The thesis examines the History Workshop at the University of the University of the Witwatersrand in the context of radical South African historical scholarship. Not only is the History Workshop shown to mirror developments in radical scholarship but it is seen to guide and stimulate particular directions of research. The history of the Workshop is traced and its academic as well as popularising activities are examined. The Marxist social history approach, which was encouraged by the Workshop, is considered with reference to the social and political environment in which it emerged, and the international and local historiographical context. The issues, themes and concepts reflective of that approach are unpacked and some thought is given to their impact on Marxist categories of analysis. The History Workshop is seen to reflect and to have some influence on the direction pursued in labour and urban as well as rural history. In labour history, it pursued concerns of the social history of labour. Labour history was to take two different paths in the 1980's due partially to the influence of the Workshop group. Urban history grew rapidly as a field in the 1980's. The triennial Workshops reflected that development while the Workshop group particularly encouraged social history concerns within that field. The development of Marxist social history is seen in the change from an economistic approach in some of the papers presented at the first History Workshops to a broader social history emphasis in many of the later papers. The themes and issues arising out of urban Marxist social history are considered, as is their impact on the understanding of South Africa's urban history in general. The Workshop reflected and encouraged social history themes in rural history studies, which was another expanding field of research in the 1980's. These themes incorporated Africanist insight as well as an emphasis on oral history and local history. The Marxist social history studies, which were presented at the triennial Workshops, produced new insights into the rural history of South Africa which challenged earlier theories. The History Workshop with its materialist social history approach acted as a forum and as such, a catalyst for a radical scholarship in South Africa. The triennial workshops reflected what was happening in the terrain of Marxist social history. These Workshops, which attracted a large gathering of local, as well as foreign academics, legitimised that research and gave the Marxist social history scholars a certain standing within the local academic community. Although the study of South Africa's past may have similar directions in the late 1970's and 1980's without the presence of the Workshop, that presence gave a coherence and an added impetus to those routes of Marxist social history.

M.A. / Marxist historiography started during the late sixties and early seventies in response to the so-called "crisis" in the social sciences. The inability of these sciences to explain prolonged poverty and backwardness in areas of capitalist development and dependency in areas in close connection with the capitalist core, directed social scientists towards Marxist explanations. The conventional explanation of the implacability of capitalist development with racial stratification no longer rendered any explanation of Third World circumstances, since, especially in the South African case, the economy maintained high growth rates in spite of and under circumstances of sustained and intensified racial differentiation...

Thesis (M. A. (History)) --University of the North, 2000 / Refer to document

Thesis (MA)--Stellenbosch University, 2002. / ENGLISH ABSTRACT: This thesis investigates the possibility that there are other ways in which to represent the past, not just the traditional way as practised by historians. For instance, other forms such as historical fiction in the historical novel, and therefore, narrative, can act as an important conduit for conveying historical meaning. Through the examination of the historiographic metafiction of the South African writer, Etienne Van Heerden, this study has concluded that through a reading of both the author's belletristic and theoretical texts, readers interested in history and literature will gain some understanding of the problems that come with writing up the past. At the same time, they will gain some knowledge of a different way of writing about South African history, because the author portrays the historical events in a refreshing, vivid and imaginative way. However, it needs to be said from the outset that in no way is the writer of this thesis neglecting the merits of traditional history or advocating its abolition, which is, ultimately, the scientific way of representing the past and remains sacred and paramount for the historian, both amateur and professional. / AFRIKAANSE OPSOMMING: Hierdie tesis ondersoek die moontlikheid dat die verlede volgens ander sienswyses voorgestel kan word en nie slegs volgens die tradisionele sienswyses van historici nie. Daar is byvoorbeeld ander vorme, soos historiese fiksie wat in historiese novelles gebruik word, en daarom kan die narratief as 'n belangrike kanaal dien om historiese betekenis mee oor te dra. Deur 'n ondersoek van die historiese metafiksie van die Suid-Afrikaanse skrywer, Etienne van Heerden, kom hierdie studie tot die gevolgtrekking dat deur die lees van beide die skrywer se belletristiese en teoretiese tekste, lesers wat in die geskiedenis en literatuur belangstel, 'n begrip sal kry van die problematiek wat gepaard gaan met die skryf van geskiedenis. Terselfdertyd sal hulle 'n begrip kry van 'n alternatiewe skryf van die Suid-Afrikaanse geskiedenis, omdat die skrywer historiese gegewens in 'n verfrissende, helder en verbeeldingryke wyse oordra. Dit moet egter beklemtoon word dat die skrywer van hierdie tesis geensins die meriete van tradisionele geskiedskrywing negeer of die afskaffing daarvan voorstaan nie, aangesien die wetenskaplike voorstelling van die verlede kosbaar en van kardinale belang vir beide amateur en professionele historici bly.

The interpretations of the war of 1835 and the identity of the Fingo that were presented by the English settlers, have remained the mainstays of all subsequent histories. They asserted that the war of 1835 was the fault purely of 'Kaffir' aggression, that it was controlled by Hintza, the paramount chief, and that the ensuing hostilities were justifiable colonial defence and punishment of the Africans. The arrival of the Fingo in the Colony, it was claimed, was unconnected with the war. It was alleged that the seventeen thousand Fingo brought into the Colony in May 1835 were all Natal refugees who had fled south from the devastations of Shaka and the 'mfecane', and who had then become oppressed by their Gca1eka hosts. Both of these 'histories' need to be inverted. The 'irruption' of December 1834 was not unprovoked Rharhabe aggression, but the final response to years of the advance of the Cape Colony. Large areas of Rharhabe land had been expropriated, and their cattle regularly raided. Their women and children had been seized and taken into the Colony as labourers. The attacks were carried out by only a section of the Rharhabe on specific areas in Albany. The damage caused, and stock taken, was vastly exaggerated by the colonists. The Cape Governor, D'Urban, and British troop reinforcements arrived in Albany in January, and the Rharhabe were invaded two months later. D'Urban later invaded the innocent Gcaleka, took cattle, wreaked havoc and killed Hintza after he refused to ally with the Colony. The Fingo made their appearance at this moment. They were not a homogenous group. There were four categories within the term: mission and refugee collaborators (who were given land at Peddie and had chiefs appointed), military auxiliaries, labourers, and later, destitute Rharhabe seeking employment in the Colony. Only a small minority of the total Fingo were from Natal. The majority of the Fingo appear to have been Rharhabe and Gcaleka women and children, captured by the troops during the war and distributed on farms in the eastern districts to ameliorate the chronic labour shortage. Thus, instead of the year 1835 being one of great loss for the eastern Cape, as claimed by the settler apologists, it was a catalyst to the economic development of the area. All Rharhabe land was seized, to be granted as settler farms. Well over sixty thousand Rharhabe and Gcaleka cattle were captured and distributed amongst the colonists. The security threat of the adjacent Rharhabe and the independent Gcaleka was removed. And a large colonial labour supply was ensured.