Fragments, Webs and Weavings: Rwandan-Canadian Perspectives on the 1994 Genocide against Tutsi
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Since 1994, many survivors of the Rwandan genocide against Tutsi have migrated to Canada to re-build their lives. The literature has established that a large proportion of the Rwandan population suffers from post-traumatic stress and depression. However, there is also a large body of ‘psycho-social’ and ‘anti-colonial’ literature that problematizes ‘Western’ mental health constructs such as post-traumatic stress and depression. Similarly, anti-oppressive social work theories argue that social workers need to recognize the politics of suffering and helping in order to practice effectively. Some have argued that ‘Western’ approaches (namely: bio-medical), that are harmful, continue to dominate work with survivors of mass violence, whose own views are rarely heard. To address the lack of Rwandan voices in the discourse about the genocide, I conducted 1-on-1 interviews with 9 members of Rwandan-Canadian survivor communities to find out what they have to tell us about their perspectives on genocide survival and healing in the Canadian context. My findings identified a total of eleven interrelated themes re: how Rwandan-Canadian survivors are affected by, deal with and make sense of the 1994 genocide. Ultimately my research supported the findings of psycho-social and anti-colonial frameworks that link individual mental health ‘healing’ to political resistance. My research, integrating literature reviews with the interviews and critical discourse analysis concluded that trauma among Rwandan-Canadian genocide survivors is an individual and collective process rooted in a history of anti-Tutsi systemic discrimination borne out of colonialism. Thus, I argue that supporting survivors requires collective politicized processes of recovery. For Rwandan-Canadians, these collective processes of recovery would include addressing ruptures within Rwandan communities and supporting survivor communities in processes of remembering and authoring Rwandan histories in resistance to ongoing structural and epistemic violence, including genocide denial.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.059 | 0.031 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".