What does Veeky Forums think of history professor John Green?

>”and even SO, the fall of the roman Empire was attributed only and just only to the filthy kikes"

What did he mean by this?

This is the billionth time we've created this thread and we've become quite good at dealing with it.

>[citations needed]

wtf i love john green now

My absolute fav. Dr. Green Btfoing fascist is what got me into history.

I like him but he is bias
He's a good intro to get people into history

>think of history professor John Green

I try not to.

Enough with these fucking "what does Veeky Forums think of x meme historian?"

youtube.com/watch?v=pFvIdTbaMhA

Where would one find these passages?

Having a flawed knowledge of history is dangerous. I'd rather retards not know anything than rely on something that is completely wrong.

> Having a flawed knowledge of history is dangerous.
It isn't.

It is when you have a mass audience tho

Feel free to name some ahistorical facts or conceptions that John has perpetuated through his CrashCourse series or Vlogs, and back it with quotes please. Not empty claims but quotes by John Green from any of his shows and state your contradiction to the quote.

I'm tired of this "I hate John Green and Crashcourse History because it is popular and I must be contrarian" meme.

Well? I'm waiting faggots. What ahistorical facts or popular misconceptions has John Green perpetuated in his video series or blogs?

He thinks the fucking concept of continents is based around tectonic plates.

That's science not history

He says there are no women called 'the great' whilst taking about Catherine

Unless your talking Teutonic plates, let's keep the topic in human history's domain and not geology. Not that they're isn't any overlap but that's clearly not John's main interest nor why people generally criticize him.

But regardless, what exactly does he say about the relationship between continents and tectonic plates and where does he say it?

Where does he say that? Provide evidence.

Here is a video in which he calls Catherine, Catherine the Great:

youtu.be/0LsrkWDCvxg?t=1m40s

Where in the video does he say that there are no women called 'the great'?

Or where does he say it at all? I told you, 'evidence.'

>teutonic plates

McCuckface

It isn't.

...

I don't recall the episode title; something about the American 50s. Saw it about 3 years ago.

He spoke about the "sordid relationship between African-Americans and Crime", he entertained the usual stereotyping and how they're responsible. But at no point did he take into account the gross statistical over-representations and how they could translate into the perception of a group.

He says there are no women called the great with the exception of Catherine

I said with evidence, no personal recollections please, also are you one of those BLM protestors who attacked Bernie Sanders.

>It's almost always men who are called the great
So to you, that means that he said there are no women at all called "the great"? I think the problem is your retardation.

This is pretty much true. I can't find any woman besides 'Catherine' generally called 'the great' aside from some lady named 'Tamar the Great' of 12th century Georgia.

>implying a woman can raise up to a great

He says you almost never hear of women being called the great which is 'almost' misogynistic'. He doesn't say there are no women called 'the great' neither does he say there are no women called 'the great' with the exception of catherine.

/pol/ historians triggered again!

>He says you almost never hear of women being called the great which is 'almost' misogynistic'.

Why is this a problem?

I'm not saying its a problem. I'm responding to this post in response to this post trying to find any popular misconceptions or ahistorical facts perpetuated by John Green through his CrashCourse videos, Vlogs or other works.

>professor

Lol nice bait made me reply

from what I've seen of his crash course videos its not that he's gets things wrong necessarily its that he just skips over important information thereby spreading misconceptions about history

>The civil war was about slavery

It was though.

civilwar.org/education/history/primarysources/declarationofcauses.html

A+ trolling ma nigga

He has a punchable face, that's all I'm going to say.

not an argument

He talks more about how women were progressive in some random North American tribe than he ever does about what workers go through.

>post yfw all the /pol/tards and hipster contrarian faggots on Veeky Forums got eternally btfo by this user

>hardly talks about wars and their impacts
Why

...

...

Everybody else do it.

"Emperor Constantine, who was born in present day Croatia"
USE A FUCKING MAP NIGGA

No, the real question is

What does John Green thinks about Veeky Forums?

wait...what video did say that in?

He probably looks at it every once in a while, looks at his pile of cash and then scoffs at us for being NEETS and snorts another line of coke. He then smacks his younger brother Hank's ass and tells him to go douche himself and wait naked on the bed for him. He then proceeds to tear Hank's boipucci apart while yelling something about the 'mongols being the exception'.

Or I dunno, maybe he's never seen Veeky Forums.

Jesus Christ, that gave me a good hearty laugh.

youtube.com/watch?v=3PszVWZNWVA&feature=youtu.be&list=PLBDA2E52FB1EF80C9&t=336

huh, someone should send them a tweet and tell them to make an annotation. tell them you came from Veeky Forums and tell them about as well.

Rightful bulgarian clay by the way. Konstantin, not Constantine, okay?

Rightful clay blah blah, saying it's Bulgaria would have been an acceptable factual mistake given it's in Serbia and close to Bulgaria and has been historically contested between them.

Maybe he considers Croatia the successor state to Yugoslavia, and thus claiming Nis.

His video on the Atlantic Slave Trade is an absolute mess
>The first truly European slave trade happened after the 4th crusade
What does he mean by "European"? He talks about slavery in Ancient Rome and Greece, so what is a "European" to him?
>Brutality of working conditions in Brazil on the other hand, meant that Brazil's slave population could never increase naturally.
This is a nitpick, but it "could never increase naturally" is most likely because About 2/3rds of slaves in Brazil were male, not because of brutal working conditions:
"The Brazilian slave population, dependent on continuous imports, was almost two-thirds male." - Communities and Networks in the Ancient Greek World, p. 145
>Slaves probably made up 30% of the total Roman population, similar to the percentage of slaves
Total fuck up, slaves made up about 30% of Roman Italy, not the entirety of the Roman Empire. "Estimates of the percentage of the population of Italy who were slaves range from 30 to 40 percent in the 1st century BC"

> percentage of the population of Italy who were slaves range from 30 to 40 percent in the 1st century BC

I remember that exact line, and it was the population of Latium, not the peninsula.

Just watched the video again, 08:12. John Green straight up says "Slaves probably made up 30% of the total Roman population". Which, as stated previously, is a mistake.

No, I meant that you too are mistaken for saying "... of Italy", since I have read that source (whichever it was) and have made a mental note that it was 30-40% of Latium, not Italy.

Fair enough. Will take note of that.

It is.

I've watch one of his videos today, and he referred to Alexius IV as Alexius III.

LOL, what a moron.

>dangerous

How so?

>Actual professional historians all talk about war and its impact on civilization a lot
>This must mean I should not talk about it
>Clearly I know better than the actual historians

fuck off reddit.

youtu.be/kQFKtI6gn9Y?t=107

If teaching and discussing history was all about speaking what happened, then history would be a very boring/easy subject and John Green would be a pro at it.
But it's not.
John Green lacks what I like to call "historical empathy". He literally can not put himself in the shoes of someone living at a certain time and in a certain place. This makes him boring at best and snobbish at worst.

Dan Carlin, another super huge lefty, is fucking incredible at describing how someone must of felt at the time. This allows the listener to understand why something happened, not "what happened".

So enjoy your pleb shit. I've read highschool history books with more perspective than John Green.

lol, what? He focuses on general trends and events with significant and far-reaching consequences and you want Shakespeare? He already gives first-hand accounts through the mystery documents, which often express peoples emotions and personal motives, what more do you want?

I wish I knew writing garbage books for love sick teenage girls was what I needed to do to become a history professor, I wouldn't be going thousands of dollars into debt getting my M.A. and would have stuck to writing fanfiction.

S T O P
T
O
P

Well Catherine was shit and was actually called Great while she was still alive by people who wanted to suck up to her.

Just watch 's link.
skip to 1:17 because that's when he actually starts talking about history instead of Kim Kardashian.

>For a long time history was all about the study of great men
Not exclusively, plenty of natural phenomena or the actions of collectives of people have been recorded as well.

>and it was common to call people 'the great'
Inherently wrong. 'Greatness' is uncommon per definition.

>although these days historians are less likely to do that because they recognise that one man's great is generally another man's terrible.
I find it highly questionable that historians refuse to call historical figures 'great' because their accomplishments came at the expense of others. It's His101 that every war has winners and losers and history is written by the victors.
In my experience, historians generally call people by the titles they held at the time e.g. Pompey called himself Magnus back in the day, sure, we still know him that way. Do correct me if any of you have found this statement to actually be true though.

>and also 'the great' has some misogynistic implications
And this is where he loses me: This statement is just plain wrong. Nowhere in the definition of 'great' is there any hint of hatred or distrust of women.
He later even gives three definitions for greatness himself and none of those are in line with this statement.
He attributes this observation due to a lack of females called 'the great,' but that has nothing to do with a conceptual contradiction between 'women' and 'greatness' but rather due to a smaller proportion of females in position of power when compared to men.

You're probably thinking of me as a nitpicking autist and yes, that's exactly the problem: he's not.
He talks so casually about historical events and makes such bold statements as such, that beg for a bit of nuance or disclaimers.

>You should lower your expectations

At the very least, John Green could improve his orator skills beyond "le sarcastic nerd".

I'll make a point though that he isn't outright bias like many claim. I would say his tone is pretty bias though, and that matters.

His lack of emotional appeal to you are is just personal preference. I'm just not annoyed by his 'sarcastic nerdiness.'

And I have to ask, how is he bias in tone? You are accusing him of being tone-deaf after all, so what bias to you perceive by his lack of emotion in regards to historical events? Is it the not bias bias?

Now I can understand that if you're studying French history for example, it might be necessary to have a certain bias that leads you to uncover historical falsehoods surrounding Gaulism, the myth of strong nationwide french resistance to the Nazis, and the innocence of Petain, etc. But he's no Robert Paxton.

He's just some guy trying to make 15 minute youtube videos in a series that has a lot of breadth. Maybe another man could make poetry out of it, but I think your expectations keep you from appreciating crash course for what it is and how it can be improved.

"Lets not pretend the civil war was about anything other than slavery"

Blatantly not true and politically motivated. The south, on multiple occasions, had its economy harassed and its assets seized through nothern policy which disregarded or intentionally harmed the south (ie: tariff of abominations, tariff of 1832). This, as well as the spurring on by radicals, led to a stand off of political power in congress and the senate that eventually was disrupted by the mexican-american war and other events (kansas nebraska act, etc.), eventually leading to the civil war.

Notice that I actually referred to historical documents and non-well-known events in that contradiction, something John Greene can't do.

DUDE MONGOLS LMAO

>You are accusing him of being tone-deaf after all
No, I didn't. I said he lacked any depth and can not understand what it was like to be someone at certain time or in a certain place (see ).
Alex Jones is incredibly biased and is very tonal, but lacks depth.
The rest of your shit argument rides off what I didn't say but the rest of your arguments are pretty fucking stupid as well.

Especially this last part
>I think your expectations keep you from appreciating crash course for what it is and how it can be improved

Again, I should lower my expectations...why?
Why should I appreciate shit?

wew, lad. i can see how you are obsessed with "describing how someone must of felt at the time.", considering how emotional you are.

>You are accusing him of being tone-deaf after all
>No, I didn't.
>If teaching and discussing history was all about speaking what happened...John Green lacks what I like to call "historical empathy". Dan Carlin, another super huge lefty, is fucking incredible at describing how someone must of felt at the time. This allows the listener to understand why something happened, not "what happened".

You are describing tone-deafness, lack of emotional appeal to characterize the subject. I countered by pointing out that John does characterize the emotions of people through first-hand accounts delivered through the, "mystery documents" of his Crash Course series and by other remarks and I criticized you for complaining about that not being enough. I challenged your remarks about his series not having much depth, because most of them are broad and have a lot of breadth. His main series is called Crash Course for fucks sake, of course it doesn't have much depth.

Please show me where my arguments rides off a faulty premise. Protip, you can't because you are an emotional dumbass.

You should lower your expectations because his history series comes from channel called, "Crash Course." It's a brief survey course and isn't meant to have depth, nor is it meant to be emotional and opinionated(that's what his personal vlogs are for) which you don't seem to appreciate when you mention people like Dan Carlin whose goals are completely different. Dan Carlin isn't giving you a general history of events, touching on the most important topics, over a broad timeline, loosely based off of the Advanced Placement curriculum in the US.

Do you really think that a youtube channel meant primarily to help highschoolers should be held to the same standard as Hardcore History? Give me a break.

sounds like he needs a highschool level course.

and the Iraq war was about stopping an evil dictator amirite?

that picture... JUST

I wish, he's just a liberal

Dan Carlin seems pretty conservative. What makes you think he's a lefty?