# Dutch Colonization of Africa



## brianeschen (Feb 7, 2009)

From another thread . . . 


puritanpilgrim said:


> > What was wrong with the Dutch colonizing Africa?
> 
> 
> 
> I hope your kidding.


I get the feeling I asked a question with an obvious answer, so I am ready to be educated.

The reason I asked the original question is because the only information I have heard about the Dutch in Africa has been 1) the slave trade which they participated in and 2) the Dutch Calvinist settlement of South Africa to which they brought Christian culture (with the help of some Huguenots).

I believe the slave trade was clearly wrong, but can't see the South Africa case as wrong. What am I missing?

Thanks for your help.


----------



## Kevin (Feb 7, 2009)

in my opinion the process of colonisation was a mixed bag. Most of the English colonies, as well as most of the Dutch, I would consider positive.

Iberian colonies not so much.


----------



## Pergamum (Feb 8, 2009)

If we changed the wording to "What's wrong with one culture invading another" the answers might be more obvious. What's wrong with one culture exploring places where they can dominate and use the local peoples for their own gain. That is what, by and large, most Dutch colonization consisted of. 

I don't know about Africa, but the Dutch were oppressive in Indonesia. Islam did not enter a terribly long time into Indonesia before Christianity entered, but the Dutch missionaries, riding on the same boats as the oppressors, made the population move towards Islam and today it is the largest Muslim nation on earth, despite hundreds of years of Dutch colonization. The British colonies in SE Asia fared much better and the British set up much of the infrastructure in Singapore and Malaysia.

I would say that the British were much kinder colonizers, but they fought wars to help keep the Chinese hooked on Opium becuase it helped their own pocketbooks.


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Feb 8, 2009)

brianeschen said:


> From another thread . . .
> 
> 
> puritanpilgrim said:
> ...



Colonizing an uninhabited land would be fine. But invading a land, imposing your culture upon another, and oppressing them as second class citizens or slaves is certainly wrong. The result was great animosity toward Christianity because of self-proclaimed "Christians" invading their land and treating them without the dignity that comes with being made in the image of God. The true gospel was/is often rejected because of what the Western "Christian" culture did in their imperialism. Obviously there is no grounds in Christianity to justify such atrocities. That was the result of cultural arrogance and pride. But the damage has been done. Thankfully, the Lord is overruling those evil acts to bring forth indigenous churches who are now teaching us Westerners a thing or two about what it means to take up our cross.


----------



## Archlute (Feb 8, 2009)

Hmmm. Methinks that a few of you have been drinking a wee bit too much from anti-Western, revisionist historians. The presentations above seem a little unbalanced in favor of the "lets bash all things white, male, and Christian" crowd, than they ought to be. It reminds me of courses I took in my undergrad studies, right alongside of the our "gay and lesbian" and "minority" studies.

Much good was done for many of those societies, and it should be admitted that not all cultures are worth saving as to many of the practices that make them a distinct culture (think elements of Islamic society that prepare their young women for their wedding night with needle and thread, if you know what I'm talking about...) Many of the colonized peoples were wrapped up in gross idolatry and paganism, which distinctly shaped those cultures, and because of which we should be glad that they were often subdued and changed, even if not always in an ideal manner.


----------



## he beholds (Feb 8, 2009)

I would say what was wrong with the Dutch colonization of Africa was the part of the motives that were steeped in greed.
What was right with the Dutch colonization of Africa was the part of the motives that were steeped in evangelism. 
I would say the same for the British, etc, colonization of America and the treatment of the Indians. 

I praise God for using man's wickedness for His good.


----------



## TimV (Feb 8, 2009)

The Dutch didn't really do much colonizing in Africa. They had a small community they started mostly with retired German security personnel and later at the end of the 1680s with under 200 French Calvinists. The main purpose was to start an agricultural community (hence the French) which could be used as a stop over for the Dutch Merchant Marine on their way to and from the East Indies.

Later (I'm typing all this from memory, so there may be a date or two off) during the Napoleonic Wars Britain took over, I think in 1812, since Holland was occupied and forced into an alliance with France, but they were in a fairly small area on the tip of Southern Africa. There was an English colony as well some hundreds of miles East.

Soon after that, the original German, Dutch and French settlers (and let's be clear, folks. Even by THEN, they'd been in Africa longer than most of the people reading this have been in the US) had morphed into a new race of people who weren't Dutch by any definition at all.

They got tired of English rule, and about half (the joke is the medically unfit were left behind and are now called the Cape Dutch!) of the people left to find land where they could be free. This was in the middle of the 1800s.

They figured it was God's providence that the land was largely uninhabited due to malaria, the Zulu holocaust, not much rain, etc...and set up several Republics, two of which lasted and formed governments.

And that will do for now! Some day I'll plan on writing an essay for the PB about South African history through the eyes of an American Calvinist who lived there for a decade, and was involved in the modern "trek" to form a new homeland for them.


----------



## calgal (Feb 8, 2009)

TimV said:


> The Dutch didn't really do much colonizing in Africa. They had a small community they started mostly with retired German security personnel and later at the end of the 1680s with under 200 French Calvinists. The main purpose was to start an agricultural community (hence the French) which could be used as a stop over for the Dutch Merchant Marine on their way to and from the East Indies.
> 
> Later (I'm typing all this from memory, so there may be a date or two off) during the Napoleonic Wars Britain took over, I think in 1812, since Holland was occupied and forced into an alliance with France, but they were in a fairly small area on the tip of Southern Africa. There was an English colony as well some hundreds of miles East.
> 
> ...



Tim:

The Afrikaners are interesting. I wonder if they would have been as angry if Britain had not put them in virtual death camps during the Boer war. 

An interesting sidenote when discussing British colonies: much of the mess in Ireland, the Middle East and India/Pakistan can be traced directly back to the British rulers playing a strategy of "divide and conquer." England was pretty paranoid when it came to their colonies after the American Revolution and the French Revolution. Note that India and Pakistan were used against each other (so were the Arabs and Jews) and the hate has just been built up over the years. South Africa got a bit of that as well which explains the Afrikaners getting really really ticked off and supporting Germany in 2 world wars. Sorry Brits but your government was pretty nasty for a while.


----------



## he beholds (Feb 8, 2009)

TimV said:


> And that will do for now! Some day I'll plan on writing an essay for the PB about South African history through the eyes of an American Calvinist who lived there for a decade, and was involved in the modern "trek" to form a new homeland for them.



Can we hold you to this? I would love to read a summarized history. I saw a really cool documentary on South Africa, _Long Night's Journey Into Day_, in college, but I forget much of it. In fact, all my knowledge of the whole continent of Africa comes from movies or books. Movies: _Long Night's Journey Into Day_, _Hotel Rwanda_, _Sometimes in April_, _The Color of Friendship_ (fictional movie for teens).
Books: Achebe's _Things Fall Apart_ and _No Longer At Ease_ (plus a cool Vonnegut article on the Igbo people). 
Paton's _Cry, The Beloved Country_ and of course, Conrad's _Heart of Darkness_

Most of these were fictional accounts and only two dealt with South Africa.

Edit: I do remember when substitute teaching a week for a history teacher, I did get to plan and present lessons on the Uganda child soldiers, and I used all non-fiction for teaching and researching that. I was so unaware of any of that, and this teacher hands me a stack of books and articles and says, "In World Cultures, you'll be teaching of present-day Uganda for the week." I had no idea...


----------



## TimV (Feb 8, 2009)

Sure, Jessi



> Tim:
> 
> The Afrikaners are interesting. I wonder if they would have been as angry if Britain had not put them in virtual death camps during the Boer war.



Please take note, all who read, of the remark I made about Gail the other day on the What do you think of PBers thread. My comment was accurate!


----------



## brianeschen (Feb 8, 2009)

Thanks. I'll be waiting for the history of South Africa. My knowledge of Africa in general is very limited . . . the only connection being with a missionary (one with a Dutch name, but he considers himself as much African as the next). I am always glad to fill up some holes in my understanding of history.

The Dutch part is particularly interesting to me as my wife is from Dutch heritage. For those of you who bashed the Dutch, I can assure you she is very offended.


----------



## TimV (Feb 8, 2009)

And you do NOT want to offend Brian's wife  looks, cooking, schooling, organizing...she's got it all, plus a whole lot of folks who will stand up for her.


----------



## Pergamum (Feb 8, 2009)

Puritan Sailor said:


> brianeschen said:
> 
> 
> > From another thread . . .
> ...



Can you name a historical occurrence of colonists occupying an uninhabited land? 

Maybe Antarctica qualifies.

-----Added 2/8/2009 at 09:35:18 EST-----



Archlute said:


> Hmmm. Methinks that a few of you have been drinking a wee too much from anti-Western, revisionist historians. The presentations above seem a little unbalanced in favor of the "lets bash all things white, male, and Christian" crowd, than they ought to be. It reminds me of courses I took in my undergrad studies, right alongside of the our "gay and lesbian" and "minority" studies.
> 
> Much good was done for many of those societies, and it should be admitted that not all cultures are worth saving as to many of the practices that make them a distinct culture (think elements of Islamic society that prepare their young women for their wedding night with needle and thread, if you know what I'm talking about...) Many of the colonized peoples were wrapped in gross idolotry and paganism, which distinctly shaped those cultures, and because of which we should be glad that they were often subdued and changed, even if not always in an ideal manner.



I think a counter-reply could be that for too long the revisionist histories of the West made them out to be the benevolent do-gooders who saved the world from native superstition. 

Only now can differing voices be heard. 

A balanced approach would show the evils of the colonial gov'ts as well as the evils of the local populations. A balanced view would show the evils of colonialism but be fair to those like the British who often built schools, orphanages and hospitals.


----------



## calgal (Feb 8, 2009)

brianeschen said:


> Thanks. I'll be waiting for the history of South Africa. My knowledge of Africa in general is very limited . . . the only connection being with a missionary (one with a Dutch name, but he considers himself as much African as the next). I am always glad to fill up some holes in my understanding of history.
> 
> The Dutch part is particularly interesting to me as my wife is from Dutch heritage. For those of you who bashed the Dutch, I can assure you she is very offended.



My in-laws are Dutch. I do not ever even consider doing that. A very very bad idea (they hold a grudge forever!)


----------



## brianeschen (Feb 8, 2009)

calgal said:


> brianeschen said:
> 
> 
> > Thanks. I'll be waiting for the history of South Africa. My knowledge of Africa in general is very limited . . . the only connection being with a missionary (one with a Dutch name, but he considers himself as much African as the next). I am always glad to fill up some holes in my understanding of history.
> ...


Am I allowed to take this thread  if I started it? I know what you mean. When I first met my grandparents-in-law I was asked, "Eschen, that's not Dutch is it?" I thought he was joking. He wasn't.



Pergamum said:


> Can you name a historical occurrence of colonists occupying an uninhabited land?
> 
> Maybe Antarctica qualifies.


I believe that there is an historical occurrence listed in Genesis 11:8-9. (This from my Dutch wife by the way)


----------



## Pergamum (Feb 8, 2009)

Yes, Genesis 11 and Antarctica! Thanks.


----------



## Theognome (Feb 8, 2009)

Pergamum said:


> Yes, Genesis 11 and Antarctica! Thanks.



The examples of occupying a land I've read in the OT show scouring- eliminate the existing culture entirely... Kill the men, women, children and even livestock. Evangelism had nothing to do with it, for when scouring was not done, judgment came upon God's people.

If indeed the Dutch had biblical justification for occupying the land, would it have been theologically proper for them to eliminate entirely the existing population as opposed to 'evangelizing' them?

Theognome


----------



## he beholds (Feb 8, 2009)

Theognome said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, Genesis 11 and Antarctica! Thanks.
> ...



Of course.


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Feb 9, 2009)

Archlute said:


> Much good was done for many of those societies, and it should be admitted that not all cultures are worth saving as to many of the practices that make them a distinct culture (think elements of Islamic society that prepare their young women for their wedding night with needle and thread, if you know what I'm talking about...) Many of the colonized peoples were wrapped in gross idolotry and paganism, which distinctly shaped those cultures, and because of which we should be glad that they were often subdued and changed, even if not always in an ideal manner.



The ends do not justify the means.


----------



## Archlute (Feb 9, 2009)

Puritan Sailor said:


> Archlute said:
> 
> 
> > Much good was done for many of those societies, and it should be admitted that not all cultures are worth saving as to many of the practices that make them a distinct culture (think elements of Islamic society that prepare their young women for their wedding night with needle and thread, if you know what I'm talking about...) Many of the colonized peoples were wrapped in gross idolotry and paganism, which distinctly shaped those cultures, and because of which we should be glad that they were often subdued and changed, even if not always in an ideal manner.
> ...



Obviously, but neither should the good that has come about through God's hand of providence working in history be downplayed. 

I think that this reaction to all things "Western" tends to overlook the gritty reality of historical fact that those cultures were not of the "noble savage" as imagined by Paul Gauguin (who, by the way, also despised his European heritige).


----------



## satz (Feb 9, 2009)

Theognome said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, Genesis 11 and Antarctica! Thanks.
> ...



The canon being closed, I think it would have been impossible for the Dutch (or anyone else) to have biblical justification of that kind. Even God's mandate to OT Israel extended only to a particular portion of land, the promised land. Israel was not to go off invading Egypt and scouring the populace there.


----------



## Pergamum (Feb 9, 2009)

I think there is revisionism also in the opposite direction among Christians in reaction to postmodern Western hate-mongering of all things Western. 

Examples: Take a look at the Vision Forum catologue and a lot of Christian homeschooling books and you'll somehow think dressing your kids in colonial clothes is a godly activity. Or read some Christian accounts of American hisotry which are also horribly revisionist and many are mere apologetic propaganda for the South.


Charges of revisionism cut both ways.

-----Added 2/9/2009 at 02:32:41 EST-----

P.s. suggestions that Christians "scour" lands are merely jokes...right?


----------



## Jan Ziska (Feb 9, 2009)

I studied South African history in uni. Did my final paper on the National Party. 

It is true that the Voortrekkers (Afrikaners et al who moved north from British territory) moved into a pretty much empty area (thanks to the human catastrophe known as the _Mefecane_). As they moved in, so did Bantu groups. The descendants of the Voortrekkers have as much right to these parts of SA as any other ethnic group, if you consider length of habitation to be the rule in these sorts of things (I don't, but that's another story).

I have a huge amount of respect for the Afrikaner nation, but the National Party victory in 1948 was in many ways a tragedy. A proud, self-sufficient, Calvinist & hard working people are now a byword for arrogance, racism and greed.

Also, I can see why the Voortrekkers thought they were given the land by God. Their victory at Blood River seems miraculous.

As for the evils etc of colonizing, I think we can get a bit precious about it. Indigenous British culture was extinguished/colonized in succession by the Romans, Saxons, Angles, Vikings and Normans. All other European nations experienced similar issues.

The British Empire simply did what empires or dominant cultures have always done. In its wake it left Christianity, the rule of law and parliamentary democracy. As far as empires go, it was one of the most benevolent.


----------



## calgal (Feb 9, 2009)

Jan Ziska said:


> I studied South African history in uni. Did my final paper on the National Party.
> 
> It is true that the Voortrekkers (Afrikaners et al who moved north from British territory) moved into a pretty much empty area (thanks to the human catastrophe known as the _Mefecane_). As they moved in, so did Bantu groups. The descendants of the Voortrekkers have as much right to these parts of SA as any other ethnic group, if you consider length of habitation to be the rule in these sorts of things (I don't, but that's another story).
> 
> ...



The Afrikaners, Indians and Pakistanis may have a different opinion (not going to touch Ireland: not opening that ). A correction: Christianity was NOT brought to America or South Africa by Britain: dissenters who were Christians fled Britain for America (New England colonies, the Roman Catholic colony of Maryland) and there were these wooden shoe wearing folks down at the Cape to wave Hello to the Brits.


----------



## SolaScriptura (Feb 9, 2009)

Archlute said:


> Hmmm. Methinks that a few of you have been drinking a wee too much from anti-Western, revisionist historians. The presentations above seem a little unbalanced in favor of the "lets bash all things white, male, and Christian" crowd, than they ought to be. It reminds me of courses I took in my undergrad studies, right alongside of the our "gay and lesbian" and "minority" studies.
> 
> Much good was done for many of those societies, and it should be admitted that not all cultures are worth saving as to many of the practices that make them a distinct culture (think elements of Islamic society that prepare their young women for their wedding night with needle and thread, if you know what I'm talking about...) Many of the colonized peoples were wrapped in gross idolotry and paganism, which distinctly shaped those cultures, and because of which we should be glad that they were often subdued and changed, even if not always in an ideal manner.




I agree. Having been to some of these cess pools called nations and seeing what passes for culture in these areas... I am, by and large, all in favor of colonization. I think the world would in most cases be better if some of these Asian and African nations were more Western.


----------



## TimV (Feb 9, 2009)

> Can you name a historical occurrence of colonists occupying an uninhabited land?



I could start with a list of several dozen places, the Madeiras, etc....but since the topic is Africa and Jan added something to it...

There was a rebellion against Zulu misrule lead by a guy named M'zilakaze. He could have given Joseph Stalin lessons in scorched earth tactics. The rebels who became known as the N'debele, and are now the second biggest ethnic group in Zimbabwe, and who are currently leading the revolt against the worst dictator in Africa, moved north.

The loyalists followed, sending their Impis, their military formations put together by age groups raised for battle against the rebels. They were on foot, and had to live off the land. The main ethnic group in the area, Sothus and related peoples were exterminated except for those whom the rebels incorporated into their own Impis and tribe. By the time they were away from the Zulus they were ethnically 90 percent Sothu because of this.

There were some bands of local who survived, and lead by a charismatic leader named Masheshe settled in what is now the country of Lethsuto, which is bordered by mountains tailor made for ambush.

So when the Afrikaners left the British zone parts of where they went were uninhabited, and parts were, especially by bushmen and the descendants of runaway slaves from the Cape now known as Coloureds. Our district veterinarian was the 10th generation born on his farm, which they bought from a tribe of Coloureds called the Griqua.

Other areas like the lowvelt were made malaria free by the Afrikaners, and there were some tribes like the Rolong who allied themselves with the Afrikaners to the north.

It all gets so magically confusing. I'll tell one story for Jessi and Gail and the rest who are interested, and please forgive me *not looking up spelling *on some of the names.

The Griqua came up from the Cape with horses and guns, so they lorded it over the Bushmen and Hottentots. Remember, the western to central part of South Africa had no Blacks or Whites, but rather the "Khoisan", who are Bushmen and their relatives. So, a leader got his men together and attacked the N'debele during their Long March. They were accomplished raiders and took the tribes cattle, and some women as well.

M'zkilkazi fell to the ground and wept. Cattle was the National Wealth of his people, and they were now totally broke. He called his Impis together and started after the Griqua on foot! 

The Coloureds have a weakness or two like the rest of us, and that is alcohol. After the raid the raiders decided that they were far enough away and all got blistering drunk. The captive women said that they needed to move on, since they were now polluted in the eyes of their people and would be killed as well, and that their people would never give up.

The Impis caught up with the Griqua, and speared them to the ground as they laid in a drunken stupor. There were only three survivors.

The leader survived, and vowed vengence of his own. After the Zulu civil war was over, and the N'debele were in the north of what is today called South Africa, hostiities broke out between several factions, and a group of Afrikaners, Rolong and Griqua, led by the surviving leader fought a pitched battle with the N'debele. The Afrikaner and Griqua used the same battle method; platoons of four men road to the front line, one held the horses, three fired, then retreated. When the N'debele broke, the Rolong (who had long greivences against the N'debele) went in with spears along with the horsemen.

The N'debele crossed the river dividing South Africa with Zimbabwe, and that is why the second biggest tribe in Zimbabwe speak Zulu, and the name of their area is called Matebeleland.


----------



## brianeschen (Feb 9, 2009)

Thank you for filling up some of my holes . . . especially Tas, Gail and Tim. I appreciate it.


----------



## discipulo (Feb 9, 2009)

I would like to add a colourful note, Dutch wanted to fight escorbut and diseases caused by long shipping with few fresh food, and thought about wine, they knew little of wine and Holland has no good weather for wine anyway.

But the French Huguenots that fled to Holland from Catholic persecution knew a lot about wine, so they were encouraged by several means to go to South Africa and produce wine there, since then Wine is a major asset of South Africa, and exported to all the World


----------



## RamistThomist (Feb 9, 2009)

if a culture practices femal circumcision and immolation of widows, and stopping those practices involves imposing your culture on theirs, is the imposition of a culture necessarily wrong?

If so, how do you know? Aren't you implying that some cultures are superior to others?


----------



## kvanlaan (Feb 9, 2009)

> Aren't you implying that some cultures are superior to others?



Yes, what's wrong with that?

On another note, the Battle at Blood River, please remember, was not only a victory, it was a shut-out; 400+ against almost 13,000 (or more) and not one dead. I know people argue about the superiority of the Afrikaner's weaponry, but you'd think that a lucky spear throw would have gotten someone at some point during the battle. Add to that the covenant made before the battle by the Afrikaners, and you have some really compelling reasons that they saw it as God's hand on the field of battle. $.02


----------



## TimV (Feb 9, 2009)

> On another note, the Battle at Blood River, please remember, was not only a victory, it was a shut-out; 400+ against almost 13,000 (or more) and not one dead. I know people argue about the superiority of the Afrikaner's weaponry, but you'd think that a lucky spear throw would have gotten someone at some point during the battle. Add to that the covenant made before the battle by the Afrikaners, and you have some really compelling reasons that they saw it as God's hand on the field of battle. $.02



The Afrikaner's weapon was a smooth bore musket loaded from the front. And a generation later, 4 times that many British regulars, armed with rocket launchers and breach loading weapons that fire many times faster and more accurately than the Boer weapons *faced the same Zulu army*, and were killed to the last man. The Zulus were GOOD.

My third son's middle name is Sarel, after the Pastor who administered the oath. Even today many Afrikaners still hold December 16 as a Sabbath because of that vow.


----------



## kvanlaan (Feb 9, 2009)

> The Afrikaner's weapon was a smooth bore musket loaded from the front. And a generation later, 4 times that many British regulars, armed with rocket launchers and breach loading weapons that fire many times faster and more accurately than the Boer weapons faced the same Zulu army, and were killed to the last man. The Zulus were GOOD.



I still think there is no match, man for man, in terms of resilience, toughness, and unwavering faith, than a true Boer. Drop a Boere family in the desolate wilderness, and within 12 months, you will have a flourishing farm and a church.


----------



## Hamalas (Feb 9, 2009)

I've never studied this before, fascinating!


----------



## Croghanite (Feb 9, 2009)

TimV said:


> And that will do for now! Some day I'll plan on writing an essay for the PB about South African history through the eyes of an American Calvinist who lived there for a decade, and was involved in the modern "trek" to form a new homeland for them.



You should make it a book. It sounds very interesting.


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Feb 9, 2009)

Archlute said:


> Puritan Sailor said:
> 
> 
> > Archlute said:
> ...



I do not want to forget or overlook the good that has been done. But too often that is used to justify or white-wash the atrocities that were comitted by professing Christians. I agree there are not any noble savages, but there are not many noble Westerners either. Christianity and the "West" are not synonymous.


----------



## brianeschen (Feb 9, 2009)

Hamalas said:


> I've never studied this before, fascinating!



 This has been wonderful.


----------



## Pergamum (Feb 9, 2009)

Great thread...makes me want to go buy a book on Afrikaner hisotry. Any suggestions?


----------



## brianeschen (Feb 9, 2009)

Pergamum said:


> Great thread...makes me want to go buy a book on Afrikaner hisotry. Any suggestions?


Yup. Pester Tim until he relents.


----------



## kvanlaan (Feb 10, 2009)

Pakenham's book on the Boer War is fascinating and incredibly detailed but tragic - I have read it several times but always lose momentum after the Brits start in with the concentration camps and literally walling off the country with barbed wire and blockhouses to defeat the Boers. It's only the war, and does not include much in the way of general Boer history, but I still think it's great. 

Just remember this one statistic and you'll get a feel for what the Boere are: it took almost half a million British regulars to defeat 85,000 Dutch farmers. And they simply couldn't do it on the battlefield; they had to resort to scorched earth and concentration camps to win.

-----Added 2/10/2009 at 07:18:06 EST-----

One small addition: Bok van Blerk's song on the war - you can see that the way the Boere talk about the war bears much resemblance (and then some) to many Southerners today. Many are still yearning for Koos de la Rey (or the like) to lead them back to Boere sovereignty.

[video=youtube;fAhHWpqPz9A]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fAhHWpqPz9A[/video]


----------



## Kevin (Feb 10, 2009)

Kvan, I love that song!


----------



## kvanlaan (Feb 10, 2009)

We've listened to it so much, our kids can almost sing it.


----------



## RamistThomist (Feb 10, 2009)

kvanlaan said:


> > Aren't you implying that some cultures are superior to others?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Nothing. I was agreeing with you.


----------



## TimV (Feb 10, 2009)

I confess to singing it myself at work occasionally Deeeeh laaa Reey.....

They have the coolest folk songs, and one of them is about the Confederate Raider the Alabama, which once docked at Cape Town.

Yes, at the end of the war there were about 20,000 men still fighting against 450,000 Brit and colonial regulars, plus the support structure. It was costing them one million pounds per day to run the war, and when news of the death camps came out the public turned against the war.

But probably more importantly, the Germans who ruled Namibia at the time where watching, and saying to themselves "these guys really aren't that good" and it led to the UK losing their empire and much of their national wealth and world standing.


----------



## Jan Ziska (Feb 11, 2009)

kvanlaan said:


> it took almost half a million British regulars to defeat 85,000 Dutch farmers. And they simply couldn't do it on the battlefield; they had to resort to scorched earth and concentration camps to win.



Look, as much as I admire the Afrikaner nation, this is just tosh.

The Afrikaner Commando refused to face the British regiments in a pitched battle. Of course, why would they? They would have been slaughtered. They harassed, they raided, they used their skills and knowledge of the land to their best advantage.

Of course, raiding tactics are nothing new, and the British responded the way nations always have to raiders. Hit them where they live.

In days gone past, they would have burned the farms with the women & children in them. Instead they threw them in concentration camps. Not a great deal better, but to suggest that the Afrikaners were God-blessed supermen who only lost because the evil English cheated is ahistorical.

Further, to suggest that the concentration camps were unnecessarily cruel is incorrect. The British did what was required to win. Once the Afrikaners surrendered, repercussions were moderate.

The same Afrikaners who were so devout were also the same ones who taught that people were destined to be property because of the colour of their skin, and some even taught that the gospel should not be preached to the Bantu because blacks did not have souls.

It serves no-one well to inaccurately glorify or demonise historical actors. They did what they did. I am not going to say the British actions in SA were perfect, they obviously were not. But they were not demons, and I believe they were broadly in the right in the Boer War. Once the Afrikaners regained control of SA in 1948, look how things went.


----------



## Hawaiian Puritan (Feb 11, 2009)

> Can you name a historical occurrence of colonists occupying an uninhabited land?



When the Pilgrims landed, the area was uninhabited. The Indian tribe that had lived there had been wiped out in an epidemic, and other Indians did not occupy the area because they feared they also would become sick and die.


----------



## Abd_Yesua_alMasih (Feb 11, 2009)

Jan Ziska said:


> kvanlaan said:
> 
> 
> > it took almost half a million British regulars to defeat 85,000 Dutch farmers. And they simply couldn't do it on the battlefield; they had to resort to scorched earth and concentration camps to win.
> ...


They weren't just British either. They were soldiers from across the Empire. When the government in New Zealand called for volunteers to fight the Afrikaners they got so many volunteers they didn't know what to do. They progressively raised the level until they got only the most determined. From memory every man had to buy a horse and pay for this weapon etc... and still they got a good deal more than they really needed. I believe it was probably similar in your country, Australia.

As said above those young men from across the empire went to fight in a foreign land far from home and were treated to guerrilla/raiding tactics by Afrikaners who refused to stand and fight. They did what they could to finish the job.


----------



## Jan Ziska (Feb 11, 2009)

Abd_Yesua_alMasih said:


> They weren't just British either. They were soldiers from across the Empire. When the government in New Zealand called for volunteers to fight the Afrikaners they got so many volunteers they didn't know what to do. They progressively raised the level until they got only the most determined. From memory every man had to buy a horse and pay for this weapon etc... and still they got a good deal more than they really needed. I believe it was probably similar in your country, Australia.
> 
> As said above those young men from across the empire went to fight in a foreign land far from home and were treated to guerrilla/raiding tactics by Afrikaners who refused to stand and fight. They did what they could to finish the job.



Yeah, the first war Australian troops fought in was the Boer War, although soldiers from the colonies fought in NZ in the Maori Wars.


----------



## kvanlaan (Feb 11, 2009)

> Further, to suggest that the concentration camps were unnecessarily cruel is incorrect. The British did what was required to win. Once the Afrikaners surrendered, repercussions were moderate.



Brother, I would respectfullly say you are in grave error here. That logic leads down a bad path - why not skin the wives and children of the Boers, hang their bodies on poles at prominent watering holes, and label them to identify them? That would have been more effective in getting the Boere to stop fighting and meant less loss of life than the gulag that was the British concentration camps.

Never fought a pitched battle? What was Modder River? Spion Kop? Did Rommel never fight a pitched battle in Africa because he would fight, feint, delay and escape? He was seen as a genius of modern warfare - but not the Boere. No, they would hit and run and nothing else so their women and children (and over one hundred thousand blacks) were put in these "refugee" camps and died by the thousands. I don't see the logical progression there.

It's like justifying Sherman's march to the sea as 'doing what had to be done'. No, it was gratuitous murder and destruction, that's all.


----------



## calgal (Feb 11, 2009)

kvanlaan said:


> > Further, to suggest that the concentration camps were unnecessarily cruel is incorrect. The British did what was required to win. Once the Afrikaners surrendered, repercussions were moderate.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



The concentration camps were so modern, the the soviets and a certain nasty little austrian corporal took notes and modeled their "internment camps" after these. Anyone think this treatment of noncombatants might have pushed the children and grandchildren of these Boere past their breaking point?


----------



## TimV (Feb 11, 2009)

> The Afrikaner Commando refused to face the British regiments in a pitched battle. Of course, why would they? They *would have been slaughtered*. They harassed, they raided, they used their skills and knowledge of the land to their best advantage.



Well, we don't have to guess, do we as there were conventional battles. At Dundee Meyer with 3,500 men fought Symons and British losses were 500 and Boer losses 120.

At Elandslaagte 850 Boers were beat by British with 350 Boer losses and 70 British losses. This battle made an impact on the Boers as the British lancers engaged in "pig-sticking" Boers who tried to surrender.

At Magersfontien 15,000 British fought 8,500 Boers. This battle is famous because Delarey was the first modern general to use the kind of trench warfare used in WW1. British losses were 1,100 and Boer losses were 200.

At Colenso General Botha with 8,500 men fought a British force of 15,000. British losses were 1,200 and Boer losses were 38.

And there were several others. 



> In days gone past, they would have burned the farms with the women & children in them. Instead they threw them in concentration camps. Not a great deal better, but to suggest that the Afrikaners were God-blessed supermen who only lost because the evil English cheated is ahistorical.



They certainly weren't supermen, just lots better.



> Further, to suggest that the concentration camps were unnecessarily cruel is incorrect. The British did what was required to win. Once the Afrikaners surrendered, repercussions were moderate.



The death rate for people entering those camps was 25%. 



> The same Afrikaners who were so devout were also the same ones who taught that people were destined to be property because of the colour of their skin, and some even taught that the gospel should not be preached to the Bantu because blacks did not have souls.



Well, Slavery ended in SA a generation before it did here. There were no slaves in Afrikaner ruled territory ever. When they are faced with the type of arguments you are using, which they percieve as typical of Australians, they point out that there are lots and lots of Black people where they live and there are no native Tasmanians because while they came with the Bible, you came with the gun and they are now totally extinct.


----------



## Kevin (Feb 11, 2009)

BTW my great uncle (grandfathers older brother) faught in SA as part of the New Brunswick Reg.


----------



## Rocketeer (Feb 11, 2009)

discipulo said:


> I would like to add a colourful note, Dutch wanted to fight escorbut and diseases caused by long shipping with few fresh food, and thought about wine, they knew little of wine and Holland has no good weather for wine anyway.



It had in the 14th and 15th century, though; that was before the Small Ice Age, which reached it height somewhere in the 17th century, if memory serves. 



discipulo said:


> But the French Huguenots that fled to Holland from Catholic persecution knew a lot about wine, so they were encouraged by several means to go to South Africa and produce wine there, since then Wine is a major asset of South Africa, and exported to all the World



I am myself of that descent; that is to say, my maternal grandfather can trace his lineage back to a 15th-century French Huguenot.



Jan Ziska said:


> It serves no-one well to inaccurately glorify or demonise historical actors. They did what they did. I am not going to say the British actions in SA were perfect, they obviously were not. But they were not demons, and I believe they were broadly in the right in the Boer War.



I reserve the right to denounce men like Stalin, Hitler and Kitchener as demons. They properly were, period. The 25% death ratio in the concentration camps was mostly by _starvation_, which is easily helped by shipping a little more food. This is murder by omission, which is quite as bad. Else, you cannot condemn Mao Zedong's Great Step Forward either, nor the Soviet agricultural policies.

Secondly, the British were not in the right, for this reason, that the reaction (of starving women and children in concentration camps and of practicing scorched earth policies) is disproportionate, period. I do not care that the Scipio Africanus did the same to the Carthaginians; Kitchener was supposed to be a Christian, and so was the British nation. These tactics cannot be justified - for if they can, why are the Americans not even allowed Guantanamo Bay? The proper, Christian reaction would have been to unilaterally end the war, by withdrawing from all pre-war Boer territory and guarding the border. It is plain pride that caused the Brits to stay and soldier on; it also isn't as if half a million men can't guard a border, either; half that number or less could have done the job. There was no need for the British to fight on after the cities fell.

As for what happened in 1948 - that was 45 years after the war in question. Does that mean, by analogy, that the NATO invasion of Jugoslavia was a direct result of WWII?

Edit:

what happened in 1948, by the way? Apartheid is a British invention, and the 1948 law 'only' included the Cape Coloureds with the Bantu and the Indians.


----------



## Jan Ziska (Feb 11, 2009)

Ok, I'm going to try to reply to everything.

But first I will say I don't want this to descend into an argument over whose ancestors are more awesome/devout etc. My physical heritage is British, and my spiritual heritage Calvinist/Reformed. In a lot of ways, I have a foot in both camps. I have a huge amount of respect for the Boers. But I have even more respect for the British empire, for all its sins.

I've found in my studying of history that we tend to lionise what I call 'glorious losers'. The Boers, the American South, the Scots, the Irish etc.

It is easy to side with the underdogs, because they don't have the burden of ruling, of making the civilisational choices that are unpopular.

Anyway, onward:



> That logic leads down a bad path



How else would you suggest the British stop the Commando from receiving supplies and support? As gruesome as it sounds, 25% is far better than 100%. 



> It's like justifying Sherman's march to the sea as 'doing what had to be done'. No, it was gratuitous murder and destruction, that's all.



I have no problem with Sherman's actions. He kept his troops focused on inflicting property damage. Loss of civilian life was incidental, and not what he was trying to accomplish. It ended the war quickly, which was in everyone's best interest.

If you have a problem with these methods, then you must also have a problem with the methods that have won pretty much every war ever. It is not the destruction of armies or fighting men that stops a war, it is crippling the enemy's ability to fight. Look at Hiroshima, the bombings of Germany, etc etc etc.

As Sherman himself said: “You cannot qualify war in harsher terms than I will. War is cruelty, and you cannot refine it; and those who brought war into our country deserve all the curses and maledictions a people can pour out. I know I had no hand in making this war, and I know I will make more sacrifices to-day than any of you to secure peace.”

And yes, there were conventional battles. But the majority of the conflict could be described as guerrilla warfare, similar to that the French and Spanish fought under Napoleon.

As for why the British had to invade in the first place? This is the hardest part for me. I would say a lot of it had to do with control of the diamond and gold fields. I would also say a lot of it had to to with _Pax Britannia_.

1948 was when the National Party won power, and held it from then until they surrendered power to Mandela and the ANC. The *vast* majority of Apartheid policy was formulated by Afrikaners (esp members of the _Afrikaner Broederbond_) and defended from the pulpit by Reformed clerics. Also note that SA is no more democratic now than it was under the Nationals. They swapped one single-party-rule for another. They did not give the Bantu the ability to govern themselves in a modern democracy in the way that say, Indians were.

A final note. Again, I am not saying that one side are angels, and the other demons. Both sides were nominally Christian, but men of their times. What I mean by that is that it is unfair to judge them by modern standards. If you condemn the British for their internment camps, then you must condemn the Boers for their racism and erroneous (if not heretical) belief that God had given them the land they inhabited and that they were destined to rule over the Bantu people. And you must also condemn them for making extensive use of ununiformed soldiers. They can't have it both ways.

PS: A few things to bear in mind regarding the Tasmanian Aboriginals. 1) There were an estimated 2000 of them pre-settlement. Such a small population is extremely fragile, and it doesn't take much to decimate. Disease & regular border clashes accounted for the vast majority of deaths. 2) The descendants of Tasmanian Aboriginals exist to this day, and are in similar numbers as they were pre-settlement.


----------



## TimV (Feb 11, 2009)

> It is easy to side with the underdogs, because they don't have the burden of ruling, of making the civilisational choices that are unpopular.



Burden of ruling? Over independent peoples who didn't want to be ruled by the British 



> How else would you suggest the British stop the Commando from receiving supplies and support? As gruesome as it sounds, 25% is far better than 100%


. 

You are mixing theologial mistakes with historical mistakes. Those Calvinists that died at a 25% in British camps had a much smaller death rate than Boers who were interned in Portugese camps. And the theological mistake should be obvious. It has to do with Christian ethics, and whether the ends justifies the means.



> And yes, there were conventional battles.



Now you're changing the subject. Your remark was



> The Afrikaner Commando refused to face the British regiments in a pitched battle. Of course, why would they? They would have been slaughtered.



And what usually happened was that the British regiments were beaten.




> As for why the British had to invade in the first place? This is the hardest part for me. I would say a lot of it had to do with control of the diamond and gold fields. I would also say a lot of it had to to with Pax Britannia.



When I'm in the mood sometime I'll include that in my PB essay. It's complicated, especially as the British didn't invade. The two Boer Republics invaded the British Empire.



> If you condemn the British for their internment camps, then you must condemn the Boers for their racism and erroneous (if not heretical) belief that God had given them the land they inhabited and that they were destined to rule over the Bantu people.



This should more properly be in the wading pool area, but you can't imprison people, burn down their homes and kill their babies for racist thinking under Biblical law. And the whole purpose of Apartheid was that they would NOT have to rule over anyone else.


----------



## Kevin (Feb 11, 2009)

Brother, if you honestly believe that Sherman focused on destroying property, and that civilian deaths were incidental, then I have some prime South Florida Waterfront property to sell you!

The murder, rape, and starvation was the point, not the side effect.


----------



## Abd_Yesua_alMasih (Feb 11, 2009)

Not to belittle anyones arguments here but I notice a very strong difference in family background here which probably has a very big impact on personal opinion in this area. Those of us who were 'children of the empire' are much more likely to have been schooled in British thinking about these things. I know I grew up hearing stories of the Boer war and in school trips we would go to museums and see the guns, reenactments etc... as if this was something to be proud of. I never questioned this as a kid and I guess it has got into my thinking as an adult.

I don't doubt that similar things have worked their way into the thinking of Dutch or Afrikaner people here on the board. This is just as much now an intellectual debate as it is a face-off between two different family histories. It is one thing to discuss history, it is another to renounce ancestors. As an example on the one hand I can accept the ethical arguments here on this topic, but on the other hand I would find it hard to then condemn people like my great great grandfather who as a servant of the British Empire and Rear-Admiral bombarded built up urban areas in northern Africa to crush Muslim rebellions. Undoubtably he knowingly killed innocent women and children.

Perhaps it is time for this discussion to run its course.


----------



## TimV (Feb 11, 2009)

> I don't doubt that similar things have worked their way into the thinking of Dutch or Afrikaner people here on the board.



I'm Welsh and Scots mostly, and have no Dutch, French or German in me. Living as a foriegn Calvinist 9 years among both Afrikaners and South African English helped me come to the subject with a fairly open mind. Learning Afrikaans helped, since I could read histories not published in English, and I read English histories as well. My kids went to school with the the great grandkids of the Dutchman who when President developed Apartheid.


----------



## Hippo (Feb 11, 2009)

calgal said:


> The Afrikaners are interesting. I wonder if they would have been as angry if Britain had not put them in virtual death camps during the Boer war.
> 
> An interesting sidenote when discussing British colonies: much of the mess in Ireland, the Middle East and India/Pakistan can be traced directly back to the British rulers playing a strategy of "divide and conquer." England was pretty paranoid when it came to their colonies after the American Revolution and the French Revolution. Note that India and Pakistan were used against each other (so were the Arabs and Jews) and the hate has just been built up over the years. South Africa got a bit of that as well which explains the Afrikaners getting really really ticked off and supporting Germany in 2 world wars. Sorry Brits but your government was pretty nasty for a while.



The historic British national strategy has always been to establish a balance of power in Europe so that no one power was dominant, in that way Britain was able to preserve its independance. In many ways the empire was a product of this policy where we acquired an empire largely to stop France getting its hands on it all. 

For all Britains many faults (and in so many ways colonisation is never nice) it did generally try to build institutions in its territorys that develped the local population so that the a local civil service could be employed, this necessitated a positive interaction with native populations (or as has been pointed out, often with sections of local populations). Local industry was also encouraged and an active economy was developed as a market for British goods.

This compares with the startegies of Portugal, Germany and Holland whereby the colonies were often seen as simply places to strip of raw materials with the natives being treated as no more than troublesome savages. In this way there was a difference in character between British colonialism and much of European colonialism.

South Africa is an interesting example as despite the cold indiffernce to the civililians shown by the concentration camps the Afrikaans did by and large willingly fight for the British in both worls wars. Jan Smuts was a very willing ally and there was no serious threat to this policy.

Despite Britains faults the empires actions cannot really be compared to the barbaric genocide of manifest destiny practiced by the USA over many decades.


----------



## TimV (Feb 11, 2009)

Mike, there were indeed good people involved in the admin of the British Empire, and I think (from what I know about the subject, and except for SA I don't really know anything) your post is largely accurate. As a note, the Boers were split at the outbreak of the war.

In one of those strange little happenings that change history, Delarey, who was the head of the now mechanized and very powerful South African army was tending towards declaring for Germany, and the army would have followed him. He ran a road block, the men didn't realise who it was, a guard fired a warning shot, and a chip from a rock that the bullet hit struck Delarey in the head killing him.

There were Boer volunteers during the war, but mostly third stringers who wanted adventure.

If Delarey would have lived, it's fun to speculate as to what would have happened with Von Lettow-Vorbeck having all that crazy success in East Africa. A South Africa on Germany's side would have linked the with the Turks quickly, denied SA as a port to Britain's navy, and one could go on and on.

I've always wished I had an imagination. A person could write a great alternative history novel starting with that warning shot.


----------



## Abd_Yesua_alMasih (Feb 11, 2009)

Hippo said:


> In many ways the empire was a product of this policy where we acquired an empire largely to stop France getting its hands on it all.


That made me laugh. New Zealand is one of the more useless countries you will find in the world with little in the way of anything and yet as soon as Britain heard that France was sending people to colonize us it rushed into making an agreement with the Maori that would hand the country over to Queen Victoria. France only succeeded in making one fishing village before the land was swiped out from under them.


----------



## kvanlaan (Feb 11, 2009)

> Not to belittle anyones arguments here but I notice a very strong difference in family background here which probably has a very big impact on personal opinion in this area. Those of us who were 'children of the empire' are much more likely to have been schooled in British thinking about these things. I know I grew up hearing stories of the Boer war and in school trips we would go to museums and see the guns, reenactments etc... as if this was something to be proud of. I never questioned this as a kid and I guess it has got into my thinking as an adult.



Ah, but here's the thing: I was raised a very devout little subject of the empire. Remember, Canada wasn't released from the Crown until 1982. Even then, little bits of Empire clung to us for some time; that is, I sang "God Save the Queen" in school every morning for a few years and remember being fascinated by the big red map, showing how the sun never set on the British Empire, of which I was sorta-kinda a part. I remember in my teenage years very sanctimoniously telling Americans I knew that their anger over British taxes was rubbish, seeing as how they were simply paying for the protection that we were affording them - they didn't need to go and start a war over keeping a few more dollars in their pockets. And then I spent some quality time in the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders of Canada, taking my glengarry off to the Queen every time I entered the wet mess (thanking her for the cheap beer, in addition to the honor bit) and having a true love for the music of the bagpipes in my heart. Heck, I even learned Imperial measurements before we jumped on board with metric. I'm not Her Majesty's most loyal subject, but I sure was raised as one.

A small note on the religious aspect of the Boere nation: I think their views on race are completely without merit. But if a bunch of AoG folks are living atop some bullion and diamonds we want, are we going to open Arminian death camps? I think not. It takes a Kitchener, Roberts, or even the King of Boy Scouts, Baden-Powell himself, to pull that one off (though Baden-Powell doesn't deserve the snath, scythe, and hooded cloak that the other two do).


----------



## Edward (Feb 11, 2009)

> Aren't you implying that some cultures are superior to others?



It is wrong to imply that some cultures are superior to others. It should always be clearly stated.


----------



## Abd_Yesua_alMasih (Feb 12, 2009)

Yeah okay so my idea fell flat on its face  you all win.


----------



## discipulo (Feb 12, 2009)

Hippo said:


> This compares with the startegies of Portugal, Germany and Holland whereby the colonies were often seen as simply places to strip of raw materials with the natives being treated as no more than troublesome savages. In this way there was a difference in character between British colonialism and much of European colonialism.



Maybe with could talk about Portuguese colonization afterwards 

Yes we colonized 6 African countries Angola, Mozambique, Cape Verde, Guinea Bissau and S. Tome.

Of course there was also Brazil in South America, a small part of India, Goa, Damão e Diu, East Timor, Macau, etc. 

But please don’t compare or qualify the Portuguese Colonization that way, since the great majority of International Historians consider the Portuguese Empire was the most benign to its colonies. It is also agreed by African and Brazilian Historians. 

Lusofonia or the CPLP are great present examples of this.


----------



## Pergamum (Feb 12, 2009)

Both Spain and Portugal were Catholic. Why were the Spanish so brutal in comparison to the Portuguse since they live so close together and had the same faith? What is the difference in culture there?

-----Added 2/12/2009 at 06:56:26 EST-----

P.s. whatever happened to Portugal. How did such a small country get so powerful and when did it fall out of all that power? Why Spain and Portugal....is that location real strategic and the waters good?


----------



## kvanlaan (Feb 12, 2009)

> It is wrong to imply that some cultures are superior to others. It should always be clearly stated.



Did you go to public schools?


----------



## discipulo (Feb 12, 2009)

Pergamum said:


> Both Spain and Portugal were Catholic. Why were the Spanish so brutal in comparison to the Portuguse since they live so close together and had the same faith? What is the difference in culture there?
> 
> -----Added 2/12/2009 at 06:56:26 EST-----
> 
> P.s. whatever happened to Portugal. How did such a small country get so powerful and when did it fall out of all that power? Why Spain and Portugal....is that location real strategic and the waters good?



That’s a very good question and one I would delight to answer, just don’t have the time now, and I wonder if this shouldn’t be on another thread.

I must say as a principle I don’t agree with Colonization, as Portuguese were also heavily trading slaves and also made some genocides, however not to be compared with Spain.

But we started the Discoveries to know the World not to Conquer it, eventually we made commercial harbour centres and it started from there.

And yes Spanish and Portuguese are very different cultures, Portugal unlike Spain, never intended to have domain over all Europe or over any other European country for that matter.

As for Spain, starting with Charles the V, then with the several Kings Phillip II, III; IV, Spain ruled over a great part of Europe, including Portugal.

The portuguese empire, saddly lasted till 1974, we should have released the colonies way before.

But we left a lot of good influences, the language, infrastructures, education, organizational principles, culture, etc. 

PS - yes, the waters are good, great beaches and sunshine and we learned navigation very early : )


----------



## TimV (Feb 12, 2009)

There is a Portugese connection in this thread. I mentioned the Madeiras as an example of an area colonized without people there already, and I thought of it since there were 400,000 Portugese in SA when I was there, largely from Madeira. Many have gone back do to the violence. There were other Portugese from their colonies which failed, and the horror stories they told about what they went through before they got to the "safety" of SA are the stuff of nightmares. 

In the big "shrine" to Afrikaner history there are a series of profound carvings that give a visitor a visual history of their race, and in one the wife of the Portugese Governer of Mozambique is comforting a Voortreker lady. I've already mentioned that the death rates in Portugese run interment camps was much lower than in the English camps. Portugal was "allied" to England, as that's just the way it's always been between the two countries. I suppose it's probably the oldest alliance of any two European nations. The Portugese were sympathetic to the Boers, though, and did act as kind neutrals. They probably did the best they could with the deck handed them.


----------



## discipulo (Feb 12, 2009)

TimV said:


> There is a Portugese connection in this thread. I mentioned the Madeiras as an example of an area colonized without people there already, and I thought of it since there were 400,000 Portugese in SA when I was there, largely from Madeira. Many have gone back do to the violence. There were other Portugese from their colonies which failed, and the horror stories they told about what they went through before they got to the "safety" of SA are the stuff of nightmares.
> 
> In the big "shrine" to Afrikaner history there are a series of profound carvings that give a visitor a visual history of their race, and in one the wife of the Portugese Governer of Mozambique is comforting a Voortreker lady. I've already mentioned that the death rates in Portugese run interment camps was much lower than in the English camps. Portugal was "allied" to England, as that's just the way it's always been between the two countries. I suppose it's probably the oldest alliance of any two European nations. The Portugese were sympathetic to the Boers, though, and did act as kind neutrals. They probably did the best they could with the deck handed them.




The Civil War in the African Countries, that were formerly Portuguese, after the decolonization, was a tragedy and destroyed the major part of those countries infrastructures.

Most Portuguese had to leave those countries in 1974 to save their lives. 

My Dad lived and worked for 2 years in Mozambique in the 90s and knew also South Africa quite well.

The Portuguese (the former Colonizers) are helping to rebuild those countries (again) with great appreciation from the local Authorities and Populations.

The Alliance between England and Portugal is the oldest alliance in the World, and England kept us from being «colonized» by Napoleon.

I feel a great debt to the Afrikaans heritage.

My Pastor (Herman Taute) is a South African, and descends from Boers, a godly man now ministering as a missionary Pastor and Seminar Professor (he is an Hebrew scholar) in my needy country.

I attend the only Reformed ( 3 forms of unity confessional ) Church in Portugal that was planted by another South African missionary couple, now retired.

That’s why the site of my church is in Portuguese and Afrikaans, hopefully English will be available in a near future.

-----Added 2/12/2009 at 11:22:50 EST-----

My wife is Dutch, and before we met, she had worked 6 months in South Africa, so we look forward to travel someday to know SA, she says it’s the most beautiful country in the World.

This to say that, being against colonization as a principle, I have known of such good made to Africa by European Colonizers that I am a bit too biased on this matter / thread.


----------



## BertMulder (Feb 12, 2009)

The only reason the Brits wanted the areas of the Voortrekkers, and specifically Transvaal was GOLD and DIAMONDS.

For that, they used the argument: "Once a British subject, always a British subject". In other words, you are always British SLAVES no matter where you live.

As regarding any comments about Apartheid...

Apartheid may not be practiced in SA anymore, I don't know, have never lived there. From the reports in the press, it seems to be still in practice in Zimbawbwe(sp?). But it is certainly practiced in good ole Canada, and in the US of A. 

In Canada, the natives still do not have private property rights. All their reserveland is owned by the federal government, and governed by band council who generally, being as corrupt as white people, use it as their own private fiefdom. Not to say there are no exceptions to the rule...


----------



## LawrenceU (Feb 12, 2009)

This is a very interesting thread. I had a professor in college who was an Afrikaner. He was an amazing man. But, he regretted the history of his people. He often made connections to the Boer War and the War for Southern Independence (His title). His oft repeated statement was, 'I'm from the side of the history writers and they've done a [email protected]^n good job of shining their boots.'


In that light:



> I have no problem with Sherman's actions. He kept his troops focused on inflicting property damage. Loss of civilian life was incidental, and not what he was trying to accomplish. It ended the war quickly, which was in everyone's best interest.
> 
> If you have a problem with these methods, then you must also have a problem with the methods that have won pretty much every war ever. It is not the destruction of armies or fighting men that stops a war, it is crippling the enemy's ability to fight. Look at Hiroshima, the bombings of Germany, etc etc etc.
> 
> As Sherman himself said: “You cannot qualify war in harsher terms than I will. War is cruelty, and you cannot refine it; and those who brought war into our country deserve all the curses and maledictions a people can pour out. I know I had no hand in making this war, and I know I will make more sacrifices to-day than any of you to secure peace.”



Sherman's actions on his March to the Sea are not anything at all as you defined them. Come over here and I can show you the effects to this day. 

I can show you diaries of women who were raped repeatedly by 'liberators' that lived over twenty miles from the armies central path. Not just one, but many. This happened to both black and white women. 

You would see houses of subsistence farmers that were burned, families murdered, livestock shot and left to rot. (That is not foraging and does nothing to cripple war making.) 

I can point you to black men impressed into service both, military and domestic servitude, by Yankee regiments against their desire. 

Sherman was an insane despotic man. He was useful to despotic government. That is not merely the assessment of Southrons, either. Many in the North held the same opinion.

I could list much more, but I will not.

Is my blood up? Yep. And, rightfully so. History is useless if it is not portrayed accurately: on this continent or any other.


----------



## BertMulder (Feb 12, 2009)

LawrenceU said:


> This is a very interesting thread. I had a professor in college who was an Afrikaner. He was an amazing man. But, he regretted the history of his people. He often made connections to the Boer War and the War for Southern Independence (His title). His oft repeated statement was, 'I'm from the side of the history writers and they've done a [email protected]^n good job of shining their boots.'
> 
> .



lol

I thought it was the 'War of northern agression'...

(read Shilo Autumn by Thoene...)


----------



## fredtgreco (Feb 12, 2009)

I hear you, Lawrence. That is one of the main reasons that war is such a bad thing - it gives sinful men an opportunity to vent their sin unchecked. There is no reason to "whitewash" that. Bedford Forrest was a similar thug. No wonder he helped found the KKK.

But none of this should surprise us. I was just reading about Menahem today (2 Kings 15:16).


----------



## LawrenceU (Feb 12, 2009)

> Bedford Forrest was a similar thug. No wonder he helped found the KKK.



That is partially correct. He was a thuggish man. A brilliant warrior, but not the most stellar character. He did help to found the first Klan. But, it was disbanded after the Northern Troops were pulled from the South. (Frankly, in many areas the citizens needed protection from the occupying forces. That was why the Klan was started. I'm not defending it, just pointing it out.)

When folks resurrected the Klan later for different purposes Forrest made a public plea for men not to join it. It was printed in papers across the South. So, while it is accurate to say that he helped to start the Klan, it is not accurate to say that he helped to start the Klan that exists today.


----------



## discipulo (Feb 12, 2009)

LawrenceU said:


> > Bedford Forrest was a similar thug. No wonder he helped found the KKK.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



The Klu Klux Klan still exists today?


----------



## BertMulder (Feb 12, 2009)

discipulo said:


> LawrenceU said:
> 
> 
> > > Bedford Forrest was a similar thug. No wonder he helped found the KKK.
> ...



yep

check here:

Home Page


----------



## Pilgrim (Feb 12, 2009)

LawrenceU said:


> This is a very interesting thread. I had a professor in college who was an Afrikaner. He was an amazing man. But, he regretted the history of his people. He often made connections to the Boer War and the War for Southern Independence (His title). His oft repeated statement was, 'I'm from the side of the history writers and they've done a [email protected]^n good job of shining their boots.'
> 
> 
> In that light:
> ...



I'm by no means a Confederate apologist or Lincoln hater, certainly not to the extent that some others have been on this site in the past. But I'll simply add this: The Plains Indians can tell you a thing or two about men like Sherman and Sheridan as well. These apparently are Sherman's words cited from here.



> We are not going to let a few thieving, ragged Indians check and stop the progress of the railroads.... I regard the railroad as the most important element now in progress to facilitate the military interests of our Frontier.
> 
> We must act with vindictive earnestness against the Sioux, *even to their extermination, men, women and children.* (The Sioux must) feel the superior power of the Government.
> 
> ...


----------



## kvanlaan (Feb 12, 2009)

> For that, they used the argument: "Once a British subject, always a British subject". In other words, you are always British SLAVES no matter where you live.



There's a Frisian saying: "Lever dod as Slaav" (Rather dead than a slave). But I think it holds true for most dyed in the wool Dutchmen.


----------



## BertMulder (Feb 12, 2009)

kvanlaan said:


> > For that, they used the argument: "Once a British subject, always a British subject". In other words, you are always British SLAVES no matter where you live.
> 
> 
> 
> There's a Frisian saying: "Lever dod as Slaav" (Better dead than a slave). But I think it holds true for most dyed in the wool Dutchmen.



talking about dutch sayings, "beter turks dan paaps" (better turkish than popish)


----------



## Jan Ziska (Feb 12, 2009)

discipulo said:


> The Klu Klux Klan still exists today?



Sort of. The Klan went through three distinct phases. The first in the immediate aftermath of the Civil War, the second during the 'civil rights era' and is now in it's third phase.

There is no copyright on the name 'KKK' and pretty much any mug with a white sheet and an internet connection can found a chapter of the muckety-muck Knights of Christian Heritage or some such.

Unlike the 2nd phase Klan, there is no central organization, hardly any popular membership, and acts of violence are more or less insignificant from a LEO perspective. 

Sure, keep an eye on them, but don't flatter them by giving them any significance at all.


----------



## LawrenceU (Feb 12, 2009)

Actually, the Klan is alive and well. And, better organised than many think. It has been laying low, but LEOs know they are alive and well. Nationally, they are connected to many of the Aryan groups. They operate much like the Mafia in that they will use other groups to do the dirty work. There are several smaller groups that use the name, but there is also a national organisation. These smaller groups are usually connected in some manner to the larger organisation. In the USA the area of the country that has the most members is the Midwest, not the South. They are still in the South, but during the 1970's there was significant shift to the Midwest.

They don't get the press that they did in the 1960's, but don't let the lack of press lead you to believe that they are not active. All you have to do is to cross them and you will find out just how strong they are.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Feb 12, 2009)

I have visually seen more Klan activity up here in Pittsburgh and in my wife's hometown of Cincinnati than I ever did in the backwoods parts of West Virginia.

-----Added 2/12/2009 at 03:43:36 EST-----



LawrenceU said:


> Sherman's actions on his March to the Sea are not anything at all as you defined them. Come over here and I can show you the effects to this day.
> 
> I can show you diaries of women who were raped repeatedly by 'liberators' that lived over twenty miles from the armies central path. Not just one, but many. This happened to both black and white women.
> 
> You would see houses of subsistence farmers that were burned, families murdered, livestock shot and left to rot. (That is not foraging and does nothing to cripple war making.)



Same thing with Phillip Sheridan's ride down the Shenandoah Valley. Civilian family members of mine were raped and murdered by Sheridan's forces well after that area had been secured militarily.


----------



## TimV (Feb 12, 2009)

There are to my knowledge no provable cases of rape by British soldiers during the Second Boer War. It was more methodical than the wanton destruction carried out by some commands from both the North and South (let's admit to a William Quantrill or two who were worse than NB Forrest, and and Wirz, who ran Andersonville POW camp with a mortality rate in the 35% range, as did one Northern camp in New York). Not to derail a thread that some are finding valuable.

There was a stated policy by Milner and some of the other young gay men as well as Kitchener to defeat the Boers by demographics, and that included trying to get more settlers from the UK, and acts more sinister during the war. The Kindergarten, as the clique was called really had a thing against women and children, and probably a third of the Boer children under 2 years old died in those camps. 

I saw one, once, 20 kilometers from my house, outside of Hopetown. And the long lines of small, unmarked cement slabs that were those kid's graves was quite emotional for me.


----------



## Kevin (Feb 12, 2009)

Tim, which members of Milner's group do you have in mind as being homosexual?

I am a bit of a fan of the entire Imperial Union movement, and I had not read anything about this.

-----Added 2/12/2009 at 05:40:21 EST-----

BTW have you read Quigly's "Anglo-American Establishment"?


----------



## matt01 (Feb 12, 2009)

discipulo said:


> The Klu Klux Klan still exists today?



Unfortunately. You can read some of their (and other groups) nonsense on the stormfront website. Just google stormfront, and you will find it, I don't want to include the actual link.


----------



## TimV (Feb 12, 2009)

No, Kevin, I haven't. As to Kitchener, the Kindergarten, Rhodes and the rest, it is, and has been, widely believed about them even when they were alive; at least by the historians I've read. And I think it obvious by the evidence I've seen but to my knowledge to trial was ever held for any of them.


----------



## Hippo (Feb 12, 2009)

My understanding is that the concentration camps in South Africa came about because the British were so freaked out by their military failures that it was the only tactic they could think off to win, and they had to win because a defeat would have been unthinkable. 

This is a fairly generic scenario and not too different to that faced by the North in the American civil war.


----------



## TimV (Feb 12, 2009)

Of course you're right again, Mike, and I was sloppy in my posting. There was a mindset from the very top that was anti family, and wanted the reduction of Boer numbers; that's hard to contest, especially given the much lower death rates in Portugese camps, but it was wrong of me to have posted in such a manner as to make it out to be the main reason for the camps, or that there were writen orders to kill civilians.

Another interesting fact. Boer men who were captured were sent out of country, to places like Ceylon. In some camps the British had to set up schools, since there were so many boys. One camp had an eight year old POW and two nine year olds.

And it's also not true that these were the first concentration camps in history. That's a subject that comes up often. There have been such camps all through history. It is true though that the Germans were watching. During the final days before WW2 there were meetings trying to resolve disputes between Goering (who's dad was the Governer of what's now called Namibia, and where Goering's mother got pregnant with him) and a British diplomat named Henderson. Henderson said "what about the concentration camps" Goering lost it, opened a dictionary, put his finger on the entry and read "Concentration Camps: First used by the British in the Second Boer War".


----------



## Mushroom (Feb 12, 2009)

As an aside related to the Portugese presence in SA, I had for a short time back in '03-4 (about 6 months) an employee who'd been born in Portugal, emmigrated to SA at age nine, then here to the US in his 30's. Without a doubt the best employee I ever had. The guy seemed like he was reading my mind. I'd think of a tool I'd need, and he'd be behind me holding it at the ready. And if there was anything we didn't know how to do, he'd figure it out long before I could.

He left SA, which he also said was the most beautiful country in the world, because of the crime and violence. The stories he'd tell were hair-raising. But the coolest thing about him was that he spoke Portugese, English, Afrikaans, and some African dialect. He had the absolute strangest mix of accents I've ever heard.

One of my most prized possessions is a decorated ostrich egg he brought back from a holiday trip home. We've lost touch since, something I very much regret.

 I know, but he deserved a mention in this thread. His name is Fernando. I pray for him when I remember, if anyone else wants to, thank you.


----------



## Kevin (Feb 12, 2009)

TimV said:


> No, Kevin, I haven't. As to Kitchener, the Kindergarten, Rhodes and the rest, it is, and has been, widely believed about them even when they were alive; at least by the historians I've read. And I think it obvious by the evidence I've seen but to my knowledge to trial was ever held for any of them.



Any citations?

On the contrary side, we have Lord Baden-Powell who was very famously married. Lord Tweedsmuir (John Buchan) who was an ruling elder in the C of S, in addition to being the father of 4 ( also he paid to have his mum & dad, a presbyterian minister come out to stay with him for his stay in SA). Rhodes was a bit of a ladies man at best, or a cad at worst.

Only the most famous members of the 'Milner Group" come to mind, so I would assume that the allegations are about some of the other, less well known men?

BTW, this group was the origins of the Rhodes Scholarship programme.


----------



## TimV (Feb 12, 2009)

Kevin, let me read up on that a bit, and thanks for the info!


----------



## Pilgrim (Feb 12, 2009)

Jan Ziska said:


> discipulo said:
> 
> 
> > The Klu Klux Klan still exists today?
> ...



What is generally regarded as the second phase of the Klan began around 1915 with a meeting in Stone Mountain Georgia. It took on more of a nativist complexion at that time and was also strong in the Midwest and other parts of the country outside of the old Confederacy. The Civil Rights era was the third phase.


----------



## Kevin (Feb 12, 2009)

And it must be added, that the Klan of today is NOT a "fourth phase". 

Todays "klan" is made up of a few rednecks with a quart of beer & a sheet.

BTW do you know how to tell who is the undercover fed at the Klan meeting? He is the only one who can afford to pay his dues!


----------



## LawrenceU (Feb 13, 2009)

Kevin said:


> And it must be added, that the Klan of today is NOT a "fourth phase".
> 
> Todays "klan" is made up of a few rednecks with a quart of beer & a sheet.
> 
> BTW do you know how to tell who is the undercover fed at the Klan meeting? He is the only one who can afford to pay his dues!



Kevin, with all due respect, this is just not true. I'm intimately familiar with the Klan in its current form. I detest the organisation - just so nobody gets any funny ideas.

-----Added 2/13/2009 at 06:04:22 EST-----

This discussion on SA and the Boers is fascinating. Why did we brush over so quickly in school. I do have a question as an ignorant bystander: Do the descendants of the Boers till refer to themselves as Boers?


----------



## TimV (Feb 13, 2009)

The word Boer means farmer, and they use both that word and Afrikaner to refer to themselves. The plural form is Boere, and it's pronounced BOO ra.

We have got a couple on the forum and lost a couple lately as well. They'll say something like "we boers are like mules" or "Afrikaner self determination won't happen because we can't do our own laundry". One of the traits I like in them is that they can with really few words pass on a lot of meaning. They don't like bragging, and would be amazed at how many people admire their history. They pretty much feel dumped on.


----------



## LawrenceU (Feb 13, 2009)

Thanks. I know that I really learned a lot of practical thought from my Afrikaner professor. He was a dear man. Thanks for the heads up on the proper plural form. 

On a different note. I'm reminded of SA often. We play Euchre. The trump and off jack are called, 'Boer'; or Bauer depending upon where you play.

-----Added 2/13/2009 at 07:30:42 EST-----



> This is a very interesting thread. I had a professor in college who was an Afrikaner. He was an amazing man. But, he regretted the history of his people. He often made connections to the Boer War and the War for Southern Independence (His title). His oft repeated statement was, 'I'm from the side of the history writers and they've done a [email protected]^n good job of shining their boots.'



Upon re-reading this I thought I'd make it more clear what Mr. Van was meaning. His regrets had to do with Apartheid, not their war against the British.


----------



## kvanlaan (Feb 13, 2009)

> talking about dutch sayings, "beter turks dan paaps" (better turkish than popish)



sounds almost Lutheresque...


----------



## Kevin (Feb 13, 2009)

This has been one of the most interesting history threads on this board in a long time. I have really enjoyed it.


----------



## Jan Ziska (Feb 13, 2009)

LawrenceU said:


> Why did we brush over so quickly in school.



I'd be interested to learn what non-US history most of you have studied at school.

I went through a mix of homeschooling, private & public education, and I covered Australian, pre & post colonization America, European (mainly from Renaissance on), South African & general Church history (pretty much all from Reformation on, focusing on the Presbyterians).

The average Australian student will come across a mix of Australian & British history, maybe some Ancient Civs and maybe some basic Asia & the Pacific stuff.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Feb 13, 2009)

I think we did World History for about one year in High School.


----------



## matt01 (Feb 13, 2009)

Jan Ziska said:


> I'd be interested to learn what non-US history most of you have studied at school.



High School: We had one year of World History, and one year of Current Events, which incorporated a fair amount of history as we studied what led to the present situations.

University: Two courses on non-U.S. history


----------



## Theognome (Feb 13, 2009)

Jan Ziska said:


> LawrenceU said:
> 
> 
> > Why did we brush over so quickly in school.
> ...



I was supposed to go to public school, but never showed up- thus they expelled me. Kinda like punishing a drunk by making him guard the bar.

My interest was in more ancient world history, though I've been reading on modernish (post 16th century) stuff as of late. And I agree with Kevin's statement that this is quite an informative thread.

Theognome


----------



## calgal (Feb 14, 2009)

My college minor was history. I studied Renaissance, early modern (with courses in Middle Eastern history) and did a lot of reading on my own. I do know what sources to trust and what the agenda of the various authors is. My Middle Eastern History prof Dr. Smith taught me to look beyond agendas and slogans.


----------



## Pilgrim (Feb 14, 2009)

The Klan made headlines in our area recently when a recruit was murdered when she tried to back out of an initiation. The story may have hit some of the national news wires as well. As the story notes, that area was a hotbed of Klan activity during the Civil Rights era.


----------



## Jan Ziska (Feb 14, 2009)

Yeah, I remember that. It made the Australian news.

I think calling the modern Klan 'the Klan' is not helpful. People have this idea of a unified underground movement with members all across the nation/world working together for the same goal.


----------

