PART 3 THE TSONGA OR SHANGAAN DEBATE (Ku lwela vukosi) REFLECTIONS ON HOSI NXUMALO’S CLAIM [INITIALLY WRITTEN AS A RESPONSE TO THE TSONGA-SHANGAAN KINGSHIP DEBATE] - after reading this part, mi ta va mi tiva vuxaka exikarhi ka xitsonga na xichangani na ku why matsonga machangani hi nga ri na hosinkulu. The issue of the identity of our ethnic group is somehow linked to the issue of royalty. While we did not attend to it in great detail in the original submission, Hosi Nxumalo’s submission brought about the need for us to highlight more salient points which will assist the commission in carrying its work: There is a view that since Soshangane defeated many Tsonga groups, all of us should therefore be called Shangaans. In our assessment we find this to be a retrogressive way of reading history. This is so because when one looks at the situation since about 1858, the Nxumalo’s have been assimilated to the Tsonga and not the other way round. For us, it is like suggesting that because the Shona were once defeated by Mzilikazi then they should be called Ndebeles. Accepting this proposition will create a big problem in South Africa as it would mean the Nxumalo’s themselves, the Hlubi, and others who were defeated by Shaka should be called Zulus. If we say all communities that ran away from the Nxumalo in the 1800s should be brought under their control, won’t we imply that all those who were defeated by Shaka should return to Zululand, in which case the descendents of Soshangane (especially Hosi Nxumalo and his community) will go back to Zululand? Our submission is that the Shangaan community which has been linguistically and culturally assimilated should, as is the case right now, form a component of the Tsonga and not the other way round. Earlier on we indicated that the Valoyi and others are now called Tsonga’s because they have been assimilated over a long period of time. The Nxumalo cannot be an exception. Hosi Nxumalo’s claim 1. Amongst the Machangana people there is a debate going around in respect of the difference between Machangana and Vatsonga and called this a trite argument. 2. A lame attempt to portray Machangana as a different species from the group referred (to) as Vatsonga. 3. This view is neither empirical nor innocent. 4. It is common course that for a very long time, “Xichangana” and “Xitsonga” have been used interchangeably. 5. An attempt to draw a wedge between Machangana and Vatsonga is not only ridiculous, but flies in the face of practice. 6. Xitsonga is synonymous to Xichangani. 7. Talked about the so-called four main regional dialects of Tsonga language: v Bushbuchridge v Ritavi v Groot Spelonken v Mozambican dialect The Tsonga versus Shangaan issue We submit that the Gaza remained primarily a raiding empire; unlike the Ndebele state in Zimbabwe which developed into a nation Basically today the Gaza-Nguni-Ndwandwe (so-called Shangaans), just like the Ngoni of Malawi (who did create a Ngoni nation, but are part of Chewa, Nsenga and Tumbuka) refuse to accept the reality that there is no Shangaan nation to talk about, rather the descendents of Soshangane exist today as part of other cultural and language groups like Vatsonga and EmaSwati in South Africa and Swaziland and Vandau, VaManyika-in Zimbwabwe and Mozambique as well as part of other societies like VaSena, Vatonga and Vacopi in Mozambique? It is also a fallacy that there are only three Tsonga dialects in South Africa and that they are named or categorized as Hosi Nxumalo has pointed out in his submission. Hosi Nxumalo also alleged that one of the 11 official languages recognized by the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa (Act 108 of 1996) is Shangaan / Tsonga. We submit Annexure?, which is an extract from the Constitution of the Republic of South African, which recognizes our language as Tsonga and not Shangaan/Tsonga. We are therefore submitting that it is not true that our language is Shangaan/Tsonga and Hosi Nxumalo’s submission to this effect is incorrect. Hosi Nxumalo also alleges that the population register recognizes Machangana / Vatsonga, as part of the South African population. We submit Annexure? To prove that the register actually recognizes our ethnic group as Tsonga and not Machangana/Vatsonga. In this instance, Hosi Nxumalo’s submission is also incorrect. Junod H P(1977) in Matimu ya Vatsonga and Junod (1905:15), both of which Hosi Nxumalo quoted extensively in his presentation have explained the difference between Tsonga and Shangaan, particularly how Shangaan became commonly used in the Reef and other South African mining areas. We are surprised that Hosi Nxumalo decided to ignore this piece of information from the same sources that he used because they obviously find credible and authentic. Junod H A (1905:15) states: “Another name, which is much used among white people to designate the Thongas (Tsongas) is the word Shangaan. …But this term was never accepted by the Ba-Ronga (Varonga), who consider it as an insult. It is applied in Johannesburg roughly to all the East Coast ‘boys’, even to the Ba-Chopi (Vacopi), who are considered by the Ba-Ronga of Delagoa Bay (Maputo) as much inferior to them. Its adoption would be objectionable on that account”. We therefore submit that: Ø Hosi Nxumalo is aware of the difference between Tsonga and Shangaan, but wants to use the confusion created by colonialism and apartheid to boost his claim. It is our understanding that he thinks by perpetuating this confusion, he will lay a claim on all the Tsonga speaking communities with ease. Ø Hosi Nxumalo’s team is aware of the information we are submitting about the difference between the Tsonga and Shangaan as contained in the sources they used (that we are referring to as well), but decided to ignore the information that they thought may be contrary to their claim. Ø Hosi Nxumalo’s representative has not obeyed the oath he took before the Commission and therefore the Commission must take steps against him. SOSHANGANE DID NOT CONQUER ALL THE TSONGA COMMUNTIES Hosi Nxumalo’s submission brought about a lot of confusion on three concepts: Tribute payment – used at the time as a symbol of friendship, diplomatic relations, alliance or subjugation We argue that tribute-paying was not always an acknowledgement of subordination but was one of the strategies used by some societies to create friendship with powerful societies to avoid wars with them, thereby retaining their political, cultural and linguistic autonomy. The concept of tribute-paying as a strategy of retaining autonomy accounts mainly for many claims found in oral traditions of several Tsonga communities, like the Khosa , Southern Hlengwe and other groups that the Gaza claimed to have conquered, whereas they themselves claimed not to been conquered. It is also witnessed but the fact that some Tsonga communities (e.g. some Hlengwe) paid tribute to different powerful groups (Gaza, Ndebele and the Boers) at the same time. Ø Military defeat – which may mean ‘simple’ defeat and nothing else unless other processes follow thereafter Ø Subjugation – an act of subjecting groups of people into ones rule Ø Assimilation – an act of absorbing groups of people in terms of language, culture and values Ø Paramount Chief – the equivalent of king denoting to all monarchs under British rule Hosi Nxumalo’s claim In 1894 – 5 Nghungunyani accepted two Rhonga chiefs, Mahazule Mabyaya (Mazwaya) and N’wamatibyana Mpfumo as his subjects. Hosi Nxumalo’s claim At the height of the Gaza power in the 1850s, the direct authority of its rulers extended over the whole of what is today Southern Mozambique, among other areas. So, if Mahazule and N’wamatibyana only became subject to Nghunghunyani in 1894-5 as Hosi Nxumalo pointed out, the submission that in the 1850s Gaza included the whole of Southern Mozambique cannot be correct. The fact that Mahazule and N’wamatibyana were not Gaza subjects before 1894-5, makes the submission that in the 1850s Gaza included the whole of southern Mozambique. It also proves incorrect the statement that Soshangane conquered all Tsonga communities, let alone the claim that he defeated all of them. We want to submit that there were four main kingdoms around the present day Maputo during the time of the Gaza. These were the Mpfumo, Nondwana, Mazwaya (polluted by Portuguese to Mabyaya), and the Maphutha or Tembe. None of these communities were ever conquered by the Gaza. Even the suggestion that the fleeing of the two Rhonga leaders to Gaza in 1894 was a sign of their submission to Nghunghunyani is incorrect. The truth, therefore, is that Mahazule and N’wamatibyana took refuge in Nghungunyani’s country when they were attacked by the Portuguese as would happen to any leader who is in trouble but has a friend somewhere. When Phungashe, the chief of the Buthelezi was attacked by Shaka, he fled to Zwide of the Ndwandwe, not to become his subject, but to get protection or asylum. When Mgubho, the chief of the Xika community was attacked by the Ndwandwe in the 1820s, he fled to Noziyingili of the Tembe in the east, but never became his subject. We can cite more examples in other societies such as the Ndebele and the Pedi to substantiate on this fact. It is a fact that Nghunghunyani’s part in the Rhonga war was precipitated by his acceptance of Zihlahla and Mahazule as refugees in his country and therefore asylum seekers. Other historians, whom Hosi Nxumalo refers to as his sources in his claim agree with us in this regard. Junod 1905: (472 – 473) states that Mahazule and N’wamatibyana had taken refugee in Gaza in July /August 1895. Junod (1905: 473) states that the … regiments of Ngungunyana would fratenise with those of Maputsu (N’wamatibyana), with whom they were on good terms. Junod (1905: 473) says the Rhonga war (only) spread to Ngungunyana country (Gaza). Junod (1905: 475) states that Maputsu fought Nondwana in 1876. How would this be possible if the two were Gaza subjects? We also want to dispel the notion that Soshangane interacted with Tsonga communities for a first time when he fled from Shaka. The truth is that the Ndwandwe shared the boundary with the Tembe long before they fled from Shaka. Xikonde (Ronga sub-dialect) was spoken around the Mkuzi river where Soshangane’s chiefdom was based. Xissonga (Ronga sub-dialect was spoken in the Pongola valley around where Zwide’s capital, Magudu was based. We therefore submit that: Ø The Tembe arrived in the present day South Africa in the 1400s Ø The Tembe were neither defeated nor conquered by the Gaza Ø They never paid tribute to the Gaza Ø They are presently led by Hosi Maputsu II (Mabhudu II), who is a senior traditional leader Ø In truth, Mpfumu, Nondwana, Mazwaya and Tembe were neither defeated nor conquered by the Gaza Ø Tongaland/ Maputaland in northern KZN, which is occupied by the Tembe, was an independent state which was recognized as such by all the colonial powers of the time. Ø In the late 1800s, that is, during Nghunghunyani’s reign, the reigning Queen Zambili Tembe was recognized as the Paramount Chief of Tongaland/ Maputaland. We therefore submit that: Ø Tongaland / Maputaland was independent from Mpfumu, Gaza, Swazi and Zulu states and was recognized as such by all the colonial powers of the time. HOSI NXUMALO’S CLAIM OVER EASTERN TRANSVAAL (MPUMALANGA) HAS NO BASIS Hosi Nxumalo’s claim In the height of the Gaza Kingdom in the 1850’s extended to parts of present day Mpumalanga, among other areas. Hosi Nxumalo did not give the names of the communities he claims in Mpumalanga. However, we assume he refers to the Ngomane community, which currently has three groups: the Lugedlane, Siboshwa and Hoyi. According to Myburgh, in 1885 Dlavu, the brother to Ntiyi, the then reigning leader of the Ngomane, killed an ostrich and went to do regimental duty at the Swazi king Mbandeni’s capital dressed in its skin and feathers. When the king demanded an explanation why tribute had not been paid all along, Dlavu blamed Ntiyi for the omission. Seeing that he had betrayed his brother, Dlavu fled to Gaza. The king of Gaza, Nghunghunyani, sent an expeditionary force in the same year to go and attack Ntiyi’s people along Mgwenya River and Ntiyi fled to Mpakeni where he died in 1886. It was during this battle that Ntiyi‘s heir, Hoyi was captured and sent to Nghunghunyani. The statement itself tells that prior to this incident, the Ngomana may have paid tribute to the Swazi king. If the Ngomana were part of Gaza, and tribute payment meant subordination, by going to the Swazi capital to pay tribute, Dlavu would have betrayed not only his brother, but also the Gaza king for paying tribute to another king. If Dlavu had betrayed the Gaza king by paying tribute to a rival king, how would he flee to the same king and how would Nghunghunyani protect him and even assist him militarily to attack the very same good servant of Gaza, who did not want to pay tribute to this rival king? We therefore submit that Nghunghunyani would not have protected Dlavu if the Ngomana, including Dlavu himself, were his subjects and Dlavu had clashed with his brother for betraying him to the king rival to Nghunghunyani. In fact, we believe would have attacked Dlavu, instead. Nghunghunyani attacked the current Hoyi section of the Ngomana in 1885 and captured the heir to the Ngomane throne, Hoyi, forcing the reigning leader, Ntiyi, to flee to a place called Mpakeni. How would Nghunghunyani attack him if he was his subject?
Posted on: Fri, 07 Jun 2013 13:44:39 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015