The traitor John Dunn

Mate

The truth is that minorities do not necessarily wrong

I tell you, and I will repeat that JD should have fought person, it is easy to understand ...

You do not fight like, normal, or those with whom you have lived long enough, it's almost as bad, you know what I mean?

 

Springy that's one I hadnt heard ! .  .
90th

Gary

The truth is that minorities do not necessarily wrong

I tell you, and I will repeat that JD should have fought person, it is easy to understand ...

You do not fight like, normal, or those with whom you have lived long enough, it's almost as bad, you know what I mean?

 

Thank you dave. springbok i hear what your saying and
i'm a mite confused,Boers\White South African's.discuss.
when did the term Afrikaner first come into common use.

reading L.M.Thompson's the unification of south africa.
the preface includes the line..This decisive step towards
the elimination of imperial authority in south africa, in
favour of the white settlers of afrikaner and british stock.

i'm really saying again that my problem is not with who
eventually settled south africa black or white...it is the
imperial factor. which went like this and please ignore the
red herrings..russia blah.everybody wanted a piece of africa.
hence the ' scramble ' The Mfecane' was the first concrete
sign that south africa was full..

The british imperial approach is..to boil it down to its essence.
Look at all that untold mineral wealth, who is going to have
all those diamonds all that gold. incidently the biggest seam
of gold that the world had ever known ran right underneath Jo-
hannesburg.hence the abortive Jameson raid financed by
rhode's private army. the empire wanted that mineral wealth and
got it.john dunn had as much right as any other to protect his
own interests. not least because all the other ' players ' certain-
ly were.just my opinion.my chief sauce.Mr Kenneth Griffith.rip.
regards to all Les.

Selous writes to his mother, January 25th, 1880, and it is interesting to notice that at this time his attitude towards the Boers was not so sympathetic as it eventually became on more intimate knowledge.


"The Zulu war is over. You think it was unjustifiable, but it was not so, for so long as the military power of the Zulus remained unbroken there could be no peace in South Africa and the white inhabitants of Natal and the Transvaal would have had an assegai constantly dangling over their heads. Sir Bartle Frere knew this, and no doubt manœuvred so as to bring on a war, a war which he knew to be inevitable sooner or later. Of course but little glory has been gained, and one cannot but admire and pity the Zulus, who made a brave but unavailing resistance to our men armed with far superior weapons. I think they are far better off than before, and are not burdened with the cruel despotism of Cetawayo. It seems that after all there will be a disturbance with the Transvaal Boers. I hope not, but of course, if they force it upon themselves, their blood will be upon their own heads. I do not admire them; mentally they are, I should think, the most ignorant and stupid of all white races, and they certainly have not one tenth part of the courage of the Zulus. Physically they are immensely big as a rule and capital shots, but there can only be one end for them to an open rupture with the British authorities, death and confiscation of property which will leave another legacy of hatred between Dutch and English inhabitants of this country for many years to come."

" mentally they are, I should think, the most ignorant and stupid of all white races, and they certainly have not one tenth part of the courage of the Zulus." This is true  

Les,

Odd you should mention Kenneth Griffith, yet state that you are not interested in old treaties.

As you entered Kenneth's house hanging on the wall was a copy of the Sand River Convention of 1852, which I referred to
yesterday.  If you were a Briton entering his house for the first time he was always keen to point to the document, as he considered his house as "Boer Property."

The Sand River Convention was a convention whereby Great Britain formally recognised the independence of the Transvaal Boer Republic that had been established beyond the Vaal River.  In return, the Boers promised that slavery would be outlawed in the Transvaal and that they would not interfere in the Orange River Sovereignty's affairs, which was then a British short-lived British colony until it changed hands in 1854 to become the Orange Free State.

As to the expression 'Boer' all that means is farmer; if you look at Uys' Burgher Force which is always referred to as a Boer unit there were a number of men with English surnames in the unit.

The first recorded use of the word Afrikaner was by Hendrik Biebouw, in March 1707, when he stated, "Ik ben een Afrikander."  - I am an African.

'Jimu

Oh Jimmy! what happened to JD? He went on another topic   ?

Pascal,

Do you mean John Dunn the double-traitor?

Bearing in mind that prior to Cetshwayo he was allied to Mbuyazi, and fought against Cetshwayo in 1856.

Back on course now? He was a fortune-seeker who changed with the wind.

'Jimu

He was a fortune-seeker Have you changed with the wind. Great Jimmy is back! 1000 Bravos

You see this is exactly the kind of thing that I blame him!

Still it is the side of the neck, except in 1856  

Les,

"Odd you should mention Kenneth Griffith, yet state that you are not interest in old treaties. "


"As you entered Kenneth's house..." kwajimu...did you know him.

Sorry kwajimu, but i feel you are missing my point,none of what i have been saying
attacks ANY one people, being them black or white.i was\am attacking the British
method of imperialism and colonization. are you seriously trying to say that the
Boers never broke any treaties, i continue to study early white settlers in both Natal
and Zululand, the names,farewell,king,cane,ogle,issacs,halstead,ross,retief.and
pretorious, to name a few spring to mind.please digest my posts and re-read if
necessary. i am not attacking white or black africans then or now.

When Madiba walked through those gates the whole planet was watching south africa
for different reasons\agenda's, he came out and his sprite of reconciliation was much
in evidence as soon as he opened his mouth.a truly wondrous man\patriot..

Kenneth Griffith is the greatest exponent in exposing inconvenient truth.yes he did consider himself a Boer but he also declared himself an irish republican despite him
being chapel Welsh. i have and have read every book he published..4. and have and
cherish many of his early documentarys. for the record i am not attacking anybody on
this forum,Kenneth's Africana collection was unsurpassed lucky the few intimates who got their hands on that little lot. regards Les

What happened to JD? He went on another topic    

Les,

You wrote:

Xhosa2000 wrote:

its just not good enough to trot out the old treaties, events, battles, personalities

That is what my response refers to, so no need to re-read that. You seem to missing my point, and not I yours.

The British annexation of Griqualand West and Shepstone's annexation of the Transvaal were all done for one thing, and one thing only, the acquisition of mineral wealth.

In answer to your question as whether I knew Kenneth Griffith, he was the Godfather of my youngest son, who inspired by him is now a documentary film-maker.

'Jimu

Oh Jimmy! what happened to JD? He went on another topic   

Pascal,

No he's still here, just answering the questions that had been posed to me.

'Jimu

xhosa2000 wrote:

Les,

" are you seriously trying to say that the
Boers never broke any treaties,    

Les you cant throw up that statement whilst decrying kwajimus use and mention of other personalities and situations. The issue isnt the past, from then, or even the future, from then, it was that point in time.
Your initial comment was to the effect that the Boer: ie the Transvaalers, waited for the British to sort out the zulu before declaring war them selves. Its an implicite condemnation and accusation of some thing under hand. The truth was that the British occupation was an illegal and immoral act that the inhabitants and 'Krugerites" decided to put right. I would fully agree that it was about money and in particular opening up a route from Mozanbique and Swaziland for labor to work on the mines, 90% British owned and severly crippled because of labour shortage, that started in 1873 probably the 5th of February after the proclamation Landrost Jansen. And who were the randlords? No prizes for guessing.

Sorry but I cant attribute blame to the Transvaalers.

Ive also heard round the campfires at night that same reasoning being put forward as a cause of the zulu war, opening up a safe passage by land to Mozambique instead of by sea.

CTSG
Your doing your Cockatoo act again!

Pascal
Your fully entitled to your opinion.


Cheers  

Jimmy I know and all ways you said what I wanted you to tell namely  

Mate you are too kind to let me think about what I want  

springbok9 wrote:

xhosa2000 wrote:

Les,

" are you seriously trying to say that the
Boers never broke any treaties,     

Les you cant throw up that statement whilst decrying kwajimus use and mention of other personalities and situations. The issue isnt the past, from then, or even the future, from then, it was that point in time.
Your initial comment was to the effect that the Boer: ie the Transvaalers, waited for the British to sort out the zulu before declaring war them selves. Its an implicite condemnation and accusation of some thing under hand. The truth was that the British occupation was an illegal and immoral act that the inhabitants and 'Krugerites" decided to put right. I would fully agree that it was about money and in particular opening up a route from Mozanbique and Swaziland for labor to work on the mines, 90% British owned and severly crippled because of labour shortage, that started in 1873 probably the 5th of February after the proclamation Landrost Jansen. And who were the randlords? No prizes for guessing.

Sorry but I cant attribute blame to the Transvaalers.

Ive also heard round the campfires at night that same reasoning being put forward as a cause of the zulu war, opening up a safe passage by land to Mozambique instead of by sea.

CTSG
Your doing your Cockatoo act again!

Pascal
Your fully entitled to your opinion.


Cheers   

Have to sometimes to get a responce! Since your op, you seemed to be more chilled out. All work and no play!!

LOL LOL LOL  

Les,

You wrote:

Xhosa2000 wrote:
its just not good enough to trot out the old treaties, events, battles, personalities


That is what my response refers to, so no need to re-read that. You seem to missing my point, and not I yours.

The British annexation of Griqualand West and Shepstone's annexation of the Transvaal were all done for one thing, and one thing only, the acquisition of mineral wealth.

In answer to your question as whether I knew Kenneth Griffith, he was the Godfather of my youngest son, who inspired by him is now a documentary film-maker.............

kwajimu,springbok, i seem to have touched a collective nerve here, ive read and reread
every word of my posts and despite my assurances that i was not attacking the Zulu,Boer, Colonialist, but British Imperialism. you still post filled with an air of
self protectionism.as i understand it, the Boers from as early as the 1820's had
had just one aim..land acquisition that was paramount above all things.it was in-
teresting to read and understand how the Boers treated with the various Zulu Kings
from Shaka Dingaan Cetshwayo and finally Dinuzulu.it was a constant battle for land
rights. and again it was British foreign policy that ultimately decided the issue.

kwajimu.then you must have known Kenneth intimately,and so you would be very
familiar with his very strong views of which for the most part im in strong agreement
with.I hope your son goes on to have a stellar career, he could not have a better man
to draw inspiration from, so i take it you have these early docs.sons of the blood,
curious journey,hang out your brightest colours,the publics right to know.
regards Les

Les,

You missed a good one from the list which is relevant to this debate: A Touch of Churchill, A Touch of Hitler: The Life of Cecil Rhodes. In which Kenneth used chanting lifted from Zulu to represent Lobengula's warriors attacking the Shangani Patrol.

As to his Michael Collins film Hang Out Your Brightest Colours I was present at BAFTA when it was finally publically screened.

As to your comment of 'self-protectionism' you are certainly way off course as far as I am concerned. If anything I would have be perceived as an Uitlander!

As to my son's work you may have already unwittingly seen some of it!

Regards,

'Jimu

Thank you kwajimu,of course a touch of Churchill, is a must have,
i have tried to beg, borrow, steal a copy of that. Uitlander.yes but
i'm sure you understand that my initial perception from your posts
were that you were arguing from a African view point.

I'm very pleased that i have made the acquaintance of some one i
deeply admire.and you are so rightly proud of your son.
regards Les

off topic

As the Tue Dec 27, 2011 12:40 pm

I affirm encore today that John Dunn, betrayed to the Zulus, so sickening...

Cheers

Pascal

CTSG

  All about the blood pressure. 

Xhosa
And as your aware Im the ultimate Uitlander. Remember 2007:D   

Cheers

As the Tue Dec 27, 2011 12:40 pm

I affirm encore today that John Dunn, betrayed to the Zulus, so sickening...

Cheers

Pascal

Pascal

Ceshwayos letter to the Queen March 29th 1881

....... When the troops entered, Dunn sent to me Umanjanja, and said, 'Concentrate all your troops in one place, then you will give the English a good thrashing when you meet them. i, too, will arm my men well and leave them with you; but I will go to Natal. When the English were beaaten at iSandlawana John Dunn sent to me ans said,' since you have beaten them there, go on and try to beat them again and again,'

One or two questions raised by that segment.
Did John Dunn send his, well armed, troops to join the army? If so could these have been the trained rifle men active at RD?
John Dunn was still in touch after his recruitment by Chelmsford.
Is this indicative of a) his loyalty to Cetshwayo or b) a prime example of double dealing?
How does this fit into your passionate condemnation of him as a traitor?

Cheers

Mate, you are also extra that Martin, who managed to make me a Dunfordian !

When the troops Entered, Dunn Umanjanja feels to me, and said, 'Concentrate all your troops in one place, then you Will give the English a good thrashing When you meet' em. (It is can be a bit reponsable of Isandhlwana?) i, too, Will my men well armed and leave 'em with you, I will aim to go Natal. (But why go to Natal? He knew he would end up between the legs of LC! )Were When the English beaaten at iSandlawana John Dunn feels to me years said, 'You have since beaten' em there, go on and try to beat them again and again '(In this case, it is a traitor, but not against the Zulus, but after he still turned his jacket , when you see the advice he gives to the British officers at Gingindlovu, So someone has promised at him a kingdom in Zululand at that time)


One or two issues raised by That segment.
Did John Dunn send his, well armed, troops to join the army? If so thesis Could Have Been the active rifle trained men at RD?

The black following JD in fire support of the Impis at RD with modern guns, you es genial Mate!(On a another topic, it is about of Zulu companies, making a fire support at Isandhlwana, a another idea of JD ? )



John Dunn was still in touch Effective His recruitment by Chelmsford.
Is this indicative of a) His loyalty to Cetshwayo or b) a prime example of double-dealing?
How does this fit into your passionate condemnation of him as a traitor?
JD is a double agent! He would have gone to Natal to help Cetewayo ? Unable to Gingindhlovu because it signals to Tthe British officers, that the fires of their soldiers are incorrect ...I think he played a double game, because he knew that despite Isandhlwana the Zulus were lost, otherwise it would not have gone to Natal, so he betrayed everyone

Well, with the last post on this topic by Mate, you know better what kind of guy was John Dunn  

And was it not Dunn who sent a letter to Cheteswayo telling him to drive the English into the sea.

On after the great post of Mate, above, it seems ...

I thought at first that he had had a bad behavior only with the Zulu, but you see he did the same with the British, which is even more shocking!

The English is not my native language, but I still manage to have the last word and to be right, as on the topic: Who Were the "Indigenous" population?  

Pascal

I'll get you a Medal Private Rascal !  . ( Think of Sgt Williams to Pvt Williams !! )
90th

LOL   Thank you,Masupial but do not be shocked  

Cheers

Pascal

Hiya pascal,well you had to be right sometime, about
something.lol. i am very interested in the life of said,
and very much think that here was a unique person
who found himself embroiled in affairs beyond his con-
trol, he had some very hard choices to make,who
given the circumstances would have behaved in a
different way. later, rascal xhosa

Hi Xhosa the other Rascal  LOL  

This is true, but Dunn play both ways, he worked for both sides ... View all posts on this topic, everything is well explained...

Cheers

Rascal

k,pascal, i viewed the entire post again.
what am i missing, and by the way JD
had no loyalty to the British,and why
should he..

The Anglo Zulu War of 1879 was the
supreme crisis in Dunn's life, he desperately
desired to remain neutral;this alone reflects
the dilemma of a man who is caught up in
conflict between the two distinct societies
from which he developed. Dunn saw British
imperial aggression wholly in terms of Shep-
stones designs to win Transvaal support for
annexation at the expense of Zulu indepen-
dence. while his sympathies lay with the
Zulu's he realized that British material re-
sauces and superior military technology
would be the deciding factor in any armed
contest with the Zulu Kingdom.

Dunn forsook his neutrality and joined the
British invasion when Chelmsford threatened
to confiscate his property in Zululand and
bar him from returning to his chiefdom.
although he regained the favour of the british
authority's through his service in the British
army during the Zululand campaign,imperial
pressure on his position was reapplied by
Wolsley. he was literally drafted into Wolsley's
scheme for the indirect British rule of post war
Zululand.and managed to not only to retain but
to enhance his position as a Zulu chief in the
post war political economy through collaboration
with the British imperial government.

pascal we Brits have a saying Hobsons choice..
( which means no choice. ) cheers xhosa

soz pascal, source,Ballard, preface.

Les

Yet before the war, he has advised Cetewayo on how to fight the British army! Did you read this? 

In the battle of Gingindlovu, he reported to the British Infantry officers, that the rising of the rifles of their soldiers were set incorrectly Did you read this?  

Rascal

yes pascal i saw that, he casually picked off induna's
and people of note. please understand JD's position.
and i know its hard but try to put yourself in his place,
what would you do?. Colenso called him a double dyed
traitor, saying he betrayed Cetshwayo twice, once over
Umbulazi. and siding with the British. Shepstone was the
cause of his break with the British, he basically stitched
him up,so Dunn packed up and headed off into Zululand
where the King's patronage ensured that he thrived.

He turned on the British and Zulu alike. and was he not a
very lucky man in that he was able to choose.he chose
to put his family and adherents first,every time..and so
would i. you?. history is written by the winners,i feel he was,
is. harshly judged.

You said." i did not know the zulu's were writing poem's,
thought they were not writing". it refers to praise poems.
no, not written. oral..passed,with extreme accuracy from
generation to generation.see,read.. The James Stuart
Archive. cheers mon ami xhosa

In its place I have fled the Zulus and the British like the plague and wait for the end of the war and you ?

context please pascal.where could he go.

I do not know, but in the Africa Region, the nearest or there are no participants in this war, which was the nearest non-British colony? ... You do not have any idea ?And I come back for trading in Zululand, after the war  

Pascal MAHE wrote:

I do not know, but in the Africa Region...

Liberia, no doubt. You know Pascal, there is no point in raising these issues, starting these conversations if you are not going to offer reasonable answers. Whatever one makes of John Dunn, he had hundreds of mouths to feed and lives to protect. His household was a large village in and of itself. Which should he have done, magically transported them "somewhere in Africa" (via either British or Zulu controlled territory, btw,) or abandoned them and gone off by himself?

Everything you said is true, in this case it remains to Zululand, among his people and he did not lift a finger.

It remains neutral, the Zulu did not have him accused of being neutral and the British would have to reach him before the end of the war, when they would no longer had need of him ...

Rascal this is a waste of time because no matter what is said in regard to Dunn , you have him branded as a traitor .
I think , like many others on here , that he didnt have any other option ! . If he sided with the zulu how do you think he would've been treated by the British and those in Natal ? . He had 100's to think of not just himself .
90th

Marsupial , by decency , I think it should have stayed neutral ! It was in Natal just before the war, it is this, because of this trip, he was forced to serve the British !

90th wrote:

Rascal this is a waste of time because no matter what is said in regard to Dunn , you have him branded as a traitor .
I think , like many others on here , that he didnt have any other option ! . If he sided with the zulu how do you think he would've been treated by the British and those in Natal ? . He had 100's to think of not just himself .
90th  

What interests me about Dunn is whether he was a man ahead of his time or behind the times.  It's an anachronistic question, really, but it's interesting to me he's never really been taken up as a hero by anybody.   He lived like a medieval lord in some ways...and Chelmsford demanded he swear fealty.  He must have A LOT of descendants (as he had access to a lot of wombs,) so I wonder whether contemporary Dunns (for lack of a better way to express it--I'm sure very few, if any, share the name,) meet for huge family reunions or the lineage tends to be denied, or neither...  -6pdr