MovieChat Forums > Zulu (1964) Discussion > Zulu is a horrible, racist film

Zulu is a horrible, racist film

posted 13 years ago by DeutschlandUberAlles
114 replies | jump to latest

It glamourises the mass slaughter of black people with only spears. The evil British invaded the black man's homeland and then they try to take the moral high ground over the Zulus defending their territory.

This is a nasty racist film, when you see racist propaganda like this it's no wonder half the world hates the British.

I'm British and if I wasn't British frankly after watching this I would hate the British too.

We live in more enlightened times now, but films like this are a sad reminder of what this country was once like. I hate how some people refer to this as "Best of British". I hope they're not suggesting slaughtering natives is "Best of British".

[–] normantater 9 years ago

The fact that Whites hold themselves to an impossibly high standard, is in and of itself as racist as it gets!!

[–] Heroforsale1959 9 years ago

The OP really knows Jack about history.

Si vis pacem, para bellum

[–] nickm2 9 years ago

I'm pretty sure the OP is pulling our collective legs.

Why can't you wretched prey creatures understand that the Universe doesn't owe you anything!?

[–] syntinen 9 years ago

Or was. It's more than four years ago, so the joke is getting old!

[–] nickm2 9 years ago

Well then...looks like we all 'fed the troll'.

Why can't you wretched prey creatures understand that the Universe doesn't owe you anything!?

[–] Heroforsale1959 9 years ago

If you don't realise that Zulu is an ANTI war film, then you are truly stupid. And please, if you think this movie "glamourizes" the Zulu conflict then you lack any idea of comprehension.

Si vis pacem, para bellum

[–] coleburg83 9 years ago

It's actually quite the opposite, politically correct even in some ways.

They omitted the black native troops abandoning the garrison when the Zulu showed up (over 200 of them) and some actually being shot by the British for running away. And instead made Bromhead look like an ignorant racist for criticizing their abilities.

And defended Zulu culture at several points.

-
You did just fine, Clarence. Now go get yo'self some hot cornbread!

[–] ronfirv 9 years ago

My dvd of the film does show the native contingent running from Rorke's Drift.

There was respect for the amaZulu at the time and indeed later by many quarters of British society. I am sure we admired their militarism. A most unfortunate little war.

[–] syntinen 9 years ago

It shows them running away, yes, but not because they're afraid of the Zulus; they go because their respected pastor tells them they will be going against the will of God and committing the sin of Cain if they stay. This was a script invention, inserted partly to bump up Witt's role in opposition to Chard and Bromhead but also to get the native levies out of the picture with a decent excuse for going, and not to make them look like a bunch of cowards.

[–] coleburg83 9 years ago

If I'm not mistaken, wasn't that just like a small group of native helpers and not 200+ native cavalry?

Instead they actually had a group of white cavalry come and refuse to stay. Not only did they omit the large number of native troops running when it started, they invented a replacement group of white troopers doing so instead.

-
You did just fine, Clarence. Now go get yo'self some hot cornbread!

[–] ronfirv 9 years ago

Native helpers? No, they were Basuto, warriors in their own right from their mountainous kingdom, now known as Lesotho, surrounded by SA.
The Caucasians who fled were mainly Boers, not all inclined to bend over backwards to aid a British regiment, and didn't one say they had their farms & families to protect as a first resort?
I rather suggest you read a bit more of British colonial history, such as it applies to this period in time.

[–] panzerboy39 (2) 5 years ago

They were Native helpers, levies......call them what you like, they hooked it all right.......

[–] ronfirv 9 years ago

@syntinen, And the good pastor was as drunk as a Lord! lol!

[–] syntinen 9 years ago

Surely at that point he was quite sober? As best I can remember it's only when he was locked up that he started on his bottle. Unless you're suggesting that he was the kind of alkie who is canned 24/7?

[–] ronfirv 9 years ago

Yes, that's what I was suggesting!
Do you remember when he was in the store, and before the Colour Sgt. entered to take out the mealie bags,he reached up onto a beam where he had hidden a brandy bottle. Moderate drinkers don't squirrel away their tipples!

[–] kellymariekitty 8 years ago

Errrr the guys at Rorkes drift were only making a bridge. They didn't ask for the 4000 zulus to declare war on them. They were there making a bridge to cross the stream. Also the zulus weren't killed with spears, the zulus had the spears!! They declared war on the soldiers. Also the ending of the film showed each side honouring the other.

Daft idiot, Stanley baker made sure it wasn't racist & showed how amazing and brand the zulus were to keep it anti racist.
Stanley baker was against racism etc

[–] ronfirv 8 years ago

Point of history - the British declared war on the amaZulu by marching into kwaZulu.
Not all of the soldiers at Rorkes Drfit were RE hence the initial conflict between Chard & Bromhead.

[–] panzerboy39 (2) 5 years ago

It portrays the very real event of 130 British soldier in the heroic defense of Rorke's Drift. And, if you weren't so damned ignorant, you'd know that the very same day, at Isandhlwana, over 800 British soldiers were massacred by the Zulu's spears. So much for "racist slaughter". And, again, if you weren't so damn ignorant, you'd know that the Zulu's themselves are guilty of ethnic cleansing, rape, and massacre of the Ndwandwe tribe. It is estimated that over 1 million of their tribe were killed by the Zulu's. Feel stupid yet? The heroic defense of Rorke's Drift is one of the very greatest military actions in the history of mankind, along with Thermopylae. And ending, what the hell is with your terribly Imperial Deutschland Uber Alles name? i thought you were A) British and B) Anti-Imperialist?

[–] Foster (878) 2 years ago

Hahahahahahahahahahahaha

Well the British have ALWAYS been very racist, and antisemitic

[–] fawltybasil (249) 2 years ago

Like every country then.

[–] Foster (878) 2 years ago

Better than some --- worse than others --- Do you have a point ??? Doubtful

[–] fawltybasil (249) 2 years ago

Worse than which countries?

I'm fascinated by hyperbole by anonymous posters.

[–] Foster (878) 2 years ago

You're the one that likes to judge everyone, and everything you tell me??? Let me guess you're Anti-American So the USA would top your list

[–] fawltybasil (249) 2 years ago

OP says Zulu is a racist film. You pop and say all British have always been very racist. I say racism exists everywhere, which is just a sad fact of life. You seem to think some countries are less racist but can't say which, and now I'm anti - American?

You seem to have realised you've made yourself look silly and are desperately flailing around like a child.

What makes it even funnier is that you're a thin skinned American who insults other posters on other boards and who seems to think John Wayne wasn't a racist just because he mixed with a couple of black people on a film set.

Marion Morrison was very much a racist.