8 ms·

> tribal massacres in Africa, where the victims and oppressors a) look exactly the same To you. There's almost certainly more genetic difference between two pe

> tribal massacres in Africa, where the victims and oppressors a) look exactly the same To you. There's almost certainly more genetic difference between two people randomly selected from two African tribes than two people randomly selected from different self-identified racial groupings in a Western country. And a much longer history of conflict between tribes vs races. I'd note the fact this is true goes some way towards explaining why Africa suffers the levels of violence and poverty today that it still does. As for the rest of your post, while AA clearly is a strong form of racial discrimination that does little to help us achieve an ideal world where "race" is no longer a thing, it's also a policy with an underlying philosophy of "let's provide help to other people different in appearance/ethnic backgrounds" , which is rather obviously a massive improvement on "let's actively discriminate and/or commit violence against such people". And hopefully a step towards a policy of "let's help other people when they need help, regardless of their appearance or ethnic background".

javajosh 3y ago
>To you. No, to them. I was thinking specifically of the Rwandan Genocide[0], where there was and is no visible difference between the Hutu and Tutsi. The difference was via a field on their national id card [1]. 0 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rwandan_genocide https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rwandan_genocide 1 - http://www.preventgenocide.org/edu/pastgenocides/rwanda/indangamuntu.htm http://www.preventgenocide.org/edu/pastgenocides/rwanda/inda...
- wizofaus 3y ago
  Accepted, the Tutsi/Hutu division isn't one where difference in genetics/appearance seems to be a major factor, though I'd still assume the average Tutsi or Hutu could easily distinguish one from the other in a way outsiders mightn't be able to.
  - belorn 3y ago
    The main division of Tutsi/Hutu was primarily done by Europeans, and the criteria was based on "those who owned cattle became known as the Tutsi and those who did not own cattle became known as the Hutu", and taller persons were also assigned as Tutsi. Taller men tend to earn more money on average so in those terms both the average Tutsi, Hutu and outsiders should be able to make a better than random guess about who is Tutsi or Hutu.
    - somewhereoutth 3y ago
      Ah you have it backwards - there was already the Tutsi ethnic group, but the Belgians found it easier to identify them as Tutsi by number of cattle etc. "Prior to the arrival of colonists, Rwanda had been ruled by a Tutsi-dominated monarchy since the 15th century." "Rwanda was ruled as a colony by Germany (from 1897 to 1916) and by Belgium (from 1922 to 1961). Both the Tutsi and Hutu had been the traditional governing elite, but both colonial powers allowed only the Tutsi to be educated and to participate in the colonial government. Such discriminatory policies engendered resentment." "When the Belgians took over, they believed it could be better governed if they continued to identify the different populations. In the 1920s, they required people to identify with a particular ethnic group and classified them accordingly in censuses."
- regpertom 3y ago
  I was taught that there was no difference and it was the Dutch that measured nose length and made the classification ‘arbitrarily’. But isn’t that false? In the time since I’ve seen side by side pictures and it seems trivial to tell them apart. So now I don’t know what to think.

javajosh 3y ago

>To you. No, to them. I was thinking specifically of the Rwandan Genocide[0], where there was and is no visible difference between the Hutu and Tutsi. The difference was via a field on their national id card [1]. 0 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rwandan_genocide https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rwandan_genocide 1 - http://www.preventgenocide.org/edu/pastgenocides/rwanda/indangamuntu.htm http://www.preventgenocide.org/edu/pastgenocides/rwanda/inda...

wizofaus 3y ago
Accepted, the Tutsi/Hutu division isn't one where difference in genetics/appearance seems to be a major factor, though I'd still assume the average Tutsi or Hutu could easily distinguish one from the other in a way outsiders mightn't be able to.
- belorn 3y ago
  The main division of Tutsi/Hutu was primarily done by Europeans, and the criteria was based on "those who owned cattle became known as the Tutsi and those who did not own cattle became known as the Hutu", and taller persons were also assigned as Tutsi. Taller men tend to earn more money on average so in those terms both the average Tutsi, Hutu and outsiders should be able to make a better than random guess about who is Tutsi or Hutu.
  - somewhereoutth 3y ago
    Ah you have it backwards - there was already the Tutsi ethnic group, but the Belgians found it easier to identify them as Tutsi by number of cattle etc. "Prior to the arrival of colonists, Rwanda had been ruled by a Tutsi-dominated monarchy since the 15th century." "Rwanda was ruled as a colony by Germany (from 1897 to 1916) and by Belgium (from 1922 to 1961). Both the Tutsi and Hutu had been the traditional governing elite, but both colonial powers allowed only the Tutsi to be educated and to participate in the colonial government. Such discriminatory policies engendered resentment." "When the Belgians took over, they believed it could be better governed if they continued to identify the different populations. In the 1920s, they required people to identify with a particular ethnic group and classified them accordingly in censuses."
regpertom 3y ago
I was taught that there was no difference and it was the Dutch that measured nose length and made the classification ‘arbitrarily’. But isn’t that false? In the time since I’ve seen side by side pictures and it seems trivial to tell them apart. So now I don’t know what to think.