Most Helpful Customer Reviews
|
|
4 of 4 people found the following review helpful:
4.0 out of 5 stars
Aprovocative but compelling analysis., 29 Mar 2003
Barrie Collins' booklet Obedience in Rwanda: a Critical Question is as provocative as it is compelling. Unlike so many writers on genocide in Rwanda, Collins rejects a moralistic approach that turns Rwanda into a crude good-versus-evil morality play.Collins's 'critical question' deals with the reason why so many ordinary Rwandans became involved in slaughtering their (mostly Tutsi) neighbours. He takes issue with those who reject the 'ancient tribal hatred' thesis in favour of a cultural explanation: that a peculiar Rwandan culture of deference and obedience to authority enabled ordinary people to become manipulated by extremist elements. By tapping into this 'culture', extremist propaganda allegedly succeeded in persuading the general Rwandan Hutu population to murder their Tutsi neighbours and relatives. In an elaboration of Collins' argument, Alexander Zahar supports his contention that this cultural explanation is simply an inflated variety of the discredited tribal explanation. In a review article for the Journal of Genocide Research (Volume 3, Number 2, June 2001) Zahar, formerly chiefassistant to Judge Mose at the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda,
demonstrates a considered sympathy with Collins. He states that Collins gives established writers on Rwanda " a jolly good shake-up", and concludes that "Collins' approach is not cynical; it is unsentimental. That is the correct approach to any historical subject, including, of course, genocide. It remains to be seen whether his pithy observations will hold up to scrutiny." I would urge readers to read Obedience in Rwanda for themselves, and then move on to Collins' more substantial piece, a chapter in the excellent new book edited by David Chandler, Rethinking Human Rights: Critical Approaches to International Politics. (Pelgrave Macmillan)
|
|
|
4 of 9 people found the following review helpful:
1.0 out of 5 stars
A revisionist view of the 1994 genocide, 8 Sep 1999
By A Customer
Any book (however short) which can discuss the events of 1994 in Rwanda without even using the word "genocide" (as far as I could recall) is treading on thin historical ice. If the author doesn't think that the appalling massacres of that year constitute a genocide he should argue his case, not avoid the issue by avoiding the word. In this short work Collins argues against the notion that Rwanda had an inherently obediant society and that, when extremist forces took control of the country in 1994, this obedience could be played upon to persuade ordinary people to kill their neighbours. It is a difficult notion to tackle and, because the notion of obedience IS received wisdom, it is also an issue that should be tackled. But Collins' style leads one to believe (I hope erroneously) that he doubts the genocide took place at all, and certainly not on the generally agreed scale. This is dangerous stuff because, deliberately or not, it plays into the hands of the apologists for the genocide who speak of "mutual massacres" as if the undeniable revenge killings by the Rwandan Patriotic Front can be compared to the attempted extermination of Tutsis which preceded them. It is a horrible to have to face this, but all the evidence points to the fact that a large proportion of the Rwandan population did, indeed, participate in the genocide of 1994 in one way or another and that they were usually forced or persuaded to do so by senior government officials, the radio, the army, the militias and local leaders (including some Church leaders). That is not pleasant and there is plenty of scope for research into its aspects, including the issue of "obedience". But dismissing the notion out of hand, and treating the genocide as part of a cycle of tit-for-tat killings, is not the right way to go about it. The 1994 genocide WAS qualitively different and to treat it as such is not to make saints of the RPF. If you do read this book it must be in tandem with another, such as Prunier's "The Rwanda Crisis", which gives you an idea of the intellectual mainstream of thinking on this awful issue.
|
|
|
|
