The differences between the Hutu and Tutsis are significant in comprehending the Rwandan genocide. However, it is important to note that being a Hutu or a Tutsi was not of fixed or natural descent. The Hutu and Tutsi have been in existed long before the colonization era. The disparities came into effect during the colonial rule whereby being a member of an ethnic group that had social and political advantages and the consequences were dependent on who the colonizers favored at the time. It is significant to see how these proposed differences were legislated, capitalized and made a huge contribution to the Rwandan genocide ( Yanagizawa-Drott, 2014) .
Before colonization, Hutu and Tutsi lived together in unity. In the 15th century the Tutsi warriors migrated to Rwanda from Ethiopia and provided the Hutu with protection, and in return, the Hutu provided them with agricultural cultivation. These two groups did not view themselves as separate countries, and they had no significant physical, linguistic or cultural differences. They shared the same territory, religion, and language. Furthermore, intermarriages were prevalent, and no violence was reported at the time ( Yanagizawa-Drott, 2014) . These two ethnic groups were grounded on material wealth, the king proximity and hence the difference was only of the social class.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
The Hutu cultivated the land and the offered labor to the Tutsis who own land. However, this distinction in social class was fluid because the Hutu could be able to become Tutsis if they were capable of accumulating land and cattle. Conversely, the Tutsis could also become Hutu if they lost all their properties. It was more likely for the individuals to become Hutu than the Tutsis. Over the decades the Hutu and Tutsi viewed themselves as the same people. No trace of violence was spotted between these two groups before colonization ( Yanagizawa-Drott, 2014) .
However, in the 17th century, the distinction between these two groups began to matter. When King Rwabugiri was king, he became authoritarian, and the Hutu were forced to become laborers. King Rwabugiri classified Hutu as free laborers whereas the Tutsi were seen as superior. This is a political favoritism that perpetuated a further growth in the distinction between the two groups. The Hutu were uncompensated for the services offered to the Tutsi, and it continued for a long time. From 1894 to 1916, the Germans ruled Rwanda, and the favored the Tutsi even though the Hutu were the majority. The Tutsis were seen to be more civilized and superior than the Hutus ( Staub, 2016) .
Therefore the Germans offered the Tutsis with employment and education opportunities. Under the German rule, Hutu and Tutsi were further distinguished. A person was considered to be a Tutsis if one owned more than ten cattle and had a long nose. Consequently, the social class division plus a new physical distinction further differentiated the Hutu from the Tutsis. As Germany continued its rule and oppression against the Hutu, bitterness, and resentment began to grow within the Hutu and this stimulated Tutsi polarization ( Yanagizawa-Drott, 2014) .
Germans would later switch their colonial rule to Belgium during the world war one. Under the Belgian rule, the Tutsi remained to be the superior group and the Belgians further utilized Hamitic hypothesis to differentiate groups and also justify their discriminatory activities against the Hutu. In 1931, identity cards were to be issued to the Hutu and Tutsis so as to distinguish them and this further led to the separation of political categories ( Scull et.al, 2016) . Furthermore, a 1934 census re-emphasized the definition of Tutsi by the Germans of owning land and 10 or more cows.
The Imperial race was theorized by Belgium further by utilizing physical attributes in defining the characteristics of the ethnicity even though there were enormous similarities in the physical attributes between these two groups and even within the groups. The Tutsis were projected to be “taller. Thinner, lighter skinned and with fine bone structure” whereas the Hutu were projected to be “dark skinned, shorter, with softer features.’ the social construction which was determined by physical attributes and had a profound sociological effect on the Hutu and Tutsi because a distinction that was historically based on social class has become bifurcated to what was now seen to be a political opportunity and privilege ( Scull et.al, 2016) .
The Hutus had been regarded as the inferior group for more than two centuries. All those years of oppression had fostered hatred and bitterness against the Tutsi who were formally their comrades. The rising ethnic tensions between these two ethnic groups made Belgium to reverse their favoritism and started supporting the Hutu so as to continue their rule. The 1959 revolution made it easier for the Hutu to kill the Tutsis because the identity cards made it easier for them to recognize which ethnicity one belongs. The identification cards were a death sentence for the Tutsis and the Hutu who has been oppressed for some many decades did not hold back their bitterness (Scull et.al, 2016).
Ethnic hatred against the Tutsis heightened within the Hutus, and for the next forty years, propaganda was spread in the media against the Tutsis. The Hutu were unable to dismiss the oppression and cruelty of centuries, and the only way they would be able to recover was through Tutsis extermination. Therefore in 1994, the Hutu began their extermination process by murdering the Tutsis with rage, and this led to the 1994 Rwandan genocide. For one to understand what caused the 1994 Rwandan genocide, it is imperative to know that the colonial rulers were the ones who orchestrated the differences between the Hutus and Tutsis. Previously the two ethnic groups lived in harmony, and the only differences they had was based on material wealth ( Staub, 2016) .
References
Scull, N. C., Mbonyingabo, C. D., & Kotb, M. (2016). Transforming ordinary people into killers: A psychosocial examination of Hutu participation in the Tutsi genocide. Journal of Peace Psychology , 22 (4), 334.
Staub, E. (2016). The Origins and Inhibiting Influences in Genocide, Mass Killing and Other Collective Violence. The Ashgate Research Companion to Political Violence , 205.
Yanagizawa-Drott, D. (2014). Propaganda and conflict: Evidence from the Rwandan genocide. The Quarterly Journal of Economics , 129 (4), 1947-1994.
