children of war,right or wrong?

mehar...seen by who mate..its semantics..a concentration camp either is or isnt.. the invention actually goes back a lot further...semantics..brits at agincourt days..indian reservations i suppose were holiday camps. but we are off topic..im not after defending anyone..as a child of anglo indian raj..why would i...i do like facts over much quoted fables though.

 

rant all you want, british did it before germans and still were bigest colonial empire. Or they thought you otherwise,
my dear friend ?

 

i see no rant from my quarter old chap..just a request for facts. if you wish to blow smoke and parade mirrors as an argument then i for one wont stop you. Facts are generally best in debates rather than drawing tangents and accusing others of rants..i suggest you re read your own posts here as a example of such. i dont though hold my breath.

 

The new fellow does seem to go off on tangents it appears, this was originally a thread concerning "children in war" as I recall.

There were other posts which brought up "camps" and "inhumane" weapons on their periphery, but that shouldn't have turned the entire thread in those directions.

 

Really? I knew the Spanish had used the term reconcentration camp but not the term concentration camp itself. The original purpose of the Spanish camps was to keep the civillian population safe was it not? But due to lack of care the conditions within the camp were far from satisfactory. Or was that a different Spanish conflict I am thinking of?

When it came to the Boers the original purpose of the camps were to provide a safe haven for Boers who were displaced by the fighting. However the conditions in the camp after Kitchner took command with the Scorched Earth policy have been the point of much controversy.

Anyway my original points in this thread were that the concentration camp origin itself is disputed although the first use of such camps in the 20th century is a bit more clear cut yet still controversial.

urqh: I should have clarified what I meant by modern, by modern I meant the 20th century. No fables here, just controversial facts.

 

The term "camp" wasn't used, but they were "towns" into which the insurectionists had to move within a given time period or be shot on sight. Not to be kept safe, or for their "own protection", but to control the populace involved in the uprisings.

That site I posted has a better explaination of the whole system, and it was in the pre Spanish-American War period (1895-1898) while the Cubans were attempting to overthrow their Spanish overlords.

President U.S. Grant had even proposed going to the aid of the Cuban people calling the Spanish colony something like; "the last bastion of legal slavery." He was wrong in that term, but he saw it as an extension of our own emancipation proclaimation and our duty somehow.

He could never rally enough support for the idea though, and the Cuban fight for independence just dragged on and on until 1898. We (America) didn't really fulfill that ideal either in the long run.

 

To far ff topic once again, since a warning has already been given, it is now time to close for a few days.