Talk:Piet Retief

Murder or Assassination?
Is his death considered murder or assassination? Socrates2008 ( Talk  )   22:37, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

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.

ManicParroT (talk) 19:55, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Or if he was that he violated it as king.Babakathy (talk) 10:07, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 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)

The signed agreement
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.

Tebello TheWHAT!!?? 17:56, 24 August 2009 (UTC)


 * 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)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071127134949/http://www.warthog.co.za/dedt/tourism/trek/natal/wood.htm to http://www.warthog.co.za/dedt/tourism/trek/natal/wood.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 23:17, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Death
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)