Preface
2
1. In what context did the media campaigns take place?
7
2. The case of the dum-dum bullet
15
3. The case of the Boer concentration camps
27
Conclusion
45
Bibliography
48
Introduction and thesis questions
Wartime media play a big role in shaping public opinion: they can mobilise an entire nation to fight a war on a different continent, but at the same time can undermine any effort made by politicians to fight one. Full-scale mobilisation and mass protests are possible outcomes of the stances which news media take during a war. A recent example of this is the public reaction to the release of footage of the Vietnam War in the sixties and seventies, which caused mass protests in the United States. On the other hand, if news media manage to create the image of the enemy as a tyrant who has to be defeated, as was the case with Saddam Hussein, the outcome can be very different, as the Iraq War (2003-2011) showed. Therefore, the role of news media during and before the eruption of a conflict is an interesting one. One of the first wars in which media played a large role was the Second Anglo-Boer War (1899-1902) between the British Empire and the Boer republics Transvaal and Orange Free State, fought in modern-day South Africa. Before war broke out, tensions were high. The First Anglo-Boer War had taken place between 1880-1881 and ended in favour of the Boer republics. But it was the Jameson Raid, which lasted from 1895 until 1896, that really pushed both sides to the brink. As this thesis will show, both sides had very different explanations for the outbreak of the war, and British, Dutch, and American newspapers published contradictory reports, often accusing either party of war crimes. This thesis investigates what role news media played by analysing how British, Dutch, and American newspapers reported on the illegal use of expansive bullets, also known as dum-dums, and how they reported on British concentration camps. The main question, which will be answered in the conclusion, is as follows: “What role did British, Dutch and American news media play during the Second Anglo-Boer War?� To answer this question, this thesis has been divided into three chapters. Chapter one provides the reader with context and gives an overview of the events that took place during the war. For this chapter, mainly secondary literature has been used. Chapters two and three are based on newspaper research and primary sources. Chapter two will answer the question of how the news media described the use of dum-dums. The final chapter will describe how they reported on the conditions in the concentration camps. 2
Historiography
There is no shortage of literature about the Anglo-Boer War. Most of these studies concentrate on the war itself, such as Good-bye Dolly Gray (1959) by South African historian Rayne Kruger1, a substantial and detailed work that chronologically describes the military aspects of the war as it was taking place. Vivid descriptions of battles made anyone unfamiliar with the war conscious of the brutalities that were committed on both sides. However, the British POW-camps were given much less attention. A detailed study about the concentration camps was written by South African historian A.C. Martin in 1957.2 In his work, Martin distinguished fact from fiction by using letters from camp survivors and presenting figures and medical reports about the size of and the conditions in the camps. Martin stated that the British authorities did not take action until the medical staff reported on the alarming death rates and the many women and children dying of illnesses. British activist Emily Hobhouse played a big part in inciting the government to act: she visited multiple camps during her travels in South Africa and subsequently published her findings in the Netherlands and Great Britain. It was partly because of her reports that the authorities worked to improve conditions in the camps. More recent works about the war have been written by Dutch historians Vincent Kuitenbrouwer and Martin Bossenbroek, both published in 2012. Bossenbroek’s work, De
Boerenoorlog, describes the war from three different viewpoints: those of Dutch jurist Willem Leyds, British war correspondent Winston Churchill, and Boer commander Deneys Reitz.3 Whereas Bossenbroek mostly describes military events and Leyds’ attempts to win support for the Boers, Kuitenbrouwer’s work, War of Words: Dutch Pro-Boer Propaganda
and the South African War (1889-1902), pays more attention to the role of Dutch media.4 Kuitenbrouwer accurately analyses the efforts made by pro-Boers in the Netherlands to gain support through media outlets. Although Kuitenbrouwer focuses on Dutch news media, two important subjects are not given as much attention as they might deserve: the use of dum-dums and the situation in the concentration camps, two hotly debated topics in news media at the time. Furthermore, 1 R. Kruger, Good-bye Dolly Gray: the story of the Boer War (London 1959). 2 A.C. Martin, The concentration camps 1900-1902 (Durban 1957). 3 Martin Bossenbroek, De Boerenoorlog (Amsterdam 2012). 4 Vincent Kuitenbrouwer, War of words. Dutch pro-Boer propaganda and the South African War (1899–1902) (Amsterdam 2012).
3
there has been no comparative study about Dutch, American and British news media during this war. This means that a comparative study between these media could fill a considerable gap in the Second Anglo-Boer War literature. Finally, the debate in the historiography lacks theory: historians have mostly focused on describing the phenomenon, and have not yet theorised the subject. Comparative wartime media analyses of the Second Anglo-Boer War, but also of other wars, could further underline the importance of critical and objective journalism. This thesis thus aims to provide an insight into how British, Dutch and American news media reported on two of the most debated subjects during the war. Theory
A comparative analysis of media could make use of multiple theories to explain historic phenomena. This thesis will test several general theories about mass media ownership, public apathy, and victim blaming. The first theory comes from a study about mass media ownership in Great Britain, in which the British research institute Media Reform Coalition concluded that concentrated media ownership is hazardous to the independence of media. Furthermore, it pointed out that there is a “need for media ownership limits both within and across sectors” to protect pluralism.5 Second, the American linguist Noam Chomsky’s theory about apathy will be tested. In short, this theory holds that a well-informed public would not remain apathetic towards war. In his essay “The Responsibility of Intellectuals”, he stated about the Vietnam War: The facts are known to all who care to know. . .But the power of the government’s propaganda apparatus is such that the citizen who does not undertake a research project on the subject can hardly hope to confront government pronouncements with fact.6 This theory was endorsed by anthropologist Kristine Millar, who argued that a well-informed public would be better able to make rational choices.7 Finally, the theories of psychologists 5The elephant in the room: a survey of media ownership and plurality in the United Kingdom. Media Reform Coalition (London 2014) 1-29. 6 Noam Chomsky, The responsibility of intellectuals (1967). 7 K. Millar, Mass media, censorship and the crisis of public apathy: http://www.societyandself.com/mass-mediacensorship-and-the-crisis-of-public-apathy.html.
4
Sykes and Matza on the delinquent’s denial of criminal behaviour through victim blaming will be tested.8 Each of these theories will be used to see if they can be applied to British, Dutch and American news media. The hypothesis of this thesis is that some, but not all, of these theories apply to the analysed media, and that they do not apply absolutely. As the British were portrayed as aggressors and took on a defensive role, it is likely that the theory of victim blaming applied to them, but it would have applied in a lesser degree to American news media. It is expected that the apathy and media ownership theories applied to the British as well, but less so to the American and Dutch news media. However, British news media may have had an interest in denying facts to serve a greater cause: winning the war was more important than properly informing the public. Dutch news media could have been an exception to all three theories, as they stood on the pro-Boer side. This meant that they took on an activist role and took it upon them to inform their public well, thus contradicting the apathy theory by taking action. In addition, it is not expected that mass media ownership played a role in the case of Dutch media. In the final case, the American media, one could expect apathy. The public was not necessarily interested in the war. Furthermore, mass media ownership could have played a role. Victim blaming, however, would then have been dependent on which media were owned by whom. Methodology and materials
To research this subject, a large portion of the evidence is based on newspaper research. Dutch newspapers have been researched using Delpher.9 The second and third chapters will feature articles by local and national newspapers, which cover the period between 11 October 1899 and 31 May 1902. British and American results have been found in the databases of ProQuest, The Times Digital Archive and the Daily Mail Historical Archive.10 For this chapter, a selection of 18 Dutch, 23 British, and 12 American articles have been analysed. More extensive research could be done by using the British Newspaper Archives,
8 G.M. Sykes and D. Matza, “Techniques of Neutralization: A Theory of Delinquency”, American Sociological Review 22:6 (1957) 664-670. 9 Delpher is a Dutch newspaper database: http://www.delpher.nl/ 10 ProQuest database contains American articles from The Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal and The New York Times. British articles have been found in The Guardian and The Observer. The Times and the Daily Mail were researched via their own databases. Keywords used for these databases were the English equivalents of their Dutch ones.
5
which contains more newspapers than the ProQuest database. This archive has, however, not been used for this thesis. Furthermore, three works by Emily Hobhouse have been used in the third chapter.11 For the final chapter, 17 Dutch, 29 British, and 17 American articles have been analysed.
11 Emily Hobhouse, The brunt of war and where it fell (London 1902); Emily Hobhouse, To the Committee of the Distress Fund for South African Women and Children (London 1901); Emily Hobhouse, Onthullingen uit de Vrouwenkampen in Zuid-Afrika (Rotterdam 1901).
6
Over time, printed media and published written works have played a pivotal role in history. Words, either printed or written on paper, and published for buyers to read, have had a great impact on the course of politics and armed conflicts, the Second Boer War being no exception. Readers not familiar with the course of the war will find that as with every conflict in history, there are multiple sides to the story. First, multiple explanations for the outbreak of the war will be given. Second, the course of the conflict will be described, after which the media and their role during the conflict will be introduced. This chapter aims to provide the reader with a quick overview of what took place before and during the war, to have a full understanding of the events taking place in the media during the war years, between 1899 and 1902, and to answer the main question of this chapter: in what context did these media campaigns take place? Long before the Second Boer War, the seeds of conflict had already been sown. After the definite capture of the Cape Colony in 1806, British influence in the Cape increased, antagonising Dutch settlers who lost their dominant status in the Cape. Besides battling for dominance with the British, the Dutch settlers often struggled with native African tribes. Some of these tribes outnumbered them, such as the San, Bantu and Khoi in the Cape, and the Xhosa, Swazi and Zulus in the east.12 Trying to escape British dominance, Dutch (from now on referred to as Boer) settlers embarked on what would be called the Great Trek, moving away from the Cape en masse and into north-eastern territories in South Africa. Between 1830 and 1850, more than ten thousand Boers trekked away and founded the Boer republics (Boerenrepublieken). The largest of these republics were Orange Free State, or OFS (Oranje Vrijstaat), and the South African Republic, or SAR (also known as Transvaal).13 During the 1870s, relations between British and Dutch settlers changed radically when diamonds were found in the Vaal area in Orange Free State, and later elsewhere in the region. They were claimed by both Transvaal and Orange Free State, as the deposits were found in disputed territory. When Griqualand West became a British colony, another player
12 Bossenbroek, Boerenoorlog, 58-59. 13 Bossenbroek, Boerenoorlog, 61.
7
joined the game. 14 Transvaal was annexed in 1877 by Great Britain with no armed opposition, but three years later, the First Boer War broke out. However, the resources that could be found in the territory were not reason enough for the First Boer War to break out in 1880, as Kruger describes 15 On the other hand, Bossenbroek argues that the ever-increasing influence of the British in the Boer Republics was the main reason the conflict started.16 After the republics had successfully regained independence during the First Boer War, which ended in 1881 —although claims to Transvaal’s suzerainty were made until three years after the hostilities ended — goldfields were found in Witwatersrand in the now independent republics of Orange Free State and Transvaal, in 1886. The republics were now viewed as desired property, as Kruger describes.17 The last major event that preceded the outbreak of the Second Boer war was the Jameson Raid of 1895-1896. Three years before the war broke out, a band of armed British settler “policemen” from the bordering Bechuanaland raided Johannesburg and tried to start an armed uprising among British mining company workers. Their aim was to overthrow the Transvaal government which disenfranchised foreign labourers or Uitlanders. These Uitlanders, who were not exclusively of British descent, worked in the mining industry, but had to deal with heavy taxation and did not have the right to vote.18 The Raid failed, and no uprising against the Transvaal government took place. However, it was a sign of things to come for the Boers. Therefore, multiple reasons can be named for the outbreak of the Second Boer War. From a Boer point of view, one could thus argue that the British refused to give up their imperial ambitions and let the Boer republics exist independently: first by escaping British rule in the Cape, and then in their own established republics. The natural resources that were found in the Boer republics gave British capitalists operating in the area plenty of reasons to start a war. From a British point of view, one could argue that the unfair treatment of Uitlanders was a call to arms, justifying an armed raid and later a war with the Boers. But this argument has been refuted by historian Vincent Kuitenbrouwer, who argues that even some Uitlanders 14 15 16 17 18
Ibidem, 63. Kruger, Dolly Gray, 5-6. Bossenbroek, Boerenoorlog, 65. Kruger, Dolly Gray, 6. Bossenbroek, Boerenoorlog, 132-133.
8
took up arms against the British when war broke out, defending the republics they sympathised with.19 One explanation Kuitenbrouwer presents is the struggle for colonial dominance in South Africa. As the two main colonisers of South Africa, either the Dutch or the British had to be dominant. This argument thus presents a more ethno-cultural explanation for the war.20 A final argument could be Great Britain’s claim to suzerainty in the Transvaal Republic, but these claims were denied by the Transvaal government at the time.21 The course of the war
When the war started, it could hardly be called a surprise. When Paul Kruger, the president of Transvaal, issued an ultimatum to withdraw all British troops from the borders of the Boer republics on October 9 1899, the British refuted it. War broke out 48 hours later. On October 11, the war began with a Boer offensive into the Natal region. 22 During the first stages of the war, the British expected it to be over soon, as they were facing peasants with rifles and without official military training. However, during what would later be known as the Black Week, British troops suffered humiliating defeats against these untrained farmers. During three battles, between 10 and 17 December, the British were defeated at Stormberg, Magersfontein and Colenso, respectively, losing approximately 3,000 men. This was a shocking sign of how badly the first stages of the war went.23 While the British recovered from this shocking experience, the tide turned in the first two months of the new century. Another humiliating defeat at Spion Kop in January 24 was followed by more positive results, as British troops managed to regain control over Kimberly and, less than a fortnight later, Ladysmith, after a siege of more than two months and many casualties on the British side.25 When word reached London that Mafeking was relieved on the 18 May, the British public was euphoric.26 After the final push towards the two capitals of the Boer republics, Pretoria and Johannesburg, Lord Roberts, commander–in-chief of the
19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
Kuitenbrouwer, War of words, 190. Ibidem, 180. Bossenbroek, Boerenoorlog, 188. Kruger, Dolly Gray,73-74. Ibidem, 143. Ibidem, 202. Ibidem, 258. Ibidem, 297.
9
British forces, declared the war to be over by the 3rd of September.27 This initiated the guerrilla phase of the war. The Boers refused to surrender and set up a provisional government in Kroonstad, which still had not been captured by British forces. During this second phase of the war, aggression on both sides increased. The Boers fought for their lives while the British grew increasingly frustrated with them for not laying down their arms. Reports of the ruthless treatment of POWs increasingly made their way into the media, as the British made use of concentration camps to prevent the Boers from picking up arms again after they had been defeated in battle. Another tactic the British applied was the scorched earth policy, which meant they burnt Boer farms to the ground. The
Bittereinders, as the Boers who fought until the bitter end were called, eventually laid down their arms and signed a peace treaty, the Peace of Vereeniging, in May 1902, after their people endured almost two years of extreme hardship.28 The development of media attention before the war
Years before the beginning of the war, the Dutch developed a renewed interest in South African affairs. After the loss of the colony in 1806 and its formal annexation in 1814, as set out in the Treaty of London, interest in the Cape had diminished. The signing of the treaty, however, did mean that the Netherlands regained its possessions in Asia, the Dutch East Indies or Indonesia. Interest in Dutch nationals living in South Africa did not rekindle until the First Boer War in 1880-1881, when the Boers successfully reclaimed their sovereignty. Kuitenbrouwer describes the rise in this period of ‘the Great Dutch thought’ (Groot-Nederlandsche gedachte), which can be typified as an informal and cultural way of Dutch imperial thinking.29 In the context of the period, the 1880s, it can be argued that it is no wonder the Dutch people rediscovered their interest in South Africa. In the age of imperialist scramble for Africa, unlike the Netherlands, Great Britain had other concerns than South Africa Great Britain ,as they possessed multiple colonies in Africa. Even though the Netherlands had formally lost its connection to South Africa, a strong sense of cultural and ethnic togetherness existed, which would later be referred to as stamverwantschap. The term 27 Ibidem, 365 28 Bossenbroek, Boerenoorlog, 547-548. 29 Kuitenbrouwer, War of Words, 20-21.
10
implied that the Boers and the Dutch had common linguistic, ethnic, and religious roots, as both groups mainly consisted of Protestant Christians, had Dutch-sounding surnames, and spoke a language that had its roots in Dutch and would later be named Afrikaans variation of the Dutch language.30 This interest in Boer affairs increased, especially when, in 1896, the Jameson Raid shocked European nations. Although the Dutch were proud because the attack was successfully repelled, they also feared an impending invasion of their own colony in Indonesia. This fear clearly shows in the formal response of the Dutch government to the Raid: they only sent a discrete message one week later, while the German emperor immediately sent a heated telegram in which he pledged to support Kruger.
31
In the aftermath of the Raid, even more attention went to the Boer cause than after the First Boer War. First, the Dutch South Africa Union (Nederland-Zuidafrikaanse Vereniging or NZAV), gained 500 members in a short period of time. Second, a linguistic fund (taalfonds), was founded to strengthen cultural ties. In its first year, it raised fl. 60,000, and had prominent members, such as Leiden University’s historian Robert Fruin.32 Third, the General Dutch Alliance (Algemeen Nederlandsch Verbond) was founded, which promoted the aforementioned idea of a “Great Netherlands”. As Kuitenbrouwer describes it: This new organisation attracted wide attention within Dutch society, which is illustrated by the fact that it was actively supported by N.G. Pierson, Abraham Kuyper, and H.J.A.M. Schaepman, political leaders of the Liberals, Protestants and Catholics, respectively. Only the Socialists remained outsiders.33 Media elsewhere in Europe had also picked up on the subject. According to the minister plenipotentiary of Transvaal, Dr. W.J. Leyds, the way European media reported on the Jameson Raid had largely to do with which hand fed them. When he wrote to his wife Louise Leyds in 1896, he said he felt confident that the entire continent stood with the Boers.34 However, he was shocked by how the Boers were portrayed in some German and
30 31 32 33 34
Idem. Ibidem, 56-57. Ibidem, 58. Ibidem, 59. L.E. van Niekerk, , Dr. W.J. Leyds as gesant van die Zuid-Afrikaansche republiek (Pretoria 1980) 8-9.
11
French newspapers in the same year, claiming they were being paid with money that came out of British pockets.35 Censorship, propaganda campaigns, and the major topics covered by media
There are multiple reasons that could be named for one-sided media coverage in Europe during this time. First, there was an important difference between Dutch and British information infrastructures. Historian Simon Potter describes the British infrastructure as “a solid system of information”, in which journalists and authors corresponded with each other through a British-owned telegraph communication system. The Dutch, however, lacked such a system, and were dependent on British telegraph lines for the majority of their communication with South Africa. This also meant that for the latest news they were largely dependent on British newspapers, who were often the first to receive information.36 Second, the number of British correspondents in South Africa heavily outnumbered the Dutch. Kuitenbrouwer estimates that at least 200 British correspondents worked in South Africa, whereas the Dutch had only a handful.37 Third, censorship heavily affected the information stream from South Africa towards Europe. Boer newspapers, such as The Friend in Bloemfontein, were taken over by British journalists and started to produce propaganda for the new regime. In addition, the confiscation by the British of the NZASM railway, one of the most important mail services in the Boer republics, meant that after the British occupation, free transport of mail had become impossible. As a result, letters had to be smuggled and coded language used in letters to get past British censorship.38 In other cases, some Dutch journalists were also pressured to head back to Europe.39 To conclude, after the occupation of the Boer republics, North-American and European newspapers had little chance of receiving uncensored information, as the South Africans and the Dutch failed to establish independent telegraph lines.40 British media did not allow for much opposition, as the media landscape was dominated by jingoist points of view. Historian Dioné Prinsloo sheds a light on British media coverage
35 36 37 38 39 40
Kuitenbrouwer, War of Words, 60. Ibidem, 63. Ibidem, 128. Ibidem, 131. Ibidem, 129. K. van Hoek, Kruger days: reminiscences of Dr. W.J. Leyds (London 1939) 43.
12
in the years 1896-1899, showing that the major influential newspapers in Great Britain were either conservative or jingoist. Papers such as the Daily Mail and the Daily Express are described as excessively jingoist, while The Standard and The Times are both classified as conservative and The Daily News and The Daily Telegraph as taking a more liberal stance. Prinsloo claims that The Times and The Daily News were the most influential newspapers, which means that at the beginning of the war there were more jingoist and conservative than liberal newspapers, and the majority of the British public was probably reading papers that did not oppose the upcoming war. P.A. Nierstrasz, a publisher in Pretoria who, in 1901, reported to Leyds on the British press, mentioned that Great Britain possessed enough organised press institutions to flood Europe with disinformation. Opposition came not just from the British mainland, as British influence was also noticeable in newspapers across the globe. According to Leyds’ informant, Bas Veth, the most prominent anti-Boer propaganda was made by Kölnische Zeitung in Germany, the
Figaro in France, and Neue Freie Presse in Austria.41 In the USA, the Boer cause faced opposition as well. Although many Irish-, Dutch-, and German-Americans supported them, the American press was divided between pro- and anti-Boer newspapers. One of the most prominent American newspapers, The New York Times, did everything it could to discredit the Boer cause.42 One explanation for this could be that influential public figures, such as members of the Rothschild family, exercised influence over the newspaper, as in 1901 an unknown member of this family also tried to bribe Leyds and other prominent Boers to make peace with the British.43 Influence on and ownership of media were important factors to keep in mind, as in Great-Britain too wealthy capitalists owned prominent jingoist newspapers. The Daily News and the Johannesburg Star were both owned by the Argus group, of which the British mining magnate Cecil Rhodes was a major shareholder. 44 How did other points of view reach media around the globe? A large role can be ascribed to the aforementioned Dr. Leyds, whose task it was to gain support in Europe to form a coalition against Great Britain. To do this, he saw it as his task to spread as much pro-Boer propaganda as possible. During the war years, he helped develop media campaigns in the United States and Europe, at which he was quite successful, “because it managed to create
41 42 43 44
Niekerk, Dr. W.J. Leyds, 80-81. W.J. Leyds, Tweede Verzameling (Correspondentie 1899-1900) Deel 1, Tweede band, 306-307, No.318. Bossenbroek, Boerenoorlog, 490-491. Niekerk, Dr. W.J. Leyds, 80-81.
13
gripping images based on the sources that made their way from South Africa to NorthAmerica and Europe.�45 Leyds himself was not merely a distributor of propaganda; he also became its victim. When the British found out that his pro-Boer campaign was quite effective, British newspapers began to focus on Leyds’ activities and did what they could to discredit him.46 The main topic that both sides created propaganda about was war crimes. The crimes that both parties often accused each other of were the usage of dum-dum bullets, the abuse of POWs, and the situation in British concentration camps. Both British dissidents and Dutch journalists agreed that the situation in these camps was horrific. Pro-Boer newspapers held the British accountable for high death rates, a lack of hygiene, and malnourishment among their prisoners. Activists such as the English Emily Hobhouse also campaigned against these camps in Great Britain by publishing their own observations. To conclude, the propaganda war was fought on unequal terms. The British had a major strategic advantage when the war began, as they controlled the telegraph network all the other countries were dependent on. This allowed them to corrupt information streams as they saw fit, especially after the confiscation of the NZASM railway. The Boer propagandists thus had to resort to other means of getting their message across, often smuggling letters or using coded language. A handful of Dutch journalists and Boer propagandists were up against a well organised, better funded, and more powerful network of British journalists and influential capitalists.
45 Kuitenbrouwer,,War of Words, 141. 46 W.J. Leyds, Tweede Verzameling (Correspondentie 1899-1900) Deel 1, Tweede band, pag. 306-307 No. 318.
14
Months before the war began, the first peace conference took place in The Hague in May 1899. During this conference, rules were set out describing the laws of warfare. Among the countries attending were delegates of Great Britain and the United States. However, the Boer republics Transvaal and Orange Free State were left out of the negotiations, due to political pressure from Great Britain.47 One of the topics discussed was the usage of the expansive bullet type Mark IV, which caused extreme injuries to its targets. The bullet, which would later be nicknamed ‘dum-dum’, after the Indian factory that created them, was eventually prohibited, with only Great Britain and the United States opposing the ban and all the other countries voting in favour of it. It did not prevent the bullets from being used during the war. Although the bullets were legally prohibited from use by every nation that had signed the treaty, during the first months of the war reports reached media across the world that horrible injuries were being inflicted on soldiers from both sides. As a result, newspapers in the United States, the United Kingdom, and the Netherlands all heavily debated the use of dum-dums, often accusing either the Boers or the British of using the bullets. As this chapter shows, most of the debate took place between the final months of 1899 and the end of March 1900. A clear reason for the decrease of interest in this subject by the papers is not to be found. In this brief period of time, Dutch newspapers mainly accused British troops of using dum-dums, while the British either rejected the claims that these bullets were used or accused the Boers of using them. American newspapers held mixed opinions. Some papers, like The Wall Street Journal, infrequently accused the British, while The New York Times mostly accused the Boers and defended the British. In this chapter, reports of British, Dutch, and American national and regional newspapers will be analysed by content, choice of words, selection and placement of information, and relative journalistic objectivity. The main question of this chapter is how these newspapers described the usage of dum-dums.
47 List of attendants: http://web.archive.org/web/20070310125343/http://www.pca-cpa.org/ENGLISH/CSAI/.
15
British newspaper coverage
Because Great Britain was one of only two nations in favour of using dum-dums at the convention in The Hague, the media found themselves in a defensive position when dumdums were being discussed. When the war began, British newspapers went to great lengths to prove to their readers that they were not using the expansive bullet. Remarkably, dumdums were often named in one sentence with luddite bombs, both of which were considered inhumane weapons of war. This leads to the belief that the newspapers were often pleading not just against the use of dum-dums, but against any inhumane weapon. Newspapers such as the Daily Mail and The Daily News denied that dum-dums were being used by the British, and accused the Boers of using them. They went about it in different ways. On the first day of the new century, the Daily Mail published an article by American war correspondent Julian Ralph, who wrote an article titled “Through Yankee Eyes: The war as an American cousin sees it.” It was a precursor for subsequent Daily Mail articles: Ralph praised the ‘Tommy Atkins’, as British soldiers were called, as courageous fighters, and simultaneously accused the Boers of abusing the white flag. Furthermore, he reported on 12 men who had been wounded by dum-dum bullets.48 Two months later, The Daily News went about it differently. The argument The Daily News and the Daily Mail made was that the use of these bullets was seen as necessary “in dealing with savages”, whereby the newspaper admitted that the bullets were being used. However, because the Boers were not seen as savages by the British, the bullets were now prohibited, because they would cause them inhumane suffering. In addition, it should be noted that The
Daily News wrote: “We therefore endeavoured to stop their use of them”, although Great Britain was one of two nations in favour of using them.49
The Daily Mail in turn explained the workings of the Lee-Metford rifles used by the British troops and the Mauser rifles, used by the Boers. In January, the newspaper devoted half of page seven to a description not only of the rifles, but also of their bullets. The discussion about whether or not expansive or dum-dum bullets were being used was not given much attention by the author. When comparing the bullets, the author restricted himself to being purely informative, and mentioned the dum-dum only in passing: “In the 48 Julian Ralph, 'Through Yankee eyes: the war as an American sees it' Daily Mail, 01 January 1900, 4. 49'Notes on the war: by our military expert. no news of importance. The reply to Lord Roberts. The threatened destruction of the mines. The use of luddite and expanding bullets. The moralities of war' Daily News, 21 March 1900.
16
dum-dum variety the nose of the bullet is dented in, so as to slightly break the casing, thus causing the bullet to set up on impact. These bullets are not served out for ordinary civilised warfare.” In this way, the author completely ignored the controversy about the expansive bullets which were possibly being used in South Africa. Later, he continued: “The word ‘explosive bullet’, often used in wartime, is capable of many explanations. It may be news to many that the English Snider bullet. . .was of this character.” He then explained how similar systems of loading were used in sporting rifles. Again, the author completely passed over the controversy concerning the dum-dums, which is remarkable because of the ongoing debate surrounding them.50 An interesting position was taken by The Times, which could be seen as more nuanced than those taken by the Daily Mail and The Daily News. After publishing multiple readers’ letters in March 1900, the newspaper published an editorial about the issue. Readers’ letters described the possible mix-up of terminology describing the bullets. As one writer noted about the dum-dum factory in Calcutta, India: Some years ago an officer employed there invented an expanding bullet, which became known among the troops as the ‘Dum Dum’ bullet. As it contains no powder, it can hardly correctly be called an explosive bullet. . .No ammunition loaded with the so-called Dum Dum bullet has been supplied to the British troops in South Africa.51 This was an argument often repeated by multiple British authors. A day later, a correspondence between the politicians Sir Frederick Milner and Leonard Courtney was published. Milner argued that the dum-dums were “not necessarily either explosive or expansive”, and he later compared the types of bullets being made at the dum-dum factory, just like the author who wrote to the editor a day before him.52 In the editorial, the newspaper showed its colours immediately in the opening of the article by referring to “the war prepared and provoked by Mr. Kruger and the ruling oligarchy at Pretoria”. It also discussed president Martinus Steyn of Orange Free State, who stated that expansive bullets had indeed been found among Boer general Piet Cronjé’s 50 'Mauser vs. Lee-Metford' Daily Mail, 11 January 1900, 7. 51 'Dum dum bullets' The Times, 12 March1900, 11. 52 'Mr. Courtney on Boer treachery' The Times, 20 March 1900, 7.
17
troops, but that they had stolen them from the British. The Times called his statement “futile”, repeating that “it has been explained again and again that none of the bullets used by us, whether made at Dum-Dum or elsewhere, were in fact either expansive or 53
explosive.” Image 1.
An image from the described page: encircled are the fragments described earlier. Three out of five columns described the rifles. 54
53 'The war prepared and provoked by MR' The Times, 21 March 1900, 9. 54 Idem.
18
The Guardian and The Observer took a similar stance, denying the use of dum-dums use by British troops and instead accusing the Boers of using them. A notable article appeared in
The Observer during the first month of the war, in which the author angrily reported that German and Austrian newspapers criticised Great Britain’s conduct during the war. Neue
Freie Presse and Neues Wiener Tagblatt were compared to “sensational Anglophobe journals”, whom the author accused of publishing “partisan reports regarding the progress of the war.”55 The Guardian published a statement by General Lord Methuen, who urged the Boers to stop using dum-dums after twelve men were hospitalized with severe wounds during the Battle of Belmont. Furthermore, he accused the Boers of abusing the white flag of peace: “To place a white pocket handkerchief on a rifle and take advantage of your enemy is a cowardly action which neither you nor I can countenance.” A war correspondent for The Morning Post was said to have been hit by a Boer dum-dum.56 A notable article on the same page also reported the Boers coming “into possession of quantities of munitions, tents, provisions and a number of important documents” after capturing Natal. In the conclusion, he also accused the Rhodesian forces of using dum-dums against the Boers.57 It is likely that it was in Natal, possibly among other places, where the Boers came into possession of expansive bullets. In an editorial, The Irish Times stated that the Boers were using dum-dum bullets, after British wounded soldiers who returned home confirmed they were doing so.58 The Irish Freeman’s Journal, however, made a strong statement against the English accusations: if the British had not been equipped with them beforehand, the Boers could have never stolen them from the British after beating them on the battlefield.59 Dutch newspaper coverage
Due to historic links, Dutch newspapers took a special interest in South African affairs. As in Great Britain, the subject of dum-dums was repeatedly discussed by newspapers. For the Dutch, there never seemed to be a question of whether or not the dum-dums were being used. Newspapers were sure that the British were using them. Some also reported that the
55 'Continental views: position of the United States' The Observer, 29 October 1899, 5. 56 'The fighting: border position stormed and carried heavy losses on both sides' The Manchester Guardian, 27 November 1900, 7. 57 'The Boers on their successes' The Manchester Guardian, 27 November 1900, 7. 58 Editorial article, The Irish Times, 10- January 1900, 4. 59 'The presidential message' Freeman's Journal, 06 December 1899.
19
Boers were using them. Therefore, when it comes to Dutch newspapers, there was less variety in the manner of reporting than there was among the British ones. The Dutch presented the conflict as a ‘David vs. Goliath’ situation, in which the Boers were David. They were facing the largest imperial army in the world, a matter that bothered most readers as much as the use of dum-dums bothered the British. On the day the war began, Leeuwarder Courant published an article on its front page that could be seen as an accurate and important representation of popular Dutch sentiment and the position Dutch papers took during the war. It shows that it was not the treatment of Uitlanders, but the Chartered Company, Cecil Rhodes, and Mr. Chamberlain and his acolytes who were the true reason for the outbreak of war. The paper features an article written by Centrum, which featured an Uitlander’s monologue: ‘De oorlog, dat is afgesproken werk, anders niet’ - Waarom? ‘Wel dat is duidelijk. Men laat ons stemrecht vragen, dat wij niet noodig hebben . . . Wij zijn naar Transvaal gegaan om geld te verdienen. Men zal dien oorlog niet om ons voeren, maar om de rijkaards die het hele land willen hebben.’ In short, the war was not being fought for the betterment of the Uitlanders’ position in the Boer republics, but for rich men’s interest. The paper concluded that if the British would simply
leave
the
Uitlanders
alone,
it
would
be
better
for
everyone.
60
Ten days later, De Graafschap-bode published a letter from a Boer soldier: they would follow Oom Paul’s - President Kruger’s - orders. However, while they were firing “mere Mauser bullets”, the “rednecks” were using dum-dums. The feeling that the Boers were fighting an unequal battle was thus very much alive.61 In December, Leeuwarder Courant published a letter written by a Dutch local who had left for Transvaal before the war. The paper dearly valued the letter. The paper’s editor thought that many must have held opinions similar to his, and, before excusing his rough language, he published the entire letter. As was to be expected, the author spoke of the unrighteousness of the war. According to the writer of the letter, the British were not the ones exposing their bodies to luddite bombs and dum-dum bullets. The Boers were the victims of an unjust war, which was started for the
60 'Buitenlandsch overzicht' Leeuwarder Courant, 11 October 1899, 1. 61 'Ingezonden brief' De Graafschap-bode, 21 October 1899.
20
wrong reasons. The only grievances of the Uitlanders were about the British, who would not leave them be and let them earn their money. Interestingly, the author of the letter based these claims on an interview held by a Plymouth journalist who supposedly interviewed Uitlander mineworkers.62 Other newspapers that published articles based on this interview, however, have not been found. After the Battle of Elandslaagte, another report was published by Leeuwarder Courant. This time, Boer adjutant De Kock described his views on the battle. Like the Daily News and the Daily Mail, De Kock described the use of dum-dums and luddite bombs in the same sentence. Also, he accused them of mistreating POWs by letting them be “openly punished by the Kaffers”.63 So far, the claims made by jingoist British papers were repaid in kind by
Leeuwarder Courant. An important difference, however, is that Leeuwarder Courant did publish news articles which accused Boer soldiers, the side which they were supposedly supporting, of using dum-dum bullets. Not only did they publish these, but they did so using neutral language.64 Furthermore, Leeuwarder Courant showed a critical approach to their sources by debunking a rumour about several important British men being wounded during the Battle of Mafeking. Below the aforementioned neutral report about the dum-dums, the following article was published: 65
62 'Feuilleton: de oorlog in Zuid-Afrika' Leeuwarder Courant, 8 December 1899. 63 'Feuilleton' Leeuwarder Courant, 21 December 1899. 64 'De “Times” schrijft het mislukken van den uitval toe aan verraad’ Leeuwarder Courant, 08 January 1900. Fairly neutral language was used writing this article by treating the claims of The Times as rumours ('Men zegt...', 'Men gelooft...'). 65 'Angst over een paar grote heren die zich te Mafeking bevinden' Leeuwarder Courant, 08 January 1900. Rumour had it that Lord Edward Cecil, the son of Lord Salisbury, and Lord Charles Bentinck were wounded during a skirmish in Mafeking. None appeared to be wounded, but Lord Cecil was hospitalised with fever.
21
British accusations of Boers using dum-dums made it to De Telegraaf, a Dutch national newspaper, as well. In December 1899, the newspaper confirmed that Boers were using dum-dums, as they had apparently hit the arm of a British war correspondent. The article also noted that some dum-dums had been taken from the bodies of wounded Boers. Although the article described the use of dum-dums, the author claimed that the war correspondents definitely favoured the British. The British claimed that, as some British newspapers described, the Boers were abusing the white flag. De Telegraaf denied those claims and referred to Transvaal newspapers “who made clear which side were the real criminals”.66 When it came to African news, Dutch newspapers, like every other newspaper in Europe, were dependent on British telegraph lines. This means that Dutch journalists were required to take a critical approach towards their sources, as articles in Leeuwarder Courant and De
Standaard showed. De Standaard published an article during the first month of the war, in which they stated that contradictory evidence had been reaching them for weeks. British newspaper reports differed from official Transvaal reports that had been smuggled through British censorship.67 But were the Boers using dum-dums? The British newspapers were absolutely sure, while some Dutch newspapers deemed it to be possible. Remarkably, Tilburgsche Courant published something similar to the ‘Mauser vs. Lee-Metfield’ article in the Daily Mail. Although the comparison was less focussed on the differences between types of rifles, the article did question the probability of Boers using dum-dum bullets. The author looked at which rifles the British and which rifles the Boers were using. In short, the author stated that it was unlikely that the Boers used dum-dums, because they were equipped with Mausers while the British used Lee-Metfords, arguing that the bullets which were produced for the British could likely not be used by the German Mauser rifles. However, he did deem it possible that the Boers had stolen Lee-Metfords, and used British rifles and ammunition against themselves. 68 This explanation seems to be the most reasonable, as both sides reported British as well as Boer use of the bullets. An article published by De Telegraaf months before the end of the war confirmed this. By February 1902, the Dutch Red Cross
66 'De slag bij Belmont' De Telegraaf, 20 December 1899. 67 'Buitenlandsch overzicht' De Standaard, 28 December 1899. 68 'Militaire beschouwingen' Tilburgsche Courant, 30 November 1899.
22
in South Africa concluded that ambulances were not deliberately fired at by either side, but that both sides had used dum-dum bullets.69 American newspaper coverage
Both the Boer Republics and Great Britain tried to win the support of the United States. American newspapers found themselves in a difficult position: their republican heritage and history of struggle against British rulers would logically place them in the pro-Boer camp. However, the two nations had become close allies, and the United States never intervened in the war. According to the observations of Transvaal deputies in the United States, most of the American public remained uninterested in the war. According to the consular representative of the Boer republics, Montagu White, Irish- and German-Americans did support the Boer cause. But most Americans still supported the British, because the British had supported them during their war with Spain in 1898.70 American newspapers picked up on the subject at a later time than British and Dutch newspapers. In Great Britain and the Netherlands, most of the debate took place between October 1899 and March 1900. In the United States, however, the first articles about the war appeared in November 1899, and the debate did not intensify until January 1900. The
New York Times published a reader’s letter to the editor, in which the author, E. Maynard, expressed his dissatisfaction of the editor’s stance regarding the war: I have for years been a constant reader of your esteemed paper, and not often have I felt so dissatisfied with anything in it as with your attitude as regards the South African war now going on. One day you seem to favor the Boers, and then again you side with the British. Later, he claimed that Americans should support the Boers: It is so utterly un-republican and un-American. The Boers are no more uncivilized than were our own forefathers at the time of the Revolutionary War, and they are no
69 'Het Rode Kruis in Zuid-Afrika' De Telegraaf, 04 February 1902. 70 W.J. Leyds,Tweede Verzameling, 330, No.334.
23
more in the wrong. They object to using dum-dum bullets, even though they take them from their opponent.71 Like Tilburgsche Courant, three weeks later, Maynard thought that the Boers opposed the dum-dums, but were possibly using them having taking them from the British.72 A month later, The Wall Street Journal also appeared to be sure that British troops were using dumdums against the Boers. The newspaper condemned the British for using dum-dums, accusing them of war crimes: England is now using five-inch luddite shells . . . As long as the country who claims to be the leading Christian nation of Europe persists in using these awful explosives, as well as dum-dum bullets, the outlook for peace looks rather dismal.73 Once again, as often seen in articles published in the Netherlands and the United Kingdom, the luddite bombs and dum-dums are here used in the same sentence. Boer delegates in the United States reported The New York Times to be pro-British in December 1899.74 The newspaper increasingly seemed to be struggling to defend its position towards its readers around January 1900, when more reports came in accusing British troops of committing war crimes. The New York Times continued to present two-sided reports on the topic of dum-dums. Editorials and news articles were often pro-British, whereas reader’s letters often were pro-Boer. A remarkable example of this two-sidedness was page two of the edition of January 22. The page opened with an article about senators and congressmen taking a pro-Boer stance. It continued with a list of accusations against Great Britain, which were summed up as follows:
71 72 73 74
E. Maynard, 'A Boer Defender' The New York Times, 06 November 1899, 6. Idem. 'Ratifying The Hague Treaty' The Wall Street Journal, 27 December 1899, 6. W.J. Leyds, Tweede Verzameling, 306-307, No. 318.
24
In neutral language, the newspaper thus made a report of many senators and congressmen taking a pro-Boer stance, pleading with their colleagues and everyone attending the meeting to take their side. However, below this article, the paper placed a rather unflattering article about the Boers:
The placement of the article, rather than its contents, should be noted here: just below a pro-Boer article, it countered with an anti-Boer opinion. 75 Possibly, this was the twosidedness Maynard spoke of in his letter to the editor. Finally, The New York Times showed its true colours in 1901, when another reader’s letter stated that the British were using dumdums. Never before had the editors of the newspaper expressed their opinions on the matter in such a clear fashion: if the British denied accusations that they were using dum-dums,
The New York Times believed them.76 The Wall Street Journal was more critical of the British. It openly questioned Great Britain’s moral authority and offered space for pro-Boer opinions. On January 25, two columns of the fourth page were dedicated to lauding the Boer cause. In an article that posed the question why so many Uitlanders had joined Boer armies to fight the British, the author used the historic argument of the United States’ own struggle for independence from the British crown. His conclusion is gripping: 77
75 'Plead the Boer cause' and 'Says the Boers are cowards' The New York Times, 22 January 1900, 2. 76 'Topic of the times' The New York Times, 30 November 1901, 8. 77Fred F. Schrader, 'Case of the Outlanders: majority of the men supposed to be aggrieved fighting for the Boers' The Wall Street Journal, 25 January1900.
25
Like the previously mentioned article by this newspaper, this article described how the British were using “men, money, influence, and the employment of armoured trains, luddite and dum-dum bullets.” 78 This consistency characterised the paper’s subsequent reports about dum-dums. To The Wall Street Journal, it was obvious what was happening: “Khaki and the dum-dum will destroy South Africa and very soon put an end to the war.” 79 Although only two American newspapers have been analysed, these do represent the dividedness which was present in not only the media, but also among American citizens. In this aspect, compared to the United Kingdom and the Netherlands, the United States were alone in showcasing this type of dividedness. According to British newspapers, their troops were not armed with expansive bullets, but with a different, non-explosive type of bullet, also manufactured in the dum-dum factory. In this matter, the only Irish newspaper analysed here was the sole exception. However, English papers failed to explain how the Boers then got their hands on the actual dum-dum bullets. To Dutch newspapers, it was obvious from the beginning: the British were going to use dum-dums against the Boers. As Tilburgsche
Courant showed, there could have been only one way for the Boers to use dum-dums: by stealing them from defeated British troops. This, of course, implied that the British had been armed with expansive dum-dum bullets since the outbreak of the war
78 Idem. The previous article described similar practices - see note 28. 79 'How Cronjé was defeated' The Wall Street Journal, 25 March 1900, 27.
26
Today, one would usually associate the term ‘concentration camp’ with the Nazi death camps of the Second World War. The Boer concentration camps during the Second AngloBoer War were of an entirely different character, with a lower mortality rate. In these camps, war refugees, defeated Boers, and families who had become homeless found shelter. The first of these camps were built in November 1900, and by the end of May 1902, there would be 45 Boer concentration camps. In addition, 64 camps for black Africans were built in the same period of time. The initial motives for these camps were benevolent. Camp inhabitants were to be placed in an environment where they would be safe from the hostilities of the war. They would be put into tents with their families and be provided with medical care, food, and clothes until the war was over. The high mortality rate in the camps, however, caused great controversy. The British army had started to apply scorched-earth tactics, meaning that many Boer houses and farms were burnt, looted, or completely destroyed. Consequently, many women and children became homeless and had no option but to seek refuge in British camps. In these camps they were divided into two categories: refugees and undesirables. Those who were put in the second category were Boers who had entered the camp under force. Undesirables had either fought the British or had family members in the Boer armies. Therefore, they were given fewer rations than ordinary camp inhabitants. The camps of Port Elizabeth and Pietermaritzburg were built solely for undesirables.80 Conditions in the camps were all but sufficient. Food and water distribution, medical care, clothing, and hygiene were critical points for which the camp administration did not meet requirements. As a consequence, thousands of children and women starved to death or succumbed to diseases such as typhoid, dysentery, and diarrhoea. The high death rates could be explained by a number of factors. First, lack of competence on the side of the British army seems to be the foremost explanation brought up by the British. In December 1901, Lord Milner admitted in a general review of the camps that “the whole thing. . . . .has been a mistake” and that they were “suddenly confronted with a 80 Hobhouse, The brunt of war, 38.
27
problem, not of our making, which it was beyond our power properly to grapple.� 81 Furthermore, some claimed that a lack of adequate medical staff in the camps was a reason why diseases could not be handled properly.82 In addition, according to Emily Hobhouse, the systematic burning of Boer houses and farms since February 1900 had caused the camps to overflow with homeless Boers. The military authorities had ordered the farms to be burnt, thus creating the problem themselves.83 Finally, insufficient rations and a lack of provisions for camp inhabitants played a large role.84 The benevolent intentions and the horrible reality had their impact on the media: British viewpoints of the camps were largely denialist in the beginning. No newspapers denied the farm burnings.85 But Boer prisoners could not count on any sympathy from the British. However, when medical reports showed how bad the situation in the camps had become, Joseph Chamberlain, Secretary of State for the Colonies, pledged that he would do anything he could to help improve the living conditions in the camps.86 Dutch and American media held similar positions: they accused the British of mismanagement, and the conditions in the concentration camps antagonised many. Before looking into the role of the media, the impact of Emily Hobhouse’s opinions on the media debate will be reviewed. Two important events influenced the outcome of the debate: the publication of the Hobhouse report and the publication of a photo of Lizzie van Zyl. Van Zyl was a seven-year-old Boer girl who died in Bloemfontein. A photo of her was taken when she was dying, shocking both the British and the Dutch. Image 2. The Van Zyl photo. Source: Wikimedia Commons, http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ commons/b/ba/LizzieVanZyl.jpg (accessed August 19, 2017).
81 Martin, Concentration camps, 22. 82 Ibidem, 84. 83 Hobhouse, The brunt of war, 1-6. 84 A summary of the outcome of Hobhouse' report to the Committee. 85Ibidem, 17. 86 Ibidem, 164.
28
Emily Hobhouse, the English pro-Boer advocate
The daughter of an Anglican priest, Emily Hobhouse was born into a politically active family. By the time war broke out in 1899, Emily, 39 years old at the time, became secretary of the women’s branch of the South African Conciliation Committee, a committee opposed to the war. When she heard of Boer women and children suffering in concentration camps during the summer of 1900, she decided to visit multiple camps in 1901. Afterwards, she wrote a report of her visit to the Committee of the Distress Fund for South African Women and Children, which was published in 1901. In her report, she wrote down her observations, resulting in a collection of stories from camp inhabitants who were in great distress. This report was also translated into Dutch and published in the same year. Finally, after the war ended in 1902, she published a book in 1903, which was entirely devoted to the women and children of the Boer camps. This book, The brunt of the war, and where it fell, provides clear insights by an anti-war correspondent visiting the concentration camps. Her impact on the media was an important one: she became one of the foremost campaigners against the concentration camps because of the compelling stories she published. Her report to the Committee was devastating: there was a lack of fuel, beds, mattresses, soap, sufficient rations, water, shoes, and warm clothes; tents were overcrowded, and there were inadequate sanitary accommodations, too few hospitals, and insufficient education for the children.87 According to Hobhouse, the medical situation was becoming extremely dangerous. When she visited one tent in Kimberly, she described the following: All around and above it dripped, making pools on the bedding and on the mats as we sat huddled up. When it rains at night as often it drips on them all night, and makes little pools on the beds. No wonder children sicken and die. The cloth of the tents seems so very thin and poor.
87 Hobhouse, To the Committee, 13-14.
29
In Bloemfontein, health conditions were as bad as they were in Kimberly: No wonder sickness abounds. Since I left here six weeks ago there have been 62 deaths in camp, and the doctor himself is down with enteric. Two of the Boer girls who had been trained as nurses, and who were doing good work, are dead too. Furthermore, basic errors were made: 2000 people who were already known to be unhealthy and fever-stricken were brought into the Bloemfontein camp, “a great blunder” according to Hobhouse.88 Rations, which were already meagre, were not distributed properly: “Once they sometimes had potatoes, seven potatoes for seven people, but that has long been impossible. Soap also has been unattainable, and none given in the rations.” Furthermore, heartbreaking passages filled the report: “Next, a girl of twenty-one lay dying on a stretcher. The father, a big, gentle Boer, kneeling beside her; while, next tent, his wife was watching a child of six, also dying, and one of about five drooping. Already this couple had lost three children in the hospital and so would not let these go . . . I can’t describe what it is to see these children lying about in a state of collapse.” 89 Finally, accounts written by camp inhabitants were collected in a report, describing farm burnings and mistreatment by British troops.90 Hobhouse called the camps “a wholesale cruelty,” which could never “be wiped out of the memories of the people.” Among her recommendations to improve the camps, she pleaded for the British public to become active in charity organisations.91 This plea was also placed in the Dutch version of the report. In this version, readers were instructed to donate to Boer relief funds.92 Only after this report as well as a report by the British Medical Journal had appeared did Chamberlain act: some of the recommendations made by Hobhouse were adopted, but around December 1901, most of the damage had already been done.93 After Chamberlain’s reforms, mortality rates declined, and education, shelter, and the distribution of food improved. Understandably, Hobhouse stated that if his reforms had gone through in June, thousands of lives might have been spared.94 88 89 90 91 92 93 94
Ibidem,12-13. Ibidem, 4-5. Ibidem, 37-39. Ibidem, 4. Hobhouse, Onthullingen, 45. Hobhouse, The brunt of war, 164. Ibidem, 287-289.
30
After the war, Hobhouse also reflected on the role of the media in her book. In The brunt
of the war, and where it fell she expressed her feelings about the role which British media played. The British authorities and the public took a similar stance: supporting the Boer camp inhabitants was unpatriotic and could therefore not be met with sympathy. After she returned from South Africa to deliver her report in England, she blamed the press for leaving the public in ignorance: So little news relative to farm burning was permitted in the press, and so little sympathetic imagination was to bear upon what was known, that only the few who had followed the fortunes of the South Africans with appreciative intelligence had formed any conception of the straits to which women and children were reduced. Evidently, British public support for relief funds was discouragingly low, compared to funds in other European countries.95 Censorship had done its work: to show sympathy to the Boers was to render yourself suspect. Dr Arthur Conan Doyle, whose brainchild, the fictional detective Sherlock Holmes, would later make him famous, was especially criticised: “In the fairyland of his fertile imagination, ‘no money was spared’ and ‘every child under six had a bottle of milk a day’; but we are dealing with facts.” According to Hobhouse, the British news media got it wrong: “The arrival of occasional English newspapers confirmed me in the fear that the facts as they existed were wholly misunderstood at home . . . It was clear that there was a misunderstanding and the country as a whole was ignorant of the true position of affairs.”96 It appears that Hobhouse’s impact on British news media was relatively small. Her report found its way to the authorities that would eventually help change the situation in the camps. But newspapers and the British public in general remained relatively unmoved by her efforts. In the Netherlands, her work was much more appreciated, as this chapter will show. British news media coverage
In Great Britain, as in the Netherlands and the United States, the subject of the camps was
95 Ibidem, 93-94. 96 Ibidem, 121-123.
31
left mainly untouched until the Hobhouse report was published. In the summer and autumn of 1901, the first articles that addressed the conditions in the concentration camps appeared in newspapers. The Times and the Daily Mail could, in this case, be described as two of the most jingoist newspapers. Their coverage of the situation in the camps followed government lines, rarely providing space for dissidents. The Observer held a moderate position, acknowledging the problems in the camps but only partly claiming responsibility. The
Guardian was the only newspaper of those analysed here that actively tried to raise awareness about the camps. It sided with the views of Emily Hobhouse, and actively questioned how the British public could remain so careless about the matter. The Daily Mail launched its first attack on the Hobhouse report in June. In the article, Mr Pearse, who had visited the camps himself, debunked the report by questioning the authenticity of the narratives in it. “As to the personal narratives published by Miss Hobhouse . . . some scepticism may be entertained when we find that either the names of persons or of places or dates that would facilitate investigation, are in nearly every instance omitted”, Pearse argued. Furthermore, he referred to the Intombi prison camp, a camp outside the town of Ladysmith that was erected in 1899, in which hundreds of British POWs died. “Did the Boers do anything to alleviate their sufferings? No!”, he claimed, thereby justifying his opinion about the Boer concentration camps.97 In The Brunt of War, Hobhouse rightfully noted that she had trouble reaching the British public. The Daily Mail often published short articles informing their readers about Hobhouse’s failed attempts of spreading ‘propaganda’:98
97 'Miss Hobhouse Charges. Did the Pro-Boers weep over the Intombi victims?' Daily Mail 24 June 1901. 98 'Another Pro-Boer fiasco' Daily Mail, 29 June 1901, 3.
32
As with the dum-dums, criticism from abroad was denounced as “anglophobia”. German newspapers were often called anglophobes and accused of spreading ‘pro-Boer propaganda.’99 Other newspapers, such as The Observer, explained away the camps as a military necessity. By doing so, the newspapers sided with official government statements made earlier by Lord Milner.100 Furthermore, criticism of British conduct in the camps was described as slander. Various letters to the editor in several British newspapers contained readers’ complaints about the Hobhouse report, mostly from those who claimed to have also visited or worked in the camps.101 Also, the heavily discussed photo of Lizzie van Zyl had an emotional impact. Shocked by the view of a starving child, newspapers either blamed the mother of maltreatment or adopted Emily Hobhouse´s view that British treatment of camp inhabitants was horrible. The Daily Mail did the former: “Her starved and emaciated appearance was set down to the neglect of those in charge of the concentration camp . . .The condition of the child was reported to the camp authorities by a neighbour, who observed her being starved in her mother’s house.” Finally, Lizzie was called “quite an idiot”, and it was asserted that her mother had an abundance of food for Lizzie and neglected her other children too.102
The Times published many readers’ letters about the camps. Although many were sent, there was little variation to be found in their respective contents. A large majority of the letters that were published accused Hobhouse of spreading lies. Again, these letters had often been written by people who claimed to have visited the camps. One reader wrote: Taking the whole of this camp [Durban], I don’t think many would ask to return to their farms, they are looked after so well where they are . . . I can truthfully say they were treated as though they were our own people.103
99 'German anglophobia. Another campaign against Lord Milner' Daily Mail, 7 December 1901, 5. 100 “Speaking of the concentration camps, Mr. Brodrick said he did not defend them, they were military necessities” in 'Mr. Brodrick - Suggest withdrawal of belligerent rights' Daily Mail, 12 December1901, 5. This statement was made earlier by Lord Milner, December 7. 101 'Miss Hobhouse's facts' Daily Mail, 4 February 1902, 4. 102 'One of our skeletons - another Pro-Boer camp slander exposed' Daily Mail, 24 January 1902, 5. 103 Lees Knowles, 'The concentration camps - to the editor of The Times', The Times, 8 August 1901, 5.
33
Another reader, who had supposedly visited the Kimberly camp, wrote: Every child we saw in the Kimberley camp was plump and well-fed. Everyone was warmly clothed; and upon inquiry among the people themselves I was informed that they had no grievance on the score of food or shelter; what they wanted was a little more wood for cooking purposes.104 Finally, according to one British army sergeant: In the camp [Mafeking] there is a church, school, store, perfect sanitary arrangements, and an abundance of food that in quantity and quality is infinitely superior to that supplied to the troops and the loyalists . . .. The camp also contains a comfortable hospital, with courteous and efficient medical officers in charge.105
The Observer presented a more moderate view: conditions in the camps could be improved, but there were reasonable explanations for the high mortality rates. In December 1901, based on government bluebooks, the newspaper stipulated that the main reasons were the bad placement and overcrowding of the camps, poor water supply, incompetence of Boer mothers and Boer aversion to fresh air.106 Like the Daily Mail, they stated that the camps were a military necessity. But the British were not entirely free from blame: “Mistakes occurred in the first instances to certain sites chosen for camps, especially with reference to the matter of water supply, and on this head some criticisms are offered.” However, the high death rate, as stated earlier, was largely caused by the habits and ill-treatment of Boer children by their mothers.107
The Guardian could be called the odd one out, reporting on the camps in an entirely different manner. The paper repeatedly tried to raise awareness about the high mortality rates in the camps, and contested the view that all was well. “The concentration camps are assuming such huge proportions and the death-rate is becoming so formidable that quite the most important question of the day is, ‘What are we to do with the Boer women and
104 105 106 107
Victor Sampson, 'Concentration camp at Kimberly' The Times, 27- August 1901, 6. Herbert Vivian Stuart Carey, 'The concentration camps - to the editor of The Times', The Times, 19 August 1901, 9. 'The concentration camps blue book' The Observer, 15 December 1901, 4. 'The concentration camps' The Observer, 23 January 1902, 4.
34
children on our hands?’”, the newspaper asked its readers on December 6 1901. It is important to note that first, they stated that it was a British problem — “the Boer women and children on our hands” — and second, they called the death rate “formidable”, whereas the Daily Mail and The Times made no specific note of it. The article continued: That we cannot allow the present state of affairs to continue much longer is certain, for in spite of the most strenuous efforts to free the camps from disease the deathrate continues to mount up . . . The most careful sanitary arrangements and the best medical advice have both failed to make the camps healthy . . . The most feasible plan would be to allow them to choose some village not occupied by us, to allow them doctors, nurses, food and liberty . . .108 Furthermore, The Guardian let dissident members of parliament have their say. One MP, Sir Walter Foster, was reported to have called the war one big miscalculation from the beginning.109 Like The Times and the Daily Mail, The Guardian published letters from people who had visited the camps. These visitors, however, had made entirely different observations: “There are three things that specially strike you, — first, the scanty provision made for these poor people; Second, their unfailing hopefulness and determination to endure; Third, their cleanliness in spite of all the difficulties of train travel and camp life.”110 Remarkably, the other letter writers disagreed with of these points. The letters published by
The Times and the Daily Mail stated that there were sufficient provisions for the Boers, and that their unsanitary habits were the cause of so many diseases. 111 Finally, in an article discussing the photograph of Lizzie van Zyl, The Guardian voiced its disgust of the British public’s ignorance: Should not the controversy be lifted to a higher plane? . . . One feels ashamed that any English journal, any English writer, should at such a moment impugn the conduct of distracted parents or drag a dead child in the public arena . . . Will it need the deaths of all the children to move the heart of England?112 108 109 110 111 112
'The concentration camps - an increasing death-rate' The Guardian, 30 December 1901, 5. 'Theconcentration camps – speech of Sir W. Foster MP' The Guardian, 26 November 1901,6. 'A Boer woman prisoner on the camps' The Guardian, 04 January 1902, 9. See: note 26 and note 22. 'Miss Hobhouse and the Concentration camps' The Guardian, 29 January 1902, 9.
35
For a long time, The Guardian could not make sense of the ignorance of the British public: 113
As Hobhouse and The Guardian rightfully noted, jingoism prevailed among the British news media and public. Dutch news media coverage
Like the British news media, the majority of the Dutch newspapers picked up on the subject of the concentration camps in June 1901. Unlike the British, however, the number of articles about the camps steadily decreased in 1902. It is likely that the Dutch translation of the Hobhouse report is the reason for the increased interest in this subject. The reason for the decrease in reports about the camps in 1902, however, remains unclear. One possible explanation could be that the British authorities initiated camp reforms, thus giving in to the repeated calls for better camp conditions. Unlike Britain, the Netherlands had far fewer newspapers with different opinions. Differences in reporting, such as existed between the
Daily Mail and The Guardian, were not visible among the analysed newspapers. In terminology, however, there were slight differences: some newspapers referred to the camps as ‘murder camps’ (moordkampen), ‘women camps’ (vrouwenkampen), or ‘prison camps’ (gevangenkampen). On June 22, Nieuwe Tilburgsche Courant ran an article about Hobhouse’s first findings, based on the original report. A Dutch translation of the report would follow a month later. Like many other newspapers, the high death rates in the Bloemfontein camp were the main cause of controversy. The author of the article compared the camp’s death rates to those of a medieval city struck by the plague, and also expressed gratitude for Hobhouse’s efforts to
113 'Concentration camps: statistics for September. appalling death rate' The Guardian, 19 October 1901, 8.
36
expose British wrongdoings.114 Less than a week later, the newspaper published an article expressing strong anti-British sentiments. “The Murder of Women!” (“Vrouwenmoord!”), Nieuwe Tilburgsche Courant cried on its front page. Strong accusations followed, charging the British with deliberately killing Boer women and children and comparing their abuses to the Armenian genocide perpetrated by the Ottoman Turks. Furthermore, some findings from the Hobhouse report were quoted, such as the deliberate burning down of farms which illustrated how ruthless the British were. It was noted, however, that some British troops did not support the conduct of their own government and that a feeling of resentment was growing among the British public.115 In July, like many other newspapers in the country, Nieuwe Tilburgsche Courant published a selection of passages from the translated Hobhouse report. Half of page two was
dedicated
to
the
Hobhouse
report
and
other
news
about
114 'De oorlog in Zuid-Afrika - over sterfte in Bloemfontein' Nieuwe Tilburgsche Courant, 22 June 1901. 115 'Vrouwenmoord' Nieuwe Tilburgsche Courant, 26 January 1901.
37
the
war:
38
The article quoted some of the more heart-breaking passages about mothers being separated from their children and the spreading of horrible diseases and living conditions. This proves that the issue received plenty of media attention; it will later be shown that this was not the only newspaper that reported about the camps in this way. Furthermore, it proves that
Nieuwe Tilburgsche Courant actively tried to make their readers aware of the conditions in theconcentration camps. 116
Algemeen Handelsblad and De Telegraaf reported on the camps in a similar way. In June 1901, the concentration camps made it to the front page of Algemeen Handelsblad. As in
Nieuwe Tilburgsche Courant, the author summarized the results of the Hobhouse report. In the main edition of the newspaper the author commented on the report, and in the evening edition multiple quotes from the report were published. An interesting feature of the article is the way British criticism was presented. The author stated that only “some jingoist papers” defended the camps, and right below he stated that The Westminster Gazette had also strongly criticised how the British government was dealing with the situation.117 But did
Algemeen Handelsblad judge the British press correctly? It would be questionable to assume that these statements were representative of the British press, because, as demonstrated earlier in this chapter, the majority of national newspapers defended the government’s conduct, as The Guardian noted. Algemeen Handelsblad did not use The Westminster
Gazette as an example of anti-jingoism only once: four days later, when the Hobhouse report was again being discussed, one author stated that the report had left a deep impression on the British public. Readers’ letters to the Daily Mail, The Times, and observations by The
Guardian, however, disprove this. To prove their point, Algemeen Handelsblad reported that a British politician, Lord Ripon, was supposedly “ashamed of the fact that these things were possible under British governance”. Again, The Westminster Gazette was quoted.118 Like
Nieuwe Tilburgsche Courant, Algemeen Handelsblad and De Telegraaf used strong terminology, speaking of “systematic infanticide” 119 (“stelselmatige kindermoord”) and “murdercamps”120 where “inhumane methods were used”.121 Remarkably, the photograph of Lizzie van Zyl was not discussed by many papers. 116 'De Oorlog in Zuid-Afrika' Nieuwe Tilburgsche Courant, 22 July 1901, 2. The article has been enlarged to show how much of the page covered the war. 117 'Buitenlandsch overzicht', Algemeen Handelsblad, 20 June 1901, 1. 118 'Buitenlandsch overzicht', Algemeen Handelsblad, 24 June 1901. 119 'De stelselmatige kindermoord' Algemeen Handelsblad, 14 October 1901. 120 'Engelsche willekeur jegens de boerenvrouwen en kinderen in de gevangenen-kampen' De Telegraaf, 15- July 1901. 121 'Buitenland' De Telegraaf, 22 June 1901.
39
Leeuwarder Courant reported that the photo had been published in the United States and many Americans now favoured the Boer cause.122 The only newspaper that published the photo, or a drawing of it, was a newspaper from the Dutch East Indies, De Locomotief. On 30 August 1901, a drawing of the photo made the front page:
Below, Hobhouse was praised as a “people’s and children’s friend” (“menschen- en
kindervriendin”) who had written a heart-breaking report about the Bloemfontein camp. The author of the article explained that he was publishing this article not merely to express disgust against the committed British atrocities against women and children, but also because word has reached me from the Netherlands that the distress of Boer women and children is great, and that another plea for charity must be done.123 By publishing a drawing of this photo, the author thus called upon his readers in the Dutch East Indies to raise money for Boer relief funds. Finally, in 1902, Rotterdamsch Nieuwsblad published a reply to British newspapers who stated that Lizzie had died because of mistreatment. The author of the article denounced these claims as “more nasty slanderous talk by the Jingos!”124 (“Weer een vies lasterpraatje van de jingo’s!”).
122 'De Oorlog in Zuid-Afrika' Leeuwarder Courant, 10 December 1901. 123 Literal translation: “Ik neem dit voor alle ouders hartroerende beeld in De Locomotief op, niet slechts om den afschuw voor den door de Engelschen tegen vrouwen en kinderen gevoerd oorlog diep in ons gemoed te prenten, maar ook omdat mij uit Nederland wordt medegedeeld dat de ellende van Boeren-vrouwen en kinderen steeds meerderen bijstand noodig maakt en dus ook op den reeds zo krachtig gebleken Indischen weldadigheidszin een nieuw beroep wordt gedaan.” in 'Het uitgeteerde kind' De Locomotief, 30 August 1901, 1. 124 'Engeland en Transvaal' Rotterdamsch Nieuwsblad, 27 January 1902, 1.
40
American news media coverage The two American newspapers that have been analysed, The New York Times and The
Washington Post, differed much in their style of reporting and the stance they took. Therefore, to give a more representative view of the American media, more newspapers must be analysed. The New York Times showed the same double-faced attitude to the Boer camps as they did to the dum-dums. On one hand, the British were accused of mismanagement, and pro-Boer advocates were given space to express their opinions. On the other hand, the editors claimed that the Van Zyl photo presented a distorted view of the truth. On this subject, The Washington Post tended to be more in line with Dutch media throughout the war. The activist tone that characterised many Dutch newspapers could be found in their articles as well. As it did in Great Britain and the Netherlands, the debate about the camps kicked off in the United States in the summer of 1901. Here, however, it lasted longer: until the autumn of 1902. Pro-Boers did what they could to move the American public. Through charity, many tried to raise funds to alleviate the sufferings of those who were struggling to survive in the camps. In July, a pastor of the Dutch reformed church in Pretoria came to the United States to speak to Americans and educate them about what was being done to his people. The newspaper quoted: Men, women, and children are dying at a rate that would mean the extermination of the Boer race in nine years. The people are cooped up in unsanitary quarters where they are unable to secure sufficient food or clothing, with disease making terrible ravages among them.125 Soon, concern about high death rates in the camps grew in the United States as well. The
New York Times initially seemed to uphold the British explanation: the high death rates were not due to illnesses, a lack of food, or poor sanitary conditions, but to Boer habits, ignorance, prejudices and their suspicious avoidance of the British hospitals and doctors.126
125 'Boer concentration camps - Pretoria pastor lectures in Chicago on the conditions in them - Krueger's message to Americans' The New York Times, 30 July 1901, 2. 126 'The concentration camps - British explanation of the high rate of mortality in them' The New York Times, 16 November 1901, 9.
41
Less than a week later, however, British reasoning was harshly attacked: “Obviously there is something radically wrong with the management of these camps. That they are a military necessity we are not prepared to dispute . . . The facts are sufficient to show that the proper precautions have not been taken, and that the camp management is extremely bad . . . That the conditions permitted to exist in the present camps are responsible for the high mortality recorded cannot be doubted. The whole matter is one of sanitary administration.”127 The explanation by Lord George Hamilton that same week, who still put some of the blame on the Boer women, was dismissed as a “sorry story.”128 Although it denounced British explanations for the high death rates in the camps, this did not make The New York Times pro-Boer. In one article, published after the newspaper’s denunciation of the British explanations, Emily Hobhouse was accused of going to Cape Town “to get a second instalment of evil tales about her own countrymen”, and was said to have been convicted of “manufacturing slander, at least of refusing to correct demonstrably false stories”. Lizzie van Zyl’s photo had been misused by Hobhouse for proBoer propaganda purposes: “Photographs . . . rarely tell all the facts and often so misplace the relations of the facts that they either force or permit a false interpretation”.129 Finally, in November, the paper quoted a French physician who worked at the Pasteur institute. The French Dr Loir claimed that he had seen very clean huts, and that the reported cruelties had never taken place.130
The Washington Post took on a more pro-Boer tone than The New York Times. They also called the war unjust. The Boers were praised as “the Dutch champions of human liberty”, while the British government was denounced for its cruelty.131 Furthermore, the editors took the time to explain to their readers who Emily Hobhouse was. Remarkably, more was said about her family than about Emily herself. After discussing her family members at length, Emily was described as a lady who had “inspired godly fear into the minds of the present government.”132 The newspaper’s anti-British stance took on a more
'Mortality in British concentration camps' The New York Times, 21 November 1901, 8. 'Mortality in Boer camps', The New York Times, 24 November 1901,6. 'Topics of the times', The New York Times, 11 February 1902, 8. 'Boer concentration camps - noted French physician writes that they were not nearly as bad as painted' The New York Times, 19 November 1902, 8. 131 'England's conscience touched' The Washington Post, 20 June 1901, 6. 132 'Who Miss Hobhouse Is' The Washington Post, 8 December 1901, 18. 127 128 129 130
42
solid form in October 1901, when they published eleven reasons why the world should stop the British: 133
In short, among other things, the editor accused the British of torturing Boer prisoners, killing children and women by starving them, and slander. Like The New York Times, they reported on the Boer pastor who visited the United States to raise funds for the relief of the people in the concentration camps. Clearly trying to catch the reader’s eyes, the lead read “Women are starving” in big letters, and “Children herded like swine” written below. In the article, the pastor’s fair judgement of the British soldiers was praised, as according to him it was not the soldiers’ fault. Instead, his criticism was directed towards the British camp authorities. At the bottom, a plea for aid and intervention was placed.134 Remarkably, the photograph of Lizzie van Zyl was never discussed by the newspaper. Once more, two American newspapers have been analysed which show dividedness in the American media. As was the case with the dum-dums, The New York Times tended to be pro-British, while the other newspaper, in this case The Washington Post, took a firm pro-Boer stance. The same could be said for the British media: The Guardian was the only analysed newspaper which criticised British conduct. The other newspapers rarely opposed government statements. In this case, Dutch media are the only exception. Taking on an 133 'Eleven reasons why the world should stay England's ruthless hand’ The Washington Post, 14 October 1901, 10. 134 'Women are starving: Boer clergyman pictures reconcentration camps' The Washington Post, 17 March -1902, 2.
43
activist role, ever analysed newspaper proved to be pro-Boer. A clear role for the American media in this matter is more difficult to define: because only two papers have been analysed, their dividedness prevents one from making general statements about their representational value in this case. An interesting way of determining the position of the media is by analysing how newspapers wrote about Emily Hobhouse. Those who praised her reports were often proBoer, those who opposed them pro-British. If the Hobhouse report had been read, one either criticised or endorsed it. This could explain why the difference between Dutch and British news media is so large: Dutch media endorsed the report, whereas most British media hated it.
44
What role did news media play during the Second Boer War?
The analyses of British, Dutch and American news have shown that there is no short answer to this question. In chapters two and three, the different ways of reporting on the use of expansive dum-dum bullets and the Boer concentration camps were analysed. In most cases, the focus was laid upon the major national newspapers. Therefore, to give a more comprehensive view about what was written during the war, regional newspapers could present additional evidence. In both cases, British media showed consensus. Remarkably, it seems that censorship affected British media the most. Though they controlled the telegraph communication systems between Africa and Europe, this did not mean that important information could not reach the public. As shown the case of the dum-dums shows, British newspapers mostly found themselves refuting criticism from foreign newspapers and showing little dividedness amongst themselves: every analysed newspaper, except the Irish Freeman’s Journal, defended government statements. The failure of British censorship shows most clearly in the case of the Boer concentration camps. British authorities could not prevent the Hobhouse report from reaching British soil; therefore, ad hominem attacks on Hobhouse were launched to discredit the report. The most remarkable exception in this matter is The Guardian. Concerning the dum-dums, the newspaper backed government statements. Concerning the Boer concentration camps, however, The Guardian was the only British newspaper analysed here that challenged official statements. This could mean that the newspaper had a change of heart as the war progressed, because the case of the Boer concentration camps came to light after the case of the dum-dums. Taking into account that according to Prinsloo, the
Daily News, owned by Cecil Rhodes, was one of the most influential newspapers, the case of the dum-dums proves at the very least that jingoism had a large impact on the objectivity of the journalists working for that newspaper. To conclude, one could state that the overwhelming majority of British newspapers became defenders of government policy and assume that they were characterised by ownership of mass media, apathy, and victim blaming, with The Guardian and the Freeman’s Journal being the only exceptions. Dutch newspapers were mostly dependent on the British system of communication, but, 45
remarkably, this did not seem to affect the two cases analysed here. In both cases, Dutch media proved consistent in their reports, and questionable articles from the United Kingdom were met with great criticism. Letters from Boers were published and, even though not many Boer journalists were active in South Africa, editors managed to distinguish facts from rumours quite well. In the case of the dum-dums, Leeuwarder Courant and Tilburgsche
Courant both proved capable of that. In chapter three, it was shown that the Hobhouse report was the most important document in the concentration camp debate. After it was published, Dutch newspapers took on increasingly activist roles, calling upon their readers to donate money or goods and using stronger terminology to describe the camps. One reason why the report had such a large impact could be that the report confirmed assumptions that the Dutch public already had about the British. After all, since the beginning of the war, the British had been pictured as the Goliath attacking the Boer David. Overall, one could state that Dutch media took on activist roles and that they were not characterised by the ownership of mass media and the apathy theory. Because of the media, the Dutch public took on an active role. As the Boers were not seen as the criminals, no victim blaming took place. Despite the fact that only three American newspapers have been analysed in this thesis, the cases of the dum-dums and the Boer concentration camps have one thing in common: American news media did not take either an outspoken pro-British or pro-Boer stance towards them. There are multiple reasons for this. As has been noted, this was related to British support for the Americans during the Spanish-American War a year earlier. On the other hand, the Boer republics fought a war of independence against the British, like the American themselves had done between 1775 and 1783. This made the United States a battlefield on which pro-Boer and pro-British propagandists fought for influence. As a result, this caused a division of opinions in the newspapers. In both cases, The New York Times proved to be rather neutral. In the case of the dum-dums, a lack of consistency caused the newspaper to publish both pro-Boer and pro-British articles. Finally, in chapter three, it was shown that they were critical of the British, accusing them of mismanaging the camps but still not fully supporting the Boers. The Wall Street Journal and The Washington Post in chapters two and three, respectively, could be characterised as pro-Boer. Both were consistently critical of the British. The American news media and, for a large part, the British media as well show that only reading one particular newspaper could have meant that one 46
ended up with completely different views about the war than a neighbour who read a different one. The theory of apathy cannot be applied to the United States: as in the Netherlands, charities were set up to support the Boer cause. Ownership of media could have played a role, as The New York Times , took an entirely different stance from The
Wall Street Journal and The Washington Post. Victim blaming therefore only took place in The New York Times, and not in the other two newspapers. To conclude, this thesis has tried to provide a comprehensive overview of wartime media during the Second Anglo-Boer War. In addition, it shows that general theories do not always apply to the historical reality, and that relative objectivity in journalism can make the difference between life and death in a wartime scenario.
47
Articles
Chomsky, N., The Responsibility of Intellectuals (1967). Media Reform Coalition, “The elephant in the room: a survey of media ownership and plurality in the United Kingdom” (London, 2014), 1-29. Millar, K., “Mass media, Censorship and the Crisis of Public Apathy” http://www.societyandself.com/mass-media-censorship-and-the-crisis-of-publicapathy.html. Sykes, G.M, Matza, D., Techniques of Neutralization: A Theory of Delinquency, American Sociological Review (1957) 22:6, 664-670. List of attendants at the peace summit in The Hague 1899: http://web.archive.org/web/20070310125343/http://www.pcacpa.org/ENGLISH/CSAI/.
Images Frontpage photo: Bloemfontein prison camp http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5d/The_National_Archives_UK__CO_1069-215-94-Derivative01.jpg Lizzie van Zyl photo: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/ba/LizzieVanZyl.jpg
Literature Bossenbroek, M., De Boerenoorlog (Amsterdam 2012). Hobhouse, E., The Brunt of War and where it fell (London 1902)
To the Committee of the Distress Fund for South African Women and Children (London 1901)
Onthullingen uit de Vrouwenkampen in Zuid-Afrika (Rotterdam 1901). 48
Hoek, K. van, Kruger Days: reminiscences of Dr. W.J. Leyds (London 1939). Kruger, R., Good-bye Dolly Gray: The story of the Boer War (London 1959). Kuitenbrouwer, V., War of Words. Dutch Pro-Boer Propaganda and the South African War (1899–1902) (Amsterdam 2012). Leyds, W.J., Tweede Verzameling (Correspondentie 1899-1900) Deel 1, Tweede band, 306-307, No.318 (The Hague 1930). Martin, A.C., The Concentration Camps 1900-1902 (Durban 1957). Niekerk, L.E. van, Dr. W.J. Leyds as Gesant van die Zuid-Afrikaansche Republiek (Pretoria 1980).
Newspapers British
Daily Mail Ralph, Julian, ‘Through Yankee Eyes: The War as an American sees it’, 01-01-1900, 4. ‘Mauser vs. Lee-Metford’, 11-01-1900, 7. ‘Miss Hobhouse Charges. Did the Pro-Boers weep over the Intombi victims?’, 24-06-1901. ‘Another Pro-Boer fiasco’, 29-06-1901, 3. ‘German Anglophobia. Another campaign against Lord Milner’, 07-12-1901, 5. ‘Mr. Brodrick - Suggest withdrawal of belligerent rights’, 12-12-1901, 5. ‘Miss Hobhouse’s facts’, 04-02-1902, 4. ‘One of our skeletons - Another Pro-Boer camp slander exposed’, 24-01-1902, 5.
Daily News ‘Notes on the War: By our military expert. No news of importance. The Reply to Lord Roberts. The threatened destruction of the mines. The use of luddite and expanding bullets. The moralities of war.’, 21-03-1900.
The Times ‘Dum Dum Bullets’, 12-03-1900, 11. ‘Mr. Courtney on Boer treachery’, 20-03-1900, 7. ‘The War prepared and provoked by MR’, 21-03-1900, 9. Lees Knowles, ‘The Concentration Camps - to the editor of The Times’, 08-08-1901, 5. Victor Sampson, ‘Concentration Camp at Kimberly’ , 27-08-1901, 6.
49
Herbert Vivian Stuart Carey ‘The Concentration Camps - to the editor of The Times’, 1908-1901, 9.
The Observer The Observer correspondents, ‘Continental Views: Position of the United States’, 29-101899, 5. ‘The Concentration Camps Blue Book’, 15-12-1901, 4. ‘The Concentration Camps’, 23-01-1902, 4.
The Manchester Guardian/The Guardian ‘The Fighting: Border position stormed and carried heavy losses on both sides’, 27-111900, 7. ‘The Boers on their successes’, 27-11-1900, 7. ‘Concentration camps: Statistics for September. Appalling death rate’, 19-10-1901, 8. ‘The Concentration Camps - Speech of Sir W. Foster MP’, 26-11-1901, 6. ‘The Concentration Camps - An increasing death-rate’, 30-12-1901, 5. ‘A Boer woman prisoner on the Camps’, 04-01-1902, 9. ‘Miss Hobhouse and the Concentration camps’, 29-01-1902, 9. Irish ‘The Presidential message’, Freeman’s Journal, 06-12-1899. Editorial article, The Irish Times, 10-01-1900, 4. Dutch
Leeuwarder Courant ‘Buitenlandsch overzicht’, 11-10-1899, 1. ‘Feuilleton: De oorlog in Zuid-Afrika’, 8-12-1899. ‘Feuilleton’, 21-12-1899. ‘De “Times” schrijft het mislukken van den uitval toe aan verraad”‘, 08-01-1900. ‘Angst over een paar grote heren die zich te Mafeking bevinden’, 08-01-1900. ‘De Oorlog in Zuid-Afrika’, 10-12-1901.
De Graafschap-bode ‘Ingezonden brief’, 21-10-1899.
De Telegraaf ‘De slag bij Belmont’, 20-12-1899. ‘Buitenland’, 22-06-1901. ‘Engelsche willekeur jegens de boerenvrouwen en kinderen in de gevangenen-kampen’, 15-07-1901. 50
‘Het Rode Kruis in Zuid-Afrika’, 04-02-1902.
De Standaard ‘Buitenlandsch overzicht’, 28-12-1899.
Tilburgsche Courant ‘Militaire beschouwingen’, 30-11-1899.
Nieuwe Tilburgsche Courant ‘De Oorlog in Zuid-Afrika - over sterfte in Bloemfontein’, 22-06-1901. ‘Vrouwenmoord’, 26-06-1901. ‘De Oorlog in Zuid-Afrika’, 22-07-1901, 2.
Algemeen Handelsblad ‘Buitenlandsch overzicht’, 20-06-1901, 1. ‘Buitenlandsch overzicht’, 24-06-1901. ‘De Stelsematige kindermoord’, 14-10-1901.
De Locomotief ‘Het uitgeteerde kind’, 30-08-1901, 1.
Rotterdams Dagblad ‘Engeland en Transvaal’, 27-01-1902, 1. American
The New York Times E. Maynard, ‘A Boer Defender’, 06-11-1899, 6. ‘Plead the Boer cause’ and ‘Says the Boers are cowards’, 22-01-1900, 2. ‘Boer Concentration Camps - Pretoria Pastor Lectures in Chicago on the Conditions in Them - Krueger’s Message to Americans’, 30-07-1901, 2. ‘The Concentration Camps - British Explanation of the High Rate of Mortality in Them’, 16-11-1901, 9. ‘Mortality in British Concentration Camps’, 21-11-1901, 8. ‘Mortality in Boer Camps’, 24-11-1901,6. ‘Topic of the times’, 30-11-1901, 8. ‘Topics of the times’, 11-02-1902, 8. ‘Boer Concentration Camps - Noted French Physician Writes That They Were Not Nearly as Bad as Painted’, 19-11-1902, 8.
The Wall Street Journal ‘Ratifying The Hague Treaty’, 27-12-1899, 6. 51
Schrader, Fred F., ‘Case of the Outlanders: Majority of the men supposed to be aggrieved fighting for the Boers’, 25-01-1900. How Cronjé was defeated’, 25-03-1900, 27.
The Washington Post ‘England’s Conscience Touched’, 20-06-1901, 6. ‘Eleven Reasons Why the World Should Stay England’s Ruthless Hand, 14-10-1901, 10. ‘Who Miss Hobhouse Is’, 08-12-1901, 18. ‘Women are starving: Boer Clergyman Pictures Reconcentration Camps’, 17-03-1902, 2.
52
AUTEURSRECHT