Hutu/Tutsi Relations Before the Genocide in Rwanda

The genocide in Rwanda was a tragedy.  In a span of about 100 days, approximately 800,000 people were killed.  The majority of the victims were “Tutsi.” However, a number of “Hutu” Rwandans were killed as well.  All Hutu men were ordered to commit genocide and join in the killing.  If a Hutu refused to join in, he was killed on the spot.  A quick glimpse at the genocide might yield a conclusion that the genocide was only a 100 day affair.  However, it started much before that.  One of the defining characteristics of most genocides is classification into groups.  In Rwanda, the division between Hutus and Tutsis goes way back in time.  The division between the two groups was rather arbitrary.  When the classification occurred, nobody thought it would escalate to mass killing.  The two groups were unaware of the consequences of being in one group as opposed to the other.

European colonization of Rwanda began in the late 1890’s.  Germany wished to colonize Rwanda, in part because of its’ strong military.  The Rwandans allowed this to happen, which was surprising, given the militaristic tendencies of the locals.  The local Rwandan’s were known for having a strong, aggressive military, yet permitted the colonization.  The Germans allowed the Rwandans to continue to govern as before, with minor counseling.  Christian missionaries entered Africa in the late 1890’s as well.  The Christian missionaries were especially attractive to the lower class Rwandans, typically Hutus.  The church seemed to grant political freedom at first.  When World War I erupted, Rwanda was affected.  The German forces were overrun by Belgian troops. Belgium took a backseat to the traditional Rwandan government and let them continue on, mostly as before.  Leon Classe, one of the first Catholic missionaries to enter Rwanda, took over as the highest Catholic figure in the country in 1907.  He widened the gap between Hutus and Tutsis.

In 1933, Belgium decided to hold a census count.  The purpose of the census was to label Rwandans as either Hutu or Tutsi.  The two groups had always known they were different, but Belgium made the divide “official.”  The Belgian’s did not create the divide, but nonetheless, made an impact by leaving behind feelings of animosity.  The decision was sometimes rather arbitrary and oftentimes, it was hard to tell which group an individual belonged in.  The Belgian government handed out identity cards, labeling citizens by their race.  The Belgians believed that the Hutus and Tutsis were different races.  In the 1950’s, Hutu-Tutsi relations reached a tipping point.  Tutsis occupied almost all of the important public offices, at the national and local level.  The Hutus were vying for more of a role.  When the United Nations mandated elections take place (part of the fall-out of World War II), the Hutus saw an opportunity to capitalize, given their majority.  The Hutus gained a large percentage of local leadership positions, but the national offices remained with the Tutsis.  After the unexpected death of the Mwami (King), Hutus and Tutsis both fought for the right to name a successor.  Before the national election could take place, the Hutus gathered an army and forced the Tutsis to step down.  Most Tutsis fled to nearby countries.  This revolution witnessed a shift of power, politically and ethnically in Rwanda.

The Recruitment and Recovery of Child Soldiers

The use of children being kidnapped and forced to become trained soldiers is a wartime phenomenon that started to gain international attention during the latter half of the 20th century in Sierra Leone and also during the Rwandan genocide. Since that time multiple organizations have devoted efforts to stopping this horrible, war strategy not only in African countries, but all across the world examples of these child soldiers being used is happening.
This paper will examine one aspect of the child-soldier phenomenon, namely, their rehabilitation after they return from war. This is an area that has been studied less intensely. War is a very traumatic experience that can have long lasting effects on fully adult soldiers; According to the U.S. Department of Veteran Affairs, 11-20% of soldiers who fought in Operation Iraqi Freedom suffered post-traumatic stress disorder upon coming home from duty. The idea that an innocent child is subject to such experiences that can have such lasting affects is very alarming and worth looking into.

First, I will look into how these children are recruited into these situations, and try to understand why they decide to join war efforts and examine those who are also forced into war by way of kidnapping. This will help shed some light on possible hurdles that rehabilitation of these children has to overcome to ensure there is no possibility of re-enlisting by these children back into war. I will then follow this by examining how children are actually trained and utilized during war; including their various roles and duties that they are demanded to carry out as part of being a soldier; using firsthand accounts from former, child soldiers. Looking into this will help in learning the deeper roots of these former soldiers and figuring out if these learned habits early on in life can be changed into less violent mentality in later on during rehabilitation. Lastly, I will focus onto the rehabilitation stage and the measures that are taken to try to reintegrate these soldiers back to lead normal lives in society. The techniques and steps used for full reintegration into normal society could vary from person to person and seeing which method works best could help in better understanding the rehabilitation process itself.


Adams, B. (2013). You’ll Never Guess Where a Former Commander of a Nazi SS-led Unit Was Found Hiding. Retrieved from

Adolf Eichmann. (1997). Retrieved from

Baker, P. (2013, September 10). Did Stanley Milgram’s Famous Obedience Experiments Prove Anything? Retrieved from

Blass, T. (2004). The man who shocked the world: The life and legacy of Stanley Milgram. New York: Basic Books.

Blass, T. (1998). The Roots of Stanley Milgram’s Obedience Experiments and Their Relevance to the Holocaust. Retrieved from

Cherry, K. A. (2008). The Milgram obedience experiment. Retrieved from

Chin, R. (2013). Milgram’s 1963 obedience experiment is still a disquieting study today. Retrieved from

Cohen, A. (2008, December 28). Four Decades After Milgram, We’re Still Willing to Inflict Pain. Retrieved from


Controversy in Ethics of Obedience Research. (n.d.). Retrieved from

DECEMBER 15 = Eichmann Gets Death. (n.d.). Retrieved from

File:Graph of Milgram-Experiment.svg. (2010). Retrieved from

Forsyth, D. (2010). Group Dynamics (6th ed., p. 244). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Gregory, D. (2013, January 1). Theory of the drone 10: Killing at a distance. Retrieved from

Gina Perry. (2012). Retrieved from

Jones, A. (2006). Genocide: A comprehensive introduction (2nd ed., p. 397). London: Routledge.

Lunt, P. (2009). Stanley Milgram shaper of: Obedience (p. 53). New York: Pagrave MacMillan.

McLeod, S. (2007). Obedience to Authority. Retrieved from

Milgram, S. (1974). Obedience to Authority: An experimental view (p. 53). New York: Harper & Row.

Nunan, T. (2011). “Facing Justice – Adolf Eichmann on Trial” – The Eichmann Trial as International Event. Retrieved from

Parry, T. (n.d.). Medical student’s harrowing diary shines a new light on the horrors of Belsen. Retrieved from

Perry, G. (2013). Inside Milgram’s shock machine. Retrieved from

Perry, G. (2013). The Milgram Experiment: Eichmanns in the Lab. Retrieved from

Ricker, J. (n.d.). Section 6-4: Obedience to Authority. Retrieved from

Taking A Closer Look At Milgram’s Shocking Obedience Study. (2013, January 1). Retrieved from

THE BAUMRIND FALLACY. (n.d.). Retrieved from

Milgram’s Experiment: Conclusion


Milgram’s obedience experiments have had a mixed reception in psychology.

On one hand there is recognition of the importance of the work but this is tempered by real concerns about the ethics of his procedure, doubts about the meaning of the results and particularly an almost disregard of Milgram’s attempts to explain his results (Lunt, 2009, p. 63).

Many of the criticisms Milgram received were extreme, but may have been missing the main point that his experiments demand our attention, provoke us to think and raise important questions about power and subjectivity (Lunt, 2009, p. 63).

Whether the ethical arguments and other arguments made are valid against Milgram’s experiments, one thing is for sure, he taught everyone something about obedience. His interest in the Holocaust sparked his initial interest of obedience to authority and today it is proven that anyone is susceptible to obedience to authority. “To a remarkable degree, Milgram’s early research has come to serve as a kind of all-purpose lighting for discussions about the human heart of darkness” (Baker, 2013).

Adolf Eichmann

Milgram’s Influence: Adolf Eichmann and his trial

Adolf Eichmann’s Trial (Photo Credit: Timothy Nunan)

Adolf Eichmann was the head of the Department for Jewish Affairs in the Gestapo from 1941-1945. Eichmann was also the chief of operations in the deportation of 3 million Jews to extermination camps. It was Eichmann who organized the Wannsee Conference of January 1942, focusing on the issues related to the “Final Solution of the Jewish Question.” He began to organize the mass deportation of the Jews from Germany to Bohemia in accordance with Hitler’s orders to make the Reich free of Jews as rapidly as possible.

At the end of World War II, Eichmann was arrested and confined to an American internment camp. Eichmann was able to escape the American internment camp, unrecognized. He then fled to Argentina and lived under the alias of Ricardo Klement for 10 years until Israeli Mossad agents abducted him in 1960 to stand trial in Jerusalem. Eichmann’s trial went from April to August of 1961. On December 11, 1961 Eichmann was indicted on 15 criminal charges, including crimes against humanity, crimes against the Jewish people and membership in an outlawed organization. He was then sentenced to death December 15, 1961. Two minutes before midnight on May 31, 1962, Eichmann was executed by hanging in Ramleh, Israel. He was cremated and his ashes were spread at sea, beyond Israel’s territorial waters. This was the only time Israel has enacted a death sentence (Adolf Eichmann, 1997).

At his trial, he expressed surprise at being hated by Jewish people, stating that he had “merely obeyed orders, and surely obeying orders could only be a good thing.” He was declared sane by 6 psychiatrists and was described at his trial as a very average man (McLeod, 2007). The New Yorker magazine sent over reporter, Hannah Arendt, to cover the trial. It was because of Eichmann’s dull bureaucratic demeanor that Arendt coined the phrase “the banality of evil” (Perry, 2013).

Adolf Eichmann (Photo Credit: Krusty 1960s History Story)

Milgram and the Holocaust

What encourage Milgram to perform his experiments?

The Holocaust (Photo Credit: Tom Parry)

Milgram’s claim in his original paper that the experiments shed light on the Holocaust was also put into doubt. Milgram suggests, “the generalization of his findings is not specific to the Holocaust but addresses general principles of obedience to authority” (Lunt, 2009, p. 47). Milgram never claimed he was trying to capture the conditions of the Holocaust in a laboratory setting. Instead, he was trying to isolate factors that affected obedience in the laboratory. Milgram states that the idea of the Holocaust was simply a “background metaphor; in other words an extreme case in which the central importance of obedience to social life is illustrated but that his experiment is aimed at obedience as a general phenomenon” (Lunt, 2009, p. 47-48).

Milgram started his experiments in 1961, shortly after the trial of the World War II criminal Adolf Eichmann had begun. Eichmann’s defense was that he was simply following instructions when he ordered the death of millions of Jews, which aroused Milgram’s interest. In his 1974 book, Obedience to Authority, he posed the question, “Could it be that Eichmann and his million accomplices in the Holocaust were just following orders?” (Cherry, 2008).

Justifications for Milgram: Jerry Burger

Milgram experiment 2.0

Jerry Burger (Photo Credit: Gina Perry)

Jerry Burger conducted a similar experiment based off of Milgram’s obedience research. In 2006, Burger was able to test 70 men and women by modifying aspects of the Milgram situation. Burger used a “facsimile of the original shock machine, an innocent male victim who cried out in pain and demanded to be released, and an experimenter who delivered well-rehearsed prods if participants balked” (Forsyth, 2010, p. 248). Burger also would not allow participants to administer great than 150-volts. 82.5 percent of men continued past 150-volts in the 1960s, while 70 percent of men and women went to 150-volts in 2006 (Forsyth, 2010, p. 248). While there was a decline, it was not a significant one.

Burger published his findings in the American Psychologist. Burger made the slight change in deference (subjects stopped when participant believed he administered 150-volt shock) to meet ethical standards since developed and implemented since 1963. In order to make his experiment more real, he screened out people who were familiar with Milgram’s experiments.

Many people expected Burger’s experiment to have a more drastic change (greater disobedience) in contrast to Milgram’s 1960s experiments. Many people thought there would be a drastic change because much has changed since 1963. For instance, civil rights and antiwar movements taught Americans to question authority (Cohen, 2008). However, Burger was not surprised by the lack of difference between the two experiment’s results. Burger believes that the mindset of the individual participant (including cultural influences) is less important than the “situational features” that Milgram built into his experiment (Cohen, 2008). The question then arises: How do we prevent more Holocausts and genocides and other cruelty if this is how most people behave (obey authority)? Burger says: “teaching people about experiments so they will know to be on guard against these tendencies, in themselves and others” is how we can prevent such things (Cohen, 2008).


Justifications for Milgram: Roger Brown

Milgram’s biggest advocate?

In response to the negative reactions of Milgram’s experiments, Roger Brown has many positive reactions. Brown is one of Milgram’s most ardent advocates within social psychology. Brown goes as far as to regard the obedience experiments as “amongst the greatest ever conducted in social psychology” (Lunt, 2009, p. 54). In Brown’s book, Social Psychology: the second edition, he discusses two issues: the potential for collective action in response to authority and an interpretation of Milgram’s findings using social impact theory. In Brown’s book, he discusses the Gamson study, using that as his interpretation to Milgram’s experiments. With Brown’s interpretation that

The presence of others strengthened the resolve of individuals to disobey authority. A critical difference between the Milgram experiments and the Gamson study is the presence of the authority figure (Lunt, 2009, p. 56).

Brown proposes that these two studies (the Gamson study and Milgram’s experiments) give us an insight into human behaviors under different social conditions, which is extremely different from Milgram’s conception of scientific social psychology. “Social psychology is the study of the interaction between individuals in groups or between individuals and social institutions and therefore falls between the epistemological assumptions of psychology and sociology” (Lunt, 2009, p. 57). Brown does not see social psychology as such a distinct scientific discipline, like Milgram, but rather explicitly draws on social and political theory when framing his research questions.

Milgram’s Response: Questionnaire

Questions from Milgram’s Questionnaire:


Table 7.1 Now That I Have Read the Report, and All Things Considered,…

  1. I am very glad to have been in the experiment.

Defiant Subjects, 40.0%, 146 participants

Obedient Subjects, 47.8%, 139 participants

Total, 43.5%, 285 participants

  1. I am glad to have been in the experiment.

Defiant Subjects, 43.8%, 160 participants

Obedient Subjects, 35.7%, 104 participants

Total, 40.2, 264 participants

  1. I am neither sorry nor glad to have been in the experiment.

Defiant Subjects, 15.3%, 56 participants

Obedient Subjects, 14.8%, 43 participants

Total, 15.1%, 99 participants

  1. I am sorry to have been in the experiment.

Defiant Subjects, 0.8%, 3 participants

Obedient Subjects, 0.7%, 2 participants

Total, 0.8%, 5 participants

  1. I am very sorry to have been in the experiment.

Defiant Subjects, 0

Obedient Subjects, 1.0%, 3 participants

Total, 0.5%, 3 participants


Table 7.2 During the Experiment,…

  1. I was extremely upset.

Defiant Subjects, 8.7%, 32 participants

Obedient Subjects, 12.0%, 35 participants

Total, 10.2%, 67 participants

  1. I was somewhat nervous.

Defiant Subjects, 48.8%, 179 participants

Obedient Subjects, 51.6%, 150 participants

Total, 50.0%, 329 participants

  1. I was relatively calm.

Defiant Subjects, 38.2%, 140 participants

Obedient Subjects, 30.2%, 88 participants

Total, 34.7%, 228 participants

  1. I was completely calm.

Defiant Subjects, 4.4%, 16 participants

Obedient Subjects, 6.2%, 18 participants

Total, 5.2%, 34 participants


Table 7.3 Since the Time I Was in the Experiment,…

  1. I have been bothered by it quite a bit.

Defiant Subjects, 7.7%, 28 participants

Obedient Subjects, 6.2%, 18 participants

Total, 7.0%, 46 participants

  1. It has bothered me a little.

Defiant Subjects, 29.6%, 107 participants

Obedient Subjects, 28.9%, 84 participants

Total, 29.2%, 191 participants

  1. It has not bothered me at all.

Defiant Subjects, 62.7%, 227 participants

Obedient Subjects, 65.0%, 189 participants

Total, 63.6%, 416 participants


(Blass, 2004, p. 125-127)

Milgram’s Response: Diana Baumrind

Milgram writes back to Baumrind’s concerns

In 1964 Milgram used the American Psychologist to respond to Baumrind’s concerns about the unethical experiment, his ambition, and his breach of trust. Milgram was in agreement that the experiment upset and distressed some of the participants, but still defended his experiment as ethical. Milgram made it clear in his writing that it was not his intentions to induce stress in his experiments. To verify his intentions, he presented the results of some follow-up procedures. Milgram sent each of his participants a report about the experimental procedure. Appended to the report was a questionnaire asking participants to reflect on their experience. Milgram ended up with 92 percent of subjects returning the questionnaires; with almost 84 percent saying they were glad to have participated and only 1.3 percent said they were sorry they had participated (Blass, 2004, p. 125-127).