Hello again. So in this whole business of being new to blogging I realize how quickly mistakes in note taking and drawing from multiple documents at once can turn into gross rewritings of history. Thanks to a poster named Olivier my attention was brought to a BIG mistake in my last post. The genocide in Burundi was not sparked by the massacre at Gatumba, which did not take place until August 13, of 2004 (a Friday, no less)... NOT 1972 as I'd mistakenly written. My mistake is from mixing up a reference made to a separate Hutu rebellion which did take place in 1972. There's no excuse for mixing up the dates, by any means, but I've learned that while terms like "massacre" and "rebellion" might connote relatively similar images their range of use can certainly describe different incidents that should not be confused as I did.
As reported here by the US Department of State the massacre at Gatumba was carried out by a number of people, some of whom had ties to the National Liberation Front of the Party for the Liberation of the Hutu People. A wealth of information on the massacre at Gatumba can be found by following this link which will take you to a website maintained by Human Rights Watch. Located in the summary of the article by HRW they report that 152 were killed and 106 wounded; most of those targeted were of Banyamulenge (a category within "Tutsi") descent from the DRC. Here I'd like to point out that in my previous post I mentioned 160 were killed while HRW counts 152 fatalities.
The first figure comes from an article in The Economist called "The 'Jews' of Africa" dated August 21, 2004. Since both sources are highly reputable I believe that there's ambiguity over the exact number. I'm reminded of words I heard from a professor who said something to this effect: " 'History' is merely a representation of events in the past, just as a map of a country is only a representation of the country and not the country itself." Whether it was 160 fatalities or 152 or any other number is only representative of one account of an event and tells you nothing of that event's historical significance. That any more blood was spilled in this long history of back-and-forth fighting between Hutu and Tutsi is what is historically significant.
The course of conflict between the Tutsi and the Hutu is one that is complicated because of it's nature as a vicious cycle of reciprocating violence. I mentioned that I like the fact that I get to learn while blogging about this particular subject just as the rest of the Board is learning about their topics. Clearly, there was more than one lesson to be learned here: one, that the chance to learn means nothing if you learn or report something incorrectly; and two, that in such a wonderfully open place as the Internet any mistakes I make are instantaneously submitted to scrutiny, and by extension, I myself am open to that same scrutiny. I thank the poster who rightfully noted my error and I hope that this post has cleared things up. Next time, we'll start all over, you and I, and begin to examine the early history of the conflict and from there make our way into the present to look at the lingering effects of Hutu-Tutsi conflict in Burundi.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Hi there - many thanks for covering the issue of the Gatumba massacre. The initial count from HRW was 152, but I've been told that this does not exclude those who died of their wounds in hospital after the attack. Hence one possible reason for the discrepancy in various reports. Some Banyamulenge campaigners have suggested that the true figure may be significantly higher even than the estimate of 160 that is sometimes quoted.
It's worth bearing in mind that the genocide of 1972, and the Gatumba massacre of 2004, though notable historically, were products of an endemic conflict that has its origins in the colonial era and continues to rumble on now. We can draw a connection between 1972 and Gatumba, in that the group that claimed responsibility for the attack, Palipehutu-FNL constantly cites the 1972 genocide as a key part of it's raison d'etre.
It's also worth bearing in mind the Itaba massacre of Hutus by the (then Tutsi-dominated) Burundian army, which took place in September 2002 and killed at least 173 people. (http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGAFR160052003?open&of=ENG-351). Palipehutu-FNL also attempted to use this as justification for their massacre at Gatumba.
Unfortunately, the killings and corruption in Burundi have continued, albeit at a lower level, even in the last year:
http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/richard_wilson/2006/12/little_truth_and_no_reconcilia.html
You're absolutely right about the legacies of colonialism having lasting effects into the future. One need only look to the situations in Rwanda and the Sudan for examples. In each country, colonial powers were in charge and once they lost interest or once it became politically unpopular to maintain their colonial possessions they withdrew leaving little to no infrastructure in their wake. As a result both countries have had deal with their own unique set of events stemming from what I believe to be the power vaccuum left once those colonial powers decided to leave.
I must admit I'm not familiar with the Itaba massacre but will definitely look into it. Howevever, I hope that in the process of learning about Burundi I will be able to find some more uplifting stories of life for its people; I hold out hope that I will. The continent of Africa is so rich in its collective cultural heritage and it is from this that I think the most beautiful expressions of our common humanity emerge. I hope that by the end I will have given a balanced look into Burundi: both its sorrows and its victories.
Post a Comment