Category: Shaka Zulu

My motivation of this topic was to personally find out the famous debate on if Shaka Zulu was a military genius or a mass murderer. I was motivated by how I relate to Shaka Zulu as I am also Zulu. I was also motivated hat most of the event took place in my province.I have an interest in other people’s points of views of Shaka Zulu. My motivation was to also show my point my point view of Shaka Zulu that I have learn’t about him. I knew I would I would get more information of Shaka Zulu as I have been told stories of him. I was inspired by the school lessons about Shaka Zulu that entertained me. I want to learn more about the common Zulu surnames and their relations to the royals. I wanted to know more about Shaka’s military tactics of war, and why he took the title of being one of the most stragetical war leaders in the world.

Shaka Zulu was the son of Princess Nandi from the Langeni kingdom and King Senzangakhona of the Zulu kingdom. The princess was pregnant with Shaka and the Zulu elders denied her pregnancy and told her that she has ‘the bug’ in her stomach. Shaka Zulu was rejected by by his father and spent his childhood in the Mthethwa kingdom when Chief Dingiswayo took Nandi and Shaka in. He adopted many concepts from Dingiswayo and when his father, Senzangakhona, had died, Shaka was sent by Dingiswayo to claim his throne as the chief of the Zulu empire.

King Shaka is is said to be responsible for Mfecan. Mfecane which is the forced migration of tribes within southern Africa. The Zulu empire has many rulers such as Ageba, Ndaba, Jama, Senzangakhona then Shaka. When Shaka ruled he had many small chiefs serving him as he only have them a choice to either go in war with Shaka or rule them too. Shaka made his own rules and opinion for the kingdom. He only accepted the people that he had took over to rule their land but they had to eventually accept that they were now Zulu. The Mfecane caused many strong tribes to now rule over the smaller tribes.

The Mfecane caused a lot of change economically and many tribes had been poor at that time as they had not kept cattles nor has strong weaponry. Trade patterns changed as many different tribes had migrated and only the powerful tribes had a competition with each other. The Europeans had expaned within the southern Africa and many tribes were willing to trade in ivory and meat. As many tribes wanted goods from trading Shaka made his ‘amabutho’ who were trained to hunt elephants for ivory. The European traders then demanded cattles,this caused a lot of conflicts within tribes. As cattle-raiders were formed to also hunt for cattle from neighbouring poor tribes. Many drives were willing to control the trade routes and hunting grounds that were filed by other tribes. Trade made many tribes come into wat and caused a lot if death’s.

People use to only stay with their own tribes and had a good relationship as they shared the same food and custom. This was an advantage as they had something in common. Many people treated their neighbours as family as they all had the same surname such as the Ngwane tribe. After the Mfecane some tribes lived in fear and did not adopt the customs of the other tribes that they were taken in as they were from different cultures.

The Zulu can be described as one of the most larges ethnical groups and was originally founded by the powerful and brave leader, King Shaka kaSenzangakhona, in the year 1820. King Shaka was born in the year 1787 and past on 22 September 1828. King Shaka was assassinated by people that were very close to him and the people he probably trusted the most. The fears ruler was killed by his half-brother Dingane and his other brother Umhlangana as well as advisor Mbopa had a hand in killing the King.

This term ‘Zulu’ initially refers to a person or member of the Ngani peoples who lives in KwaZulu-Natal. This Zulu group started off as a small group of only 1500 people and is today known as a monumental group. The Zulu group would be labelled as a tribe. One can say that a tribe can be explained as a group of sharing the same culture society and they share the very same ancestry. This term was developed by Europeans and it referred to identity which is unchanging . Referring to the Zulu group as a tribe, holds deceiving histories and also misunderstanding of culture. This term also holds this power over the originality and the oral history and it suggest that this tradition can and has never changed, although it is evident that the Zulu culture had change through time.

As states by John Wright, “Zulu ethnic identity did not take root before the twentieth century”, this indicates that people who regarded themselves as Zulu was not born into this ethnical group they simply inherited this culture and that this group became bigger and stronger over several years. People North and South of the Thukela River was influenced by the Zulu group. According to Wright “From the time of their earliest contracts with Shaka, Europeans in the neighbouring colonial world generically categorised all the people over whom he ruled a Zulu, both north and south of the Thukela”. The Europeans regarded everyone who lived between Mkhuze and Thukela Rivers as Zulu. Numerous of people especially the people who lived South of Thukela did not regard themselves as Zulu. They did not except the Zulu identity therefor they were treated unfairly. People who did not consider themselves as Zulu had less in comparison with Shaka’s subjects. Although they were treated in an unfair manner they still fought for Shaka. Shaka’ s subjects is those people who had no problem taking on this identity as an Zulu. “But for the majority of people in the far-flung homesteads that yield to the new paramount power tribute in the form of cattle, young woman and the labour of young men, there was little, it anything, to draw them into identifying with the dominant Zulu group”. King Shaka basically persuaded and bribed them to join the Zulu group.

King Shaka first took over the Zulu group when the ruler Dingiswayo died. Dingiswayo died in a war against Zwide troops, as a result Shaka was appointed by Dingiswayo to become the tribal chief therefor Shaka made the Mthethwa part of the Zulu group. Shaka Zulu was seen as someone who had power.

The terms crushing, forced migration scattering and forced dispersal come to mind when referring to Mfecane. The term Mfecane was originally used to describe the period when the Mzilikazi controlled the Transvaal. Mzilikazi was known as a Southern African king and was also part of King Shaka’ s army. He left the Zulu when he and King Shaka had a disagreement and form his own army. The Southern African king overcome and took control of Transvaal. People who was not in favour or who did not want to be part of his army were being murdered and this particular happening indicates where the words crushing and scattering come about. The Mfecane of the 19th century was a constant warfare in the area of Thukela River and Delagoa Bay. The warfare resulted into the rise of the Zulu kingdom. The Mfecane is described as a changing proses and it started at the beginning of the 18th century. Multiple changes took place in the time that the Mfecane occurred.

Race and identity in colonial and early Hollywood Cinema:

In addition to the location and social environments in which African films are set, each character’s actions, beliefs, relationships and attitudes help construct the overall reality represented in each film. The reality that is derived from film creates a narrative context through which critics and audiences perceive African cultures and ideas about African identities. I would be presenting a critical analysis of how nineteenth century perceptions or ideas about “race” helped in contributing to colonial and early Hollywood cinema in relation to the preparation of contemporary filmmakers’ observations of post-colonial African identities and realities. An analysis of African identities will be made to focus on filmmakers’ portrayals of African realities in the film Shaka Zulu.

This paper will be observing the filmmakers representation of African identities and for this observation we would be looking at legitimacy and authenticity acquired from within the represented reality of the film. Shaka Zulu represents the overreaching, uni-dimensional African identities defined by one set of tradition, language and one ethnicity. Filmmakers however, problematize the representations of African identities based on the interpretation and applications of the concept of “race”. Filmmakers present the topic of African identity and explore historical insights of “race” and forms o “racism” which exist in contemporary African communities. Analyzing Shaka Zulu will provide an insight into the African identities that are observed by filmmakers.

Before proceeding further with how African identity is represented in Shaka Zulu, I would like to discuss first “black” and “white” identities. One needs to first understand these definitions before we indulge in a well-informed analysis of African identities and realities represented in films.

Race discourse in nineteenth century

Discovering the historic applications of the term “race” and the social implications of “racial” discourse in European and African communities helps understand a filmmakers idea of African identity in a film. Race was not most certainly a European invention (Banton 1983: 4) as witnessed by the pervasive use of the concept American colonial history (Allen 1994: 23-24). This paper will however focus on the European constructions of race in the nineteenth century. During this period of time other countries such as Belgium, France, Germany, Gr1eat Britain, Italy, Portugal and Spain (Roberts 1985: 302; Pfaff 2004: 51; Meredith 2005: 1-5) began to colonize Africa for “ prestige, Strategy and resource” ( 1986: 297) based on a sense of “racial” superiority promoted by popular “racial” discourses. In the 1970s, Britain became “the leading slave-trading nation in the world, the foremost “slave carrier’ for other Europeans and became the centre of the triangular trade” between Europe, West Africa and the Caribbean (Hiro 1973: x: Ukadike 1994: 29).

Several theories about humanity that it is divided into a limited number of distinct “races” or “species” based on biological physical differences originated in the Enlightenment era in the early nineteenth century (Jones 1997: 40-41; Thackway 2003:17) at the same point of time the slave trade and colonization of African continent were unfolding. Typologists claim that humanity could be divided into “types” or “species” categories which were defined based on assumptions of permanent differences included in physical appearance (Banton 1983: 44-45). Examples of physical differences included skin, colour, facial type, cranial profile and size, texture and colour of hair (Stocking 1968: 56). These differences were measured in relation to an ultimate “physical idea, to which the greater number of the individuals in the group more or less approach, but is better in some than in others” (1968: 58). According to typology theory, mental and cultural differences could be perceived as a direct reflection of a person’s “racially” determined physical structure Biddiss 1979: 12; Odum 1967: 7; Stocking 1968: 56) This theory also suggests that different “races” innately feel animosity or a sense of rivalry toward one another.

In the year 1859 Charles Darwin published The Origin of Species, or The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life in which he prosed a theory of natural selection. Darwin’s theories did not end the development of the term “race” but further engaged with its meaning as a reference to “sub-species” and “varieties” instead of primordial “types” or “species” identified by typology theorists. Darwin used the term “race” to refer to “domestic races as the outcome of human breeding” (Banton 1983:46). With his theory based on natural selection, typologists proposed that there were permanent physical characteristics or forms in human nature that could be traced back to one, primordial “race” (Banton 1983: 46). Influenced by the interpretations of Darwin’s writings, especially the us of “race” in the sub-title of The Origin of Species “English writers employed the term ‘race’ frequently when elaborating their philosophies of history, for it was believed that the growing economic and political strength of the European powers rose from qualities inherent in the white race, or races and that these promised European supremacy” (Banton 1983: 51). The negative image of non-Europeans “races” and the inherent superiority of Europeans was thus established based on rigid hierarchical methods of classification, which typologists and doctrines reinforced: ““In turn-of-the-century evolutionary thinking savagery, dark skin, and a small brain and incoherent mind were, for many, all part of the single evolutionary picture of ‘primitive’ man” (Stocking 1968: 132).

“White” and “Black” Identities :

By the end of the nineteenth century, a three stage model of “race” was established on cultural and social categories instead of only biological and physical criteria. The three stages of cultural progress were identified as “savagery, Barbarism and civilization (Young 1995: 35) civilization placed at the top and “primitives” at the bottom (Young 1995:94). John Stuart Mill’s essay Civilization helped formalize “the trio not as general categories but as a hierarchy of the historical stages of man, bringing geography and history together in a generalized scheme of European superiority that identified civilization with race” (Young 1995: 35). On this hierarchical scale, the “white race”—European society—was equated with civilization and all non-white, non-Europeans at the lowest ranks of the ladder were linked to “primitives” (Young 1995: 94). In fact, Africans were placed “at the bottom of the human family, next to the ape, and there was some discussion as to whether the African should be categorized as belonging to the species of the ape or of the human” (Young 1995: 7).

Later during the medieval period as the West expanded its imperial domination, “a triple conflation of ‘White,’ ‘Europe’ and ‘Christian’ arose that imparted moral, cultural and territorial content to Whiteness” (Bonnett 1997: 175). This period witnessed the beginning of the usage of “White” as an “ethnic type” (Bonnett 1997: 175). Further adding to the three- stage model of “race” is James Cowle Prichard’S theory of “racial” difference , which is “the first people had been black and identified the cause of subsequent whiteness as civilization itself” (Young 1995: 35). According to Prichard, white skin was “both a marker of civilization and a product of it” (Young 1995:35). Hence, “people in Africa became black when they were conquered and defined by European people, who in the same move defined themselves as white” (Arnfred 2004: 18). According to Ania Loomba ,” black Africans were considered bestial both because of the medieval and religious associations of blackness with filth and dirt, and also because this provided a justification for colonizing and enslaving them” (Loomba 2005: 64). The method distinguishing was not only based on physical differences, but on what was not considered “ white”. In other words “Whiteness” was a term used in conceptual opposition to “Blackness” (Bonnett 1997:177), the defining expression of the ‘other’.

Race and Colonialism

When European colonization reached its peak on the African continent the development of Darwins “racial” theories emerged at the same time. Thus. “colonial conquest was firmly embedded in a racism that gave superhuman pre-eminence to white people “(Davis 1996:1). Colonization spread as a “byproduct of its real objectives of trade, economic exploitation and settlement” (Young 2001: 24) A significant aspect colonization was not only the transmutation of European cultural values, but most importantly, the restructuring of local economies. Which yielded all raw materials and markets to colonial powers (2001: 24). As a result, restructuring led to the decline of local economies. (Young 2001: 24). Though, the concepts of imperialism and colonialism are different, yet they are associated with each other or rather used a synonyms, because similar to colonialism, imperialism entailed conquest through political and economic subjugation (2006).

Hence, at Berlin conference of 1884-85, European countries officially divided the African continent “into colonies and spheres of influence” (Pfaff 2004: 64-65) based on a supposed moral “duty to civilize Africa” (Diawara 1992:1) validated by terms such as civilizing, Christianizing and enlightenment (Davis 1996: 1), and the motivation to economically exploit the continent. Ironically, at the Berlin Conference it was also decided that the practice of slavery and free-market imperialism would cease (Ukadike 1994: 29). In 1985, European empires dominated over three-quarters of the earth’s surface and were at the “apparent height of their power and influence” (Armes 1987:9). In the colonial history of Africa, the concept of “race” was always an issue because physical descriptions such as “black” and “white” were used as mechanisms not only to categorize people racially but to create social hierarchies for the sake of power subjugation, and colonial expansion (Berkeley 2001: 5-20; Scherrer 2002: 365; Ukadike 1994: 43). The term “whiteness” represented a narrow Eurocentric vision, which degraded and de-valued non-White identities:

“As we have seen, Whiteness has developed, over the past two hundred years, into a taken-for-granted experience structured upon a varying set of supremacist assumptions (sometimes cultural, sometimes biological, sometimes moral, sometimes all three). Non-White identities, by contrast, have been denied the privileges of normativity, and are marked within the West as marginal and inferior” (Bonnett 1997: 188).

Real or imaginary differences such as facial features and skin color based on “racial” categories helped the colonizers devalue African cultures and instill Eurocentric values: “So Africa was suffused with the language and racist ideology of the colonizer and it is not surprising then that racism ‘has historically been both an ally and product of the colonization process’” (Ukadike 1994;38). Hence, one of the problems of colonialism was that “all self-understanding and vale [were] based on race” (Hoogan 2000: 77). The concept of “race” was used to mark boundaries for otherness, a category which Europeans placed Africans. In order to define European identity, Africans were “classified according to the grid of Western thought and imagination, in which alterity [was] a negative category of the Same…The African [had] become not only the Other who [was] everyone else except me, but rather the key which, in its abnormal differences, specifies the identity of the Same” (Mudimbe 1988: 12). The view of Africa as a savage ‘other’ became the symbol of an inverted European civilization, “the European world expressed in upside-down fashion, a primitive version of Europe onto which a variety of European fantasies and fears were projected” (Ray 1976: 3). Thus, “one of the most striking contradictions about colonialism is that it needs both to ‘civilize’ its ‘others’ and to fix them into perpetual ‘otherness’” (Loomba 2005: 145).