X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
X-Envelope-to: history@rutvm1.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"history@rutvm1"
X-VMS-Cc: WMILLS
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.history
Date:         Mon, 27 Jul 1992 20:58:00 ADT
From:         Wally Mills <WMILLS@HUSKY1.STMARYS.CA>
Subject:      Bantu and Zulu

On July 27th, there were 2 postings by Lynn Nelson and
another by Richard Rath under the subject of Subj:
RE: Fidel Castro on Racism.

   The terminology being used here is not accurate.
Lynn said:
> The ANC is a Bantu organization, and the Bantus hate the
> Zulus, who once held them as slaves.

To talk about the _Bantus_ hating the Zulu is the equivalent
to saying Indo-Europeans hate the Scots or the Finns.
Bantu is a group of languages (almost all Africans of central
and southern Africa speak a Bantu language. Zulu is as much
Bantu as any other. The term came to be used to refer to the
black skinned people of South Africa because the Afrikaner
regime (the one that implemented apartheid) needed a new
term. The term *Kaffir* had only pejorative connotations
(almost exactly the same as *nigger*). *Native* was also
becoming increasingly derogatory; also, the name implies
a prior right to the country and land. The white regime for a
long time claimed that the Bantu-speaking peoples arrived
only at the same time as the whites (i.e., in the 17th C.).
Thus, in claiming to have as much right to be in S. Africa
as blacks, the govt did not want to concede anything by
using the term *Native*.
   As a general term, English
speakers have used the term *African*. However, that
posed a difficulty for the Afrikaans-speaking whites who
dominatated the Govt. Remember, Afrikaans is a kind of
patois Dutch language. The equivalent term in Afrikaans is
*Afrikaner*, a term they had already appropriated for
themselves. The term had originated in the 18th C, perhaps
even before the end of the 17th, to distinguish between those
whites who had been born in S. Africa from those who were
immigrants from elsewhere. Later, it came to distinguish the
descendants of the original settlers under the Dutch East India
Co. regime from the English-speaking whites who came later.
   In any case, *Bantu* was a made up term used by the hated
Afrikaner Govt and never accepted by the black people of S.
Africa themselves. In S. Africa, there are several sub-language
groups. The 2 largest (in terms of population) are the Xhosa
and Zulu. But there are also Sotho, Tswana, Ndebele, Venda
and smaller groups.
   The reference to the Zulu holding slaves is incorrect. The
Zulu did some nasty things, but slave-holding or dealing were
not among them. In war, the Zulu either killed their enemies
or incorporated them into Zulu society. The young men were
incorporated into the regiments and the women became wives.
The Zulu grew in little over a decade from a small sub-chiefdom
of about 20,000 into a large kingdom of over 250,000 in little
over a decade, almost entirely by incorporation.
   Nor is it correct to talk about *hatred* between the different
groups (esp. the Xhosa and Zulu) as if it is a traditional
hostility stretching back for generations. Xhosa and Zulu in
fact are very closely related as part of sub-group called
*Nguni*. Culturally and linguistically, they are very
similar; they can with some difficulty, understand each
other. Nor did they ever have any military conflict as they
were separated by several hunderd miles. No, their
conflict is much more recent, most of it since 1945. There
is competition for jobs, housing etc. in Durban and Natal.
However, much of it seems to have originated in the
governments apartheid policies which deliberately tried
to emphasize linguistic and ethnic differences.
   It is true that Xhosa are more largely represented in
the ANC than are the Zulu, but the ANC is a multi-ethnic
and even multi-racial organization. Because they were
exposed to white conquest and missionary work earlier,
the Xhosa are the most educated and most assimilated
of the African groups in South Africa. The Zulu, on the
other hand, have tended to put more emphasis on their
military past and tried to maintain traditional culture to
a higher degree than the Xhosa. However, it is a
question of degree.
   Buthelezi is a more difficult read. I think it is much
too simplistic to simply call him a government stooge.
It is true that in recent years Inkatha has adopted some
policy positions that were the same as the government.
The best example is the opposition to the boycotts
that the ANC were calling for. However, Buthelezi
was never a backer of apartheid. In the dark days of
the late 1960s when almost all criticism of apartheid
was impossible, Buthelezi used his position as prime
minister (he was not king) of Kwazulu the Bantustan
*homeland* to denounce apartheid. In doing so, he
created a delicious dillema for the government. Its
more rabid followers in the National Party (white
Afrikaners) called for him to be arrested or at least
removed from office. However, the government
had always claimed that its *separate development*
program was not a farce, that it really was
committed to allowing autonomy and even
*independence* for the homelands. In 1972, it
even suffered through a trip Buthelezi made to
the US in which he roundly denounced apartheid.
   A great deal more could be said, but this is getting
to be a long post. However, it should be emphasized
that the current hostilities between Inkatha and ANC
supporters is *not* primarily a result of traditional
*hatreds*. They are a very complex result of economic
competition, direct and indirect products of apartheid
policies emphasizing ethnic consciousness, and even
differing views of the present and future. The ANC is
devoted to a multi-ethnic and multi-racial, modern,
industrial, urbanized South Africa. Inkatha is more
focused on ethnic identity and a lack of confidence about
the Zulu role in the kind of S. Africa that the ANC wants.

Wally Mills, St. Marys Univ. Halifax, N.S.