Roughly five years ago, Christian Davenport and Will H. Moore hit something of an impasse and began discussions about what might be done.  We were dissatisfied with how political scientists continue to use 20th Century practices and organizations to provide feedback to one another on work in progress.  Conferences have primarily become rent-seeking forums: people attend for subsidized travel and reunion with friends (actual and potential), some professional networking, and a pinch of research interaction.  As expectations of useful feedback have dropped, the effort people invest in presenting well conceived, well executed work declines with it.  “It's just a conference paper.  But did I tell you about the restaurant/art exhibit/ball game/etc. I visited?” Eye.  Roll.
 
Our professional associations diluted the research value further by putting more and more people in each session with 5-6 presentations and 1-2 discussants, the better to drive up association membership.  While great for association coffers, this leaves less and less time for presentation and discussion. Indeed, panels increasingly feel like “academic speed dating” as each presenter zooms through the presentation hitting the highest points of the chorus, but leaving the gems of the lyrics in the paper, which probably wasn't uploaded to the conference webpage, and is likely to go unnoticed if it is.  

With this as backdrop we began to search for things we might do to step into the breach.  The current process was created back in the days when academics traveled by train, produced copies of their working papers by having a human being type two copies (an original and a carbon copy) at a time, and then paid the postal service to carry it in a stamped envelope to potential readers.  Telephone calls were prohibitively expensive, so it made economic sense for researchers to coordinate annually over a several day period when they could travel to a common location and respond to one another's ongoing work.  That we would continue this as our best practice today is an exemplar of path dependent collective stupidity. It doesn’t need to be our grandparents’ 1950’s politico-social.  Surely we can do better.  


The Past as Prologue

Given our intellectual background, it made sense that our discussions invariably led to a conversation of Charles (Chuck) Tilly (who had recently passed at the time of the conversation referenced above).   Chuck had run a workshop at Michigan, the New School and then Colombia that followed some basic rules.   Upon being asked about exactly what was involved, these were outlined below by Roy Licklider – a constant participant when the workshop was in New York:

I think we all agree that the seminar/workshop that Chuck created and ran was a remarkable phenomenon. It might be useful to compile its rules in the hope that they might be helpful to others trying to do similar things. Of course, the rules were never written down, and one of the issues with unwritten constitutions is that people often disagree about their content (unlike, say, written constitutions, but that's another story). 
Anyway, I thought I would put down my version, and everybody else can explain where I got it wrong. I've put brackets around my comments and specific illustrations from my own experience. 

The overriding purpose is to improve a piece of research. Critics are not supposed to show how smart they are by humiliating the author [there was no point to it anyway since Tilly was smarter than anyone else in the room]. A good comment doesn't just point out a weakness in the project; it also suggests what should be done to make it better (constructive criticism). 

There is no overriding topic or theme. Basically it is all about how to do good social science research. [The final title was Workshop in Contentious Politics, and there isn't much that couldn't be included under that heading. The lack of a topic made it different from most other seminars and, especially at Columbia, made it difficult to attract members who would keep coming back; Tilly's reputation helped a lot, and some of us became infatuated with the whole approach, but as noted below this became a problem.] 

Within the seminar everyone is treated as an equal. First names are used by everyone for everyone. Everyone is an author and a critic; every regular member of the seminar is expected to present (ideally once a year, although that may not be possible) and to comment on everyone else's work every week. Specialized knowledge on the topic is useful but not necessary, and often the best comments and questions come from people who know nothing at all about the topic. 

Papers are never presented; they are written and distributed a week ahead of the session. There is a reciprocal arrangement; authors limit themselves to fifty pages or less, and all members read the papers in advance. [Chuck once said it was okay if you didn't read the paper, but you couldn't say so and then make a comment.] The paper should include an introductory page putting the research in context and explaining its audience (is this a dissertation, a potential article or book, a conference paper, etc.). 

At the beginning of the session the author is allowed but not encouraged to say a few sentences, usually about the context of the research (which should be covered in the introductory page but sometimes isn't). But the session really starts with extensive comments by two preselected critics, at least one of whom does not have a Ph.D. [In recent years these comments were often written in advance and read aloud, with a copy going to the author either before (my preference) or after the oral presentation. This allows the author to not have to worry about taking notes and facilitates discussion. Chuck and I disagreed about reading the comments; I felt that, at least for native speakers of English, people should talk about the comments rather than reading them, which would be good practice for conferences and teaching classes.] 

After the two critics have made their remarks, the author is given a substantial amount of time to respond.

The floor is then open to comments and questions. Members attract the attention of the leader by raising their hand (one-finger question); the leader keeps a queue of names and calls on them in the order in which they have been seen, except that the first three comments after the critics must be made by people without Ph.D.s. It's okay for an individual to raise several separate questions at once. A second kind of intervention is the two-finger question--it must be directly on the point under discussion and thirty seconds or less. Asking a two-finger question does not change your position in the regular queue.

In addition to oral comments, members are encouraged to submit written comments. These fulfill at least two different functions: (1) they communicate specialized knowledge, bibliography, etc. which would not be of general interest to the group and (2) by repeating the oral questions or points, they again free the author from trying to take notes while answering a barrage of very different questions and issues and give them a record of the discussion which will be useful later when trying to recall what went on. [I have actually tape recorded several sessions where I was the author for the same reason. I learned from Chuck to try to keep my own comments until late in the session; with any luck others would make the points on their own and learn more from the experience than if we led the discussion.] Repeating a point made earlier, it is a firm rule that, no matter how wrong-headed the paper is [and there were some dillies], discussion is courteous, friendly, respectful, and directed at improving the project at hand rather than showing that the commentator is brilliant or that the author is insane or dangerous (although all of these may be true). Ideally the author is presented with several different ways in which the paper can be further developed, often contradictory ones which gave some choice.
​
After the seminar (which is scheduled for two hours), everyone is invited to go out to dinner somewhere nearby (it obviously helps if the seminar is scheduled late in the afternoon). The check is shared, but the author doesn't pay. [I used to explain that they had provided the entertainment. This may not be haute cuisine; Chuck would alternate between two inexpensive restaurants (usually ethnic). He justified this by saying he wanted to encourage graduate students to come by keeping it cheap. When he didn't attend during the last semester, the seminar went somewhere else to eat, although not to a much more expensive place, so maybe he was on to something. Once, when only faculty showed up, we went to a better restaurant. Occasionally, if he had gotten a nice check (as he would put it), he would pay the whole bill himself. 

I think he regarded the dinner as the high point of the experience, and certainly many of us did. I made a point not to sit next to him to give graduate students a shot at him; at Columbia they were sometimes a little shy, but they soon got over it.] 
​
With Chuck's Workshop in mind, three years ago we decided to create something in line with the spirit outlined above but do it virtually, online – taking the older model into the 21st Century.  The Conflict Consortium Virtual Workshop was born.


Challenges & Successes: Our Experience to Date

Given where we were coming from, we anticipated that there might be some issues to overcome.   

For example, who the heck would want to put themselves through what some view as a grueling performance of academic “Survivor,” which is one thing in a room of 5-50 people who after leaving the room basically forget the whole experience. This is quite a different matter when half a dozen people have 90 minutes to discuss your working paper, live on the Internet, and the whole thing is recorded to CC's YouTube Channel for posterity. Have you been to a panel where a discussant rips into the presenter and the audience (seeing the “blood in the water”) moves in for a kill like some version of “Academics Gone Wilding”? 

In contrast, we wanted to “nurture the youth,” and limited CCVW applications to working papers by non-tenured faculty and PhD students.  We were interested in getting people comments on their work and doing this in the supportive way that Chuck had managed to pull off.  We began by adopting Chuck's “Rules of Engagement” (as articulated by Licklider), bounced back and forth drafts of carefully worded emails and a blog post, shared our vision face to face with senior folks we know play well with non-senior folks, and selected kind, engaging and communicative participants to serve as Discussants.  We also continued to remind one another to keep a watchful eye on interactions while sessions are underway, task the Chair (one of us) with mediating (should the need arise), and hold a dyadic debrief after each session to discuss how we might improve.  Without exception all of these interactions have, indeed, been marvelous.

That said, we have not been deluged with applications in response to our Calls for Papers, and as such, are still working on getting the word out.  The CCVW provides a unique opportunity: where else can one get half a dozen conflict researchers to spend 90 minutes giving you feedback on your working paper?  We have discussed collecting testimonials, and we ask our past participants to spread the word virtually and face-to-face.  As with any new endeavor, however, progress can be a bit plodding and we can always get more assistance in moving things forward (did we mention that we were being backed by the NSF?).

Another potential challenge concerned soliciting free labor: who would be willing to sit and participate 1½ hours to discuss someone else’s work (we very consciously try to build networks by selecting participants who do not know one another well, but given the small size of the community our success varies).  

Here, too, Chuck inspired us.  He enjoyed speaking and was an incredibly good as well as entertaining speaker.  But, one thing that stood out to us about Chuck (and many other, given the tributes written after he had passed) was his desire to help people do better social science.  Davenport, who was able to participate in several Workshop sessions over the years, gained tremendously from his interactions with Chuck.  Davenport came to realize that Chuck would never really tell you what he thought was the most promising approach.  Rather, he would provide 2-3 alternative ways that seemed equally promising.  Now, his opinion might have existed somewhere in the three (like some intellectual shell game) but Davenport never found the shell that contained the item he preferred.  Always teaching, Chuck knew better than to just hand one a solution.  With that approach he engaged researcher's work and joined them in their search to find the right argument, the right data, the right test or the right conclusion.  He truly enjoyed the journey and as we would find, many of us similarly enjoyed it as well.

To our delight we have found the people in the conflict and peace community remarkably gracious with their time and supportive of the endeavor.  Plenty of people are unable to accept a specific invitation due to a travel or other commitment, but with the exception of a few “non-responses” we have people not only willing, but enthusiastic to contribute time reading the paper and then an hour and a half online in discussion.  

Equally important, if you watch some of the sessions we are sure you will agree that the quality of comments, suggestions, and discussion are very high quality: much stronger than the type of exchange we tend to generate at out megameetings.  This has been, perhaps, the most gratifying part of the experience for us.

Third, might 90 minutes be too long?  Given the short amount of time that most academics get to discuss their work, we wondered if we could provide an environment where actual conversations could emerge – online, among strangers.  

Scheduling the sessions for 1½ hours proved a good decision.  The conversations are engaging, content-rich, insightful, occasionally funny and quite useful – not just for the presenter but for all that observe the interaction.  Individuals come away with a sense of how the presenter as well as other participants think but also how one responds, how research designs are structured, how data is collected and how results are written - all of the components of a decent research paper.  

The conversations also seem to have an interesting rhythm to them.  The beginning typically leads to partial immersion, followed by a bit of a lull, then a deeper dive to full immersion, some reflection, some probing, and then at about the hour mark there is often something of a 7th inning stretch, after which the full energy returns for the final twenty five minutes, and we almost always ending up cutting off the conversation due to time rather than having it “run out of steam.”  

We have also encountered the standard sorts of diversity that confront science.  In an October 2013 blog post, Moore lamented a particularly lopsided gender session, and reviewed the numbers to date.  Our process has become one where Moore takes the lead generating a list of six people to invite as Discussants and a list of four to six “alternates” to pursue as we get declines.  Davenport then reviews, and revises the list.  Given that the two of us, who are male, participate, we have found that four women and two men in our initial six works best for striking a gender balance.  We also try to get at least one full Professor and two other tenured faculty, filling out the roster with Assistant profs and PhD students.  We also like to find at least one person who is from a different field (generally Economics, Sociology or Psychology).  And we want our panel of discussants to represent different subfields, research networks, and so on.  Did we mention race?  Language? The global south?  The fact that the time of day systematically excludes Asia is an issue as well (which is asleep at the time of our e-event)?

That sounds like a fun set of dimensions to maximize, right?  Needless to say, we do not maximize that multi-dimensional space.  Instead, we start with a list of names, eyeball our criteria, and start cutting and adding, cutting, and adding people (sometimes searching our CC Member List, Google Scholar, References of papers, and so on).  It is a very seat-of-the-pants (or skirt) process, and hopefully we haven't sucked at it.


To CCVW and Beyond!

With two year's experience under our belt we are pleased with where the CCVW is.  And we have begun to seek out other uses for the virtual format.  One extension concerns what we call “Data Features.”  Deviating from the standard workshop, these will involve a short data presentation, but immediately afterwards we will open the “floor” for an invited panel to ask questions about how the data were collected, what could be done with it, what has been done with it and what would they have done differently or next.  

Another extension acknowledges that megaconference panels that actually “work” are frequently just too brief, and that there is really no reason why we could not continue these conversations off-site and online.  We are calling these “Conflict Consortium Continua” as the presentations and conversations should be thought of as moving along a continuum of interaction.  We will be adding these to the mix over the next year.  We also discuss additional extensions, and welcome your ideas and feedback.  


Please Steal this Idea

In closing, we hope that others will follow our lead, launch virtual workshops for their communities, and produce even better innovative public goods for nurturing research.  Indeed, the Legislative Studies Virtual Workshop and Virtual IPES are already up and running.  The International Methods Colloquium offers another model.  Some will want to invest their energy in changing the existing megaconferences, and there is nothing wrong with that (basically).  This said, we hope to see more entrepreneurs thinking of novel ways to leverage communications technologies in the service of the production of scientific knowledge.  As the voice-over for old tv show The Six Million Dollar Man so presciently reminded us, “We have the technology.”  Now it is time to use it.


This post is cross-posted at Analog (the anti-blog) and Will Opines.

Been quiet for a bit, taking it all in, preparing for the new year.  More on that later.

Hearing about the death of the two police officers in New York raises a great many issues.

First, the deaths immediately raised the topic of retribution and revenge.  Had it been the case that individuals in the population had decided that it was unacceptable to take African American lives and decided to strike back violently?  Had it been the case that individuals in the population were done feeling that they had no agency and they decided to strike back?  Were they done begging for something to be done?  What did it mean that individuals no longer feared directly bringing the fight to political authorities?  What did it mean that the fear that normally kept citizens in check had dissolved and they raised arms against the state?  Was this the very meaning of individualized anarchy?  Would the attacks diffuse throughout the population?  How many individuals in the population harbored antagonisms toward the police?  How deep and wide did that resentment go?  Or, was this an isolated incident of an unstable individual who took an act that could be misrepresented because of the current context?

Second, although the discussion in the media has not yet made the connection, with the explicit reference to the word “pigs” in the police killers entries, the deaths reminded me of the days of the Black Panthers, their use of the word and their violent interactions with the police. As shown above, pig has a specific meaning when used by black nationalists and black power advocates.  This phrase is associated with a certain type of vicious agent of the state that appears to just brutalize all in their path. The recent reference appeared to invoke the image but without the data it is hard to say if the situation now is any worse than it was in the 1960s and 1970s when the Panthers were active.  It was not about shooting the police however.  The Panthers wanted to put the police in check for their seeming aggressive and violent attitudes as well as the type of activities employed against the black population.  But, there are some major differences between this period and the current use of the word. For example, the Panthers were a social movement organization with a broad plan for how to improve the political-economic system and not an isolated individual with a single issue they wanted addressed. The Panthers were largely interested in having the police follow the law, not attacking them pre-emptively. This is not to say that there were no violent exchanges. At one point, some members of the organization did decide to break off, start their own faction and to attack the “boys in blue”.  Such action was set within the context of a perceived all-out assault on the black community which could no longer be tolerated. This opinion was not unique to the Panthers. Most black nationalists advocated such a position - especially when viewed as a "reactive" response to anti-black violence enacted by whites in general and the police in particular. This includes groups as diverse as the Revolutionary Action Movement, the Republic of New Africa (the subject of my latest book), the All African People's Revolutionary Party under Kwame Ture, US under Maulana Karenga, the Organization of African-American Unity developed by Malcolm X and occasionally the Nation of Islam.

Third, the deaths of the police officers seems to have invoked a significant amount of sympathy for the police in particular and agents of the government in general despite the recent revelations about their activities and growing mobilization around the topic.  Would the killing of “seeming innocents” or armed government agents “on the job” shift the sympathies of the mass population away from raising questions about what had taken place and what was taking place? Would people be too scared about offending the legitimate users of coercive violence who put their lives on the line daily?  Would the momentum be lost from those who began to come together in criticism of these agents of the state?  Could a separation be made between those criticizing the police and the killer in specific or potential killers in general?  Had the scales been shifted?  Would the general deference to political authorities be resumed and the growing critical tone from much of the population be stunted?

Fourth, there is the issue of when (if at all) it is acceptable for citizens to use violence. Many political theorists speak of the right to rebellion. In the face of tyranny (i.e., a misuse of coercive power by those in political authority), it was believed that citizens had the right to raise up arms against those in government.  Unfortunately these theorists never really dealt with the issue of exactly when someone knew they were in a situation of tyranny.  They provided no definitions, no criteria and no measurement strategies. They did not address the fact that governments were the ones who frequently compiled data regarding the use of coercive power.  They also did not really discuss any variation in the concept of rebellion.  Does such activity have to involve large numbers of people?  Does such activity have to involve violence?  Does such activity have to lay out a clearly defined plan of action or could it just be a “shot in the dark”?  Is all this discussion regarding the death of the police officers and the desire for retribution simply a justification for some violent action with no significance or resonance at all?  In this latter categorization, the activity is not some measure of rebellion or signal of dissatisfaction but instead some horrific act of random violence seeking a justification?  Could the deaths of the police officers be irrelevant for current discussions?  

Questions abound.

As I prepare for the 20th anniversary of the Rwandan political violence of 1994 (i.e., the genocide, the interstate war, the civil war and the other forms of activity that are not easily named), I am reminded of earlier correspondence and how the modern period conceives of communication as well as what researchers must/need not respond to. EJ: Cue Rocky theme. You don't need the link.  It's in your head already.

For example, out of the blue on June 2012, I received the following email:

Dear Professor Davenport,

In 2009 you co-authored an article with Professor Allan Stam, published in the Miller-McCune magazine. The article, “What Really Happened in Rwanda,” addressed the controversy that has surrounded your research on Rwanda since you presented your findings at a genocide conference in Kigali in 2003. In the Miller-McCune article you explain that, although your research was well intentioned and you never denied that a genocide took place, you and Mr. Stam have been labelled as genocide deniers.  

On your GenoDynamics website, you present some ‘highlights’ of the debate over your research. These include a 2004 press release containing some of your conclusions, as well as a Reuters article that you claim was inaccurate and responsible for the resulting controversy. In addition, you have posted what you say are more careful and accurate media reports on your research. You also offer some ‘reflections of others about the hornet’s nest that [you] stepped into.’

I was, however, quite shocked to find that you present Keith Harmon Snow’s article “Hotel Rwanda: Hollywood and the Holocaust in Central Africa” and Edward Herman’s article “Genocide Inflation is the Real Human Rights Threat” as ‘reflections.’ The work of Keith Harmon Snow and Edward Herman on Rwanda involves a brazen denial of the 1994 genocide against the Tutsi, and the articles that you refer to are emblematic of the denialist discourse these authors have propounded in various publications.

Harmon Snow, for example, has presented his virulent reading of what ‘really happened’ in Rwanda in numerous articles, such as “The US Sponsored ‘Rwandan Genocide’ and its Aftermath,” and “The Rwanda Hitlist: Revisionism, Denial and the Genocide Conspiracy.” According to Harmon Snow, the pre-planned genocide against the Tutsi is a myth; he further argues that “if anyone planned genocide in Rwanda, it was the RPF, and only the RPF.” Edward Herman’s book The Politics of Genocide, which was co-authored with David Peterson, presents a similar account of what happened. It essentially turns the victims of the genocide into perpetrators, making them responsible for their own annihilation. Herman and Peterson openly argue that there was no organized genocide of Tutsi. Instead they state that “the RPF was the only well-organized killing force within Rwanda in 1994.”

These accounts reject the overwhelming weight of scholarship on Rwanda, which concludes that Hutu extremists organized and perpetrated a genocide against the Tutsi population, including Hutu that were opposed to the “Hutu Power” regime. Not surprisingly, Keith Harmon Snow and Edward Herman have denounced such scholarship as mere propaganda that misrepresents what really happened in Rwanda, claiming it is one of the most widely misunderstood events in contemporary history.

In the wake of the genocide against Tutsi in Rwanda, those involved in organizing and implementing the genocide developed a sophisticated ideological discourse aimed at denying their genocidal actions. While not able to deny the occurrence of an episode of mass violence, their discourse aimed at effectively denying the genocide by reinterpreting the event and its essential reality. The narrative account of Keith Harmon Snow and Edward Herman on Rwanda is deeply dangerous, because it recycles much of this denialist discourse.

The fact that you present the accounts of Keith Harmon Snow and Edward Herman as ‘reflections’ raises significant questions about how to interpret your own research and findings. Although you point out that your research does not seek to deny the genocide against the Tutsi, the articles you cite as ‘reflections’ do involve a blatant denial of that genocide.

Given that Harmon Snow and Herman have cited your work in their own publications, I must ask: do you agree with the accounts they present? Or, do you consider that their analyses misrepresents your research and its findings? If so, why do you lend these figures credibility by posting their ‘reflections’, and why do you not decisively distance yourself from their denialist conclusions?

I would be grateful for any comments you could supply to me – on the record, as I am researching these issues for future publications.

Yours sincerely,
 
Some random law student I never met (not his real name)


Interesting read, huh?  Remind you of your recent emails?  Well, three things I immediately found interesting. 

First, Mr. random law student did not quite catch my use of the word "reflections".  On the webpage, we had 7 categories (the 5th is what he is referencing):

  1) What we said/what we wrote (“Rwandan Genocide, 10th Anniversary: Correcting 
        the Record ”)
    2) The poorly researched and inaccurate Reuters Article that started all the controversy 
         (“Rwanda Killings weren’t Genocide”)
    3) The more careful efforts that came closer to what we actually said (“Correcting the 
         Record”)
    4) The most careful examination of the topic offered in the print media (Genocide +  
         Politicide)
    5) Reflections of others about the Hornet’s nest that we stepped into:
    6) Emails received by GenoDynamics (Samples)
    7) A Continuation of the Controversy undertaken by others

By the use of the word "reflection", I was not suggesting anything about the work itself.  Indeed, I was simply collecting everything that referenced our research, putting it into categories regarding how the work was used.  Some simply quoted what we said, some discussed the controversies raised by our work, some "reflected" on the findings and thought about what they might have meant, none attempted to actually provide any systematic evaluations of their own of the data compiled and offered on our webpage.  

Second, this piece was like many others.  They acknowledge that we did not deny the genocide, the author nevertheless wishes to push us to distance ourselves from those that do - although of course we never actually support or acknowledge the work.  We just reference who mentioned it.

Third, I found the email a bit…. well…. rude.  I was kind of used to that after the controversy sparked by disclosures of research at the 10th anniversary as well as growing up in New York city. Nevertheless, I thought that I did not want to respond to the individual for they seemed a lot less interested in discussing facts than attacking.  Why try to engage in a civil conversation with such a person?

Nevertheless, I responded on June 11th of that same year:

Mr. Random Student (not my actual greeting),

I am in the process (with Prof. Stam) of clarifying our position relative to the others you have mentioned in your email.  In brief, the webpage that you reference (which is currently being revised) listed articles largely in simplistic categories: those that outright attacked us without considering anything that was compiled/analyzed and those that appeared to "reflect" on what we said at least to some extent.  As much of this discussion has not been scholarly (i.e., based on the rigorous compilation and evaluation of evidence) we have tended to avoid most of it and proceeded to finish the book which should be done next year.  As we complete the manuscript, then we will turn to addressing the issues you raise.

Sincerely

Christian Davenport


To this, Mr. random student responded on June 22nd:

Dear Professor Davenport,
 
My reply comes somewhat belatedly, but the nature of your response has set me thinking. Although I am grateful for your quick reaction to my letter, I have to admit that I am deeply disappointed by the cursory nature of your reply, which does not in any way answer the questions that I have posed.

In your reaction to my letter, you explain that you are in the process (with Prof. Stam) of writing a book that clarifies your position relative to the others I have mentioned in my letter. You furthermore make clear that you will address my questions sometime next year once the manuscript has been finished. I however cannot understand why you do not directly answer the questions that I have posed. The questions address a serious issue, which is related to your research and therefore call for an immediate answer.

It may well be the case that your website is ‘under revision’, but in one of your ‘simplistic categories’ you do mention the work of Keith Harmon Snow and Edward S. Herman as ‘reflections.’ Their work on Rwanda entails some of the most brazen denial of the genocide against the Tutsi I have ever seen. As a scholar, in what way could you possibly ‘clarify your position’ relative to them other than by denouncing their genocide denial and by distancing yourself from their denialist endeavour?

In your reaction, you state that “as much of this discussion has not been scholarly (i.e., based on the rigorous compilation and evaluation of evidence) we have tended to avoid most of it.” I think that instead of ignoring such ‘discussion’ on what happened in Rwanda, you should have acted, because these authors do draw on your work to present a very questionable alternative version of history. Genocide denial is an intrinsic part of the genocidal process and genocide scholars have the responsibility to critically address such denial, especially if it makes use of one’s scholarly work. 

I therefore ask you again: do you agree with the accounts that Keith Harmon Snow and Edward S. Herman present? Or do you consider that their analyses misrepresent your research and its findings? If so, why do you lend them credibility by posting their ‘reflections’, and why do you not decisively distance yourself from their denialist conclusions?

I kindly urge you to answer the abovementioned questions – on the record, as I am researching these issues for future publications. Note that I too have a pressing deadline for publication and I cannot wait another year for an answer to these questions. I do, however, hope that it is not my deadline but the seriousness of the issue at hand which calls for a clear response that motivates you to answer the questions posed.

Yours sincerely,

random law student


As I was traveling at the time and without access to an internet connection, I did not see this original email until some time later. Indeed, I did not see it until returning after the summer (in late August) when I received the following:

Dear Professor Davenport,
 
A few weeks ago, on the 22nd of June to be precise, I replied to your email (see letter posted below). However, to date, I have not received an answer from you and I therefore want to confirm with you whether you received my email/letter in good order.
 
Yours sincerely,
 
random law student


Now, this series of emails raised a few issues for me:  

1) I was busily trying to work through a book manuscript, some articles, teaching and advising and did not really have the time to stop, carefully read the email as well as the work that it was referencing and respond.  

2) The initial email was sent during the summer (when I was not "working") and thus I was not as diligent as I normally would be going through my email. At that time, I was receiving somewhere between 50-100 emails a day and frankly I was not able to get through them all.  This is when I started to include the following under my email signature:

Email Rules of Engagement

- I receive between 75-100 emails per day and thus I might miss an individual email; if you have not heard from me in 3-5 days, resend (no offense taken or intended);
- I prefer direct human engagement and thus my emails are probably shorter than you expect or perhaps desire; and,
- Please use the Subject line to assist me in understanding how I can assist you (recall the 75-100 msgs)

3) I had not read Herman and Peterson or Snow's research and did not want to respond to something I had not read.  At that time, I only saw the short references that they made to the work in news articles and on the internet.  I still have not finished this book but plan on doing so by the end of March. The idea that I would stop what I was doing and read a non-university press book that I had not previously heard of before I finished my academic case load to help this person emailing me to do their research for them was a bit odd, I thought. In fact, if I were to assist them, I would be doing them a favor and why would I do someone a favor who approached me in this manner? I usually go by my mother's conception of etiquette (discussed another time) and this person was way off the mark.  But, what would Budha do?  Charles Tilly?  KRS-One?  You?  

4) I found the person emailing me a bit aggressive and reflected (yeah I am using the word again) on how the exchange would have gone if they were in my face.  Needless to say, I don't believe that they would be quite as forthright.  E-exchanges are very different from real ones. This was also just a bad email.  According to the article "Writing Effective Emails", one should use the subject line informatively, ask clearly for one thing and be clear on what response you would like. The subject line was "Questions Concerning Research on Rwanda", which is informative but does not conform to the more reasonable one topic at a time principle as I would have to read material that I had not previously read as well as write something that I had not intended to write.  Now, I acknowledge that the authors of the effective email piece also note that one should "go through your inbox regularly and respond as appropriate" but this is just not realistic.  We just receive far too much email now and with the constant stream something is always likely to be missed.  But I need not go on.  I have already addressed my opinions about email elsewhere.

5) I thought about if I had a responsibility to respond and I thought that no, I did not - either to the person emailing me or Herman and Peterson's work for that matter.  In the first case, the individual was somewhat rude and I thought that if someone emailing you had violated some general sense of respect and decency, then they were no longer someone that you needed to communicate with.  It was like, just because I send you an email, you need to respond to me.  And I was like: actually, no I don't.  In the second case, I felt that as a researcher, I had a responsibility to produce the best possible scholarship that I could and then release it to the world so that they can check my work, use it or not check it or use it.  I put it into the marketplace of ideas and the market decides what to do with it.  I am no longer responsible for how it is used any more than the makers of hammers are responsible for what people build with their tools.  Indeed, after it is sold in the store, the hammer no longer belongs to the manufacturer. The individual who "owns it" is responsible.  Now, I am not punting here. If the hammer is defective, then the manufacturer is responsible. But, if my hammer/dataset is sound, then that is where my role is done.  

I may still respond to Herman and Peterson as well as the scholars that have attacked their work referencing mine in passing (e.g., Adam Jones). From what I have read thus far, Herman and Peterson are not empirically-oriented and thus did not complete understand what we did in creating the data that was discussed. In their defense, however, they were not interested in understanding data collection, conflict/casualty estimation, causal inference or social science. They seemed interested in trying to validate particular, politically-charged causal relationships - something that we did not do because the data did not allow it. What we did was use all information available to create a reasonable estimation of casualties as well as battle fronts and draw a reasonable conclusion regarding the relationship between the two: i.e., that increases in the violence corresponded to movements forward of the Rwandan Patriotic Front's troops.  We did not speculate on why this correlation existed or the broader point of what it meant.  Herman and Peterson did speculate on the meaning - as they are free to do in a democracy and generally free society. Others (like Adam Jones) speculate on the meaning as well - as they are also free to do.  Unfortunately, these others are also non-empirically oriented scholars that do not properly understand the intricacies of data collection, conflict/casualty estimation, causal inference or diverse aspects of social science. Again, in their/his defense, they were not interested in doing this.  

Accordingly, as neither party seemed to be interested in the business of collecting evidence, rigorously assessing theoretically derived hypotheses in as transparent a fashion as possible and drawing reasonable conclusions, which was my objective, I felt no responsibility to respond to them (until now I suppose). Similar to the random student, I felt no necessity to communicate for we were not engaged in the same enterprise or sometimes on the same planet.  Sticks and stones (Jones) should have the same impact as flowers and candy (Herman and Peterson).

Now, this said, I do feel a responsibility to communicate with and have a genuine interest in communicating with those that wish to collect evidence in a rigorous, valid and reliable manner, test this evidence with an appropriate technique, discuss the findings of said evaluations and then think about the implications of these results. Individuals that are interested in these topics, will always find a timely, thorough and civil response when they contact me.  EJ: Cue some Sade...

With about a month to go, it will be interesting to see what the future brings in terms of discussion regarding Rwanda, research and responsiveness in communication.   But, as I am not actually sending this email myself but through some proxy who is doing this through my account as I attend to some related research matters in preparation for April, I think that I have learned a little something from the past and look forward to what is about to happen as the 20th anniversary of Rwanda 1994 approaches.  EJ: Cue up the appropriate Jay-Z…  

It is coming: the 20th anniversary of the Rwandan violence of 1994 (i.e., the interstate war, the civil war, the genocide, the sexual violence and some random wilding or, the genocide and civil war - depending upon who you are listening to).  Yes, it has been 20 years
and yes it is going to be quite something.  Much has happened over the last 20 years and much has happened over the last 10 as it relates to what we have come to understand about what happened. Some of it is consistent but much of it is not. We will get to more of that as the event approaches.  Look for the relaunch of www.genodynamics.com - your one-stop research site for the rigorous study of Rwandan political violence of 1994.

For now, I wanted to set forth some things that you should consider whenever anyone (including me) starts to talk about the topic. View them as the 12 things to help you understand Rwandan Political Violence as you read/see anything over the next few weeks on the internet, in newspapers, on tv, in magazines, on blogs as well as tweets:

1) What type of violence is being discussed: e.g., interstate war, civil war, genocide, sexual violence, random violence?  These have different definitions (e.g., see Meredith Sarkees and Frank Wayman and the late David Singer, Doug Lemke and David Cunningham, the late Charles Tilly or this cool special issue relevant to the topic), different causes and different implications.

2) When did the violence of interest start and how far back should one look for an origin - what date specifically?  One could start looking in April 1994, 1990, 1959, the early 1900s or during the formation of Rwanda-Burundi (they were lumped together in the beginning).

3) Who was involved in the conflict and who participated in the different forms of violence?  People tend to just combine actors together glossing over important differences: All Hutus, all Tutsis, Northern Hutus, Central Hutus, Tutsi that were in Rwanda prior to 1994, Tutsi that were outside of Rwanda after 1960.

4) Where were these people in the beginning of april and why?  In Kigali, in Washington DC, in Paris, in Detroit, in Uganda, in Butare, in Kibuye, etc.

5) Who benefitted the most from conflict and violence?  Strange to think about it but people do not engage in violence unless they get something out of it.  What did people get though: e.g., money, safety, territory/property, friendship, psychological satisfaction, banana beer or a combination of factors?  Did motives/benefits shift over time?

6) Who acted from positions of "strength" (i.e., they had choices, were conscious of what they were deciding, had resources and tactical advantage via weaponry/training) and positions of "weakness"?  Some actors might have been coaxed/conned/intimidated into acting.  Some might have known precisely what they were up to.

7) What evidence is one using to answer the questions above and where does it come from?  Researchers could use surveys, a census, newspapers, human rights records, government reports, satellite, forensic records, interviews and focus groups. Remember, stating is not the same as proving, all methods have advantages/ disadvantages. A good piece will tell you what they did, how they did it, what is good about what was done and what is deficient.  This is important because almost all people know as well as any avid viewer of the tv show Law and Order: Special Victims will attest: eyewitness testimony is highly problematic. This is the principle source of information regarding most events in Rwanda.  There must be discussion about what efforts were taken to assure that this human testimony was validated in some way.

8) Is there an alternative account of relevant events and was this considered in any way shape or form?  We must all be careful about being led down a particular pathway as a function of what source we choose to believe.  Ian Lustick warns us about this problem in his: "History, Historiography, and Political Science: Multiple Historical Records and the Problem of Selection Bias".  

9) What is the perspective, position and potential bias of the author/speaker (connection to perpetrators, victims, rebels, governments).  I talk about this in my book "Media Bias, Perspective and State Repression" but Akira Kurosowa does a much better illustration in his brilliant film Rashomon.

10) What was done (specifically) and against whom?  Now, you figure that this would be the first thing I would mention but part of the difficulty in prior research and discussion is that we did not seriously address the issues mentioned above. One cannot address this question until they have addressed the ones above and you should not trust anyone who does not address them.

11) How did violence progress and move throughout the country?  This helps us better understand who did what to whom and why but it also helps us understand where help is/was needed as well as who got services.
 
12) Does the relevant piece mention what has transpired in and around rwanda since 1994 in terms of prosecutions for crimes, other violent behavior (e.g., invasions, purges, assassinations, questionable deaths), political development, democratization/ autocratization, asylum and migration? If they do, please remember to ask the first 9 questions of this work as well.

More on Rwanda coming coon.  

Note: Between 1999-2004 I traveled around Rwanda during research. Many things happened on my trips and it is only now that I start to share them.


Karinne (as usual not her real name) appeared to be into everything.  She was in three educational programs in five different countries.  She was co-Director of two centers.  She was writing several articles for journals and generals alike on women, democracy, civil society, new media, public spheres, genocide, women and genocide, democracy and women, civil society and genocide, truth and reconciliation, reconciliation and genocide – you get the point.  Unfortunately for Karinne, she did all this poorly.  Stretched too thin, all efforts seemed to be half-hearted. 

Now, this is not to say that Karinne was incapable of learning or alternatively teaching.  Rather, she had no interest in learning how to do anything correctly because that would just slow her down and cut into her profit margin.  All Karinne had to do was a little of everything regardless of quality because in Rwanda at the time there was a lot of nothing - not nothing nothing for there were a great number of initiatives underway; just nothing completed or completely working.  In addition to this, there was a lot of people, sympathy as well as money coming to the country in order to help get something, anything started.  And it came from all corners of the globe, it came – almost daily via envelopes, packages, Western Union, UPS, Fedex, Horses and Buggies. 

The desire to send was clear.  Individuals felt guilty about not doing anything. Collectively we had failed to do anything about the violence. We could not sit back and not do anything about the aftermath. Individuals also wanted to be part of the redevelopment.  But where should their support go - I mean where exactly do you send the check?  Rwanda was still a mystery to most of the world.  They knew killing fields but nothing about survivors and their institutions.  As a result, two areas became focal points of attention: governments and universities.  The reason was simple: both had webpages and could easily be found.  In a vacuum of misunderstanding, guilt and ignorance, those with these resources COULD clean up.  Karinne was one of them.  

Hers was a no limited enterprise.  Indeed, her reach was global.  She pimped all masterfully and in the most fabulously adorned outfits imaginable – day in and day out.  “Need an interpreter for your survey?”  “No problem,” in Yellow.  “Need some researchers to do some archival work?”  “No problem,” in Green.  “Need a little essay on women?”  “No Problem,” in Purple and Red.  “Need a little lecture to be given in Norway or Belgium or Toronto?”  “No Problem,” in Pink.  It just kept coming. I have seen some deep closets in my day.  My childhood friend Kadeem Hardison's mom ran a modeling agency so you got to see all types of clothes - on models, in designer's studios, in draft form, on the floor - everywhere.

Now, this all stood out prominently for slowly emerging from the ravages of civil war, genocide, regime change and chronic underdevelopment, Rwandans were generally broke.  Actually "dead broke" would be the more appropriate but less sensitive phrase.  The average Rwandan was partially clothed, shoeless and struggling to survive.  If they did not have clothes, they were either obtained from the local market which carried a limited assortment of designs, materials and colors or from a group swap-meet which offered a slightly greater variety.  In context, the clothing and general attitude made sense and it was also quite reasonable that folks kinda did what they had to do in order to do what they had to do.  Much respect.

Karinne was one of the better-off returnees however – representing a completely different Rwandan entirely.  She had some education, some life experience outside the country, some travel, some languages (more than the two or three that indigenous Rwandans had).  She also came with a West African sensibility: loud, colorful, boisterous, energetic and busy.  In contrast, indigenous Rwandans were generally mellow, subdued, noble, quiet – traumatized a little or just shy (not many have come this far into the continent).  It was almost my sixth trip to Rwanda before I heard a loud noise (that is the source of another story).  

Now the disjuncture between Rwandans did not go unnoticed. Because of the obvious gaming (playing all against all) and general inefficiency of Karinne, she developed quite an international reputation.  In airports in Amsterdam, cafes in Belgium and conferences in Maryland, stories abound about the colorful woman running the center and a private fiefdom at the University.  To the new and the men, she was inept but charming.  To the women, she was aggressive, dismissive but with flawless skin.  I heard of grant projects that were simultaneously being submitted to and funded by different organizations.  The same work with different funds.  We all just shook it off, acknowledging our naiveté, the price of doing business and figuring that sooner or later she would get hers.  She did this, consistently however – that is get hers.  There were no come-uppins though just go-downins to the endless pit that was her perfectly matching purse.  

In post-genocide Rwanda, there was always another NGO, another aid agency, another academic ready to pay for some information, another journalist wanting to do an expose on the striving Rwandan, another student, another intrepid soul seeking forgiveness for having stood by when the horror struck this little country. Karinne was able to suck all of them up like some empathetic vortex.  Out of the other end, we came out simultaneously warmed that we had attempted something, pissed that we did not achieve what we wanted, confused at where all the money went, relaxed that more time, resources as well as energy was not spent and frustrated that we were not able to complain to any one – accept those at the bar in Kenya who recently escaped Karinne’s grasp. 

All this for me was very familiar.  Karinne reminded me of every kid back on the block in New York city in the 1980s.  Afrika Bambatta said it best: 

• Looking for the perfect beat (Searching for the perfect beat)
  
• Looking for the perfect beat (Seeking for the perfect beat)
  
• I must get mine (I'm out to get it)
  
• I must get mine (I'm out to get it)
  

Or, you could go the New Jack City route.  Same vibe.  Different medium.

It was all home to me though.  As one looked out into the city - a fierce creature that waited either to reveal some wondrous vision and/or to rob you blind, one got very adept at looking for the vulnerable, the confused, the lost.  This made "transactions" a little easier.  I recalled one of my cousins rolling up on me at one point in the Bowery where I was not used to hanging out (I went for a pair of jeans around Canal Street but ventured to far in).  He stepped in front of me while two of his "associates" pulled up on the side and back of me. Given my height, I was completely hidden.  He looked me up and down and asked me for my watch.  I thought that I would get my ass handed to me by my father if I gave it up, as it had just been given to me and although scared to death, I would rather take the ass whipping from them. While they searched for their next move, I looked up and thought that the person looked familiar.  I then said his name and the two associates immediately walked away.  I was like, it's me, your cousin - your mom's sister's son.  

After that, it was as if the weather changed.  His face turned into a bright smile of acknowledgment and then he told me to watch out because there were folks who would take advantage.  He then pulled me over to the side of the street just in time to observe his associates helping a lost soul return their wallet to the "rightful owner".  For the next few hours, he schooled me on why he chose me and how I was walking through the street.

Karinne must have had the same sensibility of my cousin.  She smelled us coming off the plane, walking into the cafe and popping up at the University.  Fresh meat.  Mark.  You had to admire her though.  Game respects game as it were and she had plenty.  Of course after a long day of coding something or having an interview with someone that massacred their family, I wondered who would have come out victorious if Karinne were to meet my cousin, kind of like some non-celebrity death match show.  An international Hustlers ball.  I think she would take him.  H-U-S-T-L-E-R…..

Note: Between 1999-2004 I traveled around Rwanda during research. Many things happened on my trips and it is only now that I start to share them.

As one leaves an establishment in Rwanda (a restaurant or a hotel) one must invariably prepare themselves for the onslaught of thin, hungry, dirty, scantily dressed but completely adorable children who ask for food or a few francs.  The culture at that time was still essentially Francophone – this would change quickly as the Rwanda Patriotic Front presence increased.  There is little variation however: there are no fat children, none who look healthy, none who appear clean and none of them is fully dressed.  Now, being from New York, I have been approached a million different ways by people in the street: “hey buddy, got a quarter,” “got a light,” “got busfare,” “got my rent in yo pocket,” or “blow for a meal”?  You hear everything.  I have even been approached by kids who just pull your heart strings.  Literally.  They just open you up, pull out veins and start playing.

The situation here is compounded by the sheer volume of the issue.  There is no isolated child like in New York but rather there is a veritable sea of youth.  The onslaught is held back by armed guards, making the place safe for foreigners and those with resources, but once you leave the safety of the establishment – unless you have guards with you or manage to sneak to your vehicle – you have to deal with the kids.

After a while, I could take it, which I was both grateful for and troubled by.  After the umteenth child solicitation, a certain degree of callousness overcomes you in Rwanda.  I really could not function in any other way because there were simply too many children.  The problem was too daunting to contemplate.  My colleague Candace could not take it either but she decided that she was going to cave in completely – albeit reacting to only one at a time. 

Something that became obvious upon closer observation was that there was a system to the solicitation.  While you were approached by a barrage of individuals, if you interacted with one or gave something to one of the children, you were thereafter “owned” by them.  If after marking, another kid interacted with the marked outsider, then it appeared that you could be sanctioned by some regulator with a stone, stick or some harsh words.

Candace was marked by a spry little kid with eyes like midnight, a smile like sunlight and a face like the sky (vast, full of potential and haunting).  He was named Innocent like many people in Rwanda.  You could not help but want to help him.

It was absolutely amazing to see.  Upon coming out of any store on the Butare strip, @’s Innocent would find her.  “Madaam…  Madaam…”  He would start, tilt his head to the side and smile – hand out.  Initially, Candace would give him a franc or two but then she came up with a mini-development strategy.  First, she would work on his nutrition: a sandwich instead of a franc, a power bar or a vitamin or two.  Second, she would take him for a visit to a doctor – after the buy in purchased with a meal.  Then she would talk about school, over a bottle of water or coke. 

Candace was all into his life and he lapped it up.  How could he not?   They both seemed to need each other and you were warmed by the connection. Amidst all the horrible things one saw in Rwanda, if just one life could be improved, things would be just a little more tolerable.  That was the idea at least.  The reality was more complex. 

You see, the children were also marked.  They did not run amok as we thought.  Over a few weeks, I managed to sneak in the back of the Made Niggaz Hair Saloon and sat in the front with some people I had met before.  This allowed me to watch where the kids were hanging out as well as where Candace was coming from.

Watching the street, I could see that there were clics/groups of youth – a gaggle of little capitalistic entrepreneurs.  There were older kids as well – between 15 and 20 who seemed to run the pack.  The leader would gather the youth at the beginning of the day and pass out assignments.  Innocent’s job was seemingly Candace.  He would trail her everywhere – walking, running, hiding, waiting – always placing himself where he could be seen (which after you have been marked becomes easy somehow – it’s like there are no longer a hundred kids in a crowd, just yours). 

At the end of the day, the kids met again to hand over their goodies to their handlers, from the days catch.  There is no joyful enjoyment of the goodies.  There is no gracious handover of the piece of bread to grandma back at the old house in the bush.  Rather, grandma is dead and there is no house but there is a somber handover and reallocation.  After Candace’s giving, all Innocent does is cross the street, turn the corner into an alley and hand over everything he got.  On the way back to the street, he might take a nibble but not too much or else he might get caught.

Why give up the goodies?  Protection.  Fear.  Survival.  Numbers are the only thing that seem to keep you alive on the streets of Rwanda.  You give up to get set up and you get set up to live (not die). 

Seeing this whole process once, by mistake, Candace later mentioned to me that “oh, that’s so cute.  He’s sharing.”  I just looked at her.  She missed his submissive demeanor (it looked like someone waiting to get punished), the look on the older kid’s face of anticipation (it looked like some drug addicted fiend waiting for their fix), the eight or so kids that stood around waiting their turn (reminiscent of the first).  She even missed Innocent’s look on his face after he gave over this prize (like his lunch money was taken that day, like everyone before it – this was actually pretty accurate but the money was not just for lunch). 

At that moment, I realized that we were and were not from the same place.  Later, I realized that she needed to see Innocent share.  To see anything else would be too hard.  I, on the other hand, didn’t need anything but to see what was in front of me.  Both of us were likely wrong.  I needed more of a filter for all this stuff lest I be overcome by it and Candace needed less of one lest she be underwhelmed.  

Note: Between 1999-2004 I traveled around Rwanda during research. Many things happened on my trips and it is only now that I start to share them.
 
Perhaps the most disturbing aspect of traveling around Rwanda is the ghost of the genocide.  One might not know the particulars of what took place in a particular place back in 1990-1994 but one quickly gets a sense.  Before going to the country, I read all the books, articles and memoirs I could find.  I also saw a tremendous number of pictures of dead bodies – partially buried or floating.  I even saw the brief video made by Belgians traveling with the Rwandan Patriotic Front or RPF (the Tutsi rebel organization invading from Uganda) which showed the chaotic, sporadic and highly communicative behavior of those involved in the violence.Individuals came out of the jungle, would say something to one another (likely chiding each other on), a person would hack on a body for a while, walk off, have another screaming match and someone else would hack.  They would then walk away and you could see that the body was still alive.  What the hell were they saying?  Why didn’t they just kill the person?  Why did they do it at all?  What kind of sick f@%er hacks someone?  Who films it, and why didn’t the RPF have some snipers?  How can you hack someone? [Note:  Like so many artifacts, this video now appears to be lost.  If you know where it is posted, please let me know.]  

While the genocidal and non-genocidal violence is yet to be explained, part of the explanation needs to be that Rwandans practiced all the time: machetes were everywhere.  They were used to hack fruit from trees, to hack limbs for firewood, to hack meat (no butcher, just a blood-red wooden stub); they were used on the side of the road, on the side of a building, in markets, at restaurants, in bars (for lemons – for real), in hospitals, in schools.  In fact, I cannot think of one place where I went and did not see a machete. 

This reality made one feel surrounded by 8 million potential axe murderers.  Sorry to say it but that's the deal.  Now, I knew that I did not know who specifically had hacked anyone: even if someone was in jail, had confessed to the crime and sat there in a pink prison outfit (given to those involved in the genocide to embarrass and emasculate), you never quite knew which end was up. People were just arrested because their neighbor wanted their property, because they owed someone money, because someone wanted their spouse or because they had challenged the government.  You never knew.

Why confess?  You seen Law and Order.  Well add machetes.  I’m surprised they didn’t have more confessions just to escape the random machete carrier.  I suppose there were plenty of shivs in the prison but still.

As a result of this situation, it just seemed easier to me to assume that everyone was guilty – to err on the side of safety.  Now, this is no way to interact with folks, thinking everyone is a murderer.  In some strange way, however, growing up in New York was good preparation for Rwanda.  In the city (well, the one I knew in the 1970s and 1980s, not the new Disney thing on 42nd Street), you thought everyone was trying to "jack you up" – I wasn’t even in a bad neighborhood and this was the opinion.

Still, it is different navigating Rwanda because every time you hear a distant chop or thump, you shudder and wonder.  Every hand you shake, you reflect on how hard the callouses are, how strong the grip is.  Chop.  Then, you wonder if they could have done it.  Every pair of eyes you look into, you wonder what they see; what they saw.  Chop.  Every chicken or goat you see beheaded, you reflect.  Chop.  Every child you saw, old woman, young man, old man, young woman, you wonder.  Chop.  How can you have peace when the mechanism of piece creation is around you constantly?  People do not seem to check their machetes when they go places, like a hat.  They carry them like Handbags, or is it Teabags?  Casually, matter-a-factly, constantly, urgently. 

In this context, your eyes move constantly.  Checking out the most proximate hackers, machine guns, bands of children.  You do this at the same time you try not to move your head and body, which would communicate far too much uneasiness, marking one for the taking.

The result: you get physically and psychologically exhausted after being in Rwanda for a while and resolve yourself to your fate and/or faith.  Yet another thunderous hack is heard in the distance.