True there Merchant!!!
Check out the following article it can enlighten you a bit!
Quote:
THE death of His Majesty King Xolilizwe Sigcawu, the monarch of the Xhosa, has highlighted a number of interesting and somewhat awkward questions.
It has also revealed the extent of the lack of knowledge on the part of many of the Xhosa-speaking people about their own history, culture and language. The result of such ignorance has been a slight distortion in the media of the true status of the king within the ranks of other monarchs in Eastern Cape.
It was inevitable that problems of tribalism would arise with the necessary recognition of the institution of traditional leadership in the new democratic order. Prospects of material benefits were also bound to complicate matters as various traditional leaders and hangers-on sought to elevate themselves by claiming positions for which they did not necessarily qualify.
I imagine it was partly due to apprehension over these problems that a number of seemingly enlightened Xhosa-speaking people did not acquaint themselves with their true cultural identity and traditional leadership. They did not want to be seen to be promoting tribalism when nonracialism was in vogue.
In our interaction as members of the Congress of Traditional Leaders of SA we do occasionally encounter instances of open and cra** tribalism. This manifests itself in the way in which delegates mobilise support for their preferred candidates for leadership positions. Merit and suitability are always pitted against tribal considerations and interests.
But as tribal leaders (I know a number of liberals are fond of derisively referring to us as such) we are quite comfortable to call each other by our tribal and clan names. We are able to confront our cultural diversity in a way that leads to an understanding of why certain of our groups follow customs that appear strange and anomalous to others. It is opportunities such as these which convince us that postcolonial Africa made a fatal mistake in seeking to sideline traditional leaders for fear of promoting tribalism.
The fact is that tribal leaders are better placed to fight and deal with the scourge of tribalism. Others can use it only to advance their political and economic ends. The conflicts ravaging a number of African states are testimony to this a**ertion. In SA there are whispers that we may be headed in that unsavoury direction.
The Transkei, as well as Eastern Cape in general, is regarded as a Xhosa territory. It is a Xhosa-speaking territory with a vast diversity of tribal groups, some of which are the Thembu (to which I belong), the Mpondo, the Mpondomise, the Bhaca, the Mfengu, the Bomvana, the Sotho and the Gcaleka.
When the Transkeian territories were forged into one administrative colonial entity — and later a political one — the traditional leaders of the area, as part of the system, learnt to interact with each other as such. The Xhosa language — the dialect originally spoken by the Rharhabe and the Gcaleka — had been codified by the missionaries and colonial administrators with the introduction of western education. All schools from Algoa Bay to the Mthamvuna River were required to teach that form of Xhosa. Easy communication among these groups was thus facilitated, even as each group continued to practise and follow its own unique customs.
In contrast to what King Shaka did in forging the Zulu kingdom, the Xhosa-speaking ones were given to promoting the creation of new kingdoms which, nevertheless, continued to be autonomous extensions of the original ones. Thus we had King Phalo of the Xhosa dividing his kingdom between his two sons, Gcaleka and Rharhabe, and King Faku of the Mpondo dividing his between Mqikela and Ndamase.
It was upon the death of the Thembu King Mthokrakra that his senior son Ngangelizwe left the original seat of power in Lady Frere, western Thembuland, to settle in Mthatha. His other son, Mathanzima, was left behind and practically allowed to rule the area without interference from the Thembu king Ngangelizwe. Mutual respect between the two brothers and deference to the senior by the junior were the hallmarks of the relations in the governance of the kingdoms.
This, broadly, is how we came to have six recognised kings in Eastern Cape. We do, of course, have one more kingdom, that of the Mpondomise, which is yet to be officially recognised. The British colonial government purported to abolish it on the grounds that the Mpondomise king of the time, Mhlontlo, was implicated in the killing of a magistrate, Mr Hope. But the line of succession has never been broken.
The other Eastern Cape tribes referred to either became part of the kingdoms in which they settled, or remained independent. Some of the latter retained cultural and sentimental ties with the kingdoms from which they had fled or which they had abandoned, such as the Bhaca from Zululand and the Sotho from Lesotho.
It is not conceivable, therefore, that we can ever see a reduction in the number of kings in the province. Attempts to do so would create more problems than they would solve. The current kings and their attendants cannot deport themselves as wiser than their ancestors, who were the authors of the legacy we have. The question of costs, important as it is, cannot be the decisive factor; it is a question of us either having traditional leaders, and bearing the consequences, or not having any.
Thus the late King Xolilizwe, while king of the Xhosa, was the ruler of the Gcaleka and not of all Xhosa-speaking people. This much he himself knew and could personally not have wanted it any otherwise. To seek to do otherwise, in his own name, would be mischievous.
As we bid farewell to this gentle giant of the Xhosa fighting stock, let us lower our shields also in honour of another king, His Majesty King Mayitja III of the Ndzundza Ndebele, who died last year. Chief Pathekile Holomisa, president of the Congress of Traditional Leaders of SA, writes in his personal capacity - BusinessDay.
