History should tell us what it means to be Zimbabwean

[XXPANTHAXX]

IN October 1890 the Pioneer Corps, a militarised 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 10 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 percent of the population, owned more
than 70 percent of the arable land, including most of the best.

This was a crisis. It needed to be resolved. After all 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 MDC, 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 US. Simply put, "Zimbabwe is different from Britain,
US, 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 a 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 were a symptom 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.

After all, 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.
Eurosceptics 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".

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.