hutu

If you want to level the playing field, you can always research the Hutu massacre of the Tutsis...

Use of that language was a small part of the genocide of Tutsi by Hutu majority.

Double-genocide or at least mass war crimes against Hutu by the RPF: Estimates of Hutu deaths from mass violence in the 1990s are much less precise than Tutsi death figures from the Rwandan genocide due to the greater timescale and geographic spread of the killings.

(or Hutu war criminals, or Bosnian war criminals, etc).

Historian Roland Tissot argued that there were around 400,000 Hutus killed by the RPF between 1994 and 1998 (excluding disease and excess mortality), while Omar Shahabudin McDoom estimated several hundred thousand Hutu victims during the 1990s.

While oppression and discrimination before Euromaidan was below pain threshold, the Euromaidan brought to power the forces which were clearly intended and now, with the power of the state behind them, capable to perform another tutsi-hutu situation.

A really thorough ethnic cleansing is generally more difficult without modern government structures and mass media to really gin up the hate: in Rwanda, ordinary Hutu slaughtered half a million Tutsi in three months -- 2/3 of the entire Tutsi population at the time -- and they did it with garden tools[1].

Hordes of members of the Hutu ethnic majority, armed with machetes, spears, nail-studded clubs, and other rudimentary weapons, moved house to house in villages, hunting for Tutsis, the second largest of Rwanda’s three ethnic groups.

Rwanda, infamously, would get you a distinction between Hutu and Tutsi; if you show me a picture of two people and ask me which was which, I wouldn't be able to answer, or even know if I was being pranked with any of the other ethnic groups in Africa.

Tutsi and Hutu were basically just categories for “someone who has cattle” and “someone who does not have cattle”.

> Tutsi and Hutu were basically just categories for “someone who has cattle” and “someone who does not have cattle”.

The hate of the Hutu was not artificially created by some "extremists" with a radio station, but was and is instead the result of the long and bloody history between these two peoples where neither side can claim to be the innocent victim.

This (the "no difference between AKs and machetes" stuff, which you seem to have edited out) would be a telling response, except that the Hutu had AKs; they did their killing with machetes not because machetes were all they had, but because machetes were what they preferred.

Look at the Hutu/Tutsi conflict, this is not based on religion but still has the same dehumanizing going on.

From an analytical standpoint, the crime is best understood as an ethnic conflict, just as Palestinian-versus-Jewish or Jewish-versus-Palestinian violence or Hutu-versus-Tutsi violence or Whites-lynching-blacks are all best understood as ethnic conflicts.

And that's ignoring the larger wars, that are usually between ethnicities, like the Hutu-Tutsi conflict.