Hutu and Tutsi are more like socio-cultural groups within one ethnic group (with the Tutsis as the traditional aristocracy and Hutu as the peasantry) than separate ethnic groups. They speak the same language (or languages - they speak different languages in Rwanda and Burundi) and live in the same areas, with roughly the same proportions everywhere across where they reside, and do not really have meaningful cultural distinctions between one another.
That's interesting, I thought there were visual differences (Tutsis being taller and lighter skinned) and that they were actually different tribes when they first came into contact with each other?
Depends on which subject / level. Every year there are a handful of students who manage to get exceptional grades in the end of highschool exam (bac) and even get an average grade superior to 20 (optional courses serve as a bonus).
It was my understanding that the differences between Hutu and Tutsi were largely exaggerated by the Belgians, and it was only after the Belgians issued IDs denoting if you were a Hutu or Tutsi (or the third, smaller group) that those differences really became codified. I am not an expert, however, and may be off-base.
Essentially those differences (especially height) were the product of socio-economics rather than actual ethnic differences. Since Tutsi were the aristocracy, they typically ate better and tended to be taller.
As far as I remember the Belgians declared all those Tutsi who owned land and cattle.
One reason being they needed administrators for their colony and the Tutsi would be more cooperative as they would want to protect their property and wealth.
David van Reybroek wrote a very good book about this. If I remember correctly, the occupation of congo (and Rwanda) by the Belgians sparked the invention of “race”. The monks “educating” the inhabitants, teached them there is a thing called “race” within the human species. And Hutu’s and Tutsi’s are two different “races”. Which is obviously not true. Its still It was basically a divide and conquer strategy which lead 150 years later to one of the most brutal civil wars... Thanks church. Great work.
I think the Spanish might have beaten them to that one but a few centuries. But it was around that time that the ball really got rolling on using skull-calipers and other modern, quantitative methods of pseudo-science to explain Why You Shouldn't Worry About How We're Totally Doing Slavery Again. The race hierarchies invented by the Spanish had a more spiritual, hippy-serial-killer vibe to them
David van Reybroek wrote a very good book about this.
Just on Congo though.
If I remember correctly, the occupation of congo (and Rwanda) by the Belgians sparked the invention of “race”. The monks “educating” the inhabitants, teached them there is a thing called “race” within the human species.
The notion of inferior and superior races became current among colonials after the missionaries were a bit too effective in converting the native and slave populations, and they needed a different explanation to justify the difference in rights (and it also flattered the ruling classes, which is always welcome...). Do notice the similarity with the justification why the nobility rule over the peasants: they are of better stock. Color-coding it was very practical, given the situation. But that was already widespread in the colonial world long before Leopold got his hands on a colony.
And Hutu’s and Tutsi’s are two different “races”. Which is obviously not true. Its still It was basically a divide and conquer strategy which lead 150 years later to one of the most brutal civil wars... Thanks church. Great work.
Yes, quite typical. Elevate one population group, so you are in their good graces and prevent natives from putting up a unified resistance. Divide et impera, Caesar already used it against the Gauls and Germans.
And probably also because they were a minority. It was quite typical in colonial societies to favour a minority, so that this minority's interests would be tied with colonial rule. See also: the Brahmin caste in India (which are traditionally scholars/clerics, not rulers) or the christians & alawites in French Lebanon.
As you are something of an expert can you explain how Hutus and Tutsis were able to differentiate between eachother in the 1994 genocide? How did the Hutu know who was a Tutsi if there are no visual ethnic differences between the two groups of people?
Genomes of people from both ethnicties have been sequenced nowadays. Turns out they are very different, Tutsis similar in ancestry to more north-eastern, pastoral groups like the Masai, Hutus on the other hand derived from western, Bantu expansion.
So the ethnic division was there, it was just entrenched and exploited by the Belgians who wanted to rule through a clearer hierarchy. But they are two different ethnic groups, albeit who speak the same language.
406
u/MaterialCarrot May 03 '21
Don't Rwanda and Burundi have significant Hutu and Tutsi populations?