Nomfundo Xulu
Published:Times Jan 29, 2009
THOUGH the history of South Africa has always been fascinating, some
elements do not make sense because every historian has a different
story to tell. One such historical era involves the respected and
feared Shaka Zulu.
While Zulu people usually sing his praises and say he was
the saviour of the Zulu nation, others talk of how much of a pain he
was.
The truth is that it’s very difficult for a normal South African to know for a fact what really happened in the 18th century.
Even stories that have been passed on from one generation
to another have evolved over time, and every descendant has a different
tale.
Frankly, a part of me is starting to wonder if the whole
Shaka era was not just made up. What if some creative person came to
Africa in the 1700s, and because of the way the Zulu people used to
dress, his imagination went wild? I think Zulus have held on to the
Shaka Zulu myth because it justifies their love for fighting and
treatment of other nationalities as inferior.
In case you did not know, “Zulu” means high above and/or
heavenly, so you can imagine the personal issues involved in being
umZulu (a Zulu person). And because of the 1986 film Shaka Zulu,
starring the late Henry Cele, I’m sure the myth has been perpetuated
even further.
A new four-part documentary series, starting on The
History Channel this weekend, maintains that Shaka Zulu was a real
person who lived in the 18th century. Unlike other documentaries, it is
very positive about Shaka and his “hard work”. There is virtually no
mention of his monstrous nature.
Historians seem to be sure of what they’re talking about,
but I’m still not sold. Some of the supposed facts still seem a bit
sketchy.
Catch ‘Shaka Zulu’ on The History Channel on Saturday at 6.30pm
February 6, 2009 at 10:08 am
Nomfundo Xulu’s skepticism about accounts on Shaka kaSenzangakhona is understandable, and perhas justifiable. She should recall, firstly, that Shaka was never called Shaka Zulu; people were not registered then. Surnames were invented by the colonial powers for purposes of control and administration.
So, most of the knowledge we have in our librabries around this historical figure today may be biased and may lack substance. Shaka has been portrayed positively by those who are grateful that he, unlike Dingane, did not murder the white trader-travelers (spies from the Cape colony). Should he have butchered them, he would be portrayed very differently. This, however, does not mean that he is never presented as a blood-thirsty monster by some self-righteous white academic historians.
The reality is that Shaka’s true personality will remain obscureunder the heap of subjectivity with which he is approached. Like any other European power hungry ruler, Shaka used force to achieve his objectives. Didn’t blood-thirsty Europeans such as Alexander the Great, Napoleon Bonaparte, Hitler follow the same route, killing masses who dared oppose their actions? It is a pity that we have become so biased, mainly to our own detriment, that we fail to see how Europeans used huge machines to massacre human life in WW I and WW II. Too much noise is being made about Shaka’s spear and nobody is reminding us of European blood-thirsty rulers who even went to the extent of enslaving other races and even colonizing their territories.
This is my take, without attempting to make an angel out of Shaka, but I surely don’t believe that we should be singing the same tune as the neo-colonialists who are still perpetuating their racist agendas at the dawn of the New World Order. As we approach the final hours of our beloved planet’s history, the unbecoming attitudes towards the so-called ‘Other’ are raging even higher than ever, portraying those races on the global social and economic periphery as backward and undesirable. A holistic view of such attitudes is highly indispensible if we are to gain a critical understanding of what they are all about. Thank you.
February 6, 2009 at 10:26 am
Again, it is wrong for anybody to call a people ‘Zulu’ people. Zulu people are the Zulu clan, those are descended from Malandela, the old patriarch who settled at Babanango area centuries ago. Again, let us not fall into the colonialist trap aimed at inventing the notion of tribes for purposes of dividing and ruling sub-Saharan Africans. Shaka, or any other ruler of the Zulu dynasty, never christened us ‘Zulu’ people. We are descended from our own clans but all make up a Nguni section of the so-called Bantu-speaking Africans, with long-time kinship with fellow Africans as far afield as Uganda, ancient Black Egypt, Sudan and the list goes on and on. Let us defeat these cheap patterns of classification. Even our current Zulu king, Zwelithini kaCyprian, is still called ‘Uhlanga lomhlabathi’ (the Reed of the Soil) following an old craetion account held commonly by ancient Africans as far north as the Sea of Reeds region where the reeds grow in abundance.
So, the shrewed colonizer has invented the notion that these Africans come from the so-called Great Lakes of Central Africa. This is aimed at finally denying our connection with the ancient civilizations of Black Egypt, Ghana and Mali. As long as we use biased sources of our history, we will remain subservient among other world races. Away with evils such as ethnicism! Anyway, why are Europeans no longer classified as Lombards, Visigoths, Saxons, Angles, etc, the well-known Barbarians of the time? Why are our African leaders still singing the same tune as their colonial masters?