This sounds really interesting. It's probably similar to the clay tablets sent during the bronze age collapse.

@@MegaTang1234 this here is just bullshit alot of africa state before the interference of the european have advance society so the idea of bronze age is just retarted as the time european made contact with west,central and south africa they already where working with iron have you ever heard about the iron of benin

@@MegaTang1234 except those last by themselves without persistent human preservation efforts.

I'm with you all the way that we need more African history, but I wouldn't call Jabzy a 'big mainstream history channel' compared to some (FWIW, it's my favourite channel on UKposts but...)

@@kensearle4451 he might not be a heavyweight but he definetly has a presence in the community and so its a start

@taharqa @@abdiabdi3225 Absolutely true. No disrespect to the man intended. If you want more African history, Mythological Africans, New Africa and Postcolonialism are all great.

@@kensearle4451 From Nothing, Hometeam History, and HiddenHistory are good too!

@@kensearle4451 New Africa is terrible. It is propaganda.

And sad

It isn’t interesting.

Yep. When you get into the details you can see how many different actors were vying with each other. Fundamentally stronger military powers destabalised what were already warring African kingdoms that had already been poisoned by the slave trade. Although it's not sensible to hypothesise about what would happen if there hadn't been a scramble for Africa, I suspect that slavery may have been less intense but much much longer lasting (probably to today).

@@jacklaurentius6130 then why'd you click on the video and read through comments to reply here?

i wouldn't say its underrated, it appears a lot in modern discussions of African economics and politics as well as history. It's just not covered much in American history classes because the US's involvement was minuscule and was done as an effort to counter the Scramble by establishing a colony of democratically minded freed men in Liberia (kind of went to shit but still). Also the US wasn't a huge fan of the Scramble since it both blocked them out of African markets forcing them to go through European intermediaries and controlling what they could do in African. Since the US media is insanely widespread that means if the US doesn't talk about it that it seems like the subject isn't talked about at all. Doesnt help that Europeans often prefer to forget about their own colonial regimes and prefer to focus on their own local histories (i.e. European history) and pre-colonial world history.

i wish they'd teach it more in schools. My school was pretty good but the history lessons ended up being pretty crappy when it came to anything outside North America and Europe. They literally taught us that slaves in America (which they also taught us was the only country outside the Caribbean African slaves ended up) were literally captured by Americans sailing up and down the African coast with big nets, capturing Africans like big chattel butterflies. They also didnt really teach us much about colonialism beyond "one day Europeans showed up and conquered everything and then got kicked out after WW2" and they never even touched on how that happened or much about pre-colonial history. Kind of crazy to think that the second largest continent, the one humanity evolved on, only gets mentioned in history books when it comes to Ancient Egypt, the Punic Wars, Cleopatra, and then nothing for 1600 years until Europeans started conquering the place.

yeah absolutely

Damn it. There's always something I stupidly bugger up in these vids.

@@JabzyJoe It's fine man.😄, You're covering so many cultures and languages so it's understandable

Definitely not true since the 50s though.

I know this is gonna sound a bit racist but hear me out How is it that Jews get to have Israel but the native Americans can't even get a state

Vie victus

@Leo The British-Eurasian Poverty/riches are measured in GDP (GDP is just counting the sum of all money transactions). The end result is that a country with lots of natural beauty, whose society is largely built on extended families (who basically do the work that would show up on GDP via day care, child minders, tuition fees for tutoring) will not have large GDP. Conversely, in a sick society where families are nuclear or broken (mostly broken in the West), where people live isolated lives and where natural beauty is destroyed to build infrastructure, residential and commercial buildings, GDP is subsequently sky high, despite their sick society. The way we measure is sick

No

It’s kinda strange that they’d make a film about them, considering they were some of the most brutal slavers who sold tons of slaves to Europeans, if they’re going to address that point then cool

@@pyrrhusofepirus8491 The slaves were sold as part of forced peace treaties with the Arabs / Europeans and if you're gonna talk about brutal slavery don't even get me started on the Roman Empire and the Greeks Kinda weird how they made several movies on those guys to huh ?

@@JcoleMc yeah, but it’s not what the Romans are entirely known for, the Romans and Greeks did have slaves, tons of them, but they also did many other things aside from it. With Dahomey, Dahomey wasn’t unique in West Africa, in that it sold slaves, it was just the level of which they did it was astonishing, I think there’s literally a quote by their king which basically said their entire society revolves around slaves. Also, correct me if I’m wrong about the West African Kingdoms, considering how okay the Arab and Islamic world was with Slavery, with slaves being trodded from all over Africa to the slave markets in the Middle East, including whites with the Burbur slavers, and still is in a couple places, I’m pretty sure they looked at the peace treaty involving the fact they had to sell slaves to Europeans with ‘okay, more business partners’. Considering they’d also get guns from these affairs, I’m fairly sure they weren’t exactly heart broken about the slavery thing.

The Dervish dealt with a few issues beyond just the planes. For starters their fortress were severely outdated, being stone fortresses that didn't have slopped walls, reinforced concrete, ditches, or other features you'd see even in a 19th century or 18th Napoleonic era fort and weren't really built to withstand modern artillery so even standard British artillery would have been a threat to the forts. The 700 camel troops and native troops would be a much bigger threat to the Dervish than the handful of anemic WW1 light bombers. That's all kind of reflective of the biggest issue the Dervish faced: in equipment, tactics, and technology they were at least a century out of date and facing a modern, well armed enemy who'd just fought the bloodiest war in human history and had both experience fighting in the desert and in taking far better defended fortresses while the Dervish were only experienced in fighting fellow African nations like the Ethiopians and scattered Somali tribes. Tactics and training can often mean more than technology and that's reflective in the causalities both sides took: the British 1 man for every 20 they killed despite being outnumbered by the Dervish. We can see the opposite of this in the Italian invasion of Ethiopia where the Italians had modern equipment, hundreds of planes and tanks, thousands of artillery, and a similar number of soldiers but still needed to resort to chemical weapons to push back the Ethiopians who barely even had any vehicles and had outdated weaponry.

There is infact no solid evidence to suggest iyasu ever converted to Islam.

I always find things like the Rand Rebellion (which i didn't know about until now so thank you) really interesting. It's always kind of crazy to me that despite racism and nationalism supposedly being against their ideology at a fundamental level most communist countries are also among the most racist and nationalism is often a major issue. Even during the time of Mao China had a problem with "Chinese exceptionalism" similar to the US, they had severe repression of minorities by the majority Han including destroying cultures and trying to change or erase history, and through to today nationalism in general has gotten worse and worse to the point now that ultra nationalism is almost the default for most Chinese. China is and always has been very racist as well, most westerners (read: white people) are viewed negatively by Chinese, most Chinese view themselves as the center of Asia and other Asians as either threats/enemies (like Japan or India) or inferior (like the Thai, Tibetans, and Uyghurs) and they're infamously racist towards Africans with things like blackface and servile caricatures in media both being common in China today even though both those things were rare in Western media by the 1960s.

@@arthas640 I'd say racism is more a thing that predates communism (1600s vs 1800s, although xenophobia is prehistoric). I'm not an expert on Chinese history, but Sinocentrism predates Marx by *a lot*, so it's more Mao making it "racism with Chinese characteristics". I don't think the Nationalists were less racist. It depends, there is Def some White-worshipping in China too (although it's worse in South Korea and Japan), but yeah, there's no real taboo against racism there (except against Han Chinese). America is kinda unusual in that open casual racism isn't acceptable here (in Brazil, there is Habib's, a restaurant with a kinda racist logo. That would never fly here).

true too tribalistic

The Central and South African regions were always underdeveloped and no major power has ever managed to arise from that part of the continent so its not only about "african nationalism" and a specific period of time

There is and was no African nation, so of course.

@@nenenindonu Because the climate and geographic barriers made it impossible for the Central & Southern African tribes to develop in an advanced way.

Facts. Africa's best bet was if Ethiopia conquered most of Africa when they were the Axum Empire and then once each African Kingdom broke off from being conquered there would've been a sense of African identity.

The french empire:......

@@darius684 it's a joke, I know France and other countries were involved in the scramble for Africa

@@oliversherman2414 i was just adding to the joke

Well let's not make the mistake of hating each other.

Yeah, the colonization of Africa started in the 19th century, not in the 15th.

Exactly

Who’s “we”? You’re black African and ashamed it took Europeans a few decades to conquer your entire continent.

@@tamaszlav Are you daft? The first battles and wars occurs in the 15th and 16th century. Stop changing history to make yourself feel better

Good? Children are dying of hunger in the whole Africa because of Europe and their fake president puppets that have been ruling our continent. I’m from Mozambique 🇲🇿 1984 and we still being ruled by European puppets. Africa is Europes money laundering harbour. And this guy should stop talking about boers as Africans. It’s never going to stick in a smart person’s mind.

Tbh I couldn't think of another question to ask in the thumbnail ha.

@@JabzyJoe hmm how about something like: How did the central african kindoms fall?. Or how did French Africa expand? Anyway, great work on this series It's by far the most in-depth coverage of the scramble for Africa I've seen. As someone who knew relatively little about exactly how the timeline went on this. Its been really helpful to improve my understanding of the situation, in context.

In the US it’s controversial to point out that it was African slavers who sold slaves to the Europeans…

Still to this day

It’s still occurring

Europeans and Asians outnumbered Africans. After they discovered agriculture they needed laborers so they started having more babies. Africa is full of wild animals meaning Africa had a small human population. South Africa was pretty much uninhabited. Check out 'human population over time' videos on UKposts. ukposts.info/have/v-deo/iIWooXdqiGaQsHk.html

Everyone who says this doesn't have a reason; it's deny African history and the try to downplay it

Careful with the term European, lots of nations didnt take part and its a little uncomfortable to be an outsider to that shitshow and find yourself lumped in :P be specific!

If we can do "good" then we can ignore the atrocities wrought upon them. The abolishment of slavery by the British was a pawn move.

I don't get why you're acting like its surprising, while we can both agree they were bad, Slavery and Imperialism are still different things that different people could have seen differently.

Feminism being used as a justification in the Afghan war, for instance.

@@ayanlethesomali7357 Exactly what I thought of

I wouldn’t say they “fall for it”, in most cases they’re probably fully aware that they’ll become a vassal but that’s preferable to being deposed/remaining out of power politically. It’s a gambit that provides an almost certain payoff (gaining or cementing power) with the opportunity to rebel or regain autonomy down the line as the situation of their puppeteers changes.

Unfortunately true

A lot of African kingdoms already had guns when the Europeans arrived

@@JcoleMc That is not correct. Guns found their way into the continent through slave traders. They were the ones who brought guns from other continents. And no, "lots of African Kingdoms" did not use guns, until they began exchanging captured people with the Europeans for guns. Before then, only a few settlements on the Eastern and Mediterranean coast obtained hunting rifles from their interactions with (guess who) slave traders and foreign poachers! Go read about Arab slave traders and stop limiting your knowledge to European slave traders.

@@oslonorway547 And you aren’t correct either. African states did not cede their sovereignty to acquire guns. This is about the scramble for Africa. So what on Earth are you talking about.

@@dokorobia8713 Did they show up and tell you we came to scramble for Africa, hence here are some guns? Nope, they came, asked you for slaves, you asked them what they had to batter with, and they gave you stuff you could use to defeat your political rivals and enemy tribes and in the process get rich by giving them capture enemies as slaves. And when it was time to allocate you and your neighboring tribes to the Western Empires scrambling to own your resources, guess who had to suffer defeat or pledge allegiance? Your greedy ancestors did this to yourselves. Next time, do what China did for hundreds of years: Tell them No Entry, and make it punishable offence to disclose anything to foreigners about your language and geography. Maybe that'll keep the great empires at bay for centuries, just like the Chinese did.

Nah the Africans had those it was the maxim gun that did it. Alot of kingdoms eventually got some but they didn't have the factories to reproduce them at a fast enough rate.

@@franzjoseph1837 that too, bit what I mentioned gave them the jump start.

The British did give ir

@@Bell_plejdo568p Learn the history instead of passing on Soomaali campfire tales. Ras Mekonnen took Ogaaden before British ruled soomaalis, but when British Somaliland existed they claimed the Ogaaden desert. With the creation of Somalia, Ogaaden was given to Haile Selassie though.

Ogaden wasn’t given to Haile sellasie it was only when Haile sellasie was re instated as the emperor of Ethiopia. Britain have back all the lands Ethiopia previously owned rightlfully. Or not rightfully though I agree it was menelik that conquered the Somali kilil. And the British had no role in that . But was it right to take some thing which doesn’t belong to te Abyssinians. Somalis and and Abyssinians are not the same if somalis conquered parts of Amhara or Tigray. Would it be right or just I don’t think so

@@khalidqawdhan3265 Are u somali because he didn't fully capture the region until the british gave it to him he was also tried to expand into campture barwwwe and mercka

@@Bell_plejdo568p the British came in 1884 to somaliland menelik captured in the 1870s right after he captured harar he captered the Somali kilil . This whole British captured the Somali kilil and gave to to menelik is bogus and made up. Why would the brits give up something they have conquered for them selves the brits never do that. You could say after the Italians defeated the Ethiopians in the second. World war and the British helpers defeat the Italians when they captured all of Ethiopia they gave that whole land as as a whole back to Ethiopia. One could say that the only territory the British handed over the Haile sellasie was a small portion of the head and reserve area. Which was British controlled up to 1948 and they only gave it to Ethiopia after the Second World War for the support Haile sellasie gave to the allied forces . But it was a very small territory the bulk of the Ogaden region was always owned conquered and administered by menelik and later his successors. Before the menelik conquest yes it was owned by Somalis I say it is wrong for the Ethiopians to conquer it but Tosay the British conquered it for them is just being dishonest and yes I am a somali

Pure bullshit, Africa was never a major trading partner of Europe during European Empires.

Like you said, tribes/them warring with each other which made it easier for Europeans to conquer them.

They’re technically just nations of peoples rather than being called tribes.

@@SlapstickGenius23 Who drew those nations borderlines?

It's not important

@@siyacer It distracts from the topic of the video. It's important if you want to make a video that isn't garbage.

@@miroslavputinovic6650 It's still not a big deal. It barely detracts from the video and it's easy to ignore. No need to be so pretentious.

@@siyacer your ignorance is enviable.

@@miroslavputinovic6650 your pettiness is not

igbo imperialists?

@@igbotimehopper64yearsago46 what do you mean?

@@tonyjeffers2606 do you support the idea that it is the Devin right of the igbos to rule all land east of the Niger south of the benue and north of the Congo?

@@messianic_scamthat does not make it there land

@@THEWORLDROCKSSS then america isn't the today americans land either whites or blax and have no right to live there and have a say in what happens there and shall leave?! how?!!

Get a clue

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_science_and_technology_in_Africa

You know nothing about history. Plenty of african nations were high developed before Europeans even arrived.

@@elimartinez7704 😂😂😂oh really? Funny how they were conquered. Times change though, everyone knows Africa is the cutting edge of technology.🤪🤪🤪

@@gandalfstormcrow8439 so, by your logic, being conquered = being inferior? no ifs ands or buts?

@@elimartinez7704 technologically, yes. Stop black washing history. It's racist.

Did you see the slavery going on in Africa before the Europeans got there?

@@soda8736 No... But I saw the Slavery once the Europeans got There..

@@eugenehicks3859 well you should do a little research. Slavery had been going on in Africa..

Post nose or skin color

@@eugenehicks3859 You are just ignorant who is resentful of white people because your kind lost to them and is still not a match so you try to portay them as the only evil in the world to convince yourself and feed your hatred.