The power of words to kill has often been underestimated. The crime of genocide, as the zenith of hate, often begins with the gradual erosion of empathy and the systematic debasing of a particular group people. It is a harrowing phenomenon where words metamorphose into weapons, forging chains of prejudice and instigating horrors beyond comprehension. At the heart of this sinister symphony lies a phase of paramount importance: dehumanisation. Language, when wielded with wickedness and hatred, can sow the seeds of violence and destruction. Such was the case of a letter penned by Joseph Habyarimana Gitera to the then President Juvenal Habyarimana, in May 1976. It was simply missive dripping with venomous words aimed at the Tutsi population. President Habyarimana was being cautioned of the danger paused by Tutsis: ‘It is the pretentious Tutsi, with his Muhutu slave and his Mutwa clown and hunting dog, who chose exile from Rwanda because of his misdeeds and is now scheming against Rwanda and Rwandans. Again, it is this grudge–holding Mututsi who, with his courtesan Muhutu and his subservient Mutwa, is nesting like a snake ready to devour Rwanda and oblivious Rwandans. This one and the other are constantly communicating and co–operating, to eventually take revenge on the Rwandan Republic, its authors and its perpetrators of insult and lese majesty: ‘Banze Umwami’. This is the two–headed dragon, one head outside Rwanda and the other inside. Here then is the ‘Umugome’ (a criminal). Is he merely a fantasy? Absolutely not!’ Let us delve into the depths of this disturbing communication and explore the sinister implications it carried. Not surprising, part of that letter with the above quote was published in the Kangura No. 6 of December 1990, which published the Ten Hutu commandments. The expressions employed in the letter are inflammatory and a rallying cry for violence against a perceived enemy—the Tutsis. By dehumanizing and vilifying the Tutsi as a people, Gitera sought to justify the unspeakable horrors that were to unfold in the coming months. The use of derogatory terms such as pretentious Tutsi, Muhutu slave, Mutwa clown, and hunting dog serves to strip away the humanity of the Tutsi population, reducing them to mere caricatures of malice and deceit. By painting the Tutsis as scheming traitors and foreign agents, Gitera sought to stoke the fires of ethnic hatred and poisoning the minds of his fellow Rwandans against their own compatriots. The notion of the Tutsi as a two-headed dragon, with one head outside Rwanda and the other inside, speaks to a deeply-ingrained paranoia and xenophobia that had taken root in Rwandan society. The idea of a vast conspiracy involving Tutsis, working in concert to overthrow the Rwandan government and exact revenge on its people, was a dangerous myth that fueled the flames of genocide. Gitera's invocation of the term Umugome, a criminal, serves to further dehumanise and demonise the Tutsi population, casting them as irredeemable villains deserving of punishment and eradication. An individual can be a criminal but not a nation or a protected group of humanity. By framing the Tutsis as a clear and present danger to the Republic of Rwanda and its people, Gitera sought to legitimise the violence and bloodshed that would engulf the nation eighteen years later. Gitera's script in Kangura The dehumanisation process continued in various genocidaires’ publications including UMURWANASHAKA and KAMARAMPAKA and songs of Simon Bikindi. I have decided to provide some examples from KANGURA. In the Kangura No. 26 of November 1991, one article had this borrowed a vitriol from Gitera’s script: “Historians and sociologists tell us Rwanda is inhabited by three ethnic groups, which are the Twa, the Hutu and the Tutsi. They say that these ethnic groups can co-exist in harmony and work together if Tutsis do not behave themselves in a bragging manner, people who like to boast, talk a lot, tell lies and are hypocrites, people who are never satisfied and people who want to have everything. They are thieves, they are involved in intrigues, they are wicked, they are killers. And they are people who have grudges just like serpents.” Several months later, the harrowing narrative is repeated. Kangura, Issue No. 40, dated February 1993 gets bolder in describing the Tutsi as snakes: “The fact that in our language, they are referred to as snakes is self–explanatory. This implies much. A Tutsi is someone who has a sweet tongue but whose wickedness is indescribable. A Tutsi is someone whose desire for revenge is insatiable; someone who is unpredictable, someone who laughs whereas he is suffering ... The word Inyenzi is a reminder of the redoubtable snake whose venom is extremely poisonous. The fact that the Tutsi chose such names is very significant to those who want to understand.” Double insult. The Tutsi choosing bad names! Few months later, Kangura No. 46 of July 1993, was on the same verbal battle of dehumanization. Also, as Gitera wrote in 1976, articulates Tutsis were ‘pretentious’ as a way of concealing “their wickedness.” Adding: “It is with malice or interest that a Tutsi establishes a relation with the majority people. When a Tutsi is in need of something from a Hutu, he is ready to sacrifice by using all the means including money, his sisters or his wife ... Immediately a Tutsi gets what he wants from a Hutu, he turns his back and hurts him as if they have never had anything in common. Anyone who had any relation with a Tutsi can recall this fact and can support what I am saying... In Kiswahili, it is stated that a small snake is a snake.” Religion in hate speech In the arsenal of linguistic warfare, words like snake are not mere descriptors but authoritative metaphors, meticulously crafted to evoke terror and alarm. The potency of such rhetoric lies in its ability to tap into primal fears and societal constructs. Snakes, revered as symbols of evil in Rwanda-Christian culture, evoke visceral reactions ingrained deep within the collective consciousness. To label a group of people as serpents is to evoke a call to action, a mandate to eradicate that which is deemed inherently malevolent. It is a narrative that transcends mere words, permeating the fabric of society and shaping perceptions with alarming efficacy. In several books in the Bible, a serpent is identified with the curse, Satan and the devil—and powers of evil and darkness. For instance: “The great dragon was hurled down—that ancient serpent called the devil, or Satan, who leads the whole world astray. He was hurled to the earth, and his angels with him.” (Revelation 12:9) Here are some more examples— Revelation 20:2; Genesis 3: (1-3) (14-15); Psalms 91:13 & Psalms 140:3; Isaiah 14:29 & Isaiah 65:25. The insidious nature of dehumanization extends beyond the realm of overt propaganda. It delves into the recesses of the human psyche, exploiting the intricacies of defense mechanisms such as dissociation and denial. These psychological barricades, erected in the face of cognitive dissonance, serve to sever the connection between identity, thought, and memory. It is a process wherein empathy is eclipsed by prejudice, and humanity is stripped away in favor of blind allegiance to a manufactured ideology. Within the confines of this publication, brazenly comparing the Tutsi people to venomous serpents, imbuing them with traits of spite and wickedness, was part of a genocidal plan. The deliberate choice of words, invoking the imagery of snakes whose venom is synonymous with danger, serves as a potent tool of manipulation to mobilize mass murderers. In the human psyche, such comparisons trigger primal instincts of fear and repulsion, setting the stage for the justification of violence. In combating hate speech, understanding its construction of it is fundamental. The devious nature of Kangura and Gitera's words lies not only in their unconcealed hostility towards the Tutsi population but also in their insidious appeal to nationalist sentiment and historical grievances. By portraying the Tutsis as perennial enemies of the Rwandan people, these sought to justify the unspeakable atrocities that would be committed against them in the name of ethnic purity and national security.
