You are hereGlobal News Feed / Categories / Blogs
Blogs
The case against the Brits
Zimbabwe Hope - Sat, 03/06/2010 - 00:42
In his book Diamonds, Gold, and War: The British, the Boers, and the making of South Africa (read Southern Africa) Simon and Schuster, 2007, Martin Meredith gives a dispassionate account of the history of Southern Africa, with special attention to the colonization of Zimbabwe and the struggle for control of South Africa betwen the Brits and the the descendants the Dutch settlers who were the first white people to settle in that country, also known as the Boers.
Spearheaded by Cecil John Rhodes, the British presence in southern Africa appears to have been spurred by the efforts of treasure hunters lured by the prospect of striking it rich in the proven gold and diamond fields of South Africa and an imaginary eldorado in Mashonaland in what is present day Zimbabwe.
The brutal efficiency and cunning of Rhodes' s methods and the nod and wink approach of successive British governments are explored in depth. At times, the British government comes off as unwilling and unwitting victims of the machinations of Rhodes but most of the time, they never seem to take a firm stand against the actions of their citizens in southern Africa.
If that sort of behavior rings a bell, its because it is starkly similar to the attitude of British governments of the second half of the 20th century who seemed paralysed to do anything about the denial of basic human rights to Africans in Rhodesia and South Africa while publicly making loud noises to the contrary.The murderous deception that resulted in the conquest of Zimbabwe is described in sympathetic detail by the author.
Meredith's account of the uprising against the settlers by the indegenous peoples of Zimbabwe towards the end of the 19th century is illustrative of scheming and thuggery of the the most despicable kind, including the planned and deliberate provocation of the Matebele in order to get them into a fight which they would lose for the simple reason that they were heavily outgunned.
Someone should make a movie of the battle of Shangani, the last stand of the Matebele against Rhodes where they incurred heavy losses while killing every single member of Alan Wilson's patrol. King Lobengula of Matebeleland is portrayed as at once naive and thoughtful in his dealings with the settlers, whom he tried to avoid fighting despite the urging of his own generals. Believing that all the whites wanted was gold, Lobengula allowed them to prospect for gold in the territories under his control, including Mashonaland.
Much to the disappointment of the settlers, there was not much gold to be found in Zimbabwe and soon the settlers made it clear that their focus was more on seizing land than on finding King solomon's mines.In the end, there was nothing that Lobengula could do to stop British ambitions especially once the British government had joined in the plunder at the urging of Rhodes.
On a personal note, I have mixed feelings about Meredith's account of how the settlers may have saved my own people, Chief Bere's people who lived near Fort Victoria, now Masvingo. Sensing an opportunity, the settlers decided to take sides in the quarrel in order to provoke Lobengula into a fight which they knew they would win.
Am I then expected to be grateful to the settlers for saving my clan? Presumably, I would not have been born if my ancestors had been exterminated but this assumes that I was somehow predestined to show up on earth some time. This view goes against my basic instincts of who I am. Besides, what about all the millions of native peoples who have suffered colonially driven genocide over the centuries?
I recommend this book for anyone who wants to have a deeper understanding and appreciation of the colonial mindset of the British kind.
Categories: Blogs
Is Mugabe right about the British?
Zimbabwe Hope - Sat, 02/27/2010 - 12:59
Now I realize that it is not in good taste to abuse one's host but sometimes it is unavoidable. If one's host suggested that one could no longer have an independent opinion about certain issues after downing the host's sumptuous dessert, one might be in order to protest vehemently.
Many of my readers live in Britain where they are, in a technical sense, guests of the British government and the British people at large. Previously, I have suggested that the tragedy of Zimbabwe can be laid squarely on the feet of successive British governments spanning more than a century. I know that some of you will start wondering if I am suggesting that Africans have no minds of their own; that everything begins and ends in London. Nothing could be farther from my mind.
Surely, you might ask, the British did not order ZANU-PF leader Robert Mugabe to massacre twenty thousand of his own people in the western provinces? Surely the Brits did not instigate the recent murderous assault on the political opposition which claimed thousands of lives and livelihoods?
My point is simply that Mugabe was a good student of British history who learned the crucial lesson that his predecessor Ian Douglas Smith also had learned equally well: the cynicism and contempt of the British governing class about most things African. Notice I do not make a distinction between the left and the right in making this point as both Labor and the Conservatives have shared in this approach.
To be fair to the Brits, their cynical approach to all things African is something they have in common with much of the western world. It explains why Bill Clinton thought intervening in Rwanda was not worth the effort while Bosnia was good policy. It explains why Harold Wilson did nothing to stop Ian Smith's naked rebellion in southern Rhodesia and Margaret Thatcher's invasion of the Falklands.
Wilson's cynical approach to the Rhodesian case resulted in the deaths of at least fifty thousand Africans in Zimbabwe's war of independence. It also resulted in the radicalization of the nationalist movement in Zimbabwe and subsequently, to the rise of one Robert Mugabe, who has haunted the good people of our fair plateau for more than a generation.
By extension or extrapolation, one can blame the British government for much of what has transpired in Zimbabwe in more recent times.
In a very real sense, when Mugabe says to blame the British, he may be right, after all.
Next week, I will review a book which makes a far more convincing case of British diplomatic cynicism with respect to southern African affairs going back to the nineteenth century.
Categories: Blogs
Can Zuma deliver?
Zimbabwe Hope - Sat, 02/20/2010 - 18:46
Previously, I suggested that South African president Jacob Zuma's overriding priority over the next few months with regards to the Zimbabwean problem would be to contain it, not to fix it. This is because Zuma does not want the attention of the region and the world to be focused on anything other than the upcoming World Cup soccer tournament in South Africa next southern hemisphere summer.
If this assumption is true, it follows that Zuma will not be pushing hard to resolve the deadlock in the so-called inclusive government as any such move might invite the dogged resistance of those who know that Zuma's hand is virtually tied at this stage. It makes perfect sense from the South African side to postpone as much unpleasant conversation as possible until after the tournament.
Everything we have gleaned from the media over the past few months suggests that there will be no progress to write home about in these endless talks if only because all parties seem to have something to gain from protracted negotiations. Robert Mugabe and his ZANU-PF want to enjoy power for as long as possible. Morgan Tsvangirai and his MDC are torn between those who want to resolve the outstanding issues immediately (those outside the governing elite in parliament and cabinet) and those who want to enjoy their appointments and elective offices for as long as possible.
Arthur Mutambara and his version of the MDC clearly would be rendered irrelevant by any final settlement which leads to free elections as they are likely to be buried under electoral rubble. Anyone please tell me why a member of the legislature who has just been given a loan to buy an expensive vehicle would suddenly want his tenure to end before they have made the first twelve payments. A doze of honesty is in order here: all parties, including SADC, the African Union have no interest in bringing this matter to an end.
Paradoxically, the only people whose interests are not being served by the continuing impasse are the western powers whose position looks increasingly untenable. Their argument that Zimbabwe has not changed enough seems cyclical if it is true that western aid could cause accelerated change if the people of Zimbabwe tasted the benefits of such aid.
I think the big boys in Washington and London need to put the sticks away and offer more carrots to the Zimbabwean people and see what happens. Right now it looks like their approach to this issue is driven more by pride than by sound policy.
It may well be that a change of tactics will turn out to be a mistake, but it would be a mistake made while trying to do the right thing. In any case, it can be successfully argued that the so-called sanctions imposed on Mugabe and his henchmen have been counter-productive. But that is another topic altogether. Besides, it would not be that hard to put Mugabe back in the box should that become necessary..
Categories: Blogs
