rorkesdriftvc.com Forum Index


rorkesdriftvc.com
Discussions related to the Anglo-Zulu War of 1879
Reply to topic
A review of a review
scarletto7


Joined: 07 Mar 2006
Posts: 91
Reply with quote
I've just read on the AZWRS site, the new site reviewing books on the AZW, and i have just read with interest the review on How can man die better, so after reading Elizabeth Hogans review, i felt that a reply from another reviewer is in order.

Firstly she says the title is ponderous, how five words can be ponderous escapes me, and well surely it is just as informative given its subject, as well just calling it Isandhlwana, then she says the cover would put her off buying the book, ummm never judge a book by its cover springs to mind, and well the cover certainly shows what the book is about, and also draws customers of a non-zulu mind to pick it up

Her been there got the t-shirt spiel as she is an enthusiast of the zulu war, is well in my opinion, saying she knows more than us poor mortals who cannot afford to visit there, so she obviously knows whats she is on about, most of NASA have never been into space, but well I'd trust them.

her were has this come from, about Pulleine riding the line, is well missing the point of the book, showing what a commander does, i/e command. Her then turning the book into hop-bop teenage language actually got me to wonder what hop-bop was, then i realised she must be showing she is hip and cool, as saying cowboy hardly makes it a book for teenage readers now

Her little reference to other authors work is wrong as mike says enough about their work in the beginning of the book, and well if you use other authors work for your book, it aint your book!!!!!

she says nothing is mentioned about the archaeology, or recent finds, how this is wrong when well I'd say a battlefield that has been looted, burnt, moved then picked over, rained on, tidied up, disturbed, looted in modern day can be archaeologically sound is beyond me.

To prove a point, in my sphere of interest and writing, two para helmets numerous ammunition and weapons and smocks were found many years ago, in a area where no paras fought, this caused great excitement, who were these men, what happened there, a few years later it was found that some dutch children had found the above stuff in a house and went and played war in the woods, leaving everything behind, now if that hadnt been found out then some aspects of arnhem may have changed, bit like kids on Isandhlwana i supppose!!

Now to restablishing the Regiments reputation is she saying it needs restablishing? is she a doubter a believer that the regiment folded, she says in one bit why believe officers who weren't their, and then believe the men who fled, why??

Colour or colours, well in all my years and after being presented by the Queen with our 'colours', I've never heard them called colour, and well a pendantic point and by someone who obviously has a bee in her bonnet,
I found her to have not read the book properly or reviewed what she wants us to believe as she is an expert, i find her review laughable. I could go on but well her review is laughable, but I've never been to africa so what do i know Rolling Eyes
View user's profileSend private message
Peter Ewart


Joined: 31 Aug 2005
Posts: 1797
Location: Near Canterbury, Kent, England.
Reply with quote
Her? Is there a "her", I wonder?

It strikes me that the treatment given to Mike Snook's books by "her" in these "reviews" will stand the books in good stead and will certainly lead to extra sales, as this crude site has been rapidly exposed for what it is. I have not the slightest doubt that any genuine author on any aspect of the AZW whose book is "reviewed" on that site would hope and expect - almost as a matter of honour - to get an absolute hammering, and would feel rather uncomfortable if the "review" was at all favourable (finding oneself drawn, perhaps, almost into having to defend oneself against suggestions of association with such a dubious website, which - if suspected - would utterly ruin their reputation as a scholar, not just because of the suggestion of collusion but because of a suggested link with that particular stable).

There is little doubt, it seems to me, that a jolly good pasting by "her" would be such a badge of honour for the author that a publisher might even want to use "her" quotes from the "review" on the flyleaf of the next printing as a sales-boosting certainty, so widespread is the derision for the site itself.

What is absolutely crystal clear on that site is that if the "review" is critical, buy it. If it hammers it, then make it an "absolutely must have." And if the review is particularly favourable - effusive, even? Hah!!! What do you think? Oh well, it was your money ...

Most of us will remember the days when the KGB and BOSS were known not just for their secretive and sinister dark deeds, but for their clumsy, amateurish (hilarious!) efforts to conceal the fact that they were claiming that black was white and that (in the former case) the government they propped up had been happily ushered in by 99.9% of the electorate. Remember all that? Well, that site's claim to be "independent" reminds me exactly of those days. Even the ponderous attempts to appear occasionally even-handed are blindingly obvious. If it hadn't been all so blatant and clumsy it might be rather annoying - but as it is, it provides us all with a bit of a laugh.

Peter
View user's profileSend private messageSend e-mail
peterw


Joined: 30 Aug 2005
Posts: 865
Location: UK
Reply with quote
Couldn't agree more!

Peter
View user's profileSend private message
Sean Sweeney


Joined: 31 Aug 2005
Posts: 185
Location: Auckland, New Zealand
Reply with quote
Only to be expected from the AZWRS, I guess.

Conspiracy theory there somewhere underneath all the rhetoric ?

There certainly are a number of valid 'Elizabeth Hogans' out there, and a couple in the literary world,

and it appears now, even an expert in the AZW.

My opinion, after reading some of the reviews, and the criticisms made, is that I find it difficult to accept them as , "All my own work".

I note that Elizabeth doesn't like the word 'kraal'... I quote, "like many South Africans I deplore the use of the word kraal ",

so there's maybe a pointer. Either she is South African, or knows or is in contact with many of them, or is aware of their innermost thoughts, likes and dislikes.

I would suggest that as many of them have never considered it offensive, until told by 'her' that they should be doing so. Me included.

Anyway, what a 'nitpick' in a literary review.... Have you ever !

I rest my case.

cheers,
Sean
View user's profileSend private messageSend e-mail
Paul Bryant-Quinn
Guest

Reply with quote
For those of you who may not have had a chance to read it, Elizabeth Hogan's review of Adrian Greaves' Isandlwana gives a fair indication of the quality of her historiographical analysis:

This is my favourite book about this famous battle. It gives a very clear account of events as they unfurled on the day and then goes on to review what really happened. The book carefully considers the various accounts and then analyses the actual orders given by Lord Chelmsford to his commanders. Adrian Greaves has used the actual orders issued by Chelmsford, later found on the battlefield, to construct the British dispositions at Isandlwana before the Zulus attacked ... [Adrian Greaves'] overall conclusions are the best account available. This author was specially commissioned by Professor Richard Holmes to write this account, I can see why.


Confused

Paul
scarletto7


Joined: 07 Mar 2006
Posts: 91
Reply with quote
Well at least Richard Holmes likes Isandhlwana, as he described HCMDB as the most powerful and moving modern account of the great Zulu epic that i have read, (which is after Adrians book Very Happy )
View user's profileSend private message
Dawn


Joined: 31 Aug 2005
Posts: 610
Location: Auckland, New Zealand
Reply with quote
I would think, before you can take Ms Hogan's reviews seriously, that you would have to know who she is and on what premise she bases her reviews.

An historical book review is a book review only if you have previous knowledge of the subject and some kudos in this area.

Dawn
View user's profileSend private messageSend e-mailVisit poster's website
Peter Ewart


Joined: 31 Aug 2005
Posts: 1797
Location: Near Canterbury, Kent, England.
Reply with quote
Sean

I've no problem at all with criticism of the use of the word "kraal" - if referring to a homestead. It has been considered an unfortunate (offensive?) term for quite a long time, if not necessarily in the same league as the K word. Well, I suppose it has always been considered unwelcome by those who live in said homestead, who would naturally object to the ignorance of those who used the old Afrikaans word when confusing a cattle enclosure with a homestead. If one is to use an English word, then homestead(s) is correct, otherwise umuzi [pl. imizi]. I don't know whether there is a correct Afrikaans word, rather than kraal, even though the latter term was used (in confusion or ignorance, albeit innocently) for so many years. Someone in RSA may be able to enlighten us.

One sees it still used in this way in books by Europeans up until at least the 1960s & 70s (if not later) but most writers today would certainly avoid the misuse (which is what it was) of this word. It may be considered yet another example of modern political correctness by some, but on the other hand it is an example, I'd suggest, that we can all follow, if only because - rather than being a new objection - it is apparently a longstanding one which has been seen as a crude insult for very many years. Rather than view it as yet another example of irksome "pc" (and I'm the first to complain about many of them!) we should, perhaps, be pleased to acknowledge a longstanding error.

Peter
View user's profileSend private messageSend e-mail
Dawn


Joined: 31 Aug 2005
Posts: 610
Location: Auckland, New Zealand
Reply with quote
I left SA in 1996 and until then 'kraal' was not considered offensive as far as I knew. It is only in recent publications and on this website that I have found that this word has become unfavourable.

I acknowledge that things would have changed since I left and that this is now the case.

Here in New Zealand, the correct Maori word is used for those places that are uniquely Maori. The 'whare' for the meeting house and 'marae' for the meeting ground around it, (all of which is sacred). It seems only fair that this respect should also be shown to Zulus and their language.

However, I think Sean was using the example of Elizabeth Hogan's dislike of 'kraal' as an indicator as to her origin and not that he had any particular opinion of the word itself. Except he may have been surprised, as I was, that this word is now considered offensive.

Dawn


Last edited by Dawn on Mon Mar 20, 2006 12:52 am; edited 1 time in total
View user's profileSend private messageSend e-mailVisit poster's website
Peter Ewart


Joined: 31 Aug 2005
Posts: 1797
Location: Near Canterbury, Kent, England.
Reply with quote
Dawn

Yes, I think you are right that the final acceptance of the error among whites came in the early 1990s, although some writers - Ian Knight, for example - had already abandoned its use some time before. Obviously, the reason for the more general realisation coming in the early to mid-1990s will not take much working out - no-one was listening before 1994!

Peter
View user's profileSend private messageSend e-mail
Sean Sweeney


Joined: 31 Aug 2005
Posts: 185
Location: Auckland, New Zealand
Reply with quote
Hi Peter;
I guess there are well meaning people, generally 'intellects', who are more PC conscious than the ordinary person in the street. (note the use of the word 'person', rather than 'man'..... I'm slowly getting the hang of it !).

The word 'kraal' is still in general use in S.Africa. No less now than pre-1994.
The term 'uMuzi', however, has increased in English language publication, advertising etc, but not in general use. A kraal's a kraal, for a'that.

The word 'kraal' was also used to describe an enclosure, and not necessarily what was contained therein, whatever it's original use.
The 'Zulu kraal' was it's entirety, and not just the cattle pen.

You must also remember that Afrikaans is derived from a number of different languages, by a well spread out community, and in it's formation, there would have been different interpretations of words used, until this was all formalised in the 1930's.

The educated Zulu themselves when referring to said 'village' use the term kraal when using English. You will see it in tourism advertising.

The rural Zulu subsistence farmers, generally with no English or Afrikaans, living in an 'uMuzi' or 'Khaya', couldn't give a toss what us white folk refer to his dwelling complex as, .....in our own language.
He might take offence if we used a term in his language, that he viewed as derogatory, however.

If there is a school of writers who voluntarily view the term 'kraal' as offensive, then so be it. That is their right, but I wouldn't agree with their imposing their view on others, when there is no offence intended, and one is also using what is basically a non-English word, that can have a number of translations. Just another incidence of a minority PC view, in my opinion. Well meaning, perhaps, but so unnecessary.

I haven't seen any directive from the S.African or KwaZulu governments advocating the use of an alternative to the word 'kraal' ?
The ANC use it liberally in documents within their web-site.
I guess that there will be Zulu intelligentsia who have an opinion.

Mike is certainly free to use the term in my view, and the criticism of it in the review, is 'picky' !

And, as taught to me in Sports Psychology,

He's not giving offence. You're taking it !

(Not you personally, I hasten to add !)

cheers,
Sean
View user's profileSend private messageSend e-mail
scarletto7


Joined: 07 Mar 2006
Posts: 91
Reply with quote
A very nice reply there Sean, i actually went and looked on the net at various south african sites, and the term Kraal appears in most of them, and from all colours or colour, i when i first read it, thought she was being picky.

I can understand another K word being offensive, but certainly not Kraal, i certainly couldnt see Mike even dreaming that Kraal would be deemed to be offensive.
View user's profileSend private message
Peter Ewart


Joined: 31 Aug 2005
Posts: 1797
Location: Near Canterbury, Kent, England.
Reply with quote
Sean

That's a good point and there is some helpful info in your answer. For example, I've been thinking since this point arose that, although the sticking point is the difference between the cattle kraal and the/any Afrikaans (or adopted English) word for homestead, it seems clear to me that the Afrikaaner (and obviously eventually the English-speaker too) was using the word kraal to mean the homestead as well as the cattle enclosure - or, in practice, any enclosure or group of huts/buildings.

I suspect that it is the suspicion by the African that the original Afrikaans word "kraal" was used for the cattle kraal which (apparently only sometimes) upsets, because "we have never lived in our cattle enclosures" is the reply. However, if in Afrikaans there has never been a separate word, then I can certainly see how the custom (and eventually the problem) arose. I'm aware, of course, that for generations the English word also for the homestead/village was, of course, kraal. I've had a quick flick through my own collection and "kraal" is used commonly in all books up to the 1970s/80s and - as I originally mentioned - in plenty of other since (although virtually all are written by Europeans).

My understanding is that the complaint is a longstanding one (long before "transformation" etc) but, as you suggest, it may emanate only from the "intelligentsia" or the politically aware. It is probably something which publishing houses look out for these days, however, at least in RSA. (And yet you cite examples which suggest this is not quite so yet, which is very interesting!)

If one looks at Magema Fuze's work, written nearly a century ago, the word kraal appears, but that was translated by a European - and re-edited by another European about 25 years ago. It would be very interesting to know the detailed history of this debate and the emergence of the original complaint, as seen from the African viewpoint. I certainly agree that there is no suggestion of deliberate offence in the use of the word, either in the past or even since the problem has been flagged up in recent years, as it has been used as a ubiquitous word for African village/homestead/settlement for generations. (And presumably the original Dutch term is connected to the word "corral", used chiefly in the US but no doubt inherited from Europe?)

With most other modern examples I come down heavily on the side of the anti-pc brigade, I hasten to add! The litmus test, I suppose, is whether the term is genuinely offensive (and has always been) but even then, sometimes I think change can occasionally be wrong.

Peter
View user's profileSend private messageSend e-mail
Peter Quantrill
Guest

Reply with quote
The derivation of the word ' kraal' originates from the Afrikaans word ' 'beestekraal' ' cattle enclosure' and has, over the years, been abbreviated to kraal.
The word is indeed almost embedded into the language and its usage is not considered offensive by most whites, indeed it is used liberally.
If the word appears in any ANC document, it could possibly be the Khosa influence or Zulu urban usage as opposed to rural.
Having said that, when researching Zulu Victory, it was made clear to Ron and I by no less a luminary than Prince Mangosuthu Buthelezi, that it was unacceptable to use the word 'kraal' when referring to a 'homestead' or 'umuzi.' and this was was not considered to be a matter of current PC by the Prince, rather that this had always been the case.
I have done some additional research on the subject and the following emerges:
Ken Gillings:AZW historian and Zulu linguist. " The word kraal is now generally frowned upon. Umuzi or homestead is preferred, more polite, and I make that clear in my talks."
David Rattray and Rob Caskie, Fugutives Drift, both fluent Zulu speakers.
" We avoid the use of kraal when referring to a homestead; rather umuzi or homestead. To use the word 'kraal,' in our view, is definitely offensive and to be avoided."
Authur Konigkramer, Chairman AMAFA and fluent Zulu speaker feels extremely strongly on the subject and expresses the view that it is not only impolite but grossly offensive to use the word when referring to a homestead.
James Seymour, General Manager Tourism KwaZulu Natal. "Appalled to hear that the word appeared in any form whatsoever in tourism advertising. Will take immediate steps to see all advertising is changed to reflect the word 'homestead or 'umuzi.' "
Yet it remains in common usage by most whites who are totally unaware of its offensive connotations and, futhemore, do not use it with intent to offend.
Yer pays yer penny and takes yer choice. For those of us who live in this part of the world and are familiar with the subject, 'kraal' is, I fear, a non-debateable subject, PC or not.
Peter Quantrill
Guest

Reply with quote
The above posting should not to be construed in any way as criticism of the Colonel Sahib's excellent offering, HCMDB.
A review of a review
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
All times are GMT  
Page 1 of 3  

  
  
 Reply to topic