rorkesdriftvc.com :: View topic

Posted: Tue May 10, 2011 7:29 am

Hi

This may be of interest to you guys, the NAM has just made available online a small selection of AZW images from out collection. These can be ordered in a number of sizes and finishes.

http://prints.national-army-museum.ac.uk/search/keywords/zulu

Best
Jon

Posted: Tue May 10, 2011 10:55 am

Jon,

A few points regarding the prints, and something hopefully you can resolve.

In the text relating to Saving the Colours Teignmouth Melvill's name is spelt incorrectly. Also it was the Buffalo (Mzinyathi) River rather than the Tugela (Thukela) River. Perhaps a word of explanation too about the artist depicting the Regimental Colour rather than the Queen's Colour.

In the description for The Last Sleep of the Brave, where Melvill's name does appear correctly by the way, given the fact the discovery of their bodies took place on 4th February 1879, I feel it should be explained that artist has taken some liberties with fact, given that the first detachment of 17th (Duke of Cambridge's) Lancers did not leave Southampton until twenty days afterwards.

Sorry to labour the points.

John Y.

Posted: Tue May 10, 2011 2:58 pm

Jon,

.................Although 23 Victoria Crosses were won during the Zulu War, Coghill and his fellow officer had to wait until January 1907 to receive their posthumous awards.

I am still uneasy about the phrase 'winning VCs' - it is not a competition - there is no 2nd place - prefer 'awarded'. Coghill and Mevill did not wait until January 1907 - their families did. The phrase Anglo-Zulu war is better today than Zulu war.

Sorry to be a bit picky

Posted: Tue May 10, 2011 11:15 pm

Hi guys

Thank you for your valuable advice, I will pass this onto the relevant member of staff.

Best wishes
Jon

Posted: Wed May 11, 2011 6:05 am

Martin,

The phase Anglo-Zulu War is better today than Zulu War? Really? Why?

Have the British suddenly forgotten that we fight wars against countries? Is it likely that one would forget?

Whilst I accept that those from o/seas may wish to call the conflict the Anglo-Zulu War, shouldn't we British be comfortable with the former title for this campaign?

I know my comment goes against the present flow, but it does annoy me at our lack of confidence in the titles that once were taken as red. If it was good enough for my Grandfather...

AMB

Posted: Wed May 11, 2011 12:02 pm

AMB, I don't mean to sound like a "troll", but "Anglo-Zulu War" is certainly a more descriptive name for the conflict to us non-Europeans (more explicitly to us non-"Anglos"). We Yanks appear to need all the help we can find in getting up to speed in both world history and world geography! Proof? I recently had a youngish (20'S) American cashier question me as to the true location of Venezuela. She had thought it to be somewhere in Europe!

Aren't the two conflicts between the British and the Boers typically now most often referred to as the First and Second Anglo-Boer Wars rather than simply "The Boer Wars"? That recent convention surely makes it clearer as to who was involved, at least to those few Americans who even know what "Anglo" suggests.

Posted: Wed May 11, 2011 1:24 pm

Sawubona

We Yanks appear to need all the help we can find in getting up to speed in both world history and world geography!

One of my American former students told me, with great good humour, that in the lead-up to the 2003 war in Iraq some members of his family had put pressure on him not to study in Aberystwyth owing to its proximity to Baghdad ...

Shocked

Posted: Thu May 12, 2011 7:58 am

In the 1980s a work colleague of mine - while on holiday in the US - mentioned in conversation to a local that she and her husband hoped to go to Australia the following year.

"Wow! Is that safe?"
"Safe? Why not?
"Well, haven't you just had a war with them?"
"With Australia? No, that was with Argentina!"
Oh, it's not the same place, then?"

(With apologies to Saw, Rich and our other transatlantic friends, who regularly demonstrate that it would be completely wrong to tar everyone with the same brush).

Getting back to Andrew's original point, it is true that it would be easy for we British to continue to refer to each campaign or war by using only the name of the enemy or the location, because it is obvious what we are referring to. However, an exhibition at the NAM will probably be seen by people of various nationalities and the more recently used term might be clearer. Forums like this are international, so it might make sense here too. Chiefly, though, its increasingly general use may indicate a courtesy in describing a campaign/war from a less Anglocentric position, thereby taking in the viewpoint or angle of those who look at it from "the other side" as it were.

I think of it less as a piece of unnecessary or irksome "PC-speak" than a more historically accurate and considerate description. In correspondence a few years back with a South African (a descendant of Charles Johnson of St Augustine's near R/Drift) she thanked me, in passing, for habitually using the term Anglo-Boer War rather than Boer War, mentioning that it is particularly appreciated in her country. (She comes of British stock but, like anyone else, has many Afrikaner relatives).

Of course, anyone over here not sufficiently interested in either war to have noticed, would probably still refer to them as the Zulu War and the Boer War, as these terms are still in regular current use among the general public as a result of the long held habit of referring to them as such.

Perhaps equally pertinent is the use of Anglo when we really mean British, as has been mentioned here in the past, but I suppose that one is a rather intractable conundrum!

Peter

Posted: Tue May 24, 2011 3:50 am

Peter,

You make some very good points regarding the titling given to campaigns - and your final one about Anglo or British is also well made.

Maybe I am simply too Anglo (British?)-centric!

As an aside, do other countries also now add their nation when describing their countries former conflicts?

AMB

Posted: Tue May 24, 2011 8:36 am

Andrew,

Is it 'our' naming or is it the South African naming?

The first time I can recall its use was from publications coming out of South Africa in the 1970's.

Just a thought.

John Y.

Posted: Wed Jun 22, 2011 8:50 am

The 'British' convention is to name wars according to geography or to who we fight as the principal opponent. Sometimes using a short descriptive phrase if simpler titles don't work well enough.

Hence:

The South African War (of 1899-1902)
The Zulu War
The 1880-81 Transvaal Rebellion

Older generations also knew "The Kaiser's War" and "Hitler's War."

Wars are not polite things, and it is rather twee trying to be nice about them afterwards. It's also rather disingenuous to refer to Anglo-Boer and Anglo-Zulu Wars since it creates an inference that no other residents in South Africa at the time might have created or influenced the casus belli.
Pish and Tosh!

G