‘Here lies a land of promise, of conquer, rugged, wild, undeveloped, a land of opportunity for the right men’. The opening lines of Southern Rhodesia – Is This Your Country? outline the film’s function as a recruitment film for potential British immigrants. The film then sets out to ‘look at this land, and its people and the work that they do’, but the country is viewed throughout entirely from the perspective of the white settler.

The film offers a romanticised and traditional account of Rhodesian history, talking of the pioneers, ‘who first cut the road through a hostile and savage wilderness’ and of the ‘great Englishman’ Rhodes. The film’s tone, and specifically its references to pioneer days, illustrates an attempt to maintain traditional colonial rule within Africa. The film defines the type of immigrants the government is seeking – ‘the right men’ – as adventurous and containing ‘that spirit which has carved this civilisation from the heart of the African hinterland’. It emphasises these qualities at a moment when traditional colonial rule was under increasing threat, most notably with the independence of India.

The film highlights the perceived developments under British rule. Even when noting that ‘few natives’ have the vote as the ‘franchise is based on a minimum income and educational standards’, the commentary explains this by stating that ‘European civilisation has only been stabilised in the colony for some 50 years and the vast majority of the natives are still living under tribal conditions. Developing a sense of political responsibility will be a long task’. The voiceover reiterates the ‘value’ of the British to the locals, noting that ‘the government has a strong policy for the education of the natives and the raising of his standards of living’. However, in justifying British rule, the film must necessarily illustrate the perceived helplessness of the locals within this ‘primitive and alien society’, informing the viewer that ‘Left to himself the native is a wasteful and negligent farmer. A bad crop may mean starvation for him and his family’.

The film establishes a clear contrast between the white settlers and the local Africans. A shot cuts from white government workers outside the opulent buildings to a shot of Africans building huts in the hills. The working relationship between the settlers and ‘natives’ further illustrates this distinction, as the commentary notes that ‘one white man to eight or more natives is the proportion of labour’ and that the white farmer ‘must learn the tricky business of handling native labour’. This clear division is maintained as the commentary asserts that ‘all the non-skilled workers are African’. However, this line has a dual purpose. It also illustrates the need to recruit specifically skilled white men – ‘the would-be immigrant must be a skilled man, valuable to the community’ – in order to maintain the racial order, which the film suggests is maintained in part by these distinct working roles.

The film, in common with many instructional films, displays Africans as the subject of scientific study. It acknowledges that there is ‘a definite social colour distinction’ and thus ‘We should pause to examine the position of the native population in the life of the country’. Yet, this consideration of the local Africans is merely a ‘pause’ from the main focus of the film – the white settler – and is only included because ‘this has a most important bearing on the position of the white settler’. The Africans are addressed purely in relation to their interaction with the white settlers. As such, there is no mention, for example, of worker unrest, the famine and drought of 1947, or the housing problems of black Africans.

Tom Rice (March 2008)