Portrayal of Shaka on your site
Sat, 19 Apr 1997 23:32:11 -0400 (EDT)
I am writing to you about your portrayal of Shaka. I am a military
historian who has done extensive research on him.
You may want to reconsider Fynn as a source. He was a pioneer settler and
not an ethnographer. All the early accounts, including Gardiner, Farewell,
and Isaacs, are regarded as having biases (for a synopsis of literature
on the Zulus, see Berglund's "Zulu Thought-Patterns and Symbolism").
If your point is to show "black on black violence" then you are
safe in assuming that warfare did exist under Shaka. But historians are
moving towards seeing gradual population growth of the Bantus as being the
main theme of African prehistory rather than warfare and conquest.
Gradual population shifts are shown by gradual changes in language, trade,
and agricultural products. Roland Oliver discusses this evidence in an article
in the Journal of African History. Also, Dapha Golan incorporates all the
evidence in a historiography about Shaka in "Inventing Shaka. Using
History in the Construction of Zulu Nationalism" (1994).
So Shaka's conquests come into question when one considers that total warfare
did not exist as earlier accounts say. Reports of his character (being a
brutal despot) have been considered innacurate and conflictual as well.
As a historian, I'd appreciate it if you would please consider all the evidence
(archaeological, political, ethographic, economic, linguistic, oral histories
and traditions) and possibly revise your statement about Shaka.
Thank you for your attention.
T.S.D. III
