Mystery Of The Zulu Dawn (2 Viewers)

[theBaron]

I agree with your point, Reb, about the romanticizing of the Indian as some sort of Rousseauean noble savage. Savage many certainly were, from our standpoint, the actions of individual Europeans nor the social and political structures of the Algonquins notwithstanding. They were living at a Stone Age subsistence level, fought conflicts against one another that we would call aggressive, as all people do-to seize land and other resources for themselves from their neighbors, and sometimes just to make war. They're interesting to study, of course, but many people paint a picture of a paradise that never existed, and expect us to atone today for something with with we have no direct connection.

Don't know about jammed guns and lack of screwdrivers-I didn't know that those points are debated. But it's not really my period, so I haven't gone much further than to read "The Washing of the Spears," and to have seen "Zulu" many times, and the Shaka Zulu miniseries a couple of times.

Prost!
Brad

 

[Rob]

I think Reb is right as usual here.I also think there is nothing wrong with heated Historical debate,thats what makes it interesting,its when it slips into personal and sometimes racial abuse that a line needs to be drawn.

Rob

 

[theBaron]

Right, reasonable adults can discuss a subject and disagree, and avoid ad hominem attacks on one another.

I'm always reminded of a scene from "The Naked Gun," when Drebbin says, "Let's discuss this like adults......Mr. Poopy-Pants!"

Prosit!
Brad

 

[Rob]

Right, reasonable adults can discuss a subject and disagree, and avoid ad hominem attacks on one another.

I'm always reminded of a scene from "The Naked Gun," when Drebbin says, "Let's discuss this like adults......Mr. Poopy-Pants!"

Prosit!
Brad

 

[1879fanatic]

Gentlemen & Scholars,

I wish I knew more about the Custer Cluster to compare Isandlwana and LBH. My Grandpa(who died when I was 12) was the go-to guy for Custer. He walked the battlefield and mapped it out in the '70's and he had memorabilia out the ying-yang. He most certainly appreciated and respected the Indians opposing the 7th Cav. He was'nt into toy soldiers like we all are. He would have absolutely loved them, and this forum!

I love studying the "contemporary revisionism" that comes out after a battle that sways the public one way or another. Here Melvill escapes with the Colours and gets a post-homous VC for failing to do so. The colours were encased in leather, but don't they look good unfurled while he's running the gauntlet? Mike

 

[Rob]

Gentlemen & Scholars,

I wish I knew more about the Custer Cluster to compare Isandlwana and LBH. My Grandpa(who died when I was 12) was the go-to guy for Custer. He walked the battlefield and mapped it out in the '70's and he had memorabilia out the ying-yang. He most certainly appreciated and respected the Indians opposing the 7th Cav. He was'nt into toy soldiers like we all are. He would have absolutely loved them, and this forum!

I love studying the "contemporary revisionism" that comes out after a battle that sways the public one way or another. Here Melvill escapes with the Colours and gets a post-homous VC for failing to do so. The colours were encased in leather, but don't they look good unfurled while he's running the gauntlet? Mike

Excellant little scene.

Rob

 

[Spitfrnd]

Most revisionist historians have sentimentalised the noble Indian as a vulnerable, innocent people who had their lands stolen from them by a rapacious and expansionist USA. The truth is that the Sioux displaced and massacred the Crow from the plains as they had indeed years before pushed the Comanche south who in turn drove the Tinde people into the sterile deserts of the South west where they were renamed the Apache. The Indian was at war with each other long before the whiteman appeared and the massacres they inflicted on each other makes the Wash-ita look insignificant. Likewise the Zulu under Shaka all the way through to Cetwayo; they were warriors and killers and they massacred their own in the hundreds. Now we come to the murderous whites and the treatment meted out on these indigenous people, yes they were corrupt and sometimes evil. We know the greed for Gold was the reason behind the Sioux wars dreamt up by Grant, Sheridan and Sherman while Bartle Frere and Chelmsford dreamt up the Zulu War for a dozen dubious reasons. It's called history and it happened, what version appeals to your view is surely what a debate between like minded guys is all about- Isn't it???? on this forum I'm really beginning to have my doubts.

Well mate you know I am not one to pass over the gauntlet.
As usual, you state many things with which I agree. So let me just touch on where I see it differently.

As I have said before, there is no such thing really as revisionist history; it is either history or conjecture. If there are different conclusion supported by proper facts than what is truly history is not yet settled, unless of course the facts are wrong or the conclusions do not really follow from the facts. If a previous notion of history is at odds with proper conclusions based on verified facts, than the earlier version was just wrong. There is no revision, just correction, as is proper in the evolution of any body of knowledge.

It is not sentimental to say that some Indian lands were stolen by the rapacious whites through broken treaties and corruption. These events are well documented and were much more prevalent than the literature of the period suggests. What has been discovered since those times is that much of the "popular" (never to be confused with historical) perception of the relative level of atrocity and dishonor committed by whites and Indians as a whole during the expansionist period was wrong and more in the nature of propaganda than fact.

There is no doubt there were brutal Indian tribes and that these were indeed brutal to other tribes. There is no doubt that both whites and Indians committed brutal and unfair acts and there is also no doubt that many of the acts committed by whites were directed against peaceful (at least initially) tribes that had done nothing to justify them other than share the skin pigmentation of their neighbors. There is also no doubt that some tribes or factions within some tribes did the same to whites. Does this mean our country is bad, no. Does it mean it is blameless, not on your life. Be it revision or sentiment, which I think healthy by the way, we should not avoid discovering and accepting the mistakes made in the name of our nation's progress, any more than the people of any nation should do so.

Frankly, what bothers me about remarks made under the rubric of history are generalizations that are based on history books written with an intended slant. It is not history, just because it is in a book labeled as such. Like most of us in this country (and I suspect many others) I grew up accepting these slanted views but fortunately survived my ignorance. Learning history is hard work and goes beyond accepting anyone else's supposed learned view of the real historical events. At is best, it is based on a tedious and time consuming review and assessment of as many different credible sources as you can locate. Now what is credible and was you can conclude from those sources is the art of it and where the science frequently brakes down. I know many of you here practice this hard work and any debate or exchange of facts, ideas or conclusions based on a dispassionate and objective view of verifiable facts is to be encouraged. Racial slurs based on generalizations are not. These are not interpretations of history but rather attempts to abuse it. As you may have noted, I have some difficulty letting these attempts simply pass un-noted.

 

[The Lt.]

It never ceases to amaze me how far off track members get from the original subject. Why the subject comparing The Little Big Horn to Isandlwana was brought up leading to the battle of wits is something I just can't understand. I'm sure what will happen once the later subject matter has come to an end like others the original subject will go by the way side. It's a shame that instead of comment being made or talked about on the information that was gained by visiting the Rorke's Drift VC site instead of what's appeared. Hopefully will get comments and opinions based on the visit

Thanks 1879 for posting the photo featuring a nice mix of glossy figures to tell the story of Melville's plight.

 

[Fubar]

I saw this documentry several years ago. I believe the point about ammo and rifles was the cartridges themselves.
Apparently contracters provided thin walled cartridge casings that easily dented, creased ect while in transit. Or, being carried in cartridge pouches on the march.
Once the weapon became hot and the steel expands, it was nearly impossible to extract spent casings or insert a new one into the breach. Seems a valid point.
As far as the Zulu's consuming magic mushrooms, I dont see that as a stretch at all.
Warriors through the ages have used meade, gin, whatever as a shot of courage.Smoking dope, Maybe, I dont know but it seems to me that would NOT have the desired effect.
Zulus seem some fierce , tough hombres to begin with and loaded on drugs making them even more aggressive for battle would be a terrible group to face.

FUB

 

[theBaron]

...As far as the Zulu's consuming magic mushrooms, I dont see that as a stretch at all...

I'd never heard that, either, but it's not far-fetched, as Fubar noted. I recall reading a similar note about the Kalahari Bushmen, or more specifically/correctly, the !Kung people, that they smoke a local variety of marijuana before hunting. They use this for the sedative effect, which enables them to spend long periods stalking game and keep more motionless than humans otherwise might.

And right, in the West, our custom/tradition is that we brace ourselves with alcohol before action, or in the modern age, caffeine or stronger compounds.

Certainly not so outlandish an idea.

Prost!
Brad

 

[jazzeum]

I saw the Lt.'s post and he looks to be correct. I will try to fix the thread when I can. In the meantime, can we get back to the original discussion.

 

[damian]

Reb
There can be little doubt that the Zulu war was manufactured and sprung unfairly upon the Zulus. Zululand was an independent African kingdom and was not a place of blood thirsty tyranny.
The book to read is called Ploughshare of War by Cope. Universtoy of Natal Press.
The legend about SHaka and the Mfecane (the violent period in SA where teh Zulus forged a nation and disrupted local native life) has come under a great deal of scholarly scrutiny.
The main protagonist of this revison is Julian Cobbbing. He has restricted himself to lectures and papers so has not produced a full lenght book. Carolyn Hamiltons' Terrible Majesty is a good overview of this approach. She would argue that the Mfecane was not caused by a warlike Shaka but by the depradations of white slave traders based in Portuguese East Africa and that the first settelers at Port Natal such as Francis Fynn and Nathaniel Isaacs were themselves involved in this slave trade. They are the only European reports on Shaka and as they werr working as mercenaries at the time they can hardly be unbiased. Myth of Iron by Dan Wylie dissects out the myth of SHaka Zulu.
The work of the Colenso's both Francis and Harriet are now thought to be more accurate than most of the apologist writings of Britsih soldiers and administrators. After the war Zululand was dismembered and eventually incorporated into Natal so meeting the settler demand for both land an labour. Jeff Guys books namely "Teh destruction of the Zulu Kingdom" and the view across the river are both really good.
So whilst I would not suggest that the Zulu society was not a prelapsarian utopianI feel confident that in the AZW they were the wronged party.

 

[1879fanatic]

Spitfrnd,
Learning history is hard work. Your words and a good enough slogan for an AP History class in High School.

The rolled brass .Martini cartridges may very well have caused problems in consecutive loading and firing. Experts have maintained that most of the Inf.companies fired less then 7 rounds in 5 minutes, so their barrels would have been cooler, adding to the fact that there were lapses in firing to clear the air. The defenders at RD went through, per man, significantly more rounds, during the coordinated attacks before sundown, as well as prolonged independent firing. Look at this cartridge(next to a 22.cal LR) to see how it was made. It seems more than likely that some of these cartridges squibbed or misfired or blew the roll out of wack , causing some jamming. They did have Extractors available , however, and at RD they had extra rifles as well to go to. Mike

 

[1879fanatic]

Damian,
"the wronged party". Zululand was invaded after a unilateral ultimatum to dismantle the Zulu way of national service and lifestyle. And on the 30th day !
And they (Cetshwayo) actually were awarded the border dispute claims that they were meeting with Frere on at Ft. Pearson. Can you imagine the Zulu statemen and King's messengers after this invitation ? And 500 cattle punishment for accosting two surveyors (spies) who had wandered over the river into Zululand. The whole idea of the invasion and subjegation was Frere and friends. Mike

 

[UKReb]

Reb
There can be little doubt that the Zulu war was manufactured and sprung unfairly upon the Zulus. Zululand was an independent African kingdom and was not a place of blood thirsty tyranny.
The book to read is called Ploughshare of War by Cope. Universtoy of Natal Press.
The legend about SHaka and the Mfecane (the violent period in SA where teh Zulus forged a nation and disrupted local native life) has come under a great deal of scholarly scrutiny.
The main protagonist of this revison is Julian Cobbbing. He has restricted himself to lectures and papers so has not produced a full lenght book. Carolyn Hamiltons' Terrible Majesty is a good overview of this approach. She would argue that the Mfecane was not caused by a warlike Shaka but by the depradations of white slave traders based in Portuguese East Africa and that the first settelers at Port Natal such as Francis Fynn and Nathaniel Isaacs were themselves involved in this slave trade. They are the only European reports on Shaka and as they werr working as mercenaries at the time they can hardly be unbiased. Myth of Iron by Dan Wylie dissects out the myth of SHaka Zulu.
The work of the Colenso's both Francis and Harriet are now thought to be more accurate than most of the apologist writings of Britsih soldiers and administrators. After the war Zululand was dismembered and eventually incorporated into Natal so meeting the settler demand for both land an labour. Jeff Guys books namely "Teh destruction of the Zulu Kingdom" and the view across the river are both really good.
So whilst I would not suggest that the Zulu society was not a prelapsarian utopianI feel confident that in the AZW they were the wronged party.

Thanks for the info Damian and I bow to your better knowledge of Zululand and it's war. And I will leave it there as it appears one cannot afford to get too serious about the history here

Damian

 

[Harrytheheid]

Bernard, first the Zulus were not a rabble despite how they appear in the films, they were a highly disciplined fighting force. Secondly they were capable of high speed on foot and closed the distance very rapidly. Once they got to hand to hand combat they had the advantage, both in skill and in numbers.

Trooper,
Everything I've read about the Zulu Impi's concurs with what you've said in your post.

Cheers
H

 

[theBaron]

Reb
There can be little doubt that the Zulu war was manufactured and sprung unfairly upon the Zulus. Zululand was an independent African kingdom and was not a place of blood thirsty tyranny.
The book to read is called Ploughshare of War by Cope. Universtoy of Natal Press.
The legend about SHaka and the Mfecane (the violent period in SA where teh Zulus forged a nation and disrupted local native life) has come under a great deal of scholarly scrutiny.
The main protagonist of this revison is Julian Cobbbing. He has restricted himself to lectures and papers so has not produced a full lenght book. Carolyn Hamiltons' Terrible Majesty is a good overview of this approach. She would argue that the Mfecane was not caused by a warlike Shaka but by the depradations of white slave traders based in Portuguese East Africa and that the first settelers at Port Natal such as Francis Fynn and Nathaniel Isaacs were themselves involved in this slave trade. They are the only European reports on Shaka and as they werr working as mercenaries at the time they can hardly be unbiased. Myth of Iron by Dan Wylie dissects out the myth of SHaka Zulu.
The work of the Colenso's both Francis and Harriet are now thought to be more accurate than most of the apologist writings of Britsih soldiers and administrators. After the war Zululand was dismembered and eventually incorporated into Natal so meeting the settler demand for both land an labour. Jeff Guys books namely "Teh destruction of the Zulu Kingdom" and the view across the river are both really good.
So whilst I would not suggest that the Zulu society was not a prelapsarian utopianI feel confident that in the AZW they were the wronged party.

My impression from the history spelled out in "The Washing of the Spears" is that the rise of the Zulu kingdom is comparable to the consolidation of the Roman state on the Italian peninsula, or of the European nation-states, or early medieval Japan, in which a strong primus inter pares was able to overcome and absorb weaker neighbors. Take Shaka out of southern Africa and place him in Europe in 1500, and he could easily have been a prince of an Italian city-state, and perhaps bested his rivals.

Prost!
Brad

 

[damian]

Shaka is an interesting character. There are only a handful of Europeans who actually met him. Fynn and Isaacs both wrote accounts of him. Fynn in his diary and Isaacs in his Travels in South east Africa. Both men were of dubious intention. It would appear that Isaacs eventually died in west Africa where he had business interests (possibly slaves). Fynn was always trying to enoble himself in his memoirs. there is no doubt that he went native lived as a native chief and was involved in ivory smuggling and became a mercenary gun for hire. So what we actually know about Shaka is not very accurate. Omer Cooper coined the term Mfecnae in his 1966 book Zulu AFrermath. He made SHaka the driving force. Desmond Morris used Fynns diary as a source in the Washing of the Spears and although Zulu Aftermath came out after Morris's book it is pretty much in agreement with what Morris said. Once Zululand was destroyed it was incorproated into Natal and turned into farming ladn for teh settlers. Now in the 20 th century ZUlu nationalism became problematic as Dr Verwoed courted the Zulu royal family and Chief Buthelezi in his policy of apartheid. The homeland of Kwa-Zulu was porvided with an army and police force and became a bastion of apartheid. Buthelezie himself had an ambiguous role in all this. He never accepted independence which teh Nationalist government wanted him too, but he remained steadfastly opposed to the ANC. He used nationalism and the myth of SHaka to create a private army which unleashed much suffering on the people of Natal during the dying days of apartheid. Shaka is now once again being used as a nationalist rallying point. His name is also being commodified by being turned into a tourist attraction. We have the Shakaland village and teh Shaka marine world in Durban. The movie SHaka Zulu was made during apartheid and is also very ambiguous in the message it gives. It was funded by government money in an attempt to break the isolation which SA was experiencing at the time.
IN SA I am afraid history is very much alive and relevant all the time.
Regards
Damian

 

[damian]

http://www.unpress.co.za/book.php?action=displaybook&conf[bookid]=241
Dan Wylie's Myth of Iron

 

[Spitfrnd]

Spitfrnd,
Learning history is hard work. Your words and a good enough slogan for an AP History class in High School.

The rolled brass .Martini cartridges may very well have caused problems in consecutive loading and firing. Experts have maintained that most of the Inf.companies fired less then 7 rounds in 5 minutes, so their barrels would have been cooler, adding to the fact that there were lapses in firing to clear the air. The defenders at RD went through, per man, significantly more rounds, during the coordinated attacks before sundown, as well as prolonged independent firing. Look at this cartridge(next to a 22.cal LR) to see how it was made. It seems more than likely that some of these cartridges squibbed or misfired or blew the roll out of wack , causing some jamming. They did have Extractors available , however, and at RD they had extra rifles as well to go to. Mike

Very good example of the "work" of history Mike.