1
Bishops History Dept.
Grade 10 Examination
MEMO
Time: Two hours
100 marks
Wednesday, 4 June 2015
Examiner: Dr R. C. Warwick
Instructions:
1. Section A (Source-based questions) is compulsory
2. Section B contains two essay questions; choose one of these.
3. Write neatly and plan your essays carefully within several
separate paragraphs, including a short introduction and
conclusion.
4. Good luck….
2
SECTION A:
Source A (1):
The 2010 unveiling of Shaka’s statue at King Shaka International
Airport in Durban; President Jacob Zuma and Zulu King Goodwill
Zwelithini in front of the statue .
3
The same statue photographed further back – showing the
cattle and Shaka
Source A (2):
4
Source A (3): Explanation of the statue and later developments
The Shaka statue was removed on 2 June 2010 because the Zulu Royal House (specifically the
King) complained the statue made Shaka look more like a cattle herd boy than a king. The
statue shows Shaka without a spear or shield and surrounded by cattle. The Inkatha Freedom
Party, the main political opposition to the ANC government in Kwazulu-Natal (who strongly
protect traditional Zulu culture but are also political opponents to the ANC) complained that
the removal and design (and re-design) of the statue had incurred “wasteful expenditure” of
tax-payers money. The Zulu King claimed the Zulu Royal House had not been properly consulted
about the statue’s likeness. Construction of a new R3.2 million statue has apparently begun.
The cattle statues’ depicted with the original Shaka statue still remain at the airport and the
sculptor (Andries Botha) is demanding them returned, because his original work has been
changed. R6.4 million has already been spent on the King Shaka Airport statue(s) sculpturing
and removal, but according to news reports no new Shaka statue has yet been unveiled at the
airport.
In 2013 the (ANC) economic and tourism minister in the Kwazulu-Natal government announced
that KwaZulu-Natal would have its own landmark superstructure - a towering statue of King
Shaka holding an assegai - that will rival the Statue of Liberty, the Eiffel Tower and Christ the
Redeemer in Rio de Janeiro. This statue will be in the region of 106 metres tall; but it is unclear
what it would cost.
Shaka’s life long pre-dated the invention of photography – there is no clarity at all as to Shaka’s
actual likeness. (Summary of news developments on the Shaka statue as read off IOL.CO.ZA and
NEWS24.COM)
5
Source B: Extract from Peter Becker’s 1964 book: Rule of Fear
Whenever the Zulu army returned from an expedition it reported to Bulawayo (meaning Place of
the Elephant -today an historical site in northern KwaZulu-Natal) to deliver the spoils of war and
to await further instructions from Shaka……when the gathering was called to order….the tyrant
rose and facing the throng immediately scrutinised the stabbing-spears, for by the number of
spears held point-upward he was able to judge how many of his warriors had killed at least one of
the enemy in battle. Returning to his throne Shaka called upon each of the Indunas (different
regiment commanders) in turn to describe the battles recently fought and to bring both heroes
and cowards before him. Shaka took pains to praise and reward all who had won distinction in
battle, but he had cowards removed to the outskirts of Bulawayo, to Cowards Bush, to be impaled
or clubbed to death.”
*
Peter Becker , Rule of Fear, Manchester, 1964, p.29.
* Peter Becker was a white South African historian of African societies; fluent in Zulu
and an expert in traditional Zulu customs and cultures. Becker was very close to and
trusted by the Zulu King and Zulu politicians - strong links which remained thus all
Becker’s life. Becker’s books were widely read by white South Africans interested in their
country’s history and politics. During the 1960s Becker was considered without equal in
his historical work on the Zulu people. But his descriptions were later challenged by new
interpretations of the Mfecane.
6
Source C: Extract from Peter Becker’s book: Rule of Fear depicting
the end of Shaka, murdered by his half-brother Dingane and
associates. Dingane also went on to also establish himself
(according to Becker) as a cruel tyrant. Dingane’s Zulu Army was
defeated by the Afrikaner Voortrekkers at the battle of Blood River
on 16 December 1838. Dingane was murdered in 1840 by his own
Indunas (regimental commanders).
A day or so later, on 22 September 1828, Dingane and Mhlangana (later joined by Mbopha), each
arrived at Shaka’s kraal with a shortened stabbing spear concealed beneath a skin cloak…..The sun
was setting as the three men waited. Although they could scarcely discern the tyrant’s
shape….they could hear his voice….slating (abusing-shouting) that messengers had arrived
late….At that moment Mbopha, an assegai (stabbing spear) in one hand and a knob-headed stick
in the other….dashed into the open…Shaka rose to remonstrate with Mbopha, but then, as if
struck by a thunderbolt, …jerked back on his stool and raised his voice in a piecing scream of
agony as stabbing spears, thrust by Dingane and Mhlangana, plunged through his left-arm and
deep in his back. Turning ponderously Shaka met the murdering gaze of his brothers with eyes
screwed up in pain. “Children of my father”, he whined, “what is the matter”?.....with that
Mbopha stepped forward and thrust an assegai into the King’s body. Frantic with pain Shaka
struggled with difficulty on to an elbow and slowly fixed a haggard gaze on his assassins. “Mark
my words,” he muttered huskily, “you will not rule for long. Soon this country will be overrun by
white men”. And Shaka died.*
* Becker used as source material for this account of Shaka’s murder, the Diary of Henry Francis
Fynn – Fynn was an English settler and trader; one of the first white men to arrive in what is today
Kwazulu-Natal; originally he was part of an expedition to set up an ivory trade with the Zulu and
arrived in Durban Bay (today the lagoon which makes up the harbour) in May 1824. Fynn soon
made contact with Shaka and learnt a great deal about Zulu customs and had contact with Shaka
during several visits. Fynn’s trading expedition was by all accounts a success and later Natal
became another British colony.
7
Source D:
Shaka as a role model for 21st century businessmen
Shaka’s name (has been) appropriated for commercial ends……by members of South Africa’s rising
black middle classes. In 2000, lawyer and strategic consultant Phinda Madi published a
motivational book for business people entitled Leadership Lessons from Shaka the Great. Amongst
his injunctures (effectively his suggestions to business people to remedy any of their business
difficulties): “To be a conqueror be apprenticed (be a learning assistant of) to a conqueror”; “Lead
the charge from the front”; “Know the battlefield”; and, (with an eye to Shaka’s murder and
downfall); “Never Believe your Public Relations personnel”. (Dingane and his brothers were
Shaka’s close confidants – effectively advisors when Shaka was murdered).
Source: http://www.sahumanities.org/ojs/index.php/SAH/article/viewFile/214/173 p.152
Source E:
Shaka as one of the greatest men of all time
“Shaka is universally acknowledged for creating and consolidating the Zulu as one of the most
powerful and respected on the African continent and indeed on earth. His wisdom, leadership,
strategic prowess, military genius and valour are legendary. In short it is difficult to imagine a
handful of equals in history…..”
Written by President Jacob Zuma in a forward to Phinda Madi’s book: Leadership Lessons from
Shaka the Great.
Source: http://www.sahumanities.org/ojs/index.php/SAH/article/viewFile/214/173 p.152
8
Questions: Section A.
Source A (1, 2 and 3):
(1) Studying the photos of Shaka’s statue, how do you think he has been depicted? Just a
Zulu?....Zulu warrior/soldier? Herd Boy?...dignified depiction of a southern African pre-industrial
black man of the 19th century?....patronizing* and kitsch#? Give reasons for your descriptions. /4/
* Treating something with apparent kindness but (the sculptor) betraying a superior attitude.
# Bad taste – vulgar/offensive
Marks according to a logical and consistent explanation fitting the description, as per a mark for a
valid point…./4/
(2) King Goodwill Zwelithini attended the statue’s unveiling, then later criticized the statue and was
instrumental in its removal. Give your own opinion as to how justified you think this decision was
(and particularly the King’s role therein.) /4/
The boys need to think this through – perhaps Zwelithini felt disappointed the statue did not
portray Shaka as a warrior and this “warrior” is central image of Zulu nationalism, which the King
also represents. Clearly he changed his mind for a cultural depiction that was more aggressive
because it suited his own constituency or even his own whims. It could also represent the political
tension existent between the ANC government and the Zulu Royal House where the King feels the
need to assert himself. Mark according to a reasoned, insightful argument, point by point. /4/
(3) The KwaZulu-Natal government have subsequently planned Source A (3) a huge Shaka statue but
for a different site. Although nothing has yet transpired on this project, can you suggest a political
reason why such an idea was put forward? /2/
The ANC run the provincial government and the organisation is increasingly Zulu-dominated with
Zulu-speakers being the largest ethnic grouping in the country; announcing the creation and siting
of such a huge Shaka statue is probably aimed at cornering remaining Zulu voters for the ANC. It is
also an aggressive assertion of African nationalism which defines black politics in South Africa.
Mark point by point trying to credit intelligent insight and logical thinking. /2/
(4) Do the Source A (1-3) serve as useful historical information – in other words, do they assist in
enlightening us about Shaka’s life? Write a six line paragraph explaining your answer. /4/
Only very superficially do these sources tell us much about Shaka’s life; they portray a preindustrial era Zulu herdsman. But they say a great about how current traditional leaders and
politicians would like to portray Shaka’s life - as a very powerful and aggressive figure of black
leadership, and one which they want both Zulus and other SA cultures to know and respect (if not
fear). There is clearly an attempt to place African Zulu culture and history symbolically on a level
(African nationalists) assume other huge statues (Like the Statue of Liberty) accord Western
culture – measured in grandiosity and the size of monuments (like the Voortrekker monument
too). /4/
9
Source B:
(5) How is Shaka’s leadership portrayed in this extract: Stern; tyrannical; just; well balanced? Within
a short (six line paragraph) chose one or more of these descriptions (or your own) to describe Shaka
apparent attributes as a military leader. /4/
Perhaps in an African context of the day iShaka can be described as very strict but the awe and
fear Shaka engendered was also tyrannical, certainly by pre-Mfecane African norms as we are led
to understand. An insightful student will explain his answer with some contextual explanation
including Peter Becker’s background and that his tyrannical portrayal of Shaka would have been
realistic for his readers, and that the Zulu leaders back then no doubt wanted to emphasize to
Becker that the Zulu King was one a formidable man. (Which might have meant something
different to them as it does with the Zulu King and others today) Ascertain the intelligence behind
the responses, awarding top marks only to those showing particular insight. /4/
(6) Peter Becker’s writings were based upon both written white missionary/settler sources (see
footnote in source C) and the oral (history passed on by word of mouth from generation to
generation) history he received via his close and trusted associations with the Zulu leadership of his
time (1950s and 1960s). Discuss how verifiable (trustworthy, accurate, possible to prove) you believe
such accounts can be. Write an eight line paragraph explaining your answer. /6/ Level 1: 1-2 marks;
Level 2: 3-4 marks; Level 3: 5-6 marks.
The white missionaries/settlers/traders wrote what they saw or were told about Shaka and
obviously they wrote from their own perspectives and prejudices of the times. A good answer
would note this but also that this does not completely invalidate these sources; Afro-centric
historians and Zulu nationalists have also depended upon colonial sources. The boys should point
out that because the Zulus of Shaka’s time were not literate and had no tangible means of
recording experiences over time, there is remains a dependence upon colonial sources and to some
extent archeological sources, leaving Zulu oral sources which are passed along and re-embellished
to a point where reliability has to be questionable. A good answer will be able to sift some of the
above points out well – leave “6” for an exceptional answer.
Source C:
(7) There seems little dispute that Shaka was murdered by his brother Dingane (even strongly Afrocentric historians accept this); Becker in fact concentrated more on describing Dingane’s history than
he did Shaka’s. Could you suggest any reason why? /2/
No doubt because Dingane was also defeated in battle by the Afrikaner Voortrekkers and
murdered by Zulus himself; Dingane has no victory mythology attached to him only the of a tyrant,
murderer and loser. Shaka has all the other mythology and attributes of a leader connected to his
person – and he never went to battle against whites. /2/
(8) Shaka’s dying words, according to Becker who may well have been using poetic licence (his own
imagined descriptions) were prophetic (foretold the future), particularly as Becker was writing in
1964. Do you agree? /4/
10
Yes, because the Zulu were to be defeated by both Afrikaners and the British; Natal became a
British colony. Again Becker was writing for a white South African audience in the 1960s who
would have been affirmed by Shaka’s supposed “prophecy”. Becker could not have foretold that
Shaka would make such a big cultural and nationalistic return long after the 1960s. Some students
might also argue Shaka was wrong as Zulu nationalism is again a very powerful force in the
country today and build on that kind of argument. /4/
Source D:
(9) Phinda Madi’s book is intended for a very different historical context than the Zulu Kingdom of
the early 19th century. Do you see any link between 21st century business practices and the points
Madi makes (underlined in the source…) Refer to historical points before commenting on a
“business” point. /6/ Level 1: 1-2 marks; Level 2: 3-4 marks; Level 3: 5-6 marks.
“To be a conqueror be apprenticed” Shaka did “work his way up the ranks – often by murder- but
Madi makes a relevant point, as with (be a learning assistant of) to a conqueror”; “Lead the charge
from the front”; “Know the battlefield” – this fits all the mythology about Shaka as the inspiration
behind new weapons and battle tactics; and, (with an eye to Shaka’s murder and downfall);
“Never Believe your Public Relations personnel” In the corporate people will try to “knife each
other in the back” to achieve the top positions, although this might at first appear a comical part
of Madi’s advice – it is probably the most accurate connection between Shaka’s life and the
corporate business world. Some might say Madi was just being opportunistic and build a negative
argument of his book thereon. Keep 6 marks for the exceptional, original arguments.
(10) Why do you think Madi did not choose Dingane as his business model? /2/
Dingane never showed any “profit” – not a state builder or a successful general, his rule was
tyrannical and he was defeated in battle by whites and he murdered Shaka. Zulu nationalists and
the ANC government say very little about Dingane – many businessmen would not even have
heard of him; he work not work as a good “brand” in corporate jargon.
Source E:
(11) Referring to this source and its author, give your opinion how justified you believe President
Zuma is in making this statement about Shaka. Refer to all sources in making your assessment. /12/
11
This should produce some interesting arguments given Zuma current very bad press; some guys
might scorn Shaka being compared to Napoleon or one of the great world leaders; others might
suggest Shaka is a great man in an African context and this need be understood; some might
dismiss Zuma’s statement as Zulu-partisan and ignorant – based on their current perceptions of
him. Some might be very defensive of Zuma and Shaka. There should in all essays be reference
back to the sources and a well-reasoned, original argument in order to attain top marks.
Level 1: 1-5
Unexceptional to mediocre use of sources, little or no real interpretation; weak
to unimpressive understanding.
Level 2: 6-7
Average use of sources; stock, predictable interpretation thereof; average
understanding.
Level 3: 8-9
Good use of sources; good interpretation thereof; intelligent understanding.
Level 4: 10-12
Excellent use of sources; original interpretation thereof; sophisticated
understanding.
Total Section A: 50 marks
Section B: Choose either Essay 1 or Essay 2
Essay 1:
Historians long before the times of Peter Becker and his followers were aware of the Mfecane as a
major historical process of upheaval within black African societies during the early nineteenth
century. During the 1970s and 1980s, additional explanations for the Mfecane were produced by
southern African historians.
Write an essay discussing in detail the different explanations of the Mfecane and what lay behind
their interpretations. Include in your essay at least one long paragraph explaining whether you think
12
the Mfecane should (or should not) be given a prominent place in South African schools history
syllabi and why you reason as such. /50/
Historians are divided about the causes of the Mfecane; Marxist 1980s interpretations compete
with older ideas of Shaka and the Zulu being the sole Mfecane initiator. Marxist interpretations
identify Europeans at the Cape and Delagoa Bay as being catalysts of the Mfecane, not population
and environmental factors. What is not disputed is that the Mfecane reshaped the political
landscape of South Africa in terms of the tribal patterning of African societies. But although the
Mfecane might have started earlier than the nineteenth century, historians are divided as to the
extent of Europeans being the initiators.
From around 1780, in the territory from Delagoa Bay to the Tugela, African chiefdoms began to
grow in size and power; weaker communities were dominated or expelled; effects even touched
the Pedi inland. This led chiefdoms further inland to strengthen their military capabilities; some
chiefdoms caught up in this growing conflict fled, split or merged with others. After 1810,
Dingiswayo of the Mthethwe surrounded himself with allies and forced those who refused to join
him into tributary status – one of these was the Zulu whom after a chief’s death, Dingeswayo
appointed Shaka as leader. Shaka worked his way into being King of the Zulu from this point
amidst conflict amongst different chiefdoms. The disruption was widespread and also affected
Tswana kingdoms.
In the 1960s, Historians also argued that over-population due to the availability of secure food
sources (particularly maize), or the effect of climate change such as drought and long-term
environmental degradation may have caused competition for grazing land.
Peter Becker wrote his early 1960s history of Shaka/Dingane/Zulus during a time of white South
African rule and apartheid effectively represented the complete defeat of blacks in South Africa;
so his history was meant for this audience who then were able to affirm themselves and reendorse perceptions of black savagery, tyrants, suspicious/hostile to whites and an inability to
modernise or be equal citizens in a modern state. The Mfecane was closely connected to this view
of Shaka as a tyrant. Shaka’s Zulus attacked others setting up a domino process which swept
across southern Africa and this devastated the African population, creating an “empty land” for
white occupation – these were the wars of Shaka.
Therefore, according to such older theories including Imperial and Afrikaner nationalist, the
Mfecane process scattered black Africans and opened up areas in Kwazulu-Natal and the north
where British settlers and Afrikaner Voortrekkers moved in. There could be no charge of white
appropriation of “empty land” because white settlers and Boers moved in where blacks had left.
From late 1960s/early 1980s, this idea of the Mfecane was criticised. Afro-centric, Africanist and
Liberal historians now wanted craft a more positive historical portrayal of African societies; one
historian in particular, Omar-Cooper, spoke about it also being a time of creation and the
emergence of African kingdoms – this asserted positive aspects. These historians wanted to show
Africans had reacted rationally to new developments and that the Mfecane was a period of statebuilding by innovative chiefs, rather than slaughter and tyrant-led confusion (Shaka) seized upon
by Apartheid apologists to justify the “myth of the empty land”. So there were great African
statesmen like Shaka, Moshweshwe of the Basotho, Mzilikazi of the Matebele who were nation-
13
builders determined to protect their people from colonisation and Afrikaner Voortrekkers.
Curiously Shaka made a popular “comeback” in South Africa during the 1980s with an SABC-TV
series Shaka Zulu.
Another group of historians from the 1980s, prompted by the Marxist-based writings of Julian
Cobbing stated there had been no Mfecane rather it was an alibi to cover white occupation – a
myth to justify colonial settlement and white rule. Cobbing’s Mfecane thesis was predominately
based on the idea that the Mfecane as a process in itself was an event that just did not occur – not
that there were no disruptions in African societies during the early 19th century, but that the term
Mfecane misleads back to older (for Cobbing) discredited histories. For Cobbing and those
following his arguments, the term Mfecane had been so misused by historians whose motives and
attitudes he distrusted that in his opinion it should be disused altogether.
The entry of new trade goods into southern Africa created black competition and the need to
wield sufficient power to control access to this trade. European demands for ivory and gold may
have been the reason for Nguni militarisation and reorganisation of their economies. Cobbing
referred to negative effects upon African society from both Portuguese slave traders in Delagoa
Bay over a long period and Dutch/British colonization as having disrupted/damaged the settled
existence of southern African societies. Out of this Shaka and the Zulu were reacting in a defensive
manner as were other African societies/newly formed nations/tribes in trying to bolster their
people at a time when future coming changes could be catastrophic. Cobbing was suggesting that
the older theories of white historians describing Shaka as a tyrant and the Zulu as aggressive and
warlike needed to be completely refuted because so strongly imprinted in popular understanding
that blacks were “savage”. For Cobbing the central catalyst of upsets in early 19th century African
societies was principally European invasion/exploitation.
Later in the 1980s, early 1990s there was a kind of Mfecane again with ANC and IFP Zulus at war
with one another, resulting in by far the highest casualties by region and race during this period.
How relevant is the study of the Mfecane to South African History and our contemporary society?
There is little doubt the Mfecane left a strong tribal legacy which remains embedded in South
African politics and society. That in the popular mind Shaka looms largest out of all leaders, black
and white of that time. The Mfecane must have a place in SA history just for these factors alone,
but historians need be cautious in how they employ the theorizing today, because the above
theories too have to be seen against the context of the various historians and who they wrote for.
The Mfecane is not the central story of the growth of modern South Africa, so it is contestable
whether Shaka can be considered a central (great) figure of SA history.
And finally, some guys might want to comment on contemporary Zulu nationalism – the King’s
apparent outburst against foreign Africans; attempts by the ANC government to placate him; last
year’s parliamentary scenes centred around Jacob Zuma and Nkandla. Is there a future for Zulu
nationalism in a South Africa supposedly striving to be inclusive and non-racial? Or is Zulu
nationalism/and/or African nationalism the future?
Has Shaka just been revived more as a commercial entity and “brand” – like Shakaland and his
statues are sort of bill boards for spreading this “brand”, wherever or however it is utilised?
14
Essay 2:
The British Colonisation of southern Africa receives a bad review today from several political
positions, yet it is impossible to envisage South Africa as we know it today without direct British
involvement stretching over more than a century.
The first part of the nineteenth century was a time of British Imperial conquering and
modernisation; discuss how British Imperialism, governance and settlers, affected Afrikaners, Xhosa,
and Khoisan/San negatively, while also commenting on positive British contributions.
Include in your essay one long paragraph discussing whether on balance, British involvement in
South African history was for the better or worse. /50/
The frontier theory - of it being “Open” or “Closed” was according to whether official and
comprehensive colonial/settler control was established or not in the area under consideration: The
Cape. Under the Dutch this was a huge area with a vast frontier they were attempting to ‘close’;
exceedingly difficult particularly as it contained both arid country and well watered grasslands
where colonists could easily be a law unto themselves and Khoisan and Xhosa could exist within
their own cultural milieu (cultural settings). But for colonial officialdom there were extremely
limited communications dependent upon pre-industrial modes of transport such as horses/oxwagons transport.
The ‘Boers’ were the descendants of Dutch, German and French groupings of
seventeenth/eighteenth century colonists whose lingo franca (common language) developed into
a local variety of Dutch – much later identified as Afrikaans; they distinguishing themselves as
‘African’ – Christian, but not loyal to Holland let alone Britain. An example well used in Afrikaner
nationalist historiography was the Slagtersnek Rebellion. The “Afrikaner” Trekboers were small
scale farmers who had been moving (trekking) across the colony since early Dutch rule. GraaffReinet was the site of the first magistrate established outside of Cape Town during Dutch East
Indies Company (VOC) rule – an attempt to ‘close’ the frontier by policing outlying colonists.
After their defeat of the Dutch colonists in the western Cape at the 1806 battle of Blouberg the
new British administrators/military/colonists who had arrived specifically to secure Cape Town for
strategic reasons during the Napoleonic wars, tried to enforce a more efficient colonial
administration over the entire colony than that very ineffective control achieved by the VOC.
The Khoi tribes started already breaking down during earlier eighteenth century Dutch rule; mainly
due to a smallpox epidemic in the western Cape, but also to enslavement for some and the
scattering of the rest into the interior. But by the mid-nineteenth century, Khoi and Khoisan tribal
structures were effectively finished. The remnant Khoisan peoples in time were physically and
biologically integrated with some colonists and the numerous slaves brought by slave traders
during the late seventeenth and eighteenth centuries from Africa (Madagascar, Angola
particularly) and Dutch Indonesia. These imported slaves had been sold to both Boer and British
colonists in Cape Town and to farms within the western, northern and eastern Cape.
15
Some Khoi tribes had also integrated into the Xhosa chiefdoms. The San suffered a similar fate of
cultural disintegration though for some it was delayed for their hunter lifestyle enabled these to
live in the mountain ranges from where they were ultimately hunted out or enslaved by colonists,
assisted by their Khoi slaves/servants. The San fled even deeper until the last surviving San
groupings remained north of the Orange River.
The new British administration and particularly early Governor Lord Charles Somerset attempted
to exert additional control and ‘close’ of the colony’s frontier; the most difficult section of which
was the eastern Cape (Eastern Frontier) where Boers and the vastly more numerous Xhosa had
already long clashed over land – both groupings being cattle farmers. Unlike the Khoi, the Xhosa
had numbers and physical robustness on their side. Although the Xhosa did not form any politically
centralised grouping they existed within several large chiefdoms which sometimes combined in
times of war but also clashed with one another and even on occasion, allied with colonist/settler
forces.
The placing by British officials of limitations upon the Boers backed by law, reinforced by regular
British Army soldiers and far more courts was resented by many of the Boers, particularly those
less successful in farming. The British determination to ‘close’ the frontier was feared by the Xhosa
who during the early nineteenth century Frontier Wars came to realise that the British had
significant military resources and when black/white fighting broke out, almost always combined
with the Boers against the Xhosa. Several vain attempts were made by British administrators to
separate black and white usage of grazing land by establishing “frontiers” or “borders” marked by
rivers or “no man’s land” concepts. In the end these were a failure and the Xhosa chiefdoms were
pushed further back towards the Kei River.
Supposedly agreed boundaries were inevitably ignored during trading, hunting and particularly
cattle raids or attempts to regain stock. The land disputes and lack of resolution therefore added
to already existent suspicions and negative perceptions of respective cultures which existed
between white and black and between the white communities too. The Boers viewed British
administration of the frontier as unsympathetic to their lifestyles and needs – particularly British
lack of legal grounding or sympathy for an explicit slavery culture. The Boers blamed the British
authority and missionary work for the instability of the Eastern Frontier. But arriving British
settlers also found themselves in the midst of the frontier wars; Grahamstown originally founded
in 1812 as a British military outpost, later became a beleaguered garrison town where 1820
settlers who had failed with farming, moved to establish themselves in more secure trades. A
glance across maps of the historical Eastern Cape indicates the extent to which British influence
permeated through place names. But the impact was also commercial besides private and state
education, law, culture and resolute administration with the resources of a then growing and vast
empire.
There are many theories for the Xhosa “Cattle-killing” of the early nineteenth century on why this
occurred; most of which are closely related to Xhosa belief-systems of the time and their despair at
the seemingly unending and unwinnable battles against the white colonists – more so now the
British. But whatever the causes and complexities in explaining the “Cattle-killings”; the results for
the Xhosa were catastrophic and hastened the political disintegration of their society. There were
many further frontier wars until the complete defeat of the Xhosa by the end of the 19th century.
16
Mission stations were set up by amongst other church groupings, the London Missionary Society,
which took particularly a more Christ-centred interpretation of Christianity rather than the heavily
judgemental Old Testament teachings which the Boers understood through their Reformed Church
theology. The mission stations were intended to try and both convert the Khoi and Xhosa and also
supposedly teach them the understanding of a Christianity-approved work ethic. But missionaries
like John Phillip and Johan Van der Kemp were also appalled at the very harsh slave owner/slave
relations in the colony and were very unpopular with the Boers who viewed them as naïve and
accused them of usurping “proper black-white relations”.
By 1838 slaves were emancipated (freed) throughout the British Empire, although many remained
servants under slave-like circumstances. But the most conservative and resentful of Boer society by
now had rejected both this liberal approach and the British administration of the colony. Hence
parties of Boers from this year “immigrating” north to move away from both British control and
Xhosa attacks – the so-called “Great Trek” which became a core part of Afrikaner nationalist
historical explanations following a ‘heroic’ theme of a ‘people’ moving to establish their own selfdetermination from oppressors and violent indigenous groupings.
The Cape Colony early to mid- nineteenth century society was stratified along racial lines in terms
of property and ownership. Nevertheless there were still many “mixed-marriages” with the
husband usually white and some “coloured” families prospered to an extent. Increasingly towards
the middle of the century many coloured and Malay communities believed in and valued British
Imperial “citizenship” particularly amongst those in Cape Town. But race relations between master
and servants could still be exceptionally harsh, a situation which by and large the law still
supported. But the colony’s administration being British meant that it viewed the Cape colonial
role through British interests first, not least concerns of paying for the frontier wars.
One of Somerset policies was trying to create a ‘buffer zone’ between colonists and Xhosa using
new British settlers – those of 1820; some 3000 strong, to farm in the Albany (Grahamstown)
district. Note that the Cape at this stage was still a backwater colony; far more British and Irish
settlers went to America and Australia; the former by 1820 was already the United States. The
Cape was certainly nowhere near industrialised – this only really started in the late-nineteenth,
early twentieth centuries along with the diamond/gold discoveries and associated European
immigration. But these 1820 British settlers and the trickle of British immigrants which followed
did bring some farming improvements – merino sheep for example, besides other important
cultural contributions. Cape Town and Simon’s Town remained important strategic harbours; Port
Elizabeth grew, but British settlement outside of the Eastern Cape’s brief concentrated influx of
1820 was still comparatively small compared to say the Canadian, Australian and even New
Zealand colonies.
Some of most important cultural features which the British brought to the Cape during the early
part of the nineteenth century were the beginnings of formal education. SACS was the first formal
state school – 1829; intended to get British and Dutch settlers sons to know each other along
‘British cultural lines’; some English businessmen like Charles Adderley became prominent in Cape
Town; British settlers Thomas Pringle and John Fairbairn fought Governor Somerset through the
colony’s law courts to insist on a free press for the colony. By the 1840s the Church of England felt
there was enough of a British presence to send out Bishop Robert Gray to establish a separate
17
province of the Anglican Church in the Cape; as we know, Gray not only did that but also
established several church schools including Bishops. Very importantly, the British brought the first
framework of liberal democratic government on a qualified voting franchise to the Cape; by 1872
the first Cape Parliament existed on this non-racial qualified vote.
The Eastern Cape frontier wars went on until the end of the nineteenth century and were
exceedingly bitter on both sides; the ramifications of which live with us today. These were
effectively wars over land which the colonists - British and Afrikaner; ultimately won
comprehensively; “subduing” the Xhosa. The British by then were trying to govern the Cape along
with the British settlers over the growing “Cape coloured” population, the still vastly numerous
Xhosa and the many remaining Afrikaners, some of whom had become prosperous and an
influential few even anglicised. British colonial administrators feared further regional instability
would negatively impact upon the ape Colony. Their main concern was with the long-departed
“Great Trek” Afrikaners now within the two Boer Republics in the north, the Orange Free State and
Transvaal and their continuing land wars with their black African neighbours. The tribal groupings
formed by the Mfecane resisted the new immigrants from the south as the Eastern Frontier conflict
was “exported” north and east.
Some of historian Niall Ferguson’s theories (his “Six Killer Applications”) fit fairly well into the
Cape’s nineteenth century history. Most particularly that the British were more effective than the
Dutch in “closing the frontier”: Establishing and enforcing European law on the colony; not least
property rights and then ultimately linking these on a non-racial basis (although still
predominantly European) for voting towards a legislature (parliament). The language of the law
and its structure/culture would be both British and Dutch – Roman Dutch and English Common
Law. But it meant that within the slowly modernising colony, black and ‘coloured’ subjects were
now being subordinated to this new ‘western’ culture and its slowly growing capitalist economy.
Later black elites during the early twentieth century would express their aspirations through the
religious, political and language culture of the British Empire: The South African Native National
Congress of 1912, forerunner to the present day ANC where those of Xhosa origin were to play a
leading role: Mandela and Mbeki being the best known.
Check for a reasoned paragraph accessing British involvement in the Cape Colony up to 1850.
Total Section B: 50 marks
18
*********************************************