Results 1 to 10 of 10

Thread: Questions on the Hutu/Tutsi Conflict

  1. #1
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Last Online
    Thursday, February 19th, 2009 @ 09:55 AM
    Ethnicity
    westphalian
    Subrace
    Nordid
    Country
    Germany Germany
    Gender
    Posts
    156
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1
    Thanked in
    1 Post

    Post Questions on the Hutu/Tutsi Conflict

    i have read and heard that much of the massacre of the Tutsis that in occured in Rwanda can be attributed to the fact that the Tutsis were very much resented by the Hutus due to their traditional privileged status when Rwanada was a Belgian colony.

    However I have also heard from other, (less reputable ) sources that much of the conflict has also to do with race; the Tutsis were very much more "caucasion" in appearance (high foreheads, high nose bridges, tall stature, lighter skin, etc) than the average Hutu, which inevitably lead to a racial conflict when the Belgians left. How much of this can be substantiated? Because in most photos i have seen of the conflict, i see Tutsis as virtually indistinguishable from the Hutus.

  2. #2
    Disinterested

    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Last Online
    Tuesday, September 13th, 2005 @ 09:17 PM
    Country
    United Kingdom United Kingdom
    Gender
    Politics
    Folkish
    Posts
    1,401
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    8
    Thanked in
    6 Posts

    Post Re: Questions on the Hutu/Tutsi conflict

    Quote Originally Posted by Schutzstaffelor
    i have read and heard that much of the massacre of the Tutsis that in occured in Rwanda can be attributed to the fact that the Tutsis were very much resented by the Hutus due to their traditional privileged status when Rwanada was a Belgian colony.

    However I have also heard from other, (less reputable ) sources that much of the conflict has also to do with race; the Tutsis were very much more "caucasion" in appearance (high foreheads, high nose bridges, tall stature, lighter skin, etc) than the average Hutu, which inevitably lead to a racial conflict when the Belgians left. How much of this can be substantiated? Because in most photos i have seen of the conflict, i see Tutsis as virtually indistinguishable from the Hutus.
    Theyre traditional castes, and the Tutsis do tend to look more Caucasoid.

  3. #3
    Progressive Collectivist
    „Friend of Germanics”
    Funding Membership Inactive
    Agrippa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Last Online
    Monday, January 31st, 2011 @ 09:22 PM
    Ethnicity
    German
    Subrace
    Atlantid
    Location
    Asgard
    Gender
    Politics
    Progressive Collectivist
    Religion
    Catholic
    Posts
    6,968
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    30
    Thanked in
    30 Posts

    Post Re: Questions on the Hutu/Tutsi conflict

    A whole race of psychopaths.


    Conversations With Mass Murderers

    Suzy Hansen, Guardian (UK), July 20


    The 1994 Rwandan genocide was ignored by most of the world as it raged on. But in years since, the horrific event that claimed 800,000 deaths has garnered worldwide attention, thanks to numerous books and documentaries, and even a Hollywood film. Philip Gourevitch’s masterly We Wish to Inform You That Tomorrow We Will Be Killed With Our Families, based on his dispatches from Rwanda for the New Yorker, became an award-winning bestseller. Romeo Dallaire, the United Nations commander stationed in Rwanda at the time, recently participated in a documentary based on his own memoir, Shake Hands With the Devil. And last year, the tragedy of the slaughter was brought to the big screen in the surprisingly good Hotel Rwanda, a film starring Don Cheadle that managed to grab three Oscar nominations.

    These renderings of the genocide include many unfathomable images of men furiously hacking at other men, of whole communities decimated while seeking refuge in church, of bloated, days-old bodies choking the country’s rivers. As by now most people know, in Rwanda, the vast majority of the Hutu population participated in the mass killing of their fellow Tutsi countrymen (as well as Hutu moderates) in only 100 days, a little more than three months. The killing was done without the efficient aid of gas chambers or bombs or machine guns; instead, most of the murders were of the one-on-one sort—a very personal, laborious killing in which many, many people willingly, almost enthusiastically, took part.

    Although western writers and artists have attempted, and will continue attempting, to translate the reality of a mass extermination, it’s a nearly impossible task. They succeed in many ways, but what they can’t quite get across is technical: what is it like for one entire population to kill another, day after day, for an entire season of the year? Did the men go to work too? Did they make love at night, and wake up and kill in the morning? Did they read books, get drunk, tell bedtime stories—all after a day’s kill? Did they cry?

    Machete Season: The Killers in Rwanda Speak, the second book on Rwanda by French journalist Jean Hatzfeld, attempts to answer some of these questions, and gives this madness a shocking sort of order. Hatzfeld interviewed 10 Hutus six years after the genocide, while the men served time in jail. These Hutus were from the rural Nyamata district (population 119,000), which includes a small town and 14 surrounding hills (Rwanda is lush and mountainous) split almost half between Hutus and Tutsis. Beginning in April 1994, within six weeks, five out of every six Tutsis in Nyamata were killed.

    The 10 men, ranging from 20 to 62 years of age, hailed from these hills, where most of them were farmers. “None of them has ever quarrelled with his Tutsi neighbors over land, crops, damage, and women,” Hatzfeld writes. In fact, they lived next door to Tutsis, played soccer with them, went to church with them. “But these 10 banded together,” Hatzfeld explains, “because of the proximity of their fields, their patronage of a cabaret, and their natural affinities and shared concerns”. Hatzfeld gives the reader a basic sense of who the men are—the little detail already provided in this review—but he wisely lets the men talk first before proffering their proper biographies. “That bunch was famous on the hill for carousing and tomfoolery,” said Clementine, a local Hutu who is married to a Tutsi. “Those fellows did not seem so bad.”

    The Rwandan genocide officially began after the death of President Juvénal Habyarimana, a Hutu, whose plane was mysteriously shot down on April 6 1994. The death of the president was the excuse the Hutu extremists needed to begin the killing that they had long planned. (Obviously, Rwandan history is ever more complicated: Hutu extremists had long been paranoid about Tutsi power; at various times Tutsis had suffered, and been slaughtered, at the hands of Hutus; a group of exiled Tutsis organised the Rwandan Patriotic Front, with whom Habyarimana had signed peace accords in 1993. Later, the RPF would enter Rwanda and stop the genocide.)

    Hatzfeld’s band of ordinary Hutus, incited by extremists broadcasting on the radio, gathered together, singing songs and screwing around, and then headed down to the marshes where they believed the Tutsis were hiding. The new killers indeed bonded immediately: “We gathered into teams on the soccer field and went out hunting as kindred spirits,” said Ignace. “We had to work fast, and we got no time off, especially not Sundays—we had to finish up,” said Elie. “We cancelled all ceremonies. Everyone was hired at the same level for a single job—to crush all the cockroaches.”

    The most difficult part of all of this is to comprehend the moment when men become killers. The Hutus claimed not to have been forced to kill, though they did fear the consequences of not joining in at the beginning. By the time of the interviews, killing strikes them as quite normal. It’s not as though their first kill is particularly memorable. Still, they attempt to recall it:

    Fulgence: “First I cracked an old mama’s head with a club.”

    Alphonse: “I was quite surprised by the speed of death, and also by the softness of the blow.”

    Adalbert didn’t remember the “precise details” of his first kill: “Therefore the true first time worth telling from a lasting memory, for me, is when I killed two children, April 17.”

    They meditate on murder like this throughout the book.

    Elie: “The club is more crushing, but the machete is more natural. The Rwandan is accustomed to the machete from childhood. Grab a machete—that is what we do every morning.”

    Alphonse: “Saving the babies, that was not practical. They were whacked against walls and trees or they were cut right away.”

    Indeed, especially for farmers, slicing at things was routine. The men use the word “cut” to describe their murders, as if what they did was akin to dragging a paper edge across a thumb. Obviously it’s a callous way of distancing themselves from their deeds, but it also signals the parallel they saw between hacking Tutsis and working in the fields.

    Yet, there were differences. “Killing was a demanding but more gratifying activity,” said Pio. “The proof: none ever asked permission to go clear brush on his field, not even for a half-day.” Soon it became addictive, and there were rewards: “We could no longer stop ourselves from wielding the machete, it brought us so much profit.” The looting that accompanied the killing was dazzling for the poor farmers, and it offered a way for the women to pitch in (though some women and children did kill). They stole everything—some even grabbed the bloodstained clothing of the dead. “If you went home empty-handed, you might even be scolded by your wife or your children,” one man said. And despite knowing that their husbands were out raping women and then killing them, most wives still made love to their husbands at night.

    Many men insisted that this life—the one where they woke up and killed people all day—was a better one. “Man can get used to killing, if he kills on and on,” said Alphonse. Fulgence went one step further: “The more we saw people die, the less we thought about their lives, the less we talked about their deaths. And the more we got used to enjoying it.”

    As the killing went on, the men became intoxicated by the idea of “finishing the job”. The idea appears to have been that when it was all over, the Tutsis would be gone, and there would be no reminder of them. So the drive to kill every last Tutsi became more ferocious. In Nyamata not one bond of friendship spared a life, writes Hatzfeld; unlike in Nazi Germany, for example, Tutsis found “not a single escape network”.

    But there was another key component to the genocide’s ferocity: no one was watching. There is nothing so damning in Machete Season as when the men speak of the “whites”. One man suggests that the idea of genocide germinated in 1959, when Hutus massacred many Tutsis “without being punished”. And, in 1994, Hutu extremists gradually realised that the world was averting its eyes from the present atrocities as well. “All the important people turned their backs on our killings,” said Elie. “The blue helmets, the Belgians, the white directors, the black presidents, the humanitarian people and the international cameramen, the priests and the bishops and finally even God … We were all abandoned by all words of rebuke.” Pancrace agreed: “Killing is very discouraging if you yourself must decide to do it … but if you must obey the orders of the authorities … if you see that the killing will be total and without disastrous consequences for yourself, you feel soothed and reassured.”

    These were ordinary men, for sure. And ordinary men would have feared the punishment of others; as soon as the west pulled out of Rwanda they knew they were free to kill. It’s clear that if some force had been monitoring them, at least some of the motivation to kill would have withered away. Fittingly, one of the chapters in the book is titled A Sealed Chamber.

    Perhaps not surprisingly, because of this long absence of condemnation, the men have no regrets. “I want to make clear that from the first gentleman I killed to the last, I was not sorry about a single one,” said Leopord. Hatzfeld notes in amazement that the killers speak in monotone and “never allow themselves to be overwhelmed by anything”. During the men’s seven years in prison, they knew of not one Hutu suicide. If they were depressed, it was only because they were locked up. “Aside from the anguish of my years in prison,” said Pancrace, “I do not see my life as harmed by all these regrettable events.” The unfortunately candid Elie takes a stab at remorse: “In prison and on the hills, everyone is obviously sorry. But most of the killers are sorry they didn’t finish the job.”

    Machete Season is realistic and, above all else, terrifying; Hatzfeld brilliantly organises his subjects’ stories for maximum effect. His method captures the rhythm of a genocide—the cold, workmanlike, fierce nature of its repetition. The book goes on and on, the killers are still alive, they persist, they won’t stop talking. Just when you think they won’t mention their machete again, it’s back.

    When the men return home from jail, it’s to a country in trauma. “The silence on the Rwandan hills is indescribable and cannot be compared with the usual mutism in the aftermath of war,” writes Hatzfeld. What Hatzfeld suggests is the possibility of an Africa in turmoil because of many of its people’s learned fatalism. Perhaps the most terrible line in Machete Season is spoken by Pio, who noted with astonishment the silence with which the Tutsis confronted their deaths, even as he came near to where they hid in the marsh, machete in hand. They did not fight back. They did not cry out. “They felt so abandoned they did not even open their mouths.”

    · Suzy Hansen, a former editor at Salon, is an editor at the New York Observer.
    Tutsis were the herder warrior elite of that region, they formed their own reigns there and when the Germans came they cooperated. Unfortunately, after Germany lost WWI., Belgium took this colonies over and they were more Christian oriented. The Belgian state and the Christian Catholic church tried to educate at least a part of the Hutu group too and formed so a group under their direct control. Because Belgium was very arrogant towards the Tutsi elite, the Tutsi leaders tried to make their own policy, but as this happened, the Belgians began to speak about "Democracy". They supported the Hutu group against the Tutsi elite and let a Hutu dictator making a coup more or less. After this many Tutsis fled, but tried to gain back the power of the country of Rwanda.
    In this context, in which the new Hutu movement preached hate against the Tutsis, the first massacres happened. When the Tutsis from Uganda, who were an important force there in the civil war, tried to gain back control of Rwanda they began with the mass killings, radio and local militias were used to propagate the genocide. Some Tutsis had to pay for being shot, otherwise, if they had no money, they were slaughtered with the machete.
    The liberation army dominated by Tutsis made fast progress and won easily against the huge and numerically superiour Hutu forces. When the end was near, it was a surprise for Belgium and the French, they sent forces, they said to protect Tutsis from the massacres, in reality to save the regime.
    This wasnt successful and the Tutsis liberated their people left by the Hutu bestiality. After this they played an important role in the Kongo too and are feared as warriors even now.

    On the picture I attached from left to right:
    Tutsi (herder-warrior), Hutu (hack farmers), Twa (hunter gatherer of the tropical forest).


    Whats interesting is, that in this case we can speak really much better of a "collective guilt" than in other cases because of the massive involvement of the masses and civilians and the brutality of the killings even without order. But of course, this genocide was not directed against the "chosen people", similar to the Armenian cause people dont care too much because it cant be exploit to call all of Europe and beyond...so nobody cares too much and there is not too much said about the involvement of France and Belgium - they even make the Tutsis responsible partly because the conflict was because of their domination in many areas and early colonial powers considered them superious and more European like compared to the other types...what they are.

    Whats interesting is, that the two groups are not absolutely strictly separeted, they were not. Some of the later Hutu elite was of the herder type as well and thats the reason a son of a Hutu leader was killed, because he "looked like a Tutsi" and had no papers. Similar things happened in Kongo where the type was recognised and people randomly attacked people "looking like Tutsis". Its typical for the stratification of the region that even in the Hutu the herder type was well represented in the elite...

    For a time leader of the RPF (Rwandan Patriotic Front) and military leader - great officer, now political leader - an extreme Tutsi type, Paul Kagame:




    Rwandan Soldiers (after the liberation) dominated by Tutsi:


    Hutu militia:

    Hutus:



    Kabila of the Kongo should have been an allied of the Tutsis, he "was made" by them but then he was treacherous and finally get what he deserved.
    Kabila is the broad guy in the front, behind him and right of him are Tutsis:
    Attached Images Attached Images  
    Last edited by Agrippa; Wednesday, August 17th, 2005 at 11:29 PM.
    Magna Europa est patria nostra
    STOP GATS! STOP LIBERALISM!

  4. #4

  5. #5
    Progressive Collectivist
    „Friend of Germanics”
    Funding Membership Inactive
    Agrippa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Last Online
    Monday, January 31st, 2011 @ 09:22 PM
    Ethnicity
    German
    Subrace
    Atlantid
    Location
    Asgard
    Gender
    Politics
    Progressive Collectivist
    Religion
    Catholic
    Posts
    6,968
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    30
    Thanked in
    30 Posts

    Post Re: Questions on the Hutu/Tutsi conflict

    Quote Originally Posted by Dr. Solar Wolff
    As I recall from school, a long time ago, the Hutu were traditional slaves or at best bound servants to the Tutsi. The were agricultural workers and potters. The Tutsi males did no work but considered themselves warriors and if I recall correctly adopted the Bantu age-grade system for warrior males. The Hutu were looked down upon as Untermenschen and intermarriage was forbidden.

    This type of relationship between two peoples can be seen again and again all over Africa. The biologist Ivan Sanderson even went so far as to identify the lower or slave portion of this relationship with a partial Capoid ancestry.

    The basis for this conflict has little to do with colonialism or modern history or even modern politics. It is an age-old racial hatred.
    Thats propaganda of Anti-racists made after Europeans began to hate both themselves and every other progressive and dominate group around the world for its "oppression".
    First, Tutsi worked, at least the common Tutsi, there was a Tutsi aristocracy which was nothing but warriors and had large herds which other Tutsis and Hutus controlled. They had administrative function and later most technicians and teachers were Tutsis. The normal Tutsi was just a herder like the Massai, where you can see the relation too. It was like many Indoeuropean and Afroasiatic groups, those who had more animals, were rich and had a higher status mostly. The Hutu were just the simple hack farmers as I said, and yes between the warrior class and the lower farmers there were seldom intermarriages.
    What I should add is, that the Colonial system made the Tutsis at the beginning stronger by giving them practically the help of a more advanced administrative system and they were eager to learn and learned relatively fast, sent all children they could afford to school. The Hutus had, before the Catholic church came and the Belgian administration no organisation on their own. If there were problems between their Tutsi aristocrat and them, they could leave the area and go to another one, and they could complain by the highest, by the kind f.e. So usually this Tutsi aristocrats tried to be relatively friendly. If there were violent problems with the Hutus, the Tutsis were by far superior and feared in war. The basic problem was just the hack farmers reproduced themselves faster and their numbers grew, the land is fertile but because of the overpopulation and the land the herders need many people became poor and poorer.
    In the Belgian administrative system two things happened, it was not allowed to leave the area where the people were registered first normally, and the Tutsis had the administrative right, together with the poorer economical situation, there was less birth control after adoption of Christianity, social problems and conflicts grew. At the same time they formed a "Hutu elite", they really invested in what they could find from the Hutus "to make something out of it". And especially after WWII. the Belgian Catholic church proclaimed "oppression, oppression."
    Then, when the king and the Tutsi aristocracy had a problem with the Belgian economic and colonial policy, they protested and tried to make their own decisions, after that, a practically non existent Hutu group was build up by the Belgian intelligence, the Catholic church and Western help. So came the Hutu dictator in power. They began with hate propaganda for the same reasons the Europeans admired them before, simply because policy had changed and now being superior was something negative, "oppressive", though as I said, both sides had rights and lived a different economic form in the past. So there were conflicts before, but that it came that way would have been absolutely and 100 percent impossible without massive Belgian intervention what was a shame! Western influence and Marxism brought the real hate up and a system which made the genocide possible, but in this case there is not that much said about "guilt"...
    Last edited by Agrippa; Thursday, August 18th, 2005 at 01:57 PM.
    Magna Europa est patria nostra
    STOP GATS! STOP LIBERALISM!

  6. #6
    Account Inactive

    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Last Online
    Thursday, July 5th, 2012 @ 06:07 AM
    Subrace
    Atlantid
    Country
    United States United States
    Location
    Metropolis
    Gender
    Age
    42
    Family
    Single
    Occupation
    Journalist
    Religion
    Protestant
    Posts
    6,667
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    41
    Thanked in
    41 Posts

    Post Re: Questions on the Hutu/Tutsi conflict

    Quote Originally Posted by Dr. Solar Wolff
    As I recall from school, a long time ago, the Hutu were traditional slaves or at best bound servants to the Tutsi. The were agricultural workers and potters. The Tutsi males did no work but considered themselves warriors and if I recall correctly adopted the Bantu age-grade system for warrior males. The Hutu were looked down upon as Untermenschen and intermarriage was forbidden.

    This type of relationship between two peoples can be seen again and again all over Africa. The biologist Ivan Sanderson even went so far as to identify the lower or slave portion of this relationship with a partial Capoid ancestry.

    The basis for this conflict has little to do with colonialism or modern history or even modern politics. It is an age-old racial hatred.
    The Hutu and Tutsi are essentially the same people. What seperates them is mostly class distinction.

    The average Tutsi is also taller because Tutsi's are cattle owners Hutu's workers/slaves.

    Revolution is probably is a better term than Genocide.

  7. #7
    Progressive Collectivist
    „Friend of Germanics”
    Funding Membership Inactive
    Agrippa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Last Online
    Monday, January 31st, 2011 @ 09:22 PM
    Ethnicity
    German
    Subrace
    Atlantid
    Location
    Asgard
    Gender
    Politics
    Progressive Collectivist
    Religion
    Catholic
    Posts
    6,968
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    30
    Thanked in
    30 Posts

    Post Re: Questions on the Hutu/Tutsi conflict

    Quote Originally Posted by Northern_Paladin
    The Hutu and Tutsi are essentially the same people. What seperates them is mostly class distinction.

    The average Tutsi is also taller because Tutsi's are cattle owners Hutu's workers/slaves.
    They are a different type, its clear the are genetically selected.

    Revolution is probably is a better term than Genocide.
    If there was ever a "revolution" it was made by the Belgians to get read of the Tutsi elite and after that they were in power, to kill them in masses and that way is a genocide and no revolution.
    Magna Europa est patria nostra
    STOP GATS! STOP LIBERALISM!

  8. #8

    Post Re: Questions on the Hutu/Tutsi conflict

    Quote Originally Posted by Agrippa
    Thats propaganda of Anti-racists made after Europeans began to hate both themselves and every other progressive and dominate group around the world for its "oppression".
    First, Tutsi worked, at least the common Tutsi, there was a Tutsi aristocracy which was nothing but warriors and had large herds which other Tutsis and Hutus controlled. They had administrative function and later most technicians and teachers were Tutsis. The normal Tutsi was just a herder like the Massai, where you can see the relation too. It was like many Indoeuropean and Afroasiatic groups, those who had more animals, were rich and had a higher status mostly. The Hutu were just the simple hack farmers as I said, and yes between the warrior class and the lower farmers there were seldom intermarriages.
    What I should add is, that the Colonial system made the Tutsis at the beginning stronger by giving them practically the help of a more advanced administrative system and they were eager to learn and learned relatively fast, sent all children they could afford to school. The Hutus had, before the Catholic church came and the Belgian administration no organisation on their own. If there were problems between their Tutsi aristocrat and them, they could leave the area and go to another one, and they could complain by the highest, by the kind f.e. So usually this Tutsi aristocrats tried to be relatively friendly. If there were violent problems with the Hutus, the Tutsis were by far superior and feared in war. The basic problem was just the hack farmers reproduced themselves faster and their numbers grew, the land is fertile but because of the overpopulation and the land the herders need many people became poor and poorer.
    In the Belgian administrative system two things happened, it was not allowed to leave the area where the people were registered first normally, and the Tutsis had the administrative right, together with the poorer economical situation, there was less birth control after adoption of Christianity, social problems and conflicts grew. At the same time they formed a "Hutu elite", they really invested in what they could find from the Hutus "to make something out of it". And especially after WWII. the Belgian Catholic church proclaimed "oppression, oppression."
    Then, when the king and the Tutsi aristocracy had a problem with the Belgian economic and colonial policy, they protested and tried to make their own decisions, after that, a practically non existent Hutu group was build up by the Belgian intelligence, the Catholic church and Western help. So came the Hutu dictator in power. They began with hate propaganda for the same reasons the Europeans admired them before, simply because policy had changed and now being superior was something negative, "oppressive", though as I said, both sides had rights and lived a different economic form in the past. So there were conflicts before, but that it came that way would have been absolutely and 100 percent impossible without massive Belgian intervention what was a shame! Western influence and Marxism brought the real hate up and a system which made the genocide possible, but in this case there is not that much said about "guilt"...
    Nevertheless, the distinctions and the realtionship between the Tutsi and the Hutu were established before the colonial period just as the relationship between the Pigmies and neighboring forest Bantu was already established.

  9. #9

  10. #10
    Progressive Collectivist
    „Friend of Germanics”
    Funding Membership Inactive
    Agrippa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Last Online
    Monday, January 31st, 2011 @ 09:22 PM
    Ethnicity
    German
    Subrace
    Atlantid
    Location
    Asgard
    Gender
    Politics
    Progressive Collectivist
    Religion
    Catholic
    Posts
    6,968
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    30
    Thanked in
    30 Posts

    Post Re: Questions on the Hutu/Tutsi conflict

    Quote Originally Posted by Dr. Solar Wolff
    I don't know what you are talking about. The only similarities are dark skin and kinky hair. Stature is the obvious difference but facial features, body build, even complexion are different in the two groups. Most importantly, members of both groups recognize the racial differences between them and can identify each other individually.
    Yes, temperament is different too. I described above that many physical Tutsi types became Hutu leaders interestingly (mostly bastards and from Tutsi families which lost their position and became farmers, so after Belgian and Rwanda law - Hutus) and there were cases in which family members were killed because "they looked like Tutsis" and had no papers to prove the opposite!
    In Kongo, in some slum areas in which the lowest elements live, they hunted for people which were tall, thin and had Europiform facial features. They were even in TV because the had thrown one of the unluckies from a bridge, and when he wasnt dead the fired at him...
    That was shortly before the army "of Kabila", mostly consisting of Tutsi, came into the capital city...
    Magna Europa est patria nostra
    STOP GATS! STOP LIBERALISM!

Similar Threads

  1. Diversity Causes Conflict
    By Aspire in forum Immigration & Multiculturalism
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: Monday, October 26th, 2009, 08:56 AM
  2. Replies: 0
    Last Post: Saturday, September 26th, 2009, 07:00 PM
  3. Rwanda and the International Community: The Tutsi-Hutu Incident
    By ChaosLord in forum Modern Age & Contemporary History
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: Thursday, July 23rd, 2009, 01:16 AM
  4. Variation at 16 STR loci in Rwandans (Hutu)
    By Euclides in forum Population Genetics
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: Friday, July 2nd, 2004, 03:42 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •