The limited knowledge they possess absolves — perhaps even justifies — them. A similar defence in an English court would unlikely succeed.

Logic guides us in so many different ways. Few would share compromising secrets with a work rival who they know is seeking to dislodge them from their position. Logic explains that this is an opponent and as such cannot be trusted.

What then can we say when one enters into an alliance with a hostile force and puts his trust in a known adversary? How can we explain it when a people fall in love with their enemies and frown upon proven friends?

The evil Russians and devilish Chinese

In conversations with many of my colleagues, I have noticed that there is a visceral distrust of Russia and China. This observation is purely anecdotal but I imagine many of you will identify with it. The Chinese are considered somehow roguish and not entirely legitimate. The Russians are equally maligned.

Consider an example. When the British and Americans veto efforts by the Palestinians to emancipate themselves this is widely accepted as a legitimate move.
Our intellectuals are not in any way outraged.

However, when the Chinese and Russians veto attempts to bring UN sanctions against Syria there are howls of disapproval from within our thinking classes, many of whom have not taken time to learn the nuanced nature of the conflict.

I have observed this phenomenon with quite some curiosity. The Zimbabwean fondness for Westerners cannot be born of logic; our history precludes that. The resentment against the Chinese and Russians is similarly visceral. They have shown us nothing but generosity.

Helpful illustrations
The Chinese and Japanese have an unfortunate past. History shows a militarily superior Japanese aggressor repeatedly assaulting China. In the Ming dynasty (1368-1644), Japanese pirates harassed the Chinese.

There is no space to discuss Japanese warlords like Hideyoshi, who wanted to turn Beijing into the Japanese capital. Modern history shows further aggressions as documented in the First and Second Sino-Japanese Wars. Today Chinese cyberspace is pregnant with youthful patriotic bloggers demanding that the now-weaker Japan be taught a disproportionately humiliating lesson in the ongoing dispute over the Senkaku/Diaoyu islands.

These feelings are logical and are to be expected. It is natural to resent those who in the past molested you.
In the same way, consider the cosy expressions of fondness that flow between South Korea and the United States. This is also logical.

The Americans helped them militarily and have been a trusted partner for many years.

The logical disconnect
It is this background of what is normal and to be expected that makes our own emotional circumstances particularly troubling. An examination of our history will quickly show that those who we are most fond of do not deserve our affections. Not only have they not repented of their past sins, they continue to molest us and have cleverly modified their techniques to keep in step with civilised times.

Conversely, the Russians and Chinese, who we treat with suspicion, have actually proved themselves true friends. What a wretched state of emotional confusion we find ourselves in. We love those who despise us and neglect those who have proven a consistent ally.

During the liberation struggle the West refused to assist Zipra and Zanla with weapons. Not only so, their newspapers routinely referred to those who were fighting for black majority rule as terrorists and painted the Ian Smith regime in positive light. In 1978 an editorial in Britain’s Daily Telegraph called the liberation fighters “a pack of savages.”

The Chinese and Russians were at this time offering vital assistance. Zanla and Zipra received essential military training from these countries. They were willing to train the “savages.” After providing military training they went further and provided weapons.

These generosities did not end with the war of liberation. When Western nations sought to bring UN sanctions against Zimbabwe it was the Chinese and the Russians who vetoed the resolution. They have never colonised us. They have never enslaved us and whipped us like animals. They have never called us niggers. They have never enshrined laws in their lands classing those with our skin colour as second-class citizens. It is the British and the Americans who did these evil things. But we love our enemies and despise our friends.

Why are we confused?
Some will argue that they are fond of the West because they are virtuous and are willing to let bygones be bygones, they have forgiven past transgressions. David Coltart, speaking on the floor of the Senate as the Constitutional Bill sailed through, said it was “time to move on.”

It is ironic that the same people who tell us that they are tired of hearing about the past of colonisation are not equally tired of hearing about Gukurahundi.
The source of our emotional confusion can be traced to the insidious nature of Western propaganda. This propaganda bleeds into popular culture in such a way as to be barely discernible. It is not overtly political.

I am sure the reader has been subjected to dozens of blockbusters in which a handsome American CIA operative fights off wicked and sour-faced KGB agents. In the same way the Chinese are often portrayed as one-dimensional, strange-accented small men who are incurably cruel. The typical scene involves a beautiful damsel being held ransom by

Chinese mobsters before an American hero puts an end to their party of sin.
The impact of these images on our psyche cannot be overstated. I remember watching those exciting Westerns showing encounters between the American settlers and the indigenous Red Indians. The films would allow you to see the humanity of the settlers, their children, their love life and their hopes.

The Red Indian was not so generously depicted. Instead you saw them in quite a one-dimensional angle. They would not speak but made strange, terrifying cries whilst holding savage spears as they attacked the good white man, threatening the very humanity he stood for. I remember watching intently, gripped by the action, and foolishly thinking, “be quick and shoot that savage!”

What those films did was tell the story in a way that painted the offender as a noble champion while the actual victim was portrayed as a dangerous savage that stood in the way of civilisation. The Red Indian had no children, he had no love life, he had no hopes and he had no humanity. His blood was just a cheap as that of the Afghan women and children who are routinely massacred in indiscriminate drone strikes.

We hear of insurgents in the Middle East.
We are not given the full picture of who these insurgents are and what they are fighting for. Such is the power of the propaganda machine that we simply march unquestioningly along.

We do not even care that for every 50 people killed in drone strikes, only one is an actual insurgent; the rest are innocent civilians caught up the crossfire. We do not care because we do not see their humanity; all we know is varikuda kukanganisa murungu.

We have quickly forgotten how we were also called terrorists just a few years ago. So effective is the propaganda that we are willing to forgive the most egregious of violations.
In all this there is a recurring theme. The West paints itself as an angel of light and clads its self-serving acts in the regal apparel of democracy, human rights, love, humanity and civilisation. Consider the growing narrative against the Kenyan President. Every mentioned of his name is preceded by reference to the ICC charges that he is facing. But when they speak of Bill Clinton his name is not preceded by reference to his proven sex-scandal with Monica Lewinsky. This is how they operate.

The British dispute with Zimbabwe has been dishonestly portrayed as the case of a benevolent former colonial power that wants to protect the defenceless people of Zimbabwe from the evil bloodsucker Robert Mugabe. This is the one-dimensional narrative we spoke of earlier. There is no mention of Lancaster House. The world is not told of the extraordinarily rude letter Claire Short wrote in 1997. It is simply a case of the good British fighting the evil dictator Mugabe.

Beautiful arguments poorly expressed
What we have is an ideologically uninitiated generation. Someone must take the blame for this. Zanu-PF has been largely reactionary. Efforts to tell our history and national story have been half-hearted and unimaginative. The prosaic would just call it boring.

I have had conversations with young people who actually salivate at the prospect of Americans invading and overthrowing Robert Mugabe.
This betrays troubling ideological bankruptcy. No matter how much the Republicans hate Obama, they will never fantasise about a Russian invasion. In the same way, many Britons despise David Cameron but none of them would enter into an alliance with the Iranians in an effort to remove him.

The answer to this is not in reactionary counter propaganda but in a well-funded long-term communication strategy. Professor Jonathan Moyo showed some sparks of brilliance during his Pax Afro days.

He did something quite remarkable in pioneering subliminal delivery of political thought through seemingly innocuous entertainment. The project seems sufficiently dead now. It is unclear whether it is a case of diminished energies or clipped wings.

Any self-serving and overtly partisan attempts to ignite nationalist fervour will invariably fail. Sometimes politicians forget that people are not stupid.
Nationalism is itself unobjectionable when offered in its pure form. It is for this reason that I remain intrigued by the Pax Afro project; it was quietly bewitching.

As opposed to crude electioneering, it very gently deposited an Afro optimism that had an insidious effect on the mind.

The national broadcaster, the custodian of information, is now broke and is haemorrhaging viewers at an alarming rate. This is because it is perceived as an overtly partisan extension of Zanu-PF.

Subtlety is the word that is missing. In the short term this might have been beneficial but we are now facing the inevitable consequences of hedonistic behaviour. If the trend is not immediately arrested the broadcaster will be completely worthless in a few years.

It will be completely overtaken by online streaming and satellite television. These are sour facts but dealing with them is preferable to the alternative.
When our kids fantasise about being “rescued” by American soldiers it becomes clear that we are losing the information war. We are not losing because our ideas are unattractive but because of negligence.

  • Amai Jukwa is a loving mother of three. She respects Robert Mugabe, is amused by Tsvangirai and feels sorry for Mutambara.

 

You Might Also Like

Comments

Take our Survey

We value your opinion! Take a moment to complete our survey