In the past, I've watched some of their videos and noticed a slant in the direction of Christian conservativism, but, when I watched this video, I was shocked by how Mr Crocker III had rewritten the UK's role in history to suit a very racist, pro-UK, pro-US agenda. Here are my comments.
Are you daft, Crocker? The British promoted freedom? Is that why they imprisoned people for debts and for theft of food when starving, and systematically repressed and abused the poor and non-Caucasians? Is that why they sent their "unwanted" - the poor, felons and political prisoners to places like the US, Canada and Australia? Is that why they repressed, betrayed and slaughtered the Native Americans (oops, the Brits say "Red Indians")? Is that why they beat the crap out of the Indians and even murdered them during peaceful demonstrations? The "lightest possible hand?" "Sound, honest administration?" Feh!
You call upon Gandhi, then misquote him out of context - the same leader who suffered beatings and imprisonment at the hands of the British for non-violent protest, and who say his countrymen abused and murdered by those "benign" Brits? The UK was one of the countries that institutionalized slavery and only got rid of it after there was enormous disgust for it there. You talk about the pirates but many of those who they hunted down were either from the navies of rival nations or mercenaries in their employ, plus the actual pirates, some of whom had previously been naval officers (including from the UK). You talk about keeping the peace between tribes, but the Brits helped to plant the seeds of racism in the hearts of the tribes of areas they conquered, so as to better keep them from uniting against the British! So, yes, they kept the peace because it was in their best interest...Except when there was a rebellion, then they used "divide and conquer," as did other European nations, to suppress the natives when they were tired of British tyranny. The Netherlands may be more famous for this tactic, but the UK was equally vicious. You talk about leaving countries to govern themselves, and then you tell how Sudan was governed by a small group of UK administrators - but you forget to mention all the soldiers stationed there!
Talking about freedom, you neglected to inform your viewers that the British helped to introduce slavery in the American colonies, and were involved in its devolution from indentured servitude to lifetime enslavement as sub-humans for Blacks.
We can go another step with the example of widow-burning in India. Yes, that helped to greatly decrease that practice but, instead, widows were forced into self-exile, being deprived of their homes, possessions and sometimes their children. They became beggars who often congregated in specific areas, where they'd spend their lives hoping people would give them enough to survive. So, sure, lives were saved, but those lives were cast into abject poverty, self-abnegation and abuse and, in many parts of India, still are. To be fair, though, this abuse of widows stems from cultures and/or Hinduism, much like FGM comes from specific cultures but is NOT actually from Islam.
You talk about how the UK "stood alone" against the Nazis. This is not factual or contextual. The British stood with other nations as they fell, but only started to do so at a certain point when they realized they were at risk. Prior to that, they turned their heads and allowed the Nazis to invade even their allies! Yes, the wonderful UK betrayed other nations that relied on it for help. As I recall, Poland was one of them. I grew up hearing jokes about the Poles but, to be honest, I think the jokes should've been about the Brits and Germans. You said they faced the combined tyrannies (the Axis powers) alone. No, they didn't. There were resistance groups in almost every country and the British primarily faced the Germans and Italians. They rarely, if ever, had to face the Russians, especially after Germany attacked Mother Russia, and they did not have to face the Japanese, except in cases where their soldiers were sent to the Pacific theater of war.
You mention how magnanimous the Brits were towards Ireland, when they treated them like dirt. You then dare to call upon the Magna Carta, which was granted by King John on June 15, 1215, under threat of civil war. UNDER THREAT OF CIVIL WAR. So, the UK only gave those rights because the King was coerced. The US would call that domestic terrorism now, in case you're unfamiliar with US law, so wooo, big win but you're full of shit.
You got one thing right - the US took a page from the UK's playbook, and they still engage in the same form of imperialism, including the abuse and misuse of people and natural resources.
You are not a historian. You are a vile revisionist who often lies in order to foist your views onto unsuspecting viewers! Whatever delusionary drugs you've been prescribed, get off them!
An Indian's view of Crock(er)'s video:
A third-party commentary on how the UK "helped" India. Why? Because they were hooked on tea and had a huge trade deficit with China, so they decided to use opium and force to even the playing field. yay.
How the UK hooked China on opium and took control of the country:
Vice:
Extra Credit History: (start of series)
A lot of videos have been done about this PragerU video and I don't have time to watch them all, but you can see a variety of opinions if you search.
Dear faithful reader(s): Please keep in mind that Prager University is NOT actually an educational institution and, unless other worthy channels on YT, it shouldn't be used as a source. I do have to thank you for one thing, though: You have shown the depths of evil contained in PragerU.
Within minutes of posting my opinion of the video in the comments, it was deleted. I reposted it and it was again deleted. They don't want anyone posting facts that can prove them wrong. Emotional responses are generally allowed, though.
If you appreciate this article, please 🏅upvote/like👍
, 🤩resteem/share
and share it to Facebook
, Twitter
, Reddit
, LinkedIn
and wherever else
you can!