Murder of Missionaries in Rhodesia
This post deals with this text from Dzimbanhete's article:
Missionary murders rang a bell; and lo and behold, a bit more than three years ago, I'd downloaded the report he cited. It's still there:The balance of probability points to the Rhodesian Selous Scouts as being responsible for the murder. It was very likely that the Rhodesian Selous Scouts were responsible for the murder of white missionaries at rural outposts and rural African businessmen.[5]
[5] The Rhodesian Ministry of Information, Tourism and Immigration published a pamphlet in July 1978 in which the description of the murders is given.
The report recites a dozen incidents (most with multiple victims). All eyewitnesses identified the attackers as "guerrillas" or "terrorists". In addition, forensic evidence existed such as this:
The report (no surprise, since it is a government report) presents no evidence (much less "the balance of probability" or "very likely") that the Selous Scouts were responsible for the murders. Thus, so far as this particular text and footnote by Dzimbanhete is concerned, a fact checker could say "pants on fire."Chief Inspector David Perkins, a ballistics expert with the British South Africa Police at the time of Musami Mission massacre of February 7, 1977, testified at the inquest that an AK rifle bearing the number 3036, of North Korean manufacture, had been proved under microscopic examination to be one of the weapons used in the slaying.
A notebook found on the body of a terrorist, Mombi Macheni, contained the following passage:
On Sunday the day of 6/2/77 we went to Musami at St Paul's Mission. We reached there at 9.15 and we had a storming raid. We shot four Europeans who were priests. Sisters were five, and altogether there were nine, eight dead.
We took a watch only. No comrades were injured in the action.
On the same day we went to Mazvidva and killed informers, kraalhead and the other one. This was 12.15, then we went.
Nobody was injured. We were very happy.
The entry in the notebook was signed by "No Talks" Mabhena. Beside his name was the number 3036.
What we do find in the report and elsewhere are claims by the Patriotic Front leadership that Rhodesian security forces committed the ca. 1976-1978 murders of white missionaries and black kraal leaders. One media outlet, quite independent of the government, is the Catholic Herald Co. UK archive (cited in this and the next post on Berejena Mission). In any Catholic Herald archive, you can hit "zoom page" for a blowup of the original column allowing correction of some bad OCRing by the archivist.
One might well question Mugabe's credibility in 1978, given his track record after 1978 to date. In fact, that is exactly what some South Africans are doing.We didn't kill priests says Front
17th March 1978
THE Patriotic Front Leaders, Robert Mugabe and Joshua Nkomo have vigorously denied that their forces fighting in Rhodesia have attacked missionaries or are against the church in any way.
In an interview with the Catholic Herald on Wednesday Mr Mugabe said his ZANLA forces were specifically instructed not to harm missionaries but to regard them as their friends. "The missionaries are first and foremost working for the people and to work against them is obviously to work against the people they serve."
Mr Mugabe explained that ZANLA did not use violence against local Africans to gain support he said his forces used education and persuasion even if assistance was refused to the guerillas.
He strongly denied that his forces had been involved in the killing of missionaries at Lupane in 1976 and Musami in 1977.
...
Mr Nkomo said that the freedom fighters had been told not to harm the missionaries. "I have broadcast that message myself," he said.
He described as nonsense and absolute rubbish allegations that the Patriotic Front was anti-Christian or anti-missionary. "The stand which the Catholic bishops have taken against the Smith regime has alienated them from the regime and it has retaliated by deliberately punishing them. It has then tried to blame it on the guerrillas."
Mr Nkomo did admit that there might be one or two "unruly people" amongst the guerrillas but he promised that they would be punished by demotion or fatigues or some other method.
Becoming Zimbabwe (2009; Institute for Justice and Reconciliation). Here's some snippage:
The book is B. Raftopoulos and A. S. Mlambo (eds), Becoming Zimbabwe. A History, c. 850–2009, Harare, Weaver Press, 2009.This report provides a complimentary aspect to "Becoming Zimbabwe" by posing a general critique of history teaching and curriculum in Zimbabwe. It attempts to enhance the book’s use, and serves as an educational tool at secondary and higher levels for comparison and analysis of history teaching and curriculum in Zimbabwe. The report also provides an outline of the kinds of historical texts and narratives on Zimbabwe, and how they are taught within Zimbabwean technical colleges and universities. The supplement therefore provides an overview of history teaching in Zimbabwe in relation to the content and focus of "Becoming Zimbabwe".
Back to the report and the literary genre inspired by Mugabe. Chapter I deals with the uses of liberation history in Zimbabwean politics, as exemplified by Mugabe's and ZANU PF's "Patriotic History" (snips):
To me, Dzimbanhete's article fits into the "Patriotic History" genre, which itself is a part of the nationalistic "freedom fighter" and "freedom violence" narrative. I have no idea whether the man is a Mugabe supporter or not.Patriotic History proclaims ZANU PF as the alpha and omega of Zimbabwe’s past, present and future. Zimbabweans are encouraged to be ‘patriotic’, which means supporting ZANU PF.
Anything short of this is considered ‘unpatriotic’.
Patriotic History has four main themes:
1. land;
2. no external interference based on ‘Western ideals’ such as human rights;
3. race; and
4. a ‘patriots’ versus ‘sell-outs’ distinction.
...
‘Patriots’ versus ‘sell-outs’
Lastly, Patriotic History separates Zimbabweans into ‘patriots’ and ‘sell-outs’, such that opponents to ZANU PF are necessarily classified as ‘pro-colonial’, ‘sell-outs’, ‘un-African’, and ‘puppets’, while followers of ZANU PF are categorised as ‘patriots’. The patriots and sell-outs distinction is extended to the rest of the globe. External critics of ZANU PF are typecast as ‘foes’ of black Africa.
The distinction has its genesis in late 1950s urban politics and has been a constant premise in nationalist politics since. The denotation of ‘sell-out’ changes over time depending on the character of a challenger. To be a ‘sell-out’ during the liberation war was to be an informant of the colonial Rhodesian state and to support a rival nationalist party. To be a ‘sell-out’ after 2000 is to abandon ZANU PF’s ‘central’ role in nationalist history, to resist the land seizures, and to value civil and political rights over economic rights.
Patriotic History is a sophisticated narrative that plays on real historical grievances such as land. Indeed it is more than a narrative. It is part of a political culture that legitimises violence, and inhibits political tolerance, civil and political rights, and democracy.
Here is the abstract for his 2012 article about the armed liberation struggle:
My next post will deal with a less clear-cut set of facts, Berejena Mission.Title: ‘I died for this country’: National Heritage and Zimbabwe’s War of Liberation
Abstract
What legacies make the Zimbabwean war of independence a national heritage?
The significance of posing this question cannot be overemphasised. There is an explosion of current and dominant narratives of the war whose sentiment is that the people who died during and because of the liberation struggle made sacrifices that bequeathed national heritage status to Zimbabwe’s war of liberation. The same perspective stresses that sacrifices were a monopoly of the people who ‘jumped the borders’ out of colonial Rhodesia during the war years. The same body of narratives attaches prominence to the inaccurate but deliberate definition of the terms, ‘deserters and sell outs’ in the process of appropriating the Zimbabwean armed independence struggle for particular groups of people.
This paper seeks to show that the co-operation and unity between the armed liberation fighters and the povho (the black civilian population in the war zones) during the period of the war constitutes an impressive legacy of Zimbabwe’s war of liberation. The cordial relationship, a product of a shared political goal, manifested in the collaboration between the freedom fighters and their hosts, confers national heritage status to the war. This study revisits this aspect of Zimbabwe’s liberation war and examines the contribution of various categories of the African population.
The paper thus challenges perspectives that privilege a single category of the participants of the war and also overemphasise death as the only notable sacrifice made during the decolonisation process of Zimbabwe. Furthermore, the article demonstrates that sacrifices during the armed struggle were not a monopoly of any one group.
Regards
Mike
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks