Originally Posted by Kralizec
He said, she said, obviously you need sources...
Re: What would non-racist criticism of South Africa look like?
He said, she said, obviously you need sources...
"Topic is tired and needs a nap." - Tosa Inu
Re: What would non-racist criticism of South Africa look like?
'Kay.
wikipedia
The Boer government later handed the men over to the British for trial and the British prisoners were returned to London.
[...]
Jameson was sentenced to 15 months for leading the raid, which he served in Holloway. The Transvaal government was paid almost £1 million in compensation by the British South Africa Company.
For conspiring with Jameson, the members of the Reform Committee (Transvaal), including Colonel Frank Rhodes and John Hays Hammond, were jailed in deplorable conditions, found guilty of high treason, and sentenced to death by hanging. This sentence was later commuted to 15 years’ imprisonment, and in June 1896, all surviving members of the Committee were released on payment of stiff fines. As further punishment for his support of Jameson, the highly decorated Col. Rhodes was placed on the retired list by the British Army and barred from active involvement in army business.
Being better than the worst does not inherently make you good. But being better than the rest lets you brag.
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Re: What would non-racist criticism of South Africa look like?
It was the actual raiders who were handed back to the British. Frank Rhodes, and some others, were at the time residents of the Transvaal republic (confusingly called 'South Africa') and members of the Reform Committee which campaigned for more immigrant (i.e. British) rights. The treason bit is because they colluded against the republic they were, at the time, residents of.
http://www.angloboerwar.com/books/70...-the-reformers
As for Prime Minister Salisbury: sounds to me like he was a well-intentioned man. He reluctantly sanctioned the actions against the Boers, largely advocated by people who didn't share his idealist motives. Rhodes was no longer a minister at that point, but still influential. Besides, his manner of thinking was hardly unique: Chamberlain, the colonial secretary, also believed in notions of Anglo-Saxon superiority and imperialism.In conclusion, he stated that he held the signatories of the letter to be directly responsible for the shedding of the burghers' blood at Doornkop, that he would therefore pass upon them the only punishment possible under Roman-Dutch law—namely death, and that whatever hope there might be in the merciful hearts of the Executive Council and in the President's great magnanimity, they should remember that in no other country would they have the slightest grounds for hope. The usual question as to whether there were any reasons why sentence of death should not be passed upon them having been put and the usual reply in the negative having been received, in the midst of silence that was only disturbed by the breaking down of persons in various parts of the hall—officials, burghers, and in the general public—sentence of death was passed, first on Mr. Lionel Phillips, next on Colonel Rhodes, then on Mr. George Farrar, and lastly on Mr. Hammond.
The concern about British migrant workers: I thought that would be an obvious conclusion, but here you go:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Boer_War
The city of Johannesburg sprang up as a shanty town nearly overnight as the uitlanders ("foreigners," meaning non-Boer whites) poured in and settled around the mines. The influx was such that the uitlanders quickly outnumbered the Boers in Johannesburg and along the Rand, although they remained a minority in the Transvaal as a whole. The Boers, nervous and resentful of the uitlanders' growing presence, sought to contain their influence through requiring lengthy residential qualifying periods before voting rights could be obtained, by imposing taxes on the gold industry, and by introducing controls through licensing, tariffs and administrative requirements. Among the issues giving rise to tension between the Transvaal government on the one hand, and the uitlanders and British interests on the other, were:
Established uitlanders, including the mining magnates, wanted political, social, and economic control over their lives. These rights included a stable constitution, a fair franchise law, an independent judiciary, and a better educational system. The Boers, for their part, recognised that the more concessions they made to the uitlanders the greater the likelihood–with approximately 30,000 white male Boer voters and potentially 60,000 white male uitlanders–that their independent control of the Transvaal would be lost and the territory absorbed into the British Empire.
Re: What would non-racist criticism of South Africa look like?
Regarding the concentration camps:
That they weren't extermination factories like the Nazi camps is hardly a compliment. The Boer camps had a mortality rate of about 25%, which is actually higher than the Soviet Gulag system. In a distinct system of camps for black prisoners, another 14.000 people perished (14%)
That it was still better than being left to starve, because British troops burned down your farms and stores, is even less of a compliment. You could argue that the Boers had it coming, for refusing to submit. My view is that if you wage an unprovoked war of agression and use a "submit or starve" strategy, the blood is on the agressors' hands.
I say "unprovoked" because I don't buy the pretext of "safeguarding the rights of British expats" anymore than I buy the recent Russian pretext for safeguarding Russian rights in Crimea or eastern Ukraine. The Afrikaners were a reactionary bunch and I don't approve of the way they treated the natives. But it's absurd to suggest that British' annexation of those territories, which culminated in concentration camps and an institutionally racist government, was some kind of humanitarian intervention.
Re: What would non-racist criticism of South Africa look like?
I would put a lid on that imho, it can't really be called consentration-camps as what we mean with that today. The Brits have been really harsh on Dutch settlers but a comparison is off imho. Some would love it to be, but nobody is innocent
Last edited by Fragony; 06-03-2016 at 15:54.
Re: What would non-racist criticism of South Africa look like?
It's what the word means, plain and simple. The term has been applied to a great many historical instances of mass-internment.
And technically speaking, the Nazi camps that were devoted purely to genocide are usually called extermination camps by historians - to distinguish them from forced labor camps, long-term internment camps and so on that the Nazis also used. Which are more in line with the historical definition of 'concentration camp'.
Re: What would non-racist criticism of South Africa look like?
Sadly most people, including those in here, know no difference between the terms. And the difference is extremely significant in intent and outcome, there is a chip on my shoulder for when some try to equate the British and Nazi empires for their use of camps.
Back on topic: It wasnt a humanitarian intervention because it wasnt an intervention at all, they attacked, the British defended then counter-attacked and when the Boers refused to surrender, instead running into the hills, the British did the only thing that has worked against a guerilla campaign before: scorched earth. By all rights the Boer government did ask for it simply by following through on thier ultimatum and declaring a war they could not win. Thier people suffered for thier leader's stupidity and would have suffered more if not for the British restraint.
Now the argument can be made that it was a matter of self preservation; a preemptive strike necissary to preserve their soverignty, but I find it hard to take seriously or justify. Not only because there is no guarentee thier fears of integration was justified, but because I do not consider thier soverignty on its own sacred. The Boers who had stayed in the cape colony werent killed or repressed, or even disenfranchised, in this case independance seems only valuable in terms of sentimentality and in that it let them keep treating blacks worse than the British. All this compounded by the inevitability of defeat.
Interesting, we appear to have conflicting accounts, all the more interesting as Frank Rhodes' own page supports your version.It was the actual raiders who were handed back to the British. Frank Rhodes, and some others, were at the time residents of the Transvaal republic (confusingly called 'South Africa') and members of the Reform Committee which campaigned for more immigrant (i.e. British) rights. The treason bit is because they colluded against the republic they were, at the time, residents of.
Last edited by Greyblades; 06-03-2016 at 16:36.
Being better than the worst does not inherently make you good. But being better than the rest lets you brag.
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Re: What would non-racist criticism of South Africa look like?
Liknk is dead, rules
Re: What would non-racist criticism of South Africa look like?
We must all rememeber: when your country is pitched against a greater opponent you must surrender to avoid your people suffering. Finland in 1939 should have done it, see how well it worked with Czechoslovakia in 1938.
Hear all ye people: independence is a sentimental kink. Stay in thraldom hoping for the mercy of the invaders.
As for the Boers: how could they envisage they would be treated so nice? A curious thought: perhaps it was so because of the Boers' staunch resistance. Had they been meek and submissive, their further destiny within the empire could have been more grievous.
Last edited by Gilrandir; 06-04-2016 at 14:38.
Re: What would non-racist criticism of South Africa look like?
What dominions decided to do was always their business. What they'd been doing prior to being made dominions have little bearing on what they do afterwards. Contrast how the London government dealt with South Africa and Australia. Or rather, don't contrast them, as in both cases the London government didn't have anything to do with the internal government of these territories. Being dominions, they did as they willed.
Re: What would non-racist criticism of South Africa look like?
When your country is pitched against a greater opponent and all they ask for is for you to stop being a dick you must stop being a dick to avoid your people suffering for your right to be a dick.
That's such an absurd misinterpritation I must ask if you are even trying anymore?Hear all ye people: independence is a sentimental kink. Stay in thraldom hoping for the mercy of the invaders.
National independance for it's own sake bears no moral high ground to submission to a conqueror who will treat you as well as your own nation would. Independance might be worth fighting for when against a brutal regime, but when you know you fight an opponant willing to treat you well and you know fighting will cost uncountable lives and holds no chance at victory, it becomes worthless. Such a fight is what the boers fought.
"How could they envisage"? I just said the boers that stayed behind were treated fairly, unless the boers cut off all communication with thier fellows they would have known that too.As for the Boers: how could they envisage they would be treated so nice? A curious thought: perhaps it was so because of the Boers' staunch resistance. Had they been meek and submissive, their further destiny within the empire could have been more grievous.
Or are you saying how could they envisage being treated so nice in the war? They couldnt beyond noticing a trend in recent british millitary history to not kill the civilians but in that case it is made worse: they were willing to let thier people starve instead of relinquishing the moral lowground.
Last edited by Greyblades; 06-04-2016 at 15:51.
Being better than the worst does not inherently make you good. But being better than the rest lets you brag.
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Re: What would non-racist criticism of South Africa look like?
How does it bear on the war with Boers and the value of independence?
I see. The greater the opponent is, the more right he has to ask you to do something. Otherwise a war. Russia 2014 logics.
Opponents always say they will treat you nice, but how do you know they will? And if you don't fight and they become nasty after you have welcomed them? Other people who value independence more will call you a collaborationist. An evil name to bear for the rest of your life.
Are you speaking of the XIX century people living on the verge of Oekumene among the savages or of your contemporaries who can avail themselves of the Internet or libraries? Or do you consider Boers able to trace recent British military history by other means than grapevine which is of questionable reliability?
As for letting your own people starve:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Leningrad Should the Soviets have relinquished that too?
Wars are about people dying. The belligerents do whatever they consider right here and now. As for the hindsights, no one put it better than the famous Georgian writer Shota Rustaveli: "Everyone imagines that he is a strategist looking at the battle from the distance".
Re: What would non-racist criticism of South Africa look like?
...Britain asked for civil rights to be extended, russia takes a piece of land without due warning. I think you are obsessed about crimea that's the only explanation I can imagine for why you keep equating everything to that...
Sorry, low blow.
The point is that the comparison is unfair as any british agitations for war were rather ineffective compared to the boers disenfranchising the utilanders and were generally made moot by the boers charging over the border within a day of thier demands reaching england, last I checked the ukraine did neither.
They got newspapers in the transvaal didnt they? Thier leaders were educated within some proximity to a library? Would it really be a stretch for them to notice while researching thier neighbour that whenever the british defeated their enemies in the XIX century they didnt generally round the civillians up and shoot them.Opponents always say they will treat you nice, but how do you know they will? And if you don't fight and they become nasty after you have welcomed them? Other people who value independence more will call you a collaborationist. An evil name to bear for the rest of your life.
Are you speaking of the XIX century people living on the verge of Oekumene among the savages or of your contemporaries who can avail themselves of the Internet or libraries? Or do you consider Boers able to trace recent British military history by other means than grapevine which is of questionable reliability?
That's not even taking into consideration the general rule that 19th century white europeans didnt treat eachother as bad as they treated other ethnicities.
If the soviets surrendered they'd have been systematically exterminated or enslaved. If the Boers surrendered all the difference would have been was a change in flag and government, and that's all that did happen after they finally gave up.As for letting your own people starve:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Leningrad Should the Soviets have relinquished that too?
Even a distant onlooker can recognise a hopeless war and a pointless cause.Wars are about people dying. The belligerents do whatever they consider right here and now. As for the hindsights, no one put it better than the famous Georgian writer Shota Rustaveli: "Everyone imagines that he is a strategist looking at the battle from the distance".
Last edited by Greyblades; 06-04-2016 at 21:45.
Being better than the worst does not inherently make you good. But being better than the rest lets you brag.
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Re: What would non-racist criticism of South Africa look like?
I don't know. You're the one who suggested that the intensity of the struggle between the Boers and the British was what gave the Boers their rights post-dominionhood. I'm suggesting that the struggle or lack of has little to do with how independent they could be post-dominionhood. Once they're a dominion, they can do whatever they like internally, whatever may have happened or not happened before they became a dominion.
The Boers could have looked at what was happening in Canada, in particular what the British were doing with the Quebecois. Not very much would have been the answer. Apparently one of the grievances of the Thirteen Colonies was that the victors had been too generous towards the defeated French, that the hostile French were being treated better than the loyalist British.
Re: What would non-racist criticism of South Africa look like?
Equating EVERYTHING? Now that's called exaggeration and overgeneralization.
As for the comparison, Russia also first ASKED Ukraine something (not to sign AA with the EU) then moved in to "assert its vested rights". So the difference I see is the timeframe which conditions details not the essence.
These are details which are symptomatic of the time when both episodes happened. You can't expect events of the XIXth century go along the same lines as in the XXIst. Yet the general pattern is the same: a big power believes that its citizens are oppressed by a smaller country and makes corresponding demands. If you don't like the Ukraine 2014 story, take the Czechoslovakia 1938 one.
People here are very much skeptical about the credibility of MODERN mass media and accuracy of MODERN books on history. The XIXth century ones deserve even less.
And also you think too high of the Boers' leaders imagining they were researching anyone or anything before laucnhing a campaign. They weren't so sophisticated politicians or strategists - something like pioneers in the Wild West of America. Would you expect much political consideration in either? Both were acting "here and now", on the spur of the moment.
Once again: they didn't know it would happen that way, and I'm sure their propaganda presented it the way you describe the future of the besieged Leningrad.
A distant one can. The one in the thick of things - not always. That's what Rustaveli meant.
Both suggestions will stay suggestions since neither can be proved.
Perhaps they were inspired by what happened a century before in the USA, where a powerful nation was defeated by local passionarians.
Re: What would non-racist criticism of South Africa look like?
Fair enough I suppose. Suffice to say that the Brittish were really cruel and the conditions inhuman. The Boers weren't exactly a pushover and that greatly annoyed them, they weren't used to this type of warfare, numbers aren't everything. It's worth digging in on how the Boers fought, pretty cunning, and confusing.
Re: What would non-racist criticism of South Africa look like?
The camps were bad because of neglect and they improved after the Fawcett commision confirmed the poor conditions to the government back home. It was not cruelty that drove it.
Yes it is exaggerated, but not by much as you are habitual in comparing everything to recent ukranian history.
Did ukraine attack first or disenfranchise those russians in the crimea?
Even though the oppression was real? The utilanders were indeed disenfranchised and the boers had refused to relent.These are details which are symptomatic of the time when both episodes happened. You can't expect events of the XIXth century go along the same lines as in the XXIst. Yet the general pattern is the same: a big power believes that its citizens are oppressed by a smaller country and makes corresponding demands.
Are you really telling me that the nazi's concerns over the treatment of the germans in czechoslovakia were legitimate? Or the russians in crimea?If you don't like the Ukraine 2014 story, take the Czechoslovakia 1938 one.
Yes I suppose it is too much to expect that a nation's diplomatic corps would have learned about a neighbouring country's foreign policy, or that the educated politicians were even vaguely familiar with recent events.
And also you think too high of the Boers' leaders imagining they were researching anyone or anything before laucnhing a campaign. They weren't so sophisticated politicians or strategists - something like pioneers in the Wild West of America. Would you expect much political consideration in either? Both were acting "here and now", on the spur of the moment.
Once again: they didn't know it would happen that way, and I'm sure their propaganda presented it the way you describe the future of the besieged Leningrad.
I am being sarcastic.
The boers should have at least expected to be treated better than the Zulu 20 years before who after being defeated suffered no retaliation or mistreatment by the british government. Some of the boers should have been at least familiar with the event considering they were involved heavily in the war and several served in the region as mercenaries in the zulu civil war 4 years after (caused by british trying to restore the last king to his throne, politics).
True, I do not doubt that that is the reason the boer soldiers fought, but is it really so unreasonable to expect better from thier political class?A distant one can. The one in the thick of things - not always. That's what Rustaveli meant.
...Wait, what am I saying, of course it is.
Last edited by Greyblades; 06-05-2016 at 21:41.
Being better than the worst does not inherently make you good. But being better than the rest lets you brag.
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Re: What would non-racist criticism of South Africa look like?
I kinda wonder wether or not intentional cruelty was involved, the mortality-rate was really high. Neither of us Dutch/English should have been thereprobably, we would usually not do that to eachother.
Last edited by Fragony; 06-05-2016 at 21:55.
Re: What would non-racist criticism of South Africa look like?
Some people on these boards and in the Kremlin think that certain actions of the post-Maidan authorities presented a real threat to Russians and Russian-speakers in Ukraine which kinda gave Putin an excuse to proceed in the way he did.
As for the Boers, I believe the uitlanders issue was just a pretext (much as the phantom fears of Russian speakers in Ukraine or Germans in Czechoslovakia). The real cause of the war was the British empire's expansionism and Boers' sensing it wouldn't stop even if uitlanders were treated fair.
Boers' DIPLOMATIC CORPS and EDUCATED POLITICIANS? I think you impart them with the turn of the century European polish they didn't have. You expect too much from eventually a frontier nation of settlers and farmers. Living out of sight and out of mind doesn't promote education or political skills. Especially when all "foreign policy" they had was dealing with the savage and hostile natives.
Re: What would non-racist criticism of South Africa look like?
Similar time period Australia had future U.S. leaders working its mines and the Australian Consitution was influenced by the U.S. civil war.
So don't underestimate young nations long range influences too easy nor their political skills.
Our genes maybe in the basement but it does not stop us chosing our point of view from the top.
Pape for global overlord!!
Re: What would non-racist criticism of South Africa look like?
Particularly as South Africa's post-Boer War leaders were exclusively Afrikaners. The Boers were politically capable enough to dominate the future South Africa's political class.
Re: What would non-racist criticism of South Africa look like?
I do not believe so myself.
I beleive the cause was the clash of two uncompromisable desires: First a Boer desire to maintain independance that was so great as to condone disenfranchisement of immigrants in fear of a push for integration into a colonial empire, a fear inflamed by the previous attempt to annex them by Britain. The second being the British desire to protect it's citizens living abroad which was so strong that they had brought several nations to thier knees over the treatment of British individuals. Their ability to do so had been brought into question by the army's recent humiliations in the Zulu war: the British ability to project power beyond coastlines had been shown as potentially weak and the British felt they needed to compensate in case others were encouraged to take liberties with thier now rather numerous overseas citizenry.
Thus when the Boer desire for independance caused them to infringe on British desires to protect their people the war was basically inevitable. I beleive that it happening during a time of great insecurity for Britain is a large reason why they were annexed instead of just forced to enfranchise the utilanders, though colonial ambitions and a desire for resources were doubtlessly a factor for the decision. I just dont believe that ambition and greed were the cause for war, as the British government would not have been caught unprepared as they were in the initial boer invasion if they had unanimous desires for annexation.
The boers did have diplomatic contact with a few european states: particularly Germany, Britain and Portugal the owners of the surrounding colonies. There were boer students attending the Free University of Amsterdam and their president at the time, Paul Kruger, was known for being a shrewd short term politician though rather shortsighted, trying but failing to gain German support against Britain in the years before the war.Boers' DIPLOMATIC CORPS and EDUCATED POLITICIANS? I think you impart them with the turn of the century European polish they didn't have. You expect too much from eventually a frontier nation of settlers and farmers. Living out of sight and out of mind doesn't promote education or political skills. Especially when all "foreign policy" they had was dealing with the savage and hostile natives.
Cruelty among individuals in the war, probably. Cruelty in terms of tactics: absolutely, though unavoidable to limitations in technology and counter insurgency tactics. Cruelty in terms of the government and population's general desires and motivations, absolutely not.
The British desire to win was enough to support using scorched earth tactics and rounding up the locals into camps but it was not enough to condone extermination and when information that the camps were turning deadly became widespread the British government were driven both by popular sentiment and it's own moral standards into acting to prevent further death.
As for whether or not we should have been there, well, it's history. It would be interesting to consider if the Boers would have made the Trek from a duch cape colony when the netherlands abolished slavery itself. Would the lack of culture clash made up the difference between staying and going?
Last edited by Greyblades; 06-08-2016 at 00:36.
Being better than the worst does not inherently make you good. But being better than the rest lets you brag.
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Re: What would non-racist criticism of South Africa look like?
You didn't contradict what I said. Mostly. I see the chief agenda of the British as territorial expansion, subsuming all other considerations (including concerns for uitlanders). You believe those are separate issues. This is the only difference in our take on the issue.
Re: What would non-racist criticism of South Africa look like?
Well, the British did propose to the Boers an arrangement very similar to that of Quebec. Key difference being that Transvaal and the Orange Free State were independent republics at the time and had been previously recognised as such by treaty.
The entire reason these people left Cape colony was to get away from British rule. At the time of their departure Afrikaners did not have political representation. Property requirements meant that the right to vote, and the ability to stand for office, was almost entirely reserved for wealthy British colonists.
To the credit of the Brits they did give Cape colony near-universal suffrage in the 19th century, but that was after the Boers had already wandered off to establish their republics. The British also tried to pursue a policy of Anglicisation at first (in spite of the earlier promise to "respect the rights" of the Dutch colonists). The hostility of the Boers towards British encroachment was perfectly understandable. Granted, the abolition of slavery and the prospect of equal treatment for natives were unpopular, but there were plently of legitimate objections.
The rights of Uitlanders in Transvaal might seem a noble cause for war, but it strikes me as rather disingeneous. The core issue was the right to vote, and in the 19th century a broad franchise was a new development even in British territories. It would be like NATO issuing an ultimatum to Belarus to introduce gay marriage…this is 2016 afterall.
Or, from another angle, it would be like India or the Philipines issuing an ultimatum to one of the Arab Gulf states for their treatment of immigrant workers. Everybody recognises that there’s a serious issue underneath, but no country on Earth would seriously consider this a valid reason for war. And the abuses in the Gulf states are arguably even worse.
Last edited by Kralizec; 06-15-2016 at 23:18.
Re: What would non-racist criticism of South Africa look like?
A fair observation though I would counter by saying in terms of legality the boers were british subjects that had run off into uncharted teritory. Whenever this happened before the settlers would be reintegrated by force or otherwise when the homeland got around to catching up to them, the legality of boer independance was basically nil only legitimized by 50 years of the british not caring enough to chase after them.
You could easily stretch it to britain demanding a province to return to the fold and the complaints that it wasnt conforming to empire standards in treatment of british citizens was less to give the war legal backing (which by precident set by basically every colonial nation they already had, but ended u0 not needing) but to give it moral backing sufficient to keep those nations from interfereing, which it did.
Ultimately though, while the ultimatum might have been legally dubious the war was quite clear cut by virtue of the boers declaring war putting the legal responsibility upon their own shoulders to which they were heavily lacking in legitimacy.
Last edited by Greyblades; 06-16-2016 at 08:22.
Being better than the worst does not inherently make you good. But being better than the rest lets you brag.
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Re: What would non-racist criticism of South Africa look like?
Britain had extended diplomatic recognition to the Boer republics after it had lost the First Boer war, so that doesn't fly.
The British garrisons at the border were there to intimidate the Transvaal republic into accepting British demands. Dumb or not, the justification for a preemptive strike seems well founded (in hindsight, it certainly seems like a miscalculation)
I also object to your assertion that the way the British conducted the war was pretty standard fare. Two obvious examples that were already banned Hague Convention of 1899, and therefore war crimes:
#1 Attacking or bombing civilian infrastructure with no military purpose, and levelling entire towns (article 25)
#2 In the aftermath of #1, withholding rations for families of guerilla fighters that had not yet surrendered. This amounts to collective punishment. (article 50)
And yeah, a lot of these measures were controversial back in Britain. That is, once they had become publicly known, after the people who reported the abuses in the first place were widely ridiculed and accused of fraternizing with the enemy. Does that somehow mean that they don't count?
Last edited by Kralizec; 06-16-2016 at 14:38.
Re: What would non-racist criticism of South Africa look like?
Actually no, there were two agreements neither outright recognising the boer republic as a soverign nation only agreeing on internal autonomy and for the 4 years of the first agreement a suzerainty. Again the legality is moot what with the preemptive strike removing the British burden of legitimate cause for war
The border garrisons can be explained away as protecting against a beligerent neighbour. This is reinforced by the fact that the British government had resisted calls to reinforce them in the lead up to war so not to jepordise the negotiation process, a decision that would be counterproductive in a strategy of intimidation.
The scorched earth campaign had military purpose of starving out a force that had resorted to guerilla warfare and intentionally presented no conventional method of destruction.
The meaures dont count as abuses because they werent abuses; the intent to do harm upon civilians through the measures was absent from the British government and most of it's operatives in the region. Screwups lacking original intent amongst the perpritrators, which ran paralell to the same screwups happening in the region's military hospital; killing 14,000 british troops
I cannot seem to find any information clearing up why the concerns of hobhouse was initially dismissed; I just dont know if it was a coverup on the part of Alfred Milner or a legitimate failure of his to realize the conditions in the camps were indeed bad.
Last edited by Greyblades; 06-17-2016 at 00:17.
Being better than the worst does not inherently make you good. But being better than the rest lets you brag.
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Re: What would non-racist criticism of South Africa look like?
Transvaal was recognized as independent in the London Convention of 1884, which ommitted and superceded the "suzerainty" clause in earlier treaties. The Orange Free State had been recognized as early as 1854.
"Beligerent neighbour"? Now you're just making things up. They would not even have been negotiating in the first place without British threats of war.
Yes, they didn't just do it out of spite. Doesn't change the fact that it was against the rules of war at the time though.
There was insufficient food as it was, and the families of known guerilla fighters were penalized with even smaller rations than the rest. We would call that collective punishment nowadays, and it was illegal under the Hague Convention. That the Brits also unintentially cocked up a lot of other things doesn't remove the intent in this case.
And even if we ignore the selective distribution of food, we can divide criminal intent in two different kinds
1) direct intent, i.e. a desired consequense
2) oblique intent: that is, a consequense you know to be certain or at least probable, but nevertheless you proceed with your actions.
The scorched Earth policy was designed to deprive guerilla fighters, but it was known that it would also affect non-combatants. That was the whole rationale behind the "humanitarian camps". I find it hard to believe that Kitchener and the army staff had no idea, at all, how bad the camps were. For one thing, at its peak infant mortality was 6 out of 10 in one year. If the civilian deaths weren't desired or planned, that it was just a case of "could not be arsed to do anything about it" then that's still despicable, and arguably still intentional.
Re: What would non-racist criticism of South Africa look like?
A tendancy to shoot any neighbour not white is what we call beligerant, as is refusing to even negociate over the treatment of foriegn nationals in thier teritory unless forced to the table by military threat. Both the British and Boers had beligerent elements, only the boer had them be state supported.
Not after I just established they had the millitary purpose of supplying the guerillas. The British had orchestrated it (well, tried to) so it was only the Boer millitary were starved by the destruction of propety.Yes, they didn't just do it out of spite. Doesn't change the fact that it was against the rules of war at the time though.
There was insufficient food as it was, and the families of known guerilla fighters were penalized with even smaller rations than the rest. We would call that collective punishment nowadays, and it was illegal under the Hague Convention. That the Brits also unintentially cocked up a lot of other things doesn't remove the intent in this case.Fair enough. Considering the lack of knowledge of the conditions though I have to wonder if it was the government, the administrator or the operators of the camps were responsible for these acts. It is plausable that ignorance of the conditions included ignorance of the disciplinary acts.Article 50
No general penalty, pecuniary or otherwise, can be inflicted on the population on account of the acts of individuals for which it cannot be regarded as collectively responsible.
Illegal. certainly. Immoral? Less convinced, that would depend on whether the order was taken with the knowledge of the lack of food. If made with the belief that they were depriving them of, say, a sweet pudding or other largely irrelevant condoment in the hope that they would be less sympathetic in communications with the guerilla's cause, it is morally insignificant. If it was with the full knowlege that they would die faster, well more significant. Intent is extremely important here and I cant find anything saying either way.
I think that none of them had any idea at least initially, and if they did later they had no immediate control. I believe this for the reason that if they did have both they wouldnt have let the conditions kill thier own men at the same time.And even if we ignore the selective distribution of food, we can divide criminal intent in two different kinds
1) direct intent, i.e. a desired consequense
2) oblique intent: that is, a consequense you know to be certain or at least probable, but nevertheless you proceed with your actions.
The scorched Earth policy was designed to deprive guerilla fighters, but it was known that it would also affect non-combatants. That was the whole rationale behind the "humanitarian camps". I find it hard to believe that Kitchener and the army staff had no idea, at all, how bad the camps were. For one thing, at its peak infant mortality was 6 out of 10 in one year. If the civilian deaths weren't desired or planned, that it was just a case of "could not be arsed to do anything about it" then that's still despicable, and arguably still intentional.
It is entirely reasonable to believe that if and when they were made aware they found themselves powerless to influence thier condition: letting the civillians go free would be leaving them to die and supply was entirely reliant on how much of the already insufficient supplies reached the camps, which the British army was never 100% successful at stopping the boers disrupting. I dare say there were several occasions that British officers were forced to choose between feeding his men and sending food onwards to the camps, in that case I consider blame to lie on the ones responsible for the supply shortage in the first place.
Last edited by Greyblades; 06-17-2016 at 17:29.
Being better than the worst does not inherently make you good. But being better than the rest lets you brag.
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Re: What would non-racist criticism of South Africa look like?
Why care about it, we don't care, it was a nasty war. So was WW2 and we don't care about that either we like the Germans now
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks