Historical Forum: More than Shaka

For my statement, I relied heavily upon the recorded testimony of the Zulu people, thereby privileging the great oral tradition, above all else in understanding this history, as oral history is the only pure form of history. The recorded transcriptions of British perspectives have been tainted with colonialist misunderstandings, bias, fallacies, and evil. Therefore, the memory of the Mfecane may only be given proper justice when oral history tells its tale. However, it may become necessary to fill in the gaps with British accounts, but this must only be done with the sincerest of attempts to understand the motivations, the nuances, and the voices within these documents. A respect for oral tradition must not limit a holistic understanding of this history, but colonialist documents must not taint or twist these truths.

While Shaka assuredly played a large role in the Mfecane, many other figures also had a large impact on the events that transpired, especially Dingane. When Dingane came to power by murdering Shaka, his half-brother, he promised “peace and prosperity” for the Zulu people (22). According to the diary of Fynn, Shaka also promised not to imitate the behavior of Shaka against the Zulu state (23). At the beginning of his reign, his measures were “mild,” which heavily contradicted the perception and attitude of Shaka (23). Dingane also replaced Shaka’s advisors and officials with his own people, creating instability and an inability to succeed militarily.

According to the testimony of Jantshi, as recorded by Stuart, Dingane changed a great number of ruling precedents, for instance allowing his regiments to have “premarital intercourse” with girls (25). Jantshi’s testimony also reveals how Dingane began turning on the Zulu people as his reign went on, going back on his word not to imitate Shaka’s brutality. For example, Baleka ka Mpitikazi explained the history of the Mfecane as her Langeni grandmother remembered it, describing the violence that Dingane inflicted on his people, killing many (23). This narrative depicts the startlingly contracting nature of Dingane’s promises and his actions, as Baleka ka Mpitikazi explained, “Dingan[e] had now stepped into his place, calling himself Malamelula, because he had intervened between the people and the madness of [Shaka]. But he himself then killed all the children of his father. [Shaka], though, did not kill the children of his father” (23). This testimony by Baleka ka Mpitikazi reveals how Dingane was perhaps even more violent and chaotic than Shaka, whom Dingane had condemned and murdered for the very same actions. The testimony also privileges the oral history of the Zulu people, emphasizing the credit to and knowledge of their history. 

Furthermore, Dingane’s “difficulties with his African subjects” mirrored the difficulties that he had with his neighbors — both African and European. According to testimony by Lunguza ka Mpukane, who was the son of the official chief Jobe, Dingane’s distrust of the Europeans was largely fueled by an interpreter named Jacob, whose interpretations were defined by his own “distrust of whites” (25). Jacob influenced Dingane, and therefore, as Dingange created policy, Jacob influenced the Zulu kingdom. 

However, I will acknowledge the impact that Shaka had on the Mfecane — I simply wish to impart to all of you that Shaka was not the sole actor in the Mfecane. Shaka completely redesigned Zulu military strategy, but his role in the Mfecane went beyond just military, and also to establish the beginnings of relationships with neighboring Europeans and neighboring states. The beauty of acknowledging how many impacted these events is that these many voices among Zulu perspectives — outside a Shaka-centric perspective on the Mfecane — allow us to have a broader and truer understanding of this history. It allows us to understand that Dingane and Shaka had the largest impact on these events.