In my previous piece, I promised to explore the original meanings of the terms “Hutu” and “Tutsi” before colonial forces redefined them as core aspects of our identities, or ubwoko in Kinyarwanda. Before colonisation, ubwoko was not defined as “Hutu” or “Tutsi.” Instead, Rwandans identified themselves by different clans, such as Umugesera, Umuzigaba, Umucyaba, Umusinga, Umwega, and Umunyiginya. These categories represented people’s lineages, not ethnic identities. In fact, no Rwandan identified as Umuhutu or Umututsi before the colonial era; these labels were imposed on us in just a few decades. When colonial researchers arrived in Rwanda, they interviewed elders to reconstruct the ancestral history of the population, albeit with the goal of erasing it from memory. These researchers likely encountered names like Gahutu, Sebatutsi, and Sagahutu, as well as lineages named Mututsi and Gahutu. They discovered that every Rwandan king was required to carry a “Tutsi” title, which indicated a connection to royal ancestry. Colonial scholars did not invent the terms “Hutu” and “Tutsi” but instead removed them from their original context to manipulate Rwandan society. Colonial powers intentionally distorted these terms to further their agenda. They spread the notion that Batutsi were a Nilotic group that migrated to Rwanda and subjugated the Bahutu, a Bantu-speaking people. Scholars like Dr. Jean Hiernaux advanced this theory, classifying Hutus and Tutsis as different “races” based on physical characteristics, including nose size, arm and humerus length, head shape, and eye colour, in so-called scientific studies that reinforced their divisive ideology. So, did the terms “Hutu” and “Tutsi” exist in pre-colonial Rwanda? Yes, but with meanings unrelated to ethnicity. According to some historians, the terms originally described social distinctions rather than inherent ethnic identities, and they suggest that Hutus arrived in Rwanda earlier than Tutsis. However, other scholars contend these distinctions did not exist as ethnic identities and were politicised later. Several scholars suggest that “Hutu” and “Tutsi” were political identities, reflecting varying degrees of proximity to power. The Belgian administration reinforced these identities through their 10-cow rule in the 1933-1934 census. Under this rule, anyone with 10 or more cows was classified as Tutsi, while those with fewer were labelled Hutu. Rwandan author Jean de Dieu Nsanzabera attributes the first use of “Hutu” and “Tutsi” to the reign of King Cyilima I Rugwe. He claims that these terms described socio-economic status: Tutsis were wealthy cattle owners, while Hutus, who owned no cattle, received cattle as gifts from the Tutsi elite. Nsanzabera suggests that “Tutsi” stems from the verb gutuuka, meaning “to be wealthy,” while “Hutu” is derived from kugabirwa, meaning “to receive a gift,” typically of cattle. Congolese professor George Izangola shares a similar view, positing that Tutsi and Hutu were designations based on an individual’s proximity to the king. Those close to the king, who possessed wealth and cattle, were identified as Tutsi, while those farther from royal favour, often subsistence farmers with little wealth, were classified as Hutu. For Belgian historian and anthropologist Jan M. J. Vansina, the terms emerged during the reign of King Cyilima II Rujugira. He theorises that Tutsi referred to the king’s warriors, while Hutu designated those who transported supplies during wartime. Israel Ntaganzwa, a Rwandan in the diaspora, disputes the idea of Hutu and Tutsi as separate tribes. He claims that the first known use of “Mututsi” was in reference to a family within the Banyiginya clan, chosen to provide a leader for all Banyarwanda clans. However, he does not clarify why each Rwandan king adopted a “Tutsi” label. Despite differing views, these authors collectively reject the colonial narrative of ethnic conflict between indigenous Hutu and foreign Tutsi. They agree that “Hutu” and “Tutsi” were never inherent identities or ubwoko in precolonial Rwanda. However, they diverge on the origins of these terms. Contrary to some assertions, “Hutu” and “Tutsi” were not introduced during the reigns of Cyilima I Rugwe or Cyilima II Rujugira. In ancient Rwanda, those who identified as Tutsi were part of the Mututsi lineage, while those who identified as Hutu descended from Gahutu. Although Gahutu was a descendant of Mututsi, the children of Gahutu adopted the name Bene-Gahutu, while others remained Bene-Mututsi. These terms thus represented family affiliations, not clans, ethnic groups, or social classes. The original meanings of “Hutu” and “Tutsi” were rooted in family lineage, with Bene-Mututsi and Bene-Gahutu representing branches of a common ancestry. These terms did not imply ethnic division, as all Rwandans shared a singular ancestry. In the next issue, I will explain why every Rwandan king was required to bear a “Tutsi” label alongside his regal title. Until then, stay blessed.
