HISTORY ADDENDUM GR10 NOV English_hlayiso.com_.pdf

Downloaded from hlayiso.com NATIONAL SENIOR CERTIFICATE GRADE 10 NOVEMBER 2017 HISTORY ADDENDUM MARKS: 150 This addendum consists of 9 pages.

Downloaded from hlayiso.com 2 HISTORY (EC/NOVEMBER 2017) QUESTION 1: HOW WAS SHAKA PERCEIVED IN THE BUILDING OF THE ZULU NATION? SOURCE 1A This source describes Shaka as a brutal and cruel man during his reign in building the Zulu Nation. His reputation for brutality was concocted (to invent a story) by biased colonial-era white (historians) and unreliable Zulu storytellers who turned the man into a myth. Dr Wylie describe his book, Myth of Iron: Shaka in History, as anti-biography because the material for a trustworthy biography did not exist. ‘There is a great deal that we do not know, and never will know’, he said. Worse, the academic found that colonial-era white writers distorted and exaggerated the meagre historical record to turn Shaka into a despotic monster. Nathaniel Isaacs, who wrote about Shaka in Travels and Adventures in Eastern Africa, published in 1836, wrote to a fellow author, Henry Francis Fynn, advising him to smear Shaka and his successor, Dingane: ‘Make them out be as bloodthirsty as you can and endeavour to give an estimation of the number of people they have murdered during their reign(s).’ This would help sell Fynn’s book and encourage British annexation of Zulu lands, which would mean a ‘fortune’ for both authors. Dr Wylie said this had set the tone for future distortions, such as the 1980s television series Shaka Zulu, starring Henry Cele. Not all accept the debunking (to show a false belief) Sibani, a historian and tour guide of Zulu battlefields, said there was no doubt Shaka ‘was a cruel and ruthless man but they were cruel and ruthless times’. [From: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2006/may/22/rorycarroll.mainsection. Accessed 30 June 2017] SOURCE 1B In this source both the positive and negative leadership qualities of Shaka is being portrayed. His outlook was that of his day, and when that is taken into account, and when all that can be said to his discredit has been said, this king of legendary physique emerges as a brilliant general, and a ruler of great courage, intelligence, and ability. Nevertheless, Shaka did go against some of the customs of his people, and this was his downfall. In particular, he over-used the army, allowing his little time for the normal pursuits of peace. As the years passed, his ambitions got the better of him. That he was despotic [acted like a dictator] probably didn’t matter, but his people expected their king to balance this with kindness. Shaka’s rule grew harsher…In the end, Shaka went the way of most tyrants…Even the army appears to have helped to plot the assassination by his half-brother, Dingane. Shaka died unmourned by the nation which he had raised up. [From: Let my People Go by Chief A. Luthuli] Copyright reserved Please turn over

Downloaded from hlayiso.com (EC/NOVEMBER 2017) HISTORY 3 SOURCE 1C This source deals with an attempt to change the view of Shaka as a savage barbarian. In 1986 the South African Broadcasting Corporation (SABC) released a multi-million rand television series, Shaka Zulu. The series reached an enormous audience and received wide coverage. It advocated inter-racial co-operation through an extended exploration (a voyage of discovery) of the relationship between Shaka the first white visitors to visit his capital. The aim of the series was explained by the director Bill Faure: ‘Shaka’s life was originally recorded by white settlers who imposed upon their account bigoted (prejudiced) and sensational values – often labelling the Zulu as savage barbarians. It is our intention in this series to change that view’. Shaka emerged as an astute leader, if somewhat lacking in human warmth. Nonetheless, the series was widely criticised for the depiction of the control exerted by the traders over the Zulu king, as well as for the use of a white narrator. [From: New Generation History by C.A. Stephenson et al] SOURCE 1D This photograph is depicting Shaka as a young warrior by a European artist who has never seen him. [From: History Online: Accessed on 30 June 2017] Copyright reserved Please turn over

Downloaded from hlayiso.com 4 HISTORY (EC/NOVEMBER 2017) QUESTION 2: HOW DID BRITISH CONTROL CHANGE THE POLITICAL, ECONOMICAL AND SOCIAL LANDSCAPE OF THE CAPE? SOURCE 2A This extract deals with reasons and effects of emancipation (set free) of slaves. The lives of the slaves were harsh, as they worked very long hours under poor conditions. They were often not given enough healthy food and lived in overcrowded and dirty conditions. Slaves had no freedom at all, they were locked up at night, and had to have a pass to leave their place of employment. As they were regarded as possessions, they were unable to marry, and if they had children, the children belonged to the slave’s owners and were also slaves. They also had little chance of education. Women slaves were at risk being raped by their masters and other slaves. While there were many laws inhibiting (preventing) the lives and movement of slaves, there were also rules to protect them, for example female slaves could not be beaten. In theory, slaves owners would be punished for treating their slaves badly, but the laws were often ignored. The Abolition of Slavery Act ended slavery in the Cape officially in 1834. More than 35 000 slaves that had been imported into South Africa from India, Ceylon, Malaysia and elsewhere were officially freed. The Abolition of Slavery Act and emancipation of slaves caused a lot of resentment and opposition from the Cape colonials towards the anti-slavery lobby, as embodied in the London Missionary Society that had put pressure on the British government to take this decision. Even before emancipation, the publicised cases of missionary intervention on behalf of mistreated black workers on farms, sometimes even winning convictions against farmers, made them enemies of the largely Afrikaner farming community in the Cape. [From: History Online: Accessed on 30 June 2017] SOURCE 2B This source is an extract of the story of Katie Jacob, a former slave that explains what happened at the Cape when slaves were emancipated. ‘My baas and missus, though somewhat irritated at the news of our prospective liberation, were on the whole kind, and I was not overjoyed at the prospect of leaving them. So on the 1st of December 1838, while performing my usual duties, I was startled by an angry voice demanding whether or not I was going to leave. On the turning around I recognised my (future) husband in a violent passion. His baas was cruel and often sjambokked his slaves. He (the owner) was mad with rage on the day of our emancipation. Early in the morning he armed himself with a gun, mounted a horse, and drove every ex-slave off his farm.’ [From: New Generation History by C.A. Stephenson et al] Copyright reserved Please turn over

Downloaded from hlayiso.com (EC/NOVEMBER 2017) HISTORY 5 SOURCE 2C This source focuses on the reasons for the annexation of Xhosa land by the British. It is obvious that the desire for land lay beneath the surface of…arguments for the annexation as a means of keeping the peace… The colonists saw no value in Xhosa culture and society and thought that the Xhosa should be turned into wage-labourers. Other colonists hoped that they would dwindle and disappear under the impact of what they believed was a ‘stronger race and a higher civilisation’ as the native people of some colonies in other parts of the world had done. The governors of the Cape were influenced by these ideas, and took the decision to extend the boundary and annex more territory. [They]…almost always accepted the argument that expansion would prevent further war. [From: In the Years of conquest by R. Cope] SOURCE 2D This source is about Sarhili, a Xhosa paramount Chief blaming himself for the cattle killing. I have been a great fool in listening to lies. I am no longer a chief. I was a great chief, being as I am the son of Hintsa, who left me rich in cattle and people, but I have been deluded (to make someone believe something is not true) into the folly of destroying my cattle and ordering my people to do the same; and now I shall be left alone, as my people must scatter in search of food; thus I am no longer a chief. It is all my own fault; I have no one to blame but myself. As a result, the Xhosa lost 600 000 hectares of fertile land, 400 000 cattle were killed, 150 000 people had to leave their land, and 40 000 people died of hunger. [From: George Grey and the Xhosas by G. Weldon] Copyright reserved Please turn over

Downloaded from hlayiso.com 6 HISTORY (EC/NOVEMBER 2017) QUESTION 3: HOW DID THE SOUTH AFRICAN WAR NOT ONLY AFFECT THE AFRIKANERS, BUT ALSO BLACK SOUTH AFRICANS? SOURCE 3A This source describes the reasons why Blacks decided to participate in the South African War. Black poverty was a major spur (event that encourages you to do something) to enlistment in the British army. For many Black families, the war had disastrous consequences as it disrupted the migrant labour system, a development that deprived them of an income used to buy grain, pay taxes and rent. Also, the return of thousands of men to the rural areas increased pressure on food resources in some already overpopulated districts of Natal, Zululand and the Transkei. In the Transvaal and Orange Free State Britain’s scorched earth campaign destroyed the livelihoods of many thousands of Blacks. In 1901, separate concentration camps for Blacks were established to accommodate those who were uprooted from the land. Most of these were from Boer farms, where they resided as labour tenants, cash tenants or share- croppers. Those who entered the camps had very little or no food. Only in exceptional cases were free rations provided, thus most Black men had no choice but to accept work in the British army in order to survive. By April 1902, over 13 000 refugees were found working in the British army. As a result, the camps were mainly filled with women, children, the elderly and the infirm (someone old, ill and weak). The British recruited males on the basis of a three-month contract with a wage of 40 to 50 shillings. A major consolation to Blacks entering the British army was the fact that ration were usually included. [From: Black involvement in the Anglo-Boer War, 1899 – 1902 by N. Nkuna] Copyright reserved Please turn over

Downloaded from hlayiso.com (EC/NOVEMBER 2017) HISTORY 7 SOURCE 3B This source describes how Black South Africans were treated in the concentration camps. Many Black people were held in concentration camps around the country. The British created separate camps for Blacks from the start of the war. Entire townships and even mission stations were transferred into concentration camps. The men were forced into labour service and by the end of the war there were some 115 000 Blacks in 66 camps around the country. Maintenance spent on white camps were a lot higher than that spent on the Black camps due to the fact that blacks had to build their own huts and even encouraged to grow their own food. Less than a third of Black interns were provided with rations. Black people were practically starved in these camps. Blacks in the concentration camps were not given adequate food and did not have proper medical care, which resulted in many deaths. Those in employment were forced to pay for their own food. Water supplies were often contaminated, and the conditions under which they were housed were appalling, resulting in thousands of deaths from dysentery, typhoid and diarrhoea. The death toll at the end of the war in the Black concentration camps was recorded as 14 154, but it is believed that the actual number was considerably higher. Most of the fatalities occurred amongst the children. [From: South African History Online. Accessed on 30 June 2017] SOURCE 3C This source focuses on Lord Roberts’s policy of farm burning. Unable to get to grips with Boer commandos, the British high command adopted increasingly brutal tactics towards the civilian population who supported them before he left for England, Lord Roberts began a policy of collective punishment of civilians living near where guerrilla attacks had taken place, burning down farms, destroying dams, and seizing farm animals. ‘Unless the people generally are made to suffer for the misdeeds [wrongdoing] of those in arms against us’, said Roberts in September 1900, ‘the war will never end.’ [From: Diamonds, Gold and War by M. Meredith] Copyright reserved Please turn over

Downloaded from hlayiso.com 8 HISTORY (EC/NOVEMBER 2017) SOURCE 3D This source explains how Boer women got involved in the South African War. WRITTEN SOURCE Sarah Raal deserves to have a film made of her life. Born into a prosperous farming family in the Southern Free State outside Jagersfontein. With the outbreak of war her father and four brothers immediately enlisted leaving Sarah, her mother and two younger children alone on the farm. Her father, unable for health reasons to remain on commando, was sent to a concentration camp. Her mother and Sarah’s younger siblings were also placed in concentration camp as punishment for feeding passing Boers. This left Sarah alone on the farm with her farm workers. To escape the British forces, she moved from farm to farm for several months but inevitable her luck ran out and she was taken to the concentration camp at Springfontein from which she managed to escape. As the countryside was palpably (easy to notice) unsafe for a woman alone, she was allowed to join her brothers commando under commandant Nieuwoudt. There she took part in a number of guerrilla engagements, coming under both rifle and shell fire several times and displaying considerable bravery during the course of these actions. On more than one occasion she was in actual physical combat with the enemy, narrowly escaping injury, death or capture. She was eventually captured and placed in a camp until the end of the war. She later wrote a book entitled Met Die Boere in Die Veld, which was published in 1936 and republished in English in 2000. [From: South African Military History Society/scribe@samilitaryhistory.org Accessed on 30 June 2017] VISUAL SOURCE This is a monument that was erected to commemorate the role that women played in the South African War. [From: Focus by B. Johanneson et al] Copyright reserved Please turn over

Downloaded from hlayiso.com (EC/NOVEMBER 2017) HISTORY 9 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Visual sources and other historical evidence were taken from the following: Cope, R. 2007 In The Years of Conquest (Maskew Miller Longman) Geskiedenis Aanlyn http://www.guardian.co. uk/world/2006/may/22/rorycarroll.mainsection. Johanneson, B. et al 2010 Verken (Maskew Miller Longman) Luthuli, A. 1962 Let My People Go (Oxford University Press) Meredith, M. 2007 Diamonds, Gold and War Nkuna, N. 1999 Black involvement in the Anglo Boer War, 1899 – 1902 (Military history Journal, Vol 11 No 3/4) Stephenson, C.A. et al 2011 Nuwe Generasie Geskiedenis (Nuwe Generasie Publishers) Suid-Afrikaanse Militêre Geskiedenis: Society/scribe@samilitaryhistory.org Weldon, G. 2011 George Grey and the Xhosas (Vivlia Publishers) Copyright reserved Please turn over