governed by a set of laws different to those of the Europeans. This
they strongly approved. It was, indeed, after their heart's desire.
But, with the introduction of Responsible Government and development
of European towns, commerce, industries, institutions, etc., Native
Affairs received a gradually diminishing amount of attention on the
part of the European community. As the Europeans progressed and became
more engrossed in their own affairs, necessity for safeguarding
purely Native interests seemed to recede further into the background.
This was, to some extent, due to Members of the Legislative Assembly
being invariably elected by a purely European electorate. When, as a
result of the Boer War, severe financial depression came about, and
Parliament was compelled to raise money, the Poll Tax Act was passed,
though without being specially referred to the Natives. Theoretically
there was no necessity for reference, for they were represented by
Members of both Houses. The fault was not really attributable to the
Government, still less to the colonists, but was rather one of the
inevitable results of Responsible Government, and especially of Western
Civilization, of which such Government was a natural outcome. In the
Constitution Act,[352] elaborate provision was made for the protection
of European interests, but no other than general provision on behalf
of the Natives. That the action taken in respect of the latter was
indefinite, was owing to their being barbarians, and in a very backward
state of civilization. Nothing, therefore, was more natural than that
the pendulum should eventually swing unduly in favour of the Europeans.
As, however, the grant of Responsible Government came from the Imperial
Government, such Government cannot be absolved from a share of the
blame for the one-sided--and perhaps, for the time being, necessarily
one-sided--tendencies inherent in the Constitution Act.
The specific grievances date, for the most part, from this granting of
Responsible Government. Prior to that time, the Natives were under the
immediate control of Sir Theophilus Shepstone, or officers who managed
their affairs on more or less similar lines. On such regime, all still
look back with affection and gratitude. But the seeds of friction and
discord were nevertheless latent, only time being needed for them to
develop into actual antagonism.
Apart from the system of Responsible Government, another disturbing
cause was the immigration of Europeans and Indians. This had gone
on steadily before 1893 and since. These increases, combined with a
greatly-augmented Native population, seriously affected the conditions
of living and, on account of the keener struggle for existence in a
changing environment, the easy-going and comparatively indolent Native
was obliged to go more and more to the wall.
It was, therefore, impossible to prevent the impression gaining
ground, especially in later times, with an accelerated spreading of
enlightenment, that the Natives were being discriminated against and,
with such impression, accentuated by the sinister Ethiopian propaganda
disseminated throughout the country since 1892, loss of confidence in
the white man's rule became inevitable.
That Natives arrived at the conclusion that they were being
discriminated against must be taken as fact. Dinuzulu's interview
with the Governor proves that he personally had arrived at the same
conclusion. Instances of like views will be found throughout the
Evidence given before the Native Affairs Commission. We are not
prepared to deny that this view is to a large extent correct, though
cannot go the length of condemning Natal Native policy in such
unmeasured terms as some are inclined to do. The clashing that occurred
seems to have arisen more out of the innate character of Western
Civilization than out of specific injustice, repression or inordinate
self-seeking on the part of the colonists.
When once a people begins to feel that it is accorded no particularly
definite status in the country, that its welfare is of no special
concern to the rulers, except as a means to the latter's material
advancement, that its members, in short, are pariahs in what, but a few
years before, was their own country, then the time is not far distant
when they may be expected to make a bid for liberty. It is beside the
question to set about to defend the principles of any policy when such
impression is abroad and the country in a ferment; if people believe
they are being down-trodden, the _belief_, justifiable or not, is what
has to be reckoned with. In Natal, it was a fact that many Natives
believed themselves to be a down-trodden race, and it was this general
fact which seems to us to have been a main underlying cause of their
rebelliousness. But, whilst being a cause, one thing must be borne
clearly in mind. The insurrection was partial, not universal. Had
various Natal governments shown no regard whatever for the people's
interests and welfare, and been content merely to exploit them for
the benefit of the white race, no one will deny that such feelings
of hatred would have been engendered as to have caused the rising to
be far more extensive and formidable than it was. That there should
have been warfare at all is bad enough, but it is at least fair to
Natal to remember that the great mass of the people did not feel
that provocation, sufficient for taking up arms, had been given.
This testimony is manifestly in favour of successive governments not
having been quite so callous as some have endeavoured to make out. Of
course, the comparatively few who actually armed--between 10,000 and
12,000--wished to organize a general insurrection or rebellion; of
that there is abundant evidence; and such plan might have succeeded
had the rising not been sternly met and speedily repressed. The
malcontents, knowing that the effects of European rule were felt as
more or less oppressive by the majority of their kinsmen--just as
the majority would, in time, have regarded as oppressive the rule of
the highest type of British or any other rulers that could possibly
have been selected--and knowing that the poll tax had still further
embittered their race against European rule, calculated that the time
was ripe for general rebellion. They reckoned that far greater numbers
would have joined than actually did. But they were disappointed. They
failed to allow sufficiently for the inertia of those who, though not
particularly enamoured of European rule, saw nothing to be gained, and
much to be lost, by resort to arms. Even Dinuzulu, in spite of his
promise, and after exerting his influence on Sigananda, Mehlokazulu
and others, failed at the critical moment to afford active support.
The fact is that the Natal Government had not become altogether
intolerable, except to such recognized renegades as Bambata. In every
State of the world, numbers of malcontents are ever ready to rise
against any government that happens to be in power. Natal was no
exception to the rule. And when her day of trial came, she had perforce
to depend on the loyalty of the remainder of the people, and the
strength of her own right hand. If the management of the Native races
by Natal was worse than is here made out, how comes it that her entire
Native population throughout the Boer War, which began but six, and
ended four, years before the Rebellion, was as consistently loyal as it
was throughout that protracted war; that Dinuzulu assisted as he did
with scouts and levies (though not for the purpose of actual fighting);
that, so far from wanting to rebel, the Chiefs offered their services,
which, however, could not be accepted on the ground that the war was
'a white man's war'--and all this notwithstanding that the Colony had
been invaded, and one of its principal towns besieged by the enemy for
upwards of three months? Clearly, Natal's rule had not, at that time,
become so unbearable as to cause the people to prefer a regime set up
by Dinuzulu, or some other Zulu despot.
Under the circumstances, we come to the conclusion that the fundamental
cause was the introduction and imposition on the aborigines of a type
of civilization radically different from their own. The Government,
first Imperial, latterly Colonial, was necessarily the instrument
whereby such civilization was introduced and imposed. Responsibility
for all that occurred must, therefore, be thrown, as it was thrown by
Natives, on the Government, even the breaking down of their social
system through the unremitting effects of Missionary teaching,
the undermining of the tribal system by European landlordism, the
innumerable deleterious effects caused by degraded or dishonest classes
of Europeans, and in other ways.
This establishment and promotion of Western Civilization operated in
various ways on the Natives: (_a_) restrictions were imposed on former
conditions or modes of life; (_b_) indiscriminate licence was extended
to various sections, as well as to Europeans, whilst, at the same
time, (_c_) obligations to conform to the new conditions of life were
enforced.
Let us consider some of the principal causes of discontent that sprang
from this action.
Under (_a_): Natives were prohibited from undergoing military service,
or joining in various military occupations, which, as shown in Chapter
IV., took up a very large portion of their time; they were precluded
from leading the nomadic life customary with them for ages; individual
kraalheads were restricted, by the setting up of a system of freehold
tenure by Europeans, from going to live where they wished, and many
of the old and recognized thoroughfares were closed by the fences put
up; polygamy became more difficult because of the hut tax, and there
was prescription in respect of _lobolo_ claims; the national Feast of
the First-Fruits, as well as other feasts and social gatherings, were
either stopped, or interfered with, not, however, without good reason;
Chiefs' powers of criminal and civil jurisdiction were circumscribed,
as also the control exercised by heads of families over their wives
and children; diviners were prohibited from practising their calling;
restrictions were imposed on hunting game, cutting wood, or making
gardens in forests; and Natives were unable to enter towns, except when
clad in European dress.
Under (_b_): Too many Chiefs were appointed, a number of these not
being entitled by hereditary rank or position to the posts; usurpation
by some European landlords of several of the functions of Chiefs, or
otherwise imposing restrictions on their authority; making consent by
all girls to marriage obligatory; permitting boys and girls to break
away from their parents or guardians, in order to be converted or
educated; creating undue facilities for women to obtain divorce, or
break away from their homes to lead immoral lives, etc.; exaction of
excessive rents by various European landlords; excessive charges by
certain lawyers; too many Native herbalists allowed to practise, a
large proportion being unqualified and unscrupulous; usury by certain
Europeans, especially lawyers, farmers, and other employers of labour.
Under (_c_): In a Christian community, with children being converted
to Christianity and educated, parents were obliged in various ways
to adapt themselves more and more to the changing conditions, even
though themselves against being converted or educated on European
lines. Enlightenment, religious and secular, accentuated by Ethiopian
propaganda, infused a spirit of equality in the people. This, in a
polygamistic environment, was destructive of marital and parental
authority, besides undermining the authority, privileges and prestige
of every Chief in the country. In the case of Dinuzulu, such influences
would have been particularly acute and rapid.
Besides the inconveniences involved, the spectacle of a
rapidly-disintegrating and decaying tribalism was always before the
people, and, with this, the vanishing of cherished national ideals,
traditions, beliefs, folklore, etc.
Other permanent obligations were the having to pay various taxes,
rents, and other charges; to carry passes; to register births and
deaths; the census-taking, 1904.
Under the same head, may be included other causes which were but
inevitable where two such races lived together in the same country:
Interference by certain Europeans with Native women and girls;
communication of human and stock diseases formerly unknown, _e.g._
leprosy, small-pox, bubonic plague, consumption,--lung-sickness,
rinderpest, East Coast Fever.[353]
Among miscellaneous causes were: Laying off large numbers of farms in
Zululand for the occupation of Europeans; the inconsiderate manner in
which the police, especially Native police, behaved towards Natives;
punishment and removal of Chiefs without proper trial; obligation to
work on roads and public works (_isibalo_); impoverishment of the
people through the effects of locusts, rinderpest, East Coast Fever,
etc.; introduction of indentured Indians, thereby supplanting Native
labour. Of these, the laying off of farms in Zululand was far the most
important.
The alienating of land in Zululand to Europeans has always been
regarded by the royal house as a serious menace. Although liberal
grants were made to mission societies and to the Boers, it was never
intended that Europeans should obtain holdings in the heart of the
country, as they did shortly before the Rebellion, and thereby break
up the nation by subjecting individuals to the payment of rent, as in
Natal. It will, therefore, be understood that the laying off of farms
along the coast and elsewhere for sugar planting, etc., would have been
deeply though silently resented by Dinuzulu as nominal head of the
people.
In addition to the foregoing, the semi-educated class of Natives,
known as Kolwas, had complaints, but as the people affected were
comparatively few, there is no necessity for specifying them, except
to point out that the charging of rents on mission reserves, and
difficulties in obtaining (_a_) the franchise, (_b_) exemption in
respect of certain children, (_c_) firearms, and (_d_) European
liquor, were regarded by some as indications of being distrusted or
unreasonably discriminated against.
As the root-cause of the Rebellion was, briefly, the attempt made to
impose the European character and civilization on the Native races, the
various causes above given were of a merely subsidiary or contributory
nature. Hence it is unfair to charge Natal governments with failing
to circumvent what, in the nature of the circumstances, was largely
unavoidable, just as many similar causes now and for long existing in
other parts of South Africa are more or less unavoidable.
When, however, through the operation of the foregoing causes, the
people felt disposed to take up arms, other things were required before
they would _act_, among these, what may be called _the inciting cause_.
This, of course, was the poll tax. This is what tended to bring about
combination. It gave the Natives heart, or _ubudoda_ (manliness) as
they called it. It was precisely what they needed, in their loose,
disintegrated state. And so, curiously enough, the poll tax played
exactly the same part among them that a similar tax did in the Wat
Tyler Rebellion in England in 1381, and as the 'greased cartridges' did
in the Indian Mutiny of 1857. It is a mistake to speak of the poll tax
as having caused the Rebellion; it was merely a contributory cause, and
not among the most important of those that have been cited.
The principal _motive_ of the Rebellion would appear to be the one
indicated on pp. 506, 507. But there was also a general desire by the
people for a form of government more in harmony with their national
and individual aspirations. Reference should also be made to Ethiopian
propaganda, especially the political cry "Africa for the Africans,"
the text of many an address shortly before the Insurrection. It was
perpetually put forward, no doubt, in order to furnish people with a
motive for opposing or counteracting European domination and alleged
oppression. The cry was heard, not only in Natal, but throughout South
Africa. Natives were told that the Europeans had forfeited the right
to rule, and that it and the country had accordingly reverted once
more to the Black House. There were yet other inducements, viz.: the
Baqulusi having succeeded in massacring the commando at Holkrantz,
thereby lowering the prestige of the Europeans in the eyes of Natives;
the lessons of the Boer War, such as the guerilla tactics that were
practised; and the contempt by Natives for Europeans, owing to the
familiar manner in which many had been treated by British troops. There
is no doubt that these motives also powerfully influenced the people.
Among the _occasions_ may be mentioned: Withdrawal of Imperial
troops from Natal; inability of the Germans to suppress the rising
in Damaraland (West Africa); sense of superiority felt by Natives
through being much more numerous than the colonists; palpable growth
of Dinuzulu's influence; general decay of the authority of Chiefs,
kraal-owners,[354] etc.; increase of hooliganism and lawlessness;
belief that such fastnesses as Nkandhla were impregnable; belief that
they (Natives) were impervious to bullets; belief, engendered by the
widely-spread pig-fowl-killing order, that the time had arrived when
the white race must be driven out or exterminated.
(iii) _Replies to Criticisms._
The way in which the campaign was conducted was sharply criticized by
persons in England and elsewhere, chiefly from two points of view,
viz. the disparity in losses sustained, and the rigour with which the
rebels were dealt with. Now, it is one of the principal objects of a
commander to prevent unnecessary loss to his side, and no part of his
plans to make sacrifices merely because heavy punishment is being meted
out to the enemy. The greater the injury inflicted, with the least loss
to himself, is one of the highest marks of generalship, particularly
where his opponent vastly exceeds him in numbers. As, in every military
school, one finds it approved to strike effective blows at the enemy's
_morale_, under what circumstances can this be better done than when
he is driven to finding himself out-generalled at every point, and
losing more men than his adversary? What, more than cheaply-achieved
successes, is better calculated to depress the exuberant spirits of
barbarous rebels and sooner bring about their surrender? Justifiable or
unjustifiable, rebellion should, in the interests of the community, be
stamped out and stamped out thoroughly.
The losses of European troops in various Native wars in South Africa,
particularly in recent times, have almost always been greater than
those sustained by Natal in 1906, relatively to the personnel
engaged.[355] When it is considered that the casualties sustained
by the enemy totalled only about 2,300 in a four-month's campaign,
with upwards of 9,000 European troops and some 6,000 Native loyalists
engaged, it will be seen that the losses were proportionately less
severe than in other South African Native wars.
The disparity in losses was accounted for primarily by the insurgents
being in an unorganized condition. It is inevitable that, where hordes
of more or less disorganized barbarians attack properly-trained troops,
armed with modern weapons, mortality among the former will be far
greater than among the latter. One thing, however, is quite clear. Had
the O.C. Troops not dealt with the situation in a prompt and resolute
manner, but afforded opportunities to the rebels to augment their
forces, the proportion of casualties would have been even more striking
than it was.
Most of the criticism in question came as usual from a few noisy
people in England, who quite forgot the absurdly few casualties that
were sustained by the Imperial troops in the Zulu War, as compared
with the number of Zulus who were killed; nor did they remember that
Pretorius, at the famous battle of Blood River, had three men wounded
(including himself), as against 3,000 Zulus killed. It is one of
the ironies of life that persons wholly ignorant, or almost wholly
ignorant, of local conditions, succeeded in getting many to attend to
and believe their clamour. Such incidents as the cold-blooded attack on
the Police at Mpanza were glazed over or forgotten by these zealots,
whose chief glory consisted in traducing the motives and actions of
their own kin to the best of their ability. Everything the savages
did was right, everything that those of their own race did was wrong,
wrong, not because of any inherent defect, but wrong just because
they are white and not black. All murders, mutilations of corpses,
looting, incendiarism and terrorization of loyalists were condoned.
It occurred not to these 'judges' to study the facts. If the rebels
did anything that wore the appearance of wrong-doing, the act was
justified by asserting (wholly regardless of the facts) that the act
was but a consequence of the commission of some greater wrong. No act
was isolated and considered on its own merits. If Bambata waylaid 150
Police along a difficult road, firing a broadside into a twenty-men
advanced guard at a distance of five yards, in the dark, before
outbreak of hostility of any kind, the act was justified by the fact
that the ringleader had been deposed from his chieftainship by the
Government, and because he was but protesting against the imposition
of a poll tax of £1 per head. If the reasons why Bambata was deposed,
or the circumstances under which the poll tax was levied, had been
advanced, other excuses would have been found, and attempts made to
justify at every point, with an ardour born of such as had not actually
lived in the country and had nothing to lose.
The unbridled resentment and public defiance exhibited at Mapumulo,
Umzinto, Nkandhla, Pietermaritzburg and Durban magistracies--at each of
which places the Natives vastly outnumbered the civil authorities then
present; the audacity of the murders of Hunt and Armstrong; and the
still cooler attack at Mpanza,--with isolated, cold-blooded murders,
such as Stainbank, Veal, Walters, Powell and Sangreid, accompanied
by horrible mutilation (where this was possible),--were all these
exhibitions of barbarity to have no effect whatever on the troops, most
of whom had been born and bred in the country, and knew the place of
the Native in the community?
Natal was being governed in accordance with Native law. Such condition
naturally conferred on the higher race a position of privilege
and ascendancy, whilst maintaining the Natives in a social system
inherited from a far-off past. This eminence had, in the course of two
generations, become settled or habitual. The Natives recognized it and
had accommodated themselves thereto. When, therefore, the foregoing
incidents occurred, they were rightly regarded as serious. This is one
of the reasons why the shooting down of the rebels was occasionally as
severe as it was, though not on nearly so large a scale as has been
supposed.