By T. Zhou and B. Maregedze*
The key issue is to draw lessons from the
origins and migrations of the Ndebele until their eventual establishment in the
South Western parts of Zimbabwe. In other words, at A Level, this is not the time
to merely narrate the course of events in Mzilikazi’s migration with the
Ndebele from South Africa. Rather, it’s time to reflect on those narratives and
draw lessons. A competent student could be quickly reminded of the various
myths about the Ndebele state during this period of migration and lead the
readers into the ‘actual realities’ about the Ndebele. This is the
interpretation that is going to be used in this essay. That, however, is not
the only way to interpret this question. It is only important that at the end
of the essay, there must be important lessons learnt out of tracing Ndebele
origins and migration.
Poor essays often come out as a result of
focusing on over dwelling on routes taken by Mzilikazi and the Ndebele people
and the various course of events during this migration. These are the types of
essays by which even Ordinary level students are familiar with since they are
in most cases narrative in form. At Advanced level, students must participate
in some of the contemporary debates surrounding Ndebele migration. While using
the sequential approach or integration approach could be one’s own choice,
integration produces the best answers. In this essay, the sequential method
shall be used to bring more clarity to each individual point raised.
Early in the 1820s, Mzilikazi and his
followers fled from Tshaka in Nguniland to establish themselves as the Ndebele
State in South West of Zimbabwe after a decade long migration. This migration
has created some of the durable myths about the Ndebele which have lived up to
this day. In terms of historical sources, this period is mostly covered by
written sources from missionaries, hunters, explorers, concession seekers and
traders. As a unique lesson, the reliability of written sources used in the
reconstruction of Zimbabwean history shall be put to test citing this
particular era. In addition, some long held traditions about the Ndebele at
this period of state formation shall be revisited to bring forth the realities.
These include those that portray Mzilikazi as a rebellious character founding
his state solely under ambitions of power. From Nguniland to Bulawayo, the
Ndebele are portrayed as blood thirsty aggressors with no due regard for human
life. Lastly, it is held that the Ndebele state was founded solely on conquests
and involuntary submissions, clearly making the Ndebele a militaristic people.
However, in this essay, it shall be argued
that written sources are a significant part to the history of this period, though
they should be used with a critical eye. Right from their origins and
migration, it is evident that the Ndebele were equally victims of aggression.
Finally, while conquests had their own share in founding the state, peaceful
methods of nation building used by Mzilikazi have often been ignored.
Image: Queen Lozikeyi Dlodlo with other Ndebele women
One importance of the Ndebele migration is
that it clearly reveals the extent to which written sources are useful in the
reconstruction of Zimbabwean history. Documents from missionaries, traders,
hunters, concession seekers and explorers dominate the reconstruction of the
Ndebele history. For several reasons, they have created some of the long-lasting
myths about the Ndebele state formation and migration. For instance, in order
to hide their illicit activities like raiding for cheap unpaid labour among
locals, early white writers heaped the blame on the Mfecane and violent
disorders in South Africa on Tshaka and like- minded locals like Mzilikazi.
Such raids also included men of cloth who were part of the London Missionary
Society. Portraying the violent nature of local political leaders was also
suitable for colonialists who wanted to justify colonialism. This is because
they argued that Africans had loose rights to their land since most of them
were in ceaseless migrations, hence at the time of occupying territory in South
Africa, most areas were uninhabited. Across the Limpopo, myths on the Ndebele
in written sources served other purposes. First, the BSAC found it easier to
invade the Ndebele after clearly illustrating that they were dealing with a militaristic
and violent state which was like that right from the beginning. Secondly,
missionaries also wanted to vindicate failure of their missions on the Ndebele.
Thus, according to Ndlovu-Gatsheni, the missionary Robert Moffat branded the
Ndebele people as ‘violent and brutal;’ the Ndebele King as a ‘powerful,
despotic and a dictatorial leader;’ the Ndebele soldiers as ‘bloodthirsty
destroyers of human life;’ and the areas around the Ndebele settlements as
characterized by ‘destruction, desolation and depopulation.’ His son John
Moffat also claimed, 'Umpanda is the king of the Zulus near Natal, and of his
government Moselekatse's (Mzilikazi’s) is an exact copy', before he had even
entered the Ndebele country. Thus, it is important to understand the shortfalls
of the written sources used in the reconstruction of Ndebele history before
more lessons are drawn from the origins and migration of the Ndebele.
First, there is a long-established
tradition that the Ndebele owe their origins to an act of defiance by
Mzilikazi, who refused to surrender to Tshaka the loot from a raiding
expedition. It portrays Mzilikazi as a political fugitive who connived with his
relatives and soldiers to into a political coup because he had hidden political
ambitions to rebel against his king. It seeks to portray Mzilikazi as an
ambitious leader rebelling against a legitimate government in pursuit of his
selfish political destiny. However,
Mzilikazi’s flight from Tshaka could better be understood as an act of defence
rather than political selfishness. According to Doyle, by challenging Tshaka,
Mzilikazi was not demanding what was not legally his. Mzilikazi was the
legitimate heir to the throne after the assassination of his father,
Matshobana, but was only too young to rule. Even a regent king who immediately
occupied the throne temporarily confirmed, ‘the king is the child of
Matshobana, I am holding him till he can walk. A king is king because he is
born one. I was not born a king, therefore cannot be one. Let us salute the son
of Matshobana who is our king!’ However, the throne was soon grabbed by Tshaka,
who declared that ‘no king was king unless he won his throne by an assegai’ and
went ahead to destroy all his rivals opposed to his assumption of power, but
spared Mzilikazi. Clearly, the flight of Mzilikazi from Zululand was not a mere
act of civil disobedience, but an attempt to avoid a political dispute with
Tshaka whose results were predictably disastrous. Soon, the Khumalos and other
clans who greatly upheld the right of Mzilikazi to rule rallied behind him to
form a group of about 12000 who were ready to break ranks with Tshaka and
migrate for their own safety. The long-held tradition that Mzilikazi’s flight
was largely driven by civil disobedience is therefore debatable.
During their migration to South West
Zimbabwe, Mzilikazi and his Ndebele have earned such titles as ‘blood thirsty
destroyers of human life’ for carrying with them ‘a devastating warfare as well
as stressful state formation to the Transvaal highlands and beyond’. Such
narratives contributed to the long-held legends that the Ndebele state was
formed out of military aggression and the Ndebele were always perpetrators of
aggression. The migration from Zululand is treated as one whole expedition
where a ‘blood-thirsty’ political leader was on the loose to inflict pain on
other tribes and forcibly incorporate them into his empire. All other people
are portrayed as victims to Mzilikazi’s militaristic state, as they were left
in a state of vanquish while their resources and populations were absorbed into
the Ndebele empire. This, however, is despite that Mzilikazi and his people
were also victims to Tshaka’s continued attacks, hence the northward migration
was a defence mechanism. The Ndebele were further also victims of attack from
the Afrikaaners for two major reasons. Firstly, Afrikaaners used to raid local
Africans to get slave labour urgently needed in the Cape colony plantations and
those in Mozambique. Secondly, by absorbing and protecting other weaker local
groups from white raids, they automatically invited trouble upon themselves,
and one defensive solution was to migrate further northwards. Therefore, a
revisit of the Ndebele migration narratives is important as it corrects some of
the conservative myths about the Ndebele.
During their migration to South West
Zimbabwe, Mzilikazi and his Ndebele earned such titles as ‘blood thirsty
destroyers of human life’ for carrying with them ‘a devastating warfare as well
as stressful state formation to the Transvaal highlands and beyond.’ Such
narratives contributed to the conservative legends that the Ndebele state was
formed out of only military aggression where the Ndebele were always
perpetrators of aggression. The migration from Zululand is treated as one whole
expedition where a ‘blood thirsty’ political leader was on the loose to inflict
pain on other tribes and forcibly incorporate them into his empire. All other
tribes are portrayed as victims to Mzilikazi’s militaristic state, as they were
left in a state of vanquish while their resources and populations were absorbed
into the Ndebele empire. This, however, is despite that Mzilikazi and his
people were also victims to Tshaka’s continued attacks, hence the northward migration
was a defense mechanism. The Ndebele were further also victims of attack from
the Afrikaaners for two major reasons. Firstly, Afrikaaners used to raid local
Africans to get slave labour urgently needed in the Cape colony plantations and
those in Mozambique. Secondly, by absorbing and protecting other weaker local
groups from white raids, they automatically invited trouble upon themselves,
and one defensive solution was to migrate further northwards. Therefore, a
revisit of the Ndebele migration narratives is important as it corrects some of
the long-held myths about the Ndebele.
Peaceful mechanisms of Ndebele state
building have often been ignored in Ndebele state formation as writers mostly
portrayed the Ndebele as a state formed by conquest. Thus, Doyle wrote, ‘I
would ask you to look back at their history, since their flight from Zululand.
At Magaliesberg, the country was depopulated by them. At Marico, they found the
natives populating large towns and extensively cultivating. They left it a desert.
The whole career of the people is marked by deeds of carnage, blood and robbery.’
However, what is more evident is that the Ndebele was one local group which was
more resistant to the white men's raids. Most local groups came to acknowledge
this fact and how they could benefit from the Ndebele who offered security to
local weaker groups. Thus, some areas were ‘left a desert’ not because of
conquests, but by voluntary submission to a military leader offering better
prospects of security from white raids. The Swazi, Tonga, Pedi, Tswana and
Sotho are perfect examples of groups who voluntarily joined the Ndebele to
benefit from security from white raids. Mzilikazi even took a Swazi wife on the
way, who became mother to Lobengula, his successor. At one point, the Swazi
alerted Mzilikazi at the earliest intelligence that Tshaka had sent soldiers to
punish him, indicating the cordial relations he had with them, and why they too
chose to be part of the Ndebele migration. It is thus important to realise that
the Ndebele state formation included peaceful means which some written sources
partly ignored.
After a long migration, their eventual
establishment in the Rozvi territory offers yet another perfect case to clarify
some of the myths and legends about the Ndebele. Ranger cited a colonial
officer who claimed that since their arrival in Zimbabwe, the ‘Ndebele had
killed 100,000 Shonas during the last 70 years; this estimate having been
arrived at on the basis of the very large number of deserted villages and
deserted valleys’. However, a revisit of the same narratives would show that by
the time the Ndebele arrived in South West of Zimbabwe, the Rozvi had become a
shell of itself. According to Doyle, the locals (Rozvi) had been subjected to a
series of about five groups that ‘destroyed everything before them, killing
men, spearing women, burning houses and tossing children to the flames’
rendering the country ‘uninhabited and desolate.’ The small population
remaining was therefore glad to pay homage to Mzilikazi’s Ndebele, given the
terrible experience they had undergone in the recent past. Local groups were
soon assimilated into this new empire, while unfriendly chiefdoms were attacked
as a way to improve security in the middle of hostile neighbours. Mzilikazi
further went ahead to forge relations with locals by marriages and cattle
loaning. In the long run, he was not only the victor in wars between himself
and the locals but was sometimes at the receiving end. Such an image of the
Ndebele is not learnt from Eurocentric writers at that moment who wanted to
paint the picture that the arrival of the Ndebele had dire consequences for the
local Rozvi. Instead, Friedrick Selous claimed that the Mashona became,
‘scattered all over the country without any central government… and very soon,
every stream in their country ran red with their blood, while vultures and
hyenas feasted undisturbed amidst the ruins of their devastated homes. Their
cattle sheep and goats were driven off by their conquerors and their
children…were taken for slaves. In a few years, there will be no Mashonas left
in the open country’. That this was a clear fabrication for a purpose can be
estimated from Hartmann’s claim, ‘I hear it often times said that if the white
men do not protect them (Shona), they will emigrate from the country’.
In
conclusion, Ndebele
origins and migrations are important in the reconstruction of Zimbabwean
history. They expose the dangers of over relying on written sources which were
predominantly Eurocentric in approach. A revisit on the same historical
narratives is important since it has changed some of the longstanding myths
about them. Firstly, circumstances leading to Mzilikazi’s rebellion no longer
show that he was mostly pushed by political greedy. His migration from Zulu
land then to present day Zimbabwe was a defensive expedition where he sometimes
had to fight in order to survive threatening circumstances. State formation was
therefore not only hinged on conflict and conquest, but by also non-violent
methods. The case of the Rozvi who were found in South West of Zimbabwe offers
a perfect example from which some of these lessons about the Ndebele can be
drawn.
Next article: Discuss the view that the
Torwa State was an offshoot of Great Zimbabwe.
Mr. T. Zhou is a History teacher at Highfield high 1
school. B.A. Honours degree in History and Development studies & Master of
Philosophy in history. WhatsApp / call +263 773 612 250
Brian Maregedze is an Academic Tutor at CMK
Study Centre, Johannesburg South Africa (you can visit the website www.cmkcoe.co.za). Email; bmaregedze@gmail.com
Answers from the upcoming book:
‘A’ LEVEL ZIMBABWEAN HISTORY
Pending publication by GRAMSOL BOOKS
HARARE
© 2020 T. Zhou and B. Maregedze
