History Grade 10 - Topic 4 Essay Questions and Answers

Shaka Zulu Legacy

Essay questions on Shaka Zulu’s legacy will be asked as 8-mark questions where students have to use sources to answer the question. The following article will discuss the major points of the question and refer to supporting evidence for these points.

TIP: See our technical skills pack on answering source-based paragraphs.

Andries Botha’s statue of portraying Shaka Zulu. It was removed from King Shaka International Airport in 2010. Image Source

The above statue portraying Shaka Zulu was removed in 2010, due to difference in opinion about the portrayal of Shaka Zulu. [1] Discuss the legacy of Shaka Zulu by explaining ways in which he has been portrayed, and why he has been portrayed this way.

How has Shaka been remembered?

A myth and legacy around Shaka Zulu emerged in the early 19th Century in South Africa. It was initially believed that Shaka was the main cause of the Mfecane. [2] This has since been debated by historians, who claim that Shaka was one of many leaders that played a role in influencing South Africa during this time. This discussion shall look at different portrayals of Shaka and why he was depicted in this way.

TIP: Questions on Shaka and the Mfecane are examinable. See additional article on the historiography of the Mfecane.

How Shaka has been portrayed?

The late Winston S. Churchill, former Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, once stated that, “History is written by victors.” [3] A victor is a winner and by incorporating only the winner’s interpretation into history it leads to biased representation of history. One see’s traces of the victor’s history in common portrayals of Shaka Zulu: [4]

• Some historians portray Shaka as a “military genius” who consolidated a powerful Zulu military and society resulting in the defeat of other chiefdoms. [5]Shaka was obsessed with military tactics and employed new techniques on the battlefield that allowed for the defeat of rival kingdoms.
• Shaka is also portrayed as a cruel tyrant who caused the destruction and misery of African societies during the Mfecane as he had firm control over his subjects. [6] Shaka would order the execution of those who he deemed a threat or disloyal to him or the Zulu kingdom.
• Shaka is also portrayed as a nation builder and an admirable leader who consolidated and strengthened the Zulu nation. [7]

Information or knowledge on Shaka comes from different types of sources. Historical research methodology requires that the reliability of sources has to be assessed. Questions of who produced the sources and why sources were produced can give one a better understanding of the angle taken in the information’s portrayal.

The Military Genius

Oral history and praise poems portray Shaka as a “military genius.” Here is an extract from a praise poem titled Shaka: [8]

Source A:

In African societies, oral tradition was the main way to pass on information where speaking about history would passed down from one generation to the next. [9] Praise poems or izibongo, a Zulu word referring to praises intoned in honour of a person, are generally long. Oral tradition has accumulated accounts of people who lived through the events or who heard of these events. The following quote comes from an interview in 1903 that a Natal administrator, James Stuart, had with Jantshika Nongila whose father was a spy for Shaka: [10]

Source B:

The Cruel Tyrant

Accounts which portrayed Shaka as a cruel and bloodthirsty tyrant were based on written accounts. The only written accounts of Shaka produced during his lifetime were by British traders who visited the Zulu kingdom in the 1820s. Lots of historians based their views of Shaka on the diary of Francis Fynn, a British trader. [11] The credibility of the source is problematic as the diary did not provide an accurate daily account, but was written down from what Fynn could still remember. In addition, the British trader called Nathaniel Isaacs encouraged Fynn to write negatively about Dingane and Shaka. In a letter addressed Fynn, Isaacs said: [12]

Source C:

The Nation Builder

The negative depictions of Shaka by British traders were not the only colonial written records, but there were also colonial administrators in Natal who portrayed Shaka as a nation builder. [13] In the early 1900s a Natal administrator, James Stuart, collected many oral testimonies from people who heard of stories of Shaka. For example, in 1903, Stuart interviewed Jantshika Nongila, the son of Shaka’s spy. [14] The following extract comes from original documents written by Stuart from the interviews he conducted and these original documents are currently held in the Killie Campbell Africana Library in Durban: [15]

Source D:

During the twentieth century written records were produced by Zulu leaders who admired Shaka’s leadership skills. [16] The former African National Congress (ANC) Leader, Albert Luthuli, wrote of Shaka in his autobiography, “Let My People Go”. [17] Luthuli wrote of Shaka as a formidable leader, but also as a leader who displayed dangerous characteristics as a dictator.

Why was Shaka portrayed in this way?

Different sources provide different perspectives and theories of Shaka’s role and influence as a leader of the Zulu kingdom. Sources display bias when they focus on one aspect of Shaka, either as a nation builder or a cruel tyrant. [18] Sources that depict Shaka as a cruel tyrant have dominated the historical narrative of the Zulu leader. These sources also place a lot of emphasis on the traditional view that Shaka Zulu was one of the main causes for the Mfecane. [19] However, from the 1980s many historians rejected the one-sided view of Shaka as merely a bloodthirsty tyrant, but placed more emphasis on his positive role as a Zulu leader.

Remember that one has to ask who and why a source was produced. Negative portrayals of Shaka by British colonial traders were written when the British saw him as a threat to their colonial influence in Natal. [20] By portraying Shaka as a threat, it could justify their subjugation of the Zulu kingdom. However, by the early 1900s Shaka had long passed on and was no longer a threat to the British colony. [21] In the early 1900s the Natal administrator, James Stuart, wanted to produce accounts of Shaka as a proficient administrator, because he wanted to provide evidence to the British colony of good African administrators so that African leaders could administer areas reserved for African land use. [22] Thus, the pool of information about Shaka provided more positive accounts of his leadership. From the 1980s, more historians rejected the biased notion of Shaka as a bloodthirsty tyrant, but have integrated different perspectives which acknowledge his intelligible leadership, without ignoring his dictatorial tendencies. [23]