The Rorke's Drift VC Discussion Forum
(View Discussion Rules)

** IMPORTANT MESSAGE TO ALL USERS **

PLEASE NOTE: This forum is now inactive and is provided for reference purposes only. The live forum is available at www.rorkesdriftvc.com/forum

(Back To Topic List)

Date	Original Topic
4th May 2002	A zulu perspective By Bryce I am of the opinion that Themba Mthethwas article should be pulled from this site. I am aware that everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but his are offensive. On a site dedicated to honoring the soldiers of the Zulu war all he does is insult them. His comments about Chard and Bromhead are totally uncalled for. It is for these reasons that I believe that his article should be replaced by one less disrespectful. I encourage all who read this to add your comments as a kind of petition to have Thembas article replaced.
Date	Replies
4th May 2002	Jack I agree with Bryce. I hope that article shall be removed.
4th May 2002	Robert I completely agree. Thembas article is very biased.
4th May 2002	Mike Jiones I agree that the comments made are not wholly in taste with this web site, however, to withdraw them, I think, would not be justified. I hope the web site is not only available for information that we like to hear or read about, it should be free for all participants to air thier views. sutely we woukl not like to have a site that is censored to the views that we like.
4th May 2002	Alun Absolutely not! Themba's article is nothing more than a passionate reminder that, despite how we may feel about our own country's heroism on that day, British soldiers WERE invading his land. I cannot see much that could be called offensive in his writing. Yes, of course he is angry, but quite understandably so, in my view, when history glorifies the invader and speaks far less about the suffering and bravery of the invaded. I am not sure whether this site is 'dedicated to honoring the soldiers of the Zulu war' in a way that could be interpreted so narrowly. I rather see the site as a focus for open, frank and honest discussion on aspects of the war in the widest sense. This must surely include assuming some deeper understanding of Rorke's Drift etc. not only from a nationalistic British perspective, but also from a more humble perspective of respect for the victims of the age of greedy Empire building.
4th May 2002	Peter Critchley The article Themba wrote has probably caused more debate over the last year or so than anything else, and I can see why. It is quite galling in places, makes many quick judgements and is on the whole pretty biased, but that's why I like it. It may sound odd, but I am grateful to Themba for submitting the article, and for allowing us to display it on the site, as it DOES offer a different perspective, and as yet we've not received any other Zulu perspectives. It's important with any historical study to take into account all views. Now, they may end up being discounted for various reasons, but if you ignore them, or worse still, avoid them, you are doing your own work a disservice. For all these reasons, I would like 'A Zulu Perspective' to remain on RDVC.com, and I have to say, I agree with Alun and Mike. Any other views? Peter Webmaster
4th May 2002	Clive Dickens I agree with both Peter and Alun ,Thembas article should remain on site he is perfectly correct WE DID INVADE HIS LAND an invasion motivated as in the Boer war of greed by the of the British goverment of the time. and we cannot hide that fact. Clive
5th May 2002	Gary Laliberty Hi All, Why is it that down through the ages and through military history is that the victor get to 'write' history on it. Why is it when someone from the other side...read as the losing side... writes about this battle or that battle or about this war or that war, we fail to want to believe the author or a surviver. You Engish down through ages have invaded the lands of other people...Scotland...Ireland, just to name a few. And yes we Americans after are War of Independence with you, did an injustice to the Native Americans (Indians) of this lands. All these conflicts pitted one civilization against another, neither able to comprehend or accommodate the other. To the victor went domination of the land, to the vanquished the destruction of their way of life. Well, that's my two cents, and so I'll get off my soapbox for now. Gary P.S. Thanks again Peter for a Great Web site.
5th May 2002	James Garland I disagree completely with Mthethwa's point of view and I have argued against it on this site several times, but whilst I think he's wrong I am against pulling the article from the site.
6th May 2002	Julian Whybra I'm reading all this with a wry smile. Doesn't it rather mirror the whole Oxford Movement attitude at the time of the Zulu War? Does nothing change? Isn't the British mentality wonderful? While Themba's views were seen as insulting, readers disliked them intensely and wanted to remove his comment from the site. As soon as we discover he has a Zulu heritage, we felt a certain sympathy for his views. Now that we suspect his views as being fanatically anti-British, we start crusading for him. He has become an underdog.........and the British love underdogs......still it's better than kicking them. Now, what was that line from the film...? "Half the world mocks us, and half the world is only civilized because we have made it so." Is that a cat I see among the pigeons?
7th May 2002	Frank Muscal I never agreed with Themba but hope that more articles are submitted. "A Zulu Perspective" and having only one voice is rather bothersome. Are there not 'rememberance' or memorial events, etc. where infomation can be published to offer additional perspectives from Zulu side? Frank
8th May 2002	George Hartnell There's a saying we have here in the colonies. "I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." Words of wisdom in an increasingly less forgiving world. Best, G.
8th May 2002	A M Banks George Hartnell - well said, Sir!
13th May 2002	joe I belieive Thembas views should be replaced.
20th May 2002	Les Brierley Whilest I agree that Themba is entitled to his views I see no good reason for letting him air them on this web site. Neither do I subscribe to the" politically correct" trendy attitude of knocking and belittling this country of ours, of applauding whilest other nationals glorify their country's triumphs then deriding our own. We are cast as the villans enough in the world today, by the Hollywood heroes ,this sort of item is not needed
20th May 2002	Alan Critchley To all, we have stated our reasons for the inclusion of the Themba article on this site. In the absence of other Zulu perspectives, we have this one alone and this might serve to suggest that it represents the views of all Zulus, which would be devisive. I would welcome contributions from others from a Zulu viewpoint. Might I suggest that, as with other contributors on other related subjects, if there are specific points which need addressing or are incorrect, these should be itemised and reasoned. Alan [email protected]
17th August 2002	Lynne Hadley As an historian and research consultant, I am always careful to consult material from both sides of a conflict. And yes, it is true that much that is written is biased. So my best advice to all who seek the truth is this: when reading an account of any historical event at all, keep firmly in your mind, the thought that the histories of most military or social conflicts are written by the victors.
5th June 2003	Simon Copley Let Themba have his say. We need to hear a Zulu perspective no matter how "biased" it seems. I think I would come over as biased if my great grandfathers and grand-uncles had been killed defending their way of life.
6th June 2003	James Garland I would like to see an article written by someone of the Mtetwa clan and other peoples who were overun by imperialist and ruthless invaders. The Zulus !!! The Zulus having conquered these peoples absorbed them and made them comply with the Zulu way of life. The Zulus being the victors glorified their deeds not in writing but in their oral tradition from a Zulu point of view. So the British were no different from the Zulus. It was just our turn to invade. Funny I don't recall Themba mentioning Zulu Imperialism. I doubt very much that Themba's article represents the views of most Zulus.
9th April 2004	steve offy shepstone spelled it out to cetswayo on two occasions,not to cross the border. the kidnap and murder of two african women accused of witchcraft,by zulus who crossed the border and snatched them was a violation of this agreement,the "smeliing out"was common from shakas days. during the mfecane it is estimated that the zulu impis caused the death of two million natives,and the wholesale clearance of much of the southern tip of south africa,hows that for ethnic cleansing themba? see,i guess 19th century politics for both zulu ,and empire were the same,might makes right,and i dont see why we should appologise for having a bigger stick than cetswayp had. on a lighter note i do feel that cetswayo was more enlightened than shaka, dingane,or dingiswayo.
10th April 2004	Peter Ewart Steve I believe the accusation was adultery, rather than witchcraft (both serious crimes punishable by death). You mention an "agreement" - and also Shepstone's warning to Cetshwayo "not to cross the border." I believe it was Sihayo's family who crossed the border & that Cetshwayo subsequently did what he could in offering to make amends within the bounds of his own constitution. If the "agreement" dated back to Cetshwayo's "coronation" in 1873, it would be as well to remember that that event had nothing to do with Cetshwayo's claim to the succession (despite a dubious precedent with his father and the Boers) and could hardly be relied upon (although it was) by the Natal government to exert a measure of control over the way the King ruled his own country. He was to be King whether Shepstone "crowned" him or not. And if it all came down to warnings, agreements, promises and trustworthy behaviour between Cetshwayo and Shepstone, with each relying upon the honesty and character of the other, then it wasn't going to work, was it? Before long, Shepstone was bound to show his true colours. As you correctly say, it was - after all - simply a case of "might is right." Peter P.S. I think the 2 million estimate (and other approximations) has been shown to be a figment of someone's imagination. And remember that although the Zulu certainly started what eventually became known as the mfecane, the majority of displacements and deaths were committed by other tribes and clans far from Zululand and not by the Zulu themselves. Their direct control, or their "ethnic cleansing", didn't extend anything like as far as you suggest, even though the knock-on effect had been begun by their own raids.