Hutu and Tutsi: The history behind the divide胡图族和图西族:分裂背后的历史
How a colonial legacy continues to shape conflict and identity.
![People hold candles during a vigil for victims of the 1994 genocide at Amahoro Stadium in Kigali, Rwanda [Dai Kurokawa/EFE/EPA]](https://www.aljazeera.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/9981e563ee3f4bb59accffa7bb9b6362_18.jpeg?resize=770%2C513&quality=80)
How a colonial legacy continues to shape conflict and identity.
People hold candles during a vigil for victims of the 1994 genocide at Amahoro Stadium in Kigali, Rwanda [Dai Kurokawa/EFE/EPA]
For more than a century, Hutu and Tutsi in Africa’s Great Lakes region have been described as two distinct ethnic groups, and sometimes even as separate races.
But the history is more complicated.
The identities existed before European colonial rule, but they did not always carry the rigid meaning they acquired later. Colonial rule, particularly in Rwanda and Burundi, changed how they were classified and understood, helping turn social distinctions into fixed ethnic categories. Those identities were later drawn into struggles over political power, land and belonging.
The consequences are still felt today, particularly in eastern Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), where questions of identity and citizenship remain tied to conflict.
By the early 1990s, tensions between Hutu and Tutsi had become central to Rwanda’s political crisis.
In 1994, they culminated in the genocide against the Tutsi. Between 800,000 and one million men, women and children were massacred during the 100 days that followed, primarily Tutsi civilians and moderate Hutu, according to the United Nations International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda.
Hutu ethnonationalist leaders, government forces and militias, including the Interahamwe, were among those responsible.
The killings followed years of political tension and a civil war between Rwanda’s Hutu-led government and the Rwandan Patriotic Front (RPF), a Tutsi-led rebel movement headed by Paul Kagame.
On the evening of April 6, 1994, a rocket attack brought down a plane carrying Rwandan President Juvenal Habyarimana and Burundian President Cyprien Ntaryamira as it approached Kigali. Both presidents were killed.
Who fired the rocket remains disputed.
The following day, killings began across Rwanda. The genocide ended in July, when the RPF defeated the government and took control of the country.
But the violence did not stop at Rwanda’s borders.
The Burundian Civil War
Burundi had experienced its own cycles of political violence involving Hutu and Tutsi since independence.
The crisis deepened in October 1993, when President Melchior Ndadaye, a Hutu and Burundi’s first democratically elected president, was killed during a military coup attempt.
A United Nations fact-finding mission documented the coup and the violence that followed. Tens of thousands of people were killed, and large numbers were forced to flee their homes.
Burundi subsequently descended into a civil war that lasted more than a decade.
Eastern Congo: A region in turmoil
Across the border, the DRC was facing its own political and security problems.
The aftermath of Rwanda’s genocide added another layer.
When the RPF took control of Rwanda in 1994, about two million Rwandans fled the country. More than one million refugees were in what was then Zaire by the end of that year, many of them in camps in the east.
Among those who crossed the border were members of the former Rwandan army and the Interahamwe militia. Some later reorganised and launched attacks against the new Rwandan government from Congolese territory.
The arrival of refugees and armed groups helped turn the aftermath of the genocide into a wider regional crisis.
But eastern DRC’s conflicts have never been only about Hutu and Tutsi. Land, citizenship, political power, control of territory and natural resources have also played major roles.
To understand why the identities became so politically charged, it is necessary to look at how they developed.
Who are the Hutu and Tutsi?
To explore that history, we spoke to people from the region who have studied its politics and society: Burundian journalist and political researcher Innocent Muhozi, Congolese researcher Alex Mvuka, Rwandan researcher and historian Tom Ndahiro, and Congolese politician Thomas Luhaka.
Their accounts point to societies that were more fluid before colonial rule than the later Hutu-Tutsi divide might suggest.
In Rwanda and Burundi, communities were organised around kingdoms, clans, land, cattle and political relationships.
Hutu were generally associated with farming, while Tutsi were more closely associated with cattle ownership and herding. Twa communities were also part of these societies.
But the boundaries were not always fixed.
In Burundi, Muhozi says the kingdom was ruled by an elite known as the Ganwa, which he describes as neither Hutu nor Tutsi. Hutu, Tutsi and Twa were all part of the wider society, he says.
Social position could also change.
Muhozi says wealth, cattle ownership and political standing could influence how a person was regarded. In some circumstances, he says, a Hutu could become regarded as Tutsi.
The point is not that Hutu and Tutsi identities did not exist before colonialism. They did.
Rather, they did not always have the fixed meaning they acquired later.
The roots of division
Colonial rule changed the way those identities were understood and administered.
Rwanda and Burundi came under German colonial rule in the late 19th century. After World War I, Belgium took control of both territories. The DRC was also under Belgian rule.
Innocent Muhozi says Belgian rule had profound consequences for Rwanda and Burundi.
“The colonial history influence has been a very big disaster for Burundians,” he says.
He argues that Belgian authorities imposed their own interpretation of the country’s history through institutions, such as schools.
“They brought schools and started teaching history and geography,” Muhozi says. “The influence of that colonial ideology and this ideology of dividing people has been instilled in society through education.”
Other European powers were also carving up Africa at the same time.
Between late 1884 and early 1885, representatives of European powers gathered in Berlin to establish rules governing their competing claims on the continent. The conference became a major milestone in the European partition and colonisation of Africa.
The borders and systems established during the colonial period would outlast colonial rule.
Colonial anthropology
European anthropologists developed theories about the supposed racial origins of the Hutu, Tutsi and Twa.
In Rwanda, some European writers portrayed the Tutsi as migrants from elsewhere, particularly from the north, rather than as an indigenous population.
Tom Ndahiro says these ideas influenced the way Belgian authorities classified Rwanda’s population.
In 1933, the Belgian administration conducted a census in Rwanda and later introduced identity cards that classified people as Hutu, Tutsi or Twa, according to Ndahiro.
The categories were no longer simply part of a complicated social system. They had become part of the administration of the state.
Muhozi describes the resulting legacy as a “legacy of division”.
Belgian rule, he says, increasingly encouraged people to define themselves through the Hutu-Tutsi divide.
The effects also reached beyond Rwanda and Burundi. Population movements and colonial borders left communities with shared linguistic and cultural ties living on different sides of what became international boundaries.
That history is particularly important in eastern DRC, where questions of identity and belonging remain deeply contested.
Alex Mvuka links the presence of Hutu and Tutsi communities in modern-day DRC to longstanding population movements and migration during the colonial period.
He says Tutsi communities were already living in North Kivu before the Berlin Conference. He also says the Belgian administration later moved Kinyarwanda-speaking people, including Hutu and Tutsi, from Rwanda and Burundi to parts of eastern Congo as migrant labourers.
Those movements became part of a much larger dispute over who has the right to claim the region as home.
More than a century later, Tutsi communities in eastern DRC continue to face accusations that they do not belong in the country.
Luhaka rejects that argument.
“Among them, there are three main sociological groups, the Hutus, the Tutsis, and they all speak Kinyarwanda, and all are Congolese,” he says.
But Luhaka blames what he describes as the “collapse of the Congolese state” and “Rwanda’s agenda” for worsening hate speech and instability in eastern Congo.
Rwanda disputes Kinshasa’s account of the conflict.
Kigali says armed groups operating from Congolese territory, particularly the Democratic Forces for the Liberation of Rwanda (FDLR), remain a security threat.
Kinshasa, meanwhile, accuses Rwanda of backing M23, the armed group that has seized territory in eastern DRC. Rwanda has denied supporting M23.
Why does their history still shape the Great Lakes region?
The legacy of the Hutu-Tutsi divide did not end when the genocide against the Tutsi ended.
The movement of people across borders, the presence of armed groups and unresolved disputes over identity and political power carried the consequences of the genocide into neighbouring countries.
The FDLR emerged partly from armed and political networks that fled Rwanda after the genocide. The group has remained active in eastern DRC, although its strength and areas of operation have changed over time.
Rwanda has repeatedly pointed to the FDLR as a security threat and accused successive Congolese governments of supporting or tolerating the group. The Congolese government has denied supporting it.
At the same time, Kinshasa has accused Rwanda of supporting M23, which has fought Congolese forces and taken control of major areas in the east. Rwanda has denied the accusation.
But the region’s conflicts cannot be explained by Hutu and Tutsi alone.
Land disputes, citizenship, political power, control of territory, competition over resources and the weakness of the Congolese state have all contributed to instability.
Identity becomes especially powerful when those disputes turn into arguments over who is Congolese and who is not.
In eastern DRC, those arguments can affect political rights, access to land and personal security, while also fuelling hate speech and deepening existing tensions.
That is why the history of Hutu and Tutsi continues to matter across the Great Lakes region.
The identities existed before colonial rule. But colonial administrations changed how they were classified and used those categories in governing society. Political leaders later made the identities central to struggles over power.
War and displacement carried those disputes across borders.
殖民遗产如何继续塑造冲突和身份认同。
人们在卢旺达基加利的阿马霍罗体育场举着蜡烛为 1994 年种族灭绝的受害者守夜 [Dai Kurokawa/EFE/EPA]
一个多世纪以来,非洲大湖地区的胡图族和图西族一直被描述为两个不同的民族群体,有时甚至被视为不同的种族。
但历史远比这复杂。
这些身份认同在欧洲殖民统治之前就已存在,但它们并非一直具有后来那种僵化的含义。殖民统治,尤其是在卢旺达和布隆迪,改变了人们对这些身份认同的分类和理解,并将社会差异转化为固定的族群类别。这些身份认同后来被卷入了围绕政治权力、土地和归属感的斗争中。
这些后果至今仍在持续,尤其是在刚果民主共和国东部,那里的身份认同和公民身份问题仍然与冲突息息相关。
到 20 世纪 90 年代初,胡图族和图西族之间的紧张关系已成为卢旺达政治危机的核心。
1994年,这些冲突最终演变为针对图西族的种族灭绝。据联合国卢旺达问题国际刑事法庭称,在随后的100天里,有80万至100万男女老幼遭到屠杀,其中主要是图西族平民和温和派胡图族人。
胡图族民族主义领导人、政府军和民兵组织(包括胡图族民兵组织“因特拉哈姆韦”)都是肇事者之一。
在卢旺达胡图族领导的政府与图西族领导的反叛组织卢旺达爱国阵线(RPF,由保罗·卡加梅领导)之间经历了多年的政治紧张局势和内战之后,发生了这些屠杀事件。
1994年4月6日晚,一架载有卢旺达总统朱韦纳尔·哈比亚利马纳和布隆迪总统西普里安·恩塔里亚米拉的飞机在接近基加利时遭到火箭弹袭击坠毁。两位总统均遇难。
究竟是谁发射了火箭,目前仍存在争议。
第二天,卢旺达各地开始发生屠杀。种族灭绝于7月结束,当时卢旺达爱国阵线击败政府军并控制了国家。
但暴力事件并没有止步于卢旺达边境。
布隆迪内战
自独立以来,布隆迪也经历了涉及胡图族和图西族的政治暴力周期。
1993 年 10 月,危机进一步加剧。胡图族总统、布隆迪首位民选总统梅尔基奥尔·恩达达耶在一次军事政变中遇害。
联合国实况调查团记录了政变及其后的暴力事件。数万人丧生,大量民众被迫逃离家园。
随后,布隆迪陷入了长达十多年的内战。
刚果东部:动荡不安的地区
在邻国刚果民主共和国,也面临着自身的政治和安全问题。
卢旺达种族灭绝的后果又增添了另一层含义。
1994年卢旺达爱国阵线(RPF)控制卢旺达后,约有200万卢旺达人逃离该国。到当年年底,超过100万难民涌入当时的扎伊尔(现刚果民主共和国),其中许多人居住在东部的难民营中。
越境者中包括前卢旺达军队成员和“因特拉哈姆韦”民兵组织成员。其中一些人后来重组,并从刚果(金)境内对卢旺达新政府发动袭击。
难民和武装团体的到来,使得种族灭绝的后果演变成一场更广泛的区域危机。
但刚果(金)东部的冲突从来都不仅仅是胡图族和图西族之间的冲突。土地、公民身份、政治权力、领土控制和自然资源争夺也发挥了重要作用。
要了解这些身份认同为何会变得如此具有政治色彩,就必须了解它们是如何形成的。
胡图族和图西族分别是什么?
为了探索这段历史,我们采访了该地区研究政治和社会的人士:布隆迪记者兼政治研究员 Innocent Muhozi、刚果研究员 Alex Mvuka、卢旺达研究员兼历史学家 Tom Ndahiro 和刚果政治家 Thomas Luhaka。
他们的描述表明,殖民统治之前的社会比后来胡图族和图西族之间的分裂所暗示的要更加流动。
在卢旺达和布隆迪,社区是围绕王国、氏族、土地、牲畜和政治关系组织的。
胡图族人通常从事农业,而图西族人则更多地从事牛的饲养和放牧。特瓦族也是这些社会的一部分。
但这些界限并非一直都是固定的。
穆霍齐说,在布隆迪,王国由一个被称为甘瓦人的精英阶层统治,他形容甘瓦人既不是胡图族也不是图西族。他说,胡图族、图西族和特瓦族都是这个更大社会的一部分。
社会地位也可能发生改变。
穆霍齐表示,财富、牲畜拥有情况和政治地位都会影响人们对一个人的看法。他说,在某些情况下,胡图族人可能会被视为图西族人。
重点并非胡图族和图西族的身份认同在殖民主义之前并不存在。它们一直都存在。
相反,它们并非一直具有后来才获得的固定含义。
分裂的根源
殖民统治改变了人们对这些身份的理解和管理方式。
卢旺达和布隆迪在19世纪末沦为德国殖民统治。第一次世界大战后,比利时控制了这两个地区。刚果民主共和国也曾处于比利时统治之下。
英诺森特·穆霍齐说,比利时的统治对卢旺达和布隆迪产生了深远的影响。
他说:“殖民历史的影响给布隆迪人带来了巨大的灾难。”
他认为,比利时当局通过学校等机构强加了他们对国家历史的解释。
穆霍齐说:“他们建立了学校,开始教授历史和地理。殖民主义意识形态和分裂人民的意识形态通过教育渗透到了社会中。”
与此同时,其他欧洲列强也在瓜分非洲。
1884年末至1885年初,欧洲列强代表齐聚柏林,商讨如何制定规则来规范他们对非洲大陆的争夺。这次会议成为欧洲瓜分和殖民非洲进程中的一个重要里程碑。
殖民时期建立的边界和制度将比殖民统治本身继续存在下去。
殖民人类学
欧洲人类学家提出了关于胡图族、图西族和特瓦族种族起源的理论。
在卢旺达,一些欧洲作家将图西族人描绘成来自其他地方的移民,特别是来自北方的移民,而不是当地土著居民。
汤姆·恩达希罗表示,这些想法影响了比利时当局对卢旺达人口的分类方式。
恩达希罗表示,1933 年,比利时政府在卢旺达进行了人口普查,随后推出了身份证,将人们分为胡图族、图西族或特瓦族。
这些类别不再仅仅是复杂社会体系的一部分,它们已经成为国家行政管理的一部分。
穆霍齐将由此产生的遗产描述为“分裂的遗产”。
他说,比利时的统治越来越鼓励人们通过胡图族和图西族之间的分歧来定义自己。
这些影响也波及到卢旺达和布隆迪以外的地区。人口流动和殖民时期划定的边界,使得原本拥有共同语言和文化联系的社群生活在后来成为国际边界的两侧。
这段历史在刚果民主共和国东部尤为重要,因为在那里,身份认同和归属感问题仍然存在着深刻的争议。
Alex Mvuka 将胡图族和图西族在当今刚果民主共和国的存在与殖民时期长期的人口流动和迁徙联系起来。
他表示,在柏林会议之前,图西族社区就已经居住在北基伍省。他还说,比利时政府后来将包括胡图族和图西族在内的讲卢旺达语的人们从卢旺达和布隆迪迁往刚果东部地区,作为外来劳工。
这些运动演变成一场更大的争端的一部分,这场争端的焦点在于谁有权将该地区视为自己的家园。
一个多世纪过去了,刚果民主共和国东部的图西族社区仍然面临着他们不属于这个国家的指责。
卢哈卡驳斥了这种说法。
他说:“其中有三个主要的社会群体,胡图族、图西族,他们都说卢旺达语,而且他们都是刚果人。”
但卢哈卡将刚果东部仇恨言论和不稳定局势的恶化归咎于他所说的“刚果国家的崩溃”和“卢旺达的议程”。
卢旺达对金沙萨方面关于冲突的说法提出异议。
基加利方面表示,从刚果(金)境内活动的武装团体,特别是卢旺达解放民主力量(FDLR),仍然构成安全威胁。
与此同时,金沙萨指责卢旺达支持M23武装组织,该组织已占领刚果(金)东部地区。卢旺达否认支持M23。
为什么他们的历史至今仍然影响着五大湖地区?
胡图族和图西族之间的分裂并没有随着对图西族的种族灭绝的结束而结束。
人口跨境流动、武装团体的存在以及身份认同和政治权力方面悬而未决的争端,将种族灭绝的后果带到了邻国。
卢旺达解放民主力量(FDLR)部分源于种族灭绝后逃离卢旺达的武装和政治网络。该组织一直活跃在刚果民主共和国东部,尽管其实力和活动范围随着时间推移而有所变化。
卢旺达多次将卢旺达解放民主力量(FDLR)视为安全威胁,并指责历届刚果(金)政府支持或容忍该组织。刚果(金)政府否认支持该组织。
与此同时,金沙萨指责卢旺达支持M23武装,该武装曾与刚果(金)军队作战并控制了东部大片地区。卢旺达否认了这一指控。
但仅凭胡图族和图西族之争无法解释该地区的冲突。
土地纠纷、公民身份、政治权力、领土控制、资源竞争以及刚果国家的软弱,都导致了局势不稳定。
当这些争端演变成关于谁是刚果人、谁不是刚果人的争论时,身份认同就变得尤为重要。
在刚果民主共和国东部,这些争论可能会影响政治权利、土地获取和人身安全,同时也会助长仇恨言论,加剧现有的紧张局势。
这就是为什么胡图族和图西族的历史在整个五大湖地区仍然非常重要的原因。
这些身份认同在殖民统治之前就已存在。但殖民政府改变了这些身份认同的分类方式,并利用这些分类来治理社会。后来,政治领袖们将这些身份认同作为权力斗争的核心。
战争和流离失所使这些争端蔓延到国界之外。