Your thoughts on this?
>ITT: American historian being butthurt about Eurocentrism through history.
HEY ME FROM THE PAST YOU ARE A FAG AND IM A FAG LOL LETS CHECK OUT THE MYSTERY BOX. ITS A DILDO BETTER SHOVE IT UP MY ASS>
ALSO HERE IS MY EXTREMELY LIBERAL VIEW OF HISTORY. DAE THINK MUSLIMS ARE GREAT AND HAITIANS ARE GREAT AND AMERICANS ARE EVIL?
Check out these slaves.
cuck faggot. People lived until 60 or more in the middle ages, lived good lives and protip: History is eurocentric because europe wrote all the books and important writing down. Fuck john green the fucking faggot cuck faggot. He thinks he knows anything about the middle ages.
These supposed 'academics' are their blissfully unaware nature is the running joke.
They speak European language, bask in the comforts of European progress, and then harp on about how European history is too European, and this somehow makes them progressive.
Again, they are the joke, and them not knowing is the punchline
SJWs hate everything Western.
I don't understand what the problem is though - the "Dark Ages" are only ever mentioned in the context of Western European history.
Complaining about how the "Dark Ages" don't take into account the Umayyad Caliphate is as silly as bitching that the "Song Dynasty" is Sinocentric BECAUSE WHAT ABOUT THE HOUSE OF ANGEVIN IN ENGLAND SHITLORD?
The reason that the average life expectancy is like 30 is because of infant mortality. It was common for children to die and for people to live long. Fucking idiots take this and run with it and think "o wow ppl livd until 30 and dropped dead in middle ages good thing I live now"
>walking down the street to go to work
>going to the beach
>swimming at the public pool
Wow, it's like a White community in the US only with lots of swastikas!
The only difference is that it's curtains if you disagree with the all mighty leader.
>I believe in a one party state that kills any and all opposition
Contrary to popular belief Fascism and Communism are quite similar. Benito Mussolini's father, who he got most of his political ideas from, was a Marxist after all.
No. Because he subconsciously wants a woman that makes him feel special, and knows very well it matters how much dick / pussy a partner has got, but at the same time he wants to take the le feminist gentleman position.
This results in a false equivalence that he very will knows is bullshit, but chooses to believe because pussy.
Yeah that is the fucking worst. He is like i'm gonna name my video "dark ages" and then switch of subject at the 10 minute mark to show that european had it worst than the rest of the world. I'm an activist
I mean that bastard barely touched the subject
> they are dark ages
> but not really people grew old
Yeah cool. How about they fucking kept alive the heritage of the roman and the greek.
> they had no sewage
Of course they weren't organize in big city but they were still very clean. Its the degenerate renaissance who brought up dirty people. Torture as well. Torture was rarely if not never practiced during the medieval time
Yeah but i always heard it from american about american history. When i was in school we just studied western history from antiquity to the cold war
We just talked about the golden arab age during one semester in one year i think to please the lefties
I read three of his books. I like the way he writes, granted, he writes books that aim to be bought by teenaged girls, but besides that, he's a good author.
Moving from there, I can say that I more or less like the guy. When I first saw this channel, I was intrigued. I like history, I like John Green, what can go wrong?
Well, the subjects he chooses are interesting. The stuff he says are intelligent.
The way he makes the videos though? I think they are a bit cringeworthy. Seriously, would have been much better without all the try-hard stuff that's amusing only for five year olds.
If I should comment on THIS video specifically, I think its a well thought out and well presented argument but I cant say I agree.
>Yeah that is the fucking worst. He is like i'm gonna name my video "dark ages" and then switch of subject at the 10 minute mark to show that european had it worst than the rest of the world.
That is the point. It is called the Dark Ages for the reasons that Europe had it worst, but few people care to consider beyond the fact that other places in the world were experiencing immense growth. We forget about this period in history because Europe did nothing, and the guy is enlightening people that "Dark Ages" is only the European perspective.
The guy is still blatantly a fag ("hurr hurr Eurocentricism"), but he is, as an educator, addressing the concern that history is too eurocentric in a time when globalization is standard.
John Green and his fans are the most unbearable people to exist. His fans think he's a modern-day Dostoyevsky and if that shitstain were being honest he'd probably agree with them. I hope he gets shot, and if I ever get famous enough to meet him I swear on my life I'm going to punch him in the face.
Oh, and yes, I hate the "So when a man has sex he's cool but when a woman does she's a whore?" cliche as much as you do. Retarded bitches keep whining about what people think of them.
However, I honestly wouldnt like to settle down before I at least tasted more than three chicks. AT LEAST. Why should it be different for women?
I mean, of course, a woman who has had 48 dicks in her is just awful, but thats an exaggeration. A one digit number is probably acceptable though. In my opinion anyways.
You know, in Turkey we have this poet/author who is wildly popular amongst the pseudo-intellectuals and the teenaged girls, Cemal Süreyya. He died in 1990 so he isnt really SJW, but he has this one line that everyone keep quoting and its so annoying. I'll translate it for you. But before that theres something you need to know to understand. In Turkey, if you're a man and you lose your virginity, you become "milli" (Literally "national". I dont know why we use that term.) So becoming "milli" is losing your virginity. Keep that in mind. And also, we have two gender specific words for virgin so this makes more sense in Turkish.
So the quote goes "A virgin and a virgin had sex. They called the man "milli", and the woman a whore."
I mean yeah, in Turkish it rhymes and shit but come the fuck on. I keep seeing that EVERYWHERE, and as far as I know it's not even certain that Cemal Süreyya actually wrote that somewhere. Its probably a false credit to him, but everyone is deifying him and posting that quote everywhere, I just want to strangle Turkish litterature from the twentieth century onwards.
>do you really think it matters if other people are sleeping with your wife?
>no! and it particularly bothers me that large black men aren't allowed to sleep with other people's wives
>if I were to eat Cheerios for breakfast, would it matter if 48 muscular negroids ejaculated into that cereal box earlier?
>well screw you! I can't enjoy that whole grain crunch unless it's saturated with another man's cum
Would you drink a can of Goca™ Gola™ is someone has already opened it and put their dick in it?
Tumblrinas who think John Green is so CAYOOT~!
>dark ages were equal to the egyptians in terms of "scientific advancement"
>The period saw a continuation of trends begun during late classical antiquity, including population decline, especially in urban centres, a decline of trade, and increased immigration. The period has been labelled the "Dark Ages", a characterization highlighting the relative scarcity of literary and cultural output from this time, especially in Northwestern Europe. However, the Eastern Roman Empire, or Byzantine Empire, continued to survive, and in the 7th century the Islamic caliphates conquered swaths of formerly Roman territory.
>Interwebs historian complains that the European Dark Ages shouldnt be called the European Dark Ages
Sure is a good thing that historians dont call that period the Dark Ages, then. This is contrived controversy over fake Eurocentrism. The term "dark ages" only comes up in much older texts, and even then only in reference to the decentralized former western Roman empire. Everybody knows that the Islamic Golden Age was great.
>the dark ages weren't that bad until the plague came in the 14th century
and this guy calls himself a historian
John Green has an interesting presentation personality.
You can tell he's definitely a bit of a faggot high on his own success IRL though.
>Pretexting his World History videos with the fact his movie adaptation of his children's novel is coming out soon
>Cookie cutter history lessons that don't offer a balanced perspective. e.g. Hitler is bad.
>His brother is honestly more of an intolerable faggot than he is.
>Every vlog is pretty much detailing how busy his life is.
>Still has time to make vlogs pampering his own ego on a regular basis.
I regret even wasting minutes on this person's vlog channel. Beyond his ego and a few minor things, the Crash Course stuff is actually fairly entertaining.
>Muslim philosophers translated the Greek works.
Nope, Syrian Christians did that for them. And the Muslims weren't at all interested in much of it apart from the bits and pieces they could use.
Also he completely glosses over Feudalism like it was nothing. It is hard to call Medieval Kings "monarchs" (to rule as one) because vassalage does not have the same connotations then as what it does now. The relationship between lords and their vassals was not at all one sided. It was a relationship to work between them and this would grow into the more modern day concepts of liberty we have today. True, only around 20% of the population could be considered as political actors (from lords, knights and clergy) but often they would require support to do certain things. Lords couldn't always arbitarily dismiss someone without the support of a great number of vassals. We have LOTS of evidence of the agreements between Lords and their vassals.
He also loves to keep saying EUROPE SUCKS, let's MOVE ON FROM EUROPE. Why doesn't he mention the thousands of people that were enslaved by Islam? Also: why do we learn about Europe? Context to us and our civilisation. He could easily talk about the rest of the world without having to resort to EUROPE STINKS.
He glosses over things talking about religious superstitions etc and does the very modern thing of completely dismissing Medieval advances in a number of fields (the Renaissance happened for a reason and didn't magically come out of a vacuum, things are built and exist on top of each other).
This is all very basic stuff and proves they know little about what they are talking about.
Is there any proof that Christianity caused that, though?
If you look closely, the Roman Empire was already collapsing (see the Crisis of the 3d Century) and Greek science was already declining (pic related) even before Christianity became a thing. It's notorious that the one country that "escaped" the Dark Ages was Ireland, which was never part of the Roman Empire so their first contact with civilization was through Christianity. During the period of the early Middle Ages, Irish monks contributed to save Greco-Roman civilization.
Yes it's a cycle that repeats itself. The Roman Empire and Islamic Caliphates went through the same degeneracy that the US is going through.
You're probably thinking about the Cathedral of Duomo in Milan, which was begun in the 1300s and officially completed in the 1960s. Pic related is Notre Dame Cathedral, which took about 200 years.
The term Dark Ages refers to a few points in historiography. What you need to understand is historians and commentators CHANGE HOW WE PERCEIVE history.A minor example to generalise: Whig historians of 19th century Britain saw history as progressive, as things becoming better why? They lived in a time when Britain was dominant so looked back WITH THIS narrative. Where as historians around the First World War had a much darker view on how things were progressing. Present effects the time.
What is the historiography of the Dark Ages? Why is it "Dark"? Firstly Petrarch's dislike of Late Antiquity because of his times love of Classic Antiquity (much of it being well preserved by Monks etc).
Secondly the lack of substantial written evidence. We can see how our picture of say Anglo-Saxon England looks dark because of relatively few sources (e.g. Historia ecclesiastica gentis Anglorum by Saint Bede).
But more modern connotations have declared it as being Dark because of society becoming seemingly backward. Was it truly backward?
Most of our views are dominated by Enlightement thinkers who look back on the period as being a perceived time of backwardness. How historians view the past has an intrinsic effect on what we see.
Ultimately we can see a cycle here where new civilisations took over from older ones. Trade routes to the east and a number of things took time to be effected (there are Frankish records showing the importation of things like Papyrus even after Islamic conquests).
> Enjoy eating Lucky Charms
> Eat two bowls of Lucky Charms every morning, another in the evening, maybe one more before bed
> Do this for most of my teens and 20's
> Suddenly the diabeetus
> Doctor's orders, no more sugary cereals, body is not what it used to be anymore
> Sadly watch younger people eating Lucky Charms while I eat generic sugar-free bran flakes
> Generic sugar-free bran-flakes manufacturer asks why I only eat one bowl at a time, and only once a week, and skip breakfast so often
> "Don't you love breakfast cereal Anon?"
> Insist "Of course I love breakfast cereal!"
> Generic sugar-free bran flakes manufacturer is convinced. "I'm glad, anon. You know, you don't need breakfast every day, because you can have our breakfast every day for the rest of your life."
> Generic sugar-free bran flakes manufacturer must never discover my inner sadness at lost Lucky Charms
I never denied an Islamic Golden Age.Learn to read. All I said was: the majority of Greek works were translated by Syrian Christians. This does not mean I deny all the Islamic advances.
Seriously, what the fuck man? Don't strawman me.
Please, what grand and massive contributions did Muslim philosophers grant to society? I don't recall the Mohammadeans doing much of anything spectacular. They helped, more than most, sure, but so did many others.
And denying the significance of an age != taking credit for something you didn't do
European history is alright, but most schools focus on Western European history and English history to an even greater extent.
There is so much crazy and interesting stuff that went on elsewhere, particularly China, India, Central/South America, Rus, etc that is ignored or glossed over.
Even the stuff we do get is western European-centric. For instance when we learn about Central/South America we learn about how the evul white man killed all the innocent tree hugging Aztecs and Maya. We don't learn about them sacrificing babies and rolling people's heads down the pyramids and slaughtering each other in wars. Might give a little context to the liberals that hate white people so much.
Google is our friend. People have a crude understandng of history.Was it Dark?
>Imperially funded education at Constantinople and in other eastern cities like Alexandria happened until conquests. The Empire rebuilt this in the 860s in a period of recovery.
I recommend reading the Byzantine history work by John Julius Norwich.
>The Christian workers in Latin Christendom and the East continued to write down works.
See things like Irish Monks (and many Western Monks) or the Nestorian schools in the east.
In fact the Nestroian Scholars at Baghad speaking Syriac and Arabic translated the works of the Greeks.
If you look at developments in the around 1000 there is high growths in productivity. (Generalised history sees mass peaks and troughs and not the nuances - e.g. look at how many economic recessions there has been and how many you just know about off the top of your head.)
lol they were ruled by a megalomaniac
A "Dark age" technically means an age where written records were lost, hence we dont know what hapoened, it becomes "dark" to us.
While language changes, this is ultimately a valid arguement for prescriptivist language. People using the term "dark age" to mean a lack of scientific advancement are clouding our understanding of history. It is an ignorant statement to make, regardless of linguistic relativist arguememts.
For over a hundred years historians have been saying that the "dark ages" did not exist, because we have written records of the English kingdoms, viking sagas, franks, angles and Saxons, etc. Visigoth Spain is provably the one true european dark age during this time because Islamic invaders destroyed their written records.
You can see how the "dark age" argument advanced over time. First by the catholic church themselves, insisting that their monks studiously retained the classics while secular leaders ran illiterate, the Greeks bringing their knowledge to the west after the destruction of Constantinople, the protestants blaming the church for hiding these works from the public, the enlightenment blaming all religions for encouraging dogmas over scientific pursuit, a brief period of rationality up until ww2 followed by the latest round of pseudo historians like John Greene in their hatred for all things white people now proclaiming the Muslims responsible for bringing knowledge back to Europe.
They are wrong just like all the others were wrong before them for the simple fact that European dark ages didn't exist. It scares that this video got 2 million views.
>European history is alright, but most schools focus on Western European history and English history to an even greater extent.
The West has the most rounded history of any region. Asian schools study asian history to such an extent they think Hitler was a cool guy with cool uniforms and are amazed when somebody tells them about all the people killed. More books are translated into Finnish in a single year than all the books translated into Arabic in the last century.
>one party system
>one leader system
>secret police, (NKVD/Gestapo/SD)
>all dissidents immediately killed
In both ways Hitler's German and Stalin's Russia are almost on a par with each other.
cute buzzwords huehue but the collaborationaist kulak scum was liquidated... liquidated class enemies don't get to go to "le gulagz"
As you can see, my colleagues have been very clear to you that there are debts that need to be paid.
To avoid beating a dead horse here, let me offer you a scenario:
1. Greece doesn't pay debt, and the EU plummets into chaos and mass rape.
2. Greece pays debt and I don't have to break your fucking legs.
3. Greece doesn't pay debt and you get to crawl to a hospital to pay for a wheelchair you can't afford.
The choice is yours. It really didn't have to come to this, if you had just paid debts
I think you both like using the term Eurocentric, but I don't think you actually know what that means.
Eurocentric basically implies that the whole of history is focused on Europe. As in, anything that is anything going on, is in Europe. When Europe is in the dark ages, the whole world is in the dark ages. When something critical happens in a time period, its always in Europe or happening by Europeans. Its coined for how world history tends to be taught from a solely European perspective.
Is it a important piece? Yes, but its not the only one either. Europe isn't the center of the universe and neither should we bow to the whiny people who question us actually wanting to teach/learn of other peoples than Europeans.
That's probably his most infuriating video. The entire thing is slobbering over how great and progressive Islam was and how backwards Europe was while ignoring the Carolingian Renaissance as well as ignoring that aside from Baghdad and al-Andalus (which were only as great as they were due to being "crossroads" type areas; Pope Sylvester II brought the abacus back to Europe from his time in al-Andalus) the muslim world was constantly in civil war due to factional fighting, that the Abassids only had real power for maybe a century or so, etc. and that the Dark Ages were also probably the height of the Byzantine Empire's power as it was able to consolidate itself and emerge stronger than it'd ever been under the Isaurians and Macedonians.
And during this time of Byzantine and Carolingian greatness, the Abbasids, founded in 750, had pretty much already started fracturing by the end of the 8th century and by the end of the 9th they basically controlled Baghdad/Mesopotamia and nowhere else.
I am posting on /pol/ on behalf of the EU Greek Surveillance Authority.
As you know, your country has outstanding debts that need to be paid.
The EU, with the help of its many beneficiaries, is proud to take new measures to remind and encourage Greeks to restore faith and security in the Euro.
>I hate europe (despite the fact that I'm clearly of european descent and speak a european language)
>dark ages are eurocentric.
the term was made by europeans.
>Now lets talk about how great the arabs are
>arabs are the best
>arabs are the best
>arabs are the best
I got to about 7:00
I agree with you and I'd like to voice my agreement, but according to reddit-tier newfags I have tp just keep my mouth shut and regurgitate a tired old meme about your flag that every other reply by reddit-tier newfags are also repeating, so the reddit-tier newfags can affirm me and I can feel accepted in this anonymous Siberian sewing imageboard. Of course there is no possibility in reality that you are speaking for your entire country or will somehow resolve its debt crisis entirely just because some semi-anonymous poster on 4chan told you to "pay denbts", but they keep repeating it anyway, even though they know it's useless, because they like to feel important and pretend they're doing important things. Pretty pathetic, wouldn't you say?
See this is why we shouldn't focus on eurocentric history teaching. This graph is such bullshit and debunked and focuses mostly on the European area, ignoring the much better situations in China and the Middle East.
>Slave empire and human sacrifices
>Which can be argued to be what many European empires were.
>Yet somehow one is better than the other.
Crash Course World History is actually a pretty good way to get a basic overview of world history. . . it's just a shame that the overview you get is heavily slanted to the left. John Green is an engaging guy and a good presenter.
>Heavily slanted to the left
I dunno, I perfer to think that it maybe slightly at the left, but most of what he mentions checks out. After all, he got to the crusades and instead of going with the "ALl religions are evil" thing that tends to be associated with the left he actually pointed out that a small reading of history is rarely sufficient to understanding it.
After all, its a show and he likely has to axe alot of stuff.
It is time for you to return to reddit.
>he writes books that aim to be bought by teenaged girls
>he's a good author.
Are you retarded?
And then there's this shit.
Alaska was a bitchy, neurotic, manipulative, cheating slut.
John Green has so little respect for himself that this is all he desires in a woman.
>when mudslims take over a region he calls it conquest
>when white people do anything at all he calls it eurocentrism
This is where I found his logic to be problematic, and I think his video should have a trigger warning
More than likely he's just pandering to his audience (majority are female between ages 16-21, liberal, and SJW).
He's in the business of making money. Even if he was redpilled, he wouldn't tell the truth because then his audience would turn on him
he believes with every fiber of his being that
1. Europe/whites are evil
2. Anyone who attacked Europe was good.
all liberals believe that inherently. It's the foundation of their ideology that whites are somehow evil and responsible for past crimes and no one else is.
His woman has fucked men in the triple digits and he's in the single digits. He doesn't care that society will typically agree his woman is a ho, he's just assmad that the situation makes him look like a punk.
Why do people care about this faggot? He lies in every video he makes to push his agenda, he distorted even the Odyssey talking shit about Odysseus (the hero that should be praised by intellectuals, since he solved his problems using his brain, but I digress). He's Stephenie Meyer-tier he's an attention whore who sold himself out to pander to teenage girls.
>promoting promiscuity and degeneracy
The guy admits that 99.99% of all islamic "golden age" nonsense was simply them recycling old Greek ideas.
>But the muslims were super smart because they preserved this stuff.
I mean. Ok.
And the dumbfuck doesn't understand that mosques are easy to build because they're a SPIDER WEB OF SUPPORT COLUMNS.
Churches require a vast, open, airy space inside. That's incredibly hard to build.
Look at his "amazing super duper mosque that was built in one year ONE YEAR GUYS OMG". There's a support column every ten fucking feet. There's no open space. That's how all mosques are.
Dude is such a smarmy cuck.
I think his point was more along the lines of "if you focus only on a few countries in western europe, yes, it wasn't so great, but seriously, that's just a tiny section of history at the time"
He's clearly a dick, but I don't think he was too overt.
Checking out his Crusades one now, that'll be the true judgement.
Also, the facts of the show are provided by his highschool history teacher, so it's possible he's just indoctrined.
But how can he brainwash other idiots so easily?
A bunch of people (myself included) commented on his video, disproving his lies with references to the page in the Odyssey where said claims were supposed to happen (and they don't) and a horde of rabid teenagers and cucks started insulting us for "discrediting him", literally wtf?
don't they teach you the progressive narrative in school?
everywhere else regardless of what they do=good
It's really that simple. If you disagree you are literally a nazi who should be banned.
and wow, his crusades bit is actually EXTREMELY accurate, and very considerate. He addresses things from the perspective of the participants, and even addresses when certain narratives come from "post-colonial, anti-colonial, and often marxist ideologies"
don't skip the war
That's fucked up, that's practically indictrination. Nope, I went to a catholic school all my life up to university, and even when libtards love to say that catholics hate critical thinking, it's the only school in my area, that I know of that teaches formal logic through out high school and university (physics) wasn't difficult at all with the knowledge I acquired in my "awful, opressive and fascist private catholic school", and all the "pride socialists" who attended a state technical school dropped university after a year...
>comparing 13th century warfare to 19th and 20th century warfare
He still had to get all the way to Moscow, no easy feat, which is why he's celebrated as a conqueror. He completely rekt Anatolia.
>successful invasions of Australia
>mfw married to the woman who took my virginity for 9 faithful years, turning down many opportunities.
I hold both sexes to the same standard. You have the right to go for the "high score" all you want, but don't expect me to regard it as an achievement.
>everyone culture on the planet has considered women to be more selective than men
>this difference in genders adheres to the most basic aspect of our biology
Why do you conservitards think womyn aren't happiest if they fuck hundreds of men?
actually he had to get to Kiev hence the name "Kievan Rus"
Not that it mattered. Most of Eastern Europe was so depopulated and empty that it didn't have a chance against 100,000 horsemen.
> why he's celebrated as a conqueror.
I'm pretty sure he's celebrated as a conqueror because he took China and most of the Middle East. Not because he set some shack in the Ukraine on fire.
This, as far as I've lived, you call a promiscuous man a player/douchebag/asshole/etc... All of them carry a negative connotation, why are women surprised when they are held to the same standard and get called sluts/whores?
Kievan Rus broke apart due to infighting decades before the Mongol invasion. It's part of the reason the Mongols had such an easy time conquering the kingdoms that didn't get peacefully annexed (like Muscovy and Perm).
>I'm pretty sure he's celebrated as a conqueror because he took China and most of the Middle East
Which is what I said, he had to get all the way to pre-russia russia by conquering and pillaging things in between, which is why he's remembered as a conqueror. I'm not sure we disagree at all, did you really get butthurt because I made a joke on the failures of Napoleon and Hitler?
All I'm saying is conquering Russia in 1240 is not remotely like trying to conquer Russia in 1812 or 1941
It's not even comparable. Russia was already more or less westernized at that time and practically modern nation states. The Kievan Rus was not weak and nothing compared to a powerful state of that time period like China.
>that video title
>talks about how wew lad china and islamic empires were while
is this guy serious? when someone thinks about the dark ages, they think about a time period in europe, but he goes on about eurocentrism and how other parts of the world were doing fine
Yeah, he picks the subjects accordingly, but I like the way he writes. I dont know if there's actually a term for that in English but google translate came up with "wording".
Alaska was a bitchy neurotic manipulative cheating unstable suicidal cunt.
I didnt say I liked the character. I liked the book itself.
Im gonna have to say no.
Shut up kabab.
>Ignores there are renaissances before 1500's.
>Assumes its the fault of Christians that Alexandry great library was destroyed.
>Ignores plagues and famine.
>Think that abassids didn't research.
>Ignores that mongols destroyed all muslim progress.
>Ignores that Christianity started education when there was no printing technology available. Thanks to them there's surviving knowledge pre-Carolingian age.
>Ignores that pic is biased and made up under no reliable basis.
Keep tipping that Fedora.
That 48th bowl of cheerios is still fresh. That's the major difference.
Vaginas suffer wear and tear from multiple partners. Penises do not. That's the difference.
Keeping it simple helps to clarify facts while simultaneously BTFO of sjws.
Holy shit what a false equivalence
The girl can make a conscious choice not to fuck other dudes in the hope that one day she finds a steady partner
I kind of have to eat to not die.
but women are and have been considered sluts when they sleep around for a very, very lone time, this whole "sleeping around if you're a woman is fine" mentality hasn't been a popular opinion until very recently. Also being called a player is normally considered a good thing
Not me. I'd want her to be as experienced as I am (a few partners...not an exorbitant amount, just enough to know what she likes and how to please me while being confident about it). Lack of experience is a turn off for me, so I don't understand this mentality that if you're her first then you're gonna be some sexual dynamo to her. It's entirely possible that she'll fucking hate it when happens and eventually cheat on you because she isn't afraid of sex anymore and wants a man who can fuck her properly.
>retarded and misleading static about 30yr life expectancy
>no mention of the byzantine empire who was extremely relevant
>no mention of how trade in the Mediterranean changed
>dick sucking of muslims and completely forgetting about how they undid everything they did right
The only good thing he mentioned was that the Persians were responsible for everything that didn't suck in the Muslim world.
Man this guy is really choking on muslim cocks
I have no problem with showing stuff other than european history. Really I find the islamic golden age really interesting. But please, leave your fucking agenda out of educational videos. China being divers and great? Fuck no, the chinese pesant was probably even worse off than the european one.
Yeah I hear that friend. I listened to that as my intro to him as it was free. I then bought death throes of the republic which was great. Need to listen to his series on the eastern front next.
is there any screenshot type thingy that might have based historian list or something similar.
Bumping for the preservation of knowledge and a good thread with practically zero shitposting. /pol/ definitely has its moments
As someone who has actually taken a World History course this guy is full of crap. This is what people get when they watch a YouTube video instead of reading a book.
I like how he mentioned Thomas Aquinas, as if he's the only thing of merit that Europe produced, while ignoring other literary and philosophical achievements like Boethius' Consolations of Philosophy, Anselm of Canterbury, William of Ockham, and Duns Scotus, Beowulf, Exeter book, the Tain, Sir Thomas Malory's Le Morte d'Arthur, the Nibelungenlied, the Mabinogion, Chretien de Troyes' Arthurian Romances, the Pearl Manuscript, the Norse & Icelandic Eddas and sagas, and so much more.
Not to mention women writers like Hrotsvitha of Gandersheim, a German who wrote in Latin and composed one of the first European plays since Roman times, as well as the poet Marie de France.
Notice the contrast between European "Dark" ages and Islamic "Golden" age, a binary opposition that privileges the Islamic world, which wasn't always the most tolerant. Spoiler: why didn't he mention why Maimonides was expelled from Spain? Notice how he praises Islamic architecture while deriding and glossing over Medieval Europe architecture. Notice his fascination over how large and glorious the Islamic Empire was.
I love learning about World history, not just European history, but if you're going to teach it at least be fair & neutral to everyone for the sake of knowledge. Downplaying European achievement isn't social justice because the only thing that is being obscured is knowledge.
If anyone is actually interested in learning something I'd recommend Norton's Worlds Together, Worlds Apart textbook, or you can read the online chapter summaries, take a quiz, and more. Chapters 8, 9, & 10 should cover this video's period and give you a better understanding.
I understand "Dark" & "Golden" are terms used by a lot of people still to this day, but a lot of scholars already dropped "Dark" awhile ago because it perpetuates a lot of stereotypes that Medievalists are working to combat. "Golden" should be dropped too for the sake of neutrality.
Both terms carry with them a connotation that distorts our historical vision.
Canada never invaded the USA. The UK did. We burnt the White House. Remember?
> who lack confidence
how do you know that?
>cling to their first relationship are less likely to break away from it
where did you get that from?
is it a prerequisite for a woman to ride the cock carousel before she settles down? (pro tip sluts never settle down)
what's this obsession you have with being such a cuckold?
>hurf durf you can't settle down with a man if you didn't suck 20 cocks and fucked 15 man in less than a month, girl!
Five fucking star post.