>>26020 >video on Alexander the great >spends half of it talking about how women don't get the title "the great" while ignoring the women that had the title "the great" he has an issue of putting information not relevant to the topic in his videos
It's okay for it's target audience. He has his biases obviously, but so does everyone. Not exactly a serious history course, but then that's obvious and obviously not what it intends to be in the first place.
>>26020 He skims over important stuff that disagrees with the narrative he wants to feed you by spewing information at you so quick you can only digest it all whole with no processing or tune out. He doesn't get you to think or interpret history, he just throws a pile of minor facts at you with his stupid opinions on top. He doesn't judge people and events as products of their time and complains about ancient greeks not acting in accordance with contemporary feminist values. He's beyond worthless. He's actively harming the minds of people he take in what he says.
>>26408 I remember my history book having "Jews" excavated from mass graves in german uniforms. At the time, I explained it away as them probably being naked, and them wanting to bury them in something.
>>26385 No, he just writes the formulation. Basically just the "jokes". The actual information is supplied by his old history teacher who, as you would know if you watched more than one video, shows staggering comprehension in the subject.
This shit flew on /int/ and /pol/, but now that there's a /his/ I fully expect all of you to learn as much about history as possible. I demand that you either watch history 201 or never, ever comment about this again.
>>26445 >If you don't subscribe to my interpretation of history, you're a doodyface, and not allowed on MY board.
I can smell your unwarrented self importance through the internet. Your neighbors must have lost their sense of taste and smell years ago.
>No, he just writes the formulation. Basically just the "jokes". If this is true, I'd like to hear it from a source saying so. If not, I would like to know exactly where you got the idea, and I'll judge for myself.
>>26651 I'm not going to mine his channel just to find a particular line. can you point me to a specific video, or even the general nature of the title of the video where he says that he does directing while his teacher does the writing?
>>26589 On Youtube? Historia Civilis is pretty good, particular RE: Roman battles. One gets the impression that's his area of particular expertise. I also like Gresham College and someone mentioned Yale. A lot of universities have lecture series' uploaded onto Youtube.
As for Crash Course, it's not really history - just sort of pop history repackaged for light entertainment purposes. The format makes that clear enough. I doubt it's misleading anyone whose opinion carries significant intellectual weight anyway.
>>26020 It's pretty good to be honest, I'd really recommend it as an introductory to a broad range of topics. Oh sorry, I forgot what website I was on. >Filthy liberal kike his cultural Marxist agenda FUCKING TRIGGERS ME he mentioned that COLONIALISM WAS BAD WHAT A FUCKING KIKE
I think Blueprint for Armageddon started great, but I was kinda disappointed for the ending, it was so sudden, and never discussed the peace and just what that meant for the german military and people, and how it set the stage for WW2.
>>26885 >Responding to my sarcastic post about how /pol/ gets triggered by negative mentions of colonialism by getting all triggered about my negative mention of colonialism I don't even know who's trolling who anymore
>>26356 Everyone from every English speaking country already knows a good amount of history that's important to english speaking people. It's good to have a little from everywhere, even if he lent a little bit too left on the reasoning. History from anywhere is interesting.
Really the only thing that pissed me off about it was that he flat out said he would not talk about the Napoleonic Wars, even in places it probably would have made sense to talk about the Napoleonic Wars.
>>27215 >Really the only thing that pissed me off about it was that he flat out said he would not talk about the Napoleonic Wars, even in places it probably would have made sense to talk about the Napoleonic Wars.
Why is that? That seems like an odd topic to refuse to talk about
>>27215 >Everyone from every English speaking country already knows a good amount of history that's important to english speaking people. No, they don't. The Middle Ages for example are barely even covered in detail.
>>26020 >Fair and balanced view of world history World history is dreck. About the closest you can come to actual historiography is long duration history ala annales or the attempt to produce a Marxist social science by Wallerstein in his world-systems theory. I'd suggest you start with the annales, the attempt to produce a history of the Mediterranean is the best work IMNSHO.
>>31830 He himself is far-left, but Crash Course, being written by his high school teacher, is just your standard historical revisionism.
>The renaissance wasn't really all that great, you guys >The Eastern Islamic states were actually highly civilized in comparison to the Europeans >Mongols were horrible rapist killers, but they're the exception
That kind of thing.
>>31872 Not totally, but he does say that he shoots for a more fair view of world history, but that's still disingenuous because it's actually fairly anti-european.
>>31952 The problem is that actual left movements have managed to produce very readable "popular" histories. Who cares what he thinks when his work (besides being juvenile popularisation) is an appalling sham as far as the education of the working class is concerned.
From the standpoint of pedagogy he is stuck in the 1950s.
>>31952 >He himself is far-left, but Crash Course, being written by his high school teacher, is just your standard historical revisionism. Sure, but what do you want me to feel about that? I mean, revisionism like that exists because the Western historical canon had centuries of claiming the opposite of your greentexts. I'm studying a degree in history right now and the sort of stuff covered in the videos is a very basic coverage of the kind of stuff you might find in a classroom; however if you're under the impression evil commie jews have infested academia with 'anti-European' ideas then that's not really a persuasive point. Your summation of his point about the Mongols also fails to address that the point of the video was that the Mongols have a very ambiguous legacy, and it's not an idea that he came up with; Mongol Empire historiography has pretty radically changed in the last few decades. And again, I'd like to point out, he's actually pretty moderate in his conclusions.
Ignoring the anti-european bias present in his videos, they are passable entry level knowledge on some subjects. They present the events in an easy, understandable way without focusing too much on the details. Only useful for middle school or primary school history classes.
However, as I said earlier, his videos are way too biased, which is why they shouldn't be shown in schools.
>>26320 probably one of the few right things he has said
>>32533 Sure, and I agree with you - I think it's much more intellectually honest to wear your bias on your sleeve, but I feel like this 'fair and balanced claim' isn't something Green throws out a lot. There's that one episode where he quite blatantly uses an anarchist historian as the premise of the episode.
>>33001 Also just on this specific point, I guess it's sad that people had to die and whatever, but considering most of those people were aristo slavers and the Haitian Revolution signalled a significant act of black agency and liberation I'm not gonna lose sleep over it. Obviously any death is a tragedy and violence is bad etc. etc. etc. but slavery was an inherently violent system, so looking down on its victims for using violence is I think a bit two-faced.
>>33455 Yeah, I take your point, however I think you're full of shit. This idea of saying that all violence is equally bad in practice only serves to condone the everyday violence of systems like slavery or, dare I say, capitalism. Yeah, it's bad that white people died, but I still think the Haitian Revolution was basically a good thing. The Terror was bad too, but the French Revolution was, in my opinion, basically a good thing for creating modernity.
People (kind of justifiably) hate him because of his shamelessly liberal/leftists/whatever young folks call it these days opinions which he mercilessly try force down the viewer's throat, but if you're not a gullible idiot or an easily offended conservative extremist it's a pretty decent series.
The thing about everyday violence in real life, outside of the discourse of radical historians, is that you are so focused on trying to survive that you don't have time to rebel. There was no rebellion against Soviet collectivization, just kulaks getting themselves slaughtered, dying of famine or and sent to gulags, because THAT'S everyday violence.
Having to work to make a living is not "everyday violence" and it doesn't justify your dreams of killing all white people.
>>33671 >I still think the Haitian Revolution was basically a good thing What good came out of the Haitian Revolution? It was literally just a bunch of black slaves getting buttmad and acting savage. They accomplished nothing, apart from killing a couple of French slimes, most of which weren't even involved in the slavery thing.
>>33671 Haitian revolution was slaves earning independence in a very dumb way that ruined their country's perspective of developing for centuries. I'm not going to argue on the righteousness of killing those who enslaved you, but it was dumb revolution from a practical point of view even if you overlook the morality of the killing for freedom point. It's definitely not an event to be admired. It's more like the kind of event where you look and think "holy shit, what a fucking mess", literally nothing good came out of this.
>>31461 Well, he makes history more interesting. Some might question his methods and call him a tumblrist, but it's better than nothing. >>34189 This. The lack of eurocentrism is kind of refreshing. I don't want to learn about my country all the time.
Acceptable for a gist introduction for someone who doesn't give a shit but never to be taken at face value. Regrettably, the people who this appeals to are exactly the people who will take it uncritically at face value.
>>34205 What are you talking about, the greatest famines ot the XXth century happened in communist countries, even in Africa, which people associate with capitalism, the worst famine happened in Ethiopia under the Marxist-Leninist Derg.
Really, if mods are going to ban racism, they should ban communism too, considering how the latter killed even more people.
>>34242 I'm not blaming them. I'm saying that given the situation they could have handled it much better, like most slaves in most other colonies did. As things were, anybody could have foreseen the consequences of a complete blood driven rupture with the oppression system. I'm not saying the cause wasn't just, I'm saying they had a shitty plan.
>>26043 >Constantly tries to push a far-left agenda It seems like he just enjoys saying things that are sort of controversial, like how he says historically Theocracy has worked better than Democracy, which is a far right position if there ever was one.
>>26020 Tends to steer away from the actual POINT or main issues in a historical time. Yes, we get it, you studied all those obscure little things and think you are a progressive teacher, but holy fucking shit can I please watch history videos and not have political assumptions raised everywhere.
>>31374 I fucking hate this shit. If you want to do a video on the Islamic Golden age then then go ahead, but don't give your video a misleading title to try to look subversive and clever. It would be like doing a video called "The Three Kingdoms Period" then spending the whole video talking about how there were Kingdoms outside of china
>>39617 The natives were doing nothing productive with their land. Advanced civilizations conquering weak ones is nothing new, but millennials can't get over their white guilt over this specific group for whatever reason.
>>39787 Probably because it's not "a specific group of people" but around 50% of the entire Mongoloid race. There's a huge difference between Carribean natives, Canadian natives, Central American natives, South American natives, etc. I don't think modern people should be blamed for a tragedy centuries ago, but don't act like it wasn't a bad thing.
>>40085 >They We went over this. There's thousands of tribes, and the colonists tended to group them together. They aren't all gonna agree to surrender because even if they could achieve that organization, they aren't able to communicate messages from Central America to Northern Canada in any useful speed. In addition, some large tribes did surrender. They got reduced to minimal numbers like the rest of the tribes.
It's not feelings either. The europeans did not need to kill that many natives to civilize the region. Unnecessary violence is never a good thing.
Thread replies: 146 Thread images: 17
Thread DB ID: 68955
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the content originated from them. If you need IP information for a Poster - you need to contact them. This website shows only archived content.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content you can contact me at firstname.lastname@example.org with that post and thread number and it will be removed as soon as possible.