[previous
page 1 | 2 | 3
| 4 ]
From the Zimbabwean
media perspective (and based on my limited access) the issue is politically
divided. On the one hand, the Government, as reported in the media believes
the Western media to be racist, and therefore, on the other hand, gives
excessive amounts of coverage to the situation. In the first instance,
Zimbabwe's Minister of Information for example, stated to 60 Minutes
- Reporter Liz Hayes, "when black people die, like one million black
people die in Rwanda, the whole world, (Western world) is not worried.
When two whites from originally in Britain [sic] die in Zimbabwe, the whole
world press is descending on us, just for two whites who have died."(60
Minutes, TV 1, 7\5\2000).
The Zimbabwean Government
in their press releases, while not officially condoning the violence of
the war veterans, does appear to support and sympathise with their cause.
This has been interpreted by the western media as proof of an organised
appeal to the rural sector and a ploy to simultaneously escape responsibility
for the violence. Joseph Msika, who, at the time of this release, served
as Zimbabwe's Acting President stated, "the reasons for their (the war-veterans)
demonstrations are well appreciated both by the party and the government.
However, in light of the recent developments it is no longer necessary
to continue with the demonstrations." (Ndela, Dumisani, The Zimbabwe
Independent, 14\4\2000). President Mugabe, when interviewed by British
reporters about the murders of two white farmers, claimed that "violence
was provoked by the farmers in each case and the farmers didn't deny it"
(TV 3 News, 20\4\2000). He stated in his independence-speech that
white -owned land remained "the last colonial question qualifying our sovereignty"(The
London Times, 19\4\2000. Moreover, he blamed the failure of land redistribution
on Britain who, as he sees it, cut off compensation funding and the white-
farmers for their resistance to his government's efforts for redistribution.
"Naturally", Mugabe continued, "this has created frustration and led to
the current situation of farm occupations by war veterans."
The reports from
The Zimbabwe Independent, however, also (in some instances) support
the Western media's perspective. Dumisani Muleya states in one of his reports
that The Zimbabwe Independent had evidence that war-veterans were
"being used by Zanu PF leaders (Mugabe's ruling party) to get even with
their political opponents" (The Zimbabwe Independent, 20\4\2000).
Another critical article voiced the opinions of the MDC Opposition Party,
in which the MDC's Secretary General, Professor Welshman Ncube, posited,
"Everybody knows the primary issue is not land; it is the economy. Farmers
are being used as scapegoats."(The Zimbabwe Independent, 20\4\2000).
Imperialism
In his discussions
on historical and discursive Imperialism Edward Said argues that "appeals
to the past are among the commonest of strategies in interpretations of
the present"(Said, 3). Furthermore, Said tells us that, "what animates
such appeals is not only disagreement of what happened in the past and
what the past was, but uncertainty about whether the past really is past,
over and concluded, or whether it continues in different forms. (Said,
3) I would like to suggest that this is apposite to the media's portrayal
of the Zimbabwe crisis. Is the situation of the squatters acts of violence
and occupations of farmland really because of the failing of white farmers
to share the fertile land that they stripped off black Zimbabwean's more
than a hundred years ago? Was Britain to blame because they stopped sponsoring
the government of Zimbabwe's efforts to redistribute the land? Have the
white farmers by retaliating acted in a violent manner? Or is it all a
ploy by President Mugabe, referring back to troubles of the past, to take
the pressure off his own governing dilemma's in the present and by extensive
put a stop to the upcoming elections? Is the past really to blame
for the present tensions?
Said emphasises that
the durability Imperialism and colonialism has is that both the former
colonisers and colonised sustain memories of those times to this day. He
further argues that these former rulers and subject people "in turn each
had a set of interpretations of their common history with it's own perspective,
historical sense, emotions and traditions" (Said, 1). Said utilises the
former French colony Algeria as an example of conflicting memories. He
makes the case that today an Algerian intellectual may focus his or her
memories on "France's military attacks on villages and the torture of prisoners
during the war of liberation." He argues that for the Algerian's French
counterpart, his or her conflicting memory may be of "a more positive attitude
toward the French colonising mission, with its schools, nicely planned
cities and pleasant life."(Said, 11) One might say the same in relation
to the history of the last twenty years since Zimbabwean's Independence.
This contested site
of interpretation is demonstrated on a recent Holmes broadcast.4
On the program Noreen Welch, a white Zimbabwe- expatriate journalist who
had just fled Zimbabwe, claimed that the racial tension occurred five years
after Independence. She said "every body has been getting along fine, this
has all come up since the referendum." This was the referendum held in
February 2000, in which Mugabe attempted and failed to gain the authority
to seize white- owned farming land without paying the farmers compensation.
She further concluded about the white farmers that, "a lot of them have
been tremendously good [...] They've built schools, they've built homes
and that sort of thing for their workers, and a lot of farmers have leased
off pieces of land so that is not an issue." However, it is likely that
a native Zimbabwean farmer, who is working on hard infertile land, may
possibly focus his memories on other issues than the building of schools.
Mugabe and his war veteran's memories of the last two decades also appear
to differ. Mugabe states in his in his Independence speech, "What we reject
[the blacks of Zimbabwe] is the persistence of vestigial attitudes of the
Rhodesia yesteryear, of the master race, master colour, master employer."
(The London Times 19\4\2000).
Said argues that,
"Imperialism still casts a shadow over our time" (Said, 9) and I tend to
agree. He states, "In the present [imperialism] still lingers and exhorts
influence where it has always been, in the political, ideological, economic
and social practices." (Said, 9). For example, imperial rhetoric still
appears to exist and is plentiful with words such as "subject races, dependency,
expansion" and so on. (Said, 9). My analysis of the media's coverage confirms
this. New Zealand's TV3 News on the 19 April 2000 ran footage from
the BBC, which referred to President Mugabe's statement's against the white
farmers as "abuse of the people whose skills and loyalty are widely seen
to be vital to Zimbabwe's economic prosperity."
The Projection of humanist
values
The rhetoric and
highly emotive language in the British coverage of "The Zimbabwe Crisis"
was central to what can best be thought of in Said's terms that demonstrate
the active existence of imperialism in humanist values. Ironically, it
is precisely this emotive language that is coded as "objective." The BBC
and The London Times gave political reports that consistently saturated
the viewer with humanist rhetoric that supported the "tremendously good"
white farmers and their families. The coverage of David Stevens' and Martin
Olds' murders for example, were excessive in the amount of irrelevant information
so as to appeal to the emotion of the viewer. The information on their
attacks was detailed with every scratch and bullet hole documented. We
came to know the lives of these men, their wives and children intimately.
We knew their families by name, we were repeatedly reminded of their religious
convictions. We were expected to sympathise in their present plight as
well as other misfortunes. For example, The London Times did not
simply inform the reader that at the time of Martin Olds' murder his wife
was not present. They also informed us that his wife Cathy suffers "from
childhood polio and walks on crutches."(The London Times 19\4\2000).
The language and
rhetoric of the BBC was not the only way in which imperial, humanist values
was manufactured in their coverage. Rather, the viewer was bombarded with
images of white families packing their "treasured Holy Bible" and photographs
while fleeing the violence. These images were juxtaposed with shots of
the "increasingly militant black crowds." Reminiscent of old ideas of the
missionaries bringing order and God to the savages, these images recall
imperialist practices. When the camera's investigated the burnt-out and
looted farms of the whites the camera always focused on the strewn family
photographs of "happier times "on the floor.
[next
page 1 | 2 | 3
| 4 ]
4
Holmes. (Current affairs show, broadcast every week night at
7:00 PM) TVNZ ONE, 19\4\2000.
|
