|
Volume XVI (2005)
Book Review: Accounting for Horror:
Post-Genocide Debates in Rwanda
Melanie Lewandowski
Department of English, University of Nebraska at Omaha, Omaha, NE 68182-0175
Nigel Eltringham. Accounting for Horror: Post-
Genocide Debates in Rwanda. Sterling, England:
Pluto Press, 2004. 232 pp. $26.95 (paper).
When reporting on the Rwandan massacres, the Western
press has often used stereotypic language with references
to tribal savagery and hackneyed allusions to “the heart
of darkness.” Tainted with racism and generally limited in
scope the information regarding Rwanda has usually been
shallow at best. Taking a multidisciplinary approach, Nigel
Eltringham addresses the dangers of oversimplifying the
catastrophic mayhem of Rwanda and details deep critical
explanations to “account for the horror.” Eltringham delves
into Rwandan history and politics. In addition, he examines
certain aspects of language use regarding Rwanda and presents
findings from his sociolinguistic study, which includes
narratives from Rwandans relating their perceptions of colonialism,
national history, and the mass killings.
With a look into Rwanda’s past, Eltringham writes that“social distinction in colonial Rwanda was racially constructed
and did not conform to the current multidimensional
understanding of ‘ethnicity’” (p. 19). Instead, the distinctions
made among people of the region were propagated.
With the 1933–34 census, “racialisation” labeled the population
into three groups: Tutsi, Hutu, and Twa, and “following
patrilineal custom children…inherit[ed] the identity inscribed
on their father’s ID card” (p. 18). As a result, artificial
biological separations were established on paper and
subsequently specific physical and cultural variations were
socially generated in the minds and in the behaviors of the
people toward each other. Further, the author discusses how
political players propagated ethnic and racial divisions in
order to gain power. By examining the killings of the 1959“revolution” and the 1963/64 massacres, Eltringham addresses
how such distinctions led to other killings and to
the 1994 genocide. Before the 1994 killings, “genocide propaganda” included references to the 1959 and 1963/64 massacres
as empowerment of “the Hutu’ liberating themselves
from ‘the Tutsi’” (p. 47). However, Eltringham explains that
the division between the groups was not a long established
distinction marked by certain cultural norms or language,
or by absolute socioeconomic or political imbalances, or by
real biological differences. Instead, the differences were developed
and strengthened to promote prejudice and hatred
for the political gain of a few.
Eltringham writes that the postulated distinctions between“the Tutsi and the Hutu” were further exacerbated by
reports and writings about Rwanda. Eltringham notes that
instead of being “the result of ‘primordial bloodlust’,” the
Rwandan genocide was “modern, premeditated, [and] well
organized” (p. 64). The author discusses how the treatment
of the Rwandan genocide, mired in racist attitudes, appears
in written documentation describing the people as primitive
and “tribal.” Although acknowledging that comparisons
to the Holocaust have given the massacres “legitimacy” in
Western countries, Eltringham discusses at length both the
similarities and the differences between the Holocaust and
the Rwandan genocide. For instance, like the Holocaust victims,
people in Rwanda often did not know why they were
being targeted, and many were killed for who they were
and not for what they did. Unlike the Holocaust, in Rwanda
the speed of the slayings was much quicker and more of the
population participated in the killing. Despite the differences
or similarities, Etringham writes:
the Holocaust has played a central role as comparator
in discussions of the 1994 genocide. Although
this is natural and there are significant comparisons
to be made, making the Holocaust preponderant
not only obscures significant divergent
characteristics of the Rwandan genocide, but may
undermine our ability to detect, prevent and/or
swiftly stop future genocides that do no adequately
resemble the Holocaust. (pp. 180–81)
By concentrarting specifically on the Rwandan genocide,
Eltringham argues that the prosecution of those previously
responsible for the bloodshed in Rwanda should be the focal
point.
To focus on “the individual criminal responsibility intrinsic
to the crime of genocide” (p. 181), Eltringham asserts
that the term “moderate Hutu” needs closer scrutiny.
The author suggests that Hutu moderate could be replaced
with “‘Hutu opposing Habyarimana and his power’.” Such
a change in phrasing would give clarity and accuracy in
meaning that could lead to accountability of individuals responsible
for the killings. Eltringham discusses the “subliminal
impact” of “Hutu moderate” in maintaining “collective
guilt,” which undermines the reparations and reconciliation
needed in Rwanda (p. 181). Because the use of
68 Lewandowski
Hutu moderate “disguises great complexity” and perpetuates“a binary framework” in which a Hutu can only be“qualified as either moderate or extremist”(p. 76),
Eltringham argues that greater accuracy and specificity in
references made about people, their actions, and time is
necessary for Rwanda to reconcile and maintain peace.
In the process of reconciliation, Eltringham warns of
the intrinsic dangers in appealing to history for solutions.
Since the “structure of power” in Rwanda has been “constructed
on the construction of history” (p. 148), history has
been used to create and perpetuate divisions in Rwanda,
and Eltringham writes that to believe
a single, absolute history is attainable (and preferable)
has not only proved to be deadly, but overestimates
the capacities and misunderstands the nature
if historiography. While there may be a nonnegotiable
chronicle of events, the narratives that
actors recognise (and value) as history are the product
of an interpretive exercise that inevitably generates
different narratives. While Rwanda has a
single past, a single, definitive history is unattainable.
(p. 182)
To illustrate the variations in perspectives, Eltringham presents
several narratives collected from Rwandans speaking
on the past events. Eltringham admits the collection is not
fully representative of as many “‘ethnic’ narratives” as possible,
but that the accounts illustrate the differences found
in human perceptions. From his narrative research,
Eltringham concludes that
we should not allow our faith in a single, “real” history to prevent us from accepting and exploring
competing narratives that reflect contemporary
concerns in Rwanda. If we strive to isolate one
version of Rwandan history such concerns will remain
Hidden. (p. 179)
To remember respectfully the victims of the Rwandan
genocide, Eltringham writes that humanity must resist adopting
a single historical narrative, but instead must seek a “dogmatic,
tenacious and transparent” (p. 181) into the “modern,
premeditated” (p. 64) killings of human against human.
Volume XVI |
