• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

To What Extent Was The South African War (1899 - 1902) A Capitalist War

Extracts from this document...

Introduction

To what extent was the South African War (1899 - 1902) a capitalist war? Throughout history the study of the causes of conflict has often been found more interesting that the results. The South African War (also referred to as the Boer War) was particularly fascinating for the amount of contestation over its beginnings. The difficulty it understanding how the Boer War began could be down to its nature as a war of the Empire, making Britain's role in it a slightly touchier subject and harder to make more facts known. The almost conspiratorial confusion surrounding the origins of the South African War has led many individuals from contemporary to recent years to comment upon it; from the economist J. A. Hobson and Bolshevik leader Lenin to historians Iain Smith and A. N. Porter. In examining whether the South African War could be described as a capitalist war it is important to outline the various forms of capitalism that can be taken into account. The first is that of the external forces: the war was primarily fought with the capitalist priorities of the British government in mind (particularly over South Africa's vast mineral resources). The second is that the South African War was fought domestically between the capitalist mine owners, the British-owned, South African press and the independent Afrikaner (Boer) Republic. The argument on the origins of the South African War explores imperialism. This argument states that the South African War was a way of extending the influence of the British Empire via the destruction of Boer independence and the protection of British Uitlander interests outside of the Cape Colony. ...read more.

Middle

Local capital was obsessed with the global market at the expense of the conflict that they were encouraging. The Rand Lords chose their own financial gains over the interest of the majority; a truly capitalist war. The end of the 19th century was a veritable heyday for the British Empire. Britain held tremendous economic, political and social power over the world and could easily be described by a modern day commentator as the single greatest 'superpower' on Earth. The British were particularly dominant in Africa, where it was said that Britain wished to control all of Africa 'from Cape Town to Cairo'. It is also interesting to note that the Anglo-Boer War was unique out of the Empire wars to date in that it was primarily fought against white, Afrikaner 'natives'. Within South Africa, British Uitlanders were greatly outnumbered by the Afrikaners, which made even a peaceful situation difficult to administrate. For some time, war was held in the balance between two men; the pro-war, anti-Afrikaner, High Commissioner Milner and his opponent, Sir William Butler the Commander-in-Chief of the British armed forces in South Africa. Whilst Milner openly supported the British Uitlanders, professing to empathise with their plight, Butler regarded them as troublemakers who were purposefully stirring up trouble with the Kruger government (a prime example of this sentiment can be seen in the Jameson raid). The stalemate between Milner and Butler needed to be broken before any progress could be made. One of the pair would have to be removed. The decision made by the British government would reflect its vision for the future of South Africa. ...read more.

Conclusion

equally prized natural resource, oil, or simply for imperialism, to extend Britain's influence across nations, long after the dismantling of the empire. Equally then ordinary people were outraged by abuses of human rights by occupying soldiers, instead of Guantanamo Bay, the Boer War featured some of the earliest 'concentration camps' where a substantial number of innocent Afrikaner women, children and black Africans died. The Iraq War, much like the Boer War began as a clash of easily recognisable personalities instead of Bush and Blair facing Saddam Hussein, it was Milner and Chamberlain facing Paul Kruger. In spite of that, one big difference is notable; the accepted normality of society. The sort of people who would take keen interest in the South African war would more likely have been erudite, gentleman diplomats holding principled views compared to the present day when it is safe to say that we live in a capitalist society where people who get most involved in wars are those who stand to profit from the carnage. Over the years, the nature of capitalism has not changed a great deal. During the South African War, the capitalists' primary concern was themselves. The British focused on the Transvaal gold and how it would profit their mighty Empire. The Rand Lords were interested in keeping hold of their mines and publications in order to maintain their power over the domestic South African market. It is finally safe to conclude that a country would not go to war unless it stood to profit in some way either through partnership with another country, global standing or, in this case, capital gain. ?? ?? ?? ?? Izzy Sanders 13A Personal Study - History ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our AS and A Level Other Historical Periods section.

Found what you're looking for?

  • Start learning 29% faster today
  • 150,000+ documents available
  • Just £6.99 a month

Not the one? Search for your essay title...
  • Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

See related essaysSee related essays

Related AS and A Level Other Historical Periods essays

  1. Marked by a teacher

    To what extent was warfare between Britain and France the main contributory factor in ...

    3 star(s)

    fought, until eventually they required such large amounts of tax from the French population, that they rose up and fought back. The other issues that war with Britain brought up is the way France was ruled in comparison the Britain.

  2. To what extent was the Dutch Revolt in 1572 primarily caused by Religion?

    The underlying cause is Philip himself, and his lack of dedication to the Netherlanders. By being absent from the Netherlands for his entire reign and focusing primarily on his wars, he alienated the nobles by refusing to maintain traditional rights, and by aiming to preserve his Father's policy of Heresy Philip also caused great unrest amongst religious laity.

  1. To What Extent Had Mussolini Established A Personal Dictatorship by 1928?

    Italy wants peace and quiet, work and calm. I will give these things with love if possible and with force if necessary." After surviving this crisis, Mussolini slowed introduced Fascism into Italy and established the classic features of a dictatorship.

  2. Evidence for the Trojan War.

    Mycenae was a powerful city during the 13th century. It is evident that Mycenae was a prosperous, flourishing civilisation. As described by Homer, Mycenae was "rich in gold". After his pursuits in Troy, Schliemann excavated the well-known site of Mycenae and found various pieces of evidence to support Homer's observations.

  1. Who was more important in bringing about the end of Apartheid and minority rule ...

    Countries refused to let South Africa participate in the Olympics from 1964 onwards. Eventually in the 1980's virtually no UK teams visited South Africa. Although there were White people who were rich enough not to suffer from the economic sanctions sporting sanctions affected them.

  2. chartism revision

    emerged towards the end of a long period of agitation by political outsiders." Both of these sections are closely linked around the idea that your social condition was linked to voting- this marked a significant change in British History and provided the main focus of the Chartist campaign.

  1. The First English Civil War

    Material force was, throughout, on the side of the Parliamentary party. They controlled the navy, the nucleus of an army which was in the process of being organised for the Irish war, and nearly all the financial resources of the country.

  2. In the context of India in the 1840s to 1947, how far can independence ...

    With the USA as Britain?s major financial supporter, their disapproval of Britain maintaining an empire had serious implications. In March 1947, Mountbatten was sworn in as the last viceroy of India. With the passing of the Indian independence act in July 1947, a civil war broke out.

  • Over 160,000 pieces
    of student written work
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to
    improve your own work