A Discussion with Dr. Jean-Damascene Gasanabo, Director General of the National Research and Documentation Centre on Genocide, National Commission for the Fight against the Genocide, Kigali, Rwanda
With: Jean-Damascene Gasanabo Berkley Center Profile
June 24, 2016
Background: As part of the Education and Social Justice Fellowship Project, undergraduate student Mariam Diefallah interviewed Dr. Jean-Damascene Gasanabo, director general of the National Research and Documentation Centre on Genocide at Rwanda's National Commission for the Fight against the Genocide. In the interview, conducted in June 2016, Gasanabo discusses the importance of education and remembrance and explores the challenges facing Rwandan youth.
During the conference you mentioned that teaching about the genocide is important to pay respect to the victims, for remembrance and for prevention. Can you please elaborate more on the role of education and remembrance in reconciliation?
I think everybody, all Rwandans, somehow have a relation to the genocide—the victims, the perpetrators, and the bystanders—so no one can say that he has nothing to do with the genocide. By remembering, and by having to remember, I think this contribute to fighting against genocide ideology, and at the same time helps with the unity. We are all Rwandans: we share the same language, the same culture, the same religion before colonial times. We share everything, and we need for everyone to be united at schools, at the workplace, in the markets, and at the churches. For the genocide, we also share its history together. Since we share that bad history together, I think we should share also the ways to overcome it, and to me, reconciliation and commemoration consider one of the ways to face the bad past, and also to go towards building a better future.
Some people use the term "Rwandan Genocide," while others use "Genocide against the Tutsis." Which one do you personally use and which one would you say is better for reconciliation purposes?
The genocide happened in Rwanda, but there was a group of Rwandans who perpetrated the genocide, and another group of Rwandans who were the victims. Now, perpetrators and victims. When you talk about a genocide, you have first to understand the concept itself, because we are not talking about a civil war, which is very different from a genocide. If we go back to the concept of genocide, if we go back to Raphael Lemkin’s definition, you will find that in a genocide, there has to be an intention to kill and exterminate the targeted group. In Rwanda, who was targeted and who was targeting and committing the genocide? You have to understand that first. What happened in Rwanda was a genocide because there was an intention to exterminate a specific part of the total population. That also falls under the definition of the United Nations and the Security Council. Now, since what happened was a genocide that was recognized by the United Nations, the Security Council, and other expertees, we have to accept and use the concept as it is.
Now, you can understand that there was an intention to kill the Tutsis, by whom? By the Hutus. I am not saying that all Hutus participated in the killings, just like in Germany as not all Germans participated in the killings during the Holocaust. This is why you cannot say it was a Rwandan Genocide because if you use that term, you are bringing confusion. In Europe, you do not say what happened was a German Genocide, or a European Genocide, you have to explain that the Jews were killed in Germany and other countries. You have to say that the targeted population was the Jews. It is the exact same thing: the targeted group in Rwanda was the Tutsis. In Europe, they found another name, the Holocaust, but in our language, we do not have a word for genocide that we can use in Kinyarwanda to refer to the genocide. In fact, in Kinyarwanda, we did not have a word to refer to this kind of crimes before 1994. After the independence in 1963, the killings at the time were also qualified as genocides, but it was not yet defined as one in Kinyarwanda as we did not have the word in our literature or anything else. We did not have a word that described the meaning of a genocide, or its impact. So, after 1994, it was accepted as a genocide, especially after the UN accepted and recognized it as one. This is why we have to say it as it is. It was a Genocide against the Tutsis that happened in Rwanda.
Do you think there is a conflict between commemoration and historical facts?
I think we have to understand what is a memory and what is history. To me, a memory, I can remember what happened today, yesterday or two years ago. But facts, they are different. If you were not there, you cannot remember the incident. I cannot say I remember something that happened in the sixteenth century, because that is something I can understand from reading the history. So the memory to me is something I remember, memory is selective as well. History is a science based on facts, which makes it different. Anyone can have a memory; it is normal. I have memories of what happened in 1994, of what I saw yesterday, the people I met today. I have memories of those things. But I cannot say that those things represent the history. Something becomes a historical event after being analyzed by historians and after being decided that it is a historical event based on historical facts.
I have a question regarding memorial sites. For future generations who will not have memories of the genocide, will genocide sites be traumatizing for them, as they will be, in a way, seeing and living others’ personal memories?
You know trauma is tricky. Can you say that the young Jews who were born in 2000s have trauma from what their grandparents have suffered from? I do not know. Your question is whether in 20 years to come, will future generations have trauma from the sufferings of their grandparents?
I am asking specifically about the role of the genocide sites, especially for future generations.
The memorial sites to me are very important. Because if we do not have a memorial site, someone could come and ask where is the proof? He or she can deny the genocide. If you come for the first time to Kigali, and you are staying only in the city without visiting any memorial sites, would you know that there was a genocide that happened here?
No, I would not.
You see? You will only see how green and clean the place is, you will see the beautiful building, smart people. But you will not be able to tell that only 22 years ago, there was a genocide here. It is only when you go visit a memorial site, or when you meet people, then you will know that a genocide happened here. So, we need memorial sites as testimonies of the genocide. To tell people and show them our history.
I would like to focus on the role of education. You have mentioned during the conference that there have been many changes in the curriculum. Can you please elaborate on that in terms of the impact and assessment of those changes?
First of all, changes especially in education are not easy to make. Here, we have to understand the context of our history. We had the genocide in 1994, and the first changes were made in 1996. During that period, people were not ready to talk about the genocide and to understand its impact. That is why the reform of 1996 was not enough; it was not done well. Kids at schools did not have enough information that they absolutely needed. That is why we had other changes in 2008, 2010, and in 2016. There was not enough research done at the beginning. Another issue was which material to choose and use in the curriculum. I think the last change in 2016 was a result of five or six years of research and hard work. The government and people took time to think this time to come up with something strong and relevant to our people.
Regarding the impact, it is very difficult to know the impact when it comes to human beings. Because I might be teaching about peace, but we know that things are always complex. Teaching about peace and dialogue and genocide studies is important, but you do not know for sure if students will take those values with them and think about. I cannot tell you for sure that we can stop people from having misconducts. This is something individual at the end of the day. But by teaching students about those things, they will at least get to know about the past, which has to be complemented by critical thinking.
We emphasize a lot on critical thinking. How do you train students to think? How to encourage them to make choices and be responsible? I think this is very important because everyone has to make choices, and no one will make choices for you or me. So at least, what students have been learning at school can help them and guide them in making good choices.
You know, people who planned for the genocide were educated, Hitler was educated, so values are important, and personal decisions are important. People sometimes fight things that are easy targets; they fight easy things, because it is easy to kill and destroy. So during the genocide, you had the educated architects who would encourage the uneducated to kill, to take their machetes and kill others because they will be able to take their possessions—their cars and lands. So people followed without thinking, just like when we ask people in modern societies to kill their enemies, to destroy and strike whoever is against them without thinking.
Do you think people can learn very contradicting values at homes from what they have learnt at schools?
At schools you do not teach kids to kill, but at home parents and relatives can talk about hate. Hate speech can cause killing because hate speech is dehumanizing the other. By discriminating against others, this becomes the beginning; you have killings later as a result of hatred. You start with hate—you start when you tell someone not to collaborate with someone else, not to go out with them or talk to them. So, at home, the families and relatives can use a discourse and discussions that include the dividing names of Hutus and Tutsis. It is very important because it has a huge impact on the kids. Kids will believe their families, not some strangers they just met at school. But when you have an inclusive education system, the kid will be able to think, they will know that what the teacher said at the school is very different from what their families are saying.
Can that cycle be escaped? Can you change the impact of hate speech at homes?
No, in fact the parents have to be trained. But how? This is the government’s role. The government has to educate people, through media for example. National programs are important. Also, how justice is achieved and made in the country is important, because if you have injustice and impunity in your system, you will be creating hate and divisions. There has to be justice in education, justice in health, and justice in economy. Justice is very important because when people see that their community has justice, they will respect others, because the society as a whole will be avoiding inequality and as a result will be avoiding divisions.
My final question is how do you see the future of Rwanda?
I think before I see the future, I have to see the past. How I see the past and how I see where I am today make me able to anticipate the future. When I see where Rwanda was 22 years ago in 1994, and when I see where we are now, I can hope that the future will be better. It will be better because there are policies of reconciliation and bringing people together. We are focusing on being Rwandans, not Hutus or Tutsis. We share the land, the culture, and the language. If you go to a traditional wedding, you will see that the ceremonies, the speeches, and how we dress is the same. If you go to a funeral, you will see that the way people bury their loved ones is the same. That is why, by focusing on the Rwandan identity, we will build our nation and our country. That is why, because I know these are the policies of this country, I am hopeful.
Rwanda is united and is not only welcoming to Rwandans, but to foreigners as well. Making a country where anyone can live and work peacefully is important to show that Rwandans can also live in other places. These policies are opening our eyes and that is why, for me, future will be much better because I can see sharing, development, and hardworking. When you bring more facilities, you will be bringing peace and will be building your nation.
Is there anything else you would like to add?
I think people should come and visit Rwanda, instead of staying where they are and reading and writing about Rwanda. I think it is important, just like you—this was your first time here, you came and saw the memorial sites, you saw what happened. If you stayed in Qatar, you would have missed a lot. People should come here, stay and visit different places and then, they will understand.
I think everybody, all Rwandans, somehow have a relation to the genocide—the victims, the perpetrators, and the bystanders—so no one can say that he has nothing to do with the genocide. By remembering, and by having to remember, I think this contribute to fighting against genocide ideology, and at the same time helps with the unity. We are all Rwandans: we share the same language, the same culture, the same religion before colonial times. We share everything, and we need for everyone to be united at schools, at the workplace, in the markets, and at the churches. For the genocide, we also share its history together. Since we share that bad history together, I think we should share also the ways to overcome it, and to me, reconciliation and commemoration consider one of the ways to face the bad past, and also to go towards building a better future.
Some people use the term "Rwandan Genocide," while others use "Genocide against the Tutsis." Which one do you personally use and which one would you say is better for reconciliation purposes?
The genocide happened in Rwanda, but there was a group of Rwandans who perpetrated the genocide, and another group of Rwandans who were the victims. Now, perpetrators and victims. When you talk about a genocide, you have first to understand the concept itself, because we are not talking about a civil war, which is very different from a genocide. If we go back to the concept of genocide, if we go back to Raphael Lemkin’s definition, you will find that in a genocide, there has to be an intention to kill and exterminate the targeted group. In Rwanda, who was targeted and who was targeting and committing the genocide? You have to understand that first. What happened in Rwanda was a genocide because there was an intention to exterminate a specific part of the total population. That also falls under the definition of the United Nations and the Security Council. Now, since what happened was a genocide that was recognized by the United Nations, the Security Council, and other expertees, we have to accept and use the concept as it is.
Now, you can understand that there was an intention to kill the Tutsis, by whom? By the Hutus. I am not saying that all Hutus participated in the killings, just like in Germany as not all Germans participated in the killings during the Holocaust. This is why you cannot say it was a Rwandan Genocide because if you use that term, you are bringing confusion. In Europe, you do not say what happened was a German Genocide, or a European Genocide, you have to explain that the Jews were killed in Germany and other countries. You have to say that the targeted population was the Jews. It is the exact same thing: the targeted group in Rwanda was the Tutsis. In Europe, they found another name, the Holocaust, but in our language, we do not have a word for genocide that we can use in Kinyarwanda to refer to the genocide. In fact, in Kinyarwanda, we did not have a word to refer to this kind of crimes before 1994. After the independence in 1963, the killings at the time were also qualified as genocides, but it was not yet defined as one in Kinyarwanda as we did not have the word in our literature or anything else. We did not have a word that described the meaning of a genocide, or its impact. So, after 1994, it was accepted as a genocide, especially after the UN accepted and recognized it as one. This is why we have to say it as it is. It was a Genocide against the Tutsis that happened in Rwanda.
Do you think there is a conflict between commemoration and historical facts?
I think we have to understand what is a memory and what is history. To me, a memory, I can remember what happened today, yesterday or two years ago. But facts, they are different. If you were not there, you cannot remember the incident. I cannot say I remember something that happened in the sixteenth century, because that is something I can understand from reading the history. So the memory to me is something I remember, memory is selective as well. History is a science based on facts, which makes it different. Anyone can have a memory; it is normal. I have memories of what happened in 1994, of what I saw yesterday, the people I met today. I have memories of those things. But I cannot say that those things represent the history. Something becomes a historical event after being analyzed by historians and after being decided that it is a historical event based on historical facts.
I have a question regarding memorial sites. For future generations who will not have memories of the genocide, will genocide sites be traumatizing for them, as they will be, in a way, seeing and living others’ personal memories?
You know trauma is tricky. Can you say that the young Jews who were born in 2000s have trauma from what their grandparents have suffered from? I do not know. Your question is whether in 20 years to come, will future generations have trauma from the sufferings of their grandparents?
I am asking specifically about the role of the genocide sites, especially for future generations.
The memorial sites to me are very important. Because if we do not have a memorial site, someone could come and ask where is the proof? He or she can deny the genocide. If you come for the first time to Kigali, and you are staying only in the city without visiting any memorial sites, would you know that there was a genocide that happened here?
No, I would not.
You see? You will only see how green and clean the place is, you will see the beautiful building, smart people. But you will not be able to tell that only 22 years ago, there was a genocide here. It is only when you go visit a memorial site, or when you meet people, then you will know that a genocide happened here. So, we need memorial sites as testimonies of the genocide. To tell people and show them our history.
I would like to focus on the role of education. You have mentioned during the conference that there have been many changes in the curriculum. Can you please elaborate on that in terms of the impact and assessment of those changes?
First of all, changes especially in education are not easy to make. Here, we have to understand the context of our history. We had the genocide in 1994, and the first changes were made in 1996. During that period, people were not ready to talk about the genocide and to understand its impact. That is why the reform of 1996 was not enough; it was not done well. Kids at schools did not have enough information that they absolutely needed. That is why we had other changes in 2008, 2010, and in 2016. There was not enough research done at the beginning. Another issue was which material to choose and use in the curriculum. I think the last change in 2016 was a result of five or six years of research and hard work. The government and people took time to think this time to come up with something strong and relevant to our people.
Regarding the impact, it is very difficult to know the impact when it comes to human beings. Because I might be teaching about peace, but we know that things are always complex. Teaching about peace and dialogue and genocide studies is important, but you do not know for sure if students will take those values with them and think about. I cannot tell you for sure that we can stop people from having misconducts. This is something individual at the end of the day. But by teaching students about those things, they will at least get to know about the past, which has to be complemented by critical thinking.
We emphasize a lot on critical thinking. How do you train students to think? How to encourage them to make choices and be responsible? I think this is very important because everyone has to make choices, and no one will make choices for you or me. So at least, what students have been learning at school can help them and guide them in making good choices.
You know, people who planned for the genocide were educated, Hitler was educated, so values are important, and personal decisions are important. People sometimes fight things that are easy targets; they fight easy things, because it is easy to kill and destroy. So during the genocide, you had the educated architects who would encourage the uneducated to kill, to take their machetes and kill others because they will be able to take their possessions—their cars and lands. So people followed without thinking, just like when we ask people in modern societies to kill their enemies, to destroy and strike whoever is against them without thinking.
Do you think people can learn very contradicting values at homes from what they have learnt at schools?
At schools you do not teach kids to kill, but at home parents and relatives can talk about hate. Hate speech can cause killing because hate speech is dehumanizing the other. By discriminating against others, this becomes the beginning; you have killings later as a result of hatred. You start with hate—you start when you tell someone not to collaborate with someone else, not to go out with them or talk to them. So, at home, the families and relatives can use a discourse and discussions that include the dividing names of Hutus and Tutsis. It is very important because it has a huge impact on the kids. Kids will believe their families, not some strangers they just met at school. But when you have an inclusive education system, the kid will be able to think, they will know that what the teacher said at the school is very different from what their families are saying.
Can that cycle be escaped? Can you change the impact of hate speech at homes?
No, in fact the parents have to be trained. But how? This is the government’s role. The government has to educate people, through media for example. National programs are important. Also, how justice is achieved and made in the country is important, because if you have injustice and impunity in your system, you will be creating hate and divisions. There has to be justice in education, justice in health, and justice in economy. Justice is very important because when people see that their community has justice, they will respect others, because the society as a whole will be avoiding inequality and as a result will be avoiding divisions.
My final question is how do you see the future of Rwanda?
I think before I see the future, I have to see the past. How I see the past and how I see where I am today make me able to anticipate the future. When I see where Rwanda was 22 years ago in 1994, and when I see where we are now, I can hope that the future will be better. It will be better because there are policies of reconciliation and bringing people together. We are focusing on being Rwandans, not Hutus or Tutsis. We share the land, the culture, and the language. If you go to a traditional wedding, you will see that the ceremonies, the speeches, and how we dress is the same. If you go to a funeral, you will see that the way people bury their loved ones is the same. That is why, by focusing on the Rwandan identity, we will build our nation and our country. That is why, because I know these are the policies of this country, I am hopeful.
Rwanda is united and is not only welcoming to Rwandans, but to foreigners as well. Making a country where anyone can live and work peacefully is important to show that Rwandans can also live in other places. These policies are opening our eyes and that is why, for me, future will be much better because I can see sharing, development, and hardworking. When you bring more facilities, you will be bringing peace and will be building your nation.
Is there anything else you would like to add?
I think people should come and visit Rwanda, instead of staying where they are and reading and writing about Rwanda. I think it is important, just like you—this was your first time here, you came and saw the memorial sites, you saw what happened. If you stayed in Qatar, you would have missed a lot. People should come here, stay and visit different places and then, they will understand.
Opens in a new window