How reliable is John Green's Crash Course content? Specifically his World History series

John Green is THE most important person of the 21st century.

This. One has to understand that these are entry-level videos with not a lot of detail. They're like 10 minute short introductory videos meant to cater to a popular audience. They might be biased nut but all historians are biased one way or another.

le "_________" boogeyman

>omg the /pol/ boogeymen!

>bitch about use of boogeyman+strawmanning

really made me think

Napoleon Bonaparte made that post?

American high school level

"John Green" gets four times as many search results in the archive than "Abraham Lincoln".

High school level.

its at most a grade schooling about various topics.

Pop science and history

I swear all you fuckers do is give attention to the very retards that shouldn't be given attention.

They're a pretty based, C L A S S C O N S C I O U S intro to history.

this

t.john green

Why are there constantly threads asking this same question over and over again on here?

>Is Alexander really that great? Let's look at how the passage of time improves our perception of dictators who were actually responsible for a lot of people dying. Did you know the Greeks were fighting to preserve slavery?
>except for the Mongols meme xD

Cuck

The man gets off to the thought of fucking a bowl of cheerios.

So? They unironically make most people think and question the historical narrative we're usually taught. Considering the first point in particular, people tend to demonized Napoleon and lionize Alexander, for example, despite the fact that they basically did the same thing and that the latter was probably worse. Most people don't realize how ruthless he really was (as most ancient conquerors were) and applying our modern beliefs to him in a way that we usually don't and questioning the traditional historiography in this matter can be pretty interesting to someone who's never really thought about it

Now you might complain that this point really isn't all that profound and is actually kind of simplistic or sophomoric, but it's a fucking introduction to history, not a critical analysis of historiography, so I'm not sure what you're expecting if that's the case

The point was that concept is unequally applied especially in their videos about the Mongols and the expansion of Islam.

>people tend to demonized Napoleon
I've literally never seen this

anglos do

unreliable

>Anglos do
Not surprised. Surprisingly in the USA Napoleon isn't looked at that unfavorably.

Not an argument

>the white supremacists would flee

Lol, should we tell him?

John Green is the new man.

The new sort of man. You all know the kind. He's been completely castrated. He's been divorced from anything primal. Completely shorn of any crimethink.

He's like a little, supple, baby-oiled infant. A modern Cupid. A little faggy nothing of a thing who believes in nothing and flaps in the goddamn breeze, whichever way it happens to be flapping.

Tell me, would you ever respect a man who makes a fortune telling 13-year-old girls what they want to hear? Would you ever respect a man who writes fiction for girls whose breasts are still budding?

Look at him and weep. You see a piece of yourself in him, don't you? That piece that you're ashamed of. That cringing little coward in the corner of your soul.

For like him you've never cut down a pine. Never stood on a cliff's edge, bare-chested, roaring into the great wilds. Never killed with your hands.

The fire is gone from his eyes. The fire that the ancients had. The great men of eminence.

And now we have "logic" and "reason" and they're a small consolation to a beastly heart, which still beats, faint as it may be, still beats.

Can you hear it in your chest?

I can, good post. About to wrestle a pack of hogs now

sent ;)

johngreenbooks.com/contact/