What did France and the US have to gain from the Rwandan Genocide?

>Can you imagine the chimpout that would have resulted if the U.S. intervened in any way? "DEY IZ KILLINS OURS ANCESTUZ N SHEEIT!" no matter which side they'd take, and then there'd be riots that made the Rodney King stuff look like an afternoon picnic.

There wouldn't be though. It's pretty damn trucking obvious what is happening in Rwanda. Veeky Forums has a DISTURBING obsession with certain strawmen.

>Hutu Tutsi divide predates the arrival of the Belgians if any thing they blurred the lines more than reinforced them.

Lae you fucking retarded? They MADE PEOPLE WEAR ID CARDS TO IDENTIFY THEMSELVES. The lines were fluid before they were there. You have to be a complete moron to not even know this basic as fuck fact about the region.

Belgians considered Hutus who owned cows Tutsi who would not be considered Tutsi under normal circumstances, the Belgians "deracialised" the division and made it a lot less cut and dry then it was before. Maybe you should read shit beside motherjones

Rawanda happened pretty soon after the disaster to the intervention in Somalia (the event black hawk down was based on) after this the West got cold feet for military intervention along humanitarian means because they realised just how difficult, costly and unrewarding it was to do properly.

So to answer your question the gain they got was not sending their sons and daughters to their deaths in a Central African quagmire that continues to this day.

>but they still armed Hutsi extremists

Wasnt it the issue that the government brought arms then gave to militas? IIRC they also bought a shit load of gear from China and Egypt.

This is a bit of a misnomer - the hostility in Rawanda had a huge amount to do with the actions and treatment of Tutsi in neighboring Burundi and Uganda.

For instance in neighboring Burundi Tutsi committed a successful coup against the government and dominated it with fellow Tutsi which led to a failed and bloody Hutu uprising.

It wasn't even cut and dry before though.

>the Belgians "deracialised" the division and made it a lot less cut and dry then it was before.

The cemented it though how do you not get that from ID cards identifying you. Now instead of the two groups being fluid there's a hard division between the two that is cemented by the ID cards. On top of that they used racial science to use as a adhoc reasoning to outfit whatever bullshit the Belgians wanted. They basically turned class and heir achy into a race.

The genocide happened because because the UN was blocking the RPF (Tutsi). The UN couldn't really do anything because the French wanted to protect their Hutu puppet.

Am I the only one who thinks the Hutu-Tutsi conflict is strikingly familiar to the Croat-Serb conflict?

Two strinkingly similar barbaric tribes slaughtering each other while foreign powers cheer them on.

and both have African level IQs

They all ended up in the Hague

theonion.com/article/northern-irish-serbs-hutus-granted-homeland-in-wes-305

You have it opposite actually. Yes the Hutu/Tutsi division DID exist and the Tutsi were considered to be the elite landowners and chiefs, as the other poster said 1. The line was more fluid, e.g. the Hutus and Tutsis considered themselves to be of the same people 2. The Belgians misconstrued the division and RACIALIZED it, not de-racialized it. It was more like a class difference than a racial difference, and yes, although there was some animosity between them, it was not irreconcilable.

Belgians taught the Tutsis that they were genetically superior, of "Hamite" Caucasian origin, whereas the Hutus were of inferior Bantu stock and born to serve the Tutsis. Thus the idea that the Hutus were "foreign invaders" that had stolen Rwanda from them. It didn't help that the Tutsis did in many ways collaborate with the Belgian regime. The Hutus did have legitimate grievances against the Tutsis, at least in the early part of the 20th century, but of course nothing justifies genocide or the extreme prejudice/oppression of Tutsis that emerged.

Also, Tutsis were considered to be the cattle ranchers and Hutus the farmers. And it was a totally incorrect evaluation as well; both groups had done both jobs before, they weren't static a priori characteristics of each group. It was originally a military thing (Tutsi=warrior, Hutu=servant) that wasn't even ethnic. Ffs, the King of Rwanda called every group of people he conquered Hutu indiscriminately.

The interesting thing is that while the whole Tutsi Hutu differentiation caused all that mayhem and is used as a prime example how retarded africans can be, it actually has been proven right in light of how successfull tutsi-ruled Rwanda is

"Hutu' means a person with more than ten cows and 'Tutsi' a person with less than ten cows.

That distinction was used when the Belgians ruled prior to that Hutu/Tutsi divide was much more based in ethnicity.

>but they still armed Hutsi extremists

So that's what they had to gain: money
Nogs have always genocided other tribes since Africa was a thing, and they always will
Whether they do it with sticks or firearms doesnt matter

It was just bantz, also niggers being considered human is a new phonomenon

>colonialism
>racism
>POC
back to tumblr

Weren't the tutsi the ones who got genocided though?