The video is great as usual, but there are some mistakes The picture you showed at this moment 32:16 ,These clothes have nothing to do with the clothes of the Moroccan sahara (or western sahara) and are not similar to what the inhabitants of the Moroccan sahara wear at all This picture belongs to a person who lives in the Middle east , specifically in the Arab Gulf ( Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the Emirates) , and it has nothing to do with the Moroccan desert, because the inhabitants of the Moroccan Sahara do not wear such clothes at all, and they have nothing to do with it. This clothes picture that you showed in the video is called *bisht or mishlah & al-ikal* belongs to the clothes of the people of the Middle East, specifically the Arab Gulf , and you mixed it with the Moroccan sahara clothes called *Malhafa* , which has nothing to do with the clothes of the Middle East and does not resemble it at all _Secondly : In 1884, Spain's interest in this Moroccan Sahara had barely begun, And Spain has not yet occupied that part of the coastal strip of the Moroccan Sahara that you showed on the map , We cannot yet talk about Spain’s colonization of the Moroccan Sahara except in the years between 1916 and 1934 ( It is the period in which the occupation actually began and Spain began occupying the Sahara areas one after the other ) , but before that Spain was only interfering financially and trying to buy some of the Saharan tribes with her money to try to buy their loyalty and give up their allegiance to the Sultan of Morocco The evidence for this is that at the beginning of the 20th century, Morocco was facing and fighting France in the Sahara of Chinguetti (present-day Mauritania) , not the Spaniards , because the Spaniards were not actually present in the sahara, to be fought by Morocco Until the beginning of the twentieth century when Morocco was very weak, even with that, the Chinguetti province is still part of Morocco, and the Moroccan Sultan "Abd al-Aziz" fought France in present-day Mauritania to defend this territory He sent a Moroccan army led by his cousin "Moulay Idriss" and also led by the sultan's deputy over the Sahara region "Sheikh Maa Al-Aynain" and he defeated France in the "Battle of Nimlan in 1906" But France, of course, will win over Morocco later, and Mauritania will be wrested from Moroccan sovereignty, and even occupy Morocco itself in 1912 Whoever wants to know more about this French-Moroccan war taking place in Chinguetti (present-day Mauritania) should read the memoirs of the French general *Henri Gouraud* He was the general who was leading the French army in its war with Morocco over the Moroccan province of Chinguetti This is the name of his diary (It is written in French) : " Mauritanie Adrar, souvenirs d'un Africain... / Général Gouraud" Thus, we ask a question: since Morocco was fighting France in present-day Mauritania, So where is Spain? And how did the Moroccan army pass through the Western Sahara that was supposedly occupied by Spain since 1884 as you showed on the map , and spain didn't stop him? And why did Morocco not go to fight Spain, which is closer to it geographically? because it is located in the Western Sahara, but on the contrary, it went to fight France in the Chinguetti sahara(mauritania), which is a region farther for Morocco than the Western Sahara? The answer is that Spain was not occupying Moroccan western Sahara at that time ( Which you are talking about at the end of the 19th century) and was not even present in that region in order to prevent Morocco from reaching Chinguetti to fight France. _As I said before, the Spaniards will not start their actual and noticeable presence in the moroccan sahara "militarily" until the years between 1916 and 1934 and Spain did not consolidate the complete occupation of the Moroccan Sahara until 1958, when it established the territorial administrative unit called "the Spanish Sahara" ( when Spain formally united Río de Oro and Saguia el-Hamra), due to the repercussions of its war with Morocco, " Ifni War” betwen 1957-1958. and this is was is in order to officially consolidate its colonization of the Moroccan Sahara So next time, please check that your maps are correct

The only thing I don't agree with is your disagreement with Lenin over the purpose of colonies. Of course various colonies had different purposes and ruled by different powers, but they exist to subsidize capitalist economies. If your goal is to exploit resources, land, and people at a low price, they weren't going to be making money just from selling the materials. The purpose was to exploit cheaply to sell to their home markets cheaply, providing resources for capitalists to further industrialize their natuons.

Also, please dump all your sources onto us 😘

@Skip Mickmack you're ignorant and didn't even watch the video. He argues that white colonizers didn't just draw lines on maps and it was a convoluted process that took place for over 100 years. What people mean by "just drawing lines" is how Europeans specifically divided ethnic groups through the political division of a map to weaken their unity and cause infighting. That's different from just conquering another tribe. Just look up what England did to Nigeria. Don't talk like you know shit, because you don't.

Please cite your sources in the description. I’m not taking a random youtube video as fact.

Don't forget pink Portugal.

You can always tell if someone has played a Paradox game by the color choice on a map.

@@jghifiversveiws8729 Portugal is dark green

@@njb1126 Yeah but he didn't make it dark green.

@@jghifiversveiws8729 heresy to a paradox player

I'm confused, how did nitrogen fixation end the use of gun cotton?

@@NathanTAK Nitrogen easily forms triple bonds which can be a pretty energetic experience. The problem is fixing that nitrogen in a way that allows the molecule to easily break and free up the nitrogen to form those triple bonds. Gun cotton was an early way to fix nitrogen but it wasn't very stable. When other methods of nitrogen fixation were developed to get an even greater explosive payload while being more stable gun cotton fell out of favor.

@@404Dannyboy ...ah! I... don't know what I thought guncotton was for, but apparently I didn't understand it.

@@NathanTAK It was for guns largely :) Big guns though, like artillery.

@@404Dannyboy ...yes, I got that. I just didn't realize it was a propellant which had to be created _from_ cotton; I thought it just referred to plain old cotton being used in guns for... some reason.

Same here - I always got the image of a bunch of hapless natives getting swept up by Europeans. But that really doesn't do service to the agency of all parties involved.

Most of European colonization from Rome onwards required native's permission, since most of the weight of the wars will be carried out by natives against natives...it's logical when you think about it, moving troops to the other side of the World is expensive, keeping them there is even more expensive, so it's always better to send some commanders and a bunch of units to help an ally, and then slowly take over while you increase the metropolis' influence on your previous allies. Sending a bunch of troops to take a continent over is something that only happens in videogames.

@@TheBayzent with African nations on a steady and steep decline because of centuries of arab and transatlantic slave trade, there have been multigenerational multiracial people in African nations who are not actually African, but mixed race, therefore have no loyalty to the actual black groups, just proxy Africans after centuries of being rewarded by western nations for waging war against local tribes and governments. Usually the natives the a certain REGION don’t assume that someone wants to permanently extinguish your entire race. African didn’t think like euros.

Its all fun and games until one side says "ok we need some time to recoup, you’re killing us" and the other side says "nahh, lol" then proceeds to do everything in their power to cause internal conflict between people they have purposely disadvantaged just keep their hands clean. It’s really not that covert of a tactic, it’s been done for decades by now.

School history lessons suck, and they're politically biased. Saw this in N Ireland (Catholic and Protestant schools teaching very different versions of their history), but this miseducation has devestating consequences. I'm actually very glad about the recent 'Woman King' film because it has brought to oublic attention how people distort history for political purposes, and I'm aure many people decided to research what really happened.

@lionpro what?

@lionpro cringey as fuck

@lionpro your nana is dead

@lionpro she’s still dead tho

@lionpro 0iq

Haha yup.

Does it not bother you that he rhymes years with wares? Also thinks Cecil sounds like see-sil?

Oh I get that. It mainly comes down to time. I can only make maybe 1 of these per month so, the character by the desk allows me to put out more vids.

@@JabzyJoe Just film yourself talking to the camera again, instead.

@@BountyFlamor I hate being in front of cam for these ones. It always seems super awkward. Will try in the future to make them, but it'll take time to improve ha

@@JabzyJoe Try smoking while doing it, ha!

He probably meant "their war with the Ethiopians"

I second this! We used to learn about him in school, he seems to be one of the most prolific leaders in pre-colonial West Africa.

@@GibsonGachago very interesting, where did you go to school? was it west africa

@@dargon1084 no, Kenya. But here we learn the history of all of Africa..

Right 😂

Lol

Yeah I’ve said this for quite a few years.

Are Boar?

@@barryirlandi4217 what are you asking?

I would not take this guys word for nothing in regards to Africa, they ALL LIE!!

Nicely done

@@concept5631 Thanks homie

@@joao_gabriel9234 Anytime homie

@@concept5631 All right hahahaha

@Jinx Vanderz What your say, i don't speak X-burguer language 😥

Microstates. Maybe someday.

The Africans themselves didn't divide their states on ethnic lines so...nationalism on that level is silly.

@@TheBayzent which is why theres constant civil wars inbetween tribes lol ok bro

Maybe they shouldn't have drawn the borders to begin with and let the people reach the best form of government on their own be it government , loose confidration or even a a tribal system , also not leaving tons of weapons to dictators loyal to Europe might have also helped , and am not seeing the issue with having smaller States tbh Europe is full of small and micro states , should Germany take Belgium , the Netherlands since they are small

Idiots...racists pure evil

I'm glad someone else noticed that. I thought I'd misheard at first.

It's was the Egyptians all along? Always has been

"Accidentally"...after talking about 2 coup d'etats and a successful revolution...

Libya was a greek word

@@user-lr8xz5hb5k I know. All the eastern part of the Roman empire.

Ethiopia land of the burnt face

@@TheMagicJIZZ yes, from Greek. See the name of the Vulcan "Etna" : the same root ("aitho" = to burn).

No, this is a misconception. Bismarck wanted to sow as much chaos as possible between France and England in Africa. He believed that it would keep them from forming an alliance and creating a two front war if Germany ever fought Russia. It didn't work but that was his plan.

@@89godzuki yes, you're right. Bismark played the role of the arbiter but with ulterior motives to ensure Germany would fulfill its ambition to become hegemon of Europe. I think what Bismark did not want was a whole lot of border gore and chaos which could not be controlled. But rather than burn like a wildfire, the Berlin conference burned Africa like a presice laser

The thing is Rhodes was wrong? The Liberal Imperalism of that era basically amounted to nothing - there was no substantial benefit from the working class from the scramble; he just got extremely rich off government subsidy and looted African wealth.

A lot of people were born under colonialism and never really developed any loyalty to these old kingdoms. Also in some colonies the former kingdoms elites operated under the colonial system and helped keep people in line, so there was some dislike for traditional authorities being seen as puppets for the Europeans

Cause that wouldn't suit the Americans or the elites that colonialism created ....many revolutionary leaders wanted to unite cause they knew as individual states they didn't have the resources or infrastructure to safeguard their sovereignty they were called the Casablanca group .....The US didn't want this thus sent funds n resources to the competing Monrovia Group ....Monrovia ended up winning out n the continent was doomed by their elites kinda like the trans Atlantic slave trade ....poor people being screwed by the wealthy n powerful its a common theme throughput human history

@@whydocountriesexist3414 thx

@@franzjoseph1837 thx. Africa as one country right?

@@paulperin5461 no its a continent with a more genetic and cultural variation then most continents but a union between African states would allow for greater internal trade development, increase in industrialisation, and less dependency on foreign markets n exports......as well as a larger military to safegaurd against foreign states like China , EU, and The US ...go look up the United States of Africa

Oh damn it. Yes you're right.

lol didn't epxect to see you here

I was initially excited to find another history focused youtuber who takes on the often neglected African history but, upon watching two of your videos that deal with what an uncolonized Africa would look like, my excitement my excitement has died. You've used, in my view, highly untrustworthy sources and suspect theories. A majority ( but not totality ) of my problem with the sources and theories you use in your explanations lie with the fact that they were written and developed by people who were extremely biased against Africans. Better sources to look for should have been from Africanist historians post the colonial era.

@@tobilobaokorodudu9594 Yeah, the initial comment gave me pause due to the wording. It reads as an attempt to "both sides" the scramble for Africa. Whilst the reasons were many and different, what connected them all was a disregard for the wishes of the African people. As Europe was experiencing nationalist awakenings, spurring on minor ethnicities to forge their own nations and carve their own path in the world, Africa was experiencing the opposite. This is unfortunately the risk of channels like Jabzy. When you focus on the facts, without emphasizing the moral wrongs, xenophobes (racists, in the case of this video) slip into the crowd thinking you're sympathetic. But I wouldn't want Jabzy's style to change, it's just an unfortunate thing to keep your eyes out for and recognise when someone is using dogwhistles in these comments.

@@joujou264 Today, the right of European peoples to self-determination is stigmatised. African nationalisms are entirely normative and indeed criticism of them is more likely to get you into trouble than support for them. Your idea of ‘racist dogwhistles’ is indicative of your hatred for white people - any historical narrative, approach to historiography, or revision of founding myths that doesn’t demonise white people and portray them as uniquely evil and toxic is problematic - and indeed ‘racist’ - to you. It’s concerning that you frown upon the pursuit of objectivity in history should it contextualise the happenings of the past in a truthful manner. The notion that you should be able to put forward hateful characterisations of white history whilst receiving zero scrutiny is absurd.

@@tobilobaokorodudu9594 It seems like you would characterise any view that doesn’t glorify Africans, African history, or supposed African supremacy as “biased” against them.

Lets not forget about americans colony of Liberia which pushed the locals away to give the land to a minority american former slave population, thereby repressing the local majority under an african-american minority

Most talk about the scramble for Africa as the defining historical Catalyst for the colonization of the African continent. In which it was majority Europeans taking control. When people talk about South America they bring of Portugal and Spain due to how big their colonial empires involving South America was, do you complain that they don't bring up the Scottish or the French?

They were out of the line but right

It is no less different than what occurred previously under the Ottomans, and pretty much any other country or empire capable of expanding its holdings, especially in the case of going overseas. And yes, when compared to the technology and state building systems of Europe, most, if not all African tribes, scattered kingdoms, etc.. could not compare. And due to the increased industrial capacity of Western Europe in particular, it made the ability to move around far easier. Advances in medicine allowed for Europeans and Arabs to be better equipped when moving into the tropical interior, since Malaria was a particularly nasty thorn for most would be African explorers to deal with.

@Over It Most of these places were left in disarray when the Europeans left/got kicked out, along side other complicated African politics, diseases and such it’s a surprise that any African countries are improving to begin with.

@Over It africa stagnated due to socialism.

@@HighFlySoyGuy I would say that equatorial Guinea could have been turned into a province of spain with equal rights at the very least it would not have allowed fransisco franco to rise to power.

She forgot to tell u planet was black before new👺👺👺👺were invented

@Aditya Chavarkar Well, if youre going to complain about European colonialism as if its some unprecedented and isolated evil (which it was far from) then if youre going to be consistent, you need to point or at least talk about the other imperialistic powers that were far more cruel and barbaric. But convienintly, weather its the ottoman conquest of anatolia, northern africa, or southern Europe or the moorish conquest of spain, portugal, sicily, etc its allways conviently ignored. Hmmm. I sure wonder why that it🤔

@@slavicunity368 that was by Arabs. Africans (native) had nothing to do with that, take it up with the Middle Eastern man

Depends on who you ask… how many generations and hundreds of years do you have to live somewhere before you’re no longer a colonizer?

You stop being a coloniser once you stop acting as a minority ruler and cut off ties to the powers that put you there. So yeah the boers are natives in a way, born from colonialism but not colonists. Edit Im not a boer so I wouldn't know what they think

They were descendents of Dutch colonisers. So they weren't native although many of them had lived there whole lives there for many years

@@a11osaurus How long until you become the natives though? I think we can all agree that the French are the natives of France, but the Franks displaced they Gauls who were there first. Etc. But obviously the modern French aren’t colonizing France. So when did they cease to be colonizers? Are Americans colonizers? They have very few political ties to Britain and the other European nations whose former colonies they now control. But there are still natives who live in the USA. Are Brazilians colonizers?

@@anthonyniemiec9409 they may not be colonisers anymore but they definitely aren't natives either. Technically most of the Africans in South Africa aren't native either as they are Bantus, who don't come from that area. But the Boers are definitely not natives

Arabs have lived in Africa for over 1300 years..

People would decry it as racist and offensive

Wrong, Europeans and outside entities in general caused the majority of the instability in most all countries around the world.

@@xxmiltxx9037 Africa had warlords and Arabic slave trade long before European Colonisation. China would fracture into warlords every few centuries and then conquer itself back together in decades long civil war. This happened a few times. South America had expansive Empires, like the Aztecs and Incas. India had a few Empires, like the Mughals, but mostly it was bush wars between petty kings. North America had warring tribes, Malaysia and Polynesia had naval invasions and massacres. All the bad stuff was already happening before European even started civilizing the world.

😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂

@@1MaklakI promise you millions of Congolese weren't getting their hands cut off before King Leopold arrived. The Europeans did not calm things down quite the opposite.

@@playboicartiismydad4842 the cutting of hands of living people is actually debated. Read Red Rubber by daniel vangroenweghe

Did you watch the video? The African colonies mainly incurred costs rather than profit. A better answer: thirst for prestige and fear of missing out.

The main reason for well if I don't get it someone else will

@@Barwasser Simply put it's greed, just like the stock market Fomo everyone was scared to miss out on something potential so they grabbed more and more each time a rival did.

@@beepboopbeepp Not greed, but pride and balance of power. France wanted colony from Dakar to Djibouti, Britain wanted colony from Cape Town to Cairo and Germany wanted to create Mittleafrika. All of these will upset balance of power and the populace is gung-ho about colonies fueled by nationalism. They barely made any profits from Africa, it was poor as hell. Sure, companies made some profits but why would you hassle on going deep in Africa to mine when you can just bribe Chilean officials to do so?

@@Barwasser I mean, South Africa and the Congo were colonies which paid for themselves while earning Europeans money.

Only showed the countries or colonies when they were mentioned.