Military Review

SOUTH AFRICA. White outlaws, or who awaits Russian officers in Africa (part 2)

69
The Second Boer War broke out in the 1899 year (unofficially much earlier), in spite of all the peace efforts of the Boers. The cause of the British aggression was supposedly the “struggle for the observance of human rights” - nothing changes. The fact is that shortly after independence, the African republics discovered gold in the Boer lands. This is in the treasury of already found diamonds, the extraction of which got hold of Cecil Rhodes, setting Britain against the Boers, who interfered with his diamond empire and plans for total domination on the continent. In general, the gold rush began. Crowds of foreigners, mostly British, rushed into the country. The greedy miners did not understand the African land, nor the Boers, nor their concerns about ennobling these alien alien places.


One of the Russian volunteers of the Boer Army, Vladimir Rubanov (a former St. Petersburg student), described the Boers as unsophisticated and non-business, but hardworking people. Moreover, he shared their aversion to the “oytländer” (i.e., to the lovers of quick money who flew to the gold rush). Here is what he wrote about the “new” Europeans in Pretoria: “These are the dregs of European society, the renegades, deprived of all principles and spiritual interests, greedy seekers of gold, sucking everything they can out of the country”.

SOUTH AFRICA. White outlaws, or who awaits Russian officers in Africa (part 2)


Rhodes mines

British politics in Africa was exactly like these greedy tatters, thirsting for wealth. The Crown also thirsted for wealth and control over lands that it did not even master, which were explored by the Boers. The British demanded that the Outlanders be granted the same rights as the citizens of the Boer republics. At the same time, the British promised the miners all kinds of swag and, having received their full support, they would have easily eliminated the independence of the republics. That is, as a result, on a completely “legal” basis, the British Crown received land and deposits, as well as a crowd of “its voters” incapable of self-organization, and therefore not dangerous. The question of the Boers who remained on the lands, who after the “invasion” of the Outlanders turned into a national minority, was resolved with the satanic elegance of Aloizovich.

For a start, the Bantu peoples were attacked by the Boers. Thanks to the incitement of the British representatives and the influence of the magnate Rhodes, the Zulus, Ndebele and other tribes regularly flew to the Boer settlements, depleting them and not allowing them to develop state institutions. By the way, Rhodes, a clever manipulator, was the creator of the apartheid system, openly declaring the primacy of the Anglo-Saxon race over all others. The Boers had nothing to do with the creation of apartheid.



Zulu attack on the Boers

In addition, even before the war, the British press launched a campaign against not only the politicians of the African republics and their leaders, but also the people themselves. On the surface, it would be appropriate to write “unprecedented persecution,” but it is impossible for the Russian people to know that it is completely traditional. The newspapers of foggy Albion described the Boers as a half-ghost, stupid and disorderly creature. To emphasize their “animal” origin in the press, population figures were often distorted with a hint of the reproduction rate of rabbits, as well as a refrain of mentioning mixed marriages. As if this was not enough, the British already connected large-caliber artillery - Arthur Conan Doyle, while the old man was not yet sir.

Officially, Conan Doyle participated in the second Boer War as a field surgeon. I don’t know how often he operated there, but already in the 1900 year, i.e. a year after the start of the war, the book “Anglo-Boer War” was published in London for its authorship. In the original, it sounds emphasized tendentiously and pathetically - "The Great Boer War." The book, in fact, is woven from messages of the British press.

Already 8 September 1900, Conan Doyle left South Africa. In Britain, he was licked by the authorities, and it was for this agitation that he was elevated to a knighthood, and not for the Sherlock Holmes cycle. But since the war was oh so far from complete, inspired by such subservience of compatriots, Arthur finished his “fundamental” work, scrolling through English newspapers. Uncle was far from being timid in his actions, however cynical they might seem. For example, Cecil Rhodes, a politicating manipulator, magnate, author of apartheid, and a man partly responsible for the death of thousands of white and black Africans at the hands of his punitive detachments — Arthur Conan Doyle called the "messenger of the heavens."



Arthur Conan Doyle on vacation

Strongly beat the development of African republics and all sorts of economic sanctions before the war. In their memoirs, our volunteers wrote about the fantastic price level in the Transvaal and the Orange state. This naturally affected the supply of the army in the run-up to and during the conduct of the war. Evgeny Augustus wrote, remembering how he was put on allowance in the Boer army in Pretoria: “Immediately in one of the rooms of the ministry were old rifles of the single-shot system Henry-Martini (modified by Peabody-Martini) without bayonets, cartridges, saddles, bridles and stirrups ... Officials came to despair, explaining to the disgruntled that the Mauser rifles are no longer there, that the old saddles (REM. Autonomy - according to other evidence, such saddles were falling apart after the 3-day ride) and the bridles are given out for lack of new ones, whose stocks have been exhausted. I realized that on the road I wouldn’t need a quick-rifle or a new saddle, but on the battlefield I would be able to get both. ”



In addition, partly due to the powerful expansion of Britain and Cecil Rhodes, partly due to the patriarchal nature, slowness and deeply agricultural way of life of the Boers, there was a catastrophic lack of industrialists, bureaucrats and managers with specialized education. Schools to build was either no time or no one. This industrial and profile backwardness will hit the drills with a sledgehammer already on the battlefield.

Those. even before the outbreak of hostilities, the Boer question, as I have already outlined, was resolved. A unique white African subethnos must be subjected to either "cultural" extermination, or direct physical. British civilizers suit any turn of events.

The first hostilities, which with a little stretch of the ranks to the second Boer War, was the so-called Jameson raid. In my humble opinion, a typical attempt at a “color revolution.” The raid plan personally developed the notorious Rhodes. 29 December 1895, a detachment of half a thousand fighters, including cavalry (a kind of light cavalry), armed with rifles, Hiram Maxim machine guns and light guns, crossed the Transvaal border with the British protectorate Bechuanandend. The plan was that by the time the detachment arrived in Pretoria, the Outlander riot was to begin. For Rhodes' money, they were thrown into a couple of puppet political parties in advance. And the people of the English official, Linder Jameson, were to be the answer to the “call of the people, who were languishing under the rule of the Boers”.



Capture of Linder Jameson and his squad

However, while Jameson flew like mad to the rescue of a previously prepared “people,” this same “people” managed to gnaw inside themselves for the future, only the expected buns. Thus, it was impossible to start a scream in the press about the oppressed “European workers” due to the lack of outrage among these “workers”, perhaps with each other. In such conditions, the Jameson squad from “fighters for freedom and human rights” turned into a regular, albeit large and well-armed, gang.

Already on January 2, the Boers, well aware of the squad’s plans and the failure of the conspirators in Pretoria, found the people of Jameson. Once surrounded, the failed "revolutionaries" started a battle. Despite good weapons, the Jameson squad soon lost many dead and wounded and was forced to surrender.

In Pretoria, prisoners were treated indulgently and sent home. Thus, the then leadership of the Transvaal republic and its president Paul Kruger (known as “Uncle Paul”, in 1941, in Germany, the same-name film about the president’s life even came out) tried to win the sympathies of the pro-British population, and also, as they say, the world community. At the same time as a result of a failed operation, the reputation of Britain was thoroughly omitted. If the wild boers, as the British press squealed about them, were able to give British notably armed "patriots" to the British snot, what would happen if the Boers collected a full-blooded army?



Caricature of Cecil Rhodes

True, most leather chairs were heated under the buttocks of the London establishment. But even in Pretoria, in spite of their patriarchal contemplation, they understood perfectly well that they would not leave them alone, and they essentially became witnesses of the beginning of the war. She just needed to be pulled off with all her strength and begin emergency training. In 1897, the Transvaal and the Orange state conclude an alliance.

By 1899, the situation has passed all permissible limits. No political concessions of the Boers in the hope of postponing the war were already uninteresting to London. On August 19, President Kruger even agreed to grant suffrage to all Outlanders who had lived in the Transvaal for more than 5 years in exchange for refusing to interfere in the internal affairs of the republic. In fact, almost from the very beginning, all this was London indifferent to the word at all. The waves of the Atlantic have already cut the British transports with the troops, and already arrived, they went out on the march towards the border with Transvaal. Well, not for the sake of the profit of some prospector and miner punks, everything was started ...

October 9 Transvaal in the ultimatum form demanded to withdraw the troops from the border. October 11 war began. The Boers quickly figured out that it was no reason to beware of the industrial empire and its regular army. The only chance was considered a lightning raid on the territory of the British colonies and protectorates in order to break the British troops who had time to land, using the element of surprise. The Boers hoped that the London hogs would calculate what time the dream of Transvaal gold and diamonds would become, the risks of loss, at least for a while, of the existing colonies and protectorates, as well as international reaction and their own prestige. Summing it all up, in the case of the Boer luck, London could well go on a world with mutual concessions in order not to lose face. Naturally, the world is temporary, but the world.

Alas…

To be continued ...
Author:
Articles from this series:
White outlaws, or who awaits Russian officers in Africa (part 1)
69 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Vard
    Vard April 2 2018 05: 54
    +7
    If you do not believe in a conspiracy against you ... then this is your problem ... Both then and now decent people will lose to scoundrels ... especially those with such rich traditions as England ...
    1. Artek
      Artek April 2 2018 08: 53
      +2
      Quote: Vard
      If you do not believe in a conspiracy against you ... then this is your problem ... Both then and now decent people will lose to scoundrels ... especially those with such rich traditions as England ...


      I wonder if the Boers are Dutch, why did the Netherlands not help the Boers? After all, this is not just help to the fraternal people, but also the direct benefit of such help? Here, as usual, something is wrong. Apparently the Boers were not descendants of the Dutch, or rather modern German-Dutch, but were a fragment of another civilization — this more explains all the oddities of such “stories”.
      1. Vard
        Vard April 2 2018 08: 58
        +8
        In 1814, Britain paid the Netherlands 6 pounds for the land on which the Boers lived ... Like they just sold ... So what kind of help is there ..
        1. Artek
          Artek April 2 2018 09: 00
          0
          Quote: Vard
          In 1814, Britain paid the Netherlands 6 pounds for the land on which the Boers lived ... Like they just sold ... So what kind of help is there ..


          link please for this ...
          1. Vard
            Vard April 2 2018 09: 02
            +1
            https://s30556663155.mirtesen.ru/blog/43200004068
            /Buryi-kak-natsiya.Nachalo-istorii.
            1. Artek
              Artek April 2 2018 09: 05
              0
              Quote: Vard
              https://s30556663155.mirtesen.ru/blog/43200004068
              /Buryi-kak-natsiya.Nachalo-istorii.


              404 goes to your link
      2. Homecoming
        Homecoming April 2 2018 20: 19
        +1
        The Dutch had long since lost the British war over the oceans and could not stop them at the other end of the world. The only hope was for the Germans or Russian volunteers, but again the remoteness left little chance.
      3. Nagaibak
        Nagaibak April 2 2018 22: 20
        0
        Artek "I wonder if the Boers are Dutch, why did Holland not help the Boers?"
        there is not only Dutch blood. But also the French Huguenots. "A new wave of white settlers appeared in Kapstad from 1688 - these were French Huguenots. They began to develop the Maloe Karu area and the territories adjacent to Kapstad. Their main occupation was agriculture, in particular, viticulture. To the top Of the 18th century, they almost completely adopted the customs and language of the Dutch (Boers) and began to differ from them only in French surnames and dark hair color (descendants of the Dutch mostly blond hair). " Surnames of Boer generals Cronier, Joubert, Olivier.
  2. parusnik
    parusnik April 2 2018 07: 30
    +4
    not a cycle about Sherlock Holmes
    .... The cycle of Sherlock Holmes, Arthur Conan Doyle, wrote entertainment for the sake of ...
  3. Olgovich
    Olgovich April 2 2018 08: 32
    +4
    Here they are, Boers:

    1. Artek
      Artek April 2 2018 08: 54
      +3
      Charlize Theron?

  4. Aviator_
    Aviator_ April 2 2018 08: 43
    +6
    British classics, especially in the Victorian era, were chauvinists. Not only Conan Doyle, but also Rudyard Kipling - it is worth reading his "Kim", full of Russophobia.
    1. Reptiloid
      Reptiloid April 2 2018 09: 44
      +4
      About Kipling. In every possible way propagandized this war. He was in the war zone in 1900, he supported the war from its first days, Alfred Milner, the governor of the Cape Colony was his friend .... As well as Rhodes V.I. Lenin in his work "IMPERIALISM AS THE TOP THE STAGE OF CAPITALISM "" quotes Cecil Rhodes the words said to journalist W. Stead:
      "" I was in London's East End yesterday and attended one meeting of the unemployed. When I listened to wild speeches there, which were all a cry: bread, bread ,! I, going home and reflecting on what I saw, became convinced, more than before, of the importance of imperialism ... My cherished idea is to solve a social question namely: in order to save 40 million inhabitants of the United Kingdom from a murderous civil war, we, colonial politicians, must take over new lands to accommodate the excess population, for the acquisition of new areas for the sale of goods produced in factories and mines. The empire, and always said this, is a question of the stomach. If you do not want a civil war, you must become imperialists ""
      Continued to read with interest, thanks. I look forward to further articles.
    2. EvilLion
      EvilLion April 3 2018 10: 09
      0
      He would now look at Britain and cry, and even in Russia his work is valued, apparently, much higher than at home.
    3. EvilLion
      EvilLion April 3 2018 10: 16
      0
      By the way, there is no reason to doubt the veracity of the Kipling description of the same India and its inhabitants. In fact, they were so inferior to Europe, including in the ideas of humanism, that the British authorities for local residents were much better and more humane than their own princes and fellow tribesmen. And when the colonialists left, then most of the newly formed states simply flew back to their pristine state. It is not surprising that the attitude of the British intelligentsia towards the locals is not too kind.
    4. Weyland
      Weyland April 3 2018 15: 23
      +1
      Quote: Aviator_
      it is worth reading his "Kim", full of Russophobia.

      But compared to the film, the book is still quite decent! In the book, Russian spies are simply engaged in surveying, and in the film, Kim prevents their large-scale diversion - an attempt to arrange a mudflow by blowing up the bridge of a mountain lake. And there was such a case - it was only in real life that the Britons tried to arrange such a diversion in the Russian Pamirs by blowing up the bridge of Sarez Lake (ChSKh, in 1916, when we seemed to be allies in the WWI!)
      1. Aviator_
        Aviator_ April 3 2018 19: 32
        0
        Thanks for the info, did not know.
  5. antivirus
    antivirus April 2 2018 08: 55
    +1
    allegedly 1/3 of all world gold was mined in South Africa-- after defeating the Boers.
    This gold is the cause of WWI - Britain had money and was eager for world domination.
    1. Hantengri
      Hantengri April 2 2018 22: 29
      0
      Quote: antivirus
      This gold is the cause of WWI - Britain had money and was eager for world domination.

      Those. the small-shavens owned, approximately, from 1/3 (territorially) to 2/3 (economically) of the world, and, nevertheless, this was not enough and this “little” made them nerves and, therefore, they did in 1914. all attacked? So, here, is everything simple? wassat So I want to rephrase K. Semin: "Us NOT interested in causes and effects. We, from this, Moskut is buggy. We need simpler ... " laughing
      1. nickname7
        nickname7 April 3 2018 06: 44
        +2
        Those. the small-shavens owned, approximately, from 1/3 (territorially) to 2/3 (economically) of the world, and, nevertheless, this was not enough and this “little” made them nerves and, therefore, they did in 1914. all attacked? So, here, is everything simple?
        You think only in the categories “few” - “many”, but in fact, the world is much more complicated than black and white, there are other categories, for example - “not to lose what you have gained” or to maintain the status quo. The small-shirts had enough, 2/3 of the (economically) world, and they wanted to preserve this, which later they failed. The growing US shark also wanted a pie. The island is still limited, according to its capabilities, and in the end lost its dominance, losing to a more populated and large country.
        in 1914 everyone was attacked
        This is the specificity of the Anglo-Saxon mentality. If the Russians have security, which means when they are not attacked, the British have security - a broader concept is advance neutralization of potential risks. The West acts in advance (preventive strikes), and not until the "thunder strikes."
        1. EvilLion
          EvilLion April 3 2018 10: 18
          +1
          The operation in Syria is actually well in advance, and there is a thread in Central Asia where they would come to run around for bearded men. And the Afghan war is also not the result of some kind of Afghan aggression, it was just shitty in Afghanistan, and something had to be done about it.
        2. Hantengri
          Hantengri April 3 2018 22: 46
          0
          Quote: nickname7
          You think only in the categories of “little” - “much”, but in fact, the world is much more complicated than black and white, there are other categories, for example

          Dear man, can you tell me what the question marks at the end of the sentence mean? For instance:
          Quote: HanTengri
          Those. the small-shavens owned, approximately, from 1/3 (territorially) to 2/3 (economically) of the world, and, nevertheless, this was not enough and this “little” made them nerves and, therefore, they did in 1914. everyone was attacked? So, here, it's simple?
          And (it’s scary even to ask) do you know the concept of “sarcasm”? laughing
          Quote: HanTengri
          and, therefore, they, nevertheless, in 1914. all attacked?

          Quote: nickname7
          This is the specificity of the Anglo-Saxon mentality

          ABOUT! Another Great Simplifier! lol Well, why should a real ur-patriot include a Mosk? Why understand everything about this, the gaddy of interests and contradictions that led to the WWII? It is sufficient to state that:
          Quote: antivirus
          This gold is the cause of WWI - Britain had money and was eager for world domination.

          +
          Quote: nickname7
          This is the specificity of the Anglo-Saxon mentality

          And the unicellular, in the cavity between the ears, immediately develops a "nirvana" of "higher knowledge!" Those.
          Quote: HanTengri
          "We are NOT interested in causes and effects. We, from this, have a bug in Musk. We need simpler ..."

          As it was said! laughing
      2. antivirus
        antivirus April 3 2018 09: 50
        0
        a few years ago, through some kind of cognitive channel, a program about the gold mines of South Africa.
        Synchronized translation from English, zhurnalyuga-English, praises the "genius" of engineers and progressive owners of the gold mining industry.
        "up to 1/3 of all the gold mined in the world from this mine,"
        "hard dangerous work, but for a very decent money for Africa"
        1. Weyland
          Weyland April 3 2018 15: 27
          0
          keywords
          Quote: antivirus
          for Africa "

          but for Europe, for example, will this money seem worthy?
      3. Weyland
        Weyland April 3 2018 15: 25
        +1
        Quote: HanTengri
        Those. the small-shavens owned, approximately, from 1/3 (territorially) to 2/3 (economically) of the world, and, nevertheless, this was not enough and this “little” made them nerves and, therefore, they did in 1914. all attacked?

        It was Kipling who said this best of all:

        Spacious Widow from Windsor,
        Half the world is considered for her.
        And mining the whole world with a bayonet
        We bridge her carpet of bones
        (Rabble my dear! Of our bones!).
      4. The comment was deleted.
    2. EvilLion
      EvilLion April 3 2018 10: 11
      +1
      Actually, on the contrary, it was precisely those who already had domination that moved France and Britain. As a result, they moved, losing the United States, then again, again the United States. The main movers - the Germans, were left with a nose.
      1. antivirus
        antivirus April 3 2018 10: 18
        0
        after that “about 1/3 of the world’s gold” I believed - the Germans got a knockdown in the economy - the Angles introduced the gold standard and mathematically correct housekeeping, the development of the economy (as it is now - untied from the gold standard) Germans became a loss ..
        ONE EXIT - ATTACK FIRST AND RESOLVE THE QUESTION OF PRIORITIES FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF BANKING SYSTEMS AND THE WORLD ECONOMY (INCLUDING COLONIES)
  6. Stirbjorn
    Stirbjorn April 2 2018 10: 01
    +1
    An interesting series of articles, I look forward to continuing good
  7. Altona
    Altona April 2 2018 15: 48
    +4
    The history of the Boers is a lesson to us, not to be tukhi-matyuhi, although they know how to fight. And be able to give in the face by any means to any evil mongrel and even the shameless watchdog. And do not play "neutral", bashfully shoving the flag of his country into his underpants.
    PS I would like to see a good film adaptation of the novels of Louis Bussenard. There's also a storehouse of adventure. And the same "Tear off the head."
    1. Artek
      Artek April 2 2018 18: 33
      +1
      Quote: Altona
      The history of the Boers is a lesson to us, so as not to be tukhi-matyuhi, although they know how to fight


      actually the Boers fought for their homeland. And they lost because England had superior powers over a small state. About the fact that England owned half of the world, maybe they heard? All were tyuhamimatyuhi, how did you have stupidity to put it?
      1. nickname7
        nickname7 April 3 2018 06: 49
        0
        the Boers fought for their homeland. And they lost because England had
        He means that
        The history of the Boers is a lesson to us, so as not to be tukhi-matyuhi, although they know how to fight
        That losing to the West means the end of history, for a losing nation, disaster and genocide.
  8. bnm.99
    bnm.99 April 2 2018 17: 20
    +1
    The author describes the Boers as pastoral, naive, ingenuous shepherds and shepherdesses who directly descended from the popular prints of the Baroque and Rococo times. The Boers were ordinary Puritan-Jewish Protestant fanatics with animal intolerance and hatred for all who at least differed from them in a race of faith and so on. The Anglo-Saxons, in principle, were no different from them, but ... By 1900, the Anglo-Saxons abandoned the practice of direct genocide and harsh enslavement of the conquered peoples, and the Boers remained at the level of the 100th-XNUMXth centuries. That is why Native Africans XNUMX% supported the "angry" English, and not the "good and fluffy" Boers, the inherent "wildness", as the author assures us, has nothing to do with it. Well, in the future, "unfortunate" Boers will become en masse fans of Hitler and will be born the notorious apartheid for which they have to pay. What you reap, you reap, the sowing wind will reap the storm ...
    1. Artek
      Artek April 2 2018 18: 25
      +1
      Quote: bnm.99
      The Anglo-Saxons from them, in principle, were no different from them, but ... By 1900, the Anglo-Saxons abandoned the practice of direct genocide and harsh enslavement of conquered peoples


      Well, they refused, because everyone has already been subdued.
      Quote: bnm.99
      The Boers were ordinary Puritan Judaic Protestant fanatics.


      and what is Jewish and Protestant? Jewish is the Jewish religion, and Protestant is Christian? You didn’t mix anything up there?

      Quote: bnm.99
      The Anglo-Saxons, in principle, were no different from them, but ... By 1900, the Anglo-Saxons abandoned the practice of direct genocide and harsh enslavement of the conquered peoples, and the Boers remained at the level of the XNUMXth-XNUMXth centuries.

      the Angles, in general, have owned a part of South Africa since the beginning of the 19th century, and what do you think with the blacks that they played spirits? It is the British who do not know history well and created a state in which slavery was the color of the apartheid, for almost the entire 20th century. It was the Angles who began to be the first to trade people in America.

      Quote: bnm.99
      Well, in the future, "unfortunate" Boers will become en masse fans of Hitler and will be born the notorious apartheid for which they have to pay. What you sow will reap, the sowing wind will reap the storm.


      you would like to learn a story from your uncle, but most likely you’re lying quite consciously. It’s the West, led by the English kings who liked to give a Nazi salute, which was recorded in the photos and supported Hitler, as well as Jewish bankers and pumped up the Reich economy with money.
      As for the Boers, this few people simply SURVIVED in the conditions of the English attacks.
      1. bnm.99
        bnm.99 April 2 2018 19: 21
        0
        Before giving valuable advice on studying history, you yourself should study the history of the Union of South Africa of the 1920-1930s and at the same time read about Pastor Malana and the other fathers of apartheid - who is xy, who has learned from whom and who has idolized. PS - keep your love for Novodvorskaya and its rash tales of paradise in apartheid South Africa with you - in a decent society, she is not welcome.
    2. Reptiloid
      Reptiloid April 2 2018 18: 37
      +3
      Both the Boers and the British, as well as other long-standing monarchies, tried to expand their influence over distant territories, but England succeeded better than other countries. Her colonial possessions were on different continents, an island, and this was very correct, from their point of view. Rhodes spoke out frankly, and in principle, spoke of humanism, training and other excellent qualities. "" The burden of a white man "" --- Kipling's poem
      The fact that England owned India, located in Asia, was right for them. But the fact that Russia annexed close Turkestan to itself ---- was immoral from their point of view. Kipling also wrote a novel whose action in Afghanistan. HE DREAMS to take RI from the rear. About the Tatar question plans. Russophobia of England, as manifested in the Crimean War, has not disappeared until now.
      1. Aviator_
        Aviator_ April 2 2018 19: 12
        +3
        Yes, that's right, Kim is about Afghanistan. I left a vile impression of the book after the episode, as Kim, rubbing confidence in Russian topographers, spoils them to the fullest.
        1. Reptiloid
          Reptiloid April 2 2018 19: 43
          +2
          Somehow, when I got older, after all this information I stopped watching Mowgli. They had no respect for the ancient culture. When I read that the cobra --- for Hindus --- Deity, and also often as a symbol of India. It was impossible to kill them categorically! As in Ancient Egypt. The Englishmen, it turns out and brought the mongooses to India. These are the characters in Kipling's works. There was an old film about how the Indians' cup of patience overflowed and began to take revenge. I also read that the British brought mongooses to the islands of the Caribbean to exterminate rats. And mongooses exterminated birds, small animals, various reptiles, began to attack small cattle and poultry. So it goes.
          1. voyaka uh
            voyaka uh April 2 2018 22: 13
            0
            "when I got older, after all this information I stopped watching Mowgli" ////

            belay Winnie the Pooh too?
            1. Reptiloid
              Reptiloid April 3 2018 20: 11
              0
              Quote: voyaka uh
              "when I got older, after all this information I stopped watching Mowgli" ////

              belay Winnie the Pooh too?

              Somehow all this Kipling's racism fell out instantly and unexpectedly. However, how do you know about such small details, you did not live here at that time. A lot of new things appeared, newspapers, magazines, books ..... I don’t remember something about a bear cub in childhood. Mowgli and books and movies ....
        2. Weyland
          Weyland April 3 2018 15: 29
          +2
          Quote: Aviator_
          I have left a vile impression of the book after the episode,

          it’s you haven’t watched a movie from a book yet ...
          1. Aviator_
            Aviator_ April 3 2018 19: 34
            +1
            And I won’t, shit should be determined by appearance and smell, and not by taste. Thanks for warning.
    3. voyaka uh
      voyaka uh April 2 2018 19: 37
      0
      Slavery was abolished in England in 1833 "Slavery Abolition Act 1833"
      From this year, the British, who had previously helped transport slaves to America, abruptly began the fight against the slave trade and turned the ships with slaves back, arresting the slave traders. The same thing happened in their colonies. Slaves were freed, slave owners and slave traders were arrested. The Boers did not like this, and they left Cape to the east.
      1. Operator
        Operator April 2 2018 20: 48
        +5
        The British abolished slavery and began to intercept the ships transporting slaves from Africa to America, for only one reason - in order to weaken their economic competitor (USA).

        The British lack of any sympathy for black slaves perfectly demonstrates Britain’s attitude to the American Civil War - Britain supported the slave-owning southern states in spite of the federal government in Washington.
    4. Normal ok
      Normal ok April 2 2018 20: 57
      +2
      Quote: bnm.99
      That is why native Africans at 100% supported the "angry" English, and not the "good and fluffy" Boers

      There were no “Native Africans” in southern Africa. All who lived there at that time were aliens. And they supported the British because S. Rhodes bought their leaders.
      1. Weyland
        Weyland April 3 2018 15: 42
        +2
        Quote: Normal ok
        There were no “Native Africans” in southern Africa. All who lived there at that time were aliens.

        We all came from somewhere. But the most ancient people there were Bushmen.

        "- Do you know, doctor, the order issued by the British South African police is still valid, it has not yet been canceled, - MacDonald told me, looking at Xai with interest. - According to this order, any Bushman should be shot on the spot. This is the first one I see. Poor things!
        - Yes. - I heard about this order, which now, of course, is simply curious, but gives an idea of ​​the attitude that existed in the last century, in the era of big hunts for Bushmen, when hundreds of horsemen gathered together to drive and kill poor little elves, as if dangerous animals .
        Both white and black mercilessly destroyed them. Cruelties had no end. They shot, pricked with spears - and even worse. In 1869, King Kham invited an entire tribe to the festival of reconciliation, and when they sat at his table, putting down their weapons, the king's warriors seized them. The king personally observed the torture. The last bushman died on the fourth day.
        (Wilbur Smith, "Bird of the Sun" action takes place in modern book writing (1972) Rhodesia)
  9. Altona
    Altona April 2 2018 18: 49
    +3
    Quote: Artek
    actually the Boers fought for their homeland. And they lost because England had superior powers over a small state. About the fact that England owned half of the world, maybe they heard? All were tyuhamimatyuhi, how did you have stupidity to put it?

    ----------------------------------------------
    In fact, other countries valiantly fought for their independence. And they survived. And then England owned half the world. The same Americans expelled the British troops, as they boast, they had enough for this 3% of the population. This is how they brag. But not the point. Do not consider yourself smarter than others. And it was a matter of the fact that the Boers were too generous to the enemies, although they could also ruthlessly destroy them and not take prisoners. I spoke of an unnecessary game of nobility with an insidious adversary. Learn history and do not have the habit of being rude.
    PS Although the British owned almost the whole world, they had to keep their colonies with great exertion.
    1. Artek
      Artek April 2 2018 19: 10
      +1
      Quote: Altona
      The same Americans expelled the British troops, as they boast, they had enough for this 3% of the population.


      here 3 percent was enough, and the Boers fought by ALL the people and did not have enough, Russia sent its fleet to help the Americans, and no one helped the Boers. America already had gunpowder and weapons factories at that time, and the Boers fought with what they managed to buy. And most importantly, both were English-speaking, so the Angles did not insist, although they could defeat this American army, and with the Boers it was all differently. The British had to destroy the Boers and impose their way of life. There are also the cornerstones of this story that no one knows or wants to know, so these wars were very fierce. There were much more Englishmen that they would finally understand. In short, it is not correct.
      1. Homecoming
        Homecoming April 2 2018 20: 32
        +2
        A little time will pass and the terrible and inglorious defeat of the Tsushima squadron by the Japanese (for Anglo-American money) became a punishment for the careless policy of St. Petersburg at that time. Is it not more than 100 years later that the current situation around Russia after the surrender of Libya and Iraq?
      2. Normal ok
        Normal ok April 2 2018 21: 07
        +2
        Quote: Artek
        And most importantly, both were English speakers,

        The Boers mainly spoke Dutch. More precisely, in the local Dutch dialect.
        1. voyaka uh
          voyaka uh April 2 2018 22: 21
          +1
          In West German, it is old Dutch. Part of the Boers is the French Normans. Everyone whose last names begin with "De-". De Villiers and others. Protestants who fled from Catholics to Africa. But they also speak Afrikaans - Old Dutch.
          1. Weyland
            Weyland April 3 2018 15: 47
            +1
            Quote: voyaka uh
            those whose last names begin with "De-". De Villiers and others

            Thanks, laughed! If the French “de” is the pretext of the genitive case, and its presence in front of the surname means nobility, then among the Dutch it’s just an article, an analogue of the English The or German Der, and it is typical for quite common surnames:

            “The Netherlands is a ridiculous country. I didn’t understand anything here. Example: what is de Schörnsteenweger?
            “Someone, Mr. Sergeant.” This is the last name.
            “I understand.” What do you mean "de"? I was Paris. Paris "de" mean count, baron, viscount. Example: de Turgis, de Treville. Madrid “de” means nobleman. I was told that Schornsteenweger is chic-chic, clean the pipe.
            “That's right, Mr. Sergeant.” "Schornsteenweger" is, in our opinion, a "chimney sweep".
            “Half-hearted, de Chimney sweep?” (K. Sergienko, “Kees - Admiral Tulipov”)
            1. voyaka uh
              voyaka uh April 3 2018 21: 05
              0
              And how to distinguish the Boer from the French Huguenots from the Boer from the Dutch? French De
              from Dutch De? I'm really interested. I was sure that the Virgin of South Africa - the descendants of the French Huguenots from northern France - Normandy.
    2. nickname7
      nickname7 April 3 2018 07: 04
      +1
      Americans expelled British troops, as they boast, they had enough for this 3% of the population
      In fact, the Americans could not have beaten off with their 3%, without France, which sent troops, weapons and gunpowder and gained independence for the states. France, wanting to rude the British, spared no resources, which broke its economy.
  10. Altona
    Altona April 2 2018 19: 11
    +2
    Quote: Artek
    The British were much more that they would finally understand. In short, not correctly.

    --------------------------------
    To be rude to a stranger is incorrect, so that you finally understand.
    1. Artek
      Artek April 2 2018 19: 35
      0
      Quote: Altona
      Quote: Artek
      The British were much more that they would finally understand. In short, not correctly.

      --------------------------------
      To be rude to a stranger is incorrect, so that you finally understand.

      Do you think IN a suitable place to write nonsense?
  11. voyaka uh
    voyaka uh April 2 2018 19: 29
    0
    Inobjectively.
    Conflict and war arose mainly because Britain in 1833 abolished slavery and slavery. But the Dutch settlers of the Boers preserved it, and they did not want to abandon it.
    Because of this, the Boers had to move from the Cape to the east - to Transvaal.
    The whole war began under the slogans of rescuing blacks from the Boer slave owners.
    1. Artek
      Artek April 2 2018 19: 44
      +3
      Quote: voyaka uh
      Britain abolished slavery in 1833


      Here is another connoisseur of history. You know the sepoy uprising, when it was in 1859, and the reason was certainly due to the abolition of slavery and the onset of the era of Anglican prosperity?
      .
      Quote: voyaka uh
      But the Dutch settlers of the Boers preserved it, and they did not want to abandon it.


      the British replaced the so-called slavery with apartheid, which actually does not differ much from slavery. And besides, the Boers had no relation to South Africa.
      Quote: voyaka uh
      The whole war began under the slogans of rescuing blacks from the Boer slave owners.


      it's like a civil war in america, but for some reason blacks fought for the confederates.
      1. voyaka uh
        voyaka uh April 2 2018 19: 58
        +3
        "on apartheid politics," ////

        Apartheid - in the translation "separate accommodation" just the Boers came up, and not the British.
        The Boers also came up with "Bantustans" - separate semi-independent states for the Bantu peoples. Whether these were good decisions or bad ones is a moot point. But the fact that these were not decisions of the British, namely the Boers.
        And it's time for you to leave the eponymous pioneer camp, and begin to study history. wink
        1. Artek
          Artek April 2 2018 20: 40
          +2
          Quote: voyaka uh
          Apartheid - in the translation "separate accommodation" just the Boers came up, and not the British.


          it wasn’t the Boers who brought blacks who were turned into slaves to America, but the Angles. And the Boers didn’t want to live with blacks. That's right. But the South African state is an English state, not a Boer one, and the policy of national humiliation was not carried out by the Boers, but by the British. And separate states for white and black, this is just the right policy

          .
          Quote: voyaka uh
          And it’s time for you to leave the eponymous pioneer camp, and begin to study history


          and it’s time for you to switch from Wikipedia to at least academic encyclopedias, otherwise you won’t understand what is good and what is bad.
          1. voyaka uh
            voyaka uh April 2 2018 22: 35
            +2
            I talked with these augers a whole year live laughing , and you send me to Wikipedia.
            And heard enough "Afrikaans" enough. And I even had to lie down on the ground (infantry leaves useful skills) in one of the main streets of the City in Johannesburg, when pr_idu_rok-drill began to shoot from a revolver (in the crowd! From an unrealistic distance!) At some black thief who stole his handbag and pulled to run. It’s a miracle that he didn’t hurt anyone. About the stupidity of the Boers in South Africa is full of jokes. Which are told by both other whites and blacks.
      2. Alf
        Alf April 2 2018 20: 13
        +1
        Quote: Artek
        it's like a civil war in america, but for some reason blacks fought for the confederates.

        Moreover, the act of Lincoln liberated blacks in the SOUTHERN states, but not in the NORTH.
        1. Artek
          Artek April 2 2018 20: 50
          +2
          Quote: Alf
          Quote: Artek
          it's like a civil war in america, but for some reason blacks fought for the confederates.

          Moreover, the act of Lincoln liberated blacks in the SOUTHERN states, but not in the NORTH.


          recalls how Alexander1 freed Finns, Poles, Balts from serfdom, but not Russian, it was some kind of policy similar in deeds.
          1. Alf
            Alf April 2 2018 21: 43
            0
            Thus, Lincoln undermined the economy of the southerners.
        2. Alexey RA
          Alexey RA April 3 2018 10: 12
          +1
          My main task in this struggle is to save the Union, and not to save or destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing a single slave, I would do it, and if I had to free all the slaves to save it, I would do it too.
          © A. Lincoln
          1. Alf
            Alf April 3 2018 20: 57
            0
            Quote: Alexey RA
            My main task in this struggle is to save the Union, and not to save or destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing a single slave, I would do it, and if I had to free all the slaves to save it, I would do it too.
            © A. Lincoln

            That is, if the South fell off, the North would very quickly bend.
            1. co-creator
              co-creator April 5 2018 13: 46
              0
              Quote: Alf
              That is, if the South fell off, the North would very quickly bend.

              Bent to what sense? Would he be conquered?
    2. Normal ok
      Normal ok April 2 2018 21: 09
      +2
      Quote: voyaka uh
      The whole war began under the slogans of rescuing blacks from the Boer slave owners.

      The official reason for starting a war is always very beautifully furnished. But, the real reasons most often lie in a different plane.
      1. Reptiloid
        Reptiloid April 2 2018 22: 00
        +1
        Quote: Normal ok
        The official reason for starting a war is always very beautifully furnished. But, the real reasons most often lie in a different plane.

        Kipling has Dust, Barracks Ballads, and more. Glorified, glorified the English race, the British Armed Forces, various branches of the army. So not only the reason for the beginning of the colonial war for production, but also the war for production was given heroic significance.
        In fact, no matter what the Boers were there. He came who is trickier, stronger, who needed this territory. Business, nothing personal.
        1. kan123
          kan123 April 11 2018 11: 41
          0
          Everything is simpler at times - the Boers found gold on the Orange River, - a lot of gold - it was lying under my feet. The British argued - that if they can squeeze a gold coin from these peasants - Boers, then the game is worth the candle. But the Boers gave them such an answer that they later regretted getting involved there.
  12. kan123
    kan123 April 11 2018 11: 35
    0
    Strange, but under Nikolai Sanych the blessed balletoman, the non-murdered, there was a collection of information on this war. Sobsno has written several volumes, a full report on the Anglo-Boer - I have mastered about six, I don’t know why - the habit of reading is likely. Nicholas our Sanych, studied Africa, in terms of its colonization or something - otherwise I would not have ordered this analysis. South Africa unfortunately not - they were destroyed, while they destroyed the USSR. The Jarans themselves do not believe that something will grow there, but it is a pity - there was a good country.