We did not 'invent' the slave trade - we did however become the first country to outlaw it and to use the royal navy to intercept slave ships and free the slaves
@@no-oneinparticular7264in the modern western sense but before that Vikings , the Ottoman Empire and North Africans often took Europeans and people from Western Russia away as slaves. Even St Patric was a Welsh lad turned Irish slave. Before that also Egypt and others.
The first record of slavery goes back over 5000 years, i think in the area of the Middle East and no area of the world has ever been free of slavery before the 1800ad And many slave trades had existed before the Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade, such as the Arab Slave Trade which has been going on for around 1300 years and is still going to this day Not long ago an advert for an African slave was found on FB from one of the Middle Eastern Nations A key side note, I think there was only one nation without slavery before the British Empire banned it, but I believe that was due to the nation being established after a slave revolt took place
Don't think America is blameless when it comes to concentration camps. over 120,000 American Japanese were placed in internment camps during WWII, with over 1,800 being killed in the camps.
Yes this was a very bad knee jerk reaction by the US government born of suspicion and racism. I do wonder though what kind of abuse and violence the Am/Jap population would have faced from people if they had not been internet.
Actually the architect of the Boer war concentration camps said he learned the concept in the USA regarding the treatment of attacks by Native Americans.
The Brits didn't invent African slavery, but we tried our best to wipe it out. Unfortunately it still exists today in Africa in Libya, Mauritania, Mali, Niger, Chad, Sudan, Ghana, Benin, Togo, Benin, Nigeria, Gabon, Cameroon and other African countries. Whenever I hear someone going on about the transatlantic slave trade of 200+ years ago I wonder why they never seem concerned about the slavery that exists today!
@AshantiKid, really? Then why are UNICEF, the Ghanaian government and Free the Slaves charity (among others) advocating against enslavement, forced labour and child trafficking?
@stumccabe wants a cookie for Britain doing the right thing after benefitting from slavery for hundreds of years. And after paying reparations to white slave masters and their descendants until well into the 20th century maybe they'll now look to compensate the descendants of the enslaved people- won't hold my breath for that one!
Not exactly true. The British were honourable enough to only burn down public buildings, including The White House. They only did this after the Americans burned down everything in Toronto. Public and private property and buildings.
Well duh, if they were actual secrets we wouldn’t know about it and there would be no videos on it. Using the word secret to refer to historic events that people find inconvenient and would prefer to forget is quite common in this kind of context.
we were never taught these things in history class at school .we learned these things for ourselves and any body without an enquiring mind probably still does not know most of these things .my siblings and my own children know very little of what the British got up to then and very little about what we get up to now either.
And burning down government buildings makes much more sense than burning down residential buildings. Making the enemy's administration more challenging simply has more impact on a war than a few hundred homeless people.
The British had no intention to divide India. The only reason they had to do so was because the Muslim minority refused to accept having to share a homeland with Hindus, who would be in the majority. Partition was the only way to break this deadlock and the British did it very reluctantly. Also, the only way the British could end slavery was by buying the slaves and freeing them. The US considered the idea, but decided it was too expensive, so fought a horrible civil war instead.
He took 5 weeks to break up a country. It would take a year just to figure out who lives where and make a proper plan. The British did it without care or planning which caused all the deaths.
@@ABanRocks Remember that the borders the British drew up had to be agreed with by the Indian parties involved. Otherwise, they could not have proceeded. Hard to see how the British were responsible for the deaths since they were not there anymore. The British did not ask Hindus and Muslims to murder each other.
@@ABanRocks I really hate it when people assume that Britain was outright evil and / or inept with the partition of India. Time was short because Britain was utterly bleeding money after the Second World War and really couldn't afford to drag the process out. Plus, the ideas for partition had been floating around for 40 years and planning had been going on for years prior to the partition, as had the tensions and killings between the Hindu and Muslim populations. Initially Britain didn't want to partition the country upon independence despite occasional calls for partition from one group or the other. Finally a plan for a unified India was drafted and both groups were agreeing, but eventually the Hindu congress demanded partition and threatened civil war, which resulted in more violence and Britain realising that unification was now impossible. Leaders from the Hindu congress and Muslim League were very active in the partition talks and supported the final drafts, but despite that, rampant religious violence was spreading along the proposed border regions. Additionally there were many other regions, princely states and religious minorities who were given free choice in the partition. The migration, bloodshed and riots had already been happening, and they were sure to continue. There was no way to avoid them, only mitigate them. That's where Britain's only true fault was; While regional British officials wanted to station troops to prevent violence, there was seemingly a breakdown in that intention as it passed up the government chain, resulting in little military presence to negate the violence.
@@kaiishere016 As Christopher Hitchens once stated, "Religion poisons everything!" Basically, you treat everyone who doesn't agree with your belief in your deity - or your version - as inferior and filth and then scream that "We're coming to get you!"
@@ABanRocksConsidering they've been at the brink of war, including nuclear,since independence.i don't think there was anything else the Brits could do.
In the timescale available, I can't see any way India could be partitioned without communal violence. Hindus and Muslims, plus Sikhs and other religious groups, were intermingled but demanding independent sovereignty. No partition would surely have led to civil war with no outside power to intervene to prevent it.
The irony of the attempt to ban slavery was that the Btitish government could not get the Act through Parliament without compensating those who owned slaves!
We hought the freedom of the slaves rather than have a civil war. Ninety-nine per cent of the British taxpayers who were still paying out in 2015 never owned slaves or came from slave-owning famies, or benefitted from slavery. Also, she didn't mention the Barbary slave trade where, for two and a half centuries north African slavers kidnapped between one and two million people from the south-west of England to be enslaved in Motocco and Algeria.
Nope. Urban myth. It was already painted white and some folks in Washington informally called it the White House. It was painted to protect the rather porous stone it was built from from the effects of weather. so it was RE-painted after being burned. The burning was in retaliation for the earlier looting & burning by the invading US troops of pretty much the whole of York (what is now Toronto) - both Govt buildings and private residences. The British Army deliberately ONLY burned Govt buildings in Washington as a pointed reminder that civilised armies do not burn and loot private residences as the US had done in York. The War of 1812 was dumb and opposed by many in the US. Remember the Revolutionary War ended less than 30 years previously. Some loyal to Britain stayed in the US, some moved to Canada. For many in New England, an attack on Canada was attacking family - literally. The Treaty of Ghent that ended the conflict can be paraphrased as "Well, that was stupid. Let's go back to the previous borders and try to forget this ever happened..."
@@WithTwoFlakescorrect but it wasnt officially known as the White House until 1901 when teddy roosevelt was president. So although it was white due to trying to protect the sandstone from weathering, it was known as the presidence palace then the executive mansion because palace sounded to royal.
Agreed. It is a very reliable 'rule of thumb' in British politics that the wealthy never lose out. Even when they are the cause of suffering or injustice. "Reverse Robin Hood" was the 'modus operandi' even during the lockdown. Best Wishes. ☮
Many paid with their lives fighting the slave traders worldwide. We were the first country to abolish it and we fought a military campaign worldwide to erradicate it because of British Christian beliefs.
@@jonathanodude6660 No, you're mistaken. Why would the UK government compensate slave owners in the USA? The UK's "Slave Compensation Act 1837" was purely for slave owners in the British colonies (Caribbean, Mauritius and the Cape of Good Hope [Africa]). As an example, Wikipedia says: _"The largest total amount paid in compensation was to Sir John Gladstone, 1st Baronet, father of prime minister William Gladstone, who was paid £106,769 (...)[4] in compensation for losing his 2,508 slaves used across nine plantations.[5]"_ As I wrote _"It is a very reliable 'rule of thumb' in British politics that the wealthy never lose out. Even when they are the cause of suffering or injustice."_ It is also reasonable to assume UK media, which is largely owned by the wealthy, disseminates propaganda about the wealthy. One example being your ignorance of who owned slaves at the time the UK outlawed slavery, Best Wishes. ☮
@@davex371 I am proud of the UK fighting against slavery, and the UK's Quakers and other Christian groups sustained opposition. I believe _"Many paid with their lives fighting the slave traders worldwide"._ However, AFAICT, it is much more complex. AFAICT, some countries had practically abolished slavery before the UK, but had done nothing about that internationally, ie. outside their borders. It is also important to remember the UK's "Slave Compensation Act 1837" was only for British colonies, and it only paid colonial slave owners. It did not compensate slaves in any way. So slaves were left to fend for themselves by that law. So did slaves simply become employees on the barest minimum wage to their previous owners? Based on the "Slave Compensation Act 1837" payment of £20m to slave owners, and Sir John Gladstone receiving £106,769 in compensation for 2,508 slaves, we can estimate compensation might have been about £40/slave. So that £20m would compensate for freeing more than 500,000 slaves. Where did they all come from? I am suspicious about whether or not the British colonies were 'self sufficient' in slaves. Did the UK's military campaign against transporting slaves allow British colonies to import them while preventing slave trade for other countries? It may have been a campaign against the USA, and European empires. Was it partly motivated by economic power? Interfering with the USA importing slaves might have been partly about forcing the USA to negotiate export prices, eg. raw cotton prices, with the UK. It is not as idealistic as the YT videos, but without counter evidence, an economic motive seems plausible within the overall context. Further, by the 1830's, the UK was heavily industrialising. The UK's population appears to have been sufficient, with little or no advantage in having non-English speaking slaves. I apologise for being contrarian. However, I think there is good evidence it was much more complex than the UK was the _"first country to abolish it and we fought a military campaign worldwide to eradicate it because of British Christian beliefs"._ Best Wishes. ☮
The Bengal famine was caused largely by the fact that Japan was invading India. There were no ships available from any of the allies to move grain. There was plenty of grain in Bengal but the local merchants kept it locked in their warehouses waiting for the price to go up. Only one ship of rice left Indian for Ceylon. There was a book where an Indian author by the name of Mukherjee wrote about this blaming Britain and Churchill in particular. Later Mukherjee withdrew the accusations as wrongly researched. A similar situation was found in the Potato Famine in Ireland. There was ample food in the warehouses of the local businessmen but the Irish population (my ancestors BTW) had no money with which to pay what the Irish merchants were demanding for the food.
@Scaleyback317 The Japanese airforce had a habit of bombing the food storage warehouses. Not only that, the local criminal gangs were stealing the food to sell on the black market.
Also with the Irish famine there was plenty of Beef in Ireland at the time, they were the main supplier for the British army. When the Irish asked for Westminster government help to relieve the effects of the famine Westminster said the 'Irish' should stop selling the Beef to the British army and use that to help their own people first, but the Irish 'elites' decided to not do that and continue making their money whilst the peasantry died of starvation.
People act like most people owned slaves. This is complete nonsense. most people were very poor. It was the elite who perpetrated this sin, not the British public. We paid for it.
@@msp9810 Government, and most people did not vote (have the right to vote) for the government. UK people got a general right to vote in 1947, prior to this you needed to own property (land).
The term "concentration camp" is always associated in people's minds with the Nazi death camps, but that is misleading. A "concentration camp" is simply a place where people are confined in a relatively small area - unpleasant yes, but not necessarily anything like the Nazi camps!
Goering said the British invented concentration camps - to reject British complaints, pre WW2, about the Nazi's extermination camps, which were created to ensure entire communities died. The British did not invent them - the first were in Cuba, operated by the Spanish - then the USA, in the Philippines. This was _before_ the Boer War, where the deaths were due to disease.
Exactly. I think I heard that it wasn't necessarily intentional for the conditions to be poor or cause deaths, it was mismanagement and an underestimating of the needs/amount of supplies required (in the Boer war at least). That doesn't really make it better, I know.
The term concentration camp came about from the name given to them in Cuba by the Spanish government there. They were the first to name and use "Concentration camps". The US noted the idea and decided to do the same when it became useful for them to do so in their actions in the Phillipines -they also called them concentration camp. The British then chose to use the term for their camps in South Africa. So sieges/blockades/moving of populations have been with us since before history was recorded. It was the Spanish who first called their camps Concentration camps.
1812 was busy. Washington ( we didn't burn the pubs by the way ) and other Eastern Seaboard cities were trashed . The US was an ally of France and apart from the French in the Caribbean, we were in the process of removing the French from occupied countries in
Also previously the American army had completed burnt the city of york which was Canada capital city and they burnt every building, the British and Canadians burnt only govt buildings leaving homes and commercial properties like pubs (after all they needed a place to drink) alone
@@B-A-L We don't think about it. It being completely overshadowed by the Napoleonic wars. Just a noice tune with guns and shit... oh wait, that's about kicking the shit out of Napolean too.
@@MrTwiglet Hardly a draw! When the idiot President Madison (who started all the nonsense by declaring war in the first place) heard about Napoleon's final defeat at Waterloo he realised that the full newly freed up might and fury of both the Royal Navy and the British Army was about to descend on his fledgling nation. So he sent out Emissaries to ask for peace. Does that sound like a win or draw for the USA to you? It sure doesn't to me. 🙂
WOW this woman really dislikes the UK to tell such biased versions in this video The Amritsar massacre told here is very misleading. The 50 soldiers consisted of Ghurkas and Baluchi riflemen. (no one from the UK held a rifle at this massacre) These were not semi-automatic weapons either. The soldiers made a mistake and did not block the exit on purpose. When the crowd was told to disperse and they headed for the exit, the soldiers believed the crowd was attacking them so they opened fire. now do the maths. 50 riflemen killed 1500 people (and this does not include the figures for wounded) This means each rifleman killed 30 people. The low figure for this massacre is 379, but she conveniently forgot to mention this. It makes more sense to me that the figure was higher than 379 but certainly not 1500. When I see videos spewing misleading information, I feel a need to "out" such propagandists. I am sure the reader of my comment will be able to make their own njudgement.
She also doesn’t mention that the Brigadier did it off his own back with no orders or authorisation from his superiors. He was also known as being a bit of a sociopath.
yeup. however if you can give the information, or even citations. though not the easiest task. tyler is likely to actually educate himself. which is a testament to actual intelligence. others just railing on him for one asinine thing. all fo them can go back to the spunk mottled flapper, and be replaced by just tyler. cause in spite of everything against him, he is genuine. curious. and none malicious. something i can'T say about the american proper. and if america was just lika tyler. i wouldn't have the contempt i do. why should i? i love the curious and kind.
None of these are great secrets to anyone who has attended school in the UK. The burning of the White House was learned by my older grandsons in Canada and Australia, when they were 11 or 12 years of age. At my schools in England & S Africa, the War of 1812 and the concurrent wars in Europe were given more time for study than the American Revolution.
This is taught in school in a lot of European places i think. Most of it i had in Denmark back in the 80s. So would expect to find it in several countries..
Indeed all of those were taught me at some time and to varying degrees of depth/accuracy over my years in education. The Sarin I only found out about many decades later as a result of my late Father telling us how as a young soldier he had managed to get himself signed up for research into colds and flu at Porton Down - long after this period I believe. The second one was the gent sent to control affairs in Ireland and how he had misused his position to wreak some sort of vengeance on the Irish. We were taught about the potato famine and of course, it was the blight which diseased the potato crop which caused the famine nothing else. This blight was experience across Europe so it was by no means just an "Irish thing". Other areas of Europe contended with the problem with varying success, I believe only in Ireland did it progress to Famine. The reasons are various and the information on the matter in this offering is a variation of highlighting a man who could have maybe influenced matters differently. Did he have the power to enforce the release of grain from the warehouses being hoarded by local Irish businessmen? I don't know if he even tried to suggest it but there was grain to be had - just no poor Irish could afford the prices asked by the Irish businessmen hoarding it. My own ancestry got on ships to Whitehaven in Cumbria on the paternal side and to Bristol on my maternal side.
Churchill did stop shipments of food from Canada to India. What wasn't said in this video was Churchill had shipments of food from Australia to be diverted to India.
The famine was in Bengal, not the whole of India. "Watchmojo", who made the video you watched, is unfortunately a little biased. 1. As stated, the famine they concentrated on was Sep 1943-44. Britain sent many many ships to India to try and help relieve the famine, many were sunk by the Germans on their way to India. 2. The famine was very much exacerbated by Indian officials, as many were involved in the rice trade and black markets. 3. The famine was perpetuated by more Indians, when the local government removed price control on rice, causing the price to rise very quickly. Many Indian businessmen tried to profit off the grain they had in stores, refusing to sell until the price was high enough. 4. The government policy of denying transport to the invading Japanese led to an unfortunate burning/smashing of Bengal's 45,000 small boats and ships, leaving them unable to fish, which was 25% of their diet, and obliterating transport in the rivers and estuaries that produced rice. 5. Under British "rule", India had enjoyed 50 years of rapid growth, with it's population increasing by 35% during 1901-1941. Bengal, however, increased by 43% and relied on rice (70%) and fish (25%) as their main foods sources. 6. A winter drought and bad weather in 1942 meant the winter rice yield was low. Food prices rose too rapidly (see 3. above) and because Indians now got paid in cash, rather than a "paid in kind" system, their wages did not rise as quickly. 7. Japan invaded Burma, and half a million refugees entered Bengal - unfortunately Burma was a major source of rice for Bengal so that was also lost - and around 70% of those refugees were ill with diseases such as dysentary, cholera and smallpox. 8. The British government knew there was a problem reported, but also knew there was surplus held in stores and by the black market. This made them reluctant to lose more than the already hideous amount of ships sunk in the Indian ocean by the Germans. Once it became clear it was turning into a crisis, it was too late. 9. The Bengal ogovernment tried to price fix rice to a low level, to make it aaffordable, whcih made even more of it disappear into storage or the black market. 10. Bengal suffered a few natural disasters as well leading to crop shortage - a cyclone, tidal waves and flooding, and rice crop disease. 11. Churchill had a massive problem - all ships were required for the invasion of Normandy. There were not enough available to divert. 12. Chuchill wrote to Roosevelt asking for the USA to help with supples from Australia. Roosevelt said that they could not justify diverting any shipping. 13. Before the famine, the War Council exported rice from Bengal to Ceylon (Sri Lanka) where much of the allies rubber came from and was of extreme importance to the war effort. COntinuing that, and the subsequent set of events actions and invasions contributed to, but did not cause, the famine 14. Many "peasants" across southern India held back their rice stocks, and did not send them to market, leaving populations of the cities and large towns, and refugees at even higher risk of starvation. 15. Chuchill tried desperately to get rice and wheat imported, but the war was simply against them. 16. The British Indian Army intervened in Oct 1943 and intervened in the pricing and got food moving 17. No one in Bengal declared a state of famine, and there was a bumper crop of rice in December 1943 18. Over half the deaths attributed to the famine occured after the famine had ended, being caused by disease due to malnutrition. All in all, it was much more to do with Germany causing a war, greed for profit, and Japan invading British territores that were previously supplying India with food. Chuchill had little influence over the War Council, who made the decisions on what supplies went where, but many Indians blame him and cry "racist against Indians". "The old idea that the Indian was in any way inferior to the white man must go. We must all be pals together. I want to see a great shining India, of which we can be as proud as we are of a great Canada or a great Australia." - Winston Churchill July 1944
Please listen, Tyler. It was 1919! Dyer ordered his soldiers to fire on unarmed demonstrators *until they ran out of ammunition*. The narrator did not mention that there was a lot of outrage in Britain when news of it eventally reached Britain. Dyer was recalled and court martialled.
Unfortunately, Tyler goes off at wild tangents rather than watching/listening to the video. He seems to lack a certain intelligence and/or ability to "work stuff out" in a satisfactory manner. This makes him very entertaining.
The White House was burnt in 1814, around a year after Americans did the same to York ( now Toronto) in Canada, during the War of 1812, so I guess it was a case of "anything you can do I can do better". 😂
Tyler, it appears, across at least the three channels I follow, your education truly failed you. For that, the rest of the developed world feels a sense of pain. That outside of the US, we know so much of this, Canadian, and world history in general, speaks volumes of the Country wide education problem the USA obviously has.
Very few Americans really understand their own history, unfortunately. The history taught in many schools is very prejudiced and not very factual which allows the belief that America is "the greatest" country and the perception of America being the only "land of the free." If more Americans truly understood the full history of the United States, they would probably be much more reserved and limited in their opinions. The US attempted to invade Canada when it was part of the British Empire, and they set fire to the then Capital city of Canada. They were soundly defeated in Canada and were essentially losing the war of independence when Britain raided into Washington D.C. and as a reprisal for Canada, they set fire to many buildings including the Whitehouse. The war of independence may not have ultimately led to an independent America had it not been for the fact that at the same time Britain was fighting Napoleon in Europe which was a much more significant and important battle, and most of their resources were focused on defeating Napoleon and his Army. America was a bothersome colony that was draining funds and resources, so ultimately it was allowed to leave the Empire under treaty. Most Americans believe their ancestors fought and defeated the British Empire to obtain their independence and freedom, but that is not accurate or factual. Few Americans today really understand the genocide of the indigenous inhabitants who occupied this land before White settlers broke treaty after treaty, murdered hundreds of thousands, and even paid scalp hunters for literal scalps or ears of their victims. America stole Texas and California in a war they created and concocted, just as they stole Hawaii and the Philippines. Many don't really understand the Japanese internment during WW-II or why only the Japanese were interred but not the Germans or Italians living in the U.S.? Few countries in the world are free and clear of blame and some horrible decisions in the past, but America does seem to still want to sweep many of these decisions under the rug and few Americans really understand their full and true history.
The War of 1812 had nothing to do with the Independence War. The US had been a sovereign country for nearly 40 years by 1812. The US did defeat Britain to win independence and, because the British had been defeated, they signed the Treaty of Paris that acknowledged that the US was an independent nation. The War of 1812 cme about because the US tried to annex British colonies in what is today Canada. Texas separated from Mexico and became an independent country before applying for US statehood. Hawaii was overtaken by white businessmen who created the Republic of Hawaii, later the Republica of Hawaii was annexed by the US. The Philippines and Puerto Rico were ceded to the US after the US won the Spanish American War. The US and the Philippines spent over 40 years negotiating independence which came to halt with WWII and finally granted the Philippines independence after WWII concluded. The US and the Philippines have a good diplomatic relationship due to US troops fighting the Japanese in the Philippines and freeing the Philippines from Japanese control. The US had German and Italian internment camps in the US during WWII. Thousands of German and Italian born US citizens were rounded up and placed in internment camps. Thousands more people of German and Italian descent with under curfews and surveillance during WWII. The mistreatment of the indigenous people of the Americas happened in every country in the Americas not just the US, Every country in the Americas was founded by European settlers conquering the indigenous people, taking their land, killing them, and forcing the survivors to move not just the US. That happened all over the world. Japan, Taiwan, Thailand, and Australia are just a few countries that were founded in the same manner as the US with one group of people invading, taking the land from the indigenous people, and forcing the surviving indigenous people to move. China and Russia are such big countries today because they invaded their neighbors and subjugated them.
The partitioning of India wasn't really Britain's fault. That was a fight between different religions that started off again after Britain left. Britain had kept it under control whilst it was part of Empire.
My Grandad was a dispatch rider during the war. We didn’t know as much about post traumatic stress disorder. And he didn’t like telling stories about his service out there. For all the time I knew him, most nights he would wake up in a state of disorientation, one that too often seemed like he’d be reliving the horrific things he had endured, even though not involved directly in any conflict. The idea of a British Empire is absurd, looked from today’s perspective. But I do believe that for a period of time before the Second World War “British rule” wasn’t seen in the majority of the population to be a negative, more one of trade and increased prosperity. But the conflicts didn’t just happen only after the British left, it was a thing for some time as I understand it.
Tyler dear, please learn some basics about the extent of the British Empire. There is a lot of controversity about how culpable Churchill was in the Bengal famine.
The British were not responsible for the Bengal Famine in fact British policies had virtually brought an end to the once regular famines in India. What made it worse was Indian speculators hoarding - not Churchill who was busy fighting for Britain's survival against Hitler at the time.
Britain was busy fighting Nazis! We were on rations at the time. Churchill sent letters to Canada and USA asking them to help Bangladesh with no response.
You learn little about the war if 1812 as the usa lost And early in the war the then capital city of what was to become Canada was the city of york which was burned to the ground by us troops, they destroyed evey home in york Later on the british burnt just govt buildings and not the homes unlike in york were there was no building homes or govt left untouched In fact the us president was just about to eat dinner when he was evacuated and royal marine officers sat down and ate the president dinner Most if the other stories had some truth to them but are missing out on many facts The amritsar massacre was later repeated by the indian govt acting against protesting shiks at the golden temple
Mojo videos tend to be a moron's guide to, in this case, serious topics. My advice would be to look into actual, factual documentaries on each of the Top 10 to get the whole story on each.
The American education system is so underfunded and the teachers are so undervalued. Tax dollars in America fund the US military and nothing else to benefit American citizens. Also most Americans are generally willfully ignorant and have zero social awareness of their surroundings as they never leave their bubble. I had an American ask me in Malaga he'd come off a cruise ship when the fireworks start.I asked him why it's the 4th of July . I asked him why the Spanish would celebrate American independence day . He looked bemused and walked away. Ignorance on another level absolutely clueless.
I'm American and I know most of the list. I was watching and thinking dude just hush and play the video. But I think he is intentionally trying to fit the dumb American stereotype to appeal to his European viewers. The same way the European RUclips reactors do the "I love everything American" bit so that it engages the American audience.
@@msp9810 • I'm British and I think you're absolutely right about this man. He's beyond irritating, and NEVER reads the comments on his videos. His facial contortions mean I cannot watch him, I just listen...and that's painful enough.
@levi5595 bose made very little difference to British rule. The main reason for Britain leaving India was economic. India was no longer profitable and Britain couldn't afford a war after WW2.
None of these compare to the atrocities enacted by others. The difference is we own the mistakes of the past and make things better if we can. The commonwealth is one means by which this happens. None of these were secret.
The reason for the Slave compensation act was that due to British law, Slavery could not be ended without violating owners rights to private property, which would have given dangerous cause to violate any aspect of private property in the British land as a matter of law The compromise was the mandatory purchase and release of all slaves in British territory in order to preserve the legal protection of private property for all citizens of the British Empire If this had not been done, then the British would have even less rights of protection from the government than they do even today as there would be a legal precedence in British law The overall thing is unpleasant, but the alternative is worse. No one wants to live knowing that all their property could be seized by the ruling government at the snap of fingers with nothing given in return
Slavery was outlawed in Britain in 1086, I believe what you are referring to is Colonial law, which was largely to blame for plantation owners being permitted, by the colony governor, to own and keep slaves. No slaves were permitted in the British Isles, as is evident from several major court cases in the 18th and 19th centuries, where slave owners were prosecuted for bringing slaves to Britain, and their slaves were set free.
@wolfen210959 slavery wasn't outlawed back then Shortly after the arrival of William the Bastard, now known as William the Conquer. He needed money, so he made it so that "No man may sell another man outside of the land of England under penalty of a fine paid to me" (the king) What this means is that slavery was not made illegal, but the sale of slaves outside of the country was now illegal It wasn't until the 1800s where it's was determined "that the air of England was too pure for any slave to breathe" This means that from that point onwards, any slave that stepped on english soil was legally no longer a slave and was now a free individual. This is the first time slavery became illegal in the British Isles
The slave item is double sided when you realise slavery world wide not just the African slave trade was a normal part of business until Britain tried all it could to end it . The compensation was just one part of drawing the line.
@lynette. Also the first slaves sent to the Americas were poor white women, sold to men so they would marry them and have a servant they didn't have to pay. Just like the Republican "MAGAs" want to do again.
That was a disgusting and willful misrepresentation of the why the British accrued a large debt due to slavery. This debt was for British Navy, ships and crew who many of them lost their lives policing the high seas. Also yes some slavers were paid off to get the slaves released. It is the same as paying a ransom to get hostages freed. No one who does that gets accused of collaboration with the kidnappers and are deemed bad people. God forbid she ever gets kidnapped and someone reminds her loved ones that no deals will be done to get her released and definitely no ransom will be paid, it is what she would have wanted so tough luck love.
In the seige of Paris by the German Federation in 1870 the animals in the Paris Zoo were slaughtered AND butchered for food - including two elephants named Castor and Pollux. Sometimes you just gotta do what you gotta do! Boers or Trekboers were descendants of Dutch colonists in South Africa. Two wars were fought against them, 1880-81 and 1889-1902. Winston Churchill, then a War Correspondent, was captured by the Boers in the second conflict and famously escaped from a POW camp and returned to British lines.
Thank you for acknowledging that it’s not modern day Britain. A lot of people blame modern day brits for things that happened hundreds of years ago when none of us were alive.
With this many comments you'll probably never see mine, but I wanted to say this anyway. The "compensation" paid to slave owners was actually each non free person receiving money to buy their freedom, forever more. It was money well spent and most Brits of today are glad and proud we did it. Yes it should have been that a tyrannical government say to its people Oi! No more slaves! And then just given that money to the freed. However we didn't have a tyrannical government so just like when the UK abolished easy gun ownership, they paid for every gun released from the custodian. What matters is that enslaved people were now free to live their lives and make their own decisions. ( yes I know it was still during much constraint, but it was a massive improvement)
As i recall Churchill did not hate India, i believe the quote used was taken out of context to make him look worse that he was for a purpose Sad to say but its a common thing that is used against iconic figures of history where comment, orders and speeches are taken out of context to make someone look either better or worse than they were Some people claim that Churchill was a believer of ethnic supremacy. The reality is that he was not, he just saw how certain cultures/ethnicities had a predisposition to a specific role in societies. Military, Diplomatic, Construction etc For example he had enormous respect for the Sikhs
India was asked to form its own proposed Constitution before WW2, which was a requirement for Independence. Louis Mountbatten was the British negotiator with the leading Politicians in India. Mountbatten argued very strongly against Partition and tried to take it off the Agenda, but the Muslims, particularly, wanted their own State. They wanted to call it Pakistan and for India to be called Hindustan (if I remember correctly). The Politicians of India absolutely refused this idea. The Muslims also refused to give an inch about having their separate State. It was deadlock. Eventually, after intense discussions and seeing no other way forward between the two Indian parties, Mountbatten agreed to their demands .
Not work camps or death camps or any of 1940's stuff. The British were being outfought by a smaller mobile force, but there was a problem, instead of imprisoning the captured Boers they would release them on parole (with a pink slip of paper, to show the contract) on the promise they would just return to their farms and not take up arms again. That worked as well as you might expect. The Boers collected these pink slips like badges of honour. I recall reading it was not uncommon for a Boer to be captured, or a body searched and 15 or even 20 slips found. So the response was to intern them with their families (Just like the US did with Japanese families during WW2). Thus removing many fighters from circulation AND undermining their supply and support from the farms. The problem was, those in charge turned out to have an evil streak and in no time at all the conditions in the camps were horrific. Eventually Journalists got wind of this and reported it back in Britain. Because we are mostly a just and honourable people, this caused a national scandal, it was hugely embarrassing for the British and as you might expect, things changed. But of course the damage was done and today, haters just love bringing it up trying to put us in the same category as some Germans in the 1940's
@@george-ev1dq They treated them worse... of course! if you're not a troll and genuinely interested, why not read a few books on the Boer war. Not only will you learn something, they are interesting! You could do worse than reading The Great Boer War, by Arthur Conan Doyle... I know he was British but was brutally honest with the facts, perhaps less so with his reasoning and justifications. To find out, you'll just have to read it. Hope you enjoy it!
Yes. We are taught this at school or DID when I was in school but I'm in my 50's now. I lived in upstate NY for over a year in mid 1980's and went to high school. I must admit our english/history teacher asked me to address the class a number of times with topics he had found but not learnt or taught Ref uk. I enjoyed it teaching the class lots or UK swear words & cockney rhyming slang as I am a londoner now living in scotland. It was funny watching many fellow students cussing out teachers and teachers laughing cause they had no idea what was being said. Scott
@@wessexdruid7598 🤣!! (He did 'learn' about it on his Canadian channel but I guess the trauma of learning they lost made the info. too hard to retain.)
Tyler, Do be aware that this video you are reacting to is giving very little information about before and after these events, many of these events sparked outrage one way or another Any event in history needs three things to be understood the Cause, the event, the post reaction Many only focus on the middle and then lash out, but when you see the whole thing, then a number of events change the overall perspective for better or worse Example: A man killed two other men - Result, the man was wrong Two men attacked a child and were then killed by another man who arrived to help the child - Result, The two men were wrong but the single man may have been a tad heavy handed with his response Context is everything in how to judge something with accuracy. Something that many people with an agenda to push onto others really hate since it destroys their narrative
The Amritsar Massacre. The man that ordered the massacre, Michael O'Dwyer, was killed by Udham Singh, an Indian freedom fighter. His story is really interesting and very sad. Udham was eventually hung by the British for the killing of Michael O'Dwyer.
We Brits didn't invent the concentration camp ,as said in the documentary,but many people keep being told time and time again that we invented the camps.When the Hyksos invaded and took over ancient Egypt,at their major city,Avaris,they kept Egyptians in concentration camp-like conditions.Men, women and children were tied up and starved to death.Torture was also performed on then. Tyler we Brits ruled India in the time of the "Raj'.
In 1807 Britain was the first country to abolish the actual trade in slaves. It then used its Royal Navy to enforce the ban, not just on British ships but on those of other countries. Slavery itself was abolished in 1833 in Britain and its Empire but the Bill only got through Parliament because the Government had agreed to pay "compensation" to the slave owners BEFORE it was introduced and NOT after as the Narrator suggests. It really was quite simple: without the "compensation" slavery in the Empire would have continued (actual slavery in Britain had been made illegal some time prior) . What would you have done? At least in Britain slavery WAS abolished, and 32 years before it was in the USA. And we didn't have to fight a bloody Civil War with some 700,000 deaths (recent estimate) to get it done. That was 0.022% of the then USA population at the time of 31,443,000 and equates to about 7,600,000 if applied to the current population of 342,000,000. Imagine that, 7,600,000 having to die now in a ruinous Civil War in order to eradicate slavery! 🤔
Slavery in Britain was abolished in 1086, first by William the Bastard, better known as William the Conqueror, by simply charging a fee, payable to him, for every slave that was sold, then later confirmed by the church in the 1200s. Within a generation, slavery had disappeared. The law that was passed in 1807 simply endorsed the current law, and included the abolishment of slavery in the colonies, which, up to that point, had been at the discretion of the colony governor.
You've got to remember. It's a nation which actually had the biggest rule over the biggest land mass in history. So its a very intelligent move for Americans to learn the history of the uk. But when your a militarily man. The number one thing in life is to be a humanitarian. We have such dark moments, which should not be forgotten. So there has been a thing called 'English man's guilt'. Introspection involves your brain, heart and conscience which creates the most open minded decent folk. But I do know there's quite a few in introspection, when it comes to being from the colonizers of these places in the world whose history is the equivalent of a long weekend. No disrespect. These guys go out and show with humility that everyone accepts everyone else that inhabits our small globe. With care for eachothers mother's, women and children as much as your own. Dangerous dark times though arent they? If youve took note. Bless
The Amritsar Massacre is not a secret and was not one at the time. Some people treated Dwyer as a hero, but the British government at the time condemned his action. Churchill, who was minister of war, said it was "a monstrous event". Dwyer lost his acting rank of brigadier and was not employed by the army again, though Churchill and others thought he should have been treated more severely. Britain's involvement in the slave trade is certainly not a secret. The compensation to slave owners was not because they "threw a tantrum". It was because though the House of Commons had a majority for abolition (and had had for decades) the House of Lords did not. Simply put the Lords were split in three groups. Those for slavery, those against. and some who were against the confiscation of "property" without compensation. To get that group to vote for abolition the government agreed to pay compensation to the slave owners. The alternatives would have delayed the abolition of slavery. The concentration camps during the Boer war were not for forced labour or deliberately killing people. The Boer families were supporting those fighting the British. The camps were to concentrate them so they could be stopped from aiding the fighters, The deaths were due to incompetence.
Dont worry Taylor if you dont know.. Rest assured that all danish kids was taught this when i was i school in the early 80s. And i dint know what you're looking at but we are talking about the white house when it comes to the 1812 fire.. Im sure youtube will have a doc about it.
The video is talking about the second Boer WAR and Tyler asks "was this some sort of military conflict?" Boer WAR. WAR. Sorry Tyler I couldn't not mention it!
@@osmacar5331 He cynically makes money by ripping off other people's content and not attributing it, while manipulating those who pay his bills. But you call that 'work'. Perhaps that says more about you?
RE: Slave Trade ... Slavery was abolished in Britain 100s of years before the slavery abolition act that effected the whole British Empire. Any slave entering Britain (mainly England) was automatically considered free (usually in the form of Serfdom) since the 12th century. Portugal was also the instigator of the transatlantic slave trade, and Britain used it's navy to blockade enforce the end of the slave trade counter common practices in all other countries at that time. Slaves were predominantly bought from African slavers not captured directly so i can somewhat understand why no reparations were made to the slaves and they were made to the transport owners to ensure their cooperation in a practice that financially benefited all involved (except the slaves). The worst slavers by far are the Arab nations when looking at history, but usually there is little mention of these atrocities as they did not build a multicultural society after the end of slavery as many western countries did. ... ... ... Everything in this video is bad, with history though the context of the time and alliances should be factored in. Concentrations camps were never a good idea, but they are the result of military minds being put in places of authority overseas, direct control of the population and fear to those outside of direct control.
No, this is a lie. Trevelyan did not stop relief in Ireland - he gave orders that on no account must anyone be simply allowed to die. The number killed at Amritsar was 379, not 1500 - and it was the right thing to do, as it preserved the British Empire in India. The 1943 famine in Bengal was DURING WORLD WAR 2 - Britain had a lot on its plate. Churchill did NOT state his hatred of India. The Mau Mau were a thuggish communist terrorist group. The slave trade was African culture, sorry.
You're right on all counts but this particular offering by whomsoever it was offered does not seem to have any such considerations for accuracy. Ten dark secrets (most of which aren't so dark and aren't really secret and have extenutating circumstances) is not exactly catchy, compelling, lucrative or even faintly accurate. The nonsense of food being sent for British troops from India is complete fabrication. Other famines during WW2 Blockade of Germany (1939-1945) Dutch famine of 1944-1945 Holodomor Greek Famine and blockade Chinese famine of 1942-1943 Vietnamese famine of 1944-1945 Indynats will have you believe there's was the only famine (and as can be shown there was no great need for the famine as rice was available it's just that Indian businessmen were hoarding it in wharehouses hoping to drive the profit on it upwards! Ships were found to bring food in from Ceylon in fairly small amounts but only one ship left India with rice on it in that period. The US refused to free any of its ships to transport anything other than troops and munitions for allied fighting purposes in Asia.
8:30 We don't talk about Dartmoor (basically our Area 51, but known more for chemical weapons testing) in general, it's just one of those places that acts with impunity. 1812 is just one of so many wars we fought it's rarely mentioned, especially since it was a stalemate in the middle of the Napoleonic wars.
Just because you abolished it and paid white slave owners for their lost thus increasing the wealth gap for those people and the ones that were enslaved doesn't absolved or erase the fact that Britain started the great slave trade. I see where white Americans (Europeans) get their denial and audacity from.
@@paulharrison8152that may be...but britain took over as the #1 slaving nation between 1640 and 1807, taking approximately 3.7 million enslaved humans out of Africa to Britain's slave islands in the carribbean and the america.
This video inexplicably omits mention of the Opium Wars, which the British Empire, sometimes acting alone and sometimes in collaboration with the French, perpetrated against Qing China in the 19th Century.
Number 1, the slavery compensation, wasn't particulalry dark if understood in context. Britain was the first country to abolish slavery due to Britain being a Christian nation. Britain then went on to impose this globaly and spent huge amounts of money and military lives to erradicate slavery as best they could. They even bought slaves just to set them free. At one point the Royal Navy was a third former slaves freed by the British who voluntered, were paid a salary, and joined the fight against slavers. The compensation was political without it the African nations would have rebelled and fought alongside the slvers against Britain. These countries had been heavily involved in the Islamic slave trade by selling their own citizens for 1400 years prior to any European countries including Britain being involved, and then the 300 years afterward when the Europeans were involved and the Islamic countries continued to be involved until Britain ended it for all of them. Many African slavers were very rich and powerful beacuse of the slave trade, and, consequently, were strongly opposed to Britain and their efforts to end slavery worldwide. So the compensation payout was a pragmatic alternative without which Britain would have had to fight these African states as well as the other pro-slavery nations.
I did History, and went on to a Degree when I left High School - on History. I am appalled when Americans have no idea about even their own history! He should read up on the Wounded Knee Massacre, Sand Creek, and many, many more atrocities visited upon the indigenous population of what became the USA.
And not just the White House, Thomas Jeffersons House in Montecello was also burnt down in Virginia, I know that as a fact because I have seen the Burn Marks when on a tour of that Property.
The sad thing of all of this is the sheer lack of historical knowledge in general.So much world history is so heavily intertwined by events that still influence todays' happenings.By being so insular the US & its citizens have tended to blunder about in the world stage without fully understanding the nuances & fragility that are in play today that have their origins rooted a long way back in time. The Middle East is a mess due to the outcome of WW1, India,Pakistan & Bangladesh have rumbled on abrasively due to how their independence was created after WW2. Many African nations suffer the same dramas after being left by or kicking out their former colonial masters. History matters,the more you know the more you gain understanding.Ignore history & you always repeat the mistakes.
2:00 - NGL, they don't teach it to us either in UK high school history class (at least not mine). Your videos always teach me or show something new about the Country I live in (UK)
India was part of the British Empire until after WWII. Britain, through the the East India Company, a trading company, essentially ruled India from the Early 18th century.
Saw a video from Britian about where some of our common saying come from like ' one for the road ' or " on the wagon " pretty dark origins . Mind blowing !!
Tyler R:- on your channel that focuses on Canada, you watched a video on the War of 1812 which featured the burning of the White House. Acting surprised deserves an Academy Award.
I honestly think he takes nothing from any of these videos, he offers no interaction with his followers at all, and he is just in it to earn money from us with no real interest in actually learning. He saw that these sort of reaction channels were the easiest way to make a buck on youtube and here we are. The fact he has another channel doing the same thing (which I did not know untl you mentioned it so thanks) only reinforces my opinion on this matter. I watch some great reactors on here and they apply knowledge learned in previous videos to the current video they are viewing demonstrating they have retained knowledge from it, Tyler has never done anything like this beyond one or two lines here and there but it's always surface level nonsense like "yeah you DO like your tea"
@@Lazmanarus He's never posted a comment - or even recommended a post. He is repeatedly surprised by facts in videos that repeat things from videos he's reacted to, sometimes within just a few days.
I have to say I enjoyed this video. Having gone through British schools I didn't know everything reported and gained a little more from the things I did.
if i had i could talk to him directly, i would arbitrate and mediate, help him get the real information. he's... how do i say this, adorable. he has his shortcomings. but he's endeering and curious, and it must be nurtured, and he needs to be prepared for a fair few things, particularly the sodding internet. but americans, not tyler, love ruining good things, and our sodding inventions too.
The first nation to use what was the modern concentration camps were the Spanish used in Cuba. Shortly after that the US used the same method in the Phillipines. Shortly after this Britain used them in SA.
OMG That Was Brilliant... Also You Can Totally Tell That This Was Your First Time Evever Reaction To This Video And That Makes It All The More Disturbing... Which Makes Me Feel So Much Better About What We Did To...... The NATIVE AMERICANS, The COLOURED FOLK, The HAIWAIINS, The PHILAPINOS, and also Everything We Did In VIETNAM Including AGENT ORANGE. Thank God For You.........
The Boers (Dutch for farmers): South Africans of Dutch, German, or Huguenot descent. The Wars were over land and the farmers didn't want the areas united into one. The British did.
OMG. Tyler just got in over his head again 😳. I'm in my 30s and from rural Ireland and I was thought about the burning of the White House when I was fifteen. I really am flabbergasted at the lack of education in the USA.
I said this already on here but I will say it again: we Canadians are truly shocked when we hear Americans say they have no idea what the war of 1812 is (and we hear it A LOT).. considering THEY fought in it. I share in your flabbergasted-ness!
Just to add one more dark secret of my country. When I was just leaving school I was left homeless and starved to almost 7 stone or around 100 pounds and asked for help getting a council flat and drug dealers invaded and turned it into a drug den where even a school girl got graped right in front of me and suffering with aspergers I got sent to jail in a miscarriage of justice and still to this day never given any apology or compensation and put in an even worse mouldy place now and the only difference is that i can defend myself as an adult now. This country has done nothing but hurt me.
You should check out the activities of Oliver Cromwell in Ireland. He went around kicking Catholic landowners off their property and installing his cronies in their place. This led to lasting resentments and sectarian violence which even now could potentially kick off again.
Quite a few of us are quite enlightened when it comes to our history. A thousand years and of course more. Pretty good that we and others from other nations learn from history's mistakes. Feels like pissin in the wind. History is amazing. Like alot in the UK and im pretty sure in the US. Would defend against that maybe it was Russia that won the second world war. If you want to look at the subject of what nation sacrificed the most in that war. Just a suggestion. Check out Phil Campion ISIS documentary when you have time. Bless
The whole video is a hit job on Britain taking a slanted view on most if not all of the events for click bait type purposes or worse. E.g. the Mau mau rebellion settled a legal action largely because the settlement was roughly the same as defending the action. My thought is we should have defended it against them not least as they employed cannibalism in their activities and giving even few grand to such people is wrong
You could almost rename this video to "Why Britain is responsible for more independence days than every other country in the world combined". I was however surprised to see one event not included, and that was during WW2 when the Royal Navy fired upon and sank the French fleet at Mers el Kebir. That one's worth reading up on.
8:20 Concerning what is and isn’t taught in British schools: 1: I think the war of 1812 is only taught by some schools (or individual classes) who choose the option of including American history in the curriculum. I didn’t learn about it in school, but I was later told it was Canadian troops who sailed up the river and set fire to the city. I was also told that they had to whitewash the President’s residence afterwards to hide the damage, and that’s why it’s now called The White House. 2: I wasn’t taught about the Sarin experiments in school because I’m so old that the official secrets act was still enforced for it at the time. 3: I think everybody is taught about the potato famine. It’s a dark but important part of UK history. It was a lot more than one person doing bad things, though, the overall goal was to prioritise English landowners in Ireland and make sure exports of grain weren’t disrupted. Actually helping the starving people was always a secondary consideration. 4: I didn’t hear about the pets, but I did hear that a lot of zoo animals were put down because of fears of them escaping if the zoo was bombed. 5: This isn’t taught in schools as far as I know. I didn’t know about, but it definitely sounds like something the British in India would’ve done. 6: The Boer War is taught in schools, and concentration camps are mentioned, but it’s glossed over how bad they were. 7 & 8: British rule of India is taught, but not in enough depth. “Britain conquered India. Then we did some bad things. Then they became independent.” 9: Not taught in schools as far as I know, but a well known part of 20th century history. 10: Britain basically “bought” all of the slaves off of British slave owners. No matter how little they paid, they paid too much.
The British gov't also gave the freedmen the choice of where they wanted to live, to be repatriated to the coast of Africa or the Caribbean, they actually bought some land in Africa & called it Freetown.
![BLACK BAG - Official Trailer [HD] - Only in Theaters March 14](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Du0Xp8WX_7I/mqdefault.jpg)
We did not 'invent' the slave trade - we did however become the first country to outlaw it and to use the royal navy to intercept slave ships and free the slaves
The first slave master was an African Chief who sold his own people to the Portugese.
@@no-oneinparticular7264in the modern western sense but before that Vikings , the Ottoman Empire and North Africans often took Europeans and people from Western Russia away as slaves. Even St Patric was a Welsh lad turned Irish slave. Before that also Egypt and others.
The first record of slavery goes back over 5000 years, i think in the area of the Middle East and no area of the world has ever been free of slavery before the 1800ad
And many slave trades had existed before the Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade, such as the Arab Slave Trade which has been going on for around 1300 years and is still going to this day
Not long ago an advert for an African slave was found on FB from one of the Middle Eastern Nations
A key side note, I think there was only one nation without slavery before the British Empire banned it, but I believe that was due to the nation being established after a slave revolt took place
Haven't any of you even heard of Moses?
@@no-oneinparticular7264 Slavery has existed since the dawn on Mankind.
Don't think America is blameless when it comes to concentration camps. over 120,000 American Japanese were placed in internment camps during WWII, with over 1,800 being killed in the camps.
Yes this was a very bad knee jerk reaction by the US government born of suspicion and racism. I do wonder though what kind of abuse and violence the Am/Jap population would have faced from people if they had not been internet.
Exactly, concentration camps implies harsh work. Internment camps were just to protect America from potential spies.
Actually the architect of the Boer war concentration camps said he learned the concept in the USA regarding the treatment of attacks by Native Americans.
Let's not forget all the medical testing the USA did on black people.
Concentration camps brings to mind death camps, which obviously they weren’t.
Watch the video about Bamber Bridge where the English people and soldiers fought alongside black American soldiers against the American army
Similar things happened pretty much anywhere black US troops were stationed. Even in the centre of Bristol.
The Brits didn't invent African slavery, but we tried our best to wipe it out. Unfortunately it still exists today in Africa in Libya, Mauritania, Mali, Niger, Chad, Sudan, Ghana, Benin, Togo, Benin, Nigeria, Gabon, Cameroon and other African countries. Whenever I hear someone going on about the transatlantic slave trade of 200+ years ago I wonder why they never seem concerned about the slavery that exists today!
What are you on about.. Slavery is illegal in these countries. Murder is illegal yet you still have murders. Slavery even happens in the UK.
There aint no slavery in Ghana bro are you mad ???
@AshantiKid, really? Then why are UNICEF, the Ghanaian government and Free the Slaves charity (among others) advocating against enslavement, forced labour and child trafficking?
@stumccabe wants a cookie for Britain doing the right thing after benefitting from slavery for hundreds of years. And after paying reparations to white slave masters and their descendants until well into the 20th century maybe they'll now look to compensate the descendants of the enslaved people- won't hold my breath for that one!
People trafficking and forced/coerced labour exists everywhere today, including in the UK. Making something illegal doesn't actually get rid of it.
THEY DIDN'T TELL YOU THAT THE BRITISH burnt the public buildings in Washington in revenge because your army had done the same in Toronto in 1813.
Not exactly true. The British were honourable enough to only burn down public buildings, including The White House. They only did this after the Americans burned down everything in Toronto. Public and private property and buildings.
None of these events are secret. You can find facts about them in the history books.
Yes. But this whippersnapper is relaying the history to an audience not well taught. I appreciate the work here.😊
Well duh, if they were actual secrets we wouldn’t know about it and there would be no videos on it.
Using the word secret to refer to historic events that people find inconvenient and would prefer to forget is quite common in this kind of context.
Hey watch it pal.. Stop scaring the American with the word book, learning and reading... 😅
we were never taught these things in history class at school .we learned these things for ourselves and any body without an enquiring mind probably still does not know most of these things .my siblings and my own children know very little of what the British got up to then and very little about what we get up to now either.
Should have been called Britain's shameful history
Dont think its mention anywhere really except in Canada, remember the US declared the war and invaded, or tried to, invade Canada
And burning down government buildings makes much more sense than burning down residential buildings. Making the enemy's administration more challenging simply has more impact on a war than a few hundred homeless people.
The British had no intention to divide India. The only reason they had to do so was because the Muslim minority refused to accept having to share a homeland with Hindus, who would be in the majority. Partition was the only way to break this deadlock and the British did it very reluctantly. Also, the only way the British could end slavery was by buying the slaves and freeing them. The US considered the idea, but decided it was too expensive, so fought a horrible civil war instead.
He took 5 weeks to break up a country. It would take a year just to figure out who lives where and make a proper plan. The British did it without care or planning which caused all the deaths.
@@ABanRocks Remember that the borders the British drew up had to be agreed with by the Indian parties involved. Otherwise, they could not have proceeded. Hard to see how the British were responsible for the deaths since they were not there anymore. The British did not ask Hindus and Muslims to murder each other.
@@ABanRocks I really hate it when people assume that Britain was outright evil and / or inept with the partition of India.
Time was short because Britain was utterly bleeding money after the Second World War and really couldn't afford to drag the process out. Plus, the ideas for partition had been floating around for 40 years and planning had been going on for years prior to the partition, as had the tensions and killings between the Hindu and Muslim populations. Initially Britain didn't want to partition the country upon independence despite occasional calls for partition from one group or the other. Finally a plan for a unified India was drafted and both groups were agreeing, but eventually the Hindu congress demanded partition and threatened civil war, which resulted in more violence and Britain realising that unification was now impossible. Leaders from the Hindu congress and Muslim League were very active in the partition talks and supported the final drafts, but despite that, rampant religious violence was spreading along the proposed border regions. Additionally there were many other regions, princely states and religious minorities who were given free choice in the partition.
The migration, bloodshed and riots had already been happening, and they were sure to continue. There was no way to avoid them, only mitigate them. That's where Britain's only true fault was; While regional British officials wanted to station troops to prevent violence, there was seemingly a breakdown in that intention as it passed up the government chain, resulting in little military presence to negate the violence.
@@kaiishere016 As Christopher Hitchens once stated, "Religion poisons everything!" Basically, you treat everyone who doesn't agree with your belief in your deity - or your version - as inferior and filth and then scream that "We're coming to get you!"
@@ABanRocksConsidering they've been at the brink of war, including nuclear,since independence.i don't think there was anything else the Brits could do.
Britain also held Detroit for 5 years after the peace to make sure the Americans didn't revive their plans to enter Canada.
Not to make a cooler car than England then ? 😅
We very sensibly gave it back 😆
Nah, just kidding, I've friends over there and love the place. Well my dancing feet love it - Motown, Techno, etc...
Well im glad we gave that back, could you imagine robocop with a british accent? "Your move miscreant"
@@blackcountryme perished or alive squire, you're accompanying me.. 😅
Some people killed their pets. My Gran didn't. In fact, she joined a group of volunteers who rescued pets from bombed buildings.
That's amazing.
Bless their soul ❤
In the timescale available, I can't see any way India could be partitioned without communal violence. Hindus and Muslims, plus Sikhs and other religious groups, were intermingled but demanding independent sovereignty. No partition would surely have led to civil war with no outside power to intervene to prevent it.
The irony of the attempt to ban slavery was that the Btitish government could not get the Act through Parliament without compensating those who owned slaves!
What do they teach you , there is a world out there
We hought the freedom of the slaves rather than have a civil war. Ninety-nine per cent of the British taxpayers who were still paying out in 2015 never owned slaves or came from slave-owning famies, or benefitted from slavery.
Also, she didn't mention the Barbary slave trade where, for two and a half centuries north African slavers kidnapped between one and two million people from the south-west of England to be enslaved in Motocco and Algeria.
Not just Southern England - all of the British Isles.
In some places they took the whole village.
@@D1331D Indeed - e.g. the Sack of Baltimore, 1631.
That's why it's the white house, painted white.to cover the burn marks.
Before the burning, I'm sure it was called "Presidential Mansion" or something along those lines.
Yup, whitewashed, like they whitewash so many things. I believe it used to be brown.
Nope. Urban myth.
It was already painted white and some folks in Washington informally called it the White House. It was painted to protect the rather porous stone it was built from from the effects of weather. so it was RE-painted after being burned.
The burning was in retaliation for the earlier looting & burning by the invading US troops of pretty much the whole of York (what is now Toronto) - both Govt buildings and private residences. The British Army deliberately ONLY burned Govt buildings in Washington as a pointed reminder that civilised armies do not burn and loot private residences as the US had done in York.
The War of 1812 was dumb and opposed by many in the US. Remember the Revolutionary War ended less than 30 years previously. Some loyal to Britain stayed in the US, some moved to Canada. For many in New England, an attack on Canada was attacking family - literally. The Treaty of Ghent that ended the conflict can be paraphrased as "Well, that was stupid. Let's go back to the previous borders and try to forget this ever happened..."
@@WithTwoFlakes Nope it was a joke😁
@@WithTwoFlakescorrect but it wasnt officially known as the White House until 1901 when teddy roosevelt was president. So although it was white due to trying to protect the sandstone from weathering, it was known as the presidence palace then the executive mansion because palace sounded to royal.
The British public who never had slaves had to pay for the sins of the very rich who did.
Agreed. It is a very reliable 'rule of thumb' in British politics that the wealthy never lose out. Even when they are the cause of suffering or injustice. "Reverse Robin Hood" was the 'modus operandi' even during the lockdown.
Best Wishes. ☮
@@gbulmer the slave owners were wealthy americans.
Many paid with their lives fighting the slave traders worldwide. We were the first country to abolish it and we fought a military campaign worldwide to erradicate it because of British Christian beliefs.
@@jonathanodude6660 No, you're mistaken. Why would the UK government compensate slave owners in the USA? The UK's "Slave Compensation Act 1837" was purely for slave owners in the British colonies (Caribbean, Mauritius and the Cape of Good Hope [Africa]). As an example, Wikipedia says:
_"The largest total amount paid in compensation was to Sir John Gladstone, 1st Baronet, father of prime minister William Gladstone, who was paid £106,769 (...)[4] in compensation for losing his 2,508 slaves used across nine plantations.[5]"_
As I wrote _"It is a very reliable 'rule of thumb' in British politics that the wealthy never lose out. Even when they are the cause of suffering or injustice."_
It is also reasonable to assume UK media, which is largely owned by the wealthy, disseminates propaganda about the wealthy. One example being your ignorance of who owned slaves at the time the UK outlawed slavery,
Best Wishes. ☮
@@davex371 I am proud of the UK fighting against slavery, and the UK's Quakers and other Christian groups sustained opposition. I believe _"Many paid with their lives fighting the slave traders worldwide"._
However, AFAICT, it is much more complex. AFAICT, some countries had practically abolished slavery before the UK, but had done nothing about that internationally, ie. outside their borders. It is also important to remember the UK's "Slave Compensation Act 1837" was only for British colonies, and it only paid colonial slave owners. It did not compensate slaves in any way. So slaves were left to fend for themselves by that law. So did slaves simply become employees on the barest minimum wage to their previous owners?
Based on the "Slave Compensation Act 1837" payment of £20m to slave owners, and Sir John Gladstone receiving £106,769 in compensation for 2,508 slaves, we can estimate compensation might have been about £40/slave. So that £20m would compensate for freeing more than 500,000 slaves. Where did they all come from? I am suspicious about whether or not the British colonies were 'self sufficient' in slaves. Did the UK's military campaign against transporting slaves allow British colonies to import them while preventing slave trade for other countries?
It may have been a campaign against the USA, and European empires. Was it partly motivated by economic power? Interfering with the USA importing slaves might have been partly about forcing the USA to negotiate export prices, eg. raw cotton prices, with the UK. It is not as idealistic as the YT videos, but without counter evidence, an economic motive seems plausible within the overall context.
Further, by the 1830's, the UK was heavily industrialising. The UK's population appears to have been sufficient, with little or no advantage in having non-English speaking slaves.
I apologise for being contrarian. However, I think there is good evidence it was much more complex than the UK was the _"first country to abolish it and we fought a military campaign worldwide to eradicate it because of British Christian beliefs"._
Best Wishes. ☮
The Bengal famine was caused largely by the fact that Japan was invading India. There were no ships available from any of the allies to move grain. There was plenty of grain in Bengal but the local merchants kept it locked in their warehouses waiting for the price to go up. Only one ship of rice left Indian for Ceylon. There was a book where an Indian author by the name of Mukherjee wrote about this blaming Britain and Churchill in particular. Later Mukherjee withdrew the accusations as wrongly researched. A similar situation was found in the Potato Famine in Ireland. There was ample food in the warehouses of the local businessmen but the Irish population (my ancestors BTW) had no money with which to pay what the Irish merchants were demanding for the food.
@Scaleyback317 The Japanese airforce had a habit of bombing the food storage warehouses. Not only that, the local criminal gangs were stealing the food to sell on the black market.
Also with the Irish famine there was plenty of Beef in Ireland at the time, they were the main supplier for the British army. When the Irish asked for Westminster government help to relieve the effects of the famine Westminster said the 'Irish' should stop selling the Beef to the British army and use that to help their own people first, but the Irish 'elites' decided to not do that and continue making their money whilst the peasantry died of starvation.
@@ralphhathaway-coley5460 Indeed.
As ever real events are more nuanced then the finger wagging virtue signalling hundreds of years later.
People act like most people owned slaves. This is complete nonsense. most people were very poor. It was the elite who perpetrated this sin, not the British public. We paid for it.
But who did you pay?
The corrupt uk elite's. In the form of tax
@@msp9810The government. We don’t get a say on what the government spends it on.
@@msp9810 Government, and most people did not vote (have the right to vote) for the government.
UK people got a general right to vote in 1947, prior to this you needed to own property (land).
The term "concentration camp" is always associated in people's minds with the Nazi death camps, but that is misleading. A "concentration camp" is simply a place where people are confined in a relatively small area - unpleasant yes, but not necessarily anything like the Nazi camps!
Americans were the first people to introduce concentration camps back when they started to wipe out the Native Americans
Goering said the British invented concentration camps - to reject British complaints, pre WW2, about the Nazi's extermination camps, which were created to ensure entire communities died.
The British did not invent them - the first were in Cuba, operated by the Spanish - then the USA, in the Philippines. This was _before_ the Boer War, where the deaths were due to disease.
Exactly. I think I heard that it wasn't necessarily intentional for the conditions to be poor or cause deaths, it was mismanagement and an underestimating of the needs/amount of supplies required (in the Boer war at least). That doesn't really make it better, I know.
The Nazis built _extermination_ camps. They used the term concentration camps to hide what they were doing.
The term concentration camp came about from the name given to them in Cuba by the Spanish government there. They were the first to name and use "Concentration camps". The US noted the idea and decided to do the same when it became useful for them to do so in their actions in the Phillipines -they also called them concentration camp. The British then chose to use the term for their camps in South Africa.
So sieges/blockades/moving of populations have been with us since before history was recorded. It was the Spanish who first called their camps Concentration camps.
1812 was busy. Washington ( we didn't burn the pubs by the way ) and other Eastern Seaboard cities were trashed . The US was an ally of France and apart from the French in the Caribbean, we were in the process of removing the French from occupied countries in
Also previously the American army had completed burnt the city of york which was Canada capital city and they burnt every building, the British and Canadians burnt only govt buildings leaving homes and commercial properties like pubs (after all they needed a place to drink) alone
It all about context as many barely seek a fuller picture because of personal biases.
Do you learn history in your school's or is it only the good things about the usa , bet the lesson was short.
It's your own fault you shouldn't have invaded Canada .The UK then kicked your backsides back over the border in a heavy U.S defeat .
That's why The King is still Head of State in Canada not that idiot Trudeau
They call it a draw. 🤣
Canada call it a win!
@@B-A-L We don't think about it. It being completely overshadowed by the Napoleonic wars. Just a noice tune with guns and shit... oh wait, that's about kicking the shit out of Napolean too.
@@MrTwiglet Hardly a draw! When the idiot President Madison (who started all the nonsense by declaring war in the first place) heard about Napoleon's final defeat at Waterloo he realised that the full newly freed up might and fury of both the Royal Navy and the British Army was about to descend on his fledgling nation. So he sent out Emissaries to ask for peace. Does that sound like a win or draw for the USA to you? It sure doesn't to me. 🙂
WOW
this woman really dislikes the UK to tell such biased versions in this video
The Amritsar massacre told here is very misleading.
The 50 soldiers consisted of Ghurkas and Baluchi riflemen. (no one from the UK held a rifle at this massacre)
These were not semi-automatic weapons either.
The soldiers made a mistake and did not block the exit on purpose.
When the crowd was told to disperse and they headed for the exit, the soldiers believed the crowd was attacking them so they opened fire.
now do the maths.
50 riflemen killed 1500 people (and this does not include the figures for wounded)
This means each rifleman killed 30 people.
The low figure for this massacre is 379, but she conveniently forgot to mention this.
It makes more sense to me that the figure was higher than 379 but certainly not 1500.
When I see videos spewing misleading information, I feel a need to "out" such propagandists.
I am sure the reader of my comment will be able to make their own njudgement.
She also doesn’t mention that the Brigadier did it off his own back with no orders or authorisation from his superiors. He was also known as being a bit of a sociopath.
yeup. however if you can give the information, or even citations. though not the easiest task. tyler is likely to actually educate himself. which is a testament to actual intelligence. others just railing on him for one asinine thing. all fo them can go back to the spunk mottled flapper, and be replaced by just tyler. cause in spite of everything against him, he is genuine. curious. and none malicious. something i can'T say about the american proper.
and if america was just lika tyler. i wouldn't have the contempt i do. why should i? i love the curious and kind.
None of these are great secrets to anyone who has attended school in the UK. The burning of the White House was learned by my older grandsons in Canada and Australia, when they were 11 or 12 years of age. At my schools in England & S Africa, the War of 1812 and the concurrent wars in Europe were given more time for study than the American Revolution.
Well you would think Canada would be taught... being they had divisions there also and Canada was the staging ground after USA attacked Canada...
This is taught in school in a lot of European places i think. Most of it i had in Denmark back in the 80s. So would expect to find it in several countries..
My Liverpool cousins were not told anything about colonisation of Ireland India Australia or Africa ect ect in UK schools.
@@markcostello4937 _My Great Aunty to my dogs mothers half sister and step uncle were not told_
Here comes the propaganda...
Indeed all of those were taught me at some time and to varying degrees of depth/accuracy over my years in education. The Sarin I only found out about many decades later as a result of my late Father telling us how as a young soldier he had managed to get himself signed up for research into colds and flu at Porton Down - long after this period I believe. The second one was the gent sent to control affairs in Ireland and how he had misused his position to wreak some sort of vengeance on the Irish.
We were taught about the potato famine and of course, it was the blight which diseased the potato crop which caused the famine nothing else. This blight was experience across Europe so it was by no means just an "Irish thing". Other areas of Europe contended with the problem with varying success, I believe only in Ireland did it progress to Famine. The reasons are various and the information on the matter in this offering is a variation of highlighting a man who could have maybe influenced matters differently. Did he have the power to enforce the release of grain from the warehouses being hoarded by local Irish businessmen? I don't know if he even tried to suggest it but there was grain to be had - just no poor Irish could afford the prices asked by the Irish businessmen hoarding it. My own ancestry got on ships to Whitehaven in Cumbria on the paternal side and to Bristol on my maternal side.
Churchill did stop shipments of food from Canada to India. What wasn't said in this video was Churchill had shipments of food from Australia to be diverted to India.
The famine was in Bengal, not the whole of India. "Watchmojo", who made the video you watched, is unfortunately a little biased.
1. As stated, the famine they concentrated on was Sep 1943-44. Britain sent many many ships to India to try and help relieve the famine, many were sunk by the Germans on their way to India.
2. The famine was very much exacerbated by Indian officials, as many were involved in the rice trade and black markets.
3. The famine was perpetuated by more Indians, when the local government removed price control on rice, causing the price to rise very quickly. Many Indian businessmen tried to profit off the grain they had in stores, refusing to sell until the price was high enough.
4. The government policy of denying transport to the invading Japanese led to an unfortunate burning/smashing of Bengal's 45,000 small boats and ships, leaving them unable to fish, which was 25% of their diet, and obliterating transport in the rivers and estuaries that produced rice.
5. Under British "rule", India had enjoyed 50 years of rapid growth, with it's population increasing by 35% during 1901-1941. Bengal, however, increased by 43% and relied on rice (70%) and fish (25%) as their main foods sources.
6. A winter drought and bad weather in 1942 meant the winter rice yield was low. Food prices rose too rapidly (see 3. above) and because Indians now got paid in cash, rather than a "paid in kind" system, their wages did not rise as quickly.
7. Japan invaded Burma, and half a million refugees entered Bengal - unfortunately Burma was a major source of rice for Bengal so that was also lost - and around 70% of those refugees were ill with diseases such as dysentary, cholera and smallpox.
8. The British government knew there was a problem reported, but also knew there was surplus held in stores and by the black market. This made them reluctant to lose more than the already hideous amount of ships sunk in the Indian ocean by the Germans. Once it became clear it was turning into a crisis, it was too late.
9. The Bengal ogovernment tried to price fix rice to a low level, to make it aaffordable, whcih made even more of it disappear into storage or the black market.
10. Bengal suffered a few natural disasters as well leading to crop shortage - a cyclone, tidal waves and flooding, and rice crop disease.
11. Churchill had a massive problem - all ships were required for the invasion of Normandy. There were not enough available to divert.
12. Chuchill wrote to Roosevelt asking for the USA to help with supples from Australia. Roosevelt said that they could not justify diverting any shipping.
13. Before the famine, the War Council exported rice from Bengal to Ceylon (Sri Lanka) where much of the allies rubber came from and was of extreme importance to the war effort. COntinuing that, and the subsequent set of events actions and invasions contributed to, but did not cause, the famine
14. Many "peasants" across southern India held back their rice stocks, and did not send them to market, leaving populations of the cities and large towns, and refugees at even higher risk of starvation.
15. Chuchill tried desperately to get rice and wheat imported, but the war was simply against them.
16. The British Indian Army intervened in Oct 1943 and intervened in the pricing and got food moving
17. No one in Bengal declared a state of famine, and there was a bumper crop of rice in December 1943
18. Over half the deaths attributed to the famine occured after the famine had ended, being caused by disease due to malnutrition.
All in all, it was much more to do with Germany causing a war, greed for profit, and Japan invading British territores that were previously supplying India with food.
Chuchill had little influence over the War Council, who made the decisions on what supplies went where, but many Indians blame him and cry "racist against Indians".
"The old idea that the Indian was in any way inferior to the white man must go. We must all be pals together. I want to see a great shining India, of which we can be as proud as we are of a great Canada or a great Australia." - Winston Churchill July 1944
it's Watchmojo, they're so biased they cut off the starboard wing form the fuselage.
not one was secret
Those who live in glass houses should not throw stones. Guantánamo Bay sums this expression up very well.
I don't know why number 10 is considered a dark secret!
Yes, it is neither secret nor dark.
@@peterjackson4763 it's funny and overt.
Please listen, Tyler. It was 1919! Dyer ordered his soldiers to fire on unarmed demonstrators *until they ran out of ammunition*. The narrator did not mention that there was a lot of outrage in Britain when news of it eventally reached Britain. Dyer was recalled and court martialled.
Oh my God I thought the people in America were little slow ... now I know they are thick as two short planks
He never listens he has such a short attention span and should engage his brain before opening his mouth.
@@davidmalarkey1302What brain? 🙄
Unfortunately, Tyler goes off at wild tangents rather than watching/listening to the video. He seems to lack a certain intelligence and/or ability to "work stuff out" in a satisfactory manner. This makes him very entertaining.
Tyler doesn't read comments.
The White House was burnt in 1814, around a year after Americans did the same to York ( now Toronto) in Canada, during the War of 1812, so I guess it was a case of "anything you can do I can do better". 😂
You sued for peace first, that means you lost . Plus the British held sway over Washington for the next 30 years .
well the US invaders masacred civilians
@@danjames5552 friendly fire!
❤
Tyler, it appears, across at least the three channels I follow, your education truly failed you. For that, the rest of the developed world feels a sense of pain. That outside of the US, we know so much of this, Canadian, and world history in general, speaks volumes of the Country wide education problem the USA obviously has.
Very few Americans really understand their own history, unfortunately. The history taught in many schools is very prejudiced and not very factual which allows the belief that America is "the greatest" country and the perception of America being the only "land of the free." If more Americans truly understood the full history of the United States, they would probably be much more reserved and limited in their opinions. The US attempted to invade Canada when it was part of the British Empire, and they set fire to the then Capital city of Canada. They were soundly defeated in Canada and were essentially losing the war of independence when Britain raided into Washington D.C. and as a reprisal for Canada, they set fire to many buildings including the Whitehouse. The war of independence may not have ultimately led to an independent America had it not been for the fact that at the same time Britain was fighting Napoleon in Europe which was a much more significant and important battle, and most of their resources were focused on defeating Napoleon and his Army. America was a bothersome colony that was draining funds and resources, so ultimately it was allowed to leave the Empire under treaty. Most Americans believe their ancestors fought and defeated the British Empire to obtain their independence and freedom, but that is not accurate or factual. Few Americans today really understand the genocide of the indigenous inhabitants who occupied this land before White settlers broke treaty after treaty, murdered hundreds of thousands, and even paid scalp hunters for literal scalps or ears of their victims. America stole Texas and California in a war they created and concocted, just as they stole Hawaii and the Philippines. Many don't really understand the Japanese internment during WW-II or why only the Japanese were interred but not the Germans or Italians living in the U.S.? Few countries in the world are free and clear of blame and some horrible decisions in the past, but America does seem to still want to sweep many of these decisions under the rug and few Americans really understand their full and true history.
The War of 1812 had nothing to do with the Independence War. The US had been a sovereign country for nearly 40 years by 1812. The US did defeat Britain to win independence and, because the British had been defeated, they signed the Treaty of Paris that acknowledged that the US was an independent nation. The War of 1812 cme about because the US tried to annex British colonies in what is today Canada. Texas separated from Mexico and became an independent country before applying for US statehood. Hawaii was overtaken by white businessmen who created the Republic of Hawaii, later the Republica of Hawaii was annexed by the US. The Philippines and Puerto Rico were ceded to the US after the US won the Spanish American War. The US and the Philippines spent over 40 years negotiating independence which came to halt with WWII and finally granted the Philippines independence after WWII concluded. The US and the Philippines have a good diplomatic relationship due to US troops fighting the Japanese in the Philippines and freeing the Philippines from Japanese control. The US had German and Italian internment camps in the US during WWII. Thousands of German and Italian born US citizens were rounded up and placed in internment camps. Thousands more people of German and Italian descent with under curfews and surveillance during WWII. The mistreatment of the indigenous people of the Americas happened in every country in the Americas not just the US, Every country in the Americas was founded by European settlers conquering the indigenous people, taking their land, killing them, and forcing the survivors to move not just the US. That happened all over the world. Japan, Taiwan, Thailand, and Australia are just a few countries that were founded in the same manner as the US with one group of people invading, taking the land from the indigenous people, and forcing the surviving indigenous people to move. China and Russia are such big countries today because they invaded their neighbors and subjugated them.
The partitioning of India wasn't really Britain's fault. That was a fight between different religions that started off again after Britain left. Britain had kept it under control whilst it was part of Empire.
My Grandad was a dispatch rider during the war. We didn’t know as much about post traumatic stress disorder. And he didn’t like telling stories about his service out there. For all the time I knew him, most nights he would wake up in a state of disorientation, one that too often seemed like he’d be reliving the horrific things he had endured, even though not involved directly in any conflict. The idea of a British Empire is absurd, looked from today’s perspective. But I do believe that for a period of time before the Second World War “British rule” wasn’t seen in the majority of the population to be a negative, more one of trade and increased prosperity. But the conflicts didn’t just happen only after the British left, it was a thing for some time as I understand it.
Tyler dear, please learn some basics about the extent of the British Empire.
There is a lot of controversity about how culpable Churchill was in the Bengal famine.
I have also heard that wasn't as cut and dried as has been made out.
The British were not responsible for the Bengal Famine in fact British policies had virtually brought an end to the once regular famines in India. What made it worse was Indian speculators hoarding - not Churchill who was busy fighting for Britain's survival against Hitler at the time.
Britain was busy fighting Nazis!
We were on rations at the time.
Churchill sent letters to Canada and USA asking them to help Bangladesh with no response.
You learn little about the war if 1812 as the usa lost
And early in the war the then capital city of what was to become Canada was the city of york which was burned to the ground by us troops, they destroyed evey home in york
Later on the british burnt just govt buildings and not the homes unlike in york were there was no building homes or govt left untouched
In fact the us president was just about to eat dinner when he was evacuated and royal marine officers sat down and ate the president dinner
Most if the other stories had some truth to them but are missing out on many facts
The amritsar massacre was later repeated by the indian govt acting against protesting shiks at the golden temple
Amritsar Massacre.
It is heartening to read a comment where the writer has bothered to study the facts. Well done.
@@BikersDoItSittingDown so... a brit. not the native foreigners (in europe's case can do one.)
Mojo videos tend to be a moron's guide to, in this case, serious topics. My advice would be to look into actual, factual documentaries on each of the Top 10 to get the whole story on each.
Your schools don't teach you much
The American education system is so underfunded and the teachers are so undervalued. Tax dollars in America fund the US military and nothing else to benefit American citizens. Also most Americans are generally willfully ignorant and have zero social awareness of their surroundings as they never leave their bubble. I had an American ask me in Malaga he'd come off a cruise ship when the fireworks start.I asked him why it's the 4th of July . I asked him why the Spanish would celebrate American independence day . He looked bemused and walked away. Ignorance on another level absolutely clueless.
Not much at all by the look of things😮
probably how to dodge gunfire?
I'm American and I know most of the list. I was watching and thinking dude just hush and play the video. But I think he is intentionally trying to fit the dumb American stereotype to appeal to his European viewers. The same way the European RUclips reactors do the "I love everything American" bit so that it engages the American audience.
@@msp9810 • I'm British and I think you're absolutely right about this man. He's beyond irritating, and NEVER reads the comments on his videos. His facial contortions mean I cannot watch him, I just listen...and that's painful enough.
Gandhi had nothing to do with the Britsh leaving India
Really ?
@@deankeith2507Subash Chandra Bose is the one who did it
The British were in India for over two hundred years, you make it sound like a couple of years
@@deankeith2507 he didn't do anything. the British army were pulling back from the North before he was in the news
@levi5595 bose made very little difference to British rule. The main reason for Britain leaving India was economic. India was no longer profitable and Britain couldn't afford a war after WW2.
None of these compare to the atrocities enacted by others. The difference is we own the mistakes of the past and make things better if we can. The commonwealth is one means by which this happens. None of these were secret.
THE USA ALSO SURRENDERED IN THE WAR OF INDEPENDANCE? TRUE
Only reason America won the war of independence is because of the French.
The reason for the Slave compensation act was that due to British law, Slavery could not be ended without violating owners rights to private property, which would have given dangerous cause to violate any aspect of private property in the British land as a matter of law
The compromise was the mandatory purchase and release of all slaves in British territory in order to preserve the legal protection of private property for all citizens of the British Empire
If this had not been done, then the British would have even less rights of protection from the government than they do even today as there would be a legal precedence in British law
The overall thing is unpleasant, but the alternative is worse. No one wants to live knowing that all their property could be seized by the ruling government at the snap of fingers with nothing given in return
Slavery was outlawed in Britain in 1086, I believe what you are referring to is Colonial law, which was largely to blame for plantation owners being permitted, by the colony governor, to own and keep slaves. No slaves were permitted in the British Isles, as is evident from several major court cases in the 18th and 19th centuries, where slave owners were prosecuted for bringing slaves to Britain, and their slaves were set free.
@wolfen210959 slavery wasn't outlawed back then
Shortly after the arrival of William the Bastard, now known as William the Conquer. He needed money, so he made it so that "No man may sell another man outside of the land of England under penalty of a fine paid to me" (the king)
What this means is that slavery was not made illegal, but the sale of slaves outside of the country was now illegal
It wasn't until the 1800s where it's was determined "that the air of England was too pure for any slave to breathe"
This means that from that point onwards, any slave that stepped on english soil was legally no longer a slave and was now a free individual. This is the first time slavery became illegal in the British Isles
The slave item is double sided when you realise slavery world wide not just the African slave trade was a normal part of business until Britain tried all it could to end it . The compensation was just one part of drawing the line.
@lynette. Also the first slaves sent to the Americas were poor white women, sold to men so they would marry them and have a servant they didn't have to pay. Just like the Republican "MAGAs" want to do again.
As I understand, it was cheaper to pay them stop slaving than it would have been to fight them all. What the slaves got out of it was their freedom.
@@londonbobbyYeah, I think it needs to be viewed more as let's buy off these people so they don't try to recapture the freed slaves.
That was a disgusting and willful misrepresentation of the why the British accrued a large debt due to slavery. This debt was for British Navy, ships and crew who many of them lost their lives policing the high seas. Also yes some slavers were paid off to get the slaves released. It is the same as paying a ransom to get hostages freed. No one who does that gets accused of collaboration with the kidnappers and are deemed bad people. God forbid she ever gets kidnapped and someone reminds her loved ones that no deals will be done to get her released and definitely no ransom will be paid, it is what she would have wanted so tough luck love.
Well said.
In the seige of Paris by the German Federation in 1870 the animals in the Paris Zoo were slaughtered AND butchered for food - including two elephants named Castor and Pollux. Sometimes you just gotta do what you gotta do! Boers or Trekboers were descendants of Dutch colonists in South Africa. Two wars were fought against them, 1880-81 and 1889-1902. Winston Churchill, then a War Correspondent, was captured by the Boers in the second conflict and famously escaped from a POW camp and returned to British lines.
Thank you for acknowledging that it’s not modern day Britain. A lot of people blame modern day brits for things that happened hundreds of years ago when none of us were alive.
With this many comments you'll probably never see mine, but I wanted to say this anyway.
The "compensation" paid to slave owners was actually each non free person receiving money to buy their freedom, forever more. It was money well spent and most Brits of today are glad and proud we did it. Yes it should have been that a tyrannical government say to its people Oi! No more slaves! And then just given that money to the freed. However we didn't have a tyrannical government so just like when the UK abolished easy gun ownership, they paid for every gun released from the custodian. What matters is that enslaved people were now free to live their lives and make their own decisions. ( yes I know it was still during much constraint, but it was a massive improvement)
As i recall Churchill did not hate India, i believe the quote used was taken out of context to make him look worse that he was for a purpose
Sad to say but its a common thing that is used against iconic figures of history where comment, orders and speeches are taken out of context to make someone look either better or worse than they were
Some people claim that Churchill was a believer of ethnic supremacy. The reality is that he was not, he just saw how certain cultures/ethnicities had a predisposition to a specific role in societies. Military, Diplomatic, Construction etc
For example he had enormous respect for the Sikhs
was still a big racist
India was asked to form its own proposed Constitution before WW2, which was a requirement for Independence. Louis Mountbatten was the British negotiator with the leading Politicians in India. Mountbatten argued very strongly against Partition and tried to take it off the Agenda, but the Muslims, particularly, wanted their own State. They wanted to call it Pakistan and for India to be called Hindustan (if I remember correctly). The Politicians of India absolutely refused this idea. The Muslims also refused to give an inch about having their separate State. It was deadlock. Eventually, after intense discussions and seeing no other way forward between the two Indian parties, Mountbatten agreed to their demands .
Hindustan? What a ridiculous name! Thank god India stuck with it's original name! Cheers for the indian history lesson.
"Top 10 Dark Secrets About Britain" should be renamed as "Top 10 Dark Things About Britain That The Author Didn't Know"
Not work camps or death camps or any of 1940's stuff. The British were being outfought by a smaller mobile force, but there was a problem, instead of imprisoning the captured Boers they would release them on parole (with a pink slip of paper, to show the contract) on the promise they would just return to their farms and not take up arms again. That worked as well as you might expect. The Boers collected these pink slips like badges of honour. I recall reading it was not uncommon for a Boer to be captured, or a body searched and 15 or even 20 slips found. So the response was to intern them with their families (Just like the US did with Japanese families during WW2). Thus removing many fighters from circulation AND undermining their supply and support from the farms. The problem was, those in charge turned out to have an evil streak and in no time at all the conditions in the camps were horrific. Eventually Journalists got wind of this and reported it back in Britain. Because we are mostly a just and honourable people, this caused a national scandal, it was hugely embarrassing for the British and as you might expect, things changed. But of course the damage was done and today, haters just love bringing it up trying to put us in the same category as some Germans in the 1940's
Whereas,in Vietnam, America cleared villages,declared free fire zones, etc
how did things change?
@@george-ev1dq They treated them worse... of course! if you're not a troll and genuinely interested, why not read a few books on the Boer war. Not only will you learn something, they are interesting! You could do worse than reading The Great Boer War, by Arthur Conan Doyle... I know he was British but was brutally honest with the facts, perhaps less so with his reasoning and justifications. To find out, you'll just have to read it. Hope you enjoy it!
@@Mark_Bickerton the thing that I was getting at is that internment never stopped after the Boer war, in fact it never stopped in the UK until 1975
@@george-ev1dq What? we were interning Boers until 1975? I smell a troll!
Yes. We are taught this at school or DID when I was in school but I'm in my 50's now.
I lived in upstate NY for over a year in mid 1980's and went to high school. I must admit our english/history teacher asked me to address the class a number of times with topics he had found but not learnt or taught Ref uk.
I enjoyed it teaching the class lots or UK swear words & cockney rhyming slang as I am a londoner now living in scotland. It was funny watching many fellow students cussing out teachers and teachers laughing cause they had no idea what was being said.
Scott
Tyler has never heard details of the War of 1812?
Why would they include losses in their propaganda "education"?
Well maybe he only knows of the danish English war of 1812 ? Only joking, of course he doesn't know a 1812 war... 😅
Why would anyone teach Americans about wars they lose? They don't work like that...
@@wessexdruid7598 🤣!! (He did 'learn' about it on his Canadian channel but I guess the trauma of learning they lost made the info. too hard to retain.)
@@wessexdruid7598 hmm thats what i said and my comment seems to have been deleted
Tyler, Do be aware that this video you are reacting to is giving very little information about before and after these events, many of these events sparked outrage one way or another
Any event in history needs three things to be understood
the Cause, the event, the post reaction
Many only focus on the middle and then lash out, but when you see the whole thing, then a number of events change the overall perspective for better or worse
Example:
A man killed two other men - Result, the man was wrong
Two men attacked a child and were then killed by another man who arrived to help the child - Result, The two men were wrong but the single man may have been a tad heavy handed with his response
Context is everything in how to judge something with accuracy. Something that many people with an agenda to push onto others really hate since it destroys their narrative
Exactly. I am appalled sometimes at how uninformed Americans are - even about their own history!
The Amritsar Massacre. The man that ordered the massacre, Michael O'Dwyer, was killed by Udham Singh, an Indian freedom fighter. His story is really interesting and very sad. Udham was eventually hung by the British for the killing of Michael O'Dwyer.
We Brits didn't invent the concentration camp ,as said in the documentary,but many people keep being told time and time again that we invented the camps.When the Hyksos invaded and took over ancient Egypt,at their major city,Avaris,they kept Egyptians in concentration camp-like conditions.Men, women and children were tied up and starved to death.Torture was also performed on then.
Tyler we Brits ruled India in the time of the "Raj'.
In 1807 Britain was the first country to abolish the actual trade in slaves. It then used its Royal Navy to enforce the ban, not just on British ships but on those of other countries.
Slavery itself was abolished in 1833 in Britain and its Empire but the Bill only got through Parliament because the Government had agreed to pay "compensation" to the slave owners BEFORE it was introduced and NOT after as the Narrator suggests.
It really was quite simple: without the "compensation" slavery in the Empire would have continued (actual slavery in Britain had been made illegal some time prior) . What would you have done?
At least in Britain slavery WAS abolished, and 32 years before it was in the USA. And we didn't have to fight a bloody Civil War with some 700,000 deaths (recent estimate) to get it done. That was 0.022% of the then USA population at the time of 31,443,000 and equates to about 7,600,000 if applied to the current population of 342,000,000. Imagine that, 7,600,000 having to die now in a ruinous Civil War in order to eradicate slavery! 🤔
Slavery in Britain was abolished in 1086, first by William the Bastard, better known as William the Conqueror, by simply charging a fee, payable to him, for every slave that was sold, then later confirmed by the church in the 1200s. Within a generation, slavery had disappeared. The law that was passed in 1807 simply endorsed the current law, and included the abolishment of slavery in the colonies, which, up to that point, had been at the discretion of the colony governor.
@@wolfen210959
Thanks Wolfen. Yes, I did know that but I didn't want to confuse Tyler too much. You know what a short span of attention he has.😉
You've got to remember. It's a nation which actually had the biggest rule over the biggest land mass in history. So its a very intelligent move for Americans to learn the history of the uk. But when your a militarily man. The number one thing in life is to be a humanitarian. We have such dark moments, which should not be forgotten. So there has been a thing called 'English man's guilt'. Introspection involves your brain, heart and conscience which creates the most open minded decent folk. But I do know there's quite a few in introspection, when it comes to being from the colonizers of these places in the world whose history is the equivalent of a long weekend. No disrespect. These guys go out and show with humility that everyone accepts everyone else that inhabits our small globe. With care for eachothers mother's, women and children as much as your own. Dangerous dark times though arent they? If youve took note. Bless
The Amritsar Massacre is not a secret and was not one at the time. Some people treated Dwyer as a hero, but the British government at the time condemned his action. Churchill, who was minister of war, said it was "a monstrous event". Dwyer lost his acting rank of brigadier and was not employed by the army again, though Churchill and others thought he should have been treated more severely.
Britain's involvement in the slave trade is certainly not a secret. The compensation to slave owners was not because they "threw a tantrum". It was because though the House of Commons had a majority for abolition (and had had for decades) the House of Lords did not. Simply put the Lords were split in three groups. Those for slavery, those against. and some who were against the confiscation of "property" without compensation. To get that group to vote for abolition the government agreed to pay compensation to the slave owners. The alternatives would have delayed the abolition of slavery.
The concentration camps during the Boer war were not for forced labour or deliberately killing people. The Boer families were supporting those fighting the British. The camps were to concentrate them so they could be stopped from aiding the fighters, The deaths were due to incompetence.
Dont worry Taylor if you dont know.. Rest assured that all danish kids was taught this when i was i school in the early 80s. And i dint know what you're looking at but we are talking about the white house when it comes to the 1812 fire.. Im sure youtube will have a doc about it.
The video is talking about the second Boer WAR and Tyler asks "was this some sort of military conflict?" Boer WAR. WAR. Sorry Tyler I couldn't not mention it!
Tyler doesn't read comments. Ever.
@@wessexdruid7598 leave them alone. for bloody hell sake.
he's not the brightest bulb in the pack, but at least he works.
@@osmacar5331 He cynically makes money by ripping off other people's content and not attributing it, while manipulating those who pay his bills. But you call that 'work'. Perhaps that says more about you?
@@wessexdruid7598 aww diddums. You gonna cry about it.
RE: Slave Trade ... Slavery was abolished in Britain 100s of years before the slavery abolition act that effected the whole British Empire. Any slave entering Britain (mainly England) was automatically considered free (usually in the form of Serfdom) since the 12th century. Portugal was also the instigator of the transatlantic slave trade, and Britain used it's navy to blockade enforce the end of the slave trade counter common practices in all other countries at that time. Slaves were predominantly bought from African slavers not captured directly so i can somewhat understand why no reparations were made to the slaves and they were made to the transport owners to ensure their cooperation in a practice that financially benefited all involved (except the slaves). The worst slavers by far are the Arab nations when looking at history, but usually there is little mention of these atrocities as they did not build a multicultural society after the end of slavery as many western countries did. ... ... ... Everything in this video is bad, with history though the context of the time and alliances should be factored in. Concentrations camps were never a good idea, but they are the result of military minds being put in places of authority overseas, direct control of the population and fear to those outside of direct control.
No, this is a lie. Trevelyan did not stop relief in Ireland - he gave orders that on no account must anyone be simply allowed to die. The number killed at Amritsar was 379, not 1500 - and it was the right thing to do, as it preserved the British Empire in India. The 1943 famine in Bengal was DURING WORLD WAR 2 - Britain had a lot on its plate. Churchill did NOT state his hatred of India. The Mau Mau were a thuggish communist terrorist group. The slave trade was African culture, sorry.
You're right on all counts but this particular offering by whomsoever it was offered does not seem to have any such considerations for accuracy. Ten dark secrets (most of which aren't so dark and aren't really secret and have extenutating circumstances) is not exactly catchy, compelling, lucrative or even faintly accurate.
The nonsense of food being sent for British troops from India is complete fabrication.
Other famines during WW2
Blockade of Germany (1939-1945)
Dutch famine of 1944-1945
Holodomor
Greek Famine and blockade
Chinese famine of 1942-1943
Vietnamese famine of 1944-1945
Indynats will have you believe there's was the only famine (and as can be shown there was no great need for the famine as rice was available it's just that Indian businessmen were hoarding it in wharehouses hoping to drive the profit on it upwards! Ships were found to bring food in from Ceylon in fairly small amounts but only one ship left India with rice on it in that period. The US refused to free any of its ships to transport anything other than troops and munitions for allied fighting purposes in Asia.
@@Scaleyback317 Thank you, Scaleyback, for stating the truth.
8:30 We don't talk about Dartmoor (basically our Area 51, but known more for chemical weapons testing) in general, it's just one of those places that acts with impunity. 1812 is just one of so many wars we fought it's rarely mentioned, especially since it was a stalemate in the middle of the Napoleonic wars.
We Abolished the slave trade. We paid more money to do it than we ever made from it. No one ever abolished it before. Yet we still get blamed.
And America refused to abolish it for several years after we asked them to.
Just because you abolished it and paid white slave owners for their lost thus increasing the wealth gap for those people and the ones that were enslaved doesn't absolved or erase the fact that Britain started the great slave trade. I see where white Americans (Europeans) get their denial and audacity from.
We also didn’t start the trade, that was the Spanish and Portuguese.
@@paulharrison8152that may be...but britain took over as the #1 slaving nation between 1640 and 1807, taking approximately 3.7 million enslaved humans out of Africa to Britain's slave islands in the carribbean and the america.
@@paulharrison8152 this is all true and ducumented
This video inexplicably omits mention of the Opium Wars, which the British Empire, sometimes acting alone and sometimes in collaboration with the French, perpetrated against Qing China in the 19th Century.
1919 during the British Raj when India was part of the British Empire.
Yes it was monsterous.
Funny, because a lot of Indians cried when it ended. Also why so many Indians moved and do move to Britain and make a good life here.
Number 1, the slavery compensation, wasn't particulalry dark if understood in context. Britain was the first country to abolish slavery due to Britain being a Christian nation. Britain then went on to impose this globaly and spent huge amounts of money and military lives to erradicate slavery as best they could. They even bought slaves just to set them free. At one point the Royal Navy was a third former slaves freed by the British who voluntered, were paid a salary, and joined the fight against slavers.
The compensation was political without it the African nations would have rebelled and fought alongside the slvers against Britain. These countries had been heavily involved in the Islamic slave trade by selling their own citizens for 1400 years prior to any European countries including Britain being involved, and then the 300 years afterward when the Europeans were involved and the Islamic countries continued to be involved until Britain ended it for all of them.
Many African slavers were very rich and powerful beacuse of the slave trade, and, consequently, were strongly opposed to Britain and their efforts to end slavery worldwide. So the compensation payout was a pragmatic alternative without which Britain would have had to fight these African states as well as the other pro-slavery nations.
I knew about this, Tyler, and I chose Geography over history - time-tabling problems - after the third year in Secondary School.
I did History, and went on to a Degree when I left High School - on History. I am appalled when Americans have no idea about even their own history! He should read up on the Wounded Knee Massacre, Sand Creek, and many, many more atrocities visited upon the indigenous population of what became the USA.
Please keep doing these videos, I love it when someone learns something new. That's how we evolve!
If you take the White House tour, there is still a scorched doorway which the guides show you.
And not just the White House, Thomas Jeffersons House in Montecello was also burnt down in Virginia, I know that as a fact because I have seen the Burn Marks when on a tour of that Property.
The sad thing of all of this is the sheer lack of historical knowledge in general.So much world history is so heavily intertwined by events that still influence todays' happenings.By being so insular the US & its citizens have tended to blunder about in the world stage without fully understanding the nuances & fragility that are in play today that have their origins rooted a long way back in time. The Middle East is a mess due to the outcome of WW1, India,Pakistan & Bangladesh have rumbled on abrasively due to how their independence was created after WW2. Many African nations suffer the same dramas after being left by or kicking out their former colonial masters. History matters,the more you know the more you gain understanding.Ignore history & you always repeat the mistakes.
Don't blame Britain for the partition. We wanted to leave it in one piece. But the Muslims insisted.
The Hindus did keep killing them...
Look into the Windrush Scandal, I was surprised it wasn't on the list but don't know when this video was made.
Britain ruled India for 200 years, a fact you have come across before and have seemingly forgotten!
2:00 - NGL, they don't teach it to us either in UK high school history class (at least not mine). Your videos always teach me or show something new about the Country I live in (UK)
The British rulers and soldiers in India were called the Raj. They were Indian born.
India was part of the British Empire until after WWII. Britain, through the the East India Company, a trading company, essentially ruled India from the
Early 18th century.
India was called The Jewel in the Crown of the British empire
Saw a video from Britian about where some of our common saying come from like ' one for the road ' or " on the wagon "
pretty dark origins . Mind blowing !!
boy it is really bizarre how little americans know even about their own history
Because the government want them not to know anything that makes it look weak, bad etc..and a lot is politically driven.
TYLER TYLER TYLER.... YOUR REACTION VIDEOS CRACKS ME UP LAUGHING SO MUCH.😅 Love your reactions to everything...
Tyler R:- on your channel that focuses on Canada, you watched a video on the War of 1812 which featured the burning of the White House. Acting surprised deserves an Academy Award.
It’s all an act, he makes a good living from it.
I honestly think he takes nothing from any of these videos, he offers no interaction with his followers at all, and he is just in it to earn money from us with no real interest in actually learning. He saw that these sort of reaction channels were the easiest way to make a buck on youtube and here we are. The fact he has another channel doing the same thing (which I did not know untl you mentioned it so thanks) only reinforces my opinion on this matter.
I watch some great reactors on here and they apply knowledge learned in previous videos to the current video they are viewing demonstrating they have retained knowledge from it, Tyler has never done anything like this beyond one or two lines here and there but it's always surface level nonsense like "yeah you DO like your tea"
@@RockinDave1 The fact that he rarely, if ever, posts in here says a great deal about his own lack of commitment.
@@RockinDave1 true.
@@Lazmanarus He's never posted a comment - or even recommended a post. He is repeatedly surprised by facts in videos that repeat things from videos he's reacted to, sometimes within just a few days.
I have to say I enjoyed this video. Having gone through British schools I didn't know everything reported and gained a little more from the things I did.
Please don't delude yourself that you have learned anything at all from this video.
if i had i could talk to him directly, i would arbitrate and mediate, help him get the real information. he's... how do i say this, adorable. he has his shortcomings. but he's endeering and curious, and it must be nurtured, and he needs to be prepared for a fair few things, particularly the sodding internet. but americans, not tyler, love ruining good things, and our sodding inventions too.
The first nation to use what was the modern concentration camps were the Spanish used in Cuba. Shortly after that the US used the same method in the Phillipines. Shortly after this Britain used them in SA.
The British also ate the presidents dinner before burning down the Whitehouse.
The ever present danger from lighting your own farts after American food.
OMG That Was Brilliant...
Also You Can Totally Tell That This Was Your First Time Evever Reaction To This Video And That Makes It All The More Disturbing...
Which Makes Me Feel So Much Better About What We Did To......
The NATIVE AMERICANS, The COLOURED FOLK, The HAIWAIINS, The PHILAPINOS, and also Everything We Did In VIETNAM Including AGENT ORANGE.
Thank God For You.........
The Boers (Dutch for farmers): South Africans of Dutch, German, or Huguenot descent.
The Wars were over land and the farmers didn't want the areas united into one. The British did.
OMG. Tyler just got in over his head again 😳. I'm in my 30s and from rural Ireland and I was thought about the burning of the White House when I was fifteen. I really am flabbergasted at the lack of education in the USA.
I said this already on here but I will say it again: we Canadians are truly shocked when we hear Americans say they have no idea what the war of 1812 is (and we hear it A LOT).. considering THEY fought in it. I share in your flabbergasted-ness!
Just to add one more dark secret of my country. When I was just leaving school I was left homeless and starved to almost 7 stone or around 100 pounds and asked for help getting a council flat and drug dealers invaded and turned it into a drug den where even a school girl got graped right in front of me and suffering with aspergers I got sent to jail in a miscarriage of justice and still to this day never given any apology or compensation and put in an even worse mouldy place now and the only difference is that i can defend myself as an adult now.
This country has done nothing but hurt me.
None of these are 'secrets' to me
12:33 Jallianwallahbagh massacre is mentioned in the Richard Attenborough movie 'Gandhi', happened in 1919
You should check out the activities of Oliver Cromwell in Ireland. He went around kicking Catholic landowners off their property and installing his cronies in their place. This led to lasting resentments and sectarian violence which even now could potentially kick off again.
Ooh yeah
It was retaliation for the massaca of the Planters.
Quite a few of us are quite enlightened when it comes to our history. A thousand years and of course more. Pretty good that we and others from other nations learn from history's mistakes. Feels like pissin in the wind. History is amazing. Like alot in the UK and im pretty sure in the US. Would defend against that maybe it was Russia that won the second world war. If you want to look at the subject of what nation sacrificed the most in that war. Just a suggestion. Check out Phil Campion ISIS documentary when you have time. Bless
The whole video is a hit job on Britain taking a slanted view on most if not all of the events for click bait type purposes or worse. E.g. the Mau mau rebellion settled a legal action largely because the settlement was roughly the same as defending the action. My thought is we should have defended it against them not least as they employed cannibalism in their activities and giving even few grand to such people is wrong
I am from England and have known about the burning of The Whitehouse for years. “I cannot sanction your buffoonery” comes to mind 😂
We Canadians are truly shocked whenever we learn Americans have no knowledge of it
Food rationing was normal all citizens had limited amount of food to survive during the wars
Yep, ran right up to 1965 after WW2
You could almost rename this video to "Why Britain is responsible for more independence days than every other country in the world combined".
I was however surprised to see one event not included, and that was during WW2 when the Royal Navy fired upon and sank the French fleet at Mers el Kebir. That one's worth reading up on.
This woman narrator is giving us false information.
Definitely has the woke mind virus to get things this wrong
8:20 Concerning what is and isn’t taught in British schools:
1: I think the war of 1812 is only taught by some schools (or individual classes) who choose the option of including American history in the curriculum. I didn’t learn about it in school, but I was later told it was Canadian troops who sailed up the river and set fire to the city. I was also told that they had to whitewash the President’s residence afterwards to hide the damage, and that’s why it’s now called The White House.
2: I wasn’t taught about the Sarin experiments in school because I’m so old that the official secrets act was still enforced for it at the time.
3: I think everybody is taught about the potato famine. It’s a dark but important part of UK history. It was a lot more than one person doing bad things, though, the overall goal was to prioritise English landowners in Ireland and make sure exports of grain weren’t disrupted. Actually helping the starving people was always a secondary consideration.
4: I didn’t hear about the pets, but I did hear that a lot of zoo animals were put down because of fears of them escaping if the zoo was bombed.
5: This isn’t taught in schools as far as I know. I didn’t know about, but it definitely sounds like something the British in India would’ve done.
6: The Boer War is taught in schools, and concentration camps are mentioned, but it’s glossed over how bad they were.
7 & 8: British rule of India is taught, but not in enough depth. “Britain conquered India. Then we did some bad things. Then they became independent.”
9: Not taught in schools as far as I know, but a well known part of 20th century history.
10: Britain basically “bought” all of the slaves off of British slave owners. No matter how little they paid, they paid too much.
The British gov't also gave the freedmen the choice of where they wanted to live, to be repatriated to the coast of Africa or the Caribbean, they actually bought some land in Africa & called it Freetown.
In Canada we always say WE burned it down but in actuality it was the British (or both).
The Boer war was wrong information from this woman
Please do a video on the boer war
The only things they teach in school nowadays is that there are 143 genders and 2+2= 5