Dutch Colonization of Africa

[kvanlaan]

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]

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]

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

 

[discipulo]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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 d@^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]

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 d@^n good job of shining their boots.'

.

lol

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

(read Shilo Autumn by Thoene...)

 

[fredtgreco]

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]

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]

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.

The Klu Klux Klan still exists today?

 

[BertMulder]

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.

The Klu Klux Klan still exists today?

yep

check here:

Home Page

 

[Pilgrim]

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 d@^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.

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.


During an assault, the soldiers cannot pause to distinguish between male and female, or even discriminate as to age.

 

[kvanlaan]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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-----

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.