Imagining a Nation: History and Memory in Making Zimbabwe

Imagining a Nation

History and Memory in Making Zimbabwe

Ruramisai Charumbira

University of Virginia Press

Charlottesville and London

University of Virginia Press

© 2015 by the Rector and Visitors of the University of Virginia,

All rights reserved

Printed in the United States of America on acid-free paper

First published 2015

9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Charumbira, Ruramisai, 1967– author.

Imagining a nation : history and memory in making Zimbabwe / Ruramisai Charumbira.

pages cm. — (Reconsiderations in southern African history)

Includes bibliographical references and index.

ISBN 978-0-8139-3822-6 (cloth : alk. paper) — ISBN 978-0-8139-3823-3 (e-book)

1. Nationalism and collective memory—Zimbabwe. 2. Sex role—Zimbabwe—History. 3. Sexism—Zimbabwe—History. 4. Zimbabwe—Race relations—History. 5. Zimbabwe—Colonial influence. I. Title. II. Series: Reconsiderations in southern African history.

DT2908C53 2015

968.9—dc23

2015011672

Cover art: Herringbone pattern in stones at the top of the Great Enclosure Wall, Great Zimbabwe National Monument, Zimbabwe. (Colin Hoskins/Alamy)

Reconsiderations in Southern African History

Richard Elphick, Editor

For Emildah Penina Gotore Charumbira

Mai Vangu, 1940–2011, in memory

and Margaret James Kavounas, Auntie

The tradition of all dead generations weighs

like a nightmare on the minds of the living.

—Karl Marx, The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte

Contents

Acknowledgments

A Note on Orthography, Language Use, and Historiographies

Introduction: Musings

1.Far from the Tree: Appropriations of Ethnic Memory and Other Frontier Encounters

2.War Medals, Gendered Trials, Ordinary Women, and Nehandas to Remember

3.Remembering Rhodes, Commemorating Occupation, and Selling Memories Abroad

4.A Country Fit for White People: The Power of the Dead in Mazoe Settler Memory

5.Re-Membering African Masculine Founding Myths in the Time of Colonialism

6.African Autobiography: Collective Memory and the Myths of Conquered Peoples

7.Educated Political Prisoners, a Guerrilla Matron, and the Gendered Pursuit of Independence

Conclusion: An Acre of Land for Heroes of the Land

Notes

Bibliography

Index

Acknowledgments

The main idea in this book—history and its memory and memory and its history—started in another form in my 2006 doctoral dissertation at Yale University under the outstanding supportive supervision of Robert W. Harms, whom students affectionately called Uncle Bob. During my graduate years I sought to understand why Nehanda-Charwe was the singular precolonial woman mentioned in much of Zimbabwean historiography. I researched women’s lives before and beyond Charwe and wrote about them in my dissertation, Forgetting Lives, Remembering Symbols: Women in the History of Zimbabwe. That dissertation was a diamond in the rough. In the many years since, I have broadened and deepened my thinking about history and memory and about colonial and postcolonial history in Africa and elsewhere, which in turn has produced a book far different from the dissertation. I did my best to heed Uncle Bob’s advice to patiently polish an important idea so that it would be of value to more people than just me. I hope he believes that I have done so.

I am also grateful to other members of my committee: Glenda Gilmore, who introduced me to (African) American history and got me hooked; and Michael R. Mahoney, a historian of South Africa, whose graduate course Memory and Orality has borne fruit in chapters of this book based on oral sources.

My ability to research and write this book was made possible by the emotional and financial support of various individuals and institutions. The number of individuals and institutions has grown, yet none but I am responsible for the interpretation of the stories told in this book.

Financial support came from the following institutions: the Yale University Graduate School of Arts and Science, the Yale Agrarian Studies Program, the American Association of University Women (AAUW) Educational Foundation, the Luso-American Foundation, the Mrs. Giles Whiting Foundation, the Huntington Library, Denison University’s Fair-child Faculty Development Grant, and the German Research Foundation for a research fellowship at the Bielefeld Graduate School in History and Sociology, in Bielefeld, Germany. At the University of Texas at Austin, I thank the College of Liberal Arts and the John Warfield Center for African and African American Studies for a start-up research grant, the Department of History for a Scholarly Activity Grant, the Center for Women’s and Gender Studies for a new-faculty development fellowship, the Humanities Institute, the British Studies Junior Faculty Program, and the Office of the Vice President for Research for a Subvention Grant toward the publication of this book. Lastly, I am most grateful to Richard Elphick, a distinguished historian of South Africa and southern Africa and the editor of the Reconsiderations in Southern African History series, who believed in this project from the time I sent him the prospectus; together with Richard Holway, History and Social Sciences Editor at the University of Virginia Press, he mentored me through the process. To those two men, the anonymous manuscript reviewers, and all the staff at the University of Virginia Press, especially Anna C. Kariel, Morgan Myers, and Joanne Allen: you are precious.

The stories in this book were interpreted from sources gathered from archives in Zimbabwe, the United Kingdom, and the United States. I am eternally grateful to all the archivists and staff—the memory keepers—at those institutions, in particular Malvern Ndokera at the National Archives of Zimbabwe, whose superb research assistance from 2002 to 2006 helped me locate as many documents as possible related to the memory of Nehanda-Charwe; and K. Tonhodzai, who went beyond the call of duty to assist me with images. Also in Zimbabwe, I am grateful to the Zimbabwe National Traditional Healers Association (ZINATHA) for leading me in the right direction, toward spirit mediums, where I met with wonderful mentors, especially Sekuru Dhewa and Sekuru Mutiti. Handina kukanganwa, ndichanyora gwaro renyu vakuru. Lucy McCann, at Rhodes House, Bodleian Library Oxford, helped me find material for this book and for other projects as well. Dorothy Woodson’s encyclopedic guide through Yale’s African Studies Collection helped me while I was a student, and the value of that guidance has grown exponentially, years after the fact. Judith Ann Schiff, of Yale’s Manuscripts and Archives Library, helped me understand—and years later, appreciate—Howell Wright and his collection. Carol Leadenham was an affirming professional presence at the Hoover Institution on War, Revolution, and Peace Library and Archives, Stanford University Library. And last but not least, I thank Paul Rascoe, African Studies librarian, and the wonderful Interlibrary Loan Services staff at UT Austin, who sourced material for me from near and far.

I am also indebted to many people who have mentored me and those who continue to do so formally and informally, including my former teacher David Levine, at the University of Toronto (OISE); and Roderick McIntosh, a Yale archaeologist of Africa who models the passionate pursuit of Africa’s deep past and its relevance today. Also at Yale, I am grateful to the late Robin Winks, who encouraged me to study the West the way the West had studied Africa—minus the prejudice; Jonathan Butler, whose research seminar in European and American history taught me the importance of good historical research and comparative analysis; and John Demos, whose seminal course Narrative and Other Histories sustained my desire to write accessible history many years after the fact. Florence Thomas, Pamela Y. George, Pamela Schirmeister, Ann Kuhlman, and Elisabeth Mead all supported me as I learned how to deal with Yale and especially the U.S. Immigration Services bureaucracy regarding student visas. At Denison University, I am grateful to Toni King and John Jackson, of the Black Studies and Women Studies programs, whose resilience reminded me of the importance of continuing the struggle for social justice for future generations. Also at Denison, I am appreciative of the support and friendship of Don Schilling, Lauren Araiza, Trey Proctor III, and Isis Nusair. Isis read an early draft of the manuscript, offering me a nonhistorian’s perspective.

At the University of Texas at Austin, I am grateful to all my colleagues for their collegiality and support in varying capacities over the years, especially Toyin Falola, Omi O. J. Jones, Ted Gordon, Tiffany Gill, Roger W. Lois, Sue Heinzelman, Frank Guridy, Juliet E. K. Walker, Laurie Green, Denise A. Spellberg, Leonard Moore, Susan Deans-Smith, Jorge Cañizares-Esguerra, Alison Frazier, Tracie Matsik, Madeline Hsu, Nancy Stalker, Pauline Strong, Yoav Di Capua, and Joan Neuburger. Jacqueline Jones offered intellectual support and remarkable mentorship. She read the manuscript in various forms, offering invaluable feedback and critique; her assertive mentorship fortified me as I searched for a publisher interested in this book’s success and timely publication. I have also benefited tremendously from the support and role modeling of Ann Twinam and Philippa Levine, scholars of great accomplishment and integrity. That this book sees the light of day is also testament to the mentorship and support I got from Alan Tully while he was department chair. I am also appreciative of my colleagues who shared ideas and/or feedback on all or parts of the manuscript, especially Frank Guridy for his close reading and incisive questions, Hannah Chapelle Wojciehowski for her editorial eye and belief in the book’s main ideas, Diana R. Berry, Catherine Boone, Robin Metcalfe, Robert Abzug, and Tatjana Lichtenstein, comrade and friend. Laura Flack and the rest of the staff of the Department of History have provided, and continue to provide, the best support anyone doing academic research and teaching could hope for. Farther afield, I thank those who afforded me feedback and/or opportunities to present my work, including Terence O. Ranger, Paul Berliner, Sita Ranchod-Nilsson, Luise White, James Giblin, Nancy Rose Hunt, Timothy Scarnecchia, Lynnette Jackson, and Rola El-Husseini. I also thank my many students, especially the undergraduates in my History of Southern Africa classes and the graduates in my History and Memory classes; their interest and their questions have made me a better scholar and teacher.

Family and friends nurtured me through the many years of researching and writing this book. All their names would fill many pages. Suffice it to say, Zvinotendwa/Ngiyabonga/Asante sana—Thank you all. I thank in particular Linda Christiansen-Ruffman, Margaret Conrad, Chioma Ekpo, Temitope Adefarakan, and NourbeSe Philip—who will be surprised by the Nehanda who emerges in this book; Margaret Waller, for support when I was a rookie; David and Ching Leung, of Toronto, in whose home I first jotted down my changing ideas on Nehanda, which are now a major part of this book; Fiona Vernal, for continuing to travel with me; Roger S. Levine, Thomas F. McDow, Brian J. Peterson, Jacob Dlamini, and Eric Allina, all intellectual children of Uncle Bob; Judy Norsigian and Geneva T. Cooper, whose feminist activism inspires action; the radical feminist Patricia McFadden, whose friendship and sisterhood have sustained my intellectual engagement with Southern Africa’s history— and women within it; Dr. Gibson Mandishona and his wonderful daughter, the accomplished filmmaker Mary Ann Mandishona, for many years of friendship; Majella Lenzen, who continues to sustain me, as do Carlos Sasso and his fiancée, Bahar; and Monika Bokerman, who made my stay in Bielefeld a memorable one. The architect Reiner Lembke and his artist partner, Neele, welcomed me into their lives and home, so that I was able to write my first complete draft even as I mourned the loss of my beloved mother in the middle of that sabbatical year in Germany. Alice Prochaska and her husband, Frank Prochaska, of Somerville College, University of Oxford, whom I met at Yale, have remained wonderful mentors and friends. My friends in Austin, Texas, Pat Shirejian and her husband, John Przyborski, remind me that life is enjoyable when taken easy, and Teresa Robinson provides support when I am stranded. One of the benefits of being an immigrant is the opportunity to expand the definition of family, and it has been my singular privilege to be an honorary member of the family of Margaret J. Kavounas, Auntie, and her husband, Edmond A. Kavounas, Uncle Ed, who have loved and supported me as if I were one of their own. To them this book is also dedicated. My mother-in-law, Rita, my sister-in-law, Stephanie, and Uncles Erwin and Manfred† welcomed me into their family—language barriers notwithstanding. Lastly, I am grateful to my late father, Andrea M. D. Charumbira, who read to me when I was young and taught me the importance of intellectual curiosity; my mother, who taught me the importance of intellectual honesty and resilience and encouraged me to make the most of an education denied her; my siblings, Tsitsi Matilda†, Abraham, Isaac, Anamaria†, and Anatoria, their spouses, as well as all my nieces and nephews, were the representative audience I had in mind when I was writing this book. I hope they find it worthy. Most importantly, to the man who came into my life unbid, but right on time: Ich liebe Dich, Holger Ahlrichs.

I am grateful for permission to include parts of works by me previously published elsewhere. Parts of chapter 2 appeared in Nehanda and Gender Victimhood in Central Mashonaland 1896–97 Rebellions: Revisiting the Evidence, History in Africa: A Journal in Method 35 (2008): 103–31, copyright 2008 African Studies Association. Parts of chapter 7 appeared in Nehanda, Gender, and the Myth of Nation-hood in the Making of Zimbabwe, in National Myths: Constructed Pasts, Contested Presents, ed. Gerard Bouchard (New York: Routledge, 2013), 206–22.

A Note on Orthography, Language Use, and Historiographies

This book, like many before, relies on colonial archives to tell many of the stories contained within. Consequently, there are issues of orthography, language, and meaning that should be noted. However, rather than itemizing all those terms and issues here, I explicate them as they appear in the text. A few examples should be noted from the outset. I generally use the spelling Mazowe when referring to Africans’ use of that name or when they are narrating their history in that district of colonial Zimbabwe, but I use Mazoe when citing directly from the colonial archives or when referring to settlers and their telling of the history of that district. This means that at times, though rarely, I use both spellings in the same paragraph to show the shift in perspective from African to settler or vice versa. Black and White are used as historical terms as well as analytical devices. I capitalize the terms when highlighting (historical) nationalists’ uses of them as not just nouns but identities. On the other hand, I lowercase the terms when I am making an analytical point about those identities. The term Shona, for the majority of the people whose history is narrated here, is to a large extent a colonial construct. I tend to use the now standard spelling Mashonaland, though sometimes I use MaShonaland or, rarely, maShonaland, all terms referring to the land of the Shona peoples. The term native is sometimes capitalized, and sometimes not, to show the ways settlers thought of Africans or the ways Africans turned a sometimes derogatory term into something affirmative. I capitalize Southern Africa when referring to the political region and lowercase it when referring to geography.

Colonial misspellings of African names means that sometimes one person can have three or more names depending on the sources. For example, the names for Nehanda include Nyanda, Nianda, and Neanda, and Kaguvi’s names include Kakuvi, Kargubi, and Kakubi. The chartered company that administered the colony from 1890 to 1923 is referred to as the BSAC, the Company, or the Chartered Company. The frontier war of 1896–97 was perceived as one war on the British side but as wars on the African side, as responses to colonialism were less coordinated and mounted as one African army against one British enemy. Thus, I use both wars and war, depending on the perspective. Contemporary Zimbabwe has three official languages—isiNdebele, chiShona, and English. My translation of terms tends to be in all three language, for example, water/mvura/amanzi (English/chiShona/isiNdebele).

The term pioneer appears in various forms—Pioneer, "Pioneer," Pioneer Column, pioneer, and "pioneer" (and their plural forms)—because it was a formal designation as well as a contested term among settlers; I also use it to present a postcolonial critique. Pioneer, "Pioneer," or Pioneer Column refers to those men who were part of Rhodes’s formally constituted imperial groups of 1890 and 1893. Sometimes I use "Pioneer or Pioneer Column" (and their plural forms) when quoting from sources or when analyzing these groups as a way to include the excluded African perspectives. I also use the lowercase pioneer or "pioneer" (and their plural forms) to highlight the elasticity of the term as well as its contestations by and among settlers who arrived before 1890 and also their supporters and descendants. The same contestations were made by settlers who arrived between 1890 and 1900, that is, those who experienced the war of 1896–97 but did not belong to the formal associations of the 1890 or 1893 groups. I also use lowercase pioneer or "pioneer" to include the excluded African voices and, again, to offer a postcolonial critique. Overall, my varied use of this term (and others) highlights the inherent contradictions of colonialism. It would be a disservice to smooth over the term’s jagged edges for an easy narrative.

Lastly, I should highlight my engagement with certain literatures— in African or other histories. The missing historiography is not absent because it is not important; it is. In fact, I read widely and had to make choices (given page and word limits) about which scholarship most closely related to the issues discussed in this book. For example, there is important literature on gender and the nation that I do not cite in my introduction—like the pioneering work of Lynn Hunt on the impact of gender in the processes of national-identity formation in the French Revolution—but that does not mean that this book is not in conversation with that historiography. Nor does it mean that this book is not in conversation with the work of scholars like Beth Baron, who looked at women and gender dynamics in the making of Egypt, or with Zimbabwean and African historiography. My own work is in conversation with a wide variety of relevant historiographies, and the careful reader will note this in the text and the endnotes. I focus mostly on scholarship that allowed me to say something new without recycling the same issues or staking new territory in fields that have been convincingly dealt with by those who came before me. You are therefore invited, dear reader, to engage the thick forest and its entanglements (history), as well as the neatly manicured paths and park benches (memory) presented in this book.

Contemporary map of Zimbabwe. (Courtesy of the University of Texas at Austin Libraries, Map Collection)

Introduction Musings

Nationalist memory projects, I argue in this book, are like well-manicured public gardens, complete with signs that read Walk on designated paths, Look, do not Touch, Do not introduce alien plants. Public gardens and their maintenance are, in fact, instructive metaphors for thinking about memory and nation-building, as it is often the imagination of political and cultural nationalists that animates uses of the past for the present in a nation. Those nationalists act like avid gardeners, constantly manicuring the national image, insisting on the proper preservation of indigenous species by indigenous and cherry-picked outsider experts. Like uppity gardeners, nationalist memory makers often insist on narrow definitions of belonging, patriotism, and national identity. In such cases, dissenting voices are deemed unpatriotic and/or intruders planting alien seeds (ideas) that could destroy indigenous flora (the pure nation).

Since its founding as a colony in 1890, Zimbabwe has been dominated by political and cultural nationalists (mostly men) keen to turn the forest of that country’s deep and recent past into a manicured garden of the present. Rather than seeing the past as a vibrant ecosystem, Black and White nationalists of Zimbabwe—like those of most modern nations— have been eager to cultivate an image of their country’s past that resembles a native garden free of weeds and alien flora that might disrupt the nationalists’ versions of history and who belongs.

This book is a history of the contested memories of what it meant to be Rhodesian/Zimbabwean as seen through the eyes of Black and White nationalists in the central and northern regions of that country since 1890. In it I critically examine the making of nationhood—its memory, meanings, symbols, rituals, and methods of inclusion and exclusion as expressed by cultural and political nationalists in a bid to lay claim to the power structures of the nation. To that end, this book is not a history of Zimbabwe; better books on Zimbabwe’s history have been written. Rather, in this book I am interested in excavating the African nationalist context that converted Charwe wokwa Hwata, the nineteenth-century medium of the spirit of Nehanda in the Mazowe valley, into a national spiritual ancestor, Mbuya Nehanda. I juxtapose the spirit of Charwe as anti-imperialist ancestor to the spirit of the imperialist mining magnate and father of the famed Rhodes Scholarships, Cecil John Rhodes, a memory that animated settler nationalism, and ideological Rhodesians abroad, in praise of imperial conquest. Those two ancestral spirits of (colonial and postcolonial) Zimbabwe are the forests I venture into, in search of the sources of Zimbabwe’s current postcolonial discontents.

Zimbabwe is now a paradoxical source of angst and pride among different types of people: The angst comes from those within and outside Zimbabwe who are scandalized by the abuse of power by the country’s single postcolonial ruler and his political party–cum-government, who have shorted the ordinary people.¹ Pride, on the other hand, comes from those who argue that Zimbabwe is another Haiti, Mugabe another Toussaint L’Ouverture, pressed on all sides by erstwhile colonial masters (the British) in cahoots with other former colonial masters (Western powers) eager to perpetuate a neocolonial balance of power with Africa.² That paradox of angst and pride, I argue, carries grains of historical truth.³

To say that former colonial powers have nothing to do with how postindependent Zimbabwe (and much of postcolonial Africa) turned out and how it operates today is at best naive or evasive. Conversely, to see African problems only through the prism of colonialism is to deny Africans their agency in both the positive and negative developments of that continent. As the subaltern and postcolonial studies scholar Partha Chatterjee observed of colonial states and the anticolonial movements, The colonial state’s power, we must remember, was the preservation of the alienness of the ruling group.⁴ Equally, Chatterjee continues, we have all taken the claims of nationalism to be a political movement much too literally, and much too seriously.⁵ Thus the present book echoes Chatterjee’s sentiments by analyzing some of the gendered founding myths of the colony/nation and those of the postcolony/nation. Rather than focusing on just the settlers or the indigenous people, this study takes into account narratives from both groups, showing that while history was vigorously contested, narrating memory, though accessible to everyone, was not always fair game when powerful ideologies, iconography, and institutions were at stake. Access to outlets of power in the (new) colony/nation of Rhodesia/Zimbabwe privileged some citizens at the expense of others. This book, therefore, places an emphasis on exploring the liminal spaces between the binary of black/white histories and colonized/colonizer. Those liminal spaces are the gray versions of history usually eschewed in public discourse in favor of simplistic narratives.

Rethinking Nehanda: Separating the Spirit from Its Medium

Similar to many African children born or raised in the heat of war in late 1970s Rhodesia, I grew up listening to tales of a woman popularly known as Nehanda. Her heroic resistance to British colonialism in the late 1800s was legendary, and it was impressed upon us to resist colonialism as Nehanda had. Bootlegged copies of her image were surreptitiously circulated like the image of a Christian saint in a land where that religion was forbidden. Such was her symbolic power—which extends to today, when a Google search retrieves thousands of hits. No one at the time, as I remember, ever said or seemed to know her real name or any other name for her; in fact, the story of Nehanda was confined to that colonial encounter. The people in the townships of my childhood in Bulawayo cherished the name Nehanda. She was a great female ancestral spirit who had finally come alive to help the living liberate themselves from oppressive white settler society. It was only later that I realized they could not have called her Charwe, her given name: Who has ever heard people call popes or Dalai Lamas by their birth names? Those holy men were known only by the names they assumed when they took ecclesiastical office. Charwe was no different. To many in my young days, she was (and to some still is) Nehanda—or Mbuya (ancestor) Nehanda.

Over the many years of thinking about Nehanda (Charwe) and, later, doing extensive archival research in Zimbabwe, South Africa, the United Kingdom, Portugal, and the United States, I have, naturally, come to a different understanding of the woman who inspired me (and this project) many years ago. The most important shift in my thinking was sociotheological, particularly with regard to how people thought and remembered spirits of the dead, especially how those spirits interact or interacted with the living in their societies. That shift in the meaning of spirits opened a space in my mind through which I had something of an epiphany about her: could it be that everyone—myself included— had and has been barking up the wrong tree, invoking Charwe’s spirit as Nehanda’s, when in fact it was and is Charwe’s spirit that has gripped Zimbabwean historiography since her death in April 1898? I wondered whether scholars, the interested public, and I should really be thinking and talking about the spirit of Charwe, rather than that of Nehanda, in nationalist history and memory. After all, the memory of Nehanda was strongest among those African cultural and political nationalists who hailed from Shona-speaking regions, especially the northeast and central Mashonaland, regions where the colonial government was historically most nervous about the revival of a political Nehanda spirit.⁶ Charwe as Mbuya Nehanda—ancestral spirit of the nation—became that nationalist and guerrilla movement’s matron saint beginning in the 1960s and continued to be right through to the first decade of Zimbabwe’s independence (see chapter 7).

The realization that most people were conflating the spirit of the legendary Nehanda—whose name, according to Shona oral tradition, was Nyamhita Nyakasikana—with the spirit of Charwe, the nineteenth-century medium of Mazowe, became very important to me as I broadened and deepened my analysis of the changing meanings of the past to the living. It became obvious that I needed to historicize the imagined ethnic memory of the original Nehanda (Nyamhita) among the Shona of northern and eastern Zimbabwe, as well as the nationalist memory of Charwe as Nehanda, the national ancestor deployed for propaganda purposes. That is, to my mind, the ethnic history and memory of the original Nehanda was an image from an agrarian past, rooted in the ideologies and rituals of the earth’s cycles as understood and practiced by certain Shona peoples in particular geographic and cultural locations, while the memory of Charwe as national ancestor was an embellishment by a Black nationalist movement eager to graft shoots of an African past onto a White Rhodesian nationalist narrative that excluded African narratives in the history of the colony/nation’s founding by European settlers. Because only the Europeans built it, the argument went, the nation belonged to them (alone) and their descendants, who were entitled to full citizenship by inheritance, but not to the Natives.⁷

The intellectual freedom that came with separating the ethnic history and memory of the legend of Nehanda (the spirit) from the nationalist history and memory of Charwe (the nineteenth-century medium) allowed more light to filter into my mind, so I could rethink that storied but often misunderstood history. As more light filtered into my mind, I thought: What if, even though Charwe channeled the mhondoro (royal lion spirit) of Nehanda (as described in chapter 2), her own spirit as Charwe was not so royal a spirit and was perhaps an ngozi spirit? The Shona, among whom she was born, define an ngozi spirit as the spirit of a person who died a violent death, or was (unjustly) murdered, or died harboring feelings of vengeance for maltreatment by the living. Once dead, her or his spirit would seek revenge and/or justice among the living until appeased.⁸ It occurred to me that the spirit of Charwe was (and is) unaccounted for in the historiography in its own right. To that end, in Shona cosmology, Charwe’s spirit should be theorized separately, and perhaps as an ngozi spirit since she died contesting her death sentence.⁹ Charwe’s spirit (or life) should be historicized for its place in Black nationalist thought writ large.

On reflection, it was a plausible hunch given that the historical record (oral and written) shows that she was executed by hanging, a death she resisted but ultimately faced with a courageous rancor that left an indelible mark on all who witnessed the execution (see chapter 3). However, suggesting that Charwe’s spirit may have been, or is, an ngozi spirit is sacrilegious and generates a vigorous debate, which I experienced at the British Zimbabwe Society’s Research Days in 2010.¹⁰ Counterarguments to my assertion that Charwe’s spirit may have been, or is, an ngozi spirit adopted by the nationalist movement included one argument I thought quite useful: Since the British executed Charwe, the ngozi spirit would not, and should not, manifest among the (black) people of Zimbabwe; rather, it would or should seek revenge and/or justice among the (white) British, who executed her. As some people insisted to me at the break: "Vele akwenzi! / Hazvi tomboite! / It is impossible to think of such revered spirits as (possible) ngozi spirits!" The debate continues in this book as I show (in chapter 7) that there is evidence to support what started as a hunch for me, that she may be considered an ngozi because her next of kin accepted reparations from implicated families eager to appease her supposedly restless spirit. I emphasize the separation of the legendary Nehanda-Nyamhita from the nineteenth-century medium Nehanda-Charwe so that we can reevaluate nationalist history that has the urge to have it all fit neatly in rows, like clipped shrubs in a well-manicured estate garden. If Nehanda-Charwe does and does not shine as the heroine of everyone’s imaginations, then I will have done my part in telling and showing the tectonic rupture of colonialism, especially African people’s agency given the circumstances. In this book, therefore, it is the history and memory of the spirit of Charwe wokwa Hwata, the guerrilla-made Comrade Nehanda—not the legend of Nehanda Nyamhita Nyakasikana—that exercises the mind.

Looking Away: The Resurrection of Rhodesian Identity

The turn of this project toward more than just an understanding of African nationalism manifest in the memory of Nehanda-Charwe in Zimbabwe’s history was also engendered by the rise of postimperial and postsettler nostalgia. This was evident on the Internet and in memoirs mourning the loss of idyllic Rhodesian childhoods and lives on farms and in urban centers with nannies, garden boys, and country clubs. The imperialist and white supremacist Cecil Rhodes became a visionary founder, again. The imperial nostalgia, to borrow a term from the anthropologist Renato Rosaldo, seemed suddenly to make it not only possible but permissible to leap over the mess that was colonialism and its inherited racial and economic privilege to this moment of victimhood at the hands of Robert Mugabe and his minions.¹¹ The international community, especially the media, was animated to document and broadcast the plight of white farmers and the gross human rights violations going on in Zimbabwe in the first decade of this century.

The white farmers, for their part, were media savvy and documented their plight through pictures, blogs, memoirs, and other forms of memory keeping.¹² This created an awkward situation for those wanting change in Zimbabwe, for not to rightly condemn state violence against a section of society was to be on the wrong side of history. On the other hand, not speaking about the historical privilege that begat the present was to elide the structural violence of colonialism. What also complicated the international, especially the Western, community’s response to the white farmers’ plight was that in the early 1980s the same international community (and its media) had whispered about gross human rights violations in Zimbabwe when the then newly inaugurated prime minister, Robert G. Mugabe, ordered and/or allowed state violence to be unleashed on the people of the Matebeleland North, Matebeleland South, and Midlands Provinces in the name of national security during the Gukurahundi era.¹³

Internal fights for power among the new ruling elite in independent Zimbabwe, as well as apartheid South Africa’s fear of a new communist regime in Southern Africa, fed the ethno-based violence that saw tens of thousands of people killed, maimed, and psychologically traumatized for life in the name of fighting the dissidents. These internal and external bifurcated memories of Rhodesia and of Zimbabwe were of interest to me as it was obviously a country whose citizens had deeply fractured ideas about the past shaped not only by the citizens of that country but by outsiders as well.

The valuing of white lives over black lives invoked a colonial past that had nurtured the memory of a nation focused on singular ethnic or racial histories rather than of the nation at large. Given this juxtaposition of black and white histories, whose narratives of memory sought to control political and economic power, I became interested in why it was that histories of victimhood seemed to be