BBC Empire - Episode 4 Making a Fortune Jeremy Paxman
Jeremy Paxman continues his personal account of Britain's empire, looking at how the empire began as a pirates' treasure hunt, grew into an informal empire based on trade and developed into a global financial network. He travels from Jamaica, where sugar made plantation owners rich on the backs of African slaves, to Calcutta, where British traders became the new princes of India.
Jeremy then heads to Hong Kong, where British-supplied opium threatened to turn the Chinese into a nation of drug addicts - leading to the brutal opium wars, in which Britain triumphed and took the island of Hong Kong as booty.
Unfair trading helped spark the independence movement in India, led by Mahatma Gandhi; in a former cotton spinning town in Lancashire, Jeremy meets two women who remember Gandhi's extraordinary visit in 1931.
I like this series. I think it strikes the right note by being completely honest about all the horrors of the period and getting the full range of perspectives, but not portraying the colonialists simply as monsters and ghouls.
I also enjoy how history was taught prior to 2015 (In the States at least).
Kenneth Clark's classic 1969 series tracing the history of Western art and philosophy.
Rubber was a strategic material during WWII. The Japanese were especially interested in acquiring British territories in south east asia for that reason.
The cat on the roof in the beginning though
First time seeing this in Jamaica, thank you for posting.
+Michael Grizzle However, it seems as if forever and ever the truth would be told as otherwise by those in power to prevent uprisings/a revolution. Britain never abolished their system of slavery because they were outraged on their own acts in the Caribbean. The Africans revolted, fought back and the damage inflicted upon the empire led to the end of African enslavement. Which is why in Jamaica, Samuel Sharpe is one of our National Heroes, his rebellion caused the end of slavery. But the BBC wouldn't dare let African descendants suffering worldwide know this now would they
thanks for sharing your family history Mr. Grizzle.
Thank you so much for sharing this!
This is a rather good documentary on the legacy of British Imperialism and Colonialism.
+Faizul Adlan Anuar You are very kind to inform us of that Sir.
Very informative and interesting. Thanks for sharing Jonathan.
thank you, excellent videos!
Nice and compelling documentry
Well done.
This series gives you a background of every hollywood movie's actual history
"Hollywood" & "Actual history" are not normally found in the same sentence. I would agree with you if your point was about the Brit always playing the bad guy.
Paxman and the BBC at it's very best - on occasions like this I will forgive my licence fees which I pay to fund radio 1 Dj's and remember the better things which my money funds....
Feeling guilty about what your evil ancestors did around the world, eh? lmao
A really interesting documentary.💯
Very informative and interesting documentary by Jeremy Paxman
An honest and true portrayal of the British empire..
The opium wars would make a great movie tho
L. T. Search KZhead there is an 80s one
Kiitos.
very good, informative, documentary. Very useful for my HW.
A great and very informative series. Please Jeremy , change your shirt.
This is great education for Children.
A great Persian King once passed the Palace in India. and the writing is not in Arabic, it's in Farsi saying: this is it 3 times. referring to this place being paradise.
Having Paxman host a documentary about the British Empire is like having Michael Moore host one on the history of the GOP. Could the BBC not have found someone less rabid about his disdain for it?
What is the background music starting from 1:01?
Good series. Where is episode 3, Playing The Game?
Gwyn Williams I think I finally understand where the football term "nutmegging"- stick it between their legs - came from. So perhaps even the beautiful game carries with it part of our gloriuos imperial past
How charming and quaint they all are....and yet, the reality is that Paxman is part of the past and they are the future.
I read the novel travel around the world in 80 days, British could travel everywhere because they had a lot of money at that time, they bought whatever they want on their pathways
The series looks very sarcastic. It looks like a British way of presenting their reign not putting back the dark facts that cannot be coated as good rather pushing forward some dark facts and coating that they are for the good. Very sarcastic.
The epic score at 26:03
I saw an interesting documentary on CuriosityStream about Robert Fortune.
How do you feel about this business practice and the British Government’s support of free trade? Pls answer
Bikers and all styles of motorcycles can be found in all areas of the world. I live a 1/2km from guy who has an early 1960's Royal Enfield. And I live in the U.S. where Harley's and Japanese bikes are most prevalent.
Best empire yet. I am a proud descendant of both slaves and backra massa.
The Empire Map in 30:19 was a bit inaccurate at the South East Asia corner. The part of Burma was reached further to Laos, which was a part of French Indochina. The northern Laos has never belonged to the British Empire
The latex that the documentary mentions, goes through several processes to the final phase, the plant is native to the Amazon region, Manaus and Belém had a strong monopoly in the nineteenth century, that were overcomed in production to Singapore, is just to inform.
@49.33 Hey isn't that the alley where Monty Python's meaning of life filmed the song Every sperm is sacred?
If so, well-spotted :)
BRITISH EMPIRE = (late 17th Century to early 19th century, almost all gaining independence by the end of WW2. In essence the British spent the resources gained from a corrupt Empire to fund stopping the Germans taking over Europe in two World Wars, and whereas they had much to repent of with slavery, they also stopped Sati in India.)
i beat to this
What is that indian textile called ? Chinse? I dont know what it is please someone tell me?
When it's history ignorance is never a bliss.
Very informative but i have to write an assignment for school about this so I'm not sure if I like this documentary or not
I really don't see where all the wealth went. I mean countries like Norway and Switzerland who are small and never had an empire are much richer than the British. . . So where are the "spoils" from the empire?
Maybe all the money went to manage the empire ? paying to fix local stuff and the large army as whell and so on
***** exactly so having an empire isn't really soo good after all. I rather live in a wealthy country with a stable government.
no they arent rich who said they were rich? - small population yes - large oil gas reserves and fish reserves yes - in the european union yes - They aren't rich - they're lucky! Where were they during the age of discovery ? Britain became rich (rightly or wrongly is up to debate) during an era where europe was divided and there was lots of wars and competition. That's Britain - always making its own luck. (Being a dick to the colonised countries aswell, I'll accept, but still)
The only reason Britain is rich today is due to the so called SPOILS OF THE EMPIRE and what that lead to in the 20th century, eg financial influence, the power of the language, the reputation, the fact that lots and lots of skilled people want to go there, the heavy industries - the relationship with the US etc etc
Pierzing.glint1sh7 Britain isn't even rich compared to other countries who never had an empire (Norway, Switzerland, and others). UK has one of the lowest GDP per capita in Western Europe. Even lower than Belgium and France!
75 barges?! full of gold and jewels.
23 years old, owns over 3000 slaves and is the richest man in Jamaica. Absolutely nuts!
⁰
Having a diary of the rape accounts is very disturbing. It makes my blood boil and explains why I have so many white cousins without a logical explanation. Dna doesn’t lie.
What one should learn from this is be at the Rite place at the Rite time. Take advantage of the situation. How to get ahead in life 101.
Hong Kong is different from India in that it didn't exist before the British arrived. It was a deserted island until the British came and built up a city from the islands. So whoever came to settle here didn't mind about the British in the first place. Actually, they're refugees fled from the Communist China which was even worse then the colonial empire
The British organized and guided Hong Kong and I don’t think they wanted to give it back but if they didn’t all China had to do was cut their water supply which runs from China... something like that....
Who else has to watch this for online lessons for history
It will never tell about how Britain deployed controlled locals for transfer of power for public perspective. Also, how britain made a fortune even after giving colonies a public acknowledgement of being independent but they never actually got independence in first place.
Drug smugglers, human traffickers robbers, thieves and pirates.
Same shirt
a celebration of evil deeds, long live the Queen
BudTenders'GuidetotheGalaxy long devil fuck the Queen
What evidence is there that Jardine and Matheson had no moral reservations about drug dealing?
When they say English they mean Scottish they were the real cats paw of Asia
How the mighty have fallen. More evil has been committed in the name of the Queen than that of Hitler but we all know who the villain is..
The British had over two centuries Hitler had twelve years More time and more land means an empire ends up more committing crimes
THE CASTLING MOVIE i called COLONIZATION home away from home concept Sir
Erm pretty sure it's still called guano, tut paxman tut
GOOGLE: JewishEncyclopedia Sassoon "and his business, which included a monopoly of the OPIUM-TRADE, extended as far as Yokohama, Nagasaki, and other cities in Japan."
You're obsessed with this, aren't you? Yes, the British sold smuggled opium to nations whose governments arrogantly refused more conventional imports. And yes, it was most efficient to limit the number of people managing the opium trade. If it hadn't been the Sassoons, it would have been some other enterprising family.
What is Honk Kong known as today?
Hong Kong
British chintz is to textiles, like Taco Bell is to Mexican cuisine.
So if it wasnt for the British Empire a lot of places in the world wouldnt exist today.
How could they not exist? Of course, they'd exist just without British influence
There were riches of a different kind on the other side of the world.
and America. Congrats to India and all others who fought. India did it in a unique way which will have (i imagine) amused Americans-they played the British game by civil disobedience until they made the optics look like so: British just beat and kill at random, Indians protesting for their right to self-rule. Basically, Britain, like most COLONIAL empires did not believe in the US constitution or its premise (written by Rousseau/Montesquieu 17thC Enlightenment), the British still think they are exceptionally well... Suez sorted that out in 57' when USA and USSR/Russia decided to both tell FR,UK and Israel to quit it or pay up Billions (bankrupt Britain in 6 weeks). God Bless all nations and people working toward democracy and the right to equal rights.
Slightly biased like most documentaries but quite interesting
I wonder how Paxton would get on in India with out fixers and minders
16:15 is not Arabic. It's Persian (Farsi) and is saying: That's it, That's it, That's it.
Hi reply if you see this
Also, to any people looking for a well-written treatise on British Empire and the disgusting parts please read a 389pg book by Superb Indian Ex-UN Diplomat, Politician (INC) and debitor Shashi Tharoor who wrote the 2016/17 book "The Inglorious British Empire" which is a superb account written by an ex-civil servant and person who knows his stats. Respect from Russia.
Is this why so many academic historians criticise this text for being riddled with moral judgement and historical inaccuracy?
@@grantm6933 I think putin just gave you an answer.
@@mortenpoulsen1496 pardon?
The show would have been much better, if edited chronologically. Too much of skipping back and forth.
AUandrew your asking for them to be colined again
the drug was illegal in china.
Sir NIGEL FARAGE That's what the man said
@@ItsNotRealLife there was no news and united nations...no policeman. you can just take liberties.
"pirate's treasure hunt".... yeah, ok.
Nice name
The Indians brought down the British Empire ....
Well they didn't I think the biggest war in human history did 🤦♂️
and America. Congrats to India and all others who fought. India did it in a unique way which will have (i imagine) amused Americans-they played the British game by civil disobedience until they made the optics look like so: British just beat and kill at random, Indians protesting for their right to self-rule. Basically, Britain, like most COLONIAL empires did not believe in the US constitution or its premise (written by Rousseau/Montesquieu 17thC Enlightenment), the British still think they are exceptionally well... Suez sorted that out in 57' when USA and USSR/Russia decided to both tell FR,UK and Israel to quit it or pay up Billions (bankrupt Britain in 6 weeks). God Bless all nations and people working toward democracy and the right to equal rights.
no mention of the jews, not even once
The most enterprising country in the world.
+Adam Sanchez Absolutely. Slavery. Drug dealing. Drug pushing. War mongering. All highly lucrative.
Kevin J. Lynch Not anymore. It's just populated by hand wringing liberals now.
Makcinder's Heartland theory is coming back in full circle. Central Asia, theater of 21st century nightmares
Drug dealer empire
ARVIN Britain's wealth from slavery funded the Industrial Revolution (railways, factories, sewers, building of victorian houses all over the UK, large stately homes all over the country) inherited wealth of the middle classes, banking and shipping organisations, large ornate public buildings such as Royal Albert Hall, British Museum,, etc etc. All which still exist today.
its not arabik! its in persian and says:That's it , That's it and Thats it!!
Mostly chaps in shorts telling foreigners what to do, though.
Interesting points on the Jamaican History. However, it seems as if forever and ever the truth would be told as otherwise by those in power to prevent uprisings/a revolution. Britain never abolished their system of slavery because they were outraged on their own acts in the Caribbean. The Africans revolted, fought back and the damage inflicted upon the empire led to the end of African enslavement. Which is why in Jamaica, Samuel Sharpe is one of our National Heroes, his rebellion caused the end of slavery. But the BBC wouldn't dare let African descendants suffering worldwide know this now would they
I get fed up of comments along the lines of "The British Empire was a terrible thing". Look, the British acted no differently to any of the other European powers - France, Spain, Portugal, Holland and even (later on) Belgium. They just did it better than the others and were more successful at it. And the way that Britain withdrew from its empire in the twentieth century was done in a much better way than the majority of the other powers. I am not saying that it was done perfectly but in the majority of cases they left democracy, well structured civil services and good infrastructure.
You have a nebulous nationalistic fantasy running through your head. Britain isn't a person Sir.
Yeah you're very right, they were much better thieves and had far less scruples than their European Brothers and Sisters, one could actually still see that today !
ashbytimuk In those so called Democracy's an elite rose from the people and basically took over from where colonialism left off. Instead of investing in the infrastructure for the people. They use their positions to sell remaining resources to western corporate interests.
JimboParadox & much cleverer than you it seems.
Britain built a better world, America destroyed it.
Bruh had 2 watch 4 scool :(((((((((((
Owen Palmer sameeeeee :(
Treba da neka zemlja sada upravlja Englesku, dosta im je bilo kolonizacija
K
I am on part 4 of this miniseries. For me its clear they were not oppresed, they were forced to move forward. UK was developing this countries faster that they could comprahend it. That was the main issue with the EMPIRE.
Blas de Lezo, thank you... oh yeah, you brits don't ever talk about him, mainly cos he made you suffer a lot HAHAHA
In your dreams, a pound shop/todo cien version of Drake/Nelson.
don't tell jeremy paxman that the Indians pay taxes as well. nobody is really free.
The point... *It's what happens if you make the wrong friends.* Most debates are a completely pointless waste of time, same as 99% of all "history books". Ancillary details being regurgitated again and again, in efforts to distract from what really happened. Ever since the establishment of "Empire", London aimed to expand and protect it, by (as a matter policy), making the strongest continental power/alliance the rival in peace/enemy in war. London was always going to oppose the strongest continental country/power/alliance, as a default setting. By own admission: "The equilibrium established by such a grouping of forces is technically known as the balance of power, and it has become almost an historical truism to identify England’s secular policy with the maintenance of this balance by throwing her weight now in this scale and now in that, but ever on the side, opposed to the political dictatorship of the strongest single, State or group at any time." [From Primary source material:Memorandum_on_the_Present_State_of_British_Relations_with_France_and_Germany] In a nutshell, oppose every major diplomatic advance made by the strongest continental power in times of peace, and ally against it in times of war. Because the own policy meant that London shied away from making binding commitments with continental powers. London's "fatal mistake" was "snuggling up" to The American Century, thinking it would serve further expansion, easy victories, and save the "Empire". Finally, here was a another power (Washington DC) which did not constantly insists on "scraps of paper/signatures" or binding alliances. Washington DC seemed to express and share the lords' heartfelt desire... And today? "In a similar poll in 2014 although the wording was slightly different...Perhaps most remarkably, 34% of those polled in 2014 said they would like it if Britain still had an empire." (whorunsbritain blogs) *Even today, one in every 3 Brits still dreams of the days of "ruling the world".* There are still more than 20 million citizens in the UK who wake up every morning wanting to sing "Rule Britannia." So here is where the cognitive dissonance sets in: one cannot still wish for a return of the good ol' days at the turn of this century (around 2000), yet at the same time admire the fools who lost the British Empire at the turn of the previous one (around 1900). *Every decision made back then was a conscious choice, made in London, by the London lords, and as a result of age-old London policy standpoints.* Any attempt to spin history into a version of events portraying London of acting defensively, or as a result of a real or immediate danger, or trying to protect the world, or otherwise, are fallacies. And if you are a dragon (imperial power), don't snuggle up to a dragon slayer (anti-imperialist power). From wiki: "The Great Rapprochement is a historical term referring to the convergence of diplomatic, political, military, and economic objectives of the United States and the British Empire from 1895 to 1915, the two decades before American entry into World War I." From ROYAL PAINS: WILHELM II, EDWARD VII, AND ANGLO-GERMAN RELATIONS, 1888-1910 A Thesis Presented to The Graduate Faculty of The University of Akron "Both men (King Edward/Roosevelt) apparently felt that English-speaking peoples should dominate the world. Edward as much as said so in a letter to Roosevelt: 'I look forward with confidence to the co-operation of the English-speaking races becoming the most powerful civilizing factor in the policy of the world.' It is crucial to compare this statement by the King of England with the view held by supporters of the Fischer thesis and others that the German Kaiser was bent on world domination; clearly others were keen on achieving this goal. Edward and Roosevelt therefore can be seen as acting like de facto allies, even though their respective legislatures would never approve a formal one." So who really wanted to "rule the world",and obviously felt some kind of God-given right to do so? *It does not matter.* There is a big picture reality which does not change, irrelevant of what "story" we are being told. And if you are a dragon (imperial power), don't snuggle up to a dragon slayer (anti-imperialist power). The suitably distanced and the just-so-happened-to-have-been the long-term historical victim of mostly British and French "divide and rule"-policies, called Washington DC as North America's single hegemony, was *"standing down and standing by"* to make a "pig's breakfast" out of European empires the minute they weakened. All they needed was a temporary friend. 1898: The ICEBREAKER sets sail... EPISODE 1: "...by 1901, many influential Britons advocated for a closer relationship between the two countries. W. T. Stead even proposed that year in The Americanization of the World for both to merge to unify the English-speaking world, as doing so would help Britain *"continue for all time to be an integral part of the greatest of all World-Powers, supreme on sea and unassailable on land, permanently delivered from all fear of hostile attack, and capable of wielding irresistible influence in all parts of this planet."* [Google: The_Great_Rapprochement] Sooooo gweat. Everybody "speaking English" and being "best fwiends". *What could possibly go wrong?* EPISODE V: "At the end of the war [WW2], Britain, physically devastated and financially bankrupt, lacked factories to produce goods for rebuilding, the materials to rebuild the factories or purchase the machines to fill them, or with the money to pay for any of it. Britain’s situation was so dire, the government sent the economist John Maynard Keynes with a delegation to the US to beg for financial assistance, claiming that Britain was facing a "financial Dunkirk”. The Americans were willing to do so, on one condition: They would supply Britain with the financing, goods and materials to rebuild itself, but dictated that Britain must first eliminate those Sterling Balances by repudiating all its debts to its colonies. The alternative was to receive neither assistance nor credit from the US. *Britain, impoverished and in debt, with no natural resources and no credit or ability to pay, had little choice but to capitulate. And of course with all receivables cancelled and since the US could produce today, those colonial nations had no further reason for refusing manufactured goods from the US. The strategy was successful. By the time Britain rebuilt itself, the US had more or less captured all of Britain’s former colonial markets, and for some time after the war’s end the US was manufacturing more than 50% of everything produced in the world. And that was the end of the British Empire, and the beginning of the last stage of America’s rise."* [globalresearch(dot)ca/save-queen/5693500] After WW2 Brits were squeezed like a lemon by US banks, had their Pound crushed by the US dominated IMF, were refused the mutually developed nukes to act as a deterrent against the SU's beginning expansion (see Percentages Agreement), munching on war rations till way into the 1950s, losing the Suez Canal in a final attempt at "acting tough" and imposing hegemony over a vital sphere of interest...and going under...lol, "third fiddle" in the "Concerto de Cold War"... Maybe the lords should have informed themselves how "empires" tick, because there was another "ring". A "ring which ruled them all". The American Century. So they woke up one morning, only to discover that their "best fwiends forever" had stolen all their best and most profitable markets. *No markets = no trade = no Empire.* Now, fill in the blanks yourself. EPISODES II THRU IV... Fake "narratives" of a supposed "Anglo-German Naval Arms Race" by "nasty Wilhelm" (reality = it was an international naval arms race, which included the USA/The American Century®). Fake "narratives" like "the USA was on our side in WW1, and an ally" = total bs. (Reality? By own acknowledgement, they were "an associated power", and they fought for the American Century®) Fill in the gaps. See "the handwriting" of London's Policy of Balance of Power: at Versailles, at Saint-Germaine...everywhere. After 1945 there was no more "multipolar world" to divide and rule over, and London had to give way to Washington DC (American Century) and a new unipolar reality of master/junior partner. The old colonial master, now the new junior partner. A "Big Three" to rule the world? No such thing. The Truman Doctrine was Washington DC's unmistakable *alpha bark* to "heel boy"...choose either Washington DC or Moscow. And the new left-leaning British government (selling everything it could get its hands on for gold, incl. brand new jet technology to their commie friends in Moscow), had no choice but to obey. There would be no more "hopping" about... There was nobody left to "hop onto" to play the age-old games.
@@pm3302 Yes, that is exactly what happened. I often refer to the documentary "The Spider's Web" (for example on the Timeline Channel) if I wish to open people's eyes as to what their "elites" were really like: these elites, via their hold of the narrative, advocated for "standing together", but when it came to paying up, and while the common men and women scrambled for the trenches and guns, these "1%-ers/establishment" scrambled for the tax havens. cheers
I am from Hong Kong and we miss the British rule. Hong Kong was destroyed after 1997
Self haters like you are absolutely disgusting.
TLshadow1997 what an idiot, freedom was left behind by Britain, China destroyed it
+Daniel Wong I agree. China is destroying Hong Kong now. One of the reasons they afraid of HK's reputation and status surpass China itself too much.
+Daniel Wong na we don't, just you and those other pathetic haters.
"We" with a mainland surname "Xen". HAHAHHAAHAHAHAAHA
"Our wetness"
NO ma brada JP you're sugar coating it by saying the first men going their were traders, they were PIRATES navigating up the Bay of Bengal and landing as THIEVES with the intention of theft, robbery, murder and rape. They then realised the Bengalis were the smart ones so divided Bengal (now the Eastern part mostly Bangladesh) into East and West Bengal claiming management issues, in other words Divide and Conquer.
Pog can u see my comment
The BBC SHOULD ALSO MAKE A FULL 7 EPISODES ON SLAVERY BY WHITE PEOPLE. JUST LIKE THEY DID HOURS ABOUT HOLOCAUST
Should the bbc make a full 7 episodes of Africans enslaving other Africans
Hong Kong need British ways of live back..
not if you are chinese
Hong Kong needs british rule.
Damn Straight
A. Andrew Did Hong Kong benefit most from British rule or under the rule of the PRC?
Shautik Nandy British rule built hong KONG and still contributes to its glory and benefits. China is doing every possible acts to destroy hong kOng.
A. Andrew If that is so why did British give up Hong Kong in 1997? Chinese pressure I presume.
theChinese said they will march in with the army or cut water mains or food supply to starve hong KONG to its knees.
Disproportionately, the Scots built the empire but the English get the blame. Deserved though, referring to Britain as England means you reaped what you sowed my Morris dancin friends. 😜😜😘 Jardine & Matheson, Thomas Sutherland from Aberdeen who founded the HSBC, thus, the Aberdeen in Hong Kong. Let's not forget the original Britons, the Welsh.😍
this is very annoying
Can't stand this narrative of Britain being nothing more than villain. Majority of colonial countries would be beg to rule by Britain again.
gay