Why Europeans Colonized The World (And Not Someone Else)

[@TookyHistory]

Hey, everybody! I know it’s been a bit of a wait, but welcome to our first video that’s not about a specific historical figure, so please leave a comment and tell us your thoughts! We hope you enjoyed it and we wish you all the very best in 2019. Happy holidays!

[@spottig_pt2]

Chatham is pronounced chat ham

[@josipradica5284]

one of the best and most underrated channels, they shoukd quit history classes in school and just watch tooky histors XD

[@willyazis]

I think it will be a best idea if you create video title "why china did not colonize the world ?" Instead of native American

[@hriscubogdan2292]

Likewise

[@violencex3480]

Nice summary of guns germs and steel but it's still not the whole picture. Evolution takes place in humans and some humans did become "better" in certain ways.

[@broefkip]

The actual reason why China didn't colonize is because they were already wealthy and plentiful. The Europeans started colonizing in search for routes to the east for their riches, especially since the ottomans took control of the silk route which pretty much kickstarted the exploring.

[@LetsJustTalk...]

More like after Africa showed them how wealthy they were while Europe was on its knees from the plague. Mansa Musa literally crashed economies giving away some of his wealth on his pilgrimage.

[@broefkip]

@@LetsJustTalk... except that, well, he didn't go to China. In what way is mansa musa's wealth in any way relevant to China's wealth, which was accumulated through the silk road?

[@broefkip]

@ yes I know this but that is kind of irrelevant in regards to colonizing places...

@@broefkip Fair enough.

[@broefkip]

@ Let me just start off with stating that Spain didn't exist yet during the rule of Mansa Musa. It consisted of the Kingdom of Aragon Kingdom of Leon Kingdom of Navarra and Kingdom of Castille. Secondly the first time Portugal went on sub saharan exploration under Prince Henry the navigator was about 100 years after Mansu Musa's reign and they actually set sail in search for a southern route to the Indies rather than searching for the Mali empire. Thirdly, the Europeans kickstarted the search for the Indies due to the collapse of the Mongol empire and the rise of the Ottomans which made trade through the Silk route more dangerouse and again had nothing to do with Mansa Musa (who had already died well before this). Also, Africa didn't show Europe wealth as it had already seen that during the Roman Empire and the Byzantines were also wealthy. Mansa Musa and the Mali empire were the largest manufacturers of gold causing Europeans to trade goods for gold in Timbuktu which has nothing to do with exploration and colonization. Nuff said.

[@sreckocuvalo8110]

Because Europe is absolutely the best place in Midgame, Bunch of coal and iron, easily defensible positions, and well connected when you discover medieval shipbuilding. Shit in an early game and resource-poor in late, but if you manage to take a large part of America and Africa in mid you will be set for the rest of the game.

[@hpsauce1078]

fancy playing some civ

[@AFreshBot]

Europe op please nerf

[@clarksorenes7106]

That's very CIV to me.... THAT's not how real history works. I'm sorry but please try again

[@florbengorben7651]

@@clarksorenes7106 psst! Psst! He meant it as a joke :)

[@violet-trash]

Europe used to be full of wolves and bears, but we killed them all.

[@usernamexax8384]

You sound like a drunk uncle trying to explain the world to his nephews and nieces at the family party.

[@kensebego199]

😆😆

[@mehdimsaouri4222]

Congratulations, you are now misinformed by your drunk uncle

[@owogamingguy]

he is crazy

[@cactusschoorsteen3911]

He sounds like a young Joe Swanson

[@schizoidboy]

One thing slightly mentioned here was how various countries were tribal. Before the Europeans arrived tribes in both the Americas and Africa opposed each other and were willing to trade with the Europeans to get weaponry to fight their traditional enemies. The slave trade was used by the African tribes to get rid of their enemies and to arm themselves off the proceeds. It was tribalism that allowed the Europeans to take over in various nations.

[@idavisband]

I

[@ministryoftruth8499]

You have said a bunch of nothing. Everyone was tribal, including the Europeans who were always fighting each other... 25 people agree with you... Truly disconcerting.

[@idavisband]

@@ministryoftruth8499 it would depend on what stage of society Europe you're talking about for them to count as tribe. If there's roads, buildings, and a banking system the civilization can't be called a tribal society.

[@ministryoftruth8499]

@@idavisband Another bunch of nothing. tribalism noun trib·​al·​ism | \ˈtrī-bə-ˌli-zəm \ Definition of tribalism 1 : tribal consciousness and loyalty especially : exaltation of the tribe above other groups 2 : strong in-group loyalty Source: Merriam-Webster dictionary

[@Tjelder33]

There were empires in Africa. It wasn’t all tribal. Some empires resisted for a long while too.

[@arnar9478]

You think this is history? You're just throwing out random theories as to why sub-saharan africans and native americans were so unsuccessful without any data or further argumentation to back it up. Furthermore the whole thing with how Australians notfied the Maori about the Moriori seems highly historically inaccurate. I know you try to simplify things but this version of things seems ridiculous

[@somedudeok1451]

Thanks for pointing this out. It feels like nothing he says is actually backed up by any literature. I mean, he thinks that other nation leaders just said NO to the idea of expanding their influence and that is the whole reason????? That is ridiculous to the point of stupidity! And with this very shallow and short sighted way of presenting the topic, this video attracts all the dim wits who spam the comment section with "Cus da white race is da supreme race duh!". I came here to maybe find a serious discussion of this topic. But instead I found a kind of parody and a bunch of white supremacists.

[@5lowvoltage5]

@@somedudeok1451 I think the funniest part of this entire comments section is the sheer amount of people who cannot live up to their supposed 'birthright'.

[@greenbrickbox3392]

Lol I can't wait until I meet someone at work who learned history through a KZbin cartoon channel

[@arnar9478]

@@greenbrickbox3392 well there are some really good history channels on youtube, not this one though.

[@thecfc6979]

Videos idea was Africans did not have time and chance to invent new things ,because they were busy surviving in wild. And Asians had everything they needed and Asia was most the time under one rule and peace. And their empires have always fallen because they were too big to keep together. Maori and Maori was example people that are pro violence will kill those that are not for right benefits. And same time if someone lacks something they will take it with force if needed. And Native Americans were busy to fight each other and lacked animals to push their food production and that took time from inventing new things. Europe were very easy terrain to defend for each other and had lots of little nations in small space so Europeans seeked lands and islands and new trade routes for surviving in such of small space surrounded by hostile nations. And Europe was lacking materials to produce their inventions that they invented because they had time, because wars were so slow in terrain and they had time because that make better defensive weapon and inventions to turn war. And when Europeans saw their inventions were superior to others and others had more resources than other European nation they decided to not fight each other so often than old days.

[@Matthew-cp2eg]

Wait, Natives never fought each other or stole or enslaved others right? Africans never conquered other tribes, enslaved them, sold them into slavery. Wow I was so misinformed.

[@milekrizman]

Yes, but these tribes had equal technology. Europeans had horses and diseases and guns. It wasn't a fair fight since Columbus came. It would have been more fair if America was 'discovered' before Europeans had livestock and iron tools and weapons, for example 6000 years ago, when they just started to breed livestock.

[@POLARISFPV]

@@milekrizman yeah but without all those advances in technology (through endless war). Europeans wouldn't have been able to build good enough ships to cross the ocean.

[@Dmdm_dm]

@@milekrizman that's BS. The Aztecs and Incas were incomparably more advanced than the hunter gatherer tribes of the Americas. They used to raid and enslave them all the time.

[@bogdanbogdanoff5164]

@@milekrizman Indians weren't resistant to flu, measles and pox precisely because they didn't discover and learn animal husbandry for thousands of years. This are all diseases that came from animals when humans first started keeping them under the same roof. What ultimately killed Indians was the inability to change their way of life. Instead of domesticating the north american horse, contracting some diseases and immunizing against them, they hunted it to extinction for easy meat.

[@Turagrong]

The author of the video does mention some atrocities of the natives, in the case of the Maori. But he says it in the way that implies that he finds it evident that any group of people would behave like that (except those who forgot the warfare...). I'm not sure if I got the point of the part about the Maori but it definitely emphasises this being a natural thing of the human character (of human societies). It is always difficult to choose which specific information you should put in* a history lesson where you mention historical guilts and merits. I guess he wants us to not forget the character of the colonizations (nationalism and lying about one's history, it happens) but in the same time he finds it a matter of course that other populations/civilizations were already massacring and enslaving each other already. *In Russia, they've closed a gulag museum to the public www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/russia/11481113/Russias-only-gulag-museum-faces-closure.html

[@aquila4460]

Well, it was less that China was always united, it was more that they had taken all valuable land and had no easy route of conquest left open. To the south, shitty jungle that could easily become the grave of a superpower, to the north a bunch of steps with no real resources, to the west a desert. So for China there was no easy route to expand anymore, and more importantly no nation that was their equal....except maybe Rome during it's glory days. There where only tributaries and nations to far away to be tributarys. So China basicaly went like. "We got all the good land. Noone else comes even close to us... why would we want to conquer lessers civiliasation if we can just get tribute by asking." Meanwhile in Europa everyone had Rivals and was desperatly looking for a way to get the upper edge. So they where willing to fund some high risk gambles, like sending someone over into the open sea. Or arround africa in the hopes that they actually find something of worth.

[@saguntum-iberian-greekkons7014]

Yes, Europe had necessity to "survive" its opponents while china was just chilling and making nap, not really worrying

[@aquila4460]

@Lance Svensson Grave of a superpower in the sense that a superpower could waste a ton of resources into it without much gains and suffer for it. For example AMerica and Vietnam. Also Prussia had a bunch of resources needed for German hegemonie. You can't rise from nothing to everything. You need something.

[@1Invinc]

If you think the forests of Europe are comparable to the jungles of South East Asia, you're sorely mistaken.

[@davidtormsen8004]

@Lance Svensson Apples to oranges. Southern China at the time was a sweltering hellscape of disease from the POV of the Chinese, and the cost-to-benefit ratio wasn't great for developing it when you could invest resources elsewhere. It was developed over centuries, but there wasn't anything like the sort of incentive the Prussians had.

[@ctfccc2069]

Sounds like capitalism if you ask me.

[@wahoo_6471]

“China was nearly always unified”

[@papercat2599]

Not always unified but always unified after separation. That it self is amazing

[@wahoo_6471]

@@adohmnail6445 quotes indicate sarcasm. The joke is that China was basically never unified.

[@Smile4theKillCam456]

I stopped there. Couldn’t believe anything past that.

[@arandomyoutubeaccount3166]

He said "nearly".

[@Anonymous-cm8jy]

Some of the biggest wars were fought in China.

[@freedomranger3276]

So Europeans didn't have Bears, Wolves and Ice cold winters?

[@ebimd1851]

Northern Europe did.

[@preppertechnicianee6013]

@@ebimd1851 ya the poor north was a crap shoot till late midgame

[@r.o.b8728]

Jonathan Muertter haahahahah what are you talking about the whole reason we won ww2 was because of the Soviet winter

[@preppertechnicianee6013]

@@r.o.b8728 ya thats the real winter. Ther is a reason russia was always starving And developed through its own slave trade not europe tho that's asia so they also had access to trade from yellow river

[@r.o.b8728]

Prepper TECH be ready um no the Germans only reached close to Moscow which is in Europe and no Russia is starving because of transportation of food because it’s so big

[@dreadpiraterobertsii4420]

Because we had better marching songs

[@whitepolicy9120]

Nope we had Jews financing it

[@yourworstnightmare1488]

@@whitepolicy9120 i bet you have jew dna in you hahahahahahahahaahah

[@factsdontcareaboutyourfeel4638]

@@yourworstnightmare1488 ok? That's just good. Stupid imbecile

[@lilahdog568]

When your guns are aight and your cannons are a little better but you're marching to the British army theme and the whole squad gets lit...and then the enemy gets lit in a different way

[@stoopidphersun7436]

Kuomintang ftw

[@jacondo2731]

africa was like that because of the sahara that was a big wall for communication now china is going to take africa....

[@Tsukiko.97]

The belt and road is how *”Oh, oh oh, oohh oohh”*

[@jacondo2731]

@@Tsukiko.97 i know but the problem is that china are stealing lands from our mother africa

[@TheRealRusDaddy]

Justin Y, because every wester nation after ww1 decided colonialism was bad and they threw Africa to the wolves and SA/Rhodesia along with it

[@thekillingduck]

@@TheRealRusDaddy world war 2 actually. Thr british empire grew after world war 1

[@VALDIGNE]

now Africa is taking over Europe with the deportation of refugees.

[@burgundyknight6826]

I'm no history major but this seemed wildly over simplified and inaccurate. Also you jumped all over the time line made the video very sloppy

[@ericwang1036]

It is true and accurate. Let me just ask you one simple question. Why are the world speak English. Two reason Frist because of British colonization around the globe/world and second American bomb Hiroshima and Nagasaki which that time was the most powerful country

[@janl5879]

@@ericwang1036 Well technicly German had most influence in terms of Language around the World. Germanstates(Prussia,Bayern,Austria,Switz,Northern,western,) Netherland Scandi and English are all German languages. And Europeans are just more developed because its harder to life in Europe. Spring Sommer Fall Winter. Weather like Storms Icerain Snow Europeans. Its all started with the Wheel. African didnt had Wheel same for Southamericans or the Middleeast

[@kensebego199]

@@ericwang1036 uh most of the world spoke English prior to the Bombings. English speaking is solely because of the Brits and their Navy which helped them colonize 1\4th of the world.

[@louishernandez2684]

@@ericwang1036 You're just painfully wrong, smh... Those two you named are cities, not a country. Second, Japan wasn't the most powerful country in the world either. Third, English is very globalized but not to the point "the whole world speaks it" and its not even that big because of Britain but because of the USA, the only superpower in the world (research it)

[@belisarius6949]

Oh these comments are gonna be juicy.

[@jacondo2731]

so juicy

[@jacondo2731]

@Faiq Toppa yeah me too

[@ShladTheTonkLover]

J U I C Y

[@kiburi129]

@Random Luck k

[@Urrelles]

@Proger13 10 Have Europeans ever built a powerful nation that didnt implode on itself in 600 years? Or have some major reduction in borders? Or rely heavily on imaginary money systems to throttle their economies?

[@SupremeLeaderKimJong-un]

2:20 Europeans: *This time for Africa*

[@thisisameme686]

no u

[@meriafro8775]

Now time of africa after 10 or 30 year

[@somalidarama3100]

No europe to for asians

[@HBKnowItAll]

Does Carthage count?

[@Dracul91]

It‘s not like there were no dangerous animals in Europe, but we killed all those. That we were not united helped as in the way that we were always competiting against each other. The most successful lands are those, which give you enough struggle, so that you need to improve, but also enough possibilities so you can cope with it.

[@preppertechnicianee6013]

They are signifactly worse in africa Name an animal ill name a Larger or mor dangerious one in africa Its actually seems you didnt kill them all you out hunted the limited amount of prey So most of them starved then you killed the remaining few To many prey items in africa. And hunting is more risky a scrapped knee is deadlier in africa

[@mixtapemania6769]

@@preppertechnicianee6013 and also, Africans fought with each other all the time before colonization.

[@mixtapemania6769]

But not so much during B.C. Times.The fighting started in the medieval times, conflicts skyrocketed though. A lot of advancements came as well, some societies in Africa even had actual plumbing prior to colonization. The British were shocked to find things they themselves hadn't even discovered or adapted yet. I truly think that given enough time, Africans would have advanced. At least West Africa, because Africa is a huge freaking place.

[@preppertechnicianee6013]

@@mixtapemania6769 Yup the main issue was diseases. It seems africa was fairly advanced in c sections having higher survival rates then europe Use of sterilization ect It seems africa was taking a different tech tree The devopment of the blast furnace didnt happen instead they had the hottest furnaces in the world 2000 But is was a different style of bloomery East africa As well from asian trade was developing

[@comradekarlvonschnitzelste8218]

Prepper TECH be ready I’ll name the most dangerous of them all, a person with intent to kill you. Just like entire nations in Europe did.

[@Hibernicus1968]

A couple of really important things you left out (and yes, yes, I know in such an oversimplified, eight and a half minute video, a LOT is going to be left out, but these two things really are significant enough they should have been put in). First, one other thing holding Africa back was simple geography. The continent is huge, with abundant resources, but one thing it doesn't have many of are great natural harbors, and navigable rivers. That makes a HUGE difference in pre-industrial times, when it was always much cheaper and easier to move people and goods over water. Africa simply has far fewer good harbors and navigable rivers than Europe has, despite being so much larger. This makes developing advanced civilizations enormously more difficult, because it's so much harder to move goods and people around. The second thing pertains to Asia. For centuries Asia, specifically China, had been far more advanced. Technologically, Europe RAPIDLY overtook China, however, beginning in about the mid-fifteenth century. The reason for this is the printing press. Like so many other inventions, it had been developed in China first. But whereas it spread like wildfire in Europe, once it had been invented (which Gutenberg seems to have done independently), but it stalled in China and Korea, despite appearing centuries earlier. The reason was the different writing systems. Logographic writing systems, like Chinese characters demand the production of thousands, or even tens of thousands of different printing types just to start up a printing operation. Alphabetic writing systems, on the other hand, can be established with just a few hundred duplicates of a small number of characters. This makes the initial startup cost of setting up a print shop orders of magnitude less expensive, and facilitated the spread of printing all over Europe. This triggered a cascade effect in the spread of knowledge, as a well as a feedback loop. When books had to be laboriously copied by hand, they were slow and expensive to produce, and cost a LOT. So few people could afford them, and this limited the demand for literacy, and knowledge was confined to a tiny, literate class (in Europe, for centuries, almost exclusively the clergy). Printing made books cheap and abundant, and this increased the demand for literacy in society as a whole, as more people could afford books, and investing in education made more economic sense. The increased number of literate people increased the demand for more books, and this caused more printing presses to be built to meet the rising demand (and more schools to spread literacy and education), and this created a positive feedback loop. With an ever-expanding number of literate, and educated people in European society, the rapid exchange of ideas among educated people sparked more and more innovation and invention, and Europe definitively surpassed Asia in science and technology within just a few generations.

[@Cecilia-ky3uw]

add another thing for military technology had china not have the mongols and the steppe up north the chances of a chinese nation state colonising the world wouldve been higher, the reason is that we see western europe dominating the world, I theorise geography had something to do with it ie the more eastern european nations never colonised and were cavalry based while once you get more west the incentive for infantry increases due to the fact horses become less useful in rough terrain, this means more infantry technology, on the other hand china while also posessing that nice geography has the mongols forcing them to focus more on cavalry to defeat cavalry since the mongols dont typically have to fight pitched battles they can just run away, this disincentivises infantry in favour of cavalry and finally, china had never been a sea based nation it had always been more connected to land than to sea, while the british isles are well isles, and spain and portugal have large sea borders and have mountanous terrain protecting them from france, add to that the importance of the strait they have down south and you can see the incentive for a navy

[@vatsalsrivastav5195]

As an asian I can confirm this

[@vu7904]

That is very insightful comment. Thank you.

[@theorangecoco]

India and the Middle East also had alphabetic writing systems. Why didn’t the printing press spark literacy and innovation over there?

[@vatsalsrivastav5195]

@@theorangecoco they had innovation of their own you need to learn of them

[@FrazzP]

Because we had invented a thingy called the wheel and that we can have animals help us farm which produces more food which in turn means more people and more technology and so on.

[@Ivanus59]

But still if your maximum movement speed is limited to a human's walk then a wheel won't do you much good. :p And wheel isn't a "European" invention lol, why would you even mention it? Even ancient Egyptians and Mesopotamians knew of the wheel (for chariots, carts). A wheel is a pretty human invention in general.

[@FrazzP]

@@Ivanus59 Yet the natives had not 'invented' it nor animal husbandry, two basic things a society once needed to evolve. The wheel is pretty damn important so that's why i mentioned it. Native societies had reached their "tech cap". Their societies could not have advanced any further.

[@snowhole2625]

Fraz China did everything you just said and failed, Tooky explains.

[@Ivanus59]

@@snowhole2625 lol, his comment basically explained 1% of what the video already explained. :]

[@johnblunt6693]

The natives in the Americas made wheels also along with the people's in Asia who actual had the animals to use them effectively which they did

[@UnsterblicheKonig]

Why didn’t the Vikings develop advanced ships and spread out and beat empires found nations and lend themselves out as elite fighting forces? Cold land harsh weather and difficult land to farm. They had to learn to get along and live together peacefully.

[@endloesung_der_braunen_frage]

🤣🤣😂😂

[@benborja3200]

lol

[@OfficialDenzy]

You are talking as if its so easy lol

[@Connor.SG-1Ring]

I believe one of the factors is "choice". Europeans saw an opportunity and chose take it, which led them to dominated World Stage. Whiles the Chinese had the same opportunity and could have easily done the same things that Europeans did, but instead chose a state isolationism and refused to interaction both in land and sea with the rest of the World.

[@LetsJustTalk...]

One of the most sensible comments I've read so far 👏🏾

[@obamalastname34]

ambition and europe was just well connected to each other than other isolatated societies which makes you wonder how lucky is europe in terms of georgraphy they have a lot of connection before better yet the roman empire really help europe rise through the ranks of civilization.

[@Yasmin-jt1ux]

Colonization is not a positive type of interaction though... The colonized nations are still suffering the consequences of centuries of colonization.. European interference is still present til Today... I find it always hilarious that in the modern days China is the one that's vilified for wanting to do what the Europeans did and still do..

[@chilidoghog]

@@emojicaptain7285 Spell much?

[@Lilith_2191]

I watched another video that explained that because of the lack of unity in Europe and the proximity of the many kingdoms lead to European kingdoms being in fear of being conquered by one another. This fear motivated the kingdoms to advance their own prosperity, resources, and technology through exploration. China who didn’t have any competition was sitting pretty and prosperous and didn’t have a necessary reason to expand. My theory is the Chinese emperor was afraid that exploring too far would bring doom and thus took on the “if it ain’t broke don’t fix it” mentality.

[@lorenrosenhal6555]

In short: Some Chinese man said “no”, resulting in China not exploring the world, and then a European guy bored everyone to death till he could go to America, but everyone else got so jealous that they joined him. H I S T O R Y

[@Emilechen]

@Proger13 10 today Chinese have just landed a rover on the dark side of the Moon,

[@somedudeok1451]

Basicly nothing this video claims is backed up by literature. And with this shallow and overly simple presentation of the topic come all the white supremacist dim wits that spam the comments with "Da white race is da superior race". I know the author of this video is trying to be funny, but it just ends up being sad.

[@generalgrievous9870]

Australian sailors: we found some islands Maori: looks like meats Back on the menu boys

[@preppertechnicianee6013]

Other Maori Bud we just had kangaroo

[@natalieg1011]

Lmao yup

[@arumba7345]

@Apeman Commeth Say that to Mansa Musa hahahaha

[@arumba7345]

@Lucas Rush Look up the mali empire

[@arumba7345]

The internet is the innovation of information it's the dictionary 3 point o or something

[@johnanth]

Alright video I guess. Fair point that China could well have been a colonial empire. It really was an 'internal view' that meant they never went far beyond the territory of the Han peoples. They were extremely numerous of course and it is a huge country, and a pretty united one too, unlike India (which was very rich and also populous, but deeply divided along religious lines and with complex dynastic politics and struggles). I highly recommended viewers look up "Great Divergence", which is the academic key-word of sorts for writing about why Europe and NOT China became the dominant force in the world.

[@gianniskos300]

It was all about competition, Europe had plenty, China had none most of the time...

[@joanmasdeu4600]

Giannis Kos that's exactly what i thought, why colonize if you are fine where you are? The division of Europe was the key to its success

[@gianniskos300]

@@joanmasdeu4600 And its complex mountainous terrain with lots of isolated pockets brought its inevitable division

[@carstarsarstenstesenn]

Most success is due to competition. Think about celebrities, politicians, musicians, athletes, etc. they all see other people doing things and say “I’m going to do that but better” while China had nobody to compete with, nobody to outdo China and further encourage them to do more.

[@violet-trash]

The Mongols would have dominated the entire world if Genghis Khan's sons hadn't fought with one another. They conquered more land and killed more people than anyone else in history. Genghis Khan was a tactical genius, absolutely brutal, but a genius.

[@amarjitsaggu7869]

It’s always Geography. Now you wish you were listening in Geo class, now don’t you?

[@jacondo2731]

geography is destiny since the united states success of becoming a superpower was due to it's geography

[@amarjitsaggu7869]

jacondo gaming brain4breakfast viewer?

[@jacondo2731]

@@amarjitsaggu7869 yes why he brought more to this concept

[@jakedee4117]

Native Americans had the same geography but didn't become a super power. Geography becomes encoded as genetics over the generations. You could say its all environmental factors if you also include the environment of the past generations, thousands or even millions of years ago@@jacondo2731

[@carstarsarstenstesenn]

Jake Dee You’re right. It not only geography but the geography of North America allowed the new country of the United States that was expanding on it to develop into a superpower

[@IqbalHossain-vg8vr]

😂“Wait a sec, I don’t feel like we’ve isolated ourselves enough here, let’s go further”

[@danielhyson6079]

I take it you've read "Guns, Germs, And Steel" by Jared Diamond?

[@andrewcooper7256]

I believe you mean "Germs, Germs, Germs, Germs, Germs, Guns, Germs, Germs, Steel, Germs, and did I mention Germs?"

[@sirxxfatcatxx7291]

Dont forget "Collapse: how societies choose to fail or succeed", also by Jared Diamond.

[@andrewcooper7256]

@adam west It wasn't an accident but most of the death was. Europe became the best because of Ottoman greed which blockaded trade, disunion which led to ruthless internal competition, and ideological openness as compared to the rest of the world. Islam(represented by the Ottomans) closed off new technology leading to major military downfalls, India was too fragmented, China was to isolated to care enough about innovation in the serious way that Europe was. Africa was blocked off by the Sahara as well as having terrible geography.

[@mikedertouzos908]

There are a lot of answers to this question. This video toutched on some good ones but I believe the Europeans were hungry for wealth, had the drive to expand, and had the means to do so... They also got into competition with each other over who could become the wealthiest and most powerful.

[@visi7891]

that last point lol people had 'social media' and status powers for Likes even back then

[@grahamstrouse1165]

The Industrial Revolution had a pretty bloody big impact on the efficacy of European colonization efforts during the latter part of the 18th & the 19th .Century. Talk about bringing guns to a knife fight…

[@saguntum-iberian-greekkons7014]

Fortuna audaces iuvat (Fortune favours the bold)

[@Seltor55]

Became Wealth and powerful by inflicting suffering to people, stealing lands, arts works and natural resources and committing genocide and slavery business.

[@johnjavier36866]

China doesnt need to colonize since they are so rich already.

[@papercat2599]

Alexander Chohan you go learn history. Most Chinese dynasty are very wealthy in ancient standards

[@stratant.8722]

@@papercat2599 But somehow they got their ass kicked by europeans. Hmmmm

[@johnjavier36866]

@Alexander Chohan I do know my fellow asian history.

[@T1Top]

Paper Cat You do know China is taking part of Africa till this day.

[@gazzawomg5639]

@Swapper Hopper2.0 you do know that it was Europe who colonized the world and fucked up Africa. So typical of them to play the blame game on China and deny all the atrocities they caused

[@derhenri2002]

Geography, culture(geography, genetics and history) and bellcurve/genetics(result of millions of years of evolution through Geography). So, the reason is geography.

[@flawlessbinary7449]

No that's been debunked. Geography alone is not enough of a factor to build up a nation. East and west Germany, north and South Korea are good examples of such.

[@travisbarnes1698]

I would agree with everything except for Genetics.

[@cv4809]

@@travisbarnes1698 Genetics are influenced by the geography at some extent

[@violet-trash]

Intelligence can increase or decrease in a relatively short amount of time evolutionary speaking. Just look at the deference between dogs and wolves despite the fact that they are the same species. Even a border collie is put to shame by a wolf.

[@randomdude2026]

@@flawlessbinary7449 East and West Germany were no real nations. The only true nation is Germany. West-Germany never saw the East as a legitimate state and had still claims on the GDR's territory. Also the people had still the same culture and language. Something similar goes for Korea. The people are still the same. Although that can change if the seperation holds for much longer.

[@mrmister1657]

2:50 Reminder: Europe in fact did have lions

[@XXXShottyThottyXXXYt]

No it didn't it had dogs and wolf like animals. It also had Horses. Lions are only native to Sub-Saharan Africa.

[@mrmister1657]

Shotty kzbin.info/www/bejne/aXeVkH9-nd6tp9k kzbin.info/www/bejne/d5uznX6LfNKditU kzbin.info/www/bejne/gmHSmYR9etOirLs

[@scottbuchtel4716]

@@mrmister1657 Yup. Europe had its fair share of epidemics too, like the bubonic plague. Horses died off in North America, where they originally evolved, right around the time native americans arrived from Asia. This video wasn't really informative; more like a subjective persuasion speech.

[@Daniellasanche]

@@XXXShottyThottyXXXYt Rome had lions very early on, and they are in Europe

[@XXXShottyThottyXXXYt]

@@Daniellasanche those are brought over from Afrika. That’s why Lions are often associated with Afrika.

[@demidr15]

This comment section is now C O L O N I S E D by an European

[@chadvogel3594]

no, not the demise of the world but the enlightenment of the world.

[@arawn1061]

Finer word for demise. "We are gonna enlighten you to death! "

[@arawn1061]

@@harpe9415 so? Atleast they would be free.

[@arawn1061]

@@harpe9415 you destroyed their culture and civilization because it was different. You are evil if you defend this

[@harpe9415]

@@arawn1061 Defend what? I am Swedish, we sure as fucking hell didn't destroy any native american cultures. And they weren't "destroyed" because they were different, but because they were weak and easy targets.

[@cliftonfameree4436]

@@arawn1061 They were constantly warring amongst each other. Some tribes being cannibals.

[@TheNinjaDC]

*Because of capitalism!* Well, specifically capitalism styled competition. Europeans were constantly competing with each other; culturally, politically, economically, and militarily. This competition gave them a leg up on technology around the Renaissance era, and motivation to explore, trade, and colonize to "keep up with the Joneses (Spanish)." China in contrast, was like, "I have everything I need. Why would I need to improve the perfection of my empire." 19th Cent China: "Oh.... Oh that is why...."

[@pawion]

So it's not capitalism but *competition*

[@ab9840]

Like I mentioned above, the Europeans lucked out in that the Spanish found a mountain of silver in Potosi which is today part of Bolivia. Silver was in short supply in Europe thus economic growth was affected. The silver from the Americas kick started the first global trade. Even the Chinese profited since 40% of the Silver ended up in China for the purchase of Chinese goods. Both China and Spain declined at the same time.

[@bassackwards6184]

One thing I've read as well is seasons shaped cultures. If you had to harvest and plan for a winter it taught independence and structure. This isn't just a pro European thing only, you also see it in Asia as well. Very structured in Japan and Korea.

[@mamdhata1614]

Very well. Then why didn't it work in Russia and in amongst Native Canadians and Northern Natives of USA?

[@jaidenmartinez4359]

Most Inaccurate shit I’ve heard in a while

[@NapoleonBonaparde]

Whats your reasoning Martinez boy

[@jaidenmartinez4359]

For example 6:52 China was constantly splitting into dynasties ALOT.

[@NapoleonBonaparde]

@@jaidenmartinez4359 Each couple of centuries that isn't alot the Yuan dynasty lasted 100 years the Ming 280 years the last Qing lasted 270 years that is alot of years for each of them and they are the last 3 dynasties

[@abyssstrider2547]

He was right about diseases and alike wasn't he?

[@Cyricist001]

@@abyssstrider2547 Not really, Europe was swarming with malaria but in the middle ages christian monks went to dry out and deforest a lot of land to make farms. Granted, you couldn't dry out wetland so easily in Africa because you either need it or the rain season undermines the effort.

[@neroion4427]

In Europe there was competition with other equally strong neighbors i.e. England, France, Spain, Portugal. Always trying to one up each other. China had no such competition, so in turn no desire to improve. Competition breeds success.

[@johnmason1239]

They dealt with massive internal strife+ mongols& the japanese too. The reason we did better was just as much to do with democracy, education & enlightenment

[@platoonmexx9278]

naming portugal in line with england france and spain, facepalm

[@denpadolt9242]

Yeah, it's not like Portugal was the first European power to reach India or anything...

[@platoonmexx9278]

@@denpadolt9242 are you able to read? are you able to understand what you read? "In Europe there was competition with other equally strong neighbors i.e. England, France, Spain, Portugal. " what does this sentence mean? thats a very high hint-level i gave you there Mr. Dumbfk are you able to solve ur false thoughts?

[@denpadolt9242]

Does Brazil's status as one of the largest countries in the world mean nothing to you?

[@Petreski447]

European power supreme.

[@adityanawani8134]

Emanuel Petreski *EURABIA*

[@ownerofgod3516]

Not now kid

[@RHR199X]

Supreme European circumstances

[@dennisdaniel1208]

@@adityanawani8134 *DAY OF THE ROPE*

[@dennisdaniel1208]

@@RHR199X not really

[@bigboaharthurmorgan2109]

Finally. ALSO, China broke up a LOT of times.

[@violet-trash]

Europe was never a single nation either. Also the Mongols created the biggest empire of all time. Of ALL TIME.

[@h1story643]

@@violet-trash No, Great Britian was larger.

[@ivanfelipebaezperez5318]

@@h1story643 Prior to the rise of British Empire, the Mongolian Empire was the biggest in modern history

[@aleksandarvil5718]

@Ivan Baez Mongolian Empire was largest *CONTINENTAL* Empire, while Great Britain was largest *MARITIME* and *COLONIAL* Empire. 😎😎

[@bremc666]

Doesn't matter, Europe have the same religion witch united it enough to stop the Ottoman Empire from conquest. Otherwise division helped Europe evolve. Competition was a significant factor.

[@brido88]

“Guns, Germs and Steel” by Jared Diamond is a must read for anyone with an interest in this subject.

[@vesputia]

what about India? That does not play into Jared Diamonds hypothesis in that book.

[@brido88]

@@vesputia Can you elaborate? What is it about India that doesn’t fit with Jared Diamond’s book?

[@ves5080]

@@brido88 Indians shared immunity to diseases such as smallpox that killed off native people in America.

[@brido88]

@@ves5080 google it.

[@Dorkeydaze]

It’s a garbage book

[@mrnikt4086]

All clear now. How Cortez with 500 men won with advanced Aztec empire? Because lama. 😂

[@RHR199X]

mr nikt actually the aztecs defeated the Spanish for a long time until the disease kicked in. The llama analogy was to show the lack of livestock in the new world.

[@mixtapemania6769]

They created division among the Aztec people. They did not take them head on, they couldn't

[@flaviusbelisarius7517]

@@RHR199X not in the initial engagements. It took them resorting to asymmetric warfare to begin winning

[@ifyourespondyourmad.2409]

@The Canadian Crusader yep

[@europadefender]

I believe the reason why native Americans were primitive because the lack of trade networks not beast of burden.

[@jessegoodfellow6188]

Another problem with Africa is the lack of farmland. An African farmer has to constantly move from place to place just to grow crops.

[@jessegoodfellow6188]

@Pecu Alex Not just that, but the soil in Africa was already of poor quality.

[@dutchpatriot17]

@@jessegoodfellow6188 Many European colonists were able to set up decent farms due to their technology. Alas, modern day Africans refuse to adapt to those ways, instead cutting down the few ways they have for creating, or sustaining, any sort of farming.

[@jessegoodfellow6188]

@@dutchpatriot17 Yes, with their technology, technology that Africa didn't have easy access to. Requiring an already existing infrastructure.

[@jacondo2731]

@@dutchpatriot17 "refuse" you are wrong mate ,african governments do not care about agriculture and europe is exporting cheap subsidized food that make local farmers out of business .

[@dutchpatriot17]

@@jessegoodfellow6188 Pretty sure Egypt already had a pretty prosperous society prior to most civilized life on Europe.

[@RafaelSantos-pi8py]

A very important aspect of european discoveries and colonization often ignored is personal initiative. The first sailors and conquistadores were people interested in improving their own lives, even if at the expense of someone else. India and China had the technology and resources to explore the world as Europe did, but not the drive, ambition and yes, greed. And to this day, the focus on the individual is still a defining factor in western civilization. Remember, the whole point of the era of discoveries including Colon's voyage was that europeans wanted to make contact with India and China while these couldn't be bothered to find out more about the world they lived in.

[@saguntum-iberian-greekkons7014]

Europeans: Nothing or barely anything to loose Chinese: Hmm, not worth it, we are rich but we won’t waste ressources with a winning formula

[@alhuda4707]

Well, in fact, poverty is not a reason for colonialism. The Arabs were one of the poorest nations, and their land was not agricultural, and they were among the poorest people until the discovery of oil. Despite that, they did not invade the Indians or the inhabitants of Africa or any other continent, and the Africans, despite their poverty, also did not invade other nations. And now we can say that most of the problems in the world are the Europeans, they are the ones who created the first and second world wars, they are the ones who invaded the Americas and killed them and stole their wealth, they are the ones who invaded the African continent and stole its great wealth and enslaved its people, they are the ones who colonized many nations Others, Asians, Indian Arabs and others,

[@saaw9000]

This analysis draws the wrong historical connections

[@eruditootidure2611]

Animals and disease weren't the only big obstacles to African kingdoms. I'd write wild animals off entirely, since many African Kingdoms sprouted up in areas where there were fewer dangerous animals, while others simply worked around the presence of dangerous animals (I'll remind you that Egypt and Kush were both built along a river full of the most dangerous animals in Africa, during a time when Lions,Leopards, and Hyenas ranged all along the Nile Valley. Also, interesting fact, the kings of Benin (in modern day Nigeria) actually kept an entourage of tamed leopards to demonstrate their command over nature.). The most serious obstacles preventing them from becoming colonial powers were geographical, just as geographical features helped European states to develop in the directions they did. First of all, the Sahara created a partial barrier to trade. While Sub-Saharan states did have contact with Eurasia, largely through desert nomad intermediaries, this contact wasn't as intensive as the contact between other old world states. As such, while different parts of Eurasia benefited from advancements made by other parts of Eurasia, many of these advancements were not passed on to most of Africa. This resulted in Africa missing out on a lot of technology and other developments from other parts of the old world. Moreover, Africa itself is divided up geographically; immediately south of the Sahara is a strip of grassland, where many African states used cavalry, but at the south of this strip, there is a large band of thick forest. In addition to limiting navigation directly, this forest region is also occupied by the tsetse fly, which carries a disease deadly to horses. Because of this, all the territory below the northern edge of this forest region was impenetrable to horses, further slowing trade. More importantly for why they didn't develop any sea faring colonial Empires, Africa doesn't have a lot of peninsulas or large islands, so seafaring vessels were relatively rare; some African states built impressive river fleets, but few ventured out past the coast, because there was little pressure to do so. The major exceptions to this were North Africans, who famously participated in slave raids into Europe, but simply lost out to European competition, and the Swahili, which participated in a great deal of maritime trading, directly trading with India and even China. The Swahili never had much pressure to switch from trading to conquest, though, and never forged any large maritime empires.

[@saguntum-iberian-greekkons7014]

Well, the moors did went to Europe (Hispania, Sicily) after the arabs took over it. In all cases there were advanced african realms or ones that invaded Europe (almoravids, almohads) or very rich kingdoms like mali. That didn’t made them the masters of the world

[@sharonsamaroo3914]

European ancestors migrated out of Africa and went to cold barren lands. It is no secret Europe wasn't the most fertile place to grow enough food to sustain its populations. They were tribal and fought to control whatever little fertile land was available among themselves, hence perfecting their warfare experience. They depleted the vegetation faster than any other continent, leaving them hungry for just about everything. They had to go exploring to find new fertile lands. The Americas, Asia nor Africa didn't have that problem of scarcity of food or infertile lands, so no need to take more than they need or the cold weather to store up food for the winter season and warfare for these groups was more to do with honor amount tribes than say capturing territories. The Europeans developed 2 lethal things... greedy behaviors and experience in warfare. And as the saying goes "the rest is history" of what they did. Sadly we are still living in an economic model of greed and warfare. To this day all other groups still organized themselves more communally than Europeans.

[@darryllzwiers7257]

Technology played a role too. All of these people shared one thing, their technology was in the stone age. They shared another thing too. They weren't a united people. They were fighting an murdering each other long before Europeans got there. Europeans have that past too. Until some clever warlords took over the lands and declared them a nation. Without that single strategy, Europeans couldn't have done anything.

[@BALLARDTWIN]

Some of these countries in Africa weren't even colonised majority still have their language, faith and ethnicity It was more like a long term occupation Plus some of the Africa countries were captured during the late 1890s or the scramble of Africa in 1900 They were taken far after majority of South East asians and Indians who were colonised much earlier Only the coastal region of southern, central and west Africa were colonised Bothers me that everyone think Europeans ruled the entirety go Africa for like 500 years or something Some countries in Africa were literally under European control for like 60-70 years lol They got their independence after the ww2 period and were captured during the pre WW1 period

[@matthewarsenault6216]

You're a hundred percent right I run across people who make the same mistake all the time

[@moefapie]

@ you have no ide what you are talking about

[@BALLARDTWIN]

@Donald Trump Many African countries like Mali, somalia were already thriving before they were chained down by colonialism Every enterprise in somalia was taken by British who used the livestock as food for their troops in the wars So many lost their livelihoods and ports were seized by British If anything somalis and west Africans like Mali and sokoto faired worse after colonialism British had no intentions or care for the political system or even tribal systems in place They forced all these tribes into 1 country and forced democracy on them Immidiatly chaos broke out For over 5000 years somalis sultanates and Mali empires flourished until the British killed their kings and tribal elders culturally confusing the whole damn population .it was not good for everyone bro

[@starlord847]

Inaccuracies in this video is incredible 😂

[@danielmadsen4859]

How about listing them? I'm really curious

[@karrey2706]

Incredible on a massive scale 😂

[@danielmadsen4859]

@@karrey2706 Well, my question still stands .Would you please do me the favour of telling me what the inaccuracies are?

[@jayvonvisger5609]

Having watched this to the end, I am damaged but vindicated my assessment that most people are pretty ignorant and stupid. The producer of this being one of them.

[@JosueLopez-kk9us]

@@MP-ut6eb explain why not

[@JosueLopez-kk9us]

@Thomas b yeah but since I'm not the claimant and just an observer, for me it would be equally interesting to hear a why or a why not and I wouldn't know who answers first

[@karlhans6678]

@@JosueLopez-kk9us well you said "why not?" so you seem to have the answer.

[@JosueLopez-kk9us]

@@karlhans6678 read the original comment, it would be impossible for me to know why he says the producer is an idiot, only he knows why. I don't know, I get I sounded provocative or challenging but I really just to know

[@rafaelmarques315]

When you talk about Spain on the video you should talk about Portugal Portugal was the first european country to start colonisation

[@eishitsukasa3613]

@@felipemilian178 lol spain is a joke for us, europeans. Got conquered by arabs. What a joke

[@mitonaarea5856]

No

[@mitonaarea5856]

@@eishitsukasa3613 Portugal was also conquered by the moors

[@wesleyferraz9610]

@@mitonaarea5856 why?😕😕😕

[@wesleyferraz9610]

@Vanessa Mane 🤣🤣🤣

[@joy-rk7cf]

Chinese explorer Zheng He had explored South East Asia, Middle East and Africa well before Christopher Columbus. They did not colonise the countries, instead they traveled to build relationships with these countries. All they took from Africa was a giraffe. They did not need to colonise because they respect other cultures and their native people. It is unfortunate that many people do not know this.

[@eln5343]

Fun fact: before the 21st century the Western most point Chinese forces had ever claimed was the Eastern shore of the Caspian sea in 90s A.D. That record was broken last decade. Took them a sweet time

[@RhodesianSAS-gn4qp]

Every single race had an urge to conquer, dominate over other groups and spread population on new lands, such attempts were recorded in every cvilisation from south asia to Iceland. Europeans being the most intelligent, and determined race, having millenia's of internal conflicts, mastered the art of warfare and easily conquered foreign lands that were settled by tribes not evolved past Neolite. Even those almost technologically on par with Europeans such as China or Japan, did not have an economy strong enough to afford military hardware and proper training to the extent Europeans had, a prime example are the opium wars.

[@riyadougla539]

Well said.

[@octaviocampos1316]

Interesting point but it's untrue. The reason Europe had a much more developed society was because of agriculture and animals. The weather in Europe allows for agriculture which leads to people having jobs besides farming and hunting. Most farm animals originated in Europe. Consequently, living with animals led to disease which killed many Europeans and made them build resistance through survival of the fittest. THIS is why Europeans took over. It's not because any race is superior to another. It was luck from the beginning.

[@RhodesianSAS-gn4qp]

@@octaviocampos1316 Wrong, continental United States has identical climate to that of Central and Southern Europe which is ideal for agrarians purpouses, while South American rainforests provided great conditions for fruits and vegetables high with protein which were not even present in Europe at the time, it had also provided space to raise livestock such as Llamas. Same thing happened with well watered lands of sub saharan africa, in particular the southern cape, they also had equivalents of European cattle such as the water buffalo. At the same time the White Huns who are the descendants of Scythians (White poeple) managed to survive and build villages in freezing Tayga's of Siberia and even raise livestock there in the worst conditions possible So NO climate and agriculture itself does not detemrine if the civlisation will be successfull, it was never luck but carefull evolving and bonding of genetics that made Europeans superior in every aspect of historical achievements. Australia for example was build into it's greatness by a colony of prisoners, who just in 300 years managed to create the best country to live on Eastern hemisphere, while the abo's could not do it in 4 thousand years

[@octaviocampos1316]

Good point but this is still incorrect. There's no point in you bringing up Africa for comparison when its climate is not even on the same level as usefulness compared to the other continents. You make a good point in saying that North and South America had similar weather to Eurasia but you're missing a key factor. Virtually all livestock originated in Eurasia. Luck was on Eurasia's people since they could use this livestock, for example cattle. So, YES, climate and agriculture do indeed determine civilization. In fact, agriculture is what started the neolithic revolution (: It's not because any race is superior and more intelligent than others.

[@RhodesianSAS-gn4qp]

@@octaviocampos1316 You must be consfusing subsaharan (Tropical and Equatorial) africa with the Southern Cape (Sub Tropical, Temperate) which is very well suited for agriculture as the Boers and other colonisers who have lived there proved it time again even by only growing the crops and vegetation that were native to the region. So no it was not sheer luck, and climate is not a sole deterrent of a progress of civlisation, had that been the case nomadic indians in American plains would have built 3rd Rome before Russia. Im not sure what you're point is with the livestock development, but it's ancestry originates to the regions of Anatolia which used to be inhabitted mostly by Europeans until 16th century, but then again arabs never created a civlisation superior to that of the most backward Medieval European kingdoms even though they had the means to raise cattle. Also like I pointed out before, Amerindians did have their own version of cattle which is American bison, they were just too primitive to demesticate it, just as africans could not domesticate the Water buffalo

[@jeffsamiei]

You left out so many factors along with entire Civilizations (like Islamic,Mongolian conquests and it's global effects) that I don't know where to begin!

[@АлексейОрлинский-о2и]

If only Jared Diamond knew how many vloggers he would inspire with his "Guns Germs and Steel"

[@Dorkeydaze]

Guns germs and steel is absolute garbage

[@bradfin12]

Can you really call something land theft when most of the cultures in a place have no concept of land ownership?

[@Calvbread]

Are you stupid

[@iawarenow658]

this video is total nonsense.. should do more research and look at the Mongoloid Genocide in what became known as America.. and the way the Mongols invaded nearly all parts of the world long before the Europeans..?

[@yahwehleo2065]

ThunderLawyer they had children with Neanderthals 🤔

[@mrmister1657]

DonKingKong good point

[@jonnygetdown]

Cause Europe was a shit hole of a place while other people were content in the places of plenty with plenty of food, beautiful, scantilt clad women and great weather. Europeans were on a war footing for ever as a matter of survival.

[@preppertechnicianee6013]

Nah africa was harder the seasons are far less predictable like europe is crappy asia is great and africa is meh to crappy but has a hard stop if you get to big pf a population In all fairness if africa can get its shit together no it will do ok real issue was disease

[@colterlane6275]

Because of Europeans high intelligence , fearless spirit of exploration, inventiveness , bravery, and skills in combat.

[@tomnook9270]

'high intelligence' You cant even bs right. If u really mean to cite those 'iq by race' theories, i'd like to remind u that east asians actually scored higher than whites. Explanations?

[@Rishi123456789]

@@tomnook9270: "i'd like to remind u that east asians actually scored higher than whites." East Asians are white, though. They're the Aryans of the Orient.

[@europadefender]

No it’s because of a better culture

[@mayankgupta6213]

i believe asia was rich in resources ..thats why they didnt thought of conquering and religious issues were also another casue

[@jokolelono4606]

the reason why european country is succesing because their people are always thinking forward and advanced their technology. while other country like asian are far less interested in such a thing, that why europe people flew all over the world and colonized them, because they far more superior in term of technology

[@mayankgupta6213]

Agree with you completely..most of the asian countries prioritized in rudimentary practices rather being Rational

[@mayankgupta6213]

@George Nathanael on the contrary it's going to bloom now In the next 20 years I believe Asian economies will play major role in world politics especially more than European and American economy Africa may still end up like before but will progress as a whole European economy really need a strong leader to have their former glory and tbh trump policies are contrary to the goodwill and big bro phenomenon of previous presidents ..so as an outsider I think what he is doing is actually make sense for a country's perspective

[@mitonaarea5856]

@George Nathanael If indonesia wasn´t a islamic country and so corrupted i think they would be a major power

[@yasw315]

@@mitonaarea5856 just because a nation is Islamic doesn’t mean its corrupted 😑

[@flaviusbelisarius7517]

6:31 they'd say Cathay but I'm just being semantic

[@crusaderwarrio3242]

I sent you a private message on your profile's "community" tab. My discord is Proletariado#4420

[@CTRLerSupport]

Thanks for putting it bluntly. You got yourself a subscriber.

[@melusiicebo8505]

2:22 I nearly clicked off😏...but u got me🤣🤣

[@prince-electorsnoo2540]

Columbus wasn't sent just get him away, he was sent because Portugal was already colonizing Africa and Castile needed a place to do that themselves.

[@jakedee4117]

So this is Guns Germs and Steel for dummies. I like how you included the Maori - Moriori history its an interesting one and a warning about the dangers of isolationism and pacifism. It also show that native peoples were also engaged in warfare and colonization. The problem with purely environmental explanations is that the environmental conditions do change populations over time both genetically and culturally. The different human populations around the world do have diffrent aptitudes for different behaviors.

[@Dorkeydaze]

Alt hype ruined that whole book.

[@dinentionalglassproduction9220]

Great video!

[@Dracopol]

The Europeans also had the scientific method to develop new innovations. When an accurate clock that could keep time even in a pitching and rolling ship was developed by James Harrison in 1700, they could accurately measure longitude for the first time. That gave them security of navigating with confidence, weeks out of sight of land, without fear of getting lost. All other countries navigated by coast-hugging methods.

[@tolkienfan4815]

this is one of the most disjointed and useless videos I've ever seen . I'm generally dumbfounded .

[@1512JuJu]

Rly enjoyed this video

[@Team_Killer_NZ]

Your Maori history and pronounciation and accuracy is amazing!! They purposely don't teach Maori culture in Nz only the white version so I'm surprised how correct you got it. Cheers bro from Nz

[@jamesdavey5104]

Uhhh, nah mate.

[@Team_Killer_NZ]

@@jamesdavey5104 oh really? Could you elaborate

[@svn-zq5rv]

@@Team_Killer_NZ dont think he will

[@Kaylee-Renee]

Through all my schooling I've learned about maori history and culture. Maori history and the treaty is taught every year and through out the year we learned culture. We learned maori legends songs and dances we learned how to say a karakia before cutting flax and weaving we learned maori art and carving and a lot of the language. We even learned how to dig and prepare a hungi many times. We did trips to stay at kaikora marae which taught us so much and in high school it was compulsory to have maori as one of our classes several times a week in our 1st year and could be chosen for following years. Kapa haka groups have always been available to join. Im 36 and from a mainly white small town so none of this is new or to be politically correct. we even built a marae for students on the high school grounds and I've noticed many of the high schools now have built maraes in the city i now live. The only thing I've ever been taught about my own history is speaking and writing English and the rest is wars and land issues. It's basically if you're white you have no culture and every white person is just labeled European. I honestly wish we could learn the best from all cultures and just be one people working together to make this beautiful country a wonderful place for us all. Dam didn't mean to rant lol sorry

[@StGammon77]

Rubbish we have had maori culture taught, the cannibalising murdering and violence is a well known fact, the maori culture has gone and rightly so they were breaking every sacred law of God and needed Law and Order. Now, because of European settlement the Country is great and one of the best places to be!

[@Toni-ex4id]

I was wondering where are you from?

[@spyrosk5659]

your channel is great man rly love it found it a few days ago .. i think if u could do vids on a weakly basis it will rly boust your presence on the platform this channel deserves way more than 32k subs

[@yanuchiuchihaanimegamesand3907]

Uhm... The Balkans is in Europe and we were being colonized even more so than he Africans -_-

[@koala2075]

He said the africans were hard to colonize so that's not saying much.

[@landsknecht9941]

I don't think that you know the ottomans weren't a colonial power

[@andywhite2348]

Because Europeans have a unique, and specific bravery, sense of justice, fairness, and desire to help others be the best they can be. Thank God the Europeans did what they did.

[@cloroxbleach3809]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

[@magicalprotocol17]

@@cloroxbleach3809 Too afraid to hear the truth?

[@evanrutledge-sz4yo]

Ah yes, how fair, just, and helpful it was for them to exploit, enslave, and kill indigenous people in the name of “God, gold, and Glory.”

[@Ethiokarate1]

Sometimes history research can be bland, but not with this guy! Id love to have a drink and let him ramble on about the domestication of horses lmao

[@Megumi_Bandicoot]

Comment section is just Europeans venting steam.

[@Alaryk111]

Malaria was present in Europe up until 19th century.

[@awellner3285]

So where lions in ancient greece, and wolves in the rest of europe (sabertooths and mamoth a couple thousand years ago) Yet they all went extinct

[@Alaryk111]

@@awellner3285 What only show thet his point on Africa was not valid.

[@unknownuser-fv2lq]

Just found your channel, this video is very funny, great humor in your videos.

[@domengasperinii4443]

"Conquer and domination in teh name of god!"

[@wiseguy240Winston]

Lol ironically what they did was ungodly 😆

[@yushuahuesun9423]

@@wiseguy240Winston they are hellanist.

[@thewordoflynx8095]

​@Princess Lea Heh, "existing nation" is a bit of a stretch here. The africans and native americans didn't have any real civilization, just a few random tribes living under big trees. The vast majority of those continents were doubtless complete wilderness, and it had things we wanted. Colonization is perfectly justifiable and it's the reason why we have things like the internet today.

[@1mnot4rrogant90]

@@thewordoflynx8095 Why are you talking if you don’t know history? 🤦🏾‍♂️ my god you ppl are uneducated. Malian empire, Songhai empire, Kushite empire, Benin Empire, Zulu Empire all african civilizations and SO much more. The richest man in human history is African have you not learned that in middle school? European empires have made contact with African ones before. Learn history. But I agree, colonization is necessary especially for the time but it’s things like racism, slavery and genocide that came from it that were evil.

[@fighterpilot9981]

@@1mnot4rrogant90 Racism, slavery, and genocide were not new. In fact slavery was a much larger practice in Arabia or Africa it self than the new world. Genocide? Where? North America? Not even there, the only large decreases in the native population (wars happened between Europeans and tribes, but did not conclude with the tribe involved ceasing to exist) were do to disease, and intermarriage, the latter especially.

[@JONNOG88]

06:13 "War is the locomotive of History" Vladimir Lenin.

[@NessieAndrew]

What about now?

[@JONNOG88]

@@NessieAndrew "War is the Father. Of *all* things". Herodotus

[@thepink3798]

Its so funny how middle east, china, indian, egypt, majapahit, and others were in their golden age while europeans were poor and backwards, but now its the opposite.

[@deltondias5046]

You are 100% comedy. 😂🤣😂

[@iloveyouamberappel]

I would say it is all to do with ingenuity. Some cultures focused on inventing and some focused on interpersonal relationships.

[@europadefender]

That’s a good point there’s cultures in SEA who spent more time of decorating thier women and creating crappy cultures rather than contributing to the human race I mean tell my what value does a Dayak have over a Hungarian

[@chococan83]

Loved the narration 😜

[@Manuel-sf4zk]

I like the animations, pretty cool. But the 'history' depicted has so many mistakes that drove me nuts. The China part is 'mostly' correct, but, as usual, Cristóvão Colombo was late to the party, the Portuguese had been exploring for almost 100 years before Colombo. European expansion did not started in the 15th century but in the 14th (its debatable if it was in the 13th) and the first settlements of European origin were made in Africa by Portuguese. The main message - Llamas Vs Horses, Tropical diseases vs Mild climates - are correct. This has a lot of potential as a cool funny project, but please, be more though with your research. I hope you get this as a constructive comment, not a hater. Wish you a good Year and lots of views and followers.

[@stylesheetra9411]

And portoguese explorers were already late to the party Exploring new zone started with the italian renaissance (usually Venice seeking more trade route and goods) Then other country years later (like 200 years later) followed the example

[@Manuel-sf4zk]

@@stylesheetra9411 Italian Renaissance is a myth perpetued by recent scholars, go to any Iberian museum or church and see the "RENAISSANCE" in any work of art from the 11TH CENTURY (Portugal is from the 12TH and modern Spain is from the 14th). ITALIC people were awsome Mediterranean mariners and we learnt from them, no doubt, but the best exploring they did pass the pillars os Hercules was the Canary Islands. There was no money to be made beyond the pillars, that's why they did not explored further beyond. They have their place in history, I hope one day Portuguese history can be acknowledged by everyone as such, not only as slave owners and indo-china pirates, but also as the first and last modern world empire. From the 13th century to 1999.

[@Manuel-sf4zk]

@@stylesheetra9411 OK, last answer: you fell again in the Historian trap, they were Italic, not Italian. Same is calling a Castilian of the 14th century, Spanish. Nowadays we tend to associate to a modern country deeds of assimilated or conquered past nations. That is the myth. Being Portuguese I am well aware of this because it was a propaganda trick used by our previous dictatorship and we were warned in school to avoid these traps. Modern history is written by the winners of WWII with a western view. Change language (I can read 4, still not enough) and you'll see that the same event is described very differently. I am bias, like everyone, but try to weight the different versions and take my own conclusions. Sorry for the long answer, have a nice weekend.

[@stylesheetra9411]

@@Manuel-sf4zk Nope Italy was already a thing in the middle ages (for Italian were considered people from what now is called "north Italy" and a bit of "central Italy") It was not united, but they were already a clear definiton between everything above the alps and everything under. Unifying was not really an option and was just a dream of scholars and intellectual, but everyone were ok about being part of other cities state because they were still Italy Meanwhile in the other parts of europe norhen Italy was called "Lombardy" and so bankers became know as "lombard". Also a good thing about renaissance in Italy is the huge amount of sources you have for everything plus the peculiarity of the italian situation made historian from all over the west (the major ones I think are french, english, americans) and from every branch of history write about this ages

[@tricolourbearer2435]

Because they had more advanced technology.

[@jakedee4117]

But why ? It didn't fall out of the sky.

[@tricolourbearer2435]

@@jakedee4117 Geography played a very big role.

[@jakedee4117]

Sure. I'm not saying it didn't. You can't make metal tools on islands without metals. But there are genetic and cultural factors in that mix too. We make our buildings and then our buildings make us.@@tricolourbearer2435

[@tricolourbearer2435]

@@jakedee4117 yeah.

[@merry6671]

@@tricolourbearer2435 Geography played a very small role. This is why we see no overlap in results with any other non-human inhabitant having no empires, technologies or powers comparable under the exact same geographic circumstances. Instead we see a human-like cognitive nature surpassing all the powers among species in a rapid boom unprecedented before.

[@yar0607]

not what i wanted, but still smth thanks for the video !

[@richpirhana9521]

It’s sad. This KZbin clearly harbors hatred for his own people

[@modaternasser6827]

I think the main reason is that theEuropeans were put under pressure more than the other groups. They fought and conquered each other more than any other group did, not to mention that they had to fight " foreign invaders " and in other occasions they did both of these thing simultaneously.

[@uncleubi9008]

How do i ignore the video's point which is a regertgated of a world history scholar's argument with tons of argumentive and historical backing.

[@LucidFL]

China was almost always unified??? I thought that was a joke at first!

[@preppertechnicianee6013]

Compared to europe or africa

[@JONNOG88]

00:56 *Deus Vult Intensifies*

[@Kk-fc5jw]

This entertaining as hell and educational.... ..and super funny!👍👍👍👍

[@RW2996]

Didnt Africans technically leave Africa and colonize the world first? Which led to the mutations into other races?

[@schemar17]

RW2996 pretty much

[@dailymass4924]

Well no, Africans didn't colonize anything, because modern Africans are the ones who didn't leave. It's the Europeans and Asians who are the descendants of those who left Africa colonized the world. Also, Europeans and to a lesser extent Asians have a considerable amount of Neanderthal DNA, Europeans having more in common with Neanderthal than they do with modern sub-saharan Africans so the notion that humans came solely out of Africa is itself false, when the common ancestors of Africans and Europeans go back far further than the homo-sapiens migration from Africa.

[@RW2996]

@@dailymass4924 First of all, any human coming out of Africa would be African, no matter what your stance on human evolution. And Asians and Europeans do not have considerable amounts of Neanderthal DNA. It's less than 3%. And many Africans and most Africans outside Africans outside Africa have that DNA also do to Race mixing. And Africans today are similar to the ones that original left Africa and settled the world. You can see it in southern and south eastern Asia, Australasia where people retain African features. You even have pure African looking people on sentinel island. Who traveled there tens of thousands of years ago during the ice age. Recently it was announced that through genetic testing ,England was up until relatively recently, inhabited by dark peoples. Until an uproar from people, like you I'm sure, made them have to pull back from that discovery announcement. In fact whiteness is a relatively recent mutation itself. Its fact that we share the same Gene's that can be traced back to Africa. I'm sure you hate that. But it is what it is.

[@dailymass4924]

@@RW2996 You are simply wrong. And talking about England, I assume you are referring to Cheddar Man. Well for a start, he was a Western Hunter Gatherer, a group that evolved in Europe and from which modern Europeans inherit between 5% and 30% of their genetics, depending on the region. Importantly, no other group on earth has WHG admixture unless they are part European, the WHG were not Africans, Arabs or anything of the sort. Secondly, there is no evidence to suggest that Cheddar Man was dark skinned, we simply do not know because the gene amongst Europeans that gives them their complexion was inherited from the Neolithic Farmers and thus obviously is not present amongst Cheddar Man, because he was in Europe before the Neolithic Farmers arrived. Therfore he could've been snow White, he could've been charcoal Black, we don't know and it is pure speculation to assume he was Black, if anything it is likely he would've had a light or Mediterranean complexion as otherwise he would've struggled and even died of vitamin D deficiency in ice age Europe... Also Aboriginal Australians are not closely related to Africans... Just because they have Black skin, doesn't mean they are related, Black skin is simply a natural adaptation that independently forms when living in a hot climate like Australia for tens of thousands of years. In fact, though the relation is still distant, aboriginal Australians are more closely related to Europeans than modern (Bantu) Africans. At the end of the day, it's just a matter of how far you want to go back, obviously all humans share a common ancestor, I just think that it was more in the region of several hundred thousand years ago, rather than the modern consensus that it was only a few tens of thousands of years ago.

[@RW2996]

@@dailymass4924 DNA analysis suggested that In all likelihood "Ceddar Man" was dark to Black skinned. Yes ,i guess you can say "we cant know". Which I'm sure is a more comforting for you than the likelihood he could be dark. But there are alot of theories that " we cant know" like the big bang, which is generally accepted as likely anyway. The idea that humanity came from a hot climate and are likely to have walked into Europe already possibly "snow white"is less reasonable to me. The genetics from another species of extinct humanoid (Neanderthal) that Europeans inherited ,which is miniscule ,though you would never know it since certain groups out there like to play it up like it separates then from all other races that they share 98% of the rest of their genes with, is a possible reason why skin white. Which suggest the humans they screwed were probably not white skinned. And I was saying since ,through millennias of interbreeding, Europens DNA "along with neanderthal dna" is now also in many non-European groups. Also, I never stated that Africans were "close" relatives of Africans. Of course isolation will lead to differences. I was simple pointing out that African appearances are not only in Africa. I m suggesting since they stayed in hot climates after leaving a hot climate, they probably look similar to their ancient ancestors. And if they are closer in relation to Europeans than Africans, I would say that is more a product of time as oppose to race. Im more related to my brother than I am to my great grandfather, but that doesn't cancel out my great grandfather as arelative. .At the end of the day WE ARE ALL RELATED. And I brought up the African people of sentinel island to show that contrary to belief, Africans including more modern ones, did venture far outside Africa in pre-history. So why would they not have gone into Europe?

[@alexanderishere6205]

I love your video your the best

[@josephrobinson6171]

2:50 i counter that point. Europe has bears and wolves and used to have lions. Areas like Britain did have bears and lions, but humans killed them all. Basically, western Europeans killed off most dangerous megafauna in their backyards. Also most of Africa (except the Sahara) has a more favourable climate for food production year-round. Europeans had to… save food for winter. I think that fosters a certain culture

[@mynameudste]

The narrative falls apart If you start to pick at it

[@blackwater7183]

In short what your saying is? Just cough it out. Lol.

[@petruska111]

You just countered your counter in your own statement

[@ageoflove1980]

This is covered in the excellent book by Jared Diamond : Guns, germs and steel. In short, its a combination of alot of different facors, but mainly due to geography and biodiversity of Europe as a continent.

[@jeffcrombie5692]

There is a reason why no people from Africa had great men, it’s simply because the Europeans were far greater thinkers

[@mattj1232]

Well Africa did have successful civilisations and empires. But they were so isolated and had too much tribal warfare to ever build anything to compete with Europeans.

[@magicalprotocol17]

@@mattj1232 Nope, it had to do with their race.

[@survivio-gameplay3419]

great vid

[@klaus6091]

cause europeans are stronger than everyone

[@yushuahuesun9423]

Guns

[@FarqTheEuromutts]

No just no