How many people think that colonialism is a reality and as such it imposes a limitation on the creativity and CAN DO attitude expected from sovereign human beings?
There exists another school of though that has amnesia about how we got where we find ourselves in as a people in the continent of Africa where civilizations co-exist yet the reality should be that civilization should be race-neutral but problem-solving centric.
We talk of Old Mutual yet refuse to accept that the idea behind its establishment was domestic and driven by the people who benefited from its assurance based on mutuality.
Who shall we bank on to secure a better Africa when our wallets and the choices we make in subtracting the value in them points to a future that has no defined direction?
Then the late Tuku asked: “What shall we do?” to underscore the inherent problem imposed by pervasive ignorance that manifests itself in the absence of a New Mutual.
The following conversation in instructive and could provoke, inspire and ignite your own action.
If you are shocked by your ignorance like me, please choose to be part of the solution by following this link: http://www.the1873network.org/register-3/.
Mutumwa Mawere 9:54 AM
What is your take on this?
Mutumwa Mawere on LinkedIn: “From Old to a New Mutual – But where is wisdom and understanding to be found that colonialism had nothing to do with “the policy or practice of acquiring full or partial political control over another country, occupying it with settlers, and exploiting it economically,” as commonly understood. The people who are labelled “colonialists” were aspirational human actors.
Farai Chagombera 10:01 AM
Thank you sir. Colonialism was one of the greatest evils perpetrated on blacks by white people. Colonization brought with it slavery, exploitation of our human and natural resources. Companies such ad De Beers, Old Mtutual etc built their fortunes from illegally acquired resources exploited from Africans. This is the bane of inequality and root cause of the great divide between wealthy whites and poor blacks.
Mutumwa Mawere 10:07 AM
Thanks for sharing your take on the idea of colonialism. Do you not agree that there is no shared understanding on what colonialism is and is not? If so, how best can the pervasive illiteracy around be addressed?
Farai Chagombera 10:22 AM
There are divergent views especially between the two races. Colonialism to me is forcefully imposing, acquiring, enslaving and taking undue advantage using force or superiority influence. Illegal acquisition of wealth was the basis of colonialism in Africa. On the other hand the perpertrators argue that they brought civilization to Africa, helped us to beneficiate our resources, gave us education and enlightened us on religion. The truth is, there is a clear line between the different pronounciations on the subject. To reachca consensus, first there is neeed to agree on the deniable fact that colonisation was a breach of human rights. Peroetrators dnt hv basis for arguing or having a differing opinion.
Mutumwa Mawere 10:25 AM
Do you agree that a settler does not qualify to be a colonialist or an agent of a foreign imperial power? In the case of James Fairbairn, what informed his decision to emigrate to SA?
Farai Chagombera 10:32 AM
A settler doesnt naturally qualify as a coloniser until he begins to enslave, Illegally poses wealth of the people hosting him. Some settlers such as David Livingstone and misdioneries were interested in bringing religion and civilisation to Africa. People like James were lured by the prospects of untapped wealth in the region, their agenda was self enrichment through untapoed resources.
Mutumwa Mawere 10:36 AM
Do you agree that the definition of colonialism is not person-specific? If so, then do you agree that the decision to emigrate was a choice exercised by the individual and consequently financed by such an person?
Farai Chagombera 10:41 AM
As i mentioned earlier, between the two divides, definitions can never be the same. Among blacks am sure we hv a clear definition as i alluded to. History has it tht settlers were either explorers who self funded their trips and those who were funded by the crown to go around around and look for places with untapped resources. Cecil John Rhodes is a good example.
Mutumwa Mawere 10:43 AM
What is your understanding of Cecil John Rhodes story? Do you think that he was a product of a colonial project?
Farai Chagombera 10:43 AM
History has never classified explorers such as David Livingstone as colonizers. These were adventorous men.
Mutumwa Mawere 10:45 AM
Indeed we have black Africans who daily are emigrating or attempting to emigrate to other shores but rarely are they called colonialists when the arrive at the destination. What would be the difference between these people and the white settlers who chose Africa as a new permanent destination.
Farai Chagombera 10:46 AM
Cecil John Rhodes was a shrewd businessman and politician. He was an imperialist at heart who believed in advancing the interests of the crown and white minority. He believed whites were more superior than blacks, thus used force to posses land and natural resources for the white settlers
Mutumwa Mawere 10:47 AM
Why and how did he come to SA?
Farai Chagombera 10:52 AM
There is stark difference between immigration of Africans to developed nations we see today. Africans are reffered to as economic refugees running away from their countries due to lackbof jobs and oppirtunities. They are there trying to eke a living, due to poor govt policies failing to generate jobs. Difference is whites came in as settlers but later took undue advantage of their hosts, which can never happen in todays dev nations where Africans are going to.
Farai Chagombera 10:55 AM
Cecil John Rhodes was attracted by the vast natural resources in southern Africa. He was a shrewd mining magnate and politician. It is the wealth that attracted him to the continent
Mutumwa Mawere 11:01 AM
Are you sure of your facts?
Farai Chagombera 11:05 AM
Yes sir, it is the wealth that brought him to South Africa, he was a politician who believed in advancing the crown’s influence in the region, hence, he went on to colonize Rhodesia due to its vast deposits of gold and rich soils. It is well documented.
Farai Chagombera 11:09 AM
He was undeniably a shrewd imperialist…
Mutumwa Mawere 12:26 PM
Did you know that he came to SA at the age 17 for health reasons?
Farai Chagombera 12:37 PM
Not well documented sir, what is prominent is his notriety and what he became after establishing himself on foreign soil. His motive might have been good when he arrived, his imperialist agenda took centre stage znd is well documented sir.
Mutumwa Mawere 1:00 PM
Do you agree that Rhodes’ decision to come to SA had nothing to do with imperialism?
Farai Chagombera 1:06 PM
Agree sir, his initial motive was driven by human need. After being accepted by his hosts, he started his mining business which gave him lots of money. With wealth he went in pursuit of political power, which intoxicated him to become the Cecil John Rhodes we know. Noone is born hating sir, he became an imperialist in order to actualize his prnicipals aim of colonizing Africa. He was just an instrument used to propagate and opress his host nation.
Mutumwa Mawere 1:13 PM
Do you know how Rhodes got the funds to get in business?
Farai Chagombera 1:14 PM
When he came to South Africa, Rhodes brought with him a £3000 loan from his aunt. He used the money after moving to Kimberly to invest in diamond diggings. Once there, he met Charles D Rudd, who later became his business partner as the pair launched De Beers mining company. De Beers went on to be the “world leader” in the diamond market and still plays a key role in the industry today.
Mutumwa Mawere 1:17 PM
At least you have done some research. This exercise has been useful.
Farai Chagombera 1:18 PM
Thank you very much sir, very engaging and productive. Please lets engage more. God bless you sir