Comment by madaxe_again
14 hours ago
I find the whole premise for the situation mind-boggling. Tutsi and Hutu were basically just categories for “someone who has cattle” and “someone who does not have cattle”. One could become the other quite readily.
Then the Belgians came along, measured skulls, pronounced the Tutsis a separate (and superior) race, and the rest is… absolutely idiotic history.
Major, minor or imagined differences between populations being exacerbated causing them to turn against each other wasn't a byproduct of some poorly conceived policy. It was the whole point and was (and continues to be) a keystone to colonial power over faraway lands.
> Tutsi and Hutu were basically just categories for “someone who has cattle” and “someone who does not have cattle”. One could become the other quite readily.
But none of that is true.
It sounds like that became true, but wasn’t until quite recently.
It was never true, not in the distant past, not recently, not now.
https://hmd.org.uk/learn-about-the-holocaust-and-genocides/r...
https://www.rwandanstories.org/origins/hutu_and_tutsi.html
Maybe you should use sources that are more concerned with facts?
https://web.archive.org/web/20111223184823/https://blogs.dis...
https://www.emilkirkegaard.com/p/hutus-and-tutsis-and-geneti...