Differences between Tutsis and Hutus

Everybody hate's manlet

>it's another ethnicities are a totally legit social construct but traditional conceptions of race aren't episode

Tutsi's and Hutu's have nearly the exact same genetic stock. The colonial rulers forced them to get cards to tell the fucking difference. They speak the same language.

Those racial constructs are based off memes though.

>the difference between europeans and africans isn't worthy enough of distinctive races when they have biological differences not only in appearance but in intelligence, brain size among other things but the difference between ooga 1 and ogaa 2 is enough to distinct two different races

leftypol brain gymnastics

Nice self-portrait, idiot.

Pack your bags, /pol/ -- the butthurt express leaves in ten minutes.

Tutsis had a higher iq and lorded over the lower iq Hutus. Not even memeing. Every organized attempted genocide of the last hundred years revolved around a lower iq group rebelling against a higher iq group.

...

It's established scientific fact there is greater genetic diversity within 'races' than between them.

I'm so proud that you noticed I wasn't trying to argue with you.

That's completely false. Jesus Christ use your school education and read for once.

What is false?

Nothing. Hutus and Tutsis are genetically distinct populations, with Tutsis being an intelligent elite.

They aren't though. Pretty much the same genetics with slight difference only a sperg on the internet would give 2 fucks about. Colonial rule solidified and widened the gap between the two "ethnic groups" if you can call them as such because of divide and conquer stretchy and bullshit racial theories that were a complete joke.

OK of you say so, if your "blame everything on white colonialism again" sociology professor said it it's definitely true.

Ethnicities are traditional concepts, race is a modern one.

Post one single study or GTFO

It's a matter of historical fact that the Europeans gave power to the Tutsi's over the Hutu's

... because they were a high iq elite that lorded over the Hutus before the Belgians showed up...

Not to mention how his army BTFO the congo in the war despite being outnumbered

Post a study or GTFO

Tutsi was a title which belonged to any cattle owner, the custom of herding coming from the nilotic tribes such as the Dinka, Luo, and Shilluk

this

I'm not going to bother, what I'm saying isn't exactly controversial, go research it yourself, if anything Belgian colonialists blurred the lined between Hutu and Tutsi more than they reinforced it, considering Hutu who had a certain amount of cattle to automatically be Tutsi.

So no evidence

Fuck off

No you had to have an ID card stating your group.

Actually not, depends where you draw the lines.
If you compare a Finn and a Spaniard sure, or a displaced polak from North Germany to someone that has a lineage from Bavaria for hundreds of years.

Ethnicity is defined by genetics, linguistics, culture, and common history. Race is based off of 19th century pseudo science conducted by people who didn't even know what a genome was.

Because dey are cockroaches

This

The
Belgians sorted the blacks between those they thought resembled Europeans and those who didn't and put those who did in charge. It was about as grounded in reality as the idea that all blacks are descendants of Ham

>when your government gets blown the fuck out by rebels so you have militias kill anybody in the rebel's ethnic group

>descendants of Ham
do you mean Cain?

>do you mean Cain?

nope

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curse_of_Ham

>this thread

are they going to claim the anglos invented the Indian caste system next

>watches Hotel Rwanda once

There was a Tutsi aristocratic class ruling a Hutu majority in 1675 you fucking dipshit

Tutsi and Hutu are social hierarchies. European completely misunderstood an did not understand the social realities of those peoples.

"Chads" and "Nerds" are different races.

Please, read any serious ethnography or history book about Rwanda, such as "The premise of Inequality in Ruanda", written By Jacques J. Maquet, or any book written by Bernard Lugan, considered one of the greatest experts on Rwanda. The caste system prevalent in Rwanda was prevalent long before Europeans arrived. The same social system was prevalent in Ankole, Bunyoro, Burundi, Karagwe, Buha, Bushi, Toro, and other complex chiefdoms in the Great Lakes region. You can also read "Les anciens royaumes de la zone interlacustre meridionale", by Marcel D. Hertefelt, "Les Barundi", by Hans Meyer, "The kingdom of Ankole in Uganda", by Kalervo Oberg, "The SOcial and Sexual roles of Hima women" or "Family and Polity in Ankole: The Hima Household and the Absence of Age-Sets", by Yitzhak Elam, or the works about the ancient Hima kingdoms of Rwanda written by Roscoe.

Here you can also read a complete essay of Rwandan customary law, written by Vanhove: kaowarsom.be/es/node/6319 and you can also read the many works written by Alexis Kagame about traditional Rwanda.

I hope I have been of help to you. :)

No one is saying that the power structures didnt exist before Belgians arrived. You can't deny that whitey exploited these differences.

> Someone I've decided a leftist is spouting an opinion
> Time to imply they're a hypocrite by comparing their opinion with an contrary opinion I heard spouted by another person I decided was leftist

Thank God for green text or we wouldn't ever get these little ideological spats ironed out, would we?

Human violence is stupid and sad because it's so much more preventable than animal violence.

I know, haha, they're animals.
Funny joke, Veeky Forums

Nilosaharan Ancestry and selective mate pressures. That's why the king and elite were all like 6'5" and huge as fuck with thinner noses and lips than most Europeans.

Secondly southern Tutsi were very mixed and many Hutu "became" Tutsi thanks to Belgians making all wealthy Hutu Tutsi.

>Whitey does his business with the people in charge and not the janitor
>this is exploitation in the mind of leftypol

I came here expecting racisms posts!

I will deliver.

>hey, they look all like niggers to me

Now this is a proper Veeky Forums thread.

That nilo Sharan is very minor though. Also the selective pressures were enforced during colonial rule in particular Belgian.

>Secondly southern Tutsi were very mixed and many Hutu "became" Tutsi thanks to Belgians making all wealthy Hutu Tutsi.

That's false though.

What we call race generally corresponds with genetic clusters you hysterical butthurt redditor neckbeard

>talks about different races
>not racist

>Because they are different races.

Fuck off, they have the same culture and language. The only difference was that the Tutsi were the ruling class.

The Tutsis are described as more light skinned tall and beautiful.

There is a correlation between IQ and skin colour so they probably were smarter which is why they were resented

> Both within human populations (e.g., siblings), and between populations (e.g., races, nations, states), studies find that darker pigmented people average higher levels of aggression and sexual activity (and also lower IQ).

sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0191886912000840

Tutsi already controlled the region far before the Europeans came. Not all third world historiography can be boiled down to "blame whitey".

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Rwanda

>Implying whitey didn't cause everything bad in the world

The Spanish started the Aztec sacfrice rituals as well

>Ethnicity is defined by genetics, linguistics, culture, and common history. Race is

Just a different word for ethnicity.

I think it's all about height.

>Twa

Fucking uber manlets. The Hutu and Tutsi were once separate (one Bantu the other possibly Nilotic) but they've been mixing for centuries so they're practically two halves of the same ethnic group. There are tall Hutus with thin noses and short Tutsis with flat noses.

Why are you making fun of things they haven't even said?

Was the Rwandan genocide really just a massive attack of manlet rage?

the only way they could be told apart back during the conflict outside of cultural artifacts were their bingbong issues ID cards that had their racial information on them. the fact that without that one could pass for the other within their culture means there aren't many distinguishing factors between them genetically.

Mughal collapse, the priests and the other top class folk started to reignite caste as a thing in their little areas of rule and the British later on took it and ran with it and cemented it.

Not really. Race was used as a synonym for nation back in the day and as the race we know today but the former eroded especially when dealing with colonies and foreign groups..

One group was regarded and treated a superior based of the very erroneous assumption that they were from the horn which somehow makes them better (on the racial hierachy it's negligible as fuck Euros shat on Horners in papers and their views on top of doing the "is that a jojo reference" of the day). They weren't lol they have more nilotic genes that to use an obvious analogy a 14% BR lording his white paternal heritage over a 5% white BR. People were killed over bad science.

No it doesn't it never did for the vast history it was used.

Societies views on race never was based on science at all barring spergs taking tidbits and jamming the square block into round holes

>J. Philippe Rushton

>Fuck off, they have the same culture and language
So African Americans are the same ethnicity as European Amercians? Fuck off.

Terrible example, "African" Americans are 25% white on average. Now if you said Malay and Indian people in Malaysia...