A history of the Zulu Rebellion, 1906, and of Dinuzulu's arrest, trial, and expatriation — John Shaqi
A history of the Zulu Rebellion, 1906, and of Dinuzulu's arrest, trial, and expatriationStuart, James
History
A history of the Zulu Rebellion, 1906, and of Dinuzulu's arrest, trial, and expatriation
Stuart, James
Dinuzulu, approximately 1868-1913; Zulu Rebellion, 1906; Zululand (South Africa) -- History
In the case of Chiefs, the number of wives is frequently beyond a dozen
in number, and, in respect of Kings, without limit. Owing to this and
other reasons, such as jealousy among the women and rivalry among the
male children, it was and is still found convenient to erect different
kraals, though on the same general lines as those already outlined.
So much for the domestic side. Let us now glance at the administrative.
The King was assisted by a privy council of some five or six members
and a general assembly of non-elected and more or less elderly men.
The latter deliberated in public, anyone being permitted to listen to,
and even take part in, the proceedings. In view of the fact that the
assembly included men of high rank, those of inferior status usually
remained silent. But as, when the Rebellion broke out, there was
no Native King, it is necessary to confine attention to the actual
machinery in vogue at that time.
The King's place had been taken by the Supreme Chief (Governor), whilst
the functions of the privy council were discharged by the executive
council, and those of the assembly by the Legislative Assembly and
Council. It is needless to remark that Native opinion, under such
arrangement, where not only the Supreme Chief, but the councils
consisted entirely of Europeans, and where no Native council existed
at all, except occasional and partially representative gatherings
called together by the Magistrates--more to assist the Government
in communicating its laws or regulations than to discussing their
necessity or suitability--did not find more than apologetic, and the
feeblest, expression.
In regard to the various tracts of land specially set apart for
Natives, the same tenure was in vogue as had existed under tribal
rule from time immemorial. The land was held in common. And this rule
applied as much to the Chief as to his humblest followers. There was no
such thing as alienation of land; no freehold, no leasehold, no rents.
Occupancy depended on good behaviour, together with ready and loyal
discharge of all civic and military duties. Considerable care was taken
by the Chief, in allotting building and garden sites, not to interfere
with the commonage or existing rights. If these arrangements, in the
face of an increasing population, were not always judicious, pressure
of circumstances had begun to teach lessons, as it does all other
nations.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account