If you hate him so much, point out where he is wrong.
Here is a random video that came up in my feed. It doesnt seem particularly bad.
Bit reddit on the humor side, but not wrong, and not bad.
https://youtu.be/UN-II_jBzzo
10 minutes to watch it, and another 3-5 to write your post critiquing it. That is, if you can muster actual critique, rather than just repeat how much of a SJW tumblr history revisionist he is without naming any factual mistakes he makes.
Also, Crash Course History thread, a thread about the HISTORY related channel about HISTORY.
>>210660
Honestly I like what they do with that show, because they clearly actually wrote the show more to make you think about history and to try and give casual history fans more of the tools required to really appreciate it rather than just "here is some events"
>>210660
Honestly I don't dislike his videos that much, it just irritates me that teenage girls think watching a ten minute video makes them an expert on the subject
>>210679
>OHH THEY'RE SMALL GUYS FOR YOUUUU LAWD
There see several pastebins of people doing just that. On phone so I don't have them.
>>210660
>if you like great literature the Dark Ages aren't all that great
>'author'
>doesn't know about the massive corpus of medieval literature
Yeah, no need to refute him. He's cool if you're a high-schooler, but after that you shouldn't be getting your history on YouTube. There's a whole world of JSTOR, libraries, pirating books, buying books, etc that you can digest.
>>210742
Can you remember any of it or do you have to see the pastebins?
>>210660
He dismissed the whole of Europe's middle ages with:
>Oh just some war lords
>Eurocentrasim makes us this they are important
>>210744
>Youtube isn't an acceptable way education
lmao you're the sort of luddite that was afraid of the printing press
Zero critique of the facts presented in the 10 minute video posted in the OP. Zero arguments made about it.
Come on, at least try.
>>210752
not him, but there's nothing wrong with it as long as you're listening to some sort of 1h+ podcast that goes in-depth on the subject, you can't compare a book to a 10 minute video
>>210744
>He's cool if you're a high-schooler, but after that you shouldn't be getting your history on YouTube.
I think this is the key idea. People gets butthurt about John Green without understanding that what they dislike (kek memes aside) is the format. There's not really a substitute that does what Green does better without completely changeing it's format and objectives. Green is not for people who already knows the Ottomans and the venetians traded and wants to know more, he is for teens who don't even know that Venice was a mediterranean power once.
>>210660
>speaking of ships, I ship these guys
>>210759
No shit, and you cant compare a two hour podcast to a museum pamphlet. It being printed doesnt automatically make it correct or somehow more useful.
In fact video form is better for presenting stuff like battle formations, animated maps, etc. Also it has audio, so you can actually speak out names, instead of people reading a book and mispronouncing Ashurbanipal in their heads.
>>210780
>instead of people reading a book and mispronouncing Ashurbanipal in their heads.
how do i pronounce Cicero's name as the man himself likely pronounced it?
anyone know?
>>210660
I've never watched his history videos.
His smug attitude annoys me, his self righteousness, and the annoying HURR UR SO STUPID faces he pulls.
>>210788
also his big ear lobes annoy me
seriously
>>210767
hmm
>>210660
gallies are not merchant ships, they can be used for whatever you wish
venice was a merchant republic, what is this even with saints and why do they trade with who, especially grain, fertile lands were plenty around
>le devshirme meme
yea those mostly werent kidnapped
the turks relied on their vilajet system and the SIPAHIS, both politically and militarily
there was no "relations" between venice and ottomans, venetians were buttmad when their business were put in danger, but clapped their hands when the ottomans put ragusa in danger (their rival merchant city)
one thing is true about, turks locking down the way to the east and venice having monopoly trading those goods, which forced the west to search for alternative routes, the only important part about the video
>>210660
>"C.E"
>Saying the Ottomans changed the name of Constantinople to Istanbul immediately after they took it.
Trash it
>>210801
Also
>Claims the Hagia Sophia was Turkish architecture
>>210783
In Classical Latin: [kikero:] (the last vowel is long)
In Church Latin: [ʧiʧero] (the same sounds as in Italian)
In medieval German Latin: [tsitsero]
In medieval French Latin: [sisero]
The Latin pronunciation depends on the context. Because Marcus Tullius Cicero lived during the Classical period, I would use the Classical pronunciation.
Regardless, we are talking about a learned man explaining things to curious amateurs. It isnt obvious to people not interested in history or a certain culture how a name should be pronounced, while a specialist on the subject will have better grasp.
>>210803
Sisero sounds way cooler than Kickeroo though
>Kick a poo
GUYS SHUT UP IN SERIOUS
>>210780
I don't think he has anything against video so much as he has something against YouTube.
>>210767
This is just a joke. Bad taste, but its only humor. You and I subjectively dislike it, doesnt make the video less valid.
>>210788
>>210789
Not valid critique, you just subjectively dislike the presentation. Judging by youtube statistics most people disagree with you.
>>210801
I got that as well, a mistake that doesnt influence the point he is making int he video, but indeed a factual mistake. Kemal changed the name much later.
>>210802
Does he? I didnt catch that. Point to where in the video he makes that claim.
>>210800
>venice was a merchant republic, what is this even with saints and why do they trade with who
Christians werent allowed to trade with muslims. It is a sin to do it. Venetians were christians first, traders later. Or so was the official version, anyways.
They most certainly needed to excuse their trade somehow.
>le devshirme meme
It isnt a meme, and every historian agrees. It may seem morally bankrupt now, but it was a very good way to get soldiers, and also make sure no rebellions start. No father wants to kill their own son when the enemy army comes.
>>210753
At least wait a half hour or so.
>>210831
Go to 5:00 and he shows the Hagia Sophia in their list of architecture
>>210833
There were over a dozen posts, if you include the ones the mod thankfully deleted.
>>210660
Found the mistake
2:15
>pepper used to cover the smell for the spoiled meat.
nope,
1-there were less expensive methods of preserving the meat, to use pepper for preserving meat would cost you much more than buying more meat.
2-Covering smell would mean jack shit as rotten meat would still be rotten meat, with pepper. and you will have the same effects of eating a regular rotten meat which has no pepper on it.
a very common memestake.
>>210831
Of course its not a valid critique, i can still not like the man.
>>210749
You have to see the pastebins because they are rather long but yeah they completely deconstruct what this guy says. Like I remember one of them was about his Alexander the Great videom
>>210742
>there are
Fucking phone
>>210837
Technically he could have meant the thin towers that msulims put on all temples, but I agree that its misleading.
Still he doesnt state that they build it, more like the editor puts misleading pictures leading to wrong implications.
I'll concede that one, so we have two confirmed mistakes:
>Constantinople was renamed much later.
>Implying the Hagia Sophia is build by the Ottomans.
>>210841
I think what is meant is that you put some pepper in your meal when you eat it, not that you pepper a whole cart of meat to sell.
People still do that in supermarkets, meats thats about to go off is cooked with loads of spices and its expiration date pushed back a few days.
Also it is the reason for ketchup being so popular with lower middle class people, you just add it to yesterdays food and pretend its a good meal.
I am not willing to concede this, as its a side thing not important to the video, and its not strictly wrong. Also I have personal experience using spices to make bad meat presentable to costumers, and it works.
>>210802
>see a picture of the Selimiye mosque
>HURRR IT'S THE HAGIA SOPHIA
Once again Green detractors prove to be massive plebs with no knowledge about anything.
>>210831
yes it is
jannissary was a mean to put your son on a career path, muh kidnappings is false and especially not the source of the ottoman rulership
the enemy army burned and confiscated supplies, or payed for it
the ottomans wanted taxpayers,not kids to fiddle
>>210837
He does not.
Looks like you actually might learn something from a youtube video today.
>>210853
>but yeah
I think you mean "but no". You can't remember any of it. Can you formulate your own criticism?
>>210868
you put pepper on your meat if you were rich or noble because pepper was far more expensive than meat.
You don use something that costs 100 gold to preserve something that costs 1 gold (hypothetically) esspecially when you know other preservation methods like using smoke.
>>210837
its not hagia sophia, ottoman mosques imitated the style of hagia sophia a lot thats why you confuse them. check out blue mosque
>>210898
>ottoman mosques imitated the style of hagia sophia
Then it's not Ottoman architecture it's Greek/Byzantine.
>>210891
>I refuse to learn anything about other civilizations and will then call out popular vulgarizers for going against my own prejudices
>>210891
das nawt valid critishishim!!11!!
>>210891
>meme
go back to int or youtube, this is a history board
>>210906
Greeks were really big on building minarets everywhere.
Also, greeks didnt invent temples, or domes.
>>210906
There is a world of difference between the two, but obviously it requires not having shit in your eyes.
It's Ottoman architecture inspired by Greek one, just like the Arc de Triomphe is French architecture inspired by Roman one.
>>210896
Because I'm on my phone doing shit with my life currently. I tried looking in my history for the pastebin link to give you but no luck friendo.
>>210926
Nobody asks you to find the pastebin. The question is can you or not formulate your own criticism. If the videos are that bad surely you could by memory.
>>210906
by your logic its not ottoman architecture its roman architecture, as domes were neither an ottoman nor greek invention
latins got it first, it was adopted by later romanized greeks and later it was adopted by ottomans.
yes of course a trained eye can detect which architecture belongs to greeks or ottomans without even bothering to look at minarets, but for an untrained eye they look very same. Especially if they think minarets were always later additions like the ones in hagia sophia
thats why you confused selimiye with hagia sophia senpai.
>>210922
go away john green
you are a joke of a history teacher and only doing this to get shekels, quite disgusting, dumbing down your subject to this level
>>210935
Well as I said I'm currently on my phone and busy (only reason I'm on /his/ is because I'm on a short break).
>>210958
Also yes I could make my own criticism given time that I currently do not have
>>210803
>>210783
Why doesn't english have an official evolved/adapted form for Cicero? Like italians say Cicerone, spaniards and french ciceron (but with two different pronunciations) but in english is just the english name copypasted, and only pronounced differently when the reader is unable to tell how the word sounded in latin. The same happens for a lot of other roman names.
I think it's pretty weird, it's like if Cicero was completely alien for english speakers and they just use the copypasted name like we could do with chinese names. But england was in the roman empire even if they don't speak a romance language.
>>210970
Sorry I'm not on a computer and a useless NEET like you friend.
>>210982
>lol get a lyfe :D
Are you for real now? You havent had the time to make an argument for half an hour.
>>210814
The long o would be more like a long version of the o in politics than oo i poo.
>>210993
Or like in roll.
>>211020
At the end of words its like o-oh. In the middle of words its normal o.
>>210987
I've been checking the thread every few minutes or so after getting a decent amount of work done just to see you attack someone who clearly doesn't have time to make a rebuttal.
>>211028
Mate you have made more replies in this thread than anyone else. You clearly have the time.
However, you have said less than anyone else. You just write nonsense and make claims you cant prove.
Fuck off, retard.
>>211028
If this thread is still alive when I get home, I'll write a nice long criticism of a John Green video just for you and post it here okay friend?
>>211046
Until you do that you are useless. Stop posting if you have nothing to say. Post later when you do.
>>210999
Or scroll.
Also
>>210814
The e is supposed to be a fronted sound, not a schwa. You should not be able to confuse it with an a or u.
>>211027
Saying stuff like 'normal o' does rarely help, especially when we're having the discussion in English, a language that is notorious for having really inconsistent vowel pronounciation and in which the pronounciation of vowels can wary considerably from dialect to dialect.
>>210906
pathetic damage control.
>>210660
He sucks Turkish cock
I don't really say he is wrong.
It is just shallow, and that is the point, his videos are for people that need to write a highschool essay due the next day, it is just not intended to be anything more really.
Kind of like the little science factoids some people to make people think they totally understand science.
It is not meant to be "intellectual" and he doesn't try to make it sound like it is.
>>210660
At least he has it right on the HRE
>>211326
The title of this video also leads me to believe he was right about India, South America, silver and why the Spanish empire collapsed.
>>210660
>one video is representative of his whole body of work
>>211759
Its literally a random video I picked. Go look at the other one, about Kievan Rus. It is also factually correct, and the only thing wrong with it is his reddit tier humor and presentation. Those are subjectively wrong, and me and you are in the minority for disliking them.
>>210660
I don't hate him because he's wrong.
>>211020
There's a small difference between short and long vowels, but it's nowhere close to the variations you see in English which has seen, among other things, the Great Vowel Shift which not only resulted in vowels being pronounced very differently from how they were originally, but also wasn't entirely consistently applied.
>>210660
It's sensational history for teenagers who find regular classes boring.
The format is utterly retarded.
There's no way to cover topics this large in 10 minutes without throwing loads of absurdities and omitting fundamentals.
Especially if you decide to spend some time spouting pop culture jokes. History is so tedious, you don't want your audience to fall asleep.
His video on the French Revolution is complete garbage.
>louis xvi is condemned to death for being a mere anti-revolutionnary, no mention is made of the flight to varennes
>conflict with foreign powers is minimised, it's almost like the french are a savage and fickle people who just like drama and can't handle a revolution
>at last, this vague and pointless comparison of the french and american revolutions (which one had the biggest?)
And some minor things like the clergy being the second estate instead of the first, or the people storming the Bastille "mostly to take guns" rather than because it was a symbol of royal absolutism, people went to the military hospital to take guns.
It gives an idea of their understanding on the matter.
>>210660
Which video did you watch? Not all are bad, its just the politicized ones like the crusades and Alexander the great ones with his bullshit revisionism and kekoldry that ruin those
Here is a point by point rebuttal to his awful video on Alexander the Great
http://pastebin.com/QTjC44WZ
Here is the video in question
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0LsrkWDCvxg
>>212662
>starts by quoting Nietzsche
Awful. You should be embarrassed for even posting this pathetic shit
>>212493
you somehow managed to miss the point not just of his videos, but of the meta narrative he made between various revolutionary videos.
Many of his videos are more of an introduction to this idea about X event. Which is literally the point. Which is also the point of comparing the French and American as an introduction to the idea that the American revolution may not be as revolutionary as you have been taught in schools (he is obviously aiming firstly at people in North America, specifically high schoolers)
>>212689
Go pour yourself a strong glass of turpentine m8 and head back to /lit/
>>212689
It's a bit pretentious, but no reason to dismiss it like that. It served a point.
>>210718
This.
>>212743
You dismiss the videos based on reddit jokes, why cant I dismiss the text based on /lit/ mental masturbation?
>>212710
He is right the entire "rebuttal" is pure embarassment.
Considering if you paid more than 2 braincells worth of attention to what he said about misogyny, it's not so much that he was arguing that it's inherently misogynistic as that the people who are slapping these titles on people are(were) misogynistic. the entire thing can be summed up in 2 lines.
>I don't like the fact he's challenging muh ideas on greatness
>He is giving an overview which the deeper points of probably disagree with my interpretations so here's my in depth points.
>>210660
>Leads by announcing that the OTTOMAN FUCKING EMPIRE is responsible for the Renaissance.
lolno.
>Doesn't mention that the Venetians extracted trade concessions by being fucking pirates.
>Citing Byzantine buildings as examples of great Ottoman architecture
>Colors Ottoman slavery in a positive light
>Castration is called "not allowed to have kids".
>Crediting the Ottomans for the popularity of Eunuchs as administrators and courtiers.
>Crediting Muslims with preserving Greek classics.
I'd say he gets a 4/10.
>>212710
I don't agree with John Green but I don't agree with the faggot who wrote the reply either. He's trying way too hard to prove that Alexander dindu nuffin wrong even though it's well known that he was a ruthless and extremely narcissistic person. For example he destroyed the ancient city of Thebes just because they refused to submit to his rule, and he claimed to be a god later on. You have to accept these facts or you're just as bad as John Green in his biased views. My opinion is that even though Alexander may have been an a ruthless narcissistic asshole, he was overall a great man who was a military genius and who was above all a tremendous leader to those who followed him. I think that people have to realized that you couldn't be a great leader in those days without being ruthless on occasion
>>212766
I'm not the other guy, I don't really hate anything about the guy other than his fans, I'm just saying that's an overreaction.
>>212662
This is like a short essay on why youtube shouldnt allow comments.
>>212775
>spouting blatant factual inaccuracies and appending spurious moral interpretations onto historical figures
you must be the target audience for these videos
thanks for not reading further than the first 10 lines you cretin
>>212775
There's literally nothing wrong with misogyny
>>212550
What's wrong with his Crusades video?
>>212831
That's pretty funny though.
>this machine kill fascist
>a mac
Reddit to be honest
>>212870
>smart guy makes funny joke
>20 posts of stupid chauvinists arguing politics ensue
>>212788
Alexander did not order the destruction of Thebes. At worst, you could argue that he only failed to stop it.
The Greeks who joined Alexander's army for the raid on Thebes had blood feuds stretching back generations with the city and its inhabitants. As soon as they were free to loot and destroy they did so. Alexander did not give the order to raze Thebes. His authority over the army was not yet sufficiently absolute for him to fully control new recruits and additions by power of his reputation alone, as would be the case later.
Alexander believed himself divine, and if accomplishments are the measure of divinity, he certainly qualifies. In Greek mythology there were heroes who had been given divine status for far less than what Alexander accomplished. He was guaranteed to be deified in death, and thought it unnecessary to put off.
>>211337
IIRC, there are some mistakes and mischaracterization in his Carlos V vid tho
>>210660
I hated watching this fag in high school, especially this Ottoman video. History was the only class where I let my powerlevel show and my teacher never could understand why I hated the Ottomans so much
>>212843
I did, I'm sorry that you're actually this much of a retard.
If you're attempt to attack an overview involves in depth responses, your attack is shit. Especially when the other party isn't going to be defending their position.
>>212700
>"many of his videos are introductory. Which is literally the point."
You've just submitted the critique that everyone has of his videos. You can't cover historical events in detail in a 10 minute video.
>>212888
>Alexander didndu nuffin!!
Come now, don't be childish. He ordered the city burnt to the ground and the prisoners executed to send a message to the other city states. It was a ruthless and efficient political move to gain the submission of the rest of Greece and no amount of apologism can change this fact.
>Alexander was justified in deifying himself
To even consider such a thing, one would need to be insufferably narcissistic and this Alexander was. No mortal can claim to be a god unless they can do shit like shoot lightning out of their eyes or something like that. Claiming it all as his achievement is completely arrogant and a big insult to those who helped him along the way, because he certainly didn't do it all alone. To even be defending his megalomania is laughable
He's the worst kind of "historian" imo. Makes introductory, easy to consume videos that casuals and kids will pick up on and take as gospel. Filters in his own opinions, moralities, subjective interpretations, and revisions, often subtly, and this becomes the prevailing notion for a lot of the less educated and young.
>>210660
his videos aren't really inaccurate, they're just seen through a biased and liberal magnifying glass.
Most of his videos are just audiotapes of wikipedia pages.
The thing that got me mad the most was his botchered Russia episode, he wasn't particularly wrong about anything besides that he said that the Vikings weren't the rulers, there's linguistic, archaeological and fucking documented evidence about Varangian traders who came into the slavic cities and were accepted as rulers, something he outright dismissed.
If anything, his history videos are just downright basic, inaccurate often enough and very biased.
>>212958
But that's not a critique. That's being mad that someone wants to make videos to introduce things to people. And if you're actually going to be mad at that then what the fuck are you doing with your life?
he introduces things to people and over the course of his videos introduces people to many important ideas about history, historical study and interpretation. What's not to like?
>>212958
Most people don't want to cover historical events in detail, especially for not more than 10 minutes at a time. That's not a critique so much as an acknowledgement of a completely different audience.
>Baiting /int/ and /lit/ with a video featuring John Greene and T*rks
Haven't seen this thread before. This board is going places.
>>213009
As others have said in this thread, he leaves out plenty of details on events, he gets details false, and he is seen as an authoritative figure to highschoolers when it comes to history. They watch his blatantly incomplete videos. I remember in 10th grade AP history I had to read for 10 hours over a weekend just to get an in depth understanding of the mongols. This is not history. This is a busisness model that supplies dumbed down videos to idiots that demand it.
>>210660
People hate him because he's introductory with some bias, and his fans act like he isn't. Same reason people hate meme scientists like Niel Degrasse Tyson.
As a Spaniard I'm still fucking mad watching their videos about Spain. Anglos always have that holier-than-thou attitude towards the Spanish Empire or the Inquisition as we were the only bad colonisers.
Also he also thinks that the Black Legend is true without questioning it: "look how bad were the Spaniards compared to everyone".
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rjhIzemLdos&ab_channel=CrashCourse
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6E9WU9TGrec&ab_channel=CrashCourse
>>212974
Please go male feminist redditkek
Good grief, what a fucking moronic thread.
I'm embarrassed to know that I share this board with people who unironically shill for John Green.
Hey faggot, you know why normal people dislike John Green? Because he's a P-L-E-B.
Now fuck off back to the youtube comments section where you quite clearly belong.
>>213080
Yes you have no argument so you call me a redditkek. Typical /pol/ retardation
>>213093
>Hey faggot, you know why normal people dislike John Green? Because he's a P-L-E-B.
I hate to break it to you, but normal people are the ones that like him.
>>212957
Thank you for conceding that you know nothing relevant about the subject. Next shitposter please
>>212974
False.
The raid on Thebes was not intended to end in destruction. Alexander planned a siege and attempted a parlay several times for the anti-Macedonian agitators who had taken control of the city.
On the march to Thebes he had picked up a contingent of Phocians and Plataeans . The former had especially grievous blood feuds with the Thebans, stretching back to the atrocities of the Phocian War (which only ended when Alexander's father Phillip intervened). The Plataeans meanwhile had been betrayed by Demosthenes to the Thebans before the battle of Chaeronea.
As Alexander was awaiting the response to another parlay, one of his officers named Perdiccas charged the outer wall without being ordered and began tearing down the palisade to get inside. When Alexander saw that he was hard pressed, he sent a detachment in to assist him. As Perdiccas' troops were set to flight, however, the Thebans sallied forth in pursuit, vacating their fortified position. Alexander charged at once, pushing them back through the city gates that had been opened to let the Thebans in. The battle was over, and the slaughter began.
According to Arrian, it was the very tribes mentioned above, namely the Phocians and Plataeans, which perpetrated the mass murder. These tribes, it must be remembered, had only joined with Alexander a week before; their loyalty was not absolute by any means, and Alexander would have needed to exercise severe force to check them in their bloodlust. Even so, he went from place to place, trying to save the lives and property of Theban nobles and important figures. As is well documented, he was able to preserve the house and family of the great poet Pindar. Alexander's allies voted to raze the city, and Alexander did chose not to rebuke them.
>>213162
was this comment made with the consent of every objectively normal person in the world?
if not pls delete k thanks
>>213162
Not really. High school kids who are into YouTube historians are hardly the norm.
>>213178
An anecdote illustrates the difference in Alexander's authority over loyal troops and recently recruited tribes.
After the sack, a group of Thracian soldiers dragged before Alexander a Theban woman whom they accused of killing one of their officers. The woman admitted the crime: the officer had broken into her house, raped her, and demanded to know where the valuables were stored. She had let him to a well outside, and when he bent over to look, she pushed him inside. As the soldiers came to lay hold of her, she had just finished the man off with a few heavy stones. She claimed to be the sister of one of deceased members of the Sacred Band which Alexander fought at Chaeronea. Alexander at once pardoned her and her kin.
The interesting point is that she was brought before Alexander. These were loyal Thracian troops who had served in his army long enough to recognize his authority. If they had been recent recruits, as the Phocians were, there is no doubt they would have taken their own vengeance on the woman.
This thread is awful, why am I enjoying it so much?
>>210660
is this faggot now a /his/ meme?
we were doing so well.
his wife sucks bbc. he is a kek. leave the mule to suffer alone.
ffs he wrote 'the fault in our stars' - faggot doesn't come close.
>>213265
Apparently we get all the shittiest parts of /lit/, /int/ and /pol/ so yes he is.
There are excellent points in this thread calling John Green out which OP ignored.
I don't know how long this board exists, but could this be the first major baiting thread?
Also, I'll bite.
>Venetian-Ottoman relationship directly led to the Renaissance
>it wasn't all the Byzantine scholars that immigrated to Italy
Not to mention, the Renaissance started way earlier before Turks sacked Byzantium.
Didn't he say that -- "The Great" is sexist?
>>213316
No the first major baiting threads were those 'why even have philosophy when we have science' threads.
>>212662
why did anyone waste their time responding to his faggotry? he's a faggot. it's beneath anyone who isn't one to do anything but ignore him,
>>213316
>There are excellent points in this thread
This thread is literally "i dont like the way he talks", no points whatsoever made. Stop trying to fit in, lad.
:)
>>213317
He did, and someone was so pissed about it he wrote an entire essay about how Green was wrong about that.
Also, Catherine The Great was titled "The Great", so not really sexist?
Here's the essay btw
http://pastebin.com/kbw0eYsf
>>213388
None of those are really critiques, just fundamental misunderstandings of what normativity is.
>>213349
Because some people aren't willing to stomach historical revisionism and crude misinterpretations of great human beings
>>213388
The first reply is "i am mad that my glorious ancestors arent glorified" and whataboutism.
The second reply is admitting the videos arent inaccurate, as well as some more buttmad about ancestors not being glorified.
The third reply is stating the fact that these 8 minute videos arent 30 lecture long courses in history, and adding some subjective dislike for the style.
Zero points made.
>>213422
>historical revisionism is inherently bad
so you are an idiot.
>>213414
>historical inaccuracy and liberal bias is normativity
Well, that's actually true
>>213434
Damn, didn't notice. Thanks for the info.
>>213432
>drawing spurious conclusions based on no new evidence or source material
>applying your idiosyncratic modern worldview to historical figures that lived thousands of years ago
>>213316
>>it wasn't all the Byzantine scholars that immigrated to Italy
Wrong. While the byzantine scholar helped contribute, the Islamics did more
>>210660
Crash course is really good if you want the basic chronology of humanity, but deeper than that you gotta go else where(which is the point)
Dan Carlin is a good one
>>210660
I saw his video on explaining the "refugee" crisis in Europe and it's obvious that his bias can easily leak into the things he teaches.
Going from Eurocentrism to the opposite end is even worse. At least with eurocentrism you have self-respect on some ignorance, the other end you're just ignorant but destructive as well.
>>213426
>i am mad that my glorious ancestors arent glorified" and whataboutism
I don't want that... but I would prefer if they explained with a historical context, because that is the purpose of the channel.
>>213460
Yes I will apply modern ides to people who lived in the past. You don't get to not be accountable for being a shit head just because more people were shit heads. There were people who weren't assholes in the past, if they can do it so could you. You made the choice to be a cunt, so I'm going to call you out on it.
History is looked at through the lens of the time you are looking at history, by claiming to separate yourself from that you're simply being disingenuous, you're applying your own moral standards onto people, it just so happens your standards are low.
>>213178
>False
You are just wrong. This anecdote is obvious damage control. Any modern scholar agrees that it was a political gesture that was meant to scare the other city states into falling into line. It's actually pretty sad that you can't see this or prefer to stick to some ancient propaganda
>>213508
>modernity is the supreme moral authority
>the modern canon is the most morally correct one
somebody save me from all these plebs
>>213520
pol posters don't give a fuck about scholastic consensus.
>>213520
cite me some facts or fuck off mate
there is a terrible tendency of people on here spouting prejudgements and then have absolutely nothing factual or historical to back it up
>>213524
Well yes it's the one I choose to operate on so it's the one I conisder to be the highest and most worthy.
You choose to say otherwise and that inherently says things. You're trying to avoid making a statement when that's impossible, you can NEVER escape implicit cultural politics.
That's not even advanced psychology.
>>213426
>>213414
>haha it doesn't matter that he presents history in a biased manner! That's not valid criticism!
>LOL butthurt he didn't glorified your ancestors? ROFL your history books are no match to John Green
>>213520
>any modern scholar
Is this the default /his/ cop-out argument?
>>213477
The vast majority of contributions the middle east made to science, literature and technology was long before Islam was a thing.
In the post-Mohammad era, the only real contribution the middle east had to civilisation was forcing the Europeans to innovate in order to fight back against ruthless slaughter and slavery tactics employed by the vastly larger Islamic caliphates with great amounts of manpower in order to ensure their own continued existence.
>>213503
>because that is the purpose of the channel
I'm afraid it's not.
Still, many people discover history on it, use it in classes and refer to Green as "historian".
>>210660
He is not wrong much, but is VERY bad because teaching history in such a short amount of time can be absolutely horrible and shift your own bias towards what you want.
You can show events that mark a nation as stupid and terrible, despite being true events nonetheless, but completely disregard all the positive events that the nation produced. You have to pick a small amount of events for videos like these, and you can easily pick all the events that make the nation look bad. And what do you get? People shitting on that nation during that time.
It's fucking terrible because it's so easy for him to manipulate the videos to fit his own somewhat anti-euro agenda. Fuck him. He deserves no respect as a historian.
>>213558
All history is inherently bias in one way or another. You can't escape that, you can minimise it's effect on your study. But you can't escape it. And you're actually being VERY dangerous by acting like you can escape it because you're effectively saying "my norms are not bias"
>>213532
oh you poor deluded fool
>not realizing that ancient writers had access to more actual source material on Alexander than modern scholars ever will
on this particular point modern scholarship isn't worth shit
>>213541
>>213566
OK I will give you the last book on ancient Greece that I read that specifically mentions it
http://www.amazon.com/Ancient-Greece-Political-Cultural-History/dp/0199846049
Or you can read any modern history book on the subject rather than reading arrians wikipedia page, but that would probably be too difficult for you
>>213585
of course you can't escape it. I'm saying John is grossly biased, to a degree it's evident in almost every video of his.
>>213604
thanks m7 I'll be sure to order that, read every word, and then get back to you about this argument in a month
or I could just pick up The Landmark Arrian which is sitting right next to me and read the same things I wrote above, because that happens to be my source
>>213591
This post has been so enlightening.
Do you just trust everything people write? There's so many debates about which sources can be trusted, especially when it comes to this time period because of the lack of many other accounts.
>>213591
So you think because Herodotus was contemporary to the events of marathon that aa few thousand Greeks actually fought a million persians? Fucking idiot. There was no such thing as objective history in ancient times. Those works are filled with propaganda for the purpose of either damage control or to inflate their victories. That's why modern historians have had to disect and analyze the truth and motives that actually occurred rather than taking it all in without question.
>>213357
cereal =/= human
who is this sick man who can't understand why inanimate objects without agency aren't held to be responsible for passive acts made against them.
>>213626
You asked for a source and I gave it. You can look up a PDF version of that book or literally any other modern Greek history book and it will tell you the same thing
As I said in >>213654 , ancient history is filled with propaganda and as such you can't take most of it as fact. If you want a real objective history, read a modern history written by scholars who are using hundreds of years of analysis to guide them. Stick to your fairy tales if you're a deluded manchild
![81xcbKh+JNL._SL1500_[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/yshEhjt.jpg "81xcbKh+JNL._SL1500_[1].jpg")
Did /his/ ever read this spectacle of modern philosophy?
You can tell it's good because it's getting a Hollywood adaptation.
>>213654
there is no such thing as objective history EVER, you buffoon. not then, not now, not ever. Schopenhauer estimated that only 10% of recorded history had been accurately recorded. the rest is open to interpretation
in any event, as far as ancient history goes, we have to realize and accept that as we get farther and farther from these events, our view of them is going to become cloudier, not clearer. historians have always exaggerated military figures. how do you set down to count heads in a million man army? do you suppose all the royal archives were accurate? or that most of those records survived into the present day
I think you're taking a lot for granted. Ancient sources should always be compared to one another and checked for logical consistency, but don't assume for a minute that if something was improperly recorded we can pick it up today and figure out the truth by deduction or sheer scholarly fastidiousness
>>213690
I'll stick to the credible ancient historians who had access to actual source material, thanks
>>213743
There's a reason a certain set of elitist historians call ancient history educated guesswork at best and that it's not worth the time or consideration people put into it.
>>213743
Oh my you are retarded
>>213767
>elite historians
I have trouble taking this seriously. You might just as well say elite preachers
>>213739
A METAPHOR
A FUCKING
METAPHOR
>>212763
Like I'm literally learning the Ukrainian language so I can get news directly from Ukraine. I don't care what some cucк told you about it
>>213787
are you actually a troll? like have you just been trolling the shit out of us? or do you genuinely not know what elitist means? if so I'm going to have to go with this >>213781
>>213804
You'll need to learn a lot of the history of Ukraine too. Though you can actually do without as lots of people from the ground are giving news in english.
>>213573
You're both wrong. The bulk of Renaissance output comes from local Latin sources, with the Greeks adding some Classical literature in the second half of the Renaissance while the Muslims influenced the rise of Scholasticism around the 12th century.
>>213690
>because history is biased it's okay for you to be biased even more
Keep coming up with excuses you poor kek
>>213503
The purpose of the video in question isnt to describe how great the spanish are. Its making another point.
You are taking it as an insult due to nationalistic bias that has no place in a historical discussion.
>>213558
You dislike him because your bias is different to his bias. He doesnt misrepresent facts. His stuff is factually correct. Facts.
Leave your opinion in the closet and try to argue the facts.
>>213888
>I want people learning my bias.
You could have just said that from the start.
>>213800
What?
>>213888
You are like the people saying the car is stupid and we should scrap it and keep riding horses.
These videos reach a public that the History of Spain in 5 tomes would never reach.
They have a purpose, and serve it, without misrepresenting facts.
>>213900
What are you even on about
>>213874
>He doesnt misrepresent facts. His stuff is factually correct
His stuff aren't correct. Lots of mishaps, gaps, and simply historically inaccurate claims. And unlike an actual historian should, he lets his bias lead his monologues.
>>213916
>These videos reach a public that the History of Spain in 5 tomes would never reach.
It's better to not know about something than be ignorant about it.
>They have a purpose, and serve it, without misrepresenting facts.
The purpose is poor, and I never said they misrepresent.
I said they are incredibly open to bias. If you are talking about X, you cannot leave out 80% of the things defining X. You support this, you're a worthless, shameless faggot.
>>213916
>people point out what makes a bad historian
>b-but he is reaching out to the public
That's the first time I see this kind of damage control
>>212867
Not a whole lot as it's mostly a series of selective excerpts like all his videos. The only attempt I've seen so far to fact-check or critique it has been another Youtube video with its own set of problems and selection bias which needs a whole video of its own to critique it.
The sad truth is people just like whatever feeds their own ideologies and egos, and if there are any channels that try to do something else, they'd normally have five subscribers and only one video every other year at best.
>>213827
I've read a bit on the history of the Slavs, it's sorta my area of expertise
>>210660
>another thinly veiled bait thread about john green to trigger luddites
you're a terrible, terrible, awful person.
Is John Green the official /his/ mascot? I don't think I've been on this board yet without him on the first or second page.
>>210803
Serious question, how do we know Classical Latin pronunciation, e.g. Kikero, Kaisar and such?
Is it just guessing/appropriating?
>>214067
The Catholic church preserved latin from ancient times
>>214057
That or it's the 'Hole left by the Christian Dark Ages' chart
>>210660
Get this ugly piece of shit out of my board
Is this guy defending John Green for real or is he just trolling?
Either way, it's my opinion that these threads ought to be banworthy. These threads are barely tangentially related to history, it's essentially just drama about an opinionated youtuber making dumb videos for children.
My biggest problem with him is that in an effort to avoid eurocentrism, he often diminishes europe's role in history while praising other civilisations whose faults he'll ignore. This means he presents a disingenuous account history that contains the same kind of bias he's trying to avoid with eurocentrism. I also dislike his constant moral projection onto history which yet again tends to favour non-europeans over others. For example in his video on Haitian history, he clearly teaches events through the narrative of "The Haitians were unfortunate slaves who fought for and successfully won their independence from their oppressive colonial masters". But instead of just sticking to that particular viewpoint, he makes comments about how Haiti is in shambles today because the French bankrupted the country while ignoring the Haitian massacre that prompted France to economically strangle Haiti in the first place. Or the wars Haiti engaged in with their neighbour the Dominican Republic. Or their mismanagement of their own resources. Now I don't have a problem with him just focusing on Haiti's history up until the slave revolt, but it's obvious he wants to cast a moral judgement over the whole situation by bringing up future events that he doesn't even try to explain, just to suit his narrative.
>>214099
I dunno I'm not very knowledgeable about how Latin was transmitted through the middle ages
>>214122
The best comment ITT. Actually, it's the only good comment ITT.
>>214122
he's just your garden variety liberal intellectual
>>214158
there have been plenty of good posts, you're just not smart enough to pick them out
>>210660
It's way too simplistic, retarded humour that implies it is ridiculous to think anything else.
Strong revisionism and application of modern morals on historical figures.
Meme-tier mongol fetish that is contradictory to everything else he preaches.
All this would be okay if he clearly stated that it was an entertainment thing. But he doesn't. Kids learn revisionist history from this.
>>214184
if you take 'intellectual' as anything other than an insult you're probably and intellectual
>>214203
good bait
>>214203
I would not call myself an intellectual, but I believe there are some actual intellectuals, and John Green is not one of them.
>>210660
>muh evil crusades
>muh noble conqueror muslims
>>213948
>better that people dont know any history, than they know history i dont like
Typical chauvinist retard.
>>214122
this exactly
Let's not forget for those who watched his videos on Ancient Greeks and the Mongol empire. He shits on the Greeks while he praises the Mongols despite the fact that Greeks have given so much philosophy, science, and knowledge in general to the world while what in the FUCK did Mongols give compared to the Greeks? They just ravaged civilizations while having to be lenient on their cultures so as to not get their shit fucked. They gave nothing to the world compared to the Greeks, yet Kek Green shits on them for no reason other than "lol we have to stop being eurocentric guys". Terribly biased.
CAN SOMEONE PLEASE 404 THIS THREAD ALREADY
>>213949
>every single person in the fucking thread agrees his facts arent wrong
>everybody still keeps whining that he isnt an extremist right wing realcrusadeshistory reverse-SJW revisionist
>>214226
>muh evil muslims
>muh noble crusade conquerors
You are exactly the type of person you hate, lad.
Wrong in the opposite direction, but still wrong, in the same way.
>>214224
Intellectual is a job description. It means your end products are ideas, and the only criterion of merit is whether other intellectuals agree with you.
>>210660
There are barely any facts to criticize. Just an anecdote and very basic stuff about mediterranean trade and ottoman politics at the time.
>>214255
Oh come on, not everyone who complains about John Green being biased is an "extremist right wing realcrusadeshistory reverse-SJW revisionist", how about some middle way with, you know, actual history?
>>214255
>>everybody still keeps whining that he isnt an extremist right wing realcrusadeshistory reverse-SJW revisionist
poor b8, I rate 3/8
>>214250
His anti-white, anti-European bias is pretty evident in all his stuff
>>214243
>chauvinistic
Piss off you worthless SJW, you are actually trying to justify bias and misinformation as "well it's better than not knowing anything!"
What damage can you do when you don't about anything about something and thus have no reason to act?
While you would be inclined to do more damage towards something which somebody told you was negative.
>>214275
John Green is middle way, but you are so far right that you cant even recognize it.
>>214282
I'm not even the guy you first responded to mate, neither am I in any way right-wing, but Green is definitely not providing unbiased history.
>>214281
>misinformation
200 posts later, nobody pointed out that misinformation.
It's a somewhat entertaining show with stupid humour and disagreeable politics. Nothing else. It serves to reinforce intellectual tourism, where you engage with a subject for 10 minutes and then move on thinking you "know the most important facts".
>>214303
Because there is very little information in the first place. He isn't even wrong, he just barely scratches the surface
>>214255
You don't get it do you, degenerate?
- Tom Green's lessons are mostly correct and are fine
- this does not mean Tom Green is not biased
-- due to Tom's short videos, he has to cram small amount of information on any given topic
-- this can lead to abusing his bias since he can plug in information that makes a given civilization look either bad or negative, while ignoring the opposing information of that civilization
Also,
>>214122
>>214250
It's so obvious you're a SJW retard
A screen flickers to light in a dark classroom in Stockholm, Sweden. The students eagerly await the video to load, so they can receive their anticipated lesson.
>Hi! I'm John Green and this is Crash Course: World History and we're going to talk about the Renaissance.
The Students clap and cheer violently, a round of applause going around the room and the children smile, knowing the all-wise John Green is here to educate them about the past.
>We all know those stupid Eurocentrists claim the Renaissance was driven by Italian innovation...
The students boo and frown, vaguely aware that the "Yuro-centrists" are always the bad guys in Mr. Green's lessons. A few are on the edge of their seats and in tears, hoping that Mr. Green will soon defeat the bad guys like he does every video.
>but every true non-fascist knows it wasn't done by privileged Italians at all...it was driven by Muslims!
The students cheer and cry tears of joy, knowing that at this point in the video they are transported into Mr. Green's "Thought Bubble", which shows them delightful images of men in turbans painting Renaissance art and raising children with white Italian mothers.
>But remember kids... the Renaissance didn't even matter! The Europeans still didn't have socialized healthcare and multiculturalism! See you next episode!
The screen suddenly goes dark, and the children dejectedly leave the classroom for their next class: Traditions of Islam and Cultural Awareness.
>>214273
>Intellectual is a job description
Since when?
>Intellectual:
>A person possessing a highly developed intellect.
>>214282
>you are so far right that you cant even recognize it.
The only thing you did so far is just accuse everyone who disagrees with the undeniably biased way Green presents things in being some crazy right wing revisionist. You are either a troll, or a teenager that got lost out of tumblr. But I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and say you're a troll.
>>214303
Well some people pointed out minor ones but you're right, my bad I didn't mean to say misinformation, like I said Tom is mostly correct.
With that out of the way, you still have no response to my main point
>>214316
So he is spreading misinformation, except he isnt misinforming anyone, because he isnt wrong. Alright.
>>214340
Guy's called John, mate.
>>214324
>>214325
>Intellectual
>A person whose only contributions to society are ideas
seems pretty self evident
>>214317
pol, go home.
Don't you have /v/ to shit up?
>>214366
>he can't argue anything
>le gb2pol xD
tomkeks on damage control
Has he reported on this?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=44vzMNG2fZc
>>214331
What point? You are saying that the only way to hold any sort of historical discussion is to say all the information, every time.
This is clearly stupid and I wont address it. I am sure you realize how ridiculous it is yourself.
>>214388
Reporting you for spam
>>214386
look, I'm not going to even waste my time on someone that none ironically calls someone a degenerate. You're literally not worth more than the energy I can muster up for this slightly angry message.
>>214362
It's not, though.
You don't have to make a living being smart to be considered an intellectual.
Take G.M. Trevelyan, he was - as David Cannadine puts it – ‘themost famous, the most honoured, the most influential and the most widely read historian of his generation’ but he was the son of a Lord and never had to work as an intellectual, or in any other way, in his life.
>>214388
>The forced collective suicide of European nations
Might as well add that Hitler reaction picture I am sure you had prepared.
>>212689
But Nietzsche is a good philosopher you c.u.c.k.
>>214366
People are still replying to this troll.
People are still replying to this thread
I can't believe it, my first day on /his/ and I already lost faith in this board.
This board isn't /pol/ with dates, or /int/ without flags, it's just /v/ with history and a bit more video games.
>>214389
John, please.
Do you REALLY think that a 10-minute video (5 of which are more jokes than information) is enough to explain a historical period of a 100+ years. Not to mention the entire span of the Ottoman Empire?
>they had some kind of nomadic roots
>but then they made an empire and also traded and also had eunuchs
>that's it guys, thanks for watching
>>214399
>can't argue anything
>I-I am not gonna say anything to u because you triggered me with an insult
Keep coming up with more excuses, you literally are a degenerate for defending Tom's bias.
>>214403
That's nice. His contributions were still all ideas though. He didn't build or invent anything.
Not saying that intellectuals are bad or worthless, on the contrary. I just take the title literally, as a job description, the same way I'd take miner or engineer.
>>214441
Stop using the word "triggered" please, even ironically.
>>214453
>I just take the title literally, as a job description, the same way I'd take miner or engineer.
That's nice.
It doesn't make it correct, or even widely used, though.
>>214403
>He was a Fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge from 1898 to 1903. He then spent more than twenty years as a full-time author. He returned to the University of Cambridge and was Regius Professor of History from 1927 to 1943. He served as Master of Trinity College from 1940 to 1951. In retirement, he was Chancellor of Durham University.
>>214389
>historical discussion
Are you retarded?
Lessons =/= discussion
If you want to teach somebody, you are expected to give them ENOUGH information (main info describing the topic) so they understand the given topic. With Tom Green's 10 minute videos this is not possible and some of his videos are obviously riddled with his bias (Haiti, Ancient Greece, Persians, Mongols).
You're seriously a cunt for not addressing the fact that he's biased. This thread is 250 comments deep and you have nowhere to address this yet, you keep defending him.
>>214471
Am I supposed to care?
>>210660
john green pls go
nobody likes you and you're kucked
>>214592
Well you've been arguing with me about it, so I assumed you did, yes.
Words have meaning, that's kind of the point.
>>214317
Guys, I think this might be John himself.
So mad your wife fucks other men that you spend your days shitposting on 4chan?
>>214608
I meant, am I supposed to care that my definition is not the consensus? What is the point in holding an opinion if it's the same as the consensus?
>some little kid watches 10 minute vid on ottoman empire
>thinks hes a fucking historian
fuck that shit
>a history of indian ocean trade
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a6XtBLDmPA0
>doesn't mention the dutch, portugese or british indian ocean companies
>he specifically says europeans were not involved in indian ocean trade
i know he was talking about an earlier period but to say that europeans had no part in indian ocean trade and to claim to offer a history of indian ocean trade is stupid.
>>214496
Are YOU retarded? Lesson? Its a Youtube video on a channel called CrashCourse. Do you know what a crash course is?
If you seriously, unironically believe that any mention of history which takes place over less than 2 hours and doesnt span the entirety of the topic is worthless, I am afraid you are worthless.
Drain your veins in the sink, lad.
