“In annexing the Transvaal the question of the confederation never crossed my mind.”
It was during a debate on the 25th of March 1879 that Lord Carnarvon’s claim that he hadn’t considered confederation in annexing the Transvaal was met with derision. Not only was Lord Carnarvon the architect of the Canadian confederation and despite his speech to the contrary pushed the Permissive Confederation Act, which sought to unify many South African states into a confederation, through parliament in 1877. To many within the upper chamber the annexation of the Transvaal represented a demonstrable act of British imperialism. Saul David, author of Zulu: the Heroism and Tragedy of the Zulu War of 1879 makes this explicit, claiming; ‘Sir Bartle Frere knew that both the Transvaal and the Cape were unlikely to agree to confederation until the threat from the Zulu Kingdom had been removed. He was determined to fight the Zulu for the good of the Empire, but was determined to make it look as though it was being fought for local or defensive reasons.’ Journalist A.N Wilson even goes so far as to brand the 19th century British as ‘jingoistic imperialists’
'... A fine piece of work... well researched and properly referenced... readable and interesting'
Dr Adrian Greaves The Anglo-Zulu War Historical Society
Table of Contents
1. British Imperialism in South Africa during 1879
Research Objectives and Themes
The primary research objective of this study is to critically evaluate whether the British military actions in South Africa during 1879 constituted genuine imperialism, or if they were instead a reactionary response to the expansionist policies of the Zulu Kingdom under King Cetshwayo.
- Analysis of academic definitions of imperialism, contrasting Hobson and Schumpeter.
- Evaluation of British foreign policy and military presence in the Cape region.
- Examination of Zulu expansionism under Shaka Zulu and King Cetshwayo.
- Comparison of British and Zulu political and military administrative practices.
- Investigation into the tactical and political motivations behind the Anglo-Zulu War.
Excerpt from the Book
British Imperialism in South Africa during 1879
It was during a debate on the 25th of March 1879 that Lord Carnarvon’s claim that he hadn’t considered confederation in annexing the Transvaal was met with derision. Not only was Lord Carnarvon the architect of the Canadian confederation and despite his speech to the contrary pushed the Permissive Confederation Act, which sought to unify many South African states into a confederation, through parliament in 1877. To many within the upper chamber the annexation of the Transvaal represented a demonstrable act of British imperialism. Saul David, author of Zulu: the Heroism and Tragedy of the Zulu War of 1879 makes this explicit, claiming; ‘Sir Bartle Frere knew that both the Transvaal and the Cape were unlikely to agree to confederation until the threat from the Zulu Kingdom had been removed. He was determined to fight the Zulu for the good of the Empire, but was determined to make it look as though it was being fought for local or defensive reasons.’
Journalist A.N Wilson even goes so far as to brand the 19th century British as ‘jingoistic imperialists’.
There is, not however, agreement amongst academics about the meaning of Imperialism. Economist J.A Hobbs defined Imperialism, in Imperialism: A Study (1902), as; ‘[A] social parasitic process by which a moneyed interest within the state, usurping the reins of government, makes for imperial expansion in order to fasten economic suckers into foreign bodies so as to drain them of their wealth in order to support domestic luxury.’
Yet sociologist Joseph A. Schumpter pithily defines imperialism as, 'the object less disposition of a state to expansion by force without assigned limits.' According to both definitions one of the basic tenants of imperialism is a disregard for the sovereignty, ancient traditions and customs of a nation whilst attempting to promote an alternative set of political and moral principles in this hypothetical state. Britain performed the aforementioned traits with almost maniacal zeal. British expansion was justified by claiming it brought ‘good government’ to uncivilized, barbaric, people.
Summary of Chapters
British Imperialism in South Africa during 1879: This chapter provides an analytical framework for defining imperialism and contrasts the actions of the British Empire in the Cape region with the established academic theories of Hobson and Schumpeter, ultimately arguing that Zulu expansionism was more definitively imperialist than British policy during that period.
Keywords
British Imperialism, South Africa, Zulu Kingdom, King Cetshwayo, Anglo-Zulu War, Lord Carnarvon, Colonialism, Expansionism, Sovereignty, Military History, 1879, Diplomacy, Transvaal, Natal, Shaka Zulu.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the fundamental focus of this research?
This work fundamentally focuses on the nature of British involvement in South Africa in 1879, investigating whether the British Empire acted as an aggressor or if its military interventions were defensive measures against Zulu expansionism.
What are the core themes addressed in the text?
The core themes include the definition of imperialism, the political motivations behind British administrative decisions, the military history of the Zulu Kingdom, and the role of regional border disputes in precipitating conflict.
What is the primary research goal?
The primary goal is to challenge the historical orthodoxy that labels British actions in 1879 as purely imperialist, by demonstrating that the British lacked a coherent, aggressive expansionist plan in the Cape region at that time.
Which scientific methods are employed?
The author employs a historiographical and comparative analytical method, utilizing primary documents, contemporary reports, and academic definitions of imperialism to evaluate conflicting historical narratives.
What subjects are covered in the main body of the work?
The main body examines the definitions of imperialism provided by economists and sociologists, the troop reductions under Gladstone, the strategic insignificance of the Cape region post-Suez, and the documented expansionist activities of Shaka Zulu and King Cetshwayo.
Which keywords characterize this paper?
Key terms include British Imperialism, Zulu Kingdom, Anglo-Zulu War, Sovereignty, Colonialism, Expansionism, and the political legacies of key figures like Lord Carnarvon and King Cetshwayo.
How does the author interpret the role of King Cetshwayo?
The author interprets King Cetshwayo as a leader who exhibited classic imperialist traits, citing his desire to expand into British and Boer territories and his refusal to cooperate with boundary commissions as proof of his own aggressive agenda.
What evidence does the author provide for British defensive intentions?
The author highlights the significant reduction of British troops in the Cape region prior to 1879, the lack of strategic economic incentive to control Zululand, and evidence suggesting that British officials like General Thesiger believed peace was still achievable through diplomatic channels.
- Citar trabajo
- Max Jewell (Autor), 2012, Who Were the Real Imperialists the British or the Zulu?, Múnich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/187843
