What does /his/ think of Crash Course History? Fair and balanced view of world history or literal trash?
Beyond being trash. Constantly tries to push a far-left agenda. See his video on Alexander the Great.
Total garbage. John Green is a hack in every field he's wormed his way into.
>>26020
It has a left-leaning bias but isn't too bad. I don't agree with it being used in schools but whatever. Guess that's the quality of AP History.
We had this thread earlier.
They show his videos in high school classes.
Make of that what you will.
John Green = trash.
Beyond awful
Popscience tier
>>26080
Get used to seeing the same threads every day.
>>26020
its pretty trashy, he will pull his far left political agenda into everything he talks about even at the sacrifice of actual history, it's the equivalent of going to /pol/ for history
>>26020
Trash.
Wayyy too limited in time to be of any practical use.
>>26020
>"the japanese bombed pearl harbour to prevent the usa from entering the war or something"
t.john green
>>26020
>video on Alexander the great
>spends half of it talking about how women don't get the title "the great" while ignoring the women that had the title "the great"
he has an issue of putting information not relevant to the topic in his videos
It's okay for it's target audience. He has his biases obviously, but so does everyone. Not exactly a serious history course, but then that's obvious and obviously not what it intends to be in the first place.
>>26212
this literally isn't true
I think they were decent 101 videos on history, and somwhat amusing. An easy digest to get people interested in knowing more about history, nothing wrong with that, even with biases.
>War is beneficial to humanity
t. John Green
>>26287
I was about to write exactly this, but thank you for saving me the effort, anon.
He has his biases, but honestly everyone does.
>Crash 'European history is literally irrelevant cis propaganda only world shaping history that matters are Nigerian tribal wars of 7th century' Course
No thanks
>>26086
Except he does. he says so at the end of every video.
>Helps that it's written by someone highly educated in the subject.
>educated
Doesn't help if your education was bullshit.
>>26356
Lmao the funny thing is he talks about how bad Eurocentrism is then 90% of his videos are about European history. Even the one's that aren't usually involve European colonialism in some way.
Have you ever read a history book that was so full of bullshit it was basically a novel and you felt the need to stop reading and tell all the people you know not to read that book ever?
and what about that moment when you're the only person who disliked the book and when you tell other people about it they are all excited because they loved it?
yep
>>26020
He skims over important stuff that disagrees with the narrative he wants to feed you by spewing information at you so quick you can only digest it all whole with no processing or tune out. He doesn't get you to think or interpret history, he just throws a pile of minor facts at you with his stupid opinions on top. He doesn't judge people and events as products of their time and complains about ancient greeks not acting in accordance with contemporary feminist values. He's beyond worthless. He's actively harming the minds of people he take in what he says.
>>26408
I remember my history book having "Jews" excavated from mass graves in german uniforms. At the time, I explained it away as them probably being naked, and them wanting to bury them in something.
I was a really stupid kid.
>>26385
No, he just writes the formulation. Basically just the "jokes". The actual information is supplied by his old history teacher who, as you would know if you watched more than one video, shows staggering comprehension in the subject.
This shit flew on /int/ and /pol/, but now that there's a /his/ I fully expect all of you to learn as much about history as possible. I demand that you either watch history 201 or never, ever comment about this again.
>>26020
LITERAL
FUCKING
TRASH
>>26444
I want /pol/ to leave.
>>26439
>He doesn't judge people and events as products of their time
This is propably the worst aspect. Knowledge of history is worthless trivia without the cause and effect.
>>26470
just fucking ignore those posts if you don't like instead of starting flame wars over your hurt feelings m8.
Let's ask this instead.
What are some actually GOOD history channels?
>>26445
>If you don't subscribe to my interpretation of history, you're a doodyface, and not allowed on MY board.
Make me.
I can smell your unwarrented self importance through the internet. Your neighbors must have lost their sense of taste and smell years ago.
>No, he just writes the formulation. Basically just the "jokes".
If this is true, I'd like to hear it from a source saying so. If not, I would like to know exactly where you got the idea, and I'll judge for myself.
>>26589
Dan Carlin
but he's got a podcast, not a youtube channel
>>26470
>/pol/ boogieman
You just assume everyone you disagree with comes from /pol/, don't you? I didn't even say what else was in the book, only that they got one of the pictures wrong.
>>26589
Yale's youtube channel is good for all kinds of education. They have loads of lectures on all kinds of subjects that you can watch for free.
>>26596
That vlog thing he does.
>>26651
I'm not going to mine his channel just to find a particular line. can you point me to a specific video, or even the general nature of the title of the video where he says that he does directing while his teacher does the writing?
it's good as introduction
>>26589
On Youtube? Historia Civilis is pretty good, particular RE: Roman battles. One gets the impression that's his area of particular expertise. I also like Gresham College and someone mentioned Yale. A lot of universities have lecture series' uploaded onto Youtube.
As for Crash Course, it's not really history - just sort of pop history repackaged for light entertainment purposes. The format makes that clear enough. I doubt it's misleading anyone whose opinion carries significant intellectual weight anyway.
>>26470
>something is hurting my feelings
>"/pol/s triggering me!"
This is the cancer that /his/ was born with.
HE'S GONNA TAKE YOU BACK TO THE PAST
>>26020
It's pretty good to be honest, I'd really recommend it as an introductory to a broad range of topics.
Oh sorry, I forgot what website I was on.
>Filthy liberal kike his cultural Marxist agenda FUCKING TRIGGERS ME he mentioned that COLONIALISM WAS BAD WHAT A FUCKING KIKE
>>26777
How many layers of bait/false-flagging are we seeing here?
>>26614
> Dan Carlin
His "blueprint for Armageddon" series was awesome. I really like the way he talks about the events, it feels like he cares about what he's saying.
>>26777
>Colonialism
>Bad
How dare all these Europeans invade all those other culture's nothing, and leave behind homes, schools, parks, and infrastructure.
>>26862
I think Blueprint for Armageddon started great, but I was kinda disappointed for the ending, it was so sudden, and never discussed the peace and just what that meant for the german military and people, and how it set the stage for WW2.
>>26885
>Responding to my sarcastic post about how /pol/ gets triggered by negative mentions of colonialism by getting all triggered about my negative mention of colonialism
I don't even know who's trolling who anymore
>>26086
Have you seen his video on Japan? He kept rambling on about 'muh females'
>>26958
Did you see his video on the roman empire? He kept on rambling about "muh males"
>>26769
TO LET YOU FUCK HIS WIFE IN THE ASS
>>27089
HE'D RATHER HAVE CONSTANTINOPLE
RULED BY TURKS, AND NOT BY THE GREEK
>>26020
He is terrible and a lot of stuff he says is false.
>>26287
>somewhat amusing
Are you 12?
>>26954
But that's exactly what you're implying, that colonialism was bad. Either make a positive claim, or stop shitposting altogether.
>>26356
Everyone from every English speaking country already knows a good amount of history that's important to english speaking people. It's good to have a little from everywhere, even if he lent a little bit too left on the reasoning. History from anywhere is interesting.
Really the only thing that pissed me off about it was that he flat out said he would not talk about the Napoleonic Wars, even in places it probably would have made sense to talk about the Napoleonic Wars.
>>26020
muh memegols
>>27215
>Really the only thing that pissed me off about it was that he flat out said he would not talk about the Napoleonic Wars, even in places it probably would have made sense to talk about the Napoleonic Wars.
Why is that? That seems like an odd topic to refuse to talk about
>>26020
>literal trash
This.
>>27281
Hell if I know. Because muh great man history I'd guess. I'd have to go and watch the French Revolution one or one of the ones around then to get the actual reasoning.
>>27215
>Everyone from every English speaking country already knows a good amount of history that's important to english speaking people.
No, they don't. The Middle Ages for example are barely even covered in detail.
>>26043
>See his video on Alexander the Great.
what part about this is bad exactly
did it upset you when he talked about his tangentically related opinions, which he said were opinions and pretty much amounted to "he conquered a lot but I don't know if he was a good leader"
>>26020
>dude haiti did nothing wrong. ever
only thing i've ever watched
>watch one of his videos
>computer is a Mac with "this machine kills fascists" sticker on it
Nope, not even going to bother watching this shit
>>26885
B-But muh Fanon.
>>27657
You're not missing out.
Everything John Green does is total garbage.
>>26020
Green is a meme and nothing more
>>26020
>Fair and balanced view of world history
World history is dreck. About the closest you can come to actual historiography is long duration history ala annales or the attempt to produce a Marxist social science by Wallerstein in his world-systems theory. I'd suggest you start with the annales, the attempt to produce a history of the Mediterranean is the best work IMNSHO.
>>26020
I prefer his crash course on literature - I don't think he's a good historian albeit he'd probably be a good teacher.
>>27657
His videos are pretty much how history class would've been if the schoolbooks were written by tumblr users
>Hurr the dark ages were they real?
>Proceeds to talk about how enlightened the rest of the world was
No shit, because the dark ages were a European phenomenon.
>>27535
>Completely gloss over the massacre comitted by the blacks that left Haiti a dark spot in world trade for a really really really long time
No, because when he says fair and balanced, he actually means anti-Eurocentric.
No, you can debate between yourselves on whether that's good or not, but calling it nonpartisan is just disingenuous.
>muh Islam Golden Age
>muh Persians
>muh Alexander the Great was like some american reality tv show "personality" (wtf?)
Pure trash
I feel sorry for the Americans who are forced to watch this revisionist BS by their teachers
>>31461
>normies like him
>normies learn from him
>normies spread his words
>>26043
His 'agenda' is actually pretty vanilla Liberal. I wish he was far-left.
>>31438
Does he ever actually claim the show is non-partisan?
>>31830
He himself is far-left, but Crash Course, being written by his high school teacher, is just your standard historical revisionism.
>The renaissance wasn't really all that great, you guys
>The Eastern Islamic states were actually highly civilized in comparison to the Europeans
>Mongols were horrible rapist killers, but they're the exception
That kind of thing.
>>31872
Not totally, but he does say that he shoots for a more fair view of world history, but that's still disingenuous because it's actually fairly anti-european.
>>31952
The problem is that actual left movements have managed to produce very readable "popular" histories. Who cares what he thinks when his work (besides being juvenile popularisation) is an appalling sham as far as the education of the working class is concerned.
From the standpoint of pedagogy he is stuck in the 1950s.
>>31952
>He himself is far-left, but Crash Course, being written by his high school teacher, is just your standard historical revisionism.
Sure, but what do you want me to feel about that? I mean, revisionism like that exists because the Western historical canon had centuries of claiming the opposite of your greentexts. I'm studying a degree in history right now and the sort of stuff covered in the videos is a very basic coverage of the kind of stuff you might find in a classroom; however if you're under the impression evil commie jews have infested academia with 'anti-European' ideas then that's not really a persuasive point. Your summation of his point about the Mongols also fails to address that the point of the video was that the Mongols have a very ambiguous legacy, and it's not an idea that he came up with; Mongol Empire historiography has pretty radically changed in the last few decades. And again, I'd like to point out, he's actually pretty moderate in his conclusions.
>calling Alexander "The Great" is misogynistic
>>32238
And just to make clear, I'm not trying to argue he's Eric Hobsbawm or something, it's a 10 minute video which touches on the basic points, a sort of 'crash course' if you will.
It's not that bad as most people claim, but there are much better and to the point videos that you can find.
>>32238
I'm not saying that's bad, I'm just saying he should have called it a non-eurocentric historical revisionist's crash course, not a fair and balanced look at history.
>>32298
And exactly what is wrong with Hobsbawm appart from his appalling taste for "grand" history.
>>32277
>and totally glossing over Catherine the Great
>all these mad as fuck /pol/fags ITT
If you don't like John Green in 2015 you might as well just admit to being a stromfront weenie, that's the simple truth and what most people think
pmsl
>>32566
Nothing. I like Hobsbawm. I meant that in "he's not as good as Hobsbawm".
>>32809
nice bait faggot
>>32857
>Nothing
>nothing wrong with marxism
>>32809
>2015
>>32533
I'm going to point out that your definition of world history is just as "fair and balanced", you just consider it to be the normal position.
>>31830
Celebrating the mass murder of white people during the Haitian Revolution is "vanilla liberal" now?
Ignoring the anti-european bias present in his videos, they are passable entry level knowledge on some subjects. They present the events in an easy, understandable way without focusing too much on the details. Only useful for middle school or primary school history classes.
However, as I said earlier, his videos are way too biased, which is why they shouldn't be shown in schools.
>>26320
probably one of the few right things he has said
>>32982
I'm not saying mine is fair and balanced at all, you idiot.
A fair and balanced view of History would weigh the cultures of the worlds equally, their good and bad deeds being praised and reputed equally.
I'm more interested in European History, so that's what I focus on.
>>32533
Sure, and I agree with you - I think it's much more intellectually honest to wear your bias on your sleeve, but I feel like this 'fair and balanced claim' isn't something Green throws out a lot. There's that one episode where he quite blatantly uses an anarchist historian as the premise of the episode.
>>33001
Also just on this specific point, I guess it's sad that people had to die and whatever, but considering most of those people were aristo slavers and the Haitian Revolution signalled a significant act of black agency and liberation I'm not gonna lose sleep over it. Obviously any death is a tragedy and violence is bad etc. etc. etc. but slavery was an inherently violent system, so looking down on its victims for using violence is I think a bit two-faced.
I don't find the world history section to be that bad, it's more providing history as entertainment than actually discussing nuances though.
The bias *really* shines through pretty badly once you get to his American history section. He quite literally turns into a whiny cunt about slavery and women's oppression every single video.
>>33215
With enough rhetoric you can frame anything in the same terms to justify any amount of violence.
>I guess it's sad that people had to die in pogroms but Jewish moneylending to slavic peasants was an inherently violent and predatory system
When history takes that path it becomes nothing else that justification for the next genocides.
>>33211
>good and bad deeds
That requires you to judge something as good and bad, which inherently means you can't have fair and balanced world history by your definition. You can just have history though X or Y lens.
Which is funnily enough what he goes on about in many of his videos.
>>26212
When I think of the title "The Great" the second person that come to mind is a woman.
>>33455
Yeah, I take your point, however I think you're full of shit. This idea of saying that all violence is equally bad in practice only serves to condone the everyday violence of systems like slavery or, dare I say, capitalism. Yeah, it's bad that white people died, but I still think the Haitian Revolution was basically a good thing. The Terror was bad too, but the French Revolution was, in my opinion, basically a good thing for creating modernity.
People (kind of justifiably) hate him because of his shamelessly liberal/leftists/whatever young folks call it these days opinions which he mercilessly try force down the viewer's throat, but if you're not a gullible idiot or an easily offended conservative extremist it's a pretty decent series.
>>33671
As I thought, you are a commie.
The thing about everyday violence in real life, outside of the discourse of radical historians, is that you are so focused on trying to survive that you don't have time to rebel. There was no rebellion against Soviet collectivization, just kulaks getting themselves slaughtered, dying of famine or and sent to gulags, because THAT'S everyday violence.
Having to work to make a living is not "everyday violence" and it doesn't justify your dreams of killing all white people.
>>33555
>that requires you to judge something as good and bad, which inherently means you can't have fair and balanced world history by your definition
I find nothing wrong with categorizing acts of non-defensive aggression or genocide bad, or civil progress good.
It's when you start labeling entire nations and peoples as bad or good or better or worse than others where unfairness seeps in.
>>33671
>I still think the Haitian Revolution was basically a good thing
What good came out of the Haitian Revolution? It was literally just a bunch of black slaves getting buttmad and acting savage. They accomplished nothing, apart from killing a couple of French slimes, most of which weren't even involved in the slavery thing.
>>33671
>everyday violence of systems like slavery or, dare I say, capitalism
How does the every day violence of Capitalism compare to that of Communism?
>>33671
Haitian revolution was slaves earning independence in a very dumb way that ruined their country's perspective of developing for centuries. I'm not going to argue on the righteousness of killing those who enslaved you, but it was dumb revolution from a practical point of view even if you overlook the morality of the killing for freedom point. It's definitely not an event to be admired. It's more like the kind of event where you look and think "holy shit, what a fucking mess", literally nothing good came out of this.
>>26020
Garbage
How about Extra History?
I actually quite like them, if only for the way they spin narratives around the events in question.
>>26020
They're fun, and informative. It's not like you can get much info into few minutes.
>>34144
anon communism isn't real
>>34144
Well there's far less people dying due to hunger.
>>34182
aha! a fellow r/history veteran
I tip my ironic shitpost to you my good sir
*nods*
>>34205
I guess bullets are faster
>>34152
Considering the lifespan of Haitian slaves at the time, I wouldn't call the revolution a bad call.
It's dumb to blame Haiti's post revolution station on the people who revolted, and not the people who created the conditions that led to the revolt.
Acceptable for a gist introduction for someone who doesn't give a shit but never to be taken at face value.
Regrettably, the people who this appeals to are exactly the people who will take it uncritically at face value.
>>34205
What are you talking about, the greatest famines ot the XXth century happened in communist countries, even in Africa, which people associate with capitalism, the worst famine happened in Ethiopia under the Marxist-Leninist Derg.
Really, if mods are going to ban racism, they should ban communism too, considering how the latter killed even more people.
>>34222
Why bother killing them yourself with bullets just use proxy wars to get small nations to do it for you.
>>34209
Miss-spotted anon. Though who knows, maybe I was unknowingly flying a false flag by making that post.
>>34254
I was referring to less people dying because of hunger under a Capitalistic society.
>>34242
I'm not blaming them. I'm saying that given the situation they could have handled it much better, like most slaves in most other colonies did. As things were, anybody could have foreseen the consequences of a complete blood driven rupture with the oppression system. I'm not saying the cause wasn't just, I'm saying they had a shitty plan.
>>34182
>I actually quite like them
>>34182
>liking anything made by these guys
>>26020
The latter
>>34182
>let me read you the wikipedia timeline of events with some shitty artwork in the background
>oh and btw here is a 20 minute video of all the dumb mistakes and inaccuracies haha silly us :^)
>>26356
this.
>>26043
>Constantly tries to push a far-left agenda
It seems like he just enjoys saying things that are sort of controversial, like how he says historically Theocracy has worked better than Democracy, which is a far right position if there ever was one.
>>26253
Well reasoned, thanks
>>26020
Tends to steer away from the actual POINT or main issues in a historical time. Yes, we get it, you studied all those obscure little things and think you are a progressive teacher, but holy fucking shit can I please watch history videos and not have political assumptions raised everywhere.
>>33671
>the haitian revolution was so good that haitians are flooding my country (that kept a western leadership)
>>31374
I fucking hate this shit. If you want to do a video on the Islamic Golden age then then go ahead, but don't give your video a misleading title to try to look subversive and clever.
It would be like doing a video called "The Three Kingdoms Period" then spending the whole video talking about how there were Kingdoms outside of china
>>31952
>The Eastern Islamic states were actually highly civilized in comparison to the European
In comparison to Europe before the Crusades, isn't that basically true? Elaborate please.
>>26589
Not really a channel, but Civilization, the little movies series, is good. Hits a lot of aspects I personally looked over or didn't know about
>>26589
Ancient Recitations is probably my favourite, particularly the Ancient Exploration videos
>>26885
>Colonialism
>Good
Oh hey Native Americans, no big deal, but we're gonna go ahead and invade your successful civilizations, and spread our diseases until you're all dead. We're civilizing you.
>>39617
The natives were doing nothing productive with their land. Advanced civilizations conquering weak ones is nothing new, but millennials can't get over their white guilt over this specific group for whatever reason.
>>39787
Probably because it's not "a specific group of people" but around 50% of the entire Mongoloid race. There's a huge difference between Carribean natives, Canadian natives, Central American natives, South American natives, etc. I don't think modern people should be blamed for a tragedy centuries ago, but don't act like it wasn't a bad thing.
>>26077
>It has a left-leaning bias but isn't too bad.
It permeates every opinion he has. He literally cannot have an opinion that isn't in some way related to feminism or progressiveism.
>>39918
If you take your feelings out of the equation, it's not a bad thing in the slightest.
>>39964
>people dying in large quantities who didn't do anything to their invaders
>not a bad thing
Please explain?
>>40013
Can you read?
They could have surrendered if they wanted to.
>>40085
>They
We went over this. There's thousands of tribes, and the colonists tended to group them together. They aren't all gonna agree to surrender because even if they could achieve that organization, they aren't able to communicate messages from Central America to Northern Canada in any useful speed. In addition, some large tribes did surrender. They got reduced to minimal numbers like the rest of the tribes.
It's not feelings either. The europeans did not need to kill that many natives to civilize the region. Unnecessary violence is never a good thing.
