The Hutu and Tutsi Distinction University of Toronto – Mississauga Advanced Topics in Sociology: The Sociology of Genocide – SOC445H5 November 13, 2009

The distinction between Hutu and Tutsi is central to understanding the Rwandan genocide. It is important to note that what it meant to be either a Hutu or a Tutsi was not of natural or fixed descent. While Hutu and Tutsi existed prior to colonialism, This differentiation came to be during colonial ruling to mean membership to an ethnic group that had political and social advantages and consequences depending on who was favoured by the colonizer at the time. It is important to make sense of how these proposed dissimilarities were capitalized, legislated and contributed to the Rwandan genocide. Prior to colonization, Hutu and Tutsi lived harmoniously. During the 15th century, Tutsi warriors migrated from Ethiopia to Rwanda and offered Hutu protection in exchange for their agricultural cultivation (Jones, 2006). The two groups did not constitute themselves as separate nations and had no significant linguistic, physical or cultural differences. Hutu and Tutsi shared the same language, territory and religion, with intermingling and intermarriage without violence (Jones, 2006). The two groups were based on material wealth and proximity to the king, and such the difference was based on social class. Hutu farmed the land and provided labour to the land-owning Tutsi. However, this social class distinction was fluid and Hutu could become Tutsi if they were able to accumulate cattle and land, and Tutsi could become Hutu if they lost property (Jones, 2006). It was more likely for people to become Hutu than Tutsi.

Over

generations, people could move between one or the other as politics and the economy changed.

For all intensive purposes, Hutu and Tutsi considered themselves the same people. There was no trace of systematic violence between Tutsi and Hutu prior to colonization. Good point. The distinction between Hutu and Tutsi began to matter in the 17th century. Rwanda became more authoritarian under the rule of King Rwabugiri and corvée labour was imposed on Hutu (Jones, 2006). Hutu was now classified as free laborers for the chosen and superior Tutsi by King Rwabugiri, a political favourtism that was perpetuated in the growing distinction between Hutu and Tutsi. This form of uncompensated labour by Hutu for the Tutsi planted the seed of polarization between the two groups that would continue to grow over the next three centuries. Germany ruled Rwanda from 1894 to 1916 and favoured the Tutsi population, despite the Hutu majority (SOC445, 2009). Tutsi was considered more civilized and therefore superior to Hutu, and thus German rule provided Tutsi with education and employment opportunities. In a German consensus, the two groups were further distinguished from one another as one was considered Tutsi if they had more than 10 cattle and a long nose (SOC445, 2009). This further perpetuated the social class divide by adding a physical distinction to distinguish Hutu from Tutsi. As Germany sustained the three century long Hutu oppression, resentment and bitterness began to ferment within Hutu and stimulated the polarization from the Tutsi. The distinction between Hutu and Tutsi continued to polarize following World War I when reparations required Germany to transfer colonial rule of Rwanda to Belgium. Through political policy continued by Belgium, Tutsi remained as the superior ethnic group. Belgians used the Hamitic hypothesis to distinguish groups and to justify discriminatory practices against Hutu. In 1931, Belgian rule ordered identity cards to be issued to distinguish between Hutu and Tutsi into separate political categories (SCO445, 2009). A 1934 census re-emphasized Germany‟s Tutsi definition of owning 10 or more cows and land (SOC445, 2009). Imperial race

theorizing by Belgium used further physical characteristics as a defining feature of ethnicity, despite the enormous overlap in physical characteristics between Hutu and Tutsi and even within each group. Tutsi were expected to be “taller, lighter skinned, and thinner with finer bone structure and features” and Hutu were expected to be “shorter, darker skinned, stockier with softer features (SOC445, 2009). This social construction based on physical distinctions had profound sociological impact on Hutu and Tutsi, for now a difference that had historical roots in social class was now an ethnically bifurcated system of political privilege and opportunity. Hutu had been distinguished as the inferior ethnic group for two centuries. The continuous years of oppression and denial of advancement resulted in a festering hatred for their former Tutsi comrades. Tutsi benefited from their superior positions of dominance and did not object to the growing polarization away from their welcoming hosts of many years previous. The polarization between Hutu and Tutsi had become so distinct the United Nations became involved due to increasing racial and ethnic tensions and encouraged Belgian to release their political policies and colonial power hold on Rwanda (SOC445, 2009). At this time, Belgian did a reversal in their favouritism and switched support to the Hutu. The Hutu lashed out against Tutsi in a 1959 revolution where several thousand Tutsis were slaughtered (SOC445, 2009). If it were not for the legislated identity cards, the militia would have had a difficult time distinguishing who belonged to which ethnicity. The possession of a Tutsi identification card brought with it a death sentence for the formerly oppressed Hutu who did not hold back in their retribution. Ethnic hatred for Tutsi increased within Hutu and exterminationist propaganda was spread through the media for the next forty years. Despite being the favoured group, Hutu was unable to dismiss the cruelty of centuries of subjugation, and preached the only way to recovery would be through the total extermination of the Tutsi. Thus,

in 1994, Hutu began murdering Tutsi in such rage that surmounted to the 1994 Rwandan genocide. In order to understand the 1994 Rwandan genocide, it is imperative the distinction of Hutu and Tutsi that was orchestrated by colonial rulers is comprehended. The two previously harmonious and fluid groups based on material wealth were divided into two separate and solid ethnic categories for sociological reasons. This distinction was a key genocidal facilitator, for once neighbours were now mortal enemies. Without the colonial need of Germany and Belgium to „divide and rule‟, Hutu and Tutsi could have continued to live in harmony and the distinction between the two would have remained as a fluid social class system.

References

Jones, Adam. 2006. Genocide: A Comprehensive Introduction. New York, NY: Routledge.

SOC445. 2009. Kristie O‟Neill. Lecture