Remembering Rwandan Genocide: The Case of Collective Memory and Collective Amnesia

Submitted By

Submitted To
Rwandan Genocide in the Light of Collective Memory 2

Remembering Rwandan Genocide: The Case of Collective Memory and Collective

Amnesia

This essay will discuss the phenomenon of ‘collective memory’ in the context of

Rwandan Genocide that occurred in 1994. The essay will explore how Rwandans remember the

‘Cultural trauma’ of mass slaughter of Tutsi people and moderate Hutus and how the memory is

shaped by the present-day interests of Tutsi governments. In a way, the essay will highlight the

shaping and transmission of collective memory of Rwandan genocide and how it continues to

influence the cultural identity and power of the ethnic groups involved in the genocide to present

day. The essay will begin with a brief introductory section including essay aim and structure

leading to the section two elaborating main theoretical frameworks including ‘collective

memory’ and ‘cultural trauma’. In the third section, data collection methods will be discussed

before describing the context and facts about Rwandan Genocide. Next, the remembrance of

ethnic conflict will be discussed in the light of theoretical concepts laid out in section two.

As this essay analyzes the concepts of ‘collective memory’ and ‘cultural trauma’ in the

context of Rwandan Genocide, it is important to explain these concepts. . Remembering is an

activity which is distributed among people, spaces, things and time. Sociologists have argued

that memories are not only constructed individually but communities, groups and nations also

remember their past in a patterned way. Obviously, it is not a country that holds the memory but

people in it that have memories around common themes and important events (Brehm and Fox,

2017). This sociological phenomenon is often referred as collective memory. The term

‘collective memory’ is coined by Maurice Halbwachs in 1992 to define the shared, mutually

accepted and reinforced knowledge about the past events. Halbwachs (1992) emphasizes that

memories are not just about how individuals remember an event or past, but are socially
Rwandan Genocide in the Light of Collective Memory 3

constructed and transmitted according to the present-day interests. It means that the socially

constructed meanings of past shape how people understand and remember these events later.

Halbwachs (1992) identifies three main groups including 1) family 2) religious group 3) social

class whose collective memory can influence the individual memory across the remembrance of

past or specific event or norms and traditions. The collective memory is deeply embedded in

national identity and contrastively influences national identity (Smith, 1999). It highlights two-

way relationship between collective memory and national identity in which one influences the

other and vice versa.

The collective memories can take many forms depending on the nature of the event

(Halbwachs, 1992). One of the distinct forms of collective memory that will guide the theoretical

perspective of current essay is ‘Cultural Trauma’. Smelser (2004) defines cultural trauma as an

event “accepted and publicly given credence by a relevant membership group and evoke an event

or situation that is a) laden with negative affect, b) represented as indelible, and c) regarded as

threatening a society’s existence or violating one or more of its cultural presuppositions”. Even

though any event can be considered as cultural trauma from this definition, the ones that are

given the most importance are the mass atrocities.

A relevant concept of the collective memory and cultural trauma is the Bell’s ‘governing

national myth’. Bell (2003) contends that in the collective memory, the events are often narrated

in a simplified and selective way including the details that favors the national myths. Often

people with the institutional power have more control over shaping the cultural trauma and

related collective memory through social tools such as memorials and monuments, official

memory reflected through the speeches and educational syllabus, and implementing relevant

legislature (Brehm and Fox, 2017). On the other hand, people without power can also shape
Rwandan Genocide in the Light of Collective Memory 4

memories through organized efforts and building strong counter-narratives. If such efforts

succeed, the people without institutional representation can force people in power to accept the

counter-narratives and even adopt it as official memory.

Moving on to data collection section of the essay, this essay is mainly based on the

secondary data consisting of the books and journal articles on the subject. The case study of

Rwandan genocide is also studied from the reference of how newspaper and print media covered

the tragedy and its aftermath to date. Another important source that provides the details on the

tragedy and its remembrance is the memorial sites built across the country. There are many

memorial sites that have been constructed in different years after the genocide, but this essay

includes Murambi Genocide Memorial site, Kigali Memorial site and Nyamata memorial site to

examine the narratives and memories surrounding the 100-day mass killing.

Furthermore, there is distinction between autobiographical memory and collective

memory. So, the essay focused on the journal articles and books that provide an insight to the

collective remembrance of the tragedy based on the individual and groups’ accounts. I have

selected that the academic literature that highlights the collective memory instead of presenting

the ‘collected memories’ of individuals, victims, and survivors. To supplement the findings of

secondary sources, the memorial sites are included as the primary sources in this essay. An

important thing to note is that the memorial sites incorporated in the essay have temporal

significance as these are built across the time from being established right after the tragedy in

1995 to a decade later in 1994. It guides the essay about the social construction of the memory

over the time.

Rwandan Genocide is one of the two worst atrocities of twentieth century and bears

significant resemblance with Holocaust. In April 1994, the 100- day manslaughter began, killing

of almost 8, 00,000 Tutsi and moderate Hutu people and leaving almost two million people

homeless (BBC, 2019). Even though the genocide occurred in the last decade of 20 th century, the

ethnic tensions that led to the violence date back to the 19th century. In 1884, Rwanda was

assigned to Germany in the Berlin Conference and remained under the authority of Germany till

World War I. After Germany’s defeat, Belgium took control of the country and hence began the

ethnic discrimination. The 85% of country’s population was Hutu while Tutsi were a minority.

However, the Belgian colonists imposed policies that favored Tutsis and discriminated against

Hutus. It created an ethnic rift between the two groups and first wave of violence happened in

1959 in the form of Hutu emancipation. In the Hutu movement large-scale violence was incited

on Tutsi people, forcing them to flee the country. It further reduced the Tutsi population of the

country (Editors, 2009).

After gaining independence in 1962, the Rwandan governments continued to devise

policies that supported Hutu people and suppressed Tutsis. Apart from the official

discrimination, the ethnic stereotyping and dehumanization was prevalent at social level and was

specifically aimed at Tutsi women. In the popular media of the country, the rhetoric against

Tutsis persisted where they were shown as vulgar, inhuman objects (BBC, 2019). In 1990,

Rwandese Patriotic Front (RPF) consisting of Tutsi refugees attacked the country from Uganda.

The Hutu government blamed the Tutsi residents for being accomplice and arrested hundreds of

them. There were many episodes of violence against Tutsi, but there was a ceasefire and peace

negotiations between RPF and government in 1992 (Brehm and Fox, 2017).
Rwandan Genocide in the Light of Collective Memory 6

Furthermore, [Link]’s (2019) history section narrates that on April 6, 1994, a plane

carrying Juvenal Habyarimana, the president of the country and moderate Hutu was shot down,

killing him. Even though it is not conclusively drawn to date that who killed the president, the

military and state officials started blaming the RPF for the death of the president. Soon after the

plane crash, the Hutu militia and political leaders started inciting violence against Tutsis and

urged Hutus to take action against them. The Hutu militia and Hutu extremists barricaded roads

and set up road blocks and killed hundreds of Tutsis in first few hours of the plane crash. The

violence that began in the Capital city of Kigali soon spread all over the country and radio

particularly played an important role in spreading violence (Kellow and Steeves, 1998, Northam,

2014). The mass-slaughtering lasted for around 100 days till July, 1994 when RPF took over the

country. Apart from an extremely high number of deaths, more than 250, 000 people were raped

and even higher number of Tutsis and moderate Hutus had lost their homes and belongings. By

the end of the genocide, everything from people to roads and infrastructure were in shambles

(Kellow and Steeves, 1998).

More than 25 years have passed since the tragic event happened but Rwandans are

continuously commemorating and remembering the tragedy. Even though the country has made

significant progress and there have been substantial ethnic reconciliation, the tragedy remains

fresh in the minds of Rwandese both as a collective memory and as an individual memory (Aoki

and Jonas, 2016). Brehm and Fox (2017) highlight that there are two important aspects of the

memory surrounding the genocide including a collective amnesia about the roots of violence and

an over-emphasis on the official narrative of Rwandan Genocide.

The societies may forget or deny the knowledge that makes them uncomfortable making

it ‘knowingly not known’ (Cohen, 2002). Halbwachs (1992) also provide explanation of
Rwandan Genocide in the Light of Collective Memory 7

collective amnesia, “society tends to erase from its memory all that might separate individuals, or

that might distance groups from each other” (p. 183). Discussing the collective amnesia around

Rwandan genocide, many of the studies have noted that the Rwandans are usually reluctant in

providing historical explanations of the ethnic divide and often blame the more immediate causes

for the violence (Brehm and Fox, 2017). In one study conducted by Longman and Rutagengwa

in 2004, a decade after the genocide, the authors found that the participants across three

communities blamed political activity and political actors for the violence while forgetting the

individual atrocities. The study highlights that while Rwandans keenly remember the genocide

and its disturbing memories, they did not talk about the decades prior to genocide and ethnic

divide (Longman and Rutagengwa, 2004). In another study, Buckley-Zistel (2006) had the

similar findings. She concluded that Rwandans avoid talking about the roots of ethnic divide and

did not seem to recall the century old perpetuation of discrimination. Similarly, Buckley-Zistel

(2006) argues that Rwandans intentionally forget these details or leave them out from the

narratives of genocide. While the perpetrators of violence may have persuaded this forgetfulness,

the survivors also adopt collective amnesia to prevent closure and to avoid creating hard

boundaries in the after genocide Rwanda. It highlights that collective amnesia is a kind of

collective memory that acts as a collective coping mechanism for both perpetrators and survivors

(Buckley-Zistel, 2006b). The findings of these studies from early 2000s show that along with

remembering genocide in particular patterns, Rwandans may have chosen to forget certain

aspects of history and violence as part of collective memory. This selection of memories and

amnesia leads to the phenomenon ‘governing national myths’.

Rwandan government, like every government coping with a national tragedy, has played

an important role in the construction of collective memory. It has directly influenced the
Rwandan Genocide in the Light of Collective Memory 8

narratives of past including what happened and how it happened through official

commemoration, memorials, speeches, reconciliation efforts, altering ethnic discourse, and

implementing policies. Some of these efforts were done right after the genocide while the others

came later following the national interests. For example, an official commemoration was held in

April, 1995 to mark one year from the beginning of the genocide (Brehm and Fox, 2017). On the

contrary a constitutional amendment criminalizing the notion of ethnicity and use of ethnic

categories such as ‘Hutu’ and ‘Tutsi’ was implemented in 2003, almost a decade later. On the

same pattern, Murambi Genocide Memorial site and Nyamata memorial site were established in

1995 soon after the genocide while the Kigali Memorial site is inaugurated in 2004 at the

completion of a decade. The construction of narratives over the time indicates the temporal

nature of the collective memory. The collective memory is not formed right after the tragedy

neither it remains same. It evolves with the passage of time based on the national interests and

powerful discourse (Buckley-Zistel, 2006a). The ‘delay’ in the shaping of collective memory is

visible in the Murambi Genocide Memorial and Kigali memorial. While Murambi memorial

shows the preserved corpses and skulls of the victims of genocide as a strong reminder of the

violence within local context, the Kigali memorial is more organized with international

significance. According to Carroll (2006), the Kigali memorial site consists of three permanent

exhibitions. The exhibits include skulls and belongings of victims but also include audiovisual

experiences of survivors. The Kigali museum displays Rwandan genocide at an international

level, comparing and contrasting it with other international tragedies such as holocaust.

The timeline of these official memories show that the Rwandan government has

intensified its efforts in constructing collective memory in the 21st century (Brehm and Fox,

2017). One of the distinct features of these official narratives of past is that these are selective in
Rwandan Genocide in the Light of Collective Memory 9

remembering and often omit the ethnic divide that existed in pre-colonial Rwanda. The official

discourse emphasizes that there was peace among Hutu and Tutsi before colonization and puts

the blame of the genocide on colonial hegemony. Nonetheless, Kosicki (2007) argues that there

are counter-narratives from civilians and survivors of the genocide. The survivors have tried to

influence the collective memory and memorization of the past through forming support groups

and organizations. Some of these efforts also reflect in media and imagery of genocide.

However, these narratives from the individuals and survivors are often silenced by more

organized, powerful, and hegemonic state memory (King, 2010).

To conclude, the theoretical lens of Collective Memory has facilitated the understanding

of the narratives surrounding Rwandan Genocide. Even though, there are individual and

autobiographical memories of the tragedy, the Rwandese remember the incident in a similar way

reinforced by the official memory. While some of the events leading up to the genocide are

particularly emphasized in the commemoration, there has been an intentional forgetfulness about

the ethnic divide that existed for years prior to it. So, the government-led efforts and

commemoration in line with the national interests have shaped the collective memory of the

cultural trauma.
Rwandan Genocide in the Light of Collective Memory 10

References

AOKI, E. & JONAS, K. M. 2016. Collective memory and sacred space in post-genocide

Rwanda: Reconciliation and rehumanization processes in Mureithi’s ICYIZERE. Journal

of International and Intercultural Communication, 9, 240-258.

BBC. 2019. Rwanda genocide: 100 days of slaughter [Online]. Available:

[Link] [Accessed Nov 19 2019].

BELL, D. S. 2003. Mythscapes: memory, mythology, and national identity. The British journal

of sociology, 54, 63-81.

BREHM, H. N. & FOX, N. Narrating genocide: time, memory, and blame. Sociological Forum,

2017. 116-137.

BUCKLEY-ZISTEL, S. 2006a. Dividing and uniting: The use of citizenship discourses in

conflict and reconciliation in Rwanda. Global Society, 20, 101-113.

BUCKLEY-ZISTEL, S. 2006b. Remembering to forget: Chosen amnesia as a strategy for local

coexistence in post-genocide Rwanda. Africa, 76, 131-150.

CARROLL, R. 2004. In memory of murder. The Guardian

COHEN, S. 2002. States of Denial: Knowing about Atrocities and Suffering, 2001. Cambridge:

Polity.

EDITORS. 2009. Rwandan Genocide [Online]. Available:

[Link] [Accessed Nov 20

2019].

HALBWACHS, M. 1992. On collective memory, University of Chicago Press.

KELLOW, C. L. & STEEVES, H. L. 1998. The role of radio in the Rwandan genocide. Journal

of communication, 48, 107-128.

KING, E. 2010. Memory controversies in post-genocide Rwanda: Implications for

peacebuilding. Genocide Studies and Prevention, 5, 293-309.

KOSICKI, P. H. 2007. Sites of aggressor-victim memory: The Rwandan genocide, theory and

practice. International Journal of Sociology, 37, 10-29.

LONGMAN, T. & RUTAGENGWA, T. 2004. Memory, identity, and community in Rwanda.

NORTHAM, J. 2014. A Reporter Reflects On Rwanda: 'It's Like A Madness Took Over'. npr,

April 10.

SMELSER, N. J. 2004. Psychological trauma and cultural trauma. In: ALEXANDER, J. C.,

EYERMAN, R., GIESEN, B. & SMELSER, N. J. (eds.) Cultural trauma and collective

identity. Berkeley University of California Press.

SMITH, A. D. 1999. Myths and Memories of the Nation, Oxford University Press Oxford.