Hi David & Jonathan,
Here is why the correct name is the South African war. When people use the term the Anglo-Boer war, is not clear which one of the two wars is being referred to. Normally it is used to mean both the first and second Anglo-Boer wars. The problem is that there is a difference of opinion as to whether there was one Anglo-Boer war or two. Most people accept that there were two wars, so the terms 1st Anglo-Boer war and 2nd Anglo-Boer war are probably more accurate. The term Anglo-Boer war may indicate that you view the two wars as being merged and see the conflict as one continuous war. The problem is that this doesn't account for the Jameson raid from Rhodesia and the reason for the Boers all uniting against the "Uitlanders" who were in the Transvaal which is one of the reasons for the start of the 2nd Anglo-Boer war. My humble opinion, the 1st Anglo-Boer war more of an ambush and not a war, the conflict didn't reach a "war threshold", but that's very subjective. A possible reason for my bias is because the Afrikaaners like to say that they won the 1st Anglo-Boer war and that we won the second, which is oversimplification. The term Anglo-Boer war is rejected by the Afrikaaners because they call it the English war or the Engelse Oorlorg. Some say that the term Boer ignores the differences between the different groups which make up the "Boers" those from the two separate Republics of the Transvaal and Orange Free State and the Cape and Natal Colonies are all lumped into the same group, clearly there is a difference between them. The term Boer doesn't take into account the Griqua and coloured commandos who fought against the British, it also ignores English South Africans and foreigners who fought with the Boers. Another reason is because the term Anglo doesn't take into account the English South Africans who feel it leaves them out and makes it sound like it was a war fought exclusively between Britain and the Boers and ignores the contribution made by the English South Africans along with the Boers who changed sides, the "hands uppers" who were responsible for bringing the war to an end by hunting down the "bitter einders" those Boers who would not give up. A reason why the term South African war is used is because it is not controversial and acknowledges that the war was more complex than a fight between Brit and Boer. The main reason why it is called the South African war though is because we South Africans have decided to call it that and since it affects us the most and we actually have ancestors who fought in it on both sides and it was fought in our country, I think its fair to leave it at that and respect our decision to make our peace with the past and try to heal the divides that are in our South African society. Sorry for the long email, I will end now because this is a very emotional topic and has nothing to do with Churchill and it will go on endlessly. Kind regards, Richard Lamb _____ From: [email protected] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of David Sent: Friday, October 10, 2008 4:34 AM To: [email protected] Subject: [ChurchillChat] Re: NEW BOOK BY ANDREW ROBERTS The Boer War is the correct name, dam the PC brigade, David From: [email protected] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Richard Lamb Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2008 9:42 AM To: [email protected] Subject: [ChurchillChat] Re: NEW BOOK BY ANDREW ROBERTS I take it that you are able to provide real evidence of planned and consistent British aggression aimed specifically at Boer women and children. Just to let you know, it is now known as the South African war and not as the Anglo-Boer war or the very Apartheid era term "Boer war". _____ From: [email protected] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Stirling Newberry Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2008 4:24 PM To: [email protected] Subject: [ChurchillChat] Re: NEW BOOK BY ANDREW ROBERTS I hope his grasp of facts has improved: http://www.pierretristam.com/Bobst/07/be033007a.htm On Oct 2, 2008, at 11:51 AM, Jon Lellenberg wrote: On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 9:04 AM, andy macbrayne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: http://www.andrew-roberts.net/pages/books/masters_and_commanders.asp Should be interesting. Regards, Andy The book is reviewed by Michael Howard, the famous British military historian, in Standpoint magazine, at http://www.standpointmag.co.uk/how-the-west-was-won-october Jon Lellenberg --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "ChurchillChat" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/ChurchillChat?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
