4 ms·

Call to genocide: radio in Rwanda

10 points by b-man 17y ago

kierank 17y ago
What is more dangerous in my opinion is the use of the internet for spreading mistruths that could lead to terrible consequences. On a much lower level you see countless facebook groups protesting against things which are untrue as well as false rumours perpetuating on twitter and other social networking sites with no level of moderation. Virtually all of this has been relatively benign so far but this could quite easily go the other way. However, the internet does have the advantage that people generally take it with a "pinch of salt". Nevertheless Voltaire's quote could still ring true one day: Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.
- tome 17y ago
  I don't doubt what you're saying at all, but do you have any specific examples in mind? I'd be interested to see.
  - kierank 17y ago
    There was a Facebook campaign about a year ago saying that the British Government was going to use taxpayers money to build a £100 million super-mosque in London. If I remember rightly the mayor's office had to publically come out and say that no taxpayer money was being used after the Facebook group had many hundreds of thousands of members. In this case the harm was pretty minimal but in a climate that was more turbulent the wrong message on "real-time" social media could cause a dangerous situation.
- schacon 17y ago
  I think the major and very important difference is that the internet is basically totally free. For every Facebook group spewing some idiotic nazi crap there are three condemning it. If you let anyone stand on their little soapbox and say anything, then sure - people already inclined to thinking that way will stay and listen but everyone else will walk by. If, however, it's the only person speaking and you're forced to hear it, then that's different. In Rwanda there was essentially one radio station, completely controlled by the genocidares, spewing the sort of hate mongering that makes Sean Hannity look like Sesame Street. It helped them fan the flames and importantly, it helped them coordinate efficiently. It's not necessarily why there was a genocide there, but it's largely why it was so completely effective. It's also worth noting that this was 15 years ago - Rwanda is an amazing place to visit now. It is safe and beautiful there is some fantastic eco-tourism. If you ever have the opportunity, go gorilla trekking there, it's unbelievable.
patio11 17y ago
This is one of the canonical "technology is not always a positive" stories. (I know, radios don't kill people, people kill people, but radios make people damn more efficient at killing people.)
- cwan 17y ago
  Not sure I agree with that - certainly, radio became a catalyst to incite violence, but the problem wasn't radio, but that there weren't enough radio voices. Media was primarily state controlled as the article points out and Tutsis were used as scape goats for all manner of problems at the time. The problem in believing that it's 'technology can be a negative' in this case is that the solution for some people would be to ration and control what technology gets distributed which perversely is the reasoning for the government run media and lack of competition ('the news is too important to let private enterprise bias the public'). Finally, while I can accept that radio was a catalyst, the groundwork for the genocide was laid long in advance and facilitated by France (http://www.worldpoliticsreview.com/article.aspx?id=1940 http://www.worldpoliticsreview.com/article.aspx?id=1940) in the last couple decades. The silly conspiracy theories the US gets frequently accused of, France actually did in Rwanda (and continues to attempt to do in many former colonies with their foreign policy based more on mercantilism than trade - only the most recent example being Cote D'Ivoire). What is most troubling about Rwanda is how (at least until Sarkozy was elected), France defends its role and also members of the government that initiated this genocide at the UN. It's little wonder then when I visited Rwanda (possibly one of the biggest emotional experiences of my life was after hearing the director of a orphanage speak in graphic detail of some of the horrifying massacres and killings that took place), that everyone seemed to want to learn English.
  - cynicalkane 17y ago
    [citation needed] The article you linked claims that Hutu and Tsuti are little more than social constructs. There's a certain class of Marxist-influenced academics who like to blame everything on social constructs and ruling classes. However, the Wikipedia page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origins_of_Tutsi_and_Hutu http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origins_of_Tutsi_and_Hutu , though it discusses the Western influence on conceptions of race in Rwanda, presents arguments that Hutus and Tutsis are of different genotypes. In short, it takes more than the hearsay of this French guy I haven't heard of to convince me that an ongoing French "conspiracy" (which the article you linked made no mention of, by the way) is responsible for turmoil in several parts of Africa. As if there wouldn't be any violence in those places if those meddling French would just stop conspiring. Please post something to support you view, if you have anything.
furyg3 17y ago
Nowadays it's being used for good there, as well: http://www.labenevolencija.org/en/current-activities/great-lakes-reconciliation-radio/projects/rwanda/programs-activities/soap.html http://www.labenevolencija.org/en/current-activities/great-l... A friend of mine is doing some research with them, and I've had the pleasure of meeting several people involved with the organization here in Holland. They use a dramatic soap-opera format to follow the lives of some characters during a horrible series of events, their experiences, conflicts, etc. Something like 90% of radio-owners in Rwanda listens to the program regularly. The goal is to teach how cycles of violence can be cut short, to lend a platform so that people can think about and discuss their experiences, and to help give tools to individuals to help deal with the psychological trauma that nearly everyone there shares.
sosha 17y ago
The sad thing is, 16 years after the Rwandan genocide, most of the countries in Eastern and Central Africa are unstable and deeply divided between tribal lines and are fast heading towards becoming failed states. Kenya is a good example; after the 2007 General elections burst into chaos fueled by Private Ethnic Radio stations and SMS messages. If nothing is going to be done soon, either Kenya, Ethiopia, Sudan and Uganda or DRC will fall into genocide preetty soon. My bet is on Kenya during the 2012 General Elections. The radio stations there are starting to sound as Radio Rwanda. The first thing someone asks you is your tribe! Sanctions need to be imposed on the leaders of this countries or else the Rwandan genocide will look like a Christmas party.
RiderOfGiraffes 17y ago
While I not only concede but actively promote this to be an important issue, I nonetheless question that it belongs on HN. It's not something that, in the words of the guidelines, gratifies my intellectual curiosity. The problem is, for technical people who are in a community whose members they respect, where else can they go to discuss things like this?
- deleted 17y ago
  [deleted]
- b-man 17y ago
  The use of social media (as in local and national radio with social participation) and radio as triggers and facilitators for deep cultural and social changes does gratify my intellectual curiosity, that's why I posted it. It's not just a political thing, this genocide was shaped by the use of current technology, and it is a hint of what could be coming in the future in my opinion.

10 points by b-man 17y ago

What is more dangerous in my opinion is the use of the internet for spreading mistruths that could lead to terrible consequences. On a much lower level you see countless facebook groups protesting against things which are untrue as well as false rumours perpetuating on twitter and other social networking sites with no level of moderation. Virtually all of this has been relatively benign so far but this could quite easily go the other way. However, the internet does have the advantage that people generally take it with a "pinch of salt". Nevertheless Voltaire's quote could still ring true one day: Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.

tome 17y ago
I don't doubt what you're saying at all, but do you have any specific examples in mind? I'd be interested to see.
- kierank 17y ago
  There was a Facebook campaign about a year ago saying that the British Government was going to use taxpayers money to build a £100 million super-mosque in London. If I remember rightly the mayor's office had to publically come out and say that no taxpayer money was being used after the Facebook group had many hundreds of thousands of members. In this case the harm was pretty minimal but in a climate that was more turbulent the wrong message on "real-time" social media could cause a dangerous situation.
schacon 17y ago
I think the major and very important difference is that the internet is basically totally free. For every Facebook group spewing some idiotic nazi crap there are three condemning it. If you let anyone stand on their little soapbox and say anything, then sure - people already inclined to thinking that way will stay and listen but everyone else will walk by. If, however, it's the only person speaking and you're forced to hear it, then that's different. In Rwanda there was essentially one radio station, completely controlled by the genocidares, spewing the sort of hate mongering that makes Sean Hannity look like Sesame Street. It helped them fan the flames and importantly, it helped them coordinate efficiently. It's not necessarily why there was a genocide there, but it's largely why it was so completely effective. It's also worth noting that this was 15 years ago - Rwanda is an amazing place to visit now. It is safe and beautiful there is some fantastic eco-tourism. If you ever have the opportunity, go gorilla trekking there, it's unbelievable.

patio11 17y ago

This is one of the canonical "technology is not always a positive" stories. (I know, radios don't kill people, people kill people, but radios make people damn more efficient at killing people.)

cwan 17y ago
Not sure I agree with that - certainly, radio became a catalyst to incite violence, but the problem wasn't radio, but that there weren't enough radio voices. Media was primarily state controlled as the article points out and Tutsis were used as scape goats for all manner of problems at the time. The problem in believing that it's 'technology can be a negative' in this case is that the solution for some people would be to ration and control what technology gets distributed which perversely is the reasoning for the government run media and lack of competition ('the news is too important to let private enterprise bias the public'). Finally, while I can accept that radio was a catalyst, the groundwork for the genocide was laid long in advance and facilitated by France (http://www.worldpoliticsreview.com/article.aspx?id=1940 http://www.worldpoliticsreview.com/article.aspx?id=1940) in the last couple decades. The silly conspiracy theories the US gets frequently accused of, France actually did in Rwanda (and continues to attempt to do in many former colonies with their foreign policy based more on mercantilism than trade - only the most recent example being Cote D'Ivoire). What is most troubling about Rwanda is how (at least until Sarkozy was elected), France defends its role and also members of the government that initiated this genocide at the UN. It's little wonder then when I visited Rwanda (possibly one of the biggest emotional experiences of my life was after hearing the director of a orphanage speak in graphic detail of some of the horrifying massacres and killings that took place), that everyone seemed to want to learn English.
- cynicalkane 17y ago
  [citation needed] The article you linked claims that Hutu and Tsuti are little more than social constructs. There's a certain class of Marxist-influenced academics who like to blame everything on social constructs and ruling classes. However, the Wikipedia page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origins_of_Tutsi_and_Hutu http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origins_of_Tutsi_and_Hutu , though it discusses the Western influence on conceptions of race in Rwanda, presents arguments that Hutus and Tutsis are of different genotypes. In short, it takes more than the hearsay of this French guy I haven't heard of to convince me that an ongoing French "conspiracy" (which the article you linked made no mention of, by the way) is responsible for turmoil in several parts of Africa. As if there wouldn't be any violence in those places if those meddling French would just stop conspiring. Please post something to support you view, if you have anything.

furyg3 17y ago

Nowadays it's being used for good there, as well: http://www.labenevolencija.org/en/current-activities/great-lakes-reconciliation-radio/projects/rwanda/programs-activities/soap.html http://www.labenevolencija.org/en/current-activities/great-l... A friend of mine is doing some research with them, and I've had the pleasure of meeting several people involved with the organization here in Holland. They use a dramatic soap-opera format to follow the lives of some characters during a horrible series of events, their experiences, conflicts, etc. Something like 90% of radio-owners in Rwanda listens to the program regularly. The goal is to teach how cycles of violence can be cut short, to lend a platform so that people can think about and discuss their experiences, and to help give tools to individuals to help deal with the psychological trauma that nearly everyone there shares.

sosha 17y ago

The sad thing is, 16 years after the Rwandan genocide, most of the countries in Eastern and Central Africa are unstable and deeply divided between tribal lines and are fast heading towards becoming failed states. Kenya is a good example; after the 2007 General elections burst into chaos fueled by Private Ethnic Radio stations and SMS messages. If nothing is going to be done soon, either Kenya, Ethiopia, Sudan and Uganda or DRC will fall into genocide preetty soon. My bet is on Kenya during the 2012 General Elections. The radio stations there are starting to sound as Radio Rwanda. The first thing someone asks you is your tribe! Sanctions need to be imposed on the leaders of this countries or else the Rwandan genocide will look like a Christmas party.

RiderOfGiraffes 17y ago

While I not only concede but actively promote this to be an important issue, I nonetheless question that it belongs on HN. It's not something that, in the words of the guidelines, gratifies my intellectual curiosity. The problem is, for technical people who are in a community whose members they respect, where else can they go to discuss things like this?

deleted 17y ago
[deleted]
b-man 17y ago
The use of social media (as in local and national radio with social participation) and radio as triggers and facilitators for deep cultural and social changes does gratify my intellectual curiosity, that's why I posted it. It's not just a political thing, this genocide was shaped by the use of current technology, and it is a hint of what could be coming in the future in my opinion.