Hutu's vs. Tutsi's

[boundfate]

What constitutes a civilian vs. a soldier?

I'm researching / reading about the Rawandan conflict in 1995, where around 1 million Tutsi's were killed in 100 days by the Hutu majority. To kill so many so quickly, the entire population of Hutu's rose up against the Tutsi's, to the point that modertate Hutu's who refused to kill or condone the killing

Comments

[dylia]

I think the urge toward genocide is born largely from a need to have someone to blame and/or a long time of offense/revenge cycling. Eventually, one tribe or the other decides that the only way to effectively deal with the problem the other tribe presents is to wipe them out entirely or has a charismatic leader who manages to convince his/her people that all of their problems are the fault of the target group. Either way, the mindset becomes, "If we get rid of those people over there, it'll fix everything."

The dehumanization comes in large part from the "We're #1!" nature of people. Logically, if We're #1, everybody else is inferior. With enough reinforcement, it's easy to see how the average worker-bee type of person can grow to believe that that group over there is less than human.

Part of the disconnect is also something of a coping mechanism during war. If you see the opponent as people equal to yourself--complete with feelings, souls, etc.--it's a lot harder to kill them. Seeing them as savages or otherwise inferior eases that guilt. It's much easier for the guy who drops the bombs to see the city, house or convoy (and the people therein) as objects than people equal to himself. You hear, "Target acquired," not, "I see the person/people I'm supposed to shoot at." A combatant with too much empathy for the one at the other end of the gun wouldn't be very effective.

The line between war & genocide, I think, is when "We're coming to take your stuff" or "We're coming to teach you a lesson because you did something to us" becomes "We're coming to get rid of you." It's easier to take somebody's stuff when they're all dead than when there's a risk that they'll come back some day to try to reclaim it. It's also pretty certain that they aren't going to piss you off again if they're all dead.

-------------------------

The Persian Empire was probably the most sensibly run expansionist rule ever. They basically said, "We're bigger & want your land and access to your resources, but you're welcome to stay where you are & continue your lives more or less as usual--even keep your own religion. Your system of government can stay exactly as it is, we'll just put an additional tier on it, & that'll be us. We don't need to kill you to accomplish this, but we will if you get in the way. If you just acknowledge us as the Boss, though, we'll all be happy & prosper."

The Jews did better under the Persian empire than under any other I can think of. This was largely because they got to keep their existing faith & government system. They didn't have to worry as much about their neighbors invading because they were either Persian citizens too or too busy trying to fight the Persians off to chase after them.

[boundfate]

Per George Stanton, the leading world expert in genocide, the turning point towards genocide is when there is a denial of mixing. Intercultural children are forced to one camp or the other - no one can be both. Per Stanton, dehuminization comes next and genocide cannot occur without it. Its important to note that dehuminization alone won't cause genocide - you need organization for that - but it comes before anything else.

Genocide really isn't about material things, although it's sometimes framed up that way. Jews in Germany were less than 3% of the population and were primarily middle class. Tutsi's were around 18% of the population and often worse off than the Hutus. The Armenians, the cambodians, even the russians were all the same way. You can get displacement type genocide (like the native americans) but I really think that's a different animal than true genocide. True genocide is "I'm making the world a better place by making sure you aren't in it." (Think KKK.) No material gain, no revenge, just systematic distruction. Displacement genocide to me follows the same lines as any other war with one dominant aggressor that happens to have a racial or cultural dividing line.

Stenton is pretty cool (you should google his paper) and he's pioneering the stages leading up to genocide, although he isn't without controversy. That said, he doesn't address how to heal a country that has experienced genocide. I think the magic bullet has to involve a large, unified response of we will not tolerate this followed by an influx of jobs. That's what seemed to fix germany and it's also what is missing from many of the genocide areas that are still having problems.