Instruction in world history in the so-called high schools is even today in a very sorry condition...

yes he is right. unfortunately history is the least cared about subject in american high schools so i doubt anything will change.

No, that's the natural feeling for people who actually like history.

At the same time, he has less of a big picture on those events from what I've seen of him. Not exactly a dialectical thinker. So despite being a liberal fuck he is correct that the affects of an event are more important than the figure or the dates. The US landing on the moon with Walt Crandall on June 3, 1972 doesn't affect the world as much as the technology used to get there, the concepts that made us desire to go there or the propaganda points we won with Americans.

It's hardly a meme. Who is fascism good for?

The nation as a whole.

Liberty is a spook.

>Modern historiography dealt with "Just the facts, ma'am." Post-modern historiography doesn't give a shit about facts in the slightest, only themes.

This seems like an oversimplification that ignores the many strains of historiography that exist within those movements. Marxists see the world different than liberals for instance and within an "era" there's gonna be different views on "facts" and "movements"

Marxists exist outside of post-modern and modern-historiography. Yes, it is an oversimplification. No, I'm not going to write you a fucking book on it. The main ideas within them is true and that's what matters.

>The nation as a whole.
It made Italy and Germany shit the bed but I suppose you're thinking about other nations.

> whether the child knows exactly when this battle or that was fought, when a general was born, or even when a monarch (usually a very insignificant one) came into the crown of his forefathers. No, by the living God, this is very unimportant. To 'learn' history means to seek and find the forces which are the causes leading to those effects which we subsequently perceive as historical events.

Soz John, but both are important. This is like an English teacher writing:

"whether the child knows exactly where this punctuation mark goes, or whether a word is an adjective or a verb, or even to subtly split an infinitive (like anyone cares what that means). No, by the living God, this is very unimportant. To 'learn' English means to seek and find the themes which are expressed in works of literature, to understand the social constructs of the author's era, and comprehend the ways they were critiquing them, using these words we subsequently perceive as written language."

Yes, understanding the forces that led to the French Revolution and then Napoleon, for example, is very important. But when explaining the very basics of history to a 10 year old, having them know that there was a King until a certain date, and then a Republic, and then an Empire, gives them a backdrop to the era, from which they can expand when or if they study history further.

>Fascism
>Applicable in the 21st century
When will this meme die? Fascism is an ideology that lacked theory and still lacks theory, it's authoritarian third way politics of the interwar period.

It was not right wing, it was not left wing, it was not a good thing for the collective and it's completely unrealistic to think that it could ever exist in an era that wasn't interwar Europe.

If you hate what a politician or policy is, don't call them a fascist, it will just let the movements that created this exist for more time, you just cut off the (usually) far right edge

Not the guy you responded to, but I just think it's cringey.

Hey, there's nothing wrong with making some youtube videos for kiddies to learn basic of history. But don't pretend you're some enlightened liberator boldly preventing the next Hitler.

>No, by the living God, this is very unimportant.
>by the living God
What did he mean by this?

And of course he's wrong, he's John Green. Making everybody learn the names and dates is how we sort the patricians from the plebians. Only a true patrician will find the hidden aesthetic underneath the mundane. The prevailing historical perspectives only seek to imbue meaning that isn't there; create context where it is not, and extrapolate ahistorical lessons to apply to the here and now. An example would be the social justice historical perspective, where everything in history is judged as bad because every historical society fails to live up to an impossible standard of tolerance - impossible only because one always makes the standard just more tolerant than they are. "The 1950's was nice, unless you were a black man." "Being a woman in the dark ages must have sucked." "The founding fathers believed in freedom... for white males only! Fucking racist, sexist pigs!"

If only we had kept the names and dates approach, there would only be people shitting up historical academia that actually care for historical academia, and don't see it as some kind of outlet for social activism.

>Pre-modern historiography dealt with using history as a moral teacher.
Herodotus rarely seemed to care about his histories teaching morals, and in fact, seemed more interested in scandals, but in any case, they were stories of people, and the causes of events. If that interpretation of history goes back that far, I think it's pretty safe to say you're full of shit.

Dates and events is a basic knowledge of history. Once you have that, it provides a framework for gaining a deeper understanding of the forces behind the events.

's college classes are able to go more in depth because the basic structure is presumed knowledge from high school

yeah, like the rest of the world wasn't involved in that...

That's fair.

What's the point of analyzing historiography if you ignore different political beliefs. It feels more like a cop out, you know "You threw information at me that contradicts me, so I'm gonna just write it off"

Marxist thought is very strong in the historiographical world, to write it off kind of discounts a decent chunk of historical analysis. Also it ignores the fact that the transitions in liberal historiography are affected by Marxist theory. post-modernism is really similar to historical materialism with more feelings included and modernism was incredibly flawed in that it looked at the facts as described by primary sources which are grotesquely flawed and biased.

>college classes are able to go more in depth because the basic structure is presumed knowledge from high school
But what if you're studying history of an area or society that you only had scant inaccurate information on? That's applicable if you're studying your country or region's history, but I took mostly Middle Eastern, Eastern European and Latin American history classes in college, which start off with a base knowledge that is either ignored, biased or explicitly wring in American high schools and media

He also had a penchant for completely making shit up to prove a point about his current surroundings. Almost as if he wanted to use history as a moral lesson for his peers.

It's not a cop-out. Marxist historiography exists outside of modern and post modern historiography and contrary to your statement it is NOT very strong in the academic world and is in fact a tiny minority of published work.

>Almost as if he wanted to use history as a moral lesson for his peers.
Name one story from his histories that is in the form of a moral lesson. It's all about causes and effects, and your "Green's approach is postmodernist" assertion is shit.

>Herodotus is neither a mere gatherer of data nor a simple teller of tales – he is both. While Herodotus is certainly concerned with giving accurate accounts of events, this does not preclude for him the insertion of powerful mythological elements into his narrative, elements which will aid him in expressing the truth of matters under his study. Thus to understand what Herodotus is doing in The Histories, we must not impose strict demarcations between the man as mythologist and the man as historian, or between the work as myth and the work as history. As James Romm has written, Herodotus worked under a common ancient Greek cultural assumption that the way events are remembered and retold (e.g. in myths or legends) produces a valid kind of understanding, even when this retelling is not entirely factual.[99] For Herodotus, then, it takes both myth and history to produce truthful understanding.

I don't know why you're taking issue with common historiography. Also yes, Green's historiography is post-modernist. The only thing shit here is your grasp of historiography.

No, your reading comprehension is shit. You're gathering all this evidence to try to prove a completely unrelated point about Herodotus' stories being fabrications, while ignoring the fact that these accounts fly in the face of what you're trying to assert about pre-modern historical traditions, and that trying to look at causes and effects in history is a post-modern idea. It's a literally ancient idea. Herodotus wasn't using history as moral lessons, he was trying to take myth and strip away the fantastical to find the truth about civilizations and rulers.

And through all of this, you haven't cited anything that supports your assertion that Green's interpretation of history is in fact, post-modern, you just stated that it's post-modern without any clarification on how that relates to post-modern thought.

>Is he right Veeky Forums?
No.

History is only neat facts. If you suggest anything else you are a commie faggot trying to trick the youth because your ideology fails under all logical analysis.

Yes.

Or, you know, someone with a history degree

post modernism rejects overarching narratives you fucking pleb.

That too... But i'd wager that those who think of history as more than just facts and causes are primarily in the commie faggot group.

Granted they aren't mutually exclusive groups. (commie faggots and history majors)

What really pisses me off about history classes is how much they focus on battles and specific small events. If you actually get deep into history, you realize that battles are meaningless and wars are decided long before the first sword is ever drawn.

Shit like this results in normies going "Hitler could have totally won if only he did x!", when it's utterly retarded and wrong.

>god

what did he blaspheme by this?

It's ironic that I agree with John Green's view, but I think his interpretation of causes is utterly retarded.

broken clocks are right twice the day

Why not both?

t. Bong

Hitler managed to fucking insta-wipe France (when in WW1 they wrecked Germany's shit). If that wasn't enough to win WW2, nothing is.

To an extent, the forces leading to events are often other events, and while memorizing dates is often a bit much, chronology is important.

Also, can we stop it with this guy? Not a day goes by we don't bitch about someone who's job it is to teach history to people younger and less interested in it than us and then judge him negatively for not catering to us.

Hitler quote.

Nah. Historical forces are an okay starting point but tend to amount to contemporary political opinions projected onto the past. Knowing the chronology is crucial to understanding what people might have actually considered important and what would never have occurred to them.

>liberty is a spook
>the nation isn't

Lol

It wasn't even third way. It was just a kneejerk reaction to the horrors of ww1 and the rapid industrialization of Europe. It was basic despotism and nothing more.

It's fucking hilarious when people dismiss something as a "spook" and then suggest that we place a different abstraction ahead of our own self-interest.

The particulars of the event are also history, though it is important to learn the scope of things.

Did no one bother to look up the quote? It's not by John Green.

The OP never said that John Green said this, he only posted a picture of him. But it has provoked a discussion of the idea presented which may have not happened were the OP completely honest.

Names and dates do make it possible to callout the BSers though. At least it makes them work harder. In a cause and effect relationship cause always comes first.

I agree somewhat with you. I think the contention he is making is that our knowledge of events and periodization should facilitate our ability to connect trends in the world as a whole. Back to your analogy in English, it doesn't matter how many wives Arthur Miller had. Many of the dates pepole learn don't help with their understanding of the history of the world and are moot when looking at important events or groups. Understanding history as a sequence of events rat her than a string of dates helps people connect.

Tell me how knowing the Second Defenestration of Prague happened on May 23, 1618 at 9 AM helps me understand history.

it was a different time

Depends on the state and what the goal is. Example- I was the only one in high school's history ever to get a perfect score on the NYS Global History Regents, which is an exam that covers 2 terms of material. The teachers of course ran around taking credit for it and telling people ( was 15 at the time and hadn't yet discovered weights or steroids, so i was just trying to keep my head down and hoping they'd shut up or the guineas around me would use it as another excuse to beat me up).

In NYC, the regents (both Us history and Global Studies) is essentially the sort of test you would have to take to join the Cheka in the USSR-- it's a lot more ideological than factual. I hate all the bullshit about "muh bad teacher are reason I did poorly on state exams." If the state provided you with a textbook, they did their job, period. The rest is up to the student.

I used to sign into the library every lunch time to avoid having to interact with the rabble I was tossed in with. I was always--from Sept-June-- the only one in there at lunch period. so not exactly like they were eager to learn anything.

I don't know about American schools but here in New Zealand every senior history class in high school revolved around causes and effects.

Even when we did WWII we glossed over most of the battles and focused on the causes of the war. It's pretty hard to debate facts like the events that actually took place during the course of a historical period.

I had NZs (post-war) search for security and origins of WW2.

Such is the power of the ideological divide.

>be 21
>currently getting history major
>never had to learn dates
I honestly regret it. I think it would have made me a smarter, more well rounded person to have to memorize some dates for a history test. As it stands now the only reason I have to is on my own. This makes it more difficult as there is no pressing cause.

I'm not saying I need to be autistically spouting off obscure dates but knowing a the major milestones of World history besides a select few is important.

>To 'learn' history means to seek and find the forces which are the causes leading to those effects which we subsequently perceive as historical events.

Usually this desire to reform the teaching of history is just an excuse to substitute it for Marxist propaganda.

Fuck that. Obviously, cause/effect is more important, but it's useless unless you're able to orient yourself with dates. They're very fucking important.

>the so-called high schools

Why is deriding high schools for not being literally high?

He is literally trying to argue that history shouldn't be based on facts, of course he is wrong.

There isn't any particular reason why history can't include rigorous stuff as well as softer stuff.

One of the reasons people mock social sciences degrees and take STEM degrees seriously is that social sciences degrees are fucking easy, and their easy because people like John Green try to make it easy.

It should be really fucking hard to get a 4.0 in a history or political science class. Yet...