Scholarlink

In contemporary Zimbabwean writing, the English language remains an albatross around the necks of not only creative writers, the characters they represent but also the readers, as it rekindles wa Thiongó’s concern about African writers’ so-called reluctance to speak to their people. From this perspective, it would appear that continuing to write in the English language is an impediment to the decolonial project of cultural reclamation and the disruption of linguistic imperialism. This chapter, therefore, engages with the problem of whether the decolonisation debate is possible in literary texts by African authors who write in European languages such as English. In this endeavour, the chapter compares how Nyaradzo Mtizira and Novuyo Rosa Tshuma deploy language in their debut historiographical novels, The Chimurenga Protocol and House of Stone, respectively, to handle two of the most politically emotive issues in postcolonial Zimbabwean history—the land question, and the Gukurahundi (Gukurahundi is a Shona term that means the early rains that wash away the chaff before the main rain season approaches. The term was cynically used by the Robert Mugabe-led state to describe the intention of the 1980s Gukurahundi Operation to neutralise the so-called threat of dissidents who were said to be rebelling against the newly elected ZimbabweZimbabwe government, mostly in the Matabeleland and parts of Midlands provinces. It was claimed that the dissidents were some members of the former Zimbabwe People’s Revolutionary Army (ZIPRA), the military wing of Zimbabwe African People’s Union (ZAPU) political party. However, on the ground, it turned out that the state army hunted down not only the so-called dissidents but also almost all Ndebele-speaking people claimed to have sympathies for ZAPU, of whatever age and sex. So much has been written about the Gukurahundi including The Catholic Commission on Justice and Peace in Zimbabwe (CCJP 1997) & The Legal Resources Foundation, which recorded more than 20 000 civilian deaths. At the time of writing the President of ZimbabweZimbabwe has pledged to engage traditional chiefs and put finality to the emotive debate about Gukurahundi.) atrocities. Both writers opt for English for differing personal reasons. Since Mtizira is mainly concerned with countering British imperialism, he appropriates the English medium for wider effects. Meanwhile, Tshuma adopts English to internationalise what she perceives as a human rights issue. In both texts, therefore, the choice of English has been deliberate for its rather mediating role and wider reach.

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Problematising the ‘Janus-Faced’ Nature of Writing African Literature in English in Contemporary Zimbabwean Historical Novels

  • 章节

  • 发表日期：

    2025年

查看全文
  • Jairos Gonye,
  • Nathan Moyo

摘要

In contemporary Zimbabwean writing, the English language remains an albatross around the necks of not only creative writers, the characters they represent but also the readers, as it rekindles wa Thiongó’s concern about African writers’ so-called reluctance to speak to their people. From this perspective, it would appear that continuing to write in the English language is an impediment to the decolonial project of cultural reclamation and the disruption of linguistic imperialism. This chapter, therefore, engages with the problem of whether the decolonisation debate is possible in literary texts by African authors who write in European languages such as English. In this endeavour, the chapter compares how Nyaradzo Mtizira and Novuyo Rosa Tshuma deploy language in their debut historiographical novels, The Chimurenga Protocol and House of Stone, respectively, to handle two of the most politically emotive issues in postcolonial Zimbabwean history—the land question, and the Gukurahundi (Gukurahundi is a Shona term that means the early rains that wash away the chaff before the main rain season approaches. The term was cynically used by the Robert Mugabe-led state to describe the intention of the 1980s Gukurahundi Operation to neutralise the so-called threat of dissidents who were said to be rebelling against the newly elected ZimbabweZimbabwe government, mostly in the Matabeleland and parts of Midlands provinces. It was claimed that the dissidents were some members of the former Zimbabwe People’s Revolutionary Army (ZIPRA), the military wing of Zimbabwe African People’s Union (ZAPU) political party. However, on the ground, it turned out that the state army hunted down not only the so-called dissidents but also almost all Ndebele-speaking people claimed to have sympathies for ZAPU, of whatever age and sex. So much has been written about the Gukurahundi including The Catholic Commission on Justice and Peace in Zimbabwe (CCJP 1997) & The Legal Resources Foundation, which recorded more than 20 000 civilian deaths. At the time of writing the President of ZimbabweZimbabwe has pledged to engage traditional chiefs and put finality to the emotive debate about Gukurahundi.) atrocities. Both writers opt for English for differing personal reasons. Since Mtizira is mainly concerned with countering British imperialism, he appropriates the English medium for wider effects. Meanwhile, Tshuma adopts English to internationalise what she perceives as a human rights issue. In both texts, therefore, the choice of English has been deliberate for its rather mediating role and wider reach.