Who and What Actually Constitutes Bukalanga: A Re-Definition of Bukalanga vis à-vis the Ndebele

In all descriptions of the Makalanga it must be carefully borne in mind that there is no tribe, existing as one, which bears this name, but the people to whom it is applied consist of many tribes having their own peculiar traditions and customs more or less allied, but with considerable differences most confusing to the enquirer - Richard Nicklin Hall and W. G. Neal 1904. The Ancient Ruins of Rhodesia: Monomotapae Imperium.

In the preface we saw that for most of the last 170 years, the peoples of Bukalanga have been treated as a sub-ethnicity of the Ndebele, the Ngwato and the Shona. We also raised the point that the Great Nation of Bukalanga is made up of at least eighteen tribes speaking different but interrelated languages. In this chapter we shall go into detail answering the question: Who exactly and what actually constitutes Bukalanga? In an era when the Kalanga nation has gone through many convulsions, displacements and assimilations, it may be a bit difficult to identify the people who are actually to be identified as Bukalanga, but we shall try by all means to clearly define this our great nation.

By Bukalanga or the Kalanga Nation, this book goes beyond the definitions that we have in school textbooks today which claim that all who live in the so-called Matebeleland are Ndebele, all who live in the Central District of Botswana are Ngwato-Tswana and that all who live in the Maswingo and Midlands Provinces are Shona. The book goes beyond that and looks into the identity of the historic nation of Bukalanga dating back almost 2000 years. This book seeks to totally redefine the Great Nation of Bukalanga and reclaim its identity and heritage and rescue it from the externally imposed Shona, Ndebele and Ngwato-Tswana identities. Where the identity of Bukalanga was totally redefined by sword in the 19th century as Ndebele and in the early 1980s as Shona, we shall in the 21st century redefine by the pen. It is my firm belief that before the 1980s generation is out, that is, by 2050, assuming a lifespan of 70 years, the Great Nation of Bukalanga would have been re-established as one of the great democrac states of the world, living side by side with the Shona and Tswana in peace and harmony. Such is my hope, and such is my dream. As already been pointed out in the preface, the eighteen tribes of Bukalanga that I have managed to trace, at least by studying the history of their origins, are as follows:

1. Baka-Baloyi 7. BaNambya 13. AmaNdebele

2. BaKalanga 8. BaJawunda 14. BaLilima

3. BaLembethu 9. BaTembe 15. BaPfumbi

4. BaLemba 10. Vakaranga 16. Babirwa

5. BaShangwe 11. BaLovhedu 17. Vhavenda

6. BaThwamamba 12. BaTswapong 18. BaTalawunda

We have the authority of a number of writers who lived among these people in the 19th century that indeed these groups are of Bukalanga origin. Let us start off with the Kalanga-Venda-Lemba relationship. About this we have the testimony of Professor G. Fortune who stated:

**********

The Venda had a special relationship with the endogamous caste of smiths and craftsmen called the Lemba who have Islamic traits in their culture. These people are also well known north of the Limpopo. In Vendaland this group still speaks a form of Kalanga and, in Rhodesia, the only specimen of Lemba that the writer has seen is certainly Kalanga (Fortune 1973, 3).

**********

Fortune cites as sources of his information Professor G. P. Lestrade (The Copper Mines of Musina, pp. 6, 10; “Some notes on the ethnic history of the VhaVenda and their Rhodesian affinities”, in Contributions towards Venda History, Religion and Tribal Ritual, edited by N. J. van Warmelo, Pretoria, Government Printer, 1932, p. xxviii); and N.J. van Warmelo (“Zur Sprache und Hernkuft der Lemba”, Hamburger Beit rage zur Afrika-kunde, 1966). Professor Lestrade and van Warmelo had at the time done what was perhaps the most extensive study of the peoples living on the banks of the Limpopo.

We also read the following concerning the Kalanga-Venda-Lemba relationship in a 1905 report prepared for the General Staff of the War Office in London titled the Native Tribes of the Transvaal by Major R. H. Massie, General Commanding-in-Chief, South Africa:

************

The BaVenda people, apart from the ruling families, are believed to have crossed to the south of the Limpopo about 1700 A.D, and to have originally come from the valley of the Congo. Before entering the Transvaal they probably made a long stay in Mashonaland, the country of the “Makalanga,” and while there, seem to have come in contact with people of Arab extraction or other Semitic stock, for many individuals of the tribe at the present day show a strain of Semitic blood in their features. The language of the BaVenda, which is called Sivenda, is not easily understood by other tribes, but appears to be a mixture of some form of Sesuto with Lukalanga, the speech of the Makalanga people. It is said that a tribe now living on the Congo speaks a very similar dialect. There are remnants of a tribe called BaLemba among the BaVenda. These people are chiefly found in the Shivhasa district; they have no chiefs of their own, but have distinct customs, which point to Semitic origin, e.g., they do not eat pork or the flesh of any animal killed by people of other tribes. They speak the Lukalanga language (Massie 1905, Online).

**********

Regarding that the Lemba are of Bukalanga too is also attested to by the Electronic Bibliography for African Languages and Linguistics (EBALL). EBALL is a bibliographical database aiming to collect, as exhaustively as possible, references to works dealing with African languages and linguistics, with an intended coverage comprising any and all languages found on the African continent, such as Afro-asiatic, Khoesan, Niger-Congo and Nilo-saharan languages. In the 2010 version compiled by Jouni Filip Maho, who has compiled the list since 1991, EBALL lists the Bukalanga Group Languages as made up of the following: Pfumbi, Twamamba/Xwamamba, Lemba/Remba, Lembethu/Rembethu, Talahundra, Lilima/Humbe, Nambya/Nanzwa, Nyayi/Rozwi, Peri, Romwe, and Ja(w)unda (Maho 2010, Online).

A draft document of the Preliminary “Indigenous” Institutional Profile of the Limpopo River Basin also lists Kalanga as comprising various sub-dialects such as Lozwi, Lemba, and Nanzwa (Nambya) among others (Earle n.d., Online).

Concerning the Kalanga-Venda and Twamambo relationship we have the evidence of Professor Beach of the University of Zimbabwe when he wrote:

**********

[t]he Zoutparnsberg mountains had long been inhabited by Venda groups known as Ngona and Mbedzi, while the Limpopo Valley and the courses of its tributaries such as the Shashe or the Mzingwane had been the equally long-occupied area of the southwestern Shona, the Kalanga. These Kalanga, or more accurately, southern Kalanga – had been cut off from the northern Kalanga of the Togwa and Tjangamire states by the immigration of the Sotho-speaking Birwa , such as Hwadalala. One of the groups of southern Kalanga south of the Limpopo was ‘Twamamba’, and whereas some in the Brak River-Saltpan area continued to speak Kalanga, those who lived in the Zoutpansberg range itself came to speak Venda (Beach 1994, 180).

Let us now proceed to a consideration of the other Bukalanga groups. That the Tswapone or BaTswapong are a Kalanga group was first revealed to me by my 70-year grandmother, Elizabeth MaDumani, who belongs to that tribe, when I asked her to recite for me their praise poetry (zwitetembelo). I would later find recorded evidence in the works of Professor Werbner who, in his contributing chapter to Meyer Fortes and Sheila Patterson’s Studies in African Anthropology, identified BaTswapong as a Kalanga people (Werbner, in Fortes and Patterson 1975). Lest it be surmised that Professor Werbner cannot be an authority on who is Kalanga or not, we will do well to know that his research work among the Kalanga was assisted by leading and elderly Kalanga men and women such as Mbiganyi Tibone, Onalenna Selolwane, Sam Mpuchane, Gobe Matenge, Richard and Rosina Mannathoko, all who are proud and self-identifying Kalanga.

On BaLovhedu we have the evidence of Eileen Jensen Krige, former Emeritus Professor of Social Anthropology in the University of Natal. She and Dr J. D. Kridge visited twenty-six tribes in the Northern Transvaal in 1937 to obtain information on the Lovhedu and surrounding peoples, and they came up with the following: The genealogy of the Lovhedu dynasty of Modjadji chiefs shows that their earliest chief, Dzugudini, flew southwards from Vokhalaka [or Bukalanga] c. 1600. She points out that “There can be no doubt that the underlying Lovhedu divine kingship stems from Rhodesia.” She states that according to oral tradition the Lovhedu once lived at a place called Maulwe which formed part of the Monomotapa kingdom ruled by a Mambo. The daughter of the Mambo, it is said, bore a child by her brother. Forced to flee before the wrath of her father, she left with her infant son and a following, taking with her the rain charms and ditugula (sacred amulets). They went south and after many vicissitudes, eventually arrived in the area they occupy today (Krige, in Meyer and Patterson 1975, 57).

Evidence on the Bukalanga-Babirwa relationship is to be had from Bulawayo historian Pathisa Nyathi, himself a member of that community. With a focus on one of the Birwa groups he wrote:

**********

The group in question is descended from one Tshamuyalila, said to be the son of Malahwana/Marahwana the son of Mafutana. It should be clear that Mafutana is probably Makhurane, a name that was later Ndebelised in line with the incorporated status of this group of Nyathis. This particular group of the Nyathis does remember that they are Mbikhwa, Mbikhwa waMakhura, Nareng, Mageza ngochago, amanzi alezibhidi (they bath with milk, because water is polluted) Banongula nonkaka is a common family praise among the BaKalanga. The words have merely been translated into SiNdebele. (Interview with Goodboy Nguye Nyathi, Inyathi Mission 11 April 2009). It is interesting too to observe that Tshamuyalila sounds more Kalanga than Sotho. This should not come as a surprise given that the Babirwa are part of the generic BaKalanga. It could also be an indicator that the Babirwa had retained their erstwhile Kalanga identity by moving north. By so doing they were moving into an area where TjiKalanga was still spoken (Nyathi 2012, Online).

**********

Commenting on certain religious phenomena shared by Bakalanga and Babirwa and how it points to common origins, Nyathi wrote:

*********

Among the Babirwa there were a type of ancestral spirits known as magwasha. Among the BaKalanga they are referred to as humba (lion) or mazenge. Similar religious practice is found among the Jawunda of Sinondo Ndlovu…Among both the BaKalanga and the Babirwa the magwasha/humba spirits almost always take possession of women. We are not aware of male mediums for this sort of ancestral spirit. The spirit is summoned sometimes through the beating of drums. At other times there is singing which is not accompanied by the drums … Among the Babirwa the spirits speak in TjiKalanga. Even when the medium does not know the TjiKalanga language but once possessed they speak in a foreign tongue. In the early days of colonialism missionaries at the Catholic mission of Empandeni used to harass the humba mediums as these were perceived to be the impediments to the evangelisation crusade…That the BaKalanga and the Babirwa share this phenomenon in common has been used as evidence that the two peoples share a common ancestry…Among the Babirwa who spoke SeBirwa the magwasha phenomenon was prevalent. Even when some of them began to speak SiNdebele, the phenomenon persisted and the going language was, in all cases, TjiKalanga (Nyathi 2012, Online).

**********

In explaining how Babirwa came to speak a dialect of Sotho, Nyathi wrote that “The move to the south by the Babirwa must have brought them into contact with the ethnic Sotho. The Babirwa must have adopted both the language and the cultural practices of the Sotho. The one cultural practice they adopted was the preferred first cousin marriages. The language too changed but there were elements of the Kalanga/Venda that were characteristic of Northern Sotho. The Sebirwa has a heavy accent, for example in comparison with Setswana” (Nyathi 2011, Online).

The veracity of Nyathi’s evidence cannot be in dispute. Recently I discovered by the agency of Facebook that in the Polokwane area, where Northern Sotho, or Sepedi is spoken, there is a tribe called Bakgalaka, which is a Sotho-Tswana rendering for Bakalanga. These perhaps were originally the same group with Babirwa. I have not had opportunity to study their migrations unfortunately as I received the information a few weeks before this book went to print.

Let us now proceed to look at the Tembe and Ba-ka-Baloyi who now live in South Africa and classified as Zulu and Tsonga. On these we have the authority of the Swedish missionary, the Reverend Henry Junod. Junod was a member of the Swiss Romande Mission, living in Lourenco Marques [modern-day Maputo] during 1885-1895 and again from 1907-1921 among what was called by the generation of his writers the Thonga tribes. We know them today as the Tsonga. Junod had been challenged by the British academic and liberal politician Lord James Bryce in 1895 to study the native peoples he was staying with, for indeed they were the ones that he had travelled to Africa for. To that challenge the Rev. Junod responded by setting out on a research mission that spanned about a quarter of a century, culminating in the writing of two of his volumes, The Life of a South Africa Tribe, Volumes I and II. In the introduction to the first volume, Junod tells us that his informants were all over the age of eighty years at the turn of the 20th century, which means they would have been born around the turn of the 19th century, somewhat close to the events they were recounting in their discussions with the missionary. Describing the Thonga, or Tsonga tribes as we know them today, Junod wrote:

**********

The Thonga tribe is composed of a group of Bantu peoples settled on the eastern coast of South Africa, extending from the neighborhood of St. Lucia Bay (28o Lat. S.) on the Natal Coast up the Sabie River on the north. Thongas are to be found there in four of the present South African states: in Natal (Amatongaland), Transvaal (Leydenbourg, Zoutpansberg and Waterberg districts), in Rhodesia, and chiefly in Portuguese East Africa (Lourenco Marques, Inhambane and Mozambique Company districts). The Thongas border on the Zulus and Swazis southwards; westwards on the Ba-Mbayi, Ba-Lauti and other Suto-Pedi clans in the Transvaal; northwards on the Vendas and Ba-Nyai in the Zoutpansberg and Rhodesia, and on the Ndjaos near the Sabie; and eastwards on the Thongas near Inhambane and on the Ba-Chopi, north of the mouth of the Limpopo…The name Thonga is a generic name for a number of tribes, addressed using various names such as: Ronga, Tsonga (also Hlengwe), Tjonga, and Shagaan or Tshangaan. They are divided into the following six groups: the Ronga, the Djonga, the Nwalungu, the Hlanganu, the Bila, and the Hlengwe (Junod 1927, 13, 16-18).

**********

Recounting the legends of the Tembe and Ba-ka-Baloyi, who now live among the Tsonga and Zulu, Junod pointed out the following:

**********

Almost every clan pretends to have come from afar, and strange to say, they came from all points of the compass. Two of their clans, without doubt, come from the north, the Ba-ka-Baloyi and the Tembe. The Ba-ka-Baloyi, they say, came down the valley of the Limpopo in very remote times… According to some of the Native historians, the Ba-Loyi came from the Ba-Nyai country along with the Ba-Nwanati (a Hlengwe group), who also belonged to the Nyai or Kalanga race (Junod 1927, 21-2).

**********

Elsewhere, Junod (1927, 23) stated the following about the Kalanga-Tembe relationship:

**********

As regards the Tembe clan, it is said to have come down as far as Delagoa Bay from the Kalanga country by the Nkomati River on a floating island of payrus, and to have crossed the Tembe river and settled to the south of the Bay… The Tembe people, when they greet each other, sometimes use the salutation Nkalanga, i.e. man of the north or of the Kalanga country, and there is little doubt that, notwithstanding the legendary traits of this tradition, the fact itself of the northern origin of these clans is true (Junod 1927, 23).

**********

Junod’s report on the Kalanga origins of the Tembe is also attested to by W.S. Felgate who, in The Tembe Thonga of Natal and Mozambique: An Ecological Approach, reports that the Tembe claim to have migrated from Kalanga country (Felgate, in Kloppers 1982, Online). The names of Mabudu/Mabhudu-Tembe chiefs given by the missionary A. T. Bryant in 1905 seem to confirm a Kalanga origin. We have such names as Sikuke (c.1692-1710), Ludahumba (1710-1728), Silamboya (1728-1746), Mangobe (1746-1764) Mabudu/Mabhudu (1764-1782), Mwayi (1782-1800) and Muhali (no reign). That these people were long settled in this region is beyond doubt. The Portuguese chronicler, Perestrello, mentioned a chief named Tembe by the year 1554 (Kloppers 2003, Online).

In an abridged version of a document published in submission to the Nhlapho Commission opposing the claim by Eric Nxumalo that he should be installed as King of the Tsonga (and Shangaan people) in 2007, Mandla Mathebula, Robert Nkuna, Hlengani Mabasa, and Mukhacani Maluleke wrote that over the centuries, the Tsonga have assimilated other cultural groups who came to live with them in South East Africa, and among those were:

**********

Tembe-Karanga (Kalanga), who were in the Delagoa Bay region by 1554. The Baloyi–Rozvi (Lozwi), were already in the N’walungu region during the time of the Dutch occupation of the Delagoa Bay (1721-31). Some Hlengwe oral traditions claimed that the Hlengwe were actually the ones who converted the Valoyi from Rozvi (Lozwi) into Tsonga in Zimbabwe and Mozambique. This probably happened after the death of the powerful king of Rozvi, Changameri Dombo in 1696 (Mathebula, Nkuna, Mabasa, and Maluleke 2007, Online).

**********

Such are the relationships of the above groups to Bukalanga, and for this reason I submit that they comprise the historic Great Nation of Bukalanga. A look at these groups in Zimbabgwe will reveal that they constitute the majority of the people of the so-called Matebeleland, of which the Ndebele, whose definition we shall come to later (we shall also come to the Karanga in the next chapter), comprise a very small population. How is it then that the majority, perhaps over 90% of the population of Matebeleland, can be identified by the ‘foreign identity’ of the few, perhaps less than 5%, the remainder being the Tonga? Wouldn’t it be just, fair and equal to have the name Matebeleland changed to Bukalanga, perhaps Mapungubgwe, or even Shango-Ya-BaLozwi, maybe reflecting not only the identity of the majority of the inhabitants, but the time depth of their settlement, that is, about 2000 years? In any case, is it not only right that the newcomers should adopt the name of their hosts? Can a man walk into another’s home as a visitor, only to take advantage of his host’s hospitality and demand that the host should change his family name? Would that not be the height of rudeness and irresponsibility?

Now that we know the various tribes of Bukalanga, let us look at another important way of identifying Bukalanga - their surnames - the most notable feature being that the surnames are animal names and body parts names . Due to the convulsions of the last 170 years, it will be noticed that many of the Kalanga surnames have since been translated into several of the languages that they now speak. It is also important to note that this is not a new phenomenon. Bukalanga have always used this system of surnames, and a look at their oldest oral traditions shows that the surnames did not originate with the coming of the Ndebele in the 19th century as is commonly portrayed in the education system of Zimbabgwe. The list, which is most likely not exhaustive, of Bukalanga surnames, is as follows:

Moyo Sibanda Dumani

Bhebhe Nyoni Nkomo

Dube Nungu Mpala

Ncube Mvundla Nyoni

Hungwe Mpofu Malaba

Ndebele Nkala Mloyi

Mpunzi Nleya Tjuma

Ndlovu Khupe Zhowu

Shoko Shumba Gumbo

Sebele Juba Baloyi

Nyathi Mlalazi Ngwenya

Many of these Kalanga surnames can also be found in their various translated forms or alternative renderings. For example, mainly in South Africa, the surnames are rendered as follows in many cases: Mthembu and Tembo for Dube; Mdlovu, Tlou and Ndou for Ndlovu (Zhowu in Kalanga), Mncube, Phiri, Msimang and Nsimango for Ncube (Shoko), Muleya for Nleya, Nhliziyo (and Nkiwane) for Moyo, and Mokoena for Ngwenya . A look at these surnames reveals that millions of people who have them today are not generally identified as Kalanga. Many are identified as Ndebele, Zulu, Tswana, Shona, Sotho and many other identities that do not originate in Bukalanga. Concerning Bukalanga surnames and their translation into various languages, especially isiNdebele, Bulawayo historian Pathisa Nyathi explains:

**********

In dealing with…Kalanga people, we need to look at the situation before the arrival of the Ndebele. The Kalanga had surnames that they were using whose language the Ndebele did not understand. It became necessary for the Kalanga to give equivalents for their surnames. For example the Hhowu or Zhowu became Ndlovu, Whungwe became Nyoni. Long after colonialism there was a time when many Kalanga people sought to change their surnames into Ndebele. This was their way of fighting inferiority complex [imposed by the Ndebele] (Nyathi 2010, Online).

**********

It will therefore be noticed that most people who identify as Ndebele in Zimbabgwe today are of Bukalanga origin, and they are the majority of the people of the so-called Matebeleland Provinces. It is ironic that these are the people who in Zimbabgwe are being daily accused by some among the Shona of being ‘foreign intruding settlers from Zululand settled in Shona land’ and yet they are the aboriginal Bantu inhabitants of the land who settled it over 1000 years before the Shona themselves arrived as we shall amply show in the next chapter!

If the Surnames listed above are of Bukalanga origin, how then do we explain similar Surnames in especially KwaZulu-Natal?

Before going to press this particular chapter of the book was ‘leaked’ through my personal blog at http://www.ndzimuunami.blogspot.com and through the online news site, Bulawayo24. A lot of disputations came my way to the effect that it cannot be true that all people who use animal names and body parts for their surnames have their origins in Bukalanga. The biggest charge was that if this be the case, how do we explain the existence of these surnames as listed above all the way from Limpopo Province to Mpumalanga to KwaZulu-Natal.

Some participants in Facebook groups that I have been involved with charge that since there are people with the surnames Ncube, Mncube, Ndlovu, Mdlovu, Dube, Mthembu, Mvundla, and so on, stretching from Mpumalanga and Zululand, these people cannot be of Bukalanga ancestry. A response article was written on Bulawayo24 by one Mloyiswayizizwe Sokhela disputing my assertions concerning Bukalanga identity and its reach into South Africa, and excerpts from it went thus:

**********

I read with great fascination Ndzimu-unami Moyo’s rendition of Kalanga history in his Chapter 1 installation in a Bulawayo24News edition. His consultation of sources was quite extensive (albeit not interpretively accurate) while his narration and arguments are fairly informative and intellectually provocative. Let me start by affirming his right to a cultural identity and express my solidarity with his desire to fight for the recognition, promotion and preservation of the Kalanga identity for it is the responsibility of every generation to ensure that it does not become the terminal point for the posterity of its species. The Kalanga have undoubtedly a rich heritage and legacy in Southern Africa as evidenced by the various ‘luswingo’ sites scattered throughout the region. In South Africa, although associated with the Venda (a point which Moyo clarifies), the Mapungubwe ‘luswingo’ is so highly esteemed that in terms of the country’s national merit criteria, “The Order of Mapungubwe” is the utmost national honour that the country can ever bestow on an individual. I look forward to his further installations.

However, in spite of all the positive aspects that I have pointed out in Moyo’s historical account, there is a worryingly great deal of tribal prejudice, anger and bitterness most of which are reserved for the Ndebele people whom he invariably describes in hostile terms. Moyo also generously distributes Kalanga identity to everybody: a section of Zulu people in South Africa are Kalanga and they are identifiable by their animal totems! A section of Tswana people including the aristocratic Ngwato clan as well as the Tswapong and Tauwana are Kalanga! A section of the Tsonga people (baka BaLoyi) are Kalanga, a section of Sothos (Pedis) including the aristocratic Bakwenas are Kalanga and some sections of Venda people are Kalanga including the Lemba and Lobedu clans. While I fully sympathise with Moyo for his nostalgia (for indeed the Kalanga have a legendary foot print in the sub-region) I find his claims quite ridiculous in their attempt to construct a ubiquitous image of Kalanga identity which is being injected into the veins of every Southern African Bantu!

…Turning to the allegation of some Zulus in South Africa being Kalanga on the basis of their animal totems, I think Moyo committed a serious act of amateurish propaganda. His speculation that the Kalangas who left the ‘Mapungubwe city-state’ migrated to Natal is a desperate attempt to ‘deploy’ Kalanga ethnicity to other people without concrete historical facts. This is not only preposterous but also embarassing (Sokhela, Reconstruction of the Kalanga history welcome but beware of distortions! Bulawayo24News, 9 May 2012).

**********

The Bukalanga origins and relationships with the Lemba, Lobedu, Tswapong, and Baka-ba-Loyi have already been dealt with above, we need not go back to that. What I want to concentrate on below is the issue of Bukalanga surnames that Sokhela calls Zulu. He is right that some of the people bearing these surnames are now identified as Zulu, something which we have alread explained above, but he ignores the Kalanga origins of these people, or simply would not bring himself to accept the evidence. Could it be true that mine is mere “speculation that the Kalangas who left the ‘Mapungubwe city-state’ migrated to Natal [and that it] is a desperate attempt to ‘deploy’ Kalanga ethnicity to other people without concrete historical facts”? Well, let us see if we can have some concrete historical facts below. To do so we will look at a few sources that point to Kalanga migrations into and settlements in Natal, starting with Mr. J.T. Bent who in 1892 recorded that there was a major Kalanga migration down into Natal in the 1720s which was forced by the migrations of the Nguni tribes. He wrote in The Ruined Cities of Mashonaland that:

**********

Several tribes of Makalanga came into Natal in 1720, forced down by the powerful Zulu hordes, with traditions of once having formed part of a powerful tribe further north. Three centuries and a half ago, when the Portuguese first visited the country, they were then all-powerful in this country, and were ruled over by a chief with the dynastic name of Monomotapa…” (Bent 1892, 32-33).

**********

Secondly we have the record of the missionary Alfred T. Bryant who wrote in his work, Synopsis of Zulu Grammar and a Concise History of the Zulu People from the Most Ancient Times, in 1905, that indeed, there are people of Bukalanga origin in Natal, the amaLala. Of them he wrote:

**********

The aboriginal inhabitants of Natal were not, unless remotely, of the same stock as the Zulus. They were amaLala - another people with another speech. Their so-called tekeza language was, previous to the time of Shaka, considerably different to that of the trans-Tukelian clans and was almost unintelligible to them; and it was only after the over-running of Natal and the universal leading into captivity of its peoples by the conquering Zulu host, that the ancient tekeza speech died out and all the youth of the land grew up knowing and speaking nothing but the language of their conquerors…There are…many words in use in Natal which are absolutely unknown in Zululand, some perhaps remnants of the original Lala speech - an incident we should most certainly expect - while others are probably importations from neighbouring tribes (Bryant 1905, Online).

**********

Conjecturing that the amaLala were originally a people of Bukalanga stock, Bryant further wrote:

*********

It has been stated by Bent - but with what authority we do not know - that certain wandering Kalanga peoples came down into Natal about this time, or as he says, in the year 1720. Now, in Natal at the present day we find no knowledge whatever of any such immigration. But we do find that territory occupied by numerous clans whose origin and speech seems to have been altogether different from that of the Zulu clans now north of the Tukela. These are the Lala people who, we have said, were, immediately prior to their entering Natal, in residence, or at least a part of them, in present-day Zululand, while others perhaps were more inland in territory adjoining Swaziland. At any rate, they were the sole occupants of Natal at the time of Shaka’s invasion at the beginning of last century, and were commonly known to the Zulus under the general name of amaLala - a name whose meaning often puzzled us, until we were given by old Lala the picturesque explanation that it was a term, unknown to themselves, but, contemptuously applied to them by Shaka’s people, who used to say, ngoba belala benomunwe egolo. Somehow or other, perhaps owing to their forefathers having been all but exterminated by the Zulu conqueror Shaka, these clans, even though still abundantly in evidence in Natal (notwithstanding that they have now entirely lost their original language), no longer possess any tradition of their origin or their history prior to the time of the Shakan invasion. What we do know is that they were a people famous to the Zulu tribes as working in iron, and that their speech, unlike the softer Zulu, belonged to that harsh tekeza variety of the Bantu, common to the Swazi and some other peoples further north. But the Kalanga too were, and still are, celebrated precisely in the same manner as great iron-workers, and, moreover, many of the clans in the region of Mashonaland seem to us to speak a language which, along with that of the Lalas and Swazis, appears to have the tekeza characteristics. May, then, the Kalanga heard of by Bent (probably from some Suto or middle African source) as having emigrated into Natal, have been really these same amaLala tribes? South of Mount Wedza, in Mashonaland, we find even today a tribe, industrious as iron-workers, and calling themselves pa-Marara (or pa-Malala, as some Natives pronounce it), and the particular country inhabited by them is known as mu-Tekedza. Is it, then, nothing more than a coincidence that there should somewhere be a tradition of Kalangas having come down towards Natal, and that we should actually find there tribes commonly known to the Zulus as amaLala, and their particular speech said to be to ‘tekeza’?

[Bryant continued]

The statement that Kalangas once came down into Natal would be still more intelligible and acceptable to us if it could be shown that there was some linguistic affinity between the Kalanga and Tonga [i.e. Tsonga] peoples. For there does seem to be, or originally to have been, some recent intimate connection between the Lalas of Natal and [many] of the widely-spread Tonga tribes. Owing to the scarcity of our information, we could not indicate at present any likely spot, though we may say we have observed a marked similarity between the Shitswa dialect, spoken by certain Tonga Natives in the neighbourhood of Inhambane, and that of the Natal Lalas - thus, Shitswa, imbywa (dog), Lala, imbwa; S. tihomo (cattle), L. itiyomo; S. ihosi (chief), L. ihosi and iyosi; S. tinyane (birds), L. itinyoni, and so on. The single Lala word imbwa for ‘dog’ is itself evidence of much. So far as we can trace, this root, though almost universal in the more northern Bantu languages from the Swahili to the Herero, nowhere else exists among the extreme south-eastern tribes save among these Lalas and Tongas. Manifestly, then, the former could not have adopted it from any of their present neighbours, but must have brought it with them from some more northern source and that, to wit, nowhere south of Inhambane (Bryant 1905, Online).

************

Bryant’s position on the likely Bukalanga origins of the Lala and the disappearance of their speech, which if indeed they were originally Kalanga, would have been one of the Bukalanga Group Languages, is seconded by Clement M. Doke, one time Professor of Bantu Studies at Wits University. He wrote in The Bantu Speaking Tribes of South Africa in 1937 concerning the early history in Natal and of the Nguni and Lala that:

**********

The Nguni are markedly a “cattle people”; and the presence of “click” sounds in their language seems to be due, almost undoubtedly, to contact with that purely pastoral people, the Hottentots. The problem is how, where, and when such contact was effected. The existence of this problem is by itself sufficient to cast serious doubt on the speculations of writers about early Nguni history, for they do not account for what we actually find. The presence of the clicks in all the Nguni dialects - even those of the Transvaal Ndebele, who have been living in that province for at least three to four centuries, seems incomprehensible except on the assumption of a focus point of Nguni development far in the South, where contact with the Hottentots was possible. All this is not in accord with the theories hitherto put forward as to the way in which the Nguni came down from the North and occupied their present home. The accepted chronology tentative of course also does not appear to meet the case.

There is a third grave difficulty: the Lala enclave which used to occupy approximately the present Southern Natal. The Lala were largely wiped out a hundred years ago, but enough remnants are left which may be studied. Not very much of true Lala custom and speech has survived to be recorded, but even this has not yet been done, and so we know almost nothing about them. It is claimed for them that they were of Shona origin, and some features of their language certainly are reminiscent of Shona or Tonga; but beyond that nothing definite can really be said [by Shona Doke is referring to the Kalanga as we shall see in Chapter Four]. In addition, an almost impenetrable veil was drawn over the past a century ago. In the Cape Colony destructive frontier wars were waged, while in Natal it seems that hardly a tribe was fortunate enough to be left undisturbed during Shaka’s reign. Whole tribes vanished, and everywhere traditions, culture, and material possessions were lost (Doke 1937, Online).

**********

Finally, we have evidence presented by Samuel Kadyakale, a Maseko-Ngoni from Malawi who describes himself as somebody passionate about all things Nguni. He sourced his information from W.H.J. Rengeley’s 1978 book, History of Angoni or Ngoni People, who inturn sourced his information from Portuguese documents of the 16th and 17th centuries. In detailing Bukalanga migrations and settlements into Natal he writes thus:

*********

The abaMbo … crossed the Zambezi River in 1575 and on other occasions at about that time, together with a part of the amaZimba tribe. Most of these amaZimba stayed on the south bank of the Zambezi River until defeated by the Portuguese, when the survivors returned to the north bank of the river. The abaMbo, however, did not delay at the Zambezi River. Having crossed the river, accompanied by a portion of the amaZimba tribe, they moved up into the higher country to the south, and settled for a few years under an abaMbo chief named Sonza between the Sabi and Limpopo Rivers in order to grow crops. Finding themselves too near the powerful maKalanga kingdom of Munumutapa, and the soils of the area where they settled too poor and the rainfall too erratic, they moved on again and by 1620 had reached Natal.

Meanwhile, other groups of amaZimba and abaMbo had moved direct through the country occupied by the baTonga [or Tsonga] and had probably already reached and settled along the seaboard of Natal which they found then occupied by the pygmy baTwa and the click-speaking Bushmen. While in the country of the maKalanga, the host of Sonza incorporated large numbers of amaKalanga into the abaMbo tribe, and also annexed maKalanga cattle…In 1589, Manoel de Faria e Sousa described a tribe he called the Virangune as inhabiting the country inland from Delagoa Bay. These were part of the amaZimba host who did not tarry at the Zambezi River nor accompany Sonza, but had moved direct through the baTonga country to Natal, and were probably at that time still moving south, but they may equally well have been the amaZimba division of the abaMbo host of Sonza which had already separated under their chief Nguni, as the name Virangune or amaNguni would appear to make the more likely…The amaKalanga incorporated into the abaMbo tribe of Sonza and his amaZimba satellites during their stay in the maKalanga country have given rise to the present-day amaLala, and many of the clan names of the amaLala are those of the amaKalanga (Rengeley, in Kadyakale, 2009 Online).

**********

Surely, we can no longer claim that it is mere speculation that there are indeed people of Kalanga origin settled in the modern KwaZulu-Natal. Neither can we still say it is a desperate attempt to deploy Kalanga ethnicity to other people without concrete historical facts! Whoever wants to dispute that will have to wrestle with the sources and tell us why they are wrong. Combining these records with those of Henry Junod on the Tembe, we cannot help but admit that there is certainly a gem of truth in the assertion that there are people of Bukalanga origin settled in KwaZulu-Natal. They are to be identified by their animal name surnames, not totems, but surnames, for virtually all Bantu groups do have animal totems!

It is true that much of past history will always remain shrouded in the mystery of the distant past. But we do not have much option than to work with the little available information that we can gather from the earlest sources to at least arrive at an understanding of what the past had looked like. With what we have presented above, we cannot rule out the possibility of Bukalanga settlements in Natal in times past, before and/or cocurrently with the Nguni settlements. I always find it a bit ironic that people who deny the possibility of Bukalanga settlements in Zululand don’t find it questionable that the Zulu are spread all the way from KwaZulu-Natal to Tanzania! Neither do they take into consideration the fact that the Khoisan communities, who are known to have settled Africa south of the Zambezi before the Kalanga, are found all the way from Angola down to the Western Cape Coast! Sometimes I think it is a result of ignorance of Bukalanga history combined with an underestimation of how big a nation this once was.

Let us now proceed to a definition of who the Ndebele really are. Let me warn from the start that this definition goes against that which says all who live in Matebeleland are Ndebele. That definition is one of the factors responsible for the destruction of our languages and cultures.

Identifying the Ndebele, the so-called amaNdebele oqotho

Now that we have settled the question of Bukalanga identity, let us now proceed to identify the Ndebele in Zimbabgwe, as well as to answer the question: how do we differentiate the Ndebele from Bukalanga? To answer that question let us take a look at the clan-names of the Ndebele. I have already pointed out in a footnote above that the Ndebele, like all Nguni groups, traditionally do not use animal names or body parts for their surnames. Indeed, like all Bantu groups, they do have animals that they identify with, but they do not use the names of those animals as family names or surnames as we find in Bukalanga. What they use instead, is the name of the clan progenitor or ancestor.

We have below a list of Ndebele surnames as was provided by the Reverend Mtompe Khumalo, who also supplied part of the list of Bukalanga surnames above. According to the Reverend Neville Jones, who worked with the Reverend Khumalo for many years, Khumalo was a member of the Matabele Royal House and distantly related to the Ndebele King Lobengula. He was a hereditary adviser to the King and would have held a position of considerable authority had King Lobengula been living during Kumalo’s mature years. He [Khumalo] was born in the royal kraal at eNyathini in the area of present-day Burnside, Bulawayo. He was a cattle herdsman at the time of the battle of the Shangani Patrol, so would have been born between 1875 and 1880. He grew up near Hope Fountain where he later attended the mission school. After working for a transport-rider and as a miner, he entered the Tiger Kloof Institution near Vryburg [South Africa] in 1914 to study for the ministry. Three years later he was ordained as minister at Hope Fountain Mission where he remained until his death.

The Rev. Khumalo had a vast knowledge of the lore and history of the Matabele and was concerned that it might be lost for all time. He then prevailed upon his friend and associate, Dr. Neville Jones, to undertake the writing of a work in collaboration with him detailing the history, customs and culture of the amaNdebele. According to Jones, Khumalo was also a “good linguist” who spoke Sechuana (Setswana), Sekalanga (TjiKalanga), Shona and English as well as his native Sindebele (Jones 1944, 4).

Khumalo identified the various castes of the Ndebele State, the so-called abezansi, abenhla and amahole to Dr Jones, clearly identifying which people belonged to what caste. Unless otherwise clarified in this book, I am using the terms Matebele, amaNdebele or the Ndebele with reference to those people who bear the surnames provided by Khumalo as belonging to the abezansi caste. These are they that left Zululand under the leadership of uMzilikazi, and they are identifiable by their Nguni surnames. I am not using the names Matebele or amaNdebele with reference to the so-called political classification which says that all people who live in the so-called Matabeleland are Ndebele. Instead, I am using the terms with reference to those people who crossed the Limpopo already bearing the name Matebele, from which we get name amaNdebele. Let us now turn to the list of what are really Ndebele surnames as was provided to Dr Neville Jones by the Reverend Khumalo in the book, My Friend Khumalo. The list is as follows:

Kumalo Danisa Mbambo Nxumalo

Xaba Mahlobo Siwela Dlamini

Masina Hlabangana Mafu Zitha

Ndiweni Mavundla Ndlela Thebe

Mahlobokazi Mtupa Dlodlo Thwala

Mzizi Gwebu Gumede Dlomo

Magutjwa Mthethwa Fuyane Maduma

Mathema Mphoko Masuku/Zikode Sitja

Dumane Mkhwananzi Mlotjwa Zikhali

Mhlanga Tjili Khanye Tjabalala

Sigola Hadebe Gunene Gama

Tjabangu Sithole Mathe Nxongo

Dladla Hlongwane Sigcaba Makhwelo

Manyathelo Cala Zimba/Mhlophe Nzima

Matjazi Gasela Mlangeni Maseko Magagula Hlatjwayo Ndimande Thabethe

The last six surnames on the bottom two rows: Mlangeni, Maseko, Magagula, Hlatjwayo, Ndimande and Thabethe are, according to the Reverend Khumalo, Swati clan-names. All these surnames identify what we usually hear in common speeh referred to as “amaNdebele oqotho” or “the real Ndebele”. With the exception of the Swati, they are all of Zulu origin, or at least from what is now called Kwazulu-Natal. As much as this is highly contested, there is no doubt that these are the people properly called Ndebele. The idea that all who live in Matabeleland are Ndebele is very erroneous, for how can Bakalanga, Vhavenda, BaNambya, etc be Ndebele at the same time? Can one be white and black at the same time? I am fully aware that this is a higly contested way of defining Ndebele identity, but there is no denying the fact that they crossed the Limpopo already called Matebele, and theirs is an imposed identity on the people they found already inhabiting the land between the Limpopo and Zambezi rivers, Bukalanga, the so-called Matabeleland. I therefore contend that the Ndebele identity is an impossed one on Bukalanga, and since it did not fall down from heaven like any other identity, it can as well be challenged, changed and re-appropriated to the people to whom it rightfully belongs. There is really no logical reason why Bakalanga, Banambya, Vhavenda, Babirwa and others should continuously be identified as amaNdebele, something which inevitably destroys their own languages and cultures.

Because of the way Ndebele identity is highly contested versus that of Bukalanga especially in Matabeleland, I would also like us to draw comparisons between Ndebele surnames and those of other Nguni, in this case the amaHlubi, whose surnames are as follows:

Dakana Masingila Ndlela Dinwa

Ndlovu-Malunga Masoka Dladla Mayaba

Ndumo Dontsa Mazibuko Nkala

Hlangebi Mbambo Hlatywayo Nkomo Nkwali-Maphela Mbongwe Mkhwane Ntethe

Khambule Mlandu Ntlaphu Khasibe

Mguni Phakathi Khesa Mtambo

Tadebe (ama) Khumalo Mpangela Sithole

Tshabalala Langa Mpila Lubelo

Msi-Skhosana Tshabangu Ludwala Thuse

Mabaso Mtungwa Vundle Maduna

Nala-Nzima Xaba Makhunga Ndaba

Zengele-Thiyani Maphetha Masiyi Ndana

We will notice that this list is very much similar to the one supplied by Khumalo of Ndebele surnames, the main difference being that this one contains animal name surnames, explanation of which shall follow below in addition to what we have already given above. This amaHlubi list was provided by Henry Masila-Ndawo in 1938. Masila-Ndawo was born in Matatiele amongst the amaHlubi, and would go on to be a leading imbongi (praise poet) among the amaXhosa (Masila-Ndawo 1939, Online).

What I would like to establish by comparing these two lists is the fact that whilst we may have people now identified as Nguni or Ndebele who use animal names for their surnames, the frequency thereof is so rare as to show an external, non-Nguni origin of the surnames. By extension this would mean that there is a very highly probability that no person in Matabeleland who uses this type of surnames is originally Ndebele, but originally of Bukalanga ancestry. The dynamics of what has happened to see many of our people identified as Ndebele will be deal with in Chapter Twelve of the book when we deal with what has happened to Bukalanga.

From the list provided by Masila-Ndawo, the occurrence of animal name surnames is about 7%. Interestingly, when Masila-Ndawo goes into the detailed histories and praise-poetry (iziduko) of these people, those with animal surnames begin to be shown to be what we may call outsiders to the amaHlubi nation. For example, the Msimanga, a Nguni variant of Nsimango (similar to Shoko/Ncube/Phiri), Masila-Ndawo writes (in isiXhosa) that “aba bantu babonwa befika kwaMhlanga, bekunye nabaTwa. Bathi bangabaTwa nanamhla oku. Kodwa ke thina sibafumana bengamaHlubi ngqe” (translation: “these people were seen arriving kwaMhlanga together with the Khoisan. Even today they identify themselves as Khoisan. Though we now find them today identified as amaHlubi”). The Mncube-Khambule [im’Zilankatha] are shown to have formerly been an independent kindgdom from the amaZulu, akin to the Mabudu-Tembe [the Dube-Mthembu] that we have referred to in a footnote above. They were originally two independent groups - Mncube and Khambule - though they have now come to be viewed as one. They do have a Mlotjwa affiliation only through having once lived under that chiefdom.

Also of interest are the Ndlovus who now view themselves as the true amaNtungwa, oNdlovu zidl’ ekhaya ngokuswela umalusi, some of who now pride themselves in being pure-Ndebele. A look at Masila-Ndawo’s history seems to give the impression that they became amaNtungwa by assimilation. They are the sons of Ndlovu, and Ndlovu is rarely a first name amongst Bantu peoples. Even its rate of occurrence amongst Nguni surnames shows that it is not traditionally a first name, or name of a clan progenitor. The same can be said of the surname Ndebele, originally Debele. A look at iziduko of the Ndebele clan in Zululand ends with the phrase they who bath with milk saying water is polluted. This is one of the most classic praises of virtually all the Kalanga irrespective of their surname. It is true that some of these people are now Zulu, and have through the centuries even adopted Zulu praise poetry, but we cannot help but marvel at their origins in the Great Nation of Bukalanga!

Masila-Ndawo’s statement that some of the groups forming the amaHlubi nation came from outside is confirmed by the AmaHlubi King’s Planing Committee, AmaHlubi Royal Committee and the AmaHlubi National Working Committee. In a document titled Isizwe samaHlubi: Submission to the Commission on Traditional Leadership Disputes and Claims, arguing that the amaHlubi are a separate nation from amaZulu, they state that certain groups such as the Nkomo, Msimang, Nkala, and others were incorporated into the Hlubi nation, but were not originally part of it. They also argue that they were the largest segment of the eMbo or abaMbo who we learned that on their southward march they incorporated many Kalanga into their ranks. They state that they settled in the territory marked by the Pongola River to the north-east, east of which were settled the Mabudu-Tembe of Chief Mthembu, which clan we have already encountered above. They also state that their language belongs to the tekeza or tekela variety of the amaLala. All this shows that intermarriages and intermixtures between the amaHlubi and Bakalanga cannot be ruled out, hence explaining what we believe to be typically Bukalanga surnames such as Nkomo, Ndlovu, Nkala, etc (the 2004 document referred to here is available online under the title Isizwe samaHlubi).

A complete list of Nguni clan names or surnames is provided in my blog at http://www.ndzimuunami.blogspot.com for those readers familiar with Nguni languages. What will be noticed from that list is that the rate of occurrence of animal name surnames is just about 3% out of about 1400, showing that these are traditionally not Nguni surnames. A list is also provided of Xhosa clan names. The occurrence of animal name surnames is only about 2.1% of the total of about 95 clan names, excluding the hundreds of sub-clan names. On the contrary, amongst Bukalanga peoples, Bakalanga, BaNambya, some Venda, and the majority of those now called Ndebele, the occurrence of these type of surnames is about 100%. Also, a look at the Maseko-Ngoni in Malawi will reveal the same trend reported above. Samuel Kadyakale provides a fine list in his blog posting titled The Clans of the Ngoni According to G.T. Nurse, posted in October 2010. His material is sourced from G. T. Nurse’s 1978 book, Clanship in Central Malawi, pages 50-62. Similarly there, the surnames we have identified as of people with origins in Bukalanga are identified too as Kalanga, with just a few slight variations.

Indeed, we can safely conclude that the people who use animal name surnames in Matabeleland, KwaZulu-Natal, Mpumalanga and Swaziland are people of Bukalanga origin, whose migrations we have already dealt with above. Coming back home this leads to the conclusion that all people in Matebeleland using animal names for surnames as we listed in the Bukalanga surnames list are not Ndebele, but make up the Great Nation of Bukalanga! In fact, the list of zansi surnames provided by the Rev Khumalo contains no animal name surnames, proving our position correct that no-one in the land presently called Matabeleland who uses such a surname is Ndebele. Yes, some of them may now speak Ndebele, but their ancestry is Kalanga. This should effectively serve to clear the identity crisis that seems to be prevailing so much in the so-called Matabeleland.

The reason I had to go into so much detail on what surnames are Ndebele and which ones are Kalanga is because there is a lot of confusion in Zimbabgwe, especially Matabeleland, regarding who is Ndebele and who is not. The peoples of Bukalanga - Bakalanga, BaNambya, Babirwa, and Vhavenda, etc., - as well as the Tonga are bandied up together and identified as amaNdebele, many times against their own will. It will therefore, be understood that many a so-called Ndebele in Zimbabgwe is actually of Bukalanga origin. And many, out of a lack of knowledge, understanding and appreciation of their own history, heritage and identity, proudly identify themselves as amaNdebele who came down from Zululand, whereas their identity is nothing of that sort. This is especially the case amongst the younger generation. What they do not understand is that they became amaNdebele by militarily forced subjugation at the expense of their own languages and cultures. Finding nothing taught in school about Bukalanga, they shun that identity and hide themselves in Ndebele-hood, many times thinking that the Kalanga are a Shona group. The same situation can be found in Botswana where some hide in a Tswanadom identity.

As for Bukalanga, let us keep in mind that it is to the groups that use animal names and body parts for their surnames and which we have also identified as the eighteen tribes that the terms Bukalanga or the Kalanga refer to. But I want to emphasize that much as these groups are Kalangaitic by race, not all speak TjiKalanga or iKalanga, nor are their languages iKalanga dialects. For example, I think it would be not in the interest of progress and linguistic and cultural inclusiveness and diversity to treat Nambya as a dialect of iKalanga today. In linguistics it can work, but I am not sure it works well in the political economy of the country. It is therefore my submission that much as these groups might be Bukalanga by race and ethnicity, they ought to be treated as distinct ethnic groups, especially in light of the fact that in today’s language, Kalanga or Bukalanga is usually used only in reference to Bakalanga of Bulilima-mangwe and Botswana. We can perhaps only adopt the names Bukalanga or Makalanga in a broader sense and use it to replace the name Ndebele as the broader identity of the people of what is currently called Matabeleland, but meanwhile emphasizing unity in diversity - keeping our individual identities as Bakalanga, BaNambya, Babirwa and Vhavenda, etc. This I say because unlike Ndebele, Bukalanga or Makalanga is not an externally impossed identity, instead it is the ancestral origin of many of the tribes of Matabeleland. Indeed, ours has always been a diverse nation. The kingdoms of our forefathers were always confederacies, and unity in diversity was the norm. It was not necessary that all nationals speak one language. As was pointed out by Hall and Neal:

**********

[the] Rev. G. H. Cullen Reed of the London Missionary Society station in Bulalima [Bulilima], in Matebeleland, who has labored for some years among the Makalanga of that district writes: In all descriptions of the Makalanga it must be carefully borne in mind that there is no tribe, existing as one, which bears this name, but the people to whom it is applied consist of many tribes having their own peculiar traditions and customs more or less allied, but with considerable differences most confusing to the enquirer” (Hall and Neal 1904, 134-135).

**********

Before closing the chapter let me state emphatically here with regard to the Ndebele that they deserve all the due respect as full citizens, especially in Bukalanga, never to be treated as foreigners or settlers. The notion that they are foreigners and therefore have to go back to Zululand as one often finds in online chatrooms and Facebook comments is not only evil but deserves to be rejected with the contempt that it deserves. In any case, most Ndebele have Bakalanga, Vhavenda, Bamambya, Babirwa and Tonga mothers today. Therefore, amaNdebele should be welcomed in Bukalanga as fellow and equal citizens and fellow brothers and sisters, not to be seen as enemies as some, especially among the Shona, love to portray. If indeed we believe that the Ndebele should go back to Zululand, then by extension we are also suggesting that the Zezuru should also go back to the Great Lakes Region since the settlement of the two groups in Zimbabgwe is seperated by a paltry 120 years!

I therefore contend that there is no one who is more indigenous than the other in this country. The fact that we arrived first does not confer on us any status of better citizenship than later arrivals, and I think the sooner we accept that the better. Neither should the crimes of the past be used as a wedge to divide us today. The comments one often sees on Facebook and online chatrooms and hears on our streets are frightening when questions of identity are under discussion in this country. As long as we do not openly and honestly deal with them, we might as well be building a future bomb that will explode on us with horendous consequences for us and for future generations.

But again, this is not a call to disrespect each other’s space. Respecting each other’s identities should also entail respect of each other’s space since it is too obvious that in Africa one’s identity goes with one’s land. This is mainly a word of caution to those Shona who believe that they can just have a free-for-all land grab in Bukalanga, the so-called Matabeleland. Whilst any citizen can have a right to reside anywhere they please within the borders of the country, the fact still remains that there is such a thing as ancestral land in Africa. No group has a right to just take over the land of another without their consent. No one wants their land to be overrun by people who do not have ancestral claim to a piece of land. In as much as it was wrong for the whites to take away Shona land and horse-peg it for their farms, it is similarly wrong for the Shona to take Bukalanga land!

It is therefore critically important that we respect each other’s ancestral land. Each time questions of identity and land are under discussion in Zimbabgwe, be it on the street or online, one hears the Shona claim that the people of Matabeleland have no land in this country. Recently, a group of war veterans invaded the Njelele Shrine in Matobo suppossedly to conduct cleansing rituals, and they are alleged to have told locals that they do not have land in this country, for this country is “Shona land”. One wonders how a country can expect to live long in peace when such utterances are allowed to be churned out with impunity, especially based on a false reading of history. Perhaps the Shona need to be reminded that Bukalanga, so-called Matabeleland, has never at any point in history been Shona land. It is the ancestral land of Bukalanga, and shall always be. The sooner that fact is accepted and respected, the longer can this country live in peace!

Now that we have clearly defined Bukalanga, let us answer the question: Are the Kalanga a Shona group as usually portrayed and argued by Shona political elites and scholars?