Original_To:  BITNET%"HISTORY@RUTVM1.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.history
Date:         Mon, 27 Jul 1992 18:57:00 EST
From:         RATH@BRANDEIS.BITNET
Subject:      South Africa--was re:castro

Lynn says:  >
>True, and well-said. My point is not that race or blood or caste is per se a
>determinant of character or personality, and so I am not really concerned
>whether or not such a case can be argued. Let us grant, however, that
>ethnicity -- involving as it does matters of stature, skin color, diet,
>language, social values, and so forth -- effectively distinguishes one group
>from another. That distinction is the basis of racism, and it is often a
>factor, primary or purely rhetorical, in social strife.
>
>Your characterization of Buthelezi is quite correct, but you ignore the
>rhetoric with which he regales his followers. And please don't say that it's
>_only_ rhetoric, since rhetoric instills belief, and belief leads to action. I

I think we are in basic agreement on first principles here, what I am saying
is not that What Buthelkezi is saying is "_only_ rhetoric," but rather that the
accounts of ethnic strife which appear in most western presses are the
<PARAPHRASE ON>rhetoric with which the _apartheid government_ is able to regale
_its_ followers (who are mostly white and often from the west) instilling in
them beliefs which may lead to action<paraphrase off>.  In other words, _we_ are
not objective observers of other people's rhetoric, but consumers as well.
Just as with Cocoa Puffs, its a good idea to see whats in it and who made it
and where before "buying" it.  Most sources for the western press are
either "unnamed" or else officials connected to the government either
directly or indirectly.

>would qualify my statement, but repeat, that _many_ Zulus feel that they would
>fare poorly under a Bantu regime.

Perhaps a straw poll of South Africans on your campus--either Xhosa or
Zulu--would yield different results from those reported via official
channels--perhaps not.

>Your point about the heterogenity of the Bantu is quite correct, but it is
>equally true that Bantu are distinct from Zulu in language, custom, and
>historical tradition. And a part of that tradition is subjection of Bantus and
>overlordship of Zulus. It is also correct that the White population of the
>United States is heterogenous, but the history of its relationship with a
>Black minority is no different for that fact.

Xhosas and Zulus are both ethnicly "Bantu."  They speak a related language
and are much more culturally affined than US "Blacks" and "Whites" are.
Actually a closer analog would be between Germans and English--similar
cultures, although not opposed to killing thousands of thousands of each
other.  German-Americans and WASPS no longer kill each other here in
any more than random proportions, though.
        Zulu overlordship or slavery of Xhosas wass quite different than
American versions of plantation slavery.  Zulus, along with many other
Bantu groups conscripted their armies through enslavement of those they
could overrun.  This form of slavery, howeverwas much more socially fluid
than Plantation slavery.  A savvy military slave could and often did
become a leader, regardless of ethnic background.  The majority of those who
claim to be Zulus today derive their ancestry from Non-Zulu Bantu groups
which were assimilated, eventually considering themselves Zulu.  The Zulus
started out as a minor chiefdom who were able to upset the balance opf
South African power by introducing new military tactics under the
leadership of Shaka and and his successors, resulting in the mfecane/di-
faqane(breaking and scattering) which happened in conjunction with
a series of ecological disasters resulting in migration, reformulation of
states, and famine.
        European contact with the Xhosa was violent, bloody and protracted.
Seven wars resulted finally in Xhosa displacement.  The last one was marked
by massive sacrifices of cattle by the Xhosa to bring about divine intercession
on their behalf, but instead brough famine which finished them off.  The
Xhosa were driven East, where they came in contact with those displaced
by the Zulus, and later with the Zulus themselves.  THis was when the
military conscriptions of Xhosas through slavery took place.
        Whites freely took slaves and extracted labor from blacks
wherever they could until 1808, when the British banned the trade.
It was not until 1834, however that slavery was outlaweed.
After that, however, whites could detain any black for labor who did not
have a pass, thus continuing a form of bondage much closer to plantation
slavery than the regimental conscriptions taking place to the east were.
        Xhosas became Zulus, Griquas were white men who had taken African wives
and customs, Afrikaans is a creolization of Dutch and African languages
(Something a good Afrikaaner will deny vehemently, but nonetheless
linguistically supported) and many other ethnicities besides Zulu and
Xhosa interacted.  The situation was infinitely more fluid, and ethnicity
was claimed for pragmatic as well as and often above geneological
reasons.
        So where do Zulu/Xhosa tensions today arise from? Walter Rodney
says that "racist whites in South Africa had by the 1950's worked out a
careful plan to 'develop' the oppressed African population as Zulu, as
Xhosa, and as Sotho so that the march towards broader African national and
class solidarities could be stopped and turned back (_How Europe
Underdeveloped Africa_ 228)"  "The policy of mock respect for African
culturereached its highest expression in South Africa in the notorious Bantu
Education Act of 1953, which sought to promote the differencesbetween Zulu,
Sotha, Xhosa, Venda and so on--differences which were part of an early
stage of development and which would have been transcended if there were
no European intervention or if under white rule specific steps
were not taken to maintain the anachronistic 'tribal' entities (250)."
Rodney formulated this work in the late sixties (the book was first
published in 1973), well before the current round of "tribal"
debates in the western press.  He paid for his explication with his life.

>
>It is also true that the White government and its sympathizers both exacerbate
>and emphasize the danger of ethnic violence, but there are also some, like
>myself, who hold no truck with the South African government who are concerned
>about the ethnic undercurrents that underlie much of the political strife
>there. Even self-serving statements can be true. Churchill argued that Britain
>should not leave India because of the ethnic and religious violence that would
>"inevitably erupt." That was propaganda to support Britain's maintaining
>control of the Raj. The consequences he predicted, however, were quite true.

This, sad to say, may be true, in no small measure because of rhetorically
instilled belief systems, but the future has seldom been the most friendly
stomping grounds for historians, or for that matter any other social scientists.

Hopefully continuing to discuss without offending (too much),
Rich Rath

>
>I, too, hope that I have not, and am not, offending anyone. I do believe,
>however, that historians have the obligation of considering every factor that
>comes into play, and that it is too simple to decide a priori that one factor
>or another, such as political or economic, is decisive, and that all other
>considerations are derivative, illusory, or inconsequential.
>
>Lynn
>
>Lynn_Nelson
>Department of History
>University of Kansas
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU