1 ) Bystanders ( they neither killed nor tried saving those being hunted and didn ’ t resist the killings ; they were killed in crossfire of armed combatants )
2 ) The heroes and martyrs ( they opposed the genocide in words and in deeds and were killed by perpetrators ).
3 ) Perpetrators of the genocide ( targeted in revenge killings of some RPA elements )
None of these groups of Hutu civilians was targeted with the intent to eliminate the ethnic group they belong to . In fact , if that had happened , then the categorization would not be necessary since it would be redundant . In other words , although they were killed during the genocide , they didn ’ t die of genocide . Only those the perpetrators identified as ethnic Tutsi were targeted with the “ intent to destroy ” their ethnic group . Therefore , you cannot suggest that the “ others ” get recognized as a target of genocide without suggesting that there was more than one genocide .
Significantly , the position of the UK and the US that excluding “ others ” in the terminology of victims targeted for genocide would undermine reconciliation cannot stand close scrutiny . If by “ others ” the UK and US indeed refer to Hutus as a group , the unspoken assumption that the two governments are promoting is the idea that reconciliation has to take place between Hutus and Tutsis as groups , as if these groups were antagonistic . Moreover , if identity-based reconciliation ( grievances around race and racism ) in their own countries is possible to undertake as a nation rather than along racial lines , then it is also possible to reconcile as Rwandans rather than doing so along ethnic lines .
After all , Genocide ideology is ethnic supremacy the way racism is race supremacy . Both define peace in terms of subordination and threaten to uproot those who demand equality .
If the US and UK were to remain consistent and preach what they practice , then they ought to support reconciliation between perpetrators ( and their accomplices ) and the rest of society – the nation . The Manichean view that suggests
that reconciliation should be an issue between two ethnic groups is simplistic and dangerous . Indeed , such a simplistic framing suggests that Hutus would be collectively guilty of having committed genocide if the correct terminology “ genocide against the Tutsi ” were applied . Why the US and UK would entertain such beliefs is beyond reason . In fact , doing so is the standard denialist argument of genocidaires who seek to confound themselves with innocent Hutus in order to evade accountability .
The majority of Hutus – those the US and UK are debasing through this ridiculous objection on the terminology – know and admit that they should not be characterised as the victims of genocide in order to be considered innocent . Indeed , although they ( along with other Rwandans ) assume collective
20