20:08 In a survey the French even saw themselves as being the most arrogant country in the world. So that's another level of arrogant, knowing you are and not trying to change.
hemmper well it makes sense .. their symbol is the rooster, the only animal that stands proud even when standing in shit .. at least that’s what one of my (French) teachers used to say
They're now in a month-and-a-half long strike because they want to be able to retire at 52... even after already having some of the best workers rights / conditions in the world
Basically José de San Martin say that he shouldn't be a big douche, so that's why there's a statue of him in New York. Basically Argentina kinda do that but give the chance to each part of the colonies to be their thing or join, instead Bolívar wanted a big giant thing and be on charge.
The main problem with slavery and the Confederacy in the US is once you have a tiger by the tail, it is very hard to just let go without some very serious repercussions. Conflict over Slavery was almost guaranteed as soon as the Constitution was ratified, and every single US President up until Lincoln, did not want to be the one in office when the Civil War erupted.
Lincoln didn't want ro be the guy who oversaw the war either which is why he took almost 2 years to propose ending slavery in the territories STILL REBELLING, it wasn't until the end of his term that he began moving for full abolition, ie once the war had been well won.
@@jeremiahblake3949 Well, lets not forgett Lincoln didn't even finish the civil war because he, uh, got shot in the back of the head. But furthermore, while it is said it was over 'states rights' even that is a blantent half truth: The civil war did not start because the north tried to fight slavery or anything. Rather, is was due to the fact that the south was attempting to expand slavery and, and the north, realizing this would put them at a political disadvantage, said no. After that, the south literally started taking forts before open war had even been declared. It is VERY safe to say the south fired the first shots in the civil war in nearly all accounts.
@@BeyondtheBlade of course the South started the war. And it was about the states right to safeguard slavery which they thought the North would end once free states were the majority. My point is that it was likely an overreaction since even the abolitionist president didn't immediately end slavery when the war started
@@jeremiahblake3949 I mean we don't have slavery in the US anymore so it probably wasn't an overreaction. Not condoning their actions, just disagree that they overreacted to political/social events. I mean, they were kinda right in their fear that the US government would end slavery cause it did.
They are voluntarily part of the EU suburbs, the EEA, meaning the have to comply just as a normal EU member, but don't have the veto on regulations that normal members have. It is membership without the sovereignty that comes with real membership, sort of being colonized by choice. There is a lot of unease about that with Swiss citizens who actually understand full membership compared to EEA brings more sovereignty.
Just remember 1995, Québec independence was WAY closer than any of those one, check Wikipedia on how it came close to becoming a country, even France was willing to recognize the independence😇
4:10 I'm no Confederate supporter, but I wouldn't say they were destined to lose. They had some smart generals and could overcome to barriers of being less industrialized. Had Lincoln not be as smart about his hiring and firing decisions and not utilized his technology like telegraphs and railroads correctly, the south could have made the civil war longer or even won independence.
Also if the confederates had better manpower and more supplies. They would have probably taken Washington. They got very close during the battle of Gettysburg.
The North had a much bigger population and was industrialized it was pretty much always going to win. The North really fucked up a lot of the early civil war with bad leadership. The Only way the south wins is with intervention form another country.
I remember during the 2015 New Zealand flag referendum, everybody thought it was a huge waste of time and money, and a poll showed that more people were willing to discuss New Zealand becoming part of Australia, than were willing to discuss getting a new flag. So someday there might be the Commonwealth of Australasia.
In a picture of eight people, surely it is undeniable that there are (at least) seven people in the photograph. Besides, one of them could be an alien.
yeah exactly, no one actually took the California independence thing seriously, California is a huge part of American identity no matter how different it might be from the other 49 states
You make geography soo interesting. All those little tid-bits of information about different countries makes me realize how diverse a place the world actually is.
Don’t forget Canada in 1995 The 1995 Quebec independence referendum was the second referendum to ask voters in the Canadian-French-speaking province of Quebec whether Quebec should proclaim national sovereignty and become an independent country, with the condition precedent of offering a political and economic agreement to Canada. 93.52% of the 5,087,009 registered Quebecers voted in the referendum, a higher turnout than any provincial or federal election in Canada's history. The proposal of June 12, 1995 was rejected by voters, with 50.58% voting "No" and 49.42% voting "Yes".
I think that EU will become a federation. It might take another 10-20 years but we have no other choice if we, as europeans, still want to have influence in the world. I think the European Federation will be a great thing.
@@maherhamadouch2005 To be honest, your nation will have no sovereignty as a small, puny state. The only way to save your people is to unite with others. Take it from an American: a federal Europe will be a superpower.
@@KenrickBrown75 I won't take lessons from any American: 1 you began life as a colony, then began colonising other lands 2 the US is too diverse to stay as 1 nation
Thank you youtube for recommending this channel! Idk why but I love all of these geography videos. Can you do one on overseas dependencies/Caribbean constituencies of European countries? There are soo many little islands and it's all so confusing yet interesting. Keep up the great work toycat!
Likelihood of some you mentioned: ind. Scotland (medium); ind. Catalonia (medium); one or more ind. Canadian provinces (low, but rising); one or more U.S. ind. states (almost zero).
i live in Spain and all the media outside Catalonia report that it is most definitely not likely to become independent in the short or medium term. The politicians who attempted a breakaway were convicted in abstentia. The rest of Spain will not allow the region to separate.
There are no real secessionist movements at least in the actual states. Texas and California are memes and the Native Hawaiians who actually want sovereignty make up like 10% of the Islands population even if they all agreed.
Hello, thought I'd let you know. I found this channel in the last couple weeks and it's since become one of my favourite channels. I've been binging through the entire channel. Keep up the great work, happy I've found it
rct3LP Europe can’t unite because of ideology Africa however is different with Culture being the reason Edit: what i meant by different is the difference of reason why they cant unite
Speaking of the confederacy, fun fact: Robert E. Lee was actually related to George Washington. His wife was the great-granddaughter of Martha Washington, George Washington's wife.
By your own words, that doesn’t make him related to George Washington. Only his wife would be related to George Washington (assuming he was the father of the line of children that Robert E. Lee’s wife supposedly descends from). There is a stark difference between having a distant family member and being related by blood.
Anybody from Yorkshire who might be able to help me on this - why is "Yorkshire" such a strong identity marker? I find this particularly strange as the counties of North Yorkshire (rural, middle-class) and South Yorkshire (post-industrial places that haven't recovered from Thatcher) are very different from each other.
14:45 tbh as an albanian-american i wouldn't say albania was basically a puppet state, albania had varied foreign relations during its time as communist. they were allied with the ussr, but in the late 50's albanian dictator enver hoxha pretty much decided that khrushchev wasn't a real communist and just a revisionist, so they split with the ussr. albania then allied with china, but hoxha ended up thinking china was too accepting to the west and split with them too, pretty much leaving albania all alone until they got rid of communism in the 90's.
~17:25 Australia technically IS a continent, though the continent of Australia includes the country of Australia, the Island of New Guinea, and the islands in between, not just the country. Oceania is not a continent, but is rather a geographic region which includes the continent of Australia and a number of surrounding islands. I know, stupid, but that's the way we officially break things down in the Anglosphere.
Soma Hanikeri the continental plate of Australia also includes India. But I don't think that stops us being a continent in our own right. There's a lot of sea bed between us and them!
@@tealkerberus748 Actually India is on its own plate. The Australian plate only includes Australia, New Guinea, the north island and part of the South Island of New Zealand, and the smaller islands in between those landmasses. You are right that tectonic plates don't define continents, though; Europe and Asia are considered different continents, but they mostly share a plate, and India and Arabia are each on their own plates, but are considered part of Asia.
Velkayne of Lorvaesch Nojaeiro People from Brittany aren’t called ‘British’ or ‘Brittish’ you fucktard. Get your facts straight before getting involved in shit you don’t know
19:10 south america homogenous? Looooool even the Brazilian states are all too different one from another, imagine all the other countries. It's not because we speak mostly the 2 same languages (and a bit of French, a bit of Dutch, a bit of English) and we were colonized by the same people that we are homogenous.
In comparison to other continents (mainly Asia and Africa), the Americas are significantly more homogeneous. That doesn’t mean there are no regionally distinct ethnicities, but these differences are nowhere near as pronounced as those in places like Asia and Africa.
There's actually a party started recently to separate the north and south of England. NEIP (Northern England Independence Party) if anyone's interested. It's come around because the British politics is so South centric and I think it's a great idea
I am from the south of England and i do think the north and the Midlands sucks but England is stronger United both halves need eachother im sorry your area sucks like a 3rd world Welsh town
@@niensaddestofthesad8151 England, in my opinion, is stronger when the entire country is looked after, as oppose to just London, Kent and Essex being looked after, because the politicians live there. Not that I can hold them entirely responsible, I'm sure they see the problems further South more because they're based their, as I'm sure I do in the North, but if the North and South both raise their own money and attend to their own problems, I feel it works out better and fairer for all parties really
@@lewisblackwiththenicehair Places are better when the people look after themselves and don't look to politicians. The North didn't move out of raw materials because London softened the blow, it needs businesses to take advantage of the lower wages and for government not to get in the way.
Again the Central American Union is ignored...this is like the 5th video related in which you pass on informing the audience about that union and the plans to form one country... is this a trend or an agenda? is there any personal problem you have towards central America?
I looked around and I found nothing about a Central American Union that implies any recent efforts to form a political federation of some kind. So if I can't find anything about it while deliberately looking for it, maybe you shouldn't be so harsh about someone not knowing about it.
@@solstice1290 can you guys google? it is called "Central American Integration System" look it up on Wikipedia... The organization to unite Central America started in 1951 like 6 years after the UN started, and begun integration since 1991 under SICA...it has a Flag, integrated court system and a Central american high court, it has a Parliament with elected officials, it will soon have a unify passport, it has an economic integration system with a Central American Bank and a common market, it already has circulating common currency, join Armed Forces...it has 8 member states Guatemala, Honduras, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Costa Rica, Panama, Belize and Dominican Republic. when joined it will have the 5th highest economy in the american Continent and full control over south and north american trade and full control over Atlantic and pacific commerce all passing by land or by the Panama Canal.
@@solstice1290 at the very least for what I know...living in CA for the last 5 years.... is that it is more realistic union and real union than the "French/British" union he talked about and some imaginary unions he has brought up like the "Celtic Nation"...lol...like come on guys.... not my fault the guy doesn't research... he has talked about potential countries, countries in formation, future countries, Federations, etc.... and he has never ever mentioned CA union... he once talked about "the country that existed for like 80 years and then separated" he did mentioned that "they were in plans to reunify" but it seems like he forgot about it and has not mentioned since. it has a common currency, very soon a common passport, a Democratic Parliament, join military forces, a high court system...like that is more real than the "celtic nation" or the giant "Eropean Union with russia" or the "UN Federation" come on guys!!!
that plan to unify started before the European Union, it has taken them more time but they will join, funny fact is that they were a country in the past called Federation of Central American States, and it had other names, back when it was part of Spain Empire it was called "kingdom of Guatemala" and later "General Capitany of Guatemala", it was also a State of the "Mexican Empire" for about 3 years.
As a Canadian who watches and reads both French and English media and has no dog in the race, I can safely say that the British obsession with slagging France and seeing it as a rival isn't really mutual and hasn't been aside from the Anglo-Norman period and parts of the colonial era. British media (including RU-vidrs) constantly slag the French while French media ignores the UK for the most part. It's glaringly one-sided and the only ones who seem to think this rivalry exists are Brits. The whole thing is so weird when viewing both sides. The French distrust the British (the perfidious Albion trope) but they spent long centuries focused on German-speaking powers (Austria, Prussia and especially the unified Germany). Britain was a threat to colonial possessions but it alone hasn't been a threat to mainland France since the 14th century. The Germans have been viewed as France's real concern for centuries. Today, you'll hear French political types and media bemoan Anglo-Saxon influence on culture and the world stage and such but they really mean the broader English speaking world and especially the United States. It's Hollywood and Washington, not charming little Brit shows or a sudden wave of tea-drinking, that they're talking about. Despite that, their core foreign policy for over 150 years has been obsessed with containing Germany, these days by keeping them in a strong alliance. The Germans are by far more important to them. The French aren't terribly focused on the UK and the stereotype of the Brits is mostly of boring, tradition-bound, stuffy yet insufferably contrarian people with awful cooking. In short, the French think the Brits are dull. I have never heard a French comedian ever bother to make a joke about the UK outside of Brexit (the Belgians, sure, Italians and plenty of others but never Brits) but British TV, film and even RU-vid rarely resists a jab at the French (even the Germans get less grief). It's a bit like how Canadian comment on the US a lot but Americans just think Canada's kind of dull.
There are about 7,000 languages still spoken around the world so technically we should have 7,000 countries in the world. Not only Europe should have the privilege of a country solely for one language like french in France; german in Germany. etc,
Romania was not "basically a puppet state" of the soviet union. A split occured mainly due to ceausescu's ideology of national communism (a weird mix of nationalism and communism). Quoted wikipedia below in case anyone wants to read into it "After coming under communist control in 1948, Romania was closely aligned with the international policies and goals of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. But after mid-1952, when Gheorghiu-Dej had gained full control of the party and had become head of state, Romania began a slow disengagement from Kremlin domination, being careful not to incur the suspicions or disapproval of Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin. Soviet troops left Romania in 1958, no Warsaw Pact troops were allowed on Romanian territory after 1962, and Romanian forces essentially quit participating in joint Warsaw Pact field exercises in the late 1960s. At the same time, Ceausescu announced that Romania would no longer put its military forces under the Warsaw Pact's joint command, even during peacetime maneuvers. By that period, the Soviet Union and Romania established SovRoms, which were the new tax-exempt Soviet-Romanian economic corporations that helped the reconstruction of Romania until they were dismantled in 1956: albeit, some lasted until 1975 with the main focus to assure Soviet access to resources like Uranium. In 1976 Ceausescu received Leonid Brezhnev in Bucharest-the first official visit by a Soviet leader since 1955. The final communique of the meeting reflected continuing disagreements between the two countries, as Romania refused to side with the Soviets in their dispute with China. In 1978, after visiting China, Ceausescu attended a Warsaw Pact summit meeting in Moscow, where he rejected a Soviet proposal that member countries increase their military expenditures. On his return to Bucharest, Ceausescu explained the refusal by stating that any increase in military expenditure was contrary to the socialist countries' effort to reduce military tensions in Europe.[13] Perhaps because of Ceausescu's uncooperative attitude, a 1980 Romanian attempt to secure supplies of energy and raw materials from the Soviet Union and other Comecon countries failed when those countries demanded world market prices and payment in hard currency. Nor would the Soviet Union guarantee that it would increase or even maintain existing levels of oil exports to Romania for the following year. Dumitru Prunariu and Leonid Popov with Leonid Brezhnev in 1981 The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan caused Romania to distance itself further from Brezhnev. When the UN General Assembly voted on a resolution calling for the immediate and unconditional withdrawal of Soviet troops, Romania broke with its Warsaw Pact allies and abstained. And one month later, at a meeting of communist states in Sofia, Romania joined the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (North Korea) in refusing to endorse the invasion.[13] During Yuri Andropov's brief tenure as Soviet leader, relations remained frigid. The wording of the communique following a meeting with Ceausescu in Moscow suggested that Andropov intended to pressure Romania to bring its foreign policy into line with the Warsaw Pact. The Romanian leadership appeared to suspect Andropov of pro-Hungarian sympathies because of his close personal friendship with First Secretary János Kádár of Hungary. Romanian disagreements with the Soviet position on intermediate nuclear forces in Europe also surfaced during the Andropov period. "
The rumor is that not only was the USSR against Yugoslavia expanding, but that the West was also very much against it. Some believe this was the main reason why the merger between Yugoslavia and Bulgaria specifically didn't happen.
i'm of the belief that if decolonization never happened from 1900 to the present there would only be 13 countries right now. 1. British Empire 2. Dutch Empire 3. French Empire 4. German Empire 5. Iberian Union 6. Scandinavian Empire 7. Ottoman Empire 8. Persian Empire 9. Soviet Union 10. American Empire 11. Chinese Empire 12. Japanese Empire 13. South Korea (with North Korea being apart of the Soviet Union or China)
To be fair, lingua franca is an Italian word for the language of the Franks (overlapping but not equal to France), and modern English also borrows heavily from Latin (Franks' language vs lingua Franca doesn't sound entirey alien).
Stalin: "I can shake my little finger and Tito will fall." Khrushchëv: Stalin can shake any part of his body he likes and Tito didn't fall, because he loved his people and was loved by his people. (Rough paraphrasing from "The Secret Speech") Me: Ewww....
20:40 The UK passport is in English and French, because *_every_* passport is in English and French, as well as the official language of the country, if it's different.
@Tomáš Staněk It's recognition is decreasing. And they are not part of any international unions or alliances such as UN or Interpol and never be unless Serbia recognizes them or makes some kind of a deal.
Not in the USSR itself, but it was a puppet state. The map is showing countries who popped out of/ joined former cold war countries. Its kinda hard to tell that based on the fact that the countries were all red on the map, though.
Oh god, if Bougainville becomes independent that means chaos for Papua New Guinea. The rest of the land is extremely poor and Bougainville used to be responsible for a lot of the economy.
Kenya: National Parks and animal conservation Tanzania: Zanzibar Uganda: many many memes Rwanda: Rwandan genocide, growing power and quickly recovering country Burundi: exists
I don't know if you know but that England+France thing almost became a fact several times. The Angevin empire under Richard I controlled most of France and all of England. During the 100 year war England controlled most of France too for a long time.
There were some countries that existed by breaking from Brazil, outside uruguay, the longest lasting lasted 10 years, it was the Farropilha Republic in the deep south. Nowadays some people in south still want independence
France spent hundreds of years befriending Scotland, to irk the English - England/France wanted to be friends for all of 15 minutes in the grand scheme of history. Your little Englander view is humourous most of the time, but this video is 15 kilos of pish...