Rhodesia Was a Reluctant Midwife To Zimbabwe And Zambia: Case Study

This region had what was known as North and South Rhodesia. North Rhodesia became Zambia, Zimbabwe became South Rhodesia or simply Rhodesia.

It is said that Rhodesia was the jewel of Africa before it became Zambia and Zimbabwe.

But why would a jewel end up split into two different countries and Blacks agitated for independence after over 70 years living under the leadership of Whites? To the white Rhodesians, Black Africans were a "fog of war."

There are durable development outcomes that non-Whites achieved after interacting with Whites who came with an incentivized goodwill disposition.

However, consciousness of exploitation, disaffection and the desire for fullest citizenship among those considered as "inferiors" led to war against "superiors" who expected deferment. The Christian teaching of 'turning the other cheek' or having heads bowed in supplication made no sense while one's livelihood suffered.

Democratization and statehood-especially under the Westphalian model calls for all citizens to enjoy full citizenship. But, in case of Rhodesia, few enjoyed it. It is only those few who were able to determine, own, claim and use it to negotiate social mobility.

Language in Rhodesia was used/crafted to reflect and reinforce Black/Brown and White divides or sameness (peripheralization and centralization powerplay/Superior-inferior relations or dichotomies, racism and colourism).

Whites justified their presence in Rhodesia as a manifest destiny that was bestowed Divinely. The Africans must have asked what kind of God gives the few and deprived the many.

There was talk that it was the Khoisan who by all means were supposed to complain. Because, it was argued that all other tribes came after and killed them. Such arguments are applied to justify land grabbing and narratives geared at distorting African stories. The modern caucasians replaced Neanderthals and indigenous Romans. In many cases brutally. But, these genocides are not mentioned.

It was justified that Whites killing Africans as a way to gain land rights should therefore not be seen as a problem. Who reserves the right to silence genocides or report them? Who decides the statute of limitation when it comes to genocides? When the Belgians, Germans, Spanish, British and Anglo-Saxon Americans were involved in genocides in the name of colonization, who deserved to constitute a restitution court?

Counter measures to regain land and other activities by Africans can be seen as efforts toward self determination. These were seen as counterproductive to the goals of White people. It would reverse the culture of ownership of land, use of land and private property ownership. This very notion pushed many Africans off the land. The ratio of people to very productive land in Rhodesia showed different figures per race.

Land was not bought by those who claimed it was their private property. Whites utilized the notion of property to make so many collateral claims and used such to access credit. But, this opportunity was not made known to all sides. Nor was the concept of labour and value addition that led to claims to property. Law was used to make property ownership and was to the advantage of White people. The best practice would have been justly levelling the playing field as well as educate those who never had the wit or insight.

Social welfare services were not well spread out in states that had full or near apartheid. Yet, the mineral resources or any other products were sold on the market under the flag of that given state.

The Rhodesian Government subsidized labour but it was Whites who benefited most from these subsidies. They benefited more from the profits even after it was known that the government was representing all people.

People were defined as Rhodesian and Africans! So, it clearly meant there were two classes of citizenship. There were those who had fullest citizenship.

An analysis of White leadership in Rhodesia since 1899-1970 measured (operationalized) along these basic needs: Housing, Food, Education, Health and Jobs, gives one a scenario that prevailed for Africans. Generally, critical outcomes in form of: empowering language/narrative as opposed to deficit/disempowering narratives; progression to mass production; social mobility; reproducibility; reciprocity and sustenance were enjoyed by White more than Blacks.

In the 70 years of White rule, very few Black or Brown people were allowed to follow the same paths through development progression like White counterparts. From the time Whites came to Rhodesia to present day Zimbabwe/Zambia, such descriptors like "Rhodesians" and "Black Africans" were in use side by side with "civilized people." On paper there were some esteemable aspirations.

It should also be noted that the spirit of the Rhodesian Constitution called for equality and that, character and not colour or origins were the eligibility criteria to say serving in government or accessing, say, the Rhodes Scholarships.

The landholding agreement to release land into the hands of Africans stipulated up to 50% as well as many other developments.

People, status, organization, labour, production, class, property ownership, privilege and citizenship are good dimensions to use to gauge development outcomes. When it comes to people in a diverse country like the then Rhodesia, one easily notes the more privileged enjoying benefits even when there are designs on paper to redistribute services.

It was possible to make a head count of who were more well off than others by numbers and population category.

When it came to labour or employment, the labour contract laws in place ensuring safety, health, insurance, dignity, pay, training and bonuses benefited Whites.

The Rhodesian government deliberately used policy to create middle-class, working class and made sure classes were a means for self-reliance for Whites but stations of stagnation of Black people.

When it came to electing governments, not all people were educated so that they were in position to formulate ideas, debate and then exercise their one vote/one person right.

In Rhodesia, not all people were Rhodesians by law. So the constant reminders of two different classes with two different forms of dignity dispensation led to agitation.

It is no wonder Black Africans agitated for the creation of Zambia and Zimbabwe. Resistance against Whites was not because Whites were inherently bad people. It was because they continued to concentrate so much privilege including social mobility and property ownership around themselves and a few Black/Brown who were buffers against the larger Black/Brown majority.