What is the worst experience you had in a history class? Students, professors, whatever. I'll start:

Hoh boy
>openly biased history professor
>"99% of all evil in history came from europe"
>Yes some africans sold their BLACK BROTHERS into slavery.. however
>Just imagine if Hitler would have been blinded by that gas attack, just imagine a blind hitler haha *gesticulates aimlessy*
>Shows us a denazification film from the early 50s about how jewflesh was made to soap as fact
>tells us to literally read marx and be "rebellious against your parents" when he finally gets to teach about his husbando

History was still enjoyable tho, he was a decent teachers for all matters before 1900.

What's his stance on Timur? Dude won and is still the Hitler of India.

Lucky motherfucker.

We were covering the mid early to mid 1600s. The subject was religion and war. Do you want to guess which one?

The English Civil War. Not the fucking 30 years war, no, not the one which decided the fates of nations and condemned ten million to death. The English fucking Civil War. Because it's our heritage!

And we did the Russian revolution twice.

This is for secondary school though, so I admit there was never much hope of anything else.

I got you all beat:

>US history 1
>Only time I could fit it in the next 2 semesters
>First day
>Teacher is a woman (strike 1)
>Teacher has British accent (strike 2)
>Hands out syllabus
>Required textbook: pic related
>"OK class I've decided to teach this class a bit differently, we'll be focusing on women's view of early American history"
>Start panicking because I literally need this course this semester to transfer
>Spent entire semester wanting to murder myself

Not necessarily terrible, but at the end of a semester of university level Indian history having the smartest of the Indian girls tell our White anti-colonial professor that India owed a lot to the British and seeing the anger and disappointment on the professor's face, but her not being able to refute it because a brown woman was speaking.

Timur the LAME

2 of my history professors were unabashed communists and did not attempt to hide it. One of which is a former Soviet citizen, the other studied abroad in Eastern Europe at the same time the wall fell (actually in Prague when it came down). The latter had a retarded obsession with the Weimar Republic so any classes involving any part of the Interwar period meant a 2 week lecture on Weimar Germany. The kicker: it wasn't even their specialty. Their specialty was fucking Polish Silesia.

Seriously, classes would go like this:

History of Germany:
>Pre unification for a day
>Pre WW1 for a day
>3 weeks on Weimar Germany
>1 day on WWII
>Rest of the semester focused on the DDR because West Germany is irrelevant to commies
>History does not exist after the wall falls in '89

World Wars in Europe
>WW1 for a week
>8 weeks on Interwar Europe, 7.5 of these will be spent on Weimar Germany, 1 day will be allocated to the other countries, but more than likely it will be 5 minutes on a super hurried lecture
>4 weeks on the Holocaust and other Nazi purges, Soviet purges will be largely ignored in class
>1 week on WWII proper
>2 weeks presenting final projects

The fact that so many professors these days are openly Marxist infuriates me, especially ones that teach history.

Have they truly just elected to not educate themselves on the endless unfathomable horrors and human suffering in the Soviet Union from the great war onwards? Are they just clueless on the subject?

Ah wait it's probably like every other Marx lover or champagne socialist "Yea that was bad but that wasn't R E A L gommunusm / socialism my comrades taught me about please let me explain".

As someone well educated on the Soviet Union and Maoist China it infuriates me to no end to how much Marxism has infiltrated academia, pumping out swathes of useful idiots who don't realize the toxic ideas they are spreading. It's a serious fucking issue and needs to be addressed.

The short answer: Post-Modernism basically says that bias is allowed in academia*

*Caveat: Only leftist bias is allowed. Conservative bias will get your tenure removed and ensure you will never work again.

You can tell who the conservatives in academia are because their writings aren't unabashed propaganda, but generally neutral.

>a retarded obsession with the Weimar Republic

Except you literally can't understand post WWI European history, economics and culture without knowing about Weimar Germany. Pretty much everything else plays second fiddle when it came to shaping modern Europe.

You sound like a butt-hurt Pole but you need to understand that here in the western world we don't censor people based on their politic beliefs.

>You can tell who the conservatives in academia are because their writings aren't unabashed propaganda, but generally neutral.

Rose coloured glasses. History is biased, deal with it.

>It's a serious fucking issue and needs to be addressed.

>This guy

No, seriously, political biases has no place in modern academia. It leads to toxic ideologies like marxism or such rooting in impressionable young teens.

You can understand everything you need to know in order to understand fucking World War II through one week of lectures. 15 years of history should not be covered more heavily than the other 200 years meant to be covered in a course. There is no reason for it. It's not a Topics: Weimar Germany course. It's History of Germany (the whole thing) or World Wars in Europe (the whole era, not just 1918-1933). You are fucking retarded.

>History is biased
History is not biased. Historians are biased. History is impartial because history is. Historians are supposed to tell history as it essentially was, not fucking meddle in it by creating homosexual kazakh queens during the 15th century because "these two women were close so they were obviously fucking each other" type bullshit.

>we don't censor people based on their politic beliefs.

And now the west is riddled with fifth columns.
Youve got arab salafis preaching in the mosques, Erdogan plants spying on diaspora dissidents while being employed in some integration bureau, cold war relict marxpuppets spouting subversive shit in academica that demoralizes the belief in society, russia looking to claim the right wing for their interests and chinese intelligence pressuring their foreign students in european to take on spyjobs.

Your leniency is the weakness the wests foes and rivals prey on.

>we don't censor people based on their politic beliefs
Blatantly false. People get fired, fined or imprisoned for conservative viewpoints regularly in the West.

>Be me
>A russian High School student in the year 2007
>My class was given a test on European history and colonialism
>One of my classmates turns around and asks me
>He wants to know if Boston is a French or a British city
>mfw
I still can't believe people like him exist

You think America will be different eh, yes let's just let the marxists have their fun and the youth can roleplay and pretend to fight fascism, nothing will come of it. Just leave them alone and let them screech and throw shit they will run out of steam and move on to another fad, right?

Ideologies that destroy nations need to be stomped out before they fester, you don't let them slowly creep and take inch my inch year after year, you excise the tumor.

Educate yourself.

Also

>here in the western world we don't censor people based on their politic beliefs

Except when they are conservative
Or criticize Islam
Or criticize Black lives matter
Or criticize Hillary Clinton
Or discuss race from a non-leftist bias
Or simply have wrongthink as defined by those in power
Or.....

Your country is a fucking mess

I have literally never had a bad teacher. Well, I had one ultra-nationalistic one, but his assistant teacher managed to tone him down every now and again.

But I've got a good one for you. It was my Freshman year at Uni, about halfway through our modern history class, when we started studying Soviet ideology. As such, we needed to know the communist writings like Marx's, so we had to read the Manifesto in class. There was this one guy, about 300 lbs at least (136 kg for you Euros), who absolutely flipped about every other page, going off on rants about how (x) did (y) and the ruin of communism and so forth, all the while we were all just trying to study in class. I guess he had to be a Fascist or something, he had a fervent passion against the very existence of communism, and said something along the lines of burning all of Marx's works. Next day I go to class, he dropped out of the class, to everyone's immense relief. It was an informative class.

Yes user, history professors are just more ignorant of their own subject than you. It's the only explanation.

>don't like Marx
>you must be a fascist
Time to stop reading communist propaganda buddy

It's one thing to not like it, it's another to rant against it, arguing with either the book or thin air at times, not really augmenting the classroom experience but taking away from it. Normal men don't have hate hate boners.

>learning "soviet ideology" through the works of marx instead of actual soviet writings
you shoulda dropped too

what's up with this reaction

>be in sophomore in highschool
>teacher (a woman in her 20s) says something about hitler being a hypocrite because he was all about war, but never fought in a war himself
>"d-didnt hitler fight in WW1?"
>get fussed
>have a prolonged argument with my teacher over this in front of the class before I get sent to the principles office for arguing with the teacher

We had a kid in my class who, after studying Russia for two terms comes up to the teacher and asks
"The tsar Was The leader of the communists right?"

Yeah, this is why people in the west aren't allowed to use things like /pol/.

I had this smug right-winger who sat in on a course on the history of socialism. He kept asking "But what about human nature?" questions during every lecture. This dude was also like thirty.

The happy ending is that a couple Cold War texts totally changed his perspective on US history. He always saw the US as the defender of virtue and democracy against the imperialist USSR. Reading about CIA coups really shook his faith in the American government, if not in capitalism. Last we spoke he admitted he was wrong about the American government, and wrote his term paper on US surveillance and suppression of black socialist movements.

Now he's some kind of social democrat I think.

I got a degree in French civil law and the Common Law of the UK, in a french university. Half of my lectures were in english. Over my second year of uni we also studied the history, legal and political systems of the United States.

One course was labelled : Minorities in the US, it was mandatory.
>White french prof
>"I've decided this course will focus on black americans in the US from the 18th to 21th century"
>I'm not even close to being a /pol/ack but find lectures biased af
>No mention of Native Americans, Asians or any other racial minority whatsoever
>I could get a better grasp about american social conflicts and the civil rights movement by watching 10mins of Youtube videos
>Instead get a watered down version of "good bois dindu nothin"
>End of the semester essay
>"What delayed the birth of the civil rights movement ?"
>Lay objective facts about first-half-of-the-20th-century american society
>9 out of 20, 10 is required to pass
>thisbitch.png
>Still get in 3rd year, have to retake the exam at the end of the year to validate degree
>forget about it, focus on corporate law and droit international privé
>fast forward to exam day
>didn't study shit, assume the course remained the same
>same essay question
>suck nigger dick, basically "the evil white man was putting negro man down" until last page
>pass
>never look back

>the ideals of the revolution
>USSR ideology
Maybe you should take the class user.

>ideals of the revolution
>manifesto
undergrads these days

if you honestly believe people disagreeing with you is censorship then i hope you experience living in a real dictatorship one day

Is this a fucking joke?

Marxist presence in universities is the lowest it's been since before WW2. The only time Marxists held major sway in academia was in the 60s/70s. Ever since then it's gone downhill. Because so many people go into academia these days, university departments can be particular. Politically radical candidates are usually passed over to avoid controversy.

Rising tuition prices and increased competition between universities has turned higher education into a buyer's market. Tenure is now much harder to acquire. If students (or their parents) take issue with an instructor's politics, they'll be gone.

>death threats, firings, and legal action are merely """"""""""disagreeing""""""""""

1 It's velcro

2 it's out of fashion

3 who still wears a non-smart watch in 2017? Gross!

Scratch a liberal and a fascist bleeds

The last year my history teacher was a commie and the teacher of the last last year too
>be me
>6 months of """"""""cold war""""""" history
>teacher only talked about the communist bloc, russian history (hurr durr evil antisemite tsar) and how the soviet union was a paradise

the next year:
>be me
>french revolutions
>teacher only talked about the french republic
>never the french empire, napoleon and shit
>teacher said napoleon was not part of the revolution because he was an evil reactionary

really, fuck the commies

Is it weird if I want to brutally beat up feminists who can't stop screeching about shieldmaidens and women in historical combat as they try to "prove" something? So they learn their place in a way.

I assure you that professors of Soviet history know about the USSR, and its atrocities, than you do.

Some academics diminish certain atrocities, but every Marxist professor not named Grover Furr will say that the USSR was shitty but it's the best we've got. They generally admire what it stood for, but look down on its authoritarian policies during the Civil War and the Stalin period.

Some think that the atrocities were regrettable but acceptable in the scheme of things. This is an awful attitude, but it's no worse than conservative US historians who think the destruction of the Native American people was acceptable to create such a great nation.

My worst I forgot my book on Irish history (wed two books one for Ireland then another for the world which covered the crimean up to Vietnam)
But It was fine because it was Europe week we watched the world at war 1976 to prepare for questions sir would pause it for talking points and continue, the only honor a I got

Nome, actually. My Modern History professor is a fucking god, his course was more about the techniques of historiography, trasversality, philosophy of history concepts - we did a shitton of theory, especially the school of Les Annales, and read great fucking authors like De Martino, Ginzburg, Bloch and Croce.

Kind of singlehandedly made me say fuck it and turn my Philosophy degree into a Philosophy-and-History one. Hope I can write my thesis with him.

>marxist analysis of history is bad
>but all other kinds are A-ok because I'm used to them

Marxist analysis used to be a new big thing but its now a small almost dead niche, they still teach it as part of the field's history.

t. Geographer

Marxist historiography is bad because it all boils down to class warfare. There are no other causes. It's just class warfare. Absolutely no other factors in events. Class warfare. All of it. It's lazy and shoddy history at best, blatant and obvious falsehood at worst.

>Take course on ancient ethiopian line dancing
>Professor comes in
>Says that dancing can be fun for some people
>HE'S A FUCKING COMMIE
>At no point does this course talk about Prussia
>Ask proffesor why race theory isn't relevant to the field
>He tries to censor me by telling me that he doesn't know much about genetics

The big Marxist game these days is analyzing contemporary class relations rather than history.

Lots of historians are Marxists but few take a straight Marxian approach to their work.

Not any more shoddy than conservative approaches that contains history as personal conflicts between great men

>as personal conflicts between great men
This is often the case, but conservative historians do not pass this off for every possible event ever. Marxist historians do.

But that's false. Class analysis is just their vantage point. There's a reason why historians like Lewin, Suny, and Hobsbawm are taken so seriously.

Isn't it more about inquiring around the Structural (eg. Economical) processes underlying Superstructural (eg. cultural, mythological) ones and contributing to their existence as they are?

I mean, okay, it's as narrow minded and partial as any other kind of historiography, you need to be sincretistic and use the whole lot together to achieve something meaningful, but your reduction is idiotic.

Come on, now you're fucking baiting.

>This is often the case

Nah. It isn't. People act in a socio-cultural framework, in a landscape of values, and their actions are impersonations and performances, acted in the terrified hope they'll manage to fit and keep fitting in this inhuman wreckage of an aptic framework.

I didnt have any cringe experiences in college. However, consistently in my life my liberal history teachers painted Napoleon as an egocentric doofus instead of the legend he is. Both my liberal female high school teacher and my liberal male baby boomer college professor.

I have never read a Marxist account that could not be summarized in two words: class warfare. Do you know why? Because despite your memery, that is all they are.

>I am a walking autistic disaster and thus everyone is an aspie like me
No.

I doubt you've ever read a Marxist account.

>We'll cover a case study I'll [likely] personally researched over first-hand sources to see how general dynamics could affect actual social context
vs
>I'll teach you the same "general culture" stuff you could read in any basic textbook in any library ever
Want to tell how I know the OP is a Burger?

Im not sure if you are an American but as an American that shit infuriates me, especially the fact that they are pushing that shit in foreign countries.

Neale's People's History of the Vietnam War is the most famous one I've read. Multiple other obscure ones.

Pro tip: None of what he said was true or actually happened

Hey mate, fucking engage with what I said instead of obliquely escaping the discussion like this. Let's go beyond the Marxist stuff. Justify your claim that history is mostly made up by the struggles and battles of Great People.

I have experienced this same shit in every history class in my life, especially because I live in the south. It's all complete bullshit.

You didn't say anything of actual value. You spouted common post-modernist historiography talking points like it means something to anything beyond modern historiography. Most history, particularly history prior to the mid to late 19th century, was made by prominent individuals. People's history is an extremely new phenomenon built on increasingly decentralized power structures. It is factually correct to state that Tsar Nicholas I had untold leagues more impact on WWI than Irrelevant Russian village, Siberia, Russia. I understand wanting to put social and people's history in context. However, let's not treat it like it was THAT important because the reality here is that it isn't. History is ultimately shaped by decisions made by a handful of people, not the writhing masses. Any other statement is factually incorrect.

But there are multiple cases where that does not apply, like Gaius Julius Caesar becoming the dictator for life or basically all revolutions across all of history. The decisions of "great" men have no power if not backed by the people of that nation, nor do they if they are outnumbered by people of other nations. Great men only existed because of the people they ruled.

>I have never read a Marxist account that could not be summarized in two words: class warfare. Do you know why? Because despite your memery, that is all they are.

Marxist Historiography mostly focuses on material conditions shaping the course of history as fas as I've seen. This naturally requires acknowledging the role the masses play, since Marxist accounts of history don't just assume that the courses history takes spring out of the void of a great man's mind, but instead come from causal, deterministic patterns.

But Nicholas I couldn't have done sweet fuck all had it not been for the masses beneath him. If they had chosen to ignore him, he'd have been a raving dipshit in a nice coat.

But my point was different. I'm not, by inclination, a people's historian; rather, I prefer to think about how pre-existent (maybe even subconscious) value/mythical/cultural frameworks act as the limits and pathways in which human action (even the actions of the few you refer to) is able to eventuate itself.

You don't sound like an idiot - surely, you can't deny that, for example, Hitler's actions, as autocratic as they were, existed within - and, mostly, because - of the eschatological milieu of Germanic thought, the inheritance of the Reformation? The wish for a new moral order, a New World that can only come about once the faithful and pure cleanse the miscreants? Antecedents can be found in Muntzer, Luther and the Taborites - just saying.

I mean, no human act can be meaningful unless it finds a proper place withing a cultural system. That's not to say single insividuals cannot gather, around and within them, more "force" than anyone else - only, they still need to historically/socially justified.

ESL, if it wasn' t clear enough already, so mind the clunkiness of my exposition.

Yes, but the masses kowtowed (for a while) to the man and thus the man had the power and made the decisions which shaped history, not the masses. Again, I'm not saying the masses do not help shape history (in context), on the contrary I stated they do exactly that. I'm simply stating reality: that history is predominantly shaped by prominent individuals. Julius Caesar did not become dictator because of the passitivity of others, he became dictator because he dared to cross the Rubicon and take it. Nicholas did not hold the crown because of the passivity of others. He held it by birth right. He lost it because prominent individuals agitated a revolution against him. The masses in history are subservient to individuals. Just like humanity, on the whole, history is not delegated horizontally, but vertically.

But often these individuals exist OUTSIDE of the framework of the masses so that falls short. Hitler was not German, he was Austrian. Caesar was not a pleb, but a patrician. Nicholas was not peasant, but a Tsarevich. History has generally been shaped by individuals who exist outside of common people (not to get into the class warfare bullshit again) and thus the influence of the commons is a pretty irrelevant factor in their individual growth and so on. Also to you point about the Reformation, it was led by prominent individuals. One in particular : Martin Luther. Now if society had been the primary impact on Luther, there would not have been a 95 Theses and no Lutheranism. Thus the Great Individual shaped history which created the next Great Individual.

The real issue at play where all three of you are in disagreement with myself is the delegation of power and influence between the masses and the great individual. While fair to say that the masses influenced the great individual, it is far more fair to say that the great individual in question had far more influence and impact on the masses and thus more impact on history.

But I'm not talking about the masses - I'm talking about a shared ("classless", if you will), metahistorical perspective - I'm arguing about the fact that cultures keep, within themselves, some conceptions that are outside consciousness.

Look, I'm not trying to argue with you: the distribution of power is unequal, as its exercise. My point is, though I may be too drink to properly sustain it, that human beings are acted upon by cultural influences, values and thought systems that, albeit created by humans, end up being almost inhuman (in a Lovecraftian sense) in their action upon humankind.

Fuck' I've done a shit job at explaining myself. There's some bibliography to compensate.

Ernesto De Martino, The Land of Remorse: A Study of Southern Italian Tarantism

Carlo Ginzburg, Ecstasies. Deciphering the Witches' Sabbath

Marc Bloch, The Royal Touch: Monarchy and Miracles in France and England

Marc Bloch, The Historian's Craft

You admit yourself that these influences, values, and thought systems are created by humans, but you're not quite reaching the cusp of it. They are not just humans. They are the Great Men of History. These Great Men of History create the impact which leaves behind the cultural influence, values and thought systems that influence the next Great Man and so on. Nothing about humans is inhuman. Everything you know and learn arrives to you through humanity. As the common argument goes, nothing is created in a vacuum and I'm not trying to argue against that. HOWEVER, it only takes one spark to start a fire as well. That the fire leaves a nice ash bed and coal behind for the next fire starter is simply a side effect.

in college my designated his prof was marxist. He'd even feed us lines on the bourgeosie and whatnot in class discussions to respond to.

Despite it, I really liked the guy. By the end of it all I think he was burnt out and a little depressed

BUT, and this is a great but, most of what is culturally created by humans ends up being consciously forgotten as human made - while still being a part of human culture.

It'd be interesting to actually try and research the cause-effect connection between Great People and actual cultural paradigma shifts.

Pic related, too, it's my idea of the inhuman.

This is a fault of past historiography and not something we can correct (for non-modern history) now. It is bad enough we have people creating LGBTALPHABETSOUP nobles out of thin air because the noble was close to one of their peers and I don't want anymore made up shit based on dodgy crap. I honestly think we're in agreement at this point that the great individual creates the influences on the masses that create the next great individual and so on?

I tried to warn you

>ultra-nationalistic professor
Are you from ex-Yugoslavia?

You need to read more

This pic is wrong on so many levels.

Why is Mao separated off from lenin and stalin

is that all you have

Yeah. Mao specifically says that his beliefs were an outgrowth of Marxism-Leninism.

Source: Quotations From Chairman Mao

no it isnt

what is wrong with hair like this

exactly
so why is he separated off

Well to start with, Mao's beliefs were derived from Lenin's, and he took his cues on building a cult of personality from Stalin.

well she is full of shit.
Modern india owed little and less to the british empire seeing as even the vaunted railroads that everyone mentions were a mishmash of 5 different track types and run by different railway corporations.

Hell, large scale industrialization in post independent india was largely helped by the british, and the soviets, and east germans and the french to a lesser extent.

It's either mocking the receding hairline (which is actually pretty normal for most men, pretty much every man loses a bit of hairline in their early adulthood) or the unkept appearance.

I had a similar one.

>300 level course that was really supposed to be a general introduction to Modern African history
>Almost 8 weeks of the course were devoted to a single Kenyan court case
>Great Lakes crisis not mentioned a single time during the class

youre a racist

i'll one up you on that one
i was in a upper division history elective to fill out some credits I needed. The teacher said that the modernization of japan did not start at all until after the occupation.
So i mentioned the Meiji restoration, european advisors, etc
and she had the gall to say that those didn't exist,
that the russo-japanese war didn't exist, and that japan was an agricultural backwards society until they got bombed.

then I called her an idiot and got 15 hours of community service and had to write a three page paper on what i learned.

yay college

Fuck you buddy, the ECW is great.

Growing up and realizing which of my classmates were the ones to decide to be teachers was the scariest realization and an epiphany

Explained a lot about my experience

>an alt right fedora tipper is complaining about conservatives getting death threats

Gee whiz thank god rightycucks never do anything like that

Kill yourself faggot

>not dealing with it like a normal adult and writing a paper with cited sources
look, we all know you're right, and your rightness was easily arguable. Need be, this was a case that could have been taken to the head of the department.

Cultural Marxism doesn't really exist. The Frankfurt school is not the anti-white boogeyman you perceive it to be, and has no relevance to modern academia or politics.

SJW shit doesn't come from the Marxist tradition, but emerged out of the expressly liberal New Left. In the 60s and 70s, conscious young academics and activists who didn't give a shit about the workers started building the paradigm of identity politics that dominates the left today.