European Empire Is A Myth | Avoiding the British Empire 4

Ladies and gentlemen, European Empire is a
myth. We hear a lot about it from both sides of the political spectrum. Some Left leaning
folks like to talk about the vile white oppressors who raped and murdered their way across the
world. Resurgent white nationalists across Europe and the United States actually kind
of agree with this, though they tell the story differently. They, either explicitly or in
thinly veiled terms, like to talk about the natural superiority of white folks and see
the era of European empire as proof of the concept. Both of these groups are getting
the story wrong. What they are really talking about isn’t European Empire, it’s British
Empire. Now I am not claiming that other European
countries didn’t do evil stuff. They absolutely did. The Belgian Congo is perhaps the greatest
example.But almost all of these crimes came in the context of the British Empire, or British
world system that ran the world throughout the 19th century. The independent country
of Belgium itself was set up by the British in 1831, mostly to keep a potential launching
pad for invasions of England out of the hands of other European powers.I I can guess that one big exception you may
be thinking of would be the Americas. From the 1500s on, Spanish and Portuguese empires
viciously exploited the coastal regions of the Americas, committing horrible crimes and
introducing the diseases that probably wiped out 90 percent of the indigenous population. If you dive into the details though, it’s
clear that this story of European domination is overblown as well. It’s only in the 19th
century that Europe and began to seriously exploit the interiors of the American continents.
And where was all that cotton produced in the American South, and sugar produced in
Brazil actually going? It was going Into the markets of the British world system that financed
those American slave empires. And for everything else that comes under the
title of European Empire, the story is very, very British. The imperialist abuse of China
and India’s millions, and the scramble for Africa that saw the world’s largest continent
savagely carved up are all very British stories, that happened during the British Empire’s
19th century dominance. Many European countries got a slice of Africa to brutalize, but it
was only the British bits that made any money. Because the British write the history in the
world’s dominant language we hear a lot about the imperial rivals they faced in the
19th century. These stories are largely bullshit. The French had large, largely economically
worthless tracts of land just across the Mediterranean in West Africa. They also had a few possessions
in Asia. The British controlled all of the lucrative trade routes and much of the land
between French Algeria and French Vietnam. The Russians took over much of central Asia
in the 19th century but there just wasn’t much going on there in terms of trade or even
people. The British had significant chunks of the trade in Russian Asia, and used Russian
expansion as an excuse to swallow up much of modern Pakistan, which was significantly
more valuable territory. Russian armies in Central Asia rarely amounted to more than
a couple thousand people. British armies in Africa and Asia often amounted to hundreds
of thousands of soldiers. Europe was just another part of the British
informal empire in the 19th century. The British miserably failed to manage it well. The German
natives made a spirited attempt to kick the British out, and succeeded in ending the British
Empire by losing two brutal world wars. That’s what actually happened, in the age of European
Imperialism. It wasn’t some great battle between European rivals. It was a British system,
with some European copycats who largely failed to free their continent of British and later
US domination. I think it’s really important to get this
story right. Because the British world system was replaced by the US world system. As the US system ages and decays it’s masters
are getting obsessed with the same sorts manufactured enemies that the British did. Some of these
threats, like China for example, are more credible future threats than others, but none
of them are really that important yet. Washington DC tells itself that it needs to
be more worried about rivals like Iran or China than the ever accelerating mistakes
that Washington DC itself keeps making. I think dismantling the myth of European Empire
is an important part of correcting these mistakes. We should stop blaming others for the mistakes
of the folks who have really been running the world over the past 270 years.. If you
want to know more about all this, I suggest you check out my book Avoiding the British
Empire available now in paperback and for the Amazon Kindle. Thanks for watching, please subscribe, and
come back tomorrow when we will lay out why World War One is the British Empire’s fault.

Maurice Vega

50 Responses

  1. The US world system is the same as the British World system …. dont get hung up on the flag they use … its run by the same people.

  2. France also had an empire … originally in competition with the British Empire then later as a de facto part of it…. France still runs big chunks of Africa and it makes a lot of money from doing so.

  3. Russia is also an empire that has never been under British control …. hence why Britain hates Russia … and the USA does as well …. who came up with Russiagate?? look into that properly and you will understand a lot more.

  4. In history, empires come and go. To say that an entire region with multiple countries is a single empire is a bit… well, stoopid. I'm happy you made that distinction in your video. Btw! I wanted to inform you that some of my cousins were personally involved in the protests in Iraq and iran recently. The one's in Iraq live in the south, in a Shia dominated city called Basra). There is certainly a lot of confusion about whats going on. The ones who actually participated in the protests were largely teenage boys (who were most probably bored and wanted something to do). Their parents and my own, believe that whoever is driving these protests used the 'need for purpose' in the youth of Iraq, to help collect protesters. Many believe that Saddam Hussein's daughter and the rest of her orbiters are trying to get back into power (I can understand why they would believe that, considering that a Saddam Hussein loyalist is now the 'leader' of what remains of ISIS and she recently tweeted her fathers last words).

    There's been talk of ISIS loyalists infiltrating the protests, masking themselves as normal protesters, and then opening fire in hopes of people blaming it on the government. I'm not sure how true this is honestly, but i thought it would be interesting to consider.
    Anyhow! I'll stop ranting haha. Can't wait for the next video!

  5. Profitability is not something we should use to measure the effects European colonialism had on Africa. What makes one colonial empire worse than the other is the negative effects they had on the indigenous populations they ravaged. Millions of deaths at the hands of the Portuguese and Spanish is nothing to sneeze at. Many effects still haunt us to this day. France's modern francafrique(which you should do a video about) keeps their former colonies economy crippled and under their control. Their language policy threatens indigenous languages. Russia's role in Central Asia has caused the weird ethnic hodgepodge that is the Ferghana Valley. Pax Britanica was horrible, but sweeping these other empires under the rug just because they were unprofitable(the spanish empire certainly was though), is an insult to the people who lived under these regimes.

  6. I think France in many ways was even more vicious and merciless in its actions toward the native population than Britain. I mean after ww2, France was determined to keep Indochina and Algeria under its control and the French army showed no remorse when it came to repressing the native population who merely wanted to live in a free country.

    You seem to be focused on Britain and I don't dispute that Britain had a significantly larger and richer colonial empire than France. However while Britain gave up on its colonial territories relatively peacefully, the French were more than ready fight for their overseas holdings with tooth and nail.

    Why do you think this is? Maybe you could do a slight detour and make a video on the differences between the collapse of the French and British colonial empire.

  7. This story of ‘European colonial’ empire always leaves out the Ottoman Empire in the Balkans, Middle East and North Africa. The only difference is the Ottoman Empire started earlier and ended sooner in World War I instead of post World War II like it did for Britain. And the Turks were a lot more brutal than the British ever were.

  8. No it's a Satanic Empire. Satan is the same satan but soldiers were British, French, German etc before now it's " mainly but not all " are American. Europeans killed hundreds of millions of people in hundreds of years, Americans killed tens of millions of people since ww2 only.

  9. Minute 04:00 Just because the russian empire did not have vast armies in central Asia was not a reason to dismiss their diplomatic power in the Middle and Far East.

  10. I'm Austrian and it always baffles me that people seriously seriously seriously believe that a war that killed tens of millions was justified by one of our royals being killed or because the Germans wanted a navy. It's so fucking dumb. And because of all the shit we did during WW2 we have become the perfect scapegoat for Britain and the US. We as in all Germans including Austria. All the propaganda during and after WW1 became true during WW2..

  11. I haven't read a book I didn't get from my library in 10 years. But I just- 60 seconds ago- did. Rob is an escape from the bondage of mainstream idiocracy.

  12. Until now I was thinking like USA now, only mongols were the sole superpowers without any contemporaries of their scale. My thinking was British had serious competitions from US, France, Russia, Germany and Japan. But what you say makes some sense.

  13. Your book is available via Kindle unlimited in Europe. I have already downloaded. Hopefully, I will have the time to read it. Just in case you have not read Crusade and Jihad by William Polk, please have a look at it. It intersects with many of your ideas.

  14. German nationalism would have created a European empire a lifetime ago especially given how they were forced to lose their colonies after WW1

  15. also, i note that while the entire world is up at arms to anyone who DARES deny the Armenian genocide, many respectable thinkers, (primarily European) see no moral reason why denying the genocides in india, and africa are is unacceptable.

  16. The British Empire was so dreadful in it's reign of genocide and massacre in India that the population increased threefold under the Raj, and life expectancy soared. Monstrous bunch those Brits.

  17. I think later on you should make a video about how do you think the world will play out if the world avoid the First and Second World War. Will be interesting, and perhaps highlight, if any, differences between the British and the Americans at the end.

  18. Mate when us start feel its empire threaten and decide to get brutal to keep It the civilian casulities will be insane

  19. During the Cold War, it was the same for the USSR regarding the US world system. I recommend checking out this book called ‘Red Globalization: The Political Economy of the Soviet Cold War from Stalin to Khrushchev’ by Oscar Sanchez-Sibony if you wanna know more 🙂

  20. Hey, so when do you thing you’ll be able to tell us about the israel-Palestine conflict? You’re the only person I trust for this at this point.

  21. British empire wasn't responsible for ww1. It was a german imperial bet that schlieffen plan would be a grand succes and Paris would fall within a month. And they were stopped at marne in 1914. This german bet was the primary reason for ww1 rather than the assassination of austrian archduke.

    British empire's appeasement of Hitler was the primary reason for ww2. Hitler became emboldened by british concessions in austria & his dirty invasion of czechoslovakia. Again it was the leniency of British empire that emboldened hitler to unleash a world war the next year.

    The fact is: a rising power tend to come in conflict with an established power. ( carthage vs rome, ussr vs usa and today china vs usa)

    And many often, its the rising power that tend to be the most reckless, the most aggressive, since they think they are not given a fair share. ( read: russia)

    And they stop at nothing to implement their hegemonic ambitions, massmurders, genocides, conc. camps , torture chambers( read: iranian imperialism across the arab world)

    And you have chinese imperialism at work in xinjiang to HK and it's threats to invade Taiwan.

    The bottom line is:
    USA(and the world) needs to stand up to those bullies

    Inaction towards the aggressions of rising revisionist and autocratic powers will lead to catastrophes like ww1 and ww2 .

    Isolationism( a trumpian doctrine) is not gonna work today. It's rather counter-productive.

    And yes, the USA needs to avoid the mistakes of the British empire, by standing up to those bullies.

  22. Regarding Pakistan, our biggest city was basically founded by the British. The oldest buildings in Karachi are from colonial time period. That said, they sort of "liberated" the Muslims of Punjab from oppression of Sikhs who had converted many ancient mosques into horse stables. Not that we hadn't deserved it. My country has a very messed up past.

  23. British conquest of Indian subcontinent is what played a major game changer in modern world history according to me.

  24. Of course, the spread of the diseases that wiped out the indians was made ON PURPOSE. Someone should give the Nobel prize to the conquistadors for discovering bacteorology four hundred years before. Im still waiting to see you treating the actual genocides made on the name of Islam and under the ottoman empire with the same standard you apply to the europeans. I love your vids, but they're too biased too many times. Devil is on the details.

  25. I don't think we should ignore the advantages European countries had though. It's like how today countries considered "White" in the USA sense get an advantage, despite the fact that the term is essentially meaningless. Even tiny Greece's nationalism got "ïnfected" by colonialist ambitions, encouraged by the "big guys" in the early 20th century. Its ambitions for the conquest of Anatolia started having elements of "the civilised European Greeks taking over from the barbaric Asian Turks", and so it was aided by the European-dominated world system. The Ottoman Empire's only hope was its own semi-acceptence as a European nation, and later Atatürk's miracle which made Turkey fully accepted as "European". The European advantages existed far outside Europe too, and were even stronger there. Take for example China. If you were German or French, you would be treated far better by the British-dominated system compared to native Chinese people, or other non-European foreigners.
    So because of the ideology, maybe solely because of British favouritism if we are to accept your thesis, there really was a difference between Europeans and non-Europeans. There was a significant difference between Germany and the Zulus. That doesn't mean that Europeans should feel any kind of guilt, or that they should all be grouped together, as Britain exploited India while Finland was a colony, and Greece tried to colonised Turkey while there was a genocide going on against Greeks within Turkey, every story is unique. But I firmly believe there is a point in recognising 19th century European empire and the unique status of "Europeanness" during the period.

  26. I think Spain gets a waaaaaayyyyy worse rap than she deserves.
    They never(to my knowledge) engaged in the intentional extermination of anyone(most of South America is either Native or Mestizo) and they did a much better jobs of both abolishing slavery and integrating their former black slaves as normal people into society than the US did.
    Heck, they even tried to punish Conquistadors and govererns who oppressed the Natives to an unbearable degree. Because they acknowledged the Indians as human beings with rights, just like anyone else.
    They built schools, hospitals and infrastructure.

    They did all this sorta good stuff very half-assedly and incompetently of course, while still looking for ways to squeeze money out of the Americas.
    Then again, that's how they treated the Peninsula too.
    The worst I could say about them is that they weren't much better than the Aztecs and Incas they overthrew.

  27. I have only just started MoFreedom's new book, so I will restrain myself from criticism until I am much deeper into it.

    However, at first glance, one problem I perceive from this video is the notion that somehow those whom the British came to dominate were some form of the mythical "noble savage", when in fact, given the times, it was likely that the British were usually the least savage of the bunch. One only has to think about how the British stopped the Indian practice of burning a deceased man's wife along with the decedent. It would have been nice for everyone if they had cleaned up the mess that is islam while they were at it.

    The British were also likely the smartest of the bunch. I hope that MoFreedom will incorporate a discussion of the generally declining I.Q.'s in the West into this series, which I suspect is the bigger threat to America's preeminence.

  28. Its important, that we don't give other countries/empires a free pass. I agree that the system in place was British at that time, but that doesn't negate the crimes of other countries. Like today, the system may be run by USA, but the crimes committed in China, Myanmar or other places shouldn't get a free pass and we should put them responsible for their actions. Of couse people should discuss the US role in all this, but never give a free pass for those countries who committed those crimes.

  29. When you have some free time, I would like you to watch this video about the FRAUD IN ELECTIONS IN SPAIN.

  30. And was the Holocaust Britain’s fault? Stalins gulags. Mongolians killing 1/3 of the worlds population. Islam spreading death across North Africa and into Europe? Lolol it sounds more like you’re trying to explain away every nations choices on the British as if they have no self restraint. It’s pathetic. You talk about colonisation yet ignore the fact long before the British went to Africa the Muslims invaded and colonised North Africa were trading in slaves as well as pirating European waters talk n white people as slaves not to mention pre Islamic Middle Eastern nations tried to invade Europe multiple times. You’re scapegoating the British because they were more successful at spreading their influence and more successful In Building infrastructure and wealth within their colonies, you blame the British to sh for India yet The Portuguese and Dutch were there first, you say colonisation was to keep up with Britain’s expansion? Please tell me what colonies Britain had when the Spanish colonised the new world along with the Portuguese even the Dutch colonised North America before the British. So the Spanish and Dutch colonised the America’s first the french and Dutch etc colonised Southern Asia first and the Arabs colonised Africa first yet they were all copying the British? Doesn’t make any sense the British had to expand precisely because The Dutch the french and the Spanish were and all were looking to take Over britain. You’re presenting opinion as fact. Nothing more, you obviously want to demonise the British whilst excuse everyone else I wonder why? The world wars wee Britain’s daily because we would allow the Germans to expand into Eastern Europe? Was pearl harbour Britain’s fault too? You’re a fantasist

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Post comment