The Aftermath of the Anglo-Zulu War

by Matthew S. Weltig

Examines the causes, events, and consequences of the Anglo-Zulu War of 1879 in Africa.

160 pages, Library Binding

First published September 1, 2008

Reviews

[V]

It is easy to see the Zulu purely as victims of British colonialism. A war with rifles and cannons on one side and primitive spears and out-dated muskets on the other hardly seems fair. But in reality the Zulu kings were brilliant military technicians, able to win decisive battles against a more technologically advanced enemy, as well as shrewd political negotiators. Caught between Boer (Dutch) settlements and British colonies, Zulu king Cetshwayo, favored the British. The Boer settlements were independently run, not under the control of any European power, and as such were known for acting rashly, i.e., seizing territory without negotiations. When the British backed the Zulu in their border disputes with the Boer, the Zulu were lured into thinking they were in a mutually beneficial relationship.

I appreciate that this author respects the political agency of the Zulu. A few years ago I read another book about colonialism in Africa, "Imperial Reckoning: The Untold Story of Britain's Gulag in Kenya," which focused disproportionately on the horrors of the British-run concentration camps over the political ideology of the Mau Mau. I want to make it clear that the British violation of human rights in Kenya is truly appalling and deserves to be more widely known. However, when I mentioned to someone that I was reading this book, their immediate response was, "The Mau Mau, oh yeah, they were Marxist." This book is nearly 500 pages and never once mentions Marxism. Did the liberal author fear that mentioning that the Mau Mau had connections to international Communism would somehow justify the tortures the British inflicted on women and children?

(This is how the liberal ideology of victimhood is the inverse of empowerment. People are only deserving of pity if they don't seek political remedy for cause of their oppression, and instead rely on third party mediation. See: universities that set up bureaucratic administrative tribunals to address microaggressions, rather than students using their own agency to change the culture.)

But back to the Zulu, after the war, The British made it impossible for the Zulu to unify politically. With the king in exile, the British fragmented the Zulu into 13 tribes with chiefs they appointed themselves. Many of these chiefs were corrupt and exploited their own people, as well as launched raids on neighboring tribes. This caused chaos among the Zulu that they were unable to resolve themselves in absence of a unifying king. Instead, they turned to the British to restore order, and in the process gave up more and more of their own sovereignty. Eventually the British gave Cetshwayo permission to return as king, but he was now a subject of the British Empire with no real power. This did little to appease those who supported the return of their monarch, and the kingdom soon broke out in civil war. This gave the British an excuse to again assert more control, until Zululand was occupied outright.

Let there be a lesson there for those who would make a deal with the devil for short term goals. Protesters on college campuses all across America are willing to hand over their freedom of speech and assembly to college administrators. They expect that those in power will only use this increase of authority to protect people from bigotry. The Zulu thought submitting to the British would protect them from the Boers. Studying history can tell us when our actions are short-sighted.

[John Gurney]

From the zenith of King Shaka's Zululand to the final British and South African Republic [Boer] hegemony over Zulu lands, this academic history covers the aftermath of the 1879 Anglo-Zulu War.