The Boer War, a military campaign in South Africa
from October 1899 to May 1902, is often cited
as one of the darkest, most shameful points of
British imperial history (Parkhouse, 2015). That is
a distinction which is deserved. But to analyse the
reasons behind the use of concentration camps, as
well as understanding their purpose, three distinct
factors must be understood: The problems and
responses to the new concept of ‘modern warfare’,
the role and operation of these camps, and the death
rate of those interned within them.
The emergence of 'modern
warfare'
First, the concept of modern warfare and the
subsequent military crisis which the British army
faced. Up until the Boer War, the British army had
fought land-based military campaigns through a
series of large set piece battles, and developed tactics
based around this style of fighting. From mid-1900
however, these tactics would be rendered ineffective
due to the Boer adoption of guerrilla warfare (Gooch,
2013). The Boer approach to guerrilla warfare
manifest through ambush attacks, the abandoning
of military uniform and adoption of “civilian clothes”,
and destruction of railway supply lines and bridges
in an effort to reduce the capabilities of the British
(Wessels, 2010). This necessitated a change in
British tactics, so on 16th June 1900, Field Marshall
Frederick Roberts issued a proclamation aimed at
those living near to potential insurgency targets: “The
houses in the vicinity of the place where the damage
is done will be burnt and the principle civil residents
will be made prisoners of war” (South Africa Today
News, 2015). The reasoning for this was the idea that
no Boer insurgent group could operate such an attack
without the support of surrounding villages or towns.
This tactic of burning the estate of those thought
to be co-operating with Boer commandos was
extreme. The destruction of property extended to
killing livestock, burning fields of crops so as to not
sustain any Boer militants, and salting the earth so it
could not be used again. It is estimated that around
30,000 houses were destroyed over the course of
the Boer War (Van Hartesveldt, 2016). Additionally,
over 90% of the male prisoners of war deemed to
be of fighting age were shipped overseas to prevent
them from taking up arms against the British, totalling
24,000 (Encyclopaedia Britannica, 2019). But the
British response to guerrilla warfare led to another
major problem; what to do with the thousands of
people they had effectively made homeless. This
was the problem which the British aimed to resolve
using concentration camps. Over the course of the
war, around 100,000 Boers were interned in 45
concentration camps (Wessels, 2010).
The role and operation of the
camp
These camps do not hold the distinction of being
the first civilian internment camps, that title could
go to the Spanish-run camps in Cuba during the Ten
Years War (Tucker, 2009). The Boer-camps served the
same purpose but are often times labelled “the first
concentration camps” due to it being the first use
of the title concentration camp (Oliver,2017). In this
context the concentration camp functions identically
to a prisoner of war internment camp, but the British
utilised these camps for an additional reason, to
compel the Boer insurgents to surrender. They did
this through the creation of a two-tier ration system,
where the wives and children of men known to be
part of the ongoing guerrilla campaign were routinely
given smaller rations than other internees (Pakenham,
1979). Though that is not to suggest that the diet of
the other interned people was sufficient. In a famous
1901 report by Emily Hobhouse, she lists the diet of
an interned family as: “Half a pound of meat, including
bone and fat, 2oz of coffee, three quarters of a pound
of wholemeal, one twelfth of a tin of condensed milk,
2oz of sugar, half an ounce of salt” (Hobhouse, 1901).
This diet is deficient in nearly every aspect, and led to
widespread malnutrition. Hobhouse leaves no doubt
Article #14
103