Being Rwandan: The Use of Language, History, and Identity in Post-Genocide Rwanda

Abstract

Once a conflict has ended, it is the responsibility of the conquerors to write the historical narrative. The purpose of the narrative will either be to further divide the warring parties or to bring reconciliation. At the base of these historical narratives are the social representations—the communally held beliefs—that the rulers wish to promote within society. As Jahoda states, “the purpose of social representations is to make the unfamiliar, familiar” (1988, p. 201). By modifying and promoting specific representations, the leaders are able to modify and promote the desired history. A clear example of this is Rwanda. Starting during the colonial period, the Belgians combined existing narratives with their Hamitic myth to validate their rule through the Tutsi minority. In postcolonial Rwanda, the Hutu used their version of this historical narrative, with the emphasis put on conflicting representations, to justify their dominance over the Tutsi and the resulting violence. References to these narratives were used during the 1994 genocide to promote this violence on a level never before seen in the country. It was easier to commit these acts when they were seen as extensions of what had happened in the past. The Hutu were encouraged to eliminate the “foreigners” before they took over the country, as they had done so many times before. Just as the former government used history to encourage conflict, the current Rwandan government is using its version of events to encourage reconciliation. After generations of division within the country, the Rwandan Patriotic Front (RPF) has overtly modified its historical narratives to promote social representations of peace. The elites within a society have a large say in which social representations will be most prevalent, and so the RPF is able to allow only its historical narratives into the public discourse. Any mention of the narrative that Hutu and Tutsi had different origins or were naturally divided is prohibited. However, erasing the older versions from the collective memory and personal identity is a much more difficult task. So far, they have been unable to completely eliminate the conflicting narratives from Rwandans’ private discourse and as long as divided representations remain in Rwanda, the potential for future violence remains.