sandandfoam
Veteran Member
I've been reading a little about the Boer War and I was wondering, why isn't history harsher on the British for inventing concentration camps?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Why isn't history harder on the British for inventing concentration camps?
- Thread starter sandandfoam
- Start date
Seeing how wars so often involve outright killing, I would not be surprised to learn that they were often or even usually seen as a more humanitarian alternative.
I do not know that I disagree, either.
I do not know that I disagree, either.
sandandfoam
Veteran Member
As I understand it Luis many thousands of Boer civilians died in dreadful conditions in the British camps and were then buried in mass graves.
Ridefeather
New Member
Look at any country, though, they've all done inhumane disgusting things
I'm not defending that, of course. But alas, it does not jump as a particularly noteworthy tragedy among the many involving wars.
sandandfoam
Veteran Member
Just so, but with respect, that does not seem to explain why the British concentration camps have such an apparently low profile - Or am I mistaken? Maybe they don't have a low profile it is merely that I am ignorant regarding this period of history?
sandandfoam
Veteran Member
I've just checked the numbers. If c.27,000 dead women and children, the targeting of a specific people and an officailly sanctioned scorched earth policy does not count as a noteworthy tragedy we have surely developed very hard hearts wouldn't you think?
Contemplative Cat
energy formation
"Historians in England will call me a liar, but history is written by those who have hanged heros." - BraveHeart
I'm afraid that we indeed did.
Why do you think Americans (now U.S.) had to seek their independence? The British were just a bunch of Imperialistic, Tyrannical nut jobs along with the rest of their alliances. Look at this map of all the areas they controlled then think about all the problems the world once faced or is still struggling with because of their idiotic tyrannical crap. It is well documented and in the American Declaration of Independence which was later followed by our Constitution.
Sometimes I wonder what the world would be like if America didnt decided to act as peace keepers for the rest of the world and a bunch of inbred noble snots that cant solve their own internal family struggles without bringing the rest of the world into it. Despicable is about the only word I can think of to sum it up. They couldnt save their own face during WW1 and tried to put rash sanctions on Germany which brought about the rise of Nazi Germany and WW2.
Last edited:
oldbadger
Skanky Old Mongrel!
Hi, Sandandfoam....
Were these the first? Or did the Brits get the idea from history? For instance, were (North American) indian 'resettlement' areas in fact concentration camps?
Obviously, humans in general have a poor history with regards to 'humanity'. I wonder if Dutch historians might be more exact about details of the Boer War...?
Slapstick, you are aware of how slanted your perspective seems to be, right?
Particularly when you seem to perceive a clear distinction between "imperialists" and "peace-keepers"?
Particularly when you seem to perceive a clear distinction between "imperialists" and "peace-keepers"?
sandandfoam
Veteran Member
Hi,
My understanding is that they were the first. Also, to be clear, I am using British in the 'Empire' sense - I understand Kitchner, the mastermind behind these camps, was born in Ireland.
Caladan
Agnostic Pantheist
Because history is selective and relative. In my society's case for example, we definitely remember that Jewish refugees from the holocaust had their ships turned back to Europe by the Brits or if they were lucky ended up in camps in Cyprus, if they were unlucky their ship sunk and they died. However in the historical memory of this region the Turks who controlled the area before the Brits were far crueler, and there is the fact that the Germans took the title for cosmic evil during the 30s and 40s. The historical circumstances at the time encouraged many Jews to wear British uniforms and fight a greater evil in the name of the Queen.
Last edited:
Truth be told, I failed to notice that there is a link. You may want to put spoiler tags around that huge picture, or better yet substitute a link, thumbnail or both.
I will check it, but even before doing that I will tell you that there is no difference between imperialism and the US of A brand of peacemaking/peacekeeping.
It is indeed all on the eyes of the beholder.
Actually, I would say that the British Empire holds an overall more admirable track record, seeing how it often walked the walk and learned what the heck they were dealing with and made informed and responsible decisions.
Edited to add: wait, the only link is for the Declaration of Independence? How does it even apply to this subject matter?
Last edited:
The whole concept of a "concentration camp" in the late 19th century did not mean or represent to others what it does for us in the 21st, living in the aftermath of Nazism. The reason why the Nazis claimed that they were housing Jews and other enemies of the Reich in "concentration camps" was to cover up the fact that a genocide was going on by trying to make it equivalent to British imperial measures
The British were brutal, like all empires inevitably are, in suppressing the Dutch Afrikaners during the Boer Wars, with Kitchener employing a scorched earth policy.
The camps were originally designed so as to remove civilians from the warzone and the agricultural areas decimated by that "scorched earth" policy. However the allegedly humanitarian idea of "concentrating" people in designated areas away from battlegrounds turned into a nightmare. The sanitation was abysmal, there was terrible overcrowding, disease quickly spread and then there were severe food shortages.
The dire situation eventually reached the ears of the British press. A huge campaign started calling for an enquiry to be made into the conditions in these camps. In parliament, opposition parties accused the government of "jingoism" and started to doubt the justice of the imperial cause in the war (which in propaganda had been justified based upon the Boers well-known racism towards black people, given that the British had forced them to give up slavery in the 1830s).
In response to this public outrage in Britain, the Fawcett Commission was set up led by the feminist Millicent Fawcett.
The commission basically told the government and the British people that the concentration camps were an outrage to human dignity, demanding rations to be increased so as to prevent hunger deaths and more expertly trained o nurses be sent in immediately, among many other recommendations to improve living conditions.
The result of the Fawcett Commission was that the death rate in the camps dropped to a lower level than the average life expectancy in most British cities at the time.
Of course, over 27,000 Boers had already died.
So, why is this different from the Nazis?
a) there was no genocidal intent but rather a hard-handed imperial power which failed to look after the hygiene and living conditions within the camps because it cared more about its own war effort
b) what the British had done was no different from what other empires throughout history have done. Empires are after all based upon exploitation and heavy-handed policies towards enemies in war and colonial subjects.
c) unlike in Nazi Germany, Britain was a developing democracy with a free press that highlighted the terrible plight of Boer camp inmates resulting in outrage among the British public and a government sponsored commission which led to a vast improvement in the living standards of the inmates, indeed they were better off by the end of the war than many British working class. Given that Nazi Germany was a totalitarian state without a free press, the implications in this respect should be obvious without further explanation.
For comparison to what other European empires were doing at this time, consider the Herero and Namaqua genocide under the Germans in South West Africa:
Herero and Namaqua Genocide - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
And what the Belgians did in the Congo:
Congo Free State - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The British were brutal, like all empires inevitably are, in suppressing the Dutch Afrikaners during the Boer Wars, with Kitchener employing a scorched earth policy.
The camps were originally designed so as to remove civilians from the warzone and the agricultural areas decimated by that "scorched earth" policy. However the allegedly humanitarian idea of "concentrating" people in designated areas away from battlegrounds turned into a nightmare. The sanitation was abysmal, there was terrible overcrowding, disease quickly spread and then there were severe food shortages.
The dire situation eventually reached the ears of the British press. A huge campaign started calling for an enquiry to be made into the conditions in these camps. In parliament, opposition parties accused the government of "jingoism" and started to doubt the justice of the imperial cause in the war (which in propaganda had been justified based upon the Boers well-known racism towards black people, given that the British had forced them to give up slavery in the 1830s).
In response to this public outrage in Britain, the Fawcett Commission was set up led by the feminist Millicent Fawcett.
The commission basically told the government and the British people that the concentration camps were an outrage to human dignity, demanding rations to be increased so as to prevent hunger deaths and more expertly trained o nurses be sent in immediately, among many other recommendations to improve living conditions.
The result of the Fawcett Commission was that the death rate in the camps dropped to a lower level than the average life expectancy in most British cities at the time.
Of course, over 27,000 Boers had already died.
So, why is this different from the Nazis?
a) there was no genocidal intent but rather a hard-handed imperial power which failed to look after the hygiene and living conditions within the camps because it cared more about its own war effort
b) what the British had done was no different from what other empires throughout history have done. Empires are after all based upon exploitation and heavy-handed policies towards enemies in war and colonial subjects.
c) unlike in Nazi Germany, Britain was a developing democracy with a free press that highlighted the terrible plight of Boer camp inmates resulting in outrage among the British public and a government sponsored commission which led to a vast improvement in the living standards of the inmates, indeed they were better off by the end of the war than many British working class. Given that Nazi Germany was a totalitarian state without a free press, the implications in this respect should be obvious without further explanation.
For comparison to what other European empires were doing at this time, consider the Herero and Namaqua genocide under the Germans in South West Africa:
Herero and Namaqua Genocide - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
And what the Belgians did in the Congo:
Congo Free State - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Last edited:
Flankerl
Well-Known Member
I find it rather weird to hold a whole country accountable for the things one man was responsible for and which the country called back when it came out what he had done.
Ha.. yeah it is a big picture. I tried to make it smaller, but couldn't. Thanks for spoiler alert.Truth be told, I failed to notice that there is a link. You may want to put spoiler tags around that huge picture, or better yet substitute a link, thumbnail or both.
I will check it, but even before doing that I will tell you that there is no difference between imperialism and the US of A brand of peacemaking/peacekeeping.
It is indeed all on the eyes of the beholder.
Actually, I would say that the British Empire holds an overall more admirable track record, seeing how it often walked the walk and learned what the heck they were dealing with and made informed and responsible decisions.
Edited to add: wait, the only link is for the Declaration of Independence? How does it even apply to this subject matter?
To make a long story short and to save myself from having to explain roughly 200+ years of American history, both prior and after... The British have never exactly been what I would call, our closest friends and allies. The American Revolutionary War is how our country was established first established. American Revolutionary War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia My main point being, that it is well documented in our history, which includes many wars, battles, disagreements, and confrontations because of other Imperialistic countries. When I say peacekeeping, what I mean is that America would have to step in to prevent other countries from being “bullied” which were smaller countries at the time (late 1800s- early 1900s). That is why our country has what are known as territories. They are not actually recognized as being part of the United States, but we made pledge to protect them since it wasn’t possible or isn’t possible for them to fight for themselves. Which includes our efforts leading up to WW1 and WW2 well into the present. To prevent further escalation of global war and you see how that turned out.
Last edited: