Lessons from Rwanda in the Destructive Language of Hate

written by
Melissa Steyn

AS WE go into the emotionally charged period of election campaigning, political leadership urgently needs to take responsibility for the social effects of the language it uses.

African National Congress (ANC) leaders’ references to their political enemies as “snakes” and “cockroaches” are of considerable concern, as are “warnings” of violence should ANC president Jacob Zuma be prosecuted. Such utterances fit into well-known patterns that have extremely destructive effects on intergroup relations and pave the way for violence.

We learnt an instructive, and deeply tragic, lesson in the xenophobic violence last year, recurring in recent incidents in KwaZulu-Natal. When the xenophobic attacks happened, many of us who study social identities and the “politics of belonging” were not surprised. The warning signs had been there — even before the murders started in the late 1990s, name-calling with words such as “amakwerekwerere”, which serve to manufacture a consensus of rejection of those being constructed as “other,” was already happening.

At the time, alarm bells were not sounded, and we have seen how things escalated into shameful group-based behaviour. It would be reckless now not to confront the gravity of the use of hate speech at this particular political juncture. It does the everyday work of creating enabling conditions for group-based aggression — beliefs that legitimate, and emotions that facilitate, hostile actions along the fault lines of inclusions and exclusions.

In the case of the xenophobic attacks, competition for resources has been the most commonly proffered explanation for the outbreak of violence. But competition in itself does not explain violence.

The xenophobic attacks in SA should be understood in the context of the construction of a new nation. Processes of drawing boundaries between those who belong and those who do not were infused with feelings of anger and resentment. Discourses constructed competition by the “other” for the available opportunities within the nation as illegitimate. The sense of the unfairness of competition rested, in turn, on the perpetrators themselves feeling that they were, or had been, victims, and therefore that their expectations of exclusive rights were legitimate.

Neil Kressel, who has written on mass hate, points out that no group anywhere in the world that has committed acts of mass hostility has done so without feeling that they themselves have been victimised. But they do not always attack the group that victimised them. Indeed, they are unlikely to attack a group with more social, political and economic power than them. Rather, they attack groups that are more vulnerable.

In SA’s case, our nation is deeply damaged, the sense of citizenship is wounded — after all, it is only about 15 years ago that black people could not walk down public streets freely. There are expectations, fears and neediness that make the question of entitlement to the nation’s resources much more fraught, and susceptible to manipulation.

One can see how it would be easy to promote the persuasion that aggrieved nationals have the right, given the opportunity, to get rid of those they scapegoat for their own lack of advancement. Xenophobic violence is the exercise of power of those who feel entitled to do so.

The hate speech in which ANC president Jacob Zuma called his political enemies “snakes” and a North West ANC Youth League leader used the word “cockroaches” is a recognised discursive link in creating the preconditions for violence based on group identities.

In an extreme form of dehumanisation, the “other” is constructed in a way that identifies them with creatures that people not only fear and hate but also feel entitled or compelled to exterminate. These are creatures we feel comfortable with despising — creatures deemed vermin, such as rats, insects, and snakes (which carry particularly hateful cultural connotations in some communities). We know how Rwandans were mobilised with the use of the word “cockroaches” to describe those targeted for extermination. Jews were referred to as rats in Nazi Germany.

One can look at hateful behaviour as a kind of pyramid, with acts of subtle bias such as stereotyping, name calling and ethnic jokes at the bottom, moving to acts of overt prejudice and bigotry and discrimination, leading to acts of violence and extreme violence to individuals, culminating in genocide at the top of the pyramid.

The Rwandan example points to another important factor in conditioning society for violence — people look to authority figures for “permission” to do that which they would not normally do. This is why hate speech coming from leaders is irresponsible leadership squared, especially in a young democracy where we are still finding the appropriate ways to interact with each other.

Obedience is a strong and related factor. People do what they understand is required of them. This is pertinent in a country such as ours where we have a particularly authoritarian and patriarchal history coupled with levels of militarisation. The cultures of, for example, the Zulus and the Afrikaners, historically show a high level of deference to male authority. This places great responsibility on the shoulders of male leaders, and also indicates why we should reject the singing of macho songs such as Awulethu mshini wam .

Other enabling conditions include a high level of intolerance to difference. With Zuma, we are seeing how people are encouraged to identify in singular ways, and boundaries are policed through fear of being similarly typecast and dehumanised if you don’t conform.

This kind of talk discourages others who may be considering breaking from the dominant mode of identifying from doing so. For example, homophobic jokes are not just aimed at disciplining lesbians and gays but aimed at policing heterosexual men and women’s sexualities. These are all group-forming and group-preserving dynamics.

And these dynamics are well known to us. Apartheid tried to create homogenous groups with clear-cut others and clear-cut boundaries where resources were allocated on the basis of whether you are “like me” or not.

We even saw this when a third of those killed in the xenophobic attacks were South Africans. Colour is often a convenient marker, as in the targeting of darker Africans and those darker black South Africans being constructed as “others” by stronger in-groups.

The way out of this is to create openness for people to belong to different, cross-cutting groups and to identify in more complex ways — whether it be political parties or other differences — and to allow for more porous boundaries.

Leaders have a responsibility to educate themselves in this regard. Responsible leaders would recognise the potential for violence and consciously guide South Africans in a different direction. Otherwise we run the risk of perpetuating cycles of victimisation and acting-out in search of compensation.

Do we want to find out whether we are the kind of society that commits genocide? Political leaders should exercise extreme caution — they may end up getting more than just votes.
---------------
# Steyn is director of intercultural and diversity studies and an associate professor in sociology at the University of Cape Town.

DR Congo beat Ghana in CHAN final: African Nations Championship

news source:http://www.cafonline.com/competition/african-nations-championship_2009/news/2388-dr-congo-beat-ghana-in-chan-final.html

pics from: AFP-http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5jy8hrLOSvV64ufjAFM2mE0D_fCYg

DR Congo’s Leopards made history by becoming the first team to win the African Nations Championship (CHAN) after Ghana 2-0 in the final played on Sunday at the Felix Houphouet Boigny Stadium, Abidjan.

Second half strikes from Kaluyituka Dioko and Mbenza Bedi ensured the Congolese became the first winners of the competition restricted to footballers pl;aying in their country of birth.

The result was also a perfect revenge for the Leopards, who had suffered a 0-3 loss at the hands of their West African counterparts in their earlier meeting at the group phase.

It was a well deserved victory for the Congolese as they completely outplayed the Ghanaians to claim their first major championship since the 1974 African Cup of Nations feat in Cairo, Egypt.

The Congolese started brightly and made clear their intentions from the very beginning with deadly striker Tresor Mputu Mabi coming close twice in the first and fourth minutes.

The Congolese appeared more organized and confirmed that with dominance in possession as the Ghanaians laboured in search of the rhythm.

On the 12th minute mark, Black Stars goalie Philemon MacCarthy scored full marks as he parried away Mputu’s goalbound shot from a goalmouth action.

For Ghana, Asampong Taylor’s drive with the outside of right foot and Ibrahim Ayew near misses was all they could boast of as an attempt at goal in the early stages.

The Congolese were very swift on the counter and anytime they moved the Ghanaian defence was found wanting.

Ghana’s Black Stars were unlucky to have gone up after Edmund Owusu-Ansah header from Taylor’s cross missed narrowly after the latter had headed past onrushing Leopards goalie Kidiaba Muteba.



The Congolese resumed the second half strongly and took the lead under a minute into the half through Kaluyituka who headed home from Lofo Bongeli cross, which beat the Ghanaian defence.

The Leopards maintained their dominance and succeeded in authenticating their lead on 74 minutes through Mbenza Bedi who blasted past MacCarthy from Lofo again from the left.

The remainder of the game belonged to the Congolese as they taught their Ghanaian counterparts some football lessons, characterized by circuit passes as the packed crowd jeered on.

SELF LETTER

The LB YAO has attempted to form a partnership with SELF

www.self.org

BBC NEWS REPORT: Rwanda Leaves DR Congo

Courtesy of BBC News:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_pictures/7911026.stm
Page last updated at 07:51 GMT, Friday, 27 February 2009




Thousands of Rwandan troops are leaving the Democratic Republic of Congo, five weeks after they crossed the border to attack Hutu rebels, who are behind years of conflict in the region.


Rwanda has twice invaded its larger neighbour and attacked the FDLR militia, but this time the two countries took joint action against the rebel group whose leaders have been linked to the 1994 genocide.


Hundreds of people turned out to watch a joint military parade by the two armies in eastern DR Congo’s North Kivu province, where much of the conflict has been focused.


Officials say the Rwandan pull-out will be complete by the end of this week.


As Rwandan women welcomed the soldiers home, the foreign ministry in Kigali said the joint operation had "seriously weakened" the FDLR rebels. But a BBC correspondent says civilians paid a heavy price.


Despite Rwandans’ pride in their armed forces, UN peacekeepers warned that the FDLR had not been neutralised, raising fears of revenge attacks by the militia.


Orphanages are already filled with the victims of on-and-off fighting between the FDLR, other militias and the Congolese army, which has forced more than one million people to flee since late 2006.

Street Children of Kinshasa

KMHC Update

As you can see, the Kalala Muzeu Health Center is continuing to make progress. Thank you so much for your support of this very important project! The only way for us to finish it is to continue to donate and bring about awareness. The work that has been done so far is well done. Again, thank you to all that are making this possible. This is what Leja Bulela is all about.

Conference Call February 8, 2009

Conference Call Minutes 02-08-2009

Date: Sunday, February 8, 2009
Time: 8:00 PM EST
Call in #: 712-432-1601
Access Code: 307891

Attendees:
Tshilumba Kabongo
Muamba Kabongo
Tania Kasongo
Kono Kadima
Marco Nkashama

Topics discussed:

 LB YAO 2009 Agenda
 Our goal was to fulfill the pledge of raising $10K
 Muamba does not think that we have done that
 There are ideas but they have not been fulfilled
 Some ideas that came from that sentiment were:
 Focus on people who are here rather than those that are not
 Branch out to ALL
 Start out regionally and build a stronger network from there
 Action Steps:
 We all agreed that a realistic goal for February will be to raise $200; you can do this on your own or by soliciting to friends and businesses.
 Challenge yourself!
 We need to find a way to get everyone involved and excited about LB 365-366 days a year

 LB YAO Newsletter
 Deadlines and Ideas for the newsletter were discussed
 This newsletter will be sent to home addresses for more visibility and to try to recruit more LB members
 Below are the deadlines:
 Assignment Distribution: Monday, February 16, 2009
 Stories Due: Monday: March 16, 2009
 Editing, Layout, & Design: March 16-23, 2009
 Printing: Wednesday, March 25, 2009
 Distribution: Wednesday, April 1, 2009
 The following issue of the newsletter will be distributed during the conference the weekend of July 4, 2009



 Open Forum
 Tshilumba is currently working on an exciting fundraiser involving the school that he is at and it should have promising results
 Marco discussed a fundraiser that he attended in Dallas, TX held by some young college students that took a trip to Congo
 They stayed by the Kumba people and saw a lot of hardships, so they held an event to raise awareness and money for DRC
 For more info on this Google “Falling Whistle”
 The Chairman of LB sent an email of concern to everyone since there has been no activity; neither financially nor in communications
 We asked ourselves what can we do about it?
 Kono and Marco raised the point that it is difficult since we are all spread geographically
 This is another challenge for us and we need ideas on how to stay strong even though we are all far apart


Action Steps:
 Raise $200 for February
 Branch out to EVERYONE you know
 Find a way to keep in touch with your fellow LBers





Have a great week and remember:

WE RUN DRC!!!