Rwanda ’ s leaders accused its children of smelling like goats ; it is Rwanda ’ s original sin
Lonzen Rugira
When a Hyena wants to eat its children , it first accuses them of smelling like goats ,” so goes an oft-repeated proverb . This analogy is reflected in the early stages of genocide , when there is a gradual process of withdrawing the humanity of the targeted group . This process strips society of the capacity to empathise with the persecuted who are scapegoated for all sorts of shortcomings . The society is assured that a permanent , final solution , one that is readily available , will be administered to solve the problem once and for all . This is a warning to the targeted group , as a result of which it is compelled to do everything possible to delay or prevent the inevitable . But how does society get to this point , where a group is held hostage , literally accused of smelling like goats , while the rest are content to seek assurance in their demise ?
What is clear is that a state that accuses a section of its population of smelling like goats has an amoral aim for power . This is the original sin in Rwanda ’ s society , and also the raison d ’ etre of the genocidal state . Genocide is the outcome of failure to transform the state from amoral aims of divide and conquer to those of indivisible citizenship and governance .
By definition the colonial state had an amoral raison d ’ etre in its conquered territories despite its claims to being a civilizing force . In the pursuit of what was supposedly its civilising mission , it transformed the conquered societies with the aim of emasculating the people . Preventing united resistance to alien rule was its constant preoccupation .
In Ethnicity and Nationalism in Africa , Paris Yeros , using the case of the Ndebele and the Shona , demonstrates that where colonialism found cooperation among the indigenous communities , it turned it into competition . The objective was to transform society from winsome to zero-some interactions . Ethnic groups were essential in the execution of this policy as they were pitted against each other to prevent them from achieving the kind of cooperation that would threaten colonial interests . Unity was only acceptable if it promoted alien interests . Side by side were a kingdom resisting and another collaborating with colonial rule . For this reason , as a means of leveling the playing field , colonial regimes created kingdoms where none existed and even promoted chiefs to kings where it was deemed necessary . Mahmood Mamdani writes about this phenomenon in Understanding the Crisis in Kivu , for instance . In some instances , ethnic groups and “ native authorities ” were artificially created . In other words , some “ traditional authorities ” in existence today are a colonial invention . The point here is not to reject Benedict Anderson ’ s thesis that ethnic groups are imagined communities . Rather , it is to underscore that while such communities emerge in search of collective protection and security , those that emerged under colonial rule had objectives that were diametrically opposed ; they were conceived with the objective of destroying collective security . It is this amoral origin that set the stage for conflict , violence , and ultimately genocide in the case of Rwanda .
By creating ethnicity , colonialists were applying what sociologists have long observed . Human beings have a primordial , instinctive , urge for belonging . This desire for belonging is especially needed whenever there is a feeling of insecurity . Naturally , the sense of vulnerability that came with colonial suppression predisposed the colonized towards a greater need for belonging . Colonialists “ told Africans that they belonged to ethnic groups and Africans created ethnic groups to belong to ,” as one scholar put it . It appears this is what happened in Rwanda .
12