Zulu monarch King Misuzulu kaZwelithini has renewed calls for a name change for KwaZulu-Natal. He wants the old colonial appendage "Natal" struck off. There are two, divergent views on his name change call, one supporting him and the other against.
Support has come mainly from the Zulu nation and the Inkatha Freedom Party (IFP). I suppose the ANC will also fall in line. The editors of the and the Sunday Tribune also share the king's views. Loyalty first, I suppose. Opposition to the king's proposal will come from the whites, Indians and the Democratic Alliance.
What's in a name you may ask? Lots, if it's used as a political tool and to boost the egos of political leaders.
That said, let's look at the implications of this name change proposal with an unblinkered eye. The colonialists, driven by their superiority and their urge to dominate, forced the indigenous people to abandon their traditional ways of life and accept their Western ideology and norms, religion, language. They practiced slavery, grabbed their land and shipped the colony's riches back to their own countries. They also changed the indigenous names of places and even called people Sammy and Mary.
Of course, they were wrong. Some countries like France, Germany, Belgium and the Netherlands have apologised and returned stolen artefacts back to the former colonies. But Britain, the biggest colonial power, has neither apologised nor returned all the artefacts it stole from the colonies. The diamonds it stole from India still adorn the queen's crown.
Despite its wrongs, colonisation did have some positive effects on the colonies, mainly in the form of infrastructure, towns and cities, water and sanitation, railways, roads and bridges, schools and hospitals, radio and telephone etc. Take slavery, for instance. Though it was inhumane, many black Americans are better off than if they had remained in Africa. And look how far our cane cutters have come. Nor should we forget how the colonists gave the colonies a head start into the modern world.
If King Misuzulu kaZwelithini feels so strongly about KwaZulu-Natal's colonial name, he should remove every vestige of colonialism; everything the colonists built. That would be virtually impossible. It would be far easier to change the name and seek some personal glory than fixing the country.
But wouldn't the Zulu king etch his name in history if he directed his time, energy and influence towards improving the lives of his people, if he started a campaign, say, against teenage pregnancy, gender and gun violence? Doesn't it hurt him to see his people living in shacks, the poor rummaging in the bins, and men impregnating school girls? Where does his priority lie? Name changes? Is it because it's easier to change the name than fix the country? T MARKANDAN | Kloof
Clarification of editorial comment:
You seem to have misunderstood last week's editorial comment and I need to clarify it. It is incorrect to say I share the King's view. I neither endorsed nor opposed the King’s call for KZN to be renamed KwaZulu; I merely observed that, as custodian of Zulu culture, history, and tradition, the King's call likely comes from a good place. It is also incorrect to suggest that views on the name change fall along racial lines, as there are Indians and whites who support it, just as there are Zulus who do not. My editorial sought to caution against the potential financial implications of a name change and to raise concerns that it may unintentionally revive sensitivities around apartheid-era Bantustan system's ethnic divisions or make some residents feel unwelcome in the only province they call home. Your views about slavery, colonisation and Indian indentured labour having "positive outcomes" are rather unfortunate, deeply insensitive and historically problematic. Lastly, symbolic actions (like name changes) and social improvement programmes are not mutually exclusive priorities.-EDITOR