A friend of mine tells me crash course is quite ok on having a first view about things in history.
Myself having read history quite often simplistic history books(imagine Chronicle of the World by Asimov,a lot of wikipedia and highschool books) thought i had an understanding in general.
after watching 5-6 videos i found out at least one revisionistic point in every subject.
Are there others that agree these courses are way off in history opinions or is it me the man who denies to hear enything different
Most normies will stop at that. Normies influence intellectuals. Intellectuals repeat John Greenisms to appear cool and hip.
= John Green decides how we view history. That's pretty damn scary when you think about it.
>>1103503
EDIT : I wish Hank could take his place. At least he's humble about what he doesn't know and he openly encourages people to build their own damn understanding of complex subjects.
Plus he's not a colossal liberal.
>>1103503
well,i thin that john green a huge faggot.
Seriously now he has a sticker in his laptop in that garbage of a youtube show that says this machine kills fascist.Imagine how bloated he tries to be.
>>1103478
The mongol meme is annoying,crash course generally speaks to an audience who does not know shit about the thing they wanna see and its kind of a show to get someone interested.
Not a history channel,at least not foe someone who has a basic understanding and knowledge of history through basic (again) education.
PLUS John Green tries to appear a bit goofy just to make teens laugh a bit.
>>1103478
It's fine in terms of a quick overview, but Green definitely injects his own bias into the proceedings. Which is what everyone does. The problem is that any academic historian giving a lecture will tell you that you should read other sources, because everyone has a bias, even if it's an unconscious one, and comparing various sources allows for the most unbiased interpretation of events.
