Is History fucked

>I can't enjoy history because women are included
What your concern seems to be is academic politics, not women ruining your history. No matter where you go or what university you attend, in liberal arts programs there's going to be a ton of bullshit. Professors have nutty ideas, some think really minor issues are more important than they are, and everyone's really opinionated but too doped up on tenure to follow through with focused defences of their ideas.
Speaking of unfocused arguments, you shouldn't use the percentage of women as a point. If your point is that women are ruining higher education just give your sexist rant so the janitors can send you back to /pol/. If your point is that gender and minority politics are emphasized too heavily, you shouldn't bother to mention the class composition. As is, it just sounds like you're including the comment about women since they're a point of irritation (someone having trouble getting laid?).

>haven't spent a single seminar discussing actual historical events, only things like 'sex in the 16th century', 'race and racisms', 'inequality in early modern London' etc

"Actual historical events" are the most trivial aspect of history. Getting a history degree to study events is like getting a math degree to study subtraction.

>ITT: Things that never happened

why do roasties even make pretend they have interests outside of makeup and getting fucked by Chad?

roasties should be banned from academia they just turn everything into muh vagina (because they're basically a brain attached to a womb)

fuck I hate roasties and roastie enablers so god damn much

Change universities you dingus and make sure they know why you took your money somewhere else.

>studying actual historical events
historical events are a meme
no serious historian discusses events

History teachers in my country are 95% males, but they are lefties
cuck

All of those things are worthy of study. Just about everything in history is worthy of study.

stfu nu-male

...

t. riven main

t. liquor lad

This guy gets it. I'm always baffled that people complain about having to learn about attitudes towards sex in the 16th century, social inequality in the 19th century or the history or slavery or whatever. I am absolutely not a "feminist" or other bleeding heart SJW but some of my favorite subjects are early medieval conceptions of serfdom and slavery, the evolution of sexual mores and gender identities in Japan, the impact of capitalism in the 18th and 19th centuries and virtually anything the Annales School would discuss. I study history because I like learning about the alien mindsets of other countries, damnit.

The biographies of Napoleon's female relatives and love interests are definitely worth studying.

>complaining about sexism
>on fucking Veeky Forums
Tits or get the fuck out

not as much as the rest, which is the entire point, dumbo

Then why don't we have threads on those topics?
The answer is nobody cares.

He's not complaining about learning history. He's complaining about learning SJW/libtard propaganda and bullshit which has no business in a classroom or in history studies

All threads that start with this painting in the OP are trash, like clockwork.

>why don't we have threads on those topics?
Because Veeky Forums is full of plebs with short attention spans.

If nobody cared, there wouldn't be classes taught about those subjects.

Everything is worthy of study. Unless you want 14 years teaching about the Battle of Leipzig as your University curriculum.

That's exactly correct

>Sounds like you go to a shit university.

It's in the top 10 in the UK

>How is that other stuff not "history"?

Well it is, but I feel as if we are studying historical sociology. We never look at the personalities who shaped the world. Hence my mention of Carlyle; that is the history I think is worthwhile.

The most important point is the last one I made, about the deconstructive angle of historical study. For example in the last seminar Elizabeth I was torn down in every way imaginable; all of her portraits were propaganda, all of her speeches fabrications, her public image was a facade. At the end of this line of thought there is no Elizabeth left, no Gloriana, no Sceptre'd Isle; just an empty husk. The divine light of truth and beauty which should shine from those times is completely distinguished and covered with cold dry HISTORY.

>he believes in great man theory

I think you just want to jerk off over specific figures instead of learning about history, senpai.

blame cultural marxism

inb4 some ledditor tells be that cultural marxism is a "conspiracy theory"

You never really learn anything about the time period when you just look at it with a modern bias. Oh no the women of the 15th century had less rights. Well was there any reason for that? If ventured down that hole, then we would have to attain an understanding of the actual time period of that civilization and you could achieve that without going in from the feminist angle. Basically, it's all superficial understanding meant to reaffirm cultural biases rather than seek an understanding. Because these questions answer themselves if you actually seek to understand the time period instead of just ending up criticizing its treatment of certain gender or ethnicity. But we can't have that. Everything about western culture now has to revolve around the feminist fight.

Holy shit this 10000000000000000%

It's why I stopped majoring in history.

Then have female history classes, not make diversity history classes disguised as a normal general history class (which is 90% of classes I've taken).

Men did more historically-significant things than women in the past. Deal with it.

>At the end of this line of thought there is no Elizabeth left, no Gloriana, no Sceptre'd Isle; just an empty husk. The divine light of truth and beauty which should shine from those times is completely distinguished and covered with cold dry HISTORY.
Dude, just drop out and go read your Tolkien and your fairytales if you don't have the rigor necessary to learn "cold dry HISTORY".
No wonder you didn't go into STEM.

>trying to take "normal general history"

wew lad
Are you sure high school history isn't more your speed?

No, it isn't. Everybody has limited time.

Tbh from the conversations I've had with history students at my uni it wouldn't hurt them to take a few high school level general history classes.

Their ignorance is astounding.

>Their ignorance is astounding.
Because they don't agree with your Veeky Forums memes?

Because they lack basic historical facts.

Where the fuck are you?

I'm doing history at uni, started this year

>85% male
>First part is all focused on 19th century totalitarian regimes
>Generally agreed that they were bad but had some merits and can see why people followed them in the day
>No political agendas at all
You chose a shit uni i guess

>19th century totalitarian regimes
Typo?

You won't get a good view of history if you just look over dates for 30 years.

>19th century totalitarian regimes
>19th century
>totalitarian
Seems like you're getting some quality education.

Or he's non-English speaker you fools.

Knowing specific dates doesn't mean knowing more about history. Ex:

Who knows more about the signing of the Declaration of Independence:
The person who knows what day of what year it was signed;
The person who knows why it was signed?

Pretty sure "19th century" and "totalitarian" isn't too hard to translate for ESLs.

I'd bet that "19" means the same thing in most languages.

I'm not talking about knowing specific dates, I'm talking about general knowledge. But nice strawman, please continue.

In some languages 19th century refers to the English 20th century.

You won't either if you study important women

What, really? I never heard of such a thing.

General knowledge such as what? Who the finance minister of France was during the July Monarchy?

You need to understand such people are not actually historians, they do not love history, they are communist, revolutionaries, and the interests of the immaterial party as the collective of the activist intelligentsia trumps everything else.

These are the people that praise Maoist Cultural Revolution, the same that destroyed historical and archeological records, because of its status as a revolution from below. Every single word they write, every single thought hey have, is carefully geared towards the advancement of the REVOLUTION.

>actual events are stupid
>let's study what women did during ww1 and how women are always oppressed
>no let's not give any other perspectives of history besides a liberal one
>what do you mean history students don't know much about the actual battles of ww1?

Affirmative actioning history != real history

To be fair, Humann was a prominent figure in the Soult government.

t.wikipedia

I'm just a Frenchman who tries to pretend our quaint history is still relevant.

>tries to pretend our quaint history is still relevant.

I'm from England and I know that feel

>The biographies of Napoleon's female relatives and love interests are definitely worth studying.
No one said they weren't worth studying. They are however, not worth being propagandized

Are we going to learn about the socieoeconomic impacts of britain's blockade of germany during WWI?
Are we going to learn about the effects of christian missionaries on tribal cohesion during the scramble for africa?
Are we going to learn about the political struggles of the middle east during the great game?

No we're going to learn about oppressed black poets in harlem lol.

I started to realize this movement had gone out of control when I watched a documentary on Leo Tolstoy and it kept insinuating that it was actually his wife who was the brains and she couldn't write the books herself due to the times. His wife was of great support to him, but to overinflate her importance to the point where it reduces Tolstoy himself is sickening.

Why don't you morons check the course and the syllabus out before signing up? Do you pick your university by throwing darts or something?

>why don't you eat the purple poisoned berries instead of the red ones you have a choice

pretty much
not that oppressed blakc poets in harlem are unimportant (even if...) but there are hundreds or thousands or events way more important than that.

No.
In some languages you say the 1900s instead of the 20th century.

Doesn't answer why you're willingly going to a shit university and signing up for bullshit, especially in these days when the average student considers going to another country to study for various reasons.

Legit question why is a Eurocentric view of history being taught at European universities full of European students something that is considered bad?

Well it explains why someone who wrote 19th century actually meant the 20th century if in native language, you always say the 1900s.

Because Europeans should feel bad they were born into this world as Europeans.

East and South Asian history is criminally undercovered, let me tell you.

PC

I'm glad I live in a third world shithole that mocks feminists.

that person has still made a mistake. It works in the same way for other languages.

Post subject catalog or something.

Your story seems made up.

No thanks m8y don't want to be doxxed

...

That's just inverted Eurocentrism.

...

Back at uni, my mate's (woman) lecturer said that wars should never be specially capitalised because doing so "glorifies warfare and the act of killing". Thus one should write first world war, second world war, American civil war, Vietnam war, and so on.

The funny thing is, he studied earth sciences, so I have no idea how the subject came up.

You're just pulling shit out of your ass because you're triggered that the other user finds some random people's understanding of history lacking.

i agree with the lecturer, though it's an autistic detail

is your mate a (woman) or your lecturer that's the woman

...

At uni right now, i don't know where you are, but here it's 60% guys and 80% teachers men. Always felt it was a more a guy thing, to be into history

I think the holocaust, holodomor etc should never be capitalized so we don't glorify genocide.

I am just sad that nobody cares about Canadian political history, and take it out on everyone else.

ofc it is, OP is lying

he'd make it more believable if he used some obscure humanity instead of 'istree

yea i meant 20th. I'm one of those people who always fucks up the 1900s = 20th thing

>I'm one of those people who always fucks up the 1900s = 20th thing

What the fuck?!
Are you an antisemite?!

Im Canadian and I dont care about it. Everything about this country is boring shit. Delete Canada.

You're the reason Canadian history is boring.

Should have made it clearer, the lecturer was a woman.

>In the two minutes it took you to write that you didn't realize how useless that post is

Man, you must be a real cunt to dyslexic people.