the term ‘inyenzi’, it highlights the impact that the toxifying propaganda had,
where it normalised such rhetoric and subconsciously normalised and
encouraged participation.
Furthermore, perpetrators inform Lee-Ann Fujii that genocide leaders,
who were associated with the media owners, perpetuated the idea that the
inyenzi did not look like them and that they were hiding in the forests (2009,
p.82-83). In practice other actors redistributed the toxifying rhetoric from the
media due to its limited distribution. One killer interviewed by Jean Hatzfeld
(2008), named Pancrace, highlights the impact the media had as “the radios
were yammering at us since 1992 to kill all the Tutsis.” (p.207). Later in the book
he, somewhat unknowingly, highlights the impact this had on him. As he likens
killing Tutsi to that of wild animals, additionally stating that hearing the
dehumanising come toxifying propaganda did them good (p.214). As per process
test tracing, this is a smoking gun for the impact the propaganda had on this
perpetrator.
In reality, such a large percentage of the Hutu population had never heard
of RTLM. In the interviews conducted by Charles Mironko, most perpetrators did
not have a radio nor hear RTLM broadcasts. With many stating that they heard
these messages reiterated from others such as the soldiers (2007, p.129-134). In
practice the toxifying rhetoric did motivate genocide perpetrators, but not
always through conventional means. Instead, it occurred subconsciously and,
due to a lack of media distribution, through other actors.
The use of the toxifying term ‘inyenzi’ is rife throughout RTLM broadcasts
and Kangura editions prior to the genocide. However, through my research I was
unable to find any reference to ‘ibinhindugemb’ (heinous monsters) which
Neilsen states Tutsis were also coined. Neilsen’s conception of toxic to the self is
apparent in the results of Straus’ interviews where just below a quarter of
81
Made with FlippingBook HTML5