Zulu warrior chant

Zulu chant saluting the bravery of their opponents. Very deep and powerful chant from a proud and true nation defending their land from invaders.
Honoring the courage of their ennemy they spared them from inevitable defeat and death. The Brittish would not return the honor later when the roles were reversed.

Category:

Entertainment

Tags:

• Zulu
• warrior
• chant

[HarryHook]

Pure Hollywood. The Zulu salute never happened.and the Brits didn't sing 'Men of Harlech'. Far from inevitable defeat and death - the Zulus major mistake was to disobey Cetshwayo's orders concerning attacking troops in fortified positions. Exhausted , the Zulus finally retreated when they saw Lord Chelmsford's column approaching. The roles WERE reversed - at Isandhlwana. In their battle frenzy, the Zulus stabbed to death every living creature. Even tins of bully beef were perforated.

[PHONE275]

great clip from a classic film.

[StrangerYouKnow]

Just appreciate the movie. None of you sound smart anyhow.

[agamemnonn1]

@HarryHook Man everyone blames Hollywood, even if it isn't a Hollywood production (such as this movie).

[sexymalcom1970]

yeah zulus and no other african warriors sing a saluting chant to their enemy, thats just a stupid idea. If youve got the lungs to sing youve got the lungs to fight.

[Silverfox0984]

@Gommerell The Boers, or "Kommandos" as you prefer to call them, were under the protection of the British as per the Anglo-Dutch Treaty. If anything you are suggesting that the ones who started the war were the Boers by instigating attacks on the Zulus who then retaliated against them.

Either way, the war was not the 'fault' of the British, was it, which was exactly my original point.

[Silverfox0984]

@Gommerell I believe i have ended our discussion as it is detracting from it's original point. Someone made the incorrect assumption that he felt the British were 'wrong' to invade Zululand. I pointed out the British didn't 'invade' Zululand as they were attacked by the Zulu's first. Reasonings, gains, losses, ultimations and purpose can be argued either way but the simple fact remains; the Zulus were attacking colonists and Boers and the British told them to stop, hence the conflict.

[Gommerell]

@Silverfox0984 You just see things in terms of Black and White , I see shades of Grey

 Attacking individual farmers was an effective strategy , especially if the farmers were away on a "Commando " raid themselves .Knowing that their homesteads were indanger would force the m to disperse quicker as opposed to charging the Commando head on and getting wiped out by rifles agaisnt cowhide shields . What would you do @Silver if the roles were reversed ?

[Silverfox0984]

@Gommerell So you believe a perceived provocation in the mindset of the Zulu's had of the British presence is a more justifiable reason for laying the blame with the British rather than the acts of murder, rape and violence the Zulu's committed against what were effectively farmers?

And on that note, i shall end this pointless discussion with you sir.

[Gommerell]

@Silverfox0984 Did Sir Bartle Frere not make an ultimatum to the Zulus , of 20 points . effectively asking them to disband or be invaded ? The British were keen on the resource wealth of Africa , they could not have that jeopardised by a hostile native army 60,000 strong , So they provoked the War .

You could say that when two warlike races touch borders then war is inevitable .

[Silverfox0984]

@Gommerell Point it the British did not bring about the events of the Zulu War. The borders between the Zulu Kingdom and British Colonies were agreed peacefully. Someone assumed the British were the aggressors in the Anglo-Zulu War. I pointed out this wasn't the case and that military action would have been avoided had the Zulu's agreed with Britain's demand to cease their attacks on the Boers and the Colonists.

African 'borders' were created BY Empire's, not around them. 

[Gommerell]

@Silverfox0984 So without being Aggresive the British Ended up with Africa from Cairo to the Cape ? The British Could not let any rival live around them , think the constant Wars of the Empire

Before every war you get "Border Incidents ", America is looking for pretexts to attack Iraq this very day , Britain is sending Ships to the Falklands as we speak . You have to have "Border incidents " to justify invading a Country .