Talk:Tutsi/Archive 1

Archive 1

odd points

There are some odd points in this article:

• "Some people say that this makes some to accept what they have not done hoping to be out of prison which is not a good place to be." - this is poor wording and colloquial - some people say etc.
• It says, "Today there is considerable debate about the racial validity of the term Tutsi as distinct from Hutu" but then later in the paragraph it says, "Since there aren't any blood differences between the two groups, it is easy for them to change ethnicities," which makes it sound as if the debate has been settled.
• It says, "A Hutu can become a Tutsi, simply by raising cattle, and a Tutsi can become a Hutu by working in agriculture. Nonetheless, most Rwandans today identify themselves as either Tutsi or Hutu." Is it really this simple? I know that career has something to do with it, but isn't there more that goes into the situation, at least nowadays? It seems hard to believe that people would kill over something that can be changed so readily. Why not just force the Tutsis to become farmers -- after a while, everyone's a Hutu.
• It says, "The Tutsi can be spectacularly tall, often 7 ft (2.1 m) in height. This compares with the Twa, traditionally portrayed as short, and the Hutu of medium height. Such differences may well be attributed to nutritional factors (this is not the generally accepted view, though, but is most common among Marxists and post-modernists)." 7 feet is quite tall. Unless there is some evidence that Twa and Hutus can commonly be anywhere near this tall, it seems quite farfetched to suggest that the difference is nutritional. Adding a note in parenthesis that most people don't accept this view doesn't help much. Let's get it right to begin with.
• It says, "It was Belgian colonialists who created the notions of two different races rather than castes." This again implies that the debate over "Tutsi" as a race is already settled. This paragraph explains that the Belgians "felt that the colony would be better governed if they classified the different races in a hierarchical form," giving the Belgians cynical motives for this invention, but then it says that they thought the Tutsi "had immigrated from somewhere else, or were survivors of the lost continent of Atlantis", which is contradictary, implying that the Belgians really believed there were two races.
• The article concludes with, "And many of the Rwandans, nowadays, see that soon or later, a Tutsi King, Kigeli V Ndahindurwa, will be called by Rwandans and turn his country into monarchy", the meaning of which is not at all clear.
  • I was just wondering about that statement. It seems more like an opinion; if not, a citation would be helpful. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 7 July 2005 06:59 (UTC)

Finally, a request. Currently the article describes colonial-era ideas about the Tutsis as well as more recent critiques of those ideas. Little is said about modern ideas other than those critiques. What do archeologists and other researchers say about modern findings with regard to the history of the Tutsis? Is there any evidence of the impact of a hypothetical Tutsi language on Rwandan grammar? Can anyone add any information on this? - Nat Krause 14:49, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Marxists and Post-Modernists?

I have to agree with Gyrofrog's points.

For me this article seems problematic in a few areas, two main points;

1. The seven foot tall description "The Tutsi are spectacularly tall, often 7 ft (2.1 m) in height". A google search will find this exact phrase in many articles. They all point back to The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition. So this attribute of the Tutsi people seems to be widely understood.

2. The differences in heights between the Tutsi and Hutu correlating somehow to the nutritional differences between the two peoples and then the aside "this is not the generally accepted view, though, but is most common among Marxists and post-modernists"

This to me reads like "I agree with neither Marxists nor Post-Modernists and this is the kind of thing they might argue for"

More importantly, I can see no source for this statement. Would any of the spectrum of current Marxist or Post-Modern thought seriously argue for such a biological attribute being the results of solely nutritional variations?

This , to me, seems a superfluous and pointless part of this article.

Perhaps if the author could contextualise it and add a reference?

-- Eezbub (talk) 20 August 2005

Fair points. As there is no one author of this article (I don't know who added the content you're commenting on), I think it is better to move things like this to Talk pending evidence of verifiability. — mark ✎ 15:41, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I was merely responding to one of the points. I've adjusted the formatting so hopefully this will be more clear. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 16:56, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

I pulled out the following:

(this is not the generally accepted view, though, but is most common among Marxists and post-modernists)

And many of the Rwandans, nowadays, see that sooner or later, a Tutsi King, Kigeli V Ndahindurwa, will be called by Rwandans and turn his country into monarchy.

The first one may not be worth to keep, but I don't know what to think of the latter. — mark ✎ 15:41, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

POVness

This article needs to mention, without going into too much detail, that the Tutsi were the primary target of the genocide. Right now it simply says "large numbers of all three" which is completely true, but gives a somewhat misleading impression of the situation. --Saforrest 06:50, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree. But more to the point, with no mention of the word "Tutsi" in the entire section, the section, as it is, doesn't seem to fit in this article. An article on the Tutsis would be incomplete without mentioning the genocide, but there is too much detail here on things like the types of deaths, and nothing about the involvement of or effects on the Tutsis.--Rschmertz 02:26, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

What?

"Americans continue to identify themselves as 'blacks' and 'whites,' even though there is no biological or cultural justification for this." What about skin color as a "biological" justification for calling someone black or white? Should this be interpreted to mean that Hutus and Tutsis are indistinguishable in the same way black and white Americans are? 69.118.222.77 13:38, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I've removed this reference to America. The lack of footnotes is hampering this article and the quality of the external links is frankly poor. If anyone has some peer reviewed academic references that could be put in, it would be much appreciated. - BanyanTree 13:58, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

information?

I actually learned somewhat more about the Tutsis from the Hutu page for what I needed (a history project on the origin and history of both groups and the Rwandan Genocide). obviously, this strikes me as odd. The whole page should go more in depth about their involvment in the region (current and past), as well as making the information more direct, none of the weaving around that it does. --Kataar 05:11, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

What kind of introduction is this here

I came here to read about Tutsi. What I read is that Tutsi and Twa and Hutu live in Rwanda and Burundi. Hutu are this and that. Twa are this and that. Many of all three groups were killed. End of introduction... come on! Look, e.g. at the introduction of the Hutu article, or see any article to learn how to write an introduction. It's terrible. Ben ^T/_C 08:18, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

What are you talking about. A lot more tutsis were killed than the hutus.

More odd points

Why is there no data on the total population of the Tutsis? In reading about the "genocide" of 1994, there are repeated references of a plan by the Hutus, who are CONSISTENTLY described as the dominant racial group trying to "wipe out" the Tutsis. Did they succeed? How many Tutsis are left, and what percentage of them got killed in 1994? If most of them got killed by ethnic Hutus, who should be even more dominant now, HOW did the US educated Tutsi Kagame "win" the Presidency?

Finally, am I the only one who finds it tough to square the story of the Hutu 'genocide" of Tutsi with the Tutsi military victory over the Hutu army?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.109.169.187 (talk • contribs) 18:38, November 4, 2006

Yes. You are probably one of the few.219.117.176.252 15:06, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

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. I have proof on these websites: http://www.onwar.com/aced/nation/bat/burundi/fburundi1972.htm., and http://www.fpif.org/briefs/vol2/v2n13bur_body.html -- Bcr 10:03 March 2,2007.

Origins of Tutsi and Hutu

Please see my suggestion for a breakout article at Talk:History of Rwanda#Origins of Tutsi and Hutu breakout article? Thanks, BanyanTree 06:12, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Shysti

What does the term "shysti" mean, which has been included by one of the contributors to the article? MaartenVidal 10:58, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

we need to add a photo of tutsis

the tutsi have very noticable and eye catching features for black skinned sub saharan africans. perhaps we should have a photo of them to illustrate this.

some photos.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/825000/images/_829178_tutsi2300.jpg

http:// www.everyculture.com/images/ctc_01_img0190.jpg

http://www.politicalfriendster.com/images/4556.jpg

http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/825000/images/_829178_tutsi2300.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.161.180.77 (talk) 15:14, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

"related groups" info removed from infobox

For dedicated editors of this page: The "Related Groups" info was removed from all {{Infobox Ethnic group}} infoboxes. Comments may be left here. Ling.Nut 22:57, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Tutsi Photos, Yes!

Exactly agree with you. Tutsis and Hutus are very much diferent people.I dont agree with some Rwandan leaders who say that "no tutsis and hutus-but rwandans". Much as unity and reconciliation is a prioroty for the current government which i respect as well, but these groups of people dont look a like, so, the diferance. Tutsis have good looks, more similar to Ethiopians and i dont rule out the one who said that they might be Jews. Please volunteers, give us photos of both groups (genuine) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Richsil78 (talk • contribs) 18:21, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

racial contradiction

When it comes to the race of Tutsis/ Hutus the article contradicts itself a few times... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.242.204.217 (talk) 15:04, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

"Watusi"/"Watutsi"

The terms "Watusi"/"Watutsi"/"Batusi"/"Batutsi" should be mentioned in this article. Badagnani (talk) 00:56, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Once again, blame the Germans

This article lacks the basic knowledge about Rwanda/Burundi History and German colonial history - with a lot of crap written without citation. The German EAST Africa was a PRIVATE enterprise in name of Carl Peters - which after suspicion against the King of Belgium was granted an "imperial protection" letter - only 1890 (after the Helgoland-Sansibar Treaty) Germany government took the "colony matters" over - and only 1907 was build the FIRST german base on it. Rwanda and Burundi were at that time Kingdoms ruled be Tutsi and Germany did not CHANGED or INTERFERED in the social structure of the Colony - it just supported the ruling monarchy there (@Burundi they forced suzerainty, but did not change the king). Also, the Hutu/ Tutsi hate are dated back to the "pre" colonial time - and got intensified duo the Catholic Church believes and not duo German influence (Germany WASN'T and ISN'T a Catholic State). Not to mention the OMISSION that 1933, in Rwanda, Belgium adopted the "race classification" on the personal IDs and interfered at the social structure (ex.: ABolishing the Monarchy). So please, whoever is responsible for the article REMOVE or CHANGE that passage.201.78.133.192 (talk) 19:38, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Census, 10 cows

The article currently says: "When the German colonists conducted their censuses, they desired to classify the people throughout Rwanda-Burundi with a single classification scheme. They merely defined "Tutsi" as anyone with more than ten cows or a long nose.". Was this definition really used in German censuses? When were they? Are there any references? The following pages say that it was used in a 1934 census, i. e. when Belgium governed Rwanda: http://www.trinicenter.com/WorldNews/Burundi.htm , http://www.thedailystar.net/2005/06/11/d506111402109.htm , http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruanda#Zusammensetzung_der_Bev.C3.B6lkerung 84.162.60.180 (talk) 22:51, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

It was a Belgium census, Germany didn't made any census with the politics "who is ruling, will bow to our interest and we will support in return". Also the 'racial classification" on the personal ids, abolish the monarchy @Rwanda were Belgium idea. After 1916, Germany had no more influence of Burundi / Rwanda or any other colony. --201.78.133.192 (talk) 19:42, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Gotta say something...

"Some say the Tutsi are descended from Jews who migrated into.." Any evidence for this empty ludacris claim? Peace. Teth22 04:12, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, someone named Professor Yochanan (Jean) Bwejeri "appears sincere in his conviction that he is a Jew and that the Tutsi are Jews." I think it is premature to dismiss the Tutsi-Jew connection as ludicrous. Not sure if the subject needs its own paragraph, or article, or if we should just put a little link in this article? -Boris B 00:35, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

It is not so far-fetched the Lemba tribe of South Africa and Zimbabwe believe themselves to be descendents of Jews according to their oral traditions... but that is a lot better documented. 198.54.202.242 (talk) 20:01, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Not so far fetched is a long way from proven. Nevertheless, the number of groups worldwide (some in Britain, India, China, throughout Africa, the Rastifarians...)(everyone wants to be God's favourite(?)) claiming to be descendants of Israel (these claims have been substantiated on several occaisons (India, China, Ethiopia)) is an interesting phenomenon. Even if there's no evidence that the Tutsi are descended from the Jews, so long as there's evidence that that belief is alive (to any reasonable extent) in their culture, then I think it's worth keeping so that this 'I'm Jewish too' phenomenon will be more evident (I don't believe the phenomenon itself (if it can be said that there is one) needs to be mentioned explicitly). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.212.245.253 (talk) 17:28, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Height

Though the 1974 edition of Guinness Book of Records said the tallest known Tutsi was 2.29 m (7. ft. 6 in.) tall. Guinness has listed the average height of the Tutsi at anywhere from 1.80 m (5 ft. 11 in.) to 1.96 m (6 ft. 5 in.) for men, and up to 1.78 m (5 ft. 10 in.) for women. --Anshelm '77

I met a 6 foot 9 Tutsi once.

Shouldn't this urban legend be mentioned? True or not, it's the primary reason for which people know this tribe.

Yeah I think the legend(or not) should be mentioned. That's why I looked them up. A small section about height might be interesting.

For reference - the Frieslanders are about 6'3 or 6'4 according to a friend of mine that visited (great reference). That number isn't mentioned anywhere online that I could find, except for a response on Yahoo Answers - but consider that the Friesland page says they are the tallest among all Indo-europeans, including other groups within the Netherlands (whose inhabitants are the tallest on the planet at an average of 6'1), so that would make the Frieslanders the 'tallest of the tall' - but not necessarily the tallest in the world.

The Dinka of the Nile Basin are also argued to be among the tallest on the planet (after adjustments for nutrition).

Anyway, point being - a small 'who's tallest' section might be interesting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.212.245.253 (talk) 17:17, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

• There is currently nothing in the article about their height. When was it removed? Something needs to be added back in. Dream Focus 15:26, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Can this have a reference to divide and rule?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divide_and_rule#Africa

This mentions Tutsi vs Hutu being an example of the strategy of divide and rule aka divide and conquer meaning the germans and Belgian colonists wanted to divide hutus and tutsis to better control them. But it is not properly referenced. It may be false because Tutsis and Hutus were already divided before colonists from Europe got to Rwanda. Although perhaps the Hutu rulers used divide and rule strategies themselves and that is where the divide originated? This also makes the connection: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_groups_in_Rwanda but I think it's also not properly referenced there. Popish Plot (talk) 19:32, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Genetics for ethnic groups RfC

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)

I see that people have been complaining about this article for a very long time, but nothing on this Talk Page suggests that very much has been done to improve it. There is a current of political correctness evident in the content of this article and obvious also from the kinds of information left out of the article. The absence of pictures is very revealing. The viewpoint that there is no significant ethnic or genetic or racial differences between the Hutu and Tutsi is being promoted here, often by implication, but also in some clear assertions. I do not deny that there are individuals who cannot be placed with confidence in either group. There has been a lot of ethnic blending. But the assertion that there are no clear differences between these peoples is false, and anyone who has had occasion to observe members of the two groups can quickly learn to tell them apart, merely by looking at them. I learned to do this by observing immigrants from Africa in a small Canadian city, where there were representatives of several African ethnic groups. Denying the existence of such differences does not make them go away, no matter how much some people might wish for that outcome. Making problems between ethnic groups go away would be much easier if these proponents of 'correctness' or 'correctitude' ( !! ) would themselves learn to enjoy the variety of humanity. Janice Vian, Ph.D. (talk) 06:01, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

I agree, and I don't. Genetically, we are all different enough, and equal enough. Any groupings that we care to make will always be subjective or statistical, as there is no clear-cut border line. In cultures with dominating elites, natural selection occurs, and whatever the ideal of beauty these elites have, it will be reinforced. So in the US, WASPs will get blonder and blonder (with hair dye if necessary); and wherever Tutsi means elite, they will get taller and taller. In both cases it is class based; if you change the class significance, genetics will lose their meaning. I guess this is just commentary. --Megustalastrufas (talk) 14:08, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Abanyamasisi

Abanyamasisi are people who fled to Congo during Rwanda Civil War. These people are Tutsis. Neither Congo or Rwanda fully accepts them when in fact, while most of them were born and raised in Congo; their parents were from Rwanda. Life has never been easy for these Tutsi as they have no sense of belonging. There have been numerous of times where they've been attached in Congo as well in Rwanda. Although most of them are considered as refugees, they take great pride in being born Congo. Banyamasisi live in the Masisi Territory which is located within the North Kivu Providence of Democratic Republic of Congo. Their stories will not be ignored as they have for very long time.

Banyamasisi have many traditions like Rwandans because their parents/grandparents were from Rwanda. Most Banyamsisi don't want to accept the simple truth that they originated from Rwanda, however that's because Rwanda refuse to recognize them as their own. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gentillezaha (talk • contribs) 21:21, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Confusing conundrum

This article suffers from poor internal logic, the authors of some sections clearly not having read the others. The article establishes early on that the distinction between Tutsi and Hutu is genetically meaningless and socially confused. The physical distinctions between the two are dismissed as invented and apocryphal, made up by the Belgians. Average height 5ft 9in, with reported instances of people 7ft tall is not significantly unlike Europe. It then treats the entire subject as if Tutsi is nevertheless a significant category. Many claims are unsubstantiated. One would do better to look elsewhere for more consistent accounts. The issue of the murder of 50,000 “Hutus” by “Tutsis” in DRC in the 1990s is the subject of Black Earth Rising (BBC, 2018). I use quotation marks simply to express my confusion at the continued use of apparently meaningless tags. Carusus (talk) 21:36, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Watusi

I'd like to request that watusi not be automatically redirected to this page. I was looking for information on "The Watusi," the dance, not the Hutu / Tutsi people. --Popefelix 11:18, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Update - I have found The Watusi dance. I am therefore requesting a "Watusi" disambiguation page. --Popefelix 11:22, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sure, go ahead! It was redirected because of its former contents, a stub about the Tutsi. However, Watusi is a very uncommon term to refer to the Batutsi and nothing links there anyway, so I would think you can safely redirect it to Watusi (dance). — mark ✎ 11:38, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Nilotic vs. Bantu?

Megustalastrufas, Bukamba78 it would be helpful to discuss any major changes here rather than make disputed changes unilaterally. When I search Google Scholar to confirm Nilotic view, one of the first results states, "According to Hamitic ideology, the Hutus were the country's true indigenous inhabitants, of 'Bantu' stock, while the Tutsis were foreign invaders, of 'Nilotic' or 'Hamitic' origin."[1] Well, Hamitic ideology isn't a reliable source so we're going to need a better one. (t · c) buidhe 04:59, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Buidhe. I think it should stay neutral unless a reliable source can be quoted. --Megustalastrufas (talk) 09:09, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Rwandan Genocide Numbers

This article says "the Hutu then in power killed an estimated 800,000–1,000,000 people, largely of Tutsi origin." however the page on the Rwandan Genocide says that there were 500,000 - 600,000 Tutsi deaths, with the sources and Should we change this? HistoricalSimon (talk) 12:18, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

• HistoricalSimon Yes, please go ahead. Recent research has discredited the high-end figures. I would cite Meierhenrich and Reydams but not Guichaoua whose paper exhaustively lists all estimates without saying which ones are commonly accepted by academic researchers. (t · c) buidhe 18:34, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

References

Article needs to be fixed

This is an encyclopedic article about the ethnic group the Tutsi. This is not an opinion page or someone's defintion of an ethnic group. An ethnic group can be defined in much more variety than the user's. Keep most of the information on what we know about the Tutsi, their numbers, their history, etc. Also, there needs to be sources. The article is better now that I have edited some of the POV out. Imperial78

Nope this article is atrocious: It looks facts in the face and then denies them to maintain a POV!

There is sufficient haplogroup variation to place the Tutsi with Nilotic peoples especially on the paternal strain and yet according to the article: "...there is little if any detectable genetic differentiation between Hutu and Tutsi." - citing an Encyclopaedia article which when we go to, we discover makes this statement after a rambling discourse with zero evidence!

But don't worry, for as we discover elsewhere in the article that because Hutu and Tutsi speak the same language (Kinyarwanda) they are actually one and the same people (linguistically). Hurray, I have just discovered I am English (Anglo-Saxon). I am not! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8003:70F5:2400:A94A:CB4D:9958:6F34 (talk) 08:21, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Definition of genocide in this article? Re:Burundi

Currently struggling to understand the difference between a "genocide" against the military after they staged a coup and just plain war/revolution. 172.58.142.179 (talk) 16:07, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

I think I have addressed your issue, quoting a United Nations report. Megustalastrufas (talk) 08:03, 20 April 2023 (UTC)