ITT: Bad history
Post examples of some bad historians or bad history and explain why they are bad.
John Green is bad because he attempts to lace his lessons with humor and is not a conservative, racist Eurocentrist like epic 4chan. He also erroneously acknowledges the role of women, half the human race, to history. Everyone knows that it's Great MEN
Two weeks: shitposters gone, they got bored and fucked off
One month: disingenuous /pol/tards gone, they got bored and went to go see the next happening
Two months: board traffic slows to a pace similar to /ck/ or /lit/ and discussion becomes decent
Give it some time anon, things will even out
So /his/ in a months time when the mods and janitors tire from cleaning the place up 24/7.
Mark my words, this place is going to be exclusively "best philosopher" threads combined with "WW2/German/Wehrmacht/Holocaust" threads unless the jans and mods stay on top of their game.
iktfb, my best history teacher was a american history and modern european history, and was absolutely stifled by the curriculum requirements. She gave up on the AP requirements because they were so bad and just made her own course structure for it, and I learned more in that course than the rest of my high school ones.
>Two months: board traffic slows to a pace similar to /ck/ or /lit/ and discussion becomes decent
/lit/ is plagued with /r9k/ and /pol/ and has been for the last year.
It's discussion is shit-tier.
How? He's literally a right wing shill who knows nothing about what he writes and appeals to armchair conservatives by saying what they want to hear with no real support
His books are worthless and essentially devolve into Europe and America are great and capitalism is the end of history
He doesn't really teach, He just gives us readings, talks about how to do a test, and then tests us on them. (this video was actually the most info we've had in class)
And the Class isn't on china, but the guy lived in china and has a huge bias towards it. Last Wednesday of our hour long class, he spent 20 minutes trying to teach our class the order of dynastys and leaders to 2015 china today. (it's gonna be on our final as well)
This book desu.
It's basically like protesting the bias of Fox News by watching MSNBC. Totally black and white/ heroes and villains narrative with no citations or bibliography and says nothing new that educated people don't already know.
>Lel Christians cause dark ages we would be in space by now if they didn't burn books
Yeah because Christians weren't the ones opening school and Charlemagne was encouraging the spread of knowledge and just so you know nobody in any academic circle calls it the "dark ages" anymore.
Yes that makes me legitimate mad that people honestly don't respect history enough to look shit up and just rely on lel family guy
Eric Foner is a credible historian that has conducted legitimate research, though. His " Free Soil, Free Labor, Free Men" is an essential work on the ideology of the early Republican Party. Also, his textbooks are solid for the most part. Much better than any others that I've seen.
Anyone familiat with the subject. Basically, it was a very influential book in the late 70s. Horribly biased and and in almost every new book about the subject you can find references to the author and how he "doesn't cite his sources" or that "X has denied this" over and over. And then there are the stories about his rants. Basically he has a huge hateboner for the British Empire and he needed someone like Scott to let it all out. How many history books were written by hacks with an agenda? It's a scary thought.
I only know about Alexander "the Great" thing. I don't watch his videos. I want to watch good videos about history not something to make me angry.
He also made a video about conservatism. I wonder what he said about it.
Not really. The main goal of the book seems to be about explaining why Eurasia came ahead of Africa, the Americas, and the rest of the world in terms of civilization, and that has to do with geography and environment more than anything.
If it was about why Europe came ahead of Asia, then you could talk about culture and institutions, but it's not.
Environment doesn't decide anything, but you can't just ignore it either. The fact is, sometimes environment does determine history. There's no way around that.
Well there's his Alexander the Great video where he says he's wasn't really a great man and was on par with Kim Kardashian. Then there's his Crusades video which is nothing but Europeans were evil Muslims were good. His video on the founding of America is pretty bad with tons of time spent focusing on the Founding fathers being slave owners and saying they were hypocrites rather than focusing on their goals and intentions
It's because Europe fought a lot more, which led to more technological advances.
It's because STEM majors look at communications and humanities the same way, since they're looking down anyways. Communications and art majors tend to have better social networks, which leads them to support each other.
I still think the order is STEM > humanities > communications/art. At least you actually had to learn something that is important to the well-being of society.
His videos are full of minor inaccuracies. I haven't watched many because I can't deal with lack of attention to detail when speaking authoritatively on history. One of his videos on Rome he was talking about Cicinnatus, and he had a famous painting of Cincinnatus pop up, but he'd circled the wrong guy. I couldn't really watch any more after that, even the most cursory examination of that image should have made it clear who Cincinnatus was but he couldn't even bothered doing that tiny amount of his own research.
He also boils extremely complex topics, like why Rome fell and over how long, down to statements like "letting Germans into the army was a terrible idea", as if it was really an option. He doesn't really know this stuff, he's just rehashing broad arguments he has done 0 research on.
And then there's his crap about how the Mongols were really progressive and pro-women, and his general anachronistic "ancient peoples should have treated women better" crap.
His videos aren't that bad if you want broad *opinions*, but they are poorly research, highly anachronistic, and basically just bad history.
His Alexander the Great video is a pure hit-piece. He makes massive generalizations one after the other so quickly that the viewer can't process his bullshit and just takes it or tunes out. He doesn't take time to back up a single thing he says, he just vomits opinions all over you with virtually no analysis.
His video on the israel-palestine thing actively ignores bits of information that dont quite fit his political agenda (left wing american being the claim here)
In particular he paints the notion that everyone got along till the british showed up (they didn't), and that somehow, even though everyone got along england decided to split it up after asking the UN (both sides demanded overlapping portions of the territory and wouldn't settle for less so the UN suggested the division). He also skims the issues that the Palestinians raised involving the mass Jewish migration into the region.
He then decides to tone down exactly what certain israeli political parties did (no talk about massacring villages here) along with only making passing references to what Palestine was up to.
It's been a while, but I believe he also skipped bringing up exactly what the death tolls were from either side, or discussing america's involvement in the funding side of things at all. He also provides an extraordinarily poor description of the various egypt-israeli wars or the USS liberty incident.
>I'm moving the goalposts
How? The point of this argument is "What is the technological difference between the Old and New worlds due to?" I say it's because of geographical differences, you say it's biological differences.
You pretty much said what he said.
Before reading the book, I assumed much of the reason Eurasia was more developed was because of culture and constant warfare.
My criticism of him is that he argues culture, genetics, and great people have nothing to do with how civilization developed. I argue that they do.
I don't think humans are just a bunch of creatures that if given different circumstances act based upon them. I believe there is some universal instinct that makes people human, and controls us.
Nice retort fucktard.
North America had a lot of natural resources to be exploited, a ton of arable land and edible crops. Yet the natives still huddled in tents, worshipped animals.
Stop pretending races do not differ genetically in terms of intelligence.
>They had no infastructure
Blatantly untrue, even if your knowledge of Native Americans is generations out of date it's still common knowledge that the Inca had elaborate road systems.
I would highly recommend the book I mentioned btw, Mann discusses these misconceptions about Native Americans far better than I ever could.
>What's wrong with this book?
Everything you need to know was in the post you replied to. It's a simplistic leftist fairy tale rendering of American history, in the same way "The Patriot's Guide to American History" is a simplistic fairy tale narrative for the right. There's a reason why actual historians never quote Zinn's work.
>Hi I'm John Greene, today I'm going to talk to you about how FANTASTIC and AMAZING and INSPIRING the Haitian revolution was
>cough cough Haiti used to be the richest colony in the western hemisphere, not it is the poorest country in the western hemisphere
Oh you poor liberal brainwashed sack of shit.
That's pretty typical. /pol/fags just can't stand when an explanation for something might actually require thinking about the topic for more than ten minutes, so they just jump to the simplest conclusion.
Anyone who claims the world was technologically set back hundreds of years because the library of Alexandria burnt down, almost as dumb as that stupid chart. The biggest issue is that one cannot simply just determine or quantify "technological advancement" like that, and it makes too many assumptions on what exactly the library contained. It was a big loss, but to say we would have been colonizing the stars had the library not been destroyed is horseshit.
Well, he may or may not be wrong.
But some humans are genetically dumber than others.
Some genes can be turned off and on based upon what is most needed for the body.
Take an African child, put him in a white rich American family, and you still get a man who is less smart than the white son.
I don't think that's a basis for racism, since the difference is so minute in the modern day, but there is some truth to different races being different.
Honestly the only thing wrong with burning the library down is that there wasn't even a chance for some of those books to make it to our generation and we lost a lot of knowledge about the time, I never even knew people tried to say that the Library would progress humanity
>natives never warred with themselves pre-columbus
Sure man. It's all the environment. Kek
Literally untrue. They built fucking roads through the Andes. Their architecture is still used today in foundations in Peru. Their agricultural system was better than anywhere in europe until the petrochemical revolution. Their society was immense and complex and when Pizarro had Atahualpa killed, Charles V was furious because it was so clear that he was the god granted king of a high civilization.
Theres a lot wrong with that video but your criticism is bullshit.
Haiti was the richest colony in the americas if you only take into account the tiny minority of people who owned the sugar plantations.
Everyone else was poor as shit and haiti actually had the lowest average lifespan of pretty much anywhere on the planet at the time.
The real problem with johns video is that ironically enough he whitewashes the massacre of whites that followed the revolution.
Like in every revolution as Mao said. I hope this fucker didn't make a video about the Cuban revolutions (from the 19th century) and the Spanish-American War. That's my specialty. It may be too painful.
What the fuck is this shit
This is just disrespectful
>History isn't as bad
My first two history courses in college were indistinguishable from an intersectional feminism course.
An increasing amount of new historical literature is the same.
not the guy you were arguing with but mesoamerica had literally been in a near constant state of war for centuries in 1491, the aztec religion even had a justification for unending warfare fundamentally built into it.
The question of why the central and south american civilizations never developed things like ironworking or domesticated animals has always been a big head scratcher to me. I think much of it comes from their isolation relative to eurasian civilizations which were able to spread ideas through trade. Note that sub saharan civilizations which were also relatively isolated developed at a slower rate as well.
They had agriculture, even invented maize. They were categorically not "stone age" peoples.
The Inca roadways were designed for use by men and llamas. European horses didn't do well on them which is part of where your perceptions comes from. In spite of that perception their roads are still around today.
And these are the Andes Mountains we're talking about, about 7000km above sea level. I don't sea how geography isn't relevant.
They didn't have anything to domesticate.
Ironworking is more confusing, especially considering they were excellent with bronze in the Andes. Then again, Eurasia went 2000 years using bronze before they figured out iron, so it's not like it was the most obvious thing in the world.
my conventional wisdom of the spanish american war is that at a period of intense nationalism the US government seized on a convenient opportunity to make a bald faced landgrab at the spanish. Would you dispute this?
My criticism of GGS.
Jared's argument: Eurasia has four geographics advantages.
2. River valleys
3. Lots of penisulas
4. Variety of large animals
5. Trade advantage because East-West is easier than North-South movement.
Maybe this explains the initial differences 10000 bc - 500 bc, but it breaks down immensely the closer you get to 1492. What explains the last 500 years of history? This is arguably the most important time because the ability to significantly change history became so much easier.
What explains China and India post 1300? What explains the Incas and Aztecs being rather advanced while not taming llamas or alpacas?
Meiji Japan is proof that a nation can go from completely backwards to rather modern in 20-30 years. If Geography created these barriers, how come these barriers remain even today? There has to be more.
>hatian revolution video
Holy shit is this nigger for real?
>literally no mention of white massacre
>calls it the most successful slave revolt
>blah blah haiti is great because it helped those in need
>Haiti was the richest colony in the americas if you only take into account the tiny minority of people who owned the sugar plantations.
No, Haiti was the richest colony in the Western Hemisphere based on production of raw materials and economy you stupid fuck. Do you literally think European imperialism was constructed around >muh feelz ?
>Everyone else was poor as shit and haiti actually had the lowest average lifespan of pretty much anywhere on the planet at the time.
Actually the slaves in Haiti lived longer on average than southern saharan african hunter gatherer tribes, who were constantly enslaved and killed by other africans at young ages
>The real problem with johns video is that ironically enough he whitewashes the massacre of whites that followed the revolution.
The real problem with the video is that he paints the Haitian revolution as a great achievement when it was in fact the violent extermination of Frenchmen followed by the total collapse of the economy and the country. This was followed by a deterioration in life expectancy and quality of life to well below the levels the slaves had. The Haitian revolution is a perfect example of how NOT to have a revolution and John repeatedly tries to create a narrative where this isn't the case. To do this he has to leave out large swaths of Haitian history. He has a clear agenda and in this video that agenda is easily seen.
>Why is it so hard to accept that races can differ in terms of intelligence?
Because decades of research and study have proved that worldview on par with flat-earth theory
>Go ahead, tell me teh joos control all the studies and it's a giant conspiracy to cover up the truth
Basically most Cubans weren't loyal to any side. Pro-Spanish or pro-independence. They just wanted to be left alone. Garcia and Gomez were also ruthless bastards.
People like TR and Cabot Lodge were of course really interested in Cuba (the US had been interested in it since its inception). Not just because of the prospect of more land. They wanted war. They both missed the American Civil War (Roosevelt's father also missed it).
>Because decades of research and study have proved that worldview on par with flat-earth theory
Transrracial adoption studies prove it as well.
Sorry. There is a real genetic difference of iq between the races. Gould was wrong as usual.
I do think its an interesting idea that countries with large east-west sprawl are easier to develop than north-south sprawl because they generally have a fewer number of climates
not saying its the whole story but I think there's something to it, note the uneven development in Mexico where the milder climates of the north and center are doing much better than the yucatan and south-west where development has always been a problem
Charlotte Brindley because at the end of the quiz she created, I was rewarded me with a picture of Alexander the Great.
>Go ahead, tell me teh joos control all the studies and it's a giant conspiracy to cover up the truth
Trying to convince any university to accept a PhD thesis on the genetic basis of racial intelligence would be like trying to prove Marx was right in the economics department of the University of Chicago
It's less "race has been debunked, case closed" so much as "you're a racist shitlord for even contemplating the existence of inherent racial differences"
It's a book about the post-war period in Europe that ignores it's most important ideology, Christian democracy, because the author didn't had any friends who took part on it.
Well. There's a giant desert about 10 miles from a temperate rainforest in California. Same for the Gobi in Asia.
The latitude v longitude argument falls short when you search for counterexamples.
The east cost of Africa is rather livable. Always has been.
In Zanzibar the arabians brought tons of knowledge for 2000 years to the area, yet the native Africans remained tribal.
Did people just decide to stop making boats in North America and South America?
pls go and stay go
All those studies are rayciss.
>implyong the black white iq gap isn't the lowest during childhood when environment is more important
>implying the gap doesnt greatly increase during adulthood when genetics start playing a bigger role
>implying mixed race blacks don't score than regular blacks
Fine, I'll take your bait then.
Case studies are worthless for anything. They are individual stories, each of which has its own biases. Even if you can find a correlation, that doesn't mean the cause you propose explains it.
Everything about the Holocaust is a lie.
There are plenty of youtube vids explaining why.
Hitler didn't do anything wrong. He was a good man. He cared about his people. But a lot of hostile forces wanted Hitler's money for their political activities. That's why he was so hated.
Hitler was the bravest of all men.
My history teacher used to say that Hiroshima and Nagasaki (I'm not talking about names of our new leader) were filled with evil japs armed to the teeth with barely any women and children in them
>tfw you will never be a comfy Mississippian living in the great city of Cahokia
>tfw you will never share it with 40,000 other noble Mississippians
>tfw you will never wake up early, woken by the sound of the coppersmith working in the smithery, and step out of your home to look out across the Mississippi river as the morning mist slides across the water like a cloud-that-walks
>tfw you will never smell something delicious and find your tama (wife) cooking a morning meal of hot sweet potatoes, corn, beans and meat
>tfw you will never eat a hearty breakfast with your family and then take your son down to the river to catch lunch together
>Haiti was the richest colony in the Western Hemisphere based on production of raw materials and economy
Using this logic equatorial guinea is one of the richest countries in the world.
Yeah it might have a high GDP per capita but absolutely no one who lives there benefits from it.
>slaves in Haiti lived longer on average than southern saharan african hunter gatherer tribes
Cite your source.
I had a hard time believing subsaharan africans had a lower lower life expectancy than 7 years which the life expectancy of a slave once they arrived on haiti
> narrative where this isn't the case. To do this he has to leave out large swaths of Haitian history
I agree with you on this point.
He entirely leave out the Haitian massacre but
>total collapse of the economy and the country
You mean the economy that didn't at all benefit the people who lived there?
>deterioration in life expectancy and quality of life
Again I have a hard time believing a slave had a worse life expectancy after the revolution.
Yes during precolumbian times. Actually, in a similar way that european "barbarians" practiced their warfare. Wars did not happen too much columbian times until the post era with nation states broken away from spain.
>lack of iron working
Isolation is probably a factor. They used obsidian for their more deadlier weapons but as far as armor, they did not have as resilient of defense as otber areas of the world. Maybe something to do with the ritual of the fight??
>lack of domestication of animals
There wasnt too mny beasts of burden out there for them. Geography and ecology play a role in this. The incas were able.to domesticate llamas. Most cultures had some type of domesticsted dog.
>lack of spread ideas through trade
The mesoamericas were one of the hubs of the ancient trade routes. Think of the silk road and samarkand or byzantium's position on that route. It was quite similar in effect.
Hope this helps ya anon!
I kinda get where they're coming from, trying to make them realise that kids not dissimilar to themselves had to live through WW1 and probably thought a lot of the same things, but this is just a dumb idea. It feels like a 40 year old trying to be cool.
The problem with history and /his/, is that it's quite subjective. You can choose which facts you want to present, and then make an argument that can go either way on much of history.
Too many people don't just say, "this is what we are confident actually happened." They take it a step further and try to draw a conclusion that fits their narrative.
I came to really dislike Jewish historians, not because I am anti-semitic, but because they are so solipsistic. They disregard any political or intellectual movement that did not had Jewish members, making their history books always incomplete.
>I think much of it comes from their isolation relative to eurasian civilizations which were able to spread ideas through trade.
This. In Eurasia you pretty much had an unbroken trade link to spread ideas from that ran between dynastic China, the Indian kingdoms, Persia, the Arab world, the Mediterranean and then Western Europe. Ideas and inventions went up and down this chain, and even across Central Asia and Russia directly between Europe and Asia sometimes (for example Taoist monks inventing gunpowder by accident and the Mongols spreading it to Europe).
But Sub-Saharan Africa was separated from this cultural interchange by the Sahara. Sure, some regions benefitted from some cultural radiation, like Ethiopia and West Africa during the later stages of its civilisations (like I'm talking Songhai Empire rather than Nok civilisation), but the majority of the region was isolated, and even the subregions of the region were split in half by the Congo Rainforest, which was impossible to cultivate, and only Pygmies lived there.
The Americas, Australasia and the Pacific Islands are a similar story, except they were isolated by vast oceans instead of a vast desert.
This is the best "history" book I've read.
>chinese super fleet visited every continent
>the maps work because I was in the navy and I understand coastlines better than those faggots at the university
But isn't ritual a cultural thing? Something Jared Diamond ignores.
Why didn't they use llamas, alpacas, and dogs to help them? Didn't they have cows and horses in the past? It's not like they were helpless.
So they had a lot of trade.
GGS is a flawed book. Definitely didn't deserve a pulitzer, but a fun read nobetheless.
I criticized John Green once to my friends, of whom are big fans. They were belligerent but really took time to listen to my arguments and counterpointed fairly.
However this didn't stop my one friend's SPOOKY SCARY SKELETON sister from walking into the room and demanding to know why I didn't like John Green. After I explained that I didn't particularly like his stance on slut-shaming and found his reddit-tier "history" to glance over a ton of issues and make incredibly large paintbrush strokes, she started fucking screaming at me.
[spoiler]The Fault In Our Stars is a shit book.[/spoiler]
Never watched, always preferred them talking about vidya, but even then I find EC to be a touch immature in the core of their content.
Unrelated but I like this animation: https://youtu.be/-evIyrrjTTY
I would say that at least Zinn didn't try to pretend he had written anything other than leftist propaganda. The entire book is less of a history book and more of a polemic against the right and the "great man" theory of history disguised as a history textbook.
In that respect it can still be a good read. It's just not something that should be used to actually LEARN history which is why it shouldn't be assigned reading in high schools since I don't think any high school history class is going into the ins and outs of historiography.
Explain east africa and the connection between the Aztecs and Incas then. There was little geographic barrier for them.
East Africa has been inhabited and visited by Arabs since Roman times. The nile is perfect entrance into Africa.
Did the Aztecs forget how to make boats to meet the Incas? Were there no tribes in between?
Holy fuck, those videos are complete crap. They try to make history sound "EPIK XD" just to gather to the 12 year old viewers.
They literally made an entire 8 minutes long video just to explain the assasination of Franz Ferdinand
That reminds me, how credible if Fischer's stuff? Because it falls so neatly into the entire British mindset of "The Germans, excuse me, The Hun are brutish warmongers at the top and soulless automatons who blindly follow orders and thus ruin everything and needed to be put down" and the general De-Nazification psychological programming shit that I can't see him as anything other than a propaganda tool.
Completely ignores the wealth of Japanese scholarship dedicated to the Nanking Massacre. Opts for lazy explanations on the reasons behind the massacre (they did it because the Japanese are culturally bloodthristy) rather than an actual analysis of the conditions in Showa Japan and Nationalist China. Has certain historical inaccuracies that gave the revisionists all sorts of ammo. While it did make the Nanking Massacre more well known, the end result probably did more to hurt serious scholarship of the event than to help it.
>Aztecs and Incas
Neither culture was strong on sea-faring and there are some pretty impenetrable natural obstacles between Mexico and even the northern-most reaches of the Inca Empire. It should also be remembered that the peaks of both empires (in terms of territory covered) were both pretty brief, so for most of their histories, the two cultures were even further apart.
>East Africa has been inhabited and visited by Arabs since Roman times.
This is why the regions of Abyssinia, Eritrea, Djibouti and Somalia are culturally distinct from the rest of (Bantu) East Africa. In the classical period, the Somali city-states of Mosylon, Opone, Malao, Sarapion, Mundus, Essina and Tabae developed a lucrative trade network connecting with merchants from Phoenicia, Ptolemic Egypt, Greece, Parthian Persia, Sheba, Nabataea and the Roman Empire. However, the cultural interchange was truly strengthened by the spread of Islam and Islamic architecture during the early Medieval period, and we know this through such sites as the Bandar Qassim Castles and the Botiala Fortress Complex. The reason Somalia is such a dicksqueeze of a country today is more to do with it having been in constant civil war between what was once Italian Somalia and British Somaliland for most of the post-colonial period.
Ethiopia is a similar story, though its current sorry state is because of the Dreaded Derg.
>they did it because the Japanese are culturally bloodthristy
i love this dumb meme in explaining historical events. as if a culture cant be changed from pacifist to warlike or vice versa over the space of a few generations. no, they're just 'inherently culturally violent' or something else that desperately hides ones prejudices.
Which is especially ridiculous when you consider what Japan almost immediately turned into following the Second World War.
It's almost as if complex events with a large amount of both state and military actors in a bloody and brutal war have very complex motivations.
Simply is the worst word in explanations.
>Completely ignores the wealth of Japanese scholarship dedicated to the Nanking Massacre
I've never actually heard anything about this but I'm very interested. Got any stuff I can read in english?
>but as far as armor, they did not have as resilient of defense as otber areas of the world
One interesting tidbit that's related to this: when Pizarro and his men were invading the Incans they were readily abandoning their steel armor for native native-made, which was a tough, light armor made of cotton and layers of cloth and leather.
(These next two sentences are just me musing, IANAAnthropologist.) Whether this meant, the Incan armor simply outclassed Spanish armor, I have my doubts. I think at the very least it means Incan armor was better suited than Spanish steel against Incan warfare inside Incan territory, which is notable for some reason.
Having not watched it, I've heard it come up that he apparently says the Haitian Revolution is more important than the American Revolution. Is that true because if so that's about the stupidest thing I've ever heard.
Whoever wrote this knows nothing about African wildlife or biodiversity.
An example being that African hunting dogs are far from docile and are no more susceptible to domestication than wolves (though their pack structure is based more around posturing than aggression).
There's also the fact that, before the Bantu migration, the only people living in close proximity to African hunting dogs would have been tiny populations of pastoralist Khoikhoi and hunter-gatherer San. And the movement of large populations of Bantu people into African hunting dog distribution zones happened far too recently for domestication to even have begun slightly manifesting.
The rest is equally dim.
And what obstacles were those? The jungle? Weren't the Aztecs already in a jungle?
The Inca and Aztec empires in 1492 were very close to each other in a geographic sense. It just seems odd that the tribes in between them or the 100 mile boat ride from Southern Panama to Acapulco stopped the two from at least interacting and realizing they could learn from each other.
Why didn't the develop a proper written language?
But weren't these separate "arab" cultures connected to Bantu lands? Why did the tech not spread. The difference between coastal Somalia and coastal Zanzibar was minimal.
It just seems odd. There is a great history of Arab and Indian merchants on Africa's east coast, yet the tech did not spread. Isn't the rift valley one of the most environmentally friendly places to form a civilization on the planet?
>These ongoing practices have found new legitimacy in recent reanalyses of human genetic variation that seem to reverse Lewontin's claims. The completion of the Human Genome Project has facilitated large-scale genomic analysis of human populations, much of which uses "ancestry" to map genetics onto traditional racial categories (see Bolnick et al. 2007; Dupré 2008; Nelson 2008). This all contributes to what Troy Duster (2005) has identified as the molecular reinscription of race.
Whitmarsh, I., & Jones, D. D. S. (Eds.). (2010). What's the Use of Race?: Modern Governance and the Biology of Difference. MIT press.
>The study of genomics has resulted in a dizzying back-and-forth stance on race - ﬁrst denial of any racial difference at the level of DNA, to later focusing attention on these differences...This renewed interest in the biology of race is surprising given that representatives of an array of natural and social sciences, including leading geneticists, once whole-heartedly denounced prior racial biomedicine.
Bliss, Catherine. "Racial taxonomy in genomics." Social Science & Medicine 73.7 (2011): 1019-1027.
>Which is especially ridiculous when you consider what Japan almost immediately turned into following the Second World War
it really does make you think about what a tremendous impact nuclear weapons must have on a country that Japan was instantly changed from a warrior culture to a victim culture
>My criticism of him is that he argues culture, genetics, and great people have nothing to do with how civilization developed. I argue that they do.
His environmental determinism always seemed somewhat of a fallacy of false dichotomy. There is no good explanation given that it couldn't be all of environment, culture, conflict, genetics, that benefited Eurasia.
Most of the earliest academic scholarship done on the event was by Japanese leftist academics in the 1960s. Despite the reputation that Japan has about obsessively denying anything ever happened, in reality no academic actually denies it happened. Generally the debate is over what forms of evidence should be used to determine the numbers in the event (anecdotal vs statistical). Unfortunately, there's really not many direct translations of Japanese writing on the topic itself, but there are a good number of articles in English on the Japanese historiography that can be found on jstor or other online journal archives.
>Even if you can find a correlation, that doesn't mean the cause you propose explains it.
You can drop any pretense of being intelligent when you parrot correlation does not equal causation. When anyone uses it as an argument they mean to say "I think that the data which is counter factual to my argument is a coincidence"
Why? Well there are only a few options if two A and B are correlated. You have:
A causes B.
B causes A.
C causes A and B.
A and B were coincidentally related by a statistical fluke.
And then you have to determine how much you care about the specifics, for example with the relevant argument here
Black Genetics causes Lower test scores
White tests cause lower test scores by Blacks
corresponding two the first two options. Does it actually matter which one is true? If your goal is to show that Blacks are less intelligent and your bar for intelligence is your test then it doesn't. When there are possible confounding factors ("C") you do more studies to try tease them out, hence that transracial adoption study trying to figure out if it is environmental or hereditary as Blacks and lower test scores have already been studied to death.
Truth be told this would be really easy to ace and while it feels disgusting looking at it now, if I was a middle school student that didn't give 2 shits about wars I'd probably love """"creative""" questions like these because it's easy to bullshit
Plus this isn't as bad as the emoji Shakespeare that I saw in B&N the other day
I did find his analysis in collapse of the Rwandan genocide through a malthusian lens rather interesting. He noted that the conventional narrative chalked it up as Hutus lashing out in anger from years of mistreatment by their Tutsi masters, however this ignores the fact that nearly all of Rwandas pygmy population was also murdered during the violence when they have always been the bottom rung of every social ladder. That really this was all one big land grab under the guise of ethnic cleansing because the land was no longer able to support its population.
Not him, but both Aztec and Inca (as well as the cultures that became them) were very politically active locally ie they were often very busy subjugating and/or arguing with their neighbors. And as anon said before each culture didn't enjoy a lot of time as top dog, probably not at all long enough to look outside their borders.
It should be noted that cultural diffusion between North and South America did happen (or at very least North to South). Maize was invented in Mesoamerica and it made it's way south however many thousands of years ago.
I'm sure there are some.
I mean, these academics are doing a might poor job of educating people considering the polls I've seen on what Japs think about these events.
A large proportion (oddly enough the younger population) doesn't believe these events occurred to a large scale.
The idea behind "correlation does not equal causation" is that correlation by itself does not equal causation. Finding a common link among a number of case studies is nothing more than a correlation. There are many confounding factors, the biggest one being money (blacks generally live in poorer areas than whites). The only way you can actually prove genetics has a hand in this is by doing an experiment.
>Weren't the Aztecs already in a jungle?
Ok, well you clearly know very little about the location of the Aztec civilisation, the Triple Alliance, or the geography of the region in general. Which is fine, don't worry.
>It just seems odd that the tribes in between them or the 100 mile boat ride from Southern Panama to Acapulco stopped the two from at least interacting and realizing they could learn from each other.
Look, both the Aztec and Incan Empires lasted for about 100 years. Honestly, they were just sparks before the Spanish put them out. There was no time for them to properly spread and contact regions as far away as one another. The Inca didn't reach what is modern Panama ever, in fact they never got much further north of the Ecuador-Colombia border. The distance between Cusco and Tenochtitlan, the two capitals, was actually 4,717 km, which is almost as far as the distance between Tokyo and Dhaka, Bangladesh, and just over the length of Europe between Moscow and Lisbon. And that's the distance straight across the sea, rather than down the landbridge.
>But weren't these separate "arab" cultures connected to Bantu lands?
Literally only by slavery and slave outposts. Even European new imperialism was a more advanced form of cultural transmission than that, and in fact one of the reasons David Livingstone supported the Scramble for Africa - he thought the European powers wished to stamp out the Arab slave trade.
>Isn't the rift valley one of the most environmentally friendly places to form a civilization on the planet?
Not at all, it is the largest seismically active rift system on Earth today, along with 3 active volcanoes. It also houses one of the hottest places on Earth after Death Valley.
The dichotomy that "You either support the 300,000 death toll or you're denying genocide." has actually pushed some people who were closer to the large estimate father right, funnily enough. However, even the most hardcore nationalists actually involved in academia claim that it was only a small scale killing, rather than claiming that it was all a complete fabrication. It's the politicians who are really saying the stupidest bullshit.
And part of the issue is the textbooks. Again, while very few of them deny or omit it, because the actual scale of the massacre is the general topic of controversy in Japan, most of the educational books ambiguously state that bad things happened and people died without really going into detail into the extent. Academics don't really have a whole lot of control over educational policy, just like in the United States. It doesn't help that the teacher's union in Japan is often painted as Japan-hating lefitsts by some politicians. (It's the usual stuff that people complain about: not standing up for the anthem, being former communists when they were in university in the 1960s, etc.)
On the other hand, trusting any online poll on Nanking is like assuming that /pol/ is a good sample of the academic consensus on the holocaust. The internet is basically a circle jerk for revisionist viewpoints on history.
Humans moved out of the East African Rift pretty quickly. Also they moved out of most central savannah biomes pretty quickly too (save the Khoisan in the South), before the Bantu came back around from West-Central Africa and recolonised the regions.
When will faggots like this leave?
You know the fags that don't even want to participate in the threads and instead just complain?
My AP American history text book in highschool
Seriously it glossed over America post civil war
Barely went into the tidal shifts of America after WW1 and focused way too much on the suffragettes
Algonquin speaking natives had turkeys domesticated. Peru had llamas domesticated. It took less than a generation for the Plains Nations natives to master horsemanship and breeding. Hell, Soviet Russia domesticated foxes in 60 years.
It it really too much to ask that sub-Saharan African domesticated SOMETHING worthwhile?
And is your ultimate argument for Europeans being dominant that Africans had slightly meaner dogs than everyone else?
Want me to tell you how I know you don't lift?
Part of the Aztec conquest was in the south of Mexico, which was jungle.
They were just sparks, okay. But what about the sparks in the past. Why didn't they catch fire? Eastern America to Mexico is a rather hospitable west-east transit route. Why didn't civilization in the east transfer tech to Mexico? Why didn't tech transfer through the tribes separating the Inca and Aztecs like it did for India and China?
Comparing capitals is improper. The Aztec's borders and the Inca's borders weren't that far apart. Beijing and New Dehli are super far apart, but I wouldn't use that as the distance between the two cultures.
Zanzibar was an arab/indian/african trading post for about 1500 years. Not just slavery. Why didn't tech spread?
My overarching is why didn't tech spread. I think the geographic barriers are BS.
What I think the answer is, is that different regions have different chances of starting civilizations. Ten sparks in the Americas can't compare to a thousand in Eurasia.
Yet we all know that there weren't just ten sparks.
The rift valley is where humans began. It's the most densely populated part of Africa. A couple volcanoes and heat didn't stop Indonesians.
Do we need to do this?
>The idea behind "correlation does not equal causation" is that correlation by itself does not equal causation.
>You can drop any pretense of being intelligent when you parrot correlation does not equal causation. When anyone uses it as an argument they mean to say "I think that the data which is counter factual to my argument is a coincidence"
>Finding a common link among a number of case studies is nothing more than a correlation.
>Why? Well there are only a few options if two A and B are correlated. You have:
>A causes B.
>B causes A.
>C causes A and B.
>A and B were coincidentally related by a statistical fluke.
>There are many confounding factors, the biggest one being money (blacks generally live in poorer areas than whites)
>C causes A and B.
>When there are possible confounding factors ("C") you do more studies to try tease them out,
>the biggest one being money (blacks generally live in poorer areas than whites)
>hence that transracial adoption study trying to figure out if it is environmental or hereditary as Blacks and lower test scores have already been studied to death.
>The only way you can actually prove genetics has a hand in this is by doing an experiment.
This isn't addressed in the above, but proof is not something that comes from experiment, proof is derived from axiomatic systems, pretty much only math is getting proof.
It is a number of polls over the years and my interaction with Japanese at Waseda university.
Thanks for the explanation. It's similar to any nation where nasty history is white-washed.
Except in Europe and parts of the US where everything bad that white people did is made obvious 24/7. They don't even mention how everyone is equally bad morally. We are all sinners desu
The first quote is a refutation of the second one.
The second quote is both of us saying the same thing.
The third quote is an example of your quote
The fourth quote is just wrong
Math can use proofs because math is an ideal environment where everything is clear and there are no lurking variables. Axiomatic systems are for general logical statements, even if you can show that A leads to B and B leads to C, and therefore A leads to C, you also have to prove that A, B, and C exist, and that those links actually exist. That's where the experimentation comes in.
anything from history channel
focusing mainly on their show "Vikings' it's bad because they include 100% fictional characters such as Lagertha and other bullshit plot elements just for the sake of TV drama
>I don't think humans are just a bunch of creatures that if given different circumstances act based upon them.
well, you're wrong. Anything about humans tells you a story about just another animal, one with fancy stuff under the hoodm like abstraction, recursive thought and language, but even when ideologically driven, we construct our ideologies around our biological impulses and imperatives
Even culture is just a biological advantage to create and sustain social networks, and find mentally healthy friends and sexual mates
>kids not dissimilar to themselves had to live through WW1
kids back then would be dawn to dusk farm laborers and would be entirely different from the spoiled little shits in the classroom today.
i wish they would have at least tried to make it historically accurate instead of just angling for views
the show triggers my autism non-stop
>Lagertha becomes a village chief
>constantly walks around with 40-50 female "warriors" as her own personal bodyguard
>they show her village
>can probably sustain about 100-150 people at the most
>They had Lagertha deprive an entire village of their women just to make some political statement on how viking women are strong
>probably correlates with that shitty main stream media report that came out a few years back when they found viking *SETTLERS* in Newfoundland in equal numbers female and male and shitty online slackivists took this to mean viking raiding parties and armies were 50% male and 50% female
>meanwhile it never occurred to them that these were the wives and daughters of vikings that decided to settle in a place with decent soil for growing crops and raising cattle
The distance between the very southern part of the Aztec Empire (the exclave of ) and the northern part of the Inca Empire (Quito, which wasn't established until 30 years before the Empire ended) is still 2,308 km. And capitals are relevant, because the rulers in each capital do need to feasibly contact one another across something other than the Pacific Ocean if they want to build an alliance or establish trade agreements or whatever. There wasn't a huge trade network between the two empires because there weren't nearly as many trading cultures as there were between, say, China and Parthia and Rome.
And, yes, there was cultural transmission between the trading post of Zanzibar and the Swahili coast of what is modern Tanzania and Kenya. The impact of these traders and immigrants on the Swahili culture is uncertain. During the Middle Ages, Zanzibar and other settlements on the Swahili Coast were advanced. The littoral zone contained a number of autonomous trade cities. These towns grew in wealth as the Bantu Swahili people served as intermediaries and facilitators to local, Arab, Persian, Indonesian, Malaysian, Indian, and Chinese merchants. This interaction contributed in part to the evolution of the Swahili culture, which developed its own written language. Although a Bantu language, Swahili as a consequence today includes some elements that were borrowed from other civilizations, particularly Arabic loanwords. With the wealth that they had acquired through trade, some of the Arab traders also became rulers of the coastal cities.
The largest city Tanzania is even called Dar es Salaam, which is Arabic.
>The rift valley is where humans began.
Why is this relevant? That occurred stretches of geological time, tens of thousands of years before any kind of civilisation took hold anywhere. Migration had occurred massively in that time.
>It's the most densely populated part of Africa.
No, that's Nigeria. Anyway, there has been civilisation in the Ethiopian part of the Rift Valley, the Gregory Rift and the Afar Triangle, for thousands of years (Dʿmt, which eventually became the Aksumite Empire), and they have complex written languages in the region as well (Amharic).
>The first quote is a refutation of the second one.
No, it is referring to the fourth option of coincidence.
>The second quote is both of us saying the same thing.
But you don't seem to be grasping the implications of it or why saying "correlation does not equal causation" is sloppy and idiotic.
The fourth quote is not wrong, you have mistaken evidence for proof. If something is proven then it with certainty it is true, there is no probability otherwise. You can not prove with experiment, you can only disprove.
i remember having to read this in high school. Incredibly boring and i feel like i learned nothing. Its the only thing non history majors i have classes with have ever read regarding history and its funny how misinformed they are.
>year 10 history class
>for half a year was only educated on Aboriginal history
>specifically the Aboriginal history of our shitty country town
>because of bad experience with the class i dont pick it the year after
>now dont know shit about world history but boy oh boy can i tell you about the dreamtime
If I find anymore, I'll let you know.
>10th grade history class
>Teacher believes Japan was the most honorable and peaceful nation until the Western Powers showed up
The entirety of the Jomon Period?
Yes, it was extremely brittle, caused by the folding process. Not that there was really an alternative, the carbon content of the pig iron used would have made the blade too soft to hold an edge.
because they were just sidearms that were there for symbolic value
After the reign of Oda Nobunaga only the samurai were allowed to own swords. He called a sword hunt and had his troops actively scour the entire country confiscating swords from commoners.
No idea, probably because spears and really heavy metal studded wooden clubs did the job. Most nobles acknowledged that the katana was purely a dueling weapon and brought a large variety of weaponry to fight where armor might be involved.
Probably explains why the Oda did so well. Massed spears and matchlocks do the trick
>WAAH, WHY ARE WHITE PEOPLE SO MUCH BETTER AT EVERYTHING?
Ironically, this is /pol/-tier thinking, because it associates the success of white nations with their whiteness. If this is true that white people can destroy advanced nonwhite civilizations at the flick of a wrist and steal all their ideas, then clearly whites are the master race, albeit an immoral one.
I had to do that too.
Fuck, that put me in a depression.
>"letting Germans into the army was a terrible idea"
Also John Greene's 10 minute, distraction format is perfect for pushing an agenda as you can hand wave all the neglected, relevant information as being pruned because of time constraints.
IM ABOUT TO LOSE MY MIND THINK I'VE LOST IT ALREADY WAS IT EVEN THERE TO BEGIN WITH I HEAR THE SCREAMS AT NIGHT AT NIGHT EVEN WHEN I CLOSE MY EYES I CAN SEE THEIR FACES THE SCREAMING NEVER ENDS IT NEVER ENDS IT NEVER ENDS IT NEVER
>in public speaking class
>professor talks about a book he recently read
>says the book talks about how much better the Native Americans were compared to Europeans
I don't know if he's retarded or if the author is on this point.
Yes I know Tenochtitlan was bigger than any European city and the Incans had performed successful brain surgery and perfectly stacked rocks to build shelters but don't try telling me they were smarter than the people who could build trans Atlantic boats and invented calculus.(Yeah I know Isaac Newton did it but he was a European)
I student taught for a high school teacher that assigned that to their students. The main idea was to get students in a mindset of what the average soldier had to go through, what they missed back home, etc.
For shits and giggles, I re-arranged and flipped the desks and chairs to symbolize the barbed wire and have no-mans-land in the middle while they were writing their letters from their "trenches" while lights were dimmed, had some war sound effects going while they were doing the assignments. The classes had fun for the most part.
I had a couple of goofballs who made paper balls and hurled them like they were grenades over no-man's-land. Now I think about it, that was hilarious.
I had to do the same thing, as a British soldier in Belgium. It was a decent enough letter, my teacher made me read it in front of the class. Looking back, it was really shitty 9th grade shit writing.
In retrospect, I think it would have been fun to do it from the perspective of Hitler (leaving his name absent until the end of the letter), and just seeing what reactions I could get from it. Also, I would probably have gotten into trouble with the school for something-something Nazi propaganda.
The only AP history teacher I had was for US History. Literally a jewish dude straight out of Berkley, had reddit and some jewish forum right next to each other on his bookmark bar, would have given /pol/ a heart attack.
Pretty based guy though desu, although awkward given his first year on the job. A shame the AP US History curriculum is so biased to social progressive movements. I don't trust those Republicans in Oklahoma to solve it, but you know a course is biased when you learn more about treatment of Japanese Americans in WWII than the actual war.
There is evidence of trade between Mesoamerica and Northernmost South America, and that metalworking started in South America and was brought north via trade.
However, the level of trade was minor compared to the level of trade in Eurasia.
It's basically just an argument into a vacuum, sort of like Malcolm Gladwell's stuff. It's easy to look at some disparate elements in the modern world, or history, tie them together, and sell them as determining factors in some event. That book says, e.g., there were no domesticatable animals in Africa, but people have trained elephants and so forth in a lot of places. What we know is that *not many animals were domesticated in Africa*, but that's an entirely less informative truth than the book needs to support its hypothesis. A long series of these kinds of arguments, that happen to agree with the blank-slate narrative favored by most political, educational, and media institutions in the West, have made it a very popular book.
Women weren't "allowed" to serve on disease ridden ships or die early from some other godforsaken condition because they are the only ones able to make more people. Cultures that put women at the same risk of death as men probably were outcompeted by those that didn't. And that's all morally acceptable, desu senpai. This "sorry we didn't 'let' women be coalminers shit is retarded."
They're the ones who give birth (which takes 9 months, where as all the man had to do is have sex with them), not to mention mostly responsible for childcare.
I'm pretty sure no one would want pregnant women on a warship, nor would that be a good child raising environment
You were BTFO 2 comments ago
Dude, get over it, black people are a little dumber. Highest SES blacks score the same as lowest SES whites. You can't experiment on people. Correlation can actually prove causation given a preponderance of evidence and other variables. Just shut the fuck up.
Judging people on race is dumb. But black people on average are somewhat dumber on IQ tests. There are lots of things they are better at. They are simply differently adapted