Class based war or Imperial defence

Well guys I ran into Jeff Guy the other day at UKZN and had a bit of a chat. I knew his daughter when we were students together back in the early 1990.s Did a bit of catching up. We talked about the AZW. Told me that he thought the problem with the military historians was that they ignored the full picture in discussing the AZW. For him the AZW was a classical war of imperialism in that it was fought with the express intention of forcing the Zulu nation into the capitalist system. Spoke a lot about a book he liked called Ploughshare of War by an academic called Cope. Cope is of teh Jeff Guy school. Frere and Carvnarvon and the colonists needed labor if they were to develop a capitalist modern economy in Natal. The Zulus were a pre capitalist society and were quite well off. They did not see the point of rushing to work on white farms and factories in Natal. SO that is why the war was fought. Forcibly integrate Zululand and then use the huat tax system or teh later poll atx to force the Zulus to work for the whites. There are other authors Jeff pointed out who feel that the AZW was staretd becuause of global security concnerns about the advance of Russian imperialism. He does not hold much store by these accounts. What do the members here think.
Regards
Eric

Hi Eric.
I dont think there is much doubt the British wanted zululand for the express purpose of attempting to bring the zulu into line with
the other black tribes , therefore hoping the policy of confederation would be a strong and viable solution to as they saw it , the
waste of manpower ( Black ) . Cheap labour force needed in the Kimberley etc etc . To me , that is how I read the situation .
cheers 90th.

Eric. Don't know if you have this book " In ZuluLand With The British Army" Charles Norris-Newman.

Bit Newman gives a very good overview as to the cause of the Zulu War.

I have not read Norris Newman's book on the AZW. jeff Guy lent me a copy of Cope's Book Ploughshare of War. Said to me with a wink that Cope was a good Marxist historian and I could not go wrong with him. Will try and read up what Norris Newman said.

I haven't read the Newman book either, but surly it's better to have the situation explained by someone who was there, at the times of the troubles in-question.

Probably the most evocative accounts are thoase from Newman and Bertram Midford. Newman because he had immediate access to the battlefields and the participants and Midford because he was there while it was all still fresh in the minds of the locals. The musings of when he had walked the trail and saw a skull laying along side the river, really descriptive stuff..

Regards

It’s good that we can get two sides of the story. One from a military perspective, and one from a Civilian.


I love this.
Newmancommenting on Chelmsford's decision to divide his forces]

"Norris-Newman: Crealock, old fella. I'm doing notes for my dispatch and I need to clear up a few military points... I don't want to bother His Lordship. Had it drummed into my thick skull that a good commander never willingly splits his force, especially in an enemy's country, before knowing their dispositions.
Col. Crealock: Ah yes, if we were facing a European enemy armed with guns I think your point would hold, Noggs. Further may I remind you, I do not make the strategies you wish to comment on. I am only His Lordship's secretary.
Norris-Newman: I wouldn't take overly comfort from that, Crealock old fella, because if he sinks, then you sink with him."

old historian2 wrote:

I haven't read the Newman book either, but surly it's better to have the situation explained by someone who was there, at the times of the troubles in-question.

Old - get yourself a copy mate, it's mint. Amazon do it for a tenner.

Mr.Greaves.
I'm with you , I think its some of the best dialogue in the movie ! . I love it as well . :lol!:
cheers 90th.