Comments by "Arthur Mosel" (@arthurmosel808) on "Disturban History" channel.

  1. In point of fact, the first troops were formed in the late 1600's. If you check, the Madras Army stayed loyal, as did the Sikhs and Napalese. The major portion in of the rebellion was the. Bengal Army. This video skims the surface of a very complex state of affairs. The change in the nature of the British occupation were also played a role. Initially few British women came to India, so it was common for the British officers to have long term relationships with Indian women. These women served as a way for the officers to become aware of issues with their troops, as well, as helped the officers learn the language. This type of officer began to disappear after the Napoleonic Wars with increasing number of married officers (especially of senior rank) bringing their wives and families and unmarried officers in relationships was frowned on and the daughters and unmarried relations of those married officers increasingly married those unmarried officers, cutting off the earlier ties. Another thing not stated was that there were regular British Army units in India; however they and the European troops in the three Presidencies were a smal, fraction of the total force, something changed after the crown took over. That trouble started brewing was seen when troops refused to go to Burma in one of the early British-Burmese Wars (and yes I know the name has changed to Miramar). I left off the John Company's role in the opium trade which also heavily involved the Royal family, nobility and wealthy as well as the Crown government. This was disjointed and should have been put together better, but it does mention things ar least on the surface.
    8
  2. Canada today isn't euthanizing those racially inferior, but seems to be aimed at limiting the costs of treatmet to the state and inconvient births. Trudeau isn't much different than the Austrian with a mustache that ruled Germany for a time.
    3
  3. Since lynching actually was used in Ireland by a British land manager by the last name of Lynch. The vidographer concentrates on only the Blsck lynching in the South. He does indicate there were White lynchings. This doesn't make the lynching of Blacks justifable, just points out that it is far more complex. This is especially true in frontier areas where courts were far away and witnesses couldn't take the time away from their farms or ranches to travel to and from their homes to testify, amd the length of the trial. As courts and laws became more locally avaiable lynchings for that reason slowly stopped. Again the Texas example depended omn the area, where in the eastern part of the state, trials and laws started earlier than the western part of the state. As insaid a far more complex isdue than this video made it.
    1