DJ
Master
2,814 posts
3,576
Seen 24th May 2023
Freehawk
26th January 2022, 05:11 PM
Assess the value of Source 1 for revealing information about the military situation in South Africa in 1901 and as evidence for Emily Hobhouse's motivation for going to South Africa.
British peace activist Emily Hobhouse went to South Africa to investigate conditions in the British concentration camps, on behalf of the South African Women and Children’s Distress Fund. Source 1 is a contemporary letter written by Hobhouse on her findings inside these concentration camps. Whilst the thick of the letter was based on the conditions of the camps, Hobhouse inadvertently wrote about the military’s situation at the time. Instead, this excerpt seems to focus on her intentions to better understand and find ways to enhance the standards of the British concentration camps from a humanitarian standpoint. The historian would soon recognise upon reading the passage that there is little to aid an investigation into the military situation in South Africa in 1901.
One of Hobhouse’s most prominent motivations was her humanitarian mission in seeking to deliver relief to the Boer civilians. This is the case as she writes about bringing “£200 worth of groceries, besides all the bales of clothing [she] could muster.” In order to fully understand the gravity of her efforts, £200 in 1901 is about £26,000 in 2022. Such a commitment to the project set out by the South African Women and Children’s Distress Fund demonstrates high value to the historian in understanding Hobhouse’s motivations for going to South Africa. However, when drawing in an external context, this quote which suggests Hobhouse's commitment to the humanitarian cause conflicts with the reality of the groceries she had brought. Ignorantly, Hobhouse mainly provided blankets and other articles of comfort; the concentration camps were riddled with disease and had a squalid environment. This questions the value of the letter in showing the accuracy of Hobhouse’s motivations because she was unable to truly help the Boers that were held captive in concentration camps.
From a professional standpoint, Hobhouse bore the duty of reporting to the Manchester Guardian on what events unfolded in the Boer War. As it was the most significant war that Britain had taken part in for almost half a century, the need for light to be shone on all aspects of the war can be expected to be one of Hobhouse’s motivations for travelling all the way to South Africa. Her duties are corroborated by a quote from her letter: “But I must pass on to tell you about the Women’s Camp, which, after all, is the central point of interest”, where she emphasises upon the need to relay information onto the newspaper outlet - a key motivation for her campaign in South Africa. Although to say that this was a motivation at all is feasible. The fact that she is seen putting her priorities into delivering information “about the Woman’s Camp” may point the historian to believing that this was her main strive for going to South Africa, rather than carrying out her journalism.
In terms of the military situation in South Africa, Hobhouse (albeit unknowingly) picked up on the British adopting a defensive role at this point of the Boer War. The historian can analyse this by drawing upon the quote “Tommies, yawning at their posts” which compels the idea that the British held their ground over fears of the Boer’s ambushing guerilla warfare. Militarily, the source therefore yields some value in helping to paint the scene for the historian in regards to South Africa during the peak of the Boer War. However, to draw such a conclusion over a quote of Hobhouse seeing British soldiers resting at their post is borderline ludicrous. If anything, these soldiers could be enduring long shifts (under challenging conditions in the South African summer) keeping a lookout for any guerilla movement that could potentially kill hundreds of fellow comrades.
Once again, Hobhouse catches onto another piece of work from the British army but without knowing it was something they actually conducted. “The land seemed dead and silent as far as the eye could reach”. This was in fact the scorched earth policy that the army had incorporated in order to make sure that the local population couldn’t aid the Boers with any food or amenities. Arguably, this was the most effective way to keep the Boer’s unconventional strategy of guerilla warfare. Ergo, this encapsulates one of the key aspects of the military situation in 1901. This gives some value to the historian when looking for details about the army’s military tactics. Of course, this is limited by the overwhelming idea of Hobhouse not actually going to South Africa to take note of the military situation. The scorched earth policy would have to be deducted from her taking note of scorched land. Realistically, it could have been the weather - or the Boers. Therefore, there is no precise intent to record military events and this draws away from the value of the source on this front.
It is imperative that the limitations of this source are elaborated upon, in order to capture a verdict of its value to as much of an accurate degree as possible. Hobhouse is a renowned pacifist, which makes it seemingly obvious that she would not prioritise the military situation under any circumstance. Adding onto this, Hobhouse would therefore be subject to some sort of subconscious partiality against combat. As this is a known heuristic of a pacifist, it would risk the overall value of the source for the historian when interpreting the military situation at the time. Furthermore, the fact that this is a letter means that only one point of view is being represented and published in a newspaper for everyone to believe as the most true display of what the conditions were like during the Boer War. Discrepancies arise from this in how valuable the source actually is, because it does not have any other perspectives other than Hobhouse’s.
In light of all this, it can be said that Hobhouse’s source definitely holds value to some extent. In terms of finding a justified conclusion over her motivations for going to South Africa, it can be agreed upon that she went to fight a humanitarian cause; rather than fight a war, something she was strongly against. This brings up the argument that the source holds weak value in figuring out the military situation at the time, because of Hobhouse’s own views and concerns taking priority over such a topic. A lack of versatility therefore negates the overall use of the source, making it considerably limited to having tangible use in only one real topic of debate.
British peace activist Emily Hobhouse went to South Africa to investigate conditions in the British concentration camps, on behalf of the South African Women and Children’s Distress Fund. Source 1 is a contemporary letter written by Hobhouse on her findings inside these concentration camps. Whilst the thick of the letter was based on the conditions of the camps, Hobhouse inadvertently wrote about the military’s situation at the time. Instead, this excerpt seems to focus on her intentions to better understand and find ways to enhance the standards of the British concentration camps from a humanitarian standpoint. The historian would soon recognise upon reading the passage that there is little to aid an investigation into the military situation in South Africa in 1901.
One of Hobhouse’s most prominent motivations was her humanitarian mission in seeking to deliver relief to the Boer civilians. This is the case as she writes about bringing “£200 worth of groceries, besides all the bales of clothing [she] could muster.” In order to fully understand the gravity of her efforts, £200 in 1901 is about £26,000 in 2022. Such a commitment to the project set out by the South African Women and Children’s Distress Fund demonstrates high value to the historian in understanding Hobhouse’s motivations for going to South Africa. However, when drawing in an external context, this quote which suggests Hobhouse's commitment to the humanitarian cause conflicts with the reality of the groceries she had brought. Ignorantly, Hobhouse mainly provided blankets and other articles of comfort; the concentration camps were riddled with disease and had a squalid environment. This questions the value of the letter in showing the accuracy of Hobhouse’s motivations because she was unable to truly help the Boers that were held captive in concentration camps.
From a professional standpoint, Hobhouse bore the duty of reporting to the Manchester Guardian on what events unfolded in the Boer War. As it was the most significant war that Britain had taken part in for almost half a century, the need for light to be shone on all aspects of the war can be expected to be one of Hobhouse’s motivations for travelling all the way to South Africa. Her duties are corroborated by a quote from her letter: “But I must pass on to tell you about the Women’s Camp, which, after all, is the central point of interest”, where she emphasises upon the need to relay information onto the newspaper outlet - a key motivation for her campaign in South Africa. Although to say that this was a motivation at all is feasible. The fact that she is seen putting her priorities into delivering information “about the Woman’s Camp” may point the historian to believing that this was her main strive for going to South Africa, rather than carrying out her journalism.
In terms of the military situation in South Africa, Hobhouse (albeit unknowingly) picked up on the British adopting a defensive role at this point of the Boer War. The historian can analyse this by drawing upon the quote “Tommies, yawning at their posts” which compels the idea that the British held their ground over fears of the Boer’s ambushing guerilla warfare. Militarily, the source therefore yields some value in helping to paint the scene for the historian in regards to South Africa during the peak of the Boer War. However, to draw such a conclusion over a quote of Hobhouse seeing British soldiers resting at their post is borderline ludicrous. If anything, these soldiers could be enduring long shifts (under challenging conditions in the South African summer) keeping a lookout for any guerilla movement that could potentially kill hundreds of fellow comrades.
Once again, Hobhouse catches onto another piece of work from the British army but without knowing it was something they actually conducted. “The land seemed dead and silent as far as the eye could reach”. This was in fact the scorched earth policy that the army had incorporated in order to make sure that the local population couldn’t aid the Boers with any food or amenities. Arguably, this was the most effective way to keep the Boer’s unconventional strategy of guerilla warfare. Ergo, this encapsulates one of the key aspects of the military situation in 1901. This gives some value to the historian when looking for details about the army’s military tactics. Of course, this is limited by the overwhelming idea of Hobhouse not actually going to South Africa to take note of the military situation. The scorched earth policy would have to be deducted from her taking note of scorched land. Realistically, it could have been the weather - or the Boers. Therefore, there is no precise intent to record military events and this draws away from the value of the source on this front.
It is imperative that the limitations of this source are elaborated upon, in order to capture a verdict of its value to as much of an accurate degree as possible. Hobhouse is a renowned pacifist, which makes it seemingly obvious that she would not prioritise the military situation under any circumstance. Adding onto this, Hobhouse would therefore be subject to some sort of subconscious partiality against combat. As this is a known heuristic of a pacifist, it would risk the overall value of the source for the historian when interpreting the military situation at the time. Furthermore, the fact that this is a letter means that only one point of view is being represented and published in a newspaper for everyone to believe as the most true display of what the conditions were like during the Boer War. Discrepancies arise from this in how valuable the source actually is, because it does not have any other perspectives other than Hobhouse’s.
In light of all this, it can be said that Hobhouse’s source definitely holds value to some extent. In terms of finding a justified conclusion over her motivations for going to South Africa, it can be agreed upon that she went to fight a humanitarian cause; rather than fight a war, something she was strongly against. This brings up the argument that the source holds weak value in figuring out the military situation at the time, because of Hobhouse’s own views and concerns taking priority over such a topic. A lack of versatility therefore negates the overall use of the source, making it considerably limited to having tangible use in only one real topic of debate.