The Difference Between French and British Colonialism in Africa
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 5 มิ.ย. 2024
- The French and British held the most colonies in Africa. #HistoryVille
Join this channel to become a member: th-cam.com/users/HistoryVille...
Get Ayomide Akinbode's latest historical novels on Amazon: www.amazon.com/Ayomide-Akinbo... and Okadabooks: okadabooks.com/user/AyoAkinbode
Subscribe to HistoryVille: th-cam.com/users/HistoryVille?...
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Follow us on Social Media:
Facebook: / thehistoryville
Instagram: / historyville
Twitter: / historyville
LinkedIn: / historyville
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Visit our website for interesting historical articles:
www.thehistoryville.com
TIMESTAMPS
00:00 Intro
00:46 Why Europe Colonised Africa
02:05 The Scramble for Africa
03:35 Factors that led to the Colonialisation of Africa
06:12 French Colonialism in Africa
08:11 British Colonialism in Africa
12:33 Comparing French and British Colonialism
18:18 Impact of Colonialism in Africa
21:42 Next Video
![[Full Episode] MasterChef Junior Thailand มาสเตอร์เชฟ จูเนียร์ ประเทศไทย Season 3 Episode 1](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Qs5zdBqLn_8/mqdefault.jpg)
"Infrastructural development" that was necessary to exploit the continent, it was not a favour, no one came to Africa to favour the continent.
come to the Uk the infrastructure development from those times still STAND till this day in pristine health! please why is there no infrastructure of any kind in Africa from that period till now that functions at the level as Europes infrastructure, these colonisers never left Africa my people they only change there name to company and corporation still the same bloodline same act just different names
@@naomithompson3493 if someone gives you a gift halfheartedly, you can't be too surprised about its poor quality, and yes you're right, neocolonialism is here and alive, but most sadly, it is enabled by selfish and materialistic politicians on the continent.
Not at first
But some administrators did want to rule better for the people
And many Zimbabweans for example regreted British rule ending, as free high quality health care was provided in the later part of rule. Even still the method of gaining such colonies was often absolutely horrendous, as was much of the history
@@samuelbishop3316 loving one's captive is simply Stockholm Syndrome. Nothing given to an African by the European is less of an investment or more of charity. You get ten, they get thousands. Tell me who owns the mines in Zimbabwe?
@@abayomiayo-kayode7024 You are right my brother. You blessed 🙏❣️❣️😇
I was a Peace Corps Volunteer in Morocco (former French colony) in the late 90s, and spent 6 months working for an NGO in Egypt (former British colony) in the mid 2000s. All I can say is in Cairo, Egypt I could barely ever find someone who spoke English on the streets, in stores or markets, sometimes not even taxi cabs! However, in Morocco, I have met elderly rural herdsmen in mountain villages who never spent a day in school who were FLUENT in French!! When the French colonize your ass, they colonize it to the BONE!!!
You are totally right .. As an Egyptian who is married to a Moroccan; I can say that British occupation of Egypt was mainly to control the Suez canal (administrated by a french company) to secure trade routes with their colonies in India and also to get their hands on some valuable Egyptian goods like cotton. They didn't bother if the people adapt their language or become "Britain beyond the seas" like what their French counterparts did in other north and west African colonies forcing change of local culture and language.
The british never colonised Egypt. They couldn't even if the tried.
Yes, they had troops and great amount of influence in it, but they wouldn't be able to make it part of their empire.
It would have spark a revolution across the northen part of Africa.
What they did instead is, applying soft power.
The French instead were fully in control of those parts of Africa, in every aspect.
Morocco was not a French colony but a protectorate
@@brodocassel Tomaytoe - Tomahtoe/ Potaytoe - Potahtoe! Is there really a difference? Both systems extract/steal resources.
@@juniorjames7076 there wasn’t anything to steal. Morocco got way more out of France than France got out of Morocco.
Let's not forget the Ottoman colonialism. And it was certainly the Arabs who perfected the slave trade passed on to the Europeans, although the slave trade existed internally anyway. Surely though, King Leopold's treatment of Congo was a a crime on the same scale as Hitler's or Stalin's.
Mao Zedong killed more people than Hitler and Stalin combined.
It was WORSE!!
Stalin? If you're including famine you best include Irish and Indian famines during British rule
@@DemonetisedZone … don’t forget what the British did to the Boers in South Africa…. and what they did to the Igbo people during the Nigeria/Biafra Civil War
@@murasakinomorado7210 igbos did it to themselves when they declared war on Nigeria and started attacking leaders in the North and southwest
A bit of corrections,The Gambia has never been a French colony,occupied by France at one point,and the polish-lithuanian commonwealth and Portugal the first colonial settler.
@@davidgarcia5593 The Francophobia in Africa is AS HIGH AS RUSSOPHOBIA IN THE WEST and orchestrated by globalists in both cases ... people are really very limited with just Hollywood knowledge ... and why so many Nigerians and Egyptians on this page speak English while accusing France of colonizing with their language when Francophone Africans SPEAK SEVERAL AFRICAN LANGUAGES as well as French ?? I have other posts on this page ... hopefully they won't disappear !!
man said polish😂😂😂😂...😊
Senegambia would like a word
@@davidgarcia5593 What does Gambia have anything to do with Ottomans? Your whataboutism is on a whole another level. If you mean Ottomans were the first colonial settlers, just ridiulous.
@@davidgarcia5593Nobody thinks that. Everyone knows imperialism and colonialism existed always. But In African the common theme is European Colonialism. You don’t need to always run defence for the Euros buddy.
Colonialism is never the cause of under development in Africa...its our leaders and civil war
Don't you know that you and Your leaders are still under colonialism?😂😂😂 Christianity and Muslims are here to stay
Amen Amen and Amen
The colonialists planted those "leaders" and if they don't serve their interest the next coup d'etat is ready. Look at the African leaders that tried to free us, they got killed and replaced by the net puppet tyrants. France is way worse than Britain in that event!
The leaders benefit from colonialism and thats why they are getting Coup d'état and the West is mad about it hahaha.
The leaders benefit from neo colonialism and let the west like France and the US steal their resources and they only have to make the leader and his family rich and thats it while the people of Africa stay poor .
Africa has 54 sovereign states (plus several other disputed areas) with vast cultural, linguistic, ethnic and geographical differences which makes it highly dubious to treat all Africans as one with common interests.
in the name of fighting (proxy) terrorists, US has 7000 soldiers, 50 sites in 54 African countries.
Many of those states are a mix of ethnicities, cultures and languages which will never live together peacefully.
54 sovereign states only after Colonialism . The Nations borders were determined by Britain and France . This keeps conflicts going . Because they basically put 2 different peoples behind the same borders.
@@roboparks I have always wondered why African countries have not co operated in doing some redrawing of borders. Maybe it is just too difficult. Having a country for each tribe could mean an extra 50 countries, a bit of an overkill.
@@roboparks So what ? We let thousands of states in Africa ???
Well done Historyville. Inspirational work.
Thank you.
I think the biggest difference comes to motive. The British were capitalists. As long as the colony made a profit, the locals could run it as they saw fit. The French were more about cultural Imperialism and wanted the colonials to be French. The British didn't give a damn what the locals were as long as they obeyed and turned a profit.
Yes, it really showed in Rupert Land (Canada). The venerable Hudson's Bay Company trading posts were on the seaboard at York Factory. The furs were delivered to them, the trade took place outside of the walls of thefort, at "arms' length". The French, by contrast, canooed up the Ottawa river from Montreal, then the great lakes deep in the continent, where they met indigenous people in their territories to trade their wares against furs. they also married native women and took care of their children. the Métis nation was well established by the mid 1850s.
So, if the Brits demanded indigenous Africans to obey and work for them to gain profits, then how did the Africans run it as they saw fit? Let us not get it twisted, Africans administrators worked under British rule, not as equal partners. I get so tired of hearing that the heinous atrocities that were drudgened upon Africans were all about capitalism. If that was true, why was there such a need to dehumanize blacks in word and deed, and why does so much racism still exist against blacks in European countries?
Indirect rule was just as haphzardous and destructive for African society as was direct rule, if not more. The stark difference, in my opinion, was that it made Africans on the lower level of the hierarchy despise their own more than they despised the real vandals at the top. This created intentional rifts in African societies that still linger to this day.
Furthermore, how could this be true with all of the English speaking Africans in the former British colonies, the Britianized educational system, the number of Africans that were exiled/sent to Britain to be educated and indoctrinated to come back and sell their people on the supremacy of Englush culture and religion, and finally those old pictures of African men and women during British colonizations dressed up in British garb....including those d*mn awful wigs that the judges still wear.😬
@@TheRealAfricanist Make money. Don't care what else you do. Also don't embarrass us.
@@TheRealAfricanist What planet are you from? No colonised people were equal from any culture and no-one should pretend they were. The British used local rulers and customs to run their colonies. They did not try to turn the people into English the French tried to make theirs French. The entire course of human history has seen one group rule another. The Europeans got their slaves from African chiefs and kings who conquered other Africans. To think the Europeans had a monopoly on imperialism, slavery and cruelty is delusional. Humans are a cruel species. If your culture decides to beat it's swords into ploughshares someone will come along (like next Tuesday) and conquer you.
@shaunpcoleman The real question is what planet are you from? And as far as Europeans buying African people from African Kings...that's the European version of the story, and it's mighty funny those so called Kings always seemed to be newly converted Christians, European/Africans or Arab/Africans. Also, nobody said Caucasians had the monopoly on imperialism or slavery because I didn't have to say it...I let the record speak for itself.
Most of the subsequent African governments after colonialism have been far worse in administering Africa than the colonialists ever were.
which country has raped, massacred , stole and put its citizens in jail
@@teddymwangi Hmmm Rwanda?
Many African countries have. The Massacres of tutsis in Rwanda, the killing of igbos in Nigeria in the 1960s, the killing of ndebeles in matabeleland in Zimbabwe. These are few of the many events that have taken place after independence in Africa. And I haven't mentioned the many civil wars that have ravanged the continent.
Just look at the train wrecks that are South Africa and Zimbabwe.
@@teddymwangi there’s so many, but you might wanna look up the country of Buganda. That doesn’t exist anymore because of that evil warlord Idi .
The British abolished slavery officially. But corporations took over and messed up African networks and systems through exploiting the minerals and the land.
The British abolishing Slavery didn't end the colonization of Africa. Nor did it end the exploitation of the African people and the many resources that exist in Mother Africa.
I hope Africa can see why religion came about, to silence us while the enemy continues looting
Why don't Senegal and Cote D'Ivoire enforce their own laws concerning child slavery?
Easy as pie to hollowly just blame corporations and capitalism, but the fact is that Africa needs access to Western and Asian markets. Withoit trade there will be no prosperity. Coffee or chocolate is worth nothing in Africa if you can't sell it in Europe. These are sovereign nations and the world markets dictates prices. The art of good economic government is to get as much of that value to your citizens as possible.
Not just the corporations, also the Communist in the Cold War....if you have resources some one will try to exploit them ... they trick is to keep the benefits of them
Infrastructural development, my foot. Didn't the Europeans destroy and stole away every development they met in our Motherland!
The reason the British adopted an indirect system of rule was that the UK's population was only about 10% of that of its empire and it couldn't impose itself everywhere directly. By contrast, in 1914 France's population was about the same as that of its entire empire combined and it was thus more easily able to impose its rule directly. As a result, French administration penetrated more deeply. One consequence today is that the French spoken in ex-French colonies is better than the English spoken in ex-British colonies.
Frances population was the same as that of all its colonies at that time? Thats fuckin wild, i never knew that. Good pt !
@@S1LVAW0LF Yup. If you look at almost all French African colonies, they were largely desert and sahel with very low population densities. Most of the French colonial population was in Indo-China. Even all combined they only came to about 40 million in 1914, which is about the same as France itself.
Only the Dutch had a metropolis/colonial ratio similar to the British because Indonesia was so populous and the Netherlands was small. However, the Dutch language has left no imprint in Indonesia and there are very few Dutch cultural traces left there.
At the other extreme, the population of Germany in 1914 was about ten times the size of its combined empire. Their ability to impose themselves heavily might explain the Germans' unusual severity in Tanganyika and South West Africa in the 1900s.
Most of the long words in this are accented in non-English ways which made this hard to understand, such as European or colonialism. Is the narrator a French speaker?
Tbf that's really only because of India, maybe Egypt too, aside from them and settler colonies (which saw themselves as British until the mid 20th century) Britain had a pretty comparable population.
@@Threezi04 Egypt wasn't a colony at any stage. Of course you have to include India. It was the core part of the UK's administrative responsibilities. To exclude it would be like the "Well, apart from....what have the Romans ever done for us" conversation in the Life of Brian.
This rivalry and different approach between England/Britain and France are fascinating. The English story is incredibly well documented: in 1600, 3 privately funded ships set out from London to go to what is now Indonesia to trade for a substance which was more expensive than gold, weight for weight: nutmeg. Although called the "East Indies Company" it had nothing to do with India. At first.
The British were always about one thing, making money, until the early decades of the 19th Century, when they started gassing on about the "white man's burden", though the economic exploitation of the colonies in fact intensified after that. The rivalry in India (with the French) only started AFTER the French, which had a much smaller presence, started scheming over territory with local rulers in the mid-18th century.
The French attitude has always been much more "ideological", and this vid is an interesting exploration of one manifestation of it. Unlike the British, who never really "conquered" anywhere just for the sake of territory, this is precisely what the French chose to do one day, in a completely unprovoked way, when they invaded Algeria in 1830, and decided that henceforth this would actually be a new part of France! That was a naked land grab which has no parallel in British colonial history, and of course opened up the whole territory of West Africa, which is still affected by French colonialism, in the form of the CFA franc, amazingly still officially in use today.
In 1996 Rwanda chose, as a result (again) of French ideological meddling which led to the 1994 genocide, to switch its official language from French to English. Despite Rwanda never having been a French colony (it was colonised by the Belgians), this caused utter consternation in Paris. Look at Niger right now: I think Rwanda will probably not be the last African country to switch to English, which is after all the lingua franca of the whole world (possibly excluding China).
PS as a final twist of the knife for the French, Rwanda then went on, amazingly, to join the British Commonwealth organisation! One of only 2 countries (with Mozambique) in the Commonwealth which had never been colonies of the British. NB in both cases this was done, again, for purely economic reasons, but is also an eloquent testimony to French failure in managing the end of their empire.
The "invasion" of Algeria was started to end piracy, which was not only an issue for the french by the way but for pretty much all major European trading powers. Before being a French colony it was an Ottoman "colony".
Also, it is far fetch to say French ideology pushed Rwanda into a genocide, you can argue that they did not need that much help to start killing each other... So it seems a bit far fetch and an odd excuse
Rwanda was never a french colony. It was a German colony and later on became a league of nation territory entrusted to Belgium
@@CorsicanTino Re pirates: the piracy could obviously have been eradicated without annexing the country. Re Rwanda: François Mitterand is the culprit here: he deliberately sought to cultivate the grievances of the supposedly "oppressed" Hutu underclass. The genocide might well have happened without Mitterand's meddling, but it might also have happened differently: we'll never know. The French admitted as much in the 2021 report of the commission headed by Vincent Duclert.
@@mikerodent3164 It is always intriguing to me that Africans nations like to point the finger at others for what is their responsability. I don't like Mitterand persona but thats 's not him who decided to go in the street with a Machete.
At the end of the day that's the various ethnic groups who decided to kill one another.
The same happened in ex-Yugoslavia and nobody is blaming external powers influence like, Nato and Russia, for it. Actualy that claim would be even considered ridiculous
@@CorsicanTino Yes, I'm not seeking to absolve the Hutu murderers: it was a disgraceful horror, and they must take responsibility for it. But colonial or former colonial forces can sometimes help or hinder things. Eg. the British exit from India and the horrors of Partition. A lot of Indians these days put a lot of blame on the British, using all sorts of arguments, suggesting that it needn't have happened. They have **some** justification in my view.
As a Nigerian, this video and history of Haiti makes me appreciate the fact that the British were the ones who colonized/created my country and not the French. Most former British colonies tend to do better socioeconomically and politically compared to French ones. The British had a habit of importing and imposing their political and economic and social ideals on their colonies which tended to help them after colonialism. Yes, my country still has issues aplenty but compared to many other countries here in Africa and like Haiti, we are so much better economically and socially and politically and getting better still.
What about Ivory Coast ? Or the Apartheid in South Africa ? That was the British doing it wasn't it ?
@@JD-bk4ziwell to be fair the apartheid was done by the boers, not the british
@@JD-bk4zi 'Ivory Coast' is officially Cote d'Ivoire and it's official language is French.
The British were not the only colonizers in South Africa - the Afrikaaners were Dutch (with some French and German, too).
Stockholm syndrome. African thanking his invaders for raping, humiliating and pillaging his native land. You should be ashamed of yourself, maybe better practice japanese ritual suicide. Many of your countrymen are running away to many parts of Europe and Southern Africa, glad you think you doing well politically and economically.
You sound ridiculous, you shouldn't want any of them colonizing you
When it comes to 'colonialism', people only talk of France and England.
...but people don't talk about COLONISERS like ARABS, MONGOLS and TURKS. Those are amongst the longest serving COLONISERS in history!
Mongols was an empire with a very interesting history . So were the Arabs and the Ottoman empire . But the " arabs " had no empire .
@@fightback397 An interesting take…why would you not class the Rashidun or Umayyad Caliphates as ‘Arab empires’?
Or the empire created by Muhammad Ali Pasha in the 19th century?
@@scott2452There's a difference between empires and dynasties. Arabs had the latter not the former.
The sultanates or khaganates were sometimes empires or kingdoms.
Because the methods used to colonize and steal cultures by the colonizers on question were pretty evil and sadistic methods. Not to mention, they refuse to leave over 400 yesrs later.
We need to concentrate or focus mainly on France, British, Germany, Spain, Portugal, Belgium and USA.
Because they are still treating us as colonies.
For some years now, I wondered why those nations which threw off the French, Portuguese, or (especially) Belgian yoke decades ago seem more chaotic and troubled today than those who threw off the British. This documentary goes some way toward answering my question, and I thank you for that! We all should take a lesson from this: people who administer their own communities and keep their own language and traditions do not lose their memories and enter a dark age.
Really? What do you mean by French, Portuguese, and Belgian so-called ex-colonies being "more chaotic and troubled than those who threw off the British"? Have you checked how many military coups-d'etat Nigeria has undergone since independence from Britain, in addition to an enormously murderous 1967-1970 secessional Biafran war that cost no less than 2 million human lives? Has there been a more barbarous civil war in Africa than in Siera Leone, a British colony? I can go on and on..., but let me conclude that, in the case or cases of Africa, ALL forms or styles of colonialism translate(d) into racist, or race-based religious, and cultural subjugation and economic overexploitation of Black people. There is NO GOOD or BETTER colonialism! One can even venture to think, speaking of the future of a sovereign Africa (i.e., Panafricanism...), that what nowadays is perceived as chaotic and troubled development in ex-french colonies (i.e., Mali, Burkina Faso, Centrafican Republic, Guinea Conakry, Niger, etc) are the necessary fights leading to TRUE INDEPENDENCE of African countries and, God willing, an INDEPENDENT, AND POWERFUL UNITED STATES OF AFRICA, or federated regions with critical masses powerful enough to weigh on and force respect of BLACK people in the international political and economic arena.
Indeed but in Francophone countries the different cultures are well preserved. As for Anglophone Africa it is in no way as a whole better than Francophone Africa. Among the 2 worst African ccountries are The Gambia, Sierra Leone and Liberia. And Mozambique - though went thru several wars one of the best economies of Africa.
Certainly it is not an absolute rule, but some countries are doing better than others. Botswana is widely regarded as successful, for instance. It was Ghanaian historian K. A. Kumi Attobrah who crafted a lingua franca for all of Africa -- and included many Englishisms in it. The fact that all colonialism is bad does not imply that some cannot be worse than others. Nor do your uppercase letters and righteous indignation make your argument any more plausible.
You may be right, Guy, but Liberia cannot be evidence: its colonization was a U.S. project, not a British one. Nevertheless, I'll be rewatching this video because I think it holds lessons for our domestic politics in the West: government must be of the people to be effective and trustworthy.
The true is that normally not a single nation expend it's resources to help other nations. The Africans must help themselves. If they were conquered it was because their societies were heavily underdeveloped and week. If the situation would have been different, the Africans would've colonized Europe.
Like the main actress in a Vietnamese movie called "the Rebel" say "I know the French helped modernize our country,but is it worth the price of our freedom"
Modernize county? Get back on your opioids!!
Modernize county? Get back on your opioids!!
They were smart to take the good and kick the bad out
Does Vietnam have freedom now?
There is a french humorist who sums colonisation up quite nicely.
"Yes I crashed in your home, yes I sat in your favorite couch, yes I ate all your favorite yogurt, yes I had sex with your wife... but... come on! It ain't so bad! I installed the Wi-fi!"
What might interest people is the British nobility and Royal family were started by the Norman French after conquering Britain, then began colonisation starting in Ireland in the 1100's. They had their own seperate society from the rest of the Britons descended from a mix of Celts Romans Nordics and Anglo Saxons. Whilst the commoner spoke old english, the conquering high society spoke french imposed the feudal system and introduced serfdom and de facto slavery with draconian laws and punishments on the land of the Britons whilst extracting everythint for their own wealth.
French was the official language of England for 300 years but only used by the seperated high society that planted itself there. I woulf say that was the first instance of something similar to what we now call Apartheid.
Then at a time once Different parts of English society merged to create something similar as to what we know now, that had been happening between the 1300's and 1500's, then after this conquered the world, inspired by the Spanish and Traders. And using the methods they knew worked. Just as the French, who they directly descend from also did to the world later on, and had previously done to Britain to create their society in the first place.
It seems to be a way of doing things for the wealthy people of the land we currently call France. The fact also remains is that they still do it to this day in West Africa. In that sense, Britain and France are two peas in a pod , grown from the same root.
Except the British were perhaps more mercantile and the French More as conquerors just like the medieval times
Don't try to victimise Britain because they conquered part of French too and lasted longer than the normands.
@@rostandsaurel8744 yeah , i said england then britain in its current form acts the way it does and has done, because its descended from its original conquerors who havent changed at all. It seems to be their way of doing things. The original root being aristocratic classes from the land of what we would now call france. The ones that went to England made themselves the most money influence and power.
I see the original britons of way back as victims. And the french peasantry until they supported Napoleon. The british state itself and the french state , no, but as I said, those who created and run the states themselves are descended from those conquerors and aristocrats. My theory is that it seems to be their habit to just continually want more and conquer , seeing as they have done it now for 1000 years when u think about it. From the same two countries, one of which they conquered themselves.
The USA was created in a similar fashion. I'd liken it to a zombie virus that started in france and got to Britain and the USA. The elite there descend from colonists who descended from the normans, as by that point norman england became just England of the 1500s , when the norman style serfdom was going away but with the same royal family and a population integrated into their nation. Im honestly finding it really hard to put into words, Im unable to explain it the way I am thinking of it.
Also britain kicked Frances ass many times in wars
@@RendererEP
You sound like a bitter little frog 🐸
@@RendererEPyeah, I've been thinking along these lines for a while myself, but find it hard to explain concisely to people as well.
Great documentary!
China's debt colonialism is simply another form of colonialism.
It's disappointing that Africans aren't building their own railways. The main lines all over Africa were built more than a hundred years ago. Rail technology and infrastructure is well known and understood, yet Tanzania, Ethiopia, Djibouti, Nigeria, Kenya, and others have borrowed heavily from China for Chinese built rail and rail equipment.
They have all the raw materials, iron ore, copper, oil etc to do this but lack the knowledge and infastructure to make this possible. Africa needs to invest in its youth, sending them to the univercities of the world to obtain this knowledge and make it attractive for them to return and develope the continent. It is nice to have nice homes and attractive office spaces but without the grime of manufacturing you are just a clean slave.
@@graybeard9942 Absolutely agree! It is already happening. There are 10 African auto makers making original designs, for instance.
@@tpxchallengerJust following what's already been done.
They can't build because their leaders are more concerned about enjoying life while the common people are more concerned about religion, death and heaven.
Bicoz nobody wants a smart nation to wake-up
The British adopted a policy of indirect rule, whereby they appointed local tribal leaders as intermediaries and utilized existing social structures. They sought to maintain the existing systems of governance and administered their colonies. The French pursued a policy of assimilation, aiming to eradicate African cultures and replace them with French institutions and values. They imposed a centralised system of administration, with French officials taking direct control .
The British focused on the extraction of valuable resources, such as minerals and cash crops, from Africa to fuel their industrial revolution. They exploited African resources to meet the demands of the British economy and establish trading networks.
The French aimed to maintain control over key economic sectors and establish a system of economic exploitation. They heavily relied on forced labour, particularly in the production of agricultural commodities, aiming to enhance their own economic prosperity.
The British preferred to interact with Africans through trade and missionary activities, often attempting to convert Africans to Christianity. They generally had a more tolerant approach towards African cultural practices and traditions.The French pursued a policy of cultural assimilation, actively encouraging Africans to adopt French language, education, and customs. They aimed to assimilate Africans into the French culture and considered it as a means of legitimizing their rule.
Ce que tu dis est diacutable. Le pays Mossi au Burkina, Les fulbe en Guinee, Les Wolof au Senegal et Les Akan en Cote D'Ivoire on Garder leur culture. Idem pour Les Haoussa du Niger. Cette appreciation nest pas correct.
Toutefois, certains colonies Anglaise et Francaise ont voulu reassembler a leur metropole.
It was opposite in North America.
@@653j521 The colonization of North America was also different because the French and English were fighting each other for a long time. Both sought to recruit the local indigenous nations as allies.
So French is stupid
The british are still worse
the odd and real funny difference is that france may have gotton kicked out baldly but did manage to keep a odd but strong connection with their former colonnies and gave french citizenship to more than a few
Just look at the current French football team!
@@golden.lights.twinkle2329Bloody true. French Team is mostly black players
Indeed France kept a very strong Bond with her African colonies, such as the use of the CFA Franc, the currency that fourteen African nations must use, with 50% of their foreign exchange rate must be kept in the French national bank. As well as the approx 5B Euro of Uranium being extracted from Niger each year, while the official export figures for total export trade for Niger is under 1B Euro, pretty strong connections for sure.
@@golden.lights.twinkle2329 - France still pimpin west Africa like a cheap hoe. Without Africa, France couldn't even pay any of its bills. TOTAL dependence upon the wealth they steal from Africa.
A very sad story and now history is about to repeat itself with the Chinese
And i can guarantee Chinese colonization will not be a pretty picture either . It will be beneficial only for a few African leaders
@@thejavorharalu9542 it's sad.
When are we blacks gonna learn
I don't think the Chinese are as evil as the usa and the uk say they are critical thinking skills 🤔
thank you for making this and sharing it.
No wonder why in school I often felt disconnected from learning. I wanted to learn a trade or skill, not just literary jargon and gesturing. I am grateful to Yah for allowing knowledge to increase because I am hearing and seeing like never before.
Great documentary.
Correction: The Gambia 🇬🇲 was a British colony and imperial outpost until 1965...
It was French before the British took from the French back then the two always fought over land in Africa..they even fought each other in Europe 🇪🇺
@@stagg2158 I took a photo of the History of the different occupiers of what is now known as "Kunta Kinte" Island. It was first taken over by the Portuguese in 1456 but over time it was fought over again and again between the French and the English. Even at one point Pirates raided the island and took away it's goods and even some enslaved Africans. The island was eventually abandoned in 1829 and although it went through several different names it was called James Island when it was abandoned and remained with that name until 2011 when the then Gambian president Yahya Jammeh had the name changed to "Kunta Kinte" island. My first time there was in 2007. A very interesting history.
Bro you are right gambia is a british colony
What role do we play as Africans to reunite these countries to one federal entity?
@@stagg2158We've been fighting the French for the best part of 2000 years.
And they started it!
Really helping me out with uni assignment. I appreciate it
🙏🏼
Great content
Cameroon and Togo were not colonised by the French even as Tanganyika or Tanzania was not colonised by the British. The three territories were initially German protectorates. After the first World War, Togo and a larger part of Cameroon were administered by France as mandates of the League of Nations and then as trust-territories of the United Nations while smaller portions of Cameroon and all of Tanzania were entrusted to the British by the same organisations.
So this same UN that exists to resolve conflicts was involved in the colonial project?
@@allanaringo No it was then known as the League of Nations where Woodrow Wilson of the United States recommended that African countries should be granted independence but it fell on deaf ears.
Tomayto/Tomahto = Colony/Protectorate......exact same thing. They extract resources from you in both. No difference. "Protectorate" was more politically correct post-WW1.
Namibia was also given to British
Semantics. It's all the same.
Errors right from the start of this video.
The Europeans did not set out to colonise Africa. Sure the carved it up in berlin 1894 ish, but European involvement in Africa started way earlier and was motivated by trade.
Different countries set up trading posts in different places and the colonies grew from there.
I know right. Colonization was an accident that happened right after they finished accidentally building military forts and enslaving millions of Africans.
By trade you mean exploitation. Stop patronising us.
@@charlesachilefu please take a look at the early days of the East India Company.
It was originally trade between equals. It deteriorated to colonialism once the UK govt took over.
I'm not being patronising, I'm setting the record straight.
@@charlesachilefu
No.
When the whites arrived in Africa, they did not know that they were going to trade with
Muslims slavers who offered them black slaves.
Because in Europe, this was not done.
Trade didn’t concern people but food, furnitures, things.
@oakbellUK.
Yes, some errors exist in their video.
6 of 10 poorest nations in Africa and in the world speak French. Fact.
French has nothing to do with social economic and political stability of a country.no matter what you speak, whatever color you give it you cannot expect different outcomes if you continue to use the same detrimental methods.most Francophone countries are or were at times doing great.but if corruption inequalitie irresponsibility and all the evils are institutionalized and become a way of life than a medium of of communication is the very least of your problems
@@jamescarel5520 through out history, it has been proven that culture affects societies, for example; during world war 2 both white and black American soldiers had children with German women, but neither kids were raised by their American fathers, later statistics were collected on both groups in 1970s, and their was no difference in IQ scores, income and career success, another example is Liberia, which was started by freed American slaves, instead of building an equal society, they built an American styled nation in which segregation wasn't based on race but place of origin, natives were enslaved in farms, were not allowed to enter into certain public places and marriage between natives and black Americans was banned so they had to go to America marry a fellow black woman and come with her to Liberia, this system build a barbaric system among the natives who went on to overthrow their masters and build the most barbaric state ever seen in Africa, another example is East Asia; Zaire was richer than Indonesia in 1960s, both experienced corruption and dictatorship, in fact Indonesia's dictator stole 35 billion from his country while Mobutu stole 5 billion from his country, Mobutu's wealth was tracked and was found in Europe while the Indonesia's dictator wealth was found in Indonesia, Africans have post colonial and post slavery culture, and that's why the poorest African countries are all speaking Francophone because the French were assimilating their colonies into black Frenchmen not to become a PROSPEROUS society but an EXTRACTIVE society that milks Africa dry and send the loot to France, the only way for them to catch up with others like Kenya, Ghana, and Nigeria which are currently developing fast is by ditching COLONIAL BRAINWASH and embrace MORDEN AFRICANISM
Great documentary. The DRC was colonized by Belgium
And bro it is my humble opinion that Belgian colonization and resultant human rights abuses were worse in drc compared to British and French colonization
The Congo was the private property of King Leopold II of Belgium
belgique and french are cousins
@@thejavorharalu9542 Yes... I read about how the cut off the African men's hands and legs....very wicked people.
@@bloggtalk5085 you forgot Luxemburg which the king is the brother of the king of Belgium
Over 100 years later we have not learned anything
La'mingo Garden, Yep, still blinded by tribalism, and not seeing that the Countries Elites along with their European Masters are still ripping them off. Now the Chinese are moving in wanting a large piece of the African pie!
Speak for your self!
If our forefathers heard you they'd curse you. There has been so much progress
If our forefathers heard you they'd curse you. There has been so much progress
@@chechesire2951 really? with the kind of leaders we have in africa? do you know that there are communities in africa that do not have potable drinking water, just water to drink in 2022???
It is ridiculous to say (at the end of the clip) that most investment was concentrated in the larger urban areas, hence the great migration from countryside to cities. That very same development scheme can be witnessed in nearly all European countries to this day, so it was not a “colonialistic thing”. Also, you should check out Ethiopia and Liberia - both African countries that were never colonised, to see if you spot any difference. Paradises on earth, no doubt…
so are you defending colonialism?
@@NeilFHIn many ways, colonialism even modern colonialism has benefits despite drawbacks.
Liberia WAS colonized. Just not by White Europeans. Ethiopia had a lot going on with the Royal family and the many different ethnic groups that comprise Ethiopia, but honestly they aren't doing so bad right now.
@@loganw1232 neo colonialism, especially by Western Europeans, is arguably EVEN WORSE, than the actual colonialism of the past.
She has some good point but, the population of Africa could not be supported with the traditional ways. Also at some point you got get over it. Middle East has the same problem. They still complain about British rule.
Although administered and treated as such, Cameroon (or the Cameroons) was not colonized by and was not a colony of France. As your map shows, Cameroon, Burundi, Rwanda, Togo, Tanzania, and Namibia were Germany's African colonies that were variably given in guardianship by the League of Nations mandate to France, England, and Portugal after the defeat of Germany by the Allies countries in WWII.
@seann8293--You mean to communicate that the League of Nations transferred colonies after World War One-correct?
@@poettttt That's after WW2. Moreover, I wrote, "Although administered and treated as such, Cameroon...". I agree that all in all, it's but a technical or procedural detail.
@@seann8293The transfer of Germany's African colonies took place in 1919, after the Great War (the First World War).
@@Wil-nh5kz Correct.
What maps are you using to show pre colonized Africa and Colonized Africa? I would like to look them upstairs.
Interesting information. 😊 thank you
It was a very sad story. It's even more than this. Thanks a lot for educating the African youth who may not have been thought.
@@abdullahrasheed1493 I really don't understand your point here. May be you need to read once more my comment and correct yourself in replying me. We are not here to play. rather we are here to teach people what they need to know about African continent. Better still, l can help you understand clearer in French language.
@@abeldossou9195 well in reading your response it is obvious that you didn't understand my point. I was in No Way disagreeing with anything that you had to say. Maybe had I said it in French you would have clearly understood. But it's ok. If educating our youth is the goal then we're on the same page. Peace
Very sad story. Thanks Historyville for teaching me what I was never thought in school. So clear and understanding❤️❤️❤️
They have not thought u in secondary school, or u didn't not do government and history?
Why is it sad?it’s just history you can’t take it back so don’t dwell on it just learn from it and avoid the same mistakes
Do you think they teach kids in the Western world this part of our common history?
They don’t teach you all of this in Nigerian schools either. Bits and pieces maybe but def not in depth
@@tahsia1 well THEY ( who are they?)can’t teach you everything in traditional school otherwise you’d spend a lifetime in school.school only teach the basics and how to do research on your own.it’s your responsibility to be smart,curious,and thirsty for knowledge.no one can instill in you.nowadays information is all over the place but if your head is not in that kind of stuff than yes you’re gonna blame THEY for not teaching you.
¹¹¹
Really interesting. Thank you.
I like this. About the railroads and their failure to penetrate rural areas. Building rail lines is expensive, and usually funded by banks who want to see a profit. And as for the rural migration to cities, that began in Europe with the Industrial Revolution and was a blind and impersonal process. Very tough on the ground though.
In fact, the rural migration to cities began in the high Middle Ages and in Italy even earlier.
Unless you're naive, hypocritical, or ignorant (I suspect all 3), you wouldn't speak of colonialism and/or slavery in terms of rehashed capitalistic economic principles such as "building rail lines is expensive...". Slavery and colonialism were barbarian and cruel FREE FORCED LABOR systems condoned and blessed by the Catholic and Protestant Churches and organized by predatory and greedy European people (principally British, French, Spaniards, Portuguese, Netherlanders, Italians...). Black people built the said railroads (and plantations in America and the Caribbeans) almost barehandedly (meaning using only picks and shovels, or such basic). That's not the industrial revolution! It's barbarism, cruelty, murders, genocides, and an inhumane violation of human rights!!!
@@morriganmhor5078 Iraq and Iran and Egypt were building cities 5000 years ago.
Colonial Education was essentially literal and had no organic linkage to the Africa environment. So true
Thats why its possible to speak, read and write fluent English and/or French and live in abject poverty
@@allanaringo lol, the same is true for people living all over the world. There poor people everywhere even in UK and USA.
But colonial education is still far better than no education or purely religious Education like we have in Northern Nigeria.
Poverty is far higher in the North than it is in the South and education or the lack thereof plays a large part to it.
@@Chuby_ubesieThink you mean Islamic education, given that the majority of southern Nigeria’s education was founded and developed by Christian missionaries.
Mathematics is the same in America Europe, India and China. However, if anybody wants to create special African mathematics, please, don´t hesitate...
Did not Watch the Video...
but I assume the difference is that
_FRENCH COLONIALISM_ *NEVER ended.*
🔥🔥🔥
Amazing video
Cameroon did not become a French colony until around after WW1. Prior to that it was a German colony from 1884 until 1916 when Germans were defeated in the then Kamerun
There were two other reasons for European colonization which this video didn't mention. One of those reasons had little to do with Britain or France, though the second reason definitely motivated France, in some cases.
The first was prestige. There was a belief that a European country couldn't be considered a serious power if had no colonies. This was almost the entire motivation for Germany developing colonies in Africa and elsewhere. To a degree, the same could be said of Italy. The vast majority of German colonies were worthless to Germany in terms of trade, natural resources or manpower for German business interests. It was the insecurity of Kaiser Wilhelm II that drove him to put "as many German flags on the map" as he could. Those were his own words in quotation marks, what he said he wanted to accomplish.
The second reason to establish a colony was for the military advantage it could provide in event of a war breaking out between two European powers. These colonies would be used as military bases to threaten the trade of a foreign power. This is what drove France to seize a small fishing village in Tunisia named Bizerte. Neither Tunisia or the area around Bizerte held much interest for the French. They dredged the harbor and made it into a deep sea port for the French Navy. At the same time they built port facilities and major defensive fortifications on the hills which largely protected Bizerte from the ocean. This base would be a place France could use to strike against either British or Italian interests in the Mediterranean. (For a time in the late19th century, the possibility of war between France and Italy was a very real thing.) The island of Mauritius off the African coast was taken partially for economic reasons, but also as a base to threaten British trade with India.
These two reasons for colonization had almost nothing to do with Africa or its people, but those people still felt the consequences of colonization, none the less.
You skipped the very important fact that the British maintained agents whose job was to influence the African traditional leaders to toe British interests against their fellow Africans
That was explained as part of the indirect rule. Listen again.
That is in the video, they didn't said British motivation was for goodness of Africa. After all if it was for goodness it won't be called colonialism/imperialism. Offcourse the colonizers taking advantage of colonialism, similar like you doing business seeking for profit, that is law of nature. We can say being British colonies is less worse than being colonies of France.
It's so sad, and the same tactics endure. How foolish African leaders have been.
Well put together little video, not a sentimental or hasty attack piece. Just explained what occurred and the relic of history
In this world only three (3) countries. Ethiopia, Thailand and Japan can claim to have never being colonized. Yet it is only in Africa that their failure to provide a decent standard of living for it's people is blamed on Colonialism. Even the selling of their own people into slavery is blamed on others. How is it that those countries in Asia which shared the same colonial experiences have been able to move forward, some even surpassing their former colonial masters in the standard of living they give their citizens. We have not even being able to maintain the infastructor colonials left behind
I think that nepal also wasn’t colonised
They do always treat Africans by different rules.
@@folk2630 Nepal paid tribute to China and later became a British Protectorate
@@beezelsub 🙄🙄 Of course😁😂😂😂😂😂😂
Errr, Italian East Africa??
you should do a video on the difference between british settler colonies (zim, SA, Kenya) and british non settler colonies (nigeria, uganda, tanzania...)
Please explain what the differences would be. I never thought it. Thank you very much.
I was a Peace Corps Volunteer in Morocco (former French colony) in the late 90s, and spent 6 months working for an NGO in Egypt (former British colony) in the mid 2000s. All I can say is in Cairo, Egypt I could barely ever find someone who spoke English on the streets, in stores or markets, sometimes not even taxi cabs! However, in Morocco, I have met elderly rural herdsmen in mountain villages who never spent a day in school who were FLUENT in French!! When the French colonize your ass, they colonize it to the BONE!!!
Settler colonies hardly end well.
@@juniorjames7076😬😅
@@juniorjames7076
It is not colonisation « to the BONE ». Stop Bullshiting.
French wanted to spread a kind of « civilisation ».
Thanks for this story, History must never be forgotten.
❤History is not for the past we all Need To know where we calming from MAU MAU REBELIONS UKA NAKE!!
Or misrepresented!
Great vid
We find some errors and wrong informations in this video.👆
The French remain in Africa till today, to them , colonisation continues. The Brits left . Africa is still plundered by colonisers. Today , we continue to borrow money from them for our development. Even our central banks are located in Europe. They decide the outcome of resources found in Africa. Mama Africa when shall you be free from bandage?
Yeah that's why when Amin sent them away, refused their money and decided to trade with Gadaffi and Arab states. They had to get him out for refusing to take British money and Chase them out of the country. They are here to loot. That's all they want. They don't care about any African. Their dna is filled with one thing greed and they will kill and destroy the whole world to get one more dollar in their bank account
How about the British or other non French？My friend non those criminals hasnt left Africa, they are still in different forms.
@@mohamedswaray470 Sure ,birds of the same feather.
What are you doing about it?
Rubbish, 40 years ago china was a massive borrower, they borrowed from this same institution that we now borrow from , they used theirs wisely while African leaders pocket the money they borrowed in our name.
Good documentary, but how come rest of the world such as India, Malaysia, Singapore, etc are much viable and self sufficient to an extent more than Africa's?
Deuteronomy 28:68
Your answer is awaiting you.
@@xzing7 Thank you! Until we know who we truly are, we will never rise. I refuse to rise as one Africa if THE MOST HIGH is not in our midst. This war belongs to HIM: Isaiah 63.
Because we do not produce our own goods. We only have raw materials. We never add value to it. And we are not producing anything, yet we have all the resources. That’s why we are poor in comparison to them.
Because we are stupid. We are very stupid people.
@@kwamenyame1277 sorry you lack the most valuable ressource of all:valuable people.without knowledgeable people those ressources you mentioned are useless to you.at this point education and training is still a status symbol so the few who possess it are greedy selfish corrupt and of course don’t even use for anything good.Africa is still at that level
I have seen a very good TH-cam video on the Barbary Pirates.
I think it makes a good parallel to this video.
Wow, never knew all this. Thanks
I think there French cared far more about culture and they stayed far more connected to their colonies . I mean even now when you look at people from their colonies arriving to France and Britain it’s different. The French view things as you are meant to become French. The religion, the culture the language you had before everything else is secondary. This is heavily influenced by their first French revolution where they replaced Catholic practiced and religion with a kind of state religion . Also since religion tends to be linked directly with culture we see the issues with the Hijab and Islam in France. In America theres freedom of religion but in France it’s more viewed as freedom from religion. They look at it as not seeing color as they don’t even have census’s on that but that results in not focusing on issues different races have in the country.But in Britain to be British is linked more directly to ethnicity more than languages or practices . If you look at India obviously there were some people who learned English but culturally there was a barrier . And yeah many African countries did have native languages suppressed but I believe the replacement with colonized culture was less than in the French colonies. France became more linked with the colonies to keep some form of economic or political leverage while the English for the most part don’t focus on the continent now .
Did the indeginant people have a choice or you're writing from a point of ignorance? True, there were internal weaknesses but those don't justify the barbaric actions of the European invaders that still go on to date. When Gadaffi refused to give them free oil, he had to be taken out in the most brutal manner. They didn't stop there - they created terrorist groups to destabilize the entire Sahel region. The coup after coup and merciless murders from terrorists bear you witness.
@@kasulebriankalule2129thank you
I was a Peace Corps Volunteer in Morocco (former French colony) in the late 90s, and spent 6 months working for an NGO in Egypt (former British colony) in the mid 2000s. All I can say is in Cairo, Egypt I could barely ever find someone who spoke English on the streets, in stores or markets, sometimes not even taxis! However, in Morocco, I have met elderly rural herdsmen in mountain villages who never spent a day in school who were FLUENT in French!! When the French colonize your ass, they colonize it to the BONE!!!
It's true the British practiced racial separation. I read Roald Dahl on his time in East Africa and the policy was to keep the locals from speaking English, so he had to learn the native language.
@@scottgraham1143 Really?!?! Astonishing. Did he explain the reasoning for this policy?
It is worth mentioning that even without colonialism, lots of sub-Saharan African countries would still be poor simply for the poor or non-existent logistics. If it wasn't for the railways, they'd be even poorer.
How about a video comparing the differences between British Empire and the Ottoman Empire.
Real education 🙏🏽🙏🏽👏🏿👏🏿👏🏿👏🏿
As A Brit i agree that it is sad. what is equally sad is that it is being currently repeated but with a new colonial master after the same natural resources as before. This time however, the trap is set by finance: it will (if it continues) be backed up by military presences.
Colonialism never left Africa , it just transformed in a more sophisticated form
@@phillyyardyvibes808and of course China and Russia are now very much involved
One reason may continue to use French and English is that in the newly defined "colonial boundaries" you find people who speak different languages. Then English or French become common languages for communication.
Another reason is trade.
Sometimes you do need a "common language".
I agree but it is better to adopt an African language. I will rather speak Yoruba, Hausa, Edo, Swahili or Igbo as official language than English.
Trade is the best reason to know an international language. A Kenyan can do business in Hong Kong, Singapore, Australia, Nigeria, India or the United States comfortably in Engkish.
I'm wondering if Mandarin will be taught in African schools as commonly as English or French are.
Knowing English or French counts a great deal when emigrating to Canada. Knowing both is even better.
@@tpxchallenger we will learn Swahili as it is the most spoken African language and a lot of African languages are a derivative of Swahili
@@wayneshamba6961 80 million Swahili speakers in Africa, 130 million English speakers. Swahili is a Bantu language with about 40% Arabic loanwords.
@@tpxchallenger yup, that's why I said the most spoken AFRICAN language, English is not a native African language.
Colonialism was a crime against humanity. Surprisingly, even today almost all or all the African nations are still colonies directly or indirectly. Fortunately, the Malians have kicked the French out of Mali, banned the French language etc. All other countries in Africa need to follow the examples of the Malians.
No truth in your claims..french never walk away.haiti was a lesson
colonies will never end as long idiot leaders inviting Chinese to build infrastructure instead of teaching local citizen to do it
@@bloggtalk5085 Haiti is definitely a lesson.
Just name change; slavery to colonization, to capitalism, all three are the same thing. With slavery you see exactly what’s going on, less so with colonization and totally hidden under capitalism. Slavery was in your face, colonization trying to hide their atrocities, capitalism all is hidden.
I disagree because even Marxism also exploited eastern Europeans and their resources for subsidizing the development of USSR.
thank you for you video long live britian god save the king and long live the Commonwealth with african brothers and sisters
It's important to say that the Europeans didn't colonise 'countrries'. There were no countries in most of Africa, just tribal groupings, and in some areas (particularly in the south) not even tribes.
What is a country? Is Wales a country? The Welsh would have considered the land under their feet their "country" even under English rule.
What a way to justify colonization lmao, they always use this
To claim there were "just tribal groupings" in Africa is a disgusting misconception and oversimplification laden with neo-colonial thought.
In fact, the colonization of Africa stretched over hundreds of years, and saw the rise and fall of extremely powerful empires, kingdoms, nations, societies in Africa, as well as some tribal groupings. Some of these nations' art put to shame most European arts in terms of skill and advancement, such as the bronzes of Benin. Some of these's social structures perplexed European minds because of how ahead of their time they seemed, and how much more progressive and advanced they were to European structures, such as in the Ife Empire or the kingdom of Nri. Some of these nations' wealth was beyond that of any European colonial power, such as that of the Mali Empire, or Bonoman.
Civilisation in subsaharien Africa cannot compare itself to European, Middle Eastern, and Asian civilisation. Don't understand why Africans are so offended by this reality and fact. No road, no building, no social structure, no science, no nothing, basically living like most living creatures on the savanna
@@bakerkawesa The terms have developed from former regions to states and city states, or born out of kingdoms. Country's may have been formed after wars and concurred kingdoms. The African continent looks like carved up with stupid border lines and not much fight over it. Any ancient culture has very little to defend it self when progress knocks or arrives by sophisticated ships. Such places could have been anything. Once concurred they became a county with name. What is within each country needs to be developed otherwise it will remain a place with a lost culture. Unfortunately some former countries and colonies can drop back from a first world country to a developing nation. Any place without a complex economy will be ransackt and plundered for ever, regardless of an existing culture. The resources of Africa will make it a target for outsider and inside corruption. Africa need complex manufacturing to shake up its past. The aborigines in Australia have the same problem. They dream of culture and life style, as value. No one buys their stuff while they sit on iron ore and gold deposits. So they keep losing their land.
Well done for tackling this difficult subject. As a British person l have very mixed feelings about colonialism. There are clear benefits as well as disbenefits as most people recognise. I am very pleased we created the Commonwealth- a very far sighted thing to do.
As an African, please explain the “benefits” to me. I’ll wait.
@@blackmagic6 Railways and other systems of communications such as roads, bridges, ports, airports, telegraph. A legal system and system of government. An educational and health system using modern medicine. Institutions like schools, universities, colleges etc. A currency. A single language which is also the worlds lingua Franca and the language we are communicating in. A professional government administration. Free speech and parliamentary democracy. A modern armed force. Integration into an international network with other nations. Sports like football, rugby, crickets etc. A free press. Modern construction methods, electricity and so on and so on. No one denies the racism or exploitation but it’s not as if Africa was paradise before colonialism- or after it for that matter. And consider this: independence was mostly achieved peacefully. It was not like the past where all was conquest and defeat. One day but not in my lifetime, African nations will be not just equal but among nations but the most stable and prosperous. Why? Because all Africans want to be free and that is what makes for a good society.
@@jontalbot1: You must forgive my tardy response to your comment but I had so many tears in my eyes from laughing that it’s taken me a minute to regain my composure.
“Railways and other systems of communications such as roads, bridges, ports, airports, telegraph.” Lol, all of that stuff wasn’t build for the benefit of Africans. As you well know it was built to hasten the extraction of stolen plunder out of Africa.
“A legal system and system of government. An educational and health system using modern medicine. Institutions like schools, universities, colleges etc.” Once again these were set up and established to identify the puppets, brainwash them and train them to administer their Western dictate. No benefit to Africa.
“A currency”. Yes I know and here’s the interesting thing. You’ve never had any problems with corrupt Africans stealing from the poor and investing literally billions in British banks. However when it comes to Africans stealing from Britain ….. well that’s a completely different matter. Once again no benefit.
“A single language which is also the worlds lingua Franca ……”. You do know that that’s total bs ….. right? First of all, it’s obvious that in your arrogance that you think that Africans were incapable of communicating with one another before the white man arrived. Secondly we’ve still got all the languages we had after you’ve left.
“A professional government administration. Free speech and parliamentary democracy.” Lol you’ve got to be kidding right? Take a look around Africa since you’ve left …. There’s been coups, assassinations, military regimes, geriatrics ruling for over forty years …. And then handing over to their offspring. That’s your legacy.
“A modern armed force.” Fun fact: Did you know that all military leaders of the recent coups that have taken place in Sahel region, were all trained by the west …. And then suddenly they led coups against their own people. The west have multiple military bases all across Africa … apparently to tackle the terrorists …. You know the same terrorist that were caused when Britain and Nato went and destabilised Libya. Where’s Princess Diana when you need her to walk through a farmyard filled with land mines and take an alluring photo?
“Sports like football, rugby, crickets etc.” And as soon as they get any good …. Along comes a European country to scoop them up to nationalise them to be part of the brain drain of Africa. I watched a premier league game last week, and without a word of exaggeration, at least 45% of the players on the field of play were of African origin. Take a look at the French football team that won the World Cup and then debate me on why an African team can’t win on the international stage. SMDH.
“A free press. Modern construction methods, electricity and so on…. ” I can’t go on. It’s either you are wilfully ignorant, delusional or a compulsive liar.
@@jontalbot1: Now let me address Britain’s actual real African legacy.
As you know, at its peak the British empire colonised and claimed a quarter of the land mass of the world. In India alone the death toll attributed to the British, through enforced famines was estimated to have claimed the lives of up to 50 million people. You do know that …. Right? However, I don’t want to talk about the atrocities that the British I.e. your ancestors, committed in India, Australia, New Zealand, China, America, etc we’re here to talk about the butchery your ancestors are responsible for In Africa. The carnage that you seem to think that we africans should be grateful for and somehow benefitted from. Let’s start in 1568 when a ship called the “Jesus of Lubeck” commissioned by Elizabeth the first, captained by John Hawkins and was the first to bring his slave ship to the coast of West Africa, procure slaves and begin the triangular slave trade. It is estimated that during the slave trade alone, over the course of 250yrs the British I.e. your ancestors, transported approximately 5m African slaves out of Africa. These Africans weren’t the old or infirm, but young vibrant strong men, fertile women, people with skills in farming, wood craft etc…… Are you saying that sacrifice is worth a few roads and a benefited to Africa from the British?
Then came the land grab “scramble for Africa” in which Britain connived with other western powers to genocide Africa. From 1884-1960s Britain gained control over or occupied what are now known as Egypt, Sudan, Kenya, Uganda, South Africa, Gambia, Sierra Leone, northwestern Somalia, Zimbabwe, Zambia, Botswana, Nigeria, Ghana, and Malawi. That meant that the British ruled 30% of Africa's people at one time. During which time, raw materials and labour was stolen plus numerous genocides were committed in the former colonies. For example between 1951 -1960 the Mau Mau uprising in Kenya where the British invented a new type of pliers to crush and severe mens testicles. Your ancestors R8ped women with bayonets, rammed sand up men’s rectums, rolled my ancestors up with in barbed wire and then kicked them to death and leave them to bleed out. Estimate deaths 100k plus. In South Africa your ancestors used African children as crocodile bait. The Kikuyu massacre which also took place in Kenya. Let’s not forget about the Massacre in Northern Nigeria in 1903 in which “Lord Lagard” used the Maxim Gun to decimate thousands of Africans who they were in the process of subjugating.
* Benin Expedition, 1897
The Benin Punitive Expedition, also known as the 1897 expedition, was a military mission led by British forces, which included 1200 men under the command of Admiral Sir Harry Rawson, who invaded Benin City, the capital of the Kingdom of Benin. The campaign lasted 17 days, and the invading forces took over total control of the kingdom.
The British expedition was primarily an act of reprisal for the attack suffered by a column of British officers led by the acting consul-general, James Philips, and indigenous soldiers disguised as porters and musicians who in 1897 attempted to reach Benin City to attack the city and depose the Obá. Only two officers survived the attack, which became known as the Benin Massacre. However, the expedition was part of the British attempts to control the region and annexe Benin to exploit its resources.
* Mau Mau Uprising Massacres
The Mau Mau uprising began in 1952 as a reaction to inequalities and injustices in British-controlled Kenya. The response of the colonial administration was a fierce crackdown on the rebels, resulting in many deaths. By 1956 the uprising had effectively been crushed, but the extent of opposition to the British regime had clearly been demonstrated and Kenya was set on the path to independence, which was finally achieved in 1963.
Massacres in Kenya
* Sotik Massacre, 1905
Over 1800 kipsigis people of the Talai Clan were massacred by the British colonial government. The killing of men, women and children followed the refusal by members of the Kipsigis community to surrender heads of cattle alleged to have been stolen from the Maasai residing in the current Narok County.
Massacres in Nigeria
* Iva Valley, 18thNovember 1949
21 striking miners and a bystander were shot dead at a British government-owned coal mine at Enugu, 51 were injured.[21] The miners were fighting for back-pay owed to them for a period of casualisation known as ‘rostering’, later declared illegal, and had been sacked following a work to rule. They occupied the mine to prevent a repeat of the lock-out they had suffered during the 1945 general strike. Because Enugu was home to the Zikist independence movement, which included Marxists and other radicals; police were sent to remove the mine’s explosives, accompanied by Hausa troops drafted in from the North of the country; whose language and even their uniforms were unfamiliar to the Igbo miners
South Africa
Anglo Boer war and the Zulu wars which was absolute carnage. The Boer concentration camps 1899 -1902 (who would have thought that the British I.e. your ancestors, ran concentration camps but were so arrogant against the Germans when they did it?
Let’s not forget that during the first and second world wars Africans were forced to fight and die in wars that had nothing to do with them for Britain. Not content with that Europeans open up an Africa as another theatre of war in which more death and destruction took place.
I could go on …. But I think I’ve made my point in debunking your nonsense claim that Africa benefited from any association with Britain. I actually curse the day that “Dr Livingstone” presumed that he discovered Africa.
Very informative indeed. It’s worth noting that during this dark era in history it was not just the colonies that were being exploited, in the dark satanic mills, mines, factories, children, women and other workers in the UK were being exploited, worked and lived in appalling conditions, many such workers claimed they were treated better in the colonies than when they lived in the mother country.
I’m no Empire apologist, they were morally repugnant, so I am not trying to justify them but I feel an expansion on both the negative and positive things that resulted both at the time and to present day could have more impact of our understanding.
Well done
Conference of Berlin: act, dated February 26, 1885, establishes the following points:
- Any European power installed on the coast can extend its domination inland until it encounters a neighboring “sphere of influence”. But the treaty excludes the principle of the hinterland which allows the automatic annexation of the hinterland by a State controlling its coastline [ref. necessary].
- There can be annexation only by the effective occupation of the land and the treaties concluded with the native populations must be notified to the other colonizing nations.
- Freedom of navigation on the Niger and Congo rivers, and freedom of trade in the Congo Basin.
- Prohibition of slavery.
- Finally, the Conference took note of the existence of the Congo Free State as a sovereign power7, a territory belonging directly to King Leopold II of Belgium (and which would become a Belgian colony in 1908). France obtains recognition of its authority on the right bank of the Congo and the Oubangui.
The Berlin Conference recalls the prohibition of the slave trade and invites the signatories to contribute to its extinction….
Wikipedia.
We can't forget this
Yet they celebrate 70 years of queen Elizabeth
@@naomithompson3493 I don't mind them....but I resent white people so much for this....the totally set us back as a continent
@@naomithompson3493 Queen Elizabeth has never colonised a country
@@tetsianjorin1111 you are clearly not African or if you are, you live in Europe and have been brainwashed by western media and propaganda. Please stay there in Europe
@@kingsleyreact
sadly true
2 sides of the same coin!
Excellent food for thought
Some balance could be redressed by further reading: Nigel Biggar; Niall Ferguson; Andrew Roberts et al.
Over this past few days I have made the remarkable discovery that the Francophone world has its equivalent of our Commonwealth Games, Les Jeux de la Francophonie, that have been going since 1989, so I'm not sure why I've been so blissfully unaware of this sporting - and cultural event in the case of Les Jeux de la Francophonie - for so long. Admittedly, the latest edition has taken place in the formerly Belgian Democratic Republic of Congo, but it still feeds into the themes of this video, which set things out very clearly. By an ironic twist, from what I have gleaned on Les Jeux de la Francophonie, there appears to be something rather more egalitarian about them than the Commonwealth Games and they have certainly got the one-up in terms of number of times the event has taken place on the continent of Africa - five in the case of Les Jeux de la Francophonie and a big, fat zero in the case of the Commonwealth Games, not even in South Africa, once. This makes me feel that it's tragic that the Commonwealth Games has never shown off Africa in the way Les Jeux de la Francophonie has, on five occasions. It is long overdue that the Commonwealth Games took place in, say, Nigeria, so we in the Anglophone world can enjoy the same sort of experience. I don't expect to see that anytime soon, sadly, however.
A nicely balanced look at colonialism. I would like to see a positive vs negative video around this also.
💀
What positives are there from being impoverished by a looting greedy nation, please explain..
"positives" of colonialism?
@@shohammajumder4679 I’m sure there are some, even if not meant for inhabitants of the colonies. Education, infrastructure, opportunities to travel etc.
The negatives far outweigh the positives, but that doesn’t mean that there wasn’t any.
@@darrenmurray861 I am not sure whether any silver lining can gleaned from vile experiences like slavery, colonialism. The benefits of scientific and industrial revolution would have eventually been transmitted to asian and african countries without them having been invaded, pillaged and brutalised.
Reading of @ike1420's comment (further down below) is highly reommended. I couldn't find better words to analyse what was their common ground and the real difference between French and British Colonialism in Africa. It is to be welcomed that Africans of today (this vd.) seem to be preoccupied with the study of their colonial history. However, I wonder whether lack of thorough research, which always leads to mistakes, and a slight undertone of emotion and polemic, are the right way to win favor with people outside of Africa as far as the resolution of problems in today's Africa is concerned.
well done for the video it not negative video just a education video thank you
Do legacy of german colonisation
A very tough question: every territories had its particularities : for UK India wasn't administrate the same was Kenya for exemple, the same for France, Algeria was (very) differantly treated than Indochina. The British rule seems to have been rough in Africa (giving birth to segregate and disfonctional states at the independance) but quiet soft in Asia (especially East India, or Singapor)... for the French it was quiet the opposite: the farer you get from the Metropol, the harsher it was, today, Indochina is recognised to have been the worst collony of France, admin by incompetent, corrupted, brutal half-criminals that the Metropol didn't wan't; of course it wasn't rosy in Africa...but clearly, it wasn't Belgium colonisation.
Belgian colonisation was one of the most humanist. You reffer to Leopold II rule over Congo, it has nothing to do with belgians, the exactions commited under Léopold were done mostly by foreign mercenaries and african leaders
Many years ago I, read an academic paper that said that European colonization in Asia didn't destroy the main institutions of most countries while in Africa it did happen.
@@sebastiaosalgado1979 Because there were institutions in Asia... not that much in Africa "destroy the main institutions of most countries while in Africa it did happen" Alright which one ? It isn't even an ironic or a sarcastic question, which one ? Tell me an institution Europe destroyed in Africa ? Why do you think it was that easy to consider Africa... as a cake to partake: there was no opposition, we are not talking of a war of conquest...we are talking of an invasion without any resistance....who were invaded? Again, tell me "Africa" that"s a continent, it's like I'm saying Asia got invaded by Gengis Khan: there is no meaning behind it...give a name to these persons...
How was the British Empire rough on Africa?? Chinua Achebe the Nigerian author said that the British ruled Nigeria with considerable care.
@@mudra5114 Massacres, segregations, thieving of land... I pass rapes and abuses; and if your answer is "everywhere it happened" well no... that's the problem when you talk of colonisation with an anglo-saxon, no, it wasn't all European who acted as such, British rule was particulary cruel in Africa for the racial and eugenistic theories were quiet popular in the UK back to the golden age of colonisation...
"How was the British Empire rough on Africa??" it was rough because I stood diplomatic, British rule was an Horror in Africa, that sounds more true...
"Chinua Achebe the Nigerian author said that the British ruled Nigeria with considerable care" did you... take a look of the state of Nigeria recently ? If that's your level of "considerable care" I wouldn't like to be your child...
Most of these conferences seemingly divvying up territories was usually to prevent or limit European internal power plays from spilling over elsewhere not unlike the Treaty of Tordesillas. And maps usually being incomplete, it wasn't always possible to know what you were getting at the end. Ask yourself how much mayhem would have accrued if they HADN'T done this.
I will add one observation on the lady speaking. Obviously she is not a native English speaker .... also I ask myself if she lived in Africa from young before independence, because the facts that she recounts certainly did not apply to Tanzania, and I must add that elders who remembered the Germans at the time, told me that they were demanding but fair and honest in the treatment of the local population.
Didn't they slaughter some tribes? Overall just because some governors were good/decent doesn't mean the system in itself is good. The elders may come from a province led by a different governor.
@@Steyr32 I was referring to those elders that were still alive when I listened to them in "their" language. I read somewhere that a tribe (I think in the southern parts) did attack the Germans, but they could not possibly stand a chance. I being an Italian and "colour" blind when it comes to the skin, treated them as normal humans, not savages, finding many that were intelligent, but with minimum schooling or none, they were obviously ignorant of things that did not involve them. President Nyerere did come to visit me, having heard of my approach with the local people, and we had a pleasant dialog in the local language. A very intelligent person, AND also honest.
the difference is that France still has its colonies today
The African rulers/ leaders who sold slaves benefitted hugely but no one wants to discuss this. The same rulers agreed western demands for a small fee, of course.
Since, some do much better: Morocco, Senegal, Ghana, Ivory Coast, Kenya, Botswana, Namibia, Rwanda. But for the majority it is a sad story indeed, without happy ending. As an inhabitant of Borneo told me once: after the Dutch left, the Javanese arrived. Comparable situations all over Africa where the European colonizers were replaced by tribal rivalries and endless guerrilla warfare. Today most of Africa grows closer to its pre-colonial history: politicians selling out the natural resources replace the chiefs selling slaves to the Europeans.
Tribal genocide and slavery was going at a Rampant scale before the Europeans came. Parliamentary democracy(1707) and the English Bill of Rights (1689), Building on the principles in the Magna Carta (1215) and Habeus corpus (1679) has changed everything and the adaptations from These internationally and gradual emancipation and enfranchisement of different groups throughout the Westerrn world and Tiger economies, have those to thank for our freedoms todaay.
*Without this, everyone would still be working 15 hours a day, with a subsistence income creating value for a small group of elites in every country all over the world
"The Berlin Conference" tock place in 1885 due to conflicts that was occurring among Europeans, and no "Confusion" as you stated.
Great Video....
Another interesting subject that is related is that competing Military strategies drove the colonisation.
Because with many different European countries at war... if their enemies had colonies and they did not.... they would be invaded in Europe....
sorry gambia 🇬🇲is not French colonies is British colonies
Thanks historyville👍👍
@22:00 That looks like Central Africa.
Can anyone tell me which country?
Mau Mau rebellion in Kenya
Cameroon 🇨🇲 wasn’t entirely colonized by France. Your research is lacking
Not it wasn’t but as it stands today majority of Cameroonians speak french and a minority spew english
@@grunggadx25 so you part of those who suppressed minority voices? Of what do you mean
Good video. People need to learn about colonialism.
Thank you for this video. I learned a lot, especially since in American schools we learned French treatment of Native American tribes was more respectful than British treatment. I'll point out Queen Victoria's unfortunate legacy. Except where Islam is the majority religion, gay rights in African nations formerly colonized by France, Portugal, or Spain are legalized. They mostly are not in former British colonies. This policy is also true in most formerly French, Spanish, and Dutch Caribbean islands versus formerly British islands. Furthermore, the British often brought workers, some educated, from India, to act as go-betweens in colonies like Uganda and South Africa. The racism inherent there, that British leaders shouldn't even have to speak to African locals, is disturbing.
"in American schools we learned French treatment of Native American tribes was more respectful than British treatment". Indeed in 1701 the French achieved the impossible : sign with 40 Native tribes a peace treaty that to this day has never been broken. This treaty allowed the French to explore vast lands from the Rocky Mountains down to the Mississipi basin. When the British conquered the North America the US and my country Canada just slaughtered the natives. The Canadian of the times PM John McDonald made no bones about it "we must starve the Indians" and so he did. Millions died.
I just wanna say its good content , respect n support content like this , from jkrta watch this channel , o'k terima kasih (thx)
Very vague - as is always told. Some kings and chiefs - who? Still good coverage.
EMI Omo Sanda…..😜
@@rcole172 wait what!
Se oruko e ni Alessandro Sanda ?😂
What??? What were you doing in class dull people showing they were just sleeping in class. This is primary level social studies. Oh every kingdom had a king and a parliament . And if you don't know those in your region then go back to school.
@@rickyreward226 evidently you're the dull one. Lacking the aptitude to comprehend what's being said. Try rereading my comment again and come back with something more intelligent.
@@rickyreward226 were you taught about Oba Kosoko? Or Are Ana Kakanfo Afonja? You've likely heard about them but I doubt that was from your social studies class. I'll help you here - what my statement meant was " the documentary glosses over the details which wouldn't have added more to the length of the video - but still good video", I hope that helps you understand a bit
Is this why former French West African countries are such a mess now?
Anglophone Africa is not doing much better my dear.
The US system of governance (as I understand it) is also a federation of sorts, but each state has substantial leeway to make its own policies. Balancing direct and indirect within the same nation does of course lead to tensions, But I admit that I have always been impressed with how much authority a local US state governor has versus what usually holds sway in the rest of the world.
Given that the British allowed its colonies to have a certain amount of self governance, then it could be argued that the people had a longer lead time to develop and practice political skills than French colonies who would end up in a more sink or swim scenario - mostly sinking.
I wonder about Spanish colonies. Because they seem to be unstable too. If they followed the French method then it could be evidence of which style of governance not to impose on the people.
So true compared to all the so stable British colonies.
Portuguese colonies had the worst real. Late independence, a poor colonizer that didn't see the importance to update themselves technologically and worst of all the grave campaign to erase the local culture.
When they went out, the locals were unable to maintain and update the infrastructure, that's why we saw a lot of failing industries there (exports were free failing) then the civil wars broken... Was a mess there
thanks!
It is such bad historical practice to examine the past from a values and judgement perspective. That’s not what history should be about and it prevents us from achieving a proper understanding of it - always seeking to apply overly simplistic verdicts to multifaceted situations. There were so many players and systems and structures and periods involved during European colonialism, it is simply not possible to ascribe single labels and roles across them. When we do, it is often an expression of modern political or nationalist considerations than a real inquiry into the past.
You completely forget the Arabs and the Turks, who ruled North Africa for more than 1000 years!
The two main colonial areas of Italy in Africa during the 20th century were present-day Libya (consisting of Italian Libya, Italian Cyrenaica and Tripolitania) and Italian East Africa (consisting of the area of the same name, together with Italian Eritrea, Italian Ethiopia and Italian Somalia
Ethiopia was never colonized.
Eritrea was sold by Abyssinia, and occupied by Italy. Dont be manipulative with your words and try to change the course of history
@@WediIbrahim yes it was
@@Martini923it was occupied on the Second World War but not colonised there is a difference
@@Martini923 NO it wasn't (check on Wikipedia at least).
It is true we were colonised , enslaved and brutally treated , But it was our own weakness ,What have done to liberate ourselves other than clinging on the past ?????