Becoming “Historically Marginalized Peoples”: examining Twa perceptions of boundary shifting and re-categorization in post-genocide Rwanda

ABSTRACT

The overwhelming majority of academic literature on pre- and post-genocide Rwanda focuses on the Hutu-Tutsi duality while resigning the narratives of the Twa to a mere footnote. From their nomadic lifestyle as hunter-gathers, to their experiences of conflict and genocide, to their perceptions of political transition and post-conflict nation-building, little is known about the lived realities of Rwanda’s most marginal minority. This article addresses this gap by exploring the impact of the government of Rwanda’s national unity project on the Twa using survey, interview and focus group data with Twa youth, community leaders and villagers. Borrowing from Andreas Wimmer’s taxomony of boundary-making strategies, it shows that despite state-led efforts to unmake Twa identity by blurring ethnic boundaries and recategorizing the Twa as “Historically Marginalized Peoples”, Twa have a strong attachment to their identity and culture and challenge government efforts to re-draw boundaries through everyday acts of resistance.

KEYWORDS:

• Ethnic boundary-making
• external categorization
• everyday resistance
• Twa
• “Historically Marginalized Peoples”
• Rwanda

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Phil Clark, Marie-Eve Desrosiers, Alison McColloch, John McGarry and Jason Mosley for their comments on earlier versions of this paper, as well as Helen Hintjens and the other anonymous reviewer at E&RS for feedback. The authors would also like to thank the Aegis Trust's Research, Policy and Higher Education programme for supporting their research.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Notes

1 Batwa and Mutwa are the plural and singular forms of Twa in Kinyarwanda. Twa will be used as a substitute throughout.

2 See, James Scott (1992) on “hidden transcripts”.

3 There are exceptions to this. See, for example, Kohtamaki’s (2010).

4 Lewis and Knight’s (1995) monograph and the mission report of the Unrepresented Nations and Peoples Organization and the Association pour la Promotion des Batwa (1995) are two of the only analyses of the impact of the genocide on the Twa of Rwanda.

5 We found that respondents who spoke with us in English varied in their use of “Historically marginalized people” and “Historically marginalized peoples”. This did not appear to be done with intent. The correct translation of its Kinyarwanda counterpart is, “Historically Marginalized Peoples”.

6 When the UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination called on the GoR to recognize the Indigenous status of the Twa in 2016, the Rwandan delegate insisted there are no “Indigenous peoples” or “alien people” in Rwanda (quoted in UNHCR 2016, para. 32).

7 The UNDRIP is an international instrument adopted by the UN General Assembly on the 13 September 2007, which enshrines the rights that “constitute the minimum standards for the survival, dignity and well-being of the indigenous peoples of the world” (UNGA 2007, art. 43).

8 See, Collins 2014 for a detailed discussion of the “politics of Indigeneity” in post-genocide Rwanda.

9 This number has increased since the time of fieldwork due to a government programme aimed at educating “HMP.”

10 The remaining thirteen percent of respondents did not provide an answer to this question.

11 Original responses were given in Kinyarwanda.

12 Ten percent of respondents indicated that government officials and ordinary Rwandans use the term “HMP” in equal measure, while five percent of respondents did not provide an answer to the question.

13 The remaining five percent of participants chose not to answer this question.