Talk:History of Rwanda

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Source question[edit]

"Habyarimana immediately instituted genocidal programs, which would be directed against all Tutsis and against any Hutus seen as in league with Tutsi interests. " Any source for these "genocidal programs?" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.247.216.150 (talk) 22:55, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

German colonialism[edit]

"War and division seemed to open the door for colonialism, and in 1897 German colonialists and missionaries arrived in Rwanda. The Rwandans were divided with a portion of the royal court being very wary and the other seeing the Germans as a welcome alternative to the dominance of Buganda or the Belgians.Rwanda put up far less resistance than Burundi to German rule."

the part saying Rwanda but up Less resistance is not correct. Rwanda actualy put up one of the biggest resistances in africa and was never fully colonized it was under german control but was self governing i will add spesfic information soon —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.50.139.196 (talk) 00:53, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Early discussion[edit]

It would be helpful to explain which ethnicity is dying in the part "By April 1991 100,000 were dead, by May, 200,000".

Also, the "The prime minister and her 10 Belgian bodyguards were among the first victims." comes from nowhere. Who's she?

wasnt the belgian catholic church somewhat responsible for the slaughter? they said that the tutsian invading army was comunistic, and that communism was related with satan in some way.. i dont really remember how :/ Noone 12:15, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I haven't heard that before but that's quite a reach. When massive numbers of people of one ethnicity readily rise up and murder their neighbors of another ethnicity in a mass slaughter it is unlikely they were inspired by a church saying that some group was "communistic." Cecropia 14:27, 6 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

France absolving itself of any guilt in Rwanda is hardly "ironic" ("characterized by often poignant difference or incongruity between what is expected and what actually is"). "Expected" pr "hypocritical" would be more apt if we need an adjective. Cecropia 14:27, 6 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

From the article [my emphasis]:

In a time before memory, the Twa were replaced by the migration of the racially Congoid forbearers of today's ethnic Hutus. The Hutus had been an agriculturalist people making traditionally no use of domesticated animals, and thus were culturally at contrast with the third of Rwanda's ethno-racial g Rwanda's ethno-racial g Rwanda's ethno-racial groups to arrive, the taller, racially Hamitic Tutsis.

Surely these pseudoscientific "racial" terms are derived from now-discredited nineteenth-century theories? Deleting these terms. -- The Anome 11:37, 24 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Well I wrote the part you shouldnt have deleted. You have reduced biological differences between the Tutsis and Hutus to a difference in height. "Taller" you called it. Scientificly discrediting many arguments for such a broad set of concepts as "race", does not change the basic truth that physical differences carried biologically are real, and in fact provided much of the albeit foolish legitimization of the various attitudes which played and continue to play a part in Rwanda.

There is simply no other description than "racially congoid" which expresses the point being made. "Taller" doesnt cut it. Why didnt you use your eraser on "Pygmy" too? - surely this term is even insulting in many cases. Tridesch

If I recall correctly from my rudimentary African History classes, the Tutsis and Hutus are not properly of different "races." Rather, the Tutsis were essentially just the ruling class, and appeared different because of differences in diet and life style. This article does not appear to address this issue. Given some of the other somewhat dated terminology used, such as "Racially Hamitic", I'm somewhat suspicious of the neutrality of this article. However not beign an expert, the best I can do is flag this down. Peregrine981 17:27, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Much as I suspected, here is an article [1] which discredits much of the wikipedia article. I shall look into some action on the subject soon.

Peregrine981 17:34, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

This depends on what you are calling race. Given the differing physical characteristics and, importantly, the perceptions of the parties involved, race could be correct. The opening paragraphs of the article are now verging on incoherant babble due to some 'expert' vandalizing it.

I would grant that many hutus look exactly like many tutsis, but there are still types who represent 'either or'.

tridesch

Early history / civilization sections[edit]

Any chance of getting some sort of idea what period the events described in the early history / civilization sections take place in? I realize it would be likely impossible to attribute exact dates, but any kind of rough idea would be helpful. Even the "background" section of Rwandan Genocide is more detailed. --Nephtes 15:57, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ethnic History of Rwanda[edit]

Having considerably shortened Rwandan Genocide#Background, I've moved the original Background section to a temp page, Talk:History of Rwanda/Ethnic History of Rwanda. Not all of that belonged in Rwandan Genocide. But it seems like there's information there that has not been incorporated into this article. -- bcasterline • talk 01:34, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Problems of lack of sources/citations/references/verification[edit]

Please see talk page of Rwandan Genocide and Bibliography of the Rwandan Genocide; much plagiarism previously (and perhaps still) from unacknowledged, unattributed sources in the main body of that article (and perhaps borrowings from it in this one). Since this article has incorporated some material from that article (without providing any references or citations of its own at all), verification is a big problem. Major editing help requested. NYScholar 04:06, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Origins of Tutsi and Hutu breakout article?[edit]

I started a section at History of Rwanda#Origins of Hutu and Tutsi to summarize parts of Mamdani's book. However, the section is rapidly getting out of hand. I am now considering breaking out an article Origin of Tutsi and Hutu, into which this section and info at both Hutu and Tutsi may be merged. I think I opposed such a similar proposal long ago, but I've come to the conclusion that a single article to consolidate information and sources may be in the best interests of the topic. Thoughts? - BanyanTree 06:09, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • To me it makes sense to have a combined article inasmuch as in Rwanda and Burundi these terms are defined in relation to one another. My understanding is that when speaking of origins here, we are speaking of the origins of names, identities, or statuses, not corporate groups -- I think this would be Mamdani's view too. If you have in mind a view of these terms or categories as more corporate "tribal" or quasi-nationalistic bodies of people, I would have a problem: as common language, long histories of intermarriage and a certain degree of other forms of mobility in moving from Hutu to Tutsi status & vice versa show, the rigidification of those statuses or identities into something more like what we usually mean by ethnic groups was substantially a colonial and post-colonial historical process. The genocide was thoroughly modern in its ideology and technologies of mobilization, and had nothing to do with so-called ancient tribal rivalries -- pre-colonial Tutsi-Hutu relations were unequal, but not genocidal, in fact the opposite, built on a division of labor in which the dominant status group's benefits from power made killing Hutu against their interests. In any case, other scholarship than Mamdani's would be relevant including that of Alison Des Forges, Catharine and David Newbury, René Lemarchand and Gérard Prunier (refs are in Mamdani's biblio); also relevant would be works by Leo Kuper from the 1970s on the (smaller) Tutsi genocide against Hutu in Burundi, on called The Pity of it All if memory serves and the other simply Genocide I believe, which looks at the phenomenon more generally but uses Burundi as an example. Chris Lowe 03:44, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for the sources. My intention in breaking out the article was to give detail on the the groups from which the modern day Tutsi and Hutu claim descent, and shed some light on the variations of the Hamitic hypothesis that have spread unsourced through several articles. In that, I feel it is a decent first draft, though without the grooming that comes with multiple editors over time. I agree with the notion that the current conception of Hutu and Tutsi developed from events during the colonial period and since independence, though Rwabugiri's centralization of state power deserves mention as well. If I'm somehow giving the impression in the new article of the tired "ancient tribal hatreds"-argument, please make appropriate changes. I hope to eventually use Mamdani's book to source and expand both this article and Kingdom of Rwanda, but the wiki is full of distractions... - BanyanTree 04:55, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are some additional complexities that perhaps should be mentioned in passing in such an article. One is that the term Tutsi is used in the eastern part of the DRC, but is not necessarily opposed to Hutu. It is applied both to persons whose ancestors migrated into the area in the 18th century or earlier, and to more recent refugees from Rwandan (& maybe Burundian?) civil conflicts. One of the last of the dictator Joseph Mobutu's many despicable actions was fomenting anti-Tutsi violence within then Zaire as a nationalist maneuver, mobilizing several people of several other ethnicities said to be indigenous against the allegedly foreign Tutsi. Mararo Bucyalimwe has written on the deeper 20th century history of that situation. Mobutu's post-genocide actions, along with the presence of many Hutu refugees who were génocidaires or feared being labeled as such, and various invading and proxy factional armies linked to Kagame's Rwanda, Museveni's Uganda and other states fishing in rich troubled waters, have contributed to the tremendous insecurity in Eastern DRC that has produced death tolls far outstripping those in Darfur, even if the reports are exaggerate by a multiplier of five. Further still, a number of nearby and related or interacting pre-colonial kingdoms in what are now Uganda, Tanzania and the DRC also had similar functional or quasi-caste distinctions between herders and agricultural peasants that took on a somewhat ethnic appearance but were similarly somewhat permeable to social mobility in various ways to the Tutsi-Hutu distinction. But they did not use the terms Hutu and Tutsi, but described the distinctions with other terms. The prevelance of similar social and ideational structures in the region should be pointed out in passing. I think some of Ed Steinhardt's work and maybe Iris Berger's would shed some light on those distinctions; maybe the intro to David Newbury's Kings and Clans too now that I think of it, & refs there. Chris Lowe 03:44, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I had started Banyamulenge several years ago, but it definitely needs an update after reading Mamdani, though I can't figure out a proper article structure - a move to Congolese Banyarwanda and expansion perhaps? Similarly, Ituri conflict as a conflict between the Hema and Lendu has some explicit parallels that are acknowledged by the combatants. Cheers, BanyanTree 04:55, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Civil War[edit]

I deleted this paragraph "Habyarimana immediately instituted genocidal programs, which would be directed against all Tutsis and against any Hutus seen as in league with Tutsi interests. Habyarimana justified these acts by proclaiming it was the intent of the Tutsis to restore a Tutsi feudal system and to thus enslave the Hutu race." This is sheer political propaganda or to the least, wild assumptions. To this day, not even the so-called ICTR international court has been able to produce a single document proving the existence of such "genocidal programs". Ruramaguru (talk) 10:22, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just a few days before (December 18, 2008) the "so-called" ICTR has found enough evidence to sentence Théoneste Bagosora and 2 other culprits to life prison explicitly for genocide. So, your above statement is foundless and false.
See for example this quote: "During his trial further evidence was submitted that in 1991 he and his three other co-accused helped to draft a document where they referred to the Tutsi ethnic group as the "principal enemy" which was widely distributed in the army. They were also accused of supporting the media outlets responsible for spreading hate messages and making lists of victims."--Mazarin07 (talk) 17:47, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tutsi Citizenship in 1959- ?[edit]

I am reading African Guerillas: Raging Against the Machine edited by Martin Bøås and Kevin C. Dunn. In chapter 2 (pages 31-32), written by the editors, they say that in 1959 Tutsis weren't allowed to be citizens. Anyone else know anything about it? If so, that would be relevant to include. JoshNarins (talk) 15:58, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

citation seriously needed![edit]

I feel like deleting everything in the "pre-colonial history" section that I can't find in the French or German versions of this page. I'm not saying it's all lies, but there is a HUGE amount of history with absolutely NO sources and NO citation-needed tags. My favourite has got to be the kalinga. While a quick google search does turn up some results for this, they don't all necessarily agree on the details, and I'd love to know where the author found it so we can cite that source (and/or other sources) and use their information.

Who DID write this article? I'm looking it up and throwing something on their talk page. סרסלי, קײק פּלז (talk) 09:54, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So, let's blame the European colonists for all problems of Africa?[edit]

I think that is time to give a proper (negative) answer to this fraudulous ideology, inherited from the Marxist-Leninist-Maoist historiography.

See for example these two quotations from the current article:

Precolonial era:

  • "All the people of Rwanda were expected to do tribute to the Mwami, and this tribute was collected, in turn, by a Tutsi administrative hierarchy. Beneath the Mwami was also a Tutsi ministerial council of great chiefs, the batware b'intebe, while below them was a group of lesser Tutsi chiefs who for the large part governed the country in districts, each district having a cattle chief and a land chief. The cattle chief collected tribute in livestock, and the land chief collected tribute in produce. Beneath these chiefs were hill-chiefs and neighborhood chiefs. Again, over 95% of hill and neighborhood chiefs were of Tutsi descent."

Colonial era:

  • "Europeans simplified this arrangement and decided that the Hamitic Tutsi were racially superior and should thus make up the entire ruling class, while the inferior Bantu Hutu should become a permanent underclass."

So, the statement that the colonists would have laid the base for future Hutu-Tutsi animosity is a primitive lie.--Mazarin07 (talk) 17:39, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Armenian Genocide[edit]

What does the Armenian Genocide have to do with Belgian politics? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.40.1.129 (talk) 16:18, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Last Glacial Maximum[edit]

This article and another seem to imply that there was glaciation in central Africa during the last glacial maximum or such Is there a source for this? It seem preposterous/embarassing. I don't believe there has been glaciation in equatorial Africa at any time in the last several million years. 72.228.190.243 (talk) 21:00, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is glaciation in equatorial right now if you go high enough :) [2] But other than that I don't know. The source for the fact you mention is the Briggs and Booth travel guide, which admittedly is a somewhat dubious source. The quote from that book is "Even back in the ice age, Rwanda was showing its typically green and fertile face; a part of the Nyungwe Forest remained uncovered by ice, so that animal and plant life could survive there." [3] So that's where it comes from, but do you have any sources that state that all of Rwanda was not covered by glaciation at that time? As I say, the Rwenzoris just to the north have a glacial sheet even now. And the west of Rwanda is unusually high altitude. Would be interested to know more, anyway. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 21:29, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Ice sheet" is the operative expression characteristic of the actual glaciation elsewhere. The mountain glaciers are technically glaciation and it's definitely the case that the glacial maximum would have had some effects in central Africa. The central issue is that at no time was Rwanda closed to human habitation due to an ice sheet and on the contrary, it has always been during the human epoch temperate or milder. That at least is what we must assume without a source for something else based on the content in other articles on glaciation. It's the complete coverage, as you say, of all of what is now Rwanda that is overreaching without such a source. The indications are that at no time in any relevant period was there more than 10s of square kilometers of glaciation and that in comparison with an area of 26 000 sq. km. 72.228.190.243 (talk) 00:04, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So History_of_Africa#Paleolithic, sources given there, and of course common sense are the basis for the presumption of more or less continuous habitation, albeit at levels consistent with the then stages of human culture. Contrary to the apparent, and as I say, embarrassing confabulation about the ice sheet, what the first ¶ of the Early History § ought to note is simply the great antiquity of the Twa as its surviving aboriginal people.72.228.190.243 (talk) 00:43, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ruanda-Urundi[edit]

I understand that the name of the area during colonial times was Ruanda-Urundi. It is occasionally referred to in this article by that name and, and frequently by Rwanda-Urundi [sic]. I think that the latter may be an unintentional misspelling -- Google reveals no results at all under that spelling, though Wikipedia has a redirect page with that name. Could someone please clarify? Lou Sander (talk) 14:49, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Lou Sander: yes, you're right. There's no such thing as "Rwanda-Urundi". I will go through and change these references. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 21:14, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Amakuru: I was a ham radio operator back in the late 1950s, and I was pretty familiar with the African countries back then. Their names all changed pretty soon thereafter, though, and my knowledge of the new names isn't as good. I thought I remembered Ruanda-Urundi from way back when. ;-) Lou Sander (talk) 21:20, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Lou Sander: Rwanda and Burundi became independent in 1962, and as far as I know it was at that time that the modern forms, with the w rather than the u came into common usage, at least in French and English (I'm not sure if there was a specific spelling used when writing in the local Kinyarwanda language during the colonial era). That must have been quite exciting to be a ham radio operator, back in those days... it must have been a completely different world from today!  — Amakuru (talk) 21:27, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It sure was exciting and different. Some of the African broadcasting stations put strong signals into Pittsburgh. I remember Radio Brazzaville especially. There was also an amateur station in Zanzibar that I remember well even today. In those days a domestic long distance phone call was a pretty big deal -- hearing or talking to somebody in Africa was really something special. Lou Sander (talk) 21:54, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Lou Sander: I lived in rural Rwanda ten years ago, and even then things were pretty remote. I had a short wave radio that could receive BBC World News and Voice of America (plus other international stations), and without an internet connection, that and occasional phone calls were my contact with the outside world during the week - I often went into the city at weekends, which was a bit more connected. I imagine now that one could fairly easily get connected with a smart phone and 3G internet, even in the rural areas, so the world continues to get smaller!  — Amakuru (talk) 15:15, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on History of Rwanda. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 13:26, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on History of Rwanda. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:04, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you have to take away the infobox for the military rule in Rwanda?[edit]

If the fact that the military rule in Rwanda caused a genocide of the Tutsi race makes you uncomfortable, then don’t go to this page. You don’t need to delete BASIC HISTORY. Now keep it with the infobox if you don’t want to start an edit war. Wikifixer559 (talk) 21:33, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:History_of_Rwanda&oldid=1210487433"