Talk:Second Boer War/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

The killing of 25000 civilians was genocide! Nice going K of K! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 168.209.97.34 (talk • contribs) 13:20, 5 November 2003 (UTC)

Just my opinion: Because the army was not recognized or paid, many of the Boer civilians killed were actually military guerillas. This, however, does not excuse the Concentration Camp tactic used by the British toward military victory. -- Debra Summers 1/6/04 (22:11, 6 January 2004 Summerk)

The intent was not to destroy the people in the concentration camps, nor the Boers in general, even if that was the outcome. Therefore it was not genocide ("the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political or cultural group"). It was a systematic but not intended destruction. I am sure we can all accept that it was a very bad thing without giving it a wrong name.

Please. The 'More Details' section can be done better. A writer says:

They acted in ways designed to inflame tensions and cause fighting to begin. Cape Colony governor Alfred Milner was one of such men. He believed that the British were natural rulers and that British rule was best while simultaneously believing that it was somehow morally wrong for Englishmen to be ruled by others. It can easily be seen how Milner had no desire for a peaceful solution to the problems in South Africa.

"It can easily be seen"? How? Please prove your point. Saying things like this, with no thing written to back it up, does not serve your cause. If you feel so strongly about Milner, please add content to the page on him, with some facts. There is no content there now.
RayKiddy 07:48, 25 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I, also, would like to know more detail as to why it was obvious that Milner did not want a peaceful solution; though I agree with the assumption. Britain had too much to lose at this time in history for the Boers to have free will in deciding their destiny (with WW1 on the horizon and Germany at the side of the Dutch). -- Debra Summers 1/6/04 (22:11, 6 January 2004 Summerk)

I like editing this its fun. Hi and peace and now bye

I totally agree with the previous person. First of all, what is apartheid and how does it relate to this conflict in the Boer War? What role did the Zulu and Shaka Zulu play in the events leading up to the war?hurry up with this folks, this global project is due monday @_@ Mandem know im the realest ting zulu warrior wearing the bling

A few things about the article can change.

It should be noted that the english armed over 30,000 indigenous people. It was not common practice between western nations to involve indigenous people in an western war.

it is not? look at the french-indian war in the 1700's as great counter example. They had been involving them for a long time and this war was no different. tpahl 00:27, 20 May 2004 (UTC)

The Boers and British both agreed not to arm indigineous peoples in what was a "white mans' war". They had agreed, however, to let them participate as scouts or drivers. The British did later see that the Zulu could be used to extend their military presence and speed the end of the war so they armed them in 1901. Jason 21:11, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Apalachee Indians of Florida, in North America, and the Spanish were exterminated by Creek Indians and Englishmen during Queen Anne's War. That occurred 300 years ago. ♦OldBoerParty 00:53, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

That is true of many North American wars alomost parrell Northewest Rebellion which I have reffered to several times douse vary, in that there the Cree had played a sinificant role with several victories for the Métis inspite of Riel's radiacal belif he was a profit of Catholism. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 142.165.47.137 (talk • contribs) 02:45, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

The last of the boers did not just surender at the end of the boer war. They elected members to negotiate for peace. There were several thousand boers still in the field at the end of the boer war.

The block-houses and "drives" instituted by the british were not very effective. The article gives the impression that the guerilla tacktics of the boers were not effective. The total british millatary strength in South Africa reached 500,000 men when the boers had only 88,000 men(5.6 times more). (figures on www.onwar.com)

Most of the boers had no millitary training and the british were proffesional soldiers.

The article could also mention Emily Hobhouse who tried to create awearness of the bad situation in the concentration camps but were ostracised in the press.

aa 19/01/2004

I disagree the writer above because concentration camps need mention. Emily was one of the few who stood up to this policy. It is well documented in South African histroy and will not go away or be brushed under the carpet. Boer War or the also known as "The Last Gentlemen's War" is reknowned for many things eg. concentration camps, British uniform changing from red to karki, gurealla warefare and many more. --Jcw69 06:47, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

As a Canadian I am interested in how, Canada's first forign war, being a war against non-English colonists of European decent impacted the French Canadians perticularyly the Métis who for whom there were still memories of the North West Rebelion fifteen years prior. I must say though it is interestion to see how the image of the Candaina cowboy became known world wide by acction half way around the globe. User:Knoss November 5, 2005

The "more about" is far too much a personal value judgement about the war (not to mention that it is an expounding of a certain world view in general, this article should not be a soap box for people to promote their personal opinions) than it is an objective analysis. By this I mean the moralizing about war in general and the desire for gold, etc. It is also self-evidently biased against the British. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 4.248.254.128 (talk • contribs) 17:56, 30 September 2004 (UTC)

How does one officially dispute the neutrality of an article? This article is clearly biased, and not only that, it ends with a philosophical/religious thesis, meandering down an ally about St Paul! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 4.248.253.168 (talk • contribs) 00:36, 1 October 2004 (UTC)

It is hard to stay neutral in an article of this nature. This war has two sides and a lot of South African problems (pass cultural hatred) stems from this war. I agree we must stay neutral in writing of this article but the truth must be revelled before forgiving can happen. I am a child of colonialism and must not brush this under the carpet because I don’t like what my forefathers did.

--Jcw69 09:26, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I agree that the neutrality of this article is suspect. It treats the grievances of the British colonists as a mere "pretext for war"—as if 1) those grievances were slight or contrived, 2) a predisposition to war existed in London, 3) the true motives for war were secret, possibly ignoble, and maybe even sinister, and 4) the Boers were merely fighting a war of independence in much the same way as the Americans. A case to the contrary can well be made. While I agree that it is difficult to make an article such as this truly neutral, it would be a good beginning to fairly lay out the actions of both sides. This article fails insofar as it trivializes the provocative actions of the Boer governments of Transvaal and the Orange Free State. While the motives of the British in this war are widely characterized as greed for filthy lucre, so to speak, the true motive can be shown to have been to defend British subjects against what one historian has called "a tough, quasi-police state" (Roberts, Andrew, A History of the English Speaking Peoples Since 1900, Harper Collins, p. 28) that had perpetrated many political, economic, and social harassments and provocations. Even if the abortive Coup d'état of 1895 were presumed to make the British the aggressors, that event itself had causes rooted in the very same abuses of power by the Boers that the British themselves had committed against the Americans prior to their own insurrection.

There is also the problem with the article's ambiguity about the nature of the Boers as a people. A reader unfamiliar with this conflict and the major players might be forgiven if he concluded that the war amounted to the violent suppression of an uprising of an overmatched and pitiable native people by a foreign imperial force. This was not the case, and while one can get some clarification by following certain links in the article, I think more should be said within the article itself to clarify the nature of the Boers as being of European stock—colonists, mostly Dutch, who had simply been in the region a bit longer than the British. While there was considerable impact on the black and mixed-race peoples, the shooting war was between two groups of Europeans. At no point in the article is it ever said that the Boers were Europeans and not natives.

The article could also be expanded to include the reactions to the war by various groups in the United States—e.g. the Republican administrations of William McKinley and Theodore Roosevelt supporting the British and former Republican President Benjamin Harrison, Democrat opposition leader William Jennings Bryan, and famous newspaperman Joseph Pulitzer—along with general public opinion—siding with the Boers. While the Republican administrations during the war provided substantial material aid to the British including half of all horses and beasts of burden used by their armies, some hundreds of private American citizens volunteered for and fought with the Boers.

In addition, the war ought to be placed in context of the overall geo-political framework of the time including the overtures of Czarist Russia to intervene and the concerns of American Presidents McKinley and Roosevelt should they do so. The way in which the outcome played into the future political makeup of the Union and later Republic of South Africa might also be mentioned. As evidence that the war was not about imperial conquest, the terms of peace were very generous to the Boers and laid the foundation within which they rapidly obtained complete independence from British rule. Initially, the more conciliatory Boer leaders figured prominently in the new nation's government; however, the more radical would not take long in seizing power and then go on to create the political framework from which apartheid emerged. Indeed, the oppression of the black race by the Boers was already fully at work prior to the war, and it was a concession to the Boers that the British did not insist on immediate native franchise during the negotiations of the Treaty of Vereeniging.

--N3RUS 09:40, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I have tried to merge the two sections without attempting to resolve the POV dispute. Whatever the arguments are I don't think that the article really needs to have two sections on the same thing. I have also eliminated a good deal of what I felt did not add any information on the subject. "The temptation of riches has led to many conflicts in the world, and this remained true in the south of Africa." is a nice piece of writing but IMHO not appropriate for an encyclopedia with its high information density.

As far as the other debates on this page here is my two-pence worth.

• "It can easily be seen how Milner had no desire for a peaceful solution to the problems in South Africa.". I can't easily see it from what is in the article and it should be removed unless someone adds something to make it easily seen.
• "several key British colonial leaders favoured a war with the Boer republics". This is a bit that I shrunk. Even so - few people favour war on its own, they favour annexation of another country, replacing Saddam or whatever - a war is usually a means and not an end. It should say what their real goal was. And if there were several powerful people who held this view, then name more than one - presumably Rhodes and Beit and maybe some more.
• "He believed that the British were natural rulers..." I would shorten this sentence. IMHO this is probably correct since most "middle class" Victorian Britons took this view but the back half of the sentence doesn't add anything except a moral judgement on Milner.
• "to thwart an attempt made by the Transvaal Republic to link up with German South West Africa.". What does "link up" mean? Join the German empire? Exchange Christmas cards? It should be clarified.
• The concentration camps issue is an important part of the history of the second Boer war and its political consequences; and more could be added. Although they have particularly horrific connotations to us now, this was not the case when they were first created, only once conditions deteriorated (and the public became aware of it). The article correctly bears much of this out. However it contains verbage which I haven't removed - e.g. "The tragedy of the concentration camps can be described in the toll it took on the people held within them." - well how else would they be tragic? Its nice to see the figures and the comparison with military casualties but I would like to see a description of why people died too, and also the political fallout.
• There is a lot of hyperbole still. "inept" is fine when describing General Buller, but "hopelessly inept" is hyperbole; The difference is that Buller was out of his depth fighting the Boers with their modern weapons and tactics but must have been competent enough in other areas to have reached a general. Ditto "amazing foresight", there are plenty of historical precedents for Kruger and his contempories to have known about for people not to to be amazed, so I think amazing is too strong->"considerable foresight", "famous Bushveldt Carbaniers" - not as famous as Elvis Presley->"Bushveldt Carbaniers" etc.
• Did the war affect the non-European population? If so then that deserves mentioning. --Jll 10:33, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Seems to me as if a few edits should restore NPOV without losing the Boer perception of the war. As a Boer descendant I have never had a good insight into the British public opinion of the war at the time. I would like to see some references to newspaper articles/ points of view expressed in Brittain at the time or was this such a minor engagement for the British empire that it did not receive much attention in the UK press at the time? --Renier Maritz 12:46, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Renier Maritz, I have just added what the British newspapers thought of the ultimatum. If you'd like more, read Pakenham's book.--User:Led125

I was the one who disputed the neutrality of this article, it now has, in my opinion, a neutral POV, therefore, unless someone objects, I will remove the POV warning.--Derinrob99 07:36, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I think the NPOV of this article ought to be revisited. Please see my reasons in the Neutrality section above.--N3RUS 09:46, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Remember when Prince Harry wore an SS uniform, and the English made such a row about it, and saying that he should go to Auschwitz and the concentration camps? I said to my mom about how hypocritical it was, that the English were making such a deal about something that they invented. Thinking about it now, I should have written in to the newspapers who went on about the concentration camps and said that the English in general should be silent about the issue of concentration camps. As a people in general, they are in no right to condemn another nation for using concentration camps, when they used them themselves, and for that, the lives of 40,000 people (almost 50% of that were children under 16) were ended. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.56.54.56 (talk • contribs) 17:30, 29 June 2005 (UTC)

I am British and I think that the British use of concentration camps was absolutely disgraceful. But I don't understand how you feel that the modern Britain should be silent about this particular issue, just because it comes up in the British history (over a century ago). I think even the British press and public back then didn't like what was going on and did condemn the use of them, which is probably a factor in why they havn't been used since, by the British. Whatever country you are from, your history will still have some pretty bad things in which you would probably want to change, if you could. If those same bad things happened in the future, you would still speak out about it, because you think its wrong, regardless of whether your country did it in the past or not. --84.43.56.240 16:13, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

I think the difference is also in the reasoning and purpose of the camps. The result may be similar but from what I can see the purpose of these camps was to remove the support that the guerillas were receiving from civilians. These camps were poorly run which resulted in the deaths of thousands from malnutrition and disease and once the British public became aware of what was happening things improved significantly. Camps such as Auschwitz were set up with the purpose of exterminating Jews. It can be argued that the deaths in Nazi concentration camps (or "death camps") were the result of well run camps. So whilst the result of British tactics was disgraceful they do not really correspond with those employed in Hitler's final solution. Also, if you are going to make such a bold statement at least have the dignity to sign your name — Zarboki 06:41, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

The use of concentration camps in was not new. If you look at the history of Norht America, reserves had been in use since the 1860's, with many of the same problems. Malnutrition, overcrowding, disease had and unfortunatly still do plague the reserves both in the American West and the north and westernly regions of Canada. User:KnossNovember 5, 2005

Just added that the Boers were a mixture of Dutch, French and German rather than only Dutch. Afrikaners with names like de Villers, Cronjé, le Roux etc. are of French origin and people with surnames like Schmidt and Kruger are of German origin. Nothing really big, just a tiny bit that needs cleaning up —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.56.54.56 (talk • contribs) 17:25, 29 June 2005 (UTC)

This is true however from the way I understand it all of the settlers of the Dutch colony were dutch citizens even if they had lived in Holland for less then one generation. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 142.165.113.49 (talk • contribs) 22:13, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

There is a mention of POWs going "overseas". Yet there is no mention of where they were sent. There should be, with a link to the place(s), and footnote to back it up. Also, Canada and other countries, that belonged to Commonwealth, sent troops, and should be mentioned. Canada is mentioned in the [World War I] article, so I don't see the difference. Hopefully, somebody already has the knowledge to put something up about this. If not, I'll do some research, and put something up in the future. --rob 4 July 2005 18:51 (UTC)

I put this in. The comments about POWs is still sparse. Ideally, more complete stats about POWs, with footnotes is needed. I am concerned some pre-existing text "Of the 28,000 Boer men captured as prisoners of war, 25,630 were sent overseas.". There's no footnote for this. I doubt this statement is true, since I suspect Natal had more than 2370 POWs (not civilians). I would not count Natal as "overseas" (I thought it was a mainland province of South Africa, then a colony). But, honestly, I don't know, and so didn't change touch that. I think the text in question intendend just to say the 25,630 POWs were taken further away from where they lived, but not necessarily "overseas", in the literal sense. --rob 03:23, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

I happen to have some knowledge of this. One of the places they were sent was Bermuda, which is where I'm from. The Boer PoW's are a well-known historical event in Bermuda. There is a book about them:

• Colin Benbow, Boer Prisoners of War in Bermuda (Bermuda Historical Society, Hamilton, 1994)

which I have a copy of.

According to it, there were in total "25,000 men and boys" held in various places overseas when the war ended in 1902. Locations included Bermuda, St. Helena, Ceylon, India, and Portugal (this last was for about 1,500 refugees - including women and children - who originally went to Mozambique, and were removed from there after complaints from the British government - they were held in "open" camps, and were in a different legal category).

The text is not precisely clear on the non-Bermuda numbers, but it appears that 5,700 went to St. Helena, beginning in April, 1900; "close to 5,000" to Ceylon, starting "the following August"; and "approximately 9,000" to India, starting in April, 1901. A planned camp in Antigua was never needed.

4,653 (including some boys) were sent to Bermuda, of whom 34 died on ships on the way (buried at sea), and 35 in Bermuda (buried in a cemetery on Long Island, in the Great Sound). Most were returned at the end of the way, except for about 100 "Irreconcilables" who for one reason or another (most, for refusal to take the Oath) were left, and who were released into the population in Bermuda. Most of them drifted away over the years, and only 3 are known to have died in Bermuda.

The cemetery on the island is well-maintained, with a large memorial, and is one of my favourite places in Bermuda. Noel (talk) 18:59, 21 September 2005 (UTC)