Rational perspective on SA’s Land debate: History is far more complex than popular narratives

by · BizNews

In November 1837, Voortrekker leader Piet Retief began negotiations with Zulu king uDingane kaSenzangakhona for land settlement in Natal. After retrieving stolen cattle, Retief secured a treaty for the Boers. However, betrayal ensued when Dingane ambushed Retief and his delegation, leading to their execution and the brutal Weenen massacre of over 500 Voortrekkers. This event ignited the Battle of Blood River, highlighting the complexities of land acquisition and the need for nuanced historical discourse.

Sign up for your early morning brew of the BizNews Insider to keep you up to speed with the content that matters. The newsletter will land in your inbox at 5:30am weekdays. Register here.

The seventh BizNews Conference, BNC#7, is to be held in Hermanus from March 11 to 13, 2025. The 2025 BizNews Conference is designed to provide an excellent opportunity for members of the BizNews community to interact directly with the keynote speakers, old (and new) friends from previous BNC events – and to interact with members of the BizNews team. Register for BNC#7 here.

By Ayanda Sakhile Zulu*

Following his exploration of the region between the Drakensberg and Port Natal, a Voortrekker leader, Piet Retief, began negotiations for land with the then Zulu monarch, uDingane kaSenzangakhona in November 1837. Retief’s objective was to secure a piece of land where the Boers (who had participated in the Great Trek) could settle and establish their own republic. 

Dingane consented to Boer settlement in Natal on the condition that Retief and his delegation were able to retrieve Zulu cattle that had presumably been stolen by Kgosi Sekonyela (of the Batlokwa). Almost immediately, Retief and his delegation met Dingane’s condition, retrieving approximately 700 heads of cattle from Sekonyela through the use of force. 

In response, Dingane verbally agreed to sign a treaty that would grant land between the Tugela and Umzimvubu rivers to the Boers for settlement. With the assistance of J.G. Bantjes, Retief drafted the Piet Retief/Dingaan Treaty that outlined the aforementioned area in Natal. This treaty, it was agreed, would be signed by Dingane at his residence in Umgungundlovu. 

On the 25th of January 1838, a confident and optimistic Retief travelled with his delegation to Umgungundlovu for the signing of the treaty. While official reports differ, many historians agree that Dingane signed the treaty on the 6th of February in the presence of at least six witnesses.

Two days after the signing, a cunning Dingane invited an unsuspecting Retief (together with his delegation) to watch his warriors deliver a special performance in his royal kraal. In accordance with Zulu protocol, Retief and his delegation entered the royal kraal without weapons. During the performance, Dingane instructed his warriors to capture Retief and his delegation and send them to a nearby hill (kwaMatiwane) for execution. 

At the kwaMatiwane hill, Zulu warriors clubbed Retief and his entire delegation to death. Subsequent to this act of treachery, Dingane ordered his warriors to attack nearby Voortrekker laagers, which included Doringkop, Bloukrans, Moordspruit, and Rensburgspruit. This violent process resulted in the ruthless killing of at least 534 innocent people (death toll includes Khoikhoi and Basotho that accompanied the Voortrekkers). It has become known as the Weenen massacre in Afrikaner history.

Read more: Looting bonanza for KZN communities following N2 truck blockades

Naturally, Retief’s murder, coupled with the Weenen massacre, eventually led to the Battle of Blood River on the 16th of December, where approximately 470 Voortrekkers defeated an army of 25 000 to 30 000 Zulu warriors. The rest, as some would say, is history.

Dingane’s betrayal of Retief and the subsequent slaughter of the Voortrekkers is a significant moment in our history that I have deliberately hand-picked because it demonstrates complexity – a hallmark that no longer features in our public discourse on history. Our discourse on history, particularly that of land, no longer includes nuances that accurately capture the human experience. 

Simplicity has taken over, thus allowing false and simplistic narratives about our history to dominate discussions. A good example of this is the bizarre view that the history of white land acquisition in our country has been solely characterized by violence and dispossession. In other words, all the land that Afrikaners (and white people generally) own today was acquired solely through dispossession. In this theatre of simplicity, no mention is made of the complex historical relationship between the Boers and Zulus. 

No mention is made of the fact that the Boers attempted to acquire land from the Zulus through peaceful and diplomatic means. Perhaps, most importantly, no mention is made of the fact that there are several other similar cases where Westerners attempted to acquire land from Africans without using violence or force. The complex history of land acquisition in our country is reduced to dispossession and white people, collectively, are condemned as criminals. 

When sensible people among us challenge such reductive narrations of history, they are dismissed as “sellouts” or self-hating Africans who are obsessed with pleasing white people. As I write this column, I am aware that some of its readers will respond with the usual insults. But this doesn’t bother me. Nor should it bother anyone else who is committed to narrating history as accurately as possible, with all its shades and nuances.

History has never been a black and white thing, and it never will be. It is complex and we all need to come to terms with it so we can develop a richer and more complete understanding of our past. 

Read more:         

Ayanda Sakhile Zulu* is a member of the BizNews community

Cyril Ramaphosa: The Audio Biography

Listen to the story of Cyril Ramaphosa's rise to presidential power, narrated by our very own Alec Hogg.

Get the Audiobook
Narration by Alec Hogg