Something more people should know about the Rwandan genocide is that the Tutsi were not innocent victims but had previously committed genocide themselves - against the Hutu [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ikiza].
The hate of the Hutu was not artificially created by some "extremists" with a radio station, but was and is instead the result of the long and bloody history between these two peoples where neither side can claim to be the innocent victim.
Even the trial against a musician who incited violence argues in that direction.
"In addition to other evidence, the prosecution cited a song celebrating the abolition of monarchy and the regaining of independence from 1959 to 1961: a Rwandan expert in the trial later expounded that the latter song could not have been addressed to the Rwandan nation as a whole, because the Tutsis were associated with the Rwandan monarchy and colonial regime, and that it was impossible to hate the monarchy without hating the Tutsis"
The dynamic here is the Tutsi were considered superior (taller, thinner noses, lighter skin) by the colonizers and made up most of the ruling class during and after colonialism. Pre-colonization these groups were genuinely fluid. The genocide was essentially an uprising.
> Pre-colonization these groups were genuinely fluid.
Where did you read this? I’ve seen many people make this claim but I’ve never seen any evidence that it’s true. The only source I have found for it is Philip Gourevitch’s book “We Wish to Inform You That Tomorrow We Will Be Killed with Our Families”
I could not find the actual page where this claim is ostensibly made, just an unsourced claim that the identity cards made such mobility impossible. A similar claim is often made about the caste system in India (which gets attributed to the British), and the scholarship there is similarly very poor.
I vouched and upvoted your comment to counter the many downvotes. Like other respondents, I strongly disagree with your conclusion that "neither side can claim to be the innocent victim", but I think the rest is valid context. The reason many Hutus were so easily swayed was because they were afraid of Tutsis effectively doing the same to them, and there was historical precedent of just that.
This is exactly the same story as why Croatians were trying to de-Serb their villages and vice versa. Fear of what the other would do made them do the same, first (or even worse). See also the comment about "Accusation in a mirror" further up.
People often have the idea that the Rwandan genocide was some people spontaneously rising up and killing their neighbours with farming equipment because someone on the radio told them to. You're right that it was more complicated than that.
Still doesn't mean murder victims aren't victims though. They totally are, and they can't be blamed for actions done by other people vaguely similar to them.
The hate of the Hutu was not artificially created by some "extremists" with a radio station, but was and is instead the result of the long and bloody history between these two peoples where neither side can claim to be the innocent victim.