This caste seems like it has ethnic origins. Just looking at their bone structure, the Hutus and Tutsis remind me of the Hausa-Fulani of North-West Africa. With the more pastoral Fulani forming a ruling minority over the Hausa farmers.
Cattle rearers vs Farmers. The tale of civilization
As an East African, I find it interesting that the Hutu and the Tutsi consider themselves as different tribes; considering the two speak the same language. In Kenya, tribe is largely defined by the language spoken. Once the language changes, even though they are mutually intelligible, that is a different tribe; think of the following tribes: Kikuyu, Embu, Mbeere and Meru in Kenya. They have similar cultural traditions, rites of passage, economic activities, political leanings, religion and so on, but are considered different tribes because of a slight shift in language. I think this concept underpins your point that socio-economic classes were racialised, but in essence, Hutu and Tutsi would be considered one tribe/people in Kenya.
But nowadays, post Rwandan genocide, very few Rwandans call themselves Tutsi or Hutu, they just say they are Rwandan/Rwandanese. The Hutu/Tutsi distinction was of the past.
3) Hutu and Tutsi ethnicities solidiifed by the 1950s. By then the Hutu elite were literate and could propagandize their anti Tutsi rhetoric
4) In India there's Brahmins (teachers/priests), Kshatriyas: (warriors/rulers), Vaishyas(traders) as castes but ethnic wise there's Punjabis, Marathis, Gujaratis, and Bengalis and more
this is totally interesting/excellent. big admirer of economic history like this. Makes a great argument for simply leaving people alone.
This caste seems like it has ethnic origins. Just looking at their bone structure, the Hutus and Tutsis remind me of the Hausa-Fulani of North-West Africa. With the more pastoral Fulani forming a ruling minority over the Hausa farmers.
Cattle rearers vs Farmers. The tale of civilization
As an East African, I find it interesting that the Hutu and the Tutsi consider themselves as different tribes; considering the two speak the same language. In Kenya, tribe is largely defined by the language spoken. Once the language changes, even though they are mutually intelligible, that is a different tribe; think of the following tribes: Kikuyu, Embu, Mbeere and Meru in Kenya. They have similar cultural traditions, rites of passage, economic activities, political leanings, religion and so on, but are considered different tribes because of a slight shift in language. I think this concept underpins your point that socio-economic classes were racialised, but in essence, Hutu and Tutsi would be considered one tribe/people in Kenya.
Yes, socio-economic classes were racialised.
But nowadays, post Rwandan genocide, very few Rwandans call themselves Tutsi or Hutu, they just say they are Rwandan/Rwandanese. The Hutu/Tutsi distinction was of the past.
Yes, I have noticed this change with the Rwandans I have met. In addition, they insist on the demonym "Rwandan" and not "Rwandese".
1) The capital, Kigali is very safe, but only an 1/8 of the population lives there.
2) Rwanda gets most of its weapons from America/EU, its military industrial complex (MIC) is mega tiny.
https://oec.world/en/profile/bilateral-product/military-weapons/reporter/rwa?utm_source=chatgpt.com
South Africa, Egypt, and Sudan pre-civil war had the biggest MIC, but even these countries mainly import their arms from the West or Russia.
In terms of military aid, Rwanda received $4M in 2022 from America, which is 8th highest amount in Sub-Saharan Africa. Here's another countries:
Somalia: $140M
South Sudan: $16M
Chad: $11M
Niger: $11M
Kenya: $9M
Congo: $4.6M
Uganda: $4.5M
https://foreignassistance.gov
3) Hutu and Tutsi ethnicities solidiifed by the 1950s. By then the Hutu elite were literate and could propagandize their anti Tutsi rhetoric
4) In India there's Brahmins (teachers/priests), Kshatriyas: (warriors/rulers), Vaishyas(traders) as castes but ethnic wise there's Punjabis, Marathis, Gujaratis, and Bengalis and more