Machete Season

Most of the killers say their days of killing and taking revenge are over. They insist they will be ordinary men when they get home. Élie intends to make amends by giving gifts to the victims to whom he has written apologies. Pio, if given the chance to go home, will apologize because he is no longer interested in playing the “tough guy” (19). All the killers, he says, will have to learn to live with the idea that they were part of the evil that swept through Rwanda in 1994.

Fulgence complains that the killers and their families faced horrible hardships in exile and now in prison; two of his own children have died from illness. Pancrace will also go home and look for a wife. He has not been changed by the events, he believes.

Jean-Baptiste is at peace since he bared his soul and spoke up. Alphonse no longer wants to kill. Ignace is disappointed by what he has lost. Léopord believes that those who really repent can have a good life, but most dream of vengeance. Adalbert wants to return to farming; he is no longer so angry but believes that the Tutsis will never understand or accept an explanation because of their suffering. Adalbert hopes that over time, the Tutsi may be won over.

Hatzfeld explores the idea of forgiveness. In the 20th century, civilians were targeted in wars and by their own states, which Hatzfeld believes raises new questions about forgiveness. Specifically, he asks if wholesale crimes against humanity ever be forgiven. Moreover, he questions whether a “collective” can grant the killers forgiveness, or if only individual survivors can grant forgiveness

For Tutsi survivors, the answer is no, Hatzfeld concludes. Francine says that if someone approached her and asked for forgiveness for killing her mother and sisters, she would have nothing to say. Perhaps the next generation, she thinks, will be better-equipped to forgive.

The survivors are the least concerned with forgiveness; the killers the most. Hatzfeld notes that war criminals forgive themselves through a process of self-examination. But genocide killers see forgiveness as a pardon for their crimes: if they ask, it is given. It is transactional in nature.

Élie and the other killers apologize loudly, but they all claim, unlike survivors, that they have nightmares only of their ordeal as refuges in the Congo or their life in prison, not of the genocide itself. Hatzfeld wonders if the killers are the least traumatized. Or maybe, he thinks, they are lying about the nightmares.

The killers discuss receiving a pardon for their murders. Fulgence begged for a pardon from victims. Forgiveness, he believes, will help him with his remorse and help him to forget. He will gain something through forgiveness, but he does not know what the forgiver will gain. Adalbert has a similar outlook. But he will not be discouraged if he is not forgiven on the first ask. He wants the authorities to implement a government program to encourage the survivors to forgive.

Jean-Baptiste also imagines that he will not be forgiven on the first try. Ignace and Adalbert think that forgiveness is up to God. Pancrace believes that asking for forgiveness is just as hard on the asker as the forgiver. Alphonse thinks that if he is not pardoned, he will remain a killer without remorse.

Léopord observes that when the Tutsi pleaded for their lives, it fell on deaf ears. So it is now strange to be sitting in prison asking for forgiveness. Pio, however, raises the question of who has the right to decide forgiveness. He wants to leave it to God.

Hatzfeld explores how the Tutsi acquired ethnic characteristics and whether those were the source of anti-Tutsi sentiment leading up to the genocide and during the killings.

Hatzfeld asks what the Jews and the Tutsi had in common. Unlike the Jews, the Tutsis lacked a unique religion or customs distinct from the Hutu. They also had political power at some point in recent history. But both anti-Semitic and anti-Tutsi propaganda leading up to the killings focused on physical characteristics and psychological traits. The Jews were called parasites, the Tutsi cockroaches.

In Africa, identifying people by ethnicity is not uncommon. But most conflict, although appearing to be ethnic, is usually about regional, economic, or social issues. In Nyamata, the propaganda targeted the Tutsis’ height and their so-called “noble bearing” (211). The Hutu were attentive to the physical and cultural differences between the two groups. According to widely-held stereotypes, Tutsi have long limbs, softer and smaller features, and walk with pride.

Hatzfeld also notes that Nazis in the field admitted to anti-Semitic sentiments; the Rwandan killers, however, did not. None wanted to talk about their anti-Tutsi feelings as a cause for killing. Some were not anti-Tutsi, like Jean-Baptist and Pio. Even Joseph-Désiré, arguably the most brutal of the killers, only developed anti-Tutsi feelings in the months before the genocide.

Hatzfeld concludes that anti-Tutsi sentiment was one among many motivations for the killing. Even Ignace, the most vocal anti-Tutsi gang member, killed the least.

Through the killers’ words, Hatzfeld attempts to trace the roots of anti-Tutsi sentiment. Adalbert notes that since 1959, the Tutsi and the Hutu harassed one another. In the cabarets, Hutus talked about killing the Tutsi and their cows, but no one took these threats seriously. Although Hutus never truly trusted Tutsis, the two groups hung out together. Jean-Baptiste says Hutus did not like the Tutsis’ height and believed that the women did not work hard. But Jean-Baptiste says it was all a lie; in the hills they saw Tutsi and Hutu women working side by side.

Ignace says the hatred arose because there was not enough land. Fulgence agrees, adding that they would soon have no more fertile land, which reminded them of the days when they worked as unpaid labor for the Tutsi king.

Pio’s hatred of the Tutsi did not arise until the killing started. Élie argues that issues pertaining to the Tutsis’ cows and land predated hatred of their physical characteristics. The Tutsi would herd their cows together so no one could determine their wealth, which made the Hutus nervous and suspicious.

Adalbert and Pancrace both blame the radio propaganda for giving them the language of hate. After Habyarimana’s plane crash, the interahamwe labeled the Tutsis cockroaches, a designation that radio broadcasts amplified.

Some aspects of the Rwanda Genocide were not unique. Hatzfeld notes that in studies of Nazi Germany, there is no record of a Nazi punished harshly for refusing to kill a Jew. Similarly, there were no instances of a Hutu arrested for refusing to kill. Granted, the Rwandan genocide was so quick that there was little opportunity for trials should someone refuse to kill.

As the survivor and teacher Jean-Baptiste Munyankere says, the genocide was “the abnormal actions of perfectly normal people” (225).

The killers discuss the term genocide and whether they used that term during the period of bloodshed.

Fulgence says that as the death toll mounted, they spoke less about their actions and thought less about their victims. Jean-Baptiste says they first heard the word genocide from reporters. Adalbert believes it is a word no one can understand, but “killing enemies” are words that make sense to them.

In this chapter, Hatzfeld wonders why the killers did not have death in their eyes, like the other killers he met in Rwanda. Hatzfeld believes that his choice to publish the killers’ accounts raises ethical questions. He normally would not publish conversations that put people in comprising situations. But he made an exception for the killers in part because of his bonds with the survivors.

The killers discuss the genocide as if, according to Innocent, it happened a long time ago and was something the authorities ordered. They speak of unspeakable things with no remorse. They are relaxed, showing no signs of distress, and tell their sometimes fantastical, incredulous stories with no emotion, recounting mostly the sadness of their own lives. Hatzfeld observes that all the killers are egocentric to the point of unbelievability. No matter the topic, they put themselves in the center.

Only Jean-Baptiste understands what monsters they are and how the world sees them. Pio and Pancrace think the genocide is beyond comprehension; Élie, Alphonse, and Léopord want to gain a better understanding; Adalbert, Ignace, and Joseph-Désiré are looking for a way out of prison. They all feel compassion only for their own predicaments; they have no feelings for the survivors.

Hatzfeld concludes that their behavior derives from the genocide’s “absolute character,” which allowed them to kill. That same absoluteness is what allows them to evade understanding, guilt, or anxiety in the aftermath of the slaughter. Finally, Hatzfeld reiterates the normalization of mass murder during the Rwandan genocide, concluding that the killers were ordinary men.