Summary : ' American Public University System '

I think the Hutterites mostly fall under the structure of Chiefdoms. Chiefdom organizational structure do not have one central authority such as the Hutterites. They have numerous central authorities who lead groups of those individual units. Chiefdoms are mostly found in agricultural and large pastoral groups. This structure tends to smooth out inequalities through redistribution. Since the Hutterites do not have individual belongings but rather community land, resources, and profits are colony property it is easy to distribute equally. Decisions concerning the colony are made by elected officials and headed by the colony boss. However, the only thing is that the person is elected whereas in most true Chiefdoms they are hereditary but can

Until the late 19th century, which was to say until European Colonization, Tutsis people were represented as the aristocratic upper classes. (Hutus) people were represented as the peasant masses. The European people brought with them an idea of race science, and people took this tradition structure and made it more extreme and more polarized into a some sort of sytem. Identity cards were issued and (Tutsis) people were privileged for all things and Hutus people were made into a very oppressed mass.

Under the power of Tutsi King Rwabugiri, ethnic differences were established when the King implemented a system in which, in return for labour, access to land was given. However, this system only applied to Hutu farmers and exempted Tutsi farmers (Eriksson, 1996). During the German colonization and later the Belgian trusteeship, the Tutsi were also favoured and viewed as superior (Eriksson, 1996). The Belgians increased the emphasis on the distinction of ethnic identity by issuing cards bearing the nationality designations of Rwandans (Klinghoffer, 1998). The colonisation by both Germany and Belgium contributed to an ethnic jealousy in Rwanda through treatment of the Tutsi (O’Halloran, 1995). The general decolonisation in Africa led to the Hutu revolution in which Rwanda underwent the transition from a Tutsi dominated monarchy to a Hutu led independent republic, which resulted in tens of thousands of Tutsi fleeing into exile (Eriksson, 1996).

Before Rwanda became an independent African run country, it was under Belgian control. In the 1930s Belgium imposed indirect rule and put Tutsis in control of government. The Belgians did not invent the two ethnic groups, Hutu and Tutsi, but colonial intervention enforced a new meaning for the two ethnicities and thus engrained a hierarchy among the Rwandans . The Tutsis could be determined by their taller slighter build, lighter skin and thinner noses; in conclusion, they were the whitest Africans . By 1994 the two groups were visibly indistinguishable because of mixed parentage. This is portrayed in the movie Hotel Rwanda when a journalist asks two women what ethnicity they are; he discovers that one is Hutu and the other Tutsi. The journalist replies that the women could be twins. In the 1950s the newly established United Nations began to pressure Belgium to vacate Rwanda. Belgium introduced reforms to increase Hutu representation in politics, so from the 1950s until 1962, when Rwanda achieved independence a Hutu movement was born. The Hutu movement was gaining momentum and national recognition; the violence conducted during this period forced thousands of Tutsis to leave the country. In 1961 Belgium sponsored the federal election and a Hutu man, Gregoire Kayibanda was elected to power. This Hutu revolution excluded Tutsis from government and military. Kayibanda’s successor,

Hutterites are also decedents of Anabaptist and have also face very harsh persecution. Like the other two Anabaptist decedents, Hutterites are pacifist and do not participate in military forces. Unlike the other two., they believe in sharing their lands with others like Jesus Christ and his apostles shared their possessions. They were of German origins and as time went on they would travel to the new world and make a home

The ditrubution of power by the Belgium colonizers within Rwanda were decided on basis where physical appearance. The Tustsis originated from ethopia and the differend in apperance to that of the Hutus and the Twa, Belgium felt that the Tutsis resembled Europeans, because they had a lighter completions, their noses and eyes were more narraw in comparison to the Hutus who resembled an west African look. Belgium introduced policies that allowed Tutsis to have power over the Hutus and the Twa. The Tutsis were well off individuals as they held the most wealth within the country. The Hierarchical structure was based upon a monarchy

Ethnicity has played a major role in the country since it was a kingdom in the 1800’s. During those times it did not pose much of a threat, the Hutu farmers and the Tutsi herders lived integrated lives. Both shared a place in government, lived together, and bore children together. This way of life was radically changed during the colonial era. Since the Europeans required delineation between superior and inferior people in order to impose indirect rule in their colony, segregation arose between the two peoples. Begun under German rule, but intensified by the Belgians, lineation lead to dislike and distrust between the people. This dislike and distrust lent itself to hatred after many laws were put onto the Hutu, eventually removing all capacity to have any power within the kingdom they once had influence in. This constant abuse formed during colonial rule caused a divide between the Hutu and Tutsi, which eventually caused the majority to rise against the minority, and eventually try and wipe them out for good during the genocide of 1994. The impacts of these events are still very present today, but progress is being done to bring trust back between the Hutu and the

If one group looks at themselves as different from another, it becomes easier to dehumanize a group to the point of if they are communally seen as other. Furthermore, justification for marginalization is all the much more potent when one considers a group of people to be truly otherized in nature. This is evident in the Rwandan situation when one examines their history. Briefly, the role colonization played in the stratification of the Rwandan society, plus the role elites play in spreading propaganda meant to otherize the Tutsi cannot be down played if one wants to understand the Rwandan genocide. Colonization established historical ties in the society that were inherently stratifying in nature. This established the historical precedent needed to allow the Hutu and the Tutsi to view themselves as some varying degree of binary opposites. This large degree of otherization in combination with historical precedent allowed for the Hutu to solidify as a group and to call for “Hutu Power.” This is where the ties to the epiphenomenal begin. Elites utilized this ethnic tension to spur the violence onward. Elite’s rhetoric regarding the Tutsi is also noteworthy. If one looks at the usage of elite rhetoric and the coercive pressure

Argues that the Hutu and Tutsi do not have a deep rooted hatred towards each other-- they shared a language, followed the same traditions, and lived in the same areas. Determines that the root of these tensions was the "exaggeration of stereotypes" by those in power. Indeed, politicians often "played the ethnic card" to explain away political difficulties. It was through political plays that this distinction became relevant.

of the dominant Hutus as ‘genocide’.2 By not using the term ‘genocide’, it appears that the

Rwanda is a country that has a rich, but bloody history. Rwanda was originally inhabited by the Twa, a pygmy tribe who hunted and gathered for survival. Between the 5th and 11th century, the Hutu tribe migrated to Rwanda, followed by the Tutsi tribe during the 14th century. The Hutus were farmers, while the Tutsis owned cattle and by the 15th century, the Tutsis had established power. In 1916, the Belgian colonists arrived. The Belgian’s favored the Tutsis and began segregating the two tribes by issuing identification cards which included ethnicity. They supported the Tutsi political power and replaced the Hutu chiefs with Tutsi chiefs, reinforcing the ethnic divide between the two tribes. The Tutsis followed the command of the Belgium for

When you go think about it, what made the Hutu better than the Tutsi? They both lived in the same environment, lived similar lives, wore similar clothing, and eat the same types of food. There were no physical differences because they were both black people with similar physical appearances. The only thing that I can think of is that the word Hutu is shorter than Tutsi. Other than that the only difference is that the letter “H” comes before the letter “T” in the alphabet, but I highly doubt that the alphabet was even invented during this time. I mean if someone really thought about it both the Hutu and the Tutsi where both

Hutus and Tutsis have had political and socioeconomic tensions for a long time. Tutsis had higher social and economic status due to the fact that their income was derived from cattle ranching, whereas the Hutus had what was commonly considered a lesser profession: farming. Tutsis were reported to be the minority in the census made by colonizers,

The country of Rwanda is a small, land-locked country in Eastern Africa. By the early 1990s, Rwanda’s population of 7 million people was composed of three ethnic groups. Approximately 85% was Hutu, 14% was Tutsi, and the remaining 1% was Twa (United Nations, 2015). Animosity between the Hutu and Tutsi groups had grown substantially since the European colonialization period in the 1800s. During the colonialization period, European colonists considered the slimmer, taller, lighter-skinned Tutsis to be superior to the shorter, stockier, darker-skinned Hutus (Putterbaugh, 2010). As the Tutsis were more like the Europeans, they were treated better than the Hutus. The Tutsis were given positions of power as the existing Hutu kings and chiefs were

1) Political Organization- The basic definition our book gives is "the structure of a social unit in terms of the allocation of power among individuals, roles, and groups" (Heider, 2007, p. 450). The key term in this definition is power, how do we get another person to do things (Heider, 2007, p. 301). In anthropology, there are many classes of power that distinguish societies and their structures. There are four common categories consisting of tribal communities that have "big men or chiefs", band organizations a nomadic, mobile group with informal leadership, chiefdoms that leads with bureaucracy or hierarchically, and nation-states organized by groups at various levels. Often times cultures are a combination political organization and all pay attention to leadership and power (Heider, 2007, p. 302). The importance of political organization is maintenance of order within the communities. This allows anthropologist and all individual to learn and compare communities, the social relations within the communities, and specific cultural hierarchies. Researchers can distinguish power structures and dynamics through the political organizations. They can also explore variations on communication between different tribes and values within the tribes by the types of organization. Living in Ghana, I learn about a variety of political organizations, all of the political types stated by in the definition were present. The entire country of Ghana is organized and