AFRICAN HISTORIES AND MODERNITIES

AFRICAN PERSPECTIVES OF

KING DINGANE
KASENZANGAKHONA
The Second Monarch of the Zulu Kingdom

Sifiso Mxolisi Ndlovu

African Histories and Modernities

Series editors
Toyin Falola
The University of Texas at Austin
Austin, TX, USA

Matthew M. Heaton
Virginia Tech
Blacksburg, USA
This book series serves as a scholarly forum on African contributions
to and negotiations of diverse modernities over time and space, with a
particular emphasis on historical developments. Specifically, it aims to
refute the hegemonic conception of a singular modernity, Western in ori-
gin, spreading out to encompass the globe over the last several decades.
Indeed, rather than reinforcing conceptual boundaries or parameters, the
series instead looks to receive and respond to changing perspectives on
an important but inherently nebulous idea, deliberately creating a space
in which multiple modernities can interact, overlap, and confl ict. While
privileging works that emphasize historical change over time, the series
will also feature scholarship that blurs the lines between the histori-
cal and the contemporary, recognizing the ways in which our changing
understandings of modernity in the present have the capacity to affect
the way we think about African and global histories.
Editorial Board Aderonke Adesanya, Art History, James Madison
University Kwabena Akurang-Parry, History, Shippensburg University
Samuel O. Oloruntoba, History, University of North Carolina,
Wilmington Tyler Fleming, History, University of Louisville Barbara
Harlow, English and Comparative Literature, University of Texas
at Austin Emmanuel Mbah, History, College of Staten Island Akin
Ogundiran, Africana Studies, University of North Carolina, Charlotte.

More information about this series at

http://www.springer.com/series/14758
 Sifiso Mxolisi Ndlovu

African Perspectives
of King Dingane
kaSenzangakhona
The Second Monarch of the Zulu Kingdom
Sifiso Mxolisi Ndlovu
University of South Africa
Pretoria, South Africa

African Histories and Modernities

ISBN 978-3-319-56786-0 ISBN 978-3-319-56787-7 (eBook)
DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-56787-7

Library of Congress Control Number: 2017944143

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s) 2017

This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the
Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights
of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction
on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and
retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology
now known or hereafter developed.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this
publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are
exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.
The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and
information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication.
Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, express or implied,
with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have
been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published
maps and institutional affiliations.

Credit line: Image courtesy of Freedom Park Archives

Printed on acid-free paper

This Palgrave Macmillan imprint is published by Springer Nature

The registered company is Springer International Publishing AG
The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland
 PREFACE

The Introduction discusses historiographical debates and the construc-

tion of racist perspectives on King Dingane by white settler historians
and Afrikaner nationalists. This led to 16 December being declared a
public holiday in South Africa. In South African historiography, percep-
tions of the second Zulu monarch as propagated by white South Africans
have attained a certain fragile dominance. Jeff Guy opined that ‘Dingane
kaSenzangakhona entered the (South African) history books as a treach-
erous barbarian’.1 By turning our attention to the production of histori-
cal knowledge on King Dingane by whites in general, one reaches the
conclusion that in officially commemorating ‘Dingaan’s Day’ one can
deduce that there was an ardent belief among the Voortrekkers that God
sanctioned, even supported, white supremacy and that he would not
abandon the whites.
Chapter 2 analyses the production by Africans of the original archive
on King Dingane, the second king of amaZulu. The first part of the
archive comprises mainly izibongo and oral traditions largely found in
the James Stuart Archives. I examine the role of izimbongi, Magolwane
kaMkhathini Jiyane and Mshongweni and the central role they played in
the 1820s in creating the king’s image and archive through izibongo.
Many primary sources still exist, such as oral traditions and izibongo that
express various African perspectives of King Dingane and impi yaseN-
come. These are both negative and positive. These contrasting negative

v
vi PrEFACE

and positive perceptions of the king also points to underlying political

philosophy and survive because generally it is not easy to intervene and
manipulate izibongo.
Chapter 3 looks at the contribution to King Dingane’s oral traditions
and archive by African public intellectuals like Tununu and Sivivi. In this
chapter, I also analyse the first published collection on the oral traditions
of King Dingane, published in 1858 by William Ngidi and the rev. J.W.
Colenso in the book Izindatyana zabantu. The most enduring image
from the oral traditions articulated by public intellectuals is that of the
king as weakling, easily influenced by the regent Queen Mnkabayi—the
kingmaker. These traditions also depict King Dingane as a mirror image
of King Shaka and also focus on the endless succession battles within the
Zulu royal house. This chapter also highlights the fact that there are a
complex relationship and interplay between indigenous narratives and
colonial ones and the processes of representation in which they engage.
This includes the role of James Stuart and his African interlocutors.
Chapter 4 elaborates the point that by the 1920s and 1930s the
archive on King Dingane was firmly established and consisted of docu-
mentary sources and archival material written by both Europeans and
Africans. The established archive was reflected in isiZulu texts written
by missionary educated Magema Fuze, John Dube and rolfes Dhlomo.
They were fiercely opposed to King Dingane. This archive also reflects
how their negative perspectives were influenced by historical sources
reflecting the ‘pre-contact’ or the pre-colonial history of southern Africa
written by Europeans, which immortalised the pro-conquest proph-
ecy attributed to the dying King Shaka. This chapter also highlights the
fact that the anti-King Dingane images were ably challenged by Petros
Lamula and Isaiah Shembe, whose perspectives adopted a nuanced,
empowering image of King Dingane.
Chapter 5 discusses the construction of divergent positive perspec-
tives of King Dingane outside the limits posed by the established archive.
The African workers, led by Nkosi, achieve this feat through counter-
commemorations of ‘Dingaan’s Day’ (16 December) in the late 1920s
and early 1930s. There is also a focus on land issues, because a sizeable
number of Africans, through their insistence on counter-commemo-
rating ‘Dingaan’s Day’, perceived this as a day that ushered in the loss
of African independence and land. This opposition led to the murder
of Nkosi and other workers by the police when they were involved in a
 PrEFACE vii

protest march on 16 December 1930. The African National Congress’s

constantly changing view of King Dingane is also discussed.
Chapter 6 also focuses on positive perspectives of King Dingane
constructed by African nationalist intellectuals such as Selope Thema,
Herbert Dhlomo and Jordan Ngubane. Although Thema changes his
view about the king later in his life, African nationalism is the common
thread that stitches these images together. Their perspectives are largely
influenced by and are in opposition to the Afrikaner nationalists’ negative
depictions of the king, particularly during the celebration and commem-
oration of ‘Dingaan’s Day’. These African nationalists also used news-
papers such as iLanga, Bantu World and Inkundla yaBantu as vehicles
for articulating their views. Herbert Dhlomo, a prolific scriptwriter, also
staged a play based on King Dingane. It was performed by African stu-
dents at the University of Natal’s Black Section.
The main argument expressed in Chap. 7 is underpinned by a pleth-
ora of scholarly perspectives about King Dingane. These contending
perspectives are articulated by African academics, namely Bhambatha
W. Vilakazi; Sibusiso Nyembezi; Eliot Zondi; Mazisi Kunene; Themba
Msimang; and Felix Okoye. This chapter also discusses the positive
image of King Dingane as reflected in narrative poetry written in isiZulu.
There were two reasons why African writers chose historical novels and
narrative poetry as a vehicle for expressing their everyday experience.
Firstly, history enjoyed a disciplinary pre-eminence in South Africa and
some writers used historical novels and narrative poetry as a subversive
weapon. Secondly, by using these literary forms, they were able to bypass
the restrictions and censorship imposed by the then government.
Chapter 8, the final chapter, analyses the counter-commemoration
of ‘Dingaan’s Day’ by the ANC and PAC during the years of the armed
struggle. The liberation movements, through their leadership, con-
structed political perspectives of the Zulu king. As an example, ‘Dingaan’s
Day’ or ‘The Day of the Vow’ assumed a new meaning because the ANC
took a conscious decision to launch its military wing, uMkhonto we
Sizwe (MK), on 16 December 1961. Subsequently, the liberation move-
ment commemorated the day as ‘Heroes Day’. This chapter also analyses
the oppositional view adopted by the Inkatha Freedom Party, through its
leader, Mangosuthu Buthelezi, who altered his views after the introduc-
tion of the new political dispensation in 1994.2

Pretoria, South Africa Sifiso Mxolisi Ndlovu

viii PrEFACE

NOTES
1. J. Guy, ‘Dingane kaSenzangakhona: The Historical Background and
Secondary Sources’, in Introduction to Historical Studies, University of
Natal, Durban, 1995, 5.
2. Earlier versions of some chapters in this book have appeared in
part in the following publications: ‘“He Did What Any Other
Person in his Position Would have Done to Fight the Forces of
Invasion and Disruption”: Africans, the Land and Contending
Images of King Dingane (“the Patriot”) in the Twentieth Century,
1916–1950’, South African Historical Journal, 38, May 1998,
99–143; ‘Johannes Nkosi and the Communist Party in South
Africa: Images of ‘Blood river’ and King Dingane in the late
1920s–1930’, History and Theory, Theme Issue 39, December
2000, 111–132; ‘Zulu Nationalist Literary representations of King
Dingane’, in Zulu Identities: Being Zulu, Past and Present, edited by
B. Carton, J. Laband and J. Sithole (Scottsville: University of KwaZulu-
Natal Press, 2008), 97–110; ‘A reassessment of Women’s Power in
the Zulu Kingdom’, in Zulu Identities: Being Zulu, Past and Present,
edited by B. Carton, J. Laband and J. Sithole (Scottsville: University of
KwaZulu-Natal Press, 2008), 111–121.
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I wish to express my sincere gratitude to my former colleagues and

students at Vista University, Sebokeng Campus, particularly my Honours
class of 1994 and 1995. I hope they still remember that horrible History
Method Memorandum on King Dingane written by one of my col-
leagues in the History Department. After they had complained bitterly
and expressed their dissatisfaction about representation of Africans in the
History curriculum and content, I promised that I would do something
about it before I pass away—hence, the long drives I embarked upon to
Wits University’s History Department in 1995 to register for my Ph.D.
To my former students, I say, ‘I tried my best’ and this book is proof of
those efforts. I also hereby confess that I do not have all the solutions
to the questions that were raised during the Honours seminars. The
most frequently asked question was why do casualties among Africans
engaged in colonial wars of resistance against white invaders in South
Africa always number 3000. The answer is that we need archaeologists
and social anthropologists to join us and enter the debate and examine
the battle sites. I am sure they will reach a different conclusion and revise
interpretations and stereotypes perpetuated by white historians.
At the University of the Witwatersrand, I was welcomed with open
arms by Prof. Phillip Bonner, who invited Prof. Carolyn Hamilton to
join the team on the perilous journey. As they say … the rest is history.
Thanks to both Phillip and Carolyn, ningadinwa nangomuso, injobo

ix
x ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

ithungelwa ibandla and izandla ziyagezana. My message to them is:

‘I have finally written the introduction. I am so happy. Also, I kept all the
draft versions of Chap. 1 of the thesis (about ten of them) and I apol-
ogise for exhausting both of you. Perhaps you will use this experience
the day you decide to write a manual on ‘Supervision of Postgraduate
(Ph.D.) Students’. To Carolyn, may I say, your tears at Milpark Hospital
were not in vain, I did manage to soldier on.
My grateful thanks also go to Mazisi Kunene, Elliot Zondi and
Themba Msimang for the interviews, to Bernard Makhosezwe
Magubane for his encouragement and tolerance; isiZulu sithi ‘indlela
ibuzwa kulabo aba phambili’. To my family, including Noni, Xoli, Demi,
my grandson Sakhile the energetic and destructive ‘Spiderman’ and
granddaughter Khethiwe—thanks for the respect. Moreover, thanks
to my teachers at Emisebeni Lower Primary and Vukuzenzele Higher
Primary Schools in Mofolo, Soweto; and also thanks to my teachers at
Orlando West/Phefeni Junior Secondary School in Soweto. I noted
your commitment and dedication throughout my student life at the
University of Natal, Pietermaritzburg Campus, and I did not undermine
the positive life changing values you inculcated as part of my develop-
ment as an intellectual. Finally, my thanks to Nonie Mokose for being a
wonderful human being.
I also thank ANFASA, dedicated to empowering authors and the
South African Democracy Education Trust (SADET) for funding this
book project.
 CONTENTS

1 Introduction 1

2 Magolwane kaMkhathini Jiyane and Mshongweni: Izibongo

and the Construction of King Dingane’s Archive 33

3 Oral Traditions and the Consolidation of King Dingane’s

Archive: Mid-Nineteenth to the Early Twentieth century 63

4 The Image of King Dingane and Zulu Nationalist Politics 97

5 ‘Remember Dingaan’s Day: The Passing of African

Independence’: Public History and the Counter-
Commemoration of King Dingane, 1920–1930 129

6 African Nationalists and Contending Perspectives

of King Dingane: 1916–1980s 167

7 African Academics and Poets: The Roots of Scholarly

Perspectives on King Dingane, 1930s–1980s 201

8 The Political Images of King Dingane in the Age

of the Armed Struggle: 1960–1994 245

xi
xii CONTENTS

9 Conclusion 277

Further Reading 291

Index 301
 CHAPTEr 1

Introduction

This book examines the active role played by Africans in the production
of historical knowledge in South Africa and will focus on their perspec-
tives of King Dingane and impi yaseNcome. African perspectives of the
second king of the Zulu empire are not homogeneous because they are
multifaceted, and in some measure, constructed according to sociopoliti-
cal formations and aimed at particular audiences. To this end, I analyse
the construction of African perspectives of King Dingane and impi yase
Ncome located in various historical sources, archives and texts. These
historical sources include oral traditions and izibongo.
King Dingane kaSenzangakhona was the second king of the Zulu
Kingdom which he ruled from 1828 to 1840. He was born in the late
eighteenth century and became king after the assassination of King
Shaka, the founder of the Zulu Kingdom. Dingane, the son of Mpikase
and Senzangakhona, built the great palace of Mgungundlovu which
is now a heritage site near kwaNkosinkulu, the sacred heritage site
where the majority of the Zulu kings are buried. His regiments were
Dlambedu, Mtshamate and iNhlekane. Then, there were Izinyosi (for-
merly Ingcobinga) under King Shaka, Imvokwe, Imkhulutshane (or
Indlavini), Ihlaba, Khokhothi and Insewane. After he had formed his
own regiments, he devoted his time to the internal consolidation of
his authority. Early in his reign, he was faced with challenges from sev-
eral important factions who accused him of being responsible for the
assassination of King Shaka. Based on oral traditions and testimonies,
it is claimed that he killed almost all potential opponents including his

© The Author(s) 2017 1

S.M. Ndlovu, African Perspectives of King Dingane kaSenzangakhona,
African Histories and Modernities, DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-56787-7_1
2 S.M. NDLOVU

siblings whom he suspected of disloyalty. This led to the unjustified claim

that King Dingane was a weakling who was easily manipulated by his
powerful paternal aunt, the Queen regent Mnkabayi.
But according to other isiZulu oral traditions and testimonies, the
greatest threat to King Dingane’s reign was posed by the arrival of white
colonisers, settlers, missionaries and traders in great numbers compared
to the period when King Shaka was in charge. Dingane was accused of
being a savage barbarian and a cruel despot who killed his subjects for no
apparent reason. Furthermore, it was claimed that these attributes later
influenced his attitude towards white colonisers and settlers. But others
maintain that until 1835, King Dingane was not hostile towards these
white interlopers. Indeed, he went to great pains to court their pres-
ence and was consistent in the pursuit of this objective. It was necessary
for the Zulu monarch to adopt an accommodating, diplomatic stance
because he coveted the white settlers’ trade goods and technology, nota-
bly their muskets, which would enable him to revolutionise the method
of warfare by adding a regiment of amabutho (warriors) armed with
guns.
In responding to the challenge of unravelling the complex image of
King Dingane, I therefore carry out a sustained, systematic examination
of the coexistence of, and interrelationship between the production of
history and the sources from which these historical representations of the
king have emerged. The historical sources are based on oral traditions,
izibongo, religious beliefs, trade unionism, journalism, academies, politi-
cal struggles, wars of resistance and socio-economic discourse. These
are marked by contending viewpoints that are neither objective nor
neutral and have, over the years, been determined by a variety of politi-
cal concerns and been powerfully influenced by the competition scarce
resources such as land.
These important points are analysed in Chaps. 2 and 3 which specifically
focus on the production of historical knowledge during pre-colonial or
pre-contact times. These analyses are the work of public intellectuals such
as Magolwane kaMkhathini Jiyane and Mshongweni. In order to unpack
our understanding of the production of historical knowledge during pre-
colonial times, Jordan Ngubane emphasises the central role of umlando
(history) and umlandi (historian) involved in the enterprise. He asserts:

…I have adapted the umlando form of narrative as used by the ancient

Zulus when they talked to themselves about themselves. Umlando was a
 1 INTrODUCTION 3

vehicle for developing the collective wisdom or strength of the family, the
clan or nation; it is the form of narrative the Zulus employed to translate
into principles that inkosi yinkosi ngabantu and injobo ithungelwa ebandla
[the king rules by the grace of the people, and that the collective wisdom
of the citizen leads to the truth] … The narrator or umlandi is a witness of
history. As a rule, his authority rests on the fact that he was present at the
critical moment when history took a new turn. His audience expect him to
landa [narrate] what he knows and to do that according to rules cherished
down the centuries. But umlandi must not be confused with the European
historian or reporter. Where the [European] historian and the reporter are
supposedly objective and concern themselves with bare facts and where the
[European] historians seek to deal with events and their causes and effects,
umlandi is creatively subjective. He deals with idea-forms, the subjective
moulds in which events are first cast…1

This book which also prioritises the use of indigenous African languages
such as isiZulu is a contribution to existing debates about South African
historiography and is unapologetic in maintaining that to democra-
tise the production of historical knowledge in post-1994 South Africa,
the neglected African languages must come to the fore. On conquest,
cultural domination and the role of language in the struggle for power
and legitimacy in the African continent, we need to understand that lan-
guage represents a people’s identity, culture and history. Abiodun Goke-
Pariola postulates that those who have the power to name, often have, by
the very act of naming (or enacting legislation), the power to structure
reality. This power increases dramatically with the degree to which that
authority is considered legitimate.2 In a similar vein, Ngugi wa Thiong’o
accentuates that to name is to express a relationship, mostly of owner-
ship, as was seen in plantation slavery, when slaves were branded with the
name of their owners. In colonised Africa, this ownership and unequal
relationship were highlighted when Christian converts were obliged to
abandon their indigenous names and assume European names because
missionaries told them they could never be received in Christian heaven
without a European name. Thus, colonisers who assumed power and
authority also imposed their language and worldview on the colonised
and assumed the power to structure reality. It was an assertion of power
that aimed to disempower and create perpetual minors of colonised
Africans.3 Therefore, African languages must assume a central role in the
writing of history and challenge the use of colonial place names such as
‘Blood river’, ‘Bloed rivier’, ‘Natal’ and ‘Port Natal’. A book on the
4 S.M. NDLOVU

historiography of King Dingane is the perfect tool to validate this point.

An understanding of the Zulu monarch is pivotal to comprehending the
history and political economy of race, racism, prejudice and race relations
in South Africa.
Since history, among other things, serves ideological purposes, it is
essential to examine the asymmetrical relationship between power and
knowledge, including the ways in which historical knowledge is con-
structed or produced and then transmitted from one generation to the
next (and this includes the impact of academe). One of the principal
ways in which this is done is by examining perspectives of African peoples
who emerge from the history they have produced.
I explore the ways in which the earliest perspectives and historical
ideas based on oral traditions about King Dingane were constructed by
Africans and how these influenced contemporary views related to the
second Zulu king. I focus attention on the role played by public intellec-
tuals, workers, authors, journalists, politicians and academics in the con-
struction of King Dingane’s divergent images from the early nineteenth
to the late twentieth century. Whereas the representation and history
of King Shaka’s multiple images have been studied by various scholars
based in different parts of the world, there has been no similar exercise in
relation to King Dingane. In this book, I attempt to address the existing
scholarly gap by emphasising the construction of historical knowledge
by Africans. This is because the ‘earliest historical facts’ and ideas about
the king were recorded using Zulu culture, customs and traditions, by,
among others, izimbongi such as Magolwane kaMkhathini Jiyane and
Mshongweni. The study shows that they produced dynamic, multifac-
eted viewpoints and images which were adapted over time.
Mazisi Kunene elaborates this point in his Zulu Poems (1970) when
he writes: ‘the great nineteenth century poet Mshongweni says of
Dingane, the king of the Zulus: “you coward who deserted your own
armies”’. Kunene explains that ‘in other parts of his heroic epic (izib-
ongo) he (Mshongweni) condemns the king for having killed his own
brothers to gain power’.4 In this particular example, Mshongweni, as
imbongi, was openly expressing his views about internal dynamics and
dynastic succession battles which afflicted the Zulu royal house. In Chap.
2 of this book, I shall discuss izibongo zika Dingane as a rich history
archive and text conceptualised by Magolwane and Mshongweni.
In his book on Zulu poetry, Kunene alludes to the fact that ‘the best
South African poetry is epitomised by the heroic epic (izibongo)’. He argues
 1 INTrODUCTION 5

that the ‘Zulu heroic epic has gone through different stages of development
from about the early seventeenth century up to the present day’. Kunene
goes on to postulate that the heroic epic (izibongo), as part of indigenous
African literature:

…expresses the historical state of the community, the poet does not
speculate in the abstract or indulge in his individualistic fantasies. He is a
recorder of [historical] events, an evaluator of his era [the present] in rela-
tion to other eras [the past].5

According to Kunene, ‘Zulu literature, like most African literature is com-

munal and the communal organisation in Africa evolved its own ethic, its
own philosophical system, its own forms of projecting and interpreting its
realities and experiences’. Furthermore, this literature, unlike European
literature, propagated the view that the ‘highest virtue was not justice but
heroism, that is, self-sacrifice on behalf of the community’. Accordingly,
African communities developed highly sophisticated heroic epics and
henceforth, izimbongi, such as Magolwane or Mshongweni, who ‘had
to know in detail the historically significant occasions, select from them
the most symbolically representative and on that evolve or affirm an ethic’
that would be to the benefit of the entire community or polity.6
The African archive, sources, texts, viewpoints and perspectives are
an appropriate focus because in South African historiography percep-
tions of the second Zulu monarch as propagated by white South Africans
have attained a certain fragile dominance. Jeff Guy opined that ‘Dingane
kaSenzangakhona entered the [South African] history books as a treach-
erous barbarian’.7 In the seminal conference paper entitled ‘A Historical
Mirror of Blood river’, the maligned Afrikaner historian F.A. van
Jaarsveld emphasised that:

…no other battle in South African history has excited as much atten-
tion or such diverse interpretations as the battle of Blood river of 16
December 1838, a day commemorated as ‘Dingaan’s Day’ up to 1952
and as the ‘Day of the Covenant’ ever since. Until 1864 the covenant was
not observed at all. Paul Kruger subsequently claimed that this breach
brought retribution in the form of the annexation of 1877 carried out by
the British. In 1865 the Transvaal government proclaimed 16 December a
public holiday for the first time ‘as a day of universal thanksgiving … dedi-
cated to the Lord … to commemorate that by God’s grace the Immigrants
were freed from the yoke of Dingane.8
6 S.M. NDLOVU

King Dingane was the first Zulu monarch to be confronted by the desta-
bilising threat of white settler colonialists and imperialists arriving in
large numbers. According to amaZulu, this era marked the beginning
of invasion and land dispossession; it had to be resisted at all costs. The
king found it difficult to maintain the essentially peaceful relations which
his predecessor, King Shaka, had established with white invaders and
their African wards. Moreover, the arrival of the armed Voortrekkers was
also perceived as a threat by the king who soon faced a belligerent united
front comprising Voortrekkers and white imperialists scrambling for land
belonging to the indigenous population.9 King Dingane objected vehe-
mently to their trading, hunting and settling without his permission—
and of their reluctance to supply him with firearms. He understood
the power and technological advantages represented by the possession
of guns. As a result, there were a number of battles between the king
and white colonisers. These confrontations were driven by the ideologi-
cal myth postulating that land in South Africa had been ‘empty’ before
the arrival of white settlers and colonialists. This Eurocentric myth was a
key rationale for colonial domination, and it stirred the king’s persistent
resistance to white rule and domination.10
The reign of the Zulu king was also marked by the arrival in numbers
of white missionaries from the American Board. They included, among
others, Daniel Lindley, George Champion, Aldin Grout and Frederick
Owen of the Church Missionary Society who lived in close proximity
to UMgungundlovu and had an amicable working relationship with the
king. This was because King Dingane understood all too well the mean-
ing and power of literacy as an ideological tool used by missionaries to
subjugate Africans. The missionaries had to quickly learn to speak isiZulu
in order to use this language as a tool for implementing cultural imperi-
alism. According to Bernard Makhosezwe Magubane, the supremacy of
the whites, their values and civilisation, was only won when the culture
and the value system of the defeated Africans were reduced to nothing
and when the Africans themselves loudly admitted the cultural hegemony
of their conquerors.11
This book also proves the point that indigenous African languages
are central to the exercise of rewriting the history of South Africa. This
is also true for the rest of the African continent and the African dias-
pora. Chapters 2–4 and 6 highlight this irrefutable historical argument.
Ntongela Masilela writes that the debate in South Africa on whether
African literature (including history) should be written in African
 1 INTrODUCTION 7

languages was anticipated some eight decades ago and that it is an issue
that has galvanised the African continent and its scholars since the time
of the infamous Kampala Conference of English Expression in 1962.12
However, Masilela asserts that the dispute began far earlier. It first
arose between Elijah Makiwane and Pambani Jeremiah Mzimba during
the 1880s, marking the beginning of this ranging debate in South Africa.
It was then taken up between S.E.K. Mqhayi and William Wellington
Gqoba in the 1910s, and then by Clement Martyn Doke who tested his
views against Solomon T. Plaatje in the 1920s. Bambatha Benedict W.
Vilakazi took up the cudgels against Herbert I.E Dhlomo in the 1930s,
and similarly, Mazisi Kunene argued the point against the Drum writ-
ers in the 1950s.13 To further highlight the debates on the use of indig-
enous languages, I point out that Herbert I.E Dhlomo’s perspectives on
King Dingane are solely expressed in English and that they differ sig-
nificantly from those of his elder brother, rolfes r.r. Dhlomo, who
used isiZulu to produce historical knowledge about the Zulu monarch.
This issue is dealt with extensively in Chaps. 4 and 6. rolfes Dhlomo
was a staunch Zulu nationalist while Herbert Dhlomo was a committed
African nationalist.
Acknowledging the central role of the African nationalist and Black
Consciousness schools of thought does not necessarily mean that the
hitherto dominant orthodoxies about the king, as elucidated by settler
historians and by Afrikaner nationalist, liberal, Marxist and social history
schools of thought, should be jettisoned. The fact that these schools of
thought are dominated by white South Africans is secondary in the light
of the unreasonable call by some to reject the production of historical
knowledge by white academics in South Africa out of hand. In the study
of South African history, Carolyn Hamilton’s Terrific Majesty: The Powers
of Shaka and the Limits of Historical Invention (1998), Dafnah Golan’s
Inventing Shaka: Using History in the Construction of Zulu Nationalism
(1994) and Dan Wylie’s Myth of Iron: Shaka in History (2006),14 are
a case in point and to some extent might be relevant to my study, but
they focus on a different king—the first king of the Zulu empire. Their
focus is also limited in the sense that Hamilton, Golan and Wylie do
not unpack African representations of King Shaka which originate from
outside the borders of South Africa and extend to the African diaspora.
They do not analyse the role of indigenous African languages, historical
novels and literature—including the role of the French and Portuguese
language speakers in African countries who constructed particular images
8 S.M. NDLOVU

of the first Zulu king. Bhekizizwe Peterson writes that black people in
Africa and in the diaspora have retained a long and abiding interest in
the history of South Africa that precedes apartheid, the Sharpeville mas-
sacre, the killing of Steven Bantu Biko, the Soweto uprisings and the
Mandela phenomenon.15 For instance, the exploits of figures such as the
Zulu Kings Shaka ka Senzangakhona (circa 1816–1828) and Cetshwayo
ka Mpande (1872–1879) inscribed the Zulu Nation (especially after their
defeat of the British Army during the Anglo-Zulu War of 1879 at the
Battle of Isandlwana) as seminal symbolic codes for the imagining of
senses of African cultural integrity, nationalism and independence. On the
other hand, they have been used to elaborate different forms of racial ste-
reotypes ranging from African brutality or its variants, noble and heroic
savages.16 King Shaka received numerous literary treatments starting with
Thomas Mofolo’s Chaka (1925). On the continent, the first Zulu king
was immortalised in, amongst others, Leopold Senghor’s Chaka (1956);
S. Badian’s La Mort de Chaka (1961); Condetto Nenekhaly-Camara’s
Amazoulou (1970); and Djibril Niane’s Chaka (1971).17
In the field of literary studies, the interpretive and theoretical work
on izibongo and performance poetry conducted by the likes of David
roycroft, Abie Ngcobo, Liz Gunner and Mafika Gwala, Karin Barber
and Duncan Brown, among others, might offer useful insights but
the fact of the matter is that such work was preceded by original path-
breaking publications authored by scholars such as Bhambatha Wallet
Vilakazi, Herbert Dhlomo, Sibusiso Nyembezi and Mazisi Kunene,
whose commendable research and fieldwork specifically focused on oral
traditions and izibongo zamakhosi composed and constructed in pre-
colonial times. Their instructive publications remain neglected, and yet,
they are invaluable in South African historiography. By analysing these
historiographical studies published by African academics, particularly
those focusing on King Dingane, I hope to highlight the importance of
African nationalist and Black Consciousness schools of thought in South
African historiography.18
To set the scene and explain why this historiographical study on
King Dingane is relevant, it is important to remind readers of existing
dominant perspectives about the Zulu monarch that have been propa-
gated by the various schools of thought dominated by white scholars
and amateur historians. In his travel writings on King Dingane’s rise to
power, Nathaniel Isaacs highlights some of the themes that also perme-
ate African oral traditions; these are analysed in various chapters of this
 1 INTrODUCTION 9

book, Isaacs wrote the following about the succession battles which
bedevilled the Zulu royal house:

The messengers whom I had sent to the residence of Dingan to congratu-

late him on his elevation, returned with three head of cattle as a present
from the princes … They sent also to say, that they would be glad to see
us, but recommended our stopping at home for the present, as every-
thing had the appearance of a commotion, and indicated very strongly the
approach of civil war respecting the succession of throne, as Umgaarty, a
brother by the mother’s side (this being singular, as Caffre kings always
espouse virgins) seemed to dispute the right to the throne … Umnanty,
the mother of Chaka, was a daughter of the king of Amlanganes, who gave
her in marriage to the father of Chaka, Esenzergercona; she was said to
have been a masculine and savage woman.19

Isaacs’ account is riddled with historical inaccuracies, particularly about

Queen Nandi, King Shaka’s mother. In questioning the right to the
throne of the fictional character Isaacs refers to as ‘Umgaarty’, he fur-
ther assassinates Queen Nandi’s character by peddling racial stereotypes
such as the immaturity, immorality, ignorance, unreliability and hyper-
sexuality of the African woman:

She was ever quarrelling with, and so enraging her husband that he was
compelled to exercise some salutary authority, and reprimanded her for the
impropriety of her conduct: finally, her husband ordered her to be driven
away, when she returned to the tribe of her father, and afterwards cohab-
ited with one of the common natives, by whom she became pregnant, and
had a son, whom she named Umgaarty; this person has become an indi-
vidual of means and power, and evinced a desire to dispute the right of
Dingan to the crown.20

Here, Isaacs has opportunistically perpetuated disparaging views of King

Shaka’s mother in order to buy favours from King Dingane, who had
recently ascended to the throne. He also does not explain to us why, as a
white foreigner, he deserves the expensive ‘three heads of cattle as a pre-
sent from the princes’.
Isaacs, who represented the interests of white traders, believed that
King Dingane would continue to protect European strangers, including
the white traders, in the area he refers to as Natal.21 In order to justify
the annexation of land by the British colonisers, Isaacs wrote:
10 S.M. NDLOVU

Chaka, take him altogether, was a savage in the truest sense of the word,
though not a cannibal. He had an insatiable thirst for the blood of his sub-
jects, and indulged in it with inhuman joy; nothing within the power of
man could restrain him from his propensities. He was a monster, a com-
pound of vice and ferocity, without one virtue to redeem his name from
that infamy to which history will consign it: I must, however, by way of
conclusion, state that if Chaka ever had one redeeming quality, it was this,
that the European strangers in Natal received his protection, and were
shielded by him against the impositions of his chiefs.22

About ‘Dingan’ Isaacs noted that:

Dingan had already abolished most of Chaka’s ferocious customs, and

abrogated all his unnatural laws. He permitted the warriors to marry,
a measure before prohibited; and any violation of it would have been
punished with instant death. This and other salutary measures had been
adopted, which had made Dingan already exceedingly popular, and as he
evinced an anxious desire to render his subjects comfortable, this popular-
ity increased daily…This event [the defeat of ‘Umgaarty’] placed Dingan
in quiet possession of his throne, and he set about establishing such regu-
lations for the future government of his people as seemed best calculated
to render them happy, and likely raise to raise his country to a high state of
prosperity, which the conduct of his predecessor could never be affected.23

This depiction of King Dingane as a mirror image of King Shaka, like the
endless succession battles within the Zulu royal house, is also a constant
theme in African oral traditions. I will discuss these ever-present themes
in various chapters of the book. Carolyn Hamilton warns us not to write
off as mere propaganda or invention the documentary sources written by
Europeans on the pre-colonial history of southern Africa. She maintains
that there is a complex relationship and interplay between indigenous
narratives and colonial ones and the processes of representation in which
they engage.24 Furthermore, Spear sharply states:

…the case for colonial invention has often overstated colonial power and
ability to manipulate African institutions to establish hegemony … none
of these (indigenous) institutions were easily fabricated or manipulated,
and colonial dependence on them often limited colonial power as much as
facilitating it.25

This, he continues, has in turn led to a neglect of the ‘historical develop-

ment and complexity of the interpretative processes involved’.26 I discuss
 1 INTrODUCTION 11

this complex issue in Chaps. 2–4 and relate it to the construction of con-
flicting images about King Dingane. The intricate relationship between
the coloniser and the colonised highlights an important point (which
the reader would do well to remember) that is emphasised by Jabulani
‘Mzala’ Nxumalo. He argues that the time has come for both liberal and
neo-Marxist writers (including the exponents of theories on cosmopoli-
tanism) to acknowledge the importance of African ethnic identity, not
as a fiction of the ‘civilising mission’ or the product of imperial ‘divide
and rule’ policies, but rather as a ‘lived’ historical experience with indig-
enous linguistic, cultural and customary norms that pre-dated the advent
of European colonialism.27
In his illuminating study about the Transvaal Ndebele, Sekibakiba
Peter Lekgoathi also focuses on the complex and dynamic relationship
between the coloniser and the colonised, an ongoing production of his-
torical knowledge. He argues that during the early twentieth century, the
perspectives of African researchers and organic intellectuals profoundly
shaped the writings of government ethnologist Nicholas Jacobus van
Warmelo and this has not received adequate scholarly attention. Van
Warmelo not only collected accounts from local African subjects for his
publications but also relied on African researchers who wrote manu-
scripts, in the vernaculars, which would later constitute part of what is
today known in academic circles in South Africa as the Van Warmelo
archive. Lekgoathi’s study explores the intricate process of knowledge
production, providing an analysis of these indigenous manuscripts on
what Van Warmelo called the ‘Transvaal Ndebele’. By studying the role
of these local interlocutors, Lekgoathi makes a case for African agency in
shaping the ‘colonial’ expert’s (Van Warmelo’s) conceptions of Ndebele
identity. Hence, Lekgoathi’s study is fundamentally an account of the
coproduction of historical and cultural knowledge. Van Warmelo was
employed by the Native Affairs Department to identify African ‘tribes’—
a highly political and ideological enterprise. Later, his work was as much
appropriated by the apartheid state in social engineering as by Ndebele
interlocutors involved in contemporary struggles over chieftainship.28
The role of James Stuart, who collected African oral traditions in the area
now referred to as KwaZulu-Natal, has similar connotations.29 This point
is further analysed in Chaps. 3 and 4 of this book which discuss the role
of James Stuart and Bishop Colenso in the production of particular per-
spectives on the Zulu king.
By turning our attention to the production of historical knowledge
on King Dingane by whites in general, one reaches the conclusion that
12 S.M. NDLOVU

in officially commemorating ‘Dingaan’s Day’, one can deduce that there

was an ardent belief among the Voortrekkers that God sanctioned, even
supported, white supremacy and that he would not abandon the whites.
It is very difficult to separate the portrayal of the second monarch of
the Zulu kingdom from such a claim. All these issues are at the core of
Afrikaner Nationalist historiography and conventional South African
history. This is exemplified by the so-called Dingane-retief Treaty, the
Battle of ‘Blood river’ and the ‘Day of the Vow/Covenant’ celebrations
on 16 December each year that honour the Voortrekkers and the emi-
gration they called the ‘Great Trek’. According to Afrikaner Nationalist
historiography, there are only two nations in the history of the world
to have made a covenant with God, namely the people of Israel and the
Afrikaner people of South Africa. For this reason, they argued that there
was something unique about the battle of ‘Blood river’. The covenant
was partly derived from the Voortrekkers’ identification with the people
of Israel in the Old Testament, from which they took precedents for their
actions. Floors A. van Jaarsveld argued that this idea of the Afrikaners as
a ‘chosen people’ also stemmed from the situation they faced in Natal:

an unprovoked war with the mighty Zulu chieftain in Dingane, one that
posed a threat to their very survival that it became a matter of do or die,
on which hinged the success or failure of the whole of the Great Trek.30

Van Jaarsveld names as a crucial factor leading to the commemoration

of ‘Dingaan’s Day’, the rise of Afrikaner nationalism in the Transvaal, a
movement with a powerful sense of history and historical self-understand-
ing. This was a consequence, he claims, of British imperialism that culmi-
nated in ‘the First War of Independence in the Transvaal in 1880–1881’.
Hence:

In 1880 the covenant was ‘renewed’ at Paardekraal by piling a cairn of

stones, symbolising both past and future; the past because the covenant freed
them from Black domination, and the future because they saw it as a sign
that they would continue fighting until they regained their independence
from the British imperialists. This cairn therefore had a dual significance:
after 1881 both Majuba – which led to the restoration of the Transvaal
independence – and Dingaan’s Day, were observed jointly as an official
five-yearly event. From 1886 Dingaan’s Day activities became progressively
decentralised and were celebrated locally and regionally each year. In 1894
the Free State government proclaimed Dingaan’s Day a public holiday.31
 1 INTrODUCTION 13

In terms of Eurocentric historiography, in 1847 U.G. Lauts of the

Netherlands was the first white scholar to publish a book on the
Voortrekkers. He ascribed the victory at ‘Blood river’ to the superior
weapons possessed by white emigrants. He was also firmly convinced
that ‘God in His almighty wisdom had destined and elected them to
bring Civilisation and implant it among ignorant pagans [Africans]’.
According to van Jaarsveld, in 1852/53 H. Cloethe regarded Piet retief,
the leader of the Voortrekkers at the time, as a ‘martyr at Golgotha’,
while S.J. du Toit described the battle at ‘Blood river as just revenge for
the murders carried out by savages’.32 For his part, John Noble main-
tained that the Great Trek had helped build [white] independent states,
thereby contributing to ‘the advancement and European domination
in South Africa’.33 The rev. Catchet, of the Dutch reformed Church,
regarded the battle at ‘Blood river’ as the answer to a prayer. G. McCall
Theal, representing the early settler school of thought, also used the fer-
vent belief that ‘God is on our side’ when he described what he believed
was a punitive expedition against the Zulu as ‘an itinerant prayer-meet-
ing … imbued with the same spirit as the ironsides of Cromwell’. He
believed the ‘Blood river’ commando had freed white South Africa from
the devastating power of the Zulu. George Cory’s view of ‘Blood river’
was framed in moralistic terms as representing ‘some of the punishment
he [Dingane] so richly deserved’ for his ‘savage character’ and ‘atroci-
ties’.34 The defeat of the British forces by the Zulu at Isandhlwana in
1879 led to British writers sympathising with the Boers.35 As a result,
van Jaarsveld notes that few historical personalities have been depicted in
terms as derogatory as those used to describe the Zulu king:

In 1839 A. Carstens called him a villain, tyrant, barbarian and blood-

hound. Contemporaries inveighed endlessly against blood-thirsty savagery,
ghastly and cold blooded slaughter, inhuman cruelties, abominations that
defy heaven and cruel barbarians. Elsewhere Dingane was called a Nero,
and an African Attila. Hence it is not surprising that the Trekker’s trau-
matic experiences led them to call the Boer-Zulu battle of 16 December
1838 by the name Dingaan’s Day. That was when Dingane had his day
[het sy dag gehad], a typical Boer proverb implying a day of reckoning.36

During the same period, Thomas Arbousset, the French Missionary

based in Lesotho, collected oral traditions from refugees who left the
Zulu kingdom and settled in the kingdom of Basotho—including a very
14 S.M. NDLOVU

long French version of izibongo zika Dingane. Arbousset’s izibongo zika

Dingane read as follows:
NOTICE SUr LES ZOULAS
Les louanges de Dingan

1. Un oiseau se trémousse,
2. Il se trémousse au-dessus de Boloako.
3. Cet oiseau mange les autres oiseaux;
4. Il a mangé le rusé Boloako.
5. Les eaux lustrales ont été bues dans le silence;
6. Elles ont été bues par Mama e Makhabaï.
7. L’oiseau s’est posé à Nobampa, sur la bergerie.
8. Il s’est repu d’Opoucaché, fils de Botélézé.
9. Il s’set repu d’Omocoquané, fils de Poko.
10. Il a mangé Sethlépouna, de Babanako.
11. Il a déchiré les Massoumpas.
12. Il a dévoré Matouané.
13. Les eaux de purification ont éte bues par Nomapéla.
14. Libérateur! tu t’es montré à ce peuple-ci.37

Contemporary sources and subsequent Afrikaner opinion and histori-

cal archives ascribed the victory at ‘Blood river’ to God, while English
sources cited the battle strategy, the protective laager formation and the
possession of firearms as crucial to the Boer victory. F.A. van Jaarsveld
cites James Bryce, who, in 1899, considered ‘Blood river’ the most
important military feat in the history of South Africa. In Bryce’s view
‘like the soldiers of Cortes in Mexico, they owed this, as other victories,
not merely to their steady valour, but to their guns’.38 In 1936, Eric
Walker, representing the white liberal school of thought, wrote that the
Voortrekkers had ‘guns and horses [that] gave them an advantage over
Bantu tribesmen, who, with hardly any exception at that time, had no
missile weapons other than their assegais’. Walker went on to define Boer
military tactics as ‘waggon-laager warfare and shooting from the saddle
style’ and those of the Zulu as surprise attacks and enticing the enemy
into an ambush, usually on uneven terrain. Another liberal scholar, L.M.
Thompson, drew the conclusion that ‘Blood river … was a classic exam-
ple of the devastating superiority of controlled gun fire, by resolute men
from a defensive position, over Africans armed with assegais and spears,
however numerous and however brave’.39 Justifying the invasion and
 1 INTrODUCTION 15

subsequent land grab by whites and noting that the power of the Zulu
Kingdom was not broken with the Boer victory, Walker wrote:

Pretorius marched into Zululand and, in 1838, overthrew many of

Dingaan’s impis at the three hour battle of Blood river. Pressing on,
Pretorius occupied the smouldering ruins of UMgungundlovu and
found the deed of cession in retief’s wallet beside his bones on the Hill
of Execution hard by. Though some three thousand Zulus were slain at
the cost of three Boers slightly wounded, the victory of Blood river by
no means broke the Zulu power. It did, however, clear the way for the
organisation of the most elaborate trekker republic yet attempted around
the church which Natalians built at Pietermaritzburg as a thanks offering
for their deliverance.40

On 16 December 1903, the following poem by J van rhijn, translated

from the Dutch, was published in De Volksstem:

We remember, we remember
The hour of victory
When Dingaan’s savage pagan horde
Broke up before our fathers’ fire
When Umzingati’s sombre stream
reflecting morning light
Disgorged its water in the oceans
Tinged red with Kaffir blood.41
It is important for us to note that Africans were not passive in terms
of producing contending images of the Zulu monarch. Many primary
sources still exist, such as oral traditions and izibongo that express vari-
ous African perspectives of King Dingane and impi yaseNcome. These
are both negative and positive. The negative images expressed by the
likes of Magema Fuze and John Dube are similar to the images articu-
lated by Carstens who depicts the king as a villain, tyrant, barbarian and
bloodhound and will be discussed in Chap. 4 of this book. The most
enduring image is that of the king as weakling, easily influenced by the
regent Queen Mnkabayi—the kingmaker. These primary sources pre-
dated the arrival of white colonisers in great numbers. Therefore, a dis-
cussion about African perspectives of King Dingane would be incomplete
16 S.M. NDLOVU

without reference to Mnkabayi. It is important to discuss her character

because she looms large over the multiple images of the Zulu monarch
and features in all the chapters of this book. Her izibongo serve as a
tacit or explicit counterpoint to those of King Dingane during his entire
reign.42 The isiZulu historical novels analysed in various chapters of this
book also dwell on her influential role, and the various authors’ perspec-
tives are, in important respects, grounded in oral traditions and izibongo
zikaDingane. The following lines from izibongo zikaMnkabayi possibly
composed by Magolwane kaMkhathini Jiyane provide us with historical
evidence concerning her life history.43

uSoqili!
Iqili lakwaHoshozaElidl’ umuntu limyenga ngendaba;
Lidl’ uBhedu ngasezinyangeni,
Ladl’ uMkhongoyiyiyana ngaseMangadini,
Ladl’ uBheje ngasezanusini.
Ubhuku lukaMenzi,
Olubamb’ abantu lwabanela;
Ngibone ngoNohela kaMlilo, umlil’ ovuth’ inaba zonke,
Ngoba lumbambe wanyamalala.
Inkomo ekhal’eSangoyana,
Yakhal’ umlomo wayo wabhoboz’ izulu,
Iye yezwiwa nguGwabalanda,
Ezalwa nguMndaba kwaKhumalo.
Intomb’ ethombe yom’ umlomo,
Zase ziyihlab’ imithanti ezawonina.
Umthobela–bantu izinyoni,
Bayazibamba usezibuka ngamehlo.
uVula bangene ngawo onk’ amasango,
Abanikazimuzi bangene ngezintuba.
Umncindela kaNobiya,
 1 INTrODUCTION 17

Umhlathuz’ uzawugcwal’ emini.

Imbibizan’ eyaqamba imigqa kwaMalandela,
Yathi ngabakwaMalandela,
Ithi yokhona bezoqanana ngazo zonk’ izindlela.44
regent Mnkabayi is credited with being attentive to detail, able to
listen attentively and to solve people’s problems, including those afflict-
ing commoners (uVula bangene ngawo wonke amasango …). Izibongo
describe the regent’s actions in actively dealing with problems posed by
corrupt chiefs and diviners like Bhedu and Bheje, among others, indi-
cating that she was offering solutions to existing political problems.
Furthermore, izibongo depict regent Mnkabayi as a male figure, ‘uSo-
qili’—the sly one, because the prefix (so) depicts a male figure instead
of (no), which refers to a female.45 Other women objected to her
‘manly’ behaviour which included the powerful role of a kingmaker and
also her lifelong spinster status, leading to the line in izibongo, ‘Zaye
ziyihlab’imithanti ezawonina’. Destructive powers are also attributed to
regent Mnkabayi for she was ‘uBhuku lukaMenzi. It is alleged that she
was involved in the events that led to the assassination of King Shaka and
the installation of Dingane as king. As Jantshi noted, ‘Dingane was made
king by Mnkabayi’.46 The last line of her izibongo (Ithi yokhona) refers
to the plots she hatched to determine the future trajectory of the polity.
She assumed the Zulu throne for the young Prince Senzangakhona (her
brother)47 and controlled the ebaQulusini region during the reigns of
King Shaka and King Dingane. This area today constitutes the Vryheid,
Ladysmith and Newcastle regions. In his testimony, Socwatsha elabo-
rated on the suggestion that she was responsible for appointing King
Dingane as king:

The question of [King Dingane’s] succession was referred to Mnkabayi

… She dressed as a man, had an isidwaba [traditional leather skirt] not
buqelwa’d ngomsizi, like other [women] … She also had imxezo i.e. amat-
shoba. When dressed, her identity could not be detected … She had a
white shield with a black spot, an assegai, also inhlendhla with which she
dondoloza.48

regent Mnkabayi was the doyenne of the royal house and was respon-
sible for the continuity of the Zulu royal family as well as for its success
in social and political organisation—thus the praise names ‘Imbibizan’
18 S.M. NDLOVU

eyaqamb’ imigqakwaMalandela, Yathi ngabakwaMalandela’. She had the

power to enforce traditional cultural practices and customs derived from
her status as the elder statesperson within the Zulu royal family. King
Dingane respected her authority as part of the political arrangement
within his kingdom. Bhibi kaSompisi, Ndlela’s sister, was also one of the
most powerful women at Mgungundhlovu.49 The role of powerful and
authoritative African women who supposedly influenced and controlled
the Zulu monarch will be analysed in Chap. 7.
African perspectives of King Dingane are multiple, and they are
expressed through recorded African oral traditions, which can be found
in izibongo; the James Stuart Archive; newspaper articles in iLanga
laseNatal, iNkundhla yaBantu, The Bantu World, Umsebenzi, Umteteli
waBantu and aBantu-Batho, among other sources. They can also be
gleaned from historical novels, journals and history texts compiled by
Africans, for example, those written by Magema Fuze, Petros Lamula,
John Langalibalele Dube, rolfes Dhlomo and Bhambatha Vilakazi.
Other sources include African drama/theatre and poetry in public
spheres such community halls, rallies and at mass meetings organised by
African workers belonging to the Industrial and Commercial Workers
Union (ICU) and the Communist Party of South Africa (CPSA). The
liberation movement, that is, the African National Congress (ANC), also
actively constructed particular representations of King Dingane.50
Elizabeth Mgqwetho, popularly known as Nontsizi, was probably the
first female author to enter the fray concerning the relationship between
King Dingane and the Voortrekkers. Her article on ‘The History of
Dingaan’s Day’ was published in aBantu-Batho on 15 December 1923.
The subtitle is ‘Dingaan, one of the bravest kings who ever sat on the
Native throne’. On the killing of retief, she also relied on African oral
traditions about reconnaissance carried out by the Voortrekkers at the
king’s palace. She proclaimed that the Voortrekkers had to be killed
because they had brought bad luck to the Zulu Kingdom. Nontsizi’s
article focused on festivities and the subsequent order to amabutho to
‘seize the wizards’. Like public intellectuals such as Ngoza kaLudaba
who relayed the original oral traditions about the king, she emphasises
continuity in relation to various confrontations between the Zulu king
and the Voortrekkers, for example, the battles at Weenen and iNcome.
She notes that ‘early on a summer Sunday morning December 16th
1838, began the great fight which broke forever the power of Dingaan’.
Nontsizi alludes to the fact that King Dingane continued to rule for 2
 1 INTrODUCTION 19

years and ‘was killed in a quarrel in Swaziland and was succeeded in rank
but not in power by his brother Mpande’. She also highlights the fact
that the Voortrekkers, as a group, included servants of mixed descent,
because she states that the Zulu army destroyed ‘men, women and chil-
dren, three hundred of them and two hundred and fifty coloured serv-
ants’ at Weenen.51 Nontsizi perceptively highlighted the fact that people
of mixed descent were deliberately written out of Afrikaner Nationalist
historiography.52
These multiple perspectives expressed by Africans reflected the mix-
ture of complex attitudes and the range of contending perspectives in the
nineteenth and twentieth centuries. This historiography relied largely on
existing African oral traditions, izibongo, myths and legends. For exam-
ple, the first published African oral traditions about impi yaseNcome
(the battle of Blood river to white South Africans) were an eyewitness
account relayed by Ngoza kaLudaba in a book entitled Izindatyana
zaBantu published by William Ngidi and Bishop Colenso in 1858, 20
years after impi yaseNcome. According to Ngoza’s oppositional interpre-
tation and eyewitness account, the battle was a continuation of various
battles between amaZulu and white settlers. An important excerpt from
Ngoza’s oral testimony and eyewitness account reads as follows:

Kwasekuhlala inhlamvu emakandeni abantu:sasiyabaleka–ke sebesiziponsa

emanzini emfuleni; sesingena sicatya kona pakati emanzini emfuleni; kuti
ubu busabalalele qede–ke bahamba, sasale savuka–ke, sahamba uba kuh-
lwe–ke ubusuku; sesiya eluPata uDingane elele kona…Sitit siti seusa
umfula, kwazis’ukuti nat’ kasiy’azi impi yakiti lapa ifihlwe kona; kanti impi
isilaliswe umfula wonke. Setuka sasitelek’ pez kwayo impi; yabuza yati,
‘Abelungu b’emise–pi na?’ Sati, ‘B’emise lapaya pezulu em’tonjeni; kepa
basibulele nati izolo… nani nisizwile isibhamu. ‘Yabuza–ke yona impi,
yati, ‘Abezikwehla, yini, namhlanje na?’ Sati–ke tina, ‘O! kasazi; ban-
yakaza nje kulo lonke izwe leli!’. Sesibuza–ke, ukuti, ‘Inkosi ipi nezind-
una na? Bati–ke bona, ‘Nazi izinduna lapaya, ngapetsheya, nenkosi, kona
nayo ngapetsheya kwomfolozi’, Sesiyasuka, siyehla… siti siza emahlatini
lawa apezulu koTukela, sihamba ubusuku–ke, kuzwakale–ke ngas’emuva,
kutiwa, amaBunu ambambile uBongoza inhloli enkulu eyona eyayi-
hlola impi kaDingane. Ati uma ayibambe qede abuze ati, ‘upi uDingane
lapa ekona na? Impi ingakanani ahlezi nayo na?’ Ati–ke yena, ‘Impi ipe-
lile, iqedwe yini, n’nabelungu, us’hlezi yedwa nomdhlunkulu wakhe
wake. Kete nempi eb’sindile ekufeni yasal’ isi’hle icitekele nezwe leli;
isingene emahlatini. Bati–ke ungasiyisa, yini–ke, lapa ehlezi kona yedwa
nezinkomo nabantu bake na?’…avume–ke ukuba–ke es’azi ukuba impi
20 S.M. NDLOVU

seipakwe yalal’ yonke imifuyana le az’uvela ngayo; ahamba–ke ngayo

indhlela–ke, ‘azi ukuti kulele amabandhla… Bahle bati ume beqala uku-
wela, kuhle kuvuka uDhlambendhlu na oziNyosi njalo, na oziXlebe–ke
njalo, avuke kanye onke amabuto, atye–ke yena uBongoza ati, ‘Bapakati,
mabandhla ka’Mjokwane, kaNdaba’, atyo–ke esepunyuka, esengena pakati
kweyakubo… Seiti ke impi, lapa ihambayo, ihamba ibulala konke kwama-
Lau, nokwabantu abamnyama, abahamba neloyimpi yamaBhunu.53

As was the case with Ngoza kaLudaba, white historians were also aware
of the fact that what they called the Battle of Blood river was not an iso-
lated battle or a single event. B.J. Liebenberg, in an article that appeared
in Die Huisgenoot of 16 December 1977, answering a critic who cas-
tigated him for failing to mention the covenant as the most important
aspect of the victory, replied that:

If divine intervention were to be drawn into the Battle of Blood river one
would have to make similar inferences in the case of every battle [between
amaZulu and the Voortrekkers], if one were to be consistent. One would
have to say that the Zulu had defeated Potgieter and Uys at Italeni because
God had chosen the Zulu side; that the Zulu had divine support at the
battle of White Umfolozi when they managed to lure the Trekkers into an
ambush.54

Much as there were different viewpoints among white South Africans,

the nineteenth-century template on King Dingane produced by
Magolwane and Mshongweni paved the way for divergent views about
the monarch, some of which were later linked to African nationalist per-
spectives on King Dingane. The Zulu nationalists such as Magema Fuze
and John Langalibalele Dube began to doubt their culture and the philo-
sophical foundations of their existence, asserting that Western civilisation
and religion were superior; they even regarded the Zulu monarch as an
uncouth barbarian. They celebrated the demise of those they perceived
as ‘heathens and tyrants’ like King Dingane. They were valiantly opposed
by African nationalists represented by Jordan Ngubane and Herbert
Dhlomo, rolfes Dhlomo’s younger brother, who was a devoted sup-
porter of the second Zulu king. Such ambiguities and contestations were
also expressed by various African academics such as Bhambatha Wallet
Vilakazi, Sibusiso Nyembezi and the Nigerian scholar, Felix Okoye.
Their various perspectives are discussed in Chaps. 4, 6 and 7 of the book.
 1 INTrODUCTION 21

Pro-King Dingane African nationalists such as Herbert Dhlomo and

Jordan Ngubane regarded the advent of white colonisers in Zulu land as
symbolising the struggle for control over African people, seizing politi-
cal power and occupying their land. The Voortrekkers had sought that
very same kind of independence and freedom from the British in the
Cape Colony, so it was ironic that they were determined to subjugate the
Zulu nation in what was their Zulu Kingdom. Thus, African nationalists
believed that King Dingane’s attack on Piet retief and the Voortrekkers
should be understood in this context. According to Jordan Ngubane,
King Dingane’s actions in 1838 were fully vindicated after 1948 when
the Afrikaners gained political power, legalised racism and lived up to
their reputation as oppressors. Little wonder then that in the literature
of African nationalists, King Dingane’s mistrust of whites and resistance
to white encroachment and colonisation transform the king from an
unthinking tyrant to a perceptive martyr. These pro-King Dingane per-
spectives will be analysed in Chap. 6 of the book.
Selope Thema was one of the first of the African nationalists to propa-
gate the king’s positive image in 1916. Furthermore, nationalistic images
are found in the speeches and writings of various politicians, authors,
workers and academics, including Vilakazi, Ngubane and Johannes
Nkosi. Their interpretations of King Dingane’s relationship with white
settlers depict the settlers as disrespectful colonisers and unscrupu-
lous men, attempting to enrich themselves at the expense of the indig-
enous population. Herbert Dhlomo described the invasion of the Zulu
Kingdom by the Voortrekkers in a drama about King Dingane. The play
was performed by African students at the University of Natal’s medical
school. In one of the scenes, the thoughtful Dingane asserts:

Now white men are coming into my country, not one by one as they came
in Shaka’s time, but by ten and ten; riding on horses, their deadly guns in
their hands, ready to spread amazement and death. This is a new thing.
Shaka never had to face it, nor my father Senzangakhona, nor his father,
Jama, before him. It has come to me.55

The French travel writer Adulphe Delagorgue also gave eyewitness

accounts of events in the wake of impi yaseNcome. Disputing that King
Dingane had granted land to the white invaders in the form of a treaty,
he commented:
22 S.M. NDLOVU

They [the Africans] simply laughed, unable to take the matter seriously;
they laughed at the foolishness of the Europeans. They laughed as we
would laugh if a Chinese junk arrived to take possession of France in
the name of the Celestial Empire, we would consider it a matter of great
mirth, and this is just what the natives did. The situation here was exactly
similar. The [Zulu] land was not virgin; it was inhabited by a numerous
population …56

To expand on this point, I also pay considerable attention to Public

History and the African workers ‘Dingaan’s Day’ counter-commemora-
tions in Chap. 5 of this book. It is possible to plot changing perspectives
about King Dingane which were constructed by the Communist Party of
South Africa, the Industrial Commercial Union (ICU) and the African
National Congress through newspapers, leaflets, handbills and police
reports of various ‘Dingaan’s Day’ activities. The same chapter also high-
lights the ‘voices’ of participants and various organisations. The African
workers’ representations of the king question conventional depictions of
colonial conquest and highlight the centrality of African unity to facili-
tate the achievement of emancipation. Strongly inferred, too, is the rejec-
tion of any alliance between whites and Africans during King Dingane’s
reign. The workers’ viewpoints indicate that the historical events that led
up to the ‘Blood river’ encounter were based on mutual suspicion and
the fear of conquest. So the reputation that preceded the Voortrekkers
did not augur well for their meeting with the Zulu monarch.
The ANC’s position on King Dingane was ambivalent and changed
with time. In the late 1920s and 1930s, the movement was reformist and
did not appropriate the king and ‘Dingaan’s Day’ as symbols of resistance.
This position changed drastically when the Nationalist Party government
took over in 1948, introduced progressively oppressive legislation in the
1950s and banned the liberation movements in 1960—leading to the for-
mation of uMkhonto we Sizwe (MK) on 16 December 1961. The ANC’s
nationalist position gained momentum during the 1970s as publications
like Sechaba and Dawn conferred upon King Dingane the status of a mar-
tyr and freedom fighter—hence the commemoration of 16 December as
Heroes Day by the exiled liberation movement.
On the important use of posters, leaflets and handbills for political
purposes, the ANC learnt so much from the African workers’ movements
of the 1920s as Chap. 5 will highlight. The ANC had always placed great
importance on the search for innovative ideas and the value propaganda
 1 INTrODUCTION 23

work. Indeed, this became the un-proclaimed fifth pillar of the liberation
struggle. The outlawing of the organisation in 1960 naturally created
numerous problems that could only be patiently solved. The apartheid
regime unleashed its full force against the liberation movement, with
thousands falling victim to massive police raids carried out by the security
police, leading John Vorster to make the hollow boast in 1963 that he
had ‘broken the back’ of the ANC.
Unbeknown to him—even while he was making this claim—the ANC
underground was regrouping and reorganising. It is undeniable that this
process was severely battered and even damaged when the movement’s
leadership was captured in 1963, but the underground survived and it
continued to grow.57 Consolidating the work undertaken by radio
Freedom, it was in this new period that the underground propaganda,
demonstrating the effectiveness of the ANC machinery and projecting its
voice, became of incalculable value. Underground leaflets and pamphlets
began to appear in the townships, factories and city streets. Passed on
from hand to hand, they reminded the people that the spirit of resist-
ance must never die.58 Chapter 8 will highlight these issues in as far as
the commemoration of 16 December as Heroes Day is concerned. The
counter-commemoration of King Dingane through public history by
both the worker movement and liberation movement proves the point
that his image was produced outside limits set by the archive of avail-
able sources. This differs with Carolyn’s Hamilton argument that King
Shaka’s images were produced within the limits set by the archive of
available sources.
A further aim of this book is to explore the ambiguities of Zulu
nationalist perspectives of King Dingane. What is fundamental to the dif-
fering perspectives of the king is the influence of oral traditions. These
are at the core of the historical narrative, whether expounded by Thomas
M’zwenduku Masuku as a poet, or by Mangosuthu Buthelezi as a politi-
cian and insider, a part of the Zulu royal house. Their viewpoints can
be compared and contrasted with those articulated by Africans who had
accepted Christianity as a religion and other culturally inspired religious
formations such as the Shembe Church. As an example, the African inde-
pendent church founded by Isaiah Shembe, based on Zulu traditions
and customs, was one of the independent black churches that instituted
counter-commemorations of ‘Dingaan’s Day’ by adopting an African
nationalist slant. This church also constructed a particular view of the
Zulu monarch.
24 S.M. NDLOVU

Writing this book, it may be that quotations have been used exces-
sively. I make no apologies for that. One of the methods used freely by
anthropologists, sociologists and historians is to repeat verbatim what
their sources said. This gives us an accurate feel of the racially oppressed
world view, voices, thoughts, moods and motivations of their subjects.
As an example, the police as agents of surveillance were consciously used
by African workers to relay sentiments of dissatisfaction, grievance or
outrage to their political masters. These sentiments expressed through
the use of words. This matter is analysed in depth in Chap. 5. While the
opinions of participants in the resistance movement and the organisation
of counter-commemorations are emphasised, different voices are given
prominence. The challenge for scholars is to integrate diverse voices into
an overall picture, while recognising that voices are incomplete, that
some potential voices and testimonies are likely to remain forever silent,
and that making sense of voices requires going beyond them.59 David
Cohen informs us that this processing of the past in societies and his-
torical settings throughout the world and the quest to control voices and
texts in the innumerable settings that animate the processing of the past
is termed the production of historical knowledge.60 Furthermore, Cohen
contends:

We mean this [production of historical knowledge] to encompass conven-

tions and paradigms in the formation of historical knowledge and historical
texts, the structuring of frames of record keeping, the culturally specific
glosses of texts and powerfully nuanced vocabularies, the patterns and
forces underlying interpretation, and the contentions and struggles which
evoke and produce texts and which also produce historical literatures.61

It is also important for me to nail one’s colours to the mast and elabo-
rate my own conception of the meaning of history in order to articu-
late the neglected, emancipatory role of African voices which, to a large
extent, influence negative and positive African perspectives of the role of
King Dingane in South Africa’s history. I will have to do this because
this book falls under the ambit of intellectual history—a branch of his-
tory that makes the study of history all-encompassing, empowering and
worth pursuing. I believe history is an argument, an explanation and a
viewpoint that draws on selected facts. It is a matter of debate and a con-
tinuous refinement of perspectives and interpretations. What we should
imbibe from the African nationalist and Black Consciousness schools of
 1 INTrODUCTION 25

thought is that there will always be a plurality of interpretation—this is

an essential, if underestimated, prerequisite to the study of history. As a
result, this book is also about the often neglected intellectual history of
Africans in South Africa.62
According to me, the past will never be placed beyond controversy
and contestation, nor should it be. Nor should we aim to replace the
dominant schools of historical thought controlled by white South
Africans with the exclusively African nationalist and Black Consciousness
ones. Instead, we should focus on the emancipation of African history
and the African voice. Critical to my thinking is the importance of pre-
colonial or pre-contact history, as well as the contemporary history of
Africa at large.
We should not avoid studying areas of conflict that face our divided
society. rather, a study of the complex and controversial role played
by King Dingane in the history of South Africa should be used to pro-
mote justice, democracy, peace, solidarity, social and human rights
by examining contentious historical themes such as race, ethnicity and
class. These themes are relevant because history is a representation
of the past in the present; hence, our present concerns influence what
interests us about the past. This point is connected to the fact that
December 16 is now a public holiday officially referred to as the ‘Day of
reconciliation’. Chapters 4, 5 and 8 will unpack how this came about.
The colonial encounter between King Dingane and white settlers in the
late 1820s and the 1830s involved more than the acquisition of land
and labour. At the centre of this encounter were issues of race, racism,
social Darwinism, definition and difference, language and identity, and
the intimate workings of political power and authority. These themes are
analysed in various chapters of the book. This is also why I included a
section about perspectives articulated by colonisers and those of white
South Africans in this introduction. These have been published widely
over the decades, and I do not have to repeat them in subsequent chap-
ters of this book.
To conclude, I am of the view that this book on multifaceted African
perspectives of King Dingane will bring alive the African nationalist and
Black Consciousness schools of thought because its aim is to compel
readers to consider historical problems from more than one perspective
and from more than one school of thought; it does not matter whether
these are conservative or progressive schools of thought. Take, for
instance, the question of race, one of King Dingane’s izibongo reads as
26 S.M. NDLOVU

follows: ‘uDingane umnyama ngabomu’,63 meaning, ‘Dingane is inten-

tionally black’. This represents one of the earliest discourses on Black
Consciousness and therefore explains the king’s confrontational stance
towards white invaders—a theme permeating various images of the Zulu
monarch. In analysing divergent African perspectives on King Dingane
elucidated for more than a century, we become conscious of the fact that
the ‘historic sense’ is not one of the certainties, with clear cut and unam-
biguous perspectives that can be reached in a prescribed manner. We
learn that the production of history is a process of constant negotiation
between evidence and interpretation where many questions remain unan-
swered or are capable of a wide variety of conclusions.

A NOTE ON ORTHOGRAPHY
The king’s name is spelled in various ways throughout this book. The
most commonly used versions in the writings that are cited are Dingaan,
Dingana and Dingane. This study adopts the Dingane version, because
it appears to be the most accurate. In Chap. 4, I discuss the fascinat-
ing analysis, propounded by Petros Lamula, of the meaning of the king’s
name.
I have imposed a degree of orthographic standardisation and use mod-
ern spelling for African names. Thus, Shaka, not Tshaka or Chaka. Most
isiZulu words and those in other African languages are not italicised,
nor are they always translated into English, because African languages
attained official status in South Africa after 1994. I prefer to use the old
spelling of Mnkabayi not Mkabayi which represents the modern spelling.
It is common practice throughout the world to refer to African
monarchs by using their first names as, for example, Shaka and
Dingana/Dingane, but curiously, it is customary to refer to European
traditional leaders by affixing their titles as kings and queens or lord
rather than to refer to them by their first names such as Edward, George,
Elizabeth, Isabel or Victoria. I do not subscribe to this paternalistic view-
point because I believe that African monarchies are also of royal blood
and deserve the elevated status of having their titles added to their names.
In isiZulu, Victoria and Elizabeth will always be referred to as iziNdlovu-
kazi—hence iNdlovukazi uVictoria—and George and Edward would pass
as amaKhosi—hence iNkosi uGeorge. I am not suggesting that European
monarchs were on par with their African counterparts. My argument is
that African monarchies were not on par mainly because they were not
 1 INTrODUCTION 27

responsible for massive slavery that characterised the capture and dehu-
manising of Africans and their subsequent enslavement in the Americas
and the Caribbean as soulless economic commodities. Those who com-
mitted large-scale crimes against humanity conducted these hideous
deeds in the name of European monarchs—particularly the British and
Spanish crowns. Such violent criminal acts committed by European mon-
archies included the extermination of indigenous peoples in the Americas,
New Zealand and Australia. Jared Diamond emphasises that:

The biggest population shift of modern times has been the colonisation of
the New World by the Europeans, and the resulting conquest, numerical
reduction, or complete disappearance of most groups of Native Americans
… The most dramatic moment in subsequent European-Native American
relations was the first encounter between Inca emperor Atahualpa and the
Spanish conquistador Francisco Pizzaro … Atahualpa was the absolute
monarch of the largest monarchy and advanced state in the New World,
while Pizarro represented the Holy Emperor Charles V (also known as
King Charles 1 of Spain), monarch of the most powerful state in Europe.64

NOTES
1. J. Ngubane, uShaba: The Hurtle to Blood River (Washington: Three
Continents Press, 1974), 2–3.
2. A. Goke-Pariola, cited in H. Pohlandt-McCormick, ‘“I saw a nightmare”,
Doing Violence to Memory: The Soweto Uprising, June 16, 1976’, PhD
thesis, Minnesota University, 1999.
3. N. Wa Thiong’o, ‘Europhone or African Memory’: The Challenge of the
Pan African Intellectual in the Area of Globalisation’, T. Mkhandawire
(ed.), African Intellectuals: Rethinking Politics, Language, Gender and
Development (Dakar and London: CODESrIA and Zed Books, 2005),
156; B. Magubane, Political Economy of Race and Class in South Africa
(New York: Monthly review Press, 1979), See also B.M. Magubane,
Race and the construction of the dispensable other (Pretoria: Unisa Press,
2007).
4. M. Kunene, Zulu Poems (New York: Africana Publishing Corporation,
1970), 13.
5. Ibid., 13.
6. Ibid., 11.
28 S.M. NDLOVU

7. J. Guy, ‘Dingane kaSenzangakhona: The Historical Background and

Secondary Sources’, in Introduction to Historical Studies, University of
Natal, Durban, 1995, 5.
8. F.A. van Jaarsveld, ‘A Historical Mirror of Blood river’, in A. Koning and
A. Keane eds., Conference Proceedings. The Meaning of History: Problems
in the Interpretation of History with Possible Reference to Examples from
South African History such as the Battle of Blood River (Pretoria: UNISA
History Department, 1980), 9.
9. See A.E. Cubbin, ‘The English Alliance with the Voortrekkers against the
Zulus during March and April 1838’, in Historia, 38, 2 (1988).
10. See Ngoza kaLudaba, Eyewitness Accounts in the Church of England
Mission, Izindatyana zabantu: kanye nezindaba zaseNatal (Bishopstowe:
no publisher, 1858). Ngoza was a participant in all the confrontations
and points out that King Dingane won at UMgungundlovu where he
outmanoeuvred Piet retief and his party. The Zulu warriors also pre-
vailed at emTyezi, eTaleni and oThukela, where King Dingane’s regi-
ments beat a united front between the Boers and the English settlers.
Ngoza asserts that they were also victors at emaGabeni (oPate) after
Bhongoza kaNgcobo, the Zulu king’s intelligence officer, had led the
Voortrekkers into an ambush immediately after the battle at iNcome. See
also Cubbin, ‘The English Alliance with the Voortrekkers’.
11. B.M. Magubane, The Political Economy of Race and Class in South Africa,
55.
12. N. Masilela, The Historical Figures of the New African Movement, Volume 1
(Trenton: Africa World Press, 2014), 7.
13. N. Masilela, An Outline of the New African Movement in South Africa
(Trenton: Africa World Press, 2013), xv; M. Kunene, ‘The relevance of
Oral Traditions to Written African Literature’, unpublished paper presented
at the 18th annual meeting of the African Studies Association, 1975.
14. C. Hamilton, Terrific Majesty: The Powers of Shaka and the Limits of
Historical Invention (Cape Town: David Philip, 1998); D. Golan,
Inventing Shaka: Using History in the Construction of Zulu Nationalism
(Boulder, Colorado: rienner, 1994); D. Wylie, Myth of Iron: Shaka in
History (Scottsville: UKZN Press, 2006).
15. B. Peterson, ‘“The ties that bind”: Weaving continental and interna-
tional cultural fraternities’ in South African Democracy Education Trust,
Road to Democracy in South Africa, Volume 5, African Solidarity, Part 2
(Pretoria: Unisa Press, 2015), 883–884.
16. Ibid., Peterson elaborates that for a fascinating discussion of the represen-
tation of King Shaka in the white imaginary, see D. Wylie, Savage Delight:
White Myths of Shaka (Pietermaritzburg: University of KwaZulu-Natal
Press, 2000).
 1 INTrODUCTION 29

17. A. Gérard, African Language Literatures: An Introduction to the Literary

History of Sub-Saharan Africa (London: Longman, 1981), 192;
D. Burness, Shaka: King of the Zulus in African Literature (Washington
D.C., Three Continental Press, 1976).
18. On this point about the important role of Vilakazi, Dhlomo and Kunene
as African intellectuals, see Masilela, The Historical Figures of the New
African Movement, Volume 1; and N. Masilela, An Outline of the New
African Movement in South Africa.
19. N. Isaacs, Travels and Adventures in Eastern Africa (Cape Town: Van
riebeeck Society, 1936), 288.
20. Ibid., 289.
21. Note that Africans had their own place names.
22. Isaacs, Travels and Adventures in Eastern Africa, 286.
23. Ibid., 289.
24. C. Hamilton, Terrific Majesty.
25. T. Spear, ‘Neo-traditionalism and the Limits of Invention in British
Colonial Africa’, Journal of African History, 44 (2003), 3.
26. Ibid.
27. J. Sithole, ‘Zuluness in South Africa: From “Struggle” Debate to
Democratic Transformation’, in B. Carton, J. Laband and J. Sithole eds.,
Zulu Identities: Being Zulu, Past and Present (Pietermaritzburg, UKZN
Press, 2008), xiii; J. Nxumalo, ‘The National Question in the Writing
of South African History: A Critical Survey of Some Major Tendencies’,
Working Paper No. 22, The Open University, undated, 29.
28. S.P. Lekgoathi, ‘Colonial’ Experts, Local Interlocutors, Informants
and the Making of an Archive on the Transvaal Ndebele, 1930–89’,
Journal of African History, 50, 1 (2009), 61–80. See also L. Schumaker,
Africanizing Anthropology: Fieldwork, Networks, and the Making of
Cultural Knowledge in Central Africa (Durham and London: Duke
University Press, 2001).
29. See C, Hamilton, Terrific Majesty.
30. Van Jaarsveld, ‘A Historical Mirror of Blood river’, 9–11. The author was
violently abused by right-wing Afrikaners after he presented the confer-
ence paper, which questioned several myths linked to the ‘Battle of Blood
river’. The conference about the battle was held at the University of
South Africa, 28–30 March 1979.
31. Ibid., 11.
32. Ibid., 23.
33. Ibid.
34. Ibid; G. Cory, The Rise of South Africa (Cape Town: Longman, 1965),
79.
35. Van Jaarsveld, ‘A Historical Mirror of Blood river’, 23.
30 S.M. NDLOVU

36. Van Jaarsveld, ‘A Historical Mirror of Blood river’, 20.

37. T. Arbousset, Excursion missionnaire dans les Montagnes bleues: suive de la
Notice sur les Zoulas (Johannesburg: IFAS, 2000), 193–200. This is an
excerpt from the first page of Abousset’s version. Notice the inclusion
of Queen regent Mnkabayi in line 6 and the standard line (14) of the
Zulu monarch’s izibongo as the uMalamulela, the Saviour of the people
(Liberateur!).
38. J. Bryce, Impression of South Africa (London: Macmillan and Company,
1899), 120.
39. L.M. Thompson, The Oxford History of South Africa, Volume 2 (Oxford:
Clarendon Press, 1969); Van Jaarsveld, ‘A Historical Mirror of Blood
river’, 15.
40. E. Walker, A History of South Africa (London: Longman, 1959), 209.
41. Ibid., 30.
42. For an in-depth analysis of Queen regent Mnkabayi’s rule, see S.M.
Ndlovu, ‘A reassessment of Women’s Power in the Zulu Kingdom’ in
B. Carton, J. Laband and J. Sithole eds., Zulu Identities: Being Zulu, Past
and Present (Pietermaritzburg, UKZN Press, 2008), Chap. 10.
43. B.W. Vilakazi, ‘The Oral and Written Literature’. On this see Chap. 2,
‘Poetry Concerning Women’, on his version of izibongo zikaMnkabayi.
44. Ibid. See also University of KwaZulu-Natal, Durban, James Stuart Archive
(hereafter JSA), Killie Campbell Manuscripts (hereafter KCM) 23478,
izibongo zikaMkabayi; M. Kunene M. Kunene, ‘An Analytical Survey
of Zulu Poetry both Traditional and Modern’, MA dissertation, Natal
University, 1957.
45. JSA, KCM 23478, File 28, izibongo zikaMnkabayi. For example, the
names Nobantu and Sobantu both mean ‘of the people’, but the former
refers to a female and the latter to a male.
46. C. Webb and J. Wright eds., The James Stuart Archive of Recorded Oral
Evidence Relating to the History of the Zulu and Neighbouring Peoples,
Volume 2 (Pietermaritzburg: University of Natal Press, 1976), Testimony
of Jantshi, 196. Other traditions suggest that Mnkabayi preferred Shaka
to Sigujana to succeed her brother Senzangakhona.
47. P. Lamula, uZulu kaMalandela: A Most Practical and Concise
Compendium of African History Combined with Genealogy, Chronology,
Geography and Biography (Durban: Star Printing Works, 1924), 110. See
also Vilakazi, ‘Oral and Written Literature’, 46.
48. JSA, KCM 24220, File 58, Testimony of Socwatsha.
49. Webb and Wright eds., The James Stuart Archive, Volume 2, Testimony of
Mangati, 206.
50. See various chapters in this book. See also S.M. Ndlovu and P. Limb,
‘African royalty, Popular History and Abantu-Batho’, in P. Limb ed.,
 1 INTrODUCTION 31

The People’s Paper: A Centenary History and Anthology of Abantu-Batho

(Johannesburg: Wits University Press, 2012), Chap. 8.
51. ‘The History of Dingaan’s Day’, Umteteli wa Bantu, 15 December 1923.
52. Ndlovu and Limb, ‘African royalty, Popular History and aBantu-Batho’,
Chap. 8.
53. Church of England Mission, Izindatyana zabantu. The question about
the authorship of this book will be addressed in Chap. 2. While passages
expressed in isiZulu in various chapters of the book will be translated, I
have decided not to translate this passage just to emphasise the point that
it is imperative that we write our history in indigenous African languages.
After all, they are recognised as official languages in South Africa.
54. Van Jaarsveld, ‘A Historical Mirror of Blood river’, 17.
55. H. Dhlomo, Dingana scene no 3, (a stage play), manuscript, 15, Killie
Campbell Library, University of Natal (now renamed University of
KwaZulu-Natal).
56. A. Delagorgue, Travels in Southern Africa, Volume 1 (Pietermaritzburg:
University of Natal Press, 1977), Chap. 10, 120–121. I am indebted
to Jeff Guy for this reference. See also J. Guy, Working paper on
‘re-interpretations of Zulu perspectives of the Boer/Zulu conflict in
the 1830s’, presented at a seminar on Impi yaseNcome/Blood river,
University of Zululand, October 1988.
57. See, for example, S.P. Lekgoathi, ‘The ANC’s radio Freedom, its
Audiences and the Struggle against apartheid, 1963–1991’, in SADET,
The Road to Democracy in South Africa, African Solidarity, Volume 6,
1990–1996, Part 1 (Pretoria: Unisa Press, 2012), Chap. 13.
58. ‘Voice of Freedom: Clandestine ANC Propaganda inside South Africa’,
Sechaba, Fourth Quarter, 1976, 38.
59. On the use of voices, see J. Seekings, ‘Whose Voices? Politics and
Methodology in the Study of Political Organisation and Protest in the
Final Phase of the Struggle in South Africa’, South African Historical
Journal, 62, 1 (2010), 7–28.
60. D. Cohen, ‘The Production of History’, 25, Position paper prepared for
the Fifth International roundtable in Anthropology and History, Paris,
2–5 July 1986. I take this opportunity to thank Professor David Cohen for
going to great lengths in forwarding this paper to me. See also D. Cohen,
The Combing of History, (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1994).
61. Cohen, ‘The Production of History’, 25.
62. N. Masilela, An Outline of the New African Movement in South Africa.
63. James Stuart Archives, KCM 24199–24211, Hoye kaSoxhalase version.
64. J. Diamond, Guns, Germs and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies (New
York: W.W. Norton & Co, 1999), 67–68. See also B.M. Magubane Race
and the Construction of the Dispensable Other (Pretoria: Unisa Press, 2007).
 CHAPTEr 2

Magolwane kaMkhathini Jiyane

and Mshongweni: Izibongo and the
Construction of King Dingane’s Archive

In the Cambridge History of South Africa, Volume 1, the authors Carolyn

Hamilton, Bernard Mbenga and robert ross discuss the almost com-
plete absence of work focusing upon the intellectual history of South
Africa in pre-colonial times. They lament the widespread discrimination
and prejudice against oral texts within the academy notwithstanding the
fact that oral history is by far the oldest form of historical practice on
the African continent.1 Moreover, one of the first historians to collect
oral evidence from Africa was Herodotus, who gained knowledge of the
continent from Greek colonies of modern Libya. The Carthaginians had
oral accounts of epic voyages down the African coast and quite possibly
even learnt of the circumnavigation of the continent. Hamilton, Mbenga
and ross find it ironic that the profound methodological breakthroughs
which led to the recovery of oral traditions was accompanied by the
denial of their status as viable historical sources and being important his-
torical accounts and intellectual projects in their own right. They main-
tain that documentary sources have been privileged over oral sources on
the pretext that they have survived unaltered for long periods of time,
whereas oral texts are dismissed as sources fraught with subjectivity and
bias because of their impermanence, fluidity and intangibility. The rejec-
tion of oral texts as historical sources is premised on the view that they
require careful professional interpretation by academics and that these
texts should be regarded as historiologies rather than historiographies.2
This rejection is maintained notwithstanding the fact that documentary

© The Author(s) 2017 33

S.M. Ndlovu, African Perspectives of King Dingane kaSenzangakhona,
African Histories and Modernities, DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-56787-7_2
34 S.M. NDLOVU

sources begin their life as oral sources before they are compiled and writ-
ten down.
The implication of this type of reasoning, as these Cambridge History
authors explain, is the flawed suggestion that the production of history
is the exclusive domain of professionally trained academic historians and
the denial of the possibility that public intellectuals who operated during
pre-colonial or pre-contact times were themselves busy producing histo-
ries or their epistemological equivalents. On these issues, Mazisi Kunene
opined:

It is only recently that many [European] writers and critics have begun to
describe oral literary expressions from Africa as literature. To these writ-
ers and critics, literature meant only that which was written … for private
reading or reading by a particular coterie of scholars and intellectuals. For
a long period oral African literature was described by European mission-
aries and adventurers as no more than incomprehensible blubbering of
the savage mind. It was dismissed as lacking structure and having none
of the excellence that constitutes what by European subjective criteria,
constituted literature … By these criteria, like the rest of African culture,
[oral African literature] was judged as befitting the scale of expression just
slightly higher than the first cave dwellers. It affirmed in the minds of the
colonisers, the cultural stunted-ness of the African.3

A detailed analysis of key oral texts such as izibongo produced by

Magolwane kaMkhathini Jiyane and Mshongweni will address the chal-
lenges identified by Kunene, Hamilton, Mbenga and ross and affirm
the validity of such texts as viable historical sources. Izibongo zamak-
hosi, as composed by Magolwane and Mshongweni, are among the earli-
est forms of historical consciousness that make it possible for us to gain
insight into the intellectual history of pre-colonial times. They provide
us with ideas and archival material signifying perceptions and life histo-
ries of Zulu monarchs such as Dingane.4 Magolwane and Mshongweni,
as public intellectuals, operated for about five decades as izimbongi
to the first four Zulu kings, that is, from the early 1800s to the early
1870s. Evidence in this regard is provided by the James Stuart Archives
(including the published versions), William Ngidi and academics such as
Benedict Bhambatha, W. Vilakazi and Mazisi Kunene.
It must not be forgotten that Africans had no system of record-
ing events on paper as they came to pass, so that the handing down of
 2 MAGOLWANE KAMKHATHINI JIYANE AND MSHONGWENI … 35

history over generations had of necessity to be transmitted orally. To

keep these events fresh in the minds of imbongi such as Magolwane and
in the memories of the people attending such ceremonial occasions, one
of the dominant cultural customs was ukubonga based on performance
by imbongi. Kunene maintained that starting with the meritorious deeds
of ancestors who had passed away, an imbongi would recite izibongo one
after another until he ended with izibongo lauding the reigning sover-
eign. Therefore, as a record of the valiant deeds of great people, izibo-
ngo became a reservoir or archive of historical events in a given African
society. They tell us how pre-colonial societies produced umlando some-
thing akin to the modern idea of history and about other forms of their
historical consciousness.5
Mazisi Kunene noted that the Zulu heroic epic (izibongo) has gone
through different stages of development and because of the close prox-
imity of African literature to history; this literature (including izibo-
ngo) follows peaks and troughs according to the historical period.
Accordingly, through izibongo, Ndaba (a seventeenth-century ruler
of amaZulu) is depicted only as a hunter with a shield on his knees.
Therefore, the period from the sixteenth century to about 1815 abounds
with izibongo obsessed with physical appearance as an aesthetic qual-
ity. This era is also characterised by frequent reference to erotic meta-
phor. Kunene expresses the view that from this we can deduce that the
community was less active in terms of expansion compared to its later
epic exploits. The socio-economic and political upheavals caused by land
hunger in the period from about 1795 to 1815 resulted in the creation,
the dramatic rise of the Zulu empire.6 In establishing this empire, King
Shaka stimulated the greatest period of Zulu traditional literature and
Kunene emphasises the point that:

Magolwane, Shaka’s court poet, revolutionized Zulu poetry and created

not only a form that was the highest vehicle of [intellectual] thought and
feeling, but also evolved such a dramatic style of language that legend has
it he needed only to beat the ground with his staff to emphasise the mean-
ing of his poem … In his epic, (Magolwane) combined both analysis and
synthesis so that his stanzas not only introduced and treated the subjects,
but also contained philosophical conclusions and summaries.7

In his general discussion of izibongo, Sibusiso Nyembezi asserts that

they are a feature of south-eastern isiNtu-speaking peoples. They are rich
36 S.M. NDLOVU

historical texts about kings, their counsellors, state officials and all oth-
ers who gained public recognition and distinction, for instance warriors
who went into battle and through their valiant deeds, drew attention
to themselves, won accolades or added to that they already possessed.8
Women of rare ability, like Queen regent Mnkabayi and Ntombazi, simi-
larly ignited the poetic spark in the Zulu and Ndwandwe bards, result-
ing in spirited recitals of their accomplishments. To elaborate this crucial
point, I have discussed izibongo zika Mnkabayi for she was instrumental
in influencing the trajectory of the Zulu royal house—including during
King Dingane’s reign.9
According to Vilakazi, Nyembezi, Kunene and later Hamilton, izibo-
ngo bore complex witness to the societies from which they emerged and
exhibited a double ideological aspect. They were both a form of history
in which the world view of the rulers was expressed and a vehicle for
the expression of social disaffection. They were, at the same time, the
chronicles of individual lives of monarchs as well as commoners, for izib-
ongo were not confined to the deeds of chiefly society and monarchies.10
Thus, they were not confined to valiant deeds of great people, usually
represented by men who belonged to the upper-class echelon; hence, my
analysis of izibongo zikaMnkabayi in the Introduction of this book high-
lights the point that women were also subjects of ukubonga. Generally,
according to Kunene, izibongo were composed and performed when
women got married (perhaps that is why so much was made of their
beauty to impress their future in-laws). It was also not uncommon in
Zulu society to give izibongo to a new-born child. These formed part
of what the amaZulu call ukuteketisa. Some people praised themselves
regardless of class affiliation. A warrior might stand up and sing his own
izibongo and be cheered and urged on by his listeners.11
Nor were izibongo confined to people and the scions of aristocratic
families. One of the primary interests of isiNtu speakers is cattle, which
play a very important part in their ceremonies, although the impact of a
European economy is gradually changing this. The high esteem for ritual
animals brings them into the fabric of izibongo. Men are represented as
animals and animals themselves are personified. When there is drought,
cattle are slaughtered to propitiate the spirits, and cattle are used to pay
lobola or ‘bride wealth’, which is an important factor in the legalisation
of the union between a man and wife. rams and dogs were also on occa-
sion showered with izibongo by their owners.12
 2 MAGOLWANE KAMKHATHINI JIYANE AND MSHONGWENI … 37

MAGOLWANE AND MSHONGWENI AS PUBLIC INTELLECTUALS

DURING PRE-COLONIAL TIMES
Magolwane kaMkhathini and Mshongweni, who were influential izim-
bongi and public intellectuals practising their art during pre-colonial
times, collected, composed and recited izibongo in spellbinding dra-
matic performances carried out in the presence of kings and common-
ers alike. They used history to actively involve themselves in the cultural
dialogue of the time. Magolwane was King Shaka’s stellar imbongi, and
Mshongweni was King Dingane’s impressive imbongi. In certain circum-
stances, Mshongweni shared his duties with Magolwane who continued
to perform after the death of King Shaka. Both izimbongi became part
of the community discourse; they were capable of creating complex cul-
tural formulations and interpreting the history of the Zulu Kingdom
through the lens of izibongo. They were also expected to articulate
grievances of the king’s subjects. Nomxamama kaSoshaya was also King
Shaka’s imbongi. Both Magolwane and Mshongweni performed their
art during the reign of the three Zulu monarchs, Shaka, Dingane and
Mpande. In an interview conducted by James Stuart, Mtshayankomo
kaMagolwane said the following about his father:

[Magolwane] did not pause for rest before he had finished the praises of
a particular king. When he had finished he would cry out, ‘The elephant
[king] has swallowed him. You are the silent one, great sky above! You are
the silent one, great lion! You are the silent one, great leopard! You are
the silent one, great elephant! … He puts on a great deal of finery and is a
great size when dressed up. He walks about as he bongad. The king is lis-
tening with his assembly the whole time, and every now and then whistles
his approval, but says nothing …13

I define Magolwane and Mshongweni as public intellectuals because they

engaged in an intellectual discourse by using izibongo as public history.
Their public performance of izibongo in front of monarchs, officials,
warriors and commoners gave expression to ‘moments of intense or elab-
orate historiographical contestation, notably concentrated on [among
other themes] succession disputes and political crises [in pre-colonial
or pre-industrial societies]’.14 I will elaborate later on these historio-
graphical contestations articulated by izimbongi on behalf of the people.
Furthermore, izimbongi and narrators of oral traditions of the calibre of
38 S.M. NDLOVU

Magolwane and Mshongweni merit the description of public intellectu-

als, a term which I shall use henceforth in its widest sense to include peo-
ple who did not necessarily receive a formal education in mission schools
or other existing formal educational establishments of the time, yet per-
formed the social functions of intellectuals—a function that is commu-
nal, cultural, directive, organisational, educative and emancipatory. To
refer to izimbongi as public intellectuals gives pre-eminence to their role
in the production of historical knowledge in a ‘pre-literate’ society. As
far as this study is concerned, the term is restricted to public intellectuals
who seek actively to think about the meaning and significance of social,
economic and public life, philosophy, religion, history, literature, politics
and culture, among other pressing matters. They engage in public dis-
course about such ideas, including the problems facing them as people
and responsible citizens of a given polity.
Most of the izibongo of the Zulu kings were recorded by James
Stuart,15 particularly those of King Shaka and King Dingane, which were
composed by Magolwane and Mshongweni.16 Tununu, interviewed by
Stuart, confirmed this point by asserting that Magolwane was ‘unina
wezimbongi zonke’, that is, ‘the mother of all izimbongi’, as ‘he would
get up early, go into the kraal and start bongaing so as to vus’ inkosi
(Dingane) esigodhlweni’.17 Mandhlakazi kaNgidi elaborated the follow-
ing to Stuart: ‘Magolwane used to recite praises to such an extent that he
would go on hands and knees, and lose his voice’.18 Also, Mandhlakazi
observed:

I, Mandhlakazi, once asked a son of Magolwane how it was that the Zulu
imbongi were able to remember the praises of kings to so extraordinary a
degree, how it was that they managed to dispose themselves to receive and
retain so much, what drugs they ate which opened up the chest or heart to
the reception of so much? He said it was because they were always given
tripe to eat. Moreover, they used to eat the drug umklele.19

It is then appropriate for us to discuss in detail the life history of

Magolwane kaMkhathini Jiyane. This is done so that readers are able to
understand the sociocultural spaces which defined his pre-colonial world.
I also declare upfront that because of the lack of space, I cannot under-
take a similar exercise concerning all other public intellectuals of the
nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. This section relies largely on
Vilakazi’s and Kunene’s research. Vilakazi (and later, Kunene) described
 2 MAGOLWANE KAMKHATHINI JIYANE AND MSHONGWENI … 39

Magolwane as the most renowned and greatest imbongi ever produced

by the Zulu empire.20
Bhambatha Benedict Wallet Vilakazi provides the following important
sketch of Magolwane’s life history. Magolwane was born during the late
eighteenth century at kwaCeza in the upper regions of the Mbatha pol-
ity. His family originated from the Ntombela clan and this clan name dis-
appeared through intermarriages between the Jiyane and the Ntombela.
He was tall and well built, with strong calves, the epitome of a hand-
some and lovable man. He was also a brave warrior who was particularly
impressive in his military regalia. Magolwane’s strong clear voice and tal-
ent in ukubonga became apparent during the reign of King Shaka. He
was a formidable warrior in a Zulu regiment and was not afraid of close
combat on the battlefield. Magolwane would personify himself as one of
the past Zulu monarchs engaged in a fierce one-on-one confrontation
with an opposing warrior. Like a bellowing, raging bull, he would per-
form battle cries; ‘Usefikil’ uMthwaz’ ongangezintaba’ (uSenzangak-
hona the indomitable warrior has arrived on the battlefield); Usefikil’
uNomashovushovu (uShaka the indestructible warrior has arrived);
Usefikil’ uMphankominamabele (uDingane the cunning warrior has
arrived).21
According to Vilakazi, Mkhabisa-nyathi’s (Magolwane’s) expertise in
ukubonga was at its peak during the reigns of Dingane and Mpande. He
defined Magolwane as ‘the father of all izimbongi’ who was the first to
propose that audiences should keep quiet, be observant of the perfor-
mance and listen attentively when an imbongi was performing in front of
kings and to proceed with the spirit of friendship. He was the favourite
imbongi of both Dingane and Mpande. As a result, he was never allowed
to take a break to visit his clan and extended family, because he was the
imbongi who provided the king with the most heart-warming enter-
tainment. Furthermore, he hid nothing and he was renowned for being
frank; he was not afraid to criticise the king if he had displayed poor
leadership qualities which negatively affected his subjects, been respon-
sible for bloodletting or other bad deeds. He even castigated Dingane
for being responsible for a dynastic succession dispute that bedevilled the
Zulu royal house:

Lalela munt’omemezayo (King Dingane),

Umemeza-njuyalila,
40 S.M. NDLOVU

Ulilel’izinkomo ngezakho yini?

KungezakwaBulawayo?

Furthermore, through izibongo, Magolwane did not hide from King

Dingane the fact that the killing of the Boers was a harsh decision:

Yebuya weHwanqa laseMgungundlovu, yebuya

Wangenis’ umkhonto kwelakwaZulu,

Wabulala amaBhunu na?

Wangenis’umkhonto esiswini!

Les’isibind’ esingaka, lesi na?

Nor did Magolwane fear the wrath of King Mpande (the third Zulu
king); he criticised the king roundly for his bad deeds by including the
following lines in a performance of izibongo before the king’s subjects:
‘wen’usilwane esibek’abakayise bakhothame. Uze wabuz’uMpande
kuMagolwane wathi wenzelani ukumbonga ngabakayise. Wathi uMagol-
wane, ‘kanti khona manje awubabulalanga yini abakayihlo na?’ This can
be loosely translated as: ‘Just like your siblings (Shaka and Dingane) you
are also an animal who destroyed his siblings’. The aggrieved and sul-
len Mpande would ask Magolwane to censor himself and refrain from
including his family as part of izibongo dedicated to him, the third king
of amaZulu—and Magolwane would retort bravely: ‘Is it not a fact that
[in succession disputes] you murdered your siblings?’22 The contribu-
tion of izimbongi led to a situation whereby contending historiographi-
cal debates on dynastic succession battles within the royal house and
the killing of the Voortrekkers permeate the archive of King Dingane.
Kunene rationalised that Magolwane’s greatness as a public intellectual
lies in the way he revolutionised the whole Zulu poetic idiom, whose pri-
mary concerns before 1815 were the description of physical features—
the beauty of the human body; the beauty of friendship; and indeed the
beauty of life. Magolwane’s great epic about the exploits of the Zulu
empire introduced sociopolitical and historical analysis into izibongo
while also delving deep into the character of each individual king of the
amaZulu (Shaka, Dingane and Mpande). The changes implemented by
 2 MAGOLWANE KAMKHATHINI JIYANE AND MSHONGWENI … 41

Magolwane, according to Kunene, elevated oral literature to dramatic

intellectual heights that had never been achieved before.23
Vilakazi was of the view that Magolwane was a great thinker and
assertive public intellectual whose engaging performances and composi-
tions were straight from his heart—he even composed izibongo of those
unknown to him. Vilakazi asserts that we will never be able to trace or even
estimate the total number of izibongo composed by Magolwane, but we
do know that they included individuals such as Mageba, Jama, Mnkabayi,
Mpande, Nzibe, Gugqu, Mbuyazi, Mshongweni, Mntantashiya, Mduba,
Somklwana, Langazana, Bibi, Nandi, and Songiya. Magolwane, a highly
creative imbongi, had his own unique opening line whenever he began
ukubonga addressed to a particular king, prince, princess or regent queen
such as Mnkabayi. He never stood still during public performances of izib-
ongo. He had a magnetic aura and arresting stage presence in front of his
audience as he pranced about, as if in a trance, from one place to another
until he completed his carefully prepared performance.24 Kunene noted
that the symbols chosen by Magolwane while performing izibongo pub-
licly were not only aimed at showing parallel qualities but also the fusion
of related qualities. In his (izibongo) epics, he combined both analysis and
synthesis so that his stanzas not only introduced and treated the subject,
but also contained philosophical conclusions and summaries.25
According to Kunene, izibongo and other oral texts focusing on
the Zulu monarchs combined both philosophical and historical analy-
sis. These texts also included synthesis of sociopolitical factors illustrat-
ing the process by which knowledge was produced in pre-colonial times.
Kunene also regarded Magolwane as the national poet when the Zulu
empire was at its peak. Moreover, Magolwane’s compositions can best be
understood with an appreciation of the historical context that nurtured
his immense genius. Kunene paid homage to Magolwane and composed
a poem entitled ‘To Tu Fu, Beethoven, Va Dong, Magolwane and All
the Great Poets of Humankind’.26
Izibongo, as composed by Magolwane, deal with various themes
including conflicts between individuals in the royal house and sociopo-
litical challenges bedevilling the Zulu empire. Kunene depicted these as
being of national interest so that the historical characters in Magolwane’s
greatest epic poem became symbolic of great challenges which defined the
character and destiny of the Zulu empire and its subjects.27 In this sense,
according to Kunene, izibongo offer two levels of meaning. The first level
42 S.M. NDLOVU

is a historical analysis of events which impacted on the cultural, economic

and sociopolitical spheres of life within the Zulu empire, each with its own
aesthetic meaning. On the second level, the same historical events become
symbolic of the human drama and everyday life during pre-colonial times.
Through this symbolism imbongi such as Magolwane or Mshongweni
consciously hinted at and suggested the interconnection between the
descriptive and the philosophical.28 This is apparent in the following izib-
ongo for King Dingane: ‘uMgabadeli owagabadela inkundla yakwaBul-
wayo’ [the daring one who dared to enter the courtyard of Bulawayo].
This line describes a political and historical event—King Dingane’s usur-
pation of the crown from King Shaka. At the same time, the event draws
attention to the succession problems that beset the Zulu royal house,
including bloodletting and the killing of siblings.
The debates over dynastic succession and other political struggles
within the royal house transcend description, for they fall within the
ambit of political philosophy and tradition. Because izimbongi openly
and fearlessly discussed these matters of vital importance for the future of
the Zulu empire in public and without fear of recrimination, a continu-
ous intellectual and philosophical discourse prevailed in the Zulu empire.
The historiographical interpretations that arose in this manner will be
discussed in various chapters of this book.
The portrayal of the king by izimbongi as ‘uMgabadeli, owagabad-
ela inkundla yakwa Bulawayo’ is about historical interpretation. The per-
ceived storming of kwaBulawayo, one of King Shaka’s royal residences,
by King Dingane was interpreted as an attempt to halt the tyranny of
King Shaka. This led to King Dingane being positively referred to in
izibongo as ‘uMalamulela’, literally meaning a saviour of the oppressed
people. But simultaneously Dingane was also negatively caricatured
by izimbongi as ‘ithole elihamba likhahlel’ amany’ amathole ngezim-
pumulo’ [the calf that went and kicked other calves with nostrils with
nostrils here symbolising the perpetuator’s high position within the
royal house]. These contrasting negative and positive perceptions of the
king also point to underlying political philosophy and survive because
generally it is not easy to intervene and manipulate izibongo. On this
important point, Hamilton contends that the crucial role of izibongo
performed in most ‘rituals’ would have ensured that they were conserved
in their original form as far as possible. The anachronisms and archa-
isms characteristic of izibongo survived even once their meaning became
obscured, while their poetic form would also have facilitated their being
 2 MAGOLWANE KAMKHATHINI JIYANE AND MSHONGWENI … 43

remembered over time. To support Hamilton’s point, the following izib-

ongo zika Dingane, composed by Mshongweni, conveys the view that
izibongo will always remain true in the process survive manipulation and
accretions:

Vezi kof’ abantu, kusal’izibongo

Izona zosala zibadalula

Izona zosal’zibalil’emanxiweni.29

Kunene described Mshongweni as a great nineteenth-century African

poet and, as was the case with Magolwane, also composed a poem
dedicated to the genius of Mshongweni. It is entitled ‘Tribute to
Mshongweni: A Great Nineteenth-Century African Poet’.30 Mshongweni
was the second-most illustrious and influential imbongi when the Zulu
empire was in its prime. However, according to Kunene all that is known
about Mshongweni is that he was King Dingane’s court poet.31 Kunene
believes that Mshongweni was also a great imbongi, as his eulogy for the
king shows and also asserts that Mshongweni’s main contribution to Zulu
literature is the highly analytic style that permeates his eulogies. Like his
contemporary Magolwane, he was a brave performance poet, criticising
King Dingane for his misdeeds without worrying about falling into dis-
favour. As a public intellectual, he voiced his opinion in public without
fear. Mshongweni’s perceptions of the king had a great influence upon
Kunene’s perceptions of the second Zulu king, a point that will be ana-
lysed in Chap. 7 of this book. Mshongweni composed the following ana-
lytical line with reference to izibongo zika Dingane: ‘uNomashikizela,
uMashiyimpi yakhe’ [uNomashikizela, the deserter of his own army],
meaning that King Dingane cannot be compared to King Shaka, who
fought his own battles. The king is in fact aptly defined in this izibongo as
a coward who deserted his own army.32
In his oral text, Mshongweni also portrayed King Dingane not just as
a decorated butterfly (‘uVemvane’) like most pre-Shakan rulers, but as
an aggressive monarch. Hence, Mshongweni as imbongi focuses on the
king’s treacherous nature: ‘Isiziba esinzonzo sinzonzobele. Siminzisa
umuntu ethi uyageza’ [an illusionary pool that is both still and welcom-
ing. It drowned someone intending to bathe], presumably an allusion
to the riverside assassination of Prince Mhlangana, the king’s sibling and
rival to the Zulu throne. regardless of these self-defeating and destructive
44 S.M. NDLOVU

tendencies, Mshongweni depicted the ‘uncompromising’ King Dingane

as ‘ebengangabazingeli bakwaMavela, ebebezingela izimbongolwana’ [he
was like the hunters of Mavela’s place, who hunted flying ants].
With the unannounced arrival of the Voortrekkers and white set-
tlers, the king was justifiably uneasy and is described by Mshongweni
as ‘indlovu ekulala kuQwambayiya, ezinye ziyalala ziyathokoza’ [an
elephant whose sleep is fitful, while others sleep happily]. Nevertheless,
Mshongweni argued that the king was not overawed by the foreign
invaders. In Mshongweni’s izibongo, it is apparent that characters such
as King Dingane and other individuals have specific social, political and
historical meanings. Having discovered that individuals assumed greater
significance if their life history, representing a series of events, was ana-
lysed over a long period, Mshongweni gave added meaning to his-
torical events by using characters with descriptive names. Unless one is
acquainted with the history and events that have gone before, it is some-
times difficult to know whether a particular character is real or merely
symbolic. This becomes apparent when one analyses the descriptive
names of those captured after the military expedition to Mzilikazi’s ter-
ritory in the interior, and the people murdered together with Piet retief
at uMgungundlovu.33 Describing a virgin captured during the expedi-
tion, Mshongweni emphasised, ‘wadl’intombi ingakezwa mthondo kwa-
Mashobane’ [he conquered a virgin from kwaMashobane]; a drunkard/
beer taster is ‘wadl’uMhabula-ngwebu kwaMatshobana’ [he conquered
a drinker of beer foam from Mashobane’s polity]; a Voortrekker with
unusual teeth is ‘wadl’uMaziny’ansasa’ [he conquered the one with
scattered teeth]; a Voortrekker with a moustache covering his mouth,
Mshongweni creates the line ‘wadl’ uMlomogubu’ [he conquered the
one with a mouth which covered with moustache]; and the Voortrekker
with a double-barrelled rifle is ‘wadl’ dubula ngesingamakhal’amabili’
[he conquered a shooter (with) a double-barrelled rifle].
Kunene noted that Mshongweni identified 31 characters, includ-
ing men, women and children, whom King Dingane reputedly cap-
tured and killed while his marauding impi was on a military expedition.
Mshongweni also referred to the fact that Prince Dingane came back
to ‘murder’ King Shaka while the Zulu army was away—attacking kwa-
Soshangane polity, where some of the amabutho were killed by the
poisonous synadenium tree, umdlebe, hence: ‘ezinye ziyofa umdlebe’
[others will die because of umdlebe] and ‘inkomo eyabuya yodwa kwa-
Soshangane’ [a cow that came back alone from Soshangane land].34
 2 MAGOLWANE KAMKHATHINI JIYANE AND MSHONGWENI … 45

Mshongweni depicts Dingane as ‘umalunguza izindonga kande

ukuwela’ [he who peeps over dry ravines before crossing], that is, not
as brave as his brother, Shaka: according to Mshongweni, he carefully
examined everything before he committed himself. Furthermore, the
king was disliked by those who yearned for the old days of Shaka’s rule,
‘ungezwa bethi dlula Pheqe kaNdaba basoVemvaneni, emva kwakho
bakugodlela amaklwa nezinqindi’35 [You could hear them saying pass on,
Pheqe son of Ndaba; they were at Vemvaneni, and they hid their asse-
gais, stabbing spears and fists behind you].
It is imperative to emphasise that in terms of historiography,
Magolwane and Mshongweni elaborated on and highlighted the follow-
ing five main themes through izibongo as oral literature: King Dingane’s
accession to the throne; the king’s character; the king’s battle campaigns
against amaSwazi, Soshangane and Mzilikazi; the king’s turbulent rela-
tionship with his siblings and domestic enemies; and finally, the king’s
relationship with white invaders, including the Voortrekkers. Then, as
will be shown in Chap. 3, the oral traditions of the king were explored,
analysed and elaborated upon within the confines or limits imposed by
these themes during the early twentieth century. Soon, the images of
King Dingane were produced within the limits set by this archive.
In analysing the orientation of Magolwane and Mshongweni, we
become aware that Magolwane, the elder of the two, was more ambigu-
ous and circumspect. He was mature and experienced, for he performed
and perfected his art in the Zulu royal court during the reigns of regent
Mnkabayi, King Shaka, King Dingane and King Mpande. Magolwane
was also a well-known and formidable warrior, steeped in the military
traditions of amaZulu, and in a heroic manner would probably have
given his life to honour and defend the Zulu empire. The young and
radical Mshongweni, imbongi for Dingane, Mpande and Cetshwayo,
invariably had a negative and critical view of what was happening within
the Zulu state. He was not a warrior engaged in some of the tumultu-
ous military conflicts. Accordingly, we can read this as evidence that
the negative perspectives of King Dingane were not the sole preserve
of or solely invented by European colonisers, Voortrekkers and other
white imperialists. In some instances, historiographical intervention by
Magolwane, Mshongweni and the later generation of izimbongi led to
what Hamilton, Mbenga and ross define as:

… the detailed reconstruction of the histories of key oral texts (izibongo)

showing how historical accounts that played important roles in political
46 S.M. NDLOVU

struggles were often contested and repeatedly reworked in light of his-

torical argumentation from opposing parties that reflected the biases and
backgrounds of both their composers and subsequent chroniclers; the
intellectual currents of their times demonstrating significant debts to one
another.36

THE NEXT GENERATION TAKES OVER: THE CONSOLIDATION

OF KING DINGANE’S ARCHIVE THROUGH IZIBONGO

The pertinent point raised above by the authors of the Cambridge

History of South Africa (2010) is analysed in-depth in this section, mak-
ing use of further versions of Izibongo zikaDingane and the oral tradi-
tions of the monarch that were recorded by James Stuart.37 These were
rendered by subsequent chroniclers such as Sivivi kaMaqungo wak-
waMalunga,38 Socwatsha kaPhaphu,39 Lunguza kaMpukane waseba-
Thenjini,40 Nduna kaManqina, Ngidi kaMcikiziswa waseLangeni,41
Tununu kaNonjiya wakwaQwabe,42 Mtshayankomo kaMagolwane43 and
Ndhlovu kaTimuni,44 among others. These sources are preserved as part
of the James Stuart Archives located in the Killie Campbell Library at
the University of KwaZulu-Natal, Durban campus. Because these men
were chroniclers who occupied the public space after Magolwane and
Mshongweni had passed away, they played a crucial role in both preserv-
ing and constructing pre-colonial oral histories of King Dingane’s reign
by providing Stuart with Izibongo zenkosi uDingane. Their interpretation
of izibongo is known to us today as a result of the commendable and
invaluable efforts of Stuart. He collected their versions in isiZulu tran-
scripts in about the turn of the twentieth century.45 Tununu,46 Sivivi47
(inceku yasenhla) and Ngidi48 (inceku yokuhamba ngasenhla) were
young ‘household’ labourers/court attendants—izinceku—who person-
ally served King Dingane. They observed and learned from renditions
and public performances undertaken by Magolwane and Mshongweni
and others. In short, they provide us with both eyewitness accounts of
everyday life and izibongo zika Dingane, consolidating the king’s archive
of experiences in pre-colonial and colonial times.49
King Dingane’s archive is also constructed by these public intellectu-
als through the mix of narratives underpinning oral traditions and izib-
ongo, resulting in a complex and multi-dimensional image of the king.
These representations range from the highly positive to the extremely
negative, which is in keeping with the original template conceptualised
 2 MAGOLWANE KAMKHATHINI JIYANE AND MSHONGWENI … 47

by Magolwane and Mshongweni during pre-colonial times. Moreover, in

both izibongo and oral traditions, King Dingane’s archive has five main
characteristics which define the limits of the production of knowledge
about the monarch up until the 1920s. They are defined by dynastic suc-
cession disputes; they indicate that King Dingane’s regime was far more
liberal than King Shaka’s; they are characterised by political dynamism;
they indicate the consensual politics of the day; and finally, they depict
a generally turbulent relationship with white settlers and other African
monarchies.50
A much earlier but shorter version of Izibongo zikaDingane was col-
lected and published by William Ngidi and John Colenso in 1858,
while, in the twentieth century, the elaborate and scholarly fieldwork
of Vilakazi, Nyembezi and Kunene has recovered other variants to be
discussed in further chapters of this book. Collectively, these texts con-
stitute a written and documented version of a derivative template and
historical archive that is attributed to Magolwane and Mshongweni by
some of those interviewed by Vilakazi and Kunene. The names of inter-
viewees and areas visited by these scholars while conducting field work
to collect information on oral traditions for their publications are ana-
lysed in Chaps. 6 and 7. These scholars recorded the template because
they presumed that people elsewhere on the African continent were cre-
ating oral representations of the past for themselves, and their communi-
ties from the time that the earliest recognisably human societies became
established in Africa.51
There are no significant differences between izibongo zika Dingane
chronicled by Lunguza kaMpukane, Tununu, Sivivi or Ngidi because it
was not easy to tamper with izibongo because they actually change lit-
tle over time.52 They all reflect positive as well as negative images of the
king, as is evident from the first ten lines of Lunguza’s version of izibo-
ngo zikaDingane. Lunguza’s version is representative of the others.53
The following is Lunguza’s version of izibongo zikaDingane. Lunguza’s
version, like others, gives both the negative and positive attributes of the
king, as the first ten lines suggest:

UMgabadeli, owagabadel’ inkundla yakwaBulawayo ngezinyembezi

Ithol’elinsizwa, lakokaDonda

Elihamba likhahlel’amany’amathole ngezimpumulo;

48 S.M. NDLOVU

Lakhahlel’uNzwakele kwaKhutshwayo.

UMalamulela

Owalamulel’izintombi namasoka

UGabadele, onjengebhubhesi.

Injonjololo eziziba zolwandle

Oze noMhabula kwaMzilakazi;

Oze nodwedwe lwezintombi, kwaMzilikazi

Owel’uBulinga, kwaMzilikazi;

Odabule uDedangendlale kwaMzilikazi

Oze noMhabulangwebu-isatshisa, kwaMzilikazi.

Weza noGolozana kwaMenaba

Weza noNozinhlwathi, inkosazana kaMzilikazi54

It was possible to be both a chronicler of oral traditions and a performer

of izibongo because, as Sivivi testifies, protocol demanded that when one
visited the king, one would not ‘hamb’ etulile [keep quiet] but would
bonga inkosi. Sivivi went on to explain:

I therefore, when accompanied by Prince Mpande [to meet King Dingane]

had to do the bongaing … I had to do this even though I came on a secret
errand and when one left the king one would go off bongaing him.55

Lunguza kaMpukane and Ndhlovu kaTimuni, as an example, both qual-

ify for definition as public intellectuals. Lunguza’s reconstruction of the
architecture of Mgungundhlovu and of everyday life in the kingdom’s
main palace is elaborate and educative (he seems to have had a photo-
graphic memory). He contributes to our cultural and intellectual herit-
age in so far as the history of architecture and art is concerned.56 The
restored palace is now designated as a protected heritage site and is a
tourist attraction in KwaZulu-Natal.
 2 MAGOLWANE KAMKHATHINI JIYANE AND MSHONGWENI … 49

Lunguza is also an example of a grass roots or public intellectual who

was not an active constructor of historical knowledge. He merely gave
information in response to the questions posed by Stuart. If he did not
know the answer, he said so. Lunguza was in his eighties at the time,
and Stuart was very appreciative of his feedback, noting that ‘Lunguza
seemed to me careful and accurate in everything he told me. The
amount of detail he knows was surprising when compared with other
available information’.57
Ndhlovu kaThimuni could also see the bigger picture concerning the
sociopolitical landscape. He analysed the political and economic prob-
lems brought about by the deviousness of colonisation, land disposses-
sion and the subjugation of indigenous Africans by whites. According
to him, ‘whites entered the country very quietly and unostentatiously;
now, however, having got a firm foothold, they are immovable (qiy-
eme)’.58 According to Stuart, ‘Thimuni considered Sir T. Shepstone had
on the whole deceived African people, for he told them it would come
right and the time would come when they would laugh’.59 Ndhlovu ka
Thimuni believed that the advent of a new kingdom of African nation-
alism, including the immeasurable power of literacy, understanding the
past (including laws and customs), education and unity, was an impor-
tant tool in the fight against colonisation. He inveighed:

What is necessary is to teach the boys wisdom (ukuqonda) and cause the
land to tomba, that is, arrive at years of discretion. We have to qoqa’d
ukulahleka, i.e. sought out all those things which disintegrate, and made
them the instrument for governing by colonisers … to gather everyone in
one place, i.e. under the former laws and customs, and enforce education,
compel everyone to learn to read and write. If this were done the land
would mature; it would be in a position to work out its own salvation. By
creating a national native parliament there would be no chance of natives
(Africans) becoming hostile from a consciousness of their strength …60

From izibongo chronicled by public intellectuals such as Sivivi and

Ndhlovu ka Thimuni, we gain the impression that King Dingane’s image
was riddled with ambiguity. On the positive side, his reign, unlike that of
King Shaka, was benign. He did not deal harshly with his people. He was
introverted and amicable, as indicated by the izibongo ‘uSingqungu ka
kulumi, ka na mlomo; AnjengaShaka, Yen’ owaqeda umuzi ngokunken-
keza’61 [uSingqugu the introvert, different from the extrovert King
Shaka, who destroyed households by being talkative]. At the same time,
50 S.M. NDLOVU

he was unpredictable, particularly when he believed his authority was

being undermined and taken for granted. This brought to the surface
his volatile, ferocious temper, which was compared to that of a raging
bull (isilo) and reflected in the izibongo, ‘iSilwan’esibang’ izililo’ [ani-
mal that caused lamentations] and ‘uVezi ngimfunyene bemzila, ngafika
ngamudla, kanti ngizifake isilo emlonyeni’ [Vezi, I came upon him being
shunned by them, I came and partook of him, but I was stuffing my
stomach with a raging bull].
Tununu’s versions of izibongo are characterised by his ambiguous
perceptions of the king. As an example, he referred to the king in posi-
tive, glowing terms as, ‘uMpankom’ inamabele’ [provider of cows with
full udders] and ‘Ngokuba nhliziyonhl’ emadodeni’ [because he has
good heart among men]. But he also believed that the king symbol-
ised death, comparing him to a huge burial site—an expansive grave, a
space that was needed to bury those he killed or murdered, hence the
description, ‘uMancwaba, ongalizwe lamaphethelo’ [graveyard, without
boundary].62
According to the views expressed by izimbongi, the liberal, compas-
sionate, open-minded and positive nature of King Dingane’s regime
stems from his decision to permit courtship and freedom of choice in
terms of marriage.63 This allowed young women and men, including
amabutho, to set up households together when they reached the appro-
priate age. Accordingly, King Dingane is portrayed in his izibongo as
‘Owalamulela abafazi namadoda: walamulela izintombi namasoka’64 [sav-
iour of wives and husbands, marriageable women and womanisers] and
also as ‘Vezi, uMalamulela, uSomnandi’ [Vezi, the saviour, the sweet/
kind one].65 Here, ‘uMalamulela’ refers to ‘our saviour’ from the ‘tyr-
anny’ of King Shaka, who used the amabutho system to ‘control’ and
‘manipulate’ his subjects.
To reinforce the image of a judicious, caring leader who empathised
with and acknowledged the need of his subjects to establish households
and sustain a ‘normal’ family life, he is acknowledged as ‘Vezi, unoN-
yanda’.66 The term ‘unoNyanda’ is linked to procreation, women’s abil-
ity to reproduce, fertility and capacity to conceive. As Hamilton and
Wright relate:

The amabutho system gave the Zulu state the means to divert the labour
power of young men from their father’s homestead and turn it to use for
state purposes, and socialises young men to identify with the Zulu king
 2 MAGOLWANE KAMKHATHINI JIYANE AND MSHONGWENI … 51

as their ritual leader and source of welfare. At the same time the king
assumed authority to decide when young men could set up households of
their own … Forms of state control over young women were as necessary
as those over young men for the continued dominance of the Zulu ruling
line.67

This is one of the major reasons why King Dingane was referred to by
his subjects as Vezi, uMalamulela—the saviour. Izibongo provided evi-
dence illustrating his good heart, generosity and liberality with cat-
tle and food supplies, in particular meat, to his needy subjects. This
led to the coining of izibongo, ‘uMphankominamabele, ngob’ uVezi
ungipha izinkomo zifaka zonkana’68 [provider of cows with full udders,
because Vezi gave me cows that yield (calves) abundantly], ‘umoyam-
nandi ngokunuka inyama’69 [the sweet/kind one who smells of meat].
To some of his smitten subjects, the king was ‘uSimakade samakhosi,
uSomnandi wami, woza ngangumlomo, ngingaze ngisale ngibenomn-
gandeni’70 [the long-living one of the kings; my sweet one, come let
me kiss your mouth, I might have to get jealous]. King Dingane is fur-
ther depicted as a kind- and big-hearted man: ‘Ogez’ izandla zazomel’
ebandla, Ngokuba nenhliziyo’enhl’ madodeni’71 [Who washes his hands,
rushes to council meeting and his (hands) dry while in council because
he has a good heart among men].
An important aspect of the existing political order was its dynamism.
The state of affairs within the Zulu royal house was forever changing,
as had been the case since Malandela’s times, as the following izibongo
suggests: ‘inhlabathi yoNdi noKhahlamba, Ngific[a] abakwaMalandela
beyihlela. Nami ngafika ngahlala phansi ngayihlela’72 [soil of uLundi and
Khahlamba mountains, I found the children of Malandela levelling it. I
too sat down and levelled it]. In this regard, and according to izibongo,
King Dingane took appropriate initiatives in formulating new diplomatic
policies, political strategies and tactics concerning matters of state. These
had to keep the Zulu state intact and safe from the threat posed by ene-
mies within and outside, as the levelling metaphor undertaken by the
house of Malandela suggests.
The encroaching white settlers from the Cape Colony required King
Dingane to take immediate action, because they were a recognisable
threat to the independence of the Zulu empire. He did this by adopt-
ing new political strategies and tactics. Hence, he was depicted as, ‘inhla-
bathi yoNdi no Khahlamba’, majestic mountains which represented
52 S.M. NDLOVU

the landscape. As a monarch, he was expected to protect himself, the

land (including izintaba zoKhahlamba—referred to as the Drakensberg
Mountains by the white settlers), his people, their customs, traditions,
social systems and values from the unscrupulous white settlers. Like
his forefathers and siblings from the house of Malandela, he either had
to fight or lose his kingdom. King Dingane was conscious of the fact
that both the Voortrekkers and the white traders represented forces of
change.
Whenever he had the opportunity, he, as ‘inhlabathi yoNdi noKhahl-
amba’, had to strategise, ‘ahlale phansi ahlele’, and act as suggested by
izibongo, as a vigilant statesman, ‘uMalunguz’ indonga kad’ukuwela’.73
He kept asking the white settlers awkward questions about their country
of origin, technology (guns, literacy and wagons), their political systems,
customs and religion. Like all those from the house of Malandela, he had
to show leadership qualities, conceptualise the danger that was facing
him and act accordingly, for he possessed strong political acumen.
In most izibongo, the king’s excesses and unpredictable character
were questioned. This was according to the template conceptualised
by Magolwane and Mshongweni. Some of his subjects within the Zulu
Kingdom queried his feeble behaviour, his pettiness and his jealousy, as,
for example, when Dingane killed a warrior for showing impressive danc-
ing skills. The warrior was one of the greatest performers of the time and
was praised by an audience which, together with Dingane, had witnessed
his creative skills and prowess at uMgungundlovu. Izibongo also depict
King Dingane as an unpredictable character likened to Phunga waseBu-
lawini, a famous diviner, and Vuma, a traditional healer, who were not
consistent in the advice they gave to the Zulu royal court.

uVemvane olunamabal’ azibhadu

Ngibe ngiyaluthinta lwahaqabala

LunjengoPhunga, waseBulawini

LujengoVuma kubangoma74

In izibongo, King Dingane is also accused of being a treacherous, unpre-

dictable, insecure and cruel sorcerer who was out to destroy his people
 2 MAGOLWANE KAMKHATHINI JIYANE AND MSHONGWENI … 53

and blood relatives, as ‘uMthakathi osibindi esimyama nabakwayise’75

[the sorcerer whose liver is black even among his father’s children]. It is
also worth noting that here the imagery of the colour black has negative,
repugnant connotations but is not used as part of the racist discourse.
This was also the case with animalistic imagery. Like the colour black as
a metaphor, this imagery was used with both negative and positive con-
notations. For example, in most of the izibongo, the king was described
in positive animalistic terms as iSilo or iNdlovu or iNgonyama (this is still
the case).
These are potent images, symbolising power and strength as opposed
to weakness. However, the king is also portrayed in negative animalistic
terms as a snake, venomous and dangerous, ‘iMamb’ eyath’ iphansi yay-
iphezulu’ [a mamba who, when down, will quickly recover and be on the
attack] and ‘iNyok’ eqoph’ umqala yashiy’ isibili’ [a snake who pecks at
the neck only once]. Izibongo also record his role in the killing of blood
relatives, the majority of whom were his brothers.76 For example, it is
claimed that King Dingane played a key role in the deaths of his siblings,
including King Shaka and Prince Mhlangana. He is further portrayed
as a sly schemer and likened to a poisonous and dangerous snake, as is
evident in the following praise names: ‘uManyelela njengeVuzamanzi’
[stealthy mover like a water snake]. He was an introvert, quiet, with-
drawn. People were warned of ‘still water running deep’ (isiziba esinzon-
zobele …). He was also depicted as dangerous and capable of destructive
mood swings:

Isiziba esinzonzobele

Siminzis’ umuntu ethi uyageza

Waze washona ngesicoco

uMkhwamude wangisik’ isilevu

Ngob’ uCoco ngimbonile

Obephuma lapha kwaSodlabela

uNgama yena owasemaPhiseni angavuma

54 S.M. NDLOVU

This refers to the death and ambush of one of his brothers, Prince
Mhlangana, who was wearing isicoco, a head ring normally worn by
kings, princes and senior married men. It is suggested that Prince
Mhlangana was drowned on King Dingane’s orders while he was bath-
ing in a stream and that Coco and Ngema were eyewitnesses. They hap-
pened to witness this incident quite by chance when Coco was on his
way from kwaSodlabela. Both eyewitnesses were threatened with violent
death if ever they ‘spilled the beans’. Their throats would be slit with
uMkhwamude, a long-bladed knife used to cut whiskers. As a result, they
were forced into silence. These in-depth details of the death of Prince
Mhlangana lead one to question why izimbongi only accord the death of
King Shaka a line or two in almost all izibongo. One would expect them
to be far more detailed because of King Shaka’s stature, and crucially,
because his death was a controversial event that continues to divide peo-
ple even today. I will address this issue in the next chapter.
Izibongo are also indications of the public explanations of King
Dingane’s actions towards whites and of the rationale for his extermina-
tion of retief and his party. There are five different explanations from
izibongo and oral traditions for this event. I will also discuss the contro-
versy in my next chapter. Hoye ka Soxalase’s version has two stanzas on
the issue, located at the beginning and end of his Izibongo zikaDingane.
These stanzas are a succinct commentary on the killing of Piet retief and
also paint a picture of a leader who did not passively endure the threat
posed by white settlers. They read as follows:

Ihwanqa eladla amanye amahwanqa

Ngoba ladla aseMgungundlovu

Ngoba ladla oka Piti

Amahwanqa akhawula ukuganga …

Izibuko likaMenzi

Elimadwala abutshelelezi

Kutshelela uPiti nendodana

Wamudla uPiti kumaBhunu

 2 MAGOLWANE KAMKHATHINI JIYANE AND MSHONGWENI … 55

Wamudla uMlom-gubu, kumaBhunu

Wadla uMazinyo ansasa, kumaBhunu

Wadla uJanesikaniso, kumaBhunu77

The presence of the Voortrekkers and the threat they posed had a sig-
nificant influence on King Dingane’s attitude towards whites in general.
There are few variations between the versions of these izibongo. The
king was likened to:

Indiha lebebayo, enjengesibhaha,

Sona simababa (kum) aMahashanga

uMuthi wesilalo ingcaba madolo

Esigcab’ uMadlanga, eKuvukeni

Esigcab’ uManqondo, wakwaShiyabanye78

Isibhaha here refers to a potent, very bitter herbal plant used for medici-
nal purposes, and aMahashanga refers to white settlers. To be precise,
amaZulu used this word to describe the ‘novel’ or unusual sound made
by the settlers’ trousers as the settlers walked. This potent medicine, isib-
haha, was used as an analgesic for stomach and head ailments. It worked
like a ‘slow poison’, causing people to feel somnolent to the point of
helplessness. Symbolically, the bitterness can be interpreted as represent-
ing a bitter person, seething with anger and who has a volatile temper.
Accordingly, the king’s response to the white settlers was likened to a
flash of lightning and thus the izibongo, ‘uJonono, ongantonga yezulu’
[uJonono who was like lightning]. He could erupt like a potent vol-
cano when he felt his reign was being threatened or undermined. In this
respect, he could be deemed to be venomous and dangerous.79
As explained above, King Dingane, because of his elevated social and
political position, demanded respect from any person who paid tribute to
him—including the foreigners who resided in his kingdom. He expected
everybody to follow protocol and respect the laws, customs and tradi-
tions of his sovereign state.80
56 S.M. NDLOVU

The African public intellectuals also provided evidence of King

Dingane was easily manipulated by his political advisors. Izibongo refer
to him as ‘uSilwan’ vukela abantu ekweneni’ [the animal that ambushed
people in the wild]. This criticism implied that King Dingane was not an
outstanding ruler like King Shaka but was indecisive and lacking in char-
acter. It was claimed that his political advisors and emissaries, Ndlela and
Dambuza, controlled him. Consequently, various izimbongi derided him
in public and called him ‘iMbuzi kaDambuza benoNdlela, abayibambe
ngendlebe yabekezela’81 [goat of Dambuza and Ndlela, they held (him)
by the ear and it (he) remained patient]. It is possible that these izibongo
were voiced during King Dingane’s reign because freedom of expression
and criticism in satirical orations, izibongo and ribaldry was encouraged.
However, it can also be argued that izibongo referring to Dambuza
and Ndlela were positive in as far as they highlighted the inclusive nature
of the Zulu state. Accordingly, the Zulu kingdom was characterised by
specific African traditions of governance and rights whereby decisions
were made by consensus. The king and his council of elders, Dambuza,
Ndlela and Queen regent Mnkabayi, had jurisdiction over all matters
within the Zulu territory. This being so, it is important for us to dis-
cuss the authority and influence of powerful royal women such as Queen
regent Mnkabayi because she features repeatedly in most historical nov-
els about the king published during the twentieth century.
To conclude, this chapter postulates that by conducting a systematic
analysis of oral traditions and izibongo constructed by public intellectu-
als such as Magolwane and Mshongweni, we are laying a framework for
understanding the intellectual history of South Africa as a specific form
of knowledge produced in pre-colonial times. The determining factors
of this intellectual history include the integration of oral traditions and
izibongo with cultural, social, historical, philosophical and political tradi-
tions. Mazisi Kunene alluded to the fact that because pre-colonial African
literature was communal, much of the oral literature conceptualised and
produced at the time appealed to members of the community/audiences
through performance, festivals, drama, feasts, national gatherings and
numerous other important gatherings graced by the performance of pub-
lic intellectuals such as Magolwane and Mshongweni. Because of the oral-
ity of the literature, it appealed primarily to the society as a whole rather
than to the individual imagination. This oral literature, expressed through
izibongo, promoted a vibrant culture of criticism and the multifaceted
 2 MAGOLWANE KAMKHATHINI JIYANE AND MSHONGWENI … 57

images and contending viewpoints about King Dingane were expressed in

both symbolic and concrete forms.82
In such a highly stratified society, by performing izibongo in front
of different classes, the Zulu polity developed a sophisticated vehicle
of knowledge transfer through the inculcation of educational, cultural,
philosophical, social and political values. These constructive endeav-
ours came to full life in vibrant social events which were of significant
meaning to the society at large. Moreover, izibongo, as constructed by
Magolwane and Mshongweni, were not gender specific because they
included izibongo about powerful women such as Mnkabayi, Bibi and
Nandi. This also concurs with Jordan Ngubane’s point that during pre-
colonial times ‘umlando [history] was a vehicle for developing the col-
lective wisdom or strength of the family, the clan or nation’. The next
chapter will elaborate on these issues during the twentieth century,
including contending perspectives.

NOTES
1. C. Hamilton, B.K. Mbenga and r. ross eds., The Cambridge History of
South Africa, Volume 1, From Early Times to 1885 (New York: Cambridge
University Press, 2010), 3–23. See also J. Vansina, Oral Traditions as
History (London: East African Educational Publishers, 1992).
2. Hamilton et al. eds., The Cambridge History of South Africa, Volume
1, 4–6; C. Hamilton, “‘Living by Fluidity’: Oral Histories, Material
Custodies and the Politics of Archiving”, in C. Hamilton, V. Harris, J.
Taylor, M. Pickover, G. reid and r. Saleh eds., Refiguring the Archive
(Cape Town: David Philip, 202), 226–272.
3. M. Kunene, ‘The relevance of African Oral Literature to Written
Literature’, Unpublished paper presented at the 18th annual meeting of
the African Studies Association, 1975.
4. University of KwaZulu-Natal, (hereafter UKZN) James Stuart Archive
(hereafter JSA), Killie Campbell Manuscripts (hereafter KCM) 23478,
File 28 for the James Stuart collection of izibongo zika Dingane. This
file is a 20-page compilation of different izibongo from various izim-
bongi. I have used this version for my work because it includes izibo-
ngo by Tununu, Ngidi, Sivivi and Lunguza, among others. See also
C.S.L. Nyembezi, ‘The Historical Background and Izibongo zamakhosi
(Pietermaritzburg: Shuter & Shooter, 1958), Chap. 5; D.K. rycroft
and A.B. Ngcobo eds., The Praises of Dingana: Izibongo zikaDingana
(Pietermaritzburg: University of Natal Press and Durban: Killie Campbell
58 S.M. NDLOVU

Africana Library, 1988); T. Cope ed., Izibongo: Zulu Praise Poems

(London: Oxford University Press, 1968).
5. M. Kunene, Zulu Poems (New York: Africana Publishing Corporation,
1970); and Hamilton et al. eds., ‘Introduction’, The Cambridge History
of South Africa, Volume 1, 8.
6. Kunene, Zulu Poems, 14.
7. Ibid., 13. See also Kunene, ‘Portrait of Magolwane, the Great Zulu Poet’
Cultural Events in Africa, 32, 1976.
8. On the pre-colonial history of izibongo and a discussion of their merits
and drawbacks, see B.W. Vilakazi, ‘The Oral and Written Literature in
Nguni’, Unpublished PhD thesis, University of the Witwatersrand, 1945;
S. Nyembezi, ‘The Historical Background to the Izibongo of the Zulu
Military Age’, African Studies, December 1948, 110–125, 157–174;
M. Kunene, ‘An Analytical Survey of Zulu Poetry both Traditional and
Modern’, MA dissertation, Natal University, 1957; Kunene, ‘Portrait of
Magolwane, the Great Zulu Poet’, 1–14.
9. The role of royal women in African polities in southern Africa is now
beginning to attract serious scholarly attention. See for example M.
Genge, ‘Power and Gender in Southern African History: Power relations
in the Era of Queen Labotsibeni Gwamile Mdluli of Swaziland, ca.
1875–1921’, PhD thesis, Michigan State University, 1999. The fre-
quency with which regent Mnkabayi appears in the pages of this book
suggests that she merits a study of her own. See S.M. Ndlovu, ‘A
Reassessment of Women’s Power in the Zulu Kingdom’, in B. Carton, J.
Laband and J. Sithole eds., Zulu Identities: Being Zulu, Past and Present
(Pietermaritzburg, University of KwaZulu-Natal Press, 2008), Chap.
10. There are two versions of the spelling of the queen regent’s name:
Mkabayi and Mnkabayi. I use the latter, older version, which is found
in the archival documents I used. Izibongo zika Ntombazi, unlike those
of Mnkabayi, are not readily available, a subject I analyse in my ongoing
research about power and authority of women in pre-colonial times.
10. C. Hamilton, ‘Ideology, Oral Traditions and the Struggle for Power in
the Early Zulu Kingdom’; Nyembezi, ‘The Historical Background to
the Izibongo of the Zulu Military Age’; Vilakazi, ‘The Oral and Written
Literature in Nguni’; Kunene, ‘An Analytical Survey of Zulu Poetry both
Traditional and Modern’.
11. See Kunene, ‘Portrait of Magolwane, the Great Zulu Poet’; Kunene,
‘An Analytical Survey of Zulu Poetry both Traditional and Modern’;
Nyembezi, ‘The Historical Background to the Izibongo of the Zulu
Military Age’; and Vilakazi, ‘The Oral and Written Literature in Nguni’.
12. Kunene, ‘Portrait of Magolwane, the Great Zulu Poet’; Nyembezi, ‘The
Historical Background to the Izibongo of the Zulu Military Age’, 111;
 2 MAGOLWANE KAMKHATHINI JIYANE AND MSHONGWENI … 59

Vilakazi, ‘The Oral and Written Literature in Nguni’; Kunene, ‘An

Analytical Survey of Zulu Poetry both Traditional and Modern’.
13. C. de B. Webb and J. Wright eds., The James Stuart Archive of Recorded
Oral Evidence Relating to the History of the Zulu and Neighbouring
Peoples (hereafter JSA), Volume 4 (Pietermaritzburg: University of Natal
Press, 1986), Testimony by Mtshayankomo, 107.
14. Hamilton et al. eds., The Cambridge History of South Africa, Volume 1, 6;
C. Hamilton, ‘Ideology, Oral Traditions and the Struggle for Power in
the Early Zulu Kingdom’, 67–74.
15. These are available in the James Stuart Archives housed in the Killie
Campbell Africana Library under the title of J. Stuart, Book of Eulogies.
Stuart’s collated version of izibongo zika Dingane, is in KCM 23486,
File 29a. Sivivi’s version was recorded by Stuart in 1907 (Book of Eulogies,
File 75, Volume 1); Tununu’s version was recorded in 1903; Ngidi’s ver-
sion was recorded in 1904; and Lunguza’s version was recorded in 1909.
All these are to be found in Book of Eulogies, File 75, Volume 1. See also
rycroft and Ngcobo eds., The Praises of Dingana, 51.
16. M. Kunene, ‘Magolwane, the Greatest Zulu Poet’, Afro-Asian Writings,
1, 4, 1970. This paragraph is largely based on this article and Kunene’s
‘An Analytical Survey of Zulu Poetry both Traditional and Modern’. On
oral traditions about Magolwane, see his son, Mshayankomo’s, testimony
in Webb and Wright eds., JSA, Volume 4, 106–107.
17. UKZN, JSA, KCM 24259, Testimony of Tununu.
18. C. de B. Webb and J. Wright eds., The James Stuart Archive of Recorded
Oral Evidence Relating to the History of the Zulu and Neighbouring
Peoples, Volume 2 (Pietermaritzburg: University of Natal Press, 1976),
Testimony of Mandhlakazi, 177.
19. Ibid., 176–177.
20. Vilakazi, ‘The Oral and Written Literature in Nguni’.
21. Ibid.
22. Vilakazi, ‘The Oral and Written Literature in Nguni’.
23. Kunene, ‘Magolwane, the Greatest Zulu Poet’; and Kunene, ‘An
Analytical Survey of Zulu Poetry both Traditional and Modern’.
24. Ibid.
25. Kunene, Zulu Poetry, 14.
26. M. Kunene, The Ancestors and the Sacred Mountain (London:
Heinemann, 1982), 65.
27. This also includes the conflict between the amaZulu and the Voortrekkers.
28. Kunene, ‘Magolwane, the Greatest Zulu Poet’.
29. Hamilton, ‘Ideology, Oral Traditions’, 72. See also Kunene, ‘An
Analytical Survey of Zulu Poetry both Traditional and Modern’; Vilakazi,
‘The Oral and Written Literature in Nguni’.
60 S.M. NDLOVU

30. Kunene, The Ancestors and the Sacred Mountain, 26.

31. Kunene, ‘An Analytical Survey of Zulu Poetry both Traditional and
Modern’, 129–133.
32. Ibid., 130–131.
33. Kunene, ‘An Analytical Survey of Zulu Poetry both Traditional and
Modern’.
34. Ibid., 31.
35. Ibid.
36. Hamilton et al. eds., The Cambridge History of South Africa, Volume 1, 6.
37. See C. de B. Webb and J. Wright eds., JSA, Volumes 1–4. See also the tes-
timonies provided by Ngidi, Nduna and Sivivi (Volume 5) and Socwatsha
and Tununu (Volume 6). When the research for this book was under-
taken, Volume 6 had not yet been published, but John Wright kindly
gave me access to his manuscripts. (JSA, Volume 6, has since appeared in
2014.) Most Zulu public intellectuals had their own versions of Izibongo
zika Dingane, which Stuart combined into a single document, see
UKZN, JSA, KCM 23486, File 29a. Most izibongo were subsequently
published in rycroft and Ngcobo eds., The Praises of Dingana.
38. UKZN, JSA, KCM 24319, File 62, Testimony of Sivivi, 1907.
39. UKZN, JSA, KCM 24220, File 58, Testimony of Socwatsha, 1910.
40. C. de B. Webb and J. Wright eds., The James Stuart Archive of Recorded
Oral Evidence Relating to the History of the Zulu and Neighbouring
Peoples, Volume 1,testimony of Lunguza, 297–353; he was interviewed in
1909.
41. UKZN, JSA, KCM 24317, Testimony of Ngidi; he was interviewed in
1904.
42. UKZN, JSA, KCM 24258, Testimony of Tununu; he was interviewed in
1903.
43. Webb and Wright eds., JSA, Volume 4, Testimony of Mtshayankomo, 107;
he was interviewed in 1922.
44. Webb and Wright eds., JSA, Volume 4, Testimony of Ndhlovu, 117; he
was interviewed in 1902.
45. See Nyembezi, ‘The Historical Background to the Izibongo of the Zulu
Military Age’.
46. UKZN, JSA, KCM 24258.
47. UKZN, JSA, KCM 24319; and KCM 24403.
48. UKZN, JSA, KCM 24317, File 62; he was interviewed in 1904. See also
KCM 24403, Ngidi kaMagambukazi version of izibongo zikaDingane.
49. UKZN, JSA, KCM 23485; and KCM 23486. The files of the historical
narratives by public intellectuals were accompanied by their own ver-
sions of izibongo zikaDingane, some of which are published in rycroft
and Ngcobo, The Praises of Dingana. See JSA, KCM 24403, for versions
 2 MAGOLWANE KAMKHATHINI JIYANE AND MSHONGWENI … 61

of Lunguza, Nduna kaManqina, Tununu, Sivivi, Ngidi, Mtshapi, Mbovu

kaMtshumayeli, among others.
50. These oral traditions will be analysed in the next chapter.
51. C. Hamilton and J. Wright, ‘Making Precolonial Histories in South
Africa’, Unpublished paper, nd; Hofmeyr, We Spend Our Years as a Tale
that is Told; E. Tonkin, Narrating our Pasts: The Social Construction of
Oral History (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992).
52. See Hamilton, ‘Ideology, Oral Traditions’, 72; L. White, ‘Power and
Praise Poem’, paper presented at the Conference on Literature and
Society in Southern Africa, University of York, 1981; L. Vail, Power
and the Praise Poem: southern African voices in history (Charlottesville,
University press of Virginia, 1991).
53. UKZN, JSA, KCM 24403.
54. JSA , KCM 24403. See also S. Nyembezi, Izibongo Zamakhosi, 45–52.
55. UKZN, JSA, KCM 24319, Testimony of Sivivi.
56. Webb and Wright eds., JSA, Volume 1, Testimony of Lunguza kaMpukane
on the reign of King Dingane, 297–353.
57. Ibid., 345.
58. Webb and Wright eds., JSA, Volume 4, Testimony of Ndhlovu, 209.
59. Ibid., 201. On Theophilus Shepstone, see C. Hamilton, Authoring Shaka
(Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1993).
60. Webb and Wright eds., JSA, Volume 4, 208–209.
61. UKZN, JSA, KCM 24403, Tununu’s version of izibongo; JSA, KCM
24319, Sivivi’s version; and KCM 53177, Hoye’s version of izibongo.
62. UKZN, JSA, KCM 24403, Tununu’s version of izibongo.
63. To infer the ambiguous nature of the king’s image, Jantshi talks about
King Dingane ordering the arbitrary deaths of individuals.
64. UKZN, JSA, KCM 24403.
65. Ibid. See also Webb and Wright eds., JSA, Volume 1, Lunguza ka
Mpukane’s testimony, 323.
66. UKZN, JSA, KCM 53177, Hoye kaSoxalase’s version of izibongo zikaD-
ingane.
67. C. Hamilton and J. Wright, ‘Traditions and Transformations: The
Phongolo–Mzimkhulu region in the late 18th and Early 19th Centuries’,
in A. Duminy and W.r. Guest eds., Natal and Zululand: From the
Earliest Times to 1910 (Pietermaritzburg: University of Natal Press,
1989), 69.
68. rycroft and Ngcobo eds., The Praises of Dingana, Tununu version of izib-
ongo zikaDingane, 233.
69. rycroft and Ngcobo eds., The Praises of Dingana, Tshingane kaMpande
version of izibongo zikaDingane, 235.
62 S.M. NDLOVU

70. rycroft and Ngcobo eds., The Praises of Dingane, Sivivi version of izibo-
ngo zikaDingane, 230.
71. rycroft and Ngcobo eds., The Praises of Dingana, Nduna and Tununu
versions of izibongo zikaDingane, 223, 233.
72. KCM 24199–24211, Hoye kaSoxalase version of izibongo zikaDingane.
On the same theme on King Shaka, see J. Guy, ‘Shaka kaSenzangakhona:
A reassessment’, Journal of Natal and Zulu History, 16, 1996, 1–30.
73. rycroft and Ngcobo eds., The Praises of Dingana, Ngidi and Tununu ver-
sion of izibongo zikaDingane, 226, 233.
74. See Sivivi version, in rycroft and Ngcobo eds., The Praises of Dingana,
230.
75. See Ngidi’s version, in rycroft and Ngcobo eds., The Praises of Dingana,
226. All these perspectives permeate izibongo zikaDingane.
76. Ibid.
77. UKZN, JSA, KCM 24199-24211.
78. rycroft and Ngcobo eds., The Praises of Dingana, Mgidlane kaMpande
version, 217.
79. This image permeates all his izibongo.
80. See testimonies of Lunguza kaMpukane, Sivivi and Ngidi kaMcikiziswa.
81. This standard version appears in almost all versions of the izibongo,
including those presented by his izinceku.
82. M. Kunene, ‘The relevance of Oral Literature to Written Literature’;
B.W. Vilakazi, ‘The Oral and Written Literature in Nguni’; Hofmeyr, ‘We
Spend Our Years as a Tale that is Told’.
 CHAPTEr 3

Oral Traditions and the Consolidation

of King Dingane’s Archive: Mid-Nineteenth
to the Early Twentieth century

Oral testimonies and traditions provide the fundamental framework

necessary for our conceptualisation of the pre-colonial archive on King
Dingane. The oral traditions existed independently of izibongo which
are analysed in the previous chapter, although they have, to some
extent, been calibrated by them as this chapter will show. Some of the
later izimbongi such as Sivivi, Socwatsha, Lunguza and Tununu1 were
chroniclers of oral traditions and thus played an important role in con-
structing knowledge on King Dingane. These oral traditions and testi-
monies consisted of eyewitness accounts and were not necessarily passed
down through a longer chain of transmission covering several gen-
erations. Such knowledge has been preserved in a number of forms—
including those written down by James Stuart between 1900 and the
1920s. Some of these oral traditions were embedded in the earliest writ-
ten collection of African oral history and oral traditions relating to King
Dingane, edited by William Ngidi and Bishop John William Colenso and
published by the Church of England Mission in 1858 under the title
Izindatyana zabantu.2
Sibusiso Nyembezi notes that the first book written for iSintu-speaking
people appeared in 1624. It was the work of Jesuit fathers in Angola. In
1822, when Brownlee, Thomson, Bennie and ross worked together at
Tyumie in the Eastern Cape, they took on the major literary task of trans-
lating the Bible into isiXhosa.3 Two decades later, in 1848, robert Noyi,
an early African intellectual, published a history of amaXhosa, and he was
joined in this endeavour in 1885 by Tiyo Soga and William Goba.4

© The Author(s) 2017 63

S.M. Ndlovu, African Perspectives of King Dingane kaSenzangakhona,
African Histories and Modernities, DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-56787-7_3
64 S.M. NDLOVU

Izindatyana zabantu was also published on the cusp of pre-colonial

and colonial times. It is an important book which focuses on the earli-
est African historiography and perspectives about the the first three
kings of the Zulu empire. It explores crucial aspects of the operation of
power and authority and anticipated James Stuart’s exercise by four dec-
ades. Published in 1858, barely 20 years after King Dingane’s death,
Izindatyana zabantu was the interface between literate colonisers, includ-
ing travellers, traders and missionaries and oral chroniclers such as William
Ngidi, Magema Fuze and later, Sivivi, Tununu, Socwatsha and Lunguza,
who brought details of the Zulu empire to the world of scholarship.

IZINDATYANA ZABANTU: WILLIAM NGIDI AND THE FIRST

ISIZULU TEXT ON KING DINGANE

Izindatyana zabantu, written entirely in isiZulu, emanated from Bishop

John William Colenso’s mission at Bishopstowe, and Colenso must
have acted in some way as instigator of or midwife to this exercise.5 As
a result, the book cannot in any sense be viewed as more pristine than
the testimonies collected by Stuart 40 years later. Christian precepts and
Christian prejudices must also be considered at least potentially to have
exercised a role, particularly in the (second) section entitled ‘Izindaba
zaseNatal’, which later became Colenso’s published work, Ten Weeks in
Natal.
By focusing on Izindatyana zabantu, this chapter also raises particular
questions connected with the construction of historical knowledge and
power-specifically the construction of historical sources. A good example
is the relationship between Ngidi and Colenso with regard to the con-
struction of historical sources and other texts written in isiZulu targeting
African audiences. Colenso, through the Church of England Mission,
receives all the credit but there is sufficient evidence that Ngidi, as the
translator, field worker, transcriber and collator of the oral histories, was
a co-author and editor of Izindatyana zabantu. The question is, then,
why is the compilation of important historical sources like this attributed
to Colenso alone? Who took those decisions and on whose behalf ? Was it
Colenso’s powerful position in society that resulted in Ngidi being side-
lined and only mentioned in Colenso’s memoirs as a worthy contributor
to the valuable historical texts?
The first section of Izindatyana zabantu is organised around izin-
ganekwane, myths, legends and fables using historical figures and
 3 OrAL TrADITIONS AND THE CONSOLIDATION OF KING … 65

events all written in isiZulu.6 Then, after the first two sections, the book
becomes a collection of historical records, eyewitness accounts, testimo-
nies, oral traditions and oral histories, izibongo and songs. Most of these
are based on the reign of Zulu kings, Shaka, Dingane and Mpande, par-
ticularly Dingane.
The following are some of the historical events narrated in the book:
‘Ukwenza kuka’Tshaka’; ‘Indaba yokubulawa kuka Piti’; ‘Ukuma koT-
shaka no Dingane no Mpande izelamani’; ‘Ukuketwa kuka Qwabe,
eketwa uTshaka’; ‘Izindaba zika Dingane’; ‘Ukufa kukaDingane’; and
‘Ukweqa kuka’Mpande’. Military encounters between the white set-
tlers and amaZulu are described under titles such as ‘Ngempi yaseN-
come oBalule’; ‘Ngempi yas’Etaleni kwaCwezi neyasemaGabeni’;
‘Ngempi yas’Emtshezi’; and ‘Ngempi yas’emaGabeni neyas’enCome’.
Additionally, Ngoza kaLudaba, Mfokazana, Mkungu kaMpande,
Nongalaza, Fokofiya and Mfulatela related oral histories and eyewit-
ness testimonies which were collected by William Ngidi and published
by the authors. These were captured under the titles, ‘Indaba kaNgoza’;
‘Indaba kaMfokazana’; ‘Indaba kaMkungu kaMpande’; ‘Indaba kaNon-
galaza’; ‘Indaba ka Mfulatela’ and ‘Indaba kaFokofiya’. The book also
records an earlier short version of Izibongo zikaDingane which was prob-
ably the very first written version. It also includes songs under the titles
Ingoma kaSenzangakhona and Amagama akwa’Zulu.
The oral testimonies published in Izindatyana zabantu reflect a
startlingly positive image of King Dingane and a hostile view of retief
and the Voortrekkers that is remarkably close to the accounts later ren-
dered by Tununu, Sivivi and Lunguza to James Stuart. For example, in
one of the earliest recorded oral testimonies of the troubled relation-
ship between King Dingane and Piet retief, reflected in a section enti-
tled ‘Indaba yokubulawa kukaPiti’, the following oral testimony about
retief’s reconnaissance mission at kwaNkosinkulu is provided:

Bafika abalungu …Wati (uDingane) bayolala lapaya kwaNkosinkulu

ngaphandle esangweni … Kwati ebusuku abalungu bathi abawuhaqe
uMgungundlovu. Babeyate abawuhaqe, bawuqeda, wasala isinkeke, base-
bebuyela kona kwaNkosinkulu lapa belele kona.7

William Ngidi played an important role in shaping the character and

content of Izindatyana zabantu. He was one of the first Christian con-
verts in the Zulu Kingdom (later referred to as amakholwa) and initially
66 S.M. NDLOVU

worked and received his basic education with at the American Board
Mission in the late 1840s and early 1850s, learning to write and translate
basic isiZulu and English in the process. He was proficient in this regard
by the time he joined Colenso at Bishopstowe in 1856.
By 1858, he had become Bishop Colenso’s inxusa (confidant and
advisor), playing an important role in Colenso’s dealings with the Zulu
royal family.8 Ngidi also acted as Colenso’s official translator. There is
ample acknowledgement in Colenso’s papers of Ngidi’s role in trans-
lating, collating and collecting data/life histories of African subjects
and translating both the Old and New Testaments into isiZulu, as well
as helping Colenso with the publication of an English–isiZulu diction-
ary because of the bishop’s limited knowledge of isiZulu at that point.9
Colenso wrote at the time:

[Ngidi my Kaffir teacher was] a very pleasant, bright, intelligent fellow,

and a very short acquaintance with him satisfied me that he was the very
person I needed for my purpose, as a help to my acquiring the (spoken and
written) Zulu language.10

The indigenous language issue is the main grounds for believing that
Ngidi was co-author of Izindatyana zabantu, because it was published
entirely in isiZulu. All the books published by Colenso at Bishopstowe
rightfully bear his name, including a book in isiZulu on public health,
authored by both Colenso and Ngidi in 1881.11 Yet the first one pub-
lished by the two in isiZulu is conveniently ‘authorless’ or has ‘ghost
authors’ and only carries the name Church of England Mission.
I am of the view that Colenso was ambivalent about using his name
as sole author because he felt a moral obligation not to claim credit for
himself at a time when he was still learning to write and speak isiZulu
proficiently. For economic reasons, it was also unacceptable for Africans
during the 1850s to be book editors/authors, that is, if the book was
to be prescribed as a reader/primer in mission schools. It had to be
authored by a white person. I, therefore, conclude that one way or
another, William Ngidi certainly made a very significant contribution to
the content of the publication. The section focusing on oral traditions,
testimonies and oral histories collected from Africans in their own idiom
and language, is almost certainly his. If Ngidi was the sole or co-editor
of Izindatyana zabantu, this was the first historical text to be published
by an African in isiZulu was this book. It was thus not Magema Fuze’s
 3 OrAL TrADITIONS AND THE CONSOLIDATION OF KING … 67

aBantu abamnyama lapa abavela ngakona in 1922, which will be dis-

cussed in the next chapter. It is also important to note that Ngidi and
Fuze were cousins and that both had links with Colenso at Bishopstowe.
William Ngidi was born in the Zulu Kingdom in about 1830 and was
a subject of the Ngcobo chiefdom. He was about 8 or 9 years old when
he first heard oral accounts of the arrival of the Voortrekkers. He wit-
nessed the contretemps that led to the killing of retief and his party and
remembered seeing both black and white people in Piet retief’s party.
In 1840, Ngidi’s family left the Ngcobo chiefdom and settled at emaQa-
dini (Port Natal), near what is now called iNanda; here, in all likelihood,
he would have come in contact with white settlers. He herded his fam-
ily’s cattle and occasionally visited a mission station in the vicinity. When
he expressed the wish to attend a mission school regularly, his parents
refused, so he and some friends ran away to the American Board Mission
establishment, iTafamasi, run by Samuel Marsh.12
Here, Ngidi learnt to read and write isiZulu and was converted
to Christianity. He also learnt to work with draught oxen and how to
plough, and by the time he was 16 years old drove a wagon as far as
the newly established town of Pietermaritzburg. When Marsh died in
1853, Ngidi was left without any means of support beyond the capacity
to sell his skills. For a time he worked for Marsh’s widow, but then he
learnt of the arrival of a new missionary, ‘a great uMfundisi’ (teacher/
preacher), who had established a large mission station in the hills that
formed the eastern border of Pietermaritzburg. The mission station was
Bishop Colenso’s Bishopstowe. Ngidi was given a job as a wagon driver
for a wage of a pound a month. Later, he became an advisor, editor and
translator for Colenso. In 1869, disenchanted with Christianity, he left
Colenso and, as a Zulu nationalist, became a staunch defender of the
Zulu Kingdom, its traditions, culture and customs.13
Most of the life histories and oral traditions recorded in Izindatyana
zabantu explore sensitive themes in pre-colonial African societies, among
them, power and authority, control and domination, conquest and rule,
dissent and suppression. These were the same issues that preoccupied
William Ngidi in later life. After leaving Colenso, he settled in Msinga
to ‘live like my fathers [ancestors] did … and make a home for myself
according to the custom of my fathers’.14 Like Dingane, the African
nationalist who kept at bay the combined threat posed by a united front
comprising American Board Mission representatives, Voortrekkers,
68 S.M. NDLOVU

English colonisers and imperialists, he soon developed a form of African

nationalism and a negative attitude towards missionaries. As he put it:

[If] your government cared for us and our welfare the thing it will do
would be to take all the missionaries and put them in a prison with high
walls where no man can converse with them, they could do no more
harm.15

The oral histories recorded in Izindatyana zabantu are based on Ngidi’s

personal experiences and those of other public intellectuals such as
Mfulathela and Ngoza ka Ludaba. Mfulathela’s life16 parallels that
of Ngidi to a certain extent and his life history may have been filtered
through Ngidi’s experiences. Mfulatela asserted that (like Ngidi) he was
a young boy when the Voortrekkers first arrived in the Zulu Kingdom.
He remembered the death of Piet retief and his party. Unlike Ngidi, he
was captured by the Boers after the destruction of Mgungundlovu fol-
lowing impi yaseNcome in 1838, and was put to work as a child labourer
in Pietermaritzburg. Later, he escaped from his captors and, again like
Ngidi, ran away with two friends to work for a white ‘mfundisi’, one of
the missionaries in the vicinity.17
A close analysis of Mfulatela’s testimony about King Dingane’s reign
and its aftermath reveals a complex picture. Through Mfulatela, we are
able to explore the socio-economic and political contexts that helped
generate different images of the king. Mfulatela mixes his early life his-
tory with that of the king, much like the other chroniclers of oral tra-
ditions in Izindatyana zabantu. In addition, his historical narrative
highlights the ‘fatal’ meeting with the Voortrekkers, their ascendancy,
and his consequent emigration, as was the case with William Ngidi, to
the colony of Natal, where they converted to Christianity and work for a
‘great uMfundisi’. Later, Ngidi rebelled against the colonial regime and
white domination, parted company with Colenso and left Bishopstowe.18
Ngoza kaLudaba is another important public intellectual whose tes-
timony about impi yaseNcome (Battle of Blood river) sharpens our
understanding of the relationship between amaZulu and the white set-
tlers. Ngoza also narrated the first-ever military encounters between
victorious King Dingane and the joint British and Boer military forma-
tions. The Zulu army easily defeated the united front during the ‘little
known’, impi yasoThukela which took place earlier in 1838.19 Unlike
 3 OrAL TrADITIONS AND THE CONSOLIDATION OF KING … 69

impi yaseNcome (Battle of Blood river), this battle is not well known
because the official history textbooks in South Africa, for ideological rea-
sons, avoided giving it prominence and seldom articulated the battles in
which amaZulu were victorious.
The eyewitness accounts by Ngoza kaLudaba of the various bat-
tles between the two sides, described in Izindatyana zabantu, provide
an alternative perspective of the outcome of impi yaseNcome and, by
implication, of the wisdom of King Dingane’s act in killing retief.20 It
is interesting to note that most, although not all, South African history
texts and other forms of literature, including those of white historians,
characterise this battle as the very first official encounter between King
Dingane and the white settlers. This official discourse silenced the alter-
native historical accounts based on testimonies by Zulu narrators like
Ngoza kaLudaba. The oral history testimonies discussed in Izindatyana
zabantu bring a new perspective to various military encounters between
Dingane and the white settlers. These include information on successful
wars of resistance waged against the united front set up by the English
and Boer settlers, referred to in the archives as impi yas’ Thukela.21
Under the title, Indaba ka’Ngoza (Ngoza’s oral testimony), Ngoza
kaLudaba narrates the military and political strategies adopted by the
white settlers in the formation of this united front and how the settlers
advocated co-operation to meet their common enemy in the form of
amaZulu.
Another important battle discussed by Ngoza is impi yaseNcome
and his eyewitness account, though not necessarily unimpeachable,22 is
one of the earliest accounts representing an African viewpoint, because
these oral testimonies were recorded some 20 years after the battle.
Ngoza, who was an active participant in the battle, provides us with testi-
mony that challenges two stereotypes that permeate conventional South
African historiography—particularly inscribed as the gospel truth in aca-
demic and school textbooks. The first stereotype he challenged concerns
impi yaseNcome as a defeat for the Zulu forces. The second is the view-
point that the battle was fought strictly on racial lines, between indig-
enous Africans and white invaders. The historical significance of Ngoza’s
version of the battles is elaborated in the introduction of this book.
Ngoza does not consider impi yaseNcome, in which he participated
as one of the King Dingane’s regiments, as a total defeat of the Zulu
army. This is because immediately after the conflict, these regiments
70 S.M. NDLOVU

inflicted a defeat on the Boers at emaGabeni. Ngoza explained how

some of amabutho, including himself, faked death by remaining under
water at iNcome, while the Voortrekkers pursued other escapees. The
regiments then resurfaced, escaped and re-organised themselves. While
this was taking place, Bongoza, one of the King Dingane’s intelligence
officers, was captured by the marauding Voortrekkers. As the enemy was
unaware of the location of the Zulu army, Bongoza led the Boers into
a trap, where they were ambushed at emaGabeni (oPate). Thus, Ngoza
referred to this event as the battle of emaGabeni. He asserts that after
impi yaseNcome, King Dingane remained in power and simply moved
his headquarters from uMgungundlovu, which had been destroyed. He
withdrew the royal headquarters to the north at ‘Maqekwini, built it
to a large size, and there ruled’,23 only to abdicate after his defeat by
his brother Mpande in 1840. Thus, the historical narratives of Ngoza
and other Africans argue for continuity between impi yaseNcome and
eyaseMagabeni.24
Ngoza is adamant that it was Prince Mpande who achieved what the
Boers had failed to achieve in 1838. He ended King Dingane’s reign
and deposed the king in 1840, at the battle of Maqongqo. Ngoza points
out that Prince Mpande, King Dingane’s brother, was a commander of
amabutho in one of the king’s regiments at the battle of Thukela. He
succeeded in dethroning King Dingane partly because he knew the
weaknesses and strong points of the standing Zulu army. He also under-
stood and manipulated existing political divisions to suit himself. It is
worth pointing out that interpretations and perspectives permeating
Afrikaner Nationalist history texts confuse the end of King Dingane’s
reign with his defeat by the Boers at impi yaseNcome in 1838. The fact
that Mpande achieved the status of a regiment commander under King
Dingane is also understated. We have to acknowledge that this was a very
important position. It required military acumen, foresight, responsibility
and an astute grasp of military strategy. These are the attributes Prince
Mpande used to depose King Dingane and, effectively, to hold the Zulu
Kingdom together for the next 30 years. He kept the white settlers and
colonists at bay for a longer time than any other Zulu king in the nine-
teenth century.
An important theme of Izindatyana’s characterisation of King
Dingane is that of race discourse. Elsewhere in the oral archive the word
‘black’ was used differently from the way it was used in izibongo zenkosi
 3 OrAL TrADITIONS AND THE CONSOLIDATION OF KING … 71

uShaka and other leaders; hence, one of King Dingane’s izibongo reads
as follows: ‘uDingane umnyama ngabomu’,25 meaning, ‘Dingane is
intentionally black’. Such izibongo need to be read in conjunction with
the war song about King Dingane, recorded in Izindatyana zabantu,
which extols the king as a black hero, an African nationalist whose unfor-
tunate death on the Lebombo Mountains robbed black South Africans
of a capable leader:

Siyakushona kuleziya zintaba

Washona ngentaba lashona (izwe lethu)
Yebuya Vezi Omnyama
UVezi yiNkosi emnyama
Umalamulela.26
This war song can be interpreted in millenarian terms as a call, a
need and longing for an effective, powerful African leader who would
save the entire ‘black nation’ from colonial invaders. This point is also
explicit in Stuart’s translation of the song. Hence, it is a call to raise King
Dingane—the black king—from his grave [yebuya Vezi omnyama, uVezi
yiNkosi emnyama], uMalamulela [our saviour from white domination],
this represents a distinct change from earlier interpretations discussed
in the previous chapter. Black people longed for his return because after
his death they suffered at the hands of whites who dispossessed them of
their land and kingdom [washona ngentaba lashona izwe lethu]. This
song, recorded as early as 1858 in Izindatyana zabantu, resonates with
a second battle cry recorded a century later. This was a 1964 version by
Princess Magogo about King Dingane:

Sunduza amaBhunu ahambe

Hoshoza!
Bati ‘uyalon’ izwe’
Ingani uyalungis’ abafo.27
This twentieth-century song calls for the Boers to be driven away
from the Zulu Kingdom kingdom (Sunduza amaBhunu ahambe) at all
costs and by an intensified, relentless force (Hoshoza) and for the foreign
invaders to be ‘fixed up’ or sorted out (ingani uyalungisa abafo). Even
72 S.M. NDLOVU

though others accuse him of ruining the kingdom for carrying out such
an act, the majority of his subjects regard this as an empowering process
by calling the white invaders to order, ‘ingani uyalungis’ abafo’.
Izindatyana zabantu and the James Stuart Archives were, at least in
some measure, facilitated by the intervention of white colonial inter-
mediaries—Colenso in the first instance and Stuart in the second.
Stuart’s role in this process has been the subject of critical scrutiny and
heated scholarly debate, notably between Carolyn Hamilton and Julian
Cobbing. Hamilton accuses academics such as Daphne Golan and Julian
Cobbing, among others, of dismissing white writings about Zulu his-
tory as distortions of the Zulu past, and furthermore of diminishing the
historical value of the collection of materials by colonial officials such as
Stuart and by white missionaries. This debate continues in the present
between Wright, Hamilton and Elizabeth Eldredge.28
These academics, argues Hamilton, write off as mere propaganda or
invention documentary sources on the pre-colonial history of south-
ern Africa written by Europeans. She further elaborates that there is a
far more complex relationship between indigenous narratives and colo-
nial ones and, in the processes of representation in which they engage,
than Golan and Cobbing allow.29 She is critical of Golan and Cobbing
for failing to recognise the extent to which European colonisers’ notion
of African history was shaped by African public intellectuals such as
Magolwane, Mshongweni, Ngidi, Sivivi and Lunguza, among others. In
this chapter, I adopt a more qualified position which not only recognises
the way in which public intellectuals like Tununu actively shaped the his-
tory recorded by Stuart, but also identifies areas of shaping and distortion
by Stuart himself. The most active constructors of knowledge responsi-
ble for these historical narratives were African public intellectuals such
as Lunguza, Tununu, Ngidi and Sivivi. Nevertheless, even though inde-
pendent authorial orientations are apparent, these public intellectuals per-
sonally related these traditions in response to questions posed by Stuart.

FROM ORDINARY PEOPLE TO PUBLIC HISTORIANS

A further crucial formative influence in the intervening 72 years since
King Dingane assumed power in 1828 was the time that elapsed between
Stuart’s written records of the oral traditions and the events they
describe and the different historical experiences of the various lineage
 3 OrAL TrADITIONS AND THE CONSOLIDATION OF KING … 73

groups in that period. Different lineage groups or clans elaborated differ-

ent perspectives of King Dingane. These oral testimonies, unlike izibo-
ngo which were not easy to manipulate, reflected divergent images of the
king.30 Sivivi, Lunguza, Tununu and others were capable of interpreting
their own past, and in this regard, they were not only objects of study
but also part of the community which thrives on contending discourse
similar to that propagated by professional researchers and academic his-
torians. For the great majority of the people in the Zulu Kingdom, the
most meaningful group identities continued to be those provided by
their neighbourhood community, their kingdom and chiefdom, clan and
their descent group.31 These factors, along with independent authorial
orientations, were very important in the construction of a particular per-
spective and the contending images of King Dingane by public intellec-
tuals. The portrayals of King Dingane by amaQwabe, for example, were
informed by their ambiguous status within the Zulu state—for politi-
cal and ideological reasons, they were pro-King Shaka and anti-King
Dingane. Sivivi, a representative of the Qwabe lineage group, noted that:

When Mnkabayi ka Jama died she left amabodwe at her kraal ebaQulusini
– Dingane told us, the Kokoti regiment, to go and fetch them. We went
– amaLala and amaQwabe were picked out of the regiment and told not
to come as only abokuzalwa KwaZulu [real Zulus] were required. The
Qwabe were secluded on account of being namacebo, that is, because
they gwaza’d Tshaka – this however is untrue – it is slander pure and sim-
ple. The Mtwetwa were people also excluded on the ground that Tshaka
had learnt ubuqili bokubulala abantu from them. The amabodwe were
then carried by amaNtungwa (i.e. Hlubis and Zulus) and took them to
Mgungundlovu.32

Tununu kaNonjiya wakwaQwabe,33 who was then an elderly man, was

interviewed by Stuart on 28 May 1903; he exhibits similar ambiguities,
in this case informed by his direct experience. At that time, he was liv-
ing at Ndulinde Hill, north of the Thukela river. From his testimony,
it is apparent that Tununu was another active public intellectual and
a constructor of historical knowledge through his descent group.34
Tununu used Stuart to construct his own version of the king through
his life history. According to Tununu, when it was apparent that King
Senzangakhona wanted Prince Sigujana, not Prince Dingane, to take
over from him, Dingane decided to go and live among amaQwabe.35
74 S.M. NDLOVU

Therefore, Tununu’s life story provides reasons for both his positive
and negative viewpoints of King Dingane. On the negative side was the
antagonistic relationship between his descent group, amaQwabe, and the
king. On the positive side was the relationship between himself and King
Dingane, which, he alleged, dated back to the time they were both teen-
agers in his neighbourhood community. Tununu records, ‘I am a Qwabe
man. Dingana came to us. Dingana was given to my father Nongiya—
given to him by Pakatwayo … Dingana fled away the same time as
Tshaka—Dingane stayed a number of years with the Qwabe. The name
of the kraal [is] eBuqoloqolweni where Dingana stayed’.36
Tununu claims that he was born during a time of drought and fam-
ine while Prince Dingane was still at his family’s homestead and that
he knew him well. Furthermore, the young prince gave him his name,
Tununu.

Izitununu [people with large buttocks] went about belambile [hungry]

to various parts of the country carrying food. They hlupekad [strug-
gled/were poverty-stricken]. One morning my father’s wives were laugh-
ing, Dingana emerging from his ilawu [asked] what was the matter. They
said one of the women had a child – boy. I was the newborn boy and
Dingana thereupon gave me the name Tununu … I am his inceku [and]
he caused me to wear this head ring … as inceku I milked, hlinzad at
Mgungundhlovu.37

Tununu further confirmed that he was among those who attacked retief
and his party. He presents a complex image of the king as an unpredicta-
ble character, an image which is both negative (he murdered his siblings)
and positive (he was liberal with cattle and clothes). This manifested itself
in relation to Tununu personally. Tununu continued:

Dingane had a temper. He once beat me all over with a stick for sleeping
with isigodhlo esikoteni in daytime. He killed about 20 of his brothers.
Dingana gave me 30-izinsimango skins [loin skins] for vunulaing [dressing
up] … Dingana has given me as many as 40 cattle. He used to be at our
kraal as already stated.38

Tununu ended up siding with Prince Mpande at Maqongqo, justifying

this move by claiming that King Dingane had murdered his [Tununu’s]
mother39 and some family members for no apparent reason, even though
they had raised him. He also claimed that ‘Mpande liked me. He had
 3 OrAL TrADITIONS AND THE CONSOLIDATION OF KING … 75

given me cattle’ (note that King Dingane did likewise). It is possible, or

probable, that he spied for Mpande but did not want to mention this
fact to Stuart. He was an insider who worked within the royal household
as a personal attendant/inceku and was trusted by the king. Therefore,
the information he had at his disposal about the state of affairs within
the royal household was crucial to Mpande and the Boers. But in
his testimony, Tununu claims that he had: ‘come to Mpande to (x)ay’
my mqubula and was then advised not to return to rejoin Dingana as
I would be killed at Mhlatuze before I could join him. I consequently
threw in my lot with Mpande’.40
One of the positive images of King Dingane is that of a careful and
practical statesman, a realist whose strength lays in governing his subjects
through consensual political methods. From Tununu’s oral testimony,
we learn that ‘uDingana wabusa ngesigodlo, nangompakathi, nama-
butho’ [Dingane ruled with grace of isigodhlo, subjects and amabutho].
His government functioned through consultation about serious matters
of state such as abolishing Shaka’s amabutho system and the land ques-
tion. He held the land in trust for his subjects and in practice all land was
distributed at his discretion.
King Dingane had prominent chief advisors and izinduna such as
Ndlela ka Sompisi, Nzobo (Dambuza) and Hlambamanzi.41 The latter,
the king’s perceptive political advisor, was instrumental in informing the
king of the problems and the powers behind colonialism and settler capi-
talism, including the ‘land question’. Hence, Tununu’s assertion of the
king as a person ‘owabusa ngesigodhlo, namabutho nangomphakathi’,
because he consulted their views. The ambiguous role of both Ndlela
and Nzobo (Dambuza) as part of the consultative and dynamic political
arrangements by which King Dingane governed permeates both the oral
traditions and izibongo. On one level, the king is depicted as an acces-
sible ‘democrat’, always in consultation and governing with an appointed
body of councillors. The council did not consist only of blood relatives
but also of people such as Ndlela and Nzobo, who were selected for their
particular leadership qualities. Thus Sivivi describes imbizo, a formal
gathering of umkhandhlu/ council held at King Dingane’s royal court in
the following terms:

The people will meet the King in the cattle kraal enhla nenhla near the
isigodhlo; esibayeni enkundhleni where the grass has been centa’d
away. People would not come without this invitation or summons.
76 S.M. NDLOVU

This calling out took place every time Dingane wanted his umpakati.
All matters, including proposed laws were discussed, the way in which
Senzangakhona, Phunga and Mageba [did] … the induna who says what
the king states, to the umpakati was Ndhlela … the word umKandhlu was
the proper name for a council, the old Zulu word; but when Shaka came
he brought with him the word umpakati which means the same thing …
no giyaing took place when affairs of state are discussed only when impi is
xoxwad [discussed] … Nzobo alias Dambuza kaSobadhli used to sit in the
gate … 42

On another level, both his subjects and sworn enemies depicted King
Dingane’s belief in consultation and consensual politics as a form of
weakness. They emphasised how reliant he was on his paternal aunt,
the regent Mnkabayi,43 and on his two principal advisors and izinduna
Nzobo and Ndlela.44 Jantshi recalled that:

Dingana said, ‘I do not want an isigodhlo. That is what is destroying the

people’. Nzobo said, ‘You can’t be called a king if you have no isigodhlo.
How, without one, can you be a king?’ Dingana replied, ‘It is the isigod-
hlo that is the cause of people always being pushed to death. It is a bad
institution.’ Nzobo said: ‘the killing of people is a proper practice, for if
no killing is done there will be no fear.’ Dingana then concurred and the
isigodhlo continued to exist.45

The council controlled by Nzobo and Ndlela was charged with the main-
tenance of law and order. According to Lunguza,

Ndhlela was the supreme induna … was a kindly man. He could speak
well, was a good orator, clear-headed … Ndhlela was the supremeinduna,
older than Dingana. Next to him were Nzobo (Dambuza) and Mapita ka
Sojiyisa … Ndhlela seemed to me the great or principal induna. All affairs
seemed to centre in him. Mapita came and consulted him. I cannot dis-
criminate as to what class of affairs the one induna attended to, and what
the other, for they dealt with them in their own quarters.46

But the devolution of power to members of the council to maintain jus-

tice, law and order was open to abuse by some of the powerful mem-
bers of the council of elders and this helped to fuel the viewpoint that
the king lacked character and was manipulated by these members of the
council. Lunguza provides us with some examples of the abuses:
 3 OrAL TrADITIONS AND THE CONSOLIDATION OF KING … 77

Ndhlela and Nzobo used to try cases, and when they found anyone had
done wrong they would have him killed without reference to the king,
though the king would be told afterwards what they had done … Our
chief Jobe put many people to death. He did this frequently, even more
than Ndhlela. Jobe killed them for takataing, as he said. He made reports
of those he killed to Dingana. Where any death had occurred under strong
suspicious circumstances, doctors would be called together to bhula and
smellout, and then Jobe would kill those smelt out …47

King Dingane tried to employ strategies to counter the threat posed

by white settlers by sending some of his subjects to acquire relevant
knowledge, such as technological knowledge as well as craft and mate-
rial culture from them. These efforts are discussed in the oral testimonies
collected by Stuart. As an example, King Dingane sent Tununu with a
team of two men and seven women to reverend Grout of the American
Board Mission to learn about guns and how to sew clothes. The king
gave the girls strict instructions to avoid lessons on Christianity while at
the mission school:

I was sent by Dingana [together with] two boys, seven girls at esigod-
hlweni to rev. Grout at Mvoti in order to learn the use of the gun and also
how to drive a wagon whilst the girls were to learn to sew clothes … The
girls were not to learn Christianity etc. …48

A clearer example of the way a particular descent group adopted neg-

ative perceptions of the king is that of Mtshapi kaNoradu kaMagwaza
whose forefathers were of the line of Magwaza chiefs whose chiefdom
was destroyed by King Dingane.49 Because of this, Mtshapi opposed
King Dingane and was pro-King Shaka. He concurred that King
Dingane ‘said that he killed Tshaka for troubling the people when
in fact it was he who finished off the country’. In addition, ‘[King
Dingane] ordered the house of Senzangakhona to be killed off for
the vultures as they were hungry’.50 Those who backed King Dingane
were renamed Hlomendhlini, ‘those who armed at home/royal house’,
probably referring to the role they played in killing King Shaka. They
became the agents of King Dingane’s terror. The second Zulu king cut
a swathe through a generation of pro-King Shaka leaders. His lieutenant,
Sikota, massacred Ndwandwe at Maphingisweni on the Black Mfolozi.
Phakade’s Chunu fled to the area south of the Thukela, where they
78 S.M. NDLOVU

rejoined Macingwane Chunu, who had fled from Shaka. Nqetho, Shaka’s
Qwabe ally, refused to pay allegiance to King Dingane and moved to
Mzimkhulu. Zihlandhlo and Sambane of the Mbo were hunted and
killed and the majority of the Mbo fled south of uThukela and settled in
the Mlazi area in Thuli territory near present-day Pietermaritzburg. King
Shaka’s Thuli ally, Matubane, also lost his life in the military inferno of
the early 1830s.51
The negative images of King Dingane also abound among earlier
deserters in the service of white traders. They depicted the king as a
cruel barbarian who acquired the throne by treacherous means. He was
demonised as a murderer by both the deserters and their white masters.
He was presented as a person who stuns and paralyses his victims. As
one of these deserters, Baleni kaSilwane, expressed it, ‘we use to say that
Tshaka was the king because he did not kill his father’s son. Dingane was
a bad king for he killed his own relatives’.52 This issue about succession
struggles, including the death of King Shaka, became a major historio-
graphical debate between ethnic and African nationalists in the twentieth
century, an issue I will discuss in subsequent chapters.
Various versions of the death of King Shaka have been published by
white settlers, missionaries, colonial authorities, hunters and traders.
These authors were often acutely interested in the history of the colo-
nised and according to Hamilton, Mbenga and ross, ‘they sought in
that history information and materials capable of facilitating their respec-
tive projects. To that end they frequently undertook substantial investi-
gations into the history of pre-colonial South Africa’.53 Intervention and
mediation by these authors led to selected early historical accounts about
succession battles within the Zulu royal house, particularly between the
first and second Zulu kings. In The Natal Papers, published in the 1840s,
John Chase notes that Shaka was stabbed to death by Dingane.54 The
Annals of Natal, published by John Bird in the eighteenth century, also
provides a completely different narrative of the death of King Shaka. He
claims that he was stabbed by his two brothers, Mhlangana and Dingane.
According to Bird, it was Mhlangana who struck the first blow.55 In his
1856 publication Izindaba ZaseNatal (Ten Weeks in Natal), Bishop
Colenso narrated that Mbopha was the first one who fatally stabbed
King Shaka, then afterwards Mhlangana and Dingane followed suit and
stabbed the wounded monarch.56 From the Diary of Henry Francis
Fynn, we have a variation of Bird’s viewpoint as Fynn asserted than an
assegai was used instead of a knife.57
 3 OrAL TrADITIONS AND THE CONSOLIDATION OF KING … 79

A.T. Bryant questioned these accounts of the assassination of King

Shaka, arguing that there was no European eyewitness to Shaka’s death.58
All accounts differed in details; some versions gave Mbopa as striking
first and Mhlangana as administering the coup de grace. Some denied that
Dingane took any hand in the actual assault, while others attributed him
with the actual death stab. Some authors argue that Shaka was inside the
cattle-fold, others outside; some, standing, others sitting.59
The African oral traditions collected by James Stuart about King
Dingane’s role in the killing of King Shaka are also inconsistent.
Although Jantshi ka Nongila was specific about who stabbed King Shaka,
when Stuart interviewed him in 1903, he also admitted that he could
not ‘speak accurately on this matter’.60 Jantshi commented:

My father told me about the death of Shaka, though it was what he heard
from others, for he was not present. Dingana, Mhlangana, Mpande,
Ngqojana, Mfihlo, Mqubana and other brothers of Tshaka decided to
assassinate him. Mbopa too joined the ‘brothers’. The plan decided on
was that Mbopa should stab him. Tshaka was stabbed by Mbopa. He was
seated outside at the time of assassination. I cannot however speak accu-
rately on this matter.61

One oral account of King Shaka’s death was provided by Dinya ka

Zokozwayo, interviewed by Stuart in 1905. Stuart notes that Dinya gave
an account of King Shaka’s death which corresponds with Fynn’s. Dinya
said that Prince Dingana, Prince Mhlangana and Mbopa aroused the
anger of King Shaka ‘by confronting the Pondos who had come from
Faku with a small drove of oxen in order to tender their allegiance’.
In his account, Dinya is not specific about who actually stabbed the king;
Stuart provides us with the following evidence about Dinya’s testimony
(the italics represent Stuart’s interventions):

Tshaka said when stabbed, ‘Is it the sons of my father who are killing me?
How is this, seeing I never put to death any of my brothers ever since
I became king? You are killing me, but the land will see locusts and white
people come’.. He then fell. True enough, locusts and Europeans subse-
quently came. This is evidence of Shaka being a prophet.62

The story of King Shaka’s deathbed prophecy about the swallows (and
locusts) illustrates both the conscious and unconscious shaping of opin-
ion and tradition by the colonisers. The first interpolation to this story
80 S.M. NDLOVU

is found in Stuart’s 1902 interview with Ndhlovu kaThimuni, who was

both a traditionalist and a royalist. During the interview, Stuart imposed
his viewpoint on Ndhlovu kaThimuni’s oral testimony and recorded the
following:

He [Ndhlovu] frequently conversed with his father Thimuni as to the far

off past. Thimuni said that before he expired, Tshaka uttered words to
the effect that ‘even though he had been treated in that way [killed], he
was glad they would meet his friends the white man: the country would
now be bright with the light of the stars and swallows would fly about’. What
Shaka said has come true … [Ndhlovu] considers that kolwas and others
are corrupted by newcomers from England and elsewhere who know noth-
ing about the native. It is not mere education that alienates young men
etc. But he [Ndhlovu] was prepared to retract these words when I advo-
cated the governing in accordance with old laws and customs. He approves
the policy of ‘repression’. I [Stuart] told him of the comparatively recent
possibility of crossing large seas, of the Spaniards coming in conflict with
the Incas in Peru, of the comparatively recent period within which the
European has come into contact with coloured and other races etc.63

The standard and subsequently elaborated form of this oral tradition is

that the dying King Shaka uttered the words that the conspirators would
never rule this land but that it would be ruled by whites (symbolised as
swallows). But the pro-conquest myth or prophecy about swallows (or
locusts) who will rule south-east Africa is completely absent from the
nineteenth-century oral ‘texts’ defined by izibongo zikaDingane and
archives on the Zulu Kingdom compiled, together with those of King
Shaka, by Magolwane kaMkhathini and Mshongweni, among other
prominent public intellectuals of the time.
A double shift took place in this tradition. Firstly, the swallows or
locusts became whites and harbingers of white minority rule in South
Africa; secondly, the prophecy profoundly disabled King Dingane by pro-
ducing a pathology by which he was overthrown. How did this occur?
The latter part of Stuart’s interview with Ndhlovu kaThimuni may pro-
vide the key. Stuart was conscious of pro-conquest prophecies in other
colonial situations, and this may have coloured his own understanding of
what Ndhlovu kaThimuni was articulating or implying. Specifically, Stuart
was aware of the history of the conquest of the Americas by the Spaniards.
The historical myth about swallows is strikingly parallel to the pro-
conquest ‘prophecy’ permeating archives compiled by Spanish settlers
 3 OrAL TrADITIONS AND THE CONSOLIDATION OF KING … 81

when they invaded the Americas during the sixteenth century. This
‘prophecy’ is attributed to the Aztecs in relation to the arrival in the
Americas of the vicious and capricious Spanish settler leader, Hernán
Cortés, who was supposedly caricatured as a long-awaited god who had
come to rule over the Aztecs. Spanish chroniclers claim that Montezuma,
the Aztec emperor, welcomed Cortés as if he were the god Quetzalcoatl,
the Aztec god of crossroads. This was a fatal mistake by the Aztec
emperor.64
In comparative terms, Emperor Montezuma and King Shaka’s pro-
colonial conquest prophecies are analogous. They function in a similar
fashion in offering an understanding of the process of the colonisation
of the indigenous people’s consciousness in both Latin America and
South Africa. It is also telling that the main protagonists who promoted
this prophecy cut across the racial divide in South Africa. They included
white settlers, Stuart, Afrikaner nationalists, liberals and the conserva-
tive John Dube and rolfes Dhlomo.65 The latter two, as Africans, repre-
sented the god-fearing, mission-educated elite. This fact corresponds to
Hamilton’s and Lekgoathi’s argument about the invention of tradition
by indigenous intellectuals and colonisers alike.
Another prominent theme underpinning oral traditions is the politi-
cal dynamism and pragmatism of King Dingane that emerges from his
relationship with the Voortrekkers and with white settlers in general.
The theme suggests that during the first 3 years, the king was tolerant
and established a working relationship with the white traders and set-
tlers. Ngidi kaMcikiziswa testified: ‘I was once sent to “Port Natal” by
Dingana to fetch goods from Collis, Kamungana (Capt. Gardiner) and
others. I was one of a number of regiments. This happened before the
outbreak of the hostilities with Boers’.66
Sivivi confirmed this relationship, pointing out that regent ‘Mnkabayi
bought dishes from Europeans at Port Natal with elephant tusks’. Only
after 1831 did the relationship become antagonistic.67 Even during the
early period of his reign, when he was unaware that representatives of
white traders were not official representatives of the British crown, King
Dingane was adamant that white traders, missionaries and settlers did not
deserve special treatment. He treated them as subordinates because he
did not recognise the existence or was unaware of the concept of ‘Port
Natal’ and ‘Natal’ as a separate territory or political region from the
Zulu Kingdom. At no stage did the king recognise the sovereignty of the
area called ‘Port Natal’, a point Ngidi corroborated when he observed
82 S.M. NDLOVU

that, ‘Port Natal’ was known as isibubulungu or as the country of Ntaba

kaMyebu, thus ‘aBambo babehlala enhla noTukela ngapezulu kuka
Ntunjambili-aBambo kanye nama Swazi badabuka nabo’. There was no
name for the whole of Natal—districts were called after their various
chiefs.68 The place name Port Natal permeated the oral traditions as a
result of James Stuart’s ideological intervention. This becomes interest-
ing for some of us who consider the landscape as an important historical
source and archive. In fact, after 1884, the African landscape becomes
covered with French, British, German, Italian and Portuguese names.
King Dingane’s attitude only hardened after he witnessed threatening
actions by the Voortrekkers. The oral traditions reveal five major points
of friction and five different interpretations of his ‘troubled’ relationship
with the Voortrekkers. The first focuses on the cattle, initially seized by
Mzilikazi from the Boers and then captured by amaZulu from Mzilikazi.
What angered King Dingane was the Voortrekkers’ claim to his cattle
by right of conquest. Lunguza says: ‘I remember the Boers coming to
Mgungundhlovu after their cattle; they said these were their fruit … and
therefore the cattle, which were in Mzilikazi’s possession, were theirs’. The
Zulus replied, ‘You say these are your cattle? No cattle ever left Zululand
after once getting here’,69 thus refusing to give them up.
The second issue that precluded an amicable relationship between the
Voortrekkers and amaZulu was the perceived deceitful conduct of the
trekkers in relation to King Segonyela’s cattle.70 The Afrikaner archive
claims that during a visit by retief to Mgungundlovu in November
1837, the Zulu king declared himself willing to discuss granting land
to the Voortrekkers, but not before retief returned the Zulu cattle sto-
len in a raid by Batlokwa under their king, Segonyela. According to the
Afrikaner archive, retief fulfilled this condition. But during his second
visit to King Dingane in February 1838, the Zulus killed retief and his
expedition of 70 whites and 30 blacks after they had signed an agree-
ment with King Dingane in which he granted them the land between the
Thukela and Umzimvubu rivers.71
Zulu accounts present a different perspective. From the testimo-
nies of African public intellectuals, we learn that the relationship and
trust between the two groups depended on the success or failure of the
expedition to the land of Batlokwa. These testimonies are specifically
silent about the existence of the signed land agreement and treaty. They
contend that the cattle issue involving the Batlokwa was by no means
straightforward, because King Segonyela was cunningly used by King
 3 OrAL TrADITIONS AND THE CONSOLIDATION OF KING … 83

Dingane to test the Boers’ integrity. According to King Dingane’s intel-

ligence officers, the Voortrekkers did not return all the cattle which they
were sent to recapture them from Segonyela. This was one of the main
reasons used to explain the king’s confrontational stance towards the
Voortrekkers. According to existing traditions and law governing subjects
of the kingdom, Piet retief’s behaviour was tantamount to high treason
and any person, army general or official accountable to the Zulu Kingdom
knew that capital punishment might be exacted for such a deed.72
The third interpretation of the confrontation is offered by Sivivi, who
believed that King Dingane massacred retief and his party because the
Boers showed scant respect for kwaNkosinkulu, the sacred site of ama-
Zulu, it still exists even today as the Zulu monarchs are buried there—
including their protocol, customs and traditions. As Sivivi put it:

Piet retief and party halted on the burial place of the Kings. They thus sat
down where no one was allowed to sit … This place where the Boers out-
spanned, was known as kwaNkosinkulu, quite close to Mgungundhlovu,
so close that the calves might go and graze there … No one may hurl a
stick at a bird on this locality, nor is a buck killed if it has taken refugee
there. Nor may a person dondoloza with a stick, ungabulawa, kuthiwa
uhlab’inkosi. Nor was a person, who has been ordered to be killed, be
killed if he managed to escape there.73

Meshack Ngidi’s74 oral testimony about the killing of Piet retief con-
firms this view. He also believed that the king had to act against the
Voortrekkers, whose activities around uMgungudhlovu at night created
real apprehension about their intentions. The proponents of this view-
point (who include Mtshayankomo kaMagolwane)—the fourth view—
which later became dominant in African nationalist thought, claim that
King Dingane’s guards spotted the Voortrekkers on a reconnaissance
mission around uMgungundlovu:

kwakuti nxa sekuhlwile, amaBhunu ahlome, ayokak’umuzi waseMgungun-

dlovu … Ogqayinyanga baba bona. Basebetshela inkosi … Kwaze kwaka-
bili loko, ekaka pakati amaBhunu … Sekubuduka izinyawo zamahashi …
Inkosi yasitum’ izinduna, iti azobona okutshiwo ogqayinyanga, ukuti
kukona loko. Bakubona bayitshela inkosi.75

The fifth view about the killing of retief and party is represented by the
eyewitness account by Tununu which differs markedly from the other
84 S.M. NDLOVU

four versions in two ways. Firstly, he claims that the decision to execute
the Voortrekkers was only taken after King Dingane had gained first-
hand knowledge of the technological advantages of their guns when
he saw them stage a mock battle during their first visit to uMgungun-
dlovu. The king was alarmed at the power of the gun and grew increas-
ingly suspicious of the Voortrekkers’ intentions. Secondly, Tununu claims
that the king was tipped off by reverend Owen about the possible threat
posed by the Voortrekkers, who had Captain Gardiner’s interpreter
(Thomas Halstead?) in their midst. This suggested to the king that the
Voortrekkers and the English settlers were acting in tandem, conniving
to set up a united front against his authority. Tununu also repeated both
the reconnaissance version and the ‘Mzilikazi’s cattle’ narrative:

On the day of arrival, 50 Boers hlephukad and went this way and 50 went
another way. They tshonad [disappeared] on one side of the kraal and
also on the other and they fired their guns. After this they called indawo
yokungenisa [entry point] … We also took two brown oxen to them.
We no sooner got to them with these that they fired and killed them
[oxen] … the Boers hambad umuzi baze bawuqeda [reconnaissance].
Izintub’esigodhleni zaze zavalwa emini … Inkosi isiye yambiza–ke [umt-
shumayeli – rev. Owen] … [He came] and said ‘Do you see these abal-
ungu? Bahamba nekumutsha lakiti. Hlakanipha’ … The fight arose out of
the Boers having come to landa izinkomo [cattle]. This fact caused them
to be regarded suspiciously from the outset.76

According to these five oral traditions narrated by Africans, the king

did not at any stage take the Voortrekkers at face value. He used dif-
ferent strategies to find out what they were up to, living up to izibo-
ngo as ‘umalunguza izindonga’, an attribute discussed in the previous
chapter. repeated incidents of suspicious behaviour on the part of the
Voortrekkers were the main reason for their annihilation. Tununu
notes that ‘beer and amasi came from different sides. He told them
to come, as he wants to see all’.77 This corresponds to the version of
izibongo which acknowledge that the king supplied the Voortrekkers
with a potent, spiked ‘drink’, which might be compared to isibhaha,
to weaken their knees and impair their senses, making them feel sleepy,
hence izibongo zenkosi uDingane as ‘uMthi wesilalo ingcaba mad-
olo’.78 The symbolism represented by this medicine was its poison-
ous effect (uMthi—medicine—also means poison). This medicine was
given to enemies like the Voortrekkers and on certain occasions to other
 3 OrAL TrADITIONS AND THE CONSOLIDATION OF KING … 85

unsuspecting enemies such as uMadlanga, as izibongo suggest. The

‘drink/beer’ mixed with potent medicine was usually offered to these
potential enemies during a formal reception at uMgungundlovu. retief
and his party, like others before him, might have tasted this medicine,
mixed with traditional beer, after they had been invited to witness spec-
tacular dance and song performances at the royal kraal. When the potent
medicine took its effect, they were attacked and killed.
The significance of this incident is that King Dingane was cunning
and careful in his dealing with the Voortrekkers. The killing of retief and
party is a controversial topic in Eurocentric versions of South African his-
tory and for ideological reasons, its interpretation does not include the
African perspectives discussed above. However, the king was not hostile
to white people as such. From Tununu’s eyewitness accounts, we have
a picture of a king who was concerned with the safety of missionaries
such as Grout, Owen and others who did not threaten his kingdom.
He sent Tununu to warn them about impending battles with both the
Voortrekkers and the English settlers: ‘Dingana advised the missionaries
to go to a safer place as an impi had begun to hlasela. He [the white mis-
sionary] was to go to his own people’.79 It is, therefore, no coincidence
that the missionaries are never mentioned in izibongo zikaDingane as
enemies of the king. Tununu testified that ‘[as a subordinate] Grout was
sent to eMvoti after the Boers were killed, being placed there by Dingana
… Gadeni (Capt. Gardiner) had a place at oTongati ogoqweni, where
Dingana had placed him’.80
Another example of the political flexibility and dynamism that char-
acterised King Dingane’s reign is provided by the events surrounding
the so-called Blood river Treaty, supposedly agreed upon after impi
yase Magabeni. The signing of such a treaty, like the claim that a treaty
was agreed upon by retief and King Dingane, is a controversial topic in
South African historiography.81 The conventional, Afrikaner interpreta-
tion is that the treaty meant that King Dingane was no longer in charge
of the Zulu empire or ‘busad’. Among other things, it instructed King
Dingane to tunga and thereby disband his standing army, since the head
ring conferred the right to marry and settle down.82 This implied, in
effect, that King Dingane was not allowed to keep a standing army with-
out the permission of the supposed new landowners, the Voortrekkers.
Therefore, the issue between King Dingane and the Voortrekkers was
one of authority and power and who would exercise it after the battle of
‘Blood river’.83 No documentary record of the treaty survives. Afrikaner
86 S.M. NDLOVU

oral traditions and Stuart’s interlocutors such as Ngidi ka Mcikaziswa,

who seemed to confirm white settler traditions though his use of the ref-
erence to ‘Blood river’, raises suspicions that Stuart might have inter-
fered with the archive. Ngidi ka Mcikaziswa testified that:

We were tunga’d by order of the boers … they said kasizwa, asitshaya sin-
gafi, sibuye sivuke [we were stubborn because no matter how viciously
they assaulted us, we would always come back from the dead and offer stiff
resistance]. Dingana complied with this order because he was tatazelaing
… and because his amadoda had been killed at iNcome. We were told to
tunga after fighting at Blood river and oPate…84

It is questionable whether Ngidi kaMcikaziswa would have referred to

umfula iNcome as ‘Blood river’—a name constructed and used exclusively
by white historians (both amateur and professional) after the battle of 16
December 1838. Furthermore, his claim seems to be contradicted in the
next paragraph, in which Ngidi describes how, immediately after iNcome
battle, the utterly defeated Boers were sent packing by the rampant Zulu
warriors at impi yaseMagabeni. As he recounts it, ‘the boers in their flight
managed to seize some of our cattle that were near Ntabankulu. They left
their wagons behind on the Mtonjeni. These Dingana had seized’.85 This
would suggest that even after his defeat at iNcome, King Dingane was
still in control of the Zulu empire until his death in 1840. Ndukwane’s
oral testimony, quoted in Bonner, attested: ‘[The king’s] secret purpose
[in ordering his regiments to tunga] continued to defy the power he pre-
tended formally to have tendered submission to [in terms of the Blood
river Treaty]. Dingane always felt that he had and could ahlula the Boers.
He never really feared them. What he really wanted was time and opportu-
nity to increase his fighting forces’.86
According to Ndukwane, this was part of a wider plan to conquer
southern Swaziland so that even if the Voortrekkers attacked and con-
quered one of the kingdoms, King Dingane could still defend and hold
the other. In order to occupy the conquered Swazi Kingdom, it was nec-
essary to have more men marry in order to populate and fortify it.87 In
this regard, a much more resilient, assertive, as well as devious picture
of the king emerges, in contrast with the orthodox Afrikaner nationalist
rendition.
By way of caution, the various oral testimonies provided by public
intellectuals should not be accepted blindly, but they do take readers
 3 OrAL TrADITIONS AND THE CONSOLIDATION OF KING … 87

back to a time before the arrival of white settlers in the south-eastern

Africa. These testimonies soon evolved and were transmitted as historical
material that was recorded by the William Ngidis, Bishop Colensos and
James Stuarts of this world. Izibongo and oral traditions were mutually
influential because they usually came from the same source. As discussed
in the previous chapter, Ngidi kaMcikiziswa, Sivivi and Tununu kaNon-
jiya, for example, were chroniclers of oral traditions and also capable
izimbongi in their own right. As izinceku, they shared the same life expe-
riences in a specific sociocultural milieu and a given society. They were
shapers and framers, together with Stuart, of the oral traditions about
King Dingane. Interviewed by Stuart, Ngidi said: ‘I know Tununu well.
I knew him at Mgungundlovu. I am the same age as he. He was also
inceku’.88
The oral traditions have their limitations because they are selective
about the type of information they provide, probably resulting from the
interests and bias of James Stuart himself and from the type of questions
he asked his ‘informants’ whom I define as public intellectuals. Because
of this, the James Stuart Archive language of discourse is about power
and authority, control and domination, conquest and rule, dissent and
suppression, rebellion, military expeditions and destruction or flight.
Tununu, Sivivi, Lunguza and others were ordinary people who
offered their labour to the Zulu Kingdom, some as izinceku (servants).
They grew up observing Magolwane and Mshongweni—as chroniclers of
history—performing at various ceremonies. As izinceku who belonged to
the lower classes in this highly stratified society, they memorised these
captivating performances; they watched assiduously how the two crea-
tive masters skilfully held the audience spellbound. A cumulative pro-
cess of knowledge transfer was thus set in motion as Magolwane and
Mshongweni staged their performances. This was achieved by bringing
to the fore substantial groups of ordinary people such as izinceku who
had previously been ignored in terms of their intellectual capabilities.
Through the efforts of James Stuart who recorded the voices and oral
testimonies of these ordinary people, the scope of historiography was
enlarged and enriched by introducing new primary evidence articulated
by members of the lower classes.
In this way, as this chapter shows, history became more democratic
and at the same time, its social message changed. The chronicle of Zulu
monarchs took on board the life experiences of ordinary people such as
Sivivi, Tununu and Lunguza. There was another dimension added to
88 S.M. NDLOVU

this transformation when izinceku became exponents of public history;

the use of oral evidence broke through the barriers between the oral
chroniclers and their audience. Magolwane and Mshongweni inspired
Tununu, Sivivi, Lunguza and others to carry the baton forward in terms
of transferring historical knowledge to the next generation. In short,
as oral chroniclers, Tununu and others were expected to break down
social barriers and influence their audience to assume the status of public
historians.
To conclude this chapter, one can hardly ‘squeeze’ from the James
Stuart Archives important themes relating to everyday life in times of
peace. Other important themes that are conspicuous by their absence
include those of democracy, social and human rights, personal freedom,
transparency and political accountability. This was probably because
James Stuart thought that these phenomena were irrelevant to African
culture, philosophy, cosmology, knowledge domain and intellectual
milieu. As a result, the James Stuart Archive is loud on chiefly author-
ity but muted on the questions of human solidarity, intellectual life and
people’s participation in public discourse, such as drama, theatre, cer-
emonies (for example ukubuthwa or cleansing), community gatherings,
festivals and feasts (first fruit etc.), to name but a few platforms where
people were actively engaged. They are also silent on notions of ‘democ-
racy’ within and outside the Zulu empire. But izibongo as articulated
by Magolwane and Mshongweni are not necessarily silent on these mat-
ters of state. They performed their art in various ceremonies and usu-
ally articulated their political beliefs and briefed their audiences about the
state of the nation during public events. The king and his officials were
also subjected to stinging criticism when izimbongi such as Magolwane
and Mshongweni were addressing various audiences.
Also, through African oral traditions and oral history, we begin to
understand that Africans were capable of producing their own his-
tory—including voicing different interpretations of our pre-colonial
pasts. There are at least five different interpretations of the killing of Piet
retief and the Voortrekkers—an event which reflected a pre-colonial
view of the past unmediated by colonialism in some form or another.
These interpretations, by challenging the prevailing dominant histori-
cal interpretations propagated by white historians, enrich knowledge
about our pasts. The resulting conflicting representations and contend-
ing perspectives of King Dingane correspond to Jordan Ngubane’s lucid
 3 OrAL TrADITIONS AND THE CONSOLIDATION OF KING … 89

observation that umlandi, the historian, is creatively subjective, a point

discussed in the introduction of this book.
Izibongo zikaDingane transmitted from Magolwane and Mshongweni
to the next generation of izimbongi such as Lunguza, Tununu and Sivivi
remained largely intact but this was not necessarily the case with other
oral traditions and testimonies. As Isabel Hofmeyr alerts us:

any discussion of oral history [and oral traditions] is forced to shut-

tle between the four major coordinates: the event/s referred to by grass-
root or public intellectuals; present day context in which those narrations
occur; the conventions and forms which enable narration; and an interven-
ing period during which both the conditions and craft of telling, as well
as the meaning and form of the story itself, have undergone considerable
changes.89

Conflicting oral testimonies and traditions about the death of King Shaka
and the accompanying prophecy about ‘swallows’ prove Hofmeyr’s sali-
ent point. Also, the fact that Ngidi kaMcikaziswa’s oral testimony about
‘ukutungwa by the Boers’ is riddled with inconsistencies, provides a per-
fect example of the power yielded by white authorities such as Stuart
who changed the everyday usage of place names such as iNcome for
‘Blood river’, and also inserted place names such as ‘Natal’ and ‘Port
Natal’ in testimonies provided by a range of interlocutors. These names
which were not recognised by the original owners and inhabitants of the
area south of the Thukela and Stuart did this for ideological reasons. All
this is linked to Hofmeyr’s succinct point about ‘present day context in
which those narrations occur’.
Themes on the murder of King Shaka in 1828, the killing of Piet
retief in 1836 and on Impi yase Ncome or the Battle of ‘Blood river’
in 1838 do not reflect a pre-colonial view of the past unmediated by
colonialism in some form or another. In this chapter, these themes show-
case the production of historical knowledge by Africans. This includes
excavating their pre-colonial ideas about the past which were summarily
rejected, neglected, ignored and unrecognised by whites representing the
dominant power controlling the production of knowledge. According to
those in power, African voices did not matter and their view about the
past was consigned to the dustbin of history. This book is about retriev-
ing our neglected past from this proverbial dustbin. The suppressed fer-
tile ideas were also retrieved by men of religion, journalists, workers and
90 S.M. NDLOVU

the African intelligentsia. These ideas later also shaped the protracted
anti-colonial struggle and resistance waged by the African National
Congress and the Pan African Nationalist Congress. This theme is ana-
lysed in Chap. 8 of this book.
Later in the twentieth century, people such as Magema Fuze, John
Dube, rolfes Dhlomo, Petros Lamula, Isaiah Shembe and other mem-
bers of the African intelligentsia grappled with the same question of
how to interpret the Zulu past, including the representations of King
Dingane. They pondered on how to write history in a society where
Africans were becoming increasingly marginalised, dispossessed and dis-
placed, and the death of King Dingane was celebrated in racist terms by
white South Africans.

NOTES
1. James Stuart Archive (hereafter JSA), KCM 23486, see Stuart’s 12-page
compilation of these post-Magolwane and Mshongweni izibongo zikaD-
ingane. Among them are the Sivivi, Socwatsha, Tununu, Lunguza and
Ngidi versions.
2. Church of England Mission, Izindatyana zabantu: Kanye Nezindaba
zaseNatal (Bishopstowe: Church of England Mission, 1858).
3. C.L.S Nyembezi, A Review of Zulu Literature (Scottsville: University of
Natal Press, 1961), 1–2.
4. C. Hamilton, B.K. Mbenga and r. ross eds., The Cambridge History of
South Africa, Volume 1, From Early Times to 1885 (New York: Cambridge
University Press, 2010), 6.
5. On examination of the copy of the Church of England Mission’s,
Izindatyana zabantu available at the Killie Campbell Library, it becomes
apparent that Colenso’s name has been added/written in by one of the
librarians, using a lead pencil, probably because the book was published
by the Church of England Mission at Bishopstowe. However, Colenso
had limited knowledge of isiZulu when the book was published in 1858.
Therefore, William Ngidi can be regarded as the co-author if not the
main author of this book, which is divided into two parts, the second of
which focuses on history. The opening historical section has a translation
of Colenso’s ‘Historical Sketch of the Colony of Natal’ from his earlier
publication, J. Colenso, Ten Weeks in Natal, a Journal of a First Tour
of Visitation among the Colonists and Zulu Kafirs of Natal (Cambridge:
Macmillan, 1855), iii–xxxi. See also Hamilton et al., The Cambridge
History of South Africa, Volume 1, 23–33.
 3 OrAL TrADITIONS AND THE CONSOLIDATION OF KING … 91

6. See also Chap. 1 of C. Hamilton, ‘Ideology, oral traditions and the

struggle for power in the early Zulu kingdom’ why these are important
historical sources.
7. Church of England Mission, Izindatyana zabantu, cxvi.
8. J. Colenso, Three Native Accounts of the Visit of the Bishop of Natal in
September and October, 1859, to uMpande, King of the Zulus, 3rd ed.
(Pietermaritzburg: Vause, Slatter & Co., 1901).
9. For example, see W. rees, Colenso Letters from Natal (Pietermaritzburg:
Shuter & Shooter, 1958), 69 and 96.
10. J.W. Colenso, ‘William the Kaffir Teacher’, The Mission Field, 11, 1857.
As a result Colenso’s Zulu-English Dictionary was published in 1905.
11. J.W. Colenso and W. Ngidi, Umzimba Ozwayo (Bishopstowe, 1881).
12. This paragraph is based on the following two articles: Natal Archives
Depot, Pietermaritzburg, Colenso Collection A207, Box 72, Interview
testimonies of W. Ngidi, ‘The Black Philosopher’, undated. And secondly,
J. Guy, ‘Class, Imperialism and Literary Criticism: William Ngidi, John
Colenso and Matthew Arnold’, Seminar paper presented to History and
African Studies Series, No. 28 of 1996, University of Natal, Durban,
18 November 1996. This paper was later published in the Journal of
Southern African Studies, 23, 2 (1997).
13. Guy, ‘Class, Imperialism and Literary Criticism’.
14. Ibid; Ngidi, ‘The Black Philosopher’, 41.
15. Ngidi, ‘The Black Philosopher’, 42.
16. The binding of this book leaves much to be desired, the pages do not fol-
low the usual ascending order and some pages are missing.
17. Church of England Mission, Izindatyana zabantu, clvii–clix.
18. Ngidi, ‘The Black Philosopher’, 41.
19. Ngoza thought that these were not punitive expeditions, as some histo-
rians believe, but strategic military actions against disrespectful imperi-
alists and unscrupulous men. Some of these battles are described in the
Afrikaners’ archives. For Ngoza as a warrior and a loyal supporter of the
then King Dingane, it was about his involvement in winning or losing the
various battles. He was content with the fact that the Zulu army upstaged
the white settlers, winning the majority of the battles [five out of six,
namely eMgungundlovu, emTyezi, eTaleni, oThukela, eNcome and
emaGabeni]. The Zulus were only beaten once, at iNcome. This defeat
was reversed immediately at emaGabeni by heroes like Bongoza kaNg-
cobo. In a way, his testimony conflicts with other interpretations, particu-
larly those of Afrikaner nationalist and settler historians. Using the battle
of oThukela as an example, he described how the settlers attempted to
enrich themselves at the expense of the indigenous population, who were
robbed of their cattle and land, had their women and children abducted
92 S.M. NDLOVU

and were later used as forced labour under the pretext of being ‘willing
refugees’.
20. Natal Archives Depot, Pietermaritzburg, Colenso Collection A207,
Box 95. Ngoza’s photograph is displayed on page 19 of the photo-
graph section of J. Laband’s book on the Zulu Kingdom, Rope of Sand
(Johannesburg: Jonathan Ball, 1995).
21. See also P. Lamula, uZulu kaMalandela, 56–58.
22. Like all eyewitness accounts, testimonies and oral traditions are neither the
‘gospel truth’ nor sacrosanct.
23. C. de B. Webb and J. Wright eds., The James Stuart Archive of Recorded
Oral Evidence Relating to the History of the Zulu and Neighbouring
Peoples (hereafter JSA), Volume 2 (Pietermaritzburg: University of Natal
Press, 1976), Testimony of Magidigidi, 91.
24. Church of England Mission, Izindatyana zabantu, Testimony of Ngoza,
cxli–cxlvi.
25. JSA, KCM 24199–24211, Hoye kaSoxhalase version.
26. JSA, KCM 24403, Church of England Mission, Izindatyana zabantu,
cxxiv. See also JSA, KCM 23618 for Stuart’s translated version of the war
song.
27. The source of this war song is Princess Magogo. See D.K. rycroft and
A.B. Ngcobo eds., The Praises of Dingana: Izibongo zikaDingana
(Pietermaritzburg: University of Natal Press and Durban: Killie Campbell
Africana Library, 1988), 2. It was recorded in 1964.
28. J. Wright, ‘Political Histories of Southern Africa’s Kingdoms and
Chiefdoms’, Journal of Southern African Studies, 2016.
29. C. Hamilton, Authoring Shaka (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University
Press, 1993).
30. See Hamilton, Authoring Shaka, on the established archive on King
Shaka. On the Afrikaner dominated settler traditions on King Dingane
see, among other works: G. Preller, Die Retief-Dingaan Traktaat in
Sketse en Opstelle (Pretoria: J.L. van Schaik, 1928), 166–217; G. Preller
and W. Blommaert, Die Retief-Dingaan Oorenkoms (Cape Town:
Nasionale Pers, 1924); A. du Toit and L. Steenkamp eds., Bloed Rivierse
Eeufees Gedenboek: 16 December 1938 (Pietermaritzburg: Natal University
Press, 1938); J.H. Malan, Boer en Barbaar, of die Geskiedenis van die
Voortrekkers tussen die Jare 1835–1840 en verder van die Kaffernasies met
wie hulle in Aanraking Gekom het (Bloemfontein: Nasionale Pers, 1918);
and B. Thom, Die Lewe van Gert Maritz (Cape Town: Nasionale Pers,
1965).
31. C. Hamilton and J. Wright, ‘Ethnic and Political Change before 1840’,
in r. Morrell, ed., Political Economy and Identities in KwaZulu-Natal:
Historical and Social Perspectives (Pietermaritzburg and Durban:
 3 OrAL TrADITIONS AND THE CONSOLIDATION OF KING … 93

University of Natal Press, 1996), Chapter 1; C. Hamilton and J. Wright,

‘The Making of the amaLala: Ethnicity, Ideology and relations of
Surbodination in Precolonial Context’, South African Historical Journal,
22 (1990).
32. JSA, KCM 24221.
33. JSA, KCM 24259, Testimony of Tununu.
34. Hamilton and Wright, ‘The Making of the amaLala’; J. Wright, ‘The
Dynamics of Power and Conflict in the Thukela-Mzimkhulu region
in the Late 18th and 19th Centuries: A Critical reconstruction’,
Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, University of the Witwatersrand, 1990.
35. Another version proposes that the two young princes, Shaka and Dingane,
were escaping their father’s wrath because they were caught having inter-
course with girls [‘hlobongaing’] against existing rules.
36. JSA, KCM 24259, Testimony of Tununu. Note the variation in terms of
the spelling of King Dingane’s name.
37. Ibid.
38. Ibid.
39. In another section, Tununu claims that she died in Natal after his mar-
riage. See JSA, KCM 24259.
40. JSA, KMC 24259, Testimony of Tununu.
41. On Hlambamazi see N. Isaacs, Travels and Adventures in Eastern Africa
(Cape Town: Van riebeeck Society, 1936), 276–278.
42. JSA, KCM 24320, Testimony of Sivivi.
43. JSA, KCM 24317, Testimony of Ngidi; JSA, KCM 24220, Testimony of
Socwatsha.
44. C. de B. Webb and J. Wright eds., The James Stuart Archive of Recorded
Oral Evidence Relating to the History of the Zulu and Neighbouring
Peoples, Volume 1, testimony of Lunguza, 330; and Testimony of Jantshi,
196.
45. Ibid.
46. Webb and Wright eds., JSA, Volume 1, Testimony of Lunguza, 329–330.
47. Ibid.
48. JSA, KCM 24258, Testimony of Tununu, 60. See also J. Guy, ‘Making
Words Visible: Aspects of Orality, Literacy, Illiteracy and History in
Southern Africa’, South African Historical Journal, 31 (1994) 3–27; and
J. Guy, ‘King Shaka kaSenzangakhona: A reassessment’, Journal of Natal
and Zulu History, 16 (1996), 1–30.
49. C. de B. Webb and J. Wright eds., The James Stuart Archive of Recorded
Oral Evidence Relating to the History of the Zulu and Neighbouring
Peoples, Volume 4 (Pietermaritzburg: University of Natal Press, 1986),
Testimony of Mtshapi. He was interviewed by Stuart in 1918.
50. Ibid., 94.
94 S.M. NDLOVU

51. J. Cobbing, ‘A Tainted Well: The Objectives, Historical Fantasies and

Working Methods of James Stuart with Counter–arguments’, Journal of
Zulu History, 11 (1988), 51.
52. Webb and Wright eds., JSA, Volume 2, Testimony of Baleni kaSilwane, 19.
53. Hamilton et al., The Cambridge History of South Africa, Volume 1, 4.
54. J. Chase, The Natal Papers (Cape Town, South African Library, 1955),
23.
55. J. Bird, Annals of Natal, 1495 to 1845 (Pietermaritzburg: P. Davies,
1888), 97
56. Quoted from M. Fuze, The Black People and Whence they Came
(Pietermaritzburg: University of Natal Press, 1979), 71. See also
Colenso, Ten Weeks in Natal.
57. J. Stuart and D. Malcolm, The Diary of Henry Francis Fynn
(Pietermaritzburg: Shuter & Shooter, 1950).
58. See A.T. Bryant, Olden Times in Zululand and Natal, Containing
Earlier History of the Eastern-Nguni Clans (London: Longman, 1929),
Chapters 66 and 67 for a fuller Eurocentric discussion of the reign and
the death of King Shaka.
59. J. Pridmore, ‘Henry Francis Fynn: An Assessment of his Career and an
Analysis of the Written and Visual Portrayals of his role in the History of
the Natal region’, Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, University of Natal, 1996,
Chapter 7.
60. Webb and Wright eds., JSA, Volume 1, Testimony of Jantshi ka Nongila,
187.
61. Ibid.
62. Webb and Wright eds., JSA, Volume 1, Testimony of Dinya ka
Zokozwayo, 96.
63. Webb and Wright eds., JSA, Volume 4, Testimony of Ndhlovu kaTimuni,
201. This disclosure and intervention by Stuart provides us with evidence
that Stuart was well versed in the history of the conquest of the Americas
and Amerindians by the Spaniards and the destruction of their empires,
including those of the Incas and the Aztecs.
64. For the historiography of this sixteenth-century prophecy, see, T. Todorov,
The Conquest of America (New York: Harper & row, 1984), Chap. 2,
among other texts.
65. This theme will be discussed in later chapters.
66. JSA, KCM 24316, testimony of Ngidi.
67. JSA, KCM 24320, testimony of Sivivi. Cobbing also believes that during
this time, King Dingane was involved, together with the white traders, in
the slave and ivory trade. See, Cobbing, ‘A Tainted Well’.
68. JSA, KCM 24318, testimony of Ngidi.
69. Webb and Wright eds., JSA, Volume 1, Testimony of Lunguza kaMpu-
kane, 318. See also Isaacs, Travels and Adventures, 318.
 3 OrAL TrADITIONS AND THE CONSOLIDATION OF KING … 95

70. Bird, Annals of Natal, 367; H.J. van Aswegen, Geskiedenis van Suid-
Afrika tot 1854 (Pretoria: Academica, 1989), 261–277; C. Fuller, Louis
Trichardt’s Trek across the Drakensburg, 1837–1838 (Cape Town: Van
riebeeck Society, 1932); Thom, Die Lewe van Gert Maritz; G.B.A.
Gerdener, Sarel Cilliers die Vader van Dingaansdag (Pretoria: J.L. van
Schaik, 1924); E.A. Walker, The Great Trek (London: A&C Black, 1938).
71. Van Aswegen, Geskiedenis van Suid-Afrika, 277; Gerdener, Sarel Cilliers.
72. See for example, Webb and Wright eds., JSA, Volume 2, Testimony of
Mariana, 294.
73. JSA, KCM 24319, Testimony of Sivivi, 6 March 1907. Other traditions
confirm the existence of the burial site and refer to it as eMakhosini. They
also point out that it was very near uMgungundlovu, on the northern
side. This area is a protected heritage site in the province of KwaZulu-
Natal.
74. From Stuart, we learn that he was William Ngidi’s nephew, see KCM
24324.
75. JSA, KCM 24324, Testimony of Meshack Ngidi, 29 November 1921.
This viewpoint soon became dominant among African nationalists.
76. JSA, KCM 24258, Testimony of Tununu.
77. Ibid.
78. The majority of his izibongo contain this line.
79. JSA, KCM 24259, File 60, Testimony of Tununu.
80. JSA, KCM 24259, Testimony of Tununu. See also JSA, File 75, KCM
24403, Tununu’s version of izibongo zikaDingane.
81. J. Naidoo, ‘Tracking down Historical Myths: Was the retief-Dingane
Treaty a Fake?’, History in Africa, 12 (1985), 187–210; S. Pheko, ‘The
Battle of Blood river’; and ‘King Dingane: A True Friend of Civilisation’,
in Apartheid: The Story of the Dispossessed People (London: Maram Books,
1984), Chaps. 6 and 7.
82. P. Bonner, Kings, Commoners and Concessionaires: The Evolution and
Dissolution of the Nineteenth-century Swazi State (Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1983), 42.
83. A comparative analysis is long overdue on the historiography of the battle
of ‘Blood river’, and such battles as that at Plassey in 1757, when Clive
defeated the Nabob of Bengal and established British supremacy in India;
the battles of the Spanish conquistadores in the ‘New World’, for instance
Cortes and Pizarro against the Aztecs and Incas; or the French against
the Iroquois and the Mohawks in 1667. The circumstances may have
been different but the context is much the same, namely white expansion
and rule.
84. JSA, KCM 24259, Testimony of Ngidi kaMcikaziswa.
85. JSA, KCM 24259, Testimony of Ngidi kaMcikaziswa
96 S.M. NDLOVU

86. Testimony of Ndukwane in Bonner, Kings, Commoners and

Concessionaires, 42.
87. Ibid., 43.
88. JSA, KCM 24316, File 62, Testimony of Ngidi.
89. I. Hofmeyr, “We Spend Our Years as a Tale that is Told: Oral Historical
Narrative in a South African Chiefdom (Johannesburg: University of the
Witwatersrand Press, 1993), 175.
 CHAPTEr 4

The Image of King Dingane and Zulu

Nationalist Politics

From the late 1910s and 1920s, a stronger sense of Zulu ethnic iden-
tity and nationalism, first vividly enunciated by William Ngidi in the
mid-nineteenth century, took hold and spread. This identity was multi-
dimensional and complicated and cut across sharpening class divisions.
The royal and chiefly order had an obvious interest in any ideology
that might sustain and revive its status and power. But Zulu ethnic
nationalism was also finding support among workers. Hence, the Zulu
king, Solomon kaDinuzulu, openly associated with the Industrial and
Commercial Workers’ Union (ICU) yaseNatal.1
The engaging works of Shula Marks, Paul Maylam and Nicholas Cope
suggest that the Union government was wary of a revival of Zulu nation-
alism under Prince Solomon kaDinuzulu. In 1916, after the death of his
father King Dinuzulu, the prince reinstated one of the traditional uku-
buthwa cultural ceremonies. The government mistook this for nascent
nationalism manifesting itself through cultural ceremonies, particularly
the important cleansing ceremony that takes place immediately after
the death of a king. White officials accused the newly crowned King
Solomon kaDinuzulu of conniving with ‘mysterious Germans’ and local
Boers to reassert Zulu royal authority.2
Cope believes that the use of King Dinuzulu’s name as part of the
ukubuthwa ceremony portended a reawakening (among sections of rural
Zulu society) of memories of the 1906 Bhambatha uprising. However,
as in the case of King Dinuzulu in 1906, there was no evidence that
Prince Solomon associated himself with resistance against the destructive

© The Author(s) 2017 97

S.M. Ndlovu, African Perspectives of King Dingane kaSenzangakhona,
African Histories and Modernities, DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-56787-7_4
98 S.M. NDLOVU

tax system. Yet the rumours implicating the Zulu royal family in a plot
to liberate the Zulu people from the yoke of white minority rule had
a wider significance: it was as clear an indication of civil dissatisfaction
arising from deteriorating social and economic conditions as it had been
prior to the 1906 rebellion and in the wake of the Land Act of 1913.3
During the 1920s, King Solomon ka Dinuzulu began to assert his
authority in Zulu politics. He insisted that he was the king of amaZulu
regardless of the suspicions of the Union of South Africa government.
He forged a royal political culture that drew from the cultural worlds
of both Zulu traditionalism and the mission stations run by white mis-
sionaries.4 Moreover, amaZulu recognised Solomon as their king, and he
himself was convinced that his claim to the Zulu crown did not need to
be affirmed by white authorities. This became apparent in 1925 during
the visit to Zululand by Edward, Prince of Wales, the heir to the British
throne. Various reports of the meeting between Solomon and Edward
describe King Solomon’s initiative to assert his royal status.
Maylam argues that it would be wrong to see the growing sense of
Zulu ethnic nationalism as promoted from above and imposed on the
passive, gullible masses. Nevertheless, King Solomon and other members
of the royal house certainly played a key role in the founding of the early
Inkatha, which had among its principal aims the revival of Zulu unity
and the resuscitation of the Zulu kingship as the heartbeat of the Zulu
nation.5
Moreover, from the 1920s, Zulu ethnic nationalism was finding sup-
port in other less likely quarters, among a loose grouping made up of
amakholwa, the intelligentsia and small-scale entrepreneurs. This group-
ing has been variously labelled the ‘educated elite’ and disparagingly
the ‘petit bourgeoisie’ by white scholars. The Christian and mission-
educated amakholwa (believers) emerged as a distinct stratum of African
societies in the Eastern Cape and began to make their voices heard in the
mid-nineteenth century. The most famous of them was Tiyo Soga. After
studying at Glasgow University for two stints between 1847 and 1857,
he graduated and returned home as an ordained Presbyterian minister,
with a Scottish wife on his arm.6
Meanwhile, sweeping changes were afoot. The Union of South
Africa and the ruling South African Party (SAP) remorselessly extended
its policy of segregation. In 1911, it shackled African labour by pro-
hibiting strikes by contract workers, and in regulations promulgated
under the Mines and Works Act, it reserved certain categories of work
 4 THE IMAGE OF KING DINGANE AND ZULU NATIONALIST POLITICS 99

exclusively for whites. Nor was this all the Defence Act of 1912 provided
for a white’s only Active Citizen Force. Other heavy-handed laws that
shackled the socio-political advancement of black South Africans were
the Natives Land Act of 1913, the Native Affairs Act of 1920 and the
Natives Urban Areas Act of 1923. As far as labour legislation was con-
cerned, in 1922 the government prohibited access of black workers to
certain skilled trades and then passed the Industrial Conciliation Act
of 1924, which restricted the use of collective bargaining in the work-
place. Successive white minority governments hardened in their attitude
towards Africans until the era of ‘high apartheid’ following the coming
to power of the National Party in 1948.7
These changes forced the emergent missionary-educated amakholwa,
African intelligentsia and small-scale entrepreneurs to reassess the situ-
ation and embrace a Zulu and African identity, as William Ngidi had
done before them. Their predicament was that from the 1920s their
prospects for advancement and self-improvement diminished steadily. It
was becoming increasingly clear that state policy was denying Africans
entrepreneurial opportunities. They were being blocked from any further
incorporation into South African civil society. Frustrated and embittered
by the erosion of their privileges, the African elite turned to the political
arena and the cultural symbolism of the Zulu royal house to gain redress
for their grievances. The Zulu Kingdom faced insurmountable chal-
lenges. Its military power had been destroyed; its leadership was frag-
mented and its social cohesion and administrative capacity broken. But
this decline in the political power of the Zulu monarchy did not denote
the end of its cultural and symbolic importance. Nor did the increasing
power of the colonial state mean that a new and uniform loyalty to the
white minority government had emerged.8
Under these adverse circumstances, Zulu ethnic nationalism began
to appeal strongly to the African elite and intelligentsia such as Magema
Fuze and through various institutions such as the Zulu Society, formed
in 1930. One of its major aims was to preserve and promote the cul-
ture and customs of the Zulu nation. Important to this process of eth-
nic mobilisation was a growing preoccupation with history. In the 1920s,
the newspaper iLanga laseNatal fostered a consciousness of the glori-
ous Zulu past, centred on the nineteenth-century Zulu kings.9 John
Langalibalele Dube, the founder of iLanga and rolfes Dhlomo, both
prominent members of the Zulu Society, published historical novels
on the Zulu past in isiZulu.10 Subsequently, Zulu ethnic consciousness
100 S.M. NDLOVU

transcended the old divisions between the traditionalists, the educated

intelligentsia and amakholwa.

MAGEMA FUZE AND THE ESTABLISHED ARCHIVE

OF KING DINGANE

By the 1930s, the existing archive on King Dingane comprised docu-

mentary sources written by both Europeans and Africans. The archive
is vivid evidence of the extent to which European (e.g. Stuart and
Bryant) notions of history were influenced and shaped by perceptions
of African oral traditions articulated by a range of interlocutors who
included among others, Lunguza, Hoye, Tununu and Sivivi, whose nar-
ratives based on oral traditions are discussed in the previous chapter. So
too were the texts written by missionary-educated amakholwa, includ-
ing William Ngidi’s cousin, Magema Fuze ka Magwaza (hereafter Fuze),
Petrus Lamula, John Dube and rolfes Dhlomo. This established archive
also reflects how amakholwa were influenced by historical sources written
by Europeans on the pre-colonial history of southern Africa.
The archive is reflected in Fuze’s isiZulu text aBantu Abamnyama
lapa Bavela Ngakona, first published in 1922.11 His book was a first
attempt to forge a synthesis of the history of the Zulu nation. In the
second line of the prologue, Fuze commends John Dube for founding
iLanga lase Natal in 1903, and thereby providing a coherent histori-
cal perspective on the national aspirations of African people. Although
it was first published in 1922 when Fuze was 80 years old, his book was
actually written a few years after the turn of the twentieth century, and
its importance in South African historiography has never been in doubt.
Fuze had deep foresight in recognising Dube’s talent for gathering and
consolidating the kind of information and knowledge that would enable
African people to gain a better understanding of the modern era. The
historical novels of rolfes Dhlomo, which will be analysed below, contin-
ued the historical sensibility initiated by Fuze.12
Fuze’s book is divided into two sections. The first reflects his per-
sonal recollections, eyewitness accounts and oral traditions (under the
title ‘Kuse awami, M.M. Fuze’—my personal views), some of which
draw on Ngidi’s Bishopstowe compilations in Izindatyana zabantu.13
The second section is based on sources written by Europeans about the
history of southern Africa. This led B.W. Vilakazi to voice the comment
 4 THE IMAGE OF KING DINGANE AND ZULU NATIONALIST POLITICS 101

that though the title of Fuze’s book is wide in its import, it is an eth-
nographic history of the Nguni and omits the history of other isiNtu-
speaking people in southern Africa. Though most of Fuze’s material is
what may be found in many English and Afrikaans books of an earlier
date which are discussed in the introduction of this book, there is an
original contribution in which Fuze looks critically at certain issues and
offers an explanation of his own.14 The fundamental criticism Vilakazi
makes of Fuze’s work is that he was governed by the imperatives of tradi-
tion rather than modernity; consequently, his historical vision was wed-
ded to Zulu nationalism, rather than African nationalism.15
The chapter on King Dingane in Abantu abamnyama is aptly titled
‘Izindaba zikaDingane (ngokutsho kwabelungu)’, literally meaning the
history of Dingane as written by whites/Europeans. Fuze explained
that his personal viewpoint of the king is reflected within the brackets
of the title and differs to some extent from the perspectives expressed
by European writers. He correctly pointed out that history involves
more than one viewpoint—that it is open to debate.16 His publication
drew heavily on the oral traditions discussed in Chap. 2 of this book,
and whatever historical knowledge he attributed to European historians
is also influenced by these traditions.
The dominant themes in the section focusing on Dingane are mainly
defined by the negative perspectives gleaned from the established
archive, namely the killing of the king’s siblings and supporters of King
Shaka and King Dingane’s turbulent relationship with white settlers.
Hence, it commences with the murder of King Shaka and the succession
conspiracy hatched by King Shaka’s siblings, including Mhlangana and
Dingane. Fuze sees the regent Mnkabayi as the main instigator of what
he describes as a treacherous deed. The section elaborates on Fuze’s view
that King Dingane’s had vicious streak because he was responsible for
killing all his siblings barring Prince Mpande and Prince Gqugqu. Fuze
writes: ‘wanela ukungena nje uDingane ebukosini wababulala bonke
abafo wabo, washiya uMpande yedwa wakwaSogiya, owab’e nomzimba
omubi esitweni, noGqugqu owab’ese ngumfanyana engakabi’ nsizwa’.17
Abantu Abamnyama then proceeds, in 20 pages, to discuss race rela-
tions in South Africa and King Dingane’s turbulent relationship with
white settlers. In these pages, Fuze puts the blame for the bad blood
between them squarely on the king’s shoulders.18 To Fuze, Captain
Gardiner, Piet Uys and Piet retief, among others, were innocent victims
102 S.M. NDLOVU

of the capricious king whose ingrained cruelty could be compared to that

of a butcherbird. King Dingane, Fuze believed, stood for barbarism, sav-
agery and anti-white demagoguery. Accordingly, like the white settlers,
Fuze perceived Dingane as an uncouth, cruel barbarian, a dog, a ven-
omous snake, a witch, and that the king had misplaced courage. Fuze
summed up this highly negative description by opining: ‘awukho now-
odwa umkuba omuhle owake wenziwa nguDingane, njengobangingab-
hala imikhuba emihle kaTshaka’,19 meaning there is no single good deed
that can be attributed to Dingane when compared to Shaka whose good
deeds were recorded by Fuze. The theme of Dingane and Shaka being
compared to one another permeates Abantu Abamnyama. Fuze was
not hostile to the Zulu royal house—he simply had his preferences with
regard to its leaders. He preferred Shaka to Dingane:

uDingane uqobo lwakhe wayemubi edhlula umfowabo uShaka…uDin-

gane umuntu ngokubunjwa, innja ngenhliziyo, umtakati ngesimilo…
umuntu onenhliziyo embi osangati indhlula abatakati. WabulalauPiti
namaBhunu ake, emyisele izinkomo zake ezase zimi ennqabeni ku’mfo
wakwaMolife uSigonyela. Kepa amaBhunu, angemesabi wona uSigonyela
njengaye…wawabulala (amaBhunu), engenzang’lutho olubi, ukupela
ukuba enze okuhle kodwa kuye ngokumhlonipha. uDingane, umuntu
onesibindi esibi…owabe eqinisela efana nenyoka elumayo.. Awukho now-
odwa umkuba omuhle owake wenziwa nguDingane, njengobangingabhala
imikhuba emihle kaTshaka.20

Fuze represents King Dingane as the cruellest savage he had ever known,
a king who suffered from ‘divine madness’ that led him to commit vio-
lent acts that would sicken ‘civilised people’ like Fuze himself. He also
accused the king of being a racist who committed atrocities against
whites if the opportunity arose—hence the ‘wanton’ killing of the ‘inno-
cent’ Piet retief and his party.21 This was the case at least partly because
Fuze belonged to the Magwaza chiefdom, which was pro-King Shaka.
Fuze’s forefathers were of the lineage of Magwaza that King Dingane
destroyed. Furthermore, amakholwa like Fuze began to harbour doubts
about their culture and the philosophical foundations of their existence,
perceiving Western civilisation as superior to their own. In praise of white
missionaries such as Colenso and Christianity, Fuze asserted:

Lelolizwe lakw’Magwaza y’lona uMpande alinika uSobantu (Colenso);

ngokuba uSobantu wayekw’Zulu ukuba ayocela izwe, kwake kona uMfundisi,
 4 THE IMAGE OF KING DINGANE AND ZULU NATIONALIST POLITICS 103

abafundise labo bantu bakwaZulu abangaziyo, andise izwi lenkosi uDio-

Nkulunkulu. Ngokuba bangabantu abangaziyo.22

In contradistinction to his views on King Dingane, Fuze extolled the

virtues of white settlers and the Voortrekkers, representing them as the
path-breaking bearers of a common past that exposed Africans to the vir-
tues of Western civilisation, achievement, enlightenment and Christianity.
He lamented the fact that the Zulu monarch explicitly discouraged his
subjects from pursuing Christianity and becoming converts.23
The oral testimonies collected, articulated and published by both
Fuze and Stuart in the 1920s began feeding into historical research
by both professional and amateur historians writing in the late 1920s,
beginning with A.T. Bryant’s publication, Olden Times in Zululand and
Natal.24 Bryant’s perceptions of King Dingane are reflected in Chaps. 66
and 67 of this book in which he focuses on the king’s supposed timid-
ity, lazy nature and savagery. According to Bryant the king was ‘tall and
obese of build, and indolent and luxurious by nature, he rather preferred
to while his days at home in the genial company of a few selected cour-
tiers and a host of pretty concubines’. Furthermore, Bryant made the
dubious claim the king’s ‘disposition was neither bellicose nor ambitious;
so he possessed no martial capabilities and made no conquest’.25
Before long, Zulu nationalists such as John Langalibalele Dube and
rolfes Dhlomo began to articulate the negative images of King Dingane
as expressed by Fuze, Stuart and Bryant. These negative stereotypes pre-
dominate in isiZulu historical novels written by Dube in 1930 and rolfes
Dhlomo in 1936.

JOHN LANGALIBALELE DUBE: A CONSERVATIVE ZULU

NATIONALIST VIEWPOINT OF KING DINGANE
John Langalibalele Dube was born at the iNanda station of the American
Board Mission on 11 February 1871. As a member of the missionary-
educated amakholwa elite, he was strongly influenced by the writing of
the African American, Booker T. Washington. Amakholwa who were
products of mission schools stressed and accepted white cultural and
socio-economic norms. The activities of the missionaries had helped to
create an African intelligentsia that had a common language (English)
and a common religious belief (Christianity). Few amakholwa had the
capital to set themselves up on their own as storekeepers or artisans,
104 S.M. NDLOVU

while white employers were reluctant to employ them.26 Frustrated and

embittered by the steady erosion of their privileges, amakholwa began to
form vigilance and welfare societies to protect their interests and turned
to the political arena to gain redress for their grievances.
In 1900, amakholwa founded the Natal Native Congress (NNC), a
forerunner of the South African Native National Congress (SANNC)
which was founded in 1912.27 The NNC was open to all Africans who
resided in the province of Natal. The amakholwa also sought to express
their aspirations through journalism. To accomplish this goal Dube
established the African newspaper, iLanga lase Natal (hereafter referred
to as iLanga) in 1903. The primary objective of this newspaper, which is
still in existence, was to disseminate education and to spread the doctrine
of self-reliance among Africans. It soon became a useful training ground
for talented Zulu writers, among them rolfes Dhlomo. The launching of
iLanga lase Natal revolutionised African political and cultural conscious-
ness by forging an ideology of ‘united African action’ which was con-
cretised by the formation of the ANC of which rolfes Dhlomo was a
member.
John Dube became the first president of the SANNC, formed soon
after the founding of the Union of South Africa in 1910. The SANNC
was renamed the African National Congress (ANC) in 1923. Confronted
by a barrage of repressive legislation such as the Native Labour
regulation Act (1911), which made it illegal for African minework-
ers and those in industry to strike, and the Natives Land Act (1913),
which reserved 87% of the land in the Union for whites, many Africans
were galvanised into establishing a national organisation that would take
the lead in uniting African people to struggle against oppressive white
minority rule. It was with this in mind that Pixley ka Isaka Seme called
on Africans to jettison ethnic nationalism and replace it with an all-
inclusive African nationalism.28 In similar vein, Dube took up national
issues affecting Africans. He inveighed, in particular, against land dispos-
session, drawing attention to ‘the tales of misery caused to hundreds of
my compatriots by the recent Native Land Acts’.29
Notwithstanding Dube’s nationalist aspirations, Jordan Ngubane
defined Dube as a ‘nominalist’ who was born and grew up in the shadow
and age of defeat that included the Anglo-Zulu War,30 the civil war
between Zibhebhu and Prince Hamu and the Bhambatha rebellion of
1906. He argued that those of Dube’s generation were a defeated lot
who had suffered traumatic times. This course of events had ushered in
 4 THE IMAGE OF KING DINGANE AND ZULU NATIONALIST POLITICS 105

poverty, oppression and squalid living conditions for the average African.
Ngubane argued that the logic of defeat required Dube’s generation to
cooperate with the white man; that they should surrender themselves
to God and accept deculturation. According to Ngubane, Dube’s gen-
eration therefore launched a great crusade to convert their ‘heathen’
brothers. They also built schools to improve the level of education and
established newspapers to disseminate knowledge to their people.31
Ngubane drew here on the personal experiences of his grandmother,
who had grown up towards the end of the Zulu empire and had enlisted
in the army as a member of the female iNgcugce regiment. Her way of
expressing the trauma of defeat was to claim that one could smell gun-
powder on every mountain and in every valley in the land of amaZulu.
For her, the world had come to an end when King Cetshwayo’s uLundi
capital went up in flames in 1879. She, like many people of her genera-
tion (including Dube) who grew up near white settlements and mis-
sionaries, became a Christian. Those whose world had been destroyed
believed that Jesus Christ, their saviour, would restore to them that
which they had lost. Ngubane believed that amakholwa identified them-
selves with the white man on his terms because Christianity was a pros-
elytising religion which was shored up by the military, economic and
cultural power of the conqueror. The demands of survival required that
people embrace it.32
In the 1930s conservative Zulu nationalists like Dube and rolfes
Dhlomo wrote, for the first time, historical novels written and published
exclusively in isiZulu, dealing with the Zulu past and Zulu kings. Dube
was related to the Ngcobo line of chiefs from emaQadini, and through-
out his life, he maintained close ties with Zulu traditional leaders, includ-
ing the Zulu royal house. By 1917, Dube, according to Shula Marks: ‘[s]
eems to have turned to the Zulu royal family and to the rich history and
ritual it provided for ethnic nationalism. The recent memoirs of conquest
and dramatic quality of the Zulu past and royal symbolism provided a
ready source of material for an indigenous ‘refurbishing of tradition’.33
When Dube selected a Zulu king about whom to write he settled for
King Shaka as opposed to King Dingane, viewing Shaka as a ‘progres-
sive’ and intelligent leader. In his view, Shaka, unlike Dingane, welcomed
white people into the Zulu Kingdom. He did not confront them but was
diplomatic, accommodating and courteous king who tried to devise an
effective political strategy to contain the threat posed by white colonis-
ers. Because of this personal interest, Dube was always going to question
106 S.M. NDLOVU

the manner and circumstances of King Shaka’s death.34 Because Dingane

was implicated in this act, Dube denounced him as a savage leader.
This eventually led to the publication by Dube in 1930 of the first his-
torical novel in isiZulu, Insila kaShaka. It is through analysing this novel
that we gain insight into Dube’s opinions and perspectives of the vari-
ous Zulu monarchs, including King Dingane. Extremely negative images
of King Dingane predominate in Dube’s historical novel in which he is
the villain because the author believed that Dingane’s brand of cruelty,
compared to that of King Shaka, is ingrained; it does not represent cour-
age and greatness of the latter it is merely indicative of violence.35 In this
historical novel, Dube also contended that King Dingane did not pos-
sess the military acumen of his predecessor.36 Nor, according to Dube,
was Dingane a dynamic and visionary leader, for he lacked Shaka’s posi-
tive attributes which included a vision of building a great African Empire.
Dube perceived King Shaka as a Zulu nationalist as well as an African
nationalist; a great, if not one of the greatest leaders and nation-builders.
He lamented that King Shaka had been assassinated before he could real-
ise his dream of unity amongst Africans. Dube believed that both Prince
Dingane and Prince Mhlangana were jealous of King Shaka’s achieve-
ments as a visionary statesman, diplomat and military strategist, and this
was why they conspired to assassinate him. Dube was among those Zulu
writers who characterised King Dingane as a sly schemer of Machiavellian
proportions and prisoner of King Shaka’s pro-conquest ‘prophecy’:

Wati ehlezi nje engazelele luto uTshaka, kanti uDingana nabangane bake
usehlose ukumbulala. Wayengazi ukuti aseyuwudhlala umkosi lo ayeselung-
iselele abantu ukuba bawuhlelele, sekufunyelwe nezwi enyangeni yake ukuba
ilungise imiti yokunyatelisa inkosi. uDingana usehlangene noMhlangana
noMbopa ukuba bamzume bambulale. Nembala ute ehlezi yedwa bam-
genelela bamgwaza. langxuma iqawe elidala, lati, ‘Nibulala minanje ngeke
nilibuse, lohanjwa zinkwenjane ezimhlophe’. Ebikezela ukuti lobuswa
abelungu.37

As a member of the African elite, an entrepreneur and a wealthy land-

owner, John Langalibalele Dube supported gradualist reformist poli-
cies that concentrated on fighting for giving the franchise to educated
Africans at the expense of the black peasants and working class. He was
also dismissive of other forms of protest like stay-aways and strikes by
African workers, especially those organised by the Communist Party of
South Africa (CPSA) and the ICU, which was at the time controlled by
 4 THE IMAGE OF KING DINGANE AND ZULU NATIONALIST POLITICS 107

his political enemy, A.W.G. Champion. Dube explicitly repudiated the

pass-burning campaign of the CPSA,38 which took place during coun-
ter-commemorations on 16 December 1930, (so-called Dingaan’s Day)
and led to Johannes Nkosi being brutally killed by the police. The 12
December 1930 editorial in iLanga urged African workers to boycott the
anti-pass campaign, which the editorial believed was being manipulated
by communists.39 Furthermore, on 19 December 1930 another editorial
in iLanga suggested that the only way to resolve the pass issue and other
repressive legislation was to adopt an amenable diplomatic position and
hold cordial talks with the white government as King Shaka did with the
first group of colonisers who set foot in the Zulu kingdom. iLanga dis-
sociated itself from anything that was explicitly confrontational-including
protest by African workers. In its view, African workers’ protest action
and counter-commemoration of Dingaan’s Day was unacceptable—it
was white communists who were manipulating the black workers. Dube
called on readers to respect the laws of the country and the sovereignty
of the white-ruled South African state. The heading of this article was
‘Obani Abaholi?’ meaning: ‘Who are the leaders?’ It questioned the
commitment of white radicals to nation building. All these controversial
opinions are under discussion in the next chapter.
In a 1933 editorial in iLanga, the relationship between King Dingane
and the Voortrekkers is discussed.40 The article focuses on the commem-
oration of what was at the time called ‘Dingaan’s Day’ (16 December)
and is both highly selective and partisan. Although it purports to
be about King Dingane, the ‘spirit’ of Shaka dominates it, along with
pro-conquest prophecy which postulated that Africans would never
hold power—South Africa was destined to be ruled by whites. The gist
of iLanga lase Natal’s editorial is similar to the plot of Dube’s histori-
cal novel, Insila kaShaka, in which the ghost of King Shaka haunts and
paralyses King Dingane, renders him ineffective and ultimately overshad-
ows him. He becomes impotent and incapable of making informed deci-
sions, descending into obsessive schizophrenia. Now a weak psychopath,
the king blundered on, committing atrocities like the murder of retief
and his party, who are deemed to represent the white men in Shaka’s
prophecy.41
Unlike African nationalists who cast their net wider when analysing
the actions of King Dingane, Dube failed to contextualise the king’s
action within the threat posed by both colonisation and imperial-
ism.42 Furthermore, Dube’s dependence on pro-conquest ‘ghosts and
108 S.M. NDLOVU

prophecy’ theories is ahistorical. His approach trivialises the ambient pol-

itics of the time, particularly land dispossession although he must have
been aware of the implications of the 1913 Land Act. The anti-Dingane
theme influenced writers like rolfes Dhlomo whose subtexts focused
on the conspiracy hatched by regent Mnkabayi and Dingane, including
the pro-conquest prophecy attributed to King Shaka, which was also the
main theme of rolfes Dhlomo’s historical novel uDingane, with King
Dingane the central character.
These historical novels were later used extensively used in teaching isi-
Zulu language and literature at schools controlled by the Natal Native
Education Department. In terms of African literature, up until the late
1920s, the Holy Bible and religious pamphlets made up the large per-
centage of prescribed isiZulu literature in African schools. The main
reason for this was that the majority of African schools were owned and
controlled by white missionaries; they were either private establishments
subsidised by the government or were fully fledged state schools. This
lack of indigenous African literature was also due to the fact that the
majority of Africans were ‘illiterate’. Furthermore, there were very few
public schools which catered for Africans and another contributing factor
was the absence of a reading public. It was for these reasons that white
missionaries, whose goal was to spread the gospel, introduced the Bible
as an isiZulu textbook in their schools. However, African newspapers
such as iLanga lase Natal founded in 1903 by John Dube closed the lit-
erary gap by publishing historical biographies of African kings, izibongo
zamakhosi and short stories based on African oral traditions.43
The James Stuart primers, written in isiZulu soon replaced reli-
gious literature and were prescribed by the Natal Native Education
Department. Indeed, some Stuart primers were compulsory in African
schools during the early 1920s, notably uBaxoxele, uKhulumetule;
uKwesukela: uVusezakithi: and uVulingqondo. These texts preserved oral
traditions which we discussed in the previous chapter and made availa-
ble to African learners’ historical material on the pre-colonial past which
otherwise might have been lost to posterity. These works were repub-
lished in a series of impressions and they later became the foundation of
fictitious, as well as historical novels written by African writers. As such,
Stuart primers played an important role in influencing the rise of isiZulu
literature because authors who followed after John Dube (who published
the first isiZulu historical novel in 1930) used them as basis for their
 4 THE IMAGE OF KING DINGANE AND ZULU NATIONALIST POLITICS 109

publications. Dube was succeeded by rolfes r.r. Dhlomo who wrote a

series of biographical histories of the Zulu kings in isiZulu.

ROLFES DHLOMO: USING HISTORICAL NOVELS AS A SITE

TO POPULARISE KING DINGANE’S NEGATIVE IMAGE

rolfes Dhlomo, one of John Dube’s eminent protégés, also played a cru-
cial role in the re-appropriation of King Dingane’s image. In 1936 he
published a historical novel in isiZulu titled uDingane,44 probably the
first major work about the monarch. rolfes reginald raymond Dhlomo
was born in 1901. He was educated at Dube’s Ohlange Institute and at
the American Board Mission School in Amanzimtoti, where he obtained
his teacher’s certificate. In the early 1920s, he became a regular con-
tributor (under various pen names) to Dube’s iLanga laseNatal. Dube’s
Insila ka Shaka, published in 1930, must have awakened him to the
potential of using isiZulu for written literature and the suitability of pre-
colonial history as a topic for modern writing. Dube was one of the most
influential people in rolfes Dhlomo’s life, and Dube was often honoured
in Bantu World and iLanga during Dhlomo’s tenure as editor. In his
book, Izikhali Zanamuhla rolfes Dhlomo included a brief and apprecia-
tive chapter on Dube.45 In short, Dhlomo was an unflinchingly staunch
Dube-ite.
rolfes Dhlomo wrote a series of historical novels which also served
as semi-biographical narratives about the Zulu dynasty and these were
published by Shuter & Shooter, a company based in Pietermaritzburg.
His historical novels include uDingane kaSenzangakhona (1936); uSh-
aka (1937); uMpande (1938); and Cetshwayo (1958).46 Unlike his radi-
cal younger brother, Herbert, rolfes deliberately published most of his
books and articles in isiZulu. In iLanga lase Natal on 28 December
1923, he wrote: ‘our folklore and historical records must be preserved
from dying out, anything of racial pride, by means of literature, oth-
erwise these will be lost forever and our connection with the past
forgotten’.
The rise and fall of the Zulu Kingdom, as a historical process, has
attracted more historical novels than most. rolfes Dhlomo’s journal-
istic skills and experience gave him the necessary background to write
this kind of popular history. In the historical novel as a genre, the past
ceases to be a mere field of scientific enquiry. It becomes a source of
110 S.M. NDLOVU

entertainment, moral instruction, unexamined prejudice and historio-

graphical cliché. To quote Voltaire, ‘all our ancient history, as one of
our wits remarked, is no more than accepted fiction’.47 robert Irwin
also attests that novels usually show a close dependence on histories, but
historians are adept at making use of the tricks perfected by novelists.
Clichés, stereotyping and moralising are found in both fiction and his-
toriography, but historical novelists tend to show a greater predilection
for them. The historian, by contrast, strives for novelty and often tries
to overturn older precepts. Above all, historians seek empathy with their
subjects, trying to place the main characters within the context of their
times.48 Novelists might not.
The main sources used by rolfes Dhlomo seem to have been izibo-
ngo zamakhosi, published and unpublished oral traditions. But he also
used Stuart’s primers, Bird’s Annals of Natal and Fuze’s and Bryant’s
texts. Dhlomo was at pains to explain that his works, be they historical
fiction or fable, should be regarded as striving to represent a true his-
torical account of King Dingane’s reign. Yet he freely admits that in his
historical novel on King Dingane, he personally constructed the dialogue
and this cannot be accounted for in historical sources.49
In his dialogical historical novel uDingane, the author’s main aim is
to depict King Dingane as an unrepentant villain who lacked intellect.
He committed many atrocities and represented a mirror image of King
Shaka. As Dhlomo himself puts it:

Ziningi izenzo zikaDingane ezimbi engiziveze lapha ezisishaqisayo thina

banamuhla…uDingane wayenganayo ngempela inhliziyo kaShaka, nokuthi
kuzo zonke izenzo zakhe kakukho ubukhulu bomqondo obabukhona
ezenzweni zikaShaka.50

Even the cover of uDingane is suggestive. It is black, probably symbolis-

ing doom, and the word ‘Dingane’ is written in red, symbolising blood,
while the letter ‘I’ is represented by an assegai dripping with blood. Like
Dube, rolfes Dhlomo completely absolved the whites of any wrongdo-
ing and blamed the king for the killing of retief; an act he maintains
was shocking and unwarranted and the sole cause of the subsequent con-
flict and tension between blacks and whites. According to Dhlomo, the
king’s defeat at impi yaseNcome ushered in oppression and the loss of
land to white colonisers and settlers.51 He claimed that black people had
 4 THE IMAGE OF KING DINGANE AND ZULU NATIONALIST POLITICS 111

lost their land and sovereignty and were still oppressed in South Africa
because of King Dingane’s barbarous deed.52
In the preface rolfes Dhlomo, assuming the role of a psychoanalyst,
argues that his narrative discusses and immerses itself in King Dingane’s
‘mind’ and ‘thoughts’.53 He laments the propensity of the current gen-
eration (at the time of writing) to misunderstand past societies, remem-
bering them by their mistakes or ‘bad deeds’. He emphasises the
relationship of the past to present problems and acknowledges that an
understanding of the past reflects the interests of any person who writes
about historical events. In other words, the production of history is con-
ditioned by present preoccupations. He propagated the view that every
generation re-writes its past in terms of its understanding of the world.54
As an author, he believed we should learn from our ancestors and try
to look at the past through their eyes. In this, he failed to heed his own
philosophical advice by not empathising and contextualising the king’s
rule according to his times. rolfes committed this error by basing his
novel entirely on the negative voice represented in the existing archive
on King Dingane. As seen above, this negative stereotype is reflected
by Fuze in his publication aBantu Abamnyama and by Dube in Insila
kaShaka. Giving a voice to the oppressed is an empowering technique
which rolfes Dhlomo’s younger brother, Herbert Dhlomo, another pro-
lific writer, journalist and poet, picked up on a little later—and will be
the subject of analysis in Chap. 6 of this book. Judging by their work, it
seems that the two brothers agreed to disagree on their representations
of King Dingane. To rolfes, King Dingane was a villain; to Herbert, he
was a hero and a freedom fighter.
By way of synthesis, there are similarities between the work of pub-
lic intellectuals such as Sivivi, amateur ‘historians’ like Fuze, Dube,
Stuart and rolfes Dhlomo on King Dingane. These include the belief
that the king gained the throne by treachery and that he was an unpre-
dictable, insecure and cruel barbarian.55 Like Langalibalele Dube and
Magema Fuze, rolfes Dhlomo believed that King Shaka’s ‘prophecy’
overwhelmed King Dingane. They conclude that Dingane was a bad
king, a wild animal and a psychopath, from whom rolfes Dube recoiled
with disgust because he presented an unfavourable image of the Zulu
monarchy. King Shaka’s image, or ghost, is forever lurking in the back-
ground because it is too powerful to be exorcised; ‘phela labeselikhala
igazi likaShaka, selibizwa kuye’,56 implying, indeed Shaka’s blood was
112 S.M. NDLOVU

tormenting him [King Dingane] for it was embedded inside him. In con-
firmation of Stuart’s pro-conquest prophecy, Dhlomo elaborated: ‘Kasazi
noma wayesengenwe uvalo “lwezinyoni zezulu” yini lezo athi engena nje
ebukhosini zaziqhamuka, zamenza ukuba aphenduke isilwane’.57 Writing
in iLanga, rolfes Dhlomo proclaimed:

Africans have their own versions and interpretation of the Dingane story.
The motivating force or central theme is not the Voortrekker. The moti-
vating forces are Shaka’s assassination and prophecy, the plotting and
defection of Mpande and the power and influence of Mkabayi.58

rolfes Dhlomo subscribed to the view that King Dingane was a stooge,
a powerless weakling easily manipulated by his domineering aunt regent
Mnkabayi.59 As a king, he governed by rule of fear and eventually com-
mitted unwarranted atrocities by killing people unnecessarily, particularly
in the case of his siblings.60 By murdering King Shaka, it is inferred that
Dingane betrayed Africans. Through this act, he destroyed what was
supposed to become one of the greatest ‘civilisations’ in Africa. Thus
Dhlomo depicts King Dingane as ‘the native who caused all the trouble’.
In terms of religion, rolfes Dhlomo also lamented King Dingane’s
unrepentant, anti-Christ stance and believed he was beyond redemp-
tion. He accused the king of opposing the introduction of the Christian
ethic in the ‘heart of darkness’, that is, in the land of amaZulu.61 He
lacked the intelligence and noble qualities of King Shaka. It is clear that
both John Langalibalele Dube and rolfes Dhlomo were influenced by
Magema Fuze and made a comparative assessment of King Dingane, see-
ing him as an inverted image of King Shaka and an uncouth barbarian.
A key question that must be asked is: Why did conservative African
intellectuals such as Fuze, Dube and rolfes Dhlomo perceive King
Dingane as a villain? In part, their views were influenced by negative
versions of the king perpetuated by white South Africans, but it is also
important to understand that their outlook was also rooted in the poli-
tics and production of history of the Zulu royal house. The origins and
lineage of the Dhlomo clan are instructive in explaining rolfes Dhlomo’s
social priorities and his pride in and explicit support of Zulu national-
ism and culture as well as his allegiance to it. His family originated from
eMakhabeleni and is therefore related to the Langeni, of which Queen
Nandi, King Shaka’s mother, was a member. This inclined him towards
King Shaka rather than to King Dingane. Hence, rolfes Dhlomo’s
 4 THE IMAGE OF KING DINGANE AND ZULU NATIONALIST POLITICS 113

connections with the Zulu royal house may have had a significant influ-
ence on his historical writings. But this does not explain why Herbert
Dhlomo, his younger brother, differs from him—he propagated a posi-
tive and radical image of King Dingane.
Besides publishing historical novels featuring all the nineteenth-
century Zulu kings while he was editor of iLanga in the 1940s, rolfes
Dhlomo also immersed himself in the affairs of the Zulu royal house.
This was apparent in the evidence he presented in 1945 to the commis-
sion on the succession dispute within the royal house. This commission
pitted Princess Magogo against her sister-in-law, okaMatatela—Queen
Christina, King Solomon kaDinizulu’s first wife and the mother of Prince
Cyprian Bhekuzulu. Princess Magogo supported Prince Tandayiphi,
whose mother, okaMbulawa, was the daughter of Mbulawa kaMnyamana
wakwaButhelezi. rolfes Dhlomo gave evidence on behalf of Prince
Bhekuzulu, using one of his own books as an authoritative, instructive
source. Hence Dhlomo elaborated:

I am the author of the book Izikhali Zanamuhla (Exhibit No. 1) pub-

lished in 1935. At page 65 of that book there is a paragraph to the effect
that Cyprian is the heir of the late Chief [King] Solomon. My authority for
that paragraph was the leading article in the iLanga lase Natal of March
24th 1933, in which Cyprian’s name is mentioned … I am not able to
say who contributed that information to the newspaper. Other author-
ity for the paragraph in my book was contained in a letter written by A.F.
Matibela, published in iLanga laseNatal of the 31st March 1933 … There
was a second issue of the book … It is identical to the 1st edition except
that the paragraph naming Cyprian as heir to the uSutu chieftainship has
been omitted. I do not know why Cyprian’s name was not mentioned in
the new book. The alteration was not made with my authority or knowl-
edge. The publishers did it … I have asked Messrs Shuter & Shooter for
their authority for [this] change, but have [been given] no reply.62

Herbert Dhlomo’s excellent, impartial tribute to his older brother clari-

fied these issues afflicting the royal house:

One of Dhlomo’s most humble books became famous as it precipitated

a crisis in the Zulu Paramount Chieftainship controversy. Having received
authentic information from some reliable source, Dhlomo divulged the
secret, he did not know it was secret that Cyprian kaSolomon kaDinizulu
was the real Heir presumptive to the Zulu Paramount. The revelation
114 S.M. NDLOVU

caused a sensation. Dhlomo was threatened with libel and worse, when at
last, the matter came before the authorities Dhlomo was subpoenaed to
appear before the court. What happened is popular history. He was not
exonerated, but lionised by many Zulu interested in the dispute.63

There are also other reasons why rolfes Dhlomo depicted King Dingane
as he did. These include requirements made by his publishers. In a let-
ter written to the editor of iLanga on 24 December 1938, C.B. Dlamini
wrote a hostile critique of all Dhlomo’s historical novels except for the
one about King Cetshwayo. His review of the unedited manuscript of
uCetshwayo was positive. He saw it as essentially African nationalist
in approach and an account that would be empowering to oppressed
Africans in general. Unlike other historical novels published by rolfes
Dhlomo this specific one did not corroborate or perpetuate Eurocentric
views of the Zulu monarchs. Because of its Africanist orientation, Shuter
and Shooter and other publishers initially turned down the novel for
publication.64 Dlamini was of the opinion that except for the historical
novel on Cetshwayo, the other historical novels written by Dhlomo did
not accurately depict the history of indigenous people because they had
been substantially vetted and censored by the publishers, who had seen
fit to impose their own viewpoints on Dhlomo’s original manuscript.
Dlamini dismissed these vetted texts as both disappointing and patronis-
ing. They could, he wrote, easily pass as historical texts written by whites
on behalf of blacks.65 Elsewhere, Herbert Dhlomo amplified on this
accusation:

Like other vernacular writers he [rolfes] was handicapped by the fact

that no publisher could consider any but schoolbooks. Anxious to place
his novels, he could not as this would mean watering them down to the
tone required by the Selection Committee. One of his studies ‘Cetshwayo’
caused a sensation when it was rejected by the dictatorial committee of
‘experts’ and linguists, not on literacy or aesthetic grounds, but on racial
and religious ones. In spite of this Dhlomo has been able to publish two
Zulu novels. readers and patriots would be shocked to know what the
Zulu author receives for books, and thousands are sold each year. This is a
matter that needs immediate readjustment. In fact it needs official investi-
gation.66

Perhaps most important of all, rolfes Dhlomo was a protégé of Dube

and a child of the Joint Council generation.67 From the 1920s onward
 4 THE IMAGE OF KING DINGANE AND ZULU NATIONALIST POLITICS 115

African politics bifurcated into two streams. The first comprised the
Christian elites, who were strongly disposed towards cooperation with
whites. The Ghanaian James Aggrey, who had settled in South Africa,
and the Joint Council initiative, to which Dube belonged, reinforced
this current. The second stream was made up of increasingly radicalised
intelligentsia, to whom the Industrial and Commercial Workers’ Union
(ICU), among other platforms, gave voice. This division meant that the
African elite was split in two. In some cases, the split ran through sin-
gle families, as was the case with the Dhlomo brothers. Whereas Herbert
belonged to the more radical stream, rolfes followed Dube’s lead and
favoured collaboration.
rolfes Dhlomo, along with many others of his generation, was pow-
erfully influenced by James Aggrey’s68 faith in ‘white reasonableness’,
declaring that, ‘these times call for concrete unity between white and
blacks’.69 In an article published in iLanga on 5 February 1926, rolfes
Dhlomo remarked: ‘there are some foolish Natives who still think that
they can do entirely without Europeans … that is bosh’. He supported
collaboration with, in his words, ‘proper white people’, by joining the
Joint Council. Skikna, in her dissertation on rolfes Dhlomo, believes
the major reason for this attitude was Dhlomo’s notion of unity, which
transcended the fields of language, culture, religion and politics. In fact,
unity is the force behind Dhlomo’s entire range of beliefs. He would
have liked to see all aspects of life operating in harmony. In his writings,
Dhlomo dealt with unity among blacks, unity as a token of universal
brotherhood, the correct use of leadership to enforce unity, and unity
with whites.70 It is apparent that with regard to unity with white South
Africans, King Dingane failed dismally to meet Dhlomo’s criteria.
Dhlomo’s mentor, John Dube, who introduced him to Booker T.
Washington’s style of Ethiopianism,71 fostered this desire for unity.
Dube’s influence is evident in the chapter about him in Dhlomo’s book,
Ukwazi Kuyathuthukisa.72 Both Dube and rolfes Dhlomo used the
basic tenets of Ethiopianism (among other tools) as a starting point for
a reassessment of King Shaka’s historical role. They defined him in terms
entirely different from those they adopted and constructed when assess-
ing King Dingane. They used King Shaka’s engrossing image to advocate
African unity—social, political and, above all, cultural unity—among the
African people of South Africa. They believed King Shaka exemplified
this thinking. He wanted all Africans to speak one language and become
one strong, united nation. In essence, King Shaka was also a generator of
116 S.M. NDLOVU

transnational consciousness and Pan-Africanism; this was seen as a pow-

erful antidote to white minority rule and colonialism.
Accordingly, King Dingane was a villain, the antithesis of King Shaka.
He destroyed African unity by killing King Shaka, a deed that brought
about the disintegration of African people in South Africa. This led to
disunity, exploitation and oppression by the white minority obsessed
with avenging the death of Voortrekkers at King Dingane’s hands. In the
1930s the conservative Zulu nationalists’ agenda for constructing King
Dingane as the polar opposite, the antithesis of Shaka, found historical
materials in the oral traditions of the nineteenth century which did much
the same thing, although for different reasons. But there were contem-
poraries of the anti-Dingane brigade who were prepared to stand up and
be counted.

PETROS LAMULA AND ISAIAH SHEMBE: THE LAND

AND SYMPATHETIC PERSPECTIVES OF KING DINGANE

Most Zulu writers of the 1920s and 1930s were engrossed in a world
in which racial segregation, social oppression and ethical demoralisa-
tion were omnipresent. This was reflected in various novels, plays, songs
and hymns in which they questioned not only the legitimacy of white
domination but also the adequacy of the Christian religion as taught by
white missionaries.73 Like Dube’s and rolfes Dhlomo’s historical nov-
els, publications by those aligned to this group were markedly ethno-
nationalistic.74 In addition, their viewpoint of history was deterministic.
Their instrumental conceptualisation of history as progress was influ-
enced by the belief that history could be used to solve current problems,
to plan for the future. They also recognised the central role of history
in establishing collective and group identity conceptualised in nationalist
terms. One of these Zulu writers was Petros Lamula who courageously
challenged white rule in South Africa.
Petros Lamula and Isaiah Shembe, who were members of this critical
group, appropriated a Zulu national past but in a way that was mark-
edly different from that of Dube and rolfes Dhlomo. Lamula was born
at Qhudeni and educated at the Lutheran Teacher’s Training College
in kwaMaphumulo.75 He was ordained as a minister of the Norwegian
church in 1915, but in 1926 he left to establish the Bantu National
Church of Christ. In 1924 he published uZulu kaMalandela, a historical
text based on oral traditions as primary evidence.76
 4 THE IMAGE OF KING DINGANE AND ZULU NATIONALIST POLITICS 117

Lamula acknowledged that his historical evidence and source material

on King Dingane had come mainly from his parents and uncles and from
some of the oral testimonies chronicled by Stuart. His father, Lutolini
kaZacu kaZinyane wakwaLamula, had been a member of one of King
Mpande’s regiments, uMdhlenevu. According to Petros, his father was
a famous warrior who was decorated for his bravery: ‘eyisilomo sen-
kosi uMpande, enezimendhlela esitiwa: ingxota, nemixhezo yezilomo
namaqhawe’.77 When Petros was 20 his father died and the young
son lamented, believing that because he was intellectually immature at
the time he could not recall all the oral traditions and stories his father
had shared with him. Had he been able to remember everything Petros
believed he could have written a ‘better’ historical text.
Petros Lamula’s publications highlighted a complex and profound
shift in his worldview and ideology from a conservative Christian-liberal
to a radical militant nationalist. Like Dube and Dhlomo he attempted
to redefine his identity and cultural heritage outside the realm of
Christianity. Commenting on the importance of oral traditions handed
down by the elders within his community, including his parents,78
uncles79 and James Stuart,80 he wrote:

Njengoba nami ngikhule indaba isemlonyeni kwabadala, ngamakhosi nan-

gazo zonke izindaba zakuqala ngizakuzama kafushana, ukulandela bona
abadala…Kayikho into ebimnandi kakhulu kithi lapho sisakhula, kunoku-
zwa ngokuxoxwa ngezindaba zakithi ezindala, kakhulu ngamakhosi. Futhi
sengathi izwe lalisenabantu abangamagagu okuxoxa izindaba. Uma kuxoxa
ubaba, njengomuntu obekhona esikhathini samakhosi amadala, ubexoxa
kakhulu ngoSenzangakhona …81

Lamula’s views of King Dingane are ambiguous. While not condoning

the killing of the king’s siblings and other atrocities, he was sympathetic
to the king, believing that Dingane was more considerate and lenient
towards his subjects than King Shaka had been.82 He defended King
Dingane, suggesting that he had faced insurmountable difficulties during
his reign. One such challenge was the persistent threat posed by rebels
like Mzilikazi, Soshangane and Nqaba, who were all at loggerheads with
the Ndwadwe and Zulu monarchies. Then there was the ever-growing
presence of white settlers and traders who had been given permission
by King Shaka to settle in the Zulu kingdom; and the arrival of the
Voortrekkers in 1837. Finally, King Dingane, through Hlambamanzi,
118 S.M. NDLOVU

knew of the existence of the British-controlled Cape Colony nearby and

its threat to the Zulu kingdom.83
Lamula claimed that King Dingane was aware of King Shaka’s dip-
lomatic overtures to the Cape Colony and posited that these were ini-
tiated because of the threat the colonists posed to the Zulu Kingdom.
Lamula asked his readers and audience to contextualise and analyse King
Dingane’s reign against this historical background. Furthermore, he
defended King Dingane’s lack of interest in military endeavours, argu-
ing that Shaka had already defeated many polities and forced them to
pay allegiance to the Zulu Kingdom, so there was no strategic reason for
Dingane to adopt an expansive military policy. He went on to emphasise
that the name Dingane literally means ‘the wanderer’, suggesting that
this was a ‘bad omen’.84 Lamula claims the name was prophetic, because
Dingane was the only Zulu king to be buried outside the area occupied
by the Zulu Kingdom-at kwaNkosinkulu. He was killed and buried in
an unknown place after being found wandering about by a group of
amaSwazi:

Igama lenkosi uDingana labayisigameko esibi, esayihlolela ukuba

iyakugcina ngokudinga. Onke amakhosi akwaZulu embelwa kulomhlaba,
kodwa yena kaziwa. NakwaNgwana kushiwo ngoba wabaleka waqonda
khona, emva kwempi yase Maqongqo …85

Analysing the existing relationship between King Dingane and the white
settlers, Lamula asserted sharply that the Zulu monarch had no alterna-
tive but to believe that the white settlers and their African wards were
conniving against him. He regarded the struggle between the king and
the settlers as a struggle for land. As a king, the ruler of his people,
Dingane refused to recognise the existence of Natal as a separate (sov-
ereign) entity from the Zulu Kingdom. The various battles between the
two groups involved the killing of retief and his party at uMgungun-
dhlovu and the battles of ‘Weenen’ and Thukela, where the Zulu army
defeated the united front set up by the Boers and English settlers were
in defence of the land.86 Hence, like Ngoza kaLudaba, Lamula saw
continuity between impi yase Ncome and yasoPate (Magabeni), where
Bongoza kaNgcobo, the famously robust Zulu warrior, led the maraud-
ing Boers into a trap in which they were annihilated by amaZulu.87
Lamula lamented that white colonialists celebrated the defeat of
King Dingane at iNcome and officially commemorated Dingaan’s Day.
 4 THE IMAGE OF KING DINGANE AND ZULU NATIONALIST POLITICS 119

Sympathising with the fallen Zulu warriors, he conferred upon them the
status of martyrs, ‘siyakala ngabantu bakiti abaqedwa ezweni lawokoko
babo’88 [we offer condolences to our people who were destroyed in their
forefathers’ land]. He vilified the so-called civilised, tyrannical and selfish
white settlers who had taken his forefathers’ land from the fallen warri-
ors. This precious land was later transferred to the present white genera-
tion who utilised its abundant riches to feed themselves:

Loku naku nabo abelungu abaziqayisa ngokuti baleta ukukanya, namhla

basepuca wonke umhlaba wawobaba ukuba kusute abantwana babo. Yikupi
okungeyiso isono? Ezinye izinto ezenziwa uShaka noDingana! Kunjani:
eMapulazini, naseMobeni naseziNkomponi? Nako-ke bakiti, eNcome lapo
yahlangana yasuka, baphela abantu …89

Lamula argued that ‘the wrongs’ Zulu monarchs inflicted on their sub-
jects paled into insignificance when compared to the atrocities com-
mitted by white people against Africans. He pointed particularly to
employers on the white-controlled farms, sugar plantations and mines.
He perceived King Dingane’s defeat at iNcome as a major turning point
in South Africa’s history, leading to Africans losing their land and inde-
pendence. The dreadful way white people treated Africans in general—
the poverty and the underprivileged conditions of existence suffered by
African people in Lamula’s time, were the reasons why he interpreted
King Dingane’s opposition to white settlers as he did.90
In later publications, like Isabelo sikaZulu, which was first published
in 1936, Lamula was less passionately pro-Dingane. He now believed
that King Dingane’s greatest mistake was killing Piet retief and his party,
for it brought about the king’s fall and the subsequent loss of land by
Africans. As an intellectual, this shift could have indicated that he was
responding to and acknowledging the criticism put forward by John
Dube and rolfes Dhlomo in their historical novels on the subject.91
He began to accept that the King Dingane should have adopted a more
accommodating, diplomatic approach that would have allowed him to
control the settlers. Nevertheless, Lamula was still sympathetic towards
the king’s actions. Unlike Dube and rolfes Dhlomo he did not believe
the killing of Piet retief was ‘the black man’s burden’ and the catalyst
for subsequent bad relations between the races. King Dingane, Lamula
said, was expected to protect himself, the land and his people from the
unscrupulous white invaders:
120 S.M. NDLOVU

uDingane ngib[h]ale ngaye ngokudatshukiswa yigama lakhe, elam-

hlolela ukudinga, bala wadinga indawo yokulahlwa phakathi kweze lakhe.
Kufanele simtuse ngoba naye wayeqonde ukulwela izwe lakhe nesizwe
sakhe, ayesiphethe njengeNkosi yaso.92

Land dispossession was also a major issue for Lamula’s contemporary,

Isaiah Shembe, leader of the Zulu-based amaNazaretha Church. The
Independent African Churches, of which the Shembe Church is part,
also commemorated the death of King Dingane—but they did so by
holding counter-commemorations. Similar to Petros Lamula, Shembe’s
counter-commemoration of King Dingane focused on the land that
had once belonged to amaZulu and had since been violently taken over
by the white colonisers. Vilakazi asserts that ‘[t]he Shembe followers
remembered this day also, but for them it was a day of national mourn-
ing … the sermons preached during Dingane’s day celebrations always
stressed the need for an African renaissance’.93 According to Shembe and
his followers, King Dingane was the only king capable of leading this
renaissance.
Isaiah Shembe, the prophet, was born at Ntabazwe in Harrismith,
in the Orange Free State, in about 1867, the son of an illiterate farm
labourer who had great respect for the culture and traditions of his
ancestors. According to tradition, Shembe heard a heavenly ‘Voice’ in a
thunderstorm, which instructed him to leave his mother and four wives,
to shun immorality, and to serve God. During the storm he was burned
by lightning, but obeyed the ‘Voice’, that told him not to have the light-
ning burns healed by medicine. After this epiphany, Shembe developed
the qualities of a prophet or seer (oboniswayo) in Zulu society and acted
with great self-assurance. In 1911, he founded iBandla lamaNazaretha,
and in 1914, he established the holy city of eKuphakameni at iNanda,
near John Langalibalele Dube’s home and Ohlange School. Shembe
and Dube were very close friends and ardent Zulu nationalists who sup-
ported the restoration of the Zulu royal house to its former glory.94
Shembe’s church was both messianic and nationalistic.95 This is
understandable, because at the time resistance by African people was
confined to forums such as separatist church movements, where politi-
cal and social grievances were articulated in religious and cultural terms.
In Shembe’s church nationalism was specifically Zulu. His follow-
ers believed that amaZulu could only be redeemed by a Zulu prophet,
namely Isaiah Shembe. Thus, there was scant focus on Jesus Christ in his
 4 THE IMAGE OF KING DINGANE AND ZULU NATIONALIST POLITICS 121

teachings. Instead, the focus was on Shembe, the prophet. He appealed

primarily to amaZulu’s pride in their own cultural identity and historical
past. He restored a number of customs and cultural traditions that had
been dismissed or condemned by the European missionaries despite ama-
Zulu adherence to them.96 Traditional dances and performances were
incorporated into religious worship and respect was paid to African mon-
archs like Dingane, who were regarded as the very backbone of African
societies. In 1936, in his biography of Shembe, Langalibalele Dube
claimed:

uShembe ukholwa ukuti abantu bafanele ukudumisa uNkulunkulu

ngokug’ida nokusina. Ukug’ida kunesikundla esibanzi enkonzweni
yamaNazaleta. Yonke imihlangano emikhulu, kugida izinsizwa nezintombi
nezingane, kugcwale izibukeli zaBantu nezaBelungu.97

In his book, Dube records Shembe’s pro-King Dingane hymns, sung

during the traditional dance ceremonies. These include the counter-
commemoration of Dingaan’s Day on 16 December.98 The following
hymn laments the fact that amaZulu are ruled by foreigners in their own
land—the land of Dingane and Senzangakhona—which the white colon-
isers are destroying with impunity:

Lalela Zulu
Lalela abantu bengipete
Ngezwe letu
Siyazizwa izizwe zivungama
Zivungama ngawe
Njengezinyoni
Sisho izinyoni, sisho amahlokohloko
Awacekeza insimu
KaDingane noSenzangakhona
Ayiqedile Mamo!
Sizwa ngoMnyayiza
KaNdabuko99
122 S.M. NDLOVU

The second hymn proclaims Dingane and his father Senzangakhona as

founding fathers of the Zulu state and their land.

Mudedele angene
Wo! Nangu uZulu
Inzalo kaDingane
NoSenzangakhona
Livuliwe ngubani
Lelisango?
We, Mkululi weziboshwa!
Wozani nina Zulu
Wozani nizwe nonke
Selivuliwe elalivaliwe
Wozani nazo lezo zizwe
Ziyadinga lona lelo lizwi
Elopezu konke100

Shembe’s African nationalist hymns highlight his people’s endurance

under oppression, their anxieties, aspirations and hopes. The ‘chanting’
and dancing performance enhance the prestige of the king and their
own leader. The ‘king’ of the church, Isaiah Shembe, like Moses in the
Old Testament, brings his people to their Promised Land. This land
once belonged to the Zulu kings, who held it in trust for the Zulu state.
Henceforth nationalistic church leaders like Shembe brought followers
onto church farms and established churches on their own land.
A central theme of Shembe’s doctrine was that the prophet should be
brave and unafraid to involve himself in the politics of the day. This brav-
ery was tested in his struggle against white domination and is compara-
ble to King Dingane’s confrontation with the Voortrekkers. Isiah Shembe
was seen as a prophet, a leader who emerged like Moses to free his people
from slavery.101 Hence the use of the metaphor ‘uMkhululi weziboshwa’,
meaning the ‘liberator of prisoners’, taking them back to the land of their
forefathers—in this instance Senzangakhona and Dingane.
The Shembe Church was not the only church to commemorate
the death of King Dingane. In newspaper articles, we see that in their
sermons African Christians called for the counter-commemoration
 4 THE IMAGE OF KING DINGANE AND ZULU NATIONALIST POLITICS 123

of 16 December. In 1947, in a letter to iLanga lase Natal; a reader

mourned the loss of King Dingane, the African hero. This reader pos-
sibly belonged to the African-based Methodist Church, which sent a
delegation to the government to lodge a formal complaint against the
commemoration of what white South Africans called ‘Dingaan’s Day’,
including the building of monuments to remind themselves of the event.
The reader wrote:

Amadodana namadodakazi akwaZulu acela amaZulu nezizwe zonke ezin-

sundu zimkhumbule umfoka Senzangakhona, acela abafundisi babeke
phambi kuka Mvelinqangi leliqhawe laseAfrica. Isonto lomhlaka December
14… Kakhulu nina bafundisi bamahlelo akithi umsebenzi wenu lona.
Noma ubani akabe esontweni.102

To conclude, the interventions by missionary-educated protagonists illu-

minate the point that there were multiple perspectives of King Dingane
within the African community. These contending and multi-dimensional
perspectives underpinned the tension and contradictions that existed at
the time. These educated Zulu thinkers used published texts, newspapers,
hymns and the church to express their viewpoints. The pro-conquest
theme was predominant but Lamula used existing socio-economic factors
to link the past to the present and to articulate a nuanced view of the
king. Fuze, Dube and Dhlomo’s opinions were exceedingly negative and
were confined by the established archive on King Dingane. Their per-
spectives were produced within the limits defined by this archive. This
was not necessarily the case with the positive perspective expounded by
Shembe because the church’s nationalistic and pro-Dingane images were
articulated outside the confines of the established archive. They did not
focus on the virtues of Christianity but rather on ancestral memory and
counter-commemorations invoking the spirit of past Zulu kings and
ancestors. These issues, which will be analysed in other chapters, also
defined the concerns of African workers and their counter-commemora-
tions of 16 December in the late 1920s. These workers also operated out-
side the limits of the existing archive.

NOTES
1. See P. Maylam, ‘The Changing Political Economy of the region, 1920–
1950’, in r. Morrell ed., Political Economy and Identities in KwaZulu-
Natal: Historical and Social Perspectives (Durban: Indicator Press 1996),
124 S.M. NDLOVU

Chap. 4; S. Marks, The Ambiguities of Dependence in South Africa: Class,

Nationalism and the State in 20th Century Natal (Johannesburg: ravan
Press, 1986); P. Maylam and I. Edwards, The People’s City: African Life
in 20th Century Durban (Pietermaritzburg: University of Natal Press,
1996).
2. Maylam, ‘The Changing Political Economy’, 110.
3. N. Cope, To Bind a Nation: Solomon kaDinuzulu and Zulu Nationalism:
1913–1933 (Pietermaritzburg: University of Natal Press, 1993).
4. Ibid., 128.
5. Maylam, ‘The Changing Political Economy’, 109.
6. See A. Odendaal, The Founders: The Origins of the ANC and the Struggle
for Democracy in South Africa (Auckland Park: Jacana, 2012), 24;
N. Etherington, Preachers, Peasants and Politics in Southeast Africa,
1875–1880 (London: royal Historical Society, 1978).
7. T.r.H. Davenport, South Africa: A Modern History (London: University
of Toronto Press, 1991), Chap. 10.
8. See J. Lambert and r. Morrell, ‘Domination and Subordination in
Natal, 1890–1920’, in Morrell, Political Economy and Identities.
9. P. La Hausse, ‘Ethnicity and History in the Careers of Two Zulu
Nationalists: Petros Lamula (c. 1881–1948) and Lymon Maling
(c. 1889–1936)’, PhD thesis, University of the Witwatersrand, 1992.
10. See, among others, r. Dhlomo, uDingane ka Senzangakhona
(Pietermaritzburg: Shuter & Shooter, 1936); r. Dhlomo, Izikhali
Zanamuhla (Pietermaritzburg: Shuter & Shooter, 1935); P. Lamula,
uZulu kaMalandela; J. Dube, Insila kaShaka (Marrianhill: Marrianhill
Mission Press, 1930). For the three plays about Dingane by H.I.E.
Dhlomo, see University of KwaZulu-Natal, (hereafter UKZN) James
Stuart Archive (hereafter JSA), Killie Campbell Manuscripts (hereafter
KCM) 8281/2, Dhlomo Papers, File 4. See also S. Skikna, ‘Son of the
Sun and Son of the World: The Life and Works of r.r.r. Dhlomo’,
MA dissertation, University of the Witwatersrand, 1984; La Hausse,
‘Ethnicity and History’; and B.W. Vilakazi, ‘The Oral and Written
Literature in Nguni’, Unpublished PhD thesis, University of the
Witwatersrand, 1945, Sects. 3 and 4.
11. M. Fuze, aBantu Abamnyama lapa Bavela Ngakona (Pietermaritzburg,
City Printing Works, 1922).
12. N. Masilela, The Historical Figures of the New African Movement, Volume
1 (Trenton: Africa World Press, 2014), 26. See also H. Mokoena,
Magema Fuze: The Making of a Kholwa Intellectual (Scottsville: UKZN
Press, 2011).
13. Fuze, aBantu Abamnyama, lapa Bavela Ngakona. See p.vii on his rela-
tionship with William Ngidi and Colenso.
 4 THE IMAGE OF KING DINGANE AND ZULU NATIONALIST POLITICS 125

14. Vilakazi, ‘The Oral and Written Literature’, 294–295.

15. Masilela, The Historical Figures of the New African Movement, 28.
16. Fuze, aBantu Abamnyama, lapa Bavela Ngakona, 111.
17. Ibid., 112.
18. Ibid., 115–135.
19. Ibid., 138–139.
20. Ibid., The theme of Dingane and Shaka being mirror images of one
another permeates this study; see particularly the next chapter.
21. Fuze, aBantu abamnyama, lapa bavela ngakona, 138–139. Fuze gives us
the reasons why he preferred King Shaka to King Dingane, see 140–143.
22. Fuze, aBantu Abamnyama. See also J. Colenso, Three Native Accounts
of the Visit of the Bishop of Natal in September and October 1859, to uMp-
ande (Pietermaritzburg: Vause, 1901), 10. Fuze, together with William
Ngidi, accompanied Colenso during this visit.
23. Fuze, aBantu Abamnyama, 115.
24. A.T. Bryant, Olden Times in Zululand and Natal, Containing Earlier
History of the Eastern-Nguni Clans (London: Longman, 1929) On
Bryant see J. Wright, ‘The Dynamics of Power: A.T. Bryant and the
Wars of Shaka’, History in Africa, 18, 1991, 409–425.
25. Bryant, Olden Times, 674–679. See a visual portrait of the king that fits
this particular image in J.S. Stuart, Hlangakhula (London: Longman,
1924).
26. Lambert and Morrell, ‘Domination and Subordination’.
27. On Dube’s biography see H. Hughes, First President: A Life of John L.
Dube, Founding President of the ANC (Auckland Park: Jacana, 2011);
T. Karis and G. Carter eds., From Protest to Challenge: A Documentary
History of African Politics in South Africa, Volume 2: 1882–1964
(Stanford: Hoover Institution Press, 1977), 24.
28. Imvo Zabantsundu, 24 October 1911.
29. Quoted from Marks, The Ambiguities, 64–65.
30. On the reinterpretation of the Anglo-Zulu War, including the call to
analyse its impact as far as amaZulu were concerned, the disruption
and the suspension of fundamental processes of existence, and suffer-
ing to all, see J. Guy, ‘Battling with Banality: Tourism, Historians, and
the Killing fields of Zululand’, Unpublished paper presented at the
History and African Studies Seminar Series, No. 13, University of Natal,
Durban, 3 June 1998.
31. J. Ngubane, Conflict of Minds (New York: Books in Focus, 1979), 175.
32. Ibid.
33. Marks, The Ambiguities, 67.
34. John Dube was instrumental in the unveiling of the king’s monument at
kwaDukuza (Stanger) in 1932 and the subsequent commemorations.
126 S.M. NDLOVU

35. Dube, Insila kaShaka, 70.

36. Ibid., 8.
37. Ibid.
38. See an article published in iLanga on 1 January 1932, titled ‘The
Communist and the Propaganda among Natives’. See also Chap. 4 of
this book on this issue.
39. iLanga, 12 December 1930.
40. iLanga, ‘Usuku lukaDingane’, 15 December 1953.
41. Ibid.
42. This theme is discussed in Chap. 4 of this book.
43. A.C.T. Mayekiso, ‘The Novels of Jessie Joyce Gwayi’, MA dissertation,
University of Zululand, 1985.
44. Dhlomo, uDingane.
45. Dhlomo, Izikhali Zanamuhla, 55.
46. See A.S. Gerard, Four African Literatures, Xhosa, Sotho, Zulu and Amharic
(Berkeley: University of California Press, 1971), Chap. 3; Skikna, ‘Son of
the Sun’. See also Vilakazi, ‘The Oral and Written Literature’, Sects. 3–4.
47. Cited in r. Irwin, ‘Saladin and the Third Crusade: A Case Study in
the Historiography and the Historical Novel’, in M. Bentley ed.,
Companion to Historiography (London: routledge, 2002), 150.
48. Irwin, ‘Saladin and the Third Crusade’, 150.
49. Dhlomo, uDingane kaSenzangakhona, iii.
50. Ibid., ii.
51. Ibid., Indikimba, viii, x, xv.
52. Dhlomo, uDingane kaSenzangakhona, 27.
53. Ibid., i.
54. Ibid., i.
55. See the Fuze, Stuart and Bryant publications mentioned above.
56. Dhlomo, uDingane kaSenzangakhona, 2.
57. Ibid., ii.
58. iLanga, 8 May 1954.
59. Dhlomo, uDingane kaSenzangakhona; Indikimba III (Chap. 3), entitled
‘Isu likaMkabayi’.
60. Dhlomo, uDingane kaSenzangakhona, 55, 60.
61. Ibid.
62. UKZN, JSA, KCM 2761, Evidence of rolfes Dhlomo, ‘Succession
Dispute’. His books were prescribed in African schools. Shuter &
Shooter made a huge profit but paid a pittance to African authors.
63. H. Dhlomo, ‘Three Famous African Authors I knew: r. Dhlomo’,
INkundhla yaBantu, August 1946, First Fortnight.
64. ILanga, 24 December 1938.
 4 THE IMAGE OF KING DINGANE AND ZULU NATIONALIST POLITICS 127

65. Letter to the editor (Dhlomo himself) from Charles Dlamini, iLanga, 24
December 1938.
66. H. Dhlomo, ‘Three Famous African Authors’. The financial exploitation
of African writers during the early 20th century needs further research.
67. The Joint Councils of Europeans and Natives were introduced in the
1920s, supposedly to encourage cooperation and quell political and
industrial unrest. Those Africans who were prepared to become involved
were largely from to the conservative and moderate class. There was no
support for the Joint Councils from the more radical wing of the ANC
or the ICU.
68. Aggrey was a Ghanaian who took American citizenship. He came to
South Africa in the 1920s as a member of an education commission.
69. See Skikna, ‘Son of the Sun’, 20.
70. Skikna, ‘Son of the Sun’, 99–102.
71. This was an Africanist separatist church movement which originated
from the AME church.
72. On the theme of John Dube, rolfes Dhlomo and Booker T. Washington,
see S. Skikna, ‘Son of the Sun’, 13–19. Also see r. Dhlomo, Ukwazi
Kuyathuthukisa (Pietermaritzburg: Shuter & Shooter, 1937).
73. La Hausse, ‘Ethnicity and History’. See also P. la Hausse, Restless
Identity: Signatures of Nationalism, Zulu Ethnicity and History in the
Lives of Petros Lamula (c 1881–1948) and Lymon Maling (1889-c.1936),
(Pietermaritzburg: University of Natal press, 2000).
74. See Vilakazi, ‘The Oral and Written Literature’, 182–193.
75. On Lamula, see La Hausse, ‘Ethnicity and History’ and Restless Identity.
76. Lamula, uZulu kaMalandela, 35.
77. Ibid., 156. He also admits that he relied on the secondary evidence from
published historical texts of his time. These might well include Bryant
and Stuart, among others.
78. Lamula, Isabelo sikaZulu (Pietermaritzburg, Lincroft Books, 1963), 195.
79. Ibid., 201.
80. Ibid., 223.
81. Lamula, Isabelo sikaZulu, 195.
82. Ibid., 54.
83. Ibid.
84. See C. de B. Webb and J. Wright eds., The James Stuart Archive
of Recorded Oral Evidence Relating to the History of the Zulu and
Neighbouring Peoples (hereafter JSA), Volume 1 for Lunguza’s testimony
on this issue.
85. Lamula, Isabelo sikaZulu, 201.
86. Lamula, uZulu kaMalandela, 55 and 56.
128 S.M. NDLOVU

87. Ibid., 57–58.

88. Ibid., 57.
89. Ibid.
90. The general theme of his book reflects Lamula’s opposition to white rule
and domination. See also La Hausse, Restless Identity.
91. Dube, Insila kaShaka; Dhlomo, uDingane kaSenzangakhona.
92. Lamula, uZulu kaMalandela, 221.
93. A. Vilakazi, B. Mthethwa and M. Mpanza, Shembe: The Revitalization
of African Society (Johannesburg: Skotaville, 1986), 18–19. See also A.
Luthuli, Let My People Go: An Autobiography (Glasgow: Collins, 1962),
156; and J. Dube, uShembe (Pietermaritzburg: Shuter & Shooter,
1936). It is also possible that other independent black churches held
commemorations on this day. See also Ngubane, Conflict of Minds, 200;
and B.G.M. Sundkler, Bantu Prophets in South Africa (Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 1961).
94. I. Hexham ed., The Scriptures of the Amanazeretha of Ekuphakameni
(Calgary: University of Calgary Press, 1994).
95. See Gerard, Four African Literatures, 182–193.
96. Ibid. See also, S. Simbandumwe, A Socio-Religious and Political Analysis
of the Judeo-Christian Concept of Prophetism and Modern Bakongo and
Zulu African Prophet Movements (New York: Mellen Press, 1992), Part 3.
97. Dube, uShembe. See also a photocopied manuscript of Shembe’s auto-
biography available at University of London, School of Oriental and
African Studies (SOAS.) The manuscript also includes all the hymns.
98. See Simbandumwe, A Socio-Religious and Political Analysis, 249; and
Hexham, The Scriptures, 13–14.
99. Ibid., 53.
100. Ibid., 55. See also Hexham, The Scriptures, Introduction and page 13;
and Simbandumwe, A Socio-Religious and Political Analysis, 248.
101. See Dube, uShembe; and G. Oosthuizen, The Theology of a South African
Messiah: An Analysis of the Hymnal of the Church of the Nazarites
(Leiden: Brill, 1967).
102. ‘Amadodana no-Dingane’, iLanga, 13 December 1947.
 CHAPTEr 5

‘remember Dingaan’s Day: The Passing

of African Independence’: Public History
and the Counter-Commemoration of King
Dingane, 1920–1930

This chapter highlights contestations between different political forma-

tions such as the ANC, the CPSA, the various factions of the ICU, the
League of African rights (LAr) and the trade union movement on strat-
egies adopted in holding counter-commemorations of 16 December. It
focuses on African workers’ perspectives on King Dingane. Like those
of Sivivi, Tununu, Hoye, Ngidi kaMcikiziswa and other voices captured
in Chap. 3, it underscores the view from below in the historiography of
South Africa. These are contrasted with views expressed by the coercive
arm of the state. In some cases, these voices, particularly those of African
workers, will be quoted at length because they represent primary evi-
dence. Moreover, these voices make it possible for us to explore the per-
spectives of King Dingane constructed outside the limits of established
oral traditions, izibongo and the literature discussed in Chaps. 2–4. This
is different to Carolyn Hamilton’s work on King Shaka because her basic
thesis is that images of the Zulu monarch that circulated both in oral
discourses and in the literature had not so much been ‘invented’ as made
within the limits set by the archive of available sources.1
This chapter places African workers at the epicentre as subjects, not
objects, of analysis. This is done to democratise the production of his-
torical knowledge in South Africa. Furthermore, by focusing on African
workers in an analysis underpinned by complex concepts such as human
solidarity, peace, justice, power, tolerance, human and social rights, the
book demolishes the pervasive belief that African women and men were
inferior to other racial groups in South Africa. It confirms the opinion

© The Author(s) 2017 129

S.M. Ndlovu, African Perspectives of King Dingane kaSenzangakhona,
African Histories and Modernities, DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-56787-7_5
130 S.M. NDLOVU

that Africans were proactive makers of history and were neither at the
periphery nor voiceless as was often purported prior the attainment of
democratic rule in April 1994.
I am of the view that African workers, politicians, officials, police and
trade union leaders have a right to speak for themselves to help us under-
stand counter-commemorations of what white South Africans called
‘Dingaan’s Day’ and the construction of an alternative archive about
King Dingane that is set outside the limits of the established archive. The
available primary evidence reveals that African workers and the leadership
of their various organisations were not homogenous in their support of
counter-commemorations of Dingaan’s Day because they were divided
among themselves, hence contrasting multiple voices permeate counter-
commemorations.

THE COMMEMORATION OF ‘DINGAAN’S DAY’ BY

WHITE SOUTH AFRICANS
So-called Dingaan’s Day, 16 December, a public holiday in segregationist
and apartheid South Africa, marked the anniversary of events that took
place at impi yaseNcome in 1838. It was first commemorated in the lat-
ter part of the nineteenth century in the South African republic (the
Transvaal) and the Orange Free State. The Transvaal, under its president,
Paul Kruger, declared the day a public holiday, ‘a day of universal thanks-
giving … dedicated to the Lord … to commemorate that by God’s grace
the Immigrants were freed from the yoke of Dingane’.2 In 1880, amid
the heightened nationalism after the first South African War, the covenant
was renewed at Paardekraal near Krugersdorp. The covenant referred to
the pledge the Voortrekkers made several days before the battle that ‘if
God granted them victory in the coming struggle against Dingaan, they
would build a memorial church and … celebrate the anniversary of the
victory, to the honour of God’.3 Dingaan’s Day soon assumed the status
of a popular festival, and by 1908, it had become a South African national
holiday. By now, there was a new Afrikaner political geography and the
South African Party gained control of the organisation of Dingaan’s
Day festivities. Years later, in 1952, it was re-named the ‘Day of the
Covenant’, and in 1980, it became the ‘Day of the Vow’.4
According to B.J. Liebenberg, in public speeches and articles,
Afrikaner nationalists voiced a number of myths about the bat-
tle at ‘Blood river’ and the vow which preceded it. They claimed the
 5 ‘rEMEMBEr DINGAAN’S DAY: THE PASSING OF AFrICAN … 131

victory had ‘saved’ the Great Trek; that it represented the birth of the
Afrikaner nation; that the Voortrekker victory symbolised the triumph of
Christianity over heathendom; that all Afrikaners were irrevocably bound
by the vow for all time; and that the battle itself was a miracle because
divine intervention had ensured that the Voortrekkers were victorious.
Many Afrikaner nationalists and white supremacists were convinced that
God would not abandon the Afrikaner nation and even proclaimed that
God sanctioned white supremacy.5
Some of these myths go back to the early 1880s. President Kruger,
in his Dingaan’s Day speeches, articulated a view of history that was
strongly theocentric. At a state festival on 16 December 1881, after the
restoration of the Transvaal’s independence, he declared that God had
granted the victories at Blood river and Majuba and that the Boers
were clearly ‘God’s people’.6 As the twentieth century wore on, and
particularly after 1912, the year in which the African National Congress
(ANC) was founded, Dingaan’s Day increasingly became a platform for
Afrikaner Nationalist oratory.7
The role played by Gustav Preller, an influential Afrikaner journal-
ist, in the rise of Afrikaner nationalism in the early twentieth century is
explored in a perceptive article by F.A. van Jaarsveld.8 Preller, a prolific
author and newspaper editor, saw Piet retief as the first Afrikaner to give
utterance to his nationality, thereby helping to found ‘a free and inde-
pendent people’ with its own language, religion, moral code, history and
tradition’. Preller’s publications abound with anti-British and anti-Zulu
sentiments. He cannot conceal his distaste for ‘the pot-bellied barbar-
ian’ [Dingane], his ‘devilish treachery’ and ‘refined cruelty’.9 This popu-
lar history included Preller’s script of the 1916 movie De Voortrekkers,
produced by the American-born movie mogul, I.W. Schlesinger. Isabel
Hofmeyr contends:

Preparations for shooting near Germiston [began] alongside an artificially

constructed river [and] a laager of handmade wagons. On the Sunday …
that filming began … Boer commandos took their places in the laager,
dressed in Preller-designed trekker costumes and armed with an assort-
ment of historical musketry filled variously with blank and live ammuni-
tion. Some distance away … 3000 [extras who were mine] workers …
awaited orders from their ‘indunas’, but the Boers took matters into their
own hands and with shouts of ‘Shoot the devils’ opened fire… some work-
ers fled. The majority however continued to bear down on the laager ….
When the fracas died down, one worker, ‘Fanuk’ had drowned 122 were
132 S.M. NDLOVU

injured and 35 lay in hospital … Advance publicity made much of the ‘life-
like’ battle scenes … and 15000 people a week queued to see the movie.10

Joining the bandwagon, on Dingaan’s Day 1929, J.B.M. Hertzog, prime

minister at the time, spoke on the ‘significance of the Battle of Blood
river’. Projecting the political views of his time he proclaimed that
‘Dingaan’s Day 1838 was decisive for the European race from Cape to
Nyasaland’. He went on to say:

the victory of those few trekkers on the banks of Blood river achieved more
than securing a fatherland for a few thousand expatriate farmers from the
Cape’ … ‘barbarism yielded before civilisation. The power of the assegai was
superseded by the authority of law, of the new-born Afrikaner nation.11

Nor did Hertzog stop there. He also opined that the battle was equally
important to Africans since it heralded a turning point in their history.
Despite the ‘unfavourable outcome’ for the Zulu people, the ‘arrival
of the white man and the native’s subjection to his authority was an
event of cardinal significance for the wellbeing of all tribes south of the
Zambezi … [the whites had come to] put an end to plunder and carnage
… and had stopped internecine strife and extermination’.12 For Hertzog,
the ideal of a white South Africa survived because the Afrikaner wanted
South Africa to remain what it had become on Dingaan’s Day 1838—a
white, racist country under the rule of white supremacists. Hertzog was
convinced that the ‘native and the Negrophile’ were intent on changing
South Africa into a native territory under black rule. In his view, ‘native’
agitators and their ‘communist’ friends should be given a timely warning
that the Afrikaner would not be dictated to by agitation and fanaticism.
He affirmed that the same courage and perseverance that had secured
the victory at Blood river would be asserted in maintaining the power
acquired by that victory. He posed the question: Who would decide the
future of South Africa—the white man or the ‘native’?13 It did not take
long for Africans to provide an answer to this question.

AFRICAN WORKERS’ COUNTER-COMMEMORATION OF BLOOD

RIVER AS THE QUINTESSENTIAL LAND GRAB
Hertzog’s question was answered by Johannes Nkosi, Albert Nzula,
Mtolo and other trade unionists from the League of African rights
(LAr), Communist Party of South Africa (CPSA) and the Industrial
 5 ‘rEMEMBEr DINGAAN’S DAY: THE PASSING OF AFrICAN … 133

and Commercial Workers’ Union (ICU) who reacted to the intensify-

ing mobilisation of Afrikaner nationalism based on the symbolism of
so-called Blood river and Dingaan’s Day by portraying King Dingane as
a positive, empowering, liberatory African nationalist. He was now con-
sidered to be a unifying national symbol.
The ICU was founded in the 1920s by Clements Kadalie, the pio-
neer African trade unionist who built it up into the first modern mass
movement of Africans in South Africa. But by the end of the decade,
personal rivalries and financial mismanagement destroyed the ICU from
within. Natal members split off under A.W.G. Champion to form the
ICU yase Natal, while Kadalie was challenged by disillusioned workers
and left the national ICU to establish a second splinter group which he
named the Independent ICU. A third group formed yet another splin-
ter organisation which they named the Independent ICU yase Natal.
The new ‘hostility clause’ underpinning the Native Administration Act
of 1927 was also threatening the ICU’s ability to maintain its popular
appeal nationally through militant rhetoric. In 1928, Kadalie himself was
charged in terms of this law but was subsequently acquitted in one of the
ICU’s best known court victories.14 These trade unions, together with
the CPSA, played a prominent role in the counter-commemoration of
Dingaan’s Day.
From 1927 to 1930, and to a lesser extent thereafter, Dingaan’s Day
was officially chosen by African workers as a day of counter-commemo-
ration, the day of ‘our liberation’.15 Workers adopted passive resistance
strategies and used 16 December for nation-wide burning of passes and
defiance campaigns. The strategy was first employed by the ANC in 1919
in Johannesburg but was effectively suppressed by the state. Almost
10 years later, in 1927 and in opposition to Afrikaner nationalist socio-
cultural and political ascendancy under the leadership of Hertzog, the
African trade unions and the CPSA would revive this strategy.16
Exactly why the CPSA chose to focus on this issue at this point is
obscure. A likely answer lies in the party’s decision to recruit African
workers and peasants directly into its ranks. During the early to mid-
1920s, it had found it difficult to reach out to an African membership
and preferred to operate and recruit through the intermediary of the
ICU. After the expulsion of CPSA activists from the ICU ranks in 1926,
the CPSA was forced to find an independent appeal. Dingaan’s Day
counter-commemorations were one of the vehicles it chose.
The central issues that the organisers decided to focus upon were the
organisation of African trade unions; resistance against discrimination in
134 S.M. NDLOVU

the workplace; the liberation of the oppressed majority; and the labour
‘slave’ laws, especially those relating to the colour bar and the pass laws.
Opposition to the pass laws was a common cause to all Africans in South
Africa at this time, although their impact was most sharply felt north of
the Orange river. In the final years of the 1920s, Dingaan’s Day coun-
ter-commemorations became increasingly associated with the burning
of passes and demands for their abolition. There is a sense of how all-
encompassing the pass issue was in a speech delivered in late 1930 by the
Bloemfontein communist, S. Malkinson. He listed as many as 12 passes
(official identification documents issued by the state) that Africans might
be compelled to carry in the future. They were as follows:

• A Six-Day Pass to search for work

• A Monthly Pass Service Contract
• A Daily Labourer Pass
• A Special Day Pass
• A Curfew Pass after 9 p.m.
• A Trek Pass
• A Location Permit
• A Lodger’s Permit
• A Poll Tax receipt
• An Exemption Pass for the Goodboys (educated Africans who were
exempt from carrying passes)
• An Inward Pass
• An Ordinary Pass.17

The issue of the pass laws, African trade unions and the struggle for
emancipation were combined in different permutations for the remainder
of the 1920s. The first recorded Dingaan’s Day counter-commemoration
was held in December 1927. Although it took place under the auspices
of the ANC, it was chaired by Communist Party member John Gomas
and had a pronounced communist flavour. Certainly, the police charged
with monitoring the demonstration believed this was the case.The secu-
rity police file that recorded the event did so under the title, ‘Bolshevism
in the Union’.18
In an effort to curb the growth of militant action by African work-
ers, the Department of Labour convened a conference in October 1927
to investigate the possibility of amending the Industrial Conciliation Act
 5 ‘rEMEMBEr DINGAAN’S DAY: THE PASSING OF AFrICAN … 135

(ICA) of 1923 to officially include pass-bearing Africans as ‘employee[s]’.

This important step was disregarded by Hertzog’s Native Administration
Act of 1927 and the state poised itself to unleash its repressive instru-
ments with full vigour and promptly put all those who opposed its poli-
cies under surveillance. Meanwhile, in 1927–1928, the CPSA embarked
upon the organisation of African trade unions. The first industrial union
for Africans was founded on the initiative of the CPSA and turned its
hand to organising African workers after the majority of white work-
ers were partly co-opted and controlled by the government follow-
ing the enactment of the Industrial Conciliation Act (ICA). According
to Jon Lewis, the 1927 African industrial unions included: the Native
Bakers’ Union; the Native Laundry Workers’ Union; the Native
Clothing Workers’ Union; and the Furniture Workers’ Union, some of
which were affiliates of the Non-European Trade Unions.19 In this way,
African workers organised into CPSA trade unions provided many foot
soldiers for Dingaan’s Day counter-commemorations, particularly in
Johannesburg. The third International Congress (Comintern) ratified the
CPSA’s new initiative in 1928.
The mobilisation of African workers against the pass laws continued to
constitute the central ingredient of Dingaan’s Day counter-commemora-
tions and demonstrations through the late 1920s and in 1930. However,
after 1928, another issue began to intrude. In that year, the CPSA, at the
insistence of the Comintern, adopted the Native republic programme
and slogan. The 1928 Comintern Congress, which launched the pro-
gramme, formulated a critical resolution on the land question in South
Africa,20 putting the agrarian question at the centre of South African
politics. The issue could easily be assimilated into Dingaan’s Day demon-
strations since it connects to the loss of land by the indigenous peoples in
South Africa, including the existing perception among Africans that King
Dingane was a staunch defender of the land, his sovereign kingdom and
subjects.
In amplified form, the Native republic slogan called for a ‘South
African Native republic as a stage towards a workers’ and peasants’
Government, with full protection and equal rights for all national
minorities’ and involving ‘the return of land to the landless population
and those with little land’. It also entailed revolutionary liberation from
British imperialism the ‘organisation of a revolutionary workers’ force’
and, finally, ‘a peasants’ government on the basis of the Soviets’.21 What
136 S.M. NDLOVU

was critically new about the programme was that it foregrounded land
and peasant issues more than those of the working class and trade unions
which had, until that point, been the central preoccupation of the CPSA.
Once that emphasis shifted, African peasants and workers rather than the
black and white working class now became the central dynamo of the
struggle for freedom.
This departure gave Dingaan’s Day an added appeal, since what took
place at iNcome in 1838 could be and was interpreted as a symbolic
moment of African land dispossession, while the 1920s was the decade
in which labour tenants were stripped of their remaining rights as land-
owners and were turned into labourers. Henceforth, the Native republic
programme combined with the land issue provided an appropriate frame-
work for a common front mobilised by the CPSA. As both the ANC
and the ICU stumbled, the CPSA took up the political baton and ran
as fast as it could. Also, the League of African rights (LAr) was formed
in August 1928, under the mistaken impression that the Comintern had
given the requisite authority. The LAr, a united front of the oppressed
masses, aimed to collect a million signatures to petition for civil rights
and to organise an anti-pass demonstration on Dingaan’s Day, 16
December 1928.
Among the cultural appropriations of the LAr was the Mayibuye
motif. As an expression of public history, the Mayibuye iAfrica slo-
gan, coined when the ANC was founded in 1912, was now revived.22
The political tradition of nineteenth-century war songs also contin-
ued into the twentieth century, with new songs being composed. The
songs, relating to the land question, were sung during protest marches
and mass meetings—in this instance, specifically Dingaan’s Day coun-
ter-commemoration marches and mass meetings. Among the songs was
‘Nkosi Sikelela iAfrica’, which the various police reports describe as the
‘Africans’ National Anthem sung at the beginning and end of various
[mass] meetings which [we] monitored’. Another song, which fits this
description, was ‘Mayibuye’, isiXhosa and Afrikaans versions of which
were published in the 12 December 1930 edition of Umsebenzi, the
CPSA newspaper. The lyrics of the song can be compared to the war
songs mentioned in Chap. 3 that were sung by an African warrior during
the annihilation of retief and his party. It was sung, with a degree of cul-
tural dissonance, to the tune of Clementine:
 5 ‘rEMEMBEr DINGAAN’S DAY: THE PASSING OF AFrICAN … 137

GEE ONS LAND TErUG! MAYIBUYE!

Ons bruinmense, seuns van slawe Tina sizwe esi ntsundu
Vra ons eie land terug, sikal’ I Afrika
Wat gesteel is van ons vaders, eyahlutw’obawo betu
Gee dit t’rug nou! beses bu’ mnyameni
Weg met al slawey! Mayibuye, Mayibuye
Pirow kan ons nie ophou nie: Mayibuy’ iAfrika!
Afrika sal vryheid kry Makapele namapasi
Sitoli inkululeko
Mayibuye, mayibuye
Mayibu’ I Afrika
Mazipele nezirafu
Sifumane izwe lethu
Oswald Pirow, an extreme right-winger, was Minister of Justice in the Pact government

The shift in the political orientation of the CPSA was matched by a

similar shift in the ANC and in the Independent ICU (IICU), which was
formed in March 1929 by the disgruntled Clements Kadalie, founder
of the original ICU. Late in 1928, Kadalie had been squeezed out of
the original ICU by its orthodox trade union wing, led by its Scottish
advisor, William Ballinger. The latter had antagonised Kadalie, who,
having broken away to form the IICU, looked for new allies and a new
line. Both were provided by the LAr and the ANC, which elected J.T.
Gumede as its president at its 1927 Congress. As he too looked for allies
against the more conservative wing of Congress, he threw the ANC’s
support behind the LAr.23 The radical attitude of the ANC and the
IICU to counter-commemorations of 16 December will be discussed
below.
The LAr was wound up in 1930, having been stigmatised by the
Comintern as reformist.24 But it had, in the meantime, tapped into
a powerful well of popular disaffection, which was surging to the sur-
face all over the country. On Dingaan’s Day 1929, a column of march-
ers between 5000 and 9000 strong, in which the ANC, CPSA and the
IICU were all well represented, wound its way through the streets of
Johannesburg in a mass protest against passes. This, the biggest dem-
onstration by Johannesburg’s African population in many years, was
staged with the minimum of preparation. The high hopes it raised were
dashed by the Comintern’s decision, but the national executive of the
CPSA responded by simply side-stepping the Comintern’s instruction.
138 S.M. NDLOVU

The LAr was dissolved, but the IICU, the CPSA and the ANC formed a
Joint Committee of Action (JCA) whose major function was to organise
the burning of passes and a general strike on 16 December which was a
public holiday.25 The rising tide of public concern is reflected in news-
paper coverage of the time. On 17 December 1929, the Rand Daily
Mail reported that ‘while General Hertzog was addressing a crowd in
Bloemfontein on December 16, 1929, approximately 4000 blacks
marched through the streets of Johannesburg singing the red Flag’.
Two CPSA leaders, Edwin Thabo Mofutsanyana and John B. Marks,
also implemented the JCA’s programme of action. On 16 December
1929, they organised a pass-burning campaign and a general strike in
Potchefstroom. One man was killed at a meeting in the town by a bul-
let intended for either Marks or for Mofutsanyana. In an editorial on
the confrontations and tensions that flared during these Dingaan’s Day
counter-commemorations, the newspaper Umteteli wa Bantu noted on
21 December 1929 that:

A large number of Europeans in Johannesburg made preparations to

do battle for the preservation of their civilisation on Dingaan’s day. It
was freely rumoured and widely believed that a Native ‘rising’ had been
planned and that the day would be wild and gory. The white public is
always nervous, afraid of black retaliation and it only needed Mr Pirow’s
absurd demonstration at Durban to fix the conviction that the case was
desperate and that European courage and fortitude would be tested on
Dingaan’s day. Mr Pirow had led the public to believe that the Natives
had hatched a plot, and that with Communist direction and assistance
there would be bloody doings on Dingaan’s day; and the advertisement
by the Natives of their intention to meet and parade their grievances on
Dingaan’s day gave to the timid the final assurance that they would be
called to defend themselves…

The newspaper report also recorded the confrontational mood of well-

armed whites:

[Expectations] of a jingoistic temper, including possibly the police, were

sorely disappointed last Monday when after polishing up their pistols
and smoothing their pick handles they found no use for them. There was
no Native truculence, no excuse for white belligerence. It is true that at
Potchefstroom there were mentally defective Europeans who would not be
denied; fools who shot because they had their guns ready and were loath
 5 ‘rEMEMBEr DINGAAN’S DAY: THE PASSING OF AFrICAN … 139

to let local notoriety escape them. These aggressive imbeciles nearly pre-
cipitated trouble and should be dealt with as though they had.

The following week’s edition of Umteteli reported that Hermanus

Lethidi, one of the ‘natives’ shot in Potchefstroom on Dingaan’s Day,
had died. The killer, Joseph Henry Weeks, had been arrested and
charged with the murder. He had been released on bail of £1000 that
had been paid by the mayor of Potchefstroom, Mr W.B. Bernard.26
As part of these counter-commemorations, subjugated groups used
newspapers and posters and public spaces such as squares, community
halls and churches where they produced community narratives through
public history and ‘ritualised’ expressive speech forms to create popular
memories and counter-memories of King Dingane. As an example, on
16 December 1929, about 500 Africans gathered at the African Catholic
Church in Doornfontein, Johannesburg, in ‘prayer and humility’ to com-
memorate Dingaan’s Day.27 A.W. George Champion, the leader of ICU
yase Natal, was quoted in Umteteli waBantu as having told the gathering:

When the Voortrekker boers were opposed to Dingaan and before the bat-
tle of Blood river, they held a prayer meeting and promised to dedicate a
church to God if he gave the Zulus into their hands. What we intend to do
this afternoon is the same. We intend to offer to dedicate a church to God
if he delivers us from oppression … Our prayer to God to relieve us from
oppression means that we desire to live side by side on a basis of equality
with the white man.28

Champion was later banished from Durban by the Union government,

which was anxious about the rapprochement between King Solomon
kaDinuzulu and trade union leaders like Champion. The government
believed this might succeed in uniting urban- and rural-based Africans.
Prior to this event, and having joined hands with Champion, in
September 1929, the politically astute Johannes Nkosi, a trade unionist
and leader of the CPSA, delivered a speech to African workers in Durban
in which he linked the recent popular protest led by Champion against
the liquor laws and the struggle against passes.29 Before consolidating his
relationship with Champion and the ICU yase Natal, Nkosi conducted
CPSA meetings outdoors. On 8 September 1929, he convened a meet-
ing on the sand dunes at the end of Bell Street in Durban and, as usual,
police were in attendance, as their report confirms:
140 S.M. NDLOVU

I have the honour to report that I attended a meeting of the Communist

Party (Native Section), held at Bell Street, Durban on Sunday, 8th instant.
When Constable de Wet and I arrived at 10.10 am the meeting was in pro-
gress on one of the sand dunes at the end of Bell Street. The Communist
Party flag was flying and native, JOHANNES NKOSI, the Secretary of the
Native section of the Communist Party at Durban was speaking.30

According to the police report, Nkosi had commended the efforts signi-
fied by the various popular struggles waged by African workers around
the city of Durban, particularly those against the liquor laws. He was
also pleased with the united front displayed by workers aligned to ICU
yase Natal and the CPSA during the 17 June 1929 worker uprisings. He
commented that this was the future and a good tactic to be adopted by
oppressed African workers in order to defeat the Union government.
Nkosi further informed the African workers that the price to pay for
freedom was very high.31 Aware of the fact that African workers came
from diverse ethnic backgrounds—some of them having originated from
Lesotho, Swaziland and the Eastern Cape—he elaborated on the issue of
African unity in the struggle for emancipation. Nkosi went on to speak of
other significant acts of violence committed by the present government
against defenceless people. These included the massacre at Blouhoek
and the killings that took place during the 1922 mine workers strike in
Johannesburg. He asked the African workers to liberate themselves from
mental slavery:

How long are we going to walk barefoot? How long are we going to be
shot? How long will it be that when we speak for freedom we are shown
revolvers and policemen? How long will it be, men, before you start to
use your brains? How long will it take you to wake up out of this terrible
sleep’?32

To emphasise his point, Nkosi invoked the powerful symbols of the Zulu
kings and other rulers who resisted subjugation by white oppressors.
‘[T]oday we are talking about Dingaan, Chaka, and Bambata who used
to do great things. They wanted this nation to be a great nation’. He
elaborated, ‘Bambata was fighting against the Poll Tax, and he was
fighting for you people. Can’t you see that?’33 Before he concluded his
speech Nkosi informed the audience of the proposed independent Native
republic which had been suggested by the Comintern.34
 5 ‘rEMEMBEr DINGAAN’S DAY: THE PASSING OF AFrICAN … 141

Unquestionably, the most climactic Dingaan’s Day demonstra-

tion took place on 16 December 1930 on Cartwright Flats in Durban.
The protest was part of a national campaign coordinated by the CPSA,
fronted by the LAr. On 26 October 1930, 50 delegates from all parts
of South Africa attended a conference in Johannesburg and resolved that
on 16 December that year passes should be burned.35 On 20 November
1930, the National Executive of the Anti-Pass Conference issued a mul-
tilingual pamphlet. Elsewhere, both the CPSA and other trade unionists
used public platforms and other spaces for mass meetings and protest
action. A CPSA handbill advertised a mass meeting in early November
1930 and was written in isiZulu, English and seSotho.36 In support, the
edition of Umsebenzi dated 12 December 1930 carried the following edi-
torial, with the headline ‘Mass Demonstration of Protest against African
Slavery’:

Dingaan’s Day is the day on which the white oppressors celebrate the
establishment of their domination over non-Europeans in this country. For
white slave drivers it is a day of rejoicing, feasting and triumph, but for
oppressed black slaves of Africa it must be a DAY OF PrOTEST, strug-
gle and awakening. Down tools on Dingaan’s Day! refuse to work on
this day! remember how you are oppressed under the colour bar laws of a
tyrant Government!

Although the protest fizzled out in most parts of the country, it gained
widespread support in Durban. In 1930, Champion’s ICU yase Natal
was still powerful in Durban, and its surroundings and Nkosi had to
negotiate his space within it. Champion addressed mass meetings on
Sundays at Cartwright Flats in Durban. Nkosi, now deployed to Durban
by the CPSA, attended these meetings. One of his missions was to sell
Umsebenzi, the CPSA’s newspaper, to Champion’s audience. First,
however, he had to negotiate with Champion for permission to do so
and would sometimes be given permission and sometimes refused it,
depending on Champion’s mood. Champion was astute enough to use
Dingaan’s Day counter-commemorations to mobilise support and would
not accede to Nkosi’s demands on such important occasions.37
In September 1930, Champion was ordered to leave Natal under
the newly amended riotous Assemblies Act. He spent the next 3 years,
while the ban was in force, first in the Cape and later in Johannesburg,
where he worked for a bank.38 Nkosi filled the political vacuum and a
142 S.M. NDLOVU

convergence took place between the CPSA and ICU yase Natal officials.
In a report a policeman commented:

It is significant that when I attended a Communist Party meeting about

this time last year [1929], convened by the same Johannes Nkosi [who]
was unable to obtain a hearing … Today the ICU speakers are sup-
porting the Communist Party and speak from the latter’s platform,
and a huge crowd of natives, many of who are ICU adherents, attends
the Communists meetings. It is a regrettable fact the doctrines of the
Communist Party in Durban appear to be spreading among the natives.39

The police report on this gathering by one of the white agents of surveil-
lance indicates that Nkosi was the main speaker. It noted that ‘the very
vehement and excited’ Nkosi incited the crowd of approximately 300 by
proclaiming:

Pirow can go to hell with his Pass Law. Why should we be afraid of him, he
is only one man. Smuts, who is a snake in the grass, can go to hell with his
laws … and Hertzog who is in England … his ship must get buried in the
sea with his laws and his soul ….40

Despite signs of a growing convergence between the IICU and the

CPSA, senior police dismissed the possibility of serious disturbances
on December 16. A few days before the counter-commemorations, for
example, the acting commissioner of police reported to the Minister of
Justice, Pirow, that he did not anticipate that African workers would sup-
port the anti-pass campaign on Dingaan’s Day. He was confident that if
there was support ‘the number of natives actually destroying their passes
will not exceed 300 and these will mostly be Basutos of the low type’.41
The police suggested that protest action should be banned.
regardless of the wishful thinking of the commissioner of police,
counter-commemorations of Dingaan’s Day were serving as a focus for
and a trigger of African nationalism. This the authorities themselves
tacitly recognised when they embarked on a campaign of demonisation
and harassment of Nkosi. Their first endeavour was to portray him as a
rabid racist, an anti-white demagogue whose speeches were inflamma-
tory, regardless of the CPSA’s anti-racist, multiracial position. The secu-
rity police regarded the proposed pass-burning defiance campaign as a
pretext for African workers to indulge themselves in violent activities.
 5 ‘rEMEMBEr DINGAAN’S DAY: THE PASSING OF AFrICAN … 143

They claimed that the workers’ programme of action included violent

attacks on whites in general, and the police in particular. They reported
Nkosi as agitating violence against police, ‘we do not want the govern-
ment to send the police there to cause trouble, if the government sends
them, their blood will be spilt’.42 At the meeting on 14 December 1930,
attended by white security police, Nkosi informed the audience that
police were agent provocateurs:

Last Sunday at Point, Chaka [Detective Sgt. Arnold, whose nickname

was ‘Chaka’] called the natives who were not members of trade unions
together. He told the natives to throw stones at us. I speak in front of him
now. He is the one that is stirring up blood’.43

Another strategy adopted by the state was to harass and abuse Nkosi
prior to the Dingaan’s Day meeting. As a result, during his address at
the 14 December 1930 meeting, Albert Nzula, a senior member of the
CPSA, asked Nkosi to relate his experience to the large audience. Nkosi
had a premonition about his death which he expressed by proclaim-
ing, ‘look my young men, today I may be speaking for the last time. I
am not afraid of death—death is nice. I want to speak this in the pres-
ence of [white] detectives’.44 He gave the audience a detailed account
of his unlawful detention by uniformed police, who had taken him to
the chief magistrate prior to the mass meeting. It is alleged in the police
report that Nkosi accused the official of threatening him—the Magistrate
warned: ‘you have been called here [to be warned] that if you natives
fight on Dingaan’s Day, it will be on your shoulders alone. The govern-
ment will not only gaol you they will do something else to you [meaning
the government will kill you?]’.45 In response, Nzula voiced that:

It is a very funny thing, here we are, we say we want to burn the passes,
and there are the detectives who are saying that natives are preparing to
fight against the white man …We all know these tricks, we know that the
capitalist class, the ruling class of the present time, its whole power is based
on lies, and when the Government bases its power on lies, then they come
with force [violence].46

Detailed police reports on the CPSA meetings on 13 and 14 December

1930 are invaluable sources of information and archive about the cen-
trality of ordinary African workers in the production of public history
144 S.M. NDLOVU

in public spheres and mass meetings that elicited and generated strong
audience participation in the late 1920s.47 Public involvement was,
for the most part, not limited to listening to trade union leaders then
approving by applauding or disapproving and withholding support. This
is evident in the response of one member of the audience, referred to by
the police as ‘Native Washington’. Demanding to be heard, the spirited
Washington emphasised:

I have come to this meeting to hear what you [the leadership] have to say.
I have been … listening, and I have now come to speak. Some will never
hear what is said, but the day is coming, the day to which we are marching.
Things are not done in one day. I do not like the pass. The person who
runs the Communist party down over the passes does not know what he is
talking about. It is better for the truth to be spoken … I am not afraid – I
will speak.48

The audience became ever more engaged in the mass meeting of 14

December, a point noted by the police. According to their report, at
one stage ‘a native in the crowd stood up and shouted something to
the speaker and there was some confusion for a few minutes’. The main
speaker responded by pointing out, ‘You see what the mention of a strike
has done already; it has already brought one man to his feet. And that is
the most powerful weapon we possess’.
Like Bonner on the politics of the ICU and African politics in gen-
eral, I propose an alternative role for the spoken word in public meet-
ings and the politics spearheaded by the Durban Branch of the CPSA.
The organisers of the 13 and 14 December 1930 meetings valued the
power of words. For these to be realised in all their rich potential, they
had to be articulated and heard by those in power in the Union of South
Africa because African voices were suppressed. The workers and trade
union leaders were very conscious of the diverse nature of their audience,
made up of workers, detectives, security police and informers, members
of rival organisations and non-aligned members of the public.49 This is
the main reason why I have decided to quote some voices of the subju-
gated majority in this chapter.
Phillip Mavimbela, an infiltrator, confirmed this when he submitted
a signed statement to the Native riots Commission of Enquiry (the
De Waal Commission). He identified himself as a ‘native in the employ
of the CID as a special informer’ who was handled by Sgt. Arnold.50
 5 ‘rEMEMBEr DINGAAN’S DAY: THE PASSING OF AFrICAN … 145

In his statement, he said the CPSA leaders not only tolerated but had
welcomed the presence of policemen like Sgt. Arnold.51 Nkosi also made
this point quite clear:

I want to speak this in the presence of the detectives here and other offi-
cials of the Government here. You detectives here and others go into
the corners. I am going to speak and say what we intend doing [on 16
December].52

In the meeting on the 14th, Mtolo also remarked ‘I see one Detective
here who searched my place at Pinetown. He is the one who searched
our place for isitiyama’.53 Security police were consciously used as coer-
cive agents of surveillance to relay sentiments of dissatisfaction, grievance
or outrage to their political masters, that is, white cabinet ministers of
the Union of South Africa. Using these agents as channels of communi-
cation, Nkosi proclaimed:

[Minister Pirow] is a sheep herd – a dog … I am hiding nothing, I am

telling you in front of [Prime Minister] Hertzog and anybody. His is a rot-
ten government – a putrid government. What truth do you want from me
now? Look here, for these pass laws we have fought in 1919, the trouble
was also over passes in 1921. I say burn your passes, burn every one of
them … [In 1929] Natives died and were buried over beer, and you go
back to the filthy, dirty place and drink it! If I had my way I would close
the beer halls … I say let us contemplate this and close them … On the
16th of December we will collect the bibles and collars of Native Ministers
and burn them.54

THE KILLING OF JOHANNES NKOSI55

Johannes Nkosi was born on 3 September 1905 to a peasant family in
rural kwaZulu-Natal. He spent his formative years at Pixley kaSeme’s
farm in Standerton, where he attended St John’s Missionary School
until standard 5. He became a farm labourer, then a ‘kitchen boy’ and
migrated to Johannesburg, where, at the age of 14, he participated in
the pass-burning campaign organised by the ANC in 1919. Later, he
became an ICU official. In 1926, he joined the CPSA and attended its
night school to educate himself. He moved back to Durban (to organise
a CPSA branch) in 1929. Nkosi was able to advance his political career
146 S.M. NDLOVU

in this way because of the decision in 1926 by the CPSA to train African
leaders and draw them into top-ranking positions.
The Durban branch of the CPSA, which had grown into a power-
ful force under the able and devoted leadership of Nkosi, began its
Dingaan’s Day demonstration and counter-commemoration in 1930
at eight o’clock in the morning. After 4 hours of spellbinding speech-
making and the burning of 3000 passes, the cavalcade of demonstrators
proceeded from Cartwright Flats to the city of Durban in flagrant defi-
ance of a police banning order.56 The CPSA in Durban and elsewhere
associated the Dingaan’s Day counter-commemorations and burn-
ing of passes with the loss of independence and the loss of land. This is
reflected in Johannes Nkosi’s speech recorded prior to the 16 December
counter-commemoration. In this rousing speech, besides calling for
national consciousness among Africans, Nkosi expressed the view that
the land question was the most important problem affecting the working
class in South Africa:

I am native; I am standing in my country of my birth. This country of ours

has been stolen. These people have stolen our country and are ruling it.
Some people dread Smuts, Hertzog and Pirow, but they are nothing but
thieves preaching sedition.57

On 16 December 1930, a large contingent of policemen barred the way

to the city centre and when demonstrators bore down on them, the
police attacked them with clubs and assegais. The results were calami-
tous—Nkosi and three other Africans were stabbed to death and horribly
mutilated by the police. Various reports of this incident appeared in the
major newspapers including the Durban-based Natal Mercury.58
The newspaper report highlighted the fact that ‘about 70 European
constables and 50 Native constables, armed with pick handles and kier-
ries rushed in among the Natives. The yelling rose to tumult, and for
some time there was resistance to the police attempts to clear the Flats’.
After the confrontation with unarmed African workers, ‘then began
the general flight … Johannes Nkosi was found unconscious. He had
been a prominent speaker throughout the day, and had received the
passes which were burnt’. To underline the oppressive nature of white-
ruled South Africa, the Natal Mercury, as apologists of police brutality,
reduced the killing of Nkosi to an act of writing a pamphlet and also
claimed he was guilty of being a member of the CPSA. readers were
 5 ‘rEMEMBEr DINGAAN’S DAY: THE PASSING OF AFrICAN … 147

informed that ‘it is understood that he [Nkosi] was the author of a pam-
phlet predicting “Hell on Dingaan’s Day”’, and had been called before
the chief magistrate, a Mr Maynard Page. He was described as an organ-
iser of the ‘Durban Branch of the Communist Party of South Africa’.59
Other angles and biases emerge from another report in the Natal
Mercury which used the language of security police and Pirow, the
Minister of Justice, by referring to the African workers as ‘agitators’.
The article reported that by ‘8.30am there was a crowd of about 160
listening to two agitators, who exhorted them to burn their passes, as
a “Christmas box” to the Government’. To compound matters further
for the white journalist who covered the pass-burning campaign, African
workers displayed a communist flag—surely not a crime—inscribed with
the words: ‘Down with Pirow’s slave laws. Away with the passes on
Dingaan’s Day. Shisani ama passi (Burn your passes)’.60
The racist white journalists who recorded the event were not con-
cerned about the brutal behaviour of the police and the killing of Nkosi
and the two workers. To show their opposition to the counter-commem-
oration of 16 December, they described the African workers in animal-
istic terms, as dogs (of the ‘bobtail order’). One such report read: ‘…
from that time onwards a steady stream of Natives came to the meeting
and they were immediately button-holed by a bearded Native, wearing
a fez and a flowing red robe, who endeavoured to get their passes from
them … the Natives present were mostly of the rag and bobtail order…
extremist agitators’.61
The report continued ‘…there were very few kitchen boys and town
workers present. It appeared that the ICU order to its members to boy-
cott the pass burning was respected’. But to his chagrin, the racist jour-
nalist who was an ‘expert’ in identifying African ‘kitchen boys’ and ‘town
workers’, the rain which fell frequently during the day did not lessen the
crowd; it gradually increased until at mid-day.62 The extremely miffed
and biased Natal Mercury reporter then resorted to ‘tribal’ politics by
highlighting the supposed enmity between migrants from Basutoland
and amaZulu. When he found one venerable Zulu, who did not choose
to surrender his pass, the journalist trumpeted that amaZulu did not
support the pass-burning campaign. But Nkosi, as a Zulu, surely sup-
ported the pass-burning campaign. The biased reporter failed to inform
his readers that African workers had freedom of association and had not
been compelled to participate in the pass-burning campaign.63
148 S.M. NDLOVU

As a consequence of Nkosi’s death, the Durban Magistrate’s Court

instituted a criminal case early in January 1931. The case was against work-
ers who were arrested during the 16 December counter-commemoration.
The accused were charged with public violence.64 At the trial, police,
mostly white constables, gave evidence that to a large extent vindicated
their actions. They shifted the blame onto the shoulders of the African
workers, particularly their leaders. The chief constable of the Durban bor-
ough police, for example, claimed that had he not acted as he did many
members of the police and blameless bystanders would have been killed
and added: ‘Had I hesitated for a split second they (protestors) would have
been on top of us’.65
Another state witness, Detective Sergeant Arnold known by his nick-
name ‘Chaka’, proudly claimed to be a ‘Zulu linguist’ and therefore an
expert who understood ‘their’ ‘behaviour, thought patterns, psychology
and war-mongering tendencies’. As a matter of routine, he had attended
the 16 December 1930 mass meeting at Cartwright Flats in the company
of another white detective and a number of African policemen who ‘car-
ried pick handles and sticks, the usual weapons’.66 During the trial, the
magistrate, a Mr G.P. Stead, revealed his bigotry by asking another state
witness, Sergeant Board: ‘They [the protesters] were not all Zulus, were
they?’ To this Board replied, again defining the African workers in racist
animalistic terms, ‘no, a lot of them were mongrels’. According to these
white officials, African workers were required to be both timid and pas-
sive and they deserved to be killed if they were not.
Parallel to the court case, in January 1931, the state set up an offi-
cial inquest into Nkosi’s death.67 At the inquest, the state coroner com-
mended white police for their self-restraint and attributed the blame
squarely on the African constables, who were accused of having ‘used
more force than was requisite’, notably the ‘use of assegais’, which was
‘not necessary’. Furthermore, the protesting African workers ‘had failed
to exercise reasonable restraint’. Several witnesses testified that they had
seen constables stab the murdered men, but police were strangely ‘una-
ble to identify the killers’. Seven African witnesses swore that they had
seen the white chief constable shoot at Nkosi, who was stabbed after
being taken into custody, but the court rejected the allegations and evi-
dence.68 By contrast, 26 demonstrators were convicted of public vio-
lence, four being sentenced to 6 months’ hard labour.
 5 ‘rEMEMBEr DINGAAN’S DAY: THE PASSING OF AFrICAN … 149

‘DINGAAN’S DAY’ COUNTER-COMMEMORATIONS AND AFRICAN

WORKERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF AFRICAN MONARCHIES
There was a latent contradiction between the CPSA’s programme for a
Native republic and its endorsement of King Dingane through counter-
commemorations of 16 December. From the late 1920s, if not earlier,
the CPSA was stridently anti-monarchist. It claimed there was direct
correspondence between the status of russian Czars (whom it viewed
as feudal despots) and that of African monarchs. African workers, grass-
roots supporters and public intellectuals such as Johannes Nkosi who had
leadership positions within the CPSA were a good deal more ambigu-
ous. The communists of European origin, in particular, regarded African
monarchies as quintessential representatives of the ruling class and the
privileged. Hence, the CPSA had to negotiate a potential contradiction
when it came to King Dingane.
The CPSA’s attitude contrasted with the opinion of most members of
the ANC National Executive and its Council of Chiefs. The latter con-
demned the fraternisation between Congress and the Communist Party,
which had become more prevalent since Josias Gumede had taken over
as president of the ANC in 1927. The ANC’s Council of Chiefs accused
the communists of being interested in fostering disunity between the
‘Black and White races’ of South Africa. They further argued that:

the Communist Party has brought russia to the stage it was at then; the
Czar was a great man in his country, of royal Blood like us, and where is
he now? Kadalie has driven the Communists out of his ranks. If the ANC
fraternises with them we chiefs cannot continue to belong to it.69

Contrary to the beliefs of the white leaders within the CPSA, African
communists were vocal in their support of various African monarchies.
Nkosi and other African colleagues in the Communist Party supported
African monarchies to the hilt and were in the forefront in their sup-
port of the Zulu monarchs like Shaka and Dingane and of chiefs like
Bhambatha kaMancinza. These leaders symbolised the struggle for
freedom, land and justice in a country dominated by white colonisers.
According to African workers and their leaders, Shaka and Dingane were
not mirror images of each other, meaning, the two Zulu kings were
neither inverted images of each other nor violent, harsh enemies of the
150 S.M. NDLOVU

African people as articulated by Fuze, Dube and rolfes Dhlomo in the

previous chapter of this book. What was important was that the kings
were protectors of their people, committed to ‘safe-guarding land against
the tyranny of the white settlers’. More than any other group, African
workers celebrated King Dingane as the key symbol of African resistance.
As Nkosi put it:

Dingaan was a Communist, and he will be there [protecting us an ances-

tor] on the day of Dingaan, the 16th December will be the day of our
freedom in Africa. This is the day when we will not forget those who will
put them [whites] in hell … Dingaan was a man, and was clever … This
Dingaan’s Day is the day that we must think of those that died in the fight
[for our freedom]. On that day old men died who had hearts bigger than
yours.70

The powerful sympathy for the Zulu royal house emerges in other ways.
Nkosi and his supporters took exceptional offence at Sergeant Arnold’s
nickname of ‘Chaka’, believing that, unlike King Shaka, Arnold was a
charlatan who represented white evil. Charles Dansa, one of the speakers
at the December 1930 meeting organised by the CPSA, suggested that
Sergeant Arnold should change his nickname to ‘Mbulali’, literally mean-
ing ‘the killer’.71 The fiery Mtolo elaborated:

That European sitting here, Chaka … Is called by the name of Chaka, one
of our ancestors. Are we giving the names of our ancestors to Police and
detectives? These are the people and the Ministers who are misleading our
people. This country will never get freedom outside our ranks. If we do
not burn our passes we will be slaves forever.72

The volatile Mtolo, who was not a member of the Communist Party,
added that he would ‘follow a snake if its doctrine is good’ and that the
Communist Party spoke on behalf of the African people of South Africa
who had ‘been robbed of their country’. He emphasised that until the
present king called his people to arms as amabutho, they would not use
violent means against white people. rather, like amabutho, ‘true Zulu
warriors’, they would maintain discipline, follow existing war protocol
and guard against being provoked in their just cause—their struggle for
land and for their freedom as workers. Mtolo assured his audience, ‘we
are not here to fight’, and then explained: ‘Natives under King Chaka
 5 ‘rEMEMBEr DINGAAN’S DAY: THE PASSING OF AFrICAN … 151

were fighters. King Chaka himself was a fighter, but today we are under
Solomon, a descendant. We would never fight without the command of
Solomon whom we look upon as our king’.73
The security police report noted that the protest meeting was
addressed by a multilingual group of speakers from different regions,
among whom were some from the Witwatersrand. As guests of the
organisers, they spoke in English, Afrikaans, isiZulu and isiXhosa. The
crowd included Basotho and amaXhosa who were migrant workers. We
can therefore infer that the majority of the members of the audience
understood one of the spoken African languages and in this instance
(basic) isiZulu. All interpretation was in isiZulu, a language which the
compilers of the police reports, like Sgt. Arnold, were fluent. According
to the African workers, there was no need to present different versions
of King Dingane for different ethnic groups.74 Moreover, both King
Dingane and King Shaka represented a unifying symbol to members of
the African working class who belonged to different ethnic groups. The
workers’ perceptions differed from those expressed by public intellectuals
in Chaps. 2–4 who viewed the two kings as mirror images of one another
and readily constructed negative and positive perspectives of the kings.
The African workers articulated their perspectives at various pro-
test meetings and marches as a means of strengthening their class-
consciousness and political commitment in the present and their hope
for justice, freedom and eventual triumph in the future. Their voices
from below, through public history, narrate a story of resistance to
oppression by a white minority government and of a forward March of
the organised African working class towards the twin goals of political
power and emancipation.

THE ANC AND THE CPSA: CONTENDING PERSPECTIVES

ON COUNTER-COMMEMORATION OF ‘DINGAAN’S DAY’ IN THE
LATE 1920S AND 1930S
The year 1927 marked a notable shift in the CPSA’s relationship with
the ANC, which was noted for its conservative views.75 At its conven-
tion in June of that year, the ANC elected J.T. Gumede as president-
general. Gumede, who was probably born in the 1870s, was a teacher
by profession. For some time, he worked as a land agent for a white firm
in Pietermaritzburg. With John Langalibalele Dube, Martin Luthuli,
152 S.M. NDLOVU

Saul Msane and others, he helped to form the Natal Native Congress in
1900–1901, serving at different times as its secretary and as vice-pres-
ident under Dube. He also edited iLanga, Dube’s newspaper, during
the First World War. In the mid-1920s, Gumede and Dube had a falling
out, in part over Dube’s desire to keep the Natal Native Congress inde-
pendent of the national ANC. Gumede formed a separate Natal African
Congress, affiliated to the national body. Gumede also helped draft
the ANC constitution in 1919. In the same year, he accompanied the
SANNC (later the ANC) deputation to England and Versailles, a disil-
lusioning experience that may have accounted in part for his increasing
inclination towards political radicalism and working-class sentiments. He
was one of the ANC leaders involved in encouraging the African mine-
workers strike on the rand in 1920.76
In the early to mid-1920s, the ANC relapsed into relative inactivity.
In February 1927, Gumede attended the International Congress of the
League against Imperialism in Brussels, Belgium, together with James La
Guma, who represented the CPSA.77 Gumede’s election seemed to rein-
vigorate the radical wing of the Transvaal African Congress and moved it
closer to the CPSA. His orientation towards the CPSA produced a grow-
ing political polarisation both within the Transvaal wing of the ANC and
in the ANC nationally. According to Bonner, Gumede sought to revi-
talise both the ANC and its Transvaal branch, and in March 1928, after
his return from a second visit to the Soviet Union, he began to canvass
the idea of an anti-pass campaign. To assist in the revitalisation of the
Congress, Gumede drafted in two lieutenants, Samuel Masabalala and
Theodore Mvalo. Neither proved a wise choice. Nevertheless, armed
with this support, Gumede embarked on a series of meetings on the
rand aimed at whipping up support for protests against the pass laws
and liquor legislation. The pass law campaign was at least partly a
response to a grassroots upsurge in Pretoria around the same issue in
March 1928 and coincided with a renewed interest in this and other
‘popular’ issues among members of the CPSA.78
During 1929 joint meetings of the CPSA, IICU and Gumede’s sec-
tion of the Transvaal ANC became increasingly common and these
organisations gave focus and direction to a groundswell of popular dis-
satisfaction which was surging through both rural and urban areas.
Bonner points out that police files for this period literally bulge with
reports of protests in every corner of the country. However, Gumede’s
 5 ‘rEMEMBEr DINGAAN’S DAY: THE PASSING OF AFrICAN … 153

advocacy of direct action, and his association with such diverse ‘demons’
as Mvalo and the CPSA, did little to endear him to the conservative wing
of the ANC.79
The divisions bedevilling the ANC were now translated into the bat-
tle for political space during Dingaan’s Day counter-commemorations in
the late 1920s and early 1930. ANC leaders like Selope Thema and Selby
Msimang, along with those in the Council of Chiefs, opposed demon-
strations such as pass burning and they were wary of Gumede’s pro-
Communist stance. These divisions came to a head in April 1930 during
the ANC’s annual national conference, held in Bloemfontein. The main
issue at this annual general meeting was whether or not Gumede was to
be re-elected president of the ANC. There were two major camps, each
with a certain amount of support from the various ANC constituencies.
The radical pro-Gumede camp included Albert Nzula of the Transvaal
CPSA and John Gomas, Bransby Ndobe and Elliot Tonjeni, who occu-
pied leadership position in the Western Cape branch of the ANC, which
they turned into its most militant section. Also aligned with this group
was A.W.G. Champion, who was opposed to Pixley kaSeme, Gumede’s
principal rival for office. On the other side, the pro-Seme group were
conservatives who included rev Z.r. Mahabane, Selope Thema and
Dube.
Gumede’s address was uncompromising and forthright. He advocated
the defence of the Soviet Union, protest, demonstration and mass action
whenever and wherever possible and the refusal to pay taxes. He con-
firmed his support of pass-burning campaigns and the struggle for the
CPSA’s idea of a Black republic. Immediately after his address, pande-
monium and consternation broke out among the conservative members,
who felt that Gumede had gone overboard. As a result, Seme was elected
president with 39 votes against Gumede’s 14.80
The ANC subsequently repudiated the CPSA’s pass-burning cam-
paign and withdrew into a state of passive acquiescence. The leadership
adopted a position underpinned by the belief that liberation would come
through political gradualism, reasoned arguments, appeals to Christian
ethics, and moderate, constitutional protest. They accordingly refused to
mobilise their supporters for a mass struggle. In December 1932, The
Bantu World published a reconciliatory commentary written by Thema,
which reduced King Dingane’s action against the Voortrekkers to that
of an uncouth barbarian. Commenting on the position adopted by the
154 S.M. NDLOVU

African workers, he noted that the struggle which took place during
December 16 was underpinned by a battle of ideas between black and
white South Africans:

Indeed there are some Africans of the radical school of thought who hold
that Dingaan’s Day should be the day of strikes and the burning of passes
and effigies of those politicians and statesmen who are responsible for the
repressive laws operating against the progress of the Bantu[-speaking] race.
It is needless to point out that the appeal to racial feelings on Dingaan’s
Day is depriving the day of its historical significance, and the lesson that
should be learned from it by all sections of the community. The clash
between voortrekkers and the Zulus, was a clash of forces of light and
darkness and not merely of human beings dissimilar in colour … It is this
clash of ideas which is more or less responsible for the clash of arms that
followed …81

Thema then proposed that December should be commemorated as Day

of reconciliation (which is the case today):

There is no doubt that the whole intelligent Bantudom deplores the mas-
sacre of Piet retief and his followers and the merciless slaughter of inno-
cent women and children at Weenen; it deplores the treacherous and cruel
acts of Dingane … But we of today we should remember the past with its
cruelties and barbarities, not to perpetuate the ancient feuds, but to avoid
their repetition by creating a new spirit of [reconciliation and] inter-racial
goodwill and harmony.82

Pixley ka Isaka Seme’s election as president of the bickering ANC also

led to the radical and militant Western Cape leadership, comprising
Ndobe and Tonjeni [publicly ‘sold out’ by Kadalie] , breaking away from
Congress. A special meeting of the ANC executive held in September
1930 dismissed Ndobe from the post of provincial secretary because of
his advocacy of the Communist Party’s policy. This meeting took a bind-
ing decision prohibiting ‘leaders and propagandists with communistic
doctrines’ from addressing Congress meetings and banned the sale of
Umsebenzi on Congress premises.83
The beleaguered militants fought back, with a view to gaining control
of the organisation, but Thaele, the leader of the (Western Cape) ANC,
defeated them by expelling Ndobe’s supporters. The defeated group
reacted by forming a splinter group, which they named the Independent
 5 ‘rEMEMBEr DINGAAN’S DAY: THE PASSING OF AFrICAN … 155

African National Congress (Cape) and attempted to secure the affilia-

tion of country branches. However, the state beheaded the movement by
deporting Ndobe to Basutoland and forcing Tonjeni to retreat to Port
Elizabeth.84 Nevertheless, it is worth mentioning the position of the
Independent ANC as far as Dingaan’s Day counter-commemorations is
concerned. Their manifesto, among other documents, reflected the fol-
lowing proposal (Proposal No. 2):

A militant struggle to be waged against the Government under the slogan

of a Black republic, by means of agitation and mass demonstrations and
organisation aimed at securing a general stoppage of work and civil diso-
bedience if our demands are not granted. Dingaan’s Day to be observed as
African Liberation Day throughout the Union and on this day the African
people to be called upon to down and burn passes as a first stage in the
campaign of civil disobedience.85

Seme’s election did not entirely snuff out the spirit of radicalism among
the ANC’s members on the Witwatersrand. The radical wing continued
to promote radical action at Dingane’s Day counter-commemorations,
joining the CPSA and LrA in such action on 16 December. In October
1930, they attempted to place the issue on the ANC’s agenda once again.
At meetings, both Selope Thema and Selby Msimang criticised what
they perceived as a short-sighted pass-burning campaign driven by the
CPSA, which they depicted as a lackey of the Comintern and the Negro
Conference. Msimang rejected the call to support the pass-burning cam-
paign, arguing that the ANC was against violence and that there were in
any case other more important tasks for the ANC to address. He deplored
the fact that the radicals had seen fit to ask for ‘foreign advice’ from
the Comintern and pointed out that to burn passes in the name of the
Congress if the perpetrators were not even ANC members was a sham.86
Selope Thema endorsed this view, arguing that although he was
against the pass system he felt it was wrong to tell Africans to burn their
passes on Dingaan’s Day and engage in mass protest. To him, the sal-
vation of the Africans did not lie with foreign theories, including those
propagated by the people of russia, but in their own hands. Like Kadalie
he believed that Africans should stop being lackeys and should not be so
naïve as to think the russians would set them free.87
By 1928, the ICU had split into three different groups operat-
ing from headquarters in various parts of the country.88 The factions
156 S.M. NDLOVU

were Kadalie’s Independent ICU; the Old ICU (ICU yaseAfrica); and
Champion’s ICU yase Natal. Champion’s faction was anti-Kadalie and
vigorously supported the pass-burning campaign proposed by the CPSA
and other African worker organisations. Various reasons have been given
for the split, the major one being corruption and the embezzlement of
funds by the leadership, particularly Kadalie and Champion.89
During this period, and through the Independent ICU, Kadalie
cemented his relationship with his new-found allies in the LAr. He also
adopted a new line—he threw his support into the anti-pass campaign.
In a meeting organised jointly by the CPSA, ANC, LAr, Independent
ICU and Ballinger’s ICU faction, held on 15 December 1929 in the
building adjoining the Johannesburg pass office, Kadalie observed that
the united front was not necessarily anti-white. He lambasted whites for
not sticking to their promises and referred to European civilisation as a
civilisation of ‘thieves and robbers’. He went on to say: ‘Pirow is taxing
the native for Poll Tax which is too excessive whereas the native is living
under a small amount and tomorrow [16 December] is going to be a
strong day of [protest action and] speeches’.90
The Dingaan’s Day meeting was attended and addressed by both
black and white speakers. The police reports referred to it as an orderly
anti-pass campaign meeting that was attended by a comparatively large
number of ‘natives’ increasing from 5000 to approximately 9000 in the
course of the afternoon. In his address, Kadalie referred to the political
significance of Dingaan’s Day and urged Africans to ‘avail themselves of
that occasion to declare their Unity in demand fair treatment, etc.’91
In mid-1930, Kadalie was arrested for strike action he had initiated in
East London in January. After his imprisonment, he was, by his stand-
ards, relatively ‘tame’, apart from a few outbursts. It was freely rumoured
that the state had threatened to deport him to his native Nyasaland
(Malawi) if he became a thorn in their flesh again. This may explain
his subsequent collaborative and accommodative position towards the
state. For a different reason, Kadalie became active and belligerent again
towards the end of 1930, addressing meetings on various platforms
around the country, particularly in the Eastern Cape, Orange Free State
and the Transvaal. At these meetings, he discouraged his audience from
joining the CPSA. He now declared himself an opponent of the pass-
burning campaign, which was due to culminate in mass action in various
areas on 16 December 1930. Kadalie proclaimed that the government
 5 ‘rEMEMBEr DINGAAN’S DAY: THE PASSING OF AFrICAN … 157

would find space in jail for the lawbreakers. Mass action, he insisted,
was a futile exercise undertaken by unsophisticated people—the African
workers. According to Kadalie, it was necessary for such people to be
trained and organised for a number of years if they were to become
astute political practitioners.
Kadalie also warned workers against conducting counter-commem-
orations of Dingaan’s Day that might disturb Europeans and urged his
followers to let the law take its course. In one of the police reports, the
imperious Kadalie was quoted as saying that he had the ultimate power
to decide the fate of the pass-burning campaign. His speech reflected
his character as a manipulative absolutist who collaborated with the state
when it suited him:

Many of you have heard the rumours in circulation regards what is going
to happen on Dingaan’s Day; you have heard that something big is going
to happen. I denounced that policy of burning passes in Johannesburg,
Bloemfontein and in the East London Press … this is all foolishness …
no matter what government is in power that Government will always be
stronger than the people. The Government have a Law; they could pro-
hibit all meetings and gatherings on Dingaan’s Day …92

Elaborating on the newly adopted acommodationist and pro-govern-

ment policy of his trade union, Kadalie confidently informed his sup-
porters that there was not going to be any burning of passes on 16
December: ‘I have already told you that I control the Natives … you will
see … I made a speech in Jo’burg and one in Bloemfontein and I have
changed the whole situation’.93
In a report compiled for the East London, CID Sgt. Mandy noted
that after the mass meeting Kadalie came up to him and, ‘in the course
of the conversation’ said he did not agree with his followers being
‘exploited by the Communists to suit their own ends’. Mandy also
claimed that Kadalie had promised him that there would be no trou-
ble on Dingaan’s Day in East London, Bloemfontein or on the rand.
The trade union leader confided that he was in the process of writ-
ing an article for publication in the East London Despatch and that this
article would show clearly his views on the pass-burning campaign.
A police report confirmed that the newspaper published the article on
12 December 1930. However, Mandy said Kadalie had shown him
158 S.M. NDLOVU

correspondence from his Durban branch secretary and, from the con-
tents, it appeared that ‘the Natives in Natal are in a state of unrest and
that trouble may be expected there on the 16th’.
Notwithstanding Kadalie’s confidence, a sizeable number of his sup-
porters did not agree with his pro-government position on the pass-
burning campaign and the significance of Dingaan’s Day as a day of
protest.94 Pofu commented during a meeting organised by Kadalie
that he had serious problems with the chairman’s intimation that the
Independent ICU had changed its original position. He said the mem-
bers had been told that ‘this was the day for the freedom of the natives,
but now that the day was approaching they were told there was to be no
burning of passes’. He continued angrily:

I say we must be prepared to go to Hell and die on Dingaan’s Day. If our

leaders are now going to play a cowardly game with us, let them go … if
these leaders cannot lead us, let them step aside.95

Kadalie was condemned by the other factions of the ICU and CPSA who
labelled him variously a state agent, a traitor, a coward and a ‘good boy’.
An article in Umsebenzi, headlined: ‘Dastardly Behaviour of Clements
Kadalie’, accusing him of appeasing his white paymasters. It pointed out
that the government was ‘doing its utmost to stem the tide of the ris-
ing revolutionary movement of the Native workers and poverty-stricken
peasants in reserves’ and this was no the time for the IICU to back
down. It issued an urgent call: ‘It is necessary to expose Kadalie’s treach-
ery!’ Faced with something of a crisis and to bolster his waning influ-
ence:

Kadalie called a strike in East London … and the Native workers

responded nobly. But when Kadalie was arrested he called the strike off in
the most cowardly way and told the workers to go back to work … Now
he appears in public once more, this time not as a fire-brand and ‘agitator’,
but as Mr ‘Good Boy’ Kadalie, the friend of Pirow and the Government,
advising the Natives not to burn their passes, and telling them to keep
quiet and wait until he [Kadalie] has organised them …96

By way of a conclusion to this chapter, I note that the security police

reports, written in English, do provide a reasonable record of what
took place, but the veracity of this primary evidence must be ques-
tioned to some extent. Similar caution had to be exercised when using
 5 ‘rEMEMBEr DINGAAN’S DAY: THE PASSING OF AFrICAN … 159

the James Stuart Archives and sources that were used in Chaps. 2 and 3.
Like Carolyn Hamilton, who raises some issues on the reliability of the
James Stuart Archives,97 and Phil Bonner, who questions security police
reports,98 I believe that provided one subjects these sources to the nor-
mal canon of historical enquiry and analysis they provide an illuminat-
ing window into the past.99 This is one of the main reasons I have cited
them extensively in this chapter. Police informers and constables like Sgt.
Arnold, as agents of surveillance, were welcome and conspicuous by their
presence at most of the African workers’ mass meetings because, accord-
ing to Bonner, they were consciously used by African workers to relay
to their political masters the workers’ sentiments of dissatisfaction, griev-
ance and outrage.100 From the official stamps that appear on the police
reports used as historical evidence and primary documents used in this
study, we can conclude that the workers’ messages eventually reached the
offices of the Minister of Justice, the police commissioner and the Native
Affairs Department. The final destination was intended to be the prime
minister—the commander in chief of the Union of South Africa.
Another important issue to note is that Nkosi and his colleagues’ per-
ceptions of the king are unique in that they are not predicated on the
archival material analysed extensively in Chaps. 2–4 of this book. African
workers and their leaders avoided established, dominant oral traditions,
izibongo and the archive on the king that was well established by the
1920s.101 This cuts across Hamilton’s argument about the limits of his-
torical invention102—the fact that once an archive is made and estab-
lished, all inventions and historical accounts are created in terms of that
particular established and predominant archive. This is not necessarily
the case with Nkosi’s and African workers’ perspectives of King Dingane.
They deliberately avoided the established archive constructed by both
the colonisers and the colonised in their interpretation of the king’s
reign. African workers accorded King Dingane the status of a communist
to the consternation of white members of the CPSA, the white security
police, the Minister of Justice and the Union government—including
Hertzog, the prime minister.
The African workers applied the basic tenets of African communal-
ism—prevalent during King Dingane’s reign—to their understanding
of communism and socialism hence they referred to the king as a com-
munist. This is because African communalism implies that an individual’s
predispositions depend rather crucially upon his or her actions benefit-
ing the community at large rather than him/herself as an individual.
160 S.M. NDLOVU

As was the case in pre-colonial times, members of the African working

class and its leadership in the 1920s were expected to show concern for
the well-being of the wider society, particularly the very poor, to do what
they could to advance the common good of these societies and gener-
ally participate in community life as a collective rather than as individuals.
Each member of this collective acknowledges the existence of common
values and obligations which can be utilised to advance the interests
of the oppressed African majority. The African workers recognised the
humanity of others, and on that basis, established humane relations with
members of other race groups worldwide. This included establishing a
relationship with blood red communists but agreeing to differ from
them on the important role of African monarchies.
Thus I argue that Johannes Nkosi, an African born into a rural fam-
ily of labour tenants, was steeped in the oral traditions of his commu-
nity, whose cosmological worldview was premised on communalism,
including the established archive on King Dingane. He took a conscious
decision to ignore the established archive so he could focus on his cir-
cumstances, life history and particular everyday experiences, personified
by landlessness, poverty, racism and oppression in twentieth-century
South Africa.103 Only those who share the group identity and have lived
its experience, whether seen as biologically given or socially constructed,
can know what it means to be an African worker in a racist country ruled
by a white minority. An African worker, who used the initials N.M.M.,
composed the following poem in 1931 and dedicated it to the memory
of Johannes Nkosi:

The hero we loved, the hero they hated is gone:

One hero had gone whence travellers never return.
The voice we loved, the voice of Johannes Nkosi, is untimely
silenced.
In his home a place is vacant which never can be filled.
He gave his life for Africa’s freedom.
He worked hard for his own class and people.
His spirit is with us still and will lead us on to victory.
This is the fighter we loved, our hero, Comrade Nkosi.
The name of this African son will be on our lips in the struggle.
 5 ‘rEMEMBEr DINGAAN’S DAY: THE PASSING OF AFrICAN … 161

He was the kind of leader his people wanted –

A leader true and faithful to his commission
He laid down his life that you and I might be freed from the pass
law chains of slavery
Long live the name of our martyr at whose graveside nobody
wept.104

NOTES
1. C. Hamilton, Terrific Majesty; J. Wright, ‘Political Histories of Southern
Africa’s Kingdoms and Chiefdoms’, 5.
2. F.A. van Jaarsveld, ‘A Historical Mirror of Blood river’, in A. Koning
and H. Keane, The Meaning of History (Pretoria: Unisa Press, 1980),
8–59. This is a brilliant article by an Afrikaner historian who exposes the
myth of Afrikaner Nationalist history, including the commemoration of
so-called Dingaan’s Day.
3. On the history of Dingaan’s Day, see I. Hofmeyr, ‘Popularising History:
The Case of Gustav Preller’, in S. Clingman ed., Regions and Repertoires
(randburg: ravan Press, 1991), 60; L.M. Thompson, The Political
Mythology of Apartheid (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1985); B.J.
Liebenberg, ‘Mites rondom Bloedrvier en die Gelofte’, South African
Historical Journal, 20, 1988, 17–32; Koning and Keane, The Meaning
of History.
4. The name Dingaan was dropped because it ‘conveyed the impression
to the uninitiated that it involved esteem for Dingaan, or that it could
rouse antipathy among Bantu-speaking peoples against whites’. See The
Standard Encyclopaedia of Southern Africa (Cape Town: Nasou, 1972),
562.
5. Liebenberg, ‘Mites’.
6. Van Jaarsveld, ‘A Historical Mirror of Blood river’.
7. Hofmeyr, ‘Popularising History: The Case of Gustav Preller’.
8. Van Jaarsveld, ‘A Historical Mirror of Blood river’.
9. On the analysis of Preller’s contribution to Afrikaner’s historiography
see F.A. van Jaarsveld, The Afrikaner’s Interpretation of South African
History (Cape Town: Simondium Publishers, 1964), 79; Hofmeyr,
‘Popularising History: The Case of Gustav Preller’.
10. Hofmeyr, ‘Popularising History: The Case of Gustav Preller’, 60.
11. Van Jaarsveld, ‘A Historical Mirror of Blood river’, 31–32. This section
is based on Van Jaarsveld’s critical analysis of Hertzog’s perspectives on
Dingaan’s Day.
162 S.M. NDLOVU

12. Ibid.
13. Ibid.
14. G.M. Gerhart and T. Karis, ‘Political Profiles, 1882–1964’, in T. Karis
and G.M. Carter eds., From Protest to Challenge: A Documentary
History of African Politics in South Africa, Volume 4 (Stanford: Hoover
Institution Press, 1977), 45.
15. This statement is attributed to K. Mote in E. roux, Time Longer than
Rope (London: Gollancz, 1948), 255.
16. National Archives Depot, Pretoria (hereafter NAD), Department of
Justice (hereafter JUS), 1/8/26. Volumes 27–30, report on Native
Agitation dated 17 December 1927. As the Department of Justice
archival material shows, some members of the state intelligence unit
went as far as London in their surveillance of ‘native agitators’. The file
about protest and challenge by Africans was opened on 1 August 1926,
hence JUS 1/8/26.
17. NAD, JUS, Speech by S. Malkinson, report on meeting held at Batho
Township in Bloemfontein, compiled by Sgt. T.A.P. du Plessis, 23
November 1930.
18. NAD, JUS, Detective Head Constable E.A. Evans was submitting his
11th report for 1927 (to the Commissioner of Police in Pretoria) on
information about the various rallies planned for Dingaan’s Day.
19. J. Lewis, Industrialisation and Trade Union Organisation in South
Africa, 1924–1955: The Rise and Fall of the South African Trades and
Labour Council (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984), 62.
20. B. Bunting, Moses Kotane: South African Revolutionary (London:
Inkululeko, 1986), 32–33.
21. South African Worker, 30 November 1928. See also South African
Worker, 12 December 1930.
22. On the ideological meaning of the Pan-Africanist slogan Mayibuye iAf-
rica (Let the African continent/land be returned to its rightful owners),
coined by the ANC after it was established in 1912. See S.M. Ndlovu,
‘The African Agenda and the Origins of Internationalism within the
ANC, 1912–1960’, in B. Ngcaweni ed., The Future We Chose: Emerging
Perspectives on the Centenary of the ANC (Pretoria: Africa Institute of
South Africa, 2013), Chap. 2.
23. P. Bonner, ‘Division and Unity in the Struggle: African Political
Organisations on the Witwatersrand in the 1920s and early 1930s’,
Unpublished paper, undated, 34. See also S. Jones, Raising the Red
Flag: The International Socialist League and the Communist Party of
South Africa: 1914–1932 (Bellville: Mayibuye Books, 1995), Chap. 9.
24. Jones, Raising the Red Flag, Chap. 11.
25. Bonner, ‘Division and Unity in the Struggle’, 37; Jones, Raising the Red
Flag, 240.
 5 ‘rEMEMBEr DINGAAN’S DAY: THE PASSING OF AFrICAN … 163

26. Umteteli waBantu, 28 December 1929.

27. A.J. Potgieter, ‘Die Swartes aan die Witwatersrand, 1900–1933’,
Unpublished PhD thesis, rand Afrikaans University, 1978, 416.
28. Umteteli waBantu, 21 December 1929.
29. NAD, Commission of Enquiry into Native riots in Natal (hereaf-
ter De Waal Commission), Police report to the Officer in Charge of
the Criminal Investigation Department (hereafter CID), Durban, 9
September 1929.
30. Ibid.
31. Ibid.
32. Ibid.
33. Ibid.
34. Ibid.
35. NAD, JUS, 1/8/26, report for the Commissioner of Police in Pretoria,
signed by r.H. Arnold, the officer in charge, CID, Durban, Statement
by Albert Nzula, 15 December 1930.
36. Meetings were to be held at Western Native Township, Benoni, Springs,
Boksburg, Brakpan, Prospect Township, Eastern Native Township,
randfontein, Krugersdorp, Germiston, Klipspruit, Newton Market
Square. See NAD, JUS 1/8/26, report by the Commissioner of Police
to the Minister of Justice, 18 December 1930.
37. roux, Time Longer than Rope, 254.
38. P.L. Wickins, The Industrial and Commercial Workers Union of Africa
(Cape Town: Oxford University Press, 1978), 194.
39. NAD, JUS, 1/8/26, CID, Arnold report, File 18, Durban, 15
December 1930, to the Commissioner of Police.
40. See NAD, JUS, 1/8/26, CID, Arnold’s report of the 18, 19 December
1930.
41. Ibid, Arnold report, 12 December 1930.
42. NAD, JUS, Arnold’s report on meeting of 13 December 1930.
43. Ibid., Meeting of 14 December 1930.
44. Ibid.
45. Ibid.
46. Ibid.
47. P. Bonner, ‘“Home Truths” and the Political Discourse of the ICU’,
Unpublished paper presented at the Biennial Conference of the South
African Historical Society, University of Western Cape, 11–14 July
1999.
48. NAD, JUS, report by r.H. Arnold to Commissioner of Police, 15
December 1930.
49. Bonner, ‘Home Truths’.
50. NAD, De Waal Commission of Enquiry.
164 S.M. NDLOVU

51. This section depends largely on Bonner, ‘Home Truths’.

52. NAD, JUS, Nkosi addressing the audience at the 13 December
mass meeting. report by Arnold to the Commissioner of Police, 15
December 1930.
53. NAD, JUS, 14 December meeting organised by the Durban branch
of the CPSA. report by Arnold to the Commissioner of Police, 15
December 1930.
54. Ibid, Mass meeting of 13 December meeting 1930.
55. On the death of Johannes Nkosi, see F.A. Mouton, ‘Die Dood van
Johannes Nkosi: rewolusionêre Martelaar’, South African Historical
Journal, 16, 1984, 143.
56. ‘Burning of Native Passes’, The Natal Advertiser, 22 December 1930.
57. NAD, JUS, CID report on meeting of 15 December 1930, submitted
by Arnold.
58. The Natal Mercury, 22 December 1930.
59. Ibid.
60. Ibid.
61. ‘Workers of the World Unite’, Natal Mercury, 17 December 1930.
62. Ibid.
63. Ibid.
64. ‘Court Story of Native riots’, Natal Mercury, 10 January 1931.
65. Ibid.
66. Ibid.
67. Both the court case and the inquest are beyond the scope of this study
and require separate research. The official court records are available
as part of the evidence, see NAD, Durban Criminal records, A Court,
1927 to 1928. See also the various newspapers of the day; and Mouton,
‘Die Dood van Johannes Nkosi: rewolusionêre Martelaar’.
68. J. Simons and r. Simons, Class and Colour in South Africa: 1850-1950
(London: Penguin, 1983), 435; ‘Wild Statement at Inquest’, Natal
Mercury, 28 January 1931; ‘Shot Fired by Accident’, Natal Mercury,
30 January 1931; ‘Chief Constable Vindicated’, Natal Mercury, 11
February 1931.
69. P. Walshe, The Rise of African Nationalism in South Africa (Los Angeles:
Hurst, 1971), 175–177.
70. Some ‘togt’ workers, fearing police violence, were reluctant to partici-
pate in protest action. See NAD, JUS, 1/8/26, police report of a CPSA
meeting held at Bell Street in Durban, 23 November 1930.
71. Ibid, Speech by Dansa. The archival documents do not provide first
names.
72. Ibid., Speech by Mtolo.
73. Ibid.
 5 ‘rEMEMBEr DINGAAN’S DAY: THE PASSING OF AFrICAN … 165

74. NAD, JUS, see Arnold report, 17 November 1930.

75. Jones, Raising the Red Flag, 188–194.
76. Karis and Carter eds., From Protest to Challenge, Volume. 4, 34.
77. Lerumo, Fifty Fighting Years, 63.
78. Bonner, ‘Division and Unity in the Struggle’, 34.
79. Ibid.
80. On this issue see roux, Time Longer than Rope, 245. See also Simons
and Simons, Class and Colour, 427.
81. Bantu World, December 1932
82. Ibid.
83. Ibid.
84. Simons and Simons, Class and Colour, 432.
85. Umsebenzi, 28 November 1930.
86. NAD, JUS, 1/8/26, statement attributed to Msimang, police report of
31 October 1930.
87. Ibid., Statement attributed to Thema.
88. On this theme, including the various reasons that led to the split, see,
Simons and Simons, Class and Colour; and roux, Time Longer than Rope.
89. H. Bradford, A Taste of Freedom: The ICU in Rural South Africa,
1924–1930 (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1987); S. Marks, The
Ambiguities of Dependence in South Africa: Class, Nationalism and the
State in Twentieth Century Natal (Johannesburg: ravan Press, 1986);
and Bonner, ‘Home Truths’.
90. NAD, JUS 1/8/26. See also Bonner, ‘Division and Unity in the
Struggle’, 34, on the IICU and its collaboration with the LAr up to
early 1930.
91. NAD, JUS, report by J. Lebitsa, Native Detective Sergeant to the
Detective Head Constable of Johannesburg, who forwarded the report
to the Commissioner of Police in Pretoria, December 1929.
92. NAD, JUS, South African Police report, East London CID offices, 11
December 1930, to the Commissioner of Police.
93. Ibid.
94. Ibid.
95. NAD, JUS, Statement by Isaac Montoeli, IICU meeting on 9 November
1930, Newtown Market Square, Johannesburg. See also Bonner,
‘Home Truths’.
96. Umsebenzi, 12 December 1930.
97. C. Hamilton, Authoring Shaka (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University
Press, 1993).
98. Bonner, ‘Home Truths’.
99. W. Beinart and C. Bundy, ‘The Union, Nation and Talking Crow’, in
W. Beinart and C. Bundy eds., Hidden Struggles in Rural South Africa
(Johannesburg: ravan Press, 1987).
166 S.M. NDLOVU

100. Bonner, ‘Home Truths’.

101. See Chaps. 1 and 2 on the established archive on King Dingane.
102. See Hamilton, Authoring Shaka; and C. Hamilton, Terrific Majesty: The
Powers of Shaka Zulu and the Limits of Historical Invention (Cape Town:
David Philip, 1998).
103. NAD, JUS 1/8/26, See particularly Nkosi’s speeches at the mass meet-
ings in Durban on 13 and 14 December 1930, reports by Arnold.
104. Umsebenzi, 25 January 1931.
 CHAPTEr 6

African Nationalists and Contending

Perspectives of King Dingane: 1916–1980s

The focus on the perspectives of African intellectual nationalists such as

Selope Thema, Herbert Dhlomo and Jordan Ngubane in this chapter
can be contrasted to perspectives propounded by ethnic nationalists such
as Magema Fuze, John Dube and rolfes Dhlomo. The Zuluist view-
points of the ethnic nationalists are analysed in Chap. 4. The fundamen-
tal difference between the two groups of African intellectuals was that
Thema, Herbert Dhlomo and Ngubane did not restrict their analysis to
Zulu historiography. They used world history as a tool of comparative
analysis as they grappled with the meaning of King Dingane in contem-
porary South Africa. Furthermore, Ngubane’s Africanist approach as
opposed to the Zulu ethnic nationalist approach accentuated by Magema
Fuze during the early twentieth century was influenced by the rise in
stature of the ANC Youth League during the 1940s. The African intel-
lectual nationalists also vigorously challenged the widely held view that
South African historiography was an enclave dominated by a political
debate among white (European) males.

SELOPE THEMA: KING DINGANE, ‘THE PATRIOT’,

1916 TO THE LATE 1940S
Selope Thema was one of the first African nationalists who consciously
attempted to formulate a positive image of King Dingane. From his
unpublished autobiography, we are able to construct a summary of his

© The Author(s) 2017 167

S.M. Ndlovu, African Perspectives of King Dingane kaSenzangakhona,
African Histories and Modernities, DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-56787-7_6
168 S.M. NDLOVU

life experiences.1 He was born in 1886 at Mafarane in the then South

African republic. As a young boy, he was a cattle herder and a child
labourer for a Boer family. As an adult, he worked as a cleaner and mes-
senger, a ‘nurse boy’, looking after white children, a ‘kitchen boy’, a
clerk at the Johannesburg pass office and a recruitment officer for min-
ing houses. He also served as an unarmed auxiliary for both the English
and Boers during the South African War. He qualified as a teacher at
Lovedale in 1910, with history his favourite subject. His classmates soon
nicknamed him ‘the historian’.2 He asserts that he was influenced by
the works of Edmund Burke, William Pitt, Macaulay and Thomas Pain
and Edward Gibbon’s Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire was one of his
favourite books. He was a staunch Christian who believed that he had
risen ‘from barbarism to civilisation as the result of the indomitable cour-
age of roman Catholic Church Missionaries’ and that humanity owed a
debt of gratitude to the missionary enterprise.3
However, between 1912 and 1920 he rebelled against the church
and the missionaries and became increasingly anti-white because of his
experiences as a clerk at the pass office in Johannesburg and in the min-
ing houses’ recruitment office, where he saw the brutal maltreatment
meted out to Africans. His belief that Africans were treated as sojourn-
ers in their own land stirred his soul and fired his imagination. He was
also disappointed by the formation of the Union of South Africa in 1910
and the racial laws which underpinned it, including the laws on carrying
passes, the riotous Assemblies Act, the 1913 Land Act and the stringent
laws that governed relations between master and servant. He was also
critical of oppressive taxation and the fact that the white man’s word was
the ‘gospel truth’ in South African courts to the detriment of Africans.4
Thema regarded the white rule as organised tyranny over African
people and felt there was no alternative but to ‘take up the assegai and
declare war’ to ‘wipe out the white race’.5 Intellectuals like Thema were
aware of the process of structural underdevelopment, aggravated by a
series of natural epidemics and disasters, which undermined the econ-
omies of most of southern Africa’s black reserves where Africans were
obliged to make their homes. These intellectuals were also acutely aware
of the contradictions between the white capitalist economy, the pre-
capitalist modes of production in the reserves and the more permanent
displacement of labour into the capitalist sector, which fermented the
desire for upward mobility in the mines, and the corresponding resent-
ment of the job colour bar.
 6 AFrICAN NATIONALISTS AND CONTENDING PErSPECTIVES … 169

In 1915, Thema was elected general-secretary of the South African

National Native Congress (SANNC) and soon joined the Bantu
Debating Union, a group he described as full of patriotism and national-
ism as its members resisted in every possible way the oppression of the
black race. Most of the group’s lectures and essays dealt with the great
African monarchs of the past: Moshoeshoe, Shaka, Dingane, Sandile,
Cetshwayo, Sekhukhune, Moroka, Ndlambe and Lobengula.
In 1916, the debating union entrusted to him the writing of a paper
on King Dingane to be presented during one of their discussions.
Commenting on this, he wrote, ‘in those days I was a rabid racialist, a
radical writer who called a spade a spade’.6 The paper was delivered to an
influential social gathering of Africans in Durban on 16 December 1916
(the so-called Dingaan’s Day). In it, he depicted the king as a ‘great war-
rior and patriot’.7 He went further than any other writer of the time
to rehabilitate King Dingane’s reputation, calling him a ‘great man’, a
‘famous man’ and a ‘noble ancestor’.8 He saw King Dingane as one of
the foremost African freedom fighters, who staunchly defended his peo-
ple and his land. Various themes underpinned his representation, includ-
ing justice, identity, nationalism, colonisation, equality, race and racism,
and he openly embraced African nationalism:

I must congratulate the promoters of this function for having made the
arrangement that on the eve of what is known in history as ‘Dingane’s
Day’ we should meet here to remind one another of the great deeds of
our Ancestors who, like romans of old, ‘faced fearful odds for the ashes of
their fathers and the Temples of their Gods’ and who for Bantu freedom
‘spared neither gold, nor son nor wife, nor limb nor life, in the brave days
of the old’.9

His historic sense and historical consciousness made him aware of other
societies that could be compared and contrasted with ours. He absolved
King Dingane of any wrongdoing by comparing him with prominent
‘European’ leaders and selecting appropriate epochs of European his-
tory. Like Johannes Nkosi and other African workers, Thema’s perspec-
tive of the king (articulated in the quote below) was produced outside the
confines and limits of King Dingane’s established archive that had been
consolidated by the 1920s. Moreover, by adopting this position, Thema
highlighted the way history is a representation of the past in the present.
According to Thema, the Zulu monarch, in his very inhumanity, belonged
170 S.M. NDLOVU

to a league of ‘great white men’ like Napoleon and Julius Caesar. Thema
believed African people were not uniquely cruel; that cruelty and savagery
knew no colour bar or geographical boundaries and were common to all
societies on earth. He challenged the view that European conquerors/
land-grabbers were inherently civilised compared with Africans:

It is evident at the outset that Dingane was ambitious, and of course ambi-
tion is often accompanied by cruelty. When Nebuchadnezzar, the king of
Babylon, became ambitious of making Babylon a great empire he did not
hesitate to torture to death those who stood in his way … The great Julius
Caesar showed no mercy but inhuman cruelty to the inhabitants of Gaul.
William the Conqueror kicked the Britons out of his way and deprived
them of their land … Napoleon Bonaparte devastated Europe for no other
purpose than that of self-aggrandisement and to satisfy his ambition. These
are some of the greatest men in the History of the World, and yet they are
inseparably connected with cruelty. It is no wonder then that Dingane’s
ambition was closely associated with cruelty which sometimes amounted to
inhumanity.10

In his autobiography, Thema wrote that the history of the African peo-
ple was often written with prejudice. Everything was severely criticised
and stigmatised as cruel: the wars they fought against whites in defence
of their country were condemned as wars waged solely for the purpose
of plundering white farms. No good ‘words were said about our rul-
ers, they were depicted as tyrants who ruled with iron rods’.11 Thema
also considered King Dingane a patriot and a founding father of African
nationalism. He disputed the notion that the death of Piet retief and his
party was an act of treachery and murder, portraying it instead as a posi-
tive strategy because national security and land were at stake. Therefore,
King Dingane:

Like all great men chose the latter course [to kill retief and party] and
thus committed an act which in itself may be treachery and a serious crime
but which was destined to save the Zulu nation from destruction and slav-
ery … I hope your admiration of Dingane is not prompted by his merciless
murder of the Emigrant Farmers, but by his patriotism.12

Thema goes on to note that:

Dingane is known in history as a treacherous savage who killed men to

satisfy his thirst for blood … But all great men of nations and races have
 6 AFrICAN NATIONALISTS AND CONTENDING PErSPECTIVES … 171

been inseparably associated with it under some form or other. The fact is
where nations or races are concerned treachery must be resorted to. …
Thus when Dingane ordered the slaughter of these unfortunate farmers,
he did not consider their interests but those of the Zulu nation. There is
no moral code recognised by nations in their relations with each other.
The strong bullies the weak and annexes at its will [Germany, World War
1?] … Treachery is justifiable where nations are concerned … the preserva-
tion of the race etc., justifies war, murder and other treacherous acts.13

Unlike Zuluist ethnic nationalists such as Fuze and Dube whose opin-
ions are analysed in Chap. 4, Thema regarded King Dingane as an astute,
able and intelligent leader who was neither self-centred nor selfish. He
claimed that the king fought for the freedom and liberty of all Africans
by defending his sovereign state. The king, as a patriot, safeguarded
national interests at all costs for he had the interests of his subjects at
heart. He fought for the preservation of the black race and black peo-
ples and the land, as Thema the African nationalist put it, of ‘the Bantu
tribes north of the Orange river’, against the tyranny of white people
in general. By using the past to comprehend the present, he used King
Dingane to enable him to understand the social, economic and politi-
cal plights of the oppressed African majority. Thema explains the past in
terms of historical evidence and the context in which history is produced.
Thema’s radical position during the First World War was influenced
by many factors. In part, his viewpoint, presented on behalf of the
Debating Union in 1916, was a reaction to the now dominant Afrikaner
Nationalist orthodoxy and propaganda by those such as Gustav Preller in
Afrikaner newspapers and cultural circles, particularly with reference to
the celebration of ‘Dingaan’s Day’ as discussed in the previous chapter.
This anti-King Dingane view also permeated best-selling historical texts
that Preller and his ilk published on the Voortrekkers, notably their mar-
tyr Piet retief.
Other factors also radicalised African intellectuals and black politics
during the war years. The obvious ones, which Thema’s life history illu-
minates, were the 1913 Land Act and the growing impoverishment of
the reserves (whether this is explained in terms of structural underde-
velopment or merely the effects of drought) and the growth of a con-
centrated black proletariat as a result of the secondary industrialisation
promoted by the war. Then, too, there were other concomitant issues
such as the shortage of housing and the emergence of the teeming
urban slums; the steep rise in the cost of living during the war and the
172 S.M. NDLOVU

simultaneous pegging of black wages at pre-First World War levels; vari-

ous direct and indirect taxation of Africans’ earnings; and the continued
inflexibility of the job colour bar.14
To explain the changes in the lives of African intellectuals like Thema,
Bonner, among others, suggests that the ideology of this class, which
existed between the two dominant relations of production, tended to
fluctuate according to pressures exerted on it by the two contending
classes. During the years 1916–1920, there was a radicalised African
‘petit bourgeoisie’ whose ideology was articulated by the working class;
a middle section which vacillated continually and experienced an identity
crisis in response to the contradictory pulls of capital, state and African
working class; and the more established, affluent, reactionary section
that sustained an ideology articulated with that of the ruling class. Each
of these factors appears to have played a part in neutralising the African
‘petit bourgeoisie’ and de-radicalising this group as the 1920s wore on.15
Selope Thema’s point about history being abused for ideological pur-
poses by Europeans and whites in general is also published in an arti-
cle he wrote for aBantu-Batho on 16 December 1920. In this article, an
extension of a Bantu Debating Union lecture which was published by
iLanga lase Natal in 1916, Thema identified ‘Blood river’ monument
in Vryheid and Paard[e]kraal monument in Krugersdorp as heritage sites
utilised by ‘jubilant white South Africa’ at the commemoration of the
events of 16 December. It was not certain, he wrote, whether the mem-
orabilia that would be used for these celebrations would be the Union
Jack or the Vierkleur (the flag of the old Transvaal republic). The choice
would depend on whether the group was English or Afrikaans speaking.
He predicted that some white politicians and journalists would abuse
this racially charged event to appeal for the unity of ‘the two white races’
and, in the process, highlight the danger of ‘future Dingana’, meaning,
African leaders.16
The historical context used by Thema to explain ‘such rejoicing
among the white’ minority did not rely solely on established African oral
traditions. It included global historical events, and therefore, Thema was
able to contextualise South African history within the realms of world
history. He maintained that South Africa was not isolated from the
global world and used the history of slavery, the despicable inhuman
act of selling and buying human beings as private property, as a start-
ing point for his argument. He identified the abolition of slavery in the
British Empire in 1838 as an act of humanity influenced by the noble
 6 AFrICAN NATIONALISTS AND CONTENDING PErSPECTIVES … 173

ideals of such men as Lord Broughman, Wilberforce and Buxton. But

there were problems, Thema pointed out, because ‘to compensate slave
owners a sum of twenty million pounds was voted for but payable in
London’ and Boer slave owners were not able to go to London to sub-
mit their claims.17 Therefore, because of unresolved issues linked to the
globalisation of the London-controlled financial system, the Boers con-
tinued to disregard the humanity of Africans.
Thema identifies the voracious quest for land and labour as the driv-
ing force that led to Piet retief and his followers leaving the British-
controlled Cape Colony. He argues that ‘the Old Boers—as it is the case
even today—looked upon the Africans as their valuable property and
depended for their livelihood on their labour’. As the liberation of slaves
took place on 3 December 1838, retief and his followers had no option
but to leave the Cape Colony and search for greener pastures elsewhere
where they could secure slave labour from among the indigenous pop-
ulation. According to Thema, these concerns were reflected in retief’s
Manifesto, in which he stated,

… we are resolved, whenever we go, that we will uphold the just principles
of liberty; but, whilst we will take care that no one shall be held in a state
of slavery, it is our determination to maintain such regulations as may sup-
press crime, and preserve proper relations between master and servant.18

Thema correctly observes that the Boers’ racism and social Darwinism
influenced their attitude to Africans, for they ‘they left the Cape in full
belief that they were masters of the unknown native tribes beyond the
boundaries of the British Empire, and that they had a right to occupy
their lands and make them their servants’. It was, wrote Thema, ‘in this
spirit that they crossed the Orange river and climbed the Drakensberg
mountains into Natal’.19
Thema’s historical interpretation of the confrontation between King
Dingane and the Voortrekkers moves from world history to South
African historiography. He was also familiar with the history of his peo-
ple because he also explained the confrontation within the limits of the
oral traditions constructed by African public intellectuals during the
nineteenth century and first recorded in Izindatyana zabantu in 1858.
Thema emphasised the point that when the Voortrekkers arrived in
the Zulu Kingdom, they met reverend Owen of the American Board
Mission. As African oral traditions suggest, King Dingane was tipped off
174 S.M. NDLOVU

by Owen and Hlambamanzi about the dangers that the Voortrekkers

represented. Thema uses the oral traditions about the armoury possessed
by the white invaders and presents a variation of Tununu’s eyewitness
account which postulated that the decision to execute the Voortrekkers
was taken only after King Dingane had had first-hand experience of
the technological advantages of the guns at their disposal when he saw
them stage a mock battle during their first visit to uMgungundhlovu.
According to Thema, ‘there can be no doubt that they did this in order
to strike terror into the hearts of Zulu people and to impress the fact that
the white man was a far superior being than they’.20
The second oral tradition Thema used to explain the confrontation
between King Dingane and the Voortrekkers relates to the Batlokwa
king, Segonyela, and the cattle he captured from the Zulu Kingdom
during a raid. The Voortrekkers were instructed to reclaim the cat-
tle on behalf of the Zulu king. According to African oral tradition, the
cattle issue involving the Batlokwa and their king was cunningly used
by Dingane to test the Boers’ integrity. He also uses the pro-conquest
prophecy attributed to Shaka to consolidate his viewpoint.
In interpreting King Shaka’s pro-conquest ‘prophecy’, Thema asserts
that ‘it is stated in history when Dingana and Mpanda killed Chaka, that
dying monarch declared that they would not inherit the country as peo-
ple with long hair would come and take it away from them’.21 As dis-
cussed elsewhere in this book, there are various published versions of
the death of King Shaka. It is important to note that Prince Mpande is
not listed as a conspirator in most of the oral traditions. According to
Thema, Piet retief and the Voortrekkers represented the ‘people with
long hair’. Thema, like his contemporaries, including rolfes Dhlomo
and Dube, continued to perpetuate the myth, noting that ‘now can it
be doubted that the slaughter of thousands of natives who attempted to
resist invasion of their country by the Boers brought it home to Dingana
that the Boers were the people spoken of by Chaka in 1828?’22 In Chap.
3 of this book, I analyse the story of King Shaka’s deathbed prophecy
about the swallows (and locusts), arguing that it illustrates both the con-
scious and unconscious shaping of opinion and African traditions by
influential external forces, represented, in this instance, by Europeans.
In his 1920 article, Thema, like H.I.E. Dhlomo and others, chal-
lenged the portrayal, in various texts, of King Dingane as a backward,
uncouth, savage and barbarian who killed white people for no apparent
reason. There are, Thema wrote, ‘people who say that he [King Dingane]
 6 AFrICAN NATIONALISTS AND CONTENDING PErSPECTIVES … 175

ordered the cruel murder of Piet retief because he was bloodthirsty and
because the victims were white men’. rejecting this assertion, he asked:
‘Now if these were the reasons, why did he not order the killing of
reverend Mr Owen and that of the English settlement at Durban which
was allowed to reside there during the reign of Chaka?’23 The answer
to this question, as I have highlighted elsewhere, is that the king’s rela-
tionship with white settlers was a variable, dynamic relationship which
changed during the period of his reign.
Selope Thema reasoned that there must be other causal factors, not
recorded in history, which influenced King Dingane to ‘mercilessly
murder poor Piet retief and his unfortunate followers’. Taking into
consideration the fact that the Zulu monarch allowed white mission-
aries to leave peacefully among his subjects, Thema offered the view it
was the unbridled racism and racist behaviour of the white settler soci-
ety, expressed through the basic tenets of social Darwinism that led
to their annihilation. It was the Voortrekkers’ belief that they ‘were
Chosen People predestined by God to enslave the native tribes, even as
the Israelites enslaved the Canaanites’. retief and his followers, Thema
continued, ‘acted in a manner which provoked him [King Dingane] and
forced him to commit acts which in themselves were acts of cruelty’.24
It is also important to note Thema, as an intellectual, based his argu-
ment on wide raging analysis, interpretation and synthesis of world his-
tory which leads him to establish a co-relation between historical events
which took place in southern Africa and other parts of the world. By
using the past in order to understand the present, Thema was conscious
that history has present meanings; that it rests with the present, varies
with the present and, in fact, is the present. He was aware of the machi-
nations of white authors who adopted literary strategies formulated by
imperialist and settler ideologues to write about the past in twentieth-
century South Africa. He highlighted this point by arguing that no moral
code exists between nations and races:

Even the ‘civilised’ nations of today, who ought to know better than the
uncivilised Zulu nation of the days of Dingane, are devoid of moral consid-
eration for the weak and the small. They are out to exploit them for their
material benefit, and if the weak protest only in words … machine guns are
brought into play and defenceless men, women and children are massacred
without mercy. Only last year, the most foremost nation of the twentieth-
century civilisation [Britain] ordered the massacre of helpless men, women
and children at Amritsar in India’.25
176 S.M. NDLOVU

Similarly, in South Africa, during a protest against pass laws led by the
ANC and again during the African miners’ strike in 1919, Thema under-
stood that:

… policemen belonging to a ‘civilised race’ rode over women and chil-

dren in front of the Court House. At Marquard the same thing happened.
The atrocities committed by ‘civilised white man’ at the Village Deep and
Vrededorp during the recent native miners’ strike, and at Port Elizabeth
recently are an eloquent proof that there is no moral code between nations
and races. That is to say, humanity has not yet reached that stage of devel-
opment where acts of cruelty will be denounced by the general public.
Today people will only be shocked by the massacre of persons if the mas-
sacred people are of their kith and kin. If they belong to another race they
laugh and say ‘served them right’.

Thema was conscious of the fact that in order to finally defeat King
Dingane, the white settlers were helped by the then Prince Mpande and
‘some Englishmen and other Natives’ in 1840. As a result, he called
for the counter-commemoration of 16 December as ‘a day of national
humility and prayer’. Here, Thema elaborated the point that King
Dingane was defeated through the effort of his younger brother, Prince
Mpande, at Maqongqo in 1840, and the actual date of that decisive bat-
tle was not 16 December 1838. But the unflinching Thema also viewed
history in teleological and deterministic terms, referring to King Dingane
as one of the foremost freedom fighters, who resisted the might of the
white alien invaders. He did this by positing the view that ‘not only that
today we are suffering because of the sins of Dingane and others who in
the brave days of old resisted an invasion of their fatherland by aliens. Let
us think of Dingane not only as a “savage murderer” but as one of our
kings who in his own way struggled for the freedom of this land’.26
The theme of King Shaka and King Dingane as mirror images con-
tinued to be expressed on various platforms during this period. Selope
Thema wrote an article for iLanga in which he questioned Shaka’s vio-
lent strategy when dealing with the question of African unity and free-
dom. Unlike his sibling, Dingane did not use violence against his own
people, but he was confrontational against white invaders. Comparing
the ‘great’ King Shaka to Napoleon Bonaparte, Thema noted:

Napoleon actuated by motives of self-aggrandisement did not hesitate to

plunge all Europe into a destructive war, and the same thing is happening
 6 AFrICAN NATIONALISTS AND CONTENDING PErSPECTIVES … 177

to-day. During the Napoleonic struggle the Bantu passed through a

similar process. Tshaka, one of our revered Princes, prompted by similar
motives, aimed at uniting all the different tribes of the Bantu race under
his power.27

Others differed with Thema, pointing out that compared to King

Dingane’s confrontational manner against white invaders, King Shaka
had adopted a diplomatic approach for he was conscious of the destruc-
tive power which they held—including the technological advantage of
their weapons. Such reasoning paved the way for the divergent views
and heated debates about the two siblings. Hence, Skota’s assertion
that ‘Dingane had not the military genius of Shaka, nor the vision of
the great African empire, the Empire that his brother had eagerly fought
for, even to the extent of earning for himself the name of “Shaka the
Terrible”’.28 Credo Mutwa, on the other hand, considered that King
Shaka was a dupe: ‘Shaka was an even worse chief than Dingana, a mad-
man and a tyrant who, the history books inform us, was the greatest the
Zulu we ever had—probably because he never once offered resistance to
European encroachment’.29
It is important to note that Skota’s perspective of King Dingane
changed with time. In 1929, for instance, he maintained that the king
had a great vision that he was committed to the future of Africans in
South Africa. According to Skota, who was Thema’s contemporary, the
king was in the same league as Francis Drake, robert Clive and John
Hawkins, whom he defined as unrepentant thieves but great nation-
builders of the British Empire. In an article published in Abantu-Batho,
Skota wrote:

The future of the Bantu is not at all obscure. All prophets [black and
white] are in agreement that the Bantus are steadily and surely ascending
the ladder … of human ambition … friends of ours [whites] never tell us
that Sir Francis Drake, John Hawkins and robert Clive were robbers and
thieves. They teach our children to admire them as builders of the British
Empire. Are we going to believe that Dingane unreasonably murdered
the Dutch? Surely Dingane was a human being with human instincts [as a
builder of the Zulu Empire].30

In the 1930s, as one of the editors of The Bantu World, Thema contin-
ued to pursue his interest in King Dingane. Although the articles written
during that period remained nationalistic in approach, they were milder
178 S.M. NDLOVU

than his earlier articles and conformed to the ‘official’ ANC position on
the counter-commemoration of Dingaan’s Day articulated by Seme and
other conservative leaders of the ANC and analysed in Chap. 4. Thema
now adopted a deterministic approach to history, tacitly portrayed the
Zulu monarch as a ‘cruel barbarian’. By 1933, he seemed to agree with
most members of the educated African elite that white men had brought
‘civilisation’ to South Africa’s shores, for which Africans should be
grateful.
He pointed out, however, that Prince Mpande had played a significant
role in the defeat of King Dingane, not white Voortrekkers, and should
be honoured for his role. He also highlighted the part played by other
black people who helped the Voortrekkers in their struggles against King
Dingane, suggesting that their help should also be acknowledged. He
further suggested that 16 December should be purged of racism and rac-
ist elements and become a Day of reconciliation [as it has become since
April 1994] between blacks and whites.31
By proposing that 16 December be perceived as a Day of
reconciliation, Thema was championing a particular brand of historical
discourse. The major question was what form of patriotism should be
adopted: should it be a story of achievement, advancement, enlighten-
ment? Or should it emphasise a dark side—racism, exploitation, suffer-
ing, poverty? Although he acknowledged the negative side, he seemed
to prefer a positive attitude. As patriots, he argued, Africans should focus
on achievements and enlightenment for a better future. He saw history
as progress and his concept of what he saw as patriotic history accepted
that the Union of South Africa, as a modern nation, should use his-
tory to build a sense of national identity and promote social cohesion
by constructing an image of a common past designed to cement group
cohesion and build solidarity. This undermined what he believed King
Dingane stood for, namely ‘uncivilised’ traditional hierarchy.
Thema explained his change in attitude as an outcome of a meet-
ing held in 1921 with the Education Commission from the USA sent
by the Phelps Stokes Foundation and comprising Dr Henry Stanley
Hollenbeck, Dr Thomas Jesse Jones and Dr James Emmanuel Kwegyr
Aggrey. He was to comment that ‘they brought to this country the
gospel of inter-racial goodwill’.32 He was profoundly impressed that
they represented ‘the three dominant races of South Africa’—Africans,
Afrikaners and the English. Thema claimed that Dr Aggrey, as an African
 6 AFrICAN NATIONALISTS AND CONTENDING PErSPECTIVES … 179

American leader with Ghanaian roots, advised and influenced Africans to

work with their white counterparts:

So when an informal meeting between certain prominent Europeans and

Bantu leaders took place at the Tin Temple; I attended and actually voted
in favour of the establishment of what is known as the Joint Council of
Europeans and Africans. That night I discovered that the white man was
human and not all wrong … It was an opportunity to purify ourselves.33

Most of the commentary and editorials found in the Bantu World34 (the
paper Thema established with two white men, D.G. Pare and Izaak le
Grange, in 1932) during the 1930s, and the Second World War years
were similar to the ‘new’ Selope Thema viewpoint. They interpreted the
past according to the idea of progress, hoping that the moral and mate-
rial improvement of society could be based on identifying the mistakes
of the past, in order to avoid them in the future and thus to build a new
nation.
There are other reasons for Thema’s changing outlook. One reason
was the decline of working class agitation from 1921 when unemploy-
ment set in. The petit bourgeois shared the experience of oppression
with the African working class was tested in various ways which detached
them from maintaining a broader alliance with this working class. This
is best exemplified by Selope Thema’s reformist initiative of becoming a
member of the Joint Councils. Lamenting the changes in Thema’s life,
Jordan Ngubane wrote a grudgingly positive tribute in 1946:

To most people he is and rightly too a retiring intellectual giant, who spans
the gap between our immediate past and our present … His writings today
certainly reveal very little of the brilliant journalist who made and pulled
down Congress (ANC) Presidents for a quarter of century. They [Thema’s
writings] have lost their virility, nationalistic force and are not, one might
add, very convincing. He writes merely not to lag behind the main current
he, among others, set in motion thirty years ago … To me, Mr Thema
is one of the greatest sons we, the African people, have produced … he
fought valiantly as Dingane’s warriors at the battle of Ncome. When the
fortunes of political war changed, he did not lose faith in the cause he had
given life to advance, he laid down the old weapons, put on new armour
even if some people did not like it—employed some new action to hold
the fort.35
180 S.M. NDLOVU

In this tribute, Ngubane aptly captures key features of Thema and of

inter-war African nationalism on the rand and its perception of the
African past. This was a nationalism imbued with mission Christianity
and its qualified racial tolerance. It was also a nationalism that recognised
that it had lost the war of arms and had no option but to use the weap-
ons of reasoned argument. It was an African nationalism distinguished by
high intellectual distinction and other political disempowerment. It was
a nationalism and world that the likes of Herbert Dhlomo found impos-
sible to accept or inhabit.

HERBERT DHLOMO: KING DINGANE ‘THE ASSERTIVE PATRIOT’

Another prominent African nationalist writer who, like the young and
radical Thema, maintained an unwavering and uncompromising pro-
Dingane position was Herbert Dhlomo, the younger brother of rolfes
Dhlomo. He is a figure of great interest: a playwright, journalist, author
and power broker within the ANC.36 Dhlomo was born in 1905 in the
village of Siyama near Pietermaritzburg. In the 1930s, he was appointed
to the staff of the Bantu World, and in the 1940s, he joined the editorial
staff of iLanga lase Natal where he worked with his elder brother.
Herbert Dhlomo’s reconstruction of some traditional Zulu plays, of
which izibongo were alleged to be small remaining parts, was both crea-
tive and an exercise in writing an alternative, empowering history.37 He
traced the origins of African drama to the ‘rituals’ performed in ‘pre-
contact’ times and argued that these dramas were ‘national’ and formed
part of the social struggles of the community, particularly its desire to
have much food, many children and to conquer in battle.38 He argued
that drama was a social art, and society was social and communistic.
Functions such as religious festivals, funeral rites, hunting, performance
and dancing ceremonies were, in a way, the counterparts, the beginnings
of a theatre. Here, one could find ‘models of dramatic expressions—
some people joyful, others sad; now all were expectant and restless, all
were happy and indifferent, according to the vagaries of Fate or the com-
mands of the chiefs’. In these festivals, the people freely used their pow-
ers of mimicry, emotion, gesticulation and simulation. All this made the
‘tribal’ African an accomplished performer. Dhlomo further argued that
a life of oppression, uncertainty and varying shades of fortune had made
the African a skilled actor:
 6 AFrICAN NATIONALISTS AND CONTENDING PErSPECTIVES … 181

How often one hears [white] people say the African is happy and carefree
because he smiles – ignorant of the fact that behind those smiles and calm
expression lie a rebellious soul, a restless mind, a bleeding heart, stupen-
dous ambition, the highest aspirations, grim determination, a clear grasp of
facts and situation, grim resolve, a will to live.39

In an article published in Bantu Studies in March 1939, Herbert

Dhlomo informed his readers that the preservation of ‘archaic’ tradi-
tional art forms by grafting them onto modern works was crucial, ‘just
like what scholars have done for Hebrew, Egyptian and Greek litera-
ture’.40 He therefore deployed these traditional art forms in the modern
works of isiZulu literature. This is evident in the manuscript of his popu-
lar historical drama about King Dingane,41 written in 1936, and various
articles published in iLanga, which was entirely written by rolfes, the
newspaper’s editor, and himself.42 rolfes was 4 years older than Herbert
and somewhat more conservative politically. Herbert was associated with
the formation of the ANC Youth League, while rolfes was a conservative
stalwart of the main movement.
Writing in the 1930s and 1940s, the younger Dhlomo depicted King
Dingane as a hero and an astute African leader with a vision, who led
the struggle against the tyranny of the white settlers who wanted to
usurp the land that belonged to Africans. For populist reasons, he chose
to represent the Zulu monarch in an historical drama, believing that
‘[d]rama reaches the masses. Even people who are not well educated can
appreciate dramatic representation’.43 He further argued that modern
drama was not merely entertainment but a source of ideas, a cultural and
educational centre, an agency for propaganda, a social institution and
literature.44 Herbert Dhlomo’s representation of the king can thus be
interpreted as a consolidation of the ‘new era’ or African ‘renaissance’ in
which he believed.
His work on King Dingane was an empowering, overtly nationalis-
tic enterprise, reclaiming parts of the past and ancestors and historical
heroes who had been disregarded by the dominant white culture, indoc-
trination and ideology. He argued that ‘we want African playwrights
who will dramatise and expound a philosophy of our history. We want
dramatic representations of African Oppression, Emancipation and
Evolution’.45 His historical drama on King Dingane was also predicated
on these beliefs.
182 S.M. NDLOVU

Addressing himself to the continuities and divergences between the

past and the present, he admitted that the African dramatist could not
delve into the past without first grasping the present.46 He suggested
that African artists should not ‘discard the great virgin fertile fields of
our Tribal heroes, Kings and gods, our rich mythology, our great and
glorious scenery’.47 He believed that the educated African had an impor-
tant role, interpreting African culture to the world, grafting the old to
the new, leading his people and acting as interpreter between black and
white. He wanted to prove that the African is as good as anyone else in
all walks of life. To do this, he had to de-emphasise the negative perspec-
tives of the Zulu monarch and create a new image of a good king (as ‘the
new African’) who battled against the oppression of Africans by whites
and fought for their emancipation by engaging the settlers in various
military conflicts. The king, an assertive ‘patriot’, epitomised the ‘new
Africa’.48
Herbert Dhlomo’s historical drama and articles can best be described
as a critique of his elder brother’s historical fiction, beliefs and attitudes
or as a counter-narrative about King Dingane. As we have seen, rolfes,
unlike Herbert, treated King Dingane’s reign, and his role in history, as
troublesome and was inclined to dismiss it as barbaric. Herbert com-
pletely disagreed with such demeaning and destructive judgements, as is
evident from his representation of King Dingane in his play. He portrays
the king as a martyr, a genius and a hero of African liberation because
of his resistance to white encroachment and his generally uncompromis-
ing attitude to white rule. The play revolves around the importance of
unity among Africans if liberation is to be achieved. Strongly inferred as
well is the rejection of any alliance between Africans and whites, since the
whites are unreliable.49 He rejected the European’s image of Africa and
its inhabitants, an image that he believed was rooted in arrogance, igno-
rance, misunderstanding and prejudice:

The European historian was handicapped by preconceived ideas and exist-

ing prejudices. He could not enter into the mind, aspirations and the feel-
ings of the black people of whom he wrote … In South Africa the activities
of the great African geniuses and heroes such as Dingane, Moshoeshoe,
Shaka, Nongqause and others are treated superficially and dismissed as
barbaric. The social, … everyday life of the people is shamefully neglected
or misconstrued. Therefore constant research, frequent revision, open-
mindedness and industry are required if we want to keep our historical
facts up to date.50
 6 AFrICAN NATIONALISTS AND CONTENDING PErSPECTIVES … 183

He lambasted European historians for ‘worshipping at the shrine of

Colour and “Science” and for only succeeding in producing colour-
ful and pseudoscientific race-based doctrines for which they [were] pre-
pared to lay [down] their lives’.51 Herbert Dhlomo believed that behind
our action stands a complex human mechanism. What was seen on the
external screen of exterior human behaviour was but a shadow, a reflec-
tion which was ephemeral and deceitful. The real human drama lays deep
in human fears and hopes, desires and inhibitions, thoughts and emo-
tions.52 In his view, this was the key to understanding King Dingane’s
actions towards the white invaders, a conspicuous point that heavily
influenced the script of his play.
What separates radical African nationalists from conservative Zulu
nationalists is their uncompromising, if qualified, support for King
Dingane’s attitude to white colonisers. In Herbert Dhlomo’s play/
drama, the king is depicted in subtle terms as a martyr who had to fight
the threat posed by the sly land-grabbers.53 During an emergency meet-
ing called by the king, Nzobo, one of the king’s prime ministers, notes
succinctly:

Ndabezitha! I do not see clearly into this matter, this strange Boer request
for land. They speak as if when it is given to them the land will actually be
theirs. They seem not to realise that the king holds the land in trust for the
nation, for the great ancestors, for the generations to come, and that he
may allot it to any person who in turn holds it for the nation.54

The comment by the famous and robust warrior, Bongoza kaNgcobo,

on the same issue was in much the same vein. The script reads: ‘Boers
have one aim only—land and cattle, the very things that are the soul of
our race. They have also come in great numbers like invaders. I smell
dust, sister of my father!’55 To this, the character representing King
Dingane responds: ‘I will do what any other king would do. I mean that
if the Boers are after land and power, I will resist them’.56
The representations and appropriations of King Dingane by Herbert
Dhlomo, radical, young Selope Thema and Petros Lamula (discussed in
Chap. 4) questioned the conventional depiction of colonial conquest and
showed the importance of African resistance to the achievement of lib-
eration. African nationalists like Herbert Dhlomo claimed that the events
that led up to what the Boers called Battle of Blood river were based on
suspicion and the fear of conquest by European colonisers. These radical
184 S.M. NDLOVU

nationalists argued that King Dingane was intelligent enough to know

that the Voortrekkers enslaved, ill-treated and disregarded other peoples’
cultural practices because they claimed to be a ‘chosen’ race in search
of the ‘promised land’. Nzobo, one of the king’s political advisor, notes
in the play that ‘they seek the very freedom and independence they are
out to destroy among us! They seek freedom to enslave, independence to
subjugate, honour to dishonour’.57
In the 1940s, Herbert Dhlomo’s thinking underwent a further
change, which coincided with the formation of the ANC Youth League
in 1944. The day after the inaugural meeting of the Natal Youth League
branch, he wrote an editorial in iLanga, headed ‘Let Africans Speak for
Themselves’. He took up his old theme of criticising white ‘experts’ who
monopolised African art and claimed to produce knowledge on behalf
of Africans. This time he went further, arguing that the idea of ubuntu
proclaimed by Anton Lembede (the then leader of the Youth League
and also Jordan Ngubane, his great friend) had become the African phi-
losophy of life. Herbert Dhlomo produced an ideology of art identical
to that of the Youth League, which presumably partly determined the
League’s approach.58 For too long, he contended, the image of King
Dingane had been claimed by white intellectuals and ‘foreign author-
ship’, a group which stood outside the existential location, personal
desire and social perspectives of the African intellectuals. As he put it:

[t]he Africans always feel that the Europeans, no matter how qualified
they are to express learned opinion on these subjects, do not and cannot
reveal the Soul of the African. This can only be done by Africans them-
selves … only Africans themselves given opportunities and means enjoyed
by European experts can reveal the soul of the African to the world … the
African whose Soul yearns to translate the glorious Past into the Present –
the African who longs to reveal the cravings of his soul in creating can only
be discovered by himself.59

During the 1940s, Herbert Dhlomo, as iLanga columnist with the pseu-
donym ‘Busy Bee’, continued to write about King Dingane. In an article
written in February 1947, he argued that the production of history was a
process of negotiation between evidence and interpretation, where many
questions were susceptible to a variety of answers. He stressed that there
was more than one perspective of King Dingane’s reign and, in an article
entitled ‘Zulu Kings’, deliberated on this point.
 6 AFrICAN NATIONALISTS AND CONTENDING PErSPECTIVES … 185

European journalists are reaping a huge harvest by their articles on

the Zulu kings. The subject seems to fascinate the European public …
Dingane alone has a large body of literature written around his episode
with the Trekkers … The country has come to believe in it as told from
this one point of view. But Africans have their own version of the great
epic of the Zulu kings. They maintain that these men were not the brutes
they were painted to have been. They were sane men fighting in defence of
their country, their way of life, their principles. Africans have another story
about the events that led to the death of retief, for instance. And it is fool-
ish to suppress their version of the story … But the truth is that progeny
will – for the Africans are writing down their version, and what is written
will remain written.60

The younger Dhlomo postulated the need to engage in both historical

and cultural retrieval and reconstruction, a process essential to African
resistance and liberation. He, like the younger Selope Thema, his mentor
as a journalist, therefore represented King Dingane as one of the fore-
most freedom fighters and liberators and as a hero like Napoleon and
Hannibal. To a greater extent than any of his intellectual predecessors, he
insisted that writing this history was a task that could only be done effec-
tively by Africans:

The task of interpreting South African history still remains to be done. It

will be done when African writers and thinkers give their point of view.
Historical events mean nothing and can be distorted unless they are given
the right interpretation. So far it has been the European who has been the
interpreter. Conditions being what they are in the country – the traditional
attitudes and stereotypes, the prejudices and the philosophy of inferior and
superior races – it is no wonder that Europeans have given us a one sided
view of history.61

To drive his point home, Dhlomo used King Dingane as a case study:

Take the story of Dingana for example. Here is a mighty epic of nation-
alism. Dingana stood for African nationalism and for an African Empire
that his illustrious brother, Shaka, had built. He did what any other per-
son in his position would have done – to fight the forces of invasion and
disruption … To anyone who knows the facts there was no treachery at
all. It was a question of self-preservation. Dingana’s reign in many ways
shows the Zulus at the height of their tribal culture. Zulu decorative art
was seen in the great, immaculately clean huts whose pillars were decorated
186 S.M. NDLOVU

with beads. Zulu cattle were divided according to their colour and horn-
formation schemes. So were shields. Zulu architecture had devised an
underground system of shelter. Mgungundlovu, the capital, was a great
city with underground houses, a public swimming pool, civic and military
industrial (iron foundries, shield, clay and grass designers etc.) and resi-
dential centres. Zulu folk poetry had reached its acme in Magolwane kaM-
khathini … Dingana was defeated and he had his weaknesses. But so were
Napoleon, Hannibal, and other great soldiers … And that does not mean
they were not heroes.62

The public responded with many letters to the editor, rolfes Dhlomo,
both dissenting and appreciative of his younger brother’s intervention.
Walter B. Nhlapo of Johannesburg, taking a pro-Shaka position, chal-
lenged Herbert Dhlomo’s perspective as he vilified and dismissed King
Dingane. Nhlapo’s sentiments were similar to those of rolfes Dhlomo.
His letter to the editor ended:

To the Africans, Dingane’s Day marks the first step of the downfall of the
greatest empire that might have served Bantus better. This day marked the
beginning of oppression, segregation … the lot of a defeated people.63

By contrast, ‘Zulu Macansi’ (Jordan Ngubane) writing in INkundhla

yaBantu was critical of ‘traitors’ like Nhlapho. He cogently extolled
the greatness of King Dingane.64 ‘X’ (Herbert Dhlomo), replying to
Nhlapho and others in the same issue of iLanga, doubted all that had
been written and said about the king by white writers and historians,
‘but, we repeat, who shall say he knows what really took place in those
far-off tumultuous times?’65
An obvious question is why Herbert Dhlomo’s perspective of King
Dingane was so much at variance with that of rolfes Dhlomo. Only 4
years separated them and both had experienced the tutelage of Dube
and Thema, yet the two brothers subscribed to radically different views.
There is no conclusive answer to this question, but is possible that in
addition to differences in individual personalities, the slight difference
in age led them to respond differently to a transitional decade in South
African politics and society. The contrast between Herbert’s and rolfes’
perceptions of the Zulu monarch serves as a warning against a reduction-
ist understanding of political persuasion or literary production.
In the decade from 1925 to 1935, the Pact government implemented
the ‘civilised labour policies’ which progressively squeezed educated
 6 AFrICAN NATIONALISTS AND CONTENDING PErSPECTIVES … 187

Africans out of many spheres of white-collar work and self-employment.

This legislation in effect accelerated dispossession in white farming areas
and exposed Africans to the ravages of economic depression. The new
Nationalist government under Hertzog, which had been elected on a
‘black peril’ platform, could hardly be accused of adopting a kid glove
approach to ‘native agitators’. It was obsessed not only with snuffing out
the ICU but with clamping down on the increased activities of the com-
munists and the radicalisation of the ANC under Gumede. The African
intellectuals of the mid-1930s, who had witnessed the passage of repres-
sive legislation and the brutal crushing of protest, were in no mood for
uncritical reliance on the Joint Council of Europeans and other ‘friends
of the natives’, as highlighted by Herbert Dhlomo’s brand of radicalism
and African nationalism.
But it is also important to recognise that radical nationalists like
Herbert Dhlomo and Petros Lamula did not have a one-dimensional
view of King Dingane.66 Like the conservative Zulu nationalists such
as John Dube and rolfes Dhlomo, among others, they disagreed with
the way Dingane had usurped the crown from King Shaka.67 They criti-
cised what they perceived as the wanton and senseless killing of his sib-
lings. Herbert Dhlomo in particular considered the king’s paternal aunt,
Queen regent Mnkabayi, to have been the chief conspirator and as hav-
ing had too much power and influence within the Zulu royal house. In
a scene in Herbert Dhlomo’s play, Mnkabayi, after the killing of King
Shaka, advises her nephew, Dingane:

You are not wise enough if your hut still remains unguarded and you can
be overheard. What is good and where is safety when Mhlangana is dis-
satisfied and waiting to plot against you; when Mbopha acts suspiciously
… Kingship and greatness do not go with safety … Mhlangana goes to
the river to bathe tomorrow morning. At the same time I’ll send Mbopha
[King Shaka’s right hand man who sold him out] on a trifling errand –
alone – to Mpande. I hope you will see to it that the errand and the bath-
ing are not accomplished.68

From this passage, one gets the impression that King Dingane was, to
some extent, a weakling who was easily manipulated and too reliant on
his paternal aunt and his political advisors like Nzobo and Dambuza. It
is also noteworthy that in his play Herbert Dhlomo uses a major theme
of John Dube’s historical novel as a sub-theme—Shaka’s alleged curse
188 S.M. NDLOVU

and pro-conquest prophecy, supposedly made on the day he was mur-

dered.69 Dhlomo was also joined by his bosom friend; Jordan Ngubane
is dismissive of the negative portrayal and destructive stereotypes about
King Dingane.

JORDAN NGUBANE: ANC YOUTH LEAGUE IDEOLOGY

AND KING DINGANE—‘THE GREATEST MAN THE ZULU
EVER PRODUCED’70
During the 1930s and 1940s, an astute politician and journalist Jordan
Ngubane developed a historical paradigm that was diametrically opposed
to that of the de-radicalised Selope Thema, John Langalibalele Dube
and rolfes Dhlomo as far as race relations and reconciliation with whites
were concerned. He disagreed with this group’s belief in and support of
the view that the 16 December commemorations celebrated the over-
throw of barbarism. Ngubane’s unwavering support for King Dingane
echoed Herbert Dhlomo’s radical position, and the two were insepara-
ble friends. Influential and controversial, Ngubane played an active role
in Natal and national politics of the ANC for nearly two decades. In
the late 1940s, he helped found the African National Congress Youth
League and in the late 1950s, became the highest-ranking African in the
Liberal Party. He was born in 1917 near Ladysmith in Natal, the son of
a policeman. After receiving his early education in Ladysmith, he entered
Adams College in 1933 where he became friends with Anton Lembede.
On graduating from Adams in 1937, Ngubane was offered the assistant
editorship of John Dube’s newspaper iLanga lase Natal, a position from
which he launched a distinguished career in journalism.
Ngubane moved to Johannesburg in the early 1940s, and while
working with Selope Thema on the Bantu World, his early interest in
politics intensified. He renewed his acquaintance with Lembede and,
through him, met A.P. Mda. The three subsequently became the politi-
cal architects of the ANC Youth League’s emerging ideology. Together
with Lembede, Ngubane wrote the Congress Youth League Manifesto
in 1944. Later that year, he returned to Natal to take up the editorship
of Inkundla yaBantu, then the only South African newspaper owned
entirely by Africans.71 He made the paper the country’s leading forum
for the expression of African political opinion and African nationalism.72
Ntongela Masilela believes that Ngubane’s political portraits of
African leaders in Inkundla yaBantu and Drum magazine in the early
 6 AFrICAN NATIONALISTS AND CONTENDING PErSPECTIVES … 189

1950s defined the new African political intellectual as an African nation-

alist.73 Elsewhere, A.P. Mda gave similar accolades to Ngubane, writing
that ‘the intellectual formidableness of Ngubane comes from his com-
bining and synthesising four critical positions: political analyst, scholar,
thinker and first rate journalist’.74
We can also locate Ngubane’s radical nationalism in his earlier days as
the editor of Inkundhla yaBantu. Some of this newspaper’s editorials and
features ‘viciously’ attacked the role in politics of the educated African
elite, who were deemed to be selling out the African dream of justice,
freedom from minority white rule and domination. For example, in one
of his features as the chief propagandist of the Youth League, he chas-
tised Z.K. Matthews and his elderly peers within the ANC for daring to
oppose the ideology of African nationalism:

Public life has no little attraction to most of his clique, and even if it had
they could never be prepared to walk the thorny and stony way of truth …
the very fact of stressing highly educated leadership will be a brake to our
progress for many years.75

Ngubane criticised Matthews and others despite the fact that Z.K.’s son
Joe Matthews was his political colleague in the ANC Youth League.
Ngubane’s opinion on King Dingane was fundamentally opposed to that
adopted by Zuluists like John Dube and rolfes Dhlomo.76 His pro-King
Dingane position is hardly surprising for he was a close friend of Herbert
Dhlomo. Unlike Dube and rolfes Dhlomo, Ngubane’s and Herbert
Dhlomo’s position personified a fractured national identity. Ngubane
saw historical discourse as subjective, confrontational and devoid of
consensus. He believed that history has meanings in the present and
hence ideological agendas. Additionally, history should not avoid areas
of conflict facing our racially divided society. This permeated the many
articles he wrote for various newspapers, including Inkundla yaBantu,
which he edited in the 1940s. Ngubane’s pro-King Dingane position
was consistent throughout his lifetime, despite his subsequent attach-
ment to the Inkatha Freedom Party later in his life, which, as I will show
in Chap. 7, saw King Dingane as treacherous and weak. In the 1930s,
Ngubane expressed the opinion that the king ‘had to choose between
independence and slavery, and he chose the former’.77 In the December
1944 issue of iNkundla yaBantu, using the pseudonym ‘Zulu Macansi’,
Ngubane commented positively on the king, noting:
190 S.M. NDLOVU

Dingane is becoming a subject of interesting discussion among Africans

– as witness some of the things written about him in … the Natal Press.
Dingane was one of the greatest men the Zulu ever produced. Our so-
called thinkers are poisoned by dirty propaganda from prejudiced white
pens which suggest Dingane was a treacherous beast in human form and
these poisoned Africans … [into believing] that Dingane was an evil man.
He was not of course … When Piet retief came over to Mgungundhlovu
he came armed to the teeth on all occasions. Could your readers tell
me which head of State would tolerate a body of strangers fully armed,
demanding land while at night they conduct exercises, in preparation for
the encirclement of the capital [Mgungundhlovu]… history forced him
[Dingane] to act as he did.78

In the 1970s when he was no longer of the ANC and was at logger-
heads with its leadership, he referred to the Zulu monarch as Dingane
‘the Magnificent’.79 It is evident that Ngubane was conversant with
existing oral traditions relating to King Dingane and the Voortrekkers.
Considerably, later Ngubane reviewed his own intellectual quest in the
following words:

In my search for a satisfying vehicle through which I could tell at least part
of the tragic story behind the vicious power struggle between African and
the Afrikaner in my country, I eventually turned to the patterns of story-
telling [and oral traditions] which my missionary teachers had condemned
and rejected as heathen and barbaric.80

Like Fuze, Dube and rolfes Dhlomo, Ngubane commented on the rela-
tionship between Shaka and Dingane, dismissing the assassination of
King Shaka as common to other societies. Unlike the conservative Zulu
nationalist, he used world history to reach his conclusions. He reached
this conclusion by comparing the assassination to the murder of Julius
Caesar by Brutus. Furthermore, unlike Fuze, Dube and rolfes Dhlomo,
Ngubane disparaged King Shaka’s diplomatic and accommodative pol-
icy towards white settlers as futile. He also referred to King Shaka as
a dupe, ‘the Englishmen’s best friend’. The poor treatment of King
Shaka’s diplomatic envoy, Sotobe, by the British settlers—representative
of the British imperial crown in the Cape Colony—convinced Ngubane
that whites subverted existing African polities. For him, this was enough
evidence for King Dingane to stop the rot and condemn Piet retief to
death:
 6 AFrICAN NATIONALISTS AND CONTENDING PErSPECTIVES … 191

Before Dingane, Shaka had extended the hand of friendship to the white-
men, giving them the right of occupation of land around Bluff, but when
he wanted to establish the hand of friendship with the King of England,
the Englishmen who had received nothing but kindness from him betrayed
him in the coldest manner possible. His envoy, Sotobe went as far as
somewhere about Port Elizabeth where, Zulus say, he was arrested by the
Governor as a Zulu spy and subjected to all forms of insults and humilia-
tion. When this man returned to Zululand, he told this story to Dingane.81

The Youth League manifesto as a policy document proposed that

‘Africans must honour, venerate and find inspiration from African heroes
of the past: Shaka, Moshoeshoe, Makana, Hintsa, Khama, Mzilikazi,
Sekhukhune, Sobhuza and many others [including Dingane]’.82
As mentioned above, Ngubane’s overtly nationalistic perspectives
were influenced by the Youth League’s basic position of African national-
ism. This stated unflinchingly that the starting point of African national-
ism was the historical or even pre-historical position. As a result, Africa
had been and still was the ‘Blackman’s Continent’.83 For this reason, and
unlike the older Thema, Ngubane did not recognise 16 December as a
‘Day of reconciliation’ but instead as a day to claim the lost land and
therefore a ‘Day of Confrontation’. In his historical novel, uShaba: The
Hurtle to Blood River, he discusses the viewpoint that:

Africans prepare quietly for the moment of confrontation; the day of deci-
sion [16 December] for which they have waited for more than three hun-
dred years. In the view of most of them, the coming confrontation has
a profounder significance than a mere clash of colour; it is a conflict of
worlds; history is taking a new turn – the black South Africans prepare to
enter the international community. The world of the white man is at last
on trial, the Africans say. It has been built on arrogance, larceny, lying and
hatred for the African … The white man projected himself as a model of
human perfection; he could plunder and rape and kill in the name of civi-
lisation and Christ. The trail of iniquity stains the history of Europe and
spilled out to Africa, the Americas and Asia.84

Commenting on the land issue and the abuse of history through cul-
tural imperialism and indoctrination, Ngubane emphasised the following
about King Dingane the Magnificent:

The Zulus say their land died when the white man stole it from them; its
children cried out, mourning the death; their tears were the soft moisture
192 S.M. NDLOVU

which would one day summon to life the germ which will reactivate
the land … for more than a hundred years now, [Africans] have been a
swearword in most white homes … their achievements dragged in the
mud. Their history was not taught in their schools … to do that was trea-
son, heathenism and communism … Zulu children were taught about
Herodotus, Julius Caesar, Metternich and Washington. What on earth, the
Zulu protested, do we have to do with these white men? We want our chil-
dren told about the revolution which Shaka the Great led; about the prob-
lems which forced Dingane the Magnificent to execute Piet retief and his
band of land-grabbers.85

Consequently, for Ngubane and radical African intellectual nationalists,

each side took up emotional arms and intellectually, through a battle of
the minds, fought the ‘Battle of Blood river’ all over again. Ngubane
opined that amaZulu and Afrikaners emotionally dug up the bones of
their dead and bludgeoned each other’s political skulls with them. They
hurled defiance at each other, bombarded each other with the humilia-
tions and glories of the past, gloated over each other’s defeat and bared
to the winds the painful, bloodcurdling wounds they cut into each other.
They stoked the fires of history’s accumulated hatreds. On these occa-
sions, according to Ngubane, both sides put aside the callous master–
servant relationship and treated each other as real human beings who
could be very dangerous to each other. No compliments were paid in
these exchanges, except obliquely in the form of bitter denunciations and
mutual insults.86
In the 1940s, Ngubane’s and Lembede’s audiences and ardent sup-
porters in all probability included the young Oliver reginald Tambo,
rolihlahla Nelson Mandela and Mangosuthu Buthelezi. Impressed by
Ngubane’s astuteness and power with the pen and iNkundla yaBan-
tu’s intellectual content and uncompromising political commitment to
African nationalism, Alfred Bitini Xuma, then president of the ANC,
attempted, unsuccessfully, to buy and transform iNkundhla yaBantu
into an ideological organ of the ANC after Seme’s paper, aBantu-Batho,
which had been the party’s official organ, had folded.87
When Ngubane was only 27 years old, President Xuma of the ANC
began to consult with him on critical political matters. Ngubane then
brought Herbert Dhlomo with him into the inner circle of the ANC.
Xuma’s respect for Ngubane may well have emerged from his reading
of Ngubane’s critical appraisal of D. Jabavu’s All African Convention
and P. Mosaka’s African Democratic Party, in Inkundhla yaBantu of 17
 6 AFrICAN NATIONALISTS AND CONTENDING PErSPECTIVES … 193

January 1944.88 The success of Dhlomo and Ngubane in participating in

the defeat of Champion and the subsequent triumph of Albert Luthuli,
thereby ensuring the hegemony of the African nationalism of the Youth
League against communism within the ranks of the ANC, must have
confirmed this belief.89
Jordan Ngubane and his version of the African past was indica-
tive of the new wave of African nationalism, as seen in an editorial in
Inkundla yaBantu in January 1942, titled ‘Marching Youth’. Here, the
old guard of the ANC, which included Thema, is dismissed as ‘old men
of Victorian liberalism [who are] sadly lacking in the full appreciation of
the dangers of dealing with forces of modern power’. To remedy this,
the editor argued, ‘it is necessary, nay very urgent that the African youth
must obtain greater control of the present moribund African National
organisations [the ANC and the trade unions], and turn them into work-
ing concerns’.90 Sound familiar in twenty-first century South Africa?
To conclude, the main argument addressed in this chapter is that his-
tory is inextricably bound to contemporary politics. The historiography
of the rise and fall of the Zulu empire, and particularly the role played
by the first two kings of the Zulu empire, Shaka and Dingane, attests
to this. Many of the ideologically charged debates about King Dingane
were linked by African intellectuals to world history, dating back to
ancient times. The focus here points out that all human beings need a
past, as signified by the wide range of historical sources, literature and
philosophy which influenced narratives propounded by the younger
Thema, Herbert Dhlomo and Ngubane. These African intellectuals were
capable of synthesising Eurocentric sources with African oral traditions
constructed by Magolwane and Tununu, among others.
The articulation of a pro-Dingane position by the younger Thema,
Herbert Dhlomo and Ngubane is premised on the abuse of history
by white South Africans who used the ‘Battle of Blood river’ and the
‘defeat’ of King Dingane as a founding myth of white South Africa.
Theirs was a white nation which excluded the African majority. The
African intellectuals argue that in order to achieve their results, whites
used an identity culture which anchored itself to myths on the African
majority that they dressed up as history. This was achieved through white
nationalism. Hence, they intentionally devised a history that was incor-
rect, one that excluded the majority of the people, and made this an
essential pillar in the formation of white-ruled South Africa. This is why
the progress of African history was seen as a danger to white nationalism
194 S.M. NDLOVU

and white-controlled South Africa whose nationalist version of their his-

tory was based on omission and de-contextualisation, and in extreme
cases—as the young Thema, Herbert Dhlomo and Ngubane attested—
lies about King Dingane and about what happened when he was faced
with threats from white colonisers.
In 1946, Ngubane’s Inkundla yaBantu published Anton Lembede’s
article on the ‘Policy of the Congress Youth League’. This text vehe-
mently castigated white intellectuals and their African dupes who dis-
missed African nationalism and African nationalists. The critique drew
heavily on Ngubane’s 1944 article on King Dingane published in
iNkundla yaBantu, which, in similar vein, denigrated colleagues poi-
soned by what he referred to as ‘dirty propaganda from prejudiced white
pens which suggested King Dingane was a treacherous beast in human
form and an evil man’. Elsewhere, Lembede, in words which had over-
tones of whites’ views of King Dingane, insisted that:

[t]he history of modern times is the history of nationalism … and

[African] nationalism has been tested in the people’s struggles and the
fires of battle and found to be the only effective weapon, the only antidote
against foreign rule and modern imperialism. [This is why the] … imperial-
istic powers feverishly endeavour … to discourage and eradicate all nation-
alistic tendencies among their alien subjects [Africans] … Enormous sums
of money are lavishly expended on propaganda against [African] nation-
alism which is … dismissed as ‘narrow’, ‘barbarous’, ‘uncultured’ [and]
‘devilish’. [Africans] become dupes of this sinister propaganda and conse-
quently become tools or instruments of imperialism for which great service
they are highly praised, extolled and eulogised by the imperialistic power
and showered with such epithets as ‘cultured’, ‘progressive’ [and] ‘broad-
minded …91

Most of the interventions articulated by African nationalist intellectuals

challenge the myths underpinning the basic tenets of racially constructed
white nationalism. These inputs from African intellectuals are anti-racist
in the sense that Thema was prepared to change his initial position
and propose that the whites’ ‘Dingaan’s Day’ on 16 December should
instead be commemorated as the Day of reconciliation, implicitly mean-
ing that South Africa belongs to all its people, both black and white—
a stance that was adopted by President Mandela in 1995. To Herbert
Dhlomo, Ngubane and Lembede, African nationalism was both eman-
cipatory and anti-racist because it supported the anti-colonial struggle
 6 AFrICAN NATIONALISTS AND CONTENDING PErSPECTIVES … 195

and human solidarity; resisted imperialism; and stood for justice, peace,
freedom, democracy, equity and social rights in white-ruled South Africa.
Together with the younger Thema, they all believed that King Dingane’s
confrontational position against white colonisers was justified and sup-
ported their viewpoints. However, this was not the final word on the
debate, because university-based African academics and scholars such as
Benedict Bhambatha Wallet Vilakazi, Sibusiso Nyembezi, Felix Okoye
and Mazisi Kunene subsequently posited their perspectives about the
second Zulu king. As academics, they synthesised all the sources and
archives discussed in all the previous chapters.

NOTES
1. University of Witwatersrand, William Cullen Library, Historical and
Literary Papers (hereafter Wits), AD1787, S. Thema, ‘From Cattle
Herder to the Editor’s Chair’, Unpublished autobiography.
2. Ibid., 48. Thema claims that he liked to study European history for the
purpose of comparing it with the history of South Africa, particularly that
of the African race. This becomes apparent in his analysis and represen-
tations of King Dingane’s reign, in particular his confrontational stance
towards the Voortrekkers.
3. Ibid., 4.
4. Ibid., 55–56 and 74.
5. Ibid., 75.
6. Ibid.
7. iLanga lasa Natal (hereafter iLanga), 22 and 29 December 1916.
8. Ibid., The full lecture is published in these editions of iLanga.
9. Ibid.
10. Ibid.
11. Ibid.
12. Ibid.
13. Ibid.
14. P. Bonner, ‘The Transvaal Native Congress, 1917–1920’, in S. Marks
and r. rathbone eds., Industrialisation and Social Change in South
Africa: African Class Formation, Culture and Consciousness: 1870–1930
(London: Longman, 1982), Chap. 11.
15. Ibid. See also H. Bradford, A Taste of Freedom: The ICU in Rural South
Africa, 1924–1930, Chap. 3 on the African petit bourgeoisie in the
1920s.
16. ‘Dingana ka Senzangakhona’, Abantu-Batho, 16 December 1920. See
also P. Limb and S.M. Ndlovu, ‘African royalty, Popular History and
196 S.M. NDLOVU

Abantu-Batho’, in P. Limb ed. The People’s Paper: A Centenary History

and Anthology of Abantu-Batho (Johannesburg: Wits University Press,
2012), Chap. 8.
17. ‘Dingana ka Senzangakhona’, Abantu-Batho, 16 December 1920.
18. Ibid.
19. Ibid.
20. Ibid.
21. Ibid.
22. Ibid.
23. Ibid.
24. Ibid.
25. Ibid.
26. Ibid.
27. S. Thema, ‘“The Voice of the races of South Africa” vs. the Bantu People
of South Africa’, iLanga.
28. T.D. Mweli Skota, The African Yearly Register (Johannesburg, Central
News Agency, 1932). See also r. Dhlomo, uDingane ka Senzangakhona
(Pietermaritzburg: Shuter & Shooter, 1936), 23.
29. C. Mutwa, Indaba my Children (Johannesburg: Blue Crane Books,
undated), 130.
30. ‘What is the Future of the Bantu?’, Abantu-Batho, July 1923.
31. r. Selope-Thema, ‘The Celebration of Dingane Must be Purged of
racialism’, The Bantu World, 17 December 1932. See also the editorial
on 16 December 1933, titled ‘The Meaning of Dingaan’s Day’.
32. Thema, ‘From Cattle Herder’, 100.
33. Ibid., 121.
34. The isiZulu, Sesotho and isiXhosa section of this newspaper ran fea-
tures on King Dingane. See the issues of 2 and 23 December 1933. See
also the Dingane section of the series, ‘The History of the Bantu’, by
‘Veritas’, 25 November 1933. The writer of this series admitted that he
depended on books by Theal and Cory, among others, for evidence. The
newspaper still exists and is the famous national daily called The Sowetan.
35. J. Ngubane, ‘Three Famous African Journalists I Knew: r.V. Selope-
Thema’, Inkundla yaBantu, Second Fortnight, July 1946.
36. See T. Couzens, The New African: A Study of the Life and Work of H.I.E.
Dhlomo (Johannesburg: ravan Press, 1985); T. Couzens and N. Visser
eds, H.I.E. Dhlomo: Collected Works (Johannesburg: ravan Press, 1985).
Herbert Dhlomo was widely respected and influential in the African com-
munity as an intellectual. To take one example: through his participa-
tion in the establishment of the Youth League of the African National
Congress and through his decision to place iLanga squarely behind its
policies, Dhlomo was instrumental in the rise to prominence and finally
to power, of Chief Albert Luthuli.
 6 AFrICAN NATIONALISTS AND CONTENDING PErSPECTIVES … 197

37. In 1936, he completed the first script of his historical drama, uDingana,
and subsequently produced two further revised scripts. Only Dingana
1 and 3 are available at the University of KwaZulu-Natal (hereafter
UKZN), Killie Campbell Library (hereafter KCM). These scripts form
part of Herbert Dhlomo’s personal papers. All my quotes are taken from
the 1936 script.
38. H. Dhlomo, ‘Drama and the African’, in N.W. Visser ed., Special Edition
on ‘The Literary Theory and Criticism of H.I.E. Dhlomo’, English in
Africa, 4, 2 (1977), 3–8 and is quoted verbatim. See also B. Peterson
‘The Black Bulls of H.I.E. Dhlomo: Ordering History out of Nonsense’,
English in Africa, 18, 1 (1991), 28.
39. Dhlomo, ‘Drama and the African’, 4. See also H. Dhlomo, ‘Nature and
Variety of Tribal Drama’, in Visser ed, Special edition on ‘The Literary
Theory and Criticism of H.I.E. Dhlomo’.
40. Dhlomo, ‘Drama and the African’, 23.
41. For the scripts of the plays, see UKZN, KCM 8281/2, Herbert Dhlomo
Papers, File 4. See also Peterson, ‘The Black Bulls’.
42. See T. Couzens, ‘The Continuity of Black Literature in South Africa
before 1950’, English in Africa, 4, 2, (1977), 14.
43. See H. Dhlomo, ‘Drama and the African’, 6.
44. Ibid.
45. See H. Dhlomo, ‘Why Study Tribal Drama Forms?’, in Visser ed., The
Literary Theory and Criticism of H.I.E. Dhlomo.
46. See H. Dhlomo, ‘Drama and the African’, 7.
47. iLanga, 10 April 1943.
48. ‘Busy Bee’, iLanga, 21 May 1949.
49. See Peterson, ‘The Black Bulls’, 38 and 39.
50. H. Dhlomo, ‘African Drama and research’, Native Teachers’ Journal, 28
(1939), 129–132.
51. Ibid.
52. Ibid.
53. UKZN, KCM 8282, File 4, H. Dhlomo, uDingane, 31–42.
54. Ibid., 43.
55. Ibid., 44.
56. Ibid. Bongoza is also mentioned in Chap. 1 of this book.
57. H. Dhlomo, uDingane, 32; Peterson, ‘The Black Bulls’. Also see also
points 5 and 8 in Piet retief’s Manifesto, in W.A. de Klerk, The Puritans
in Africa: A Story of Afrikanerdom (New York: Collins, 1975). Point
5 reads: ‘We are resolved, wherever we go, that we will uphold the just
principles of liberty; but, whilst we will take care no one shall be held
in a state of slavery, it is our determination to maintain such regulations
as may suppress crime, and preserve proper relations between master and
198 S.M. NDLOVU

servants’. Point 8 highlights their determination and arrogant intention

to settle permanently in the interior with or without the permission of the
rightful owners of the land: ‘We propose, in the course of our journey,
and on arriving at the country in which we shall permanently reside, to
make known to the native tribes our intentions, and our desire to live in
peace and friendly intercourse with them’.
58. See Couzens, The New African, 556.
59. iLanga, 27 May 1944.
60. iLanga, 22 February 1947.
61. iLanga, 13 December 1947.
62. Ibid.
63. iLanga, 16 December 1944.
64. Inkundla yaBantu, 30 December 1944. See the next section on Jordan
Ngubane.
65. iLanga, 16 December 1944.
66. See Lamula uZulu kaMalandela, 59.
67. On this issue see the oral traditions discussed in Chap. 2.
68. H. Dhlomo, uDingana, Scene 3, 24 and 25.
69. Dhlomo was influenced by John Dube’s historical novel Jeqe, Insila
kaShaka (Marrianhill: Marrianhill Mission Press, 1930). See the script of
Dingana, Scenes 2 and 9. See also Lamula, uZulu kaMalandela, 53–54.
70. Statement by Ngubane, iLanga, 30 December 1944.
71. He succeeded Govan Mbeki, among others.
72. This paragraph is based largely on T. Karis and G. Carter eds, From Protest
to Challenge: A Documentary History of African Politics in South Africa,
Volume 2: 1882–1964 (Stanford: Hoover Institution Press, 1977), 115.
73. N. Masilela, ‘New African Intellectuals: Theorising a Structure of
Intellectual and Literary History: The Central role of African Newspapers’,
Unpublished paper, undated.
74. Ibid. See also A. Mda, ‘Jordan Ngubane’, Drum, May 1954.
75. Inkundla yaBantu, November 1940.
76. See Chap. 3 on r. Dhlomo. They were also protégés of Thema.
77. Untitled concept paper presented by a team of experts to the Department
of Arts, Culture, Science and technology on the reinterpretation of the
Battle of Blood river/Income, University of Zululand, 30 October
1998, 1.
78. Inkundla yaBantu, 30 December 1944.
79. See the quote below.
80. J. Ngubane, uShaba: The Hurtle to Blood River (Washington: Three
Continents Press, 1974).
81. Ibid.
82. http://www.anc.historical documents.
 6 AFrICAN NATIONALISTS AND CONTENDING PErSPECTIVES … 199

83. Ibid., see also Karis and Carter eds., From Protest to Challenge, Volume 2,
327.
84. Ngubane, uShaba, 10–11.
85. Ibid.
86. Ibid., 12.
87. On the rise and fall of Abantu-Batho see Limb ed., The People’s Paper.
88. Inkundla yaBantu, January and February 1941.
89. Masilela, ‘New African Intellectuals’.
90. Inkundla yaBantu, January 1942.
91. A. Lembede, ‘The Policy of Congress Youth League’, Inkudhla yaBantu
May 1946.
 CHAPTEr 7

African Academics and Poets: The roots

of Scholarly Perspectives on King Dingane,
1930s–1980s

This chapter focuses on university-based African intellectuals. It examines

the role academics played in the construction of scholarly images of King
Dingane and the implications of these opinions in shaping contempo-
rary political and socio-economic debates. As scholars, they explored the
roots of African nationalism and resistance against racism, land disposses-
sion and oppression of the indigenous peoples by white colonisers and
constructed a more nuanced interpretation of the controversial conflict
between King Dingane and the white intruders under retief. Although
their images of King Dingane, like those of Selope Thema, tended to
change over time, the same cannot be said of the African poets, whose
interpretations during the 1980s were rooted in the same uncompro-
mising African nationalism earlier propagated by Herbert Dhlomo and
Jordan Ngubane. The chapter also includes the work of poets who were
influenced by some of these academics such as Vilakazi and Kunene but
were not affiliated to academic institutions. Furthermore, the chapter is
also about intellectual history which defines history as multifaceted and
underpinned by an idea that history is about change in a given time.

BHAMBATHA WALLET VILAKAZI: CITIZENSHIP AS HISTORY

One of the academics, who was influenced by the new African intellec-
tuals like the Dhlomo brothers to take an interest in the reign of King
Dingane, was the erudite Bhambatha Benedict Wallet Vilakazi, who in
1946 became the first African to obtain a doctoral degree at the University

© The Author(s) 2017 201

S.M. Ndlovu, African Perspectives of King Dingane kaSenzangakhona,
African Histories and Modernities, DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-56787-7_7
202 S.M. NDLOVU

of the Witwatersrand (Wits). Vilakazi attributed his interest in pursuing

academic endeavours to the information he had gleaned from various
African newspapers.1
In developing their perspectives, B.W. Vilakazi and other African aca-
demics relied on izibongo, established oral traditions and archives, inter-
preting the meaning of these traditions. A prime example is Vilakazi’s
ambiguity expressed in the positive images of the king in his 1930s
journal article and the negative images of the king in his 1946 doc-
toral thesis at Wits.2 In both these works, he used the pre-colonial and
early nineteenth-century izibongo and oral traditions constructed by
Magolwane and Mshongweni to advance his opinions, suggesting that
these changed in response to shifting historical and personal contexts.
In the 2 September 1946, issue of Inkundla yaBantu Jordan Ngubane
wrote a rousing tribute to Vilakazi, whose research influenced him in the
upcoming struggle against Afrikaner nationalism.3
Vilakazi was born on 6 January 1906 to Christian parents at Groutville
Mission Station.4 He attended St Francis College at Mariannhill, obtained
a teacher’s certificate in 1923 and began to teach at the age of 17. In
1936, he was appointed as a ‘teaching assistant’ in the University of the
Witwatersrand’s Department of Bantu Studies, becoming the first African
to lecture at a predominantly white university. As an African ‘teach-
ing assistant’ (in itself a scornful and demeaning term for well-qualified
African lecturers with postgraduate degrees), he never received a lecture-
ship position because he was of the ‘wrong race’. He was marginalised
and ostracised by white management, colleagues and students.5 Vilakazi’s
appointment provoked a storm of criticism within the university and from
the public. C.M. Doke, head of the Bantu Studies Department, com-
mented: ‘we have received several letters on the subject from political and
other bodies and that I have had a conversation with Dr H. Pirow, who
asked to discuss the question as a representative old student’.6 To deal
with the misunderstandings voiced in the media and by racist former cabi-
net ministers like Pirow, when Vilakazi was appointed, the university clari-
fied his conditions of employment as follows:

a. … in regard to status: that this post of Language Assistant, decided

upon by way of experiment, is not equivalent to the position of a
Lecturer, either in status and privileges or in emolument.
b. … in regard to authority and discipline: that all formal instruction
in regular classes in which the Language Assistant is called upon to
 7 AFrICAN ACADEMICS AND POETS: THE rOOTS … 203

demonstrate, will be conducted by the Head of the department.

Whilst the Language Assistant will also be available for giving
informal assistance to students in the use of Zulu and Xhosa, no
student will be compelled to avail himself of such assistance; nor
will the Language Assistant have any disciplinary authority in virtue
of his position over students who make use of this informal help.7

Vilakazi was one of the first African academics to place oral traditions at
the centre of his research. In 1946, in his path-breaking doctoral the-
sis on ‘Oral and Written Literature in Nguni’, he challenged the ste-
reotype existing in academia that African oral traditions and izibongo
were inferior (as tools of analysis) to documents and the written word.
In order to democratise the production of historical knowledge against
the background of political repression and domination by white academ-
ics, including liberal, settler and Afrikaner nationalist historiographies, he
turned to the past to make sense of life in a divided society. His unjust
designation as a ‘teaching assistant’ at Wits University seemed, at first, to
radicalise him.
At the instigation of the South African Institute of race relations
(SAIrr), Vilakazi contributed an article entitled ‘Bantu Views of the
Great Trek’ to a special edition of the Race Relations Journal published
in 1938 to commemorate the centenary of the Battle of Blood river.
The article was never published because of its radical African national-
ist views on race relations and citizenship in South Africa. In the arti-
cle, he also expressed opinions on King Dingane that were diametrically
opposed to those held by white contributors. The article described
whites as invaders who had no inherent rights to citizenship because
South Africa belonged to the indigenous African people. The arrival of
the Voortrekkers in the Zulu Kingdom was in his view driven by impe-
rialism and overt racism. Vilakazi, like Ngubane, argued against recon-
ciliation between the different races, favouring confrontation instead. He
asserted:

[T]here is no place for a black man in the Voortrekkers’ scheme save

when the black man prefers to lose his self. The same spirit has coloured
the whole political situation of South Africa so that any measures at sup-
pressing the black man we ascribe to the Voortrekker spirit. Perhaps today
the word Voortrekker has changed into ‘Afrikaner’ and sometimes we say
‘Dutch’, for everything adverse to Bantu progress and interest.8
204 S.M. NDLOVU

Vilakazi contended that the Zulu monarch was in charge of a sovereign

state recognised throughout colonial Natal and across the mountains,
the white settlers called the Drakensberg. residents of this sovereign
state had to respect the king’s authority. Accordingly, ‘any offences com-
mitted by foreign strangers [which included the Voortrekkers] in these
areas would be reported to him’.9 When the Voortrekkers invaded and
unlawfully occupied the present-day Colenso and Weenen areas, which at
the time were occupied by the followers of Mchunu, the abasemaMbed-
wini and scattered remnants of Qwabe, they proceeded to hunt both in
places that were taboo and during a forbidden season. This was linked
to conservation policies implemented by the Zulu empire. The African
clans and subjects went to their king to complain about the unlawful
intrusion by the aliens.10 The Zulu state, like all African societies, had
implemented stringent policies to maintain a holistic environmental and
ecological balance between the needs of human beings and those of the
animals—hence the prohibition of hunting during specific seasons. The
oral traditions on the importance of maintaining this crucial ecological
balance still exist.
Vilakazi’s forefathers were aware that according to unwritten Zulu
national law, the Voortrekkers and others were permitted by the king
to make their permanent homes south of the uThukela river. However,
in terms of this permission—and like all other foreigners—they had
to remain loyal to the Zulu crown and were admitted into the com-
munion of amaZulu as honorary citizens. Vilakazi maintained that
the Voortrekkers were acting unlawfully if they grabbed or sold any
Zulu land or allowed any other alien ‘tribes’ or foreigners to live there.
Voortrekker leaders could settle minor land issues with local chiefs but
only the Zulu monarch had the right to allow other ‘tribes’ and foreign-
ers to settle among the Voortrekkers. Vilakazi believed it was a privilege
for the Voortrekkers to have the use of land owned by the king but it was
not a cession of territory. The land still belonged to the Zulu nation.11 He
had in mind the kind of relationship spelt out by Socwatsha in an inter-
view with Stuart about land rights in pre-colonial times:

In old days it was customary for very large kraals to be constructed … for
mutual protection against sudden attacks. These kraals were called amanx-
uluma … they were really large villages. People lived together in large
numbers, and although the district was small, it supported a large popu-
lation. The district was formerly occupied by amaNgogoma, amaNyuswa,
 7 AFrICAN ACADEMICS AND POETS: THE rOOTS … 205

and amaQadi, which I well know could not nowadays [twentieth century]
support all the members … When I argue with members of our tribes they
point out that formerly there were no small kraals, there were these great
amanxuluma …

On consensual governance and the fact that the king ruled by the grace
of the people, Socwatsha continued:

A feature of that Zulu government is that the abamnumzane living under

a given chief all exercised property rights over the land they occupied so
much so that if a newcomer applies to live under the chief and gives him
his alliance, the chief is obliged to make special arrangements with the
particular headman on whose land he wishes to live. The land as a matter
of fact, all belongs to the king, but the headman of each tribe has rights
which in practice are respected.12

The last eight lines of Socwatsha’s oral traditions explain the acceptance
by African society of landless foreigners seeking accommodation and to
konza, that is, to become subjects. The same principles applied when the
Voortrekkers were welcomed with open arms in the land of amaZulu.

There used to be serious quarrels about land and these would be referred
to the king if people had got hurt. In the course of enquiry, the king
might ascertain that a headman acted as a dog in the manger, or as the
king put it: ulahl’ isihlangu sami na? Ati ikon’ indoda at’ifika kumuntu
itelw’umtwalo, ihlom’isihlango sayo, iti ‘Ngetuleni’ besekutiwa ‘Dhlula
na?’ Kungatiwa ‘etula’ na ‘yakalapha’ na. Kanti wena ungambula ingubo
ngiyembetayo na? Ngoba izwi lakwaZulu ukuthi’ amadoda ingubo yok-
wembatha’. Abese uyaka njalo, ukuba sekupendula inkosi.13

Vilakazi also used oral traditions to explain the conflict between King
Dingane and the Voortrekkers. Along with Dube and r. Dhlomo, he
believed that he was haunted by King Shaka’s pro-conquest ‘prophecy’:
that in ‘the approach of white people in such great numbers … he saw
his death warrant’.14 Vilakazi blamed the clash between the king and
trekkers on retief’s misunderstanding of universal customs and tradi-
tions that governed the Zulu empire. The Voortrekkers were treated
with hospitality, as were all guests. However, as etiquette required, they
were only allowed to enter the king’s palace through the main gate and
were required to leave all their weapons outside. On the first day, they
206 S.M. NDLOVU

entered, unwittingly, with their weapons and guns and horses. They were
then informed about the laws of amaZulu, which they had to observe
as foreigners. However, at night after being given food and drink, they
were drunk and forgot to use the main entrance. A further problem
arose with their horses. The horse was an animal that was feared since
unlike a cow, it had no horns and its hoofs were not cloven. At night,
the Voortrekkers’ horses were left unguarded so that they roamed about.
This was a forbidden practice—cattle, for example, were kept in their
kraals at night. The king’s bodyguards complained about the uncon-
trolled and insolent behaviour of the strangers and even suspected them
of sorcery.15 As a result, the horses were linked to bad omens. In her
seminal book, Body and Mind in Zulu Medicine, Harriet Ngubane dis-
cusses the image of night sorcerers:

The … night sorcerer … in many respects approximates the conventional

concept of a witch. AmaZulu believe that a sorcerer was ‘created or moulded
with an evil heart’ [Wabunjwa ngenhliziyo embi]. The stereotype is as fol-
lows: He harms people for no apparent reasons. He keeps baboons as famil-
iars. When he visits homesteads at night to perform his evil acts, he rides
naked on these baboons, facing backwards. Because he is thoroughly evil-
hearted, on such nocturnal visits he also scatters medicines along pathways
to harm anyone who may pass by. He is a danger to the community at large
and is feared …16

As discussed in the previous chapters of the book, oral traditions which

invoked a comparison of the Voortrekkers to witches or night sorcerers
(abathakathi) on a reconnaissance mission were recorded in Izindatyana
zabantu, first published in 1859. They were repeated in the James Stuart
Archives in the early twentieth century by Meshack Ngidi, among others.
In his 1938 article, Bhambatha Vilakazi wrote that all hell broke loose
when amabutho sang a war song about ‘blood and cruelty’ (discussed
below) in resonant voices and slowly confronted what he referred to
as the ‘listless Voortrekkers’ in the big arena of the Zulu royal palace,
uMgungundlovu.
According to Vilakazi, amabutho, the rightful owners of the land, acted
in defence against foreign invaders. As Bheki Peterson argues, Vilakazi
echoed Emerson, writing: ‘a blow was struck for us by King Dingane’ and
that ‘we ourselves’ would have acted similarly.17 In contrast to the Zuluist,
ethnic nationalists such as Fuze and Dube, Vilakazi felt no compassion
 7 AFrICAN ACADEMICS AND POETS: THE rOOTS … 207

for retief and his party, maintaining that the Voortrekkers’ ‘undisciplined
activity was mainly responsible for the massacre’.18 Like Ngubane, he saw
the history of South African race relations as one of confrontation rather
than reconciliation. Vilakazi contested the universal significance of the
Great Trek because the valorisation of Afrikaners as ‘God’s chosen chil-
dren’ was predicated on the denial of the humanity and rights of Africans,
including denial of citizenship.19
In his 1938 article, Vilakazi further asserted that Africans in South
Africa had paid a heavy penalty for King Dingane’s killing of retief and
that on 16 December each year, they continued to suffer for events over
which they had no control.20 The defeat at impi yaseNcome had ush-
ered in colonisation, the subjugation of Africans under white rule and the
scramble for Africa. Adopting a Pan-Africanist position Vilakazi elaborated:

[E]very year on Dec. 16th Dingaan’s Day there are demonstrations in

South Africa, showing the prowess of the white man over the black man.
We are told that this is a holiday, a day of worship … We know that the
voortrekkers have done very little or nothing for the Bantu in South
Africa. They cannot take up a stand and pride themselves over our country
as the purveyors of civilisation in Africa… The interpretation of the word
‘voortrekkers’ today has finally changed in a Bantu-man’s mind. It means
all those who prey upon and exploit us because of our ignorance and lack
of opportunities to advance.21

Vilakazi denounced those white South Africans who viciously attacked

Africans on the 16 December public holiday as cowards who were as
ignorant as the Voortrekkers of the past, they were the ‘Voortrekkers of
today’ who were intellectually dishonest in supporting racist laws that
said the ‘Bantu must be … driven from their productive soils to inhos-
pitable swamps, or debased in compounds … to bear the burdens of
western civilisation’.22 He acknowledged that South Africa had capable
leaders such as J.C. Smuts and J.H. Hofmeyr who could drive such a
process but felt that a strong African leader was needed to promote the
cause of African nationalism. This, he said, ‘must be a leadership which is
not unmindful of the genuine needs and just demands of every man and
woman in this sub-continent of ours’.23 It is therefore not surprising that
his journal article was not published by the SAIrr.
By the time Vilakazi wrote his doctoral thesis, he had adopted a
nuanced perspective on King Dingane, probably because he had to be
208 S.M. NDLOVU

rigorous and thorough when interrogating conflicting historical evi-

dence. One senses that he had difficulty maintaining an anti-Great Trek
position because influential white academics at Wits University supported
the trek. This was apparent in the articles solicited for the SAIrr’s
commemorative issue.24 Vilakazi’s doctorate tended to support the de-
radicalised Selope Thema’s concept of patriotic citizenship and reconcili-
ation. Based on oral traditions and izibongo, he now viewed Dingane as
an inverted image of Shaka. He believed that in izibongo:

the real literature of people inspired by imagination and ecstasy is to be

found. A people without a written literature would normally develop a
laudable capacity for memory work, and where the test of this memory
might be made is in listening to the praise poetry singer (imbongi) reciting
line after line of verse, dealing with different phases of national history, as
embodied in the exploits of kings and heroes.25

While undertaking fieldwork for his doctoral degree, Vilakazi ranged far
and wide in rural and urban areas in pursuit of izibongo, oral traditions
and other archival material. As he put it:

The investigation of izibongo and myth lore was not done in districts
where the Nguni live under primitive conditions only, but the detribalised
man in town was also studied. Durban offered fertile ground for the Zulu,
Cape Town for the Xhosa, and Johannesburg … offered a very good com-
parative study of both Zulu and Xhosa … I owe much to Mr C.J. Mpanza,
secretary of the Zulu Society who placed the library of the Society at my
disposal and also introduced me to many chiefs of Natal and Zululand.26

His doctoral thesis was a scholarly exercise, so Vilakazi adopted a ‘dif-

ferent’ perspective from the one taken in his article for Race Relations
News. The oral traditions he had collected included accounts of King
Dingane, whom he now regarded as an irresponsible coward for killing
Piet retief and his party. He also characterised the king as a weakling
who was easily manipulated and susceptible to the influence of female
members of the royal house. Vilakazi came to believe that it was the
powerful doyenne of the Zulu royal house, the Queen regent Mnkabayi,
together with Bibi–Ndlela kaSompisi’s sister, and not King Dingane,
who orchestrated the massacre of the Voortrekkers.27 regent Mnkabayi
 7 AFrICAN ACADEMICS AND POETS: THE rOOTS … 209

assumed the status of a ‘supernatural’ manipulator, the decisive mono-

causal agent in King Dingane’s life who:

organised [Dingane’s reign and conduct, including] the massacre of the

Voortrekkers. [The war song discussed below] reminded the warriors of
how this famous woman persuaded Ndlela who was then Prime Minister
to stand in the arena and shout ‘Bulalani abathakathi’.28

Contrary to other oral traditions and histories written by white histori-

ans, Vilakazi exonerated the king completely, asserting that he had not
played any major role in the massacre of the Voortrekkers. Like Fuze,
John Dube and rolfes Dhlomo, Vilakazi now believed that the king was
incapable of ruling. His reign was a ‘rule of fear’ because he was under
the spell of King Shaka’s potent pro-conquest prophecy. This left the
king vulnerable to the scheming regent Mnkabayi, with the help of
the influential Bibi,29 to pull the strings in the background and assume
the leadership, organising, among other things, the assassination of Piet
retief.30
Vilakazi used his intimate knowledge of the history and social system
of amaZulu to substantiate his arguments. Unlike other oral traditions,
including those discussed in Chap. 3, Vilakazi argued convincingly that
the king was powerless to take decisions because, during the killing of
retief and his party, Dingane was confined to his sacred room under-
going a process of rejuvenation and doctoring as uKweshwama cultural
ceremony was taking place. He deflected the blame to the influential
women who, as custom and tradition demanded, were in charge of the
important ceremony. Vilakazi based his argument on the lyrics of the war
song quoted below. He maintained that the following words were sung
while retief and his party were annihilated:

Zwan’ isidumo sempi

Inkos’ inqab’ ukuphum’ ekhaya
Ndaba yempi,
Mababoboz’ igazi
Hlab’abezizwe, Ho yaye!31
[Hear thou the battle cry
210 S.M. NDLOVU

The king won’t come out of his hut

O for the glory of war
Let them spill blood,
Stab thou the aliens, Ho yaye!]
Vilakazi also postulated a different motive for the killing of retief and
his party. He argued that powerful women in the royal palace, annoyed
with the behaviour of some of retief’s followers, and fearing the horses,
which they were seeing for the first time and therefore linked with bad
omens, commanded the regiments to destroy the Voortrekkers. He fur-
ther claimed that after the death of King Dingane, the regiments respon-
sible for this ‘hideous’ deed were expelled from the king’s headquarters
and confined to the area occupied by abaQulusi of Mnkabayi in the area
that now comprises the Ladysmith, Newcastle and Vryheid districts.
According to him, the regiment was expelled because its hands were
thought to be ‘unclean, and soiled with bad blood’.32 It was convenient
that these contaminated warriors should be sent to the remote, periph-
eral area of ebaQulusini, which was the domain of regent Mnkabayi.33
Even today, the area is still referred to as ebaQulusini baka Mkabayi.
As I indicated in the introduction by analysing izibongo zika
Mnkabayi, path-breaking doctoral research by Manelisi Genge, among
others, has provided insight into the role of gender in African history,
as defined by the various monarchies. We are now able to analyse Queen
regent Mnkabayi’s reign and the ways in which the powerful, mascu-
linised personalities of key royal women manipulated and shaped Zulu
destiny. This is possible within the parameters set by Genge’s theoretical
constructs about the neighbouring Swazi monarchy that was effectively
controlled by the Queen regent Labotsibeni.34
There are elements of continuity in Vilakazi’s representation of King
Dingane, particularly in his view that the king was governed by fear. But
there is evidence of an even more radical shift. Why is this so? The wider
milieu in which Vilakazi found himself in the Wits University African
Studies Department may well have influenced him. Doke, who was
Vilakazi’s supervisor, specialised in Zulu grammar and was a respected
linguist. Among his published works are his Master’s dissertation, ‘The
Grammar of the Lamba Language’ and doctoral thesis on ‘The Phonetics
of the Zulu Language’. Together with Vilakazi, he also compiled, among
other works, a Zulu-English Dictionary, a Lamba-English Dictionary and
Textbook of Zulu Grammar.
 7 AFrICAN ACADEMICS AND POETS: THE rOOTS … 211

Vilakazi’s thesis deals in detail with both linguistics and Zulu gram-
mar and must have been supervised directly by Doke. But did the super-
visor apply the same attention to the historical section? We cannot tell
because it was based on various oral traditions collected by Vilakazi. The
principal question at issue in this context is how much Doke influenced
Vilakazi in his doctoral research. He may have prompted and must have
endorsed Vilakazi’s forays into Zulu oral tradition. Less clear is whether
as a white person, he inhibited or foreclosed on some of Vilakazi’s more
radical assertions and—either consciously or unconsciously—favoured
the endorsement of less confrontational renderings of King Dingane.
Also important is that the lineage of the oral traditions Vilakazi col-
lected would have provided an anti-King Dingane perspective, particu-
larly from the Qwabe and the Mandlakazi, traditional rivals of the Zulu
royal house. On the other hand, members of the Zulu Society, the
majority of whom were intellectuals who consciously set up the organi-
sation to promote ethnic nationalism, also provided Vilakazi with some
important oral traditions. Therefore, ‘Zuluness’ as an identity, culture,
history, customs and traditions, would, in all probability, have supplied
him with radical insights that rationalised the killing of retief and his
party of Voortrekkers within the framework of ethnic nationalism.35
Vilakazi relied completely on the oral traditions he had collected and
these tilted him towards a different interpretation of the fate of retief
and his party. In one of his footnotes, he comments, ‘a well-known the-
ory is that Dingane plotted the death of the Voortrekkers, but investiga-
tions from old people [whom he interviewed] have shown that women
in the royal palace [were solely responsible]’.36 He used rolfes Dhlomo’s
historical novel as part of his expanded archive and cites the pro-con-
quest King Shaka’s prophecy as instilling fear and influencing the king to
adopt a confrontational stance towards the Voortrekkers.37
In his footnotes and bibliography, it becomes apparent that Vilakazi
read the Zulu primers published by Stuart38 and the work of Bryant
on amaZulu,39 among other sources. Also, he listed books written by
Africans including those by M. Fuze; W. Cingo; P. Lamula; A.I. Molefe
and T.Z. Masondo; W. rabusana; S. Mqhayi; and A.Z. Zungu.40 The
combination of these sources shifted his perspectives of the king’s reign.41
Bhambatha Vilakazi’s contribution to the understanding of the oral
traditions and izibongo of the various African societies did not end with
his death. He encouraged one of his protégés, Sibusiso Nyembezi, to
undertake further research in this field, making Nyembezi one of the first
scholars to interrogate izibongo exhaustively and sympathetically.
212 S.M. NDLOVU

SIBUSISO NYEMBEZI ON ORAL TRADITIONS AS HISTORICAL

TESTIMONY: INTERNAL DYNAMICS WITHIN THE
ZULU ROYAL HOUSE
Sibusiso Nyembezi was born on 5 December 1919 at Babanango in
Zululand. He qualified as a teacher at Adams College, Amanzimtoti,
and was awarded an Honours degree from the University of the
Witwatersrand in 1946. His path-breaking dissertation, ‘The Historical
Background of the Izibongo of the Zulu Military Age’ was published in
the 1948 edition of African Studies. Nyembezi succeeded B.W. Vilakazi
at Wits University after his death in 1948 and obtained his Master’s
degree from the same institution in 1950. He then lectured at Wits
University from 1948 to 1954. After his resignation, he was appointed
as chair of Bantu Languages at Fort Hare University College. In 1958,
he published an important book on Izibongo zamakhosi, in isiZulu.
It is partly based on his Honours dissertation which was supervised by
Vilakazi.
In the preface of the book, Nyembezi highlighted the role of his men-
tor, B.W. Vilakazi, in developing his interest in African (Zulu) literature,
izibongo and other forms of oral traditions. Like Vilakazi, he undertook
a field trip to various areas in Zululand in 1946 for research purposes
and collected oral traditions and izibongo, in the process making contact
with all sectors of this community, from commoners to members of the
Zulu royal family:

Kuthe sengiphumile esikoleni, sengifundisa, ngaba nesifiso sokuba ngi-

phenye indaba yezibongo. Kodwa akukho lutho engalwenza kwaze kwaba
ngunyaka ka 1945. Ngalowomnyaka ngangiseGoli, eWitwatersrand
University. Kwathi sixoxa noMufi uDr B.W. Vilakazi, ngafumanisa ukuthi
naye wudaba olwalusenhliziyweni yakhe lolu … Kuthe ngonyaka ka-1946,
ngahambela ezindaweni ezithize kwaZulu, ngifunda ngoZulu … Ukufika
kwami kwaNongoma ngafica umfundisi uShange … Ngasuka kwaNon-
goma ngaya kwaSokesimbone kuMufi uMshiyeni kaDinuzulu.42

In his 1946 Honours dissertation, Nyembezi contends that King

Dingane’s reign was organised around three major events: the king’s
rise to the throne; the arrival of the Voortrekkers in the Zulu Kingdom;
and King Dingane’s fall from the throne. In these events, Nyembezi
 7 AFrICAN ACADEMICS AND POETS: THE rOOTS … 213

identified what he believed to be the major characteristics of the king’s

personality, which he described as complex and multi-dimensional. To
him, the king was an enigma—cunning and ruthless, cautious, percep-
tive, anxious, introverted, weak, deceptive and unpredictable.43
Like others before him, Nyembezi believed that Prince Dingane was
aided by Queen regent Mnkabayi in his ascent to the throne. She was
seen as the driving force behind the purges in the royal family that led
to the death of siblings.44 Nyembezi was the first scholar to use izibo-
ngo judiciously to sketch the life history of King Dingane. However, he
believed that Dingane was by no means a better king than Shaka. He
regarded the images of Dingane and Shaka as similar since both reigns
were characterised by unnecessary bloodletting. Consequently, he dis-
puted the notion that the two kings were caring, accusing both of killing
their subjects without convincing reason.45 Nyembezi believed that King
Shaka was to some extent responsible for his fate. Basing his reasoning
on what he described as King Shaka’s ‘narrow minded’ and cruel behav-
iour in exterminating siblings linked to dynastic succession, Nyembezi
postulated that Shaka’s long-suffering siblings were not cruel by nature;
they had no choice but to revolt against what they believed to be oppres-
sive and unjust rule.

To him [Shaka] the [male] children represented trouble. Whenever a child

was born to one of his ‘sisters’ it was killed. Sometimes a woman was killed
even before she gave birth. Thus it does seem strange that a man so care-
ful of what might prove his own undoing should have spared some of his
brothers. He little knew that his final exit would be engineered by these self-
same brothers [Dingane among them] … His brothers too did not seem
to be over happy. Perhaps it was because of the thought that Shaka being a
man of such uncertain temper and doubtful humour, might perhaps ‘sign’
their death warrant any day. And so they decided to strike first …46

In Izibongo zamakhosi, published in 1958, Nyembezi sided with King

Dingane with regard to the issue of succession. He was the first scholar
to voice the opinion openly that according to African tradition and cus-
toms, the throne rightfully belonged to Dingane, not Shaka.47 He based
his argument on the fact that Queen Mpikase, Dingane’s mother, was
King Senzangakhona’s eldest wife. According to Nyembezi, it was surpris-
ing that the king favoured his eldest son, Sigujana, over Mpikase eldest
214 S.M. NDLOVU

son, Dingane, who was younger than Sigujana. Hence, Dingane became a
disillusioned, bitter young prince,48 believing that his mother and Bhibhi,
Sigujana’s mother had engineered Sigujana’s elevation. Nyembezi based
his interpretation on the following song:

Ngazo zombili izindlela

Niyobikela uNsimbini noMahlekeza
Ukuthi abazi yini ukuthi
uVezi (Dingane) yisizwa kubi?
Angahl’ athath’isihlang’ asihlom’ umgobo
Ame ngas’ emnyango kwaMpikase
NakwaBhibhi, kuze kus’evevezela
Engasalalanga nabuthongo?49

As a scholar, Nyembezi questioned James Stuart’s objectivity, main-

taining that Stuart had taken the side of the Voortrekkers by claiming
that cattle retrieved from Segonyela (which were the bone of conten-
tion between the two groups) belonged to the Boers. Nyembezi insisted
that the Boers had no cattle and no land when they first arrived on these
shores and could not claim cattle or land by right of conquest. He sym-
pathised with King Dingane and exonerated him of killing retief and his
party. However, in the 1958 publication of Izibongo zamakhosi compared
to the earlier edition, we notice a change in Nyembezi’s analysis of the
Voortrekkers’ intentions and motives, including the king’s role in the
killing of the settlers.
Like his mentor Vilakazi, he challenged the assertion that the king
had given the final order for the Voortrekkers to be killed, using the
argument that at the time, the king was being treated in preparation for
the first fruits ceremony, Ukweshwama, which kept him confined to his
royal hut. As already argued above, this interpretation is not found in
other oral traditions, most notably it is absent from the eyewitness tes-
timonies mentioned in Chap. 3—possibly Stuart and others deliberately
omitted these oral traditions because of their implications.
Nyembezi also refuted the claim that the order to kill the
Voortrekkers was: ‘bulalani abathakathi’ (kill the sorcerers). He insisted
that the signal was a simple whistle.50 He then cited Vilakazi’s assertion
 7 AFrICAN ACADEMICS AND POETS: THE rOOTS … 215

that it was the women in the royal palace who influenced Nzobo kaD-
ambuza, not the king, to order the killing of the Voortrekkers. Finally,
he contested the view that the king was anti-white and ruled in fear
because of King Shaka’s pro-conquest prophecy. Like others, before him,
he questioned why rev Owen and the white settlers in Port Natal were
spared. He contended that it was only when the Voortrekkers began
attacking the king’s subjects, enslaving and abducting women and chil-
dren, that war ensued.
Sibusiso Nyembezi’s changing perspectives towards the Voortrekkers
and the Zulu king were influenced by his political beliefs and the fact
that at the University of Fort Hare, unlike what I believe was a politi-
cally oppressive atmosphere at Wits University, he was now working with
people in the forefront of the struggle against racism, apartheid and sub-
jugation. As Eliot Zondi suggested during an interview I conducted with
him, Nyembezi, a member of the ANC, was working closely with other
senior and influential colleagues at Fort Hare such as Professor Z.K.
Matthews and Mazisi Kunene, another ANC scholar who was based at
the University of Natal. Like these distinguished scholars, Nyembezi was
pursuing the policies of the ANC in its fight for the emancipation of the
black peoples of South Africa. Zondi, as Nyembezi’s protégé, was also
immersed in consolidating historical knowledge about the Zulu kings.

VIEWING KING DINGANE THROUGH THE EYES OF KING SHAKA:

ELIOT ZONDI’S PERSPECTIVE OF KING DINGANE
Eliot Zondi, who wrote during the age of racist social engineers such as
Hendrik Verwoerd, was another academic who produced texts and his-
torical novels on the rise and fall of the Zulu Kingdom. Some of these
scholars revered King Shaka, regarding him as a military genius, a person
of great intellectual and political acumen and one of the finest leaders
to grace South Africa. To them, he was the founder of African nation-
alism, a strong supporter of unity among African people. Like Fuze,
Dube and rolfes Dhlomo, they used King Shaka’s image in their advo-
cacy of African unity—social, political and, above all, cultural unity. King
Shaka, they believed, exemplified this thinking. He was a Pan-Africanist
who wanted all Africans to communicate and speak one language and
be one strong united nation in the face of adversaries. Therefore, it was
hardly surprising that they lamented his death and denounced those they
216 S.M. NDLOVU

believed were responsible for killing him, including King Dingane, who
they portrayed in a negative light.
Zondi was born in 1930 in what is now known as KwaZulu-Natal. He
qualified as a teacher at St. Chad’s, a missionary-founded teacher train-
ing college. In the early 1950s, after a brief spell of teaching, he went to
Fort Hare University to study for a BA degree. Among the courses he
took were History, Political Science, Public Administration and isiZulu.
One of his lecturers was Professor Sibusiso Nyembezi, who together with
Professor Z.K. Matthews groomed him politically and supported his lit-
erary endeavours.51 Zondi’s influential historical novel Ukufa kukaShaka
began as a third year isiZulu literature project supervised by Nyembezi.
Zondi gives two reasons for choosing the dialogical historical drama
for his final year project. The first was that he personally regarded rolfes
Dhlomo’s negative image of King Shaka in the historical novel uShaka
as being very unfair. He, thus, saw his long paper, which was later pub-
lished as a historical novel by Wits University Press, as a corrective exer-
cise. He asserted that as a student he had been raised on a ‘staple diet’ of
rolfes Dhlomo’s isiZulu historical novels and believed that white histo-
rians like the rev. A.T. Bryant influenced Dhlomo’s perceptions of King
Shaka. According to Zondi, in contrast, E.A. ritter’s representation of
the king was relatively positive and could, Zondi believed, easily pass as
those of an African person.52
The second reason for undertaking this particular third year pro-
ject was political.53 At the time Fort Hare was fertile ground for politi-
cal activism and as a member of the ANC Youth League, Zondi played
an active role in politics. The Youth League’s idea of African national-
ism, its assertion of African identity, its rejection of foreign leadership of
Africa, its stress on the unity of all Africans and its belief that Africans
should rely on their own efforts to free themselves, all attracted him.
These issues are discussed in the previous chapter. In 1959, the apartheid
regime enacted the Extension of University Education Act, more popu-
larly known as the ‘Fort Hare Act’ which created universities reserved
for Africans according to ‘tribal affiliation’ and prohibited Africans from
studying at historically white universities, except with the permission of
the white government (and only in cases when a course was not offered
in an ethnic university). The same law also placed the University of Fort
Hare under the control of the Department of Bantu Education and
declared it a university for the ethnic Xhosa group. It also created two
new ethnic universities: the University of Zululand for Zulu, Ndebele,
 7 AFrICAN ACADEMICS AND POETS: THE rOOTS … 217

and Swati-speaking groups and the University of the North for eth-
nic Sotho-Tswana, Venda and Tsonga. The government hoped it had
thereby fragmented resistance from disadvantaged and oppressed groups
from the National Union of South African Students (NUSAS) and other
white sympathisers at ‘open’ universities. This apartheid legislation radi-
calised Zondi and other black students at the University of Fort Hare.
In my interview with Zondi conducted in March 1998 at the Durban
campus of the University of Natal, he alluded to a view of King Shaka as
an authentic symbol of African unity and African nationalism. Zondi was
also motivated by a desire to inhibit political moves which encouraged
students to form student political movements based on ethnic grounds
(he mentions an organisation formed by isiXhosa-speaking students at
Fort Hare). Such pro-apartheid positions, he felt, played into the apart-
heid regime’s divide and rule strategy and subverted the dream of a united
front against racism and discrimination. He, thus, saw King Shaka as a
unifying national symbol and believed that writing the dialogical historical
novel would serve as a ‘healing’ process against white minority rule.54
In Zondi’s historical novel, those who were closely involved in the
conspiracy to assassinate King Shaka could not expect ‘forgiveness’ and
‘mercy’. Although there might be debates over who exactly had carried
out the assassination, according to Zondi, King Dingane and the regent
Mnkabayi could not escape their role in its planning. But Zondi was not
totally anti-King Dingane. He drew parallels between the king and Chief
Bhambatha kaMancinza Zondi who led the 1906 uprising, commending
both for challenging and staging resistance against white supremacy.55
Ukufa kukaShaka, which was and still is prescribed in most African-
dominated schools and university which teaches isiZulu language and
literature, deals with the political intrigues involving succession and
hereditary battles within the Zulu royal house by dramatising the plot
to assassinate King Shaka.56 King Dingane and regent Mnkabayi are the
main protagonists. Like Fuze, Dube and others, Zondi regarded King
Dingane as a mirror image of King Shaka, who, he believed, was a ‘geni-
us’—a fine military strategist who rewarded his men for displaying their
fighting skills. In contrast, throughout the text, King Dingane is charac-
terised as a one-dimensional weakling; a timid but sly schemer who was
easily influenced and manipulated by his powerful aunt, Mnkabayi. The
book begins with Prince Dingane at his aunt’s court as she voices her
strong disapproval of what she perceives as King Shaka’s destructive poli-
cies and the lackadaisical, attitude of her nephews, including Dingane.
218 S.M. NDLOVU

The policies to which she objects include the banning of marriage and
courtship between those of a certain age group and its replacement by
the amabutho system:

Uyayibona Dingane imizi yezifunda ngezifunda iphenduka amanxiwa;

uyasibona isizwe sakithi siphela; izintombi zijendeviswa, izinsizwa zithenwa,
amakhehla nezalukazi kuthiwa akuganane kuzale …Nithule nithini
Dingane? Ningamadoda ngoba nilengise amalengisi? Angiphenduke indoda
yini?… Sukujama Dingane; isilonda sikaZulu siyabhibha, uZulu uselindele
ihawu elisha. Zifudumela izandla oyakwamukelwa ngazo, libanzi iphiko
engiyokwefumakela ngalo.57

A striking gap and a weakness in Zondi’s plot are his failure to examine
more than cursorily the power relations between indigenous Africans and
white settlers. This may be because his historical novel primarily concerns
the death of King Shaka and has no close analysis of the arrival of white
settlers in south-eastern Africa. This means that King Dingane’s character
is not developed and his political stand is sketched as representing noth-
ing more historically significant than a personal predisposition towards
cruelty and self-serving greed. These perspectives lock Zondi into exist-
ing dominant orthodoxies and do not challenge conventional Afrikaner
nationalist and school textbook treatment of the king published in Zulu
primers. As explained in Chaps. 3 and 5, challenging existing orthodox-
ies was no easy task for African authors because censorship was the order
of the day. If an author took up a confrontational stance, the book would
not be prescribed in African-dominated schools—which was a lucrative
market for publishers.

CENSORSHIP AND THE PRODUCTION OF KNOWLEDGE

ON KING DINGANE
In 1996, while searching for Petros Lamula’s text, uZulu kaMalandela
in the library of the University of Natal, Pietermaritzburg campus, I had
an informal discussion with M.S.S. Gcumisa,58 a poet and a writer in
isiZulu, who was also doing a literature search. After we discussed our
respective research interests, he told me that during the volatile 1980s
he had produced a manuscript in isiZulu on King Dingane for Shuter &
Shooter in Pietermaritzburg, for whom he was now working. This pub-
lishing house dominated the isiZulu literature market and had lucrative
connections with officials of the Bantu Education Department.
 7 AFrICAN ACADEMICS AND POETS: THE rOOTS … 219

Gcumisa claimed that the publishers were unwilling to publish any-

thing on King Dingane, unless it followed the path set by white histori-
ans and authors. He was told that the book ‘market’ was not yet ready to
accept a positive image of King Dingane because of what the king ‘did to
retief and his party’ and to whites in general. He believed the publish-
ers were afraid of the state’s censors and the security police because the
ANC commemorated 16 December as Heroes Day. Subsequent to this
feedback from the publishers, his manuscript went missing and was never
returned to him by Shuter & Shooter, who claimed to have ‘lost it’. As
discussed in Chap. 5, this is what also happened to rolfes Dhlomo’s rad-
ical manuscript on King Cetshwayo.
Another form of censorship was earlier experienced by rolfes
Dhlomo. When the second edition of his book Izikhali Zanamuhla was
published by Shuter & Shooter, several sections had been erased, with-
out his permission. Another of rolfes Dhlomo’s books, Indlela Yababi,
suffered more or less the same fate, this time probably because of the
intervention of the church and staunch Christians. The missing sections
in the second edition challenged the pure, idealistic image of the church.
A scene in which a priest indulged in an earthly affair by falling in love
with a streetwise woman was excised. It is worth noting that the two
published texts—by Mazisi Kunene and Themba Msimang—that were
readily available in the late 1970s and the 1980s both reflected largely
negative images of King Dingane.
In another example, the publication of a historical novel by Eliot
Zondi about Bhambatha kaMancinza Zondi, who led the 1906 uprisings
against racist tax laws, was delayed for a lengthy time after it had been
submitted to the government’s Zulu (Language) Council for approval
for use in state schools. Eliot Zondi said these councils, controlled by
the Department of Bantu Education, were so powerful they could make
or break the careers of African writers and academics. He suspected
that the major problem the Council had with his book was that it had
a Pan-Africanist slant. It was sympathetic to Chief Bhambatha, absolv-
ing him of any wrongdoing and thus justifying resistance against oppres-
sive white rule. This suspicion was partially confirmed by a review of
the book by an Afrikaans-speaking white academic, who accused Zondi
of fanning the flames of ‘racial war’ and of calling on African people to
take up arms against Afrikaners.59 Eliot Zondi argued that this form of
intervention and censorship had its precedent in the early twentieth cen-
tury when schools were controlled by missionaries and their publication
houses, like those at Lovedale and Mariannhill, were gatekeepers who set
220 S.M. NDLOVU

the rules and agendas for both the publication and the prescription of
school textbooks earmarked for Africans. According to him, every pub-
lished manuscript had to conform to the norms and the teachings of
Christianity in order to be part of the mainstream and be prescribed as a
set work in African schools. Petros Lamula’s book uZulu kaMalandela,
for instance, was never prescribed because the author refused to toe the
line in terms of content. Lamula published his books independently after
he broke away from the Norwegian missionaries. That is why even today
these texts are a rare collection and are not well known among Africans,
despite being crucially important to our historiography and the writing
of history by black South Africans. Lamula’s work is analysed in Chap. 4.
Henceforth, one of the primary aims of this book is also to highlight the
importance of such an empowering exercise.
From these examples, it is clear why extremely negative views of King
Dingane predominated during the period under discussion. A main-
stream publisher would simply refuse to publish a book that depicted the
king in a positive light. This meant that the majority of African writers
used mainly historical novels in African languages, newspaper articles,
performance theatre and plays to write their own history. Nor is it a coin-
cidence that my doctoral thesis at the University of the Witwatersrand,
on which this book is based, is a product of post-1994, democratic
South Africa. It would have been impossible to produce such work dur-
ing the days of high apartheid. But it is possible for Africans in the dias-
pora to do so.

FELIX OKOYE AND A VIEW FROM THE AFRICAN DIASPORA:

RACISM, RELATIVISM AND HISTORY AS SUBJECTIVE TRUTH
Partly because of the restrictions and censorship discussed in the previ-
ous section, it was left to an African in the Diaspora to write the most
compelling pro-King Dingane scholarly article during the days of high
apartheid and censorship fostered by the apartheid regime. He was
Felix Okoye, a Nigerian who was born in 1938 in Enugu, Nigeria, and
received a BA degree from the University of London in 1962. By the
1960s, he was living and studying in the USA. Okoye, an Africanist, pro-
duced a rejoinder to Eurocentric historians, painting a positive picture of
King Dingane. The postscript to Okoye’s doctoral thesis gives particu-
larly frank reasons for his sympathy for Africans at large:
 7 AFrICAN ACADEMICS AND POETS: THE rOOTS … 221

It is appropriate … to recall the factors that prompted me to undertake this

historical investigation. The fact that I am an African has a lot to do with it.
So also the fact that I did my graduate work in America. It was only after
I had arrived in the United States that I discovered that Africa enjoyed an
unfavourable image abroad … I was often shocked by the ethnocentrism of
one highly educated American university professor who glibly described the
people of the second largest continent as uncivilised savages. African reli-
gion and art were categorised as ‘primitive’. Our dances were denounced
as erotic. The less sophisticated citizens of Columbia repeatedly ask very
annoying questions. Whether one began wearing clothes only after one’s
advent in their country; where was my spear, why no tribal markings on my
face and no ring through my lip, how many lions I have as pets.60

Okoye highlighted that some Americans were impudent enough to ask

him whether it was true that Africans possessed tails! Furthermore, the
sponsors of the late shows on television seemed to have an insatiable
appetite for ‘bwana-saying Africans and for Tarzan balderdash’. Okoye
eventually decided to write his thesis on the ‘American Images of Africa’
after reading a transcript of Dr E. Blyden’s West Africa before Europe
memorable address in 1905. Okoye explained that this was really a ‘cata-
lytic force’. According to Blyden:

If the African educated on European lines … is unable or unwilling to

teach the outside world something of the institutions and inner feeling
of his people; if for some reasons or other, he can show nothing of his
real self to those anxious to learn … if he cannot make his friends feel the
force of his racial character and sympathise with his racial aspirations, then
it is evident that his education has been sadly defective, that his training
by aliens has done but little for him – that his teachers have surely missed
their aim and wasted time.61

Writing his doctoral thesis allowed Okoye to expose ‘the ingenious false-
hood and distortions of the white supremacists and gave the reader
insight into the realities of African life’. He did this because he wanted
to reassure his mentors in the USA, such as George E. Mowry, ray Allen
Billington, Leonard M. Thompson, richard W. Leopold, Jan Vansina
and Jere King, that they did not waste their invaluable time and remark-
able talents as academics.62
In 1969, the same year as completing his doctoral thesis on ‘The
American Image of Africa: Myth and reality’ at the University of California
222 S.M. NDLOVU

in Los Angeles, Felix Okoye wrote a revisionist and polemical article titled
‘Dingane: A reappraisal’.63 It was revisionist in the sense that it was una-
shamedly Africanist in focus and was a rejoinder to Eurocentric historians.
He had studied African history under Jan Vansina and Leonard Thompson
and it was the latter, whose research interests included southern African his-
tory, who probably influenced him most to publish the journal article on
the Zulu monarch.
Okoye felt that because of the murder of Piet retief and his party,
the king had incurred the undying hatred and wrath of professional and
amateur white historians.64 He argued that this history and images of
King Dingane were one-sided, flawed and characterised by skewed ide-
ology and racism. This, he said, was unacceptable. He accused white
traders, hunters and historians (both amateur and professional), such
as Isaacs, Fynn, Gardiner, Owen, Bryant and Morris, of characteris-
ing King Dingane as a person with hardly any redeeming qualities. He
was described as bloodthirsty, capricious, treacherous, self-indulgent, an
absolute despot, an ingrate and an inveterate liar. What Okoye found
remarkable about this consensus among these white historians was that,
according to him, the king had none of these unflattering attributes.65
Okoye believed there were many reasons why white scholars and ama-
teur historians reached these ideologically biased conclusions, among
them the inability to understand the true dynamics of indigenous African
societies.
He accused the white ‘prophets of doom’ of failing dismally to con-
textualise King Dingane’s actions within existing historical circumstances
and social conditions and chided them for not questioning their sources.
Most importantly, he accused them of failing to realise that a historical
narrative is a selection of facts. This implied a socially determined value
judgement in which the roles of power, authority, language and politics
could not be ignored. In short, despite claims of objectivity, historical
writing inevitably had an ideological component and the literature on
King Dingane produced by white historians and others failed to consider
his reign from more than one perspective.
To prove his point, Okoye used the same sources as the white his-
torians—the material to be found in history texts, travel writing and
the records of traders and hunters, among them the diaries of Henry
Francis Fynn, rev Owen and Allen Gardiner and Nathaniel Isaac’s books
on travel in the Zulu Kingdom. Of all the authors who wrote about
King Dingane, Okoye was the only trained historian and Africanist and
 7 AFrICAN ACADEMICS AND POETS: THE rOOTS … 223

therefore he viewed white sources through different eyes. Furthermore,

it should be noted that Okoye is disconnected from Zulu oral traditions
about King Dingane. He is in no way organic because he is from West
Africa. However, as a professionally trained historian, he used the avail-
able evidence to derive an alternative viewpoint that suggests that his-
torical knowledge is relative. He regarded his article as an attempt to
correct the misconceptions on the monarch and claimed that ‘many rea-
sons could be given for this grievous error on the part of [Eurocentric]
scholars’.66
He began his article by explaining the king’s domestic policy of
eliminating enemies of state as ‘just’ in the particular circumstances. To
Okoye, these were not ‘destructive’ murders; King Dingane had to con-
solidate his position by destroying his real and/or potential enemies,
including the favourite chiefs of the king’s predecessor, his own male rel-
atives, chiefs who had renounced their allegiance to the Zulu Kingdom
and those who practised witchcraft, poisoned others, appropriated royal
cattle or disobeyed the king.
Like many other writers, including Nyembezi, Okoye claimed that
King Shaka was more ruthless than King Dingane, and that most of the
dependants of those struck down by Dingane, including Nqetho, chief
of the Qwabe, managed to survive and had received sanctuary in the
British settlement of Port Natal. These rebels naturally had no love for
the Zulu monarch and were responsible for the deteriorating relationship
between him and the white settlers. They spread malicious rumours that
the Zulu monarch was contemplating an extermination of the whites.
Okoye argued that previous commentators failed to recognise the impor-
tant role played by these fugitives from Zulu justice in the tense rela-
tions between King Dingane and the European settlers and had instead
mistakenly ascribed this to the king’s innate treachery, his uncontrollable
caprice and ruthless premeditation.67
Okoye maintained that until 1835 King Dingane showed no hostility
to the white settlers. On the contrary, he was at pains to court their pres-
ence. Okoye believed it was necessary for the Zulu monarch to adopt a
diplomatic stance because he coveted the white settlers’ trade goods and
technology, particularly their muskets, which would enable him to revo-
lutionise Zulu warfare by adding a regiment of amabutho armed with
guns. The king also needed the settlers’ knowledge of the outside world;
he was now well aware, via his political advisors like Hlambamanzi, of
the threat posed by both colonisation and capitalism.
224 S.M. NDLOVU

Okoye believed that King Dingane was neither self-indulgent nor

treacherous. Nor was he an absolute despot, for he always consulted with
his two prominent advisors, Nzobo and Ndlela, on matters of state. He
was not an ingrate nor was he an unadulterated liar. He described the
king as a nationalist who constantly attempted to upgrade his military
policy and strategies to confront and counteract the formidable power
of the gun and musket. According to Okoye, King Dingane was also
keen to retain the friendship of the European traders, although in this he
failed because of false accusations by the African wards of the Europeans,
who propagated unfounded rumours against him.68 Okoye suggested
that the manipulative ivory traders and other white traders bore part of
the blame for the murder of Piet retief and his party and for the shift
of King Dingane’s accommodationist diplomatic policy to a confronta-
tional one. He disputed as unfounded the argument by white historians
that retief and his men were killed because the Voortrekkers, who had
already defeated Mzilikazi, presented the Zulu with a threat very differ-
ent from any posed by the presence of the traders at Port Natal.
The arrival of the Voortrekkers revived the king’s hopes of overhaul-
ing his military capability because retief promised to send him guns and
horses seized from Sigonyela, the Batlokwa king. However, the ‘untrust-
worthy’ Europeans did not meet these promises. The trekkers’ staging of
a mock calvary charge in the royal presence, further aggravated matters
and made the king even more desirous of obtaining guns and horses for
his warriors. Since these could not be acquired by peaceful means, King
Dingane resorted to confrontation. Okoye thus absolved the king of any
wrongdoing or ill will towards retief’s party. Had the European traders
not discontinued the sale of firearms, he argued, King Dingane would
not have had cause to obtain the weapons by means of murder.69 The
king was simply an early African nationalist protecting his land and peo-
ple from marauding white settlers.
Africa’s move towards independence in the 1960s prompted Okoye’s
radical view of King Dingane as expressed in his Ph.D. thesis and his
article. Indeed, the 1960s saw the ascendancy of Africanist history and
historiography with Africanist and nationalist historians undertaking
wide-ranging research on the continent’s past. This oppositional history
put Africans at the epicentre of analysis, challenging the racist, deroga-
tory stereotypes that were so typical of the Western image of Africa.
Mazisi Kunene, Okoye’s alma meter at UCLA also wrote about King
Dingane.
 7 AFrICAN ACADEMICS AND POETS: THE rOOTS … 225

MAZISI KUNENE: KING DINGANE’S DISASTROUS

DIPLOMATIC POLICY
Mazisi ka Mdabuli Kunene was born in Durban in 1930. He began writ-
ing poetry as a boy, submitting poems for publication in newspapers
and magazines. He left South Africa for England in 1959, having com-
pleted his Master’s dissertation, ‘An Analytical Survey of Zulu Poetry
both Traditional and Oral’ at the University of Natal. His aim was to
conduct research in comparative literature and to complete a doctoral
thesis on Zulu literature at the School of Oriental and African Studies
(SOAS) at London University. Instead, he became involved in politics
and in the 1960s was the ANC’s representative in London and Oliver
Tambo’s right-hand man. In 1972, Kunene became the ANC’s director
of finance. He also served in the Anti-Apartheid and Boycott Movement
(1959–1968), the Committee of African Organisations (1960–1966),
the Pan African Youth Movement (1964) and the Afro-Asian Literature
Organisation (1966–1970).70 He later became a lecturer in African
Studies at the University of California, Los Angeles, which was Okoye’s
alma mater.
In his early work, Kunene depicted King Dingane in an extremely
negative light. For his MA dissertation, he undertook extensive fieldwork
to collect oral traditions in the Umzinto, Inanda, Dumisa, Stanger and
Embo areas to supplement documents compiled by James Stuart and
Killie Campbell on izibongo.71 He also relied on books by Samuelson,
A.T. Bryant and Henry Stanley for accounts on life in ‘pre-conquest’
times, sharing their negative perceptions of King Dingane.72 Kunene
claimed that King Dingane was a revengeful reject whose morbid pet-
tiness drove him to murder whole families for no apparent reason.73 He
went on to describe the king as a cruel, inhumane and treacherous cow-
ard with a low intellect. Furthermore, according to Kunene, Dingane
lacked the military acumen of Shaka. As he put it, if they had the choice,
the Zulu would have chosen Prince Mhlangana who ‘was more humane
than Dingane. Conditions were such that a man who was more humane
and more statesmanlike would have done greater good than a blood-
thirsty soldier of mediocre intelligence’.74
Kunene cast doubt on King Dingane’s leadership qualities and told
that he was politically immature and was ‘overwhelmed’ by the pres-
ence of white settlers. An astute leader, wrote Kunene, should be dip-
lomatic to ‘manipulate events to the best advantage of the country’ and
226 S.M. NDLOVU

according to him, ‘Dingane was not such a statesman’. He believed

that King Dingane cut a pathetic figure—timid and panicky. His fail-
ure to deal with the threat of the white settlers and with internal dissent
antagonised everyone, bringing disaster to the Zulu empire,75 and the
king ‘died an unhappy man, pursued and hated by his own people’.76
Furthermore Kunene felt that the way Dingane took the throne did
not accord with the kingdom’s high ideals of bravery; instead, it was an
act of treachery. He believed Dingane did not kill Shaka to later imple-
ment ‘a nation-building exercise’, nor was the ‘nation’ behind him in
what he did. Comparing Dingane to Shaka, Kunene’s view was that King
Dingane had not endeared himself to the amaZulu either through deeds
of bravery or personal contact. Kunene claimed that Dingane lacked the
quick-wittedness possessed by Shaka and was primarily motivated by
‘burning’ personal ambition, power and authority.77 Kunene’s Master’s
dissertation depicts Queen regent Mnkabayi as having influenced and
manipulated Dingane, the ‘weakling’, to adopt an anti-Shaka attitude
and of having played a leading role in the plan to assassinate King Shaka.
This theme permeates African perspectives of King Dingane.
In 1979, Kunene, by this time in exile and working as a lecturer at
UCLA’s African Studies Department, published his seminal book,
Emperor Shaka the Great,78 based on the existing archive of oral tradi-
tions. It was originally written in isiZulu but this manuscript was lost
during Kunene’s years in exile. Among those who helped and inspired
him in his research for Emperor Shaka was Chief Mangosuthu Buthelezi,
the leader of the then KwaZulu Bantustan, whom Kunene referred to as
his ‘brother and leader … [whose] example of leadership is a true con-
tinuation of the tradition of his ancestor, Shaka the Great himself’.79
Kunene also dedicates the book to Queen regent Mnkabayi whom he
refers as a king. This is a monumental statement considering the fact
that amaZulu are decidedly patriarchal. It also alludes to the power and
authority which Mnkabayi possessed and displayed.80
In Emperor Shaka, we notice a shift in Kunene’s perception of the
relationship between King Dingane and regent Mnkabayi. In this
Zulu historical epic, unlike others, he reversed their roles, denouncing
Prince Dingane as power-hungry and claiming that he tried to influ-
ence his aunt to adopt a negative view of King Shaka by saying: ‘I am
disturbed by the policies of Shaka; they will bring disaster to our whole
nation. I have no faith in promises of white strangers’.81 Mnkabayi is
 7 AFrICAN ACADEMICS AND POETS: THE rOOTS … 227

now depicted as constructive person and as empathising with King

Shaka because she tried to discourage the ‘evil’, reckless, impulsive and
ambitious Prince Dingane for inflicting damage on the Zulu throne.
Here, Kunene presents to us the pragmatic, sympathetic Queen regent
Mnkabayi, the power broker, dismissing Prince Dingane’s concerns in
one his ‘jealous fits’:

I, too, am beginning to see strange things in your brother’s life … Despite

all this I still have faith in him. Perhaps this dark cloud shall pass, and we
may yet see a new and powerful king. Yes I still have great belief in him.
He is a king most needed in our times. Such sharpness of mind only comes
as a gift from the Creator …You, too, must help your brother and consoli-
date his power.82

Like Magema Fuze, Kunene represented the then Prince Dingane in ani-
malistic terms—as black mamba—lethal, dangerous and poisonous. Once
on the throne, according to Kunene, he was an emotional person who
was ‘carried away by his own thoughts and pride’ and would never attain
the glory of Shaka’s rule.83 Again as was the case with Fuze, Kunene
claimed that Dingane harboured a deep suspicion of white settlers, was
bitter that they participated so intimately in the affairs of the Zulu court
and was keen to stage an open confrontation with them. Unlike Shaka,
who advocated diplomacy, Dingane demanded an immediate and deci-
sive strike against the settlers.84 In this regard, Kunene’s views accord
with those of Chief Mangosuthu Buthelezi which will be analysed in the
next chapter.85
In the late 1990s, Kunene completely reversed his view of King
Dingane and took to representing the Zulu view of the Battle of
iNcome, including the construction of an alternative monument to com-
memorate the battle. At a seminar organised by the Department of Arts
and Culture in 1998,86 like Herbert Dhlomo and the younger Thema,
Kunene proposed that King Dingane and the battle should be seen in
a global and comparative context—comparing the king to ‘great white
heroes’ like the russians who stood up against the might of the Germans
during the Second World War.87 Notwithstanding this complete change
of heart, Kunene’s negative image of King Dingane was destined to
impact on other African scholars such as Themba Msimang of the
University of South Africa.
228 S.M. NDLOVU

THEMBA MSIMANG: VIEWING KING DINGANE THROUGH

THE EYES OF REGENT MNKABAYI

If Eliot Zondi’s historical novel analysed King Dingane through the eyes
of King Shaka, Msimang chose the eyes of Queen regent Mnkabayi. The
idea that King Dingane was a weakling who was manipulated by regent
Mnkabayi is a subtext in Msimang’s historical novel, as was the case with
those by Dube, rolfes Dhlomo and Zondi. In 1982, Themba Msimang
published a historical novel in isiZulu, entitled Buzani kuMkabayi.88
During an interview I conducted with him in the year 2000, Msimang
indicated that he believed King Dingane was an incompetent, ruth-
less, bloodthirsty, treacherous despot and that supported by the Queen
regent Mnkabayi, he had undermined the glorious past of the Zulu
Kingdom. Hence, the translation of the title of his book: ‘Ask Mkabayi’,
or even ‘Demand explanations from Mkabayi’ concerning the rise and
fall of the once magnificent Zulu empire. Msimang advised African
nationalists who wanted to know why their past had followed such a
destructive trajectory to ask Mnkabayi for an explanation. He believed
that she engineered the death of King Shaka and in the process Pan-
Africanism suffered what could be compared to a ‘still-born baby’. 89
Msimang’s characterisation of regent Mnkabayi is similar to that of
the ‘milder’ Kunene. He believed Mnkabayi was easily manipulated and
influenced90 by a power-hungry, ambitious and sly Prince Dingane, who
was jealous of King Shaka. Like most white writers, Msimang accused
King Dingane of being an inveterate liar, but for different reasons.91
He berated Dingane for daring to question King Shaka’s leadership
and complaining to his aunt, the regent, about the destructive policies
adopted by Shaka to govern the kingdom:

Jama ngiyabonga ukukubona ungena ngelamasango akwaDukuza ukuba

nawe ube ngufakazi wokubhubha kwezwe lawobabamkhulu libhujiswa
yiloShaka osephenduke inkentshane.92

Although the regent was at first resistant to Dingane’s machinations and

sympathised with King Shaka, she ultimately connived and conspired
to assassinate the king together with the ‘gullible’ prince, his sibling,
Mhlangana and his servant, Mbopha.93 Like Dube, Msimang elaborates
on the influence of the pro-conquest ‘ghost’ prophecy of King Shaka
in a chapter titled ‘Umfula wegazi’ (river of blood). This does not refer
 7 AFrICAN ACADEMICS AND POETS: THE rOOTS … 229

to the battle at Ncome river but to ‘atrocities’ supposedly commit-

ted by Dingane which led to bloodletting. Like Fuze, Dube and rolfes
Dhlomo, fearing King Shaka’s ghost and his so-called prophecy about
whites ruling blacks until eternity, Msimang appropriated the view that
King Dingane was driven to a rule of fear in which he destroyed friends,
generals and chiefdoms that were loyal to King Shaka. Among those
killed, Msimang names Ngwadi kaGendeyana, the brave warrior who
was very close to the king and Sontobe kaSibiya, Shaka’s confidant.94
He asserts that Matiwane of the Ngwane chiefdom, Dube of the Qadi
chiefdom and the Cele chiefdom were all lured by King Dingane to their
deaths. Challenging the notion that the king was ‘uMalamulela’, the sav-
iour, Msimang believed that as an inveterate liar who misled his subjects.
The king also promised to scale down on wars that exposed the people
to predators:

Kumele abachazele ukuthi uShaka umbulalele ukukhulula bona. Ngemuva

kwalokhu izintombi nezinsizwa zizothola ilungelo lokugana kuphele lesi-
yasihluku sikaShaka sokuyeka izintombi zigugele ezinsisheni, nezinsizwa
zizezijutshwe sezingamaxhegu. Abathembise futhi ukuthi abazukuphen-
duka ukudla kwamanqe kanti futhi ngeke abhuqabhuqe izwe ngezimpi.95

Msimang, like Kunene, contended that these empty promises masked

a sly, scheming and ambitious power-monger. He believed the situ-
ation was complicated by the arrival of the Voortrekkers whom, like
Zulu nationalist authors, he portrayed as good-natured and harmless.
According to him, King Shaka liked white people in general, particu-
larly the trader ‘uMbuyazi weTheku’ (Henry Frances Fynn),96 but that
King Dingane, on the other hand, loathed and feared all whites and
was heavily influenced by ‘Shaka’s prophecy’.97 Consolidating Fuze’s
and Dube’s theory, including that of other writers, Msimang believed
the main reason for the assassination of retief and his party was to pre-
vent this prophecy from coming true. He also maintained that other
factors (which I have analysed in Chaps. 3, 5), included cattle dispute
with the Batlokwa, the defeat of Mzilikazi, the threatening letter from
the Voortrekkers and the reconnaissance exercise around the royal home-
stead, were secondary issues and he only mentioned them in passing as
part of his dialogical historical novel.
Among Msimang’s reasons for writing this historical novel about
Queen regent Mnkabayi was what he believed was the negative
230 S.M. NDLOVU

representation of her in works by Eliot Zondi and rolfes Dhlomo.98 But

maybe he passed the test particularly when he analyses the relationship
between Mnkabayi and Dingane. regent Mnkabayi, Msimang believed,
was manipulated by Prince Dingane. This she lived to regret, because she
had loved King Shaka and saw in him some of her own strong leadership
qualities. Msimang asserted that Mnkabayi, like Shaka, wanted to build
up the Zulu nation to be the best in the world, which objective may have
influenced African writers like Kunene to change their attitude towards
the regent in their later publications.
In an interview I held with Msimang on 17 April 2000 at Unisa,
he confirmed that much of his research material was from a Mr Elliot
Buthelezi of Alexandra, who Msimang respected as a ‘fundi of Zulu his-
tory and Zulu culture—a great custodian of Zulu history’. Buthelezi,
who came from eMahlabathini in Northern KwaZulu-Natal, was
related to Chief Mangosuthu Buthelezi. Msimang maintained that Eliot
Buthelezi was a highly skilled organic historian and an astute narrator,
who unlike some other learned members of the Zulu royal family was
not inclined to rely on publications by white historians such as E.A.
ritter and J. Omer-Cooper that were freely available to them as compli-
mentary copies.99 As Msimang put it, these Zulu royals were inclined to
simply narrate these texts like parrots. In contrast, Elliot Buthelezi, who
was a firm believer in African customs, culture and traditions, rejected
such works. He was extremely proud of the Zulu royal house, includ-
ing the Buthelezi clan’s contribution to the history of amaZulu. He had
a personal interest in Zulu history because his grandfather had led one
of King Cetshwayo’s regiments during impi yase Sandlwane and he had
gleaned most of his information on oral tradition from his grandfather
and his father.100
Msimang postulated that it was possible for Prince Dingane to
turn the regent against King Shaka because the king had relocated to
kwaDukuza near the coast and the regent was based inland at ebaQu-
lusini. Dingane took advantage of this, supplying her with informa-
tion on the dynamics inside the royal palace. Such information was
largely biased against the Shaka and Mnkabayi believed Dingane
because she held the Zulu empire dear in her heart and thought that
King Shaka’s leadership threatened the unity of the Zulu nation.101
However, Msimang did not believe that the regent was involved in the
plot to kill King Shaka, contending that Dingane had conspired only
with Mhlangana and Mbopha, and that a plot involving the regent
 7 AFrICAN ACADEMICS AND POETS: THE rOOTS … 231

existed only in the creative mind of a novelist such as Zondi and rolfes
Dhlomo. According to Msimang, during King Shaka’s reign, Mnkabayi
had resigned from politics and was no longer in charge of matters within
the royal house because she felt Shaka, as a strong leader, was capa-
ble of running the kingdom on his own. As a result, Msimang depicts
Mnkabayi as a tragic heroine who sacrificed far more than she gained.
He wanted readers to sympathise with her and thus consciously adopted
Eliot Buthelezi’s perspective. Msimang also, to some extent, justified the
death of King Dingane at the hands of Nyawo, basing this opinion on
the premise that King Dingane had failed to conquer the Boers and that
if allowed to continue to rule the Zulu Kingdom, it would have been
inevitable that the Boers would crush him. But he failed to explain why
this did not happen for the king was deposed by his brother, Mpande,
not by the Boers.
Zulu nationalists and poets also used other avenues to express opin-
ions on King Dingane. For example, in their writings, they highlighted
the importance of physical features such as iSandlwana, uMgungundlovu
and iNcome. As poets, they followed the footsteps of formidable African
academics such as Vilakazi and Kunene whose published work on Zulu
poetry is instructive. Their works still dominate the teaching of isiZulu
literature at universities.

INCOME NOMGUNGUNDLOVU AND KING DINGANE: NARRATIVE

POETRY AND THE LANDSCAPE AS HISTORICAL SOURCES
A number of African poets who were not in exile continued the tradition
of documenting oral histories of King Dingane. This new group of intel-
lectuals used poetry, physical landscape and geography to consolidate
the historical perspectives and cultural aspirations of the African people.
Their poems articulated the complexities of transition from tradition to
modernity. The twentieth-century Zulu poets who visited places such
as iNcome and iSandhlwana as part of their pilgrimage regarded these
places as their own Mecca, so to speak; places where they could pray and
pay homage to their ancestors and fallen heroes. The common thread in
their writing is their empathy with the poor, whom they met when visit-
ing such places.
Writers such as J.A.W Nxumalo, M.S. Gcumisa and Thomas
M’zwenduku Masuku were not in exile. Writing in their home country,
they made subtle use of poetry to raise the consciousness of the African
232 S.M. NDLOVU

people. They escaped the wrath of the authorities because the symbolic
language and metaphors they used had multiple meanings. Their poems
spoke of the historical significance of iNcome and uMgungundlovu/
Pietermaritzburg as cultural landscapes and sacred spaces.102 They chose
to write only in isiZulu, probably for populist reason and also as means
of avoiding detection by white censors who were not familiar with the
ideological implications of their works because of language constraints.
By writing in isiZulu, they were tacitly excluding white readership. As
a result, uMasihambisane and iGoda (edited by Sibusiso Nyembezi)
escaped the net of classification as ‘subversive literature’. Both books
were prescribed for African primary schools and were cornerstone texts
for those who were studying isiZulu as vernacular at primary school,
myself included.
J.A.W. Nxumalo’s 1961 Zulu textbook, uMasihambisane, included a
historical narrative poem on iNcome prescribed for standard five (now
grade 7) learners. This was the first in a series of texts that used iNcome
landscape and physical geography as a historical archive and source.
I probably read this compulsory text when I was a primary school learner
in Soweto. By providing us with a revisionist interpretation of the battle
scene, Nxumalo posited that the amabutho who fell in the battle were
heroes who died for a just cause, defending their fatherland. This led him
to conclude: ‘Zazingahlanyi lezozinsizwa, Zazivikela izwe lakubo kwa-
Zulu’. Like Petros Lamula, Nxumalo regarded the fallen heroes as King
Dingane’s finest ‘ithemba leNkosi uDingane’ and, accordingly, as mar-
tyrs who would rise from the dead and lead the people to liberation from
tyrannical white rule in South Africa. They would also oversee the return
of traditional land to the people.
Nxumalo called iNcome a rivulet, even though whites consistently
used the name Blood river. The narrative poem, focusing as it does on
the physical geography of the place, Nxumalo’s analysis challenges the
military historians who insist that the river was a barrier—that was central
to the Voortrekkers’ military strategy and the reason for the high num-
ber of amaZulu casualties. The assertion even puts the locality of the bat-
tle in some doubt. In existing settler tradition, the river was an obstacle
that hampered the mobility of the marauding Zulu impi. It is suggested
that amabutho were unable to cross the fast-flowing river easily to attack
the Voortrekkers, who were encamped on the other side. Unless the
geography of the area has changed substantially, Nxumalo seems to have
a valid point. I have visited the area on numerous occasions and iNcome
 7 AFrICAN ACADEMICS AND POETS: THE rOOTS … 233

is a rivulet. Unless an archaeological excavation of Ncome is conducted,

I do think we will retrieve thousands of bones and other forms mate-
rial culture representing the fallen warriors, for example, spears, shields.
The casualty in Afrikaner nationalist text is reported as the standard three
thousand warriors which is often the case when they were involved in
major battles with African kingdoms and chiefdoms. But considering the
functionality and limitations of the musket, the gun technology of the
time, it was impossible for this high number of warriors to have perished
at Ncome. This is why Ngoza’s ka Ludaba eyewitness account is convinc-
ing. Together with a number of Zulu regiments, they escaped and anni-
hilated the Voortrekkers in subsequent battles.
Nevertheless, Nxumalo, who wrote in the early 1960s, believed that
the defeat at iNcome was a turning point for African people because
thereby they had lost both their land and their freedom. He argued that
it would be a difficult and testing process to return the land and country
as a whole to its rightful owners. He felt a sense of grief and hopeless-
ness and tears filled his eyes when he visited iNcome and its surround-
ings. This defeatist attitude is reflected in his opening stanza, but then it
changes to hope when he recognises that after all, freedom could indeed
be attained by fighting against cultural imperialism and assimilation and
that this would lead to a revitalisation of African civilisation, which he,
like Motseko Pheko (whose views will be discussed in the next chapter)
believed was the old and true civilisation, ‘loze libuye sidle ngoludala,
Mhla zibuyayo emasisweni, Sohlala sidle ndawonye, phansi komthunzi
wendalo, umthunzi wokukhanya, umthunzi wempucuko, umthunzi wen-
kululeko’.103
In the 1980s, M.S. Gcumisa used Nxumalo’s themes in a collection
of Zulu poems, Isilulu Semicabango. These reflected his vast knowledge
of oral traditions as reservoirs of historical knowledge on King Dingane.
The narrative poems discussed the role of the king’s political advisors,
notably Ndlela and Nzobo and other intelligence officers in the team that
had drawn up the battle strategy at iNcome. Gcumisa was familiar with
the different regiments (battalions in today’s terms) that were engaged
in the battle, identifying them as iZinyosi, uDlambedlu, iNgwegwe and
uMdlenevu, for example.104 These regiments were also identified in the
various eyewitness accounts of Tununu, Socwatsha and Sivivi that are dis-
cussed in Chap. 2. Gcumisa also knew the names of warriors involved,
among them Bhongoza kaNgcobo, uNozishada kaMaqhoboza and
uSonsukwana kaGqwashaza,105 and vividly described the technological
234 S.M. NDLOVU

advantage of those who had access to guns. He imbibed the oral tra-
ditions of the battle from his grandfather, who had learnt them at the
knee of Gcumisa’s great-grandmother, ‘uMkhul’ ubeyixoxa lendaba,
Kuye kuhlengezel’izinyembezi, Athi unina wayebukela bengamatshitshi.
Wayeyixoxa maqed’aqhaqhazele, Athi base babaleke bona, Bahlakazeka
bagcwal’ izinkalo’.106
As an African nationalist, Gcumisa, like Nxumalo, felt aggrieved
when he visited iNcome and the vicinity of Kwa Mathambo. He called
for unity among amaZulu in order to fight the common enemy, the
apartheid government, who represented the Voortrekkers of the past.
He believed that ANC and Inkatha Freedom Party supporters in the
Province of Natal and KwaZulu homeland should rise above their differ-
ences and reconcile with one another. As amaZulu, they should rise up
against the tyranny of apartheid and refuse to accept white cultural tradi-
tions; he called for cultural retrieval and a revival of indigenous traditions
and customs. When leaders such as Mnkabayi and King Shaka were at
the helm of the Zulu nation, it was, he contended, in its prime.107
In the early 1970s, when apartheid was at its peak and censorship was
particularly oppressive, Thomas M’zwenduku Masuku was another poet
who articulated his Africanist tendencies by representing King Dingane
in a positive light.108 Like Nxumalo, Masuku was well versed in existing
oral traditions and his poems are redolent with allusions to the so-called
Great Trek and the arrival of the trekkers in the Zulu Kingdom. He
also touches on the main themes: Voortrekkers’ reconnaissance mission
around the royal palace; the question of cattle as a means of production;
Sigonyela and his fate; the killing of retief and his party; King Shaka’s
so-called prophecy and the various battles between King Dingane and
the Voortrekkers.109
Masuku’s unashamedly pro-King Dingane narrative poem does not
sanitise history; it relies on historical facts rather than imaginative, evoca-
tive language and stylistic quirks. It acknowledges the Voortrekkers’
military capability, the advantages of the gun and the defeat of amaZulu
at Ncome. But at the same time, Masuku sees the defeat as a continu-
ation of wars of resistance that began with arrival of Jan van riebeeck
on South African shores. Moreover, it is a subtle call for Africans to
arm themselves and rise above defeat, and reclaim their land, he, like
Nxumalo, asserts: ‘Loze libuye sidle ngoludala’.110
The poets’ view of history and images of King Dingane challenged
those depicted in existing conventional and official history textbooks
prescribed in South African schools. Masuku’s 1971 narrative poem was
 7 AFrICAN ACADEMICS AND POETS: THE rOOTS … 235

a rare exception in a stiffling environment dominated by the anti-King

Dingane images and negative rhetoric of the textbooks.111 His charac-
terisation of the king was similar to that of the young Selope-Thema,
Herbert Dhlomo and Jordan Ngubane. Masuku described King Dingane
as ‘magnificent’ and ‘greater than heaven’; he was ‘edlula izulu, uyind-
lovu ehlula izulu, uyingwenya egubhuza izulu’ (a mighty elephant
greater than heaven, a crocodile who is likened to thunder), ‘ezamazisa
isibhakabhaka’ (shaking the sky).112 The last stanza of Masuku’s poem is
a call to challenge the negative portrayal of the Zulu kings and the his-
tory of amaZulu in various texts: ‘Buyanini, mathole kaZulu, Dumisan’
amakhosi akwenu: Amakhos’ oqotho, akwaZulu; Tusanini okuhle kwak-
wenu’. [Zulu calves (young men) return, praise your formidable kings of
Zululand, promote and rejoice in what is positive about your land.]
The battle which took place in 1838, he wrote, was not over yet,
‘amandla ethu awakapheli’ (our strength or fighting spirit has not been
exhausted). The real challenge began when Prince Mpande collaborated
with white settlers at Maqongqo, hence Masuku’s call to stand up and
continue to fight the white settlers and their black surrogates. Masuku
dedicated his ode to King Dingane, to the African continent, to ama-
Zulu and to Africa’s youth, who he exhorted to carry on in the tradition
of King Dingane, fighting for their freedom: ‘ngiyayethula lenkondlo,
Zulu, ngiyithulel’izwe le-Afrika; ngiyayinikez’ inkondlo Zulu, ngiyinikez’
intsha ye-Afrika’ (Zulu people, I am dedicating this poem to you. I am
also dedicating it to the continent of Africa; furthermore, I composed it
for the youth of Africa).
In the 1980s, Gcumisa, A.T. Kheswa and M.A. Hlongwa embarked
on a quest to restore the history of the white settler town of
Pietermaritzburg in their narrative poem ‘uMgungundlovu’. They
described the life and times in the apartheid-riddled city and the urban
townships nearby, iMbali and Sobantu.113 The poets avoided using the
name Pietermaritzburg, believing that there was only one true name—
uMgungundlovu. The history of the area, they said, should be taught
to succeeding generations: ‘baningi abasayowuland’ umlando wakho
benabe nawo ulondeke, Wena uyobe ulokhu wama njalo’ (many will
continue to narrate and preserve your history. You will forever be part
of our physical space and landscape).114 Their poem discusses the racial
organisation of space in South African urban areas and the relationship
between the state and its citizens. Segregated spaces, they wrote, and the
political conflict over their creation were important in shaping the differ-
entiated citizens of our cities. They emphasised the rebellious nature of
236 S.M. NDLOVU

the city’s African residents, who resisted the unjust policies of the apart-
heid regime. Like uMsunduzi, the river running through the city, ‘ngeke
basisunduze noma sesiseduze’ [they (the authorities) will never push us
out of sight although we are in close proximity].
The narrative poetry of Masuku, Gcumisa, Kheswa and Hlengwa
served the same ideological purpose as did the Black Consciousness,
worker and United Democratic Front ‘protest’ poets. Their poetry,
although it focused on Zulu culture, traditions and history, was an inte-
gral part of the radical cultural tradition and movements of the 1970s and
1980s.115 However, as the next chapter will show, the transformation of
the image of King Dingane into a metaphor for contemporary politics
was also adopted by liberation movements and politicians of the day.
In conclusion, in 1936, when Vilakazi wrote his unpublished jour-
nal article he argued that for past 200 years or so, the white masters of
South Africa had not only denied Africans their humanity, but also their
nationhood and citizenship. He used a positive image of King Dingane
to challenge this injustice. Ten years later, after conducting research for
his doctoral thesis, he was more circumspect and presented a nuanced
image of the king. Similarly, the difference between Nyembezi’s initial
perception of Dingane (his Honours essay) published in the 1948 edi-
tion of African Studies and his opinions expressed ten years later in his
book Izibongo zamakhosi can also be put down to the extensive field-
work and research he undertook as an academic. By that time, Nyembezi
believed that according to Zulu cultural tradition, King Dingane
was indeed the rightful heir to the Zulu throne. This was because his
mother, Mpikase, was Senzangakhona’s first wife and therefore Dingane,
as Mpikase’s eldest son, had every right to usurp the throne from King
Shaka. Furthermore, as academics, Vilakazi and Nyembezi both accorded
an important role to cultural traditions as relevant historical sources. For
instance, they focused their analysis on the meaning of uKweshwama
ceremony and its impact on the relationship between the king and the
Voortrekkers. The ceremony which in terms of power and authority
was/is still controlled by women and absolved the king of any wrong-
doing in terms of the killing of retief and the Voortrekkers. Thus, both
these prominent Zulu authors were able to reconsider their views on
King Dingane and also placed women at the centre of their narrative.
Felix Okoye, based in the African diaspora, also gave consideration to
historical changes which defined the king’s life. He identified a pre-1835
accommodationist position and a post-1835 confrontationist position
 7 AFrICAN ACADEMICS AND POETS: THE rOOTS … 237

adopted by the king against white settlers and colonisers. Mazisi Kunene
and Themba Msimang also changed their ‘evil woman’ stereotype about
the domineering Queen regent Mnkabayi. They, later, absolved the
regent and instead heaped the blame on the machinations of her nephew.
The narrative poetry of Masuku, Gcumisa, Kheswa and Hlongwa mines
decades old izibongo as composed by Magolwane and Mshongweni in
pre-colonial times. This rich history was also preserved by Vilakazi and
Kunene who were formidable African poets.116 They published most of
their poems in isiZulu and this fed into debates about the relevance of
using African languages to write our history. The use of African languages
in this regard was akin to being an insurgent in apartheid South Africa—it
was a tool used to escape the clutches of suffocating censorship. In this
way, narrative poetry was a valuable weapon of the oppressed.
All this certainly is about intellectual history for it implies that History
is about change in a given time. As such, History is open to continuous
reassessment and reappraisal, revision and re-examination, construction
and re-construction. But the historian’s methods must always be rooted
in evidence, rather than on abstract complex theories. History is a mat-
ter for debate and refinement of perceptions, and is seldom ‘right’ or
‘wrong’. It is more often either ‘convincing’ or ‘poorly argued’. These
academics and poets do not seek to manufacture a consensual past about
King Dingane and they challenge existing stereotypes by incorporating
newly available sources into the research they have undertaken and the
analysis of the evidence. The ability to expose readers to historical argu-
ments that are contrary to their earlier perspectives or ideological pref-
erences—the including willingness to modify or abandon preconceived
notions in the light of overwhelming evidence to the contrary—sug-
gests that these academics possess an understanding for humanity and
the human condition. The challenge was passed to the liberation move-
ments whose role on the production of historical knowledge about King
Dingane will be analysed in the next chapter.

NOTES
1. B.W. Vilakazi, iLanga, 17 March 1933.
2. B.W. Vilakazi, ‘The Oral and Written Literature in Nguni’, Ph.D. thesis,
University of the Witwatersrand, 1946.
3. J. Ngubane, ‘Three Famous Authors I knew: B.W. Vilakazi Imbongi
Yesizwe Jikelele, Dr Benedict Vilakazi’, Inkundhla yaBantu, April, First
Fortnight, 1946.
238 S.M. NDLOVU

4. See B. Peterson, Monarchs, Missionaries and African Intellectuals

(Johannesburg: Wits University Press, 2000).
5. Peterson, Monarchs, Missionaries and Intellectuals, 106.
6. University of the Witwatersrand, William Cullen Library, Historical and
Literary Papers (hereafter Wits), B.W. Vilakazi Collection, File Misce.
C/17/35 on ‘Appointment of Native Language Assistant-Department
of Bantu Studies’. See also Chap. 4 above on Pirow the virulent minister
of Justice.
7. Wits, B.W. Vilakazi Collection, Misce. S/48/35.
8. Wits, B.W. Vilakazi Collection, Unpublished article.‘Bantu Views of the
Great Trek’, 4.
9. Ibid.
10. Ibid.
11. Ibid., 6.
12. University of KwaZulu-Natal (hereafter UKZN) James Stuart Archives
(hereafter JSA), Killie Campbell Manuscripts (hereafter KCM) 24221.
13. Ibid. The underlining is in the original text.
14. Vilakazi, ‘Bantu Views of the Great Trek’, 5. See also Chap. 2 above on
this theme.
15. Vilakazi, ‘Bantu Views of the Great Trek’.
16. H. Ngubane, Body and Mind in Zulu Medicine: Ethnography of Health
and Disease in Nyuswa-Zulu Thought (New York: Academic Press,
1977), 31–32.
17. Vilakazi, ‘Bantu Views of the Great Trek’, 7. From Peterson, we have
the full quote Vilakazi cited from Emerson’s ‘Essay on History’. It reads
as follows, ‘We sympathise in the great moments of history, in the great
discoveries, the great resistance, the great posterities of men, because
the law was found, or that blow was struck for us, as we ourselves in
that place would have done or applauded’. See Peterson, Monarchs,
Missionaries and Intellectuals, 123.
18. Vilakazi, ‘Bantu Views of the Great Trek’, 4.
19. Peterson, Monarchs, Missionaries and Intellectuals, 123–125.
20. Vilakazi, ‘Bantu Views of the Great Trek’, 7.
21. Ibid. Probably these included his peers like L. Fouche, who also submit-
ted articles to the journal. See L. Fouche, ‘The Historical Setting of the
Great Trek’, Race Relations News, November 1938, 71.
22. Vilakazi, ‘Bantu Views of the Great Trek’, 8.
23. Ibid.
24. Fouche, ‘The Historical Setting of the Great Trek’.
25. Vilakazi, ‘Oral and Written Literature in Nguni’, 23.
26. Ibid., vii–viii.
27. Ibid., 21.
 7 AFrICAN ACADEMICS AND POETS: THE rOOTS … 239

28. Ibid.
29. On powerful women operating within the Zulu kingdom, see C.A.
Hamilton, unpublished Honours dissertation, ‘A Fragment of the
Jigsaw: Authority and Labour Control amongst the Early 19th century
Northern Nguni’, Wits University, 1980, 11–12. See also Vilakazi, ‘Oral
and Written Literature in Nguni’, 49.
30. Vilakazi, ‘Oral and Written Literature in Nguni’, 21.
31. Vilakazi, ‘Oral and Written Literature in Nguni’, 22.
32. Ibid., 21.
33. This does not necessarily mean that Vilakazi was a male chauvinist. He
had a positive attitude towards women, see Chap. 2 of his doctoral
thesis titled, ‘Poetry concerning Women’. He also discusses regent
Mnkabayi at length. For a discussion of the role of gender and women
in royal politics, see M. Genge, ‘Power and Gender in Southern African
History: Power relations in the era of Queen Labotsibeni Gwamile
Mdluli of Swaziland, ca. 1875–1921’, Unpublished Ph.D. thesis,
Michigan State University, 1999; and S.M. Ndlovu, ‘A reassessment
of Women’s Power in the Zulu Kingdom’, in B. Carton, J, Sithole
and J. Laband eds, Zulu Identities: Being Zulu, Past and Present
(Pietermaritzburg: UKZN Press, 2008).
34. Genge, ‘Power and Gender in Southern African History’.
35. Natal Archives Depot, Pietermaritzburg (hereafter NAD), The Zulu
Society Papers housed here are a mine of information for those inter-
ested in intellectual history. A systematic study of the Zulu Society and
its role in constructing and preserving Zulu history is long overdue.
36. Vilakazi, ‘Oral and Written Literature in Nguni’, 21, footnote 30.
37. Ibid., 21.
38. Ibid., 275.
39. Ibid., 424
40. Ibid., 432. Most of the texts used by Vilakazi are not readily available
and are out of print. I had difficulty getting access to P. Lamula, uZulu
kaMalandela: A Most Practical and Concise Compendium of African
History Combined with Genealogy, Chronology, Geography and Biography
(Durban: [s.n.], 1924), that is analysed in Chap. 4. But I did manage to
get a rare copy at the University of Natal (now University of KwaZulu-
Natal), Pietermaritzburg campus library.
41. Vilakazi,‘Oral and Written Literature in Nguni’, see Chaps. 12 and 13
on ‘Nguni Writers: The Age of Intellectual Advance’, 288–357.
42. S. Nyembezi, Izibongo zamakhosi (Pietermaritzburg: Shuter & Shooter,
1958).
43. S. Nyembezi, ‘The Historical Background to the Izibongo of the Zulu
Military Age’, Honours dissertation, University of the Witwatersrand,
240 S.M. NDLOVU

1946. This was published in African Studies, December 1948, see 160,
161. His path-breaking analysis of izibongo zikaDingane largely cor-
responds with my analysis in Chap. 2. Izibongo zamakhosi were part
of our curriculum in my primary and secondary education in Soweto. I
have vivid memories of talented praise singers who were highly regarded
by introverts like us, who were dismal and incompetent when it came
displaying our skills as far as performance poetry like izimbongi were
concerned. I used to dread the times when our teachers would ask a stu-
dent to display his or her skills in front of the class.
44. Nyembezi, ‘The Historical Background’, 123.
45. Ibid., 121.
46. Ibid., 122.
47. Nyembezi, Izibongo zamakhosi. In 1988, the University of Natal Press
and Killie Campbell Library published a book on the praises of Dingane,
claiming that ‘Dingana eulogies have not been published in the major
collection of Zulu poetry’. See A.B. Ngcobo and D. rycroft, Izibongo
zikaDingana. I refute this claim in view of Nyembezi’s important work
in the 1940s and 50s. The Ngcobo and rycroft book fails dismally in
contextualising King Dingane’s reign by using izibongo as a tool as far
as history is concerned.
48. It is claimed in oral tradition that Senzangakhona banned both young
princes Dingane and Shaka from the royal residence when they were
found guilty of ‘indulging in sex’ while still teenagers, against strict
moral codes and customs. They escaped the wrath of their father by
running away and were raised by other clans/chiefdoms. This is one of
many interpretations about why Shaka was raised by the Mthwethwa.
49. Nyembezi, Izibongo zamakhosi, 61.
50. Ibid.
51. Interview with Eliot Zondi conducted by S.M Ndlovu, University of
Natal, Durban, 17 March 1998.
52. For an opposing view on E.A. ritter whose views are regarded as simi-
lar to those expounded by Bryant, see C. Hamilton, ‘Authoring Shaka:
Models, Metaphors and Historiography’, Ph.D. thesis, Johns Hopkins
University, 1993. This thesis was published as Terrific Majesty.
53. Interview with E. Zondi conducted by Sifiso Mxolisi Ndlovu, 17 March
1998, University of Natal, Durban campus.
54. Ibid.
55. Eliot Zondi also published a historical novel on Bhambatha and the
1906 rebellion.
56. Zondi, Ukufa kukaShaka (Johannesburg: Witwatersrand University
Press, 1960).
57. Ibid., 6.
 7 AFrICAN ACADEMICS AND POETS: THE rOOTS … 241

58. His work will be discussed later in this chapter.

59. Interview with E. Zondi, 17 March 1998.
60. F.N.C. Okoye, ‘The American Image of Africa: Myth and reality’, Ph.D.
thesis, University of California, Los Angeles, 1969.
61. E.W. Blyden, ‘West Africa before Europe’, an address delivered in
London, 1905, Cited by Okoye, ‘The American Image of Africa’, post-
script to thesis.,
62. Okoye, ‘The American Image of Africa’.
63. F.N.C. Okoye, ‘Dingane: A reappraisal’, Journal of African History,
1969, 221–235.
64. Ibid., 221.
65. Ibid.
66. Ibid., 1.
67. Okoye, ‘Dingane: A reappraisal’, 222–223.
68. Ibid., 234.
69. Ibid., 235.
70. See the cover of M. Kunene, Emperor Shaka, the Great (London:
Heinemann, 1979). Information was also gathered in an engaging
interview between Prof. Kunene and the author in Durban on 3 May
1998.
71. Kunene, Emperor Shaka, Preface, v.
72. In 1996, I had an informal chat with the amiable Prof. Kunene at
the University of Natal and tried to set up an interview. He politely
declined, saying there was nothing to discuss about King Dingane,
whom he saw as a failure and an embarrassment. King Shaka was his
man. Two years later, in May 1998, he invited me to his home and we
had a fruitful meeting, but he was still steadfast in his negative view of
King Dingane.
73. Kunene, ‘An Analytical Survey of Zulu Poetry both Traditional and
Modern’, MA dissertation, Natal University, 1957, 132.
74. Kunene, Emperor Shaka, 141.
75. Ibid., 141.
76. Ibid., 129.
77. Ibid., 140.
78. Kunene, Emperor Shaka.
79. Ibid., xi.
80. ‘A reassessment of Women’s Power in the Zulu Kingdom’, in Zulu
Identities: Being Zulu, Past and Present, edited by B. Carton, J. Laband
and J. Sithole (Scottsville: University of KwaZulu-Natal Press, 2008).
81. Kunene, Emperor Shaka, 303.
82. Ibid., 300.
83. Ibid.
242 S.M. NDLOVU

84. Ibid., 301.

85. See Buthelezi’s perspectives of King Dingane. They are, to a large extent,
similar to those of Kunene. It is perhaps not surprising that Kunene
does not favour what he terms the confrontational diplomatic policies
of King Dingane. On the other hand, he was receptive to King Shaka’s
accommodative policies.
86. Department of Arts, Culture, Science and Technology (DACST)
Seminar, University of Zululand, 27 November 1998. This document is
housed at DACST, which is now the Department of Arts and Culture.
87. Ibid. He did this by challenging what he rightly or wrongly perceived as
John Laband’s pro-Voortrekker sentiments after the latter had presented
his paper at the University of Zululand conference.
88. C.T. Msimang, Buzani kuMkabayi (Pretoria: De Jager-Haum, 1984).
89. Ibid., Chaps. 14–18.
90. This goes against existing oral tradition whereby it is claimed that the
regent was not easily manipulated, see Chaps. 1 and 2 on Queen regent
Mnkabayi.
91. Msimang, Buzani, 143.
92. Ibid., 140.
93. Ibid., 144–145.
94. Ibid., 157.
95. Ibid., 168.
96. Ibid., 172.
97. Ibid.
98. Taped interview conducted by G. Mseleku with Themba Msimang, 21
September 1996, Umlazi, Durban, for her history Honours project at
SOAS, University of London. I was present during the interview.
99. E.A. ritter, Shaka Zulu: The Rise of the Zulu Empire (London: Longman,
1955); J. Omer-Cooper, The Zulu Aftermath: A Nineteenth Century
Revolution in Bantu Africa (London: Longman, 1966).
100. Interview conducted by S.M. Ndlovu with Msimang, Pretoria, 17 April
2000.
101. Ibid.
102. For discussion on landscape and history in African societies, see E.
Kalipeni and P.T Zeleza eds, Sacred Spaces and Public Quarrels: African
Cultural and Economic Landscapes (Trenton, NJ: Africa World Press,
1999).
103. J.A.W. Nxumalo, uMasihambisane (Pietermaritzburg: Shuter & Shooter,
1961), 71.
104. See Church of England Mission, Izindatyana zabantu (Bishopstowe:
1858); and the James Stuart Archives.
 7 AFrICAN ACADEMICS AND POETS: THE rOOTS … 243

105. S. Gcumisa, Isilulu Semicabango (Pietermaritzburg: Shuter & Shooter,

1981), 8.
106. Ibid., 9.
107. Ibid., 11.
108. T.M. Masuku, Izikhali zeMbongi (Pretoria: J.L. van Schaik, 1971), 78.
109. Ibid.
110. Ibid.
111. Ibid.
112. Ibid.
113. S. Gcumisa, Kheswa and M.A. Hlongwa, Amaqoma (Pietermaritzburg:
Shuter and Shooter, 1992), 31.
114. Ibid., 33.
115. Performance poet Mzwakhe Mbuli also drew largely on this tradition,
particularly the heroic past of the African monarchies that permeate
his lyrics. I think that the existing catalogue of songs on King Shaka
by both local and international artists, groups and musicians deserves a
study of its own.
116. See, for example, B.W. Vilakazi, Izinkondlo zika B.W. Vilakazi
(Johannesburg and randburg: Wits University Press and Hodder
& Stoughton, 1993); and M. Kunene, The Ancestors and the Sacred
Mountain (London: Heinemann, 1982).
 CHAPTEr 8

The Political Images of King Dingane in the

Age of the Armed Struggle: 1960–1994

This chapter discusses the role of the media, liberation movements such
as the ANC and the Pan Africanist Congress (PAC)—including their
opponents such as the Inkatha Freedom Party (IFP) in constructing par-
ticular perspectives of King Dingane. These perspectives date back to
1916 when Thema, the secretary general of the ANC, presented his views
about King Dingane the freedom fighter during the Bantu Debating
Union deliberations. As discussed in Chap. 5, this stirring debate was
published in iLanga lase Natal, owned and run by John Dube, the presi-
dent of the ANC. In 1920, Thema expanded on his views about King
Dingane in aBantu-Batho which was owned by Pixley Seme, the founder
of the ANC. Therefore, compared to other liberation movements,
the ANC’s perspective was constructed over a period dating back from
the day the organisation was founded in 1912 to 1995, by which time
it was the ruling government in South Africa. It implemented a legisla-
tion which, for nation-building purposes, proclaimed that 16 December,
known previously by white South Africans as Day of the Covenant,
Dingaan’s Day and the Day of the Vow, should be celebrated and com-
memorated as the Day of reconciliation. This was first suggested by
Thema in 1932.
As was often the case, the African press played a critical and instructive
role in enunciating particular perspectives of King Dingane and just as
community halls, the streets and public spaces were used by the worker
movement during the 1920s, the press now became the public sphere
which dabbled in public history; it was a liberated space where people

© The Author(s) 2017 245

S.M. Ndlovu, African Perspectives of King Dingane kaSenzangakhona,
African Histories and Modernities, DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-56787-7_8
246 S.M. NDLOVU

such as Thema, Dhlomo and Ngubane through iLanga, aBantu-Batho,

Inkundla yaBantu and The Bantu World were able to articulate views on
King Dingane and the counter-commemoration of ‘Dingaan’s Day’ pub-
licly and without fear. However, with the advent of the 1950s, the black
press, particularly Inkundla yaBantu and The Bantu World, ceased to be
in the forefront of the debate.
Inkundla ceased publication about 5 months before the Defiance
Campaign was launched in 1952 and thus a radical mouthpiece of
African intellectual nationalism was lost. Thema, the editor of The Bantu
World, remained on the ANC’s National Executive Committee (NEC)
until 1949. Fearful of communist influence and opposed to cooperation
with Indian militants, he became critical of the ANC, formed a splinter
group called the Nationalist Minded Bloc and, together with his follow-
ers, left the organisation in 1950. He refused to support the Defiance
Campaign and retired from The Bantu World in 1952. Sadly, another
important voice representing African intellectuals was lost.
During the 1950s, the press was subordinated to white control and
became commercialised. Entrepreneurs like Jim Bailey launched Drum
and Golden City Post and the major Afrikaans-language press groups,
aided by the state, gained a monopoly over the black magazine and
photo comics market. The Argus Company took full control of The
Bantu World, changing the title to The World in 1956 and relaunching it
as a daily tabloid modelled on the London Daily Mirror.1
The New Age, a Congress Alliance mouthpiece that succeeded The
Guardian in 1954, was, to some extent, an exception.2 In 1955, it car-
ried an editorial on what was now called the ‘Day of the Covenant’, dub-
bing it a ‘holiday for racialists’. It declared that the so-called Day of the
Covenant, 16 December, was not a national celebration, it was essentially
a celebration of the subjugation, dispossession and oppression of the
African people, commemorated with religious trappings and fervour by
the institutions of white supremacy and helping to perpetuate racism and
propaganda by blatantly distorting the history of South Africa.3
There could, the editorial writer stated, be no room for this type of
ahistorical celebration in a free South Africa. The issue of New Age dated
11 December 1958 carried an essay titled ‘Why did Dingane Kill retief ?’
written by Lionel Forman, a white lawyer and journalist.4 It was a criti-
cal analysis of the conventional view of King Dingane propagated by the
majority of white South Africans. The sources Forman cited included
MacMillan’s Bantu, Boer and Briton (1929); Bird’s Annals of Natal
 8 THE POLITICAL IMAGES OF KING DINGANE IN THE AGE … 247

(1888); Gardner’s Journey to the Zoolu Country (1836); Skota’s African

Yearly Register (1957); Owen’s Diaries, 1936–1938; Mguni’s Three
Hundred Years (1952); and Theal’s The History of the Emigrant Boers in
South Africa (1887). In his conclusion, Forman noted:

… just as there was nowhere a black man could go and be left in peace
by the white man, so there was nowhere a Boer could go and be left in
peace by the British. Within a few months of the establishment of the Boer
republic in Natal, reports reached London that there was valuable surface
coal in the territory. At the same time awareness was growing of the value
of Port Natal as a naval base. In 1842, after a short battle with the Boers,
the British took over … for the Zulus nothing changed.

On 18 December 1958, New Age published an article entitled ‘Johannes

Nkosi: Honour his Memory’. The article, accompanied by a picture of
Nkosi, concluded: ‘the name of this young Communist leader will always
be remembered and honoured by the liberatory movements’. On 24
December 1959, New Age published another article on Blood river,
stating that 16 December was celebrated as one of the landmarks, if not
the landmark of the triumph of ‘white civilisation’ and white national-
ism in South Africa. It claimed that retief and the Boers used trickery
to get King Dingane to comply with their plan to acquire more of the
land belonging to amaZulu. It was only when the king discovered that
the Boers intended to kill him after he had granted them the land that
amaZulu attacked them. AmaZulu, the article continued, won a series of
extremely costly victories and as a result:

Dingane believed he had shown his superiority to the Boer-British alliance

and that he could now go back and live unmolested, in peace in his own
territory. But he was wrong. On December 16, 1838, the Boer-British
front exploited Dingane’s politeness, regrouped and killed 3000 Zulu
soldiers.

In 1960, after the banning of the PAC and the ANC by the apartheid
regime including all the pro-ANC publications such as The Guardian,
New Age and Spark, all opposition was suppressed, including printing
and display of posters and pamphlets which promoted the liberation
struggle. It was left to the ideologues responsible for newly established
ANC newsletters and journals like Sechaba and Dawn to fill the void by
carrying out research and producing African nationalist texts, including
248 S.M. NDLOVU

several on King Dingane. Some of these texts were broadcast by radio

Freedom on 16 December each year. As an example, on 16 December
1969, radio Freedom featured a speech on this subject by the ANC
president, Oliver Tambo.5
As has been documented in previous chapters, one of the hazards of
history is that it can be used or reworked for political and ideological
purposes. In the case of King Dingane, this reworking intensified during
the era of the armed struggle. Academic historians often have a parochial
and limited view of history and dismiss versions of the past produced
outside the academy because they perceive themselves as the only ‘true’,
professional historians. As a result of this misplaced and self-serving
judgement, academic historians seriously underplayed the significance
of the kinds of histories produced by ideologues of major social move-
ments, worker movements, liberation movements and political interests
in broader society. This book does not fall into this trap. With regard to
King Dingane, both negative and positive images emanated from politi-
cal movements like the ANC, PAC and IFP ideologues. These images as
regarded as historically significant.

THE ANC AND PAC: ‘DINGAAN’S DAY’

COUNTER-COMMEMORATIONS AND ‘STRUGGLE POLITICS’
The ANC policies of Thema and his cohorts in the late 1920s, 1930s
and 1940s, which had at their core gradualism, collaboration with white
powerbrokers and the fight for the franchise for educated Africans, were
now suspect. The emergence of the radical Youth League in 1944 led to
a change of policy. The Youth League chairman, Anton Lembede, the
secretary Oliver Tambo and treasurer Walter Sisulu undertook to develop
a 3-year programme to mobilise South Africa’s black people. The pream-
ble of the ANC Youth League Manifesto, written in 1944, declared that
‘Africanism must be promoted’, meaning that Africans must struggle for
development, progress and national liberation in order to occupy their
rightful and honourable place among nations of the world. The mani-
festo declared:

1. We believe in the divine destiny of nations.

2. The goal of our struggles is Africanism and our motto is ‘Africa’s
Cause Must Triumph’.
 8 THE POLITICAL IMAGES OF KING DINGANE IN THE AGE … 249

3. We believe that the liberation of Africans will be achieved by

Africans themselves. We reject foreign leadership of Africa.
4. We may borrow useful ideologies from foreign ideologies, but we
reject the wholesale importation of foreign ideologies into Africa
…

And

9. We believe in the unity of all Africans from the Mediterranean Sea

in the North to the Indian and Atlantic Oceans in the South—and
that Africans must speak with one voice.6

The tone of the manifesto was unashamedly Pan-Africanist and was first
championed by the ANC in its policy document about Africans’ Claims.7
The disbanding of the CPSA in 1950 and the success of the ANC-led
mass movement of resistance, through the Defiance Campaign 2 years
later forced communists to reassess their relationship with the ANC in
particular and with African nationalism more generally. As the struggle
against apartheid intensified in the early 1950s, a new theory was evolved
to fit South Africa’s ‘unique’ conditions. That theory, also known as
‘colonialism of a special type’, or an internal colonialism, was the ide-
ological glue that held the ANC and the newly formed South African
Communist Party (SACP) alliance together for the next four decades.8
This alliance was an expression of the ANC’s policy of non-racialism,
outlined in the Freedom Charter which was drawn up in 1955.
The Freedom Charter proclaimed that South Africa belongs to all
who live in it. Some ANC members, believing in the African national-
ism espoused by Lembede, rejected this proclamation and the differences
between those who supported non-racialism and those who did not were
destined to play a large part in the internal dynamics of the organisation.
In 1959, the group that opposed the Freedom Charter broke away and
formed the PAC. Among the breakaway group was robert Sobukwe. At
its national conference in Durban in 1959, the ANC had taken a deci-
sion to conduct a massive nationwide struggle against the pass laws. Both
the PAC and the ANC launched anti-pass campaigns in 1960. The PAC
campaign began on 21 March 1960. People were asked to leave their
passes at home and to gather at police stations to protest against the
unjust pass laws. They gathered in large numbers at Sharpeville in the
Vaal Triangle and at Nyanga and Langa, near Cape Town. At Sharpeville,
250 S.M. NDLOVU

police opened fire on the unarmed and peaceful crowd, killing 69 and
wounding 186. This massacre of unarmed protesters brought a decade of
peaceful mass-defiance campaigns and protest to an end.9
The ANC called a national one-day strike on 28 March 1960 to pro-
test against the killings and ordered a mass burning of passes. The apart-
heid regime, alarmed by the powerful wave of mass action and support
for this initiative, declared a state of emergency, arrested activists from
both the ANC and the PAC and, shortly afterwards, banned both organ-
isations. refusing to accept the banning order, the organisations resolved
to continue the struggle underground and in exile. On 16 December
1961, the ANC formally launched the armed struggle, formed its mili-
tary wing Umkhonto we Sizwe (MK), with one guerrilla unit named
after Johannes Nkosi, and began to sabotage government installations.
From then on, 16 December was woven into ANC iconography and
became known as ‘South African Heroes’ Day’ as opposed to ‘Dingaan’s
Day’.10
Among the members of the MK High Command were rolihlahla
Mandela, Govan Mbeki, Walter Sisulu, Dennis Goldberg, Ahmed
Kathrada, raymond Mhlaba, Andrew Mlangeni and Elias Motsoaledi.
In actions intended to notify the apartheid regime that MK was a
force to be reckoned with, the organisation sets off a series of explo-
sions that shook government buildings in Johannesburg on 16 and 17
December 1961. Time bombs struck the rand again on the morning of
21 December when power pylons were damaged near Edenvale Hospital
on the outskirts of Johannesburg.11 As a result, a number of well-known
political activists in the Congress Alliance movement were raided by the
apartheid regime’s police special branch.
In Port Elizabeth, Harold Strachan who worked in tandem with
Govan Mbeki was arrested and charged under the Explosives Act and
with malicious damage to property. In Johannesburg, the police detained
reggie Vandeyar, a member of the Transvaal Indian Congress, and in
Durban, the homes of many members of the Congress Alliance were
raided.12 reports indicate that there were also explosions in five places
in Port Elizabeth and New Brighton on 16 December, damaging the
Labour Bureau, administration offices and Bantu Education offices and
big electrical substations.13 Police raided a number of homes, among
them those of ANC activists Caleb Mayekiso, Mzisi Mancoko, Vuyisile
Mini, Frances Baard and Lungile Fuyani. New Age reported the bomb-
ings in its December 1961 issue, and MK distributed posters in the
 8 THE POLITICAL IMAGES OF KING DINGANE IN THE AGE … 251

major cities to coincide with the bombings.14 A document published by

the ANC declared, ‘to the Africans this day [16 December] symbolises
resistance and indomitable quest for freedom—it was on this day that
Johannes Nkosi, a communist activist, was killed in Durban in 1930’.15
In early morning raids on 18 December 1961, police, using search
warrants issued in terms of the Arms and Ammunitions Act, the Unlawful
Organisations Act and the Criminal Laws Amendment Act, among oth-
ers, seized typewriters, letters and minutes, nitric acid, one-gallon tins,
plastic containers, rubber gloves, French chalk and other substances used
for the manufacture of explosives.16
In 1961, Mandela undertook various trips within Africa to mobi-
lise support for MK, and after his return, he worked underground until
he was arrested in Natal on 5 August 1962. He was convicted on 7
November and sentenced to 3 years’ imprisonment for incitement and
2 years for leaving the country without valid documents. Other members
of the MK High Command continued with the national liberation strug-
gle but were arrested on 11 July 1963 at Lilliesleaf, a farm near rivonia,
Johannesburg, from which they had been running operations. At the
farm, police found a document titled ‘Operation Mayibuye’, a stra-
tegic planning document drafted by members of the High Command.
The trial, which would go down in history as the rivonia Trial, began
in October 1963 and went on until 12 June 1964 when all the accused
were sentenced to life imprisonment.17
On 6 November 1964, the apartheid regime sent three prominent
ANC activists, Vuyisile Mini, Wilton Khayingo and Zizakile Mkhaba, to
the gallows for MK-related activities. This was probably to tighten the
noose around the ANC and to send a chilling message to political activ-
ists within the country. The lack of resources and materials, combined
with the state’s crippling strategy of imprisoning the entire MK High
Command and Technical Committee, temporarily rendered the group
leaderless within the confines of South Africa. Govan Mbeki has written
about the problems faced by MK.18
The ANC, through the efforts of Oliver Tambo, at the time acting
president, regrouped to fill the leadership vacuum but it was in no posi-
tion over the subsequent few years to organise sabotages to mark its
counter-commemorations of 16 December. According to MK cadres,
Peter Tshikare and Wilson Ngcayiya, it was Wilton Mkwayi who played a
very important role in reviving the internal ANC branches and MK cells
after the rivonia trial.19 As a result, by July 1967, the exiled MK had
252 S.M. NDLOVU

joined forces with the Zimbabwe African Peoples’ Union (ZAPU) and
engaged in a battle against the joint forces of rhodesia and South Africa
at Wankie and Sipolilo. These battles, which raged until late 1968, ended
in failure. They did, however, result in members of MK gaining expe-
rience in combat and other military strategies.20 One outcome of the
Wankie and Sipolilo campaigns was the Morogoro Conference, held in
Tanzania on 25 April 1969. One of the objects of this conference was to
review the aims, objectives and policies of the movement. After the con-
ference, in a speech titled ‘Capture the Citadel’, clandestinely broadcast
by radio Freedom on the eighth anniversary of the formation of MK,
Or Tambo re-emphasised the significance of 16 December as ‘Heroes
Day’.21
In broadening the commemoration from its focus on King Dingane
to a celebration of all the liberation struggle heroes of the past, the ANC
accorded the Zulu monarch national rather than ethnic status. The liber-
ation movement also officially recognised him as one of the original free-
dom fighters whose ancestral spirit was protecting, driving and guiding
MK. In a speech titled ‘Mobilise our Black Power’, presented by Tambo
on the 10th anniversary of MK, 16 December 1971, Tambo elaborated
on the wars of resistance waged by various African monarchs and the role
of the founders of the ANC who were fully committed to the struggle
for liberation:

Let us arm ourselves with the willpower and fearlessness of Shaka; the
endurance and vision of Moshoeshoe; the courage and resourcefulness of
Sekhukhuni; the tenacity and valour of Hintsa; the military initiative and
guerrilla tactics of Maqoma; the far sightedness and dedication of S.P.
Makgatho, Sol Plaatje, Langalibalele Dube, Isaka kaSeme, W.B. rabusana,
Meshack Pelem, Alfred Mangena, Paramount Chief Letsie 2 of Lesotho
and all the founding fathers of the African National Congress … This is
the day when we pause and re-examine ourselves and our organisation. Are
we living up to what is expected of the members of the revolutionary and
fighting organisation? Is the OATH we took of any meaning and substance
to those who swore to fight until freedom is won? 22

Tambo’s speech was intended to promote unity among the indigenous

ethnic groups. A possible explanation for the fact that he made no ref-
erence to King Dingane is that King Shaka represents him and he saw
no difference between the two monarchies. Tambo’s focus on unity, in
a speech that was inclusive and straddled the ethnic, race and gender
 8 THE POLITICAL IMAGES OF KING DINGANE IN THE AGE … 253

divide, was influenced by the current circumstances and future needs of

the liberation movement in its struggle against racism—including the
divide and rule strategy of the apartheid regime. At another level, this
focus shows us that history is a tremendously important political sub-
ject that can be used effectively for oppositional purposes in a racist and
divided country.
In the years that followed, Sechaba, the official newsletter of the
ANC,23 and Dawn, MK’s official newsletter, featured articles on counter-
commemorations of Dingaan’s Day and annual events organised by the
ANC marked the day. In London, on the evening of 16 December 1976,
Bram Fischer, a white South African vilified by the apartheid state for
his stand against its racist policies, together with Tambo, was honoured
with the World Peace Council’s highest award, the Joliot Curie Medal.24
Both outside and within South Africa, the ANC challenged the official
commemoration of 16 December by the apartheid regime. On the day
Fischer and Tambo were honoured a leaflet titled, ‘December 16th is a
Historic Day in the Freedom Struggle’ was distributed in Cape Town.25
reporting on the 16 December celebrations in 1976, the January 1977
issue of Sechaba declared:

December 16 is known throughout South Africa as ‘Heroes’ Day’. On

the day Umkhonto weSizwe was formed in 1961, 123 years after impis of
Dingane confronted the white invaders at the banks of iNcome, which the
racists call ‘Blood river’.

The reports and sabotage action carried out by MK cadres also served to
assist the ANC’s recruitment campaigns and political mobilisation inside
the country after the Soweto uprisings of June 1976. Disaffected young
people were called upon to rally behind the ANC and join MK in ever
greater numbers for military training.26 The liberation movement was
adept at using this historical event to support its programme of action.
The use of public history by the ANC did not only focus on what
took place on 16 December 1838. As an example, to commemorate
the centenary of impi yase Sandhlwana, the battle which took place in
1879 between the forces of the Zulu Kingdom—the victors and the
British Empire—the losers, the ANC declared 1979 the Year of the Spear
(Umkhonto). In a leaflet, the organisation stated that it was important
to learn about the past and use it to plan for the future. It also high-
lighted difficult internal dynamics within the liberation movement and
254 S.M. NDLOVU

acknowledged that the ANC was not homogenous; it was riddled with
factionalism and ethnicity, for example. In the leaflet, the organisation
advocated the use of history to fight against the destabilisation caused by
ethnicity, factionalism, disunity and spies by adopting what it referred to
as the ‘positive traditions of our people’:

Amabutho ka Cetshwayo [Cetshwayo’s regiments] won a great victory at

the battle of Isandhlwana. We commemorate this event not because we
like to glorify our past. On the contrary we draw serious lessons from our
past, lessons which help us to take decisions for the execution of the strug-
gle today, we assess and evaluate our past with the aim of mastering the
present and planning the future … whilst basing ourselves on the positive
traditions of our people we have to wage a bitter struggle against nega-
tive traditions and tendencies: laziness in order to fight against ethnicity,
factionalism, sectarianism and complacency. This is the essence of the inter-
connection between revolution and tradition …27

The following year, 1980, the ANC issued a leaflet celebrating various
armed attacks in South Africa and highlighting the ‘early 1960s Wankie
battle, from Ermelo to Durban, Fort Jackson, Orlando, Booysens,
Sasolburg, Chiawelo and Voortrekkerhoogte’.28 Celebrating Heroes Day
on 16 December 1981, Sechaba extolled the virtues of King Dingane’s
amabutho as freedom fighters.29
During the late 1970s and early 1980s, MK’s own journal, Dawn,
published various articles on African leaders and monarchies, among
them Makanda, Shaka, Sekhukhune, Moshoeshoe and Dingane. These
triumphalist articles eulogised their greatness as African nationalists and
‘freedom fighters’. The journal also featured counter-commemoration
articles titled ‘Izibongo zeNkos’uDingane’30 and ‘Why did Dingane
kill retief ?’.31 In the latter article, readers were warned about the abuse
of history by white South Africans, who were accused of using Social
Darwinism as an ideological tool. The article defined Social Darwinism
as a racist theory that proposed that certain races, the Negroid type,
were static and remained savages, while the Caucasoid type was dynamic
and evolved into civilised groups. The article also provided a revision-
ist account of the battle at iNcome. The author of the December 1979
article also asserted that Boers, the so-called forces of ‘light’ and ‘civi-
lisation’, did not defeat or depose King Dingane, it was his brother,
Mpande, who did so, at the battle of Magqonqo in 1840.32
 8 THE POLITICAL IMAGES OF KING DINGANE IN THE AGE … 255

The politics about the production of the history of resistance by

Africans were not only confined to the ANC in exile. While incarcer-
ated at robben Island, Mandela was instrumental in re-interpreting the
meaning of Heroes Day and as a result expanded the concept of heroes
of the contemporary liberation struggle to go back as far as the seven-
teenth century. As the first commander of MK, he had every right to
champion this shift away from present-mindedness. Mandela strove to
understand the history of the armed struggle, in its own terms, that it
did not commence on 16 December 1961. This becomes apparent in his
letter of 1 January 1971, a reply to Nomabutho Bhala. The imprisoned
Mandela wrote that this letter was ‘one of the best … I have read for a
long time … the few lines that you scrawled carefully across that mod-
est sheet of writing material moved me much more than all the classics I
have read’.33
Why did this letter move rolihlahla Mandela even more than the clas-
sical works of Homer, Shakespeare and the Greeks he had read avidly all
his life? He was moved because Bhala’s letter was about the fallen heroes
of the past. In most African societies, the actions and contributions of all
past generations viewed collectively, comprise the bulk of human endeav-
our and social progress. For only the ancestors have, by their heroic
example, established standards of moral excellence which succeeding
generations are expected to emulate.34 It is therefore hardly surprising
that the content of Nomabutho Bhala’s letter rekindled Mandela’s ances-
tral memory. He went on to comment:

Many of the personalities that featured in your remarkable dream lived,

simply and without written records, some 3 centuries ago. Neither you nor
I ever saw them plan [military] operations that were to make them famous
in history, nor did we watch as they went into action. For most of them
there is not even an authentic photograph which would give us a faint idea
of their physical features or personalities.35

As if referring to himself and his colleagues in the ANC and uMkhonto

weSizwe, Mandela emphasised the following point in this same reply to
Bhala: ‘Yet even a polished urbanite like yourself who lives in the second
half of the twentieth-century … cannot wipe away from your thoughts,
plans and dreams of the rugged and fierce heroes of the Neolithic age’.36
Mandela elaborated the following points about these commendable
heroes, who happen to be his ancestors:
256 S.M. NDLOVU

They were unusual men – the exceptions that are found elsewhere in the
world; in so far as their economy and implements were concerned they
lived in the Stone Age, and yet they founded large and stable kingdoms
by means of metal weapons. In the conflicts that were later to rock the
country, they gave a good account of themselves, holding at bay for a con-
tinuous period of more than a hundred years, a community [of European
colonisers and settlers] millennia in advance of themselves in economic
organisation and technology, and which made full use of the scientific
resources at their disposal.37

We note in his reply that Mandela’s perspectives are deeply philosophical

and are anchored in the past which Mazisi Kunene describes as the sine
qua non of our present, meaning that history is about the past in the pre-
sent. Our present concerns and ideologies influence us in what we think
and write about the past. As a result, revolutionaries such as rolihlahla
Mandela were conscious of the fact that their generation had to emu-
late noble deeds initiated by their ancestors, the brave heroes of the past.
Therefore to us as Africans, it is unthinkable to view the ancestors as
primitive, uncivilised and backward, because their actions achieved their
intended purpose despite the heavy odds against them. We also assume
that since the primary intent of the ancestors was to satisfy not only their
needs but also those of the next generation, their actions, according to
Kunene, supersede all the selfish motivations that otherwise dominate
society.38 Mandela noted the following about this important matter:

when their country was threatened [by colonisers who included the
Portuguese, the Dutch and the British] they [the ancestors)] showed the
highest standard of patriotism. Just as they refused to use the primitiveness
of their economic system and ineffectiveness of their weapons as an excuse
for shirking their sacred duty, so the present generation should not allow
itself to be intimidated by the disparities that the current internal align-
ment [apartheid], seems to entail.39

In his letter, Mandela paid specific homage to his brave ancestors, includ-
ing Autshumayo (also spelt Autshumao) of the Khoi, and he emphasised
that these heroes had influenced him to pursue the armed struggle in
South Africa. As the first commander of MK, a duty he assumed on 16
December 1961, he was immensely inspired by the fact that Autshumayo
together with contemporaries initiated the wars of resistance in southern
Africa. He was thus scornful towards those who dismissed the important
role played by the Khoi and San in the struggle for liberation. Mandela
 8 THE POLITICAL IMAGES OF KING DINGANE IN THE AGE … 257

expressed these views in his unpublished biographical manuscript written

while he was imprisoned:

Many people, including freedom fighters with a long record of struggle

and sacrifice, speak contemptuously of ‘Abatwa’. Yet several S.A. historians
have written objective and warm accounts on their unconquerable spirit
and qualities … in numerous engagements they showed unusual cour-
age and daring and would continue to fight desperately even after the last
arrow had been fired. These are the men who strove to free South Africa
long before we reached the field of battle.40

By using ancestral memory, Mandela forcefully declared that ‘we speak

with respect and admiration of heroes like the Khoi leader, Autshumayo,
Maqoma of the rharhabe, Bambatha, Cetshwayo of the Zulu, Mampuru
of the Pedis, Tshivahse of the Vendas and a host of others, who were in
the forefront of the wars of resistance’.41 To Mandela, the title ‘African
hero’ embraces all these liberation struggle veterans. But then, I would
add, this title also rekindles his ancestral memory. He paid a special trib-
ute to Autshumao by emphasising the point that he was South Africa’s
first black political prisoner to be exiled at robben Island. Mandela’s
argument is that the full story of our past remains incomplete unless we
tell the stories and describe the heroic deeds of ‘indigenous heroes who
acted as curtain raisers to the major conflicts that subsequently flamed
out (during the twentieth-century), and who acquitted themselves just
as magnificently’.42 Furthermore, Mandela expressed the view that
Autshumao and others, as the first freedom fighters, were ‘men who
strove for a free South Africa long before we [the MK generation of the
1960s] reached the field of battle’. They were trailblazers who defined
the history of resistance and the struggle for liberation. Together with
his contemporaries at robben Island, including those compatriots who
were in exile and the majority of the oppressed in apartheid South Africa,
they are ‘heirs to a three-stream heritage; an inheritance that inspires us
to fight and die for the loftiest ideals of life’. In 1962, a spirited Mandela
readily lectured the court in Pretoria about the history of the wars of
resistance spearheaded by his ancestors. Among the audience were his
would-be jailers. He also identified his primary sources to those who
attended the trial:

My elders would tell tales of [anti-colonial] wars fought by our

ANCESTOrS in defence of the fatherland, as well as acts of valour
258 S.M. NDLOVU

performed by generals and soldiers during those epic days. The names of
Dingane and Bambatha, among Zulus, of Hintsa, Makana, Ndlambe of the
amaXhosa, of Sekhukhune and others in the north, were mentioned as the
pride and glory of the entire African nation.43

In all probability, Mandela while in jail (internal exile) was in agree-

ment with his colleagues exiled outside the borders of South Africa to
celebrate and commemorate the heroes who led the wars of resistance.
Hence, Tambo and colleagues identified 16 December as Heroes Day—
an important day in the struggle for national liberation.

REPRESENTATIONS OF KING DINGANE BY THE PAC

The PAC also appropriated King Dingane in a positive, though slightly
different way. In the 1980s, while in exile, Motsoko Pheko, who later
became deputy president of the PAC, wrote several articles about the
king, adopting an unashamedly pro-King Dingane position.44 Pheko
postulated the theory that the harmonious, static life lived in African
states, kingdoms and societies was destroyed by the arrival of white set-
tlers. This is regardless of the fact that different African kingdom fought
among themselves for scarce resources such as land. Pheko also argued
that all towns with colonial names should revert to their original African
names. Pheko went on to claim (wrongly) that the original name of the
present-day city of Pietermaritzburg (the first town established by the
Voortrekkers in the Mzimkhulu-Thukela region) was uMgungundlovu.45
It seems likely that before the arrival of retief and his party, indigenous
Africans referred to the place where Pietermaritzburg is located by the
names of different chiefdoms, among them Machibisa and Dambuza.
These names still exist today but refer to African townships around the
town. The original name of the area where the town of Pietermaritzburg
is situated is probably Machibisa. It fell under this chiefdom, which at
one stage was controlled by a female chief.
What Pheko did reflect accurately, however, is that Africans had long
dubbed Pietermaritzburg, the town, as uMgungundlovu, adopting a
classic weapon of the weak by associating an act of cultural subversion
with an earlier episode of military resistance. How far back this goes
is uncertain but it would be fascinating to know. Pheko, like Johannes
Nkosi, Jordan Ngubane and Herbert Dhlomo, believed that the com-
memoration of 16 December by white South Africans was a charade,
 8 THE POLITICAL IMAGES OF KING DINGANE IN THE AGE … 259

an insult to his people’s dignity, civilisation and character. He argued

that the annual celebration was used by white South Africans, particu-
larly Afrikaners, to justify having taken the land belonging to Africans, as
reflected in the so-called retief-Dingane Treaty:

This ‘agreement’ supposedly signed by Dingane giving land to the trek-

kers is extremely puzzling and leaves unanswered many questions … The
land was being ‘sold’ to retief, yet he did not sign the ‘agreement’ [some-
one else did on his behalf]. It is more likely the alleged agreement [the
so-called retief-Dingane Treaty] was made out after Piet retief’s death to
make a case against the British colonial government, which had its eyes
on Natal. There can be no proof that the alleged X mark found on this
document is that of King Dingane and it is most unlikely that Dingane
would have been party to such an agreement as traditionally, land is not
sold in African society. Yet despite the suspicious nature of this document,
the 16th of December each year is celebrated by the Boer descendants in
South Africa. The struggle between Dingane and Piet retief is seen as a
battle between light and ‘western Christian civilisation’ on one hand and
‘darkness and barbarism on the other’.46

By the same token, the official commemoration of 16 December also

propagated an exclusive identity based on white racism.47 Events like the
Day of the Vow were depicted by Pheko as part of Afrikaner mythol-
ogy and as having nothing to do with civilisation. For this reason, Pheko
described King Dingane as a ‘Friend of true [African] civilisation’.48 He
believed that African civilisation was inclusive and characterised by the
indigenous people’s quest for humanity in their own land.
In a book written in the early 1990s, Pheko, recalling the fatal King
Dingane-retief ‘negotiations on land issues’, contended that the politi-
cal negotiations for a democratic dispensation that was taking place when
the Convention for a Democratic South Africa (CODESA) was convened
on 20–21 December 1991 were of no value. He did not trust the apart-
heid regime and suspected that they were not genuine about change and
would do a ‘Dingaan’, that is, turn against the liberation movements at
the negotiation table and incarcerate their leaders—particularly those on
their wanted list as MK cadres. Here he used an analogy based on what
occurred between the Zulu monarch and retief who wanted to steal the
land of amaZulu through the so-called Dingaan-retief Treaty. Pheko
also adopted a profound nationalistic, but ‘one-dimensional’, viewpoint,
claiming that ‘Azania was a land of milk and honey’ before the arrival of
260 S.M. NDLOVU

the white settlers, referring to the Voortrekkers who invaded the Zulu
kingdom.49 This was not necessarily the case—as the dynastic succession
disputes and other forms of blood-letting attest. Pheko’s positive por-
trayals of King Dingane, while rejecting the Afrikaner celebration of 16
December, contrast strongly with the views of Mangosuthu Buthelezi,
a member of the Zulu royal house and leader of Inkatha Freedom Party.

INKOSI MANGOSUTHU BUTHELEZI: INKATHA FREEDOM PARTY’S

COMMEMORATION OF KING SHAKA’S DAY AS OPPOSITIONAL
TO ANC’S COMMEMORATION OF HEROES DAY

Like Paul Forsyth, I believe the influence of non-academic productions

of history is especially evident in societies permeated by sharp politi-
cal conflict. The warring factions reflect these in sharply divergent ver-
sions of the past. This was clearly the case in South Africa where political
movements like the ANC, PAC and IFP systematically turned to the
past to find ideological explanations for their policies and programmes
of action in the present. Forsyth believes that the most graphic exam-
ple of this in recent years has been the production by Chief Mangosuthu
Buthelezi of a particular version of Zulu history.50
Forsyth divides Buthelezi’s political career into five main periods, each
of which corresponded to his appeals to, and reliance upon, different sets
of historical traditions. Between 1951 and 1968, as he strove to assume
a position of power in Zulu politics, he relied on Zulu history to assert
a ‘historic’ right to wield power. Between 1968 and 1972, Buthelezi
climbed his way to the pinnacle of power within Zulu Bantustan politics,
not only through his appeals to Zulu history and traditions, but also by
appealing to Afrikaner history. His use of Afrikaner historiography and
traditions characterised his efforts to establish himself as a credible home-
land leader in the eyes of the then white minority government.
The third phase in the development of Buthelezi’s historical discourse
was the period between 1972 and 1979. During these years, he pursued
his ambition to attain a national political following using African nation-
alism as well as the ideology associated with the Black Consciousness
Movement (BCM). This took the shape of the annual commemoration
of King Shaka’s Day in September. The period between 1979 and 1983
marks the fourth phase in the development of his historical discourse.51
This period saw Buthelezi rewriting the history of African nationalism by
dividing the history of the ANC into the pre-16 December 1961 era and
 8 THE POLITICAL IMAGES OF KING DINGANE IN THE AGE … 261

post-16 December 1961 period defined by the banning of the liberation

movements (thus forcing them into exile) and the formation of MK. He
claimed that the ‘real’ ANC was the pre-16 December 1961 ANC, of
which he was an official, card-carrying member.
Buthelezi believed that ‘his’ ANC was influenced by diplomatic and
accommodative Shakan ideals and strategic political acumen, as opposed
to the ANC ‘mission in exile’, which, through the armed struggle waged
by MK, was influenced by confrontationalist ‘Dingane-like’ ideals and
political philosophy. To some extent, Inkatha’s revival of King Shaka’s
commemoration every 27 September, dubbed Shaka’s Day, was a direct
response to the ANC’s use of 16 December as Heroes Day. Buthelezi,
like other writers before him, mentioned his fear of politically, racially
and ethnically based genocide and extermination. However, he did so
ambiguously. On the one hand, he accused the Afrikaners of being the
masterminds of racially motivated genocide. Addressing Piet Koornhof,
then Minister of Co-operation and Development, Buthelezi asked: ‘Do
I really fear for my life because of you? Today’s political events make
me as a black afraid of the future. I fear whites will one day shoot my
children because they fear them’.52 But on the other hand, he accused
the ANC of ethnically based genocide against what he referred to as the
Zulu Nation,53 and also of pursuing political genocide against big busi-
ness.54 Later, between 1983 and 1990, which period saw the formation
of the United Democratic Front (UDF), Buthelezi’s historical discourse
was concerned with rewriting South African history in such a way as to
present the Zulu ‘nation’ as a determining force in African politics. In
the process, he ‘appropriated’ the positive image of King Shaka as both a
skilled diplomat and a nation-builder.
Inkatha’s anti-King Dingane position is based on the third and fourth
phases of Mangosuthu Buthelezi’s political discourse in the period 1972–
1983. His standpoint was influenced by the political path the IFP had
chosen for itself in relation to Afrikaner nationalism and big business. It
was also characterised by anti-ANC rhetoric. The IFP insisted (at cer-
tain times) that Zulu and Afrikaner histories were similar in the way each
had responded to oppression. This often led to the IFP demonising King
Dingane as the ‘murderer’ of King Shaka, whom the IFP revered as the
founder of the Zulu Kingdom. King Dingane was also perceived as the
‘killer’ of Piet retief and his group of Voortrekkers. As a result, Buthelezi
laid the blame for bad race relations squarely on King Dingane’s shoul-
ders, accusing him of being the person who had instigated the animosity
262 S.M. NDLOVU

between blacks and whites in apartheid South Africa. The IFP even felt
that whites had justification to fear blacks, discriminate against them
and to exploit and oppress them. This is a recurring theme in the book
expressed by Fuze, Dube and others.
In a speech delivered at the unveiling of the tombstone of King
Dingane at Ngwavuma in June 1983, an event billed as the national
rehabilitation of King Dingane, Buthelezi expressed his views in a par-
ticularly dense and complex way. The 33-page speech, which could easily
pass as a judicious academic article, was heavily influenced by the estab-
lished Zulu oral traditions discussed in earlier chapters as well as the writ-
ings of white ‘historians’ such as Brian roberts, J. Gibson and James
Stuart.
The tone of the speech is ambiguous. The commemoration was
prompted by the apartheid regime’s declared intention to cession of
iNgwavuma from the KwaZulu homeland and hand it over to Swaziland
as an inducement to the Swazi government to continue acting against
the presence of the ANC within its borders. The speech and the event
thus served as an assertion of Zulu sovereignty, even though the cir-
cumstances leading to King Dingane’s death at this spot simultaneously
served as a lesson on what was misguided about his role. Buthelezi began
by reminding his audience:

King Dingane acceded to the Zulu throne under circumstances which even
after 155 years are as ugly as if it all happened yesterday. The murder of
King Shaka is an event which distresses every Zulu child who hears of it
from adults or reads about it in his or her Zulu primer. We all feel that we
would not have suffered as we have done for so long or been under the
political bondage that we are under up to this day had King Shaka not died
so tragically and so prematurely. We believe that this would not have hap-
pened because of the very special gifts which King Shaka, the founder of
this great Nation, possessed in such great abundance. It is therefore inevi-
table that a certain amount of animosity has welled up in the heart of the
Zulus over many generations towards those who were prime actors in King
Shaka’s assassination, who included Prince Dingane.55

Buthelezi went on to dispute Sibusiso Nyembezi’s argument that King

Dingane’s mother, Mpikase, was King Senzangakhona’s eldest wife.
Buthelezi asserted that she was his sixth royal wife and therefore Prince
Dingane did not have an immediate right to the throne. His opinion
 8 THE POLITICAL IMAGES OF KING DINGANE IN THE AGE … 263

was also influenced by the fact that as a member of the Zulu royal fam-
ily through his mother, his side of the family was directly implicated in
the succession dispute mentioned in one of rolfes Dhlomo’s publica-
tions and was elaborated upon by Herbert Dhlomo in Chaps. 2 and 4.
However, Buthelezi did concede that King Dingane had other virtues,
such as an enquiring mind. He had asked the white settlers probing
questions about the technology of their guns, their life history, coun-
try of origin, literacy, religious beliefs, culture, customs and the politi-
cal forces they represented. Through his advisors, the king learnt of the
power gained by the possession of firearms and acknowledged the advan-
tages of literacy.56 Buthelezi noted that:

There are many interesting stories of the King’s encounter with the white
missionaries, one of them being that when revd Owen told the King
about Heaven and a great King of heaven, God, the King is reported to
have said that Heaven was here [meaning eMgungundlovu] and that he
was the great King of Heaven! He was always evasive when rev Gardiner
applied for a Missionary site. He referred them to his Prime Minister
Ndlela Ntuli and one Senior Induna Dambuza … The King therefore told
American Missionaries that they must first build a house on the Natal side
of his kingdom and then come to teach him and his people how to read
and write and once this happened he would want schools throughout his
territory … King Dingane developed great interest in the white man’s
firearms.57

As far as the king’s relations with the white settlers were concerned,
Buthelezi, like Okoye, believed that, initially, King Dingane seemed to
have followed King Shaka’s accommodative, strategic diplomatic policy.
The turning point, according to Buthelezi, came when Piet retief wrote
a threatening letter to King Dingane.58 Nevertheless, Buthelezi laid the
blame for subsequent events squarely on the king’s shoulders, holding
him responsible for the antagonistic race relations that thereafter perme-
ated South African society.59
Buthelezi’s ‘Dingaan’s Day’ speech, delivered later that same year,
although critical of King Dingane, offered a similarly nuanced assess-
ment. He presented the murder of retief and his party as contain-
ing lessons both for himself and for the residents of Imbali Township
in Pietermaritzburg, the majority of whom supported the ANC and
opposed the IFP. Indeed, in the 1980s, destructive and heinous violence
264 S.M. NDLOVU

engulfed the area. He also acknowledged the fact that there were African
people (particularly ANC supporters) who regarded King Dingane as a
hero:

We know how after 1838 in this part of South Africa divide and rule was
so effectively used. The 16 December is perhaps the most important date
on the South African calendar as far as the Black/White conflict, which
tears the South African nation from top to bottom, is concerned … But
that cannot mask the fact that it … happened in KwaZulu and revolved
around a Zulu king, King Dingane, who is regarded as a hero amongst
Black people for the determination to resist White encroachments which
led to him to do what he did to Piet retief and his followers….

Noting the connection between the past and present—including the

importance of landscape as a historical archive, Buthelezi opined:

It is difficult for us to judge the action of political characters involved in

these events which occurred more than 140 years ago. We may in today’s
terms not approve of the methods which King Dingane used in dealing
with Piet retief, but we are so removed from the events of 1838 that it
becomes extremely difficult to be dogmatic in our judgement of those
sad events … This city [Pietermaritzburg)] has its roots in the events of
December 16 1838 when King Dingane killed Piet retief … History
knows that act to be the gravest political blunder that any African leader in
this country had made to that point in time … All I am saying is that the
conquest of this part of South Africa by Whites which was finally under-
taken by the British in 1879 was made easier because of the tragic killing
by King Dingane of Piet retief and his followers.

Using history, and the past to address present concerns, Buthelezi noted:

The aftermath of the killing of Piet retief and King Dingane’s strategic
blunder of attacking entrenched gunfire with bare hands at the Battle of
Blood river, was the division of Zulu forces and the final defeat of King
Dingane at the hands of the Boers … Pietermaritzburg was built on the
foundations of Black disunity and the building up of Pietermaritzburg is
rooted in an enabling Black/Black intrigue … On this day … let us draw
together the lessons of history so that we may learn from experience and
sharpen the forces we employ against apartheid … All my life I had the
courage to stand up and be counted as one who has eye-ball to eye-ball
confrontations with Prime Ministers and Ministers of States … My brothers
 8 THE POLITICAL IMAGES OF KING DINGANE IN THE AGE … 265

and sisters, those in the [Imbali FEDSEM Theological] Seminary who

would drive me before them would like to see me flee before the forces of
apartheid like King Dingane fled to Pongola to die as a victim of the strug-
gle itself.60

POSTSCRIPT

Nation-Building, Race Relations, Social Cohesion and Reconciliation

in Post-Apartheid South Africa: Mangosuthu Buthelezi’s New
Perspective in Post-1994 South Africa
The 16th of December became significant to Africans as soon as it was
proclaimed a national holiday in post-1994 South Africa. It was pro-
claimed as the Day of reconciliation by Mandela in 1995. Such a
move was first proposed by Selope Thema in 1932. President Mandela
presented a speech about reclaiming our humanity during the first
reconciliation Day commemorations in a democratic South Africa. He
highlighted the following on the chequered history of 16 December as a
living symbol of bitter division between races in South Africa:

There are few countries which dedicate a national public holiday to rec-
onciliation. But then there are few nations with our history of enforced
division, oppression and sustained conflict. And fewer still, which have
undergone such a remarkable transition to reclaim their humanity …We
have, in real life, declared our shared allegiance to justice, non-racialism
and democracy; our yearning for a peaceful and harmonious nation of
equals … reconciliation, however, does not mean forgetting or trying to
bury pain or conflict … reconciliation means working together to cor-
rect the legacy of past injustice. It means making a success of our plans
for reconstruction and development. Therefore, on this 16 December, the
National Day of reconciliation, my appeal to you, fellow citizens, is: Let
us join hands and build a truly great South African nation.61

From consensual governance, diplomacy, dialogue and the politics of

compromise which informed ancient African societies, a united ANC
Alliance pursued a negotiated settlement in South Africa through
CODESA. After protracted negotiations and a power-sharing political
settlement, President Mandela governed the country for 2 years through
a consensual Government of National Unity (GNU). It comprised the
ANC, the National Party (NP) and the IFP, with F.W. de Klerk as deputy
266 S.M. NDLOVU

president and iNkosi Mangosuthu Buthelezi as a cabinet minister. The

concept of a GNU was based on the spirit of Ubuntu and also on ancient
African tradition wherein society frowned upon extremism of any kind.
In a conflict situation, for example, not even the victor could lay claim to
the entire fruits of victory, nor could the defeated enemy be completely
excluded. This is the ancient spirit in which the GNU and the Truth and
reconciliation Commission (TrC) were accepted by Mandela’s govern-
ment and the African majority, the political victors. Many arrogant white
South Africans spectacularly miss this point when they analyse the demo-
cratic dispensation in South Africa. They tend to think they have a God-
given right and privilege to lord it over the African majority. Some have
never accepted the symbolic meaning of the TrC and GNU.62
Accordingly, it is worth noting that by 1998 both the IFP and the
ANC, organisations dominated by Africans, emphasised the idea of rec-
onciliation, nation-building and social cohesion. The fact that this philos-
ophy was consolidated among Africans, particularly the supporters of the
two organisations that had been at each other’s throats in the past two
and a half decades, is not accidental. It has to do with the post-apart-
heid state’s nation-building efforts and its eagerness to promote inclu-
sive, democratic citizenship. Therefore, Selope-Thema’s 1930 proposal
that 16 December be recognised as a Day of reconciliation between all
members of South African society was implemented in post-1994 South
Africa.
In May 1998, the South African cabinet approved eight legacy pro-
jects which the Ministry of Arts, Culture, Technology and Science
earmarked for delivery in the financial year 1998/1999. Among the
package of projects was the commemoration of the war of 16 December
1838, which, the ministry claimed, would focus on the reinterpretation
of the Battle of Ncome/Blood river.63 The emphasis placed on physi-
cal geography by pro- and anti-King Dingane camps alike as part of
public historical discourse was realised in post-1994 South Africa when
a new monument was declared at the battle site at iNcome, opposing
the Bloed rivier Monument built by the Afrikaners to mark the triumph
of white South Africans. This new monument was declared a national
monument on 16 December 1998. Thabo Mbeki, a cabinet minister
and the deputy president of South Africa, represented both the ANC
and the government. Likewise, Buthelezi, a cabinet minister, represented
the IFP and the government. The presence of Minister Lionel Mtshali,
a very important member of the IFP national executive committee, at
 8 THE POLITICAL IMAGES OF KING DINGANE IN THE AGE … 267

the commemoration of the battle and its re-interpretation, including the

recasting of the image of the king and subsequently the historiography of
amaZulu, suggests a major shift in the IFP position on the role of King
Dingane in shaping the politics of post-apartheid South Africa. Mtshali
was also a cabinet minister.
It is crucial for us to note that the foundation stone of the Bloed
rivier monument in Vryheid (iNcome) and Voortrekker monuments in
Pretoria was laid 64 years earlier during the centenary celebration of the
Battle of Blood river by white South Africans, on 16 December 1938.
Both monuments, earmarked for white nationalists, have panels that sup-
posedly elucidate the ‘real’ story of King Dingane and the Voortrekkers.
Among the panels in the Pretoria Voortrekker monument (opposite the
Freedom Park) are Panel 9: retief reports on negotiations with Dingane;
Panel 12: retief and Dingane sign the treaty; Panel 13: The murder of
Piet retief and his men; Panel 20: Making the Vow; and Panel 21: The
Battle of Blood river, 16 December 1838.64 All the panels are still in
place and are accompanied by Afrikaner Nationalist historical texts—
which are directly translated into isiZulu (in the Bloed river monument)
and Sesotho (in the Voortrekker monument).
In October 1998, during a conference at the University of Zululand,
the then Minister of Arts, Culture, Science and Technology (DACST),
Lionel Mtshali, confirmed: ‘on 16 December 1998 we plan to unveil
an appropriate monument at KwaMathambo, on the east bank of the
Ncome/ Blood river. Plans for the ceremony were at an advanced stage.
The central theme at this national function will be nation building and
reconciliation’.65 The democratically elected government later erected
this monument and built a heritage site commemorating the fallen Zulu
warriors alongside the laager-shaped Bloed rivier Monument at iNcome.
It was officially opened on 16 December 2014.
During the official launch on 16 December 1998, the IFP now sang
a different tune and totally rejected the old orthodoxy propagated
by both the IFP and white nationalists about King Dingane. Instead,
Mtshali spoke ‘with pride, [of] the valour of the Zulu warriors who fell
in defence of noble values, cultural norms and traditions upheld by His
Majesty King Dingane, the son of Senzangakhona’. In much the same
vein, Mangosuthu Buthelezi, president of the IFP, noted in his speech
on 16 December 1998 that King Dingane ‘fought for [his kingdom’s]
inalienable right to this God-given land, and for freedom and liberty’,66 a
complete reversal of his earlier views.
268 S.M. NDLOVU

Thabo Mbeki shared the platform with his IFP counterpart and deliv-
ered a speech which was to a large extent identical to that presented by
Buthelezi in promoting social cohesion and nation-building. This show
of solidarity between the two organisations and their leaders both signi-
fied and symbolised reconciliation and an end to the violent running bat-
tles between African supporters of the ANC and the IFP. This was seen
as an important step towards an inclusive nation-building process and an
end to the so-called black-on-black violence, or at the very least it was a
show of willingness and commitment to address this corrosive, divisive
issue.
From these changing perspectives, one can infer that the first and sec-
ond monarchs of the Zulu kingdom, Shaka and Dingane, now repre-
sent the same side of the coin rather than inverted mirror images of one
another—it was no longer about the ANC of King Dingane and the IFP
of King Shaka. It no longer mattered whether Shaka’s Day or Heroes
Day is commemorated because both kings now represent the political
victory of African peoples in ending white minority rule in 1994, thus
promoting the idea of nation-building.
Newspapers reported that the commemoration was attended by
approximately 5000 Africans. How different this was from the days when
the tearful Nxumalo and Gcumisa commemorated the day as private,
forlorn individuals. The government’s call to hold a non-partisan com-
memoration of the day was a call for nation-building and genuine rec-
onciliation. But it seemingly fell on deaf ears because pro-King Dingane
Africans and anti-King Dingane white Afrikaners held separate ceremo-
nies at two different heritage sites. As Buthelezi and Mbeki were deliv-
ering their speeches in 1998, white nationalists continued to hold a
separate gathering at the Bloed rivier and Voortrekker Monuments.
As usual, the IFP leader presented a marathon speech on 16
December 1998 and Buthelezi’s commitment to 16 December as a Day
of reconciliation unashamedly promoted the idea of patriotism in which
dreams of black and white adversaries clashed.67 Buthelezi’s interpreta-
tion of history, although it emphasises the dark side of exploitation,
suffering and poverty, is influenced by a teleological assumption. His
explanation of the battle between King Dingane and the Voortrekkers
refers to its implications in the new millennium rather than in its original
context, which was underpinned by imperialism and colonial conquest.
His grand narrative had its shortcomings in its claim to be compre-
hensive. It had its silences and exclusions. The narrative had an upbeat
 8 THE POLITICAL IMAGES OF KING DINGANE IN THE AGE … 269

pro-IFP resonance because it articulated the rise of the Zulu monarchy,

the rise of Afrikaner nationalism, British colonialism and the rise of the
ANC and IFP, in particular.68
Again, there are elements in common between Magema Fuze, John
Dube, rolfes Dhlomo and the older Selope Thema and Buthelezi’s idea
of patriotism, including the concept of history as progress.69 Buthelezi’s
concept of patriotic history was explicitly connected to understanding
the ideas of the past; it had the past at the centre and did not call for
its dismissal or for wiping out our memories for the sake of the future.
He acknowledged the fact that South Africa has a diverse population but
argued that this diversity means richness—the differences do not neces-
sitate intolerance and sectarianism.70
The speech also focused on development. Poverty, unemployment,
ignorance due to lack of education and the lack of essential services were
identified as factors bedevilling our society. These were described as the
root causes of most of the vicious social evils.71 Buthelezi also called for
responsible citizenship to solve the persistent problem of incorporating
the masses into the broader sociopolitical arena. Here he meant those
who remained second- or third-class citizens in their country of birth.
Despite significant strides by the democratic government, he said, there
was a need to find a solution to the acute socio-economic marginality suf-
fered by the poor who represented the large majority of the population.
Buthelezi maintained there were two crises—declining economic con-
ditions and the failure of the state to provide public service, welfare ben-
efits or symbolic partnership for nation-building purposes. Indications of
the crisis of public authority came in the form of higher levels of violence
and crime, particularly visible in major cities but also experienced else-
where; the private use of public means of violence by the police; wide-
spread tax evasion in the entrepreneurial sector; and rampart government
corruption.72 Buthelezi called for nation-building in order to address all
these challenges effectively. He called, too, for a ‘new covenant’ to build
a new country and a nation free from racism, discrimination, violence,
exploitation and crime.
The Ncome monument is now open to the public, and since 1998,
two distinct commemorations, one for blacks and the other for white
South Africans, have been held on 16 December. So much for reconcilia-
tion and nation-building in a united, non-racial democratic South Africa.
It seems King Dingane will always remain a divisive figure in the history
of South Africa.
270 S.M. NDLOVU

To conclude, during the age of the armed struggle, various politi-

cal organisations and liberation movements constantly challenged the
existing dominant interpretation of the Battle of Blood river which
Afrikaner nationalists regard as both pristine and objective. This is still
the case 23 years after the democratic dispensation in South Africa. The
exiled liberation movements openly revolted against this so-called objec-
tive history by using public spaces, newspapers and journal as new sites
of the armed struggle spearheaded by the MK which was formed on 16
December 1961. Their interventions brought to the fore the relationship
between history and the present; the nature of historical evidence and
its use. The forming of MK on 16 December 1961, the act of renam-
ing Dingaan’s Day as Heroes Day and linking Pietermaritzburg with
uMgungundlovu, all signify that liberation movement, together with the
oppressed people of South Africa, acknowledge the relation of the past
to the present. The implications are that knowledge of the past reflected
the interests of the PAC, IFP and ANC. In other words, their images and
construction of histories about King Dingane were conditioned by pre-
sent pre-occupations. They looked at the past simply as kind of quarry
to dig up ammunition against the dominant interpretations of King
Dingane championed by Afrikaner nationalists. In this regard, one can
therefore argue that history rests upon the present, varies with the pre-
sent, and in fact is the present.
But the definition of a hero was inclusive soon after the ANC recog-
nised that present-mindedness is the besetting sin of history. The lead-
ers of the ANC, particularly Mandela and Tambo, one incarcerated in
exile and other a prisoner doomed to a life in exile outside the borders
of South Africa, recognised that present-mindedness conflicted with
the ANC’s aspiration to be true to the past. The movement recognised
that history is not about the past; rather, it is about how we think about
the past in the present. It was at this critical point that the liberation
movement and its members in the Congress Alliance shifted away from
MK-centred interpretations which focused on 16 December 1961 as
the day when the armed struggle commenced in South Africa. They also
shifted their focus away from King Dingane.
The liberation movement’s aspiration to be true to the past led it to
recognise the fact that the wars of resistance in South Africa which sub-
sequently led to the armed struggle were initiated and waged by the
Khoi and the San. Therefore by forming MK, the liberation movement
was reclaiming the past of all the martyrs who fell during these wars of
 8 THE POLITICAL IMAGES OF KING DINGANE IN THE AGE … 271

resistance which began in the seventeenth century. Various articles in

Sechaba and Dawn which were about the meaning of 16 December, that
is, ‘Heroes Day’ mentioned the names of Khoi and San leaders along
with those of Sekhukhune, Moshoeshoe, Shaka, Maqoma and Cetshwayo
in the space that also illuminated the names of fallen MK cadres.
The changing perspectives of King Dingane articulated by Mangosuthu
Buthelezi were linked to a changing political landscape in South Africa.
The formation of the government of national unity and the renaming of
the 16 December public holiday as the Day of reconciliation thawed the
fractured relationship between the ANC and IFP. These political organisa-
tions soon commemorated 16 December together—gone were the days
of holding different commemorations inspired by each organisation’s
preference of either the diplomatic Shaka or confrontational Dingane.
As such, after the NP’s exit from the GNU, both the IFP and ANC fast-
tracked the building of the Ncome heritage site which is located, in a con-
frontational manner, directly opposite the Bloed rivier Monument. This
show of solidarity between the two organisations and their leaders both
signified and symbolised reconciliation and an end to the violent running
battles between supporters of both organisations—the majority of whom
were African. The changing perspectives articulated by Buthelezi were also
personal because he is a member of the Zulu royal house. In the name
of nation-building and social cohesion, it was no longer possible for him
to enunciate his well-known preference for King Shaka relative to King
Dingane. According to him, both Zulu monarchs, as his forebears, repre-
sented the same side of a given coin; they were heroes of the struggle for
emancipation in South Africa. It has been a long, arduous road to free-
dom: from Magolwane kaMkhathini Jiyane in the early nineteenth cen-
tury to Mangosuthu Buthelezi who changed his political views in the late
twentieth century.

NOTES
1. I. Manoim, ‘The Black Press 1945–1963: The Growth of the Black
Mass Media and their role as Ideological Disseminators’, Master’s dis-
sertation, University of the Witwatersrand, 1983; L. Switzer, South
Africa’s Alternative Press: Voices of Protest and Resistance, 1880s–1960s
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997).
2. Switzer, South Africa’s Alternative Press, 276–278.
3. New Age, December 1955.
272 S.M. NDLOVU

4. This article was subsequently published in the Umkhonto weSizwe news-

letter, Dawn. It will be discussed in the next section of this chapter.
5. O.r. Tambo’s speech, ‘Capture the Citadel’, 16 December 1969, in
Unity in Action: A Short History of the African National Congress (South
Africa) 1912–1982’, http://www.anc.org.za/ancdocs/history.
6. http://www.anc.org.za/ancdocs/history.
7. Ibid.
8. E. Maloka, The South African Communist Party: Exile and after Apartheid
(Auckland Park: Jacana, 2013); D. Everatt, ‘Alliance Politics of a Special
Type: The roots of the ANC/SACP Alliance, 1950–1954’, Journal of
Southern African Studies, 18, 1 (1991), 19.
9. See South African Democracy Education Trust (hereafter SADET), The
Road to Democracy in South Africa, Volume 1, 1960–1970, second edition
(Pretoria: Unisa Press, 2010).
10. Ibid; see also ‘Mzabalazo: A History of the African National Congress’,
http://www.anc.org.za/ancdocs/history, 3.
11. See SADET, Road to Democracy in South Africa, Volume 1; see also a pho-
tograph of Umkhonto weSizwe poster on Johannesburg walls and poles
titled, ‘Umkhonto We Sizwe’.
12. New Age, 28 December 1961.
13. New Age, 21 December 1961; and New Age, 28 December 1961.
14. New Age, 21 December 1961; and New Age, 28 December 1961.
15. ‘Unity in Action: The Formation of the Umkhonto weSizwe’, http://
www.anc.org.za/ancdocs/history; ‘Manifesto of Umkhonto weSizwe’,
Sechaba, 13, 1979.
16. Ibid.
17. See SADET, Road to Democracy in South Africa, Volume 1, Chap. 2; and
also ‘Unity in Action’, at http://www.anc.org.za/ancdocs/history, 35.
18. G. Mbeki, ‘Then and After: The Historical Sketch of the Struggle for
Liberation in Port Elizabeth’, Unpublished manuscript in author’s pos-
session, 79 and 111.
19. The author corroborated this fact with Mkwayi during an interview on
28 February 2001 in King William’s Town. Both Ngcayiya and Tshikare
are ANC veterans whom I interviewed for SADET’s project on The Road
to Democracy in South Africa. The interviews with Ngcayiya were held
on 11 and 12 January 2001. He told me that Mkwayi had stayed at his
house in Dube, Soweto, while he tried to revive the internal underground
structures of the ANC. I interviewed Tshikare, a retired South African
National Defence Force (SANDF) army general and a former member of
uMkhonto weSizwe, on 12 February 2001. He told me that he was one
of the first people to be contacted by Mkwayi after his escape from prison
and was given the task of visiting and reviving each Umkhonto branch
 8 THE POLITICAL IMAGES OF KING DINGANE IN THE AGE … 273

in the Vaal, Johannesburg and Pretoria areas. He said his efforts were
partially successful and many cadres were sent to Botswana, Zambia and
Tanzania. See SADET, Road to Democracy, Volume 1.
20. See SADET, Road to Democracy, Volume 1. Some of the MK cadres are
now members of the upper echelons of the South African National
Defence Force.
21. Tambo, ‘Capture the Citadel’.
22. O.r. Tambo, ‘Mobilise our Black Power’, speech delivered on 16
December 1971, Sechaba, February 1972.
23. Sechaba, Second Quarter 1977; January 1977; December 1980; December
1982; and December 1988.
24. Sechaba, Second Quarter 1977, 2.
25. Ibid.
26. Ibid. British MPs and members of the diplomatic corps from Vietnam,
Jamaica, Cuba and Liberia, among others, attended this gathering.
27. ‘The Year of the Spear’, http://www.anc.org.za/ancdocs/history.
28. Sechaba, Second Quarter, 1980.
29. Sechaba, December 1981, 4.
30. Dawn, 2, 6, December 1978, 12.
31. Dawn, 3, 11, December 1979, 4–9.
32. Ibid.
33. N. Mandela, Conversations with Myself (London and Basingstoke: Oxford
and Macmillan, 2010), 14.
34. M. Kunene, The Ancestors and the Sacred Mountain: Poems (London:
Heinemann, 1982).
35. Mandela, Conversations with Myself, 15.
36. Ibid.
37. Ibid.
38. Kunene, The Ancestors and the Sacred Mountain, xii.
39. Mandela, Conversations with Myself, 16.
40. Ibid., 16.
41. Ibid., 12.
42. Ibid., 16.
43. N. Mandela, ‘Posterity will Prove that I was Innocent’, in K. Asmal, D.
Chidester and W. James, Nelson Mandela: From Freedom to the Future;
Tributes and Speeches (Johannesburg and Cape Town: Jonathan Ball,
2003), 20.
44. For other pro-King Dingane images during this period see iNjula,
November 1988, No. 1.
45. S. Pheko, ‘Azania: Answer to Slave Colonial South Africa’ (New York,
1991), 12–13; S. Pheko, South Africa: The Betrayal of a Colonised People
(Johannesburg: ISAL Publications, 1990), 10–11.
274 S.M. NDLOVU

46. S. Pheko, ‘The Battle of Blood river’, in S.M. Pheko, Apartheid: The
Story of a Dispossessed People (London: Marram Books, 1984), Chap. 6.
47. Ibid., 53.
48. Ibid., Chap. 7.
49. Pheko, ‘The Battle of Blood river’.
50. P. Forsyth, ‘The Past in the Service of the Present: The Political Use
of History by Chief A.N.M.G. Buthelezi 1951–1991’, South African
Historical Journal, 26, 1992, 74–92.
51. Ibid.
52. M. Buthelezi, Speech addressed to Koornhof, 14 June 1982. Most of
Buthelezi’s speeches have been collected and catalogued by the University
of Natal, Durban Library, and are readily available for researchers.
53. Speech by Buthelezi, ‘King Shaka the Foundation of a Nation’, delivered
on 21 September 1983.
54. According to Chief Buthelezi, the ANC’s ‘mission in exile was not only
fighting to eliminate apartheid. It is striving for the eradication of the free
enterprise system as such. They hold that apartheid and capitalism are
irrevocably intertwined and that one must be destroyed with the other
… The violence that has been perpetrated in Pietermaritzburg against
Inkatha is violence directed at the free enterprise system as such and the
politics of negotiations’.
55. Speech by M.G. Buthelezi, Ingwavuma, June 1983.
56. J. Guy, ‘Making Words Visible: Aspects of Orality, Literacy, Illiteracy and
History in Southern Africa’.
57. Buthelezi, Ingwavuma, June 1983, 11.
58. Ibid.
59. Buthelezi’s speech, delivered on 24 September 1981, 5.
60. Buthelezi speech, Imbali, Pietermaritzburg, delivered on 6 December
1983.
61. N. Mandela ‘reconciliation Day’, in Asmal et al., Nelson Mandela, 137–138.
62. S.M. Ndlovu, ‘Mandela’s Presidential Years: An Africanist View’ in r.
Barnard (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Nelson Mandela (New York:
Cambridge University Press, 2014), Chap. 8.
63. African views of this battle are analysed in Chap. 2 of this book.
64. E. Delmont, ‘The Voortrekker Monument: Monolith to Myth’, South
African Historical Journal, 29, 1993.
65. Opening Address by L. Mtshali, Seminar on the re-interpretation of the
Battle of Ncome/Blood river, University of Zululand, 30 October 1998.
66. Speech by Mangosuthu Buthelezi at the inauguration of the monument at
Ncome/Blood river, 16 December 1998.
67. Speech by Mangosuthu Buthelezi, 16 December 1998.
68. Ibid.
 8 THE POLITICAL IMAGES OF KING DINGANE IN THE AGE … 275

69. See also Buthelezi, ‘Let’s Unite to rebuild the Cradle of a New Order’,
Sunday Times, 28 March 1999. The article is based on his days at Fort
Hare as a member of the ANC Youth League when he was a student of
Professor Z.K. Matthews. It includes his fond memories of Matthews.
70. Buthelezi speech, 16 December 1998.
71. Ibid.
72. E. reis, ‘Nationalism and Citizenship: The Crisis of Authority and
Solidarity in Latin America’, in T. Oommen ed., Citizenship and National
Identity: From Colonialism to Globalism (New Delhi: Sage Publications,
1997), Chap. 9.
 CHAPTEr 9

Conclusion

This book is about images of King Dingane constructed through the

production of historical knowledge by izimbongi, public intellectuals,
missionary-educated African ‘elites’, workers and trade unionists, politi-
cians and ideologues, journalist, poets, scholars, students and academ-
ics. These narratives were also expressed by word of mouth through
oral traditions, izibongo, eyewitness testimonies, public history, protest
marches, public gatherings and poetry. Accordingly, the image of the
king evoked in the book is multidimensional. It was articulated by public
intellectuals, African workers from the bottom up and African academ-
ics who expressed views from the higher echelons. Other sites used to
record these images include public spaces, newspapers, academic jour-
nals, books, posters, leaflets, court records, police reports, theatre and
drama. The main language of transmission of these conflicting images
was isiZulu as Chaps. 2–4, 6 and 7 underline. The implications are clear;
it was not going to be possible for me to undertake this important exer-
cise if I was not a first-language speaker of isiZulu. Of course, there is
some past that actually happened, but we can only know it through lan-
guage or some kind of representation. It means that South African histo-
riography is poorer precisely because it does not prioritise and encourage
the use of indigenous African languages. It is limited to the use of
English and Afrikaans, and therefore is not representative. The time has
come to centralise the use of indigenous African languages in the pro-
duction of historical knowledge in the academe, universities and the
schools. Such a move has national implications and cannot be limited to

© The Author(s) 2017 277

S.M. Ndlovu, African Perspectives of King Dingane kaSenzangakhona,
African Histories and Modernities, DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-56787-7_9
278 S.M. NDLOVU

the province of KwaZulu-Natal. This also has implications for the study
of history in the African continent and the diaspora because this book
shows that it is possible for historians to mine archives, sources, literature
written in African languages and write their own history. A revolution is
long overdue, and I hope I have planted a seed in support of the promo-
tion of history for democracy and the democratisation of the production
of historical knowledge in South Africa.
As discussed in Chap. 2, izibongo, unlike oral traditions, composed by
Magolwane and Mshongweni, were not easily manipulated, and hence
the famous line in izibongo zika Dingane, ‘Vezi kof’ abantu, Kusal’
Izibongo’,1 meaning Izibongo change little over a given time period.
Izimbongi were given a licence to criticise those in power, and therefore
the existence of both positive and negative perspectives of King Dingane
expressed through izibongo. Sibusiso Nyembezi had this to say about
this important issue:

Futhi phela izimbongi kwakungabantu ababenelungelo elingandile, ilun-

gelo lokusho izinto noma zinganambitheki kahle enkosini, izinto omunye
umuntu ayenganukuzisho adlule adle amabele.Yingakhe ngesine isikhathi
sifumanisa nokuthi imbongi iyayisola inkosi ezibongweni, kokunye isho
nezinto eziyizwisa ubuhlungu.2

The multifaceted perspectives of the Zulu king reflect the interests and
bias of the individual or groups who constructed them and, indirectly,
expressed concerns of African societies at a particular time. Public intel-
lectuals such as Jantshi, Sivivi and Tununu used oral traditions and
izibongo to articulate their contrasting perspectives on King Dingane.
Their narratives were characterised by many contradictions which
focused largely on the dynamics within the royal house and were further
informed by sociopolitical values, identity, descent and cultural beliefs,
including interrelationships between the various subjects who owed
their allegiance to both the Zulu kingdom and their own descent group.
As it was shown in Chap. 3, oral tradition about King Dingane varied
according to different historical experiences of different groups in that
period. Some of the constructors of various perspectives about the king
were connected to the royal house, for example izinceku belonging to
the lower classes. Up until the 1920s, their perspectives were produced
within the limits set within the following five themes; dynastic succes-
sion disputes; they indicate that King Dingane’s regime was far more
 9 CONCLUSION 279

liberal than King Shaka’s; they are characterised by political dynamism;

they indicate the consensual politics of the day; and finally, they depict
a generally turbulent relationship with white settlers and other African
monarchies.
The ideological role of James Stuart in shaping some of these oral
traditions is also discussed. Words such as ‘Port Natal’, ‘Blood river’
suddenly found themselves into the narrative of isiZulu-speaking inter-
locutors. The theme about land and the Zulu kingdom’s landscape
recurs throughout the book. It included the land south of uThukela
river and the so-called Port Natal. Therefore, land is a principal theme
in the analysis of historical narratives about the multidimensional images
of King Dingane. Ngugi wa Thiong’o provides the ideological context as
he maintains that colonisation and cultural imperialism:

was achieved by imposing European languages on the conquered …

Language is a means of organising and conceptualising reality, but it is also
a bank for the memory generated by human interaction with the natural
social environment. Each language, no matter how small, carries its mem-
ory of the world. Suppressing and diminishing the language of the colo-
nised also meant marginalizing the memory they carried and elevating to
a desirable universality the memory carried by the language of the con-
queror. This obviously includes elevation of that language’s conceptualiza-
tion of the world, including that of self and otherness.3

The battle over naming and possessing the land highlights the multi-
ple and complex meanings attached to land, space and place in South
Africa.4 The narrative poetry that focuses on King Dingane, iNcome/
Bloodriver and uMgungundlovu/Pietermaritzburg is both anti-colonial
and centred on African nationalism. We can, therefore, infer that both
the city of Pietermaritzburg and Blood river including the historical nar-
rative generated by the mere mention of these names ‘is tailor-made for
the discourse of cultural imperialism which conceives itself precisely (and
simultaneously) as an expansion of landscapes understood as inevitable,
progressive development in history, an expansion of high (European)
“high culture” and “civilisation” into a natural “space”’.5
The use of mnemonic devices like the landscape was another impor-
tant overriding theme in constructing different images about King
Dingane, dealing, as they did, with memory and forgetting. Obliterating
African languages and place names, a handy strategic tool for colonisers
280 S.M. NDLOVU

such as Stuart became crucial in the production of historical knowledge

as the white colonisers coined their own place names for each indige-
nous place name. Thus, iNcome and the immediate environment are the
perfect examples, as are battle sites such as oThukela, oPate and eTaleni,
which permeate both Zulu and Afrikaner oral traditions, archives and
historiography. One has to be familiar with both Afrikaans and isiZulu
place names to compare and contrast the historical evidence underpin-
ning these traditions. referring to umfula iNcome as ‘Blood river’ or
‘Bloed rivier’ was an attempt to ignore and subvert pre-existing African
names and the history of the land through cultural imperialism. In call-
ing Pietermaritzburg uMgungundhlovu6 and discarding ‘Blood river’
in favour of the original iNcome, Africans demonstrated their resolve
to challenge vigorously the cultural power of maps and place names and
the intended subversion of their past. The so-called King Shaka’s death
prophecy inserted by Stuart in oral traditions was also one of the most
potent weapons defining cultural imperialism. The prophecy is still prev-
alent even today and underpins negative stereotypes of King Dingane
which are discussed in various chapters of the book.
By the turn of the twentieth century, there was a noticeable shift with
regard to the image of the king. This shift was spearheaded by mission-
educated members of the African ‘elite’ represented by Magema Fuze,
John Dube and rolfes Dhlomo. During this era, the king was viewed
largely within themes circumscribed by barbarism and civilisation, tra-
dition and ‘modernity’. Fuze, Dube and Dhlomo described the king as
an antithesis of both civilisation and ‘modernity’. They were explicit in
defining the king within the ambit of race relations discourse in South
Africa. He was perceived as an uncouth barbarian who was both an
anti-white demagogue and the Antichrist, and therefore the killing of
Piet retief and the Voortrekkers was the central episode of their histori-
cal narrative. This event, perhaps more than any other in South African
history, was, for Fuze, Dube and rolfes Dhlomo, definitive concerning
the history of race relations in South Africa. It was used by this ethnic
nationalist group to construct virulent anti-King Dingane images based
on an unfortunate and embarrassing reflection of racist notion about
‘atavism’ and ‘primitivism’ which supposedly permeated ‘uncivilised
Africa’. By pushing a genealogical Zuluist ideology, this group portrayed
the king as a leader who was not fit to rule. Their position indirectly per-
petuated the vision of white colonisers, missionaries and the Voortrekkers
as the bearers of Christianity, progress and civilisation. This rhetoric
 9 CONCLUSION 281

was also dismissive of King Dingane’s authority, leadership capabilities

and intellectual abilities. Hence, their perspectives correspond to those
articulated by white Afrikaner nationalists and others as discussed in the
Introduction.
In their construction of historical knowledge, these Zulu nationalists
also contrasted Dingane leadership qualities to King Shaka’s heroism, val-
our, diplomacy and capacity for state building including the ability to pro-
mote social cohesion. They portrayed King Dingane as a mirror image
of the formidable King Shaka and slavishly relied on the pro-conquest
prophecy which was propagated by James Stuart as a gospel truth. But,
these protagonists were challenged by Petros Lamula and prophet Isaiah
Shembe who constructed a nuanced image of the king which emphasised
the central role of cultural traditions, oral traditions and pre-colonial his-
tory. As a result, it was during the 1920s that the multifaceted archive
on King Dingane finally took shape. The rigidity and supposed cultural
superiority of Christian missionaries and their brand of religion, largely
regarded as a ‘civilising mission’ to the ‘barbaric’ African, led to the rise
of African nationalist churches, including that of Shembe. Such churches
represented African resistance and voices from the grass roots against
Christianity. Modernity held no attraction for them because it propagated
self-doubt, racism and violent oppression, which promoted and empha-
sised conflict set forth by genocide against Africans.
During the same period in the twentieth century, another radical his-
torical narrative and pro-Dingane image took root. It was constructed
by the younger Selope Thema, Herbert Dhlomo, Jordan Ngubane and
members of the African working class. This image was constructed out-
side the limits of the established archive and was foregrounded in the
comparative analysis of world history. The timeline was backdated to
the ancient times in terms of the timeline. The themes included Western
religion, politics, culture and philosophy. They went as far as citing the
fate of Nebuchadnezzar, the king of Babylon and Julius Ceaser. This
pro-King Dingane group focused on obvious themes based on race, rac-
ism, economy, politics and ideology. They refuted the existing dominant
orthodoxy that defined King Dingane as a savage, a barbarian and a non-
progressive member of the lower races, who possessed diabolical lead-
ership qualities and was incapable of ruling. By placing the land issue,
and therefore economic issues, at the centre of their production of his-
torical knowledge about King Dingane, they resisted the view of the king
as the antithesis of the Voortrekkers, a simplistic image that articulated
282 S.M. NDLOVU

that whites, as colonisers, were civilised modernisers and the colonised

Africans were barbarians.
Herbert Dhlomo and Ngubane readily approved of his uncompromis-
ing stand against what they described as the land-grabbing policies of
the Voortrekkers who represented white imperialists and colonisers. As
a result, Dhlomo and Ngubane viewed the king as one of the original
freedom fighters. As a result, Dhlomo and Ngubane viewed the king as
‘magnificent’ defender of land belonging to Africans and as one of the
original freedom fighters. Both the pro- and anti-King Dingane groups
had a similar project in mind as far as construction historical knowledge
but differed in the way they expressed their views. They used the vari-
ous images of the Zulu kings such as Shaka, Dingane and white colonis-
ers such as retief and Pretorius to examine power and authority, control
and domination, conquest and rule, dissent and suppression, and rebel-
lion and destruction. As a result of divergent images of King Dingane,
we become aware that history is inextricably bound up with the values
of the historians (amateur and professional) who write it and that these
are influenced by their political view of the world. In this regard, his-
tory has meanings in the present and hence has an ideological agenda.
The conflicting ideologies are elaborate and point to a creative tension
between the two opposing groups as far as the construction of divergent
images of the second monarch of the Zulu kingdom. This ties up with
Jordan Ngubane’s assertion that umlando (history) is inherently subjec-
tive, meaning we need to get firmly away from the common idea that
history consists of fixed particles called facts, which the historian digs out
and combines into a narrative, and move towards getting across the idea
that facts themselves are products of the way in which the historian look
at what we call primary evidence.
African workers entered the vigorous during the late 1920s and early
1930s. They expressed their view which depicted the monarch as a com-
munist who fought for the freedom of the oppressed African majority. It
is a safe generalisation that all political interest groups—whether domi-
nant, as represented by the likes of Gustav Preller and Hertzog, or rep-
resented by Johannes Nkosi—invariably aim to legitimise their particular
policies and practices by seeking precedents for them in the past. This
is certainly the case with the reign of King Dingane and his relation-
ship with the white settlers. In the process, politicians will, if necessary,
reshape and, if they can get away with it, invent the past to suit their
purposes. At the same time, they will be concerned to neutralise and, if
 9 CONCLUSION 283

possible, suppress or exorcise that knowledge of the past that informs

the political projects of groups opposed to them. Through Preller’s
and Nkosi’s use of the image of King Dingane, we learn that history is
often the representation of the past in the present. History is inextricably
bound up with historians’ values, and these are influenced by their politi-
cal view of the world or ideology. In this regard, history has meanings in
the present and hence ideological agendas.
Nkosi and his colleagues’ perceptions of King Dingane went beyond
the established, dominant oral traditions and archive on the king that
were established by the 1920s. Contrary to Carolyn Hamilton’s argu-
ment about the limits of historical invention7—that once an archive is
made and established, all historical accounts are constructed within the
limits of that particular established archive—Nkosi deliberately avoided
King Dingane’s established archive constructed by both the colonisers
and colonised in their interpretation of the King’s reign. His perception
of ‘King Dingane the Communist’ was produced outside the limits and
parameters of the established archive.
Nevertheless, Johannes Nkosi, as an African born in a rural family of
land tenants, was steeped in oral traditions of his community, including
King Dingane’s established archive. At the minimum, these defined his
world view: the Zulu Kingdom, its rise and fall, its genealogical history
and the life history and status of each king. Furthermore, and in order to
understand his present status, Nkosi had to know his past, including his
lineage as expressed in his izithakazelo. This is one of the main reasons
communism was a viable option for him, as it was, in theory, comparable
to the communal life of his ancestors.
To be simplistic, there was in his history neither individual ownership
of land, nor ‘absentee landlords’, nor scarcity of land, nor landlessness.
There was communal ownership of land. It belonged virtually to the clan
and nominally to the king, hence the implication that communism and
socialism were a valuable legacy from Nkosi’s ancestors. This is what drew
him to modern socialistic ideas perpetuated by the CPSA. It is also the
reason why he remained a staunch royalist supporting the Zulu kings
who were part of his world view as his ancestors—amadlozi/amathonga.
To Nkosi, history was not about the mere invention of traditions. It was
about continuity linking the past (pre-contact past) with the present,
a viewpoint shared by intellectual African nationalists like Selope Thema
and Jordan Ngubane, among others. We can, therefore, conclude that
historical knowledge is a live experience permeating the everyday of our
284 S.M. NDLOVU

lives. It is not constrained by theoretical formulae about established texts

or archives handed down through lineages, but it must proceed in terms
of the traditions we inhabit and interpret. Nkosi decided to consciously
ignore the established archive on King Dingane so as to take cognisance
of his own particular history with its interests and particular everyday
experiences characterised by landlessness, poverty, racism and oppression.8
The book further illustrates that contending views about the Zulu
monarch inspired continuous and spirited debates throughout the
twentieth century. These debates were often acrimonious as the mur-
der of Johannes Nkosi alludes. As mentioned above, the image of King
Dingane seems to have developed historically over and against the image
of King Shaka, as the narratives of Fuze, Dube and rolfes Dhlomo
examined in this book have highlighted. This is not the case, however,
with the perspectives of African workers to whom the two kings were
neither inverted images of each other nor violent harsh enemies of the
people. They were simply freedom fighters who were concerned about
the future of their subjects.
These fierce debates continued unabated when we analyse the
images of King Dingane expounded by Eliot Zondi, Mazisi Kunene,
Mangosuthu Buthelezi and Themba Msimang, among others. These
images are a continuation of the themes articulated during the early
twentieth century by Zulu nationalists like Fuze, Dube and rolfes
Dhlomo. The killing of King Shaka is central to and largely influential
in the type of historical knowledge and narratives that were subsequently
constructed by Kunene, Msimang and Buthelezi during the late twenti-
eth century. These include perceptions of King Dingane as a cruel bar-
barian which was articulated by both black and white groups. According
to Zondi, Kunene, Buthelezi and Msimang, King Shaka was a standard
bearer for both civilisation and progress. His perceptive diplomatic poli-
cies and endeavours, including initiatives for accommodating expansion-
ist British power, were regarded as the political strategies of a genius.
According to them, King Shaka’s attempt to unite the various kingdoms,
chiefdoms and different polities under the system of a divine and abso-
lute kingship was an empowering move—a mission that would benefit
African peoples by creating a dynamic indigenous life, politics and mili-
tary vitality that would have posed a serious deterrent to European colo-
nialism and imperialism. But all these noble intentions were curtailed
by the sly, ambitious, envious and jealous Dingane who was helped to
depose Shaka by his paternal aunt, Queen regent Mnkabayi.
 9 CONCLUSION 285

These combustible debates set the construction of historical knowl-

edge apart from other disciplines. As I argue in the Introduction to this
book, the ‘historic sense’ is not one of certainties which can be arrived
at in a prescribed manner. The production of historical knowledge is a
process of constant negotiation between evidence and interpretation,
leaving many questions unanswered or capable of a wide variety of con-
clusions. This issue is illuminated by the conflicting historical narratives
about the killing of both King Shaka and Piet retief which led to the
rise of King Dingane. History, therefore, is an argument, an explanation
and a viewpoint that draws on selected facts. It is a matter for debate and
the refinement of perceptions and, unlike the sciences and mathematics,
is seldom ‘right’ or ‘wrong’. In the production of historical knowledge,
goals remain vague, undefined and open to a great deal of personal inter-
pretation, as African workers and others have shown by demythologis-
ing and reinterpreting the meaning of ‘Dingaan’s Day’. The debates
they articulated during counter-commemoration of this public holiday
were convincing according to the oppressed majority, leading to massive
crowds attending the counter-commemoration of 16 December 1930—
the fateful day which led to the killing of Johannes Nkosi. As a result,
history is more often either ‘convincing’ or ‘poorly argued’ than right or
wrong, a factor that contributes to the quality of historical knowledge.
The points discussed so far become apparent in scholarly analysis of
the existing historical evidence about King Dingane by academics such
as Bhambatha Vilakazi, Sibusiso Nyembezi and Felix Okoye. These aca-
demics were inward-looking, tight and focused on their subject and paid
particular attention to authority, power and internal dynamics within
the Zulu kingdom, including the influential role of regent Mnkabayi.
These academics, like other historians (including amateur) and intellec-
tuals, analysed the killing of retief and his party and its historical mean-
ing, and their analysis leads to the conclusion that historical knowledge
is but an extension of our everyday knowledge of the past. For example,
most of their narratives about the killing of retief and the Voortrekkers
were drawn from their common experience of the escalating combustible
racial conflict in South Africa and in the African diaspora in the case of
Okoye. Each of them restates one of the five themes connected with the
saga, and each construction is well supported by historical evidence.
Accordingly, scholars like Zondi, Kunene and Msimang experienced
life as purposeful and oriented towards the future, hence their call dur-
ing interviews I conducted with them to forget what the king had done,
286 S.M. NDLOVU

particularly the killing of retief and the Voortrekkers, and focus on

the future in order to build and strive for better race relations in South
Africa. Other historians, like Vilakazi, did not necessarily subscribe to
this viewpoint, and their narratives and perceptions simply reflected the
structure of their experiences as individuals caught up in several his-
torical processes defined by race conflict, prejudice, discrimination and
political subjugation. The fact that both Thema and Vilakazi became,
in the end, ambivalent about the killing of Piet retief and his party of
Voortrekkers leads to the conclusion that none of the perspectives on
King Dingane analysed in this book are either sacrosanct or cast in stone.
This is because the production of historical knowledge is about change in
a given time. The changing historical perspectives elucidates by Thema,
Vilakazi, Nyembezi and Buthelezi were influenced by their understand-
ing of the structure of political power and of the processes of political
changes that took place in South Africa at a particular time.
On a different note, the book has highlighted divine and abso-
lute kingship as a key metaphor of civilisation (as opposed to bar-
barism) for Shembe, Nkosi, Vilakazi, Nyembezi, Herbert Dhlomo,
Ngubane, Pheko, Tambo, Mandela and the ANC activists, among oth-
ers, hence, reference to ‘Dingane the Magnificent’, ‘A true Friend of
African Civilisation’ and commemoration of ‘Heroes’ Day’. Both the
anti- and pro-King Dingane groups believe in the central role of divine
kingship in African societies, and this circumscribes their views about
King Dingane or King Shaka. But, the pro-King Dingane group’s sup-
port of divine kingship is intertwined with the sociopolitical conditions
that existed during their lives. As opponents of racial oppression, this
group portrayed King Dingane as public hero number one of the South
African national past. To them, King Dingane was not a barbarian; he
merely refused to succumb to the exigencies of colonialism and impe-
rialism. Moreover, to Pheko, the younger Dhlomo and Ngubane, as a
true friend of African civilisation, King Dingane’s love for independence
as opposed to white rule was a civilising mission for the entire African
people in South Africa. As ideologues of African nationalism and sup-
porters of African traditions and culture, this group challenged the myths
about African inferiority and rebelled against the negation of the achieve-
ments and accomplishments of Africans. They believed that African
traditions and cultural achievement were defined by fighting for the lib-
eration of the oppressed, as King Dingane ‘uMalamulela’ once did. This
represented a crucial tool to be utilised if Africans were to realise their
 9 CONCLUSION 287

emancipation. Hence, according to them, King Dingane was a freedom

fighter and also a guerrilla according to MK cadres.
Extermination and genocide are hallmarks of the historical narra-
tives, and images of King Dingane and various perspectives on these
issues have been outlined in the book. Because of the existing dynam-
ics within the Zulu empire, public intellectuals like Mshwongweni and
Sivivi, and later, rolfes Dhlomo, Buthelezi and Msimang, among oth-
ers, focused on various cruel deeds carried out by the king or subordi-
nates on his instructions, among them the extermination of his sibling
and subjects who were dissatisfied with his ascendancy to power. In
contrast, Ngubane, Herbert Dhlomo, Pheko and uMkhonto we Sizwe
activists focused on the threat posed by the arrival of white settlers in
the Zulu kingdom. This group advanced various reasons to explain this
threat, underpinning their arguments with the contention that the indig-
enous peoples of all the continents colonised by white European set-
tlers were victims of violence, atrocities, genocide and massacres. They
used world history to articulate this perspective. They also did not have
to look much further than the plight of the African people and poli-
ties in the Cape Colony and the Eastern Cape—a point emphasised by
Hlambamanzi as one of King Dingane’s political advisors. The group
contended that white settlers had to be challenged, exterminated and
confronted by all available means. This invariably led to the use of many
strategies, including waging the armed struggle through the formation
of Umkhonto weSizwe on 16 December 1961.
It is also important to understand the explicit role played by newspa-
pers like iLanga, Bantu World and iNkundla yaBantu in the construc-
tion of historical knowledge about King Dingane. These newspapers
were specifically aimed at an African audience and played a particular
ideological role which was, in essence, modernist, in the process of con-
scientising a large number of avid readers about issues that reflected the
politics of the day. represented by Thema, Ngubane and the Dhlomo
brothers, the press used the print media to ferment opposition to what
was perceived as extermination and genocide perpetuated through injus-
tice, racism and white minority rule.
To deal with the apparent contradictions and ambiguities posed
by King Dingane’s perspectives, most writers reflect on the past and
rely particularly on oral traditions in order to understand the present.
Consequently, poets like Gcumisa and Masuku, among others, high-
lighted the continuities between the traditional and modern by focusing
288 S.M. NDLOVU

on art forms which valorise orality through narrative poetry that was
essentially related to kingly and military prowess. For this reason,
H. Dhlomo proclaimed ‘the African has been detribalised and modern-
ised, and that it is of his new life and problems and surroundings the
Africans dramatist should write. This is true: African drama should show
life as it is today. But this does not in any way defeat our contention that
the Past should be the chief basis of our literary drama’.9 This belief also
underpins Dhlomo’s play about King Dingane. Subsequent texts used
customs, traditions, ceremonies, festivals, political structures, myths, leg-
ends, ‘rituals and rites’, including performance-based forms of narrative
poetry akin to izibongo, to project their contending images of the Zulu
kings to an essentially modern audience.
The black consciousness movement, represented by Pheko and the
poets, particularly Masuku, emphasised education and called for the
psychological liberation of the African mind, which, they believed, was
being destroyed by cultural imperialism. Its members argued that African
knowledge patterns ran the risk of being exterminated by domineering
Eurocentric knowledge effects and simultaneously they acknowledged
the destructive violence perpetuated by white settlers. All these groups
were dominated by Africanists and were dismissive of the unfounded and
‘imagined’ fears of white settlers of the so-called black hordes, believing
these fears to be an ideological ploy used by whites to usurp their land.
The group asserted that, like King Dingane, they had nothing against
white people in general precisely because Africans were anti-racist. Also,
they had never enslaved or oppressed any group, in fact their mistake, a
fatal one indeed, was to have accepted and welcomed white settlers into
their fold. Some referred to King Shaka as a dupe because he was the first
one who welcomed white settlers in south-eastern Africa.
To round off the conclusion, it is clear that South African history is
not value-free and was abused by those in power for social, political,
economic and ideological control of the majority of the people—the
oppressed African. But Africans were not passive and took note of exist-
ing power relations and the construction of historical knowledge to chal-
lenge and resist undemocratic white minority rule. This included the use
and abuse of language, and the problems associated with representation
of Africans in South African historiography. Because history serves ideo-
logical purposes, and is integral to social struggle, it is essential to exam-
ine ways in which historical knowledge is handed from one generation
 9 CONCLUSION 289

to the next. One of the key ways in which this is done is to analyse the
construction of multiple perspectives of King Dingane.

NOTES
1. This also the title of S. Nyembezi, Izibongo Zamakhosi, 1.
2. Ibid., 2.
3. N. Wa Thiong’o, ‘Europhone or African Memory: The Challenge of the
Pan African Intellectual in the Area of Globalisation’, in Mkhandawire,
158.
4. K. Dorian Smith et al., Text, Theory, Space: Land, Literature and History
in South Africa and Australia (London: routledge, 1996), Introduction.
5. On the politics of history and the landscape see W.T.J. Mitchell, Landscape
and Power (Chicago: University of Chicago Press), 1994, 17.
6. The original uMgungundlovu is situated in an area called Vryheid, mean-
ing ‘Freedom’, probably referring to perceived Voortrekker freedom from
the confrontational strategies of King Dingane.
7. C.A. Hamilton, ‘Authoring Shaka: Models, Metaphors and Historiography’
and C. Hamilton, Terrific Majesty: The Powers of Shaka Zulu and the Limits
of Invention.
8. JUS 1/18/26; see particularly Nkosi’s speeches during the 13 and 14
December 1930 mass meetings in Durban. These were compiled by the
police.
9. H. Dhlomo, ‘Why study tribal dramatic forms’, p. 40.
 FURTHER READING

Primary Sources
Archival Material

Killie Campbell Library, University of Natal, Durban Campus

James Stuart Archives: Killie Campbell Manuscripts (hereafter KCM) 23478;
KCM 24220; KCM 24317; KCM 24258; KCM 23486; KCM 23416; KCM
24259; KCM 24319; KCM 24403; KCM 24221; KCM 53177; KCM 24316;
KCM 24199–24211; KCM 23618.
Dhlomo, H.I.E. Dingana 1, 2 and 3 (plays/drama), Herbert Dhlomo Papers,
KCM 8282, File 4.
Commission for the Preservation of Natural and Historical Monuments, relics
and Antiques, [193–?]. DINGAANSKrAAL (uMgungundhlovu, South
Africa): Killie Campbell Library, University of Natal, Durban Campus.

National Archives Depot, Pretoria

Department of Justice, JUS 1/18/26 Volumes 29–32.
Natal Archives Depot, Pietermaritzburg.
Colenso Collection, A207, Volumes (Boxes) 72 and 95.

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s) 2017 291

S.M. Ndlovu, African Perspectives of King Dingane kaSenzangakhona,
African Histories and Modernities, DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-56787-7
292 FUrTHEr rEADING

University of the Witwatersrand, William Cullen Library, Historical

and Literary Papers
Thema, S., ‘From Cattle Herder to the Editor’s Chair’, Unpublished autobiogra-
phy, Collection, AD 1787.

Newspapers and Newsletters

aBantu-Batho, 16 December 1920.
Bantu World, 17 December 1932; 16 December1933.
Inkundhla yaBantu: December 1938; November 1940; January 1941; February
1941; January 1942; 30 December1944; June 1946 (Second fortnight); July
1946 (second fortnight); August 1946 (First fortnight).
iLanga laseNatali: 12 November 1915; 24 December 1915; 22 December
1916; 29 December 1916; 22 December 1922; 1 October 1927; 7 October
1927; 12 December 1930; 16 December 1930; 26 December 1930; January
1931; January 1932; 17 March 1933; 10 April 1943; 27 May 1944; 16
December 1944; 30 December 1944; 22 February 1947; 3 December 1947;
13 December 1947; 21 May 1949; 15 December 1953; 8 May 1954.
Imvo Zabantsundu: 24 October1911.
Izwi la Kiti: 4 December 1912; 1 January 1913.
Natal Advertiser: 22 December 1930.
Natal Mercury: 17 December 1930; 28 January 1931; 30 January1931; 10
February 1931; 11 February 1931.
Rand Daily Mail: 17 December1929.
South African Worker: 30 November 1930; 12 December 1930.
Umteteli waBantu: 21 December 1929; 28 December 1929.
Umsebenzi: 31 October 1930; 28 November 1930, 12 December1930; 23
January 1931.
Dawn (MK Journal): Volume 2 , 6 December 1978; Volume 3, 11 December
1979.
Sechaba: January 1977; December 1980; December 1981; December 1982;
December 1988.
Sunday Times: 28 March 1999.

Secondary Sources
Published Books and Chapters in Collected Works
Becker, P., Rule of Fear: Life and Times of Dingane King of the Zulu (London:
Longmans, 1964).
Beinart, W. and Bundy, C. eds, Hidden Struggles in Rural South Africa
(Johannesburg: ravan Press, 1987).
 FUrTHEr rEADING 293

Bonar, A.r. ed., Incidents of Missionary Enterprise Illustrative of the Progress of

Christianity in Heathen Countries, and of the Researches, Sufferings and
Adventures of Missionaries (London: Nelson, 1852).
Bonner, P., Kings, Commoners and Concessionaires: The Evolution and Dissolution
of the Nineteenth-Century Swazi State (Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1983).
Bulpin, T.V., Shaka's Country: A Book of Zululand (Cape Town: H.B. Timmins,
1952).
Bryant, A.T., Olden Times in Zululand and Natal (London: Longmans, 1929).
Carton, B., Laband, J. and Sithole, J. eds, Zulu Identities: Being Zulu, Past and
Present (Pietermaritzburg, UKZN Press, 2008).
Church of England Mission, Izindatyana zabantu (Bishopstowe: 1858).
Cory, G., Die Retief-Dingaan Ooreekoms (Cape Town: Nasionale Pers, 1924).
Cory, S.G.E. ed., The Diary of the Rev. Francis Owen, MA: Missionary with
Dingaan in 1837–1838 (Cape Town: Van riebeeck Society, 1926).
Couzens, T. and Visser, N. eds, H.I.E. Dhlomo: Collected Works (Johannesburg:
ravan Press, 1985).
Couzens, T., The New African: A Study of the Life and Work of H.I.E. Dhlomo,
(Johannesburg: ravan Press, 1985).
Cubbin, A.E., Origins of the British Settlement at Port Natal, May 1824–July
1842 (Matatiele: No publisher, 1983).
Deane, J.N., The Deterioration of Race Relations in Natal-Zululand, 1824–1838
(Pietermaritzburg: [s.n.],1968).
Dhlomo, r., uDingane (Pietermaritzburg: Shuter & Shooter, 1936).
Dhlomo, r., Izikhali Zanamuhla (Pietermaritzburg: Shuter & Shooter, 1935).
Dube, J., Insila kaShaka (Mariannhill: Mariannhill Mission Press, 1930).
Dube, J., uShembe (Pietermaritzburg: Shuter & Shooter, 1936).
Duminy, A. and Guest, B. eds, Natal and Zululand: from the Earliest Times to
1910 (Pietermaritzburg: University of Natal Press, 1989).
Du Toit, A. and Steenkamp, L eds, Bloedrivierse Eeufees Gedenboek: 16 December
1938, (Pietermaritzburg: Natalse Pers, 1938).
Fuze, M., aBantu Abamnyama Lapa Abavela Kona (Pietermaritzburg, 1922).
Gardiner, A.F., Narrative of a Journey to the Zoolu Country in South Africa (Cape
Town: Struik, 1966).
Gcumisa, S., Isilulu Semicabango (Pietermaritzburg: Shuter & Shooter, 1981).
Gerard, A., Four African Literatures (Los Angeles: University of California Press,
1971).
Gibson, J., The Story of the Zulus (London: Longmans, 1903).
Golan, D., Inventing Shaka: Using History in the Construction of Zulu
Nationalism (Boulder, Colorado: rienner, 1994)
Gon, P. and Mulholland, r., The First Zulu Kings (Johannesburg: Ad Donker,
1985).
294 FUrTHEr rEADING

Groenewald, P. and Bresler, T. eds, Herbevestiging van die Gelofte: Gedenkboek

(Pietermaritzburg: [s.n.], 1955).
Haggard, r., Ghost Kings (London: Cassell, 1908 ).
Hamilton, C., Terrific Majesty: The Powers of Shaka Zulu and the Limits of
Historical Invention (Cape Town: David Philip, 1998).
Hamilton, C., Mbenga, B.K. and ross, r. eds, The Cambridge History of South
Africa: Volume 1, From Early Times to 1885 (New York: Cambridge University
Press, 2010).
Hamilton, C., “‘Living by Fluidity’: Oral Histories, Material Custodies and the
Politics of Archiving’, in C. Hamilton, V. Harris, J. Taylor, M. Pickover,
G. reid and r. Saleh eds, Refiguring the Archive (Cape Town: David Philip,
2002).
Harris, W.C., The Wild Sports of Southern Africa: being the Narrative of a
Hunting Expedition from the Cape of Good Hope, through the Territories of the
Chief Moselekatse to the Tropic of Capricorn (Cape Town: [s.n.], 1963).
Hlalele, J., Dingane (Maseru: Catholic Centre, 1952).
Hlongwa, M.A. et. al., Amaqoma (Pietermaritzburg: Shuter & Shooter, 1992).
Hofmeyr, I., ‘Popularising History: The Case of Gustav Preller’, in S. Clingman,
ed., Regions and Repertoires: Topics in South African Politics and Culture
(Johannesburg: ravan Press, 1991).
Isaacs, N., Travels and Adventures in Eastern Africa, Description of the Zoolus,
their Manners and customs, (reprint, Cape Town: Struik, 1970).
Kunene, M., Emperor Shaka the Great, (London: Heinemann, 1979).
Kunene, M., The Ancestors and the Sacred Mountain: Poems (London:
Heinemann, 1982).
Kunene, M., Zulu Poems (New York:Africana Publishing Corporation, 1970).
Kirby, P.r. ed., Andrew Smith and Natal: Documents Relating to the Early
History of that Province (Cape Town: Van riebeeck Society, 1955).
Koning, A. and Kearie, H. eds, The Meaning of History (Pretoria: Unisa Press,
1980).
Lamula, P., uZulu kaMalandela: A Most Practical and Concise Compendium
of African History Combined with Genealogy, Chronology, Geography and
Biography (Durban: [s.n.], 1924).
Lamula, P., Isabelo sikaZulu (Pietermaritzburg: [s.n.], 1936).
Lehman, E. and E. reckwitz eds, Mfecane to Boer War: Versions of South African
History (Essen: Blaue Eule, 1992).
Luthuli, A., Let My People Go: An Autobiography (Glasgow: Collins, 1962).
Malan, J.H., Boer en Barbaar, of, Die Geskiedenis van die Voortrekkers tussen die
Jare 1835–1840 :en Verder van die Kaffernasies met wie hulle in Aanraking
Gekom het (Bloemfontein: Nasionale Pers, 1918).
Mann, r.J., The Zulus and Boers of South Africa: A Fragment of Recent History
(Pretoria: State Library, 1968).
 FUrTHEr rEADING 295

Marks, S., The Ambiguities of Dependence in South Africa: Class, Nationalism and
the State in 20th Century Natal (Johannesburg: ravan Press, 1986).
Masilela, N., The Historical Figures of the New African Movement, Volume 1
(Trenton: Africa World Press, 2014).
Masilela, N., An Outline of the New African Movement in South Africa (Trenton:
Africa World Press, 2013).
Masuku, T.M., Izikhali zembongi (Pretoria: J.L van Schaik, 1971).
Maylam, P. and Edwards, I., The People's City: African Life in 20th Century
Durban (Pietermaritzburg: University of Natal Press, 1996).
Meintjies, J., The Voortrekkers: The Story of the Great Trek and the Making of South
Africa (London: Cassell, 1973).
Mitchell, W.T.J., The Politics of Interpretation (Chicago: University of Chicago
Press, 1982).
Moodie, T.D., The Rise of Afrikanerdom: Power, Apartheid and Afrikaner Civil
Religion, (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1975).
Morrell, r. ed., Political Economy and Identities in KwaZulu-Natal (Durban:
Indicator Press, 1996).
Mutwa, C., My People and Indaba my Children (Edinburgh: Payback Press,
1998).
Msimang, C.T., Buzani kuMkabayi (Pretoria: De Jager-Haum, 1984).
Naidoo, J., Tracking down Historical Myths: Eight South African Cases
(Parklands: Ad Donker, 1989).
Ndlovu, S.M., The Soweto Uprisings: Counter-Memories of June 1976
(Johannesburg: ravan Press, 1998).
Ndlovu, S.M., ‘A Reassessment of Women’s Power in the Zulu Kingdom’, in
Carton, B., Sithole, J. and Laband, J., Zulu Identities: Being Zulu, Past and
Present (Pietermaritzburg: UKZN Press, 2008).
Ndlovu, S.M. and Limb, P., ‘African royalty, Popular History and Abantu-
Batho’, in P. Limb ed., The People’s Paper: A Centenary History and Anthology
of Abantu-Batho (Johannesburg: Wits University Press, 2012).
Ngcobo, A.B. and rycroft, D., The Praises of Dingana (Pietermaritzburg:
University of Natal Press, 1988).
Ngubane, J., Ushaba: The Hurtle to Blood River: A Zulu uMlando Written in
English, (Washington: Three Continents Press, 1974).
Ngubane, J., Conflict of Minds (New York: Books in Focus, 1989).
Nyembezi, C.L.S., Izibongo zamakhosi (Pietermaritzburg: Shuter & Shooter,
1958).
Nyembezi, C.L.S., A Review of Zulu Literature (Scottsville: University of Natal
Press, 1961).
Oosthuizen, G., The Theology of a South African Messiah: An Analysis of the
Hymnal of the Church of the Nazarites (Leiden: Brill, 1967).
Pheko, S., Apartheid: The Story of the Dispossessed People (London: Marram Press,
1984).
296 FUrTHEr rEADING

Pheko, S., South Africa: The Betrayal of a Colonised People (Johannesburg:

Skotaville, 1992).
rikhotso, T.M., Dingane: King of the Zulu (Braamfontein: Sasavona Publishers,
1982).
roberts, B., The Zulu Kings (London: Hamilton, 1974).
Said, E.W., Orientalism (London: routledge, 1979).
Selby, J., Shaka's Heirs (London: Allen & Unwin, 1971).
Simons, J. and Simons r., Class and Colour in South Africa: 1850–1950
(London: IDAF, 1983).
Stuart, J., uBaxoxele ( London: Longmans, 1924).
Stuart, J., uKulumetule (London: Longmans, 1925).
Thom. B., Die Lewe van Gert Maritz (Cape Town: Nasionale Pers: 1947).
Van Jaarsveld, F.A., Van Riebeeck tot Verwoerd: 1652–1966 (Johannesburg:
Voortrekker Pers, 1971).
Van Jaarsveld, F.A., ‘A Historical Mirror of Blood river’, in A. Koning and H.
Kearie, eds., The Meaning of History (Pretoria:Unisa Press, 1980).
Vilakazi, A., Shembe: The Revitalization of African Society (Johannesburg:
Skotaville, 1986).
Webb, C. and Wright, J., The James Stuart Archives of Recorded Oral Evidence
relating to the History of the Zulu and Neighbouring People, Vols. 1–4,
(Pietermaritzburg: University of Natal Press, 1979-1986).
Wilson, M. and Thompson, L.A., History of South Africa to 1870 (Oxford:
Clarendon Press, 1969).
Wylie, D., Myth of Iron: Shaka in History (Scottsville: UKZN Press, 2006).
Zondi, E., Ukufa kukaShaka (Johannesburg: Witwatersrand University Press,
1960).

Journal Articles
Cobbing, J., ‘Historical Fantasies and Working Methods of James Stuart with
Counter-arguments’, Journal of Zulu History, 11 (1988).
Cubbin, A.E., ‘The English Alliance with the Voortrekkers against the Zulus dur-
ing March and April 1838’, Historia, 38, 2 (1988).
Delmont, E., ‘The Voortrekker Monument: Monolith to Myth’, South African
Historical Journal, 29 (1993).
Dhlomo, H.,‘African Drama and research’, Native Teachers’ Journal, 28 (1939).
Du Toit, A., ‘Onderhandelingspolitiek en Geweld, Piet retief en Dingane:
redaksioneel, 1991’, Die Suid-Afrikaan, 34 (1991).
Du Toit, D.J.A., ‘No Chosen People: The Myth of the Calvinist Origins of the
Afrikaner Nationalism and racial Ideology’, American Historical Review, 88
(1983).
 FUrTHEr rEADING 297

Etherington, N. ‘The Great Trek in relation to the Mfecane: A reassessment’,

South African Historical Journal, 25 (1991).
Etherington, N., ‘Zulu Kings, Coronations, and Conversations with Colonial
Officials’, South African Historical Journal, 39 (1998).
Guy, J., ‘Shaka kaSenzangakhona: A reassessment’, Journal of Natal and Zulu
History, 16, (1960).
Guy, J., ‘Making Words Visible: Aspects of Orality, Literacy, Illiteracy and
History in Southern Africa, South African Historical Journal, 31 (1994).
Guy, J., ‘Shaka’s Shadow’, South African Historical Journal, 39 (1998).
Guy, J., ‘Class, Imperialism and Literary Criticism:William Ngidi, John Colenso
and Matthew Arnold’, Journal of Southern African Studies, 23, 2, (1997).
Krauss, F., ‘The Natal Voortrekkers and their War with the Zulu’, Historia, 14,1
(1969).
Kunene, M., ‘Potrait of Magolwane: The Greatest Zulu Poet’, Afro-Asian
Writings, 1, 4 (1970).
Liebenberg, B.J., ‘Mites rondom Bloedrivier en die Gelofte’, South African
Historical Journal, 20 (1998).
Mouton, F.A., ‘Die Dood van Johannes Nkosi: rewolusionere Martellar’, South
African Historical Journal, 19 (1987).
Naidoo, J., ‘Was the retief-Dingane Treaty a Fake?’, History in Africa, 12 (1985).
Ndlovu, S.M., ‘Johannes Nkosi and the Communist Party of South Africa:
Images of “Blood river” and King Dingane in the late 1920s–1930’, History
and Theory, 39 (2000).
Ndlovu, S.M., ‘The Changing African Perceptions of King Dingane in Historical
Literature: A Case Study in the Construction of Historical Knowledge in 19th
and 20th Century South African History’, South African Historical Journal,
38, (1998).
Nyembezi, S., ‘The Historical Background to the Izibongo of the Zulu Military
Age’, African Studies, (December 1948).
Okoye, F.N.C.,’Dingane: A reappraisal’, Journal of African History, 10, 2
(1969).
Peterson, B.,‘The Black Bulls of H.I.E. Dhlomo:Ordering History out of
Nonsense’, English in Africa, 18, 1 (1991).
Vansina, J., Oral Traditions as History (London: East African Educational
Publishers, 1992).
Visser, N.W. ed., ‘Drama and the African: Literary Theory and Criticism of H. I.
E. Dhlomo’, English in Africa, 4, 2 (1977).
Wright, J., ‘A.T. Bryant and the Wars of Shaka’, History in Africa, 18 (1991).
Wright, J., ‘Making the James Stuart Archives’, History in Africa, 23 (1996).
Wright, J., ‘Imagining Shaka: A Postcolonial Analysis’, South African Historical
Journal, 39 (1998).
Wylie, D.,‘A Dangerous Admiration: E.A. ritter’s Shaka Zulu’, South African
Historical Journal, 28 (1993).
298 FUrTHEr rEADING

Unpublished Seminars, Reports and Papers

Bonner, P., “‘Home truths” and the Political Discourse of the ICU’,
Unpublished paper presented at the Biennial Conference of the South African
Historical Society, University of theWestern Cape, 11–14 July 1999.
Buthelezi, M.G., ‘King Dingane kaSenzangakhona: Second King of the Zulu
Nation’, Speech delivered at the unveiling of King Dingane’s tombstone, 18
June 1983, and the speech Buthelezi presented on 16 December 1983.
Cohen, D., ‘The Production of History’, Position paper prepared on
The Production of History for the Fifth International roundtable in
Anthropology and History [1], meeting in Paris, July 2–5, 1986.
Cubbin, A.E., ‘retief’s Negotiation with Dingana: An Assessment’, Paper pre-
sented at the Natal History Workshop, University of Natal, Pietermaritzburg
1990.
Dhlomo, O., ‘A Zulu Perspective of the Battle of Blood river-1838’, Paper pre-
sented at the conference of the Historical Association of South Africa, Unisa,
January 1988.
Erasmus, D.J., ‘rethinking the Great Trek: New Perspectives on the Causes of
Accelerated Boer Conquest outside the Cape Colony after 1836’, Paper pre-
sented at the South African Historical Society conference, rhodes University,
2–5 July, 1995.
Etherington, N., ‘Post-structurialism, Postmodernism and the Practise of South
African History’, Unpublished paper for the conference on Postmodernism in
Africa, University of Port Elizabeth, 5–8 July 1995.
Masilela, N., ‘New African Intellectuals: Theorising a Structure of Intellectual
and Literary History: The Cultural role of African Newspapers in South
Africa’, Unpublished paper, undated.
Ngidi, W., ‘The Black Philosopher, (undated) available, in Natal Archives Depot,
Pietermaritzburg,,Colenso Papers, A207, Box 72, Miscellaneous Letterbox,
item 111.
Uys, C.J., ‘What was Dingane’s Motive in Murdering retief and his Men?’ 1942,
Available in the Killie Campbell Library, University of Natal, Durban Campus.
Vilakazi, B.W., ‘A Bantu View of the Great Trek’, Unpublished, available in the
University of the Witwatersrand’s Historical and Literary Papers Collection.
Wylie, D., ‘A.T. Bryant’s Inexplicable Swarm: Style in the Portrayal of Shaka’,
Unpublished paper presented at the South African Historical Society confer-
ence, rhodes University, 2–5 July 1995.

Unpublished Theses
Forsyth, P., ‘The Past as the Present: Chief A.N.M.G. Buthelezi’s Use of History
as a Source of Political Legitimisation’, MA dissertation, University of Natal,
1989.
 FUrTHEr rEADING 299

Genge, M., ‘Power and Gender in Southern African History: Power relations in
the Era of Queen Labotsibeni Gwamile Mdluli of Swaziland, ca. 1875–1921’,
Unpublished PhD thesis, Michigan State University, 1999.
Hamilton, C.A., ‘A Fragment of the Jigsaw: Authority and Labour Control
amongst the Early 19th Century Northern Nguni’, Honours dissertation,
University of the Witwatersrand, 1980.
Hamilton, C.A., ‘Authoring Shaka: Models, Metaphors and Historiography’,
PhD thesis, Johns Hopkins University, 1993.
Kunene, M. ‘An Analytical Survey of Zulu Poetry both Traditional and Modern’,
MA dissertation, Natal University, 1957.
La Hausse, P. ‘Ethnicity and History in the Careers of Two Zulu Nationalists:
Petros Lamula (c.1881–1948) and Lymon Maling (1889–c.1936)’, PhD the-
sis, University of the Witwatersrand, 1992.
Okoye, F.N.C., ‘The American Image of Africa: Myth and reality’, PhD thesis,
University of California, Los Angeles, 1969.
Peterson, B., ‘Monarchs, Missionaries and the African Intellectuals: redemption
and revolution in South African Theatre’, PhD thesis, University of the
Witwatersrand, 1997.
Skikna, S., ‘Son of the Sun and Son of the World: The Life and Works of r.r.r.
Dhlomo’, MA dissertation, University of the Witwatersrand, 1984.
Vilakazi, B.W., ‘The Oral and Written Literature in Nguni’, PhD thesis,
University of the Witwatersrand, 1946.
Wright, J., ‘The Dynamics of Power and Conflict in the Thukela-Mzimkhulu
region in the late 18th and Early 19th Centuries: A Critical reconstruction’,
PhD thesis, University of the Witwatersrand, 1989.
 INDEX

A Commemorations and counter-

African academics, 202, 203, 231
African intellectuals, 167, 171, 172,
184, 187, 193, 194
African National Congress (ANC),
131, 154
African workers, 129, 130, 133–135,
139, 140, 142, 143, 147–149,
151, 154, 157, 159
ANC Youth League, 167, 181, 184,
188, 189
Archive, 100, 101, 111, 123
B Dhlomo, Herbert, 167, 180–184,
Bantu World, 177, 179, 180, 188
Bhambatha Benedict Wallet Vilakazi,
39
Blood river, 3, 5, 12–15, 19, 20, 22
Buthelezi, Mangosuthu, 260, 261,
266, 267, 271
commemorations, 129, 130, 133,
135, 137–139, 142, 146, 149,
153, 155, 157
Communist Party of South Africa,
132, 147
D
Day of reconciliation, 178, 191,
194
Democratic South Africa, 259, 265,
269
Demonstrations, 135, 153, 155
186–189, 193, 194
Dhlomo, rolfes, 99, 100, 103–105,
108–116, 119
Dingaan’s Day/December 16, 5
Dingane, 1, 2, 4–26

F
C Fuze, Magema, 99, 100, 111,
Censorship, 218–220, 234, 237 112
Colenso, Bishop, 66, 67, 78, 87

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s) 2017 301

S.M. Ndlovu, African Perspectives of King Dingane kaSenzangakhona,
African Histories and Modernities, DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-56787-7
302 INDEX
G M
Gcumisa, M.S., 218, 219, 231,
233–237
H 234–237
Hamilton, Carolyn, 33
Heroes Day, 252, 254, 258, 261, 271
Historical novels, 99, 100, 103, 105,
108, 109, 113, 114, 116, 119
Historiography, 3–5, 8, 12, 13, 19
I
ICU/trade unions, 129, 133, 136,
137, 139, 144, 156, 158
ILanga laseNatal, 99, 109, 113
INcome/Ncome, 70, 86, 89
Inkatha Freedom Party, 245, 260
Inkundla yaBantu, 186, 188, 189,
192–194
IsiZulu/African languages, 3
Izibongo, 34–37, 40–44, 46–49,
51–57
Izindatyana zaBantu, 63–69, 71, 72
J O
John Langalibalele Dube, 99, 103,
106, 112, 120
K
Kadalie, Clements, 133, 137, 149,
154–158
KaDinuzulu, Solomon, 97
KaTimuni, Ndhlovu, 80
Kunene, Mazisi, 34, 35, 56
L Public history, 245, 253
Lamula, Petros, 116, 117, 120
League of African rights, 129, 132, 136
Magolwane, 34, 35, 37–41, 43, 45,
46, 52, 57
Mandela, Nelson, 273, 274
Masuku, Thomas M’zwenduku, 231,
Mnkabayi/Mkabayi, 2, 15, 17
Mpande, 174, 176, 178, 187
Mshongweni, 34, 37, 38, 43–45, 47,
56, 57
Msimang, Themba, 219, 227–231,
237
N
Nation building, 267
Ngidi, William, 63–68, 87
Ngoza kaLudaba, 65, 68, 69
Ngubane, Jordan, 167, 179, 184, 186,
188, 193
Nkosi, Johannes, 132, 139, 142, 145,
146, 149, 160
Nxumalo, J.A.W., 231–234
Nyembezi, Sibusiso, 211–216, 223,
236
Okoye, Felix, 220–224, 236
Oral traditions, 33, 37, 45–48,
54
P
Pan Africanist Congress, 245
Pheko, Motsoko, 258
Poems/poetry, 208, 225, 231–234,
236, 237
Police, 130, 134, 136, 138–140,
142–148, 151, 157
Public intellectuals, 34, 37, 38, 46, 48,
49, 56
 INDEX 303

R V
retief, Piet, 13, 21 Van Jaarsveld, F.A., 5, 12–14
Voortrekkers and Great Trek, 12

S
Shaka, 1, 4, 7, 10, 17, 21, 26 W
Shembe, 116, 120–122 War songs, 71
Sivivi, 63–65, 72, 73, 75, 81, 83, 87, Women of the royal house, for exam-
89 ple, Bhibhi, Mpikase, 210, 211,
Socwatsha, 63, 64 214
Stuart, James, 34, 37, 38, 46 World history, 167, 172, 173, 175,
190, 193

T
Tambo, Oliver (Or. Tambo), 248, Z
251–253, 258, 270 Zondi, Elliot, 215–217, 219, 228, 231
Thema, Selope, 167, 172, 175, 176, Zulu nationalists/ethnic nationalism,
179, 183, 185, 188 103, 105, 116, 120
Tununu, 63–65, 72–75, 77, 83–85, Zulu royal house/ monarchy, 36, 39,
87–89 42, 51

U
UMkhonto we Sizwe (MK), 250