"The Renaissance never happened"

John the Green

Can someone give me a detailed analysis of this open collar while wearing a suit to look ironic holding a childish looking book cunt so I can become enraged more efficiently?

John (((Green)))) is a pedophile and cerialphile who makes crappy revisionist history videos.

The Middle Age was made up by the Lumières, therefore it didn't happen.

John "I like dicks in my cheerios" Green

That's actually one of the few things he isn't exactly wrong about. The Renaissance happened for sure but it's importance and influence is way overblown via the type of revisionist history that John the Great himself usually engages in.

He writes fiction for children and teenagers ("young adults"), but tries to pass some of this fiction off as history education.

>Alexander the Great was only great at razing and plundering
>Mongols are one great civilization that the eurocentric education system ignores
Not even lindy is this biased

>When a hon hon hon makes you go bang bang bang

Lindy is annoying but being a boastful Anglo is a part of his image, it's very self aware. John Green is just a total cuck.

heres the classic story of his love life. Btw this isnt internet rumors or memes, this is literally a story he proudly tells in his own videos

>in love with a hot manic pixie dream girl in highschool
>gets friend zoned by her
>ends up going to the same college
>gets the balls to ask her on a date
>she goes on 2 pity dates with him before saying they should just stay friends
>she eventually cuts him out of her life completely
>John goes onto write shitty preteen books and makes millions
>this girl suddenly realizes she loves him all of a sudden and they get married

lol

I thought guns were banned in Britain. Do they make an exception for upper class eccentrics like him or something?

aspiring but uninspiring author who discovered he could use internet bait to draw attention to himself

that's fantastic

>the girl suddenly realizes she loved him all along
>falls for that
At least he is happy

>DUDE LIKE DID YOU KNOW THAT [insert European empire] WAS ACTUALLY BARBARIC AND OVERRATED WHILE [insert non-white empire] WAS THE MAIN HUB OF SCIENCE AND EDUCATION AND PROGRESS AND ALL AROUND AWESOME?
Summed up most of his videos

OH, so she loves him after he's become a bestseller!

hmmmmmm

kek Veeky Forums utterly blown out of this timeline

He shits on his balls.

It happened, but only in sub-saharan Africa.

Goodness gracious, can the hate meme against this guy just stop?

History's food.

Crash Course is cliff bars.

It's not SUPPOSED to be a full meal.

John Green is the only man equally hated by Veeky Forums, Veeky Forums, /pol/, and /tv/

If history's food then Crash Course is fecal matter. Digested delicious historical facts and somehow turned them into shit.

it's happening right now
pic related

Do you think he actually believes that? Or deep down in his hearth he knows she's just a bitch he's obssesed with?

He knows, which makes him all that much more of a cuck, putting up with a cunt that treats him like a walking ATM.

Care to explain to someone who genuinely enjoys it for light time-wasting?

you didn't talk fast under your breath

because you think you are getting simple, but accurate, little pop history segments of history that are at least accurate when it is mostly either complete bullshit or a half truth that usually seems to be used to further his cookie cutter cosmopolitan liberal world view

its like eating a health bar, but you find out its not healthy at all and is just a snickers

Lloyd is above the law

> Success on a man is like beauty on a woman

Your dad's tried to tell you this, anons.

You're a faggot if you eat a health bar in the first place.

One of the things I enjoy most about history is that it doesn't bend to any ideological worldview (obviously when viewed through multiple lenses first). Despite this Jose Verde tries to bend it to serve his liberal tumblr beliefs by quoting anecdotes and "reinterpreting" contrary facts.

John translates to Juan, Jose is Joseph. Dummy.

I mean, It objectively happened because that's what we call that era. Whether or not it was an age of learning and wisdom is up for much debate.

I don't want to know your language, spic

meant to

>The Renaissance happened for sure but it's importance and influence is way overblown
define happened? What do you think the Renaissance was?
>It objectively happened because that's what we call that era.
>we call the era the renaissance therefore it happened
kek. the name renaissance did not appear out of thin air. It began with Giorgio Vasari, who was an artist but more famous for being among the first art historians. He used the word "renaissance" in reference to the lives of Italian artists he wrote about from the perspective of his own career as an italian artist. So unsurprisingly he used the word renaissance as a way to distinguish the superior Italian art from what he considered the shitty art North of the Alps. So that's how the term caught on; it originally referred to the "rebirth" of classicism in art by the Italians (and more particularly florentines, vasari was a florentine himself). In the 1800s, the Swiss historian Jakob Burkhardt, then went on to argue that this movement was not only a rebirth of classical artistry, but the birth of modern individualism, le supreme genius artist which was not only exemplified in the artists but also the patrons/rulers of the day i.e. the popes like Julius II, Sixtus IV or the Borgias, rulers like the Medicis, the Gonzagas, the Viscontis and Sforzas. Then another generation went on to add that the Renaissance was not only the rebirth of the individual creative and critical spirit of the modern world, but also political liberty, republicanism, capitalism and perhaps and modern notions of citizenship and nationalism. All of these views have since been heavily contested by historians and a lot of these conclusions have been rolled back or heavily qualified. Also, having read some art history, you learn that the Italian artists were actually pretty average and don't deserve to be put on the pedestal as they have for centuries.

cont.
Leonardo in particular was pretty much a hack who's noted more for his sketches and little innovations. Michelangelo is extremely overrated having studied him thoroughly. Raphael and Donatello are pretty based though imo, along with Ghiberti, Brunelleschi (though a bit overrated), Giotto, boticelli and signorelli. In the realm of ideas the Italian renaissance was shit imo. All the so-called humanists were literally just fancy rhetoricians who had little new to say, masturbating as they wrote letters and poetry in the new ciceronian latin they reconstructed. The so-called political humanists like Bruni, Salutati and Machiavelli also contributed very little despite scholars' obsessions with them. The Italian city-states are cool, but the Medicis as a family and Florence's beauty as a city are overrated. In fact the medicis and their counterparts in milan, the sforzas, had a lot to do in their cities' decline.

He kinda looks like Kyle Katarn.

That's really not that bad. I mean your job figures into the type of girl you get anyway and you act like on/off relationships aren't normal. You guys are acting like he was ok with her pulling a Catherine the Great while he jerked off in a corner or something. Pretty normal dating story desu.

>e used the word "renaissance" in reference to the lives of Italian artists he wrote about from the perspective of his own career as an italian artist.
Yes, the renaissance was caused by the import of optics from the middle east, and artists used them to paint 3D images.

Thus the renaissance can be considered a change from 2D to 3D and the optics used influence scientists like Galilleo and Newton to likewise expand out knowledge of the natural world.

>Leonardo was a hack
Confirmed for psued

>Giotto is better than Michelangelo and Leonardo
laughing my ass of rn

>Alexander the Great was only great at razing and plundering
To give him credit, Genghis empire lasted longer and there were fewer civil wars between successors

>Brunelleschi
>overrated

He literally invented linear perspective. Shut the fuck up, idiot. If anything, he's underappreciated.

nah man

>it's a semantics autism episode

Let's look at the facts and not just autistic terminology: Europe was a stagnant shithole in pretty much all fields of art, technology and science before the Italians and Byzantine refugees revitalized Europe with rediscovered knowledge from the Greeks and Romans. Renaissance laid the foundation for numerous advancements in art, architecture, technology and science.

he is, though. he was a century ahead of his time and a real innovator in form and color. in influence and style he practically started the italian renaissance with the legacy he left behind. michelangelo and leonardo on the other hand are severely overrated as i said. let's also not forget that giotto made the plans and oversaw the construction of the Florentine campenile, which imo is better than any of michelangelo's architecture.

I said "kinda". His discovery of linear perspective is really impressive, and his solving the way to complete the duomo was goat. However, his other architectural works in Florentine, which I've seen myself, are not nearly as impressive as his work on the duomo. To his credit, though, he spent a lot of his life coordinating the construction of the duomo.

prove me wrong

You must be talking about paintings only, because people appreciate Michelangelo mostly for his sculptures. Giotto can't compete with him in that area. Leonardo is kind of a jack of all trades though. I agree.

I was in something similar before. I continued a relationship that I knew was doomed just because I was so in love with her. Being in deep love with someone like that really does suck. After that relationship, I realized how true all those sappy love songs really are

>"Great is sexist"

What is this referencing?

ok, I admit that the pieta and michelangelo are great. however, a lot of his other sculpture is not as good as those. His brutus is pretty good, but not completed. I was really looking forward to seeing his Bacchus, having read up on it a lot and learning about its iconography and michelangel's play on ancient tropes in sculpture, but in person it was a disappointment; it was smaller than i imagined and had this feminine grace that made it too homoerotic imo (this works well on the pieta though). As for his paintings, I enjoy Michelangelo's minor works, such as the doni tondo, the entombment and his recently discovered saint anthony, over the sistine chapel ceiling, which I found untidy with no feeling of stylistic or compositional unity, just a collection of different frescoes (which is actually how he painted it). Last judgement is ok though.

...

torment of saint anthony, the pic before was the doni tondo

entombment

pieta and david*

Veeky Forums thinks he said that the word 'great' is intrinsically sexist when he didn't and it's abundantly clear to anyone who doesn't suffer from asbergers that he was saying 'the way in which the title 'great' is used is sexist' (because almost only men get that title thus >implying only men can be or have been great)

There are a lot of other great sculptures made by him. You really need to research more about it. He was also responsible for designing St. Peter's Basilica, one of the greatest works of architecture of all time. He really excels much more as a sculptor and architect than as a painter.

But I don't think he said that at all. Just that Alexander was a better conqueror than statesman and his successor empires wound up fighting themselves continually. Which is kinda what he says about Genghis, only he goes to a bit of a length to correct the record about the Mongols just being a rapacious horde, because that's the standard narrative that's been pushed in the Anglo world for most of its history.

Isn't the dark ages myth like half the reason people jerk off to the Renaissance.

Yes. Like any other period of time that's gotten a fancy name over the years, there's not really any clear distinction between it and what came before or after, and the definition of what that period actually was therefore becomes very fuzzy to say the least.

History isn't organized into neat little chapters, it's a fluid, living thing, where everything is influenced and caused by what came before.

It "happened", but it wasn't a renaissance.
>Dicken Cheeryoh Green

Khan didn't drop dead at age 32 after personally leading every battle in a grueling 12 year campaign into totally uncharted lands.

This is perfection you fucking slave

WTF I love John Green now

only if your woman is a golddigging whore
dont marry golddiggers or youll get retarded kids like the poster im replying to

John "have sex with my wife" Green

Lol that tiny head

You're technically allowed to have firearms. It's just really hard and the regulations are ridiculous.

>tfw it's been more than a decade since it came out

John "fuck the greeks" Green

...

This literally isn't true though, look at Catherine the Great or Tamar the Great - the only reason there are less females named the great is because there are overall less female monarchs named the great, and therefore less of a chance for the top percentages of Queens to be called the Great in comparison to men, who were 90% of all rulers, so there would naturally be more kings called the Great than women.

Did most succession laws favor men or outright exclude women? Yes! Is this some sort of ancient mysoginystic conspiracy by historians as John Green asserts? No, of course not. It was just the fact of their times that women rarely became leaders, and therefore had less of a chance to become great ones.

stop bullying Lindy

>le Britain no funz maymay

It's clearly an air rifle anyway.

all he ever talks about is hwhite people

>hes never seen that tweet he sent where he thanks his neighbor Jamal for "keeping his wife company" while hes out on business

lindy, i know it's you

Angry Joe

I bet you're one of those revisionist fucks who insists feudalism wasn't a real thing because "well it wasn't the same everywhere ipso facto fuck you".

why are you getting so emotional about "muh feudalism"? Have read the anything on the subject? No? Then shut your fucking mouth, pleb.

Machiavelli is fucking great. The amount of applicable information in the Prince is sublime.

He believes that the Haitian Revolution was a more important event in world history than the American Revolution. Tells you everything really.

David, by Michelangelo, is undeniably the greatest masterpiece in human history, it takes a special kind of tasteless and cultureless peasant to deny that. Michelangelo is a godsend, unmatched by anyone.

yes... again, i have to roll back my post cause i do like machiavelli. savonarola is also underrated. he's construed as a theocrat but he was probably the most republican and civic minded

i actually didn't mean to quote
but
i like david, when i get back later i'll tell you some of the things i don't like about it

Post it?

>not wanting to assimilate to the new culture of the US de A
You'll have to go back.