7

I've read about how the Belgians issued ID cards to the inhabitants of their colony Ruanda-Urundi (later independent under the names of Rwanda and Burundi):

Indeed, the Belgian colonists classified a person as Tutsi if they had a long nose (or ten cows). (Caselli/Coleman: On the theory of ethnic conflict, 2012, page 28)

However, I was not able to find any information on whether these were applied to men and women alike or whether different means of distinction were used for women.

Were phenotypical features and wealth also distinctive for women, or were women categorized along other means, e.g. their husband's / father's categorization?

  • 3
    Why would putative phenotypical features be gender limited? Why is women capitalized? They're female, not alien. – Mark C. Wallace Oct 16 '15 at 0:24
  • 1
    I found the tag women used very seldomly in this forum, so I wanted to make sure the focus of the question is understood. If you find it weird/offensive, I can sure edit that; it was a spontaneous decision... – PikkuKatja Oct 16 '15 at 7:20
  • 3
    The thought behind the question was the following: If the categorization was also by wealth, it would be interesting if women were allowed to own property. And for both wealth and phenotypical features, the Belgians behind it might have "not bothered" with even more registration but just registered the women in line with their closest relative. However, this is just an idea and I have no proof on it, so I did not want to speculate in the question already but only state the simple question without my line of thoughts behind. Would it be better to ammend the question? – PikkuKatja Oct 16 '15 at 7:21

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.