Anti-Recommendation Thread

My man. Beat you to it though.

You can't seriously expect me to read through all 11 posts to see whether that shitty piece of anti-German propaganda had already been mentioned.

>The whole thesis of the book is "White people are no better than black people, in fact, if black people had the environmental advantages white people did, the world would be a better place."

Somehow that feels like an incredible exaggeration.

There's a reason it's called "Reverse Racism: The Book"

>unironically using the term reverse racism

Doesn't sound like those are well-founded reasons. The book is mostly about the effect of geography and flora and fauna on civilization. It's got its problems, but I don't ever recall it making judgments like "if black people had the environmental advantages white people did, the world would be a better place."

Geographical determinism is a white supremacist position. Diamond is widely accused of white supremacism because of his championing of the idea. The fact that /pol/ is too dumb to understand Diamond's book is pro-white propaganda is beside the point.

>Geographical determinism is a white supremacist position

I agree with How is geographical determinism white supremacy?

Geographical determinism is literally the opposite of any supremacy, it's saying the only reason we're not equal is because of geography, rather than genetics.

W-what? I've never read the book, but that seems like the opposite of white supremacism to me. The idea that Africans got fucked geographically rather than just being inferior seems to counter white supremacy entirely.

You're getting baited
youtube.com/watch?v=9mGvZXvRNLs

Okay so you're trolling. Maybe you should leave your house and get laid for once.

It makes the unfounded claim that Europe is uniquely suited to high civilization. Historically, this claim (geographic determinism) was used to justify colonialism and racialism.

I'm not but I highly doubt anyone who honestly believes geographical determinism is racist goes on Veeky Forums

I doubt it's white supremacist. However, like a lot of modern liberalism, there are elements that share some similarities with past racist and supremacist thought with the only difference being that hostility and bigoted prejudice is replaced with patronizing condescension. It suits the change from direct colonial domination to more modern economic control.

>National History
>Written by a Historian of that National Origin

Into the trash it goes

Americans in particular are the worse offenders of this

All byzaboos should avoid John Julius Norwich, yet I see him quoted here regularly.

He has no credentials, he is not a historian but have an amateur interest, and writes for other lay people.
And nothing wrong with that, but for fucks sake stop citing him as if he is a credible source, he is not. He is Dan Carlin tier.
Go read Mango or Ostrogorsky or any other proper Byzantinist.

>more modern economic control
Such as?

bait.

>The Government is actively attempting to kill its citizens at a pre-defined rate

The influence of Western multinationals in Africa, for starters.

What evidence do you having showing this has harmed them? Moreover, the largest investor in Africa has been China and this investment has spurred considerable economic growth and improvements in standards of living.

Also, if multinationals are bad (show me evidence of this) for the Africans, why do they support them? Are you claiming that Africans are too unintelligent to act in their own self interest?

Black Athena

>Jesus had brothers
>Jesus was a nationalist
>James was the actual first Pope
>James and Paul were enemies
>The only reason why Paul's ideology won is because Jerusalem was destroyed
Possibly the only meme bigger than Bart Ehrman.

>Jesus had brothers
Who is James the brother of Jesus?

He had half-brother technically, but brothers none-the-less

His cousin, or step-brother at most. No one seriously believes that "literal brother" was meant by that.

what proof do you have of this

...

What's wrong with "Genghis Khan and the Making of the Modern World"?

An interesting read, but filled with absolutely insane theories based on tenuous evidence, e.g. that Cornwall was possibly controlled by a Byzantine official because it had some Roman remains.

This is unfortunate because he was my introduction to Byzantium.

Perhaps the fact that Genghis Khan would have wanted nothing to do with the modern world considering Harry Potter has been one of the dullest franchises in the history of movie franchises? Each episode following the boy wizard and his pals from Hogwarts Academy as they fight assorted villains has been indistinguishable from the others. Aside from the gloomy imagery, the series’ only consistency has been its lack of excitement and ineffective use of special effects, all to make magic unmagical, to make action seem inert.

Perhaps the die was cast when Rowling vetoed the idea of Spielberg directing the series; she made sure the series would never be mistaken for a work of art that meant anything to anybody?just ridiculously profitable cross-promotion for her books. The Harry Potter series might be anti-Christian (or not), but it’s certainly the anti-James Bond series in its refusal of wonder, beauty and excitement. No one wants to face that fact. Now, thankfully, they no longer have to.

>a-at least the books were good though r-right
"No!"
The writing is dreadful; the book was terrible. As I read, I noticed that every time a character went for a walk, the author wrote instead that the character "stretched his legs."

I began marking on the back of an envelope every time that phrase was repeated. I stopped only after I had marked the envelope several dozen times. I was incredulous. Rowling's mind is so governed by cliches and dead metaphors that she has no other style of writing. Later I read a lavish, loving review of Harry Potter by the same Stephen King. He wrote something to the effect of, "If these kids are reading Harry Potter at 11 or 12, then when they get older they will go on to read Stephen King." And he was quite right. He was not being ironic. When you read "Harry Potter" you are, in fact, trained to read Stephen King.

You don't seriously believe Mary remained a perpetual virgin, do you? Damn Catholics.

...

A novel? No one takes it as actual history.

It's funny because to accept that synopsis you have to accept that evolution and therefore race exist. I don't get how the left can claim to be scientific and believe in evolution, that species can evolve into different breeds with different physical and behavioral traits, yet believe that when it comes to a certain two-legged animal it absolutely does not apply. That's a concept from another book, called 1984. It's literally doublethink.

Avoid any book written by authors with anglo names. They are full with false information and opinions that are sold as facts.

I have heaps, will post all.

...

...

...

...

...

Not a fan of Islam at all. At all. Still this is laughable even if it contains very minute nuggets of historical truth. Almost complete bullshit though.

>Jesus had brothers
>James and Paul [were in conflict because of ideological differences]
>James was the actual [leader of the sect after the Jesus' death]
>The only reason why Paul's ideology won is because Jerusalem was destroyed
None of these are controversial though, most scholars accept them.

This is your brain on papacy

In what way are 1421 and 1434 shit? I haven't read either myself but someone I know was a while back, it did look kind of sketchy.

I'm too drunk to go into detail right now so this mightn't really answer your question at all, but seriously they are only barely more believable than Harry Potter. It's complete nonsense that a Chinese fleet sailed to Venice and ignited the Renaissance.

This desu

>(((Goldhagen)))

What's the reason to avoid this though?

It glorifies Temudjn's life while at the same time completely glossing over the fact that he was a mass murderer, genocider and rapist, and millions and millions of people suffered and died because of him. Also the premise is faulty because the author gives the idea that somehow it was all Temudjin's plan when at the time he couldn't have had any great scheme to unite east and west and progress civilization. He was a warlord who seeked dominion over everyone, and any positive thing that came out of that was purely coincidential.

I enjoyed it. It was interesting to learn about how Germany changed from the end of WWI to the beginning of WWII.

this isn't Veeky Forums faggot. take your Bloom memes out of here

This ebook:
youtube.com/watch?v=qP7260Qs6Ko

It's nonsensical schizophrenic rambling.

Genghis Khan's book is good, and doesn't belong on this list of other books.

whats the consensus on SPQR : A History of Ancient Rome?

Garbage. I think it is one of worst books i ever read.

Can you go a bit into depth? I've heard good things but I'm still on the fence.

Black Book of Communism

I have no idea why he talks shit about it. Maybe he's a Nazi.

Granted, it's rather opinionated, but by no means lacking in evidence and sources, and he makes it clear from the start that he can't write a book about the Nazis without being negative regarding them.

Like in many cases, he will say that Hitler's cronies were degenerates, and then says that's obvious because they were fags.

Writing style. Author sounds like how can i say this properly a plebian. She has american style book writing which i hate.

First part of book

, more than 600 years after the city was founded. It begins with promises of revolution, with a terrorist conspiracy to destroy the city, with undercover operations and public harangues, with a battle fought between Romans and Romans, and with citizens (innocent or not) rounded up and summarily executed in the interests of homeland security

Gee, you're clearly not biased at all. AFAIK only Muslims hated him for justifiably ending their golden age. Djinggis did nothing wrong.

What's the consensus on this book? I know next to nothing about 20th century history, but I absolutely loved the way it was written, and I'd like to read his other works.

retard

> written by a commie
> thinks that the zionst wanted the holocaust
> is only taken serious by /pol/tards, islamist and former London Mayor.

nice trips satan but you're wrong

any books about roman republic/empire you would recommend instead?

>ways England ruined the world
>t. quite literally, a German

holy fucking shit

Rubicon by Tom Holland is great.

I written in other threads too but adrian goldsworthy`s books are great.

The Fall of Carthage: The Punic Wars
Caesar, Life of a Colossus
Augustus: First Emperor of Rome

In reading order.

>Plath low tier
>Tolkien shit tier
>A """"""book""""" by fucking Yeezy mid tier

who made this abomination

>dan carlin tier

Why would you phrase it that way? Dan Carlin has stated time and time again that he's not a historian, and that nobody should take him too seriously. He also cites his sources constantly and posts them all for you to check.

You're a faggot for trying to say otherwise.

ANd dynasty after that

Nono, it's simply because not enough time has passed for differences notable enough to develop, so as to split Homo Sapiens into new races and species. It's only been about 60.000 since we left Africa, evolution works MUCH slower than that.

Thanks anons.

spotted the redditor

Nice meme, but how about you come with a single argument?

What has Dan Carlin said that he was wrong about, and then went on to insist it was right when proven otherwise?

Kys /r/history

The author, despite living through the events himself, never got the official certificate needed to write history books.

Anyone have a recommendation for Japanese history?

>in b4 weeb

...

...

You should probably head over to the book thread The Japanese Experience is a good broad overview though.

Found this book in the 1€ department of a library. It's not that bad, but it's filled with stupid myths, specially about the Iran-Iraq war. In general it acts more like Bush era anti-Saddam propaganda than a historical analysis

Mary Beard is one of the most respected Roman scholars in the world. I think you're the pleb.

>The Great Gatsby

Why is KEK'd the book god-tier?

She's somewhat respected but she's incredibly populist and low-brow. Being popular in mainstream popular consciousness does not mean she has that much stature in Roman historiography.

>That pic
>Implying Faulkner belongs anywhere but shit-tier
Leave here and take your copypasta with you.

Also wtf is that random German Shepherd book doing there?