There was one story that I heard years ago that stuck with me. It was about this British guy (his name escapes me). He was sent to India to oversee the day to day. When he arrived, he happened to witness a traditional Indian funeral. An elderly Indian man had died and was placed on a large funeral pyre so his body would be burnt to ashes. Now, along with the dead body on the pyre was the dead man's very much alive wife. She was burned alive along with her dead husband's body. The British man asked the Brahmin holy man why the woman was being burned alive. His reply was that it was their tradition going back generations. The British man in charge replied to the Brahmin, "We have a tradition in Britain as well...we hang men that burn women alive." Unsurprisingly, that Indian tradition quickly ended soon after.
The story was a hoax propagated by a man called Dwarkanath Tagore and his lackey Raja Rammohan Roy. The Tagore guy was a pimp who setup high-class escort services and brothels for the new class of English who moved to the Calcutta offices of the East India Company. Many trafficked and trapped women committed suicide and the myth was concocted that mass self-immolations were commonplace in India. This was around the time the Anglican church countermanded EIC efforts to not proselytize in India and secured permission from the British Parliament. They even appointed themselves as teachers in EIC training institutions within Britain. Dwarkanath himself wanted to become an MP in Britain. He wanted to get rid of his Hindu faith and invented a new religion called "Brahmo Samaj" as some sort of Hindu Protestantism. This was to bypass British laws at the time which prevented non-Christians from entering Parliament.
European Colonialism gets blamed for replacing and destroying cultures and civilisations, which held values and practiced customs, of which the people who do the blaming would be disgusted and abhorred by.
Yup, people of various civilizations are disgusted by practices such as: - Prima Nocta (all over Europe) - Capturing 12 million African slaves in Africa, transporting them to Americas, working them to bones, and profiting of their labour (transatlantic slave trade) - Tying people on to cannons and blowing them to bits (India after 1857) - Engineering famines (from 1757 to 1947 in India) - Chopping off hands (Congo) - Gassing people (WW2) - using mustard gas (Battle of Ypres, Belgium, in July 1917) - growing opium in India, drug running in China, promoting drug addiction (China) - the system of Three Estates (all over Europe) - nuclear bombing as a means of genocide (Japan 1945) the list is endless ...
Europeans themselves practiced many abhorrent customs themselves.(like witch burning, inquisition and so on) Also they practiced it on natives they conquered. Read about elaborate torture Portugese inflicted upon native Hindu population of Goa,India under Goan inquisition. British policies created worst famines in India and ended up killing 27 million people in mere 150 yrs, a feat which has no parallel in entire Indian history.
Their aim was to make slaves and pillage resources. All this mental gymnastics about the allegedly side effects are simply attempting to feel gracious about murdering and stealing.
European colonialism had a Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde character. German Imperialism could simultaneously carry out acts of genocide and preserve African languages. India was vastly richer and more technologically advanced than Britain. It is undeniable that for whatever benefits they received, the Indians were criminally over-charged in extractive terms. The negative side of Empire has been suppressed for a long time.
Technologically more advanced in some ways. But in others, they were far behind the Brits. The Brits had superior military technology, training, discipline. European firearms themselves were usually better made and more effective than those made elsewhere due to European metalwork being leaps ahead. As I've pointed out to other people, history isn't black and white. Everything swings in roundabout ways. Sure, the British Empire committed it's fair share of sins, but it also did some good in India, like banning widow burnings and introducing better food storage techniques, which helped to stave off famines that would often plague the Subcontinet.
India was never any of that. When the English arrived India was burning wives alive along with their dead husbands. It was a stone age society, while England invented and was the absolute leader of industrial revolution.
India would be a Muslim country now if it wasn't for the Britishers. just for that, India should be happy. and that figure about India wealth at the time the brits came has been widely debunked as the work of a Indian nationalist who used compound interest to calculate that figure.
@@NFFC-su8he How was India more technologically advanced? The industrial revolution happened in England. What technology did they have exactly that was more advanced than that of the Brits or Europeans in general. Name one
@@NFFC-su8he " india was vastly more technologically superior" In what kind of world are you even living in????? 🤣😂😂🤣 India was a fragmented feudal states , while Britain was a rapidly industrilling country
Also I think ROME was actually thriving when they had the most ruthless leaders who where no doubt brutal...but also set a lot of rules. Contrary to the believe that it was decadence that made the Romans disapear it might have been overly passive behaiviour. 😅
As an Indian, so will the effect of Russian colonialism in Britain be. We wish you all the cultural enrichment and prosperity in the world that you brought to us!
Not much abstraction is needed to state the obvious. For example, in 1879 the Zulus lived in grass and mud huts and were at an early stage of iron age development. Slide the calendar forward 145 years, and they have strong middle-class in Kwazulu-Natal and Gauteng, attending private schools and universities, driving BMWs and enjoying every conceivable comfort Western Culture can offer. None are living in straw or mud huts anymore. From an outsiders perspective, the answer is simple and a statement of fact.
The abstraction is needed only for the colonies that had either of the following: (1) a stone age level of technological development (2) no fixed borders (3) NO institutionalized system of governance (4) had not yet discovered the wheel (5) nonetheless still lived in an essentially feudal system right or then with a very entrenched Elite and a very impoverished population Only aboriginal Australians, a few Islanders, and some tribes in Africa and the Americas fit (1) and (4) of this abstraction. The latter actually fought and defeated the iron-age and technologically advanced Europeans several times using stone-age weapons before their lack of immunity to small-pox led to their demise. Asia and Africa resisted colonization till the 1700s and it took 2 centuries of loot from the New World to make Europe wealthy and advanced enough so that they could move on to colonizing Africa and Asia. The so-called abstraction is further fraught with inconsistencies as the borders of Europe (2) were continually shifting throughout the past 1000 years. The feudalism in Europe was as bad as it could be (5), that Europeans scrambled upon ships to the New World in search of freedom from oppression in the Old World.
@@MrLee-gj2jz We mostly agree. However, the "loot" taken from the Americas served a different purpose in Europe, as what it did in the Americas. In Europe it was money, while in the Americas, it wasn't used as money. In any event. Real wealth is created by labour and inventions. Gold or silver has no meaning other than being decorative, unless used as money. Money being a store value of labour. The increased prosperity in Europe had a very long run-up, and certainly wasn't solely to "loot" from the Americas. Don't forget that Europe had as it's base experience, the Greek and Roman histories, and adjacent Middle-East, to draw much technical knowledge from. With the collapse of Constantinople, a rush of stored Roman knowledge was sent west, leading to the Enlightenment. It was also the final collapse of the Byzantium Empire, closing eastern trade routes that lead to the first Portuguese voyages. The expulsion of the Muslims in Granada in 1492 secured the mainland and solidified Europe's future, before the discovery of the "New World."
@@petrosE75 Yup, this is the standard Niall Ferguson, Douglas Murray fare that you have dished up. The reality is that: (i) The iberians brought gold and silver from the Americas to Europe. The Iberians went on a spending spree that kickstarted a demand for goods and services in the Old World that were unmatched in any time in European economic history, a demand which other European countries attempted to fulfill. This was essentially a huge capital transfer from the New World to the Old World. This is what created the Industrial Revolution. Also your assertion that Native Americans did not have a form of currency is incorrect. They had several other forms of currency or valuable trade items. In any case, the French and English also accepted beaver and bear furs, tobacco, and bison skins as payment. In several parts of Europe, even rock salt was used as currency. (ii) Modern day Europeans seem to want to shake-off the role of the Americas in the Great Divergence. This is partially due to the stigma of slavery and that they would like to see their success as due to endogenic forces rather than exogenic stimulus. The reality is that without the gold from the New World, the Industrial Revolution would not have been possible. One only needs to look at the money trail of how the Iberians spent their gold and stimulated demand across Europe. Dutch and English shipbuilding started to innovate essentially in order to conduct acts of piracy and raid the Iberian ships. (iii) What was the major product of England? It was cotton textiles. Cotton does not grow in Europe. The cotton that fed the spinning mills in Britian came from plantations in America and the Caribbean (sea island cotton). Egyptian cotton and Indian cotton comes only later after 2 centuries of American colonization. And who grew the cotton? All attempts to enslave Native Americans failed and European physical constitution was incapable to cultivate the tropical expanses of the Caribbean and American South. (iv) The Enlightenment is given too much importance and is over-rated, and only came into the picture in the late 18th century.By this time 3.5 - 4 centuries of colonization had already been completed, with humongous amounts of capital, raw-material, and liquidity inflows transferred into Europe. This coincides with increased per-capita spendings by Europeans and more demand-side stimulus for industries. by 1860, Britain imported from colonies and majorly exported to other European countries. Most Enlightenment figures actually believed in pseudoscience that Africans are the descendants of Ham, son of Noah and that the world was created in 4004 BC, October 23. Several of these dudes were also slave traders themselves. (v) You are correct on some dates but incorrect on causalities. The Ottoman capture of Constantinople created a need for an alternate route to Asia. So one could argue that the Ottoman blockade triggered the Treaty of Tordesillas in which the Pope ordered the Iberians to take over the non-Christian world in the name of Christ. The New World was discovered in 1492. This is independent of the Reconquista. Many Muslims turned Christian and stayed back. The few who left went to the Barbary States and started harassing Iberian ships. Interestingly, even the English had bases in the Barbary States from where they mounted assaults on to Iberian ships with full knowledge of Queen Elizabeth.
@@MrLee-gj2jz Clearly we have similar knowledge of history. We differ in perspective. I'm of European descent. Welsh and Dutch. From your handle, you seem Asian. I'll leave you with these simple thoughts to ponder in the present. The Enlightenment is but only ONE aspect of how Europe came to dominate the planet, and definately not overrated. What you fail to see, is that it broke the grip the Catholic Church held over free thinking. It also lead to Protestantism/Calvinism and the Puritan work ethic. Germany being a great example. 1. Have you ever lived in Africa? 2. Have you developed product or created an invention that contributed to the advancement of society and the planet at large? A piece of metal does not create wealth. It's intelligence, ingenuity and labour. Simple as that. Without the "loot" of metals, Europe would very much still have dominated.
@@petrosE75 Of course we differ in perspective. Modern Europeans need some mythology to explain their relative success and also need someone to blame when they see that the so-called Divergence is getting closed pretty fast. On the other hand, modern Asians are more keen to sift through the BS, identify, and quantify the actual reasons why the Divergence happened so that the gap can be closed ASAP, and so that it never happens again. > I stick my original statement that the Enlightenment is overrated. When does the Enlightenment officially start? There is debate about this but the consensus is that it begins in the 1700s and continues to the late 1800s. Even with these dates, it still means that it could only start 200 years after the 1st Iberian ship came back with loot. The grip of the Catholic Church had already broken when England and the Netherlands decided not to honor the provisions of the Treaty of Tordesillas of 1494. The English and Dutch were of course pissed that the Pope awarded the right to loot heathen worlds to only the Spaniards and the Portuguese. Which is why looting of Iberian ships was fully funded by the English monarchy. The setting up of the Anglican Church over a divorce issue is mere hogwash. The reality was that the loot from the New World was coming so thick and fast that no one wanted to pay "tithe" to some dude sitting in Rome. It must be added that there was always discontent against the authority of the Catholic Church for centuries. The arrival of new money from the new world meant that rulers could now get their own Church if they didn't agree with the existing one. As a part-Dutchman you should know how the Dutch got independence from Spain following this chain of events. It is also untrue that the Church hold on free thinking was reined in by the Enlightenment. For example, take any European university from 1500 -1800 and look at what they had to study. Theology was a compulsory topic in addition to natural sciences. Many Enlightenment figures were theologians themselves who believed in unscientific facts. The secularization of European intellectual tradition begins only in the 1850s, after 350 years of colonialism had already passed. By this time, Europeans were doing luxury projects like the Eiffel tower, Statue of Liberty, Crystal Palace etc. > I have spoken about this to several Germans and they refute your analysis. Some of the most highly developed states of Germany are Catholic and fall within the larger "Blue Banana" region of Europe with highest industrial activity. Also France and Italy are Catholic. Did Catholicism prevent their Industrialization? And what about Austria? Did they not have work-ethics? Even though Germany industrialized later than britain, the "industrious Germans" with "protestant work-ethics" decided that they too need colonies of their own. of course, they learnt from the example of their neighbours such as Britain and France who could tax their colonial subjects, loot raw-materials, engage slave labour etc. > 1. I don't see how the 1st question is relevant. It is actually insulting to Africans as history shows how 12 million of their manpower were violently hauled to a new continent to work for the benefits of Europeans. Some modern Europeans do not want to tackle this Q so they spend time in whatabouttery. There is a good video on YT titled, "Answeing White People's Questions About Slavery: The London History Show". The Channel is called J.Draper. I invite you to watch it. 2. If this Q is about non-Europeans in general, then yes. There are several non-Europeans who have developed inventions, discoveries, scientific papers, products, processes, and services that are innovative and have contributed to the advancement of society. If the Q is to me, then again the answer is yes. Havilng lived in the EU, I can confidently state that not every European is a Hilbert, Laplace, Fourier, or Leibnitz. There are ordinary people who watch low-grade TV, read tabloids, and do soccer hooliganism on weekends without contributing to any societal advancement.
Russia colonize Eastern Europe, and the only reason why it’s frowned upon is a European country colonize of European countries. This man logic states colonialism isn’t bad, but if Europeans colonized the Europeans, that’s a tragedy and that’s barbarianism.
Russia is a dictatorship. European countries on the other hand are democratic. There is a big difference here. The last time this happened was in ww2 by nazi Germany.
@givelast5671 But they did, the Romans colonized England and historians believe this is the reason England was far more advanced than Scotland for centuries.
The Soviet Union and Russia have not colonised Eastern Europe but liberated these countries and industrialised mainly the agricultural countries of Eastern Europe.
The countries that were colonized by Britain were much better off than the countries that were not colonized almost without exception and that would include places that were side by side.
That's a pathetic cope No one benefits from getting taken over by a rapacious racist power which sucks you dry for resources, applies extra ordinarily high taxes on natives, creates famines, creates captive markets out of colonies. This is when natives are not outrightly genocided or ethnically cleansed and relegated to some unproductive land piece
You have it backwards, Britain only colonized productive nations to loot their wealth. Once the colonizer hadd left, it was only natural their natural preeminennce would resume.
@@themagicminstrels476 India... Which had a far superior culture, economy and religion before the brits laid eyes on us.... We weren't perfect but then who is... One credit I give the Brits is thanks to them disparate people's of India got united.... Stop painting plain theft as altruism
So Colonialism brought some benefits to the colonized. Since the colonizers got rich out of it, they have already been paid and should not expect gratitude on top. And allowing famines to run rampant was NOT a benefit.
Colonialism is neither inherently good or bad, it’s just what empires did and what groups of people have been doing since the beginning of history. But you can’t blame colonisation for the failure of Africa. There’s a reason why Africa is the most underdeveloped and poorest continent. It’s because it’s corrupt, ravaged by tribal warfare and run by people who would rather Africa stays in poverty as long as they are living the high life.
@@EarthtoAdam95 colonlism, is bad and had zero positives, and Africa and a lot global south is still “colonized” many of those “leaders” are installed puppet and any good “leaders” gets taken out. Where do all the resources go.
Not at all. In fact the colonial African empires such as the kush, benin, karthage as well as the Mughals of India improved their conquered lands drastically. The difference here is that European colonialism is in the spot light. And this means the tribal, uneducated sub humans come crawling out of their twitter coma crying and demanding free stuff. All colonialism throughout human history is GOOD and it's part of our DNA as humans. I wonder how many losers will start crying out that it's bad when humanity collectively colonisers Mars?
Europeanns simply did what ALL humann grps have done through-out hsstory. They were simply more succcsful at it. They were also over-alll more benovolnt about it compard to many past empyres.
@@InqvisitorMagnvs lol keep telling that to yourself maybe it'll be true by the 700th time. "gifted civilsation to them" yeah like the very European trope of gasing Jews, confining minorities into ghettos, massacring hundreds of thousands of native population, inflicting famine onto millions of peoples, and stealing resourses STILL IN 2024 FROM countries torn by wars caused by said freedom loving civilised countries. Lets not forget the idea enslaving a single people too, and creating a whole pseudoscience just to justify all the aforementioned , bffr. The growth of a people comes from releasing their past mistakes. learning from them, and working towards not repeating them. It is 2024, and the idea of being "loyal" to a single nationality, race or ethnicity should really be banned by now if not instinctively unflavoured, we are all human and we should strive for the betterment of humanity as a whole. Don’t repeat the mistakes of your slave-owning ancestors just because admiting they messed up has a bitter taste to it, because trust me the rest of the world never forgets no matter how hard you'll be willing to pretend.
So the narrative that colonialism was a good thing has becomr largely unpopular in recent decades and so it seems certain people on thw right will try to ressurrect the belief that colonialism was a good thing. If they convince enough people in the west that colonialism was a good thing does that mean future generations in the west will start colonialising other countries again??? History is remarkably cyclical
It had some positive aspects, as well as some negative aspects. Many people were killed, cultures were destroyed, and oppression was rampant. However, many abhorrent practices were abolished, some languages were resurrected, democracy was introduced, and infrastructure was vastly improved.
@@loganmanderfield1162it’s had zero benefits for inhibits u c8ucksertive are the same one that hate immigrants coming to ur country. Also, nothing u said is true
One more eurocentrism perspective. Actually, it’s very difficult for Europeans see the others beyond themselves. Unfortunately, the bad things they brought to native people are much bigger than the good ones. Just to cite one of them: slavery! There are no good things that can justify that or compensate that!
@@Spiritof-nn1fh 🤣 anyonewith a basic knowledge of history will know this is ever changing - there was a time when roman civilisation was the most advanced, ottomans ruled the world once, arabic civilisation contributed to art and science, indian civilisation is still cited amongst the greatest scientifically and culturally (not imperially)... Chinese have a lot of contributions to their credit.... so this is an everchanging metric - dont succumb to recency bias.... dont figet UK was once the strongest country in the world... all that has changed in a matter of decades - not even centuries to the extent people question its rpesence in teh UNSC..... sands of time are forever flowing and changing shape
@@DelulluSollulu Wrong. Some 95-98% of the human knowledge we posses as of today, has been discovered and attained in the last 3-4 centuries, when these non white, non Christian civilizations had virtually no contribution. Mayne with the exception of the Japanese, who learned the ways and values of white Christians and thrived.
Colonisation was overwhelmingly positive, particularly in some countries. There is no gratitude. Speaking from a NZ perspective, on the whole our indigenous people have been treated very well. They have received enormous transfers of wealth (a never-ending gravy-train where the grievances never seem to dry up…) Our people have gone from the Stone Age to advanced technology overnight. They claim to be in poverty but are wealthy. They claim to be victims and blame Europeans for their behavioural problems and poor decisions. And before you delete my comment Google, yes I am descended from indigenous ancestors.
The main opposition of the idea of colonialism is the question of accountability, all the actions of colonialist were in the service of mother land, they were never interested in creating institutions of governance and technology that advanced those rights given to people in native lands, all such i.e, infrastructure , research or law a nd order were a byproduct of the institution needed to establish their dominance, Japan is a prime example of how a non colonized country transitioned into modern system of statecraft and governance w/o being colonized.
The Europeans s1mply were more succcssful from the 1 5 th to the 2 0 t h centtury doing what EVRY OTHR HUMN GRP HAS DONE THROUGH OUT HSTORY. And were for the most part more benevolnt while doing so. D e a l with it.
Japann was a "colon1al" (actuallly imper1al) powr it-self. So you reallly mean whte ccountries colon1zng non-whte ccountries. So you're racstt aganst whtz?
on all the accounts in that case India was far more progressive and rich than the UK when they were colonised. by your own factors on which Superiority is based.
Progressive? I don't think so. They still had the practice of burning widows alive when their husbands had died. India was at one point more advanced than Britain, but not in every regard. There were some ways in which the British, and by extension, Europeans, were superior to the Indians. Superior military technology, training, discipline etc. It's nowhere near as black and white as either you, or the gentlemen in this clip try to portray it.
If colonialism was good, we wouldn't have fought you out of our continent! Also, this nonsense about Africa being a backward society - China was also as underdeveloped as Africa if not worse than us. The country then rose between 1980 and 2020 not because of COLONIALISM but because of CONSTRUCTIVE INVESTMENT!!!
When the Europeans arrived in Africa and much of the world, the wheel was not invented. Human sacrifice was rampant. There were no roads, infrastructure, industry, education system, modern agriculture, notion of human rights, etc. etc. All brought to them by Europeans. You are welcome.
@Spiritof-nn1fh Everything you said is completely wrong. African and Asian societies and some American societies developed way before the Portuguese, who were the first to sail the world, entered this travelling and trading business. Most parts of the world used wheels by the 5th century and even some African societies, contradictory to what some loser historians wanted to suggest, were even sea faring people. That's because the world has been engaging in a decent form of trade before the era of the slave trade began. We traded everything, even food and water with Europeans and Asians in South Africa where I'm based. Mali at a point refined half of then world's Gold. I guess they used Juju to do that since you're suggesting that we didn't have industry and get this - we used African methods to refine gold. We taught ourselves about mining and refinery. The Chinese and Indians were always the largest economies and societies in the world because of their massive populations and agriculture industries. It's only when the Dutch East Indian Company that a European country became 2nd place and in the 19th century that a European country got 1st place because of their serious industrial push, which didn't also happen in China, not because they were backward losers who lived in caves but because of incompetence. You won't hear us say that Europeans are backward when all sorts of economic sabotage is happening against yalls to deindustrialise your continent. So don't go and say some bs about modernising the world. Just because American Caucasians control the world today it doesn't mean that before the 500 tragic years of slavery and colonialism there wasn't actual history where different parts of the World actually were decently developed for their time. What Europe managed to do better than the rest of the world was invent guns and biowarfare. That's the most significant thing you have ever done - kill enough people and cull tens of millions of people (as if they're animals), still hundreds of trillions in resources and call it 'modernising the world.'
@@panashejmombeshora4021 There were literally no Sub Saharan African civilizations to speak off before Europeans arrived. The wheel was not used in Africa until Europeans arrived, as it was not used in the American continents, Australia etc. In India they were burning wives alive with their dead husbands. Aztecs, Mayans etc. were practicing human sacrifice and cannibalism. Slavery was the main trade of many Africans and Asians, not Europeans. Europe had almost no slaves once it embraced Christianity, and started participating in slave trade very late comparatively. European imperialism ended slave trade all over the world, to the great opposition of barbarians all around the world. Most of the Asian and African nations were the last ones to abolish slavery, only due to pressure by Europeans. Again, you are welcome. The Mongol invasion, An Lushan Rebellion, Three Kingdoms War, Taipan Rebellion, the Deccan Wars etc. make WWI and WWII look like picnics. Asians have slaughtered more people with knifes and arrows, than Europeans have with modern arms. So go preach this BS to someone else.
Taking the case of India, it was in no way inferior to the British civilization before the start of the colonial era, with close to 25% of the global GDP share at that time. Indians on the whole were prosperous but the colonial rule by the British left them poor and impoverished by the time they left, after World War 2. The colonial civilizations were not "advanced" because they used extreme violence and racial elitism to systematically crush the collective self-esteem and cultural attainments of the colonies.
He talks about colonialism as if it was: 1. A charity mission 2. technology, culture and in Europe was so great that europeans could not wait to share with everyone. 3. The conquered actually needed europeans to save them. Stop entertaining revisionism of history in this manner and stick to the facts.
It was technically a "charity mission", the concept of "white man's burden" popularized in the mid-1800s was the idea that it was the moral responsibility of the white man to spread Christianity and help develop prosperous societies in the countries they colonized. There were obviously some assholes who were viscously racist, but a majority of colonizers did actually believe that they were doing a moral and good thing for the natives. The europeans didn't want to "share" with everyone their technology. What specific technology? The main goal of the majority of the empires were to establish trading outposts and establish trading relations. Technology given to the natives were traded at the request of the natives who had asked for the technology.
@@jermaneusthere were enormous numbers of people who were viciously rascist. There's no point pretending it was a minority of the population in colonising countries. I read a history book years ago which contained large extracts of speeches made by MPs in the house of commons in the 19th century. Over and over again MPs refer to African and Indian colonial subjects as 'the lesser races", and the belief was widespread in the British establishment that Africans and Indians were Inferior species who did not have the capacity to understand what was best for themselves and needed British to decide for them. Those Indians and Africans who questioned this or rebelled against were dealt with extreme violence. (There's a famous image of Indian men tied to cannons which were then fired, their bodies shattered into hundreds of pieces) And the British MPs would talk about this as though it was what was best for India - without a hint of embarrassment or awareness that something could possibly be wrong on their thinking
@@aor3220 Well, you do not give much context here.. what were those natives questioning?, who were they? what exactly where they rebelling? what was the situation like before Britain were there? - let's not forget that life expectancy, standard of living, and population size all increased in the British colonies. drastically! how is any of this possible If the British were treating natives like an inferior race! (simply impossible pal!).
SORRY! I stopped watching this immediately after the comment that some societies that were colonised had not yet invented the wheel. I've been reticent to use this argument. It go's nowhere. I'm South African. We are now governed by people who have been "short circuited" from the stone age to people using smart phones. Nothing in-between. Sorry to be so derisive towards you Brits. We saw this coming 50 years ago. I hate schadenfreude. But there it is.
Colonialism is a natural trait to all humans & Nature in general. The hatred towards those that managed to be successful at Colonizing before others is ENVY. People have been brainwashed to believe that the people that didn't explore & Colonize are Victim's & those that did are Perpetrator's but the reality is everyone benefited & every nation or tribe would have done it had the opportunity been present. No one needs to apologize for anything because each nation plays its own part & none are either bad or good nor victims or perpetrators.
@@MrLee-gj2jz It's only in the past 3 centuries when West dominated the world, the average life expectancy of human being increased from 30 to 75, average per-capita increased from 600 dollars to 16,000 dollars, democracy and human rights start to spread to more than hundred countries. Just look at how the world grew (in terms of science, technology) during the past 300 years and compare it with before Western dominance on the world to understand how West changed the world. World should thank Europeans for that.
@@jeanettewee8805 World GDP over the past 500 years (Source: Our World in Data) 1500: 430 billion $(starting of colonization of Americas) 1600: 574 billion $ 1700: 643 billion $ (starting of colonization of Africa and Asia) 1820: 1.2 trillion $ 1900: 3.42 trillion $ 1950: 9.25 trillion $ (end of colonization) 2015: 108 trillion $ Interestingly, the post-colonial period has seen the highest increase in world GDP. The progression is almost like a function asymptotically approaching a singularity. Getting rid of European colonization was actually the best thing that happened for World GDP. It just proves that all indices and metrics such as life-expectancy, and per-capita income is correlated with energy consumption per capita. Vaclav Smil makes this point in his book, Energy and Civilization. - Smil V [2017], Energy and Civilization: A History, MIT Press
The mental gymnastics the Europeans do to prove colonialism was good is insane 😂 Had they put this much effort into protecting their countries they would not be facing islamisation. Also i do feel the necessity to debunk some of the absurd claims. 1) These people claiming Europeans advanced women's rights is an absolute joke 😆 These people burned women for doing maths or thinking too much. They burned them for witchcraft and wizardry. John of Arc was just one of several hundreds of thousands of women that the british burned in britain and their empire around the world, including in India where they supprted the portugese inquisition in India. And now these people claim they advanced women's rights 😂😂😂 2) Almost ALL of the presumptions that this guy starts with are either entirely false, or simply only cover a fraction of the whole truth, the fraction that supports their arguments. Europe had been getting scientific and technological advances through India ever since there was any civilization in europe. From simole things such as soaps, shampoos, buttons to civilization building inventions and knowledge like steel, metallurgy and maths have been transffered to europe by India and ALL via trade and commerce, NOT colonisation. If i am to unpack each and every single gift Europe got from India, it would be like opening a never ending pandora's box. 3) And your so called rediscovery of Indian history ? Yeah, the british did immesurable damage to the ancient sites and artifacts and buildings. The site of Harappa for example, it was a over 5000 years old city and the british just started using the bricks their to build a railway station in lahore. It was an Indian archeologist who then told the british that he thinks this is an ancient city and we must look into it. And ofcourse it turned out he was correct. But by that time a lot of damage had been done. This is just one of many examples. And the artifacts ? Well they stole it all. Now much of it sits in the british museum. 4) The british ruined the linguistics of India. Before british Sanskrit used to be the unifying language of all India and all Indian empires had it as one of the official languages. But british again imposed their own language english and now very few people speak Sanskrit and have Sanskrit as their mother toungue. 5) The Europeans love to play victim card when talking about the n@zis. But as soon as they are told about the evils that their own empires did in their colonies, they start their mental gymnastics and in many cases straight out lying. You people deserved to be colonised by the naz!s. I used to feel bad about the ongoing islamisation of Europe, but i have now changed my mind. You people deserve it.
Absolute BS!! The British didn't burn people anymore than any western medieval society and abolished the practice long ago, btw most were strangled first. This practice likely would not have have been abolished in India otherwise. Provide an example of how the British intentionally destroyed Sanskrit, or any other language. Languages go extend all the time, even in places never colonized. Even old and middle English are extinct. And although I'm not as familiar with India's history, saying India was more advanced before colonialism, and the British intentionally destroyed sacred places seems silly and without merit. The point he was trying to make is that Colonization brought unimaginable advancements in health care, life expectancy, prosperity, human and women rights, a system of justice, access to education, proper housing, a balanced diet, and other otherwise unobtainable benefits to stone age societies that hadn't progressed in a thousand years. Since this is all FACT It should be okay to acknowledge it, but all we ever hear is the (often exaggerated) bad parts of colonialism and aren't allow to point any of this out without being labeled bigots.
@@carolyn3172 Your BSing. The british burned several hundreds of thousands of women along with other European societies as well. Also, read my complete comment, as I said, there was NO such practice as forcefully burning women. All of these lies were created by the british christian missionaries to justify and lobby more funds and resources for conversions in India. They tried to spread so many lies, most did not stick, but some did. This is one of them. The ONLY people who forcefully burned the women in India were the Portugese when they bought an inquisition to Goa. And do you know who supported the Portugese ? The british. The Portugese and british have the longest alliance in history that continues to this day. The Portugese burned each and every women who refused to convert to christianity and/or refused to become their sex slaves.
@@devamjani8041 lmao " several hundreds of thousands of women" Jeeeeeezz, if that's the level of education indians are receiving the. There's no point arguing with you . And Sanskrit was never the unifying language of the entire India. Mughals didn't even speak Sanskrit They spoke Urdu/ Persian.
@@vatsal7640 you are showing off your own education level by confusing mughals with Indians. Let me educate you, mughals were a foreign colonising power just like the british. They were from central Asia. They were never Indians.
@@devamjani8041 Mughals were indians were by 16th century 🤣😂 Aurenzeb and all others looked like Indians and not Turks. Also the fact that you think hundreds of thousands of women were burned in Europe just goes to show how little you know about outside World. Also the anti immigrant rallies in Europe aren't about muslim specific, they'll come after Hindus next
What Gilley is saying was true only for Sub-Saharan Africa and Australia. It was not true for other countries occupied by the British and other European countries.
There were positives only for countries who colonized.. show the real dark history of rapes, slaughter, cow slaughtering, famines, divide and rule policy conducted by your country. Your country was cold with no food so you went on to other countries. There was no charity..any development that was made in colonized country was for their own trading. Talk about Kohinoor. Talk about cow slaughtering which was started in India by Britishers and not Mughals. When your own culture is being threatened you talk. What about the many cultures that your own country has destroyed and still continue to whitewash it with such stupid debates and thumbnails. Start by accepting your own country dark colonial history and then accept it. Teach your young generations what their ancestors did! Practice what you preach
these people make my blood boil, seeing how they have exported their dark immorality to my society, the prostitution, abortion, no marriages, homosexuality, greed and individualism is all terrible, they can say whatever they want to say to sleep better at night but its a lie. they have destroyed us. i will gladly go back to stone age if i wouldn't be afraid of being attacked. besides the natural environment has changes, the animals we would hunt can no longer migrate freely but locked into reserves, that's why they can reproduced properly they are meant to rome free.
Cold, I'll grant you, but what is your evidence for Britain being a country with no food? Because Britain has always had a strong culture of agriculture. In fact, there were many agricultural booms throughout Britain's history, which increased the overall yield. Between 1750 and 1850, the population of England alone tripled. To feed all these people, the entire country underwent a period of intensified agriculture and land reclamation. Today, about 69% of the UK's land area is used for farming. I think you're either willfully dishonest or you're just plain ignorant.
@@lfo784 Read the books The World Economy Historical Perspectives by Angus Maddison Dirt on Clean by Katherine Ashenburg There are many other books that reveal the real dark history of Europe. These books are written by western Authors. Whitewashing the history and giving fancy names to hide their heinous intentions is a unique skill developed by Colonials and also descendents of Colonials. For example 'Green Revolution' was a revolution brought in Indian agriculture. The name suggests a very positive breakthrough but there was nothing green about it. It was strategically used to destroy the diversity of Indian Agriculture and introduce wheat to India. They have strategically destroyed history so that nobody knows the real history and the white supremacy can dominate. I suggest you to read these books but let me warn you that it will bring the white supremacy to pieces. This whole projection of whites is a facade to hide their filthy history. Forget about agriculture and population, people didn't even have hygiene. So, I won't blame you if you don't read these books and choose to be ignorant or read these books and still cannot accept the facts and choose to be willfully dishonest as that is what these people have been doing otherwise we wouldn't be having this conversation.
Committing barbarism and loot with an intention of barbarism and loot doesn't project goodness in any way. A country if so self sufficient and prosperous in your words wouldn't go out to loot and oppress. Europe was starving and impoverish. But what can you expect from a country who proudly shows their colonial loot in museums that are nothing but sophisticated chor bazaars where the queen proudly displays the most precious loot for all to see where the so called prestigious university displays our God not as a sign of faith and respect but as a colonial loot. Stop justifying and start accepting the facts.
Read the books The World Economy Historical Perspectives by Angus Maddison Dirt on Clean by Katherine Ashenburg There are many other books that reveal the real dark history of Europe. These books are written by western Authors. Whitewashing the history and giving fancy names to hide their heinous intentions is a unique skill developed by Colonials and also descendents of Colonials. For example 'Green Revolution' was a revolution brought in Indian agriculture. The name suggests a very positive breakthrough but there was nothing green about it. It was strategically used to destroy the diversity of Indian Agriculture and introduce wheat to India. They have strategically destroyed history so that nobody knows the real history and the white supremacy can dominate. I suggest you to read these books but let me warn you that it will bring the white supremacy to fall apart. This whole projection of whites is a facade to hide their filthy history. Forget about agriculture and population, people didn't even have hygiene. So, I won't blame you if you don't read these books and choose to be ignorant or read these books and still cannot accept the facts and choose to be willfully dishonest as that is what these people have been doing otherwise we wouldn't be having this conversation.
Theses are points effectively made. However the North American default manner of ending sentences with “right?” is unattractive and distracts from any discussion at hand.
Being an Indian what I think is , Colonialism did had it's own positiveness , it taught us the importance modern scientific way of living, modern values such Democracy, Human rights and modern military etc ,but the price paid by colonized countries was too high for these things, compared to Japan ,Ottomans , Australia etc. and all these things actually became available after they left, not when they were here, they gave these things true but please don't tell us the reason that they gave these things to make our lives better. For a fact you didn't make our lives better when you were here for 200 years.😂
Gilley said "right"so often that it ruined what he was saying. And not saying: when he named the benefits Europeans brought he left out the most important: the rule of law. How could he have done that, a supposed scholar?
@@MohamedShou North India benefited by creating a genetic bottling effect and keeping the mentally r*tarded out of their city... Europe had nothing to do with this
90% of them still haven't done so well post colonist due to tribal politics and pagan religion practices. . There were 5 government coups in Africa in the last 3 years. The island of Haiti has no government. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coup_Belt
The Europeans s1mply were more succcssful from the 1 5 th to the 2 0 t h centtury doing what EVRY OTHR HUMN GRP HAS DONE THROUGH OUT HSTORY. And were for the most part more benevolnt while doing so.
" This idea of a blanket condemnation is just not tenable " is really all that needs to be said...
There was one story that I heard years ago that stuck with me.
It was about this British guy (his name escapes me). He was sent to India to oversee the day to day. When he arrived, he happened to witness a traditional Indian funeral. An elderly Indian man had died and was placed on a large funeral pyre so his body would be burnt to ashes. Now, along with the dead body on the pyre was the dead man's very much alive wife. She was burned alive along with her dead husband's body.
The British man asked the Brahmin holy man why the woman was being burned alive. His reply was that it was their tradition going back generations. The British man in charge replied to the Brahmin, "We have a tradition in Britain as well...we hang men that burn women alive."
Unsurprisingly, that Indian tradition quickly ended soon after.
I think it was Sir Charles Napier.
Some Indian people fought really hard to abolish this fucking barbaric tradition for years and the English might have helped to end it sooner.
Lol then you know nothing about historical records of sati
I believe you mean Lord William Bentinck and the abolition of the practice of Sati
The story was a hoax propagated by a man called Dwarkanath Tagore and his lackey Raja Rammohan Roy. The Tagore guy was a pimp who setup high-class escort services and brothels for the new class of English who moved to the Calcutta offices of the East India Company. Many trafficked and trapped women committed suicide and the myth was concocted that mass self-immolations were commonplace in India. This was around the time the Anglican church countermanded EIC efforts to not proselytize in India and secured permission from the British Parliament. They even appointed themselves as teachers in EIC training institutions within Britain. Dwarkanath himself wanted to become an MP in Britain. He wanted to get rid of his Hindu faith and invented a new religion called "Brahmo Samaj" as some sort of Hindu Protestantism. This was to bypass British laws at the time which prevented non-Christians from entering Parliament.
European Colonialism gets blamed for replacing and destroying cultures and civilisations, which held values and practiced customs, of which the people who do the blaming would be disgusted and abhorred by.
Yup, people of various civilizations are disgusted by practices such as:
- Prima Nocta (all over Europe)
- Capturing 12 million African slaves in Africa, transporting them to Americas, working them to bones, and profiting of their labour (transatlantic slave trade)
- Tying people on to cannons and blowing them to bits (India after 1857)
- Engineering famines (from 1757 to 1947 in India)
- Chopping off hands (Congo)
- Gassing people (WW2)
- using mustard gas (Battle of Ypres, Belgium, in July 1917)
- growing opium in India, drug running in China, promoting drug addiction (China)
- the system of Three Estates (all over Europe)
- nuclear bombing as a means of genocide (Japan 1945)
the list is endless ...
Europeans themselves practiced many abhorrent customs themselves.(like witch burning, inquisition and so on)
Also they practiced it on natives they conquered.
Read about elaborate torture Portugese inflicted upon native Hindu population of Goa,India under Goan inquisition.
British policies created worst famines in India and ended up killing 27 million people in mere 150 yrs, a feat which has no parallel in entire Indian history.
Their aim was to make slaves and pillage resources. All this mental gymnastics about the allegedly side effects are simply attempting to feel gracious about murdering and stealing.
Surely that's for them to decide?
@@demejiuk5660exactly thease loosrr should get a life
European colonialism had a Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde character. German Imperialism could simultaneously carry out acts of genocide and preserve African languages. India was vastly richer and more technologically advanced than Britain. It is undeniable that for whatever benefits they received, the Indians were criminally over-charged in extractive terms. The negative side of Empire has been suppressed for a long time.
Technologically more advanced in some ways. But in others, they were far behind the Brits. The Brits had superior military technology, training, discipline. European firearms themselves were usually better made and more effective than those made elsewhere due to European metalwork being leaps ahead. As I've pointed out to other people, history isn't black and white. Everything swings in roundabout ways. Sure, the British Empire committed it's fair share of sins, but it also did some good in India, like banning widow burnings and introducing better food storage techniques, which helped to stave off famines that would often plague the Subcontinet.
India was never any of that. When the English arrived India was burning wives alive along with their dead husbands. It was a stone age society, while England invented and was the absolute leader of industrial revolution.
India would be a Muslim country now if it wasn't for the Britishers. just for that, India should be happy. and that figure about India wealth at the time the brits came has been widely debunked as the work of a Indian nationalist who used compound interest to calculate that figure.
@@NFFC-su8he
How was India more technologically advanced? The industrial revolution happened in England. What technology did they have exactly that was more advanced than that of the Brits or Europeans in general. Name one
@@NFFC-su8he " india was vastly more technologically superior"
In what kind of world are you even living in????? 🤣😂😂🤣
India was a fragmented feudal states , while Britain was a rapidly industrilling country
Also I think ROME was actually thriving when they had the most ruthless leaders who where no doubt brutal...but also set a lot of rules. Contrary to the believe that it was decadence that made the Romans disapear it might have been overly passive behaiviour. 😅
Yes, most of the affects of European Colonialism have been and are still positive.
No there were zero positives, and they also reason they were able to “colonize” was brutally violence, lies and breaking treaties and having no honor
As an Indian, so will the effect of Russian colonialism in Britain be. We wish you all the cultural enrichment and prosperity in the world that you brought to us!
Not much abstraction is needed to state the obvious. For example, in 1879 the Zulus lived in grass and mud huts and were at an early stage of iron age development. Slide the calendar forward 145 years, and they have strong middle-class in Kwazulu-Natal and Gauteng, attending private schools and universities, driving BMWs and enjoying every conceivable comfort Western Culture can offer. None are living in straw or mud huts anymore.
From an outsiders perspective, the answer is simple and a statement of fact.
The abstraction is needed only for the colonies that had either of the following:
(1) a stone age level of technological development
(2) no fixed borders
(3) NO institutionalized system of governance
(4) had not yet discovered the wheel
(5) nonetheless still lived in an essentially feudal system right or then with a very entrenched Elite and a very impoverished population
Only aboriginal Australians, a few Islanders, and some tribes in Africa and the Americas fit (1) and (4) of this abstraction. The latter actually fought and defeated the iron-age and technologically advanced Europeans several times using stone-age weapons before their lack of immunity to small-pox led to their demise. Asia and Africa resisted colonization till the 1700s and it took 2 centuries of loot from the New World to make Europe wealthy and advanced enough so that they could move on to colonizing Africa and Asia. The so-called abstraction is further fraught with inconsistencies as the borders of Europe (2) were continually shifting throughout the past 1000 years. The feudalism in Europe was as bad as it could be (5), that Europeans scrambled upon ships to the New World in search of freedom from oppression in the Old World.
@@MrLee-gj2jz We mostly agree. However, the "loot" taken from the Americas served a different purpose in Europe, as what it did in the Americas. In Europe it was money, while in the Americas, it wasn't used as money.
In any event. Real wealth is created by labour and inventions. Gold or silver has no meaning other than being decorative, unless used as money. Money being a store value of labour.
The increased prosperity in Europe had a very long run-up, and certainly wasn't solely to "loot" from the Americas.
Don't forget that Europe had as it's base experience, the Greek and Roman histories, and adjacent Middle-East, to draw much technical knowledge from.
With the collapse of Constantinople, a rush of stored Roman knowledge was sent west, leading to the Enlightenment.
It was also the final collapse of the Byzantium Empire, closing eastern trade routes that lead to the first Portuguese voyages.
The expulsion of the Muslims in Granada in 1492 secured the mainland and solidified Europe's future, before the discovery of the "New World."
@@petrosE75 Yup, this is the standard Niall Ferguson, Douglas Murray fare that you have dished up. The reality is that:
(i) The iberians brought gold and silver from the Americas to Europe. The Iberians went on a spending spree that kickstarted a demand for goods and services in the Old World that were unmatched in any time in European economic history, a demand which other European countries attempted to fulfill. This was essentially a huge capital transfer from the New World to the Old World. This is what created the Industrial Revolution. Also your assertion that Native Americans did not have a form of currency is incorrect. They had several other forms of currency or valuable trade items. In any case, the French and English also accepted beaver and bear furs, tobacco, and bison skins as payment. In several parts of Europe, even rock salt was used as currency.
(ii) Modern day Europeans seem to want to shake-off the role of the Americas in the Great Divergence. This is partially due to the stigma of slavery and that they would like to see their success as due to endogenic forces rather than exogenic stimulus. The reality is that without the gold from the New World, the Industrial Revolution would not have been possible. One only needs to look at the money trail of how the Iberians spent their gold and stimulated demand across Europe. Dutch and English shipbuilding started to innovate essentially in order to conduct acts of piracy and raid the Iberian ships.
(iii) What was the major product of England? It was cotton textiles. Cotton does not grow in Europe. The cotton that fed the spinning mills in Britian came from plantations in America and the Caribbean (sea island cotton). Egyptian cotton and Indian cotton comes only later after 2 centuries of American colonization. And who grew the cotton? All attempts to enslave Native Americans failed and European physical constitution was incapable to cultivate the tropical expanses of the Caribbean and American South.
(iv) The Enlightenment is given too much importance and is over-rated, and only came into the picture in the late 18th century.By this time 3.5 - 4 centuries of colonization had already been completed, with humongous amounts of capital, raw-material, and liquidity inflows transferred into Europe. This coincides with increased per-capita spendings by Europeans and more demand-side stimulus for industries. by 1860, Britain imported from colonies and majorly exported to other European countries. Most Enlightenment figures actually believed in pseudoscience that Africans are the descendants of Ham, son of Noah and that the world was created in 4004 BC, October 23. Several of these dudes were also slave traders themselves.
(v) You are correct on some dates but incorrect on causalities. The Ottoman capture of Constantinople created a need for an alternate route to Asia. So one could argue that the Ottoman blockade triggered the Treaty of Tordesillas in which the Pope ordered the Iberians to take over the non-Christian world in the name of Christ. The New World was discovered in 1492. This is independent of the Reconquista. Many Muslims turned Christian and stayed back. The few who left went to the Barbary States and started harassing Iberian ships. Interestingly, even the English had bases in the Barbary States from where they mounted assaults on to Iberian ships with full knowledge of Queen Elizabeth.
@@MrLee-gj2jz Clearly we have similar knowledge of history. We differ in perspective.
I'm of European descent. Welsh and Dutch.
From your handle, you seem Asian.
I'll leave you with these simple thoughts to ponder in the present.
The Enlightenment is but only ONE aspect of how Europe came to dominate the planet, and definately not overrated. What you fail to see, is that it broke the grip the Catholic Church held over free thinking. It also lead to Protestantism/Calvinism and the Puritan work ethic. Germany being a great example.
1. Have you ever lived in Africa?
2. Have you developed product or created an invention that contributed to the advancement of society and the planet at large?
A piece of metal does not create wealth. It's intelligence, ingenuity and labour. Simple as that. Without the "loot" of metals, Europe would very much still have dominated.
@@petrosE75 Of course we differ in perspective. Modern Europeans need some mythology to explain their relative success and also need someone to blame when they see that the so-called Divergence is getting closed pretty fast. On the other hand, modern Asians are more keen to sift through the BS, identify, and quantify the actual reasons why the Divergence happened so that the gap can be closed ASAP, and so that it never happens again.
>
I stick my original statement that the Enlightenment is overrated. When does the Enlightenment officially start? There is debate about this but the consensus is that it begins in the 1700s and continues to the late 1800s. Even with these dates, it still means that it could only start 200 years after the 1st Iberian ship came back with loot. The grip of the Catholic Church had already broken when England and the Netherlands decided not to honor the provisions of the Treaty of Tordesillas of 1494. The English and Dutch were of course pissed that the Pope awarded the right to loot heathen worlds to only the Spaniards and the Portuguese. Which is why looting of Iberian ships was fully funded by the English monarchy. The setting up of the Anglican Church over a divorce issue is mere hogwash. The reality was that the loot from the New World was coming so thick and fast that no one wanted to pay "tithe" to some dude sitting in Rome. It must be added that there was always discontent against the authority of the Catholic Church for centuries. The arrival of new money from the new world meant that rulers could now get their own Church if they didn't agree with the existing one. As a part-Dutchman you should know how the Dutch got independence from Spain following this chain of events.
It is also untrue that the Church hold on free thinking was reined in by the Enlightenment. For example, take any European university from 1500 -1800 and look at what they had to study. Theology was a compulsory topic in addition to natural sciences. Many Enlightenment figures were theologians themselves who believed in unscientific facts. The secularization of European intellectual tradition begins only in the 1850s, after 350 years of colonialism had already passed. By this time, Europeans were doing luxury projects like the Eiffel tower, Statue of Liberty, Crystal Palace etc.
>
I have spoken about this to several Germans and they refute your analysis. Some of the most highly developed states of Germany are Catholic and fall within the larger "Blue Banana" region of Europe with highest industrial activity. Also France and Italy are Catholic. Did Catholicism prevent their Industrialization? And what about Austria? Did they not have work-ethics? Even though Germany industrialized later than britain, the "industrious Germans" with "protestant work-ethics" decided that they too need colonies of their own. of course, they learnt from the example of their neighbours such as Britain and France who could tax their colonial subjects, loot raw-materials, engage slave labour etc.
>
1. I don't see how the 1st question is relevant. It is actually insulting to Africans as history shows how 12 million of their manpower were violently hauled to a new continent to work for the benefits of Europeans. Some modern Europeans do not want to tackle this Q so they spend time in whatabouttery. There is a good video on YT titled, "Answeing White People's Questions About Slavery: The London History Show". The Channel is called J.Draper. I invite you to watch it.
2. If this Q is about non-Europeans in general, then yes. There are several non-Europeans who have developed inventions, discoveries, scientific papers, products, processes, and services that are innovative and have contributed to the advancement of society. If the Q is to me, then again the answer is yes. Havilng lived in the EU, I can confidently state that not every European is a Hilbert, Laplace, Fourier, or Leibnitz. There are ordinary people who watch low-grade TV, read tabloids, and do soccer hooliganism on weekends without contributing to any societal advancement.
Russia colonize Eastern Europe, and the only reason why it’s frowned upon is a European country colonize of European countries. This man logic states colonialism isn’t bad, but if Europeans colonized the Europeans, that’s a tragedy and that’s barbarianism.
Russia is a dictatorship. European countries on the other hand are democratic. There is a big difference here. The last time this happened was in ww2 by nazi Germany.
The difference is Russia makes its colonies more backwards
@givelast5671 But they did, the Romans colonized England and historians believe this is the reason England was far more advanced than Scotland for centuries.
The Soviet Union and Russia have not colonised Eastern Europe but liberated these countries and industrialised mainly the agricultural countries of Eastern Europe.
@@DipakBose-ge1hm Poland would be far more advanced if it wasn't for Russia
The countries that were colonized by Britain were much better off than the countries that were not colonized almost without exception and that would include places that were side by side.
That's a pathetic cope
No one benefits from getting taken over by a rapacious racist power which sucks you dry for resources, applies extra ordinarily high taxes on natives, creates famines, creates captive markets out of colonies.
This is when natives are not outrightly genocided or ethnically cleansed and relegated to some unproductive land piece
They would have been better have if they were not colonized
You have it backwards, Britain only colonized productive nations to loot their wealth. Once the colonizer hadd left, it was only natural their natural preeminennce would resume.
@@Bell_plejdo568p lmao based on what proof? Haiti? The WHOLE continent of Africa?
@@themagicminstrels476 India... Which had a far superior culture, economy and religion before the brits laid eyes on us.... We weren't perfect but then who is... One credit I give the Brits is thanks to them disparate people's of India got united.... Stop painting plain theft as altruism
So Colonialism brought some benefits to the colonized. Since the colonizers got rich out of it, they have already been paid and should not expect gratitude on top. And allowing famines to run rampant was NOT a benefit.
Colonialism is neither inherently good or bad, it’s just what empires did and what groups of people have been doing since the beginning of history.
But you can’t blame colonisation for the failure of Africa.
There’s a reason why Africa is the most underdeveloped and poorest continent.
It’s because it’s corrupt, ravaged by tribal warfare and run by people who would rather Africa stays in poverty as long as they are living the high life.
@@EarthtoAdam95 colonlism, is bad and had zero positives, and Africa and a lot global south is still “colonized” many of those “leaders” are installed puppet and any good “leaders” gets taken out. Where do all the resources go.
There was zero benefits colonialism
@@Bell_plejdo568p most countries who were colonised ended up far better off than they were before.
@@Bell_plejdo568p There were some, whether they were worth the price paid for them is another question.
Greatest thing was the English language .
Why don't you debate this?
Is this a joke?
A very sick one
Not at all. In fact the colonial African empires such as the kush, benin, karthage as well as the Mughals of India improved their conquered lands drastically. The difference here is that European colonialism is in the spot light. And this means the tribal, uneducated sub humans come crawling out of their twitter coma crying and demanding free stuff. All colonialism throughout human history is GOOD and it's part of our DNA as humans. I wonder how many losers will start crying out that it's bad when humanity collectively colonisers Mars?
Of course it did! I can stereotype people based on their skin color how cool is that!
It is so good, that none of the European countries is worth living at the moment. High tax, low income crap hol es
Europeanns simply did what ALL humann grps have done through-out hsstory. They were simply more succcsful at it. They were also over-alll more benovolnt about it compard to many past empyres.
No other groups accomplished what Europeans did until Europeans arrived and gifted advanced civilisation to them.
So why did Europeans stop doing it? Incapability? Or is that they have nothing more to offer others?
Just delusional. Colonialists wanted resources and slaves. Problem is that they keep doing it.
@@InqvisitorMagnvs lol keep telling that to yourself maybe it'll be true by the 700th time. "gifted civilsation to them" yeah like the very European trope of gasing Jews, confining minorities into ghettos, massacring hundreds of thousands of native population, inflicting famine onto millions of peoples, and stealing resourses STILL IN 2024 FROM countries torn by wars caused by said freedom loving civilised countries.
Lets not forget the idea enslaving a single people too, and creating a whole pseudoscience just to justify all the aforementioned , bffr. The growth of a people comes from releasing their past mistakes. learning from them, and working towards not repeating them. It is 2024, and the idea of being "loyal" to a single nationality, race or ethnicity should really be banned by now if not instinctively unflavoured, we are all human and we should strive for the betterment of humanity as a whole. Don’t repeat the mistakes of your slave-owning ancestors just because admiting they messed up has a bitter taste to it, because trust me the rest of the world never forgets no matter how hard you'll be willing to pretend.
@@InqvisitorMagnvsdon't worry europe is gonna get gifted advanced civilization pretty soon 😂
It did have positives, we now have nukes and missiles that can reach UK and they don't.
Are u from India and India don’t have nukes because of Britain, also there were no positives
build toilets first
@@GM-oi4vg we can target u when u r taking a shit - go wipe ur ass now with that piece of paper🤣
@@shankar9218 uk has more nukes than your country.
@@GM-oi4vghahahaha😂😂
Love this take
Of course you do
@@Jody86645 So, do you. You can't find fault with the video.
Mostly positive. Some negatives, but overall.. positives.
So the narrative that colonialism was a good thing has becomr largely unpopular in recent decades and so it seems certain people on thw right will try to ressurrect the belief that colonialism was a good thing.
If they convince enough people in the west that colonialism was a good thing does that mean future generations in the west will start colonialising other countries again???
History is remarkably cyclical
It had some positive aspects, as well as some negative aspects. Many people were killed, cultures were destroyed, and oppression was rampant. However, many abhorrent practices were abolished, some languages were resurrected, democracy was introduced, and infrastructure was vastly improved.
@@loganmanderfield1162 democracy was introduced by colonialism ? I'm quite sure the European empires opposed democracy for the colonies
They did for a time, but many of them are democracies now, and those who didn't eventually become democratic are Islamic theocracies.@@aor3220
@@aor3220yea there lying and they know that it’s funny how they always make the same lies
@@loganmanderfield1162it’s had zero benefits for inhibits u c8ucksertive are the same one that hate immigrants coming to ur country. Also, nothing u said is true
One more eurocentrism perspective. Actually, it’s very difficult for Europeans see the others beyond themselves. Unfortunately, the bad things they brought to native people are much bigger than the good ones. Just to cite one of them: slavery! There are no good things that can justify that or compensate that!
If you think it's the European colonizers who introduced slavery you're ill informed
He knows he’s lying
95% of Hong Kongers would beg to differ.
Lmao they didn't bring slavery to these places, they enslaved each other! Clueless!
@@Mopark25 Russia isn't about to bring colonialism to western Europe! They were already fighting world wars with each other
Your definition of superior civilisation is very narrow
Western European Christian civilization. It is by far the most advanced the world has ever seen
@@Spiritof-nn1fh 🤣 anyonewith a basic knowledge of history will know this is ever changing - there was a time when roman civilisation was the most advanced, ottomans ruled the world once, arabic civilisation contributed to art and science, indian civilisation is still cited amongst the greatest scientifically and culturally (not imperially)... Chinese have a lot of contributions to their credit.... so this is an everchanging metric - dont succumb to recency bias.... dont figet UK was once the strongest country in the world... all that has changed in a matter of decades - not even centuries to the extent people question its rpesence in teh UNSC..... sands of time are forever flowing and changing shape
@@DelulluSollulu
Wrong. Some 95-98% of the human knowledge we posses as of today, has been discovered and attained in the last 3-4 centuries, when these non white, non Christian civilizations had virtually no contribution. Mayne with the exception of the Japanese, who learned the ways and values of white Christians and thrived.
Colonisation was overwhelmingly positive, particularly in some countries. There is no gratitude. Speaking from a NZ perspective, on the whole our indigenous people have been treated very well. They have received enormous transfers of wealth (a never-ending gravy-train where the grievances never seem to dry up…) Our people have gone from the Stone Age to advanced technology overnight. They claim to be in poverty but are wealthy. They claim to be victims and blame Europeans for their behavioural problems and poor decisions. And before you delete my comment Google, yes I am descended from indigenous ancestors.
The main opposition of the idea of colonialism is the question of accountability, all the actions of colonialist were in the service of mother land, they were never interested in creating institutions of governance and technology that advanced those rights given to people in native lands, all such i.e, infrastructure , research or law a nd order were a byproduct of the institution needed to establish their dominance, Japan is a prime example of how a non colonized country transitioned into modern system of statecraft and governance w/o being colonized.
Japan was a colon1al powr. So what you really mean is that you don't l1ke whte colon1alsts and our h1story.
H u g e difffernce bettween imper1alsm and colon1alsm. You guys l1ke to conflate those thngs.
The Europeans s1mply were more succcssful from the 1 5 th to the 2 0 t h centtury doing what EVRY OTHR HUMN GRP HAS DONE THROUGH OUT HSTORY. And were for the most part more benevolnt while doing so. D e a l with it.
I am deeeply proudd of wstern "colon1alsm" and its grrrt ach1evemnts. If you're not, you need to move on. We aren't listenning to this crp anymore.
Japann was a "colon1al" (actuallly imper1al) powr it-self. So you reallly mean whte ccountries colon1zng non-whte ccountries. So you're racstt aganst whtz?
on all the accounts in that case India was far more progressive and rich than the UK when they were colonised. by your own factors on which Superiority is based.
Progressive? I don't think so. They still had the practice of burning widows alive when their husbands had died. India was at one point more advanced than Britain, but not in every regard. There were some ways in which the British, and by extension, Europeans, were superior to the Indians. Superior military technology, training, discipline etc. It's nowhere near as black and white as either you, or the gentlemen in this clip try to portray it.
If colonialism was good, we wouldn't have fought you out of our continent!
Also, this nonsense about Africa being a backward society - China was also as underdeveloped as Africa if not worse than us. The country then rose between 1980 and 2020 not because of COLONIALISM but because of CONSTRUCTIVE INVESTMENT!!!
Yes they keep afruca “backwards” and China they want to keep it “backward” but China Keeps on not letting it happen
When the Europeans arrived in Africa and much of the world, the wheel was not invented. Human sacrifice was rampant. There were no roads, infrastructure, industry, education system, modern agriculture, notion of human rights, etc. etc. All brought to them by Europeans. You are welcome.
@Spiritof-nn1fh Everything you said is completely wrong. African and Asian societies and some American societies developed way before the Portuguese, who were the first to sail the world, entered this travelling and trading business. Most parts of the world used wheels by the 5th century and even some African societies, contradictory to what some loser historians wanted to suggest, were even sea faring people. That's because the world has been engaging in a decent form of trade before the era of the slave trade began. We traded everything, even food and water with Europeans and Asians in South Africa where I'm based. Mali at a point refined half of then world's Gold. I guess they used Juju to do that since you're suggesting that we didn't have industry and get this - we used African methods to refine gold. We taught ourselves about mining and refinery. The Chinese and Indians were always the largest economies and societies in the world because of their massive populations and agriculture industries. It's only when the Dutch East Indian Company that a European country became 2nd place and in the 19th century that a European country got 1st place because of their serious industrial push, which didn't also happen in China, not because they were backward losers who lived in caves but because of incompetence. You won't hear us say that Europeans are backward when all sorts of economic sabotage is happening against yalls to deindustrialise your continent. So don't go and say some bs about modernising the world. Just because American Caucasians control the world today it doesn't mean that before the 500 tragic years of slavery and colonialism there wasn't actual history where different parts of the World actually were decently developed for their time. What Europe managed to do better than the rest of the world was invent guns and biowarfare. That's the most significant thing you have ever done - kill enough people and cull tens of millions of people (as if they're animals), still hundreds of trillions in resources and call it 'modernising the world.'
@@panashejmombeshora4021
There were literally no Sub Saharan African civilizations to speak off before Europeans arrived. The wheel was not used in Africa until Europeans arrived, as it was not used in the American continents, Australia etc. In India they were burning wives alive with their dead husbands. Aztecs, Mayans etc. were practicing human sacrifice and cannibalism.
Slavery was the main trade of many Africans and Asians, not Europeans. Europe had almost no slaves once it embraced Christianity, and started participating in slave trade very late comparatively. European imperialism ended slave trade all over the world, to the great opposition of barbarians all around the world. Most of the Asian and African nations were the last ones to abolish slavery, only due to pressure by Europeans. Again, you are welcome.
The Mongol invasion, An Lushan Rebellion, Three Kingdoms War, Taipan Rebellion, the Deccan Wars etc. make WWI and WWII look like picnics. Asians have slaughtered more people with knifes and arrows, than Europeans have with modern arms. So go preach this BS to someone else.
Very true...the uk government is very accountable...so are the usa and other countries !!!
@@matisg142 accountable for what??
Taking the case of India, it was in no way inferior to the British civilization before the start of the colonial era, with close to 25% of the global GDP share at that time. Indians on the whole were prosperous but the colonial rule by the British left them poor and impoverished by the time they left, after World War 2. The colonial civilizations were not "advanced" because they used extreme violence and racial elitism to systematically crush the collective self-esteem and cultural attainments of the colonies.
And castes were non existent before.
@@midlife_harmony the British exploited the societal stratifications.
Gave them pale ale though.
North India benefited by creating a genetic bottling effect and keeping the mentally r*tarded out of their city... Europe had nothing to do with this
Apparently it gave them an ‘opportunity‘ to be ruled 😂😂
He talks about colonialism as if it was:
1. A charity mission
2. technology, culture and in Europe was so great that europeans could not wait to share with everyone.
3. The conquered actually needed europeans to save them.
Stop entertaining revisionism of history in this manner and stick to the facts.
It was technically a "charity mission", the concept of "white man's burden" popularized in the mid-1800s was the idea that it was the moral responsibility of the white man to spread Christianity and help develop prosperous societies in the countries they colonized. There were obviously some assholes who were viscously racist, but a majority of colonizers did actually believe that they were doing a moral and good thing for the natives.
The europeans didn't want to "share" with everyone their technology. What specific technology? The main goal of the majority of the empires were to establish trading outposts and establish trading relations. Technology given to the natives were traded at the request of the natives who had asked for the technology.
No he doesn't. Watch again and this time, try to actually listen to what he says.
@@bosshogg7513 I did watch it again, 7 months ago.
@@jermaneusthere were enormous numbers of people who were viciously rascist. There's no point pretending it was a minority of the population in colonising countries. I read a history book years ago which contained large extracts of speeches made by MPs in the house of commons in the 19th century. Over and over again MPs refer to African and Indian colonial subjects as 'the lesser races", and the belief was widespread in the British establishment that Africans and Indians were Inferior species who did not have the capacity to understand what was best for themselves and needed British to decide for them. Those Indians and Africans who questioned this or rebelled against were dealt with extreme violence. (There's a famous image of Indian men tied to cannons which were then fired, their bodies shattered into hundreds of pieces)
And the British MPs would talk about this as though it was what was best for India - without a hint of embarrassment or awareness that something could possibly be wrong on their thinking
@@aor3220 Well, you do not give much context here.. what were those natives questioning?, who were they? what exactly where they rebelling? what was the situation like before Britain were there? - let's not forget that life expectancy, standard of living, and population size all increased in the British colonies. drastically! how is any of this possible If the British were treating natives like an inferior race! (simply impossible pal!).
Didn’t know Skip Bayless knew so much about history
Well, Shashi Tharur has bursted this pro-colonialism narrative with facts and figures at Oxford union debate.
Uhh.......
No, tharoor is nobody in front Douglass murrey, Thomas sowell or Andrew Roberts.
A 10 year old video has no relevance today.
So a video being old means facts have changed???? I hope u realise there can be points of view different to the gents u mention@@rob12x56
@@abc39722 " facts and figures"
Nice one 🤣😂😂🤣
SORRY! I stopped watching this immediately after the comment that some societies that were colonised had not yet invented the wheel.
I've been reticent to use this argument. It go's nowhere.
I'm South African.
We are now governed by people who have been "short circuited" from the stone age to people using smart
phones. Nothing in-between.
Sorry to be so derisive towards you Brits.
We saw this coming 50 years ago.
I hate schadenfreude.
But there it is.
Dont worry BRICS currency will strip the western emperor naked.
Us Brits are fine with you being derisive towards us, we know we are above you and your animalistic behaviour so its ok.
Colonialism is a natural trait to all humans & Nature in general. The hatred towards those that managed to be successful at Colonizing before others is ENVY. People have been brainwashed to believe that the people that didn't explore & Colonize are Victim's & those that did are Perpetrator's but the reality is everyone benefited & every nation or tribe would have done it had the opportunity been present. No one needs to apologize for anything because each nation plays its own part & none are either bad or good nor victims or perpetrators.
So by that logic people who died in the process of colonialism are not victims ?
Nope, only Europe benefitted. The net flow of raw materials, capital, and liquidity was one-sided towards Europe.
@@MrLee-gj2jz It's only in the past 3 centuries when West dominated the world, the average life expectancy of human being increased from 30 to 75, average per-capita increased from 600 dollars to 16,000 dollars, democracy and human rights start to spread to more than hundred countries. Just look at how the world grew (in terms of science, technology) during the past 300 years and compare it with before Western dominance on the world to understand how West changed the world. World should thank Europeans for that.
@@jeanettewee8805 World GDP over the past 500 years (Source: Our World in Data)
1500: 430 billion $(starting of colonization of Americas)
1600: 574 billion $
1700: 643 billion $ (starting of colonization of Africa and Asia)
1820: 1.2 trillion $
1900: 3.42 trillion $
1950: 9.25 trillion $ (end of colonization)
2015: 108 trillion $
Interestingly, the post-colonial period has seen the highest increase in world GDP. The progression is almost like a function asymptotically approaching a singularity. Getting rid of European colonization was actually the best thing that happened for World GDP. It just proves that all indices and metrics such as life-expectancy, and per-capita income is correlated with energy consumption per capita. Vaclav Smil makes this point in his book, Energy and Civilization.
- Smil V [2017], Energy and Civilization: A History, MIT Press
@@MrLee-gj2jz west is still domination, US is now the colonial power, let's look what will happen when China starts ruling the world
Imagine someone talking about the positives about Hitler and Nazi Germany. There would be outrage. Talk about double standards.
Imagine being so incredibly uneducated that you compare colonialism with Nazism.
Facts
The mental gymnastics the Europeans do to prove colonialism was good is insane 😂 Had they put this much effort into protecting their countries they would not be facing islamisation. Also i do feel the necessity to debunk some of the absurd claims.
1) These people claiming Europeans advanced women's rights is an absolute joke 😆 These people burned women for doing maths or thinking too much. They burned them for witchcraft and wizardry. John of Arc was just one of several hundreds of thousands of women that the british burned in britain and their empire around the world, including in India where they supprted the portugese inquisition in India. And now these people claim they advanced women's rights 😂😂😂
2) Almost ALL of the presumptions that this guy starts with are either entirely false, or simply only cover a fraction of the whole truth, the fraction that supports their arguments. Europe had been getting scientific and technological advances through India ever since there was any civilization in europe. From simole things such as soaps, shampoos, buttons to civilization building inventions and knowledge like steel, metallurgy and maths have been transffered to europe by India and ALL via trade and commerce, NOT colonisation. If i am to unpack each and every single gift Europe got from India, it would be like opening a never ending pandora's box.
3) And your so called rediscovery of Indian history ? Yeah, the british did immesurable damage to the ancient sites and artifacts and buildings. The site of Harappa for example, it was a over 5000 years old city and the british just started using the bricks their to build a railway station in lahore. It was an Indian archeologist who then told the british that he thinks this is an ancient city and we must look into it. And ofcourse it turned out he was correct. But by that time a lot of damage had been done. This is just one of many examples. And the artifacts ? Well they stole it all. Now much of it sits in the british museum.
4) The british ruined the linguistics of India. Before british Sanskrit used to be the unifying language of all India and all Indian empires had it as one of the official languages. But british again imposed their own language english and now very few people speak Sanskrit and have Sanskrit as their mother toungue.
5) The Europeans love to play victim card when talking about the n@zis. But as soon as they are told about the evils that their own empires did in their colonies, they start their mental gymnastics and in many cases straight out lying. You people deserved to be colonised by the naz!s. I used to feel bad about the ongoing islamisation of Europe, but i have now changed my mind. You people deserve it.
Absolute BS!! The British didn't burn people anymore than any western medieval society and abolished the practice long ago, btw most were strangled first. This practice likely would not have have been abolished in India otherwise.
Provide an example of how the British intentionally destroyed Sanskrit, or any other language. Languages go extend all the time, even in places never colonized. Even old and middle English are extinct. And although I'm not as familiar with India's history, saying India was more advanced before colonialism, and the British intentionally destroyed sacred places seems silly and without merit.
The point he was trying to make is that Colonization brought unimaginable advancements in health care, life expectancy, prosperity, human and women rights, a system of justice, access to education, proper housing, a balanced diet, and other otherwise unobtainable benefits to stone age societies that hadn't progressed in a thousand years. Since this is all FACT It should be okay to acknowledge it, but all we ever hear is the (often exaggerated) bad parts of colonialism and aren't allow to point any of this out without being labeled bigots.
@@carolyn3172 Your BSing.
The british burned several hundreds of thousands of women along with other European societies as well. Also, read my complete comment, as I said, there was NO such practice as forcefully burning women. All of these lies were created by the british christian missionaries to justify and lobby more funds and resources for conversions in India. They tried to spread so many lies, most did not stick, but some did. This is one of them. The ONLY people who forcefully burned the women in India were the Portugese when they bought an inquisition to Goa. And do you know who supported the Portugese ? The british. The Portugese and british have the longest alliance in history that continues to this day. The Portugese burned each and every women who refused to convert to christianity and/or refused to become their sex slaves.
@@devamjani8041 lmao " several hundreds of thousands of women"
Jeeeeeezz, if that's the level of education indians are receiving the. There's no point arguing with you .
And Sanskrit was never the unifying language of the entire India.
Mughals didn't even speak Sanskrit
They spoke Urdu/ Persian.
@@vatsal7640 you are showing off your own education level by confusing mughals with Indians. Let me educate you, mughals were a foreign colonising power just like the british. They were from central Asia. They were never Indians.
@@devamjani8041 Mughals were indians were by 16th century 🤣😂
Aurenzeb and all others looked like Indians and not Turks.
Also the fact that you think hundreds of thousands of women were burned in Europe just goes to show how little you know about outside World.
Also the anti immigrant rallies in Europe aren't about muslim specific, they'll come after Hindus next
What Gilley is saying was true only for Sub-Saharan Africa and Australia. It was not true for other countries occupied by the British and other European countries.
There were positives only for countries who colonized.. show the real dark history of rapes, slaughter, cow slaughtering, famines, divide and rule policy conducted by your country. Your country was cold with no food so you went on to other countries. There was no charity..any development that was made in colonized country was for their own trading. Talk about Kohinoor. Talk about cow slaughtering which was started in India by Britishers and not Mughals. When your own culture is being threatened you talk. What about the many cultures that your own country has destroyed and still continue to whitewash it with such stupid debates and thumbnails. Start by accepting your own country dark colonial history and then accept it. Teach your young generations what their ancestors did! Practice what you preach
these people make my blood boil, seeing how they have exported their dark immorality to my society, the prostitution, abortion, no marriages, homosexuality, greed and individualism is all terrible, they can say whatever they want to say to sleep better at night but its a lie. they have destroyed us. i will gladly go back to stone age if i wouldn't be afraid of being attacked. besides the natural environment has changes, the animals we would hunt can no longer migrate freely but locked into reserves, that's why they can reproduced properly they are meant to rome free.
Cold, I'll grant you, but what is your evidence for Britain being a country with no food? Because Britain has always had a strong culture of agriculture. In fact, there were many agricultural booms throughout Britain's history, which increased the overall yield. Between 1750 and 1850, the population of England alone tripled. To feed all these people, the entire country underwent a period of intensified agriculture and land reclamation. Today, about 69% of the UK's land area is used for farming. I think you're either willfully dishonest or you're just plain ignorant.
@@lfo784 Read the books
The World Economy Historical Perspectives by Angus Maddison
Dirt on Clean by Katherine Ashenburg
There are many other books that reveal the real dark history of Europe. These books are written by western Authors.
Whitewashing the history and giving fancy names to hide their heinous intentions is a unique skill developed by Colonials and also descendents of Colonials. For example 'Green Revolution' was a revolution brought in Indian agriculture. The name suggests a very positive breakthrough but there was nothing green about it. It was strategically used to destroy the diversity of Indian Agriculture and introduce wheat to India.
They have strategically destroyed history so that nobody knows the real history and the white supremacy can dominate. I suggest you to read these books but let me warn you that it will bring the white supremacy to pieces. This whole projection of whites is a facade to hide their filthy history. Forget about agriculture and population, people didn't even have hygiene. So, I won't blame you if you don't read these books and choose to be ignorant or read these books and still cannot accept the facts and choose to be willfully dishonest as that is what these people have been doing otherwise we wouldn't be having this conversation.
Committing barbarism and loot with an intention of barbarism and loot doesn't project goodness in any way. A country if so self sufficient and prosperous in your words wouldn't go out to loot and oppress. Europe was starving and impoverish. But what can you expect from a country who proudly shows their colonial loot in museums that are nothing but sophisticated chor bazaars where the queen proudly displays the most precious loot for all to see where the so called prestigious university displays our God not as a sign of faith and respect but as a colonial loot. Stop justifying and start accepting the facts.
Read the books
The World Economy Historical Perspectives by Angus Maddison
Dirt on Clean by Katherine Ashenburg
There are many other books that reveal the real dark history of Europe. These books are written by western Authors.
Whitewashing the history and giving fancy names to hide their heinous intentions is a unique skill developed by Colonials and also descendents of Colonials. For example 'Green Revolution' was a revolution brought in Indian agriculture. The name suggests a very positive breakthrough but there was nothing green about it. It was strategically used to destroy the diversity of Indian Agriculture and introduce wheat to India.
They have strategically destroyed history so that nobody knows the real history and the white supremacy can dominate. I suggest you to read these books but let me warn you that it will bring the white supremacy to fall apart. This whole projection of whites is a facade to hide their filthy history. Forget about agriculture and population, people didn't even have hygiene. So, I won't blame you if you don't read these books and choose to be ignorant or read these books and still cannot accept the facts and choose to be willfully dishonest as that is what these people have been doing otherwise we wouldn't be having this conversation.
Is this a parody?
@@varunshah5914 no, are you even listening???
Yes it had positives. To you. lol
No, mostly to the colonized people, most of whom who were living in stone age.
Did you get an education? Some healthcare? Food security?
Theses are points effectively made. However the North American default manner of ending sentences with “right?” is unattractive and distracts from any discussion at hand.
They were so very superior that they must had their resources and slaves.
In answer to the question. NO.
Great Britain has made a lot of money with the african people. Selling africans to america. The horror ..........
None? Zero? Nil?
@@loganmanderfield1162 can i steal your money to invest it ? Why you reject that is for your beneift you are sick
Being an Indian what I think is , Colonialism did had it's own positiveness , it taught us the importance modern scientific way of living, modern values such Democracy, Human rights and modern military etc ,but the price paid by colonized countries was too high for these things, compared to Japan ,Ottomans , Australia etc. and all these things actually became available after they left, not when they were here, they gave these things true but please don't tell us the reason that they gave these things to make our lives better. For a fact you didn't make our lives better when you were here for 200 years.😂
There is absolutely nothing positive about it
Yeah! What did the Romans ever do for us?
What about the systematic robbery of resources derived from Colonialism, specifically in Africa to enrich Europe?
Orientalism
Gilley said "right"so often that it ruined what he was saying. And not saying: when he named the benefits Europeans brought he left out the most important: the rule of law. How could he have done that, a supposed scholar?
Absolute load of tripe.
It was ALL pos1tve for both s1des.
Ok how was it positive for the native during the colonial period 🤔. Let’s start with Britain and India for example
@@MohamedShou North India benefited by creating a genetic bottling effect and keeping the mentally r*tarded out of their city... Europe had nothing to do with this
90% of them still haven't done so well post colonist due to tribal politics and pagan religion practices. . There were 5 government coups in Africa in the last 3 years. The island of Haiti has no government. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coup_Belt
The Europeans s1mply were more succcssful from the 1 5 th to the 2 0 t h centtury doing what EVRY OTHR HUMN GRP HAS DONE THROUGH OUT HSTORY. And were for the most part more benevolnt while doing so.
Racism this nihha is racis wth
The ent1re thng was pos1tive.
🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️
To show how bdd soseal medya snsoarshp is I have to r1gt like this to avoyd shwd bnn.
LIES LIES LIES LIES LIES LIES LIES LIES LIES LIES
😂😂😂😂😂
Does the far Right pseudo intellectual Douglas Murray have any positives?
That might be the most xenophobic talk I heard since 1930s
1930s? How old are you if you heard talks in the 1930s? Perhaps you are senile like Joe Biden?
Think you need to check your dictionary
What a silly thing to say.
You must be very old.
That might be the most uneducated comment I've ever read since the birth of the internet.
there s now globalism against "colonolism" how much dıd the kıngdom gıve u to have u speak like that?