Not really nationalism is just tribalism on a slightly larger scale. It’s much easier to cobble together a working state if the conquered peoples look alike, speak the same language, and have the same religion.
@@lmnop286 indeed, but it need not be wholly homogenous to create a working nation. For example India in 1947 was a far more divided but managed to form a kind of Indian identity. The Arabs are simply not that good at such things.
As an Iraqi I wanna say you did a super job man like it's always the unknown guy's like you that construct these pieces of gold you call a video thank you dude keep it up please if u can man
@@ibrahimmohammedibrahim9273 True True, maybe its kind of like how people consider the "long 1800s" to extend to 1914 I was subetely categorizing the 50s as the "long 40's"
As a Middle Eastern Arab, those who say that there is no hope here, you're just wrong. Honestly, life in the Peninsula (minus Yemen for obvious reasons) has been good, and honestly have been getting much better as the years go on. Stuff is getting better. The Levant however is a clusterfuck.
Nah, stop blaming everything on "Islamic law" the mentioned Gulf countries are following the Islamic laws more seriously, however you see that the life in the Gulf is much much better Does that clarify anything? If you keep that washed mindset you wont understand the middle east or any part of history never, in fact you should turn your sight to the colonial history of these nations to understand @@gunterxvoices4101
It is crucial to gain a deeper understanding of the events that led to the current state of the world, specifically the era of colonial rule. While it may be convenient to hold Britain and France solely responsible for the issues in the Middle East
You could look at it that way. Or you could also see that when a civilization is functioning at a high level, its influence expands. Often its borders expand. The reason Britain and France were in that area, was because they were functioning at a high level and there was a power, economic, technological, and cultural cohesion vacuum in the region that was present before they ever got there. Had the ME been an advanced and unified state, there never would have been colonies. And considering this is the literal cradle of human civilization, its pretty obvious that stagnation is to blame. They had a giant head start and squandered it.
@@raftguy1376By the same token that's why Japan was never properly colonized. They were unified and strong enough to keep interlopers out until Perry. And after that it was still in a strong enough position to ward off the less tangible forms of foreign meddling for long enough for it to industrialize and become a peer to the European powers.
Watching your series has taught me one thing about the Middle East: Nationalism and borders are Western ideas that are truly alien to a civilisation of various ethnic groups, including Arabs, Kurds, Persians, Berbers, and others, who are accustomed to living under dynasties where allegiance was towards the ruling family rather than the nation-state, as is seen in post-French Revolution Europe. Remember, Saladin and the Ayyubids were a Kurdish ruling family who held possession of two great Arab-dominated lands - Syria and Egypt - which would later be passed on to the Turkish slave dynasty, the Mamluks. It frustrates me that the British, who have a history with the Middle East, failed to convey this to the Americans prior to the invasion of Iraq. They should have used their own medieval history and their history of dealing with the Muslim world to understand the complexity of how these Muslim states function. Also it taught the Americans that you cannot be the world police and simply remove a power structure without any consequences. We saw the rise of ISIS and decades prior the rise of the Taliban after the Communist regime in Afghanistan collapsed.
The e in Kabyle is silent if pronouncing it the French way, though in English the second syllable rhymes with "mile," in keeping with the Arabic al-qabā'il.
11:28, very interesting statistic considering all the migrant workers working under horrible conditions there today, it seems that area has a history of this.
That's just Asia in general, just look at the East Asian working culture and the Indian caste system, in India if you belong to a lower caste, you literally cannot get certain jobs, so the caste you get born into determines your job. Nothing has changed when it comes to cultural practices.
Wrong in one thing it was definitely a thing in a past but not now. Problem nowadays is of discrimination. You can get jobs but doesn't mean you won't face discrimination@@DrShocktopus
Most of these South Asian cheap workers from the “lower classes” in the Gulf countries are treated much better by far than in their homeland, where classism systems makes them live worse than slaves. they also receive a salaries that they cannot dream of there, you can easily find many videos for some of them who breaking down in tears after being deported due to legal violations. claiming that they are a “slaves” is just a nonsense western propaganda.
Great work, so much detail. One minor correction: the English name St John is usually pronounced "Sinjin" (really). See, for example, the Wikipedia article on the minor British politician Norman St John-Stevas - there's a pronunciation guide near the top. Thanks again for so much education.
It's easy to blame Britain and France for the clusterfuck of the Middle East, but this series shows just how really you could get the most skilled and good-willed statesmen and diplomats on the job and it would still end in chaos.
Exactly what I was going to say! There was much brutal Muslim-on-Muslim violence for 100s of years before the Europeans arrived as a conquering force. This violence was in par with the violence that Europe experienced internally for centuries before WW1. The sustained peace in Europe over the last several decades after WW2 is a recent and novel phenomenon.
this is partially true however a number of Western elements such as nationalism, imperialism, Israel, and just OIL kinda made the old rivalries much more complicated, industrialized, and total
I don't think this video is detailed enough to explain why the Middle East is in the ruinous state that its been in since sometime after 1918. It's a very complicated question. The impact of the collapse of the Ottoman Empire is often underestimated. The Ottomans, arguably, held the Arab world in a "suspended state" after the decline and conquest of the medieval Islamic Empire - which is still remembered by Arabs of numerous political ideologies as the high point of Arab Civilization - a period of lost glory. There's also questions about whether or not Islam is itself a force of stagnation. It's a very impolite question, but a serious one.
@@skykid Imperialism is hardly a western concept, if anything it was perfected into an art form by Islamic empires. Nadir Shah’s brutal raids into Muslim-ruled India, under the Mughals, is remembered to this day with much hatred and disdain by the Hindus, who were at receiving end of the terror he unleashed, especially their wealthy, historic places of worship. The same goes for any number of other Afghan and Turkic warmongers who made a hobby of raiding Indian wealth over the centuries. As for nationalism, the 100s of years that the Persian empire spent warring with the Ottomans is extremely well documented. Israel or not, sparring Muslim tribes and factions needed no additional incentive to kil each other, even in the name of Islam. This is not unlike pre-WW1 Europe for several centuries. Oil just gave the Middle East access to seemingly unlimited wealth through hyperlocal natural resources. Even without that, Muslim empires were at each other’s throats for a very long time. The decentralized nature of the Ottoman Empire is not well understood by many. The endless wars between the Sublime Porte and the ambitious, independence-oriented provinces of the empire in North Africa, especially Egypt, led to much bloodshed, and this was really Sunni-on-Sunni violence, before someone chimes in to cast the the Persian-Ottoman rivalry as a Shia-Sunni affair.
3:10 I doubt the sincerity of the source used. This neither sounds like Sir Percy Cox nor does it sound like Ibn Saud, the man who had fought several wars and had 47 bullets in his body was “breaking down and offering half of his kingdom” ????
Could you please upload your sources? I have to do a paper on this topic and I could really use them and complement them with your video, which is awesome by the way. Thanks!
Wow I did not expect to see John Philby to be mentioned here. When I lived in Saudi Arabia I actually knew the Grand-daughter and Great-grand children of John Philby (or perhaps a generation more down the line, I am not completely sure). We were actually neighbors at one point. They were a nice family.
Regarding the Berbers and Kabyle , yes they must have Germanic , Roman admixture considering Romans and Greeks had heavily colonised north Africa and subsequently Germanic Vandals and Goths settled there and mixed with the local population .
@majidbineshgar7156 there was no Greeks colonies west of Carthage in Africa as the was a kingdom established there Numidia and kings of Numidia allied with Rome or Carthage during the Punic wars, later becoming a client state of Rome, king juba of Numidia fought on against Caesar's armies in north Africa. Yes Rome had a lot of influence the region but not the goths or vandals, yes 80,000 invaded but lost most control of the region to Berber tribes after 40-60 years of them being there and most their power base was in modern Tunisia not Alegria , and they continued to lose control and influence until Belisarius destroyed the last remnant of vandal kingdom in 534, the Berbers and Kabyle would have barely if any Germanic admixture , maybe some of Tunisia definitely not for most of Alegria
Language and religion is actually the first thing that is changed by colonisers. If that did not change, than the colonisers must have been a tiny minority.
Am Berber and no the rulers where Germanic and Roman and we are not 👱🏻♂️ those who have 👱🏻♂️ skin like me our grandfathers enslaved 🇪🇺 women so normally there’s mix but we are of our fathers not of enslaved women
23:32 Before the Ottomans of 1520s Northern Iraq was mostly Alevi Turkmen. Then Ottomans settled sunni kurds into there for assimilating Alevi Turkmens.
Its interesting how the societies on each continent in succession go through horribly violent periods until they settle down. Asia had it, Central America had it, Africa has it but N.America, Europe, Australia appear to be done, over it and life is better in those places. Its our mission as humans to Evolve.
Not including North Africa, the period of time that the Arab world is under the control of French and British empire is very short. Far, far shorter than the rest of the world. So why does it get such undue emphasis? It seems to me that the Ottoman Empire has so much more of an impact on producing the disaster that is the middle East after decolonization. It's very strange that there should be so much animosity to the West in the Arab world when there is NONE for Turkey.
Because the Ottomans did not colonise, they conquered and then relied on a decentralised government to rule. That, and in places like Algieria, they expected improvements by the western powers only to realise that it was just for exploitation. And the Arabs do criticise the Ottomans. Most Muslims do. The Ottomans are very heavily criticised due to their medieval standards of warfare and lack of Islamic rules of war during the later centuries. Also, Turkey became a secular country. Not only that, the Arabs hold to their contribution of ending the Ottoman Empire. In that sense, that animosity is not as obvious since Turkey is viewed as a Western country. Like Muslims from Africa still view Turkey as more of a European country than a Muslim country despite the recent efforts by Erdoğan to push for his islamist views or the fact that a majority of the population are Muslim. The recent municipal votes in Istanbul should show that the Turks still favour secularism too which only adds to the rest of the Islamic world viewing them as westerners.
@@vincentcorvus3063 When the Ottomans conquered the Balkans, they resettled Muslim Anatolians into the conquered Christian lands in order to solidify their gains. That is the very definition of colonization. In fact, there are many former mosques in the Balkan countries that were converted to Churches when the muslims were finally expelled.
At 31:20 you don't mention that the reason the numbers were so even was because the British police killed Muslims who were attacking Jews, it was a massacre the British barely stopped, not a battle.
This topic is way too big for a 40 minute video many details are missing about Arabia(VERY VERY VAST LAND) and also some details are out right a lie like Arab racial purity non mixing marriages.
No, there wasnt, and it wasnt meant to be. It was Balkanization to shatter and keep shattered. To believe ANY of the written rhetoric otherwise is to not winnow the real politik of historical decisions despite all writtings otherwise which would object. No one in government ever went to another land, conquered it and divided it and hoped they would grow up big and strong.
@@JabzyJoe Sure, again, I dont doubt the proclomations nor sincerity of some. I do however know the the unwritten policy for a few hundred years from these powers was one ofnthree things: own it, profit from it, or break it so it cannot compete with us. So maybe the mix was "lets see if we can profit from this" and when it became aparent that wasnt in the cards, it changed to" break it". But it seems, the endish result, to me, was intentional because jeeeeeeze the Ottomans were big and to pull "profit" out of the post ww1 morass was never going to bear more fruit than what was invested. Just my opinion using what we see transpired resulting in now, combine with my understanding of human nature. Love your work! But youtube always serves it to me at 3 a.m. so the background music tells me its bedtime lol
@@machination3e I think it's an often repeated thing. People look at the end result and assume a) it was the plan, and b) there was a great deal of profit in it. Anthony Eden put forward the idea of an Arab League: “it seems to me both natural and right that the cultural and economic ties between the Arab countries, yes, and the political ties too, should be strengthened. His Majesty’s Government for their part will give their full support to any scheme.” While Churchil said: “we should try to raise Ibn Saud to a general overlordship of Iraq and Transjordan.” Otherwise, historically, the British in particular favoured keeping Empires united to profit from them. They saved the Ottomans from the Russians, China from the Taiping etc. Of course there was money to be made in oil, but they didn't need to partition Iran for that for example. Britain in fact traded far more with Latin America and the likes. A "Soft Empire" was far more beneficial to a nation. Compare that to the Middle East - as I've said in this series before - Palestine had an annual revenue comparable to 1 British Lord in the early 20th Century. Or as it was reported after WW2 -"Jordan depends almost entirely on a British subsidy of £7,500,000 annually to run its government, and its British-trained Arab Legion of 10,000 men.”
Imam Malik, Imam al-Shafi'i, Imam Ahmad, Al-Ajurry, Al-Nasa'i, Abu Dawud, Imam Muslim, Imam Al-Bukhari, Al-Tirmidhi, Ibn 'Abdil-Barr, Ibn Taymiyyah, Ibn Kathir, Ibn Rajab, Ibn Al Qayyim, etc were all Wahhabis even before Muhammad Bin 'Abdil-Wahhab was born. Don't spread this lie of "Wahhabi ideology". I am an Algerian and our people are "Wahhabis". This is a malicious lie against the people of Truth
Your group changed a lot the books of ancient muslkm scholar so those book fit them, North African are athari but the Wahabi have different type of Atharism, your original Athari creed didn't make Allah like man, if there's a verse about hand of Allah, so be it the verse say but not make further explanation about the hand of Allah
Another video another: "All colonisers are bad, except the British". I'm sorry but even with the benefit of the doubt, the bias is not difficult to see. The pattern is way too obvious. Like obviously the French, Italians and Spaniards were brutal, but so were the British.
Thank you for inaccurate portrayal of the riots in mandatory Palestine. The popular Pseudo-historical narrative is that the British sided with the Israelis, and desecrations of Jewish holy sites, and the massacres in holy cities like Hebron and Safed are ignored.
Of particular note is in how enslavement in the Middle Earth (more accurate than middle of a direction), was epistemologically and practically wholly different from the one undertaken by chattel enslavers of those from European background. It was not predicated upon notions of supremacy backed by quakeries masquerading as science.
…i’m not sure where you got the idea there was no racial/cultural chauvinism in the Middle East… The death rate of slaves crossing the Sahara was far higher than crossing the Atlantic.. Plus, male slaves were generally castrated and female slaves were bought for the explicit purpose of sex. I wouldn’t want to be a slave at all, but if I had to choose, I’d be going to North America.
@@scott2452 That too depends on when and where. African slaves were sometimes castrated, but that practice varies since in general, slave communities were used as well while in other cases, slaves were used in the army and trained to fight such as the Mamluks. There is generally a higher chance for a slave in the middle East to gain a high position within society, but again, it differs such as with Malik Ambar who became a Sultan and tried to defeat the Mughal Empire. The later and more tribalistic Arabs were more harsher towards their slaves as most Muslims will know, but then again, Africans were also harsh on other African slaves too but that differs from place and time. In general, you'd likely not have a chance to free yourself from a European colonist compared to an Arab slaver. Cause a slave can simply convert and then it is regarded as illegal to enslave another Muslim. The Arabs treated it on more economic grounds, but yeah, harsh treated was still used on slaves.
@@vincentcorvus3063 Agree with everything you wrote (though there are plenty of cases of emancipation in North America…either from the slave holders themselves, or from fighting alongside the British)…it is also worth pointing out that the Mamluk slaves were usually Turks, Albanians, Georgians etc. which can point to racial/cultural views in the region.
The main difference is that Arabs castrated their slaves. That's why you have descendants of slaves in the US living better lives than any Africans while there are little to no descendants of slaves in the middle east because they committed a pre-emptive genocided. Also, there were virtually no "enslavers" with a European background, only slave traders. Africans were enslaved by other Africans and Arabs, who then sold them to Europeans for a lot of money. Lastly, scientific racial theory played no role in the Atlantic slave trade. It didn't come along until much later.
what? there were and there are no religion more forbidding of slavery than Islam. What's little publiczed these days is how several orders of magnitude the byzantine slev trade was bigger compared to its Arabian counterpart. Even the emperor had a eunuch play...boy to sleep with him every night. One thing the archologists remarked on the period was how rare it is to find shackles in lands ruled by Islam at that time, while the museums alone had curated over 500,000 of these from byzantium (which means there must have been dozens of millions originally as they are over a thousand years old!). There were eunuchs in there too, however that process was aeen as abominable by Muslims so the coptic church and other churches were reponsible for castrating the slaves, as they had been before Islam.
There was never hope for the Middle East period. Place has been a non-stop warzone and filled with oppression for 5000 years. As they say in Australia: shit's fucked, mate.
Don't worry it has never happened never will happen, Islam is a religion not a nation , that religion might have official status in some countries but there are nations ( e.g. Iranic peoples ) whose pre-Islamic cultural identity and their national language is far stronger therefore they have always refused to be amalgamated into a Arabic-Islamic world .
@@majidbineshgar7156 pan Islamic is a real national theory not impossible just look at Israel, for hundreds of years no one thought they would have their own nation
The term hope and Middle East Arabs simply never go together. After years of travel in the region I have learned, to my own previous optimism, is that these regions are dominated by depression, conspiracy theories, hopeless, resentment and failure. Without energy there are no economies, the only form of government that kind of works is absolute monarchy, like the rest of the world had 300 years ago. As the rest of Asia pulls itself up for far worse situations in South Korea, Japan, Vietnam, Laos, China and India; the Arab nations just fall further and further behind.
@@bonafidemonafide7810 Oh 'orientalist', somebody has seen a few Tik Toks by people who saw UA-cams or people who listen to part of the audobooks of some of the works of Andrew Said. But you are on my territory now. I won't bore you with my CV and my decades of academic, professional and personal contacts with the Arab world and clarify for you how I am not engaging in Orientalism. Said's concept can be summed up that people in the West view people in the East as things and not humans. Okay lets look at the life imposed on the young people of the Arab world. For the most part they live in societies with long running massive youth unemployment while having a majority of young people. They are excluded from any political participation. They are ruled over by old corrupt authoritarian regimes that provide them little opportunity and impose rigid systems that essentially aim to deny them any of the simple pleasures and freedoms that people even in China can have today. In 2011 there was an effort by the youth to just get some basic reforms. The outcome: if you are lucky like Tunisia, Bahrain, Iran, Turkey or Egypt the reform efforts just failed and resulted in more of the same. If you are unlucky like Syria, Yemen, Libya, Sudan or Lebanon they led to brutal civil wars and genocides. Now imagine you are a human being, you have some access via a mobile phone to Instagram and you see how people live in other nations. You cannt get a job. If you are a woman you are a second class citizen. The government is run by corrupt old people who rule with total disregard for you. These are all OBJECT facts about how most Arabs live. Even in rich Arab nations the youth unemployment is combined with lack of democracy and freedoms. How would any HUMAN likely react to such a situation? I know how much depression people in the western democracies that allow freedoms, participation and provide opportunities have because people have to struggle to pay bills and their protests don't result in immediate changes. Imagine there isn't even the job in Starbucks or with JustEast, if you go out on the street and protest you are likely to be arrested, held without trail and tortured, and if you simply go out with a boyfriend and hold hands someone in the moral authority could crack you head open, or families might marry you off or worse. If you are gay you need to hide it to protect you life. If you have doubts about the existence of God you need to keep your mouth shut. How do you think living with these OBJECTIVE facts than anyone can validate would feel emotionally? If you believe Arabs are human, you would empathetically understand that depression would be a massive problem, especially given as there is NOT PUBLIC MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES in the Middle East outside of Israel. But someone people in the radical 'left' seem to assume that Arabs are not human, that they face a world that would depress almost all of us, are somehow racist. Bad SJW, no Khalifa
“These two had a long-standing rivalry”
Has become a cornerstone phrase of this channel.
"And once again massacres took place"
Tribalism into Nationalism is definitely a huge undertaking.
Tribalism into " Nationalist Tribalism " is very dangerous.
Not really nationalism is just tribalism on a slightly larger scale. It’s much easier to cobble together a working state if the conquered peoples look alike, speak the same language, and have the same religion.
@@lipingrahman6648 same abrahamic theo. , genetics, looks, & uninhabitable desert ?
@@EdT.-xt6yvd😢bttr the the FBI ho🎉
@@lmnop286 indeed, but it need not be wholly homogenous to create a working nation. For example India in 1947 was a far more divided but managed to form a kind of Indian identity. The Arabs are simply not that good at such things.
As an Iraqi I wanna say you did a super job man like it's always the unknown guy's like you that construct these pieces of gold you call a video thank you dude keep it up please if u can man
When you were about to sleep but Jazby just uploaded a new video and it's long as always:
Understandable
I sleep to these vids 🧠
This joke stopped being funny years ago
Yup and this makes me want to go to sleep...
Stop this, that's literally me
I really appreciate your videos on the Middle East and the depth that you have gone into. Thank you!
Huge to hear this period of history explained more, its so important how the world is the way it is today the 1900-40 colonial rule era
It was until 1950s not 40
@@ibrahimmohammedibrahim9273 True True, maybe its kind of like how people consider the "long 1800s" to extend to 1914 I was subetely categorizing the 50s as the "long 40's"
nice work, great series
can't wait for part 25!
2 weeks ago you uploaded an almost 7 hour long video and I'm still hoping for a 24 hour long video ❤ I love your voice Sir ❤ Great video as always ❤
Goat text level content
Good video.
As a Middle Eastern Arab, those who say that there is no hope here, you're just wrong. Honestly, life in the Peninsula (minus Yemen for obvious reasons) has been good, and honestly have been getting much better as the years go on. Stuff is getting better. The Levant however is a clusterfuck.
And that is mainly cuz of the foreign intervention
@@John-wg9mb "foreign" being the sauds
Arabia and the levant are not real nations
The Levant is pretty epic unless you live under Islamic law. Lebanon is confusing tho
Nah, stop blaming everything on "Islamic law" the mentioned Gulf countries are following the Islamic laws more seriously, however you see that the life in the Gulf is much much better
Does that clarify anything? If you keep that washed mindset you wont understand the middle east or any part of history never, in fact you should turn your sight to the colonial history of these nations to understand @@gunterxvoices4101
The middle eastern historical movie is very good. After watching it, I have a better understanding of the countries in the middle east. Thank
It's a lot to keep track of
Please do a series like this for Africa with new fresh borders.
12:30 that's kinda the plot of tintin's comic book Coque en stock
It is crucial to gain a deeper understanding of the events that led to the current state of the world, specifically the era of colonial rule. While it may be convenient to hold Britain and France solely responsible for the issues in the Middle East
You could look at it that way.
Or you could also see that when a civilization is functioning at a high level, its influence expands. Often its borders expand.
The reason Britain and France were in that area, was because they were functioning at a high level and there was a power, economic, technological, and cultural cohesion vacuum in the region that was present before they ever got there.
Had the ME been an advanced and unified state, there never would have been colonies. And considering this is the literal cradle of human civilization, its pretty obvious that stagnation is to blame. They had a giant head start and squandered it.
@@raftguy1376giant headstart? so was mesopotamia, egypt, india, greek, etc.
empires come and go.
@@raftguy1376By the same token that's why Japan was never properly colonized. They were unified and strong enough to keep interlopers out until Perry. And after that it was still in a strong enough position to ward off the less tangible forms of foreign meddling for long enough for it to industrialize and become a peer to the European powers.
Watching your series has taught me one thing about the Middle East: Nationalism and borders are Western ideas that are truly alien to a civilisation of various ethnic groups, including Arabs, Kurds, Persians, Berbers, and others, who are accustomed to living under dynasties where allegiance was towards the ruling family rather than the nation-state, as is seen in post-French Revolution Europe. Remember, Saladin and the Ayyubids were a Kurdish ruling family who held possession of two great Arab-dominated lands - Syria and Egypt - which would later be passed on to the Turkish slave dynasty, the Mamluks. It frustrates me that the British, who have a history with the Middle East, failed to convey this to the Americans prior to the invasion of Iraq. They should have used their own medieval history and their history of dealing with the Muslim world to understand the complexity of how these Muslim states function. Also it taught the Americans that you cannot be the world police and simply remove a power structure without any consequences. We saw the rise of ISIS and decades prior the rise of the Taliban after the Communist regime in Afghanistan collapsed.
The e in Kabyle is silent if pronouncing it the French way, though in English the second syllable rhymes with "mile," in keeping with the Arabic al-qabā'il.
Isn't Qabail mean tribe ? So their tribe name mean tribe?😅
@@bosbanon3452 Yeah, it's actually the Arabic exonym, so it literally means "tribe." They call themselves Izwawen and a couple of other names.
The fact that all these new arab countries had little to no development when they become independent/colonized says a lot about the ottoman empire.
What does it say
@@456t23that Ottomans didn't developed those regions
Why are saudis so historically illiterate?
@@deathlydashi You mean 👱🏻♂️ people?
Good w ork. As always
Hope is the first step on the road to disappointment.
"many were in fact kidnapped by other slaves who sought to raise money for their own freedom" WTF?????
Welcome to the Middle East
12:27 That one slave for some f*cking reason: *NO* 🗿🤫🧏🏻♂
6:49 Otaibah 🫡🫡🫡511
11:28, very interesting statistic considering all the migrant workers working under horrible conditions there today, it seems that area has a history of this.
That's just Asia in general, just look at the East Asian working culture and the Indian caste system, in India if you belong to a lower caste, you literally cannot get certain jobs, so the caste you get born into determines your job. Nothing has changed when it comes to cultural practices.
Wrong in one thing it was definitely a thing in a past but not now. Problem nowadays is of discrimination. You can get jobs but doesn't mean you won't face discrimination@@DrShocktopus
Most of these South Asian cheap workers from the “lower classes” in the Gulf countries are treated much better by far than in their homeland, where classism systems makes them live worse than slaves. they also receive a salaries that they cannot dream of there, you can easily find many videos for some of them who breaking down in tears after being deported due to legal violations. claiming that they are a “slaves” is just a nonsense western propaganda.
Great work, so much detail.
One minor correction: the English name St John is usually pronounced "Sinjin" (really). See, for example, the Wikipedia article on the minor British politician Norman St John-Stevas - there's a pronunciation guide near the top.
Thanks again for so much education.
So when do we get to see what borders you think would be ideal for the Middle East?
It's easy to blame Britain and France for the clusterfuck of the Middle East, but this series shows just how really you could get the most skilled and good-willed statesmen and diplomats on the job and it would still end in chaos.
Exactly what I was going to say!
There was much brutal Muslim-on-Muslim violence for 100s of years before the Europeans arrived as a conquering force. This violence was in par with the violence that Europe experienced internally for centuries before WW1. The sustained peace in Europe over the last several decades after WW2 is a recent and novel phenomenon.
this is partially true however a number of Western elements such as nationalism, imperialism, Israel, and just OIL kinda made the old rivalries much more complicated, industrialized, and total
@@skykidYeah it was like Europe (pre WW2) except with foreign influences (aka the Europeans and the US) which exaggerbates the situation.
I don't think this video is detailed enough to explain why the Middle East is in the ruinous state that its been in since sometime after 1918.
It's a very complicated question. The impact of the collapse of the Ottoman Empire is often underestimated. The Ottomans, arguably, held the Arab world in a "suspended state" after the decline and conquest of the medieval Islamic Empire - which is still remembered by Arabs of numerous political ideologies as the high point of Arab Civilization - a period of lost glory.
There's also questions about whether or not Islam is itself a force of stagnation. It's a very impolite question, but a serious one.
@@skykid Imperialism is hardly a western concept, if anything it was perfected into an art form by Islamic empires. Nadir Shah’s brutal raids into Muslim-ruled India, under the Mughals, is remembered to this day with much hatred and disdain by the Hindus, who were at receiving end of the terror he unleashed, especially their wealthy, historic places of worship. The same goes for any number of other Afghan and Turkic warmongers who made a hobby of raiding Indian wealth over the centuries.
As for nationalism, the 100s of years that the Persian empire spent warring with the Ottomans is extremely well documented. Israel or not, sparring Muslim tribes and factions needed no additional incentive to kil each other, even in the name of Islam. This is not unlike pre-WW1 Europe for several centuries. Oil just gave the Middle East access to seemingly unlimited wealth through hyperlocal natural resources. Even without that, Muslim empires were at each other’s throats for a very long time.
The decentralized nature of the Ottoman Empire is not well understood by many. The endless wars between the Sublime Porte and the ambitious, independence-oriented provinces of the empire in North Africa, especially Egypt, led to much bloodshed, and this was really Sunni-on-Sunni violence, before someone chimes in to cast the the Persian-Ottoman rivalry as a Shia-Sunni affair.
3:10
I doubt the sincerity of the source used.
This neither sounds like Sir Percy Cox nor does it sound like Ibn Saud, the man who had fought several wars and had 47 bullets in his body was “breaking down and offering half of his kingdom” ????
Look at Kalb ghabi who use bonafide monafide name instead of arap name, she might be shy to show arap name buahahaha
Could you please upload your sources? I have to do a paper on this topic and I could really use them and complement them with your video, which is awesome by the way. Thanks!
please do one of the flq in quebec!
Makes european history look cartoonshly simplified. So much for "individualism" being a european thing haha, as if.
In the 1950-1960s they tried the panArabic again.
Wow I did not expect to see John Philby to be mentioned here. When I lived in Saudi Arabia I actually knew the Grand-daughter and Great-grand children of John Philby (or perhaps a generation more down the line, I am not completely sure). We were actually neighbors at one point. They were a nice family.
Regarding the Berbers and Kabyle , yes they must have Germanic , Roman admixture considering Romans and Greeks had heavily colonised north Africa and subsequently Germanic Vandals and Goths settled there and mixed with the local population .
@majidbineshgar7156 there was no Greeks colonies west of Carthage in Africa as the was a kingdom established there Numidia and kings of Numidia allied with Rome or Carthage during the Punic wars, later becoming a client state of Rome, king juba of Numidia fought on against Caesar's armies in north Africa. Yes Rome had a lot of influence the region but not the goths or vandals, yes 80,000 invaded but lost most control of the region to Berber tribes after 40-60 years of them being there and most their power base was in modern Tunisia not Alegria , and they continued to lose control and influence until Belisarius destroyed the last remnant of vandal kingdom in 534, the Berbers and Kabyle would have barely if any Germanic admixture , maybe some of Tunisia definitely not for most of Alegria
Language and religion is actually the first thing that is changed by colonisers. If that did not change, than the colonisers must have been a tiny minority.
Am Berber and no the rulers where Germanic and Roman and we are not 👱🏻♂️ those who have 👱🏻♂️ skin like me our grandfathers enslaved 🇪🇺 women so normally there’s mix but we are of our fathers not of enslaved women
what??? lmao
23:32 Before the Ottomans of 1520s
Northern Iraq was mostly Alevi Turkmen. Then Ottomans settled sunni kurds into there for assimilating Alevi Turkmens.
This doesn' t answer why Kurds are in the mountains and Turkmens are in the metropolis.
Saint Augustine one of the greatest Christian philosophers was of Berber origin.
You will never be 👱🏻♂️
Its interesting how the societies on each continent in succession go through horribly violent periods until they settle down. Asia had it, Central America had it, Africa has it but N.America, Europe, Australia appear to be done, over it and life is better in those places. Its our mission as humans to Evolve.
It's a temporary state of affairs.
Pax Americana. You're welcome.
Not Really.
Not including North Africa, the period of time that the Arab world is under the control of French and British empire is very short. Far, far shorter than the rest of the world.
So why does it get such undue emphasis? It seems to me that the Ottoman Empire has so much more of an impact on producing the disaster that is the middle East after decolonization.
It's very strange that there should be so much animosity to the West in the Arab world when there is NONE for Turkey.
It is the western with settlement Colonial outpost country (zionist state) and bases
Have you look at the map of American bases in mena region...?
Because the Ottomans did not colonise, they conquered and then relied on a decentralised government to rule. That, and in places like Algieria, they expected improvements by the western powers only to realise that it was just for exploitation. And the Arabs do criticise the Ottomans. Most Muslims do. The Ottomans are very heavily criticised due to their medieval standards of warfare and lack of Islamic rules of war during the later centuries. Also, Turkey became a secular country. Not only that, the Arabs hold to their contribution of ending the Ottoman Empire. In that sense, that animosity is not as obvious since Turkey is viewed as a Western country. Like Muslims from Africa still view Turkey as more of a European country than a Muslim country despite the recent efforts by Erdoğan to push for his islamist views or the fact that a majority of the population are Muslim. The recent municipal votes in Istanbul should show that the Turks still favour secularism too which only adds to the rest of the Islamic world viewing them as westerners.
@@vincentcorvus3063
The ottomans aren’t criticized enough for their exploitation of arab countries
Ottoman and before.
@@vincentcorvus3063 When the Ottomans conquered the Balkans, they resettled Muslim Anatolians into the conquered Christian lands in order to solidify their gains. That is the very definition of colonization. In fact, there are many former mosques in the Balkan countries that were converted to Churches when the muslims were finally expelled.
absolutely NOT
12:00 slavery in Qatar ? Well, nothing changed...
Slaves are allowed in the Bible & Quran. How you treat them should be in accordance to the Quran or Bible.
BBC fans:
At 31:20 you don't mention that the reason the numbers were so even was because the British police killed Muslims who were attacking Jews, it was a massacre the British barely stopped, not a battle.
Fair point
🙃 By a devious strategy indeed, maybe Turkey won the war.
You guys still lost three quarters of your land 😂
@@AC-py9dk Turks war freedom against that.
This topic is way too big for a 40 minute video many details are missing about Arabia(VERY VERY VAST LAND) and also some details are out right a lie like Arab racial purity non mixing marriages.
No, there wasnt, and it wasnt meant to be. It was Balkanization to shatter and keep shattered.
To believe ANY of the written rhetoric otherwise is to not winnow the real politik of historical decisions despite all writtings otherwise which would object.
No one in government ever went to another land, conquered it and divided it and hoped they would grow up big and strong.
Actually there's numerous reports of British leaders supporting an Arab Union
@@JabzyJoe Sure, again, I dont doubt the proclomations nor sincerity of some. I do however know the the unwritten policy for a few hundred years from these powers was one ofnthree things: own it, profit from it, or break it so it cannot compete with us.
So maybe the mix was "lets see if we can profit from this" and when it became aparent that wasnt in the cards, it changed to" break it".
But it seems, the endish result, to me, was intentional because jeeeeeeze the Ottomans were big and to pull "profit" out of the post ww1 morass was never going to bear more fruit than what was invested.
Just my opinion using what we see transpired resulting in now, combine with my understanding of human nature.
Love your work! But youtube always serves it to me at 3 a.m. so the background music tells me its bedtime lol
@@machination3e I think it's an often repeated thing. People look at the end result and assume a) it was the plan, and b) there was a great deal of profit in it.
Anthony Eden put forward the idea of an Arab League: “it seems to me both natural and right that the cultural and economic ties between the Arab countries, yes, and the political ties too, should be strengthened. His Majesty’s Government for their part will give their full support to any scheme.”
While Churchil said: “we should try to raise Ibn Saud to a general overlordship of Iraq and Transjordan.”
Otherwise, historically, the British in particular favoured keeping Empires united to profit from them. They saved the Ottomans from the Russians, China from the Taiping etc. Of course there was money to be made in oil, but they didn't need to partition Iran for that for example.
Britain in fact traded far more with Latin America and the likes. A "Soft Empire" was far more beneficial to a nation. Compare that to the Middle East - as I've said in this series before - Palestine had an annual revenue comparable to 1 British Lord in the early 20th Century. Or as it was reported after WW2 -"Jordan depends almost entirely on a British subsidy of £7,500,000 annually to run its government, and its British-trained Arab Legion of 10,000 men.”
A nation is not yhe same as a country.
Israel and balqa are nations
So how wrong is he in this video?
Yo.❤😊
Imam Malik, Imam al-Shafi'i, Imam Ahmad, Al-Ajurry, Al-Nasa'i, Abu Dawud, Imam Muslim, Imam Al-Bukhari, Al-Tirmidhi, Ibn 'Abdil-Barr, Ibn Taymiyyah, Ibn Kathir, Ibn Rajab, Ibn Al Qayyim, etc were all Wahhabis even before Muhammad Bin 'Abdil-Wahhab was born. Don't spread this lie of "Wahhabi ideology". I am an Algerian and our people are "Wahhabis". This is a malicious lie against the people of Truth
based
@@hanulu1lie
Your group changed a lot the books of ancient muslkm scholar so those book fit them, North African are athari but the Wahabi have different type of Atharism, your original Athari creed didn't make Allah like man, if there's a verse about hand of Allah, so be it the verse say but not make further explanation about the hand of Allah
Ibn Tumart was an exception 😅
@@bosbanon3452 That's how we treat attributes of Allah.
Another video another: "All colonisers are bad, except the British".
I'm sorry but even with the benefit of the doubt, the bias is not difficult to see. The pattern is way too obvious.
Like obviously the French, Italians and Spaniards were brutal, but so were the British.
Which brutal acts did I leave out?
@@JabzyJoe I hope to answer this question in the upcoming days, as it deserves to be well formulated and structured.
Reminder@@berkhan1064
@@JabzyJoe I have not forgotten about this. After next week, I will have the time to conduct some additional research.
Thank you for inaccurate portrayal of the riots in mandatory Palestine. The popular Pseudo-historical narrative is that the British sided with the Israelis, and desecrations of Jewish holy sites, and the massacres in holy cities like Hebron and Safed are ignored.
Of particular note is in how enslavement in the Middle Earth (more accurate than middle of a direction), was epistemologically and practically wholly different from the one undertaken by chattel enslavers of those from European background. It was not predicated upon notions of supremacy backed by quakeries masquerading as science.
…i’m not sure where you got the idea there was no racial/cultural chauvinism in the Middle East…
The death rate of slaves crossing the Sahara was far higher than crossing the Atlantic..
Plus, male slaves were generally castrated and female slaves were bought for the explicit purpose of sex.
I wouldn’t want to be a slave at all, but if I had to choose, I’d be going to North America.
@@scott2452 That too depends on when and where. African slaves were sometimes castrated, but that practice varies since in general, slave communities were used as well while in other cases, slaves were used in the army and trained to fight such as the Mamluks. There is generally a higher chance for a slave in the middle East to gain a high position within society, but again, it differs such as with Malik Ambar who became a Sultan and tried to defeat the Mughal Empire. The later and more tribalistic Arabs were more harsher towards their slaves as most Muslims will know, but then again, Africans were also harsh on other African slaves too but that differs from place and time. In general, you'd likely not have a chance to free yourself from a European colonist compared to an Arab slaver. Cause a slave can simply convert and then it is regarded as illegal to enslave another Muslim. The Arabs treated it on more economic grounds, but yeah, harsh treated was still used on slaves.
@@vincentcorvus3063 Agree with everything you wrote (though there are plenty of cases of emancipation in North America…either from the slave holders themselves, or from fighting alongside the British)…it is also worth pointing out that the Mamluk slaves were usually Turks, Albanians, Georgians etc. which can point to racial/cultural views in the region.
The main difference is that Arabs castrated their slaves. That's why you have descendants of slaves in the US living better lives than any Africans while there are little to no descendants of slaves in the middle east because they committed a pre-emptive genocided.
Also, there were virtually no "enslavers" with a European background, only slave traders. Africans were enslaved by other Africans and Arabs, who then sold them to Europeans for a lot of money.
Lastly, scientific racial theory played no role in the Atlantic slave trade. It didn't come along until much later.
what? there were and there are no religion more forbidding of slavery than Islam. What's little publiczed these days is how several orders of magnitude the byzantine slev trade was bigger compared to its Arabian counterpart. Even the emperor had a eunuch play...boy to sleep with him every night. One thing the archologists remarked on the period was how rare it is to find shackles in lands ruled by Islam at that time, while the museums alone had curated over 500,000 of these from byzantium (which means there must have been dozens of millions originally as they are over a thousand years old!). There were eunuchs in there too, however that process was aeen as abominable by Muslims so the coptic church and other churches were reponsible for castrating the slaves, as they had been before Islam.
first
Free Kurdistan
There was never hope for the Middle East period. Place has been a non-stop warzone and filled with oppression for 5000 years. As they say in Australia: shit's fucked, mate.
As funny as it sounds, your comment reminds me of europe.. regardless, wars are enevitable.
Well, the Lebanese/Middle easterns will control Australia just as they did in Latin America, just wait a while.
well, Lebanese will control Australia just as they did in Latin America, just wait a while.
Playing the worlds tiniest violin for these countries occupied for like 15 years. Germany has been occupied for over 80
And the Germans have contributed far. More to society!
what? lol cope
cope I guess
Ooohhh a pan Islamic state?! Good try Muslims better luck next time!!
Don't worry it has never happened never will happen, Islam is a religion not a nation , that religion might have official status in some countries but there are nations ( e.g. Iranic peoples ) whose pre-Islamic cultural identity and their national language is far stronger therefore they have always refused to be amalgamated into a Arabic-Islamic world .
Who the hell are to choose for us
@@Proudguy211 Who is " us "?
@@majidbineshgar7156 muslims
@@majidbineshgar7156 pan Islamic is a real national theory not impossible just look at Israel, for hundreds of years no one thought they would have their own nation
Arabia under the Ottoman colonization was a dark times for Arabia
The Levant and Iraq were even worse
Funnily enough people tolerated British and French occupation more than Ottoman Turk occupation
Freedom for Palestine
Free? I'll take your whole stock!
They all need Christ for sure, not Islam.
The west abandoned christ
You guys need to find him first before trying to convert us.
100k in carencia?? I doubt population of that density in the desert
2ikhwan. Hust say brotherhood
The term hope and Middle East Arabs simply never go together. After years of travel in the region I have learned, to my own previous optimism, is that these regions are dominated by depression, conspiracy theories, hopeless, resentment and failure. Without energy there are no economies, the only form of government that kind of works is absolute monarchy, like the rest of the world had 300 years ago. As the rest of Asia pulls itself up for far worse situations in South Korea, Japan, Vietnam, Laos, China and India; the Arab nations just fall further and further behind.
Hope and Middle East will never be achieved because of westerners with YT pigmentation.
Tyrants are the cause
The least slave controlled by the West
“I met depressed people therefore theyre all depressed”
Are we still allowing orientalist tourists to roam the world?
@@bonafidemonafide7810 Oh 'orientalist', somebody has seen a few Tik Toks by people who saw UA-cams or people who listen to part of the audobooks of some of the works of Andrew Said.
But you are on my territory now. I won't bore you with my CV and my decades of academic, professional and personal contacts with the Arab world and clarify for you how I am not engaging in Orientalism.
Said's concept can be summed up that people in the West view people in the East as things and not humans.
Okay lets look at the life imposed on the young people of the Arab world.
For the most part they live in societies with long running massive youth unemployment while having a majority of young people. They are excluded from any political participation. They are ruled over by old corrupt authoritarian regimes that provide them little opportunity and impose rigid systems that essentially aim to deny them any of the simple pleasures and freedoms that people even in China can have today.
In 2011 there was an effort by the youth to just get some basic reforms.
The outcome: if you are lucky like Tunisia, Bahrain, Iran, Turkey or Egypt the reform efforts just failed and resulted in more of the same. If you are unlucky like Syria, Yemen, Libya, Sudan or Lebanon they led to brutal civil wars and genocides.
Now imagine you are a human being, you have some access via a mobile phone to Instagram and you see how people live in other nations. You cannt get a job. If you are a woman you are a second class citizen. The government is run by corrupt old people who rule with total disregard for you.
These are all OBJECT facts about how most Arabs live. Even in rich Arab nations the youth unemployment is combined with lack of democracy and freedoms.
How would any HUMAN likely react to such a situation?
I know how much depression people in the western democracies that allow freedoms, participation and provide opportunities have because people have to struggle to pay bills and their protests don't result in immediate changes.
Imagine there isn't even the job in Starbucks or with JustEast, if you go out on the street and protest you are likely to be arrested, held without trail and tortured, and if you simply go out with a boyfriend and hold hands someone in the moral authority could crack you head open, or families might marry you off or worse. If you are gay you need to hide it to protect you life. If you have doubts about the existence of God you need to keep your mouth shut.
How do you think living with these OBJECTIVE facts than anyone can validate would feel emotionally?
If you believe Arabs are human, you would empathetically understand that depression would be a massive problem, especially given as there is NOT PUBLIC MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES in the Middle East outside of Israel.
But someone people in the radical 'left' seem to assume that Arabs are not human, that they face a world that would depress almost all of us, are somehow racist.
Bad SJW, no Khalifa
Aljawf
Najran
Should have stayed colonised
🤨🤨🤨
correct. why else do you think hundreds of millions are still scrambling to get european citizenships. They lack the intelligence to govern themselves
They should hsve stayed as TURISH lands
@@islammehmeov2334 Yeah because we know just how good the Turks treat their minorities.
@@SuperBadadan considering the situation with Saudi arabia Qatar and UAE I think they were OK
There is a lot of MISINFORMATION-about Palestine. Sorry but this vid is very inaccurate historically
Muslims when history and facts exist: