4 ms·
From the very article you mention, there are respected counter-points: "In 1988, Rhodes University professor Julian Cobbing advanced a controversial new hypoth
by bmer 10y ago
From the very article you mention, there are respected counter-points:
"In 1988, Rhodes University professor Julian Cobbing advanced a controversial new hypothesis on the rise of the Zulu state; he contended the accounts of the Mfecane were a self-serving, constructed product of apartheid politicians and historians. According to Cobbing, apartheid historians had mischaracterised the Mfecane as a period of internally induced black-on-black destruction. Instead, Cobbing argued that the roots of the conflicts could be found exclusively in the labour needs of the Portuguese slave traders operating out of Delagoa Bay, in modern-day Mozambique, and of the British colonists in the Cape. The resulting pressures led to massive displacement, famine, and war in the interior, allowing later Afrikaner settlers to seize control of most land.[11] Among those involved were European adventurers such as Nathaniel Isaacs (who was later accused of slave trading)[12]"
- kabouseng 10y agoKeywords there are controversial and revisionist...
- bmer 10y agoDo you understand that new ideas, especially when they go against the grain of old establishment, might often be termed "controversial"? Do you understand that Cobbin's claim is that existing understanding of the event is revisionist? That is different from saying that HIS hypothesis is revisionist. I think you do understand these things; it's just that you put blinders on in certain situations. Don't worry -- I do it too.