My postwars experiences
Enos Nkala, one of the last surviving founders of Zimbabwean nationalist parties is going to dig up some very smelly political bones in a book to be posthumously published, he says. I wonder if I will live to see it. If he has any sense he will be sending his MS off to a safe place even as he writes, or we shall be visiting his forensic laboratory sooner rather than later.
A less parochial past has grabbed my attention this month. I have just returned from Berlin - that great city so magnificently restored after being flattened in WW2. My hosts had memories of Berlin before, during and after the war. Klaus is a gentle doctor (retired), still internally wounded by what happened in his country: "We shall never be forgiven," was his quiet expression of sorrow. His wife, Ushie, also a retired professional, is in love with her little private garden. Five miles from her gracious old house in a Berlin suburb which was spared from the bombing, it had been badly neglected in those cold war years when situated on the wrong side of the Berlin wall. Now we visited it almost daily to save it from the searing, near-forty degree heat of an unusual European summer.
Like my friend Ushie, I was very young when the war started. My experience as a colonial child of the British empire was to hear the dreadful news of the bombing of great cities and the cruelties inflicted on civilian populations - hers was to live in fear of Russian reprisals. I never dreamed that sixty years on I would be trying to comfort my German friends, reminding them that Time heals everything when living memory has passed. Meanwhile they refuse to forget and took me off (entirely their choice)to see how painfully Germany still scrapes at the scars the nation inflicted on Jewish people.
We we refreshed our spirits with a visit to the dredged up remains of a fabulous Egyptian civilization exhibited at Gropius museum. The eathquake that buried it beneath the sea 3250 years ago left the solid evidence of fabulous statuary and artifacts, gold jewellery and coins. None of the evil that must surely have lurked, as it always has, beneath an outward show of wealth and power, has survived. Only the hieroglyphs tell the story and none can say what has been left out. So it will be after our civilization is swallowed up. If it sinks beneath deep waters, everything but stone and gems will rot. There is some comfort in this thought, especially for the survivors of 20th century wars.
I wrote a lighter memoir of my visit and will publish it tomorrow - if my browser doesn't go on the blink again!)
Copyright © 2004 Diana Mitchell
Monday, July 31, 2006
Thursday, July 13, 2006
WHAT HAPPENED TO `LOOKING EAST' IN ZIMBABWE?
> >
CHINESE BUSES
I wrote this article last year for publication in `The Zimbabwean' and having a look at it now, a year on decided to edit it and update it(since I reserve the right to use my own copyright)When I get my website up and running I shall repeat it there too for maximum exposure. Why do I do it? Because I must.
> > Zimbabwe's silver jubilee came and went last year and a jubilant
> > President strutted and fretted upon the stage at the National
> > Sports Stadium in Harare. He had made it very clear even before he and
> > his ZANU (PF) were nearly dismissed in 2000 by his own internal
> > Opposition that he hates the West. He loves the East (in the broadest,
> > political and cultural – and now economic - sense) and aims to shake
> > off, discard, trash or otherwise remove the remnants of a hated (for
> > him) age of British imperialism in a new Zimbabwe which he and his kin
> > will rule forever. It is also well known that in thumbing his nose at
> > white `settlers' he once had the admiration and covert or overt
> > support of every person of his generation who suffered the humiliation
> > of `imperialist' occupation of African soil. Possibly he was admired
> > beyond Africa - wherever full human rights were not accorded to the
> > indigenous people. At home, the history and causation of all this
> > needs no going over here because, at long last, Robert Mugabe has
> > turned his back on the past. But he is facing what he perceives as a
> > new dawn. "We have turned east, where the sun rises, and given our
> > back to the West, where the sun sets" he says.
> >
> > Mugabe was imprisoned for demanding (most eloquently) `majority rule'
> > and freedom from the`settler oppression' of black people which would
> > flow from that. The well-informed, the liberals and all Africa's
> > subject peoples understood, then, his vitriol, aimed at his country's
> > overlords, formerly the British and later, their settler descendants.
> > But is his naked hatred still in vogue - beyond the limits of certain
> > rulers of African states? Hating the West, he pretends that China will
> > take up where the West left off. The `West', including many nations
> > which had played no part in colonizing Africa, generously assisted
> > Independent Zimbabwe with development programmes. Aid, including money
> > donated and loaned, industrial goods, training, and advanced
> > technology flowed freely from the West. Trade was a normal component
> > of bi-lateral agreements. The Chinese were more keenly interested in
> > sales (or barter) of their manufactures. (See The Zimbabwean's leading
> > article, April 22, 2005, by editor Wilf Mbanga) And here is Alister Sparkes,
> > veteran SA journalist's view:
> >
> > "Mugabe's notion of "looking East" is simply part of [the] great
> > illusion. China is an emerging superpower with a hunger for mineral
> > resources, of which Zimbabwe has a modest amount. But China is not in
> > the business of granting aid to developing countries" (The Star 20
> > April).
> >
> > An insight into the preoccupations of struggling Zimbabweans is one I
> > picked up in ZWNEWS, (20 April) from a story of a Harare man [who]
> > was asked if he had not attended the Independence celebrations at the
> > National Sports Stadium because he felt there was little to celebrate.
> > "No. It was because I couldn't find petrol." "But the government had
> > laid on buses from the usual pick-up points." "I didn't know that."
> > "But they were announced on the radio." "I don't listen to
> > that...radio any more." After a while, the first man said: "Come to
> > think of it, you would not have fitted into the buses anyway." "Why
> > not?" "You are too tall. They are Chinese buses."
> >
> > Unfortunately, while fighting the liberation war, Mugabe climbed
> > aboard a bus carrying a large proportion of the world to a Communist
> > Valhalla. On board were Europe's Eastern bloc and other Communist,
> > anti-West friends. The Communist Chinese, no friends of the Capitalist
> > West, were assisting in the training and arming of nationalists and
> > their fighting forces in the run up to the guerrilla warfare which
> > erupted on Rhodesia's borders during the period of the Cold War. Now
> > both wars are over. The Soviet Union is no more and the Chinese are
> > more friendly towards the West (and vice-versa). Trading and `jaw jaw'
> > rather than `war war' has brought old enemies and former political
> > rivals into new relationships, changing the world's economic
> > frontiers. Even Mugabe's anti-Western friend, the now retired
> > President Mahathir of Malaysia no longer directs his poison into the
> > Zimbabwe `king's' ear. Cuba's Castro is old and in a class of his own,
> > while North Korea's Kim Il Jong is very isolated. Independent and
> > sovereign Zimbabwe, the once `non-aligned' nation has no real enemies
> > in any sphere. Mugabe, the old warrior seems to be lost without them.
> > There is no one left to fight against except his own people.
> >
> > The point of this article, however, is to pick up on Mugabe's
> > declaration that Zimbabwe's future lies with the East and his promise
> > to dump the West in a sort of zero-sum shift in foreign policy. Surely
> > he should first listen to the views of Zimbabweans who are being told
> > that they will be the beneficiaries of this sea change. A serious,
> > national debate on the issue has never been presented. Without freedom
> > of expression in Zimbabwe itself, this debate will, perforce, be
> > carried in foreign newspapers - mostly Western because Zimbabweans
> > cannot read Chinese or any other `Eastern' language. `The Zimbabwean'
> > editor, Wilf Mbanga, has opened a window of opportunity for wide
> > ranging views from Zimbabweans, keeping alive the flame of their
> > freedom and national identity in many parts of the world. We should
> > join this debate in earnest.
> >
> > As for re-colonization, Mugabe's big bogey, Zimbabwe elections since
> > 2000 have shown that in spite of the absence of anything resembling a
> > fair debate, a new generation of Zimbabweans who have never
> > experienced any form of oppression from `settlers' are educated
> > enough, or just wise enough to recognise the fact that they face being
> > `recolonized' by a new minority group. This is the Zezuru, clan (never
> > use theword `tribe') from which Mugabe descends, through his father,
> > Gabriel, (a `real Gushungu' from Zvimba, according to James Chikerema,
> > a close relative).
Not an awful lot has changed in a year except that Chikerema has died and the country, lacking massive investments from old friends in the East, or new ones for that matter is still going economically down the tubes.
Copyright © 2004 Diana Mitchell
CHINESE BUSES
I wrote this article last year for publication in `The Zimbabwean' and having a look at it now, a year on decided to edit it and update it(since I reserve the right to use my own copyright)When I get my website up and running I shall repeat it there too for maximum exposure. Why do I do it? Because I must.
> > Zimbabwe's silver jubilee came and went last year and a jubilant
> > President strutted and fretted upon the stage at the National
> > Sports Stadium in Harare. He had made it very clear even before he and
> > his ZANU (PF) were nearly dismissed in 2000 by his own internal
> > Opposition that he hates the West. He loves the East (in the broadest,
> > political and cultural – and now economic - sense) and aims to shake
> > off, discard, trash or otherwise remove the remnants of a hated (for
> > him) age of British imperialism in a new Zimbabwe which he and his kin
> > will rule forever. It is also well known that in thumbing his nose at
> > white `settlers' he once had the admiration and covert or overt
> > support of every person of his generation who suffered the humiliation
> > of `imperialist' occupation of African soil. Possibly he was admired
> > beyond Africa - wherever full human rights were not accorded to the
> > indigenous people. At home, the history and causation of all this
> > needs no going over here because, at long last, Robert Mugabe has
> > turned his back on the past. But he is facing what he perceives as a
> > new dawn. "We have turned east, where the sun rises, and given our
> > back to the West, where the sun sets" he says.
> >
> > Mugabe was imprisoned for demanding (most eloquently) `majority rule'
> > and freedom from the`settler oppression' of black people which would
> > flow from that. The well-informed, the liberals and all Africa's
> > subject peoples understood, then, his vitriol, aimed at his country's
> > overlords, formerly the British and later, their settler descendants.
> > But is his naked hatred still in vogue - beyond the limits of certain
> > rulers of African states? Hating the West, he pretends that China will
> > take up where the West left off. The `West', including many nations
> > which had played no part in colonizing Africa, generously assisted
> > Independent Zimbabwe with development programmes. Aid, including money
> > donated and loaned, industrial goods, training, and advanced
> > technology flowed freely from the West. Trade was a normal component
> > of bi-lateral agreements. The Chinese were more keenly interested in
> > sales (or barter) of their manufactures. (See The Zimbabwean's leading
> > article, April 22, 2005, by editor Wilf Mbanga) And here is Alister Sparkes,
> > veteran SA journalist's view:
> >
> > "Mugabe's notion of "looking East" is simply part of [the] great
> > illusion. China is an emerging superpower with a hunger for mineral
> > resources, of which Zimbabwe has a modest amount. But China is not in
> > the business of granting aid to developing countries" (The Star 20
> > April).
> >
> > An insight into the preoccupations of struggling Zimbabweans is one I
> > picked up in ZWNEWS, (20 April) from a story of a Harare man [who]
> > was asked if he had not attended the Independence celebrations at the
> > National Sports Stadium because he felt there was little to celebrate.
> > "No. It was because I couldn't find petrol." "But the government had
> > laid on buses from the usual pick-up points." "I didn't know that."
> > "But they were announced on the radio." "I don't listen to
> > that...radio any more." After a while, the first man said: "Come to
> > think of it, you would not have fitted into the buses anyway." "Why
> > not?" "You are too tall. They are Chinese buses."
> >
> > Unfortunately, while fighting the liberation war, Mugabe climbed
> > aboard a bus carrying a large proportion of the world to a Communist
> > Valhalla. On board were Europe's Eastern bloc and other Communist,
> > anti-West friends. The Communist Chinese, no friends of the Capitalist
> > West, were assisting in the training and arming of nationalists and
> > their fighting forces in the run up to the guerrilla warfare which
> > erupted on Rhodesia's borders during the period of the Cold War. Now
> > both wars are over. The Soviet Union is no more and the Chinese are
> > more friendly towards the West (and vice-versa). Trading and `jaw jaw'
> > rather than `war war' has brought old enemies and former political
> > rivals into new relationships, changing the world's economic
> > frontiers. Even Mugabe's anti-Western friend, the now retired
> > President Mahathir of Malaysia no longer directs his poison into the
> > Zimbabwe `king's' ear. Cuba's Castro is old and in a class of his own,
> > while North Korea's Kim Il Jong is very isolated. Independent and
> > sovereign Zimbabwe, the once `non-aligned' nation has no real enemies
> > in any sphere. Mugabe, the old warrior seems to be lost without them.
> > There is no one left to fight against except his own people.
> >
> > The point of this article, however, is to pick up on Mugabe's
> > declaration that Zimbabwe's future lies with the East and his promise
> > to dump the West in a sort of zero-sum shift in foreign policy. Surely
> > he should first listen to the views of Zimbabweans who are being told
> > that they will be the beneficiaries of this sea change. A serious,
> > national debate on the issue has never been presented. Without freedom
> > of expression in Zimbabwe itself, this debate will, perforce, be
> > carried in foreign newspapers - mostly Western because Zimbabweans
> > cannot read Chinese or any other `Eastern' language. `The Zimbabwean'
> > editor, Wilf Mbanga, has opened a window of opportunity for wide
> > ranging views from Zimbabweans, keeping alive the flame of their
> > freedom and national identity in many parts of the world. We should
> > join this debate in earnest.
> >
> > As for re-colonization, Mugabe's big bogey, Zimbabwe elections since
> > 2000 have shown that in spite of the absence of anything resembling a
> > fair debate, a new generation of Zimbabweans who have never
> > experienced any form of oppression from `settlers' are educated
> > enough, or just wise enough to recognise the fact that they face being
> > `recolonized' by a new minority group. This is the Zezuru, clan (never
> > use theword `tribe') from which Mugabe descends, through his father,
> > Gabriel, (a `real Gushungu' from Zvimba, according to James Chikerema,
> > a close relative).
Not an awful lot has changed in a year except that Chikerema has died and the country, lacking massive investments from old friends in the East, or new ones for that matter is still going economically down the tubes.
Copyright © 2004 Diana Mitchell
Monday, July 3, 2006
MODELS OF GOOD THINKING ABOUT THE LAW LORDS AND THE FOURTH OF JULY
Lucky, as it turned out yesterday we were out of onions. So I braved the heat and walked to Sainsbury's. I picked up The Sunday Times, almost straining my right arm in the process. After dumping a lot of heavy paper I was struck by the headlines and content of two thoughtful pieces on the leader page. Oh joy! Andrew Sullivan and Simon Jenkins have thrown a bright, shining light where, for me, in this age of anti-terrorist over-reaction on both sides of the Atlantic, there has been a fog of uncertainty about the political performances of Bush and Blair. `The founding fathers save America's soul' says Sullivan. Of course! Its the constitution, stupid. Jenkins' article, focused on Britain, tells us that `Judges cut through the hysteria of rulers made tyrants by fear'. They are talking about American and British responses in dealing with stepped-up international terrorism. Sullivan warns of the consequence of an overkill being counterproductive or a threat to US democracy. Jenkins says that without the constraints of the constitution in the US, with its separation of powers and without similar constraints emanating from the wisdom of the British law lords here in the UK, our democracies are in peril. Their possible demise has loomed large since 9/11 and 7/7 in the US and UK respectively. Until I was reassured by the views of these two thinkers, I had begun to wonder if the end of our world was nigh.
We have already faced, in our former homeland, Zimbabwe, the consequences of the abandonment of the rule of law. Where the constitution sought to guard our freedoms, the ruling party simply changed it. The Mugabe regime manipulated electoral law, while almost simultaneously removing the powers of the judiciary to counter impunity. This was done to sustain the necessary majority of the ruling ZANU (PF)party in parliament and has ultimately brought the constitution and the law into contempt.
There is a parallel here with regard to Bush messing with the the law;a close call on 'constitutional propriety 'for Americans. Sullivan asserts that `...new conservatives are contemptuous of constitutional propriety and limited government' The battle (for the rule of law)is still on in America and he writes,`What will ultimately decide this battle for the soul of America will be the people who elect their own representatives to check the president. The court is as evenly balanced as it has ever been.'
In Zimbabwe, Mugabe's judges have, in the majority, already been bought and sold. Just take a good look the consequences for ordinary Zimbabweans.
Copyright © 2004 Diana Mitchell
We have already faced, in our former homeland, Zimbabwe, the consequences of the abandonment of the rule of law. Where the constitution sought to guard our freedoms, the ruling party simply changed it. The Mugabe regime manipulated electoral law, while almost simultaneously removing the powers of the judiciary to counter impunity. This was done to sustain the necessary majority of the ruling ZANU (PF)party in parliament and has ultimately brought the constitution and the law into contempt.
There is a parallel here with regard to Bush messing with the the law;a close call on 'constitutional propriety 'for Americans. Sullivan asserts that `...new conservatives are contemptuous of constitutional propriety and limited government' The battle (for the rule of law)is still on in America and he writes,`What will ultimately decide this battle for the soul of America will be the people who elect their own representatives to check the president. The court is as evenly balanced as it has ever been.'
In Zimbabwe, Mugabe's judges have, in the majority, already been bought and sold. Just take a good look the consequences for ordinary Zimbabweans.
Copyright © 2004 Diana Mitchell
Friday, June 30, 2006
SO MUGABE WANTS JUST AND LAWFUL TREATMENT DOES HE?
Poor, deluded, unhappy man - Mugabe thinks he is the only one in step. Let him allow just and lawful treatment for the people he oppresses with his iron fist.
The news from Zimbabwe that his `close confidant' Nathan Shamuyarira is still helping to prop up this pathetic old man's ego does not bode well for Shamuyarira's place in history. His name will be recorded beside that of his crazed boss, Zimbabwe's first executive President. The tyrant has already entered the category of shame and ignominy that fits men who are utterly corrupted by power. Like his patron, Nathan promised nobility but has delivered a land which will be fit only for scavengers after its surviving liberation heroes and true democrats have died or fled the country. Oh yes, as Stephen Talbot,indicates in his piece `From Liberator to Tyrant: Recollections of Robert Mugabe'[he means `on' Mugabe,surely?], the smooth-tongued politician had us all fooled at the beginning. Talbot confesses to being a starry-eyed worshipper when he met Mugabe in 1977 at the Kilimanjaro Hotel in Dar Es Salaam, Tanzania. I was in that same hotel, collecting nationalists' biographies for my book in late 1975, shortly after the assassination of Herbert Chitepo in Lusaka. At that moment the destiny of Mugabe and all other contenders for the prize of ruling the future Zimbabwe was still being debated by all parties involved in the matter. Bishop Muzorewa's men were there in the hotel,losing ground as the military men in the camps at Mgagau declared `We will choose our own leaders'. Ndabaningi Sithole was there also, giving interviews but already on the ropes. He had confessed it himself. He had told us,a deputation of white liberals in Rhodesia's capital city, Salisbury, quietly and without emotion:`You are talking to the wrong person (about future leadership), I am regarded as a spent force' - or words to that effect. I have a record of the meeting in Jeremy Broome's Jameson Avenue office with that old warrior, founder of ZANU. The golden light of late afternoon bathed us all. Sunsets in Rhodesia were always portentious. We had a rare close up of this one. Eddie Cross leaned forward and tapped Ndabaningi's knee and called him `Sekuru' (uncle).
Besides me, Eddie is the only one still alive to report it. We knew that Joshua Nkomo tried to do a deal with Ian Smith. Meanwhile, Mugabe, showing only contempt for the white men who had imprisoned him, had not yet been recognised by the Frontline States as the man destined to lead the future Zimbabwe African nationalist Liberation Army (ZANLA). Fast forward, we know how that story ended. But I have news for Stephen Talbot: men like Joshua Nkomo had experienced the power and the potential for absolute ruthlessness of his brother in arms. Why else would he have preferred to try to tame the white man? Unlike Nkomo, Smith was incapable of understanding what he was up against - the advance of a great wave, the ultimate expression of slavery's retribution. Mugabe used centuries of African history to his own advantage, cleverly disguising his personal ambitions until, with infinite cunning, he had gagged and bound us all - even his so-called confidant, Shamuyarira.
As for the reason he went to Lancaster House to negotiate with the colonial master - Talbot seems unaware of the role of the late, great Samora Machel. It was he who advised that Mugabe should negotiate. It was he who had provided the important base in Mozambique from whose borders the war on the Rhodesian Front regime could be waged. He talks, on film in Granada TV's `End of Empire'- if proof of this is needed.
And now, Mugabe's end is near, he cannot live forever. His legacy: the destruction and misery he has brought to the beautiful country he inherited from his former oppressors is assured. But he rages on, like the blind King Lear:
"We tell the world from this sacred (National Heroes') Acre that Zimbabwe is not about to die, in fact it will never die. What Zimbabwe needs is a just and lawful treatment by the Western world, a recognition that it is a full, sovereign country which has the right to own and control its resources, the right to chart its own destiny unhindered".
Yes, a thousand times yes. Zimbabwe has the right `to own and control...' Robert Gabriel Mugabe has usurped it.
Copyright © 2006 Diana Mitchell
The news from Zimbabwe that his `close confidant' Nathan Shamuyarira is still helping to prop up this pathetic old man's ego does not bode well for Shamuyarira's place in history. His name will be recorded beside that of his crazed boss, Zimbabwe's first executive President. The tyrant has already entered the category of shame and ignominy that fits men who are utterly corrupted by power. Like his patron, Nathan promised nobility but has delivered a land which will be fit only for scavengers after its surviving liberation heroes and true democrats have died or fled the country. Oh yes, as Stephen Talbot,indicates in his piece `From Liberator to Tyrant: Recollections of Robert Mugabe'[he means `on' Mugabe,surely?], the smooth-tongued politician had us all fooled at the beginning. Talbot confesses to being a starry-eyed worshipper when he met Mugabe in 1977 at the Kilimanjaro Hotel in Dar Es Salaam, Tanzania. I was in that same hotel, collecting nationalists' biographies for my book in late 1975, shortly after the assassination of Herbert Chitepo in Lusaka. At that moment the destiny of Mugabe and all other contenders for the prize of ruling the future Zimbabwe was still being debated by all parties involved in the matter. Bishop Muzorewa's men were there in the hotel,losing ground as the military men in the camps at Mgagau declared `We will choose our own leaders'. Ndabaningi Sithole was there also, giving interviews but already on the ropes. He had confessed it himself. He had told us,a deputation of white liberals in Rhodesia's capital city, Salisbury, quietly and without emotion:`You are talking to the wrong person (about future leadership), I am regarded as a spent force' - or words to that effect. I have a record of the meeting in Jeremy Broome's Jameson Avenue office with that old warrior, founder of ZANU. The golden light of late afternoon bathed us all. Sunsets in Rhodesia were always portentious. We had a rare close up of this one. Eddie Cross leaned forward and tapped Ndabaningi's knee and called him `Sekuru' (uncle).
Besides me, Eddie is the only one still alive to report it. We knew that Joshua Nkomo tried to do a deal with Ian Smith. Meanwhile, Mugabe, showing only contempt for the white men who had imprisoned him, had not yet been recognised by the Frontline States as the man destined to lead the future Zimbabwe African nationalist Liberation Army (ZANLA). Fast forward, we know how that story ended. But I have news for Stephen Talbot: men like Joshua Nkomo had experienced the power and the potential for absolute ruthlessness of his brother in arms. Why else would he have preferred to try to tame the white man? Unlike Nkomo, Smith was incapable of understanding what he was up against - the advance of a great wave, the ultimate expression of slavery's retribution. Mugabe used centuries of African history to his own advantage, cleverly disguising his personal ambitions until, with infinite cunning, he had gagged and bound us all - even his so-called confidant, Shamuyarira.
As for the reason he went to Lancaster House to negotiate with the colonial master - Talbot seems unaware of the role of the late, great Samora Machel. It was he who advised that Mugabe should negotiate. It was he who had provided the important base in Mozambique from whose borders the war on the Rhodesian Front regime could be waged. He talks, on film in Granada TV's `End of Empire'- if proof of this is needed.
And now, Mugabe's end is near, he cannot live forever. His legacy: the destruction and misery he has brought to the beautiful country he inherited from his former oppressors is assured. But he rages on, like the blind King Lear:
"We tell the world from this sacred (National Heroes') Acre that Zimbabwe is not about to die, in fact it will never die. What Zimbabwe needs is a just and lawful treatment by the Western world, a recognition that it is a full, sovereign country which has the right to own and control its resources, the right to chart its own destiny unhindered".
Yes, a thousand times yes. Zimbabwe has the right `to own and control...' Robert Gabriel Mugabe has usurped it.
Copyright © 2006 Diana Mitchell
Wednesday, June 14, 2006
COPYCATS, PLAGIARISTS large and Small
I have been copied. Am I flattered? - since imitation is supposed to be the highest form of flattery.
My recent blog, giving unsolicited advice to Dan Brown's publishers re charges of plagiarism has elicited a comment or two. Right now the media reports are working us up about students copying their assigments from internet sites. Now this is a skill that requires you to be a dab hand at `surfing the net'. This is a habit I have not developed, neither the surfing, nor the skilled copying. But when a new friend asked if I had ever had a book published, I referred him to the internet and told him to type my name and add Zimbabwe on the end of it. {MMPZ}It dawned on me that I myself had not taken this ego trip for several years and now was a good time to check. I found, very flatteringly, a substantial body of work. Most rewarding was the occasional reference to my published Who's Whos of Rhodesia's and Zimbabwe's African nationalist leaders. (End of commercial). Most satisfying, however was to discover that my work is being plagiarized by Zimbabwe's state media. Nowadays, I have no time at all for the Herald, that grossly defective instrument for the disemination of information. Its daily dose of ruling party propaganda is so blatant as to be fairly harmless - but have a look at this which appeared on the internet in the Media Monitoring Project Zimbabwe Report No.38, after the ste madia's eulogising of the dead Vice President Muzenda:
"ZBC also changed its programming to make way for documentaries on Muzenda. For instance, ZTV devoted time from 7pm to 8pm from Monday to Thursday to a special programme where ZANU PF officials discussed their selected positive personal experiences of Muzenda.
This abject eulogizing saw The Herald (22/9) carry (sic) a plagiarised obituary, Life, tribulations of relentless fighter. The article, which was written by Shingai Rukwata Ndoro, was apparently lifted from Diana Mitchell’s book entitled African Nationalist Leaders in Zimbabwe - Who is Who 1980...
and
(re the closure of the independent Daily News):
"While the government-controlled media [avoided such analysis and] gave the impression that the closure of the paper was lawful, The Standard (28/9) tried to expose how the State was selectively applying the law by failing to reprimand media practitioners working for the government-controlled media. It reported that Zimbabwe Union of Journalists had petitioned ZIMPAPERS to take action against its circulation manager Rukwata Ndoro, who plagiarised Mitchell’s book in his obituary of Muzenda. According to ZUJ, Ndoro “ is neither trained nor registered and has been churning article after article, sometimes as a columnist and the latest as a reporter.” Despite this, no arrest has been made so far. Ends"
Now that was something I lifted from the internet. With attribution of course.
As to talk of arresting the hopeless Ndoro, I must say I am more flattered than offended. His bosses in the ruling party would never have allowed my tribute to Muzenda, written 25 years ago when things in the Zimbabwe garden were rosy, to appear under my name in today's screwed up Zimbabwe media. But plagiarism is plagiarism and is not to be recommended.
Copyright © 2004 Diana Mitchell
My recent blog, giving unsolicited advice to Dan Brown's publishers re charges of plagiarism has elicited a comment or two. Right now the media reports are working us up about students copying their assigments from internet sites. Now this is a skill that requires you to be a dab hand at `surfing the net'. This is a habit I have not developed, neither the surfing, nor the skilled copying. But when a new friend asked if I had ever had a book published, I referred him to the internet and told him to type my name and add Zimbabwe on the end of it. {MMPZ}It dawned on me that I myself had not taken this ego trip for several years and now was a good time to check. I found, very flatteringly, a substantial body of work. Most rewarding was the occasional reference to my published Who's Whos of Rhodesia's and Zimbabwe's African nationalist leaders. (End of commercial). Most satisfying, however was to discover that my work is being plagiarized by Zimbabwe's state media. Nowadays, I have no time at all for the Herald, that grossly defective instrument for the disemination of information. Its daily dose of ruling party propaganda is so blatant as to be fairly harmless - but have a look at this which appeared on the internet in the Media Monitoring Project Zimbabwe Report No.38, after the ste madia's eulogising of the dead Vice President Muzenda:
"ZBC also changed its programming to make way for documentaries on Muzenda. For instance, ZTV devoted time from 7pm to 8pm from Monday to Thursday to a special programme where ZANU PF officials discussed their selected positive personal experiences of Muzenda.
This abject eulogizing saw The Herald (22/9) carry (sic) a plagiarised obituary, Life, tribulations of relentless fighter. The article, which was written by Shingai Rukwata Ndoro, was apparently lifted from Diana Mitchell’s book entitled African Nationalist Leaders in Zimbabwe - Who is Who 1980...
and
(re the closure of the independent Daily News):
"While the government-controlled media [avoided such analysis and] gave the impression that the closure of the paper was lawful, The Standard (28/9) tried to expose how the State was selectively applying the law by failing to reprimand media practitioners working for the government-controlled media. It reported that Zimbabwe Union of Journalists had petitioned ZIMPAPERS to take action against its circulation manager Rukwata Ndoro, who plagiarised Mitchell’s book in his obituary of Muzenda. According to ZUJ, Ndoro “ is neither trained nor registered and has been churning article after article, sometimes as a columnist and the latest as a reporter.” Despite this, no arrest has been made so far. Ends"
Now that was something I lifted from the internet. With attribution of course.
As to talk of arresting the hopeless Ndoro, I must say I am more flattered than offended. His bosses in the ruling party would never have allowed my tribute to Muzenda, written 25 years ago when things in the Zimbabwe garden were rosy, to appear under my name in today's screwed up Zimbabwe media. But plagiarism is plagiarism and is not to be recommended.
Copyright © 2004 Diana Mitchell
Sunday, May 28, 2006
TSVANGIRAI - PRINCIPLE UNDER THE MICROSCOPE
HAS POWER CHANGED HIM ALREADY? CAN HE HIMSELF AVOID CHANGING WITH `CHINJA(!)'?
Andrew Marr interviewed Morgan Tsvangirai on the BBC this bright Sunday morning. I was as interested in what he had to say as I was the first time he rose to address us as the Chairman of the NCA back in 1998. Marr came straight to the point: "Is the split in the MDC a personal one?" Morgan's answer, well rehearsed I am sure: "No it is ideological." Still on the edge of my seat, I waited for more enlightenment: The pro-Senate people wanted to do a deal with the regime, Mugabe's ZANU (PF) government and I did not - or words to that effect - is what he blithely alleged.
He lost me there. I have never let my eyes stray from the reports - from whatever quarter - about what went on in that catastrophic series of meetings which ended in disaster for the MDC as a bright hope for all Zimbabweans looking for new and better leadership. In a ten-minute interview, Marr couldn't possibly ask him: "What about the violence which began with the attempt on the life of one of your `internal' critics? What about the overriding of your party's constitution when you ignored the majority decision to go into the Senate?" And finally: "Is this allegation about the motives of the pro-Senate group really true? Why should some of the most dedicated of your followers turn against you? Did you not dismiss their concerns about your apparent change of character when you condoned internal violence and ignored your own party Constitution? Have you not considered that they went into the Senate because `realpolitik' dictates that you become irrelevant if you do not participate in the political process - however distasteful that may be?"
I say: Morgan, you have been less than truthful. You have a great following and they are so sick of the current regime that they will remain loyal to you no matter what. This looks worryingly like history repeating itself. Deja vu and all that. A quarter of a century ago,Zimbabweans were so sick of the suffering they endured in the liberation struggle that they allowed themselved to believe that their troubles would be over under Mugabe's leadership. Little was known about his character except that he was clever and embraced violence as the path to power. We all know where that has led us. Your own character has now been closely examined and until the first moment of the `split', you came through as a man who could be trusted with high office - a man of principle, a true democrat. Well, democracy went out of the window after that unfortunate man nearly did at the hands of your youthful thugs at Harvest House (and as you yourself narrowly missed doing when attacked by ZANU (PF) thugs at the start of your political leadership. Principle is what is now under the microscope.
The pre-independence Zimbabwean `masses' as Mugabe liked to call them, were denied access to information about nationalist leaders by the previous regime - mostly by default, since they were the rural poor, with little access to the print or electronic media. Far worse, today: positively no access to information about opposition leadership. They have only your rallies - and a few copies of the independent newspapers reaching them - to be persuaded that you are brave, that you are against the current dictatorship and that you are willing to go on leading them however hard the battle has become. What your former admirers need to know is, where are you leading them? Do you know yourself? Does your leadership require you to demolish your internal opposition by fair means or foul - just like ZANU (PF) - whatever it takes? And will you be able to hold on to the principles enshrined in your Constitution, of non-violent change and adherence to your party's promises of a better leadership? Can your leadership remain faithful to the rule of law within your own party and be ready to deliver justice to Zimbabweans within a restored rule of law - should you achieve the power to do all these things?
Weighty questions, but they need answering. If you yourself are changed too much in the process of bringing about change, what greater disaster can befall Zimbabweans?
This is an `I was there' commentary as far as his first five years in political leadership proceeded. I watched him with admiration as he chaired our NCA (National Constitution Assembly) meetings and my respect for him grew as he faced each new challenge as the undisputed leader of the MDC. This was a man who distinguished himself as a Trade Union leader: self-made, confident and daring, rather than opportunistic, in joining the NCA and taking on the leadership of the MDC at its inception. His next launching pad was made before the people and those others living outside of Zimbabwe who still cared about the country's future.
Copyright © 2004 Diana Mitchell
Andrew Marr interviewed Morgan Tsvangirai on the BBC this bright Sunday morning. I was as interested in what he had to say as I was the first time he rose to address us as the Chairman of the NCA back in 1998. Marr came straight to the point: "Is the split in the MDC a personal one?" Morgan's answer, well rehearsed I am sure: "No it is ideological." Still on the edge of my seat, I waited for more enlightenment: The pro-Senate people wanted to do a deal with the regime, Mugabe's ZANU (PF) government and I did not - or words to that effect - is what he blithely alleged.
He lost me there. I have never let my eyes stray from the reports - from whatever quarter - about what went on in that catastrophic series of meetings which ended in disaster for the MDC as a bright hope for all Zimbabweans looking for new and better leadership. In a ten-minute interview, Marr couldn't possibly ask him: "What about the violence which began with the attempt on the life of one of your `internal' critics? What about the overriding of your party's constitution when you ignored the majority decision to go into the Senate?" And finally: "Is this allegation about the motives of the pro-Senate group really true? Why should some of the most dedicated of your followers turn against you? Did you not dismiss their concerns about your apparent change of character when you condoned internal violence and ignored your own party Constitution? Have you not considered that they went into the Senate because `realpolitik' dictates that you become irrelevant if you do not participate in the political process - however distasteful that may be?"
I say: Morgan, you have been less than truthful. You have a great following and they are so sick of the current regime that they will remain loyal to you no matter what. This looks worryingly like history repeating itself. Deja vu and all that. A quarter of a century ago,Zimbabweans were so sick of the suffering they endured in the liberation struggle that they allowed themselved to believe that their troubles would be over under Mugabe's leadership. Little was known about his character except that he was clever and embraced violence as the path to power. We all know where that has led us. Your own character has now been closely examined and until the first moment of the `split', you came through as a man who could be trusted with high office - a man of principle, a true democrat. Well, democracy went out of the window after that unfortunate man nearly did at the hands of your youthful thugs at Harvest House (and as you yourself narrowly missed doing when attacked by ZANU (PF) thugs at the start of your political leadership. Principle is what is now under the microscope.
The pre-independence Zimbabwean `masses' as Mugabe liked to call them, were denied access to information about nationalist leaders by the previous regime - mostly by default, since they were the rural poor, with little access to the print or electronic media. Far worse, today: positively no access to information about opposition leadership. They have only your rallies - and a few copies of the independent newspapers reaching them - to be persuaded that you are brave, that you are against the current dictatorship and that you are willing to go on leading them however hard the battle has become. What your former admirers need to know is, where are you leading them? Do you know yourself? Does your leadership require you to demolish your internal opposition by fair means or foul - just like ZANU (PF) - whatever it takes? And will you be able to hold on to the principles enshrined in your Constitution, of non-violent change and adherence to your party's promises of a better leadership? Can your leadership remain faithful to the rule of law within your own party and be ready to deliver justice to Zimbabweans within a restored rule of law - should you achieve the power to do all these things?
Weighty questions, but they need answering. If you yourself are changed too much in the process of bringing about change, what greater disaster can befall Zimbabweans?
This is an `I was there' commentary as far as his first five years in political leadership proceeded. I watched him with admiration as he chaired our NCA (National Constitution Assembly) meetings and my respect for him grew as he faced each new challenge as the undisputed leader of the MDC. This was a man who distinguished himself as a Trade Union leader: self-made, confident and daring, rather than opportunistic, in joining the NCA and taking on the leadership of the MDC at its inception. His next launching pad was made before the people and those others living outside of Zimbabwe who still cared about the country's future.
Copyright © 2004 Diana Mitchell
Monday, May 22, 2006
MY RAVE ON BREEDING WHITE LIONS IN SA
I cannot resist commenting on a TV news item regarding the `re-introduction of white lions into the wild' by a wild life conservationist in South Africa's Western Cape.
Here is why:
About twenty years ago, I decided that I should try to depart from my serious and wholly unprofitable (in the financial sense) writing about the business of politics in Rhodesian Front- ruled Rhodesia. Peter Joyce, the writer,(he wrote the first published book 'Rhodesian Rebel' about Ian Smith) nobbled me with a proposal for co-authorship of a surprising (to me)genre of writing. I have since lost contact with Peter and our book was stillborn for a reason I will explain further on. He persuaded me that the way to bust out into literary moneymaking was to write a successful Mills and Boon novel! He had got stuck when his own attempt at income generation along this route (the path to a peaceful retirement to an island where the Great Novel could be written)when the first delicate episode of sex reared up in a book intended for the delight of `those bored and frustrated matrons who don't want to read anything dirty'. He warned me that the book had to be well written and would stand only about a 5% chance of publication. His own literary `Blue' from Cambridge was well up to the task. So why ask for my collaboration? "Because I can't write about those silly things you women think about" was his reply. Huffily, I picked up the three slim volumes he threw down for me to read and got through two of them before dawn the next day. "I can do this! Easier than falling off a log. Just let the imagination rip" I said.
Peter had worked out the plot in fine detail. But, to get back to the subject in hand, the story was of a wild life conservationist (heroically handsome) breeding a pride of white lions in a South African game reserve. We had great fun with the daily progress discussions - he left me to do all the first drafting whilst he got on with his "coffee table" books and promised to polish the final version before submitting it for publication. Unhappily for the book's future, its theme at a time when South Africa was threatened at that very moment with `disinvestment'- an anti apartheid project invented by Teddy Kennedy - our story of a rich, white Saxonwold businessman's romantic adventure with a white lady and a lot of white lions would not go down well with publishers. Without Peter, I have never had the courage to review and change the plot. Tawny lions in a Rainbow nation? Impossible.
But my point here is that Peter had researched well and come up with the facts:the white lion was an albino - not, as portrayed today, a lost species to be `re-introduced into the wild'. Certainly not in Africa where the natural tawny coat is a brilliant protective camouflage in the lion's grassland habitat. Snow lions? Well that needs further research.
Copyright © 2004 Diana Mitchell
Here is why:
About twenty years ago, I decided that I should try to depart from my serious and wholly unprofitable (in the financial sense) writing about the business of politics in Rhodesian Front- ruled Rhodesia. Peter Joyce, the writer,(he wrote the first published book 'Rhodesian Rebel' about Ian Smith) nobbled me with a proposal for co-authorship of a surprising (to me)genre of writing. I have since lost contact with Peter and our book was stillborn for a reason I will explain further on. He persuaded me that the way to bust out into literary moneymaking was to write a successful Mills and Boon novel! He had got stuck when his own attempt at income generation along this route (the path to a peaceful retirement to an island where the Great Novel could be written)when the first delicate episode of sex reared up in a book intended for the delight of `those bored and frustrated matrons who don't want to read anything dirty'. He warned me that the book had to be well written and would stand only about a 5% chance of publication. His own literary `Blue' from Cambridge was well up to the task. So why ask for my collaboration? "Because I can't write about those silly things you women think about" was his reply. Huffily, I picked up the three slim volumes he threw down for me to read and got through two of them before dawn the next day. "I can do this! Easier than falling off a log. Just let the imagination rip" I said.
Peter had worked out the plot in fine detail. But, to get back to the subject in hand, the story was of a wild life conservationist (heroically handsome) breeding a pride of white lions in a South African game reserve. We had great fun with the daily progress discussions - he left me to do all the first drafting whilst he got on with his "coffee table" books and promised to polish the final version before submitting it for publication. Unhappily for the book's future, its theme at a time when South Africa was threatened at that very moment with `disinvestment'- an anti apartheid project invented by Teddy Kennedy - our story of a rich, white Saxonwold businessman's romantic adventure with a white lady and a lot of white lions would not go down well with publishers. Without Peter, I have never had the courage to review and change the plot. Tawny lions in a Rainbow nation? Impossible.
But my point here is that Peter had researched well and come up with the facts:the white lion was an albino - not, as portrayed today, a lost species to be `re-introduced into the wild'. Certainly not in Africa where the natural tawny coat is a brilliant protective camouflage in the lion's grassland habitat. Snow lions? Well that needs further research.
Copyright © 2004 Diana Mitchell
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)