Btech 2014 Literature Review

In this review of the literature the idea of identity is not rigid but ever changing. John Wright (2008:35) in his book, Being Zulu, past and present, he states that “…the idea of ethnicity is never a fixed, primitive form but is always a creation of past processes”. Suggesting (a collective shared) history has an effect on how identifies are shaped today. The Zulu Nation was fostered by the unification of the northern tribes by Shaka Zulu with the subsequent enforcement of subscription of young adults to foster the ideas of a Zulu Nation.


Mbongiseni Buthelezi[1] would argue that the idea of one Zulu nation has decimated the true historical identities of the separate tribes that make up the isiZulu (Buthelezi 2008:23). “In a speech at Nsingweni near Eshowe in January 2005,...the Inkantha or IFP president,Mangosuthu Buthelezi[2], implored his audience ‘to preserve…Zuluness…to make our voice rings out across the hills and valleys of KwaZulu; to let the rest of South Africa know we are Zulus’…IFP has been tied to the ideology of Mangosuthu Buthelezi, whose legitimacy rests on a reinvention of Zulu greatness.” Wright suggests it was not till the separate leaders of the tribes drew under the Zulu banner with the threat of expansionism by the British that the idea of a unified Zulu identity came about. Zulu identity cannot be fixed as in the time of Shaka among the ethnicities and whatever idea of identity the group had was diminished by colonial rule. The onset of apartheid created an even greater split between conquered peoples of the Zulu nation. Some of these divides persists to this day, due to the then creation of the Bantustans. The attrition of the rural family unit and migrant labor created a broader Zulu identity. “It was not until the after the First World War that claims to being Zulu began to be widely made.” (Wright 2008:36)


Weaving and apartheid

Literature on Zulu weaving the literature is somewhat sparse. During the time of apartheid the historically indigenous peoples of South Africa were disenfranchised to the point where even their traditions and culture deemed inferior stood the very real chance of not surviving. The European minority managed to hold onto their European identities. Basketry almost did not survive due to apartheid and the systematic destruction of Zulu culture defined as a “craft,” which was encouraged among black South Africans under the apartheid regime. It fell within the ambit of what was derogatorily labelled “Bantoekuns”[3] (Bantu art) in Afrikaans, because it was seen as inferior to European arts and crafts.”(Nettleton 2010:56)


Nettleton (2010:56) maintains, that it is perhaps due to Jack Grossert the man in charge of “native” education in Natal during the 1950’s and 1960’s who promoted the instruction of such craft as basket weaving at rural schools, which has been the cause of the continuation of the tradition in that province. Also that this has led to the growth of new cooperatives in the production of craft which survives to this day. One could argue that the ethnic tradition might have been diminished from the 1820’s to the height of apartheid, but one cannot hypothesise that an entire culture and tradition could be so subjugated that its traditions could not survive. In his contribution of work Wright[4] (2008:35), maintains that:

This identity was strong enough to survive defeat at the hands of the British in 1879, devastating civil wars in the 1880’s and the long ensuing period of white colonial rule. In the era of struggle against apartheid, Zulu identity was increasingly reasserted as a natural expression of a powerful and long-established group consciousness.

The tendency for persons of European descent in South Africa was an over exaggerated view of their own simulated and morphed culture. As they are by definition Africans creating believes true or false that cultures are different to their creolised anecdotal “culture” is inferior. This was typical of most European 19th century theories which still thrives today. “Ethnocentrism is the tendency among individuals and groups to evaluate the communication and behaviour of members of other cultures to the values of their own culture.”(Groenewald, HJ 1996:19)


This was perpetuated by Darwin’s theory of evolution in past centuries, which created tremendous fanaticism and a one-sided endorsement of the settler’s interest with the exploitation of South Africa. This has left a void where we (South Africans) were once identified as savages, slaves and then inferior persons to free people still subjugated. Then “true” freedom which came with the abolishment of apartheid, leaving one open to assimilation of other identities as the individual are so far removed from ones historic self. Leaving the question who are we as a people? Does the issue of a modern identity in terms of the Zulu people have relevance in today’s South African society? Or should the collective foster a utopian identity as South Africans and not as separate peoples? Shall the people take a leaf from Shaka’s book and create one identity using military conscription where the individual identity of peoples are subverted for the single unified South African identity.





[1] Mbongiseni Buthelezi cousin of IFP (Inkantha Freedom Party) leader
[2] Mangosuthu Buthelezi both of the Buthelezi tribe conquered peoples (under the rule of Shaka Zulu) who form part of the Zulu nation.
[3] “Bantoekuns”, (so coined by the ruling class during apartheid) art created by the then indigenous peoples of South Africa.
[4] John Wright, (chapter 3) Reflections on the politics of being ‘Zulu’ published in the book Being Zulu, Past and Present.