ve occurred under suspicious circumstances. The Hutu immediately blamed the minority Tutsi for the president’s death, therefore shattering the delicate peace between the two groups. What resulted in the next months was the massacre of 800,000 Tutsi and moderate Hutu on the part of extremist Hutu. The reason for this situation is the culmination of history, geography, and hatred. All three of these ingredients possessed fine socio-geographic pedigrees and their product was staggering in its horror. Ethnic hatred, even at its most time-worn, has only one strategy: hateful and feral murder. Traditionally, the lighter-skinned Tutsis were the ruling class in Rwanda. But when the Tutsi king died in 1959, the ninety-percent Hutu majority seized their chance and rebelled, murdering almost 100,000 Tutsi. Bertrand Russell called it “the most horrible and systematic human massacre we have had occasion to witness since the extermination of the Jews by the Nazis.” Since its inception in 1962, the Hutu-led Rwandan government pursued a policy of eradicating Tutsi culture from Rwanda. Hutu propaganda was in full-gear, decrying the Tutsis as enemies of the state. It so happened that when the Rwandan president died, the Hutu government claimed that it was a direct result of Tutsi sabotage. The same day Rwandan radios carried massages ordering the murders of every Tutsi. The violence was sweeping and immediate as over 800,000 Tutsis. This is yet another example of how countries with mixed racial composition are especially prone to genocide of the minority by the majority. When changes in leadership are about to occur and when the redefinition of a country’s policy is about to take place, the urge to create an ethnically pure country is especially strong as the minority is thought of as a threat to the status-quo. As long as intolerance and ethnic exclusivity exist, the danger of genocide is present. As long as international organiz...
