Do You Really Think The British Were Evil?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 29 тра 2023
- Moink: Get FREE bacon in your first Moink order today!
www.MoinkBox.com/JBP
Watch the full episode here: Ep. 359 - • Good and Evil in the B...
Dr. Peterson's extensive catalog is available now on DailyWire+: utm.io/ueSFn
// SUPPORT THIS CHANNEL //
Premium Podcast - jordanbpeterson.supercast.com/
Newsletter: linktr.ee/DrJordanBPeterson
Donations: jordanbpeterson.com/donate
// COURSES //
Discovering Personality: jordanbpeterson.com/personality
Self Authoring Suite: selfauthoring.com
Understand Myself (personality test): understandmyself.com
// BOOKS //
Beyond Order: 12 More Rules for Life: jordanbpeterson.com/Beyond-Order
12 Rules for Life: An Antidote to Chaos: jordanbpeterson.com/12-rules-...
Maps of Meaning: The Architecture of Belief: jordanbpeterson.com/maps-of-m...
// LINKS //
Website: jordanbpeterson.com
Events: jordanbpeterson.com/events
Blog: jordanbpeterson.com/blog
Podcast: jordanbpeterson.com/podcast
// SOCIAL //
Twitter: / jordanbpeterson
Instagram: / jordan.b.peterson
Facebook: / drjordanpeterson
#JordanPeterson #JordanBPeterson #DrJordanPeterson #DrJordanBPeterson #DailyWirePlus #podcast #news #TheJordanBPetersonPodcast
Thomas Sowell speaks about this too - *Africans * (from the fruitful, educated coasts) kept and sold Africans (especially from the undernourished, uneducated inland) as slaves. The British systematically worked to abolish slavery.
Undernourished populations with a generally less successful background are more likely to view the world negatively and feel hopeless... which carries on through generations.
The issue of the slave trade and abolition was one of the main points of contention in the Napoleonic Wars. Britain sought to disrupt French and other European powers' involvement in the slave trade and suppress their slave-based colonies.
The issue of slavery contributed to tensions between Britain and the United States during the 19th century. Britain's efforts to enforce its anti-slavery laws, such as the capture of slave ships, sometimes led to clashes with American vessels.
British naval forces even engaged in conflicts with African powers involved in the slave trade.
Thank you The British!🇬🇧🥳
And thank God for being good.
like when they snuggled up with Stalin despite knowing all about the holodomor, the red terror and the purges?
i hate to burst your bubble but it's gotta be done
@@Ronin969 Allies of convenience / necessity. Churchill wanted to fight Russia next.
@@HonestBottom Churchill sent the auxiliaries to Ireland to hunt us like animals. May he rot in hell
@@HonestBottom Churchill's policies resulted in an estimated over 4 million people deaths from starvation and malnutrition during a famine in Bengal in 1943, while Britain exported huge amounts of food from India, including 70,000 tonnes of rice in the same year.
Thank the Brits for freedom? Wow! That's a next level of twisting logic, those oppressive colonizers are the reason slavery was so widespread in the first place, they enslaved, bullied and terrorized most countries in the world thru'out the history, they betrayed countries in WW1 and WW2 to pursue their own interests,... I would have quite different words for those bastards.
If you want to thank them, you have lost the plot. \o/
I’m American, but my grandmother was born in Kent, England. She was a little girl who lived through the Blitz, saw the Dunkirk boats evacuating the British Expeditionary Force. Four years later, she saw a fleet heading to Normandy and Southern France. Her uncles, all who fought bravely for their country, taught her to be keep calm and carry on. I’m proud of my English heritage. God save the King
Whereabouts in Kent? My dad’s from Sheerness on the Isle of Sheppey.
Read 'Rape of a continent' and 'The case for India' by by Will Durant, or 'Inglorious Empire' by Shashi Tharoor. After that if you still feel proud, then you must be a reprobate.
@@arunnaik3375 As you speak English
@@rudysmith1552 To take advantage of reprobates.
@arunnaik3375 Take a day off from the anger. It'll do you good 👍🏻
After reading Thomas Sowell and a lot about medieval history (and history in general) what it has taught me is that there are no shortage of people in the world willing to bend people to their will in order to carry out their selfish wants. Human nature is fixed and by default the human is a tyrant when he doesn not understand how the world around him works as subconsciously we are programmed to survive first and for that we need security and resources.
What I also learnt is that freedom is the exception and not the norm throughout human history and all advances towards greater freedom for the individual came as a result of having to fight for it in some way or another. The Magna Carta was done for the Barons who didnt like being taxed so much by King John but in return had no problem taxing the shit out of their serfs. The abolition of slavery started as a moral movement and required the British governemt to pay an absolute fortune to compensate slaveowners for peaceful takeover of goods and to have British ships police the oceans of the world. the 13 colonies had to fight tooth and nail to gain their freedom from the Brits and then of course there is WW2 with the fight against Hitler. Heck the reason the British started spreading the idea of freedom amongst themselves was because they spent so much of their military budget on their navy and keeping their colonies safe that they didn't have a large enough land army to control people within the country like the french did at the time (who are still very culturally inclined to centralised decision making and planning btw monarchist style).
Freedom is super precious but the problem is that people don't understand the dynamics of a lot of how the world works and so they feel lost and prefer to overly limit others rather than to try and build themselves up. Most people also have only known freedom in the West and do not know life without it and therefore don't know the value that it brings. They really don't realise that things such as slavery, pillaging, war, rape, plunder, serfdom were considered perfectly normal back then as life is brutal by default and the only thing that has really helped humans get along well is being able to trade and produce for each other and improve each others' lives mutually in a stable and peaceful manner rather than by conquering and taking resources by force ina similar fashion to chimpanzees.
"The 13 colonies had to..." Not quite. The governments of the colonies declared independence, and British Americans who wanted nothing to do with it spent ten years trying and failing to overthrow the government.
C.S. Lewis said that contemporism is a petty tyrant, and your view of the serf's life is very contemporous. A feudal lordship was more akin to a company town, only with more rights (it was, however, harder to leave.). A simplification, but one that more modern audiences can understand.
@@KopperNeoman my point was that independence had to be fought for on the battlefield ultimately. Governments ultimately represent their people even if there is a lot of internal conflict.
@@MrJabbothehut Technically, independence was fought AGAINST is my point. The Redcoats were mostly American. The Yankees actually got more outside assistance then the Loyalists did.
That's not what's taught in the schools however, so it makes sense that most would believe otherwise. To glean the knowledge that I have of the War for Independence requires knowing not just why the Yankees declared independence, but also why the Loyalists counterrebelled.
It's ironic that the British empire was the Woke empire, yet the most hated bybthe woke.
Woke empire my arse, the brits have been nothing but thieving barbarians to every nation they've ever encountered.
All in name of their inbred kings.
@@nonegone7170 okay you left wing loser
White, British Christians -- to be more exact.
Probably one of the most brutal Christian empires.
@@arunnaik3375 have you seen islam
@@arunnaik3375 islam is evil more evil the Christians
@@arunnaik3375 diffrence is that christians are more accepting
@@Gypsygeekfreak17 Then why are they at my door almost every month, denigrating my religion and asking me to convert to Christianity ?
'We're all children of the One True God', especially tied in with the idea of 'being your brother's keeper' is an incredibly profound statement.
Tell that to the 100 million native Americans killed by the Europeans.
@@arunnaik3375 That was the idea behind the abolition of slavery, not its propagation.
@@lucumi3928 Slavery was not abolished in British colonies until the early 1900s. But even then, they renamed slavery to indentured labor, and continued practicing slavery.
@@arunnaik3375 First of all indentured labour and slavery are not the same thing. Secondly, how does this at all dispute the effects ideas like this had on the abolition of slavery? If not ideas like this, what do you think led to the abolition of slavery?
@@lucumi3928 That's just splitting hairs. Indentured laborers were often tricked or coerced into signing contracts that they did not understand. Once they arrived in their new homes, they were often unable to leave, even if they wanted to.
Indentured laborers were often forced to work long hours, sometimes up to 18 hours a day. They were also often denied breaks or days off. Indentured laborers were paid very low wages, often less than what they would have earned in their home countries. This made it difficult for them to save money or send money home to their families. Indentured laborers were often housed in overcrowded and unsanitary conditions.
They were also denied access to healthcare, which led to high rates of disease and death. Indentured laborers were often subjected to physical abuse, including beatings, whippings, and even sexual assault.
The atrocities that were done by the British under indentured labor were a violation of human rights. They caused great suffering and hardship for millions of people, and they have had a lasting impact on the countries that were affected.
Hundreds of indentured labourers were stationed on the ship’s middle deck for the whole duration of the voyage, which could last 10-20 weeks, with periods of permitted sunlight and “fresh” air. Alongside issues of sickness, racial discrimination and violence from British officers on-board, women often faced threats and acts of sexual harm. British officers would intercept women during toilet breaks to offer sweet provisions in exchange for sexual favours. Documentation shows women having faced sexual harassment, inappropriate touching and, rape.
British colonial sexist stereotypes also impacted women’s autonomy through dictating the supposed identity of all indentured women. Women were sexualised and branded as “subservient” and “meek”. Operating outside of these boundaries would be looked down upon by others within the wider community.
In 1833, when slavery was abolished in the British Empire, a compensation of £20 million was paid to slave owners, not to the enslaved people who had suffered under slavery, but to those who had lost their "property" (i.e., the enslaved people). The £20 million compensation was a significant amount of money at the time, equivalent to about £300 billion today. It was paid out to slave owners in the form of government bonds, which they could then sell or use to invest.
The £20 million compensation is a reminder of the complex legacy of slavery. It is a reminder of the economic and political power of slave owners, and it is a reminder of the fact that the abolition of slavery did not immediately end the suffering of the enslaved people.
What led to the so-called 'abolition' of slavery? Read my comments below
“…of things unknown, but longed for still.”
💋
(…the only game in town Rudolph.)
I'm English and British. It breaks my heart to see the current state and nationwide atmosphere of the UK. The level of self-hatred and shame among younger generations is astonishing. It's seriously unhealthy and destructive. Within my lifetime English people will be a minority in the UK. British culture is deemed racist, worthless and something to be embarrassed about. England and The UK has done so much for the world, yet these achievements are ignored or regarded as colonial assertions of power. My advice to English people is this: Emigrate to elsewhere in the Anglosphere. Gone are the days of glorious England. Heartbreaking.
This is a struggle. We must fight. I have no doubt the silent majority are ready for change. In fact, they readily crave it. Where's the bloody spark across the w3st?
America is as the first to pass laws banning trade and the 4th to ban ownership.
As a British person I demand reparations from the Saxons who colonised the area I was born over a thousand years ago...even though I might be one of them.
me too
@@danallen3947 As italian I'll pay reparations to Britain 🤣
The role played by the Church of England in the grand tapestry of colonization is one of profound significance, but overlooked. It found itself intertwined with the fervor of European expansion, with each thread interlaced with ambitions of empire-building and religious influence.
At the heart of this role lay the assertion of Christian superiority, a doctrine that bestowed upon the colonizers a divine mandate to bring forth their faith, culture, and governance to lands deemed "uncivilized" and inhabited by "heathen" souls. The church became the wellspring of moral support, providing the necessary justification for the enterprise, as the endeavor to spread Christianity was perceived as an ordained calling.
A tapestry of missions unfolded, for the Church of England founded missionary organizations and dispatched envoys to distant colonial territories, their purpose twofold: to convert the indigenous peoples to Christianity and to align them with European values and customs. These missions stood as agents of cultural assimilation and served to bolster the imposition of Western norms upon the original inhabitants.
The alignment of church and state further fortified the colonial endeavor, as the monarchy, serving as the Supreme Governor of the Church of England, forged a closely knit alliance. Thus, the expansion of the British Empire was perceived as the expansion of both church and state, firmly intertwining the destinies of religion and colonial dominion.
The educational realm also fell under the church's purview, as it exercised control over the colonial education system. Schools and institutions operated under its auspices, imparting Christian doctrines and British culture, molding the minds of the colonial subjects in line with European ideals.
Alongside these pursuits, the Church of England held considerable land holdings both within England and beyond the seas, further anchoring its interests within the colonial landscape.
In this intricate tableau, social control wove yet another thread. The church emerged as an instrument of shaping colonial subjects, encouraging the adoption of British customs, dress, and language, a conduit to mold the aspirations and comportment of the subjugated populace.
Within this expansive tableau, it must be acknowledged that the role of the Church of England did not uniformly unfold across all colonies or throughout the course of history. It was marked by a variety of attitudes and approaches, with some church officials and missionaries showing compassion and advocating for a more considerate treatment of indigenous peoples. Still, the overall impact of the church's involvement in colonization remains indelible, bearing witness to the profound and lasting consequences of European expansion on indigenous cultures and societies.
You bring up very interesting facts here and in other comments. The "superiority complex" seems to have been inherited by the US. I've read some arguments about the Civil War being the end of what America was originally meant to be. It is hard to argue against the people who claim to have ended slavery, as it instantly turns you into pro-slavery. In my country, Brazil, some people who defended a gradual end of slavery were accused of that. But I digress - there is an obvious pattern in the UK and US industrial advance and enforcement of the end of slavery. It somehow resonates to the whole spectrum of contemporary attitudes we see in progressive agendas. Am I missing something here? Where can I find more information or a better elaboration of these ideas?
It is time to learn the truth. Thank you Mr. Jordan Perterson
Pretty sure that Denmark beat them by a few years. The British were the first to enforce abolish globally.
because as they said in the video that the brits had the empire to enforce it...
England were there ever since William the Conqueror's day. Slavery was never legal in Britain, but it wasn't unconstitutional until a while later.
The slave trade was actually abolished in 1807. The 1833 Slavery Abolition Act abolished, as the name suggests, slavery itself. A Treasury so loose with its facts might explain something about the state of the British economy. Worse, however, was the claim that British taxpayers helped “buy freedom for slaves”. The government certainly shelled out £20m (about £16bn today) in 1833. Not to free slaves but to line the pockets of 46,000 British slave owners as “recompense” for losing their “property”. Having grown rich on the profits of an obscene trade, slave owners grew richer still from its ending
Wasn’t his name William Wilberforce?
Yes.
YES
The darling of the left, Charles Darwin expressed his view on various races in the COMPLETE title of his famous book. Alas, everyone quotes only the part of the title that supports their view.
Jordan and Sowell are pure genius 😊
The British Empire bore semblance to a pirate ship, voyaging the world's vast oceans, seizing and despoiling all that lay in their course. Yet, their coveted plunder did not comprise gilded chests of riches; it encompassed a fragrant treasury of spices, the intoxicating allure of tea, and the radiant splendor of diamonds. Their maritime escapades, distinct from those of the corsairs of today, did not entail the companionship of parrots and primates but instead resulted in the repatriation of porcelain teacups and implements of cricket.
In that era, the English harbored a distinct perspective on civilization. To their view, the essence of civility was synonymous with the license to requisition at will, from whomever and whatever they so desired.
Nonetheless, the English have undergone a transformation since those times. Rather than indulging in rapine and pillage, they now incline towards the acquisition of goods at equitable prices. This alteration finds its expression particularly when they frequent the emporium of Waitrose.
I want to know where you can find all of this history on slavery across other nations.
Start reading the Bible....
do you not have internet access?
Jeez, so much what-aboutism in these comments.
It doesn't have to be so black and white. You can be thankful/proud of the British for their role in ending slavery while also condemning their role in other historical ventures. Have some common sense.
I'm irish, tell me why we should be proud of the English for "ending slavery" Entertain me with ignorance
@@jamesbyrnes716 They played a major role in ending slavery. Slavery is bad, so ending it is good.
Entertaining
So happy to hear some good messages about Britain. Anglophobia is far too rife in many public institutions right now.
My comment was deleted for violating hate speech bit ill go again. Us Irish will never forgive you
anglophobia thats a new one lol
@@jamesbyrnes716 "forgive you" like I had anything to do with it. You're deluded. Half my family are Irish too. But because I'm British I bet you think I carry some sort of sin of the father. Just like the pathetic BLM crowd.
@@robertjay9415 it's a good one,
We Indians will not either
Thanks to the machinery!
I would be interested in knowing the books that Peterson is reading regarding slavery.
This is one of the things I’ve loved about Peterson. The ingenuity to say publicly a genuinely insightful new idea (new to me) that changes the way the world and history seems. “Colonialism is not synonymous with slavery.” Ha! It seems to obvious after you point it out, yet so much discussion has just assumed otherwise. Very nice to hear, as it seems much closer to people’s accurate intuitions about what was good and what was bad in our past. Love to hear reductionistic moralistic interpretations pushed back.
Colonialism was far worse than slavery.
@@arunnaik3375 What do you have in mind with "colonialism", and what makes you draw that conclusion?
@@NoahSteckley The British often perceived the Irish as "savages", and they used Ireland as an experimental laboratory for the other parts of their overseas empire, as a place to ship out settlers from, as well as a territory to practice techniques of repression and control. Entire armies were recruited in Ireland, and officers learned their trade in its peat bogs and among its burning cottages. Some of the great names of British military history - from Wellington and Wolseley to Kitchener and Montgomery - were indelibly associated with Ireland. The particular tradition of armed policing, first patented in Ireland in the 1820s, became the established pattern until the empire's final collapse.
The British first moved into East Africa in the late 19th century, and Kenya was declared a Crown colony in 1920. In 1964, the colonial army began erecting a network of concentration camps. Historians estimate that 150,000 to 1.5 million Kikuyu people were detained. Conditions within the camps were atrocious, and people were systematically beaten and sexually assaulted during questioning.
For much of its early history, the British ruled their empire through terror. The colonies were run as a military dictatorship, often under martial law, and the majority of colonial governors were military officers. "Special" courts and courts martial were set up to deal with dissidents, and handed out rough and speedy injustice. Normal judicial procedures were replaced by rule through terror; resistance was crushed, rebellion suffocated. No historical or legal work deals with martial law. It means the absence of law, other than that decreed by a military governor.
Many early campaigns in India in the 18th century were characterised by sepoy disaffection. Britain's harsh treatment of sepoy mutineers at Manjee in 1764, with the order that they should be "shot from guns", was a terrible warning to others not to step out of line. Mutiny, as the British discovered a century later in 1857, was a formidable weapon of resistance at the disposal of the soldiers they had trained. Crushing it through "cannonading", standing the condemned prisoner with his shoulders placed against the muzzle of a cannon, was essential to the maintenance of imperial control. This simple threat helped to keep the sepoys in line throughout most of imperial history.
To defend its empire, to construct its rudimentary systems of communication and transport, and to man its plantation economies, the British used forced labour on a gigantic scale. From the middle of the 18th century until 1834, the use of non-indigenous black slave labour originally shipped from Africa was the rule. Indigenous manpower in many imperial states was also subjected to slave conditions, dragooned into the imperial armies, or forcibly recruited into road gangs - building the primitive communication networks that facilitated the speedy repression of rebellion. When black slavery was abolished in the 1830s, the thirst for labor by the rapacious landowners of empire brought a new type of slavery into existence, dragging workers from India and China to be employed in distant parts of the world, a phenomenon that soon brought its own contradictions and conflicts.
In India The prosperous two centuries-old weaving industry was shut down after the British flooded the local market with cheap fabric from northern England. India still grew the cotton, but the Bengali population no longer spun it, and the weavers became beggars.
It’s said that India was the jewel in the crown of the British Empire. The British East India Company began making avenues into the subcontinent in the 17th century, and India was established as a Crown colony in 1858.
The British Raj systematically transferred the wealth of the region into their own coffers. In the north eastern region of Bengal, “the first great deindustrialization of the modern world” occurred.
The prosperous two centuries-old weaving industry was shut down after the British flooded the local market with cheap fabric from northern England. India still grew the cotton, but the Bengali population no longer spun it, and the weavers became beggars.
India suffered around a dozen major famines under British rule, with an estimated 12 to 29 million Indians starving to death.
The Orissa famine occurred in north eastern India in 1866. Over one million - or one in three local people - perished. As the region’s textile industry was destroyed, more people were pushed into agriculture, and were dependent on the monsoon.
That year, the monsoon was weak. Crops didn’t grow and many starved to death. The colonial administration didn’t intervene as the popular economic theory of the time reasoned that the market would restore proper balance, and the famine was nature’s way of responding to overpopulation.
The British began invading Australia in 1788, under the pretext that it was terra nullis: a land with no owners. The High Court of Australia abolished the legal fiction of terra nullius in its 1992 Mabo versus Queensland (No 2) ruling. Around 15 months later, at least 50 percent of the local Aboriginal population was dying due to a smallpox epidemic.
But these are only some of the crimes perpetrated by the British as they carried the greatest land grab the world has ever seen.
There were the concentration camps in South Africa, where tens of thousands of the Boer population were detained in the first years of the 20th century. The Irish potato famine occurred in the 1840s, leading to the deaths of well over a million people.
There were the torture centers in Aden in the 1960s, where nationalists were kept naked in refrigerated cells. When the Empire was facing communist insurgents during the Malaya Emergency of the 1950s, they simply decided to imprison the entire peasant population in detention camps.
And the list goes on…
@@NoahSteckley
Caroline Elkins, a professor at Harvard, spent nearly 10 years compiling the evidence contained in her book Britain's Gulag: the Brutal End of Empire in Kenya. She started her research with the belief that the British account of the suppression of the Kikuyu's Mau Mau revolt in the 1950s was largely accurate. Then she discovered that most of the documentation had been destroyed. She worked through the remaining archives, and conducted 600 hours of interviews with Kikuyu survivors - rebels and loyalists - and British guards, settlers and officials. Her book is fully and thoroughly documented. It won the Pulitzer prize. But as far as Sandbrook, James and other imperial apologists are concerned, it might as well never have been written.
Elkins reveals that the British detained not 80,000 Kikuyu, as the official histories maintain, but almost the entire population of one and a half million people, in camps and fortified villages. There, thousands were beaten to death or died from malnutrition, typhoid, tuberculosis and dysentery. In some camps almost all the children died.
The inmates were used as slave labour. Above the gates were edifying slogans, such as "Labour and freedom" and "He who helps himself will also be helped". Loudspeakers broadcast the national anthem and patriotic exhortations. People deemed to have disobeyed the rules were killed in front of the others. The survivors were forced to dig mass graves, which were quickly filled.
Interrogation under torture was widespread. Many of the men were anally raped, using knives, broken bottles, rifle barrels, snakes and scorpions. A favourite technique was to hold a man upside down, his head in a bucket of water, while sand was rammed into his rectum with a stick. Women were gang-raped by the guards. People were mauled by dogs and electrocuted. The British devised a special tool which they used for first crushing and then ripping off testicles. They used pliers to mutilate women's breasts. They cut off inmates' ears and fingers and gouged out their eyes. They dragged people behind Land Rovers until their bodies disintegrated. Men were rolled up in barbed wire and kicked around the compound.
Elkins provides a wealth of evidence to show that the horrors of the camps were endorsed at the highest levels. The governor of Kenya, Sir Evelyn Baring, regularly intervened to prevent the perpetrators from being brought to justice. The colonial secretary, Alan Lennox-Boyd, repeatedly lied to the House of Commons. This is a vast, systematic crime for which there has been no reckoning.
The myths of empire are so well-established that you appear to blot out countervailing stories even as they are told. As evidence from the manufactured Indian famines of the 1870s and from the treatment of other colonies accumulates, British imperialism emerges as no better and in some cases even worse than the imperialism practiced by other nations.
Former Prime Minister Winston Churchill famously said: “I hate Indians. They are a beastly people with a beastly religion. The famine was their own fault for breeding like rabbits,” referring to the Bengal famine in 1943, where up to four million Bengalis starved to death, as food was diverted to British soldiers. Peaceful protestors demonstrated against British colonial rule in Amritsar India in 1919. Soldiers kept firing at them until they ran out of ammunition, killing up to 1,000 and injuring another 1,100 within ten minutes. The man who ordered the killings, Brigadier Reginald Dyer, was seen as a hero by the British public, who raised £26,000 for him as a thank you.
In South Africa, during the Second Boer War (1899-1902), the British rounded up around a sixth of the Boer population - mainly women and children - and detained them in overcrowded camps, with little food. In a single year 10 per cent of the entire Boer population died in the camps, including 22,000 children.
How about you just let the subjects decide for themselves
I’m going to quite CS Lewis, as best I can, “It was Aristotle who once said, ‘some men are not fit for more than slaves,’ and while I don’t know if I agree with this I do not believe that any man is fit to be a master.”
My life has revealed both these statements true, most directly within my own life. I’ve often wondered if I am fit to be anything more.
Well, considering most people don't know that people more commonly had slaves that were the same race as them, I highly doubt there would be many people that would thank the Brits for their freedom. I was of course not there when all this went down so, take it with a pinch of salt and have a great day ;)
That's why the war on slavery was so remarkable. Redcoats sailed halfway around the world to make people stop bloody slaving.
Didn't the industrial revolution reduce the demand for slaves?
This is more important:
Mathew 20:26-28
26 Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, 27 and whoever wants to be first must be your slave- 28 just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”
Wooo title got me, was like what JBP is defending slavery? But then fantastic content as usual. Thanks JBP
interesting comment, as you openly admit you was badly informed before hand.
Umm,
In AD 9, the Emperor Wang Mang abolished slavery
The Qing dynasty (1644-1912 AD) They possessed about two million slaves upon their conquest of China.
Like previous dynasties, the Qing rulers soon saw the advantages of phasing out slavery.
The Slavery Abolition Act came into effect on 1 August 1834 for British Empire ( including Canada)
When it comes to ending slavery, Britain was behind the eight ball. The US as well.
After the Civil War and the slaves set 'free', but slavery continued by another name. Incarceration.
It provided prisoner labor to private parties, such as plantation owners and corporations.
91% of the prisoners were black, being Leased Out for labour. Outlandish laws were created, such as the infamous Pig Laws, made sure they had enough prisoners. When that cotton needed pickin' so bad the incarcerations went up.
Southern US states, like Alabama, in 1883 about 10% of the Alabama state government's total revenue was derived from convict leasing of prisoners under the state's control. This figure increased to nearly 73% of total revenue by 1898.
It's frustrating when certain folks and media (like the DailyWire) are always white-washing / cherry picking / tone down the facts of (American) slavery with "what-about-ism" or out-right cock and bull.
I don't give a damn shite what race, sex, religion, or political party they belonged to back in the day, or today. It was wrong then, and still wrong now.
Misleading title, statements. E, for Effort
Thx to Everybody who helps stop slavery, and to those in the past who have stopped
Okay so, the example of Wang Mang isn't applicable because he didn't abolish slavery he merely let those free slaves he came across in China, that's not the same as creating a law outlawing the practice nationwide and fighting to enforce the legislature like the British did. As Dr. Biggar explains. Furthermore, I don't know if what you say about African-American men being imprisoned and forced to engage in field labor again is true but, what I do know is this (at that time it wouldn't surprise me) but that still wouldn't be the same as slavery it would be state-sanctioned and most likely unfairly portioned indentured servitude but, yeah if that is true then that's evil you'll get no disagreement from me.
@@adaptivelearner6162 Agreed that Wang Mang isn't applicable, being no law created.
but shows negative views of slavery way back in the day, and people were set free.
As for the African-American men, just search " Slavery, by Another Name ". Agreed that it was not the same as slavery, it was worse.
In response to the initial issue - I would suggest that it's not racism, but perhaps elitism in the name of nationalism that is to blame for this hubris. The usual excuse for tyranny. The racism supposition is bait, and a ruse that works very well in many contexts to aid as a diversionary strategy, as it is very charged and polarises to a high degree. I don't mean to discount any relevant cases of racism, but in this case, as in most geo-political contexts it is the war for power, domination and wealth that are at fault and most probably the reason why Cecil John Rhodes and his roundtable of arrogant elitists should be dismantled. The British are not evil, and at the same time they have harboured much of it under the guise of nationalism, have successfully swept it under the carpet, and very few have the grit or the knowledge to mention it. Of course the British are not the only nation to have done so, but that much is obvious. Jordan, thanks for this - please could you do an expose of how, while the British as all nations are most certainly not evil, they do have a lot of blood on their hands; if not the most in human history. The Romans taught them well. For this endeavour I would recommend delving into the history of the Cecil John Rhodes Roundtable - the links to the South African Gold and Diamond mines - the British Department of Foreign affairs - the British Media manipulation and propaganda and strategy leading to World War 2. And then, as usual, follow the money and those who stood to gain. All the way down the rabbit hole to the city of London central banking ;)
It was Christians who fought tooth and nail to abolish slavery, but let's not think the British were not saints in their post-slavery operations in the colonies, Operation Legacy is another horrific indictment on occasionally Great Island.
The records the British Empire didn't want you to see - Audra A. Diptée ua-cam.com/video/oPGVGckn7kQ/v-deo.html
Historical facts on colonialism and slavery are a mere bonus. The stronger basis for this argument is simply the direction of migration the last 100 years, into the colonising countries.
Yeah no
Master...don't tell that to the Indu Nation.
Or the Irish
Example of British Colonial attitude towards Indians experiencing famines in this case Orissa Famine of 1866:
Over a million people died in the Orissa alone(roughly one third of the population). The total death toll was between 4 to 5 million.
On a flying visit to Orissa in February 1866, Cecil Beadon, the colonial governor of Bengal (which then included Orissa), he pronounced. 'Too late, too rotten'
Regulating the skyrocketing grain prices would risk tampering with the natural laws of economics. "If I were to attempt to do this," the governor said, "I should consider myself no better than a dacoit or thief." With that, Mr Beadon deserted his emaciated subjects in Orissa and returned to Kolkata (Calcutta) and busied himself with quashing privately funded relief efforts.
In May 1866, it was no longer easy to ignore the mounting catastrophe in Orissa. British administrators in Cuttack found their troops and police officers starving. The remaining inhabitants of Puri were carving out trenches in which to pile the dead. "For miles round you heard their yell for food," commented one observer.
As more chilling accounts trickled into Calcutta and London, Mr Beadon made a belated attempt to import rice into Orissa. It was, with cruel irony, hindered by an overabundant monsoon and flooding. Relief was too little, too late, too rotten. Orissans paid with their lives for bureaucratic foot-dragging. (source: BBC, wikipedia)
We can thank SOME of the British. The Parliamentary act that "ended" slavery or the trade in Britain passed as a result of parliamentary trickery on the part of abolitionists. It was not a slam dunk. America, in the colonial age, wanted to end slavery in the southern colonies. Thomas Jefferson as a representative in the legislature of Virginia introduced legislation 6 times to abolish slavery. King George would not allow them to do it. The British Empire was built to some degree by slavery in the Southern states of America which cost us over 600,000 lives to eradicate. I'm not ready to thank them yet.
Did the former slaves receive any reparations? Were measures taken to ensure the safe return of each and every individual to their respective home towns or villages? Why did Britain’s involvement in the trade, plantation slavery still exist in British colonies. In fact, supposedly freed slaves were in fact committed to six to 12 years of further service as unpaid ‘apprentices’, meaning slave owners were compensated to the tunes of millions - and continued to get free labour. It wasn’t until 1838 that these admittedly wildly contentious apprenticeships were abolished too, and slaves in the British Empire were truly emancipated.
You're forgetting the enlightenment thinking and changes in philosophical thinking.. but most of all You're forgetting that 99% of the British people were against slavery, not for religious reasoning but moral. The British have never been very religious, people would go to church but wouldn't really believe in it.
From wiki: "A handful of emperors and officials throughout Chinese history have made efforts to limit or outlaw slavery. None were successful [in completely abolishing slavery < edit mine]. In 100 BC, the Confucian scholar Dong Zhongshu advised Emperor Wu of Han to limit the amount of land and slaves that people could own. In 9 AD, Wang Mang ordered the nationalization of large estates and their redistribution to farmers. Part of his reform was changing the institution of slavery so that they would become tax payers, since some impoverished farmers sold themselves or their children into slavery. In the 13th century AD, the jurist Ma Duanlin promulgated a policy limiting the number of slaves owned by officials and commoners to 30. In the 14th century, the Hongwu Emperor ordered an end to all slavery, but in practice slavery continued without heed to his commands. In the 18th century, the Yongzheng Emperor made similar attempts to abolish slavery. In 1909, the Qing officially abolished slavery, but due to internal turmoil and its demise, the institution persisted until 1949 when the People's Republic of China was founded.[4]"
Note that English laws against slavery also did not work for a long time, because slaves were held, for example, in British Burma until 1926. So whatever attempts by the Brits were tried, they only recently took effective in all land they effectively controlled. Making it illegal only in England wasn't much of an accomplishment in my view, if there was still massive slave trade in colonies by Brits.
Look up the west africa squadron
Well they certainly perfected it with the Africans.
No that would be God, thanks God, lol.
No. I was first. I was first. Me! Me! :(
Modern slaves: fear, conform, consume. Propaganda and subliminal programming from marketing geniuses. Pay your taxes 🎉
Akala, British born poet. His lecture at the Oxford Union is worth listening to. Would like to see him on the podcast
Really though it almost never happens that an oppresive group has such a profound moral and ethical turnaround.
They were still murdering us Irish long after this so called moral crusade. Jordan is of course a protestant so he's ignoring that fact.
It didn't. It ended the competition to maintain its hegemony. Africa is still being exploited. America is an extension of the British Empire
@Rahul kulkarni I don't even know what to say about all that. Colonialism is over. First off china is exploiting africa a thousand times more than any current nation. China is buying up most of the land in Africa and building their own infrastructure there. The real reason Africa gets exploited is because the political leaders of Africa and African business men have absolutely zero issue with exploiting the rest of the population keeping them poor while they get rich. Tell me where are all these British and American leaders in Africa keeping the country poor? All I see is african leaders letting their people starve while they ride in the back of a Mercedes. Your bringing up shit from 200 years ago while ignoring the present state of Africa and its politics. You clearly have no idea what your talking about or are willfully ignoring that Africans have been exploiting each other the last 100 years.
@@rahulkulkarni536
If India was the hegemonic world power instead of Britain, do you honestly believe that India would have been a more benevolent ruler?
I highly, highly doubt it. Freedom, individual liberty, human rights, etc are uniquely British ideas.
The world has no idea how lucky it was to have Britain as its master. They couldn't have found a more peaceful and compassionate ruler.
France made slavery illegal in 1315. I think that beats England.
then how they kept slaves in haiti?
I think you should review the title of the video since the united kingdom is historically the world’s biggest empire🙃
And the most disgusting. The blood of natives will never be washed from that horrible flag. Us Irish will never stop reminding you of your history no matter how hard you try to erase it.
Well they flipped from physical slavery to debt slavery with the banking model that incorporates usery. It will change in the distant future though.
Absolute nonsense. Lending money isn't the same as usury and it's consensual
Slavery actually has positive notions too.... research "kinsmen redeemer" as a concept and the Torah surrounding Slavery within the Hebrew nations
This isn’t necessarily true
oh, you know more than these two do, do you?
"My Ebonics Black Herstory professor told me that the Redcoats were evil for taking her ancestor's slave trade awa... wait, no, I'm supposed to say that part quietly. Shit."
@Gyrate explain that to an Irishman
Nah, the British invaded my country and killed almost an entire island.
Thank you tommy
Very much disappointed in JP for this episode. I hope he speaks to another historian on the matter. Britains version of slavery was materially different from the usual customs of slavery at the time. Britain invaded countries and captured people, via conquest, there wasnt any war. They cannot by conquest enslave people then be praised to abolish something they started.
Are you seriously claiming Britain started slavery?
@@docwhat8370 show me where i said they started it…i am waiting
@@badpapae
they never captured people
name me one country that didnt do that
you are full of it
That’s incorrect. We were not a functioning empire when the conquest and capturing of people was the norm. British was conquered and enslaved by the romans then the Saxons then the Danes. Thats an actual fact.
You really need to start ditching phoney words like “evil” it’s ridiculous living in a comic book
Following the end of the slave trade in the early 19th century, the British replaced slavery with an indentured servitude system in which more than 1.6 million Indians were brought to work in European colonies. After slavery was abolished in the British Empire in 1833, the French colonies in 1848, and the Dutch Empire in 1863, the system was expanded. Till the 1920s, British Indians were subject to indentureship. This led to the formation of major Indian diasporas in the Caribbean, Natal (South Africa), East Africa, Réunion, Mauritius, Sri Lanka, Malaysia, Myanmar, and Fiji, as well as people of Indian descent in the Caribbean, Africa, Fiji, Malaysia, and Singapore.
The so called "abolishment of slavery" is malarkey
Not really even if that's true it's still a moral improvement and you must remember indentured servitude doesn't equal slavery so, it was a moral improvement the abolishment of slavery was not "malarkey" as you put it.
@@adaptivelearner6162 Well, both slaves and indentured servants could be sold, loaned, or inherited. And I would prefer neither. The finer points may differ, but come on.....
@@EvsEntps If you think people left their homes and travelled 1000s of miles for indentured service, out of choice, then you are deluding yourself. Many individuals were forced into indentured servitude due to circumstances beyond their control, such as poverty, debt, or social pressures Both systems involved the exploitation and subjugation of individuals. Indentured servants faced significant hardships, including harsh living conditions, limited legal protections, and the possibility of physical punishment for wrongdoings. But hey, if you want to delude yourself, go ahead.
@@EvsEntps And then went on to kill 4 million or so, Bengalis by starvation during World War 2.
@@EvsEntps Wow, you have no clue of history do you? Before the British, neighboring kingdoms used to help out others during famines, but this was stopped by the British. A total of 50 million Indians died of starvation under British rule, because the British actively prevented neighboring kingdoms from helping others.
There was no explosive population growth in India. Both China and India have had large population since pre-historic times, because of the access to the third largest fresh water source in the world
During the great Bengal famine during the World War II when 4 million people died because Winston Churchill deliberately as a matter of written policy proceeded to divert essential supplies from civilians in Bengal to sturdy tommies and Europeans as reserve stockpiles. He said that the starvation of anyway underfed Bengalis mattered much less than that of sturdy Greeks' - Churchill's actual quote. And when conscious stricken British officials wrote to him pointing out that people were dying because of this decision, he peevishly wrote in the margins of file, “Why hasn’t Gandhi died yet?"
Proverbs 12:6((E.S.V.))🌥
**👑🙎🏽♂️
What Greece was to Rome, Britain is to America
The only reason Northern states turned against slavery, was because they could no longer benefit from it.
Abraham Lincoln didn't free the slaves. He renamed them Sharecroppers.
Not Migrant Workers, not Tenant Farmers. But Sharecroppers AKA workers listed as "sharing" 1/3 of a plantation's earnings in the form of "Taxable Wages".
Lincoln started the first income tax in 1860, then campaigned to turn black people into "sharecroppers", only he called it "Freeing the slaves".
According to his plan, any individual earning less than $800 per year would be exempt.
Not a problem for northern factory workers who only made $450 per year, and would still learn less than $750 as late as 1920.
But blacks in the south were tagged as sharecroppers.
A typical plantation made $150,000 per year.
1/3 of that, or $50,000 would be listed as the worker's share.
So if a plantation had 50 blacks working, each would be listed as earning $1000.
That's well above the $800 exemption limit, so the South had to continue to pay the North.
Even if the black people didn't make that much, it didn't matter, The plantations had to cover the taxes for them.
It's called EXTORTION.
That's one of the reasons the South seceded.
But it wasn't about slavery.
Love you and respect you dr. Peterson. You have helped me so much in my life. However, I just dropped in to respond to the title then leave.
"Nope! Not going to happen no way. To think that the British fight for the freedom and individualism of anyone, purely altruistically, is simply ridiculous.
Whether it was knowledge of the change in societies with industrialism, market capture due to economics globally, or just to spite the colonies lost. There are plenty of reasons why even rejecting my premis I'm not going to bring myself to thank them for civil or human rights.
I swear anything to make people feel less guilty about there past😂😂
Who's past? Everyone who was involved in the transatlantic slave trade are dead, or are we blaming great great grandchildren for the crimes of their ancestors now?
Not only that, but I paid taxes before 2015, meaning however small a contribution I made, I helped pay for the freedom of the slaves!
You mean their past. Nobody is going to take lessons on history from an illiterate.
Between 1662 and 1807 British and British colonial ships purchased an estimated 3,415,500 Africans. Of this number, 2,964,800 survived the 'middle passage' and were sold into slavery in the Americas. Until the 1730s, London dominated the British trade in enslaved people. It continued to send ships to West Africa until the end of the trade in 1807. The transatlantic slave trade was the largest forced migration in human history and completely changed Africa, the Americas and Europe.
Ironically, when slavery was abolished, what happened was a compensation of 20 million pounds was paid not as reparations to those who had lost their lives or who had suffered or been oppressed by slavery but to those who had lost their property.
Oww boo hoo poor Indian boy going to cry? 😂
I would love to read a book on the history of slavery but I just know whatever book I pick up will have a "white people bad" undertone.
All spoken in English.Never forget how savage the English were to the Irish.
He's a prod, he's ignoring it
It's in the past. We now have self determination. Be progressive.
@@arcadia6795 Jordan is speaking mostly of the past.
They were savage to everyone, wherever they went. Except for cannibalism, they committed almost every atrocity you could think of. Churchill was almost as bad as Hitler and Stalin.
Never forget that the ROI is a forward-looking country that acknowledges history, but is not trapped by it; and unlike so many, has no desire to rattle a tin cup.
Jordan is m aftaid slavery was never abolished it was rebranded to be fully inclusive wete all feckong slaves now
Nothing the British Empire did was humane, if you want to know about the atrocities the British committed in India. Read about the Bengal famine which was artificially created by Churchill and killed more Indians by starvation than Hitler killed Jews. Jallianwala Bagh massacre where they opened fire on a group of men women and children who gathered for a festival. Kala Pani was a jail in Andaman and Nicobar islands which was used to keep convicted as well as under trial political prisoners, which was even worse than hell . This is just a small glimpse of the atrocities the Britishers did. There is slavery and then there are things even worse than slavery and the Britishers commited both.
Haters got to hate. Nothing humane? Where did modern medicine, sanitation and modern ideas of democracy and personal freedom originate. This is not to take away from atrocities committed but to put some context. The empire lasted 300years and covered 1/4 of the world's surface. You think there are no bad things happening today?
@@arcadia6795 Medicine, sanitation, democracy (more precisely republics) and personal freedom were present in India in 600 BCE . Republics were divided into the following three categories:.
a. Democracies or pure Gana, wherein the total adult-population participated in the administration;
b. Aristocracies or pure Kula, wherein only some selected families participated in the administration; and
c. Mixed aristocracies and democracies or a mixure of Kula and Gana, wherein the administration was the mixture of the two.
The earliest evidence of urban sanitation was seen in Harappa, Mohenjo-daro, and the recently discovered Rakhigarhi. This urban plan included the world's first urban sanitation systems. Within the city, individual homes or groups of homes obtained water from wells. Several courtyard houses had both a washing platform and a dedicated toilet/waste disposal hole. The toilet holes would be flushed by emptying a jar of water, drawn from the house's central well, through a clay brick pipe, and into a shared brick drain, that would feed into an adjacent soak pit (cesspit). The soak pits would be periodically emptied of their solid matter, possibly to be used as fertilizer. Most houses also had private wells. City walls functioned as a barrier against floods.
In certain states, the local assemblies enjoyed wide autonomy to look after their respective local administrations and the matters concerning the entire state were decided by all the elected representatives of the local assemblies; in certain others, the powers to govern the entire state were handed over to an elected central assembly and executive. In each state the members of the assembly had the freedom to frame laws and the executives were elected directly or indirectly by a large number of the populace. In all these states, the people who had the right to rule according to settled laws of the state used to assemble at an assembly-hall called the Santhagara, discussed all important matters concerning the state, decided on issues by a majority vote, either by open or secret ballot, if there was no unanimity of opinion and elected the members of the executive.
Medicine, was used in many ancient civilizations, including India ( classified as ayurveda). Ayurveda is still practiced in India, and people from all over the world (including British Royalty) come here for treatment.
The first evidence of road development in the Indian subcontinent can be traced back to approximately around 2800 BC in the ancient cities of Harrapa and Mohenjodaro of the Indus Valley civilization. Ruling emperors and monarchs of ancient and medieval India continued to construct roads to connect the cities. The existing Grand Trunk Road was re-built by the Mauryan Empire, and further rebuilt by subsequent entities such as the Sur Empire, the Mughal Empire and the British Empire.
Chandragupta constructed a 2,400 Km long road from Pataliputra (modern Patna) to Takshashila (now in Pakistan) (300-500 AD ). In the 5th century AD, The emperor Ashoka has improved the quality of the roads in India for the travelers, in his ruling period.
Streets and their planning form one of the most important canons of town-planning and Indian ancient architectswere wide awake to this vital principle. Roads had a threefold function: they are high ways for traffic; secondly they demarcate the plots for buildings and constitute a vital limb in the site-planning and thirdly they have sanitary value, providing arteries of free ventilation. Though as per the details of some of the Śilpa-texts it seems that the roads were not so spacious as we have today but some of the ancient works have compensated in regard to adjusting the width of streets to the volume of traffic. Thus we read in the Devī Purāṇa-ch. 72.78-9-“The royal street or high way should be made as wide as ten dhanuṣ i.e. forty cubits, so that men, horses, elephants, and vehicles can have free movement without interference and congestion.” Śukrācārya, prohibits construction of small lanes such as ‘vīthīs’ (small lanes) and ‘padyās’ (foot-ways) in the metropolis or large cities. In Kauṭilya’s Artha-śāstra (Book II ch. IV) we find mention of roads for chariots, roads for cattle, roads for elephants and roads for minor quadrupeds as well as for men, which tradition is also fully followed in the Harivaṃśa, Viṣṇuparva ch. 38-“Vehicular streets (rathyā), avenues (vīthī) and men’s roads (nṛṇām mārgāḥ) were constructed separately in the city.” Further in the Devī and Brahmāṇḍa Purāṇas, the deśa-mārga [mārgāḥ] or diśā-mārga i.e. country roads are stated to be as wide as 30 dhanuṣ, Grāma-mārgas 20 dhanuṣ and Sīmā-mārgas only 10 dhanus which clearly shows the grasp of the several roads of towns conforming to the different traffic circulations.
@@arunnaik3375 using wiki, Iook up list of British discoveries and inventions. You will note there is a list within the list of each century dating back to the beginning of the industrial revolution and leading to the modern age. Now do the same for Indian discoveries and inventions. It could of been any nation. If you are truly impartial, explain world average life expectancy, infant mortality and education rates before the empire Vs after the empire. There is a clear correlation and you can even see each invention or discovery which led to it. Penicillin, the steam engine even computers and the world wide web. This is not to say the British are better people or worse people, it was a weird set of circumstances that caused this to happen such as being an island and needing to compete with powerful neighbours. It could have been any nation, but never in human civilization had anything like this been seen before at such pace and on such scale. I am glad we live in these enlightened times, history is full of horrors but these enlightened times didn't just magic themselves into existence.
@@arcadia6795
The infinite series of calculus for trigonometric functions (rediscovered by Gregory, Taylor, and Maclaurin in the late 17th century) were described in India, by mathematicians of the Kerala school, remarkably some two centuries earlier. Some scholars have recently suggested that knowledge of these results might have been transmitted to Europe through the trade route from Kerala by traders and Jesuit missionaries. Kerala was in continuous contact with China and Arabia, and, from around 1500, with Europe. The existence of communication routes and a suitable chronology certainly make such a transmission a possibility.
Both Arab and Indian scholars made discoveries before the 17th century that are now considered a part of calculus. However, they did not, as Newton and Leibniz did, "combine many differing ideas under the two unifying themes of the derivative and the integral, show the connection between the two, and turn calculus into the great problem-solving tool we have today." The intellectual careers of both Newton and Leibniz are well-documented and there is no indication of their work not being their own;[67] however, it is not known with certainty whether the immediate predecessors of Newton and Leibniz, "including, in particular, Fermat and Roberval, learned of some of the ideas of the Islamic and Indian mathematicians through sources we are not now aware."
Ancient India had universities, health services and schools. Lookup en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_institutions_of_learning_in_the_Indian_subcontinent
These were systematically destroyed by the Brits.
As per Will Durant, an American, who visited India during the 1930s, mentions that the total budget of education in India, was half of the New York state's budget. As Will Durant points out, ‘When the British came, there was, throughout India, a system of communal schools, managed by the village communities. The agents of the East India Company destroyed these village communities, and took no steps to replace the schools; even today [1930]… they stand at only 66 per cent of their number a hundred years ago. There are now in India 730,000 villages, and only 162,015 primary schools. Only 7 per cent of the boys and 1 per cent of the girls receive schooling, i.e. 4 per cent of the whole. Such schools as the Government has established are not free, but exact a tuition fee which…looms large to a family always hovering on the edge of starvation.’
Britain’s education policy, in other words, had very little to commend itself. It supplanted and undermined an extensive Indian tradition: traditional methods of guru-shishya parampara (in which students lived with their teachers and imbibed an entire way of thinking) had thrived in India, as did the many monasteries which went on to become important centres of education, receiving students from distant lands, notably as far from our shores as China and Turkey. The Pala period [between the eighth and the twelfth century CE], in particular, saw several monasteries emerge in what is now modern Bengal and Bihar, five of which-Vikramashila, Nalanda, Somapura Mahavihara, Odantapuri, and
Jaggadala-were premier educational institutions which created a coordinated network amongst themselves under Indian rulers. Read
Inglorious empire by Shashi Tharoor.
Rape of a continent by Will Durant.
www.britannica.com/science/history-of-medicine/Traditional-medicine-and-surgery-in-Asia
journal.chestnet.org/article/S0096-0217(16)32598-5/fulltext
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1469-7580.2010.01294.x
www.intechopen.com/chapters/73290
@@arcadia6795 British did give India the English language, the benefits of which persist to this day. Or did they? The English language was not a deliberate gift to India, but again an instrument of colonialism, imparted to Indians only to facilitate the tasks of the English. In his notorious 1835 Minute on Education, Lord Macaulay articulated the classic reason for teaching English, but only to a small minority of Indians: ‘We must do our best to form a class who may be interpreters between us and the millions whom we govern; a class of persons, Indians in blood and colour, but English in taste, in opinions, in morals and in intellect.’ The language was taught to a few to serve as intermediaries between the rulers and the ruled. That Indians seized the English language and turned it into an instrument for our own liberation-using it to express nationalist sentiments against the British, as R. C. Dutt, Dinshaw Wacha and Dadabhai Naoroji did in the late nineteenth century and Jawaharlal Nehru in the twentieth -was to their credit, not by British design.
I am British... still slaving...
Wait didn’t they have slaves tho including the royal family? Or is that just hearsay
Every country had slaves for most of history. The point is that Britain was one of the first to end it and campaign for it to end
way to go at missing the point....
as long as the slaves fueling the british economy were technically in their colonies all over the world, they could "honestly" climb onto the high horse of having abolished it. I hear their contracts were often filled with the same type of "honesty"
@@Ronin969 Lol that's bullshit. They campaigned, successfully, to end British colonial slavery in the Caribbean as well
@@Ronin969 Modern slaves fuel much of the world's economy... because we're run by people who think the British Empire was evil.
Just a reminder: there is only one race, the human race. Also, The Scriptures allow for having "slaves" but they were not intended to be mistreated. I'm a human with ties to Scotland or Ireland with lighter skin than that of the "so-called brown-skinned." Negro. I don't say that with any pride. Although I don't know whether my ancesters owned any slaves or were involved in the slave trade. I would be ashamed if so.
can I also thank them for staring chatel african slavery?
Nope. Thank Africans for that.
They started it? You can't be serious.
@@stizan9185 do you even know what chattel slavery is???
Chattel slavery is the most common form of slavery known to Americans. This system, which allowed people - considered legal property - to be bought, sold and owned forever, was lawful and supported by the United States and European powers from the 16th - 18th centuries.
@@KopperNeoman do you even know what chattel slavery is???
Chattel slavery is the most common form of slavery known to Americans. This system, which allowed people - considered legal property - to be bought, sold and owned forever, was lawful and supported by the United States and European powers from the 16th - 18th centuries.
@@gorequillnachovidal And did Americans and British people started it? I think you miss the point.
GoRDONiRoN ❤dewEENeYeouRoWN 👣👁️🖤🌎5:44 pMiST cOWRiGhToR kopyRhiGhT TeXT KoPYWRiTe oWnoR NoAT WeLLB YuTTeR cOWRiGhToR 👣💜🍇🍇🍇🍇😗
*laughs in 1776*
“First in history to abolish slave trade” is not true. Dubrovnik Republic first abolished slavery back in 15th century.
But ....they did not put their entire economy and military to work to abolish slavery around the world!! The Brits did, at massive cost, simply because it was the right thing to do!
@@mick1406 The statement on the picture of the video is not true. Dubrovnik first abolished slavery back in 1416. What Britts did later and why I really do not care. I will edit my comment to be more precise. Thanks for reply.
England did it in the 11th century. ;P
Britain never had it.
The British Empire made it unconstitutional in the 19th.
“First in history to abolish slave trade” and replaced it with indentured labor.
Sweden abolished slavery first of all countries, in 1335. I love Denmark but they abolished slavery first 1792. A bit strange then that he takes Denmark as an example of a country that abolished slavery early. Just saying.
William the conqueror outlawed slavery in England in 1068. After he invaded us. 🤔
A big thank you to the white man. You never hear that nowadays. But guess what. It’s true.
Attributing freedom solely to the British disregards the agency and resilience of those who fought against slavery and oppression. Many individuals and communities have contributed to the progress of human rights and freedom throughout history, and it is important to acknowledge the contributions of diverse actors rather than simplifying complex historical narratives.
Ridiculous. You're only mad because the credit goes to the Englishmen, and not some generically Diverse cadre of heroes.
You know what happened to slave revolts? They were CRUSHED. ALL of them. Not until William Wilberforce and his abolitionist movement convinced Britain to go on a crusade to save them was any headway made.
I’m not thanking the “British” for anything
Then you’re dumb
Oh ok, Jordan, let us all forget about the Brit Genocide of the Irish. The famine was simply the icing on the cake. Shame on you!
Settle down my Irish flower
What does that have to do with it?
Oh Danny Boy
That was the Republic of England. Cromwell was a conquering tyrant. Like Hitler to the Germans.
@@cormacgreene8505 you won't be laughing when you are in recession while we are the wealthiest country in Europe. Enjoy them jam sandwiches
All pioneers in America were indentured for 7 seven years before they could have their property. Also we had a cause to rebel/taxation without representation, which is rampant now. The Brits also had the ships to go get slaves and bring them here.
By the government's definition of representation, natch. Plenty of men took up arms against General Washington because he didn't represent them. Worth looking into.
And slavery wasn't unconstitutional in the British Empire until later, so the 13 Colonies had the lawful autonomy to engage in a practice illegal in Britain. (Addendum: many among the Loyalists wanted ALL of Britain's laws, which would have banned slavery in the colonies: so the Founding Fathers did indeed fight to keep their slaves among other things.
And the pioneers were indentured servants to the company who owned the ships. They also tried collective farming until the English made them stop. That's what Thanksgiving's about.
What about the Brits colonising Cyprus and not letting them free? What sort of freedom is this?
The Cyprians don't want to be independent. Don't force them.
What about the turks?
Being a neocon doesn't look as good on you, Jordan.
Really thank the brits , i dont think so, ohh Jordan Peterson, you have a lot to learn about history, when it comes to britain controlling and invading other countries.
Explain
Read a few books on British colonialism. Talk to a historian from India.
Peterson isn't denying colonialism.
But the fact is that Britain campaigned extensively and largely successfully to end slavery
Right? This clown likes to pervert history to suit his arguments -
@@cormacgreene8505 Aww, poor slave trader. Mad that good men came and civilised you. Spill the slaver's blood!
Also, Britain FOUNDED India. India didn't exist until Britain united the Rahjs and kicked out the tyrannical Muslim rulers of then-largest Rahj.
British were evil. When Will Durant, who co-authored, with his wife, Ariel, The Story of Civilization, witnessed what was happening in India in the 1930s, he set aside his work of history to write a short pamphlet called The Case for India. In this pamphlet, the ordinarily measured historian does not mince words, lambasting the British for their ongoing actions. “The British conquest of India,” Durant writes, “was the invasion and destruction of a high civilization by a trading company utterly without scruple or principle […] bribing and murdering, annexing and stealing, and beginning that career of illegal and legal plunder.” Britain profited enormously from what Durant calls the “rape of a continent,” so much so that on the eve of independence, the vast majority of Indians were living in poverty. It was, as Durant put it, “the most sordid and criminal exploitation of one nation by another in all recorded history.”
When the British East India Company began building the railways that are so often touted today, the Crown guaranteed a five percent return on investment. Such a handsome return could be fixed only because the railways were paid for by Indian, not British, taxes. When the Crown purchased the East India Company in 1858, following the mutiny of Indian sepoys, its purchase price was similarly added to the colony’s public debt. Britain not only plundered India, but literally handed India a bill of enforcement - at gun point. The cumulative theft was so extortionate that Edmund Burke, as early as the late 1700s, predicted the money stolen from India would eventually destroy it.
In the 17th and 18th centuries, India was a wealthy subcontinent while Britain was a poor, feudal-ridden kingdom. By the 20th century, their fortunes had reversed: India was now one of the poorest countries in the world and Britain was the richest. In 1931, life expectancy in India stalled at just 27 years and the literacy rate was a mere 16 percent, with female literacy at a pitiable eight percent. The population was severely emaciated and diseased by the time the conquerors left. This, one can infer, did not happen by accident. Setting the economics of plunder aside, the sheer human consequence of this are such that Angus Deaton found that “the deprivation in childhood of Indians born around mid-century was as severe as any large group in history, all the way back to the Neolithic Revolution.” The deracination and deindustrialization of India was the direct consequence of British policy - duly deliberated, signed, and enacted by the most educated individuals in the world.
Indians were conquered at home but also shipped abroad as indentured servants; some three million Indians were forced to migrate to the West Indies and South Africa to work the plantations. If a parallel to the Indian experience exists, it might be found in the experience of the Africans who were transported in chains, many of them on British ships, to the New World. While indentured servitude was legally distinct from slavery, in the boats and the fields they were functionally the same. Later, the Indian independence movement would influence the American Civil Rights movement and in particular Martin Luther King Jr., who looked to Mohandas Gandhi for inspiration.
Well Will Durant wrote also another thing: ""The Islamic conquest of India is probably the bloodiest story in history. It is a discouraging tale, for its evident moral is that civilization is a precious good, whose delicate complex of order and freedom, culture and peace, can at any moment be overthrown by barbarians invading from without or multiplying within".
Both damaged India and don't forget that also Arabs enslaved african for much more centuries. Just read what was the arab slave trade!
@@af5433 Both were evil in their own ways
@@arunnaik3375 Sure!
I think Jordan has stepped out of lane on this one. The French also banned it, at around the same time. My opinion is that the great force in the abolitionist camp was Christianity.
The sun never sets on the British empire, and the blood never dries😅😅😅😅
I’m just quoting history
Whatever you think. Can you change you profile picture. It radiates to much anger
My coat is dyed in the blood of slave traders and pinko tyrants. :)
What about genocides in Africa? Black people killing black people?
There are over 80.000 children slaves in Africa now.
And Africans SOLD Africans during slavery and profited from it. Britain banned slavery before anyone did in Africa. There's nothing uglier than the genocides that took places in Africa. Attacks by machete. Whole villages burnt to the ground. One tribe against the other. That blood never dried too.
Africans aren't morally superior.
The butchers apron will never be clean
The French may have been first