The genocide that ripped through the Darfur region left many questions unanswered. What started this? Why didn't anyone step in sooner? What if things were different, how would that have changed the history of this region? What if Sudan hadn't been affected by colonialism? What if the UN had more power and acted sooner?
From April to mid-July of 1994, Rwanda set the stage for one of the worst genocides the world had ever seen. Hutu and Tutsi groups, who lived homogenously for centuries, were spit by the Belgian authorities in the 19th century who were obsessed with the idea of ethnic purities and Africa’s primitive races. The categorization of two separate “ethnic” groups was based considerably on the physical characteristics of height and nose dimensions, which the Belgian’s deemed justifiable as ethnic differences. These characteristics, albeit vague and virtually indistinguishable, led to the production of identity cards that continued for centuries. It is necessary to note that before, and even after the Belgian’s colonized Rwanda the Hutu and Tutsi’s lived in peace and even participated in intermarriage. This era of peace lasted until the 1960’s, and the progression of violence between the two groups continued until the assassination of the President in 1994 led to the final spark that launched the genocide into its full extent. The uncertainty that remained after the decimation of the genocide ended calls into question who exactly is to blame, and how neighbors, friends, and even priests were coerced to kill those close to them simple due to their Tutsi ethnicity.
In order to effectively decide who is to blame for this genocide, assuming that there is a group completely to blame, it is necessary to take into account the acts of the individuals within the genocide in relation to a sociological experiment performed by Milgram, which outlines the role of authority on one’s willingness to commit acts of violence against another human. This journal looks into the lives of two prominent figures from Philip Gourevitch’s book, We Wish to inform you that tomorrow we will be killed with our families, including Pastor Ntakirutimana and Paul Rusesabagina. While both men were Hutu, they played completely opposite roles during the course of the genocide. The comparison of these two men sheds light on the role that propaganda plays in a genocide, and offers an answer to one of Milgram’s central questions: “How does a man behave when he is told by a legitimate authority to act against a third individual?” (Milgram 4). By juxtaposing the evidence shown through the Milgram experiment with that of the stories of these two individuals – one who was called to violence despite his vocation and another who resisted the propaganda – it may become easier to understand the complexity behind the genocide as a whole in relation to each Rwandan’s choice of action as they were forced to choose to fight against their neighbor or risk being killed themselves. In order to actively understand the comparisons being drawn between the Milgram experiment and the acts of the Hutu’s throughout the genocide, it is necessary to explain the Milgram experiment as a whole. Milgram performed this experiment in order to gauge the response individuals had toward an authoritative figure who pressed them to continue an experiment during with the individuals harmed a third party. During the experiment the teacher (the individual) read a list of words to the learner (the third party) and asked them to repeat them back in the correct order. Every time the reader made a mistake the teacher would shock them with increasing degrees of voltage until the student correctly recited the words. The voltages ranged from 15 (slight shock) to 450 (XX). Unbeknownst to the teacher, the student was not being harmed by the voltages, and the shock generator did not even function. With that being said, the student actor would complain with each increasing voltage, even asking for the experiment to stop, before going silent toward the upper voltages. Despite this objections, a staggering 65% of the volunteer group delivered fatal voltages. In order to understand how this relates to the genocide in Rwanda one must first consider how the test subjects saw themselves within the experiment, which allowed for them to be better controlled by an authoritative figure. While the Milgram experiment took into effect the role of obedience, the force that drove the experiment, and eventually the genocide, further was the ability to misplace responsibility. After the first three protests from the teachers, the experimenters were directed to say, “The experiment requires you to continue,” thus taking the responsibility away from the teacher and the experimenter and placing it under the name of science. Milgram goes onto explain the reason this misplaced responsibility leads to more obedience is due to the fact that “Most subjects in the experiment see their behavior in a larger context that is benevolent and useful to society – the pursuit of scientific truth” (Milgram, 9). The same parallel can be made within the Rwandan genocide, as Hutu’s found themselves surrounded with anti-Tutsi propaganda throughout the media, reminding the public that they were “cockroaches” and were traitors of the land, even going so far as to call the Hutu public to exterminate the pest found within their borders. A majority of Hutu’s involved with the killings would later blame the government for their actions, saying they only killed because they were told to kill. Gourevitch points this out in his book as well, stating “Conformity is very, very developed [in Rwanda]… everyone obeys authority… you take poor, ignorant population, and give them arms, and say, ‘It’s yours, Kill.’ They’ll obey” (Gourevitch, 23). Many Hutu’s who did not want to participate were forced to under threat of being killed themselves, but as Gourevitch explains “this person who is not a killer is made to do it. And the next day it’s become a game for him. You don’t need to keep pushing him” (24). This is not to say that those participating in the genocide were completely devoid of reasoning, but rather, just as in the experiment, their blame and guilt was placed in someone or something other than themselves, which allowed them to continue their actions without the burden of a guilty conscience. Unfortunately, many people who were looked up to as leaders before the genocide began, such as Pastor Ntakirutimana, gave into the call of the Hutu Power, albeit some for fear of their own lives, which led for their followers to take arms in response to what their mentors were doing for the prospect of their own wellbeing and their nation’s as well. While Pastor Ntakirutimana succumbed to violence in what he claims was protection of his own wellbeing, there were Hutu’s that worked against their fellow men in order to save Tutsi lives. Such was the story of hotel manager Paul Rusesabagina, who worked to save thousands of Tutsi lives while battling the ever pressing Hutu regime. Opposite of Pastor Ntakirutimana, Paul did not give into the propaganda spewed throughout the media, but rather relied on his own knowledge of the Tutsi’s, as well as his personal attachments to them in order to justify his decisions during the genocide. Throughout the four month period, Paul made countless calls to the United Nations and various diplomats in other countries in order to secure his hotel against the Hutu regime. While what he did was seen by Hutu’s as an act of treason, he is hailed as a hero for his brave actions. While this offers only a short overview of the parallels between the Rwandan genocide and the Milgram experiment, it sheds light on the complexity of one’s actions during a stressful time. It is important to draw these connections in order to not only understand where to place the blame for the genocide, but also to realize the role propaganda plays in rallying masses against each other. With the knowledge obtained through this investigation, it may become possible to prevent such separation and dehumanization from occurring in the first place, before it spreads too far to handle. Along with this, it is important to realize that it is not only those devoid of reason who are capable of committing heinous crimes, but rather average people placed under the right stress and told the right propaganda. Finally, and arguably most importantly, the realization that comes from this comparison is not all who are told skewed and biased propaganda follow the call, there are those who resist the urge to follow the majority, and those are the people that have the most lasting effect on the survivors of the genocide. Gourevitch, Philip. We Wish to Inform You That Tomorrow We Will Be Killed With Our Families: Stories from Rwanda. Picador, 1999. Milgram, Stanley. Obedience to Authority: An Experimental View. New York: Harper & Row, 1974. Quite often the atrocities of genocide are thought to end when the shots are done being fired and the final prisoner freed. While the physical harm and manipulation of the genocide end when the war does, the consequences of the atrocities follow victims for the rest of their lives. The overarching lasting effects of genocide on the everyday lives of victims are outlined extraordinarily in Kenan Trebincevic's memoir The Bosnia List. His memoir remarks on the Bosnian genocide and how life afterward is forever effected by the fear, anger, and loss of trust sparked during the atrocities. The question that begs to be answered here is how the entirety of genocide, that is the encompassing fear, anger, and loss of trust, psychologically effects the victims of genocide?
Trebincevic opens his memoir by recounting the power struggle leading up to the final Serbian attack on Bosnia after its successful vote for independence. With the country splitting into three distinct political parties, citizens scrambled to decide what was best for them, and ultimately this splitting led to the genocide that wiped out nearly 8000 Muslim men. Trebincevic’s mother advised the family to remain neutral, which ultimately led to their safety during the beginning of the war: “Let’s not be aligned to any side now. To be safe, they agreed not to vote” (Trebincevic, 28). Within what seemed like a night the entire town turned against each other, neighbor against neighbor, friend against friend, and this betrayal resonates in Trebincevic’s mind long after his move to America. He remarks multiple times in his memoir how he does not understand how his friends and neighbors could turn on him so quickly when he did nothing to them to provoke such actions. The loss of trust he experienced plays into his personal adult life, as he is unable to fall in love with women and his brother is unable to hold a stable relationship. As a child the betrayal of his friends, neighbors, and idols hurts him in the immediate present, but the residual psychological affects, he points out, have remained with him since he left his war torn apartment. The most abundant emotion expressed in Trebincevic’s memoir revolves around this sense of immense betrayal by those close to him. The list he makes in order to cope with his return to Bosnia revolves around this betrayal and his need for revenge. Quite often revenge is felt by anyone who has had an injustice done to them, but rarely ever does it go to the depths that Trebincevic describes. He describes the revenge he seeks on his neighbors and friends not only during the time of the Genocide but also long after. A majority of the “Bosnia List” he compiled centered on finding those who had wronged him and making them feel just a shred of guilt or shame for what they did to him. Trebincevic provides the perfect example of the lasting effects betrayal plays on a victim’s psyche as he states he was an “easygoing guy in a healing profession who hadn’t had a revenge fantasy for year… [But] a fleeting memory of [his] former apartment alone incited violent urges for revenge.” (Trebincevic, 49). His rage at the events occurring around him as a child force him to disconnect from the morals he had been taught by his family, as he constantly remarks how easily it would be to kill Daca (128 – 129) and that maybe the injustices done to him were enough to justify the his misbehavior throughout the war (36). While his revenge fueled his journey back to Bosnia, it was amazing to see the varying degrees to which he would carry out his revenge. These degrees ranged from verbally threatening a Serb to the extreme of holding his enemies at gunpoint and simply doing nothing. All the while the words of his mother and father swam through his head, making him realize that if he acts on his revenge he is no better than those attacking him: “[He] only had to lift [the Uzi] and point the muzzle, then pull the trigger…’We are not like them’ [his] mother would tell [him]” (Trebincevic, 171). The notion that despite the abundant hatred for your enemies one is still able to hold onto their morals gives insight to the strength the mind has to gain during trying times such as a genocide. While Trebincevic was unable to kill someone who had stolen from his family and forced them into inhumane living conditions, there were Serbs who were willing to kill Muslims who had never affected their lives simply on the premise of their religion. This leads to another topic of propaganda which will not be discussed in here, but is none the less important for understanding the powerful forces at work in order to form a successful genocide. While this discussion only covers a few topics narrowly, it sheds light on the role that fear, anger, and loss of trust plays not only in the genocide itself but also throughout the remaining life of its victims. The loss of trust is highlighted by Trebincevic’s lack of a steady relationship while the anger and revenge are depicted multiple times throughout his memoir. Revenge, as he lays out, is more than just a residual emotion from having those you love turn on you. Rather, it acts as a motivator for some to live the best life they can outside of the country that betrayed them years ago, and ultimately motivated Trebincevic to return to Bosnia in order to seek his revenge via his “Bosnia List.” The lessons that can be learned by studying the PTSD and life-long consequences that genocide has on its victims not only opens a spectators eyes to the horrors suffered during the genocide, but also how these terrors never cease to end despite how long it has been since that person escaped to safety. Trebinčević, K., & Shapiro, S. (2014). The Bosnia list: A memoir of war, exile, and return. New York, NY: Penguin Books. The history of civilization gives blatant evidence to the abundant genocides committed against groups of seemingly nonthreatening people, starting as early as the Roman Empire and continuing to this day. For the millions of innocents living through these atrocities it is the worst times of their lives, with memories filled with fear for their future, and for the future of their family, friends, and country as a while. Fear easily plays the role as one of the largest motivators for compliance in any genocide, forcing it’s victims to follow orders specifically in order to hold onto the only thing they have left to lose – their lives. With that being said, fear not only motivates the victims of genocide to comply, but also has certain effects on the soldiers and leaders perpetuating the genocide further. This realization prompted a further investigation into the importance of fear as a tool in the Cambodian genocide against the victims as well as how it was a motivating factor for the Khmer Rouge and its soldiers as a whole. It is not uncommon to find fear being used as a tool among the masses in order to promote conformity, in fact it is a tool used by many corrupt government effectively. The Khmer Rouge proves to use it effectively in the early stages of the genocide in order to convince hundreds of thousands of people to abandon their homes and begin their journey into the Cambodian countryside. Loung Ung points out in First They Killed My Father that the Khmer Rouge convinced the population of Phnom Penh to evacuate in order to avoid a scheduled bombing from the United States, a ruse that was easily believable given the timing of the evacuation and the constant bombs dropped throughout Cambodia by the United States during the Vietnam War. As Adam Jones states, this tactic was used a multitude of times in and around Cambodia (291). Thus fear drove the population out of the city and directly into the 4 year long genocide the Khmer Rouge would enforce on the Cambodian population. Just as fear forced the people to flee the cities, it also played a major role on the continuation of the genocide. As highlighted in Loung Ung’s novel as well as Adam Jones’ text, the Khmer Rouge despised the urbanites, the educated, and the wealthy. For this reason, many families lied about their family background for fear of being seen as an enemy of the state. Fear forced families to move from village to village, anxiety-ridden at the thought of someone alerting the Khmer Rouge of their past. Ultimately, fear led millions to not fight back against the force that was oppressing them, only to remain obedient in hopes that they would survive another day. While the Khmer Rouge used fear as a tool to continue the forced labor and urbicide of millions, it is also shown as means to reveal information about civilians. Among villagers of the new labor camps fear of starvation was used in order to disclose secrets being kept hidden by urban families by fellow neighbors, just for another ration of food. Even more effective was the use of fear in torture camps, such as that of torture prison S-21, where prisoners were forced to admit to absurd charges and then executed. The understanding of fear and its power by the Khmer Rouge proves to be arguably one of the most essential and successful tools used to aid in the continuation of the genocide. While fear among victims is completely understandable, Adam Jones points out another area of fear that goes often unnoticed within genocides – the fear of the leadership. The claims Jones raises point directly toward the development of the genocide and why it was carried out as extensively as it was. According to Jones, the Genocide worsened in 1977 due to three reasons including the “growing leadership paranoia about ‘plots’; and, further fueling that paranoia, the mounting conflict with Vietnam” (Jones, 294). The role fear played among the leadership proved influential in their decision to kill more innocents in order to ensure their paranoia would not become reality. Though this discussion does not extensively cover the total role fear played in the Cambodian genocide, it was beneficial in shedding light on this influential tool. The Khmer Rouge not only put fear to work in order to begin their plans of genocide, but also facilitated its effective conformity in order to force millions into forced labor, starvation, and execution. While there will never be a clear answer for the complete motive behind the genocide, Jones pointed out that fear and paranoia among the leadership pushed it to the boiling point in 1977, resulting in the ruthless genocide of nearly a quarter of the Cambodian population. Jones, A. (2006) Genocide: A comprehensive introduction. (2nd ed.). London: Routledge. Ung, Loung. First They Killed My Father: A Daughter of Cambodia Remembers. New York: HarperCollinsPublishers, 2000. Print. |
Otyllia AbrahamSophomore. Archives
April 2016
Categories |