Excuses to ignore Ash…

Ever since I dared to challenge the Apartheid-era myths surrounding the Boer War, there have been those on the lunatic fringe who have frantically tried to silence me, dismiss my research, or otherwise ‘cancel’ me. Of course, one would have thought that, if what I said really was such nonsense, all they would have to do is to refute my references, and explain why what I wrote is incorrect… but they never do that, and never can.

Increasingly panic-stricken as their much-cherished myths are shown up to be the National Party propaganda they are, they instead resort to spewing out a few standard excuses to justify ignoring my books, and why they desperately hope everyone else will too:

1. He lives in Britain, and therefore doesn’t have to live with the ‘consequences’ of what he says.
Well, this one is both wrong, and ridiculous. I have lived in South Africa for the last quarter of a century or so, meaning this claim is every bit as factually incorrect as all the other rubbish True Believers spout. Secondly, what sort of cowards are they to worry about the ‘consequences’ of telling the truth? I’ve had death-threats from these knuckle-draggers, but they’ll never stop me from exposing myths.

2. He hates Afrikaners
Again, this one is factually incorrect, and easily disprovable: as noted above, I made the decision (and I am very glad I did) to make my home in South Africa, and, what is more, and this really should be the clincher, I married an Afrikaans lady.
But not only is this excuse patently wrong, it also demonstrates the bizarre mindset of the increasingly frazzled Defenders of the Myth; would someone who wrote a book challenging the ‘Blackadder Goes Forth’ version of the First World War, for example, be accused of only doing so because ‘he hates Germans’?
It is such an entertainingly laughable excuse that it is certainly one of my favourites.

3. He only wants to stir up trouble
On the contrary, it was the Apartheid-era myths (you know, the ones they love) which were created to stir up trouble, to make English-speaking South Africans / Britons feel ashamed, and to excuse anything and everything the National Party did.
Surely, by telling the truth, and exposing the ludicrous myths about ‘genocide’, for example, I am actually lessening division. Besides, what rational person with a genuine interest in history would be opposed to someone telling the truth, even if it ruffles the feathers of a few sensitive souls? And if they think I am wrong on a certain point, then why not challenge my references, rather than desperately trying to ‘cancel’ me?

4. He is not a ‘serious’ historian
Perhaps the funniest of the lot, given that, in recognition of my research and writing on the Boer War, I was elected as a Fellow of the Royal Historical Society. How many of the True Believers out there can say that, one wonders? Incidentally, after the release of my Boer War Atlas, I was also elected as a Fellow of the Royal Geographical Society, so I think my academic credentials speak for themselves.
Of course, what they actually mean by ‘serious’ is: ‘supports the self-pitying myths we love’.

Which brings us to the real reason they want to ignore / cancel / stifle / freeze me out of the discussion:

I say things that they don’t like to hear, which shatter their comforting, self-serving, National Party myths, and which they are utterly unable to refute.

Simple as that.