Web Info

It Might be said :

By Rawd Alach

Colonialism is not a simple cheese sandwich. It has many, varied ingredients. Governments strive to make the perfect colonialism mix.

But alas, many fail. Some mix incompatible ingredients, causing explosions.

Others overdose on sour components, forming a repelling concoction, while some offer sweet elements in their mix, enriching their constituents.

To many, colonialism is a loaded word. Full of negative connotation and bursting with ideas of government greed for power, their desire for wealth, and their hunger to rule. In some cases, these adverse views of the colonialism are true. But fortunately, other areas do not suffer under foreign rule. Instead, they benefit.

The results of colonialism depend greatly on the intention of the dominating power. The two very different areas of Rwanda and Papua New Guinea illustrate this idea.

They were oppositely influenced and affected by the powers that entered their territories.

Rwanda suffered greatly under its foreign rulers, while Papua New Guinea was in many ways positively affected by the foreign presence in its area. Each area holds a legacy of colonialism, with each area’s legacy being unique to its time, its people, and its events.

In Rwanda, colonialism came in one of its worse forms. The Belgians entered the country ruthless and ignorant.
They provoked and encouraged separation, disunity, and enmity between the people.

Before the Belgians the people of Rwanda, mainly made up of the Hutus and Tutsis, lived peacefully together.

The tribes did not distinguish amongst themselves with great significance. They were a people with some differences, not two different kinds of people.

When the Belgians came to Rwanda, they came with the goal of dividing the people for their purposes.

A man by the name of John Speke greatly assisted the Belgians in their ill intentions.

His idea called the “Hamitic hypothesis” stirred up tension between the Hutus and Tutsis. It claimed that the Tutsis were superior to the Hutus sighting proof based solely on their physical appearance.

The Tutsis had features resembling that of a European man, whereas the Hutus were rounder, darker, and shorter (Gourevitch 1998). Therefore, according to Speke Hutu majority were inferior to the Tutsi minority.

This idea began to be taken seriously in Rwanda. Rwandan unity was disrupted; weakened. By the time the Belgians stepped foot into Rwanda, the people “had become clearly defined as opposing ‘ethnic’ identities, and the Belgians made this polarization the cornerstone of their colonial policy” (Gourevitch 1998, 54).

The Belgians promoted this idea of division among Rwandans. They issued ethnic identity cards proclaiming each person either a Tutsi or a Hutu. To downgrade the Hutus into lower social standing, they placed Tutsis in positions of power and discriminated in their favor in economic and political regards. To be certain the Tutsis did not interrupt the flow of things, the Belgians threatened them: ‘you whip the Hutu or we will whip you’ (Gourevitch 1998, 57).

Thus, the Belgians put in place a doctrine of following authority at any cost. Neither Rwandan Hutus nor Tutsis would know the effect of this concept on the mentalities and actions of the people until the genocide, the biggest effect of Belgian colonialism in Rwanda.

Across the globe, in a different time, the Gebusi, a people of Papua New Guinea, were under going very different change due to colonialism. They lived within a couple hundred miles of the Nomad Station, the headquarters of the Australian colonizing powers that came to Papua New Guinea. The Australian authorities colonized with mild intentions without malevolent purpose.

Australian powers established the Nomad Station as their control center. They did not intrude into the Gebusi’s territory of Yibihilu and Gasumi Corners. Rather, they informed the Gebusi of their arrival, location, and authority, then left it at that.

The Gebusi took advantage of the implications of a foreign power on their island.

They would occasionally go to the Nomad Station for supplies. Several times when a Gebusi committed murder they would turn themselves into the Nomad station police (Knauft 2005). The police were trusted to be called upon when outside interference was needed. “Courtesy of Australian patrols, the Gebusi were free of tribal enemies while themselves experiencing little direct intrusion from white people” (Knauft 2005, 96).

Unlike the situation in Rwanda, Australian powers did not impose their authority on the Gebusi, dividing the people and changing the social dynamic of the population. Rather, the Australians offered their authority and the Gebusi accepted it.

Colonialism has a variety of effects on a population. In Rwanda, colonialism induced the genocide. Before the Belgians, “there had never been systematic political violence recorded between Hutus and Tutsis – anywhere” (Gourevitch 1998, 59).

The vicious killing of the Tutsis by the Hutus was mass murder of hundreds of thousands. The Belgians had taken power away from the Tutsi minority, placed Hutus as heads of government in Rwanda, gave Rwanda independence, and left. By then, the conditions needed for genocide were already put in place.

The people were divided and enmities were strong. The concept of absolute authority was put in place. Where authority was authority, there was no exception. One was to listen to orders or else the orders would be turned against them. Without Belgian help to institute these conditions, the genocide would have never occurred in its grave multitude and frightening stature.

The effect of the genocide is the mental devastation of a population. In the aftermath, the people of Rwanda found themselves in a mental crisis. The Tutsis are devastated for the obvious reason of having to run for their lives in their own country, running from their own people; people who were their neighbors, their friends, their coworkers. As for the Hutus, perhaps their distress is more complicated.

Their mentality shaped to follow orders was blindingly lethal. They were blindly brutal. A Rwandan Hutu, Jean Girumuhatse, confessed to killing during the genocide.

He said, “I knew many of the people that I ordered killed” (Gourevitch 1998, 309). But, Girumuhastse blamed his actions on his supervisors, because he was simply following instructions.

“When the authorities said kill, he killed, and when the authorities said confess, he confessed” (Gourevitch 1998, 311). Truly, “the genocide was the product of order, authoritarianism, [and] decades of modern political theorizing” (Gourevitch 95).

After the genocide, Rwanda was left heart broken. Colonialist powers did not help Rwanda before the genocide, they did not help Rwanda during the genocide, and they are not helping Rwanda after the genocide. Sadly, the Hutus and the Tutsis experienced the negative effects of colonialism.

On the other hand the Gebusi were positively affected by colonialism. The colonization of Papua New Guinea changed many aspects of Gebusi life including geographical, social, and economic factors. New aspects and practices were incorporated into everyday life.

The Gebusi had not been in short walking distance of the Nomad Station. However they moved in order to be closer to the resources offered by the station like schools, a market, ball fields, and government offices. Also, by moving the Gebusi became part of a larger “multiethnic community in and around the station” (Knauft 2005, 5). Gebusi children started attending regular school.

The woman went to the market and the men learned to play rugby on the fields (Knauft 2005).

These aspects of modernization were liked by the Gebusi. They chose to change their lives.

On Papua New Guinea’s Independence Day the Gebusi perform skits depicting their old way of life.

In many instances they are making fun of their previous practices. In one skit a Gebusi performer says, ‘In the old days, we were ignorant, we didn’t know about steel axes, and we tries to chip down trees using stone axes’ (Kaunft 2005, 153).

The Gebusi took the changes in their lives light heartedly. Simply put, they used to live a certain way, now they lived differently. Life was enjoyed before colonial influence and continues to be enjoyed after colonialist influence.

Colonialism’s effects are dependent on the intentions of the colonizing power. In that approach, colonialism may either be positive or negative. If one wants to generalize to say “colonialism is good” or “colonialism is bad”, then one has to focus on a specific area while taking into consideration the purpose of the ruling powers and the effects of the rule on the area’s people. Colonialism has always been diverse in its effects on a population.

Each legacy of colonialism is exclusive to its time and its people.