What Caused the Scramble for Africa? | History of Africa 1870-1885 Documentary 3/6
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 24 ноя 2021
- Head to squarespace.com/jabzy to save 10% off your first purchase of a website or domain using code Jabzy
/ jabzy
/ jabzyjoe
African Kingdoms, Sokoto Caliphate, Mali Empire, Kingdom of Kongo, Rozvi Empire, Ashanti, Oyo, Kingdom of Benin, Funj, African History, Moroccan History, Barbary States, Mutapa, Zulu Kingdom, Xhosa, Egyptian History, Spanish Empire, British Empire, French Empire, German Empire, Scramble for Africa, African Colonies, History of Africa
If you missed part one - ruclips.net/video/aIcNzN0zmqU/видео.html
Also, check out the Tudor London Survival Guide: ruclips.net/video/tu2Alc76nJw/видео.html (Yes, this is shameless self-promotion)
The video is great as usual, but there are some mistakes
The picture you showed at this moment 32:16 ,These clothes have nothing to do with the clothes of the Moroccan sahara (or western sahara) and are not similar to what the inhabitants of the Moroccan sahara wear at all
This picture belongs to a person who lives in the Middle east
, specifically in the Arab Gulf ( Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the Emirates)
, and it has nothing to do with the Moroccan desert, because the inhabitants of the Moroccan Sahara do not wear such clothes at all, and they have nothing to do with it.
This clothes picture that you showed in the video is called *bisht or mishlah & al-ikal* belongs to the clothes of the people of the Middle East, specifically the Arab Gulf
, and you mixed it with the Moroccan sahara clothes called *Malhafa* , which has nothing to do with the clothes of the Middle East and does not resemble it at all
_Secondly : In 1884, Spain's interest in this Moroccan Sahara had barely begun, And Spain has not yet occupied that part of the coastal strip of the Moroccan Sahara that you showed on the map , We cannot yet talk about Spain’s colonization of the Moroccan Sahara except in the years between 1916 and 1934 ( It is the period in which the occupation actually began and Spain began occupying the Sahara areas one after the other )
, but before that Spain was only interfering financially and trying to buy some of the Saharan tribes with her money to try to buy their loyalty and give up their allegiance to the Sultan of Morocco
The evidence for this is that at the beginning of the 20th century, Morocco was facing and fighting France in the Sahara of Chinguetti (present-day Mauritania) , not the Spaniards , because the Spaniards were not actually present in the sahara, to be fought by Morocco
Until the beginning of the twentieth century when Morocco was very weak, even with that, the Chinguetti province is still part of Morocco, and the Moroccan Sultan "Abd al-Aziz" fought France in present-day Mauritania to defend this territory
He sent a Moroccan army led by his cousin "Moulay Idriss" and also led by the sultan's deputy over the Sahara region "Sheikh Maa Al-Aynain" and he defeated France in the "Battle of Nimlan in 1906"
But France, of course, will win over Morocco later, and Mauritania will be wrested from Moroccan sovereignty, and even occupy Morocco itself in 1912
Whoever wants to know more about this French-Moroccan war taking place in Chinguetti (present-day Mauritania) should read the memoirs of the French general *Henri Gouraud* He was the general who was leading the French army in its war with Morocco over the Moroccan province of Chinguetti
This is the name of his diary (It is written in French)
: " Mauritanie Adrar, souvenirs d'un Africain... / Général Gouraud"
Thus, we ask a question: since Morocco was fighting France in present-day Mauritania, So where is Spain?
And how did the Moroccan army pass through the Western Sahara that was supposedly occupied by Spain since 1884 as you showed on the map , and spain didn't stop him?
And why did Morocco not go to fight Spain, which is closer to it geographically?
because it is located in the Western Sahara, but on the contrary, it went to fight France in the Chinguetti sahara(mauritania), which is a region farther for Morocco than the Western Sahara?
The answer is that Spain was not occupying Moroccan western Sahara at that time ( Which you are talking about at the end of the 19th century) and was not even present in that region in order to prevent Morocco from reaching Chinguetti to fight France.
_As I said before, the Spaniards will not start their actual and noticeable presence in the moroccan sahara "militarily" until the years between 1916 and 1934
and Spain did not consolidate the complete occupation of the Moroccan Sahara until 1958, when it established the territorial administrative unit called "the Spanish Sahara" ( when Spain formally united Río de Oro and Saguia el-Hamra), due to the repercussions of its war with Morocco, " Ifni War” betwen 1957-1958.
and this is was is in order to officially consolidate its colonization of the Moroccan Sahara
So next time, please check that your maps are correct
The only thing I don't agree with is your disagreement with Lenin over the purpose of colonies. Of course various colonies had different purposes and ruled by different powers, but they exist to subsidize capitalist economies. If your goal is to exploit resources, land, and people at a low price, they weren't going to be making money just from selling the materials. The purpose was to exploit cheaply to sell to their home markets cheaply, providing resources for capitalists to further industrialize their natuons.
Also, please dump all your sources onto us 😘
@Skip Mickmack you're ignorant and didn't even watch the video. He argues that white colonizers didn't just draw lines on maps and it was a convoluted process that took place for over 100 years. What people mean by "just drawing lines" is how Europeans specifically divided ethnic groups through the political division of a map to weaken their unity and cause infighting. That's different from just conquering another tribe. Just look up what England did to Nigeria. Don't talk like you know shit, because you don't.
Please cite your sources in the description. I’m not taking a random youtube video as fact.
Blue France, red Britain, grey Germany, green Italy, yellow Spain. Oh yes, all is right in the world.
Don't forget pink Portugal.
You can always tell if someone has played a Paradox game by the color choice on a map.
@@jghifiversveiws8729 Portugal is dark green
@@njb1126 Yeah but he didn't make it dark green.
@@jghifiversveiws8729 heresy to a paradox player
Bear in mind that in 1870 clothing people, naked Congolese or paying customers in the industrial world, was *not* the main use of cotton.
From the US Civil War through the end of WWI, the main use of cotton was in gun cotton. The average artillery shell took about 17 pounds of cotton, or about the same as a paid of jeans and a cotton jacket. The industrial countries stored artillery shells by the tens of millions and fired off tens of millions more.
Only the invention of artificial fixation of nitrogen by the Germans (dated as 1919 by some, with I do not know how much accuracy) ended this major use of cotton.
I know of no histories typing the gun-cotton market to race relations in the US South, and I would love to hear from anyone who has reliable thoughts and information on that aspect of the topic.
I'm confused, how did nitrogen fixation end the use of gun cotton?
@@NathanTAK Nitrogen easily forms triple bonds which can be a pretty energetic experience. The problem is fixing that nitrogen in a way that allows the molecule to easily break and free up the nitrogen to form those triple bonds. Gun cotton was an early way to fix nitrogen but it wasn't very stable. When other methods of nitrogen fixation were developed to get an even greater explosive payload while being more stable gun cotton fell out of favor.
@@404Dannyboy ...ah! I... don't know what I thought guncotton was for, but apparently I didn't understand it.
@@NathanTAK It was for guns largely :)
Big guns though, like artillery.
@@404Dannyboy ...yes, I got that. I just didn't realize it was a propellant which had to be created _from_ cotton; I thought it just referred to plain old cotton being used in guns for... some reason.
I really appreciate the context here about all of the things going on in Africa at the time (the entire point of the series).
When I learned about the "Scramble for Africa" in school, it was taught as though it was a gigantic race to get as big a claim as possible at the Berlin conference, and like the native African kingdoms were irrelevant.
Same here - I always got the image of a bunch of hapless natives getting swept up by Europeans. But that really doesn't do service to the agency of all parties involved.
Most of European colonization from Rome onwards required native's permission, since most of the weight of the wars will be carried out by natives against natives...it's logical when you think about it, moving troops to the other side of the World is expensive, keeping them there is even more expensive, so it's always better to send some commanders and a bunch of units to help an ally, and then slowly take over while you increase the metropolis' influence on your previous allies.
Sending a bunch of troops to take a continent over is something that only happens in videogames.
@@TheBayzent with African nations on a steady and steep decline because of centuries of arab and transatlantic slave trade, there have been multigenerational multiracial people in African nations who are not actually African, but mixed race, therefore have no loyalty to the actual black groups, just proxy Africans after centuries of being rewarded by western nations for waging war against local tribes and governments. Usually the natives the a certain REGION don’t assume that someone wants to permanently extinguish your entire race. African didn’t think like euros.
Its all fun and games until one side says "ok we need some time to recoup, you’re killing us" and the other side says "nahh, lol" then proceeds to do everything in their power to cause internal conflict between people they have purposely disadvantaged just keep their hands clean. It’s really not that covert of a tactic, it’s been done for decades by now.
School history lessons suck, and they're politically biased. Saw this in N Ireland (Catholic and Protestant schools teaching very different versions of their history), but this miseducation has devestating consequences.
I'm actually very glad about the recent 'Woman King' film because it has brought to oublic attention how people distort history for political purposes, and I'm aure many people decided to research what really happened.
I really appreciate your mention of Leopold framing his aims as a humanitarian mission and fundraising on those grounds. Also the idea that it's the initial claiming of vast swathes of land in Africa that initiated the race between otherwise reluctant empires.
Obviously you can't go into full detail on everything but this is the most detailed overview of this topic I've ever seen on a general history channel. If there's anything I would have liked you to mention in this series it's the Kingdom of Butua/the Rozvi Empire. Kudos.
Just because you mentioned the portuguese colonization of Guiné-Bissau at 32:42, I have to note that the Casamance region of modern Senegal was portuguese since the 17th century, when they founded Ziguinchor, biggest city and region capital. The region was ceded to France during the Berlin conference in exchange to their support for the pink map project, but the portuguese legacy is big (so I have read) and the post independence nations had a dispute over this region which also had it's separatist guerrilla. I think the dispute is settled now
I love how he doesn't even *try* to pronounce "Rainivoninahitriniony"
Haha yup.
your pronouncing of African words and deep research and animations are on point, respect. .greetings from Uganda.
These are some very important videos for RUclips, bring so much interesting nuances, thank you very much.
This series is quite splendid, is it fine if you can give out your sources and books for your scramble for Africa videos?
@lionpro what?
@lionpro cringey as fuck
@lionpro your nana is dead
@lionpro she’s still dead tho
@lionpro 0iq
I've been watching your videos for several years now. This series is your best work so far!
This is an incredible series, thanks for your work.
Modern transport and communications innovations that shrunk the world and made traversing it far less arduous.
This is being an impressive series, golden youtube material!! Congrats
This is being an impressive series, golden youtube material!! Congrats :x
Thanks for all your hard work. You highlight stuff seldom found in school texts. Very educational and food for thought.
Excellent synopsis, I learned a lot.
Really good, im
glad i found this channel.
Great video. Will just say it is unfortunate that so many people (not the video maker) feel the need to justify history instead of being able to understand the events as historical fact, studying its development and reasons for development, without injecting ideological justifications which are just a reaction and reflection of those material developments.
Modern ideas about history are not history. Using science not ideology is the way to uncover the truth. We can reflect and learn from it but our ideas about the past are not the past... Until they are ;)
I am waiting like 2 for video like this on you tube. Great work!!
Ive been with you pretty much since the start (think i started watching at like 500 something subs) and im so impressed with your work! Keep up the new stuff as whilst i loved the 3 minute history the depth of these videos is amazing and the topics fascinating!
Congratulations on doing so well!
Does it not bother you that he rhymes years with wares? Also thinks Cecil sounds like see-sil?
Love your vids, been watching the past few months.
Damn the history of the Congo is even sadder than I thought :(
In the far past of the imperiums of africa, there's only war...
But the trade must flow.
I love your videos Jabzy. Please turn on CC (Closed Captions) for this video
More history and less flashy animation, I like it. Just enough art to carry the narrative.
22:12 "The Egyptians[...] just like in their war with the Egyptians."
What?! What's that mean?
That confusing mistake aside, I'd expect nothing less than research and presentation of this quality from you, Jabzy. Keep up the good work. People really need to hear all this because we're not taught none of this in school.
He probably meant "their war with the Ethiopians"
Great series
This video is crammed full of information it's about to explode!
Very informative!
Incredible piece 💓🙌🏽💓
Love this series!
The difference between the animated map style videos and the talking gesturing guy is night and day. The content is always good, but this is gold, and the dude at the desk is unwatchable. Literally. I have to minimize that shit and just listen. I'm glad the channel is getting more traffic, keep up the good work m8.
Oh I get that. It mainly comes down to time. I can only make maybe 1 of these per month so, the character by the desk allows me to put out more vids.
@@JabzyJoe Just film yourself talking to the camera again, instead.
@@BountyFlamor I hate being in front of cam for these ones. It always seems super awkward. Will try in the future to make them, but it'll take time to improve ha
@@JabzyJoe Try smoking while doing it, ha!
Egypt employed confederate mercenaries you say? And lost, you say? Well who was surprised by that turn of events I wonder.
Right 😂
Lol
✋ wait! I have an idea! Could you please do a video on Samori Ture's Wassoulou empire and his war with the french ? Its a really interesting topic. He tried to from an anti-colonial alliance with the Ashanti empire and he also developed his own gun production industry.
I second this! We used to learn about him in school, he seems to be one of the most prolific leaders in pre-colonial West Africa.
@@GibsonGachago very interesting, where did you go to school? was it west africa
@@dargon1084 no, Kenya. But here we learn the history of all of Africa..
Brother....thank you for your grt work...illustrations inc ;)....matraya behaviour... luv it
This is excellent. I wish you could get funding to turn this into a documentary for TV with more film footage and old photos/pictures. Thankyou for this huge effort.
wow both Africa and Europe would have benefitted if the continent was only subjected to soft imperialism instead of direct annexation,
the alt history community just got new major source of possibilities
Yeah I’ve said this for quite a few years.
Are Boar?
@@barryirlandi4217 what are you asking?
Awesome series
Damn, I wish I had these vids 5 years ago, would have come in incredibly handy for history tests and assignments.
Bravo, I applaud you for not sugar coating this. You could have, but you didn’t.
I would not take this guys word for nothing in regards to Africa, they ALL LIE!!
This series is really undrated, I hope it gets the attention it deserves.
Where can i read more about the restoration of mbundu
i love this series
We’re Waiting for parts 4 and 5!
This is amazing! Could you make a video detailing europeans being enslaved by African moors, and also videos on the history of using Slavs as slaves (Which is where the world slave comes rom)? I would love as detailed a series on that as this. In France we only briefly talk about this
Imagine if they drew it along the actual ethic lines lol. There would be like hundreds of different countries.
Microstates. Maybe someday.
The Africans themselves didn't divide their states on ethnic lines so...nationalism on that level is silly.
@@TheBayzent which is why theres constant civil wars inbetween tribes lol ok bro
Maybe they shouldn't have drawn the borders to begin with and let the people reach the best form of government on their own be it government , loose confidration or even a a tribal system , also not leaving tons of weapons to dictators loyal to Europe might have also helped , and am not seeing the issue with having smaller States tbh Europe is full of small and micro states , should Germany take Belgium , the Netherlands since they are small
Idiots...racists pure evil
nice
It's MUCH MORE than this. ...but okay well done man👏🏾👏🏾
Pretty neat
How come there’s no sources?
What were the railway lines for?
US has Hawaii and Philippines etc... Americans always think there are no American colonies.
Woah showed up early.
Italy gave also the names to two African countries : Eritrea (" land of the red sea" ) and Libya (ancient Roman name for northern Africa). Borders were completely artificial.
Libya was a greek word
@@user-lr8xz5hb5k I know. All the eastern part of the Roman empire.
Ethiopia land of the burnt face
@@TheMagicJIZZ yes, from Greek. See the name of the Vulcan "Etna" : the same root ("aitho" = to burn).
This seems like Africa's warring states period. Fascinating stuff
"These actions, date all the way back to Jason the Argonauts and their golden fleece."
Yes, Europeans drew many lines. South America, Middle East, India. Not just Africa.
One wonders what the outcome would be if Otto von Bismark had not been involved. It seems he had good intentions for preventing complete anarchy by forcing colonial powers to "cooperate" but because of the almost surgical precision of the Berlin Conference the stripping of Africa's wealth, resources and people was done with more brutal efficiency.
No, this is a misconception. Bismarck wanted to sow as much chaos as possible between France and England in Africa. He believed that it would keep them from forming an alliance and creating a two front war if Germany ever fought Russia. It didn't work but that was his plan.
@@89godzuki yes, you're right. Bismark played the role of the arbiter but with ulterior motives to ensure Germany would fulfill its ambition to become hegemon of Europe. I think what Bismark did not want was a whole lot of border gore and chaos which could not be controlled. But rather than burn like a wildfire, the Berlin conference burned Africa like a presice laser
Where's part 4 and 5?
22:11 You accidentally talk about the Egyptians' performance fighting... the Egyptians. 😉
I'm glad someone else noticed that. I thought I'd misheard at first.
It's was the Egyptians all along?
Always has been
"Accidentally"...after talking about 2 coup d'etats and a successful revolution...
First from Brazil🇧🇷🇧🇷🇧🇷
Nicely done
@@concept5631 Thanks homie
@@joao_gabriel9234 Anytime homie
@@concept5631 All right hahahaha
@Jinx Vanderz What your say, i don't speak X-burguer language 😥
The Scramble for Africa: Europe's version of 'Manifest Destiny'
17:48 Isma’ll got hella drip😎
Want for new elements, discoveries, studies, minerals, travels, hunting, fishing, whaling, hawking, and netting yeah
2:27 If you see Lenin's work and think as simplistic, you must to read it. He has a full elaboration on what is "imperialism" using historic materialism and dialetic, it's not just a word or a phrase in a book.
26:18 Jabzy: And here is the usurper. No I am not reading his name. Have a nice day.
This would be an awesome total war game
There was a Queen ruling Madagascar, after her mother died.
Check out Forgotton Lives.
This sounded a bit fractured and overly condenced.
Certainly, a lot to unpack. A for effort.
not even a minute in i leant that the confederate volunteers helped egypt on its conquest of ethiopia
🔥🔥🔥
Nice video, but to refute Lenin's analysis on Imperialism quoting a single sentence may be misleading. Lenin of course was aware about ancient and medieval Empires, what he defines as Imperialism (in our Capitalist era) is the so called State-Capitalism which can be further discussed elsewhere.
why didn't africa just keep those kingdomes after decolo.
A lot of people were born under colonialism and never really developed any loyalty to these old kingdoms. Also in some colonies the former kingdoms elites operated under the colonial system and helped keep people in line, so there was some dislike for traditional authorities being seen as puppets for the Europeans
Cause that wouldn't suit the Americans or the elites that colonialism created ....many revolutionary leaders wanted to unite cause they knew as individual states they didn't have the resources or infrastructure to safeguard their sovereignty they were called the Casablanca group .....The US didn't want this thus sent funds n resources to the competing Monrovia Group ....Monrovia ended up winning out n the continent was doomed by their elites kinda like the trans Atlantic slave trade ....poor people being screwed by the wealthy n powerful its a common theme throughput human history
@@whydocountriesexist3414 thx
@@franzjoseph1837 thx. Africa as one country right?
@@CCinophile no its a continent with a more genetic and cultural variation then most continents but a union between African states would allow for greater internal trade development, increase in industrialisation, and less dependency on foreign markets n exports......as well as a larger military to safegaurd against foreign states like China , EU, and The US ...go look up the United States of Africa
where is the fourth and fifth part?😅
非洲： 冤枉啊！不是我冤，是武舉老爺冤！
it is an interesting video, bur you must add sources to it.
Samory Touré was never a general of El HAdj Omar Tall. He was a Dyula merchant turned Warlord in the Cissé vs Bérété wars in the Wasulu region.
No one is talking about that the Belgians could have bought cuba? :D
10/10
you don't mess with the zulus unless you british
Everyone talks about the European colonization of Africa but not the Arab colonization of Africa and Europe…
Arabs have lived in Africa for over 1300 years..
Sooo the Egytpians had a war with the Egyptians 22:13 to 22:20, I think u meant ethiopians, Idk
Oh damn it. Yes you're right.
Not to mention the 800 of years of african moorish colonization of iberia and mediteranian islands before ALL of this. Conviently left out of course.
@Aditya Chavarkar Well, if youre going to complain about European colonialism as if its some unprecedented and isolated evil (which it was far from) then if youre going to be consistent, you need to point or at least talk about the other imperialistic powers that were far more cruel and barbaric. But convienintly, weather its the ottoman conquest of anatolia, northern africa, or southern Europe or the moorish conquest of spain, portugal, sicily, etc its allways conviently ignored. Hmmm. I sure wonder why that it🤔
@@slavicunity368 that was by Arabs. Africans (native) had nothing to do with that, take it up with the Middle Eastern man
Cecil Rhodes, and others who were for colonization of Africa, were not just the odd individuals, as suggested in the video. This is proven by how hard imperialists fought to stay in Africa, and maintain their presence even now.
Cecil Rhodes, 1895:
„I was in the East End of London yesterday andattended a meeting of the unemployed. I listened to the wild speeches, which were just a cry for ‘bread! bread!’ and on my way home I pondered over the scene and I became more than ever convinced of the importance of imperialism…. My cherished idea is a solution for the social problem, i.e., in order to save the 40,000,000 inhabitants of the United Kingdom from a bloody civil war, we colonial statesmen must acquire new lands to settle the surplus population, to provide new markets for the goods produced in the factories and mines. The Empire, as I have always said, is a bread and butter question. If you want to avoid civil war, you must become imperialists.“
The thing is Rhodes was wrong? The Liberal Imperalism of that era basically amounted to nothing - there was no substantial benefit from the working class from the scramble; he just got extremely rich off government subsidy and looted African wealth.
Resources. Man and materials.
Many times it's not obvious whether you are talking about another simultanius event, or moving forward in the timeline.
Love how balanced this video is, just as I cover on my own channel, the Scramble for Africa is way more complex than the simple Anti-Colonialist narrative we hear all too often that misses out on the true motivation of the colonizers!
lol didn't epxect to see you here
I was initially excited to find another history focused youtuber who takes on the often neglected African history but, upon watching two of your videos that deal with what an uncolonized Africa would look like, my excitement my excitement has died. You've used, in my view, highly untrustworthy sources and suspect theories. A majority ( but not totality ) of my problem with the sources and theories you use in your explanations lie with the fact that they were written and developed by people who were extremely biased against Africans. Better sources to look for should have been from Africanist historians post the colonial era.
@@tobilobaokorodudu9594 Yeah, the initial comment gave me pause due to the wording. It reads as an attempt to "both sides" the scramble for Africa. Whilst the reasons were many and different, what connected them all was a disregard for the wishes of the African people. As Europe was experiencing nationalist awakenings, spurring on minor ethnicities to forge their own nations and carve their own path in the world, Africa was experiencing the opposite. This is unfortunately the risk of channels like Jabzy. When you focus on the facts, without emphasizing the moral wrongs, xenophobes (racists, in the case of this video) slip into the crowd thinking you're sympathetic. But I wouldn't want Jabzy's style to change, it's just an unfortunate thing to keep your eyes out for and recognise when someone is using dogwhistles in these comments.
@@joujou264 Today, the right of European peoples to self-determination is stigmatised. African nationalisms are entirely normative and indeed criticism of them is more likely to get you into trouble than support for them. Your idea of ‘racist dogwhistles’ is indicative of your hatred for white people - any historical narrative, approach to historiography, or revision of founding myths that doesn’t demonise white people and portray them as uniquely evil and toxic is problematic - and indeed ‘racist’ - to you.
It’s concerning that you frown upon the pursuit of objectivity in history should it contextualise the happenings of the past in a truthful manner. The notion that you should be able to put forward hateful characterisations of white history whilst receiving zero scrutiny is absurd.
@@tobilobaokorodudu9594 It seems like you would characterise any view that doesn’t glorify Africans, African history, or supposed African supremacy as “biased” against them.
Ignore. 15:32
Because "Whats mine is mine!" -Imperialistic powers
PART 2 ??? LIBERIA ?
22:12 - Wait, the Egyptians at war with the Egyptians?
Yep - ruler and a red pencil.
ITS AN AFRICAN GAME OF THRONES, I WOULD LOVE TO SEE A DRAMATIC SERIES ABOUT THIS.
People would decry it as racist and offensive
Are the Boers natives or colonisers?
Depends on who you ask… how many generations and hundreds of years do you have to live somewhere before you’re no longer a colonizer?
You stop being a coloniser once you stop acting as a minority ruler and cut off ties to the powers that put you there.
So yeah the boers are natives in a way, born from colonialism but not colonists.
Edit Im not a boer so I wouldn't know what they think
They were descendents of Dutch colonisers. So they weren't native although many of them had lived there whole lives there for many years
@@a11osaurus How long until you become the natives though? I think we can all agree that the French are the natives of France, but the Franks displaced they Gauls who were there first. Etc. But obviously the modern French aren’t colonizing France. So when did they cease to be colonizers?
Are Americans colonizers? They have very few political ties to Britain and the other European nations whose former colonies they now control. But there are still natives who live in the USA.
Are Brazilians colonizers?
@@anthonyniemiec9409 they may not be colonisers anymore but they definitely aren't natives either. Technically most of the Africans in South Africa aren't native either as they are Bantus, who don't come from that area. But the Boers are definitely not natives
My mom told me that there was a lot of black people in Africa -Eric Cartman
She forgot to tell u planet was black before new👺👺👺👺were invented
Well, there is a theory that rapid decolonisation caused instability in Africa (a polite way of saying "free for all civil war"). This video shows that wars, massacres, slavery, depopulation, and all that bad stuff were already happening all over Africa for centuries if not millennia and there was some truth to saying that colonisation at least calmed things down somewhat for a time.
Wrong, Europeans and outside entities in general caused the majority of the instability in most all countries around the world.
@@xxmiltxx9037 Africa had warlords and Arabic slave trade long before European Colonisation.
China would fracture into warlords every few centuries and then conquer itself back together in decades long civil war. This happened a few times.
South America had expansive Empires, like the Aztecs and Incas.
India had a few Empires, like the Mughals, but mostly it was bush wars between petty kings.
North America had warring tribes, Malaysia and Polynesia had naval invasions and massacres.
All the bad stuff was already happening before European even started civilizing the world.
😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
@@1MaklakI promise you millions of Congolese weren't getting their hands cut off before King Leopold arrived. The Europeans did not calm things down quite the opposite.
@@playboicartiismydad4842 the cutting of hands of living people is actually debated. Read Red Rubber by daniel vangroenweghe
Why you don't put portuguese colonies on the map? Portuguese have there colonies on the start of 1444
Only showed the countries or colonies when they were mentioned.
What caused the scramble for African ? The greed of humanity , ami right or ami right ?
Question: What caused the scramble for Africa?
Answer: Diamonds, gold, cash crops, coal, gas, and industrial metals.
Did you watch the video? The African colonies mainly incurred costs rather than profit.
A better answer: thirst for prestige and fear of missing out.
The main reason for well if I don't get it someone else will
@@Barwasser Simply put it's greed, just like the stock market Fomo everyone was scared to miss out on something potential so they grabbed more and more each time a rival did.
@@beepboopbeepp Not greed, but pride and balance of power. France wanted colony from Dakar to Djibouti, Britain wanted colony from Cape Town to Cairo and Germany wanted to create Mittleafrika. All of these will upset balance of power and the populace is gung-ho about colonies fueled by nationalism. They barely made any profits from Africa, it was poor as hell. Sure, companies made some profits but why would you hassle on going deep in Africa to mine when you can just bribe Chilean officials to do so?
@@Barwasser I mean, South Africa and the Congo were colonies which paid for themselves while earning Europeans money.
“The Europeans” … no a few colonial powers. Some of us Europeans had lines drawn through our countries too