| Date | Original Topic |
| 22nd March 2003 | Iraq - Comparisons w/ Zululand
By Gary S. Edinger
Has anyone considered the parallels between these two conflicts? Significant opposition to the conflict at home. A preemptive strike based on fear that a despot will unleash his might on us. An opponent which is in reality hopelesly outmatched in terms of armaments The likelihood of a bloody civil war to follow. Let's hope there are no Isandhlwanas this time around. |
| Date | Replies |
| 22nd March 2003 | Clive Dickens
Gary
The big differenc is King Cetswayo was not a nut case
Clive |
| 22nd March 2003 | Dave Nolan
Clive - But Cetshwayo was portrayed as a nut case in the Imperial media of the day. Another parallel is how the British told the Zulu that they were there to remove Cetshwayo and any of them that surrendered would be well treated - 'decapitation' in Operation Iraqi Freedom-speak
There was an article in the online Natal Witness a couple of days ago saying about the parallels.
Dave |
| 22nd March 2003 | Peter Robinson
I wasn't aware that the Zulus had weapons of mass destruction even by the standards of the day |
| 22nd March 2003 | James Garland
"Weapons of mass desructon" is merely the modern phrase for the best weapons on the market. The British were paranoid about the Zulus having firearms and becoming as well armed as themselves. They were right to worry about it. Look what happened a few years later when the British were faced with equally if not better armed boer farmers.
James |
| 23rd March 2003 | Peter Robinson
If weapons of mass destruction refers to best weapons on the market then it must tbe the Amercians who possess them. The weapons of mass destruction referred to by Messrs Bush and Blair are chemical and biological weapons. Certainly the Boers had better weaponry in so far as they were in the main armed with Mauser rifles which fired magazines of five rounds. The Boer were all excellent marksmen and had the ability to exploit the natural defensive terrain, as indeed did the Zulus. I can see very few parallels between the Iraqi confilict and the Anglo Zulu war |
| 23rd March 2003 | Arthur Bainbridge
Well I guess war was hell in 1879 it seems nothing changes as it certainly looks like hell now.Lets hope the war is decisvive and acheives its aims quickly and pray to God theres no isslandwhnas.God bless the boys in the gulf. |
| 23rd March 2003 | James Garland
Peter,
That is exactly my point. The Americans and British have the best chemical and biological weapons available ( and yes nuclear weapons as well) and they fear potential enemies getting the same stuff. Exactly the British attitude towards Zulus aquiring firearms which were the decisive weapons of 1879. I'm not blaming anyone I'm just saying nothing changes.
James |
| 23rd March 2003 | Barry Iacoppi N.Z
Peter. It is bit of an exaggeration to say that all the Boers were excellent marksman. No doubt many were and some were above average but that would be the rural ones only. Many came from the cities and knew as much about shooting as the average London lad would have. |
| 24th March 2003 | Andy Lee
James
Apart from our nuclear capacity I would be interested in knowing more about your claim that the alliance has in your words a chemical/biological capacity ???
These wars are completely different the Zulu Wars were down to Empire building and Post September 11 is the taking out of the would be Hitlers.
Andy |
| 24th March 2003 | Geoff
It's true to say that history goes around in never ending circles. As well as a rough comparison between the Zulu war and present Gulf crisis, you can also draw comparisons with the Peninsula War against Napoleon 200 years ago. Then as now a war waged against one dictator, the war was unpopular at home and dangerously divided Europe. We had only one ally then, which was Portugal, and today it's the USA. The war 200 years ago was fought in the Iberian Peninsula, and today it's the Arabian Peninsula. 200 years ago as it is today, the British army was undermanned and poorly equipped. Also let's not forget that the thorn in our side then as now was the French !!!! Does nothing change? |
| 24th March 2003 | James Garland
Andy,
The British and Americans have researched and developed chemical and biological weapons since WW2. Its common knowledge that Anthrax was developed and ready to use against Germany. The only thing that stopped Churchil using it was the suspicion that Germany also had it. There is a Scottish island that is still to this day uninhabitable because of Anthrax tests conducted in WW2. There are pieces of land sealed off as contaminated in Rainham just outside London where biological weapons were developed in WW2. Porton Down is still used to this day for tests involving British service personell. The Americans used agent Orange in Vietnam. I think thats a fair indication that we have a Biological/chemical capacity.
You're right to say the Zulu war and the Iraq war are different but the principle of powerful countries fearing that weaker countries are obtaining up to date weapons is the same.
Your last point that the Zulu War was empire building but the wars post September 11 are not is open to debate.
I don't want to go too far down that road however because this is a Zulu War site. |
| 25th March 2003 | Peter Critchley
Hi James..
It IS interesting though..
Peter |
| 26th March 2003 | Nhamo Mhiripiri
Allusions to the Zulu Wars are constantly being made with reference to the Allied Powers Iraq war. Michal Ryan in an article entitled "Zero One, Zulu War" (www.tompaine.com/feature.cfm/ID/7438)remarks how a CNN reporter started his coverage of the start of the current war. My main concern is the universalisation of "zuluness" as essentially being militaristic. The savage militarism being celebrated probably goes against the contemporary attitudes, values and sensibility towards the AmaZulu. Do the AmaZulu want to be associated in any remote manner with an allied block that blatantly spurned UN recommendations, and that also had made decisions to attack as early as March 2002, only to hoodwink the gulliable satellite tv audiences into believing that that decisions to fight were reached this month. Will the Zulu speak for themselves about the allusions, or are they already speaking through this website! I suspect descents of Caucasian opponents of the Zulu are doing the talking now, and some already support invaders - "naturally"!. |
| 27th March 2003 | Geoff
Nhamo
Sorry to be blunt but what you're saying is verging on total claptrap. Yes the decision to go to war this month was reached some time ago, BUT the real issue here is not when this decision was made but why !!!!! The UN has shown the same lack of ability to deal with the world's problems as the League of Nations did in the 1930's. The danger in 2003 is that we'll end up repeating the mistakes of the 1930's by sitting back and allowing dictators to prosper. The only "Hoodwining" going is the UN's self-delusion that it has the ability to bring nations together for the common good, when it allows France and Russia to effectivelly stop any diplomacy that could have prevented this war. Let's not forget that we're at war with a dictator who carries out chemical warfare testing on unwitting Kurds and kills 10 000 of them. The present Iraqi regime has a list of human rights abuses that would make Hitler proud , including ethnic cleansing on a massive scale, torture and state sponsored murder. Now the Iraqi army are abusing the white flag of surrender, using civilains as human shields against the allies and televising the executions of allied POW's. It also seems likelly that they are killing their own people in shopping centres in an attempt to blame the allies and then reap the benefit of the propoganda. Your comments about "Zuluness" being linked to militarism are frankly bizzare and your last paragraph about "Caucasian opponents of the Zulu doing the talking" and supporting invaders etc etc are not only more bizzare but frankly quite offensive and have overtones of racism. I have every respect for the bravery of the Zulu race, which is without question, BUT you have done them no justice with your misguided comments. |
| 28th March 2003 | Andy Lee
Geoff
Well said - You are completely right.
Andy |
| 28th March 2003 | Nhamo Mhiripiri
Thanks for the bluntness, or is it being forthright. But I sense that you are evading certain issues and making an assumption that everybody ought to agree with the American government's (note government) decision to attack Iraq. The second issue you evade directly confronting is the "military image of the Zulu". It is far from bizarre when I even provided a journalist article making associations between the Zulu and the current war. My contribution to this site was also urged by the comparisons of the Anglo Zulu wars to the current war. Were earlier contributors making "bizarre" suggestions as well. My original question about the identity implications of militarism to Zuluness remain pertinent. They may be uncomfortable to you, but certain not bizarre, since that image seems to be reinforce in popular literature and films such as "Zulu", "Zulu Dawn", the "Shaka Zulu" tv series, etc. It still is a matter how a CNN reporter introduces us to war by saying "Zero One, Zulu Time", and it does not even need explanation since there is an assumption that in the public mind the Zulu are synonymous with war- whether the Zulu conduct themselves with courage, honour and heroism is not the point, since I have heard people who equate Zulu gallantry with savagery, especially the disembowling of their dead enemies. While no offence was meant by describing the racial generic family of Zulu opponents in previous wars, I am wary of hiding behind accusations of racism whenever serious issues are introduced. We may want to be nice to each other and sanitise language as much as we want, yet the facts remain. Lastly, you say "we are at war with a dicttator" I am left wondering. whether you are speaking on behalf of anti-war millions that have openly criticised US-British actions. Or you are speaking on behalf of the Zulu in whose name this war's commencement was publicly announced on CNN. You are fighting there with Bush and Blair, but I am not fighting alongside you, if ever I am in that war at all. We might want an effective UN but US haven't got the legitimacy to work against other majority member's decisions. You are entitled to your opinion, but I beg to differ. The US aren't yet the police of the world.
as |
| 28th March 2003 | geoff
Sorry Nhamo I'll have to be blunt with you again. You seem to be a little confused here so I'l try to enlighten you. Can I ask you? Is this all about your perception of a western inference of Zulu militarism because of what you heard on CNN where a reporter mentioned "Zero One Zulu Time?" Please let me put you straight on that. Nobody in the press or military is suggeting a connection to the war of 1879 and this war due to using the word "Zulu". Let me explain: What you heard was the useage of standard NATO time. NATO is a world-wide organisation that operates in many different time zones. So to get over the difficulties this would cause NATO introduced a standard NATO time that was the same world-wide. This was known as Z-Time. The radio signing for the letter Z is the word Zulu, like the letter A is indicated by the word Alpha. So thus we have Zulu Time. It could be anything begining with Z such as Zebra, but it just happens to be Zulu. The letter Y is represented by the word "Yankie" so make of that what you will. So please don't confuse yourself any further. So if my memory serves me correctly zero one zulu time is 0100 hrs Zulu Time, i.e standard time.
So hense your bizzare (which it was and is)connection between a journalists comments about Iraq and the war of 1879. I made the comment about racism in your last article as frankly that is the way it appeard and still appears. You made a sweeping generalisation about caucastion people that was and is offensive. You appear to be falling into the trap that some peope do, of seeing world events (past and present) through a thin vail of their own political beliefs or to be even more blunt, the colour of their own skin, hence this connection you are seeing between the Zulu War 125 years ago and the Iraq war of 2003, where no connection exists. So sorry I'm not at all uncomfortable, but you appear to be and your lack of comfort seems to spring from your own mistaken beliefs in our obessesions with Zulu militarism. Which is something entirelly new to me. People come onto this excellent website due to a genuine interest in history and in particular the war of 1879. This interest tends to spring out of an appreciation of the war as an historical event, and a genuine admiration for those who took part be they British, Boar or Zulu. I have as much admiration for the Zulu soldier, as i do for the British Redcoat. BUt please let's not try to score misguided political points and use this discussion forum as our means of doing so.
Finally with regard to your comments about the UN and legitimacy of the present war, yes i was disappointed that the US and Britain are operating outside the UN in this war, but let's not forget that the UN has stood-by for the last decade and watched thousands of innocent Iraqis die by Saddam's orders. How long can that inaction be allowed to go on for? |
| 28th March 2003 | James Garland
Geoff,
Before I contradict you about the Iraq war I will say that I am against the war but not against the soldiers who are fighting it (their duty is clearly to carry out the wishes of the government).
If the U.S. and British Governments were so concerned about the Iraqi people they would have "liberated" the country years ago and not left the Southern Iraqi rebells to their fate. The invasion has been mounted because the US and Britain perceive it to be in their own interest to do so.
I am appalled at the Iraqis showing prisoners of war who are wounded on television. In fact I was appalled when the Americans did this in the Afghan war. Now I hear the US want to try Iraqis for war crimes under a treaty the Americans refused to sign.
There is enough hypocracy being shown by the coalition governments to match anything done in the era of the British Empire.
Nhamo,
I disagree with most of what you say but I do agree that Westerners associate the word Zulu with militarism. It's hardly surprising though. The Zulu nation was forged in war under Shaka and was imperialistic. It just goes to show what an impression the Zulus made upon the British. Most of Zulu history has been peaceful so it is as daft to associate modern Zulus with militarism as it is to associate the modern Danes with raids against the English mainland. We all know modern Zulus are no more militaristic than anyone else, but enthusiasts for the Zulu war feel an undying admiration for what the Zulu nation was in 1879. Don't knock it .Just feel proud of the courage the Zulu showed in defence of the old order.
James
|
| 28th March 2003 | Joseph
Mr. Mhiripiri,
I am an American, and it is not just the American Government that supports this liberation of the Iraqi people. The vast majority of Americans believe as well. We have been fortunate to have had 227 years of freedom, and liberty. Not without our share of problems, and mistakes mind you; America is a constant work in progress.
Perhaps it is easier for us who enjoy freedom and civil liberty to recognize Saddam Hussein for the despot that he is. Note that the allies are going to great lengths to attempt not to harm innocent civilians in this conflict... even to the point of exposing themselves to danger and suffering casualties. Even to the point of not taking objectives that would be otherwise easy to take.
If this war was truly about oil or imperialism as some claim, we would simply level the entire country and not risk our troops. But the sole reason we are there is to save the Iraqis from a dictator.
WE have had to help Europe and the World twice in the last century. When only brave England stood alone against Hitler, and when all the same countries were embroiled in the First World War.
To be proactive seems the only way to keep this from going the same route as those conflicts, which killed untold millions. This is a departure from the standard ways of thinking for Americans, and for free democracies in general. Rather than wait for the World to finally see the danger, we are trying to stop it before it is out of control. Imagine how many fewer people would have been murdered if the League of Nations had stopped Hitler when he was still controllable.
Qiute Frankly, since the September 11 murder of thousands of Americans and many nationalities in the World Trade Center, the Standard ways of dealing with evil and terrorists has changed for the USA and should for the World.
If Red Square had been leveled, or the Louvre, or a city square of Berlin or Beijing, I think those nations would not be so hesitant to deal with terrorists and those who aid them.
You have the right to your opinions, but please don't stereotype all Americans. Yes, millions have protested Worldwide. The population of the planet is around 6 billion. So I guess that's less than one percent...
Can we please return to talk of the Anglo-Zulu War, and all the brave men who wrote their part in history? |
| 28th March 2003 | Joseph
James,
We didn't do it years ago because we were trying to go the diplomatic/UN route. Saddam has had twelve years to fix his evil ways.
What treaty are you refering to? It is the Geneva Convention that does not allow said treatment of prisoners. The United States is definitely a signer of that document |
| 28th March 2003 | Joseph
I ask again... Can we return to discussing the Anglo Zulu War? |
| 28th March 2003 | Joseph
I ask again... Can we return to discussing the Anglo Zulu War? |
| 29th March 2003 | Peter Critchley
Hi there..
Just as an aside, I was sure I'd heard of 'Zulu Time' before, so I looked into it.. Have a look at
http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/MAEL/ag/zulu.htm
This seems a more likely explaination of what the CNN reporter meant, especially when you re-read the article with this in mind (he doesn't make any reference to the Anglo-Zulu War at all..).
Just a thought..
Peter |
| 29th March 2003 | James Garland
Joseph,
I will E-mail you direct so that the discussion can return to the Zulu War.
James |
| 31st March 2003 | Joseph
You're a good man James! I have replied to you as well.
Joseph |
