Keywords:
genocide - history - 20th century - phrenology - racism
Palavras-chave:
genocídio - história do século 20 - frenologia - racismo
The role of phrenology in the Nazi racist segregation of Jewish people during the
Holocaust is relatively well discussed[1]. Its pivotal role in the genesis of the Rwandan genocide at the gates of the 21st century is less known and is the subject of this short review.
PHRENOLOGY AND RACISM
In late 18th century, mind and soul were considered to determine human behaviour, and this was
judged mainly according to religious and spiritual criteria. Creationism was considered
indisputable and lent support to racist theories, as different ethnic groups were
seen as diverse races as conceived by God. Creationism would only be challenged in
the second half of the 19th century after the publication of Darwin's On the Origin of the Species (1859).
Dr. Franz Joseph Gall (1758-1828) was a pioneer in the development of theories connecting
human behaviour and cerebral function. According to him, mental and spiritual characteristics
of the individual directly reflected differences in brain structure, especially the
cortical areas. In addition, these differences could be evaluated objectively by examining
the corresponding areas of the cranial vault.
Gall and his early followers in Germany and Austria did not mention racial differences
as their subject of interest[2]. However, since the early development of organology (later called physiology of
the brain), social discrimination and segregation according to craniological criteria
– even in children – were held up as one of its most important aspects. From 1805
on, Gall lectured on the new system in Germany, Denmark, Switzerland and France, where
he finally settled in 1807. During this lecturing tour, he visited houses of correction
and prisons, and “gave the most convincing proofs of his ability to discover, at first
sight, such malefactors, thieves, and men of particular talents as were amongst the
convicts and prisoners”[3].
A number of the pioneer's ideas lent support and prestige to conventional prejudices.
Gall considered some Asian groups disposed to “theft and ruse”, and other groups from
India were described as “cruel, superstitious, and stupid”[4]. Johann G. Spurzheim (1776-1832), Gall's disciple and later a distinguished lecturer
on phrenology, affirmed the “destructiveness” of the Caribs[5].
Other early proponents of phrenology expressed unequivocal racist ideas[4]. In France, an incomplete list includes Dr. François J.V. Broussais (1772-1838),
who thought some people would “never become civilized”[4],[6], his son Dr. Casimir A-Me. Broussais (1803-1847), Dr. Pierre H. Gaubert (1796-1839),
who ranked talents by racial criteria, Joseph Vimont (1795-1857), and the naval officer
and explorer Jules Dumont D'Urville (1790-1842)[4]. Spurzheim's stepson, the painter Hyppolyte Bruyères (1801-1855), believed in a
“vicious cerebral conformation” of certain races and their animal-like nature and
amorality, and commented on the “immense differences” between the “miserable and frightful
savage of New Holland” and the “superb and virtuous Germanic race”. Dr. Jean B.I.
Bourdon (1796-1861) thought that it was a European's destiny to educate or subjugate
other less intelligent races, and described the “Hottentots” (Khoikhoi) as hopeless,
“stupid…intermediates between humans and apes”. The prison physician, Hubert Lauvergne
(1797-1859), claimed an “immutability of the Jewish type” and saw the Makua of southeast
Africa “at the bottom of the human chain…hardly superior to animal instincts”. He
saw “more resemblance between the heads of Negroes and of great apes than between
Negroes and Europeans”[4].
In Britain, the founder of the Edinburgh Phrenological Society and lawyer, George
Combe (1788-1858), suspected that the “development of the brain sets limits to the
spontaneous development of civilization in different races” and the Phrenological
journal warned against intermarriage between British soldiers and officers and the
primitive races in the British Empire[4].
Despite early skepticism regarding phrenology in the many scientific circles of the
19th century[3], it survived well into the 20th century, in the Americas as well as in European countries and their Asian and African
colonies. Specifically, early works focused on miscegenation, and studies by Eugene
Fischer (1874-1967) in German South West Africa (today's Namibia) involved physical
measurements and led to prohibition of mixed-race marriages in all German colonies
in 1912[1],[7]. After losing its African colonies at the start of World War I, similar studies
on mixed populations were held in Germany and led to sterilization of German Blacks,
also called the “Rhineland Bastards”[1]. Similar methods were later used for physical-anthropological characterization of
Jews, and the justification of racial purification and the Holocaust[1],[8].
THE RWANDAN MASS MURDER AND THE BELGIAN ROLE
THE RWANDAN MASS MURDER AND THE BELGIAN ROLE
Three major groups lived in the Rwandan region for many centuries. A unified population
was created, after Tutsi settlers from eastern regions (Congo) entered Rwanda from
the 14th century on[9]. Local cattle holders were incorporated as Tutsis and farmers as Hutus. Both groups
had their own rich elites. There was a third, small (1%) group, the Twa, thought to
be remnants of the Pygmies living in the area. For a long time, the Tutsis tended
to be wealthier and constituted a sort of elite. A complex feudal regimen, in which
most lords were Tutsi herders, was gradually instituted during the 19th century, and power was centralized under a king named Rwabugiri (1865-1895). Although
this contributed to the crystallization of different social roles for Tutsis and Hutus,
wealthy members of the latter group were also part of the elite and had strong feelings
of superiority over Hutu peasants[9]. Sometimes they married Tutsi women, and their children became Tutsis. In addition,
the vast majority of Tutsis were exploited commoners, just like the Hutu peasants.
Belgium first occupied the Rwanda-Urundi colony in1912[9] and more firmly during World War I as retaliation for the German invasion in 1914.
The League of Nations recognized the region as a Belgian colony in 1919. At the time
of the European colonization, a myth of ancient Ethiopian ancestry and racial superiority
of the Tutsis was introduced[9]. In 1864, the British explorer John H. Speke (1827-1884) wrote that the Hutus were
a “primitive race,” “the true curly-headed, flab-nosed, pouched-mouthed Negro”, while
the Tutsis “descended from the best blood of Abyssinia” and were, therefore, far superior[10] (Speke, 1864). Belgian settlers disseminated the myth[9],[11]. An influential 1931 documentary, The Congo I Knew, made by Armand Denis (1896-1971), probably contributed[12]. All this led to increasing tension and discrimination against the Hutu and Twa
populations.
From 1933 on, everyone was issued a racial identity card stating his or her original
ethnic group[11],[13] ([Figure 1]). Belgian specialists came to the region to classify people according to stereotypical
anatomic-anthropological features[12] ([Figure 2]). Craniofacial and body measurements were taken and a number of distinguishing features
were considered for ethnic classification of the population. Tutsis had a taller stature
(probably related to better nutrition). The head format, color of the eyes and skin
(lighter) and the size of the noses (longer and narrower) were important features,
which, as a group, was considered to resemble white Europeans ([Figures 2] and [3]).
Figure 1 Identity cards of two Rwandan Tutsis. Delivered in the 1950s by Belgian authorities,
they show date and city of birth, profession, name of spouse, and children's birthdays
as late as the 1990s.[14],[15]
Figure 2 Craniology as deemed by Belgian specialists in Rwanda in the 1930s. Belgian specialists
came to evaluate people, using typical instruments. Still images retrieved from the
film “All Watched Over by Machines of Loving Grace 3 of 3 Monkey in the Machine, 2011”[12].
Figure 3 A. Charts used to help differentiate Hutu and Tutsi people[17]. B. Symbolic examples of Rwandans of Hutu and Tutsi background: president Juvénal
Habyarimana (1937-1994) who ruled from 1973 until his death in 1994[18]; and President Paul Kagame (n.1954), current president since 2000[28]
This classification system had lasting consequences for all descendants. It was deemed
essential by the overtly racist Hutu authorities after independence[13]. Despite renewed discussion and an apparent willingness to discuss its termination
from 1990 on, the classification system was still in use, and became a central instrument
to rapidly identify and kill Tutsis during the 1994 genocide. Ethnic classification
in identity cards was only abolished in 1997[13] ([Figure 1]).
The Belgians never took a controlling role in the administration of the colony. They
chose the Tutsi group as superior, and strongly restricted the access of Hutus (comprising
85-90% of the population) to higher education, land ownership and administrative posts[9],[11],[16]. They also helped subject Hutus to forced labour under Tutsi supervision. They created
new institutions like the Native Tribunals (1936) headed by Tutsi chiefs, gradually
increasing their power[9],[11].
THE HUTU REACTION AND THE GENOCIDE
THE HUTU REACTION AND THE GENOCIDE
Before independence, Belgian rulers attempted to approach the increasingly angry and
resentful Hutu majority. The Belgians feared the increasingly dissatisfied Tutsis,
who now overtly discussed and longed for independence. They were trying to prolong
their colonial rule, now favoring the Hutus and reducing the power of the Tutsis.
The myth of the foreign ancestry of the Tutsis was now used in reverse to increase
resentments against this group[9],[11],[20].
In the wake of separatist movements throughout Africa, the Hutu reaction, stimulated
by the Belgians, and included a 1957 manifesto retaining group classifications, was
to prepare for political battle incorporating ethnic justification for revenge[13]; resulting in violent outbreaks and slaughtering in 1957, 1959-61, and 1962. In
1959, the Hutu forces overthrew the Tutsi rule. The region became officially independent
in 1962, split into two new countries – Rwanda (a republic) and Burundi (a monarchy)[21].
After independence, violence gradually escalated[11],[22]. Tutsi forces invaded Rwanda from Burundi in 1963. Tutsis were massacred in 1973
after a coup and establishment of a dictatorship. Hundreds of thousands of Tutsis
were expelled from the country[25]. Tutsi refugees created the Rwandan Patriotic Front in 1986. There was a military
invasion and transient deposition of the dictator Juvénal Habyarimana (1937-1994)
in 1990. In 1990, the pamphlet Hutu 10 Commandments, with explicit reference to ethnic killing was published[24]. Also, Interahamwe (“those who attack together”), a violent Hutu youth militia, was created, and there
was a gradual increase in violence stimulated by the official radio station (Radio-Télévision Libre des Mille Collines)[25].
In 1993, Habyarimana and the Rwandan Patriotic Front signed a peace treaty allowing
the incorporation of the latter into the national army and the return of refugees
to Rwanda. The fragile peace was broken on April 6, 1994, when the president was killed.
A rocket struck his plane near the capital airport, and Tutsis were immediately held
responsible. What followed is probably beyond adequate description. The death toll
is calculated to have been between 800,000 and two million[11],[15],[16],[21]. Some two million Rwandans fled to neighbouring countries. Perhaps a quarter million
women were raped and either killed or infected with HIV. Although, obviously, the
majority of victims of the slaughter were Tutsis, they did not have just a passive
role in the massacre. An unspecified, but large, number (probably hundreds of thousands)
of Hutus were also killed with the same savagery, by the Rwandan Patriotic Front troops
during the relatively short time (April-July 1994) of mass conflict and before a provisional
government was established[11],[26].
CONCLUSIONS
Of course, the Rwandan genocide cannot be attributed directly to Belgium or Belgian
rulers. Prejudice and social discrimination were widespread in Rwandan society for
at least a century before the occupation. The political and social gap between the
elite and the vast poor rural population was enormous. Complex and competing interests
involving neighbouring countries (Burundi, Zaire/Congo), France and the USA contributed
to the extension of the massacre[11],[17],[20],[21]. The United Nations peacekeeping troops were easily neutralized after 10 Belgian
peacekeepers were tortured and killed.
However, the importance of explicit racial discrimination of the Rwandan population,
introduced by Belgian colonizers, must not be underestimated as a driving force for
ethnic stratification and hatred. Before the arrival of the Belgians, Tutsi and Hutu
people did not see each other as different races, but both sides soon incorporated
the racial question in their discourse and justification for violence.
Scientific and medical misconceptions, including phrenology, can be used to justify
racist and other discriminatory politics[13]. The British Phrenological Association only ended in 1967, and there are European
sites and associations still promoting phrenology today[27],[28]. Concepts, such as savage or primitive characteristics, are openly discussed there
and simple formulas are offered to detect these primitive traits.
Modern society is prone to stigmatization, discrimination and simplification. In the
Internet era, people seem eager to resolve complex problems using wrong pseudoscientific
concepts. Unfortunately, in this dysfunctional world, phrenological stereotypes can
be used to find new avenues for discrimination including racism.
