What if the British, impressed by the fighting prowess of the Zulu, decided to co-opt them as a subject martial races like they did to the Sikhs and the Maori instead of destroying their power?
I should imagine so. We employed African, excellent ones, in the First World War. You'd need a differant history of SA, for which you need someone besides me, but as I understand it the Zulu War was something of a fluke and there was no feeling of hostility to the Zulu nation in London.
So if the British have decided to treat a colonized African race halfway decently as a client people, rather than a conquered people, how would that go?
So if the British have decided to treat a colonized African race halfway decently as a client people, rather than a conquered people, how would that go?
By one estimate, it has the fourth highest gross national income at purchasing power parity in Africa, giving it a standard of living around that of Argentina, Mexico and Turkey
The question is- if the British can treat an African subject people semi-decently like that, albeit thinking of them as still inferior and unfit to rule, how would this change their approach to dealing with other Africans?
I dunno, I'm probably making mistakes but I still think that the Maori and the Indians got a better deal than most native peoples, including Africans. Though upon reading some history on Botswana I suppose their country did relatively well. No wonder they're so stable now.
Damn.
I suppose those inclined to just letting the locals be did not go colonizing much.It's kinda odd to me that Botswana seems to be one of the few examples of a colonial power letting the locals just be.
It seems like half of OTL's colonial wars got started by men on the spot acting on their own authority, sometimes in direct violation of orders from back home. I guess it's a question of mindset--if you were going to go exploring darkest Africa and whatnot, you probably weren't all right in the head to begin with. And everyone fancies himself the next Cortes.Yeah, as mentioned in the recent thread (by Melvin?), the Home government had no desire to conquer Zululand; it was the man on the spot, Sir Henry Bartle Frere, who trumped up a reason for war.
It's kinda odd to me that Botswana seems to be one of the few examples of a colonial power letting the locals just be.
The Tswana over there, anyway. Not so much the Tswana further east.The only reason the British made Botswana (then Bechuanaland) a protectorate was to stop the Germans in South-West Africa and the Afrikaners in the Transvaal using it as a conduit to meet up in the Kalahari. There didn't seem much reason to go there, its quite an arid place. Diamonds were only discovered sometime in the 20th century, so the Tswana were left alone for the most part.
The Tswana over there, anyway. Not so much the Tswana further east.
It wasn't as simple as that. Frere was representative of thinking among the settlers in Natal, who saw the Zulus as a threat (and probably wanted their land). The same kind of thinking was present among the Boers to the north, the idea that "something" had to be done about the Zulu. The fact that British forces were at the time still engaged in campaigns against other tribes in the area contributed no doubt to the feeling of vulnerability in the region. The British imperial response to vulnerability was to attack someone.It seems like half of OTL's colonial wars got started by men on the spot acting on their own authority, sometimes in direct violation of orders from back home. I guess it's a question of mindset--if you were going to go exploring darkest Africa and whatnot, you probably weren't all right in the head to begin with. And everyone fancies himself the next Cortes.