The reality is that Shaka didn't represent all black chiefdoms in fact he never even set foot to any parts of what was called Transvaal so he was relatively a small chief there in Natal who was made popular by the British lie Henry Flynn whom he gave vast amounts of land? Sometimes we like to glamorise everything in our past as if every aspect of our past was progressive.
Shaka was blood hungry and his actions are still evident in KZN where black on black violence is still rampant. Power hungry and blood thirsty leaders can be your heroes but not to all of us.
South Africa we have characters. Characters who make other people's business their business. That is part of our history as black people. King Shaka like other Kings was up to conquering other people's land to expand his father's land. He did and today in South Africa we can say we have a tribe called Zulus that is united as a rock. That unity was built out of, unfortunately, other people's blood. The Zulus were then taught by their forebears not to sell out their own like the tribes found mostly in the former Transvaal, especially Northern Transvaal. That is a history we have in our country that even to-date we see at play with those who call themselves leaders. If you need real history about our tribes, don't read it from the books. It's inaccurate there. Go to our elders especially those who worked in the mines. They'll tell you lots about different tribes found in Southern Africa. But by far, Zulus right from under King Shaka until today were and are a unit formed by blood thirst of one great man who never sold out his father's land to the settlers like those found in the Transvaal, particularly the Northern Transvaal.
Please like share and discuss...
Content created and supplied by: Alupheli. (via Opera News )