American Reacts to the 10 Darkest Secrets About Britain 

Don't think America is blameless when it comes to concentration camps. over 120,000 American Japanese were placed in internment camps during WWII, with over 1,800 being killed in the camps.

We did not 'invent' the slave trade - we did however become the first country to outlaw it and to use the royal navy to intercept slave ships and free the slaves

Watch the video about Bamber Bridge where the English people and soldiers fought alongside black American soldiers against the American army

None of these events are secret. You can find facts about them in the history books.

The Brits didn't invent African slavery, but we tried our best to wipe it out. Unfortunately it still exists today in Africa in Libya, Mauritania, Mali, Niger, Chad, Sudan, Ghana, Benin, Togo, Benin, Nigeria, Gabon, Cameroon and other African countries. Whenever I hear someone going on about the transatlantic slave trade of 200+ years ago I wonder why they never seem concerned about the slavery that exists today!

Dont think its mention anywhere really except in Canada, remember the US declared the war and invaded, or tried to, invade Canada

Your schools don't teach you much

Some people killed their pets. My Gran didn't. In fact, she joined a group of volunteers who rescued pets from bombed buildings.

The British had no intention to divide India. The only reason they had to do so was because the Muslim minority refused to accept having to share a homeland with Hindus, who would be in the majority. Partition was the only way to break this deadlock and the British did it very reluctantly. Also, the only way the British could end slavery was by buying the slaves and freeing them. The US considered the idea, but decided it was too expensive, so fought a horrible civil war instead.

Britain also held Detroit for 5 years after the peace to make sure the Americans didn't revive their plans to enter Canada.

The Bengal famine was caused largely by the fact that Japan was invading India. There were no ships available from any of the allies to move grain. There was plenty of grain in Bengal but the local merchants kept it locked in their warehouses waiting for the price to go up. Only one ship of rice left Indian for Ceylon. There was a book where an Indian author by the name of Mukherjee wrote about this blaming Britain and Churchill in particular. Later Mukherjee withdrew the accusations as wrongly researched. A similar situation was found in the Potato Famine in Ireland. There was ample food in the warehouses of the local businessmen but the Irish population (my ancestors BTW) had no money with which to pay what the Irish merchants were demanding for the food.

We hought the freedom of the slaves rather than have a civil war. Ninety-nine per cent of the British taxpayers who were still paying out in 2015 never owned slaves or came from slave-owning famies, or benefitted from slavery. Also, she didn't mention the Barbary slave trade where, for two and a half centuries north African slavers kidnapped between one and two million people from the south-west of England to be enslaved in Motocco and Algeria.

That's why it's the white house, painted white.to cover the burn marks.

It's your own fault you shouldn't have invaded Canada .The UK then kicked your backsides back over the border in a heavy U.S defeat .

The British public who never had slaves had to pay for the sins of the very rich who did.

The term "concentration camp" is always associated in people's minds with the Nazi death camps, but that is misleading. A "concentration camp" is simply a place where people are confined in a relatively small area - unpleasant yes, but not necessarily anything like the Nazi camps!

What do they teach you , there is a world out there

People act like most people owned slaves. This is complete nonsense. most people were very poor. It was the elite who perpetrated this sin, not the British public. We paid for it.

1812 was busy. Washington ( we didn't burn the pubs by the way ) and other Eastern Seaboard cities were trashed . The US was an ally of France and apart from the French in the Caribbean, we were in the process of removing the French from occupied countries in

I don't know why number 10 is considered a dark secret!

Please listen, Tyler. It was 1919! Dyer ordered his soldiers to fire on unarmed demonstrators *until they ran out of ammunition*. The narrator did not mention that there was a lot of outrage in Britain when news of it eventally reached Britain. Dyer was recalled and court martialled.

None of these are great secrets to anyone who has attended school in the UK. The burning of the White House was learned by my older grandsons in Canada and Australia, when they were 11 or 12 years of age. At my schools in England & S Africa, the War of 1812 and the concurrent wars in Europe were given more time for study than the American Revolution.

You learn little about the war if 1812 as the usa lost And early in the war the then capital city of what was to become Canada was the city of york which was burned to the ground by us troops, they destroyed evey home in york Later on the british burnt just govt buildings and not the homes unlike in york were there was no building homes or govt left untouched In fact the us president was just about to eat dinner when he was evacuated and royal marine officers sat down and ate the president dinner Most if the other stories had some truth to them but are missing out on many facts The amritsar massacre was later repeated by the indian govt acting against protesting shiks at the golden temple

Churchill did stop shipments of food from Canada to India. What wasn't said in this video was Churchill had shipments of food from Australia to be diverted to India.

not one was secret

The White House was burnt in 1814, around a year after Americans did the same to York ( now Toronto) in Canada, during the War of 1812, so I guess it was a case of "anything you can do I can do better". 😂

Tyler dear, please learn some basics about the extent of the British Empire. There is a lot of controversity about how culpable Churchill was in the Bengal famine.

The partitioning of India wasn't really Britain's fault. That was a fight between different religions that started off again after Britain left. Britain had kept it under control whilst it was part of Empire.

WOW this woman really dislikes the UK to tell such biased versions in this video The Amritsar massacre told here is very misleading. The 50 soldiers consisted of Ghurkas and Baluchi riflemen. (no one from the UK held a rifle at this massacre) These were not semi-automatic weapons either. The soldiers made a mistake and did not block the exit on purpose. When the crowd was told to disperse and they headed for the exit, the soldiers believed the crowd was attacking them so they opened fire. now do the maths. 50 riflemen killed 1500 people (and this does not include the figures for wounded) This means each rifleman killed 30 people. The low figure for this massacre is 379, but she conveniently forgot to mention this. It makes more sense to me that the figure was higher than 379 but certainly not 1500. When I see videos spewing misleading information, I feel a need to "out" such propagandists. I am sure the reader of my comment will be able to make their own njudgement.

Those who live in glass houses should not throw stones. Guantánamo Bay sums this expression up very well.

Gandhi had nothing to do with the Britsh leaving India

Mojo videos tend to be a moron's guide to, in this case, serious topics. My advice would be to look into actual, factual documentaries on each of the Top 10 to get the whole story on each.

Very few Americans really understand their own history, unfortunately. The history taught in many schools is very prejudiced and not very factual which allows the belief that America is "the greatest" country and the perception of America being the only "land of the free." If more Americans truly understood the full history of the United States, they would probably be much more reserved and limited in their opinions. The US attempted to invade Canada when it was part of the British Empire, and they set fire to the then Capital city of Canada. They were soundly defeated in Canada and were essentially losing the war of independence when Britain raided into Washington D.C. and as a reprisal for Canada, they set fire to many buildings including the Whitehouse. The war of independence may not have ultimately led to an independent America had it not been for the fact that at the same time Britain was fighting Napoleon in Europe which was a much more significant and important battle, and most of their resources were focused on defeating Napoleon and his Army. America was a bothersome colony that was draining funds and resources, so ultimately it was allowed to leave the Empire under treaty. Most Americans believe their ancestors fought and defeated the British Empire to obtain their independence and freedom, but that is not accurate or factual. Few Americans today really understand the genocide of the indigenous inhabitants who occupied this land before White settlers broke treaty after treaty, murdered hundreds of thousands, and even paid scalp hunters for literal scalps or ears of their victims. America stole Texas and California in a war they created and concocted, just as they stole Hawaii and the Philippines. Many don't really understand the Japanese internment during WW-II or why only the Japanese were interred but not the Germans or Italians living in the U.S.? Few countries in the world are free and clear of blame and some horrible decisions in the past, but America does seem to still want to sweep many of these decisions under the rug and few Americans really understand their full and true history.

RE: Slave Trade ... Slavery was abolished in Britain 100s of years before the slavery abolition act that effected the whole British Empire. Any slave entering Britain (mainly England) was automatically considered free (usually in the form of Serfdom) since the 12th century. Portugal was also the instigator of the transatlantic slave trade, and Britain used it's navy to blockade enforce the end of the slave trade counter common practices in all other countries at that time. Slaves were predominantly bought from African slavers not captured directly so i can somewhat understand why no reparations were made to the slaves and they were made to the transport owners to ensure their cooperation in a practice that financially benefited all involved (except the slaves). The worst slavers by far are the Arab nations when looking at history, but usually there is little mention of these atrocities as they did not build a multicultural society after the end of slavery as many western countries did. ... ... ... Everything in this video is bad, with history though the context of the time and alliances should be factored in. Concentrations camps were never a good idea, but they are the result of military minds being put in places of authority overseas, direct control of the population and fear to those outside of direct control.

The reason for the Slave compensation act was that due to British law, Slavery could not be ended without violating owners rights to private property, which would have given dangerous cause to violate any aspect of private property in the British land as a matter of law The compromise was the mandatory purchase and release of all slaves in British territory in order to preserve the legal protection of private property for all citizens of the British Empire If this had not been done, then the British would have even less rights of protection from the government than they do even today as there would be a legal precedence in British law The overall thing is unpleasant, but the alternative is worse. No one wants to live knowing that all their property could be seized by the ruling government at the snap of fingers with nothing given in return

None of these compare to the atrocities enacted by others. The difference is we own the mistakes of the past and make things better if we can. The commonwealth is one means by which this happens. None of these were secret.

No, this is a lie. Trevelyan did not stop relief in Ireland - he gave orders that on no account must anyone be simply allowed to die. The number killed at Amritsar was 379, not 1500 - and it was the right thing to do, as it preserved the British Empire in India. The 1943 famine in Bengal was DURING WORLD WAR 2 - Britain had a lot on its plate. Churchill did NOT state his hatred of India. The Mau Mau were a thuggish communist terrorist group. The slave trade was African culture, sorry.

The famine was in Bengal, not the whole of India. "Watchmojo", who made the video you watched, is unfortunately a little biased. 1. As stated, the famine they concentrated on was Sep 1943-44. Britain sent many many ships to India to try and help relieve the famine, many were sunk by the Germans on their way to India. 2. The famine was very much exacerbated by Indian officials, as many were involved in the rice trade and black markets. 3. The famine was perpetuated by more Indians, when the local government removed price control on rice, causing the price to rise very quickly. Many Indian businessmen tried to profit off the grain they had in stores, refusing to sell until the price was high enough. 4. The government policy of denying transport to the invading Japanese led to an unfortunate burning/smashing of Bengal's 45,000 small boats and ships, leaving them unable to fish, which was 25% of their diet, and obliterating transport in the rivers and estuaries that produced rice. 5. Under British "rule", India had enjoyed 50 years of rapid growth, with it's population increasing by 35% during 1901-1941. Bengal, however, increased by 43% and relied on rice (70%) and fish (25%) as their main foods sources. 6. A winter drought and bad weather in 1942 meant the winter rice yield was low. Food prices rose too rapidly (see 3. above) and because Indians now got paid in cash, rather than a "paid in kind" system, their wages did not rise as quickly. 7. Japan invaded Burma, and half a million refugees entered Bengal - unfortunately Burma was a major source of rice for Bengal so that was also lost - and around 70% of those refugees were ill with diseases such as dysentary, cholera and smallpox. 8. The British government knew there was a problem reported, but also knew there was surplus held in stores and by the black market. This made them reluctant to lose more than the already hideous amount of ships sunk in the Indian ocean by the Germans. Once it became clear it was turning into a crisis, it was too late. 9. The Bengal ogovernment tried to price fix rice to a low level, to make it aaffordable, whcih made even more of it disappear into storage or the black market. 10. Bengal suffered a few natural disasters as well leading to crop shortage - a cyclone, tidal waves and flooding, and rice crop disease. 11. Churchill had a massive problem - all ships were required for the invasion of Normandy. There were not enough available to divert. 12. Chuchill wrote to Roosevelt asking for the USA to help with supples from Australia. Roosevelt said that they could not justify diverting any shipping. 13. Before the famine, the War Council exported rice from Bengal to Ceylon (Sri Lanka) where much of the allies rubber came from and was of extreme importance to the war effort. COntinuing that, and the subsequent set of events actions and invasions contributed to, but did not cause, the famine 14. Many "peasants" across southern India held back their rice stocks, and did not send them to market, leaving populations of the cities and large towns, and refugees at even higher risk of starvation. 15. Chuchill tried desperately to get rice and wheat imported, but the war was simply against them. 16. The British Indian Army intervened in Oct 1943 and intervened in the pricing and got food moving 17. No one in Bengal declared a state of famine, and there was a bumper crop of rice in December 1943 18. Over half the deaths attributed to the famine occured after the famine had ended, being caused by disease due to malnutrition. All in all, it was much more to do with Germany causing a war, greed for profit, and Japan invading British territores that were previously supplying India with food. Chuchill had little influence over the War Council, who made the decisions on what supplies went where, but many Indians blame him and cry "racist against Indians". "The old idea that the Indian was in any way inferior to the white man must go. We must all be pals together. I want to see a great shining India, of which we can be as proud as we are of a great Canada or a great Australia." - Winston Churchill July 1944

India was asked to form its own proposed Constitution before WW2, which was a requirement for Independence. Louis Mountbatten was the British negotiator with the leading Politicians in India. Mountbatten argued very strongly against Partition and tried to take it off the Agenda, but the Muslims, particularly, wanted their own State. They wanted to call it Pakistan and for India to be called Hindustan (if I remember correctly). The Politicians of India absolutely refused this idea. The Muslims also refused to give an inch about having their separate State. It was deadlock. Eventually, after intense discussions and seeing no other way forward between the two Indian parties, Mountbatten agreed to their demands .

"It is better to keep your mouth closed and let people think you are a fool, than to open it and remove all doubt." That's you Tyler! I'll stay subscribed just for the entertainment value.

The slave item is double sided when you realise slavery world wide not just the African slave trade was a normal part of business until Britain tried all it could to end it . The compensation was just one part of drawing the line.

The video is talking about the second Boer WAR and Tyler asks "was this some sort of military conflict?" Boer WAR. WAR. Sorry Tyler I couldn't not mention it!

In 1807 Britain was the first country to abolish the actual trade in slaves. It then used its Royal Navy to enforce the ban, not just on British ships but on those of other countries. Slavery itself was abolished in 1833 in Britain and its Empire but the Bill only got through Parliament because the Government had agreed to pay "compensation" to the slave owners BEFORE it was introduced and NOT after as the Narrator suggests. It really was quite simple: without the "compensation" slavery in the Empire would have continued (actual slavery in Britain had been made illegal some time prior) . What would you have done? At least in Britain slavery WAS abolished, and 32 years before it was in the USA. And we didn't have to fight a bloody Civil War with some 700,000 deaths (recent estimate) to get it done. That was 0.022% of the then USA population at the time of 31,443,000 and equates to about 7,600,000 if applied to the current population of 342,000,000. Imagine that, 7,600,000 having to die now in a ruinous Civil War in order to eradicate slavery! 🤔

With this many comments you'll probably never see mine, but I wanted to say this anyway. The "compensation" paid to slave owners was actually each non free person receiving money to buy their freedom, forever more. It was money well spent and most Brits of today are glad and proud we did it. Yes it should have been that a tyrannical government say to its people Oi! No more slaves! And then just given that money to the freed. However we didn't have a tyrannical government so just like when the UK abolished easy gun ownership, they paid for every gun released from the custodian. What matters is that enslaved people were now free to live their lives and make their own decisions. ( yes I know it was still during much constraint, but it was a massive improvement)

Tyler, Do be aware that this video you are reacting to is giving very little information about before and after these events, many of these events sparked outrage one way or another Any event in history needs three things to be understood the Cause, the event, the post reaction Many only focus on the middle and then lash out, but when you see the whole thing, then a number of events change the overall perspective for better or worse Example: A man killed two other men - Result, the man was wrong Two men attacked a child and were then killed by another man who arrived to help the child - Result, The two men were wrong but the single man may have been a tad heavy handed with his response Context is everything in how to judge something with accuracy. Something that many people with an agenda to push onto others really hate since it destroys their narrative

As i recall Churchill did not hate India, i believe the quote used was taken out of context to make him look worse that he was for a purpose Sad to say but its a common thing that is used against iconic figures of history where comment, orders and speeches are taken out of context to make someone look either better or worse than they were Some people claim that Churchill was a believer of ethnic supremacy. The reality is that he was not, he just saw how certain cultures/ethnicities had a predisposition to a specific role in societies. Military, Diplomatic, Construction etc For example he had enormous respect for the Sikhs

In the seige of Paris by the German Federation in 1870 the animals in the Paris Zoo were slaughtered AND butchered for food - including two elephants named Castor and Pollux. Sometimes you just gotta do what you gotta do! Boers or Trekboers were descendants of Dutch colonists in South Africa. Two wars were fought against them, 1880-81 and 1889-1902. Winston Churchill, then a War Correspondent, was captured by the Boers in the second conflict and famously escaped from a POW camp and returned to British lines.

I knew about this, Tyler, and I chose Geography over history - time-tabling problems - after the third year in Secondary School.

That was a disgusting and willful misrepresentation of the why the British accrued a large debt due to slavery. This debt was for British Navy, ships and crew who many of them lost their lives policing the high seas. Also yes some slavers were paid off to get the slaves released. It is the same as paying a ransom to get hostages freed. No one who does that gets accused of collaboration with the kidnappers and are deemed bad people. God forbid she ever gets kidnapped and someone reminds her loved ones that no deals will be done to get her released and definitely no ransom will be paid, it is what she would have wanted so tough luck love.

This woman narrator is giving us false information.

"Top 10 Dark Secrets About Britain" should be renamed as "Top 10 Dark Things About Britain That The Author Didn't Know"

The Amritsar Massacre is not a secret and was not one at the time. Some people treated Dwyer as a hero, but the British government at the time condemned his action. Churchill, who was minister of war, said it was "a monstrous event". Dwyer lost his acting rank of brigadier and was not employed by the army again, though Churchill and others thought he should have been treated more severely. Britain's involvement in the slave trade is certainly not a secret. The compensation to slave owners was not because they "threw a tantrum". It was because though the House of Commons had a majority for abolition (and had had for decades) the House of Lords did not. Simply put the Lords were split in three groups. Those for slavery, those against. and some who were against the confiscation of "property" without compensation. To get that group to vote for abolition the government agreed to pay compensation to the slave owners. The alternatives would have delayed the abolition of slavery. The concentration camps during the Boer war were not for forced labour or deliberately killing people. The Boer families were supporting those fighting the British. The camps were to concentrate them so they could be stopped from aiding the fighters, The deaths were due to incompetence.

Tyler has never heard details of the War of 1812?

Please don't delude yourself that you have learned anything at all from this video.

THE USA ALSO SURRENDERED IN THE WAR OF INDEPENDANCE? TRUE

Not work camps or death camps or any of 1940's stuff. The British were being outfought by a smaller mobile force, but there was a problem, instead of imprisoning the captured Boers they would release them on parole (with a pink slip of paper, to show the contract) on the promise they would just return to their farms and not take up arms again. That worked as well as you might expect. The Boers collected these pink slips like badges of honour. I recall reading it was not uncommon for a Boer to be captured, or a body searched and 15 or even 20 slips found. So the response was to intern them with their families (Just like the US did with Japanese families during WW2). Thus removing many fighters from circulation AND undermining their supply and support from the farms. The problem was, those in charge turned out to have an evil streak and in no time at all the conditions in the camps were horrific. Eventually Journalists got wind of this and reported it back in Britain. Because we are mostly a just and honourable people, this caused a national scandal, it was hugely embarrassing for the British and as you might expect, things changed. But of course the damage was done and today, haters just love bringing it up trying to put us in the same category as some Germans in the 1940's

boy it is really bizarre how little americans know even about their own history

The Amritsar Massacre. The man that ordered the massacre, Michael O'Dwyer, was killed by Udham Singh, an Indian freedom fighter. His story is really interesting and very sad. Udham was eventually hung by the British for the killing of Michael O'Dwyer.

The British also ate the presidents dinner before burning down the Whitehouse.

Don't blame Britain for the partition. We wanted to leave it in one piece. But the Muslims insisted.

None of these are 'secrets' to me

The first nation to use what was the modern concentration camps were the Spanish used in Cuba. Shortly after that the US used the same method in the Phillipines. Shortly after this Britain used them in SA.

Dont worry Taylor if you dont know.. Rest assured that all danish kids was taught this when i was i school in the early 80s. And i dint know what you're looking at but we are talking about the white house when it comes to the 1812 fire.. Im sure youtube will have a doc about it.

I am from England and have known about the burning of The Whitehouse for years. “I cannot sanction your buffoonery” comes to mind 😂

We Abolished the slave trade. We paid more money to do it than we ever made from it. No one ever abolished it before. Yet we still get blamed.

The Boers (Dutch for farmers): South Africans of Dutch, German, or Huguenot descent. The Wars were over land and the farmers didn't want the areas united into one. The British did.

1919 during the British Raj when India was part of the British Empire. Yes it was monsterous.

The sad thing of all of this is the sheer lack of historical knowledge in general.So much world history is so heavily intertwined by events that still influence todays' happenings.By being so insular the US & its citizens have tended to blunder about in the world stage without fully understanding the nuances & fragility that are in play today that have their origins rooted a long way back in time. The Middle East is a mess due to the outcome of WW1, India,Pakistan & Bangladesh have rumbled on abrasively due to how their independence was created after WW2. Many African nations suffer the same dramas after being left by or kicking out their former colonial masters. History matters,the more you know the more you gain understanding.Ignore history & you always repeat the mistakes.

OMG That Was Brilliant... Also You Can Totally Tell That This Was Your First Time Evever Reaction To This Video And That Makes It All The More Disturbing... Which Makes Me Feel So Much Better About What We Did To...... The NATIVE AMERICANS, The COLOURED FOLK, The HAIWAIINS, The PHILAPINOS, and also Everything We Did In VIETNAM Including AGENT ORANGE. Thank God For You.........

Many of us Brits were not taught this at school. I learned about these dreadful events after school.

The famines were very much Britain's responsibility in the fact that Britain enforced monoculture farming to feed indigenous populations to allow more farmlands for foods for export, when the famines inevitably hit they continued to export all the profit crops and meats. The more that perished from the famine the more land freed up for profit

The British rulers and soldiers in India were called the Raj. They were Indian born.

Please keep doing these videos, I love it when someone learns something new. That's how we evolve!

If you take the White House tour, there is still a scorched doorway which the guides show you.

I have to say I enjoyed this video. Having gone through British schools I didn't know everything reported and gained a little more from the things I did.

OMG. Tyler just got in over his head again 😳. I'm in my 30s and from rural Ireland and I was thought about the burning of the White House when I was fifteen. I really am flabbergasted at the lack of education in the USA.

Why was the segment on the Irish potato famine of the 1840s accompanied by pictures of Roundheads and Cavaliers from exactly 200 years earlier? Wouldn't some Victorian pictures have been appropriate?

Tyler R:- on your channel that focuses on Canada, you watched a video on the War of 1812 which featured the burning of the White House. Acting surprised deserves an Academy Award.

8:30 We don't talk about Dartmoor (basically our Area 51, but known more for chemical weapons testing) in general, it's just one of those places that acts with impunity. 1812 is just one of so many wars we fought it's rarely mentioned, especially since it was a stalemate in the middle of the Napoleonic wars.

You should check out the activities of Oliver Cromwell in Ireland. He went around kicking Catholic landowners off their property and installing his cronies in their place. This led to lasting resentments and sectarian violence which even now could potentially kick off again.

India was part of the British Empire until after WWII. Britain, through the the East India Company, a trading company, essentially ruled India from the Early 18th century.

Food rationing was normal all citizens had limited amount of food to survive during the wars

About the chemical experiments, look up the Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment.

We started the slave trade what is she talking about, this is just a lie.

“I have to admit I don’t know anything about this” - Tyler on … everything, near enough

See mojo, skip video.

Yes. We are taught this at school or DID when I was in school but I'm in my 50's now. I lived in upstate NY for over a year in mid 1980's and went to high school. I must admit our english/history teacher asked me to address the class a number of times with topics he had found but not learnt or taught Ref uk. I enjoyed it teaching the class lots or UK swear words & cockney rhyming slang as I am a londoner now living in scotland. It was funny watching many fellow students cussing out teachers and teachers laughing cause they had no idea what was being said. Scott

The only things they teach in school nowadays is that there are 143 genders and 2+2= 5

The forces of nature wanted America to survive! No mother nature just facepalmed, shook her head and went 'fineeeee *sigh* i'll do it myself' xD On a more serious note slavery has been around for thousands upon thousands of years. The British were the first nation we know of to outlaw it. Africa Squadron anyone? Hardly the first to give compensation either.

The Boer war was wrong information from this woman

Britain had the largest Empire in the world. The sun NEVER set on Queen Victoria's land, we took India, South Africa, most of the rest of Africa and much, much more. As the rulers of India the Victorians had a obligation to care for the people. There are some great videos that show the lands we invaded. After we burnt down the White House the Madisons were offered use of several homes, and picked the Octagon House nearby as it met their needs, becoming the temporary White House when they moved in on September 8, 1814. Presidential life quickly resumed a normal pace, although wartime anxieties cast a pall over social gatherings. Its just round the corner and is worth a tour. As an English man even I knew this before 2000 as I visited then

The whole video is a hit job on Britain taking a slanted view on most if not all of the events for click bait type purposes or worse. E.g. the Mau mau rebellion settled a legal action largely because the settlement was roughly the same as defending the action. My thought is we should have defended it against them not least as they employed cannibalism in their activities and giving even few grand to such people is wrong

Please do a video on the boer war

When the White House was burned down. It was painted white to cover the fire damage. This is how it got the name, the White House 😉

Saw a video from Britian about where some of our common saying come from like ' one for the road ' or " on the wagon " pretty dark origins . Mind blowing !!

"In America we're not taught very well in ( American ) history"...or much else apparently. What exactly are your 'educators' teaching you ?

While the UK didn't invent slavery (I think the Romans and Egyptians beat us to it by a few thousand years) the UK greatly profited from it until its eventual abolishment. While we partitioned India, we were also responsible for bringing it together from a collection of local kingdoms (to form the British Raj, or modern India as it stands today) and establishing a democratic process there along with rule of law and banishing Female Infanticide. True we are guilty of a lot of atrocities along the way but I hope one day Indians will forgive us for our colonial past. We are a multi-cultural society today and have a large migrant Hindi and Muslim population I for one am kind of proud of the way we decolonised after WWII although admittedly we could have done this better (Iraq, Israel, Palestine, Zimbabwe etc)

You know nothing John Snow 🤯

We aren't taught about many of these things in schools- but they are widely known about if you take even the slightest interest in our history or politics. Britain colonised India for about 89 years.....I would have expected this basic fact to be known from World History, not be some great surprise - even if the details of incidents mentioned here were not specifically known about.

None of these events are "secret".