This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject South Africa, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of South Africa on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.South AfricaWikipedia:WikiProject South AfricaTemplate:WikiProject South AfricaSouth Africa articles
Good point. I'd say that it was an assassination. Murder implies a violation of the law, and strictly speaking, it's not clear that Dingane was bound by any particular law in the matter.
Quite possibly under (then) Zulu law and tradition the king was entitled to condemn anyone to summary execution, especially foreigners? I am not sure, but I rather suspect that was how Dingane and his court looked at it. This fits with the men being taken to Kwa Matiwane Hill, which the article states followed precedent - it sounds fairly ceremonial. I think a case could be made that this was a (summary) execution, although perhaps the more neutral words killing or death would be more appropriate? Babakathy (talk) 10:22, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder. Is the obsession that people have with this story not just because of the perceived injustice and treachery, but also because it somehow proves that part of kwaZulu rightfully belongs to Afrikaners?
Because if there is a belief that the latter is true, and proven by the agreement that Dingane "signed" that was written in a language he didn't understand, then this belief is hopeless.
Dingane could simply not have given up his land with a simple agreement. That idea was unheard of. At best, what he could've thought he was agreeing to was that Retief could live on his land under his protection. All the land of kwaZulu "belonged" (by default) to the king, and his subjects were simply given permission to live on it and graze their cattle there, NOT to set up ethnic enclaves and claim the land is theirs.
If the obsession with the document, it's copy, and the signatures is an attempt to claim that part of the land legally belonged to Retief's party, then I'm sorry to say that the document does not have the historic and legal implications that some think it does. A signed document is not binding if not all parties understood it and its implications thoroughly.
No, that is not the obsession. The existence of the document proves that the Afrikaners treated the Zulus fairly, even by the much higher standards of modern times.
Furthermore, let me point out that the Zulu population at that time was under 1 million at that time. Perhaps only 500,000. So it was impossible for them to have occupied all of kwaZulu (92,000 km2). So you must concede that some of the land does in fact legally belongs to white families on the basis that it was unoccupied when their forefathers arrived there. -- Nic Roets (talk) 20:47, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have just modified one external link on Piet Retief. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
The claim that Retief and his men were impaled is not supported either by the linked eyewitness account or by the main article on the massacre, both of which say that they were clubbed to death. Is there in fact a basis for this claim?Bill (talk) 04:40, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
