Was Colonialism Good or Bad? 

Link to Philippe Fabry's New Book "Rise, Fall, Reclaim" amzn.to/3t9lcLr Link to his RU-vid channel-www.youtube.com/@PhilippeFABRY-ENG

The fact that the largest empire in human history reached its peak within living memory is just mind-boggling to me.

Good God, this is going to be controversial

"By the standards of individuals, nations always act like sociopaths" Dang, that's a good closing line

"We're not more moral, we're just in a position where we're safe enough to pretend to be." You said it, brother. This is the best, most succinct, & eloquent sentence I have heard in a long while regarding the current state of affairs.

“the biggest problem in our philosophy is that we compare society to utopia rather than other historic society’s that are comparable” thank you!!

As a Nigerian, my opinion on colonialism will be more nuanced than that of most westerners. On one hand, it was brutal in some ways but on the other it did play a huge role in bringing much of Africa into the modern age via introduction of modern tech, medicine, western education, and nation building. My country and many others would literally not exist without it and most of us are happy with that. Even many people who actually lived through British colonialism in Nigeria, like my grandmother and great grandmother (before she passed away in the early 2000s) don't look at it with horror or anger. They saw so many improvements like modern medicine and better food production and they even saw their children and families rise from poverty because of the effects. Also, one major good it did was abolish slavery. I cannot be more thankful for the British using their naval power and economic might to suppress the slave trade in Africa. Oh, I know they partook in it for a time, themselves, but it existed here long before whites ever came to Africa. Even my own ancestors of the Edo kingdom were slavers. Same with the Arabs who had a longer and more brutal slave trade here. What makes the British different is that unlike other regional African and Arab powers, they had the cultural & religious framework, wisdom, humanity and courage to actually stop the evil of slavery even at huge cost to their economy. God bless them.

The bit about Pizarro is even more interesting. King Charles was mad because Pizarro executed a king without a proper trial, and a man of Pizarros standing had no right to judge a king put there by god (it’s the 1500s). Charles didn’t view Atahualpa as just a savage. Pizarro was later backstabbed by his own men, getting what he deserved

One thing most people don't take into consideration is that European colonialism really took off during the Little Ice Age, which pushed them south. Then, the Industrial Revolution began at the end of the Little Ice Age.

"We're not more moral, we are just in a position where we are safe enough to pretend to be" nailed it

This is pretty topical for us Australians right now, as we are about to have a referendum largely divided by those who agree and disagree with the colonisation of Australia.

It's strange how the Medieval Era is probably the most popular era or one we take most of our institutions from, actually, yet it's the most denigrated despite clear objective development during the time period. Despite myself not being Christian or even religious, it's always been by favourite era.

It was hard to be a good person when life was so difficult for everyone, that's the point people miss when they judge societies from the past for their cruel practices. Our basic needs are more easily met but our anger and resentment is still revealed through the internet.

What England did to Ireland was horrific, I'm not diminishing that at all. Would just like to point out though that when you said the English killed off the entire Irish ruling class, the 'english' that you are talking about are descendants of the Norman's that invaded and killed all the Anglo saxon ruling class as ruled the English like a foreign upperclass until generations later they intergrated and accepted the 'english' label and language.

This is one of the most difficult things to explain to people. So many people are primed to define colonialism as genocide. Genocides dont increase the population by 8000%. Building a port on the coast of a country and then paying people to selling you things for export isnt genocide. Manipulating and bribing a foreign king is immoral but it isn't gebocide. Being paid to build a railroad isn't genocide. Colonialism included so many different things it's hard to calculate.

I think some European colonisers were better than others. I also think that we don’t really realise how much of colonialism was a result of European competition amongst each other. There really isn’t any such thing as “the west” until the end of ww1 or you could even argue ww2. Before then it was just the Christian world. The “enemies“ of the west don’t realise how divided the west has actually been historically and that it is possibly only by being exposed to the world outside of Europe that Europeans realised how similar they actually are

"We're not better people, today. We're just richer and more complacent." Hear, hear!

'we are not more moral, we are just in a position where we are safe to pretend to be.' god...damn! i was not ready for that level of savagery before lunch.

The People’s Action Party (PAP), which has ruled Singapore since independence in 1965, has no interest in tearing down statues of Raffles or his successors. In 1969, Singapore’s first prime minister, Lee Kuan Yew, said that before the British arrived, “there was no organized human society in Singapore, unless a fishing village can be called a society”. Contemporary leaders also give the colonial regime measured praise. One of the grandees of Singapore’s foreign policy establishment, Tommy Koh, delivered a pithy verdict: British rule, he said, was “60 percent good, 40 percent bad”. Of course, he conceded, Britain’s list of sins was long. The colonial regime was racist. It promoted opium smoking, which ravaged countless lives in Singapore. Unemployment levels were high, and working conditions were often horrendous. And in the Second World War, Britain utterly failed to defend the colony against invasion by Japan, which subsequently killed countless Singaporeans. And yet, and yet. “Unlike other colonial masters in Southeast Asia”, Koh wrote in the Straits Times, “the British did leave us with a positive legacy”. “This includes the English language, the free port, free trade, open economy, good infrastructure, the rule of law, a good civil service and police force, town planning, public hygiene and modern medicine, a belief in science and modernity and an appreciation of nature and natural history.” Singaporean leaders have the balls to accept the truth unlike Indian and African leaders blaming British for their post-colonial failures. Edit: Yes, I know what British did to Singapore was different from what they did to India and Africa. But still there are some positives on colonialism as history is not black and white. I request people to watch Indian historian Zareer Masani Oxford speech about British Empire.

There’s a few things i’d add. The British. 1. They ended slavery because they lost America as a colony and their pseudo slaves in India had to compete with real slaves in america now for cotton production. The british didnt end slavery out of good will. 2. The british didnt end colonialism out of good will. They were forced by the americans and soviets. (Like the suez canal) 3. The british didn’t give india to gandhi out of their goodwill. Gandhi made colonialism so impractical and unprofitable that it forced the british to let go of india, again economic. His claim: Colonialism didnt make the europeans wealthy. Its smart to analyze the effects of colonialism as separate countries interacted with it. 1. The Spanish and Portuguese brought huge amounts of gold back causing a massive inflation issue. The spanish spent this money on their armada which was ultimately defeated by the british. They did however build insane influence in the holy roman empire system through their colonization. 2. Belgium - built massive wealthy projects at home with their congo money. 3. The british - benefited the most from mercantilism because of cotton production. Cotton would be brought back from the americas and india to be processed in england. This led to england industrializing better than any other country. It also led to the de-industrialization of specifically india. The british plundered the indian wealth and made india focus on raw materials vastly cutting the overall wealth of india for 2 centuries. The spanish and portuguese did not overall benefit as much from colonialism since they did not deal in cotton. Yes, the west benefited enormously from colonialism.

What happened to your latest video? I was hath way watching, did youtube take it down or was there a mistake you wanted to fix

Went to visit Hawaii a couple years back, told my Hawaiin Uber driver that I’m surprised they have held on to so much of their culture with a Military base that huge there. And he just said hey man, if it wasn’t y’all… it would have been the Japanese and we wouldn’t have anything left. Wasn’t expecting such a nuanced take on the subject from a guy I literally just met, on the colonial action against his own culture.

Most Important man behind European Colonization was "Issac Newton". After Newton European Armies had knowledge of Laws of Motion. They could calculate trajectory of Their Cannon Shots. And Europe had a Scientific foundation to Create New Materials and Weapons.

My father told me that because the resistance in Yemen used a small castle of his father as a fortification, and the British couldn't take it. the airplane came the next day and threw leaflets saying "We will air bomb the castle tomorrow at time so and so remove all women and children from the castle" People thought that was strange and admirable.

Damn, you delivered again. Love all of your vids but the quality got crazy good in the last year.

Ahhh colonialism. The word tankies use, but don’t understand.

I asked two indians this. 1 a very good friend another a coworker. Both said it was bad and good. They wouldn't remove it from history but arent happy it happened either.

Without colonialism, how would a more powerful and technologically advanced country interact with lesser countries, ideally to bring them at the same level at least in term of technology. (note, I'm just beginning to watch the video)

Why did you delete the Russia video? I was in the middle of watching it and it got privated

I like your reference to “living memory” as an historical scale of reference. I think in most cases this should also measure the limits of historical grievance as well.

Problem is that as soon as u try to bring any nuance to this conversation, people who disagree with you about most other things will automatically dismiss ur perspective right off the bat, just because u don’t scream “cOLoNiALisM BaD eVerYtHinG rAciSt aLWaYs”

Great video. It shines light on the topic from a lot of different angles

Hey what happened to ur fall of Russia video I came back from work to do finish it and it’s gone

Colonialism is hated today because, unlike in most instances of it throughout history, the subjects of the previous round survived.

Blaming "evil colonizers" is a very convenient alibi for the incompetence, dogmatism and corruption of post-colonial leaders. You can see this a lot in India where it's become fashionable to blame the British for all their problems: despite the fact their country wouldn't *exist* without Britain, all their institutions are based on British ones, and their economy magically started taking off once they dispensed with the socialist ideology *they* adopted for the first 40 years after independence.

I think the key factor that kept peace after wwii is the most rapid economic growth ever that it just doesn’t make sense to start a war. But after the economy and technology reaches a certain bottle neck, like we are right now, things will revert back to old ways.

As a Filipino, I think Spain colonizing us was better than us being scrambled by different nations and meddling tribes. Colonization in our country definitely outweighed the cons since the people in our islands stopped chopping each other's heads for nothing when the Spaniards came, we had laws (though limited but we had it), we had better agriculture, new cultures, better economy, and historical footprints the Spaniards had left us.

You are right that the British Empire was in living memory. My own maternal grandmother was born a subject of King George V in November 1935 in British India. Back then, there was no Jharkhand. When she was born, Hazaribagh was part of Bihar (although Jharkhand is a far more recent development, occurring within my own lifetime). She passed away this year, March the 1st, 2023.

I have a communist friend who criticizes Western leaders for being oppressive and imperialists, yet he's utterly silent about the fact that Stalin and Mao committed war crimes and famines.

Back when Westerners had pride and faith in themselves, and were great.

Great video! Ending gave me goosebumps

Colonialism is always portrayed as unrelenting brutality but another aspect of colonialism that still bears an even greater impact today is the manipulation of borders and ethnic groups, whether on purpose or by sheer incompetence. Countries were created that should’ve never existed. Millions have died since due to poorly drawn lines on a map.

Having a Nigerian father from a long line if slave traders I always knew that in order for the Europeans to be able to get slaves, they needed wholesalers and that all the pearl clutching about the Atlantic slave trade being uniquely European was bs.

As someone who lives in Africa, he's not wrong.

As a nature video lover, your point on warfare is 100% spot on. In the plains of the Serengeti, there is constant warfare waged all through nature. Nomadic male lions roam for new territories and try to usurp the current pride King, hyena clans battle against one another and others against lions, and even the peaceful herbivores will fight amongst one another over territory and water. Warfare is normal and peace is not, that's just how this Universe works. The creator of this world is probably a sadistic being who feeds off on suffering, like the Gnostic version of Demiurge.

It's worth contrasting the character of British colonialism, where a tradition of Primogeniture drove younger sons to start a new life abroad, with Spanish colonialism, where there was not a strong tradition of Primogeniture, so it was done by people wishing to make a large fortune in a short time, and then return to the mother country. The British model fostered more stable, peaceful and productive ling-term societies.

What happend to the fall of Russia video?

I’ve been saying for years America needs to drop the facade, claim our right as the lone superpower and call ourselves what we are, an empire. The sooner we embrace it, the safer we’ll be, and the longevity of our nation and culture will be assured

I do stuff with Aztec history: I agree the fall of the Aztec isn't just "Evil colonizers vs good Mesoamericans" but I have issues with some specifics that was said or shown here. Mind you, some of these are fairly common errors even reputable sources get wrong, so it's somewhat understandable. I'll explain in more depth below, but I think the video A: overstates the initial hostility between the Spanish and Mesoamericans during initial contact, B: understates the degree to which the Spanish DID recognize the humanity and complexity of Mesoamerican civilizations (and by extension, combined with A, understates how much the Spanish's actions were self-serving) C: uses pretty misleading/inaccurate images of what Mesoamerican clothing, architecture, and political boundaries were like, and D: oversimplifies how Cortes got allies and overfocuses on Tlaxcala as his main local allied state. All that said, before explaining in more detail, to give some basic context: "Mesoamerica" is the cradle of civilization and cultural region which covers the bottom half or so of Mexico, all of Guatemala and Belize, and arguably other Central American countries. It includes the Aztec and Maya, but also the Olmec, Zapotec, Teotihuacan, Classic Veracruz Teuchitlán, Toltec, Mixtec, Otomi, Totonac, Huastec, Purepecha, etc, who tend to share key traits, like pyramidal temples, maize as a cereal crop, Plaza-courtyard based urban and architectural planning, a shared calendrical and base 20 numeral system, and yes, human sacrifice and blood offerings. However, as you can tell by all the different civilizations I just mentioned (and that's not close to comprehensive!) there is a LOT of distinct civilizations, and competing political states (not "tribes": cities, writing, rulership, class systems, etrc go back in the region almost 3000 years before Europeans arrived) within each civilization. So there wasn't a singular initial reaction by Mesoamerican civilizations to the Spanish, much less a universal "the Spanish get attacked the moment they stepped onto the shore" as you present in the alien analogy. Sometimes they passed by without being bothered, other time they got attacked on sight, but most of the time the Spanish entered the territory of a new kingdom, empire, city-state, etc, and at least once they had translators, there was usually a diplomatic exchange and discussions or negotiations of trade, lodging, etc, and from there the Spanish settled down, moved on, or negotiations failed and stuff escalated into conflict. One also needs to keep in mind is that Mesoamerican politics had a strict code and even highly symbolic, poetic subdialects of languages for engaging in diplomacy and by extension declaring/waging in war (though this isn't to say Mesoamerican kings never bended or broke those rules to their own benefit: of course they did). The Spanish, while they had translators, did not understand the nuances of this, and by Cortes's own admission, would kidnap/hold rulers hostage, raze towns and villages to pressure rulers into relenting and giving them lodging if fighting did break out, etc. For as much as the Spanish may have saw the Mesoamerican's sacrifices as barbaric, so too were those actions by the Conquistadors seen as untrustworthy and savage by the Mesoamericans: In a lot of cases, states had already heard rumors of the Spanish doing this by the time they arrived in their territory, so sometimes states didn't wish to provoke conflict and would try to appease the Spanish in advance, or jumped into defending themselves proactively. And while the Spanish did view sacrifices as evil and barbaric, and while the Mesoamericans did view some of the Conquistador's actions the same way, the reality is that BOTH groups still did recognize each other as representing sophisticated, sovereign entities: Cortes, Bernal Diaz, Tapia, Aguilar, the Anonymous Conqueror, even latter Catholic Friars like Sahagun, etc, all endlessly praise the architecture, cities, art, and even ethics, governance, and order of Mesoamerican societies. I could fill MULTIPLE giant comments with quotes from Conquistadors remarking with wonder and adoration over what they saw, even people back in Europe like Albrecht Durer, the famous German artist, who saw Mesoamerican art on display in Brussels in 1520 (before the Aztec capital even fell!), remarked "All the days of my life I have seen nothing that rejoiced my heart...as these...wonderful works of art, and I marveled at the subtle genius of men in foreign lands". Yes, there would be debates about if the Indigenous people of the Americas had souls and racial caste systems would come latter, but, at least generally, initial interactions between the Spanish and Mesoamericans had the former viewing the latter as civilized people with sovereignty, who were just nonetheless pagan or heathen, even comparing them to the Greeks or Romans as "civilized pagans". Some Mesoamerican kings and nobles initially had their status recognized within the Spanish colonial system and even into formal Spanish nobility and heraldry (though in the long term this had less and less success: Tlaxcala actually DID have it's land taken in some cases by Spanish settlers even before it's agreement with the Spanish king got nullified in the early 1600s) By extension, though, this also means that Cortes and co cannot claim to done what they did because these were people in need of saving or liberation or to be made civilized: In part, some of their accounts do state such things, and yes, they probably felt Christianizing the Mesoamericans was a moral good, but Cortes, Diaz, etc are also very clear that their actions were primarily motivated by self interest, glory, and wanting wealth, while also paying lip service to enriching the Crown. That in particular was a concern for Cortes, who was EXPLICTLY committing treason against the Crown and working against Diego Velazquez, the governor of Cuba, at times directly fighting other parties of Conquistador sent by Velazquez to arrest him. Some Aztec forces even allied with Velazquez's troops once it became clear Cortes lied to them about representing the king of Spain. There's little contention among Mesoamericanists and even most Spanish historians that Cortes's founding of Veracruz (which gave him the right to then plot his own course from there) claiming Moctezuma II surrendered to him (so he could then invade and conquer the city by claiming it was already under the crown and he was merely putting down a rebellion) etc were ploys to justify his actions legally. Now, at this point, you may be wondering: If Mesoamerican civilizations were so complex and even the Spanish saw this, why are they always shown as living in worn down grey pyramids surrounded by jungle and a few huts and running around half naked? The answer is that most depictions (including in this video) are inaccurate. In reality, say, Aztec men would have worn cloaks/mantles a bit like Greco-roman togas, while women wore long, flowing baggy blouses (which, combined with their hair buns, almost evokes Japanese Geisha) which for nobles was garishly colorful with different floral, geometric, and abstract designs and patterns, and accompanied by jade, gold, turquoise jewelry and feather ornaments. Feathers weren't simply stuck into things, but were arranged like precise bouquets into specific 3-dimensional shapes and arrays, or used in 2 dimensional mosaic to form patterns and images across the surface of garments or as "paintings", using iridescent feathers with shifting,, glittering colors. (Look up Mexican Feather paintings or mosaics for surviving examples, they're mind blowing). Temples, palaces, and other civic architecture was covered in smooth white stucco, and then painted with murals and frescoes and covered in reliefs, sculptural facades, and other accents. The overall architectural style is closer to Minoan palaces like Knossos more then anything else, with palaces having square geometric style rooms with flat roofs, and patios with columns surrounding open courtyards, etc. Tenochtitlan, the Aztec capital, had most of it's temples, palaces, ball courts, etc arranged around large open plazas (with many botanical gardens, aviaries, zoos, etc built in palace courtyards or around them) with the outskirts being grids of artificial islands housing both commoner homes and acting hydroponic farms with Venice like canals between them, as the city was built in the center of a lake. If people want good visual examples of this, look up paintings of Aztec cityscapes by Scott and Stuart Gentling, depictions of Mesoamerican clothing by Kamazotz/Zotzcomic/Daniel Parada, Rafael Mena, OHS688 (some of his art is furry, but the fashion is all accurate), etc, or works of various subjects by Nosuku-K, Shi-Gu/Itzcacalotl, etc to name a few examples. Next, I think people misunderstand the Aztec political structure and why Cortes even got allies. Whatifalthist brings up Tlaxcala (a kingdom headed by a city-state of that name, the city was actually a republic governed by a senate), and yes, Tlaxcala was one of Cortes's most major allied states, but It was NOT an Aztec subject, rather an enemy state the Aztec were trying to conquer. So while it very much did resent the Mexica of Tenochtitlan, you can't extrapolate it's motivations to the other states Cortes worked with like Texcoco, Xochimilco, Chalco, Itzpalapan, etc which were actually a part of the Aztec Empire. The Aztec political system was actually quite hands off, with subjects usually keeping their kings, laws, and customs with minimal interference as long as taxes were met (which did not generally include providing people for sacrifice: Sacrifices were obtained as captives taken during conquests against enemy states or when reconquering ones who had seceded, not generally taken from existing, cooperative subjects). CONTINUED IN A REPLY BELOW

The role of the United States in de-colonialism is an interesting one. From the foundation of the United States through the end of wide scale European colonialism in the 60s and 70s, there has been a strong streak of anti-colonial sentiment among the American political elite. The Americans destroyed the last remnants of the Spanish empire during the Spanish-American War, Wilson fought for national self-determination at Versailles, and FDR was vehemently against Churchill's attempts to restore the British Empire to it's former glory after WWII. One could argue that the Americans were Enlightened or more moral than the Europeans in this regard, but this is hardly the case. As a rising industrial and commercial power, what the US wanted most of all was unfettered commercial access to the entire world without having to deal with European middlemen.

Where is the russian video??

I think this might just be the best and most well thought trough video on RU-vid. The grasp of history and its mechanisms...wow ❤❤❤

I always loved the fact that about 400 Conquistadors supposedly toppled a Inca Empire with millions of people alone.... They always leave out the hundreds of thousands of other South American tribes who hated the Incas who happily followed the Spanish into war against the Incas.

I always find it funny how people pretend like colonialism was any different than any other act of conquest in human history.

Once met a black man who told me all Europeans were inherently and genetically savage due to the African slave trade. When I told him all humans are savage, his reaction. Priceless

I'm inuit eskimo, my people would have suffered famine, been uneducated and probably wiped out. My people romanticize us living on the land as fulfilling and great, I mean it could be, but I cannot see it as a way of living your entire life. In some ways colonialism saved us from famine and uncertainty, but also gave us aimlessness and a lack of purpose.

As a descendant of colonialism, this will be most interesting to watch, thank you

I'm reading a book on German Colonialism in Africa and it's incredible the fluctuation and treatment the locals received depending on the region. For example, the Ewe tribe of Togo was treated pretty well, as long as the Arab nobility in Zanzibar. However, compare that to the genocide of the Hereo or Nama people in Namibia. Also many Africans in the colonial army were extremely loyal to the German rulers, as was seen that really none of the tribes revolted during WW1 when German rule was being toppled.

Did RU-vid take down your Russian Federation collapse video? I started watching it.. came back to finish and it’s gone

I met a Sri Lankan college student who admitted to me that if the English hadn't colonized his country it would be a "s#!+#ole" today. Hearing a Sri Lankan say that word was amazing.

Honestly its good to ask questions about events like this rather than just saying "it good" or "it bad". We should know why evils occurred.

I really don’t think that the Europeans gave up their colonies peacefully. Algeria, Malaya, Kenya, Mozambique, Angola, Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Indonesia, Madagascar, Guinea Bissau, etc, are all examples of countries who had to fight wars for their independence. This doesn’t even count countries like India/Pakistan and the Philippines who had revolted many times before independence but were eventually granted sovereignty “peacefully”

Imagine having the audacity to cite Shashi Tharoor, but clearly not having read his book bc he completely dismantles most of your arguments, specially about india

You do an amazing job I really enjoy your content and it's plan to see your love of history keep up the fantastic work my friend 👏

My family is descended from the ruling class of Ireland that was killed off. I'm not sure how our line survived, but I know we aren't the only ones. Today we are dirt poor.

“By the standards of individuals, nations always act like sociopaths.”

Very interesting take on this. Thanks for sharing!

amazing content as always. I aspire to gain your talents for composition and expression. Do you prefer reading or writing?

"If the misery of the poor be caused not by the laws of nature, but by our institutions, great is our sin." - Charles Darwin

My uncles probably think colonialism was pretty shit, considering they died from it in the form of reservation schools.

Nothing keeps me more busy than a Whatifalthis video on a controversial topic and afterward reading the comment section I love it. It's so entertaining.

Dude, I don’t know what happened, but I missed your uploads for the last like 5 months and I come back to this video. Your production level has gone through the roof. Way to go my man.

Only on the internet would you see a statement like "shoutout to the Chinese, Jews and Persians who also ended slavery." It has to be the stupidest way to say something so brilliant and important. That right there is why I love the internet.

I've enjoyed the nuanced takes throughout this video, and especially the part where we have the opportunity to understand the motivations behind colonialism. But in the end, just wanted to say, nope I still think colonialism is bad. I've noticed that one recurring theme that conservatives/nationalists (both in the West and in non-Western countries) like to resort to a sort of whataboutism when justifying colonialism by saying stuff like, but what about the Russians/Chinese/Arabs who also colonized other peoples? *But who has ever said that Russian/Chinese/Arab colonialism is not bad?* Not me at least. Colonialism is inherently bad in a pro-indigenous rights perspective because it is when a dominant culture and society replaces their local language and tradition and culture. And speaking of this, I feel like some colonialism apologists is creating a straw man argument when saying stuff like those woke people "deny that the Irish has experienced colonialism because they're white, and only non-white people can experience colonialism." Literally all indigenous rights advocates acknowledges that white/European people who've actually experienced colonialism, like the Irish, Welsh, or even the Eastern Europeans like the Ukrainians and the Baltic nations, have also suffered through historic oppression. So no, it's actually not about race and I don't think that white people are inherently colonizers, I think that European nations can also suffer from colonialism and yes, white people can also experience racism. But white people who engage in colonialism would be colonialists, just like people of any other race who engage in colonialism would also be colonialists. I agree that all societies should progress and become more developed and modernized. But colonialism is not an excuse to that because it's when outside countries force local societies to do so, and it often leads to the destruction and extinction of the local society. A society's conservatism can also change an progress, but colonialism is permanent. In an ideal world in my opinion, would probably be where all countries and societies around the world would be like Japan where the local society deliberately chooses to modernize and industrialize, which in turn also preserves their native culture, language and tradition. Of course, the real world is more complicated than that. But I'm just saying, just because historically countries have been cruel to each other doesn't mean that I need to agree with what they did.

Sees title. Gets popcorn. This is gonna be good.

Great historical perspective on colonization from the ancient times to medieval to modern.

what happened to your the fall of russia video?

I have no idea why people , or at least a significant majority hate the natives for siding with Europeans. Saying natives should save their own race is like telling Russia and Ukraine to stop fighting bc they are both whites and should team up against Chinese or st. To a rivaling nation, race barely matters especially ones as diverse as natives are. As a Thai who was never colonized we do have records of how positively the state view the Portuguese empire since they help us fight Burmese, no one cares that both are south East Asian (also not actually that close genetically but natives are also diverse). Will you make anotehr geopolitics prediction video or videos on Sahel civilization ? The geopolitics side of this channel and the worlds report in general seems surprisingly quite apart from the Niger coup and I wonder what is happening. Also as a Thai who never got colonized and our neighbors did, this will be an interesting video.

Hi, left leaning guy who decided to give the other argument a chance, and I must say that this video contains many great arguments and has really made me think differently about the world. But one thing I would like to add is that just because harsh and violent action is the norm throught history, that doesn't mean it's right and it doesn't mean we should leave it that way.

So it wasnt good or bad but it simply was.

It's also important to look at it from a historical perspective and compare it to earlier eras. In all eras before that, conquest and colonization was much more brutal, they just killed all the men, raped the women, and enslaved the children. Compared with that, Western colonialism was the least brutal across the entire human history, most of it was not even done by direct military power, but through diplomatic and economic means. Also, when the Mongols, the Ottomans, etc. went on conquests, they exploited the conquered lands without investing in them, compare it to the 19th and early 20th century where the European powers built roads, railroads, schools, hospitals. Of course there were plenty of unjust things too, but let's not forget that in all previous historical eras, conquest and colonization brought only devastation, while the Western one raised the standard of living and the life expectancy significantly.

I don't know man, As a Nigerian (a country colonized by the British), I think I would have preferred it if Nigeria didn't exist. The British forced a bunch of tribes that were at best neutral to each other but at worst actively hostile into on Country. Which can explain why Nigeria as a country has been in decline since its creation. I would have preferred it if the individual tribes had a chance to establish themselves as Nations, they would have more cohesion internally and would have had the choice to cooperate with other tribes (now nations) rather than being forced to cooperate with peoples that were in some cases actively invading them. And as for the technological advancements / medicine / etc. I would rather we just traded for that at a fair price like literally every other nation. They wanted our resources, we would have gladly exchanged it for those things mentioned above. WhatifAlthist, will talk about the low death tolls and the abolishment of slavery. Which I agree is a pro(everything has pros and cons). But in exchange for colonialism, we have a dysfunctional state that is built for resource extraction. And a people that have no investment in their country and vice versa. That is the real tragedy of colonialism. I believe the generational effects of this far out weight any pros of colonization.

As a person from a colonised nation who has studied history, my view is that the willing (or on the surface at least, seemingly willing) release of European colonies and imperial territories is actually an unprecedented event in human history (although if you view decolonisation as an actual collapse of the european empires akin to how Rome lost territory near the end of its empire then it fits in better with other historical events). Throughout most of history it has been empires and smaller states within those empires or at least being vassals or protectorates of them. The current animosity by formerly colonised peoples towards europe and western civilization in general is almost uncalled for in my opinion because of the fact that what they did was a natural occurrence throughout history, even by their own past civilizations. At the same time it is understandable though, because Europe and the west at large actually still exerts influence on the former colonies through soft power and other manipulative means, which is to the annoyance and hatred of the former colonial states. The concept of us always having self determinism may make the colonial period feel like an evil age, but the fact is someone in power had to willingly let us all have "self determination", because the natural state of civilization is more often a powerful hegemony determining the fate of everyone under their influence.

It was inevitable that one group would get more powerful than the rest and try to take over. I can only hope we’ve now learned better and never repeat on such scale.

I have a diary written by my fourth great-grandfather about my fifth great-grandfather who arrived in Alabama the year before it became a state. He was a builder, and he was hired and built the first timber framed home in Selma where before everyone dwelled in log cabins. When he traveled southward to Mobile in a cart that the diary referred to as "old-fashioned" (which makes me assume that thing must have been practically medieval) he was shot at by Native Americans. Thankfully he was able to escape across a ravine. But it begs the question, why should I feel guilty of "stealing" the land when it's inhabitants shot at an unarmed builder. If a man gunned down someone for crossing across or near his front yard without asking questions, that man would rightfully be jailed. How different would white/Native American relations would be if instead of shooting at my 5th great-grandfather, they instead chose to hire him? Therein lies the difference between the Japanese and most of the people who were colonized. Nowadays, my best friend is Native American, possibly one of the decedents of the natives who shot at my 5th great-grandfather. His skin is pale enough from mixed white ancestry that he passes for white, which he uses to troll leftists on the internet. I freaking love that guy.

This Is your best video so far. Speaking as someone whose watched every single one. Admire you're work so much. Here's to many more fair takes! 🥂

38:20 the former British colonies are all much nicer than the former French colonies in Africa imo

I attended anthropology classes at a left leaning school. You nailed it, my immigrant teachers and fellow students would agreed, great presentation Sir.

A very good video about a serious topic. Also would like to see an updated version of the What If Colonialism never ended video, mainly because its an interesting what if and well its kind of in the channel name for What if alternate History

The problem with colonialism in India is that most people today in India don't even know the scale and extent of what the British did. They just know the surface level bs that the politicians and nationalists keep parroting. Britain decimated Indian industrial capacity. They systematically extracted resources out of here while making it impossible for any homegrown industrial activity to take place. While historically the world has been a violent place, no other invader of India conquered it for exploitation on an industrial scale. That being said, the fact that a handful of British folks were able to subjugate such a large population and control it so effectively tells you a lot about the mindset of the Indian people at the time. They would have rather distrust each other rather than band up and drive the British out. I don't support the idea of holding countries accountable for their colonial past, but I do take issue when some Britishers still justify the atrocities by telling us they gave us the railways.

This was really interesting and nuanced. I have a new perspective now, what a value!

No white guilt

While I don’t agree with everything you lay out, it’s terrifying to think so many people believe the world is so black and white. Great video. They should show this in schools and get kids thinking more deeply about the history they are taught.

Colonialism arguably was essential to elevating the living standards of the "Global South". Colonialism as a concept can encourage cultural/technological reciprocity, where it falters is in the treatment of the conquered people. The British Empire lost the American Colonies because the colonists were otherized and taxed. Most European African terrories were lost because the implementation of racial caste systems. If (in my opinion) imperial powers were to act like the Moguls, and integrated the conquered into their empire, colonialism can prosper.

Colonialism was necessary and inevitable. Once the USA pulls out of Pax Americana, expect it to return. Countries with money and power need stuff. Countries without money or power can't make use of stuff.

Rudyard can you please do a video on Mexico civilization history future etc?

lol my man whatif is really tip toeing towards that line. Love you man

This video is the essence of well balanced, neatly presented and thoroughly research topic. There's a bit of jumping between themes that I feel could've been better organised but overall it's awesome. I really like the social media / conquiscador & colonial companies comparisons

A Great video as always!

It is very refreshing learning about this topic in a tone that isn’t hysterically admonitory.