Is the study of history being given a bad name by spergies?

Wait, so he didn't even draw a comparison?

Even the most charitable of Wehraboos could only get the invasion and partiton of Czechoslovakia in 1939 out of that.

He posited that if Kursk had gone differently the tide would have turned back in the Germans' favor. The Soviet Union would have ceased to exist as a state or nation and therefore there would never have been political tension between the Ukraine and Russia today.

But that doesn't draw a comparison at all, it just posits an unlikely scenario in which the situation never arises.

>Missing the point of this paper this hard

I'm sorry you had to go through that senpai

What is sperglords? I only ever hear tumblr types saying that term

Lmao. "If the Jew didn't exist..."

Aspergers, most likely.

It refers to people with Asperger's syndrome (now just part of the autism spectrum IIRC). More generally it just refers to anal, socially awkward sorts that obsess about minutiae and don't seem to have the common filters ordinary people possess.

You mean the lie filter everyone is running. And when someone says the truth, the people with the lie filter hate on it because they live a lie.

military history is an excellent entry level for universal history, if the guy is a good student and can grasp a broader picture he´ll be fine

The Rommel fappers are known as Wehraboo's.

As best I can guess, the guy just wrote a screed about the Battle of Kursk, then tailored it in a way that (he thought) it would apply to the prompt.

I'd love to quote the paper directly. It's so beyond ridiculous.

>military history is an excellent entry level for universal history
This is definitely valid. One of the first books that got me into studying history was on the evacuation at Dunkirk. It just seems that some of these kids are afraid or uninterested from expanding beyond their own granular interests.

OP, heres my suggestion:
Im assuming that youre having them cite their sources in their papers, no?
If youre not, you should be and you have nothing to complain about.
If you are, pick apart their source base and the validity of their arguments in their papers. If they are promoting ideas that are based in fallacy, then they get a poor grade, simple as that.

Lies are an important component of social interaction.

1st years are often overly enthusiastic. people need to be trained to think like a historian.

Why not introduce alternative theories of history and explicitly call out GMT in lecture?

>pick apart their source base and the validity of their arguments in their papers. If they are promoting ideas that are based in fallacy, then they get a poor grade, simple as that.

Ty for this advice. I do have them citing sources, but as it's a community college, the experience they have with citation is wildly inconsistent. Some grasp it and others have no idea what constitutes a source. I'd like to take a couple days for a workshop on it, but the curriculum is already so jam-packed that I haven't been able to carve out any time for it.

If you don't have time to teach them, try directing them to a resource online and making it homework for a night to research how to cite properly.

You could even have them have to cite an actual historical source accurately if you want to test that they actually looked it up.

Tell them if they keep going on about what you dont discuss in class, next time they bring it up you will give a pop-exam on the subject.

I would also like to do this, but it seems reactionary and tangential to the content of the course. I feel that they should have been reading about this in an earlier course.

I think the reason lots of people interested in history are mostly interested in historical militaria and "muh big men" is because most of the people interested in history got into it through video games.

Think about it. Video games are the most common diversion for college age men, especially if they're nerdy spergs like you're saying they are. And video games that are based on history, like Europa, Mount and Blade, Total War... they all focus on wars, and the generals who fought them.

Additionally, being video games, they also need to have characters, and if there are characters then history becomes more like a play, with protagonists and antagonists, and "Great Men" playing the big parts.

So it's no surprise that young people interested in history think history is about great men and great wars. That's all they've ever been exposed to.

Normally, school should fix this, but let's be honest: history classes are usually way less interesting than playing video games. If you're a teenager in his formative years, what's going to entice you more: an accurate, complete academic view of history obtained through books, or a distorted, warlike view of history obtained through video games?

Add in the facts that:

1. Every kid feels like an expert now because they can Google something and Google will tell them whatever they want to believe and

2. Right-wing authoritarianism is becoming more popular and

3. Historical revisionism has never been more popular thanks to the aforementioned Google problem,

then that should answer your question.

Thanks for this. I majored in Philosophy in undergrad, so I didn't have much experience dealing with undergrad history students.

>it seems reactionary and tangential to the content of the course
Part of your job involves teaching students about theories, I have a history degree and every single one of my professors went off on what you call 'tangents' about theories. A historian has to deal with theories on some level, simply because the discipline necessarily involves the interpretation of documents that cannot be interpreted sans theory. There's nothing tangential about introducing at least one alternative go GMT.

Fair enough. I'll try and work on this.

I think the reason history is given a bad rap is because there are so many versions of it and I'm pretty sure Tacitus and Herodotus were quite often full of crap. That and people spin history in so many ways to accommodate political ideologies.

Try just asking them questions about the nature of institutions in relation to individuals, the nature of things like nations and states, etc. Don't even force anything on them, turn it into a discussion and just introduce alternative views to the occasionally problematic one you mention in the OP. Even mention GMT and advocate it as much as any other theory, your students may be able to make good arguments in its favor. They also may not, but it'll be a learning experience for them.

Man I just fucking hate poor people, why do they even go to school in the first place?

Same reason systems of low pressure attract high pressure systems in order to create equilibrium. The universe is heading towards its inevitable heat death and always seeks heat death equilibrium.

So what kind of papers or topics would you be happy to see OP?

>and if there are characters then history becomes more like a play, with protagonists and antagonists, and "Great Men" playing the big parts
Is there anything inherently wrong with viewing history like this? One of my history professor makes a point of asking the students in the first assignment what their favorite thing about history is, and most (including me) say it's the stories and characters it produces. While you should never lose sight of larger issues, individuals can help put grand historical concepts and trends into perspective.

What's wrong with liking military history?

>Obsessed with nazis
Probably because it's got some of the most easily available information.

There is nothing wrong, and individuals do shape the course of history, but many people seem to be unable to reconcile collectivist and individualist views of history.

>Right wing authoritarianism
Authoritarianism*, left wing totalitarian views are on the rise too. In fact the divise is becoming harder to spot again as some extreme "leftists" adopt identity politics and nationalist views essentially making them indistinguishable from the "right".

I am of the opinion we should label all forms of authoritarianism as not belonging in the left-right spectrum but rather being it's own separate thing.

Because being obsessed with German military history leads to making completely wrong claims. Mature historians can debate where the Third Reich's military went right and where it went wrong without beginning to ramble about what Hitler needed to do to win WW2. Immature ones can't.

I wrote a game theory paper drawing parallels between the Ukraine Crisis and the Cuban Missile Crisis for my senior project. If this thread is still up and you're still around later I can post it.

OP here, I'd be delighted to read it

I'm not in any history course but I've got a similar case to what you're describing OP.
There's this really annoying girl in my classroom whom I suspect has legit aspergers but she seems to come from a crazy white supremacist family who would never ever consider that their precious daughter might have mental problems.

We're linguistics students but she seems to have this autistic obsession over history that makes her unable to contain her bullshit whenever something even remotely related to a historical figure or historical event is vaguely suggested. She also seems to see herself as a political figure and a physician (she went to medical school for a year or so and apparently that's enough for her to be able to prescribe medicine and give accurate diagnoses).
She also speaks very very loudly and gets really mad whenever someone doesn't agree with her bullshit.
Whenever I walk past her, she's speaking loudly about how the US is going to go to war with Mexico soon and how better the world would have been if Hitler had won or the US had been bombed to dust back in WWII.

Shit's literally unbelievable. I really don't understand how someone can turn into that in no less than 23 years.

>mfw she is told to do a presentation on literature class

I just have a casual interest in history. nothing academic but i like reading about stuff, and talking with friends and family about what i read.

That's not bad is it?

is she cute?

>got into a history like a year or two ago
>read a bit
>my family now thinks I have some amazing grasp of history

You could probably also do something on the Spanish Civil War.

First of all, nice trips.

>as some extreme "leftists" adopt...nationalist views essentially making them indistinguishable from the "right".
I don't know if you're referring to actual left politics or rank-and-file left-leaning Democrats, because the latter is definitely undergoing some crazy metamorphosis. Just ten years ago, the image associated with the common Democrat was an anti-war protester, stomping on the flag or something like that. The most recent DNC was absolutely startling in its overt nationalistic patriotism.

>I am of the opinion we should label all forms of authoritarianism as not belonging in the left-right spectrum but rather being it's own separate thing.
One thing I've found in reading the material given here for PoliSci 100 is that the 'spectrum' meme is not even questioned or presented as one structure of organizing politics. It's literally just "everything is on a straight line from left to right". The spectrum only really applies to centrist liberal politics desu

Boomers are even worse about this, though.

>Is there anything inherently wrong with viewing history like this?
In a play, events exist for the benefit of the characters, and the unseen or minor roles are literally irrelevant. In History, every single person has equal depth and narrative complexity.

...

I have only recently gotten into History (past 2 years or so) and have only very recently become extremely interested (6 months). I began like this, with the 'great man' model and being inspired by figures such as Napoleon, Caesar etc. I was, and still am, extremely interested in military history and militaria. However, I also hold a great deal of interest for the politcal aspects that drive large changes in the world, and seeing how most 'great men' make use of existing discontent to secure their power. Am I already a sperg? And if so can I change this?

I'm naturally inclined to avoid focusing on great man history because i can't remember names or dates for shit, so it's a bunch a stuff that led to some other stuff for reasons.

Nah, you're not a sperg, your a newb. The difference is demonstrated by the fact that you're changing to a more nuanced understanding as you get a bigger view of the picture.

Spergs just dig their heels in and only collect details to reinforce their myopia. Just keep an open mind, keep reading, and keep making connections and you'll do fine.

So, military history is a thing; it's a specific degree at several institutions. I would suggest directing these students towards that specific pathway, if they're interested in doing a four-year degree.

As for the sympathy issue, I think it's just one of those situations where people feel that there isn't a call to do great things anymore. Like in the introductory speech from Fight Club. They identify with the idea of "average" men (but ones with a deep reservoir of hidden talent) doing great things for a cause; doesn't have to be a good cause, just a cause. Naturally, a bit of self-aggrandizement is part of the package. Sperging autists aside, I think most historically-minded individuals feel a really strong attachment to a group or period of time. For me, although I've moved on to other regions and periods, I'm still a classicist at heart. The Greeks and Romans just make me feel all warm and fuzzy, and I find myself, often, being less critical about what I read than I should be. Which is part of the reason why I didn't end up pursuing a major in it. Sometimes your hobby should stay as your hobby.

Even as a history autist, I never try to shoehorn some fucking pet subject where it doesn't belong.

Also, could someone explain this 'great man' meme to me?

The Great Man theory is a 19th-century idea according to which history can be largely explained by the impact of "great men", or heroes; highly influential individuals who, due to either their personal charisma, intelligence, wisdom, or political skill utilized their power in a way that had a decisive historical impact.

t.Wikipedia

So, is the debate over to what degree such people can influence history, or is it about whether or not great men exist?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Man_theory

Technically, Carlyle's version is the real GMT; however, in my experience, everyone but the weirdest autismo losers actually mean Spencer's counter-argument when they use it.

I don't think there is much debate in OP's post to either. I personally believe that the Great Man theory exists in some form, alongside other outside influences. The problem OP has is that these people he talks with do not expand their horizons beyond believing these men to be instrumental to many large events in history and take much interest in how they worked militarily, whilst ignoring the political and outside factors that influenced these periods also.

Thanks. I was almost afraid that by thinking great people existed, I was a sperg.

Yes. le strong figure mentality is what leads to memetic understanding of history which in turn produces shit like OP naziboo

No, there are absolutely men that have a noticeable impact on their time period. Whilst it is always hard to say what would have happened without them, we can still clearly see the effects that they had on their times. However, what breeds "shit like OP naziboo" is failing to recognise outside factors that helped get these people into their positions.

Does anyone unironically think they just came into the world 100% gr8?

Perhaps some people do, but what point are you trying to make?

seconded

Not trying to make a point at all. I'm just trying to understand where the GM spergs are coming from.

Maybe it's because they want some sort of role model, or want to perhaps aspire to be like these 'ordinary' people who faced off against the odds to become powerful. But now we're delvng into psychology.

>It goes without saying that these individuals are not very bright, it's a community college after all.

Yes and it is your responsibility to teach them.

Id imagine even in a university setting most professors probably want to blow their brains out with some of the things undergrads come up with.

Why not make it into a lesson about the proper way of arguing a stance in a paper, proper research techniques, primary vs. secondary sources, etc.

You didn't have a clue once upon a time either.

>I'm going to insult all community college students because economics surely doesn't factor into their decision to attend instead of a university

Your what's ruining history OP, don't worry though. When your dead all these neo-Nazi spergs will be there to take your job so you won't have to worry about it.

>actually professor
>C- right under it

keked

I not only had this faggot in history, but also in a speech class.

I wasn't trying to shit on community colleges or those who attend them. There are private universities with much lower-grade student bodies than the typical CC. Some, if not the majority of students in my class would excel at normal colleges, but they have other exigent circumstances that preclude them from doing so. I believe strongly that CC's are beneficial to the American higher education system, that's why I chose to adjunct there as opposed to a much more "prestigious" private university that also offered me an adjuncting position.

But it's also no secret that CC's cast a wide net. Interestingly, of the problem 'wehraboo' students in my class, a disproportionate number were formerly attending four-year universities before they began classes at this CC. I suspect that they're being tossed around by institutions like hot potatoes, if only because they are refusing to take on the basic expectations of college.

I know I'm venting a bit here, but my main intention is to guide them out of this rut and onto broader theories and subjects in history.

Names and dates are about 1% of history, I wouldn't sweat it user.

>So, military history is a thing; it's a specific degree at several institutions. I would suggest directing these students towards that specific pathway, if they're interested in doing a four-year degree.

I've thought about this, but I also feel that - in such a position - I should also equally encourage a student to step outside of their comfort zone. I wouldn't want to encourage them to enter a field where they will have to radically change the way they work with something they already love. As you said, sometimes a hobby should remain a hobby.

I knew that at least one of you would ask this.
No she's not. She's really fat and dresses like a man. She also sweats a lot.

Well this thread has given me relief because some books I have are Caesar by Goldsworthy, Napoleon by Roberts, Europe: A History by Norman Davies, and The Thirty Years War by Wedgwood.

I look forward to Polybius, Thucydides, writings from Cicero and others just to make this post short. I guess I'm not a sperg, but to be fair the man in the OP was heavily influenced by the great men in history he read about. Unless the issue is simply people playing with history like it's a sandbox instead of a careful analysis of people and events.

>Be in an entry level US history class at a Community College.
>Professor turns it into a US Constitution course 101.
>Professor assigns a supreme court case project.
>Each student is assigned a significant supreme court case and must present it in front of the class.
>A manlet Mormon who is similar to is in my class.
>Very conservative and occasionally tries to interject his ideology into the class conversation.
>The Mormon is a cocky history buff and wants a challenging/complex supreme court case.
>Professor assigns him Maryland v. Craig.
>The case is about a child sex offender who's conviction was reversed by Maryland Court of Appeals because the defendant was not face to face with the child victim when the child testified as a witness during trial.
>Thus violating the 6th amendment's Confrontational Clause.
>The supreme Court reserved the Maryland High Court, ruling that the Confrontational Clause embodies a "preference" for face-to-face, in person confrontation, which may be limited to satisfy sufficiently important interests.
>Like the victim child suffering severe emotional trauma from seeing the Defendant.
>The Mormon begins by stating the basic facts of the case, eventually leading up the discussion of the Supreme Court ruling.
>The professor asks him what the ruling was.
>"Well unfortunately the Supreme Court ruled the trial was unconstitutional."
>Professor replies, "Wait, you must of read the Maryland Court's ruling."
>Professor has to take over his presentation and guide him through the Supreme Court ruling.
>His ego is utterly btfo.

I could not believe how bad he fucked up his research. He could of used Wikipedia as his only research source and still would have done a better job.

>must of
>could have
How often do you get marked down for stupid shit like this in essays?

>must of
>could of*
corrected there without thinking

>receding hairline

spot on

Bear in mind my brother that they are probably not your average History undergrads, considering it's community college. At the top History Unis in my country (UK), you won't find many of them - most people are interested in social and economic history.

What exactly is wrong with the Great Man theory?
I myself am a Byzantine history major, and around the time period I'm focusing on, I think it's undeniable to deny that Alexius, John, and Manuel were out of the ordinary men.
Of course, I'm not so focused on military history, as seems to be the case with many of the people quoted in the thread, so perhaps it's not as bad in my case.

impossibly to deny*
wew, I'm still drowsy

Rebuttal of great man theory doesn't mean there's not extraordinary men. No one would deny men have varying degrees of competence in various fields, and some of them have extraordinary capabilities. Some of these men also find themselves making crucial decisions that would apply to whole states and therefor change the course of history.

But the ability to use and apply these abilities takes place within a time and context. The larger picture of the world dictates what kind of, and if, extraordinary men will arise.

I don't know much about Byzantine history, but for example, lets take Christopher Columbus. GMT tells us that Christopher Columbus was a man who was unafraid of exploring the sea to the west, and therefor discovered America when other people said it was impossible. If Christopher Columbus had not been born, Europe would have never discovered America. If he had been born a century or two earlier, the colonization of the Americas would have come a century or two earlier. (And since GMT goes great with dumb alt-history, he would probably offer his services to the Muslim Kingdoms in Spain and then all of America would be Muslim).

But all this ignores the context that his actions took place in: The declining mediterranean trade, the closing of the silk road, Portuguese and Spanish exploration and exploitation of territories to the south and west such as the Azores and Canary Islands, and pioneering developments in ocean going ships. It seems likely that, even without Colombus's Journey, the Spanish or Portuguese would discover the New World sometime within the next few decades, and that if Columbus had been born at any time beforehand he would be an unknown (and likely bankrupt) merchant.

>an actual good thread on Veeky Forums

Every time I'm about to give up on this board sifting through the relentless /pol/ shitposting, a thread like this comes around and reminds me why I still post here. Thanks OP

Thanks for this. I feel like one of the more stubborn defenses of GMT is the false dichotomy of extraordinary individuals exist/they do not exist. Most of us can agree, to take your example, that Western history is now existentially hinged on Columbus' expedition of 1492. Where GMT strays is to suggest that Columbus himself moved history, rather than the other way around.

There's a beautiful excerpt by Walter Benjamin from 'The Angel of History' that I think applies:
>The only way is forward; we have no choice. That which existed before was of its time, and now we move forward, face turned toward the piling catastrophe of the past. For as much as we might once have loved it, we are driven forward by the wind of its piling wreckage, and can retrieve nothing

kek sorry, didn't check the filename before re-using, was not meant for you

Ah, true, I see what you mean. I never considered myself as a 100% proponent of pure "great men are the only thing that move history," which seems to be what GMT means. I read On Heroes, the Heroic, and Hero-Worship in History, and that clicked with me, but I suppose that's more in line with what you're saying anyways, that great men's impact cannot be denied, but it is not just a product of their own genius, but the fates have to line up in a way so that they can use that spirit in the way that changed history towards what we know it as today.

This is true. For example Napoleon wouldn't have gotten where he did without the French Revolution.

>tfw you will never know how many amazingly talented individuals existed throughout history who never were in the right time and place for said talents to shine through.

This. I think it's pretty likely there were genius particle physicists and beautiful artists throughout time who were kept from us, if only by the crushing motion of history itself.

>It goes without saying that these individuals are not very bright, it's a community college after all.

I sincerely hope you do not decide to teach. You will do more harm than good with that attitude, and it seems like you won't get over it any time soon. Sadly you will probably be released into the system, and will find other so-called educators who think they are just slumming and biding their time with the lower students. Thank god you aren't teaching in primary school where this kind of attitude will cause permanent damage.

Please examine your attitude before you destroy someone's life.

I wish I had worded this differently. What I meant to express is that CC's cast a wide net, and that I've found there are students who think it's OK to take away from other students' valuable time.

When I wrote the OP I was coming off of a very frustrating lecture in which the entire class was derailed by a select few students who were obstinate in their refusal to stay on the topic. I'm not exaggerating when I say that they were aggressively debating about the tactical applications of various WWII-era tanks, in a lecture that was supposed to be about the collectivization of industry under socialist governments. It wasn't just tangential banter, it excluded the other 20 or so students in the class from participating. That's what got my booty so blasted.

I feel bad that I cast all CC students in a negative way, and honestly I appreciate you admonishing me for it. I'm still learning and I want to address my students in a respectful way as peers. I know the jaded academics you're referencing, and that's definitely not something that I want to become.

I didn't ask for these feels