viciousness, too, at least pro forma. The Hutus certainly committed unspeakable atrocities, and if we isolate here-and-now from what's gone before, tribal memories and mythology, etc., then the Hutu acts went far beyond any level that could be construed as payback.
I suppose I didn't call it out because my perception is that Hutu violence has already been fully presented in the west, though in a one-sided way, as though it were an unprovoked, Nazi-style genocide: "the peaceful Tutsis who never did anyone any harm suddenly woke up one day being maimed and killed by the vicious Hutus for no reason at all." kind of thing. That was certainly my perception from news reports in Euro/US media, anyhow, which is why reading other sources came as such a shock to me.
From my understanding of history (admittedly incomplete and very possibly propagandised stiff), Tutsi dominance goes back 500 years or so, well before European colonialism. I.e., the Europeans exploited and worsened it, but didn't create it.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/forum/august96/season_of_blood.html apparently written by an Irishman rather than a Hutu, appears to indict the Tutsi.
http://www.historyworld.net/wrldhis/PlainTextHistories.asp?historyid=ad25 illuminates the Belgian colonialist role in increasing class stratification and setting the stage for the later atrocities (which, the article claims, were unheard of before colonialism).
http://www.hrw.org/reports/1999/rwanda/Geno1-3-09.htm This HRW account might almost have been written about a totally different country, since it implies that the Tutsi, Huti, and Twa settled the area as equals at about the same time in the prehistoric past and that natural differences among them explain their different social statuses.
It's hard to know how to make sense of it all.