Nobody is saying to idolize Shaka. But to ignore the history of Shaka Zulu and the Zulu's in southern Africa would be wrong.
Anyway my expertise is more with west African countries, thats where bantu civilization started in Africa, and where they migrated to the rest of Africa.
Remember civilizations in Africa and Asia were at one point more advanced then the west. Ethiopia had an advanced kingdom as early as the 8th century bc. Ghana had an empire after 750 A.D. for over 300 years. In China gunpowder was first discovered. Due to the traveling of Europeans to Africa and Asia and not vise versa the Europeans gained an advantage in exposure to new cultures, technology, and discoveries.
It's because they hate America!
Media Maters (Not) is the hate filled bunch that tried to smear Limbaugh with outright lies, earlier this month. Ya gotta get better "sources".
You can google it and get as many sources (including the transcript from CNN) as you can stand. I simply took the first one that came up.
Don't you know the rules here? You will be severely scolded if you use far leaning sources.
Oh wait. That rule only applies to right wing sources. Left wing extremists are exempt.
I forgot.
Sorry.
hmmmm, let's see what the FBI's got on you.....
Craig!
-- Modified on 10/24/2007 6:52:57 PM
The truth of the quote is secondary to the source. Convenient, as it allows you to ignore the basis of the post. What, no comment on Beck? You really have no thoughts on this guy's statement?
This was a shameless hijack.
But really. I was making a separate point about sourcing regardless of the posted topic.
How diabolical.
You can't smear Limbaugh given all of his self-induced screwups. Calling the guy out when he says something really stupid or just an outright lie doesn't constitute a smear.
Here's the MediaMattersNot link.
http://mediamatters.org/items/200709270010
Of course they purposely cut the quote short and do not include the very next part where Limbaugh EXPLICITLY defined what he meant by the term "phoney soldier", e.g. Jesse MacBeth
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesse_Macbeth
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NzQzZGJkM2E1NWI5NmNjMTAzNTQ4YTk1ZDRhZTMyNWY=
Here's a link where you can find where the FULL (and in context) audio discussion was posted.
http://www.theeroticreview.com/discussion_boards/viewmsg.asp?MessageID=51493&boardID=39&page=
Maybe you will actually listen to it. I'm sure Blender won't.
If you're quick, you can still read the whole discussion here, although the Blender types appear to be attempting to edit wikipedia to their liking.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reid_Smear_Letter
Here’s another view
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DR0Rmr8E4as
The whole thing ended up with Harry Reid, Hillary Clinton and 39 other Democrat Senators sending a letter to Limbaugh’s radio syndicaters, in an attempt to get an apology. Limbaugh auctioned the letter for charity on EBAY for $2.1 million. Although Reid never apologized he actually tried to take credit for the fund raising, indicating that that was the real purpose all along. Except for cases like Blender and the NYT, that can’t read opposing reality, it’s over.
-- Modified on 10/24/2007 6:15:46 PM
pretty much calling anyone that talks out against the war a "phony soldier".
"Here is a Morning Update that we did recently, talking about fake soldiers. This is a story of who the left props up as heroes. They have their celebrities and one of them was Army Ranger Jesse Macbeth. Now, he was a "corporal." I say in quotes."
This was his explanation. He cites the most egregious example of one guy that falsified an account of the war. However, even in his latter explanation he still says "soldiers" and is referring to whoever the left talks to that isn't supporting the war. I don't know, it still seems he's saying "soldiers" over and over again, instead of soldier. At the very least he seems to be trying to indict the left for continually employing "phoney soldiers" while protecting himself.
Now, perhaps, with the morning commentary, which I have not heard, my thoughts would differ, however, I have not heard that segment so I won't say one way or the other what he really meant.
I've heard Rush take enough stuff out of context though to not feel sorry for him. He's an ass (maybe not this time, but overall, YES).
The point is that the explanatory verbiage (that you took the time to read) was TOTALLY left out by MM(NOT) and most of the rest of the press. It wasn't even a "let me cover my ass moment" a day later or even after a commercial break. It was all part of the SAME segment. It occurred only seconds after the media yelled "cut and print" on the sound bite.
MacBeth was a lot more than a soldier who falsified "his" account of the war. He falsified his ENTIRE military history. OK. MacBeth wasn't the only one. Another one was the “Baghdad Diarist” for the New Republic. The BD of NR was actually an Iraq veteran but who totally made up and grossly exagerated stories.
Hate Rush? Fine. I don't care. Dislike his tactics? No problem. If you want to crucify him, then there ought to plenty of plain, clear, "cut and dried" evidence to do so, right? Why not use that? Why do they go to the extent of making up shit to do it? It will never help the left's causes to be this blatantly dishonest in doing so. They look like Joseph Goebbels when they act this way.
So you're in favor of the cop that falsifies evidence (just this once) cause everyone knows the criminal deserves to go away? It sounds like for you the answer is no, but no so for many others here.
Well, about 110 seconds after Rush originally said "phony soldiers." Almost two minutes - only seconds after, same thing. And so what that Rush edited an audio clip on a later program and yet claimed it was the full transcript. People who know they've said nothing wrong do that all the time.
-- Modified on 10/26/2007 8:02:22 PM
Try reading my post in full.
First - My post included the full clip, no edits. It was from the original day.
Second - I never claimed it was seconds after the word "phony" was uttered. Read my post again. The full explanation happened SECONDS after the second caller was finished and Limbaugh dispensed with him. Whether the total time was 5, 10 or 30 seconds was not the point. The point was that your buddies at Media Matters (Not) did their OWN EDITTING and “conveniently” left out the explanation So I see that you admit that, but are merely quibbling about the timing?.
I am trying to give you the benefit of the doubt that you simply read my posts too fast. It couldn't possibly be that you’re trying to take what I said out of context now, are you?
"It occurred only seconds after the media yelled "cut and print" on the sound bite."
Go look again at the Media Matters link that YOU posted. They "cut and printed" almost right after Rush made his "phony soldiers" remark. He talked about MacBeth about 90 seconds later. Where in YOUR post did YOU say that it happened seconds after he hung up with the second caller?
Explanation? Please. That second caller was talking about ANY soldier who did not support the war, not just ones who made up stuff. Did Rush correct him? No, he repeated the phrase as if agreeing. What does that suggest? That Rush agrees that ANY soldier who opposes the war is a phony soldier. Later he specifically talked about MacBeth, someone who fabricated a story. When talking about MacBeth, did Rush note any difference between MacBeth-types and those who the second caller was referring to? No. Did Rush clarify that his remark ONLY referred to people fabricating stories? No. That's some explanation.
You find it OK that MM(not) ignored the explanation portion TOTALLY. That huge fact is perfectly OK with you, but this nit picky stuff is high on your radar. You give more credence to what Limbaugh's two words suggested to you than what the explanation explicitly defined, **sigh** You disregard or diminish the explanation portion because 1) it didn't come soon enough and 2) it wasn't detailed enough. Sorry. Maybe you just need to loosen up your sphincter muscle.
I could counter that you're ignoring the huge fact that Rush edited his own audio clip on a later program and called it the entire transcript. Only in the RightWing world (and only when done by rightwingers) is that clearly the work of an innocent man who's done no wrong. Or maybe that's just being nit picky.
I think my post made it clear that I don't believe Rush "explained" his remark. Therefore, why should I be concerned that his "explanation" wasn't in the original story. And saying over and over again that Rush's "explanation" was explicitly defined doesn't make it true.
don't go hypocrite on us now marty....
How so? Like I said, it's a tough call especially since I don't have the full context behind the statement. I tend to agree that MM was wrong, but I didn't hear the report, just read the transcript.
Today I couldn't get through 5 minutes. I'll set that aside for a time a really want to suffer. I'll grit my teeth on my day off tomorrow.
I doubt this gets better in context. I'm surprised I ever listened to the guy. I need an appointment with a provider to cheer me up afterward . . .
-- Modified on 10/25/2007 9:20:50 AM
I love listening to Limbaugh, and especially Hannity. That guy takes being idiotic to a new level each and every day.
Caller: "Hello, Sean, you're a great American."
Sean: "You're a great American."
Caller: "Sean, YOU'RE a great American."
Sean: "thank you, you sir, are a great American."
Caller: "Thank you, you're a great American."
etc....for about 3 hours.
"I doubt this gets better in context."
Good to see your mind is still as open as usual.
In so many ways, most often by inference. Listen closely to that segment - he uses phrases like "no republican wants to lose like democrats do...
The worst thing that can happen is losing this, fleeing out of there waving the white flag"
Nobody has suggested losing the war, running away waving a white flag.
I uttered a truth and you can't handle it....I don't know a single republican or conservative who wants to pull out of Iraq in defeat - the Democrats have made the last 4 years about that specifically."
Those statements are lies - he adds the words "losing the war, running away waving a white flag" and "pull out of Iraq in defeat - the Democrats have made the last 4 years about that specifically." when no democrat has ever said that they want to pull out in defeat or wave a white flag.
He's a liar in fact, a liar in innuendo, a liar by implication. He's a gasbag who sets up straw men and knocks them down to the glee of you, his choir.
These examples are just in the first ninute or so - he continues in the same vein day in, day out. He is a liar when he gives his explaination about 'phoney soldiers' because in his explaination he is careful to say 'phoney SOLDIER' (singular) and offer an example of someone who is supposedly the darling of the let but who he admits nobody ever heard of, but his statement was about 'phoney soldiers' PLURAL and implicated, by association with his caler, every soldier who does not support the war. Real soldiers are "proud to serve, they want to be over in Iraq.... they joined to be in Iraq" and by implication and comparison, any soldier who does not fit that description is not a real soldier but is a phoney soldier.
He is a liar.
Rush might be a liar, he is at best a hypocrite, but does that give others a license to lie themselves in an effort to make him look bad?
You partisans, on both the left and the right don't give a flying fuck about the truth except as how it can benefit your side, to the detrement of the other side.
so if one party sees the other kicking their ass thru any perception of lying/cheating/stealing, they will have a hard time justifying to their own side, not using the same tactics.
AKA, 'taking the gloves off'.
In my own memory alone, this goes back to JFK v. Nixon, when JFK used the services of some unsavory fellows to get out the Chicago vote, resulting in a loss to Nixon. As I recall, there was no allegation that this was the critical margin (tho it may well have been) and particularly that these fellows did anything untoward in getting out the vote - simply that their day jobs were not very legal.
And Monday morning QBing, JFK certainly does not look any more corrupt than Nixon.
Then of course you have the McCarthy and Goldwater episodes, where people are way too agitated to be calm about much of anything, and you've got to be nuts if you think these fellows were the 1st.
The question is identifying when parties will stop talking, so that you have to communicate in other ways.
And when you are talking to a Jesus person, that threshhold comes very quickly, ie the first time he finds a Bible verse.
And of course the Jesus people are the GOP's predictable margin of victory, and therefore they pretty much rule the roost. The business interests who choose to support the GOP primarily from short term interest (not implying that's all business, but there are enough, and I like the 'crony capitalist' shorthand) are still smart enough to keep a somewhat lower profile. Those people can be negotiated with over money, but they have little need to.
Personally, I think the country missed a tremendous opportunity in settling the 2000 election, and probably primarily because of the GOP Jesus people who tend to regard life as an "all or nothing" proposition - eg, to Pat Robertson, an Episcopalian is the anti-christ, and Federal judges are worse that terrorists. How, exactly, do you deal with a party where that guy controls the swing vote?
I'm glad you admit Rush is a liar - though it's hardly a tough stance to take given that he lies again and again.
As to lefty liars, I'll cheerfully hand you Michael Moore. He lost me with 'Bowling for Columbine' where he unnecessarily lied repeatedly.
I'll call your Michael Moore and raise you Sean Hanitty, then you can re raise with Al Franken and the loony toon bunch form Air America, then I can go all in with Michael Savage. I think you'll agree, there are plenty of liars spinning outright lies and hyperbole to go around.
There are plenty of Democrats out there who want to walk right out of Iraq and not look back.. Whether they want to wave a white flag or not is a moot point..THEY want to QUIT!!
indefinitely, while you figure out WTF you think you're doing - aside from paying soldiers around a FIFTH what you pay Blackwater for the same induhvidual who won't take orders.
Yeah, that's supporting the troops - paying them 20% the going rate.
But you'll give them all sorts of little hero ribbons, as long as they don't come back and bad-mouth your miserable fucking ass. Your heroes don't know where they were, or had other priorities than doing the dirty work.
Damn straight I'd have nothing but praise for any provider who bent over for 20% the market, 24/7 a year at a time.
Take your fucking cheese and shove it up your pathetic ass, slacker.
Very litle thought, but a lot of time.
After all, you don't challenge anything I said. Tacit agreement.
Thank you.
You obviously didn't listen to the same clip that I heard from the day of the "phony soldier" comment. Here it is again, because I just know you'll want to do some fact checking. . .
http://www.4shared.com/dir/4117064/d28eafa3/sharing.html/Rush%20Limbaugh%20-%20Sep%2026%202007%20-%20Hour%202%20Full%20Phony%20Soldier%20Comment%20in%20context.mp3
Limbaugh clearly used the plural. But what is really hilarious is that (in an earlier thread debating this) some of your brethren claimed that his use of the plural was evidence of his guilt.
And about the claim that Jesse MacBeth was not well known, you got that context wrong as well. He was referring to MacBeth's criminal conviction and exposure as a fraud as not being well publicized. Keep trying.
About your first distraction towards white flags and surrender. . .
There are many on the left that would rather see the Iraq war go badly just to score political points against Bush. Of course none are going to unfurl their white flag, but painting that picture with embellishment is not the same as a lie.
Oh and BTW, about my original criticism of MediaMatters(Not) and your rebuttal that it was just a quote. . .
MM(Not) has a less than stellar track record for getting simple quotes correct, using proper context or providing complete quotations.
-- Modified on 10/26/2007 1:09:46 AM
"There are many on the left that would rather see the Iraq war go badly just to score political points against Bush."
Name them.
You can't?
None have said anything of tgeh sort, but you know it just the same?
Straw man bullshit.
I already said that none are actually making flat statements, wishing for defeat. So we are left with analyzing their actions and more subtle remarks. Of course you make the occasional slip such as the one by Rep. James Clyburn, Dem. S.C. When asked what the implications would be if the "surge" was successful, he clearly stated, “Well, that would be a real big problem for us.”
You won't even accept what he said, so why should I bother going further?
Rush is code for "russian", which proves he's a communist. QED.
Ie, that al qaeda leadership was in Afghanistan, not Iraq; that invading Iraq would trigger a civil war with us in the middle; that we would need something different that we didn't obviously have to avoid a Vietnam result; that it would do incredible unpredictable damage to the USA; that it's not enough to have a machinegun to solve your problems with, but you also have to be smart enough to know where to point it; that sputtering & ranting about pinko libs doesn't actually get anything done.
So the GOP is a bunch of irresponsible bullshitters. What else is new?
Every time the venal, greedy, godless neocon right is finally beaten into submission with fact they jump up and say that shit - hey, it's time to move on, stop living in the past, let's look to the future .... well bullshit. I'll move on over the dead broken body of the neocon dream, i will not leave it intact behind me to rise up and strike again. Some of us remember the remnants of Nixon's world who came back to haunt us.
Fuck all the neocon anti-american criminals.
Clear?
Hey, from a non-necon comes this... the neocons weren't the ones to first license and register that name now were they?
On second thought, keep living in the past. It will be easier to defeat you there.
We won't forget - and once this crowd is out there are some of us who will hound them and hunt them down the way Weisenthal did with Eichmann et al - we will never forget, we will nover forgive and we will exact payment in full for what has been done to our republic.
Move on from that, dickweed.
YOu have been watching WAAAYYYY too much keithy blubberman, seriously dude.....
take that act to hollywood
LMAO!!
I assure you, once law and order is restored, the Bush crime family will be lucky if they wind up in the Hague.
i am always willing to see criminals proven guilty, then punished.
you should review the order in which we do things around here, this aint Venazuela or Cuba
ya never know though, the clinton crime family looks poised to renew it's reign of terror....impeached/disbarred and all...
-- Modified on 10/26/2007 8:21:39 PM
-- Modified on 10/26/2007 8:23:22 PM
"We won't forget - and once this crowd is out there are some of us who will hound them and hunt them down the way Weisenthal did with Eichmann et al - we will never forget, we will nover forgive and we will exact payment in full for what has been done to our republic.
Move on from that, dickweed."
quad says Dude you need to get laid..You have the nerve to call Rush a liar and you come up with nonsense like your above comments.. I will tell you what to move on to and that is reality .The We you refer to is YOU and YOUR Dreams.
until they're all in jail.
indefinite cost in blood & money, and indefinite risk of general wars? Like with Iran, Turkey, Russia, etc?
"move on", the only reasonable interpretation is that we should disregard those massive and ongoing GOP fuckups, because you're OK with them.
If that's not true, then explain (1) why you would have said that, and (2) what you DO mean. If you know. Of course.
I cracked up when I heard Reid give that long winded speech clearly insinuating that Rush and hime were in partnership on the charity..How about the other day when he came out with the fires were caused by Global warming??
I've heard him lie myself. Rush has a rap sheet on lies that go back since he began. When he's caught in a lie, he simply attacks the source-- as you're doing now.
If he "beats the rap" on this one, it's by the distance between New York from Manhattan.
-- Modified on 10/25/2007 9:00:09 AM
If he's wrong, then it's fine to document it. But when the documentation is falsified as it is here, then it should be equally appropriate to document that. I have, but YOU are too busy or too closed minded to even look at the documentation. You simply label my efforts an "attack" probably to assuage your own guilt.
They don't mean my mind is closed.
-- Modified on 10/25/2007 4:29:46 PM
I still say Canada is going to be the new frontier. The last frontier? Antarctica of course.
People should look at the situation for what it is; a wildfire disaster in Southern California that has caused over 1 billion dollars in damage.
Shaka Zulu is widely credited for transforming a tribe of 1,500 people to over a 250,000 Zulu nation.
Even after Shakas death the Zulu army defeated the British in one of the most stunning defeats in history at the battle of Battle of Isandlwana in 1879.
Throughout history many great leaders went to war William the Congueror, Peter the Great, Winston Churchill, and many others. So King Shaka was no different in those regards.
Shaka will always be a hero to many Africans. One reason I use the name is so that the legend of Shaka will contiune.
-- Modified on 10/25/2007 10:07:22 AM
plus untold non-combat deaths, to create a nation of a quarter million.
This last link says, "Shaka's end came from internal rather than external enemies. Shaka's erratic behavior worsened with the death of his mother in 1827. The often cruel treatment of his own subjects, including execution for "smelling like a witch" and arbitrary mass executions of entire villages, created terror within his civilian subjects. His army also grew unhappy with the constant operations, which ranged farther and farther from home as Shaka sought new tribes and lands to conquer. Shaka's enforcement of chastity in his warriors also lowered their morale.
The training regime was very strict....By the time of his mother's death, Shaka no longer took the field at the head of his army, further eroding the confidence of his people. On September 23, 1828, Shaka's half brothers Dingane and Mhlangana assassinated him. His killers buried him in an unmarked grave somewhere near today's Natal village of Stanger."
So that is your idea of a hero? Can you draw any more specific comparisons among the people you cite, than they just "went to war"? So did Hitler. Can you draw distinctions?
Although the Zulus defeated the British at Isandlwana, it might be smart to examine some details. Just as the Sioux alliance defeated Custer at Little Big Horn, the battle was not only a freak, but a Pyrrhic victory in that it resulted in a vengeful reaction on the part of the western forces.
The overriding fact of the matter was that the Iron Age indigenous cultures were in no way matched to the west - not in equipment, or more significantly organization. The emergence of a single particularly strong willed man (who, in his context, was also incredibly vicious) did not change the result except to make it bloodier. Shaka cannot be regarded as pan-African, in that he spent the vast amount of his effort fighting other Africans, and even then only locals. He simply did not deal with the muslim half of Africa, did he?
So how do you believe Shaka has contributed to civilization?
Like kill viciously & arbitrarily, and wreck his country because his mother died?
If that's what Africans admire, then it's no fucking wonder they're in trouble.
Establishing a small tribe to a powerfull nation is major accomplishment. He made significant contributions to military warfare and development of a nation. Nobody is saying Shaka was perfect, but he is still highly regared among Africans, more specifically the Zulu tribe.
You say the Zulu vicotry over the Britains was "but a Pyrrhic victory in that it resulted in a vengeful reaction on the part of the western forces."
African countries historically have not attacked other countries. The British and other western nations came to Africa not to civilize them but to steal their resources, wealth, and colonize their people. Colonialism in African by western nations redrew the maps of tribes that usually were independant of one another. This has led to many wars in Africa to this day. Historically when nations have attacked Africa other countries have turned a blind eye. For instance, the Emperor of Ethiopia in 1936 protested to the invasion of his country by Mussollini but the world stood silent.
The effects of colonialism played a major role in many wars like the Biafra war in Nigeria and several wars in Angola. African countries will get better at governing themselves, but it takes time.
you're missing some points here.
1st point is that your homie establishes a Zulu nation of a quarter million Africans, by killing over 2 million other Africans, reserving the most miserable deaths by impalement for the women and children. I can't think of anybody else who managed to kill more people than the total national population, so he's probably got THAT record locked up. Not MY role model, but of course YMMV.
It looks to me as if these particular Africans are not attacking other countries, but attacking each other. In fact, that model seems to persist today, don't you think? You know, Somalia, Darfur, Uganda, Congo, west africa, etc etc? I will say, the conflicts in northern Uganda - involving forced recruitment of children into the LRA - have to be the product of some truly sick mofos.
2nd, the links you provided don't describe Shaka so much as 'imperfect', and more like a psychopath, don't you think? Sort of a stone-age Stalin? a 19th century Idi Amin? You know, the sort of fellow who would kill his wife and infant son, and be murdered by his brothers and thrown in the dumpster?
3rd, you really don't say a lot about this battle. Turns out that the general rule of Zulu v. Brit is something like human wave attacks against massed fire, with predictable results. The very same day as Iskwandla, another Brit force of 140 odd troops slaughtered a force of about 4,000 Zulus.
I'm sorry, I don't buy that the colonials are responsible for the pervasive pattern of tribal wars throught Africa. That pre-dated colonial eras, and it remains unchanged. If fact, the presence or engagement of Brits by Shaka is pretty much incidental to his general slaughter of his native neighbors. The Brits brought peace through fire superiority, but it seems merciful next to what Africans do to each other, and it's probably the Dept of Tuff Shit anyway.
I have to wonder here if you & your hero here are telling us way TMI about Africa's problems. My suggestion might be to leave the chest-pounding alone for a while, maybe until you've got a better excuse.
I mean, if I were going to moralize, I might say something like, stay in school and learn to build and fly nuclear armed F-18s.
Let me add something else about resolving problems: the westerners don't seem nearly as disturbed about insulting each other as the 3rd worlders do. See, we've discovered that sticks'n'stones may break your bones, but words rarely hurt you. (What's more, we invented this internet thingie where even sticks'n'stones won't break your bones.) So we don't need no stinkin moderators. And therein may lie a lesson for the 3rd world, eh?
-- Modified on 10/25/2007 4:41:14 PM
Attacking,while pilliging and plundering a continent of its natural resources, gold, diamonds, crops, and people is not peace. The western powers did that in Africa, the Americans, even Europe, and Asia. Remeber the Opium wars from 1839 to 1842 fought between China and Britain, and later with France; you will probably try to justify that too. But thats another story.
Tribes that were historically apart from each other such as the Hutu's and Tutsis that reside in Rwanda as a result of colonialism were carved into one country.This led to widespread genocide. The western powers such as France, Britain, Belgium, and the others didn't understand the historical balances of power among the tribes in Africa. Tribes in Africa didn't fight as many wars until after colonialism. Which has led to a lot of conflicts between tribes in Africa today.
You are trying to justify Britain attacking a country and at the same time you are condeming war.
Shaka Zulu is highly regarded among many historians, scholars, and Africans as a great leader in African history. Whether people love him, hate him, or have no opinion of him his legend will continue...
-- Modified on 10/25/2007 8:27:54 PM
why do you ADMIRE such a bloodthirsty SOB who fought his own people more than anybody else, who murdered his own wife and child, and STILL COULDN'T chase off the Brits?
The fact that you admire a person who was so incredibly vicious, and STILL a loser, says something about your values.
I don't give a shit either way about the Brits, and my admiration of them is limited to the fact that they may have saved a few natives from impalement at the hands of this monster.
My obvious point is that if this Stone Age Stalin is Africa's hero today, it's no fucking wonder that they're at each other's throats. Yeah, I'm sure the Queen is sending them mind waves to control their thoughts, such as they may have.
You need to get your facts straight, and you might want to learn a little more about western values than using a keyboard.
Africa is a very large continent and to be precise the Zulu tribe is in South Africa. In Africa, as I said most people aware of Shaka Zulu are from his original Zulu tribe area, not all of Africa. People look at the major achievments and positive things Shaka Zulu did, not at his personal life.
Most of us on this board we live in the U.S. but I encourage people to travel to Africa someday to learn about the diversity of the many cultures their.
Since you keep mentioning Stalin, this is a question for you, would the Allies have won World War II without Stalin?
considered this fellow a hero?
When you are the king, your personal life becomes politics, and vice versa. What exactly did this fellow do that you regard as positive? Here he was, busily killing Africans and impaling their widows in the face of British invaders. Sort of an early-day Saddam Hussein.
As I pointed out to Zin, Shaka's short term success in his stone age circumstances may have in fact relegated the Zulus to a lesser role even in their small corner of the world. A really smart fellow might have checked the Brits out and considered how his kingdom was going to cope. But that would have required looking ahead, and lots of politicians seem to have a real hard time with that.
BTW: You still dodged the question - exactly WTF do you admire about this fellow? His wardrobe?
-- Modified on 10/25/2007 11:03:09 PM
The fact that the apartheid government lasted until the early 1990's just shows how devastating colonialism is.
Shaka is widely credited with changing the art of warfare in Africa. His establishment of the famous buffalo horns formation with reserves is widely known; How else would the Zulu army have defeated the British army.
Nobody is saying Shaka Zulu led the perfect life. Shaka is widely credited with forming the Zulu nation and changing the art of warfare in Africa. He will always be highly regarded in Zulu culture.
-- Modified on 10/25/2007 11:07:48 PM
and guess what, it ain't because of the Zulus.
Shaka changed warfare among the Africans only, for a period of 50 odd years. I suspect that if it had not been for him, the Africans would have been a complete fucking joke as against the Brits -
Because any military force has to have the willingness, at an emotional level, to close with the enemy and tear him several new assholes. Before Shaka, it appears that Bantu warfare style consisted mainly of throwing spears and posturing. Of course that would work real well against a lever action rifle.
(Compare the American Indians, who had absolutely no hesitation to close with an enemy.)
Nevertheless, his tactics depended on massed formations in hand-to-hand combat. No horses, no regular use of bows or firearms.
And yet these Zulu guys couldn't figure it out.
The Zulus DIDN'T beat the Brits, except in a couple freak instances. By and large, the Zulus got their collective ass handed to them, repeatedly.
Look for example at Isandlwana: 22,000 Zulus crept up on 1400 Brits & 2500 natives, and jumped them, and killed almost all of them, because the Brits were unprepared. Even then, the Brits killed about 3K Zulus.
Later in the same day, about 4-5,000 Zulus jumped a prepared force of 140 Brits, and got their asses beat soundly.
The moral of the story is, you're pretty fucking dumb to bring a knife to a firefight, but that's what the Zulus did for 50 odd years.
We're not talking about Shaka being perfect. We're asking, what good did he EVER do? Did he have ANY redeeming quality (notice the singular)?
Shaka may always be regarded highly among the Zulu, but that's about 3 grades below saying that Pancho Villa will be regarded highly among the Mexicans, ie, who the fuck cares? BEcause we're talking about a tribe that has spent the last century playing around the dustbin of history.
Conclusion: Shaka should be relegated to video games.
Conclusion: Shaka should be relegated to video games.
ROTFLMAO!
when the Anglos stayed out of Africa? You know, places like say Congo, Rwanda, Somalia? To places where the west has had most influence, like South Africa, Egypt, Morocco?
Now these fellas would never have thought to slaughter each other unless the Anglos had put them up to it, right? The UN & EU has a special Fuck-Africa Committee, which plots to keep civilization out of Africa, right? After all, these people shouldn't have to figure it out for themselves.
So you idolize Shaka, this fucking psychopathic mass murderer, because he's such a GOOD psychopathic mass murderer. He was far more concerned with killing Africans than Brits, and killed them just for the hell of it; and you wonder WTF is going wrong. I mean, the Arabs have kicked your ass for centuries because they're light-years ahead of you. The ARABS - these are people who are stuck in the fucking 15th century! People who reject M-16s because they're too fucking complicated!
It's not your animalistic religions and cultures. The Japanese have the same shit, and Toyota is kicking GM's ass.
I suspect it has something to do with the fact that you idolize violence, but are barely smart enough to figure out that guns work better than knives - while the rest of us are trying to suppress nukes.
Look, don't be asking me for grant money to get your continental act together. Because I think you should just file moral bankruptcy. We can make it a 'no asset' case.
Nobody is saying to idolize Shaka. But to ignore the history of Shaka Zulu and the Zulu's in southern Africa would be wrong.
Anyway my expertise is more with west African countries, thats where bantu civilization started in Africa, and where they migrated to the rest of Africa.
Remember civilizations in Africa and Asia were at one point more advanced then the west. Ethiopia had an advanced kingdom as early as the 8th century bc. Ghana had an empire after 750 A.D. for over 300 years. In China gunpowder was first discovered. Due to the traveling of Europeans to Africa and Asia and not vise versa the Europeans gained an advantage in exposure to new cultures, technology, and discoveries.
insight into why Africa is so fucked up.
You're advocating the admiration of a psychopath, a fellow that is distinguishable from Stalin only by time and technology.
And if anything, his legacy may actually be holding his tribesmen back.
There's no Zulu nation. The Zulu are a tribe - an ethnic group - in a nation that is the most prosperous in Africa because it's the most westernized. Murders are less common in South Africa than the rest of Africa because they are most westernized.
Now, if you admire Shaka and arbitrary murder, then of course, western influence is oppressive, and the tribesmen don't know what they're talking about if they tell you they'd rather not be murdered.
If you look at my post nobody is saying to admire Shaka but to atleast know about him. I don't expect somebody like you who has a mundane knowlege about African culture and customs to care about Shaka. If there is some young kid in South Africa who appreciates his contributions to the Zulu's, what is it to you.
Why would anyone want to erase the history of Shaka Zulu and the Zulu nation that he formed in the 1800's; thats what your advocating doing.
African history is very rich and no one can ever take that away from the people.
"Shaka will always be a hero to many Africans. One reason I use the name is so that the legend of Shaka will contiune."
How about this: "Shaka, one of the the greatest leaders of his time." This stone age Stalin is the best of his time? A better general than Bonaparte, or Nelson? A better leader than George Washington, or Thomas Jefferson? How far back or forward do we go? Or are you saying this murderous thug was the best Africa can do?
Now what is there about Shaka for any African to admire? He killed his own wife and kid, impaled any number of women and children, killed 2 million other Africans instead of fighting the British, so that the Zulus could be the leading tribe among the colonies?
I think you should most certainly remember that asshole, but not as a hero. More like a Saddam Hussein, that the only advantage he had over the British colonizers was that he spoke the language, so that he could kill his own tribesmen more brutally.
The Zulus have done far more toward falling into the dustbin of history than I could ever do. So be it. Shaka is one particular fellow I would not miss. His own brothers seemed to have loved him like the Shia loved Saddam.
Some kid in South Africa might do one hell of a lot better by regarding some non-Zulu like Nelson Mandela as a hero, don't you think? Shaka seems to personify all the brutality that has kept Africa by and large in the fucking Stone Age, don't you think?
-- Modified on 10/26/2007 1:38:27 PM
A lot of your sources of what Shaka allegedly did during his reign are not true. Look at the bottom of the article.
-- Modified on 10/26/2007 2:02:21 PM
and a few other readily available net sources.
So what exactly are you contesting? What allegation is not true? And what do you think IS true?
I mean, this is Logic 101.
because both 'went to war'?
I haven't heard about Churchill or the English attacking Germany. My understanding is that the Germans started both of those, at least in being the 1st shooters, which I think is a fair guideline.
So defending your country makes you the same as a man who murders his own wife and child? And God knows how many of his own tribesmen?
You need to sort these things out, I think.
Ethiopia was the 1st African nation to standardize coinage, somewhere after 300 BC. So that only puts them behind all the mid-east, Mediterranean, and Chinese civilizations.
And whatever brings up Asia? That's a different place than Africa, you know. Maybe you need to find more heroes who stayed in school.
at a pre-literate culture that doesn't abstract ideas except by pictures - but the ideas of mobile scouts, reserves, and a main body was old news by the time of Alexander.
What he's done here is come up with a formula that doesn't require education to cope with, and is fairly flexible.
But, rocket scientist, it's oriented toward movement to contact, and is really only useful in meeting engagements. Those formations had NO impact on any Zulu victory over the Brits. When they did win, it was because they were able to neutralize Brit advantages by closing to hand-to-hand range, where the assegai was equal to the bayonet, or where they hid and used their knowledge of the location until they could pick off a Brit.
Buffalo horns had nothing to do with beating the Brits. What did was instilling some discipline & teaching them to close with an enemy, like every other successful army in history.
And he did this by impaling people. We do it thru simple mental intimidation - saves lots of 18 year olds.
swallow? Laden or unladen?
An opinion I agree with from historian Norman Davies.
I'd compare Shaka to Genghis Khan. I think the comparison is very apt. On one level, you could admire their cleverness, their cunning, and their ingeniousness in organizing and war strategy. But they were brutal and cruel even by the standards of their time. Maybe you disregard that for their more admirable traits. Their lives bear scrutiny.
Peter the Great made a point out of trying to learn from others, even if he was a moral monster. He at least made some stab at improving things according to his view, and he had a central role in building a nation that is a major player today.
Genghis Khan established the world's largest empire. No doubt he killed far more than Shaka, but he was also in an entirely different league, and couldn't have killed the same proportion of people Shaka did. He may have been ruthless, but he was concerned about maintaining and administering the empire, not the psychopath that Shaka appears to have been. Genghis Khan was technologically state ot the art, and in the historical mainstream.
Shaka, OTOH, did one thing only, and that was build a ruthless army that had no purpose except to enforce government by terror. He was in a technological and historical dead end, and as pointed out, put far more effort into killing Africans than the invading Brits - and was vicious by contemporary standards. He killed his own wife and child, wasted his people and kingdom, and his own brothers killed him.
While he certainly established an army that was unbeatable among Africans, that itself may have blinded the Zulus to the impossibility of defeating the British by military force. The massed human wave attacks were much less effective against the British, than the American Indian independent cavalry raiders were against US forces. The Sioux defeat of Custer appears more convincing than the Zulus at Isandlwana. IOW, even the most brilliant general is responsible to wake up and smell the coffee.
Did Shaka establish anything that endured? While the Zulu tribe seems to have stayed the largest throughout South African history, it was also one of the most conservative native forces, because of its relatively privileged position, and often took the side of the apartheid govt. As a result, black South African leadership doesn't draw much on the Zulus, possibly because the Zulus had no reason to think beyond themselves. The Mandelas and Tutus that may contribute to pan-African solutions don't seem to be coming from the Zulus.
So my initial judgment would be that Shaka was indeed a Stone Age Stalin in a historical dead end. His historical situation was probably more analogous to the American Indians, but there simply does not seem to have been a comparably vicious and psychopathic American. Indeed, many American Indian leaders are admirable in their concern for their people.
I would question that Africans generally are so admiring of Shaka, outside of the Zulus. I suspect the perception of Shaka is largely a Hollywood creation.
But as far as any people would admire those sorts of values, ie military force for the sake of terror above building any lasting social structure, then I would have to say these people certainly deserve their Idi Amins, Darfurs, etc.
You certainly didn't want to run into Shaka during that game.
Tookie Williams seems to have more redeeming qualities. Probably because of the colonial oppression.
In any case, nothing that can't be handled by a half-assed competent MG section. You know, a couple of guys who dropped out of our failing school system and joined a philosophy platoon at MCRD.
Here is a thought: what's going to happen when all of these Latino troops come back from Iraq with the usual infantry skill sets? One hopes they might help chase druggies and corruption from their homeland.
Whats the big deal ..If you read the whole transcript??? A handful of people who hate America might have had burned out houses..So maybe 5 of 1500 homes don't like the country..It sonly his opinion not a amendment.Why you guys let one entertainment person get you so upset???I don't get upset when Leno or Letterman makes fun of Bush.. A handful is 5 and how many homes were lost..I don't know what the beef is but in my opinion Beck is way overrated ..I really can't listen to much of him.. He has nowhere near the knowledge of Rush or Hannity..