What would non-racist criticism of South Africa look like?

[Gilrandir]

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.
Intent is extremely important here and I cant find anything saying either way.

You can't know about the intent unless you read all the minds of the then British government. Yet in the first sentence you speak of the abscence of intent with certainty, while in the second you claim that you found no evidence confirming or refuting the presence of intent.

Both the British and Boers had beligerent elements, only the boer had them be state supported.

An arbitrary statement.

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

All we care is nasty Muslims. Oh, and childless Mutti.

[Greyblades]

You can't know about the intent unless you read all the minds of the then British government. Yet in the first sentence you speak of the abscence of intent with certainty, while in the second you claim that you found no evidence confirming or refuting the presence of intent.

Intent can be inferred and known through words and actions. Joseph Chaimberlain by saying "if this succeeds it will ruin me. I'm going up to London to crush it" while sabotaging Cecil Rhodes' jamestone raid told me his intent wasnt to stop it for humanitarian reasons.

I expect the same.

An arbitrary statement.

Boers attacked on government orders, british attacked and were punished by government, not arbitrary.

[Fragony]

[QUOTE=Gilrandir;2053704


All we care is nasty Muslims. Oh, and childless Mutti.[/QUOTE]

good, you should. Well not you, but we

[Gilrandir]

Intent can be inferred and known through words and actions.

You can't know ALL the words said and ALL the actions taken more than a hundred years ago. And intent may change at some moment.

Boers attacked on government orders, british attacked and were punished by government, not arbitrary.

If ALL British attacks were punished by government, how could the British even wage a war? Any country at war doesn't lack bellicose top officials.

[Greyblades]

You can't know ALL the words said and ALL the actions taken more than a hundred years ago. And intent may change at some moment.

So I cannot say it was my way unless I find proof it is indeed so for absolutely everyone involved, even though all proof points to mine more than yours? And I have to do it for every moment of the war?

I choose to point to the default, which is a favourable and moral intent by both sides when it came to non combatants, present a supporting argument and say that unless you can present proof that both points otherwise and invalidates my proof; the default wins out. At least in my mind.

If ALL British attacks were punished by government, how could the British even wage a war? Any country at war doesn't lack bellicose top officials.

I meant on the strategic scale: The potentially war starting strikes from the British were done by rogue elements and were smothered in the crib by the British government, the war starting strike from the Boers was on the orders of the Boer government. And those belicose top officials didnt win out in Britain before the Boers attacked.

[Gilrandir]

So I cannot say it was my way unless I find proof it is indeed so for absolutely everyone involved, even though all proof points to mine more than yours? And I have to do it for every moment of the war?

I choose to point to the default, which is a favourable and moral intent by both sides when it came to non combatants, present a supporting argument and say that unless you can present proof that both points otherwise and invalidates my proof; the default wins out. At least in my mind.

My point is: war is a nasty business. When it starts, hate is brimming over. Intent is often influenced by immediate emotions. Sometimes the intent on the spot (which directed sunsequent actions) could have failed to reach the ears of top officials, whether in the colonial administartion, or in London. So it is wrong to postulate the existence of a never-changing intent which could be traced throughout the whole campaign. You can trace a general tendency but it doesn't cover all cases of dealing with non-combatants, especially if the latter show undisguised enmity to the enemies in uniforms. And that is true of any war.

I meant on the strategic scale: The potentially war starting strikes from the British were done by rogue elements and were smothered in the crib by the British government, the war starting strike from the Boers was on the orders of the Boer government. And those belicose top officials didnt win out in Britain before the Boers attacked.

I spoke not of the starting strikes, but of the war in general. On this scale both parties involved were relying on the "hawks"