From: naturman@uctvax.uct.ac.za
Newsgroups: soc.culture.african
Subject: Re: Shaka Zulu?
Keywords: Shaka Zulu
Date: 10 Oct 92 18:11:01 GMT
Organization: University of Cape Town

In article <1992Oct8.203246.7134@neptune.inf.ethz.ch>, deacon@apelc5.inf.ethz.ch (Andrew Deacon) writes:
> In article <Bvt93D.6yF@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu>, kautaj@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (kauta) writes:
> |> In article <7072@transfer.stratus.com> pr@last.pubs.stratus.com (Paul Ryan) writes:
> |> >Has anyone seen the TV miniseries being repeated now called Shaka Zulu?  
> |> >Hope this isn't a dumb question, but is this culturally and sociologically  
> |> >"accurate"? Feel free to email me.
> |> >Paul
> |> Nah. It's all bull. Just like Tarzan, Out of Africa et al. People watch
> |> movies like that to be entertained, not to learn anything. It's like reading
> |> s.c.a. 
> |> Shaka Zulu is apparently popular here for a number of reasons. Not the least
> |> of which is that we see the world thru our prejudiced eyes. I just feel pity
> |> for African Americans who actually believe that shit. 
> |> Most stories about Shaka Zulu were written by whites, for whites. As if that 
> |> is not silly enough,the director of that movie was again another white. Now
> |> you know what I mean.....
> Someone at the University of Zululand wrote an academic article that 
> investigated this very issue and in fact asked the producers why they
> did thing known to be incorrect. The answer was basically what Kauta
> said above, they make the production for white western viewers. This
> was done on purpose - the impression was given that the producer (Faura)
> did not always like this - but had to go along because the money
> came from America/Europe. 
> Faura gave an example which realy sound sick. The American production 
> people after reading the script found that the first whites appeared 
> only in eposode 9 - this they told had to be changed so that white
> were in the first eposide to ensure that the white audience would not
> stop watching!! - so Faura changed it! (sounds like a good reason not 
> to watch the show to me)
> Another example was makeup on the faces of a princess - which would never 
> have happened - also the way the princess behaved in an aggressive 
> unplesent way. Apparently some Zulus who were shown part and questioned
> afterwards by the author of the article said that the princess was not Black!
> There was quite a long list of factual things that could easily have
> been verified that were plan wrong that were listed in the article. (sorry I
> don't have the reference any more)
> I am sorry to hear that the show is so popular. The accurate story
> I know would be much more interesting and enlightening (and less misleading!). 
> It realy does open up ones eyes. I suppose Kauta is right - one must 
> just look at it as it it were Tarzan et al. 
> - Andrew


To compare "Shaka Zulu" to Tarzan is totally absurd. Tarzan was a typical
racist fantasy which portrayed Afrika as a vast uncivilized jungle, and which
gave the message that a white man brought up by apes could solve all the
problems better than any native African.

The series Shaka Zulu is fairly accurate with the exception of the usual
overdramatization which one finds in any epic. One thing which I really
hated about the series was the magical mumbo jumbo about Shaka being like
a messiah fulfilling a prophecy, and the witch doctors with glowing red eyes.

The series did not stick to absolute historical accuracy because the real
history was not so exciting. But it was certainly not made just for whites
and was certainly not racist.

Colin Naturman

P.S. Notice that I spelled Afrika with a "k" just to irritate Gavan.
Newsgroups: soc.culture.african