預定在 2:00AM PDT on Thursday (4/16) 停電

真心覺得我的考試和感情一樣順遂，這應該是充滿希望與愛的關係。

在此附上，上學期社會心理學的期末報告(我的電腦應該會隨時爆掉)
以之回答『臨床心理系的學生都在做些甚麼?』

A short analysis of Rwanda Genocide

The tragedy shocked the world and still does horrify and surprise mankind in 21st century. When I was eighteen, I watched a movie depicting the story of Rwanda Genocide, called Hotel Rwanda. Until now, I can barely imagine the cruelty of human beings and the estimation of the death toll between 800,000 to 1,000,000 people. I couldn’t help wondering why and how people would kill other people, our own species. Thus, I resolved myself to look into this issue. The following is the background and description based on historical facts of Rwanda Genocide.

From about fifteen century, the Tutsi migrated from Ugandan to Rwanda. The Hutu had arrived before the Tutsi. Admiring the Tutsi cattle, the Hutu accepted the Tutsi to be part of the polity. Also, the Tutsi adopted the Hutu language and culture. In the 19th century before European arrival, Rwanda was already densely populated. Due to the every-year increase in population, many people who lived in poverty became much poorer. The land and food shortage inevitably created the frustration of all Rwandans.

In 1860s, Rwandan King, Kigeri Rwabugiri, introduced different institutions from which the Hutu and the Tutsi notably had different duties. The Tutsi became central and had more control; on the other hand, the Hutu labored and remained as peasants. The association threatened the Hutu’s living and security. In 1890, Rwanda first ruled by the Germans, then governed colonially by the Belgians. The Tutsi were chosen to be the intermediate ruler and aristocracy, because they have paler skin resembling European appearance. The ethnic polarization became clearer as the Belgians established a system which obliged adults to carry identity cards, thereby classified themselves as Tutsi or Hutu in 1930s. At that time, the population of Hutu was originally about 85% of the population and the Tutsi about 15%(Diamond, 2005: 314).

However, Belgium changed policy and opened leadership and educational opportunities to Hutu under pressure from the United Nations Trusteeship Council in 1950s. The reform raise expectations among the Hutu, fears among the Tutsi(Gilles Peress, 1995). In 1960s, the Hutu held the power, on the other hand, the Tutsi fled Rwanda. The tensions kept rising , especially after the invasion of the Rwandan Patriotic Front(RPF) formed by the Tutsi refugees. Politicians faithful to Habyarimana, the president of Rwanda, began to organize in an informal structure called ‘Hutu Power’(Pottier, 2002: 22). In 1993, businessmen close to Habyarimana imported 581,000 matchetes for distribution to Hutu for killing Tutsi(Diamond, 2005: 315). The ethnic violence was thus escalating.

On April 6th 1994, an airplane carrying presidents Habyarimana of Rwanda and Ntaryamira of Brundi shot down as it approached the local airport, and no one survived. The Hutu extremist were fury and believed that it was done by the Tutsi. The rumors were spread. Moreover, the Hutu extremist took control of radio stations and broadcasted the urgency of killing the Tutsi, such as “You cockroaches(the Tutsi) must know you are made of flesh! We won’t let you kill! We will kill you,” or “The tomb is only half full. Who will help us fill it?” The genocide quickly began right after the day of the airplane crash. Within six weeks, an estimated 800,000 Tutsi, or 11% of Rwanda’s total population, had been killed. The catastrophe was astonishing and unbelievable.
Choosing the topic, I’m not trying to convince anyone or speak for any group, but to determine and specify the issue as an objective social psychologist. In the beginning, I focus on the rationale of human aggression. Secondly, the social cognition is taken into account. Finally, the prejudice is concluded as I think it plays a crucial role.

One cause of aggression is frustration. In the context, Rwandans suffered the lack of food, because the population was increasing. The situation evolved famine. Moreover, 60% of Rwanda’s smallholders encountered the collapse of coffee price in 1989 which brought them despair and insecurity. It’s not hard to imagine, poverty and famine have great effects on Rwandans’ life. Their hope was unsatisfied. Therefore, the frustration provides a probable reason for aggressive behavior. Another cause of aggression is rejection and exclusion. We know that the Hutu are forbidden to enter some places and couldn’t receive good education during the colonial period of the Belgian. According to the research by Jean Twenge and her colleagues, being rejected has negative effects, especially a dramatic increase in aggressiveness. It is also suggested that certain cues associated with aggression act increase a person’s tendency to aggress. This resembled the situation in 1993 when the machetes were given out to the Hutu. A machete, a large knife with white blade, can be symbolized as an aggressive stimulus. In addition, human aggression can be learned from the mass media. Although the text book focuses on TV, I still believe that other media might have the same effect, such as radios. In Third World countries, TV is not available to all people. Hence it’s not hard to imagine that most of Rwandans don’t have TV sets. In the beginning of the genocide, extreme politicians took the radio stations over and urged the Hutu on killing the Tutsi. They used irrational and emotional statement and voice to broadcast. I assume the mass media not only affect people’s aggression, but also bring conformity. Individuals tent to reflect the norms of their community. In the other words, the Tutsi heard the broadcast and might thought, “If every Tutsi kills the Hutu, why don’t I?” As in the text book, it suggested that people who watch TV may think, “If they can do it, so can I.” Thus, it simply weakens their previously learned inhibition against violent behavior. I suppose the effect can also be produced by broadcasts. In the end of the paragraph, I cited the statement from a broadcaster at that time. “Come on, get out, I need to warm myself!” (Pottier, 2002: 32).

Let’s move on to the aspect of social cognition. I assume that the Hutu use the representative heuristic which is characterized to some degree of stereotype. When they knew that their respectable president was murdered, they soon affirmed that the murderer must be a Tutsi. Being treated unfairly and assaulted by the Tutsi, the Hutu considered them as enemies. In consequence, they were prone to regard the perpetrator as a Hutu. In fact, the cause of the plane crash remains uncertain until now. In respect of the genocide, another theory might explain Rwandans’ cognition which is ingroup and outgroup effects. The Hutu(or the Tutsi) tended to see the Tutsi(or the Hutu) as more similar to one another. For instance, they might generalize the members of outgroup like this: “If one of them do us harm, all of them will hurt us too,” or “All the Tutsi deserved to die, because they are the same!” It might be one factor of the large ethnic distinction. The Hutu might ignore the possibility of good persons in the outgroup, due to the homogeneity effect of believing all of the Tutsi possing negative traits. In my point of view, this might be associated with the mass killings. However, people might ask, “Wouldn’t they feel guilty about killing?” My answer is maybe not. In order not to engage in cognitive dissonance, the Hutu would convince themselves that the victims deserved what they got. This is the justification of cruelty. People believe they are decent and reasonable. When they find the harm is clear, they need to change their opinion on the issue. So my guess is that the Hutu might think, “The Tutsi once took advantages of us. What I did is the justice.” Perhaps the theory can explain why the death toll is unexpectedly high.

Many scholars viewed the massacre as an ethnic conflict or violence. As a result, I’d like to figure out why and how the conflict occurred. I think that the most vital factor is prejudice. When Europeans arrived Rwanda, they had a color prejudice against black people. Thus, they chose the Tutsi to be rulers, however, the Hutu led a more inferior life in the society. The hatred might bury and grow in Hutus’ mind. Moreover, the ID card policy enlarged the racial distinction. Before the policy, the Hutu and the Tutsi lived in harmony. Once the policy had introduced, they were aware of the differences between them─ “I’m Hutu, and you’re Tutsi.” Here, I’m going to introduce another fact which is not included in the text above. The social’s traditional structure in Rwanda was competitive The Tutsi usually had much land than the Hutu. Due to the dependence on agriculture, the Hutu were jealous about the Tutsi’s estate and earnings. However, some Hutus who owned bigger land usually competed with the Tutsi by selling the products. Studies have shown that the competition tends to increase discrimination, prejudice and stereotyping. In the context, we know that there is also a political competition between the Hutu and the Tutsi. The hostility may escalate when competing. Probably, it can be inferred that the prejudice plays a vital role in the cause of the massacre. Another theory, the scapegoat theory, can also illustrate the genocide. Previously, I have already described why the Hutu were frustrated. This frustration may increase the probability of aggressing against less powerful people, the Tutsi. After some Tutsi fled, the Hutu controlled the whole nation in 1960s. The remained Tutsis were relatively powerless, maybe related to the population (below 15%). As I formally demonstrated, no one really knows who the murderer of the president is. Still, the Hutu blamed the Tutsi for something that is not their fault, and began the genocide, similar to Nazi Germany.

The Hutu who committed the large-scale kill should not be directly regarded as demons or evils in mankind. If we overestimate the importance of personality, we just fall into the trap of the fundamental attribution error. I’ve tried to unveil the bloody and miserable mask of the Rwanda Genocide. With such effort, I’ve examined three possibilities which might contribute to the tragedy: aggression, social cognition, and prejudice. Although this short analysis is not enough for including every detail, I have adopted a new perspective and attitude toward Rwanda Genocide.




Reference:
Diamond, Jared M. (2005). Collapse: how societies choose to fail or succeed. USA: Penguin Group.
Gilles Peress. (1995). The Silence. New York: Scalo
Pottier, Johan. (2002). Re-Imagining Rwanda. UK:Cambridge