Africans or people of African descent were to be seen in Victorian Britain in a variety of locations. Some were exhibited – today these people are sometimes called ‘human zoos’ – some accompanied employers who had been in Africa, others were employed in commercial ventures sometimes in substantial numbers as with the Somalis in Bradford in 1904 (page 073), often touring throughout Britain (the six Congolese in 1905-1907 as page 022). There were children (page 092) and others (page 207). Three Zulus were to be seen in 1851 (page 087), and in 1882 the deposed Zulu leader Cetshwayo and colleagues were in London where he successfully sought his restoration to the leadership of the Zulu kingdom (page 115). Thirteen Zulus came to Britain in 1852 and were noted, scornfully, by Charles Dickens. Their story and others including the six Congo pygmies has been told in Bernth Lindfors, ed., Africans on Stage: Studies in Ethnological Show Business (Indiana University Press, 1999).

In late April 1884 a fire broke out in the large department store founded by William Whiteley in Bayswater. The flames were visible for miles, and crowds poured into the area. The local Paddington, Kensington and Bayswater Chronicle reported the matter in some detail on 3 May 1884 (page 5). It noted the crowd contained ‘street singers, performing Zulus and other itinerant followers of London sights’. This almost casual mention deserves consideration. If they were genuine Africans whose public appearances were their sole way of earning a living, to be out and about in London would probably reduce their commercial value and the numbers of the ticket-purchasing curious. That applied to people who, whilst of African descent, were not Zulu. The minstrel shows performers who were usually whites in burnt cork/blackface would have no reason be wearing their make-up. So was the word ‘Zulu’ with a meaning that has escaped us all these decades later?

As noted on page 115 of this website, in the 1880s, due to the warfare in southern Africa and Cetshwayo’s delegation, numerous Britons had seen Zulus even if the editor of the Paddington, Kensington and Bayswater Chronicle had not. Their military successes rather like later visiting African groups including the Dahomey Warriors and the Somalis had led to curiosity and respect, so the word as used in 1884 was probably not offensive or negative. Perhaps London vernacular experts can explain?

—oOo—

I am indebted to Linda Stratmann’s Whiteley’s Folly – The Life and Death of a Salesman (Sutton Publishing, 2004, p 132) for her quote from the Paddington, Kensington and Bayswater Chronicle.