understanding rwanda, "tutsi" and "hutu"

i've just finished watching "hotel rwanda" and one of the things that stuck in my mind was a scene when it's explained to a western journalist that the hutu and tutsi aren't even real tribes, and that the terms were given to them by belgian colonists (having huge dramatic effect, of course, cinematically speaking, in terms of illustrating the absurdity of the impending genocide). this surprised me enormously and i wondered how much truth there was in this assertion, so i decided to do some research on the net

the first thing i happened across was an essay which stated:

The Hutu have larger noses and larger all around facial features than the Tutsis. Most Tutsis are seldom less than six feet tall, while the Hutu are very short people. The Tutsis are related to the Masai and the people along the Nile, while the Hutus have a Buntu history.

and

The way of life for the Hutu and the Tutsis is considerably different. Traditionally, the Tutsi were the wealthy, upper class and the Hutu were little more than slaves. Now the power is a little more equally divided, but is still more in favor of the Tutsis. The Hutu are mainly peasant farmers, while the Tutsis are mainly animal stock breeders. One thing that the Hutu and the Tutsi have in common is that they are both a Buntu language speaking group.


the whole essay comes across as a 6th from C grade essay attempt, though, and can hardly be seen as authoritative.



next i found this on wikepedia"

It was Belgian colonialists who created the notions of two different races rather than castes. When the Belgians took over the colony in 1916 from the Germans, they felt that the colony would be better governed if they classified the different races in a hierarchical form. They felt that the Hutu were children who needed to be guided, and saw the Tutsi as the superior race. In fact they couldn't believe that the Tutsi were part of the African race at all. They thought that they had immigrated from somewhere else, or were survivors of the lost continent of Atlantis. This "invented" superiority by the Belgians sparked and increased hatred of the Tutsi by the Hutu, and led to many cultural conflicts, including the Tutsi Genocide.




then i came across this website which states:

[in pre-colonial times], the means of power and wealth was defined through the number of cattle owned, hence the Kings of Rwanda always had many cows. The differences between ethnic groups was largely economical; those that owned cows were Tutsi and those farmed the land were Hutu. The Tutsi were seen as rich and ruled the country for centuries. The title ‘Tutsi’ was awarded to the more prosperous but there was mobility between the groups so if a Hutu acquired more cows he could become Tutsi and vice versa.

and

Many believe that colonialism has been the source of Rwanda’s troubles and that the colonial powers were largely responsible for the deep divisions between the Hutu and Tutsi. Throughout the colonial period of 1898-1962, the terms Hutu and Tutsi began changing from their socio-economic meaning to a more dangerous racial-ethnic meaning. It was the introduction of a racial ideology that created an ethnic division not only in the rule of the State but also within the minds of the people.



it seems the colonists very probably did turn a class system, in which tutsis and hutus could move between each group depending on their economic circumstances, into a "caste" or "tribal" system with an inherent economic inequality.

i suppose the reason this interests me so much is because we've no doubt all often heard the "feuding jungle bunnies too uncivilized to live in peace" argument about what happened in rwanda. i don't know. maybe lots of people already knew what i've only just found out and i'm just horribly ill-informed, but it was an important discovery for me to make.