Comparing Rwanda to NHN

I brought up in class Wednesday the case of the Invisible Children--that is, the children soldiers of Uganda. When reflecting upon that, it occurred to me that discussing the Rwanda genocide would be more appropriate. I'm assuming that everybody has read An Ordinary Man for their respective English classes. For those who have not, I will fill you in a little.

In 1994, over 800,000 people were massacred in Rwanda. They were primarily Tutsis--a smaller ethnic class who once ruled Rwanda--and people who supported them and would not join in the killing. An Ordinary Man is the story of a hotel manager who hid over a thousand Tutsi refugees from the soldiers who sought them. One thing the book demonstrates is how completely normal, friendly people turned into murderers overnight. The author explains that a good deal of the ill-feelings and need to kill came from the hatred projected by a radio station, which perpetually made racist comments and dehumanized Tutsis.

The question I posed about the children soldiers of Uganda was, Are these children evil beings because they were given a gun and told to kill? The class consensus seemed to be that no, they were not evil because they were too young to know better and had no real choice in the matter. The majority of the Hutus who contributed to the slaughter of the Tutsis in the Rwanda genocide were teenagers or adults who had been brainwashed by years of hatred and months of subliminal--and not-so-subliminal--messages. The question I am posing now is, Are those people considered evil beings? Why or why not? How are the two situations (the children soldiers in Uganda and the genocide in Rwanda) different, and how are they the same?