Noble Actions in an Ignoble Cause, or, the great Zulu debate

Great Debates
1

My wife and I argue over this whenever I watch the movie Zulu–one of my faves, and rather far down on her list.

Our difference boils down to this: I see it as a story of courage against insurmountable odds; of duty, and honor, etc, etc.

She just wonders why the British don’t just leave, since they have no business being there anyway.

Assuming that she’s right, in that the British had no business being in South Africa in the 19th century (which in itself would be a subject of debate)–is it possible for there to be valuable lessons, or subjects worthy of emulation (or at least of filming) while doing something that’s not worth doing? Or to put it another way–can an individual or a small group do something “honorable” while the larger group is doing something “dishonorable”–or are all their efforts tainted beyond redemption?

2

jsc, the British were there to colonize the South African region, and the Zulus led by Shaka were the only obstacle. They fought fiercely, as they should have. So fierce that it caught the British by surprise; their troops were never so routed by a indigenous group since its formation into an Empire. This was while they brought the mighty China to its knees, and on the verge of successfully colonizing the Indian penisula. When Shaka died, the leaders of the Zulu nation then negotiated themselves and the region into a colony.

3

You ask a tricky question. Is it wrong to enjoy a good western because of past wrongs?

I say that the garrison at Roark’s Drift were heroes. They weren’t the ones who decided to colonize and build an empire. They were the cogs in the machine. There are limits to who can be considered a good guy in a bad situation though. Deciding where to draw the line for yourself is called ethics.

4

capacitator: Well, the Zulus under Cteshwayo did lose the war, their victory at Islandhwana aside. It was a negotiated settlement at the point of a bayonet and not particularly positive from the Zulus standpoint. But you’re right that the Zulus did earn themselves some respect on the battlefield.

jsc1953: An older, but still very readable account of the whole affair, is The Washing of the Spears** by Donald R. Morris ( 1965, Simon & Schuster ).

By the way I have a copy of Zulu on DVD, purchased from a bargain bin for $6.95 :slight_smile: . I think it is a reasonably entertaining film and a decent enough account of the battle at Rourke’s Drift.

  • Tamerlane
5

Err…Rorke’s Drift, according to Morris :slight_smile: .

  • Tamerlane
6

Whether the British had any “business” being in Africa is indeed a matter of some debate, and where you come down on the issue depends on your assessment of a few factors. First of all, do you believe that it was indeed the “white man’s burden” (Rudyard Kipling) to uplift and “civilize” the “primitive” peoples of the world? (my quotations marks give you some idea of where i stand on the subject). Second, is it justifiable for one group to oppress and exploit another for cultural, social, economic and political gain, just because it can? (the motivations behind the “scramble for Africa” in the nineteenth century are well traced in two important scholarly works by D.K. Fieldhouse, 1. The Colonial Empires: A Comparative Survey from the Eighteenth Century, and 2. Economics and Empire, 1830-1914; see also Packenham, The Scramble for Africa, which deals with the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries). There are many more issues to deal with in assessing colonialism and empire - the libraries are chock full of works on the subject - but these seem to me to be key aspect of the argument. I’m not an expert on Africa, but tend to agree with jsc1953’s wife on the issue of the British and their conflict with the Zulus (and later, under Cecil Rhodes, with the Matabele tribes in what is now Zimbabwe).

But i also think Zulu is a great movie, and that, if it is even close to the truth regarding the battle, is indeed a story of great courage against tremendous odds. As Padeye says, those who fought “weren’t the ones who decided to colonize and build an empire.” We should remember, however, that at the very least the officers in the nineteenth century British army generally came from wealthy industrial families or from the aristocracy, two groups which were instrumental in Britain’s push for empire. This being the case, some of those who fought at Rorke’s Drift could hardly be considered mere puppets simply responding to forces beyond their control. On the contrary, their whole social existence was intimately tied up with British expansion.

In terms of the possibility of performing honourably in a dishonourable cause, the most obvious example that springs to mind is that of many US (and other nations’) servicemen and women in Vietnam. Not every soldier was a Lt. Calley or Bob Kerrey, and many went to the war believing the line about needing to fight to preserve democracy and to stop the “rotten apple” of Vietnamese communism from infecting the rest of Asia and the world. This even after Eisenhower admitted, as early as 1954 when the Geneva accords which split Vietnam were signed (a split that was never intended to be permanent), that in a DEMOCRATIC election involving both the north and south halves of the country, Ho Chi Minh would probably win well over 80% of the vote - so much for the US spreading democracy. Many who served in Vietnam came home disillusioned by the experience, but the disrepute into which the war has rightly fallen shouldn’t detract from the heroism and sacrifice made by some of these people.

michael.

7

Lessee, as a non-White South African who could be said to have suffered as a result of colonialism, I have to say - Zulu Rocks!
In answer to the OP - yes, the cause was in some ways ignoble, but the actions of the few at Rorke’s Drift (BTW, Afrik.drift = ford) were in no way diminished by the overall background - any more than say the characters on “Das Boot” are any less sympathetic for wanting to blow up Allied ships, or the soldiers in “Cross of Iron” are for being German under Hitler.

That’s my 2c, anyway

8

Shaka had been dead for years before the British showed up. He was assassinated in 1828 after it had become obvious that he had lost his mind. He was either 41 or 43 years old, depending on who you believe.

9

“Zulu” is an undoubted classic, although it certainly slanders the name of Private Henry Hook VC: far from being the miscreant shown in the movie, Hook was an exemplary soldier, and I seem to recall reading somewhere that he was a teatotaler.

The battles at Isandhlwana and Rorke’s Drift were victories for the Zulu, but at incredible cost–far more so than their inter-tribal wars in the previous 50 years. And don’t forget the Zulus, in particular under Shaka, were ruthless militaristic expansionists themselves, having conquered, destroyed or driven off a number of other tribes to build their own kingdom.

To return to the OP, I think that bravery as such can exist independent of the larger moral issues, particularly on an individual or small group basis. The 24th Foot at Rorke’s Drift were fighting for their lives, not for the Queen-Empress; the Zulus more to prove themselves in battle as individuals and to gain rich spoils than to rid the homeland of the invader (though the latter was undoubtedly a secondary motivation). Both groups displayed remarkable endurance, courage and stamina; both must have come away with a healthy respect for the other. (One is reminded of the Tenniel cartoon in “Punch” a few weeks after Isandhlwana: a Zulu warrior in full gear is chalking a motto on a blackboard to a chastened John Bull, sitting in a desk. The motto: “Despise not thine enemy.”

Of course, the Zulu attack on Rorke’s Drift was against Cetshwayo’s orders: he had told his brother Dabulamanzi (who was the leader of the impi of three regiments that had been on the sidelines at Isandhlwana, frustrated at not being able to “wash their spears” and partake of the booty) not to invade Natal (the Mission Station was on the Natal side of the Buffalo River, which formed the border beteen Natal and Zululand). Furthermore, he had warned all his impi leaders not to attack the redcoats when they were in a prepared defensive position–which Rorke’s Drift, although makeshift, was.

The little Welsh town of Brecon hosts the Regimental Museum of the South Wales Borderers, the successor to the 24th Foot, and it is crammed with artifacts of the Zulu War, including a chair from the hospital at Rorke’s Drift, Cetshwayo’s head-dress, broken ammunition boxes from Isandhlwana, and of course, most of the Victoria Crosses won that morning.

10

Where’s the illegality of either party’s claim on the land? The Zulus were no less rapacious land-grabbers than were the English - it’s just that one army had to come overland on foot while the other first had to board ships before they could clobber the locals they encountered. And the English stayed clear of Africa for a long time, compared to the Dutch, French and Portugese. They only set foot there when it became necessary to guard the routes to India. As for the crime of stealing India, well, rub away the “English go home” grafitti on an old-enough Indian wall and you’ll find “Mogul go home,” and “Aryan go home” under that.

Granted, the English went to Africa to buy slaves, but in all fairness, Algiers is Africa and the Barbary pirates enslaved Europeans in the tens of thousands. But that’s another thread entierly.

Now, if someone were to make a movie of Melville’s “Typee,” and show how the French blew the crap out of the Marquesas mainly to practice their naval gunnery in case of an invasion of England, or a movie of how Herman Goering’s father pacifed Southwest Africa for the Kaiser, you’d have a chance to see the sickening combination of moral bankrupcy and superiority of arms.