Siyabonga Hadebe
In his article “Ngoni Praise Poetry and the Nguni Diaspora”, Ohio State University’s Lupenga Mphande asks a very good question: What is the nature of the interplay between the history of Nguni migration and the literary expression of the reality and the socio-historical contexts that led to the construction of myths from historical realities?
He also adds that “apart from wanderlust and the sense of adventure, it is partly the aspect of loss and nostalgia that defines diaspora. Essentially, nostalgia and the threat of loss have enabled the Nguni in the diaspora to maintain their language, culture, religion and traditions.”
Different sources suggest that the origin of all the “true” Ngoni of Malawi from the extinct kingdom of Ndwandwe, making them very close to the Shangaan (Mozambique), Shangaan-Tsonga and other Nguni groups. According to GT Nurse, clan names found among the Malawi-Ngoni and in modern Ndwandwe include Jere, Maseko, Mngomezulu, Zulu, Ngwenya, Nkambule, Mashabana, Malinga and Chongwe. The Ndebele in Zimbabwe comprises many groups, including those who supposedly came from the east.
Zambian historian Gumbi Kaziguda Jele recently remarked, “Ngonis or MaZwangendebas are not descendants of Shaka or related to him. Their ancestral lands lie in the North of Nguniland”. He sought to address a common misconception among many Ngoni people in Malawi, Zambia, Mozambique and Tanzania – the belief that they are Zulu.
That is not to say that he denies shared similarities between them and their cousins further south. This suggests he seeks to address the distorted history concerning the people of southern Africa and the continent as a whole.
Jele’s perspective offers a starting point for dismantling colonial narratives that have shaped the understanding of southern African history. To meaningfully expand his work, we must actively challenge the region’s historiography, which rests heavily on four foundational yet problematic theories: Bantu migration, the mfecane/difaqane wars, the megatribe phenomenon and the terra nullius doctrine.
These interconnected colonial constructs have upheld narratives that European conquest and disregard the complex realities of pre-colonial southern Africa. While the Bantu migration theory attempts to trace large-scale population movements and cultural exchange, the mfecane/difaqane concept highlights a period conflict and displacement centred around alleged Shaka’s violence. These “theories” often oversimplify complex dynamics, including slavery and colonialism, and downplay the agency of African peoples.
Similarly, the megatribe phenomenon obscures the existence of diverse and independent communities by focusing on a few dominant ethnic groups.
Most harmfully, the terra nullius doctrine, Latin for “empty land”, was used to justify their claims to land in Africa (and elsewhere) by asserting that the land was unoccupied or belonged to no one prior to their arrival. This doctrine played a significant role in the colonisation and dispossession of indigenous peoples and continues to shape land tenure and ownership issues in the region.
It is worth emphasising that some Ngoni and Ndebele groups like to portray themselves as a “diluted” version of the Zulu, stemming from the misconception of their descent from Shaka. This occurs despite the complex historical origins of many peoples found across the region, from Walvis Bay to Beira and the Cape of Good Hope to Ndola. However, it is crucial to recognise that these assertions lack historical validity.
These groups’ conduct emanates from their political desire to align with the perceived strong or powerful because they believe it will benefit them in some way. Simply put, their strongest motivation is the need to connect with the region’s powerful Westphalian state, South Africa, and its Zulu megatribe rather than other Nguni groups. Interestingly, other groups, such as the Lozi (Zambia) and Shangaan-Tsonga (South Africa), do not display a similar desire for close association with Lesotho and Mozambique, respectively.
It is unfortunate that this trend contributes to the erasure of the rich diversity of numerous indigenous groups and cultures that thrived before European incursions along the south-east coast. There is a story about Zambia’s Inkosi Mphezeni and his adviser visiting the Zulu king. When the king greeted them in isiZulu, Inkosi Mphezeni could not respond, forcing them Zulu to answer in English. They described this as deeply embarrassing because they could not speak their “ancestral” Zulu tongue.
This story illustrates how the desire to associate with a powerful group can contribute to losing one’s identity. Nonetheless, it would be unfair to blame the Ngoni people for this enduring misconception since it is perpetuated within and without their society. There is an interesting dimension to diaspora populations.
Mphande argues that they might be perceived as exiled rather than migrants due to their psychological attachment to the homeland phenomenon deeply ingrained in their traditions.
Kenyan scholar Ali Mazrui offers a multifaceted definition of diaspora. He suggests that a population could be considered a diaspora when it resides outside its homeland, particularly if it has fully assimilated into the host country and lost nostalgia for its place of origin. Surprisingly, Mazrui also includes conquered populations living within their conquerors’ territory as a form of diaspora experience.
Mazrui’s definition highlights how the loss of homeland, whether through forced displacement or gradual assimilation, deeply impacts identity and the preservation of cultural traditions. When it comes to the Ndebeles and Ngonis, their condition is much more complex. Not only is there no real universal Nguni ethnicity with a single identity, culture or religion, but the Nguni diaspora’s association with the ‘homeland’ is also a tricky affair as they yearn for a home that never existed.
Mphande observes that the use of “diaspora” to describe the Ngoni situation may be considered problematic due to the absence of a singular, geographically defined Nguni nation in South Africa. In fact, there has never been one, proving that Europeans thrived at manufacturing identities. Funnily, there is also no vocation in South Africa to bring this fallacious Nguni entity into being. Thus, the imagined homeland is a fragmented concept because the Nguni-speaking people in South Africa are trapped inside megatribes that have all been colonially designated as separate ethnolinguistic entities.
While “Nguni-ness” may persist within the diaspora, it is largely fictional due to the plurality of the term in South Africa, resulting in no tangible “Nguniland” or its equivalent. Could this suggest that the concept of a Nguni diaspora has dissolved in the consciousness of the “exile” owing to the absence of unity in the homeland? The Nguni diaspora seems to have other ideas: two Ngoni chiefs, Jele’s Mphezeni IV and M’mbelwa V, reportedly announced their allegiance to the Zulu during the coronation of King Misuzulu kaZwelithini, making it the heart of the Nguni dream.
Historically racist and colonial South African scholarship is more like “iqanda lenjelwane” (a Zulu saying for a fresh, stinking human turd) that has permanently soiled southern African historiography. As such, Mphande argues that to fully understand this aspect of South African history, there is a critical need for decentring or shifting the focus away from the dominance of Eurocentrism within the region’s historiography.
This means challenging dominant perspectives and biases that have long shaped historical narratives. In turn, this allows for giving voice to marginalised perspectives, experiences and contributions within southern African history. By doing so, it becomes possible to provide a more balanced and nuanced understanding of the region’s past, free from the influence of historically racist and colonial scholarship.
There is no evidence that the Nguni people had never lived in Malawi, Mozambique, Zimbabwe or other places before the white men’s ‘discovery’ expedition.
Firstly, the current misconfiguration of ethnic groups, stemming from European missionaries and conquerors’ ethnolinguistic engineering, has led to the formation of megatribes like Zulu, Bemba, Kikuyu, Shona and Tswana. This misconfiguration obscures the diverse identities and cultures that existed prior to slave hunting and colonial intervention. This illogical process of tribal amalgamation of tribes resulted in the loss of nations, languages, cultures and knowledge.
Based on this assertion, it would be a great pity for the Ndebele and the Ngoni in various locations to be overshadowed by others. This would lead to the loss of critical information and knowledge about figures like Mzilikazi, Zwangendaba and Soshangane, together with the nations corresponding to these names.
Therefore, it is necessary for these groups to step out of the shadow of the Zulu/Swati to preserve their identity and heritage (though there is no single identity).
Secondly, the notion of mfecane/difaqane, which is used to explain how the Ndebele and the Ngoni got “exiled” from their imaginary homeland, masks the impact of European expansion and its brutality on the people. As a supposed precursor to the terra nullius doctrine, these imagined Shaka wars distort the true nature of events as they may have unfolded at the time. Southern African historiography is part of “lies agreed upon”, as Web Du Bois referred to propagandist history, that successfully planted fiction in the heads of the conquered.
It is plausible that the Ndebele and the Ngoni “emigrated” if indeed they did after all, not solely because of Shaka but for other factors such as human hunting for exportation to distant lands. Additionally, Jele may have a point in suggesting that the ancestral lands of the Ngoni are situated in “the north of Nguniland”, potentially encompassing present-day Malawi, Mozambique, Zambia and beyond. Nguni speakers may have been part of a larger eastern coast polity that stretched from the Cape to East Africa.
This perspective challenges and refutes the prevailing narratives surrounding the Bantu migration and mfecane/difaqane phenomena, suggesting alternative interpretations of historical events. It also sheds new light on the interconnectedness of these pre-colonial societies, questioning the neat geographic boundaries imposed by later narratives. Evidence of trade networks, shared cultural practices and linguistic similarities suggests a more complex web of interactions that transcended European-imposed boundaries and shaped the collective identity of communities.
In conclusion, propagandist history has kept the Ngoni and the Ndebele beholden to the belief that they have a home somewhere, further complicated by imperialist forces who manipulated languages in their presumed homeland. For example, the separate standardisation of dialects into Zulu, Xhosa, Swazi and Ndebele hindered communication and fostered inter-tribal competition within the Nguni language group.
This tactic extended beyond South Africa’s borders. In Mozambique, colonial forces suppressed isiNgoni in favour of Portuguese and xiTsonga.
All this has placed the so-called Nguni diaspora in an indeterminate state, unable to fully connect with their imagined homeland or assimilate into their host countries.
Hadebe is an independent commentator on socio-economic, political and global matters.