Talk:Origins of Hutu, Tutsi, and Twa

Tutsi and Hutu...What is the difference?
Bascically, there is no difference between the hutu and tutsi. Some people may have some physical characteristics, but tutsi and hutu in general have dark skin and both look the same. [The exact differences that people notice between races depends on the race; we learn to see the differences that appear locally. The classic story concerns African villagers who have trouble distinguishing between two white men with very different hair color and height -- because they aren't used to looking for those particular differences, and white skin color alone is so strange that at first they don't look farther. Less amusing versions concern how "all Asians look alike" to many white Americans (who haven't met many Asians), or how eyewitness testimony in American courts is ... not so reliable when describing "a large black man".] They also speak similar language and have similar culture. Furthermore, the Europeans are responsible for dividing them and making up all these stupid physical differences. There were also identity cards that were put on civilians. That's why people were easily killed in the Rwandan genocide, because all the hutu extremists needed to do was look at those identity cards made by the "europeans" and set up roadblocks in areas where they noticed those stupid physical differencec principled by the "europeans". So when people were stopped and checked, those identity cards were reviewed and pointed out who was tutsi or hutu. And by the way, all those things are bullshit, because some hutus are tall too. Some hutus are light-skinned too. In fact, africans in general can be either light or dark skinned. In fact, the tutsis are not just light and tall like the stupide belgians and europeans put them to be, some of them are dark and short too. And they don't have straight noses! Everyone in Rwanda has a basic flat nose. Some are straighter than others but they are all flat. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cobenobo (talk • contribs) 16:27, 4 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Wishful (and prejudiced) thinking I'm afraid. The Tutsi (cattle herder) Hutu (farmer) division predates colonialism, the Belgians simply exploited a preexisting caste system. And there are physical differences - though there has been considerable intermingling. A rich Hutu with enough cattle could become Tutsi, and in the 19th century a number of land reforms by the Rwandan king limited grazing land and bumped a lot of Tutsis down to Hutu farmer level.  But the often repeated claim that Belgians invented Hutus/Tutsis is a myth.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.184.115.220 (talk) 13:49, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Wishful (and prejudiced) thinking AS WELL I'm afraid. Poster above describes economic casts, and proceeds to conclude that because A were farmers and B cattle herders, ergo they are different ethnic and national groups.


 * And while there was division prior to Belgians, they are the ones who "explained" to Hutus and Tutsis who was who and classified them into newly made up ethnic groups.--31.176.196.223 (talk) 22:53, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

clarification
The last paragraph talks about the "three" groups? What is the third? Are they referring to the Twa again? —Preceding unsigned comment added by JimJJewett (talk • contribs) 16:46, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

removed paragraph
I have moved the following paragraph here:


 * However, in light of recent genetic studies, Hiernaux's theory on the origin of Tutsis in East Africa has been largely discredited. It has now been proven that the Tutsis harbor little to no Northeastern African genetic influence and are, in fact, most genetically related to their fellow Hutus. On the other hand, there is currently no mtDNA data available for the Tutsi, which might have helped shed light on the latter's possible background.



I noticed that the last ref says the exact opposite of what it is being used to support (namely, it shows that the Tutsi are highly divergent genetically from the Hutu). These are good refs and should be kept, but I don't have the time to go over this now. Maybe someone here can properly summarize these sources in the article? kwami (talk) 08:41, 22 August 2008 (UTC)


 * You are mistaken. The last ref does not show that they are divergent, but quite the opposite actually. The Luis et al. (2004) study in question indicates that 80% of Tutsis carry the E3a haplogroup which defines Hutus (and at a similarly high frequency of 83%). So yes, the Tutsi are most certainly very closely related to the Hutu. Causteau (talk) 09:27, 22 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Then why does the radial phylogeny show them being about as divergent as is possible? You get similar E3a rates in Benin and Cameroon, so that is hardly evidence that they are "very closely related" (though I agree that doesn't make the Tutsi look very Ethiopic). They also have divergent B2b:B2a ratios. There's nothing in that study that compares Hutu-Tutsi differences with neighboring peoples, and the authors do not draw any conclusions about them. Wouldn't it be OR for us to claim that this study contradicts other studies, when we have to interpret the data ourselves to come to that conclusion? kwami (talk) 09:45, 22 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Has it ever occurred to you that perhaps the West African groups might also be very closely related to the Hutu and the Tutsi? They are all, after all, Niger-Congo speaking groups, and they do all share similarly high frequencies of the same haplogroups (see the Bantu expansion). At any rate, Luis et al. make the genetic relationship between Tutsis and Hutus very clear when they state that "the E3a-M2 subclade is prevalent in" Tutsis and Hutus and at a frequency of 80% and 83%, respectively. They also add that the two neighboring populations likewise carry less than 3% of E3b, which they suggest was left by earlier inhabitants. Figure 1 quite plainly shows just how related Hutus and Tutsis really are to each other. It also lists neighboring peoples (Bantus from Kenya, Wairak from Tanzania) that were included in the study, and, predictably, the Tutsis and Hutus genetically most resembled each other. Causteau (talk) 10:30, 22 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I doubt our readers will understand "very closely related" to mean "spanning the continent". Yes, take a look at Fig. 1, esp. the high percentage of B2b, one of the most divergent lineages there is, in the Tutsi. No-one would expect there to not be a lot of similarity, given centuries of intermarriage, but the diffs are also significant. Your neighboring peoples are also highly divergent genealogically: The Iraqw are Cushitic, and the Kenyan Bantu are at the margins of Bantu expansion, and like the Xhosa in South Africa, it can be expected that they contain a large non-Bantu component. In any case, unsupported claims of the Hutu and Tutsi being "very closely related" is OR and does not belong in the article—esp. since the cladogram suggests just the opposite.


 * On the Rwanda page, someone is trying to claim there is no difference at all, that this is an artificial divide created by the Belgians. Certainly the Belgians are much to blame, and I can understand politicians trying to deny any basis to potential further strife, but we need to stick to the facts and not interpret them. I thought perhaps I was missing something, but if the only support for that paragraph is how you choose to interpret the sources, then it needs to be either reworded or deleted. I don't object to discrediting the Horn connection, since that appears fairly evident from the data even if it is technically OR, but I'm taking out the "closely related claim". kwami (talk) 17:15, 22 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The genetic differences between the Hutus and the Tutsis are not significant at all. There's only an 11% frequency difference in the B haplogroup between them. That's about it, really. They share all the same haplogroups and at comparable frequencies, which is indeed what one would expect for such intimately involved groups. At any rate, you're probably right about our including that phrase about them being "most genetically related" to each other. I've just read your edit, and it seems fine. Causteau (talk) 18:38, 22 August 2008 (UTC)


 * If the diff were 66% and 77%, I could see that, but when it's 3% and 14%, I could certainly see interpreting the data in a different manner, say that the Tutsi arrive with ca. one quarter being haplotype B, which does not occur at all in the Hutu. After a few centuries of intermarriage, B drops to 14% is the Tutsi and starts showing up in the Hutu. Not saying that's what happened, but B does suggest a significant genetic component of the Tutsi that is hardly found in the Hutu. kwami (talk) 20:35, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

They are in the Bantu group, aren't they ?
AFAIK, both the ethnicities (or subethnicities, depending on who you ask) are a part of the general Bantu ethnolinguistic group. Or am I mistaken ? Is it more complicated ? --ZemplinTemplar (talk) 19:56, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

I tried to clean up
I don't know anything about the topic and the article was not helping me learn, so I tried my best to reorganize it into something that makes more sense. I made sections for different hypotheses and under each section there should be description of the hypothesis and the evidence supporting or refuting it. I think this makes way more sense than having sections of different research methods debating all hypotheses simultaneously back and forth. Historical facts shouldn't be dependent or research method. I left the genetic research section because it's too dense for me to parse, but someone more familiar with this topic should break it up and file those evidence to their respective hypotheses. C9mVio9JRy (talk) 19:18, 18 March 2023 (UTC)