Report Focus News– Special Report
Harare, Zimbabwe — A new academic paper by cultural analyst and media researcher Brilliant Pongo is raising eyebrows—and questions—about the roots of Zimbabwe’s largest ethnic-linguistic identity. Titled “Constructing ‘Shona’: Colonial Linguistics, Identity Politics, and the Invention of Unity in Zimbabwe,” the paper exposes what Pongo argues is a deliberate colonial invention that still defines Zimbabwe’s national discourse nearly a century later.
According to the research, the word “Shona” was never an indigenous term. It was, rather, a colonial classification used by British administrators and missionaries to simplify governance and missionary work in Southern Rhodesia. Pongo’s work suggests that the name may have even been inspired by a Scottish administrator who named the northern communities after his daughter—Shona.
“This was never about cultural accuracy,” Pongo states. “It was about convenience—grouping several unique communities like Karanga, Zezuru, Korekore, Manyika, and Ndau under one invented label to facilitate control.”
An Invention Masquerading as Unity
The paper builds upon the foundational work of historians like Terence Ranger and linguistic theorists like Clement Doke. Doke’s 1931 report laid the groundwork for what we now know as “Standard Shona,” a colonial project that turned distinct languages into mere dialects.
“Imagine if Zulu and Xhosa in South Africa were lumped into one language just to make it easier to print schoolbooks,” said one academic who reviewed the paper. “That’s essentially what happened here.”
Pongo compares Zimbabwe’s language policy with South Africa’s post-apartheid model, which recognizes 11 official languages. In Zimbabwe, only Shona, Ndebele, and English have historically received substantial state recognition, despite a constitution that acknowledges 16 official languages.
A Legacy with Political Teeth
The implications of this colonial construct stretch far beyond linguistics. Pongo’s research connects the idea of a “unified Shona” identity to patterns of political dominance in Zimbabwe’s post-independence era, particularly the rise of Shona-speaking elites in government.
He points to the Gukurahundi atrocities of the 1980s as a dark chapter influenced by this artificially created majority-minority divide.
“This false unity,” he writes, “served not only colonial rule but postcolonial power structures that have benefited from its oversimplification.”
A Call for Decolonial Reckoning
Pongo doesn’t just critique the past—he offers a path forward. He argues for a decolonial linguistic framework that re-recognizes the languages grouped under “Shona” as distinct and legitimate. His call to action: dismantle the colonial scaffolding, and rebuild Zimbabwe’s cultural identity on the foundation of its actual diversity.
The paper has already sparked lively debates on some social forums and cultural symposiums. Some academics welcome the challenge to the status quo, while others caution against reopening ethnic wounds. But Pongo is unapologetic in his mission.
“It’s not about division,” he said in a follow-up interview. “It’s about truth, dignity, and recognition.”
What’s in a Name?
As Zimbabwe confronts deep questions about its national identity, Brilliant Pongo’s paper may become a landmark intervention. Is “Shona” a symbol of unity—or a colonial relic we’ve inherited without scrutiny?
This question, Pongo insists, is not just academic. It’s existential.
Discussion Points for the Public:
- Should the Zezuru, Karanga, Korekore, Manyika, and Ndau be considered separate language groups?
- Is the continued use of “Shona” reinforcing colonial legacies in education and governance?
- What lessons can Zimbabwe learn from South Africa’s inclusive language policy?
- Should Zimbabwe’s history curriculum revisit the origins of its linguistic classifications?
The debate is open. And it’s long overdue
Join the discussion on Facebook
