Talk:Tutsi

odd points

There are some odd points in this article:

• "Some people say that this makes some to accept what they have not done hoping to be out of prison which is not a good place to be." - this is poor wording and colloquial - some people say etc.
• It says, "Today there is considerable debate about the racial validity of the term Tutsi as distinct from Hutu" but then later in the paragraph it says, "Since there aren't any blood differences between the two groups, it is easy for them to change ethnicities," which makes it sound as if the debate has been settled.
• It says, "A Hutu can become a Tutsi, simply by raising cattle, and a Tutsi can become a Hutu by working in agriculture. Nonetheless, most Rwandans today identify themselves as either Tutsi or Hutu." Is it really this simple? I know that career has something to do with it, but isn't there more that goes into the situation, at least nowadays? It seems hard to believe that people would kill over something that can be changed so readily. Why not just force the Tutsis to become farmers -- after a while, everyone's a Hutu.
• It says, "The Tutsi can be spectacularly tall, often 7 ft (2.1 m) in height. This compares with the Twa, traditionally portrayed as short, and the Hutu of medium height. Such differences may well be attributed to nutritional factors (this is not the generally accepted view, though, but is most common among Marxists and post-modernists)." 7 feet is quite tall. Unless there is some evidence that Twa and Hutus can commonly be anywhere near this tall, it seems quite farfetched to suggest that the difference is nutritional. Adding a note in parenthesis that most people don't accept this view doesn't help much. Let's get it right to begin with.
• It says, "It was Belgian colonialists who created the notions of two different races rather than castes." This again implies that the debate over "Tutsi" as a race is already settled. This paragraph explains that the Belgians "felt that the colony would be better governed if they classified the different races in a hierarchical form," giving the Belgians cynical motives for this invention, but then it says that they thought the Tutsi "had immigrated from somewhere else, or were survivors of the lost continent of Atlantis", which is contradictary, implying that the Belgians really believed there were two races.
• The article concludes with, "And many of the Rwandans, nowadays, see that soon or later, a Tutsi King, Kigeli V Ndahindurwa, will be called by Rwandans and turn his country into monarchy", the meaning of which is not at all clear.
  • I was just wondering about that statement. It seems more like an opinion; if not, a citation would be helpful. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 7 July 2005 06:59 (UTC)

Finally, a request. Currently the article describes colonial-era ideas about the Tutsis as well as more recent critiques of those ideas. Little is said about modern ideas other than those critiques. What do archeologists and other researchers say about modern findings with regard to the history of the Tutsis? Is there any evidence of the impact of a hypothetical Tutsi language on Rwandan grammar? Can anyone add any information on this? - Nat Krause 14:49, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

More odd points

Why is there no data on the total population of the Tutsis? In reading about the "genocide" of 1994, there are repeated references of a plan by the Hutus, who are CONSISTENTLY described as the dominant racial group trying to "wipe out" the Tutsis. Did they succeed? How many Tutsis are left, and what percentage of them got killed in 1994? If most of them got killed by ethnic Hutus, who should be even more dominant now, HOW did the US educated Tutsi Kagame "win" the Presidency?

Finally, am I the only one who finds it tough to square the story of the Hutu 'genocide" of Tutsi with the Tutsi military victory over the Hutu army?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.109.169.187 (talk • contribs) 18:38, November 4, 2006

Yes. You are probably one of the few.219.117.176.252 15:06, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me, but the Tutsi government of Burundi never killed 500,000 Hutus in 1972. It was about 100,000. And by the way, there might of been retaliation by the Rwandan Government in Zaire against Hutu refugees, but their main purpose was to get rid of the hutu extremists who fled into the Congo after the Rwandan Genocide. Some of these same so-called Hutu "refugees" were responsible for many of the massacres in the Rwandan Genocide. I have proof on these websites: http://www.onwar.com/aced/nation/bat/burundi/fburundi1972.htm., and http://www.fpif.org/briefs/vol2/v2n13bur_body.html -- Bcr 10:03 March 2,2007.

Marxists and Post-Modernists?

I have to agree with Gyrofrog's points.

For me this article seems problematic in a few areas, two main points;

1. The seven foot tall description "The Tutsi are spectacularly tall, often 7 ft (2.1 m) in height". A google search will find this exact phrase in many articles. They all point back to The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition. So this attribute of the Tutsi people seems to be widely understood.

2. The differences in heights between the Tutsi and Hutu correlating somehow to the nutritional differences between the two peoples and then the aside "this is not the generally accepted view, though, but is most common among Marxists and post-modernists"

This to me reads like "I agree with neither Marxists nor Post-Modernists and this is the kind of thing they might argue for"

More importantly, I can see no source for this statement. Would any of the spectrum of current Marxist or Post-Modern thought seriously argue for such a biological attribute being the results of solely nutritional variations?

This , to me, seems a superfluous and pointless part of this article.

Perhaps if the author could contextualise it and add a reference?

-- Eezbub (talk) 20 August 2005

Fair points. As there is no one author of this article (I don't know who added the content you're commenting on), I think it is better to move things like this to Talk pending evidence of verifiability. — mark ✎ 15:41, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I was merely responding to one of the points. I've adjusted the formatting so hopefully this will be more clear. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 16:56, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

I pulled out the following:

(this is not the generally accepted view, though, but is most common among Marxists and post-modernists)

And many of the Rwandans, nowadays, see that sooner or later, a Tutsi King, Kigeli V Ndahindurwa, will be called by Rwandans and turn his country into monarchy.

The first one may not be worth to keep, but I don't know what to think of the latter. — mark ✎ 15:41, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Watusi

I'd like to request that watusi not be automatically redirected to this page. I was looking for information on "The Watusi," the dance, not the Hutu / Tutsi people. --Popefelix 11:18, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Update - I have found The Watusi dance. I am therefore requesting a "Watusi" disambiguation page. --Popefelix 11:22, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sure, go ahead! It was redirected because of its former contents, a stub about the Tutsi. However, Watusi is a very uncommon term to refer to the Batutsi and nothing links there anyway, so I would think you can safely redirect it to Watusi (dance). — mark ✎ 11:38, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Height

The Tutsi are nowhere near 2.1 m/7 ft. tall:

Actually, the supposed great height of the Tutsi is one of the most durable myths from the age of European exploration. Careful investigation reveals that today's Tutsi men average 5'7 " [1.70 m] and that they have maintained that average for more than 100 years. That means that back in the 1800s, when puny European men first met the Tutsi, the Europeans suffered strained necks from looking up all the time. The two-to-three-inch difference in average height back then could easily have turned into fantastic stories of African giants by European adventurers and writers. – See the full article at http://www.zinkle.com/p/articles/mi_m1511/is_n2_v19/ai_20159533

Though the 1974 edition of Guinness Book of Records said the tallest known Tutsi was 2.29 m (7. ft. 6 in.) tall. Guinness has listed the average height of the Tutsi at anywhere from 1.80 m (5 ft. 11 in.) to 1.96 m (6 ft. 5 in.) for men, and up to 1.78 m (5 ft. 10 in.) for women. --Anshelm '77

I met a 6 foot 9 Tutsi once.

Shouldn't this urban legend be mentioned? True or not, it's the primary reason for which people know this tribe.

POVness

This article needs to mention, without going into too much detail, that the Tutsi were the primary target of the genocide. Right now it simply says "large numbers of all three" which is completely true, but gives a somewhat misleading impression of the situation. --Saforrest 06:50, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree. But more to the point, with no mention of the word "Tutsi" in the entire section, the section, as it is, doesn't seem to fit in this article. An article on the Tutsis would be incomplete without mentioning the genocide, but there is too much detail here on things like the types of deaths, and nothing about the involvement of or effects on the Tutsis.--Rschmertz 02:26, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

What?

"Americans continue to identify themselves as 'blacks' and 'whites,' even though there is no biological or cultural justification for this." What about skin color as a "biological" justification for calling someone black or white? Should this be interpreted to mean that Hutus and Tutsis are indistinguishable in the same way black and white Americans are? 69.118.222.77 13:38, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I've removed this reference to America. The lack of footnotes is hampering this article and the quality of the external links is frankly poor. If anyone has some peer reviewed academic references that could be put in, it would be much appreciated. - BanyanTree 13:58, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

information?

I actually learned somewhat more about the Tutsis from the Hutu page for what I needed (a history project on the origin and history of both groups and the Rwandan Genocide). obviously, this strikes me as odd. The whole page should go more in depth about their involvment in the region (current and past), as well as making the information more direct, none of the weaving around that it does. --Kataar 05:11, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Article needs to be fixed

This is an encyclopedic article about the ethnic group the Tutsi. This is not an opinion page or someone's defintion of an ethnic group. An ethnic group can be defined in much more variety than the user's. Keep most of the information on what we know about the Tutsi, their numbers, their history, etc. Also, there needs to be sources. The article is better now that I have edited some of the POV out. Imperial78

Gotta say something...

"Some say the Tutsi are descended from Jews who migrated into.." Any evidence for this empty ludacris claim? Peace. Teth22 04:12, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, someone named Professor Yochanan (Jean) Bwejeri "appears sincere in his conviction that he is a Jew and that the Tutsi are Jews." I think it is premature to dismiss the Tutsi-Jew connection as ludicrous. Not sure if the subject needs its own paragraph, or article, or if we should just put a little link in this article? -Boris B 00:35, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

It is not so far-fetched the Lemba tribe of South Africa and Zimbabwe believe themselves to be descendents of Jews according to their oral traditions... but that is a lot better documented. 198.54.202.242 (talk) 20:01, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

What kind of introduction is this here

I came here to read about Tutsi. What I read is that Tutsi and Twa and Hutu live in Rwanda and Burundi. Hutu are this and that. Twa are this and that. Many of all three groups were killed. End of introduction... come on! Look, e.g. at the introduction of the Hutu article, or see any article to learn how to write an introduction. It's terrible. Ben ^T/_C 08:18, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

What are you talking about. A lot more tutsis were killed than the hutus.

Reference to movie

Maybe there should be a reference to the movie Hotel Rwanda in here

Origins of Tutsi and Hutu

Please see my suggestion for a breakout article at Talk:History of Rwanda#Origins of Tutsi and Hutu breakout article? Thanks, BanyanTree 06:12, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Shysti

What does the term "shysti" mean, which has been included by one of the contributors to the article? MaartenVidal 10:58, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

"related groups" info removed from infobox

For dedicated editors of this page: The "Related Groups" info was removed from all {{Infobox Ethnic group}} infoboxes. Comments may be left here. Ling.Nut 22:57, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Tutsi Photos, Yes!

Exactly agree with you. Tutsis and Hutus are very much diferent people.I dont agree with some Rwandan leaders who say that "no tutsis and hutus-but rwandans". Much as unity and reconciliation is a prioroty for the current government which i respect as well, but these groups of people dont look a like, so, the diferance. Tutsis have good looks, more similar to Ethiopians and i dont rule out the one who said that they might be Jews. Please volunteers, give us photos of both groups (genuine) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Richsil78 (talk • contribs) 18:21, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

we need to add a photo of tutsis

the tutsi have very noticable and eye catching features for black skinned sub saharan africans. perhaps we should have a photo of them to illustrate this.

some photos.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/825000/images/_829178_tutsi2300.jpg

http://www.everyculture.com/images/ctc_01_img0190.jpg

http://www.politicalfriendster.com/images/4556.jpg

http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/825000/images/_829178_tutsi2300.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.161.180.77 (talk) 15:14, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

racial contradiction

When it comes to the race of Tutsis/ Hutus the article contradicts itself a few times... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.242.204.217 (talk) 15:04, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

"Watusi"/"Watutsi"

The terms "Watusi"/"Watutsi"/"Batusi"/"Batutsi" should be mentioned in this article. Badagnani (talk) 00:56, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

173.89.14.170 (talk) 15:01, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay first of all I want to announce that all the comments made by bcr were made by me! bcr wasn't a real account. That was just a name I came up with to sign under. This was something I signed under with a different IP address before. However, I was wondering if I could remove all the comments I made on this page. I don't think it's fair to leave my comments if nobody cares about them.

Census, 10 cows

The article currently says: "When the German colonists conducted their censuses, they desired to classify the people throughout Rwanda-Burundi with a single classification scheme. They merely defined "Tutsi" as anyone with more than ten cows or a long nose.". Was this definition really used in German censuses? When were they? Are there any references? The following pages say that it was used in a 1934 census, i. e. when Belgium governed Rwanda: http://www.trinicenter.com/WorldNews/Burundi.htm , http://www.thedailystar.net/2005/06/11/d506111402109.htm , http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruanda#Zusammensetzung_der_Bev.C3.B6lkerung 84.162.60.180 (talk) 22:51, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

It was a Belgium census, Germany didn't made any census with the politics "who is ruling, will bow to our interest and we will support in return". Also the 'racial classification" on the personal ids, abolish the monarchy @Rwanda were Belgium idea. After 1916, Germany had no more influence of Burundi / Rwanda or any other colony. --201.78.133.192 (talk) 19:42, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Once again, blame the Germans

This article lacks the basic knowledge about Rwanda/Burundi History and German colonial history - with a lot of crap written without citation. The German EAST Africa was a PRIVATE enterprise in name of Carl Peters - which after suspicion against the King of Belgium was granted an "imperial protection" letter - only 1890 (after the Helgoland-Sansibar Treaty) Germany government took the "colony matters" over - and only 1907 was build the FIRST german base on it. Rwanda and Burundi were at that time Kingdoms ruled be Tutsi and Germany did not CHANGED or INTERFERED in the social structure of the Colony - it just supported the ruling monarchy there (@Burundi they forced suzerainty, but did not change the king). Also, the Hutu/ Tutsi hate are dated back to the "pre" colonial time - and got intensified duo the Catholic Church believes and not duo German influence (Germany WASN'T and ISN'T a Catholic State). Not to mention the OMISSION that 1933, in Rwanda, Belgium adopted the "race classification" on the personal IDs and interfered at the social structure (ex.: ABolishing the Monarchy). So please, whoever is responsible for the article REMOVE or CHANGE that passage.201.78.133.192 (talk) 19:38, 21 December 2010 (UTC)