The nature and content of a given education curriculum in use in a given state is primarily a reflection of the culture and ideology of its designers (Baylies and Bujra, 1990: 4). We agree with Zvobgo’s (1997: xi) position that “the curriculum is a reflection of the power struggles which characterise all societies. It reflects the ideology of the ruling elite.” An ideology, with respect to the curriculum, is the thinking that shapes and influences its content. Since ideology is unjustly dominated by the views of those in power, it is designed in such a way that it protects and advances the interests of its designers. It is meant to define the relations between those in power and the ruled. The ruled are supposed to regard state ideology as given. This was true of the relationship between the colonisers and the indigenous people of Zimbabwe. It is thus necessary to discuss how the colonisers used the education curriculum in order to control the indigenous people of Zimbabwe.
The education that the colonisers imparted prepared the indigenous people of Zimbabwe for inferior roles21 in the colonial state (Zvobgo, 1994: 3). In regard to this aspect of colonial education, Murray (1935: 234) writes that:
if the Native is to be considered as always an inferior being, always to be governed by an alien race, his status and his education for that status will be different from what they would be if he is looked on as capable of an independent political future in the modern world.
The colonisers’ education curriculum left the indigenous people in a state of cultural crisis. This was so because the cultural values that it introduced differed from those of the
21
Atkinson (1982: 78) notes that the first academic schools for “Africans” were established at Goromonzi in Mashonaland in 1946 and Fletcher in Midlands in 1954. For Atkinson (1982: 78), “these schools, and a small number of similar institutions founded during the two or three decades which followed, had a curriculum which was broadly similar to that of secondary schools for white pupils.”
45
indigenous people (Clements, 1969: 48) of Zimbabwe. For example, the colonisers forced the indigenous people to abandon their religious beliefs and imposed christianity on them (Bourdillon, 1976: 23; Clements, 1969: 48; Pwiti and Ndoro, 1999: 143). This was considered civilising (Murray, 1970: 275). In respect to the colonisers’ false sense of generosity in bringing “civilisation” to the indigenous people of Zimbabwe, Gelfand (1981: 62) argues that “the Black man never asked for this ‘civilisation’ but was expected to receive it with open hands.” This involved the imposition of the colonial culture, religion and education.
Culture is considered as an important factor that influences curriculum decisions with respect to its content. It becomes necessary to establish the culture that is handed down through the curriculum. In the context of Southern Rhodesia, cultural conflicts arose between the indigenous people and the colonisers because the colonisers imposed their own system of education and culture on the colonised people (Gelfand, 1981: 62). For Peck (1966: 67), “in regard to education, the African has everything to gain and nothing to lose-his forebears had no schooling whatsoever, and any schooling he does receive is progress; but the European has centuries of tradition to lose, nothing to gain.” The colonisers used the curriculum in order to impose their own epistemological paradigm on the indigenous people. The curriculum thus became a tool to oppress the indigenous people through content that was meant to make them subservient to the colonisers. Colonial education was designed in such a way that it promoted the colonisers’ socioeconomic and political interests (Mungazi, 1989: 469). In regard to the character of colonial education meant for the indigenous people of Zimbabwe, Austin (1975: 43)
46
argues that “the educational system trains Africans to provide efficient service at lower levels while ensuring for Europeans a superiority designed to confirm a racial mythology in which they are cast as a perpetual leadership élite who alone can ensure continued ‘standards of civilization’.”
The myth of the superiority of the colonisers was taken as a fact. This myth was imposed on the indigenous people of Zimbabwe (Bourdillon, 1976: 15; Tangri, 1990: 294) through colonial education. Commenting on colonial education, Zvobgo (1997: 19) argues that “the European ruled by it22, thrived by it and oppressed by it.” In order to force the indigenous people of Zimbabwe to accept colonial education, a number of measures were taken. These measures included land dispossessions (Nkomo, 1959: 31; Report, 1999: 2) that eventually impoverished them. Since land is a source of livelihood for the indigenous people of Zimbabwe, such dispossessions made them economically vulnerable (Austin, 1975: 31). Those indigenous people who successfully pursued colonial education lived a materially better life compared to those who did not. This forced the colonised people to pursue the education that the colonisers imposed on them. In reality, the indigenous people of Zimbabwe did not suffer because they lacked education but because of the circumstances that the colonisers created in order to force them to take up colonial education. The prohibitive cost of colonial education and the lack of sufficient financial support from the colonial governments made it less accessible to the indigenous people of Zimbabwe (Zvobgo, 1981: 13; Zvobgo, 1994: 3). We now turn to a discussion on the character of colonial education.
22
47