All the people who think America and Canada should be decolonized should move out and give their land and property to the indigenous people. The land acknowledgements are especially ridiculous, saying they stole something and feel virtuous saying it but not giving it back.
Lots of hypocrisy going on. A lot of people believe in climate change but won't give up their cars. Some indigenous people want nothing to do with white people yet aren't willing to give up all the things that were brought to the country by white people. Sometimes things sound good until asked to put it into practice.
Land acknowledgements always seem like a veiled way to gloat while pretending to be virtuous. "We're going to acknowledge that other people used to live here. We're doing great and are definitely not going to give the land back, we just want you to know that it must suck to be the guys we stole from!"
the term 'indigenous' is a poor one in this context, IMO. there are aboriginal peoples around the world. but even that is difficult to determine (aboriginal meaning first peoples). many waves of people have happened into virtually all parts of the world for thousands, tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of years. ie. we are all the descendants of peoples that have displaced other peoples from their lands. strictly speaking we are all indigenous - to africa. in general terms, 'indigenous' should mean where someone if from. in other words - where they were born !
This country wasn’t stolen. Indians were conquered. And Indians conquered people before them. A short search of history could avoid all this stolen land nonsense.
yup. people who are pro-decolonization only want justice for the last people that arrived before whoever inhabits the land, they're not really for it. same with palestine, they want the land for palestinians and not for the italians, for the turkish, for jewish people etc. etc.
@ “many are on reservations smoking peace pipe using white man’s iPhone no longer pooping in hole but pooping in porcelain chair with running water . “Chief porcelain running water .
The indigenous people of North America are not indigenous to North America. They came here from North East Asia. If indigenous means that they’ve been here a long time, then white North Americans are also indigenous to North America, because we’ve settled here for the last 500 years, we’ve been coming here for at least the last thousand years, and we’ve probably been coming here much longer than that and either the records were lost to time, people didn’t believe them, thought they were crazy, or never made it back. In the times of ancient Rome and Greece there were plenty of sea faring people’s with ships that were quite large and sturdily constructed. There is without doubt, many Europeans that sailed into the Atlantic, got blown off course, and ended up in North America. When Leif Erikson, son of Erik the Red, was the “first European to set foot in North America“ 1’000 years ago, he didn’t go on some crazy suicidal quest to travel west until he reached wherever he could reach. He travelled west with a destination in mind because he already knew that there was land over here. And he may be the first European to have gone to North America, set up a settlement in Newfoundland and then came back, and his story stood the test of time. But he was certainly not the first European to go to that area. European fisherman had been fishing off of the coast of Newfoundland for probably hundreds of years at that point. What’s more is that we built a civilization here. The primitive, Stone Age, largely nomadic savages, did not build anything in Canada or the United States. They almost left no trace behind. There’s a little more than a few primitive stone ruins and several examples of primitive cave painting. They conquered and warred and genocided and raped and pillage and plundered each other long before we showed up. You could say that what we did to them was no worse than what they did to each other. But the reality is that we treated them far better than they ever treated themselves. We never genocided them. We defeated them in battles, yes, but we also signed treaties with them, to which they willingly obliged. And at the end of it all, they got to keep large swaths of land to continue living their lives by their traditional primitive Stone Age ways. That’s more than the vast majority of conquered peoples have ever gotten from their conquerors. And in modern times we have given them tons and tons and tons of our money, and yet their communities are still impoverished. That sounds like a them problem to me. We need to cut off the money, turn off the tap of eternal tax dollars paid to people who were born and raised hundreds of years after their ancestors were conquered, out of the pocket of the taxpaying American and Canadian public who were born and raised hundreds of years after their ancestors did the conquering- many of which whose ancestors did no conquering at all because they didn’t even come here until after that was all done.
There are some gaps in your knowledge about American Indian history, specifically around treaties and fair treatment. I'd encourage you to read up on the U.S. Dakota War of 1862, and look at everything that preceded it. And then I'd encourage you to go read up on the boarding school policies of the late 19th and early 20th centuries. This is history that's not taught in school, and calling anyone a savage while making points about how all peoples are the same, would imply you're a savage as well. But that's a jest. I don't disagree on questioning what indigenous means, because if Europeans have been coming here for 1,000 years, what is the arbitrary cut off point for being able to use the term? People have certainly always migrated, and no culture is perfect. And we should look to ways of being as humans that aren't always with our head over our shoulders, looking backward, as it were. But we can have a little dignity in our words while we point that out :)
@ Activism is intimidation , extortion , threats name-calling and radical persuasion for political change . It’s soft terrorism and insurrection . Activism is linked to community organization and Saul Alinsky . It’s Communism …..To gain and keep power by any means necessary . Nice try with the free speech .
I'm mostly confused by it all. If I thought that I, as a lesbian, was in danger simply due to my living in this country, I'd move. Most of the people complaining about systemic Xism are people in my generation from well to do families that could easily afford to move if they believed what they claimed. If I lived in the middle east where I was Actually oppressed, you better believe I'd get out if I had the means to
I live with and tutor many black kids in a poor rural area of South Africa, and regularly liaise with their schools. 'Decolonisation' is on the union diaries sitting on staff desks, but the real issues are lack of resources, classes of 60, fatherless families and huge local unemployment rates. Our children are as bright as any, and their failure to learn is emphatically not due to 'colonisation'.
so what is the solution? how do you end poverty to create means for people to not fail at education? does free liberal democracy really Address this problem? if so has it worked? i do not think people in SA that are destitute have the thinking of decolonisation. i feel the oppressive weight of inability to change lives for the better. no politician or policy similar to China has ever been implemented in SA or Africa as a whole, thus do I See no real future but all these spare change ideas like decolonisation will always come up.
@@kgaoletsaDNA0 That's a fair point, and like you I have no easy answer. Misuse of funds (corruption?) is one major issue, I think: a huge stadium was built almost opposite our local high school; it has gone almost unused, while the school has no library and shares one textbook between every four students. Teachers are under constant pressure to show success for the circuit authorities, who in turn need to please the minister, and so results are repeatedly faked or massaged. As a positive idea, trade schools with proper apprenticeships (3-4 years instead of six months or fewer) could be one way up for communities. I won't go on, but please know that I agree with you. I do not think that destitute people are thinking of 'decolonisation', but some in our education unions certainly are, and I fear their influence. Best wishes and good luck to you.
Read his book The Case for Colonialism. Well argued. Very interesting. Here, the only comment I'd challenge is his implied motivation for colonialism in the first place. It was not just ultruism, like in Christian missionary work, empires were looking for resources and to establish relationships for geopolitical advantage. Establishing western style institutions, such as rule of law, did happen with most colonization, but it was a byproduct of the initial motive for establishing a colony.
I agree 100%. His opening salvo as to what colonization is/was just did not pass the smell test at all. And that's a big deal because if he leads with something as completely false as that, then what kind of scholarship is he doing and how reliable is the rest of what he says? It's possible that the rest of what he says is better than his opening salvo but he really did get that wrong and he leaves himself wide open to a fairly unavoidable refutation of his whole spiel.
I'd say the reason for Colonialism is simple human curiosity to see what's beyond the horizon and yes, looking for resources, usually land. Everything else came after that.
I'd even add to that, that the reason European cultures got to a point where they needed to spread out is simply answered by looking at the size of the countries they came from. Space, I think, was the number1 resource Europeans were short on. Either their societies spread out, or they'd suffer severe stagnation from not being able to expand... In essence, the exact same number 1 reason why the Cree and Blackfoot of south western canada/north western US were constantly at war with each other. Unfortunately for the First Nations, the journey from NE Asia set them back a few thousand yrs compared to the Europeans who came out of the Ice Age and set down the foundations for society right away. Ppl seem to forget all great societies were once a small collection of warring hunter gatherer tribes first. The British didn't pop out of the primordial ooze instantly hammering out steel and great war ships.
The initial presupposition is clearly naive and simply incorrect. Namely (if I am paraphrasing correctly) that the aim of colonisation is eventual (real) decolonisation in order to help lesser developed peoples or regions organise themselves into free and democratic societies - pretty easy to debunk by looking at colonial history anywhere. This is such a terrible error or judgment that it should discredit everything else in the video. Instead, I will simply state that it damages the credibility of the author, but we can still examine some of his other arguments. I do agree with plenty of other things in the video. The word decolonise itself is a kind of euphemism. It basically means to re-colonise an institution, place or peoples, and enforce the dictums of postmodernist , equity-based governance (mostly open and intended) with wealth and power concentrated in the hands of the “decolonists”(mostly consequential). This includes silencing and disempowering anybody who questions the underlying value structures of the de-colonial project. And I do agree that this typically occurs to the detriment of freedom and democracy, and often leads to a dangerous fragmentation of society, commonly by the valorisation of identitarianism. “Decolonisation” today deliberately or overtly challenges the very basis of the liberal worldview. Oftentimes it claims itself to be the bearer of the torch of liberalism today, but this is a misappropriation easily observed by the actual values and policies it embodies and institutionalises. In summary, decolonisation is actually colonisation renamed. It’s just that instead of imposing rule over another group for the purposes of exploiting their labour and resources, the purpose becomes to impose rule over them to create an idealised socialist utopian society - with the power and wealth concentrated in the hands of those implementing the new “decolonial“ project.
This is pretty close to exactly right as it gets. I had the same problem with his claims of colonization, and share the same thoughts on some subsections of the now regressive left. I'm often reminded of the French Revolution when I think of the intentions of political actors, becoming the thing they pretend to hate.
The definition of colonization as a "mentoring program" , "to help them become a self governing state" is only true of the League of Nations Mandates, and certain "Protectorate" territories, NOT of any colony. The Post 1890 African colonies were hybrid colony-protectorates, by the conditions of the Berlin Conference. English, French, Spanish, Portuguese and Dutch colonies in the Americas, Asia and Oceania were not founded as some kind of aid to native populations. The meaning of the word colony, is "to set up a new population at a new location", with those people coming from and existing state or culture. Look at Greek, Phoenician, Roman, Viking and Norman colonies in the Mediterranean and Europe.
I don't like this format of typed questions (sound of old-fashioned typewriter) rather than reading the questions aloud because it means I can't just listen to this video while I do other things. I have to sit and read the questions on the screen in order to follow.
While I agree with almost everything said in this video, I find it frustrating to hear that colonization was all about furthering other cultures. Let's be honest, there was lots of thievery and subjugation involved. There would not have been a war if Britain's intent was to leave America. There would not have been salt marches in India if Britain was a benevolent builder of democracy. We can say that post modern decolonization is bs but that colonialism was damaging too.
Agree with Bruce's point that the meaning of decolonisation has changed. It used to mean the transfer of sovereignty from colonial powers to states. In Anglophone countries like NZ and Australia, decolonisation has come to mean tearing down society as we know it and reconstructing it based on identity groups.
Throughout history, colonization was a mercantile endeavor, whose purpose was to extract resources from a place different than the place you live. The idea that colonization was for the benefit of the colonized area is laughable.
Gilley makes a lot of well-supported and well-reasoned points. However, he is inexplicably naive when he insists (as he does here several times) that colonization was carried out _for the purpose of_ benefitting the colonized. That assertion is deeply counterfactual, and indeed, is risible. I was aware of Gilley arguing in the past that colonization had _unintended_ or _collateral_ benefits for the colonized, and a much stronger case can be made for this assertion.
Part of the problem is multiple choice testing and teaching for the test. It kills critical thinking, adaptability, and success in a rapidly changing world
I love this channel and am sympathetic to Gilley's argument, but I don't think this was a very good explanation. Gilley asserts his view of what "colonization" and "decolonization" mean without going into the history of colonialism or explaining why others have been opposed to it. He doesn't even go into the history of why these terms changed meaning. I also think the graphics and text are superfluous. Providing examples in the form of images or videos would have better supported his points. When making a controversial argument, backing up points with facts becomes especially important. Again, I'm sympathetic to his argument. But the way the video is presented, it just comes off as a rambly guy making a bunch of assertions.
You're sympathetic to an argument that is engaging in historical revisionism as a way to argue against revisionism? The framing here was nothing short of either naive or disingenuous
@@tb8654 I'm sympathetic to the argument that "decolonization" is used as a cudgel by illiberal leftists to discredit the values and achievements of western liberal nations. I do agree with you that his description of colonialism is insanely sanitized and that he completely strawmanned its critics.
Peter, this is great. Many people won't know the questions being asked because they're listening to the content, not watching it. I mention this because I'm sure that you and especially Bruce want this to reach the broadest possible audience. Thank you from someone who's appreciated you since the "conceptual penis" days ...
CS Lewis - “Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victim may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated, but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.” And this is how I now view the majority of teachers in public education today. They are caught up in one huge echo chamber of left wing activism.
I thought you were talking about the alleged motives of colonists. It would fit well the Australian Aboriginal children taken from their families "for their own good".
Mr. Gilley's definition of colonisation is ridiculous. What he describes is more fitting to the mandates set up by the League of Nations after WW1, which were intended to be a negation of colonialism. The idea that Britain, Spain, Portugal, France, the Netherlands etc. took over large parts of the world for any other reason other than self-enrichment is frankly laughable. Even claims of bringing Christianity to the natives were just a fig-leaf to cover avarice. I say all this as someone who loathes the post-colonial historical revisionism and 'woke' bollocks in it's entirety, but this does not hold water.
You do understand that his framing is using historical revisionism as well as revisionism of terms in order to try to argue against the Left doing revisionism, right? This guy is just as much of a snake and is the conservative equivalent of whatever "woke" archetype you're thinking of
This nonsense will take a generation to work out of the body politic. My country is heading down a path which ends - in an optimistic vein - in a Malaysian model, and in the less optimistic vein in the Zimbabwe model.
I have problems with the Gilley's initial definition of colonialism, which conflates different phases as if it was a uniform notion with a central philanthropic purpose. This for me is disingenuous, ignoring the many cases of brutal exploitation, contrary to an informed understanding of the complexity of colonialism.
Understand the "woke" idea of colonization and all the unsaid things that entails. That said, I don't think this guest is really being straight with us. Colonization did not have decolonization in its initial design/intent. Nobody colonized new lands (and peoples) to bring those people up to a new standard. We don't need to push revisionist history to oppose revisionist history.
What revisionists history is being opposed in this video's arguments? The only revisionism here is this man framing things disingenuously like "everyone having a fair voice" or "universal shared values" in US history, yet we needed DEI to be applied to remove name biases and only achieved everyone having a fair voice in the USA due to enough colored people being able to make the argument of being seen as a person appealing to enough White people in the US. His entire framing reminds me of how people try to act like Europeans win points of being viewed as civil due to abolishing slavery only once money and resources were secured, even though Haiti which was incredibly poor already and in debt to France was able to say "This is bad, let's abolish it" within a year of independence
@@tb8654 Slavery has existed for thousands of years. It has been abolished in various places over time, but then it's reinstated, and it still exists in some areas of the world. According to the BBC, slave markets have been found on Instagram and other apps. I give Europeans points for abolishing slavery and also making it an unthinkable practice. If you believe in Wikipedia, "Unpaid labor is still widely practiced in Haiti. As many as half a million children are unpaid domestic servants called restavek, who routinely suffer physical and sexual abuse." See "Slavery in Haiti." It's the same thing. Slavery was abolished and then it reappeared.
5:40 - I'm guessing that the argument against that would be that colonialists were not looking to set up self covering independent/autonomous entities and that the exploitation of the colony was the goal. e.g. the US colonies being overly taxed or India being exploited for some of its resources etc....... How would one argue against that perspective?
Academics can examine the pros and cons of colonization to their hearts' content. For myself, the most important reason for examining what happened to colonized peoples in the past is to ensure that the same thing does not happen to us, descendants of colonized and colonizer alike, in the here and now.
Wait, what? That definition of colonialism is a bit at odds with history. The Brits for example had no intention to release India into self governance, ever. Also, India *had* a government when the Brits conquered it. For selling their stuff, by the way. British East India company, remember? Or are there historical documents that proof such a claim, that are somehow still top secret?
Reid _The Anglo-American Establishment_ The goal was to teach the word to be British, the best way of living, and then get out when the culture had been changed and the natives could run things by themselves.
@sdrc92126 The Anglo-American Establishment starts with Lord Milner, born in 1854. That's a hundred years after the Brits conquered India. This book was published in 1981, but the bibliography contains only entries from the 1910s-1940s. For a historical book it is not a good look to just not mention the last 30+ years of historical research (before its publication).
If we follow their claims to their conclusion, whites have the right to kick browns out of europe and get rid of their culture in europe. Of coursse, they will claim that whites took over from "the original african ancestors who migrated there first", but they do not claim that for native americans. At least, not mainstream yet. I have seen fringe Black Power types arguing the first native americans were black/african, because of migration, and thus the ones today arent "th etrue original NAs". Theyre doing the same in UK right now with books saying "black people wuz here first". And they're doing it to subvert the next phase of Conservative argumentation: "Well if indigenous people own the land, then whites own it in Europe, and you cna never be truely indigenous europeans" To which they say "nuh uh, it was actually all black lands firstbecause of migration".
Who else has engaged in global wide colonialism in the past 150 years? Nobody is picking on "White colonization" lmao that sounds like an incredibly short sighted level of perception
While i agree with most of what hes saying, his assertion that colonization was this altruistic "we're bringing western liberalism to the unwashed masses and help the savages self govern", with the end goal of decolonization is either naive or revisionist. Colonial powers were solely interested in land acquisition and resources in order to remain major players in the european power struggles. No one in their right mind could say it was anything but. While time and experience may have taught the colonizers that a self governing state/province a whole ocean away was more efficient, it was never their intention to give up the wealth transfer between the colonies and themselves. Why do you think the British fought so hard against American decolonization? And why do you think Canada is the way it is, still beholden to the british monarchy? I think its time for Canada to "decolonize" like the Americans.
This is a very rosy description of (e.g.) the 19th c. mania for colonial empires. The colonizing countries were mostly not very liberal or democratic. Raw conquest was still the "morality" of most states. There were good and bad motives, but it doesn't help one's credibility to ignore the bad ones.
There is no "The" indigenous people. Nobody is indigenous to the Americas or any other continent in the world except for Africa where the human species originated and from where groups of humans migrated out. The groups that were in the Americas were tribal, often at war with each other and taking each other's land and resources. Then later, a more technologically and philosophically advanced group found their way to the Americas during an era of colonization.
We don't actually know 100% where the human race originated and we keep finding new things, such as footprints in Crete that are far older then the time humans were believed to have entered Europe and the discovery that neanderthals were not wiped out in tribal warfare but interbreed with
@@GreatSageSunWukong Your epistemology is correct. We never claim certainty in a scientific theory as these are approximations to truth about an objective reality. At the same time nobody is claiming these footprints in Crete are human because they are about 2 million years older than even Lucy (which was not human). It is pretty far fetched to claim that these Crete footprints are human as there is no good reason to believe that. What is more clear is that all primates come out of Africa and not N. America. There is NOTHING indicating the human species is indigenous to North America.
Section 1: Too simplistic. Section 2: The Western Tradition is older than liberalism. Liberalism might not be 'at the heart' of that tradition. Also (I forget which section), the idea that decolinization was 'always part of the European Project' is laughable. Colonization was about the acquisition of territory and stuff, and facilitation of favorable (to the colonizer) trade. And then, far behind, religious reasons. There's no need to gloss over that. Conquest is cited as one of the four Horsemen of The Apocalypse. No one really thought we were going there to build railways and then leave. Very good on the final part though.
In the simplest of terms I think the western world is having a Newton vs. Goethe worldview showdown. I'm looking forward towards their integration and how that unfolds the next epoch.
@annsuo3398 I see it more as a battle between "Scottish Common Sense Realism" and "German Idealism." And I don't think they can be integrated. Or, if you want to be as simplistic as possible, "Plato vs. Aristotle" as it's always been. Or to be as antisimplistic as possible, the irreconcilable contestation at play is between those who see "Reality" as constituted by their field of intensionality, and those who see "Reality" as referred to by their field of intensionality.
For a so-called deep dive, the whole talk came off as extremely shallow, simplistic, and ahistorical. Oh, and i agree with him on the main points. However, in my opinion, it wasn't very well argued or articulated.
They were not ingrate, they were just living blissfully oblivious to the constant wars, and invasions (and turned into slaves anybody on their way) that were a constant in Europe since the beginning of times, everybody had been ravaged by other nations and their previous beliefs strapped before they got their turn to do the same. The Mau Mau had been geographically lucky enough to be left alone for a while till that point, then they joined humanity's common fate. It was nothing personal or sadder than what happened to EVERYONE else( that is the most important point) before them. For instance, the first actual country/empire that colonized England was the Roman Empire. In the Year 43. And regarding different tribes’ proclivity to war, ( let’s say in America for instance)some were peaceful and some weren't. The Hopis, Zunis, and Pueblos were definitely peaceful. They were farmers and lived in cities. They were also preyed upon a lot by the Navajos and Apaches. Others were distinctly warlike and had a warrior cult of manhood. They took scalps as trophies, and some of the Iroquois ritually tortured prisoners to death. The Aztecs ripped out living prisoners’ hearts and kicked their bodies down the temple steps. Many tribes fought each other constantly. This is part of how the United States conquered the continent. The US government would make an alliance with one tribe to help it in its wars with another tribe. It's a time-honored approach; Julius Caesar did it in his conquest of Gaul, and the Honourable East India Company did it in India.
The definition of colonization offered at the opening of this video is ummmm...problematic to say the least. A "Tutelage or mentoring program where an established state establishes rule in an area where there is not an established state with the aim to help them develop the foundations to become a self-governing people." Are you kidding? Even the British don't bother pretending that any more. I don't think I need to quote from reliable sources like the Oxford English Dictionary. Just Google it. I am no woke activist, but I can't help asking what planet this guy is from. Seriously? This is satire, right?
How about we conservatives create our own online education system? Today everyone has a computer and the internet. Everything is in place for that to happen.
That "colonization" definition doesn't sound right to me. Maybe that's the Danish model in the 21st century but when have colonial powers throughout history ever set up a colony in a place, where there were already other people, with the explicit aim to help them become independent... again...?? That sounds like a big pile of BS, sorry.
@@tb8654 I think he is using a contemporary definition since he's also using a contemporary definition of "decolonization", the ladder of which has become code in universities for the things that he explained, I can attest to that. But I think the "colonization" definition is still off in this case. Because if we are talking about a contemporary context then the type of colonization he's talking about doesn't happen anymore. Greenland is in it's late stages of Danish colonization and has recently voiced the wish to become independent. But it does still teach Danish in schools and Western Danish media is ubiquitous in Greenland, so I think media influence is where a modern definition of colonization should start. Just like all Western-allied countries (all of Europe, and Taiwan, Japan, Korea, etc.) use more and more English words in their public media channels and everyday colloquial speech, often times replacing the local language. That's a type of colonization that's actually going on right now. Not the definition he gave, that's not happening and I'm not sure it ever happened in history without oppressive enforcement of the colonizer's value system onto the colonized culture.
He also doesn’t seem to grasp that liberal thought and its goals justify woke academic theories and actions in its end goals, not always by liberal means. Although even in that aspect there’s overlap.
Wait, so basically the whole colonization efforts were not about resources, but more like a long-term training and development program for the colonized to learn Government and Civics 101? Wow, never thought of it that way. Then I suppose all the conflicts between the great colonial empires must have also not been about control over those resources, but rather more like vigurous academic debate about the curriculum of the training. Now that my mind is open to the alternative arugments, I think the professor should also look at other past institutions that get an undeserved bad rep in the woke academia. For example, was slavery really about free forced labor, or was it more lika a work-and-travel program which put the participants on a long pathway to US citizenship?
I'm not sure I agree with the "agenda" of colonialism, in that it's a bit simple to say it was always out of good intention. While acknowledging the perspective of possible nation building, it's still patriarchal (as in, I know best, fatherly). Good intentions pave the path to hell, without acknowledging that often colonization was by force, and netted in the destruction of entire cultures, sometimes intended. But I do agree with everything in terms of his explanation on the modern understanding of "Decolonization", which is now political and deals with ideas. I do believe that the small subsection of the left that questions things like mathematics, or wants to fix society by attempting to engineer it without consent or universal principles of equality (DEI) is a problem. There is a cultural fracturing being enforced by those who would claim to be liberal without even understanding the term. I'm not on the right or the left, and I'd suggest you shouldn't be, either. Think for yourself. I can agree with some things, disagree with others. And as human beings, we need to stick with each other and align on what we do share. Which seems to be universal, liberal principles of equality. Martin Luther King fought a peaceful revolution which eventually resulted in Title XII of the Civil Rights act guaranteeing equality of employment, for example. A universal, liberal good. The efforts from the left in terms of installing skin color and sex as a main factor in hiring is diametrically opposed to this. To be color blind is not to say you don't see color, it's to say you don't judge people because of their color. These identities, while important to our personal lives, should not be factors in hiring. Wasn't that the whole point? You can't fix society over night by mandating forced racism through policy, which is using the master's tools, anyway. We need more conversations around this topic, to get people to see the humanity in each other again. And to realize nobody wins by using force. We all win by deciding to change our minds for once, or considering we're wrong.
What a wacky way to define "colonization" as a hand-up to others who didn't get there. Oh, aren't you the sweetest, just helping along those Asians, Africans, etc (I'll leave out the New World here). Bless your little heart. I have been following this channel with great approval. But you messed up on this one. You got a mulligan. Do over. Just stick to the issue of "decolonizing math" or "decolonizing curriculum" instead of broad-brush talking about colonialism in such a childish, self-serving manner. Don't make me wonder if I'm suffering from the Gell-Mann Amnesia Effect wrt this channel. You've done good work on American wokeism. Defining and defending objective truth should not and does not parlay into being a shill for colonization.
His definition for Colonialism adds unnecessary specifics. It doesn’t need to be that narrow in reality. A developed society can still be colonized by another developed society that’s better off and, or stronger in someway.
He made it specific to avoid arguments that can be made against what he is stating, dude is using revisionism for history as a means of trying to argue against others using revisionism for history lmao
you make it sound so flowery. if colonization is so freedom oriented, why did America have to fight for our freedom? what about Mexico and the Philippines?
TBF we were not that bothered about your leaving and didn't throw everything we had at you because it wasn't worth the money, you didn't really have anything of high value such as spices or drugs and thats why we taxed you so much you were not a high value colony.
I get that things need to be pushed back on. I agree, it’s gone too far. Do we need to resort to propaganda videos? This is similar to the grievance hoax but feels like the intentions are different if you get what I mean. Capable of copying behavior, but this time it’s for real.
This guy over simplifies stuff, completely ignores all the nuances of the topics, and is clearly agenda driven - which is massively ironic on Peter's page. While I'm largely against identity politics, the whole point isn't that 'black people can't do X', but more to do with class. Certain minority groups are disproportionately in lower class groups, which is partly to do with culture, but also as a result of historic oppression and racism.
@@sheldonobrien4358 No, which is why I’m generally against identity politics. It’s ultimately down to class struggle. People were only racist in the first place because they thought people of lower class than them
@ No, which is why I'm generally against identity politics. It all eventually leads down to class. Middle Class X is always better off than Working Class Y
@@sheldonobrien4358 if this is your argument then you would need to agree that the US didn't become a land of fair voices nor democratic nor cared about its soldiers until just maybe 2-3 decades ago, right? Or that the USA was not a civil country until after the 60s, right? Black Vietnam veterans received their VA benefits at a much lower rate than White Vietnam veterans for instance. So do you agree with the above? And do you agree that White people have had multiple different handouts in the 20th century that have helped with multiple subdemographics which allowed the population of White Americans to float closer to the current success rate that Asian Americans have?
@ lol, no I don't agree. The United states, didn't immediately become perfect upon its founding, but it WAS an IMPROVEMENT on the standards of the world that existed at the time of its founding. There's one thing that constantly frustrates when it comes to the interpretation of identity activists, which is judging the united states by the standards it evolved at OUR perspective of history, and NOT judging it from the standards that existed -at the time-. I reject your irrational standards. I don't know what assumptions you're making onto me from the uncontroversial perspective that no peoples have existed without historical oppressions.
@@stetsonscott8209I heard the one at the start where it establishrs a state where one diesn't exist with the aim of creating a self governing state (which I don't accept is correct). Where and what was the other in opposition to that?
According to the woke it fits. The end goal is this stuff is communism which is a stateless society just the Marx described the pre-capitalist societies
Veritas non verba magistri (Truth, not the words of the teacher) James Madison replaced "magistri/master" with the teacher. It seems rather fitting. Given todays teachers learn from the masters and the masters compell obedience to horrific ideas AND the children suffer.
All the people who think America and Canada should be decolonized should move out and give their land and property to the indigenous people. The land acknowledgements are especially ridiculous, saying they stole something and feel virtuous saying it but not giving it back.
Lots of hypocrisy going on.
A lot of people believe in climate change but won't give up their cars.
Some indigenous people want nothing to do with white people yet aren't willing to give up all the things that were brought to the country by white people.
Sometimes things sound good until asked to put it into practice.
Revealed Preference
Which indigenous people? It’s racist to act as if they are or were a monolith.
What claims did they have or is it just squatters rights?
Land acknowledgements always seem like a veiled way to gloat while pretending to be virtuous. "We're going to acknowledge that other people used to live here. We're doing great and are definitely not going to give the land back, we just want you to know that it must suck to be the guys we stole from!"
the term 'indigenous' is a poor one in this context, IMO.
there are aboriginal peoples around the world. but even that is difficult to determine (aboriginal meaning first peoples). many waves of people have happened into virtually all parts of the world for thousands, tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of years.
ie. we are all the descendants of peoples that have displaced other peoples from their lands.
strictly speaking we are all indigenous - to africa.
in general terms, 'indigenous' should mean where someone if from. in other words - where they were born !
This country wasn’t stolen. Indians were conquered. And Indians conquered people before them. A short search of history could avoid all this stolen land nonsense.
IMO częśc terenu została podbita militarnie, ale część została zakupiona, oraz oddana w ramach traktatów miedzy rdzennymi plemionami a przybyszami. :)
yup. people who are pro-decolonization only want justice for the last people that arrived before whoever inhabits the land, they're not really for it. same with palestine, they want the land for palestinians and not for the italians, for the turkish, for jewish people etc. etc.
I’m celebrating my heritage . Do you happen to know where I can get a Viking Helmut with horns and a sword ?
Not just this. there are still millions of indians living in this country.
@ “many are on reservations smoking peace pipe using white man’s iPhone no longer pooping in hole but pooping in porcelain chair with running water . “Chief porcelain running water .
The indigenous people of North America are not indigenous to North America. They came here from North East Asia. If indigenous means that they’ve been here a long time, then white North Americans are also indigenous to North America, because we’ve settled here for the last 500 years, we’ve been coming here for at least the last thousand years, and we’ve probably been coming here much longer than that and either the records were lost to time, people didn’t believe them, thought they were crazy, or never made it back. In the times of ancient Rome and Greece there were plenty of sea faring people’s with ships that were quite large and sturdily constructed. There is without doubt, many Europeans that sailed into the Atlantic, got blown off course, and ended up in North America. When Leif Erikson, son of Erik the Red, was the “first European to set foot in North America“ 1’000 years ago, he didn’t go on some crazy suicidal quest to travel west until he reached wherever he could reach. He travelled west with a destination in mind because he already knew that there was land over here. And he may be the first European to have gone to North America, set up a settlement in Newfoundland and then
came back, and his story stood the test of time. But he was certainly not the first European to go to that area. European fisherman had been fishing off of the coast of Newfoundland for probably hundreds of years at that point.
What’s more is that we built a civilization here. The primitive, Stone Age, largely nomadic savages, did not build anything in Canada or the United States. They almost left no trace behind. There’s a little more than a few primitive stone ruins and several examples of primitive cave painting.
They conquered and warred and genocided and raped and pillage and plundered each other long before we showed up. You could say that what we did to them was no worse than what they did to each other. But the reality is that we treated them far better than they ever treated themselves. We never genocided them. We defeated them in battles, yes, but we also signed treaties with them, to which they willingly obliged. And at the end of it all, they got to keep large swaths of land to continue living their lives by their traditional primitive Stone Age ways. That’s more than the vast majority of conquered peoples have ever gotten from their conquerors.
And in modern times we have given them tons and tons and tons of our money, and yet their communities are still impoverished. That sounds like a them problem to me. We need to cut off the money, turn off the tap of eternal tax dollars paid to people who were born and raised hundreds of years after their ancestors were conquered, out of the pocket of the taxpaying American and Canadian public who were born and raised hundreds of years after their ancestors did the conquering- many of which whose ancestors did no conquering at all because they didn’t even come here until after that was all done.
Toooooooo much text
There are some gaps in your knowledge about American Indian history, specifically around treaties and fair treatment. I'd encourage you to read up on the U.S. Dakota War of 1862, and look at everything that preceded it. And then I'd encourage you to go read up on the boarding school policies of the late 19th and early 20th centuries. This is history that's not taught in school, and calling anyone a savage while making points about how all peoples are the same, would imply you're a savage as well. But that's a jest.
I don't disagree on questioning what indigenous means, because if Europeans have been coming here for 1,000 years, what is the arbitrary cut off point for being able to use the term? People have certainly always migrated, and no culture is perfect. And we should look to ways of being as humans that aren't always with our head over our shoulders, looking backward, as it were. But we can have a little dignity in our words while we point that out :)
“Decolonization is soft bigotry , Activism is soft terrorism . “- Me
Love it.
Excellent!
Woke Bigotry, Woke terrorism. Put it back on the woke mob, they hate it.
Activism is collective free speech, whether you agree with it or not.
@ Activism is intimidation , extortion , threats name-calling and radical persuasion for political change . It’s soft terrorism and insurrection . Activism is linked to community organization and Saul Alinsky . It’s Communism …..To gain and keep power by any means necessary . Nice try with the free speech .
I'm mostly confused by it all. If I thought that I, as a lesbian, was in danger simply due to my living in this country, I'd move. Most of the people complaining about systemic Xism are people in my generation from well to do families that could easily afford to move if they believed what they claimed. If I lived in the middle east where I was Actually oppressed, you better believe I'd get out if I had the means to
Ah you noticed that these are first world problems also known as luxury beliefs.
It's 100% a luxury belief, just like most of the leftists movements.
I live with and tutor many black kids in a poor rural area of South Africa, and regularly liaise with their schools. 'Decolonisation' is on the union diaries sitting on staff desks, but the real issues are lack of resources, classes of 60, fatherless families and huge local unemployment rates. Our children are as bright as any, and their failure to learn is emphatically not due to 'colonisation'.
so what is the solution? how do you end poverty to create means for people to not fail at education? does free liberal democracy really Address this problem? if so has it worked?
i do not think people in SA that are destitute have the thinking of decolonisation. i feel the oppressive weight of inability to change lives for the better. no politician or policy similar to China has ever been implemented in SA or Africa as a whole, thus do I See no real future but all these spare change ideas like decolonisation will always come up.
@@kgaoletsaDNA0 That's a fair point, and like you I have no easy answer. Misuse of funds (corruption?) is one major issue, I think: a huge stadium was built almost opposite our local high school; it has gone almost unused, while the school has no library and shares one textbook between every four students. Teachers are under constant pressure to show success for the circuit authorities, who in turn need to please the minister, and so results are repeatedly faked or massaged.
As a positive idea, trade schools with proper apprenticeships (3-4 years instead of six months or fewer) could be one way up for communities.
I won't go on, but please know that I agree with you. I do not think that destitute people are thinking of 'decolonisation', but some in our education unions certainly are, and I fear their influence. Best wishes and good luck to you.
Why has South Africa's economy failed after 1991?
@ tell us
No, they absolutely are not as bright as any.
Read his book The Case for Colonialism. Well argued. Very interesting. Here, the only comment I'd challenge is his implied motivation for colonialism in the first place. It was not just ultruism, like in Christian missionary work, empires were looking for resources and to establish relationships for geopolitical advantage. Establishing western style institutions, such as rule of law, did happen with most colonization, but it was a byproduct of the initial motive for establishing a colony.
I agree 100%. His opening salvo as to what colonization is/was just did not pass the smell test at all. And that's a big deal because if he leads with something as completely false as that, then what kind of scholarship is he doing and how reliable is the rest of what he says? It's possible that the rest of what he says is better than his opening salvo but he really did get that wrong and he leaves himself wide open to a fairly unavoidable refutation of his whole spiel.
I'd say the reason for Colonialism is simple human curiosity to see what's beyond the horizon and yes, looking for resources, usually land. Everything else came after that.
I'd even add to that, that the reason European cultures got to a point where they needed to spread out is simply answered by looking at the size of the countries they came from. Space, I think, was the number1 resource Europeans were short on. Either their societies spread out, or they'd suffer severe stagnation from not being able to expand...
In essence, the exact same number 1 reason why the Cree and Blackfoot of south western canada/north western US were constantly at war with each other.
Unfortunately for the First Nations, the journey from NE Asia set them back a few thousand yrs compared to the Europeans who came out of the Ice Age and set down the foundations for society right away.
Ppl seem to forget all great societies were once a small collection of warring hunter gatherer tribes first. The British didn't pop out of the primordial ooze instantly hammering out steel and great war ships.
This was my main gripe, as well. But I agree on other points regarding decolonization and identity politics.
The initial presupposition is clearly naive and simply incorrect. Namely (if I am paraphrasing correctly) that the aim of colonisation is eventual (real) decolonisation in order to help lesser developed peoples or regions organise themselves into free and democratic societies - pretty easy to debunk by looking at colonial history anywhere. This is such a terrible error or judgment that it should discredit everything else in the video. Instead, I will simply state that it damages the credibility of the author, but we can still examine some of his other arguments.
I do agree with plenty of other things in the video. The word decolonise itself is a kind of euphemism. It basically means to re-colonise an institution, place or peoples, and enforce the dictums of postmodernist , equity-based governance (mostly open and intended) with wealth and power concentrated in the hands of the “decolonists”(mostly consequential). This includes silencing and disempowering anybody who questions the underlying value structures of the de-colonial project. And I do agree that this typically occurs to the detriment of freedom and democracy, and often leads to a dangerous fragmentation of society, commonly by the valorisation of identitarianism. “Decolonisation” today deliberately or overtly challenges the very basis of the liberal worldview. Oftentimes it claims itself to be the bearer of the torch of liberalism today, but this is a misappropriation easily observed by the actual values and policies it embodies and institutionalises.
In summary, decolonisation is actually colonisation renamed. It’s just that instead of imposing rule over another group for the purposes of exploiting their labour and resources, the purpose becomes to impose rule over them to create an idealised socialist utopian society - with the power and wealth concentrated in the hands of those implementing the new “decolonial“ project.
Thanks for sharing your insightful views on decolonization.
This is pretty close to exactly right as it gets. I had the same problem with his claims of colonization, and share the same thoughts on some subsections of the now regressive left.
I'm often reminded of the French Revolution when I think of the intentions of political actors, becoming the thing they pretend to hate.
The definition of colonization as a "mentoring program" , "to help them become a self governing state" is only true of the League of Nations Mandates, and certain "Protectorate" territories, NOT of any colony. The Post 1890 African colonies were hybrid colony-protectorates, by the conditions of the Berlin Conference.
English, French, Spanish, Portuguese and Dutch colonies in the Americas, Asia and Oceania were not founded as some kind of aid to native populations.
The meaning of the word colony, is "to set up a new population at a new location", with those people coming from and existing state or culture. Look at Greek, Phoenician, Roman, Viking and Norman colonies in the Mediterranean and Europe.
I don't like this format of typed questions (sound of old-fashioned typewriter) rather than reading the questions aloud because it means I can't just listen to this video while I do other things. I have to sit and read the questions on the screen in order to follow.
I agree!
Yes, would it kill people to just read them out?
Wonderful. Great video. Thanks! Hope it gets hundreds of thousands of views!
While I agree with almost everything said in this video, I find it frustrating to hear that colonization was all about furthering other cultures. Let's be honest, there was lots of thievery and subjugation involved. There would not have been a war if Britain's intent was to leave America. There would not have been salt marches in India if Britain was a benevolent builder of democracy. We can say that post modern decolonization is bs but that colonialism was damaging too.
Agree with Bruce's point that the meaning of decolonisation has changed. It used to mean the transfer of sovereignty from colonial powers to states. In Anglophone countries like NZ and Australia, decolonisation has come to mean tearing down society as we know it and reconstructing it based on identity groups.
Throughout history, colonization was a mercantile endeavor, whose purpose was to extract resources from a place different than the place you live. The idea that colonization was for the benefit of the colonized area is laughable.
Not one or the other, but both.
And defining trade as 'resource extraction' is textbook Leftist word trickery.
Thank you for one of the few sensible comments here. These people are framing it as if pacifist Buddhist monks were the ones doing the colonizing lol
Why is it laughable? You are supposed to actually make a substantive argument, you know?
Can’t an endeavour be mercantile and beneficent?
@@lm2240 Not if your education system was Mrxist-captured.
This is perfect for me. I love to learn, and I love listening to people who know what they're talking about.
Gilley makes a lot of well-supported and well-reasoned points. However, he is inexplicably naive when he insists (as he does here several times) that colonization was carried out _for the purpose of_ benefitting the colonized. That assertion is deeply counterfactual, and indeed, is risible. I was aware of Gilley arguing in the past that colonization had _unintended_ or _collateral_ benefits for the colonized, and a much stronger case can be made for this assertion.
Nigel Biggar has shown that the British Empire DID have a profound Christian moral mission - that most cynical modern minds cannot relate to.
@@onceamoth which part of their Christian moral arguments granted the practice of slavery?
@@tb8654define slavery
@@tb8654 It's in Exodus21, actually. But most Christian's don't know that.
Part of the problem is multiple choice testing and teaching for the test.
It kills critical thinking, adaptability, and success in a rapidly changing world
The most important freedom is freedom of association, and the right to discriminate.
Been hoping for this, been a fan of Bruce ever since he was on Triggernometry.
“Give me tangibles and measurables.” Feel good buzzwords are ALWAYS a substitute for actual information and goals.
He really made an effort to avoid using the words "socialism" and "communism"
I love this channel and am sympathetic to Gilley's argument, but I don't think this was a very good explanation.
Gilley asserts his view of what "colonization" and "decolonization" mean without going into the history of colonialism or explaining why others have been opposed to it. He doesn't even go into the history of why these terms changed meaning. I also think the graphics and text are superfluous. Providing examples in the form of images or videos would have better supported his points. When making a controversial argument, backing up points with facts becomes especially important. Again, I'm sympathetic to his argument. But the way the video is presented, it just comes off as a rambly guy making a bunch of assertions.
You're sympathetic to an argument that is engaging in historical revisionism as a way to argue against revisionism? The framing here was nothing short of either naive or disingenuous
@@tb8654 I'm sympathetic to the argument that "decolonization" is used as a cudgel by illiberal leftists to discredit the values and achievements of western liberal nations. I do agree with you that his description of colonialism is insanely sanitized and that he completely strawmanned its critics.
I don't think I can get behind that definition of colonization, especially when there were sovereign states involved on the receiving end.
The longer humans live, the more clueless they become about human nature.
Peter, this is great. Many people won't know the questions being asked because they're listening to the content, not watching it. I mention this because I'm sure that you and especially Bruce want this to reach the broadest possible audience. Thank you from someone who's appreciated you since the "conceptual penis" days ...
CS Lewis - “Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victim may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated, but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.”
And this is how I now view the majority of teachers in public education today. They are caught up in one huge echo chamber of left wing activism.
I thought you were talking about the alleged motives of colonists. It would fit well the Australian Aboriginal children taken from their families "for their own good".
Mr. Gilley's definition of colonisation is ridiculous. What he describes is more fitting to the mandates set up by the League of Nations after WW1, which were intended to be a negation of colonialism. The idea that Britain, Spain, Portugal, France, the Netherlands etc. took over large parts of the world for any other reason other than self-enrichment is frankly laughable. Even claims of bringing Christianity to the natives were just a fig-leaf to cover avarice.
I say all this as someone who loathes the post-colonial historical revisionism and 'woke' bollocks in it's entirety, but this does not hold water.
I felt that way as well
You do understand that his framing is using historical revisionism as well as revisionism of terms in order to try to argue against the Left doing revisionism, right? This guy is just as much of a snake and is the conservative equivalent of whatever "woke" archetype you're thinking of
This nonsense will take a generation to work out of the body politic. My country is heading down a path which ends - in an optimistic vein - in a Malaysian model, and in the less optimistic vein in the Zimbabwe model.
I have problems with the Gilley's initial definition of colonialism, which conflates different phases as if it was a uniform notion with a central philanthropic purpose. This for me is disingenuous, ignoring the many cases of brutal exploitation, contrary to an informed understanding of the complexity of colonialism.
Understand the "woke" idea of colonization and all the unsaid things that entails. That said, I don't think this guest is really being straight with us. Colonization did not have decolonization in its initial design/intent. Nobody colonized new lands (and peoples) to bring those people up to a new standard.
We don't need to push revisionist history to oppose revisionist history.
What revisionists history is being opposed in this video's arguments?
The only revisionism here is this man framing things disingenuously like "everyone having a fair voice" or "universal shared values" in US history, yet we needed DEI to be applied to remove name biases and only achieved everyone having a fair voice in the USA due to enough colored people being able to make the argument of being seen as a person appealing to enough White people in the US.
His entire framing reminds me of how people try to act like Europeans win points of being viewed as civil due to abolishing slavery only once money and resources were secured, even though Haiti which was incredibly poor already and in debt to France was able to say "This is bad, let's abolish it" within a year of independence
@@tb8654 Slavery has existed for thousands of years. It has been abolished in various places over time, but then it's reinstated, and it still exists in some areas of the world. According to the BBC, slave markets have been found on Instagram and other apps. I give Europeans points for abolishing slavery and also making it an unthinkable practice.
If you believe in Wikipedia, "Unpaid labor is still widely practiced in Haiti. As many as half a million children are unpaid domestic servants called restavek, who routinely suffer physical and sexual abuse." See "Slavery in Haiti." It's the same thing. Slavery was abolished and then it reappeared.
5:40 - I'm guessing that the argument against that would be that colonialists were not looking to set up self covering independent/autonomous entities and that the exploitation of the colony was the goal. e.g. the US colonies being overly taxed or India being exploited for some of its resources etc....... How would one argue against that perspective?
Academics can examine the pros and cons of colonization to their hearts' content. For myself, the most important reason for examining what happened to colonized peoples in the past is to ensure that the same thing does not happen to us, descendants of colonized and colonizer alike, in the here and now.
There was no one reason to colonise. Some where alteuistic. Some were murderous and greedy. Some just came in the hope of a better life.
And some came involuntarily and had to make the best of the situation they found themselves in.
Wait, what? That definition of colonialism is a bit at odds with history. The Brits for example had no intention to release India into self governance, ever. Also, India *had* a government when the Brits conquered it. For selling their stuff, by the way. British East India company, remember?
Or are there historical documents that proof such a claim, that are somehow still top secret?
India didn't exist when the British went there
Reid _The Anglo-American Establishment_
The goal was to teach the word to be British, the best way of living, and then get out when the culture had been changed and the natives could run things by themselves.
@sdrc92126 The Anglo-American Establishment starts with Lord Milner, born in 1854. That's a hundred years after the Brits conquered India.
This book was published in 1981, but the bibliography contains only entries from the 1910s-1940s. For a historical book it is not a good look to just not mention the last 30+ years of historical research (before its publication).
@enricofermi6997 It is Cecil Rhodes's, and later, Milner's plan, not official British policy.
Yes they did, hell they didn't even run it they just built things about handed out money.
The typewritten questions are bad for those of us who listen while driving or working around the house.
By what right is the first human who views or occupies a piece of land granted unquestionable ownership of that land?
If we follow their claims to their conclusion, whites have the right to kick browns out of europe and get rid of their culture in europe. Of coursse, they will claim that whites took over from "the original african ancestors who migrated there first", but they do not claim that for native americans. At least, not mainstream yet. I have seen fringe Black Power types arguing the first native americans were black/african, because of migration, and thus the ones today arent "th etrue original NAs". Theyre doing the same in UK right now with books saying "black people wuz here first". And they're doing it to subvert the next phase of Conservative argumentation: "Well if indigenous people own the land, then whites own it in Europe, and you cna never be truely indigenous europeans" To which they say "nuh uh, it was actually all black lands firstbecause of migration".
None. But colonisation/ imperialism has been the history of civilization. Picking on 'white' colonization is taking too narrow a view.
Who else has engaged in global wide colonialism in the past 150 years? Nobody is picking on "White colonization" lmao that sounds like an incredibly short sighted level of perception
It's scary and sad when museums start going along with this s and I'm afraid they just might be. At least starting to.
Hidden? It's not hidden, they're very open about it.
While i agree with most of what hes saying, his assertion that colonization was this altruistic "we're bringing western liberalism to the unwashed masses and help the savages self govern", with the end goal of decolonization is either naive or revisionist.
Colonial powers were solely interested in land acquisition and resources in order to remain major players in the european power struggles. No one in their right mind could say it was anything but.
While time and experience may have taught the colonizers that a self governing state/province a whole ocean away was more efficient, it was never their intention to give up the wealth transfer between the colonies and themselves. Why do you think the British fought so hard against American decolonization?
And why do you think Canada is the way it is, still beholden to the british monarchy? I think its time for Canada to "decolonize" like the Americans.
Universities can make more money with diversity.
The liberal regime maintains power through divide and conquer tactics
While simultaneously degrading the diplomas they teach.
This is a very rosy description of (e.g.) the 19th c. mania for colonial empires. The colonizing countries were mostly not very liberal or democratic. Raw conquest was still the "morality" of most states. There were good and bad motives, but it doesn't help one's credibility to ignore the bad ones.
There is no "The" indigenous people. Nobody is indigenous to the Americas or any other continent in the world except for Africa where the human species originated and from where groups of humans migrated out. The groups that were in the Americas were tribal, often at war with each other and taking each other's land and resources. Then later, a more technologically and philosophically advanced group found their way to the Americas during an era of colonization.
We don't actually know 100% where the human race originated and we keep finding new things, such as footprints in Crete that are far older then the time humans were believed to have entered Europe and the discovery that neanderthals were not wiped out in tribal warfare but interbreed with
@@GreatSageSunWukong Your epistemology is correct. We never claim certainty in a scientific theory as these are approximations to truth about an objective reality. At the same time nobody is claiming these footprints in Crete are human because they are about 2 million years older than even Lucy (which was not human). It is pretty far fetched to claim that these Crete footprints are human as there is no good reason to believe that.
What is more clear is that all primates come out of Africa and not N. America. There is NOTHING indicating the human species is indigenous to North America.
The "out of Africa" hoax is crumbling. It was created to be held over the heads of Whites and fool them into thinking "we're all the same"
Section 1: Too simplistic. Section 2: The Western Tradition is older than liberalism. Liberalism might not be 'at the heart' of that tradition. Also (I forget which section), the idea that decolinization was 'always part of the European Project' is laughable. Colonization was about the acquisition of territory and stuff, and facilitation of favorable (to the colonizer) trade. And then, far behind, religious reasons. There's no need to gloss over that. Conquest is cited as one of the four Horsemen of The Apocalypse. No one really thought we were going there to build railways and then leave. Very good on the final part though.
In the simplest of terms I think the western world is having a Newton vs. Goethe worldview showdown. I'm looking forward towards their integration and how that unfolds the next epoch.
@annsuo3398 I see it more as a battle between "Scottish Common Sense Realism" and "German Idealism." And I don't think they can be integrated.
Or, if you want to be as simplistic as possible, "Plato vs. Aristotle" as it's always been.
Or to be as antisimplistic as possible, the irreconcilable contestation at play is between those who see "Reality" as constituted by their field of intensionality, and those who see "Reality" as referred to by their field of intensionality.
This is a very Hegelian POV.
For a so-called deep dive, the whole talk came off as extremely shallow, simplistic, and ahistorical. Oh, and i agree with him on the main points. However, in my opinion, it wasn't very well argued or articulated.
so, would you consider the LA Fire Department is decolonized?
Good grief. So the British were altruistic? The Mau Mau were a bunch of ingrates?
Yes
They were not ingrate, they were just living blissfully oblivious to the constant wars, and invasions (and turned into slaves anybody on their way) that were a constant in Europe since the beginning of times, everybody had been ravaged by other nations and their previous beliefs strapped before they got their turn to do the same. The Mau Mau had been geographically lucky enough to be left alone for a while till that point, then they joined humanity's common fate. It was nothing personal or sadder than what happened to EVERYONE else( that is the most important point) before them. For instance, the first actual country/empire that colonized England was the Roman Empire. In the Year 43. And regarding different tribes’ proclivity to war, ( let’s say in America for instance)some were peaceful and some weren't. The Hopis, Zunis, and Pueblos were definitely peaceful. They were farmers and lived in cities. They were also preyed upon a lot by the Navajos and Apaches.
Others were distinctly warlike and had a warrior cult of manhood. They took scalps as trophies, and some of the Iroquois ritually tortured prisoners to death. The Aztecs ripped out living prisoners’ hearts and kicked their bodies down the temple steps.
Many tribes fought each other constantly. This is part of how the United States conquered the continent. The US government would make an alliance with one tribe to help it in its wars with another tribe. It's a time-honored approach; Julius Caesar did it in his conquest of Gaul, and the Honourable East India Company did it in India.
The definition of colonization offered at the opening of this video is ummmm...problematic to say the least. A "Tutelage or mentoring program where an established state establishes rule in an area where there is not an established state with the aim to help them develop the foundations to become a self-governing people." Are you kidding? Even the British don't bother pretending that any more. I don't think I need to quote from reliable sources like the Oxford English Dictionary. Just Google it. I am no woke activist, but I can't help asking what planet this guy is from. Seriously? This is satire, right?
Great talk; thank you.
Thanks Profs.
How about we conservatives create our own online education system? Today everyone has a computer and the internet. Everything is in place for that to happen.
14:39 to 15:08 - I'm liberal and I think such discussion is essential (though granted I am also not a university faculty member).
That "colonization" definition doesn't sound right to me. Maybe that's the Danish model in the 21st century but when have colonial powers throughout history ever set up a colony in a place, where there were already other people, with the explicit aim to help them become independent... again...?? That sounds like a big pile of BS, sorry.
Exactly, this is a blatant lie and it's disgusting that Peter allowed literal & obvious propaganda to be espoused on his own channel
@@tb8654 I think he is using a contemporary definition since he's also using a contemporary definition of "decolonization", the ladder of which has become code in universities for the things that he explained, I can attest to that. But I think the "colonization" definition is still off in this case. Because if we are talking about a contemporary context then the type of colonization he's talking about doesn't happen anymore. Greenland is in it's late stages of Danish colonization and has recently voiced the wish to become independent. But it does still teach Danish in schools and Western Danish media is ubiquitous in Greenland, so I think media influence is where a modern definition of colonization should start. Just like all Western-allied countries (all of Europe, and Taiwan, Japan, Korea, etc.) use more and more English words in their public media channels and everyday colloquial speech, often times replacing the local language. That's a type of colonization that's actually going on right now. Not the definition he gave, that's not happening and I'm not sure it ever happened in history without oppressive enforcement of the colonizer's value system onto the colonized culture.
Taken to extremes, these are bad ideas, but they are nowhere as near as prevalent or impactful as you exaggerate them to be for political gain.
He also doesn’t seem to grasp that liberal thought and its goals justify woke academic theories and actions in its end goals, not always by liberal means. Although even in that aspect there’s overlap.
Wait, so basically the whole colonization efforts were not about resources, but more like a long-term training and development program for the colonized to learn Government and Civics 101? Wow, never thought of it that way. Then I suppose all the conflicts between the great colonial empires must have also not been about control over those resources, but rather more like vigurous academic debate about the curriculum of the training.
Now that my mind is open to the alternative arugments, I think the professor should also look at other past institutions that get an undeserved bad rep in the woke academia. For example, was slavery really about free forced labor, or was it more lika a work-and-travel program which put the participants on a long pathway to US citizenship?
3:16 A shared language is no prerequisite if a second or third language is part of the education. See Switzerland.
I'm not sure I agree with the "agenda" of colonialism, in that it's a bit simple to say it was always out of good intention. While acknowledging the perspective of possible nation building, it's still patriarchal (as in, I know best, fatherly). Good intentions pave the path to hell, without acknowledging that often colonization was by force, and netted in the destruction of entire cultures, sometimes intended.
But I do agree with everything in terms of his explanation on the modern understanding of "Decolonization", which is now political and deals with ideas. I do believe that the small subsection of the left that questions things like mathematics, or wants to fix society by attempting to engineer it without consent or universal principles of equality (DEI) is a problem. There is a cultural fracturing being enforced by those who would claim to be liberal without even understanding the term.
I'm not on the right or the left, and I'd suggest you shouldn't be, either. Think for yourself. I can agree with some things, disagree with others. And as human beings, we need to stick with each other and align on what we do share. Which seems to be universal, liberal principles of equality.
Martin Luther King fought a peaceful revolution which eventually resulted in Title XII of the Civil Rights act guaranteeing equality of employment, for example. A universal, liberal good. The efforts from the left in terms of installing skin color and sex as a main factor in hiring is diametrically opposed to this. To be color blind is not to say you don't see color, it's to say you don't judge people because of their color. These identities, while important to our personal lives, should not be factors in hiring. Wasn't that the whole point? You can't fix society over night by mandating forced racism through policy, which is using the master's tools, anyway.
We need more conversations around this topic, to get people to see the humanity in each other again. And to realize nobody wins by using force. We all win by deciding to change our minds for once, or considering we're wrong.
Facebook won’t allow this? Tried to share without luck…tech is great 👎🏻
What a joke, mathematics like algebra was first in India and Iran...
What a wacky way to define "colonization" as a hand-up to others who didn't get there. Oh, aren't you the sweetest, just helping along those Asians, Africans, etc (I'll leave out the New World here). Bless your little heart.
I have been following this channel with great approval. But you messed up on this one. You got a mulligan. Do over.
Just stick to the issue of "decolonizing math" or "decolonizing curriculum" instead of broad-brush talking about colonialism in such a childish, self-serving manner.
Don't make me wonder if I'm suffering from the Gell-Mann Amnesia Effect wrt this channel. You've done good work on American wokeism. Defining and defending objective truth should not and does not parlay into being a shill for colonization.
Leon Trotsky - Robert Mugabe
Decolonization sucks!
I'm very sorry. The way you explained colonialism at the start is completely wrong.
His definition for Colonialism adds unnecessary specifics. It doesn’t need to be that narrow in reality.
A developed society can still be colonized by another developed society that’s better off and, or stronger in someway.
He made it specific to avoid arguments that can be made against what he is stating, dude is using revisionism for history as a means of trying to argue against others using revisionism for history lmao
@tb8654 Well, he's still a Liberal. What can you expect? Lol.
respectfully, please 1/2 windsor or double windsor the tie going forward. Crooked ties are lame.
you make it sound so flowery. if colonization is so freedom oriented, why did America have to fight for our freedom? what about Mexico and the Philippines?
TBF we were not that bothered about your leaving and didn't throw everything we had at you because it wasn't worth the money, you didn't really have anything of high value such as spices or drugs and thats why we taxed you so much you were not a high value colony.
@@GreatSageSunWukong
Seems like failed foresight, in hindsight.
@ We were busy on another front, priorities, can't predict everything.
Because when you have something nice (freedom) failed societies try to attack it.
Good question.
I get that things need to be pushed back on. I agree, it’s gone too far. Do we need to resort to propaganda videos? This is similar to the grievance hoax but feels like the intentions are different if you get what I mean. Capable of copying behavior, but this time it’s for real.
Beautifully put.
This guy is an other crank
The definition of colonization in the beginning is ridiculously absurd. Talk about a straw man
This guy over simplifies stuff, completely ignores all the nuances of the topics, and is clearly agenda driven - which is massively ironic on Peter's page.
While I'm largely against identity politics, the whole point isn't that 'black people can't do X', but more to do with class. Certain minority groups are disproportionately in lower class groups, which is partly to do with culture, but also as a result of historic oppression and racism.
Can you name a single ethnicity of people with no historical oppression at the hands of either their own or different peoples?
@@sheldonobrien4358 No, which is why I’m generally against identity politics. It’s ultimately down to class struggle. People were only racist in the first place because they thought people of lower class than them
@ No, which is why I'm generally against identity politics. It all eventually leads down to class. Middle Class X is always better off than Working Class Y
@@sheldonobrien4358 if this is your argument then you would need to agree that the US didn't become a land of fair voices nor democratic nor cared about its soldiers until just maybe 2-3 decades ago, right? Or that the USA was not a civil country until after the 60s, right? Black Vietnam veterans received their VA benefits at a much lower rate than White Vietnam veterans for instance.
So do you agree with the above? And do you agree that White people have had multiple different handouts in the 20th century that have helped with multiple subdemographics which allowed the population of White Americans to float closer to the current success rate that Asian Americans have?
@ lol, no I don't agree.
The United states, didn't immediately become perfect upon its founding, but it WAS an IMPROVEMENT on the standards of the world that existed at the time of its founding.
There's one thing that constantly frustrates when it comes to the interpretation of identity activists, which is judging the united states by the standards it evolved at OUR perspective of history, and NOT judging it from the standards that existed -at the time-.
I reject your irrational standards. I don't know what assumptions you're making onto me from the uncontroversial perspective that no peoples have existed without historical oppressions.
Nearly first
Colonizer
@ hahahah. 👏🏻
Is your boyfriend impressed? Nobody else cares.
@ I get that sarcasm does not always translate via text. But, chill
@@xploration1437 I care which means your post is a lie! Next time try "most don't care".
Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo .
Photosynthesis
Can't agree with that adefinition of colonization sorry. Its disingenuous.
There are two definitions offered, they are in opposition
@@stetsonscott8209I heard the one at the start where it establishrs a state where one diesn't exist with the aim of creating a self governing state (which I don't accept is correct). Where and what was the other in opposition to that?
According to the woke it fits. The end goal is this stuff is communism which is a stateless society just the Marx described the pre-capitalist societies
@stetsonscott8209 I heard the one at the start. At what time point in the video is the second?
@@paulsmith7579just because you’re offended doesn’t make you right.
Veritas non verba magistri
(Truth, not the words of the teacher)
James Madison replaced "magistri/master" with the teacher. It seems rather fitting. Given todays teachers learn from the masters and the masters compell obedience to horrific ideas AND the children suffer.
This is overly simplistic.
No, the myths and insane conspiracy theories about "colonization" are just too complicated lol.
@MikeJones-m6r reality is complicated in case you have not noticed.