ITT: historical red flags

ITT: historical red flags
>interested in nazi history
>primary interest is military history
>primary interest is their own country's history
>primary interest is a country's history outside of their continent
>they subscribe entirely to great man theory
>they subscribe entirely to collectivist theory
>they disregard women throughout history
>they use the term 'nation' to describe something pre-modern
>they apply modern moral judgements on past figures
>they believe in historical determinism
>they believe history is cyclical
>they argue about who 'inherited' rome's legacy
>they're greek
>they're russian
>they're turkish
>they're chinese
>judges societies based on how 'advanced' they are, which really means more inventions they care about

>>primary interest is a country's history outside of their continent
What's wrong with that?

>>judges societies based on how 'advanced' they are, which really means more inventions they care about

Yes tell me how the culture that only invented a throwing stick had a superior spiritual life.

see orientalism
obviously it's not inherent, but it is something to watch out for in people

Thinks Hitler was good
Thinks the Islamic expansion was any worse than other empire creations
They only read one side of a story and argue against anything else
They apply modern ethics and morals to thinks that happened 2000 years ago in a 45 minute debate over whether it was right or wrong.
They always argue about what ifs

hello Xisses Gender and African-studies major, who took one class of feminist history

>they dismiss all teleology and cycles despite their being very common in nonlinear dynamics

>they disregard women throughout history
why is this wrong? most women throughout history (especially antiquity) were irrelevant.

>primary interest is their own country's history
>primary interest is a country's history outside of their continent
You had me for a second.

I don't think the issue with orientalism was an interest in other countries so much as an interest in countries which your own nation or nation you're politically sympathetic to are dominating. It's not so much that it's wrong for some guy in Kansas to be interested in Malaysian history, but British historians justifying the Eternal Anglo in their foreign misadventures.

>>primary interest is their own country's history

Potentially acceptable

>>primary interest is a country's history outside of their continent

This one is just silly

You could probably just change it then to:

>They're Western and their primary interest is "The East"

Otherwise it seems like an American interested in Europe, or a European into Latin America, is a red flag.

Women were extremely important for history.
Basic labour is just as important as the labours of great men.

If anything western history is underrepresented in American universities, which is fair to some extent but you should at least have a few experts in the history department

You forgot

>they're polish

>they believe history is cyclical
I kind of do. Tho i don't subscribe entirely to it.
>primary interest is their own country's history
I agree, but the history of one's own country is the jumping off point imho.
>they're greek
>they're russian
>they're turkish
>they're chinese
I wouldn't judge someone's understanding of history by the country of their birth, sure i'd expect them to have certain biases but it's not necessarily true.
>they argue about who 'inherited' rome's legacy
Rome's legacy died when the east died in 1204. Every other claim is in the realm of wewuzing.

I agree on the rest.

but no one gives a shit about that. they didnt lead empires, create political systems or pretty much anything outside of households and doing household work wont advance society too far.

> Muh Military history is for plebs XD

Keep studying ancient Nubian pottery you snobby cunt, I'll write my paper on the battle of Kadesh and the treaty, you know the thing thats actually relevant and matters.

> They disregard women throughout history

> Women

>"Important"

Because they play very little role with very few exceptions up until the modern era, and even then Men are by and large the determiners of history.

> They believe history is cyclical

Its not to the extremes that a lot of people take like "Punic wars were ancient WW2 bruh!" but people have a tendency to make similar if not the same mistakes over and over again throughout history.

> They're an ethic/nationality I apply my historical stereotypes to so I can feel superior.

You literally contradicted your own argument tard, neck yourself.

so you hit another red flag
subscribing to the great meme theory

>Because they play very little role with very few exceptions up until the modern era, and even then Men are by and large the determiners of history.
I've already addressed this here
>You literally contradicted your own argument tard, neck yourself.

all those nationalities I mentioned are infamous for revisionism, obviously not all are like that, but you've got to watch out

do you seriously argue that "great men" didnt achieve great things because of their own skill and charisma? i understand there's a lot of people behind the scenes, but at the end of the day you need a leader to lead those people bts

read my thread
I bash people who solely lean to either great man theory of collectivist, you need to merge the two

>read my thread

Blog elsewhere

im too lazy my point is women were irrelevant until recently.

What do you call the entire group of states/kingdoms/empires/etc. in the 18th century, for example, when there are both nations, empires, and kingdoms simultaneously existing in the world?

Pretty much every nationality is "infamous for revisionism' desu, sure the Turks and some of my Slav friends can take it to an extreme but literally every countries "official history" is self-congratulatory (USA, Britain, Russia) or self-victimization wanking if your Poland or my ancestors country.

that's modern period
modern period is post-medieval europe

You had me until

>>they believe in historical determinism
>they believe history is cyclical

The latter is the other side of the "continual process".

If you are a Hegelian, bravo. If you're not, WTF are you on about?

>Historical red flags
>Lists entirety of history
STOP

Ok follow up question. What do you call the collective group of all empires and kingdoms and independent duchies, etc. in the medieval period?

>primary interest is their own country's history
>primary interest is a country's history outside of their continent

This restricts an American's interests to Canada and Mexico.

I would be just as wary of non-Westerners being interested in "the East" or "Asia" because they almost certainly fell for all the orientalist memes even if they profess to be antiracist and anticolonialists.
Also "Africa", doubly so if they're black.

>primary interest is military history
>primary interest is their own country's history
>primary interest is a country's history outside of their continent
>they use the term 'nation' to describe something pre-modern
>they're greek
>they're russian
How are these red flags?

Yeah that's legit, I guess I was just using the orientalist stereotype

Well medieval civilisation. Isn't it obvious?

military history attracts strategy game autists
own country's history attracts nationalism and bias
history outside of their own continent attracts ideas of orientalism and interest in an exotic mystique
nations didn't really exist pre-modern period (some things could MAYBE be thought of as proto-nations, but that is highly contentious)
greeks are fond of revisionism and nationalism
russians are fond of revisionism and nationalism

I like how you complained about the russians and greeks being in there but not the chinese and turks

And their greatness would amount to nothing if not for the daily labors of the people they lead.

But because the daily labor isn't as glamorous, it's both overlooked and lumped under the sum of the achievements of great men. While said achievements often just amount to decision making and luck if you choose to look at the great man as an individual instead of the personification of his country, business, and etc.

>I like how you complained about R the russians and greeks bring in there but not chinese and turks
I know about the Chinese and Turks being turbo-autists but not Russians and Greeks

>>primary interest is their own country's history
>>primary interest is a country's history outside of their continent
>>they disregard women throughout history
Nothing wrong with these or you need to specify. Otherwise you're list is gud

>primary interest is their own country's history
This can be a good or bad thing depending on the country. If an New Worlder, Spaniard or Scandi is primarily interested in their own country that's usually fine. If it's a balkanigger or an Asian run for the hills and don't look back

people primarily into their own country's history tend to have an insular view of history, and often love to glorify it to no end
people who primarily like things outside of their continent often have a very orientalist view and like the 'exotic' nature of it
disregarding women is usually based in an obsession with great men and their actions, rather than the common folk who would help support society, not to mention that they often judge something or someone as being interesting from a historical perspective purely on how influential they were

The biggest red flag is being a pseudo intellectual trying to undermine other people's interests though

Looks like somebody's interests were on the list

In Greek museums the Ottoman period might as well be a black hole over Greece, it never happened, no light or information escapes.

vikings. makes southerners butthurt as fuck.

>is american
>likes byzantine or crusader history

Social history is a thing.

but without basic labor, all the things you listed would be impossible. Basic household labor of raising children, providing food, etc... can be one of the factors that enable greatness.

I know it's kind of a banal example, but basic things like using stone-ground flour (which has a lot of grit in it) can reduce the lifespan of an effective leader in pre-dental civilization by wearing down their teeth to such an extent that they're in constant pain. That's a valid historical fact based on what's commonly considered women's work.

>CoH2 comes out and features russian atrocities.
>National news in Russia/

>relevancy meme
Goes how much you care about the study of history really.

* pre dental-care civilization, not a civilization that existed before teeth

Contemporary trends in American historiography tend to focus on the marginalized members of society, slavery, etc... to the extent that the old-style "Grand American" histories are disappearing

b8. Mods, delet this thread.

What's wrong with this

Youtubers with historical figure in their avatars are usually chumps for some reason. Doesn't even matter what ethnicity or political leaning the historical figure has.

Same with the case with Steam, Discord, Facebook, whatever.

Its usually some guy who's overweight, ugly, awkward, neet, whatever, with a connection to this particular historical figure. The connection is usually ethnic, religious, and/or political. Now take away that connection from him? What is he? Someone who doesn't amount to much most likely.

Look, guy with Che Guevera Avatar. No amount of Gommunism theory is going to make you look like that.

Popular "red flag" avatars: Political animu, Romnel, Che, Stalin, 20th century, Slavic, Turkic, or South European political figure, Roman Emperors, any We Wuz King, Viking, Crusader, Hitler, Various Kebabs, Nietzsche, Lenin, etc.

No offense to anyone with an actual appreciation for history.

Nothing necessarily wrong with it, it's just that it's often a red flag for serious autism

90% chance he is a "muh deus vult" LARPer

God, people with Nietzsche avatars are the fucking scum of the earth. Makes me really uncomfortable about how much I like him

How so. Do you mean like Or something else

That's because the Ottoman period was a black hole for Greece, Greek territory, culture and history. Their culture and existence faded into obscurity and they only existed to convert into Muslims, pay taxes or serve as political and economic advisors to the Sultans.

yeah, it's usually something like not always, obviously, but often enough that it raises questions

Don't forget Kierkegaard.

Cause i just think both of those subjects are very interesting. The fact that the Byzantines beat the Persians in 630 and then survived the Islamic invasions to reestablish itself as a power several times over the next 800 years is amazing

No doubt that they're interesting. Unfortunately, your favorite periods of history have been adopted by a bunch of fat, greasy autists who decided to cosplay something that they don't understand at all

What do you mean by they don't understand it

>thinks historical soldiers were like units in Civilization and X will always defeat Y
>lumps entire continents together as if all Europeans or all Asians had the same culture and military tactics
>compares different type of weapons like halberd vs a sword which is modern equivalent of handgun vs assault rifle
>they are german
>they are russian
>they are british
>they are american
>in discussion about archery mentions only longbow

The crusader cosplayers have a highly limited, one-sided view of what were actually incredibly complex geopolitical events but because they saw a movie once they think it was all brave knights smiting infidels in the holy land

So you're saying being interested in mesopotamian civilizations means glorifying them in a way weebs who know fuck all about Japan glorify it?

Don't use him as an avatar, but i like him ok?

Congrats, you've just made the entire world wave the red flag

Always the "what ifs?"

Please leave studying history to people who understand its purpose

>>primary interest is their own country's history
>tfw I fit this

>primary interest is their own country's history

This is hard to avoid when you live in the greatest and most influential nation in the last 1,000 years of human history.

There is nothing wrong with that, user. Some countries just have a more interesting history than others. As long as you dont end up like our delusional bong friend , its ok.

>projects modern 'continents' into the past, treats Asians, Americans and especially Europeans and Africans as actual groupings
>thinks every civilization has a rise, stagnation and fall (or some other 'life-cycle') that went exactly like Rome
>thinks 'the East' is always 'collectivist' while 'the West' is always 'individualistic', consistently from ancient times up to the present

>primary interest is military history
Not my personal interest but it's pretty important.

>primary interest is their own country's history
Nothing wrong with this unless you're nationalist scum. You'll probably have the best resources for researching a country if you live in it.

>primary interest is a country's history outside of their continent
???

>likes vikings
>likes Japan
>likes Byzantium
>prefers WW2 over WW1
>is a deus vult larper
>blames venetians for the fourth crusade

Hey, military history is interesting and I'd like people to stop skipping it in favor of wanking about whichever historical political movement they liked.
My Uni's 1500-present history course didn't even mention napoleon.

I am shocked I hit none of these

There is literally nothing wrong with preferring ww2 over ww1

I prefer the clash of ideologies. the much more intense Asia/pacific region more aircraft more tanks more efficient killing machines more political scheming between the Allies and the lead up too the cold war the varying fronts of the war and the dropping of the worlds most powerful weapon

>There is literally nothing wrong with preferring ww2 over ww1
WW2 and American Civil War are baby's first history.

I bet you think Rome is 'too mainstream' too.

Civil War is shit though.

Anyone who prefers Rome over Greece is a fucking pleb and probably underage too

What if I like the Vikings due to their adventurous spirit and social structure/legal system?

Is using Richard Nixon as an avatar considered acceptable?

I have pretty much none of these except for the military history one, which I'm fascinated by. I've published articles in magazines about it, usually about military organization and why group A went for this model but Group B went for a different model.

Am I forever damned?

>>interested in nazi history
>>primary interest is military history
>>primary interest is their own country's history
>>primary interest is a country's history outside of their continent
>>they apply modern moral judgements on past figures
>>they believe in historical determinism
>>they believe history is cyclical
>>they argue about who 'inherited' rome's legacy
>>judges societies based on how 'advanced' they are, which really means more inventions they care about

So....s-should I just kill myself now?

>creates a list or arbitrary sections of interest that he judges people by

OP here, I forgot one more
>people who obsess over that painting of Ivan after he beat his son to death

...

>dude those eyes man lmao
>dude so emotional lmao
>dude that shit is intense lmao
>dude whoah it shows, like, the horrors of yeah lmao

...

>>interested in nazi history
So anybody who wants to learn about WWII is shit?
>>primary interest is military history
>>primary interest is their own country's history
There is literally nothing wrong with these

>greece
>not ancient china
p l e b

>they believe in historical determinism

Like Marxism? Also wouldn't believing in any form of determinism necessitate this?

>So anybody who wants to learn about WWII is shit?
WWII is babies first history, so yeah.

Military history attracts STEM and strat-game autists.
Own country's history attracts nationalism and revionism.

>Like Marxism?
Yeah, at least the historical component of marxism.

>likes Byzantium
Get out of here filthy German.

Discussing about what would life be like right now if X didn't happen isn't History.

>calls everything they don't like a "spook"

>Yeah, at least the historical component of marxism.

The end-point of history part, or the general idea that it's material conditions rather than ideology that drives society? Because I'd consider the latter an effective explanation for a bunch of historical phenomena.

The idea of society inevitably transitioning between different types (the old slave socities>feudalism>capitalism>socialism>communism type thing).

Obviously the material conditions are very important, and I could understand why someone would think they are the primary driver of society.

Ok, I getcha you now. Whig history. Yeah, Whig history is the worst.