THERE is a peculiar and almost sickening arrogance that British inclined Rhodesians have.
Many of them exhibit pseudo-disdain for the racist qualities Ian Smith stood for and a profound high regard for the British role in ending colonialism and slavery.
Actually every historian who has done their research knows that Britain did not end these inhumane atrocities out of benevolence, but rather that they were no longer viable for them in terms of business and revenue.
In fact, many pro-British Rhodesians express their dismay that, “no recognition-let alone gratitude-for the aid that the British government has for Zimbabwe since independence.”
It could be just these writers are naïve or maybe it is their culture that still today makes them believe that the royal family is God-ordained and not a manmade institution.
I say ‘pseudo-disdain’ because many of them speak glowingly about how Smith was right in that black people were not ready to rule Africa and specifically Zimbabwe.
Then the most obnoxious of them all, Peter Godwin writes how he was tempted to assassinate Ian Smith during the time he was stationed in Matabeleland.
Then on the next page he writes about how Smith is misinterpreted in his ‘not in a thousand years’ speech.
This week I shall look at another writer medical practitioner-cum-biographer Andrew Norman.
Born in England in 1943, he was, however, educated at Thornhill High School in Gweru.
His knowledge of colonial Zimbabwe and especially Midlands area is impressive, which also shows his love for the land thereby exhibiting his impartiality with Zimbabwean politics.
The author highlights the racial problems in colonial Rhodesia, but is also quick to point out that the system also created room for the blacks.
While attempting to be objective, the writer tends to romanticise the colonial era.
In one scenario there is a stranger than fiction episode where the prison sergeant working in the field with prisoners would, “…relax with a smoke having given his gun to one of his more trustworthy of the banditi.”
He even blatantly writes that black and white doctors having graduated from the same local medical school received the same wages.
It is baffling to imagine that a system that did not allow the races to share a street or let alone use the same toilet would exhibit justice when it came to wages.
Norman’s biography is about tracing President Mugabe’s life from his birth highlighting the moments in his life he feels influenced the stance that Mugabe later took concerning the land and Western world.
“This book attempts to put Mugabe’s life under the microscope, to explain just why this former teacher became a tyrant,” he writes.
Hence because it is the author’s own microscope that seeks to justify and portray a tyrannical Mugabe, he tends to gloss over issues to suit his agenda.
That is Smith was right.
In some other instances he over simplifies complex situations and complicates the simple.
For example, there is evidence in different history books that Mugabe caused a delay to the conclusion of the Lancaster Agreement because of disagreement over the land issue which the British promised would be tackled in stages.
Norman presents Mugabe as a blood spilling war lord who would do anything to get back to the war.
“Mugabe attended the conference (Lancaster), after pressure from Kaunda and Machel, who threatened to withdrew their support,” Norman writes.
What happened behind the scenes at that time no one can be certain, but indeed there was pressure on Mozambique and Zambia from the British.
Mugabe insisted on walking out with a fair agreement for both blacks and whites he even says in one speech at that time,
“There must be a complete reversal of the situation where you have equals and unequals, superiors and inferiors, blacks and whites.”
The issue of the land is another factor the writer simplifies because according to him Zimbabwe was owned by the Bushmen who were murdered and driven away by the Shona.
Later, the Shona were invaded by the Ndebele therefore the whites came in the form of salvation.
Therefore he brings in the same Afrikaner argument that we all ‘arrived’ on land already occupied.
Therefore Mugabe should have heeded Machel’s statement that, “you will face ruin if you force the whites there into precipitate flight”.
Whereas farming is a complex business there are reports that while the white farmers concentrated on cash crops like tobacco post independence it was the peasantry that produced the grain thereby attaining the bread basket status.
The Rhodesian Farmer magazine on April 9, 1965 published an article, ‘Idle land a national disgrace’.
“On practically every farm you will see acres of land lying idle…It is a national disgrace that so much land is lying idle and not being used.”
During the war, production levels on these farms further decreased.
Despite all the advantages laid to them later statistics showed that 30 percent were bankrupt, 30 percent broke-even, another 30 percent made a small profit and only 5 percent of the farms were profitable.
According to the United Nations Food and Agricultural Organisation, “small-holders (communal/black farmers) became the largest suppliers of maize and cotton to formal markets within five years (1980-1985) of independence.”
There was drought even during the time of the white farmers and the nation had to import.
As a white apologist Norman fails to bring in rationale to his argument ending up with emotional statements like, “Mugabe would have liked nothing more than the white farmers to have donated their best farms voluntarily to his ZANU PF party and the remainder to the war veterans, together with all machinery and possessions, down to the last Zimbabwean dollar…when they did not, they immediately became his enemies.”
Norman concludes his book with a pessimistic outlook on Zimbabwe.
To him unless Zimbabweans remove Mugabe we have no hope as clearly the West will never accept him.