Jump to content

Brutality in the Desert


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 144
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I have the distinct impression that my point is being lost so here is a final attempt.

There is a modern context to the original word "japie" with derivitives being "yarpie" (which lexigraphicaly could even be a new word) and you will find most antipodeans do not use this as derogatory and ironically most young South Africans will not even know what the word means smile.gif

Then there is a historical contetx (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/yarpie) dating back as far as to the Anglo-Boer war and WWII when the term "Japie" WAS definately derogotary. The word "plaas japie" was even used as a derogary word BETWEEN South Africans. I hope this makes it clear to you Stalin's Organist?

Now as to my original point, I leave it up to you to read the post by JonS and make up your own mind as to how he intended to use the word given the historical context explained above.

McIvan - Nope, sorry to dissapoint, my original post was not mildy histerical and in search of a target. The post was directly targeted to a specific person in reaction to IMHO a mediocre, ill-informed and off topic post that had a malicious whiff to it. I merely called him out and tried to get his answer (and not all the other well intentioned but misguided replies)

I will contain my histeria and take your parting remarks and partisanship my stride my friend smile.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I love about this forum is I have learned how to offend people all over the world in a myriad of ways!

I can use the term Nazi/Soviet/Swede apologist (that really gets their goat!) and now I have the "J" word?

But seriously, since I am a poor "Yank" from Southern California (where most people don't even really know what a Yank is..) I would be curious to hear from members from around the globe as to what terms really are insulting and which are friendly. :confused:

Yank is friendly unless you're from the Southern US, but my southern cousins would not be offended if someone from across the pond said 'Yank' because they know it means US American, not Yankee. (My in-laws are from Tennessee and Connecticut, we have some intersting family discussions). But to be honest I don't really know how 'Kiwi' sounds to a New Zealander. Is it condescending? I'm pretty sure 'Aussie' is okay because its also a brand name. My Canadian friend doesn't seem to mind 'Canuck' or 'Hoser' but he draws the line at 'drooling neanderthal'. tongue.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It must be remembered that when they spoke of the North African Campaign as being a "nobler war" they refered to the amount of civillian/collateral damage, being less than had previously been witnessed in Europe for instance.Plus, the sun does funny things to ya brain.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by highliner:

It must be remembered that when they spoke of the North African Campaign as being a "nobler war" they refered to the amount of civillian/collateral damage, being less than had previously been witnessed in Europe for instance.

Thre are a couple of possible reasons for this.

firstly there jsut weren't that many people in teh area.

Secondly they weer "only" the natives, and whether we like it or not 65 years ago your average European didn't have much regard for the natives.

And neither did we colonials - there's a pamphlet from WW1 for NZ soldiers in Egypt tellign them that they should not think of the natives there as being as "good" as Maori.....I'm pretty sure attitudes in WW2 were pretty similar.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well there was quite alot of Italian colonists in North Africa and Benghazi was on the receiving end of over 1000 bombing raids in 2 years ... one of the most bombed places of the war iirc.

So there we go ... its was completly inhumane in North Africa.

[ June 15, 2007, 04:33 AM: Message edited by: the_enigma ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

WAVELL`S 30,000

Western Desert December 1940/Febuary 1941

In a short and memorable campaign, the British defeated the Italians in Egypt, Lybia and Cyrenaica....As it was happening, it was transformed into a legend.

The campaign was unique of its kind, in that it was fought in a virtually empty but well-defined arena. It was pure theoretical war-game soldiering.....Nothing like it had happened before in modern history but it offered a classic example- unhappily not yet followed- of nations fighting a war without making it total. If ever limited war was shown to be practical, in modern terms and with modern weapons, it was

in the Western Desert. (John Connell, 1909-65)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I suggest reading "War Without Hate: The Desert Campaign of 1940-43."

A really great read. Right on the cover an injured German soldier offers an injured Brit a light smile.gif . I think in this theatre of war, each side treated each other truly as human beings.

There also some great accounts such as one where a British and German soldier huddled in a trench together through a heavy artillery bombardment. They talked about their families back home and such.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've been away, and didn't realise this thread had risen like a pheonix.

Originally posted by kovan:

There is a modern context to the original word "japie" with derivitives being "yarpie" ... and you will find most antipodeans do not use this as derogatory

If it ain't derogatory, what is your problem?

... I leave it up to you to read the post by JonS and make up your own mind as to how he intended to use the word ...
Or you could ask him. He'd probably say "mildly derogatory". Like "pom", "yank" (esp to a southener), "redneck", or "dingo". Also used in a generally inclusive manner to refer to all white South Africans.

The post was directly targeted to a specific person in reaction to IMHO a mediocre, ill-informed and off topic post that had a malicious whiff to it.
Mediocre, ill-informed, off topic, and malicious huh?

Correcting someones misconceptions is off topic?

Correcting someones mistaken ideas about a battle is mediocre?

What do you think was mediocre, ill-informed, off topic, and malicious about my post. Perhaps you think I'm casting aspersions on the fighting prowess of the Yar... Glorious South Africans. Too bad. I stand by all of it.

* 5(SA)Bde did fight well on 23 Nov, but they were out of position, and leaving open one side of the box probably wasn't the smartest way to deploy in a fluid situation.

* 5(SA)Bde did not fight 'to the last man', unless that now means 'to the last man surrendered'.

* The Germans did suffer pretty badly.

* Pienaar was notably cautious thereafter, which contributed directly to the damage suffered by 2(NZ)Div at Sidi Rezegh on 1 Dec.

Do you specifically disagree with any of that? If so, what?

[ June 18, 2007, 09:24 PM: Message edited by: JonS ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...