This belief in prevention, I refer to as preventionism.
It is a fundamental ideology within genocide studies, one which offers legitimacy and relevance to the field and offers a certain political legitimacy for the field.
I really like that you are not only looking at the events that preceded the genocide but also the consequences it had on the country. In fact, I think it is important to talk about these events to make sure they don't happen again.
I also find the first question you asked concerning sociology very interesting since it really focuses on the problems a bad group dynamic can cause. I really like the fact that you are talking about the orphaned children since they are one of the many reasons why it was a tragedy.
Preventionism is not limited to genocide studies: it is an ideology which pervades the liberal project of modernity and the social sciences which are part of that project.
The fundamental assumption underlying the modern project is the idea of social progress and betterment through knowledge and understanding.
This is not to say, of course, that genocide is a social construction.
It is all too real, which is the very raison d’etre for genocide studies in the first place.
Indeed, in almost all significant works on genocide, there is an implicit or explicit idea that perhaps the central purpose of understanding genocide is to try to prevent it.
Preventionism is a kind of shared language, or in Ludwig Wittgenstein’s terms, a “language game” which identifies and unifies people within the field.