rorkesdriftvc.com :: View topic - What Is The Opinion Of Col. Durnford In S.A. Today ?

Posted: Sun Mar 21, 2010 1:23 pm

I've been meaning to ask this question for ages, ever since I read a post (can't find it again) by someone from S.A. stating something along the lines of - 'we have our own opinion of Durnford'.

What was meant by this comment, does anyone know ?

A modern view like this, is hugely interesting to me, at least to pursue a bit further, in order to understand more clearly.

Thanks in advance.

Coll

Posted: Tue Mar 23, 2010 2:18 pm

South Africa is blessed or perhaps cursed with too much history.
You can write huge volumes on almost any aspect of it's history.
DUtch settlement, slavery, Mfecane, frontier wars, Gold , Boer wars, Zulu wars, Afrikaner uprising, World wars, Apartheid, Namibia etc.
What I am trying to say is that I doubt the average South African today as even heard of Durnford. The ones who have are probably all on this forum.
So I doubt if there is such a thing as a South African view of Durnford. There is so much history that impacts more directly on the average South African that the relationship between Durnford and the Natal colonists etc is not a major priority for any of them.

Posted: Tue Mar 23, 2010 2:47 pm

Damian

Many thanks for your reply.

Yes, this is why I was puzzled by the contributor's comment, as if he was speaking for many/all, instead of just himself.

That said, I remember, when mentioning a Col. Durnford memorial statue should be constructed, I was told he was possibly still too controversial.

Never having been to S.A., I am unable to judge firsthand such a subject.

Thanks again

Coll

Posted: Wed Mar 24, 2010 7:29 pm

"So I doubt if there is such a thing as a South African view of Durnford. There is so much history that impacts more directly on the average South African that the relationship between Durnford and the Natal colonists etc is not a major priority for any of them"...

And after noting the SA topical material I get to read when it's in my daily paper I can understand why Durnford et al isn't a "major priority" for any of them. I have the feeling they are living more for the present than in entertaining history.

Posted: Fri Mar 26, 2010 4:07 pm

Up to a point there is since the display panels at the Fort Durnford small museum select a particular approach to capturing key features of his life and local significance. For example they choose to refer to a supposed relationship with Frances Colenso to a degree that has not quite been established by serious writers. THere also appears to be a great readoness to criticise him for the Bushmans River Pass and Isandhlwana episodes.
So whilst this information might only represent the attitudes of its authorship it does appear to do so with some expectation of acceptability to the most likely visitors. Not many as it happens. There is also a fairly apparent love of doling out blame that we are not entirely unfamiliar with on this site from time to time.
G

Posted: Sat Mar 27, 2010 9:22 am

G,
How can you discuss subjects, such as the reason for the British defeat at Isandlwana, without apportioning some blame?

Posted: Sat Mar 27, 2010 11:47 am

Mel

I'm not sure "blame" is an appropriate word. When anyone looks to analyse past events they will look for cause, effect and by implication responsibility.

Personally, in the case of Isandlwana, I don't think any single event or person can be cited as the reason for the defeat.

Peter

Posted: Sat Mar 27, 2010 1:07 pm

Peterw,
Implicated responsibility/blame? No difference really except it's easier to say "blame".

Of course there is no one single person or event to "blame" for the defeat at Isandlwana. That's why there has been so much "discussion" on this forum.

The point that G was making, correct me if I am wrong, is that some participants on the forum love to apportion blame for blame's sake. I really don't think that is the case. If blame or "implied responsibility" is apportioned then it's just the byproduct of analysis.

Posted: Sat Mar 27, 2010 4:14 pm

Mel

The 'opinion' of Col. Durnford in S.A. today !

Why pick up on G.'s last sentence where blame is mentioned ?

G. answered the original question very well, the last sentence his own view, not meant to be followed up on. It is a point he is making, that if enough books are written saying that there 'must' be someone to blame, everyone thinks it 'has' to be so.

It is poison put in the human psyche, intended to rule out anything else, including the simple conclusion, no man is/was to 'blame', present on the actual Isandlwana battlefield that day.

The culprit(s) were elsewhere - deciding the wrong things, doing the wrong things, thinking the wrong things, or worse still, saying nothing at all, to alert everyone to how badly the column was being lead.

'Yes' men, were the trouble, when a few 'No' men could have 'saved the day' and spoke up !

It is so strange, that the man who knew the Zulus well, immediately understanding the danger of the information supplied, and acting in response, is held to account for the defeat.

I'm hoping a statue is made of him, preferably on horseback, on a plinth, much like Custer's in Monroe, Michigan, so that after all these years of being put down, his critics will have to look up to him, even if that actually means in the physical sense !

Coll

Posted: Sat Mar 27, 2010 6:52 pm

Eh? "Not meant to be followed up on"? In a discussion forum? Surely it was part of G's interesting contribution and was then followed up well. How can a discussion forum on such an interesting topic not have a go at apportioning blame - or "responsibility by implication"?

The expression "opinion of (or on) Colonel Durnford today" implies that some will have a good opinion, some middling and some poor, doesn't it? Admittedly, Peter and Mel aren't in S Africa (I don't know where G is) but I know you won't want to censor their views on that count, Coll, nor claim they're off topic when the possibility of "blame" is a very large part of the potential debate under such a thread's title. Opinion of Durnford? For what? In what way? Joining the army? Leaving his wife? Bushman's River Pass? Treatment of the amaHlubi and amaPutini? His design of the Estcourt laager? Alliance with Colenso? Involvement in Boundary Commission at Rorke's Drift? Jumping the gun at Middle Drift? His actions at Isandlwana? Plenty of scope there for an "opinion of Durnford." Including blame or otherwise.

But, as Damian has pointed out, it hardly seems likely that many in S Africa have heard of him, let alone have an informed opinion on him. 1%? Less perhaps? About the same as in this country, I'd expect. Which, more or less, leaves just those on this forum again! Best of luck, Coll! Wink

Peter

Posted: Sat Mar 27, 2010 7:54 pm

Peter

With respect, you're missing my meaning.

It is only the opinion of those in S.A. I'm asking about, hopefully including, descendants of those who fought in the campaign.

If we go with the blame factor again, with only members of the forum, then the same ground will be covered again, from our view, not S.A., which would have been -

Do they know of him ? What do they know ?

Is he still controversial ?

This topic is supposed to be a different approach, in which I hoped people from S.A. would inform us of their thoughts, or maybe members who took it upon themselves to find out this specific aspect firsthand whilst there visiting the battlefield.

If blame arises, it gets ugly.

Peter W, is like yourself, one of the good guys on the forum, who, I think, knows 'blame' is a word that gets topics out-of-hand, whereas a phrase more subtle, but still suits, would be more apt and less likely to get people in aggressive mood.

However, if the usual 'blame game' is triggered again, that is all well and good, but was not my intention for this topic.

Coll

Posted: Sun Mar 28, 2010 12:57 am

Coll

I appreciate you'd like to know the current view on Durnford in RSA today. I can think of about half a dozen fairly regular forum contributors who live there, and who may have an opinion or who might canvass others or put their view forward on what they think of his reputation in RSA today. After about a week, just a single one has offered his view, which is that there is probably no such thing - indeed, the answer would apparently be virtually "Colonel who?"

I think that's why one or two others eventually came in, but not to pass any opinions, nor even actually to apportion blame, as the "Durnford blame game" (as well as the opposite view) is probably by far the most sterile topic on the forum. But surely a thread needn't turn ugly just because someone wanted to dish out some blame, as we're all grown ups. OK, so we don't use the "b" word - something more subtle, as you suggest, which suits and is apt.

Now what happens when the first S African does come on here and answers your question unequivocally, such as:

"Very good question, Coll. Like you, I have an excellent knowledge of Durnford's South African career and am also well informed on the public's view of him here, which concurs closely with my own - one doesn't like to mention blame, of course, but we hold him indisputably responsible by implication for the disastrous defeat at Isandlwana and also for the Drakensberg fiasco of 1873." What happens then?

The chap already has a memorial in S Africa and a poignant memorial in Kent. He has at least one modern biography, a number of contemporary hagiographies and today an indefatigable Jock who demands a statue, no less. Most balanced histories involving 1870s Natal which mention him in detail testify to his undoubted moral and physical courage, which was expected of any British officer and gentleman. There were therefore thousands of his ilk. We can't start putting up statues to all of them. There are scores of British military heroes who have no such thing, and regardless of Durnford's engineering prowess or military valour, he certainly wasn't a hero.

Blame? The government blamed the General and sacked him as soon as they knew the facts. He defended his reputation and there were some who blamed Durnford, among others. Historians of Natal and the AZW are divided but most have given him very fair and balanced treatment. If it's any consolation, most actually blame the Zulus for Isandlwana, or at least hold them "responsible by implication."

Hard life, isn't it? Wink

Peter

Posted: Sun Mar 28, 2010 2:55 am

Peter

Very good answer, liked it much.

Late night for me, but heck, I don't sleep well anyway.

Thanks for your calming reply.

Your good health

Coll

Posted: Sun Mar 28, 2010 10:39 am

So we were both up late! I had to be up until about 3 a.m. anyway, so organised myself with a book and a bottle of wine, but thought I'd better check on you before retiring! Did think of changing all the clocks but the book and the wine won. Hope you were accompanied by some Scotch?

If I lose concentration while refereeing this afternoon I shall hold you responsible by implication! And if I have to reach for the red card at any time I may tell the player that "I'm not necessarily blaming you but I hold you .... etc!"

P.

Posted: Mon Mar 29, 2010 11:23 am

Returning to Damian's point of 23rd March.

Very easily. How men die in battle and the circumstances that might be said to lead to it are very serious matters indeed. Matters 'of life and death' in the age old phrase. And ones upon which we are unlikely to be able to inform ourselves completely or even very much further or better at this very late stage if the issue at stake is the Isandhlwana battle.

Readiness therefore to apportion blame is not a matter of some sort of modern absolute right. In these columns we have seen it done very readily and I would argue on far too many occasions without even broadly reasonable justifications.

Part of a person's memorial is their reputation. To a considerable extent the reputations of military people are determined by their contemporaries of comparable professional standing or rank including their military superiors and subordinates and any public writings or any otherwise recorded remarks that might be left to us that might confirm or dosclose their perceptions. However the electronic sky hereabouts is too often blackened by many episodes of 'casting the first stone' even some 130 years afterwards by multiple others who see themselves as arbitrating or even altering these perceptions and therefore these reputations. In some respects almost as if a perfectly acceptable recreational activity.

As you might have spotted from other entries I just don't think that is either fair or reasonable. Fair and objective assessment, Yes. Fair and reasonable criticism, Yes also. Hard criticism, yes again if it can really be shown to be fair and reasonable and has good reasons demonstrating why - and real reasons, not just passions or convictions. But and a big but I just cannot reasonably see my way to accept that any single individual (words I would underline here if I could) can be 'blamed' for the enormity of Isandhlwana. There were multiple causes of what appears to have transpired and there is just no single person to blame, or at least not without ceasing to be fair and reasonable, and not without risking the whole or part abandonment of objectivity and balance, thence credibility and persuasion.

G