Maravi

(TALKZIMBABWE) What does it mean to be Zimbabwean?

What does it mean to be Zimbabwean?
Itayi Garande - Opinion
Sun, 11 Oct 2009 07:29:00 +0000

IN October 1890 the Pioneer Corps, a militarized contingent of the Pioneer Column of Cecil John Rhodes, was disbanded and its members granted pieces of land on which to farm. The pieces of land belonged to the indigenous peoples. The land struggles in Zimbabwe today, rest on that single event.

A new moral order was imposed that dramatically changed the culture and beliefs of the ‘Zimbabwean’ people.

New land tenure systems were introduced that disrupted, not only the economic system of the indigenous population; but also the socio-political and legal fabric of the land.

Sacred lands were grazed in one scoop and the relocation of the indigenous peoples began - from fertile lands (allocated to Rhodes’ Pioneer Corps) to dry, infertile lands.

The British government subtly connived in this act, by using back-door dealings.

A charter from the British government allowed Rhodes and his agent Charles Rudd to expropriate land, essentially although in a limited way, with the government's consent.

Equipped with Martini-Henry rifles, revolvers, seven-pound field guns and Maxim machine guns, as well as electric searchlights (which they later used to good effect to intimidate Matabele warriors shadowing the column), Rhodes and his people effectively subdued the locals.

Almost 120 years later, we are still reeling from the effects of that period.

Those who are re-writing the history of Zimbabwe would not want to start with this episode. They would like that episode obliterated and for history to start ten years ago.

They would like the Iron Age monarchy of the Mwenemutapa - that had formerly held sway and retained power through demonstration of overwhelming technological superiority - to be erased from history.

This lack of appreciation of the complexities of the Zimbabwean story, has led to many people reading the struggles of the Zimbabwean people as some socio-anthropological fantasy. It has led to the misunderstanding of what the true ‘Zimbabwean question’ is.

This is why the discourse on the conflict in Zimbabwe ultimately disappoints. Much of the narrative advanced by many civil society groups, and ‘democratic projects’ has been unable to authentically capture that dark period; hence its shortcomings.

It has been impossible for some of these groups, to advance solid arguments about where the country really is, in terms of its politics, and where it ought to be.

Those who advance notions of human and property rights often fail to appreciate the origin of the human and property rights conflicts in Zimbabwe. It is, therefore, difficult for them to adequately proffer solutions that adequately deal with these issues.

Many people argue that the land question in Zimbabwe should “be resolved once and for all”. Such an a-historical and simplistic view of the land crisis in the country, frustrates efforts at resolving the political problems emanating therefrom.

Rewriting, or erasing, history will not solve the problems confronting Zimbabwe.

Zimbabwe is a nation where only till recently white Zimbabweans, although making up less than 1% of the population, owned more than 70% of the arable land, including most of the best.. This was a crisis. It needed to be resolved. Afterall it was the reason why the battle for Zimbabwe started.

Chimurenga (revolutionary struggle) which started in earnest in 1896 was about land. It was a struggle for human rights, political dignity and social justice for the black majority.

So human and property rights have never been elusive concepts. They are part and parcel of the Zimbabwean socio-political and economic fabric.

Many opposition political parties and civil society groups in Zimbabwe speak of human and property rights as alien concepts to the Zimbabwean struggle.

Appreciating history is not synonymous with seeking to avenge enemies. It is simply a way of understanding the present and finding the way forward.

This has been missing in most arguments about where Zimbabwe should be.

The opposition parties in the country, most notably the Movement for Democratic Change, have failed to capture the debate about the future of Zimbabwe adequately. This is because they claim to be superior in defining the future. But how does one define the present and the future without appreciating the past? How can you get to a destination without starting from somewhere?

Unless Zimbabweans appreciate their history, they will never adequately understand where they are and where they ought to be.

A healthy nation is as conscious of its history as its present state.

Zimbabwe has a nation-state of its own and should be understood in that context.

Those who try to impose their own ideologies on Zimbabwe, not only find it difficult to solve the Zimbabwean question, but also delay the resolution of the problems in the country.

Zimbabwe, like any other nation, has a unique fabric involving an interplay of Government, political parties, Church, landowners, capitalists, workers, peasants, men and women.

That interplay cannot be equated to the interplay in South Africa, Britain or the U.S.

Simply put, “Zimbabwe is different from Britain, U.S., France, Germany, etc.” Zimbabwe is Zimbabwe and its problems should be understood, and resolved, in that context.

The ideology that should spur the consciousness of any Zimbabwean is nationalism.

Britain today is in discussion of what it means to be British. Those people who obtain British citizenship have to swear allegiance to the Queen, in a formal civil ceremony.

Americans are struggling today with what defines them as a people.

A commentator once remarked: “Americans will tolerate or even welcome immigrants as long as they show loyalty to this country and behave like the Americans already here. Where newcomers were born or how long they've lived here is secondary.”

From Greece to South Africa, there has been an upsurge in nationalistic and xenophobic tendencies. This is world-wide phenomenon. Since the 1990s there was an influx of Albanian refugees into Greece; pointing to the need for a real Balkan policy; not an alien one.

In South Africa, years of Apartheid meant that the black population lost sense of what it meant to be South African. The xenophobic attacks on foreigners is a sympton of a larger problem - of identity, of failing to identify oneself with anything.

Such notions should also hold true for Zimbabwe. Zimbabweans need to define who they are and their future. Such is the appeal of nationalism.

An epigraph from George Bernard Shaw sums it up: "A healthy nation is as unconscious of its nationality as a healthy man of his bones. But if you break a nation's nationality it will think of nothing else but getting it set again."

This is where we find ourselves today. Zimbabwe is trying to 'set its nationality again'; by proclaiming and defending its sovereignty.

The MDC-T party says Zimbabwe should be accepted into the “family of nations” to prosper. This is a simplistic view. Being accepted into “the family of nations” should not lead to loss of sovereignty and lack of self-determination. Afterall, the powerful nations in that family of nations proclaim, or assert, their sovereignty and their identity.

Britain has dithered with the idea of joining the European Union. Euroskeptics are worried about Britain losing its sovereignty. They resent what they see as rule from Brussels. They believe the British Parliament has been relegated to simply endorsing laws made outside the country. They trust neither the new European Constitution nor the European Commission. The results of a recent survey seem to confirm that most Britons feel the same way about this emotive issue.

No single issue has threatened to divide British society than the European Union Treaty. Britain today seems as the only nation standing in the way of ratification of that 27-member treaty.

So as Zimbabweans, do we do what we do because we want to repair or break our nation’s consciousness?

Are we contributing to, or destroying, the health of our nation?

For Zimbabwe to move forward, we all have to appreciate our history; not to seek revenge, but to find solutions.

We have to rehabilitate the nationalist legacy by demolishing hostile revisionists of it. We have to press the case that Zimbabwe’s position remains essentially nationalistic.

Any engagement into the so-called family of nations should be advised by our national position and characteristic.

Zimbabweans are a mix of many races. These races should be seen as in keeping with historical development and not an aberration of any kind.

Indeed, the existence of a sizeable group of people that clearly look different and have conspicuously different roots should not make it difficult any attempt to define 'Zimbabweanness'.

There are many problems with the very concept of a 'nation' if the history of a nation is ignored.

The Pioneer Column, colonisation and the struggle for Zimbabwe, defined who we are as a people, and our struggles. We cannot relive or rewrite that history. We can certainly learn from it, However, any attempt at addressing the Zimbabwean problem cannot ignore this fact.

As we remember the events of the past, let’s also remember that our diversity could actually make us better people. We can draw a lot of experience and wisdom from our chequered history; but we should, first and foremost, remember that we are Zimbabwean and anything we do should protect the interests of our country and promote the welfare of our people; without endangering the interests and welfare of another country.

Labels: COLONIALISM, LAND REFORM, RHODESIA

posted by MrK @ 4:37 PM