The historical narrative surrounding Zimbabwe’s fight for independence is profoundly influenced by the legacies of its revolutionary figures.
Among the most prominent are Mbuya Nehanda Charwe Nyakasikana and Sekuru Kaguvi Gumboreshumba, both spiritual leaders who played crucial roles during the First Chimurenga (1896-1897).
Despite their seemingly equal contributions, contemporary recognition of these figures reveals a significant disparity, notably highlighted by the erection of a statue for Nehanda in Harare while Kaguvi remains uncommemorated.
This article employs critical discourse analysis to explore the implications of this imbalance, examining how historical narratives are shaped, reinforced, and sometimes distorted, potentially leading to a generation that may misinterpret Zimbabwe’s revolutionary heritage.
Historical Context of the Chimurenga
The First Chimurenga was marked by a strong spiritual dimension, where local leaders rallied communities against British colonial rule.
Nehanda, a medium of the mhondoro spirit, became a symbol of resistance and empowerment for the Shona people.
Similarly, Kaguvi, also a spirit medium, was instrumental in mobilising the Bakalanga and other ethnic groups.
Together, they united diverse local communities against colonial oppression, advocating for land and autonomy.
The quotation “mapfupa angu achamuka” (my bones will rise) has been central to Nehanda’s narrative, symbolising resurrection and continuity of struggle, and has served to validate her elevation in Zimbabwean historical discourse.
The Disparity in Commemoration
The decision to erect a statue of Nehanda in Harare’s central business district in 2021 stands as a powerful gesture by the current regime.
President Emmerson Mnangagwa described the statue as “a declaration that we stand proud of our history and identity.”
This sentiment, while seemingly inclusive, raises critical questions about the selective nature of historical memory.
Kaguvi’s absence in these commemorative practices invites scrutiny.
Why does the regime choose to elevate Nehanda at the apparent expense of Kaguvi, despite their shared significance in the struggle for independence?
Theoretical Understanding Of Commemoration
Critical discourse analysis provides a lens through which we can examine the societal narratives constructed around historical figures.
Michel Foucault’s theories on power and discourse suggest that knowledge is constructed through power relations, shaping how history is perceived and retold.
In this context, the veneration of Nehanda over Kaguvi can be understood as an exercise in political power and identity formation.
Moreover, Pierre Bourdieu’s concepts of cultural capital and symbolic power further illuminate the dynamics at play.
The state’s choice to highlight Nehanda aligns with a broader narrative that seeks to solidify a national identity rooted in a specific interpretation of history.
This not only serves contemporary political needs but also shapes collective memory, potentially distorting the contributions of other significant figures like Kaguvi.
The Elevation of Nehanda: A Gendered Perspective
The elevation of Nehanda can also be examined through the lens of gender dynamics.
As a prominent female figure in a predominantly patriarchal society, her legacy resonates with contemporary movements advocating for women’s rights and empowerment.
Nehanda’s narrative embodies a struggle not only against colonialism but also for gender equality, making her a potent symbol for both national and gender identities.
Conversely, Kaguvi, often perceived through a male-centric lens of leadership, may not resonate as strongly with current discourses on empowerment and equality.
This gendered perspective adds another layer to the narrative of unequal commemoration, suggesting that the historical canon is not only shaped by political factors but also by evolving societal values.
Implications for Historical Memory
The absence of Kaguvi in public commemorations risks creating a distorted historical narrative, where the complexities of the struggle for independence are simplified into a dichotomy of heroes.
This can lead to a generation that lacks a comprehensive understanding of the multifaceted nature of Zimbabwe’s revolutionary past.
The selective elevation of figures like Nehanda, while neglecting others, contributes to an incomplete historical record that does not honor the collective efforts of all who fought against colonial oppression.
The Role of Education in Shaping Historical Discourse
The educational system plays a pivotal role in shaping historical narratives.
Textbooks and curricula often reflect the values and priorities of those in power, which can lead to a homogenised version of history that glorifies certain figures while marginalising others.
The portrayal of Nehanda as the quintessential revolutionary leader may overshadow the contributions of Kaguvi and others, thereby influencing how future generations understand their national identity.
To ensure a balanced representation of history, it is imperative for educators, historians, and policymakers to engage in critical examinations of the past, fostering an inclusive narrative that honors all contributors to Zimbabwe’s liberation struggle.
This approach not only enriches historical understanding but also cultivates a sense of shared identity among Zimbabweans.
In a nutshell, the disparities in the commemoration of Mbuya Nehanda and Sekuru Kaguvi highlight significant issues in the construction of historical narratives in Zimbabwe.
The elevation of Nehanda, rooted in political and gender dynamics, raises questions about the representation of marginalised figures like Kaguvi in the collective memory of the nation.
As Zimbabwe moves forward, it is essential to recognise and honor the contributions of all heroes, fostering a more inclusive understanding of its history.
The legacy of both Nehanda and Kaguvi is crucial for understanding the complexities of Zimbabwe’s fight for independence.
Ensuring that future generations receive a comprehensive education about these figures is vital for preserving the integrity of the nation’s history.
As we reflect on the past, we must strive to embrace the rich tapestry of narratives that shaped Zimbabwe, recognising that each thread contributes to the overall identity of the nation.