A toponymic perspective on Zimbabwe’s post-2000 land reform programme (Third Chimurenga)

Abstract

This qualitative study presents an onomastic perspective on the changing linguistic landscape of Zimbabwe which resulted from the post-2000 land reforms (also known as the Third Chimurenga). When veterans of Zimbabwe’s War of Liberation assumed occupancy of former white-owned farms, they immediately pronounced their take-over of the land through changes in place names. The resultant toponymic landscape is anchored in the discourses of the First and Second Chimurenga. Through recasting the Chimurenga (war of liberation) narrative, the proponents of the post-2000 land reforms endeavoured to create a historical continuum from the colonisation of Zimbabwe in 1890 to the post-2000 reforms, which were perceived as an attempt to redress the historical anomaly of land inequality. The aim of this study is to examine toponymic changes on the geo-linguistic landscape, and establish the extent of the changes and the post-colonial identity portrayed by these place names. Within the case study design, research methods included in-depth interviews, document study and observations as means of data generation. Through the application of critical and sociolinguistic theories in the form of post-colonial theory, complemented by geo-semiotics, political semiotics and language ecology, this study uncovers the richness of toponymy in exposing a cryptic social narrative reflective of, among others, contestations of power. The findings indicate that post-2000 toponymy is a complex mixture of pre-colonial, colonial and post-colonial place names. These names recast the various narratives in respect of the history of Zimbabwe through the erasure of colonial toponyms and resuscitation older Chimurenga names. The resultant picture portrayed by post-2000 toponymy communicates a complex message of contested land ownership in Zimbabwe. There is a pronounced legacy of colonial toponymy that testifies to the British Imperial occupation of the land and the ideologies behind colonisation. This presence of colonial toponymy many years after independence is an ironic confirmation of the indelible legacy of British colonialism in Zimbabwe. The findings show a clear recasting of the discourses of violence and racial hostility, but also reveal an interesting trend of toponymic syncretism where colonial names are retained and used together with new names.