MEMORIALISATION OF THE RWANDAN GENOCIDE
DESIGNATION
Designated sites '...arise from events that are viewed as important but somehow lack the heroic or sacrificial qualities associated with sanctification' (Foote, 1997:17-19). Rituals of ceremony are also emitted and the designation of a site may be transitional and as such the site, over time, could be either consecrated or obliterated. The primary reason is because commemoration is primarily instigated through victimes, survivors or relatives and it is very rare for any state to commemorate its own crimes (Foley and Lennon, 1997:49).
The Rwandan landscape portrays a diverse way of rememberance, however many sites are still under construction, with artefacts and human remains openly on display, no permanent guides or exhibitions in place. Location authenticity is considered key in memorialisation however issues of commodification and charging of entrance fees appear.
Nyamata Memorial
When the Genocide began in April of 1994, many residents of the region gathered in Nyamata and sought protection at the local Catholic Church. The church compound, tended to by priests and nuns, provided a haven for the frightened masses that flocked to the compound, hoping to escape death. The church was thought of as a place of refuge and of sanctuary where the militia would not dare to attack.
Unfortunately, this was not the case. According to testimonies given by survivors and evidence gathered, approximately 10,000 civilians were killed in and around the Catholic Church compound on April 10, 1994. As the killers approached, people gathered in the church and padlocked the iron door that safeguarded the entrance. Members of the Hutu militia, and the Rwandese Government Forces forced the door open and entered the church with their rifles, grenades and machetes. They massacred the people hiding inside the church and also went on to kill those in the surrounding area.
The brick walls show several gaping holes. The victims inside had locked the doors to prevent the militia and soldiers from entering the church. In response, the Interahamwe used sledge hammers to break open holes in the wall, through which grenades were thrown into the church, causing many deaths and stunning those trapped inside. The killers eventually forced their way into the church and proceeded to murder the surviving men, women and children, using machetes, clubs, and local farming tools. The ceiling is riddled with bullet holes and is still stained with blood. The remains have been removed from inside the church and placed in two mass graves located behind the church. But the clothing of the victims remain: It has been placed in piles that line the pews of the church, as well as the floor in the certain places. Although the remains have been removed, bones still peek out of the clothing. The alar cloth still covers the altar stained with blood.
In memory of the people who lost their lives in Nyamata Church and its surrounding area, the Rwandese government, in collaboration with the Genocide survivors from the Nyamata area, decided to preserve the church as a memorial to the Genocide Against the Tutsi. Services are no longer held here. Today, this site is visited by tourists, students, survivors and activists who want to learn about the Genocide and those who wish to honor the victims and the survivors of this horrible atrocity.
With sites such as Nyamata it is apparant that there is a lack of funding available to memorialise the genocide and these sites could appear unethical if they were seen to be revenue generating sites.
‘we do not want people saying that we are selling the blood of our families'
Anon (2004)
Members of the local communites such as those at Nyamata have agreed that people should have the right to visit and be educated about the atrocities that occured in Rwanda, however charging to visit memorials would limit people (Friedrich & Johnston, 2013).
A survivor of the Rwandan genocide stated that entry fees could be implemented to support communities affected by the genocide.
The opportunity to visit such memorials for tourists allows interaction with victims and perpetrators and can deliver raw authenticity. The principal strategy for memorialisation in Rwanda is to leave genocide sites intact and display the dead (Guyer, 2009, p. 157). The issues surrounding this can be seen to compromise sacredness and as a result the remains are no longer individual, nevertheless, whilst officials aim to depict accuracy and the atrocity of the genocide, some deny the genocide thereofre the memorials and remains should stay as evidence (Harper, 2011).
