Talk:Second Boer War concentration camps

	South Africa portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject South Africa, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of South Africa on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.South AfricaWikipedia:WikiProject South AfricaTemplate:WikiProject South AfricaSouth Africa articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

British Empire Low‑importance

	British Empire portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject British Empire, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of British Empire on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.British EmpireWikipedia:WikiProject British EmpireTemplate:WikiProject British EmpireBritish Empire articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Death Rate[edit]

"Over 26,000 women and children were to perish in these concentration camps." "the life or death of the 154,000 Boer and African civilians in the camps rated as an abysmally low priority" "by February 1902 the annual death-rate in the concentration camps for white inmates dropped to 6.9 percent and eventually to 2 percent, which was a lower rate than pertained in many British cities at the time." Comparing "27,927 Boers (of whom 24,074 [50 percent of the Boer child population] were children under 16) had died " with the death rates in British cities seems quite unlikely, and in any case unsupported with any evidence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomxcoady (talk • contribs) 11:35, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's tricky making comparisons. But here's a link to a report about health in Scotland in the same period. http://www.scran.ac.uk/scotland/pdf/SP2_3Health.pdf For example 'As late as 1898 the infant mortality rate (deaths under the age of one) in Glasgow Gorbals was 200 per 1000 live births'. We forget just how commonplace death was just over a century ago. Cassandra. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.105.241.76 (talk) 13:40, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Poisoning of wells and the salting of fields[edit]

Salting of the fields is fake. There are no references given. It's made up.

Discussed here : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Salting_the_earth#Second_Boer_War_and_"unfeasible_for_herbicidal_warfare"? (Possible original edit: Salting of fields https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Second_Boer_War&diff=159136406&oldid=159013150 )

I will also remove "Poisoning of wells" since this is unsourced, unlikely and is part of this "salting of fields edit". ( Possible original edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Second_Boer_War&diff=160709578&oldid=160388483 )

Cheezypeaz (talk) 10:08, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Starvation and exposure[edit]

Starvation in the camps is mentioned twice in this wikipedia entry as a cause of death.

"Disease and starvation killed thousands" is apparently backed up by 2 sources however...

1) "Hasian Marouf, Western journal of communication, 2003" - I don't have access to this paper, the paper's summary says "This essay provides a rhetorical analysis of some of the gender, class, and racial politics of the "concentration camp" controversy of the Anglo-Boer war. Key words: Boer war, concentration camps, hysteria, Emily Hobhouse, ideographic, rhetoric, synchronic." I can't think that anyone would think this was a good reference.

https://www.worldcat.org/title/hysterical-emily-hobhouse-and-boer-war-concentration-camp-controversy/oclc/665081078

2) "Scars from a Childhood Disease: Measles in the Concentration Camps during the Boer War" which talks about the measles epidemic and does not mention starvation.

the paper is available here : https://pdfslide.net/documents/scars-from-a-childhood-disease-measles-in-the-concentration-camps-during-the.html

"A report after the war concluded that 27,927 Boers (of whom 24,074 [50 percent of the Boer child population] were children under 16) had died of starvation, disease and exposure in the concentration camps." - Which report? Who wrote it?

We need proper references for these claims. Until then I'm removing them.

1) I'm going to delete claims of starvation and exposure. 2) I'm going to delete the reference to the Marouf Hasian paper.

A breakdown of the the causes of death can be found in "Measles Epidemics of Variable Lethality in the Early 20th Century" a copy of which can be accessed here... ( warning pdf, but small)

https://oup.silverchair-cdn.com/oup/backfile/Content_public/Journal/aje/179/4/10.1093/aje/kwt282/2/kwt282.pdf?Expires=2147483647&Signature=LKbP3e9OQEBCfDUMSOPCvZAF53QrBO6vgYQY0dGBX9Z1ZCZyMv6JMyf5rQmbPrX~CpyF63TSgChDX9S-lXPZwBVV4E7hRf8C8P1HiP27Uv5ZwSRHqrFEzq2bMExcADXky3KFHPfpWnyNlxcxNII~ikI2LqhytIOZw9DBz8GDdPEui10lxqCBX2TcYgAGiaoOX9Lwiz53QH5AncfFdNbV9QEinzBJATqVwbhZDajPfxctWjU1aCwlqrOszGFdTvmWVv4aOAHNDCSTTRp~ys2fm6KN62-vksOAJBEmQb9HqyGOEPI6G3DlFwEr3WHofDeKwJqebxAlitoIawn~S-DkpQ__&Key-Pair-Id=APKAIE5G5CRDK6RD3PGA

Cheezypeaz (talk) 22:37, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

One only needs to look at some pictures of the inmates of the british concentration camps in the second Boer War, that at least some of the inmates were purposely starved to death. As always if the talk is about British war crimes, there is active whitewashing here in the Wikipedia.Jochum (talk) 18:05, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The pictures are undoubtably distressing. They are discussed in the literature I have read. The children are clearly emaciated but the cause is from disease. Compare the few photographs of emancipated children with the many more showing children who are clearly not emaciated.

I have seen some horrific pictures of Bob Geldoff, with clearly emaciated children, and fences and tower visible in background. Did pop stars run concentration camps in the 1980's. Photo evidence suggests as much. (argument ad absurdum)

Concentration camps / Internment camps[edit]

Both of these definitions currently mean prisons. The camps operated by the British during the Boer War weren't prisons. Stating absolutely that they were concentration camps or internment camps is therefore wrong. I will alter the opening statement to better reflect the history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cheezypeaz (talk • contribs) 23:27, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The camps operated by the British during the second Boer War were not prisons. They were extermination camps. A death rate of 25% can not qualify those camps as prisons. The only thing those camps had in common with prisons was, that the inmates were not allowed to leave. In a prison system the authorities have a responsibility for the safety and health of the inmates.

To kill off the families of the members of the opposing army by starvation should qualify as genocide.Jochum (talk) 17:59, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It would qualify as genocide if it were true. What evidence do you have? The main causes of deaths are from measles and typhoid - see the pdf I linked to above. Typhoid is something that the British authorities should have handled better - 8,000 of their own soldiers died from it during the war. Generally people who were able to support themselves outside the camps were free do leave - and some did. Cheezypeaz (talk) 12:46, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ah so if we are going to take that route, then you need to talk about the ORIGINAL Concentration Camp, the Confederate PoW camp at Richmond , Virginia, of 1863 which was far worse than Buchenwald. Sick of the marxists editors on here blaming the English for every fuckign thing in history. Wikipedia is just biassed marxist propaganda 2.59.114.197 (talk) 14:08, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I feel funny that some people here would spin every wrong thing did by British Empire with nice words. 61.238.255.58 (talk) 06:59, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Can you back up this claim that people that could support themselves were free to leave? I see nothing about that in the article. LastDodo (talk) 09:33, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The validity of a link to Cyprus Internment Camps[edit]

While I was not the user to make this edit I nevertheless believe that the inclusion of the distinction for Cyprus internment camps is valid. There are three reasons for this. The first is that the Cyprus Internment Camps fit the definition for a concentration camp and are even included as an example on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internment (the page that concentration camp redirects to). The second is that it is feasible that someone unaware of the history of the Second Boer War but who was aware of the Cyprus camps could search for "British concentration camps" in order to discover more information on the Cyprus Internment Camps. The third is that I see no harm in the inclusion of this link which could aid user navigation of Wikipedia although its inclusion could be seen as controversial due to the connotations of the term "concentration camp". CumbrianCorrector (talk) 14:30, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK reinstated.Cheezypeaz (talk) 04:58, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rapes[edit]

User Gtmeyer has added

"raping of women and children as young as 10,[3][4]"

to the following section which describes the scorched earth policy.

"As Boer farms were destroyed by the British under their "Scorched Earth" policy—including the systematic destruction of crops and the slaughtering or removal of livestock, raping of women and children as young as 10,[3][4]"

the description with the edit says "Added details about the tactics employed by English soldiers during Scorched Earth Policy'"

Gtmeyer has also added this claim to the Second Boer War page. Where an additional reference has been added which appears to be the source of this information "The Havenga Report on Rapes"

I am going to revert this edit because the following document which includes an analysis of the claims of rape makes the following point...

"Even allowing for under-reporting, in this war rape was not a common occurrence; instances of savagery are associated with reports of doubtful authenticity; and the only suggestion of organization that was encountered was a threat on the part of Col. T.D. Pilcher that if any harm came to eighteen black scouts captured by Com. J.J. Koen, he would not be able to protect Boer women against the anger of the other blacks under his command."

Also specifically referring to the Havenga Collection "This is the only instance in the collection of the plaintiff stating unambiguously that she was raped by a soldier."

https://repository.up.ac.za/bitstream/handle/2263/53114/Boje_Sexual_2016.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y

I will also remove the citation of W.T.Stead because he isn't an historian. The above document describes him as an "anti war propagandist"

So in conclusion: It wasn't policy, there appears to be fewer instances of sexual misbehaviour than might be expected and the document cited by the contributor don't support the claim of policy.

Cheezypeaz (talk) 17:05, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Refuge camps[edit]

The official name was refuge camps. Why has the POV been allowed to rename these when all the sources cite them as refuge camps?2A00:23C4:21B:5601:61B4:A92C:F2DF:CE69 (talk) 12:30, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Many verifiable sources talk about the camps as concentration camps. In no way were they refuge camps. During the Scorched Earth Policy, Boer farms were burned completely, then the British took the women and children to the nearest camp. This was used as an incentive for the Boers to stop fighting. [1] They did not take refuge there, they were imprisoned there. And before you say that this is not verified, I am the great grandchild of a Boer who was imprisoned and their experience has been passed down to my grandmother and mother.

South African Concentration Camps

Scorched Earth Policy

Boer War Concentration Camps

Emily Hobhouse herself referred to these camps as concentration camps. Please stop spreading misinformation about the conditions and terminology used to describe the horrors of the Second Boer War. Thatautistichistorian (talk) 04:33, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Problem with neutrality[edit]

It seems like this article is, in parts, worded in a way that isn't neutral. Rather than simply stating things matter-of-factly it definitely seems to me like there is some slant here towards "this was a bad thing" – and of course, that may well be true, but just-the-facts is what a Wikipedia article should be. Does anyone else have any comments on this? Regards, DesertPipeline (talk) 14:54, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There are quotes in the post-war debate thread that need citations. I'm also not sure why Niall Ferguson has to be qualified as a "Right wing" historian? It should be enough to state his viewpoint. F.M. Sir D.H (talk) 10:20, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Voluntary vs involuntary[edit]

I think there is a need in this article for clarity on the matter of when and where the camps were voluntary (i.e. you could freely leave) and when they were in effect prisons. I realise the freedom to leave is not worth a whole lot if the entire countryside has been scorched, but the difference is still important, not least as it shines a light on the attitude of those conducting the policy. Does anyone have more precise information on this? Really what we want is the number of camps (and inmates), that are voluntary and involuntary at a given moment in time. LastDodo (talk) 14:33, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

According to the British Concentration Camps of the Second Boer War Database there were 45 established camps in Transvaal, Orange Free State, Natal and the Cape Colony for the Boers. There were also ~64 camps constructed for Native Africans who had worked as servants for the Boers. [2] The first two of the Boer camps (refugee camps) were established to house the families of Boers who had surrendered voluntarily, but very soon, with families of combatant Boers driven forcibly into camps established all over the country, the camps ceased to be refugee camps and became concentration camps. [3] So technically the original camps were voluntary but after very little time that choice ceased to exist. In the black concentration camps however, all were made as housing for the servants so that the British could put them to work. [4]

It's difficult to get an exact number of inmates who lived there as this changed frequently but most would have been there involuntarily. Using information from Women and Children in White Concentration Camps during the Anglo-Boer War and Black Concentration Camps in the Anglo-Boer War I have concluded that:

In 1901 there were an average of 100,249 inmates living in the White camps and an average of 62,000 inmates living in the Black camps.
In 1902 there were an average of 109,097 inmates living in the White camps and an average of 104,943 inmates living in the Black camps.

I hope this answers your question and I will also be updating the article to further delve into the logistics of these camps. Thatautistichistorian (talk) 06:58, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thank you for looking into this, that is certainly some good information you have dug up. But it doesn't quite answer my question about voluntary vs involuntary. You use the phrase 'driven into the camps', but does this mean that peoples homes and land was scorched, and so they had no choice but to enter the camps, or they were literally forced into them? When and where would inmates been free to leave and wander the wasteland if they wanted, and when would they have been forbidden to do so no matter what? You also use the phrase 'ceased to be' as if the change simply 'happened', but I am looking for a change in policy, where one day you were free to leave (even if there was nothing to leave to), and the next day, not. Tens of thousands died in these camps, so evidently the doors were locked at some point. The question is when. Did it all happen at once, or on a camp by camp basis?

Perhaps this can only be answered by reading that database more thoroughly. Out of interest I clicked on one camp at random, which was 'Balmoral'. In the opening paragraph it says 'Although by the end of 1901 Kitchener had ordered that no more families should be sent to the camps, his instructions were often ignored and some continued to trickle in. On 27 April 1902 125 people arrived, half of them men, in a pitiful state. ‘They were literally in rags and it was hard to discern the original material of the men’s clothing. When compared with the inmates of the camp they looked a very unkempt lot’, the superintendent noted.' So clearly the situation is not straightforward. But still, I thank you again for looking into this and encourage you to update the wikipedia article as you do. LastDodo (talk) 15:01, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Name of the “war”.[edit]

As a 4th generation South African and descendant of ancestors who fought and suffered on both sides of the conflict (my great uncles fought on both sides, my grandmother was born in a concentration camp) my view is that there is little foundation for calling this the Boer War, apart from the historic English imperialism perspective and every reason to call it an invasion by armed English colonial forces. 105.232.127.133 (talk) 08:58, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia refers to it as the Second Boer War because that is what it is generally known as, regardless of whether there is 'foundation' for it being called that. That is why it calls the 116 year medieval war between England and France the Hundred Years War. LastDodo (talk) 09:25, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

British concentration camps[edit]

In the article on South African British concentration camps, the white population are systematically referred to as Boers. This is incorrect. There was a very diverse white population in South Africa at the time. French, Irish, British, German, Portuguese and other. Many people of origins were also interned. My great, great grandparents who were Scottish/German were put in a camp as the British wanted their land and horses and their sons were resisting. They died there and my great grandmother was orphaned at the age of about 8. This was not as simple as British versus Boers. It was about land grabs and a systematic effort to exterminate or at least seriously diminish the settled white population. There were signs in the camps regulating what people could be fed and encouraging the reduction of vegetables and fruit. I have looked for sources but it is very hard to find them. Especially in English. This information comes from family research, private records in South Africa and visits to camps now museums. Please do not refer to all settled European South Africans as Boers. JSFedwards2021 (talk) 12:33, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Even if everything you say is true, Wikipedia needs reliable sources, else anything could be written. Your basic claim that there were other white ethnic groups that were interred should at least be confirmable with some reliable source even if your more specific claims cannot be. LastDodo (talk) 15:16, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I absolutely agree that we need reliable sources. It is hard to find this information in English as it is very unpopular in the UK and has long been ignored or suppressed. (I don’t want to sound paranoid!)

[5]https://www.theguardian.com/world/2001/dec/09/paulharris.theobserver

A database of names of people interned in British camps:

https://www2.lib.uct.ac.za/mss/bccd/DB/dbinfo/

You will see French (La Grange) and British names in there (McKenzie, Edwards) as well as Dutch and German which are the majority.

Academic article on treatment of families in the camps & references to prisoner’s diaries: http://www.scielo.org.za/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0018-229X2010000200007

More on the two tier food system depending on whether families had family members in the resistance and what this meant in terms of health care and nutrition:https://www.sahistory.org.za/article/women-and-children-white-concentration-camps-during-anglo-boer-war-1900-1902

This shows a conscious decision to starve and maltreat certain groups. JSFedwards2021 (talk) 18:05, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In my view a list of names is not really solid enough proof unless country of origin is mentioned. As for the others you need to be specific about exactly what in the source supports exactly what claim. If you think it is sufficient, go ahead and edit the article. Also, non-English sources are allowed on Wikipedia you know:

Citations to non-English reliable sources are allowed on the English Wikipedia. However, because this project is in English, English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones when they're available and of equal quality and relevance. As with sources in English, if a dispute arises involving a citation to a non-English source, editors may request a quotation of relevant portions of the original source be provided, either in text, in a footnote, or on the article talk page. LastDodo (talk) 11:58, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Crimes against humanity category removal[edit]

Crimes against humanity is a specific legal concept. In order to be included in the category, the event (s) must have been prosecuted as a crime against humanity, or at a bare minimum be described as such by most reliable sources. Most of the articles that were formerly in this category did not mention crimes against humanity at all, and the inclusion of the category was purely original research. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:49, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]