FF E02: Zambia was NEVER a British Colony
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 28 ส.ค. 2024
- In this episode, we look at historical evidence that dispel the notion that Zambia, once known as Northern Rhodesia, was a British Colony.
--
Subscribe to Channel
/ @thezhistorian
--
FAIR-USE COPYRIGHT DISCLAIMER
***Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for “fair use” for the purpose such as criticism, commenting, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research.
Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favour of fair use.
1. This video has no negative impact on the original works (It would actually be positive for them)
2. This video is also for teaching purposes;
3. It is transformative in nature;
4. Only bits and pieces of original videos were used to get the point across where necessary.
--
FOLLOW THE Z HISTORIAN
Email: vsimz123@gmail.com
Blog: victor-simukon...
Instagram: vsimz1?hl=en
Facebook: / thezhistorian
Twitter: vsimz1
![ฮักเทื่อสุดท้าย - บอย ศิริชัย [OFFICIAL MV]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/-1PoPoQ-B-k/mqdefault.jpg)
Victor you have done your homework Welldone, truly very informative and historical for Zambia 🇿🇲
Thankyou!!! Very informative things will never be taught at school
Wow. This is the first time I’ve heard this info. Thanks brother
Great vid! Much love from Britain!
Zambia when Northern Rhodesia was a British Protectorate, ruled via the Colonial in London. It inherited it in 1923 from the British South Africa Company. Northern Rhodesia was North Western Rhodesia and North Eastern Rhodesia until 1911.
It's a problem of etymology and vocabulary...as oversimplified an answer that is; colony and colonialism have become soundbyte words for politicians and at same time a overgeneralization term for folks with poor vocabularies as a blanket term for any foreign-rule, occupation, settlement, or non-self governing territory.
Hello I have watched your video and while you try to dispel Zambia as not being a British colony, You do state what it was, if Zambia was not a British colony what was it then?
Thanks for your question. The better term to describe Zambia especially after 1924 is a British protectorate. I do explain the difference between the two terms towards the end of the video. While some may argue this as semantics it actually had significant implications for the development of Northern Rhodesia leading up to independence.
From 1st January 1964 to 23rd October 1964 , Northern Rhodesia was indeed a self governing British Colony, the Prime Minister was Kenneth Kaunda.
Thanks @sirstiffpilchard. Kaunda was indeed prime minister during the period you've mentioned. But this was only a special arrangement to prepare for final handover after independence. There were things Kaunda demanded to be in place before he took over as president. One being he wanted an indigenous African officer to had him the flag during the ceremony hence the delay. To claim Zambia was "self governing " though is another issue as most institutions were still under the control of colonial office hence the tragedy with the Lumpa church during the very period you've mentioned. So the answer to you contribution is yes though it's more complicated than that.
@TheZHistorian I was under the impression that both Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland graduated to self governing status before independence. That was the basis of the dispute between Southern Rhodesia and Britain. They claimed their years of self governance entitled them to be put on a par with Northern Rhodesia (Zambia) and Nyasaland ( Malawi)
@@sirstiffpilchard Not necessarily. Before independence both countries were in the Federation of Rhodesia and Nysaland under a Federal government with its core in Rhodesia. However, very real disparities between the three territories that were united doomed the Federation to failure. One being the fact that before federation, one member was a colony while the other two were merely protectorates.
By 1923, the entire governance structure of Southern Rhodesia was almost completely in the hands of white settlers. Under their system, chiefs were made subordinate to Native Commissioners, and pass laws were enforced rigidly.
With no African representation in the Rhodesian Parliament, Africans had neither de jure nor de facto political power. By the 1950s, white settlers representing only about 2.5 percent of the total population owned more than 50 percent of that total land area of Southern Rhodesia.
On the other hand, the picture in the two northern Protectorates -Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland -differed significantly. Local advisory councils were also introduced in 1912 and Africans were common in the civil service. Further, 90 percent of the land in the territories was held by African or in trust for them.
This and other reasons of course (mainly economic) is why it was easy for the crown to let go of the two protectorates but not the colony (Rhodesi) and this is what sparked UDI.
Apologies for long text, will share link on the Federation.
th-cam.com/video/fENgIGoid_w/w-d-xo.html
@TheZHistorian the crucial period in question is not the period of Federation (1953-1963) but from 1st January 1964 New constitutions had been introduced and voted into legality to take effect from 1st January 1964 with colonial self government for the three former states. Southern Rhodesia already had it from 1922. Northern Rhodesia was a protectorate into and through the Federation. A new constitution was awarded to Northern Rhodesia and elections were held (NB Protectorates do not hold elections!) This was a sign Northern Rhodesia had changed its status. Mr Kaunda's UNIP party won in Coalition with Harry Nkumbula's ANC to narrowly defeat the UFP led by John Roberts. At the turn into 1964 Mr Kaunda led Zambia to independence on 24th October 1964. That's 10 months of colonial rule, during which time the NR Government resumed full mining control from the BSA Company, RST, and Anglo American Mining. I am aware of the Alice Lenshina and the Lumpa Rebellion, and also Godfrey Lewanika was unsuccessful in securing secession for Barotseland from NR as was his right as his chiefly ancestors signed up to the BSA Company in the 19th Century. Lewanika"srequest was refused as NR was no longer a protectorate but was under the control of the NR Government,under a ruling by the UK Government. Nothing was going to stand in the way of Zambian Independence at this stage
A shame what happened to once stable countries like Rhodesia, Zambia, Botswana and South Africa they may not have been as "liberal" in their stable past to the modern people of the North Atlantic, but if they had stayed that way without civil wars Sooner or later, with the new generations, apartheid would have ended without the need for guerrillas sponsored by the communist block USSR, China and Cuba (which the UN did not intervene either), they would not have had tyrants like Mugambe would be, they would be a prosperous block in Africa, I hope they At least China (not Maoist) helps with investments to return glory to these countries. Hope to everyone in the global South, hopefully development will be achieved from Latin America, Africa and Southeast Asia.
You said Zambia was a protectorate, how did Zambia ( then northern Rhodesia) gain its independence? When protectorates are already independent?
Also the British extension act of 1911( ever heard of it?)
There isn’t Zambia part of the Commonwealth? What is the commonwealth ?
Four before the British came,the land that became Zambia were land that was ruled by chiefs . Chiefdoms were in a way countries. When the lozi decided to protection, they went to the British. Now they rest of the land had to be brought together . And when they did they were eventually given to the British from the BSA .
Remember if talks like a duck and walks like duck then it’s duck.
From far Zambia seems to have been protectorate but the closer you examine it’s something else . Also lewanika and people thought they were independent when they signed their land off but in reality they signed off and lost all power . That’s why the lozi couldn’t break away during colonial rule . They had no choice on the matter
Thanks@KK for your feedback. These are indeed thought provoking questions. Now where do I start...
1. Countries were give independence (self-rule) whether they were colonies or protectorates. In fact Zambia came straight out of the Federation before it was given it's so-called independence.
2. The extension Act just meant certain English law could be applied to British territories for convenience but in reality customary law was what was in force in most African territories hence institution of native Authorites.
3. Any country can apply to join the commonwealth. Regardless of its historical connection to Britian.
4. Walk like a duck, sound like a duck is LIKE a duck not necessarily a duck😅
...what else, for Lewanika I think I need an episode to explain that🤔.
Thanks again for your comments and analysis. This is what this channel is all about😊
Make ur own word in ur mother language and define the political activities , slavery, stealing of minerals, racism and the problems they left in our lands 🗣️ some guy just woke up and thought of the word "colony "😢😢😢u are the same people who cerebrate black Friday forgetting our 4fathers were murdered and sold
Burn all history textbooks for sure
Thanks for this
So who is BSA
The BSCo was a chartered company founded by Cecil Rhodes. It's the company that administered Northern Rhodesia (Zambia) on behalf of the British for the most part of colonial era.