Posted on March 11, 2008 by sunkissed
As ridiculous as outrageous the title of this post is, unfortunately a very large number of people around the world believe this to be true and perpetuate this absurd notion deliberately while some harbor it subconsciously. Where do you fall into?Let’s me try something real quick. What if I said:
Moderate Whites and Dead Whites are the only good Whites.
How ridiculous would this sound? After all, it’s true that a lot of people of color even some whites believe that many whites have committed a lot of atrocities and offenses against many groups around the world. So would it be fair to classify all whites in these narrow categories?
How about making it specific. Belgium is known to have really fucked (for a lack of a more encompassing word for all the tragedies and multiple genocides that were committed by them) with DRC. So is it fair to say:
Moderate Belgians and dead Belgians are the only good Belgians?
No. It’s not.
So why is it okay to classify Africans, Rwandans as such? Why do a great number of people believe this? You will never hear anything positive associated with the Hutu ethnic group, unless it’s followed by the socially appropriate “moderate” qualifier. Are Hutus really that simple minded that one can simply classify them as either “extremists” or “moderate” or are they so inherently evil aside from an exceptional few? Is any group EVER that simple? Of course not.
What does the word “moderate” mean in the context of the Rwandan genocide? I think this term became really popular when Hotel Rwanda came out, and large numbers of people became “educated” or at least aware of the Rwandan Genocide. And the term was deliberately concocted to set the framework under which discussion about Rwanda would occur.
When one refers to Rwandan Hutus as “moderate” one is in a way saying that they support and did support the Tutsi rebel groups who supposedly saved everyone, and specifically the Tutsi from genocide committed by “extreme” Hutus. And dangerously enough, this assumes that any dead Hutus could not have possibly been killed by Tutsi Rebels, but by “Hutu extremists” who were out to get the moderates due to their moderate status (or their support of the Tutsi Rebels). And even more so, that that it’s impossible to have “extremists” among the rebel group. Genius.
The Tutsi rebels are conveniently set up as as the liberators, the freedom fighters, whose bloody hands are given a “get out of jail free” card because of their nobleness and courageous fight. Perfect.
And quite easily, anyone who does not support these freedom fighters (oh the irony) becomes a killer him/herself. Or rather, a genocidaire.Below I provide questions and answers that may arise under this framework, and why when you think about it, the answers are simplistic and idiotic.
Q: But what about the Hutus that didn’t support the Rebels?
A: They’re extremists more commonly known as genocidaires. There is no other way or possibility.
Obviously this is a stupid answer and doesn’t really speak to the reality of the situation. Because they are Hutus and disagree with the terrorist war caused by the rebels, they are automatically labeled genocidaires. Whether they killed anyone or not.
Q: What about the Tutsis who didn’t support the Rebels?
A: They are also genocidaires and traitors to their ethnic groups.
In a land where sheep roam, this is perfectly acceptable. But how about we get back to the complex non monolithic humans?
Q: What about Hutus who died at the hands of the Rebels?
A: They are collateral, and very few in number.
This is very intelligent how they set this up isn’t it? Just like that, our terrorist become our heroes. And since the Dead Hutus can’t speak for themselves, if they suffered at the hands of our “heroes” we’re led to believe that they probably supported the rebels too, and the only enemies they had were others in their ethnic groups, and the rebels are really sad to see them die, but it’s for the greater good.
Obviously this doesn’t speak to the complex reality of the situation. There were bound to be a multitude of varying opinions, and most likely, a large number of people were caught in the middle of conflicts they wanted to do nothing with.
Do you think it’s possible for the world to stop pigeonholing Hutus? Unfortunately I don’t think they can. And the rebels can’t afford to, because if Hutus were “allowed” to speak out, a different story would emerge. But as long as the whole world believes them to be genocidaires, the rebels can sleep peacefully at night, mission accomplished. They have the world’s full and unapologetic support.
Filed under: ethnic conflict, genocide, stupidity