 |
|
|
 | | |  |
Zimbabwe – or was it Rhodesia? |
 |
At the turn of the century, East Africa had a network of arterial rail lines, for both the movement of its precious mineral resources and passengers. Brian had a three day trans-Africa journey, but not in luxury. “The steam train, which had most likely originated in England, carved across the vast savannahs and mountain passes and spewed out a mix of steam and cinders – taking in the air at the window was not advised, 
A short reunion between father and son in Malaya, 1946
© Brian Oliver |
I remember through bitter experience.
"Our train stopped at Bulawayo station, in the hub of the Rhodesian province of Matabeleland. It was here that I recall one of those great treats in life: a hot bath. The sticky, dusty journey, so far, had left an almost indelible film all over me, but the hot dip soon put matters right again. I was gradually being seduced by Africa through its majestic presence, rawness and sheer size - something that you can only really understand if you’ve been there."
A new understanding
Brian’s new understanding of colonial Africa deepens from here. "Dust and more dust – that is my abiding memory of my arrival in the Rhodesian capital, Salisbury. Top soils from the surrounding countryside and warm winds cling together and deposit a light film everywhere. I arrived in Salisbury on 15th November, 1947 just days before the November rains."
Salisbury, which was named after the Third Marquess 
The scenic route to Rhodesia was awesome
© Afribilia |
of Salisbury - the British Prime Minister from 1885-86, was just one of the place names adopted by Britain in her colonies.
This naming convention became especially prevalent after the Berlin Conference of 1884-85, when 14 European powers partitioned Africa for their own economic gains. France, Germany, Great Britain and Portugal were the major players in the conference, controlling most of colonial Africa at the time.
Your comments
1 Robin Norton from Northern Rhodesia - 23 January 2004
"James Fraser's comments about the reasons for the British Empire formation and how place names came about reminds us all what 'Africa' was like in the 1800s. Some local 'African' names were used, Bulawayo, Mtoko were based on what the area or town was called, other towns where there was no settlement of course had no names so it was natural that English names were used, what about place names in New England, USA? Why no comments about there?
"
"I do have a criticism of the 大象传媒 and the British 'Media', these days it is politically correct to be anti anything to do with the British Empire and colonisation looking from how we all feel now, in 2004, but, and it is a big but, one hundred years ago, even fifty years ago, general attitudes were very different, it would be very good to have viewers, readers reiminded of this fact. It is always interesting that generally, in the USA, the pioneers are still portrayed as brave men and women taming the 'West', anything to do with Africa British pioneers are downgraded to 'Evil White Settlers'! Australia comes somewhere in between!
"
"If the 'white man' can be criticised for anything it is for opening up these wild areas, bringing guns to kill the wild life, medicines to help increase the local populations dramatically, one hundred years ago there might have only been 200,000 people living in what is now Zimbabwe, a country nearly twice the size of the UK! The pioneers of those days did not go in and kick out happy black farmers from their homesteads, there were a few scattered villages, huts of mud and thatch, the original people of the area were Bushmen who had been forced out by the black invaders from the North, not forgetting the more recent arrival of the Matabele, a Zulu tribe, who took over the south west of the country becoming the main enemies of the Shona who lived further to the North East.
"
"It would be very good if the 大象传媒 could get over its fear of upsetting 'ethnic' groups, it would be a much happier world if we could all discuss 'history', all nations made mistakes, Great Britain included, it is wrong to transfer any sense of guilt onto the modern population. Oddly enough, so many of the British population have no idea that Great Britain had anything to do with South Afrcia, that is the country called South Africa, another failing, very few people even realise that South Africa, Northern Rhodesia, Southern Rhodesia are not one and the same! "
2 Peter Woodall from Zimbabwe, now Austrailia - 23 October 2003
"Interesting story but I feel another comment on the place names is worth while.
To give some background, I was born in SR and spent the first 25 years of my life there, including going through the multiracial University of Rhodesia. I've now been in Australia for just under 25 years so I've a fair knowledge of both. Virtually all of Salisbury/Harare's (white) suburbs have British/European names - Borrowdale, Marlborough, Greendale, Hatfield, Parkmeadowlands, etc etc. Many of Brisbane's suburbs have Aboriginal names (Tarragindi, Moorooka, Indooroopilly, Wooloongabba, etc etc) despite a very much smaller aboriginal presence in the city. Looking back, I do feel that the average URBAN white Rhodesian made very, very little effort to communicate with the blacks except on a master-servant relationship."
3 James Fraser from Canada - 21 October 2003
"This is a marvellous story, unfortunately marred by over-editorializing. It is an unacceptable distortion to say that Britain "imposed" place names on her colonised "countries". Most of the areas colonized were not "countries" but areas with shifting boundaries characterized by tribal and economic factors if anything; and colonists' naming a city that they themselves had built out of nothing was not an "imposition". It is just as misleading to suggest that the "European nations partitioned Africa for their own economic gains". The countries which colonized were not "nations" (the Scots and the Irish would certainly dispute that Britain is a "nation") but empires, such as the British, French and German Empires, which included various "nations", not always willingly; and the purpose behind colonization was far more political, strategic and religious than economic, and far more richly complex than your explanation would suggest. Applying an economic-history explanation ! to something as complex and thoroughly cultural as 19th-century European colonialism is to use a Procrustean bed of peculiarly narrow dimensions. Really, I would have thought that the 大象传媒 could do better than publish out this kind of pseudohistory. Come on; try again. You have a great story here and you could do your subscribers a real service by providing them with a more balanced and thoroughgoing history of the times.
"
| |
 Print this page |
|
Archive
Look back into the past using the Legacies' archives. Find nearly 200 tales from around the country in our collection.
Read more > |
| | |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| The 大象传媒 is not responsible for the content of external Web sites. |
| | | |
| | |
| |
|
