| Date | Original Topic |
| 2nd March 2002 | THEMBA MTHETHWA
By Kyle Smith
I am a 16 year old Canadian. My family has a large British origin and history. I love your site. It is the most informative and comprehensive on the net, and the people here on the disscussion forum are very helpful. I do have one quam though. "A Zulu Perspective" by THEMBA MTHETHWA is the most biased article that I have ever read. He stats that the Zulus were in the right and were much braver then the British and that the eleven Victoria Crosses awarded were unjustified. HE CLEARLY HAS ABSOLUTLY NO IDEA OF WHAT TRUE BRAVERY, LOYALTY, AND "HEART" TRUELY ARE! Next he will write that the Canadians who fought, and won at Vimy Ridge in the first World War did not deserve the nine Victoria Crosses awarded after that action. He states that he is of Zulu heritage. Well, he is DEFINITALY a prime example of why they eventually LOST THE WAR! |
| Date | Replies |
| 2nd March 2002 | Mike McCabe
Mr Mthethwa is clearly entitled to his opinions, even though some of them fall outside of the conventional wisdoms now applied to the Zulu War by objective modern historians. It would be very hard to argue credibly - knowing what we now know - that the British invasion of Zululand was a justifiable response to some supposed Zulu provocation. It was plainly deliberately contrived by British colonial officials and ministers and the Zulu King and people united in defence of their homeland in an impressive, and respectable, but ultimately tragic way. No nation has a monopoly on courage. That was one of the reasons why it was possible for regimental descendants of those who fought on both sides at Wagon Hill near Ladysmith to meet at dinner on the Centenary in January 2001 and all raise their glasses together "To Brave Men". The bravery of Canadians fighting at Vimy Ridge find its true stature and measure in the accumulated history of military courage on battlefields over the centuries - including that of those Zulus who fought with what can only be seen as reckless courage during the many engagements of the Zulu War. It would be a very great pity if we failed to recognise individual or collective, and civilian or military, courage in all of its many forms whenever we saw it or read of it. |
| 2nd March 2002 | Kyle Smith
Very well said Mike. |
| 3rd March 2002 | matt sumner
Kyle, I agree with you completely and I find it hard to believe that Themba Mthethwa has ever been to any mainstream Australian cities. Sydney and Melbourne are two of the most multicultural cities in the world.
Nothing can ever detract from the bravery of both sides at Isandhlawana and Rorkes Drift and I think it is worth rememembering that the British were facing ridiculous odds and fought it out when many armies may have crumbled under the onslaught.
I like to think of Isandhlawana and Rorkes Drift as an example of what happens when a country's foreign policy is flawed and who has to wear the results. In this case it was the rank and file of the British Army and I do'nt think anyone can deny that they responded magnificently.
Finally, I think the site is fantastic. |
| 3rd March 2002 | Kyle Smith
Thank-you Matt. You obviously appreciate true bravery like that shown at Rourke's Drift, Isandhlwana, and Vimy Ridge to mane a few! |
| 3rd March 2002 | Peter Critchley
It was interesting when Themba first sent us a copy of his article, as we did make points back to Themba, but in the interests of maintaining the neutrality (as best is possible in these situations) we thought it important to post the article on the site (albeit with a disclaimer).
I don't really agree with much of what Themba says, and I tend to think it is drawn more from an emotional angle rather than an objective and historical one, but as Mike says, Themba is entitled to his opinion, and we are happy to host that opinion on this site - I believe it adds interest to the documentation, and does indeed provide a "Zulu Perspective". He has had a mixed reaction to his piece, but it is interesting to see it discussed.
All the best, Peter |
| 3rd March 2002 | James Garland
Peter,
I'm glad you wrote " A Zulu perspective" rather than "THE Zulu perspective". I have always been amazed at the general lack of hard feelings when reading about Zulus after the war. Bertram Mitfords book "Through the Zulu country" contains many examples. I know most of the Zulu accounts were written and interpreted by white men, but it does seem to be a general perception by visitors to Zululand that the Zulus bore no grudge, at least against the soldiers. They may not have been so forgiving of the politicians.
I also find it strange that a people that were capable of such ferocity in battle appear to be so civilised and friendly when it's all over. Perhaps one has to fight in a savage manner when using close quarter weapons, I imagine our Saxon and Viking ancestors were the same.
James |
| 3rd March 2002 | Julian Whybra
At the risk of being controversial I'd like to throw in a comment. Do any of you think that under the circumstances Bartle Frere & co. were right to act as they did? After all, there they were a fledgling colony of a few thousand souls with barely a regular battalion (and the NMPolice) to protect them with a volatile army of up to 60,000 on their borders with a history of Mfecane in the not too distant past. Was it a powderkeg waiting to explode? What do you think? |
| 4th March 2002 | Mike McCabe
The KIng had reconstituted the amabutho system in a very specific way, providing Frere with the obviously unsurmountable "sticking point" in his designing and phrasing the Dec 1878 ultimatum. However, leaving that aside it is just possible that through a process of dialogue, the King might (over time) have made concessions on the rules governing the authorisation of marriages, and other relaxations of the amabutho system. However, that would have been an uncertain process and would have risked destabilising the internal political and social structure of Zululand with an unpredictable outcome. The King also could not have predicted the British annexation of the Transvaal, or the generally favourable resolution of the land dispute; and, the Caernavon/Frere confederation policy and strategy was evidently opaque to him. Once it became clearer that a British invasion was unavoidable, he was implicated in leading the defence of his people and land, and could hardly weaken the amabutho system on which that defence depended. While there is no concrete evidence of a Zulu intention to conduct a military adventure beyond its borders with Natal and the Transvaal, or even into the "disputed area", it begs the question of whether Cetewayo would have considered raids against the Swazi, or dissident tribes in the Transvaal (such as factions under Sekhukuni, albeit fairly unlikely), had the British annexation not taken place, as a means of keeping the amabutho system entirely intact - enabling some "washing of the spears". Frere would only have been right to act as he did if there had been a chance that the King could have met the terms of the ultimatum, or one similar to it, but Frere designed it from the outset to prevent that. Frere's general policy and approach was ultimately neither necessary nor sound, and the weaknesses in imperial military strategy and capability exposed by the Zulu War- and the rapid demilitarisation in South Africa that followed - must inevitably have strengthened the resolve of those who lead the Transvaal Rebellion of 1880-81. |
| 4th March 2002 | Julian Whybra
Hmm, yes, but given the long-term nature of Frere's thinking (which pre-dates the Ultimatum) and the way in which he felt the Zulu wind was blowing (their were plans for a Zulul raid against the Tongas for late 1879 - Cetshwayo was running out of targets; the Zulu had shown no sign of compromise previously), is there not a case to be made for Frere making a pre-emptive strike? |
| 5th March 2002 | Lewis Sara
I am a 16 year old Australian who at the moment is studying the anglo-zulu war. What i have read is totally alright in my view what THEMBA MTHETHWA has said.
I would like to point out that the British Army and their Queen always fought to get what they want with out giving warning and i think that is totally wrong. I think that the Zulus had the right to defend their teritory and try and get rid of the british which in the end they failed at rorkes drfit. I am going to write this once and once only the british invasion of zulu land is an act of terrorism which should of never happened.
If any people have a problem with that please don't hesitate to email me.
Sincerly Lewis Sara |
| 5th March 2002 | sam sweeny
I can see where themba is coming from, but I don't think that his account is realy comming from facts but is very emotionally driven with trying to put the blame for Rorkes drift onto the british people. The truth I believe is that the battle at rorkes drift is the fault of the Zulu warriors, because they crossed over the river which was the boarder dividing british territory from zulu.Its just the same as asking the zulus to run away from Isandhlwana and let the british take over zulu land, as it is to blame rorkes drift on British because they didn't run away from their land and let the zulu warriors that met them there take the missionary station on natal. |
| 5th March 2002 | James Oakley
I agree with some of what has been said here but i think some people's replies are a bit biased. Themba Mthethwa is entitled to his opinions and others are allowed to criticise them. I think Kyle Smith is going a bit far in saying that he is "a prime example of why they (the zulus) eventually lost the war!". I agree that the article is one of the most biased i have ever read but it is not all that wrong. Sure, there was a lot of bravery shown by both sides throughout the war and it is a pity that it was only the British that were recognised then, but we have to allow for some interpretation. Of course a zulu will have a different opinion to a canadian but that is no excuse to call each other names. There are millions of people who probably deserve a Victoria Cross and it is obvioulsy not possible to award them all one, so we sould calm down. There is no point in getting upset because not everybody wins a VC.
p.s. I disagree with Lewis. |
| 5th March 2002 | Duncan hardy
Hi I'm a 16 year old, who believes that kyle has the wrong idea about the zulu war. The Zulu were very much braver than the british mainly because of their technology was not as advanced as the british's. But i agree that it is a little bias but not as much as kyle is saying. |
| 5th March 2002 | Thomas Van Dantzig
The Darwin cafe is trying to attract busines by naming it "Rorke's Drift" and does not deserve the intense scrutiny of Mthethwa. He obviously has not seen much of Australia if he claims that the cafe is "the best of British patriotism in the heart of Australian soil."
The question of whether Rorke's Drift was of strategic position or not, is of little importance. The fact that the British sucessfully defended the post against such overwhelming odds is of more significance. Furthermore if Lieutenant Bromhead was "fearless but hopelessly stupid" and Lieutenant was "a plodding dogged sort" then how incompetent were the Zulus as they were defeated by these "hopelessly slow and slack" Lieutenants. |
| 5th March 2002 | gus
honestly I think the only warriors who deserved some sort of reward where the Zulu's!!!!!! They were being invaded 4 no real reason!!!! I laugh at these Victoria crosses ha ha .....ha!!!! |
| 5th March 2002 | Jamie OReilly
I believe what themba said is correct from a certain point of view but it is not completely researched.It is written more from a personal point of veiw or personal belief ,at rourkes drift the zulu were not defending there teritory but attacking into british land. Most v.c s were not easy to get so there must have been true bravery at roukes drift. |
| 5th March 2002 | Greg king
I think act of terrorism is a stupid term to describe any colonial war of the 19th century ,I have decendents who took part in them and am deeply offended by that term.This site prides itself, I feel on constructive sensible debate on the subject. It should not be a gathering place for those who wish to air their own high and mighty pionts of view. I dont approve of things that other countrys may have done in the past , but i wouldnt wish to offend them using this medium! Themba was intitled to his view but I`m sure their are better places to rip a country`s foreign policy to pieces.I am a member of the 1879 group I`m proud to were the uniform of the 24th foot!! . I`m British I`m proud of our history. Anyone got a problem with that ! |
| 5th March 2002 | James Garland
Greg,
Well said. People tend to forget that the Zulus were themselves a colonial power and conquered neighbouring tribes with ruthless efficiency. The British were no different from other peoples black or white .
Why should Mthetwa find it wrong for the British to be colonialists but not have any problem with Zulu colonialism. His viewpoint if it is followed to its logical conclusion means the British were wrong because they should have known better and the Zulus were not wrong because they knew no better. That is inherently racist against his own people.
James |
| 5th March 2002 | david truesdale
In many cases the use of the spell check would be a good idea! |
| 5th March 2002 | Matt Sumner
I think nearly everyone who visits this site is drawn to it by the mystique of the last stand rather than by the politics of the times. The names of Isandhlawana, Rorkes Drift, The Alamo, Little Big Horn, Thermopylae to name just a few remain in the publics imagination when other bigger, greater and more important battles have been largely forgotten. If Colonel Pulleine had formed square and managed to beat off the Zulu attack would any of us now be talking with such passion about the Anglo-Zulu war. It would probably just be a footnote in colonial military history.
In anycase it's probably silly to judge what happened in 1879 by the standards that we accept today. I think the British were an expansionist people and so were the Zulus and given the circumstances of the day a clash was probably inevitable. I vote that we forget the politics and just remember the brave men from both sides who gave their lives for their respective countries.
I hope i haven't sounded too much like a clueless idiot. Thanks. |
| 6th March 2002 | James Garland
Matt,
I think the only reason we are all harping on about politics is because the article in question by Mthetwa was so biased and politically motivated.
James |
| 7th March 2002 | Diana Blackwell
May I suggest that the truth might be somewhere in the middle? I think the British were wrong to be in South Africa but that doesn't detract from the romance and glory of the action at RD, nor from the amazing bravery of both armies. |
| 10th March 2002 | Harry Sedgwick
1/. Well said David Truesdale but isn't it sad that it's so necessary?
2/. James Garland is just about 'spot on'. Has he been to Africa?
3/. What happened to my e-friend Diana?
|
| 11th March 2002 | James Garland
Harry,
I haven't been to Africa since I was six years old when my father was in the West African Frontier Force. But that was Ghana not South Africa. |
| 23rd April 2002 | xolani mthethwa
I THINK WHAT THEMBA HAS STATED HIS COMPLETLEY HIS OPINION WHICH HE IS VERY MUCH INTITLED TO SAY. ONE THING WHICH I TOTALY DISAGREE WITH THE OPPOSERS IS THAT THEY DON'T UNDERSTAND WHERE THEMBA COMES FROM AND WHY HE WROTE ALL THIS ALL. NONE OF YOU PEOPLE COME FROM SOUTH AFRICA AND YOU CAN ONLY BE AFRICAN TO UNDERSTAND WHAT HIS THINKING AND KYLE SMITH DOES'T UNDERSTAND HIM SELF WHAT BRAVERY AND LOYALTY IS THEMDA HAS HAD GREAT HEART, LOYALTY AHD BRAVERY TO WRITE THIS ARTICLE. WELL THEMBA HAS EXPERIENCED APARTHEID OF SOUTH AFRICA WHICH IS TOTALY INDESCRIBABLE IN WORDS AND HAS DEVELOPED HIM INTO THE BIASED PERSON THAT HE IS .iT'S NOT BECAUSE HE WANTS TO BUT HATRED TOWARD THE PAST WHITES OF SOUTH AFRICA IS JUST HIS GENUINE FEELING. |
| 24th April 2002 | James Garland
Xolani
You are right Mthethwa is entitled to his opinion as am I to mine.
He was critisised because his article was clearly biased. You have explained why he has his opinions and I quite understand why he may have them. But whatever his reasons he is still clearly biased. This is a historical site and any student of history should try and be objective. Whilst I understand that no one can be 100 per cent objective and that we all bring some of our own predjudices and opinions to our researches Mthethwa seems to make no effort whatsoeverat to be objective.
Apartheid was a terrible system and I think most readers of this site would condemn it out of hand even if they havn't lived in South Africa. You say none of us come from South Africa and therefore can't understand where he comes from. That is nonsense ...I've never been pushed over a cliff but I can imagine enough to see its not something I would like to happen to me.
Mthetwa's anger comes through loud and clear in his article. I imagine that the members of those clans that were overrun by the Zulus and reduced to virtual slavery and tyranny during the mfecane would have written equally biased and angry accounts against the Zulus.
|
| 29th October 2003 | Derek Herincx
This is not a reply to any particular message but I wonder if there is ant kind soul out there that can answer a question for me.
I believe that one of these VCs was actually issued after the rest when all the publicity had died down. Also the real leader in this defence was not either of the Officers but the Commissarat (spelling?) NCO.
Does anyone know of such things perhaps?
Thank you
derek Herincx (London)
|
| 6th November 2003 | Pat
Sorry not a reply but could anybody tell me if anything is known about George Edwards who was a missionary there (Ive been told) Could be a relation Im not sure yet. |
| 6th November 2003 | Peter Critchley
Hi Derek and Pat,
Whilst I don't have an answer for you, you may get more joy by posting these questions as Topics, rather than replies to an unrelated question.. If you scroll to the bottom on the main discussion forum page, you'll see the form to use...
Hope this helps!
Peter
Moderator (etc.. :) ) |
