Rothbard on Rwanda

Miscellaneous General
1

I am talking about this article:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard74.html

“In this relatively small area there have lived for centuries, side by side and at each other’s throats, two very different racial tribes: the Hutu and Tutsi. The Tutsi are familiar to all those who saw the grand epic movie, King Solomon’s Mines (the 1950 version with Stewart Granger and Deborah Kerr); they are a tall, slender, graceful, noble-looking tribe, there called the Watusi. The Tutsi are an Ethiopid, Nilotic people. The Hutu, on the other hand, are short, squat Bantu, a closer approximation to what used to be called “Negro” in America. “Negroes” are now called “black,” but the problem here is that the skin color of both the Tutsi and the Hutu are much the same. The real issue, as in most other cases, is not skin color but various character traits of different population groups.”

“The crucial point is that, in both Rwanda and Burundi, Hutus and Tutsis have coexisted for centuries; the Tutsi are about 15 percent of the total population, the Hutu about 85 percent. And yet consistently, over the centuries, the Tutsi have totally dominated, and even enserfed, the Hutu. How are we to explain this consistent pattern of domination by a small minority? Could it be – dare I say it – that along with being taller, slimmer, more graceful and noble-looking, the Tutsi are far more i-n-t-e-l-l-i-g-e-n-t than the Hutu? And yet what else explains this overriding fact?”

How is your knowledge of Rwanda? From the little I know about Rwanda the Hutu - Tutsi thing is nothing like what Rothbard is talking about here. I was under the impression that Hutus and Tutsis are not originally even a different ethnicity, much less a sub-race. I was told they are merely two separate castes. The ruling Tutsis and the enthralled Hutus. They speak the same language and look the same. And of course there is also the well known story of how the colonial overlords were conducting a census and they could not tell if the person in question was a Hutu or a Tutsi they simply went by how much livestock did the person own. More than 15 and he was certainly a Tutsi. Which would imply that actually they were fairly indistinguishable but for their wealth.

So which of these is a myth and which is correct? Are they two identities originating from two different castes of originally a single people or from two anthropologically separate peoples?

2

No, they are different ethnic groups according to wiki. That’s the ultimate arbitrator.

3

Quote?

4

I actually enjoyed this article. Rothbard doesn’t fail to take me off guard with what he has to say, even if it’s not politically correct.

I use to be involved with GuluWalk, which was to raise money for children in Uganda (haven’t been the past 2 walks). After the walk we’d watch documentaries on Uganda and Rwanda, and the Hutus and Tutsis.

Even though the civil wars in those regions have a lot of factors, one could be on the ethnic and social/economic status of the two groups. A good depiction of this is in the movie Hotel Rwanda.

5

Lol, I can say that when I first started visiting LRC, which was early noughties, I was so shocked anyone would write being successful oppressors must mean the Tutsis are more intelligent that I stopped visiting it for several months in protest. But I was just a teenager and I had no clue who Rothbard was at the time.

I still doubt what he says regarding intelligence is correct, but even so what would that mean? It would simply mean Rothbard was a bit of a jerk for writing it, but since it is OK to be a jerk and we all are at one time it is nothing to get bothered about.

6

So you don’t believe in the possibility of genetic modifiers to intelligence? [;)]

Tell you what. Look up the history of Parsis in India. See what roles Parsis have played in India, and all the famous notable Parsis in India in positions of power. Then see the total Parsi population in this country.

Then come back and tell me there isn’t something to what Rothbard says here.

7

It all rests on the assumption that intelligence makes for a more successful oppressor. Do the ruling classes strike you as terribly smart?

Gypsies make a disproportionate number of successful musicians without anyone assuming this means they are more intelligent. But have an ethnic group make up a disproportionate number of state crooks and everyone thinks they’re Albert Einsteins.

8

Being more intelligent helps you get into positions of power, and power tends to corrupt (I don’t know the history enough to know whether there was oppression going on.)

If you go to the wiki of Tutsi http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tutsi it says on the button in categories “Ethnic groups in Rwanda.”

9

Or rather- a lack of moral scruples helps you get into positions of power?

10

Yes but this is the situation now. I was thinking about their origins. But you are probably right anyway since I see Wikipedia talk about the much greater lactose tolerance among the Tutsis - this doesn’t sound likely if they had been one and the same people a few hundred years ago.

But you could just as easily say that being more intelligent helps you see that exercising power is evil and that therefore we expect not to find too many of the intelligent in such positions.

11

From the Wiki article:

“The rate of intermarriage between the two groups has traditionally been very high, and relations between the two were considered peaceful up until the 20th century. Tutsi men rarely took Hutu wives, while Hutu men often took Tutsi wives. The ethnicity of the father determined the ethnicity of the children, however, which partially contributes to the continued larger proportion of Hutu in the region. Many have concluded that Tutsi is mainly an expression of class or caste, rather than ethnicity. Experts dispute whether similarities between Hutus and Tutsis are from common ancestry, frequent intermarriage, or both.”

These groups seem more intermixed than many Indian castes, and it’s especially unsurprising that Tutsis are a minority, given that group identification is decided based on paternal heritage.

It dissapoints me when people jumpt to simplistic conclusions relating genetic differences, intelligence and wealth. It reminds me of those economists and sociologists so enthusiastic about Nehruvian socialism ,central planning, and economic controls that lamented India’s pathetic growth rate from the 50s to the 80s, attributing it as due to something inherent in Hindu culture or race. The lack of attention paid to institutional conditions is often abysmal; on that note I’m note surprised the social sciences still have such a abd reputation!

12

Is it racism if a group of more intelligent people intermarry for so many generations that they become racially distinguishable? Or is it just plain elitism?

13

I’m pretty sure it’s a hate crime.

14

Did George Bush of the United States strike you as dumb?

But that’s only because your average American was not paying attention. At all.

Bush managed to bring in distractions perfectly. Gay marriage! Flash bang grenade! Ra ra! Stem cell research evil! Distractions! American students bad at math! And guess what? On all internet forums dominated by Americans, these were the most fiercely discussed issues.

The man was an East Coast American, and yet pretended for eight years to be a Texan in his accent. If a man is capable of adjusting his very speech to create a pretense, any other pretense could be pulled off with ease. Let’s be clear - from his childhood, he was known to be a prankster with a crude sense of humour. What is amazing is that he could do the darkest jokes in the presence of the elite and get away with it. Just look at the guy, he is openly putting his cards on the table, and showing how clearly how all the talks he ever did was a farce and a joke. The media which criticised him for a living is laughing along at all the controversies that Bush was glad to entertain for them, and they certainly seem cosy in each other’s presence. For him, all those slipups and poor grammar were so carefully calculated - by him and his staff - and the joke was on the average American. A man doesn’t say, “Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They keep finding ways to destroy our country and its people, and so do we.” without deliberately calculating the move much in advance and seeing how to say it.

Have you seen the outline for Operation Northwoods which was cancelled in the 1960s? A part of the plan was to “give an impression of an incompetent government”. It’s an old trick - pretending to be rural and folksy and dumb and illiterate. Politicians in India do it all the time.

The truth is that Bush had his own role to play, which was to implement decisions that were already made by members of the executive government much before he even became President, and simply create a sideshow with him in the picture to get people’s attention. His job was to convince an entire legislature and the American public through meaningless hints and assertions that the CIA has satellite images of weapons of mass destruction being transported across Iraq. Just see how cleverly he played that up, because if the CIA saw it through satellite images, who is to doubt it? “That dumb President is probably just a messenger here, and for all we know, we can’t risk allowing possible belligerents to get a free hand in this post 9/11 world, even though we all perfectly understand that Saddam has nothing to do with al Qaeda. It’s not about al Qaeda, we Americans just think it’s safer to have a pre-emptive strike before an attack of similar scale can ever happen again.” See, even thinking Americans start wondering about pre-emptive strikes and them being the best option. You need a really intelligent man to play and pull the strings like that to bring all that smoke and mirrors over their eyes.

15

I wouldn’t go as far as to say that Bush is a genius, but than again I wouldn’t go as far as to say that the controls anything. The guys behind the scenes, bankers, CEOs and the like are those who run the show, and indeed they are invariably the smartest portion of the population.

It is true that an intelligent person will recognize the state as evil, at the very leats when “he’s in”, but it will be up to his preferences to decide whether the ‘evilness’ of the state outdoes the great profits it can confer. So, with the exception of intelligent people who refuse to get involved in the state due to ethical considerations, I’d say that ‘rulers’ (not showmen) are by far the most intelligent part of a population.

There could be some genetic factors at work here, but a decent upbringing and learning environment would seem much more likely to foster IQ points among the rulers.

16

They strike me as the craziest loudmouths.

17

Yeah, you’re right. It’s usually simply the lazy way out.