CHAPTER 1:
WHY HUMAN NATURE MATTERS
How does our understanding of human nature affect how we address the pressing questions of our day?
The average person in Rwanda, they would no sooner kill their neighbor than you or I. But when the killing began by those who were ready to do it, the fear just took a hold of people, and it went like wildfire.
âCARL WILKENS,
Adventist Development and Relief Agency1
Over the course of one hundred days in 1994, Rwandan Hutus slaughtered more than 800,000 of their countrymen. Men, women, children. Over three hundred per hour. Over five per minute.
The trigger was the April 6, 1996, explosion of a plane carrying the Hutu president of Rwanda, JuvĂ©nal Habyarimana, along with the president of Burundi. Hutus, blaming the explosion on Tutsi rebels, immediately launched attacks on Tutsis and other Hutus perceived to be Tutsi sympathizers. While organized by leaders of militia groups and the armed forces, the genocide involved the whole population. Leaders turned citizens into killers of neighbors and even their own family members. Between 100,000 and 200,000 Hutus participated in the genocide. While some killers had guns and grenades, most wielded low-tech weapons such as nail-studded clubs andâespeciallyâmachetes. They used rape, too, as a means of genocide; the United Nations estimates that between 250,000 and 500,000 women were raped during the genocide.
Journalist Philip Gourevitch traveled around Rwanda afterward, interviewing survivors and gathering information. In his book We Wish to Inform You That Tomorrow We Will Be Killed with Our Families, he relates a particularly chilling account of a massacre that took place in Nyarubuye. When Tutsis asked the local Hutu mayor how they might be spared, he told them to seek sanctuary in a church. They did, and Gourevitch writes that a few days later the mayor himself âcame at the head of a pack of soldiers, policemen, militiamen, and villagers; he gave out arms and orders to complete the job well. No more was required of the mayor, but he also was said to have killed a few Tutsis himself.â2
After many hours, the killers still had not finished massacring the refuge-seekers. So they cut the Achilles tendons of the survivors, feasted on cattle taken from the victims, drank beer, and rested. The next day, âThe killers at Nyarubuye went back and killed again. Day after day, minute to minute, Tutsi by Tutsi: all across Rwanda, they worked like that.â3
A radio station, Radio TĂ©lĂ©vision Libre des Mille Collines (RTLM), fueled the killing frenzy. After the presidentâs plane exploded, the station called for a âfinal warâ to âexterminate the cockroaches.â4 It broadcast names of people to be killed along with instructions on where to find them.5 The radio station and genocide leaders consistently downplayed the victimsâ humanity; in speeches and âconsciousness raising meetingsâ held in advance of the genocide, leaders referred to Tutsis as âscumâ and âdevilsâ (âhorns, hoofs, tails, and allâ).6 RTLM urged listeners to âleave no grave half fullâ7 and to âtake no pity on women and children.â8 Other nations stood by and refused to intervene. In part, their attention was on other crises, such as a war in Bosnia that was itself turning into a genocide. But nations like the United States were also influenced by the failed intervention in Somalia that occurred just months before in 1993 (captured in the book and movie Black Hawk Down).
While the United Nations had deployed a peacekeeping force of about 2,500 to Rwanda in November 1993 in response to a civil war, it refused to allow its soldiers to use force. On April 21, two weeks into the genocide, Lieutenant-General RomĂ©o Dallaire, Canadian commander of the UN troops, requested additional troops. He insisted that with 5,000 soldiers he could bring an end to the genocide.9 The Security Council refused. It instead adoptedâwith strong support from the United Statesâa resolution reducing UN forces by nearly 90 percent to 270 troops.10 Western nations evacuated their own citizens but did nothing to stop the killing until it was too late. President Bill Clinton later called the failure to intervene in Rwanda one of the greatest regrets of his presidency. In 2013 he told CNBC: âIf weâd gone in sooner, I believe we could have saved at least a third of the lives that were lost ⊠it had an enduring impact on me.â11
Carl Wilkens was the lone American to remain in Rwanda, and he stood as witness to the genocide that shocked the world and still haunts us today. Looking back, he summarized his emotions: âBy the time the genocide was over, I was so angry at AmericaâAmerica the beautiful, America the brave.â12
These appalling events bring our attention to a set of larger questions about human nature:
1.What is the value of human life? For three months in 1994, the lives of Tutsis were worth very little. They were considered scum. Devils. Cockroaches. Tutsi pastors, fearing for their lives and those of their congregations, wrote Hutu Pastor Elizaphan Ntakirutimana, Adventist Church President of Kibuye, seeking help and protection. He reportedly told them, âGod no longer wants you.â13 While Western nations evacuated and saved their own citizens, they did little to protect the lives of Africans. The Africans were on their own.
2.How are humans capable of such evil? In 1945, after the Holocaust, the world collectively declared, âNever again.â We created the UN and ratified the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. How could this have happened at the end of the twentieth centuryâless than fifty years later? How did so many ordinary citizens pick up machetes and strike down neighbors and friends?
3.To what extent should humans be held responsible for such evil actions? The events of 1994 raise difficult questions regarding human accountability. Leaders and planners are unquestionably to blame for the genocide, but what about ordinary citizens? As Wilkens noted, âThe fear just took a hold of people.â How do we decide whetherâor to what extentâto blame the tens of thousands of individuals who killed while caught up in hysteria, fear, or ethnic and social pressure to participate? And what is the appropriate punishment for genocide?
We need to address these fundamental questionsâand, thus, to properly understand human natureâif we want to address the pressing issues of our day in an informed way.
A HOUSE DIVIDED
Our fundamental beliefs about human nature donât just influence our perceptions of and reactions to events that are widely regarded as atrocities, like genocide. They also matter in the domestic legal and policy issues confronting Americans every day. Our core beliefs about human nature are the building blocks with which we craft specific public policies and legislative agendasâand yet, itâs easy when confronting legal and policy challenges to focus on a plethora of cosmetic changes rather than the foundational issues. Take as an example what may be the defining characteristic of American public life today: the significantâand increasingâpolarization between political parties. Red states and blue states. The inability of Congress to reach a consensus on any significant piece of legislation (including something as basic as an annual budget).14 Nominations to the Supreme Courtâand at times to lower courtsâhave given rise to pitched partisan battles.
As a result, the American public is skeptical and at times even pessimistic. We donât feel we can trust our political leaders. According to Gallup, out of fifteen key institutions in society (including the military, police, business, and the criminal justice system), Americans have the least confidence in Congress.15 In 2016, only 9 percent of Americans expressed âa great dealâ or âquite a bitâ of confidence in Congress. The next lowest group on the confidence scale was big business, at 18 percent.16
And our growing polarization is not just a matter of perception. In June 2012, the Pew Research Center released findings of a 25-year study, which stated that Americansâ âvalues and basic beliefs are more polarized along partisan lines than at any point in the past 25 years.â17 It reported that the divide between Democrats and Republicans on core values and beliefs was greater than divisions over race, class, age, or gender.18 Key issues experiencing increasing divides include:
âąThe role and scope of government: In 1987, there was only a 6-point gap between the 65 percent of Republicans and 59 percent of Democrats who agreed that âwhen something is run by the government, it is usually inefficient and wasteful.â19 In 2012, there was a 36-point gap; 77 percent of Republicans versus only 41 percent of Democrats agreed.20 More recent Gallup polling verifies that this division over the role of government remains. Today, 57 percent of Democrats prefer a more active government while only 15 percent of Republicans do.21
âąImmigration: For over twenty years, Pew has tracked survey responses to the following proposition: âImmigrants today strengthen the country because of their hard work and talents.â In 1994, there was barely a gap between Republicans and Democrats; 30 percent of Republicans and 32 percent of Democrats agreed with the proposition. In 2016, 34 percent of Republications agreed, compared with 78 percent of Democratsâa difference of 43 points.22
2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION
The deep political divisions in the United States were on full display in the 2016 presidential election between Republican Donald Trump and Democrat Hillary Clinton. Two weeks before the election, US News & World Report declared: âThe nation is sharply divided on nearly every topic, from race relations to what problems the next president should fix first, and a record percentage of people believe the country is on the wrong track.â23
The nationâs divisions were evident on election night. Donald Trump won the presidency with a victory in the electoral college of 304 to 227; Hillary Clinton won the popular vote by nearly three million votes. Seven electors voted for someone other than their partyâs nominee.
In the weeks following the election, thousands filled the streets in cities across America protesting Trumpâs election. Hundreds of thousands of women marched on Washington on January 21, the day after Trumpâs inauguration. By some estimates the number of marchers significantly exceeded the number of inauguration attendees from the day before.24
So now we live in a world where there is more profound disagreement over high-profile social issues than ever before. A 2016 Gallup survey found significant differences between Republicans and Democrats on the following propositions:25
| Republicans agreeing | Democrats agreeing | Gap |
Doctor-assisted suicide is morally acceptable | 44 percent | 64 percent | 20 points |
Medical research using stem cells obtained from human embryos is morally acceptable | 44 percent | 73 percent | 29 points |
Gay or lesbian relations are acceptable | 44 percent | 75 percent | 31 points |
These are all important issues that go to the core of who we are as a society. Effectively addressing these issues will be necessary for us to function as a society and thrive. However, there is no clear path to consensus on these and other issues that confront us. It seems clear that it will not come from being more educated or obtaining more data. We have plenty of dataâmore than at any time in history. No, our disagreements are not over data collection or interpretation. They go much deeper than that.