due to more reasons the holocaust happens. With reading interviews of different types of individual the ones that agrees and doesn’t, helps you a lot to understand the case even more. The author also interviews member of the UN, who claims that they are peacemakers while they didn’t interfere at all while the genocide happened. The interviewee mentions that they viewed the Hutus and Tutsis as political groups and that’s why the UN didn’t intervene, I find it just an excuse to not intervene because clearly, they weren't political groups. The genocide took place and was quick due that the power & authority the Hutus were given and especially that no country intervened, not even the “peacemakers”.
ReplyDeleteS00043793
Moreover, the book is a great source to lead back to know that every individual has his own goal and theory. For example, in the Rwandan case, I can see that both groups have their own reasons of doing what they did. Also, each individual has is own reasons. Like what happened in the holocaust, many individuals' “perpetrators” had a doing in the genocide because they had no power to not, others just did it because they wanted to. The book made me understand that every individual has another perspective. If I want to relate the case to the UN convention. The convention “Article II” states “In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:” “Killing members of the group” and obviously 800,000 individual got murdered, and they all belong to one group. Secondly, “Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group” which happened. Thirdly, “Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part” which also happened, clearly all the article II convention applies to the Rwandan case, but the UN didn’t do anything to stop the genocide. The author also mentions that the UN didn’t give any attention to the Rwandan genocide. In addition, he mentions that the it was clear that it is a genocide, but the UN didn’t want to take an act on it. It is sad, to see many people get killed, and although there is a rule in the world that can save them from these killings, but even such convention didn’t save them. Having the author doing lots of interviews, makes me understand how terrifying and humilating ways some of the survivors had to do, like “changing the identity to the Hutsi” inorder to live inorder to survive. We should learn from history because If it happened, it can happen again. I liked that both the Hutsis and the Tutsis were represented, even though the voice of the Tutsis was bigger and shapes the narrative. Moreover, I liked the organization of the book, I also liked how all aspects and views where shown, the author made me live within the scene, the only thing I would see negative is that the author didn’t follow the anthropological way of viewing things & that’s not to put your own views and personal opinion. Also, genocide is a real thing that happened more than once in history, and it can occur, now viewing the things that can lead to genocide, we should try to stop it before having it to re-occur again.
DeleteS00043793
We wish to inform you that tomorrow we will be killed with our families is a well-rounded ethnography. Peter Gourevitch’s bias is clearly defined, even though it is not outright, which gives the reader a fair point of interpretation. He gives good context leading up to the identity distinction and separation during the Belgian colonization as well as leading up to the genocide. His work tells the stories and experiences of those involved in the 1994 Rwanda genocide. Gourevitch shows multiple perspectives surrounding the genocide by diversifying his interviewee’s. He shows how, through history, the roles assigned to different identities created the environment that is able to tolerate such a brutal genocide against the Tutsi people. "What does suffering have to do with genocide, when the idea itself is the crime?" (p. 202). Gourevitch sums up his intention behind the ethnography in the aforementioned quote.. The quote also suggests how one’s acceptance of another peoples’ annihilation is in itself a crime. The quote then also speaks to the position of the UN, who did not interfere but rather contained the situation and watched approximately 800,000 people die. The narrative he portrays through the history of Rwanda, people’s experiences and consequent actions seemingly aims to inspire the reader to look into what precursors to genocide exist in the world around them.
ReplyDeleteS00043240
Fatma Al-Muatwa
ReplyDelete45792
Part one
I will be discussing how the book we wish to inform you that tomorrow we will be killed with our families by Philip Gourevitch, is related to some genocide definitions, techniques in the book Genocide an anthropological reader by alexander Laban Hinton. First of all, in Gourevitch book, he explained who the Tutsis were, and the Hutus and how did the genocide happen. The Rwanda government had adopted a new policy to eliminate all the Tutus by the hands of the Hutus for the sake of having a better world. (6) the Tutsis were killed in the mid of April of 1994(15) and the excuse was a rumour of the tutus killing the president (39) as they were inspired by the priests to do so (58) they also believed that all the Tutus were involved with the PRF, with no exception. (100) the Pygmies were in part as they were assigned by the Hutus military to violate Tutsi women. (8) however later the Tutus tried to seek ravage.
Part two
The Tutus 14% minority were Nilotic people immigrated from north and east. Hutu 85% majority were Bantu people who settled first after the Pygmies 1% (looked down upon from both Hutus and Tutsis) came from the south and the west. they shared the same religion which is Christianity, and the same language. (47) Tutsis were “herdsmen” while Hutus were “cultivators.” (48) with time the word Tutus were a synonym for “political and economic elite.” (48) they were “nobler, more naturally aristocratic demonises” than the Hutus. (55) had unlimited power to take advantage of Hutus labour, and give them taxes. (56) Tutsis were more likely to be chosen as the in military officers, aristocrats while the Hutus were “vassals”. (49) both had different “ethnic identities”. (54)
Part three
ReplyDeleteIf we look at the UN genocide defined:
any of the following acts committed with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethical, racial, or religious group, as such:
(a) Killing members of a group
(b)Causing serious bodily, or mental harm to members of the group
(c)Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent birth within the group
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group. (43-44)
And compare it to the Rwanda genocide, they is no denying that this is a genocide case even if the government did not see the killers action as a crime. (121) point A for example, the Tutsis, were killed in masses by the Hutus every day. (18) point B, they were tortured by machetes, or bullets if you have the money to pay for a merciful death. (22) sometimes the Hutus use grenades, automatic rifle fire, neutron bomb. (23) they were attacked by villagers, policemen, militia, and military. (27) Tutsi women were raped (8) Tutsis we beaten up to death. (22) they were mentally damaged, as they were used to running, to the point where it felt weird not to. (31) all of them know they were going to die, some of them gave up stopped running, if they were asked to sit in certain place to be killed they would do as they were told, while asking for merciful, or a better place to be killed. (22-23) Point D and E, children were murdered. (30) pregnant women would have their wombs ripped. (98) point C will be explained more part four.
Part three
If we look at the UN genocide defined:
any of the following acts committed with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethical, racial, or religious group, as such:
(a) Killing members of a group
(b)Causing serious bodily, or mental harm to members of the group
(c)Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent birth within the group
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group. (43-44)
And compare it to the Rwanda genocide, they is no denying that this is a genocide case even if the government did not see the killers action as a crime. (121) point A for example, the Tutsis, were killed in masses by the Hutus every day. (18) point B, they were tortured by machetes, or bullets if you have the money to pay for a merciful death. (22) sometimes the Hutus use grenades, automatic rifle fire, neutron bomb. (23) they were attacked by villagers, policemen, militia, and military. (27) Tutsi women were raped (8) Tutsis we beaten up to death. (22) they were mentally damaged, as they were used to running, to the point where it felt weird not to. (31) all of them know they were going to die, some of them gave up stopped running, if they were asked to sit in certain place to be killed they would do as they were told, while asking for merciful, or a better place to be killed. (22-23) Point D and E, children were murdered. (30) pregnant women would have their wombs ripped. (98) point C will be explained more part four.
Part four
ReplyDeleteAs for Lemkin definition, “genocide does not necessarily mean the immediate destruction of a nation. Except when accomplished by mass killing of all members of a nation. it is intended rather to signify a coordinated plan of different actions aiming at the destruction of essential foundation of the life of national groups.” (27) even though Rwanda was a mass killing genocide case, it was still planned. Before 1994, there were false news, fake attacks, people being captured, massacres, tortured to death in prison, and the change of the way Hutus treated the Tutsis, were all signs until they went with their final resolution, mass killing. (91-94) the Tutsis were dehumanized as Zygmunt Bauman defines it. (129) They were named “cockroaches.” (32) and Hutus higher-ups who the majority listens too (23-24) told them that the Tutsis were not worthy of living among them, show them no mercy not even women nor the children. (96-98) they were treated like objects, that needed to be eliminated for greater purpose, a political change, a better life. (58) as the number of killing was aired on the news. (121) which Bauman thinks of it as an act of creation, a better world for humans, and resamples it to, getting weeds off from a garden, where the objects were treated systematically as numbers. (121) Lemkin’s genocide techniques prove that Hutus tried to illuminate the Tutsis politically, socially, economically, biologically, and physically. Politicly, Tutsis homes (sometime burnt), belongings, radio, couch, or goat are taken away by the Hutus who organized violence’s and arrested them. (59-60,115) also constricted their movement and the boatmen did not allow them to cross. (119) both politically and economically, the Hutus were granted more privileges. Whereas the Tutsis, had no access to education, public employment in the military, and had limited opportunities. (66) socially, they would aim and kill educated Tutsi men. (65) the Tutsis had few positions and they were given to the ones who scores the lowest since they are conceded less of a threat. (65-67) Tutsi chiefs were replaced by the Hutus. (60) mixed blood would change their identities papers to Hutus to avoid getting murdered and their children too. (72) Economically, the Tutsis were living in poverty while the presidents and his cronies had become weather. (75) biologically, kill their children, (30) rip fetuses from women’s womb, (98) rape women and girls as add an extra dash of tribal mockery. (8,115) similar two Helen Fien article Genocide and gender: the uses of women and group destiny, mentions the reasons of sexual assaults in wars which were to destroy them mentally and spiritually. Second, “to destroy the continuity of their reproduction.” third, “used a symbolic revenge and reward to the participants. Fourth, Seifert discusses the role of rape as it is “a part of the roles in wars” it was used to prove to the males of the victims’ group that they are week and helpless by not being able to protect their females. Fifth, the females body portrayed as the soul of the “community” and by violating it, it destroys it and its culture. Finally, smith argues that rape was to fulfill the “males desire” and the war was an excuse. (43-44) finally physically, by killing them, and by not letting them add themselves when they took a hospital as shelter. (27)