SA concentration camp, help me get it on digg

bwana said:
Truth be told it was more of a history of the concentration camp per se rather than the Boer War - the war was covered in the UK syllabus.
Click to expand...

Ah ok, I was wondering, cos that sounded very out of character for the American education system. I am still incredibly intrigued as to how a large number of Americans have very little knowledge of the world outside of America in terms of Geography, granted my knowledge isn't perfect, but I have a rough idea where MOST countries are.
 
ToxicBunny said:
Ah ok, I was wondering, cos that sounded very out of character for the American education system. I am still incredibly intrigued as to how a large number of Americans have very little knowledge of the world outside of America in terms of Geography, granted my knowledge isn't perfect, but I have a rough idea where MOST countries are.
Click to expand...
Seeing as I am a product of it I cant really fault the system. ;)
 
Neo said:
Sure, what caught my attention watching a program on the camps a while ago was that you never see or hear about blacks. When I did get the info it was quite shocking, 1/3 of the food rations the whites got, etc.
Click to expand...
The black people in the camps were servants of the Boers. As far as I know food was allocated to a family. If they got 1/3 rations as you claim, it wasn't the British. It doesn't sound like them anyway. I remember from my childhood that black people ate completely different food to us. If you wrote the story now, it would sound like whites were somehow being cruel to them because they got mainly Meilie Meal!! They were given what they were familiar with. Perhaps that is where the 'ration' story came from.

But then if you were black yourself (are you?), you would see that history from a different perspective.

Black people are not mentioned because they were obviously less relevant than the large number of Afrikaners living (and dying) there. There were black people 'working' on both sides as well. They didn't get much sympathy from the Boers in the skirmishes.
 
bwana : you're a product of the system... I would fault it, but theres a bit of UK education in you, which probably beat the stupids from the US education out of you... ;)
 
Skeptik said:
The black people in the camps were servants of the Boers. As far as I know food was allocated to a family. If they got 1/3 rations as you claim, it wasn't the British. It doesn't sound like them anyway. I remember from my childhood that black people ate completely different food to us. If you wrote the story now, it would sound like whites were somehow being cruel to them because they got mainly Meilie Meal!! They were given what they were familiar with. Perhaps that is where the 'ration' story came from.

But then if you were black yourself (are you?), you would see that history from a different perspective.

Black people are not mentioned because they were obviously less relevant than the large number of Afrikaners living (and dying) there. There were black people 'working' on both sides as well. They didn't get much sympathy from the Boers in the skirmishes.
Click to expand...

I strongly suggest you read up on the topic before imparting your (currently incorrect) views on it.
 
Neo said:
Sure, what caught my attention watching a program on the camps a while ago was that you never see or hear about blacks. When I did get the info it was quite shocking, 1/3 of the food rations the whites got, etc.
Click to expand...

The difference being that the blacks were allowed to crow their own crops, and actually could get passes out of the camps to do work. See my first post for more info.
 
Do yourself a favour and get a copy of the book "Helkampe".

Only paging through it will make you want to vomit at what the british did to women and children. Remember that 26 000 women and children died under the "care" of the holier than thou british.

This said: There were decent british people. Emily Hobhouse is a good example of such a person.

I'm also aware of a british corporal that actually became an Afrikaner after the war and married one of the girls he had to guard in such a Helcamp.

But overall: The british were responsible for the death of 26 000 women and children under their care. Percentage wise it is worse than the germans did to the jews.
 
Skeptik said:
Black people are not mentioned because they were obviously less relevant than the large number of Afrikaners living (and dying) there.
Click to expand...

Ain't that always the case with Afrikaners ???.
Always whinging about their own little perceived slights against their precious and most glorious culture and their sufferings while ignore the rest.

Casualties of the Anglo Boer War

British 22000
Boers 34000
Blacks 15000

http://sahistory.org.za/pages/specialprojects/anglo-boer-wars/anglo-boer-war2ii.htm

Less relevant indeed.
You make me sick.
 
tibby.dude said:
Ain't that always the case with Afrikaners ???.
Always whinging about their own little perceived slights against their precious and most glorious culture and their sufferings while ignore the rest.

Casualties of the Anglo Boer War

British 22000
Boers 34000
Blacks 15000

http://sahistory.org.za/pages/specialprojects/anglo-boer-wars/anglo-boer-war2ii.htm

Less relevant indeed.
You make me sick.
Click to expand...
*sigh* You really should sort out that chip on your shoulder - it is skewing your perception. And once again, you have a go at Afrikaners. What for this time?
 
jontyB said:
*sigh* You really should sort out that chip on your shoulder - it is skewing your perception. And once again, you have a go at Afrikaners. What for this time?
Click to expand...

tibby.dude is right in this case. Skeptik, in his typical racist way posted the following:
Black people are not mentioned because they were obviously less relevant than the large number of Afrikaners living (and dying) there.
Click to expand...

This is a typical narrow-minded, uninformed and racist remark, we've come to expect from Skeptik.

It's a well know fact, throughout history, that the ruling party at the time, writes the history books and thus we see little mention of the involvement of black people. You really think they were not caught up in all of this?
 
Last edited:
Neo said:
tibby.dude is right in this case. Skeptik, in his typical racist way posted the following:


This is a typical narrow-minded, uninformed and racist remark, we've come to expect from Skeptik.

It's a well know fact, throughout history, that the ruling party at the time, writes the history books and thus we see little mention of the involvement of black people. You really think they were not caught up in all of this?
Click to expand...
My apologies to tibby then, I did read it as a stab at Afrikaners (wouldn't be the first time either)
 
kaspaas said:
But overall: The british were responsible for the death of 26 000 women and children under their care. Percentage wise it is worse than the germans did to the jews.
Click to expand...

Bear in mind that disease was rife...
 
I'm not all that clued up on the Boer War but weren't those camps set up because the Boers were using guerrilla tactics. They would ambush the Brits then retreat and be shelted by the farms and small communities. As a result the Brits would burn them down and round up the residents and put them in the camps.
 
alanf85 said:
I'm not all that clued up on the Boer War but weren't those camps set up because the Boers were using guerrilla tactics. They would ambush the Brits then retreat and be shelted by the farms and small communities. As a result the Brits would burn them down and round up the residents and put them in the camps.
Click to expand...

Yep. The Boers used unconventional warfare, so the Brits did to.
 
It seems when one side resorts to that kind of warfare things can get ugly very quickly. It's a very effective tactic militarily and psychologically but you'll pay a big price if the guys on the receiving end take the necessary steps to defeat it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter