Comment by thaumasiotes
12 hours ago
> 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.
12 hours ago
> 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...