Talk:Analysis of the causes of the Rwandan Genocide

Tutsi, Hutu, and Twa are not ethnicities in the proper sense of the word, but are instead social professional categories (farmers, cattle farmers, and potters).

Twa is not a professional category, is it? The article on Twa suggests they're more of a racial group. —Ashley Y 02:13, 2005 May 12 (UTC)

Twa, Tutsi and Hutu are different people indeed.not only by their mophology, but also by their origins.All of them are black , but are different.The Twa living in the Democratic Republic of the Congo do not speak Kynyarwanda (spoken by the Twas in Rwanda).These three groups speak the same language in Rwanda because the country is so small that it is a kind of national language. In the southern part of Angola where I am from, we have Bushmen who are ethnically different from the rest, despite the fact that they speak the same vehicular language ... Are the Armenians of Lebanon of same ethnicity as the rest of the people of Lebanon just because they soeak arabic as well??

The whole page fails to be an analysis of hte causes as the title suggests, and jumps from early colonial period to the immediate circumstances of hte genocide, removing, for example, the role of Uganda and Burundi, notably the effects of ethnic tensions in Burundi, a nearly identical country in history and ethnic makeup, and the Burundi genocide. The first line, quoted above, sounds vagely revisionist. Certainly governments within the region have treated Tutsi and Hutu as racial groupings, though the professional designation is supported statistically. (I mean that typically Hutu were agrarian, Tutsi were herders, and Twa had a hunter-gatherer economy. Not sure where pottery came in, mind you. I suggest a rewrite, or at least a substantial set of additions. --Christian Edward Gruber 14:00, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Changes and fleshing out the article.[edit]

I've re-written the early history in a style that more closely matches the literature. I need to go dig for my references. I'm very concerned about the section I've renamed German/Belgian colonial influence. It depicts a situation where any distinction between hutu, tutsi and twa were the fabrication of western racialist colonials with a chip on their shoulder, and positively asserts that no differences could be found within them. The Tutsi have ethnic analogues with cultural and morphological elements in common in Uganda all the way to the Hima and others further in north-east africa. That they adopted the language of hte majority Hutus is seen as a lack of evidence of an ethnicity. I think the middle paragraph should be entirely stricken, and possibly the third in htis section, unless some better referencing can be found to support this academically. I'll look for references to the contrary. "They drank milk so they were taller" is laughably incomplete as a reason for their cultural/morphological similarity (and political connection) to the mentioned related groups. --Christian Edward Gruber 15:13, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sources?[edit]

Should there not be sources referenced on a topic so controversial as the origins of the Hutus and Tutsis? Daveecee 20:03, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there should. The unreference tag you put on is deserved. See Origins of Tutsi and Hutu for my attempt to create a central article, rather than the hodgepodge of contradicting pages on the wiki. Also, see the talk page of History of Rwanda#Origins of Tutsi and Hutu breakout article? for a rather thorough itemization of how pitiful my referencing is. Help requested. - Banyan Tree 03:28, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

redirected[edit]

I have moved non-redundant information from this article to others, as noted in edit summaries, and redirected to History of Rwanda. Given the multitude of overlapping articles, and the stagnation of this one, I felt that coverage would be better served by reducing potential editing options. - Banyan Tree 08:00, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]