Why Colonial American Maps Were Insane
Vložit
- čas přidán 19. 05. 2022
- Depending on which European country you asked, what North America "legally" looked like during colonial times was drastically different. There was a LOT of overlap.
➤ Support this channel with my Patreon!: / emperortigerstar
Music used:
"Americana" by Kevin MacLeod
I wanted to expand this topic further to misconceptions of African and Asian colonial maps, but my living room had a water leak so I cut this video short. Perhaps in a future video!
3:22 A phrase so nice you said it twice
hearing you pronounce jure as "you ray" dealt 4 psychic damage
its pronounced like jury but instead of an y theres a silent e
@@TheAustronaut03 It's actually pronounced more like ''de shür'' It's french, so I don't know how to indicate the french 'u' sound other than using an umlaut. Just look it up on french translate, then you'll get the correct pronunciation. Using IPA it's pronounced like /di d͡ʒʊɹ/, but that doesn't help much.
Hope it’s all fixed man, thanks for sharing this and your other vids! God bless you :)
It's not sh, it's zh. Rhymes with poor. De Jure.
Tordesillas wasn't that bad for Portugal initially, though. They were much more interested in the Indian Ocean trade at the time. They would only start serious colonial efforts in Brazil in the 1530s
And Brazil was somewhat ignored during Early Modern History, serving mainly as a stop for the route from East Indies to Europe (also slave plantations for sugar and dyes). People overstimate the Europe's discovery of the Americas, if it weren't for the silver, America would have not been colonized (or at least, at a slower pace)
@@javierm7087 correction: americans overestimate the discovery of the Americas i know shocking
I mean they *did* get all of africa Europe Asia and Oceania
@@javierm7087 That might be true for South America/Central, but for New England/Canada there were two things that really drove the Europeans that wasn't gold or silver: Massive solid oak forests and beaver pelts. The extinction (or near extinction) of the European beaver was a huge catalyst for the fur trade plus the castoreum was used in purfumes. The wood was crucial for ship masts and having a large navy was key to economic dominance, and all across North America there were vast acres of old-growth hard wood forests. Many powers had to import wood from Norway/Sweden so having your own supply was key.
But I can agree that majority of South and Central America wouldn't have been colonized as fast, because the jungles and deserts wouldn't be as lucrative without the gold and silver.
@@b99b12 Meh, I still stand on my point., The main objectives during the exploration os North America were silver/gold and the northwest passage. Just look at the first colonizers of Viriginia and you'll see barely any of them were peasants, while there were lots of miners and traders.
Beaver, wood and fish were ok, but they were consolation prices compared to precious minerals
the pronunciation of de jure is wild
I was thinking the exact same thing 😂
1:05 - The main problem with De-Facto Maps is the classic “to be true a true de facto map you have to show military frontlines that will be outdated instantly”
Not to mention porous borders where neither side has much control. If the border is mostly-uninhabited desert with no troop presence and it being unclear which country the few nomads passing back and forth through it are actually citizens of, how do you draw that border?
@@maddie9602 Use De Jure? A mix of De Facto and De Juro probably works best.
I feel like the best source is to use De jure maps for every country globally, but when the de facto overrides the de jure, the other takes precedent. For example, Crimea is claimed both by Russia and Ukraine to be their territory de jure, but since russia's legal claim is actually backed by the fact that the russian state exerts control over crimea, maps should show crimea as part of russia
They could shows lines that have been stable for a while. For example, Crimea has been under Russian control for 8 years and short of a complete Ukrainian victory in the current conflict, it will remain so. Transnistria has been left to its own thing for 30 years. Aside from the accusation that Russian troops are moving boundary markers incrementally, South Ossetia and Abkhazia have been stable for 14 years as has Kosovo (2008 - Present). Russia has de facto controlled the Kurils since the end of WW2 and Taiwan has been de facto independent from Mainland China since 1949.
Now, something like the frontlines in Ukraine...maybe don't show any gains that Russia has made since the invasion (err I mean "Special Military Operation") until the line is stable either from the conflict becoming frozen or the two sides agreeing to some kind of truce/peace.
Easy fix.
Use De-facto for places that have been occupied for over a year.
Otherwise use de-jure.
the virginia company of london when getting a second charter in 1609
the virginia company of london when getting their second charter in 1609
lol thought i was having a stroke when i heard that
3:23
the Virginia company of London when getting their second charter in 1609
Colonial maps are like when kids say “is too plus infinity!” applied to geopolitics
sup pal
@@PakBallandSami hey
My ancestors in early Utah come to mind, seriously thinking they could claim a gigantic swath of the western United States as Deseret - it quickly in just a few years proved quite impossible. Unfortunately it would then prove to be an obsession for the history community despite it never really existing or having much chance of existing.
The Deseret proposal is made out to be something more than what it was: a longshot bid to gain the autonomy that statehood promised. They wanted legal protection that had not existed in Missouri and Illinois, where those state governments had no interest in protecting them.
@@TheFranchiseCA I think the more bizarre fantasies have about it are also similarly unfounded. A lot of people, especially in alternate history scenarios, envision a Latter-day Saint theocracy, where Brigham Young rules as king.
I would say early Utah was complex as far as what was religious and what was not, considering it was largely settled by church members - and whatever sort of absolute power they could've held was very quickly diluted when the gold rush brought tons of people through the territory, there was the conflict with the government in the 1850s, and then the railroad came a decade later.
Utah was never going to live in isolation, and really from my study, my ancestors simply wanted to be left alone and not have people make decisions for them. It seems that after plural marriage began to decline and then was formally ceased with the two manifestos, as well as Utah becoming a state, church members in the state were fairly satisfied.
What surprises me honestly is I rarely see people making wild scenarios about a massive migration of church members into Missouri sometime in the future - which features greatly in Latter-day Saint discussion of the period leading up to the second coming.
I think perhaps the vague place it has in our doctrine may have something to do with it, as it is unclear whether it is intended to be a literal interpretation of what will occur.
How strange that American historians would be obsessed with a group of people fleeing religious persecution who established their own state far to the west. On an unrelated note, it's about six months to Thanksgiving, how about that?
Zion?
@@fridtjofbjarturson8798 Not sure what your question is.
"England was slightly more humble than Spain and didn't claim an entire continent" I can't tell if it's an accidental or intentional dis against Australians
Yep.
Hey They Didn't Claim The _Entire_ Continent, They Left New Guinea For The Germans!
And Actually The Island Of Australia Was Originally Also Claimed In Part By France Too.
Because the spaniards discovered that continent and mapped it and later when the British arrived to America they already knew the form of the continent.
@@rateeightx -and stole it from the Germans right after WWI lol-
@@gabrielg.4238 so why spaniards didnt colonise australia? Settlers are keepers.
And brits were tge first to set up a colony there. So...
There's a great map called the "Apolitical world map" which is essentially an interactive word map according to de facto borders. Definitely worth a look at least (and hey, maybe even worth a video topic!). It does a pretty good job illustrating the geopolitical situation around the world as far as I can tell.
Nice. It is a wee bit out of date though as it shows Mariupol under Ukrainian control but then again, when I was in school it took them a while to update the maps when Germany reunited (1990), the USSR collapsed (1991), and Yugoslavia dissolved into chaos (1991-1992).
EDIT: I see its dated April 9, 2022.
I'd argue, for an "apolitical" map, it's using the US date format, and not what could be seen as more apolitical as the most used date format of the world.
Do you have a link? I can’t find it online.
@@Liggliluff I wouldn't really call date format "political." It's more of a cultural matter. Using it isn't a political statement, it's just a convenience for the (presumably American) cartographers.
@@Liggliluff and the map is in the English language, and not what could be seen as more apolitical as the... your point?
Sidenote for any map nerds:
The Library of Congress online collection of maps is VERY extensive, you'll find stuff going back a millenia from various countries. Plenty of colonial era stuff as well.
If you're into old photography they pretty much have something for every notable town in the world too.
Indeed, high quality maps
Once while working on a ww1 mod for a game I went down the rabbithole of Colonial Africa borders. All those nice clean map with straight lines everywhere are very much De Jure. There were dozens of regional kingdoms, emirates, and majors tribes that were still nominally, functionally, or even official independent well into the 20th century.
What mod and what game? I'd be interested to see ww1 media with a good African front representation
@generalgrievous2202 it is the making history series of games. I released a mod for their older game, making history the great war, and am working on a new version for their newer game, mh the first world war.
I've always heard "de jure" pronounced with the "jure" like Juror or Juries. I mean it's the same root, meaning by law.
I double checked and apparently both are acceptable pronunciations and that's neat but I've honestly never heard it pronounced that way. Given it's a Latin phrase it's possible that's a more common pronunciation in romance languages?
In any case, I learned something extra from this video! Neat.
Considering The Letter 'J' Didn't Exist In Classical Latin, Being Represented By 'i' Instead, And Only Later Being Used After The French Started Using It For What Had Become A More Distinct Sound, It's Likely The Original Pronounciation Was More Similar To How He Pronounced It, I'd Guess The Pronounciation Similar To 'Juror' Is More Common In Languages That Got The Term From French, Rather Than Directly From Latin.
@@rateeightx Why Do You Write A Capital Letter On Every Single Word?
I’ve only ever read it J as in Juror. Was surprised at his pronunciation
It's latin and going by classical Latin pronunciation you'd go with a y sound over an English j.
Now if we can just get people to start saying Kikero, Yoolius Kaeser, et ketera.
3:28 - 3:30 Am I crazy or has anyone else been noticing a lot of CZcamsrs repeating one line in their videos. I feel like I've encountered this a lot more frequently within the last few months. 🤔
I have been having that weekly for a while now. Its so sudden makes me shocked didnt know it was youtube thought it was me
I was just about to say that. It comes down to poor editing. Most CZcamsrs follow scripts and cut out takes where they stumble on sentences. He forgot to cut a failed take it seems.
So the American Civil War could be seen in one of two ways.
De Facto--The Confederate States of America (1860-1864)
De Jure--The United States with a Southern Region in revolt (1860-1864)
I think it was CGP Grey who cited this as one of the reasons why it's basically impossible to get a definitive count of how many countries there are in the world. The US existed when it declared independence in 1776, but it wasn't clear it was a real country until Britain recognized their independence in 1781. Meanwhile, the CSA was a regional rebellion that was pacified, and people generally don't count it as having ever been a real country. Until you have the benefit of historical hindsight, you won't know which rebellions are USA's, where the country will establish independence long-term, and which are CSA's, doomed to the dustbin of history.
Honestly for quite a while I've found it weird that it's called a "Civil War" (Or Oftentimes Simply "The Civil War"), Because To Me That Kinda Implies Both Sides Claim To Be The True Government Of The Country, Whereas That Was Far From The Case Here, With One Side Not Claiming To Be Part Of The Country At All, In A Way Those Two Things Are Almost Opposites.
those would both be de jure maps. The confederates never had control over parts of the appalachians (hince west virginia, the free state of winston, etc) and the US government never had control of parts of southern Missouri and Kentucky. A de facto map of a war zone is always super complicated.
@@rateeightx To be a civil war they don’t have to claim the whole country. A civil war is just a war between citizens of the same country
There would also be a third way:
De Jure--The Confederate States of America's de jure land claims
Amongst the overlapping claims were the Haudenosaunee (or Iroquois) in Eastern America, who were more or less formidable allies of Britain, but regardless, the British claimed their land.
Why wouldn’t they? Britain was by all means and purpose the worlds overlord at the point in history. Britain sees a little nation its going to take it under its wing. Its their god given right
@@JaKingScomez What "god given right"? And what do you mean "tak[ing] it under its wing"? Britain cared only for the interests of Britain, and it planned on absorbing the Indigenous into the Thirteen Colonies. This would effectively decimate the Haudenosaunee national identity, and replace it with whatever state expands there. Anyways, I did not post this comment to argue against the British, it was just a statement of fact that would probably be good to be recognized
among us
I thought Tordesillas wasn't really am exclusive claim to the area, but a map to show where both Spain and Portugal were allowed to claim and not claim. Didn't necessarily ban anyone else from making claims, it just meant Portugal couldn't make claims in the Spanish half and vice versa
Exactly
Portugal at the Berlin Conference: According to the Treaty of Tordesillas, everything east of this line belongs to us, so whether you like it or not we are the rightful owners of the continent
The other colonizers: Oh no!
Proceeding to divide the continent their way: *ANYWAY*
I meant they still got Angola and Mozambique which is honestly WAY more than they deserved being Spains little slightly more stable brother.
@@seanmcloughlin5983 they already had coastal possessions in Angola and Mozambique
@@henriquemelchiorgomes8750 yeah but getting them recognized if the entire region was still a get, especially considering Britain and Germany were eyeing up the entire southern half of the continent.
@@seanmcloughlin5983 Portugal did try to make their two coastal possessions contiguous, but it messed with the British Cape to Cairo project so they had to abandon that ship in 1890 under British pressure.
I hate how short your videos are Emperor. I am used to listening to hour long history videos so yours just go by in a flash.
2:44 it's cool to see the places where these claims overlapped on the ground, i live in southern Brazil and there's old Spanish island-fortresses offshore in my state, and both the Portuguese and Brazilian state claimed all of Uruguay for some time, to the point where what is essentially the Uruguayan war of independence was against us, not the Spanish
Basically any old colonial maps are guaranteed to have goofy borders as a large portion are unexplored/uncontrolled with it merely being claimed
Connecticut: Look at all this mighty land we still have, nothing can stop us now-
US gov: Would you like to cede these lands in exchange for assumption of your debt?
Connecticut: *I am smort*
We are very familiar with straight lines...since a straight line was our southern border between 1948 and 1950. Thanks for that, America
You're welcome!
3:22-3:31 I thought I was hearing things
You forgot that during 1580-1640 the Kingdom of Portugal and Spain were united under the Iberian Union so de _jure_ all the Americas belonged to the Castilian Crown. Of course in reality the colonial empire was still separated between the kingdoms and there were overlaps, not only in the Americas but also in Southeast Asia, which were settled after Portugal became independent again.
If the Portuguese claims belonged de jure to the Castilian Crown then there would be some sort of treaty or document declaring lands changing hands so no, all of the Americas did not de jure belong to the Castilian Crown.
@@Sir_Walrus The lands didn't changed hands, they remained in their respective kingdoms but between 1580-1640 the King of Spain was also the King of Portugal, which I referred to as the Castilian Crown so as not to confuse between King/Kingdom. The Kingdoms of Portugal and Spain still existed so the treaty was still valid but there was only one king that de jure had both claims.
@@Ellyerre the kingdom of Spain didn't exist at that time. The personal union was between the crown of Castile, the crown of Aragon and the kingdom of Portugal. Portugal was not DE JURE a part of the crown of Castile so their claims were not DE JURE part of the crown of Castile.
@@Sir_Walrus This is a semantics issue, I'm sorry if I wasn't clear enough. I said "Castillian Crown" to refer to the King as his first title was King of Castille as well as Aragon and later Portugal. So what I mean is that all the Americas belonged to the same king between 1580-1640 because that king was both King of Castille and Portugal.
I guess you didn't get my point. It would be united De Facto under the Castilian Crown, not De Jure because they were De Jure different crowns that so happened to have the same king.
Not that relevant to the video, but I'm used to hearing "de jure" pronounced "de zhur" so it was really weird hearing it pronounced "de yuray" in this video, but now that I've heard it like that I'm suddenly realizing it's Latin and not French.
no one actually says de yuray its just history nerds. (which is fine)
probably because it wasn't used when latin was alive. it originated in about the 1600's.
also de yuray isn't even accurate to latin, its [deː iuːre] (the i is short)
Which you can't pronounce and have it sound englishy, though dey yoo rey is the closest you can get. Or if you're american use the t from water in place of the r. But latin u was further back in the mouth, and the short i is not english y and the e isnt english ey in most dialects its closer to french é. Oh and latin pronunciation changed over time and also theres ecclesiastical latin and modern use of latin doesn't follow latin pronunciation and would say it like you expect.
@@d.l.7416 ...Yes ... In other words, it's Latin. Not Classical Latin, sure, but Latin nonetheless. We can add the caveat that it's with a heavy English accent if you want, but it's still Latin.
de jurr not de-yuri
I agree. It's kind of pretentious.
@@ParadoxNinja I always said it in latin pronuntiation, who would want to pronounce anything in french?
De Facto maps are just more fun and avoid issues with mapping straight lines
Until one of your settlers shoots the colonial governor's Pig.
Many of these "de jure" claims were against other European powers, and not indigenous tribes. So, for example, France was mostly interested in settling the Maritime provinces of Canada, the St. Lawrence valley, and the lower Mississippi valley; but the indigenous tribes of the interior were their allies and trading partners, and potential converts to Catholicism. Likewise, the Hudson's Bay Company was granted sovereignty over a huge section of North America; but not for the purpose of ruling the indigenous inhabitants, just for protecting their fur-trading monopoly. The Russian claim to north-west North America was for the same purpose of protecting the trading monopoly of the Russian American Company. This is in contrast to the British East India Company and the Netherlands East India Company which found it profitable to exercise real sovereignty over parts of southern Asia. The English/British colonies on the U.S. Atlantic seaboard were true settlement colonies and sought expansive claims for that reason.
You left in an audio take( 3:19 ) you didn't edit out so the audio just loops, you did this with one of the iceberg videos as well
Great vid, very interesting
That Spanish North America map at the end is one of the most detailed maps I’ve ever seen. I highly recommend taking a closer look at it because it has so many details on founding of cities, frontier forts, dates of battles, borders depending on the year. It is awesome
Pretty cool for an Emperor to have a YT page.
Treaty of Tordesillas: exists
France and Britain: "so, free real estate?"
3:22 the line is said twice?
I had this question a few weeks ago while looking at the history of Minnesota on Wikipedia. According to the oldest maps it was technically a Spanish territory at one point, but I'm pretty sure no Spanish explorer got within 1000 miles of the place.
Interesting how territorial exploitation of the area was almost exclusively along rivers too. Expeditions by foot inland didn't happen for a long time.
As any New Orleans historian or tour guide will tell you, the distinctive architecture of the "French" Quarter is actually Spanish.
I've heard of some of these odd maps, but I didn't know how _strange_ these maps are! I'm not sure what's weirder: Virginia claiming the massive chunk of land in 1609 (see 3:31) while it was still Jamestown, or the fact that much of it was overlapped by Massachusetts just 11 years later! If the boundaries didn't change, I would be living just south of "Los Angeles, Virginia"! I also found it interesting how Manifest Destiny's "from sea to shining sea" echoed the Virginia Company's "from sea to sea". Thanks for the video!
Cleveland, Chicago, Des Moines, Omaha, Ogden, Utah, and even Mt. Shasta, CA would be in Connecticut if they'd gotten their originally chartered way. And Toronto, Detroit, Milwaukee, the Twin Cities, Yellowstone Park, and Seattle would be in Massachusetts (both colonies were also granted sea to sea charters, apparently without the king checking previous ones, although CT and MA followed straight lines of latitude as opposed to Virginia's strange northwest-shooting border).
On a side note, because Florida was added to the country after the Louisiana Purchase, Old Faithful became (de jure) American before the site of Miami Beach.
From 1808 to 1813, a huge part of the Americas were De Jure under French rule (Spanish colonies), De Facto...
wait, you mentioned Serbia in a video and didn't turn off the Comments Section? Bold move.
I love your work
My real name is Emanuele
The fact on the map at 2:25 Portugal owns half of what is Brazil today and Spain owns like 1/4 of Australia is kinda funny
Your Imperial Majesty - You accidentally repeated a bit of text in your video, but it doesn’t detract from how great it is. I just wanted to mention this so you can check for that in future videos. Frankly, I thought your narration was excellent!
I didn't think Portugal was meant to get any of the Americans instead getting Africa and all the east indies
I think it's even more weird that Spain owned part of Siberia.
That's not really what the Treaty of Tordesillas did it's commonly misunderstood to be Spain and Portugal actually claiming land when it's more of an agreement to not colonize land there without the other's permission neither Spain or Portugal would have actually said they were actively claiming land there think of it instead of saying Spain owns this land Spain has a treaty with Portugal where Portugal agrees not to colonize this land and Spain reserves the right to colonize this land
@@mariodangelo9768 I understand. I saw the map and thought it was kind of funny.
@@mariodangelo9768 If you don't use (settle) it you lose it basically.
Wasn't Iceland Norwegian/Kalmar Union at the time of the treaty of tordesillas?
That explains the lines in"Country Roads," Denali Mountain, Yukon River.
But what’s the story behind the map in the thumbnail? I’ve seen it in quite a few places over my life.
The reason it took four years for the Articles of Confederation to become law, other than the asinine requirement that all of the states had to ratify it, was because Virginia would not give up its federal land claims, and Maryland refused to ratify until every state had given up its claims.
Oh cool, I literally just finished my College Prospectus which involves French maps of Wisconsin (my state).
I never really knew this!
It's hard to imagine living in a world where there are genuinely uncharted landmasses.
4:04 what were the states that were in Virgina/Plymouth's claim?
North Carolina (My state) was in the claim.
San Francisco would've been in Virginia. Incidentally, Francis Drake probably landed just north of there (some historians think it was actually as far north as Oregon), and his claim of "New Albion" encouraged Anglo-American Manifest Destiny claims. There's still a Drake's Bay and Sir Francis Drake Boulevard in Marin County.
That said, in the Mayflower Compact the Pilgrims referred to their new home as "the northern parts of Virginia", which suggests that at least initially "Virginia" was how the English referred to all of at least the east coast of North America (although John Smith gave the region of New England its name on his 1614 voyage as far north as present-day Maine), similar to how "New South Wales" was initially the name given to the entire east coast of Australia.
I remember looking at these De jure maps in my American history classes and always laughing how absurd they looked
That one time Massachusetts had a dispute with Pennsylvania over the Erie Triangle
And Connecticut also had one with Pennsylvania near Scranton.
I still wish there were more detailed records of native history and land division. They didn't draw lines in the same fashion as Europeans but territory was still territory, and knowing how they handled things pre-colonial age is extremely interesting to me. Sadly Europe (especially the Spanish) destroyed as much as possible in their invasions, on top of multiple cultures keeping record via story telling rather than writing.
1:13 Not only are de facto maps just straight up better, they're far more useful too
At 3:22 you said the same thing twice lolololol
Woah is that how you pronounce de jure? I’ve been saying it wrong lol
Never knew I lived in south Carolina, even though it's a 8 or so hour drive
2:58 "England was slightly more humble than Spain and didn't claim an entire continent"
Australia: Am I a joke to you?
Idk if I typed this here, but I think that Tigerstar should talk about and perhaps debunk that part of Why We Fight: Prelude to War where the narrator talks about the Axis nations’ claims.
"Why are there 13 stripes on the flag of the USA?"
"It's what our first map looked like
What is that last "Spanish Hemisphere" map from?
Day Yuray hurts my brain. In both English and the original French it comes from I can only find it pronounced with English/French j.
England: Founds Jamestown
Also England: We did boys. Manifest destiny is complete!
Good summary of the absurdity of the claims!
in a few years, there will be mars videos like this.
DH & I actually felt better (because we're still homesick for CT) that we're in what's often still occasionally called the Western Reserve (of Connecticut)
3:22 A glitch in the Matrix! Woah!
Jilted a bit by the pronunciation of 'de jure'. Isn't it just like any other word ending in ure, like pure, or sure?
I heard a story that after the Civil war, the state of Florida offered to sell to Alabama what is now the Florida panhandle from the Perdido River to the Chattahoochhee River but Alabama decided the land would never be any good for anything so they refused. Fast forward to the 1960s when George Wallace was governor who said that "geographically" that land should be Alabama's. He stopped after the governor of Tennessee said that all the land north of the Tennessee River was "geographically" Tennessee's. Thus would have put the Space Flight Centre in Huntsville in Tennessee so Wallace's dropped the subject.
Is he mispronouncing de jure? Shouldn't it be pronounced like soup de jure?
That's how I was taught to say it as well.
There are multiple pronunciations. I went with the actual latin.
@@EmperorTigerstar But you weren't speaking Latin, you were speaking english, and its a word with a pronunciation in English, so did you just do it for fun, not accuracy?
@@rapter229No it's a Latin phrase that is used in English. It is not a loan word as you never see jure used independently as a word in an English sentence.
@friendguy13 is borrowed from Classical Latin or is it Ecclesiastical Latin? Because they pronounce it differently.
Something doesn't have to be a loan word to be adapted into a language. De Jure is part of the English lexicon, it has an accepted modern pronunciation. Just like how De Facto is pronounced differently in modern usage than in the original Latin.
Wasn't the treaty only between Spain and Portugul? If someone like France claimed something it would be theirs rather than Spanish or Portugese.
All it takes forthe other non-Catholic-Iberian empires (which were the following three of Western Europe and some surprising notable exceptions from that continent) to claim colonies from pre-existing treaty claims is to simply refute Papal/overlord authority, which kicked off at the Peace of Westphalia
Not only did Portuguese Brazil extended way past the line but Spain eventually acquired the Philippines which were also way behind the line.
I get that “day your-a” is more phonetically correct, but “d’jrr” just sounds so much better
3:23 did you have a seizure or some shit
Alec from technology connections?!
Your voice is familiar, are you the technology connections guy?
The Virginia Company of London when getting (a/their) second charter in 1609
I've never heard De Jure spoken out and I hate so much that it isn't a hard J
Why is no one talking about the way he is saying De Jure
Part of the 1494 map is cut off
3:22 there is a duplicate dialogue.
3:22 The Virginia company of London when getting a second charter in 1609, the Virginia company of London when getting a second charter in 1609,
“The way to Heaven is ascending; we must be content to travel uphill, though it be hard and tiresome, and contrary to the natural bias of our flesh.”
― Jonathan Edwards
why are you just posting random quotes
@@thezipcreator It concerns colonial American history, not that random
Did something change? In American English "de jure" is typically pronounced "day jooure" (rhymes with "cure"), not "day yooray" or however this guy says it.
This guy likes to touch pretzels outside of movie theaters in front of elderly women
To all the people complaining about the pronunciation, it’s actually much closer to correct than “de zhoor”. Latin has no letter ‘J’, the actual words are “de iure”
Sorry if im wrong but isn't de jure pronounced de your?
or you could do what Google Maps do and just make their maps change depending on where they think you are viewing it.
gas lighting by one of the most powerful companies in the world.
I’ve never heard “de jure” pronounced with the y sound. That threw me off so much. Is that normal in America? It’s a french term, right?
It's Latin, j was just a variation of i in Latin, like u was just a variation of v, both being pronounced i/y and u/w respectively, according to their position on a word. j and i, and u and v becoming different letters only happened in the modern era, although they had evolved different pronunciations long before then in the romance languages, which evolved from Latin
@@raparigo Sure, but in the same way no one says "Yulius Kaiser" in English, we say Julius Siezer, I've similarly never heard anyone pronounce the J in "de Jure" as a Y sound. It sounded ridiculous and really threw me off.
Man, I have to go to Yury duty in the morning.
It's it just me or do you say the same thing twice at 3:22?
Manifest Destiny does permit a lot of projection apparently?
Israel seems similar?
Given Portugal's Naval power and their eventual empire, I'm pretty sure they weren't shafted by Tordesillas.
Well, Spain encroached by taking the Philippines sooo
3:36 Now I just want to see a timeline that’s just thicc Virginia.
Lmao imagine if every one of the 13 colonies was just a massively wide long state. That’d be funny af
Thank you for coming to my Ted talk
ngl you are the only person I've heard pronounce de jure like "day you're ay"; I've always heard it said as the french pronunciation "de-jur" because it got loaned to english from latin via french.
I don’t know why but he’s pronouncing it like it’s Spanish. Completely wrong.
“day yurayy” map
Link to the last map?
Me at 4am: interesting
"Straight line?" "Straight line."
The j in De jure is pronounced with the soft j sound and not like the y in year
I simply can not listen to you say it wrong so many times I had to end the video
another huge thing i never hear mentioned is bottleneck merging. as you're on the highway, you will eventually want to get Off the highway. if you're told to take a left in 2 miles on your GPS, and you're in the right lane, if there's 10 lanes in heavy traffic, you'll have to slow down and zipper over and over to take your exit. same goes with funneling these highways into the city; many of those lanes can't funnel into a street seamlessly.