Colonial dominance is wealth distribution and mass theft . This take is completely bunkum. Colonial India saw complete stagnation under the UK rule. GDP per capita didn't rise for 200 years and then rose immediately from 1948 on.
That wasn't his point, his point is that colonialism spreads some good ideas of the west,and this did happen, just research what sati is and how the British stopped this inhumane practice,and also English and train stations were built as well in India.
Yes, Colonialism is all bad. Imparting technological advances to neighbours is good, we should do that where possible. But asking if it is just to 'dominate other people' just because they eventually won independence and gained those same technological advances is silly. Railways and electricity doesn't justify war, terror, genocide, division and a legacy of avoidable conflicts which were only brought about by some white guy drawing a line on a map. We can enrich the world without abusing and extorting it.
I have to disagree with this. As a person living in a former colony, it takes just one look at the state of these nations to determine that the ideals of more wealth and better quality of life is a lie. Yes, the quality of life and health in the West has skyrocketed, but the places they pillaged and continue to exploit remain destitute. Colonialism and Capitalism has failed to develop and improve the lives of 99.9% of those living in Africa, Asia and Latin America. Creating wealth for the elites of the West is not the same as creating wealth for humanity. There is not a single example of a Capitalist former colony materially improving life for their citizens(barring petro states, but this is also not a sustainable system). They were never intended to be the beneficiaries of these systems, they were meant to be exploited. Many apologists use arguments that are either racist, demeaning or false (like the civilization progression scale, where societies are ranked on their progression on a linear tech tree) to justify the lack of positive results of these systems in the third world. If you honestly looked at the facts however, it becomes clear that the insane wealth of the USA and the Social Democracies of Europe are all funded by wealth that is extracted from the third world, who see none of the benefits.
@@ibrahimbello5546 seconded. colonialism and capitalism have had too great of an impact on the world to ignore or downplay the negative effects we experience.
I am sorry to say that unfortunately, colonialism is entirely bad even if every culture has done it because in order to be at the top and flourish, someone had to be at the bottom and die...so there. You cannot say that colonialism is okay because you have reaped great benefits. I'm sure that slave owners saw great benefits in owning slaves, but that was not the case for the slaves. As long as someone is oppressed...then the system is not good...so I guess the entire planet is not good since every culture, as you said, has practiced colonialism...but thank you for sharing your thoughts.
Just because someone else is slaving more people than you and for longer time it doesn't mean you're not to blame for doing the same on a lesser scale, scapegoat right there
Do you do realize that you are anybody has zero responsibility for what other people did in the past. That make sense to? You're probably also unaware that less than 5% of all Americans had anything to do with slavery? That includes black Americans.
Reminds me of some fellow germans which argue that the third reich wasn't entirely bad because they build highways and made some german companies big players till today...
could you explain why i couldnt use this line of reasoning like "my parents abused me but i ended up a better person than i mightve been otherwise. this is my case for child abuse" ?
@@nagyonbalogh sure but the core idea is really just "the ends somewhat justify the means" in either case, i think you'd have to demonstrate why the outcome somewhat redeems the negative means in the case of territory but not in that of childrearing beyond just the fact that they're different
Also depends on what you define as abuse. Spankings are useful and necessary. Using objects and leaving marks on the body, etc. is definitely abusive and taking discipline too far. Are you spanking or yelling at the child for running across the street without looking when there was a car coming and they scared you into imagining the worst case scenario of what could have just happened - in which case you’re likely to learn from the experience to not make a possibly fatal mistake like that in the future, or did they hit you out of anger alone, and much too hard or often, because they were pissed off that you broke something of theirs that may or may not have been irreplaceable, or they’re an alcoholic, or they’re simply in a really bad mood - none of which excuse the action taken on their part. (I just don’t like spankings in general being labeled as abuse. Each child is different as far as how much they test boundaries or act out in socially unacceptable ways. Some might just need an explanation to understand why certain expectations are in place. That tends to be the case for the eldest child.)
They stopped highly ritualized human sacrifice of a limited number of people by *checks notes* sacrificing 90% of the population and razing their cities to the ground. Intervening in a nation to stop barbaric practices does not work. Materially enriching the people always works, funny how Europe did none of that
The German kasier made the argument that all the postive affects of colonialism well hapen naturally with trade communication and the free market, instead of force. There is a difference between colonialism and imperialism, the romans were cultural imperialistic, but they weren't racists, usually they would synchronize other religions, and latanize other languages, but after a few generations the people would be considerd to be their fellow romans, whereas with Victorian colonialism there is this inherent caste system, and a lot of the colonial rulers would mismanage resources, and it's more parasitic instead of symbiotic.
@@James12361lmfao so what then? Why are are you making this comment? Are you actually advocating for colonialism? Forceful, thieving, exploitative, abusing, hateful, racist, supremacist, raping & genocidal ? And saying it works? And it’s better and should be done or was right to be done? You need to get checked into a mental hospital or put on a watchlist if so.
Well it's also a morally religious issue: the Spanish held on to their colonies for so long because their morality didn't even make them think of these territories as "colonies" in the way we think of them today. They saw them as Viceroyalties and many European settlers even married natives, especially at the top level. Colonies (as in resource extraction and opression of natives) occured in modern, secular, colonialism. Think Africa and Asia.
The atrocities that the British did in India (e.g. enginnered famines), the genocide the Belgians carried out in the Congo, the trans-Atlantic slave trade - these are not things to be excused simply because allegedly some other slave trade was marginally worse. All imperialism has to be opposed, not only the Western one, yeah - the Arabs, the Ottomans, Tbe Soviets, the Japanese and the Chinese have all done unspeakable things. But can we not use false and tired arguments along the lines of "they brought civilisation to these place" when in reality the real living conditions of many people worsened aftee colonization. It is absurd that a random guy with no expertise on history can sit here and talk about things he clearly has no understanding of and people watch and shape their opinions based on him.
I don't think it's at all ethical to take a consequentialist perspective on slavery as a whole, much less on the transatlantic slave trade. The question of whether or not any good has come from colonialism (in the cases of America and Britain it's just imperialism) must take into account every experience of colonialism in its answer. Developed countries have grown and continue to grow richer at the economic deficit and active harm of developing countries, all as a result of colonial gain. Yes, *we*, the global north, have statistically higher life expectancies, GDP, and populations due to advances afforded to us by colonialism, but impoverished nations dealing with the aftermath of systemic exploitation face persistent instability in basic human rights defined by the UDHR: equality, a reasonable standard of living, life and liberty, and freedom from slavery.
Nope. This falls into the category of assuming you know what’s better for other people. There is a good reason why it’s illegal for a doctor to perform a procedure on a patient who doesn’t want it whether the doctor knows that it would be beneficial in his or her own opinion or even potentially life saving.
If those people are uncivilized people, like arabs or africans, then it's a moral obligation for you, who are more rational, more inteligente and more developed, to bring that development to those people who are oppressed by the ignorance of their society and the society itself. Liberty is a value that should be exported by any means needed.
Saying colonialism isn't that bad because all cultures dud it is like saying domestic violence isn't all bad because all cultures tolerated it . Disengenious incoherent Argument
I completely disagree, but especially the slave take is really shitty. The transatlantic slave trade was famous for being so unbelievably brutal, it's not comparable with things like the Ottoman, roman or whatever slave system. Slaves were literally allowed to change their owners in the ottoman empire, if they treated them badly, if the owner didn't comply, they were allowed to escape, tho they had to go back to a slave trader, who then would have traded them off to a different person. Still bad, but not comparable with the transatlantic. And what about things like the british raj, kongo free-state, french indo-china, deutsch-Südwestafrika, and so on and so forth? All of those colonies were extremely inhumane, and killed thousands if not some even millions alone, but ey they got railways and stuff, am i right? :D
Other slaver societies allowed slaves to become kings and at least saw them as humans, European slavers thrown "unwanted" black slaves into the ocean when transporting+ they cutoff the arms and legs of "unproductive" slaves + they killed little black children because of their enslaved parents and put them in zoos. All the people who bring up the Arab or African slave trade are f*cking idiots
I agree with most of what you're saying, but in my eyes the absolutely horrendous things that countries like Britain, Spain, France, and later the US have done to the native people of their colonies completely overshadow any technological or societal advancements. Yeah, having up to date medical and educational facilities is amazing, but you don't have to subjugate the people who live somewhere for centuries to bring that to them
I agree..however, there has to be a way to advance in technology and medicine without committing genocide or violating human rights...just saying...and I agree with what you said too.
The West has evolved and learned, that's what matters. If you look at the glass half full, the descendants of the past victims of Western colonialism, is now living in a much more peaceful world, filled with technological and economical advancements.
@@DanskadrengThe issue with this thought process is that it ends up minimising the extent of colonial brutality no matter how lightly you attempt to present it. The brutality and subjugation of other human beings to benefit the interests of colonial powers I'd argue outweighs any sort of technological progress which would likely spread to these nations without colonialism from humanity simply becoming more connected worldwide
@@funny3591 I'm not denying the brutality, nor that it could have been done in a more humane way. Almost no one is supporting it in todays world, but being hung up on past injustices when none of the perpetrators are alive, makes no sense to me. All of this greed and ultra nationalism led to the two world wars in my opinion, and we suffered greatly, and learned greatly for our past failures. We learned so much that we're today some of the most peaceful societies on Earth, and actively helping other people in some parts of the world. It was another time, with another mentality, a mentality that has surely been adapted due to the hardships and dangers of the those times and the times that came before it.
Asia is the same. Colonization isn't really a thing in asia and yet they flourished for thousands of years without western intervention. I'd argue they became worse because of it.
@@James12361 The IQ was high in India that's why India had great architecture, mathematics, medicine, ayurveda, yoga, meditation, philosophy, 4 native religions and on record history of 5000 years.
Believe me the effect of the transatlantic slave trade is still felt till this day. There is a saying that before colonialism, Africans weren't poor. Lastly, it did more harm than good in many countries like Democratic Republic of Congo and countries like Ethiopia weren't colonised but still have the same level of development as those that were
@@billikpe2718 no need for me to explain, go and educate yourself. If you think western values are equivalent to others in world your wrong. But if you don’t like it, guess what you can surely leave to some sort of 3rd world country
Sorry, you are not qualified enough to comment on this. You have to do EXTENSIVE RESEARCH on colonialism, read about the wealth extraction, inhuman behaviour towards the colonized groups, random mass shootings on unarmed individuals, man- made famines on the colonized countries, chopping of fingers of local weavers to take over their business,.... It's not just a black & white history that you think it is.
You are right.. Jallainwala bagh massacre, bengal famine, heavy tax imposition on indians, forced opium and indigo farming, christian conversions, imposing english language system in education, massive loots ,etc. Guy in the video is not aware of these. He is far short of reality. Also India has never invaded any nation. Welcomed every culture and ethinicity... So to colonize is not a human nature like he said.
@@deeptiupadhyay133 As there is a saying, little knowledge is dangerous, these TH-camrs should seriously do extensive research when they are talking about sensitive topics. But unfortunately....🤷🏻♀️
@@mundane2macabre You don't need to agree to reality...it is what it is...but I too will defend your right to post this because you have the right to your opinion.
theres some confusion here....when most people speak about colonialism today, its inherently understood that are we talking about european colonialism. so its a bit of a cop out to make the cliche rebuttal about "man kind has dominated each other throughout its entire history" when its contextually understood we are talking about european colonialism sp[ecifically. a thing that happened not that long ago, is well documented, and most places of the world are still feeling the effects of, which brings us back to why its at the forefront when the word is used also, the good things about colonialism such as commerce, trade, development etc are all things that can happen regardless, rather then as a consequence of why colonialism has a negative connotation; one group brutalized, and killed off a good chunk of another group in order for said colonies to have existed. perhaps you can make the argument that colonialism jump starts these positives but i cant see a case for "colonialism isnt ALL bad" unless youre the colonizer or descendant of them
Rare Anti.Prophet L I mean this lightly, love your work. Regardless, as being someone from a colony, all I see is a copy pasted culture & by extension cuz others understand its foreign, its unwanted, & due to the loss of traditional religion & culture (at least practically), we get a blank & atheist society. Yes, my country is rich, but everyone south is poor, & the north is still a colony. Yes, America. I dont understand what good colonization brought besides the end of the Aztekah (Spain was equally as bad by native testimony).
I would argue what you’re describing is more of an example of God taking something bad and using it for good rather than the actual colonialism being good itself
There are an awful lot of people that are forgetting that the United States of America was not just a colony, but a whole mess of colonies of a number of different countries, and everything here was stolen from the indigenous peoples, then the colonists threw of their own yoke of colonialism. Irish and Scots suffering indentured servitude to escape famine? French doing the same too escape guillotines? Italians, Germans and Slavic people escaping crushing imperialism? Any of this sound familiar? Perhaps there isn't any of us qualified to judge the next as a sinner or a saint, rather we should look inside to do some judgement.
While nothing is black and white, a Caucasian male living in the economic north may not know or could understand this but a lot of nations and people were happier before colonialism than after even with medicine. And the scars of colonialism are still bleeding today in warring/fail states. You need to read AND get out more!
I get the point but I doubt he's Caucasian. That means from the areas around the Caucus mountains, so Armenia, Georgia, Azerbaijan and certain part of Turkey, Iran and Russia
@@osheridan yeah, there are 3 definitions according to Google which covers both of our usage but tbh I only used it because I didn't want to have two different usage of the word 'white' in the same sentence.
@@otherperson yep apparently non-european slavers are more "brutal" even tho history states otherwise. Slaves In Other cultures can become kings and important figures when Europeans didn't even see them as humans
@@sgtanous4782Europeans forced kids in the Caribbeans to be worked to death in sugar plantations under scorching suns until their intestines were fried. It didn’t help the fact that they didn’t see dark skinned people as humans so the atrocities didn’t even phase them
As with everything in life, it has advantages and disadvantages. But the thing is the Ends never justify the means. So today, colonialism is hardly justified, such as communism, but it's undeniable that some groups of people still have unacceptable societal norms that we have to decide if we should impose our "Superior" view on them, and as such, using colonialism. China still uses slave labor (though hidden), and still wants to invade and conquer Taiwan and the rest of its neighbors. The question is, do we care? US did care in Afghanistan, before abandoning and letting it go back to how it was 20 years ago. That's something that revolts me because in the end, it only spreads suffering. Or don't invade and let it be whatever it is, or finish the job.
The slave trade in West Africa of black Africans was actually significantly less bad than chattel slavery of black Africans by Europeans, especially in the new world. Slaves in West Africa had more legal and ecenomic rights as well as not being considered subhuman socially. They weren't free, but they were more like indentured servants than chattel.
1 - No good sources because the African Trade slave mostly comes from the univerasal trait of slavery, which is "ownership" and seldom. Than the spike became larger when other nations employed natives to sell them slaves. Which most were destroyed cuz thats slavery for you. 2 - the "arab" slave trade probably means the Islamic slave trade, because the euroasian muslisms and Christian europe were at war for about 800+ years, on and off, they had an effective slave trade. The Marcie trade, is the biggest. And that pales in comparison to the TransAtlantic
Domination is applying power to have others do what you want. That is the goal. The colonizers didn’t show up because they wanted to make the colony a better place for its inhabitants. The goal was to extract riches and expand territory, i.e. to increase their power. Benefits you see today in prior colonies was paid with subservience and diminished freedoms, as well as erosion of culture and language. The West is not the be-all-and-end-all of global society, although it has its perks.
Inaccurate and/or wrong. See slavery in ancient Roman empire, and medieval collapse. We are nowhere near the prosperity and culture before the medieval collapse when averaged over the populace. See the new findings of the ancient sites in Turkey for example. Colonialism only brings chaos and cultural collapse in the end, and it happened many times in the history. Like healthy human brain, a healthy human culture needs multicultural mix, and colonialism of any kind is equivalent to mental ilness.
The down side of colonialism is that the people before had a culture, had a past, had land to call there own for their community is take from then from a force that just has military power over them.The people who were dominated never asked from western commodities, they were doing just fine on their own. So is the loss of all those unique cultures and ways of life really worth the western benefits? Medical care you said? Western food full of grease and chemicals? There are tribal people in the Amazon who know better then western doctors what plants to use to treat there medical problems. And many others too . The come of the western men only brought the downside of a society that was in their right doing good in their own land. The west has not monopoly on spreading “welfare”, “healthcare” and certainly not on spreading a force on “culture”. The only thing colonialism is doing is trying to conform indigenous people into a western form. Look at South Africa before the Dutch/ English came , look at AU with the Aboriginals, NZ Maori, Arabs (Oman)in Africa etc … We need to stop thinking that the west has all the answers and justify the invasion by bs reasonings that somehow westerners are the savior of those poor indigenous people . Ugly Truth is All invaded nations are just the victim on a geographic stratego game played by those in power to get more grip in a certain region of the world and not because we care about bringing western benefits to those countries. If everyone just stayed in their own house minding their own businesses the world would be a whole different place.
To make a case against progress simply by stating that "it's always been like that, egoism, domination and colonialism are just human nature", you are completely ignoring the fact that we evolved from people living in caves to a complex world nurturing literally billions of people and trying to coexist with intelligent social constructs on this planet. It is just as human to try and make the world a better place for all of us, and we should never only try to lookout for ourselves. Yes, historically, wars have been part of our journey as well, still are and will probably still be a part of it for a long time. But that doen't mean that we should think about colonialism as an example as the gateway to our modern world, there's so much more work involved. Being kind to others and trying to coexist literally is the foundation to our modern, globalized world and wealth.
I think this video is really deceiving, painting itself in a positive light. You can say that good things came from wars, like how the US had economic booms directly after the world wars (the depression came right after but that’s neither here nor there) but it doesn’t make it good, or even semi-positive. Yes, good things eventually come from colonialism, but only after people are forced to fight for years against it. And the good that happens probably would’ve happened far earlier had the colonists instead allied with their opponents rather than just taking over. There is no true benefit to the act of colonization that wouldn’t come through other, less horrific means
Domination ≠ Colonialism If one county makes other countries their subordinates or captures the land of other countries, that's fine, that's what he is talking about. But colonialism is to turn a colony's people into inferior to subordinates to the colonizer's superior people, in the process erasing the original culture and traditions by giving the argument that the colony's people are barbarians, uncivilized and inferior to the colonizers, that their lives don't matter. It's in some sense worse than slavery, because atleast slaves get to keep their culture alive, like the Romanis for example. I'd go as far as to say it's like defending Nazism.
You're basically using imperialism to mean colonialism. Imperialism is domination of a people different from yourself. Colonialism is when that domination is done for the purpose of extracting as much wealth as possible from a place in order to ingratiate the homeland. The goal is exploitation rather than absorption. Historically nobody has done this more than Western Countries. Japan might be a close second. Any other similarly large polities had the goal of absorption and earned their cruelty through their effectiveness on the battlefield rather than their ability to industrialize the suffering of whole regions for wealth.
@@mudra5114 Colonialism was not about extraction of wealth? Other than infrastructure necessary for said extraction, virtually all western activity in their colonies was based entirely around extraction of resources which went foremost to the enrichment of the mother country. Plantations growing cash crops and run by low paid (or enslaved) populations who were disallowed from growing food for themselves were operated in order to send virtually all those cash crops to Europe for processing into goods. There are extremely few examples of colonies not established for the express purpose of resource extraction for the generation of wealth in Europe. Any exceptions were either coerced explotative ecenomic relationships (spheres of influence and factories) or military infrastructure to defend the latter two.
@@benjaminashbaugh6761 What you are saying is completely false. What you say maybe true for the Caribean islands but not Africa or Asia. This was definitely not true for India and most African countries.
@@mudra5114 I was actually referring specifically to India, Asia, and Africa. In India factories (exclusive trade zones) were established in defeated cities where the local market would be exploited into selling to whatever European power operated that zone. This would often be at significantly lower prices, and that power would have exclusive rights to a certain share of the trade. Later, when all the governments of the subcontinent had been effectively dissolved under the Raj, the British government forced plantations to operate for cotton and opium. These farmers were barely paid, forced to grow that cash crop, forbidden from growing edible crops (which made them susceptible to famine), and their products would be immediately taken back to Europe to be made into manufactured good which would seldom return to Indian markets. The rail systems and infrastructure in India revolved around the extraction of these resources. They supported the colonists necessary to keep the East India Company's machine running, and everything and everyone else was merely an afterthought. In Afghanistan the British used it as an opium plantation with similarly exploitive practices as well as essentially using the land as a military buffer between Russia and the Raj. In China spheres of influence with similar coercive practices as in factories were established where the aforementioned opium was used to trade for good from China which immediately went to Europe. They literally colonized a place just to grow opium and then sold that opium to a place they defeated in a war and forced them to accept that opium as payment (they wanted silver) to extract their resources which were taken to Europe and seldom returned to the Chinese market. In Africa it was even more cut and dried. Cotton, coffee, cocoa, and rubber were cash crops grown by slaves or poorly paid workers who again were forbidden from growing their own sustenance crops and had no rights to what they produced, instead having it all taken from the content to be processed in Europe. Metals and diamonds were mined under similarly near-slavery conditions and went virtually entirely to the wealthy aristocrats who owned shares in the company that ran the colonies. As in India, the infrastructure in Africa was intended to support the extraction of resources and all personnel necessary for that task. Any benefit gleaned by locals was an exception to the rule and an afterthought to the European powers. In the case of the Congo, probably the most extreme case but still a very widespread one, the land was personally owned by King Leopold, produced rubber and cocoa that furnished Brussels and Antwerp as some of the wealthiest cities on the content, committed genocide against the population enslaved to extract these resources, and built virtually no infrastructure other than what was necessary to extract the raw materials and provide amenities for those overseeing that extraction.
@@benjaminashbaugh6761 What you wrote is pure bullshit. India Industrialised enormously during the British Empire, indeed the Industrial Revolution reached India before Japan and China. Farmers were not forced to grow opium, the farmers wanted to grow opium because it made them more profit. Opium was a state monopoly of the earlier Mughal Government of India which the East India Company Goverment inherited. The ones forcing the farmers to grow opium were Indian contractors and it is to stop the exploitation, the British Imperial Government Nationalised the opium system with permits, for which the farmers fought over. Cotton??? LOL. Indian cotton was hardly used in the factories of England, most of the cotton came from the USA and Egypt. Indian cotton was used extensively during the U.S civil war as cotton supply from the US South was broken. Most of those exporting the cotton were Indian merchants. Railways were built to fight famines, not for resources. This extraction of wealth was a lie. As far as Africa, West African economies collapsed as the Royal Navy banned export of slaves. But to ban slavery completely the region's had to be conquered by Europeans as most African powers would not give up slavery. Cash crops were introduced to give an alternative to the slave trade and improve local economies. No one was forced, why do you need to force, when farmers would make more money? Farmers want to make more money given the chance. The quality of life in West Africa improved with European Empires.
easy to say from the usa there LOL but reality is that the world dose not share your POV on what the west has done , you can look at the postives or shrug the whole thing off but we will never forget
How is dominance of others human nature? What's fundamental about humanity and at the core of our survival isn't our ability to control others. If that was true i couldn't survive unless there was someone for me to control. What's fundamentally human about us is our ability to shape the world around us and use nature to better our own lives. We do this by utilizing our faculty of reason. We can only reason because of our unique ability to form concepts, or think conceptually. Countries that flourish are unique in the fact, not that they conquer other nations and exploit them, but that they recognize individual rights and their citizens are free to pursue their personal values under the protection of a government that has a monopoly on the use of force and then uses that power to protect individual rights from threats both foreign and domestic (police force & military & court system). That's the complete opposite of being dominated.
your argument is almost like someone saying rape is not entirely bad. Some women who were raped became stronger and became successful because of that incident. but rape is still bad. Now with colonialism something good may have come out of it but its still bad
Brilliant analogy! I'll add 'its like saying rape is good because it allow for biological diversity because she will have a child with a man she wouldn't under normal circumstances have sex with'
You're being "ethically" dominated by the top 1% and you don't even realize it. Colonialism was but isn't the issue anymore. It has evolved into something else entirely.
Have to disagree. - You look at colonialism based on the impact of those who have been colonized, and how they have been exploited. India, for example, did not benefit. Yes, they inherited the structures...but people keep forgetting that they adopted and took over...that is, they were capable from the beginning. China did not benefit from imperial Japan's colonialism. Africa still suffers from French colonialism. - No, the North American plantation slavery was as bad as it could get. The Arab slave trade was very much like the Roman one. For example, there was upward mobility. In the Arab case, slaves eventually took over the empire. Slaves could, oddly, earn more than their masters. Those were edge cases, to be sure, but it doesn't really point to a prolonged and brutal slave trade. And most importantly: it wasn't based on a notion of racial supremacy, so the legacy isn't a factor in the post-slavery arab world. The closest you'd get to the brutality of plantation slavery is slavery in the salt mines, and that didn't last nearly as long and didn't have the same scope.
BS. Like exporting good ideas and economic inventions requires domination over someone else. Most of the improvement in this world went outside of colonialism and in most cases wherever people stick to colonialism progress gets hindered or halted completely.
While I agree that humans have tendency to dominant other, but I think the net product of European Colonialism is negative. They created havoc in the land they colonized. we face that consequence till now. See Africa, middle east and Indian Subcontinent for example. and I think colonialism you are taking about American Colonialism which started after 1945. It has helped many nation in science and technology. But overall affect is neutral , because their policy of destabilizing their adversary and concerning nation has negative affect on World. example Rise of Jihadism .
As a guy living in a post colonial country, colonialism has its positives, fact is if it wasnt for European takeover we wouldnt be united, some infrastructure would just not exist, some laws would be just plain silly and democracy probably wouldnt have taken root as the former aristocracy were pretty entrenched to then be replaced with the universally despised imperialists which led to more republican leanings than monarchic. However, it cannot be understated that the human cost was paid in millions of lives and we lost a lot of potential progress because of colonialism. It is becausr of European influence that some regions remain poor and exploited to this day. We also lost a lot of cultural progress. For many in the west culture is thought to be more like movies, books, and other things that would be able to be marketed around the world and leave a cultural imprint on its consumers. Here we dont have any of that. There is no classical literature attributed to our nation. Although I do agree that there are good outcomes to domination of tribes and peoples. Without Rome Europe would be much more insulated and fractured as opposed today where Roman influence and legacy drove Charlemagne and others like him to create empires and laws that imitate Roman law and order. As such, they fracture leavibg organised states with grievances with each other and as such caused so much European competition with each other which led to many innovative ways to wage war, extract taxes as efficiently as possible and a social structure that would leave then fielding bigger and better militaries which would fund more scientific advances and yadda yadda yadda, you get my point. All (arguably) because of Rome Damn that came out very rambly but just wanted to get my thoughts out there.
Dah saim kenbi sedda bout neting Allâh can put blessings in anything Butwei shoodnt drink alldah koolaide ¿Wat, if anything, kenwei lurn frum r oppressers?
I think you're confusing the source of wealth and life improvement. It's not because of colonialism, it's despite it. Standards of living would be much higher without domination of other cultures. Colonial actions move wealth, they don't create it. In fact, the nature of violent colonialism destroys much of the wealth it seeks to take. It is through cooperation that we build wealth. That is the basis of humanity's survival.
You’re not taking into account the fact that our current economic system, imposed by our western countries, has already launched a mass extinction, and will probably lead to our own species’ extinction as well. Not that I think you’re the type of person who would listen to that feedback (you literally sound like the superficial opinions I had when I was 12 years old, and I have no idea how a grown man could still just be parroting establishment ideas instead of at least exploring their nuances, many of which contradict the very free market texts they claim to be based on). But for anyone else who finds this channel, hopefully this comment will at least do something.
You get to not feel guilty as a US or Australian citizen because the native population was ALMOST COMPLETELY WIPED OUT. That doesn't make it ok, it just means that there is no one to hold you accountable for settling by force. And really, do you not see the hypocrisy in this? USA still has days to remember 9/11 and pearl Harbor as "great tragedies" while you choose to forget that colonialism has a higher death toll on any country than all such incidents combined. Then there is loss of wealth and continued divide between rich and poor which furthers the exploitation. So yes, western countries need to be ashamed of this part of their history because their prosperity was literally built off of theft and exploitation. And if you don't have it in you to acknowledge that then at the very least stop spouting nonsense like this.
This might be the worst take ive ever seen. At no point do you ever understand that in order to ever justify any part of colonialism, you have to remove slavery from the argument because if you do not do that you make an argument for slavery. Instead, you have to bring up slavery because you know its actually impossible not to, and justify slavery by downplaying its significant by pointing to African and Arab slavery as worse, which being a smart person, you know is not the same type of slavery that colonialism is referring to. by trying to play the enlightened centrist, you end up making a pro trans atlantic slavery argument, by saying it brought people technology. Pangloss. no wonder you call yourself a anti prophet. you should not be listened to by anyone.
Buddy it's you, what you stand for, oh so glorious king of complacency, preach something consistent, please, but you swing back and forth on different features of the same twisted system which made the American psyche. End the new guided age, our people's freedom lies in wait
Dude, there is like a dozen dumb things you said in so little. Kinda a skill really. 1 - Colonialism would be against any independence movement.. they are.. colonialism doesn't create colonies to have to go free later. Colonialism would fight against it because their goal with starting it, is to keep it and expand. 2 - canada and Australia both seen total genocides as their independence movements. The only reasons they attained such is due to a failing Britian and mistreated as a contentent. 3 - Ancient Egypt was a capital of human invention and culture, when it was colonized, it was destroyed and has never recovered due to one or another issue. 4 - Malta was colonized, but not subject to colonialism. It shares history, land and people with both english and french. 5 - spingapore and hong kong have been threated with war today, because China is so heavily invested in their anti-freedom. They demand they stay colonies and since Hong Kong's absorption, its nearly fucking dead as country.
that stupid dude colonialism will never be justified and about the Arab colonialism , you have no idea what are you talking about I like your vlogs but this one was just absurd
You are totally right. It goes further, colonialism was very good for the countries that embraced the values given by the west. It brought wealth, development and organization.
so the eggs are people not of your own race/ethnic group/nationality/etc...right? easy for you to say...hopefully the children of your children will never become the eggs.
Not entirely bad for you but worse for the people who were the receiving end. Infact colonialism hurt you more than you think, and why your society is going down the drain has a connection to it.
Colonial dominance is wealth distribution and mass theft . This take is completely bunkum. Colonial India saw complete stagnation under the UK rule. GDP per capita didn't rise for 200 years and then rose immediately from 1948 on.
That wasn't his point, his point is that colonialism spreads some good ideas of the west,and this did happen, just research what sati is and how the British stopped this inhumane practice,and also English and train stations were built as well in India.
@@red._-hh7fd english was built in india lol
@@pauldaniels2179wrong grammar and wrong history, Britain was already rich before hand,
Then why wasn’t india rich before the UK came in
@@lybnychavez6953 why dam it lol
Yes, Colonialism is all bad. Imparting technological advances to neighbours is good, we should do that where possible. But asking if it is just to 'dominate other people' just because they eventually won independence and gained those same technological advances is silly. Railways and electricity doesn't justify war, terror, genocide, division and a legacy of avoidable conflicts which were only brought about by some white guy drawing a line on a map.
We can enrich the world without abusing and extorting it.
There's a huge difference between immigration & international aid and colonialism
I have to disagree with this. As a person living in a former colony, it takes just one look at the state of these nations to determine that the ideals of more wealth and better quality of life is a lie. Yes, the quality of life and health in the West has skyrocketed, but the places they pillaged and continue to exploit remain destitute. Colonialism and Capitalism has failed to develop and improve the lives of 99.9% of those living in Africa, Asia and Latin America. Creating wealth for the elites of the West is not the same as creating wealth for humanity. There is not a single example of a Capitalist former colony materially improving life for their citizens(barring petro states, but this is also not a sustainable system). They were never intended to be the beneficiaries of these systems, they were meant to be exploited.
Many apologists use arguments that are either racist, demeaning or false (like the civilization progression scale, where societies are ranked on their progression on a linear tech tree) to justify the lack of positive results of these systems in the third world. If you honestly looked at the facts however, it becomes clear that the insane wealth of the USA and the Social Democracies of Europe are all funded by wealth that is extracted from the third world, who see none of the benefits.
One of the most intelligent replies I have seen on the internet. Congrats sir / ma'am.
the video uploader is coping really bad for his failing nation and his failing people hahaha
@@ibrahimbello5546 seconded. colonialism and capitalism have had too great of an impact on the world to ignore or downplay the negative effects we experience.
@@parcheeesy the people who downplay it are those who it benefited.
Most Hispanic countries are not capitalist. Most hispanic countries lean left in economics.
I am sorry to say that unfortunately, colonialism is entirely bad even if every culture has done it because in order to be at the top and flourish, someone had to be at the bottom and die...so there. You cannot say that colonialism is okay because you have reaped great benefits. I'm sure that slave owners saw great benefits in owning slaves, but that was not the case for the slaves. As long as someone is oppressed...then the system is not good...so I guess the entire planet is not good since every culture, as you said, has practiced colonialism...but thank you for sharing your thoughts.
Just because someone else is slaving more people than you and for longer time it doesn't mean you're not to blame for doing the same on a lesser scale, scapegoat right there
Or maybe he’s saying wake up to reality lol. Point went way over your head
Yeah you missed the second half of the video it seems
Do you do realize that you are anybody has zero responsibility for what other people did in the past. That make sense to?
You're probably also unaware that less than 5% of all Americans had anything to do with slavery? That includes black Americans.
Damn, youre a special one. Did you just not listen to anything he said or are you incapable of understanding what he said.
Only the west is held to this standard its anti whiteness in disguise.
Reminds me of some fellow germans which argue that the third reich wasn't entirely bad because they build highways and made some german companies big players till today...
could you explain why i couldnt use this line of reasoning like "my parents abused me but i ended up a better person than i mightve been otherwise. this is my case for child abuse" ?
Because a child and a society are very different things. As is childrearing and administration of a territory.
@@nagyonbalogh sure but the core idea is really just "the ends somewhat justify the means" in either case, i think you'd have to demonstrate why the outcome somewhat redeems the negative means in the case of territory but not in that of childrearing beyond just the fact that they're different
@@nagyonbaloghno a child and society is much the same it needs nurturing and care for it to grow just as a society does
Because now you get to compare with us islanders in the playground the ass beating you got from your parents 😂🤣 See? Unity 🤝 😂🤣
Also depends on what you define as abuse. Spankings are useful and necessary. Using objects and leaving marks on the body, etc. is definitely abusive and taking discipline too far. Are you spanking or yelling at the child for running across the street without looking when there was a car coming and they scared you into imagining the worst case scenario of what could have just happened - in which case you’re likely to learn from the experience to not make a possibly fatal mistake like that in the future, or did they hit you out of anger alone, and much too hard or often, because they were pissed off that you broke something of theirs that may or may not have been irreplaceable, or they’re an alcoholic, or they’re simply in a really bad mood - none of which excuse the action taken on their part.
(I just don’t like spankings in general being labeled as abuse. Each child is different as far as how much they test boundaries or act out in socially unacceptable ways. Some might just need an explanation to understand why certain expectations are in place. That tends to be the case for the eldest child.)
Stopping the human sacrifices in South America was undeniably a good thing - I only wish that Europe came peacefully without slavery
They stopped highly ritualized human sacrifice of a limited number of people by *checks notes* sacrificing 90% of the population and razing their cities to the ground.
Intervening in a nation to stop barbaric practices does not work. Materially enriching the people always works, funny how Europe did none of that
To be replaced by forcing huge amounts of people at gun point to work as slaves mining silver :)
Oh I agree, that's absolutely awful. But white people murdered millions in return so... are you guys really the good guys here?
The German kasier made the argument that all the postive affects of colonialism well hapen naturally with trade communication and the free market, instead of force. There is a difference between colonialism and imperialism, the romans were cultural imperialistic, but they weren't racists, usually they would synchronize other religions, and latanize other languages, but after a few generations the people would be considerd to be their fellow romans, whereas with Victorian colonialism there is this inherent caste system, and a lot of the colonial rulers would mismanage resources, and it's more parasitic instead of symbiotic.
True and yes you are right.
The Roman form doesn’t work
@@James12361lmfao so what then? Why are are you making this comment? Are you actually advocating for colonialism? Forceful, thieving, exploitative, abusing, hateful, racist, supremacist, raping & genocidal ? And saying it works? And it’s better and should be done or was right to be done? You need to get checked into a mental hospital or put on a watchlist if so.
Who cares about racism, European Imperialism brought a lot of benefits.
Well it's also a morally religious issue: the Spanish held on to their colonies for so long because their morality didn't even make them think of these territories as "colonies" in the way we think of them today. They saw them as Viceroyalties and many European settlers even married natives, especially at the top level.
Colonies (as in resource extraction and opression of natives) occured in modern, secular, colonialism. Think Africa and Asia.
The atrocities that the British did in India (e.g. enginnered famines), the genocide the Belgians carried out in the Congo, the trans-Atlantic slave trade - these are not things to be excused simply because allegedly some other slave trade was marginally worse. All imperialism has to be opposed, not only the Western one, yeah - the Arabs, the Ottomans, Tbe Soviets, the Japanese and the Chinese have all done unspeakable things. But can we not use false and tired arguments along the lines of "they brought civilisation to these place" when in reality the real living conditions of many people worsened aftee colonization.
It is absurd that a random guy with no expertise on history can sit here and talk about things he clearly has no understanding of and people watch and shape their opinions based on him.
Very well said!
Rubbish.
This dude has definitely not heard about what the French did to enslaved people in Haiti.
I’m glad he covers his face because I’m sure it’s hideous like his beliefs
I don't think it's at all ethical to take a consequentialist perspective on slavery as a whole, much less on the transatlantic slave trade.
The question of whether or not any good has come from colonialism (in the cases of America and Britain it's just imperialism) must take into account every experience of colonialism in its answer. Developed countries have grown and continue to grow richer at the economic deficit and active harm of developing countries, all as a result of colonial gain. Yes, *we*, the global north, have statistically higher life expectancies, GDP, and populations due to advances afforded to us by colonialism, but impoverished nations dealing with the aftermath of systemic exploitation face persistent instability in basic human rights defined by the UDHR: equality, a reasonable standard of living, life and liberty, and freedom from slavery.
Nope. This falls into the category of assuming you know what’s better for other people. There is a good reason why it’s illegal for a doctor to perform a procedure on a patient who doesn’t want it whether the doctor knows that it would be beneficial in his or her own opinion or even potentially life saving.
If those people are uncivilized people, like arabs or africans, then it's a moral obligation for you, who are more rational, more inteligente and more developed, to bring that development to those people who are oppressed by the ignorance of their society and the society itself. Liberty is a value that should be exported by any means needed.
Saying colonialism isn't that bad because all cultures dud it is like saying domestic violence isn't all bad because all cultures tolerated it . Disengenious incoherent Argument
I completely disagree, but especially the slave take is really shitty. The transatlantic slave trade was famous for being so unbelievably brutal, it's not comparable with things like the Ottoman, roman or whatever slave system. Slaves were literally allowed to change their owners in the ottoman empire, if they treated them badly, if the owner didn't comply, they were allowed to escape, tho they had to go back to a slave trader, who then would have traded them off to a different person. Still bad, but not comparable with the transatlantic.
And what about things like the british raj, kongo free-state, french indo-china, deutsch-Südwestafrika, and so on and so forth? All of those colonies were extremely inhumane, and killed thousands if not some even millions alone, but ey they got railways and stuff, am i right? :D
Other slaver societies allowed slaves to become kings and at least saw them as humans, European slavers thrown "unwanted" black slaves into the ocean when transporting+ they cutoff the arms and legs of "unproductive" slaves + they killed little black children because of their enslaved parents and put them in zoos. All the people who bring up the Arab or African slave trade are f*cking idiots
You know they castrated the slaves upon arrival in the middle east?
Barbary slave trade disgusting also. Kidnapping and terrorizing the Mediterranean and Europe
Great response to which I'd like to add; approximately 15million Congolese where killed in the hidden holocaust under King Leopold II of Belgium
I agree with most of what you're saying, but in my eyes the absolutely horrendous things that countries like Britain, Spain, France, and later the US have done to the native people of their colonies completely overshadow any technological or societal advancements. Yeah, having up to date medical and educational facilities is amazing, but you don't have to subjugate the people who live somewhere for centuries to bring that to them
I agree..however, there has to be a way to advance in technology and medicine without committing genocide or violating human rights...just saying...and I agree with what you said too.
The West has evolved and learned, that's what matters.
If you look at the glass half full, the descendants of the past victims of Western colonialism, is now living in a much more peaceful world, filled with technological and economical advancements.
@@DanskadrengThe issue with this thought process is that it ends up minimising the extent of colonial brutality no matter how lightly you attempt to present it. The brutality and subjugation of other human beings to benefit the interests of colonial powers I'd argue outweighs any sort of technological progress which would likely spread to these nations without colonialism from humanity simply becoming more connected worldwide
@@funny3591 I'm not denying the brutality, nor that it could have been done in a more humane way. Almost no one is supporting it in todays world, but being hung up on past injustices when none of the perpetrators are alive, makes no sense to me.
All of this greed and ultra nationalism led to the two world wars in my opinion, and we suffered greatly, and learned greatly for our past failures. We learned so much that we're today some of the most peaceful societies on Earth, and actively helping other people in some parts of the world.
It was another time, with another mentality, a mentality that has surely been adapted due to the hardships and dangers of the those times and the times that came before it.
@skywishr1313 there its called trade and cultural exchange. People just doing business with people.
Colonialism is bad look at Japan it was never colonized but it is still as developed as the West.
good point
That’s because there’s a reality about IQ
Asia is the same. Colonization isn't really a thing in asia and yet they flourished for thousands of years without western intervention. I'd argue they became worse because of it.
@@James12361 The IQ was high in India that's why India had great architecture, mathematics, medicine, ayurveda, yoga, meditation, philosophy, 4 native religions and on record history of 5000 years.
Believe me the effect of the transatlantic slave trade is still felt till this day.
There is a saying that before colonialism, Africans weren't poor.
Lastly, it did more harm than good in many countries like Democratic Republic of Congo and countries like Ethiopia weren't colonised but still have the same level of development as those that were
😂 Africans sold their own.
@@lybnychavez6953 I'm aware. Now explain Congo, Apartheid, Jim crow laws & Colonization
@@billikpe2718 no need for me to explain, go and educate yourself. If you think western values are equivalent to others in world your wrong. But if you don’t like it, guess what you can surely leave to some sort of 3rd world country
@@lybnychavez6953 You're not articulate enough to explain jack.
PS I live in Nigeria
Yankee approving of something his people benefitted from and never suffered the consequences of, joke, next.
Sorry, you are not qualified enough to comment on this. You have to do EXTENSIVE RESEARCH on colonialism, read about the wealth extraction, inhuman behaviour towards the colonized groups, random mass shootings on unarmed individuals, man- made famines on the colonized countries, chopping of fingers of local weavers to take over their business,.... It's not just a black & white history that you think it is.
I dont agree with your comment but I'll defend to the death your right to post it
You are right.. Jallainwala bagh massacre, bengal famine, heavy tax imposition on indians, forced opium and indigo farming, christian conversions, imposing english language system in education, massive loots ,etc. Guy in the video is not aware of these. He is far short of reality. Also India has never invaded any nation. Welcomed every culture and ethinicity... So to colonize is not a human nature like he said.
@@deeptiupadhyay133 As there is a saying, little knowledge is dangerous, these TH-camrs should seriously do extensive research when they are talking about sensitive topics. But unfortunately....🤷🏻♀️
@@mundane2macabre You don't need to agree to reality...it is what it is...but I too will defend your right to post this because you have the right to your opinion.
Please I beg of you, read a book for once in your life
theres some confusion here....when most people speak about colonialism today, its inherently understood that are we talking about european colonialism. so its a bit of a cop out to make the cliche rebuttal about "man kind has dominated each other throughout its entire history" when its contextually understood we are talking about european colonialism sp[ecifically. a thing that happened not that long ago, is well documented, and most places of the world are still feeling the effects of, which brings us back to why its at the forefront when the word is used
also, the good things about colonialism such as commerce, trade, development etc are all things that can happen regardless, rather then as a consequence of why colonialism has a negative connotation; one group brutalized, and killed off a good chunk of another group in order for said colonies to have existed. perhaps you can make the argument that colonialism jump starts these positives but i cant see a case for "colonialism isnt ALL bad" unless youre the colonizer or descendant of them
Rare Anti.Prophet L
I mean this lightly, love your work. Regardless, as being someone from a colony, all I see is a copy pasted culture & by extension cuz others understand its foreign, its unwanted, & due to the loss of traditional religion & culture (at least practically), we get a blank & atheist society. Yes, my country is rich, but everyone south is poor, & the north is still a colony. Yes, America. I dont understand what good colonization brought besides the end of the Aztekah (Spain was equally as bad by native testimony).
I would argue what you’re describing is more of an example of God taking something bad and using it for good rather than the actual colonialism being good itself
You dropped the ball on this one
All thr countries colonized by the brits might be as advanced as Japan without them robbing their resource
There are an awful lot of people that are forgetting that the United States of America was not just a colony, but a whole mess of colonies of a number of different countries, and everything here was stolen from the indigenous peoples, then the colonists threw of their own yoke of colonialism. Irish and Scots suffering indentured servitude to escape famine? French doing the same too escape guillotines? Italians, Germans and Slavic people escaping crushing imperialism? Any of this sound familiar? Perhaps there isn't any of us qualified to judge the next as a sinner or a saint, rather we should look inside to do some judgement.
how about some of Texas history...totally agree with you
Simply disagree
While nothing is black and white, a Caucasian male living in the economic north may not know or could understand this but a lot of nations and people were happier before colonialism than after even with medicine. And the scars of colonialism are still bleeding today in warring/fail states. You need to read AND get out more!
What's your proof
I get the point but I doubt he's Caucasian. That means from the areas around the Caucus mountains, so Armenia, Georgia, Azerbaijan and certain part of Turkey, Iran and Russia
@@osheridan yeah, there are 3 definitions according to Google which covers both of our usage but tbh I only used it because I didn't want to have two different usage of the word 'white' in the same sentence.
@@cubearthx oh yeah
@@mundane2macabre everywhere you look...but how about going to where the native reservations are...hmmm?
Garbage take lmao
Also deeply historically inaccurate
@@otherperson yep apparently non-european slavers are more "brutal" even tho history states otherwise. Slaves In Other cultures can become kings and important figures when Europeans didn't even see them as humans
@@sgtanous4782Europeans forced kids in the Caribbeans to be worked to death in sugar plantations under scorching suns until their intestines were fried. It didn’t help the fact that they didn’t see dark skinned people as humans so the atrocities didn’t even phase them
@@sgtanous4782Japan and the Ottoman Empire?
@@James12361 I can't say for Japan but what they said regarding slaves becoming important figures applied to the Ottoman Empire. ex: janissaries
As with everything in life, it has advantages and disadvantages. But the thing is the Ends never justify the means. So today, colonialism is hardly justified, such as communism, but it's undeniable that some groups of people still have unacceptable societal norms that we have to decide if we should impose our "Superior" view on them, and as such, using colonialism. China still uses slave labor (though hidden), and still wants to invade and conquer Taiwan and the rest of its neighbors. The question is, do we care? US did care in Afghanistan, before abandoning and letting it go back to how it was 20 years ago. That's something that revolts me because in the end, it only spreads suffering. Or don't invade and let it be whatever it is, or finish the job.
Easy to say from your literal first world country mansion house
The slave trade in West Africa of black Africans was actually significantly less bad than chattel slavery of black Africans by Europeans, especially in the new world. Slaves in West Africa had more legal and ecenomic rights as well as not being considered subhuman socially. They weren't free, but they were more like indentured servants than chattel.
I keep hearing about the African and Arab slave trades but not in any detail. Can anyone point me to some reliable sources?
1 - No good sources because the African Trade slave mostly comes from the univerasal trait of slavery, which is "ownership" and seldom. Than the spike became larger when other nations employed natives to sell them slaves. Which most were destroyed cuz thats slavery for you.
2 - the "arab" slave trade probably means the Islamic slave trade, because the euroasian muslisms and Christian europe were at war for about 800+ years, on and off, they had an effective slave trade.
The Marcie trade, is the biggest. And that pales in comparison to the TransAtlantic
Domination is applying power to have others do what you want. That is the goal. The colonizers didn’t show up because they wanted to make the colony a better place for its inhabitants. The goal was to extract riches and expand territory, i.e. to increase their power. Benefits you see today in prior colonies was paid with subservience and diminished freedoms, as well as erosion of culture and language. The West is not the be-all-and-end-all of global society, although it has its perks.
Inaccurate and/or wrong. See slavery in ancient Roman empire, and medieval collapse. We are nowhere near the prosperity and culture before the medieval collapse when averaged over the populace. See the new findings of the ancient sites in Turkey for example. Colonialism only brings chaos and cultural collapse in the end, and it happened many times in the history. Like healthy human brain, a healthy human culture needs multicultural mix, and colonialism of any kind is equivalent to mental ilness.
The down side of colonialism is that the people before had a culture, had a past, had land to call there own for their community is take from then from a force that just has military power over them.The people who were dominated never asked from western commodities, they were doing just fine on their own. So is the loss of all those unique cultures and ways of life really worth the western benefits? Medical care you said? Western food full of grease and chemicals? There are tribal people in the Amazon who know better then western doctors what plants to use to treat there medical problems. And many others too . The come of the western men only brought the downside of a society that was in their right doing good in their own land. The west has not monopoly on spreading “welfare”, “healthcare” and certainly not on spreading a force on “culture”. The only thing colonialism is doing is trying to conform indigenous people into a western form. Look at South Africa before the Dutch/ English came , look at AU with the Aboriginals, NZ Maori, Arabs (Oman)in Africa etc … We need to stop thinking that the west has all the answers and justify the invasion by bs reasonings that somehow westerners are the savior of those poor indigenous people . Ugly Truth is All invaded nations are just the victim on a geographic stratego game played by those in power to get more grip in a certain region of the world and not because we care about bringing western benefits to those countries. If everyone just stayed in their own house minding their own businesses the world would be a whole different place.
To make a case against progress simply by stating that "it's always been like that, egoism, domination and colonialism are just human nature", you are completely ignoring the fact that we evolved from people living in caves to a complex world nurturing literally billions of people and trying to coexist with intelligent social constructs on this planet. It is just as human to try and make the world a better place for all of us, and we should never only try to lookout for ourselves. Yes, historically, wars have been part of our journey as well, still are and will probably still be a part of it for a long time. But that doen't mean that we should think about colonialism as an example as the gateway to our modern world, there's so much more work involved. Being kind to others and trying to coexist literally is the foundation to our modern, globalized world and wealth.
If colonialism is great for u. Just imagine yourself in a place of the victime. Just see what is happening in pal"estine.
"Sorry, but the human sacrifices will stop."
I think this video is really deceiving, painting itself in a positive light. You can say that good things came from wars, like how the US had economic booms directly after the world wars (the depression came right after but that’s neither here nor there) but it doesn’t make it good, or even semi-positive. Yes, good things eventually come from colonialism, but only after people are forced to fight for years against it. And the good that happens probably would’ve happened far earlier had the colonists instead allied with their opponents rather than just taking over. There is no true benefit to the act of colonization that wouldn’t come through other, less horrific means
Domination ≠ Colonialism
If one county makes other countries their subordinates or captures the land of other countries, that's fine, that's what he is talking about.
But colonialism is to turn a colony's people into inferior to subordinates to the colonizer's superior people, in the process erasing the original culture and traditions by giving the argument that the colony's people are barbarians, uncivilized and inferior to the colonizers, that their lives don't matter.
It's in some sense worse than slavery, because atleast slaves get to keep their culture alive, like the Romanis for example.
I'd go as far as to say it's like defending Nazism.
This is the first video I see of yours where I disagree. Please look into Spanish colonization of the Americas.
You're basically using imperialism to mean colonialism. Imperialism is domination of a people different from yourself.
Colonialism is when that domination is done for the purpose of extracting as much wealth as possible from a place in order to ingratiate the homeland. The goal is exploitation rather than absorption.
Historically nobody has done this more than Western Countries. Japan might be a close second. Any other similarly large polities had the goal of absorption and earned their cruelty through their effectiveness on the battlefield rather than their ability to industrialize the suffering of whole regions for wealth.
Colonialism was not about extraction of wealth.
@@mudra5114 Colonialism was not about extraction of wealth? Other than infrastructure necessary for said extraction, virtually all western activity in their colonies was based entirely around extraction of resources which went foremost to the enrichment of the mother country.
Plantations growing cash crops and run by low paid (or enslaved) populations who were disallowed from growing food for themselves were operated in order to send virtually all those cash crops to Europe for processing into goods. There are extremely few examples of colonies not established for the express purpose of resource extraction for the generation of wealth in Europe. Any exceptions were either coerced explotative ecenomic relationships (spheres of influence and factories) or military infrastructure to defend the latter two.
@@benjaminashbaugh6761 What you are saying is completely false. What you say maybe true for the Caribean islands but not Africa or Asia. This was definitely not true for India and most African countries.
@@mudra5114 I was actually referring specifically to India, Asia, and Africa.
In India factories (exclusive trade zones) were established in defeated cities where the local market would be exploited into selling to whatever European power operated that zone. This would often be at significantly lower prices, and that power would have exclusive rights to a certain share of the trade. Later, when all the governments of the subcontinent had been effectively dissolved under the Raj, the British government forced plantations to operate for cotton and opium. These farmers were barely paid, forced to grow that cash crop, forbidden from growing edible crops (which made them susceptible to famine), and their products would be immediately taken back to Europe to be made into manufactured good which would seldom return to Indian markets. The rail systems and infrastructure in India revolved around the extraction of these resources. They supported the colonists necessary to keep the East India Company's machine running, and everything and everyone else was merely an afterthought. In Afghanistan the British used it as an opium plantation with similarly exploitive practices as well as essentially using the land as a military buffer between Russia and the Raj. In China spheres of influence with similar coercive practices as in factories were established where the aforementioned opium was used to trade for good from China which immediately went to Europe. They literally colonized a place just to grow opium and then sold that opium to a place they defeated in a war and forced them to accept that opium as payment (they wanted silver) to extract their resources which were taken to Europe and seldom returned to the Chinese market.
In Africa it was even more cut and dried. Cotton, coffee, cocoa, and rubber were cash crops grown by slaves or poorly paid workers who again were forbidden from growing their own sustenance crops and had no rights to what they produced, instead having it all taken from the content to be processed in Europe. Metals and diamonds were mined under similarly near-slavery conditions and went virtually entirely to the wealthy aristocrats who owned shares in the company that ran the colonies. As in India, the infrastructure in Africa was intended to support the extraction of resources and all personnel necessary for that task. Any benefit gleaned by locals was an exception to the rule and an afterthought to the European powers. In the case of the Congo, probably the most extreme case but still a very widespread one, the land was personally owned by King Leopold, produced rubber and cocoa that furnished Brussels and Antwerp as some of the wealthiest cities on the content, committed genocide against the population enslaved to extract these resources, and built virtually no infrastructure other than what was necessary to extract the raw materials and provide amenities for those overseeing that extraction.
@@benjaminashbaugh6761 What you wrote is pure bullshit.
India Industrialised enormously during the British Empire, indeed the Industrial Revolution reached India before Japan and China. Farmers were not forced to grow opium, the farmers wanted to grow opium because it made them more profit. Opium was a state monopoly of the earlier Mughal Government of India which the East India Company Goverment inherited. The ones forcing the farmers to grow opium were Indian contractors and it is to stop the exploitation, the British Imperial Government Nationalised the opium system with permits, for which the farmers fought over. Cotton??? LOL. Indian cotton was hardly used in the factories of England, most of the cotton came from the USA and Egypt. Indian cotton was used extensively during the U.S civil war as cotton supply from the US South was broken. Most of those exporting the cotton were Indian merchants.
Railways were built to fight famines, not for resources. This extraction of wealth was a lie.
As far as Africa, West African economies collapsed as the Royal Navy banned export of slaves. But to ban slavery completely the region's had to be conquered by Europeans as most African powers would not give up slavery. Cash crops were introduced to give an alternative to the slave trade and improve local economies. No one was forced, why do you need to force, when farmers would make more money? Farmers want to make more money given the chance. The quality of life in West Africa improved with European Empires.
easy to say from the usa there LOL but reality is that the world dose not share your POV on what the west has done , you can look at the postives or shrug the whole thing off but we will never forget
Based
How is dominance of others human nature? What's fundamental about humanity and at the core of our survival isn't our ability to control others. If that was true i couldn't survive unless there was someone for me to control.
What's fundamentally human about us is our ability to shape the world around us and use nature to better our own lives. We do this by utilizing our faculty of reason. We can only reason because of our unique ability to form concepts, or think conceptually.
Countries that flourish are unique in the fact, not that they conquer other nations and exploit them, but that they recognize individual rights and their citizens are free to pursue their personal values under the protection of a government that has a monopoly on the use of force and then uses that power to protect individual rights from threats both foreign and domestic (police force & military & court system). That's the complete opposite of being dominated.
You can find one actually, Romania ;)
your argument is almost like someone saying rape is not entirely bad. Some women who were raped became stronger and became successful because of that incident. but rape is still bad. Now with colonialism something good may have come out of it but its still bad
Brilliant analogy! I'll add 'its like saying rape is good because it allow for biological diversity because she will have a child with a man she wouldn't under normal circumstances have sex with'
You're being "ethically" dominated by the top 1% and you don't even realize it. Colonialism was but isn't the issue anymore. It has evolved into something else entirely.
Have to disagree.
- You look at colonialism based on the impact of those who have been colonized, and how they have been exploited. India, for example, did not benefit. Yes, they inherited the structures...but people keep forgetting that they adopted and took over...that is, they were capable from the beginning. China did not benefit from imperial Japan's colonialism. Africa still suffers from French colonialism.
- No, the North American plantation slavery was as bad as it could get. The Arab slave trade was very much like the Roman one. For example, there was upward mobility. In the Arab case, slaves eventually took over the empire. Slaves could, oddly, earn more than their masters. Those were edge cases, to be sure, but it doesn't really point to a prolonged and brutal slave trade. And most importantly: it wasn't based on a notion of racial supremacy, so the legacy isn't a factor in the post-slavery arab world. The closest you'd get to the brutality of plantation slavery is slavery in the salt mines, and that didn't last nearly as long and didn't have the same scope.
BS. Like exporting good ideas and economic inventions requires domination over someone else. Most of the improvement in this world went outside of colonialism and in most cases wherever people stick to colonialism progress gets hindered or halted completely.
While I agree that humans have tendency to dominant other, but I think the net product of European Colonialism is negative. They created havoc in the land they colonized. we face that consequence till now. See Africa, middle east and Indian Subcontinent for example.
and I think colonialism you are taking about American Colonialism which started after 1945. It has helped many nation in science and technology.
But overall affect is neutral , because their policy of destabilizing their adversary and concerning nation has negative affect on World. example Rise of Jihadism .
As a guy living in a post colonial country, colonialism has its positives, fact is if it wasnt for European takeover we wouldnt be united, some infrastructure would just not exist, some laws would be just plain silly and democracy probably wouldnt have taken root as the former aristocracy were pretty entrenched to then be replaced with the universally despised imperialists which led to more republican leanings than monarchic.
However, it cannot be understated that the human cost was paid in millions of lives and we lost a lot of potential progress because of colonialism. It is becausr of European influence that some regions remain poor and exploited to this day. We also lost a lot of cultural progress. For many in the west culture is thought to be more like movies, books, and other things that would be able to be marketed around the world and leave a cultural imprint on its consumers. Here we dont have any of that. There is no classical literature attributed to our nation.
Although I do agree that there are good outcomes to domination of tribes and peoples. Without Rome Europe would be much more insulated and fractured as opposed today where Roman influence and legacy drove Charlemagne and others like him to create empires and laws that imitate Roman law and order. As such, they fracture leavibg organised states with grievances with each other and as such caused so much European competition with each other which led to many innovative ways to wage war, extract taxes as efficiently as possible and a social structure that would leave then fielding bigger and better militaries which would fund more scientific advances and yadda yadda yadda, you get my point. All (arguably) because of Rome
Damn that came out very rambly but just wanted to get my thoughts out there.
TL;DR, if you didn’t have western colonialism, your country would have been a first world country rather than a second or third world
this one was a miss mate, wrong on history and willfully ignorant of the brutality of western colonialism
For the first time, I will have to strongly disagree!
Please go do some thorough research and then a retake of this video.
Negan
Dah saim kenbi sedda bout neting
Allâh can put blessings in anything
Butwei shoodnt drink alldah koolaide
¿Wat, if anything, kenwei lurn frum r oppressers?
I think you're confusing the source of wealth and life improvement. It's not because of colonialism, it's despite it. Standards of living would be much higher without domination of other cultures.
Colonial actions move wealth, they don't create it. In fact, the nature of violent colonialism destroys much of the wealth it seeks to take.
It is through cooperation that we build wealth. That is the basis of humanity's survival.
You’re not taking into account the fact that our current economic system, imposed by our western countries, has already launched a mass extinction, and will probably lead to our own species’ extinction as well. Not that I think you’re the type of person who would listen to that feedback (you literally sound like the superficial opinions I had when I was 12 years old, and I have no idea how a grown man could still just be parroting establishment ideas instead of at least exploring their nuances, many of which contradict the very free market texts they claim to be based on). But for anyone else who finds this channel, hopefully this comment will at least do something.
You get to not feel guilty as a US or Australian citizen because the native population was ALMOST COMPLETELY WIPED OUT. That doesn't make it ok, it just means that there is no one to hold you accountable for settling by force. And really, do you not see the hypocrisy in this? USA still has days to remember 9/11 and pearl Harbor as "great tragedies" while you choose to forget that colonialism has a higher death toll on any country than all such incidents combined. Then there is loss of wealth and continued divide between rich and poor which furthers the exploitation. So yes, western countries need to be ashamed of this part of their history because their prosperity was literally built off of theft and exploitation. And if you don't have it in you to acknowledge that then at the very least stop spouting nonsense like this.
This might be the worst take ive ever seen. At no point do you ever understand that in order to ever justify any part of colonialism, you have to remove slavery from the argument because if you do not do that you make an argument for slavery. Instead, you have to bring up slavery because you know its actually impossible not to, and justify slavery by downplaying its significant by pointing to African and Arab slavery as worse, which being a smart person, you know is not the same type of slavery that colonialism is referring to. by trying to play the enlightened centrist, you end up making a pro trans atlantic slavery argument, by saying it brought people technology. Pangloss. no wonder you call yourself a anti prophet. you should not be listened to by anyone.
Sorry, but this video is just pure bs. Yeah, look at the Congo how great the Belgians were. What good came out of colonizing the Congo?
Buddy it's you, what you stand for, oh so glorious king of complacency, preach something consistent, please, but you swing back and forth on different features of the same twisted system which made the American psyche.
End the new guided age, our people's freedom lies in wait
Colonialism is usually helpful when a colony has a natural independence movement. I.e Canada, Australia, Egypt, Malta, Singapore, Hong Kong
Dude, there is like a dozen dumb things you said in so little. Kinda a skill really.
1 - Colonialism would be against any independence movement.. they are.. colonialism doesn't create colonies to have to go free later. Colonialism would fight against it because their goal with starting it, is to keep it and expand.
2 - canada and Australia both seen total genocides as their independence movements. The only reasons they attained such is due to a failing Britian and mistreated as a contentent.
3 - Ancient Egypt was a capital of human invention and culture, when it was colonized, it was destroyed and has never recovered due to one or another issue.
4 - Malta was colonized, but not subject to colonialism. It shares history, land and people with both english and french.
5 - spingapore and hong kong have been threated with war today, because China is so heavily invested in their anti-freedom. They demand they stay colonies and since Hong Kong's absorption, its nearly fucking dead as country.
Love your style. Love your mind. You’re killing it. Keep going. Would love to work with you someday on a vast concept.
that stupid dude colonialism will never be justified and about the Arab colonialism , you have no idea what are you talking about
I like your vlogs but this one was just absurd
You are totally right. It goes further, colonialism was very good for the countries that embraced the values given by the west. It brought wealth, development and organization.
Lmao what clownary is this
Gotta crack some eggs if you want to make an omelet
That's called eugenics, which is what inspired the Nazis.
so the eggs are people not of your own race/ethnic group/nationality/etc...right? easy for you to say...hopefully the children of your children will never become the eggs.
Not entirely bad for you but worse for the people who were the receiving end. Infact colonialism hurt you more than you think, and why your society is going down the drain has a connection to it.
Wtf