[benj111]

I'm not really sure colonialism and morality really go together full stop, but that may be me projecting my modern morality where it doesn't belong, its entirely possible the average Victorian thought they were doing good, by bringing 'civilisation' to the 'savages'.

But then this isnt classic colonialism either, the Dutch Boers weren't exactly there first. This is one set of colonisers fighting another, so on one level, singling it out as immoral betrays a certain kind of bias. Yes the British invented the concentration camp to lock up the Boers, but what were they doing to the Zulus when they were at war with them?

[SideburnsOfDoom]

> but what were they doing to the Zulus when they were at war with them?

Proving that guns beat spears, no matter how many spearmen you have.

it took 2 goes, though

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Isandlwana

[benj111]

That was quite a famous defeat for the British, so it kind of undermines your point.

Are you making reference to Roukes Drift? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Rorke%27s_Drift

That's what the film Zulu is based on. They followed on from one another, and on the same day, they're generally considered to be 2 separate actions though.

Also on the subject of British defeats, there's Gate Pah in New Zealand https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tauranga_campaign

And the 1st Afghan War. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Anglo-Afghan_War

Anyway I wasn't even thinking about what they did in battle, I was think about how they treated the civilians, how they treated them after the war, how they treated prisoners. The Boers got off lightly, they got some (all?) of their land back after a relatively short period, the Zulus didn't.

[SideburnsOfDoom]

> They followed on from one another, and on the same day, they're generally considered to be 2 separate actions though.

Yes, that's point that it "took 2 goes".