By Charles Leyman Kachitsa
There are words that when mentioned they bring nostalgia Words such as ‘Loyalty.’ Depending on your experience the imagery brought by this word will be different one from another person.
Loyalty is now a forgotten word as in so many types of relationships people betray each other without regard to the more fabrics of society they are destroying. It is not only the society that suffers betrayal but also the physical minds of so many alive and in most cases even future generations. Therefore you will see why this word ‘Loyalty’ is important. Husbands have to be loyal to their wives and visa-versa, friends have to be loyal to each other, subordinates have to be loyal to their bosses and visa-versa, and finally one has to be loyal to ones country if he loves that country. If this was practised with ones deeper heart there will be no feeling of revenge or avenge if one is not getting their ways or if relationships are broken. An example of such heartlessness of lack of loyalty, you do not need to go far but look at the rampant ‘revenge porn’ or generally revelations of things said in state of trust revealed when one feels injured or dislocated from sources.
The quotes for this Weekend are not all about loyalty and betrayals, I felt this was worthy pointing out for people to realise that usually you do not get any value from betrayal. Rather if you are injured in relationship first thing is to take the immediate period following that as a period of reflection and shaping corners that may otherwise have not been as sharper as you may have wished.
The quotes that will be featured for the the week and the subsequent following coming two weeks are fro a historical book that I chanced whilst ‘teaching history’ to an English high school college class. It talks about the beginning of countries and perhaps the end of the African kingdoms. There is this song in my vernacular language that starts with the words; ‘kuti muvetse za nkhaniyi, muvetse bwinibwino kumene tikuchokera,’ (For you to understand the story, you will need to understand first where we are coming from or where it all began). We will restrict ourselves to South and Central Africa. I am sure the quotes will make you understand how African countries and the world in general is where it is today. Read and enjoy:
THE MAKING OF MODERN AFRICA, The Twentieth Century BY A.E. Afigbo, Ayandele, Gavin, Omer-Cooper and Robin Palmer
“In 1919 an African migrant worker from Nyasaland (now Malawi), Clement Kadalie, launched a new movement. This was the Industrial and Commercial Workers’ Union, generally known as the ICU. It began by fostering strikes in the ports of the Eastern Cape but from 1923 developed into a nationwide mass movement. As it did so, however, it faced a problem of how to use its apparent strength in the face of an overwhelmingly powerful and ruthless white government which refused any concessions. While the majority clung to a line of a cautious moderation, a radical group, largely made up of members of the Communist Party, called for militant mass action. The radicals also attacked the wide powers of Kadalie in the organisation and critized his use of funds. Kadalie turned on them and had the communists expelled from his organisation in December 1926. The ICU continued to grow and its membership reached a peak in 1928 but as it could still not find any means of effective action it then began to disintegrate. Personal quarrels between Kadalie and his most outstanding subordinate, A.W.C. Champion, resulted in Champion splitting away with the Natal branch of the organisation. In spite of well-meant assistance of British trade unionists who sent W.G. Ballinger to act as an adviser to the ICU it rapidly collapsed.”
Apartheid: a segregated railway bridge.
“The 1948 election: the coming of apartheid – In contrast to the United Party, the National Party put forward a race policy that on the surface at least, appeared clear and straightforward and which appealed to a very wide segment of the white population. The policy was called apartheid (separateness). The name was first used by some Afrikaner intellectuals in the 1930s and the concept was further worked out during the Second World War. The theory was that each race and nation had a unique destiny laid down by God. Each race must therefore be kept pure and allowed to develop separately along its own natural inborn lines. Racial mixing was against God’s will and would lead to racial degeneration. Each race in South Africa should thus develop in its own territory. In the meantime social contact should be reduced to a minimum and sexual relations rigorously prevented. Supporters of the theory maintained that this would not only provide for the preservation of the white race but would also emancipate the African population from white cultural domination. In fact, however, the only territories considered for the African majority were the pathetically inadequate African reserves. In practice, therefore, the doctrine simply meant the continuation and tightening up of South Africa’s traditional segregation policy under which overcrowded reserves served as reservoirs of cheap migrant labour and allowed white South Africans to avoid paying the full social costs of that labour.”
“Baaskap apartheid – From 1948 to 1959/60 the National Party established the framework of its apartheid plans. At this stage National Party thinking was quite openly based on the idea that the African, Indian and Coloured peoples were racially inferior to whites. The policy said that African people should be allowed to develop to the full in the areas set aside for them. Such development however was to be along their own lines. It was assumed that this would involve no more than local government through a modified tribal system which would continue to need white supervision. The same principles of racial inequality was made particularly obvious in the Separate Amenities Act which openly proclaimed that facilities provided for the different races need not be of an equal standard. This phase of apartheid is thus called BAASKAP (white supremacy) apartheid.”
Bemba Kingdom.
“Central Africa, c.1900-53 Introduction – The establishment of colonial rule in Central Africa took place while the African peoples were experiencing great upheavals. The invasions of the Ngoni, Ndebele and Kololo and the expansions of the slave trade from the east coast had produced widespread disruption, misery and death. It is easy however to exaggerate the destruction of old societies and institutions. Even in what is now Zimbabwe after successive invasions and intrusions much of the old Shona political system survived. Outside of the area occupied by the Ndebele kingdom a number of Shona paramountcies maintained their independence and even the age-old Mwene Mutapa kingdom survived, though on a much reduced scale. Throughout the area the Ngoni and Ndebele invaders were actively building up new states embracing peoples of different ethnic origin and in the flood plains of the upper Zambezi a Lozi counter-revolution drove out the Kololo and restored the traditional dynasty. The slave also brought benefits to some. The Bemba kingdom for example made use of firearms to strengthen itself internally and engage in steady expansion. A new power balance was emerging in Central Africa but did not have time to establish itself before European intervention radically altered the situation.”