NEITHER “WHITE ENOUGH” NOR “BLACK ENOUGH": COLOURED PEOPLE AND THE POLITICS OF ALIENATION, MARGINALISATION, CITIZENSHIP AND AND IDENTITY

1

NEITHER “WHITE ENOUGH” NOR “BLACK ENOUGH”? COLOURED PEOPLE AND THE POLITICS OF ALIENATION AND

MARGINALISATION, CITIZENSHIP AND INDIGENEITY

Munyaradzi Mushonga1

Abstract

The political legacy of the colonial state that tended to define citizenship on the basis of ethnicity and indigeneity has tended to exclude certain racial and ethnic groups in the scheme of entitlements within the economies of post-colonial Southern Africa. In Zimbabwe, this definition has led to the exclusion of Coloureds and other Zimbabwean “alien” minorities from the mainstream socio-economic and socio-political systems of the country. This article focuses on the exclusion of Coloureds who, in their view, are excluded because of their skin colour, being neither “white enough” nor “black enough”. Deploying the politics of alienation and marginalisation, citizenship and indigeneity, the article shows that the coloured peoples’ alienation and marginalisation intensified in the post-2000 period with ZANU (PF)’s adoption of a narrow definition of “native African”. However, the article dispels the notion that coloured peoples’ continued alienation and marginalisation is a consequence of the Double Zero (00) identity classification which is found on their national identity cards (IDs), but rather that this classification is a mere fallacy which some Coloureds are using to play victimhood. This it does by showing that the post-2000 period was punctuated by multiple problems occasioned by confrontations over land and property rights, contestations over the history and meanings of nationalism and citizenship, with nearly all minority groups, Coloureds included, suddenly failing to become “Zimbabwean”.

Keywords: Alienation; black enough; citizenship; Coloured; discrimination; indigeneity; marginalisation; exclusion; victimhood; white enough.

1. INTRODUCTION

Following the election of Barak Obama as the United States’ 44th President, there was debate about Obama’s racial identity with many people wondering whether the US President was “black enough”. The real problem, a good number of commenta tors argued, was not that he was not too white, but that he was not too black. Nonetheless, in Europe and North America, Obama is described as black. In Southern African discourse, however, Obama would have been described as coloured.

1 Department of Historical Studies, National University of Lesotho. E-mail: papamunya@ gmail.com.

JOURNAL/JOERNAAL 36(3) December 2011

2

Thus in Southern Africa, the term Coloured refers to a phenotypically diverse group of people descended from historically and culturally diverse backgrounds and who holds an intermediate status in the racial hierarchy, distinct from the white and African populations of the region (Muzondidya 2005; NAAC 2003). Here (Southern Africa), the term is used to mean people who were not only neither white nor black in complexion, but people who were also in-between socially, politically and economically. In Zimbabwe and South Africa, the sense of being “in-between” has marked the development of coloured identity for much of its history. As sociologist Zimitri Erasmus puts it: “For me, growing up a Coloured meant knowing that I was not only not white, but less white; not only not black but better than black” (Erasmus 2002:15), with the idea of proximity to white people and Western culture being articulated by most Coloureds.

This idea of an intermediate status, consciously constructed by both the colonial and post-colonial state, and the agency of Coloureds themselves, has been a site of persistent tension over the meaning of the term Coloured. Because of this intermediate position between Africans and whites, Coloureds have been viewed with suspicion by both groups, in the colonial and post-colonial era. Consequently, Coloureds have suffered discrimination in the colonial period, and continue to suffer discrimination.

The main purpose of this article is to discuss some forms of alienation and marginalisation experienced by coloured people in independent Zimbabwe through a documentation of their group or individual experiences. In the process, the article tries to demonstrate how the politics of citizenship and indigeneity has exacerbated the plight of coloured people. The article also advances the thesis that the continued alienation and marginalisation of Coloureds cannot be reduced to the Double Zero (00) identity classification, as Coloureds would want us to believe, but rather to a multiplicity of factors, some of them traceable to the colonial period. To do so is to be very reductionist and to play victimhood.

Evidence for this article is drawn from a number of sources. Fascinating testimonies are drawn from fieldwork research conducted by the author between July and August 2002 across some of Zimbabwe’s main cities and towns (Harare, Bulawayo, Mutare, Gweru, Masvingo, Kwekwe, Gwanda, and Zvishavane), where most Coloureds live. More evidence is drawn from a baseline study carried out in 2003 under the auspices of the National Association for the Advancement of Coloureds (NAAC) and the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA) which looked into the situation of coloured people in Zimbabwe. Needless to mention, more evidence is drawn from a variety of secondary sources, within the context of the argument at hand.

Mushonga • Neither “white enough” nor “black enough”?

3

2. THE ALIENATION AND MARGINALISATION OF COLOUREDS WITHIN THE CONTEXT OF INDIGENISATION AND ECONOMIC EMPOWERMENT

The alienation and marginalisation of Coloureds did not end when Robert Mugabe became Prime Minister in 1980. As Ivan Hall, a prominent coloured businessman, puts it:

“Our lot as Coloureds hasn’t changed. We are looked down upon. When we got a black government we were further marginalised. When there was aid coming in and cheap money and all that, we never got anything. Even our kids try to get jobs, now blacks have the jobs. For Coloureds from Rhodesia to Zimbabwe it is the same” (Hall 2002:Interview 12 July).

As regards discrimination in the colonial period, another coloured informant had this to say:

“Yes I did feel discrimination. I could write a book about it – in the shops, in the streets, at places of work. In the shop … if a white person came in after you, you were ignored and the white person served first. In the streets white kids would spit on you for no reason whatsoever. I was insulted by black people simply because I was not black and I was not white” (HM Ashburners 2002:Interview 10 July).

The more than ten interviewees the author spoke to between July and August 2002 all pointed out the persistence of discrimination, alienation, marginalisation, stigmatisation and exclusion of Coloureds from the mainstream economic and social structures of the country. This section of the article highlights cases or examples of alienation and marginalisation of Coloureds within the context of indigenisation and economic empowerment in independent Zimbabwe.

In August 1987, for instance, there was an uproar when two coloured women and an Indian woman were named the top three winners at a beauty contest held in Bulawayo, Zimbabwe’s second largest city. A similar scenario repeated itself ten years later, in 1997, when Una Patel, a coloured girl born to an Indian father and a coloured mother, was named Miss Zimbabwe (Muzondidya 2003:331). In the case of the latter, the debate centred on whether Una Patel’s racial background qualified her to be a true representative of Zimbabwean beauty.

And in the same year, 1997, five coloured ex-combatants (Alexander Gallo-way, Thomas Zerf, Arthur Wolfenden, Bruce Marc Thuizen and Cecil Murtagh) were initially denied registration as war veterans for purposes of receiving compensation for their role in the liberation struggle on the basis of their skin colour. As they put it in their appeal to the government against this decision, “we have been unjustly denied registration as war veterans on the sole basis, as stated to us, that the War Veterans Act is ‘for African and not for Makaradi’” (NAAC 2003:23; The Zimbabwe Independent 1997; The Herald 1998). But in 1998, after successfully appealing to the Minister responsible for war veterans, they were finally registered and received their cheques, much to the scorn of some blacks who did not think they deserved it.


4

And in 2002, Paul Chidzero, another coloured man, born of a black Zimbab-wean father and a white Canadian mother, complained bitterly to the press after he had been disqualified to run for the Hatfield primary elections on a ZANU (PF) ticket on the basis of his skin colour. According to Chidzero himself, certain ZANU (PF) officials decampaigned him, telling the electorate that “there is no ZANU (PF) member who is coloured” and being reminded that he had only his father’s political history in his favour and nothing more (The Daily News 2002:Zimbabwe, 22 March). Forty years earlier, his father, Bernard Chidzero, had been denied a research fellowship at the then University College of Rhodesia (now University of Zimbabwe) for merely indicating that he intended to marry and bring a Canadian woman to Southern Rhodesia (Mushonga 2008-2009:55).

Virginia Pinto, another coloured woman born of a black Zimbabwean father and a South African coloured mother, tells of how she was forced to stand down from a top leadership position because of her skin colour.

“A few years ago I was chosen as President of the Indigenous Business Women’s Organisation. ZANU (PF) complained, saying how can a coloured person lead us. I was forced to stand down….My brother Douglas Manhanga, who owns Kutapira Engineering here in Mutare, faced the same problems. When his application for a loan for indigenous businessmen got approved, they visited him to see his firm. When they saw him they queried and said to him ‘but you are not black’” (NAAC 2003:89).

Within the context of indigenous economic accumulation, coloured people feel more marginalised than before. To them, indigenisation and black economic empowerment have meant further marginalisation from the national cake. One coloured resident of Harare summed up the feeling thus:

“Indigenisation means nothing to us [as] we are being excluded from the whole process as if we were not born in Zimbabwe. For instance, you talk of resettlement and housing for all – how many coloured people have been resettled or had homes built for them since independence?” (Muzondidya 2007: 332).

Even the accelerated but chaotic land reform programmes of the post-2000 period did not favour Coloureds. Instead, the so-called fast track land reform process further marginalised Coloureds, with some apparently losing their land and properties to state sponsored land grabs. In one interview in 2002, Ivan Hall, a coloured businessman, complained that the government had designated their 50 000 acre farm, part of which was later occupied by the “war veterans” of the 1970s struggle.

“During the armed struggle we were in the forefront of the armed struggle. My father financed the armed struggle but today when it comes to land redistribution, our farms are designated just like any [white farms]. Half of our Fort Rixon farm has been designated” (Hall 2002:Interview 12 July).

If anything, Coloureds actually expected to be allocated land under the government’s land acquisition and reform programme. Coloureds’ desire to be allocated land just like their black counterparts is well captured in a baseline


5

study carried out in 2003 under the auspices of the National Association for the Advancement of Coloureds (NAAC) and the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA). The study shows that a large proportion of members of the coloured community (83,4%) does not own land in Zimbabwe, mainly in the countryside (that is outside the urban areas), while 95,3% felt that the process of “land redistribution has not benefited coloured Zimbabweans at all” (NAAC 2003:50). But to be eligible for land allocation, just like their black counterparts, Coloureds were expected to register. However, that registration was only considered valid if done with the village headmen, which Coloureds apparently did not have. Consequently, the coloured community called upon the government to adopt some kind of affirmative action to address the issue of land ownership. At the same time, Coloureds were demanding that all land taken away from members of the community (by government or its supporters) should be returned.

Reacting to calls by Coloureds to be included in the government’s contro-versial land reform programme, one leading official of Robert Mugabe’s ZANU (PF) party had this to say:

“Coloureds have themselves to blame after independence [because] they did not come out in solidarity with blacks. …They have remained very closed. If they continue to be closed we will assume that they are still on their fathers’ side. If they are still on their fathers’ side, it means if we give them land we would be giving it back to the white man” (Muzondidya 2003:13).

Such utterances only served to confirm Coloureds’ feelings of being alienated and marginalised because of their past history and on the basis of their skin colour.

In South Africa, coloured people see the post-1994 affirmative action policy as a piece of discrimination on racial grounds. This is so because, in theory, affirmative action benefits all previously disadvantaged people, but in practice, it favours black Africans as agencies and employers using such markers as language, place of residence, education, and surnames as indicators of whether applicants for positions in certain companies were “black enough”. A survey by the weekly Mail & Guardian newspaper in 1995 shows that out of the 2 000 companies surveyed, 90% confirmed that their affirmative action meant only Africans, as Coloureds are thought to have had more opportunities in the past (Mail & Guardian 1995:24 March). The reason advanced for getting more blacks in certain positions was the supposed need to reflect the population’s demographics, meaning that 80% must be African.

In Zimbabwe and South Africa, other forms of alienation and marginalisation of coloured people included stereotyping and stigmatisation. In the real world in which we live, we all call each other names which border on “self” and “other”; “us” and “them”; “insiders” and “outsiders”. Such concepts and stereotypes are sometimes deliberately chosen for systematic lampooning.


6

People of mixed race, as Coloureds are sometimes called, have been subjected to varying degrees of stereotyping and stigmatisation as well as prejudice. Being Coloured came to be associated with innumerable negative stereotypes that are attached to coloured identity – immorality, sexual promiscuity, illegitimacy, impurity, bastards, mongrels, half-castes, untrustworthiness, uncouth, among many others. In Australia in 1996, an entire town council had to resign en masse after its mayor had made racist remarks by describing children of interracial marriages as “mongrels”. “If you are a child of a mixed race ...Asian-Caucasian or Aboriginal-white, you are a mongrel and that is what happens when you cross dogs or whatever” (The Herald 1996:Zimbabwe, 23 October), declared Mr Davis, Mayor of Port Lincoln, a South Australian state of about 13 000 people from about 50 ethnic backgrounds.

Zimbabwean Coloureds continue to be subjected to such crude stereotyping and stigmatisation. JK Seirlis says that Coloureds are often seen as funny, shabby and shady, and are often taken as clowns and comic relief people. They are seen as a people of a dubious shade with the propensity to engage in equally shady activities and suspect intentions and practices. As the joke goes:

“What do you call two white men pushing a car?

White power

What do you call two black men pushing a car?

Black power

What do you call two coloured men pushing a car?

Theft” (Seirlis n.d.)

But as Muzondidya shows, these stereotypes are however not unreciprocated. Drawing from South Africa, Muzondidya (2003:15) argues that a significant proportion of Coloureds, and in particular the older generation of Coloureds, continue to share racist views from the past which emphasise the inferiority of the black person.

“They [Coloureds] call us kaffirs. They have been calling us kaffirs for I don’t know how long. We have been calling them, in revenge, boesman. We have been retaliating now,”

remarked Hombi Ntshoko of Langa township in an interview with Daria Caliguire (Muzondidya 2003:15). One interview in 1993 with a working class coloured woman clearly shows what the majority of Coloureds think of black people.

“And a kaffir, even if he wears a golden ring, still remains an ape….They have nothing, they say they have a culture, they don’t have a culture, they are raw. They say we brown people are mixed masala, but we brown people are closer to white people than they are to white people. Because our culture and the white people’s culture are the same” (Adhikari 2002:17).


7

One challenge that confronts Coloureds, and probably most minority groups, is how to tolerate jeering, scorn, and sometimes ignorant behaviour from other groups of people. But it has to be stated that Coloureds are not the only people subjected to stereotyping and stigmatisation. Many Zimbabwean minorities descended from Malawi, Mozambique and Zambia are called many derogatory names. For example, those from Malawi are called “mabwidi” (silly people), while those from Mozambique are called “makarushu” (nut people). Collectively they have been constructed as urbanites, and therefore as people without primordial ties to the soil.

3. THE POLITICS OF CITIZENSHIP, INDIGENEITY, AND THE FALLACY OF THE DOUBLE ZERO (00) IDENTITY CLASSIFICATION

The alienation and marginalisation of Coloureds have to be understood within the context of the inclusion and exclusion identity framework constructed around the concepts of citizens and subjects, and settlers and natives. In his inaugural lecture as AC Jordan, Professor of African Studies, in 1998 at the University of Cape Town, Mahmood Mamdani tackled the settler-native question in a very fascinating manner. He posed, and sought to answer the question: “When does a settler become a native”? to which he says:

“From the point of view of civic citizenship, it is merely a matter of time. That time period comes up for discussion every time citizenship is debated. And that time period is specified in citizenship clauses in most constitutions. [But] from the point of view of ethnic citizenship, however, the answer is: NEVER” (Mamdani 1998:7).

Probably it is within the context of civic and ethnic citizenship that we should seek to understand the socio-economic and socio-political position of Coloureds in Zimbabwe, both in the colonial and post-colonial period. In South Africa, some 359 years after Jan van Riebeeck had landed at the Cape and had opened South Africa to Dutch settlers, the Boers or Afrikaners, as they call themselves, are still battling to be recognised as natives of Africa, claiming that their history had given them “a unique affinity with the soil and soul of Africa” (Reader 1998:479-481). There is a general belief that of all the European groups who have settled in Africa, the Afrikaners came closest to becoming Africans, if only they had not chosen a destiny that made them the epitome of racism on the African continent (Reader 1998:481).

The construction by the post-colonial state and in particular in post-2000 Zimbabwe, of a single, dominant and relatively homogenous ethnic group, “native African”, raises the question of inclusion and exclusion. These notions of belonging and citizenship have been inherited from the colonial period which wrote them into a distinction between “native” and “settler”, with post-colonial Africa failing to redefine and reform these notions adequately (Mamdani 1998:4). As a result, after


8

independence, they have become the basis of a different type of citizenship. Every ethnic area made the distinction between those who belonged and those who did not, between ethnic citizens and ethnic strangers. This distinction between “native” and “settler”, coupled with the narrow definition of citizen and native, has in this case tended to exclude Coloureds from a share of the national cake, despite the fact that the bulk of the coloured population in Zimbabwe today is locally born, while some of them were raised in what used to be called Native Reserves. Not withstanding this, Coloureds are seen as a people who do not have ancestral ties to the soil, vana vevhu/abantwana bomhabathi (children of the soil). Therefore lack of enough indigeneity has excluded Coloureds from being “Zimbabweans”. But Coloureds are not the only people that have been excluded for not being “indigenous enough”. Many Zimbabweans of Malawian, Mozambican and Zambian descent who have lived all their lives in Zimbabwe with no known links to their countries of origin, have also been excluded. These minorities continue to be issued with national identity cards (IDs) bearing the designation “alien”. Just like Coloureds, they are subjected to ridicule and attack.

For instance, in 2000, at a campaign rally in Bindura, 87km north of Harare, President Robert Mugabe branded these minorities as a group of people who did not belong to Zimbabwe. Singling out residents of Mbare, he threw scorn at them for supporting the then opposition party of Morgan Tsvangirayi, the Movement for Democratic Change (MDC), calling them “undisciplined, totemless elements of alien origin” (http://www.zimbabwesituation.com/oct15_2002.html#link2). Many of these people, just like Coloureds, have been constructed as foreigners, popularly known as urbanites. Under the controversial Citizenship Amendment Act (2003), just like Coloureds, people descended from Malawi, Mozambique and Zambia do not qualify for land resettlement as they are regarded “non-Zimbabweans”. ZANU (PF)’s nationalist ideology was recast in more authoritarian, selective and radicalised notions of citizenship and belonging (Raftopoulos 2009:213).

This authoritarian nationalism constructed a series of “outsiders” and “enemies of the nation”, namely whites, the MDC and civic movements, urbanites and farmworkers (Raftopoulos 2009:213). As Raftopoulos puts it with regard to farmworkers:

“Their exclusion as beneficiaries of the land occupations was the result of ZANU (PF) branding them either as ‘belonging to the farmer’, and under the ‘domestic government’ of commercial farmers [white farmers], or as foreigners in the politics of ‘the nation’” (Raftopoulos 2009:216-217).

On the basis of this, one can argue that the Double Zero (00) identity classifi-cation on Coloureds’ national identity cards is a mere fallacy, and that Coloureds are using it to play victimhood. After all, the Double Zero (00) identity classifi cation is a colonially inherited system of classification used by the colonial state to classify the country’s nationals in terms of geographical places of origin (Muzondidya


9

2007:333). Consequently, the classification is found on all white Zimbabweans’ and Indian Zimbabweans’ national identity cards (IDs). The system categorised them as settlers who do not indeed have ethnic homes, as they were, and still are today, by definition, “rootless, footloose, not tied to any specific territory” (Mamdani 1998:5). In principle, those classified as Double Zero (00) were always seen as an urban people without ancestral roots – Europeans, Indians and Coloureds included. For Coloureds to turn around and point to the Double Zero (00) identity classification as the main source of their alienation and marginalisation is to be reductionist.

Moreover, it has to be emphasised that the government’s indigenisation and economic empowerment project lacked precision and conviction from the start, and that it was constrained by a number of factors. It is also here that explanations to the alienation and marginalisation of Coloureds and other minority groups must be sought, rather than in the colonial relic of the Double Zero (00) identity classifica-tion, on the part of Coloureds. Raftopoulos (2009) and Muzondidya (2003) have identified a number of reasons to account for the failure of the indigenisation and economic empowerment project in independent Zimbabwe. According to Raftopoulos, firstly the policy of reconciliation which sought a peaceful co-existence with white capital where any move to redress this is being seen as counterproductive; secondly the governing elite was opposed to the emergence of an African business class autonomous of the state; thirdly the developmentalist policies and populist rhetoric of the 1980s provided a cover beneath which the state elite indulged in its own enrichment; fourthly the retreat from the socialist rhetoric to the broader international consequences of the 1989 debacle in Eastern Europe left the ruling party without a mobilising ideology (Raftopoulos 2009:7). The role of the World Bank also deserves to be considered as another inhibiting factor in the drive towards the indigenisation of the economy. The Bank actually called for government restraint, favouring instead market-determined measures in the redistribution of resources, and proposed, with regards to land allocation, a “progressive land tax” (Raftopoulos 2009:5-6).

Muzondidya (2003:10) further asserts that difficulties on the part of black business in securing loans from white and foreign owned financial institutions and hostility from white capital not prepared to let black capital break its historic monopoly of the private sector continued to close space for potential black empowerment such that 13 years after independence, the level of business partici-pation by blacks in all sectors of the Zimbabwean economy stood at merely 2%.

These reasons, among others, therefore made it difficult for the state to push hard the indigenous accumulation project, and for the aspiring black businesses, Coloureds included, to break the monopoly of white domination.

However, the increased sense of alienation and marginalisation has allowed coloured activists to mobilise around coloured identity, while others have sought


10

other alternative avenues. Thus Coloureds did not just remain bystanders to their alienation and marginalisation. During the colonial period, and as far back as 1968, coloured people formed the National Association of Coloured Peoples (NACP) which “primarily sought to promote and defend the social, economic and political rights of Coloureds” (Muzondidya 2005:220). And as early as 2001, coloured people launched another organisation, the National Association for the Advance-ment of Coloureds (NAAC) with the overall objective of “trying to address the marginalised socio-economic and socio-political position of people who have been segregated, stigmatised and excluded for more than one hundred years” (NAAC 2001:9). Sadly though, none of these organisations has fared well in its objectives.

Other Coloureds have attempted to reconstruct a sense of purity based on claims to ethnicity and indigenous roots, while some have denied this identity. Writing about South African Coloureds’ identity crisis, Zimitri Erasmus sums it up thus:

“Discomfort among some coloured people with the idea of being coloured has resulted, on the one hand, in attempts to reconstruct a sense of purity based on claims to ethnicity and indigenous roots, or on the other, a complete denial of this identity” (Erasmus 2001:6).

Joshua Cohen, a former prominent coloured political activist in Zimbabwe, described how he tried to change his identity: “I was ashamed that I was too white, I used to paint my face with black ashes so that I could look like those around me.” To escape continued alienation and marginalisation, particularly in the post-2000 period, any Zimbabwean Coloured who was able to prove that his father was a British was given British citizenship and with that a passport to emigrate.

4. CONCLUSION

The article has shown that coloured alienation and marginality in post-colonial Zimbabwe can be explained more in terms of the inclusion and exclusion identity framework. It has also shown that coloured alienation and marginalisation in post-colonial Zimbabwe cannot be reduced to the Double Zero (00) identity classifica-tion, as most Zimbabwean Coloureds would want us to believe. Any attempt to do so is to be reductionist and to play victimhood. While Coloureds themselves think that they are being alienated and marginalised because they are suddenly not “black enough”, it is important to point out that they are not the only group that has lost its birthright under ZANU (PF)’s re-definition of who is and who is not Zimbabwean. In the post-2000 period, becoming Zimbabwean has suddenly become very diffi-cult, not only for Coloureds, but for the majority of Zimbabweans. Coloureds, just like the rest of the other minority groups, as well as members of the opposition and displaced farmworkers, have been chosen by ZANU (PF) for systematic alienation,


11

marginalisation, torture, ridicule and even elimination, particularly in the post-2000 Zimbabwean scenario. The Double Zero (00) identity classification only helped to reinforce the notion of people who do not belong to a particular geographic space.

Perhaps the strongest message being sent to Coloureds, particularly in the post-2000 era, is aptly summed up in Ali Mazrui’s (1986) fascinating documentary, The Africans: A triple heritage. In this documentary, Mazrui says that in America, black Americans have been taught:

“Forget where you come from; remember you are black

Forget your ancestry; remember your skin colour

Forget you are African; remember you are black

Forget you are African; remember you are black.”

If we borrow Mazrui’s pronouncements, and apply them to the Southern African situation, perhaps one can say that Coloureds are being reminded:

“Forget where you come from; remember what you look like

Forget your ancestry; remember your skin colour

Forget you are African; remember you are coloured

Forget you are African; remember you are coloured.”

LIST OF SOURCES

Adhikari, M 2002. Continuity and context: An overview of coloured idendity in white supremacist South Africa. Seminar paper presented in the History Department, University of Zimbabwe, 5 June 2002. Harare.

Ashburners, HM 2002. Interview 10 July.

Erasmus Z 2001. “Introduction: Re-thinking coloured identities in post-apartheid South Africa”. In: Erasmus Z (ed.), Coloured by history, shaped by place: New perspectives on coloured identities in Cape Town. Cape Town: Kwela Books.

Erasmus Z, quoted in Adhikari M 2002. Continuity and context: An overview of coloured identity in white supremacist South Africa. Seminar paper, Department of History: University of Zimbabwe.

Hall, I 2002. Interview 12 July.

Internet: <http:/www.zimbabwesituation.com/oct15_2002.html#links2>.


12

Interviews with coloured residents of Zimbabwe’s major cities and towns - Harare, Bulawayo, Kwekwe, Mutare, Zvishavane, Gwanda and Gweru, July and August 2002.

Mail & Guardian 1995. “Affirmative action not favouring apartheid’s orphans”. Available at <http://web.sn.apc.org/wmail/issues/950324/wm950324-32.html>, 24 March.

Mamdani M 1998. When does a settler become a native? Reflections of the colonial roots of citizenship in equatorial and South Africa. Inaugural lecture: University of Cape Town.

Mazrui A 1986. The Africans: A triple heritage. Documentary.

Mushonga M 2008-2009. “The criminalisation of sex between ‘black’ & ‘white’ and miscegenation hullabaloo in Rhodesia: An analysis of the marriage of Patrick Matimba & Adriana van Hoorn”, Lesotho Law Journal: A Journal of Law and Development 18(2):435-456.

Muzondidya J 2003. Reflections on the continued resonance of race and ethnicity in the postcolonial African state: The case of coloured identity in Southern Africa. Paper read at the 30 CODESRIA Anniversary Conference: Gaborone.

Muzondidya J 2005. Walking a tightrope: Towards a social history of the coloured people of Zimbabwe. Trenton: Africa World Press.

Muzondiya J 2007. “Jambanja: Ideological ambiguities in the politics of land and resource ownership in Zimbabwe”, Journal of Southern African Studies 33(2): 325-341.

National Association for the Advancement of Mixed Race Coloureds (NAAC), 2003. Baseline study on the situation of coloured people in Zimbabwe. Harare: NAAC.

Raftopoulos B 2009. “The crisis in Zimbabwe”. In: Raftopoulos B & Mlambo A (eds). Becoming Zimbabwe. Harare: Weaver Press.

Raftopoulos B & Mlambo A (eds) 2009. Becoming Zimbabwe. Harare: Weaver Press.

Reader K 1998. Africa: A biography of the continent. London: Penguin Books.

Seirlis JK (n.d.). Undoing the United Front. Seminar paper, Department of Anthropology: University of the Witwatersrand.


13

The Daily News 2002. Zimbabwe, 22 March.

The Herald 1996. Zimbabwe, 23 October.

The Herald 1998. Zimbabwe, 24 February.

The Zimbabwe Independent 1997. Zimbabwe, 11 May.

NEITHER “WHITE ENOUGH” NOR “BLACK ENOUGH": COLOURED PEOPLE AND THE POLITICS OF ALIENATION, MARGINALISATION, CITIZENSHIP AND AND IDENTITY

Documents