"Is Gaming the Zulu War Insensitive in This Day and Age?" Topic

It was a particularly blatant example of colonial aggression, but it didn't turn out as one-sided as the Imperialists intended. I'm not sure what there is to object to in this specific case as opposed to many others.

For me it depends on the rules & the players.

The way in which the 'opponents' in colonial games are treated by the rules and the players can make the game unacceptable to me. If the rules and scenarios properly reflect the ways in which the two sides fought and match them appropriately then I can enjoy the games.

Having players do the 'arrogant British subaltern' impression as an excuse for displaying attitudes that are no longer acceptable is unforgivable in my book but bad quotes from Zulu can cause some laughs.

This is one of those all too common TMP polls with far too many choices.
"Yes" and "No" would have been sufficient. We did not need essay questions.

It would have been nice to have a straight NO without all the caveats and hedging.

It isn't insensitive – other than the compulsory singing of Men of Harlech. Have you ever been to Harlech ? The town is like a miniature English seaside resort – with a lot of chapels. Too many chapels, in fact. The holiday cottage we were stating in was a converted chapel. The building next door (IIRC) was an active chapel.

The castle is worth seeing though. And the beaches are wonderful – huge and pretty empty. The sea is a tad cold.

I agree a straight up No would have been my answer

No more than playing the Boxer Rebellion, the Plains Wars or the Indian Mutiny

I'm not sure why the Zulu War in particular would cause offence. At least the Zulus put up a good fight. Now if someone wanted to wargame the "battle" of Sand Creek I would have serious questions.

Will this "PC" thing ever end?

People who are not PC are double plus ungood

Sir Walter Rlyeh,

No, just full of common sense.

It was a particularly blatant example of colonial aggression

Unlike, of course, the Zulus' conquest of their neighbors.

It is history so we should explore it. Wargaming is a good way to explore it – and if that provokes questions and evaluation so much the better.

We may not like everything we see when we lift the stone but we should lift the stone never-the-less.

Phil

Not really, from some-one who has just done a Vietnam Demo game at a local convention.

If it offends you, play the Zulus and whip up on the Britons instead.

Shaka was the founder of the Zulu Empire. Initially, the Zulu was a small clan of the larger Nguni ethnic. Shaka would rise to power among the ranks in the Mthethwa Empire, under the rule of Dingiswayo. At the death of Dingiswayo, in battle, at the hands of Zwide, king of the Ndwandwe, Shaka became head of the Mthethwa Empire, in 1818. At this point Shaka instituted a policy of conquest via military innovation. In 1820 at the Battle of Mlhatuze River, Shaka defeated Zwide, and defeated the Ndwandwe Kingdom, which caused the scattering of its people, initiating the mfecane/difaqane, causing much disruption in southern Africa all the way to Tanzania. By 1825, Shaka had forged an empire that run along the Drakensburg Mountain between the Tugela River and the Pongola River. Clans that did not view themselves as Zulu all now claimed Zulu nationhood.
Shaka, founder of the Zulu Empire

Dingane to Cetswayo

Shaka in his latter years became deranged. He was obsessed with being deposed. In 1828, his half brothers Dingane and Mhlangano assassinated him. Dingane later assassinated Mhlangano and assumed the throne. Dingane purged all opposition, including Shaka supporters, all half brothers except Mpande, who was not viewed as a threat. Lacking the leadership and military skills of Shaka, Dingane lost territories to Voortrekkers in the Battle of Blood Rivers. He later burnt his capital.

Mpande later, formed an alliance with the Voortrekkers and declared war against Dingane. Dingane was assassinated in 1840, in modern day Swaziland. Mpande assumed reign of the Zulu Kingdom. He died of old age in 1872.

After much battle between his long dead brother Mbuyazi, Cetswayo assumed the Zulu throne, with no rival. At this time, the British set its sights on complete domination of South Africa. In 1878, they gave an ultimatum to the Zulu nation to give up complete sovereignty to the British Empire, unacceptable to the Zulu nation. On January 22, 1879, at the Battle of Isandlwana, British forces were defeated, but on July 4, 1879 at the Battle of Ulundi the British were able to defeat the Zulu nation. Cetswayo was sent abroad. The kingdom was divided into 13 polities.

I suppose it has become somewhat declasse to glorify bloody handed imperialism, but are Shaka and the Zulus any more reprehensible than Alexander and his Macedonians Or Cyrus and his Persians?

After all as they did, so did Shaka acting within the mores of his time and culture.

There are those now who make the point that Shaka and his successors could have worked through diplomatic means to obtain his ends, but that is the hindsight of history.

In the end they came up against a foe with superior force and once again proved that violence begets violence and that those who live by the sword can also die by the sword.

Thus in gaming the Zulu Wars one is reinforcing the view that resorting to violence ultimately is not a viable means of obtaining your desires.

How about just yes or no.

COntext is everything. I taught a unit on the Zulu War last year, in a class which included African-American students. We studied the background of the conflict, which I presented as a clash between two aggressive empires where the decision to go to war was complex on both sides. We watched the film Zulu (which, in contrast to many other films about Africa made in the 1960's, needs very few apologies), then gamed Rorke's Drift. Not only did these 21st century teens find the material objectionable, they embraced the chance to learn more about the Zulus and their British opponents. I was told that the Lacrosse team had taken to intimidating their opponents with Zulu War chants…

MDM,

I think you meant the students found the material UNobjectionable……not the other way around…..

Dave

Oh pleeeeaaaaze!

If people go down this path, all "wargaming" will be banned, since it isn't politically correct either, since after all, you are glorifying human conflict (or so some will say).

Then, you'll have to give up chess, since it's a racist issue (many sets are white and black), and also a pseudo-wargame where the weak are sacrificed to benefit the wealthy and powerful.

So, you'll be left with jacks and tiddly winks, until……………wait for it………………..people realize jacks are sharp, like caltrops, so those must be banned, and tiddly winks are a choking hazard.

So no one is actually complaining about it, so this is just a straw man's discussion. Got it.

Would a black-on-black war (say, the Zulus against their early rivals, Shaka's battles) spark the same debate?

What about the white (and sometimes black) soldiers versus the American Indian tribes, esp. the US western expansion? That might as well be next up in the controversy/sensitivity sweepstakes. It's as recent as the Zulu war and at least the British didn't try to wipe out all the Zulus they could or remove them to reservations where they couldn't; although both losers had their traditional ways of life destroyed to some extent, the Indians can probably argue they got an even worse deal than the Zulus by a far stretch.

I think most people want to see a game where the Zulus win, or at least have a chance to win. Nobody enjoys a non-stop slaughter fest, least of all the Zulu players.

at least the British didn't try to wipe out all the Zulus

Nor did the US Army attempt to wipe out all the Indians, despite what some left-wing academics like to claim. In fact, Indian tribes were more likely to be wiped out by their Indian neighbors than by the whites.

Oh hey, a topic where people can shake their fists at the sky :-)

For us, personally? Yeah, it feels in bad taste for us and I'd rather not.
None of my friends have any interest in it either, so we just play stuff that we ARE interested in.

What you do on your gaming table is 100% up to you.

You may now proceed to rail about how "PC correctness" is killing gaming, even though new colonial games and miniatures are published frequently and my gaming table has zero impact on yours.

Are we really arguing about this? Seriously?

I've been a colonial wargamer for forty years, despite or because of my own generally anti-colonialist politics. I've always found colonial wargamers to be the most affable, even-tempered and fair minded of hobbyists.

I'll be playing a Zulu War game later today. The only way I'll be offended is if I'm defeated. Well, and if there aren't any good jokes about it. I don't even know which side I'll be playing yet.
Will others be offended? Maybe. That's not something I usually give much thought to.
What about a WW2 game where the Germans, Japanese, or Italians win?
Pfft…