France did not just "give" Haiti independence. Do not forget the reparations they forced the nation to pay France, setting the country up for failure in addition to other factors
Also a lot of people are also unaware that the Haitian president at the time Alexandre petion played a big role in Bolivar's overthrowing of the Spanish by providing military and financial support, I mean they'd quite literally given up until he came with the offer to help them in exchange for the abolishment of slavery.
@@LuDa-lf1xd It wasn't the same though. For Haiti one of the conditions for independence was to pay an insanely large amount of money that took well over a hundred years to pay, and that's with the governments of Haiti knowing that they had to put as much money off their budget as humanly possible to pay that debt unless they wanted French intervention again, which would only make things worse, and they would still have to pay the money anyways. Our countries had some similar stuff happen, heck, my country, the Dominican Republic almost got annexed by France and the US at different times and by different presidents offering for them to take over the country, and once managed to get Spain to annex it back. We had our issues with the "vendepatrias", but that was nowhere near as crippling as the Haitian debt.
Best part about History Scope: This wonderful guy gives us a more sociological, geopolitical perspective on the same events that so many others tend to expound at length regarding military affairs instead.
@@HistoryScopeWell why didn't you say so to begin with if I had known I would have waited to watch all of this at once no disrespect or anything but okay
@HistoryScope I love videos about colinization and de-colinization. Seeing as how I'm a Western-Canadian, it makes sense. (seeing as how our only real history here is colinization and western expansion from the British, residential schools, and a few revolts by the Indians and French colonizers sprinkled in.)
you highligthed Puerto Rico as a british colony, when it was a Spanish colony, and you didnt mention Cuba, Dominican Replublic and Cuba and Puerto Rico situation. However besides that great video
I was surprised that the Spanish America decolonization section did not have any mention of the 'Libertador' Simón Bolívar, not even during the Gran Colombia part.
The Americas have never been decolonized. Now the USA occupies the entire hemisphere. Look at the country freaking out when anyone tries to have a socialist government that serves it’s own people. Look at how the USA is freaking out about the audaciousness of Latin American countries trying to trade with to China. The only reason the USA is not invading Nicaragua or Venezuela is that it is spread too thin!
History Scope doesn't focus on individual people. Simon Bolivar was a product of his time. If it wasn't him, someone else would have filled the role. Just as it did in other parts of the Americas. We also didn't mention of the other famous people in other videos, for example.
@@HistoryScope Understandable. Tho, imo I would argue that history is driven by people. Empires are made/run by people. Wars are fought by people. So, I humbly believe people should be accounted for in historical accounts (objectively & without idolization, ofc). All of this is just my opinion, of course. There are many schools of history.
@@HistoryScope Don't get me wrong I appreciate the effort you put in the videoand the animation. Even if you didn't mention El Alto Peru and the last battles of Tumusla and Coragaita, when Spain renounce their Southamerocans colonies, and also you get some names of the central americans countries wrong. I wonder if it was on purpose.
Haiti didn't exactly...get independence on good terms. In 1825, the French demanded they paid 150 million francs as compensation, this was reduced to 90 million in 1838 but it put quite the dent on their development. Not to mention this forced them to take huge loans as well as the US receiving interest payments when it acquired Haiti's treasury in 1911. Haiti finally paid off the debt in 1947. The DR-Haiti border just shows the differences in their development. When you just look at the two sides, you can see that the Dominican side is much greener than the Haitian side. And this is because of many factors. There was a lot of deforestation in 1954 after Hurricane Hazel drowned many trees, and concessionaires stepped up their logging operations in response to intensified demand for charcoal on top of rapid population growth. The geographic makeup of the Island of Hispaniola is such that the mountainous regions tend to cut off the rainfall needed to grow crops and sustain livestock. The northeast trade winds that blow across the island often favor the DR. Compared to the DR, the area of flat land good for intensive agriculture in Haiti is much smaller, as a higher percentage of Haiti's area is mountainous. There is more limestone terrain, and the soils are thinner and less fertile and have a lower capacity for recovery. Haiti's semiarid climate makes cultivation more challenging. On top of this, the French destroyed the soil by aggressively harvesting the same crops over and over again. France wanted the colony to be extremely profitable. Not just sugar, but coffee too. Over the course of fifty years, a quarter of the colony was all coffee with the original forests cleared. They were also forced to export timber to the French as part of paying off the millions of francs.
I did not put his name in because I think a lot of people don't know who he is, unless they had an education about the USA. I assume the people watching this had a general education not specific to any one nation. So I assume people know about the world wars but I don't assume they know important figures of individual countries. So I didn't put his name in.
lmao, most people, even of foreign countries, know about George Washington, the first president of the current hegemon of the world, i'm American and might be bias, but i believe that even people in remote countries know about him, if they had any interest in the US, which they kind of have to, if they aren't an absolute bumpkin, it's fine for them to not know stalin, mao, hitler, gaulle, ect, first leaders of "current great powers" but that's the difference between "great powers" and the one and only undisputed hegemon, the sole superpower of the modern age. not knowing about the history of "great powers" is fine if you aren't directly or indirectly involved with that country, different story for the current superpowers, who are relevant to the entire world.@@HistoryScope
@@stefthorman8548 sorry to break it to you citizen of the only undisputed hegemon of the world , but much much more people around the world know about Stalin , Mao and especially Hitler compared to George Washington. Not de Gaulle tho. I understand that over there you're so isolationist and learn only about your country , but sometimes its good to be given a broader view. Hope this helped for your ignorance!!!
Something interesting to note about the Seven Years' War is while France had to give up New France to the British and Spanish under the 1763 Treaty of Paris, the British granted fishing rights to French fishermen along the Newfoundland coast, and today the islands of St Pierre & Miquelon remain a vestige of the once-vast New France. The history behind St Pierre & Miquelon is that a Portuguese explorer discovered it in 1520, but it was in 1536 that French explorer Jacques Cartier claimed the islands as a French possession. In the 1713 Treaty of Utrecht which ended the War of Spanish Succession, France ceded the islands to the UK, and a small number of American colonists settled there. Then of course the French were granted the islands again after the Seven Years' War. However, after France helped the Americans fight the UK, a British force invaded and briefly occupied them, destroying all the settlements. In 1793, during the French Revolutionary Wars, another British force landed and once again, got rid of the French settlers. The Treaty of Amiens of 1802 returned the islands to France, but Britain reoccupied them when hostilities recommenced the next year. The 1814 Treaty of Paris gave the islands back to France, though the UK occupied them yet again during the Hundred Days War in 1815. The islands were resettled in 1816, mostly by Basques, Bretons and Normans, thus why the Basque, Breton, and Norman flags are on their coat of arms. So yeah, a lot of back and forth!
Dominica gained independence from the Haiti if I remember. And Cuba got forced out of the Spanish Kingdom by the americans (already in the end of the 19th century).
@@MenezarianDominican Republic is a completely separate country from Dominica. Dominican Republic has 3 historically recognized independences, one of them from Haiti, the second one. But given his focus was on European colonization and decolonization the other 2 were from Spain. And the history of the second independence from Spain was particularly different from the cases mentioned on the video.
We could have a History Scope meet-up community, and constantly make predictable jokes about how we WILL BE UNITED, which would be just as hilarious the 100,000th time we make the same joke
@@JonathanMoosey you're right. The majority of Puerto Ricans, myself included, believe that we're better off under the wing of the USA. You only need to look to our neighbors in the Caribbean to see why.
Invaded by Portugal in 1816, annexed to Portugal (1821), then Brazil (1823), finally made an independent country as a buffer state between Argentina and Brazil, for the benefit of the British. A rare mixture of colonialism and neo-colonialism.
great video, maybe the best history explainer on youtube. can you maybe put neo-colonialism in your schedule for future videos? I would love to hear you talk about the topic.
Maybe. First I want to finish this decolonisation series. At the end I will put all the videos together into one giant video. If that is popular enough I will make a neo-colonialism video, maybe a general video of 'what happened to the colonies after decolonisation' or something like that.
24:53 This is so incredibly wrong I don't know where to even begin. The 3 largest countries in the Americas are currently under left-leaning or left-wing governments, for example.
Excellent job. I absolutely love your content. It’s so well researched and well-produced. On another note: self-care is not reading most of these comments. Like if y’all believe you can make more accurate content then make it yourself.
14:10 correction, chile didn’t officially declare independence until 12 of February of 1818, after the Andes army expelled the Spaniards, and in the anniversary of the founding of Santiago. In September 18th we celebrate the first time the colony organised and declared autonomy but loyalty to the captured king of Spain
@@allanfrd idk about the port part, I do know that Britain actually supported Chilean independence (can’t say the same thing of Argentinian independence taking into consideration the invasions of the river plate) it had started trading with out ports in a clandestine operation way before the war, and it was one of the first countries to recognise our independence afterwards, Cochrane came to aid the building of a Navy with support from London and he was vital in expelling the Spaniards from Valdivia and the southern regions. our father of independence, Bernardo O’Higgins was of Irish descent and was educated on the revolutionary ideas in England. After the war, There was massive English and Scottish immigration to the port of Valparaiso and later to the conquered northern regions, which has anglicised the central Chilean culture(tea, lunch schedule, education, politics). We are probably the closest country to the UK in Latam, and that has shaped the way Chile developed, we could say that those good relations have made Chile way less Europhobic and less inclined on regionalism.
@@pablomeneses1633 Thanks for answering. I know how England operates in the rest of the world, and I was actually curious about its dealings with Chile. In Africa and India, their 'help' seemed more like a one-sided benefit for the British. Considering Chile's numbers, especially its population, I had my doubts. Also, regarding the Falklands War, it appeared to me that Chile was more of a British colony. I was surprised when I heard the name of their liberator was O'Higgins. But thanks for clarifying that you are actually independent.
20:04 Wrong, his full name was not Dom Pedro I, it was actually way hotter: *Pedro de Alcântara Francisco Antônio João Carlos Xavier de Paula Miguel Rafael Joaquim José Gonzaga Pascoal Cipriano Serafim de Bragança e Bourbon* . How can you resist it?
I have to say that while I greatly enjoy these videos as they are immensely engaging and entertaining, I cannot help but notice the numerous small and sometimes major inaccuracies which I think hold the channel back. As others have mentioned, France didn't just give Haiti independence out of good will, they encumbered them with an astounding amount of debt and thus ruined the country in the long run. Another thing is about Canada and the other members of the Commonwealth, they don't "continue to gain more and more autonomy" as they are already fully independent and sovereign nations. The only thing still tying them to the UK is that they recognize the British monarch as their head of state, which is just a formality. Lastly, I would like to mention that the Europeans didn't "entirely" control the Americas as you said, because many regions were only nominally administered by the Europeans, while in reality the locals were left mostly to their own devices - Patagonia in southern South America, Most of french Louisiana, the whole Amazonian rainforest where some local tribes didn't even know about the outside world till the 20th century etc. I believe a bit more in-depth research about the topic would easily solve the issue.
Chilean national here: On September 18th, 1810 was established the first Junta, whose goal was, as you stated, to run the colony while the king Ferdinand VII was in captivity. Eventually the local elites decided to become completely independent from Spain, thus beginning the Chilean War of Independence. The Chilean Declaration of Independence was declared in February 12, 1818 following the Patriot victory at the Battle of Chacabuco, which effectively secured Chilean independence (although the war didn’t finished until April 1818 and skirmishes against Spanish Remmants continued until late 1820s).
Way too simplified. The wars of independence were a lot more complex than just kicking out Spain. Was about Spain becoming weak after the Napoleonic wars, Britain aiding said colonies to weak spanish influence(first by force)in the region and have new trade options worldwide. And you said you would talk about every single country but you leave out Bolivia, Uruguay, etc. Kind of disappointed to be honest, because I loved your video on italian unification. But this is just such a superficial take on history.
Am I going crazy? I could swear you were on Nebula before! Fantastic video as always though. Your recent video on slaves taught me a lot that I didn't know as well
2:20 Wait-- The Seven Years War was what? Can we get a video on just the Seven Years War, please? I'm American and was only taught that the war occured on the North American continent. Now I am finding out it was the first true global war fought on FIVE continents. I would love to learn more on that.
@kingace6186 Britain viewed saving Prussia as sort of a side objective. Britain was far more willingly to protect Hanover than Prussia if Prussia had lost the war. However thanks to the Russian Tsar dying and their replacement being a "prussian weeb" Prussia was able to defend itself. That isn't to say Prussia won easily. The situation was so bad that Frederick the Great (perhaps the greatest, and gayest, king in history) contemplated suicide on the battlefield
The war fought in Spain from 1807 to 1814, though technically a kind of civil war, is better known as the Spanish War of Independence. The Civil War term is used mostly to refer to the Spanish Civil War from the 1930’s, which was a full on internal conflict in Spain, contrary to the 19th century one, which had most to do with the Napoleonic Wars.
I’m not sure it counts as decolonization if the country switched from being ruled from Europe to being ruled by Europeans that live in America. Is the USA really a country ruled by people native to the land? I could make an argument that most of Latin America are colonies of the USA. I’m not entirely convinced decolonization has happened yet.
This is quite the detailed and well educated video I will admit! Only thing is, you completely ignored the Spanish-American War in which the final Spanish possessions in the Caribbean gained their independence. As someone who’s half Cuban I was a little disappointed by the fact that my country was completely overlooked.
I’m sorry, but when you say nobody knows about other countries independence you should specify that it’s only english-speaking audiencies or americans. Spanish-speaking people in LatAm do know how their countries gained independence and I’d bet that there are more with knowledge on other countries independence history compared to people from non-spanish speaking countries. Good video btw.
There was not serious fear that the British were going to free the slaves of the Americas if they remained in charge. The British continued to permit slavery in their Caribbean colonies long after the 13 colonies rebelled, and many of newly independent states passed anti-slavery laws as soon as they were no longer constrained by the crown.
"How do you divide the world? According to Europeans you draw straight lines on a map." This almost made me spit out my Müsli xD Funny and sadly accurate.
14:12 Chilean here! Actually🤓 September 18th, 1810 was the first “junta de gobierno” where a bunch of men in government positions decided that they were not going to follow the fake king (napoleon’s brother) so they might as well go for independence, that triggered the war and Chile was officially free in February 12th, 1818. We still celebrate on September tho!!
Haiti is not the only successful slave revolt. The Mamluks revolted successfully against Egypt! Haiti is the only successful slave revolt of the colonial era
It's not really comparable. The Mamluks were an elite military social caste. They had origins as foreign born soldiers that were imported because without clan or tribal ties they could be expected to be loyal to their sultan and no one else. As part of their Mamluk training they were taught Islam and legally freed because Islam forbids the enslaving of other Muslims. By the time they were actually ruling they weren't slaves anymore and it was more like a military coup than a slave revolt (and the reason for the overthrow had nothing to do with slavery or their former status of being enslaved)
@@imdunder I’d say it’s close enough to make a comparison if you look at the big picture, but if you look closely; the Mamluks enjoyed a level of power, enfranchisement, and legitimacy that made them a military and political force. Haitian slaves of Saint-Domingue had nothing of the sort. They started off being treated worse than farm animals and ended up with a nation.
This is the first time I've ever heard Greenland be referred to as a part of North America. I mean, it is, it makes sense, it just never occurred to me and has somehow never come up.
Hey History Scope. I’m a proud Newfoundlander and I was curious if you ever given thought to go over the history of Newfoundland and how it was annexed into Canada from eventual British meddling
Puerto Rico is a colony of the US. Last time I checked, we were only a British colony for sixteen days sometime in 1588, The video’s script implies that the US favored independence of former colonies in the Americas, most of which the US has either invaded or destabilized in favor of pro-US regimes. At some time during the 20th century, the US occupied 19% of Puerto Rican land for military bases, and absentee sugar companies controlled up to 25% of its territory. The US and it’s crony governments here are slowly applying disaster capitalism, turning the islands into a tax haven and allowing for massive property grabs. Colonialism is a piece of 💩, and it is very much alive and well in the Caribbean.
Actually, that use of the term “homeland” to refer to the colonizing powers is offensive. The European countries were only the homelands of Europeans. The vast majority of people in the americas had their homelands in the americas. It would have been better just to say “Europe” if you meant the colonizing country and not the colonies.
We will. It's going to be a lot shorter because I've airway covered it a bit in the ussr and ottoman breakup videos. When another video turns out to be shorter than expected we'll put time into making a European decolonisation video
The King of Britain is the head of state in Canada but only in name. The crown is more symbolic and to make Canada distinct from the USA. Canada and the USA are very culturally similar. The governor general(the representative of the British crown) still has some power but is appointed by the elected government of Canada. The only real roll the governor general has is to dissolve the parliament when an election is called in Canada. An election happens when the Prime Minister`s term is up or a vote of no confidence is reached in parliament. The UK has no authority or say in Canadian affairs. The tie to the crown is just tradition.
You have a somewhat limited understanding of Canada's constitutional setup. Canada along with Australia and New Zealand are Commonwealth Realms. Each country has a legally separate monarchy. The title of King/Queen of Canada is a separate title from that of the UK. This has been the case since the Statue of Westminster in 1931. All oaths are sworn on the basis of being the Monarch of Canada and even if the UK abolished the monarchy it would have no legal impact in Canada as it is a separate title. The GG is not a representative of the British Monarch, but in each Commonwealth Realm is a stand in for the Monarch. Note that Charles III was declared King of Canada separately by the Canadian Parliment, as he was in each Commonwealth Realm. Effectively it does not even have to be the same person. The various Commonwealth Realms agreed to syncronise the succession laws with the UK ( going forward it will be the oldest child not son). You are right that there is no British authority, has not been since the 1981 repatriation of the Canadian Consitution and even this was only highly ceremonial. But this is due to the Canadian Monarchy being legally separate from that of the UK. It is actually enshrined in the Canadian Consitution and it would take the consent of the Federal Government anlong with each province to change it.
The colonizers wanted independence because the European countries wanted them to colonize less hard. That was unacceptable. The American continent is still colonized in its entirety today.
00:03 No. There were lots of lands where europeans never had been in. For example the Patagonia. Also, territory’s like La Araucanía were once occupied by states like Spain, but in a moment the indigenous people retook them.
Argentina: fends off two British expeditions without aid from the metropoli, indirectly causes Paraguay to splinter away from the Viceroyalty, sends an expedition to (successfully) liberate Chile and afterwards Peru, fights an inconclusive war against Brazil that ends up in the independence of Uruguay. "Their story is pretty generic".
something i noticed is how you say that spain provided qualified labor and manufacturation when the colonies already had certain level of manufactories and various universities, so no sense.
@5:51 Canada Is fully independent of the UK (mind you it to fing long only fully severing ties fully in 1982) we just share a monarch now which has no bearing on how we run the country, the only reason we kept the monarchy is because of our own cultural identity and not to piss off the older generation, frankly the only reason we are probably going retain the monarchy going forward is it would be to much of a pain in the ass to remove it.
Canada is fully independent. The Head of Government is the head of the entire nation. With the Canadian "Head of State" being ceremonial. Canada's closest real ties to the UK is the Commonwealth of Nations.
Spain didn’t have colonies they were viceroyalties and their government was always independent from Spain they were not independent from the king which is different, their issue was that the Spanish nor had more political power in the viceroyalties than the mestizos and criollos however mostly indigenous people were ruled under usos y costumbres independently. The hacendados which were mostly criollos and mestizos like Miguel Hidalgo had issues with that.
But thwy were colonies, in the sense that there was an uneven economic relation: the goal of the Spanish was raw goods extraction. That's why Potosí , Buenos Aires were stablished. The criollos revolted when their local monopolies were eroded by free trade between colonies.
@@thepedrothethethe6151 not necessarily, the goal of the Spanish was evangelization. It is hard for us to understand now days how religion played in the lives of people back then but for Spanish after they reconquered the Iberian peninsula from the Muslim rule under the Catholic banner it really made them think it was their purpose. Also take a look at Spanish cities in the Americas compared to French English or Dutch settlements. Spain has the same mentality as Rome as an empire which is to replicate itself. Spain replicated itself everywhere with hospitals, universities and institutions. Most of the indigenous chiefs or entire dynasties of families received nobiliary titules recognized by the Spanish crown like the Moctezuma the Xiu, the Ixtlixochitl, maxxicatzin, Xicotencatl, Yupanqui, Amaru etc. these families became part of the elite in the viceroyalties and rather than living in a pueblo de Indios by usos y costumbres they preferred to rebuilt their cities with the Spanish. Most of them had Spanish people working for them even or owned haciendas or entire production sectors. Only from the 5% - 15% was taken to Spain to build Madrid the imperial city however a lot of that was stolen by the British. Also everyone at that time perceived Mexico City as the economical capital of the Spanish empire. It managed the Philippines which Tlaxcala and mexica warriors helped to take. Also you can study the story of Tata Vasco, how come he was so loved by the purapecha if he was teaching them Catholicism? Also unlike the Dutch the French or the English the Spanish had the university of Salamanca birth of human rights. In 1493 just right after Colombia came back from the Americas Queen Isabel la católica refused to turn them into slaves but into her subjects equal to any other Spanish subject also in 1500 she sent commissioners to ensure that the indigenous people in the Americas were in fact not being killed nor enslaved, there was enforcement. In 1514 she urged the marriage between both groups since she said they are one. In 1537 they forbid the Saint Inquisition to stop punishing indigenous people for their believes since they were not at fault for not believing in the Catholic god. As a matter of fact most indigenous people fought against the insurgentes in the independence of Mexico and they also preferred Maximiliano of Habsbourg than Benito Juarez or porfirio Díaz since the polices of the Independent Mexican state didn’t know how to deal with them since they lifted the usos y costumbres in pueblos de indios and pushed for Spanish to be spoken killing indigenous languages. Something that not only survived during the 300 years of viceroyalties but thrived. After Spanish, Nahuatl was the second language to be standardized with help of the Spanish after that the Quechua followed by Aymara and Mayan were standardized and developed by the Spanish cooperation with the distinct indigenous groups. It’s never as black and white Actually even in the USA you still have indigenous communities that still swear their loyalty to the Spanish crown.
@@thepedrothethethe6151 for instance let me give you a quick example, before the Spanish arrived there were several Mayan city states, amongst them there were the Cocom from Sotuta, the Xiu of Uxmal and Mani, and mayapan where they tried to unify and for the league of mayapan however there was a lot of power imbalance which led to the league collapsing. Their relationship turned very sour. The Xiu joined Montejo against the other Mayan groups . However the Xiu also turned Mani into a Spanish settlement they burnt their codexes as an act of faith and received baptism. After that the powerful factions of that dynasty received nobility titles and their daughters married into the families with tiles. Their descendants even got to own haciendas on the land of their rivals and helped stabling cities in those lands too. If you were to see it from a black and white perspective they were both Mayan they shared traditions religion history etc however the Xiu thought the Catholic Gods were also powerful and it was a smarter survival strategy to ally with the Spanish than against them specially since otherwise they’d have to face both the Cocom and the Spanish separately. The Xiu family did so well that Gaspar Xiu even hosted Queen Elizabeth II some years ago and even questioned her legitimacy.
2:49 It was the parliament that increased takes, King George III suggested the parliament find other ways of paying the debt that were not severe or unfair, but parliament refused and the King had to sign the new tax law the American law of Independence happened, at first the revolutionaries wanted the new tax laws to be repealed, Parliament and the Governors of the colonies refused, then the U.S won. The Founding Fathers(Almost all of them were British) wanted self-governance with King George still the King but more land given to the thirteen colonies, and parliament and the King has little say on the economy and the colonies' taxes(people were pissed by the British colonial army but many were loyal to the King). Then King George willingly gave independence to the 13 colonies(which was a surprise for all of the founding fathers also King George did that because he thought a tyrant would be in power and be corrupt and greedy and the people of the thirteen colonies would want British home rule again) then when it was time to elect a President everyone in the national assembly wanted George Washington, but Washington did not want to be President because he wanted to rest but then he gave in to becoming President. Then he drafted a constitution giving the President term limits, every man over a certain age to vote for a President, and equality for all((all those things were a shocker for someone who has full power and if you are a slave then forget about anything) then the rest is history. if George died and there weren't any presidential limits I'm sure the American Civil War would have happened much earlier due to instability among most of the founding fathers and their allies(most of them had different political views).
France did not just "give" Haiti independence. Do not forget the reparations they forced the nation to pay France, setting the country up for failure in addition to other factors
I'm pretty sure ours "libertadores" in the south did the same. We got on debt, and all the new countries were full of corruption and 'vendepatrias'.
And the subsequent American ‘loan’ that allowed them to de facto buy Haiti
Also a lot of people are also unaware that the Haitian president at the time Alexandre petion played a big role in Bolivar's overthrowing of the Spanish by providing military and financial support, I mean they'd quite literally given up until he came with the offer to help them in exchange for the abolishment of slavery.
@@LuDa-lf1xd It wasn't the same though. For Haiti one of the conditions for independence was to pay an insanely large amount of money that took well over a hundred years to pay, and that's with the governments of Haiti knowing that they had to put as much money off their budget as humanly possible to pay that debt unless they wanted French intervention again, which would only make things worse, and they would still have to pay the money anyways.
Our countries had some similar stuff happen, heck, my country, the Dominican Republic almost got annexed by France and the US at different times and by different presidents offering for them to take over the country, and once managed to get Spain to annex it back. We had our issues with the "vendepatrias", but that was nowhere near as crippling as the Haitian debt.
Yeah, it's super "just wasn't worth it" to fight a losing war if you can instead sell it as though you still had control or something.
Best part about History Scope:
This wonderful guy gives us a more sociological, geopolitical perspective on the same events that so many others tend to expound at length regarding military affairs instead.
This man’s obsession with unification and decolonization
Are you learning anything?
The decolonisation videos are part of a series. We will eventually cover the whole world and put it into one giant video.
@@HistoryScopeWell why didn't you say so to begin with if I had known I would have waited to watch all of this at once no disrespect or anything but okay
@HistoryScope I love videos about colinization and de-colinization. Seeing as how I'm a Western-Canadian, it makes sense. (seeing as how our only real history here is colinization and western expansion from the British, residential schools, and a few revolts by the Indians and French colonizers sprinkled in.)
And chocolate 🍫
you highligthed Puerto Rico as a british colony, when it was a Spanish colony, and you didnt mention Cuba, Dominican Replublic and Cuba and Puerto Rico situation. However besides that great video
>Spanish colony
Bro , Spain never had any colonies .
@@estebanbottini5153 province of new Spain or province of ultramar or viceroy whatever. Who the fuck cares
@@gabrielmora5092
I do , because claiming we were Colonies is Colonialism .
I always have a long watch later video list, but whenever a History Scope video comes out it goes straight to the front of the queue
I was surprised that the Spanish America decolonization section did not have any mention of the 'Libertador' Simón Bolívar, not even during the Gran Colombia part.
I was wondering same
The Americas have never been decolonized. Now the USA occupies the entire hemisphere. Look at the country freaking out when anyone tries to have a socialist government that serves it’s own people. Look at how the USA is freaking out about the audaciousness of Latin American countries trying to trade with to China. The only reason the USA is not invading Nicaragua or Venezuela is that it is spread too thin!
History Scope doesn't focus on individual people. Simon Bolivar was a product of his time. If it wasn't him, someone else would have filled the role. Just as it did in other parts of the Americas. We also didn't mention of the other famous people in other videos, for example.
@@HistoryScope Understandable. Tho, imo I would argue that history is driven by people. Empires are made/run by people. Wars are fought by people.
So, I humbly believe people should be accounted for in historical accounts (objectively & without idolization, ofc).
All of this is just my opinion, of course. There are many schools of history.
@@HistoryScope Don't get me wrong I appreciate the effort you put in the videoand the animation. Even if you didn't mention El Alto Peru and the last battles of Tumusla and Coragaita, when Spain renounce their Southamerocans colonies, and also you get some names of the central americans countries wrong. I wonder if it was on purpose.
Haiti didn't exactly...get independence on good terms. In 1825, the French demanded they paid 150 million francs as compensation, this was reduced to 90 million in 1838 but it put quite the dent on their development. Not to mention this forced them to take huge loans as well as the US receiving interest payments when it acquired Haiti's treasury in 1911. Haiti finally paid off the debt in 1947. The DR-Haiti border just shows the differences in their development. When you just look at the two sides, you can see that the Dominican side is much greener than the Haitian side. And this is because of many factors. There was a lot of deforestation in 1954 after Hurricane Hazel drowned many trees, and concessionaires stepped up their logging operations in response to intensified demand for charcoal on top of rapid population growth. The geographic makeup of the Island of Hispaniola is such that the mountainous regions tend to cut off the rainfall needed to grow crops and sustain livestock. The northeast trade winds that blow across the island often favor the DR.
Compared to the DR, the area of flat land good for intensive agriculture in Haiti is much smaller, as a higher percentage of Haiti's area is mountainous. There is more limestone terrain, and the soils are thinner and less fertile and have a lower capacity for recovery. Haiti's semiarid climate makes cultivation more challenging. On top of this, the French destroyed the soil by aggressively harvesting the same crops over and over again. France wanted the colony to be extremely profitable. Not just sugar, but coffee too. Over the course of fifty years, a quarter of the colony was all coffee with the original forests cleared. They were also forced to export timber to the French as part of paying off the millions of francs.
New History Scope video Week has been made
“This war started in North America when a British officer…”
British officer is an understatement, it was George Washington
Lol
I did not put his name in because I think a lot of people don't know who he is, unless they had an education about the USA. I assume the people watching this had a general education not specific to any one nation. So I assume people know about the world wars but I don't assume they know important figures of individual countries. So I didn't put his name in.
lmao, most people, even of foreign countries, know about George Washington, the first president of the current hegemon of the world, i'm American and might be bias, but i believe that even people in remote countries know about him, if they had any interest in the US, which they kind of have to, if they aren't an absolute bumpkin, it's fine for them to not know stalin, mao, hitler, gaulle, ect, first leaders of "current great powers" but that's the difference between "great powers" and the one and only undisputed hegemon, the sole superpower of the modern age. not knowing about the history of "great powers" is fine if you aren't directly or indirectly involved with that country, different story for the current superpowers, who are relevant to the entire world.@@HistoryScope
@@stefthorman8548 sorry to break it to you citizen of the only undisputed hegemon of the world , but much much more people around the world know about Stalin , Mao and especially Hitler compared to George Washington. Not de Gaulle tho. I understand that over there you're so isolationist and learn only about your country , but sometimes its good to be given a broader view. Hope this helped for your ignorance!!!
i didnt know it was george washington, that's some movie level shit lol
Something interesting to note about the Seven Years' War is while France had to give up New France to the British and Spanish under the 1763 Treaty of Paris, the British granted fishing rights to French fishermen along the Newfoundland coast, and today the islands of St Pierre & Miquelon remain a vestige of the once-vast New France. The history behind St Pierre & Miquelon is that a Portuguese explorer discovered it in 1520, but it was in 1536 that French explorer Jacques Cartier claimed the islands as a French possession. In the 1713 Treaty of Utrecht which ended the War of Spanish Succession, France ceded the islands to the UK, and a small number of American colonists settled there. Then of course the French were granted the islands again after the Seven Years' War.
However, after France helped the Americans fight the UK, a British force invaded and briefly occupied them, destroying all the settlements. In 1793, during the French Revolutionary Wars, another British force landed and once again, got rid of the French settlers. The Treaty of Amiens of 1802 returned the islands to France, but Britain reoccupied them when hostilities recommenced the next year. The 1814 Treaty of Paris gave the islands back to France, though the UK occupied them yet again during the Hundred Days War in 1815. The islands were resettled in 1816, mostly by Basques, Bretons and Normans, thus why the Basque, Breton, and Norman flags are on their coat of arms. So yeah, a lot of back and forth!
Why weren't Cuba and the Dominican Republic mentioned?
Dominica gained independence from the Haiti if I remember. And Cuba got forced out of the Spanish Kingdom by the americans (already in the end of the 19th century).
And Puerto Rico was included as a British colony😭
@@Menezarian Dominica is a completely different country to the south of Puerto Rico
@@MenezarianDominican Republic is a completely separate country from Dominica.
Dominican Republic has 3 historically recognized independences, one of them from Haiti, the second one. But given his focus was on European colonization and decolonization the other 2 were from Spain. And the history of the second independence from Spain was particularly different from the cases mentioned on the video.
Oh poor, poor inocent soul...
I love your videos. I’m always so happy to see a new one up!
Babe wake up
I'm awake baby 😘😘😘😘
i literally said this to my girlfriend as soon as i saw the thumbnail
It's another history scope episode
Wtf did I just look at
Carbon monoxide
We could have a History Scope meet-up community, and constantly make predictable jokes about how we WILL BE UNITED, which would be just as hilarious the 100,000th time we make the same joke
Love the South Park reference in the Canadians' faces
"I'm going to talk about all the countries in America" it immediately glosses over central America
And the Hispanic Caribbean too
My homeland, Puerto Rico, never decolonized 🥲
lmao, you belong to US
@stefthorman8548 we do, and it's something that I'm grateful for when I look at the other islands in the Caribbean
Puerto Ricans have voted many times against total independence in their statehood referendums
@@JonathanMoosey you're right. The majority of Puerto Ricans, myself included, believe that we're better off under the wing of the USA. You only need to look to our neighbors in the Caribbean to see why.
My man within the past fortnight so many cool youtubers have just uploaded after a while lol
20:09 yeah people don’t realize how HOT the Latin American independence movement was. Thanks for recognizing such an important issue!
Wrong. The Spanish and French colonial system shift was a consecuence of the 30 years war, not the 7 years war that only affected British America.
You forgot to mention the spanish-anerican war of 1898 that resulted in the independence of Cuba and Puerto Rico becoming an US colony.
You are so good at explaining things
New video ooraahhh!
Love this channel ❤❤❤
Uruguay would be worth a mention too, considering that they got their independence from Brazil.
They were created by the British, a reminder of Europe meddling after independence
Invaded by Portugal in 1816, annexed to Portugal (1821), then Brazil (1823), finally made an independent country as a buffer state between Argentina and Brazil, for the benefit of the British. A rare mixture of colonialism and neo-colonialism.
The time has come 🔥🔥 just noticed this was uploaded today so LETS GOOOO ❤️
great video, maybe the best history explainer on youtube.
can you maybe put neo-colonialism in your schedule for future videos? I would love to hear you talk about the topic.
Maybe. First I want to finish this decolonisation series. At the end I will put all the videos together into one giant video. If that is popular enough I will make a neo-colonialism video, maybe a general video of 'what happened to the colonies after decolonisation' or something like that.
24:53 This is so incredibly wrong I don't know where to even begin. The 3 largest countries in the Americas are currently under left-leaning or left-wing governments, for example.
Very interesting. I am now in South America. In Colombia much squares are named after Bolívar. And also in other nations.
Wait, why don't you have the verification badge?
I thought you were an imposter before I clicked on your channel :o
Excellent job. I absolutely love your content. It’s so well researched and well-produced.
On another note: self-care is not reading most of these comments. Like if y’all believe you can make more accurate content then make it yourself.
My grandfather was Guyanese! The americas are my homeland
Hate me or not but I still call both Guyana and the U.K my motherland😂 (I’m in guyana)
This explanation removes so much agency from the Caribbean nations regarding their independence and I dont understand why
There wouldn't be enough run time for the US, probably the majority of views and ultimately, food on the table.
14:10 correction, chile didn’t officially declare independence until 12 of February of 1818, after the Andes army expelled the Spaniards, and in the anniversary of the founding of Santiago. In September 18th we celebrate the first time the colony organised and declared autonomy but loyalty to the captured king of Spain
Is it true a british guy fought for your independence?
@@allanfrdhe also wanted to sell our ports to britain
@@allanfrd idk about the port part, I do know that Britain actually supported Chilean independence (can’t say the same thing of Argentinian independence taking into consideration the invasions of the river plate) it had started trading with out ports in a clandestine operation way before the war, and it was one of the first countries to recognise our independence afterwards, Cochrane came to aid the building of a Navy with support from London and he was vital in expelling the Spaniards from Valdivia and the southern regions. our father of independence, Bernardo O’Higgins was of Irish descent and was educated on the revolutionary ideas in England.
After the war, There was massive English and Scottish immigration to the port of Valparaiso and later to the conquered northern regions, which has anglicised the central Chilean culture(tea, lunch schedule, education, politics).
We are probably the closest country to the UK in Latam, and that has shaped the way Chile developed, we could say that those good relations have made Chile way less Europhobic and less inclined on regionalism.
@@pablomeneses1633 Thanks for answering. I know how England operates in the rest of the world, and I was actually curious about its dealings with Chile. In Africa and India, their 'help' seemed more like a one-sided benefit for the British. Considering Chile's numbers, especially its population, I had my doubts. Also, regarding the Falklands War, it appeared to me that Chile was more of a British colony. I was surprised when I heard the name of their liberator was O'Higgins. But thanks for clarifying that you are actually independent.
@@DiegoES2531 The British pretty much use them anyway.
They were viceroyalties, not colonies.
Thank you for this! Super valuable information.
20:04 Wrong, his full name was not Dom Pedro I, it was actually way hotter: *Pedro de Alcântara Francisco Antônio João Carlos Xavier de Paula Miguel Rafael Joaquim José Gonzaga Pascoal Cipriano Serafim de Bragança e Bourbon* . How can you resist it?
I have to say that while I greatly enjoy these videos as they are immensely engaging and entertaining, I cannot help but notice the numerous small and sometimes major inaccuracies which I think hold the channel back. As others have mentioned, France didn't just give Haiti independence out of good will, they encumbered them with an astounding amount of debt and thus ruined the country in the long run. Another thing is about Canada and the other members of the Commonwealth, they don't "continue to gain more and more autonomy" as they are already fully independent and sovereign nations. The only thing still tying them to the UK is that they recognize the British monarch as their head of state, which is just a formality. Lastly, I would like to mention that the Europeans didn't "entirely" control the Americas as you said, because many regions were only nominally administered by the Europeans, while in reality the locals were left mostly to their own devices - Patagonia in southern South America, Most of french Louisiana, the whole Amazonian rainforest where some local tribes didn't even know about the outside world till the 20th century etc. I believe a bit more in-depth research about the topic would easily solve the issue.
Nice, a new video to look forward to watching. Thanks :-).
History scope love of chocolate is so relatable. 😊
"Empires dont bring prosperity, empires only bring caskets filled with friends you wish were still alive"
Holy shit that gave me chills
They also without exception are hated by their neighbors, explicitly or not.
Chilean national here: On September 18th, 1810 was established the first Junta, whose goal was, as you stated, to run the colony while the king Ferdinand VII was in captivity. Eventually the local elites decided to become completely independent from Spain, thus beginning the Chilean War of Independence. The Chilean Declaration of Independence was declared in February 12, 1818 following the Patriot victory at the Battle of Chacabuco, which effectively secured Chilean independence (although the war didn’t finished until April 1818 and skirmishes against Spanish Remmants continued until late 1820s).
History Scope Hype!
Good video. Spikes up my history loving Brain
Way too simplified. The wars of independence were a lot more complex than just kicking out Spain. Was about Spain becoming weak after the Napoleonic wars, Britain aiding said colonies to weak spanish influence(first by force)in the region and have new trade options worldwide.
And you said you would talk about every single country but you leave out Bolivia, Uruguay, etc. Kind of disappointed to be honest, because I loved your video on italian unification. But this is just such a superficial take on history.
great video as always
Am I going crazy? I could swear you were on Nebula before! Fantastic video as always though. Your recent video on slaves taught me a lot that I didn't know as well
2:20 Wait-- The Seven Years War was what? Can we get a video on just the Seven Years War, please? I'm American and was only taught that the war occured on the North American continent. Now I am finding out it was the first true global war fought on FIVE continents. I would love to learn more on that.
Essentially it was just Britain and France fighting across every continent except Europe. In Europe it was Prussia vs Europe, and Prussia won.
@@vantaplat7411 Damn. And I learned that the European theater was technically still Britain vs France because GB allied with Prussia.
@kingace6186 Britain viewed saving Prussia as sort of a side objective. Britain was far more willingly to protect Hanover than Prussia if Prussia had lost the war. However thanks to the Russian Tsar dying and their replacement being a "prussian weeb" Prussia was able to defend itself. That isn't to say Prussia won easily. The situation was so bad that Frederick the Great (perhaps the greatest, and gayest, king in history) contemplated suicide on the battlefield
The war fought in Spain from 1807 to 1814, though technically a kind of civil war, is better known as the Spanish War of Independence. The Civil War term is used mostly to refer to the Spanish Civil War from the 1930’s, which was a full on internal conflict in Spain, contrary to the 19th century one, which had most to do with the Napoleonic Wars.
You should make a video about the "recolonization" of hispanic america by the usa and the british.
Wouldn't really be "recolonization" unless it's the Spanish doing it
@@vantaplat7411 fair point, altough I was referencing anglo neo-colonialism
@@melvinencinascabrera4897 I don't think this youtuber has the tact to pull off the nuance that would require.
you were weak bozos, and we were strong, get over it.
@@stefthorman8548xaxax yeah sure I saw you the other day invading my country. Total badass 😂.
I’m not sure it counts as decolonization if the country switched from being ruled from Europe to being ruled by Europeans that live in America. Is the USA really a country ruled by people native to the land? I could make an argument that most of Latin America are colonies of the USA. I’m not entirely convinced decolonization has happened yet.
pretty hurtful to see the story of my country brushed off as generic 😭
And another thing mexico wasn’t a colony it was a viceroyalty
The Game Dungeon sound bites are comedy gold.
4:59 i love the southpark reference
Dude... you're the bomb. I love the Canadian character's not-so subtle nod to South Park.
The Pope drew the worst line ever
As a Portuguese, I agree, he could've gone more to the West, but unfortunetaly he was bought and paid for by the Castilians.
This is quite the detailed and well educated video I will admit! Only thing is, you completely ignored the Spanish-American War in which the final Spanish possessions in the Caribbean gained their independence. As someone who’s half Cuban I was a little disappointed by the fact that my country was completely overlooked.
Also the Caribbean wasn’t just the British. The French, the Dutch, and the United States have territories, commonwealths, and departments.
🇧🇷 Brazil has the most interesting story about the independence.
Haiti’s is more impressive, Brazil simply had the royal family escape portugal and create an entirely new empire in Brazil
It missed a decent independence war. Taking that, it was neat as political processes go.
Why are you pronouncing Haiti like it's Hawaiian? It's just Hay-tee
I’m sorry, but when you say nobody knows about other countries independence you should specify that it’s only english-speaking audiencies or americans. Spanish-speaking people in LatAm do know how their countries gained independence and I’d bet that there are more with knowledge on other countries independence history compared to people from non-spanish speaking countries. Good video btw.
Another fantastic video! Thanks. Always look forward to your uploads.
You missed a few:
Cuba
Puerto Rico
Dominican Republic
Danish Virgin Islands -> US Virgin Islands
Uruguay too.
There was not serious fear that the British were going to free the slaves of the Americas if they remained in charge. The British continued to permit slavery in their Caribbean colonies long after the 13 colonies rebelled, and many of newly independent states passed anti-slavery laws as soon as they were no longer constrained by the crown.
Is it decolonised or could you argue that the existing government is as descended from the coloniser equally as much as the modern day "home land"
Bolivia kinda got decolonized with Evo Morales
Puerto Rico as a British colony?
Quark would be so proud
17:24 = Have a 5 second pause here where the next music starts ❤
Can it really be said to be decolonized when it all remained under the grip of settler-colonials and their descendants?
Im so excited to watch I look forqard to your videos. This says a lot about my personality 😂😂 but your my favorite youtuber.
"How do you divide the world? According to Europeans you draw straight lines on a map."
This almost made me spit out my Müsli xD Funny and sadly accurate.
This video release was a pleasant surprise!
14:12 Chilean here! Actually🤓 September 18th, 1810 was the first “junta de gobierno” where a bunch of men in government positions decided that they were not going to follow the fake king (napoleon’s brother) so they might as well go for independence, that triggered the war and Chile was officially free in February 12th, 1818. We still celebrate on September tho!!
Love your videos, gives me a lot to learn :)
Very interesting lecture. If it wasn’t for napoleon most of latin america would had still been a colony of Spain until 1880s.
‘If I weren’t into guys already I definitely would be now’ 😂😂
Haiti is not the only successful slave revolt. The Mamluks revolted successfully against Egypt! Haiti is the only successful slave revolt of the colonial era
It's not really comparable. The Mamluks were an elite military social caste. They had origins as foreign born soldiers that were imported because without clan or tribal ties they could be expected to be loyal to their sultan and no one else. As part of their Mamluk training they were taught Islam and legally freed because Islam forbids the enslaving of other Muslims.
By the time they were actually ruling they weren't slaves anymore and it was more like a military coup than a slave revolt (and the reason for the overthrow had nothing to do with slavery or their former status of being enslaved)
@@imdunder I’d say it’s close enough to make a comparison if you look at the big picture, but if you look closely; the Mamluks enjoyed a level of power, enfranchisement, and legitimacy that made them a military and political force. Haitian slaves of Saint-Domingue had nothing of the sort. They started off being treated worse than farm animals and ended up with a nation.
This is the first time I've ever heard Greenland be referred to as a part of North America. I mean, it is, it makes sense, it just never occurred to me and has somehow never come up.
Hey History Scope. I’m a proud Newfoundlander and I was curious if you ever given thought to go over the history of Newfoundland and how it was annexed into Canada from eventual British meddling
Puerto Rico is a colony of the US. Last time I checked, we were only a British colony for sixteen days sometime in 1588, The video’s script implies that the US favored independence of former colonies in the Americas, most of which the US has either invaded or destabilized in favor of pro-US regimes. At some time during the 20th century, the US occupied 19% of Puerto Rican land for military bases, and absentee sugar companies controlled up to 25% of its territory. The US and it’s crony governments here are slowly applying disaster capitalism, turning the islands into a tax haven and allowing for massive property grabs. Colonialism is a piece of 💩, and it is very much alive and well in the Caribbean.
Thanks you for your amazing video’s!
Actually, that use of the term “homeland” to refer to the colonizing powers is offensive. The European countries were only the homelands of Europeans. The vast majority of people in the americas had their homelands in the americas. It would have been better just to say “Europe” if you meant the colonizing country and not the colonies.
16:56 El Slavador sounds like a very interesting alt history scenario.
It may have been useful to mention the relationship of Denmark and Greenland to show how the Danish have control of Greenland
You should do a video on the decolonization of Europe too it’s probably the most overlooked part of colonization history
We will. It's going to be a lot shorter because I've airway covered it a bit in the ussr and ottoman breakup videos.
When another video turns out to be shorter than expected we'll put time into making a European decolonisation video
@@HistoryScopeOut of curiosity, besides the Ottomams and the USSR. Which other colonization took place in Europe? The islamic conquest of Iberia?
Skipped Puerto Rico fully because it’s still a colony
Majority of Puerto Ricans don’t want independence. They’re benefiting from their colonial status.
well the majority of Puerto Ricans today want statehood so they won’t be much longer
Very funny and "brutaal" as they say in Dutch. Learned a lot!
The King of Britain is the head of state in Canada but only in name. The crown is more symbolic and to make Canada distinct from the USA. Canada and the USA are very culturally similar. The governor general(the representative of the British crown) still has some power but is appointed by the elected government of Canada. The only real roll the governor general has is to dissolve the parliament when an election is called in Canada. An election happens when the Prime Minister`s term is up or a vote of no confidence is reached in parliament. The UK has no authority or say in Canadian affairs. The tie to the crown is just tradition.
You have a somewhat limited understanding of Canada's constitutional setup. Canada along with Australia and New Zealand are Commonwealth Realms. Each country has a legally separate monarchy. The title of King/Queen of Canada is a separate title from that of the UK. This has been the case since the Statue of Westminster in 1931. All oaths are sworn on the basis of being the Monarch of Canada and even if the UK abolished the monarchy it would have no legal impact in Canada as it is a separate title. The GG is not a representative of the British Monarch, but in each Commonwealth Realm is a stand in for the Monarch. Note that Charles III was declared King of Canada separately by the Canadian Parliment, as he was in each Commonwealth Realm. Effectively it does not even have to be the same person. The various Commonwealth Realms agreed to syncronise the succession laws with the UK ( going forward it will be the oldest child not son). You are right that there is no British authority, has not been since the 1981 repatriation of the Canadian Consitution and even this was only highly ceremonial. But this is due to the Canadian Monarchy being legally separate from that of the UK. It is actually enshrined in the Canadian Consitution and it would take the consent of the Federal Government anlong with each province to change it.
No mention of one territory who’s never been independent at any time, Puerto Rico🇵🇷
Free Borikén 🇵🇷
The colonizers wanted independence because the European countries wanted them to colonize less hard. That was unacceptable. The American continent is still colonized in its entirety today.
But Bolivia is a decolonized state
@@thepedrothethethe6151 Why do they still speak Spanish: the colonizer's language?
00:03
No. There were lots of lands where europeans never had been in. For example the Patagonia. Also, territory’s like La Araucanía were once occupied by states like Spain, but in a moment the indigenous people retook them.
you got nearly everything wrong about chilean independence
what about the current USA colony in peuto rico? that never got decolonised
Argentina: fends off two British expeditions without aid from the metropoli, indirectly causes Paraguay to splinter away from the Viceroyalty, sends an expedition to (successfully) liberate Chile and afterwards Peru, fights an inconclusive war against Brazil that ends up in the independence of Uruguay.
"Their story is pretty generic".
15:00 a Ross's game dungeon reference? Nice to see you're a man of culture as well 😌
love the Ross's Game Dungeon reference
something i noticed is how you say that spain provided qualified labor and manufacturation when the colonies already had certain level of manufactories and various universities, so no sense.
Problems: 1: Greenland is still a part of Denmark.
2: many Caribbean islands are still French and British.
3: French Guiana is still a part of France
@5:51 Canada Is fully independent of the UK (mind you it to fing long only fully severing ties fully in 1982) we just share a monarch now which has no bearing on how we run the country, the only reason we kept the monarchy is because of our own cultural identity and not to piss off the older generation, frankly the only reason we are probably going retain the monarchy going forward is it would be to much of a pain in the ass to remove it.
Canada is fully independent. The Head of Government is the head of the entire nation. With the Canadian "Head of State" being ceremonial. Canada's closest real ties to the UK is the Commonwealth of Nations.
Spain didn’t have colonies they were viceroyalties and their government was always independent from Spain they were not independent from the king which is different, their issue was that the Spanish nor had more political power in the viceroyalties than the mestizos and criollos however mostly indigenous people were ruled under usos y costumbres independently. The hacendados which were mostly criollos and mestizos like Miguel Hidalgo had issues with that.
But thwy were colonies, in the sense that there was an uneven economic relation: the goal of the Spanish was raw goods extraction. That's why Potosí , Buenos Aires were stablished. The criollos revolted when their local monopolies were eroded by free trade between colonies.
@@thepedrothethethe6151 not necessarily, the goal of the Spanish was evangelization. It is hard for us to understand now days how religion played in the lives of people back then but for Spanish after they reconquered the Iberian peninsula from the Muslim rule under the Catholic banner it really made them think it was their purpose. Also take a look at Spanish cities in the Americas compared to French English or Dutch settlements. Spain has the same mentality as Rome as an empire which is to replicate itself. Spain replicated itself everywhere with hospitals, universities and institutions. Most of the indigenous chiefs or entire dynasties of families received nobiliary titules recognized by the Spanish crown like the Moctezuma the Xiu, the Ixtlixochitl, maxxicatzin, Xicotencatl, Yupanqui, Amaru etc. these families became part of the elite in the viceroyalties and rather than living in a pueblo de Indios by usos y costumbres they preferred to rebuilt their cities with the Spanish. Most of them had Spanish people working for them even or owned haciendas or entire production sectors. Only from the 5% - 15% was taken to Spain to build Madrid the imperial city however a lot of that was stolen by the British. Also everyone at that time perceived Mexico City as the economical capital of the Spanish empire. It managed the Philippines which Tlaxcala and mexica warriors helped to take. Also you can study the story of Tata Vasco, how come he was so loved by the purapecha if he was teaching them Catholicism? Also unlike the Dutch the French or the English the Spanish had the university of Salamanca birth of human rights. In 1493 just right after Colombia came back from the Americas Queen Isabel la católica refused to turn them into slaves but into her subjects equal to any other Spanish subject also in 1500 she sent commissioners to ensure that the indigenous people in the Americas were in fact not being killed nor enslaved, there was enforcement.
In 1514 she urged the marriage between both groups since she said they are one.
In 1537 they forbid the Saint Inquisition to stop punishing indigenous people for their believes since they were not at fault for not believing in the Catholic god. As a matter of fact most indigenous people fought against the insurgentes in the independence of Mexico and they also preferred Maximiliano of Habsbourg than Benito Juarez or porfirio Díaz since the polices of the Independent Mexican state didn’t know how to deal with them since they lifted the usos y costumbres in pueblos de indios and pushed for Spanish to be spoken killing indigenous languages. Something that not only survived during the 300 years of viceroyalties but thrived. After Spanish, Nahuatl was the second language to be standardized with help of the Spanish after that the Quechua followed by Aymara and Mayan were standardized and developed by the Spanish cooperation with the distinct indigenous groups.
It’s never as black and white
Actually even in the USA you still have indigenous communities that still swear their loyalty to the Spanish crown.
@@thepedrothethethe6151 for instance let me give you a quick example, before the Spanish arrived there were several Mayan city states, amongst them there were the Cocom from Sotuta, the Xiu of Uxmal and Mani, and mayapan where they tried to unify and for the league of mayapan however there was a lot of power imbalance which led to the league collapsing. Their relationship turned very sour.
The Xiu joined Montejo against the other Mayan groups . However the Xiu also turned Mani into a Spanish settlement they burnt their codexes as an act of faith and received baptism. After that the powerful factions of that dynasty received nobility titles and their daughters married into the families with tiles. Their descendants even got to own haciendas on the land of their rivals and helped stabling cities in those lands too.
If you were to see it from a black and white perspective they were both Mayan they shared traditions religion history etc however the Xiu thought the Catholic Gods were also powerful and it was a smarter survival strategy to ally with the Spanish than against them specially since otherwise they’d have to face both the Cocom and the Spanish separately. The Xiu family did so well that Gaspar Xiu even hosted Queen Elizabeth II some years ago and even questioned her legitimacy.
2:49 It was the parliament that increased takes, King George III suggested the parliament find other ways of paying the debt that were not severe or unfair, but parliament refused and the King had to sign the new tax law the American law of Independence happened, at first the revolutionaries wanted the new tax laws to be repealed, Parliament and the Governors of the colonies refused, then the U.S won.
The Founding Fathers(Almost all of them were British) wanted self-governance with King George still the King but more land given to the thirteen colonies, and parliament and the King has little say on the economy and the colonies' taxes(people were pissed by the British colonial army but many were loyal to the King).
Then King George willingly gave independence to the 13 colonies(which was a surprise for all of the founding fathers also King George did that because he thought a tyrant would be in power and be corrupt and greedy and the people of the thirteen colonies would want British home rule again) then when it was time to elect a President everyone in the national assembly wanted George Washington, but Washington did not want to be President because he wanted to rest but then he gave in to becoming President.
Then he drafted a constitution giving the President term limits, every man over a certain age to vote for a President, and equality for all((all those things were a shocker for someone who has full power and if you are a slave then forget about anything) then the rest is history. if George died and there weren't any presidential limits I'm sure the American Civil War would have happened much earlier due to instability among most of the founding fathers and their allies(most of them had different political views).