ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 17 ก.ค. 2023
- Examine the empty land theory, which was created by European colonizers in South Africa to support their claims to the region.
--
From the 1650s through the late 1800’s, European colonists descended on South Africa. They sought to claim the region, becoming even more aggressive after discovering the area’s abundant natural resources. To support their claims to the land, the colonizers asserted they were settling in empty land devoid of local people. Was this argument true? Anneliese Mehnert debunks the Empty Land Theory.
Lesson by Anneliese Mehnert, directed by Héloïse Dorsan-Rachet.
Support Our Non-Profit Mission
----------------------------------------------
Support us on Patreon: bit.ly/TEDEdPatreon
Check out our merch: bit.ly/TEDEDShop
----------------------------------------------
Connect With Us
----------------------------------------------
Sign up for our newsletter: bit.ly/TEDEdNewsletter
Follow us on Facebook: bit.ly/TEDEdFacebook
Find us on Twitter: bit.ly/TEDEdTwitter
Peep us on Instagram: bit.ly/TEDEdInstagram
----------------------------------------------
Keep Learning
----------------------------------------------
View full lesson: ed.ted.com/lessons/history-s-...
Dig deeper with additional resources: ed.ted.com/lessons/history-s-...
Animator's website: www.heloisedr.com & / helo.dr
Music: www.campstudio.co/
----------------------------------------------
Thank you so much to our patrons for your support! Without you this video would not be possible! Siamak Hajizadeh, Ryohky Araya, Mayank Kaul, Christophe Dessalles, Heather Slater, Sandra Tersluisen, Zhexi Shan, Bárbara Nazaré, Andrea Feliz, Victor E Karhel, Sydney Evans, Latora, Noel Situ, emily lam, Sid, Niccolò Frassetto, Mana, I'm here because of Knowledge Fight Facebook group., Linda Freedman, Edgardo Cuellar, Jaspar Carmichael-Jack, Michael Burton, VIVIANA A GARCIA BESNE, The Vernon's, Olha Bahatiuk, Jesús Bíquez Talayero, Chels Raknrl, Sai Pranavi Jonnalagadda, Stuart Rice, Jing Chen, Vector-Dopamine math, Jasper Song, Giorgio Bugnatelli, Chardon, Eddy Trochez, OnlineBookClub.org, Eric Shear, Leith Salem, Omar Hicham, Adrian Rotaru, Brad Sullivan, Karen Ho, Niklas Frimberger, Hunter Manhart, Nathan Nguyen, Igor Stavchanskiy, James R DeVries, Grace Huo, Diana Huang and Chau Hong Diem.
![[TH] 2024 PMSL SEA GF D1 | Summer | แข่งที่ไทย ต้องใส่ให้สุด](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Jkuf7nCS7jI/mqdefault.jpg)
this myth was also employed by colonizers when it came to Palestine. They said it was an empty land this is well established
But god forbid you ever criticize the corrupt Israeli government and military for their hostile treatment of Palestinian civilians or you’re apparently an “antisemite” who “hates Israel.”
It’s called Israel 🇮🇱 😏
@@IBTU The stealing zionists renamed it Israel but it was originally called Palestine.
@@IBTU Since only 1948. The Palestinian people had lived on that same land for centuries. The Jewish people deserve a homeland and there are definitely ways that could have happened peacefully such as a two state solution, but Israel decided "nah" and settlers keep encroaching on Palestinian land while their military continues to launch rocket attacks against Palestinian civilians that would probably be seen as borderline war crimes if their government wasn't so buddy-buddy with the United States and other western powers.
@@nodermark8922it never was 😂 you absolute 🤡 it was named that after the Romans couldn’t pronounce it’s true name after they defeated the Jewish and banished them from their own lands
Someone explained once that the concept of selling land for the Native Americans was the same as selling the sky. Which would understandably be an insane concept when explained like that. It might’ve been the same for Africans.
@@memenadekhanh3992 FYI I can't tell if your comment is sarcastic or dead serious. I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume sarcastic taking into account the video it is attached to but maybe you can rephrase it to make the sarcasm a bit clearer if it's the case
You got the “selling the sky” from a literal film.
I genuinely don't know so I'll ask the obvious. Do they have the concept of ownership? How about territory? And do they as tribes participate in battles, wars, and conquests?
Ignoring that the sky is already being sold (mainly for fly routes and such), even radiowave ranges are being sold. Indians had concept of ownership, they had concepts of trade, sale and value. They themselves traded and warred over land. The whole "they didn't know what they signed up for" comes from the whole noble savage stereotype. Africans also knew who and what they they signed up for as they themselves did the exact same thing.
@@relo999 Yes, the fly route and radio wave trade of the 16th century, how could I forget.
If they might not have had the concept of selling land they could’ve sold it because it meant nothing. This puts the colonists in the best possible light, which you seem to misunderstand.
Let me ask you this; would you sell your home and neighborhood to then be portraid as a savage, enslaved, tortured and murdered WILLINGLY? Because that’s what you’re saying, “They knew who and what they signed up for.”
Also what is your source, I’d love to know.
I think the sad fact of the matter is that the locals' land ownership practices were probably irrelevant to the final result. Colonists would have found a way to justify their theft regardless
I think "Theft" is wrong word. It is more "Conquest", which is an unfortunate part of history.
@@EmperorZelosit is literally theft whether or not it happens often in history.
Conquest , theft , it’s all the same when it comes to these sort of things
@@EmperorZelos but that’s not how many colonial powers framed it at the time.
As said by the comedian Trevor Noah “colonisation is a strange thing” not only are u taking over someone else’s home which their families have lived on for generations , you are also forcing them to convert to your religions , ideology and culture .
As a person from Kazakhstan, I can’t stress enough how threatened I feel whenever our neighbors like Russia and China say that Kazakh people never had a state, the land is underdeveloped, barren and it was basically their right to colonize us.
Edit: to emphasize the empty land myth that is going in Russia about its colonial lands, they almost never call the conquest of Siberia a conquest. They call it “освоение Сибири” which translates as “the acquisition/cultivation of Siberia”, and the territory of Kazakhstan in old Russian colonial terminology was called “West Siberia”.
Maybe time to join NATO?
They are an ally of Russia and a dictatorship. Like Belarus
@@vipeholmskolan6052 if they want to join NATO they will be Ukrained.
It has been a part of Indian subcontinent, feels sad how India had to let go of it's own parts overtime due to different reasons.
Don't you think it would've been better if all these divisions would not have took place and we might be living together as one big powerful subcontinent?
I will respect your perspective.
@@vipeholmskolan6052 our corrupt government was saved by Russia’s intervention from the uprising in January 2022, and it owes heavy debt to China. Kazakhstan will never join NATO because of its government’s corruption, dependency on Russian troops to crush rebellions, and China’s tight collar around our politicians.
The saying "might make right" comes to mind. If you can overpower the opposition, you win.
I was searching the comments for this phrase and easy explanation of "land rights". You can buy land now because there's a monopoly on force by the government, that's the only reason, the enforcer is on your side. Government is might and therefore government is right.
Claim whatever you'd like, but you'll need some might to enforce it.
This. Land was taken by conquerors probably since the first war that was ever fought by humanity. Nothing that happened in colonial times was new.
We need more people to realize this.
@@Talon3000 true. This has been happening all throughout history. And to any and all.
@Talon3000 1This is new since these were settlers that tries to displace the original population, back when empire conquered other territories they didn't try to completely displace the local population to the extent the europoors did
Back in the 19th century, the British East India passed "The Doctrine of Lapse" which basically gave them the power to annex any Indian kingdom under the suzerainty of the Empire, if the present king had no male heir, and they did not even allow adoption which allowed them to annex several Indian kingdoms back then.
The british defeated indians in battle many times there should be no crying
The only crying is done by incels who try to defend colonialism with bad grammar.
@@helo98736Hahhell yeah what the world needs, people defending colonialism woho!
@@carlosoramasramos8911
I’m sure you have zero issues with Turkey existing
@@cassiuscrassus3887? Wtf are you talking about
The ancient romans didn't mess around with "empty land" myths. Conquering anyone you can and taking their stuff dates back to the dawn of humanity. It's just that at this point, the europians had invented firearms, making them much better at conquering.
Needing "empty land" excuses suggests there were some people starting to develop ethical rules against this. Many ancient civilizations would say "yes we took their land and slaughtered them" rather than being ashamed of their genocidal conquest and trying to hide it.
This is a tad of an oversimplification, casus beli of all types have existed throughout human history. The romans very much did not just believe in conquering everything, especially in the days of the early roman republic. Rome had to justify everything it did as being in the defence of Rome, even when it obviously wasn't and was instead for the purposes of advancing Romes, hegemony, or later Imperium. It was always crucial for political figures to have support, especially by the military and the wider populace and this tended to mean needing some kind of just cause for the war, whether that be territorial disputes, unavenged grievances or tensions with an existing Roman ally or protectorate.
Even Caesar, and all around conquest happy bloke, had to justify his attempted landgrabs under the guise of defending Roman allies or territories.
@@seamonkey2841 Exactly, dudes just uneducated. If you actually read roman justifications they're extremely similar to justifications for US imperialism today- it was always framed as defensive no matter how absurd or teneuos.
same as when us was "defending our freedom" which somehow ended up in iraq and afghanistan.
sure you can find bellicose nationalism and gloating, but you also got basically the same thing with americans bragging about "turning the middle east into glass" after Iraq and Afghanistan.
You had me until "The Europeans had invented firearms".
@@moosemuffins2191 Yes, and the vikings discovered america, too.
You forgot Cato's accusations to Caesar. And it was not a minority opinion by any means. While Romans were relatively bloodthirsty, even they found the scale of sheer brutality Caesar's legions unleashed on Gaul and even though most wanted a much weakened Gaul, they were worried that their gods would find their bloodbath worthy of a divine curse.
It's very interesting and, strangely enough, this has some similarities to what happened in the past on my island, Sardinia, in Italy, Europe. During the middle ages, a set of local laws were developed by the inhabitants of the island, in a way that did not put lots of emphasis on the concept of private ownership of the land, and while there were landlords since the time of the Romans, most of the population shared the land, through the distribution of the products it would give: some people would farm the forest cyclically for wood, others would graze their animals in periodically open fields, others would collect fruits like many types of nuts and fed pigs with it, etc, etc; disputes among people sharing the land over the distribution of the products were a thing, but said code of laws was built to settle them locally in a relatively efficient way by the local officers, to the point that the Spanish conquerors of the island from Aragon kept the previous customs ongoing in order to avoid riots and malcontent.
After the island was acquired by the Duchy of Piedmont, a system of enclosures and private property was enforced, distributing the land to landlords already friendly with the new rulers or to new settlers, devastating the economy of the small villages depending on this ancient system of land sharing. The consequence of this was a strong tendency of those people to resort to banditry, a phenomenon that lasted until 60 years ago, together with a series of blood feuds between families, that couldn't be settled anymore with the old system of laws that was suppressed in favor of a law system written by rulers that had no idea of the social system of the territory.
Colonialism operates in similar manners everywhere. Apply an incompatible economic system to the land with the justification that the locals are uncivilized and lazy, creating poverty and social segregation.
Really interesting!
Private property is a good thing. Enforcing it is a must for a functioning society.
great to know that, very interesting, I had similar stories in latin americana, funny huh?!
interesting
@@memenadekhanh3992not all property needs to be private tho
In studying Philippine history, majority of our lessons focus on changing the established narrative that human society only started under the Spanish occupation. Explanations of pre-colonial Philippines, although scarce and hardly coherent due to how much richness the Spanish colonization has erased, are often made to describe that the Philippines had an independent ancient society of human settlements that were functional. The manifestation of the empty land myth can also be seen in this, as this was one of the reigning reasons the Spaniards used for colonization, aside from Christianity and the strategy of “divide and conquer”.
No es por ofender pero Filipinas existe como tal gracias a la conquista española
Antes existía algo? Claro, los españoles nunca lo negaron, había una serie de sultanatos, reinos y rayanatos peleando entre sí que Conquistaron y sometieron a una misma administración
Fuera de la religión gran parte de esa cultura original se conservó
@@panchosangurima3616not to offend, but Spain exists as it is today due to all the land they robbed and people who suffered genocide in their hands. So, lands colonized in the past owe nothing to Spain, it's actually the other way around.
@@ThiagoOliveiraSantosfaren No lmao
Veras cuando el imperio español se fue a la mierda España quedo en una miseria y caos sin precedentes, perdió su rango de potencia mundial, estuvo en un montón de guerras civiles qué lo devastaron y millones emigraron (Curiosamente a antiguas tierras imperiales como México, Argentina y Uruguay) Si ahora están bien es porque de nuevo se lograron alzar, las riquezas "robadas" de América hace mucho se les acabaron, y como tal no cometieron un genocidio, vamos qué vivo acá conozco la historia de mi zona.... Posdata, USA si qué hizo un genocidio en Filipinas e incluso un general sugirió quemar filipinos y erradicar a los adultos tal cual, no te has preguntado porque halla el inglés es importante a pesar de haber sido colonizado por España?
Yes but, the idea of the archipelago being one national entity with people, that even though it has different cultures can have similar traces thanks to the Spanish culture and ¿how many richest gave the Spaniards to the Philippines? Manila was the Pearl of the Pacific, and ¿how much was destroyed after their independence by the Americans and the Japanese?
as a Filipino the replies to your comments screams "COLONIAL APOLOGISTS"
It's probably not 100% false that the locals did fight each other for territory or whatever else. People on all continents (minus Antarctica which had no humans) had fought each other for literally millennia. Even now people globally, including Africa, fight each other, let alone when tribes were raiding each other and some were building local empires like Aksum, Egypt and Mali.
yeah, but thats no excuse for the colonialism inflicted on native populations. the old conflicts were intra-continental. its different when a more industrially developed state invades and sets up a new society in their image which disadvantages the native populations. the premise isnt 100% false, but the way it was used in colonial logic was very flawed.
@@s0itg0escolonialism is obviously morally wrong by today’s standards, no use justifying it.
However back then? It’s business and conquest as usual, nothing more. I find it hard to morally judge conquerors of the eras when conquest was not frowned upon, but cherished by most societies.
Subjugating neighbors was the norm and europeans got damn good at killing people and got rich off of it. Not much else to it
@@s0itg0es War is simply war. There is no idea of fair play
@@thevvitch7585 wrong again, all asian countries, I'm sure even African countries, even when they went to war, abiding by "rules of law"
Colonisation did more destruction than just "war" - because there was never peace, there still isn't any
@@thevvitch7585 no there's a fair war when you fight to defend yourself other than that it's unfair
All of this is well explained except that one part about the Medieval (i.e. pre-European) conquest of southern Africa by Bantu peoples migrating from central-western Africa, who subjugated, assimilated or displaced the indigenous Khoisan population.
So even if the focus here is European dispossession of African (Bantu + Khoisan) lands, I think the narrator could at least have given this a quick mention, as a matter of historiographic honesty.
For comparison, North Africa has a similar history of conquest by Arabs from southwestern Asia, who subjugated or assimilated the indigenous Copts and Berbers, many centuries before the European conquest in the Scramble for Africa.
Exactly, the world borders both after, during and before colonialism is set by conquest in pretty much every part of the inhabited world. The way the video presents it makes it seem the whole concept of conquest of land is something Europeans brought with them.
@@richmondapore888
"1) Europeans are not indigenous to Africa."
So what. How is it any better if Africans replace other Africans?
"This movement was between people living within the same continent and context."
So what. It's still people from a different culture kicking the inhabitants off their land. The fact that they have the same skin colour doesn't change this.
"2) Your comparison with North Africa/Arab doesn't also work."
Because the people invading from another continent aren't white?
"Are there any North African berbers or copts who argue who claim that their land was stolen by Arabs?"
Yes.
"Even if what you're positing is accurate, the people of North Africa welcomed and accepted this Arab infiltration"
Just like the Mexicans welcomed the Conquistadors because they hated the Aztecs. Funny how people always forget this.
"Did indigenous South Africans ever accept the Boers/Afrikaneers?"
Yes. Once they had children in Africa they became Africans.
"And they themselves (Afrikaneers) reminded everyone that they weren't African."
They literally did the opposite because they were born in Africa and considered themselves Africans. Like how the white people born in South Africa consider themselves Africans.
@@richmondapore888 1. If a certain people share a continent with another it's not colonization or conquest if they forcefully displace others? That's a rather odd definition. So, the Japanese conquest of Korea, Taiwan, and other parts of Asia was just a "movement of people" because of geographic proximity? And the Mughal conquest of parts of India is not really conquest because Central Asia is continuous to India? By your definition, what the Romans did wasn't imperialism, just an example of bad neighboring.
2. Google “Berber Revolt" and “Bashmurian revolts.”
@@richmondapore888nah lol
@@richmondapore888
So colonialism is fine if you do it to people who live on the same continent? Or is it maybe that it's fine if your victim has a similar skin tone?
The video said there was 3 falsehoods in the empty land myth, it explained the first two, but it didn't prove how the claim "the Africans living here displaced others" was completely false...
I certainly think it was true. The video could have done better explaining how 3rd argument despite being ture still does not justify stealing lands. But their failed to do so
the video did explain that the native people had lived there for millennia and about the land distribution 'policies', saying that the groups distributed seasonal land rights allowing nomadic groups to use it. There's more explanations in the video that rule out possibilities of disputes or fights on land 'ownership'.
@@bangtangirl3503 "native people had lived there for millennia" is just a catch-all phrase meaning africans have been africa for a long time. It's not at all clear that the people in that region never conquered or displaced someone else there before. and the land distribution policies would only be valid within the context of the same tribe/ethnic group, not foreigners from other tribes
@@thewheeldeal8439 the native people had lived there for millennia is not the point actually. the video sheds light on the system of land 'ownership' which tells us -land wasn't seen as personal property and that they had practices different from that of the dutch and british. Land was distributed by community leaders and not decided by the people themselves(minimizing any fight among people) these facts allude that idea that tribes fighting amongst themselves was a mere excuse (given due to little knowledge and assumptions perhaps?) to control the land. The description also gives us an idea of how the Africans themselves never saw land as a property thus further saying there wasn't anything to fight on. On your point, it's very normal to see tribes in a particular area following general rules when it came to land distribution that were socially acceptable. how likely is it that one tribe regarded land by its resources and the other thought like materializing colonizers(like the british even)
You do realize Africans are incredibly mixed so of you were to look at a tswana and a khoisan they look virtually the same .
So how can we determine who owns the land.
I think we should introduce dna testing
Not just in africa, in Malaya, British claimed to "discover" and open a settlement on an empty land in Pulau Pinang (penang) and Singapore which already have people and rulled by kingdom of Kedah and Johor respectively. Correct me if im wrong, Ive heard that in singapore they still teach that Raffles are the first person to "discover" singapore
That is the lenght that Singapore would take to align itself with the west and its interest.
I now know where the idiotic phrase "A land without a people for a people without a land" came from. Thanks Ted Ed
Zionists were quite fond of that phrase. Incidentally, Israel was the closest ally of Apartheid South Africa. The international community sanctioned the apartheid government but Israel simply ignored the sanctions and sold them weapons and helped train South African police and paramilitary terror squads
I was just about to mention this canard of the Israelis. Thanks
My great something grandmother was a buddhist nun in Vietnam during the French colonization of the country. She kept diaries where she wrote the atrocities she saw and experienced. It was vastly different from what they taught in school. My mom still has the diaries in her possession to this day.
Oh, so you're grandmother was a buddist nun in Vietnam
Sorry, your
My grandma was a victim of Japanese imperialism in Korea and her older brother was kidnapped by North Korean forces during the Korean War. She never visited there once after coming to US. War is devastating.
Sounds like the aboriginals had it right.
Realizing that land is truly owned by no one and to hunt to survive and grow food from it. To share what the earth produced from the work put into it
Yes here in Australia, they say they are the custodians of the land and their responsibility is to treat it right and care for it. Hence why they moved so often, to give the land, flora and fauna a chance to rejuvenate and not become extinct.
So, when can I move in to your home?
@@danielguy3581do you take care of it?
@@Fuzzy_frog.would we need to? No one owns it after all.
Not really. A lack of land ownership means a lackluster central power and a lack of strong land lord ruling class. Those are not good things, mind you, but those are the things that facilitate the power of the states.
These “fair” societies were simply not competitive militarily.
There are those who actually colonised Empty Land.
They usually learn the hard way it was empty for a reason. A barren wasteland with terrible weather, for example.
I assume the Zulu Metcafane contributed to this myth, as large numbers of peoples were displaced in the Early 19th century by Shakas conquests.
This is a tactic that often used by colonizer in a settler colonialism project (South Africa, US, Israel, Liberia, Australia, etc.) to justify the horrible things they did/do and to undermine the existence of the indigenous populations.
Israel doesn't use those claims, and Arabs don't have the same land policies as africans had many years ago.
I don't see how this video relates to Israel at all. They had a civil war and the Arabs were the ones invading Israel in 1948, after rejecting any solutions or offers.
Tell it to Bantu invaders, who exterminated multiple native tribes.
@@XOPOIIIO No historian believe that nonsense. That's another myth that Colonist descendants are constantly peddling about South African History. Always distorting history. When Europeans arrived, the Khoisan communities were thriving in South Africa with plenty of evidence that they lived peacefully among the Bantu. Xhosa being the prime example. Read the book by Robert Ross on Xhosa-Khoisan relationship. Shula Marks also believes that the relationship between the Nguni and Khoisan were more cordial , this is evident in the exchange of cultures, languages, intermarriages, etc. Khoisan in Cape Town had plenty of Nguni cattles which they would have acquired from the Bantu tribes. There is also no evidence of aggression between these tribes, that's why they were flourishing throughout South Africa when Europeans arrived.
The extermination of Khoisan was actually commissioned by Europeans when they hunted the San people hoping to exterminate them. This is a well documented fact, if you cared enough to read about real history. Most of the cultures and languages of the Khoisan got extinct when Europeans arrived and forced them to Learn Afrikaans/English and European religion and cultures. The genocide and extermination was actually committed by European invaders.
There is no evidence of the nonsense you wrote above, just another myth that needs to be dispelled.
@@bnaZan6550"A land without a people for a people without a land" or other similar slogan is often used by Israel or its allies to describe the creation of Israel. Most recently, European Commission's president used identical terms in her speech to celebrate Israel's anniversary.
Of course, not all Israeli use this phrase, nor do I claim all of them use it. And, of course, Palestinians don't have the same land policies as the South Africans, just like South Africans don't have the same policies as Native Americans. I don't think they must have the same policies of land ownership to be comparable.
"But we know too well that our freedom is incomplete without the freedom of The Palestinians." - Nelson Mandela, anti-apartheid activist and former president of South Africa.
@@XOPOIIIOHorrible things, no matter who commits them, are still horrible things. Nothing changes. Two wrongs doesn't make it right.
Interesting. I’ve heard that empty land theory in the Americas but never knew about it’s use in South Africa. Though it focused the large amounts of native people dying from disease. But I can see how that can be reshaped and used in different circumstances.
Fun fact, the Boers have been in some regions (Capetown area) of South Africa longer than almost all of Africans. Peoples like the Xhosa and Zulus moved there in the 1800’s. The Khoisan are the indigenous inhabitants of the lands.
In America the land was actually empty though so it’s a different story
@luisfilipe2023 That's when you are wrong. Lakotas, Pueblo, Apache, for saying some examples, live there before white Anglo-Saxon expanded to the west, and that's implying that you are talking about the U.S., because in most of the Americas there were indigenous peoples that lived before genocide made by European powers (only Spanish and Portuguese kind of didn't do a genocide, but that's other story).
@@hannahs1683if that was true why did the xhosas start fighting the dutch during the 16th centry.
Someone is lying here
And even if the khosian were the first in western cape why are they almost no more left in western Cape.
@@Thegreatest342 Because hunter gatherers have a way lower population than agricultural societies? And a lot of Africans have been migrating to South Africa for literally centuries.
Which war are you talking about? They fought the Xhosa in the late 1700’s with the British. The Dutch had already been there for like 150 years at that point
"A land without people for a people without a land" much? I find it abhorrent how most Westerners do not recognize that the harmful lies that our outlined in this great video are the same that have been perpretated against the Palestinian people.
Locals: We share this land
Colonizers: I-if you’re not using it… can I has it 🥺👉👈
Locals, we hate our neighbours
Colonizers
We have you back
The problem is that Colonizers wanted exclusive use, hence they started putting up borders everywhere.
yes they can, they are strong enough to take it
@@LoremasterLiberaster so if someone arrived in your home with guns and replaces you they're fair because they're more powerful - even if you have no where else to go?
@@debangana9964 Except that won't happen, so this happening to someone else is not my problem
Learning history is important for this reason... to *not* repeat past mistakes
Why? Why must the strong not take from the weak?
Learning from history is indeed a much vaunted theory. Unfortunately we don't learn anything from history as we keep doing the same thing over and over again.
@@IBTUunethical in modern standards, also equality usually yields better results.
imagine if a random genius in a weak community was slaved or something that would be bad
@@IBTU because it's wrong, you uncivilized buffoon
@@IBTUcring
Super xenophobic take. The boat people are just immigrants looking for better opportunities and prosperity. Nothing wrong with immigrants.
Been listening to History of Africa podcast - so many cool stories! My favorite so far has been Axum (S2) but S4 on Madagascar has been pretty great so far!
Oo I’m gonna check it out
Where are you from?
@@pragatitomar4313 I'm a white girl from the US
Bro, did you watch the Asante ones?
@foam3132 LOL, the Asante are pretty rad too!
The 3 central arguments of Empty Land theory as outlined here - namely that 1) The land was empty, 2) The African communities there arrived at the same time as the colonizers, and 3) The African communities had probably stolen the land from previous communities - remind me of the Broken Kettle argument, outlined by Freud and rehashed by Zizek, where different arguments are given that each on its own might hold up, but that taken together contradict themselves: A man borrows a kettle from a neighbour, and when he returns it, the kettle has a hole in it. The neighbour complains, and the man says: 1) I never borrowed your kettle, 2) It already had that hole in it, when I borrowed it, and 3) It was fine, when I returned it to you.
Seems to be what’s happening in Palestine today…
palestine is a terorist state
This episode goes hand in hand with a podcast called "The History Of South Africa" by Desmond Latham. A must listen to.
This makes perfect sense. Slavic population has a very similar theory regarding the Balkans. They say that when they arrived they found “empty Illyria”, so they settled in that land, because nobody was there. Ironically, we are talking about a region that has been populated for more than 8000 years.
Literally nobody is claiming that. Who told you this nonsense?
It's the opposite, they claim that they were indigineous and what not for the sake of nationalism, aka "WE WUZ ILLYRIANZ EN SHIEET"
00:36 why are they chopping trees with pickaxes!? LOL
Probably a mattock, a tool that looks similar to pickaxes but is more commonly used for chopping trees
Because these people have never touched grass lol
This is the same situation here in Australia with our Indigenous people. They have been here for 40 to 60,000 years and yet European settlers came in and took the land in the same way that they did in Africa.
The natives didn’t even have a name for their nation. Survival of the fittest
@@orionfernandes4587 Great - so when China invades Australia and takes over, you'll be happy to abide by your "Survival of the fittest" comment?
@@orionfernandes4587no tribe could know all the others, also they did survive for a long time until the European settlers came and took their land
Australia was empty as...if you find whole vistas full of nothing then youre free to build a home and farm crops.
@@turbodewd1 Not true. Indigenous tribes were nomadic to care for and nuture the environment. They would camp on one section of their land and hunt and forage, then move on to another section of their land, to allow the first section to replenish and regrow. You wouldn't squat on vacant land/block in an estate that houses are being built it. That block belongs to someone, regardless of when they build their house and occupy it.
well, similar to the myth of "a land without a people for a people without a land" that gave place to the mass migration from jews from all over Europe to Palestine.
and now things are the way they are there.
The Jews were never a people without a land. And Israel and the Jews are an ancient people spanning more than four thousand years with the earliest recorded mention of Israel found on an Egyptian steele dating back to the 12th century B.C saying "Israel lies desolate and its seed is no more."
@@deshaun9473They were in the times of diaspora
@@adrianblake8876ok? and many palestinians are in diaspora as of right now
@@adrianblake8876 they weren't. Losing independence doesn't mean you are without your homeland.
@@deshaun9473True, but losing independence and being in diaspora are two different things. Like, they weren't independent under roman rule, but they weren't in diaspora.
This video fails to mention how the bantu people of South Africa are not indigenous to the region and conquered the khoi san people who originally inhabited it. To consider the bantus as equally indigenous just because they came from the same vast continent is short sighted
Shhh. They are trying to push a woke narrative to justify what is currently being done to the Boers.
@@snakey934SnakeybakeyAnd what's being done?
Lol you must be a European who wants to deflect 😂😂
Are the khoi san currently living under brutal apartheid enforced by Bantu rule? Have you asked a khoi san their thoughts about this?
@@aymacaymacunt814They can’t even keep their lights on. South Africa sucks before and after that.
B it to answer your question, probably not.
I’d much rather live in Israel than Palestine. I hear my daughter can actually get a job and not hide her face there.
They took it even further with the Group Areas Act. My grandfather and many other coloured families in Cape Town were removed from places like District 6. Houses were bulldozed and people forcibly moved to the Cape Flats and other areas. The terrible thing is owning a house those same places today (District 6, Constantia, Glen Cain etc.) would make you a multi-millionaire. Instead our people live in gang riddled neighborhoods.
Yes😢
Nunca entendí como soportaron tanto el Apartheid
Porque no se rebelaron desde antes?
@@panchosangurima3616 They did, they were slaughtered en masse, repeatedly when the protested. Read about the sharpesville massacre.
And now your new government fails you, the apartheid sounds much more bearable
And then when the taxis strike, people can’t get to work because they stay in the Cape Flats. A lot of injustices go unanswered for in this country.
This is good, but it should be called the Empty Land Lie, not Myth. A myth is a symbolic story that expresses deep truths. But the Empty Land is just a lie.
Non property/land owners didn't have the vote in Britain until 1918, which was most of the population.
"A land without a people for a people without a land" ~Balfour~ a promise to a very unknow (people) to (settle) a very empty and not holy land
Wouldn't it be nice if it was mentioned that kind of similar rules existed in England about land ownership up to the XVII century and then capitalism was born? We're literally talking about the "original theft" that of land as private property!
"A land without people for people without a land." This was debunked by Prof. Ilan Pappe long time ago in his book. 'The 10 myth'.
To this day, land in my country in the country side belongs to clans not individuals. That’s not the only ownership system, but still the communal ownership of land in Uganda exists.
The same ‘theory’ was taught to me at school in Australia.
They might have made excuses to portray themselves in a better light but they wouldn't have hesitated to do seize the lands for tehmselves even if they couldn't.
At first I thought this was going to be about another, much more recent and relevant "land without a people for a people without a land" claim...but maybe that's too raw right now.
I've seen something similar like this in the Middle East but I can't put my finger to it.
Correct me if I am wrong, since I do not intend to offend anyone, but I have the following question:
If the aboriginals had no exclusive rights to these lands, why was it bad that the europeans settled and colonized there?
Who would determine who has exclusive rights over land? the idea of rights is a construct, especially in regard to property. The “bad” part of it is that when Europeans came in their colonialism threatened the societies that were already there and they exploited the people and natural resources. your question was very decent and respectful
@@s0itg0es I suppose that it is like the following example:
There is a park, built for the community, that is free to go and enjoy. But then, a company arrives, privatizes it and it makes that only their employees can use it.
This situation is simmilar, but on a larger scale, since it involves residential spaces for both the natives and the colonizers.
@@Echidnai very apt analogy
@@s0itg0es Yes.
No people should subjugate another. Like in Avatar.
Because they are the people of that land, not you.
I'm not even sure they needed the empty land theory. They would have taken it even if it was regarded as occupied. That's what they did.
They still needed to justify it to themselves.
I was told that some of the Afrikaans bought the land for what was a cheap price to them but to the tribes was a relatively normal price, this was because land did not a lot use beside for cattle or small scale farming but when the settlers bought crops like maize and wheat then the land became a lot more valuable ( so they did buy it but it was exploitative in a way ).
However some of the tribes ( like the Zulus) believed that the land was still owned by the chief even if you bought it, so you if the chief wanted the land then he could just take it from you without compensation ( that obviously caused conflict).
(( if I get some of this wrong then sorry, I only know what I'm told about this))
Till this day they sing this song about how the Nguni people are not from South Africa and say the khoi san are the real indigenous people.
Some indigenous peoples in Southeast Asia suffered the same for centuries even up to this day.
It's really painful to look at current state of South Africa.
Constant blackouts, Water shortages & Economic collapse.
Why? A state who rose from ashes of Apartheid & has a most colourful flag...
Should become Southern African Miracle.
Why politicians think it's okay to fill their own pockets first?
This is the lasting effect of colonialism… causing mass suffering for _centuries_, while the perpetrators just wipe their hands and are silent to make the world forget. We won’t let the world forget.
@@smears6039Colonialism cannot be blamed for the current failed state of South Africa.
Can you made about Prague Spring quite interesting one.
Palestine was an "empty land" too.
palestine is a terorist state
bruh get a dictionary and learn how to spell@@vol.4691
No it wasn't, read the Bible empty head.
@@markk7731who reads the bible today, 1st century man? stop reading archaic fantasy novels like bible. Read the modern classical novels they are better at imagination.
Jews always lived in the land of Israel.. the bible only supports it, but even without it, you have concrete evidence and history@fatihcoker2708
It’s also the exact same argument that Israel uses currently.
Israel and the Jews are an ancient people spanning more than four thousand years with the earliest recorded mention of Israel found on an Egyptian steele dating back to 12th century B.C saying "Israel lies desolate and its seed is no more. "
Exactly the same, except;
1. The first colonies were bought from their owners legally
2. Coexisting with the local population was always ideal.
3. The jews weren't in control of the region until 1948, after most of the colonization was done.
4. Archaeology plays in favor for the jews, not the palestinian arabs, which is why the Zionists preserve archaeological sites, while the Palestinians destroy them...
@@deshaun9473yeah, and so are the arabs who lived in that same area. palestinians and jews are literally descended from the people of canaan. their ancestors both coexisted in the same area peacefully
More like arab countries kicking out jews because according to the Curan non muslims could not own land, forcing jews to live in poverty or convert during the last 1400 years. Btw if you are muslim you have christians and jewish ancestors who were victims of these policies
@@deshaun9473 No, Israel has not existed for some two millennia.
Animation and content both great as usual.
As a South African studying to become a high school history teacher, I can tell you one thing. This comment section is going to become more toxic than a nuclear bomb.
It always unfortunately. Happy Mandela Day tho🇿🇦🇿🇦🇿🇦
Nuclear bomb is explosive.
Uranium is toxic.
I seen no toxic comments so far
So far, I haven't seen anything toxic. So fingers crossed? 🤞
White people in the 17th century when they see land owned by people with skin colour darker than theirs :
“It all can be SOLD!”
Red skinned people when they see people with hair :"it can be scalped!"
Remember governor Ratcliffe's song
@@leonardoferrari4852cring
@@batrachian149 making comments like : "people of a certain color be like", is indeed cringe.
Is there a list of people we can't make fun of?
I still have arabs and jews you know
@@leonardoferrari4852L
Well this reminds me of something, Palestine?
The Western powers claimed that the Palestinians did not exist on that land, so Israel had the right to seize that land and displace thousands of Palestinians.
And now there is an apartheid, ongoing settler colonialism and gen ocid3
A barren state on the brink of death. Yep, that's Palestine.
3:04 It would be interesting see the chronology applied in other colonised countries in North and South America.
What would a similar chronology of the colonisation / invasion of parts of the so called United Kingdom be if viewed for example from the perspective of the Celts?
The Celts themselves also took land from others. Everyone did in Europe.
@@pierreofmontecristo2730 Yes. I suppose if the Breaker People had “claimed” Britain for Central Europe they would have been miffed when the Celts arrived.
@@pierreofmontecristo2730 That's why i don't really understand why concept 3 in this video (around 1:30) is said to be 'completely wrong'. I am not here to defend such thinking, but the reasoning, that almost all peoples live where they live because they replaced the peoples that came before them, holds true (the only exceptions are islands that got settled by humans rather recently, like easter polynesia, Iceland or Mauritius). The only difference between colonialism and "classic" conquering and stealing land is the severe military-technological advantage the colonialists had.
@@valentinmitterbauer4196 It is not completely wrong. People have been fighting eachother for land for a long darn time. Which includes the natives living in the lands the west colonised. The major big difference is that the west was significantly more powerful then any nation ever before. Which made it so darn unfair and unbalanced.
@@pierreofmontecristo2730 Yea, the military advantage due to better weapon technology, numbers and logistics differ colonialism from "normal" conquering, however i would never use the concept of "fairness" in any conflict. The fights two equally powerful enemies have are not "fair" either, exept of ritualised battles like flower wars. Were the europeans atrocious war criminals for what they did? 100% yes. Would've most natives of the other continents done similar atrocities if they had the technological means? Probably also yes.
sounds like the reasoning governments and counsels are able to build the most vile housing estates on “open land” despite that land being vital for human quality of life.
Thank you. This was the clearest and most succinct exposé of European colonial practices I have come across.
It's so interesting to see the human nature, like how after being oppressed for so long, similar people can come together with a firm determination to get rid of that oppression. Humans have so much power when they work together. Makes me wonder how much humanity could achieve if the whole world worked together with the same goal to make thw world a better and advanced place.
IMO, this is why "rugged individualism" exists - if you convince everybody they're on their own, they'll fight amongst each other rather than overthrow their oppressors.
@@asrexproductions you do not need oppressors to fight over resources and with a booming world population alot of this is going to happen one way or another. And about the "same goal to make thw world a better and advanced place" part:
This looks differently for different groupes of people. I personaly do not want to be ruled by someone that demands worship to there god or adopt ther value system. Ther are not a lot of things we all realy have in common and thats why this utopias seam so unreachable.
exactly, with our collective power, we can overcome all of the systems of opression (capitalism, racism, colonialism etc.)
@@fyvianefascist communist spotted.
@@fyviane What comes after that? What is the superior non-oppressive system?
For those who are still thinking "Well I am sure it did happen and there actully were vast swabs of land they did honest capture" or "What about the white farmers in South Africa" here is some points:
1. You can dispute how extensive the oppression colonization was... it still happened. Injustice is injustice. We should not normalize people being oppressed no matter how technology advanced the reigning regime is.
2. Yeah what happened to the white farms is very bad. But the whole point of this video is to specifically point out colonization during that certain period of time. It is a "whataboutism".
I'm sorry I don't see how it's wrong with colonization. It brought the rules of laws and civilizations to savages.
@@memenadekhanh3992bro Bantu and Kohli and San weren’t savages. They had wars yes but it’s not like anyone else didn’t go to war
@@hydromic2518 I meant those people didn't have functioning government, constitution and laws. They were savages because of that.
The big issue I have with the video is more so that they present the conquest of land as some "typically European" thing, while we know this happened both before, during and after colonization practically everywhere in the inhabited world including south Africa. This to the point that the video makes it a point to note that land was owned for millennia by the same groups, which is an outright falsehood from the historical and archeological evidence we have.
The case for European colonization is more so that they were wildly more technologically advanced and organized compared to those they colonized. But beyond that it wasn't all that special in comparison to what African tribes did to each other before colonization (and continue to do in parts of Africa).
@@hydromic2518 Actually their interaction were more cordial than aggressive.
There certainly were tribes of native people on the land, but they were not necessarily bantu speaking. I think the empty land theory was due to more complicated nuance than just colonial justification in this case. Furthermore, the inter tribal conflicts just before the great trek, might explain some of the settlers recounting stories of empty "kraals". All in all still a good video though.
The local San have been living in South Africa for around 150,000 years, well before Bantu or Europeans.
So the Europeans used a poor justification to conquer, you know instead of everyone else who just said my justification is I want to conquer and then did it 🤣
Yeah at least the Europeans attempted to apply logic to their conquest - that's how you know they were elevated lol
@@antirealist cring
@@antirealist Romans also justified their conquests using the same tortured logic. Ceaser framed his conquest of Gaul as neccesary for the protection of roman-allied gothic tribes. its no different.
The Islamic Caliphate did the same thing, except in the name of religion
Terra Nullius is one of the four Founding Myths (alongside Sui Generis, Ante-murale and Messianic) that every civilization has used throughout their respective histories.
Madeira had no people landing in the islands before the Portoguese. Aren't they the true natives?
Where in the video are points 2 and 3 addressed?
Really good video, thank you for bringing this to light. However, I noticed that you only refuted one of the three points. Was that intentional, or simply an accident?
Driving people away from their home , that is horrible. How could have they done so without any remorse
Because they didn't own the land and they didn't have the rules of laws.
@memenadekhanh3992 uh oh found the colonial apologist!
Humans will be humans, and humans favorite language is benefit and self. The benefit is resources, and the self is own kind; own homeland, culture, color. Quote me on this.
Are you speaking of the non-indigenous Bantu majority, who originate from Nigeria, 2,500 miles away or the Europeans who originate 5,000 miles away from South Africa? At least the Europeans didn't EAT their victims. Bantu are STILL eating people today, including the pygmies in the Congo, who underwent genocide and enslavement just 20 years ago, probably still going on now too.
They didn't live in a designated spot, how can they have a home
That was very dark and made me feel uncomfortable. Excellent, keep it up! We need the true history of the world.
The way these "empty lands" were turned into property by the colonizers is something they did within their own borders as well. The Enclosure Acts in Britain for example turned lands previously used by the British people into private properties of elites who forcibly set their own rules and regulations upon the land and those living in it. This enclosure act is what encouraged a number of British people to move to the Americas and they later supported the formation of the United States.
What happened to South Africa is similar to Kenya especially the Maasai tribe. They didn't farm & were nomadic pastoralists so British government and settlers began the lie that their land had no owner.
We appreciate this channel. We learn so much from them.
Lies and misinformation in this case
@@IBTUtouchy touchy touchy 🙂
@@IBTU cring
@@IBTUhere's always someone who calls BS no matter how good the video is
_Indigenous Lands_
What Colonising Europeans saw: “It’s free real estate.”
To the mighty go the spoils
@@IBTUcring
@@IBTUwell what good are the spoils if not everyone can enjoy them?
@@batrachian149 What people, such as yourself, don't seem to understand is that most ancient humans did not abide by the ethical frameworks that we do today. Modern virtues such as generosity (for its own sake), mercy, and rights (especially unalienable rights) were not as common and widespread as they are now.
Ancient humans lived very brutal and hard lives with very brutal and hard rules - much how most other animals live and have always lived. When it's every tribe for itself, there is no room for such fantasies.
We see this in the history of American Indian tribes (of which we have great and overwhelming evidence of cruelties beyond measure), of other tribal peoples across the globe, and in nearly every ancient human culture. Yes, there was kindness to be found within tribes, but the opposite was nearly always the case between tribes.
The commanche had no regard for the "rights" of the Apache - merely how good their scalps would look on the end of their spears. We're talking about a lifestyle so vastly different from ours that we simply cannot truly comprehend it.
So don't make the foolish mistake of imposing your modern sensibilities and notions of morality onto those who came before you.
@@antirealist mucho texto cring
Don't forget the Doctrine of Discovery principles that initially began as paper bulls from the Vatican and were built upon from there. This Doctrine maintains that upon discovery of new lands, European nations could acquire the territory and sovereignty over it. However, the territory had to be unknown to Europeans, unoccupied by a Christian prince, or inhabited by people Europeans considered "uncivilized." When you factor this in, the Empty Land myth takes on an added dimension.
Should the British and Dutch answer for their mistakes and apologize for a lifetime to the world?
You failed to even address why the argument "that the land was taken from previous inhabitants " is false. I'd say the history of Shaka Zulu actually proves that statement true.
A great story being told for Nelson Mandela Day 2023!
Thank you TED!
The doctrine of Terra Nullius was only overturned in Australia in 1992. Until that point all lands not previously granted in freehold were regarded as owned by the Federal government. The 1992 decision (The "Mabo" decision) overturned this but held that lands granted in freehold before the Racial Discrimination Act was put into law remained granted. Any peoples with a continual history of living in lands not granted in freehold could apply to be granted ownership.
This remains controversial to this day because neither "side" is entirely happy with it - native Australians rightly believe they have a moral right to the lands granted in freehold as well, while leasehold "owners" and mining companies don't want to give up "their" land.
In other words, everybody gets screwed over somewhat. Which is usually a sign that the decision is somewhat just; either side getting everything they wanted would have involved manifest injustice to somebody. The actual decision was somewhat unjust to everybody. :-/
Of course, the tribes who were ALL killed during the course of the original genocidal invasion get to keep nothing but their graves. If that.
(I likely have some of the details of Mabo wrong; IANAL. But I believe this outline is broadly correct.)
Great video but I don’t really like the corporate art style
Very powerful soundtrack and graphics.
the greatest crimes done to humanity were done by ourselves
Do you also include Tibet in the empty land meme. Its 3 or 4 million people are hardly noticeable to China. Similarly
Xinjiang (the means New Territory) is also pretty sparsely populated.
I will Listen practice ..so will I watch this video and am I improve my listen please anyone reply
What will it take for humans to get rid of greedy leaders once and for all and have them permanently replaced with people that lead with compassion and a desire for collective growth of the communities they lead? What will it take?
It will take you waking up. This is human nature, people are like that. Nothing is perfect.
No matter how many "greedy leaders" you get rid off. The new one will always guarantee to arise.
No matter what race or creed, we're still made of greed.
People demand, people desire. And leader will reflect what their population want. Chef can only made the dish that customers ordered.
Interesting. Thank you for the information
Colonists used similar strategies to invade various regions on the world.
Good points on addressing points 1-2, but what about point 3 at 1:17?
They don't have an argument for that because it's true. Whoever can conquer land is it's rightful owner.
When will people understand that on a grand scale of time, land belongs to nobody except the group that can manage to defend it? I'm sure that the "ancestral" lands of the native groups were gained after they drove another native group out of the area thousands of years ago. Every group of people on Earth have territorial ambitions; it is a natural part of human sociology. European colonizers simply had the will and the technology to do it on a massive scale. Do you really think that if it had been the other way around, and indigenous groups had been the ones to develop technology, that they would not have colonized Europe and other places? Nature in its essence is competition, and it is ingrained in the human mind.
Tribal warfare is not even remotely on the same level of destruction as what the scramble for Africa did. So no, it’s not the same. And if it were, pray that a nuclear coalition doesn’t do to you what Europe did to Africa.
@mueezadam8438 if my country is unable to defend itself, then so be it. It is the survival of the fittest, and in that case we would not be the superior.
@@JosephStalin1941 Ah yes, might is right. What a unique and totally unproblematic take.
@@whyyy463 >STOP BEING RIGHT GOY
This is sad. And it still happens.
Very good video. But I still don't understand why the argument in 1:17, on the fact that Native African tribes stole the land from other tribes, is false. That would imply that the African tribes in that region arrived millenia ago before European contact to what was truly "empty land," but that's highly unlikely, specially in Africa, probably the most dwelled continent by humans since it was in that continent where human species came to existence.
It's literally explained in the video they just simply practiced a different form of land distribution which did not require conflict to be able to "own" or use land
At some point a given plot land was unoccupied, there are no original inhabitants.
That is what exactly happened to Palestrina🦋😪
What's the point then? Humans have always settled somewhere and colonize lands. Tribes fight for them, winner takes the lands and slaves. Big tribes end up becoming villages then cities, and so on. States then declare war on each other just like tribes did but in a greater scale. There's just no need to declare war if you find one of these "empty lands"...
Didn't the indigenous people of South Africa fight each other for land or resources from it? In my country (Brazil), indigenous people also did not have the concept of owning parts of the land, but fought among themselves for resources, there are even ancestral stories of anthropophagy, where the winning warriors devoured the losers to gain their power.
This myth has also been applied to Palestine. History may not repeat itself but it sure does rhyme.
Russia is doing the same thing in 2023
Why not talk about the Zulu conquest before Europeans arrived?
Because the video is not about the Zulus
@@New_LoJack lol, your right. It’s about blaming white people for the state of the world.
Because it doesn’t fit the anti white narrative
Freedom for my Penguin bros in Antarctica 😢, all them scientists on their land cuh, they didn’t even ask them smh
People should live wherever they dang well please