Who was responsible for the Rwandan massacre?

The culprit of the Rwandan massacre was the colonists.

1In April 1994, a terrible massacre took place in Rwanda, a small landlocked country in Africa. In more than three months, about 100 days, a large number of innocent civilians were killed. The death toll is still difficult to determine, some say 500,000, some say 800,000, and some say 654.38+00,000. The vast majority of the dead were Tutsi. When the Holocaust happened, an American politician once asked, "Who is the good guy?" It means that two hostile peoples are "good people". On the one hand, this problem shows the ignorance of American politicians, on the other hand, it also shows that from the standpoint of the United States, if bad people kill good people, the United States probably has to take care of it. If good people kill bad people, is it necessary for the United States to take care of it? Although this question is ignorant, it shows that this mentality of Americans does exist. However, thousands of civilians lost their lives. What's the point of judging good people and bad people?

Many years after the Rwandan massacre, the reflection on this massacre is still not over. Western media and public opinion generally regard the massacre as the result of racial hatred, and blame themselves for admitting that western countries, including the United Nations, failed to stop the massacre in time. Others accused the United States of being selfish and unwilling to assume its obligations to the international community after the Rwandan massacre. I prefer to think that the Rwandan massacre is a concentrated expression of all the evil consequences of modern western civilization for hundreds of years. Some people say it is inevitable. Even if the United States came forward to stop it earlier, it would not stop the massacre, but at best slow down the extent of the massacre. I think there is some truth in this statement. After western civilization was implanted in Rwanda, not many people in Rwanda realized the harm of this civilization, and the end of the massacre was the inevitable result of blindly copying western civilization. The genocide in Rwanda was the largest ethnic cleansing after the Nazi Holocaust, half a century apart.

The first important cause of the Rwandan massacre was racial contradiction, which was completely artificially created by everyone in the West. As early as16th century, Rwanda had its own country soon after Europeans started sailing. At that time, although there were names of Tutsi and Hutu, they were not different nationalities. They use the same language and share the same beliefs. The difference is that Hutu people make a living by farming, while Tutsi people make a living by grazing. In fact, the names of Hutu and Tutsi were similar to "farmer" and "herder" at that time. Tutsi who graze are called Hutus if they switch to farming, and vice versa. Their long-term marriage is not contradictory. It was the western civilization that entered later that strictly separated Hutu and Tutsi, and even set a high and low level.

1890, Rwanda became a colony of Germany, and the Germans clearly distinguished Tutsi and Hutu for the first time. German colonialists introduced European racist theory into Rwanda, stiffly explaining the difference between "farmers" and "herders" in Rwanda. Germans say that Hutu, as farmers, immigrated from the south, with dark skin and short stature. Tutsi, as herders, immigrated from the north, with fair skin and tall figure. Moreover, because the north is close to the Nile, the degree of civilization is higher, and Tutsis are closer to Europeans and belong to a higher-ranking race.

In Rwanda, the so-called Hutu people account for about 85% of the total population, and the so-called Tutsi people account for about 15%. The purpose of this division of colonists is to use a small number of Tutsi people with a high degree of "hierarchy" to help the colonists jointly rule a larger number of Hutus. In the colonial history of Europe, this way of alienating colonies existed from the beginning, and American Indians often used it. The purpose of this way is to create contradictions among the colonial people and prevent them from uniting against the colonists. After provoking contradictions, European colonialists stayed out of the way and were in the position of mediation, sometimes using one faction to suppress the other. Almost all ethnic conflicts in African countries are artificially created by European countries.

In Southeast Asia, they also used the same method to maintain their rule. At present, some Southeast Asian countries have indelible hostility towards Chinese, and the source of this hostility is the curse laid by European colonists during the rule of Southeast Asia. At that time, European colonists needed Chinese with higher education level to become their high-quality labor force and management helpers in Southeast Asia. To this end, they did not hesitate to smuggle and kidnap China people in coastal areas. On the other hand, the colonists didn't want to offend the local people too much, so they constantly created contradictions between the China people with higher education and the local people with lower education to balance themselves. After these colonists left, the contradictions they created became long-term social problems that were difficult to solve. In Sri Lanka, sharp ethnic contradictions triggered the so-called "terrorism", which was also planted by the colonists to sow discord. In India, the colonialists' tactics of sowing discord and creating contradictions eventually led to the emergence of three countries (India, Pakistan and Bangladesh) and an enclave (Kashmir), which became an unstable factor in the long-term turmoil in the region. Another important achievement of this method in the West is that Israel has created long-term hatred in the Middle East by forcibly implanting it in Israel.

Go away, or go back to Rwanda. After Germany's defeat in World War I, its colony was lost and occupied by other European countries. For Germany, this situation led Hitler to launch a large-scale war for the "living space" of the Germans, which is beside the point. After Germany withdrew its troops from Rwanda, Belgium, a small European country, became the suzerain of Rwanda. Belgium's racist policy in Rwanda aggravated the ethnic conflict in Rwanda. The tool to intensify this contradiction is that Belgium introduced "science" into Europe. According to European ethnographic theory, Belgium conducted a large-scale "scientific investigation" on Rwandan residents. In the history of European science, there is a discipline called phrenology. Phrenology was born in France during the Enlightenment. At first, its theory believed that the structure and size of the skull could determine a person's psychology and consciousness. The practical application of this theory is considered that people with criminal tendencies can be found in advance. This theory was later combined with racism: since the skull size can determine psychology and consciousness, and the difference between psychology and consciousness is obvious in the process of racial evolution, we can judge the evolution degree of a race by measuring skulls and mastering the statistical data of skulls of different races. Although "phrenology" has become rubbish after the tragic World War II, it did contribute to racism in the name of scientific truth before it was completely denied.

Belgium officially divided Hutu and Tutsi into two races with "science". At the same time, they used the modern European civilization system to make this racial division permanent. This system is the ID card system. Every Rwandan has a racial mark on his identity card, and this mark will be carried on to future generations. As long as the identity system exists, this racial division will always exist. At the same time, because Science confirmed that the evolution level of Tutsi was higher than that of Hutu, Belgian colonists, like Germany, were more inclined to Tutsi in policy. Tutsi, who account for 0/5% of the population/kloc, have more educational opportunities. During the colonial rule of Rwanda, the government and the upper class of society were mainly occupied by a few Tutsis, who also occupied more wealth. In contrast, what the British did in Sri Lanka had almost the same consequences. The "nation" favored by the colonists in those years became the object of persecution and revenge after the colonists left, just like the Chinese in some Southeast Asian countries.

We can see that the causes of ethnic conflicts in Rwanda are racism invented by Europeans and science that Europeans are proud of. But it's not over yet. The theories of class struggle, national sovereignty, nationalism and democracy invented by Europeans all contributed to the genocide in Rwanda in the later historical process. After the Second World War, colonial independence movements surged around the world, and Rwanda was no exception. 1962, Rwanda became independent, established the Republic of China, established the "constitutional government" system of separation of powers, introduced the western universal suffrage system, and became a democratic country that fully met western standards. However, Rwanda is still one of the least developed countries in the world recognized by the United Nations. Can people who blindly worship western democracy see the truth of democracy from the suffering of Rwanda?

The conflict between Tutsi and Hutu in Rwanda began long ago because European colonists artificially divided races and intensified social contradictions. With the establishment of the Republic and the implementation of the democratic system, this kind of conflict began to have the significance of national policy. Hutu people with low official ranks account for 85% of the national population, so the democratic system is bound to benefit Hutu people. The multi-party system of western democracy has naturally become a tool of ethnic opposition in Rwanda. Hutus, who account for the absolute majority of the population, began to use the democratic system to persecute Tutsi, who used to be high above others, and a large number of Tutsi became refugees and exiled abroad. Here, I want to talk about the bad consequences of another product of western civilization on Rwanda.

Nationalism is a modern invention in the west, but this invention has inherent contradictions and will have different consequences for different countries. Nationalism can also be called nationalism, which is closely related to national sovereignty. Western nationalism has a standard: one nation, one country and one government. For some western countries, this standard is acceptable, but for Rwanda and its neighbors, this standard is creating new contradictions. We know that the territory of modern African countries is not naturally formed. Look at the map of Africa. Straight borders are the product of the division of Africa by the West. After the former colony became independent, the achievements of the western colonies were accepted by the newly independent countries under the concept of national sovereignty advocated by the west. Therefore, the national territory divided by colonies first establishes national sovereignty, regardless of ethnic issues.

For Rwanda, Tutsi and Hutu, two main ethnic groups, exist not only in Rwanda, but also in neighboring countries such as Burundi and Uganda. Nationalism left by the colonies divided different nationalities into different countries, and did not form the so-called "one nation, one country, one government" like Europe. If we want to implement this policy in Africa, the result can only be that, like India, different ethnic groups that were originally intertwined have to migrate and gather people of the same ethnic group together. On the one hand, this method has created confrontation and contradiction between countries, on the other hand, it has caused countless people to lose their homes. Just like the relationship between Israel and Palestine, whether isolated or mixed, Western civilization is creating intractable contradictions. Tutsi refugees who fled Rwanda, like Palestinian refugees who were expelled from their homes by Israel, lived in neighboring countries and joined forces with Tutsi in neighboring countries to challenge Hutu rule in Rwanda.