Talk:Paramount chief

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Merge?

I merged chef supérieur into this article, but Fastifex undid the merge. I'm not sure why, though he/she called the merger "messy" in the edit summary. At any rate, per Wikipedia:Use English, I see no reason to keep chef supérieur separate simply because it was the term used by the French and Belgians. — BrianSmithson 21:45, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

• You seem to be under the impression that both terms were merely generic terms, but besides such informal use, and more to the point, they have been official titles, which are simply not interchangeable but each belong is specific colonizing powers' legal systems, it would be rather like renaming all earls as counts, every parliamentery upper house senate... Nothing is less encyclopaedic then such simplisms Fastifex 07:08, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

On the contrary, we have one article on monarchs and another on nobility; pretty broad categories and, by your definition, not very encyclopedic. I really don't see the problem in having one article about chiefs who are higher ranked than other chiefs, regardless of what they are called in different languages. My particular area of interest is Cameroon, which has had German, French, and British overlordship. Still, English-language books on Cameroonian history translate all of these terms (chef supérieur, oberhäuptling) as paramount chief. If that's how African history scholars are doing things, why should we split hairs and be different?

I'm not discounting that there are differences between, say, an oberhäuptling in Cameroon and a chef supérieur in Benin. But the concept is the same, and should there be enough difference to warrant it, a separate article can be spun off about Chefs supérieurs in Benin or Parmaount chiefs in Cameroon, per the guidelines at Wikipedia:Summary style. I just don't see the need to do so right now. — BrianSmithson 16:19, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Anyone? Fastifex seems to be ignoring me, so I'll remerge tomorrow unless someone comments. — BrianSmithson 16:53, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

It looks to me as though they are synonyms with different colonial histories- I am in favor of the merge, although I suggest the difference in application be specified. TriNotch 18:47, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Fastifex simply missed Brian Smithson's comment (because of a long and active watchlist), but sees only more crooked reasoning in it- I compared Earl and Count because they are at equal level (and translated as identical -if translated- in just about every language, including Latin, which was often more authoritative then the native languages in feudal times), Monarchy and Nobility just overlap; and while we do have an article on these subjects, which clearly attract far more attenton then chiefships, we ALSO have hosts of different articles on various specific monarchic and other noble titles (generally well beyond stub-stage; there are even categories for each; I've contributed to many) and even on subset notions or titles such as peerage and victory title, while the main articles concentrate on generalities. I'm not opposing a general treatment IN ADDITION to articles on specific titles, insofar as there is enough material for each to be more then stubs, but if you write one don't put it under one specific title's name, that's plain confusing and hard to find, but rather as in section on a general page (e.g. Tribal Chief) and refer to each from each specific title. Furthermore I believe some titles, including Paramount Chief, have got new official uses in some post-colonial states, at least in Africa. Fastifex 06:57, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Assumptions of page & Wiki use dubious

The term paramount chief (and its analogues in other European languages) ought to be restricted to the colonial period in Africa. British usage of the term was specifically enforced to avoid using the term king, it being said that "there is only one king in the British Empire." However, in many or most cases, prior to colonization, the rulers of the territories in question were referred to as kings in English, translating a wide variety of local titles. Another purpose of the creation of paramount chief as an official title was to lower the status of entire indigenous political systems and hierarchies, so that in southern Africa a paramount chief could fall under the authority of a resident commissioner (as in Swaziland, Basutoland [Lesotho] and Bechuanaland [Botswana], or of a district commissioner (titles varied) in the Union of South Africa.

Retrospective application of the term to independent African polities prior to colonization is anachronistic, and its application across Wikipedia is inconsistent. For example, compare and contrast the "List of Kings of Swaziland" to the "List of Zulu Kings" entries. These were similar, interacting, rival and in some ways related precolonial kingdoms. The indigenous names for their male rulers were cognates -- Ngonyama in isiZulu, Ngwenyama in siSwati, both meaning "Lion" but in a distinctive way from the more common term for the animal "ibhubesi"; the two languages are mutually intelligible and under the British isiZulu was in fact used as the official African language in Swaziland for courts and schools.

In the Swaziland list in Wikipedia, all of the precolonial kings are referred to in part or exclusively as paramount chiefs, the term king referring only to King Sobhuza II (called "paramount chief" by the British from 1922-1968) during the last 14 years of his long reign, 1968-1982, and to the present king, Mswati III, beginning in 1986. Yet in all British (also Boer and Portuguese) official dealings prior to colonization in 1903, Swazi rulers were called kings, and during throughout the long regency of Labotsibeni Mdluli in Sobhuza II's youth (he succeeded his father as an infant) from 1899-1922, the British called her the Queen-Regent. So in fact Swaziland actually only ever had one paramount chief, Sobhuza II, who always contested the derogatory title as part of denying the legitimacy of colonization.

In the Zulu list, on the other hand, all of the Zulu rulers are called kings, including a great many who were the rulers of a much smaller single chiefdom than the Zulu kingdom which incorporated over 100 such chiefdoms when it formed around the turn of the 19th century. The term is also applied to Dinuzulu (son of Cetshwayo, the last independent Zulu king) and his son Solomon, although the British colonial and later South African governments did not recognize either as even paramount chiefs, treating them instead for political reasons as merely the heads of the Zulu clan, despite widespread popular recognition by ordinary Zulu and Zulu chiefs of their royal status. It is also applied Cyprian Bhekuzulu and Goodwill Zwelithini, who South Africa did recognize as royal, but I believe did not allow the actual title of king until well into Zwelithini's reign, when it suited apartheid policy that aimed to spin off an independent KwaZulu state (along with other bantustans) in order to deny Zulu people South African citizenship.

Thus even if one wanted to argue that "paramount chief" could be treated as an external analytical term in social science, that seeks to follow colonial precedent in treating a "chief over other chiefs" as something different than a king, which in fact does not reflect any common current scholarly usage and in my view has dubious merit, in fact that is not how Wikipedia treats it. Instead it hopelessly confuses any such analytical argument by mixing it up with uses of it as an official political title (along with post-colonial kingship), and is not only anachronistic but inconstent and incoherently arbitrary in applying it or the term king in precolonial situations involving polities of very different scales.

My view is that the term parmount chief should be restricted to colonial situations in which it was an official title, and concomitantly, that the titles used by other colonial powers in other languages should be handled separately, especially since despite practical on the ground similarities the theories about the relationships of indigenous political authorities to the colonial states were markedly different -- if as in the current article paramount chief is to be associated with indirect rule, it makes no sense to include offices in colonial systems which did not use that concept. Ngwe

The problem with your idea is that the term is still in use in Africa. I found references to its current use in Sierra Leone, Namibia, Uganda, Zambia, Ghana, Botswana, and even the non-African nations of Fiji and New Zealand. — BrianSmithson 09:09, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, fair enough, strike the colonial only and extend it into the present (though n.b. not everywhere, e.g. not used in Swaziland anymore, or for Zulu, not sure of other peoples in S. Africa). The uses in the interesting links you provide pretty clearly reflect the extension of colonial bureaucratic structures and terms into the post-colonial era, a widespread phenomenon. My main concerns are a) unjustified retrospective projection of the term into precolonial times, b) confusion of use as an official term with use as an analytic/descriptive term, and c) inconsistent usage within Wikipedia. Ngwe

I agree that the Wikipedia use of the term (and related terms, like Chef supérieur) is quite confused. I've been trying to follow the practices used in my sources for writing articles such as Charles Atangana and Young King William. I unfortunately don't have the background knowledge necessary to sort out the bigger problem. — BrianSmithson 10:42, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

In Zambia the Paramount Chiefs of the Bemba, Lozi and Eastern Lunda were derived from the Mulopwe of the Luba via the Lunda Kingdom of Mwaant Yav, both now in DR Congo and ideally should be treated together with them in the same article, but not possible if chefs supérieurs are kept as a separate article. The latter seems to be a term used in colonial Africa, if only there, why not treat it as subheading under paramount chiefs in Africa, include the point about why colonial powers didn't translate the position as 'king', and list the Francophone chefs supérieurs here. Rexparry sydney 10:59, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth, a book I'm reading on Rapa Nui (Island at the End of the World by Steven Fischer) calls the ruler the Paramount Chief. It makes sense because the leaders of each clan/tribe were ariki, while the ruler of the island was the "true chief" ariki mau, or "chief of the land" ariki henua. Fishal 20:01, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Foreign word conventions?

Someone recently change my placement of the SiSwati word ngwenyama (the term usually now translated as "king" in English before 1903 and after 1968, and the one the British translated as "paramount chief" during their colonial rule) in italics, to placing it in quotation marks. Putting non-English words in italics is a widespread editorial convention for English-language texts, for which I have a personal preference in this situation. However, if there is a Wikipedia convention to use quotation marks, I will readily accede. Can anyone shed light on whether this is just a matter of preference between me and the other editor, or if there is actually a Wikipedia-specific convention? Thanks Chris Lowe (talk) 02:16, 1 May 2008 (UTC)