I think John needs to publish a series of history books: The Fault in Our Czars (about The Downfall of the Russian Empire) Paper Crowns (about the establishment of constitutional monarchy in Europe) Looking for Alaska (the Adventures of John Leydard)
Mongols all the way down, about wait for it . ..... The Mongols. And An abundance of Colonies, about colonialism and the American war of Independence. And finally , Let it blow , A book about the history of explosives , from greekfire and gunpowder to nukes ( preferably in collaboration with 3 other authors ).
Will Kettle Paradox games, Civilization, Total War... In almost all strategy games, England/Britain is red and France is blue. It is the unwritten law, if you do not follow it you will be punished.
This channel has taught me so much more about history than I ever have learned in school.. Thank you for making these videos, they're simple, not too long and made understandable with great topics. Great work to you John Green, and of course every member of the Crash Course team. Thank you for wanting to teach people, it's really appreciated.
Red France and Blue Britain on that Africa map? Well that's the reverse of just about every map I've ever seen. Even the continent tended to use red/pink for Britain.
Funny, i remember my history book having a purple France and light blue UK split, my parents has a green france and dark red/weird mid rust/almost black UK.
Mr. Green, I'm Indonesian and could you discuss about Dutch colonialism and imperialism on Indonesia? Because it's not very highlighted in the American and world media and also the history lessons in my country is highly unreliable and biased (I realized this after I compared my highschool history book and Wikipedia), so could you make a video about it, please, Mr. Green?
Ferry Mahendra Hi, how do your history books treat Dutch imperialism, if I may ask? I am Dutch myself and in the past, many books were quite positive about it. Today, however, more and more nuanced and negative viewpoints dominate the media and literature and show how your people suffered.
OK one of many examples that I clearly remember of, in my highschool history book, Indonesia gained independence because of our forefathers (Sukarno and Hatta) successful negotiation with the Dutch, but on Wikipedia, Indonesia gained independence because of American and the UN pressure on the Dutch. This American and UN contribution is totally not mentioned in our school books.
Hmm,after Sukarno read the Proclamation of Independence, its the start of armed resistance against the Dutch,its a bloody fight,of course the UN and U.S joined to put Indonesia and Dutch in a table and make agreement.
The thing with authoritarianism is that yeah, sometimes you get a really good dictator who gets stuff done and acts rather benevolently. But more often, you get someone bad - either incompetent or evil, or both. And when that happens, there's no good way of replacing the dictator. Basically, the point of democracy is not to be the nation that gets good stuff done. It's to be the nation that does NOT get BAD stuff done. It's doing a so-so job in that regard, but probably better than other systems.
Problem with Authoritarianism is that there is no mechanism to ensure that you get a good ruler in power, and that ruler (even a good one) needs to waste valuable energy and resources keeping somebody else form seizing the throne. I mean Augustus was a great ruler and Tiberous...was not, nor Caligula after him. Cliadius was good, but he was followed by Nero. There is no system to make sure that the Next Autocrat is remotely talented, and you often wind up with psychotics like Caligula or Empress Irene, or you wind up with people who are just inedpt and unsuited for rule like Nicholas II or Louis the 16th.
Montesquieu says that thinks the major problem with authoritarians States, they create despots. The only way to ensure that no one man and has so much power is to do a 'separation of powers'. Where 3 houses have control over the people. However he also said that people who lived in the tropics were lazy and stupid and will never be smart, so I'd take his sayings with a pinch of salt
As a son of a social studies teacher in Canada, and having done some teaching myself, you and your team are great! History is a complex subject and you do it with flair (which is super hard), and nuance (which on the internet is super rare). Keep up the great work. And disregard the trolls who only react to one line and try to make a bon mot. Pretty sure you do that anyway, but sometimes its good to hear some support.
John, when are you going to discuss the Philippines as a model for economic, political, and cultural failure due to imperialism? I mean the Philippines endured European imperialism (through the Spanish), American imperialism, and even Asian imperialism (through the Japanese). This maelstrom of conflicting ideologies has turned the Philippines into a sort of misshapen clone of three vastly different origins. Thanks, DFTBA.
Richarditong The Philippines is not much of a country... Tagalog means “resident beside the river.” In the Philippines, due to a history of multiple settlements, more than 170 languages are spoken and only 2 of them are official in the country: Filipino and English. What Languages Are Spoken in the Philippines? - Translation Blog EVERY LANGUAGE COULD HAVE BEEN A SEPARATE COUNTRY BUT BECAUSE OF THE FILIPINO IMPERIALISM, MICRO IMPERIALISM, THEY WERE PREVENTED
The colors on that colonial Africa map gave me caner... it should be: Britain: Red France: Blue Germany: Grey Belgium: Brown Italy: Dark Green Portugal: Light Green Spain: Yellow
Rainbow Bubbles The Netherlands didn't have any territory in Africa after 1815, but I suppose orange would make a fine colour for the Boer Republics...
An open letter to all those people who post comments like, “But you didn’t mention X, Y, or Z:” History majors in college send 4-8 years studying this stuff. Career historians dedicate their entire lives to it. You're not going to get it all in a handful of 10-15 minute UA-cam videos! I think Crash Course provides a great overview, and gives me some starting points for further exploration. Best wishes, A John Green supporter
The Mongol joke is that the Mongols are the exception to every generalization about historical groups, because they are- except for one or two instances. It started in Crash Course World History (the original version).
Authoritarianism: Good leader= Really good Bad leader= Really, really bad Basically, one puts all his/her eggs in one basket when adopting this strategy.
ahadicow Awesome point, though I think your use of the word "good" is equivalent to the word "competent" while my use of the word "good" is something like: "Generally beneficial for the ruler's subjects."
Authoritarianism is a good way to build the foundation of a strong state. Democracy is good and all, but if there is no strong state by the time democracy kicks in, chances are; that democracy is going to end up as a pretty shitty democracy.
Nonamearisto Good luck with building a strong state without an authoritarian rule. I'd like to know a successful first world nation today that did not emerge from a strong monarchical or dictatorial social and cultural background.
Nonamearisto The US settlers came with pretty authoritarian and monarchical backgrounds, and before the rebellion, Britain invested a lot in administrative institutions, which would help the state. Even after winning their independence, it took a lot of reforms to put America on the right track to defeat the clientelism that threatened the early nation. As for Rome, although they did dislike kings, they were extremely violent, authoritarian and had nowhere near the same amount of rules as we have today to limit the elite's power. This unrestrained power was the reason why they were able to make such extreme social and political changes to forge a powerful state in the first place. But there are notable differences between ancient and modern civilizations(both internal and external), the latter of which we are focusing now :P
Through this video, I only saw how this three Asian thinkers really have strong minded. They don't care about what people might say, they believe in theirselves very much to start anything new. This somehow taught me that you have to believe in yourself. Nothing can control you except yourself. Besides that, learn your strengths to knows what makes you strong while identify your weakness so that you can improve yourself. One more thing, don't ever looks down of yourself. If someday your have new ideas and want to share with people but no one see things like you see things, be confident and just do it. As long as you believe and willing to, nothing is impossible. It is natural to people being judgemental to someone else until you proved their wrongs with success. To me, it is better to be a trend setter than trend follower.
Wow, John Green, I've been watching your videos for a very long time, but this is the video where you won my respect totally! I wish more people talked about History with as much balance as you. Because the reality is something like what you present, a little black, a little white and a lot of grey area. Keep up the great work buddy! Best wishes, Shihab Khan :D
@@takeshikodama5671 yeah, but Islam's argument for the existence of God doesn't solely depend on this one statement, so it's insufficient to disprove the "need for God".
@@basketofdependables4244 XD Xmas IS Christmas, X is the English version of the symbol for Christ in some ancient language I think. Even if it isn't, it's still Christmas just shorter
In the south Indian state of Kerala, we destroyed the dutch east India company's navy. We even used their captured military general to develop tactics to fight the British. That saved us from ending up like apartheid south africa.
I'd love to see a Crash Course video on the history of South Africa - it's very complex, interesting, and overlooked in my opinion. Just putting it out there!
Videos like this is why I subscribe to CrashCourse and John Green; nuanced understanding instead of sweeping generalizations, detailed but somehow remains concise.
Yes, which I always find funny when Europeans (especially British people) are quick to point out America's imperialistic past without addressing where came from and who sent us there in the first place! Please note I'm not talking about all Europeans here just the ones who say this kind've stuff.
Yes the colonisation of america is the first wave pf imperialism, but is diferent because is not an imperialism made from a western world dominated by liberal ideas. Because of this the concept of civilisation and the hegemony of the west as the only posible form of real or corect civilisation is not chalenged. And for australia since the british almost eliminated the native population there were no expretions of cultural oposition to the imposition of western ideas, so the is no questioning of this ideas.
daniel ospina perez I think you should study Australian history more closely. There was a lot of opposition to Western values and still is. Also didn't "liberal" ideas really start in the 20th century, once Imperialism had finised?
technically, yes. However, the difference is that the imperialized people in Africa and Asia were, well, still alive. The colonized people in the Americas and Australia were routinely wiped out to near extermination. So these European nations ruled, not people who were unwillingly forced under a foreign power interested in stealing all their resources, but ruled Europeans who were quite happy to help send all the lands resources across the ocean as long as it made them a few bucks.
Bud Charles Liberalism has existed in the west since the 17th century. Liberalism was one of the European Enlightenment's reactions against the idea of absolute monarchies and the divine right of kings. Outside of Britain, however, liberalism didn't catch on until the French Revolution and it's aftermath. Classical Liberalism was actually at its height at the same time that imperialism was in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.
Before india was colonised in the middle of the 18th century by british, it contributed to 23% of the world trade. When british left the india in 1947, india's share in the world trade was around 3%.
i have been to india, beatifull country but its sooooo poor! you have some serious issues there, under british you were much better, decolonialism is much worse then colonialism
Please don't stop making videos. The latest world history series has been OUTSTANDING! In truth it might be better titled world politics but I can see why crash course continues to shy away from that word. I hope people continue to watch and subscribe so that they can be exposed to these ideas and lesser-known facts, leading them to question/read/learn further. You tackle very controversial and complex topics in a humorous, credible, and accessible manner. Again, PLEASE don't stop making videos, they are an invaluable educational resource for youths and adults alike.
SE Asia is the middle sea route between China and India, both were historically lands with centuries of civilizations. That alone should tell you the importance of SE Asia. Plus, SE Asia gave birth to people in the Pacific Islands (we share a common ancestor).
People shouldn't act as though imperialism was something only the west and Japan did. Every country did it, the only difference is scale and government, though it's not like every western power had the same form of government either.
Thing is only Western and Japanese empires are recognized as empires. China is technically still an empire, one even larger than Rome, as it holds onto many of the states it had conquered in the past. However, it is a considered a country instead, because in a way calling something an empire gives it strength and significance which you wouldn't want to as then people might just develop some respect for it and see it as achieving something. Subtle name changes can affect how people view others and their positions in the world.
Absolutely true. It seems that by the time the US and the USSR started to act against any sort of imperialism in the 1940s (by the way, that makes these two countries fully to blame for the mess most of Africa is today), the main thing they looked at was whether territories were adjacent to each other. India, Vietnam and Indonesia being part of respectively Britain, France and the Netherlands was deemed wrong, while Uzbekistan being part of the USSR or the Dakotas part of the US was apparently fine, simply because they were adjacent to other territories. That really is everything, the people of Uzbekistan were no more or less Russian than Indonesians were Dutch...
1846drte2342342 I disagree all the other nations of the world in all time would have taken the opportunity if they had had it to have an empire the size 17th-20th century Britain, France, Spain, America the Netherlands ect. The only difference is ability to do the job not the evil in which it was done.
Legitimate question here, is there such thing as a democratically elected authoritarian? Like, once you're in, you rule for however long a term, all choices are made by you, and then you step down? John is right, democracy is fair (sometimes) but I feel like dictators tend to get stuff done. For better or for worse.
Yes I agree psyssi. I advocate for democracy in my own country Malaysia, but 3 places near Malaysia have done pretty well without democracy. The world most successful poverty eradication program? That's China 1979 reform-and -open-up program. Singapore and Hong Kong? Not entirely democratic but have done very well.
In the Roman republic during times of great hardship or strife the senate would elect a Dictator who would have complete control of everything to fix the problem and then step down and it worked until Ceasar was elected dictator for life.
When people don't understand why the middle-east seem to "hate" the West so much, I point to the end of WWI and the way we've tbagged their culture for a century, and ask if they would want the flag of a country that did that to them flying anywhere in their country.
Doubtful. The only time any of the Middle East was under direct European control was between 1922 and 1945, and even then we left most governmental matters to local rulers. If anything, people of the Middle East could be grateful that Britain and France stepped into the power vacuum created by the fall of the Ottoman Empire and prevented the Middle East from turning into anarchic chaos, as most of Africa did some years later. That's not to say there's nothing that could be blamed on European countries governing the Middle East; this was after all the time that the cultural and ethnic tolerance of the 18th and 19th centuries sadly started to give way to the rise of fascism, and all the intolerance and bigotry that comes with it.
Robert Faber The thing is though, look at the countries that experienced such "stepping in", Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Israel/Palestinian Territories, Yemen, and compare them to to one country in the region that wasn't taken by western powers: Turkey. Now I'll be the first to admit Turkey has had and still has many significant issues, but in comparison to the other nations in the region, it scores better so far as democracy, human rights, education, and economic viability. It's hard to argue that the western mandate system was so beneficial with such a counterexample. And a couple decades of foreign rule are more than enough to radically distort domestic politics. The general pattern is that anti-western sentiments become so powerful that post-independence, leaders get put in power based on how much they can capitalize on feelings of humiliation and resentment, a la Ba'athist dictators and Islamists. And that's only if they can overcome the conservative puppet monarchs left in power (Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait), Afterall, it only took a couple years of humiliation by foreigners to build the resentment that hurled the Nazis to power in Germany. So while an unregulated breakup of the Ottoman Empire probably would have been violent, the emergence of nations in control of their own affairs from birth probably would have prevented a lot of the bloodshed we've see since.
Richie Lomas I'm not entirely sure. Lebanon would be an example where the peace and stability brought by the French mandate allowed the people to draw up a concept for a country where Maronites and Sunnis could live side by side, something that is unlikely to have been the case if the French hadn't been there. As for Turkey, there is a reason why the Ottoman Empire rose to prominence in the first place, and why the territory of what is now Turkey was so heavily desired by Persians, Greeks, Romand and Byzantines earlier in history; the inherent economic potential or Rumelia and Anatolia makes Turkey so much more succesful than its Middle Eastern neighbours. Also, it has to be said that a lot of Turkey's success is down to the reforms carried out by both the later Ottoman sultans and Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, which effectively transformed Turkey from a Middle Eastern country into a fully-fledged European country.
I'm so happy an actual discussion is happening here. That was fairly unexpected. I wasn't speaking entirely to civil disorder with my comment of course. I suppose my main point is that many people in my country (the US) would commit many of the acts we label as terrorism, were we to be subjected to the policies many countries in that region have been for a long time. I don't condone these things, but many people here see what people do there as fundamentally different from anything we'd do, in some cases nearly to the point of racism. I was just hoping to explain that a lot of that resentment, and actions based on it, are not impossible to understand, and not somehow disassociated with what we think we are.
HisRoyalCarlness Well, I think that quite a few things that the US forces did in the American War of Independence could be considered acts of terrorism by the modern definition, so I figure you're probably right...
vince andrade Okay I figured as much but like how? What did they do different than others? How did they remain Eastern and what became Western? Kinda curious but if you don't have the time to explain it's cool.
1503nemanja They were able to modernize themselves while staying away from imperialization, They still kept Eastern Philosophy and culture along with them which helped them develop further.
So many people here trying to justify colonialism with their obvious stereotypes and beliefs that the west was civilized and east was barbaric. This is the traditional view for expansionism of the west that we will civilize the natives. I would rather say that the east especially the arab world, India and china were the most scientifically advanced cultures before enlightment and all that great voyages and discovery of the new world
+Histropedia enlightenment came from the Greeks and Romans, was lost, then found by the Muslims (Literal documents found) and restarted again in Europe, the middle east was essentially just a messenger boy.
+Nathan Jones Oh really? do u know about the great enginerring and mathamatical heights of Indus valley civilizations, its inventions, works like mahabharata and ramayana that would beat the oddysey or illiad any day, the great heights that ancient india would achieve in astromy, science and what not during the maurya and gupta period, the architecture? And surely u know about the heights of China, right? And arabs were messengers? Read about islamic golden age, the history of science and maths in indian subcontinent and in china East during the ancient period and even after the fall of the romans was better than the west. It is only in the late medival period that it became the most enlightened and dominated the world
Nathan Jones 1. So u accept that the east (india-china, egypt,) did a lot dominating in the ancient age before the romans 2. Muslims were the messengers- That debate does not hold credibilty. Read-en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academy_of_Gondishapur,en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academy_of_Gondishapur,en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperial_Library_of_Constantinople,en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_of_Nisibis,en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematics_in_medieval_Islam,en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alhazen,en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad_ibn_Zakariya_al-Razi,en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physics_in_the_medieval_Islamic_world,en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Al_Quaraouiyine
When I saw that "Me From the Past" had a GMM shirt on, my jaw dropped. I love GMM. Like and comment if you like GMM as well. and if you don't like them, look them up.
Just a quick thank you to the Crash Course crew. Love the videos and the way they present topics from several viewpoints. Always meant to donate via Subbable and just did. Looking forward to the bookmarks!
+CrashCourse What i think is that no theory or ideology is perfect, i am from india and what i came to know from history is that though british colonialism exploited us badly but there were some good things too, cause before that era most of the muslim kings and hindu zamindars(landowners) were exploiting common people too. So the question is not about who is superior, west or east, cause every part of the world has its unique wishdom to follow.
From a person from similar region It actually opened eyes of people with all terrible things happening and the fall of rulers and betraying of some by letting the foreigners come into their country and humiliate them It made people aware that their kingship wasn't looking out for their best interest
Go read the age of darkness by Sashi Tharor and we had to even snatch our democracy from the brits and in the process of colonising us they had killed about 200 million indians if you include the man- made famines . Sashi even proves it that common people were better of during pre-colonial period. CHECK your history first.
Asia was the home of some of the largest and longest-lived empires in history. There is nothing inherently western about colonization or the response to it. The west just happened to do it most recently
Fear The Mutt India is a big place. parts of it colonized/conquered other parts of it. they fought the Sassanids and the Greco-Bactrians an the Indo-Greek Kingdom. as well as each other. the Tamil population in Sri Lanka came from the mainland.
The reason why the rise of the West is more significant is because the Industrial Revolution occurred at the same time. Asia's empires lacked this, and therefore had a seemingly smaller impact on the modern world. Another thing to make Western colonization unique is that it functioned in a truly globalized world, allowing it's influence to spread to every corner of the Earth.
Remote Island Junkie Yes, bu they didn't do nearly as much colonization as the West has. Also, India and China haven't gone that far. Many European countries have conquered African countries, Asian countries, and more. china and India only expanded st their borders. Also, I'm not trying to demonize the West. I live in the US. I do think people are worse here than in Africa and Asia, but that's a different story, I'm not saying that everyone here is bad, just a good number.
"Spread tolerance and pluralism".... lol. Only when it suited them. When it was against thier quest for resources and wealth, they were happy to divide and conquer. The lofty ideals that originated from the enlightenment could have been spread through peaceful trade; not guns and brutality. Anyone who thinks imperialism has ended only has to look at the wealth distribution and ever-growing disparity. There's a reason people are flocking to extremism. It's not because god is great (although they may not realise it), but because Tagore was right. The cult of money and power is inherently corrupt and bound to self-destruct.
@10:15 so true what Rabindranath Tagore has to say there the age belongs to the west and we can be thankful for their science and modernization, but in the process, they exploited those who were helpless and humiliated those who were unfortunate
Naaah, You can't criticise something that is not European * slaps your hand * BAD! Only Europeans can be scapegoats. WRITE IT ON A BLACKBOARD A HUNDRED TIMES! Other nations did just as much shit as we did, but you can't talk about that. How would people find a scapegoat to hate if we all admitted our mistakes? Silly, silly HdRfreak21!
The caste system is a part of their religion, so they didn't really see it as "oppressive". They were born into that caste because of things they had done in their past life, or so they believed, and hence the only way to escape the caste was to induce good karma and be good people. The thing is, most Western conquerors didn't really try to understand the culture and the context of the civilizations they were conquering. The fact that people see the caste system as "oppressive" is proof of how pervasive Western thinking was and still is. Did you see the Hindus complain? No! So why is it oppressive? Because someone can't go up in society like the way they do? They have their own ways of doing that, so no problem there too. So is it really oppressive, or just oppressive from a Western standpoint?
agentrikamcgee If you were to ask me, I'd tell you "that religion has been used as a means of social control in all sorts of ways over the millenia." And how do you know the Hindus didn't complain? I sure as sausages wouldn't want to end up on the lowest rung of that ladder.
***** "Religion has been used as a means of social control in all sorts of ways over the millennia" Well, faith is powerful stuff. But it's THEIR faith. In other words, it's still their choice to believe in it. Hinduism, Buddhism and Islam co-existed in India. So someone who hated this idea could've easily made the switch. But the fact they didn't? The fact that there are a lot of Hindus (even until now), despite the plethora of religions available and the freedom to switch? Is that what oppression is?
I don't think so. More like failed emulation of Mongol Conquest. British is all about trade and war and violence as last resort and do as little of them as possible to not collapse the potential market. Why do you think British stopped at burning Summer Palace. They could have dismantled Qing right then and there? Britain never truly wanted China for land and resources; only market accesses. I'm not saying British Empire were doing those for altruistic reasons, but at the end of the day, it is clear that Brits never wanted to rule East Asians, they just want line up their corporate pockets by selling stuffs to East Asia by force if necessary. The fundamental purpose of introduce drugs to China is to use it as a gateway product to get Chinese to be hooked on modern consumerism. Japan, on the other hand, wanted to create Great East Asia and Pacific super state.
It might look like that Colonialism was all fun and liberating but seriously, compared to massacre and centuries of oppressions that non-Westerners had to face, the benefits of colonialism were seriously so small. Sure, we had our own dictators and all but that doesn't justify Westerners trespassing into our lands, with their aims of 'civilising' us, only to oppress us after that. But the West won and history is written by winners. History will write the White Men as the people who liberated and killed our savagery while our oppressed voice will stay silent. However, civilisations arise and fall, they arise full of grace and fall of humiliation. Soon the Western civilisation will fall and all of our voice will be free.
Farisss92 Every culture in Eurasia massacred and oppressed others and that includes the various Indian and Chinese Empires. Europeans were simply better at it than most. Don't assume these 'oppressed' peoples were some sort of peace loving hippies because they weren't.
Um I hear more about the evils done by the West then the evils of everyone else combined. To the degree that many people live under the false assumption that colonization, slavery, conquest, genocide and racism were only done by the West and no one else.
As an asian, they never fell. Just grew into a world empire. Look at all the countries with Western base and you can clearly see that they own a huge chunk(duh).
I'm not sure I accept the premise that authoritarianism, even minus the corruption, is more effective than democracy. The benefit of democracy is that it has to accept the input of ordinary people, who's knowledge of the workings of society is not trivial. Monarchs and dictators, however benevolent and intelligent, don't have access to the same breath of information that a broad voting public does. Their decisions don't take as much information into account, and that makes for inefficient rule.
It is a tricky proposition that we'll be looking at again in what I think will be the final episode of the series. Although I think you could argue that having access to too much information, or worse to biased information from highly interested groups, might lead to inefficiencies, too.
The problem with democracy is that the majority of the population has no clue in governing a country. This leads to the inefficiency of developing policies because these misinformed masses going against policies even though intellectuals support it. Taxes are great examples of this. In an Authoritarian government, they don't give a crap as long as it is deemed to be better for its people, making it "efficient". In a just authoritarian government, policies would be decided on mass research and decisions of intellectuals who know what is going on. Some argue its a violation of human rights, but the argument is that this is just short-shortsightedness. This is because no matter how good the policy is, some people would be disadvantaged, and this is just a cost for the long-term spectrum.
***** But I don't accept the premise that authoritarian rulers are any more intelligent, reasonable, or partial than the masses. Dictators and monarchs throughout history have been quite willing to adopt stupid policies, ignore the advice of intellectuals and researchers, and make inefficient choices. It's not clear to me that there's any more reason to trust the elite than the common people, or that democracies are any less efficient than authoritarian regimes in practice.
I love that Raoul Meyer responds to people with well thought out criticisms and questions in these comment sections... and people say youtube comments are "all" junk. nah just mostly so.
Have you been waiting for something else, for example flowers and thanks instead of hatred? Do you really believe west brought 'modernization' and 'civilization' to 'Barbarian East'! No you take all the tech from the east, improved them and used them against east to get their every valuable thing. And you still do it by 'spreading democrasy'. And you complain about the horde of refugees which you created. So my eyes bleed from your ignorance. Westerners are really blind, or they don't want to accept realities.
The Qing dynasty was very much proimperialist right up until the time that they recognized that it wasn't really working out for the ruling elites having to contend with European military and commercial superiority, by which time it was too late to rethink their agenda.
+Mitchell Hough Great comment! For most of us studying Asian studies, it's quite common knowledge that imperialism is not only a "Western" construct. The Qing and many other dynasties of China practiced their own respective form of imperialism. The Qing's imperialist strategies can be easily observed in Taiwan. The Austronesian aborigines of Taiwan, the original inhabitants of the island, experienced firsthand Qing imperialism.
Fun fact : The Opium war was the first battle between China and European power than is won by Europe. all other battles between China and European in the past 2000 years have always been won by the Chinese. most notably how Ming Dynasty defeated Portugal and Dutch in 16-17th century and Qing defeated Russia in 17th century
Mitchell Hough i said was the *First* battle won by european over China over the course of history. what did i miss ?? i didnt say that Opium war was the only one, i said it was the first.
I'm a Filipino. I've always envied other countries' rich "organic" heritage because our country has been under the rule of foreigners most of the time in history, like, we're so mixed now, we're like browns trying our best to be western people. Hard cold truth. (We have no prominent empire/kingdom written in history 😑)
+Kolynk We did put gunpowder in military use and had a centralized research centre for it back in 16th century. But it was banned after the Manchurians conquered us.
Yes its so very important that people know the not even 6 year old US only tradition of blue france and pink UK... In contrast to for example the 40 year old version with green fance and dark red and/or sometimes yellow UK, GOD FORBID we go by the full grayscale different textured maps.
***** I don't really care, but the tradition for anglophones to use pink for the British Empire is more than six years old. It started in the late 18th Century.
I'd prefer John Green to Donald Trump or Joe Biden, but most of the voting population of America wants either 1) a skilled politician, or 2) someone who agrees with them. John is not a skilled politician, and he doesn't agree with many of the people who don't care for professional politicians. So he'd have a hard time getting votes.
***** True. The empire was a mess by the time the 20th century rolled around. However, despite having old and untended weaponry, it's army was still pretty big
***** I'm not too educated on the subject but I do have a problem with the idea that cities and empires are the pinnacle of human existence, because they weren't especially before vaccines.
The map shown at 1.37 at the Congress of Berlin is in reality the map of Africa in 1914. At the time of the Congress in 1884 many areas were still not "imperialized" (Libya was still under Turkish control, Morocco was a semi independent state under Ottoman protection etc...).
Can you consider doing a history of Thailand? It has uniquely remained to not be colonized by any powers. Perhaps a study into their system can show that it may be an alternative way for Asian nations to pursue at that point of time to ensure their sovereignty. Just like you mentioned, Japan wasn't a very good example of a 'good' imperialist. Thailand did not pursue this goal and more or less stay peaceful and relatively prosperous during that period.
Iran was never colonized either. It did get occupied by the Soviet army during the world war but that was only to keep the pro nazi shah from aiding Hitler. Unfortunately however historians mostly study countries by making big blocks out of them since studying every country one by one is pretty tedious. Thailand is considered to be in the "Asian" category while Iran is in the Muslim , Middle Eastern or in this video Arab category although we were never colonized and followed a complete different path in history.
@Sal Maan, thanks for sharing, Maybe the mongols is not the only the exceptions. Iran history does sound quite intriguing will have to read more or find some resources on Iran. Yeah 'Asian' category is really too big and usually China, India and Japan gets all the attention. Maybe a video on South East Asia can be justified. In any case,
No? so I guess the majority of people are still working on farms relying on the food they are able to harvest. People are still getting around either by walking, sailing a wooden ship or riding some sort of animal. Have limited access to education, medicine and clean water. Continue to live under authoritarian states who control every aspect of your life. The reason why parts of the non-western world are not benefiting is because they have not embraced these things.
this is the worst issue of westerners.they somehow justify imperialism by saying it them who spread pluralism, technology n knowledge.do westerners think that before colonizing other civilizations were lower than western civilization?do this means that before imperialism there was no pluralism in other civilization?dude it is India which has all the major world religions living in harmony with each other unlike western and other regions.Gandhi n tagore said it right westerners are too matrialistic,individualistic n racist during imperialistic times.greed is what drives imperialism.
+syed ali they feel every good thing is for them.but I don't hate westerners.I like their culture.this is the best thing about ancient Indian or hindu culture,we take all good things from others and do not subscribe to negative things from others.ancient Hindu or Indian culture says ,"whole world is 1 family".we try our level best to avoid conflicts with others but tolerance also has its limit.so sometimes we have to fight but not necessarily by violence.Indians specially Hindus,jains,Buddhists has long tradition of non violence.most of the indians follows non violence irrespective of their religion.
+Derp master India is a country of more than 1bn ppl.USA or other western countries populations is small.so in huge country such thing happens.those incidents are not as big as media shows.so just don't judge India on looking separate incidents.klu klux klun also do such things. but I never stopped loving good westerners. reason I believe there are so many gud ppl.many Americans n Mexicans are my friends.
I often see a lot of people complaining in the comments sections for these videos that certain areas or topics weren't covered. I think everyone keeps forgetting that, you know, more videos are coming out which might cover these things, and it's not actually possible for them to talk about every single thing in one video. The last season of Crash Course World History had 42 videos, so if the topic you're interested in hasn't been covered yet, maybe wait and see what's coming because I'm sure they'll be doing quite a few more :) Obviously I'm not saying that you shouldn't express a desire to see certain areas or topics covered. I'm referring to the complaints rather than the requests.
It seems to me that the primary difference between "western imperialism" and "other" imperialism is economic exploitation. In general, Western powers had no intention to rule or develop the regions they conquer. Comparing the British Raj, French Haiti, and Brazil with the American Westward Expansion or the Russian expansion into Siberia, we can see clear differences in the way each of the colonial powers viewed the lands in question. Taiwan did not come into Chinese control until the 17th century but whereas a Chinese would fight tooth and nail for sovereignty over the island, I'm not sure a typical French person would feel the same about Guiana.
Well, it's not just economic exploitation. It's "otherness" of the colonized. While India was technically part of the British empire, none of those people living there were considered "British". Westward Expansion didn't have that element but mainly because the land acquired was being added to the original country (at least on paper) as well good, old-fashioned ethnic cleansing.
I really love your videos, but I'm Brazilian and because it's a not superficial video it's kind of hard to understand all the video. So I think it would be a smal think to put some legends to other lenguages since your videos are so well worked you know? It's so bad that I can't show this videos to my students and colleagues. Congrats for all!
I think John needs to publish a series of history books:
The Fault in Our Czars (about The Downfall of the Russian Empire)
Paper Crowns (about the establishment of constitutional monarchy in Europe)
Looking for Alaska (the Adventures of John Leydard)
Mongols all the way down,
about wait for it . ..... The Mongols.
And
An abundance of Colonies,
about colonialism and the American war of Independence.
And finally ,
Let it blow ,
A book about the history of explosives , from greekfire and gunpowder to nukes ( preferably in collaboration with 3 other authors ).
He did
@@abhiprakash74999 Everything I know about the Mongols I've learnt from this guy...good work.
1:45 a map with France in red and Great Britain in blue.
This is so wrong.
Eu4 player?
I know that feel
Will Kettle Or any PDS games.
Will Kettle PDS player yes.
Will Kettle Paradox games, Civilization, Total War... In almost all strategy games, England/Britain is red and France is blue. It is the unwritten law, if you do not follow it you will be punished.
"History repeats itself but just with bigger mistakes"
yep
But only because of our bigger power, which enables us to do great goods, but also, inevitably, great wrongs
I know aint it great
3:27 the one direction Icon made my day
This channel has taught me so much more about history than I ever have learned in school.. Thank you for making these videos, they're simple, not too long and made understandable with great topics. Great work to you John Green, and of course every member of the Crash Course team. Thank you for wanting to teach people, it's really appreciated.
Red France and Blue Britain on that Africa map? Well that's the reverse of just about every map I've ever seen. Even the continent tended to use red/pink for Britain.
Funny, i remember my history book having a purple France and light blue UK split, my parents has a green france and dark red/weird mid rust/almost black UK.
Was it German? They tended to use Purple France at least.
Paradox addicts like me die when they see that color swap.
animalcross yeah aaaaah Victoria II, europa universalis IV and crusader kings II have blue france and red england
animalcross Amen Paradox brother!
Mr. Green, I'm Indonesian and could you discuss about Dutch colonialism and imperialism on Indonesia? Because it's not very highlighted in the American and world media and also the history lessons in my country is highly unreliable and biased (I realized this after I compared my highschool history book and Wikipedia), so could you make a video about it, please, Mr. Green?
Ferry Mahendra Hi, how do your history books treat Dutch imperialism, if I may ask? I am Dutch myself and in the past, many books were quite positive about it. Today, however, more and more nuanced and negative viewpoints dominate the media and literature and show how your people suffered.
OK one of many examples that I clearly remember of, in my highschool history book, Indonesia gained independence because of our forefathers (Sukarno and Hatta) successful negotiation with the Dutch, but on Wikipedia, Indonesia gained independence because of American and the UN pressure on the Dutch. This American and UN contribution is totally not mentioned in our school books.
+Ferry Mahendra He's very biased against islands.
Hmm,after Sukarno read the Proclamation of Independence, its the start of armed resistance against the Dutch,its a bloody fight,of course the UN and U.S joined to put Indonesia and Dutch in a table and make agreement.
Hi Aiderus haha
The thing with authoritarianism is that yeah, sometimes you get a really good dictator who gets stuff done and acts rather benevolently. But more often, you get someone bad - either incompetent or evil, or both. And when that happens, there's no good way of replacing the dictator.
Basically, the point of democracy is not to be the nation that gets good stuff done. It's to be the nation that does NOT get BAD stuff done. It's doing a so-so job in that regard, but probably better than other systems.
Problem with Authoritarianism is that there is no mechanism to ensure that you get a good ruler in power, and that ruler (even a good one) needs to waste valuable energy and resources keeping somebody else form seizing the throne. I mean Augustus was a great ruler and Tiberous...was not, nor Caligula after him. Cliadius was good, but he was followed by Nero. There is no system to make sure that the Next Autocrat is remotely talented, and you often wind up with psychotics like Caligula or Empress Irene, or you wind up with people who are just inedpt and unsuited for rule like Nicholas II or Louis the 16th.
Montesquieu says that thinks the major problem with authoritarians States, they create despots. The only way to ensure that no one man and has so much power is to do a 'separation of powers'. Where 3 houses have control over the people. However he also said that people who lived in the tropics were lazy and stupid and will never be smart, so I'd take his sayings with a pinch of salt
+Cycling in Edmonton from the Eyes of a Teen
A sorta authoritarian state that doesn't choose its next prime minister based on heredity, but on merit.
How would you Enforce that without Civil War though?
we should have a thing where they can prove themselves capable to rule.
As a son of a social studies teacher in Canada, and having done some teaching myself, you and your team are great! History is a complex subject and you do it with flair (which is super hard), and nuance (which on the internet is super rare). Keep up the great work. And disregard the trolls who only react to one line and try to make a bon mot. Pretty sure you do that anyway, but sometimes its good to hear some support.
Charles Wostenberg John Green does not even have a masters in history, let alone a phd. He's not qualified.
John, when are you going to discuss the Philippines as a model for economic, political, and cultural failure due to imperialism? I mean the Philippines endured European imperialism (through the Spanish), American imperialism, and even Asian imperialism (through the Japanese). This maelstrom of conflicting ideologies has turned the Philippines into a sort of misshapen clone of three vastly different origins.
Thanks, DFTBA.
Richarditong
The Philippines is not much of a country...
Tagalog means “resident beside the river.” In the Philippines, due to a history of multiple settlements, more than 170 languages are spoken and only 2 of them are official in the country: Filipino and English.
What Languages Are Spoken in the Philippines? - Translation Blog
EVERY LANGUAGE COULD HAVE BEEN A SEPARATE COUNTRY BUT BECAUSE OF THE FILIPINO IMPERIALISM, MICRO IMPERIALISM, THEY WERE PREVENTED
The colors on that colonial Africa map gave me caner... it should be:
Britain: Red
France: Blue
Germany: Grey
Belgium: Brown
Italy: Dark Green
Portugal: Light Green
Spain: Yellow
Netherlands orange? And Russia…
for asia i mean
Rainbow Bubbles The Netherlands didn't have any territory in Africa after 1815, but I suppose orange would make a fine colour for the Boer Republics...
WHY IS FRANCE RED IN THE AFRICA MAP. THAT BOTHERS ME MORE THAN IT OUGHT TO.
+yazackak France has red in its flag and blue was taken lol
It's just the color representing it. There's nothing wrong with red. Also, it's in their flag.
Lol 😂
I know what you mean, France must be blue and Britain must be red 😂
Dylan Sepasyar Does it really matter?
An open letter to all those people who post comments like, “But you didn’t mention X, Y, or Z:”
History majors in college send 4-8 years studying this stuff. Career historians dedicate their entire lives to it. You're not going to get it all in a handful of 10-15 minute UA-cam videos! I think Crash Course provides a great overview, and gives me some starting points for further exploration.
Best wishes,
A John Green supporter
I want a "History" of CrashCourse!
And the origin of the Mongol joke
+RealHipHopManiac Yes!-Can we actually?!
The Mongol joke is that the Mongols are the exception to every generalization about historical groups, because they are- except for one or two instances. It started in Crash Course World History (the original version).
@@j.h.8280 thanks for responding 4 years later
Authoritarianism:
Good leader= Really good
Bad leader= Really, really bad
Basically, one puts all his/her eggs in one basket when adopting this strategy.
Nonamearisto "Power corrupts. Absolute power is kind of neat." -Donald Regan
ahadicow Awesome point, though I think your use of the word "good" is equivalent to the word "competent" while my use of the word "good" is something like: "Generally beneficial for the ruler's subjects."
Authoritarianism is a good way to build the foundation of a strong state.
Democracy is good and all, but if there is no strong state by the time democracy kicks in, chances are; that democracy is going to end up as a pretty shitty democracy.
Nonamearisto
Good luck with building a strong state without an authoritarian rule.
I'd like to know a successful first world nation today that did not emerge from a strong monarchical or dictatorial social and cultural background.
Nonamearisto
The US settlers came with pretty authoritarian and monarchical backgrounds, and before the rebellion, Britain invested a lot in administrative institutions, which would help the state.
Even after winning their independence, it took a lot of reforms to put America on the right track to defeat the clientelism that threatened the early nation.
As for Rome, although they did dislike kings, they were extremely violent, authoritarian and had nowhere near the same amount of rules as we have today to limit the elite's power. This unrestrained power was the reason why they were able to make such extreme social and political changes to forge a powerful state in the first place.
But there are notable differences between ancient and modern civilizations(both internal and external), the latter of which we are focusing now :P
Through this video, I only saw how this three Asian thinkers really have strong minded. They don't care about what people might say, they believe in theirselves very much to start anything new. This somehow taught me that you have to believe in yourself. Nothing can control you except yourself. Besides that, learn your strengths to knows what makes you strong while identify your weakness so that you can improve yourself. One more thing, don't ever looks down of yourself. If someday your have new ideas and want to share with people but no one see things like you see things, be confident and just do it. As long as you believe and willing to, nothing is impossible. It is natural to people being judgemental to someone else until you proved their wrongs with success. To me, it is better to be a trend setter than trend follower.
Wow, John Green, I've been watching your videos for a very long time, but this is the video where you won my respect totally!
I wish more people talked about History with as much balance as you. Because the reality is something like what you present, a little black, a little white and a lot of grey area.
Keep up the great work buddy!
Best wishes,
Shihab Khan :D
I'm really enjoying this second World History series. It's like sociology applied to history.
the correct translation is "God does not change the condition of a people until they change the condition of themselves from within".
Merry Xmas
Abraham AlRajhi thank you sir
If they changed the condition of themselves from "within", there's no need for God. I say this is the correct rationalization!
@@takeshikodama5671 yeah, but Islam's argument for the existence of God doesn't solely depend on this one statement, so it's insufficient to disprove the "need for God".
that's CHRISTmas, not Xmas. you cannot take CHRIST out of Christmas. Merry Christmas.
@@basketofdependables4244 XD Xmas IS Christmas, X is the English version of the symbol for Christ in some ancient language I think. Even if it isn't, it's still Christmas just shorter
Crash course comment section, best place to have aggressive intellectual chaotic arguments which do not have any solid answers.
sorta
In the south Indian state of Kerala, we destroyed the dutch east India company's navy. We even used their captured military general to develop tactics to fight the British. That saved us from ending up like apartheid south africa.
"Genghis John."
Oh John Green, just when I think you can't get any nerdier...
I'd love to see a Crash Course video on the history of South Africa - it's very complex, interesting, and overlooked in my opinion. Just putting it out there!
yay south africa!
Videos like this is why I subscribe to CrashCourse and John Green; nuanced understanding instead of sweeping generalizations, detailed but somehow remains concise.
BRING BACK CRASH COURSE HISTORY!!!
Amen
Wasn't the invasion of the Americas and Australia also imperialism?
Yes, which I always find funny when Europeans (especially British people) are quick to point out America's imperialistic past without addressing where came from and who sent us there in the first place! Please note I'm not talking about all Europeans here just the ones who say this kind've stuff.
Yes the colonisation of america is the first wave pf imperialism, but is diferent because is not an imperialism made from a western world dominated by liberal ideas. Because of this the concept of civilisation and the hegemony of the west as the only posible form of real or corect civilisation is not chalenged. And for australia since the british almost eliminated the native population there were no expretions of cultural oposition to the imposition of western ideas, so the is no questioning of this ideas.
daniel ospina perez I think you should study Australian history more closely. There was a lot of opposition to Western values and still is.
Also didn't "liberal" ideas really start in the 20th century, once Imperialism had finised?
technically, yes. However, the difference is that the imperialized people in Africa and Asia were, well, still alive. The colonized people in the Americas and Australia were routinely wiped out to near extermination. So these European nations ruled, not people who were unwillingly forced under a foreign power interested in stealing all their resources, but ruled Europeans who were quite happy to help send all the lands resources across the ocean as long as it made them a few bucks.
Bud Charles Liberalism has existed in the west since the 17th century. Liberalism was one of the European Enlightenment's reactions against the idea of absolute monarchies and the divine right of kings. Outside of Britain, however, liberalism didn't catch on until the French Revolution and it's aftermath. Classical Liberalism was actually at its height at the same time that imperialism was in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.
Before india was colonised in the middle of the 18th century by british, it contributed to 23% of the world trade. When british left the india in 1947, india's share in the world trade was around 3%.
sugeeban ! And Who held all the wealth? Princes and Lords who never Worked a day in their life.
Rickyretardo and the queen
darklight reaper Yes. But eventually, It got better for the common man. In India it hasnt changed at all
india has changed a lot there was economic reform in 1992 and international influence is increasing
i have been to india, beatifull country but its sooooo poor! you have some serious issues there, under british you were much better, decolonialism is much worse then colonialism
Please don't stop making videos. The latest world history series has been OUTSTANDING! In truth it might be better titled world politics but I can see why crash course continues to shy away from that word. I hope people continue to watch and subscribe so that they can be exposed to these ideas and lesser-known facts, leading them to question/read/learn further. You tackle very controversial and complex topics in a humorous, credible, and accessible manner. Again, PLEASE don't stop making videos, they are an invaluable educational resource for youths and adults alike.
I am an India so I am not watching imperialism from eastern perspective, I am watching Western perspective of "eastern perspective" of imperialism.
Vaibhav Tripathi I strongly agree. There are the things which western cannot, never and don’t want to understand.
When you do a Crash Course marathon the night before your AP World test
Haha me right now
this hits different when its in two days
can you make a history crash course on southeast asian empires from 3000 BCE
They have absolutely zero impact in the world.
So are you telling me that without Southeast Asia, the world would've been different?
SE Asia is the middle sea route between China and India, both were historically lands with centuries of civilizations. That alone should tell you the importance of SE Asia. Plus, SE Asia gave birth to people in the Pacific Islands (we share a common ancestor).
there were only some underdeveloped tribes in southeast Asia
NiggaBlossom Education has absolutely zero impact to your brain.
People shouldn't act as though imperialism was something only the west and Japan did. Every country did it, the only difference is scale and government, though it's not like every western power had the same form of government either.
Thing is only Western and Japanese empires are recognized as empires. China is technically still an empire, one even larger than Rome, as it holds onto many of the states it had conquered in the past. However, it is a considered a country instead, because in a way calling something an empire gives it strength and significance which you wouldn't want to as then people might just develop some respect for it and see it as achieving something. Subtle name changes can affect how people view others and their positions in the world.
The only difference between European empires and any other nation are they were good at it.
Absolutely true. It seems that by the time the US and the USSR started to act against any sort of imperialism in the 1940s (by the way, that makes these two countries fully to blame for the mess most of Africa is today), the main thing they looked at was whether territories were adjacent to each other. India, Vietnam and Indonesia being part of respectively Britain, France and the Netherlands was deemed wrong, while Uzbekistan being part of the USSR or the Dakotas part of the US was apparently fine, simply because they were adjacent to other territories. That really is everything, the people of Uzbekistan were no more or less Russian than Indonesians were Dutch...
Scale is a big distinction.
1846drte2342342 I disagree all the other nations of the world in all time would have taken the opportunity if they had had it to have an empire the size 17th-20th century Britain, France, Spain, America the Netherlands ect. The only difference is ability to do the job not the evil in which it was done.
I think this has been my favourite Crash Course ever, the alternate experiences and perspectives from outside the West was absolutely fascinating!
John Green for emperor of the world
He already rules tumblr
Legitimate question here, is there such thing as a democratically elected authoritarian? Like, once you're in, you rule for however long a term, all choices are made by you, and then you step down? John is right, democracy is fair (sometimes) but I feel like dictators tend to get stuff done. For better or for worse.
this might help you en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elective_monarchy
Very few political structures have elected authoritarians...unless you are the Mongols!
Yes I agree psyssi. I advocate for democracy in my own country Malaysia, but 3 places near Malaysia have done pretty well without democracy. The world most successful poverty eradication program? That's China 1979 reform-and -open-up program. Singapore and Hong Kong? Not entirely democratic but have done very well.
In the Roman republic during times of great hardship or strife the senate would elect a Dictator who would have complete control of everything to fix the problem and then step down and it worked until Ceasar was elected dictator for life.
Sean Duff Oh my, it is as though they were trying to be the most hipster empire thing they could.
Mr Green! Mr Green!
How did you from the past know there would one day be a show on UA-cam called, "Good Mythical Morning"?
Him from the past is a time traveler. How else do you think he's able to appear on this show?
John Green's "me from the past" wore *****'s T-shirt! Don't know they already exists since his grade school years :P
Liz Mac I took your comment not as a form of irony or sarcasm and would like to thank you wholeheartedly :D
3:20 Anyone noticed 'The Sovereign' from Mass Effect series? John is indeed a man of culture :3
Thanks to john green and the amazing crash course team for this wonderful episode. Perfectly perfect!!
When people don't understand why the middle-east seem to "hate" the West so much, I point to the end of WWI and the way we've tbagged their culture for a century, and ask if they would want the flag of a country that did that to them flying anywhere in their country.
Doubtful. The only time any of the Middle East was under direct European control was between 1922 and 1945, and even then we left most governmental matters to local rulers. If anything, people of the Middle East could be grateful that Britain and France stepped into the power vacuum created by the fall of the Ottoman Empire and prevented the Middle East from turning into anarchic chaos, as most of Africa did some years later.
That's not to say there's nothing that could be blamed on European countries governing the Middle East; this was after all the time that the cultural and ethnic tolerance of the 18th and 19th centuries sadly started to give way to the rise of fascism, and all the intolerance and bigotry that comes with it.
Robert Faber The thing is though, look at the countries that experienced such "stepping in", Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Israel/Palestinian Territories, Yemen, and compare them to to one country in the region that wasn't taken by western powers: Turkey. Now I'll be the first to admit Turkey has had and still has many significant issues, but in comparison to the other nations in the region, it scores better so far as democracy, human rights, education, and economic viability. It's hard to argue that the western mandate system was so beneficial with such a counterexample.
And a couple decades of foreign rule are more than enough to radically distort domestic politics. The general pattern is that anti-western sentiments become so powerful that post-independence, leaders get put in power based on how much they can capitalize on feelings of humiliation and resentment, a la Ba'athist dictators and Islamists. And that's only if they can overcome the conservative puppet monarchs left in power (Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait), Afterall, it only took a couple years of humiliation by foreigners to build the resentment that hurled the Nazis to power in Germany.
So while an unregulated breakup of the Ottoman Empire probably would have been violent, the emergence of nations in control of their own affairs from birth probably would have prevented a lot of the bloodshed we've see since.
Richie Lomas I'm not entirely sure. Lebanon would be an example where the peace and stability brought by the French mandate allowed the people to draw up a concept for a country where Maronites and Sunnis could live side by side, something that is unlikely to have been the case if the French hadn't been there. As for Turkey, there is a reason why the Ottoman Empire rose to prominence in the first place, and why the territory of what is now Turkey was so heavily desired by Persians, Greeks, Romand and Byzantines earlier in history; the inherent economic potential or Rumelia and Anatolia makes Turkey so much more succesful than its Middle Eastern neighbours. Also, it has to be said that a lot of Turkey's success is down to the reforms carried out by both the later Ottoman sultans and Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, which effectively transformed Turkey from a Middle Eastern country into a fully-fledged European country.
I'm so happy an actual discussion is happening here. That was fairly unexpected. I wasn't speaking entirely to civil disorder with my comment of course. I suppose my main point is that many people in my country (the US) would commit many of the acts we label as terrorism, were we to be subjected to the policies many countries in that region have been for a long time. I don't condone these things, but many people here see what people do there as fundamentally different from anything we'd do, in some cases nearly to the point of racism. I was just hoping to explain that a lot of that resentment, and actions based on it, are not impossible to understand, and not somehow disassociated with what we think we are.
HisRoyalCarlness Well, I think that quite a few things that the US forces did in the American War of Independence could be considered acts of terrorism by the modern definition, so I figure you're probably right...
I think you should do an episode about imposed dictatorships, with the guerrilla response in south america and asia.
Who else picks random Crash Course videos just because John Green is entertaining, pleasant and informative?
The ideal image that easterners could have adopted during the rise of western methodology was Siam
underrated comment.
What happened in Siam?
1503nemanja They were able to adopt western knowledge and modernism, but at the same time retained the essence of being Eastern
vince andrade
Okay I figured as much but like how? What did they do different than others? How did they remain Eastern and what became Western?
Kinda curious but if you don't have the time to explain it's cool.
1503nemanja They were able to modernize themselves while staying away from imperialization, They still kept Eastern Philosophy and culture along with them which helped them develop further.
So many people here trying to justify colonialism with their obvious stereotypes and beliefs that the west was civilized and east was barbaric. This is the traditional view for expansionism of the west that we will civilize the natives. I would rather say that the east especially the arab world, India and china were the most scientifically advanced cultures before enlightment and all that great voyages and discovery of the new world
+Histropedia enlightenment came from the Greeks and Romans, was lost, then found by the Muslims (Literal documents found) and restarted again in Europe, the middle east was essentially just a messenger boy.
+Nathan Jones Oh really?
do u know about the great enginerring and mathamatical heights of Indus valley civilizations, its inventions, works like mahabharata and ramayana that would beat the oddysey or illiad any day, the great heights that ancient india would achieve in astromy, science and what not during the maurya and gupta period, the architecture?
And surely u know about the heights of China, right? And arabs were messengers?
Read about islamic golden age, the history of science and maths in indian subcontinent and in china
East during the ancient period and even after the fall of the romans was better than the west. It is only in the late medival period that it became the most enlightened and dominated the world
Histropedia oh yeah the Hindu's did loads, Arabic numbers are derived from Hindu numbers, so again the Muslims are like messenger boys.
Nathan Jones 1. So u accept that the east (india-china, egypt,) did a lot dominating in the ancient age before the romans 2. Muslims were the messengers- That debate does not hold credibilty. Read-en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academy_of_Gondishapur,en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academy_of_Gondishapur,en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperial_Library_of_Constantinople,en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_of_Nisibis,en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematics_in_medieval_Islam,en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alhazen,en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad_ibn_Zakariya_al-Razi,en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physics_in_the_medieval_Islamic_world,en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Al_Quaraouiyine
When I saw that "Me From the Past" had a GMM shirt on, my jaw dropped. I love GMM. Like and comment if you like GMM as well. and if you don't like them, look them up.
Just a quick thank you to the Crash Course crew. Love the videos and the way they present topics from several viewpoints.
Always meant to donate via Subbable and just did. Looking forward to the bookmarks!
Ssssooooooo goooood
Thank you for doing this "other side of history that we only rarely hear about" thing. Pls. More?
Great overview. Thanks got the supplemental view I was looking for, it's such a fascinating history.
Literally at the end of every crash course episode I whisper 'Damn' to my self, the easiest and funnest way to learn so much.
AHHHHH GOOD MYTHICAL MORNING !
Wut?
Past John's shirt
+CrashCourse What i think is that no theory or ideology is perfect, i am from india and what i came to know from history is that though british colonialism exploited us badly but there were some good things too, cause before that era most of the muslim kings and hindu zamindars(landowners) were exploiting common people too. So the question is not about who is superior, west or east, cause every part of the world has its unique wishdom to follow.
From a person from similar region
It actually opened eyes of people with all terrible things happening and the fall of rulers and betraying of some by letting the foreigners come into their country and humiliate them
It made people aware that their kingship wasn't looking out for their best interest
Go read the age of darkness by Sashi Tharor and we had to even snatch our democracy from the brits and in the process of colonising us they had killed about 200 million indians if you include the man- made famines . Sashi even proves it that common people were better of during pre-colonial period. CHECK your history first.
Asia was the home of some of the largest and longest-lived empires in history. There is nothing inherently western about colonization or the response to it. The west just happened to do it most recently
Yes, there is. China and India never colonized anything, and Japan only did it after they were heavily influenced by the West.
Fear The Mutt India is a big place. parts of it colonized/conquered other parts of it. they fought the Sassanids and the Greco-Bactrians an the Indo-Greek Kingdom. as well as each other. the Tamil population in Sri Lanka came from the mainland.
The reason why the rise of the West is more significant is because the Industrial Revolution occurred at the same time. Asia's empires lacked this, and therefore had a seemingly smaller impact on the modern world.
Another thing to make Western colonization unique is that it functioned in a truly globalized world, allowing it's influence to spread to every corner of the Earth.
China is itself a collection of colonies, and so is India. What's your point other than apparently a desire to demonize the West?
Remote Island Junkie Yes, bu they didn't do nearly as much colonization as the West has. Also, India and China haven't gone that far. Many European countries have conquered African countries, Asian countries, and more. china and India only expanded st their borders. Also, I'm not trying to demonize the West. I live in the US. I do think people are worse here than in Africa and Asia, but that's a different story, I'm not saying that everyone here is bad, just a good number.
"Spread tolerance and pluralism".... lol. Only when it suited them. When it was against thier quest for resources and wealth, they were happy to divide and conquer. The lofty ideals that originated from the enlightenment could have been spread through peaceful trade; not guns and brutality. Anyone who thinks imperialism has ended only has to look at the wealth distribution and ever-growing disparity. There's a reason people are flocking to extremism. It's not because god is great (although they may not realise it), but because Tagore was right. The cult of money and power is inherently corrupt and bound to self-destruct.
Thank God! this is a right comment.
Preach!
0:07 LOL GMM shirt
very funny
+Dippie Hippie XVII Hi Jangwoo
@10:15
so true what Rabindranath Tagore has to say there
the age belongs to the west and we can be thankful for their science and modernization, but
in the process, they exploited those who were helpless and humiliated those who were unfortunate
Did anyone else see Sovereign from Mass Effect?
"You have exploited those who are helpless and humiliated those who are unfortunate." So... how is the Caste System not doing that?
Well, he never said he WASN'T a hypocrite. ^_^
Naaah, You can't criticise something that is not European * slaps your hand * BAD! Only Europeans can be scapegoats. WRITE IT ON A BLACKBOARD A HUNDRED TIMES! Other nations did just as much shit as we did, but you can't talk about that. How would people find a scapegoat to hate if we all admitted our mistakes? Silly, silly HdRfreak21!
The caste system is a part of their religion, so they didn't really see it as "oppressive". They were born into that caste because of things they had done in their past life, or so they believed, and hence the only way to escape the caste was to induce good karma and be good people.
The thing is, most Western conquerors didn't really try to understand the culture and the context of the civilizations they were conquering. The fact that people see the caste system as "oppressive" is proof of how pervasive Western thinking was and still is. Did you see the Hindus complain? No! So why is it oppressive? Because someone can't go up in society like the way they do? They have their own ways of doing that, so no problem there too. So is it really oppressive, or just oppressive from a Western standpoint?
agentrikamcgee If you were to ask me, I'd tell you "that religion has been used as a means of social control in all sorts of ways over the millenia." And how do you know the Hindus didn't complain? I sure as sausages wouldn't want to end up on the lowest rung of that ladder.
***** "Religion has been used as a means of social control in all sorts of ways over the millennia" Well, faith is powerful stuff. But it's THEIR faith. In other words, it's still their choice to believe in it. Hinduism, Buddhism and Islam co-existed in India. So someone who hated this idea could've easily made the switch.
But the fact they didn't? The fact that there are a lot of Hindus (even until now), despite the plethora of religions available and the freedom to switch? Is that what oppression is?
The gentlest tap of imprisonment, as shown by Thought Cafe
Gotta love that Mass Effect refference!
japan became the great britain of asia
In logically, We are 'Asia' british in East Asia LOL
Island... And I'm history many communicated between UK and Japan.
fuzzyhair321 wait so china is russia?
I don't think so. More like failed emulation of Mongol Conquest. British is all about trade and war and violence as last resort and do as little of them as possible to not collapse the potential market. Why do you think British stopped at burning Summer Palace. They could have dismantled Qing right then and there? Britain never truly wanted China for land and resources; only market accesses. I'm not saying British Empire were doing those for altruistic reasons, but at the end of the day, it is clear that Brits never wanted to rule East Asians, they just want line up their corporate pockets by selling stuffs to East Asia by force if necessary. The fundamental purpose of introduce drugs to China is to use it as a gateway product to get Chinese to be hooked on modern consumerism. Japan, on the other hand, wanted to create Great East Asia and Pacific super state.
@@あいすずき-y7p *"Europe"
Ravenpy yeah by imperialism w force
It might look like that Colonialism was all fun and liberating but seriously, compared to massacre and centuries of oppressions that non-Westerners had to face, the benefits of colonialism were seriously so small. Sure, we had our own dictators and all but that doesn't justify Westerners trespassing into our lands, with their aims of 'civilising' us, only to oppress us after that.
But the West won and history is written by winners. History will write the White Men as the people who liberated and killed our savagery while our oppressed voice will stay silent. However, civilisations arise and fall, they arise full of grace and fall of humiliation. Soon the Western civilisation will fall and all of our voice will be free.
Farisss92 Every culture in Eurasia massacred and oppressed others and that includes the various Indian and Chinese Empires. Europeans were simply better at it than most. Don't assume these 'oppressed' peoples were some sort of peace loving hippies because they weren't.
@@Jake-ir3gw it doesnt matter who they are, its still wrong
@@user-sc7nz1kr3b Agreed. I wasn't supporting Colonialism just highlighting the fact that the West hasn't got a monopoly on tyranny.
Um I hear more about the evils done by the West then the evils of everyone else combined. To the degree that many people live under the false assumption that colonization, slavery, conquest, genocide and racism were only done by the West and no one else.
As an asian, they never fell. Just grew into a world empire. Look at all the countries with Western base and you can clearly see that they own a huge chunk(duh).
I'm not sure I accept the premise that authoritarianism, even minus the corruption, is more effective than democracy. The benefit of democracy is that it has to accept the input of ordinary people, who's knowledge of the workings of society is not trivial. Monarchs and dictators, however benevolent and intelligent, don't have access to the same breath of information that a broad voting public does. Their decisions don't take as much information into account, and that makes for inefficient rule.
It is a tricky proposition that we'll be looking at again in what I think will be the final episode of the series. Although I think you could argue that having access to too much information, or worse to biased information from highly interested groups, might lead to inefficiencies, too.
The problem with democracy is that the majority of the population has no clue in governing a country. This leads to the inefficiency of developing policies because these misinformed masses going against policies even though intellectuals support it. Taxes are great examples of this.
In an Authoritarian government, they don't give a crap as long as it is deemed to be better for its people, making it "efficient". In a just authoritarian government, policies would be decided on mass research and decisions of intellectuals who know what is going on.
Some argue its a violation of human rights, but the argument is that this is just short-shortsightedness. This is because no matter how good the policy is, some people would be disadvantaged, and this is just a cost for the long-term spectrum.
*****
But I don't accept the premise that authoritarian rulers are any more intelligent, reasonable, or partial than the masses. Dictators and monarchs throughout history have been quite willing to adopt stupid policies, ignore the advice of intellectuals and researchers, and make inefficient choices. It's not clear to me that there's any more reason to trust the elite than the common people, or that democracies are any less efficient than authoritarian regimes in practice.
Alice Gull Hence the word "just". There is no authoritarian government that has done this. In theory its better but its not.
*****
So why bring it up at all?
3:26 OUT OF ALL THE VIDEOS I DID NOT A EXPECT A 1D REFERENCE ON HERE THANK YOUU 😭
I love that Raoul Meyer responds to people with well thought out criticisms and questions in these comment sections... and people say youtube comments are "all" junk. nah just mostly so.
John from the past has a good mythical morning t-shirt
:O time travel examples? lets talk about that.
scrolls a little into comment section
eyes bleed from ignorance
bursts into flames
So much hate.
Yes :/
Have you been waiting for something else, for example flowers and thanks instead of hatred? Do you really believe west brought 'modernization' and 'civilization' to 'Barbarian East'! No you take all the tech from the east, improved them and used them against east to get their every valuable thing. And you still do it by 'spreading democrasy'. And you complain about the horde of refugees which you created. So my eyes bleed from your ignorance. Westerners are really blind, or they don't want to accept realities.
The Qing dynasty was very much proimperialist right up until the time that they recognized that it wasn't really working out for the ruling elites having to contend with European military and commercial superiority, by which time it was too late to rethink their agenda.
+Akin Khoo The Qing Navy sucked balls, man. They were mishandled, mismanaged and got their ass whooped or scared off by other navies.
+Mitchell Hough Great comment! For most of us studying Asian studies, it's quite common knowledge that imperialism is not only a "Western" construct. The Qing and many other dynasties of China practiced their own respective form of imperialism. The Qing's imperialist strategies can be easily observed in Taiwan. The Austronesian aborigines of Taiwan, the original inhabitants of the island, experienced firsthand Qing imperialism.
Fun fact : The Opium war was the first battle between China and European power than is won by Europe.
all other battles between China and European in the past 2000 years have always been won by the Chinese. most notably how Ming Dynasty defeated Portugal and Dutch in 16-17th century and Qing defeated Russia in 17th century
The Opium war was only one battle? Are you also forgetting the 2nd Opium war or do you put that into the win column for China?
Mitchell Hough i said was the *First* battle won by european over China over the course of history. what did i miss ?? i didnt say that Opium war was the only one, i said it was the first.
i had to chuckle when you pulled that Sovereign out of your thought bubble
Very good unbiased video full of logical assumptions and conclusions. Thank you!
"This Machine Kills Fascists" -Paper Towns Reference
I love the Mass Effect reference.
"Hi, I'm John Green, and I got up this morning and combed my hair with a pillow".
This was an awesome episode. I had literally never heard of any of these Asian responses to imperialism! Thanks v much crash course :)
10:36 That grateful dead reference
I'm a Filipino. I've always envied other countries' rich "organic" heritage because our country has been under the rule of foreigners most of the time in history, like, we're so mixed now, we're like browns trying our best to be western people. Hard cold truth. (We have no prominent empire/kingdom written in history 😑)
Yay for Mass Effect references!
Funny that the Chinese invented the Cannon and gunpowder, yet just a bit later they Europeans come back at them with their own poison.. The irony..
+Kolynk iron-y
+sambulls whhhhhyyyyyyyyyyyyyy
Like many things, invented by chinese, perfected by western people.
+Kilves X and then produced in china
+Kolynk We did put gunpowder in military use and had a centralized research centre for it back in 16th century. But it was banned after the Manchurians conquered us.
3:20 I love that mass effect reference
Thank you for understanding us authoritarians John :D
Red France
Blue UK
WHAT THE FUCK
?
Seriously. They should have gone with periwinkle and and mauve.
Nixon Perez
There is a tradition of painting territories under the British imperial sphere of dominance as red or rather pink
Yes its so very important that people know the not even 6 year old US only tradition of blue france and pink UK... In contrast to for example the 40 year old version with green fance and dark red and/or sometimes yellow UK, GOD FORBID we go by the full grayscale different textured maps.
*****
I don't really care, but the tradition for anglophones to use pink for the British Empire is more than six years old. It started in the late 18th Century.
Dear John Green, please run for President. Best wishes.
+Esteban Ortega Hey cousin
I'd prefer John Green to Donald Trump or Joe Biden, but most of the voting population of America wants either 1) a skilled politician, or 2) someone who agrees with them. John is not a skilled politician, and he doesn't agree with many of the people who don't care for professional politicians. So he'd have a hard time getting votes.
The ottoman empire, despite being a shadow of it's former self, was still a world power by the time of the 1880s.
Billyharris110 :D yes but it was loosing ground to the European powers who were rapidly overtaking it.
Jj O,leary Well it really got pushed out of europe by rebellions in the balkans
***** True. The empire was a mess by the time the 20th century rolled around. However, despite having old and untended weaponry, it's army was still pretty big
great episode
i really needed this one personally
4:04 - Read the book "The Nation-State And Its Competitors" for more on that topic.
Anyone else lol at "the bonds" at 7:33 ?
ALL HAIL GENGHIS JOHN! NERDFIGHTERIA WILL BE THE NEXT GREAT NATION!!!!!
Genghis John for Khan or President or whathaveyou!
Our military will be very charitable and the people will be required to give $5 a day to charity.
Technically it would be John Khan.
Not bad, but now we need an "Africa Responds to Imperialism" video.
why ? it's not like they have done anything important in the last couple thousands of years
maybe mandela and that's it
Mario46er Go learn some African history before you make stupid comments.
*****
Carthage is one you should know of.
***** I'm not too educated on the subject but I do have a problem with the idea that cities and empires are the pinnacle of human existence, because they weren't especially before vaccines.
***** There were plenty of African empires, we just don't teach African history in school outside of Egypt.
The map shown at 1.37 at the Congress of Berlin is in reality the map of Africa in 1914. At the time of the Congress in 1884 many areas were still not "imperialized" (Libya was still under Turkish control, Morocco was a semi independent state under Ottoman protection etc...).
Can you consider doing a history of Thailand? It has uniquely remained to not be colonized by any powers. Perhaps a study into their system can show that it may be an alternative way for Asian nations to pursue at that point of time to ensure their sovereignty. Just like you mentioned, Japan wasn't a very good example of a 'good' imperialist. Thailand did not pursue this goal and more or less stay peaceful and relatively prosperous during that period.
Iran was never colonized either. It did get occupied by the Soviet army during the world war but that was only to keep the pro nazi shah from aiding Hitler. Unfortunately however historians mostly study countries by making big blocks out of them since studying every country one by one is pretty tedious. Thailand is considered to be in the "Asian" category while Iran is in the Muslim , Middle Eastern or in this video Arab category although we were never colonized and followed a complete different path in history.
@Sal Maan, thanks for sharing, Maybe the mongols is not the only the exceptions. Iran history does sound quite intriguing will have to read more or find some resources on Iran. Yeah 'Asian' category is really too big and usually China, India and Japan gets all the attention. Maybe a video on South East Asia can be justified. In any case,
One things for sure. Westernization, democracy and capitalism has not benefited vast majority of non western world.
*Corporatism
Without capitalism, you wouldn't be reading this comment, and I wouldn't be writing it. Corporatism is the problem.
No? so I guess the majority of people are still working on farms relying on the food they are able to harvest. People are still getting around either by walking, sailing a wooden ship or riding some sort of animal. Have limited access to education, medicine and clean water. Continue to live under authoritarian states who control every aspect of your life.
The reason why parts of the non-western world are not benefiting is because they have not embraced these things.
Beyonder Haber Process
this is the worst issue of westerners.they somehow justify imperialism by saying it them who spread pluralism, technology n knowledge.do westerners think that before colonizing other civilizations were lower than western civilization?do this means that before imperialism there was no pluralism in other civilization?dude it is India which has all the major world religions living in harmony with each other unlike western and other regions.Gandhi n tagore said it right westerners are too matrialistic,individualistic n racist during imperialistic times.greed is what drives imperialism.
+Ashu ji it is sad, if India capture the U.K. and treated it the way they treated India, they would not like it.
+syed ali they feel every good thing is for them.but I don't hate westerners.I like their culture.this is the best thing about ancient Indian or hindu culture,we take all good things from others and do not subscribe to negative things from others.ancient Hindu or Indian culture says ,"whole world is 1 family".we try our level best to avoid conflicts with others but tolerance also has its limit.so sometimes we have to fight but not necessarily by violence.Indians specially Hindus,jains,Buddhists has long tradition of non violence.most of the indians follows non violence irrespective of their religion.
Nah your just jealous your was, is, and always will be shit
+Derp master I could expect nothing more from arrogance.God bless u n may u be enlighten with truth
+Derp master India is a country of more than 1bn ppl.USA or other western countries populations is small.so in huge country such thing happens.those incidents are not as big as media shows.so just don't judge India on looking separate incidents.klu klux klun also do such things. but I never stopped loving good westerners. reason I believe there are so many gud ppl.many Americans n Mexicans are my friends.
3:24
"China prizes the one way" *shows 1D* omg😂😂
I often see a lot of people complaining in the comments sections for these videos that certain areas or topics weren't covered. I think everyone keeps forgetting that, you know, more videos are coming out which might cover these things, and it's not actually possible for them to talk about every single thing in one video. The last season of Crash Course World History had 42 videos, so if the topic you're interested in hasn't been covered yet, maybe wait and see what's coming because I'm sure they'll be doing quite a few more :)
Obviously I'm not saying that you shouldn't express a desire to see certain areas or topics covered. I'm referring to the complaints rather than the requests.
make a part 2 but discuss about all of the revolts that happened in asia
You call Indianapolis a town?
2:31 OH, so this is what Kevin Durant (the snake) believed!
It seems to me that the primary difference between "western imperialism" and "other" imperialism is economic exploitation. In general, Western powers had no intention to rule or develop the regions they conquer. Comparing the British Raj, French Haiti, and Brazil with the American Westward Expansion or the Russian expansion into Siberia, we can see clear differences in the way each of the colonial powers viewed the lands in question. Taiwan did not come into Chinese control until the 17th century but whereas a Chinese would fight tooth and nail for sovereignty over the island, I'm not sure a typical French person would feel the same about Guiana.
That makes a lot of sense. I'm inclined to agree with you
Well, it's not just economic exploitation. It's "otherness" of the colonized. While India was technically part of the British empire, none of those people living there were considered "British". Westward Expansion didn't have that element but mainly because the land acquired was being added to the original country (at least on paper) as well good, old-fashioned ethnic cleansing.
hahaha01357 "China" did not always include Tibet because China had to conquer Tibet
On your closing statement.................................Well said !!
I really love your videos, but I'm Brazilian and because it's a not superficial video it's kind of hard to understand all the video. So I think it would be a smal think to put some legends to other lenguages since your videos are so well worked you know? It's so bad that I can't show this videos to my students and colleagues. Congrats for all!