• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content
Sec 1 Africa & Rwanda
 

Sec 1 Africa & Rwanda

on

  • 1,454 views

 

Statistics

Views

Total Views
1,454
Views on SlideShare
1,454
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
7
Comments
0

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft Word

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

    Sec 1 Africa & Rwanda Sec 1 Africa & Rwanda Document Transcript

    • 1. A Brief History of Rwanda and ‘Pre-Independence’ Africa; In order to understand contemporary Rwanda—and the underlying values of cooperation, tolerance and justice—and in order to analyze the new Rwandan Constitution and its implications in society and civic engagement, we must take a large step back. We need to place Rwanda in a historical and geopolitical context. In this journey, we will walk through Rwanda in the context of Africa; we will examine the root causes of conflict and the genocide in Rwanda; we will examine the Rwandan, regional, and global consequences of the Rwandan genocide; we will explore contemporary Rwanda in light of their new constitution, civic engagement and the different paths reconciliation has taken in Rwanda; and we will attempt to make the links between reconciliation in Rwanda and possible links to Palestine and civic engagement by the young people of Palestine. At the end of each section there will be questions that you may choose to discuss with friends, peers, colleagues or your journals. What I present to you is information that will help you analyze the overlaps between the Palestinian story and the Rwandan story. For example, where we talk about religion in Palestine, we may be talking about ethnicity in Rwanda. So whereas, we may speak of Muslim and non-Muslim in Palestine, we may be talking about Hutu and Tutsi in Rwanda. The following study will allow you to draw your own conclusions about what led to the war and genocide in Rwanda and how the country views citizenship and civic engagement, rights and the Constitution and how this informs the renewal of Rwandan society while meeting the challenges of tolerance, cooperation and justice through reconciliation. • Africa Many studies will conclude that the African continent is the mother of civilization. The first people’s, cities and societies grew out of Africa. Studies usually conclude that the Nile-River Basin and Valley in present day Egypt and Sudan are the beginning of what we know as humanity today.i This is the assumption that I make. Geography Africa, today, is made up of 53 countries and numerous territories on its mainland and outlying islands (according to the World Bank). But it was not always this way. The term ‘Africa’ is a relatively new one, eventually brought on by colonizers and missionaries— but more on that later. Borders, as outlined on a map, did not always exist within Africa. The kind of borders that Africa has are natural. The land of Africa is diverse and dynamic (PICTURE OF AFRICA): 1) In the north is the Saharan Desert, stretching from the West to the East, in line with the Arabian Peninsula. This area is dry and mostly desolate, with little arid land. Often we talk about Sub-Saharan Africa and Northern Africa—the Maghreb. Northern Africa is that part of Africa whose cultures, languages, and societies are often linked as more Arabic or Mediterranean than African. 2) At the equator, Africa is predominately a rainforest—lush and green, humid and wet—mostly in present-day Democratic Republic of Congo. Rwanda is part of this particular area. It lies just south of the equator, high up in thousands of green hills and
    • volcanoes. This is important to remember later when we talk about the causes and consequences of the Rwandan genocide. 3) The Sahel is the land where the tropical, equatorial climates meet the edges of the Sahara; you find this topography mostly in West Africa. 4) South of the equator and the vast rainforest areas, the land of Africa again becomes very diverse with a range of deserts, mountain ranges, inland deltas, small and large bodies of water and rivers. 5) Africa, today, is often categorized by regions: Northern Africa (the Maghreb), the Horn of Africa, East Africa, The Great Lakes Region (Rwanda included), West Africa, and the Southern African Development Community. When understanding the land of Africa, it is important to recognize the vast wealth of natural resources and minerals that are present. These resources are the theme that ties together what we will discover later about missionary, colonial, and imperial work in Africa, along with the eventual conflict in relatively resource poor areas, like Rwanda. Ethnicity, language and Migration In pre-missionary Africa, people moved as groups or tribes. Like with other continents, there was a mix of nomadic or herding groups that hunted and gathered and were always on the move depending on the weather and the need; stationary groups that built their communities around farms and agriculture; mercantile groups that took advantage of the vast waterways to trade amongst the different groups; and more. In this way distinct languages were developed as well as localized dialects that mixed languages and forms of communication. Africa, before missionaries, had thousands of different languages and dialects—it still has many of these, but many are disappearing. The large numbers of ethnic groupings and languages is important to remember with the context of contemporary Rwanda. Rwanda, today, has only one distinct language: Kinyarwandan, and only three distinct ethnic groups: BaTwa, BaTutsi and BaHutu, whom all share the same language. This is unique to Rwanda—within Africa. Africa was mostly made up of migratory populations. As groups moved, some individuals or community subsets gradually ‘stayed’ and started less mobile groups. It is in these areas that great cultures became established. These cultures were dynamic and innovative: in Timbuktu (Tomboctou), on the edge of the Sahara in present-day Mali and on the Niger River, one of the world’s first great universities was built–this is often overlooked historically, by those who choose to focus on the Greek lyceums or the Roman Empire. In present-day southern Zimbabwe, the Shona built infrastructures of roads, castles and other structures to rival that of the Mayans and the Greeks. And, of course, in present-day Egypt the pyramids were built with amazing foresight. These are only a few of thousands of examples of pre-missionary Africa achievements. (PICTURES?—Timbuktu or Djenne Mosque, Pyramids, Great Zimbabwe?) Missionary Settlement It is often believed the Portuguese were the first European power to push religion on
    • Africa when they arrived in the Congolese rainforest. Unlike travelers and merchants who had come before from Asia and Europe, it was the proselytizing groups that stayed in Africa. In many ways, Christians and Muslims converged on the continent of Africa, as before the Christians came, Muslims had already had a great influence in Africa—with culture, language, trade and agricultural innovations. While Muslims did attempt to convert people’s in various regions, it was not like the mass attempts of European Christians. Before Christians from Europe and Muslims from the Arabic world, many African groups had group-specific spiritual beliefs. These were not related to the Ibrahamic religions of the world (Islam, Christianity, Judaism), and were built around ideas of community, crops and animals, land and, sometimes, weather patterns. Ethnic groups were, and are, deeply spiritual and had social mores much in the way of scripted religions, but they were not recorded (codified?) as such. European Christians decided to ‘civilize’ the ‘uncivilized’ masses of the world and set out on grand expeditions to ‘discover’ new territories and spread the word of their God— while occupying new lands. Africa was a huge target for Europeans, given its relative proximity and accessible waterways to Europe. After the Portuguese came the Dutch, British, French, Germans, Italians, Spanish and Belgians—to differing degrees of success. As imperial battles were being fought in Europe, many of these countries ‘controlled’ lands throughout the world. As the Christian missionaries spread out in Africa, many began to realize the amount of minerals, materials, agri-products and resources that were available. As word was sent back to European capitals about the wealth of resources, more Europeans invested in parts of Africa, scrambling to send officials to Africa and strategize how to co-opt land that was not theirs. The advantage of guns and steel produced in Europe (with minerals already extracted from Africa and Latin America) helped European nations conquer vast tracts of African land with little human power. Massive amounts of people in different regions of Africa were brought under the control of European governments and traders. With the paths paved by missionaries—already attempting to ‘educate’ and spread the Christian principles—Africa was a source of prosper relatively quickly for European nations. Slave-trade Europeans, much like their Arabic counter-parts, took full advantage of the lands and the people of Africa. European contact meant disease and conflict-creation from the very beginning. It also meant the creation of the Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade (TAST), moving and killing millions of humans from the African continent. The TAST was a network of 4 continents, yet few of the people actually made it to Europe—most were sent to North & South America and the Carribbean to serve as slave labor in those regions. The European ‘explorers’ had already damaged these regions and wiped out people’s indigenous to these lands with disease, warfare and manipulation. Labor being short, and land being everywhere, Europeans took from Africa. (photo of slave trade castle on West Africa) European missionary settlers, Arabic merchants and African leaders were just as likely to enslave Africans on the continent of Africa as well. There was land to exploit, so there
    • was a need for human labor on Africa too. Exploration & ‘official’ Colonization By the 19th century European powers still felt there was more to exploit in Africa that had yet to be uncovered. While their brethren from the Arabic world had done a better job at assimilating and integrating with African people’s, languages, and cultures on the Horn and East Africa, Europeans had no intention of doing this. So they put a lot of money into ‘exploration’ and ‘settlement’ completely disregarding the people’s, culture’s and languages that already existed. Again, Europeans had not come to assimilate. In the capitols of Europe, there was the desire to ‘more officially’ control parts of Africa (and Asia). The powerful wanted to feel like they would not be challenged by other European entities for land and resources in Africa. The king of Belgium, Leopold, decided to hold a conference in Berlin that would, literally, slice up Africa with borders and boundaries within which the European colonial powers could do as they please. Leopold, king of a relatively small, non-descript European nation, had managed to come into control of most of the central region of Africa, now known as the Democratic Republic of the Congo. This area had been little ‘explored’ and he figured he could manipulate other European colonizers that he should have it—and he did. The conference was known as the ‘Berlin Conference’ and this is where Africa was divided up in 1884 and 1885. Borders were drawn where none had existed before. European bureaucracies put man-power into Africa—setting up governing and military bodies in lands largely unknown to the average European. Direct and in-direct rule were set up by the European powers. For a country like France, they were direct rulers over ‘their’ land in Africa (eg present-day Algeria) because they put French military and bureaucrats on the ground to govern and control. Whereas a smaller country like England used indirect rule by sending a few bureaucrats and empowering a few local elites of the African land to help handle official and military duties. This is important to remember in the case of Rwanda. They were mostly ruled indirectly. More on this later. From Colonialism to Independence European powers seemed to lack humanity when it came to interaction with their fellow Europeans as well. As the Industrial Revolution of Europe and North America excelled at the end of the 19th Century, there was a greater need to extract resources from Africa. By this point the TAST had officially ended. The colonizing bodies of the new African territories—having already disregarded old African empires like the Asante and the Zulu —continued their policies of human and resource exploitation. But now Europe was on the brink of self-destruction and governing far off lands was becoming more difficult. European powers were so weakened by the First World War that countries turned over their African properties to the victors of the First World War. For example, Germany lost all of its ‘property,’ including Rwanda (and Burundi) which was then ‘administered’ by Belgium. Following World War II, Europe was once again ravaged by their own savagery and the continued control of colonies was becoming unviable. There were no longer the European manpower and money to control land in far away places. All but a few of the European colonies around the world started to gain control of their own bureaucracies, systems and infrastructure’s. With the institutionalization of the United Nations, there was a renewed ‘hope’ in the ability of nations to work together to promote rights and
    • dignity. Ironically, no previously colonized African nation was yet independent at the writing of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948. But by the late 1950’s African nations started becoming independent—based on the boundaries drawn up by Europeans at the Berlin Conference. Most countries or territories of Africa are now independent. But due to many factors, not least of which is the arbitrariness of borders that split ethnic and language groups where there had never been borders and the impact of a new kind of imperial colonization, there are still plenty of issues that face this resource rich continent. • Rwanda (picture of Rwanda) Rwanda within an African context Present-day Rwanda lies on thousands of hills in the heart of Central Africa. It is part of the Great Lakes Region and its land mass is not much larger than the Palestinian Territories combined. Even after the genocide that killed almost a million people, Rwanda is still the most densely populated country in Africa. Due to its location in the mountains, in the rainforest, on the equator and no where near an ocean (plus other factors), Rwanda has a unique history within the context of the African continent. The ethnic groups that came into the region were mostly nomadic cattle-herders. There was little agricultural technology to cultivate large amounts of mountainous land. Everyone in the region spoke the same language, what is now known as Kinyarwandan (a close relative of kiSwahili, itself related to Arabic). This will be important to remember: a unifying, single language amongst all the people of Rwanda. But there were basically three different classifications of people that came to call the Rwandan hills home: BaTwa were those who were artisans and crafts makers and made up about 1% of the population; BaHutu were the cattle-herders, later to be classified as those who owned less than ten cows and made up about 85% of the people; and the BaTutsi who owned more than ten cows and thus were considered better-off and about 15% of the population. These became the ethnic groupings in Rwanda and its sister country to the south, Burundi—random creations of ethnicity. Early on, many Hutu’s saw the Tutsi’s as outsiders. Hutu’s and Tutsi’s created negative stereotypes of one another based on their privilege, but it would later be the colonizing powers that divided the ethnic groups by looks as well. Until the Berlin Conference, Ruanda-Urundi (the name of the two countries as one entity) was a kingdom and governed as such by mostly Tutsi kings. At the Berlin Conference, it was Germany that staked claim to this relatively small, remote patch of land in the hills. The Germans had full privilege to plunder and pillage Ruanda-Urundi at their will and they did, mostly through indirect rule. When Germany suffered defeat in World War One, Ruanda-Urundi came under the ‘administration’ of the Belgians. They already controlled the massive amount of land west of Ruanda-Urundi all the way to the Atlantic, so another small piece of land was not considered a big deal. Between the Germans and the Belgians, the ethnic groupings—based on economic class in Ruanda-Urundi—were kept and perpetuated by the colonizers. In the 1930’s the Belgian rulers, who had already switched the governing language from German to French, decided to also use identification cards to ensure the separation of the
    • ethnicities. They made up physical descriptions to go along with the economic descriptions to divide Rwandan ethnic groups even further. The physical descriptions were arbitrary but became a part of the Rwandan conscience. Naturally, the Belgian administrators needed local support in their work, so they had to favor one ethnic group over the others, and thus used Tutsi’s –those physically described as lighter-skinned and taller (thus more ‘European’ in look)—as the local administrators. This was meant to divide and conquer within Ruanda-Urundi, as the Hutu’s were angered that Tutsi children were allowed to go to Catholic mission schools and their men were employed and trained by the Belgians, while the Hutu’s were left behind. The Belgians pushed Catholicism as the religion of the people. They purposely did not allow large numbers of children to be educated and they did not build roads in this mountain country (like they had in other of their territories). Ruanda-Urundi was a footnote in the history of Belgium, but it was a large enough footnote that even after World War II, as the Belgians realized they were about to lose control of Ruanda-Urundi, they fomented further conflict by suddenly switching ethnic allegiance. Whereas for decades they used and trained Tutsi’s, in the mid 1950’s as Rwandan independence became a likely possibility, Belgium suddenly stopped supporting Tutsi’s and began supporting Hutu’s—thus, beginning decades of fighting between Hutu’s and Tutsi’s. The thinking was that if there were enough confusion and not enough infrastructure at the time of independence than the governing Hutu’s would come asking the Belgians for help in governing the newly independent Rwandan country, as opposed to the Tutsi’s who would have been better prepared to govern. The Belgians even created a Hutu political group, PARMETHU, founded on sectarian ethnic ideology and violence. Ruanda-Urundi achieved independence in 1962 and split into two mirror nations: Rwanda and Burundi—both Hutu majority. Violence began immediately in both countries. The Tutsi king went into exile and along with him an exodus of those ethnically classified as Tutsi’s for fear of retribution. The Rwanda Diaspora went all over the world, but mostly into the neighboring countries of Tanzania, Uganda and Congo (DRC). Remember, there was not much livable land in Rwanda to begin with and so it did not bother the governing Hutu’s that so many people fled to other countries, it meant more resources for those that remained. Unlike other African nations, with their arbitrary borders and exploitive colonial affects, Rwanda at independence had only three ethnic groups and one language. Compare that to Nigeria which has hundreds of both or South Africa that has 11 national languages and ethnicities. One unifying language made Rwanda the only African country at independence able to govern in a non-colonial language. This may have a lot to do with the ignorance of non-Rwanda’s of what was going on within Rwanda leading up to the eventual genocide. QUESTIONS: • Are land and resources related to ethnic identity in Rwanda? Why or why not? • How did the lack of natural resources and land contribute to the formation of ethnic identity in Rwanda? • Are ethnic identities given or are they created by the people who embody them? What was it like in Rwanda? Why? What about in Palestine?
    • • Why is it important to understand Rwandan issues within the context of Africa? Think about Palestine within the Middle East (Near East/Arabic Peninsula) context.
    • i Diamond, Jared. ‘Guns, Germs and Steel.’ …