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 corve 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

Germanys 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 ONeill. Lecture