John Green

Great for high schoolers,he got my nephews into learning about history outside of the class,he's far from perfect but simple,quick history lessons are necessary to foster an interest

I actually enjoy his videos. He's good at allowing his audience to hold empathy for the people he's teaching about. He just needs to stop judging historical figures by contemporary morales.

>empathy-based historical discussion

why in the fuck

The renaissance didnt happen though

youtube.com/watch?v=0LsrkWDCvxg

Watch this and you'll hate him

Don't be autistic, actually trying to understand historical figures rather than viewing them like history is some video game is useful.

More likely than not you are going to come to a completely wrong conclusion based off of your serious time/context distance and lack of information, which is worse than nothing at all.

Which would make it fiction.

I'm fairly liberal / moderate left wing and in under a minute and a half I wanted to skin him alive while he screamed for mercy.

i can't wait for liberals to fuck off forever

He wasted too much time in that one minute, which could have been used to talk about something related to the video.

For example, understanding the feelings of many Germans about the outcome of WW1 is useful in understanding Nazism.

However, I do acknowledge your point that if you were talking about, say, Alexander the Great, then attempting to make guesses about his "feels" from the sparse sources would be worse than useless.

>alexander was good at tearing things down but bad at building things up
>alexander built a shit ton of cities named after himself

Elaborate

Some of you think he's helpful because, "at least", he makes entertaining and easily digestible bits of historical info that can interest children

I think he's especially damaging because of this, he gives them an extremely skewed bit of history (with those consistent interjections about "muh women and oppression"), not only misinforming the child, but giving them the impression of knowledge, while conditioning them to view everything in life through an SJW lens

So he's basically a monster in this regard

History should always, always, always be about the facts as they stand

>History should always, always, always be about the facts as they stand

I don't disagree with the rest of your post but that's a 14 year old level of history. The study of history is about interpreting sources and trying to work out what probably happened especially the further back you go and the more detailed you get.

Your opinion should not be presented to children in a general history review. Save it for a debate with other rational adults who aren't going to internalize it as patent fact.

he's to history what Le Black Science man is to astronomy

You said history should be about facts as they stand, not a general history review aimed at five year olds should be about that.

...

What a massive faggot.

This is what happens when you drink the feminist SJW koolaid, you turn into a massive cuck.

no clue who that is, but he looks like a shittier version of snowden

The analogy would be apt if someone was left with eating Cheerios someone else already digested.

He thinks it's misogynistic to call someone "The Great"

Napoleon went to Egypt because it was an important trade route that connected Britain to her empire.

The same reason that Germany went there in the second world war.

Napoleon went there also because the directory of the first republic were getting nervous about him because he was becoming extremely popular amongst the people as they were becoming less popular. Sending Napoleon to Egpyt was a good way to keep a potential danger away from Paris. Napoleon was a noble and catholic and some disgruntled officers had tipped them off that Napoleon wasn't a true republican.

The fact that Alexander went there was amusing to Napoleon but certainly not the reason he went but more of an after thought that made him more comfortable with the fact that it was hot and his men were sick and they were stuck.

Wouldn't expect John Green to care about the history of men though he specializes in women I think.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think the Suez was constructed when Napoleon went to Egypt. Was it still an important route for Britain?

>"great" is a misogynistic term

>complains that not a lot of women are called "the great"
>proceeds to talk about Catherina The Great

He is a comedic micro-chasm of everything wrong with the modern white male. Along with this guy

What's wrong with Michael?

Low testosterone, extreme self- awareness, low self esteem. Just watch any of his videos to try to understand his personality.
He's pretty much the archetype of the white nu-male cuckold.

Everything. An edgy try-hard who acts like he is straight from 9gag vs. a cucked pseudo-intellectual who cannot write for shit

bump

simple and biased
people capable of critical thought can pick it out though (ie not high schoolers)

I don't like the act of making self promoting unfunny vlogs about this but what he's saying is absolutely right

How is it? Men and women are held to different standards because we are biologically different. And of course sex isn't as special to some people if the person they're having sex with fucks anything that moves. To many people, it matters how many people their partners have slept with, and nobody should tell them otherwise

>How is it? Men and women are held to different standards because we are biologically different
Men and women were held to the standards they were held to because for a very long period of time, that set of standards was what resulted in the strongest societies. With the recent boom in technological development and trade, these circumstances no longer apply and perfect equality is what's the most productive.

>To many people, it matters how many people their partners have slept with, and nobody should tell them otherwise

It's perfectly fine up to that point, these people should then pick people who think likewise and have not had sex with many people. But most of these people want to tell people who clearly have no interest in them what to do and what not to do, and that's not okay.

>Men and women were held to the standards

They are still held to different standards. Difference being now the women have all the "rights" of men and none of the responsibilities.

>they were held to because for a very long period of time, that set of standards was what resulted in the strongest societies.

Different responsibilities for men and women results in strong societies, yes.

>With the recent boom in technological development and trade, these circumstances no longer apply

With condoms, the birth control pill and no fault marriage, women can have unrestricted sex and we have no idea what the long term consequences of that will be. Already most newly born children are bastards plus STD prevalence and divorce rates are through the roof. Single mothers are the #1 producers of criminals.

>perfect equality is what's the most productive.

Bold claim. Define perfect equality.

>most of these people want to tell people who clearly have no interest in them what to do and what not to do

That's their opinion, if they think casual sex is harmful to society they can say so.

they were still bearable, though

Try watching their latest show, "Crash Course Mythology", they can't get even three sentences without a joke

>They are still held to different standards. Difference being now the women have all the "rights" of men and none of the responsibilities.

Both statements depend heavily on place.

>Different responsibilities for men and women results in strong societies, yes.

Not anymore, no. Keeping women as quasi-property was productive as long as men were infinitely better at most activities premodern GDP scores were made up of and you needed a constant supply of young people for war, agriculture and industry and continued birthing.

>With condoms, the birth control pill and no fault marriage, women can have unrestricted sex and we have no idea what the long term consequences of that will be. Already most newly born children are bastards plus STD prevalence and divorce rates are through the roof. Single mothers are the #1 producers of criminals.

Bad things that were a necessary byproduct, but are fleeting, actually progressive societies are pushing these back already. The world isn't only the US.

What I meant is that as that we don't need huge armies as we don't have any real wars, industry and agriculture are either mechanised to amasing per capita effectiveness or outsourced. Our economy is now service, science and innovation-based, men and women have equal capabilities to contribute to that. They were now equal workforce, thus they gain equal powers. Supply and demand. Feminism was not some suddenly introduced doctrine that people suddenly started to follow, the story of emancipation is just the markets being rational in the long term. The Invisible Hand.

>Bold claim. Define perfect equality.

See above.

>That's their opinion, if they think casual sex is harmful to society they can say so.

They can, but then they will get called out on it on the same principles.

As a closing note, I, too, detest the hypocrisy and backwardness of modern US 'liberalism' so please don't come at me with that.

Shit use of language in my posts, sorry, it's late. Will check on this tomorrow.

bumo

HE KEK WITH DIFFERENT OPINION OF HISTORY SO HE WORNG HE WIFE FUCK BLACK MAN

Kill with fire!

He applies modern morality to the past.
Therefor he's an idiot.

He's a cuck and teaches pop history that makes ledditors think they know everything.

Even llyod is fucking better than him.

Epic Rap Battles of History has more historical accuracy than him.

It was still easier to caravan your goods from the red sea to the Mediterranean than to sail it around Africa.

Napoleon actually set up plans to build the canal but France lost control of Egypt in a white peace before it could be arranged.

>allows audience to have empathy
>shouldn't just use modern moral(e)s
So, you're supposed to use empathy based on a moral system that you don't believe in? It's important that I shouldn't be overly biased against someone because of their morals versus mine, but surely it isn't reasonable to want to feel "empathy" with him? Does John Green really want people feeling empathy for Hitler or Caligula?

No, you're supposed to approach history without feeling empathy and with no moral predisposition toward anyone, their actions, or the reasons for their actions.

Why do so many leftist academics not use intellectualism to understand history but use history for modern social commentary?

>this thing happened in Ancient Persia...
>that is the same as what I believe is maybe happening in society right now!
>don't you hate that thing that I believe is there?
>well it was even there in ANCIENT persia! you don't want to support something ANCIENT do you? the past is awful
I'm sick of it.

I agree completely

Liberal historical revisionist.

>extreme self-awareness
¿~:3~?

Being a leftist myself, they often use it as a reference point. You have to understand, that these people are philosophers, and historical analysis plays a great deal into left wing philosophy i.e Focault.

FUCK THE GREEKS
SUBMIT TO SUPERIOR PERSIAN COCK

That's because he's a quintessential liberal and morality is usually understood in the west in terms of absolute, inherent, natural rights that can and should be understood by anybody regardless of time or place in history. He'd probably argue that you should judge them based on morality as we (generally) see it today because morality isn't relative or fixed to time or culture and can be accessed with nothing but rational thought.

I mean, yes, I agree that it's a mistake because because I don't agree with that idea of morality but this is hardly some uniquely 'far-left sjw' phenomenon, it's arguably been the predominant meta-ethical view in human history.

well it's kind of nice to have a different perspective than what's typically taught.

You're forgetting that history is two things at once: 1. The science of accurately constructing the factual past events of human history, and 2. interpreting the significance and meaning of those events to understand the present and anticipate the future. You'd be right to say moral judgement should not have any place in the former process but wrong to say it doesn't belong in the latter.

FYI it's only just leftists now. The Nazis and Soviets each dabbled in this to my view to some degree or another.

The main difference in modern times I see is this: people "on the right" look to history as an example, people "on the left" use it as a justification. In practice both acts can appear fairly similar, but the fundamentally approach the topics from opposite angles.

His target audience is high schoolers, not people who are already well read on these subjects, with the intention of getting them interested in the subject in the first place. And given that I'd say he's doing a good job.

Yes, his analysises are shallow and often childish, but his target audience are exactly that, and if that's what's needed to get them interested then fine. I would rather have a generation who are into history thanks to John Green than a generation who couldn't care less because their first experience with it was an, in their eyes, boring block of text, even though it may be written by a far more competent historian.

He has such a punchable face.

My knuckles are itching.

What was that "Persia had no slaves" shenanigans anyway?

2. interpreting the significance and meaning of those events to understand the present and anticipate the future

You can't anticipate the future based on history, that's impossible. History doesn't repeat itself, it's not cyclical or anything. The people from before aren't the same as the people from now, the context is wildly different. and so on.

Veeky Forums and leftypol love him