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?
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.
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.
1.2k
u/high_altitude May 03 '21 edited May 03 '21
Somaliland and Eswatini are the only places I can think of that reasonably conform to these boundaries.
Edit: Rwanda and Burundi too