Editor,

RE: "Discard the Western ways” (The New Times, November 8).

I cannot agree more with Mr Rukariza’s comments. There are some clues that the ancient Rwandan society was not all too patriarchal as some would want us to believe.

Here are some of the clues that our society was not against the women long before:

1. The Queen Mother wielded much power through her son (King). Indeed, a King would be as strong as his mother, and politicians would better be in good terms with her whatsoever.

2. Marriage was seen as a way of creating alliances between families and a woman with more sons was as stronger as anyone would be. Strengthening the family started with mothers, while they understandably could not tame the same physical duties as men. Especially when pregnant or having younger children, a good, healthier wife was the cornerstone of family strength.

3. As bride price, you had to pay the highest valuable at that time (cows) in order to be able to marry her and seal the alliance with the family. Not that you purchased her or anything, but because you expressed the importance you gave, not to the bride, but to the importance of the relationship she is bringing along.

In fact, the most vulnerable out of the whole situation were the boys and men: they had to work hard to earn being good enough for a good bride (with the alliance she would be bringing), they were sent to wars and would end up fighting over the family property.

You can ask how and why it came to change. The response is simply the destruction of who we were, our social fabric, through colonisation: this ruthless mission, strategically planned on all sides (military, culturally and religiously) to first annihilate our unity, subjugate us into submission and then take over our economic richness and in most cases, forever, in a system in which we would have been a "third-class” citizenry. (This is well documented, any search run on internet will give anyone interested references enough to spare with).

I say third class citizenry because the colonialists had generally no choice in their home countries: I want to remind fellow Rwandans that this was not like today’s south-north immigration, where it is generally a win expectation from leavers. These dwellers were sent by state without a proper compensation for leaving their families, relatives behind for years, with the potential of never coming back. 

These were criminals or had anything their own society held against them and were sent there in a punitive mindset, but lo, they were given to be kings in the new countries, even if criminals back home. 

You don’t want to tell their ruthlessness, disrespect of local values and populations. So we were ought to be citizens of lower class than these second class citizens.

Now someone please tell me what good could come out of this constellation, especially when it comes to treating all citizens, women inclusive, equally.

I wouldn’t finish this unfortunate rant of mine without mentioning how some of us have become the "inquisitors” for this imported culture and treatment of others, especially when it comes to our women—under the banner of imported religions, they put forward their own judgment of how those ladies are clothed and feel entitled to say what is good and not. 

Mind you, being half-covered, with breasts out in the air used to be the norm, full body cover was only needed seldom during colder times, and our ancestors were just beautiful. Someone came and told us that it is not okay, because you would be raped, entice the other into raping you and that you had to purchase their foreign, already worn-out clothes. 

We should stop, as Mr Rukariza said, believing that we were not gender-sensitive, that the West is what we want and should be. For me, being gender-sensitive is about discarding the imported Western values and finally be myself, protect and be proud of my already gender strong heritage. It is about agaciro.

Gill