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

Greyblades

05-29-2016, 18:16

We should have returned the boers to holland, they had developed too much bad blood with the native africans and were too proud to shed the identity and become British. When they were granted independance the fear of retaliation fueled the continued oppression of the black population, fears that were legitimized in their eyes with the fall of Rhodesia.

That blood defines the dynamic between whites and blacks in south africa, through its history a large scale retaliation against the whites have only been averted through the brutality of apartheid and later the influence of (and respect for the ideas of) Mandela, whose ability to forgive was, I believe, borderline messianic.

Now Mandela is dead we can only hope that the cultural memory of arpartheid fades faster than the influence of Mandela lest they risk ending up with Mugabe 2.0. Considering that repatriation is what Mugabe did and largely responsible for the famines zimbabwe faced, Mandela is likely spinning in his fresh grave.

Fragony

05-30-2016, 04:52

No surprise given that they forcefully prevented the others from acquiring it for decades.

You can say that without being unfair, but look at Zimbawe, used to be rich
Greyblades, it doesn't really is an an incentive to become brittish if you are put into a concentration-camp. I think most ex-Dutch would love to come back to the Netherlands really. Not sure where this is going. The Boers have a pretty good reason to dislike the Brittish, and vica versa. Welcome back anyway in the Netherlands as far as I care.

Husar

05-30-2016, 08:58

Because it lost the war.

For all we know, the people(s) that inhabited South Africa when Europeans came could have genocided/expelled previous populations living there (who in turn could have genocided/expelled yet earlier populations), meaning that the land wasn't "theirs" in the first place. That's not even considering the ethics of claiming uninhabited land for yourself.

All to say that it is not necessarily as black and white as you present it, and that lots of evidence of 'crimes' may be missing because they happened during times where little or no history was recorded.

So what? Whites lost the Apartheid...

Fragony

05-30-2016, 09:31

So what? Whites lost the Apartheid...

And who's losing everything, I know it's not a very popular thing to say, but the apartheid wasn't all that bad. Absolutily racist but also full of opertunities that are now lost. The truth commision was humanity at it's best, but it's not enough for some. I also think the Boers should return to their homeland as South-Africa isn't safe anymore.

I wonder what people think about Mandela after this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d5TD2HpXcH0

Gilrandir

05-30-2016, 09:56

If someone acquires something during a criminal act, do they always get to keep it?
Or are we arguing now that the Apartheid and everything done under it was technically legal and therefore everything is perfectly fine now?

After a great span of time has elapsed and several generations of the inhabitants have died out their heirs consider the land their own, no matter how legal/illegal had been its acquisition. For example, Crimea - it was (first) annexed by Russia in 1783, but modern Russia claims it to have ALWAYS been HISTORICAL Russian land. The longer something is kept, the more the owners consider it their own.

I think most ex-Dutch would love to come back to the Netherlands really.

I also think the Boers should return to their homeland as South-Africa isn't safe anymore.

Do THEY see it that way? Do you think they still associate themselves with the Netherlands? It is something like saying that all Irish Americans should return to Ireland and all blacks - to Africa.

People who live somewhere now seldom associate themselves with the country of their ancestors to such a degree as to move back and shout: "Now I'm home at last!" I think that for most Boers whose greatgreatgreat....grandfathers came to South Africa 400 years ago the Netherlands is just another name on the map, nothing more.

Fragony

05-30-2016, 10:07

No I don't think they see it that way, the Boers only share our language, although a bit different.

Gilrandir

05-30-2016, 10:24

No I don't think they see it that way, the Boers only share our language, although a bit different.

So they might as well head for any other country they fancy if they feel they can't stay home any longer.

Fragony

05-30-2016, 10:42

So they might as well head for any other country they fancy if they feel they can't stay home any longer.

Who says they have a home, look up 'white poors' in google. They are better off here and should just come back where they belong. We throw money around everywhere on useless things.

Viking

05-30-2016, 10:43

So what? Whites lost the Apartheid...

You were the one invoking justice, not me.

Gilrandir

05-30-2016, 12:46

Who says they have a home, look up 'white poors' in google.

If they were born there and their parents, and their parents' parents and so on, South Africa IS their home. Same as the USA is the home of Afro-Americans.

They are better off here and should just come back where they belong.
You have just agreed they don't associate themselves with the Netherlands (nor any other country), so how can they belong anywhere else? :dizzy2:

Greyblades

05-30-2016, 12:59

You can say that without being unfair, but look at Zimbawe, used to be rich
Greyblades, it doesn't really is an an incentive to become brittish if you are put into a concentration-camp. I think most ex-Dutch would love to come back to the Netherlands really. Not sure where this is going. The Boers have a pretty good reason to dislike the Brittish, and vica versa. Welcome back anyway in the Netherlands as far as I care.
Yes we should have let them stay to starve with thier burning farms instead of attempting to keep them alive by putting them at the mercies of 19th century logistics and sanitation.

The boers started a war they could not win to protect their right to deny their utilanders the vote and right to treat their black neighbours bad enough to make 19th century europe cringe. They died in those camps because their leaders decided to wage a guerilla campaign beyond the point of sanity.

The standard response to guerilla tactincs was scorched earth, it was British sensibilities that put the civillians into camps to prevent them all starving and when the civillians started to succumb to camp diseases the boers kept fighting the hopeless war regardless. When the British stopped admitting new boers into the camps due to public outcry back home at their condition the guerillas found they now had to provide for their own people. They promptly surrendered.

The boers were not the jews and the british were not the nazis, no matter how much the current post colonial thought might wish you to think so.

Fragony

05-30-2016, 13:13

I often screw up when I just think something. But I am pretty sure especially the urban poor will find a better place here. It are the white poor that are being discriminated now, no welfare, no medical-care. I understand why that came to be, the Boers have been cruel and are notorious for being mercenarries who will do anything. Not just the Dutch Afrikaner, the English ones as well. History between the Boers and the English is also rather complicated, a very vicious war was fought between the Dutch and the English in South-Africa.

Husar

05-30-2016, 17:55

I also think the Boers should return to their homeland as South-Africa isn't safe anymore.

A country full of poor, uneducated people who are not under constant police surveillance is not safe?
Shocking...

You were the one invoking justice, not me.

Yeah, shocking.

Fragony

05-30-2016, 18:07

A country full of poor, uneducated people who are not under constant police surveillance is not safe?
Shocking..

The whole continent is a nightmare what's it to me. I wish them nothing but the best but let's be realistic. Africa should be the richest continent of the world and it's not. If I you think I am hinting at racism yes, you aren't wrong if you do. I make no secret out of thinking whites are just smarter.

AE Bravo

05-30-2016, 20:33

The Org is the only place where you can normally get away with making Ann Coulter look like MLK compared to your views.

So the whites are the master race, Mandela was nothing but a terrorist, and the dumb darkies interrupted the masterful efforts at developing in Africa by the masters. It's not the racial struggle per se, it's that one of them was dumber.

Keep rolling that tape wer shaffen das mutti theresa the plump farmhorse.

Greyblades

05-30-2016, 22:11

The Org is the only place where you can normally get away with making Ann Coulter look like MLK compared to your views.

Hence why it's still worth a damn.

Fragony

05-31-2016, 05:02

Gilrandir

05-31-2016, 10:44

Yes we should have let them stay to starve with thier burning farms instead of attempting to keep them alive by putting them at the mercies of 19th century logistics and sanitation.

The boers started a war they could not win to protect their right to deny their utilanders the vote and right to treat their black neighbours bad enough to make 19th century europe cringe. They died in those camps because their leaders decided to wage a guerilla campaign beyond the point of sanity.

The standard response to guerilla tactincs was scorched earth, it was British sensibilities that put the civillians into camps to prevent them all starving and when the civillians started to succumb to camp diseases the boers kept fighting the hopeless war regardless. When the British stopped admitting new boers into the camps due to public outcry back home at their condition the guerillas found they now had to provide for their own people. They promptly surrendered.

The boers were not the jews and the british were not the nazis, no matter how much the current post colonial thought might wish you to think so.

I see. The British waged a righteous war solely to stop the Boers' depredations and mistreating the natives. And when the Boers were defeated all these practices were stopped and all wrongs done to natives put to right. Apartheid didn't flourish since then and Mandela was fighting windmills all his life.

Pannonian

05-31-2016, 12:50

I see. The British waged a righteous war solely to stop the Boers' depredations and mistreating the natives. And when the Boers were defeated all these practices were stopped and all wrongs done to natives put to right. Apartheid didn't flourish since then and Mandela was fighting windmills all his life.

Greyblades never said the British fought a righteous war. If you're going to talk about windmills, perhaps you should show some self-awareness by not building some for yourself to tilt at.

BTW, perhaps you should look at a list of South Africa's PMs from 1910 through to the abolition of the position in 1984.

1 Louis Botha
2 Jan Christiaan Smuts
3 James Barry Munnik Hertzog
(2) Jan Christiaan Smuts
4 Daniel François Malan
5 Johannes Gerhardus Strijdom
6 Hendrik Frensch Verwoerd
7 Balthazar Johannes Vorster
8 Pieter Willem Botha

Proper old-fashioned Anglo-Saxon names, every one of them. Taking orders from Westminster as befits an obedient puppet of the government in London.

Greyblades

05-31-2016, 14:38

I see. The British waged a righteous war solely to stop the Boers' depredations and mistreating the natives. And when the Boers were defeated all these practices were stopped and all wrongs done to natives put to right. Apartheid didn't flourish since then and Mandela was fighting windmills all his life.

Righteousness is in the eye beholder. Considering they were the aggressors (the british and boers traded diplomatic ultimatums but the British were caught with thier pants down when the boers actually attacked) and were the bigger bastards in terms of political attitude I think the Boer war could have been a righteous war.

It wasnt righteous in my eyes though because the British botched it. First by allowing the previously mentioned screw ups at the camps and then by not doing anything in the aftermath to make sure the Boers would not do this again, either by reducation ala germany or deportation to holland, instead we gave them a country less than ten years later with no lesson learned.

Pannonian

05-31-2016, 17:42

Righteousness is in the eye beholder. Considering they were the aggressors (the british and boers traded diplomatic ultimatums but the British were caught with thier pants down when the boers actually attacked) and were the bigger bastards in terms of political attitude I think the Boer war could have been a righteous war.

It wasnt righteous in my eyes though because the British botched it. First by allowing the previously mentioned screw ups at the camps and then by not doing anything in the aftermath to make sure the Boers would not do this again, either by reducation ala germany or deportation to holland, instead we gave them a country less than ten years later with no lesson learned.

The PMs' names seem to get Dutchier and Dutchier the further they progressed along the Apartheid path. The first few have the kudos of fighting against the British in the Boer War though.

Beskar

05-31-2016, 19:45

The Org is the only place where you can normally get away with making Ann Coulter look like MLK compared to your views.

In my experience with the internet, the backroom is tame. I see worse regularly 'shared' on facebook.

Husar

06-01-2016, 06:36

Proper old-fashioned Anglo-Saxon names, every one of them. Taking orders from Westminster as befits an obedient puppet of the government in London.

That's racist. Why can't Englishmen cross-name or have a name-change when they felt dutch all their lives? Would you deny them entry in an English restroom?

Gilrandir

06-01-2016, 13:40

Greyblades never said the British fought a righteous war.

It sounded like "Those boers were nasty to the local natives and then the British came to put an end to it." The actual quote (the bold is mine):

The boers started a war they could not win to protect their right to deny their utilanders the vote and right to treat their black neighbours bad enough to make 19th century europe cringe.

If the boers started a war to PROTECT those rigths, one could surmise their opponents fought to DENY them those rights (including the right to mistreat the locals). In effect, nothing of the kind happened - Britain's colonial expansion had nothing to do with an ostensible purpose (as it was stated by Greyblades) of granting any rights to locals. If Greybaldes' train of reasoning was different, the wording should have matched it.

BTW, perhaps you should look at a list of South Africa's PMs from 1910 through to the abolition of the position in 1984.

1 Louis Botha
2 Jan Christiaan Smuts
3 James Barry Munnik Hertzog
(2) Jan Christiaan Smuts
4 Daniel François Malan
5 Johannes Gerhardus Strijdom
6 Hendrik Frensch Verwoerd
7 Balthazar Johannes Vorster
8 Pieter Willem Botha

Proper old-fashioned Anglo-Saxon names, every one of them. Taking orders from Westminster as befits an obedient puppet of the government in London.

The PMs' names seem to get Dutchier and Dutchier the further they progressed along the Apartheid path. The first few have the kudos of fighting against the British in the Boer War though.

AFAIK, South Africa was officially a part of the British empire between 1910 and 1931. If the British were so well-meaning, why apartheid and other oppression practices weren't abolished? How were the natives rights upheld by the Natives' Land Act of 1913? Or are those evil Dutch who were behind all this? And after RSA became independent, did the white South Africans of British origin disapprove let alone fight against all wrongs done by the Dutch?

That's racist. Why can't Englishmen cross-name or have a name-change when they felt dutch all their lives? Would you deny them entry in an English restroom?

After Brexit they would. After Brexit anything that was bad will vanish into the thin air and virtue and happiness will shine with unsullied brilliance.

Fragony

06-01-2016, 14:14

Pannonian

06-01-2016, 15:42

It was just an (incredibly vicious) power struggle between the Dutch and the English, as if either gived a shit about the Nbutu-kingdoms. The Dutch and the Brittish have a long history of annoying eachother. Makes for great anecdotes though, this is my favorite https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raid_on_the_Medway that really pissed them of

That was the catalyst for the formation of a proper navy, one which would come to dominate the world in coming centuries. So while it's a bragging point for the Dutch, it wasn't all bad for the English.

Although I was discussing this with someone the other day, and AFAIK the English had just aided the Dutch just a few decades earlier in gaining independence from the Spanish. What happened to cause the rivalry between what used to be good friends and allies? Good old European "because we can"?

Pannonian

06-01-2016, 15:48

It sounded like "Those boers were nasty to the local natives and then the British came to put an end to it." The actual quote (the bold is mine):

The boers started a war they could not win to protect their right to deny their utilanders the vote and right to treat their black neighbours bad enough to make 19th century europe cringe.

If the boers started a war to PROTECT those rigths, one could surmise their opponents fought to DENY them those rights (including the right to mistreat the locals). In effect, nothing of the kind happened - Britain's colonial expansion had nothing to do with an ostensible purpose (as it was stated by Greyblades) of granting any rights to locals. If Greybaldes' train of reasoning was different, the wording should have matched it.

AFAIK, South Africa was officially a part of the British empire between 1910 and 1931. If the British were so well-meaning, why apartheid and other oppression practices weren't abolished? How were the natives rights upheld by the Natives' Land Act of 1913? Or are those evil Dutch who were behind all this? And after RSA became independent, did the white South Africans of British origin disapprove let alone fight against all wrongs done by the Dutch?

When colonies become dominions, or were on the road to becoming dominions, we don't interfere much in internal affairs any more. Not after the lesson meted out by the Thirteen Colonies. Just about the only England-imposed directive I can think of that was enforced across all the empire, regardless of status, was the ban on slavery.

Fragony

06-01-2016, 15:54

Sure it is no bragging point but it's hilarious though, how stupid can you be to even try that. Pure genius in a way nobody expects one would do something that risky. The wars itself weren't funny at all of course both sides lost insane aounts of ships and their crew in each

drone

06-01-2016, 17:53

Although I was discussing this with someone the other day, and AFAIK the English had just aided the Dutch just a few decades earlier in gaining independence from the Spanish. What happened to cause the rivalry between what used to be good friends and allies? Good old European "because we can"?
I believe it started as a trade war. After the Dutch gained independence, their merchants were able to undercut the English, even in English markets. Eventually the English got fed up, passed the Navigation Acts, set the privateers on Dutch shipping, and it just escalated from there.

Fragony

06-01-2016, 18:07

I believe it started as a trade war. After the Dutch gained independence, their merchants were able to undercut the English, even in English markets. Eventually the English got fed up, passed the Navigation Acts, set the privateers on Dutch shipping, and it just escalated from there.

That's about it. The English eventually won, took them four tries but alas we like eachother nowadays. The English took the wester routes and the Dutch the eastern ones.

Pannonian

06-01-2016, 18:26

I believe it started as a trade war. After the Dutch gained independence, their merchants were able to undercut the English, even in English markets. Eventually the English got fed up, passed the Navigation Acts, set the privateers on Dutch shipping, and it just escalated from there.

With the distance of time, I find this hilariously petty.

Fragony

06-01-2016, 18:51

With the distance of time, I find this hilariously petty.

What's so petty about it, it were trade-wars. Both the Dutch and the English wanted to be the rulers of the sea, that's just how it is. It was just a competition over assets. That kinda escalated.

Greyblades

06-01-2016, 18:51

It sounded like "Those boers were nasty to the local natives and then the British came to put an end to it." The actual quote (the bold is mine):

The boers started a war they could not win to protect their right to deny their utilanders the vote and right to treat their black neighbours bad enough to make 19th century europe cringe.

If the boers started a war to PROTECT those rigths, one could surmise their opponents fought to DENY them those rights (including the right to mistreat the locals). In effect, nothing of the kind happened - Britain's colonial expansion had nothing to do with an ostensible purpose (as it was stated by Greyblades) of granting any rights to locals. If Greybaldes' train of reasoning was different, the wording should have matched it.
The war started with an exchange of ultimatums, the British demanded they enfranchise thier immigrant utilanders and decrease the mistreatment of the blacks, the boers demanded the british withdraw thier border guards. Boer forces promptly invaded the cape colony without respondingf and caught the British unprepared.

The British did not "come to put an end to it" they retaliated to a preemptive attack by an inferior force after the British had made downright humanitarian demands. You could say it was a machiavellian effort to make themselves look good in the eve of an inevitable war but either way the boers jumped eagerly to fulfill the role of unreasonable throwbacks.

AFAIK, South Africa was officially a part of the British empire between 1910 and 1931. If the British were so well-meaning, why apartheid and other oppression practices weren't abolished? How were the natives rights upheld by the Natives' Land Act of 1913? Or are those evil Dutch who were behind all this? And after RSA became independent, did the white South Africans of British origin disapprove let alone fight against all wrongs done by the Dutch? Aparthied started in 1948, south africa became self governing in 1931. The British werent angels to the blacks in the early 1900's, noone was, but their treatment was a lot better than the boers.

Fragony

06-01-2016, 19:31

Lizardo

06-01-2016, 19:54

Black Africans in South Africa are by far the most outright racist group sorry for the generalisation but the government only employs blacks look at the south africna fire department no coloureds or whites, ask the Cape Coloureds they are the poorest and cant get jobs as the pure race blacks wont employ them. I've seen a few documentaries

Greyblades

06-01-2016, 19:55

Kinda related, just read 'Like Lions they fought' by Robert B.Erdogan, you shook them up pretty badly as well, not intended as reaction that is on-topic. The Zulu's had some strange customs, often a battle was resolved with singing poetry to eachother. If that didn't work they would choose a champion, if the chapion failed they threw down their shields and walked away. That was their way. I can goon topic with saying that you guys pissed them of pretty badly that they took no prisoners in the zulu-wars

If that is what Robert Erdogan said then he was wrong. Look up Shaka Zulu; the very reason the zulu had become powerful was because they had stopped using that sort of ritualistic battle in favour of more conventional tactics and thier neighbours hadn't resulting in a long series of one sided battles that turned the Zulu from farmers to empire builders. In another age they might have become like ancient egypt in power, but by the 1800's africa had become the target of nations a lot more technologically advanced.

Lizardo

06-01-2016, 20:02

This country will become like mugabes zimbabwe

Fragony

06-01-2016, 20:03

Black Africans in South Africa are by far the most outright racist group, ask the Cape Coloureds they are the poorest and cant get jobs as the pure race blacks wont employ them. I've seen a few documentaries

lol we have several, the Turks hate the Marrocans and vica versa, and they both hate blacks. Blacks from Suriname hate blacks from the caribeans and it's mutual. Hindu's hate everyone. So do Asians.

Fragony

06-01-2016, 20:07

If that is what Robert Erdogan said then he was wrong. Look up Shaka Zulu; the very reason the zulu had become powerful was because they had stopped using that sort of ritualistic battle in favour of more conventional tactics and thier neighbours hadn't resulting in a long series of one sided battles that turned the Zulu from farmers to empire builders. In another age they might have become like ancient egypt in power, but by the 1800's africa had become the target of nations a lot more technologically advanced.

It isn't what he said, what you say is pretty much what he says as well.

Greyblades

06-01-2016, 20:31

Then why did you say we shook them up? Zulus didnt generally go for the prisoners anyway, usual modus operadi was to kill the men and take the women and children.

Fragony

06-01-2016, 20:54

Then why did you say we shook them up? Zulus didnt generally go for the prisoners anyway, usual modus operadi was to kill the men and take the women and children.

Don't know, maybe warfare over other issues, land cattle etc. I got weapons from africa that got marks on it that symbolise the value of a transaction, these were handed over. Honour issues perhaps were handed differently.

Best I can do right now photobucket isn't working sword to the right of the bull is one of these transaction swords https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=1168020639904819&set=rpd.100000906824898&type=3&theater This one for shamaans

Sword on the left https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=1173001192740097&set=rpd.100000906824898&type=3&theater one as well. Just to brag, yes these Roman lambs you see are real.

drone

06-01-2016, 21:05

What's so petty about it, it were trade-wars. Both the Dutch and the English wanted to be the rulers of the sea, that's just how it is. It was just a competition over assets. That kinda escalated.
The Civil War had ended just before all this kicked up, so internal politics had a part to play as well in England. But mainly trade, money talks. :yes:

Fragony

06-01-2016, 21:26

The Civil War had ended just before all this kicked up, so internal politics had a part to play as well in England. But mainly trade, money talks. :yes:

Was way before the civil war, we have been nice to eachother ever since. Getting NYC back would be awesome though.

Pannonian

06-01-2016, 21:57

Was way before the civil war, we have been nice to eachother ever since. Getting NYC back would be awesome though.

Could dual-name it NYC-NAC. Hmm, sounds nice and spicy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nik_Naks).

Kralizec

06-01-2016, 22:38

Greyblades

06-02-2016, 01:08

South Africa's history is an interesting one- I think I'm going to read more about it, inspired by this thread.

I think people should be more careful in attributing laudible motives to either the Afrikaners or the English, though. It's easy to view the Boers through a romantic lens as frontiersmen, establishing their own governments, away from foreign (English) rule. But I don't think I need to point out the darker sides.
The English, meanwhile, were motivated by naked expansionism - ignore the pretext. Yes, there was color blind suffrage during a brief time at the end of the 19th century, but this was eroded steadily by Jim Crow laws long before South Africa became autonomous. People like Cecil Rhodes were uneasy with the idea of increasing turnout among black voters. The only reason the Apartheid era was truly different was because that was overt racism.

I think you should follow your own advice. Be more careful in attributing contemptable motive to the British, and do not ignore the pretext as is an extremely foolish thing to to dismiss what the majority in the empire, who were not directly invested in it's border politics, was fighting for.

Naked expansionism was not enough to bring the British to go to war; there was a reason afterall that Cecil Rhodes was kicked out of office and his brother sentenced to death (though commuted before he was hanged) after the failed Jameson raid four years before, where Cecil had to recruit mercenaries instead of using British Regulars and had his efforts sabotaged by the Secretary of State for the colonies.

Gilrandir

06-02-2016, 10:19

When colonies become dominions, or were on the road to becoming dominions, we don't interfere much in internal affairs any more. Not after the lesson meted out by the Thirteen Colonies. Just about the only England-imposed directive I can think of that was enforced across all the empire, regardless of status, was the ban on slavery.

It still doesn't answer the question why the British whites treated local blacks no better than the Dutch whites in any times, whether in the colony, the dominion or the independent country.

Aparthied started in 1948

Officially. Racist practices have never been interrupted since Europeans came there (until not so long ago - and evidently turned into black racism).

The British werent angels to the blacks in the early 1900's, noone was, but their treatment was a lot better than the boers.

Independent South Africa enjoyed apartheid for many years and the whites of British origin didn't mind it more than those of Dutch origin.

Greyblades

06-02-2016, 17:39

Officially. Racist practices have never been interrupted since Europeans came there (until not so long ago - and evidently turned into black racism). Guess why.

Independent South Africa enjoyed apartheid for many years and the whites of British origin didn't mind it more than those of Dutch origin.

And? British indifference without Boer belligerance would have still resulted in better conditions for the Black africans than with.

lars573

06-02-2016, 18:14

Aparthied started in 1948, south africa became self governing in 1931. The British werent angels to the blacks in the early 1900's, noone was, but their treatment was a lot better than the boers.
Actually 1931 is when the statute of Westminster came into effect. The establishment of a Dominion gave internal self government. That happened in 1910 in south Africa. The statute of Westminster removed the UK parliaments ability to legislate for the Dominions. Giving the six (at the time) dominions more or less full sovereignty.

drone

06-02-2016, 20:40

Was way before the civil war, we have been nice to eachother ever since. Getting NYC back would be awesome though.

The English Civil War. Charles I lost his head in 1649, Cromwell and the parliament passed the Navigation Acts in 1651 about a month after Charles II went on the lam.

Fragony

06-02-2016, 23:53

The English Civil War. Charles I lost his head in 1649, Cromwell and the parliament passed the Navigation Acts in 1651 about a month after Charles II went on the lam.

Ah I see. I thought that came from us, making any ship in international waters fair-game, legalized piracy. Maybe I am confusing things

Gilrandir

06-03-2016, 09:57

And? British indifference without Boer belligerance would have still resulted in better conditions for the Black africans than with.

I see. If the British were given power without other ragtag interfering it would have been a better world.

When Britain first, at Heaven's command
Arose from out the azure main;
This was the charter of the land,
And guardian angels sang this strain:
"Rule, Britannia! rule the waves:
"Britons never will be slaves."

The nations, not so blest as thee,
Must, in their turns, to tyrants fall;
While thou shalt flourish great and free,
The dread and envy of them all.
"Rule, Britannia! rule the waves:
"Britons never will be slaves."

Still more majestic shalt thou rise,
More dreadful, from each foreign stroke;
As the loud blast that tears the skies,
Serves but to root thy native oak.
"Rule, Britannia! rule the waves:
"Britons never will be slaves."

Thee haughty tyrants ne'er shall tame:
All their attempts to bend thee down,
Will but arouse thy generous flame;
But work their woe, and thy renown.
"Rule, Britannia! rule the waves:
"Britons never will be slaves."

To thee belongs the rural reign;
Thy cities shall with commerce shine:
All thine shall be the subject main,
And every shore it circles thine.
"Rule, Britannia! rule the waves:
"Britons never will be slaves."

The Muses, still with freedom found,
Shall to thy happy coast repair;
Blest Isle! With matchless beauty crown'd,
And manly hearts to guard the fair.
"Rule, Britannia! rule the waves:
"Britons never will be slaves."

Kralizec

06-03-2016, 11:46

I think you should follow your own advice. Be more careful in attributing contemptable motive to the British, and do not ignore the pretext as is an extremely foolish thing to to dismiss what the majority in the empire, who were not directly invested in it's border politics, was fighting for.

Naked expansionism was not enough to bring the British to go to war; there was a reason afterall that Cecil Rhodes was kicked out of office and his brother sentenced to death (though commuted before he was hanged) after the failed Jameson raid four years before, where Cecil had to recruit mercenaries instead of using British Regulars and had his efforts sabotaged by the Secretary of State for the colonies.

Rhodes' brother was convicted by the Transvaal (Afrikaner) authorities, not by the British.

I feel comfortable in ignoring the pretext, because Cecil Rhodes was the one who masterminded the raid and he was an imperialist who favoured racial segregation. The ultimatum that Rhodes/Cape Colony gave was only about the rights of Uitlanders (read: British migrants), not black natives, in the Boer republics. And it was made in the full knowledge that the Boer republics could never accept it, because giving British immigrants the same rights as Afrikaners would inevitably lead to their incorporation into the British Empire. Classic settler strategy at work.

I'll freely admit that British rule had been a positive force in Southern Africa at first...slavery was abolished, equal franchise was granted...but these laudible motivations were in short supply in the period we're talking about.

Greyblades

06-03-2016, 13:50

Rhodes' brother was convicted by the Transvaal (Afrikaner) authorities, not by the British. No he wasnt, The boers handed him over for trial in the aftermath of the raid, he was tried for treason by his own country and convicted.

I feel comfortable in ignoring the pretext, because Cecil Rhodes was the one who masterminded the raid and he was an imperialist who favoured racial segregation. The ultimatum that Rhodes/Cape Colony gave was only about the rights of Uitlanders (read: British migrants), not black natives, in the Boer republics.
Cecil Rhodes was fired in 1896 and had nothing to do with the drawing of the ultimatum of 1899 and his views were irrelvant in determining the motivations of Britain. You are right about the Ultimatum not demanding the better treatment of black natives, I misread the intentions of the Prime Minister Lord Sailsbury as the terms.

And it was made in the full knowledge that the Boer republics could never accept it, because giving British immigrants the same rights as Afrikaners would inevitably lead to their incorporation into the British Empire. Classic settler strategy at work.
Citation needed, the Boers might have believed it would inevitably result in incorporation but we will never know, and the idea that the British goverment were baiting for war is somewhat hard to believe considering how unprepared they were for it. As for settler strategy see Sailsbury's opinion on the matter; the colonial leaders did not hold that much power over the decision making in parliament, and while I do not doubt they encouraged migration into the boer states it was but a drop in the river that was the south african gold rush. Seems less like a strategy and more like jumping on an unexpected opportunity.

I'll freely admit that British rule had been a positive force in Southern Africa at first...slavery was abolished, equal franchise was granted...but these laudible motivations were in short supply in the period we're talking about.
My understanding is that in the period before the Boer war most did not think Black africans were capable of excercising franchise any better than children would, and after the war the Boer viewpoint: that of a fear of retaliation for past wrongs making it impossible to trust them, overrode much of the attitude changes that the rest of the empire made, making south africa an increasingly throwback region.

Husar

06-03-2016, 14:06

Greyblades

06-03-2016, 14:10

'Kay.

wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jameson_Raid)

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.

Kralizec

06-03-2016, 14:51

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-fitzpatrick-the-transvaal-from-within/1497-fitzpatrick-chapter-8-arrest-and-trial-of-the-reformers

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.

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.

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.

Kralizec

06-03-2016, 15:27

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% (http://www.angloboerwar.com/other-information/88-concentration-camps/1832-concentration-camps-introduction), 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.

Fragony

06-03-2016, 15:51

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

Kralizec

06-03-2016, 16:09

Greyblades

06-03-2016, 16:18

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.

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.
Interesting, we appear to have conflicting accounts, all the more interesting as Frank Rhodes' own page supports your version.

Fragony

06-03-2016, 17:02

Liknk is dead, rules

Gilrandir

06-04-2016, 14:35

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

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.

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

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.

Pannonian

06-04-2016, 14:49

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.

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.

Greyblades

06-04-2016, 15:27

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.
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.

Hear all ye people: independence is a sentimental kink. Stay in thraldom hoping for the mercy of the invaders.
That's such an absurd misinterpritation I must ask if you are even trying anymore?

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.

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.
"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.

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.

Gilrandir

06-04-2016, 16:40

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.

How does it bear on the war with Boers and the value of independence?

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.

I see. The greater the opponent is, the more right he has to ask you to do something. Otherwise a war. Russia 2014 logics.

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.

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.

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.
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".

Greyblades

06-04-2016, 17:08

I see. The greater the opponent is, the more right he has to ask you to do something. Otherwise a war. Russia 2014 logics.
...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.

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? 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.

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.

As for letting your own people starve:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Leningrad Should the Soviets have relinquished that too?
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.

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". Even a distant onlooker can recognise a hopeless war and a pointless cause.

Pannonian

06-04-2016, 18:40

How does it bear on the war with Boers and the value of independence?

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.

...Britain asked for civil rights to be extended, russia takes a piece of land, I think you are obsessed about crimea that's the only explanation I can imagine for why you keep equating everything to that.

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.

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.

Even a distant onlooker can recognise a hopeless war and a pointless cause.

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.

Gilrandir

06-05-2016, 06:04

...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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4: 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.

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.

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.

Even a distant onlooker can recognise a hopeless war and a pointless cause.
A distant one can. The one in the thick of things - not always. That's what Rustaveli meant.

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.

Both suggestions will stay suggestions since neither can be proved.

The Boers could have looked at what was happening in Canada, in particular what the British were doing with the Quebecois.
Perhaps they were inspired by what happened a century before in the USA, where a powerful nation was defeated by local passionarians.

Fragony

06-05-2016, 09:46

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'.

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.

Greyblades

06-05-2016, 21:31

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.

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. 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?

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.
Even though the oppression was real? The utilanders were indeed disenfranchised and the boers had refused to relent.

If you don't like the Ukraine 2014 story, take the Czechoslovakia 1938 one.
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?

:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4: 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. 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.

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).

A distant one can. The one in the thick of things - not always. That's what Rustaveli meant. 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?

...Wait, what am I saying, of course it is.

Fragony

06-05-2016, 21:51

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.

Gilrandir

06-06-2016, 10:09

Did ukraine attack first or disenfranchise those russians in the crimea?
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?

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.

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.

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.

Papewaio

06-06-2016, 16:43

Pannonian

06-06-2016, 18:19

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.

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.

Greyblades

06-08-2016, 00:22

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.
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 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombardment_of_Kagoshima) nations (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Expedition_to_Abyssinia) to thier (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boxer_Rebellion) 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.

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.
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.

I kinda wonder wether or not intentional cruelty was involved, the mortality-rate was really high. Neither of us Dutch/English should have been there probably, we would usually not do that to eachother.
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?

Gilrandir

06-08-2016, 10:29

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 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombardment_of_Kagoshima) nations (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Expedition_to_Abyssinia) to thier (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boxer_Rebellion) 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.

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.

Kralizec

06-15-2016, 23:16

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.

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.

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.

Greyblades

06-16-2016, 08:17

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.

Kralizec

06-16-2016, 14:05

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?

Greyblades

06-17-2016, 00:06

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.

Kralizec

06-17-2016, 14:04

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.

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.

"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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Greyblades

06-17-2016, 17:26

"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. 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.

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.
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.

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.

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.
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.

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.

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.
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.

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.

Fragony

06-18-2016, 06:42

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

Gilrandir

06-18-2016, 13:12

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

06-18-2016, 13:55

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

06-18-2016, 14:00

[QUOTE=Gilrandir;2053704

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

good, you should. Well not you, but we

Gilrandir

06-18-2016, 14:36

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

06-18-2016, 14:50

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

06-18-2016, 17:29

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"