This chapter aims to investigate the extent to which the Church has succeeded in eliminating racial discrimination in Zimbabwe. In establishing the conceptual framework, I am guided by the development of racism in Zimbabwe, the changing paradigms that emanate after independence in 1980 and the new tribal antagonisms that result in post-independent Zimbabwe and how the Church handles them. My methodological analysis is of a historical narrative. Racism was introduced in the nineteenth century by the coming of the British colonialists against the indigenous peoples of Southern Rhodesia. The minority white settlers dominated the locals and imposed racist policies in all spheres of public life ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism_in_Zimbabwe . But white Rhodesians argue that Rhodesia was never meant to follow apartheid like in South Africa, theirs was referred to as “the Rhodesian way of life”. ( https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000016163 ) published by the Unesco Press, 1975). The struggle between Church and State became more pronounced when Ian Smith declared UDI (Unilateral Declaration of Independence) in November 1965. Already in his first pastoral letter in 1959 Bishop Lamont challenged the legitimacy of colonial rule saying: “Any violent seizure of territory which was at the time inhabited and cultivated by a native tribe and subject to the authority of its rulers constitutes unjust aggression” (( https://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/01/obituaries/bishop-donal-lamont-92-critic-of-white-rhodesia-rule-dies.html ) by Paul Lewis Sept. 1 2003). The Catholic Bishops wrote statements criticising newly enacted laws that increased segregation of races. In a 56-page booklet the Church said it would not compromise its principles or its conscience and would stick to the principles of its founder Jesus Christ (( https://www.nytimes.com/1970/04/08/archives/catholics-assail-rhodesia-on-race-church-hints-it-may-defy-regime.html ) by Charles Iviohr Special to The New York Times, April 8, 1970). On the other hand, “… there were differences of opinion within and across Protestant denominations” (Zvobgo, C.J., “Church and State in Rhodesia: From the Unilateral Declaration of Independence to the Pearce Commission, 1965–1972”: University of Zimbabwe). After independence in 1980 the ugly head of the antagonistic tensions between the Shona and Ndebele came to the forefront in the form of Gukurahundi. Despite the recommendations of the Elimination of Racial Discrimination committee in 2013 on prohibition of all forms of discrimination ( https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2022/08/experts-committee-elimination-racial-discrimination-commend-zimbabwe-2013 by United Nations Human Rights), no real meaningful solution was enacted. The Church continues to be involved.

Race, Church and State in Zimbabwe

章节
发表日期：

2026年

查看全文

Walter Nyatsanza

摘要

This chapter aims to investigate the extent to which the Church has succeeded in eliminating racial discrimination in Zimbabwe. In establishing the conceptual framework, I am guided by the development of racism in Zimbabwe, the changing paradigms that emanate after independence in 1980 and the new tribal antagonisms that result in post-independent Zimbabwe and how the Church handles them. My methodological analysis is of a historical narrative. Racism was introduced in the nineteenth century by the coming of the British colonialists against the indigenous peoples of Southern Rhodesia. The minority white settlers dominated the locals and imposed racist policies in all spheres of public life ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism_in_Zimbabwe . But white Rhodesians argue that Rhodesia was never meant to follow apartheid like in South Africa, theirs was referred to as “the Rhodesian way of life”. ( https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000016163 ) published by the Unesco Press, 1975). The struggle between Church and State became more pronounced when Ian Smith declared UDI (Unilateral Declaration of Independence) in November 1965. Already in his first pastoral letter in 1959 Bishop Lamont challenged the legitimacy of colonial rule saying: “Any violent seizure of territory which was at the time inhabited and cultivated by a native tribe and subject to the authority of its rulers constitutes unjust aggression” (( https://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/01/obituaries/bishop-donal-lamont-92-critic-of-white-rhodesia-rule-dies.html ) by Paul Lewis Sept. 1 2003). The Catholic Bishops wrote statements criticising newly enacted laws that increased segregation of races. In a 56-page booklet the Church said it would not compromise its principles or its conscience and would stick to the principles of its founder Jesus Christ (( https://www.nytimes.com/1970/04/08/archives/catholics-assail-rhodesia-on-race-church-hints-it-may-defy-regime.html ) by Charles Iviohr Special to The New York Times, April 8, 1970). On the other hand, “… there were differences of opinion within and across Protestant denominations” (Zvobgo, C.J., “Church and State in Rhodesia: From the Unilateral Declaration of Independence to the Pearce Commission, 1965–1972”: University of Zimbabwe). After independence in 1980 the ugly head of the antagonistic tensions between the Shona and Ndebele came to the forefront in the form of Gukurahundi. Despite the recommendations of the Elimination of Racial Discrimination committee in 2013 on prohibition of all forms of discrimination ( https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2022/08/experts-committee-elimination-racial-discrimination-commend-zimbabwe-2013 by United Nations Human Rights), no real meaningful solution was enacted. The Church continues to be involved.