Talk:Hutu

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Africa / Burundi / Democratic Republic of the Congo / Rwanda (Rated B-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Africa, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Africa on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Burundi (marked as Top-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Democratic Republic of the Congo (marked as Top-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Rwanda (marked as Top-importance).
 
WikiProject Ethnic groups (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ethnic groups, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles relating to ethnic groups, nationalities, and other cultural identities on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
Wikipedia CD Selection
WikiProject icon Hutu is included in the Wikipedia CD Selection, see Hutu at Schools Wikipedia. Please maintain high quality standards; if you are an established editor your last version in the article history may be used so please don't leave the article with unresolved issues, and make an extra effort to include free images, because non-free images cannot be used on the DVDs.
 

Burundi Genocide?[edit]

The article says 900,000 hutus were killed in 1972, but that's a lie. Only 100,000 hutus were killed. And the citations are fake! Just look at this cite: http://www.onwar.com/aced/nation/bat/burundi/fburundi1972.htm. Just about every source I know says 100-150,000 hutus were killed in 1972......not 500,000!

In addition, starting the sentence with "Despite the [Hutu]genocide of 1972" is sheer disregard of the fact that a more significant number of Tutsis (about 800,000) were killed by Hutu militia groups in 1994 G.dw.n (talk) 05:16, 4 July 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cobenobo (talkcontribs) 17:53, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

hutus[edit]

The Hutus tribe represent 85% of the population. That is one reason which explains why they got away with the genocide. Historically there is only one difference which exists between the three tribes, which are Hutu, Tutsi and Twa. All three tribes speak the same language and have the same traditions. They even follow the same religion. It is their physical appearances and looks which divide them. Hutu’s are believed to have big noses and ears and aren’t as good looking as the Tutsi’s. The Tutsi’s supposedly have long, sharp noses, they are tall and European features. In my research I have found that, in Rwanda not all, possibly most, Hutu's and Tutsi's do not fit this description.

"The Hutu tribe represent 85% of the population. That is one reason which explains why they got away with the genocide." Actually it's the other way round. The fact that Tutsis are a minority made it easier for the Tutsi-led RPF to get away with the genocide against the Hutus, which it started in October 1990 and is still carrying out today.

Are you serious! What do you mean the RPF is causing a genocide! They aren't causing a genocide, they are getting rid of the so-called Hutu extremists who literally macheted 800,000 in 100 days. The RPF indeed have caused some massacres, but their massacres are for a logical reason. The hutu extremists on the other hand were simply trying to wipe out the tutsi. Its not like the RPF were trying to wipe out all the hutus. Besides you really can't judge the RPF at all, because they were the "only" single force that eliminated the barbaric hutu genocidal government. Furthermore they did this with absolutely no so-called international support. The only International "presence" was of the ignorant French who knowingly and willingly trained and armed the ignorant Hutu barbarian government. I think blaming the RPF for anything is just an excuse by the international community for not stopping the inhumane killings. If you really want to know who is getting away with the genocide, it is the Hutus who, even before 1990 were massacering Tutsis and still are massacering Tutsis in the Demorcratic Republic of Congo. In addition, the French are also getting away with it, becaused they armed the genocidal Hutu government responsible for the massacres. So whatever the case may be, next time you want to jump to conclusions, make sure you know the full story of things.-Bcr

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. -- Bcr 10:03 March 2,2007.-Bcr

Hutu/tutsi relationship[edit]

I wouldn't want to directly dispute the article's neutrality, but oughtn't there to be some kind of exploration of the theory that the Hutu and Tutsi are genetically, historically and ethnically distinct? Both this article and, to a lesser extent the Tutsi article seem to discount that idea without even evaluating the evidence in its favour or how the theory came about (except to blame it on the Belgians). I'm not suggesting that the criticism of the theory is invalid, merely that it ought to be treated with a little more respect and open-mindedness given that the question has not yet been definitively settled.

First off, the Tutsi/Hutu relationship should not be parralled to the Aryan/Dravidian relationship. Intiatially, when the Tutsis met the Hutus, the Tutsis and Hutus lived together in absolute peace until the "Europeons" destroyed their relationship. As for the Ayrans, they were mistreating the Dravdians the first time they met them, and they still are with their so-called "caste system".


Re "Culturally, it is something of an artificial division, based more on class than ethnicity": This is problematic, as it suggests that ethnicity is somehow more "natural" than class when both are arguably social constructs. A-giau 07:20, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

  • I know very little about this issue, but according to the film Hotel Rwanda, the Hutu and Tutsi groups were created artificially by the Belgian colonists, who wanted to have a ruling class and an underclass - apparently they went round measuring people's nose width, skin tone, and height, and judged who was ethnically superior on this basis. The taller, paler, thinner-nosed minority group became the Tutsis, who were given power over the Hutu, which they then abused. Hence the conflict, or so the film claims. Is citing a film as a source allowed? Palefire 13:14, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)
The Hotel Rwanda thing was a simplification, and in any case, there are better sources. I think it is generally accepted that the Hutus and Tutsis were once separate peoples resulting from distinct migrations into the area in the past. By the time the Europeans came along, however, they had progressed pretty far towards intermixture. They intermarried often and spoke the same language (Kinyarwanda).
The point many have made, that I think Hotel Rwanda was trying to make, was that the Belgians came in with their imposed ideas of "Hamitic peoples" and "noble savages" and forced a classification on a people who were already relatively intermixed and where sharp distinctions into 'Hutu' and 'Tutsi' didn't have much meaning, and that a lot of their distinctions were arbitrary.
It'd be like trying to separate modern Britons into "Celts" and "Anglo-Saxons": it's not that the terms are totally meaningless, they're just too blurry to have much meaning at the edges. --Saforrest July 7, 2005 03:01 (UTC)

it says the average height differs.. but who's taller? 131.111.8.96 11:16, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Tutsis were historically taller... Shouldn't something be added to this page about Hutu participation in the Rwandan Genocide? There's a link, but it feels like this should be part of the page, too - I know too little about the actual group to write the addition without some research, but I'll see what I can get started.--PolPotPie 01:22, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I have issues with adding more about Hutu participation in the genocide, because all the people that write about this, have the tendency to make the entire ethnic group, rather than the individual - albeit numerous - killers, bear the responsibility of the genocide. It is as if one made the argument today that all Germans participated in the execution of the Shoah.
In addition, widely accepted POV, is still POV. There are differences - including language and customs - between "Nilotes" and Bantus in many countries in the Great Lakes, especially in Uganda, the DRCongo, Sudan, Chad, and the Horn of Africa. It therefore safe to say that at some point in History, there was a cultural and linguistic difference between the Nilotes (Tutsi) and Bantus (Hutus) of Rwanda. It is actually a testimony to their ability to cohabitate, that they eventually reached a point in that country where they had the same language and customs. But a look at the Hema and the Lendu communities in Ituri show us that it is not the case everywhere, thus leading me to believe that the Belgians simply - maliciously - manipulated, moulded, over-emphasized, and over-exagerated differences that already existed. Just a thought.
Themalau 11:04, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Removed POV rant[edit]

I have removed the following paragraphs, added by here by 67.68.45.188:
In 1990, a group of mainly Tutsi exiles attacked Rwanda from Uganda. A brutal war followed that resulted into the deaths of thousands of Hutu civilians as well as the internal displacement of approximately 1 million Hutus from the northern provinces of Byumba and Ruhengeri. In August 1993, a peace treaty was signed between the Hutu government and the Tutsi rebels. The peace treaty allowed some of the Tutsi rebels to come into the capital city of Kigali. Soon after, prominent Hutu politicians were assassinated one by one. In early 1994, the leader of the most extremist Hutu party in Rwanda, Martin Bucyana, was killed in daylight in the province of Butare. His extremist party, CDR (Coalition for the Defence of the Republic) had a slogan, "Mube maso" ("Watch out!"), which implied that Hutus should beware or the Tutsis would rule them as they had in the past. Before he was killed, his eyes were removed and he was paraded around town with the crowd chanting "Bucyana, uri maso?" ("Bucyana, are you watching out?")
In April 1994, the plane of Habyarimana, a Rwandan Hutu president, was downed as he was returning from another round of peace negotiations. To this day, it has not been clearly established who his assassins were. However, it is likely that his plane was shot down by the Tutsi rebels since they came to power soon after that and have since never made an effort to find out who shot down the plane, an incident that is widely believed to have triggered the ensuing genocide.
In July 1994, the Tutsi rebels defeated the Rwandan Hutu army and have since ruled the country with an iron fist, despite being only 14% of the population.

Who wrote this article? What about the million tutsis macheted in 1994. It seems like the anonymous person just skipped that. By the way, If an extremists is eliminated, that should be a victory. Bucyana is one bad person, not 1 million innocent people. Plus, where is the evidence that 1 million Hutu were displaced in 1990. There were thousands of tutsis killed in 1990 by the barbaric Hutu government.

Why I think the above is POV:

  • If atrocities against Hutus are mentioned at all, surely atrocities during the genocide committed by Hutus must be, and these are best described in another page.
  • As far as I understand, it is not at all NPOV to say unequivocally that Habrayimana's plane was shot down by the RPF.
  • The 'iron fist rule' thing is just clearly POV.

I will have a look at this user's other edits, to Rwandan Genocide. --Saforrest July 7, 2005 02:36 (UTC)

I have reverted this user's edits on Rwandan Genocide also; see Talk:Rwandan Genocide. --Saforrest July 7, 2005 02:50 (UTC)
The edit seemed reasonable to me., if a little florid in language. - Xed 7 July 2005 09:41 (UTC)

Merge articles?[edit]

Both the Hutu and the Tutsi articles seem to be mainly concerned with their distinction from each other and the ethnic tensions leading up to the Rwandan Genocide. Though I'm sure a Rwanda-centered encyclopedia would have separate entries and go more into depth, it could be a while, if ever, before we get any material that is really only relevant to one or the other ethnic group. So until then, what we have is a lot of duplication. I've never worked on an Africa-related article, so I won't call for a vote or whatever it is real Wikipedians do, but I'd like to suggest that Hutu and Tutsi be merged.--Rschmertz 02:48, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh, dear lord! Votes are something that Wikipedians especially should avoid; see meta:Polls are evil.
Back on topic, my take is that they are sufficiently different to stay separate. What would be useful is an article along the lines of Historical relationship of Hutu and Tutsi, the information for which is currently spread out over about a dozen articles, or not on the wiki as all. In the meantime, I'm content to wait on the gradual accretion of content to this remote part of the wiki. (Though I do have hopes that a group of Rwanda experts will wander in any day now.) Also, rw: Rwanda Wikipedia doesn't seem very active. Cheers, BanyanTree 03:04, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Article needs fixed[edit]

The POV needs taken out. Keep the article to what is know about the Hutu. This is an encyclopedic article. Brittanica should be a guide. This is not an opinion page or a page of theories. Also, no external links within the body of the page. Imperial78

External links are used within the body of the text as references, the only problem was that in this case they were not formated in the proper manner. I agree with your deletion of the last paragraph as it was an opinion piece. However, there are some controversies regarding classifications made by colonial ethnologists that need to be described.--Ezeu 16:01, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

See Also link[edit]

I haven't clicked on it, because it seems very odd, but there is a link in the See Also section that says "Adams dirty crotch infection". What's that all about?

That's good old-fashioned vandalism. I've reverted it; it would be great if you could simply do a revert the next time you see something like that. --Rschmertz 18:28, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Idea of Ethnic group[edit]

Back around June, User:Imperial78 deleted a large paragraph discussing the notion of ethnicity. While it is true that that paragraph was getting out of hand toward the end, it seems like something worth discussing, either here or in an article devoted to the combined history of Hutus and Tutsis (and Twa, if appropriate). Does everyone else support that deletion? --Rschmertz 18:24, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

My cleanup and expansion[edit]

I've done a good amount of cleanup and expansion. However, I've come to two issues.

  1. The first is finding an accurate date for the arrival of the Hutus and Tutsis; potentional sources that I reviewed differed by several hundred years in the arrival of the Tutsi, and I changed the arrival date of the Hutus by 1000 years based on what I found.
  2. The second is the fact that the article seems a bit Rwanda-centric. Granted, Rwanda is more dominant and populous, but I really think Hutu issues of Burundi are under-represented.

Anyone who'd like to try to help me solve these is more than welcome. Picaroon9288 23:47, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Hamitic vs. Nilotic[edit]

The article says, that, according to "colonial" set of ideas, Tutsis are Hamitic. I am not going to discuss here a little bit old fashioned post-colonial tone of the article, though phrases such as ""colonialists" came", ""colonialists" divided" sound slightly idiotic for an Encyclopedia. There is another point here. I have always believed that Tutsis were traditionally thought to be Nilotic (related to Luo or Nuer, while Hamitic peoples, such as Hausa, live rather far from this area). Does anybody know if there is some new research on this, or is it simply a mistake? To what branch of Hamitic family do they supposedly belong? Kushitic? Should Nilotic theory be mentioned anyway? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.167.112.21 (talkcontribs) 16:05, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

When it comes to the tone of the article, I did my best to make it as neutral as possible, in accordance with the Neutral point of view policy (In my opinion, its better now than it was several weeks ago.) Personal opinions - mine, yours, and all other Wikipedia editors' - shouldn't be inserted into the article or used as an excuse to remove the bit about the "alternate theory." To tell the truth, I take it with a grain of salt too, but it is a reasonably widely held view, and is sourced and verified as so with the footnotes. If you'd like me to add even more citations to that bit, or would like to do so yourself, you're more than welcome request it or be bold and click the edit button.
When it comes to the bit about Hamitic vs. Nilotic, all sources I found said that the traditional German-Belgian view is that the Tutsi were a Hamitic people. I don't recall seeing the words Kushitic or Nilotic at all during my search for sources, but if you could show some independent works that do, again, you're more than welcome. To sum it up, neither of the two views seem to have much science on their side, but that's my own original research, and can't go in the article. And unless you can cite some sources, the so-called Nilotic theory can't go in either. Picaroon9288 20:49, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Yes, that is the traditional German-Belgian view, because back then "Nilotic" wasn't a category and "Hamitic" was. The current consensus view seems to be that the Tutsi probably were originally a Nilotic tribe who came into contact with, and were linguistically assimilated by, the Bantu Hutus. john k 15:35, 8 March 2007 (UTC)



The concept of Hamitic,Nilotic is insane[edit]

You see nothing like it in europe,we don't refer to europeans from the british isles as "isleotic" even though they bare no physical or cultural resemblance to the sardinians or other italians.The differences between europeans is far more enormous than the difference between africans from the baltic sea down to spain and yet there are no BSE - black sea europeans as there are SSA - sub-saharan africans,their cultural unity is never fractured. I suppose we can thank colonialism for that.58.178.63.16 (talk) 03:48, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

hutus[edit]

The Hutus tribe represent 85% of the population. That is one reason which explains why they got away with the genocide. Historically there is only one difference which exists between the three tribes, which are Hutu, Tutsi and Twa. All three tribes speak the same language and have the same traditions. They even follow the same religion. It is their physical appearances and looks which divide them. Hutu’s are believed to have big noses and ears and aren’t as good looking as the Tutsi’s. The Tutsi’s supposedly have long, sharp noses, they are tall and European features. In my research I have found that, in Rwanda not all, possibly most, Hutu's and Tutsi's do not fit this description.

"The Hutu tribe represent 85% of the population. That is one reason which explains why they got away with the genocide." Actually it's the other way round. The fact that Tutsis are a minority made it easier for the Tutsi-led RPF to get away with the genocide against the Hutus, which it started in October 1990 and is still carrying out today.

Are you serious! What do you mean the RPF is causing a genocide! They aren't causing a genocide, they are getting rid of the so-called Hutu extremists who literally macheted 800,000 in 100 days. The RPF indeed have caused some massacres, but their massacres are for a logical reason. The hutu extremists on the other hand were simply trying to wipe out the tutsi. Its not like the RPF were trying to wipe out all the hutus. Besides you really can't judge the RPF at all, because they were the "only" single force that eliminated the barbaric hutu genocidal government. Furthermore they did this with absolutely no so-called international support. The only International "presence" was of the ignorant French who knowingly and willingly trained and armed the ignorant Hutu barbarian government. I think blaming the RPF for anything is just an excuse by the international community for not stopping the inhumane killings. If you really want to know who is getting away with the genocide, it is the Hutus who, even before 1990 were massacering Tutsis and still are massacering Tutsis in the Demorcratic Republic of Congo. In addition, the French are also getting away with it, becaused they armed the genocidal Hutu government responsible for the massacres. So whatever the case may be, next time you want to jump to conclusions, make sure you know the full story of things.-Bcr

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. -- Bcr 10:03 March 2,2007.-Bcr

Please cite your sources and avoid original research. Picaroon 20:37, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Well I have proof on these websites: http://www.onwar.com/aced/nation/bat/burundi/fburundi1972.htm., http://www.fpif.org/briefs/vol2/v2n13bur_body.html So, 500,000 is rediculous. 10:03 March 3,2007.-Bcr

Hutus and Tutsis[edit]

This article and Tutsi both seem to go to some lengths to argue, or at least imply, that the distinction between Tutsi and Hutu was largely invented by colonialists and such. Every normal source I have read, however, pretty much says that there is a real ethnic basis for the distinction, that Hutus were a Bantu farming people who came into the area first, and that Tutsis (probably Nilotic, says Britannica) arrived later, raised cows, and imposed a feudal system of government on the region, while at the same time culturally assimilating with the Hutus. Here's some excerpts from the Britannica article on the Tutsi, for instance:

Tutsi, also called Batusi, Tussi, Watusi, or Watutsi - ethnic group of probable Nilotic origin, whose members live within Rwanda and Burundi. The Tutsi formed the traditional aristocratic minority in both countries, constituting about 9 percent and 14 percent of the population, respectively...The Tutsi first penetrated the area in the 14th or 15th century, entering from the northeast seeking new rangelands. Though they were skilled warriors, they obtained dominance over the resident Hutu through a slow and largely peaceful infiltration. The Tutsi established a feudal relationship with the Hutu, gaining dominance due to their possession of cattle and their more advanced knowledge of warfare. At the head of the Tutsis' complex hierarchical political structure was the mwami (“king”), who was considered to be of divine origin.
Tutsi expansion continued until the European colonial period of the late 19th century. Until then relations between the Hutu and their Tutsi overlords had been fairly amicable, but the favour shown to the Tutsi by the Belgian colonial administration (1916–61) intensified the animosities between the two peoples...Unlike the agrarian Hutu, the Tutsi considered work with a hoe demeaning and made their living by owning and dealing in cattle. Occasionally an impoverished Tutsi would be forced back to the land, but his clan, when necessary, would generally make arrangements for him to borrow cattle, the symbol of superior status, so that he might not lose face.
The Hutu and Tutsi cultures gradually integrated over the centuries. The Tutsi adopted the mutually intelligible Bantu languages Rwanda and Rundi, which were originally spoken by the Hutu. The kinship and clan system is probably derived from Tutsi culture, and the central importance of cattle certainly is. The Hutu and Tutsi adhere essentially to the same religious beliefs, which include forms of animism and Christianity. The two ethnic groups remain deeply divided over the apportionment of political power in both Rwanda and Burundi, however.

That is to say, Britannica takes it for granted that the two groups have different origins, and the general idea seems to be that the Tutsi were not originally a Bantu people. This makes a great deal of sense, of course, because the Bantus, who came east across Central Africa from the Cameroon area, would not have had cattle, while Nilotic peoples from further north would. The issue of how clearly distinct they are now is a different one, and the two should not be confused. The real state of things would seem to be that there were originally two different ethnic groups, that before the arrival of the colonizers there was a great deal of cultural assimilation and some mingling of the two groups, and that the Belgians then reified the differences between the two in an artificial way. If this is indeed the consensus position, we should clearly lay that out. john k 20:01, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

The idea you support needs to be attributed to reliable sources. I realize the section which I wrote is, as it currently stands, a hodgepodge of different ideas, but it cites its sources, and that's what counts. I find it unlikely that there'll ever be consensus on the issues of their origins, so all we can do is present the different ideas neutrally. Picaroon 22:39, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
A couple of points on this. Firstly, footnote 6 to the claim that people argue the Tutsi were "Hamitic" is clearly a straw man, since the term "Hamitic" is obsolete and no longer used. Presumably they are either thought to have been Nilotic or Cushitic. Your footnote 7 8 is not a reliable source - it is from what appears to be a Hindu nationalist Indian website which also supports fringe type attacks on the "Aryan Invasion Theory" - that is to say, on the standard view that Indo-European speaking Aryans entered northern India in the 2nd millennium BC and brought their language with them. Your footnote 8 does not theorize on the origins of Tutsi and Hutu at all, but merely discusses how colonial authorities dealt with an already existing distinction. In fact, the implications of that article are that the Tutsi are, in fact, ethnically distinct from the Hutu, but that they had become culturally assimilated, and that the actual antagonism between Hutu and Tutsi was spurred on by the colonizers, not that the original distinction came from that, so it does not support the claim you are making. [ETA: Oops, got confused a bout w hich footnotes were where. The source from Joseph Mutaboba does not particularly seem to be a reliable source, either, though, and, at any rate, he does not actually say that the two groups were "originally one people," just that they were culturally integrated before the Europeans came, and that Europeans reified the differences by promoting Tutsis as the superior race, which I don't think any of us disagree about] So, as yet, we have no reliable sources for the notion that "the Hutu and Tutsi were originally one people," and I seriously doubt you will ever find such a thing, because it's astonishingly unlikely to be true, at least in the sense of "Hutus and Tutsis came into the region at the same time from the same place." It seems highly unlikely that the Tutsi were originally a Bantu-speaking group, and I doubt one can find any reliable sources that would suggest such a thing. john k 23:16, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Doing some looking around, I see this article, which appears to be by an academic and makes the argument against a separate origin of the two much better than the current footnotes. I'm still looking for a good source for the opposite contention. john k 23:28, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Matthew Ross Lippman's review of International Criminal Tribunal For Rwanda Reports of Orders, Documents and Judgements 1995-1997 in Human Rights Quarterly 24.2 (2002) does a fairly good job of distilling what I took to be the standard view in my original post. Allow me to quote at length:

Conventional wisdom describes Rwanda as having been settled by cave-dwelling pygmies (Twa) who today constitute a small portion of the indigenous population. This was followed by the influx of the Hutus, a Bantu people, and later by the Tutsi, a Nilotic group. The latter two peoples gradually mixed and melded and grew to share common language, mores, and religion; they intermingled and inter-married and came to cohabit in hearth and home. Still, there is no denying that Rwanda was a stratified society which was structured on the basis of ethnicity, occupation, and wealth. The Tutsi were custodians of cattle and capital; the Hutus toiled and tilled the land and were responsible for most of the manual labor. This soon translated into the regal reign of Tutsi chiefs and administrators. These ethnic designations, however, were fluid and imprecise. Individuals might assume the favored Tutsi status as a result of marriage, military prowess, industry, or influence. There was a stereotypical portrait which painted the Tutsi as lithe and long-limbed with thin lips and high cheek-bones. This contrasted with the construction of the Hutus as squat and rotund with dark complexions and thick lips. These differing descriptions found a fertile field in the writings of European racialist John Hanning Speke who in 1863 crossed Rwanda on his trek across Africa. Speke transformed his racist fantasies into the scientific assertion that the Tutsi were the central custodians of culture. Their alleged noble carriage and long and lanky physique was explained by the fact that they were the scions of a caucasian tribe of Ethiopian origin which was descended from King David. Speke argued that the Hutu, in contrast, were a retrograde race who were the cursed off-spring of Ham's son Canaan. This so-called Hamitic myth was sustained over the next 150 years. During the 1994 genocide the Nyabatongo River, a tributary of the Nile, was the cemetery site of the mangled remains of Tutsi who had been symbolically sent back to Ethiopia.
The tentacles of colonial control soon spread across Africa. Germany claimed Rwanda in 1897 and in turn was compelled to transfer authority to Belgium following World War I. The Belgians in 1933-34 conducted a census and issued identity cards which designated individuals as either Hutu (85 percent of the indigenous population) or Tutsi (14 percent of the population). This regime established Tutsi dominance while the Hutu were consigned to construction, agriculture, and heavy labor. The system nevertheless remained sufficiently flexible to permit Hutu mobility and inter-marriage and the life of the two groups in the rural areas often was indistinguishable. The youth, however, now were being socialized into a fractured and divided society in which the language and symbolism of national unity was giving way to the rhetoric of tribalism and ethnic animosity. This tension was exacerbated by the fact that the ranking and ordering of peoples was incompatible with the rising democratic tide of the post-colonial era. The smoldering embers of self-determination and democratization soon sparked a firestorm of dissent, distrust, and communal violence.

This strikes me as the clearest thing I've read on the subject, in that it clarifies the difference between the broadly held idea that the Tutsi were originally a Nilotic tribe and the discredited racist idea that the Tutsi were a "Hamitic" people, superior to the Black African Hutus. There's also an article from African Studies Review by Cyprian Fisiy called "Of Journeys and Border Crossings: Return of Refugees, Identity, and Reconstruction in Rwanda (Vol. 41 No. 1, April 1998) that discusses the issue:

The legends about Rwanda suggest that the Hutu are of Bantu ancestry who first migrated to Rwanda and found the Twa people, a "pygmy group" already living on the land. They were subsequently joined by the Nilotic Tutsi people who migrated from Ethiopia. The two migrant groups lived together, intermarried, and shared the same social and political structures. Hutu could become hereditary Tutsi and vice versa. Because of this mixing, Hutu and Tutsi cannot be treated as isolable social groupings based on biology or culture.

I will probably try to rework the section in this article (and similar sections in other articles) based on the sources linked or excerpted above. john k 23:53, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

You know, reading through what you've said and quoted above, it's dawned on me that you're both more knowledgeable about this subject and have better sources than I. I apologize for the patronizing comment about attribution above and suggest you go for it with regards to reworking the differences section. Picaroon 21:57, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, Picarroon. You were right, though, to say that I should find attribution for what I wanted to say. I think the articles by Fisiy and Lippman, in particular, would be a good basis for rewriting the section to describe the majority perspective. The first article I cited, by Stephen Jackson, seems odd in that it seem to try to claim that the "consensus" position among scholars is that the Hutus and Tutsis were originally one person, which so far as I can gather from other sources, simply isn't true. At any rate, I'll try to rewrite. john k 23:08, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Very lately I have heard that the "ethnic groups" Hutu and Tutsi are no longer existing, In other words, the government tries to reconcile everyone, and one step for this is to stop treating these as separate groups. I don't know if this is true but the main article should mention that nonetheless. 84.112.136.52 (talk) 23:22, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Are the Twa considered "related"?[edit]

The Twa have just been readded to the infobox. Is this related parameter strictly ethnic one, in which case they aren't related, or a cultural-geographic one, in which case they are? Picaroon 01:27, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

It depends on what one means by related. They are considered to be a different ethnic group, but they live in the same geographical area and speak Kinyarwanda like the Hutu. --Ezeu 01:44, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, the question then becomes what does {{ethnic group}} mean by "related ethnic groups?" I'll go check if the documentation or talk page sheds any light. Picaroon 01:47, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
The issue was discussed a bit on the template's talk page, but there wasn't any consensus. ("List of other ethnic groups related to the group" is the parameter's descriptor on the documentation page.) I'm going to go by the "ethnicity" factor for now and remove the Twa. Picaroon 01:51, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Twa should not be listed as a related ethnic group as Hutu. They do not even belong to the same category, Twa being pygmies and Hutu Bantu. --Ezeu 01:58, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Hutu-Tutsi physique?[edit]

The first section of this article states that Hutus have no physical differences from Tutsis. What? The Belgians seperated the two based exclusively on nose mesurements, head size, and eye characteristics. If there had been no physical differences, the two would never have been seperated. 137.186.222.166


This is part of the problem with race in general. Race is largely based on perceptions of phenotype that are largely untenable or insignificant from a genetic point of view. But perception, not genotype, counts a great deal in terms of how we identify the Self group and various Other groups. There is a sizeable Tutsi population in Philadelphia and there is absolutely no mistaking them for other Bantu-speaking groups. They look different! More in the vein of Ethiopic, but without the characteristic eyes (if ye will excuse the gross generalization). I aim not to pigeonhole anyone, but a few posters inquiring about physical differences might be able to better visualize or imagine part of the racial problem that led to the loss of so much human life.Sandschie (talk) 18:28, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Pictures[edit]

Who are the two people pictured? Gillean666 22:54, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Pierre Nkurunziza and Alice Nzomukunda. Picaroon 23:10, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Origins of Tutsi and Hutu[edit]

Please see my suggestion for a breakout article at Talk:History of Rwanda#Origins of Tutsi and Hutu breakout article? Thanks, BanyanTree 06:11, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

The hutu/twa are considered the ancient parents of all africans.


When two Brothers fight, Strangers always reap the harvest.- African Proverb[edit]

"related groups" info removed from infobox[edit]

For dedicated editors of this page: The "Related Groups" info was removed from all {{Infobox Ethnic group}} infoboxes. Comments may be left on the Ethnic groups talk page. Ling.Nut 23:28, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Numbers[edit]

I've restored (belatedly) the numbers I put in earlier. According to the source, the authors believe that "250,000–500,000 Tutsi and 50,000–500,000 Hutu" died. I know there are other sources out there, and I'm not saying we shouldn't represent those numbers, but please don't give data that isn't backed up by the source cited. Octane [improve me] 20.11.07 1012 (UTC)

Your narrative on post-colonial burundi is not accurate. First in 1972 the genocide was committed against the Hutu population. "http://www.onwar.com/aced/nation/bat/burundi/fburundi1972.htm". Conservative estimates are that 100,000 to to 150,000 hutus were killed. However local Burundian estimate that 500,000 hutus were killed. Secondly, there is no reference to the claim that "250,000 to 500,000 tutsis were killed in 1972". The Genocide acknowleged by the United Nations is the 1994, rwandan genocide which is very different from the Burundi genocide. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DoctorSibomana (talkcontribs) 03:54, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

question about size of two groups[edit]

"the division between the Hutu and the Tutsi (the larger of the other two groups) " -- isn't the Hutu the larger of the two?

173.89.14.170 (talk) 15:05, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[edit]

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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.89.14.170 (talkcontribs) 11:05, March 8, 2009

Assessment comment[edit]

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Hutu/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

A one-sentence long lede, and three subsections. Needs try and conform with article layout of WP:ETHNIC. --Fsotrain09 04:34, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Last edited at 04:34, 5 March 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 18:33, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Genetics for ethnic groups RfC[edit]

For editors interested, there's an RfC currently being held: Should sections on genetics be removed from pages on ethnic groups?. As this will almost certainly result in the removal of the "genetics" section from this article, I'd encourage any contributors to voice their opinions there. --Katangais (talk) 20:04, 30 April 2016 (UTC)