Talk:Tutsi

There are some odd points in this article:

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 Kraus e 14:49, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)