Видео

Audio is of poor quality

The wokerati commentariate doesn't like Bruce Gilley's empirical observations... what a surprise. Too many young people now have been systematically indoctrinated by academic institutions that have themselves fallen prey to cultural Marxism. Bruce Gilley is a rare and admirable exception to the endemic spinelessness of modern, unacademic academia

Byzantine empire is greek

You are write

Wake me up when “the case for slavery” is published. Using a utilitarian approach ANYTHING can be defended… unfortunately the pesky details of morality get in the way… sorry guys

Yeah, slavery was great under Muslim rule, well, except for the castration😢

Every single thing of value in sub-Saharan Africa is a direct result of colonialism.

Wrong on Amritsar! The Jallianwala Bagh Massacre at Amritsar was a result of the draconian Rowlatt Act which allowed the British colonial government to arrest anyone without trial who was suspected of sedition. Although, the culprit, General Dyer received no further employment in India, the butcher of Amritsar enjoyed a luxurious life in Britain where he was regarded as some kind of a hero. He never faced any trial for ordering the killing 500 innocent Indians and injuring another 1500 in a massacre which took just 10 minutes !!!

Wokness and DEI will be the deathknell of the west. Employing someone because they are a minority or not white is the stupidest political agenda ever devised. It would be OK if they were good at what they are paid to do. In the USA back mayors and police heads have turned major cities unto hell holes , and the peoples that suffer the most , are the ones they are employed to protect . Obama , what a Dog .

Prof. Gilley states that colonialism was an "unmitigated good." It makes me wonder: If it was an unmitigated good and there were all these "pull factors" (people wanted colonial outposts or governors general) then why didn't the locals stick with the colonial enterprises over time? Why did they want independence? I know Gilley says that bad actors took advantage somehow to rise to the top of the anti-colonial movements that later turned some of these countries into places where people fled from, but what ELSE explains people joining anti-colonial movements? People don't just follow "bad actors" to remove an "unmitigated good" just for the hell of it. I've seen several explanations of how colonialism "perpetuates oppression." However, these explanations I've read so far appear to be marxist/woke arguments that could just as well apply to a governing systems originating from within a certain territory. I think the best argument AGAINST colonialism was spoken by Filipino patriot, Manuel L. Quezon, who said “I'd rather have a country (the Philippines) run like hell by Filipinos than a country run like heaven by Americans.” I think that's much more accurate of what MOTIVATES the anti-colonial spirit than anything the marxist academics pull out of their butts.

You want to be a superstitious dirt farmer, or live in modern times?

I personally dont think colobialism OVERALL WAS GOOD. BUT the idea that anything could never possibly be good if it has ties to colonialism is also an emotional anti critical way of thinking.. Even if u disagree you have to learn the ideas and ideologies and intentions behind things like this or you will never really know why what u think is wrong is wrong. In law the aaying is -A lawyer who knows only his side Of the case knows very very little of that. This saying is perennially true.

Little too based, going to trigger a lot of post-structuralists

God Bless you Bruce.Godspeed.

I think that rather than reading the poem in the context of consequentialist philosophers, it should be read in the context of www.kiplingsociety.co.uk/poem/poems_recess.htm. Kipling is not saying "maybe your new ideas are more just, but they will lead to bad consequences." He was saying that justice resides in simple, honest virtues and that those who forget the virtues of their forefathers are doomed to suffer greatly and to perish.

All civilization were racist? You are ignoring the islamic civilization which was not racial, rather leaders where changing from race to race while the core was saved, it is shame that a scientist ignores such obvious fact

Kaldellis is an eloquent writer but his general thesis that eastern Romans were an "ethnic' group is rather ridiuclous. His motivations for claiming such a bizarre thing seem to be more a woke political than anything academic. He's redefining the term "ethnic" much like woke sorts do "gender". It seems logically consistent within the framework of his obviously leftist antinationalist ideological views but he ignores the historical definition of ethnic not just meaning "identity" but also biological links. For a thousand years the western Holy Roman empire claimed to be the real Roman empire and the other one Greek. Unlike Kaldeliis the HRE were eyewitnesses to competing narratives for the context of Roman during that era. Despite claiming to be Roman., different eastern Roman emperors laim different ethnic roots. For example. Leo V claimed to be Armenian. Basil the Macedonian claimed to be a descendent of ancient Macedonin King Alexander. Contary to Kaldellis claim, the eastern Roman empire if anything was against ethnic identity in lew of promoting a common christian idenity united under banner of Roman emperial authority. That's the precise reason why the Western Holy Roman empire could argue for such an extended period that the HRE was the rea" Roman empire and other one mostly Greek.

I absolutely love The Gods of the Copybook Headings, but I had no idea that Kipling held such disdain for Woodrow Wilson. Knowing that makes me respect and like him even more, since Wilson was a Progressive monster.

If you went to India 40 years ago when there were people alive who remembered the Raj, almost all had a very good impression of the colonial period and how well organised things were, and how much less corruption and honest were the courts.

What the fuck is this guy talking about? "The most conservative estimate of the number of people deliberately killed by these [communist] regimes is 100 million" - what?! Absolutely not. That's the most inflated figure, counting people who died in famines, which were NOT deliberate, unless you take a very distorted view of the source material.

The idea scholarship doesn’t involve debates and the disruption of articles of faith may be a spectacle - it probably is an indicator of the worthwhile debate: the person without a counter argument has only the accusation of spectacle to run down the clock.

I was looking forward to rhis -- shame about the apallimg audio quality...

One of the biggest lies told about history is that before European colonists came, the native peoples were all peaceful, living in harmony. In reality, they were often at war with each other, tribe vs tribe. The Europeans weren't perfect either, but there is no denying that they brought a lot peace and prosperity to the places they colonized.

Both islamic and british colonialism were systems of control and exploitation this lecture is about which is more progressive ? Hypocritical one ?

Chalk has more personality than John Walbridge does. Thank God Almighty events conspired that I didn't end up at Indiana University studying under this vanilla and milk-toast stiff in a suit.

Your professor believes he has the right to dictate what his female students do with their bodies. Disgusting.

New RHCP goes hard

Colonisim is built on genocide and ethnic cleansing where the indigenous population is replaced. Example is USA, Canada, Australia etc. All are rich countries but where the indigenous population has been reduced to 1% of the population. The speaker argues this surviving 1% are much better off then their ancestors and must thank colonisim for it. He is thinking out of the box.

Bjerk ... drop the B

Anyone is free to refute his statement, but what is not right, is to suppress freedom of speech on something that you dont agree with. That wouldn't be freedom of speech at all, we wouldn't have learnt anything.

This prof is pro genocide....booooooo

You labelled Malaysia as an unsafe country yet no students here lost their lives as a result of school shooting. You're pro Israel and pro genocide people, how can you live with yourself

😅😅😅😅😅no colonization, occupied,,, genocide are goods,,they create looked gooD,,,,they took your LAND in term on buying, administ look good,,,gave your land mess invite outsider country & people buy your own people & LanD,,,make the original owner LAND become poor & slave with the moDERN way like Ai technology,,..ALL. the timE & continue UNTIL your LAND finished just like that,,,,, Im not respect you mr Bruce ,,,,your ideology make colonial LOOk AnGeLO😡😡😡😡💢💢💢💢😡😡😡

You support genocide of innocent people and childrens?

Using clown academian to justify colonial.. this is i call white supremacy..

Gilley is a brave man!

Paul Bjerk's constant foot-waggling reminds me of a teenager being lectured who is trying to just get through it while ignoring what's being said to him. I agree with others here that Gilley's discourse was clear, persuasive, and interesting, while Bjerk's was so often, "it's complicated," "you have to consult the 'literature'," etc. I also wanted someone to confront Bjerk for signing a letter to have Gilley's talk cancelled. How anti-intellectual. Clear win for Gilley.

Thank you for your work. I'd like to see such analysis on N. America too. You're saying a lot of what I've been thinking for a long time.

daniel BONEVAC 🥲

How did the British colonial empire cover up its crimes? The British colonial empire employed various tactics to cover up their crimes and atrocities committed during their rule in different parts of the world, including India. While there isn't a single comprehensive source outlining all cover-up methods, historians, researchers, and investigative journalists have uncovered several strategies used by the British colonial authorities to conceal their actions. Here are some ways in which the British attempted to cover up their crimes: Censorship and Propaganda: The British government exercised strict censorship over media outlets and publications to control the narrative surrounding colonial activities. They often disseminated propaganda to portray colonialism as a civilizing mission and downplay or justify the violence and exploitation inflicted upon indigenous populations. Sources such as government documents, colonial-era newspapers, and scholarly works like "Censorship and Colonialism in British India: Managing Print in the Nineteenth Century" by Steven H. Marks discuss these practices. Suppression of Dissent: The colonial authorities suppressed dissent and opposition through draconian laws, arbitrary arrests, and crackdowns on political activists, journalists, and intellectuals who exposed colonial atrocities. Many individuals who spoke out against colonial injustices were silenced or subjected to imprisonment and harassment. Historical accounts, biographies, and memoirs of activists and political leaders, such as "India's Struggle for Independence" by Bipan Chandra, shed light on these struggles. Distortion of History: The British colonial administration often distorted historical narratives to justify their actions and perpetuate myths of benevolent colonialism. They minimized or omitted accounts of violence, exploitation, and resistance in official histories and educational curricula, thereby shaping public perceptions of colonial rule. Studies like "Imperialism and Orientalism: A Documentary Sourcebook" edited by Barbara Harlow and Mia Carter analyze the construction of colonial narratives. Official Secrecy and Classified Documents: The British government classified many documents related to colonial administration and military operations as confidential or secret, restricting access to sensitive information for decades. Declassified documents, archival research, and investigative journalism have since revealed the extent of colonial atrocities and cover-up efforts. Researchers and historians have utilized archives like the British National Archives and colonial-era records to uncover hidden histories. Obfuscation and Denial: In response to allegations of human rights abuses and atrocities, the British colonial authorities often resorted to denial, obfuscation, and shifting blame onto local collaborators or rogue officials. They dismissed accusations of brutality as exaggerations or fabricated stories propagated by anti-colonial agitators. Contemporary accounts, diplomatic correspondence, and legal documents provide insights into colonial responses to allegations of wrongdoing. These methods of cover-up and manipulation of information illustrate the complex dynamics of colonial power and the challenges faced by historians and activists in uncovering the truth about colonial atrocities. While the British empire attempted to conceal its crimes, ongoing research, activism, and advocacy efforts seek to bring justice to the victims and confront the legacies of colonialism.

I agree: the USA should be Colonized by a superior power, China!

Thanks for the virility of witness provided by Baba. As you say none of us would have expected to defend the witness of our mentors- to run so many kindergarten classes, It seems to me the lack of genuine experience of economic development is part of what keeps many in the West in the childish chains of thinking they think like scientists when they have tested nothing but a screen shot. Let me suggest, as an ecologist who supports the idea of colonization, that we avoid the untidy witness of our own antecedents ignorance and the overly ambitious industrial approach to sensitive ecosystems and RATHER assert that the reactionary idealists have chosen an action which is not bad.( ie finding more food) As usual monists fail to recognize that they can't name the evil ,( by just badgering us with colonization ) and therefore can't grow to let others to see the important joys of finding productivity in HOW to do things better , together. It"s OK mate to go search for food ( to set up a colony ) and to do it together or by sharing technology and custody of the resources used.The rest is as you well point out whether we share justly and bring to justice those who truly trespass. ... Let's be among the first moderns to remind ourselves that Yahweh has no territory and that we are only custodians as the first peoples of any country ( if not stuck in the last century Marxists ) can also accept. ecomia.blogspot.com

It all depends on who's doing the colonising.

For those agreeing with Gilley ask yourself would you let Bezos or Musk be the lord of your house ? These men would provide a richer life to your family. Additionally, given the number of children that Musk has he should probably be in charge of the baby making duties of your household as well. If this is not okay for your family why is it okay for a whole nation of people?

The end justifies the means. All ethics are situational. It's just collateral damage no worries. You can't make an omelette with breaking the eggs. Who better than a descendant of the colonizers to explain that to us. I like that it's being held in Texas. It's very fitting

collonials abandoned everything and the Chinese have stepped in and taken over - with great vigor and ruthlessness

Poor acoustics. Needs good label mic.

This warmonger hegemonist USA cheap supremacist, MAGA sgyle (Deutschland über allesby) pro military brutality guy. speaks such an immense racist pack of shit that he himself auto prohibits wastingvtime in reading it. He gnores China. After fighting british and japanese colonialism, like many, it designed a non USA or european exceptionalist scheme that left his collapsed Britain and declining western militsrist imperialism way behind.

Bjerk stutters because he has no logical rebuttal. His entire statement could be condensed into "White men should've known better!" Gilley bent him over his knee, pulled down his pants, and spanked him.

It is not clear what he is saying. Nobody has seriously argued that colonialism achieved nothing worthy. That has never been the issue. The issue is more that colonialism was not motivated by philanthropic agendas, that its policies were not uniformly applied everywhere, or fair, that it created as many divisions among peoples as it developed new institutions, that it overwhelmingly advanced notions of racial and ethnic hierachies, that it took it upon itself to define, with such dubious terms as "Bantu", etc etc. Colonialism has a mixed record because it was born of a conflicted agenda, to exploit, and to develop, to emancipate, and to settle, to redeem, and to condemn. Examples that are used, such as endemic corruption, "tribalism", and bad governance in former colonies, should be viewed, to some extent, as an inevitable consequence of bad colonial and neo colonial policies. Finally, it is ridiculous to accredit Singaporean economic and social success to colonialism. Their success is the outcome of a uniquely South East Asian kind of willpower and discipline in leadership and which can as well be seen in Japan, South Korea, North Korea, China, and increasingly, in Vietnam, Indonesia, Thailand, and Malyasia.