Carla-Jean Stokes says No

Back in 2014, The Canadian Press obtained records outlining concerns bureaucrats raised to the Conservative government about its efforts to commemorate the 110th anniversary of the end of the Boer War two years earlier. The deliberations noted the “sensitive” nature of several aspects of the conflict.

The 1899-1902 war was waged in South Africa between colonial British Imperial forces and Afrikaners, or Boers, white settlers of Dutch, German and French origin who first arrived in the region in the 17th century. Put simply, it was a struggle over diamond and gold resources. At stake? Boer political and cultural independence in the face of British economic imperialism.

The Empire was at its zenith at the turn of the 20th century, and there was a prevailing belief that its influence was threatened—and that subjects of its dominions should play a role in its defence. Historians have noted that loyalty to the Empire was relatively high at the time, and there would have been much less enthusiasm for an overseas war in the preceding decades. In Canada, the confluence of values related to imperialism, religion and social Darwinism created a fervour among many English-speaking Canadians to join the conflict. And while today commemoration of the war is up for debate, support for overseas conflicts has never been universal, and it was certainly politically divisive then.

Efforts to pay tribute to the Boer War remind us that commemoration and education are two different endeavours.

The 2012 commemoration of the Boer War was considered problematic because of the conflict’s troubling legacy, which stretches beyond linguistic and political divides in Canada. Viewed through a colonial lens, for instance, many ignore, or forget, that the territories of South Africa were already inhabited by Black Africans—an estimated 7,000-20,000 of whom were killed during the war. And, as Afrikaner troops turned to guerrilla tactics later in the conflict, British forces responded with a scorched earth policy, destroying Boer farms and forcing women and children into concentration camps. Some 18,000-28,000 Boers died in the facilities—many of whom were children.

Efforts to pay tribute to the Boer War remind us that commemoration and education are two different endeavours; the former is an emotional process, while the latter is a critical examination of the past.

Canada achieved several significant milestones during the conflict: the country’s first overseas force; the emergence of women’s involvement in what would become the Canadian Army Medical Corps; and the first Canadian soldier killed in action overseas. But there are also so many troubling elements that demand thought as opposed to mere celebration.

For this reason, the Boer War is rich in research avenues that should be explored but, to do justice to Canada’s history, Canadians should move beyond commemoration to confront the war’s uncomfortable truths, leaving nothing aside.

Alex Bowers says Yes

On Nov. 11, 2018, numerous countries around the world commemorated 100 years since the First World War armistice. Less than a decade earlier, in 2009, the passing of British veteran Harry Patch—dubbed the “Last Fighting Tommy”—likewise sparked sombre moments of reflection.

Both milestones carried an underlying theme of memory, the passing of batons from soldiers’ first-hand recollections to historians’ often second-hand retellings. Equally, however, both milestones brought an element of debate: should we continue marking the war in the same way a century later?

Any arguments against doing so were quickly refuted once the profound impact of the Great War, coupled with its prevailing implications within modern society, were acknowledged. In the process, the oft-paraphrased words of George Santayana rang through countless heads, that “those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”

The phrase, now bordering on cliché, was never truer than in public discourse—or lack thereof—surrounding the Boer War. A conflict long mired in controversy, Canada’s role will forever be interwoven with the atrocities that now, rightly, characterize the Empire’s three-year struggle for dominance, greed and imperialism.

British forces, including Canada, were, some would argue, the bad guys, or at least that’s how it would be perceived according to today’s standards. Indeed, both main belligerents—Britain and the Boer republics—laid claim to what were Indigenous lands.

The country can acknowledge its shortcomings, all in the name of the British Empire, through the very act of remembrance.

If Canada is perceived to be on the side of the bad guys, should that not serve as the impetus for more, not less, observance? Commemoration is not a synonym for celebration. The country can acknowledge its shortcomings, all in the name of the British Empire, through the very act of remembrance.

Context, of course, is critical. At the war’s outset, Canada was barely 30 years old with a population of some five million—a high proportion of whom boasted British ancestry when support for the so-called mother country was expected among anglophones. The Boer War also posed an opportunity to forge a Canadian identity on the world stage.

Yet there’s another facet of this discussion, too, one that transcends the colonial attitudes of a bygone era. In my office, there hangs a framed poster representing the Canadian contribution to the Boer War. It depicts a woman weeping over the Canadian Red Ensign, while a steamship sails for faraway shores in the background. It is, of course, overtly imperialistic, romanticizing Canadian loss on the Veldt.

It’s not that which draws the eye, though. Beneath the draped flag are the words “In Memoriam” and the names of the Canadian dead are listed row by row. It’s a reminder that if it’s deemed unsuitable to commemorate a war, we must still remember those caught in its wake.