Comment by thaumasiotes
6 months 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.
6 months 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.
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...
I see a European measuring skulls. I suppose you think yourself Aryan.
Christ, you could make the same argument about the U.K. - the aristocratic classes tend to have more Norman blood. Are they a superior race?
1 reply →
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.