Talk:History of the Cape Colony from 1806 to 1870

older entries

landroost is certainly not a Dutch word. Should it be landdrost? A 'drost' was an official of the old Republic. nl:Gebruiker:Jcwf

Shouldn't there at least be an explanation that the word 'kaffer' is used here in its historical sense?nl:Gebruiker:Jcwf

---

The word 'Kaffir' is not being used 'in it's historical context'. Would something like the following be acceptable to an American audience?

the Niggers had taken possession of the neutral ground and attacked the colonists. In order to expel them, General Grant...

There's nothing historical about this. The term is racist and does not belong here. The people the British were fighting were the Xhosa. The wars are now known as the Frontier wars. I traced the history of this article, and it began with a lengthy article from an anonymous contributer. Either it's malicously racist, or has been ignorantly plucked from a dated textbook. -- Greenman 14 June 2005

You would have to ask an American, sorry. I know that "nigger" and "negro" was part of the vernacular, but as far as I'm concerned, it originated from the word "black." However, you state that it isn't used in its historical context, and then go on to say it must be plucked from a dated textbook — a textbook from that era provides the historical context.

However you look at it, I argue that it is being used in its historical context. The Brits used the word as substitute for natives, probably as a tribal name. This is apparent from the writings of the time; as examples:

• Lessons of the War, by Spenser Wilkinson, 1900: "The Government of Natal thought that if the troops were withdrawn from Glencoe--Dundee, or the whole force collected, say at Colenso instead of Ladysmith, the appearance of retreat would have a bad effect on the natives, the Kaffirs, and perhaps the Dutch farmers."
• The Great Boer War, by Arthur Conan Doyle, 1902: "The burghers would not pay taxes and the treasury was empty. One fierce Kaffir tribe threatened them from the north, and the Zulus on the east. It is an exaggeration of English partisans to pretend that our intervention saved the Boers, for no one can read their military history without seeing that they were a match for Zulus and Sekukuni combined."

It won't be correct to simply replace it with "natives" throughout, if you're wanting to be PC. And I strongly suspect that it isn't that closely delineated so that Xhosa would be correct throughout. Unless there is some source that can provide the necessary link between the reference from that era and today's namings, I don't think we should change things on speculation. I have brought this up before; see Talk:History of Cape Colony. Dewet 13:42, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

There's a difference between historical context, and using the word in a modern context to refer to a historical event. The word kaffir may have been used in the past, but no modern history book would even consider using the word kaffir now to describe the people the British were fighting, and nor should Wikipedia. The word was used at one point to name the wars, so references to the fact that the British historically called the wars the Kaffir Wars are appropriate, but to continually use the term to describe the people being fought is not acceptable. Native is not much better as a term. The people being fought were the Xhosa. It's not about being PC, it's about being accurate, and avoiding a certain systemic bias in the article. There may be a few instances of other people's being involved, but then they should be clearly described too. You asked the question in December 2004 in the talk page you refer to, and I hope I'm answering it :) I have modern sources and will help with this if needs be, though I'll be away and have no online access for the next few days. -- Greenman June 14 2005

We are in agreement, then. I dislike the term too, but what it needs to be replaced with is what I'm not too sure about. If it can be shown that what today is labeled "Xhosa" is indeed what was then labeled "Kaffir" without any grey areas, then I'm happy to replace it. Dewet 22:01, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Changes have been made. The people being fought were the Xhosa. Sources include: [1], [2] and A History of South Africa, by Frank Welsh, 2000, Harper Collins. Greenman 2 July 2005 18:34 (UTC)

names in this article

There are some spellings that need looking at- E.g. Amaxosa is surely amaXhosa, Nongkwase is normally spelt Nongqawuse. On the subject of the word Kaffir as used in this article: there are areas where the word has historical context (Kaffir Wars, any quotes from dispatches, books etc). In most cases though I would support it being replaced by some less in-your-face term, as the way the word is used does often not refer to a historical usage, but is simply a generic term for blacks as used by the settlers of the time.

Agree. Xhosa replaces Kaffir, as discussed above. Many of the other spellings are incorrect according to today's conventions. I suspect the article was originally taken from an ancient Enclyclopedia Britannica, judging by the colonial tone, and old spellings. It needs a far bit of work still. Certainly not featured article standard yet. Greenman 2 July 2005 18:34 (UTC)

Spot on - the original is from the 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica article online at Love to Know Humansdorpie 13:02, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

colonial bias

This article is written from a British Colonial perspective: Words like "natives" are used. When Africans fight for their freedom this is referred to as "causing problems". Africans are referred to as enemies--clearly a British Colonial perspective masking the fact that the British (and the Dutch before)were the invaders, on the wrong side of the earth, and destroyed societies that had been there for a very long time. otium19.May.06

{{sofixit}} Páll ^{(Die pienk olifant)} 13:08, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, the article is rife with colonialist bias and racism, blatantly evident in passages such as these "On 22 April 1817, led by a prophet-chief named Makana, they attacked Graham’s Town, then held by a handful of white troops. Help arrived in time and the enemy were beaten back. It was then agreed that the land between the Fish and the Keiskamma rivers should be neutral territory." In addition the entire history of Cape Colony is told from the British and Afrikaner perspective, and not from the point of view of the Xhosa or the KhoiKho, whose sovereignty and terrieory were being usurped. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.192.68.117 (talk) 17:54, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

FAR

History of Cape Colony from 1806 to 1870 has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. Cheers, Spawn Man (talk) 01:47, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

It would be worth prefacing this article with a caveat regarding the extent to which an authentic and objective historical account is possible. The primary historical record of the series of colonial Frontier Wars is firstly quite limited and secondly is almost exclusively drawn from material belonging to the colonial invaders. As is well known, this is commonly the case with imperial invasion pre-1900, irrespective of the continent. In addition to the paucity and bias of the available records, there is the unfortunate tendency toward simplification. For instance, in the periods between each of the Cape Frontier Wars there is evidence of many fruiful and peaceful interactions between Xhosa groups and settlers. There were even some settler men who opted for integration with these groups, choosing to marry Xhosa women or act as travelling traders between tribal groups between the Kei and Umzimvubu Rivers. Inevitably relations became polarised - on the one hand by a flawed, colonial policy (which when judged in retrospect, was inherently violent and elitist) and on the other, by incessant pilfering of settler property by certain Xhosa groups. The full story of this time will never be told. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AmaNafrikan (talk • contribs) 19:59, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Edit of Cattle Killings

I removed opening paragraph to this section references the "delusions" that led to the cattle killings. This term seems quite loaded to me, and I don't think it would be used if the article was referencing the beliefs of other faiths.

Also, the reference I added cited 40,000 deaths, not 50,000.

Finally, I tried to add a footnote, but had trouble understanding the correct syntax. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shultze (talk • contribs) 21:43, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

The Cattle-Killing Movement section of this article has problems

First, much information contradicts what's in the standard scholarly reference, J.B. Peires' "The Dead Will Arise." Second, most of what's here is racially biased and presents white viewpoints without presenting the Xhosa viewpoint (both of which are covered and exhaustively documented in Peires' book). I'm new here and don't have the skills to make the changes but would be happy to provide the info to someone who can. (Email me at senselj@yahoo.com.) Short of that, that part of the article needs a flag that indicates it is incomplete, incorrect, or biased. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.113.244.167 (talk) 15:44, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Reversing the outdated, colonial history - not just identifying the bias

This talk page has already mentioned that this article is almost a direct copy-and-paste from this 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica article -- thus mirroring all of its outdated history, colonial language and organization of the subject matter. Not only was it dated to 1911, but the 1911 article says it is a condensed version of the 1878 book History and Geography of South Africa by G. M. Theal.

The section on the Xhosa Cattle Killing told the ‘Chief’s plot’ account of the events (a long-ago falsified conspiracy that the Xhosa chiefs were trying to starve their own people to recruit them for war) and likened the Xhosa to cannibals eating their children! I have edited and rewritten paragraphs in that section considerably to incorporate modern scholarship and Peires seminal account The Dead Will Arise - but I would highly encourage others familiar with the other wars and sections to do the same. Just replacing ‘Kaffir’ with Xhosa does not remove the colonial bias and outdated historical interpretations embedded in the content of this page, and almost all of it needs to be rewritten.

Another thing to consider is that the very categories of this article are the exact subsections from the 1911 article -- while names like the 'The Great Amaxosa Delusion’ have been updated to 'Xhosa cattle-killing movement and famine,' the content and overall structure of what types of events are included remains the same. The focus currently is on wars and the perspective of the colonial apparatus. What kinds of sections could we add to get to the Xhosa perspective and go beyond the colonial state?

I was really disappointed when I read the article, then encouraged when I saw the discussions going on here about the inappropriate use of ‘Kaffir,’ the inaccuracies in the Cattle Killing section, and the overall colonial bias. Now let’s translate that from the talk page to editing the actual page, which still remains almost an exact copy of the 1911 page, minus ‘Kaffir.’

DustyGusty (talk) 22:54, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

"Lungsickness" Disease

this wording in this line: "In 1854, the lungsickness disease spread through the cattle of the Xhosa..." implies that lungsickness disease has already been mentioned previously in the article (it hasn't). Also, if the disease in question is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contagious_bovine_pleuropneumonia there should be a link to it on first use.AL20227 (talk) 16:20, 20 December 2021 (UTC)