toxifying rhetoric is often more prevalent during the Rwandan genocide rather
than before. There is a need for development on Neilsen’s model to apply it to
genocide prevention when it has already begun. Additionally, the concepts of
toxic to the self, and toxic to the ideal are somewhat binary. This is a problem as
some genocides, such as Armenia, do not entirely conform to the toxic to the
self model. Whereby the Ottomans were more afraid of Armenia supporting
Russia and the impact that would have, than the Armenian’s directly killing them.
To improve the toxification model, for examples like this I propose a toxic to the
strategic strain. This would include examples where the perpetrators use
toxifying rhetoric as they believe that the victim group is threatening them either
to their failure in war or the fall in their empire. Adding this strain would mean
that certain genocides can include elements of more than one early warning
strain and with further study, prevent future genocides.
Additionally, in order to strengthen toxification as an early warning
identifier, more work needs to be completed. Firstly, in the case of Rwanda, there
needs to be more interviews with perpetrators from different areas of the
country. With a particular focus on the toxifying language; asking about how they
heard it, interpreted it and the impact it had on them. Additionally, all RTLM
transcripts and Kangura copies should be published, translated correctly, and
made more readily available. Furthermore, to solidify the strength of Neilsen’s
model, research and analysis needs to be completed on applying the model to
other case-studies. I believe that this further research will be completed, and it
will clarify toxification as the main early identifier of genocide.
85
Made with FlippingBook HTML5