The Love and Hate Relationship of Colonial Heritage: Exploring Changes of the Heritage Archive in Zimbabwe

This article present some of the main debates circling around the conservation of colonial heritage in Zimbabwe and the contestations that undergird its protection because of a shift in understandings of the heritage archive, the former British colony’s national monuments register, which is consti-tuted by a list of declared and protected heritage sites. In the conventional archive, archivability is “the product of a judgement, the result of the exercise of a specific power and authority, which involves placing certain documents in an archive at the same time as others are discarded” (Mbembe, 2002, p. 2), and so it is unsurprising that what should be kept or discarded is often contested. In Zimbabwe’s heritage archive, conservation and protection is selectively offered to liberation war heritage while colonial heritage has been marginalised, discarded, and left to deteriorate. The Southern African nation’s heritage archive is often constructed to suit the needs of the ruling government and veterans of Zimbabwe’s War of Liberation (1964-1979), and colonial heritage has been vandalised and destroyed without considering that it can be utilised for the purpose of a critical heritage practice so that questions about the experience of colonialism in Zimbabwe can be answered using colonial heritage as a key reference point. Colonial heritage in this article is defined as monuments and sites that were produced as a result of Zimbabwe’s colonial encounters under British rule from 1890 to up until 1980, when the country gained its political independence. This heritage takes the form of buildings, memorials, graves, statues, churches, bridges, and forts. Because heritage is a value-loaded concept, in whatever form it appears, its very nature relates entirely to present circumstances. In Zimbabwe at a number of colonial sites were on the heritage archive only to be de-proclaimed and removed from the register soon after independence Thirty-two colonial

archive in Zimbabwe and thus heritage is not given, but rather is made. In this case, that heritage is being made through a careful propagation of liberation war heritage and, conversely, a destruction of colonial heritage spurred by a nostalgic hatred of a colonial past. The effect is that colonial heritage has ceased to be a priority area of heritage conservation and the post-colonial nation actually celebrates its discarding. Liberation heritage in Zimbabwe can be defined as tangible and intangible and as movable and immovable inheritance or places associated with resistance against colonial rule and injustices from 1890 to 1980. Haunted landscapes, mass graves, battle sites, assembly points, songs, narratives, biographies of nationalists, historic trails, routes, protected villages, detention centers, prisons, and transit camps/bases have been included in the broad comprehension of what constitutes liberation heritage. Issues of collecting, documenting, conserving and commemorating the mosaic of Zimbabwe's heritage accumulated during the struggles for independence continue to emerge in a postcolonial state "standing at a crossroads in its management of national heritage" and "striving to cast off colonial legacies and forge a national identity' (Harrison and Hughes, 2010, p. 6). This amounts to a paradigm shift in the heritage management and conservation in Zimbabwe, which has seen the emergence of memorialization of the Chimurenga 2 wars forming a core aspect in this discourse. Zimbabwe's fight against colonial rule, the 1st Chimurenga (1896-1897) and the 2nd Chimurenga (1964)(1965)(1966)(1967)(1968)(1969)(1970)(1971)(1972)(1973)(1974)(1975)(1976)(1977)(1978)(1979), monumentalised as liberation war heritage. The politics of re-inscribing and recognising the suffering of people on the landscape where the war was fought, through acts of declaring and making of liberation heritage sites, representation, and communication, also form a core of this heritage.
Central to the discourse of liberation heritage are the recent exhumations, identification, and reburial processes that have become a kind of performance battle ground through which the dead are summoned from their graves by vernacular spirit mediums. These commemorative projects, which have focused on the identification, reburial, ritual cleansing, and memorialization of the human remains of the liberation war dead in Zimbabwe and across its borders have completely obscured the conservation of colonial heritage (Fontein, 2009).

HATE AND LOVE IN COLONIAL HERITAGE
Zimbabwe was former colony of Britain (1890Britain ( -1980 and has over 100 colonial era monuments, with the grave of British imperialist Cecil John Rhodes in Matobo district probably headlining this heritage archive (Chakanyuka, 2015). The former Rhodesia was named after Rhodes, who is credited for establishing the colony in 1890 from his own personal wealth. The genesis of the process that ushered in the dismantling of colonial heritage and its symbols can be traced to as far back as 1980, at the dawn of Zimbabwe's independence. Kriger (1995) notes that in July 1980, the Cecil John Rhodes's statue in Harare was removed and the then-Minister of Information, Nathan Shamuyarira, declared that "government would order the removal of only those colonial statues and monuments which by their presence raised political controversy" (Kriger, 1995). The new Zimbabwe African National Union Patriotic Front government (ZANU PF), which had spearheaded the liberation struggle between 1976 and 1979, immediately displayed its antagonism toward colonial heritage upon the attainment of independence. In this regard, the removal of colonial monuments at the advent of independence in 1980 was at the heart of the new nation-state's quest for political legitimacy and a national identity to be created from symbols drawn on the recent liberation struggle. In Eastern Zimbabwe, the Trek memorial in Chimanimani, which recognized the first white settlers in the area, had its two metal plaques removed from the memorial, and the monument notice was destroyed in the process. The wagon on top of the memorial was destroyed with picks by between forty and fifty young men and women singing ZANU PF revolutionary songs. 3 The monument was eventually de-proclaimed in June 1983 and demolished by monuments inspec-tors from National Museums and Monuments of Zimbabwe (NMMZ), the government body responsible for the protection, management, and conservation of all heritage sites, with the aid of labour force from the District Administrator's office. 4 In an interview, Chief Muusha, a traditional leader in the area, said the Trek memorial was destroyed because it did not have any significance whatsoever to the indigenous populace because it celebrated colonialism and was regarded as offensive. 5 The case of the Trek memorial's destruction illustrates the determination with which the ZANU PF government and its war veterans had obliterating colonial heritage soon after independence and exposes some of the weaknesses in the heritage archive model in Zimbabwe. The desire to discard a painful colonial past by the ruling ZANU PF government also manifested itself in the escalating and persistent calls by the veterans of Zimbabwe's War of Liberation to remove Cecil Johns Rhodes' grave Matopos Hills. Ranger (2004) argues that in 2002, war veterans in Matabeleland launched a campaign for the removal of Rhodes's grave from Matopos Hills and demands were continuously made to have the exhumed bones returned to England. In the same year, another war veteran leader, Andrew Ndlovu, declared that "we cannot find peace when we are keeping a white demon in our midst," referencing Rhodes' burial (Guvamombe, 2002).
Because Cecil John Rhodes grave is a national monument located within a cultural landscape that also has other venerated traditional religious shrines and because the whole Matopos Cultural landscape was inscribed as a UNESCO's prestigious World Heritage Centre in 2003, the call for Rhodes' grave's removal had global significance. The debate about exhuming the remains of Rhodes also extended into contemporary heritage forums in Zimbabwe with Heritage Trust of Zimbabwe championing the cause. 6 In one of the symposiums held by the Trust, some youths vehemently challenged the government to have the grave removed from Matopos, arguing that the hills were sacred and thus must be venerated as such. Burying Rhodes among the spirits of the country was thus similar to committing sacrilege against Zimbabwe's forefathers, who were once enslaved by the same figure. 7 Such calls were premised on the argument that the continued preservation of monuments laden with colonial history was tantamount to celebrating colonialism (Chakanyuka, 2015) and that removing Rhodes' grave would fulfil former rebel leader and now long-time President Robert Mugabe's 1961 promise (as recorded by Ranger) to "dig up" the grave of the man who "had stolen the country from the Africans" and then "send it to England" (2004, p. 213). However, opposition to this plan arose during the 14th General Assembly and Scientific Symposium of the International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS) held at Victoria in 2003. Robert Mugabe, now the president of Zimbabwe, sang a different tune altogether, saying "Zimbabwe valued heritage so much that even the graves of the country's colonialists such as Cecil John Rhodes were being preserved and that we accept history as reality" (Guvamombe, 2002). In 2012, the same government blocked plans by war veterans, who blamed the grave for the drought that had hit some parts of the country in that year, from exhuming the remains and arguing that Rhodes' legacy was part and parcel of the country's national history. Earlier in 2000, the war veterans had also staged protests demanding that the statue of Scottish colonialist David Livingstone in Victoria Falls be removed from Zimbabwean soil. They defaced the plaque on the statue, claiming that it was an insult to the country (McGregor & Schumaker, 2006). The government's inconsistent response-a kind of love and hate game-to demands for the removal of colonial heritage is heavily informed by economics: the heritage is conserved if some sort of economic benefits derive from it. In Eastern Zimbabwe, near the city centre of Mutare, for example, Utopia House, the museum home of late-19th/early-20th century British South African Company surveyor Rhys Fairbridge and his wife Rosalie, 8 and Kopje House, the town's first hospital, in spite of their obvious colonial associations, continue to stand. With the changed political circumstances in Zimbabwe, the museum's preservation continues with official 48 JOURNAL OF HATE STUDIES [Vol. 13:43 sanction as part of the indisputable facts of the history of the country (Locke, 1983). Indeed, the Kopje complex has four buildings that have been converted into a cultural centre and is being leased out to various tenants by the NMMZ. The state of conservation on this historic complex is good compared to other such buildings that are under the care of NMMZ. There is a regular inspection and maintenance program run by the monuments and maintenance department from Mutare Museum. Furthermore, the historic component of this cultural landscape is still being respected in that all alterations to the buildings are prohibited unless undertaken by the curator of archaeology at Mutare Museum. One of the reasons why this heritage site enjoys a sizeable degree of sound conservation in relation to the other buildings is that the complex generates a lot of money for NMMZ through leasing. Part of the money that is being generated is therefore used in its conservation programs, which is significant as NMMZ does not directly fund such conservation activities. In contrast, funding in the region is directly injected into the maintenance and upgrading of liberation war memorials such as the provincial heroes' acre, a burial ground, and the Chimoio shrines, dedicated to those who were killed in a massacre there at the hands of Rhodesian security forces in 1976, in bordering Mozambique. The Public Sector Investment Project (PSIP) is an initiative by the government that has rolled out funding specifically for the management and conservation of liberation war sites both in the country and outside the borders. 9 Historic structures at both Utopia House and Kopje House are not covered in the conservation grants that are doled out by the government through the PSIP initiative. In Zimbabwe, those liberation heritage sites focusing on the heroics and sacrifices of war are prioritized, those colonial sites that are profitable are maintained, and other colonial sites are neglected or destroyed.

HERITAGE MEANINGS AND CONTESTATIONS IN ZIMBABWE
The concept of dissonant heritage can inform our understanding of the contestations between colonial heritage and liberation war heritage, such as those in management priorities, in Zimbabwe. As Graham and Howard (2008) observe, "[T]he quite unavoidable implication of heritage in the contestation of societies invokes the condition of dissonance which refers to the discordance or lack of agreement and consistency as to the meaning of heritage" (3). Not surprisingly, in contemporary Zimbabwe, this means that liberation heritage sites like provincial heroes acres (See FIGURE 4) and memorial shrines receive considerable funding each year directly from the government for rehabilitation.
Recently, the Chimoio liberation shrine in Mozambique has received some funding toward the upgrading of an onsite interpretative centre. 10 In 50 JOURNAL OF HATE STUDIES [Vol. 13:43 contrast, colonial memorials have been neglected and vandalised by veterans of the same liberation struggle. For example, the Thomas Moodie memorial in Chipinge was destroyed by the war veterans in 1985, who argued that the memorial did not have any relevancy in the post-colony because it was a hallmark of white supremacy and was therefore not a part of Zimbabwe's new heritage. The vandalised memorial, a colonial heritage site that had been declared a national monument in 1939, was eventually de-proclaimed as a national monument by government notice 584 of 1986. 11 As this example indicates, the different uses of heritage and its importance to different people for various reasons make it inevitable that it has emerged as a major arena of conflict and contestation (Graham 2004), for "heritage is both contested and culturally constructed, which inevitably makes it a highly political topic and one with a scarcity of clear-cut definitions and answers" (Aplin, 2002, p. 28).
Despite the complexity of dissonant heritage, the dominant forces in organizing Zimbabwe's heritage archive often treat the nation's heritage as if it were "clear-cut." The liberation struggle in Zimbabwe was a military conflict; hence, the ZANU PF government and war veterans, when commemorating camps bombed during the liberation war, focus on victory and defeat. Liberation heritage is therefore conceived here as a sign of victory, whereas all forms of colonial heritage are branded as symbols of defeat and thus warrant obliteration. Heritage attests to the dissonant and conflicting uses and purposes of the past because the past can be purposely selected, modified, and re-appropriated to meet political agendas and ideological frameworks that underpin heritage in the present (Park, 2014, p. 18). There is a strong feeling among the general public that heritage values in Zimbabwe are formed and framed in a partisan way and ideologically impressed upon the citizens by the powers that be as if they are intrinsic, static, and substantial-and yet they are driven by people's motivations, which are anything but intrinsic or static.
Liberation war heritage in Zimbabwe has become a cause of tension, conflict, and violence because the ruling ZANU PF government has framed and disseminated it in a way that depicts the regime as the real victim of the past. The process in Zimbabwe illustrates McDowell's (2010) observation that "heritage is a highly politicised process that is subjected to contestation and bound in the construction, reconstruction and deconstruction of memory and identity" (37). National identity in Zimbabwe is constructed from liberation war heritage and subsequently and deliberately leaves no space for the conservation of colonial heritage. The government deploys the state media to broadcast the official and hegemonic understanding of liberation war heritage, an "invention of tradition" (Hobsbawn, 1983). The government refers to heritage from the war to indicate its bravery, power, and might and to provide evidence that it can command a successful war against opponents.
This partisan approach to the past gives rise to a dissonant heritage. Fronting liberation war heritage in Zimbabwe has caused segregation and negative differentiation, a heritage that is not only dissonant (Tunbridge & Ashworth, 1996) but also undesirable (Chadha, 2006) and negative (Meskell, 2002). The intrinsic dissonance of heritage, accentuated by its expanding meanings and uses by the fundamentally more complex constructions of identity in the modern world, is the primary cause of its contestation (Graham, 2004), despite Zimbabwe's government's efforts to create a hegemonic narrative of victory. The root cause of the dissonant nature of heritage lies in the observation by Tunbridge and Ashworth (1996) that heritage is created by interpretation, which creates specific messages about the value and meaning of specific heritage places and the past it represents. In other words, the messages conveyed from heritage interpretation do not always find consensus and thus cause dissonance. Heritage knowledge in Zimbabwe is thus a field of contestation because it is situated in particular social and intellectual circumstances, it is time-specific, and its meaning(s) can be altered as text are re-read in changing times, circumstances, and constructs of place and scale (Graham & Howard, 2008).
Heritage in this case therefore becomes a selection of monuments and sites that glorify the victories associated with the liberation struggle relative to the destruction of symbols that reminds the nation about the painful colonial past. Russell (2010) argues that definitions of heritage elaborate on its quality as those things that are passed to future generations, even as Tunbridge and Ashworth (1996) recognize it as "a product of the present, purposefully developed in response to current needs and demands for it" (p. 6). Russell recognize "the difficulty in quantifying these exchange relationships is that they are negotiated and mediated often imperceptibly, over long periods of time" (2010, p. 29). In sum, the present determines and selects an inheritance from an imagined past for current use and decides what should be passed on to an imagined future. Heritage makes a selective use of the past, which is transformed through interpretation for current use and purposes. In this way, the heritage archive in Zimbabwe is constructed around liberation war heritage, leaving no place for colonial heritage.
Heritage is about telling stories; however, not all such stories may be equally acceptable in political and ethical terms. Suitable forms of engagement may range from openly promoting and strengthening some stories that benefit society to problematizing and undermining others that may harm (Holtorf, 2010, p. 51). Therefore, the dominant ideology thesis in heritage conservation in Zimbabwe has entailed that the story of the nation is synon-ymous with the conservation of liberation war heritage and the denigration of colonial heritage. Kriger (1995) argues that, upon the formation of the new nation after independence in 1980, the ZANU PF government sought to enhance their political legitimacy and to foster a national identity through the discarding of colonial symbols, including statues and monuments, and through attempts to establish their own heroes as national symbols. National heritage is used by the government to legitimise the state; thus heritage was a concept appropriated by the ruling ZANU PF government to reinforce its power.
However, the needs of present day Zimbabwe require that heritage be framed and transformed from spaces of war to spaces of peace and reconciliation. Heritage can be sites of unity, social cohesion, peace, and reconciliation because it is a socially produced and negotiated entity whose meanings vary depending on context over time. It challenges the "archaeology of perpetrators" (Pollock 2007), where the process of exposing and describing landscapes of atrocity is used to provoke public discourse and explore uncomfortable aspects of history. Keeping faith with the dead and memories of wrongs suffered should not just be traces or mirrors of the troubling past; they can be catalysts for insight, resistance, social change, and doing justice. Lessons undertaken in the past can be used to fight injustice today. Misuse of memory can damage others and hence need to be forestalled or transformed (Volf, 2006), but if people remember rightly, heritage and history can be sources of peace and reconciliation. The liberation struggle represented by heritage places from the war can thus be transformed from evoking feelings of tension to introducing opportunities for unity, common identity, and history.

CHANGES IN THE HERITAGE ARCHIVE OF ZIMBABWE
The archive according to Mbembe (2002) basically places materials, such as traditional documents, into "a system that facilitates identification and interpretation" (p. 20). The materials that are placed in the archive selected from among many because of their particular "worth." In this regard, archives "are the product of a process which converts a certain number of documents into items judged to be worthy of preserving and keeping in a public place, where they can be consulted according to well-established procedures and regulations" (Mbembe, 2012, p. 20); certain systems of power, authority, and knowledge influence the determination of what materials are "archivable" and "not archivable." Simiarly, the heritage archive of Zimbabwe herein refers to the system of selective listing and delisting of sites onto the national monuments register. Each site on the register has a file that contains a statement on its cultural significance/val-ues, state of conservation, condition assessment and inspections reports, photographs, and maps. In Eastern Zimbabwe, seventeen sites are on this register, and only three of these are colonial heritage: Utopia House, Kopje House, and Nurses Memorial. This memorial was established to commemorate the lives of the first white nursing sisters who arrived in the area in 1891 from Beira, Mozambique. The sisters went on to set up the first clinic in the area that served the settlers. A memorial cross was constructed to recognise the devotion of the sisters to the humanitarian cause of the colony and declared a national monument I in 1956 and still enjoys a sizeable degree of protection even up to now. This archive therefore does not adequately represent all the heritage typologies in the region because it overrepresents liberation and archaeological heritage. Furthermore, nomination files are presently being prepared for two more liberation war heritage sites in Eastern Zimbabwe and thus the list on the heritage archive will soon grow to nineteen. Power relations at different levels to a large extent underpin the inclusions into and the exclusions from this archive. Hamilton (2002) observes that "what constitutes an archive, what form it takes, and what systems of classification signal at specific times. . . are the very substance of the politics of the times" (p. 15). Generally, the archive may thus be regarded as one of the mediums through which particular readings and understandings of societies are produced. Hence, it can well be argued, as Mbembe does, that "the heritage archive" in Zimbabwe is primarily the exercise of a specific power and authority, which involves conserving liberation war heritage and at the same time discarding colonial monuments. The exercise of power and authority with regards to the heritage archive may be hinged on particular meanings that are assigned to the "archivable" materials, which are dispersed into classes or categories (such as architecture) that may be favoured or disfavoured by archivists.
However, the National Museums and Monuments of Zimbabwe Act, Chapter 25:11 does not dichotomise heritage because it advances for the universal protection of all categories. This act explicitly states that it protects all areas, including ancient monuments or land areas, of historical, architectural, archaeological, scientific, and paleontological value, including distinctive geological formations, waterfalls, caves, grottos, avenues of trees, old trees, or old buildings or portions of buildings, or other objects, whether natural or constructed by people, of value of interest (NMMZ Act Chapter 2511). . Such sites cannot be altered, excavated, or damaged, and materials on them cannot be removed without the written consent of the Executive Director of NMMZ. This act is currently under review, and the public and stakeholders have been invited to share views on what should constitute as national monuments. 12 . The NMMZ ACT will be changed into the National Museums and Heritage Act. In spite of the provisions of the NMMZ act, there has been a departure from history associated with the colonial past and this has resulted in an increase in the purging, vandalism, and destruction of colonial heritage. This purging was inspired by hate rather than by nationalism. War memorials of the painful colonial period have been neglected and left to deteriorate as all conservation efforts are now expended toward liberation war heritage. FIGURES 5 and 6 show a colonial war memorial located in Penhalonga, a mining village about 18 km north of Mutare, before and after independence; the Great War Memorial, now engulfed in overgrown grass, remembered white Rhodesian soldiers who died during World War I. It was declared a monument in 1946 and was maintained in good condition through independence, when it was removed from the "heritage archive." This memorial now appears to have been completely abandoned and have been turned into a ruin. Historic buildings, statues, forts, and memorials of the colonial period, such as the Great War Memorial in Penhalonga, have been forgotten and increasingly vandalised over the past ten years, with a growing agitation in some sections of the society. 13 To remove them from the "heritage archive." The set of buildings that comprise the Old Mutare heritage was constructed by the Pioneer Column, the military force that Rhodes and his military advisors used to occupy Mashonaland, between 1891 and 1897. This heritage precinct, located some 15km northeast of the city of Mutare, has twenty historic colonial period buildings that have survived since 1891. Old Mutare symbolises the first fort that was established by the settler regime in Eastern Zimbabwe in 1891, before it was shifted to the present day location in the city of Mutare in 1897 (Chipangura, 2013). The buildings have survived up to now and have been used by the United Methodist Church (UMC) with various renovations to suit contemporary uses. The conservation of historic buildings at Old Mutare bestows a legacy of the past that enriches and gives depth to the present. Compared to the other forms of colonial heritage, which are being neglected, the set of buildings at this precinct is being conserved by UMC at institutional level. Contemporary use has entailed that UMC does not alter the original fabric of the buildings and renovations are done in accordance to the principle of anastolysis, restoration using original elements. Because of such conservation efforts, these buildings can be used for different contemporary purposes while still allowing for interpretative work to be conducted. In this model, the experience of colonialism and the various movements of the Pioneer Column can be questioned and studied in Zimbabwe.
Though the case of Old Mutare represents a useful way that colonial heritage can critically inform the present, it is not the dominant model.  Aplin (2002) observes that "many nations are willing to incorporate in their heritage aspects of history that are certainly not pleasing memories," but this has not been the thinking of government preservationists in Zimbabwe, as many in the country wonder why the nation should preserve colonial artefacts a painful remainder of a colonial period. Drury (2000) provides some useful insights into this debate, arguing that some buildings are generally accepted as great works of art and as expressions of the spirit of humankind or of a faith (p. 6). Buildings can be architecturally significant because they are outstanding examples of a particular form of architecture or a particular style, because they are representative of a major style, or because they are unique. Furthermore historic buildings impart a sense of permanence in relation to the span of human life. They give a sense of stability and provide points of references in a rapidly changing world (Drury, 2000). Another argument linked to this view is that "through the conservation of historic buildings," heritage conservation "helps in providing a sense of time to illustrate past stages in history" (Aplin, 2002, p. 23).
Preservationists believe in respecting the people of the past through preserving the most tangible tie to their culture: the historic built environment they constructed and used. Here buildings are significant as sites of historic events and experiences (Milligan, 2007). Even when they are remnants of a painful past, they can have value to the present.

CONCLUSION
In Zimbabwe, heritage as a concept has evolved and changed according to the agency of the ruling ZANU PF government and its emerging national identities (Harvey, 2001). Heritage is part of the way identities are created and disputed, whether as individuals, group, or nation state. A deep understanding of the historically contingent and embedded nature of heritage goes beyond treating heritage as a set of problems to be solved and calls for the engagement with debates about the production of identity, power, and authority. Heritage plays an important role in helping people to identify both who they are as individuals and collectives to which they belong (Harrison & Hughes, 2010). As such, heritage has the potential to serve purposes both hateful and healing-but not if colonial heritage is uniformly discarded in Zimbabwe.