Opinion / Columnist
Lobengula was King of both Matebeleland and Mashonaland
15 Oct 2018 at 16:26hrs | Views
My last article titled "Mthwakazi was never a Ndebele Kingdom but a San Kingdom " received a mixed reaction from my readers. Some were angry but same gave me a pat for a factual article. While I won't be able to respond to all my critics I would like to respond to Maladzhi Brighton the MRP Treasurer General who wrote a long response to my article published by Bulawayo24.com on the 12th of October 2018
There are those who felt since I am not a Ndebele I must not write anything on the history of Ndebeles.I am opposed to this idea because as a Zimbabwean and an academic I mustn't be muscled by anyone and I must have the academic freedom to write on any subject I want to write on .
Some of my readers disagreed with me when I said Mthwakazi is not a Ndebele word but a San word. Some argued contended that the word in fact a Ndebele word and a state established by Mzilikazi.I would like to ask those who argue that Mthwakazi is a Ndebele name to prove who this Mthwakazi King was. In fact I was economical with the truth when I said Mthwakazi was a San Kingdom. The truth is there was no such Kingdom called the Mthwakazi Kingdom in Zimbabwe.I know the Ndebele State by Mzilikazi if there is someone who can prove that there was a separate state pre-Mzilikazi called Mthwakazi must come forward with the facts.
Brighton Ithuteng Maladzhi said the issue of Mthwakazi restoration is not tribal but territorial. The MRP believes there was a state ruled by Lubengula with its boundaries with Mashonaland at Munyati river. Was Lobengula the King of Matebeleland only and not King of Mashonaland? It is recorded in history that "The group led by Gundwane subdued the Rozvi State and even demanded tribute in the form of labour and cattle"( D.N.Beach 1973) The website www.brittannica.com says after the death of Mzilikazi "Lobengula ,extended the tribe's (Ndebele) power, absorbing sothos, Shona and extraneous tribal elements"
It's is the Rudd Concession which clearly tells the pre-colonial territorial jurisdiction of Lobengula when it reads as follows "...I Lobengula, King of Matebeleland , Mashonaland, and other adjourning territories, in the exercise of sovereign powers, and in the presence and with the consent of my council of Indunas..." Lobengula acknowledged he was King of both Mashonaland and Matebeleland regions. So where is MRP getting the Munyati River boundary between Mashonaland and Matebeleland?
MRP says they use Munyati River because that the boundary agreed between Jameson and Lobengula after the Pioneer Column had settled in Harare. Was Jameson representing the Shona people during the signing of that silly treaty. Did Lobengula sign that treaty willingly or he was afraid of Jameson and wanted to sign a peace deal at the cost of his sovereign power?
Gukurahundi must be condemned and culprits must be arrested but dividing our Zimbabwe is not the option or solution.
Some of critics said I wanted to divide the Matebeleland tribes.I support unity but unity must not be built around the supremacy of one tribe over others. Why is MRP supporting the crowning of Ndebele King and not a San or Kalanga Mambo? Why not a Tonga or Venda King. Why does a Ndebele King matters most to MRP? While we support unity it is not a secret that in 2004 Binga Council declared that there shall no Ndebele language teaching in its Schools. Whether that resolution was accepted by Ministry of education or not is another issues but that council resolution shows that the Ndebele Federal or Monarch state has no takers from other Matebeleland tribes.
My advice to MRP is to dissolve their tribal anti-Shona political part and form a unifying political party which discriminates nobody in Zimbabwe. Lobengula ruled from the Zambezi to Limpopo and that territory must remain as such forever.
Etiwel Mutero
etiwelm02@gmail.com
+264817871070
There are those who felt since I am not a Ndebele I must not write anything on the history of Ndebeles.I am opposed to this idea because as a Zimbabwean and an academic I mustn't be muscled by anyone and I must have the academic freedom to write on any subject I want to write on .
Some of my readers disagreed with me when I said Mthwakazi is not a Ndebele word but a San word. Some argued contended that the word in fact a Ndebele word and a state established by Mzilikazi.I would like to ask those who argue that Mthwakazi is a Ndebele name to prove who this Mthwakazi King was. In fact I was economical with the truth when I said Mthwakazi was a San Kingdom. The truth is there was no such Kingdom called the Mthwakazi Kingdom in Zimbabwe.I know the Ndebele State by Mzilikazi if there is someone who can prove that there was a separate state pre-Mzilikazi called Mthwakazi must come forward with the facts.
Brighton Ithuteng Maladzhi said the issue of Mthwakazi restoration is not tribal but territorial. The MRP believes there was a state ruled by Lubengula with its boundaries with Mashonaland at Munyati river. Was Lobengula the King of Matebeleland only and not King of Mashonaland? It is recorded in history that "The group led by Gundwane subdued the Rozvi State and even demanded tribute in the form of labour and cattle"( D.N.Beach 1973) The website www.brittannica.com says after the death of Mzilikazi "Lobengula ,extended the tribe's (Ndebele) power, absorbing sothos, Shona and extraneous tribal elements"
It's is the Rudd Concession which clearly tells the pre-colonial territorial jurisdiction of Lobengula when it reads as follows "...I Lobengula, King of Matebeleland , Mashonaland, and other adjourning territories, in the exercise of sovereign powers, and in the presence and with the consent of my council of Indunas..." Lobengula acknowledged he was King of both Mashonaland and Matebeleland regions. So where is MRP getting the Munyati River boundary between Mashonaland and Matebeleland?
MRP says they use Munyati River because that the boundary agreed between Jameson and Lobengula after the Pioneer Column had settled in Harare. Was Jameson representing the Shona people during the signing of that silly treaty. Did Lobengula sign that treaty willingly or he was afraid of Jameson and wanted to sign a peace deal at the cost of his sovereign power?
Gukurahundi must be condemned and culprits must be arrested but dividing our Zimbabwe is not the option or solution.
Some of critics said I wanted to divide the Matebeleland tribes.I support unity but unity must not be built around the supremacy of one tribe over others. Why is MRP supporting the crowning of Ndebele King and not a San or Kalanga Mambo? Why not a Tonga or Venda King. Why does a Ndebele King matters most to MRP? While we support unity it is not a secret that in 2004 Binga Council declared that there shall no Ndebele language teaching in its Schools. Whether that resolution was accepted by Ministry of education or not is another issues but that council resolution shows that the Ndebele Federal or Monarch state has no takers from other Matebeleland tribes.
My advice to MRP is to dissolve their tribal anti-Shona political part and form a unifying political party which discriminates nobody in Zimbabwe. Lobengula ruled from the Zambezi to Limpopo and that territory must remain as such forever.
Etiwel Mutero
etiwelm02@gmail.com
+264817871070
Source - Etiwel Mutero
All articles and letters published on Bulawayo24 have been independently written by members of Bulawayo24's community. The views of users published on Bulawayo24 are therefore their own and do not necessarily represent the views of Bulawayo24. Bulawayo24 editors also reserve the right to edit or delete any and all comments received.
