The history and representation of the history of the Mabudu-Tembe

[摘要] ENGLISH ABSTRACT: History is often manipulated to achieve contemporary goals. Writing or narrating history is not merelya recoding or a narration of objective facts, but a value-laden process often conforming to the goals ofthe writer or narrator. This study examines the ways in which the history of the Mabudu chiefdom hasbeen manipulated to achieve political goals. Through an analysis of the history of the Mabuduchiefdom and the manner in which that history has been represented, this study illustrates that history isnot merely a collection of verifiable facts, but rather a collection of stories open to interpretation andmanipulation.In the middle of the eighteenth century the Mabudu or Mabudu-Tembe was the strongest political andeconomic unit in south-east Africa. Their authority only declined with state formation amongst theSwazi and Zulu in the early nineteenth century. Although the Zulu never defeated the Mabudu, theMabudu were forced to pay tribute to the Zulu. In the 1980s the Prime Minister of KwaZulu,Mangusotho Buthelezi, used this fact as proof that the people of Maputaland (Mabudu-land) should bepart of the Zulu nation-state.By the latter part of the nineteenth century Britain, Portugal and the South African Republic laid claimto Maputaland. In 1875 the French President arbitrated in the matter and drew a line along the currentSouth Africa/ Mozambique border that would divide the British and French spheres of influence insouth-east Africa. The line cut straight through the Mabudu chiefdom. In 1897 Britain formallyannexed what was then called AmaThongaland as an area independent of Zululand, which wasadministered as 'trust land' for the Mabudu people. When deciding on a place for the Mabudu in its Grand Apartheid scheme, the South AfricanGovernment ignored the fact that the Mabudu were never defeated by the Zulu or incorporated into theZulu Empire. Until the late 1960s the government recognised the people of Maputaland as ethnicallyTsonga, but in 1976 Maputaland was incorporated into the KwaZulu Homeland and the peopleclassified as Zulu.In 1982 the issue was raised again when the South African Government planned to cede Maputaland toSwaziland. The government and some independent institutions launched research into the historic andethnic ties of the people of Maputaland. Based on the same historical facts, contrasting claims weremade about the historical and ethnic ties of the people of Maputaland.Maputaland remained part of KwaZulu and is still claimed by the Zulu king as part of his kingdom.The Zulu use the fact that the Mabudu paid tribute in the 1800s as evidence of their dominance. TheMabudu, on the other hand, use the same argument to prove their independence, only stating thattribute never meant subordination, but only the installation of friendly relations. This is a perfectexample of how the same facts can be interpreted differently to achieve different goals and illustratesthat history cannot be equated with objective fact.

[发布机构] Stellenbosch University