South Africa without (occidental) colonization?

...Apartheid government...
Aaah, OK, now I understand. The mfecane, I know, is a highly political issue in SA. You have obviously read The Mfecane As Alibi by Cobbing, and the intellectual tradition he represents is very right to question the scope and causes of the Mfecane. But while I am of the camp that disagrees with Cobbing and his ilk on the scope of the Mfecane, I am also saying the opposite of what the early twentieth century SA historians would have you believe: that the Mfecane was Africans killing Africans for African reasons. In connecting it with European crops or slave raids (take your pick, I'm not getting into the debate between those two groups), I am agreeing with Cobbing, that Whites were at least indirectly responsible for the events in question. Also, while the Mfecane was undeniably violent, regardless of the precise number of dead or dislocated, it was also a process of creation and innovation, and a fascinating example of the flexibility of Nguni political institutions.

So I hope you will join me in trying to think about this issue outside the context of SA politics, and not lump me with the apologists.

EDIT: also, when you say "Zulu" I think you might be confusing them with the Mthethwa. Mthethwa was a chiefdom containing tens of thousands of members in various clans. The Zulu were only a small part of the Mthethwa before Shaka. It is estimated that their numbers only a few thousand before 1800, possibly as low as 2000. The fact that a quarter of a million Nguni identified as Zulu by the 1830s is because the Zulu, like all Nguni groups, were fantastically good at assimilating people. So there's no reason to assume the Zulu specifically would come to dominate the Mthethwa and then the entire region without the particular success of Shaka kaSenzangakona. This is actually good material for a POD.
 
Last edited:
It is still mainly speculation that the introduction of maize caused the population pressures in Zululand. Population pressures would probably have been there anyway, becuase of the poor harvests and drought of the early 19th century. In addition, Zulu supremacy was already on the rise by the late 18th century, so it is not a given that without European influence we would not have seen the rise of the Zulu.

Europeans had already been passing through southern Africa for centuries by that time. Remove them completely and you get all sorts of butterflies. Remember, no one's saying the Europeans directly brought the Zulu to power - Their presence in the area caused unique population pressures and economic pressures on neighboring peoples which trickle down to the Nguni peoples without them ever actually seeing a white man beforehand.
 
I seem to recall reading that the strength of the currrent flowing north between Madagascar and Africa deterred the Arabs from trying to sail fruther south than Sofala IOTL, so their settling the region if Europeans didn't do so might not be very probable. Also, genetic studies suggest that the proto-Malagasy were a single & relatively small expedition (that got lost?) rather than the result of multiple voyages over a prolonged period so the likeihood of further Indonesian settlement in the region is probably rather low as well.
Do you have any particular ideas about why there's no European settlement at the Cape?
 

The Sandman

Banned
I recall reading (wish I could remember the exact name of the book; it was something like "Africa: a History", was enormous, started with a few chapters on the evolution of humanity if that helps anyone identify it) that the big issue with maize was that the population boom it caused in South Africa came during a relatively wet period, during which the population expanded into previously marginal areas. When a long dry period hit, those marginal areas were now too arid to grow maize and the total population had increased beyond what could be supported from the still-fertile areas (which themselves had lost some productivity because of decreased rainfall). The result was people shifting from agriculture to pastoralism and a series of major population movements.

Now, another thing that book mentioned was that rinderpest had catastrophic effects in Africa when it was introduced in the late 1800s. Absent European colonization of the region, would South Africa have been spared the epidemic and the resulting economic and societal damage?
 
Now, another thing that book mentioned was that rinderpest had catastrophic effects in Africa when it was introduced in the late 1800s. Absent European colonization of the region, would South Africa have been spared the epidemic and the resulting economic and societal damage?
I seem to recall reading that it spread down to there through eastern Africa, having already caused similar problems in that region a bit earlier on (and having left parts of Kenya looking temptingly empty for European settlement)...
 
Top