oldngray
nowhere special
I don't remember the details either but those tribes hated each other long before the Dutch showed up.
NIX 46!
- Thread starter vantexan
- Start date
The Dutch weren't in Rwanda. Just did some reading on Wikipedia. Both the Germans and Belgians favored the Tutsi and you're right, animosity between the groups was there long before European colonialism.
floridays
Well-Known Member
zubenelgenubi
I'm a star
Ah, right, the Belgians. I get them mixed up with the Dutch sometimes.
oldngray
nowhere special
the Flemish ARE Dutch
Tom MacDonald
Max E. Pads
Old Man Jingles
Rat out of a cage
Black Panther?
The Walloons aren't and we're talking about whether the Netherlands controlled Rwanda. They didn't.
oldngray
nowhere special
Walloons are French and about 2/3 of Belgium. My point was Belgians could also be Dutch. Enthnically if not politically.
One only has to look at the Congo to see that the Belgians were as racist as any group on Earth. But as far as creating a color based system that was South Africa, and the former Rhodesia(Zimbabwe). White numbers were never sufficient elsewhere to motivate creating such a system.
zubenelgenubi
I'm a star
Historically though, it is the Hollanders or Netherlanders who were referred to as the Dutch, right?
oldngray
nowhere special
Holland is a couple of provinces in the Netherlands. Geography around there was fluid and constantly changing.
zubenelgenubi
I'm a star
This is what I was referring to, but I didn't know the earlier history:
"In 1935, Belgium introduced a permanent division of the population by strictly dividing the population into three ethnic groups, with the Hutu representing about 84% of the population, Tutsi about 15%, and Twa about 1% of the population.[29] Identity cards were issued labeling each individual as either Tutsi, Hutu, Twa, or Naturalised. While it had previously been possible for particularly wealthy Hutus to become honorary Tutsis, the identity cards prevented any further movement between the groups.
The ethnic identities of the Hutu and Tutsi were reshaped and mythologized by the colonizers. Christian missionaries promoted the theory about the "Hamitic" origins of the kingdom, and referred to the distinctively Ethiopian features and hence, foreign origins, of the Tutsi "caste". These mythologies provide the basis for anti-Tutsi propaganda in 1994."
Hamitic refers to the Son of Noah, Ham, who was cursed for laughing at his father's drunken nudity. Along with Cain's mark, this was one of the biblically based theories for the origins of black people that was popular at the time.
floridays
Well-Known Member
"If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun"
Barack Obama
zubenelgenubi
I'm a star
If your enemy is hungry, give him food to eat, and if he is thirsty, give him water to drink. For in so doing, you will heap burning coals on his head, and the LORD will reward you.
King Solomon
floridays
Well-Known Member
Understood, this is a country of unbelievers
Render unto Caesar, what is Caesars, the Lord will reward me if I pray for my leaders as well.
Our enemy is not hungry and thirsty, they are capitalized and seek to steal, kill, and destroy.
I pray for my leaders as I beat my plowshares into weapons.
DriverNerd
Well-Known Member
The Hutu settled the area originally. The Tutsi migrated to the area later. The Tutsi mostly owned cattle and the Hutu mostly farmed. Cattle owners were far richer and these economic classes kept them separate. This was hundreds of years ago. Throughout the years the people mixed, though those of wealth stayed Tutsi and those poorer, Hutu. Now there is no way to tell a Hutu from a Tutsi by any physical appearance difference.
zubenelgenubi
I'm a star
But the Belgians arbitrarily made those distinctions when they took over colonial rule, and strictly enforced them. That laid the foundation for the eventual civil war and genocide.
DriverNerd
Well-Known Member
Absolutely agree. I was just commenting how there's no difference between the two anymore besides class.
