How was an Entire Continent Annexed in 1 year? - The Scramble of Africa
Вставка
- Опубліковано 11 січ 2024
- Why was Africa Split Between 7 European Nations? - The Scramble of Africa
♦You can support our work and Join this channel to get AD-FREE Early access to our videos:
/ @knowledgia
♦You can support our work by joining Patreon as well :
/ knowledgia
Thanks for your consideration!
The 16th century would mark the beginning of European colonization on the African continent. Portugal would start early by laying claim to their new colonies, nearly a century before the Dutch would do the same in South Africa, creating a growing settlement in the Cape of Good Hope.
Slowly, the Europeans had claimed merely around 10% of African lands. That is, before the Scramble for Africa…
♦SUBSCRIBE: goo.gl/YJNqek
♦Our general knowledge channel: / @masteringknowledge
♦Music by Epidemic Sound
♦Script & Research :
Skylar J. Gordon
#History #Documentary
Thank you so much for watching our video about The Scramble of Africa
You can now support our work on Patreon: www.patreon.com/Knowledgia or by becoming a UA-cam Member: ua-cam.com/users/Knowledgiajoin
By doing so you will be able to watch our videos FIRST and with No Ads.
And you will support us a lot, as any dollar helps immensely in our production process.
Thank you for your consideration!
Love your videos!💚
6:23 exactly right. Blacks are incapable of leading countries, of resembling orderly systems like Europe. As soon as the colonizers left in the 1960s, African countries fell apart. The Republic of South Africa does not even have a railway today...
You forgot to mention the African people and soldiers that joined their European governments and fought for them.
One mistake, von Bismarck was actually opposed to german colonies but the Kaiser made a series of speeches that made it impossible for Bismarck to oppose it without damaging german prestige, therefore calling for the Berlin Conference.
AND the colonies were basically already established by german businessmen, thus making it official was just the next step. The new reality made it necessary somehow, and also possible. Before that, Bismarck didn't like the idea of what he called a "colonial adventure"
Neat! I wonder if Bismark saw an intercontinental Empire as a detriment to the consolidate power of the newly formed German Empire.
@@liamh2255 You are correct . Colonies are expensive, and given it's location in between major expansive empires who were highly opposed to a unified German empire, Bismarck didn't want this young empire to waste it's ressources on colonies and rather use them on solidifying it's position and securing it's existence. Later the geopolitical circumstances went a bit more in favor of the Germans and a certain colonial reality had already been established by the Private German businessmen in areas that were not claimed by or of any big interest to the rivaling Europeans. This along Germanys solidified position among the other European powers made Bismarck now approve of using ressources to secure the so called "Schutzzonen" (He intentionally didn't call them "colonies").
Bismarck is rightfully criticised today, but he was also an absolute master of pragmatism. Something our modern politicians could and should learn from.
another one, Corsica is a part of france not italy since 1768, it's good until 5m30
A small mistake on the map was that Djibouti was a French colony, not English and Italian.
There’s British Somaliland
and that Germany only expanded it Cameron colony in the 1910s
It is not about bad guys hurting good guys, it is about stronger taking advantage of the weaker. Weren't african tribes themselves fighting with each other over the lands and power too? I bet have the africans had the power, level of technical development, they would have gone abroad to win the territories the very same way. Why? Because African or European - we are all the same both in our virtues and in our vices! Thirst for power and ambition is all there since the beginning of the world.
Bs
I'd add to that that it's not even about Europeans vs Africans, it's about a very tiny part of the European elite not only coercing Africans but also their own populations in becoming part of their system of exploitation.
Might be an unpopular opinion, but an 1850s Manchester factory worker starting to work at the age of 4 with a life expectancy at birth of 18 wasn't in any way better off than the average African.
Basically work your own population to death in order to fund foreign campaigns of conquest for even more wealth and power.
Chaka Zulu, the leader of the Zulu tribe, fought many wars in the first half of the 19th century, which lead to 1.5 million deaths and at least 2 million people getting displaced. Many of the conquered tribes assimilated into Zulu. He also ordered every child under 1 and every pregnant woman to be killed, when his mother died, because he believed that everyone needed to mourn his mothers' death, and the women who had a baby recently wouldn't be sad enough.
There was also a certain queen of Madagascar who was so brutal, that it is estimated her actions decreased population of Madagascar from around 5 million people to around 2.5 million.
What Europeans did was not good nor justifiable in any way, but that doesn't mean that the western people are evil while the rest of the world is their victim. African people, and other people as well all around the world, could be as brutal as Europeans, and in many cases far worse (another example would be Ottoman empire and what it did to various European and/or Christian people)
@@Maus_IndahausExactly very well said
@@Maus_Indahaus You are just justifying the unjustifiable and genocides. Africans did not commit in Europe mass genocides. Whereas Europeans in Africa, DID ! The Belgians massacred and dismembered more than 10 million Congolese, that's more than the Germans with the Jews. The Germans committed a huge genocide in Namibia. 70% of the herero died. The construction of Train lines in the French and English colonies caused hundreds of thousands of deaths. So you can't come with your shameful arguments, and say "no, but wait, you were already killing each other, so it's normal that we came to kill you too"
Even the representation of how Europe divided Africa is Eurocentric. In 1884 there were already states in North Africa. Morocco, Ottoman Empire, Egypt etc and Ethiopia in the East. Showing them as blank stateless lands is interesting to say the least.
Morocco, Egypt, and Tunisia were all protectorates so they werent nominally independent, and the Ottomans got kicked out of Africa in 1912 when Italy took over their Libyan vassal/protectorate
@@Sceptonic . I don't know about neighbouring countries, but even though Tunisia was officially a part of the Ottoman Empire, it was pretty much autonomous, and has been since the late 18th century. It's fair to say that by the time French colonialism rolled around, Tunisia has already matured enough politically, which is one of the reasons French occupation wasn't straightforward and recognized Tunisia as a "protectorate" rather than a colony .However, it was the economic factor that facilitated French rule over Tunisia, debts were the death of the "Beylik Of Tunis"
@@Sceptonic Just a follow-up mate, not disagreeing
@@jawherdjelassi7606 alright
@@Sceptoniclmao in the 19 century morocco wasent a protectorate. The kingdom was on its downfall due to recent events famines revolts and civil wars which caused a rift between morocco and European countries. Just 3 centuries before that morocco was in pare with it's European rivels it was even a colonial power that conquered the songhai Empire for gold and slaves. Morocco became a protectorate in 1912
As a Spaniard, I’d like to say that the Spanish presence in Africa had important repercussions on later events in the history of Spain 🇪🇸. On the one hand, in the Spanish Protectorate of Morocco the Army of Africa was formed, whose move to the metropolitan territory would be key in the development of the uprising and subsequent Spanish Civil War (1936-1939). Regarding the Spanish Sahara, in 1975 Spain signed the Madrid Tripartite Agreement with Morocco 🇲🇦 and Mauritania 🇲🇷, interrupted its decolonization process and abandoned the territory in 1976 but without transferring its sovereignty over it or its status as an administering power. Since then, Western Sahara 🇪🇭 has been a disputed territory between Morocco and the Sahrawis and the UN 🇺🇳 continues to consider Spain as the de jure administrative power.
Based Franco W
How did spain lost most of its colonies quickly 👁👄👁
Morocco has been the Western Sahara land for more than 1 millennia, the tribe there annually gives allegeance to the sultan of Morocco, after the protectorate of Morocco ended, the amazigh tribe in the souther region joined the moroccan liberation movement to prosuit the liberation of land from the colonizer.
Morocco's monarch at the time skill and treacherously made a move to take over the Sahara during a time of power uncertainty in Spain and grabbed it all for himself. The whole world stood and stared and local population was not consulted, hence imposing a new sort of neocolonialism. The conflict has dragged on until this day
@@Fulno no, western sahara was never under morrocan rule, the only part with "complex" administration was the northern part called "tekna confederation", where they only recognise religiously the sultan authority by times. For example, in 1767 th treaty of peace and commerce betwen spain and morroco said that those tribes werent part of morrocan land. So no, they dont have historical claims to be there
Africa: exists
Europeans: it's free real estate
Funny this being said by a Pakistani
whats even funnier is that Pakistan was one of the richest places before the British, unlike Africa@@aadfr9422
Strong taking shi from weak
Earth always has been this way
Knowledgeable Knowledgia , woo hoo!!!!🤩
Great idea for a video!
What's really interesting to me is that, for all the lands conquered by European nations over the past five hundred or so years, look at what they have now. When you look at a map, Europe and nations that make it up are so small when compared to the continents and nations they once ruled over.
Not many, before quinine was available.
Use the term "ruled over" tentitevely as these colonials always had a very slippery hold on power. That slippery hold is why they walked away. Controling Africa is impossible for any European country.
Yes, that was kinda the point of decolonialism.
The European nations ruled over most of the world, but after WW2 they withdraw and granted independence.
Millions of Africans today are scrambling to get into Europe
Simple size of nations doesn't compare to civilisation, industry, wealth etc..
@@user-ds8rj2vc4vEurope was in ruins after ww2..
One important event that triggered the panic and haste of the scramble was the British occupation of Egypt and the Suez canal, thus leading to Berlin Conference for the Scramble. As a side note: at the start Bismarck didn't really care about colonies but it isn't quite clear why he changed his mind. Worth mentioning that the colonization of Africa was not a unitary process made by the European states but it took on a live of it's own, with explorers doing their own things regardless of their governments.
Great video ! Thought i'd give some context around a particular case ; One of the challenges that faced colonialism in North Africa, is the fact that a cultural identity was already established, and that connection with the outside world was very much alive. I don't know about neighbouring countries, but even though Tunisia was officially a part of the Ottoman Empire, it was pretty much autonomous, and has been since the late 18th century. It's fair to say that by the time French colonialism rolled around, Tunisia has already matured enough politically, which is one of the reasons French occupation wasn't straightforward and recognized Tunisia as a "protectorate" rather than a colony . However, it was the economic factor that facilitated French rule over Tunisia, debts were the death of the "Beylik Of Tunis"
Wasn't Tunisia and much of North Africa colonised earlier by the Arabs?
Yes ! Tunisia always held great importance to numerous civilizations throughout history due to its strategic location and its natural riches ( no fossil fuels tho lol) , hence it was a colonized by A LOT of civilizations ranging from the Romans and Vandals to the Byzantines and Arabs. The latter had the most cultural and religious impact on Tunisia though.
Yet, I would argue that Tunisia is probably the most racially diverse/liberal country of the Arab World because of this very reason (Though culturally, very homologous). Few countries had as many civilizations leaving their mark as Tunisia did, which is quite apparent in Tunisian society today.
the problem was not that the europeans colonised african regions its when they started dehumamnising africans and sort of gave permission to do whatever inhuman activities i dont think at that time it was morally ok for europeans to do the same to other europeans
Video with great efforts
Taken on a map, sure, but how much of the continent outside of South Africa had non-trivial European settlement? (And not just resource extraction)
Africa was last, or 2nd to last (depends on Asia or Pasific) to be colonialist.
While Portugal started (as always) with others, it wasn't all settled until mid/late 1800s as early 1800s saw Americas break away.
Thank you for your incredible videos l have been watching you since an year , and l have new ideas for you like Cold War , Australia history , space invasion by The Soviet and American .
Can't believe this was happening just 100 years ago
It most certainly did not take 1 year to take over Africa. It took all the way until October 3, 1935 when Mussolini's Italy finally took Ethiopia. And even then, there was still Liberia.
And ethopia
The reason Ethiopia wasn’t taken by a European Power is because they were considered civilized, because they were also Christian.
That is why Mussolini’s view of Ethiopians is talked about, because the rest of Europe did not hold those views
@@m.c.martin That's not why Ethiopia wasn't taken. Ethiopia saw the tactics used by the Europeans against each other, and used it to their advantage. They (Ethiopia) got weapons from another European nation and used them against the Italians.
Europeans sent over half a million soldiers to colonize Ethiopia and you still say Ethiopia survived because they were Christians? what the heck!@@m.c.martin
@@jhonywalker1168 When was that?
I would Like another Video about the topic and why for example countries like the Netherlands , Austria Hungary, Greece, Russia, Sweden and Denmark got no terretories from the Berlin conforence
My problem with this ideology of history reports is that the group that is accused of being colonizers is not specific enough. The average person had no interest in colonizing, the slave trade,etc. or had very little knowledge of what was happening in those countries at the time. I feel it is biased to blame the whole society when it has always been the greedy, power-hungry wealthy class.
And discards other things, like African piracy and slavery over south Europeans, that many of these territories had almost no population, like Angola, South Africa, Madagascar, the region around central Africa, African Atlantic Islands, etc. P.e. North Africa ( Morocco and Egypt ) had more population that all other regions combined.
Colonialism was always present when a region was sparsely populated, ( The Russian colonising the steppes, The Turkic peoples colonising central Asia and the Steppes, The Arabs colonising East Africa, The Chinese colonising the central Asia, The Thai colonising central Thailand and many many other regions.
Having no interest makes once complicit. Sheep are why they thrive.
@@CesarLuisAfonsoDias All of Africa outside of Ethiopia and Liberia were colonized. Surely you aren't claiming that every African country outside of Egypt and Morocco were sparsely populated.
True, however, they all did benefit from the enormous wealth that was generated from the colonization.
Who cares
Have you done anything on the Arab Slave Trade yet? There's plenty of material there.
dont hold your breath. he also forgot to mention liberia was a slave state established by the freed african americans
And for Arabs and Muslims in general. It was religious slavery and not ethnic-racial. This is why Muslims had Christian Arabs and polytheists arabs as slaves. And especially ! Muslim blacks like the mali empire, and Turks of the ottoman empire, who had Christians or polytheists Arab as slaves. Because it was all about religion. Suleyman the Magnificent, HIS WIFE, was a descendant of Christian slaves from the Balkans, and yet by converting, she had reached the highest level of the Ottoman Empire, the same for Suleyman's vizier, who was also a descendant of Slavic Christian slaves. Do you know of any kingdoms in Europe where the king's wife was a black descendant of slaves? Or a black “prime minister”? It was completely impossible.
Even the most Christian and the most pious of blacks still remained a slave. Because European slavery was racial slavery. I was talking about black people who had Arab slaves, because the richest Muslim in history was a black man, Mansa Moussa, and he was extremely respected in the Muslim world, he also made the pilgrimage to Mecca. And his empire had Arabs and Berbers as slaves. In the Muslim world, a slave was someone who refused to convert to Islam. For white Europeans, a slave was someone who had the wrong skin color
Yea that was going on well before Europeans showed up. There’s a good book the argument for colonization
Yea that was going on well before Europeans showed up. There’s a good book the argument for colonization
Yea that was going on well before Europeans showed up. There’s a good book the argument for colonization
“Of the gods we believe, and of men we know, that by a necessary law of their nature they rule wherever they can. Right, as the world goes, is only a question between equals in power, while the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must.”
-Thucydides
You forgot to mention the African people and soldiers that joined their European governments and fought for them.
Easy when taken in to account how much more advanced Western Civilization was compared to African Civilization.
is*
@@akicarus9508 There are African nations with higher GDPs than most European Countries, Egypt, Ethiopia, Kenya, South Africa, Nigeria, and Algeria. the only European Countries up to 1st world standards are Portugal, Spain, UK, France, Germany, Italy, and the rest are developing countries just like pretty much every other country. Again, people say Africa is a continent and then speak of it like a country.
@@oriont6944You might be better served using per capita GDP.
What a fool you are 😂
Also the Africans were not even prepared.
I love this
do a video about the footprints.
Continue with this process ❤❤ i like the history ❤
❤🇮🇱
@@theimmortalemperor3605 we need peace ✌ stop war and killing people # Gaza need help
British fought against the Marathas to gain land, not the Moghuls.
Except Bengal, most of North and Central India then was under Maratha confederation.
The Marathas commanded a professional modern army at par with British troops in India. However, the confederation was too decentralised, leading to a disunited front against British.
African countries had been European colonies, and it now is a diverse continent.
There’s a book the argument for colonialism that debunks a lot of the Congo story. Most of the atrocities were done before the king was involved. They were greatly exaggerated and have proof of the population staying steady
The book lies. There were eyewitness accounts and photos.
Quite.european neanderthal.
Denying genocides as an Irish person is insane bud just letting you know👍
Idk why we ignore that Ethiopia was a colonial power that expanded its territory during same time period. It isn't any less bad to the colonized
Ethiopia expanded its territory to protect the hinterland from being vulnerable from colonizers.
@@jhonywalker1168 oh so same excuse that empires have given for thousands of years for expanding their borders...
Shocking and brutal. I know this is just about Africa but can we have a vid about how the U.S. took the East of their country from Mexico and how they then took over the Philippines from the Spanish.
FROM SPANISH ?? THE SAME CLOWNS THAT GENOCIDED MOST OF THE NATIVES IN SA
3:53 This is scary. They all came together to divide Africa between them as if it were a cake
LOL Thunder Stick go BOOM!
What was the music as 1:31
Based Europe
Can you talk about the colony of the Falklands islands
the marshall plan for european reconstruction was 13.6B in 1950( 165.1B adjusted for inflation) the continent of afrika ha been given 2.6 trillion since 1960. think about that, really let that marinate.
Ha ha ha ... like Aid Money ever reaches its intended poor of the poorest.
😂😂😂
Marinate on that.
España no participó en La Conferencia De Berlín, No tenía nada que reclamar,
Portugal first colonized the Kenyan Coast and made trading posts at the Kenyan coast, prior to the British coming to Kenya
Amazing that there were no major wars like the ones between France and England in Canada or India 🇮🇳
India got conquered by a British company what a shame
Uhhhhhh the French and Indian War? Britain also stomped the Indians teeth in during the Sepoy Revolt. What are you on?
France helped Bengal Nawab a little bit against British east India company.
Are we going to forget about the ottoman empire African colonies such as Algeria, Sudan, Tripoli, and Tunisia which they lost to the French In the 18th century.
3:02 One of the biggest & darkest jokes in history💀.
One common pattern is that wealthy individuals often prioritize financial discipline, making wise spending choices and consistently investing their money. In contrast, some individuals with fewer financial resources may focus on immediate gratification, spending to impress others without considering the long-term benefits of investing. It's important to remember that financial situations can be complex and influenced by various factors, but these trends can provide insights into different approaches to wealth management...
HOW !! I know it's possible, I would appreciate if you show me how to go about
according to you the poor focus on immediate gratification such as Eating and having a roof over their heads.
in the map there is an error, italy control corsica, that was/is french.
Europeans tamed zebras before Africans could
We brought civilization, order and infrastructures.
Your delusional. I hope your aware of that.
African people were already civilized. Africa is a rich and diverse continent that was once filled with strong royal kingdoms and empires. Ex. Ghana, Mali, Songhai, Asante, Benin, and kanem-bornu empires of west africa. Kingdom of Kongo, Luba Kingdom, Great Zimbabwe, Zulu Empires of central and southern africa. Kingdom of Burundi, kingdom of Rwanda, Land of Punt, Kingdom of Kush, Ancient Kemet empires of east africa and northeast africa.
😂😂😂 please relax.
🤣😂
#Knowledgia Corsica is a part of france not italy since 1768
As it is now... I like how the European powers reached Africa first before the ottomans or other powers.. Though I won't look at colonisation as good but it is what it is. The stronger always have a way. It has some advantages coz I prefer the western way of life I enjoy today, though am African.
Actually the ottomans were strongly present in africa for centuries, and islam as a whole spread almost to the congo's borders and central africa, but it's that islam outright bans the enslaving and bad treatment of people that prevented them from doing what the european criminals did, however despite islamic laws banning colonization similarly to the europeans, the ultimate winner was the islamic presence, because even today we see islam in africa as far as the congo, but we don't see much european presence anymore, and what's left is being slowly eroded away, even the most historically important places of european presence in africa such as south africa are being freed slowly.
Nevermind the Arabization of Northern and Eastern Africa 🙄
Some African colonies still exist
. Albeit small in the north or islands.
Thanks!
The video was informative but you made a mistake on the map briitish owned egypt and sudan controled lybian east territories known as kufra
Von Bismarck caused the partition of Africa and prevented various European powers from fighting each other
They had had practice with Commonwealth earlier
Thanking the Europeans for bringing civilization and technologies to Africa like they did in the Americas.
Thanking the muslims for bringing shariah to Europe.
@@zxera9702 They’re getting kicked out of Europe actually
@@zxera9702when u realise Muslims in Africa r pretty rich compare to Christians
Why is the Ottoman Empire always left out of this conversation? They had territory in Northern Africa and lots of political influence in Northern Africa.
Chile was more respectable than the Ottoman Empire at that time
Doesnt fit this narrative of this modern nonsense that Europeans were bad guys.
cause the ottomans were Asians and he’s talking about Europeans colonizing Africa not Asians conquering Africa
@@randomkidnapper911 lol. That's such a modernist take. Like this video really.
@@Auxodium Turks are people closer to Central Asia and only three percent of there land is stolen from greece
Skills and technology. They were just nowhere near the same development. Easy picking. Just like the Americas
Thank you for the video. What an awful situation this was, and we're all still dealing with the repercussions, decades and centuries later with colonialism in Africa.
What can we do. 🤷♂️ Humans are just the worst sometimes.
Yall still mad me forced civilization on you
Says a lot about you
They still being used for natural resources today.
@@Npc1488-wc1kf It has long term effects and is still being exploited to this day. Also, Africa was only decolonized after WWII so it's pretty recent.
@@Npc1488-wc1kf
Typical arrogant racist.
@@Npc1488-wc1kf ¿Qué clase de civilización es robar, segregar, y ser racistas?. :/
🍃👩🏻Africa split into 7 pieces, so what part of Africa belongs to the Africans?🍃
The huts made out of shit and sticks.
Why Netherlands didn't receive any colony on Berlin Conference?
Are you sad
Ethiopians were collaborating with Europeans whilst Somalis were fighting them
Ohh poor somail you always cry over Ethiopia
Well, they're not wrong. Look at what Africa has produced until now. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
I love Itachi qoute for this...
Only rif, north morroco
Rif soldiers defeated Spain and fight against France same time
Zenata imazighen
Few European countries did what many other nations have done over human history. Technology just allowed the selected few to be more succesful in the invasion then prior nations had been.
We often forget the driving factor of those better technologies, Competition.
They were constantly competing to one up eachother, that they ended up surpassing the rest of the world
Africa and Haiti got the worst of it when it came to colonization. India too.
Its too bad that the few videos these "history channels" about Africa are about how Africa and black people are victimized as opposed to really learning about it's great culture and civilizations. Most of these channels are undoubtedly run by European or white men and are just reinforcing a European and male centric view of history.
7:50 cool Italian Corsica, like, it totally wasnt a French island, totally, and it totally isnt a French island to this day, totally
I always find it hard to judge (people of) the past with the moral values of our current time. I think it is better to use the general values of that time, that is what the people of that time could use to judge their actions. Even in Europe itself there was constant fighting and conquering, I am not sure colonization was really wrong at that time. Everybody tried to get their way by conquering, that wasn't exclusive to Europeans. They were just the best at it. The way they treated the people in the colonized areas was probably wrong though, that was different in the colonies than it was in Europe itself.
For myself, I am quite proud of the spirit of my forefathers, exploring the world and being really good at it. I admire the strive to be the best and advance in the world. But I do reject the measures they used, especially the behavior against the local population. They didn't take the chance to help them advance but only exploited them. Of course, my opinion isn't that important.
It's extremely difficult to colonize a foreign people without treating them brutally. I'm not saying that makes it okay. But pragmatically speaking it is very effective. And it is really a case by case basis anyway. The Belgian Congo was ruled by demons. But in some places like South Africa there was a lot of improvements to the standards of living brought by the British.
I love it when you defend colonization. China is just colonizing tibet and xinjiang. so they are not at fault. no more protest against china please and thank you
@@gabbytay That is not what I said. I said we needed to judge actions of people against the general morals and customs of their time, not our time. War and conquest was common until the 19th, early 20th century. But it isn't today, we have even founded organisations like the UN to prevent new (world) wars. So today invading another sovereign nation is wrong.
@@gabbytay he says to judge actions by the morals and customs of the time they are done in.
and it's a (sad) fact that in most of the past colonizing and slavery were just normal things, everyone (who had the power to do so) did it.
in modern times (for Europe since WWII, for the Arab world since 1970) those things are now morally bad and we don't act like that anymore.
so in the past it was just part of live, but nowadays we have established every countries borders and peoples and we (try) to protect the world as it is.
so colonizing, slavery and subjugating an (entire) group of humans is not of this time anymore and we should remind the few places that still try to act like that that it's wrong.
so in short yes, the world has every right to point at China and say that they are being wrong for it.
@@ChristiaanHW right you are saying during ww2 it was morally correct to nuke japan's innocent people. While now it is bad. Good shit. Hoe bout the USA setting bases in iraq syria and afghanistan. Neo colonialism much. It fine always when a white man does it. Such trash morals whitemen. Let not forget how the euro immigrantd almost wiped out the north americans.
Wakanda Forever
U guys forget ottoman empire controlled most of north africa upto 1900s
Okay thank you! It always bothers me that people leave the Ottomans out of this conversation.
How about the Dutch in South Africa?
And what about Swedish colonialism in Laponia?
This isn't about those topics so grow up & stop embarrassing yourself. You're like someone complaining that a documentary on oranges doesn't also include apricots.
As a white man with Polish ancestry. I feel Africa's pain 😅
As a yellow man, I think this is all part of history that we need to know about.
One day the white man set foot and commit crimes in africa, now the black man is everywhere in europe causing chaos lmao
You can't blame yourself since poland never formed an empire, nor I should feel discriminated against because saudi arabia was never colonized, but I still feel their pain when I see the inhumane expirements in the congo when belguim took control
WHY DIDN'T YOU MENTIONED INDEPENDENT STATES CLEARLY ?
I wonder why when the “poor black people” are in the discourse, all the supposed unbiased history gets thrown out of the window for emotional storytelling
All in the past now don't think for a second that modern Europeans should be apologetic for this ancestral behaviour. What's done can't be undone 'Shakespeare'
The triumphant and revisionist tone of this video is infuriating to an African honestly,you fail to discuss how Africans struggled and resisted European colonization,how many battles were fought and some were failures,how in many instances Europeans would often use thievery and trickery in treaties they made with African rulers and would pit royal houses and kingdoms to fight each other and weakened before moving to conquer them.This video was just a compliment to European colonization of Africa
He did mention the trickery. This isnt supposed to be an in depth video about colonization in general, just the Berlin conference and how Africa was split
Its a 10 minute video my guy. Not a 2 hour documentary
Yes, the Europeans used their weaknesses against them. This is how it was, is and will continue to be globally. There is nothing special about the subjugation of the African Continent; a weaker group of peoples were taken over by a stronger group of individuals. Consider South America and most of the Pacific Islands...
Or to put it another way, if the majority of Africa was NOT still living in the Stone Age, it wouldn’t have been so easy…
Go watch Jabzy's video on the history of africa from the 15th to 20th century if you want an in-depth documentary
? Where did you get that listening to what he said. The presenter is Clearly NOT a supporter of colonialism. Is this that thing where you see a racism or one-sidedness in a thing b/c you WANT TO even though one doesn't exist. It's like when a black person doesn't make it in America (even though TONS of them totally succeed) they blame racism instead of themselves for their failures. Perceived racism in America is what keeps black people from striving towards prosperity. And it's a 'Cultural Event' so as to affect just about all of them. Africans would be bow hunting right now if no outside influence had ever entered their continent. Nothing more to it than that.
Absolute European W. Veni Vidi Vici.
There’s absolutely not There’s no W about mass genocides. The Belgians massacred and dismembered more than 10 million Congolese, that's more than the Germans and the Jews. The Germans committed a huge genocide in Namibia. 70% of the herero died. The construction of Train lines in the French and English colonies caused hundreds of thousands of deaths. Oh wait, you’re buddhist. You don’t believe in hell and heaven. That’s why you’re glamourising genocides and colonialisation
In the same way that the visiting aliens are going to split the whole of humanity amongst themselves if we don't wake up to the reality that a silent colonization/invasion is underway. To learn about this, I recommend reading The Allies of Humanity briefings.
Lemme guess, you believe in the NWO conspiracy by the juice?
Your delusion is hilarious 😂
Oh my I remember the Congo 🧓
7:17 Maybe it was a prank or paranormal, especially the way he fell.. Like his legs were pulled from underneath and his feet are shaking, his body was taken by an invisible entity. This looks real to me, but I am amazed and surprised how not ONE person, came to the gentleman's aid. The dude in the vehicle continued speaking and did not seem to care.. Sad world we live in. Animals care about other animals at times.. Even helping a porcupine cross the road.. What the heck happened to the human heart? ❤
Italian Corsica💪
Europe finessed
"it especially made sense when europeans discovered new resources in Africa such as coffee sugar and rubber."
No. Sugar cane has been cultivated for more than 10000 years. The primary rubber tree was discovered in South America and domesticated there and plantations were created elsewhere much later. Coffee did come from Ethiopia but took a century to become popular and certainly wasn't used to justify going to Africa in the first place.
10:31 / 10:49
2 mistakes spotted:
1- Somalia is labeled Somaliland, which is not the same thing as somalia.
2- Corsica is showed as part of Italy, which has never been the case outside of ww2.
Back then those respective colonies were referred to as British Somaliland (modern day unrecognized Somaliland), French Somaliland (Djibouti), and Italian Somaliland (current Somalia)
Ok, thanks for correcting me! @@Sceptonic
@@Bartdu59Gaming np
Based Europe.
Save europe from immigrants. 🥺
Your women been loving BBC lately.
But it is totally justifiable for Europeans to colonize, weren't peoples of these land inferior intellactually and technogically?
Have you changed the people in charge? a lot of biased videos lately.
Woke liberals took over the channel
The best Africa 🥳
Proud to be ethiopian
never colonized
we fought off the muslim conquests and european colonization though we did get occupied by itsly for 5 yesrs but they never fully controlled us.
🇪🇹💪
Italy conquered Ethiopia
@@itcalledfootball600 not fully
Fueron colonia del Imperio Italiano, doloroso pero es la verdad. Liberia fue colonia de U.S igual, ningún país africano se salvó de ser colonia de las potencias europeas. Una humillación terrible.
@@reinaroja2024 ethiopia was only occupied not colonized
@@EthiotendoEdits No, fueron colonia del Imperio Italiano, es la verdad, igual me da tristeza el reparto de África, pero fueron colonia de Italia. 😔
Rhodesia was colonized? Rhodesia was an unrecognized apartheid state.
I’m happy that the British got rid of slavery in Africa
Siguió existiendo, solo que con otro nombre, entonces los indios sacados en su contra voluntad del Raj Británico a Oceanía que es?. ¡Es esclavitud!.
Be proud of your history and culture 💪🏻💪🏻
Excellence, innovation, conquest and will.
That's like me being proud I entered another man's house and ransacked it then told my children to have no shame in my actions. It doesn't matter, anyway, Europe is an old shell about to be left behind. As we've seen from history, being at the top is a subscription, not a permanent purchase 😊. Declining birthrates, necessary immigration(legal or illegal) to combat those declining birthrates, the rest of the world advancing and no longer relying on Europe, European economies either becoming more expensive or more broke, dying culture about to be replaced by Arabic Culture, and the bad and shameless blood Europe has with the rest of the world. You're about to learn how the World really works.
hey is not like if Africa had the weaponry and technology of Europe they them self would conquer other countries
Yes be proud of the great remplacement coming😂.
@@buddhachimp9226We’ve found the devil
good times
It is Somalia not Somaliland 0:44