Is this at the Battle of Isandhlwana where Zulus killed over 1,000 British men, who they caught far from home?
The boys in red were only there as they had been ordered by an imperialist elite to act as foreign invaders in another people's land for a pittance. Meanwhile their wives and children were probably living in poverty and squalor back in blighty.
You might not be thinking of Isandhlwana as it happened on the same day as Rorke's drift.
For some reason, certain people prefer to not know about the full picture of events that day January 22nd 1879.
The battle of Isandlwana stunned the western imperialist world as it was considered unthinkable that a ‘native’ army armed substantially with stabbing weapons could defeat modern well-equipped troops of a western power armed with modern rifles and artillery, let alone wipe it out.
You appear to want to glorify the sacrifice of the British lower classes who died for the selfish interests of a wealthy elite. I instead want to understand history without it being clouded by jingoistic patriotism that presents military invasion and oppression as something glorious.
Especially when the whole reason Britain has had an influx of the very people you harbour a racist aversion to is PRECISELY because of the centuries of British imperialist conquest.
Why do you think 'native' people from the ex-British Empire were granted British citizenship? People from Uganda, Rodesia/Zimbabwe, the West Indies, the Caribbean, Pakistan, Bangladesh, India, etc?
Who profited? Who benefited?
...the opposition in England is really always the same, for on all essential matters in which the opposition has to make itself felt, the parties are always in agreement. They have one and the same conviction and through the medium of the press, mould public opinion along corresponding lines.
One might well believe that in these countries of liberty and riches, the people must possess an unlimited degree of prosperity. But no! On the contrary, it is precisely in these countries that the distress of the masses is greater than anywhere else. Such is the case in 'rich Britain'.
She controls sixteen million square miles. In India, for example, a hundred million colonial workers with a wretched standard of living must labour for her. One might think, perhaps, that at least in England itself every person must have his share of these riches. By no means! In that country class distinction is the crassest imaginable. There is poverty - incredible poverty - on the one side, and equally incredible wealth on the other. They have not solved a single problem. The workmen of that country which possesses more than one-sixth of the globe and of the world's natural resources dwell in misery, and the masses of the people are poorly clad.. In a country which ought to have more than enough bread and every sort of fruit, we find millions of the lower classes who have not even enough to fill their stomachs, and go about hungry. A nation which could provide work for the whole world must acknowledge the fact that it cannot even abolish unemployment at home. For decades this rich Britain has had two and a half million unemployed;
I wish to put before you a few basic facts: The first is that in the capitalistic democratic world the most important principle of economy is that the people exist for trade and industry, and that these in turn exist for capital. We have reversed this principle by making capital exist for trade and industry, and trade and industry exist for the people. In other words, the people come first. Everything else is but a means to this end. When an economic system is not capable of feeding and clothing a people, then it is bad, regardless of whether a few hundred people say: 'As far as I am concerned it is good, excellent; my dividends are splendid.'
However, the dividends do not interest me at all. Here we have drawn the line. They may then retort: 'Well, look here, that is just what we mean. You jeopardize liberty.'
Yes, certainly, we jeopardize the liberty to profiteer at the expense of the community, and, if necessary, we even abolish it. British capitalists, to mention only one instance, can pocket dividends of 76, 80, 95, 140, and even 160 per cent from their armament industry.
They can see exactly how our nation has been reconstructed. You see it clearly. For instance, there we see a state ruled by a numerically small upper class. They send their sons to their own schools, to Eton. We have Adolf Hitler schools or national political educational establishments. On the one hand, the sons of plutocrats, financial magnates; on the other, the children of the people. Etonians and Harrovians exclusively in leading positions over there; in this country, men of the people in charge of the State.
~~ Adolf Hitler's Speech to the Workers of Berlin — 10th December 1940