Now we have a board, can we improve the resources document, add resources to any historical topics such as books, videos or podcasts. Hopefully we can catalogue a lot of resources so it could be stickied.
>mentioning Scholagladiatora and Neosonic in the videos section for weapons
am liking this so far. you can mine a lot of informative videos from their respective recommended sections, by the way.
crash course is pretty shit and most of us acknowledge that. you might as well read Wikipedia articles, they're more concise and often less biased than pic related.
I'm not joking, Green is not a historian and has never been educated as such, this is where he gets his information from as well.
It pisses me off people consider him a legitimate source and show his videos in schools. He's a fucking author of preteen novels, not a historian, yet people actually trust what this guy says as fact.
Don't you think Crash Course World History is decent in terms of giving a brief introduction or giving a "crash course" of a historical topic?
What I'm trying to ask is: Why does everyone hate him and can you describe some examples?
There might be a little merit to showing his videos in primary school, as they do offer a summation of Wikipedia in both video and audio, and that can be valuable to children that can't be bothered to read up on anything themselves.
But that's where his knowledge ends, and it's indeed somewhat depressing that teenagers and young adults consider him to be an authority on anything beyond YA literature.
Anyway, while we're waiting for the influx of new threads to die down we might as well dump some informative videos.
Scholagladiatoria discusses modern (police) tactics versus people wielding close range weapons (in this case a Machete)
I'm not sure if it's better to organise by eras or regions.
Some books may talk about the history of a people over multiple eras, or two countries may be so far apart that it doesn't really make sense that they're grouped together. If you're looking for books on the history of China for example, you'd want to go to a China page, not look at the 1000 BC page, then the 500 BC page, then the 0 AD page, etc.
But then again, especially with modern globalization, it doesn't make sense to split off regions, and some resources may cover multiple regions in the same time period.
First by region, then by era. In my opinion. Some regions will of course have more history (europe, middle east) but that's to be expected.
Filtering by era causes a clusterfuck in my opinion and it's the cause of a lot of misconceptions as some regions are considered to be more important within a specific time frame (thus we get shit like ''the dark ages''. which is not only is unfair to describe post roman Europe with, but also considers the rest of the world to be irrelevant).
Perhaps, but if you aim to be a general source on the entirety of history that'd mean there would be a lot of topics.
I'm not saying it's a bad idea, but formatting under regions and then time frames -> specific countries might make it easier for people that are interested in just one region to find their shit, as opposed to, for example, a general overarching theme of colonisation which pretty much affected the entirety of the world in various ways.
We should have a section for "revisionist" or alternative views of history and label it such. The Civil War and reasons for it, the notion the Lincoln was a dictator and such things that wouldn't be touched upon by other sources but could prove fruitful.
It might invite in /pol/ holocaust deniers or afrocentrist crazies. This could be interesting though, I think if there was a section then each resource should be accompanied by some link debunking it/arguing against it.
They need to be able to voice their views and supporting evidence you leftist middle-ground fallacy using kek
Just make a section for non-mainstream views or controversial or whatever and let them post shit with accompanying supporting evidence.
Why not go to a mental clinic and make a paragraph for each patient's opinion? You don't want to silence them, do you?
>everything else gets dragged into that section
Only if ur a newfag who happily eats shitb8 for breakfast. What kind of rhetorician would let the opponent dictate the narrative to the point that censure is called for? The living side of history is pure argumentation.
You cannot with reason denounce contradictory views and opinions as not worthy of expression, they should have a section for conveying their views under it, of course with mandatory accompanying evidence to support whatever it is they're stating.
Just say it that you want holocaust denial to be included, why do you have to let [word censored according to global rule 3] have their corner?
I did say that, alternative views of history should be included under the appropriate section. That includes any alternative views of Rome or whatever. Especially considering how popular some of these views are that they should be permitted in the appropriate section.
I think it might be good to have some language learning resources, but only for dead languages like Latin or Sanskrit.
Not him but I honestly think it might be interesting to see weird stuff like holocaust denial and Afrocentric stuff. You might have to argue against this stuff on /his/ so it might be good to be aware of pervasive myths.
I'll get all my old uni books out and find links for them, they're mostly to do with
I didn't read much of them but they were given to me at the start of courses, so I'd imagine they're fairly easygoing and introductory texts.
Also, I've added a section for historiography. If nobody's interested in it then feel free to get rid, but I thought it might be something useful (at least for reference) since that shit's actually super important for history.
I still feel exhausted from my dissertation last year but I remember a lot of the material really well and I find the stuff quite interesting, but I might just be trying to take out sadistic pleasure in recommending people read about modernist and postmodernist discourse.