By Princess Eugene Majuru
Colonial Names, Post-Colonial Amnesia: Why Zimbabwe and Zambia Must Reclaim Their Geography
Names are never neutral. They carry memory, power, and ideology. In post-colonial Africa, place names are among the most visible remnants of colonial domination, silently reinforcing histories that elevated colonial figures while erasing indigenous authority, ownership, and worldview. More than four decades after independence, it is increasingly indefensible that some of Southern Africa’s most significant sites—political, cultural, and touristic—continue to bear colonial names that neither reflect local history nor honour African heritage.
Two examples stand out starkly: Mount Hampden, destined to become Zimbabwe’s new capital city, and Victoria Falls, one of the world’s greatest natural wonders. Their continued colonial naming represents not oversight, but a troubling retreat from the principles of decolonisation that once defined national purpose.
Mount Hampden: A Colonial Name at the Heart of a New Capital
Mount Hampden is not a neutral geographic label. It is a colonial imposition, named after John Hampden, a 17th-century English politician celebrated in British history for opposing royal absolutism. Hampden had no historical, cultural, spiritual, or political connection to the land that now lies at the centre of Zimbabwe’s future governance. His “honour” in this context is entirely symbolic of colonial conquest and land appropriation.
That Mount Hampden is now being developed as Zimbabwe’s new capital city only deepens the contradiction. A capital is not merely an administrative centre; it is a symbolic heart of national identity. To anchor that identity in a colonial name is to send a message—internally and externally—that Zimbabwe is comfortable memorialising colonial figures at the very apex of its sovereignty.
This stands in sharp contrast to the decisive act of decolonisation undertaken in 1982, when Salisbury was renamed Harare. That change was not cosmetic. It restored historical memory, acknowledging the Mbari clan also known as the Neharava people and King Mbari or Paramount Chief Mbari/Neharawa, whose authority and presence long predated colonial occupation. Renaming Salisbury affirmed that independence meant more than political transfer—it meant cultural and historical reclamation.
By retaining the name Mount Hampden, Zimbabwe appears to have gone backwards.
The Mbari Clan and the Erasure of Pre-Colonial Ownership
Long before colonial surveyors arrived, the land known today as Mount Hampden was under the authority of the Mbari clan, the original custodians and rulers of the area. Like many African communities, the Mbari had names for their land—names embedded in language, ecology, spirituality, and social organisation. Mount Hampden was called Tsikwi.
Ignoring these indigenous names is not a benign omission; it is a continuation of colonial logic that treats African history as beginning with European arrival. Reverting to the original Mbari name—or adopting a new name rooted in Mbari heritage—would not only correct historical injustice but also align the new capital with Zimbabwe’s broader constitutional commitment to cultural recognition and heritage preservation.
There is no shortage of precedent. Across Africa, capitals and major cities—Accra, Addis Ababa, Maputo, Gaborone—bear indigenous names that assert African presence and continuity. Zimbabwe has both the authority and obligation to do the same.
Victoria Falls: A Colonial Name for an African Wonder
Few places illustrate the tension between colonial naming and indigenous meaning as powerfully as Victoria Falls.
In 1855, Scottish missionary-explorer David Livingstone renamed the falls in honour of Queen Victoria, the reigning monarch of the British Empire. The name symbolised imperial “discovery,” despite the fact that local communities had known, revered, and named the falls for centuries.
The indigenous name, Mosi-oa-Tunya—“The Smoke That Thunders”—is not merely poetic. It is descriptive, experiential, and rooted in African cosmology. It reflects how the falls are seen, heard, and felt by the people who lived alongside them long before colonial borders divided the Zambezi River.
Ironically, the global argument that “Victoria Falls is a strong brand” rings hollow when the world already knows—and can pronounce—Mosi-oa-Tunya. UNESCO itself recognises Mosi-oa-Tunya / Victoria Falls as the site’s official designation. Tourists routinely learn and use the indigenous name, often with fascination and respect.
It is not the colonial name that markets the falls.
It is the falls themselves.
Zimbabwe, Zambia, and a Missed Moment of Courage
Years ago, Zimbabwe and Zambia held discussions on jointly renaming Victoria Falls to Mosi-oa-Tunya. That the process stalled—and was ultimately abandoned—remains a profound embarrassment. Few heritage issues carry such symbolic weight, continental significance, and global visibility.
Instead of rising to the moment, both countries retreated into diplomatic caution, allowing colonial legacy to prevail by default.
Yet there is no legal, moral, or cultural requirement that both sides must act simultaneously.
From a Zimbabwean perspective, renaming the falls on its side to Mosi-oa-Tunya can and should proceed. Zambia is free to follow—or not. If Zambia chooses to retain Victoria Falls, that decision reflects its own internal reckoning with colonial memory. Zimbabwe should not hold its decolonial responsibility hostage to another state’s hesitation.
Equally, Zambia could take the lead, restoring the indigenous name and inviting Zimbabwe to follow. Either way, leadership must replace paralysis.
Why These Colonial Figures Are Not Priority Honours
Neither Queen Victoria nor John Hampden feature in the liberation histories, cultural traditions, or spiritual landscapes of Zimbabwe or Zambia. Honouring them through geographic naming does nothing to advance national identity, unity, or pride.
By contrast, indigenous names:
Affirm pre-colonial sovereignty
Restore historical continuity
Educate younger generations
Reclaim African narrative authority
Signal confidence in post-colonial identity
Decolonisation is not about erasing history; it is about re-centering African history.
A Call for Renewed Action
The continued use of names like Mount Hampden and Victoria Falls is not a trivial administrative issue—it is a measure of how seriously post-colonial states take their own narratives.
Zimbabwe, especially, stands at a crossroads. As it builds a new capital, it has a rare opportunity to correct historical erasure rather than monumentalise it. As it promotes its premier tourist attraction, it can choose authenticity over inherited colonial branding.
A concerted effort is needed:
Government leadership
Cultural historians
Traditional leaders
Public consultation
Regional cooperation
Decolonisation is not complete because independence was achieved. It is complete only when the land speaks again in its own names.
Comments
About Author
