Samuel Florman - The Aftermath

In any event, after 1800, conditions abruptly became more grim. The area was struck by severe drought; other tribes began to crowd in from the north; white farmers, even before the Great Trek, increased their pressure from the west; and European slave traders, with the complicity of some native Africans, conducted gruesomely efficient raids from the east coast. The result was an increasingly chaotic situation in which military prowess became the key to survival of clan and tribe.

Shaka, who became chief of the Zulus in 1816, was the man for that historical moment. A fierce and astute military leader, he revolutionized tribal warfare with two innovative tactics: He replaced the traditional throwing spear with a shorter stabbing spear, and he directed his troops to surround opponents in a U-formation, close in on them, and kill them with the deadly new weapon. By 1826, Shaka dominated the entire territory, militarily and politically, absorbing numerous clans and tribes into the Zulu family, and sending others in flight for their lives. In just a few years the tradition of Zulus as fearsome warriors had become established. It was to be embellished in subsequent battles with the Boers and with the British. (One of the most notable encounters in military history saw the Zulus, armed only with spears, prevail over the British and their guns in the battle of Isandhlwana in 1879.)

While the Zulus were establishing their tribal domination east of the Drakensberg Mountains in the early 1820s, most whites remained far away, in the vicinity of the Cape. However, word about the east coast, with its good weather and rich soil, was bound to spread, and in 1824, the British established a trading post there. They called it Port Natal. This port was later to become Durban—the city that was swept into the sea the day before we were scheduled to visit it. Shaka welcomed the British, at least to the extent of signing a treaty ceding them the port and much of the territory surrounding it. Shaka’s successor, Dingane, renewed the treaty in 1835, and relations remained fairly cordial, thanks to the fact that the British initially were satisfied to remain on the coast.

However, in 1837, here came the Boers, trekking over the mountains, with settlement very much on their minds. Dingane promptly massacred the Boers’ leader, Piet Retief, along with more than sixty of his followers. A few months later, under the leadership of Andries Pretorius, the Boers killed more than three thousand Zulus in the fabled battle of Blood River. They then established the Republic of Natal, with its capital inland, up in the hills at Pietermaritzburg.

This new state had a short life. In 1843, the British annexed the area and started bringing in immigrants of their own. In less than a decade, domination of the territory had shifted from blacks to Afrikaners to the British.

As the nineteenth century progressed, the Zulus were subdued by the armies of empire, and their mighty kingdom brought low. Still, overcoming many hardships and indignities, they preserved their tribal culture and pride in their noble heritage. As for the Afrikaners, once again chafing under British control, many of them left to join their fellows in the Transvaal and the Orange Free State. However, enough stubbornly stayed behind so that Natal continued to be home to three main contending groups.

Perhaps I should say four groups, because we must include the Indians—yes, the Indians, from the Asian subcontinent. Starting in 1860, the British brought them to Natal in large numbers as indentured laborers for the newly established sugar plantations. At first, they were subjected to abuse and humiliating discrimination; but after a number of decades, many of them became successful merchants and leaders of the South African business community. Although they comprised less than 3 percent of the national population, in KwaZulu Natal their representation reached more than one in ten. This is a significant presence that I never could have imagined when I first thought about the rebuilding of civilization in Southern Africa. About 70 percent of this sizable minority are Hindus, 20 percent Muslim.

Incidentally, in their early struggles for respect and civil rights, these people were led by a young lawyer named Mohandas Gandhi. That saintly man’s concepts of non-violent protest evolved during the more than twenty years he spent in Natal. It will be a blessing for our future society if his spirit resides here still.

The fates, having brought together these diverse communities at the southern end of the African continent, now introduced the element best calculated to create new extremes of turbulence: a find of diamonds, followed in 1886 by discovery of the world’s richest gold fields. The British, who otherwise might have lost interest in this unprepossessing corner of their empire, suddenly showed passionate concern. Since the mines were located in the north-central lands to which the Boers had laid claim, one could have predicted the coming of conflicts that would culminate in war. An announced cause of the South African War (1899-1902) between the British and the Boers was the anger of recently arrived immigrants who were not granted the right to vote in government elections. But the war wasn’t about votes; it was about wealth. And, in the end, the might of the British Empire prevailed.

The brutal conflict, which lasted two and a half years, pitted almost a half-million imperial troops against eighty-seven thousand farmer-soldiers. The Boers, waging guerrilla warfare, enjoyed some initial successes. But when Lord Kitchener embarked on a scorched-earth policy, and rounded up the civilian population into concentration camps, the outcome was ordained. Some twenty-five thousand Afrikaner women and children died of disease and malnutrition in the camps, another grim ordeal etched indelibly in the tribal memory.

It is notable, I think, that for all their bravery and zeal, the Afrikaners did not fight on to a suicidal end, as a few of their number urged. Neither did the Zulus when they finally discerned the almost limitless resources of their enemies. History shows us that the Afrikaners and the Zulus—along with the other tribes of South Africa—have been essentially pragmatic when confronting adversity.

The British, too, are pragmatists of the first order, famous for their Magna Carta, for their “bloodless” revolution of 1688, and numerous accommodations between the classes.

The story of South Africa in the twentieth century is, in fact, a testimony to the possibilities of compromise. While fanaticism and uncompromising hatred festered in other parts of the world, good sense and goodwill prevailed in South Africa. This sounds strange, given what we know about the evils of apartheid. And, admittedly, democracy and order did not prevail without exploitation, conflict, and many terrible deeds. But considering the difficulties to be overcome, and the potential for unspeakable slaughter and anarchy, the democratic multiracial elections of 1994 represented a triumph for the human spirit.

The policy of apartheid (Afrikaans for “apartness”), longstanding in practice, was formalized in laws passed during the 1950s. Predictably, a resistance movement developed, centered in the African National Congress (ANC). Many of this group’s early leaders were Zulus; but eventually it came to be controlled by members of the Xhosa-speaking tribes, led by Nelson Mandela. As demonstrations became more widespread, and sporadically violent, the government banned the ANC and, in 1962, arrested Mandela.

Government policies of oppression were pursued at first through direct police action—including not only arrests and assaults, but also abductions, tortures, and murders. Then the policies were pursued even more insidiously, by pitting blacks against blacks. The Zulus in particular, led by Chief Buthelezi under the banner of his Inkatha Freedom Party, came into conflict with the ANC and fought many bloody battles with its supporters. Buthelezi received considerable financial support from the government and was accused by his foes of having “sold out” to the white establishment. Other tribal chiefs were also accused of betraying the cause of democratic civil rights. Adding to the chaos and distrust, a mysterious “third force” of militaristic right-wing whites was said to be fomenting hostilities among the various black factions.