 |
 | Isandlwana Centennial Celebration |  |
|
The Double D
|
|
Was in an old book store last week looking for a book on the Zulu Culture. The Proprietress asked me if I had any interst in the Anglo-Zulu War. When I told her yes, she offered me a folder of newspaper clippings from the 1979 Centennial at a very reasonable price So I bought the folder as well as the book I was looking for. Also in the folder were two first day covers and a plate block set of stamps commemorating the Centennial and three black and white photo's taken at the Celebration at Isandlwana in May 1979. (marked on back)
Can anyone tell me who the key players are in these photo's? 
 |
|||||||||||
|
_________________ DD
|
|||||||||||||
 |
| |
|
The Double D
|
|
By going through the newspaper clippings that came with these pictures, I have been able to identify several of the person in these pictures.
In the top picture the person in the center is Chief Gatsha Buthelezi a descendant of King Cetshwayo. I still need to identify the two men on either side of the Chief. In the Middle picture the gentleman with the knobkerrrie is Dr. Frank Mdlalose then Minister of the Interior for KwaZulu and later Ambassador to Egypt for South Africa. I stil need an identification of the Gentlemen to Ambassador Mdlalose left. The Bottom picture is Chief Buthelezi. Can any one help me idientify the other persons in the pictures? |
|||||||||||
|
_________________ DD
|
|||||||||||||
|
| |
|
Peter Ewart
|
|
DD
I'm not sure I can help identify the remaining figures - they're no doubt a little less well known, perhaps, than Chief Gatsha Mangosuthu Buthelezi! Might one of them be King Goodwill Zwelithini? (I can't see much of a likeness to the King, although more than a quarter of a century has passed, so one never knows). I didn't see your post originally or I would have confirmed the easy one, Buthelezi. You'll recognise him from his part in the film ZULU, in which he played Cetshwayo, only 15 or 16 years previously. Being a very prominent figure and hardly ever out of the news during the period of time between the centenary and today, he's still a very recognisable face. As you have press cuttings about the 1979 event, you no doubt know that the ceremony at Isandlwana took place in the morning and the one at Rorke's Drift in the afternoon. No Zulu personages were guests of honour, although - going by your pictures - they were obviously present. The Guest of Honour in the morning was the Hon PGJ Koornhof, Minister of Plural Relations & Development, and the religious service was conducted by the (Anglican) Bishop of Zululand, the Rt Rev L.B. Zulu. The names of the announcers will be interesting to some: RWF Drooglever, Mr G. Mdlalose (not the same as Frank in your posting above, presumably?), I.A. Adendorff and the Rev Mr. Nxele, whom I suspect may have been the incumbent of the time at St Vincent's. Neither Buthelezi nor the King played a formal role at RD that afternoon, either. However, the next morning, Saturday, the arrival of the King and "a procession of guests" got things started at the Ulundi ceremony and I suppose the unidentified men in your pictures may be among these guests, even though the snaps were taken the previous day. There was plenty of dancing, singing and bands playing, as well as a speech from Buthelezi. The King himself unveiled a plaque (plaques had been unveiled at Isandlwana & RD also but not by the Zulu guests). The Ulundi service was conducted by the Bishop Suffragan of Natal (the Rev Ken Hallowes, whose relatives in PMB and Jo'burg I am in touch with regularly. Incidentally, it had been Hallowes' own father-in-law who had founded both the Isandlwana and St Augustine's (R/Drift) missions). I don't know if these background details compliment your press clippings at all but I wonder if any of our contributors in RSA can help? I've extracted most of the above details from the official programme of the centenary commemorations. Those who've attended the 120th or 125th events will know that the 22nd Jan was marked exactly, whereas in 1979 a "neutral" date was chosen, apparently to coincide with dry weather and reasonable road access. Peter P.S. The chap behind Mdlalose's right shoulder looks a little like Goodwill Zwelithini, but I hardly think the King would be hiding like that! |
|||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||
|
| |
|
The Double D
|
|
Peter,
Your post kinda brings to light one the weak points in any study of the Anglo-Zulu War that I have seen. Any reporting of the Zulu participation is superficial at best. The emphasis is on the British Forces and there actions. Great arguments ensue about the cause of the battlefield lose, citing Durnford�s failure to do this, or Chelmsford�s failure to do that, or the Royal Armory�s improper construction of a wooden box. No one seems to even consider that the British force was overwhelmed by a superior numbered force? Sacrilege!! The Authors that write about this battle all write from the British point of view. Or at least the majority of their writings are from that point of view. Have any of our great authors written a careful movement by movement analysis of each of the Zulu regiments and the Regimental commanders motivation during the battle, show how their action allowed them too overwhelm the British troops. I don�t find that unusual as there is a great disparity in the historical records available. It�s a simple product of the difference in culture. That no one has come forward to identify the people in these photos supports this theory. The folks visiting this board are the students of the British side in this battle. For the most part they know who the key Zulu leaders were duringthe Aanglo Boer, but secondary figures are unknown. Why would they even know who the modern (1979) leaders of the Zulu nation are (were)? The newspaper articles that accompany these photos tell how the Zulu�s of 1979 dedicated monuments and sought to honor all the brave men who died in these battles. That seems to me a good course to follow. It is chiefly from the photos in the newspaper clippings that I was able to identify those folks that I did. I would like to see more focus on the study on how the Zulu�s were able to defeat the British force with emphasis on the tactical maneuvering of the Zulu forces and less emphasis on the British scape-goating. During my visit to Isandlwana, the first thing that struck me was the size of the place. 11,000 Zulu�s covered that much ground? I don�t think so there had to be more than that. Oh but that is drifting this thread way to much and not getting those other three gentlemen identified. I suppose I could open a new thread, �There were more Zulu�s than that!� So Does any one else have any Idea who the other people inthese photo's might be? |
|||||||||||
|
_________________ DD
|
|||||||||||||
|
| |
|
Peter Ewart
|
|
DD
As you'll already have noticed and mentioned above, the various threads on this discussion forum frequently tend to metamorphose into different subjects quite rapidly until they bear little relation to the original heading, but they are often none the worse for that. They may or may not return to the starting topic eventually but even if they don't they are usually very worthwhile. This posting will reflect that, as I'll pick up on your point about the apparent lack of material reflecting the Zulu viewpoint of the war, or - as you have suggested - on Isandlwana itself. This may have been the case once - perhaps 30 or 40 years ago - but surely not these days. In published books - some of them scholarly, some not - and in well researched articles in a variety of journals in GB and RSA, there has been almost no end of accounts and discussion about the Zulu military and political side of the affair, with plenty of debate about whether Isandlwana, for example, was a "Zulu victory" or a "British/colonial defeat" (an argument, incidentally, which always seems to ignore the obvious - that it was both). As well as historians such as Jeff Guy, Ian Knight and John Laband (to name but a very few) or speakers such as David Rattray and the many battlefield guides in RSA (some of whom, we gather, are better than others) what about some of the highly qualified contributors to this forum, many of whom have argued eloquently on all the points you raise? When you've had a good look at the back postings on this forum over the last few years (not a quick job!!!) I'm sure you'll feel that the old arguments about a lack of Zulu perspective are very outdated these days. That doesn't mean, however, that African contributors here wouldn't be hugely welcome and are, admittedly, conspicuous by their absence so far, as many of us have often wondered where they all are, given the widespread international knowledge of this forum. Perhaps the original, overall website title, via which any potential contributor has to come in order to stumble upon the forum, is off-putting? I don't know. It is true that most published work on the AZW has been written by British, white South African or American authors, but I think few of them in recent years could be accused of a lack of insight into the Zulu side of things, and as a result there has been a steady increase in understanding in these matters. I suspect this will continue, although debate and controversy over whether they have come to the right findings will also certainly continue. There are far fewer works on my shelves by Zulu writers (although there are some) but that is not the fault of modern European scholars, nor of their readership. I don't think the absence of replies to your enquiry necessarily points to a lack of interest. After all, the photos are 27 years old and - apart from Buthelezi, a well known and highly controversial figure recognisable to most of us I would think - I suspect there will be many Africans in KZN who would not recognise the others. They may have been functionaries in the royal house, or even royal personages themselves, guests of the King or simply members of Amazwi KaZulu, who performed in song and dance on that day. It is also true that virtually all contributors to this forum are of European descent and whose interest in the AZW understandably, therefore, probably originated from the British/colonial side of things, even if they have since broadened their interest considerably. I would imagine the contributors who live in RSA will be able - and indeed may want - to offer their own views? Incidentally, I've never seen it suggested that only 11,000 Zulus were at Isandlwana, as the usual estimates are around 20,000/25,000. I agree that even that number would be hard put to make the plain - or even the battlefield - look "black with Zulus", so large is the field. With regard to work on the Zulu military effort, among others Ian Knight has published a number of books on these details during the last 15 years. Other works on the Zulu customs and system have been appearing for well over a century. The plaques you mention as having been unveiled in 1979 include both Zulu and colonial (e.g. Natal Carbineers) memorials. Thay have continued to proliferate ever since and there seems to be no end of them. Perhaps there is still an argument for one or two in the less well frequented battlefields (you may have seen Ron Lock's recent article in the Witness on Kambula?) but the "untouched" element of some of these sites is something I personally wouldn't want to see diminish too much. Peter |
|||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||
|
| |
|
Mel
|
|
DD,
What is your source for the figure of 11000 Zulu? Regarding your comment on our "great " authors, have you read any of the following books? 1. "Isandlwana 1879. The great Zulu victory" (Osprey campaign series) by Ian Knight. 2. "Zulu Victory" and "Zulu Vanquished" by Ron Lock and Peter Quantrill. 3. "How Can Man Die Better" and "Like Wolves To The Fold" by Lt Col Mike Snook If you have, indeed, read these books how do you justify your comments? |
|||||||||||
|
_________________ Mel
|
|||||||||||||
|
| |
|
Dawn
|
|
And we can also point to the lack of Zulu source material for the absence of their view of this battle, or indeed any battle of AZW. Zulu have an oral tradition of story telling and much of what was said about what happened would have been lost as it passed down the generations. There are some reports, it is true, but too few to gain a complete picture of their side of the battle. The British, on the other hand, had telegraph and newspapers as well as written reports, courts of inquiry and letters and diaries of the men present at the time. This vastly outweighs any Zulu source material and probably contributes to the impression that reports of the battle are biased towards the Imperial forces.
As Mel points out, later writers have attempted to right this bias but are hampered by the lack of documented reports. That's not their fault. Dawn |
|||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||
|
| |
|
The Double D
|
|
Yes indeed, where did I come up with that number. Best I can say is typo, and meant 20,000. Twenty Thousand!!!
And yes I have read some those authors and those books. I also believe a couple of other titles by also by Mr. Knight. I don�t have his book titles listed in my Book data base, just his name. I have Zulu Victory and Zulu Vanquished on my list, Zulu Victory the most recent I have read. I have not read anything by Col. Snook according to my book list or memory. I do have him on my list to read. Unfortunately my library sits in storage in the U.S. and I am here in Durban. Dawn, I believe hits the nail on the head:
But then when you sit down and read Eileen Krige and A.T. Bryant you just have wonder how they were able to extract so much detail about Zulu culture and no one can come up with the same kind of detail about Zulu actions at Isandlwana. I don�t think anyone wanted to. It just to me to seems that denial still exists even to this day that the British forces that day were over whelmed by a superior military force. |
|||||||||||||||
|
_________________ DD
|
|||||||||||||||||
|
| |
|
Keith Smith
|
|
DD
I offer the following quotation: " ... until recently, the war has been treated from the standpoint of the invading British, and in the manner traditional to Victorian colonial campaigns. The Zulu dimension to the struggle, which should embrace not only an appreciation of Zulu military capability and planning, but also an understanding of the structure of Zulu society and the functioning of the Zulu state, has consequently suffered neglect. Clearly, though, any attempt to comprehend the efforts of the Zulu kingdom to meet the challenge of invasion by a well equipped, professional British army must take into account the interrelationship of all these elements." It is taken from the introduction to John Laband's excellent book Kingdom in Crisis: The Zulu Response to the British Invasion of 1879". This work addresses in large measure the matters you raise and should be high on your reading list. It is available easily from the University of KwaZulu-Natal Press in Pietermaritzburg, just one hour's drive from Durban, at a very reasonable price, or by post. I urge you to read it soon! KIS |
|||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||
|
| |
|
mike snook 2
|
|
DD
A society or a culture is easy to study and record but a military manoeuvre on a battlefield is a fleeting and transient thing, and unless one was there and saw it, then it can be difficult to recapture from a range of 130 years. Conventionally in reconstructing a battle a historian will rely on original primary accounts from participants on both sides. The problem with Victorian colonial warfare, the AZW being a case in point, is that not both sides were literate. The only comprehensive account of Isandlwana from the Zulu perspective originated with Mehlokazulu kaSihayo, and that of course through an interpreter and a process of questioning, which may or may not have been intelligently done. Bertram Mitford recorded a few interviews with participants in the early 1880s, but read him and you will find yourself wishing that he had tried harder and had been a more intelligent questioner!! In writing my books I considered every available Zulu source that I could get my hands on and squeezed them for every possible deduction that fell out of them, but believe me they are few and far between and with Rorke's Drift it is even worse. I know that Peter Quantrill and Ron Lock will have done the same, but part of the fun of history is that different minds will arrive at different conclusions. Ron & Peter and I do not agree on how Isandlwana unfolded but have both presented our reconstructions for people to ponder over and think about for themselves. We all have a bit of fun on this site knocking one another's arguments about. We do it because we care and want to get to the bottom of it. But it's not fair to say nobody covers the Zulu angle or to create the impression that nobody cares. We are all desperate to give it a good airing. Ron and Peter in particular go out of their way to emphasise what a clever piece of generalship it was. I am less convinced than them that this was the case, and tend to think that the Zulus attacked as a result of their compromise and not as part of any intent to do so THAT DAY. I believe, because Mehlokazulu was kind enough to leave a very clear message for me, (!) that the intent was to attack the next day. It is not correct to descibe the Zulus as a 'superior military force'. They were superior in some respects but not in others. (Superior is of course one of those difficult catch-all words.) For example their mobility was infinitely superior, whilst as I have said in one of my books their firepower was quantitively but not qualitively superior. Their logisitc system was brilliant in its simplicity. Their discipline, however, (often extolled by other writers) was in my view rather indifferent - in the sense of battlefield discipline that is. The amabutho very often got completely out of hand - something I have tried to explain in the context of Isandlwana, when I believe some of the regiments in the chest went off at half-cock mid morning. If they were out and out 'superior' - how do you explain the outcome of Rorke's Drift only a few hours later? How did the British win the war, for win it they did? No, they were not superior across the board, but they did make the most of what they had, and it made them an exceptionally dangerous enemy. They were of course, I hardly need to say, courageous beyond all measure. But so were many of the Brits and South Africans who fought against them. In my view taking sides from a distance of 130 years is a pretty pointless pastime. It is the extraordinary events of this war, and in particular the heroic conduct of participants on both sides, that make it so remarkable. To suggest that anybody is in denial about the Battle of Isandlwana, is I fear a bit of a cliche. It was horrible and monstrous event. One side played a good hand and won and the other side played a particularly bad hand and lost. And a lot of good men, black and white alike, died as a consequence. But wow what a story. Regards Mike |
|||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||
|
| |
|
Jamie
|
|
Hi Keith,
Can you advise how I can get my hands on it - by post please? Regards, Jamie |
|||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||
|
| |
|
The Double D
|
|
I found my copy at www.abebooksource.com last week. It takes me 3 to 6 weeks to get mail form the U.S. Col. I confess that I have not read your books. Just by the tone of your response, I believe you may address what I feel the others have missed. I will be reading your books very soon. I am not a student of this battle. I simply read. Besides the named authors up thread there are others I have read, several others. Based on what I have read so far I made this statement up thread:
With only one correction I stand by my statement. Instead of saying "The Authors that write about this battle all write from the British point of view.", I should have said "The Authors that write about this battle, that I have read all write from the British point of view." I haven't read everything out there, I haven't researched the battle. I haven't compared one authors conclusions against another. I have just read the stories. Not just one book but several, not just one article but several. Tremendous detail is written about the British because the information exists. I still came away with the feeling that something is missing. I just accepted that the Zulu reports weren't there. But when I read Eileen Krige and A.T. Bryant and see how much detail they were able to extract about Zulu culture, I can not understand why no one could come up with the same kind of detail about Zulu actions at Isandlwana. I can't help but to wonder if it is because no one wanted to know back then. The Zulu's the Krige and Bryant were interviewing were the same Zulu's who fought at Isandlwana. So tell me Col. do your books tell how the Zulu's defeated the British at Isandlwana or do the tell why the British lost to the Zulu's at Isandlwana. In my mind there is a difference. And, that is my point And just be be clear, my criticism is aimed at the modern day writing of the history and not the brave men on both sides who died that day. |
||||||||||||||
|
_________________ DD
|
||||||||||||||||
|
| |
|
Keith Smith
|
|
Jamie
Go to www.unpress.co.za/. The book is hard cover, brand new and costs SAR135 plus p & p. They have a few goods AZW books on their site. KIS |
|||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||
|
| |
|
Peter Quantrill
Guest
|
|
Hi Mike,
Entirely agree with your sentiments regarding knocking the analysis of primary source material around and coming to different conclusions. How boring if all agreed? Without wishing to ressurect past discussions, your third paragraph is emphatic. It is the battle seen through the eyes of Mehlokazulu as interpreted from Zulu into English. Was it Drummond? I havn't got my notes to hand.But it is clear that interpreters often took license. Again Drummond, for example, quotes a prisoner as saying, they (the Zulu's) were ordered to " Attack Colonel Glyn and No.3 Column." ( PRO 32/7711 56310) Clearly the prisoner would have no idea who either Glyn or 3 Column were. Throughout various Zulu statements translated, it is apparent that the interpreters have taken both liberties and discretion in the tranlation. So how does one now reconcile the translation of Mehlokazulu's first statement that left a 'clear' message for you, against his second interrogation that took place with the governor of Fort Napier, E. Harding Stewart on 28 November 1879? In it, Mehlokazulu gives a totally contradictory view of events to the one that left you a 'clear' message. He maintained, in the latter translation, that the attack was initiated and intended by Ntshingwayo early on the 22nd irrespective of British movements. Is the interpreter at fault? Or is Mehlokazulu, now certain that his life is no longer under threat, speaking from the heart and telling us the truth? And why was he not requestioned to explain the discrepencies between the two statements? I don't know the answer to this conundrum. What I do know is that perhaps interpreteters enjoyed too much latitude and that some translations became twisted to fit the establishment viewpoint, hence reliability is open to question. Indeed, can we with certainty say that a translation can be classified as true primary source? When does it become hearsay? After all it was unlikely that the prisoner would ever know the result of the translation in order that he may have an opportunity to correct the same. It also begs the question why the likes of Ntshingwayo and Dabulamanzi escaped post war interrogation. Dare I use the word 'Cover-Up?' That, of course, is precisely why this forum exists. Salaams, Peter I have, incidently, made available a copy of the photographs to Prince Buthelezi, who now has them in his possession.He was intrigued and could not readily recognise those around him. Should he respond, I will keep you informed, but unfortunately this will not be on his list of priorities. He is still a very busy man. |
|||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||
|
| |
|
Mike Snook
|
|
Peter,
When did Mehlokazulu go into the bag? Drummond was killed at Ulundi I believe. Regards Mike DD I genuinely can't answer your question. I don't think I have done either of those things. I have described two sets of protagonists manoeuvring inside a battlespace. How one side won and the other lost is to my mind part of one and indivisble historical episode. It takes two to tango as they say. Regards Mike |
|||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||
|
 | Isandlwana Centennial Celebration | |
|
||
|
|
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001-2004 phpBB Group
phpBB Style created by phpBBStyles.com and distributed by Styles Database.
phpBB Style created by phpBBStyles.com and distributed by Styles Database.