Great points. There's a common idea that the modern ills of the postcolonial world are the result of inherent backwardness, while painting the colonial period as a minor historical blip that the colonized "should just get over", completely glossing over how critical the colonial period is in the molding of the modern societies and struggles of the postcolonies. Particularly the ethnic conflict is ironic, because not only can nearly every conflct be traced back to colonial policies to privilege certain groups over others, but the resulting strife is percieved to be a distinctly third world problem in modern times, when in fact it is distinctly European to divide politics along sectarian or ethnic lines, they did that by themselves during the early modern wars of religion and later 19th-20th century nationalist struggles, but because that (inherently genocidal) process ended with fully culturally homogeneous states, they can pretend like it never happened. African or Asian states descending into ethnic strife is not the failure of these societies to reach modernity, it is rather the necessary precondition to achieve the political model of the European historical experience of "modernity". Also, i'm surprised you didn't mention economic underdevelopment! that was my first guess for pernicious legacies of colonialism lol
Thank you for your detailed response. I was just focused on the politics in this one. I do have quite a few other videos on economic and cultural aspects of colonization.
I’ve experienced exactly the kind of people you speak of (those who doubt the negative effects of colonization)! It’s certainly a difficult task to teach postcolonial theory in such a way that it is able to articulate, even to those not privy of the harms of colonialism, the injustices of colonialism throughout history. Thank you for making this pertinent lecture!
Sirji... I am an avid admirer of your bold words... But unfortunately, once you start seeing things in the order you have mentioned... The psychological trauma of seeing things so clearly has an even more negative effect, as I am filled with anger... I am from Bangladesh, but live in Berlin, Germany with a very kind friend from Thar, Pakistan...Who is a Hindu person, but one of the kindest persons I met in my life... I hope your kind words find its way to the hearts of the common people and reverse the anger among my people in Bangladesh/our greater subcontinent and help us all heal! Ya, Hussayin...Ya, Ali Madad... A brother from Dhaka, Bangladesh...
Thank you. Yes, I have a couple of videos where I have talked about our entire region coming back together one day. Wishful thinking maybe, but why not imagine a future like that. Can India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh Reunite? Let us Work Toward it!! South Asia Peace th-cam.com/video/Jv-q2FyuuJg/w-d-xo.html
"Was Colonialism Good for the Colonized People?" This reminds of another similar question (with a similar answer) "Was slavery good for the enslaved people?"
I actually see the first point of divide and rule in Africa especially as a concrete example in Somalia vs Ethiopia and Somalia vs Kenya. The British colony added one region of Somali territory to Ethiopia and other region to Kenya to create dispute and instability between them, so this issue is still persists.
*The people of the Africa have been "divided and ruled" over by outsiders for centuries.* Because it is easier to divide people based on personal differences, than it is to unite them, based on what they have in common. Strategically ambiguous rulers make use of this, for own advantages. In the era of empires, first Rome/Constantinople in North Africa, then during the era of Western imperialism the seat of POWER playing these games changed to the USA/Europe, then after the 1950's as European colonialism's power decreased, Africa was the "playground" during the Cold War. Moscow was taking on the role of arming the resistance. *Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in Africa and the ME, in order to "rule" over the dissent which is classical "divide and rule".* Today, all African dissenters, including some of Africa's own greedy corrupt leaders, are ALL tools. Endless wars, constant dissent. Insert "levers" of lies, mistrust... Create favorites: favoratism... Point the finger, everywhere else... *Divide and Rule.* Oldest trick in the book... Who wields the POWER? Who has had (in all historical cases in Africa and the ME) the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of being able to "reach" all the other little "buck catchers" (tools, and other Roman-era style instruments of POWER), but could not be "reached" itself, because of a geographical-, technological-, organisational-, military-, strategic-, political advantage at any given point of a historical timeline?
Probably it was not a matter of colonialism vs post colonialism era because both periods were dominated by the west. Even during the post colonialism era, the world order is still dominated by western economic and political powers, they can still leverage considerable influence on the developing world. So the solution is still pinging on whether the western powers can somehow be diminished in the future.
*The people of the Greater Middle East, including the Levant (most of whom are Semites, and the followers of Abrahamic religions) have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries.* Because it is easier to divide people based on personal differences, than it is to unite them, based on what they have in common. Strategically ambiguous rulers make use of this, for own advantages. In the era of empires, first Rome/Constantinople, then during WW1 the seat of POWER playing these games changed to London/Paris, then after the 1950's as European colonialism's power decreased, starting around the time a bark by Washington DC in 1956 (Suez Crisis/War) showed who the new boss was, the role of divider was simply taken over by Washington DC (the entire ME was the playground during the Cold War). Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in the ME, in order to "rule" over the dissent which is classical "divide and rule". Today, their leaders are ALL tools. Endless wars, constant dissent. Insert "levers" of lies, mistrust... Create favorites: favoritism... Point the finger, everywhere else... Divide and Rule. Oldest trick in the book... Who wields the POWER? Who has had (in all historical cases in the ME/Levant) the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of being able to reach all the other little buck catchers (tools, and other Roman-era style instruments of POWER), but could not be reached itself, because of a geographical-, technological-, organisational-, military-, strategic-, political advantage at any given point of a historical timeline?
Colonialism is never good for the colonised. He loses his life, his culture, his God, his language and traditions, his land, his minerals and other natural resources. He is degraded and becomes the wretched of the earth while his coloniser lives in luxury. All people are capable of developing normally. All they need is trade and exchange.
The people of the Americas (most of whom are Christians), including the USA, have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries. Because it is easier to divide people based on personal differences, than it is to unite them, based on what they have in common. Strategically ambiguous rulers make use of this, for own advantages. In the era of European Imperialism, first Spain and Portugal entered the Americas, employing the divide and rule technique of top-down power, then after 1900 as European colonial powers' influence decreased, the role of divider was simply taken over by Washington DC (the entire world was the playground after around 1900). *Today, it is the globalists who employ imperialist tools to play divide and rule games on their neighbors.* Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in the Americas, in order to rule over the dissent which is classical divide and rule. Today, their leaders are too weak to unite. Endless wars on anything and everything from "drugs" to "terror", constant dissent. Insert levers of lies, mistrust... Create favorites: favoritism... Point the finger, everywhere else... Divide and Rule. Oldest trick in the book... In February 1948, George F. Kennan's Policy Planning Staff said: "[W]e have about 50% of the world's wealth but only 6.3% of its population. ... Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity." [end of] And _that_ is what they did. America's friends and self-proclaimed default rivals in Europe are still being burnt to ensure this disparity continues. *Set up European and Eurasian nations (including the MENA region) against each other.* It is how divide and rule is implemented. The imperialist playbook of Great Britain and the USA for more than 100 years. Read Halford Mackinder (Pivot of History, 1904) and Zbigniew Brzezinski (Grand Chessboard, 1997) regarding Eurasia. Who wields the POWER? Who has had (in all historical cases in the ME/Levant) the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of being able to reach all the other little buck catchers (tools, and other Roman-era style instruments of POWER), but could not be reached itself, because of a geographical-, technological-, organizational-, military-, strategic-, political advantage at any given point of a historical timeline? *War is a great "divider."* It goes straight through the heads of millions and billions of people from the very top tiers, right down to the individual level. War divides alignments and alliances, goes straight through organizations, divides political parties, tears through peace movements and other families of humanity, and finally at the very bottom tier, goes straight through individual hearts and minds as individuals struggle with _themselves._ "Most of the great problems we face are caused by politicians creating solutions to problems they created in the first place." - Walter E. Williams That is what empires have always done. Create the *default rival/enemy.* It is usually the power most likely to succeed which is determined as the *default rival/enemy.* Notice how, as soon as a rival starts mass-producing products high up in the value chain of capitalism, and starts vying for markets, and becomes successful, it *immediately* becomes the systemic rival, and is then geopolitically encircled by the greater empire. It happened around 1900, as Germany started building high-value products, and it happened around 2000, as China started moving away from building cheap toys and labor intensive kitchen appliances... The games start on the home turf. The first victims are their own people.
There isn't any consistent evidence that proves colonialism is good since we can see modern Asian countries that never been colonised are doing relatively well, and many formerly colonised countries living in poverty.
NO! They came! They had their bible and We had our mountains We had our lakes We had our rivers We had our whenua/land! They told us! Close your eyes and Pray! So we closed our eyes and we Prayed! When we opened our eyes! They had our mountains They had our lakes They had our rivers And they had our whenua/land! And we had their bible! Way to go the People of United Kingdom! And WE/Maori can't be TRUSTED! Serious! 😅😅
Great points. There's a common idea that the modern ills of the postcolonial world are the result of inherent backwardness, while painting the colonial period as a minor historical blip that the colonized "should just get over", completely glossing over how critical the colonial period is in the molding of the modern societies and struggles of the postcolonies. Particularly the ethnic conflict is ironic, because not only can nearly every conflct be traced back to colonial policies to privilege certain groups over others, but the resulting strife is percieved to be a distinctly third world problem in modern times, when in fact it is distinctly European to divide politics along sectarian or ethnic lines, they did that by themselves during the early modern wars of religion and later 19th-20th century nationalist struggles, but because that (inherently genocidal) process ended with fully culturally homogeneous states, they can pretend like it never happened. African or Asian states descending into ethnic strife is not the failure of these societies to reach modernity, it is rather the necessary precondition to achieve the political model of the European historical experience of "modernity".
Also, i'm surprised you didn't mention economic underdevelopment! that was my first guess for pernicious legacies of colonialism lol
Thank you for your detailed response. I was just focused on the politics in this one. I do have quite a few other videos on economic and cultural aspects of colonization.
I’ve experienced exactly the kind of people you speak of (those who doubt the negative effects of colonization)! It’s certainly a difficult task to teach postcolonial theory in such a way that it is able to articulate, even to those not privy of the harms of colonialism, the injustices of colonialism throughout history. Thank you for making this pertinent lecture!
Thank you so much for your kind words. Yes, it is kind of hard to discuss with people who may not know much but have strong opinions.
Thank you sir, I always was aware of the consequences of colonialism , but I didn’t have the clear way to explain it , that you game me now.
You are most welcome
Sirji... I am an avid admirer of your bold words... But unfortunately, once you start seeing things in the order you have mentioned... The psychological trauma of seeing things so clearly has an even more negative effect, as I am filled with anger... I am from Bangladesh, but live in Berlin, Germany with a very kind friend from Thar, Pakistan...Who is a Hindu person, but one of the kindest persons I met in my life... I hope your kind words find its way to the hearts of the common people and reverse the anger among my people in Bangladesh/our greater subcontinent and help us all heal! Ya, Hussayin...Ya, Ali Madad... A brother from Dhaka, Bangladesh...
Thank you. Yes, I have a couple of videos where I have talked about our entire region coming back together one day. Wishful thinking maybe, but why not imagine a future like that. Can India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh Reunite? Let us Work Toward it!! South Asia Peace
th-cam.com/video/Jv-q2FyuuJg/w-d-xo.html
Sir you have simply and precisely pointed out the ills of Colonial rule. We value and appreciate your work. May ALLAH SWT bless you more.
Many many thanks
"Was Colonialism Good for the Colonized People?" This reminds of another similar question (with a similar answer) "Was slavery good for the enslaved people?"
You will be surprised how people still find time and energy arguing in favor of these things. Hence, my attempts at adding more and more knowledge.
@@masoodraja Unfortunately you are absolutely right. I know many of them, being myself from a colonizer country.
I actually see the first point of divide and rule in Africa especially as a concrete example in Somalia vs Ethiopia and Somalia vs Kenya. The British colony added one region of Somali territory to Ethiopia and other region to Kenya to create dispute and instability between them, so this issue is still persists.
Yes. Thank you for pointing that out.
As Somalis we also inherited the second point of top down systems.
Yes, the impact was multifaceted in most regions of Africa.
Thank you for the book recommendation
You are welcome.
*The people of the Africa have been "divided and ruled" over by outsiders for centuries.* Because it is easier to divide people based on personal differences, than it is to unite them, based on what they have in common. Strategically ambiguous rulers make use of this, for own advantages. In the era of empires, first Rome/Constantinople in North Africa, then during the era of Western imperialism the seat of POWER playing these games changed to the USA/Europe, then after the 1950's as European colonialism's power decreased, Africa was the "playground" during the Cold War. Moscow was taking on the role of arming the resistance.
*Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in Africa and the ME, in order to "rule" over the dissent which is classical "divide and rule".* Today, all African dissenters, including some of Africa's own greedy corrupt leaders, are ALL tools. Endless wars, constant dissent.
Insert "levers" of lies, mistrust...
Create favorites: favoratism...
Point the finger, everywhere else...
*Divide and Rule.*
Oldest trick in the book...
Who wields the POWER?
Who has had (in all historical cases in Africa and the ME) the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of being able to "reach" all the other little "buck catchers" (tools, and other Roman-era style instruments of POWER), but could not be "reached" itself, because of a geographical-, technological-, organisational-, military-, strategic-, political advantage at any given point of a historical timeline?
Thank you for sharing your thoughts.
Probably it was not a matter of colonialism vs post colonialism era because both periods were dominated by the west. Even during the post colonialism era, the world order is still dominated by western economic and political powers, they can still leverage considerable influence on the developing world. So the solution is still pinging on whether the western powers can somehow be diminished in the future.
Thank you. Yes, you are right. The global system is still lopsided. I address this in quite a few of my other videos.
Was cancer good for the patient?
Thank you. Please watch the whole video.
At colonized school I was taught that Captain James Cook discovered New Zealand but how could that be when New Zealand was already occupied?
Yes, that is colonial double-speak. To imagined inhabited places as empty.
*The people of the Greater Middle East, including the Levant (most of whom are Semites, and the followers of Abrahamic religions) have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries.* Because it is easier to divide people based on personal differences, than it is to unite them, based on what they have in common. Strategically ambiguous rulers make use of this, for own advantages. In the era of empires, first Rome/Constantinople, then during WW1 the seat of POWER playing these games changed to London/Paris, then after the 1950's as European colonialism's power decreased, starting around the time a bark by Washington DC in 1956 (Suez Crisis/War) showed who the new boss was, the role of divider was simply taken over by Washington DC (the entire ME was the playground during the Cold War).
Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in the ME, in order to "rule" over the dissent which is classical "divide and rule".
Today, their leaders are ALL tools.
Endless wars, constant dissent.
Insert "levers" of lies, mistrust...
Create favorites: favoritism...
Point the finger, everywhere else...
Divide and Rule.
Oldest trick in the book...
Who wields the POWER?
Who has had (in all historical cases in the ME/Levant) the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of being able to reach all the other little buck catchers (tools, and other Roman-era style instruments of POWER), but could not be reached itself, because of a geographical-, technological-, organisational-, military-, strategic-, political advantage at any given point of a historical timeline?
Thanks for your ideas.
Colonialism is never good for the colonised. He loses his life, his culture, his God, his language and traditions, his land, his minerals and other natural resources. He is degraded and becomes the wretched of the earth while his coloniser lives in luxury.
All people are capable of developing normally. All they need is trade and exchange.
Thank you. Yes, that is my point as well in the video.
Yes in Sudan it was.
The people of the Americas (most of whom are Christians), including the USA, have been divided and ruled over by outsiders for centuries.
Because it is easier to divide people based on personal differences, than it is to unite them, based on what they have in common.
Strategically ambiguous rulers make use of this, for own advantages. In the era of European Imperialism, first Spain and Portugal entered the Americas, employing the divide and rule technique of top-down power, then after 1900 as European colonial powers' influence decreased, the role of divider was simply taken over by Washington DC (the entire world was the playground after around 1900).
*Today, it is the globalists who employ imperialist tools to play divide and rule games on their neighbors.*
Now the intention is simply to avoid unity in the Americas, in order to rule over the dissent which is classical divide and rule.
Today, their leaders are too weak to unite.
Endless wars on anything and everything from "drugs" to "terror", constant dissent.
Insert levers of lies, mistrust...
Create favorites: favoritism...
Point the finger, everywhere else...
Divide and Rule.
Oldest trick in the book...
In February 1948, George F. Kennan's Policy Planning Staff said: "[W]e have about 50% of the world's wealth but only 6.3% of its population. ... Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity." [end of]
And _that_ is what they did.
America's friends and self-proclaimed default rivals in Europe are still being burnt to ensure this disparity continues.
*Set up European and Eurasian nations (including the MENA region) against each other.*
It is how divide and rule is implemented.
The imperialist playbook of Great Britain and the USA for more than 100 years. Read Halford Mackinder (Pivot of History, 1904) and Zbigniew Brzezinski (Grand Chessboard, 1997) regarding Eurasia. Who wields the POWER? Who has had (in all historical cases in the ME/Levant) the GEOGRAPHICAL ADVANTAGE of being able to reach all the other little buck catchers (tools, and other Roman-era style instruments of POWER), but could not be reached itself, because of a geographical-, technological-, organizational-, military-, strategic-, political advantage at any given point of a historical timeline?
*War is a great "divider."* It goes straight through the heads of millions and billions of people from the very top tiers, right down to the individual level. War divides alignments and alliances, goes straight through organizations, divides political parties, tears through peace movements and other families of humanity, and finally at the very bottom tier, goes straight through individual hearts and minds as individuals struggle with _themselves._
"Most of the great problems we face are caused by politicians creating solutions to problems they created in the first place." - Walter E. Williams
That is what empires have always done.
Create the *default rival/enemy.*
It is usually the power most likely to succeed which is determined as the *default rival/enemy.*
Notice how, as soon as a rival starts mass-producing products high up in the value chain of capitalism, and starts vying for markets, and becomes successful, it *immediately* becomes the systemic rival, and is then geopolitically encircled by the greater empire. It happened around 1900, as Germany started building high-value products, and it happened around 2000, as China started moving away from building cheap toys and labor intensive kitchen appliances...
The games start on the home turf. The first victims are their own people.
Thank you for sharing your thoughts.
There isn't any consistent evidence that proves colonialism is good since we can see modern Asian countries that never been colonised are doing relatively well, and many formerly colonised countries living in poverty.
Thank you. Please do watch the video, as I am not suggesting that colonialism was good.
It's discursive and arbitrary...
NO!
They came!
They had their bible and
We had our mountains
We had our lakes
We had our rivers
We had our whenua/land!
They told us!
Close your eyes and Pray!
So we closed our eyes and
we Prayed!
When we opened our eyes!
They had our mountains
They had our lakes
They had our rivers
And they had our whenua/land!
And we had their bible!
Way to go the People of United Kingdom!
And WE/Maori can't be TRUSTED! Serious! 😅😅
Love the Maori and their proud history.