Rwanda's solution is not in semantics
<B>EDITOR:</B> In yesterday's issue, there was a letter from John Ruhinda, castigating me for using the terms Tutsi and Hutu as tribes in Rwanda. <br>
EDITOR: In yesterday's issue, there was a letter from John Ruhinda, castigating me for using the terms Tutsi and Hutu as tribes in Rwanda.
Towards the end he writes: “…no group needs to worry…â€, slipping in the word “group†to escape the quandary that on the whole (barring noble examples of those who tried to help across the divide) one group fell upon the other and tried its best to exterminate that other group. They did it openly, encouraging others to do likewise.
Was not Mr. Ruhinda alive at this hour? Would he take it better if I had referred in my column to Group A which massacred Group B, but without calling them tribes? Would Group B have died more peacefully knowing it was not a tribe but a group that had massacred it?
Let Mr. Ruhinda call them what makes him more comfortable, but what happened took place and the justification was strikingly tribal in nature, or at any rate “groupalâ€, to coin a word.
The important thing is to find a sensible and sustainable way forward for Rwanda, which can stand the test of time. It won’t come through semantics.
(Incidentally, does Mr. Ruhinda agree that the 1994 massacres happened, and for what purpose?) And, If so, does he really think removing the word “tribe†makes it any better, and the solution of the problem any easier?
By the way I was born in Gahini, Rwanda, in 1938, where my now late Baganda parents had gone to spread the Gospel.
John Nagenda Kampala
Towards the end he writes: “…no group needs to worry…â€, slipping in the word “group†to escape the quandary that on the whole (barring noble examples of those who tried to help across the divide) one group fell upon the other and tried its best to exterminate that other group. They did it openly, encouraging others to do likewise.
Was not Mr. Ruhinda alive at this hour? Would he take it better if I had referred in my column to Group A which massacred Group B, but without calling them tribes? Would Group B have died more peacefully knowing it was not a tribe but a group that had massacred it?
Let Mr. Ruhinda call them what makes him more comfortable, but what happened took place and the justification was strikingly tribal in nature, or at any rate “groupalâ€, to coin a word.
The important thing is to find a sensible and sustainable way forward for Rwanda, which can stand the test of time. It won’t come through semantics.
(Incidentally, does Mr. Ruhinda agree that the 1994 massacres happened, and for what purpose?) And, If so, does he really think removing the word “tribe†makes it any better, and the solution of the problem any easier?
By the way I was born in Gahini, Rwanda, in 1938, where my now late Baganda parents had gone to spread the Gospel.
John Nagenda Kampala