"Infrastructural development" that was necessary to exploit the continent, it was not a favour, no one came to Africa to favour the continent.
@naomithompson34932 жыл бұрын
come to the Uk the infrastructure development from those times still STAND till this day in pristine health! please why is there no infrastructure of any kind in Africa from that period till now that functions at the level as Europes infrastructure, these colonisers never left Africa my people they only change there name to company and corporation still the same bloodline same act just different names
@abayomiayo-kayode70242 жыл бұрын
@@naomithompson3493 if someone gives you a gift halfheartedly, you can't be too surprised about its poor quality, and yes you're right, neocolonialism is here and alive, but most sadly, it is enabled by selfish and materialistic politicians on the continent.
@samuelbishop33162 жыл бұрын
Not at first But some administrators did want to rule better for the people And many Zimbabweans for example regreted British rule ending, as free high quality health care was provided in the later part of rule. Even still the method of gaining such colonies was often absolutely horrendous, as was much of the history
@abayomiayo-kayode70242 жыл бұрын
@@samuelbishop3316 loving one's captive is simply Stockholm Syndrome. Nothing given to an African by the European is less of an investment or more of charity. You get ten, they get thousands. Tell me who owns the mines in Zimbabwe?
@aladedahunsijoshua11662 жыл бұрын
@@abayomiayo-kayode7024 You are right my brother. You blessed 🙏❣️❣️😇
@tonylove4800 Жыл бұрын
Let's not forget the Ottoman colonialism. And it was certainly the Arabs who perfected the slave trade passed on to the Europeans, although the slave trade existed internally anyway. Surely though, King Leopold's treatment of Congo was a a crime on the same scale as Hitler's or Stalin's.
@ShadowPhoenixMaximus Жыл бұрын
Mao Zedong killed more people than Hitler and Stalin combined.
@murasakinomorado7210 Жыл бұрын
It was WORSE!!
@DemonetisedZone Жыл бұрын
Stalin? If you're including famine you best include Irish and Indian famines during British rule
@murasakinomorado7210 Жыл бұрын
@@DemonetisedZone … don’t forget what the British did to the Boers in South Africa…. and what they did to the Igbo people during the Nigeria/Biafra Civil War
@landamalome2077 Жыл бұрын
@@murasakinomorado7210 igbos did it to themselves when they declared war on Nigeria and started attacking leaders in the North and southwest
@juniorjames7076 Жыл бұрын
I was a Peace Corps Volunteer in Morocco (former French colony) in the late 90s, and spent 6 months working for an NGO in Egypt (former British colony) in the mid 2000s. All I can say is in Cairo, Egypt I could barely ever find someone who spoke English on the streets, in stores or markets, sometimes not even taxi cabs! However, in Morocco, I have met elderly rural herdsmen in mountain villages who never spent a day in school who were FLUENT in French!! When the French colonize your ass, they colonize it to the BONE!!!
@HoRuofEgypt Жыл бұрын
You are totally right .. As an Egyptian who is married to a Moroccan; I can say that British occupation of Egypt was mainly to control the Suez canal (administrated by a french company) to secure trade routes with their colonies in India and also to get their hands on some valuable Egyptian goods like cotton. They didn't bother if the people adapt their language or become "Britain beyond the seas" like what their French counterparts did in other north and west African colonies forcing change of local culture and language.
@vinlondon8904 Жыл бұрын
The british never colonised Egypt. They couldn't even if the tried. Yes, they had troops and great amount of influence in it, but they wouldn't be able to make it part of their empire. It would have spark a revolution across the northen part of Africa. What they did instead is, applying soft power. The French instead were fully in control of those parts of Africa, in every aspect.
@brodocassel Жыл бұрын
Morocco was not a French colony but a protectorate
@juniorjames7076 Жыл бұрын
@@brodocassel Tomaytoe - Tomahtoe/ Potaytoe - Potahtoe! Is there really a difference? Both systems extract/steal resources.
@brodocassel Жыл бұрын
@@juniorjames7076 there wasn’t anything to steal. Morocco got way more out of France than France got out of Morocco.
@kofibanana2008 Жыл бұрын
Colonialism is never the cause of under development in Africa...its our leaders and civil war
@donpetazaragomatuta9988 Жыл бұрын
Don't you know that you and Your leaders are still under colonialism?😂😂😂 Christianity and Muslims are here to stay
@abbynamwingasimwanza230 Жыл бұрын
Amen Amen and Amen
@dealligatorgreen1222 Жыл бұрын
The colonialists planted those "leaders" and if they don't serve their interest the next coup d'etat is ready. Look at the African leaders that tried to free us, they got killed and replaced by the net puppet tyrants. France is way worse than Britain in that event!
@akiraasmr3002 Жыл бұрын
The leaders benefit from colonialism and thats why they are getting Coup d'état and the West is mad about it hahaha.
@akiraasmr3002 Жыл бұрын
The leaders benefit from neo colonialism and let the west like France and the US steal their resources and they only have to make the leader and his family rich and thats it while the people of Africa stay poor .
@shaunpcoleman Жыл бұрын
I think the biggest difference comes to motive. The British were capitalists. As long as the colony made a profit, the locals could run it as they saw fit. The French were more about cultural Imperialism and wanted the colonials to be French. The British didn't give a damn what the locals were as long as they obeyed and turned a profit.
@bovellois Жыл бұрын
Yes, it really showed in Rupert Land (Canada). The venerable Hudson's Bay Company trading posts were on the seaboard at York Factory. The furs were delivered to them, the trade took place outside of the walls of thefort, at "arms' length". The French, by contrast, canooed up the Ottawa river from Montreal, then the great lakes deep in the continent, where they met indigenous people in their territories to trade their wares against furs. they also married native women and took care of their children. the Métis nation was well established by the mid 1850s.
@TheRealAfricanist Жыл бұрын
So, if the Brits demanded indigenous Africans to obey and work for them to gain profits, then how did the Africans run it as they saw fit? Let us not get it twisted, Africans administrators worked under British rule, not as equal partners. I get so tired of hearing that the heinous atrocities that were drudgened upon Africans were all about capitalism. If that was true, why was there such a need to dehumanize blacks in word and deed, and why does so much racism still exist against blacks in European countries? Indirect rule was just as haphzardous and destructive for African society as was direct rule, if not more. The stark difference, in my opinion, was that it made Africans on the lower level of the hierarchy despise their own more than they despised the real vandals at the top. This created intentional rifts in African societies that still linger to this day. Furthermore, how could this be true with all of the English speaking Africans in the former British colonies, the Britianized educational system, the number of Africans that were exiled/sent to Britain to be educated and indoctrinated to come back and sell their people on the supremacy of Englush culture and religion, and finally those old pictures of African men and women during British colonizations dressed up in British garb....including those d*mn awful wigs that the judges still wear.😬
@shaunpcoleman Жыл бұрын
@@TheRealAfricanist Make money. Don't care what else you do. Also don't embarrass us.
@shaunpcoleman Жыл бұрын
@@TheRealAfricanist What planet are you from? No colonised people were equal from any culture and no-one should pretend they were. The British used local rulers and customs to run their colonies. They did not try to turn the people into English the French tried to make theirs French. The entire course of human history has seen one group rule another. The Europeans got their slaves from African chiefs and kings who conquered other Africans. To think the Europeans had a monopoly on imperialism, slavery and cruelty is delusional. Humans are a cruel species. If your culture decides to beat it's swords into ploughshares someone will come along (like next Tuesday) and conquer you.
@TheRealAfricanist Жыл бұрын
@shaunpcoleman The real question is what planet are you from? And as far as Europeans buying African people from African Kings...that's the European version of the story, and it's mighty funny those so called Kings always seemed to be newly converted Christians, European/Africans or Arab/Africans. Also, nobody said Caucasians had the monopoly on imperialism or slavery because I didn't have to say it...I let the record speak for itself.
@knowstitches7958 Жыл бұрын
A bit of corrections,The Gambia has never been a French colony,occupied by France at one point,and the polish-lithuanian commonwealth and Portugal the first colonial settler.
@sandrahmonthieuxpelage8915 Жыл бұрын
@@davidgarcia5593 The Francophobia in Africa is AS HIGH AS RUSSOPHOBIA IN THE WEST and orchestrated by globalists in both cases ... people are really very limited with just Hollywood knowledge ... and why so many Nigerians and Egyptians on this page speak English while accusing France of colonizing with their language when Francophone Africans SPEAK SEVERAL AFRICAN LANGUAGES as well as French ?? I have other posts on this page ... hopefully they won't disappear !!
@myself4128 Жыл бұрын
man said polish😂😂😂😂...😊
@activistbook3809 Жыл бұрын
Senegambia would like a word
@cagdas135 Жыл бұрын
@@davidgarcia5593 What does Gambia have anything to do with Ottomans? Your whataboutism is on a whole another level. If you mean Ottomans were the first colonial settlers, just ridiulous.
@marac200 Жыл бұрын
@@davidgarcia5593Nobody thinks that. Everyone knows imperialism and colonialism existed always. But In African the common theme is European Colonialism. You don’t need to always run defence for the Euros buddy.
@johnwright9372 Жыл бұрын
Africa has 54 sovereign states (plus several other disputed areas) with vast cultural, linguistic, ethnic and geographical differences which makes it highly dubious to treat all Africans as one with common interests.
@willengel2458 Жыл бұрын
in the name of fighting (proxy) terrorists, US has 7000 soldiers, 50 sites in 54 African countries.
@golden.lights.twinkle2329 Жыл бұрын
Many of those states are a mix of ethnicities, cultures and languages which will never live together peacefully.
@roboparks11 ай бұрын
54 sovereign states only after Colonialism . The Nations borders were determined by Britain and France . This keeps conflicts going . Because they basically put 2 different peoples behind the same borders.
@williamearl166211 ай бұрын
@@roboparks I have always wondered why African countries have not co operated in doing some redrawing of borders. Maybe it is just too difficult. Having a country for each tribe could mean an extra 50 countries, a bit of an overkill.
@ad3l5473 ай бұрын
@@roboparks So what ? We let thousands of states in Africa ???
@TheNaijaboy007 Жыл бұрын
When it comes to 'colonialism', people only talk of France and England. ...but people don't talk about COLONISERS like ARABS, MONGOLS and TURKS. Those are amongst the longest serving COLONISERS in history!
@fightback397 Жыл бұрын
Mongols was an empire with a very interesting history . So were the Arabs and the Ottoman empire . But the " arabs " had no empire .
@scott2452 Жыл бұрын
@@fightback397 An interesting take…why would you not class the Rashidun or Umayyad Caliphates as ‘Arab empires’? Or the empire created by Muhammad Ali Pasha in the 19th century?
@vinlondon8904 Жыл бұрын
@@scott2452There's a difference between empires and dynasties. Arabs had the latter not the former. The sultanates or khaganates were sometimes empires or kingdoms.
@meekmeek9884 Жыл бұрын
Because the methods used to colonize and steal cultures by the colonizers on question were pretty evil and sadistic methods. Not to mention, they refuse to leave over 400 yesrs later.
@pearls1626 Жыл бұрын
We need to concentrate or focus mainly on France, British, Germany, Spain, Portugal, Belgium and USA. Because they are still treating us as colonies.
@progressivemaker12572 жыл бұрын
The British abolished slavery officially. But corporations took over and messed up African networks and systems through exploiting the minerals and the land.
@abdullahrasheed14932 жыл бұрын
The British abolishing Slavery didn't end the colonization of Africa. Nor did it end the exploitation of the African people and the many resources that exist in Mother Africa.
@n.m6249 Жыл бұрын
I hope Africa can see why religion came about, to silence us while the enemy continues looting
@tpxchallenger Жыл бұрын
Why don't Senegal and Cote D'Ivoire enforce their own laws concerning child slavery? Easy as pie to hollowly just blame corporations and capitalism, but the fact is that Africa needs access to Western and Asian markets. Withoit trade there will be no prosperity. Coffee or chocolate is worth nothing in Africa if you can't sell it in Europe. These are sovereign nations and the world markets dictates prices. The art of good economic government is to get as much of that value to your citizens as possible.
@foraustralia2558 Жыл бұрын
Not just the corporations, also the Communist in the Cold War....if you have resources some one will try to exploit them ... they trick is to keep the benefits of them
@olatunbosunbode-alaaka3688 Жыл бұрын
Infrastructural development, my foot. Didn't the Europeans destroy and stole away every development they met in our Motherland!
@mwegabaraka5645 Жыл бұрын
Most of the subsequent African governments after colonialism have been far worse in administering Africa than the colonialists ever were.
@teddymwangi Жыл бұрын
which country has raped, massacred , stole and put its citizens in jail
@chrisj1477 Жыл бұрын
@@teddymwangi Hmmm Rwanda?
@masaukochitsamba7808 Жыл бұрын
Many African countries have. The Massacres of tutsis in Rwanda, the killing of igbos in Nigeria in the 1960s, the killing of ndebeles in matabeleland in Zimbabwe. These are few of the many events that have taken place after independence in Africa. And I haven't mentioned the many civil wars that have ravanged the continent.
@golden.lights.twinkle2329 Жыл бұрын
Just look at the train wrecks that are South Africa and Zimbabwe.
@cenote10011 ай бұрын
@@teddymwangi there’s so many, but you might wanna look up the country of Buganda. That doesn’t exist anymore because of that evil warlord Idi .
@NnamdiNnake2 жыл бұрын
Well done Historyville. Inspirational work.
@HistoryVille2 жыл бұрын
Thank you.
@furuleetsaingo2 жыл бұрын
Like the main actress in a Vietnamese movie called "the Rebel" say "I know the French helped modernize our country,but is it worth the price of our freedom"
@smoothoperator98452 жыл бұрын
Modernize county? Get back on your opioids!!
@smoothoperator98452 жыл бұрын
Modernize county? Get back on your opioids!!
@jamescarel5520 Жыл бұрын
They were smart to take the good and kick the bad out
@loganw1232 Жыл бұрын
Does Vietnam have freedom now?
@johnwotek3816 Жыл бұрын
There is a french humorist who sums colonisation up quite nicely. "Yes I crashed in your home, yes I sat in your favorite couch, yes I ate all your favorite yogurt, yes I had sex with your wife... but... come on! It ain't so bad! I installed the Wi-fi!"
@GeneMickeyMann Жыл бұрын
The British adopted a policy of indirect rule, whereby they appointed local tribal leaders as intermediaries and utilized existing social structures. They sought to maintain the existing systems of governance and administered their colonies. The French pursued a policy of assimilation, aiming to eradicate African cultures and replace them with French institutions and values. They imposed a centralised system of administration, with French officials taking direct control . The British focused on the extraction of valuable resources, such as minerals and cash crops, from Africa to fuel their industrial revolution. They exploited African resources to meet the demands of the British economy and establish trading networks. The French aimed to maintain control over key economic sectors and establish a system of economic exploitation. They heavily relied on forced labour, particularly in the production of agricultural commodities, aiming to enhance their own economic prosperity. The British preferred to interact with Africans through trade and missionary activities, often attempting to convert Africans to Christianity. They generally had a more tolerant approach towards African cultural practices and traditions.The French pursued a policy of cultural assimilation, actively encouraging Africans to adopt French language, education, and customs. They aimed to assimilate Africans into the French culture and considered it as a means of legitimizing their rule.
@POPSY437 Жыл бұрын
Ce que tu dis est diacutable. Le pays Mossi au Burkina, Les fulbe en Guinee, Les Wolof au Senegal et Les Akan en Cote D'Ivoire on Garder leur culture. Idem pour Les Haoussa du Niger. Cette appreciation nest pas correct. Toutefois, certains colonies Anglaise et Francaise ont voulu reassembler a leur metropole.
@653j521 Жыл бұрын
It was opposite in North America.
@tanler7953 Жыл бұрын
@@653j521 The colonization of North America was also different because the French and English were fighting each other for a long time. Both sought to recruit the local indigenous nations as allies.
@matthewlo55 Жыл бұрын
So French is stupid
@Libanoni97411 ай бұрын
The british are still worse
@tpxchallenger Жыл бұрын
China's debt colonialism is simply another form of colonialism. It's disappointing that Africans aren't building their own railways. The main lines all over Africa were built more than a hundred years ago. Rail technology and infrastructure is well known and understood, yet Tanzania, Ethiopia, Djibouti, Nigeria, Kenya, and others have borrowed heavily from China for Chinese built rail and rail equipment.
@graybeard9942 Жыл бұрын
They have all the raw materials, iron ore, copper, oil etc to do this but lack the knowledge and infastructure to make this possible. Africa needs to invest in its youth, sending them to the univercities of the world to obtain this knowledge and make it attractive for them to return and develope the continent. It is nice to have nice homes and attractive office spaces but without the grime of manufacturing you are just a clean slave.
@tpxchallenger Жыл бұрын
@@graybeard9942 Absolutely agree! It is already happening. There are 10 African auto makers making original designs, for instance.
@JaysLife78 Жыл бұрын
@@tpxchallengerJust following what's already been done.
@joseph3036 Жыл бұрын
They can't build because their leaders are more concerned about enjoying life while the common people are more concerned about religion, death and heaven.
@Geambasu169 Жыл бұрын
Bicoz nobody wants a smart nation to wake-up
@akouafray86162 жыл бұрын
The French remain in Africa till today, to them , colonisation continues. The Brits left . Africa is still plundered by colonisers. Today , we continue to borrow money from them for our development. Even our central banks are located in Europe. They decide the outcome of resources found in Africa. Mama Africa when shall you be free from bandage?
@rickyreward2262 жыл бұрын
Yeah that's why when Amin sent them away, refused their money and decided to trade with Gadaffi and Arab states. They had to get him out for refusing to take British money and Chase them out of the country. They are here to loot. That's all they want. They don't care about any African. Their dna is filled with one thing greed and they will kill and destroy the whole world to get one more dollar in their bank account
@mohamedswaray4702 жыл бұрын
How about the British or other non French?My friend non those criminals hasnt left Africa, they are still in different forms.
@akouafray86162 жыл бұрын
@@mohamedswaray470 Sure ,birds of the same feather.
@berechianyanwu11542 жыл бұрын
What are you doing about it?
@Infinitefire-w32 жыл бұрын
Rubbish, 40 years ago china was a massive borrower, they borrowed from this same institution that we now borrow from , they used theirs wisely while African leaders pocket the money they borrowed in our name.
@michaelhelperin4425 Жыл бұрын
For some years now, I wondered why those nations which threw off the French, Portuguese, or (especially) Belgian yoke decades ago seem more chaotic and troubled today than those who threw off the British. This documentary goes some way toward answering my question, and I thank you for that! We all should take a lesson from this: people who administer their own communities and keep their own language and traditions do not lose their memories and enter a dark age.
@seann8293 Жыл бұрын
Really? What do you mean by French, Portuguese, and Belgian so-called ex-colonies being "more chaotic and troubled than those who threw off the British"? Have you checked how many military coups-d'etat Nigeria has undergone since independence from Britain, in addition to an enormously murderous 1967-1970 secessional Biafran war that cost no less than 2 million human lives? Has there been a more barbarous civil war in Africa than in Siera Leone, a British colony? I can go on and on..., but let me conclude that, in the case or cases of Africa, ALL forms or styles of colonialism translate(d) into racist, or race-based religious, and cultural subjugation and economic overexploitation of Black people. There is NO GOOD or BETTER colonialism! One can even venture to think, speaking of the future of a sovereign Africa (i.e., Panafricanism...), that what nowadays is perceived as chaotic and troubled development in ex-french colonies (i.e., Mali, Burkina Faso, Centrafican Republic, Guinea Conakry, Niger, etc) are the necessary fights leading to TRUE INDEPENDENCE of African countries and, God willing, an INDEPENDENT, AND POWERFUL UNITED STATES OF AFRICA, or federated regions with critical masses powerful enough to weigh on and force respect of BLACK people in the international political and economic arena.
@michaelhelperin4425 Жыл бұрын
Certainly it is not an absolute rule, but some countries are doing better than others. Botswana is widely regarded as successful, for instance. It was Ghanaian historian K. A. Kumi Attobrah who crafted a lingua franca for all of Africa -- and included many Englishisms in it. The fact that all colonialism is bad does not imply that some cannot be worse than others. Nor do your uppercase letters and righteous indignation make your argument any more plausible.
@michaelhelperin4425 Жыл бұрын
You may be right, Guy, but Liberia cannot be evidence: its colonization was a U.S. project, not a British one. Nevertheless, I'll be rewatching this video because I think it holds lessons for our domestic politics in the West: government must be of the people to be effective and trustworthy.
@jorgebalarinbenavides2172 Жыл бұрын
The true is that normally not a single nation expend it's resources to help other nations. The Africans must help themselves. If they were conquered it was because their societies were heavily underdeveloped and week. If the situation would have been different, the Africans would've colonized Europe.
@mikerodent3164 Жыл бұрын
This rivalry and different approach between England/Britain and France are fascinating. The English story is incredibly well documented: in 1600, 3 privately funded ships set out from London to go to what is now Indonesia to trade for a substance which was more expensive than gold, weight for weight: nutmeg. Although called the "East Indies Company" it had nothing to do with India. At first. The British were always about one thing, making money, until the early decades of the 19th Century, when they started gassing on about the "white man's burden", though the economic exploitation of the colonies in fact intensified after that. The rivalry in India (with the French) only started AFTER the French, which had a much smaller presence, started scheming over territory with local rulers in the mid-18th century. The French attitude has always been much more "ideological", and this vid is an interesting exploration of one manifestation of it. Unlike the British, who never really "conquered" anywhere just for the sake of territory, this is precisely what the French chose to do one day, in a completely unprovoked way, when they invaded Algeria in 1830, and decided that henceforth this would actually be a new part of France! That was a naked land grab which has no parallel in British colonial history, and of course opened up the whole territory of West Africa, which is still affected by French colonialism, in the form of the CFA franc, amazingly still officially in use today. In 1996 Rwanda chose, as a result (again) of French ideological meddling which led to the 1994 genocide, to switch its official language from French to English. Despite Rwanda never having been a French colony (it was colonised by the Belgians), this caused utter consternation in Paris. Look at Niger right now: I think Rwanda will probably not be the last African country to switch to English, which is after all the lingua franca of the whole world (possibly excluding China). PS as a final twist of the knife for the French, Rwanda then went on, amazingly, to join the British Commonwealth organisation! One of only 2 countries (with Mozambique) in the Commonwealth which had never been colonies of the British. NB in both cases this was done, again, for purely economic reasons, but is also an eloquent testimony to French failure in managing the end of their empire.
@CorsicanTino Жыл бұрын
The "invasion" of Algeria was started to end piracy, which was not only an issue for the french by the way but for pretty much all major European trading powers. Before being a French colony it was an Ottoman "colony". Also, it is far fetch to say French ideology pushed Rwanda into a genocide, you can argue that they did not need that much help to start killing each other... So it seems a bit far fetch and an odd excuse
@masaukochitsamba7808 Жыл бұрын
Rwanda was never a french colony. It was a German colony and later on became a league of nation territory entrusted to Belgium
@mikerodent3164 Жыл бұрын
@@CorsicanTino Re pirates: the piracy could obviously have been eradicated without annexing the country. Re Rwanda: François Mitterand is the culprit here: he deliberately sought to cultivate the grievances of the supposedly "oppressed" Hutu underclass. The genocide might well have happened without Mitterand's meddling, but it might also have happened differently: we'll never know. The French admitted as much in the 2021 report of the commission headed by Vincent Duclert.
@CorsicanTino Жыл бұрын
@@mikerodent3164 It is always intriguing to me that Africans nations like to point the finger at others for what is their responsability. I don't like Mitterand persona but thats 's not him who decided to go in the street with a Machete. At the end of the day that's the various ethnic groups who decided to kill one another. The same happened in ex-Yugoslavia and nobody is blaming external powers influence like, Nato and Russia, for it. Actualy that claim would be even considered ridiculous
@mikerodent3164 Жыл бұрын
@@CorsicanTino Yes, I'm not seeking to absolve the Hutu murderers: it was a disgraceful horror, and they must take responsibility for it. But colonial or former colonial forces can sometimes help or hinder things. Eg. the British exit from India and the horrors of Partition. A lot of Indians these days put a lot of blame on the British, using all sorts of arguments, suggesting that it needn't have happened. They have **some** justification in my view.
@sonnysantana5454 Жыл бұрын
the odd and real funny difference is that france may have gotton kicked out baldly but did manage to keep a odd but strong connection with their former colonnies and gave french citizenship to more than a few
@golden.lights.twinkle2329 Жыл бұрын
Just look at the current French football team!
@christophermichaelclarence60037 ай бұрын
@@golden.lights.twinkle2329Bloody true. French Team is mostly black players
@buildthis995 ай бұрын
Indeed France kept a very strong Bond with her African colonies, such as the use of the CFA Franc, the currency that fourteen African nations must use, with 50% of their foreign exchange rate must be kept in the French national bank. As well as the approx 5B Euro of Uranium being extracted from Niger each year, while the official export figures for total export trade for Niger is under 1B Euro, pretty strong connections for sure.
@apacademy5 ай бұрын
@@golden.lights.twinkle2329 - France still pimpin west Africa like a cheap hoe. Without Africa, France couldn't even pay any of its bills. TOTAL dependence upon the wealth they steal from Africa.
@markaxworthy2508 Жыл бұрын
The reason the British adopted an indirect system of rule was that the UK's population was only about 10% of that of its empire and it couldn't impose itself everywhere directly. By contrast, in 1914 France's population was about the same as that of its entire empire combined and it was thus more easily able to impose its rule directly. As a result, French administration penetrated more deeply. One consequence today is that the French spoken in ex-French colonies is better than the English spoken in ex-British colonies.
@S1LVAW0LF Жыл бұрын
Frances population was the same as that of all its colonies at that time? Thats fuckin wild, i never knew that. Good pt !
@markaxworthy2508 Жыл бұрын
@@S1LVAW0LF Yup. If you look at almost all French African colonies, they were largely desert and sahel with very low population densities. Most of the French colonial population was in Indo-China. Even all combined they only came to about 40 million in 1914, which is about the same as France itself. Only the Dutch had a metropolis/colonial ratio similar to the British because Indonesia was so populous and the Netherlands was small. However, the Dutch language has left no imprint in Indonesia and there are very few Dutch cultural traces left there. At the other extreme, the population of Germany in 1914 was about ten times the size of its combined empire. Their ability to impose themselves heavily might explain the Germans' unusual severity in Tanganyika and South West Africa in the 1900s.
@653j521 Жыл бұрын
Most of the long words in this are accented in non-English ways which made this hard to understand, such as European or colonialism. Is the narrator a French speaker?
@Threezi04 Жыл бұрын
Tbf that's really only because of India, maybe Egypt too, aside from them and settler colonies (which saw themselves as British until the mid 20th century) Britain had a pretty comparable population.
@markaxworthy2508 Жыл бұрын
@@Threezi04 Egypt wasn't a colony at any stage. Of course you have to include India. It was the core part of the UK's administrative responsibilities. To exclude it would be like the "Well, apart from....what have the Romans ever done for us" conversation in the Life of Brian.
@bloggtalk50852 жыл бұрын
6 of 10 poorest nations in Africa and in the world speak French. Fact.
@jamescarel5520 Жыл бұрын
French has nothing to do with social economic and political stability of a country.no matter what you speak, whatever color you give it you cannot expect different outcomes if you continue to use the same detrimental methods.most Francophone countries are or were at times doing great.but if corruption inequalitie irresponsibility and all the evils are institutionalized and become a way of life than a medium of of communication is the very least of your problems
@simonnzioki3261 Жыл бұрын
@@jamescarel5520 through out history, it has been proven that culture affects societies, for example; during world war 2 both white and black American soldiers had children with German women, but neither kids were raised by their American fathers, later statistics were collected on both groups in 1970s, and their was no difference in IQ scores, income and career success, another example is Liberia, which was started by freed American slaves, instead of building an equal society, they built an American styled nation in which segregation wasn't based on race but place of origin, natives were enslaved in farms, were not allowed to enter into certain public places and marriage between natives and black Americans was banned so they had to go to America marry a fellow black woman and come with her to Liberia, this system build a barbaric system among the natives who went on to overthrow their masters and build the most barbaric state ever seen in Africa, another example is East Asia; Zaire was richer than Indonesia in 1960s, both experienced corruption and dictatorship, in fact Indonesia's dictator stole 35 billion from his country while Mobutu stole 5 billion from his country, Mobutu's wealth was tracked and was found in Europe while the Indonesia's dictator wealth was found in Indonesia, Africans have post colonial and post slavery culture, and that's why the poorest African countries are all speaking Francophone because the French were assimilating their colonies into black Frenchmen not to become a PROSPEROUS society but an EXTRACTIVE society that milks Africa dry and send the loot to France, the only way for them to catch up with others like Kenya, Ghana, and Nigeria which are currently developing fast is by ditching COLONIAL BRAINWASH and embrace MORDEN AFRICANISM
@RendererEP Жыл бұрын
What might interest people is the British nobility and Royal family were started by the Norman French after conquering Britain, then began colonisation starting in Ireland in the 1100's. They had their own seperate society from the rest of the Britons descended from a mix of Celts Romans Nordics and Anglo Saxons. Whilst the commoner spoke old english, the conquering high society spoke french imposed the feudal system and introduced serfdom and de facto slavery with draconian laws and punishments on the land of the Britons whilst extracting everythint for their own wealth. French was the official language of England for 300 years but only used by the seperated high society that planted itself there. I woulf say that was the first instance of something similar to what we now call Apartheid. Then at a time once Different parts of English society merged to create something similar as to what we know now, that had been happening between the 1300's and 1500's, then after this conquered the world, inspired by the Spanish and Traders. And using the methods they knew worked. Just as the French, who they directly descend from also did to the world later on, and had previously done to Britain to create their society in the first place. It seems to be a way of doing things for the wealthy people of the land we currently call France. The fact also remains is that they still do it to this day in West Africa. In that sense, Britain and France are two peas in a pod , grown from the same root. Except the British were perhaps more mercantile and the French More as conquerors just like the medieval times
@rostandsaurel8744 Жыл бұрын
Don't try to victimise Britain because they conquered part of French too and lasted longer than the normands.
@RendererEP Жыл бұрын
@@rostandsaurel8744 yeah , i said england then britain in its current form acts the way it does and has done, because its descended from its original conquerors who havent changed at all. It seems to be their way of doing things. The original root being aristocratic classes from the land of what we would now call france. The ones that went to England made themselves the most money influence and power. I see the original britons of way back as victims. And the french peasantry until they supported Napoleon. The british state itself and the french state , no, but as I said, those who created and run the states themselves are descended from those conquerors and aristocrats. My theory is that it seems to be their habit to just continually want more and conquer , seeing as they have done it now for 1000 years when u think about it. From the same two countries, one of which they conquered themselves. The USA was created in a similar fashion. I'd liken it to a zombie virus that started in france and got to Britain and the USA. The elite there descend from colonists who descended from the normans, as by that point norman england became just England of the 1500s , when the norman style serfdom was going away but with the same royal family and a population integrated into their nation. Im honestly finding it really hard to put into words, Im unable to explain it the way I am thinking of it.
@TheChosen2030 Жыл бұрын
Also britain kicked Frances ass many times in wars
@Officialnrb Жыл бұрын
@@RendererEP You sound like a bitter little frog 🐸
@cameronmclennan942 Жыл бұрын
@@RendererEPyeah, I've been thinking along these lines for a while myself, but find it hard to explain concisely to people as well.
@ademola58032 жыл бұрын
A very sad story and now history is about to repeat itself with the Chinese
@thejavorharalu95422 жыл бұрын
And i can guarantee Chinese colonization will not be a pretty picture either . It will be beneficial only for a few African leaders
@ademola58032 жыл бұрын
@@thejavorharalu9542 it's sad. When are we blacks gonna learn
@ruggeddiscipline6026 Жыл бұрын
I don't think the Chinese are as evil as the usa and the uk say they are critical thinking skills 🤔
@orboakin8074 Жыл бұрын
As a Nigerian, this video and history of Haiti makes me appreciate the fact that the British were the ones who colonized/created my country and not the French. Most former British colonies tend to do better socioeconomically and politically compared to French ones. The British had a habit of importing and imposing their political and economic and social ideals on their colonies which tended to help them after colonialism. Yes, my country still has issues aplenty but compared to many other countries here in Africa and like Haiti, we are so much better economically and socially and politically and getting better still.
@JD-bk4zi Жыл бұрын
What about Ivory Coast ? Or the Apartheid in South Africa ? That was the British doing it wasn't it ?
@meislouis1381 Жыл бұрын
@@JD-bk4ziwell to be fair the apartheid was done by the boers, not the british
@Hiltok Жыл бұрын
@@JD-bk4zi 'Ivory Coast' is officially Cote d'Ivoire and it's official language is French. The British were not the only colonizers in South Africa - the Afrikaaners were Dutch (with some French and German, too).
@babukatanga5292 Жыл бұрын
Stockholm syndrome. African thanking his invaders for raping, humiliating and pillaging his native land. You should be ashamed of yourself, maybe better practice japanese ritual suicide. Many of your countrymen are running away to many parts of Europe and Southern Africa, glad you think you doing well politically and economically.
@_VISION. Жыл бұрын
You sound ridiculous, you shouldn't want any of them colonizing you
@elsabishop7669 Жыл бұрын
In this world only three (3) countries. Ethiopia, Thailand and Japan can claim to have never being colonized. Yet it is only in Africa that their failure to provide a decent standard of living for it's people is blamed on Colonialism. Even the selling of their own people into slavery is blamed on others. How is it that those countries in Asia which shared the same colonial experiences have been able to move forward, some even surpassing their former colonial masters in the standard of living they give their citizens. We have not even being able to maintain the infastructor colonials left behind
@folk2630 Жыл бұрын
I think that nepal also wasn’t colonised
@beezelsub Жыл бұрын
They do always treat Africans by different rules.
@elsabishop7669 Жыл бұрын
@@folk2630 Nepal paid tribute to China and later became a British Protectorate
@elsabishop7669 Жыл бұрын
@@beezelsub 🙄🙄 Of course😁😂😂😂😂😂😂
@bitTorrenter Жыл бұрын
Errr, Italian East Africa??
@special16672 жыл бұрын
Cameroon and Togo were not colonised by the French even as Tanganyika or Tanzania was not colonised by the British. The three territories were initially German protectorates. After the first World War, Togo and a larger part of Cameroon were administered by France as mandates of the League of Nations and then as trust-territories of the United Nations while smaller portions of Cameroon and all of Tanzania were entrusted to the British by the same organisations.
@allanaringo2 жыл бұрын
So this same UN that exists to resolve conflicts was involved in the colonial project?
@mazzoanV2 Жыл бұрын
@@allanaringo No it was then known as the League of Nations where Woodrow Wilson of the United States recommended that African countries should be granted independence but it fell on deaf ears.
@juniorjames7076 Жыл бұрын
Tomayto/Tomahto = Colony/Protectorate......exact same thing. They extract resources from you in both. No difference. "Protectorate" was more politically correct post-WW1.
@user-bs5qr5ie4s Жыл бұрын
Namibia was also given to British
@TheRealAfricanist Жыл бұрын
Semantics. It's all the same.
@jakeisaac97872 жыл бұрын
Very sad story. Thanks Historyville for teaching me what I was never thought in school. So clear and understanding❤️❤️❤️
@aarondayo77002 жыл бұрын
They have not thought u in secondary school, or u didn't not do government and history?
@jamescarel5520 Жыл бұрын
Why is it sad?it’s just history you can’t take it back so don’t dwell on it just learn from it and avoid the same mistakes
@tahsia1 Жыл бұрын
Do you think they teach kids in the Western world this part of our common history? They don’t teach you all of this in Nigerian schools either. Bits and pieces maybe but def not in depth
@jamescarel5520 Жыл бұрын
@@tahsia1 well THEY ( who are they?)can’t teach you everything in traditional school otherwise you’d spend a lifetime in school.school only teach the basics and how to do research on your own.it’s your responsibility to be smart,curious,and thirsty for knowledge.no one can instill in you.nowadays information is all over the place but if your head is not in that kind of stuff than yes you’re gonna blame THEY for not teaching you.
@davedixon842 Жыл бұрын
¹¹¹
@oakbellUK Жыл бұрын
Errors right from the start of this video. The Europeans did not set out to colonise Africa. Sure the carved it up in berlin 1894 ish, but European involvement in Africa started way earlier and was motivated by trade. Different countries set up trading posts in different places and the colonies grew from there.
@TheRealAfricanist Жыл бұрын
I know right. Colonization was an accident that happened right after they finished accidentally building military forts and enslaving millions of Africans.
@charlesachilefu Жыл бұрын
By trade you mean exploitation. Stop patronising us.
@oakbellUK Жыл бұрын
@@charlesachilefu please take a look at the early days of the East India Company. It was originally trade between equals. It deteriorated to colonialism once the UK govt took over. I'm not being patronising, I'm setting the record straight.
@ac890711 ай бұрын
@@charlesachilefu No. When the whites arrived in Africa, they did not know that they were going to trade with Muslims slavers who offered them black slaves. Because in Europe, this was not done. Trade didn’t concern people but food, furnitures, things.
@ac890711 ай бұрын
@oakbellUK. Yes, some errors exist in their video.
@walrustrent2001 Жыл бұрын
This video is a disservice to Africans. Not because of what it stated, which I deem essentially accurate and informative (with an exception), but because of what it forgets to mention. Sure, colonization was imperialism, the English respected local forms of government because they could not be bothered to engages in direct administration, and the French did direct administration because they thought the African culture to be inferior and that Africans were not capable of taking care of themselves. Sure, both English and French hold very probably racist views because of their obvious superiority in almost all domains of civilisational development - and that include those who truly wanted the best for Africans. BUT, hinting that colonization brought underdevelopment in any shape or form in Africa is really egregious. Or famine for that matters. What the video forgets to mention is that the African population exploded in the XIXth and XXth century because colonies were able to benefit from the advances of the western civilisation : electricity, antibiotics, cars, fertilizers. If anything, this anti-colonial rethoric holds the Africans to be just like the colonizers did : children who are not responsible of the situation they are in. I am all for strong independent African countries and culture - but looking at the past with such a skewed view is not the way to go. "I mean, apart from writing, education, medicine, fertilizers, infrastructure, civil peace and public order, what did the colonizers brought us ?"
@sirderam111 ай бұрын
I agree. The video is reasonably balanced up until about the last few minutes, 18:18 onwards. It then makes several unwarranted assumptions about African societies developing more quickly and more successfully if colonialisation had never happened. There is absolutely no evidence that this was likely to happen. The result is, as you say, an excuse for failure that engenders an avoidance of personal responsibility to do better. Easier to blame colonialism than to do the hard work, physical, intellectual, and moral, necessary to achieve success.
@atarahyasharal2336 Жыл бұрын
No wonder why in school I often felt disconnected from learning. I wanted to learn a trade or skill, not just literary jargon and gesturing. I am grateful to Yah for allowing knowledge to increase because I am hearing and seeing like never before.
@lamingogarden38722 жыл бұрын
Over 100 years later we have not learned anything
@glennpeterson24772 жыл бұрын
La'mingo Garden, Yep, still blinded by tribalism, and not seeing that the Countries Elites along with their European Masters are still ripping them off. Now the Chinese are moving in wanting a large piece of the African pie!
@smoothoperator98452 жыл бұрын
Speak for your self!
@chechesire29512 жыл бұрын
If our forefathers heard you they'd curse you. There has been so much progress
@chechesire29512 жыл бұрын
If our forefathers heard you they'd curse you. There has been so much progress
@lamingogarden38722 жыл бұрын
@@chechesire2951 really? with the kind of leaders we have in africa? do you know that there are communities in africa that do not have potable drinking water, just water to drink in 2022???
@drdogood5822 жыл бұрын
Great documentary. Correction: The Gambia 🇬🇲 was a British colony and imperial outpost until 1965...
@stagg21582 жыл бұрын
It was French before the British took from the French back then the two always fought over land in Africa..they even fought each other in Europe 🇪🇺
@abdullahrasheed14932 жыл бұрын
@@stagg2158 I took a photo of the History of the different occupiers of what is now known as "Kunta Kinte" Island. It was first taken over by the Portuguese in 1456 but over time it was fought over again and again between the French and the English. Even at one point Pirates raided the island and took away it's goods and even some enslaved Africans. The island was eventually abandoned in 1829 and although it went through several different names it was called James Island when it was abandoned and remained with that name until 2011 when the then Gambian president Yahya Jammeh had the name changed to "Kunta Kinte" island. My first time there was in 2007. A very interesting history.
@masterboy751 Жыл бұрын
Bro you are right gambia is a british colony
@user-zh8ek6tc3x6 ай бұрын
What role do we play as Africans to reunite these countries to one federal entity?
@chrishutton14585 ай бұрын
@@stagg2158We've been fighting the French for the best part of 2000 years. And they started it!
@sd2477 ай бұрын
What maps are you using to show pre colonized Africa and Colonized Africa? I would like to look them upstairs.
@tibawomputshana6613 Жыл бұрын
You skipped the very important fact that the British maintained agents whose job was to influence the African traditional leaders to toe British interests against their fellow Africans
@kasulebriankalule2129 Жыл бұрын
That was explained as part of the indirect rule. Listen again.
@trollpenguin6713 Жыл бұрын
That is in the video, they didn't said British motivation was for goodness of Africa. After all if it was for goodness it won't be called colonialism/imperialism. Offcourse the colonizers taking advantage of colonialism, similar like you doing business seeking for profit, that is law of nature. We can say being British colonies is less worse than being colonies of France.
@popsonjaiyesimi7670 Жыл бұрын
It's so sad, and the same tactics endure. How foolish African leaders have been.
@joaofreire4744 Жыл бұрын
It is ridiculous to say (at the end of the clip) that most investment was concentrated in the larger urban areas, hence the great migration from countryside to cities. That very same development scheme can be witnessed in nearly all European countries to this day, so it was not a “colonialistic thing”. Also, you should check out Ethiopia and Liberia - both African countries that were never colonised, to see if you spot any difference. Paradises on earth, no doubt…
@NeilFH Жыл бұрын
so are you defending colonialism?
@loganw1232 Жыл бұрын
@@NeilFHIn many ways, colonialism even modern colonialism has benefits despite drawbacks.
@beezelsub Жыл бұрын
Liberia WAS colonized. Just not by White Europeans. Ethiopia had a lot going on with the Royal family and the many different ethnic groups that comprise Ethiopia, but honestly they aren't doing so bad right now.
@beezelsub Жыл бұрын
@@loganw1232 neo colonialism, especially by Western Europeans, is arguably EVEN WORSE, than the actual colonialism of the past.
@markmarcas6523 Жыл бұрын
She has some good point but, the population of Africa could not be supported with the traditional ways. Also at some point you got get over it. Middle East has the same problem. They still complain about British rule.
@Kwolfx Жыл бұрын
There were two other reasons for European colonization which this video didn't mention. One of those reasons had little to do with Britain or France, though the second reason definitely motivated France, in some cases. The first was prestige. There was a belief that a European country couldn't be considered a serious power if had no colonies. This was almost the entire motivation for Germany developing colonies in Africa and elsewhere. To a degree, the same could be said of Italy. The vast majority of German colonies were worthless to Germany in terms of trade, natural resources or manpower for German business interests. It was the insecurity of Kaiser Wilhelm II that drove him to put "as many German flags on the map" as he could. Those were his own words in quotation marks, what he said he wanted to accomplish. The second reason to establish a colony was for the military advantage it could provide in event of a war breaking out between two European powers. These colonies would be used as military bases to threaten the trade of a foreign power. This is what drove France to seize a small fishing village in Tunisia named Bizerte. Neither Tunisia or the area around Bizerte held much interest for the French. They dredged the harbor and made it into a deep sea port for the French Navy. At the same time they built port facilities and major defensive fortifications on the hills which largely protected Bizerte from the ocean. This base would be a place France could use to strike against either British or Italian interests in the Mediterranean. (For a time in the late19th century, the possibility of war between France and Italy was a very real thing.) The island of Mauritius off the African coast was taken partially for economic reasons, but also as a base to threaten British trade with India. These two reasons for colonization had almost nothing to do with Africa or its people, but those people still felt the consequences of colonization, none the less.
@HughJass-jv2lt Жыл бұрын
Did not Watch the Video... but I assume the difference is that _FRENCH COLONIALISM_ *NEVER ended.* 🔥🔥🔥
@voxveritas333 Жыл бұрын
Is this why former French West African countries are such a mess now?
@rg3412 Жыл бұрын
You picked the picture of De Gaulle, which shows how superficial your research is. De Gaulle was viscerally anti-colonialism. He hated the Pied-Noirs (the European population that colonized Algeria) and was for self-determination of all people around the world.
@YourDay672 жыл бұрын
Cameroon 🇨🇲 wasn’t entirely colonized by France. Your research is lacking
@grunggadx252 жыл бұрын
Not it wasn’t but as it stands today majority of Cameroonians speak french and a minority spew english
@YourDay672 жыл бұрын
@@grunggadx25 so you part of those who suppressed minority voices? Of what do you mean
@seann8293 Жыл бұрын
Although administered and treated as such, Cameroon (or the Cameroons) was not colonized by and was not a colony of France. As your map shows, Cameroon, Burundi, Rwanda, Togo, Tanzania, and Namibia were Germany's African colonies that were variably given in guardianship by the League of Nations mandate to France, England, and Portugal after the defeat of Germany by the Allies countries in WWII.
@poettttt Жыл бұрын
@seann8293--You mean to communicate that the League of Nations transferred colonies after World War One-correct?
@seann8293 Жыл бұрын
@@poettttt That's after WW2. Moreover, I wrote, "Although administered and treated as such, Cameroon...". I agree that all in all, it's but a technical or procedural detail.
@Wil-nh5kz Жыл бұрын
@@seann8293The transfer of Germany's African colonies took place in 1919, after the Great War (the First World War).
@seann8293 Жыл бұрын
@@Wil-nh5kz Correct.
@Valerioooo109 Жыл бұрын
Really helping me out with uni assignment. I appreciate it
@HistoryVille Жыл бұрын
🙏🏼
@ejirowhisky79902 жыл бұрын
Great documentary!
@AcousticUplift11 ай бұрын
There's much that's problematic about this video. The mention of Gambia (instead of, I assume, Guinea-Conakry) as a French colony is one, but it reflects an historical sloppiness in general. I didn't expect to listen to an effective apologia for British colonialism. There was no 'superior' colonisation. British, French, Portuguese, Belgian etc were all transgressive but each had their particular flavour. Any so-called benefits are overridden by the inestimable harm caused by colonialism then and now. In education for example, the British still frowned upon the use of the 'vernacular' in schools by local children and English was considered 'king'. The after-effects of this is still felt in places like Nigeria. It was German missionaries who encouraged the use of local languages in education, not so much the Brits. Africa did not need 'civilising'. That is an Eurocentric worldview. Africa already had great civilisations. And how can one talk of the colonialists bringing 'enlightenment' when imperial powers are busy brutalising and exploiting fellow human beings, under the pretext of pseudo-science to justify it? This video sounds like a pre-Independence newsreel fronted by a 'native' still heavily influenced by colonial thinking (I say this as a Westernised West African, born in the UK and under no illusions about colonial legacies).
@10goldfinger Жыл бұрын
You completely forget the Arabs and the Turks, who ruled North Africa for more than 1000 years!
@demianbamu710 Жыл бұрын
Cameroon did not become a French colony until around after WW1. Prior to that it was a German colony from 1884 until 1916 when Germans were defeated in the then Kamerun
@ac890711 ай бұрын
We find some errors and wrong informations in this video.👆
@whitneyhill55862 жыл бұрын
Colonialism was a crime against humanity. Surprisingly, even today almost all or all the African nations are still colonies directly or indirectly. Fortunately, the Malians have kicked the French out of Mali, banned the French language etc. All other countries in Africa need to follow the examples of the Malians.
@bloggtalk50852 жыл бұрын
No truth in your claims..french never walk away.haiti was a lesson
@niconkola93142 жыл бұрын
colonies will never end as long idiot leaders inviting Chinese to build infrastructure instead of teaching local citizen to do it
@michelej94962 жыл бұрын
@@bloggtalk5085 Haiti is definitely a lesson.
@jamiami38042 жыл бұрын
Just name change; slavery to colonization, to capitalism, all three are the same thing. With slavery you see exactly what’s going on, less so with colonization and totally hidden under capitalism. Slavery was in your face, colonization trying to hide their atrocities, capitalism all is hidden.
@thejavorharalu95422 жыл бұрын
I disagree because even Marxism also exploited eastern Europeans and their resources for subsidizing the development of USSR.
@Boy_Gentle2 жыл бұрын
Great documentary. The DRC was colonized by Belgium
@thejavorharalu95422 жыл бұрын
And bro it is my humble opinion that Belgian colonization and resultant human rights abuses were worse in drc compared to British and French colonization
@special16672 жыл бұрын
The Congo was the private property of King Leopold II of Belgium
@bloggtalk5085 Жыл бұрын
belgique and french are cousins
@jb2736 Жыл бұрын
@@thejavorharalu9542 Yes... I read about how the cut off the African men's hands and legs....very wicked people.
@francisnwadike9505 Жыл бұрын
@@bloggtalk5085 you forgot Luxemburg which the king is the brother of the king of Belgium
@abeldossou91952 жыл бұрын
It was a very sad story. It's even more than this. Thanks a lot for educating the African youth who may not have been thought.
@abeldossou9195 Жыл бұрын
@@abdullahrasheed1493 I really don't understand your point here. May be you need to read once more my comment and correct yourself in replying me. We are not here to play. rather we are here to teach people what they need to know about African continent. Better still, l can help you understand clearer in French language.
@abdullahrasheed1493 Жыл бұрын
@@abeldossou9195 well in reading your response it is obvious that you didn't understand my point. I was in No Way disagreeing with anything that you had to say. Maybe had I said it in French you would have clearly understood. But it's ok. If educating our youth is the goal then we're on the same page. Peace
@PTAVGG Жыл бұрын
You know what, this is just human nature. Africans had been and are still killing each other before and after colonization. What Europeans did to Africa was the same, well actually better than what Romans and others had done to them. The same thing happened everywhere. You have two tribes but not enough lands, then you have war.
@diegoflores92372 ай бұрын
Then we shouldnt care about concentration camps in 40s Germany, about modern day Ukraine, or Taiwan because it's human nature
@mahajallow48202 жыл бұрын
sorry gambia 🇬🇲is not French colonies is British colonies
@gavinrose1058 Жыл бұрын
I like this. About the railroads and their failure to penetrate rural areas. Building rail lines is expensive, and usually funded by banks who want to see a profit. And as for the rural migration to cities, that began in Europe with the Industrial Revolution and was a blind and impersonal process. Very tough on the ground though.
@morriganmhor5078 Жыл бұрын
In fact, the rural migration to cities began in the high Middle Ages and in Italy even earlier.
@seann8293 Жыл бұрын
Unless you're naive, hypocritical, or ignorant (I suspect all 3), you wouldn't speak of colonialism and/or slavery in terms of rehashed capitalistic economic principles such as "building rail lines is expensive...". Slavery and colonialism were barbarian and cruel FREE FORCED LABOR systems condoned and blessed by the Catholic and Protestant Churches and organized by predatory and greedy European people (principally British, French, Spaniards, Portuguese, Netherlanders, Italians...). Black people built the said railroads (and plantations in America and the Caribbeans) almost barehandedly (meaning using only picks and shovels, or such basic). That's not the industrial revolution! It's barbarism, cruelty, murders, genocides, and an inhumane violation of human rights!!!
@chrishutton145811 ай бұрын
@@morriganmhor5078 Iraq and Iran and Egypt were building cities 5000 years ago.
@mikitz Жыл бұрын
It is worth mentioning that even without colonialism, lots of sub-Saharan African countries would still be poor simply for the poor or non-existent logistics. If it wasn't for the railways, they'd be even poorer.
@historyking9984 Жыл бұрын
I think there French cared far more about culture and they stayed far more connected to their colonies . I mean even now when you look at people from their colonies arriving to France and Britain it’s different. The French view things as you are meant to become French. The religion, the culture the language you had before everything else is secondary. This is heavily influenced by their first French revolution where they replaced Catholic practiced and religion with a kind of state religion . Also since religion tends to be linked directly with culture we see the issues with the Hijab and Islam in France. In America theres freedom of religion but in France it’s more viewed as freedom from religion. They look at it as not seeing color as they don’t even have census’s on that but that results in not focusing on issues different races have in the country.But in Britain to be British is linked more directly to ethnicity more than languages or practices . If you look at India obviously there were some people who learned English but culturally there was a barrier . And yeah many African countries did have native languages suppressed but I believe the replacement with colonized culture was less than in the French colonies. France became more linked with the colonies to keep some form of economic or political leverage while the English for the most part don’t focus on the continent now .
@kasulebriankalule2129 Жыл бұрын
Did the indeginant people have a choice or you're writing from a point of ignorance? True, there were internal weaknesses but those don't justify the barbaric actions of the European invaders that still go on to date. When Gadaffi refused to give them free oil, he had to be taken out in the most brutal manner. They didn't stop there - they created terrorist groups to destabilize the entire Sahel region. The coup after coup and merciless murders from terrorists bear you witness.
@faithnganga5664 Жыл бұрын
@@kasulebriankalule2129thank you
@juniorjames7076 Жыл бұрын
I was a Peace Corps Volunteer in Morocco (former French colony) in the late 90s, and spent 6 months working for an NGO in Egypt (former British colony) in the mid 2000s. All I can say is in Cairo, Egypt I could barely ever find someone who spoke English on the streets, in stores or markets, sometimes not even taxis! However, in Morocco, I have met elderly rural herdsmen in mountain villages who never spent a day in school who were FLUENT in French!! When the French colonize your ass, they colonize it to the BONE!!!
@scottgraham1143 Жыл бұрын
It's true the British practiced racial separation. I read Roald Dahl on his time in East Africa and the policy was to keep the locals from speaking English, so he had to learn the native language.
@juniorjames7076 Жыл бұрын
@@scottgraham1143 Really?!?! Astonishing. Did he explain the reasoning for this policy?
@ecomandurban7183 Жыл бұрын
The British were most certainly the most civilized and fair of all the colonial powers in Afrika
@Tom-pr3yh Жыл бұрын
It is such bad historical practice to examine the past from a values and judgement perspective. That’s not what history should be about and it prevents us from achieving a proper understanding of it - always seeking to apply overly simplistic verdicts to multifaceted situations. There were so many players and systems and structures and periods involved during European colonialism, it is simply not possible to ascribe single labels and roles across them. When we do, it is often an expression of modern political or nationalist considerations than a real inquiry into the past.
@cdeford Жыл бұрын
It's important to say that the Europeans didn't colonise 'countrries'. There were no countries in most of Africa, just tribal groupings, and in some areas (particularly in the south) not even tribes.
@bakerkawesa Жыл бұрын
What is a country? Is Wales a country? The Welsh would have considered the land under their feet their "country" even under English rule.
@RenoDW Жыл бұрын
What a way to justify colonization lmao, they always use this
@johansmifthelry9307 Жыл бұрын
To claim there were "just tribal groupings" in Africa is a disgusting misconception and oversimplification laden with neo-colonial thought. In fact, the colonization of Africa stretched over hundreds of years, and saw the rise and fall of extremely powerful empires, kingdoms, nations, societies in Africa, as well as some tribal groupings. Some of these nations' art put to shame most European arts in terms of skill and advancement, such as the bronzes of Benin. Some of these's social structures perplexed European minds because of how ahead of their time they seemed, and how much more progressive and advanced they were to European structures, such as in the Ife Empire or the kingdom of Nri. Some of these nations' wealth was beyond that of any European colonial power, such as that of the Mali Empire, or Bonoman.
@charlt7670 Жыл бұрын
Civilisation in subsaharien Africa cannot compare itself to European, Middle Eastern, and Asian civilisation. Don't understand why Africans are so offended by this reality and fact. No road, no building, no social structure, no science, no nothing, basically living like most living creatures on the savanna
@Hangover-ry9bo Жыл бұрын
@@bakerkawesa The terms have developed from former regions to states and city states, or born out of kingdoms. Country's may have been formed after wars and concurred kingdoms. The African continent looks like carved up with stupid border lines and not much fight over it. Any ancient culture has very little to defend it self when progress knocks or arrives by sophisticated ships. Such places could have been anything. Once concurred they became a county with name. What is within each country needs to be developed otherwise it will remain a place with a lost culture. Unfortunately some former countries and colonies can drop back from a first world country to a developing nation. Any place without a complex economy will be ransackt and plundered for ever, regardless of an existing culture. The resources of Africa will make it a target for outsider and inside corruption. Africa need complex manufacturing to shake up its past. The aborigines in Australia have the same problem. They dream of culture and life style, as value. No one buys their stuff while they sit on iron ore and gold deposits. So they keep losing their land.
@onochieagbazie40932 жыл бұрын
Thanks for this story, History must never be forgotten.
@stevenmutumbu2860 Жыл бұрын
❤History is not for the past we all Need To know where we calming from MAU MAU REBELIONS UKA NAKE!!
@golden.lights.twinkle2329 Жыл бұрын
Or misrepresented!
@JaysLife78 Жыл бұрын
African whining about Colonials while using colonial devices and wearing colonial clothes.
@jejelyly82922 жыл бұрын
Good documentary, but how come rest of the world such as India, Malaysia, Singapore, etc are much viable and self sufficient to an extent more than Africa's?
@xzing72 жыл бұрын
Deuteronomy 28:68 Your answer is awaiting you.
@banuehicolas55792 жыл бұрын
@@xzing7 Thank you! Until we know who we truly are, we will never rise. I refuse to rise as one Africa if THE MOST HIGH is not in our midst. This war belongs to HIM: Isaiah 63.
@kwamenyame12772 жыл бұрын
Because we do not produce our own goods. We only have raw materials. We never add value to it. And we are not producing anything, yet we have all the resources. That’s why we are poor in comparison to them.
@Infinitefire-w32 жыл бұрын
Because we are stupid. We are very stupid people.
@jamescarel5520 Жыл бұрын
@@kwamenyame1277 sorry you lack the most valuable ressource of all:valuable people.without knowledgeable people those ressources you mentioned are useless to you.at this point education and training is still a status symbol so the few who possess it are greedy selfish corrupt and of course don’t even use for anything good.Africa is still at that level
@nurudeen28812 жыл бұрын
Great content
@michaelgodstimeake6044 Жыл бұрын
Your submission is wrong. The United States was not part of the Berlin Conference
@chijiokekennedyanoka48442 жыл бұрын
Colonial Education was essentially literal and had no organic linkage to the Africa environment. So true
@allanaringo2 жыл бұрын
Thats why its possible to speak, read and write fluent English and/or French and live in abject poverty
@Chuby_ubesie Жыл бұрын
@@allanaringo lol, the same is true for people living all over the world. There poor people everywhere even in UK and USA.
@Chuby_ubesie Жыл бұрын
But colonial education is still far better than no education or purely religious Education like we have in Northern Nigeria. Poverty is far higher in the North than it is in the South and education or the lack thereof plays a large part to it.
@loganw1232 Жыл бұрын
@@Chuby_ubesieThink you mean Islamic education, given that the majority of southern Nigeria’s education was founded and developed by Christian missionaries.
@morriganmhor5078 Жыл бұрын
Mathematics is the same in America Europe, India and China. However, if anybody wants to create special African mathematics, please, don´t hesitate...
@smal750 Жыл бұрын
the difference is that France still has its colonies today
@TheTororist Жыл бұрын
you should do a video on the difference between british settler colonies (zim, SA, Kenya) and british non settler colonies (nigeria, uganda, tanzania...)
@faree38green Жыл бұрын
Please explain what the differences would be. I never thought it. Thank you very much.
@juniorjames7076 Жыл бұрын
I was a Peace Corps Volunteer in Morocco (former French colony) in the late 90s, and spent 6 months working for an NGO in Egypt (former British colony) in the mid 2000s. All I can say is in Cairo, Egypt I could barely ever find someone who spoke English on the streets, in stores or markets, sometimes not even taxi cabs! However, in Morocco, I have met elderly rural herdsmen in mountain villages who never spent a day in school who were FLUENT in French!! When the French colonize your ass, they colonize it to the BONE!!!
@beezelsub Жыл бұрын
Settler colonies hardly end well.
@bitTorrenter Жыл бұрын
@@juniorjames7076😬😅
@ac890711 ай бұрын
@@juniorjames7076 It is not colonisation « to the BONE ». Stop Bullshiting. French wanted to spread a kind of « civilisation ».
@MohamedShou Жыл бұрын
The French and the British have one thing in common when it comes to Africa. Exploit and take as much resources from the continent as possible 🤷🏾♂️
@chrisbruno96 Жыл бұрын
thank you for making this and sharing it.
@amers247 Жыл бұрын
The African rulers/ leaders who sold slaves benefitted hugely but no one wants to discuss this. The same rulers agreed western demands for a small fee, of course.
@williamthompson2941 Жыл бұрын
Livingstone expedition was tasked with stopping the slave trade. He freed hundreds of Africans, and more than once almost lost his life fighting Arab slavers.
@molifadaffeh9400 Жыл бұрын
Point of correction. The Gambia was never colonised by the French.
@monoecumsemper Жыл бұрын
Reading of @ike1420's comment (further down below) is highly reommended. I couldn't find better words to analyse what was their common ground and the real difference between French and British Colonialism in Africa. It is to be welcomed that Africans of today (this vd.) seem to be preoccupied with the study of their colonial history. However, I wonder whether lack of thorough research, which always leads to mistakes, and a slight undertone of emotion and polemic, are the right way to win favor with people outside of Africa as far as the resolution of problems in today's Africa is concerned.
@Chuby_ubesie Жыл бұрын
To say that colonialism brought about under development is very funny, are u suggesting that Africa would have been fully developed if not for colonialism?
@Freedmoon445 ай бұрын
Who knows, we arent that alternative future at the very least they wouldve had only themselves to blame and us because wed come in anyway for the ressources
@oasisofficial95042 жыл бұрын
2 sides of the same coin!
@atatsmail260 Жыл бұрын
Brits created and financed radical islam in French colony to fight and kick french out , we see the fruits Of their labor now
@rajivmurkejee7498 Жыл бұрын
Colonialism in Africa for most lasted one lifetime. (1880s to 1960s) Too much is made of it. It's usually used as an excuse for African incompetence.
@MyLateralThawts Жыл бұрын
This channel is full of BS. Anyone who wants to learn the real history of Africa and the colonial legacy needs only to watch Thomas Sowell’s videos on the same subject.
@rosmeartoo Жыл бұрын
As A Brit i agree that it is sad. what is equally sad is that it is being currently repeated but with a new colonial master after the same natural resources as before. This time however, the trap is set by finance: it will (if it continues) be backed up by military presences.
@phillyyardyvibes808 Жыл бұрын
Colonialism never left Africa , it just transformed in a more sophisticated form
@g.pmoore4293 Жыл бұрын
@@phillyyardyvibes808and of course China and Russia are now very much involved
@lluisboschpascual4869 Жыл бұрын
You "forgot" to mention Turkish and Omani colonialism in Africa
@luishernandezblonde18 күн бұрын
Tsar Peter I of Russia, who later founded the Tsarist Empire, was an admirer of France and French art of colonialism. When he proclaimed the Russian Empire in 1721, dude sent students overseas to France. Look at the former Russian and Soviet colonies in Europe and Asia and you could see the French connection.
@christopherbentley7289 Жыл бұрын
Over this past few days I have made the remarkable discovery that the Francophone world has its equivalent of our Commonwealth Games, Les Jeux de la Francophonie, that have been going since 1989, so I'm not sure why I've been so blissfully unaware of this sporting - and cultural event in the case of Les Jeux de la Francophonie - for so long. Admittedly, the latest edition has taken place in the formerly Belgian Democratic Republic of Congo, but it still feeds into the themes of this video, which set things out very clearly. By an ironic twist, from what I have gleaned on Les Jeux de la Francophonie, there appears to be something rather more egalitarian about them than the Commonwealth Games and they have certainly got the one-up in terms of number of times the event has taken place on the continent of Africa - five in the case of Les Jeux de la Francophonie and a big, fat zero in the case of the Commonwealth Games, not even in South Africa, once. This makes me feel that it's tragic that the Commonwealth Games has never shown off Africa in the way Les Jeux de la Francophonie has, on five occasions. It is long overdue that the Commonwealth Games took place in, say, Nigeria, so we in the Anglophone world can enjoy the same sort of experience. I don't expect to see that anytime soon, sadly, however.
@jontalbot1 Жыл бұрын
Well done for tackling this difficult subject. As a British person l have very mixed feelings about colonialism. There are clear benefits as well as disbenefits as most people recognise. I am very pleased we created the Commonwealth- a very far sighted thing to do.
@blackmagic6 Жыл бұрын
As an African, please explain the “benefits” to me. I’ll wait.
@jontalbot1 Жыл бұрын
@@blackmagic6 Railways and other systems of communications such as roads, bridges, ports, airports, telegraph. A legal system and system of government. An educational and health system using modern medicine. Institutions like schools, universities, colleges etc. A currency. A single language which is also the worlds lingua Franca and the language we are communicating in. A professional government administration. Free speech and parliamentary democracy. A modern armed force. Integration into an international network with other nations. Sports like football, rugby, crickets etc. A free press. Modern construction methods, electricity and so on and so on. No one denies the racism or exploitation but it’s not as if Africa was paradise before colonialism- or after it for that matter. And consider this: independence was mostly achieved peacefully. It was not like the past where all was conquest and defeat. One day but not in my lifetime, African nations will be not just equal but among nations but the most stable and prosperous. Why? Because all Africans want to be free and that is what makes for a good society.
@blackmagic6 Жыл бұрын
@@jontalbot1: You must forgive my tardy response to your comment but I had so many tears in my eyes from laughing that it’s taken me a minute to regain my composure. “Railways and other systems of communications such as roads, bridges, ports, airports, telegraph.” Lol, all of that stuff wasn’t build for the benefit of Africans. As you well know it was built to hasten the extraction of stolen plunder out of Africa. “A legal system and system of government. An educational and health system using modern medicine. Institutions like schools, universities, colleges etc.” Once again these were set up and established to identify the puppets, brainwash them and train them to administer their Western dictate. No benefit to Africa. “A currency”. Yes I know and here’s the interesting thing. You’ve never had any problems with corrupt Africans stealing from the poor and investing literally billions in British banks. However when it comes to Africans stealing from Britain ….. well that’s a completely different matter. Once again no benefit. “A single language which is also the worlds lingua Franca ……”. You do know that that’s total bs ….. right? First of all, it’s obvious that in your arrogance that you think that Africans were incapable of communicating with one another before the white man arrived. Secondly we’ve still got all the languages we had after you’ve left. “A professional government administration. Free speech and parliamentary democracy.” Lol you’ve got to be kidding right? Take a look around Africa since you’ve left …. There’s been coups, assassinations, military regimes, geriatrics ruling for over forty years …. And then handing over to their offspring. That’s your legacy. “A modern armed force.” Fun fact: Did you know that all military leaders of the recent coups that have taken place in Sahel region, were all trained by the west …. And then suddenly they led coups against their own people. The west have multiple military bases all across Africa … apparently to tackle the terrorists …. You know the same terrorist that were caused when Britain and Nato went and destabilised Libya. Where’s Princess Diana when you need her to walk through a farmyard filled with land mines and take an alluring photo? “Sports like football, rugby, crickets etc.” And as soon as they get any good …. Along comes a European country to scoop them up to nationalise them to be part of the brain drain of Africa. I watched a premier league game last week, and without a word of exaggeration, at least 45% of the players on the field of play were of African origin. Take a look at the French football team that won the World Cup and then debate me on why an African team can’t win on the international stage. SMDH. “A free press. Modern construction methods, electricity and so on…. ” I can’t go on. It’s either you are wilfully ignorant, delusional or a compulsive liar.
@blackmagic6 Жыл бұрын
@@jontalbot1: Now let me address Britain’s actual real African legacy. As you know, at its peak the British empire colonised and claimed a quarter of the land mass of the world. In India alone the death toll attributed to the British, through enforced famines was estimated to have claimed the lives of up to 50 million people. You do know that …. Right? However, I don’t want to talk about the atrocities that the British I.e. your ancestors, committed in India, Australia, New Zealand, China, America, etc we’re here to talk about the butchery your ancestors are responsible for In Africa. The carnage that you seem to think that we africans should be grateful for and somehow benefitted from. Let’s start in 1568 when a ship called the “Jesus of Lubeck” commissioned by Elizabeth the first, captained by John Hawkins and was the first to bring his slave ship to the coast of West Africa, procure slaves and begin the triangular slave trade. It is estimated that during the slave trade alone, over the course of 250yrs the British I.e. your ancestors, transported approximately 5m African slaves out of Africa. These Africans weren’t the old or infirm, but young vibrant strong men, fertile women, people with skills in farming, wood craft etc…… Are you saying that sacrifice is worth a few roads and a benefited to Africa from the British? Then came the land grab “scramble for Africa” in which Britain connived with other western powers to genocide Africa. From 1884-1960s Britain gained control over or occupied what are now known as Egypt, Sudan, Kenya, Uganda, South Africa, Gambia, Sierra Leone, northwestern Somalia, Zimbabwe, Zambia, Botswana, Nigeria, Ghana, and Malawi. That meant that the British ruled 30% of Africa's people at one time. During which time, raw materials and labour was stolen plus numerous genocides were committed in the former colonies. For example between 1951 -1960 the Mau Mau uprising in Kenya where the British invented a new type of pliers to crush and severe mens testicles. Your ancestors R8ped women with bayonets, rammed sand up men’s rectums, rolled my ancestors up with in barbed wire and then kicked them to death and leave them to bleed out. Estimate deaths 100k plus. In South Africa your ancestors used African children as crocodile bait. The Kikuyu massacre which also took place in Kenya. Let’s not forget about the Massacre in Northern Nigeria in 1903 in which “Lord Lagard” used the Maxim Gun to decimate thousands of Africans who they were in the process of subjugating. * Benin Expedition, 1897 The Benin Punitive Expedition, also known as the 1897 expedition, was a military mission led by British forces, which included 1200 men under the command of Admiral Sir Harry Rawson, who invaded Benin City, the capital of the Kingdom of Benin. The campaign lasted 17 days, and the invading forces took over total control of the kingdom. The British expedition was primarily an act of reprisal for the attack suffered by a column of British officers led by the acting consul-general, James Philips, and indigenous soldiers disguised as porters and musicians who in 1897 attempted to reach Benin City to attack the city and depose the Obá. Only two officers survived the attack, which became known as the Benin Massacre. However, the expedition was part of the British attempts to control the region and annexe Benin to exploit its resources. * Mau Mau Uprising Massacres The Mau Mau uprising began in 1952 as a reaction to inequalities and injustices in British-controlled Kenya. The response of the colonial administration was a fierce crackdown on the rebels, resulting in many deaths. By 1956 the uprising had effectively been crushed, but the extent of opposition to the British regime had clearly been demonstrated and Kenya was set on the path to independence, which was finally achieved in 1963. Massacres in Kenya * Sotik Massacre, 1905 Over 1800 kipsigis people of the Talai Clan were massacred by the British colonial government. The killing of men, women and children followed the refusal by members of the Kipsigis community to surrender heads of cattle alleged to have been stolen from the Maasai residing in the current Narok County. Massacres in Nigeria * Iva Valley, 18thNovember 1949 21 striking miners and a bystander were shot dead at a British government-owned coal mine at Enugu, 51 were injured.[21] The miners were fighting for back-pay owed to them for a period of casualisation known as ‘rostering’, later declared illegal, and had been sacked following a work to rule. They occupied the mine to prevent a repeat of the lock-out they had suffered during the 1945 general strike. Because Enugu was home to the Zikist independence movement, which included Marxists and other radicals; police were sent to remove the mine’s explosives, accompanied by Hausa troops drafted in from the North of the country; whose language and even their uniforms were unfamiliar to the Igbo miners South Africa Anglo Boer war and the Zulu wars which was absolute carnage. The Boer concentration camps 1899 -1902 (who would have thought that the British I.e. your ancestors, ran concentration camps but were so arrogant against the Germans when they did it? Let’s not forget that during the first and second world wars Africans were forced to fight and die in wars that had nothing to do with them for Britain. Not content with that Europeans open up an Africa as another theatre of war in which more death and destruction took place. I could go on …. But I think I’ve made my point in debunking your nonsense claim that Africa benefited from any association with Britain. I actually curse the day that “Dr Livingstone” presumed that he discovered Africa.
@gianfrancobenetti-longhini8192 Жыл бұрын
I will add one observation on the lady speaking. Obviously she is not a native English speaker .... also I ask myself if she lived in Africa from young before independence, because the facts that she recounts certainly did not apply to Tanzania, and I must add that elders who remembered the Germans at the time, told me that they were demanding but fair and honest in the treatment of the local population.
@Steyr32 Жыл бұрын
Didn't they slaughter some tribes? Overall just because some governors were good/decent doesn't mean the system in itself is good. The elders may come from a province led by a different governor.
@gianfrancobenetti-longhini819211 ай бұрын
@@Steyr32 I was referring to those elders that were still alive when I listened to them in "their" language. I read somewhere that a tribe (I think in the southern parts) did attack the Germans, but they could not possibly stand a chance. I being an Italian and "colour" blind when it comes to the skin, treated them as normal humans, not savages, finding many that were intelligent, but with minimum schooling or none, they were obviously ignorant of things that did not involve them. President Nyerere did come to visit me, having heard of my approach with the local people, and we had a pleasant dialog in the local language. A very intelligent person, AND also honest.
@thandasibisi7534 Жыл бұрын
One reason may continue to use French and English is that in the newly defined "colonial boundaries" you find people who speak different languages. Then English or French become common languages for communication. Another reason is trade. Sometimes you do need a "common language".
@omokelvin550 Жыл бұрын
I agree but it is better to adopt an African language. I will rather speak Yoruba, Hausa, Edo, Swahili or Igbo as official language than English.
@tpxchallenger Жыл бұрын
Trade is the best reason to know an international language. A Kenyan can do business in Hong Kong, Singapore, Australia, Nigeria, India or the United States comfortably in Engkish. I'm wondering if Mandarin will be taught in African schools as commonly as English or French are. Knowing English or French counts a great deal when emigrating to Canada. Knowing both is even better.
@wayneshamba6961 Жыл бұрын
@@tpxchallenger we will learn Swahili as it is the most spoken African language and a lot of African languages are a derivative of Swahili
@tpxchallenger Жыл бұрын
@@wayneshamba6961 80 million Swahili speakers in Africa, 130 million English speakers. Swahili is a Bantu language with about 40% Arabic loanwords.
@wayneshamba6961 Жыл бұрын
@@tpxchallenger yup, that's why I said the most spoken AFRICAN language, English is not a native African language.
@seaman5705 Жыл бұрын
Aren't you forgetting the first colonizer , which were the Arabs ? Also the first and the biggest slave traders ?
@ianpaulmurray3447 Жыл бұрын
Having lived in Africa half my life, i find this a tiresome load of anti-western excusism. The language is secondary school marxist rhetoric. Ironically this latest tide of anti-western feelings sees Africa clamouring to adopt Marxism, the very worst ideology to ever come out of Europe, but still a European system. As long as you strenuously clutch at any excuse to explain Africa's lack of development in just about every field, you ignore that population growth has developed on the back of urbanisation, using crops and farming techniques introduced by Europeans. The teaching of sciences and engineering and the introduction of writing to many in southern Africa was by governments and missionaries, I could go on, but it is boring. Nearly every country has been occupied, colonised, had settlers. You are not unique in that regard. When our colonisers, the Romans left western Europe, the following years were our dark ages. Good luck guys, but take responsibility for your own failings and future. I am not impressed with any culture that causes albino's to disappear for body parts on the traditional medicine market.
@archstanton5973 Жыл бұрын
*OK THERE WHITEEYISRIGHTEY." *It's been OVER 6 decades now and there has been JACKSHIIITE development under the "benign" "guidance" of "WHIIITTTEEEEYISRIGHTTEEY"........* *It's clear that the folks in Africa have DECIDED that "it's time to move on to trying something else as this whole OVER 6 DECADES of "WHIIIITTTEEEYYYYISRIIIIGHTEEEY" way IS NOT AND HAS NOT WORKED".*
@johnwalsh4857 Жыл бұрын
yah Since the British saw their colonies as contributing to the trade and economy in the British empire rather than empire and culturual building. French saw it as spreading the French culture.
@beforeyourimmigrants8471 Жыл бұрын
I could tell the narrator thinks the British are great
@charlesjermyn5001 Жыл бұрын
A very tough question: every territories had its particularities : for UK India wasn't administrate the same was Kenya for exemple, the same for France, Algeria was (very) differantly treated than Indochina. The British rule seems to have been rough in Africa (giving birth to segregate and disfonctional states at the independance) but quiet soft in Asia (especially East India, or Singapor)... for the French it was quiet the opposite: the farer you get from the Metropol, the harsher it was, today, Indochina is recognised to have been the worst collony of France, admin by incompetent, corrupted, brutal half-criminals that the Metropol didn't wan't; of course it wasn't rosy in Africa...but clearly, it wasn't Belgium colonisation.
@basilen.7852 Жыл бұрын
Belgian colonisation was one of the most humanist. You reffer to Leopold II rule over Congo, it has nothing to do with belgians, the exactions commited under Léopold were done mostly by foreign mercenaries and african leaders
@sebastiaosalgado1979 Жыл бұрын
Many years ago I, read an academic paper that said that European colonization in Asia didn't destroy the main institutions of most countries while in Africa it did happen.
@charlesjermyn5001 Жыл бұрын
@@sebastiaosalgado1979 Because there were institutions in Asia... not that much in Africa "destroy the main institutions of most countries while in Africa it did happen" Alright which one ? It isn't even an ironic or a sarcastic question, which one ? Tell me an institution Europe destroyed in Africa ? Why do you think it was that easy to consider Africa... as a cake to partake: there was no opposition, we are not talking of a war of conquest...we are talking of an invasion without any resistance....who were invaded? Again, tell me "Africa" that"s a continent, it's like I'm saying Asia got invaded by Gengis Khan: there is no meaning behind it...give a name to these persons...
@mudra511411 ай бұрын
How was the British Empire rough on Africa?? Chinua Achebe the Nigerian author said that the British ruled Nigeria with considerable care.
@charlesjermyn500111 ай бұрын
@@mudra5114 Massacres, segregations, thieving of land... I pass rapes and abuses; and if your answer is "everywhere it happened" well no... that's the problem when you talk of colonisation with an anglo-saxon, no, it wasn't all European who acted as such, British rule was particulary cruel in Africa for the racial and eugenistic theories were quiet popular in the UK back to the golden age of colonisation... "How was the British Empire rough on Africa??" it was rough because I stood diplomatic, British rule was an Horror in Africa, that sounds more true... "Chinua Achebe the Nigerian author said that the British ruled Nigeria with considerable care" did you... take a look of the state of Nigeria recently ? If that's your level of "considerable care" I wouldn't like to be your child...
@n.m6249 Жыл бұрын
We are the most naturally kind people, that is our gift. That's why we were stripped of our identity and treated in inhumane ways. Yet there's people who glorify colonialism. I hope the next generations will see better
@jamescarel5520 Жыл бұрын
There’s no such thing friend:people are people.they are driven by different motives:needs,greed,glory,emotions etc y’all Africans forgot that native Americans had a worst fate than y’all 😮.they were exterminated period.
@curtisalex456 Жыл бұрын
An older African woman, at her primary school, used to sing "our ancestors, the Gauls". Ain't that some Bullsh!t.
@fabs8498 Жыл бұрын
@@curtisalex456when ? The french history books changed a long time ago.
@curtisalex456 Жыл бұрын
@@fabs8498 That happened in the 50s in western Africa.
@davidmohan1095 Жыл бұрын
Thank you for this video. I learned a lot, especially since in American schools we learned French treatment of Native American tribes was more respectful than British treatment. I'll point out Queen Victoria's unfortunate legacy. Except where Islam is the majority religion, gay rights in African nations formerly colonized by France, Portugal, or Spain are legalized. They mostly are not in former British colonies. This policy is also true in most formerly French, Spanish, and Dutch Caribbean islands versus formerly British islands. Furthermore, the British often brought workers, some educated, from India, to act as go-betweens in colonies like Uganda and South Africa. The racism inherent there, that British leaders shouldn't even have to speak to African locals, is disturbing.
@ac8907 Жыл бұрын
Conference of Berlin: act, dated February 26, 1885, establishes the following points: - Any European power installed on the coast can extend its domination inland until it encounters a neighboring “sphere of influence”. But the treaty excludes the principle of the hinterland which allows the automatic annexation of the hinterland by a State controlling its coastline [ref. necessary]. - There can be annexation only by the effective occupation of the land and the treaties concluded with the native populations must be notified to the other colonizing nations. - Freedom of navigation on the Niger and Congo rivers, and freedom of trade in the Congo Basin. - Prohibition of slavery. - Finally, the Conference took note of the existence of the Congo Free State as a sovereign power7, a territory belonging directly to King Leopold II of Belgium (and which would become a Belgian colony in 1908). France obtains recognition of its authority on the right bank of the Congo and the Oubangui. The Berlin Conference recalls the prohibition of the slave trade and invites the signatories to contribute to its extinction…. Wikipedia.
@africasaveursoul71372 жыл бұрын
>100yrs is too much for us to dwell on the wrong foundation created through colonialism. Other race , Asia and the likes has moved on . Africa should unlearn colonialism and relearn her culture to enable a better foundation and speedy development. Now is the time . Always dewelling in the past sounds defeatist to me .
@pappykwabee52962 жыл бұрын
You've said it all.this is what I have been preaching but my fellow Africans don't get me and I always receive backlash
@aladedahunsijoshua11662 жыл бұрын
@@pappykwabee5296 I have learned this a very long time ago
@smoothoperator98452 жыл бұрын
It’s called History for a reason! Don’t be so ultra naive .. Learn History!
@charlesdexterward4726 Жыл бұрын
@@smoothoperator9845 but other things must be learnt to
@lorcansnow2111 Жыл бұрын
“why are ex British colonies economically superior ex French colonies today” The answer is obvious, but nobody’s touching on it… France’s ex colonies are STILL colonies. It controls the currency/mint of 16 countries and has major influence in many, whenever the people try to overthrow an oppressive regime the French send in their UN dogs to clean up the mess, Mail for example.
@Freedmoon445 ай бұрын
Mali is probably one of the few times France wasnt the biggest a** of the region, it came to help when the governement was under threat, protected the country, stayed because the locals wouldnt be as mobile for anti terrorist operations over the whole region, military coup, french forces were a threat to new regime’ were kicked out, the North of Mali went back to further sh*t due to the guys the french bested for Mali. It can be blamed for alot of the current problems of Subsaharian Africa (tbf the original plan in the 1960's of letting France keep alot of influence was honestly better than the English withdrawal because surprise surprise sudden indepandance tends to have crazy ton of problems that you now have to deal with regardless of the origins of said problem, it just didnt age well for anyone besides France in modern day its just insulting) But for once it left fair and square and only acted like an a** diplomatically, they couldve declared the coup governement illegitimate and cause more problem from the get go if they were really that hardcore about it.
@erandeser583011 ай бұрын
Since, some do much better: Morocco, Senegal, Ghana, Ivory Coast, Kenya, Botswana, Namibia, Rwanda. But for the majority it is a sad story indeed, without happy ending. As an inhabitant of Borneo told me once: after the Dutch left, the Javanese arrived. Comparable situations all over Africa where the European colonizers were replaced by tribal rivalries and endless guerrilla warfare. Today most of Africa grows closer to its pre-colonial history: politicians selling out the natural resources replace the chiefs selling slaves to the Europeans.
@Rowlph888811 ай бұрын
Tribal genocide and slavery was going at a Rampant scale before the Europeans came. Parliamentary democracy(1707) and the English Bill of Rights (1689), Building on the principles in the Magna Carta (1215) and Habeus corpus (1679) has changed everything and the adaptations from These internationally and gradual emancipation and enfranchisement of different groups throughout the Westerrn world and Tiger economies, have those to thank for our freedoms todaay. *Without this, everyone would still be working 15 hours a day, with a subsistence income creating value for a small group of elites in every country all over the world
@craighanson-rc1md Жыл бұрын
One thing no one wants to admit but can't honestly be ignored is that colonization happened because of at least some cooperation between at least some of those in Africa & the few hundred or so "invaders" I don't care what weapons a colonial abuser has if you have only 1000 people/ soldiers & the country you are "colonize" has a few thousand let alone 100,000 they could easily out number the invaders. It's happened many many times look at South Africa. Now if one doesn't do that for long enough then yes the undoing of any colonization is less likely to be successful just like England colonizing northern Ireland at this point England just as with the US could completely leave & there would still be ties & history connected between the two. Many former Colonies today still have ties to their former colonies for better or worse. Much of that connection still is because of need for trade or protection or whatever but in reality it's a decision. Not one African former colony kicked everyone out & started over or did business with anyone but the colonial invader.
@darrenmurray861 Жыл бұрын
A nicely balanced look at colonialism. I would like to see a positive vs negative video around this also.
@itsakin6418 Жыл бұрын
💀
@atmoss9423 Жыл бұрын
What positives are there from being impoverished by a looting greedy nation, please explain..
@shohammajumder4679 Жыл бұрын
"positives" of colonialism?
@darrenmurray861 Жыл бұрын
@@shohammajumder4679 I’m sure there are some, even if not meant for inhabitants of the colonies. Education, infrastructure, opportunities to travel etc. The negatives far outweigh the positives, but that doesn’t mean that there wasn’t any.
@shohammajumder4679 Жыл бұрын
@@darrenmurray861 I am not sure whether any silver lining can gleaned from vile experiences like slavery, colonialism. The benefits of scientific and industrial revolution would have eventually been transmitted to asian and african countries without them having been invaded, pillaged and brutalised.
@kingsleyreact2 жыл бұрын
We can't forget this
@naomithompson34932 жыл бұрын
Yet they celebrate 70 years of queen Elizabeth
@kingsleyreact2 жыл бұрын
@@naomithompson3493 I don't mind them....but I resent white people so much for this....the totally set us back as a continent
@tetsianjorin11112 жыл бұрын
@@naomithompson3493 Queen Elizabeth has never colonised a country
@n.m6249 Жыл бұрын
@@tetsianjorin1111 you are clearly not African or if you are, you live in Europe and have been brainwashed by western media and propaganda. Please stay there in Europe
@smal750 Жыл бұрын
@@kingsleyreact sadly true
@chrishutton145811 ай бұрын
I have seen a very good KZfaq video on the Barbary Pirates. I think it makes a good parallel to this video.
@gillianmcmullan602311 ай бұрын
How about a video comparing the differences between British Empire and the Ottoman Empire.
@TheNormanbro Жыл бұрын
Turkey wasn't exist when this nations "decide to fate of Africa" on that conference. It was Ottoman Empire. How can you call your self as a "historian" or "history enthusiast". Please stop doing this video if you don't make it right. There is already more than enough lies out there, we don't need new ones.