My sources for this video: 1. Headrick (1988), The Tentacles of Progress: Technology Transfer in the Age of Imperialism, 1850-1940 pp. 99 2. Headrick (1988), The Tentacles of Progress: Technology Transfer in the Age of Imperialism, 1850-1940 pp. 97 3. Pitman’s Commercial Geography of the World (1898), The Principal Railways of England 4. Drawn by Walter Y. Cox. Provenance: "March of Empire"; by Lowell Ragatz, The Railroads of Africa in 1914 5. Carte General des Grandes Communication Télégraphiques de Monde (1903) 6. WIPO Lex Database, wipo.int, Accessed August 2024 6a. (Paris Treaty: www.wipo.int/wipolex/en/treaties/ShowResults?start_year=ANY&end_year=ANY&search_what=C&country_id=ALL&treaty_id=2 ) 6b. (Berne Treaty: www.wipo.int/wipolex/en/treaties/ShowResults?start_year=ANY&end_year=ANY&search_what=C&code=ALL&treaty_id=15 ) 7. May and Sell (2016), Intellectual Property Rights: A Critical History, pp. 76 8. Jeremy (1977), Damming the Flood: British Government Efforts to Check the Outflow of Technicians and Machinery, 1780-1843 9. Mitchell (2013), International Historical Statistics, 1750−2010 10. Rodney (1972), How Europe Underdeveloped Africa, pp. 241 11. UNESCO (1957), World Illiteracy at Mid-Century, unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000002930 12. Headrick (1988), The Tentacles of Progress: Technology Transfer in the Age of Imperialism, 1850-1940 pp. 382 13. Headrick (1988), The Tentacles of Progress: Technology Transfer in the Age of Imperialism, 1850-1940 pp. 341 14. Headrick (1988), The Tentacles of Progress: Technology Transfer in the Age of Imperialism, 1850-1940 pp. 333 15. Meredith (2005), The Fate of Africa, “Chapter 8: The Birth of Nations” 16. Bullock (2009), Off Track: Sub-Saharan African Railways pp. 5, ppp.worldbank.org/public-private-partnership/sites/ppp.worldbank.org/files/documents/Africa_Offtrac%20-%20SubSaharan%20African%20Railways_EN.pdf
1. It is wrong to assume it was simply the "bourgeoise" that controlled events in Europe and the world. This view betrays a purely classist, materialist, and marxist view of view of history, which does not take into account differences between European nations, including different values, ideas, and beliefs when it came to colonialism and the reasons for it. 2. The way railroads were built in Africa, doesn't mean they did not serve the African population, but rather than because Europeans came first on the coasts, and were most established there that railroads started from that area. The coastline was also the most developed and populous long before Europeans came, as goods were traded by sea from the inner parts of Africa outwards. 3. Telegraph lines were sparser in Africa than in Europe because it was at that time much less developed than Europe was. Even if we were to assume that your logic is 100% correct, then still there is no reason why Europeans would not want well developed telegraph lines or railroads in Africa. However they lived in Europe for much longer and in Africa for only a few decades, so obviously there would be a disparity, especially since the industrial revolution started in the early 1800s and Africa was colonized to a large extent only by the 1880s. Between 1820 and 1885 (Berlin Conference) Europe was being industrailised while Africa was not for the simple reason that there was very little European presence there to begin with. 4. Your idea that capitalists did not want competition so did not develop the colonies is equally false. You forget first of all that the true power in those days was the landowners who are largely aristocratic, not industrialists who you call capitalists, but ignoring this they would only be able to expand their operations in Africa and the world if they developed it, thus your logc becomes very faultry when looking at it from the lense of profit which requires development, and economic advancement of the population from the colonies in order for them to be able to afford to consume the goods produced by those same capitalists. 5. Patents exist to protect intellectual property and inspire innovation, and are by their nature limited, meaning you have a sole right to develop a good for a period of time, after which the patent expires and everybody is able to produce the same good. It doesn't exist because of greed, but rather to make sure those that make the investment of time and money to invent new technologies recoup their investments. If it was about greed then all patents would be for an unlimited amount of time, which they are obviously not. 6. Your statistics on education are equally as flawed for the same reasons outlined above. It also betrays a complete lack of understanding of what colonialism was in practice. How it often worked is that chieftains would pledge their loyalty to a particular European nation, and in return that nation protected their tribe against other tribes or countries. So the governance outside of colonial governors was in the hands of the natives themselves. Therefore Education could only be implemented so far as there is the will of the people themselves to be educated in a western style, (if they don't want education is the argument that Europeans should have forced them?) and that there is the infrastructure to do so, i.e. schools, roads, houses, which were being developed however nowhere near the level of Europe because Africa was first of all a much larger continent, and second of all because Europeans like i said before did not have direct control over colonial subjects, and had much less time to develop their holdings abroad than they did in Europe. There was also the simple problem of numbers. At that time Europe had a much larger population than Africa and so there wasn't enough people in the colonies to allow for infrastructure development at rhe sane rate as in the major centres of Europe. But eben so in your video you yourself admit that they had a clear impetus for educating the population through missionary work. Ofcourse you make it out as if this is a special case for colonies when in reality, almost all schools in Europe that time were either owned by the church or heavily influenced by them. Therefore to recap your attempt to blame education inconsistencies in Africa on Europe is flawed on many different levels, one of which being that were colonialism not to have happened almost certainly the rate of education and literacy would have remained much lower than it was at the end of decolonization. 7. Capitalists do not recognize borders as a limiting factor to enterprise they have no inherent national aligence. Thus your argument that them establishing firms in Africa would have prevented European monopoly makes no sense once again, as first of all those colonies were already under European countries so there was no reason to worry about competition, and second of all the firms themselves could and often did establish branches in African colonies, so in this way they are spreading their operations in Africa without worrying about competition. 8. With regards to 17:26 you gave statistics that showed 700 thousand indians employed vs only 7 thouand Europeans. That should tell you all you need to know of whether Europeans kept all the jobs for themselves. As regards to the higher leadership positions themselves, they require above all experience and technical understanding which was higher in Europe due to a longer history with those technologies and a better preparedness for their use. Also the report itself ehich you cite talks about the lacking number of indians in high positions as a problem. Doesn't that by itself debunk your entire theory that Europe were not interested in the advancement of natives? Why would they want to improve the people's ability to gain management postions and experience if they did not want them to do so? It's a self defeating question really because ofcourse it doesn't make sense, ans so doesn't your argument. 9. 18:25 You are literally describing what employers did in Europe with regards to other Europeans, and not wanting to spread their trade secrets. However it is not their job to do so anyhow. This is the job of the state, and so presenting an example of why someone who owns a business doesnt want to give all of his secrets away to everyone else as proof of "fear of competition" is correct i guess, although the racial aspect which you try to imply here really falls apart when you take basic logic into account. 10. Finnally I would like to point out that none of this true for the simple reason that colonialism was economically detrimental to Europe. Much more resources were invested into African development than was received by Europe. Very famously Bismarck was very sceptical of German participation in the scramble for Africa precisely because he knew the sole benefit of it would be prestige, while in financial, economic, military, and cultural terms it would be a net loss. Because those investments into Africa and the African population occured despite, not because of any profit that could be made, and there are many statstics which ultimately confirm how much of a net loss colonialism was for Europe, and this is one of the main reasons why it was abandoned after WW2. The moral reasons for uplifting civilization disappeared with the rise of independence movements and the only other argument that could be made, which was the economic one simply reinforced the idea that it is a waste of resources to maintain a European presence abroad, when Europe itself was struggling followijg the destruction wrought by the second world war.
An interesting case, albeit somewhat tangential to this, is the case of how the US government and ford sold Venezuela semi trucks at a discount in exchange for closing the Ferrocarril del Centro.
My country of origin, one of the original Banana Republics, built a railroad in the 1870s, that benefited for decades the Standard Fruit company (it established it's plantations right on the line to make use of it). The credit to pay for it (because of course it was built with a credit) was payoff until 1973, almost a century later.
Thank you so much! I have been doing this for just about one year now. Make sure to check out my other videos as well, this one is actually the third in series of videos on technology (although they are all designed to be watchable as standalone videos) ruclips.net/p/PLtnjNRwpToZynntlF8NZuA_chqKQpZzKx
I’m studying history with a focus on colonialism in college and the point about colonial infrastructure developing completely independently of neighboring colonies never has occurred to me or popped up in any of my readings.
Wow, I'm so glad I found your channel! I'm grateful to find someone doing very thoughtful and considered research on the very real infrastructure that has shaped our world today. I'm doing a PhD looking at various technical and legal infrastructures of colonial-capitalism myself, so it's great to find a channel that can introduce me to new ideas and ways of thinking about the topic. I'm looking forward to peeking at your back catalogue and seeing what comes next from you!
Hi, this is the first video ive watched of yours, this is unsolicited feedback, i would maybe lower the music a bit, for me at least it was hard to hear , but regardless im a fan now
Hey! I appreciate the feedback. Was there a specific time in the video where you felt the music was too loud or was it just throughout the video as a whole?
Great job friend! By your choice of words, and your quickly developing style and highly aesthetic illustrations, I think you are bound to become a staple channel in the youtube's leftist/anti-colonial sphere. Dont be dishartened by the initial slow growth. It gets easier as you go. Pick a niche, and upload consistently. I think it could make an interesting style to compare&contrast the previous modes of colonial extraction and the modern neocolonial ones. Reach out to other established channels for advice as it is wiser to learn from others mistakes than to make and learn from your own mistakes. We are rooting for you!!
I was hoping you would comment on how Britain's textile industry and colonial administration of India destroyed Indian's local textiles industry and imported Britain textiles.
@wheatblue7592 You know, I had wanted to. But I ultimately decided that it was outside the scope of this particular video, and in any case would have taken too much more time to research and find good sources for. But don't worry, I will absolutely cover this some day.
Japan had a relatively high literacy rate before it was forced to abandon isolation. They had an easyer time at industrializing and modernizing their miliary. The literacy rate also allowed Japanese ndeviduals to gain expertise abroud. Look up the Chōshū Five, interesting story. In the end, Japan turned into a colonial power, which further aided in the efforts of industrialization.
Explanation of how imperialism works, and its historical actions, is essential knowledge in the modern world.... understand empire and you will see the modern world for what it is, not how the empire presents it to be.
I would suggest you link the current global financial system with this system dependency and oppression. I think the West has decided that physical dominance is too toxic political and rather economic dominance vis a vis currency, a sort of financial imperialism is the new norm.
“These divisions, which the colonial powers have always exploited the better to dominate us, have played an important role - and are still playing that role - in the suicide of Africa” - Patrice Lumumba
Interestingly, you can see railways following the same pattern today in southern Wales (UK), around Newport and Cardiff. The lines were originally drawn from the inland coalfields to these two port cities. I watched a Welsh train guy talk about the future of the Welsh rail, and he lamented how there are no lines parallel to the coast; if you want to go one town over, you often have to take a long detour down towards the coast and then up again.
You should check out what chevron has done to the amazonian indigenous people. It’s like this but even worse and more depressing. Shame that the world had to develop this way.
I'm so grateful for the algorithm for showing me this video. Excellent content, following and sharing this so that this very important content reaches more people.
Africa is not a single regional entity, each region has its own challenges and history, as each of them historically functioned as a distinct region, it doesn't make sense to put Botswana and Senegal in the same group.
But they were indeed all subjects of European powers and their colonial enterprises. Europe is also not a single regional entity, but as a whole Africa was where the imperial powers of Europe went to extract resources.
@@truedarklander eastern Europe didn't participate in colonization, so when we talk about Europe colonizing africa it's mainly western Europe. what i want to say is, colonization did not occur under the same contexts in all regions of Africa. The video makes sense either way because of the focus on technology transfer.
@@joaovictorpessoaqueiroz4783 the thumbnail was by a talented artist that goes by Earth Liberation Studio. I think they did a wonderful job as well! Thank you for the kind words about my video!
Uhuru! (“Freedom!” in Kiswahili) Appreciation for the critical analysis comrade. The Colonial Mode of Production Must Disappear! Take a stand in principled unity with colonized people’s liberation by joining the Uhuru Solidarity Movement! Hands Off The Uhuru 3! This is the first time there’s been a conviction for “conspiracy” based solely on anti-war, anti-colonial speech and it must be overturned! We will win! Power to the People!
One point that keeps coming back in my mind, that I haven't heard addressed in your video is whether or not the colonies would have been better or worse off without the colonizers, and in what ways. You talk about the fact that the colonizers haven't brought the colonies up to the standards of their own homelands, but that is a higher standard than I think is reasonably necessary to think of the involvement as good (not that I think DR Congo or most other colonies was a success, unlike Hong Kong or say Guyana (Guyana's current demographic composition and state structure are exist due to colonialism - without it, the region would likely remain sparsely populated by indigenous peoples and potentially fall under different regional influence)). Another thing is, the vast majority of colonies have gained independence closely after WW2. Some like South Korea and Singapore have developed to 1st world standards, but most have not. While there was heavy interference during the Cold War, what is stopping the former colonies from building the infrastructure to suit their needs? The USSR fell more than 3 decades ago. If Brazil, Malaysia, Singapore, South Korea (a Japanese colony), and other former colonies were able to create infrastructure and develop human capital to suit their needs, what's stopping Nigeria, Zimbabwe, Togo, or countries that were not colonies like Ethiopia and Liberia? I apologize for oversimplifying, colonialism is not a binary. I'm a non-expert, and a dilettante besides. BTW, I was not aware of the railway map info, and it was personally insightful.
The point of this video is narrowly focused on how Europe hoarded its technical knowledge and prevented it being spread to the colonized. So the question of whether they were better off with the meagre education given to them by the Europeans isnt addressed. But of course any cursory study of the history of colonialism will show you that the Global South would have been much better off had the Europeans never conquered them. The question why Korea for example developed into a wealthy country after being a colony has to do with Cold War politics. It was allowed to develop as a foil to its communist neighbors where other weren’t. While countries can be grouped into broad categories like North and South, they also have their own particular histories. Singapore, your other example is basically a city state which developed solely as a result as its role as a hub of British colonial trade. Not exactly replicable. Whats stopping post-colonial countries from developing their own infrastructure, aside from those countries being very poor and infrastructure being expensive is answered in the video: they dont have the technical know-how to build the infrastructure. Because Europe never passed it on to them. Thank you for your comment and I am glad you enjoyed the video
what's really needed to take account is that this sets up the rethinking towards the categorizations of which some nations (post-colonial nations) are put into "underdeveloped/developing" while others (metropoles) are put into "developed" definitions. It puts the colonial power as saviors (saving indigenous societies into 'progress'/ modern civilization) and renders the ex colonies as being perpetually, ontologically, deficient. Decolonization means we must reject modernism in all its forms, including economic and technological dependencies to the metropoles, and develop ourselves our own version of 'civilization' in our own terms.
I'm a right leaning person, but this channel has opened a conversation in my head that I wish to further interrogate. The usual counters from the right is that everyone was or wanted to be colonial, we just were better at it. What say you?
@@Kashabunkashakeeka One could write quite a long response to that, but I will put it like this. If everyone just wanted to be a colony, then why isn’t the world still Europe’s dominion? Why did so many many nations fight long, costly, painful wars of national liberation just to be independent of Europe? In truth what you present is a very self serving narrative for Europe. Not only did Europe get to conquer the world, extract valuable resources at low cost, and exploit the labor of the people living there- but all those people loved it too, because everyone just wanted to be like Europe. It all sounds a little too good to be true don’t you think?
@@EmpireInFocus What I meant is that everyone may have wanted to dominate the world if they could, we just beat everyone at that game. Obviously no one wants to be colonized. But everyone wants to be the world hegemon if they could, no?
@ That is a common defense of colonialism. It’s not possible to definitively say otherwise because at that time only Europe had the ability to conquer large parts of the world, with the exception of Japan which arrived relatively late in the game and which was quite deliberately imitating Europe. For me again it rings hollow. It is the argument of someone looking to defend something they know that is wrong. So instead of actually defending it they just say “Well look, anyone would have done that horrible thing, we just did it first”. Is it true? Impossible to say. But they have evaded reckoning with their (country’s) culpability.
Okay I was looking for something to break my social democratic minded friends from their imperialism denial. I like this, well done on the video editing through the piece.
1. It is wrong to assume it was simply the "bourgeoise" that controlled events in Europe and the world. This view betrays a purely classist, materialist, and marxist view of view of history, which does not take into account differences between European nations, including different values, ideas, and beliefs when it came to colonialism and the reasons for it. 2. The way railroads were built in Africa doesn't mean they did not serve the African population, but rather than because Europeans came first on the coasts, and were most established there that railroads started from that area. The coastline was also the most developed and populous long before Europeans came, as goods were traded by sea from the inner parts of Africa outwards. 3. Telegraph lines were sparser in Africa than in Europe because it was at that time much less developed than Europe was. Even if we were to assume that your logic is 100% correct, then still there is no reason why Europeans would not want well developed telegraph lines or railroads in Africa. However they lived in Europe for much longer and in Africa for only a few decades, so obviously there would be a disparity, especially since the industrial revolution started in the early 1800s and Africa was colonized to a large extent only by the 1880s. Between 1820 and 1885 (Berlin Conference) Europe was being industrailised while Africa was not for the simple reason that there was very little European presence there to begin with. 4. Your idea that capitalists did not want competition so did not develop the colonies is equally false. You forget first of all that the true power in those days was the landowners who are largely aristocratic, not industrialists who you call capitalists, but ignoring this they would only be able to expand their operations in Africa and the world if they developed it, thus your logc becomes very faultry when looking at it from the lense of profit which requires development, and economic advancement of the population from the colonies in order for them to be able to afford to consume the goods produced by those same capitalists. 5. Patents exist to protect intellectual property and inspire innovation, and are by their nature limited, meaning you have a sole right to develop a good for a period of time, after which the patent expires and everybody is able to produce the same good. It doesn't exist because of greed, but rather to make sure those that make the investment of time and money to invent new technologies recoup their investments. If it was about greed then all patents would be for an unlimited amount of time, which they are obviously not. 6. Your statistics on education are equally as flawed for the same reasons outlined above. It also betrays a complete lack of understanding of what colonialism was in practice. How it often worked is that chieftains would pledge their loyalty to a particular European nation, and in return that nation protected their tribe against other tribes or countries. So the governance outside of colonial governors was in the hands of the natives themselves. Therefore Education could only be implemented so far as there is the will of the people themselves to be educated in a western style, (if they don't want education is the argument that Europeans should have forced them?) and that there is the infrastructure to do so, i.e. schools, roads, houses, which were being developed however nowhere near the level of Europe because Africa was first of all a much larger continent, and second of all because Europeans like i said before did not have direct control over colonial subjects, and had much less time to develop their holdings abroad than they did in Europe. There was also the simple problem of numbers. At that time Europe had a much larger population than Africa and so there wasn't enough people in the colonies to allow for infrastructure development at rhe sane rate as in the major centres of Europe. But even so in your video you yourself admit that they had a clear impetus for educating the population through missionary work. Ofcourse you make it out as if this is a special case for colonies when in reality, almost all schools in Europe that time were either owned by the church or heavily influenced by them. Therefore to recap your attempt to blame education inconsistencies in Africa on Europe is flawed on many different levels, one of which being that were colonialism not to have happened almost certainly the rate of education and literacy would have remained much lower than it was at the end of decolonization. 7. Capitalists do not recognize borders as a limiting factor to enterprise they have no inherent national aligence. Thus your argument that them establishing firms in Africa would have prevented European monopoly makes no sense once again, as first of all those colonies were already under European countries so there was no reason to worry about competition, and second of all the firms themselves could and often did establish branches in African colonies, so in this way they are spreading their operations in Africa without worrying about competition. 8. With regards to 17:26 you gave statistics that showed 700 thousand indians employed vs only 7 thouand Europeans. That should tell you all you need to know of whether Europeans kept all the jobs for themselves. As regards to the higher leadership positions themselves, they require above all experience and technical understanding which was higher in Europe due to a longer history with those technologies and a better preparedness for their use. Also the report itself ehich you cite talks about the lacking number of indians in high positions as a problem. Doesn't that by itself debunk your entire theory that Europe were not interested in the advancement of natives? Why would they want to improve the people's ability to gain management postions and experience if they did not want them to do so? It's a self defeating question really because ofcourse it doesn't make sense, and so doesn't your argument. 9. 18:25 You are literally describing what employers did in Europe with regards to other Europeans, and not wanting to spread their trade secrets. However it is not their job to do so anyhow. This is the job of the state, and so presenting an example of why someone who owns a business doesnt want to give all of his secrets away to everyone else as proof of "fear of competition" is correct i guess, although the racial aspect which you try to imply here really falls apart when you take basic logic into account. 10. Finnally I would like to point out that none of this true for the simple reason that colonialism was economically detrimental to Europe. Much more resources were invested into African development than was received by Europe. Very famously Bismarck was very sceptical of German participation in the scramble for Africa precisely because he knew the sole benefit of it would be prestige, while in financial, economic, military, and cultural terms it would be a net loss. Because those investments into Africa and the African population occured despite, not because of any profit that could be made, and there are many statstics which ultimately confirm how much of a net loss colonialism was for Europe, and this is one of the main reasons why it was abandoned after WW2. The moral reasons for uplifting civilization disappeared with the rise of independence movements and the only other argument that could be made, which was the economic one simply reinforced the idea that it is a waste of resources to maintain a European presence abroad, when Europe itself was struggling followijg the destruction wrought by the second world war.
On one hand I really don't want to bother myself with this argument, but on the other some of the things you said are very naive or just deliberately disingenuous. 1. Did such differences impacted the way colonial policy was conducted by different states? All of the european state assumed pretty much the same profit driven approach with no regards to locals or their wellbeing. The only actual difference is that some went farther than others and some were so, so unhinged, it's a crime they're pretty much forgotten nowadays. 2. Of course. But any such benefits are byproducts of exploitation. None of them were built with the idea of improving african infrastructure unless there was so kind of profit to be extracted from it. 4. Also correct. However your understanding of a capitalist market is a bit wack. But to see it you should examine the economic structure of african states in neocolonial period. That is, yes, some developments could be done, even to the benefits of the local population, however the economy itself is structured in a way to serve economical needs of the metropoly. You can argue african states adopt resource based economy out of poverty and lack of development (or rather time to develop), however you can't argue for example France doesn't take advantage of that to fuel it's own economy. I'm mixing colonialism and neocolonialism here, which are somewhat different in their approach, but the overall essence is the same. 5. Weren't patents actually permanent and able to encompass broader categories in 19-20 centuries? Although I don't think patents are really important in this conversation anyway. 10. That is a very retroactive thing to say. Sure, nowadays it's easier to say that overall it wasn't economically profitable. But like, sure, they maybe were more motivated by prestige, when they did it, but they did it. That's the important part. Indians, africans, other indians all suffered under colonial yoke. So what if in retrospection it wasn't economically profitable if they still extracted resources, massacres natives and hampered their natural development? The fucked up borders alone did more damage in the long run than any economic subservience could. Africans have all right to be pissed about colonialism and neocolonialism (which replaced it after WW2, in part thanks to soviet efforts) and no amounts of apologism would change that.
@kindlingking 1. Colonial policy was very diverse between different countries and colonies, and this is reflected even in the modern day, as the Francophone countries in Africa for example are much closer to one another than they are to the Anglophone countries, not just because of language, but because of a different culture and mentality differences that arose during colonial times. 2. Some were built for the simple reason to improve logistics and transport links, and to be able to physically access new lands. Also to transport labor, including native Africans to different sites. 4. I don't deny that Europeans extracted resources from African countries, especially resources that Africans could not extract by themselves. But we are now 70+ years after African countries gained their independence, and yet in many places the only infrastructure that still exists is the infrastructure that Europeans left. Endlessly blaming Europe for the problems of modern African states is convenient for many people, but what is not convenient is them taking responsibility for the state of their own countries, and trying to fix those problems. 5. The first patent was invented in the 15th century and was even then limited for a period of about 10 years. So patents were never unlimited. But you are right, this is not what is really important. What is important is that a oikophobic European blames Europe for all the problems of the former colonies. 10. If it was an African complaining about colonialism I wouldn't write this comment in the first place. Even if I would still disagree with them I would respect their opinion. But the person in this video is a European who makes his living by parroting third worldist talking points while endlessly attacking his own people. This is what ultimately annoys me here more than anything else.
@@arbendit4348west africa supplied a third of all Europe's gold before colonization. Mansa Musa of Mali hecame one of the richest men to ever live through the salt and mineral trading. African were absolutely capable of extraxtung these resources, european technology did progress it significantly, but there were existing systems before.
How do you equate China in these matters? While China definitely does soft economy power plays, it does not actually use the military or IMF to do it, as it has no control of the World Bank like the West does. I am Tibetan from Nepal, and we here have seen lots of benefits in recent years from deals with China. Something we never got from Western loans and deals. How can developing nations create equilibrium with China on trade when China can legitimately claim it does not engage in coercion like west does?
For one China, is a country of the Global South, like many of the former colonies mentioned in this video (although China was never itself a full colony). This means for most of modern history it has been primarily in the role of exploited rather than exploiter, and I would argue that it is still being exploited by the western powers even today. However it is clearly in a process of transition to becoming a great power, albeit a different type of great power. One that as you mention, projects its power primarily through trade relationships rather than military force. As for your question, I'm not sure I'm in a position to give you a definitive answer right now. But it is a fascinating question. As with any great power, every non-great-power country will have to have their own strategy for coexistence.
@@EmpireInFocus While I would disagree that China is in global south today, they are certainly a special case. While they are imperialist, their projection of power is indeed soft. The cynic in me thinks that China is just cautious and patient while US empire destroys itself. This is a great time for exploited nations to collaborate in creating alliances to resist any form of imperialism - current and future.
Manchuria and Taiwan have been full colonies of Japan. Besides that. Just no. China has been the exploiter in their region far longer than they have been exploited, that is why China is the size it is today. Most of the South especially Yunnan and large parts of the Pearl River delta were not Chinese in any way untill quite recently. Tibet and Sinkiang are again region that are exploited by China. And the entire northern flank of China from Inner Mongolia to Manchuria have seen massive Han migration and the death of the local cultures in order to help spread Han influence. @@EmpireInFocus
@ Kind not true, for example in Brazil in the end it became so strong that it start colonized Portugal, so Brazil start colonized Portugal and that's why they separated, the Americas are not weak bc colonization
Can't blame em, basically every nation at the time mostly had some form of racism for every other race, and nation. It was just either conquer or be conquered, not like our modern era, where we have knowledge of the diversity of people.
@@draekalloy3673 asshole I live in SA the infrastructure from the colonial era is still being used today! Yes that’s right mostly black people enjoy hospitals, schools buildings, railroads and roads all still intact from that time! Intergenerational upliftment from this infrastructure directly has happened as a result and is still enjoyed today. You are totally missing my point it does not matter the intention or the supposed intention of the people that built it at the time. The things have brought incalculably large benefits over generations of people living here!
@@EmpireInFocus You're welcome buddy. Even though you're just giving hate fuel to the POC of the world, which Russia is influencing and weaponizing for their anti-western cause, not to mention that these beings hate the very pale skin on your body, you your children. And when they rise up they won't ask you which side you are on they'll just look at your skin color and judge by that for you are the White devil no matter what, at that point, your white savior complex won't matter.
@@leviathan-r8fthats a very shallow genocidal view. You would be worse than hitler with a view such as that. And are yourself proof that you have been weaponised beyond reason.
@@leviathan-r8fthe people who went out colonising were kicked out of europe after a very bloody war. Which is why america was the new colonising centre. Why do you think they have independance day. A hyper influencial minority do not represent a race. Like isis. They dont represent people of iraq.
My sources for this video:
1. Headrick (1988), The Tentacles of Progress: Technology Transfer in the Age of Imperialism, 1850-1940 pp. 99
2. Headrick (1988), The Tentacles of Progress: Technology Transfer in the Age of Imperialism, 1850-1940 pp. 97
3. Pitman’s Commercial Geography of the World (1898), The Principal Railways of England
4. Drawn by Walter Y. Cox. Provenance: "March of Empire"; by Lowell Ragatz, The Railroads of Africa in 1914
5. Carte General des Grandes Communication Télégraphiques de Monde (1903)
6. WIPO Lex Database, wipo.int, Accessed August 2024
6a. (Paris Treaty: www.wipo.int/wipolex/en/treaties/ShowResults?start_year=ANY&end_year=ANY&search_what=C&country_id=ALL&treaty_id=2 )
6b. (Berne Treaty: www.wipo.int/wipolex/en/treaties/ShowResults?start_year=ANY&end_year=ANY&search_what=C&code=ALL&treaty_id=15 )
7. May and Sell (2016), Intellectual Property Rights: A Critical History, pp. 76
8. Jeremy (1977), Damming the Flood: British Government Efforts to Check the Outflow of Technicians and Machinery, 1780-1843
9. Mitchell (2013), International Historical Statistics, 1750−2010
10. Rodney (1972), How Europe Underdeveloped Africa, pp. 241
11. UNESCO (1957), World Illiteracy at Mid-Century, unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000002930
12. Headrick (1988), The Tentacles of Progress: Technology Transfer in the Age of Imperialism, 1850-1940 pp. 382
13. Headrick (1988), The Tentacles of Progress: Technology Transfer in the Age of Imperialism, 1850-1940 pp. 341
14. Headrick (1988), The Tentacles of Progress: Technology Transfer in the Age of Imperialism, 1850-1940 pp. 333
15. Meredith (2005), The Fate of Africa, “Chapter 8: The Birth of Nations”
16. Bullock (2009), Off Track: Sub-Saharan African Railways pp. 5, ppp.worldbank.org/public-private-partnership/sites/ppp.worldbank.org/files/documents/Africa_Offtrac%20-%20SubSaharan%20African%20Railways_EN.pdf
A minor gripe - a sentence could have been added - 'but it wasn't until the onset of the industrial evolution' (fueled by slavery and colonialism)
1. It is wrong to assume it was simply the "bourgeoise" that controlled events in Europe and the world. This view betrays a purely classist, materialist, and marxist view of view of history, which does not take into account differences between European nations, including different values, ideas, and beliefs when it came to colonialism and the reasons for it.
2. The way railroads were built in Africa, doesn't mean they did not serve the African population, but rather than because Europeans came first on the coasts, and were most established there that railroads started from that area. The coastline was also the most developed and populous long before Europeans came, as goods were traded by sea from the inner parts of Africa outwards.
3. Telegraph lines were sparser in Africa than in Europe because it was at that time much less developed than Europe was. Even if we were to assume that your logic is 100% correct, then still there is no reason why Europeans would not want well developed telegraph lines or railroads in Africa. However they lived in Europe for much longer and in Africa for only a few decades, so obviously there would be a disparity, especially since the industrial revolution started in the early 1800s and Africa was colonized to a large extent only by the 1880s. Between 1820 and 1885 (Berlin Conference) Europe was being industrailised while Africa was not for the simple reason that there was very little European presence there to begin with.
4. Your idea that capitalists did not want competition so did not develop the colonies is equally false. You forget first of all that the true power in those days was the landowners who are largely aristocratic, not industrialists who you call capitalists, but ignoring this they would only be able to expand their operations in Africa and the world if they developed it, thus your logc becomes very faultry when looking at it from the lense of profit which requires development, and economic advancement of the population from the colonies in order for them to be able to afford to consume the goods produced by those same capitalists.
5. Patents exist to protect intellectual property and inspire innovation, and are by their nature limited, meaning you have a sole right to develop a good for a period of time, after which the patent expires and everybody is able to produce the same good. It doesn't exist because of greed, but rather to make sure those that make the investment of time and money to invent new technologies recoup their investments. If it was about greed then all patents would be for an unlimited amount of time, which they are obviously not.
6. Your statistics on education are equally as flawed for the same reasons outlined above. It also betrays a complete lack of understanding of what colonialism was in practice. How it often worked is that chieftains would pledge their loyalty to a particular European nation, and in return that nation protected their tribe against other tribes or countries. So the governance outside of colonial governors was in the hands of the natives themselves. Therefore Education could only be implemented so far as there is the will of the people themselves to be educated in a western style, (if they don't want education is the argument that Europeans should have forced them?) and that there is the infrastructure to do so, i.e. schools, roads, houses, which were being developed however nowhere near the level of Europe because Africa was first of all a much larger continent, and second of all because Europeans like i said before did not have direct control over colonial subjects, and had much less time to develop their holdings abroad than they did in Europe. There was also the simple problem of numbers. At that time Europe had a much larger population than Africa and so there wasn't enough people in the colonies to allow for infrastructure development at rhe sane rate as in the major centres of Europe. But eben so in your video you yourself admit that they had a clear impetus for educating the population through missionary work. Ofcourse you make it out as if this is a special case for colonies when in reality, almost all schools in Europe that time were either owned by the church or heavily influenced by them. Therefore to recap your attempt to blame education inconsistencies in Africa on Europe is flawed on many different levels, one of which being that were colonialism not to have happened almost certainly the rate of education and literacy would have remained much lower than it was at the end of decolonization.
7. Capitalists do not recognize borders as a limiting factor to enterprise they have no inherent national aligence. Thus your argument that them establishing firms in Africa would have prevented European monopoly makes no sense once again, as first of all those colonies were already under European countries so there was no reason to worry about competition, and second of all the firms themselves could and often did establish branches in African colonies, so in this way they are spreading their operations in Africa without worrying about competition.
8. With regards to 17:26 you gave statistics that showed 700 thousand indians employed vs only 7 thouand Europeans. That should tell you all you need to know of whether Europeans kept all the jobs for themselves. As regards to the higher leadership positions themselves, they require above all experience and technical understanding which was higher in Europe due to a longer history with those technologies and a better preparedness for their use. Also the report itself ehich you cite talks about the lacking number of indians in high positions as a problem. Doesn't that by itself debunk your entire theory that Europe were not interested in the advancement of natives? Why would they want to improve the people's ability to gain management postions and experience if they did not want them to do so? It's a self defeating question really because ofcourse it doesn't make sense, ans so doesn't your argument.
9. 18:25 You are literally describing what employers did in Europe with regards to other Europeans, and not wanting to spread their trade secrets. However it is not their job to do so anyhow. This is the job of the state, and so presenting an example of why someone who owns a business doesnt want to give all of his secrets away to everyone else as proof of "fear of competition" is correct i guess, although the racial aspect which you try to imply here really falls apart when you take basic logic into account.
10. Finnally I would like to point out that none of this true for the simple reason that colonialism was economically detrimental to Europe. Much more resources were invested into African development than was received by Europe. Very famously Bismarck was very sceptical of German participation in the scramble for Africa precisely because he knew the sole benefit of it would be prestige, while in financial, economic, military, and cultural terms it would be a net loss. Because those investments into Africa and the African population occured despite, not because of any profit that could be made, and there are many statstics which ultimately confirm how much of a net loss colonialism was for Europe, and this is one of the main reasons why it was abandoned after WW2. The moral reasons for uplifting civilization disappeared with the rise of independence movements and the only other argument that could be made, which was the economic one simply reinforced the idea that it is a waste of resources to maintain a European presence abroad, when Europe itself was struggling followijg the destruction wrought by the second world war.
Wow, I'm impressed with your growth. Your videos are becoming so stylized. Can't wait to see what you have in store for us next.
Thank you so much!
An interesting case, albeit somewhat tangential to this, is the case of how the US government and ford sold Venezuela semi trucks at a discount in exchange for closing the Ferrocarril del Centro.
Yes, this is definitely related. Just one more method of achieving deindustrialization and technological monopoly
Same in Chile, Development of railway networks for domestic use Stopped in favor of concesing highways and trucks
My country of origin, one of the original Banana Republics, built a railroad in the 1870s, that benefited for decades the Standard Fruit company (it established it's plantations right on the line to make use of it).
The credit to pay for it (because of course it was built with a credit) was payoff until 1973, almost a century later.
Wow! This is the first video I have seen from you, but it seems like you have been doing this for years (maybe you have) but it is incredible!
Thank you so much! I have been doing this for just about one year now. Make sure to check out my other videos as well, this one is actually the third in series of videos on technology (although they are all designed to be watchable as standalone videos) ruclips.net/p/PLtnjNRwpToZynntlF8NZuA_chqKQpZzKx
I’m studying history with a focus on colonialism in college and the point about colonial infrastructure developing completely independently of neighboring colonies never has occurred to me or popped up in any of my readings.
That note on colonial infrastructure is so interesting. Thanks for sharing.
No worries! I thought your video on Yugoslavia was quite interesting as well
Love the video it feels like its about to explode to 100k subs, but 500 this channel deserves more.
Wow, I'm so glad I found your channel! I'm grateful to find someone doing very thoughtful and considered research on the very real infrastructure that has shaped our world today. I'm doing a PhD looking at various technical and legal infrastructures of colonial-capitalism myself, so it's great to find a channel that can introduce me to new ideas and ways of thinking about the topic. I'm looking forward to peeking at your back catalogue and seeing what comes next from you!
Hi, this is the first video ive watched of yours, this is unsolicited feedback, i would maybe lower the music a bit, for me at least it was hard to hear , but regardless im a fan now
Hey! I appreciate the feedback. Was there a specific time in the video where you felt the music was too loud or was it just throughout the video as a whole?
@@EmpireInFocusFor me it was through out
Great job friend! By your choice of words, and your quickly developing style and highly aesthetic illustrations, I think you are bound to become a staple channel in the youtube's leftist/anti-colonial sphere. Dont be dishartened by the initial slow growth. It gets easier as you go. Pick a niche, and upload consistently. I think it could make an interesting style to compare&contrast the previous modes of colonial extraction and the modern neocolonial ones. Reach out to other established channels for advice as it is wiser to learn from others mistakes than to make and learn from your own mistakes. We are rooting for you!!
@ofsabir That's very kind of your to say. Thank you!
This is literally Lenin's book "Imperialism".
so, even better
I was hoping you would comment on how Britain's textile industry and colonial administration of India destroyed Indian's local textiles industry and imported Britain textiles.
@wheatblue7592 You know, I had wanted to. But I ultimately decided that it was outside the scope of this particular video, and in any case would have taken too much more time to research and find good sources for. But don't worry, I will absolutely cover this some day.
Great analysis man. Hope to see more videos. And actually using citations, 10/10.
Appreciate it!
Japan developed a very good infrastructure and rapidly industralized without being directly colonized by European powers.
they were pretty much colonized after US "opened" their market
@@Bleilock1they also were a colonial power themselves
@@ryloforehead3687 they learned from the best
Japan had a relatively high literacy rate before it was forced to abandon isolation. They had an easyer time at industrializing and modernizing their miliary. The literacy rate also allowed Japanese ndeviduals to gain expertise abroud. Look up the Chōshū Five, interesting story. In the end, Japan turned into a colonial power, which further aided in the efforts of industrialization.
@@Bleilock1
They were indirectly colonized, like China. Most of Africa was strait up annexed in the 1880s, along with a lot of South East Asia
Explanation of how imperialism works, and its historical actions, is essential knowledge in the modern world.... understand empire and you will see the modern world for what it is, not how the empire presents it to be.
Nice video! I really like the maps and diagrams used; it helped enhance understanding the topic better
good video, commenting for the algorithm.
I appreciate it!
i likd everything, except the segment where you're intently staring into my soul
haha, sorry about that
the a10 stare strikes again
Good job my friend, i guess who you must mencion the model "super-exploratório" or "modelo de super extrativização". You are great!!
Thank you!
I would suggest you link the current global financial system with this system dependency and oppression.
I think the West has decided that physical dominance is too toxic political and rather economic dominance vis a vis currency, a sort of financial imperialism is the new norm.
Many videos on financial imperialism will inevitably come in the future
Thank you for sharing your knowledge with us.
Of course!
Can’t wait to continue to watch the channel growth!
First video I've seen from and I'm impressed. Hope you keep up the good work!
What a banger of a video, very informative and very well presented, this one is gonna do numbers!
RUclips algorithm rarely suggests such good videos
“These divisions, which the colonial powers have always exploited the better to dominate us, have played an important role - and are still playing that role - in the suicide of Africa” - Patrice Lumumba
Yes it was don’t cast pearls before swine. The Chinese guy from empire of dust was right!
Interestingly, you can see railways following the same pattern today in southern Wales (UK), around Newport and Cardiff. The lines were originally drawn from the inland coalfields to these two port cities. I watched a Welsh train guy talk about the future of the Welsh rail, and he lamented how there are no lines parallel to the coast; if you want to go one town over, you often have to take a long detour down towards the coast and then up again.
You should check out what chevron has done to the amazonian indigenous people. It’s like this but even worse and more depressing. Shame that the world had to develop this way.
I'm so grateful for the algorithm for showing me this video. Excellent content, following and sharing this so that this very important content reaches more people.
Thank you! I'm glad to have you here. And I appreciate you sharing with others, it really helps!
Thanks for the upload
Thank you for watching!
Africa is not a single regional entity, each region has its own challenges and history, as each of them historically functioned as a distinct region, it doesn't make sense to put Botswana and Senegal in the same group.
But they were indeed all subjects of European powers and their colonial enterprises. Europe is also not a single regional entity, but as a whole Africa was where the imperial powers of Europe went to extract resources.
@@truedarklander eastern Europe didn't participate in colonization, so when we talk about Europe colonizing africa it's mainly western Europe. what i want to say is, colonization did not occur under the same contexts in all regions of Africa. The video makes sense either way because of the focus on technology transfer.
@karimjerbi7084 are you sure about that? Dis Russia not colonize the steppes of Siberia?
@@truedarklanderi should have specified colonization of africa 😅
@@truedarklandersiberia isn’t in africa
I cannot believe that you only have 1k subscribers. This was amazing!
This is an insightful analysis.
Thanks!
Great art in the thumbnail! Made me click, and the excellent video made me stay !
Glad to meet your channel!
@@joaovictorpessoaqueiroz4783 the thumbnail was by a talented artist that goes by Earth Liberation Studio. I think they did a wonderful job as well! Thank you for the kind words about my video!
Fantastic work!
Thank you so much!
@EmpireInFocus Thank you for bringing this high quality research with a materialistic analysis, it will pay out eventually!
Incredible work!!
Thank you!
this is very well done!
Thanks a lot!
This makes me wonder how the current Chinese investment in building infrastructure in Africa differs than when European colonial invaders did.
Uhuru! (“Freedom!” in Kiswahili) Appreciation for the critical analysis comrade. The Colonial Mode of Production Must Disappear! Take a stand in principled unity with colonized people’s liberation by joining the Uhuru Solidarity Movement! Hands Off The Uhuru 3! This is the first time there’s been a conviction for “conspiracy” based solely on anti-war, anti-colonial speech and it must be overturned! We will win! Power to the People!
One point that keeps coming back in my mind, that I haven't heard addressed in your video is whether or not the colonies would have been better or worse off without the colonizers, and in what ways. You talk about the fact that the colonizers haven't brought the colonies up to the standards of their own homelands, but that is a higher standard than I think is reasonably necessary to think of the involvement as good (not that I think DR Congo or most other colonies was a success, unlike Hong Kong or say Guyana (Guyana's current demographic composition and state structure are exist due to colonialism - without it, the region would likely remain sparsely populated by indigenous peoples and potentially fall under different regional influence)).
Another thing is, the vast majority of colonies have gained independence closely after WW2. Some like South Korea and Singapore have developed to 1st world standards, but most have not. While there was heavy interference during the Cold War, what is stopping the former colonies from building the infrastructure to suit their needs? The USSR fell more than 3 decades ago. If Brazil, Malaysia, Singapore, South Korea (a Japanese colony), and other former colonies were able to create infrastructure and develop human capital to suit their needs, what's stopping Nigeria, Zimbabwe, Togo, or countries that were not colonies like Ethiopia and Liberia?
I apologize for oversimplifying, colonialism is not a binary. I'm a non-expert, and a dilettante besides.
BTW, I was not aware of the railway map info, and it was personally insightful.
The point of this video is narrowly focused on how Europe hoarded its technical knowledge and prevented it being spread to the colonized. So the question of whether they were better off with the meagre education given to them by the Europeans isnt addressed. But of course any cursory study of the history of colonialism will show you that the Global South would have been much better off had the Europeans never conquered them.
The question why Korea for example developed into a wealthy country after being a colony has to do with Cold War politics. It was allowed to develop as a foil to its communist neighbors where other weren’t. While countries can be grouped into broad categories like North and South, they also have their own particular histories. Singapore, your other example is basically a city state which developed solely as a result as its role as a hub of British colonial trade. Not exactly replicable.
Whats stopping post-colonial countries from developing their own infrastructure, aside from those countries being very poor and infrastructure being expensive is answered in the video: they dont have the technical know-how to build the infrastructure. Because Europe never passed it on to them.
Thank you for your comment and I am glad you enjoyed the video
what's really needed to take account is that this sets up the rethinking towards the categorizations of which some nations (post-colonial nations) are put into "underdeveloped/developing" while others (metropoles) are put into "developed" definitions. It puts the colonial power as saviors (saving indigenous societies into 'progress'/ modern civilization) and renders the ex colonies as being perpetually, ontologically, deficient. Decolonization means we must reject modernism in all its forms, including economic and technological dependencies to the metropoles, and develop ourselves our own version of 'civilization' in our own terms.
I'm a right leaning person, but this channel has opened a conversation in my head that I wish to further interrogate.
The usual counters from the right is that everyone was or wanted to be colonial, we just were better at it. What say you?
@@Kashabunkashakeeka One could write quite a long response to that, but I will put it like this. If everyone just wanted to be a colony, then why isn’t the world still Europe’s dominion? Why did so many many nations fight long, costly, painful wars of national liberation just to be independent of Europe?
In truth what you present is a very self serving narrative for Europe. Not only did Europe get to conquer the world, extract valuable resources at low cost, and exploit the labor of the people living there- but all those people loved it too, because everyone just wanted to be like Europe. It all sounds a little too good to be true don’t you think?
@@EmpireInFocus
What I meant is that everyone may have wanted to dominate the world if they could, we just beat everyone at that game.
Obviously no one wants to be colonized. But everyone wants to be the world hegemon if they could, no?
@ That is a common defense of colonialism. It’s not possible to definitively say otherwise because at that time only Europe had the ability to conquer large parts of the world, with the exception of Japan which arrived relatively late in the game and which was quite deliberately imitating Europe.
For me again it rings hollow. It is the argument of someone looking to defend something they know that is wrong. So instead of actually defending it they just say “Well look, anyone would have done that horrible thing, we just did it first”. Is it true? Impossible to say. But they have evaded reckoning with their (country’s) culpability.
7:13 please, name of the image
“Pyramid of Capitalist System” published in 1911
@EmpireInFocus thank you too, you are the creator!
excellent stuff. liked, subscribed & notifications on.
Amazing video with a high research quality. Thanks a lot!
for the algorithm
this guys got something
Subscribed, anti-imperial messaging now is important as it seems the west wishes to continue indulging in neocolonialism
20:41 maybe the infrastructure is just the natural way they’ve developed. Nothings preventing African governments from building more infrastructure
Well buildinf eailroads through harsh terrain ain't cheap, also Africa ain't known for its wealth to even do it.
Music is a bit too loud in the beginning
Thanks for the constructive criticism
Subscribed 👍🏽
Very informative! Could you make a video about Neo-Imperialism? Is the War in Ukraine a post-colonial war?
Great video!
Okay I was looking for something to break my social democratic minded friends from their imperialism denial. I like this, well done on the video editing through the piece.
Excellent
Great analysis. Music was perfectly chosen and balanced. You are doing vital work. Keep it up, I will be here. Subscriber earned!
I like the stylization of the video, pretty good. But maybe you can show your face a little bit more or don't show it completely.
1. It is wrong to assume it was simply the "bourgeoise" that controlled events in Europe and the world. This view betrays a purely classist, materialist, and marxist view of view of history, which does not take into account differences between European nations, including different values, ideas, and beliefs when it came to colonialism and the reasons for it.
2. The way railroads were built in Africa doesn't mean they did not serve the African population, but rather than because Europeans came first on the coasts, and were most established there that railroads started from that area. The coastline was also the most developed and populous long before Europeans came, as goods were traded by sea from the inner parts of Africa outwards.
3. Telegraph lines were sparser in Africa than in Europe because it was at that time much less developed than Europe was. Even if we were to assume that your logic is 100% correct, then still there is no reason why Europeans would not want well developed telegraph lines or railroads in Africa. However they lived in Europe for much longer and in Africa for only a few decades, so obviously there would be a disparity, especially since the industrial revolution started in the early 1800s and Africa was colonized to a large extent only by the 1880s. Between 1820 and 1885 (Berlin Conference) Europe was being industrailised while Africa was not for the simple reason that there was very little European presence there to begin with.
4. Your idea that capitalists did not want competition so did not develop the colonies is equally false. You forget first of all that the true power in those days was the landowners who are largely aristocratic, not industrialists who you call capitalists, but ignoring this they would only be able to expand their operations in Africa and the world if they developed it, thus your logc becomes very faultry when looking at it from the lense of profit which requires development, and economic advancement of the population from the colonies in order for them to be able to afford to consume the goods produced by those same capitalists.
5. Patents exist to protect intellectual property and inspire innovation, and are by their nature limited, meaning you have a sole right to develop a good for a period of time, after which the patent expires and everybody is able to produce the same good. It doesn't exist because of greed, but rather to make sure those that make the investment of time and money to invent new technologies recoup their investments. If it was about greed then all patents would be for an unlimited amount of time, which they are obviously not.
6. Your statistics on education are equally as flawed for the same reasons outlined above. It also betrays a complete lack of understanding of what colonialism was in practice. How it often worked is that chieftains would pledge their loyalty to a particular European nation, and in return that nation protected their tribe against other tribes or countries. So the governance outside of colonial governors was in the hands of the natives themselves. Therefore Education could only be implemented so far as there is the will of the people themselves to be educated in a western style, (if they don't want education is the argument that Europeans should have forced them?) and that there is the infrastructure to do so, i.e. schools, roads, houses, which were being developed however nowhere near the level of Europe because Africa was first of all a much larger continent, and second of all because Europeans like i said before did not have direct control over colonial subjects, and had much less time to develop their holdings abroad than they did in Europe. There was also the simple problem of numbers. At that time Europe had a much larger population than Africa and so there wasn't enough people in the colonies to allow for infrastructure development at rhe sane rate as in the major centres of Europe. But even so in your video you yourself admit that they had a clear impetus for educating the population through missionary work. Ofcourse you make it out as if this is a special case for colonies when in reality, almost all schools in Europe that time were either owned by the church or heavily influenced by them. Therefore to recap your attempt to blame education inconsistencies in Africa on Europe is flawed on many different levels, one of which being that were colonialism not to have happened almost certainly the rate of education and literacy would have remained much lower than it was at the end of decolonization.
7. Capitalists do not recognize borders as a limiting factor to enterprise they have no inherent national aligence. Thus your argument that them establishing firms in Africa would have prevented European monopoly makes no sense once again, as first of all those colonies were already under European countries so there was no reason to worry about competition, and second of all the firms themselves could and often did establish branches in African colonies, so in this way they are spreading their operations in Africa without worrying about competition.
8. With regards to 17:26 you gave statistics that showed 700 thousand indians employed vs only 7 thouand Europeans. That should tell you all you need to know of whether Europeans kept all the jobs for themselves. As regards to the higher leadership positions themselves, they require above all experience and technical understanding which was higher in Europe due to a longer history with those technologies and a better preparedness for their use. Also the report itself ehich you cite talks about the lacking number of indians in high positions as a problem. Doesn't that by itself debunk your entire theory that Europe were not interested in the advancement of natives? Why would they want to improve the people's ability to gain management postions and experience if they did not want them to do so? It's a self defeating question really because ofcourse it doesn't make sense, and so doesn't your argument.
9. 18:25 You are literally describing what employers did in Europe with regards to other Europeans, and not wanting to spread their trade secrets. However it is not their job to do so anyhow. This is the job of the state, and so presenting an example of why someone who owns a business doesnt want to give all of his secrets away to everyone else as proof of "fear of competition" is correct i guess, although the racial aspect which you try to imply here really falls apart when you take basic logic into account.
10. Finnally I would like to point out that none of this true for the simple reason that colonialism was economically detrimental to Europe. Much more resources were invested into African development than was received by Europe. Very famously Bismarck was very sceptical of German participation in the scramble for Africa precisely because he knew the sole benefit of it would be prestige, while in financial, economic, military, and cultural terms it would be a net loss. Because those investments into Africa and the African population occured despite, not because of any profit that could be made, and there are many statstics which ultimately confirm how much of a net loss colonialism was for Europe, and this is one of the main reasons why it was abandoned after WW2. The moral reasons for uplifting civilization disappeared with the rise of independence movements and the only other argument that could be made, which was the economic one simply reinforced the idea that it is a waste of resources to maintain a European presence abroad, when Europe itself was struggling followijg the destruction wrought by the second world war.
On one hand I really don't want to bother myself with this argument, but on the other some of the things you said are very naive or just deliberately disingenuous.
1. Did such differences impacted the way colonial policy was conducted by different states? All of the european state assumed pretty much the same profit driven approach with no regards to locals or their wellbeing. The only actual difference is that some went farther than others and some were so, so unhinged, it's a crime they're pretty much forgotten nowadays.
2. Of course. But any such benefits are byproducts of exploitation. None of them were built with the idea of improving african infrastructure unless there was so kind of profit to be extracted from it.
4. Also correct. However your understanding of a capitalist market is a bit wack. But to see it you should examine the economic structure of african states in neocolonial period. That is, yes, some developments could be done, even to the benefits of the local population, however the economy itself is structured in a way to serve economical needs of the metropoly. You can argue african states adopt resource based economy out of poverty and lack of development (or rather time to develop), however you can't argue for example France doesn't take advantage of that to fuel it's own economy. I'm mixing colonialism and neocolonialism here, which are somewhat different in their approach, but the overall essence is the same.
5. Weren't patents actually permanent and able to encompass broader categories in 19-20 centuries? Although I don't think patents are really important in this conversation anyway.
10. That is a very retroactive thing to say. Sure, nowadays it's easier to say that overall it wasn't economically profitable. But like, sure, they maybe were more motivated by prestige, when they did it, but they did it. That's the important part. Indians, africans, other indians all suffered under colonial yoke. So what if in retrospection it wasn't economically profitable if they still extracted resources, massacres natives and hampered their natural development? The fucked up borders alone did more damage in the long run than any economic subservience could. Africans have all right to be pissed about colonialism and neocolonialism (which replaced it after WW2, in part thanks to soviet efforts) and no amounts of apologism would change that.
@kindlingking 1. Colonial policy was very diverse between different countries and colonies, and this is reflected even in the modern day, as the Francophone countries in Africa for example are much closer to one another than they are to the Anglophone countries, not just because of language, but because of a different culture and mentality differences that arose during colonial times.
2. Some were built for the simple reason to improve logistics and transport links, and to be able to physically access new lands. Also to transport labor, including native Africans to different sites.
4. I don't deny that Europeans extracted resources from African countries, especially resources that Africans could not extract by themselves. But we are now 70+ years after African countries gained their independence, and yet in many places the only infrastructure that still exists is the infrastructure that Europeans left. Endlessly blaming Europe for the problems of modern African states is convenient for many people, but what is not convenient is them taking responsibility for the state of their own countries, and trying to fix those problems.
5. The first patent was invented in the 15th century and was even then limited for a period of about 10 years. So patents were never unlimited. But you are right, this is not what is really important. What is important is that a oikophobic European blames Europe for all the problems of the former colonies.
10. If it was an African complaining about colonialism I wouldn't write this comment in the first place. Even if I would still disagree with them I would respect their opinion. But the person in this video is a European who makes his living by parroting third worldist talking points while endlessly attacking his own people. This is what ultimately annoys me here more than anything else.
@@arbendit4348west africa supplied a third of all Europe's gold before colonization. Mansa Musa of Mali hecame one of the richest men to ever live through the salt and mineral trading. African were absolutely capable of extraxtung these resources, european technology did progress it significantly, but there were existing systems before.
@majeedmamah7457 I agree
My channel is garbage and somehow I have more subs than you so I’m gonna subscribe off GP
No matter how much anyone might have wanted to, building and establishing enough schools for all the people in Africa was impossible
How do you equate China in these matters? While China definitely does soft economy power plays, it does not actually use the military or IMF to do it, as it has no control of the World Bank like the West does. I am Tibetan from Nepal, and we here have seen lots of benefits in recent years from deals with China. Something we never got from Western loans and deals. How can developing nations create equilibrium with China on trade when China can legitimately claim it does not engage in coercion like west does?
For one China, is a country of the Global South, like many of the former colonies mentioned in this video (although China was never itself a full colony). This means for most of modern history it has been primarily in the role of exploited rather than exploiter, and I would argue that it is still being exploited by the western powers even today. However it is clearly in a process of transition to becoming a great power, albeit a different type of great power. One that as you mention, projects its power primarily through trade relationships rather than military force.
As for your question, I'm not sure I'm in a position to give you a definitive answer right now. But it is a fascinating question. As with any great power, every non-great-power country will have to have their own strategy for coexistence.
@@EmpireInFocus While I would disagree that China is in global south today, they are certainly a special case. While they are imperialist, their projection of power is indeed soft.
The cynic in me thinks that China is just cautious and patient while US empire destroys itself.
This is a great time for exploited nations to collaborate in creating alliances to resist any form of imperialism - current and future.
Manchuria and Taiwan have been full colonies of Japan.
Besides that. Just no. China has been the exploiter in their region far longer than they have been exploited, that is why China is the size it is today. Most of the South especially Yunnan and large parts of the Pearl River delta were not Chinese in any way untill quite recently.
Tibet and Sinkiang are again region that are exploited by China.
And the entire northern flank of China from Inner Mongolia to Manchuria have seen massive Han migration and the death of the local cultures in order to help spread Han influence.
@@EmpireInFocus
Only in Spain and Portugal americas
No
@ yes
@@Bolão_Futurista yes because the colonial rule never ended it just got separated from the metropoli
@ Kind not true, for example in Brazil in the end it became so strong that it start colonized Portugal, so Brazil start colonized Portugal and that's why they separated, the Americas are not weak bc colonization
@Bolão_Futurista yes but the natives are
duh?
Can't blame em, basically every nation at the time mostly had some form of racism for every other race, and nation.
It was just either conquer or be conquered, not like our modern era, where we have knowledge of the diversity of people.
Bet you wouldn't like to be one of the conquered huh 🤡
AI generated vid and comments
What
what are you talking about?
alright gramps time to take your pills
No but it was useful infrastructure nonetheless!
useful to whom exactly
@ are you kidding me with this shit!???
Did you not watch the video?
@@draekalloy3673 asshole I live in SA the infrastructure from the colonial era is still being used today! Yes that’s right mostly black people enjoy hospitals, schools buildings, railroads and roads all still intact from that time! Intergenerational upliftment from this infrastructure directly has happened as a result and is still enjoyed today. You are totally missing my point it does not matter the intention or the supposed intention of the people that built it at the time. The things have brought incalculably large benefits over generations of people living here!
You present this as if we were obliged to teach them anything.
I would like to thank all the racists who are coming into comments, increasing engagement and helping the algorithm spread this video to more people!
@@EmpireInFocus You're welcome buddy. Even though you're just giving hate fuel to the POC of the world, which Russia is influencing and weaponizing for their anti-western cause, not to mention that these beings hate the very pale skin on your body, you your children. And when they rise up they won't ask you which side you are on they'll just look at your skin color and judge by that for you are the White devil no matter what, at that point, your white savior complex won't matter.
A lot of european knowledge itself came from other places.
@@leviathan-r8fthats a very shallow genocidal view. You would be worse than hitler with a view such as that. And are yourself proof that you have been weaponised beyond reason.
@@leviathan-r8fthe people who went out colonising were kicked out of europe after a very bloody war. Which is why america was the new colonising centre. Why do you think they have independance day. A hyper influencial minority do not represent a race. Like isis. They dont represent people of iraq.
you might be jumping the gun a wee bit asking if viewers want early access through patreon