In search of greener pastures?

Clifford Shambare

“This evening I was sitting with Doreen,

Peaceful  n’ happy with the day’s work done, Living and loving, so life mooches on”.

I came across this poem — which really touched me at that time — while I was reading a book written by an English settler in Australia sometime in the sixteenth century. (I read it a long time ago, so I cannot remember its other detail).

At that time I was still beholden to the British — particularly the English and their ways. This was the time before my eyes became opened to their other not so savoury side.

That said, the act of emigrating to a new home (land) can be quite exhilarating in a number of ways. Firstly, there is the expectation of a better life than the one from which one coming. Secondly, there is the issue of new possibilities on the general life and economic fronts.

Thirdly, there is the possibility of innovation and creativity in the same environment. And last but not least, there is the element of adventure that always accompanies the whole act! That said, there are also risks in this process — some small and others so big, even to the extent of costing one their own life.

Looking critically at migration, we find it being a natural phenomenon among both man and animal, since time immemorial. And animals still do it in a big way, witness the migratory birds and insects as well as mammals, particularly game migration — a phenomenon that one still finds fascinating as it occurs in areas such as the Serengeti Park of East Africa. In fact, the phrase “greener pastures” was borrowed from wild animal movement.

On the human side, the emigrations that took place from the time of the famous navigators led by such individuals as Vasco da Gama and other Portuguese sailors, Jan van Riebick (Dutch), Christopher Columbus and Amerigo Vespucci (the Italian) , Thomas Cook (English), among others, have become significant — in fact deterministic — in our lives.

Looking critically at the reasons for this movement, one comes across a fascinating scenario. One major reason was the search for spices, first thought — and later known — to be found in the Far East. In fact on, considering most of the said (travel related) adventurers, including Columbus and Vespucci, who happen to be the most significant in our time, having been the first Caucasians to “discover” where mainland America) comprising Canada, and the USA — the biggest super power today, is located — we find that the routes they followed were an attempt to find the shortest route to the same Far East.

The exception to this rule was Thomas Cook whose mission was to offload British convicts from that Island.

On considering the characters and attitudes of the first émigrés to those lands, we also come across a very fascinating scenario. The majority of them were poor and (therefore) looking for a better life, so their decisions were largely voluntary. But the others — especially the convicts, had only two choices — either to remain prisoners, or to become “free”!

That said, there is another type of émigré that we should not forget — that is the African slaves. In their case, there is a significant paradox that is often overlooked by historians, particularly Western ones.  Here is the paradox: In terms of human pride and dignity, they top the list. And why do I say this, you may want to know? First of all, theirs was an externally enforced act. They were “free” under their own conditions, and perception of the concept of “freedom”.

You see, “freedom” is an interesting concept. It is felt (usually instinctively) by the individual concerned, not by anyone who is not that individual.

And yet today, we have this whole idea of “freedom” that has become problematic because someone other than us, defines the paradigms that should be used to perceive and/ or describe this “freedom”!

If in doubt of this argument, consider our own “Freedom Fighters”, also known as the “guerrillas” then. These are the same people that Ian Smith referred to as “terrorists” because they were fighting to curtail his own “freedom”.

This is a stance he maintained to the extent of falling out with the first (intended) publisher of one of his books; I cannot remember if it was “The Anatomy of a Rebel” or “The Great Betrayal”. But this fact does not matter here anyway.

That said, on considering the attitudes of those people who went to the Americas and Australasia, we also find an interesting mixture. The majority went on to define their own forms of “freedom” for which they had very strong views. In this respect, the Americans top the list.

They called America “The Land of Freedom” despite the fact that they were in the process, curtailing the freedoms of the indigenes of that country, the Mahawks and the Sarawaks among others. This phenomenon was even worse with the slaves they brought in from Africa.

On the economic front, they made huge strides, the sort of strides that made them the world’s superpower before the Chinese came along to challenge them for this position quite recently. As far as the Australian and New Zealand Caucasians settlers were concerned, they also made it good on the economic front, despite curtailing the freedom of the indigenes on those lands — that is, the Aborigines and the Maoris respectively.

At this point I feel it is time to return home to Zimbabwe with respect to the act of emigration in search of  “greener pastures”. In our analysis of this case, we should not forget one fact; this is the “love-hate” relationship that has existed between us and the British since they settled in this country around 1890 or thereabouts.

This remains the case even after the strained relationship that UDI brought about, and even after the “contested” land reform programme. This is the major reason behind our polarised politics — a politics that now threatens to tear this country apart, and even has potential to completely destroy it!

This is the situation that begot the phenomenon of “sell–outs” during the war of liberation. It is for the same reason that some Zimbabweans felt that Mugabe’s regime was oppressing them. They were subconsciously thinking and acting in sympathy with their beloved British.

At this point, let us analyse the events and processes of the land reform programme, then we go on to analyse the fortunes of the black Zimbabwean émigrés to the UK.

At its implementation, the land reform programme itself, triggered quite a few negative phenomena in the country. And while this programme has been blamed both directly, and indirectly, for everything that has, and still is, happening in this country today, I can say without fear or favour, that the issue is not as simple as some would have us believe.

For starters, it is easy to just accuse Robert Mugabe alone for implementing this programme, but he was not alone at the Lancaster House Conference in 1978 when these issues were thrashed out. However, I shall not go into the nitty-gritties of the matter here since there will be a lot of time to discuss them if the Lord wills.

At this juncture, allow me to go back to history in order to clarify the matter. And do you remember the gospel that I have always preached in my articles — that is, the understanding of the history of a system in order to understand better, how it functions, and why certain phenomena and events are taking place in it.

In this respect, I am always impressed by Western authors, journalists, scientists and other academics, let alone historians — who always have something to say about any subject’s history when they write about it.  To me, the most significant one in this case is “The Eighth Son” — a book written in a paperback form about David the King of the Israelites.

That said, allow me to just remind you that the significant thing about Zimbabwe’s land issue is that at Lancaster House, the British did not deny that the land was, and still is, ours. I am not a lawyer myself, but I can assure you that at law, this is a significant fact. In fact, that agreement was based on the premise that we would finally get our land, notwithstanding the fact that the former Rhodesian white farmers would be compensated for the improvements that they had made on those farms.

And more significantly, the Americans through their former Secretary of State, Henry Kissinger, undertook to fund the process but latter reneged on the matter. Andrew Young , the UN Ambassador talked about the matter recently.

Moreover, there was a precedence to this case — that is, the Kenyan case in which the British government coughed up as much as  200 million British pounds as compensation for its citizens who had owned prime land in that country.

So back to the fallouts from this programme: There was an exodus of the Rhodesians from the country starting from 2000. The largest number went to Australia, followed by New Zealand, the USA and Canada. But surprisingly, the smallest number went to the UK, the original home of their ancestors. The reasons for this behaviour should be obvious: this is the country they had “run away” from in the first place!

That said, the most unusual case here is the one concerning black Zimbabweans. Let us look critically here, into the reasons why the latter left their mother country, in the process considering critically, the actual reasons as compared to what they alleged were the reasons for doing so. For these two do not necessarily match.

First of all, there is no denying that most of them left to look for “greener pastures” since there had been an economic meltdown in the country. Then there were those who were running away from crime, some of which involved debt. Then there were others who were going to colleges of all sorts — ranging from high schools to technical colleges, to universities.

At this juncture, let us analyse the results of these actions. Some died soon after arrival, while others died some time later. Some found jobs sooner or later, while others never found employment. This latter group assumed a refugee status, living on welfare. Some found work in their original field of expertise while others did any work that was available. Quite a large proportion of the later group did more than one job at a time — a situation that brought about its own negative consequences for them.

Back home, they left a number of different situations. Some left as whole families. In some cases only a part of them left. In quite a few cases, they left young children under the care of their grandparents. And in some cases, the custodians died, leaving what is referred to as “child run families”.

On considering the plight of the two categories of Zimbabweans — that is, those who remained and those who stayed, debate can arise in which some will argue that those who remained are still better off, while others will argue for the opposite.

But one thing is for sure, there are some returnees who are saying, “Takabvako kumhunga hakuna ipwa”.(The grass is not greener on the other side). Interestingly, in the present government, are quite a few “have beens”. This in itself, is one of the many paradoxes that we have in this country today.

Compare and contrast the two cases, one for the Caucasians and the other for the Africans, and you come across a very interesting scenario. Most if not all, the Caucasians found something to do and fitted snugly into the communities in those countries where they went. This fact demonstrates their connectedness across the globe with respect to human and capital relationships.

In the blacks case, the proportion of successes versus the failures, tells its own story — a story that resembles one in which Richard Smith’s through his blog, derisively describes the quandary of the Africans in this day and age.