When Arthur Conan Doyle did his history of the second Boer War, in which he served as a field surgeon during the first half of 1900, he titled it *The Great Boer War* to distinguish it from the earlier and very much smaller one.
It's late (maybe too late) to expect people to start calling it something other than the Boer War. On 10/10/08, Richard Lamb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > 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 > 2ndAnglo-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 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > lang=EN-US> > > > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
