The Sunday News
This is the fourth analytical instalment of the Msipa (2016) and Coltart (2016) memoirs. I have found it imperative to address one attention worthy sub-thematic concern that emerges from the concept of split patriotic consciousness discussed since the inception of this series. It is inadequate to address how fragmented patriotic consciousness influences the two writers.
Rather, it is essential to also focus on the epistemic propensities of the two writers regarding the issue of race which informs the construction of both books’ subject matter especially within the spectacles of split patriotic consciousness. It is within this interest that I seek to unpack how issues of colonial pretense surface in both books as a defining narrative tool of both writers’ divided perception and reconstruction of patriotism to their respective audiences. To bring this to a narrow grounding I chose to identify how the two books reflect what I will refer to as the ‘Good Makhiwa mentality’ which in simple terms relates to racial tolerance as a tool for colonial pretense.
The pidgin phrase ‘Good Makhiwa’ was and is still colloquially exploited to refer to Whites (Makhiwa) perceived as less racially crude with less if not any exertion of racial prejudice to their colonised counterparts. It is in this context that such Whites would be spared the reputation of being regarded as the rest of their race who constituted the “Baas” (Boss) clique. My father tells me of one of his White superiors whom he classified as a ‘good makhiwa’ during his days in the accounts department at the Rhodesian Milling Company. This good makhiwa who was dad’s boss (Baas) at the Rhodesian Milling Company nicknamed himself after the male sexual organ.
So for the purposes of decency, instead of using the crude Ndebele term of his name I will call him ‘Baas Phallus’ (substitute that with the Ndebele name for a male sexual organ). In other cycles people like Baas Phallus who belonged to the Good Makhiwa clique were also referred to as “amakhiwa eNkosi”, God’s kind of White folks. The “amakhiwa eNkosi” phrase was also used to refer to missionaries and other clericals whom by virtue of being spiritual stewards of the colonial faith adopted by Africans as a way of life. Even in general conversation the phrase refers to Godly White men. The good makhiwa/ amakhiwa eNkosi were free from the burden of the blanket racial hatred channeled towards Whites by Blacks during the colonial era.
In the farms these were the generous farm overseers who had smooth working relations with field laborers. The phrase carries with it sentiments of socially constructed virtues attached to some White individuals for being colour-blind at a time skin-colour defined societal organisation. These are the kind of Whites who are said to have advanced the “good side” of colonialism. They are the Whites who are referred to when the need to destabilise narratives of Black marginalisation are raised. Such Whites are the justifications for racial reconciliation gospel which sidelines the ulterior motives of their interests in Black struggles. In the face of radical and highly institutionalised racism these are the Whites who reconstructed the idea of racial integration. Their association with those perceived as the “unwanted” in the colonial hierarchy of humanity made them to pose as humble, tolerant and humane before the sight of the marginalised African. In other words they were the epitome of Ubuntu. This is because they seemed to be more guided by values of respect to humanity than the colour of a man’s skin.
It is such White individuals whom in some instances would have conjugal affinity for Black men and woman. Some were liberal enough to venture into research on the culture and history of the colonised. In fact they became the curators the Black story. In light of this, in Zimbabwe we can refer to Terence Ranger, David Beach, Getrude Thompson and Brian Raftopolous to mention, but a few. Today they are used as the main references of the Zimbabwean nationalist narrative. Beyond these one can talk of White publishing houses dotted all over the continent purporting to promote issues of democracy through literature. In Zimbabwe one can refer to institutions like Weaver Press and amaBooks Publishers as these are White owned knowledge generation establishments. It is these publishing stables which contribute significantly in the contemporary narrative construction.
In some instances their agenda has been put into question as far to what extent they are genuinely aligned to the mandate of pure knowledge production with no hidden intentions to advance split patriotic consciousness. This follows their hyped emergence at a time Zimbabwe experienced the regime-change experience following the rise of the Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) at the nascent of the millennium. Actually, I borrow the phrase “good makhiwa” from the conversations I usually have with Jane Morris and her husband Brian, the co-publishers at amaBooks. I call them “good makhiwa” because of our long shared relationship founded on our mutual interests in literature. However, I forward this utterance in conversations with the two within limits of being comic other than in the interest of racial prejudice as it has been traditionally used.
The need to exploit the phrase in this analysis is grounded on how Msipa and Coltart capture the idea of White liberalism and its advantage in the colonial set-up. In the same light, this White liberalism transcends reference to individuals but to the institution of colonialism largely Rhodesia. It even gives a better explanation for what I have referred to earlier on as colonial pretense.
The good makhiwa mentality and patriotism to Rhodesia.
This mentality somehow purports that Rhodesia was a better colony in most White writings. Coltart (2016: 11-12) also states the same as he portrays Rhodesia as a good colony compared to other colonies that were under White rule which was not of British origin:
One stark fact, however, is that most of the construction was for the benefit of the White minority… Although most Black citizens of Southern Rhodesia (Zimbabwe), Northern Rhodesia (Zambia) and Nyasaland (Malawi) had more rights and better living conditions than those who lived under the increasingly authoritarian and harsh apartheid regime south of the Limpopo.
Such thinking advances the myth that Rhodesian rule was justified and better than other forms of colonialism in the continent. This can be better understood as a coloniality praise of a pretentious system which justifies the good makhiwa tag to Rhodesia as a colonial institution. In a similar manner this insinuates the “good makhiwa” attribute to Rhodesia’s image as it is used to describe individual colonial righteousness which needs to be understood with less certainty. As such Coltart advances modern allegiance to Rhodesia as a good makhiwa nation. However, considering that the country Rhodesia was named after a man glorifying it was synonymous with glorifying the person of Cecil John Rhodes. Glorifying Rhodes is glorifying human plunder. It is to glorify a hated form of capitalism that displaced the Africans for the betterment of the White race since the birth of the colonial project until this very day.
The above extract from Coltart’s book further offers a historical reflection of the hostile competition that existed among different colonisers of Africa. Each one of them viewed themselves as better than their other continental plunder counterpart. Probably Coltart’s submission could have worked better as a tourist marketing statement during the days of Rhodesia. It would be a good marketing statement on the habitable aspects of Rhodesia than any colony in Africa to invite more White looters and exploiters to the good makhiwa nation.
This is because White occupation of Africa was based on proving how one group of colonisers was a good makhiwa clique compared to the other. Moreover, this explains Coltart’s comparison of Rhodesian colonialism with that of the Boers in South-Africa. The claim suggests an undying level of patriotism to Rhodesia which he could not omit in the memoir of his life. It overwhelmingly categorises evil insinuating that there is less evil than the other. There is no legitimacy of glorifying a collective evil just because of its varying degree of oppression. Apparently this is what Coltart presents to us in his much glorified book that some Africans are busy defending. I don’t know probably I am reading too much into nothing.
Unpacking the racial liberalism through the person of Garfield Todd
Msipa (2016) and Coltart (2016) further submit the idea of Garfield Todd as a champion of racial tolerance. Todd established himself as a distinguished educationist resulting in being knighted by the Queen of England for his service to Africa. In both memoirs he is appraised for his aspirations to “advance” Africans and he believed this could only be achieved through education. The idea of “advancing” Africans is in itself problematic because it suggests a level of African backwardness redeemed through White philanthropy. As a result, this can be said to be one of the reasons why the good makhiwa tag can be attributed to Todd as one reads the two books.
However, one omission of both writers is that they miss that our lack of advancement as a race was colonially constructed. Therefore the role of people like Todd can stand to be questioned. This is because the education he is praised for giving to Africans was somehow advancing the colonial system’s labour hunger in industry and commerce. As both writers present their cases they ignore that Todd also merged benevolence with political interests. This way he was able to win the support of many Africans in the political arena. In 1953 he became Prime-minister in Rhodesia. This further explains why he was an opposition political leader after the ban of the nationalist parties. David Whitehead was another opponent of the Rhodesian Front.
This summarises how White liberals also had political interests in the country as they equally presented themselves as purely benevolent humanitarians.
While it is prudent to argue that White liberals were only guided by humanitarian virtues it is also important to also highlight the other hidden intentions of their benevolence. For instance, it is clear that the entry of people like Todd into mainstream politics was not only for the defence of the interests of marginalised Africans. It might not be wrong to also think that Todd’s entry into politics, as presented by Msipa (2016) was to manipulate the numbers of Africans through the ballot to serve White interests. This requires us to be careful on what we view as benevolence, moreover to be careful not to be deceived to think that self-interest of other races is the solution to our problems.
Coltart as an epitome of the good makhiwa mentality
The idea of spreading the good makhiwa mentality is manifest in Coltart’s self-portrayal as a benevolent individual who rendered his expertise to peace-building during the turbulent era of the Gukurahundi. What is worth noting in Coltart’s memoir is that his legal aid to ZAPU cadres seems to have been for political expedience than it served a humanitarian agenda. This is not so different from the good makhiwa agenda supplied through donor funds to influence political happenings in the continent through the recent massively closing NGOs and petty ideologised opposition parties in Zimbabwe.
Richard Runyararo Mahomva is an independent academic researcher, Founder of Leaders for Africa Network — LAN. Convener of the Back to Pan-Africanism Conference and the Reading Pan-Africa Symposium (REPS) and can be contacted on [email protected]
