The History of Race Relations in RhodesiaP. R. WarhurstThe modern history of Rhodesia dates from1890, with the Occupation of Mashonaland, or1887, when the train of events leading to theOccupation was set in motion. Contact betweenWhite and Black was already well establishedin the political, economic and social spheres,and attitudes formulated in the precolonialperiod were to have a strong influence on laterdevelopments. But important as the earlierperiod undoubtedly was, it lies outside thescope of this paper which is concerned withmodern race relations in the post-1887 era.Like ancient Gaul, the history of modernRhodesia can be divided into three parts;Chartered Company rule, which was suc-ceeded in 1923 by Responsible Governmentand the period after 1953 when SouthernRhodesia was absorbed into the Federation ofRhodesia and Nyasaland. Although conti-nuity throughout these successive periods is atleast as important as change, they do corres-pond to different phases of governmental policytowards the Africans. The Chartered era wasa curious amalgam of integration and segre-gation, of control and laissez-faire. The fol-lowing period, under responsible government,saw the introduction of a more rigid policyof segregation yet this was also a time ofAfrican development, especially in the fieldsof health and education. After 1953 integrationbecame the watchword, and even though asegregationalist government took over in 1962,the realities of the situation permitted the en-trenchment of a significant degree of integra-tion.Chartered rule, during which many basicpatterns were to form, began under the aus-pices of a concession to Rhodes from Loben-gula, King of the Ndebele, who laid claim toalmost the whole of modern Rhodesia. Theinteraction of the white imperialist and theblack traditional ruler was to have an im-portant bearing on the subsequent course ofevents. Lobengula had continued the policyof his father, Mzilikazi, in maintaining the in-dependence of his people. The missionary, J. S.Moffat, once referred to this policy as 'Chineseisolat'on' but Whites were permitted in theKingdom, if only as a means of reducingpossible pressures that would follow total ex-clusion. Lobengula was well disposed to whitepeople provided always that they remainedsubject to his authority. They enjoyed a privi-leged position and in some cases Whitesbecame personal friends of the King, butwoe betide any who flouted his sovereignty,as the arrogant negrophobe Frank Johnson dis-covered to his cost. Lobengula was stillsupreme in his own country.In 1887 Lobengula made a treaty with theSouth African Republic, represented by thewell-known Boer trader, Piet Grobler. The15King was strengthening his independence bysecuring an alliance with the neighbouringTransvaal but Rhodes, who had coveted Mata-beleland for some years, persuaded the HighCommissioner to take immediate counter-measures to safeguard British interests. Theresult was the Moffat Treaty, a treaty of friend-ship between the Ndebele and Britain underthe terms of which the latter was able to keepout foreign powers. Lobengula was still pla-gued by a variety of concession-seekers amongstwhom Rhodes' group represented the greatestthreat to Ndebele independence. For Rhodeswanted more than mineral rights; he intendedto create a British settlement in the area be-tween the Limpopo and the Zambezi and to cutoff the Boers from expansion northwards. Tohave disclosed his intentions to Lobengulawould have been fatal and they were carefullydisguised in the negotiations for a concession.Rhodes' chief emissary, Rudd, promised thatonly ten white men would be sent to organizemining and that they would be subject to thesovereignty of the Ndebele King. Such 'verbalclauses', however, were not included in thewritten text of the Rudd Concession (1888).Lobengula had chosen to accept Rhodes' group(which was aided and abetted by imperial offi-cers) without being aware that he was beingdeceived. When he learned that he had beentricked, he cancelled the concession. Race rela-tions in modern Rhodesia had opened on a sournote.CHARTERED COMPANY PERIODRhodes secured a royal charter for his Bri-tish South Africa Company which in August-September 1890 occupied Mashonaland. If theNdebele state was by far the most powerfulpolity in southern Zambezia, the congeries ofShona-speaking polities embraced the greatmajority of people in the area. The Pioneersoccupying Mashonaland saw many villagesperched high on kopjes as a defensive measureagainst Ndebele raids and they drew the con-clusion that all the Shona were victims of theNdebele. While some Shona polities did indeedsuffer the scourge of Ndebele raids, othersremained in harmonious relations with theirwarlike neighbours, though usually at a subor-dinate level. More distant Shona states had nocontact with the Ndebele. (East of the MtilikweRiver the Gaza played a comparable role totheir Ndebele cousins.) Shona defences againstNdebele aggression had been improved throughcontact with the Portuguese. Having once beendominant in Shona country, the Portuguesewere now returning in some force to substan-tiate their claims to Mashonaland. In exchangefor treaties the Shona eagerly took guns foruse against the Ndebele imperialists. When theBritish Pioneers arrived, the Shona imaginedthat like the Portuguese and traders and hun-ters like Selous, they would in due course goaway again. But this time the Whites had cometo stay.The Pioneers were a very mixed body ofmen. Victor Morier, a corporal in the Policeand son of a famous British diplomat, recordedthe range: from an unusually high proportionof public school and university men to unem-ployed riff-raff from Johannesburg. Pioneertypes are not the sort of people to be gentlein their dealings with 'niggers' as Morier re-ferred to the Africans. Whether of British orSouth African birth they looked down on theShona as cowardly, dirty untermenschen. Inspite of these harsh attitudes and rough behavi-our race relations did not strike the depthsusual in frontier situations. With the Pioneerscame a degree of law and order enforced bythe Administration and the British .South Afri-ca Company Police.Law and order were applied with a severitythat was to become traditional in Rhodesia andin a number of incidents recalcitrant Shonawere dealt with with undue harshness. Loben-gula protested, not against the harshness, butagainst Company interference with his 'dogs'.When Lobengula himself took action againstrebellious Shona subjects around Victoria, thetiny white community reacted hysterically anddemanded war. The Company, which had nomore been planning war than had Lobengula,changed its policy and drove out the haplessKing from Bulawayo (1893).The Ndebele had lost their prized indepen-dence; the conquerors had become the con-quered. The Whites took over the Ndebeleheartland, confiscated much cattle and treatedeven the zansi aristocrats with contempt. TheShona suffered less but felt particularly aggrie-ved since they had never been conquered.Forced labour was exacted from both Shonaand Ndebele and the bad race relations thatresulted from accumulated grievances led tothe Risings of 1896-7. Although there was alimited degree of co-ordination, it seems likely16that the Ndebele Rebellion and the ShonaRising were distinct movements both aimedat the restoration of the 'good old days'. In-deed a number of Shona polities aligned them-selves according to traditional inter-tribal rival-ries. While some rose, others co-operated withthe Whites and a third group remained neutral.Tf the Whites had caused the Risings, theAfrican dissidents hit back savagely, murder-ing women and children. This in turn provokeda savage reaction on the part of the Whites,who dynamited whole communities out of theirplaces of refuge. The effect of the Risings wastraumatic. For the Whites, who had lost no lessthan ten per cent of their number, a new eraof fear had opened, while fear of the Whitesforced the Africans to eschew violence for twogenerations.The sfurtn und drang of the Occupationyears was followed by a quarter century ofpeaceful Company rule. Sir Robert Tredgoldhas claimed that the reformed system (1898-1923) was the best form of government theAfricans have never known in Rhodesia. In1898 Rhodesia's first constitution allowed for astrong measure of imperial control as neitherthe Company nor the colonists could be trustedwith unfettered authority over the Africans.Legislation was subject to veto and a ResidentCommissioner was the 'imperial watchdog' inSalisbury. In theory the system was non-racialbut in practice a degree of discrimination per-sisted. Tnere was, however, no overall policyof segregation and Wilson Fox, the GeneralManager of the Chartered Company, explicitlypropounded an integrated approach to the eco-nomy as a whole. Separate development wasshunned but job reservation, land segregationand discrimination in everyday life were wide-spread.Land, that vital element in tribal society, hadbeen recklessly alienated. The Ndebele weregradually driven off their homelands and muchShona land was occupied by the Whites. Thefew African reserves were treated as a tempo-rary cushion against the impact of westerniza-tion. Initially Africans derived considerablebenefit from catering for the food requirementsof the country while the Whites concentrated onmining. When it became clear, however, thatthe gold deposits were limited, the Companybegan to foster white agriculture. The Africanpeasantry was deprived of many of its new-found sources of income in favour of the whitefarmer.Politically and socially the Whites entrenchedtheir power, restrained only by imperial lead-ing strings which were not always held taut.The constitution was colour-blind (from 1898to 1969) in accordance with imperial practiceand Rhodes' dictum of 'equal rights for all civi-lized men'. When asked to define a civilizedman Rhodes had given a very wide definition:'A man, whether white or black, who had suf-ficient education to write his name, has someproperty or works. In fact is not a loafer.' Butsince there were few Blacks with any educationin Rhodesia at this stage, effective politicalpower was shared by the Company and theWhites, especially the farming interest. Apartfrom the vote, educated Africans were treatedlittle differently from other Africans. Thesmall group of Mfengu, educated Africans fromthe Cape, were the chief sufferers, and theyobjected to practices like having to raise theirhats to all Whites and not being allowed towalk on the pavements. The Mfengu wereprime movers in African political groups suchas the South African Natives Association. Thiswas an elitist organization which requested that'there should be differentiation between us andthe raw native'. Another party desirous of par-ticipation in the political system was the emi-nently respectable Rhodesia Bantu VotersAssociation formed in 1923, with two membersof the Legislative Council in attendance.In everyday life white brutality continued,especially on farms and mines. The novelistGertrude Page related in Jill's Rhodesian Phi-losophy (1910) her horror when the cook onthe farm handled some cooked potatoes: Twould have hit him over the head with a sauce-pan as I believe is quite the correct mode ofprocedure out here.' On the mines conditionswere grim. Native Commissioner Archie Camp-bell in 1900 reported a particularly bad mineat which an African had been left to die in theveld after an accident; another had to crawlhome with a serious wound, only to be accusedof desertion; two others received three days'pay and £2 respectively as compensation forlosing a leg. The Chief Native Commissionersupported Campbell's objections but it wasseveral years before a system of compensationwas established. The death rate, chiefly frompneumonia, reached appalling figures andstrong action by the Colonial Office and SirDrummond Chaplin, the Administrator, was17needed before improvements were implemen-ted.The Whites were motivated principally byfear. They formed a small community scatteredamongst the black majority and in addition tophysical fear of the Africans, they wished topreserve their separate and superior position.It is not difficult to appreciate the immensecultural disparity at that time but this was per-verted into a prejudice that the gap had to bemaintained. The Rhodesia Herald, for example,criticizing a mixed tea-party at the Methodistchurch in Gwelo early in the century stated:'The kaffir is essentially inferior to the whiteand will for all time remain so'. The Heraldwas horrified in 1906 at the suggestion by Ran-dall-Madver, the archaeologist, that Zimba-bwe had probably been built by Africans. Whatwould happen to the tourist trade? And inwhat they hoped would be the last word onthe Zimbabwe controversy added: 'For thealkaline touch of the kaffir kills'.The most sensitive area of race relations wassex. There was more than one attempted lynch-ing over 'black peril' issues but none succeededthanks to the tradition of law and order esta-blished from the outset. The depth of feelingover this subject is evidenced by a fine of £20imposed on an African found hiding under awhite woman's bed compared to a mere £5 fineon a farmer who tied up an African and inflic-ted twenty lashes.The Chartered Company was biased in fav-our of the Whites on whom it was becoming in-creasingly dependent. Nevertheless it retained acertain flexibility in policy and could on occa-sion serve as an arbiter between the races, asin the improvement of mining conditions. TheCompany's greatest achievement was theestablishment of the pax britannica. Tribalwarfare was outlawed and if the Africans hadlost some of their initial economic gains, tradi-tional agriculture began to benefit from peace-ful conditions and the spread of such basicinventions as the plough. But the Companywas a commercial concern and showed littleinitiative in such directions as education evenfor the Whites and still less for the Africans,RESPONSIBLE GOVERNMENTIn the Company period many basic patternswere established which have been modified orextended by subsequent developments. Respon-sible Government, for example, led immedia-tely to plans for rigid segregation. The informalsegregation of the early years had to a largeextent been a natural development but segrega-tion became a vicious circle. The lack of con-tact between White and Black gave rise to ahost of myths and legends which were in turnused as the rationale for the maintenance of se-gregation. It was a self-perpetuating system.The cornerstone of Rhodesian segregation wasthe Land Apportionment Act of 1930. Landsegregation was initiated to protect white inte-rests but it was supported in principle by theAfricans and their champions, Fr Cripps andRevd John White. White summed up themelancholy realities which had obliged him todeviate from his usual path of integration:'The right of the native to purchase land any-where means that he can purchase land no-where.' The Land Apportionment Act didallow for areas where an African could pur-chase his own plot but the general division ofthe land was grossly unfair. In 1934 the other'twin pillar of segregation' was added in theshape of the Industrial Conciliation Act whichinstituted a formal colour bar against Africanworkers. The shutters were being put up toprevent African competition and further legis-lation protected the privileged position of thewhite elite, like the Maize Control Acts.At the helm during the peak period of segre-gation was Sir Godfrey Huggins who had en-tered parliament an unrepentent racist. He sawthe Whites as a permanent aristocracy: a care-fully selected body of British colonists whowould rule over the 'lesser breeds without thelaw'. Through his 'twin pyramid' approachWhites and Blacks would develop in se-parate spheres. One of Huggins's few redeem-ing features at this stage of his career was hisconcern for African health. A medical manhimself he helped to develop in Southern Rho-desia what became the finest health service inAfrica. His greatest achievement in this fieldwas to be the Harare and Mpilo hospitals ofthe early fifties. In education the way was lessclear, for competition with Whites was a con-stant fear. Huggins's Chief Native Commis-sioner, Colonel Carbutt, even suggested that alleducated Africans should be sent north of theZambezi. Nevertheless more was achieved ineducation than under Company rule.Huggins himself was beginning to evolve. Atrue conservative, he was suspicious of changebut willing to adapt to new circumstances in18I iorder to preserve the essence of the old ways.In the forties he began to speak of giving theAfricans 'a place in the sun'. For the first timeAfricans in the urban areas were coming to berecognized as permanent town-dwellers and in1945 Huggins negotiated an honourable set-tlement of the African railway strike. After theSecond World War African agriculture wasencouraged and modern methods implemented,as in the much-maligned Land Husbandry Actof 1951. The War had swept Rhodesia into theindustrial age. Immigrants poured in to servethe expanding economy and Whites and Blackswere thrown together in the radically differentcircumstances of urban life.FEDERATIONIn the Federal era great challenges emergedto the essentially rural outlook of Rhodesians.Urbanization produced African nationalismas a response to continued discrimination. TheNationalists linked urban and rural grievancesto create mass protest movements which soughtpower rather than participation. While thenew Prime Minister, Garfield Todd, was atough administrator who more than oncethreatened the Nationalists, he achieved a gooddeal for the Africans. Similarly his successor,Edgar Whitehead, who introduced even harsherrepressive legislation, extended the improvededucation system, one of the finest in Africa.African employment rose to record levels. In-tegration was the order of the day and in thepolitical sphere the 1961 Constitution ensuredthat Africans would enter parliament for thefirst time. In Salisbury and Bulawayo theatres,cinemas and hotels integrated, as did leadingnational organizations.The wave of integration affected the twomain racial groups differently. The Africans,reacting after decades of discrimination, be-came more strident in their demands. Whenthese were met only in part, violence erupted.A white blacklash, against integration andagainst violence in both Rhodesia and thenewly independent countries of Africa, sweptthe Rhodesian Front Party into power in 1962.Significantly the most important single factorin their success was Whitehead's pledge to re-peal the Land Apportionment Act. The Afri-cans refused to save Whitehead arguing thatan R.F. victory would precipitate a showdownin which Britain would hasten to their rescue.AFTERMATHSurprisingly much integration survived theonslaught of the R.F. Winston Field allowedthe private schools to integrate in 1963, andthe ratio of Whites to Blacks in employment hassteadily declined due to the failure of R.F.immigration policies. But in 1965 Ian Smithseized independence, the logical conclusion ofwhich was the racist 1969 Constitution whichdeprived Africans of any effective politicalpower. A parallel measure, the Land TenureAct, awarded half the land to the white minor-ity (five per cent). Although African employ-ment remained higher than in Black Africa,there was much unemployment and wages wereone tenth of white wages. Political repressioncontinued.The paradox of modern Rhodesia is thatwhile white attitudes towards Africans haveimproved markedly since 1890 and integrationhas come to be accepted in many spheres,race relations have reached their lowest ebbsince the Risings. The explanation lies in therising tide of expectation on the part of anincreasingly educated and westernized Africanpopulation. The tragedy of modern Rhodesia isthat the races are so concerned with promotingtheir own sectional interests that they ignorethe hopes and fears of the other group. TheWhites, despite notable achievements, havecreated a society based on inequality and denialof human rights. The Africans, despite wide-spread discrimination, have derived consider-able benefit from the presence of the Whites.But neither side is prepared to face up to theconsequences of their interdependence. Thestory of race relations in Rhodesia is whatDisraeli, in other circumstances, called a 'taleof two nations'.19