Decolonization: The End of Empire? - Professor Richard J. Evans
Вставка
- Опубліковано 29 вер 2024
- European empires, re-divided after the defeat of Germany in 1918, continued to expand after the First World War, reaching their greatest extent in the early 1940s. The imperial ambitions of Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany created new empires that turned out to be very short-lived. With the emergence of the Cold War came a bipolar world dominated by two anti-colonial powers, the USA and USSR. Nationalism in the colonies grew apace, spurred by the loss of imperial legitimacy through the genocidal rule of Nazi Germany in Eastern Europe. Other European powers now began to feel that empire was unjustifiable following an immensely costly war that ended with human rights being enshrined in the United Nations Charter. Japanese rule over many European colonies in the Pacific severed ties with the imperial power and destroyed the legitimacy of empire. Once one major colony, such as India, gained independence, the momentum for others to follow became unstoppable. The lecture concludes by examining the legacy of empire in a post-colonial world. Have we escaped its influence or is it still with us?
The transcript and downloadable versions of the lecture are available from the Gresham College website:
www.gresham.ac....
Gresham College has offered free public lectures for over 400 years, thanks to the generosity of our supporters. There are currently over 2,500 lectures free to access. We believe that everyone should have the opportunity to learn from some of the greatest minds. To support Gresham's mission, please consider making a donation: gresham.ac.uk/...
We are sorry that your comment was removed or marked as spam, but it was not us who brought this about.
Gresham College does not remove comments from our videos as we believe that free and open discussion is an essential part of disseminating knowledge and learning through these lectures. (However, we reserve the right to remove comments which are inappropriately offensive or irrelevant to the video).
We encourage you to re-post whatever it was that you posted earlier.
Under the British Raj, India suffered countless famines. The first of these was in 1770, followed by severe ones in 1783, 1866, 1873, 1892, 1897 and lastly 1943-44.
When the British took control they raised taxes from 15% under the Monguls to 50% severely hitting reserves in case of crop failure which were common. The taxes went up to 65% prolonging the famine by a few years
Can you give me evidence of this tax rise ?
Thank you, Gresham College, for giving me the gift of knowledge, the gift of seeds of wisdom. The epitome of the infomercial, you very well advertise your product in this manner, while raising the world standard of home education. Professor Evans is a formidable presenter and collator of data crucial to understanding the dichotomy of today's pogroms and passions.
6:49 Dien Bien Phu was lost in 1954, not 1944.
Superb lecture
I am rather surprised at no mention of Ireland. It was treated as a colony of England for a very long time. This can be shown by various restrictions on trade in and out of the country depending on whatever suited English interests. Foir detailed study see 'Old World Colony' by David Dickson of TCD. Ireland too had to fight for its(partial) independence.
Irish independance (though tecnically it was only dominion status) came in 1922 when the European Empires were still very dominant and the lecture is about the end of empire. No one in 1922 foresaw the end of empire though I would agree that the Irish rebellion and subsequent independance was in many ways the begining of the end for the British Empire.
but it was not a colony it was treated as an extension of Great Britain. The laws against Catholics were the exact same in England
@@JohnJohnson-qm3mr Actually, it was treated as a subordinate kingdom from the reign of Henry VIII in the 16th Century until the Act of Union in 1800 which abolished the Irish Parliament and incorporated Ireland into the United Kingdom. Under Poynings' Law, legislative initiative was solely in the hands of the Crown (individual members were not permitted to make proposals of their own); and unlike in England or Scotland, there was no limit on the length of Parliament, which meant that a favorable Parliament could be and normally was kept going for decades.
And after the disenfranchisement of Catholics (most of the population), Irish politics were dominated by absentee landlords and local residents (even rich ones) had little voice.
Probably because English control of Ireland began in the 12th Century, long before European colonization began elsewhere; and by the start of the period covered by this lecture, Ireland was an integral part of the UK and local residents were fully enfranchised.
Would be interesting to see how many Irish people actively participated in running the empire, whether in the military, administration, through emigration or as missionaries. The Scots undoubtedly benefited as active participants in colonial rule. The only immediate Irish example I can think of as a governor was Ambrose O'Higgins from Ballynary, County Sligo. He became Viceroy of Peru while it was still a colony of Spain.
This is great, but I would also include the collapse of the USSR as the last decolonization phase. Decolonization was the outcome of WWII as much as a result of the struggle of the main world powers. And the collapse of the USSR in the same fashion the side effect of this struggle & no doubt they also felt inspired by the not so distant in time independences. It would be fitting to include Hong Kong, Macau... and lump it together as the 90's decolonization which really was the last decade of decolonization. Decolonization basically finished with the end of the 20th century. In fact several historians have regarded the loss of Hong Kong and Macau as the end of the British and Portuguese empires & the effective end of imperialism.
The Soviet Union had vassal states, but no colonies. To claim there were some USSR colonies means to distort view on not only the soviet experience, but likely more importantly on the Western colonial experience. Simply: There was no chance for black guy to reach position in government in London or Paris, but it was nothing special for guy from the Caucasus or Ukraine to reach position in the politburo/government in Moscow. Nothing more has to be pointed out as argument.
45:10 nonsense! Each republic of the Soviet Union had its own political representation, and each republic had a chance to have somebody in the politburo/government. There was quite some space for independent rule in those republics, which at the end led to the collapse of the Union. There were instances, no rare, when some non-Russian nationals had substantially higher wages than the Russians, it was fully dependent on products they were offering to the economy. So to claim that some of non-Russian countries in the Soviet Union were colonies is either lie, or an absence of proper study.
Yes I'm sure these Republics had loads of autonomy from Stalin to Brezhnev. LOL
Lemme shortly speak about why all these empires collapsed...
*looks at video length
1 hour.
Thanks a lot for this information!
thanks :)