And also don't support Afrocentrists like Chakabars and Afghan/Pashtun Ethno-Nats, no matter how much they claim to support Palestine, because they're hypocrites, supporting Palestine doesn't excuse hatred and conspiracy theories against other ethnicities.
“Koh-I-Noor diamond, if we say yes to one, we’d have to say yes to so many others, the British museum will be emptied” David Cameron. Doesn’t that tell you all you need to know about the British governmental mentality?
Get it back - all of it. It’s stolen - India was destroyed and carved up by the British Crown. From your Māori sister from Aotearoa (opps I mean New Zealand). Oh my gosh - that David just spews out the same Colonialism garbage. Why is he deflecting - when we deflect they come up with some other excuse.
@Debra Charles Dear me another person triggered. Very cheap argument about getting out of the land he hates? This is our land too. We are here because empire was there. If the wealth wasn't stolen and bought here then we wouldn't be here. The British empire was also multicultural hence the 'Commonwealth'. You are missing the point he doesn't hate, he's pointing out facts that the majority of people in this country have not learnt about and trying to help people understand the real history that isn't taught in the school curriculum deliberately. It all comes down to education which he is rightly doing. Educating you.
@Debra Charles Truth hurts doesn't it? Do you have any capacity for self reflection, or is our country so magically flawless and the rest of the world full of shit? Are we above criticism? Are you a nationalist? Lowkey aka Kareem _Dennis_ is of mixed heritage. Are you saying he hates his father, who might I add is white? Or are you going to accuse him of self loathing perhaps?
@Debra Charles 1. He was born in the UK and its as much his land as yours. 2. He in no way "blames and hates" whites, he correctly blames if you want to put it that way the empire. 3. Dry your eyes with your fake snowflake victim complex all while trying to ignore actual victims of murderous British empire. BTW I'm British and white but my ego is not that fragile that I think he's blaming me or "whites" and I can look at actual factual information and see the truth.
@Debra Charles He's more of a citizen than you Debra you small minded racist arsehole. Think it's you that needs deported to Antarctica without a winter jacket but I would not inflict the poor penguins with your ignorance.
Obviously this guy didn’t know Lowkey has the subject of British empire nailed. The best compliment I can give Lowkey is that he reminds me of ‘The Hitch’ = total truth with ridiculous knowledge and the humility to say I don’t know on subjects they aren’t knowledgable on.
@@paullafferty1411 :: I do respect Hitchens ! But ( imo ) he isn't an orator ! He didn't necessarily mesmerize many people w / his speeches. He was a writer, who defended his histories w / lectures & debates / interviews. _( Obama was considered an orator. )_ Lowkey, in this regard, is also a great public-speaker ; very dynamic & in control of the language he speaks. He speaks w / few pauses between words / sentences. He doesn't stumble or search for words. He provides facts in a "legato" form. He is a student of Chomsky who surpassed the teacher in delivery. Hitchens sometimes appeared to have had a conversation w / Johnny Walker Black before his interviews / lectures. Lowkey's verbal-motion is kinetic in his style. In my humble opinion, he is better than Chomsky AND Hitchens & his youth enhances his vigorous verbal-delivery !
David Goodhart is being obtuse with the truth on a number of levels. When he says that as the empire began to wind down in the first part of the 20th century there was no opposition, this is utter nonsense. Churchill insisted on the Mediterranean campaign during WW2 specifically to keep the sea lanes open to India. When Stafford Cripps was sent to India on a mission during the war he came back proposing independence for that country, which was rejected by Churchill. By the 50's when the empire was dying, Britain began to convert itself into a financial empire using its small overseas island territories as tax havens. It is these tax havens which move trillions of pounds through the City of London and around the globe that is the source of the conflict with the EU. For years the EU has been warning the UK that it can't operate two tax systems and must bring its tax havens out into the daylight. The response to that was Brexit and any mention of the causes of it without tax havens at the centre of the argument is like Hamlet without the prince.
@@cliffgaither You're welcome Cliff. It's all very sad really, the majority of the population will be much worse off whilst the rich will get even richer.
@@rafthejaf8789 :: The United States has identical policies & leaders ... Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher ... Donald Trump and Boris Johnson ... Even _Progressives ::_ Bernie Sanders ! and Jeremy Corbyn !
Goodhart logic: You've been found guilty of mass murder, do you have anything to say? It was a very complicated mass murder. Oh, well that's ok, you're free to go then.
Over 87,000 Indian soldiers (including those from modern day Pakistan, Nepal, and Bangladesh) died in World War II. So closer to lowkey s figure than dave
Sadly I think a lot of British people do not want to confront or take responsibility for the ills of their empire. The agreements they make is kinda like 'i may have beaten your wife and still continue to beat her secretly but... Well, wives have experience violence for centuries... So...' shrugs shoulders. Really disappointing ☹️
Well who do you hold accountable? I mean saying British people 'do not want to confront' work solely on the premise British people feel any connection to the events. Most, I can imagine, see the atrocities carried out by the British Empire as acts of a very small group of elite aristocrats who also persecuted their own people back home. You talk of it as 'their Empire' as somehow people truly believe it to be their Empire. Unfortunately your example doesn't really make sense in that context.
@@jordanmeanes4464 the general public, according to polls which were mentioned in the video, state that a sizeable amount of British people believe the empire was a good thing and many would return to it. The general public can not escape responsibility as they hold the key to making 'power' accountable and the general public as well as the elite have benefited from empire.
@Cathal Ó Braonáin Sure, but we know better than to believe the polls right, I mean if anything recent years have proven this to be a necessity. Also, lets face it, generally statistics used in debates like these are deeply floored as it's usually fairly easy to find numbers that fall into whatever narrative you are selling. If we base our understanding of a subject on RUclips clips rather than personal experience it's a pretty flawed way of truly understanding a subject as we're always going to be at the mercy of whatever the media is selling. I have an open mind so was interested as to what extent the British public would return to the British Empire. That's not my personal experience, in fact quite the opposite, so it's interesting to hear what individuals personal experiences are. So yep, we have a video, but don't be scared of open discussion, everyone's narrative is valid, that's how we educate ourselves.
@Cathal Ó Braonáin Well the Trump polls, Brexit and also the recent UK election polls. Also any debate I've ever seen on RUclips just ends up people throwing stats at each other which when you look into them, actually have huge holes in. Actually if you look at the 1st pole you referenced it makes interesting reading but seems slightly misleading. I think there's a big difference between people wanting to return to an Empire and people saying they would like it if Britain still had an empire. I mean if you word questions correctly you can pretty much get any response you want. Also, there's no consequence to these answers so naturally polls (as always) fall down in this regard. If you ask someone if Catalunya if they want independence they generally all say yes though the reality of it in a real vote is competely different. It's easy to give a throwaway emotionally charged response with no consequence however to see an action through you need to start to be aware of all the connotations, only afterwhich we get a more honest opinion. Anyway, I try to avoid BBC, Guardian & Independent at all cost just as with their rivals on the right. I actually think most media these days are just fraudulent propagada machines though of course these are probably some of the worst. Personally I'm proud of the British Empire in that it represents the multi-cultural society I grew up in and the progressive nature I've seen in Britain compared to other places in the world I've lived. Most of my friends growing up were of either Indian or Jamaican heritage so it's strange to hear you talk about this as if it was a bad thing. I get your point btw, but like I said, I don't think a poll gives you a true representation unless you really speak to people. I'm sure if you asked the Britsh people if they'd like to return to the massacre of people worldwide they'd say 'no' however if you ask them if Australia has done well following British rule they might say 'yes'. Maybe I'm wrong but that's the impression I get when speaking to people of the ground. What your impression from the British people you have spoken to?
0:17: 📈 During the period of British Empire, India and China accounted for 75% of world industrial output, and Britain's per capita GDP increased by 347% between 1757 and 1900. 4:21: 🇬🇧 The speaker suggests that educating the British population about the past and reconfiguring Britain's relationship with other countries is necessary to understand the present and move forward. 9:09: 🌍 The video discusses the relative openness and success of certain minorities in British society, despite the shadow cast by the legacy of the British Empire. 13:05: 📚 The video discusses the importance of critical thinking in history and challenges the assumption that Britain was solely responsible for advancements in industrialization. 17:36: 🌍 The speaker discusses the complex nature of horrific events and the role of different empires in history, including the British Empire and the Ottoman Empire. 21:16: 🌍 The video discusses the relationship between the British Empire and the Industrial Revolution, highlighting the significant increase in Britain's cotton exports and imports during that time. 25:14: 🌍 The outcomes for minorities in Britain are influenced by factors such as levels of education, poverty, and integration into society, rather than just the impact of colonialism. 29:22: 📜 The speaker discusses the open door policy in the European Empire and the changing perspectives on empire and immigration over time. 33:31: 🗳 The British Empire suppressed democracy and denied voting rights to its subjects, including the leader of the Chartists, William Cuffy, who was exiled to Tasmania where the indigenous population was wiped out by contact with the Empire. Recapped using Tammy AI
I love the way the white man defender of empire shakes his head in disagreement. It's like his world view and identity are threatened by the cold harsh truth fired at him by a superior intellect.
@@rafthejaf8789 agree. "History is the judge - its executioner, the proletarian. Marx, Speech at Anniversary of The People’s Paper (1856)" I think he's expressing solidarity I would think he is I'm not sure I can't speak for another person
10:18 british empire was/is taught in schools? im 32, and when i was in school, i was taught about the romans / world war 2 and archeology. I was taught german as my main language class. I wasnt taught anything about the british empire, and would have preferred it over world war 2. Ive learnt more out of education than i ever would have in education, simply because of my interest in history. I live in northamptonshire, in the heart of the UK, and i can tell you that this guy is a liar. maybe its taught in school today, but i certainly never was, and i think the british empire should be the single biggest subject in history that we should learn, simply because its our past, whether it was right or wrong.
@@westroyal.v.i.p7492 if your going to call someone a idiot, at least have the decency to explain why you think they're a idiot, you called some else a idiot and the irony is you ended up looking like a idiot 🤣
It is taught today; look up the GCSE history curriculum. I'm roughly the same age (bit younger) and wasn't taught about it either. Note, however, that it doesn't make you a liar because a claim you make in 2019 (which is true in 2019 - the 'migration, empires, and the people' module is at least as old as that according to the AQA website) would not have been true if made in 2002.
The reason why we can't talk about empire is because the empire hasn't gone anywhere! It might've changed slightly to not be identified as such but that's still what we have. Most people are having debates in alternative realities and the truth is power is what still rules and ethereal concepts like justice and morals are only used as a bludgeon to beat the less powerful.
Goodhart: "Cameron apologised for the Amritsar massacre." Reality: "David Cameron has defended his decision to stop short of delivering a formal British apology for the Amritsar massacre in 1919, in which at least 379 innocent Indians were killed."
It’s a fascinating debate. Ultimately I couldn’t really deny that Low-key used quotes and data to create arguments that informed and enriched ones experience listening to the debate. David, obviously clever and with important experiences and perspective, didn’t have the same tenacity in his arguments. We need more left vs right debates in this way, the audience is telling in the way it was judging David which is a shame because he is (to me) obviously very lonely in the room, these types of debates are needed.
I agree with you. I didn't really agree with anything David had to say, but he deserves to have a chance to say his piece without interruption from the audience - just like Kareem would have deserved the same respect if the room was full of investment bankers. No point in lowering the bar of the debate to the level of the British parliament.
"I've spent the last couple of days talking to people who teach history in British schools, the empire is taught... in almost all schools" ALL schools David? You haven't spoke to history teachers from ALL schools - this is such a jump. I've researched this for my dissertation (5 months work not just a couple of days) and I can tell you for a fact it's not taught in all schools. But also - it matters HOW it is taught, not just that it is. There are plenty of ways of teaching empire that skirt around British atrocities and silence the history of the colonies. When we ask for colonial history to be taught we ask for it to be taught honestly, without bias or sheltering and without exclusion of black and asian narratives. Go on Lowkey keep fighting the good fight.
I take your point, but it's literally impossible to teach any history without biases - black and Asian narratives are also prone to bias (since they are the product of human reasoning). Also, I thought (correct me if I'm wrong as I don't know much about this) that schools have a certain amount of autonomy with curricula (in the sense that they can pick which topics to focus on from broadly defined modules). From what I understand there is a module which concerns 'migration and empire'. So is that module not taught in certain schools? Or is it that certain schools chose their focus within that module so as not to focus on the British empire? Just on your quote also: ""I've spent the last couple of days talking to people who teach history in British schools, the empire is taught... in almost all schools" ALL schools David? You haven't spoke to history teachers from ALL schools - this is such a jump. I've researched this for my dissertation (5 months work not just a couple of days) and I can tell you for a fact it's not taught in all schools. " - This is really weird reasoning. He makes it clear that his claim is an aggregate, not universal, claim. You then deny the universal claim - which (according to your original quote) he never made. You then critique him for not speaking to all schools - which is really weird as no one with any background in stats would expect him to; this isn't how inductive inference is done. You then note your more in-depth research on the subject (props to you, as it sounds interesting) but don't claim to have talked to all schools either - further weakening your previous critique of him.
Germany has shown England the right way, regarding it's own history, by educating it's people without lying or deceiving. Ignorance is not an option. The Truth shall set you free. Peace
I highly disagree I am German and yes we learn about ww2 in school but in a very superficial way. But what is more important: I ve never learned about German colonialism in Africa although it was the fourth biggest colonial power. In fact we never talked about British imperialism and colonialism at all. Our curriculum is based on eurocentric and often racist standards and it’s there to keep the powerful in power and to reduce critical thinking
I agree with his last point though about basically how Indians “accepted” British leadership because in some ways people want structure and if your last empire crumbles and a new one steps up it might seem preferable to how India was before with dozens of independent kingdoms and warlords
Somalia the only African country that faught the British colonizer and eventually won despite the high loss of human life; because Somalis were difficult to deal with by the Brits, Somalia became the first country in Africa that was erially bombed by the British colonizer.
I agree because Britain was placed at an immense moral hazard by imperialism. I have heard nothing but nostalgia for empire throughout my life in Britain from usually rich people. Most working class people in Britain, except for a few weren't imperialists.
"So stand at attention, devil dirge You never survive choosing sides against the wretched of the earth The infiltrator, tribe intoxicator, people incarcerator Liberation movement annihilator" Zach de la Rocha
Lowkey drop god knowledge And the response starts with; we weren't as bad as other Europeans. Guessing hes never hear of indigenous massacres in new England or Australia
Wow! Lowkey really put this Goodhart in his place. Love his articulacy. I wish this umming Goodhart would STOP saying 'You can't judge the past by the present'........of course you can. Anyway the 'past' in this case really isn't that 'past' and anyway this umming Goodhart was happy to use the REAL past: Egypt and Spanish to justify our British Empire which my Grandfather and Grandmother were part of. The man is a horrible apologist for what we White arrogant self righteous people did and I am embarrassed and angry that so many people like Goodhart are so wilfully blind.
But the Office for National Statistics makes this point themselves. They're hardly a right wing enclave. You don't have to like Goodhart or agree with him re: the British empire, but this claim isn't a controversial one.
The British empire still exists in the north of Ireland. That empire is the most hateful entity to the Irish people and I am accordingly amazed that I have not heard the Irish struggle against British oppression being discussed in the video. After all, the great 1916 Easter Rising marked the slow demise of the evil empire. One other important point, Tony Blair while visiting Ireland was brought to Croke Park in Dublin the site of a British massacre of civilians during Ireland's War of Independence where he was expected to make an apology - he made no apology. And the British falsification of history continues right up to today in relation to the conflict in the six-counties. The simple truth of the matter is: the war started with the British military invasions of the nationalist areas which had liberated themselves from the racist, colonial police, the RUC. The British military were met by resistance from the IRA and the INLA, but the historical narrative has been utterly falsified and the British media continue to lie constantly about their colonial presence in Ireland.
Shouldn't they have gotten someone who actually was a scholar instead of Goodhart, because he was quoting his opinion as some sort of fact, I felt sorry listening to him ... and as a teacher I know that history teachers don't really teach about what the British Empire the same way say Germany does about WW2. ... what a bunch of hot air
it's always judging the morals of the white colonialists that we apparently shouldn't "judge by the standards of the present". But it doesn't really make sense unless your still denying the humanity of those who were colonised. It's not as though being murdered or enslaved was any more desirable in the past than it is now.
We can only judge the British actions by today’s values. If 19th century values are to be applied evenly across the board then the Germans and Japanese have nothing to answer for their actions in WWII. The holocaust and the Mau Mau massacre/ rape/ castrations in Kenya took place during the same period . Yet the British who were screaming for German accountability for atrocities committed in WWII, fielded a legal defense team that argued that the Kenyan government was responsible for reparations to the Mau Mau survivors because (and I kid not) governments are continuous. The justices thankfully rubbished that argument and ruled in the Kenyans favour. If we are to judge the British by 17th and 18 Th century standards then why destroy the evidence. Why was their an orchestrated campaign to conceal the truth and create alternative narratives and a revised history. This Englishman defending the British is a product of the disinformation campaign in the educational system and mass media. The lack of self awareness is mind boggling and I doubt he knows any better or can help himself . That same delusional mentality is what’s fueling Brexit - we did it all on our own and can do so again.
The video lacks context, the question was "Should the truth of these histories lead to shame, reflection and reparations or instil a sense of honorary pride and inspiration?" I agree with lowkey but goodhart suggesting British people should not be ashamed while Lowkey is arguing they should i suppose.
racial hierarchy was the normal order of events in empires? the guy would do well to review the Spanish Empire´s Leyes de Indias ... not all empires were predatory in nature although modrn anglo theory likes to present it that way to equalize and justify their actions
David Goodhart reminds me of some of my own public school teachers in the 1980s skilfully twisting and massaging arguments in their favour. Dishonest and lacking intellectual integrity.
Whoever, wherever and however is proud of an "empire" must be a total dingbat or a dead person ... But Wait, The British Empire which was really the worst of em all, is done with, like all empires eventually are...
So, a country with 1.8% of the worlds GDP conquered two countries with a combined 75% of the worlds GDP. That takes some doing man, it's like Ireland conquering China, USA, Germany and Japan today. Those Brits must have been some real tough dudes.
Not tough just deceptive and devious. People accept the British as the had done with other traders . They were welcomed as friends but they decided to take over. A little concept called divide and rule. Like inviting a traveller into your house who ends up raping your children and kicking you out of your home and sharing it with your brother.
|OK we all agree slavery and the exploitation of colonialists was bad, and cruel. But if the only excuse Lowkey has for Arab and Ottoman and African slavers is that they existed a long time ago, then he's engaging in selective time stamp morality. If it was bad when we did it, it was also bad when they did it. Irrestpective of the time stamp. Human suffering was just as painful under the prophet of Islam as it was under Cecil Rhodes. I'm amazed he got away with that trick. And the slave markets in Libya RIGHT NOW have no white involvement. The bottom line is this: Black and Brown people are not the moral superiors of white people. And they never were.
I agree with your point but I think Lowkey was saying that talking of ‘ancient’ (or not so ancient, but rather more than, say, 250 years ago) slave trades as if they’re comparable to the British empire’s legacy is wrong in the sense that the actions of the British empire still have that ripple effect to this day - there are living generations which witnessed the exploitation and oppression at the hands of the British empire. Lowkey is a good Marxist, he’s not making a moral argument, he’s saying that it’s pointless to talk of the ottoman’s slave trade or the slave trades of Africa as if they have a tangible grip on the realities of people today, which is why bringing them up as a moral point against Lowkeys argument is not ‘an analysis based in reality’ (although the slave trades in Africa to this day are another story, lowkey always talks about Perry Anderson so I’d imagine he’s referring to the lives experiences of people under global hegemony). He did sort of phrase it weirdly though so I get the confusion
@@silvio25432 But some of them weren't 'ancient' by any metric. The Arab slave trade only ended legally in the 1960s (in Mauritania it ended legally in 2007). The African slave trade was symbiotic with the European exploitation of African slaves, in that the latter was parasitic on - and acted as an enormous incentive for - the former. I can't see how a practice of slavery that was rampant and only ended in the 1960s has no ripple effect to this day. In Mauritania in 2018, there was an estimated 90,000 slaves (2.1% of the population), so it's definitely not true that there's no ripple effect today. And, to the extent that the trans-Atlantic slave trade has a ripple effect today, obviously the African slavers are partly responsible for that (along with the European slavers - especially the British). So, obviously the British atrocities need to be studied, highlighted, and taught - especially in Britain - but clearly so do other atrocities too.
You can always identify a historian who bullshits people with the classic :: "We can't judge the past with the values of today". Never taking into account that we are still facing human atrocities, with or without Human Rights Organizations. The only difference now are those Organizations exist along-side the atrocities. Then :: the inhumane acts continued without those Organizations. Then the issue becomes :: If we can't judge the past with the "values" of today ... What actually are the values of today if these acts still occur ? The only difference between _Then & Now_ is that these Organizations ( Now ) are Reporting the Crimes as they happen. The reason Goodhart uses that camouflage statement, is for that very reason :: to defend the past with the delusions of the false "values" of today. I'm sure the Women who were burned for witchcraft 100s of years ago, understood the difference between Right & Wrong.
There is no daddy highly intelligent is one of the most best intellectual debaters I have ever seen people need to fact check him more and he is reading from a phone or something still talented but I think he’s on the wrong side of things playing the victim mentality it never works in history. History is told by the victor not the loser Loser story is what he is concerned with there is a bigger debate at hand and it’s in the Bible
Long live Lowkey the destroyer of nonsense.
Moral of the story: don't debate Lowkey
Would like to add don't be a coconut
I'll debate him
And also don't support Afrocentrists like Chakabars and Afghan/Pashtun Ethno-Nats, no matter how much they claim to support Palestine, because they're hypocrites, supporting Palestine doesn't excuse hatred and conspiracy theories against other ethnicities.
I dare LOWK☪️Y to debate Christian Prince 😂
“Koh-I-Noor diamond, if we say yes to one, we’d have to say yes to so many others, the British museum will be emptied” David Cameron.
Doesn’t that tell you all you need to know about the British governmental mentality?
Get it back - all of it. It’s stolen - India was destroyed and carved up by the British Crown. From your Māori sister from Aotearoa (opps I mean New Zealand). Oh my gosh - that David just spews out the same Colonialism garbage. Why is he deflecting - when we deflect they come up with some other excuse.
Insanity. We should be bankrupt.
Lowkey!!! Living breathing legend! Telling it exactly how it is!
@Debra Charles Dear me another person triggered. Very cheap argument about getting out of the land he hates? This is our land too. We are here because empire was there. If the wealth wasn't stolen and bought here then we wouldn't be here. The British empire was also multicultural hence the 'Commonwealth'. You are missing the point he doesn't hate, he's pointing out facts that the majority of people in this country have not learnt about and trying to help people understand the real history that isn't taught in the school curriculum deliberately. It all comes down to education which he is rightly doing. Educating you.
@Debra Charles Truth hurts doesn't it? Do you have any capacity for self reflection, or is our country so magically flawless and the rest of the world full of shit? Are we above criticism? Are you a nationalist?
Lowkey aka Kareem _Dennis_ is of mixed heritage. Are you saying he hates his father, who might I add is white? Or are you going to accuse him of self loathing perhaps?
@Debra Charles 1. He was born in the UK and its as much his land as yours.
2. He in no way "blames and hates" whites, he correctly blames if you want to put it that way the empire.
3. Dry your eyes with your fake snowflake victim complex all while trying to ignore actual victims of murderous British empire.
BTW I'm British and white but my ego is not that fragile that I think he's blaming me or "whites" and I can look at actual factual information and see the truth.
@Debra Charles He's more of a citizen than you Debra you small minded racist arsehole.
Think it's you that needs deported to Antarctica without a winter jacket but I would not inflict the poor penguins with your ignorance.
@Debra Charles because we are here to take it all back. Then we will leave and bury the boxes in the ocean!
This is like a crash course in busting the chops of Imperial apologists, thanks Lowkey
Kareem Bhai always been like a teacher to me ,immensely inspired by Lowkey since 2010 ...salute from Varanasi
"Not a reality based way of analyzing the present." Low-key basically sums up the counterargument perfectly.
When the power of LOVE overcomes the Love of POWER then and only then will the world know peace
And .... thank you 🙏
Jimi Hendrix
Alan Fontaine
Did jimi Hendrix say that?
Hallelujah
David sound like prince Andrew's Last interview
😂😂😂😂😂😂
Wow. Lowkey killed everything. Brilliance!
Obviously this guy didn’t know Lowkey has the subject of British empire nailed. The best compliment I can give Lowkey is that he reminds me of ‘The Hitch’ = total truth with ridiculous knowledge and the humility to say I don’t know on subjects they aren’t knowledgable on.
Wow comparing lowkey with Christoper Hitchens, still say hitchens is greatest ever orator.
P laf ... was meaning more in the subject of Empire 👍
Didn’t mean to compare his oratory skills to Hitchens, nothing can compare to that level 😉
@@paullafferty1411 ::
I do respect Hitchens ! But ( imo ) he isn't an orator ! He didn't necessarily mesmerize many people w / his speeches. He was a writer, who defended his histories w / lectures & debates / interviews.
_( Obama was considered an orator. )_
Lowkey, in this regard, is also a great public-speaker ; very dynamic & in control of the language he speaks. He speaks w / few pauses between words / sentences. He doesn't stumble or search for words. He provides facts in a "legato" form. He is a student of Chomsky who surpassed the teacher in delivery.
Hitchens sometimes appeared to have had a conversation w / Johnny Walker Black before his interviews / lectures.
Lowkey's verbal-motion is kinetic in his style.
In my humble opinion, he is better than Chomsky AND Hitchens & his youth enhances his vigorous verbal-delivery !
"Invisibalize power in the present and soften it in the past" spot on. Right.
David Goodhart is being obtuse with the truth on a number of levels. When he says that as the empire began to wind down in the first part of the 20th century there was no opposition, this is utter nonsense. Churchill insisted on the Mediterranean campaign during WW2 specifically to keep the sea lanes open to India. When Stafford Cripps was sent to India on a mission during the war he came back proposing independence for that country, which was rejected by Churchill. By the 50's when the empire was dying, Britain began to convert itself into a financial empire using its small overseas island territories as tax havens. It is these tax havens which move trillions of pounds through the City of London and around the globe that is the source of the conflict with the EU. For years the EU has been warning the UK that it can't operate two tax systems and must bring its tax havens out into the daylight. The response to that was Brexit and any mention of the causes of it without tax havens at the centre of the argument is like Hamlet without the prince.
*Snaps* 👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼
Thank you for your comment ! I have been trying to get a handle on the reason ( s ) for Brexit !
Thank you !
@@cliffgaither You're welcome Cliff. It's all very sad really, the majority of the population will be much worse off whilst the rich will get even richer.
@@rafthejaf8789 ::
The United States has identical policies & leaders ...
Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher ...
Donald Trump and Boris Johnson ...
Even _Progressives ::_
Bernie Sanders ! and Jeremy Corbyn !
Lowkey spitting knowledge and truth and always.
Lowkey in a debate... Wow he is so powerful in a debate.
Preach Brother....speaking truth to power✊🏾
Goodhart logic:
You've been found guilty of mass murder, do you have anything to say?
It was a very complicated mass murder.
Oh, well that's ok, you're free to go then.
😹😹😹😹
Let's nominate our brother low key for a new year's honour, or even a knighthood for telling the truth like no one else can.👍👍👍👍👍
Wouldn't a state awarded honour be a litle ironic considering the tie-in with such awards to the colonial legacy of the former British empire?
I doubt he would accept an honour from the British government.
He’d never accept it and rightly so🙌🏿
He would surely refuse to accept it(you would have to swear allegiance to the crown). Low key is a stated republican
You don’t give out titles for spouting hatred and fake news!
Over 87,000 Indian soldiers (including those from modern day Pakistan, Nepal, and Bangladesh) died in World War II. So closer to lowkey s figure than dave
🙌🏾 lowkey you are brilliant.
My man was saying "errrrrrrrm" a lot. Lowkey clearly made him nervous.
Well done lowkey!! 👏🏾👏🏾👏🏾
Sadly I think a lot of British people do not want to confront or take responsibility for the ills of their empire. The agreements they make is kinda like 'i may have beaten your wife and still continue to beat her secretly but... Well, wives have experience violence for centuries... So...' shrugs shoulders. Really disappointing ☹️
Well who do you hold accountable? I mean saying British people 'do not want to confront' work solely on the premise British people feel any connection to the events.
Most, I can imagine, see the atrocities carried out by the British Empire as acts of a very small group of elite aristocrats who also persecuted their own people back home.
You talk of it as 'their Empire' as somehow people truly believe it to be their Empire.
Unfortunately your example doesn't really make sense in that context.
@@jordanmeanes4464 the general public, according to polls which were mentioned in the video, state that a sizeable amount of British people believe the empire was a good thing and many would return to it. The general public can not escape responsibility as they hold the key to making 'power' accountable and the general public as well as the elite have benefited from empire.
@@nykollpoet163 To what extent would many people return to it?
@Cathal Ó Braonáin Sure, but we know better than to believe the polls right, I mean if anything recent years have proven this to be a necessity. Also, lets face it, generally statistics used in debates like these are deeply floored as it's usually fairly easy to find numbers that fall into whatever narrative you are selling.
If we base our understanding of a subject on RUclips clips rather than personal experience it's a pretty flawed way of truly understanding a subject as we're always going to be at the mercy of whatever the media is selling.
I have an open mind so was interested as to what extent the British public would return to the British Empire. That's not my personal experience, in fact quite the opposite, so it's interesting to hear what individuals personal experiences are.
So yep, we have a video, but don't be scared of open discussion, everyone's narrative is valid, that's how we educate ourselves.
@Cathal Ó Braonáin Well the Trump polls, Brexit and also the recent UK election polls. Also any debate I've ever seen on RUclips just ends up people throwing stats at each other which when you look into them, actually have huge holes in.
Actually if you look at the 1st pole you referenced it makes interesting reading but seems slightly misleading. I think there's a big difference between people wanting to return to an Empire and people saying they would like it if Britain still had an empire. I mean if you word questions correctly you can pretty much get any response you want.
Also, there's no consequence to these answers so naturally polls (as always) fall down in this regard. If you ask someone if Catalunya if they want independence they generally all say yes though the reality of it in a real vote is competely different. It's easy to give a throwaway emotionally charged response with no consequence however to see an action through you need to start to be aware of all the connotations, only afterwhich we get a more honest opinion.
Anyway, I try to avoid BBC, Guardian & Independent at all cost just as with their rivals on the right. I actually think most media these days are just fraudulent propagada machines though of course these are probably some of the worst.
Personally I'm proud of the British Empire in that it represents the multi-cultural society I grew up in and the progressive nature I've seen in Britain compared to other places in the world I've lived. Most of my friends growing up were of either Indian or Jamaican heritage so it's strange to hear you talk about this as if it was a bad thing.
I get your point btw, but like I said, I don't think a poll gives you a true representation unless you really speak to people.
I'm sure if you asked the Britsh people if they'd like to return to the massacre of people worldwide they'd say 'no' however if you ask them if Australia has done well following British rule they might say 'yes'. Maybe I'm wrong but that's the impression I get when speaking to people of the ground.
What your impression from the British people you have spoken to?
28:48.. goodharts nervous breakdown, signposted by incoherent rambling, culminates in the sound of his bladder overflowing.
0:17: 📈 During the period of British Empire, India and China accounted for 75% of world industrial output, and Britain's per capita GDP increased by 347% between 1757 and 1900.
4:21: 🇬🇧 The speaker suggests that educating the British population about the past and reconfiguring Britain's relationship with other countries is necessary to understand the present and move forward.
9:09: 🌍 The video discusses the relative openness and success of certain minorities in British society, despite the shadow cast by the legacy of the British Empire.
13:05: 📚 The video discusses the importance of critical thinking in history and challenges the assumption that Britain was solely responsible for advancements in industrialization.
17:36: 🌍 The speaker discusses the complex nature of horrific events and the role of different empires in history, including the British Empire and the Ottoman Empire.
21:16: 🌍 The video discusses the relationship between the British Empire and the Industrial Revolution, highlighting the significant increase in Britain's cotton exports and imports during that time.
25:14: 🌍 The outcomes for minorities in Britain are influenced by factors such as levels of education, poverty, and integration into society, rather than just the impact of colonialism.
29:22: 📜 The speaker discusses the open door policy in the European Empire and the changing perspectives on empire and immigration over time.
33:31: 🗳 The British Empire suppressed democracy and denied voting rights to its subjects, including the leader of the Chartists, William Cuffy, who was exiled to Tasmania where the indigenous population was wiped out by contact with the Empire.
Recapped using Tammy AI
This was like watching kitten step into a jet engine. Goodheart was well out of his depth.
Wow so informative🔥🔥
Thanks for this upload. I'd like to see the debate in its entirety. Any idea where I might find it?
Thanks again
It’s actually 74,187 Indians that died in the war not 34, 000 lowkey was closer to the actual figure.
So many brilliant historians are truth seekers.
I love the way the white man defender of empire shakes his head in disagreement. It's like his world view and identity are threatened by the cold harsh truth fired at him by a superior intellect.
White Communist man here!
@@celestialteapot309 And?
@@rafthejaf8789 maybe he's suggesting that he's on your side
@@d34dmantwoguns It's my side or your side, there's only the right side of history.
@@rafthejaf8789 agree.
"History is the judge - its executioner, the proletarian.
Marx, Speech at Anniversary of The People’s Paper (1856)"
I think he's expressing solidarity I would think he is I'm not sure I can't speak for another person
testament to the perseverance of the population ........................👏👏👏
the bit at the end.....he's a diamond......priceless
Alhamdulillah lowkey is a very intelligent person
10:18 british empire was/is taught in schools? im 32, and when i was in school, i was taught about the romans / world war 2 and archeology. I was taught german as my main language class. I wasnt taught anything about the british empire, and would have preferred it over world war 2. Ive learnt more out of education than i ever would have in education, simply because of my interest in history.
I live in northamptonshire, in the heart of the UK, and i can tell you that this guy is a liar. maybe its taught in school today, but i certainly never was, and i think the british empire should be the single biggest subject in history that we should learn, simply because its our past, whether it was right or wrong.
You idiot??
@@westroyal.v.i.p7492 if your going to call someone a idiot, at least have the decency to explain why you think they're a idiot, you called some else a idiot and the irony is you ended up looking like a idiot 🤣
It is taught today; look up the GCSE history curriculum. I'm roughly the same age (bit younger) and wasn't taught about it either. Note, however, that it doesn't make you a liar because a claim you make in 2019 (which is true in 2019 - the 'migration, empires, and the people' module is at least as old as that according to the AQA website) would not have been true if made in 2002.
The reason why we can't talk about empire is because the empire hasn't gone anywhere! It might've changed slightly to not be identified as such but that's still what we have. Most people are having debates in alternative realities and the truth is power is what still rules and ethereal concepts like justice and morals are only used as a bludgeon to beat the less powerful.
True that bro, Empire has found new ways to control colonies such as world bank (paper currency), NATO, Capitalism and world media.
LONG LIVE LOWKEY 👏👏👏
Goodhart: "Cameron apologised for the Amritsar massacre."
Reality: "David Cameron has defended his decision to stop short of delivering a formal British apology for the Amritsar massacre in 1919, in which at least 379 innocent Indians were killed."
It’s a fascinating debate. Ultimately I couldn’t really deny that Low-key used quotes and data to create arguments that informed and enriched ones experience listening to the debate. David, obviously clever and with important experiences and perspective, didn’t have the same tenacity in his arguments. We need more left vs right debates in this way, the audience is telling in the way it was judging David which is a shame because he is (to me) obviously very lonely in the room, these types of debates are needed.
I agree with you. I didn't really agree with anything David had to say, but he deserves to have a chance to say his piece without interruption from the audience - just like Kareem would have deserved the same respect if the room was full of investment bankers. No point in lowering the bar of the debate to the level of the British parliament.
LOWKEY ❤✊
"I've spent the last couple of days talking to people who teach history in British schools, the empire is taught... in almost all schools" ALL schools David? You haven't spoke to history teachers from ALL schools - this is such a jump. I've researched this for my dissertation (5 months work not just a couple of days) and I can tell you for a fact it's not taught in all schools. But also - it matters HOW it is taught, not just that it is. There are plenty of ways of teaching empire that skirt around British atrocities and silence the history of the colonies. When we ask for colonial history to be taught we ask for it to be taught honestly, without bias or sheltering and without exclusion of black and asian narratives. Go on Lowkey keep fighting the good fight.
I take your point, but it's literally impossible to teach any history without biases - black and Asian narratives are also prone to bias (since they are the product of human reasoning).
Also, I thought (correct me if I'm wrong as I don't know much about this) that schools have a certain amount of autonomy with curricula (in the sense that they can pick which topics to focus on from broadly defined modules). From what I understand there is a module which concerns 'migration and empire'. So is that module not taught in certain schools? Or is it that certain schools chose their focus within that module so as not to focus on the British empire?
Just on your quote also: ""I've spent the last couple of days talking to people who teach history in British schools, the empire is taught... in almost all schools" ALL schools David? You haven't spoke to history teachers from ALL schools - this is such a jump. I've researched this for my dissertation (5 months work not just a couple of days) and I can tell you for a fact it's not taught in all schools. " - This is really weird reasoning. He makes it clear that his claim is an aggregate, not universal, claim. You then deny the universal claim - which (according to your original quote) he never made. You then critique him for not speaking to all schools - which is really weird as no one with any background in stats would expect him to; this isn't how inductive inference is done. You then note your more in-depth research on the subject (props to you, as it sounds interesting) but don't claim to have talked to all schools either - further weakening your previous critique of him.
Peace will never be achieved but trying isn't a bad idea.
Germany has shown England the right way, regarding it's own history, by educating it's people without lying or deceiving.
Ignorance is not an option. The Truth shall set you free. Peace
I highly disagree
I am German and yes we learn about ww2 in school but in a very superficial way.
But what is more important: I ve never learned about German colonialism in Africa although it was the fourth biggest colonial power.
In fact we never talked about British imperialism and colonialism at all.
Our curriculum is based on eurocentric and often racist standards and it’s there to keep the powerful in power and to reduce critical thinking
@@friskedmooo9369
you colonialism nad racist policies in europe towar d slav is even more disrguarded.
🎤 Dropped!
Most of time BADHART IS LIKE ERM ER HMM ERM ER HMM
I agree with his last point though about basically how Indians “accepted” British leadership because in some ways people want structure and if your last empire crumbles and a new one steps up it might seem preferable to how India was before with dozens of independent kingdoms and warlords
mohammed hijab: he's finished.
Raine Riny 7
The BFG is relevant in all matters of debate like this
Good on you Mr Lowkey.
Dave..... Give it up mate!!!! Just give it up!!!!
Somalia the only African country that faught the British colonizer and eventually won despite the high loss of human life; because Somalis were difficult to deal with by the Brits, Somalia became the first country in Africa that was erially bombed by the British colonizer.
Would these Public Relations' "apologies" have come if not for public exposure of the events ?
Interested in the British Empire? Read Joseph Conrad who began as a great supporter...
Low-key= Akala on steroids
I agree because Britain was placed at an immense moral hazard by imperialism. I have heard nothing but nostalgia for empire throughout my life in Britain from usually rich people. Most working class people in Britain, except for a few weren't imperialists.
"So stand at attention, devil dirge
You never survive choosing sides against the wretched of the earth
The infiltrator, tribe intoxicator, people incarcerator
Liberation movement annihilator"
Zach de la Rocha
Lowkey drop god knowledge
And the response starts with; we weren't as bad as other Europeans. Guessing hes never hear of indigenous massacres in new England or Australia
Wow! Lowkey really put this Goodhart in his place. Love his articulacy. I wish this umming Goodhart would STOP saying 'You can't judge the past by the present'........of course you can. Anyway the 'past' in this case really isn't that 'past' and anyway this umming Goodhart was happy to use the REAL past: Egypt and Spanish to justify our British Empire which my Grandfather and Grandmother were part of. The man is a horrible apologist for what we White arrogant self righteous people did and I am embarrassed and angry that so many people like Goodhart are so wilfully blind.
In his final statement where he plainly shows his self imposed ignorance on hate crimes, we find where his natural biases sit
But the Office for National Statistics makes this point themselves. They're hardly a right wing enclave. You don't have to like Goodhart or agree with him re: the British empire, but this claim isn't a controversial one.
Deebate yes!... 10 min in Lowkeys already roasted him
The white guy is delusional.
The British empire still exists in the north of Ireland. That empire is the most hateful entity to the Irish people and I am accordingly amazed that I have not heard the Irish struggle against British oppression being discussed in the video. After all, the great 1916 Easter Rising marked the slow demise of the evil empire. One other important point, Tony Blair while visiting Ireland was brought to Croke Park in Dublin the site of a British massacre of civilians during Ireland's War of Independence where he was expected to make an apology - he made no apology. And the British falsification of history continues right up to today in relation to the conflict in the six-counties. The simple truth of the matter is: the war started with the British military invasions of the nationalist areas which had liberated themselves from the racist, colonial police, the RUC. The British military were met by resistance from the IRA and the INLA, but the historical narrative has been utterly falsified and the British media continue to lie constantly about their colonial presence in Ireland.
Sorry man, but you're a hero.
BTW, Salaam Alaikum brother Kareem/Lowkey
....toward the end...everyone on the panel....falling in live with lowkey right now
And "We have another sourcex10" L O L
Free Palestine from |s|am
The no clapping speaks volumes, lowkey ftw
Shouldn't they have gotten someone who actually was a scholar instead of Goodhart, because he was quoting his opinion as some sort of fact, I felt sorry listening to him ... and as a teacher I know that history teachers don't really teach about what the British Empire the same way say Germany does about WW2. ... what a bunch of hot air
I’m German and I agree , do you teach in Germany ?
Lowkey Watching the Watchers.
Lowkey is ......just..........long live lowkey
"Judging the past by the standards of the present" such an odd argument
it's always judging the morals of the white colonialists that we apparently shouldn't "judge by the standards of the present". But it doesn't really make sense unless your still denying the humanity of those who were colonised. It's not as though being murdered or enslaved was any more desirable in the past than it is now.
Inform people of the TRUTH........ don't TRY to tell people about it!
Lowkey of course
We can only judge the British actions by today’s values. If 19th century values are to be applied evenly across the board then the Germans and Japanese have nothing to answer for their actions in WWII. The holocaust and the Mau Mau massacre/ rape/ castrations in Kenya took place during the same period . Yet the British who were screaming for German accountability for atrocities committed in WWII, fielded a legal defense team that argued that the Kenyan government was responsible for reparations to the Mau Mau survivors because (and I kid not) governments are continuous. The justices thankfully rubbished that argument and ruled in the Kenyans favour. If we are to judge the British by 17th and 18 Th century standards then why destroy the evidence. Why was their an orchestrated campaign to conceal the truth and create alternative narratives and a revised history. This Englishman defending the British is a product of the disinformation campaign in the educational system and mass media. The lack of self awareness is mind boggling and I doubt he knows any better or can help himself . That same delusional mentality is what’s fueling Brexit - we did it all on our own and can do so again.
The video lacks context, the question was "Should the truth of these
histories lead to shame, reflection and reparations or instil a sense of
honorary pride and inspiration?" I agree with lowkey but goodhart
suggesting British people should not be ashamed while Lowkey is arguing
they should i suppose.
LOWKEY!!
Lowkey is being disingenuous. His position isn't that the education is skewed, it's that the British Empire was bad.
racial hierarchy was the normal order of events in empires? the guy would do well to review the Spanish Empire´s Leyes de Indias ... not all empires were predatory in nature although modrn anglo theory likes to present it that way to equalize and justify their actions
Why do we accept chilli peppers as being quintessentially Indian,when chillies came from South America. One word imperialism.
Lowkey wins solely on the fact that he is on the right side of this argument. How does one honestly defend ignorance...
26:30 a term also from slave trading! 🤔
Not sure how I have just found this. Low-key said Um about 95% less didn't even need to hear the other words to know he had facts and relevant points
David Goodheart needs to stop saying "um". It exposes his lack of conviction and lack of facts in comparison to Lowkey.
Bodied
We Turks (Mughal empire) dna haplogroup q1 treated and freed the slaves nd they became prime ministers and leaders
Bring back the empire
Don't you think the empire would of if it could of 🤦🏽♂️
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAAAAA.
HAAA
Nothing to debate ...Empire brings great wealth and suffering....you dont get one without the other .
David Goodhart reminds me of some of my own public school teachers in the 1980s skilfully twisting and massaging arguments in their favour. Dishonest and lacking intellectual integrity.
Facts always trump fiction big up lowkey welldone
14.0 million miles?
The empire took over a beach hotel in kenya called ocean sports and immediately changed the name to open shorts.
Whoever, wherever and however is proud of an "empire" must be a total dingbat or a dead person ... But Wait, The British Empire which was really the worst of em all, is done with, like all empires eventually are...
So, a country with 1.8% of the worlds GDP conquered two countries with a combined 75% of the worlds GDP. That takes some doing man, it's like Ireland conquering China, USA, Germany and Japan today. Those Brits must have been some real tough dudes.
Not really dailyhistory.org/Why_was_Britain_able_to_establish_an_Empire_in_India%3F
Not tough just deceptive and devious. People accept the British as the had done with other traders . They were welcomed as friends but they decided to take over. A little concept called divide and rule.
Like inviting a traveller into your house who ends up raping your children and kicking you out of your home and sharing it with your brother.
Lowkey invented the dictionary, moral of the story is don't debate lowkey you will be destroyed with facts
British shame on you!
|OK we all agree slavery and the exploitation of colonialists was bad, and cruel. But if the only excuse Lowkey has for Arab and Ottoman and African slavers is that they existed a long time ago, then he's engaging in selective time stamp morality. If it was bad when we did it, it was also bad when they did it. Irrestpective of the time stamp. Human suffering was just as painful under the prophet of Islam as it was under Cecil Rhodes. I'm amazed he got away with that trick. And the slave markets in Libya RIGHT NOW have no white involvement. The bottom line is this: Black and Brown people are not the moral superiors of white people. And they never were.
I agree with your point but I think Lowkey was saying that talking of ‘ancient’ (or not so ancient, but rather more than, say, 250 years ago) slave trades as if they’re comparable to the British empire’s legacy is wrong in the sense that the actions of the British empire still have that ripple effect to this day - there are living generations which witnessed the exploitation and oppression at the hands of the British empire. Lowkey is a good Marxist, he’s not making a moral argument, he’s saying that it’s pointless to talk of the ottoman’s slave trade or the slave trades of Africa as if they have a tangible grip on the realities of people today, which is why bringing them up as a moral point against Lowkeys argument is not ‘an analysis based in reality’ (although the slave trades in Africa to this day are another story, lowkey always talks about Perry Anderson so I’d imagine he’s referring to the lives experiences of people under global hegemony). He did sort of phrase it weirdly though so I get the confusion
@@silvio25432 But some of them weren't 'ancient' by any metric. The Arab slave trade only ended legally in the 1960s (in Mauritania it ended legally in 2007). The African slave trade was symbiotic with the European exploitation of African slaves, in that the latter was parasitic on - and acted as an enormous incentive for - the former.
I can't see how a practice of slavery that was rampant and only ended in the 1960s has no ripple effect to this day. In Mauritania in 2018, there was an estimated 90,000 slaves (2.1% of the population), so it's definitely not true that there's no ripple effect today. And, to the extent that the trans-Atlantic slave trade has a ripple effect today, obviously the African slavers are partly responsible for that (along with the European slavers - especially the British). So, obviously the British atrocities need to be studied, highlighted, and taught - especially in Britain - but clearly so do other atrocities too.
You can always identify a historian who bullshits people with the classic ::
"We can't judge the past with the values of today".
Never taking into account that we are still facing human atrocities, with or without Human Rights Organizations. The only difference now are those Organizations exist along-side the atrocities. Then :: the inhumane acts continued without those Organizations. Then the issue becomes ::
If we can't judge the past with the "values" of today ...
What actually are the values of today if these acts still occur ?
The only difference between _Then & Now_ is that these Organizations ( Now ) are Reporting the Crimes as they happen.
The reason Goodhart uses that camouflage statement, is for that very reason :: to defend the past with the delusions of the false "values" of today.
I'm sure the Women who were burned for witchcraft 100s of years ago, understood the difference between Right & Wrong.
We have another sauce
There is no daddy highly intelligent is one of the most best intellectual debaters I have ever seen people need to fact check him more and he is reading from a phone or something still talented but I think he’s on the wrong side of things playing the victim mentality it never works in history. History is told by the victor not the loser Loser story is what he is concerned with there is a bigger debate at hand and it’s in the Bible