Can somebody give me in-dpeth knowledge about the hutsui and tusui war in Africa?
922701
There's lots on wikipedia.\n\nand I'm pretty sure you spelled it wrong.
391216
Rwanda was originally ruled by the dutch. The dutch divided the Rwandans into Hutus and Tsutsis, they Gave the Hutus control and then they turned the goverenment over to the Tsutsis. The Hutus were against Tsustis and when the ruler was killed they began a systematic massacre of the tsustis. it lasted about a 100 days and I don't remmeber how many were killed but a lot ... Outsiders did nothing, the Un didn't even send military troops just peace keeping ones\nsee hotel Rwanda it's heartbreaking ande amazing\nalso check out\nWikipedia/rwanda\nand encarta/rwanda\nfor all you need to know
158333
That's like asking what makes babies cry.  There are too many different causes to explain it fully, but the origin of many of these problems came from "the scramble for africa," when at the Berlin Conference of 1885, European nations including Britain, France, Portugal, Germany, Denmark, Spain, and Belgium met in order to divide up the African continent amongst themselves.  In the process, they paid no attention to the territories of various ethnic groups.  Some groups found themselves neighbors of others they had long warred with - some groups found themselves split down the middle.  This all relates back to interstate conflict via the issue of sovereignty.  Ethnic groups war with each other over land as well as the resources reaped from these lands.  On a continent where drought and famine run rampant, land is the most important resource.  \n\nThis explanation really referrs to small-scale conflict, but large-scale conflict, meaning that which involves heads of state and/or military involvement, also is based on sovereignty.  Think about it.  Most of these countries are only 40-50 years into their independence, which they had to fight global superpowers to achieve.  Even the African UNION's charter is devoted mostly to respecting one another's borders and rights to rule their own lands - SOVEREIGNTY.  It's about resources, it's about machismo, it's about ethnic conflit and high-level corruption... interstate conflict in Africa is a huge topic.  If you narrow your question down a little, I'd be happy to help.  Email me (I have a Master's Degree in African Politics, so you can trust me!)
727649
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/country_profiles/1043014.stm\nhttp://www.voanews.com/english/2006-10-28-voa20.cfm\nhttp://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/ivorindex.htm
1030018
http://www.africa.com/\nhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Africa
679485
For Information on this issue you should really have a look at this information source from Reporters Without Borders.\n\nhttp://www.rsf.org/rubrique.php3?id_rubrique=20
859486
WTF is your question?  Angola was never under South African domination....  There was a 3 way civil war seemingly forever, and there were some SA operatives involved (I know this from  personal knowledge - there were also some US operatives involved too).
7977
Colonial scholars believed that the Tutsi came from East Africa, possibly Sudan, Uganda or Ethiopia, around 1400, to settle first around Lake Kivu.\n\nThe Hutu arrived in the Great Lakes region around the 1st century, displacing the Twa.
946005
Try this link:   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Africa
355162
Click on this link:http://search.yahoo.com/bin/search?fr=ybr_sbc&p=world%20war%20one
212693
Google Mali Africa. \n\nGoogle knows all.
852464
Hi. Start here : http://www.nationalgeographic.com/adventure/0503/excerpt3.html or here : http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/2520815.stmre :
532177
I found these 2 articles that will hopefully help.  You should honestly check out www.allafrica.com they have a lot of Africa's papers conglomerated.\n\noff our backs, July-August 2005 v35 i7-8 p4(2) \nKenya: all-women village thrives. (news)(Brief Article) Priya Verma; Sara Schoenleber; Carol Anne Douglas; Rachel Pleatman; Jen Mainville; Annsley Chapman; Jennifer Chapin-Harris; Tess Mueting. \nFull Text: COPYRIGHT 2005 Off Our Backs, Inc. \n\nSeeking to escape domestic violence, rape, forced marriage, and other abuse, several dozen women have founded a matriarchal, women-only village that is drawing both economic prosperity, and hatred and jealousy of local men. \n\nThe village of Umoja, meaning "unity" in Swahili, was founded 10 years ago on an abandoned plot of land among dry grasslands. Their dung-and-mud huts are built in a circular pattern and house several dozen women in a thriving and happy village. The women have built a cultural center, a camping site for hikers destined for the nearby Samburu National Reserve, and a business making and selling traditional beadwork necklaces. \n\nIn response local men tried founding their own, men-only village and tourist center. The tourism plan flopped and the men have turned to spying on the women's village, filing a court case to try and shut down the village, and physically attacking the women. The village leader, Rebecca Lolosoli, has even received death threats after attending the recent United Nations world conference on gender. \n\n"We do not have peace in the village now. These men are so angry because we have money and we do not give them any," said Lolosoli. \n\n--info from Worldpulse Magazine 7/05, news.telegraph 8/1/05 \n\nnews compiled by Priya Verma, Sara Schoenleber, Carol Anne Douglas, Rachel Pleatman, Jen Mainville, Annsley Chapman, Jennifer Chapin-Harris and Tess Mueting \n\nAfrica News Service, March 24, 2005 pNA \nSpeed Up Empowerment of Women, Kenya Urged. \nFull Text: COPYRIGHT 2005 Africa News Service. News Provided by Comtex. \n\nNairobi, Mar 25, 2005 (The East African Standard/All Africa Global Media via COMTEX) -- A Ugandan Member of Parliament Ms Miriam Matembe has challenged the Kenya Government to commit itself to the regional instruments agreed upon by other African countries that recognise Affirmative Action for women. \n\n"As a member of the Pan African Parliament, it saddens me that Kenya is not moving in line with the African Union by not having a woman in the regional parliament. The AU recognises that there can be no meaningful development without women's participation," she said. \n\nKenya has not ratified the AU Protocol to the African Charter on Human and People's Rights on the Rights of Women in Africa that was adopted in 2003. \n\nThis protocol is a regional supplement the UN Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Discrimination Against Women. \n\nIn her opinion, as long as Kenya remains reluctant to streamline policies and laws that promote gender equality it will be difficult to catch up with developments in Uganda and Tanzania. \n\n"How can we enter regional integration when our laws, policies and political systems are not harmonised?" she posed. \n\nCopyright The East African Standard. Distributed by All Africa Global Media(AllAfrica.com) \n\nNews Provided by COMTEX (http://www.comtexnews.com)
313676
the movie is pretty damn accurate.  you can also watch a movie called "sometimes in april" also about the genocide.  check out romero dalierres (sp?) book called "shaking hands with the devil".  also check out a book that is titled something like "today we regret to inform you that we will be killed with our families:  stories from rwanda"  written by a journalist.  you can also check out "century of genocide".  for further research check out how similar the rwandan genocide was to the genocide in burundi twenty years before.  VERY VERY similar.  some trial information can be found on the UN website.  good luck.
566336
Long repressed feelings of hatred for the Tutsis by the Hutus. When the Belgians colonized the area, they bestowed preferential treatment on the Tutsi (generally lighter of skin, taller and originally from the Horn of Africa - so they were already invaders in the eyes of the Hutus. The Hutus - generally darker - Bantu speaking original inhabitants of that area took it upon themselves to wipe out the Tutsi and came damn near close -- please see Hotel Rwanda if you get the chance.
730410
NO EASY ANSWERS - but useful hints instead, from a (former) world history teacher. \n\n1. Think of who the slave traders wanted - mainly young men who were useful as laborers. So what would happen if a region where most people were farmers lost a lot of its strong workers? Also, think of how the people were removed, and how people would logically react. They didn't go willingly, and their families weren't happy about it. \n\n2. The examples are simply a list, and it's not useful to just copy from an email. Besides, your teacher probably used specific examples, and mine might be different. You'll find most of the anti-colonial resistance taking place between 1890 and 1960, and some examples you can look up are the Asante revolt, the Igbo Women's War, the Bambatha Uprising, the Chilembwe Revolt, the Maji-Maji Rebellion, and the Chimurenga/Second Chimurenga. You should be able to Google these or look them up in a book, or ask your school librarian and get answers fairly quickly - ones that you can remember on the upcoming test because you learned them for homework!\n\n3. Salt and gold had their uses, and more importantly, they were found in different parts of West Africa, so the people with salt traded it for gold, and vice versa. Again, not a tough one to look up yourself, and worth the effort. Try any middle school textbook chapter on precolonial Africa, and you should get a map of the salt and gold trade. \n\n4. Which defeat of Germany? Probably WWI. I don't know if Germany was defeated so much by events as by situations. The alliance against Germany included France, Russia, England and eventually the United States, and the entry of the US into WWI was important. The German u-boat sinking of the liner Lusitania triggered American entry. \n\nThe Bolshevik Revolution in Russia also stirred up a stong enemy in the east. \n\nGermany and its allies were surrounded by hostile powers and unable to get many products needed for fighting a war, including food for the soldiers. So their supply problem was also a cause of their defeat. \n\n5. The time period matters here, and you will have to filter through my ideas to find the ones that fit your class. \n\n- Developing economies grew slowly for a variety of reasons, including:\n  - colonizers made them serve the colonial market, producing less profitable goods, and/or selling them so cheaply as not to make a profit, therefore the colonized peoples never had money to spend on improving their production\n  - many colonies had labor laws that allowed colonizers to all but enslave the locals, which meant that there was little reason to educate the workforce or build for the future\n  - developed countries made and enforced rules that kept developing countries from making certain products (for example, England - which had colonized India - outlawed the production of cloth in India, which meant Indians could grow cotton, but coud only buy cloth from England, which helped the English factories and economy)\n  - Developing countries mainly produce farm, mine and fishery products, and they have to buy industrial products to make a profit, but prices for farm, mine and fishery products declined in the late 20th century, so that people in developing countries had to spend more of their production on equipment from developed economies\n  - In recent decades, developed countries lent money at interest to developing countries, which then had to pay back the interest. Large loans encouraged corruption in the developing world, and as a result the developing countries didn't, well, develop much, and so they were less and less able to pay back their growing debts. Or, for that matter, to do anything else that required money.
893308
Here are some sites that may help you:\n\nhttp://www.answers.com/topic/colonization-of-africa\nhttp://www.hyperhistory.net/apwh/essays/comp/cw25colonizationafrica.htm\nhttp://www.yaleslavery.org/TownGown/coloniz.html