Kapp 1

Elissa Kapp

Composition/Rhetoric

Professor Lash

October 25, 2010

Rocky Road to Recovery and Reconciliation: How Genocide-Denial Drove Rwanda into

a Ditch and How Acknowledgment can be used as Ammunition Against Future Atrocities

In its early etymologic history, “atrocity” is defined as a “horrible or heinous wickedness

(Oxford 1)” or “an act of extreme cruelty and heinousness (Oxford 3)”. The characteristics of

wickedness and cruelty are singular to humans; thus, atrocities may apply only to humankind.

Atrocities are inhumane, and yet uniquely human. Their presence is an inevitable detriment, and

its only positive role is to give humans the knowledge to prevent similar tragedies from

occurring. To further elaborate on this thesis, an historical illustration is useful: it’s 1994 in

Rwanda, the country exploded into genocide; the Interahamwe pulled people from their houses

and slaughtered with machetes; by whooping soldiers atop armored Jeeps gunned people down;

the victims’ bodies overflowed out of ditches and were strewn over the road like things that

aren’t human (472 White); meanwhile government leaders worldwide watched without acting,

fearfully planted down in inaction and fear. By the definition that classifies cruelty as an action

“devoid of humane feelings” (Merriam-Webster), the situation is cruel, the use of machetes and

guns are cruel. However, cruelty’s other definition as “conductive” (Merriam-Webster) to pain,

implies that the one who carries out a cruelty must have awareness of their action. This

awareness of one’s cruel action is pivotal to the cruel action to be classified as an act of

wickedness, or evil. If an act fulfills the requirements of both extreme cruelty and heinous

wickedness, it may be considered an atrocity. As evil is a quality unique to humans, being the
 Kapp 2

only self-aware beings that willingly act in ways that can be considered evil or cruel, an atrocity

can therefore only be carried out by humans. This is shown to be painfully true in the case of the

Rwandan genocide, where it is estimated that around 200,000 killers carried out the massacre

(103 Waldorf). Furthermore, the humans in government had been atrocious in the foregoing of

their political image and political strategy to ignore their humane duties. By their active

ignorance, they were being “conductive” to the suffering in Rwanda; in this way, an “atrocity”

can be considered an impressive construct of human ingenuity. It is a concept that no other level

of life form could reach, leave it to humans to use their abilities for massive grief. Guns and

machetes have no meaning unless the human holding it has the will to point it at another human.

Following the genocide, the definition of “atrocity” and “genocide” became very relevant

to Rwandan society and politics. The legal struggle over “war crimes” and “crimes against

humanity” were important, but the ideological struggle over the event in hindsight kept the

genocide hanging in the air for the following years. For example, in 2003, the Constitution of the

Republic of Rwanda amended that the “revisionism, negationism, or trivialization” of the

genocide were to be treated and punished as criminal acts (art. 13). The meaning of the article is

later defined by the Law Repressing the Crime of Genocide, Crimes Against Humanity and as,

“any person who will have publicly shown, by his or her words, writings, images, or by

any other means, that he or she has negated the genocide committed, rudely minimized

it or attempted to justify or approve its grounds, or any person who will have

hidden or destroyed its evidence (art. 4).”

The laws put into place made it illegal to define the atrocity as anything other than what had been

dictated by the government. The goal was not to dwell on the past or to erase it. The government

meant to strongly emphasize the gravity of the atrocity as well as create a guilty party. One of the
 Kapp 3

government’s attempts towards these goals consisted of bringing forth those with so-called

“genocide ideology”, a vague expression, mentioned in the Constitution but never clearly

defined, though it is implied to be any deviation from the government’s opinion on the genocide.

Even outside of Rwanda, the vocabulary words for the genocide were and still are the

center of discussion. The genocide discussion was brought to the international community by the

movie Hotel Rwanda, which recounts the atrocity in what was largely Hollywood-influenced, but

based off of a true story about Paul Rusesabagina, a man credited with saving 1,200 people

during the genocide (Waldorf 114). The Rwandan government has since exiled Rusesabagina

from Rwanda, accused by Rwandan President Kagame of harboring “negative ideology”, or

supposed “genocide ideology”(115). Rusesabagina’s ideology was defined by himself during an

interview on the 12th anniversary of the genocide: “… justice in Rwanda has been a failure.

Within the country, there is no will to do justice ... a killer is a killer. Tutsis are not being held

accountable. Only Hutus are paying for it. To me, this is not justice (Katz).”

Where for Rusesabagina the atrocity in Rwanda encompassed all groups as potential

victims, the government wished to pervade the idea that there was one victim group, and any

transgression from their ideology was false. But the government’s denial of the Tutsi role in the

genocide could considerably compound the atrocity. By not acknowledging all victims and all

perpetrators in their definition of “atrocity” the Kagame’s government effectively made an

indirect act of aggression, one they were aware of and had full control over. Their choice to be

ignorant of accountable parties alienated Hutu victims from the government’s description of

“atrocity”. This ignorance impeded the recovery process, as the first step towards reconciliation

is always acknowledgement. Until the Rwandan government becomes less narrow-minded about
 Kapp 4

the inclusion of particular groups into the “victims of the atrocity”, Rwanda cannot move

forward.

“Atrocity” is clearly a very delicate word, depending on its context. An example is

Rusesabagina’s “atrocity against Rwandans”, which was not consistent with the government’s

“atrocity against Tutsis.” This is understandable, considering all of the emotions behind events

classified as “atrocities.” An atrocity is destruction caused by humans, despite and often against

better judgment and morality. Because it isn’t unfeeling like an inanimate object, like a gun for

example, an atrocity can be stopped before it can begin because a human has that choice. The use

of “atrocity” brings guilt and judgment upon perpetrators of violence and suffering. The road to

recovery is full of potholes, but if you can look back on past potholes, it’s easier to avoid those

on the road ahead.

 Kapp 5

Bibliography

“Atrocity.” Oxford English Dictionary. 2nd ed. 1989. Web.

"Cruelty." Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary. 2008. Web.

Hotel Rwanda. Dir. Terry George. Perf. Don Cheadle, Sophie Okonedo, and Joaquin Pheonix.

MGM, 2005. Film.

Lee Michael Katz.  (2006, April). The Man Behind the Movie. National Journal, 38(16), 50-

51.  Retrieved November 4, 2010, from Research Library. (Document ID: 1035647281).

Rwanda. Rwandan Ministry of Defense. “Constitution of the Republic of Rwanda.” All Africa.

Rwandan Ministry of Defense, June, 2003. Web. 5 Nov 2010.

Rwanda. Rwandan Ministry of Defense. “LAW REPRESSING THE CRIME OF GENOCIDE,

CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY AND WAR.” Amategeko. Rwandan Ministry

of Defense, Nov, 2003. Web. 5 Nov 2010.

Waldorf, Lars. "Revisiting Hotel Rwanda: genocide ideology, reconciliation, and rescuers."

Journal of Genocide Research 11.1 (2009): 101-125. SocINDEX with Full Text.

EBSCO. Web. 28 Oct. 2010.

White, Kenneth R. "Scourge of Racism: Genocide in Rwanda." Journal of Black Studies 39.3