Tag: World History

Tiananmen Square (“Have To” History)

~ Blue Cereal

Stuff You Don’t Really Want To Know (But For Some Reason Have To) About Tiananmen Square

Three Big Things:

Tiananmen Square Protests1. In 1989, Tiananmen Square, Beijing, was one of many sites across China where citizens marched, chanted, and otherwise protested government corruption; they demanded reforms and protection of basic human rights.

2. Government response was brutal, especially at Tiananmen Square; foreign reporters and photographers managed to smuggle out stories and media of the Chinese military abusing and executing protestors.

3. One especially poignant video (and the still photo encapsulating it) shows an unknown individual waving his arms at a tank, then climbing up and shouting at the operators before being rushed off by equally unknown figures. This individual has since been remembered as “Tank Man.”

Background

By June of 1989, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) had been in power for forty years, following decades of civil war against the Kuomintang (KMT), or Nationalist Party. The People’s Republic of China (PRC) was declared in 1949 with Mao Zedong as its unquestioned first-among-equals; he ran the nation in ways both brutal and strange.

The KMT, led by Mao’s nemesis Chiang Kai-Shek, retreated to Taiwan, where they established China Classic, and remained (in the eyes of the west) the officially recognized government until 1971. Despite being virulently anti-Communist, the KMT weren’t exactly “good guys” in this tale. Taiwan was under martial law for nearly forty years, led by a government in perpetual paranoia over potential spies or Commie sympathizers. In 1971, the United Nations finally relented to reality and gave the KMT’s seat to the PRC.

Within a few short years, China Major – the big, red part we all know and love today – went from a “Cultural Revolution” in which anyone insufficiently excited about Chairman Mao’s “Little Red Book” was assaulted, humiliated, or simply made to vanish, to welcoming President Nixon and celebrating the “thawing” of relations with the west. For the next few decades, the U.S. and China took turns pretending to care about basic human rights while building a complex and mutually profitable relationship. China purchased a bunch of America’s debt and allowed U.S. industries partial access to one of the world’s largest markets, while the U.S. became a massive importer of Chinese goods and created an endless supply of movies for them to illegally copy. For better or worse, the two became (and remain) inseparably bound. 

China craved economic growth and global legitimacy, seeking the ideal mix of market forces and “Chinese Socialism” while reclaiming some of their historic status in the eyes of the rest of the world. They loosened their grip on the little people, hoping they’d behave on their own if they knew what was good for them, and even wrote themselves a new constitution, adopted in 1982. It was super-socialist, to be sure, but also rather ambitious in terms of protecting personal liberties.

And Then 1989 Happened

Tiananmen SquareOn April 15th, 1989, a popular politician by the name of Hu Yaobang died (he was 73 and had a heart attack – nothing nefarious). Hu was rebellious and relatively progressive, popular with idealists and college students – the Bernie Sanders of his day. Students and others took to the streets to mourn his passing, which inevitably transitioned into rather blunt criticism towards those still alive and in power. Soon their demonstrations became protests – against corruption, against the party’s mistreatment of Hu, and whatever else came to mind along the way. And they spread.

Government response was inconsistent. Sometimes the powers-that-be power cracked down; other times, they seemed open to discussions. Protestors were unpredictable as well. It’s complicated enough to be clear what you’re against; far trickier to consistently project what you’re for. There were hunger strikes, rallies, some violence, and lots of yelling.

Always with the yelling, those protestors.

By June 4th, the government had had enough. After several strong editorials warning the masses to wrap it up and get on with their carefully managed lives, troops were sent in to disperse the protestors. Sometimes they made arrests, other times they simply fired into the crowds. This was not, however, a tense situation which somehow erupted into violence; this was methodical military action carried out according to orders from above.

Tanks then rolled into Tiananmen Square – site of one of the largest demonstrations. Protestors who refused to move or who simply couldn’t get out of the way were rolled over – several reports say multiple times, so their remains could be literally hosed into the sewers rather than taken away and buried. Clearly China was sending a message about just how seriously all of this new “freedom” was to be taken – and they were willing to sacrifice their own citizens and a certain amount of reputation in the eyes of the world in order to do it.

The official death toll was 200 – 300. The Red Cross estimated 2,700. Recent memos between British and U.S. officials suggest an alarmingly specific 10,454 – dead at the hands of their own government.

China did attempt some damage control with the international press. Reporters had their equipment seized, their hotel rooms trashed, and their well-being threatened over the words and images they were determined to send back to their respective outlets. But It turns out that pesky liberal media can be quite heroic sometimes, no matter what flavor of corrupt, arrogant power tries to shut them down. So… go free press, and all that.
That is why – against all odds – we have images like this:

Tank Man
 
“Tank Man”

It’s not at all clear who this was. He may have been a 19-year old student named Wang Weilin, or maybe not. He was eventually pulled away – but by whom? Government agents? Sympathetic protestors trying to protect him? He may have been imprisoned, tortured, or killed, or he may have simply faded into obscurity and gone on with his life. We’ll probably never know.

Here’s what we do know. He had absolutely no reason to think those tanks were going to stop.

They hadn’t, the day before. As he stood there defiantly, he could hear the gunshots and screams of other protestors paying for their defiance. It’s not clear where he came from or how he ended up alone in Tiananmen Square, facing off with destruction, but he quickly became an international symbol of… something. Defiance, maybe. Or freedom. Human rights, or perhaps the entire Tiananmen Square protest and resulting crackdown. To some extent, what his action symbolized is in the eye of the beholder. We’re certainly unlikely to ever know what he thought it meant.

Aftermath

“Tank Man” didn’t stop the tanks. We can’t reasonably connect his actions to the saving of any lives. At best, he slowed down one segment of a long, complex series of horrors for about five minutes.

Nothing changed in China’s policies, tactics, or narrative as a result of the protests, either, in Tiananmen Square or anywhere else. All references to the event are scrubbed from Chinese internet searches and prohibited in all Chinese sources. If “Tank Man” lived past his asymmetrical showdown, it’s extremely unlikely he had any idea that his actions had been viewed or discussed by anyone not there that day. Even if he’s alive and well today somewhere in China, odds are he has no idea that he’s an iconic photograph or world history talking point.

China quickly moved on, as if the massacre never happened. In 2001, they joined the World Trade Organization. In 2008, they hosted the Olympics. Their economy continues to grow steadily in the 21st century, and at times China appears ready to play nice with the rest of the world.

Other times, not so much.

Human rights abuses are still a substantial concern, but in the modern age of omnipresent news, never-ending tragedy, and ubiquitous corruption, the rest of the world is far less focused on specific problems – in China or anywhere else – than we perhaps used to be. Besides, most of the nations who’d have once taken issue with such things are making quite a bit of money from their relationship with China – as a customer, a supplier, or merely an open door to foreign investments and corporate expansion.

Still, the name “Tiananmen Square” and the image of “Tank Man” still resonate decades later, clearly speaking to something in our collective human experience. Such intangibles, however, are the purview of psychology, sociology, or maybe even mythology. In terms of history, the protests happened, then were removed. The fate of “Tank Man” we simply don’t know, and probably never will.

“Have To” History: The Xhosa Cattle-Killing Movement (1856 – 1857)

~ Blue Cereal

Three Big Things:

1. The Xhosa were a South African people threatened by European encroachment beginning in the 17th century.

2. In 1856, a young Xhosa girl encountered two supernatural strangers who told her a time of renewal was coming but must be preceded by the slaughter of their existing cattle and crops.

3. The resulting Cattle-Killing Movement left the Xhosa destitute and divided against themselves. Over a century and a half later, they remain one of South Africa’s poorest demographics.

Background

Xhosa MapThe Xhosa were (and are) a major cultural group from the Eastern Cape. The land was fertile and there were plenty of fresh water sources for their cattle – which, as it turns out, were rather important to them. Like the Zulu, they were descended from the Bantu who centuries before had migrated from the northwest. Xhosa is still one of the most-spoken languages in Africa, and the native tongue of Nelson Mandela, Bishop Desmond Tutu, and the Black Panther.

The community unit was the “district,” made of extended family “homesteads.” Each district was led by a chief whose power was balanced by the expectation he would guide and protect the district. The chiefs answered to a Xhosa king, to whom they were usually related in some way, and whose power – like theirs – was contingent on perceptions of his success.

Manipulations of or by evil spirits were thought to be the source of all sorts of trouble by the Xhosa. Illness, poor crops, natural disasters – witchcraft was always a suspect. It didn’t have to be the immediate source; merely tolerating it, whatever its form, led to disasters. Fortunately, family ancestors properly honored acted as good spirits, offering guidance how to refute the evil. One of the most common ways was through sacrifice. A variety of animals were used, but by far the most sacred were cattle.

Cattle were everything to the Xhosa. They were sustenance – milk and meat – as well as a source of hides, tools, fuel, and fertilizer. They were also currency – the central unit of value understood by all. They indicated status and they purchased wives. Minor crimes could be forgiven for what we’d think of as a small “fine,” generally paid to the chief in the form of – you guessed it – cattle.

Conflict & Crises

Armed BoersSince the mid-17th century, the Xhosa, like the rest of Southern Africa, had been forced to accommodate European settlers on the Cape – first the Dutch, then the British. The Dutch Boers were especially problematic. Staunch Calvinists, they believed themselves quite literally chosen by God and rarely hesitated to transgress on Xhosa territory. In turn, the Xhosa raided Boer settlements for (what else?) cattle, and hostilities erupted regularly.

Since 1779, the Xhosa had been engaged in hostilities with the Boer and the British – sometimes united, sometimes separately. Historians divide this century into nine distinct wars, the eighth of which lasted from 1850 – 1853 and primarily involved the British. It was rooted in ugliness on both sides, but one interesting element was a Xhosa prophet who predicted the tribe would be completely unaffected by the colonists’ bullets. 

He was incorrect. It was the most devastating loss of the century for the Xhosa.

In 1854, “lungsickness” began spreading through the Xhosa cattle. It was brought from Europe by Boer ranchers looking to improve their herds with imported stock. The disease decimated Xhosa herds, leaving the community hungry, destitute, and looking for answers. What they were certain of was that their physical suffering reflected a commensurate spiritual corruption on the part of those responsible.

The Prophecy

Nongqawuse was a 15-year old Xhosa girl whose uncle, Mhlakaza, was a respected diviner and advisor to King Sarhili. In April 1856, Nongqawuse and a friend walked to the banks of the Gxarha River, near the Indian Ocean, to scare away birds who sometimes threatened family crops there. It was an area of indescribable natural beauty – the river, the ocean, farmland, bushes, and cliffs, making it something of an Eden in otherwise dark times for the Xhosa.

There, the girls met two strangers who claimed to be ancestor-spirits and proceeded to explain that the Xhosa dead would soon rise and a new era of supernatural prosperity would begin. They were to tell their people to abandon all forms of witchcraft, incest, and adultery, and begin preparing enclosures for the many new cattle about to appear and fields for the bountiful crops about to spring forth.

They would, of course, first have to destroy all existing crops and cattle to make way for this renewal. They were contaminated anyway – corrupted, both literally and spiritually. For things to become new, the old must pass away. So, let’s go kill those cows. All of them.

Nongqawuse & FriendThe homestead was understandably hesitant to embrace this revelation, so Mhlakaza returned with the girls to the site of the visitation. The strangers would only communicate through Nongqawuse (which perhaps should have been a red flag) but Mhlakaza was nonetheless convinced one of the spirits was, in fact, his deceased brother, and embraced the prophecy wholeheartedly. Mhlakaza sent word to the other chiefs, and soon the entire nation was talking. Even King Sarhili sent trusted family members to investigate; soon he, too, was officially a believer.

Reactions across the kingdom were mixed; some embraced it immediately, eager to bring about a newer, better world. Others rejected it entirely, declaring it foolish to destroy an already inadequate source of sustenance. Most were somewhere in between, not wanting to commit wholeheartedly to such extremism, but afraid to anger the ancestors or incur censure from the community. Perhaps not surprisingly, districts hit the hardest by lungsickness, or who’d recently lost land to white encroachment, tended to more readily embrace the call to radical action.

Muddy Waters & Collapse

In the twelve months preceding Nongqawuse’s revelation, there had been multiple prophecies involving a “black nation across the sea” who would soon be coming to the aid of the Xhosa. In preparation, their messengers declared, the Xhosa should destroy their fields and kill their cattle, then prepare for newer, better crops and livestock.                                                 

Sound familiar?

These prophecies referred to the Russians, then currently engaged in the Crimean War against the British and others, and who were thought to be both supernatural and black-skinned by much of South Africa. Nongqawuse’s vision, which implied the removal of Brits and Boers but never mentioned them directly, renewed interests in these prior predictions, bringing an explicitly anti-white tone to the discussion by association.

As the months dragged on without the dead rising or the cattle returning, adherents to Cattle-Killing began blaming non-believers for the failure of the prophecy, sometimes killing their cattle and destroying the crops clandestinely to help speed the renewal. Other Xhosa had sold their cattle in order to avoid looking like non-believers, but this, too, was betrayal, since appropriate sacrificial rituals were essential to the purification required.

The more evident it became that renewal was not forthcoming, the more committed and dogmatic the faithful became – a tragic pattern in these sorts of things. Even if the entire community had reversed course, however, it was too late for any real hope of recovery. They had simply destroyed too much of the foundational elements of their way of life – arable land and healthy cattle.

In February 1857, King Sarhili met with Nongqawuse and Mhalakaza at the site of the original vision, where they spoke privately for a long (but unspecified) amount of time. He then announced that the promised New World would begin in exactly eight days, with a blood-red sunrise and a massive storm, during which only the homes of true believers would remain standing and the colonizers would return to the sea. Finally, the dead would begin rising, the crops begin growing, and the new and improved cattle return.

Sarhili’s proclamation prompted a final week-long spasm of crop destruction and cattle-slaughter, until the eighth day arrived. It was a normal sunrise, and the weather was mild.

Aftermath

Xhosa Cattle-Killing

Reactions to Nongqawuse’s cattle-killing prophecy fragmented not only districts, but homesteads and families. In the resulting destitution, something in the neighborhood of 40,000 Xhosa died of starvation, illness, and related violence. The British-controlled Cape began offering assistance to Xhosa willing to move to the colony under special labor contracts. They had to agree to work anywhere in the colony for whatever amount of money was offered in order to receive food, medical care, or other relief. The Boer, on the other hand, had little use for such subtleties and simply continued enslaving or killing the Xhosa as circumstances allowed.

The Eastern Cape never fully recovered. Today, “Nongqawuse” is a byword – brought up whenever someone’s ideas are considered especially foolish or destructive. The destruction visited on the Xhosa by what they perceived as the white man’s God convinced many they should try to get on his good side instead. In 1850, there were almost no self-identified Christians among the Xhosa; a century later it was the area’s majority faith.

It’s easy to paint the Cattle-Killing Movement as self-destructive, but that over-simplifies the dynamics and the desperation of those involved. Many mainstream belief systems promote narratives in which sacrifice and apparent foolishness lead to spiritual (and sometimes temporal) victory. Jesus had an opportunity to establish an earthly kingdom but chose death on a cross in exchange for something longer-term. Gandhi protested British imperialism with a Salt March, at the end of which he and his followers were severely beaten – but which changed British policy. Obi Wan fell before Darth Vader, warning him that “if you strike me down, I shall become more powerful than you can possibly imagine”; he came back as a hologram who could no longer be blamed for subsequent plots.

The whole nature of faith is that you don’t actually know that what you’re doing will work. The “God-Worshippers” were taking part in the Taiping Rebellion at almost the same time the Xhosa were killing their cattle. The “Ghost Dance” Movement of the Plains Amerindians and the Boxer Rebellion were a half-century later. Even today there are evangelicals thrilled at their perception that President Donald Trump is hastening the end of the world through his foreign policy choices, believing that imminent destruction for the rest of us means a new and better plane of existence for them, the chosen few.

Right or wrong, radical faith like that of the cattle-killing Xhosa was an act of defiance and hope when less-extreme measures had proven inadequate. That it didn’t work – at least by our mortal standards – makes it no less true.

The Second Boer War (“Have To” History)

~ Blue Cereal

Stuff You Don’t Really Want To Know (But For Some Reason Have To) About the Second Boer War

Three Big Things:

1. The Boers were descendants of Dutch, Germans, and Huguenots who settled the Cape of Good Hope in the mid-17th century. They were farmers and ranchers who believed they were among God’s most favored elect. 

2. There were two distinct wars between the Boers and the British – the Boers won the first using superior horsemanship and marksmanship. The British won the second by having way more soldiers than the Boers.

3. The Boer resorted to guerilla warfare; the British responded with “scorched earth” tactics and concentration camps for Boer women and children, where thousands died of hunger, disease, and neglect.

Background & The Great Trek

Cape Colonies

In 1652, the Cape of Good Hope was colonized by the Dutch, including a group of farmers referred to as “Boers.”  They were everything you’d expect from gritty, self-reliant farmers who shared a strong faith and traditional lifestyle. 

Great Britain eventually took control of the Cape. They were anti-slavery, anti-Calvinist, and anti-speaking Dutch. As a result, nearly 15,000 Boers moved northeastward as part of “The Great Trek.” As they’d migrated, the Boers, also called “Afrikaners,” enslaved or otherwise marginalized the rather sparse native (and black) African population and soon considered themselves very much the “real” citizens who deserved to be there, as opposed to the (British) interlopers who eventually followed and with whom they continued to clash.

The Boer Republics

By the 1850s, the Boer had established two independent republics in southeastern Africa – The Transvaal (aka “The South African Republic”) and the Orange Free State. These republics instituted apartheid – strict segregation and discrimination, enforced by law as well as social custom. For a decade or two, it seemed they might just be left alone.

In the late 1860s, however, diamonds were discovered in Transvaal. The resulting rush of Uitlanders – “outlanders” – soon outnumbered the locals and began demanding greater political participation and basic protections. Factions rose up and clashed, tensions increased, and eventually things erupted in the First Boer War (1880 – 1881). The British were caught off-guard by Boer marksmanship and tactics; the brief conflict became Great Britain’s first military defeat since 1783. Transvaal (aka “the South African Republic”) secured its independence, at least temporarily.

Tensions Renewed

In 1886, a substantial gold deposit was discovered in Transvaal. The Boer had by that time learned the role mineral wealth could play in maintaining their independence and took full advantage. By 1890, South Africa was the largest source of gold in the world. They became major players in the international monetary system and invested heavily in the neighboring Orange Free State and other Boer communities, throwing a rather expensive wrench into Great Britain’s longsuffering desire to eventually unify South Africa under British rule.

Rhodes ColossusNevertheless, with so much gold came more Uitlanders – ambitious individuals as well as foreign companies with the resources and know-how to manage difficult extraction. The Transvaal government made it difficult for newcomers to vote or otherwise fully participate in society, which didn’t bother those only interested in quick profits but antagonized the British to their ideological cores.

Conveniently for future history students, the complexities of Anglo-Boer relations coalesced at this point into two colorful personalities. Representing Transvaal was President Paul Kruger, a Boer nationalist whose street cred went all the way back to the Great Trek. Flying the Union Jack was Cecil Rhodes, Premier of the Cape Colony and founder of DeBeer Diamonds. You’ve probably seen that political cartoon of him standing spread-legged across Africa – claiming the continent for Queen, country, and white culture everywhere. He’s also why there’s a “Rhodes Scholarship,” which allows deserving youngsters of solid occidental backgrounds to attend his alma mater, Oxford University.

Rhodes recognized that if Transvaal’s prosperity was allowed to continue, they’d soon be in a position to push Great Britain out of South Africa entirely. He helped put together a plan to stir up an Uitlander revolt – a debacle which became known as the Jameson Raid, so titled because it was to be led by Dr. Leander Starr Jameson (a name only slightly less awesome than “Orange Free State”). The revolution was slated for late December, 1895.

Poor communications, disputes among Uitlander leaders, and the preference of many to celebrate the New Year instead of overthrowing “the man” sabotaged the plan from the outset. Rhodes and his co-conspirators tried to call off Jameson’s invasion, but the raiding party had somehow cut their own communications instead of Transvaal’s, so while the Boer were kept well-informed of what was happening, Jameson was not. His party was captured on January 2nd and sentenced to death, soon reduced to fines and severe embarrassment.

Paul KrugerThe Jameson Raid reinforced to the Boer the importance of sticking together – supporting one another while constraining the Uitlanders. Tensions continued to build for several more years and eventually the British resorted to a more traditional approach and began building up troops along the border. In October of 1899, President Paul Kruger issued an ultimatum demanding they withdraw.

They didn’t.

Transvaal and the Orange Free State declared war on the British. 

The Second Boer War, aka “The Anglo-Boer War” or “The South African War” (1899 – 1902)

For the first several months, things unfolded very much like they had in the first war, but on a larger scale. The Boer struck and retreated, blending into their surroundings. They used horses to maximum advantage and shot with what must have seemed impossible accuracy. They occupied key cities and drove back the British at almost every confrontation. Had they pressed their advantage aggressively, it’s possible they could have ended the war by Christmas.

But the Boer weren’t looking to destroy the British, or even to take back the Cape. They wanted to be left alone, and when given the opportunity to conduct total war, preferred to lay siege to entrenched towns or otherwise dial back the death and violence. Surely the British were learning their lesson, and perhaps this time it would stick.

The British had learned from their previous encounters – but not the lessons the Boer hoped. They remembered an embarrassing military loss followed by feeling disrespected and marginalized by a bunch of farmers with weird accents. This time Great Britain brought in reinforcements – lots of them. They made some strategic adjustments as well, but like the North in the American Civil War, they didn’t have to win every battle or rethink every maneuver if they could consistently outnumber and overwhelm their opposition.

Which they did.

Armed BoersBy the end of 1900, the British controlled most Boer territory and officially annexed both Transvaal and the Orange Free State. This should have been the end of hostilities, but many Boers still refused to surrender. Thus began a new phase of the war – two years of guerilla warfare and raids. The Afrikaners vandalized railroads, cut telegraph lines, and otherwise harassed British forces endlessly. They struck and then vanished, never allowing their opponents security or peace, but avoiding open conflict whenever possible. 

The Brits strung barbed wire, established military checkpoints, and otherwise struggled to contain the guerillas. When these proved unsuccessful, they initiated a “scorched earth” policy – burning fields, destroying towns, and killing livestock which could conceivably be used to support the rebels. They fortified their supply storehouses and put heavy armor on their trains. Boer civilians – women and children as well as men of all ages – were gathered into concentration camps, where thousands died of disease, starvation, and neglect.

It’s not entirely clear whether such brutality towards the wives and children of those fighting was part of a “total war” strategy or the tragic result of poor management and conflicting priorities. In might have been retaliation for the suffering endured by cities previously besieged by the Boers, or merely reflected the harsh realities of the times. Disease killed more fighting men than bullets, and even back in mother England, over a third of those volunteering for military service were rejected for various health-related issues.

Black Africans suspected of helping the Boers were placed in separate camps, where conditions were even worse – if such a thing were possible. Both Brits and Boers desired that this be a “white man’s war,” but separating such a thing from the people in and around it proved impossible. While some Africans found ways to profit from wartime conditions, many others lost jobs, homes, and lands as a result of the conflict.

Boer CampThe Anglo’s perceived brutality severely damaged their standing in the eyes of the rest of the world as well as provoking outrage and protests back home. The war became increasingly unpopular as it continued to drag on, prompting the British to offer increasingly generous terms to the guerillas. Those determined to fight to the bitter end became known as Bittereinders (I’m not even making that up), while those who accepted reconciliation were labeled Hensoppers – literally, “hands-uppers.”

If nothing else, the Boer wars gave us arguably the most fascinating vocabulary list in all of world history curriculum. 

Aftermath

By May of 1902, it was over. Citizens of both Transvaal and the Orange Free State voted to accept the terms of the most recent British peace offer, the Treaty of Vereeniging. The former republics were absorbed into the British Empire which promised them some degree of self-government – a promise they delivered by creating the Union of South Africa in 1910.

Bitterness remained between the Boers and their English-speaking neighbors, and racial divisions between both groups and Black Africans would get worse before they got better. Apartheid shaped much of the 20th century until its abolition in the 1990s, and the Afrikaners throughout have retained their own language and culture. There are today around 2.6 million Boers – over half the white population of South Africa. Some are still fighting for separate recognition.

The Boers & The First Boer War (“Have To” History)

~ Blue Cereal

Stuff You Don’t Really Want To Know (But For Some Reason Have To) About the Boers & the First Boer War

Three Big Things:

Armed Boers

1. The Boers were white descendants of Dutch, German, and French Protestants who settled the Cape of Good Hope in the mid-17th century. They were farmers and ranchers who believed they were among God’s most favored elect. 

2. There were two distinct wars between the Boers and the British – the Boers won the first using superior horsemanship and marksmanship combined with a willingness to run and hide.

3. Neither side thought much of native Africans, who were attacked, enslaved, or exploited as necessary to achieve Boer or British goals. This created some long-term racial tensions in Southern Africa. 

Background

In 1652, the Cape of Good Hope was colonized by the Dutch, largely as a coastal supply station for ships traveling from Europe to Asia. While the Age of Exploration had initially been dominated by the Portuguese and Spanish, by the late 16th century the British and Dutch had stepped up their imperialism games substantially. Even old New York (in the American colonies) was once New Amsterdam.

In short, the Dutch were a thing.

Settlers of what became known as the “Cape Colony” included a group of farmers known as “Boers” – the Dutch word for “farmer.” (Clearly the Dutch didn’t feel the need to get super-creative with monikers.) A majority were Dutch, but a substantial minority were Germans or Huguenots (French Protestants who emigrated to escape severe persecution by France’s Catholic majority). They were gritty and self-reliant and chosen by God – how many of us can claim that? 

The Sun Never Sets

Cape Colony

Great Britain first became an annoyance when they seized control of the Cape Colony in 1806. You may recall a feisty French fellow by the name of Napoleon who was trying to take over the world at the time. Holland had been seized by the French and was thus technically part of Napoleon’s empire, making Dutch colonies fair game in the eyes the British, who figured if anyone was going to run the entire world, it should probably be them. 

The British weren’t yet in full “imperialism” mode, but they did seem to keep trickling in. They seemed eager to share their political and cultural superiority with those less evolved – which was most people. They criticized the Boers for having slaves, a practice only recently abolished by Parliament. As they became a majority, their colonial government declared English the official language of the Cape, prohibiting the use of Dutch in legal transactions or public affairs. None of these proved effective ways to make friends.

Not that the Boers were particularly collegial themselves. Neither side was prone to compromise when it came to faith, government, or culture, and about the only thing they could agree on was that native black Africans were the worst. The British were simply no longer willing to openly enslave them, preferring less direct methods of control and exploitation in order to appease moral sentiments back home. The Boer, on the other hand, were home. For now.

Boer Trek: The Next Generation

A few Boers had already migrated north over the years, encouraged by a climate favorable for farming and raising livestock, as well as the relatively low rate of excruciating deaths by indigenous diseases. As the British began dominating the Cape Colony, this migration increased dramatically. Between 1835 and 1846, nearly 15,000 Boers moved northeastward as part of “The Great Trek,” primarily in covered wagons drawn by oxen.
As they’d migrated, the Boers enslaved or otherwise marginalized the rather sparse native (and black) African population and over time considered themselves very much the “real” citizens who deserved to be there, as opposed to the (British) interlopers who eventually followed and with whom they continued to clash. Their convictions were reinforced by their intense Calvinistic faith. The Boers saw themselves as a chosen people – as trekboeren (“diasporic farmers”). Like modern day Israelites, they kept to themselves and largely ignored or rejected the rapid changes sweeping Europe – the Scientific Revolution, the Enlightenment, and the Industrial Revolution, for example – as beneath them.

I know, I know – wacky, right? But so goes history.

By this time, they had another name – “Afrikaners,” from “Afrikaans,” the primary language of the Boers – a derivative of Dutch shaped by various African languages and local inflections over the years. The term is often used interchangeably with “Boers” just to keep history as confusing as possible.

The Boer Republics

Cape LabeledBy the early 1850s, these voortrekkers, or “pathfinders” (yet another name for essentially the same folks), established two independent republics in southeastern Africa – The Transvaal (aka “The South African Republic”) and the Orange Free State (arguably the coolest name ever for a real place). There, the Boers continued their near-subsistence lifestyle with minimal actual government. The republics were initially recognized by the British, and soon instituted apartheid – strict segregation and discrimination, enforced by law as well as social custom. Apartheid would, of course, play a major role in South African history for the next 150 years, eventually earning international criticism before being reversed in the modern era. On a more positive note, it gave Bono and U2 something to talk about in the 1980s which the rest of us had actually heard of.

For a decade or two, it seemed the Boer Republics might just remain the lands that time, technology, and the rest of the world forgot. In the late 1860s, however, diamonds were discovered along the border between Transvaal, the Orange Free State, and the British-controlled Cape Colony. The Orange Free State agreed to relinquish their claims in exchange for compensation by the British, but the Transvaal insisted the region was fully theirs. And it probably was.

Still, anyone paying even minimal attention in high school history recognizes that it doesn’t matter what governments say or what agreements have been signed once mineral wealth is revealed in any meaningful quantity. Besides, the Transvaal Boer lacked the industrial backgrounds or manpower to exploit such a find on their own; they pretty much had to let others in if they were to take full advantage. Enter the Uitlanders. 

These British fortune-hunters (or “outlanders”) soon outnumbered the locals and began demanding greater political participation and basic protections. Factions rose up and clashed, tensions increased, and in 1877 the British officially annexed the Transvaal Republic. The Transvaal Boers accepted this arrangement because of a mutual enemy – the Zulu. Once the resulting Anglo-Zulu War in 1879 resolved that threat, however, the Boer resumed complaining about their rights being violated and all the other usual stuff. They declared independence from the British in December of 1880.

The First Boer War, aka “The Transvaal Rebellion” (1880 – 1881)

The Boer didn’t have a standing army. They used what was known as a “commando system,” which despite the cool name had more in common with the methods of the Ancient Greeks than it did Rambo movies. All male citizens between the ages of 16 and 60 were expected to report for militia duty, bringing their own horses, weapons, and food. They elected their own officers and eschewed formal uniforms.

These were hunters on the African veldt (“grasslands”), dressed in earth tones, accustomed to hiding in the most limited available cover, and taught by long experience that if you missed with your first shot, you were going vegetarian that evening. When the fighting went mobile, their skills on horseback were comparable to the tribes of the North American Great Plains or the Mongols of a few centuries before. They carried the convictions of Calvinism alloyed with the stubborn patience of generational farmers in a hostile land.

The British, on the other hand, were sporting those same bright red coats and frilly tactics you remember from the American Revolution. They rode horses, of course, but as a military skill, not a way of life. The result was about what you’d expect in those circumstances.

The First Boer War was Great Britain’s first military defeat since 1783, and an embarrassment of international scale. It didn’t help that such a high percentage of the forces who’d so dramatically triumphed seemed to be teenagers and old men.

Transvaal (aka “the South African Republic”) secured its independence in March of 1881, at least for a time. Great Britain settled on claiming “suzerainty” – a form of territorial control in which a people or region remains technically independent while in practice somewhat subservient to the stronger nation. European powers of this era generally avoided outright conquering and control of the areas they colonized, preferring instead to “exert influence” through less overt methods – thus giving themselves some degree of deniability concerning the fates of those they imperialized and giving themselves some “wiggle room” as power dynamics continued to evolve in places like, say… the Boer Republics.

And evolve they did. In the 1880s, the so-called “Scramble for Africa” began. This was a divvying up of sorts of the entire continent by European and other powers, who actually met in Berlin in 1884 to map out who would get what – a process largely responsible for the map of Africa as it looks today. It was done without reference to traditional divisions or tribal boundaries, a neglect made easier by the complete absence of anyone actually from Africa – including the Boers – at the conference.

So it wasn’t long before, once again, things weren’t looking too good for the Afrikaners. One way or the other, there was going to be another war.

We Think You Already Know This (A Letter from Kublai Khan)

~ Blue Cereal

You Oughta Know

One of the minor downsides to teaching ancient history for nearly half the year is that there simply aren’t the multitude of cool documents – letters, speeches, diaries, newspaper articles, and the like – which make U.S. or European History so naturally freakin’ awesome.

Sure, there are primary sources – statues, ceramics, broken bits of weaponry and whatnot. There are even textual remains – stuff carved into stone, bits of preserved parchments, maybe a book or two. These things are essential to the study of history and interesting enough in their own ancienty ways. I’m not trying to downplay the glories of Sanskrit or the impact of ancient law codes, or to question the value of innumerable two-line poems about dew on the grass sleeping in winter.

But in terms of modern engagement? They’re, well… challenging.

A woman’s duties are to cook the five grains, heat the wine, look after her parents-in-law, make clothes, and that is all! … She must follow the “three submissions.” When she is young, she must submit to her parents. After her marriage, she must submit to her husband. When she is widowed, she must submit to her son.

–Biography of Mengzi, mother of Confucian philosopher Mencius, fourth century B.C.E.)

Important, sure – but not particularly gripping. Here’s another essential excerpt:

And if you, my vassal, disobey or break this treaty… may the god Adad, the canal inspector of heaven and earth, put an end to all vegetation in your land. May his waters avoid your meadows and hit your land instead with a severe destructive downpour. May locusts devour your crops. May there be no sound of grinding stone or bread oven in your houses. May the wild animals eat your bread, and may your spirit have no one to take care of it and pour offerings of wine for it.

—Excerpt from a treaty between an Assyrian king and a subject city-state, circa 670 B.C.E.

LocustsThings are getting serious when you start wishing locusts on people. No one should wish for locusts. Wild animals eating your bread, sure – but locusts? That’s just harsh.

Not all extant texts are so serious. Some are real knee-slappers:

Apply yourself to being a scribe… you will be advanced by your superiors. You will be sent on a mission… love writing, shun dancing, then you become a worthy official… By day write with your fingers; recite by night. Befriend the scroll, the palette. It pleases more than wine… If you have any sense, be a scribe… and be spared from soldiering!

—Excerpt of a letter from a government official in Ancient Egypt to his son

HA! Those nutty river valley bureaucrats! (Dear god, get me to the Renaissance…)

But there was one moment of nerdy history-joy several weeks back when I came across a brief missive written by Kublai Khan to neighboring Japan in the year 1266. It begins like this:

Cherished by the Mandate of Heaven, the Great Mongol emperor sends this letter to the king of Japan. The sovereigns of small countries, sharing borders with each other, have for a long time been concerned to communicate with each other and become friendly.

Aw, that’s nice! He wants to be a good neighbor! Those cuddly Mongols. Can I borrow a cup of bloodshed?

The “Mandate of Heaven” to which he refers was a historiographic tool of Chinese scholars going waayyy back ago. It framed the rise and fall of various Chinese dynasties in terms of divine sanction. Royal lasciviousness brought about the collapse of the Zhou after long, corrupt centuries? That’s what happens when you lose the Mandate of Heaven. Liu Bang defeated Xiang Yu and re-united China under the Han? Well, he obviously had the Mandate of Heaven.

Kublai Khan

Kublai Khan, then, was rather bold in claiming the Mandate himself, given that he wasn’t exactly a proper emperor – not being Chinese and all. Still, he’d inaugurated his own dynasty (the Yuan) and the Mongols had been pretty much running the largest empire the world had ever known for over a half-century at that point, so, you know… they were doing something right.

Especially since my ancestor governed at heaven’s command, innumerable countries from afar disputed our power and slighted our virtue.

This made me laugh, probably because I’m reading way too much modern political overtone into it. “We’re God’s party here, trying to drain the Yellow Swamp, and all the foreign press can do is spread #FakeNews about us! SAD!”

Goryeo rendered thanks for my ceasefire and for restoring their land and people when I ascended the throne.

I prodded my poor students as to who “Goryeo” might be. Even with a map on the screen, it was a while before anyone guessed it might have something to do with Korea. And it does.

As in, it’s Korea.

They “rendered thanks for my ceasefire” and were super-appreciative that I let them keep working for me after I took over. They love me in Goryeo!

I’ll bet they did, Kubles. Subjugation and terror tend to bring that out in people.

Then again, it’s often tricky to gage tone with historical documents. While some things are universal across humanity, language and culture change dramatically over time – often in ways difficult to discern without a becoming a specialist of some sort.

Still, whatever else the Mongols were, they weren’t known for rhetorical nuance; I don’t think I’m overly projecting when I infer a very familiar tone in lines like this:

Our relation is feudatory like a father and son. We think you already know this.

Renaissance Dancers“Feudatory” is a funny word. It probably works better in the original tongue. The root, of course, is “feudal” – as in “feudalism.” It conjures up images of western European lords and serfs, trying to avoid the Plague while men in tights play recorders and bald clergymen harrumph about, gardening and copying books by hand.

But feudalism existed in a variety of forms, anywhere society was structured around relationships between landholders and those doing the actual producing. It sounds too close to slavery for most modern sensibilities, but it provided social stability and a physical security for common laborers which arguably fit the time and circumstances.

Still, Kublai is probably overselling the “father-son” thing a bit. Like the serfs, Korea had little choice in the arrangement, although in return for their loyalty they received the Mongols’ protection, which was no small thing.

Any doubt as to tone or intent begins to vanish with that next bit: “We think you already know this.”

Terse, isn’t it? Somehow things are feeling much less neighborly than they did only moments ago.

Goryeo is my eastern tributary. Japan was allied with Goryeo and sometimes with China since the founding of your country; however, Japan has never dispatched ambassadors since my ascending the throne. We are afraid that the Kingdom is yet to know this.

You never write, you never call, and you completely ignored our friend request on Facebook. I know you got our message – I can see the little checkmark and the time you read it. Do you know how that makes us feel?

Hence we dispatched a mission with our letter particularly expressing our wishes. Enter into friendly relations with each other from now on. We think all countries belong to one family. How are we in the right, unless we comprehend this?

Again with the super-friendlies. You know that line about walking softly but carrying a big stick? Kublai had Teddy Roosevelt beat by about six centuries.

“This is… a really nice place you got here, Benny. Isn’t it a nice place, Nicky?”

“It’s a great place, boss.”

“A man could really do well for himself in a place like this, Benny. He could provide for his family, couldn’t he, Nicky?”

“Ain’t nothin’ more important than family, Boss.”

“That’s so true. People what you gotta love, and protect… it can be such a dangerous world. It’s a shame, really – the things that can happen.”

“It’s a tragedy, Boss. I weep when I think of it.”

“A man’s gotta know who his friends are, Benny. He gots ta’ know who he can count on to help him prevent… accidents. Misfortunes. Ain’t that right, Nicky?”

*CRASH*

“Ah, now… Nicky just broke your kusanagi! Nicky, what have I told you about other folks’ holy relics?”

“That I gotta be more careful, Boss.”

“That you gotta be more careful. That coulda been his daughter. Right, Benny?”

Fake GangstersI mean, I can’t prove the Mongols talked and swaggered like bad movie mobsters in early 20th century Chicago, but you can’t prove they didn’t – and in today’s world, that makes my interpretation way truer than yours.

Finally, just to make sure the message isn’t received by some particularly dense diplomat and its intent even slightly misunderstood…

Nobody would wish to resort to arms.

That certainly would be a shame. The Mongols hated violence, you know.

But what a wonderful way to wrap up such a loaded dispatch. He doesn’t even have to cackle and rub his hands together maniacally – it’s all in the tone. 

The letter didn’t work. Kublai Khan tried a few more times, then resorted to military force. Two full-scale invasions were repulsed, both times in part due to monsoons, or “divine winds” working in favor of the Japanese. Their word for this is “kamikaze,” which I’m told will come up again later.

Hey, I don’t read ahead. I like to be surprised. 

It was a defining limit on Mongolian expansion, and a glorious moment in the early history of Japan. In both cases, the events of the 13th century shaped subsequent developments forever thereafter.

Which is, after all, a large part of why we study these things.

Most importantly, though, the exchange produced this letter, which we now read, analyze, and discuss in class. It’s distant enough to be history but approachable enough to be engaging. With a little effort, we can use it to anchor all sorts of changes and continuities and comparisons and connections. Thank you, Kubles – I LOVE this stuff!

But… I think you already know this.

RELATED POST: Thoughts on Primary Sources

RELATED POST: Humble Magniloquence (Purdy Words in Primary Sources)

RELATED POST: Mary Boykin Chesnut’s Diary (Part One)