rorkesdriftvc.com :: View topic

Posted: Fri Sep 18, 2009 6:46 pm

Julian..There you have it! I'm sure you are adding many who will take on that interest throughout their life. I'm not an educator like yourself but I enjoy introducing AZW history to people when they come over to my house and see various stuff on red soldiers and black people. Most of the time they don't know what I'm talking about but I'm happy to make their aquaintance with those "reds" and "blacks".... Wink

Posted: Sat Sep 19, 2009 1:43 am

The "Disneyfication" debate takes on different hues depending on where you are in the world. I remain convinced that the participants in the AZW owe a debt of gratitude to the mass media. If it where not for a couple of famous movies the AZW may well have remained an obscure colonial campaign instead of a popularly remembered one as it is today. Interesting a few British schoolchildren in this event is harmless enough. However from the developmental side there are questions

In SA there is no doubt that the AZW and the so called warrior ethos of the Zulus was exploited by the apartheid governement and the Inkatha Freedom party to push a dangerous political agenda in the 1980's. Anyone with a passing knowledge of what went on in the Edendale valley outside PMB in the period 1987- 1993 can vouch for just how deadly this "Disneyfication' was. Paradoxically the new ANC lead administration had also continued ths Disenyfication. The Ushaka Marine world and the proposed new UShaka airport are examples. My concern remains that we may be fostering a future deadly Zulu nationalism in KZN with all this.

The current position of the Zulu monarchy is also ambiguous. They have distanced themselves from Inkatha but remain focused on preserving power for traditional leaders in rural KZN. As such they are in danger of becoming a force that hold s back the spread of literacy and education in an already under-resoureced and deprived area.
History itself may be distorted by the DIsneyfication process. Was Shaka the all powerful tyrant that Ritter described or was he a more nuanced leader as Dan Wylie would suggest. It makes no difference to the KZN Parks board who have propagated the legend of Shaka by claiming that there were huge hunting pits in the Umflozoi Game Reserve that date from his reign. According to Jeff Guy this is a complete fabrication which seems to have been created by the Parks Board back in the 1950's.
This brings us back to the British view of the conflict. Is it justified for wealthy British tourists to fly into the area live in sanitized and modern acommadation, take a few photographs and then fly home ignoring the huge problems left by the legacy of both colonialism and apartheid to the area.

So I feel that Disneyfication is helpful in making people aware of the conflict just as Cowboy movies made little boys aware of the American West, but it also potentially covers up a lot of serious current problems and may even be manipulated for political agendas that are extremely negative.

Posted: Sat Sep 19, 2009 3:48 am

Excellent points to put forth and a pretty concise synopsis of the state of affairs in KZN and South Africa as well. I'm no expert (after all, I live in rural New England), but your summary of the political situation jibes with my own limited understanding which I've gained from avidly acquiring and reading as many books on SA history, culture and politics as I can get my hands on. And this fascination for all things South African began through the Disneyfication of "ZULU"!

Posted: Sat Sep 19, 2009 3:55 pm

Damian does indeed raise good points.

Perhaps it's Mel Gibsonization that we should dread; though at least he would make an unlikely Cetewayo or Shaka.

G

Posted: Mon Sep 21, 2009 1:07 pm

Damian...

Just a point....Rather than "Disneyfication" to your argued point maybe it should rather be simply "politicization" on the pejorative side? To my knowledge (and I can vouch for it) Disney would not approve of entering poltical conundrums around the world.... Cool

. I guess in my meaning of the word I see the approprioate meaning of "Disneyfication" as referring more to the aspect of presenting the war as "entertainment" and not as a platform for an agenda of political maneuvering and power struggles.

Posted: Mon Sep 21, 2009 6:21 pm

Damian,
You wrote:
"Is it justified for wealthy British tourists to fly into the area live in sanitized and modern acommadation, take a few photographs and then fly home ignoring the huge problems left by the legacy of both colonialism and apartheid to the area."

Please be gentle with me, but I fail to see your point.

Posted: Mon Sep 21, 2009 9:33 pm

By Disneyfication I mean the turning of an historical event into a spectacle that can be viewed in isolation for entertainment. Like a good movie. So the AZW becomes a jolly great adventure it's significance is lost and even distorted. Later on the spectacle can be used for various agendas. So the Zulu Warrior ethos is exploited by the apartheid government and Inkatha to encourage a violent response to change. The use of "traditional weapons" in teh late 1980's being the best example.

The plethora of books examining the minutiae of the events of 22 Jan compared to the paucity of material discussing the results of the war for the Zulus is an example of this Disneyfication. The AZW was not a great adventure between noble adversaries with a deep respect for each other who afterwards went off and shared a pint in the local wateringhole.
It was a bitter and unprovoked war of conquest.

The issue of whether tourism benefits the local economy and people is a controversial one. I did not offer an opinion either way I simply raised it as an issue.

Posted: Tue Sep 22, 2009 12:59 pm

Damian
Like Mel (who has been with me on several trips to KZN) I do endorse your points, but please do not brand all the people who visit the area "wealthy tourists", most had to save along time to visit these places and pilgramages most take are well beyond 2 hours of celluliod.

Even here in the UK we have parrallels in kind , the "tourists" who come with the pre-set ideas, distorted by the history they have. Take Culloden, countless American tourists, visit the place, some of whom have Scottish ancestory and hate England because of what we did. Only to find that their particular tartan was erm... batting for the other side so to speak and took the Kings Shilling. History can certainly throw curved balls. The bitterness and recrimanation that took place in the aftermath of the Jacobite rebellion, in a "civilised", and not very United Kingdom of post 1746, has many parrallels and as a nation we should be ashamed.

The historical desire for the Scottish to self govern is now reality in many ways, with a devolved parliament in Scotland, perhaps Charlie would be quiety approving, indeed you may see the desire of indigeonous peoples requirement to self govern a threat,... it is not new.

Like Julian, whenever I do lectures my closing piece is always testimony to the native participants, bacause if their is a story there is always two sides, and providing I get that point over then I am happy with that, often the discussion with the audiance after is not about screwdrivers or tactics, but what I have seen locally and the problems that abound there.

I understand your concern to the effects of the area, perhaps my analogy about busses stopping on the way through is not a good one, I have seen with my own eyes some of the chinless wonders who think the world smells of roses, and a child who's parents have died from aids are a photo oppourtunity, but in every society there is a socially deprived underclass, history seems to have no real cure, neither does National politics for that matter.

But finally please do not berate local hoteliers who employ local people, and the people who stay there because it is popular destination, local issues aside, for it is the same as the hotels and guest houses that provide for those very same visitors around the Somme and Ypres, where a million soldiers died for a few miles of wastelands in a war now out of living memory.

Damian, like Mel put , not a criticism of you, but a expansion, out of the regional socio-political spectrum.

Posted: Tue Sep 22, 2009 2:34 pm

Lt Colonel (ret'd) Bennett (author of Eyewitness in Zululand) [if avail] may be another person worthy of inclusion.

Or Dr Ed Yorke from RMA Sandhurst?

AMB

Posted: Wed Sep 23, 2009 5:22 am

Hello all

Ian Knight is planning to come to the National Army Museum today to discuss proposals for the panel, I will post more details when available but once again thank you for the suggestions and the interesting discussions.

Jon

Posted: Wed Sep 23, 2009 3:38 pm

Damian
"The plethora of books examining the minutiae of the events of 22 Jan compared to the paucity of material discussing the results of the war for the Zulus is an example of this Disneyfication."
I'm sorry but I cannot agree with you here. You make an unfair analogy. There is absolutely no reason why these two topics should have an equal representation among the reading public. In the popular mind the one is a fascinating piece of British military history with wide appeal, the other a fairly mundane local piece of South African history with limited interest. Publishers, readers and researchers alike know which side their bread is buttered, and it isn't the politically correct one.
"The AZW...was a bitter and unprovoked war of conquest."
Ditto I cannot agree. Bitter, yes. Unprovoked, no. War of conquest, not wholly. I am not a devotee of the Shula Marks school of all British C19 imperial history. There is plenty of evidence for provocation in the Realpolitik of pre-AZW Natal. Zululand 1880 was nothing like Boehmen und Maehren in 1940. There is plenty of evidence for the Robinson and Gallagher theory of 'informal rule where possible' in the immediate post-war settlement of Zululand.

Posted: Wed Sep 23, 2009 9:17 pm

Gents I accept your points.
I do not berate hoetliers or tourists having done my fair share of it myself. A well integrated tourism industry can bring great benefits to a community.
I raise the issues for discussion and debate.
I was simply pointing out that you can focus on the AZW as a great "boys own" adventure or you can see it as an event that had important historical consequences all round. Consequences that are more profound than appropriating blame for various engagements.
Mr WHybra I bow to your knowledge of this war.
However I must confess to being in the Shula Marks, Julian Cope school just a tad.

Posted: Wed Sep 23, 2009 11:18 pm

Damian wrote:

Mr WHybra I bow to your knowledge of this war.
However I must confess to being in the Shula Marks, Julian Cope school just a tad.

Presumably Richard Cope?

Is it justified for wealthy British tourists to fly into the area live in sanitized and modern acommadation, take a few photographs and then fly home ignoring the huge problems left by the legacy of both colonialism and apartheid to the area.

I understand that you see your comments primarily as raising issues for discussion and debate, but to be honest it is hard to see in the above quote that "[you] did not offer an opinion either way". The point of view, its pointed criticisms, and those at whom they are directed, would seem to be quite clear.

My personal experience is that many of those who have had the opportunity of visiting South Africa have, on the quiet, done a very great deal by way of response to the huge problems to which you allude. One could, I suppose, legitimately discuss whether any "tourists", whether or not they be either rich or indeed even British, should go to South Africa at all. But if there is truth in the charge you raise, then it is also true that it is not only foreign visitors to that country who stay in "sanitized and modern accommodation", nor indeed they alone whose attitude to the legacy of the past could be questioned.

Posted: Thu Sep 24, 2009 8:06 am

I myself visit the battlefields and regulalry hike through the Transkei so am just as much guilty as any one of being a wealthy first world type going on an "African Safari." as any one else. I am trying to raise the issue of the relevance of the AZW to history. Military history is sometimes guilty of focusing on the minutiae and ignoring the broad canvas. Similarly the social historians "Marks, Cope and Guy" brush over the nitty gritty and focus on the broad economic and political forces. I have always found this somewhat sad as both schools have a lot to offer. When Jeff Guy gives a lecture on Bambatha at Killie Campbell you hardly get any military history buiffs and at the few meetings of the SAMHS you don't get many social historian types. The AZW like the 1745 currently gets used for lots of contemporary agendas. Whether it is encouraging tourists or bolstering nationalism or trying to promote awareness they are still agendas. I am just attempting to recognize agendas and place things in context.

Posted: Thu Sep 24, 2009 8:27 am

[,

My personal experience is that many of those who have had the opportunity of visiting South Africa have, on the quiet, done a very great deal by way of response to the huge problems to which you allude. One could, I suppose, legitimately discuss whether any "tourists", whether or not they be either rich or indeed even British, should go to South Africa at all. But if there is truth in the charge you raise, then it is also true that it is not only foreign visitors to that country who stay in "sanitized and modern accommodation", nor indeed they alone whose attitude to the legacy of the past could be questioned.[/quote]

I accept those points. They are well made and accurate.
I should not have used the term "British tourists" but rather just tourists.