History

i hate history. why?

Because it's so bullshit. It's just propaganda, and the history we learn isn't even history, it's basically - World war 1,2 cold war, french revolution, our society now, what might happen if the world continues like now ....

Also, how come we don't learn about the history of Asia, africa and south america, (excluding aztec and maya). I'm pretty sure at some points arab were the strongest superpower in the world, so was the mongols, and so was the persians. And the continent of Africa that has wonders. How come none of that is mentioned, could it be that somebody, somewhere doesn't want people knowing that not just the whiteman is intelligent and open-minded?

Every year, the schools has the same shit over and over and over again. We've come to the point where basically it's all about knowing dates and names, and you're good to go. And what is even the point of the subject? It's just propaganda bullshit, Napoleon, stalin and hitler are all enemies of the states, and the states and their small minions overwhelm the europeans.

Hitler is wrong? The states are for our freedom? I'm not sure which is right and which is wrong, nor that i care, all i know is that the winners write history, and i don't get why people major in history, like if you're going to take a major you need atleast to know this shit, and if you still go ahead and major in history meanwhile knowing this, i'm not sure what to say..

>Also, how come we don't learn about the history of Asia, africa and south america, (excluding aztec and maya). I'm pretty sure at some points arab were the strongest superpower in the world, so was the mongols, and so was the persians. And the continent of Africa that has wonders. How come none of that is mentioned, could it be that somebody, somewhere doesn't want people knowing that not just the whiteman is intelligent and open-minded?
or maybe we're all not in secondary/highschool and you can study all of these independtly

VERY euphoric thread my friend

so from 6 years old to 18/19 people mostly learn about 4 happening, and the rest of the world is forgotten, is that how it's supposed to be?

people mostly don't learn anything, if you like history you'll study it outside of your history class

why are you trying so hard to be profound?
this is pretty simple

seems like it

>We've come to the point where basically it's all about knowing dates and names, and you're good to go.
But that's far less true now, just look at a school syllabus from the first half of the 20th century vs. now.

Your post reeks of underage euphoria, a kid disenchanted with high school.

I'd say it's the opposite. All teenagers learn in high school these days is about how progressive and multicultural the various Islamic empires were and how evil and slave driving the various European civilizations were prior to 1945. Oh and by the way true capitalism™ is the only way to ensure liberty and freedom.

you'd be wrong though

they learn all of that in college :^)

Yes. I've heard this too. Paul Spook High, Strawmanville, CA?

so you agree that in basic history education he is right?

Its your own fault that you only 'learn certain things.' You could be at the library every day, or even on the internet, searching for various topics and events in history. So stop blaming your school that is designed to teach you a basic, core curriculum and stop being a faggot.


The only real reason to hate history is because "History is written by the victor."
We will never know what really happened, and that sucks. Maybe Hitler was a total bro, who got so fucked around in his life he genuinely thought Jews sucked. Maybe Genghis Khan was actually a huge pussy and only kept power because his followers thought he was a god.

of course not, that entire post was just awful

History secondary and primary school lessons are bare bones about the things most relevant to them
I learned about Irish history in mine for the most part and then on into American history, the Cold War, space race, civil rights and so on - they varied the course every 3 years, so kids learning about the latter learn that and then 3 years later new kids would learn about different aspects of Irish history and US history
you couldn't fit lessons on the Roman Empire at any period, the Egyptians, Sumerians, Babylonians, the Crusades, whatever into 40 minute classes you'd have maybe 3 times a week

during and after secondary I learned about history myself because I enjoyed it

OP you sound like a high schooler. But biz will act dumber than you when they inevitably insult you.

You're pretty much right. We are told to hate Hitler but worship Alexander, caesar, Napoleon etc. We all know Hitler will be worshipped in the USA and UK in 2200. We all fucking know it.

Please don't compare a piece of shit like Adolf Hitler to people like Caesar on Napoleon.

Why single out Hitler as genuinely evil when comparing him to other conquerors, espeically Caesar and his genocide of the Gauls?

Not a stormnigger but Hitler will be remembered as just another generic warlord as more time separates him from whoever studies him.

why do you put those two above Hitler morally?
I say morally because
>piece of shit
is about his character presumably

He was an incompetent psychopath with delusions of grandeur and his legacy is completely dead. He wasn't a great man, he wasn't a great thinker, he wasn't a great strategist. He was a terrible, delusional human being. A mistake of history.

And others are not? Double standards so much.

>And others are not?
No.

>He was an incompetent psychopath with delusions of grandeur
describes Napoleon quite well bar incompetent to some extent as well
Napoleon fucked himself hard in Russia as did Hitler so you could argue both were incompetent in that regard
not sure what your qualifications for "psychopath" are
Napoleon certainly had delusions of grandeur

Caesar was pretty competent but he also had delusions of grandeur and might have thought himself descended from divine stock

Why they are less known than Hitler than?

That's some good bait OP

Napoleon was one of the greatest men that ever lived. His republican ideas still live on. He was a great leader and an amazing administrator. Napoleonic Code changed the whole Europe and still influence our laws.

Now look at Hitler, the Third Reich and their influence. It's a negative influence in every single way. Terrible administration (The Third Reich was a bureaucratic nightmare ruled by Hitler's pawns and bootlickers. A police state invigilating and oppressing its own people . Even today the term Nazi has only a negative connotation.
Also, you are forgetting about the context. We are talking about the 20th century here. Comparing Hitler to ancient conquerors isn't fair. Different worlds with different values.

Napoleon at least wrote laws that are still in use even today and proved some math theorems. He wasn't a complete nobody (like Hitler) in the end.

>republican ideas
>makes himself emperor
haha oh wow

>Even today the term Nazi has only a negative connotation.
so? WWII was a pretty big thing, wasn't it? so it only makes sense for anyone subscribing or claiming to subscribe to the losers faction or brand of ideology to be denigrated by a people basted in the world of the winner
what a silly point against him

>We are talking about the 20th century here.
????
what the fuck does this even mean, the 20th century was brutal as fuck

>Comparing Hitler to ancient conquerors isn't fair.
but you're doing that hereand are in damage control now that people have brought up points to the detriment of your great men
why isn't it fair?

>Different worlds with different values.
what values?
reckon I'd prefer to be gassed instead of crucified anyway

>hitler was a nobody
he was pretty popular actually

National mythology is an important part of the nation. Society is much better off with q strong sense of one.

>republican ideas
>makes himself emperor
So? He wasn't perfect. Again, it was Napoleon who spread the republican ideas of French Revolution all over Europe. It's not something that can be denied. Nothing was the same after his era.

>the 20th century was brutal as fuck
Mostly because of people like Hitler. But Germany was in the center of Europe. It was considered a modern civilized country unlike for example Russia.

>So? He wasn't perfect.
kek

>it was Napoleon who spread the republican ideas of French Revolution all over Europe.
which is an objectively good thing, according to you
his contemporaries certainly weren't too happy about his land grabbing Imperialistic behavior on the continent

>Mostly because of people like Hitler.
and the First World War and the after effects of Imperialism and ideological conflict all over the world
and disease and famine and death as it is and ever has been

>It was considered a modern civilized country unlike for example Russia.
this means literally nothing
when the world wars broke out the past of the German people as forest dwelling barbarian snowniggers and boorish apes was constantly alluded to, what gets considered civilization and civilized behavior varies quite a lot

living in Ireland I could give you a few examples of British behavior in my country and its colonies that I'm sure you wouldn't consider civilized

why hating on Hitler when he only wanted wealth, fame and power?

Isn't the USA doing that exact same thing, just behind the curtains? They have conquered the middle east long ago, and when they couldnt do it with their face, they created "ISIS".

So, what's the difference between Hitler and the USA? As i mentioned in the start, it's these books that fool you. "Go to the library if you want to study for real". If there existed truth in the library, I would've been there.

facebook tier post

You appear to be complaining about high school history class. I will address this as such.

The historical events we learn(ed) about in school are framing devices for understanding how to interpret all history. History, by definition, encompasses thousands of years and cultures. We can't possibly learn about all of them in school (or even one lifetime). But we have to know something and have a common ground to discuss from. Hence the reason for generally consistent school syllabi.

There is no legitimate cause to lodge "What about [X]?" complaints against the school system. It's not the point. The question is whether or not you are learning HOW to think about historical information. Biases and information gaps are inevitable; sorting biases and observing info gaps are critical historical thinking skills.

Ask not what your history teacher can do for you, ask what you can do with the information and skills you are taught.

>his contemporaries certainly weren't too happy about his land grabbing Imperialistic behavior on the continent
>his contemporaries
Yes, monarchies usually aren't every happy about republican ideas. Many poets and intellectuals were actually quite happy about Napoleon and his ideas. For example Goethe.

>land grabbing Imperialistic behavior
Defending your own country from anti-republican and the anti-Napoleonian coalitions is imperialistic?

what hole in burgerstan teaches some kind of politicized history? you're supposed to be a western country.

>Yes, monarchies usually aren't every happy about republican ideas.
yes ideologies don't tend to tolerate the spread of other ideologies
just as fascism was opposed and communism became the dominant boogie man after it

>Defending your own country from anti-republican and the anti-Napoleonian coalitions is imperialistic?
the annexation of the Rhineland provinces certainly was, he could do what he willed with the land after he defeated the coalitionists
unless you think the land under the Empire here was de jure territory for France

Really revved up those neurons.

Well, with all the shit USA is pushing, they never openly declared and tried to genocide whole nations.
And I'm not talking about Jews.

Caesar being competent? He was a god damn genius. Alesia, Pharsalus, btfoing the Germans across the Rhine. Not the mention how great of a statesman he was, and knowing how to make friends unlike Hitler. (Crassus, Antony, other shit like knowing the names of all of his centurions). Caesar was a reformer. Caesar wanted to save the republic. Caesar is one of the greatest men ever to walk this planet.

>he wants his history to get cucked in favor of chink nignog or mudslime history.
There are only so many hours to teach histroy.
You learn your narrative because thats the one you should be supporting, unless you wanna live an a chinese ant colony or a nig anarchy.

>Caesar wanted to save the republic.
fuck up, Caesar paved the way as Sulla and Marius did before him for the Principate, he cared about his gravitas and power

>Alesia
if we're still talking about muh morals and values, Caesar allowed tens of thousands to die of starvation after refusing to allow the families of the Gauls to pass through his siege lines
sure they'd have been a drain on resources and probably have put his legions into disorder but MUH CHILLUNS he was an ebil ebil man

>Sulla and Marius
But their reforms were actually good for the Rome?

>families of the Gauls at Alesia
Excuse me, but who expelled them from the Alesia? How exactly was that Caesar's fault?

>But their reforms were actually good for the Rome?
not for the Republic, all of their actions directly effected its decline
Marius was an egomaniac who ignored the interval between consulships and took the title seven times and Sulla introduced the dangerous precedent of marching on Rome when you were dissatisfied just as Caesar did

Really makes you think

>How exactly was that Caesar's fault?

He was engaging in a war of aggression and put a fortress under siege. It was exactly his fucking fault for putting the Gauls into that position.

>haha oh wow
Give Napoleon some credit, not everybody has what it takes to do what George Washington did. It takes a tremendous person to turn down power.

MUH CINCINNATUS

frankly i'm glad someone else finally said what i'd been thinking for the longest time

>alexander
>conquering and subjugating vast territories of foreign peoples's land was the norm
>he did it better than anyone else
>his legacy had a lasting influence on the future of Europe and the world

>caesar
>founded the roman empire, the dominant power in Europe for over a millenia and which even managed to have a very powerful influence centuries after its death
>there's a reason caesar became the name for emperors of many future states

>napoleon
>created many reforms still used today worldwide and layed the foundation for the modern nation-state
>military genius whose ideas and strategies still have influence today
>entire life reads like a piece of romance fiction

meanwhile

>hitler
>much of his success is known to have come from other people in his administration, which, while also true for the others in this list, none of them were as actively detrimental to the attempts of their ministration as Hitler was
>not a great reformer, thinker, strategist, etc
>the entire legacy of his state comes from the amount of destruction it caused, not from its prosperity, power, or lasting ideas and virtues

>i hate history.

ok

>why?

didnt ask

this board isnt your soapbox op no one cares about your opinion

Because Hitler was in power less than a century ago?

>Different worlds with different values.
>what values?

Trying to conquer half the known world was par for the course in the days of Alexander, he wasn't viewed as morally wrong by most in his era.

Caesar may have been viewed unfavorably by his contemporary political opponents, but he was known as a champion of the common people of Rome.

Napoleon is similar to Caesar, only his support amongst the common people included more than just those of his nation.

Hitler, meanwhile, was considered insane and evil by his contemporaries, by his political opponents, the common folk of other countries, and even many (and shortly after the war, the majority) within his own nation, especially after the war ended and the true atrocities of his regime were discovered.