South Africa pushed to the limit: the political economy of change

T. Moorsom
{"title":"South Africa pushed to the limit: the political economy of change","authors":"T. Moorsom","doi":"10.1080/00083968.2013.830397","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"young men’s rebellion, and indeed argues to the contrary that there is considerable evidence of “intergenerational cooperation” during this period. Although Mahoney makes good use of the extensive existing historiography in the early sections of the book, the strength of his argument rests on a thorough mining of a range of primary sources, especially those from the official colonial archives. Among these sources he found “voluminous testimony” from Africans, including evidence given in a variety of official proceedings such as succession and land disputes, and, from 1897, reports on local African opinion in Natal provided by paid African government informants called “Native Intelligence Officers” (152). Whilst acknowledging the obvious limitations of these official sources, given the manner of their production, Mahoney defends their value as evidence once placed in proper perspective. Following Carolyn Hamilton, he similarly defends the value of the James Stuart Archive, which he uses to underpin his discussion of the initial failure of Zulu ethnic integration to overcome affiliations to rival chiefdoms (Chapter One). Overall, in its use of primary sources, this book is a good advert for the “tradition of fine-grained, localized social history in Natal” of which Mahoney justly claims to be part (13). Ultimately, The Other Zulus makes a compelling case in laying out the initial obstacles to an overarching Zulu identity among Natal Africans during the nineteenth century, and in explaining the shift in forces that fostered the emergence of an albeit modified Zulu ethnicity among them at the beginning of the twentieth century. However, a short epilogue in which Mahoney asserts that this laid the groundwork for a continuing and – he argues – inexorable process of “Zuluisation” among Natal Africans during the twentieth century is less convincing. This needless telescoping of the more recent history of the Zulus sits oddly with the carefully modulated and meticulously researched arguments presented in the body of this book.","PeriodicalId":172027,"journal":{"name":"Canadian Journal of African Studies/ La Revue canadienne des études africaines","volume":"34 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2013-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"214","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Canadian Journal of African Studies/ La Revue canadienne des études africaines","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00083968.2013.830397","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 214

Abstract

young men’s rebellion, and indeed argues to the contrary that there is considerable evidence of “intergenerational cooperation” during this period. Although Mahoney makes good use of the extensive existing historiography in the early sections of the book, the strength of his argument rests on a thorough mining of a range of primary sources, especially those from the official colonial archives. Among these sources he found “voluminous testimony” from Africans, including evidence given in a variety of official proceedings such as succession and land disputes, and, from 1897, reports on local African opinion in Natal provided by paid African government informants called “Native Intelligence Officers” (152). Whilst acknowledging the obvious limitations of these official sources, given the manner of their production, Mahoney defends their value as evidence once placed in proper perspective. Following Carolyn Hamilton, he similarly defends the value of the James Stuart Archive, which he uses to underpin his discussion of the initial failure of Zulu ethnic integration to overcome affiliations to rival chiefdoms (Chapter One). Overall, in its use of primary sources, this book is a good advert for the “tradition of fine-grained, localized social history in Natal” of which Mahoney justly claims to be part (13). Ultimately, The Other Zulus makes a compelling case in laying out the initial obstacles to an overarching Zulu identity among Natal Africans during the nineteenth century, and in explaining the shift in forces that fostered the emergence of an albeit modified Zulu ethnicity among them at the beginning of the twentieth century. However, a short epilogue in which Mahoney asserts that this laid the groundwork for a continuing and – he argues – inexorable process of “Zuluisation” among Natal Africans during the twentieth century is less convincing. This needless telescoping of the more recent history of the Zulus sits oddly with the carefully modulated and meticulously researched arguments presented in the body of this book.
南非将其推向了极限:政治经济的变革
年轻人的叛逆,而实际上与此相反,在这一时期有相当多的“代际合作”的证据。尽管马奥尼在书的前几部分很好地利用了大量现有的史学资料,但他的论点的力量在于对一系列原始资料的彻底挖掘,尤其是那些来自官方殖民档案的资料。在这些资料中,他发现了来自非洲人的“大量证词”,包括在继承和土地纠纷等各种官方诉讼中提供的证据,以及从1897年起,由被称为“当地情报官员”的非洲政府线人提供的关于纳塔尔当地非洲人意见的报告(152)。虽然承认这些官方来源的明显局限性,考虑到他们的生产方式,马奥尼捍卫他们的价值,作为证据,一旦放置在适当的角度。继卡罗琳·汉密尔顿之后,他同样捍卫了詹姆斯·斯图尔特档案的价值,他用它来支撑他对祖鲁民族融合最初失败的讨论,以克服与敌对酋长管辖地的联系(第一章)。总的来说,在对原始资料的使用上,这本书很好地宣传了“细致入微的纳塔尔局部社会历史的传统”,马奥尼公正地声称自己是纳塔尔社会历史的一部分(13)。最后,《另一个祖鲁人》提出了一个令人信服的案例,它列出了19世纪纳塔尔非洲人中压倒一切的祖鲁人身份的最初障碍,并解释了在20世纪初促进祖鲁民族出现的力量转变,尽管祖鲁民族经过了修改。然而,马奥尼在简短的后记中断言,这为20世纪纳塔尔非洲人持续的、不可阻挡的“祖鲁化”进程奠定了基础,这就不那么令人信服了。这种对祖鲁人近代历史的不必要的延伸与本书中精心调制和精心研究的论点格格不入。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信