• 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. Explain the factors which attracted European imperialism either to Africa or to Asia in ...

    Germany, a rising industrial power , close on the heels of Great Britain, it hadn't yet had the chance to control oversea territories, mainly due to its late unification and its absence of experience in modern navigation. Under Bismarck's leadership and his implementation of the Weltpolitik , he enforced rules

  2. Why Was King Alfred So Great?

    This would have made the people more willing to follow Alfred, be it into battle, or supporting other decisions for instance in regards to tax. A second reason is that it formed the foundation for the Common Law - Sir Winston Churchill observed that 'Alfred's Code was amplified by his

  1. 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.

  2. Louis XIV's fondness of war resulted his downfall

    war against him, whom only a year before, he had signed peaceful treaties with. This defiantly shows that Louis was too fond off war. There may though be a few explanations why he pursued in these crazy measures. Firstly, there is the case that he was poorly advised by his Court.

  1. 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.

  2. The First English Civil War

    They had the sympathies of most of the large towns, where the trained bands, drilled once a month, provided cadres for new regiments. Further, by recognising the inevitable, they gained a start in war preparations which they never lost. The Earl of Warwick, the Earl of Essex and the Earl

  1. Gandhi was instrumental in India achieving its independence. Gandhi was able to procure Indias ...

    It acted as the final straw in the fight for Indian Independence. Gandhi knew that the British were weakened. He knew that if a campaign was started the British would not be able to handle it to the best of their abilities and this is the brilliance behind the Quit India act.

  2. To what extent could the Crusades be described as failure within the years 1095-1195?

    The first goal for crusaders was Nicaea, once a place of great churches, and now the capital of the Seljuk Sultan Kilic-Arslan. 21 October 1096 Seljuks had already routed the peasant army of crusaders. Those peasants who had not fallen in battle were sold into slavery.

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