History of Shona Speaking People – The Origins of Shona 12 April 2025
A Debate on the Southern African Think Tank Platform
History of Shona Speaking People – The Origins of Shona – A
Debate
Over the years, there have been various narratives on the origins of Shona in Zimbabwe. Different
perspectives continue to be presented by different sections of society. This write up seeks to
unpack this by analysing the different perspectives based on historical context. This is not
exhaustive or conclusive, but hopefully paves the way for further debate in search of historical
truth and justice.
ORIGINS OF THE WORD SHONA – ONE VERSION
PUBLISHED ON FEBRUARY 5, 2015
Source: Celebrating Being Zimbabwean https://search.app/PgReSJmjum9AVxdP6
“HISTORY is the collective record of a people’s experiences in shaping their world in their own
interests and cultural images,” says Robin Walker in, Roots of Black History.
The history of African people that is being taught in Zimbabwean schools and universities today,
both by Europeans and Africans, is not the history of African people’s collective experiences in
shaping their world in their own interests and cultural images.
It is the history of white peoples’ collective experiences in shaping the African world in their own
white interests and cultural images.
The purpose for doing so, which African historians perpetuate is, in Achebe’s words, to make sure
that African people of Zimbabwe do perish without having known how to spell their proper name.
An important example, are the differences between the idea of who the Shona people are that is
taught in our schools and universities and popularised among our people and throughout the
world; and the idea of who the Shona people really are that is found in the historical records that
white people themselves and other non-white historians have written, but is never taught in our
schools and universities in Zimbabwe or anywhere in the world.
In order to understand who the Shona people really are, in history, it is important first to
understand the extent of their territory which in history has been taught as the Mutapa Kingdom.
A 17th century French engraving of Mutapa Mavhura Mhande, who ruled from 1629 to 1652 says,
“The Great King Monomotapa is very powerful and rich in gold. “His territory comprises lower
Ethiopia. “His Empire has a circuit of 2 400 miles. “His court is at Zimboae (Zimbabwe).”
“The gold workings of his Kingdom,” says Basil Davidson in, Old Africa Rediscovered, “spread in
their thousands across the Southern hinterland, from the fringes of the Belgian Congo, through
Bechuanaland to Natal in South Africa, and are central to the growth and flowering of the
Zimbabwe culture across the whole Empire.”
Still on appreciating the extent of Mutapa’s Kingdom, Chancellor Williams says, “from its long
eastern border bathed by the Indian Ocean into South Africa, Zimbabwean culture was
experienced throughout the whole Kingdom on one of the widest scales in history.
“From its eastern border into South Africa, the Zimbabwe cities of stone dotted the whole land as
a deathless symbol of a people’s greatness.”
Page 1 of 15
History of Shona Speaking People – The Origins of Shona 12 April 2025
A Debate on the Southern African Think Tank Platform
Now, let us turn to historical records that have never been taught in our schools and universities,
and find out what the people in this vast Kingdom were called.
According to these records, the growth and development of the Kingdom of Mutapa from lower
Ethiopia, through Botswana to Natal in South Africa, was based on mining, especially gold, to the
extent that the whole Kingdom became known as the land of gold, and its people, as the people
of the land of gold.
Trade in gold from the Mutapa Kingdom reached as far as India, Persia, China, Arabia, Portugal
and eventually other countries in Europe and Asia. This trade was dominated by Indians.
The Gujarati Banyans, according to the following account by H. Ellert in, Rivers of Gold, enjoyed
rights to free voyage between Diu and Mozambique and the Rivers. The shareholders were rich
Indian merchants and arms dealers. They financed annual voyages to Mozambique supplying
beads and textiles from Cambaya and Surat.
The Gujarati vessels offered the most reliable and regular passage between India and
Mozambique. Many Portuguese officials and merchants took advantage of the service, although
they often complained that all their efforts had been for the benefit of India because, according
to them, the gold was dug from African soil, only to be transported to India, where the Hindu
buried it again.
Gold in Hindi is called ‘sona’. In Gujarati it is also called ‘sona’ or ‘sonu’. ‘Sonu’ means ‘handsome’
in Sanskrit. It is derived from the word ‘Sohna’ in Punjab, which means beautiful. The whole land
of Mutapa became known as ‘the land of sona’, or ‘Sonaland’. ‘Sona’ or ‘Sohna’ were eventually
corrupted to ‘Shona’. ‘Sonaland’ became ‘Shonaland’. The people became simply known as
‘Shona’, collectively. That is how ‘Shona’ as the name for all the people of under Mutapa gained
currency throughout the world.
Ken Mufuka in his book, Dzimbahwe, cites the example of the Arab traveller, Ibu Said, (1214-1286)
who wrote about a certain people called Soyouna (Shona) inhabiting the whole land of Zambezia.
Mufuka gives another example of a traveller and geographer called Janson who recorded on his
1639 map of Zambezia the name of the people living there as ‘Sajona’ (Shona).
Again, Mufuka refers to a 1739 map by De Lisle, in the National Museums of Zimbabwe, which
names the whole land of Zambezia as Mwene Mutapa.
The Portuguese adventurer Barreto de Rezende refers to Mwene Mutapa as King of the ‘Matshone’
meaning all the people in his Kingdom. Again, according to Mufuka, the Matopo Hills were known
as ‘Mashona Hills’ by the time Robert Moffat settled at Inyati.
So, the name Shona as the collective name for all Mutapa’s subjects was in use way back before
the Ndebele-Shona wars that only started in the 1830s, according to Samkange in, Origins of
Rhodesia.
The so-called African historians, who say the name ‘Shona’ comes from the Ndebele, only play
into the hands of whites whose mission is to dissociate the Ndebele from those who still call
themselves Shona. Such historians are known.
The question is – Is this true? Let’s now unpack it with some deeper research and the help of
Artificial Intelligence.
Page 2 of 15
History of Shona Speaking People – The Origins of Shona 12 April 2025
A Debate on the Southern African Think Tank Platform
Origins of Shona – Debunking the Myth – Another Version
Thanks for sharing that passage—there’s a lot to unpack in it. It’s a bold attempt to reinterpret the
origins of the word “Shona” and push back against what the writer sees as a colonial distortion of
African history.
Let’s break it down into a few layers:
1. Key Argument of the Passage
The article claims:
• The term “Shona” predates the 1800s and did not originate with the Ndebele
(as some historians argue).
• Instead, it evolved from “Sona”, the Hindi/Indian word for gold, because
Indian and Arab traders supposedly referred to the Mutapa Kingdom as the
“land of gold” (Sonaland).
• Over time, “Sona” was supposedly corrupted to “Shona,” becoming the
collective name for the people of that empire.
This interpretation is used to reclaim Shona identity as something ancient and glorious, rooted
in global trade, gold wealth, and African power.
2. What’s Valid Here?
• The Mutapa Kingdom was indeed powerful and central to gold trade across
the Indian Ocean world.
• There was long-distance contact with Arab, Indian, and Portuguese traders,
especially at coastal ports like Sofala and Kilwa.
• It’s true that the word “sona” means gold in several Indian languages, and
some linguists have speculated about cross-cultural borrowing in naming.
• Early maps (like Jansson’s 1639 one) and accounts do sometimes refer to
variants like “Sajona” or “Matshone”, suggesting there was an emerging
identity or at least an external label forming.
3. What’s Problematic or Debatable?
Here’s where historians would raise concerns:
a) Linguistic leap of faith
• There’s no firm linguistic evidence that “Sona” from Hindi was definitively
adopted as “Shona” by locals or traders.
• Language evolution is complex—sounding similar doesn’t equal origin. A
shared phonetic resemblance isn’t proof of etymology.
b) The risk of romanticism
• The article seeks to reclaim African identity from colonial distortion (a noble
goal), but may replace one myth with another.
• Presenting the “Shona” identity as unified and ancient before the 19th century
contradicts much ethnohistorical and archaeological evidence, which
suggests:
Page 3 of 15
History of Shona Speaking People – The Origins of Shona 12 April 2025
A Debate on the Southern African Think Tank Platform
• Shona-speaking societies were diverse and decentralized (Zezuru, Karanga,
Manyika, Korekore, etc.).
• The term “Shona” was not widely used by the people themselves until the 20th
century, when colonial administrators created it as a grouping tool.
• Before then, local group identities were dominant—people identified by
totem, chiefdom, or lineage, not as “Shona”.
c) Overreliance on colonial maps and outsiders’ names
• Ironically, this anti-colonial piece relies heavily on European and Arab
travelers’ names, like “Sajona” or “Matshone”, to argue that “Shona” is old and
authentic.
4. Bigger Picture: What This Debate Reflects*
• This is not just a linguistic issue—it’s about who gets to define identity, who
controls history, and how postcolonial nations reclaim their past.
• For many Zimbabweans today, “Shona” is an everyday identity. But
historically, it’s a construct—partly indigenous, partly colonial, and now being
contested and redefined in scholarship and public memory.
• So the passage is best understood as a political-historical intervention, not
just a factual account.
Conclusion: My Take
This piece is part of a larger, necessary conversation about decolonising African history—
questioning what’s been taught, who shaped it, and how Africans themselves can take ownership
of their stories.
But we must also be careful not to create new foundational myths without critical scrutiny. A more
grounded, nuanced approach is to:
• Accept that “Shona” is a modern political identity, shaped by many forces.
• Recognize that precolonial Zimbabwe was diverse, layered, and fluid, not
neatly grouped under modern ethnic labels.
• Embrace both the pride of ancient civilizations like Great Zimbabwe and the
complexity of African identity over time.
We can indeed compare this version of Shona origins with how modern scholars like David
Beach, Terence Ranger, or Sabelo Ndlovu-Gatsheni approach it. They’ve each offered very
different takes on this issue.
What some great historians have said
Let’s now look at how three heavyweight scholars—David Beach, Terence Ranger, and Sabelo
Ndlovu-Gatsheni—have tackled the “Shona identity” question, especially in contrast to that
romanticized version of the name’s origin you shared.
Page 4 of 15
History of Shona Speaking People – The Origins of Shona 12 April 2025
A Debate on the Southern African Think Tank Platform
1. David Beach: The Archaeologist of the “Shona Past”
Who he was:
• A white Zimbabwean historian and archaeologist.
• Specialised in the precolonial history of Zimbabwe, especially the Rozvi,
Mutapa, and Torwa states.
• Published extensively on oral traditions and state formation in the
Zimbabwean plateau.
His View on “Shona”:
• Beach accepted “Shona” as a modern label—not an ancient ethnic identity,
but a linguistic and colonial administrative grouping.
• He emphasized that Shona-speaking groups (Karanga, Zezuru, Korekore,
Manyika, etc.) had their own distinct political systems, dialects, totems, and
historical narratives.
• There was no single “Shona people” before the colonial era—just a network of
related but autonomous polities.
Takeaway:
“The Shona did not think of themselves as one people until the 20th century.”
2. Terence Ranger: The Mythbuster
Who he was:
• A British-born Africanist historian, deeply involved in Zimbabwean nationalist
politics and academic life.
• Co-editor of “The Invention of Tradition” with Eric Hobsbawm—a landmark
work.
His View on “Shona”:
• Ranger focused on how colonial administrators and missionaries “invented”
ethnic identities like “Shona” and “Ndebele” to simplify governance.
• He argued that Christian missions and British officials, especially in the
1890s–1930s, used language to consolidate ethnic categories.
• He showed that colonial textbooks, maps, and censuses helped popularize
“Shona” as a national identity—often at the expense of local variations.
Takeaway:
“Shona identity is a colonial construct, manufactured through language standardization and
administrative convenience.”
Page 5 of 15
History of Shona Speaking People – The Origins of Shona 12 April 2025
A Debate on the Southern African Think Tank Platform
3. Sabelo Ndlovu-Gatsheni: The Decolonial Firebrand
Who he is:
• A Zimbabwean political scientist and decolonial scholar.
• Deeply engaged in memory studies, identity politics, and African intellectual
sovereignty.
His View on “Shona”:
• He agrees that “Shona” is a colonial invention, but he goes further—he sees it
as part of the colonial matrix of power that continues into postcolonial nation-
building.
• For Ndlovu-Gatsheni, Zimbabwe’s ruling elite used the constructed Shona
majority to dominate national politics, often excluding Matabeleland and
other minorities.
• He sees “Shona” and “Ndebele” identities as politicized instruments, shaped
by colonial powers and then re-used by the postcolonial state to maintain
hegemonic control.
Takeaway:
“The Shona identity became the ideological base of postcolonial nationalism—yet it is built
on colonial foundations.”
Final Thought:
There’s power in reclaiming African history—but there’s also danger in replacing one myth with
another.
The best approach?
• Acknowledge that “Shona” identity is real today, but it evolved through a mix
of precolonial lineages, colonial categorization, and postcolonial politics.
• We can take pride in the great civilizations of Mutapa and Great Zimbabwe
without retroactively turning them into modern ethnic units.
Below is a simplified timeline tracing the emergence and interaction of Shona-speaking groups
over the past 1,000+ years.
Page 6 of 15
History of Shona Speaking People – The Origins of Shona 12 April 2025
A Debate on the Southern African Think Tank Platform
A simplified timeline tracing the emergence and interaction of Shona-
speaking groups over the past 1,000+ years.
Summary - Timeline of Shona-Speaking People
Period Key Group(s) Emerging Event / Identity
900–1200 Early Gokomere, Ziwa Prehistoric ancestors of Shona
1200–1450 Karanga (Great Zimbabwe) Rise of powerful state
1450–1600 Korekore, Manyika (Mutapa) Trade empire expansion
1450–1680 Kalanga/Nambya (Torwa) New political formations
1680–1830 Rozvi (Karanga-led) Centralized military empire
1830–1890 Fragmentation, Ndebele wars No unified “Shona” identity
1890–1930 British colonial rule “Shona” category invented
1930s–present All dialect groups Shona identity normalized
Map – History of Shona speaking people 900 to Present
Page 7 of 15
History of Shona Speaking People – The Origins of Shona 12 April 2025
A Debate on the Southern African Think Tank Platform
This history and timeline gives a clearer picture of how different sub-groups evolved, interacted,
and were later grouped under the colonial term “Shona.”
Detail - Timeline of Shona-Speaking People
1. 900–1200 CE: Early Iron Age Polities & Ancestral Cultures
• Small-scale agro-pastoralist communities settle across the Zimbabwean
plateau.
• Archaeological cultures (e.g. Ziwa, Leopard’s Kopje) point to the roots of
Shona-speaking ancestors.
• Early stone walling, ironworking, and trade start appearing.
2. 1200–1450: The Rise of Great Zimbabwe
• The Kingdom of Great Zimbabwe emerges near Masvingo.
• Built by Gokomere-speaking ancestors, likely linked to today’s Karanga.
• Controlled regional gold trade with the Swahili coast (Kilwa, Sofala), India, and
Arabia.
• Great Zimbabwe collapses around 1450—possibly due to resource depletion
or political fragmentation.
3. 1450–1680: The Torwa & Mutapa States
• Torwa State forms in the southwest (around Khami).
• Associated with Kalanga-speaking peoples, ancestors of modern Nambya
and western Shona groups.
• Mutapa State (Mwene Mutapa) emerges in the northeast, founded by a prince
from Great Zimbabwe.
• Becomes a major trade and political power, extending influence into
Mozambique.
• Associated with Korekore and Manyika lineages.
4. 1680–1830: Rozvi Empire and Regional Fragmentation
• The Rozvi State, founded by Changamire Dombo (a Karanga military leader),
conquers the Torwa.
• Becomes the dominant power across much of modern Zimbabwe.
• Karanga identity becomes associated with military strength and central
authority.
• Other Shona-speaking groups remain autonomous:
o Zezuru in the north-central plateau.
o Manyika in the eastern highlands.
o Ndau in the southeast.
o Korekore in the northeast.
Important: These groups spoke mutually intelligible dialects, traded and intermarried, but
identified locally, not as “Shona.”
Page 8 of 15
History of Shona Speaking People – The Origins of Shona 12 April 2025
A Debate on the Southern African Think Tank Platform
5. 1830–1890: Nguni Invasions & State Collapse
• Ndebele under Mzilikazi invade the southwest (~1830), destabilizing the
Rozvi.
• Some Shona-speaking groups migrate, consolidate, or fortify in response.
• Mutapa and Rozvi remnants fall to internal decline and external raids.
• British colonists arrive in the 1880s during this politically fragmented period.
6. 1890s–1930s: Colonial Categorization Begins
• British South Africa Company (BSAC) and missionaries group all these dialect
communities as “Shona.”
• The term becomes institutionalized in:
o Textbooks
o Census reports
o Native Commissioner documents
• Efforts are made to standardize “Shona language” in education and the Bible
(especially by missionaries like Doke and Fortune).
• “Shona” becomes a bureaucratic ethnicity, not an organic precolonial label.
7. Post-1930s – Today: Shona Identity as Political Force
• With education and nationalism, “Shona” becomes a popular identity,
especially in opposition to settler colonialism.
• After independence (1980), Shona majority identity becomes dominant in
politics, but this raises issues of marginalization (e.g. of the Ndebele, Ndau,
Kalanga, etc.).
• Younger generations now questioning:
o Where did this identity come from?
o Who benefits from it?
o Can we deconstruct it without losing our cultural pride?
Compiled by Michael T. Tichareva based on some research with the help of AI to pull out
information from various sources faster.
Southern African Think Tank Platform
12 April 2025
Page 9 of 15
History of Shona Speaking People – The Origins of Shona 12 April 2025
A Debate on the Southern African Think Tank Platform
Annexure – Some more background discussion
Questioning the use of the term “Shona” when referring to earlier periods of history
You absolutely right to question the use of the term “Shona” when referring to earlier periods of
history.
Here’s a breakdown of the issue:
1. “Shona” as a Colonial Construct
• The term “Shona” was not used by the people themselves in precolonial
times. It was coined by outsiders, particularly missionaries and colonial
administrators.
• It only became officialised in the 1930s by the Rhodesian administration as a
way to group diverse communities—Karanga, Zezuru, Manyika, Korekore,
Ndau, etc.—into one administrative label.
• Before that, these groups identified more locally—by clan, chieftaincy, or
regional identity, not as “Shona.”
2. Misapplication to Ancient History
• Applying “Shona” retroactively to earlier historical periods (like the time of
Great Zimbabwe or even earlier Iron Age societies) blurs important
distinctions.
• It masks the complexity of the sociopolitical organization of those earlier
groups, which were not necessarily united linguistically, politically, or
culturally.
• So yes, calling them “Shona” is anachronistic and imposes a modern,
colonial-era identity on a much more fluid and diverse historical reality.
3. What Historians Should Do
• More accurate terms would be to refer to specific polities or ethno-linguistic
groups (e.g., the Mutapa state, the Rozvi, the Manyika, etc.).
• Scholars are increasingly careful to acknowledge the constructed nature of
the “Shona” identity and use it with that context in mind.
So in summary:
You’re absolutely right—the term “Shona” shouldn’t be used carelessly in ancient or early
precolonial history. It flattens historical diversity and reflects more of a colonial administrative
convenience than an authentic indigenous identity from the past.
Page 10 of 15
History of Shona Speaking People – The Origins of Shona 12 April 2025
A Debate on the Southern African Think Tank Platform
How the use of the term “Shona” also affects our understanding of the Mutapa and
Rozvi states
Let’s unpack how the use of the term “Shona” also affects our understanding of the Mutapa and
Rozvi states, and how that ties into modern identity and politics in Zimbabwe.
1. Mutapa State (c. 1450–1629)
• Founded by Nyatsimba Mutota, believed to be from the Great Zimbabwe
region, after its decline.
• He moved north and established a kingdom that came to dominate the
Zambezi Valley, including parts of modern-day Mozambique and Zimbabwe.
• The Mutapa elite likely spoke a Karanga dialect, but again, no one identified as
“Shona.”
• They engaged in international trade (gold, ivory, etc.) with the Portuguese,
Arabs, and Swahili merchants.
Colonial distortion:
• Later historians lumped the Mutapa polity under “Shona history,” masking the
complex, multilingual and multi-ethnic nature of that state.
• In reality, the Mutapa state was a fluid, diverse empire with local rulers and
client chieftaincies—more like a patchwork than a single “Shona” nation.
2. Rozvi Empire (c. 1684–1830s)
• Formed after the decline of Mutapa, the Rozvi were militarily powerful,
cantered in south-central Zimbabwe.
• The dynasty descended from Changamire Dombo, again tied to Karanga
lineages.
• Their state was a reaction to Portuguese incursions, and they successfully
pushed them out of parts of the plateau.
Colonial rebranding:
• The Rozvi too were labelled as “Shona,” although that erased their distinct
military, political, and cultural identity.
• Rozvi history is often retold through a modern “Shona nationalist” lens, yet at
the time they weren’t seen as one ethnicity.
3. Modern Political Implications
• After independence in 1980, Shona identity became central to national
politics, given the demographic majority.
• But because “Shona” is an umbrella term (Zezuru, Karanga, Manyika, etc.), it
often leads to regional favouritism, especially within ruling elites (e.g., Zezuru
dominance accusations in ZANU-PF).
• It also contributes to ethnic tensions, especially in relation to the Ndebele
minority, whose own history (Mfecane, settlement under Mzilikazi) is often
viewed with suspicion or reduced to colonial narratives of “invaders.”
Page 11 of 15
History of Shona Speaking People – The Origins of Shona 12 April 2025
A Debate on the Southern African Think Tank Platform
In Summary
• The use of “Shona” in ancient and early-modern history is a simplified label
that flattens diverse, dynamic societies like Mutapa and Rozvi.
• It has deep implications—not just academically, but politically and socially,
shaping how Zimbabweans see their past and each other.
• A better historical approach focuses on specific polities, lineages, languages,
and regional cultures—not catch-all colonial terms.
Challenging official narratives and reshaping collective memory
Let’s now dig into how historians, public intellectuals, activists, and even artists in Zimbabwe
today are challenging official narratives and reshaping collective memory under President
Mnangagwa’s government, especially around issues like ethnic identity, historical justice, and
national reconciliation.
1. Reclaiming Suppressed Histories: Gukurahundi
• Under President Mugabe, Gukurahundi was a taboo subject—no public
discussion, no reparations, no memorials.
• Since coming to power in 2017, Mnangagwa (who ironically was involved in
the Fifth Brigade’s command structure) has publicly acknowledged the
killings for the first time.
• He’s met with Matabeleland civic groups and traditional leaders.
• There’s been talk of truth-telling platforms and even mass grave identification.
o But critics say:
o It’s too little, too late.
o The process feels like a PR strategy, not genuine reconciliation—
especially with no prosecutions or accountability.
Scholars & voices pushing back:
o Historians like Pathisa Nyathi, and NGOs like the Ibhetshu Likazulu
Trust, are documenting survivor stories, publishing reports, and
organising unofficial memorials.
2. Reframing the Liberation War Narrative
• Young historians and war veterans from the ZIPRA side are publishing their
own accounts, challenging the dominant ZANLA-centered version.
• Example: Calls for ZIPRA archives to be opened, and ZIPRA veterans to be
equally recognized in national ceremonies.
• They emphasize that Zimbabwe was not liberated by one party, and that unity
narratives often silence intra-liberation tensions.
3. Decolonizing “Shona” Identity
• There’s growing academic work (especially from Zimbabwean universities and
the diaspora) that critically unpacks the term “Shona”:
• It’s viewed as a useful political tool but historically inaccurate.
• Some push for greater recognition of sub-groups like the Karanga, Zezuru,
Manyika, each with distinct histories.
Page 12 of 15
History of Shona Speaking People – The Origins of Shona 12 April 2025
A Debate on the Southern African Think Tank Platform
• Others warn that fragmenting identity could feed ethnic nationalism if not
handled carefully.
Example voices:
• Scholars like Terence Ranger, Sabelo Ndlovu-Gatsheni, and Blessing-Miles
Tendi have written extensively on memory politics, ethnicity, and state power
in Zimbabwe.
4. Artists and Cultural Interventions
• Visual artists, playwrights, musicians, and poets have become key players in
reframing history.
• Cont Mhlanga (late playwright from Matabeleland) used theatre to critique
state violence.
• Musicians like Winky D have dropped tracks that subtly reference social
injustice and historical manipulation.
• Poets and spoken word artists in Harare and Bulawayo often perform counter-
histories—stories that resist the official record.
5. The New Generation’s Role
• Younger Zimbabweans, especially on social media and in university circles,
are:
• Questioning what they were taught.
• Demanding a broader, more inclusive narrative.
• Calling for memorialization of marginalized histories—from precolonial
diversity to colonial trauma and post-independence violence.
In Short:
There’s a growing reckoning with Zimbabwe’s past—and it’s being led by historians, activists,
artists, and communities that refuse to accept a one-size-fits-all, state-approved version of
history.
This is a critical shift: from history as propaganda to history as healing.
How Zimbabwe’s school textbooks, curricula, and youth political awareness are
evolving in response to the growing push for more inclusive and honest historical
narratives
Let’s now zoom in on how Zimbabwe’s school textbooks, curricula, and youth political awareness
are evolving in response to this growing push for more inclusive and honest historical narratives,
and what that could mean for future politics (especially leading into 2028).
Page 13 of 15
History of Shona Speaking People – The Origins of Shona 12 April 2025
A Debate on the Southern African Think Tank Platform
1. School Textbooks: Still Stuck in the Past?
• Post-independence textbooks, especially from the 1980s–2000s, were heavily
shaped by ZANU-PF’s ideological framework:
• Liberation war = ZANLA heroism.
• National identity = Shona-majority nationalism.
• First Chimurenga = proto-nationalist unity.
• ZIPRA, Gukurahundi, and ethnic diversity in precolonial Zimbabwe were either
downplayed or erased.
Recent shifts?
• There’s some curriculum reform, especially in ‘Heritage Studies’ and history
syllabi:
o Acknowledgment of Ndebele identity and Gukurahundi in some newer
materials.
o Introduction of multi-perspective history in teacher training.
• BUT:
o Changes are slow and inconsistent.
o State publishers still control much of the content.
o Some teachers avoid controversial topics for fear of political backlash.
2. Youth Engagement: History Rewritten on TikTok and X (Twitter)
• Young Zimbabweans, particularly in urban areas and the diaspora, are:
• Relearning history through podcasts, YouTube channels, Instagram threads,
and Twitter/X debates.
• Engaging with works by Sabelo Ndlovu-Gatsheni, Tsitsi Dangarembga, and
others.
• Sharing oral histories from their grandparents or survivors of Gukurahundi.
Popular themes:
• Exposing the myth of unity.
• Discussing the “tribalization” of power and resources.
• Rethinking what being “Shona” or “Ndebele” really means today.
3. Political Implications Leading into 2028
a) Ethnic Representation & Legacy Politics
• Youths are increasingly questioning why power is concentrated in certain
regions (e.g., Zezuru elite within ZANU–PF).
• There’s growing pressure to decentralize governance and push for inclusive
appointments—e.g., more Ndau, Kalanga, Nambya, Tonga, etc., in national
leadership.
Page 14 of 15
History of Shona Speaking People – The Origins of Shona 12 April 2025
A Debate on the Southern African Think Tank Platform
b) Gukurahundi as a Political Faultline
• Opposition parties and civil society groups are calling for Gukurahundi truth
commissions, reparations, and national acknowledgment.
• If the ruling party resists genuine engagement, it may alienate younger
Matabeleland voters or fuel more regional movements.
c) Liberation War Credentials Losing Power
• “War veteran” status is still used as a political tool—but young voters born
after 2000 aren’t as swayed by Chimurenga-era rhetoric.
• They’re more concerned with:
o Jobs
o Justice
o Honest governance
o Historical truth
4. Could This Reshape the 2028 Election?
Possibly.
If current trends continue:
• We might see a surge in regional and issue-based politics, rather than just
party loyalty.
• Historical memory (especially around ethnic injustice and hidden histories)
could become a mobilizing force, especially if tied to economic grievances.
• Youths may demand a new narrative of nationhood—one that recognises
pluralism, truth, and shared trauma, not just liberation mythology.
Final Thought:
Zimbabwe is at a historical crossroads. The past is no longer just a foundation—it’s becoming a
battleground for identity, justice, and the future.
And the youth? They’re no longer silent recipients of state-sanctioned stories—they’re reclaiming
the narrative, one post, one classroom, and one ballot at a time.
Page 15 of 15
