In addition, the government’s rejection of ethnic identifiers for genocide identifiers brought about a disregard of victimized Hutus who suffered at the hands of the Interhamwe and blamed them for the genocide, isolating Hutu survivors from Tutsi survivors and splitting the victims left alive in society.
The Rwanda government changed the way it identified people, from an ethnic identifier to a genocidal identifier. According to Zorbas, “Dropping the ethnic labels in favor of a ‘genocide framework,’ from which an alternate, equally damaging categorization of the population emerges. The five categories are… the returnees [Tutsi exiles who returned to Rwanda after the RPF came to power]… refugees [Old Caseload, pre-1994 Tutsi refugees, or New Caseload, post-1994 mostly Hutu refugees]… victims… survivors [only Tutsi]… and perpetrators.” The new categories brought a stark categorization of the population and divided the Rwandan people; the different identification system also dictated that that the survivors of the genocide could only be Tutsi, not moderate Hutus, Hutus who sympathized or refused to kill Tutsis during the genocide. Said Hintjens, “Moderate Hutu… were mostly killed during the genocide; those who were not are not survivors – they are just lucky.” Moderate Hutu victims of the genocide were disregarded, as if they had not been victims or had suffered through the genocide at all. They were “lucky” and not “survivors,” as it was assumed that the primary target of the genocidaires were Tutsis – all Hutus who were killed were supposedly just by mistake. Such, however, was not the case: Hutus and Tutsis alike were murdered for harboring differing views or being ethnically different, respectively. Moderate Hutus were lumped together with radical Hutus guilty of killing or witnessing the murders. The victimized majority is isolated from the other genocide survivors; the government’s conscious decisions to link all Hutus to the guilty party did not help the post-genocidal recovery process. The government’s mentality was that all Hutus, post-genocide, were assumed to be perpetrators of the genocide and that no Hutu victims of the genocide existed. Zorbas continued to say that “The perpetrators category… [assumed] that every Hutu who opposed the genocide was killed… [and] that every living Hutu was either an active participant or a passive onlooker in the genocide… To be a Hutu in contemporary Rwanda is to be presumed a perpetrator.” Collective Hutu guilt is assumed. Hintjens added, “[There are] around 200,000 Hutu victims [of the genocide, but] the way the ICTR has operated has tended to perpetuate a false impression that the Tutsi were the only victims of crimes committed in Rwanda… And Hutu, even those who refused to kill, become suspected accomplices at best, and genocidal killers at worst.” Moderate Hutus were not recognized for their suffering, isolating them from the rest of the country as they could not mourn but were instead blamed for the very massacre they were targeted in. The government’s isolation of …show more content…
Fox interviewed survivors of the genocide who said, “When I [brother] took her [sister, a sexual assault victim during the genocide] to secondary school, it was very hard for her to study… I was worried because how do you have a job with no school?’ Another participant [of the study] said of her sister, ‘She does not come around and I call her for dinner and if she comes, she does not… talk to me.’” Women experienced isolation at school and familial celebrations as well, not just at home. Isolation was a direct result of sexual violence on a country and often resulted in negative impacts on a country’s people. Said Fox, “Rape [resulted] in isolation and fractured familial relations. These consequences may further lead to economic hardship, additional trauma and disruption of historical familial duties and exchanges of care.” Economic hardship stemming from lack of education/inability to concentrate in school (and dropping out as a result) was a direct consequence, and trauma triggered by participating in court trials did not help the victims’ mental states. Families were torn apart by the isolation of a beloved family member/sexual assault victim, and the entire country did not address the issue well. There was a social stigma, a sense of shame, associated with rape; due to the negative connotation surrounding sexual assault and violence, the women could not heal and the country, in extension, could not
The Rwanda government changed the way it identified people, from an ethnic identifier to a genocidal identifier. According to Zorbas, “Dropping the ethnic labels in favor of a ‘genocide framework,’ from which an alternate, equally damaging categorization of the population emerges. The five categories are… the returnees [Tutsi exiles who returned to Rwanda after the RPF came to power]… refugees [Old Caseload, pre-1994 Tutsi refugees, or New Caseload, post-1994 mostly Hutu refugees]… victims… survivors [only Tutsi]… and perpetrators.” The new categories brought a stark categorization of the population and divided the Rwandan people; the different identification system also dictated that that the survivors of the genocide could only be Tutsi, not moderate Hutus, Hutus who sympathized or refused to kill Tutsis during the genocide. Said Hintjens, “Moderate Hutu… were mostly killed during the genocide; those who were not are not survivors – they are just lucky.” Moderate Hutu victims of the genocide were disregarded, as if they had not been victims or had suffered through the genocide at all. They were “lucky” and not “survivors,” as it was assumed that the primary target of the genocidaires were Tutsis – all Hutus who were killed were supposedly just by mistake. Such, however, was not the case: Hutus and Tutsis alike were murdered for harboring differing views or being ethnically different, respectively. Moderate Hutus were lumped together with radical Hutus guilty of killing or witnessing the murders. The victimized majority is isolated from the other genocide survivors; the government’s conscious decisions to link all Hutus to the guilty party did not help the post-genocidal recovery process. The government’s mentality was that all Hutus, post-genocide, were assumed to be perpetrators of the genocide and that no Hutu victims of the genocide existed. Zorbas continued to say that “The perpetrators category… [assumed] that every Hutu who opposed the genocide was killed… [and] that every living Hutu was either an active participant or a passive onlooker in the genocide… To be a Hutu in contemporary Rwanda is to be presumed a perpetrator.” Collective Hutu guilt is assumed. Hintjens added, “[There are] around 200,000 Hutu victims [of the genocide, but] the way the ICTR has operated has tended to perpetuate a false impression that the Tutsi were the only victims of crimes committed in Rwanda… And Hutu, even those who refused to kill, become suspected accomplices at best, and genocidal killers at worst.” Moderate Hutus were not recognized for their suffering, isolating them from the rest of the country as they could not mourn but were instead blamed for the very massacre they were targeted in. The government’s isolation of …show more content…
Fox interviewed survivors of the genocide who said, “When I [brother] took her [sister, a sexual assault victim during the genocide] to secondary school, it was very hard for her to study… I was worried because how do you have a job with no school?’ Another participant [of the study] said of her sister, ‘She does not come around and I call her for dinner and if she comes, she does not… talk to me.’” Women experienced isolation at school and familial celebrations as well, not just at home. Isolation was a direct result of sexual violence on a country and often resulted in negative impacts on a country’s people. Said Fox, “Rape [resulted] in isolation and fractured familial relations. These consequences may further lead to economic hardship, additional trauma and disruption of historical familial duties and exchanges of care.” Economic hardship stemming from lack of education/inability to concentrate in school (and dropping out as a result) was a direct consequence, and trauma triggered by participating in court trials did not help the victims’ mental states. Families were torn apart by the isolation of a beloved family member/sexual assault victim, and the entire country did not address the issue well. There was a social stigma, a sense of shame, associated with rape; due to the negative connotation surrounding sexual assault and violence, the women could not heal and the country, in extension, could not