Comments by "bart thomassen thomassen" (@thomassenbart) on "How History Works"
channel.
-
@pulse3554 I appreciate your citations and commentary but think you are bit ahead of your skis. The US remains heavily colonial, what does this mean? It is a strange assertion.
The majority of European colonies were never financially profitable for the home country. Certain others however were wildly profitable and some became so and then lost out over time. Most of Africa was a money suck for the Europeans, the exceptions being S. Africa, Congo, Egypt and Rwanda. Indochina was a drain for France until opium was introduced as product, which also proved lucrative for Britain v. China and provoked the Opium Wars. India was the crown jewel for Britain of course and the original 13 colonies became very wealthy but not necessarily profitable for the British Crown, the problem of which provoked the Revolution. Many colonies in the New World were lucrative for the Europeans, especially Mexico, Peru and the Carribean spice islands. However, overall, the colonial enterprise did not make the Empires wealthier.
A lot of the time the data is bullshit? The academic scholarship is either consciously or subconsciously White supremacist/Eurocentric? This is the language of conspiracy theory folk and not particularly convincing. If the data is BS, how would you know and what do you contrast it with?
Singapore was made successful by Britain but vastly more so by Lee Kuan Yew, who can single handedly be credited with its major development and wealth.
The Mongols were conquerors and colonized everywhere they captured. You do not need to use colonialization only for Europeans. The idea is applicable worldwide for various civilizations and peoples. The Mongols did colonize. You see this today in Afghanistan and Russia, in all the Stans and beyond. They were also several hundred years previous to the European Age of Exploration, so it is somewhat apples and oranges to compare them. However, the Mongols were major innovators, concerning paper money, the use of rockets, militarily of course, establishing safe trade routes and religious tolerance. So, the comparison is not totally incorrect.
Your citation regarding the US, is not good. It is from a Comment by Zesi Siez on Youtube. This is not a legitimate citation. It is opinion, badly written and without any scholarship. You will need to do much, much better, if you hope to persuade anyone by your arguments.
Your citation regarding Indian ed. prior to the British is also weak. It is filled with assertions none of which show any scholarship and seem problematic on their face. Certainly, the Subcontinent was one of the 5 great bases of civilization and had a long tradition of learning but to suggest this was pervasive seems bizarre at best. The Madras Report was done in the mid 19th century by the British and the Adams Report for Bengal, also in the early 19th century, by a Brit., found the following:
1 ADAM’S FIRST REPORT
The following paragraph of the report has led to a good deal of controversy
“By this description are meant those schools in which instruction in the elements of knowledge is communicated, and which have been originated and are supported by the natives themselves, in contradiction form those that are supported by religious or philanthropic societies, the number of such schools in Bengal is supposed to be very great. A distinguished member of the general committee of public instruction in a minute on the subject expressed the opinion, that it one rupee per mensem were expended on each existing village school in the lower provinces, the amount would probably fall little short of 12 lakhs of rupees per annum. This supposes that there are 100,000 such schools in Bengal and Bihar and assuming the population of those two provinces to be 40,000,000 persons.”
While scholars like Sir Philip dubbed the report as a ‘myth’, scholars like R.V. Parulekar considered this report substantially a ‘reality’. The chief point of different opinions revolved round the term ‘school’. Sir Philip considered the term school as an institution in the modern sense with its own structure and number of students of the locality who in return paid fees and other prerequisites and remuneration was paid by the community. According to the other view a school was a place where instruction was given to one student or more students either by the teacher or the father himself or any member of the family.
2 ADAM’S SECOND REPORT
Adam’s second report covered Naltore Thana, in district rajshahi with a population of 129,640 Muslims and 65,656 Hindus. There were two types of schools i.e., regular schools, similar to modern schools and domestic schools where family members taught or a teacher was employed to teach. As against 27 elementary schools and 262 students, there were nearly 2360, i.e., nearly nine times students in domestic schools. The following were the important findings;
1. Age of schooling: The average age of admission to an elementary school was 8 years and the average school leaving age was 14 years.
2. Schools for the teaching of Quran: There were 11 Arabic schools for this purpose.
3. Type of elementary schools: There were 10 Bengali schools, and 4 Persian schools.
4. Average number of students in a school; the average number of students in a school was 10.
5. Average pay of the teacher: Pay ranged between Rs. 5-8 per month.
6. Female Education: Female education was non-existent
7. Literacy Rate; Literacy percentage was 6.1 percent. Total literary percentage of males and females was 3.1
8. Indigenous Colleges: There was no indigenous college conducted by Muslims. There were 38 Sanskrit colleges with 397 students.
9. Fees etc in colleges: Food, lodging and education was free in colleges.
There is a third report as well but you can look it over yourself if you find it interesting.
http://www.tetsuccesskey.com/2016/12/GENERAL-FEATURES-OF-INDEGENOUS-EDUCATION-AS-OBSERVED-BY-ADAM.html
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwiA4oL-8e36AhXrMUQIHXDZAlwQFnoECAkQAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.tetsuccesskey.com%2F2016%2F12%2Fadams-report-on-education.html&usg=AOvVaw0k6SrzP0EIrEpfq947TITC
19
-
@kekitsjack5765 You cannot use colonialism with US foreign policy in any context, neo or other. It simply is nonsensical and a poor application of the word.
Using the Banana wars is a poor example and intervention in the Americas such as Panama do not work well with your analysis either. You also ignore what was going on in each example at the time, from Haiti to Poncho Via in Mexico and the Zimmerman telegram and WWI, the communist insurgencies and govt. in Nicaragua, Cuba etc...
If you want to make a case for any of these interventions, I'm very willing to engage and demonstrate, colonialism or as you say..."private interests directly seize capital...(What property was seized?) via leveraging their superior bargaining position.
If you have a superior bargaining position, is that wrong? Does such a position force someone to surrender property?
When private property is seized by a govt/nationalized, is that okay?
Outside of Hawaii, not in Latin America btw, I don't recall private interests inciting conflict in this region, though perhaps you know where this happened...please tell me.
The CIA did fund and instigate coups, counter revolutions etc... this was foreign policy, directed at tyrannical and Marxist/communist govts. all of which were hostile to the US. This is called foreign policy and has nothing to do with colonialism.
So, if you want to make a cogent case for any of the above, you will need to get specific and make a much stronger case.
Your assumption about capitalism, bargaining and or forcing anyone to do anything is extremely problematic. You will need to provide details of what you are speaking of and why any of it is a problem.
What I see more often, is Western Multinational Corps. investing and developing resources around the world, establishing factories, stores, etc... which in turn creates wealth in those nations and people, allows folk to gain expertise and skills otherwise not available to them and progress.
Working conditions and pay with foreign firms today, are almost always superior to those of native companies and therefore are highly sought after by local folk. I can't speak to the Chinese in this regard, since their practice is to use Chinese labor in projects around the world, not local people.
It sounds as if you don't really know of what you speak. If you look at any developing country, including India, China, Vietnam, Indonesia, etc...you will see exactly what I have detailed at work and creating high GDP growth, rising wages and opportunities. Only where governments have intervened do you see the opposite, i.e. Venezuela, Zimbabwe and now in China, as Western firms are fleeing en masse.
If you want to speak of China in the 19th century v. the Opium Wars with Britain, this was a very different situation from today, was actual war, with consequences for the losers, i.e. China., meaning the opening of their markets and concessions to foreigners in terms of the law. Different times and different outcomes. It was empire v. empire. I don't think you can make a case that any of this was a problem, especially given the nature of the Chinese Empire.
You seem to be attempting a case from a moral position in foreign affairs and mixing and matching history with modern day. All of this is a problem. Given there was no international law at the time of traditional empire and the Age of Exploration/colonialism, you need to judge all people and civilizations with the same yard stick.
China was a brutal nation and Empire which horrifically oppressed its subjects. This was the case in India previous to the arrival of the British Raj, who established peace, unified the sub-continent, ended Muslim Hindu war, educated Elites, curtailed the worst abuses of the caste system, opened India to the wider world and gave a common unifying language and law to the sub-continent. This was case everywhere the Europeans went, with few exceptions.
Your analysis is one sided, guided by modern sensibilities, focused on the West ignoring everyone else and therefore is inherently unjust.
I have not made any arguments about IQ. But since you brought it up, you are incorrect in a couple of your statements.
IQ is the most studied and documented element in human psychology, and we have tested for it for since 1905. Overall, IQ tests exhibit high reliability, though testing result may vary when taking the same test on differing occasions and also for differing tests, however the results will not be substantial. I really am not an advocate of IQ and its implications but there are some basic facts surrounding the concept.
IQ tests are not and were not based upon Eugenics. Another incorrect assertion. Certainly, the Progressives Era may have justified Eugenics by IQ testing but that is not why they were developed nor the reason they were/have been used.
Your YouTube citation is appreciated but is weak. Shaun is not an authority nor an objective analysist. He is an advocate, who does not evaluate for truth but to push an agenda. He cherry-picks his information generally and often engages in strawman arguments. For example, in the video, when discussing heritability of IQ, he accuses Murray of not understanding the difference between species and individual inheritance of intelligence. This is an inane claim and merely a personal swipe at Murray, by a man who cannot pronounce teeth correctly (teef) btw. Obviously, I am also engaging in personal attack here, but only to represent how foolish such assaults are.
Murray's research is about variation of intelligence in American society, not individuals and the stats he provides are on large swaths and populations within the nation. That there are noted differences along racial or ethnic lines should not be surprising, since we see marked differences between any two arbitrary groups of folk, along myriad avenues, regardless.
Most of the critics of the Bell Curve are social activists, who don't like the data because it contradicts views of Marxist utopian equality, that they adhere to. Ideology over research is never a good idea.
The Bell Curve, which I have not read but have heard discussed many times, by Murray himself, is not what it is lampooned to be.
Abstract. A body of data on IQ collected over 50 years has revealed that average population IQ varies across time, race, and nationality. An explanation for these differences may be that intelligence test performance requires literacy skills not present in all people to the same extent.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwiZ7rTM6vH6AhVqLUQIHXBQBpkQFnoECBEQAw&url=https%3A%2F%2Fpubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov%2F20712152%2F%23%3A~%3Atext%3DAbstract%2Cpeople%2520to%2520the%2520same%2520extent.&usg=AOvVaw1MqowwZWcpChL7bKVmnmmY
Consider the following interviews with Murray if you are seriously interested in the topic:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nbvZQTvw2JA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OE5QcD_12fQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1YfEoxU82us
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wqgUclg7-Lk
15
-
12
-
No, overall, not correct. Some companies and some colonies did well but most failed or were a constant drain on national resources. Consider the famed East India Company and the various other enterprises, similarly, named by the Dutch and other nations, most of which went bankrupt and had to be taken over by their nation state. Cecil Rhodes prospered however.
Spain did become fabulously wealthy due to the gold and silver mines in Mexico and Peru. And I think you also correct about power, control and I would add ego, religion, White man's burden, spread civilization, adventure, exploration, military conquest etc...
7
-
5
-
@kekitsjack5765 I don't think we really disagree on IQ. It is not something I use to demonstrate anything in regard to colonialism or any other historical occurrence.
Murray explaining his positions and the writings and findings of his book are, I would argue more instructive than Shaun the Brit attempting to do so.
I take history for what it is. I have read deeply on these subjects and don't believe Marxist or Syndicate views are pertinent at all. If you are strongly stuck on your views, one might ask why? Are your motivations about establishing the Utopia or are they rooted in actual history and economics?
You should not give up the discussion so easily. If you come from a strong position, you ought to be able to bring forth evidence to bolster your position(s).
I would urge you to look at world history, if you know it and compare it with the rise of capitalism and especially the post WWII era. If you truly are for the common/working man, you should notice a few things.
Previous to capitalism, 90% of mankind was mired in a constant struggle for survival, with famine always present, tyranny a given, war an incessant reality and crushing poverty everywhere.
Since capitalism, we have seen the opposite happen. Free markets bring opportunity, wealth, growth and are an exponential creator of political freedom and personal choice everywhere the market has been let loose.
If I understand your worldview correctly, you need to be ignorant of the unending prosperity the world has enjoyed specifically due to free markets, to champion your position.
If your views were to take hold, we almost certainly would see chaos, mass poverty, war, genocide and a return to the 90% figure I first mentioned.
Why advocate for this?
5
-
Bring untold misery to millions? This assumes millions were not already in misery, which they were. In general, populations conquered and governed by the Europeans were no worse off under their rule and in fact gained considerable knowledge, education for elites, religion, technology and a host of other advantages which no one has abandoned after gaining independence.
No, free labor was not exported to Europe making colonialism profitable. Very few Africans were brought to Europe to serve as slaves. the same is true for American Indians or any other colonized population. Dumb comment.
Spain was vastly enriched by its acquisition of colonies in the New World. The gold and silver mines in Mexico and Peru changed the entire European economy, created significant inflation and made Spain the greatest power in Europe, if not the world. Later, the plantations established throughout these territories, especially in the Carribean were extremely valuable. Haiti at the time of the slave revolt, was generating more income than all 13 American colonies combined, which were also, quite wealthy and productive.
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@joejohnson6327 I like this question. In order to be objective, you would need to compare civilizations on a number of levels, from:
cultural survival over time
prosperity of people within the culture
technology
military
art
architecture
literature
religions, values, principles and their impacts
do people choose the culture when viable options are available?
etc...
Culture and civilization are intertwined concepts and difficult to separate I agree however, cultures are generally concerned with values, beliefs, (deriving from religion almost always) as opposed to civilization which incorporates those elements but includes many more, such as governmental systems, economics, and most of the concrete elements within a society.
1
-
@fica1137 No, that is a false assertion and a blatant misuse of the word imperialism. For that to be accurate, would require an empire. The US does not have an empire. Simply because the USA is the sole superpower in the world does not equate with empire. Empires, physically control countries, impose taxes upon them, extract resources, which are sent back to the homeland for the benefit of the prime group, demand soldiers from the subjugated for their wars, govern the foreign affairs of those controlled etc... Also, empires are monarchies, with an emperor or Emperess leading, not democratically elected people, who are changed out regularly.
When you examine the foreign policy of the US, you see nothing resembling the above.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1