I didn't tell you anything about the Hutus and the Tutsis-that's my fault. Ruse goes on to say in that chapter that the Hutus and the Tutsis were separated by an invented history. The custom in Rwanda is to keep the historical stories and documents as well as sacred poems and stories in a place where only the royal officials, called abiru can see them.
The separation started because of the "election of the king." The king wasn't chosen by bloodline, but by birthright. It was said that the new king would be born holding squash seeds in his fists. It is the job of the abiru to reveal his identity when the former king has died.
This lead to the separation of the Hutus and the Tutsis. The two groups separated because they both felt that the king should be hailed from their grouping. This "artificial political" separation has no real meaning to it. Ruse points out that they share the same language, the same religion, and the same homeland. They have everything in common, and are inevitably part of the same race.
This is what causes the "randomness" because it wasn't the "white men" who were commiting the crimes and causing the revolution, it was both the Hutus and the Tutsis, only fighting because they were told that one was better than the other; without there being any real evidence.
Basically it would have been like if our English class split itselfs into two groups the, ChaChas and the WiggaWiggaWomms, because Ms. Clapp and Mr. Brown told us that we were different, and they told us that one was more worthy to pass the AP exam. Then all of a sudden, everything became separated, and the next thing you know, George goes on a ChaCha killing spree.
Does that make it any easier to understand?
I can try and explain it further if it doesn't.
Post soon
Casey
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
I understand Casey. I just didn’t know the history of why the two different sides hated each other and began to fight in the first place when, like you said, they’re part of the same race/country. Now I understand what you mean by “randomness.” Before I thought you just meant that their separation derived out of nothing—that there was no cause. I liked your analogy! :-)
Post a Comment