rorkesdriftvc.com :: View topic

Posted: Sat May 13, 2006 6:50 am

Sawubona thank you.

Regarding oral traditions and not only Zulu, but even our own cultures, the trouble is that after a 100 or 200 years are we getting the real story?? I'm not saying that the present story teller is lying but over time, stories or more importantly oral stories get slight add-ons or parts forgotten, doesn't mean that the 'basic' fact is wrong just the parts surrounding it. Makes it hard to work out the real facts.

Regarding Custer, i always felt the missing time on nye-cartwright ridge constituted to Custer having to move, did an article on it, now in the Little Bighorn museums library, and a talk in Birmingham some years back.

Posted: Sat May 13, 2006 10:58 am

Sawubona and Scarletto

Thought I'd start a new topic in the Off-Topic forum about General Custer and the Battle at the Little Bighorn.

I'd be very interested to hear your views on the subject, as you both appear to be 'wise in the knowledge' of this event. Wink

Thanks

Coll

Posted: Sat May 13, 2006 10:47 pm

Scarletto, I totally agree with the fact that fictions that can creep into any oral tradition over the course of time. And one also has to factor in the unreliability of witnesses in general! A good case in point is the conflicting testimonies of witnesses at Dealy Plaza. And we studied an experiment eons ago in school where a professor arranged a fake drive by (actually a run by) shooting in a college cafeteria in front of about three hundred witnesses. Guess what? It seems that no one there actually got all of the details quite right a few hours later!
Still, that having been said, a culture steeped in "oral tradition" can keep amazingly accurate historical records. Hard as it is for me to believe, a skilled Zulu could (and possibly still can) hear the text of an extensive document and repeat it verbatim hours or even days later! Lest we forget, Homer's Illiad was expected to be recited from memory for its audience (Beowulf also, if that's more topical). But did Napolean know every one of his soldiers by name on sight (I read that somewhere)? Urban legend alert!
Coll,
I'm looking forward to you next "can of worms" regarding Custer! Bring it on!

Posted: Sun May 14, 2006 9:37 am

Oral history, the Zulus relied on this, as did until writing most of the world, where did we get the 'legends' of Dragons, Giants and even Gods from, stories or historical fact? Beowulf, the illiad, a good story or historical fact.

Ever told a damn good story to a friend, then told it again with a tiny embellishment Very Happy

I have, as a ex-squaddie we told great stories, one or two are now told in the Reg today, with added bits.

Posted: Tue May 16, 2006 3:16 pm

Although the usual warnings apply with regard to any reliance on oral testimony, the salient point, I believe, is this:

The amaZulu were a non-literate people. Like most (all?) non-literate people they relied, therefore, on oral testimony. A well developed memory and a sharply honed habit of committing everything to memory before relating it, was the norm. Witness the ability of Cetshwayo (and no doubt most Zulu) to recite his paternal genealogy back to the 17th century by heart, or the method by which the Dec 78 Ultimatum - a very long document - was conveyed to the Zulu representatives by word of mouth and, before leaving, the Zulus having to confirm that they had understood and memorised it all (even though a written copy was prepared & apparently sent by a different route).

But that was then. Today, and for much of the 20th century, the Zulu have become, increasingly, a largely literate society, which means the need to commit to memory for later recital has diminished. This is no different to what has happened in other "developing" societies worldwide. It does mean that the ability to remember and recite as accurately as before is reduced (speaking generally) because it is no longer a way of life. The exceptions, surely, are in remote areas where schooling has been more difficult (although there aren't many rural areas where European mission schools haven't been busy for over a century). Many older people still pinpoint earlier events in their lives by referring to the "time of the great drought" or the "year of the rebellion" or "the year the new bishop arrived" etc., etc.

Whereas once the norm in Zululand was to convey information orally and for a European to write it down, (and the former method could be just as, if not more, reliable than the latter method) nowadays this isn't generally so - and the upshot is that Zulu oral testimony spoken today and covering the last three or four generations cannot possibly be anywhere near as reliable or accurate as that covering the three or four generations up to, say, 1879 and conveyed at that time. (Speaking generally & always allowing for exceptions). The "edge" has gone, simply speaking.

This is in addition to the usual drawbacks of oral testimony which don't involve memory but relate to, for example: the respective motives of interviewer and interviewee; the level of genuine factual knowledge of the interviewee; conditions in which the account was given; lapse of time before being recorded; the number of channels through which it has passed before being set down; accuracy of the translation and transcription, etc etc etc. (For example, the interviews of 1879 and 1880 and the later Mitford interviews).

We must also remember that the Zulu living in certain areas of Zululand are not necessarily the descendants of those who lived in the same area 125 years ago - and in some cases certainly aren't. There are many, many reasons why anyone should treat oral testimony with great caution.

Peter

Posted: Wed May 17, 2006 8:28 am

Readers may be interested in this:

"King calls for Zulu history to be rewritten"

http://www.int.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=1&click_id=13&art_id=vn20060117064539507C434837