A Response to Petros Joseph Dude's Article: Matebeleland Was Never a Land of Shonas

A RESPONSE TO PETROS JOSEPH DUDE'S ARTICLE : MATEBELELAND WAS NEVER A LAND OF SHONAS.
1. To Mr J.P.Dube let's say you are right, and Matebeleland was never a land of the Shonas as you suggested. The question is: How is it going to change the geopolitical landscape of what we call Zimbabwe now?. Ndebeles since 1894 have been writing small notes to the British and even as recently as 2010 when a Governor (name withheld) in Matabeleland wrote to the British government asking for help to have Matabeleland be separated from Zimbabwe, the British government responded thus:"... Zimbabwe is an independent state and as the British we no longer have any influence on what they do or don't do..." he was told to refer with the Zimbabwean government. That was egg on the face right there , the fact is Britain can no longer dictate policy to the Zimbabwean government, and  so the Mthwakazi agenda will never be solved by Britain.

Zimbabwe is what it is today; nothing more and nothing less. And anyone who says contrary is a separatist simple and klaar.

2. I don't want to dwell too much into history so i will just "drive through" historical events.

Zimbabwe has seen many kingdoms rise and fall...from the Mambo's, Mutapa's, Rozvi's, and the Ndebele kingdom, etc. All these kingdoms would displace one another with the winner taking all. When the Ndebeles took over from the Mambos ,they by default took all the territories under the Mambo empire ( all the people and lands who once paid homage and tribute to the mambos had to also surrender or face war ) do you follow me so far .This is truth , and we have all accepted that Zimbabwe (yes Matabeleland and Mashonaland) at one time was ruled by Ndebeles (Lobengula and Mzilikazi to be precise);can we deny in all honesty that shonas were subjects of Mzilikazi , and that they were part of the amahole rank and file?;howbeit in a much disgusted and inferior way. No Shona and no Ndebele can dispute this, am I right? Some will argue that Shonas were never involved in geopolitical life of the Ndebele kingdom ,and thus were not part of Amahole ; that is a very good observation.

But i have a question. (A)What is an empire ?, and
                                   (B) Was the Ndebele creation by Mzilikazi in now Zimbabwe a state/kingdom or an Empire?  
Answer to A: "What is an empire" According to Wikipedia : An empire is defined as " an aggregate of nations or people ruled over by an emperor or other powerful sovereign or government ,usually a territory of greater extent than a kingdom...an empire can be made of contiguous territories (meaning countries which share a border or close knit) or territories far remote  ..."  
Answer to B:The creation by Mzilikazi was an empire .Hold on class , when Mzilikazi escaped from Tshaka ,he settled in now Zimbabwe and made a kingdom with the Pedi, Xhosa and Tshwana he militarily dominated. When he took over the Bakalanga state and destroyed it he thus expanded his sphere of influence over the whole Matabeleland territories. When he conquered the Shonas(or should we say when they willingly surrendered) Mashonaland too became its territory.Facts don't lie.
According to Wikipedia:"An imperial political structure can be established and maintained in two ways : (i) as a territorial empire of direct conquest and control (such the control of Bakalanga territories were Mzilikazi put his own Abazansi chiefs to control the territory) ,or (ii) as a coercive ,hegemonic empire of indirect conquest and control with power ( this is how Lobengula and Mzilikazi controlled Mashonaland).In Mashonaland Mzilikazi and lobengula controlled the areas using both direct control (at first) ,then indirect control were he simply put pressure on the subject chiefs and they in turn would force their people to comply .At times Lobengula would even play a more direct approach ,and many times he would install chiefs he favoured and have his "5th brigade" his impis assassinate the other prospective chiefs.
So we are saying from as far as Harare now and even further Shonas paid tribute to Ndebeles because they ruled and owned/controlled this state we now call Zimbabwe (Amashonas or Amasvinas  as the Shonas were called were serfs to the  Ndebele empire).The Bakalanga people surrendered and also paid tribute to the Ndebele empire and were part of the Ama-hole.I hope I haven't lost you!
My point 1:is if we all agree that the Ndebele created a kingdom ,which then became an empire inclusive of Mashonaland et al , how then can we say we are not one country?
My point 2: if Mambo's colonized others ,and created a kingdom...we all accept....and Ndebeles destroyed the Mambo kingdom, again we all accept, and built their Ndebele kingdom , Rhodesian kingdom came destroyed the Ndebele kingdom ,and now the Shona kingdom destroyed the Rhodesia kingdom and bulit the Zimbabwean kingdom how then do we not accept the Zimbabwean kingdom? Please tell me the difference between the Ndebele Kingdom and the Rhodesian Kingdom ? ,absolutelty nothing.There is no difference what so ever , each kingdom came and plundered, this is true of the Mambo ,Rozvi, Mutapa ,Ndebele ,Rhodesian and now Zimbabwean kingdoms.The reason We dont recognise Rhodesia as a legitimate kingdom is because of bigotry ,racism ; they were whites we were black.But Rhodesians were foreigners ,just like the Ndebeles,the Shonas,the Bukalangas , we are all foreigners to this Land ,who has the title deeds to Zimbabwe? How can someone say :.no it was ok for Lobengula to call it his country , from the Limpopo to the north of Zimbabwe , yet we all know Lobengula was never a citizen of Zimbabwe, but a foreign migrant , yet say its wrong for the government now to call Zimbabwe its country from Limpopo to the North of Zimbabwe. We all know the Bukalangas just like the Shonas also are settled migrants who came from Central and East Africa .My point being ,kingdoms come and go ,and it doesn't matter who created what ,because the plateau we now call Zimbabwe has always sticked together and we have seen these kingdoms fall and rise.

So i have just established that Lobengula created a state, then an empire  (as we all agree) , but wait ! Lobengula never settled in Mashonaland so how can we say Mashonaland was part of the Ndebele .empire Good question , in the game of empires an empire is not created because the people who rule settle in it , come on did Lobengula settle in Binga? , Or In Gokwe ? No, for an empire to be an empire a ruler merely has to exert authority, isn't that true? At times some territories are even left to run their own line of politics, but yet answerable to the King of Kings or Emperor, historians am i correct?

My point is whether or not Shonas ever settled in Matabeleland is of no importance when trying to prove that Matebeleland and Mashonaland should be separate states. Lobengula never settled in Mashonaland, but yet he claimed it was his; why? because he controlled the territory and its people.

To be fair let us ask  Lobengula what he thought of Mashonaland.Well :one of Lobengula's most trusted general was sent to Cape Town so that he could have an understanding with the High commissioner over issues happening in Matebeleland and Mashonaland.. . when the great impi general was  asked about Mashonas and mashonaland ,he said " who are the Shonas? ,What can the Shonas do without my king Lobengula?"...it was that statement that cemented Mashonaland and Matebeleland as one country to the British,but that statement only gave the British the testament it needed , the statement didn't create an empire NO, the empire was already there although now weakened . why? Because Lobengula controlled and dominanted Mashonas and even their politics , so there is no way any self respecting historian can claim Mashonas and Mashonaland were not under the Ndebele empire. The British got their evidence and made good there looting of both territories.

A question?, what would Lobengula had done if the Mashonas in Mashonaland were attacked by a new warlord? , who wanted to control Mashona territories (excluding whites)?
So boys and girls there we have it , in the game of thrones it's not about were originally people settled or come from, or who  originally owned this or that, it's what the new kingdom (in modern day they call them governments) can enforce simple
I have a question was Mashonaland a territory of the Ndebeles empire?
Answer: yes it was. How so?
Look at the early stages Ndebeles would  raid Amasvinas ,but as time went by this stopped, because the Ndebeles had put enough fear into them and had managed to ensure that the political system of the Shonas would  submit and get with the program. It's safe to say Mashonaland was Matebeles food life line. Look Ndebeles were never farmers and didn't have the skills acquired by Shonas, and even if they did have the farming skills Matebeleland is not an agro region. So Ndebeles depended on Mashonaland for most of their food. Mind you this wasn't a trade, Mashonas just like: Bakalangas or Binga people had to give tribute to the king, yes Lobengula was king over all. So if we can all agree class.... let's say it together..." Lobengula made the kingdom of Zimbabwe possible"...again class...

3 Joseph Petros Ncube says, Matabeleland was never land of the Mashonas.
It's funny how some Ndebeles now will claim they ruled Mthwakazi only, but history and evidence shows they controlled up north too, but some will seek to distort history in order  to limit the Ndebele sphere of influence just for selfish  reasons.

It is also funny that Matebeles when it suited them (when Lobengula was around ) and they were in charge of both territories ,they claimed Mashonaland for themselves and claimed it as theirs. But now ,because the Amasvina are in charge ,and the kingdom mostly dominated by  Amasvina is  now ruling, they Ndebeles  claim ignorance and  they now want to disassociate themselves with it. This for selfish, and cowardly reasons of course. But we are not fooled.
Well my Matebele friends ,if it was good for Mashonaland to be your protectorate and your territory then, it's also good now. To the Bakalanga , when the Shonas came into Zimbabwe you gave them a place up north ,meaning you regarded it as your territory ;else why would you give someone land that is not yours. So since Shonas became part of your territory, under your kingdom. And we know your kingdom was taken over by Ndebeles, so it stands to good reason we are one country doesn't it. Remember once a kingdom is conquered all its territories pass to the new kingdom.

In the games of kingdoms and empires there is no such thing as the original owners....no! What matters is who is able to exert authority ,that is why Shonas, Bakalangas, Tonga, Nambya etc  surrendered their land, political power ,farm produce and even children to the Ndebeles. So it is today kids, the Zimbabwean kingdom is the new kingdom.Just like the Bakalanga,and Ndebele empire/kingdom.

3.The author is very mischievous and ignorant to say the least. It's a raging debate between Shonas and Bakalangas,whether Karangas are Shona or Bakalangas.Now we know karangas are Shona right.Well according to the Bakalangas the Karangas are their brothers who also lived in the now Bulawayo area when Ndebele colonisers settled .Even if you check ,the one Shona tribe -Karanga ,has always been a part of Matebeleland even in the Lobengula days. Ndebeles when speaking Shona ,most will speak it in the Karanga version/dialect.So if Karangas are a part of the Ndebele state,then we (Shonas) did settle in Matebeleland.
If Lobengula had said mashonaland is not his ....trust me the Portuguese would be ruling Zimbabwe...( mashonaland portion) and we might have been speaking Portuguese ,in Mashonaland )not English...do you understand kids?

Conclusion:
The topic at hand is".. Shonas never had land in Matebeland" i have not lost sight of the topic ,but i have merely tried to explain the background of the issue. This topic comes at a times when many people are talking about separatist agendas, most of these base their arguments on saying BSAP (Britain) is the one that brought Matebeleland and Mashonaland together,they say this in a vain hope of hoodwinking people into believing since the 2 (Mashonaland and Matebeleland ) were brought together by BSAP , then we can separate since we never willingly agreed to join hands. But these are all lies. Mashonaland has actually been very much abused ,first by the Ndebeles who put us under their command and control and second by the British .Both Ndebeles and The Rhodesians put us under their kingdoms ,and the hapless Shonas just followed.The current state we call Zimbabwe was not a creation of the Shonas ,but of Lobengula first ,and the Rhodesians second. The shonas simply took over from where both the Ndebele and Rhodesian kingdoms ended.

In explaining about empires i merely sought to educate people about the relationship that was there and to show that it wasn't the BSAP who brought the Mashonaland and Matebeleland together, but Lobengula.The BASP merely cemented the relationship.

1 .The reason why in 1894 the Matebeles tried to have Mashonaland separated was all tribal hate against the Shonas.The remnants of the Ndebele empire knew it was no longer possible to rule Mashonaland again because of the BSAP ,so they came in the guise of saying "our " separate kingdom.Remember the Ndebeles are the first tribalists ,they called Shonas Amasvina, and in their minds could not stand being in the same position with Ama-hole Amasvina.The BASP crushed the Ndebele empire ,such that there where no amahole anymore , both Abazansi and amahole were the same.The restoration attempt in 1894 was a subtle attempt to maintain the status core. Where there was a ruling elite and the common man.

2 .The other reason was because they now understood how Lobengulas statements and actions were used to justify occupation of both areas, in their hopeful minds they thought they could be reverse the occupation by saying we are separate kingdoms, we didn't mean it when we said Shonas are under us.

As i said,the Ndebeles are the first tribalists.If we as Amasvina were part of your cruel and abusive empire ,why is it so difficult for you .It was okay when you controlled, but bad when the Amasvina control.Some will say the shonas also called Ndebeles madzviti.True, but the meaning and intention of the 2 words is different.

Madzviti refers to those who take by force, its intention then and now was never that of disgust, NO, but of fear and warning to fellow Shonas .The Ndebeles were notoriously known for raiding and rape, to the downtrodden Shonas , so hardly could the name be used for insulting the feared Ndebeles.

Ndebeles on the other hand labelled Shonas ,Ama-Shona,or Masvina.This was  bigotry, tribalism ,hate ,and disgust at its best.

I remember in 1980 ,before the elections ;all Matebeleland wanted the capital moved to Bulawayo from Salisbury.So it was okay if The new Zimbabwean capital was moved to Mthwakazi , so long as you win, but bad because its amasvina who won? Really

So it was Unity if everyone stayed in ZAPU, but disunity when they leave.So its Bad for everyone to be in Zanu , but good when people leave. I hate Zanu by the way.

We are Zimbabwe, one country all suffering, all of us dreaming, but tribalism won't solve anything.I dare Matebele Lawyers to contest all the points above.

I am not blind to the torment of gukurahundi, marginalisation and nepotism.But when we dig deep and scrap the top layer we shall see hate, disgust and arrogance as the major driver.
Class dismissed.