How's FOTR doing?

http://www.timeslive.co.za/thetimes/201 ... ath-stolen" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
The article linked to dates from May 2015, and paintts a prety grim picture. Anybody got a reponnse (John?) (Pardon my broken English.)

Thanks, Philip. Yes, sleeper and even rail theft is a fact of life in South Africa, especially from little used branch lines. But FOTR is still going strong. I haven't been down there since last year, but I'm in regular touch with the blokes there and I still administer the Friends of the Rail Forum. There's a recent newspaper article about one of our trains here.

That's a nice article you posted, John. So Churchill got away from Jan Christian Smutz, or which ever Boer was after him, stashed in a goods train. The Boers probably figured the smoke from his cigar was clag. Sorry; I'm a wise guy.

philipmartin wrote:That's a nice article you posted, John. So Churchill got away from Jan Christian Smutz, or which ever Boer was after him, stashed in a goods train. The Boers probably figured the smoke from his cigar was clag. Sorry; I'm a wise guy.

When Churchill was young he had an adventurous career, including some military service in the frontier of British India, and travelling as a journalist in Southern Africa. He was also present in the military campaigns in Sudan which expelled the Mahdi and established British rule there.

Thanks, George. Yes, Churchill was at the Battle of Omdurman and took part in the famous charge of the 21st Lancers, often touted as one of the last full-scale cavalry charges of the British Army. If I recall correctly, out of a total of around 28 British dead in the whole battle, 22 died in that single charge. Between ten and twenty thousand Sudanese died, a testament to the use of state-of-the-art weaponry (smokeless powder, machine guns and armoured warships) by the British and Egyptian forces. Note that it was not "British rule" that was subsequently established, it was Anglo-Egyptian Condominium rule, although Britain was the dominant partner, at least until the Egyptian nationalist 23 July Revolution in 1952.

Thirty-odd years ago I got a guided tour of the battlefield from the colonel commanding the British Army Training Team in Khartoum. We stood on a hill overlooking the battle scene while he described it all in great detail, and walked down to the gully where the 21st Lancers met their match. Being able to see the lie of the land made it all more real.

If anyone is interested in reading a different angle on the battle from the normal British victory-and-glory versions, there's a very good account by a Sudanese historian, ʿIṣmat Ḥasan Zilfū, called Karari : the Sudanese account of the battle of Omdurman. Karari is what the Sudanese call that battle. The book is out of print but is probably still available online from out-of-print booksellers.

Philip, as George says, Churchill was a bit of an adventurer in his youth (arguably also in his later years). In both Sudan and South Africa he was a war correspondent, although at least in Sudan he did hold a commission and was attached to the Lancers:

As soon as he could, Churchill charged off to take his part in "a lot of jolly little wars against barbarous peoples"... He gladly took part in raids that laid waste to whole valleys, destroying houses and burning crops. He then sped off to help reconquer the Sudan, where he bragged that he personally shot at least three "savages". The young Churchill charged through imperial atrocities, defending each in turn... Later, he boasted of his experiences there: "That was before war degenerated. It was great fun galloping about."

(The Independent)

Incidentally, the Boer general who captured him was Louis Botha, I believe.

I love history, and find George and John's posts above very interesting, although I might take the "Independent" article with a grain of salt. I understand that it was Lord Kitchener who set up the concentration camps in South Africa.

Not sure why you would treat the Independent article with a grain of salt. For one thing, it is a very respectable UK newspaper, probably the only truly centrist and relatively independent one. The text in inverted commas represents actual quotes from Churchill himself.

Churchill is, of course, a British hero due to his World War II leadership, but people are not unaware of his flaws, including Gallipoli during World War I, his second term as Prime Minister in the 1950s, racism and alcoholism. While nobody denies his unique role in leading Britain during those dark days, his handling of the war is not without criticism either. Like his opponent, Hitler, he interfered atrociously with the details of running the war by his professional generals. He was a leading proponent of the carpet-bombing of civilians, now widely acknowledged as a war crime, and criticised by Roosevelt until the USA found itself at war too. All of us are flawed. On BBC this morning Churchill's name popped up, with the presenter noting that he is "revered" in the USA but "reviled" in the Indian sub-continent.

So when a slightly more balanced review of his life and achievements is presented, I would tend not to automatically treat it with a grain of salt.

johnthefireman wrote:Not sure why you would treat the Independent article with a grain of salt.

The emotive language, for instance "a Britain that was...washing distant nations blood red." Persuasion through emotion.
The denial of reality- "the superior white man was conquering the primitive, dark-skinned natives, and bringing them the benefits of civilisation." Isn't this what actually happened; which is not to deny that there were and are some intelligent and able men of native African stock.
I would be the last to deny that the US and Britain committed atrocities during WWII, as for instance Dresden, Hiroshima, Nagasaki; sending Eastern European refugees back to Stalin to murder in "Operation Keelhaul."

philipmartin wrote: "the superior white man was conquering the primitive, dark-skinned natives, and bringing them the benefits of civilisation." Isn't this what actually happened

No, it's not. It brought them the benefits of slavery and of economic exploitation by those who had the superior weapons.

It brought them the benefits of slavery and of economic exploitation by those who had the superior weapons.

What did Africa look like before Europeans arrived?

philipmartin wrote:What did Africa look like before Europeans arrived?

A meaningless question. Nobody denies that Africa has changed over the last few hundred years. Britain, France, Belgium, the Netherlands, Germany, Portugal, Italy and other former colonial powers today do not look like they did when they began their colonial adventures. The world has developed.

But anyone who thinks that the colonial project was a well-intentioned effort to bring "the benefits of civilisation" to the "primitive dark-skinned natives", perhaps admitting a few unfortunate excesses, is very much mistaken. I would suggest reading King Leopold's Ghost by Adam Hochschild as a primer on colonialism. It describes a particular case, the then Belgian Congo (later Zaire and now Democratic Republic of Congo), but the principle is the same elsewhere. I can't remember whether the book reaches the 1960s, when western intelligence services assassinated Patrice Lumumba (one of the "some intelligent and able men of native African stock" you refer to in an earlier post) and installed a brutal dictatorship which they supported for decades in order to continue exploiting Congo's minerals.

Moderator, I hope this is not construed as politics; you have often said that you leave some leeway so that people can understand the context in which we discuss railways. I think Africa is often misunderstood, and this is one attempt to clarify some of those misunderstandings.

Obvious truisms: "Nobody denies that Africa has changed over the last few hundred years." Because Europeans changed it, building cities, railways, mines, etc. "former colonial powers today do not look like they did when they began their colonial adventures." Twelfth Century Europe was not on a par with Twelfth Century Africa.
Colonial powers exploited undeveloped countries for their own benefit, and incidentally bequeathed the benefits of civilization on the primitive people.

philipmartin wrote:Europeans changed it, building cities, railways, mines, etc... Colonial powers exploited undeveloped countries for their own benefit, and incidentally bequeathed the benefits of civilization on the primitive people.

The railways were built solely for the purpose of exploiting the natural resources. One of the reasons railways in modern African nations are so under-used is that they do not serve the needs of a nation, only of a colonial power seeking to extract resources. The mines are hardly an argument for development; cf Congo again, or the forced migration of labour in apartheid South Africa. Cities were built where they suited the colonialists, not necessarily where the best place for a city would be; Nairobi is a prime example, built on a swamp simply because it was the halfway mark on the British railway to Lake Victoria.

When you live here, it's very difficult to see what were the "benefits of civilisation" "bequeathed" to Africa by the colonists. The stripping of its human resources as slaves for centuries? The first genocide of the 20th century, against the Herero people in Namibia? All the other massive human rights abuses perpetrated by colonists? The concentration camps which you yourself mention? The wholesale and rapid destruction of established governments, cultures, values and norms, rather than the more gradual evolution which would have ensued through trade and other connections if European powers had not invaded the continent and conquered it militarily? The imposition of artificial national boundaries which are still causing conflict? The divide and rule policies which largely created tribalism? Colonial and neo-colonial support for the most brutal dictators? The assassination or otherwise disabling of democratically-minded leaders in order to continue exploiting Africa's riches? The proxy wars fomented by the two superpowers during the Cold War? The resistance by western powers to efforts to bring freedom to Africa, leading to long and bitter anti-colonial struggles, during which the colonial powers committed more war crimes, and which ultimately led to so much suffering, destruction and trauma that it is hardly surprising that it has been difficult for healthy governments to emerge? Democracy? Colonised nations never saw democracy, simply an unelected governor-general who ruled by military force with no consultation with nor participation of the people.

True, there were a few practical positive spin-offs, but when you compare them with the negative legacy bequeathed to the nation by the colonists and with the price paid by the local people for that legacy, I'm afraid your view of colonialism appears to be through very rose-tinted spectacles.

Edited to add: On reflection, I think what I'm pointing out is that invasion, conquest and colonial exploitation is not the only way that nations have accessed "modernity", nor is it the best way, given its human cost. Virtually all the world currently has access to modernity, including countries that were never colonised by Europeans. Africa would still be part of the modern globalised world, but without all the baggage of colonialism.

"I'm afraid your view of colonialism appears to be through very rose-tinted spectacles." You are right about my view of colonialism in Africa, John. Its certainly is rose tinted, when I see all the good that the colonists did; but not "very" rose tinted. That might be too close to red.

Just so the moderator doesn't think that we are off topic, here's a video of FOTR in 2011 creating a lot of steam, on those rails put in to enrich those colonists rather than serving the natives. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n83C_ZtfzPY" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

And so that the moderator will know that I am off topic, here's a video of the Welsh Highland Railway in 2013, no doubt built to enrich the mine owners, and not the Welsh public, who have stout legs, and therefore can walk. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RZEgBEEKMTI" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

philipmartin wrote:here's a video of FOTR in 2011 creating a lot of steam, on those rails put in to enrich those colonists rather than serving the natives

Well yes, that's why the rails were put in in the first place.

But those are impressive clips from Aidan, showing our 19D and 24 classes performing on various parts of the depot at Capital Park on what must have been a cold day. Note the milk wagon, a rare survivor from before the era of refrigeration, with water tanks on the roof which drip water into hollow walls filled with charcoal to keep the milk cool.