While we were in Rwanda, we were assigned a paper on Rwandan culture and ethnicity. We were supposed to talk to our host family and other Rwandans about how they perceive their identity and what it means to be Rwandan. I had no idea how to approach this paper, especially because issues of identity are so sensitive here – it’s absolutely unacceptable to ask someone if they are Hutu or Tutsi – and my family had not been very open to discussing it. My family has always avoided answering any questions on identity, and at most repeated the official line that everyone is Rwandan now – that Hutu and Tutsi don’t matter any more. But I really have a hard time believing that people can so easily forget a classification that was once life or death, and which now, in the eyes of the outside world, separates victim from killer. Finally, after many attempts to steer the conversation in the direction of identity, we sort of stumbled on the topic unexpectedly, unintentionally, and at first jokingly. We ended up having a really amazing conversation, in which a lot of my questions about this issue were (mostly) resolved.
My host family was anticipating my return to the US, where they imagined that my friends and family would be curious about life in Africa. They were suggesting ways to describe Rwanda, and proposed, “Rwanda: the land of a thousand hills and a thousand problems.” I was so surprised that this was their immediate suggestion, because this is not at all how I see Rwanda, and all my previous conversations with my family and other Rwandans had led me to believe that the Rwandese were very proud of their development over the past fifteen years. My mother amended: “the land of a thousand hills, a thousand problems, and a thousand solutions.” But even then, my host father objected, “But those solutions are just solutions that we’re searching for, not solutions that we’ve actually implemented.” Again, I protested, and my mother began to describe what she called the “Rwandan mentality,” a will to constantly find solutions, move past old problems, and focus on the present. I asked whether Rwandans were finding solutions to their problems or trying to forget them, and she laughed as though she understood that I was hinting at the policy of creating a new Rwandese identity to replace Hutu and Tutsi identity. She told me that they’re trying to find solutions to all their problems, but some are so difficult that they have to just give up on finding a solution and try to forget about them instead. When I asked what those difficult problems are in Rwanda, she laughed so hard that I was sure she knew I suspected post-genocide recovery and identity was one of them. I believe she meant her answer to be a metaphor for the issue, but even if it wasn’t intended that way, I still think it’s an appropriate interpretation.
She told me that sometimes people don’t have enough food to eat multiple meals a day, but even if you’re hungry, you can still bathe, put on clean clothes, and go out into the world as though you’re fine. It isn’t necessary, she said, to sit around and cry about being hungry, nor is it important to tell everyone that you’re hungry. Even if you never forget that you’re hungry, you can’t allow it to keep you from moving forward in life. This seems to me to perfectly describe Rwanda’s attitude to the genocide and Hutu/Tutsi divisions: even though people will never forget the genocide, and will likely remember their identity as either Hutu or Tutsi, they are trying to keep those problems of the past from destroying their future.
In an ideal world, it would be possible to erase the distinction between Hutu and Tutsi, and to include everyone in a positive Rwandan identity. Rwanda simply can’t rebuild on the identity of Hutu and Tutsi, because those groups have become much too closely associated with genocidaires and victims, respectively. I think that my family has been so reluctant to tell me which group they belonged to because they are expecting me to judge them or make assumptions about their experience during the genocide based on that classification. One of our lecturers told us that people have positive views of what it means to be “Rwandan,” but rely on stereotypes to describe “Hutus” or “Tutsis.”
Because the “Rwandan” identity wasn’t imposed by a colonial power or the outside world, I think it’s much more likely to be accepted than assignments of Hutu and Tutsi based on nose size, height and number of cattle. Especially given Rwanda’s experience with international interventions (the UN Mission during the genocide, UNAMIR, basically couldn’t do anything because of its limited mandate; the French Operation Tourquoise did nothing to stop the killings and let all the genocidaires get safely out of the country), it’s understandable that Rwandans would opt for a solution that comes from within. As the lecturer explained, “we alone know best where we come from, and we alone know where we want to go.” In an ideal world, we wouldn’t even notice our hunger and it wouldn’t prevent us from being productive members of society.
But just like it’s impossible to fully forget that your stomach’s empty, this idea of patching up Hutu and Tutsi tensions with an inclusive Rwandan identity isn’t going to be easy. One of the main problems, as I see it, is that it’s only being implemented in Rwanda itself, not among the Rwandan diaspora, including the many refugee camps in the region. Hutu and Tutsi identities are still relevant in other countries, such as Burundi and if Rwanda succeeds in convincing refugees other countries (such as Uganda) to return, it will have to find a way to integrate people who are in those camps because they fear persecution as a Hutu. Maybe the fact that all Rwandans speak Kinyarwanda will help the country create a unitary identity of Rwandans-as-Kinyarwanda-speakers. But then that identity would exclude those who have lived abroad and learned Kiswahili or other foreign languages.
Not to mention the fact that many people within Rwanda are still struggling to move on from the genocide. Just as you never forget your hunger, so have Rwandans not yet found a way to forget that they are Hutu or Tutsi. My friend’s sister, who is Tutsi, told my friend that her boyfriend is “different” from her – which was clearly a euphemism for Hutu. It’s so strange to me that she was not even able to say it outright, but then people can turn around and say that Hutu/Tutsi distinctions don’t matter. She also said that if her parents knew she was dating him, they would disown her. I hope that this speaks more to a generational gap than a deep-rooted inability to overcome prejudices. The fact that she is able to date him means that she at least is able to see beyond Hutu and Tutsi, even though she is definitely old enough to have lived through the genocide.
In the end, I think it’s still important to implement these policies, and to be patient – just as the hungry person should still live his or her life, not sit at home and cry. It took many people a long time to make Hutu and Tutsi identities meaningful, and to manipulate them to the point that one group would attempt to completely eliminate the other. Of course it’s going to take a long time to undo that work. One of the contradictions of constructivist theory is that it assumes that identities are fluid and subject to change, that we can “construct” identity - but then that these identities become solidified and cannot be changed. If colonial authorities could construct the Hutu and Tutsi identities, this binary can be deconstructed by Rwandans.
When I see Rwandan art and dance, I’m most confident that Rwandans can be united. The Rwandans are so proud of their traditional dances – as one of our lecturers, told us, Rwanda often wins international prizes for their dance. As I mentioned before, dance would be such a great tool for recovery because it can be a really inclusive activity. Dance is a really essential part of what it means to be Rwandan. Art and dance existed long before the colonial era – before Hutu and Tutsi meant more than an economic distinction – and art actually apparently had a hard time during the colonial period. Art is a common, shared experience, that has the potential to unite people despite all obstacles. In the end, even though I think that Rwanda hasn’t fully accomplished its goals, and that there are many challenges ahead (such as including refugees), I agree with the idea of diminishing the importance of Hutu and Tutsi, and I think it’s possible.
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
Rwandan development policy, Jeffrey Sachs and the Millenium Village Project
For one of our lectures, an advisor to President Kagame came to speak to us. It was actually one of the most interesting lectures, because he did feed us exactly the government line for the whole thing – but it was interesting to hear that line, straight from the horse’s mouth (more or less) and to know that we were hearing that line.
He was also good because there were some times where he made it clear that he didn’t really agree with the official line – for instance, when someone asked about the massive human rights abuses (some people suggest it may even have been genocide) conducted by government forces against Hutu interahamwe, FDLR rebels and civilians in the Democratic Republic of Congo. He said, “Well… I don’t know. The official line is that the refugees were told to come back. Some didn’t want to, so the RPF [Rwandan Patriotic Front, i.e. government forces] pursued them there. In the jungles of Congo, there was collateral damage, but many died of hunger and disease, not bullets. No one can say for sure who was killed by RPF.”
Naturally, he painted a glorious picture of Kagame’s government, as do most Rwandans I’ve spoken to. Personally, I’m still not really sure where I stand on the issue. On the one hand, I have so much respect and awe for the amazing recovery that Rwanda has made – Rwanda was a failed state after the genocide, everyone thought it would turn into another Somalia or something, because there was no law and order, no judiciary, no education system, no hospitals, and all the professionals had been killed or had fled. How do you even begin to think about recovering from that? And yet, fifteen years later, Kigali is immaculately clean, modern, and the country as a whole has been peaceful for I think about 6 years. So I have huge amounts of respect for that progress.
On the other hand, the evidence implicating the RPF in repression of freedom of speech and political opposition is very strong, and the Rwandan government doesn’t make much of an effort to hide it, instead excusing it as “necessary” to avoid ethnic divisionism and another genocide. I guess this gets to the heart of Plato’s Republic: is it better to have an authoritarian regime that does good for the people (as I genuinely believe the Rwandan government does) or a democratic regime elected by people who don’t know what’s best for them? But then who’s to say that the Rwandese people don’t know what’s best for them, and that we outsiders know any better? Maybe I’m wrong, but it seems to me that any argument that freedom of speech and political pluralism must be restricted for the good of the people hinges on the assumption that Rwandans are easily manipulated, obedient and docile people – who are either only supporting the RPF because they have been brainwashed, or who would quickly be led to support positions they do not believe in. I absolutely do not believe this to be the case, and in fact I think that restrictions on freedom of speech belittle the intelligence of the Rwandan people.
Plus, Kagame’s policies have generally been terrible for DRC, where most of Rwanda’s military problems have been exported to, exacerbating conflict in the region. That’s a whole separate issue.
Anyways, back to the presidential advisor. He talked a lot about development policy, to the point that the whole section on the government’s current and future goals was about development issues. Development has been very visible in Rwanda, and has contributed a lot to post-genocide recovery. Throughout the country, there’s a major emphasis on development – on TV, in public discourse, etc. I wonder in Rwanda is trying to focus on the problem of poverty to avoid thinking about other problems. Poverty is a “useful” issue in that it’s shared by both Hutu and Tutsi, creating a cross-cutting cleavage.
The policy that the lecturer described as Rwanda’s goals seemed to be taken directly from Jeffrey Sachs – I felt like I was taking notes for his class, “Challenges of Sustainable Development” again. The basic principle of Sachs’ argument (Daniel, you can check me on this) is that we need to give more aid to Africa to get it out of its current poverty trap, which is perpetuated by very high population growth (people have a lot of babies because they are a source of labor and there’s a high infant mortality rate, but then they can’t afford to feed and educate all of their children – something I saw a lot of in Gulu), and low levels of technology and human capital. The idea is that if Africans can spur economic growth through a sort of “Green Revolution,” improve access to healthcare and education, and decrease population growth, the third world will develop. Rwanda’s goals include increasing GDP and per capita income, decreasing population growth and density, and moving half the country’s subsistence farmers to paying jobs through mechanization and greater education.
Given that Sachs’ view of the world is currently informing the UN’s Millennium Development Goals, and is backed by several big name Western donors, articulating these particular policy goals seems like an ideal way to attract Western donors. Currently,
40% of Rwandan national budget is foreign aid, though the government is trying to reduce that amount. I wonder if governments/donors give Rwanda so much because of their guilt over doing absolutely nothing during the genocide? Is this also what allows the RF to get away with political repression, as scholars and NGOs like HRW argue? Or, do donors give a lot because Rwandan government is relatively responsible, if repressive?
These development theories also form the basis of the Millenium Village Project, which I learned about in Sachs’ class. (Actually here’s a cool link to a simulation of a village, in which you try to keep villagers alive and healthy, and avoid environmental degradation by allocating time and resources: link) So when our program director told us that we were going to go see the Millennium Village in Rwanda, I assumed that it would be sort of like the simulation – we would see the effects of upgrading technology, and learn about the challenges the village faces in terms of being sustainable. My understanding of the MV was that it acts as a test case to see if these policies can work, and that the UN hopes to see a ripple-effect to other villages in the area.
Then we got there, and discovered that it was just a tourist attraction. There was absolutely no information about the UN project or its goals/effects/etc. We met a farmer, who showed us how he farmed cassava and gave us a taste – but no sense of how his farming techniques have changed. We met women who did basketweaving and they let us do some, which was so cool (I love the basketweaving here!) but they were only there because we were there, and as soon as we left, they did too. It felt so staged, like it was just an opportunity for them to encourage us to buy their products. Finally we saw a “reconciliation village” – where genocidaires and genocide survivors were living together. There was a bunch of traditional dance, and then two people stood up to give speeches, but they felt so rehearsed [also I don’t like the way the genocidaire was a man and the victim was a woman]. The only really startling thing was that the “genocidaire” told us that when he and others like him came to the village, they assumed they would live with the victims for a short while and then finish the job they had started. Over time, however, they’ve apparently come to a mutual coexistence, and the killers no longer plan on murdering their neighbors.
At first, I was so turned off by the village, because it was so completely different from what I was expecting to see. But I began to wonder if it was maybe ok as a tourist attraction. On the upside, tourism does bring money to the villages, and the tourist cooperative that operates in the village was started by villagers on their own initiative, from what I understand. I was at first indignant that tourism is not “sustainable” – but then neither is development aid usually… Maybe an internal solution is better than an externally-imposed one.
However, I still object to the tourist aspect of the village because that is not the point of the project. This cannot be a model for other villages, because it isn’t widely replicable. The market for underdeveloped village attractions is not big enough to support every single village becoming one – and even if it was, we would still have Africa supported by rich Western tourists coming to look at the primitive beings. Somehow this does not seem to be the best solution. I’m also not entirely clear on why the UN should be pouring money into a tourist attraction…
Ultimately, I was just struck by the absurdity of us telling them how to live.
He was also good because there were some times where he made it clear that he didn’t really agree with the official line – for instance, when someone asked about the massive human rights abuses (some people suggest it may even have been genocide) conducted by government forces against Hutu interahamwe, FDLR rebels and civilians in the Democratic Republic of Congo. He said, “Well… I don’t know. The official line is that the refugees were told to come back. Some didn’t want to, so the RPF [Rwandan Patriotic Front, i.e. government forces] pursued them there. In the jungles of Congo, there was collateral damage, but many died of hunger and disease, not bullets. No one can say for sure who was killed by RPF.”
Naturally, he painted a glorious picture of Kagame’s government, as do most Rwandans I’ve spoken to. Personally, I’m still not really sure where I stand on the issue. On the one hand, I have so much respect and awe for the amazing recovery that Rwanda has made – Rwanda was a failed state after the genocide, everyone thought it would turn into another Somalia or something, because there was no law and order, no judiciary, no education system, no hospitals, and all the professionals had been killed or had fled. How do you even begin to think about recovering from that? And yet, fifteen years later, Kigali is immaculately clean, modern, and the country as a whole has been peaceful for I think about 6 years. So I have huge amounts of respect for that progress.
On the other hand, the evidence implicating the RPF in repression of freedom of speech and political opposition is very strong, and the Rwandan government doesn’t make much of an effort to hide it, instead excusing it as “necessary” to avoid ethnic divisionism and another genocide. I guess this gets to the heart of Plato’s Republic: is it better to have an authoritarian regime that does good for the people (as I genuinely believe the Rwandan government does) or a democratic regime elected by people who don’t know what’s best for them? But then who’s to say that the Rwandese people don’t know what’s best for them, and that we outsiders know any better? Maybe I’m wrong, but it seems to me that any argument that freedom of speech and political pluralism must be restricted for the good of the people hinges on the assumption that Rwandans are easily manipulated, obedient and docile people – who are either only supporting the RPF because they have been brainwashed, or who would quickly be led to support positions they do not believe in. I absolutely do not believe this to be the case, and in fact I think that restrictions on freedom of speech belittle the intelligence of the Rwandan people.
Plus, Kagame’s policies have generally been terrible for DRC, where most of Rwanda’s military problems have been exported to, exacerbating conflict in the region. That’s a whole separate issue.
Anyways, back to the presidential advisor. He talked a lot about development policy, to the point that the whole section on the government’s current and future goals was about development issues. Development has been very visible in Rwanda, and has contributed a lot to post-genocide recovery. Throughout the country, there’s a major emphasis on development – on TV, in public discourse, etc. I wonder in Rwanda is trying to focus on the problem of poverty to avoid thinking about other problems. Poverty is a “useful” issue in that it’s shared by both Hutu and Tutsi, creating a cross-cutting cleavage.
The policy that the lecturer described as Rwanda’s goals seemed to be taken directly from Jeffrey Sachs – I felt like I was taking notes for his class, “Challenges of Sustainable Development” again. The basic principle of Sachs’ argument (Daniel, you can check me on this) is that we need to give more aid to Africa to get it out of its current poverty trap, which is perpetuated by very high population growth (people have a lot of babies because they are a source of labor and there’s a high infant mortality rate, but then they can’t afford to feed and educate all of their children – something I saw a lot of in Gulu), and low levels of technology and human capital. The idea is that if Africans can spur economic growth through a sort of “Green Revolution,” improve access to healthcare and education, and decrease population growth, the third world will develop. Rwanda’s goals include increasing GDP and per capita income, decreasing population growth and density, and moving half the country’s subsistence farmers to paying jobs through mechanization and greater education.
Given that Sachs’ view of the world is currently informing the UN’s Millennium Development Goals, and is backed by several big name Western donors, articulating these particular policy goals seems like an ideal way to attract Western donors. Currently,
40% of Rwandan national budget is foreign aid, though the government is trying to reduce that amount. I wonder if governments/donors give Rwanda so much because of their guilt over doing absolutely nothing during the genocide? Is this also what allows the RF to get away with political repression, as scholars and NGOs like HRW argue? Or, do donors give a lot because Rwandan government is relatively responsible, if repressive?
These development theories also form the basis of the Millenium Village Project, which I learned about in Sachs’ class. (Actually here’s a cool link to a simulation of a village, in which you try to keep villagers alive and healthy, and avoid environmental degradation by allocating time and resources: link) So when our program director told us that we were going to go see the Millennium Village in Rwanda, I assumed that it would be sort of like the simulation – we would see the effects of upgrading technology, and learn about the challenges the village faces in terms of being sustainable. My understanding of the MV was that it acts as a test case to see if these policies can work, and that the UN hopes to see a ripple-effect to other villages in the area.
Then we got there, and discovered that it was just a tourist attraction. There was absolutely no information about the UN project or its goals/effects/etc. We met a farmer, who showed us how he farmed cassava and gave us a taste – but no sense of how his farming techniques have changed. We met women who did basketweaving and they let us do some, which was so cool (I love the basketweaving here!) but they were only there because we were there, and as soon as we left, they did too. It felt so staged, like it was just an opportunity for them to encourage us to buy their products. Finally we saw a “reconciliation village” – where genocidaires and genocide survivors were living together. There was a bunch of traditional dance, and then two people stood up to give speeches, but they felt so rehearsed [also I don’t like the way the genocidaire was a man and the victim was a woman]. The only really startling thing was that the “genocidaire” told us that when he and others like him came to the village, they assumed they would live with the victims for a short while and then finish the job they had started. Over time, however, they’ve apparently come to a mutual coexistence, and the killers no longer plan on murdering their neighbors.
At first, I was so turned off by the village, because it was so completely different from what I was expecting to see. But I began to wonder if it was maybe ok as a tourist attraction. On the upside, tourism does bring money to the villages, and the tourist cooperative that operates in the village was started by villagers on their own initiative, from what I understand. I was at first indignant that tourism is not “sustainable” – but then neither is development aid usually… Maybe an internal solution is better than an externally-imposed one.
However, I still object to the tourist aspect of the village because that is not the point of the project. This cannot be a model for other villages, because it isn’t widely replicable. The market for underdeveloped village attractions is not big enough to support every single village becoming one – and even if it was, we would still have Africa supported by rich Western tourists coming to look at the primitive beings. Somehow this does not seem to be the best solution. I’m also not entirely clear on why the UN should be pouring money into a tourist attraction…
Ultimately, I was just struck by the absurdity of us telling them how to live.
Overview
Ok, a substantial update about Rwanda is so ridiculously overdue that it would take me the next two weeks to write everything about my last couple of weeks in the country. A quick overview: after Kibuye, we had a week of classes and writing papers. The following weekend consisted of a “cultural exchange” with our host brothers and sisters (they showed us traditional dance, we gave a presentation on our states of origin, sang “Take me out to the ballgame” and some girls did a dance to Beyonce’s “single ladies” and then two girls showed off their hula-hooping skills), a party put on by the host brothers and sisters, a Halloween party at which my phone and $10 were stolen and after which I won $60 at the casino, and a trip to the gacaca courts. The last week was spent scrambling to finish papers on time and get everything together for the independent research project.
We were officially set free on Saturday, after a homestay party at which Beni ran around like the crazy child he was and was SO CUTE and I miss him SO MUCH!!! I had too much to do before I could go, and it’s impossible to get to or from the refugee camp on weekends anyways, so I stayed an extra two nights in Kigali with a few of the girls who are staying there for their ISPs (independent study project). It was absolutely lovely, and I’m definitely going to miss Rwanda! That said, I am sooooo excited for the refugee camp! We went back for the first time today, and I’ll write more about it later, but the point is, it’s going to be so amazing.
With that (very brief) overview out of the way, I figured I’d write a bit more about what I learned in Rwanda and sort of generally what I’m taking away from Rwanda. I was so fortunate here to have a family that I could really communicate with (in some ways it was much easier to communicate in French here than in English in Uganda, where even though we spoke the same language, there were so many barriers to understanding each other). My family in Rwanda was genuinely interested in life in the US, my opinion of Rwanda, and learning more about me. In Gulu, a lot of the time my homestay dad liked to tell me stuff about the US, with no interest in hearing a somewhat more informed opinion. My family here was so much more interested in learning about my real family and issues in the US – we would talk about some of the major problems and debates in Rwanda right now, and in exchange I could tell them a bit about race problems, or the self-perpetuating cycle of the wealth gap in the US. I really appreciated the fact that they were open to a dialogue, and I could share with them some of my experience.
The next couple of entries are going to be about major issues in Rwanda right now, to sort of wrap up what I got out of staying there. Sorry they’re going to be pretty boring and educational…
We were officially set free on Saturday, after a homestay party at which Beni ran around like the crazy child he was and was SO CUTE and I miss him SO MUCH!!! I had too much to do before I could go, and it’s impossible to get to or from the refugee camp on weekends anyways, so I stayed an extra two nights in Kigali with a few of the girls who are staying there for their ISPs (independent study project). It was absolutely lovely, and I’m definitely going to miss Rwanda! That said, I am sooooo excited for the refugee camp! We went back for the first time today, and I’ll write more about it later, but the point is, it’s going to be so amazing.
With that (very brief) overview out of the way, I figured I’d write a bit more about what I learned in Rwanda and sort of generally what I’m taking away from Rwanda. I was so fortunate here to have a family that I could really communicate with (in some ways it was much easier to communicate in French here than in English in Uganda, where even though we spoke the same language, there were so many barriers to understanding each other). My family in Rwanda was genuinely interested in life in the US, my opinion of Rwanda, and learning more about me. In Gulu, a lot of the time my homestay dad liked to tell me stuff about the US, with no interest in hearing a somewhat more informed opinion. My family here was so much more interested in learning about my real family and issues in the US – we would talk about some of the major problems and debates in Rwanda right now, and in exchange I could tell them a bit about race problems, or the self-perpetuating cycle of the wealth gap in the US. I really appreciated the fact that they were open to a dialogue, and I could share with them some of my experience.
The next couple of entries are going to be about major issues in Rwanda right now, to sort of wrap up what I got out of staying there. Sorry they’re going to be pretty boring and educational…
Tuesday, November 3, 2009
Rwanda pictures!
This is the center of town in Kigali:
This is a market near my neighborhood in Kigali:
They are really into American pop culture here:
Scenery at the Murambi genocide memorial:
Rwanda is also full of gory reminders of the genocide. Skulls at Murambi:
This is a market near my neighborhood in Kigali:
They are really into American pop culture here:
Scenery at the Murambi genocide memorial:
Rwanda is also full of gory reminders of the genocide. Skulls at Murambi:
Monday, November 2, 2009
More pictures!
Here are a bunch of old pictures from Uganda
This is Gulu:
This was at the IDP camp in Northern Uganda:
Typical road condition in Northern Uganda:
One of the classiest institutions of Gulu:
Muzungu café!
This is Gulu:
This was at the IDP camp in Northern Uganda:
Typical road condition in Northern Uganda:
One of the classiest institutions of Gulu:
Muzungu café!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
