While there is much to admire in @Dannythefink's article on race and conservatism - note I am not a conservative big or small C - I take issue with one example which he uses as emblematic

https://bit.ly/2LYcbzl 

The Rwandan conflict was directly rooted in invented racist pseudoscience instilled and nurtured by two successive colonial regimes, initially the Germans and subsequently the Belgians.

Both asserted that Tutsi had larger brains, paler skin and (with higher frequency of lactase persistence via their traditions of pastoralism) were milk drinkers, has European or Eurasian ancestry, possibly via the invented anthropological population of Hamites.

Germans asserted the superiority of the Tutsi over the Hutu, who were otherwise congenial.

This btw way is explored in depth in my book #HowToArgueWithARacist. https://bit.ly/3riMYyG 

The introduction of ethnic ID cards in 1933 formalised this racialisation based on colonial pseudoscience. By the time the Belgians left in the 1950s there was a Hutu revolution, and continuous fighting which culminated in the conflict in the 1990s.

The layers of tragedy in this saga are many, but one of them is that the Hutu and Tutsi adopted the invented hierarchical racialisation.

So while it may well be true that 'Prejudice is a part of human nature', the racism that emerged in that nation was as a direct result of the politics and commerce of empire and pseudoscience that supported it.

@Dannythefink Facts are important, and it's not right to casually exonerate colonists deliberately stoking racial conflict to serve empires. Bigotry is a constant, but the racial bigotry that we currently endure is an invention of the Enlightenment.