Maravi

(TALKZIMBABWE) Who is an indigenous Zimbabwean?

Who is an indigenous Zimbabwean?
By: Tafadzwa Musarara
Posted: Friday, March 26, 2010 10:25 am

IMAGINE its 1968, Ian Smith is in full command of Rhodesia apparatus and all white Rhodies are drowned in the proverbial milk and honey. How many of those Rhodies would have wanted to be identified as indigenous or natives of 'Zimbabwe' then?

Who is indigenous?

This question has been very topical of late, thanks to the Economic and Indigenization Act. Interestingly, we have seen and heard unexpected characters clamouring to be termed indigenous Zimbabweans.

I would have loved this question to have arisen at the apex of colonialism when many African states were under white minority rule.

In this article, I would like to attempt to provide both the narrow and wide definition of an indigenous person.

Indigenous means originating or occurring naturally in a country or area. This word is derived from the Latin word called indigenus. Admittedly, given the nomadic nature of African tribes, it is difficult to appoint certain tribes as indigenous people of a particular country, but suffice to say that blacks are the indigenous people of Africa.

The Holy Book tells us about children of Israel who stayed in Egypt for time longer than the White Europeans have been to Zimbabwe. At no point did the Children of Israel declare themselves to be indigenous Egyptians. It was because they were clear of their origins and knew that their entry into Egypt was materialistic.

The blacks in America had their ancestors, many years ago, transplanted from this beautiful continent and shipped to this country. The rest of what happened thereafter is history. To date, many centuries after the abolishment of slavery, they are not called Americans but African-Americans and live in the midst of a system that is unjust and reminds them daily that they are not first class citizens.

Here in Zimbabwe we do not call white Zimbabweans, European-Zimbabweans. I think we are very kind people and accommodating people, are we not?

Colonialism brought exotic fauna and flora in Africa. Admittedly, much of it has been very critical in enhancing household food security. In Zimbabwe, we have mango, cats, peaches and others that have remained classified exotic, though they serve us very well. Sadza remains indigenous and hence it has no English name. Neither has switched sides.

Zimbabwe, in the past five decades, exported millions of its citizens into the Diaspora. Many are now resident in United Kingdom, North America, Australia, South Africa and other countries. Many of them remain mere residents and continue to constantly re-apply for permission for continued stay. Attaining citizenship in these countries remains a pipedream. They remain foreigners and never been regarded indigenous people of those countries.

The colonial rule in Zimbabwe created the structures of the Native Commissioner who, inter alia, was charged with the full implementation of repressive laws. These laws include the Animal Husbandry Act that limited amount of livestock natives could hold and also the Land Apportionment Act that moved indigenous Zimbabweans from fertile land to sandy soils. Remember Chief Rekayi Tangwena. History has no record of a white man whoever opted to stay in these reserves on the basis that they were indigenous. So when did they turn indigenous?

The question is: At what one point does an exotic or foreigner become indigenous person?

The Indigenization Act defines an indigenous Zimbabwean as "any person who, before the 18th April, 1980, was disadvantaged by unfair discrimination on the grounds of his or her race, and any descendant of such person, and includes any company, association, syndicate or partnership of which indigenous Zimbabweans form the majority of the members or hold the controlling interest."

These previously marginalized persons and their descendants must be allowed to enter into the mainstream economy because we cannot create a second economy.

This economy, had it not been for colonialism, belongs to the indigenous Zimbabweans.

Imagine if the Cecil John Rhodes’ BSAC had subordinated their operations to the orders of King Lobengula, I have no doubt that joint ventures between blacks and whites rule would have started then, possibly on 51/49 rule.

This Act does not seek to punish those who oppressed others, but seeks to address the imbalances caused by the repressive system.

This is an Affirmative Action policy which is very active in America where it favours non-indigenous, but previously underrepresented groups. By any measure, this definition is generous because it does not favour a particular race, but persons and groups affected by the colonial system.

It must be noted that whilst this economy was being built, many others were deliberately marginalized by brutal and repressive machinery.

The hand of reconciliation extended by the then Prime Minister Robert Mugabe did not turn white people into indigenous but simply acknowledged the wrongs of the past and solicited forgiveness from the aggrieved.

Can someone be an indigenous in two countries? I ask that question because most white Zimbabweans have or had dual citizenship or are eligible on the basis of ancestry. They are able to get either British or any other European citizenship because they originated there.

It is cunning, disrespectful and treacherous for any White Zimbabwean to claim to be indigenous

_________________
Tafadzwa Musarara is the Secretary General of the Zimbabwe Affirmative Action Group

Labels: INDIGENIZATION AND EMPOWERMENT ACT (ZIMBABWE), RHODESIANS

posted by MrK @ 3:37 PM