Talk:The River War

Untitled

Making Churchill to look like a PC politicician historical revisionism in the process.

amused at the confused

Rather odd that the quote attributed to Churchill cannot be found within the Gutenberg e-text cited, isn't it? Fine bit of research done here. Tell me, from what neoconniving source was this dogmatic doggerel pasted from?

How long will this remain a valid pointer to an example of wikipedicosus? Y'all are bright, right? Figure it out.

cheers...

I believe the Gutenburg copy is the 1902 print of the book, therefore that quote is not included. The quote is from the 1898 as cited.

Incomplete quote?

The anti-Islam quote in the text is missing a phrase compared with some of the circulated versions. In the fuller version, Churchill's colonial inentions are shown by the words "Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities. Thousands become the brave and loyal soldiers of the Queen; all know how to die; but the influence..." If this is part of the real quote from the books, it is a fairly serious ommission.Billwilson5060 10:29, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes it was missing a clause . Fixed it now. And it was on Mohammedanism , so no need to change that to Islam--CltFn 12:13, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

No, it has not been fixed and appears to be a deliberate corruption of the quote. "Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities." is still missing and "...soldiers of the faith:..." should be "...soldiers of the Queen:..." Anyone repeating the quote as shown will look like a fool! Will someone please correct this ... I do not yet have the necessary tools. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mas064 (talk • contribs) 09:56, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

The original quote can be found at https://archive.org/stream/1899RiverWarVol2/1899%20River%20War%20Vol%202#page/n277/mode/2up . I've made three edits (so far) to keep the Wiki text in step with it. Chuntuk (talk) 07:57, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Make that four edits Chuntuk (talk) 12:51, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

last cavalry charge

Removed reference to this being the last British cavalry charge. Wiki article on calvary charge says that it was actually in 1920 in Turkey. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.65.184.249 (talk) 07:21, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Racism

From the first chapter of the Gutenberg copy of the book (http://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/4/9/4/4943/4943-h/4943-h.htm), on the subject of people of mixed race: "The qualities of mongrels are rarely admirable". There is no way that this statement is anything other than conspicuous racism. A man who writes such things should not be on anybody's list of role models. New Thought (talk) 11:45, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Making a rather longer excerpt from the book it says "

Although the negroes are the more numerous, the Arabs exceed in power. The bravery of the aboriginals is outweighed by the intelligence of the invaders and their superior force of character. During the second century of the Mohammedan era, when the inhabitants of Arabia went forth to conquer the world, one adventurous army struck south. The first pioneers were followed at intervals by continual immigrations of Arabs not only from Arabia but also across the deserts from Egypt and Marocco. The element thus introduced has spread and is spreading throughout the Soudan, as water soaks into a dry sponge. The aboriginals absorbed the invaders they could not repel. The stronger race imposed its customs and language on the negroes. The vigour of their blood sensibly altered the facial appearance of the Soudanese. For more than a thousand years the influence of Mohammedanism, which appears to possess a strange fascination for negroid races, has been permeating the Soudan, and, although ignorance and natural obstacles impede the progress of new ideas, the whole of the black race is gradually adopting the new religion and developing Arab characteristics. In the districts of the north, where the original invaders settled, the evolution is complete, and the Arabs of the Soudan are a race formed by the interbreeding of negro and Arab, and yet distinct from both. In the more remote and inaccessible regions which lie to the south and west the negro race remains as yet unchanged by the Arab influence. And between these extremes every degree of mixture is to be found. In some tribes pure Arabic is spoken, and prior to the rise of the Mahdi the orthodox Moslem faith was practised. In others Arabic has merely modified the ancient dialects, and the Mohammedan religion has been adapted to the older superstitions; but although the gap between the Arab-negro and the negro-pure is thus filled by every intermediate blend, the two races were at an early date quite distinct.

The qualities of mongrels are rarely admirable, and the mixture of the Arab and negro types has produced a debased and cruel breed, more shocking because they are more intelligent than the primitive savages. The stronger race soon began to prey upon the simple aboriginals; some of the Arab tribes were camel-breeders; some were goat-herds; some were Baggaras or cow-herds. But all, without exception, were hunters of men. To the great slave-market at Jedda a continual stream of negro captives has flowed for hundreds of years. The invention of gunpowder and the adoption by the Arabs of firearms facilitated the traffic by placing the ignorant negroes at a further disadvantage. Thus the situation in the Soudan for several centuries may be summed up as follows: The dominant race of Arab invaders was unceasingly spreading its blood, religion, customs, and language among the black aboriginal population, and at the same time it harried and enslaved them.

The state of society that arose out of this may be easily imagined. The warlike Arab tribes fought and brawled among themselves in ceaseless feud and strife. The negroes trembled in apprehension of capture, or rose locally against their oppressors. Occasionally an important Sheikh would effect the combination of many tribes, and a kingdom came into existence—a community consisting of a military class armed with guns and of multitudes of slaves, at once their servants and their merchandise, and sometimes trained as soldiers. The dominion might prosper viciously till it was overthrown by some more powerful league. "

Om the whole it seems to be an attack on conquest and slavery. I see he describes negroes as brave and arabs as intelligent. I suppose those are indeed racist descriptions. Sandpiper (talk) 20:57, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

He was a privileged young man writing at the end of the nineteenth century, with the attitudes of a privileged young man at the end of the nineteenth century. Racist by modern standards, but in line with the thinking of the day. Whether or not that disqualifies him from being a role model is not for Wikipedia to decide.

Chuntuk (talk) 22:32, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

@Chuntuk and Sandpiper: I don't mind any policy, as long as it is coherent. If his racist statements are just part of his era's european casual talk, then why include his quote on Muslims and Islam? That was also a cliché from his era. That quote was truncated, and is still modified and truncated to sound more damning to Muslims on the main Churchill page (see my comment on its talk page). Also, the space the quote takes on a short article about a 1000+ page book is disproportionate. Big neutrality concern here.

Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step, and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science, the science against which it had vainly struggled, the civilization of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilization of ancient Rome."

@Chuntuk and Sandpiper: I understand your concern over perceived racism in a PC world, I will add however that the insight into this viewer's mind, placed in an era 100 years removed from our own, is highly valuable. Not only in observing the improved sensitivity to definitions applied to peoples other than ourselves but what in this case appears to be a highly accurate political and social description of Sudan. A country wracked in war. Churchhill's observations if posing a problem of semantics do reveal the groundwork of the present day turmoil. Peterzabriskie (talk) 19:18, 6 November 2016 (UTC) (talk)

Steamboats

Churchill on Soudan from River War The line of communications from Cairo, the permanent base, to the advanced post at Akasha was 825 miles in length. But of this distance only the section lying south of Assuan could be considered as within the theatre of war. The ordinary broad-gauge railway ran from Cairo to Balliana, where a river base was established. From Balliana to Assuan reinforcements and supplies were forwarded by Messrs. Cook's fleet of steamers, by barges towed by small tugs, and by a number of native sailing craft. A stretch of seven miles of railway avoids the First Cataract, and joins Assuan and Shellal. Above Shellal a second flotilla of gunboats, steamers, barges, and Nile boats was collected to ply between Shellal and Halfa. The military railway ran from Halfa to Sarras. South of Sarras supplies were forwarded by camels. To meet the increased demands of transport, 4,500 camels were purchased in Egypt and forwarded in boats to Assuan, whence they marched via Korosko to the front. The British Government had authorised the construction of the military railway to Akasha, and a special railway battalion was collected at Assuan, through which place sleepers and other material at once began to pass to Sarras. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.7.23.169 (talk) 03:05, 5 February 2011 (UTC) Other unexpected hindrances arose. Sir H. Kitchener had clearly recognised that the railway, equipped as it then was, would be at the best a doubtful means for the continual supply of a large force many miles ahead of it. He therefore organised an auxiliary boat service and passed gyassas and nuggurs [native sailing craft] freely up the Second Cataract. During the summer months, in the Soudan, a strong north wind prevails, which not only drives the sailing-boats up against the stream—sometimes at the rate of twenty miles a day—but also gratefully cools the air. This year, for forty consecutive days, at the critical period of the campaign, the wind blew hot and adverse from the south. The whole auxiliary boat service was thus practically arrested. But in spite of these aggravating obstacles the preparations for the advance were forced onwards, and it soon became necessary for the gunboats and steamers to be brought on to the upper reach of the river.

The Second Cataract has a total descent of sixty feet, and is about nine miles long. For this distance the Nile flows down a rugged stairway formed by successive ledges of black granite. The flood river deeply submerges these steps, and rushes along above them with tremendous force, but with a smooth though swirling surface. As the Nile subsides, the steps begin to show, until the river tumbles violently from ledge to ledge, its whole surface for miles churned to the white foam of broken water, and thickly studded with black rocks. At the Second Cataract, moreover, the only deep channel of the Nile is choked between narrow limits, and the stream struggles furiously between stern walls of rock. These dark gorges present many perils to the navigator. The most formidable, the Bab-el-Kebir, is only thirty-five feet wide. The river here takes a plunge of ten feet in seventy yards, and drops five feet at a single bound. An extensive pool above, formed by the junction of two arms of the river, increases the volume of the water and the force of the stream, so that the 'Gate' constitutes an obstacle of difficulty and danger which might well have been considered insurmountable.

It had been expected that in the beginning of July enough water would be passing down the Second Cataract to enable the gunboats and steamers waiting below to make the passage. Everything depended upon the rise of the river, and in the perversity of circumstances the river this year rose much later and slower than usual. By the middle of August, however, the attempt appeared possible. On the 14th the first gunboat, the Metemma, approached the Cataract. The North Staffordshire Regiment from Gemai, and the 6th and 7th Egyptian Battalions from Kosheh, marched to the 'Gate' to draw the vessel bodily up in spite of the current. The best native pilots had been procured. Colonel Hunter and the naval officers under Commander Colville directed the work. The boat had been carefully prepared for the ordeal. To reduce, by raising the free-board, the risk of swamping, the bows were heightened and strengthened, and stout wooden bulwarks were built running from bow to stern. Guns and ammunition were then removed, and the vessel lightened by every possible means. A strop of wire rope was passed completely round the hull, and to this strong belt the five cables were fastened—two on each side and one at the bow. So steep was the slope of the water that it was found necessary to draw all the fires, and the steamer was thus dependent entirely upon external force. It was luckily possible to obtain a direct pull, for a crag of black rock rose above the surface of the pool opposite the 'Gate.' On this a steel block was fixed, and the hawser was led away at right angles until it reached the east bank, where a smooth stretch of sand afforded a convenient place for the hauling parties. Two thousand men were then set to pull at the cables, yet such was the extraordinary force of the current that, although the actual distance in which these great efforts were necessary was scarcely one hundred yards, the passage of each steamer occupied an hour and a half, and required the most strenuous exertions of the soldiers. No accident, however, occurred, and the six other vessels accomplished the ascent on successive days. In a week the whole flotilla steamed safely in the open water of the upper reach.

The Flotilla: COMMANDER COLVILLE

Gunboats...   Zafir, Tamai, Abu Klea, Metemma, El Teb
Armed Steamers...   Kaibar, Dal, Akasha

Meanwhile the three gunboats—all that now remained of the armed flotilla, for the Teb had run on a rock in the Hannek Cataract—were steaming gradually nearer the enemy, and the army swung to the right, and, forming along the river bank, became spectators of a scene of fascinating interest. At half-past six the Horse battery unlimbered at the water's edge, and began to fire obliquely up and across the river. As soon as the first few shells had reached the Arab entrenchment the whole line of shelter trenches was edged with smoke, and the Dervishes replied with a heavy rifle fire. The distance was, however, too great for their bad rifles and inferior ammunition, and their bullets, although they occasionally struck the ground on which the infantry were drawn up, did not during the day cause any loss to the watching army.

The Dervish position was about half a mile in length. As the gunboats approached the northern end they opened fire with their guns, striking the mud entrenchments at every shot, and driving clouds of dust and splinters into the air. The Maxim guns began to search the parapets, and two companies of the Staffordshire Regiment on board the unarmoured steamers Dal and Akasha fired long-range volleys. Now, as on other occasions throughout the war, the Dervishes by their military behaviour excited the admiration of their enemies. Encouraged by the arrival in the morning of a reinforcement from Omdurman of 1,000 Black Jehadia and 500 spearmen under Abdel Baki, the Dervish gunners stood to their guns and the riflemen to their trenches, and, although suffering severely, maintained a formidable fire.

The gunboats continued to advance, beating up slowly against the strong current. As they came opposite Hafir, where the channel narrows to about 600 yards, they were received by a very heavy fire from guns placed in cleverly screened batteries, and from the riflemen sheltered in deep pits by the water's edge or concealed amid the foliage of the tops of the palm-trees. These aerial skirmishers commanded the decks of the vessels, and the shields of the guns were thus rendered of little protection. All the water round the gunboats was torn into foam by the projectiles. The bullets pattered against their sides, and, except where they were protected by steel plates, penetrated. One shell struck the Abu Klea on the water-line, and entered the magazine. Luckily it did not explode, the Dervishes having forgotten to set the fuse. Three shells struck the Metemma. On board the Tamai, which was leading, Commander Colville was severely wounded in the wrist; Armourer-Sergeant Richardson was killed at his Maxim gun, and on each boat some casualties occurred. So hot was the fire that it was thought doubtful whether to proceed with the bombardment, and the Tamai swung round, and hurried down the river with the current and at full steam to report to the Sirdar. The other gunboats remained in action, and continued to shell the Dervish defences. The Tamai soon returned to the fight, and, steaming again up the river, was immediately hotly re-engaged.

On the 4th of August the gunboats El Teb and Tamai approached the Fourth Cataract to ascend to the Abu Hamed-Berber reach of the river. Major David was in charge of the operation. Lieutenants Hood and Beatty (Royal Navy) commanded the vessels. Two hundred men of the 7th Egyptians were towed in barges to assist in hauling the steamers in the difficult places. The current was, however, too strong, and it was found necessary to leave three barges, containing 160 soldiers, at the foot of the rapids. Nevertheless, as the cataract was not considered a very formidable barrier, Major David determined to make the attempt. Early on the 5th, therefore, the Tamai tried the ascent. About 300 local Shaiggia tribesmen had been collected, and their efforts were directed—or, as the result proved, mis-directed—by those few of the Egyptian soldiers who had not been left behind. The steamer, with her engines working at full speed, succeeded in mounting half the distance. But the rush of water was then so great that her bows were swept round, and, after a narrow escape of capsizing, she was carried swiftly down the stream.

The officers thought that this failure was due to the accidental fouling of a rope at a critical moment, and to the fact that there were not enough local tribesmen pulling at the hawsers. Four hundred more Shaiggia were therefore collected from the neighbouring villages, and in the afternoon the Teb attempted the passage. Her fortunes were far worse than those of the Tamai. Owing to the lack of co-operation and discipline among the local tribesmen, their utter ignorance of what was required of them, and the want of proper supervision, the hauling power was again too weak. Again the bows of the steamer were swept round, and, as the hawsers held, a great rush of water poured over the bulwarks. In ten seconds the Teb heeled over and turned bottom upwards. The hawsers parted under this new strain, and she was swept down stream with only her keel showing. Lieutenant Beatty and most of the crew were thrown, or glad to jump, into the foaming water of the cataract, and, being carried down the river, were picked up below the rapids by the Tamai, which was luckily under steam. Their escape was extraordinary, for of the score who were flung into the water only one Egyptian was drowned. Two other men were, however, missing, and their fate seemed certain. The capsized steamer, swirled along by the current, was jammed about a mile below the cataract between two rocks, where she became a total wreck. Anxious to see if there was any chance of raising her, the officers proceeded in the Tamai to the scene. The bottom of the vessel was just visible above the surface. It was evident to all that her salvage would be a work of months. The officers were about to leave the wreck, when suddenly a knocking was heard within the hull. Tools were brought, a plate was removed, and there emerged, safe and sound from the hold in which they had been thus terribly imprisoned, the second engineer and a stoker. When the rapidity with which the steamer turned upside down, with the engines working, the fires burning, and the boilers full—the darkness, with all the floors become ceilings—the violent inrush of water—the wild career down the stream—are remembered, it will be conceded that the experience of these men was sufficiently remarkable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.7.23.169 (talk) 03:36, 5 February 2011 (UTC) Lastly, there are the gunboats. The reader cannot have any doubts as to the value of these vessels during the war. Never was money better spent on military plant. Now that the river operations are over the gunboats discharge the duties of ordinary steamers; and although they are, of course, expensive machines for goods and passenger traffic, they are by no means inefficient. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.7.23.169 (talk) 03:45, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Johann Hari cite in the Controversial contemporary political usage section

I think we need to remove the reference to Johann Hari's 'Not his finest hour: The dark side of Winston Churchill" criticism as he cannot be trusted following his plagiarism scandal, any objections? Twobells^t@lk 11:12, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Neutrality concerns about this article

Many, when it comes to Western historical leaders, point out that their controversial quotes about race/ethinicity/religion are just a sign of their time, and state that these quotes should not be considered notable nor judged by our standards.

That is ok by me, as long as treatment of all quotes is consistent with this unwritten rule.

Churchill's quote on Muslims and its discussion span two sections, and occupy a good 15% of a wikipedia article dedicated to introduce and discuss a 1000+ page book. That quote has even been previously modified on this article to make it sound more damning to Muslims, and is still modified in a similar fashion on the Churchill main page (see my talk section about it).

If this quote were to be included, other quotes from the book about "negroid races" and "Mongrels" should also be included, to give perspective on Churchill's controversial views on foreign cultures and ethinicities. Many people look up to Churchill as a historical authority figure and role model, and as the article states, the quote has been instrumental to recent anti-Muslim campaigns.

Also, I corrected a sentence in the introduction referring to Ottomans as "non-muslim infidels". Ottomans were Muslims, and referring to them as infidels raises serious neutrality concerns.

Furthermore, and I know this is a tall order: a neutral point of view implies using sources from both sides of the conflict. This article only uses British or Western sources which, especially at Churchill's time, are more lenient and partial towards him and the military invasions of the British empire.

Cafnas (talk) 15:48, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Like it or loathe it, the passages in this book that refer to Islam have been widely used in recent years as various people seek to recruit Churchill to their side of the argument. Frankly, it's probably the most likely reason anybody would have to look up this largely-forgotten book about a largely-forgotten war - so it's something that needs to be addressed in this article. The way that it is addressed is by quoting the most pertinent passage accurately and in full (and defending it from the idiots who insist on changing it to suit their prejudices instead of Churchill's) and letting the reader reach their own conclusions.

On "non-muslim infidels", the old version said the Mahdi "had embarked on a campaign to conquer Egypt, to drive out the non-Muslim infidels". I'd always assumed that the sentence was talking about the British and French and other westerners in Egypt, rather than the Ottomans, but I guess they were all on his hit list. Your revision is clearer.

On NPOV, we should certainly be looking to use non-British or Western sources wherever possible in articles about the war, but this article is about Churchill's book. If there are critical responses to the book from notable sources less friendly to the British side of the story, we should definitely be looking to identify and use them here - but we need to find them first! Chuntuk (talk) 13:13, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

I agree that this is an article about the book, not a general article about the war or about Churchill's attitudes. As long as the article fairly describes what the book says and includes critical commentary from other sources expressing views in the book it does not seem to me to be lacking in neutrality.Mccapra (talk) 05:55, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

According to Template:POV#When_to_remove, the POV template should be removed "in the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant." Since nobody has said anything about this issue for more than three years, I'm going to deem it resolved and remove the template. Chuntuk (talk) 20:50, 26 March 2020 (UTC)