The Origins of the Boer War
In the late 19th century, the power of the British empire was at its peak. Spanning four continents and consisting of a quarter of the world’s population, it was, by far, the largest empire in the world. Its government was pushed to continually enlarge the empire’s territory by the overwhelming majority of Britons who supported imperialism, the policy of expanding a country’s power and wealth through the annexation of other territories, and believed their culture was superior to others’, and their duty was to spread these excellent principles to everyone. In the late 1880s, a minor brawl with a few obstinate Dutch farmers—Boers—on the tip of Africa seemed like a trivial matter to the government, which was sure the Boers could be defeated without difficulty. Britain never expected the tensions between these nations to explode into a three-year war that cost it millions of pounds, tens of thousands of soldiers, and, more importantly, its pride. The driving forces behind Britain’s decision to begin the Boer War were the imperalistic administrators at the head of the empire’s government, who wanted to squash the growing power of the Boer Republics and maintain the British empire’s global supremacy, in the face of the intense competition from rival European countries over controlling territory in Africa.
The Cape Colony in South Africa was originally used only as a rest-stop for the British on the way to their prized colony in India, but it was populated by Dutch immigrants with customs that opposed Britain’s, which led to many conflicts between the two nations. In 1814, Britain received control over Cape Town, located at the southern tip of Africa, as a settlement from the Napoleonic Wars. Only ...
... middle of paper ...
... against the Boer Republics of South Africa is sometimes identified as a righteous choice to defend the lost rights of the British miners in Transvaal. However, the motives are more complicated. Diamonds had piqued Britain’s interest in South Africa, transforming its casual interest in natural resources to a strong awareness of the mineral value that South Africa held. The scramble for Africa ensured that Britain would cling onto African territory, because it wanted to keep any other European power from taking it; and the fervent imperialist beliefs of the British government motivated the idea of expanding the Cape Colony. Ultimately, Britain was afraid its colony would be overpowered by a tiny Boer republic, which, through a flourishing gold industry, had become strong enough to challenge the supremacy of the most powerful empire in the world, and had succeeded.
In the first place, interference in the war was absolutely unnecessary as the war had nothing significant to do with Canadians, “Although Laurier, too, was reluctant to commit Canadian troops and resources to a war that would not benefit Canadian interests; he found it more difficult to resist the pressure in English Canada for Canadian involvement.” [4] The war was completely an issue of the Britain. This south African War had its origins in more than sixty years conflicts between the British in South Africa, Boers were mainly concentrated in the... ... middle of paper ... ...
While Portuguese power declined, the British, Dutch, and French powers rose due to firmly standing footholds along the coast. In 1652, Dutch immigrants sailed to the southern tip of Africa and established Cape Town, which was the first permanent European settlement to supply ships sailing to and, from the East Indies. Boers, Dutch farmers, settled in Cape Town and believed they were superior to the native peoples; there, they ousted, enslaved, and killed the people who lived there. The migrations of the Boers “… would eventually lead to battle with several African groups” (455). By the seventeenth century, British and French presences had both reached present-day Senegal. The French established a fort in this region by 1700. After hearing stories about British explorers’ quest for the Nile River’s source, the French and British were intrigued and set off to find this source. These forts led to the continuation of European exploration during the next century in Africa.
Sir Edward Hertslet, a British librarian, believed Great Britain was a great European power who was superior to Africans. Since Great Britain was said to be superior, the nation decided to occupy Africa for their natural resources. British businessman, Cecil Rhodes also participated in European domination by wanting to construct a road from Cape Town, the capital
Throughout the late nineteenth century and early twentieth century, almost every country in Africa was imperialized by other countries in Europe. To imperialize is to conquer another country, whether it be in the means of politics, economics and/or culture, and control that land. The aftermath for the imperialized country was either beneficial or harmful. The amount of African countries that a European country imperialized varied. Great Britain imperialized fifteen countries in Africa, including Egypt in 1882, Sierra Leone in 1808, and the Union of South Africa in 1910. Although Great Britain’s reasons to imperialize were selfish, Britain helped each country progress afterwards.
A. Adu Boahen's African Perspectives on Colonialism neatly classifies African responses to European colonialism during both phases of invasion and occupation during the 19th century with precise labels according to their nature or time period. However, the reactions can also be loosely grouped into two diametric characterizations: peaceful and violent. Although creating this dichotomy seems a gross generalization and oversimplification of the colonial African experience, it more importantly allows for a different perspective- one that exposes the overwhelming success of the typically peaceful or pacifist reaction in contrast to the little gain and large losses of the violent response.
In many accounts of the Africans, the Africans were in disagreement with the European's Scramble for Africa. Ndansi Kumalo an African veteran wrote in 1896 if many of them to give or keep their land. In a distrustful and agony tone he spoke of how the poor treatment of the Africans in the Ndebele rebellion against the British advances in South America to convince many others not to stay because it has impacted many Africans and many died in the process of it. He says “So we surrendered to the White people and were told to go back to our homes and live our usual lives and attend to our crops. They came and were overbearing. We were ordered to carry their clothes and bundles (Doc.4).” A German military officer in 1896 wrote in a newspaper article about the reactions of the Africans about the white settlers. In an awed tone he wrote about the 1906 account of the Maji Maji Rebellion in German East Africa and to give an example of how the Africans believed in a magic medicine would help them defend themselves against the white settlers (Doc.8). Mojimba an African chief in 1907 described a battle in 1877 on the Congo River against British and African mercenaries to a German catholic missionary. In an appalled and hateful tone he used this description to show that these whi...
As always throughout the course of history the discovery of gold usually does not bode well for one party or another. In South America it meant killing of the population, in North America it meant moving and killing the Indians, and again in Africa it spelled thousands of deaths of the innocent. Even worse were the finding of diamonds, with the gold, to add to the level of greed and lust. Always greed will drive men on to do terrible things. The British Empire is not exempt from the atrocities committed during the Boer Wars. Concentration camps, scorched earth policy, and the use of foreign colonial troops would win Britain the day but also forever remain in the hearts and minds of South Africans. Pictures of the atrocities can still be seen and pictures of starving women and children of the Boer are no easy sight to bear.
" India was where the riches of the world came from, the jewel in the crown of the British Empire. The British needed to dispel the threat of other Europeans in Africa to maintain control of India, and they did so efficiently. They quickly gained control of both the major sea routes to India and then turned their eyes to the rest of the continent. Whether the British were trying to foster public support or prevent another nation from becoming a threat, all British actions in Africa were directly or indirectly linked to India. The British were motivated by their desire to become powerful, and they skillfully combined enterprise and conquest to create a globe spanning empire centered around the wealth of India.
During Imperialistic times South Africa was a region of great resources that was greatly disputed over (Ellis). Europe’s main goal during these times was to compete against each other and played a “game” of which country can imperialize more African countries than the other. Imperialism was a curse to South Africa, because many wars, laws, and deaths were not necessary and would not have happened if South Africa were not imperialized.
A popular analysis of the late 19th and early 20th century “scramble for Africa” attributes it to a ramping up of European powers’ imperialist goals, often providing it as supporting evidence in the characterization of the late Victorian period as one of increased imperialist action. However, in analyzing the motives behind the actions of European imperialist powers, continuity emerges. Robinson and Gallagher describe the history of 19th and 20th century Europe as “the history of and expanding society”. This idea of characterizing the entire period as a single “history” is revolutionary in that it points to some sort of continuity in the actions and motives of European powers throughout the period of imperialism that the idea of the mid and late Victorian periods being anti and pro-imperialist periods respectively fails to address. As evidence counter to the idea of a dichotomy existing between the policies of the middle and late Victorian periods, Robinson and Gallagher point out the fact that during the same time period, mercantilist formal empire was being used in India while more informal free trade policies were being used in Latin America by the same imperialist power: Britain. It is in regard to this point that one of the signature ideas of
Africa has had a long and tumultuous road of colonization and decolonization; the rush to colonize Africa started in the 17th century with the discovery of the vast amounts of gold, diamonds, and rubber, with colonization hitting a fever pitch during World War I. However, the repercussions of colonization have left deep wounds that still remain unhealed in the 21st century. Early on, European nations such as Britain, Portugal, Spain, Italy, Germany and Belgium scrambled for territories. Countries wanted land so they could harvest the resources, increase trade, and gain power.
In the early 1880’s, the powers of Europe started to take control of regions in Africa and set up colonies there. In the beginning, colonization caused the Africans little harm, but before long, the Europeans started to take complete control of wherever they went. The Europeans used their advanced knowledge and technology to easily maneuver through the vast African landscape and used advanced weapons to take control of the African people and their land. The countries that claimed the most land and had the most significant effect on Africa were France, England, Belgium, and Germany. There were many reasons for the European countries to be competing against each other to gain colonies in Africa. One of the main reasons was that the Europeans believed that the more territory a country was able to control, the more powerful it could become and the more powerful it would be seen as by other countries. Other reasons for the desire to control African land included the many natural resources that could only be found in Africa, such as diamonds, gold, and as time progressed, rubber. It also provided new markets in surrounding places so that manufactured goods could be sold for a larger profit. The Europeans had many motives for imperialism in Africa. Yet the true motives were often shielded as they tried tom present themselves as humanitarians when in reality they were making Africa a terrible place to live with brutality and harsh treatment of the African natives. The ways of the Europeans had many physical and emotional costs for the people of Africa. The imperialism process also took a toll on the people of Europe. The European imperialistic colonization in Africa was motivated by the desire to control the abundant natural resources an...
There were significant political conflicts between the two sides. The Boers treated all blacks very badly and did not give basic human rights even to the blacks working for them. They made them pay taxes but could not vote. It was said to be through religious reasons that the Boers treated blacks so badly. This awful treatment infuriated the British, who had abolished slavery in all its colonies as well as at home in 1834. The Dutch wanted to keep its slaves. Europeans working in the Boer territories were also mistreated. These "Uitlanders" as they were known were key to the Boers' economic success, yet were still denied the vote.
The New Imperialism and the Scramble for Africa 1880-1914. Jeff Taylor, n.d. Web. 19 Mar. 2014.
Old South Africa is best described by Mark Uhlig, “The seeds of such violent conflict in South Africa were sown more than 300 years ago, with the first meetings of white settlers and indigenous black tribes in an unequal relationship that was destined one day to become unsustainable” (116).