ITT post books that are dishonest, misinformed, or biased. Anything that misrepresents it's subject material...

ITT post books that are dishonest, misinformed, or biased. Anything that misrepresents it's subject material. Can be intentional or not. Basically anything that if it were the only thing someone read about the subject, they would greatly misunderstand what actually happened.

Other urls found in this thread:

pastebin.com/nqzsAWX8
aeon.co/essays/how-did-the-introduction-of-guns-change-native-america
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

...

As edgy as this is, this user is right

...

How so? I've never read it and don't come on this board much but I've heard of this book

Still the best option if you want a quick rundown of philosophy.

...

...

This is the modern version.

If it's good for a rundown, meaning you're not doing much other research, then how is it misinformation or biased?

Could you add why they are bad books when you post them ?

I read this in high school. What's so bad about it?

> (You)
> (You)
>Could you add why they are bad books when you post them ?

Nordicism fan fictions passed as works of history.

>Says that muslims didn't force anyone to covert to islam
>proceeds to talk about the Jizya and how people converted out of nowhere

It's not too biased, and there are no better options. It's an entry level book, so it's supposed that you'll read something more after you get the basics. Just think with your brain when you're reading it (or anything else really), and maybe look up some critical reviews of it.

Not the guy who posted the pic, but his whole boils down to environmental determinism.

Also, he ignores some crucial facts, including the fact that the plains zebra can be easily domesticated.

Author is a physiologist--though admittedly well educated in other scientific fields--making historical assumptions based on contemporary research that wasn't always very solid. Wouldn't be so bad if the book hadn't won a Pulitzer, but because some of his assumptions were built on faulty pretenses it's responsible for spreading a great deal of misinformation.

Zebras have never been domesticated. Taming is not domestication.

The real problem with the book is sweeping generalisations like 'Europe had crazy coasts, that made pirates hide easy, that made countries small and competitive, etc' or 'India was unified by the Mughals, that meant less competition and less development' (ignoring that the Mughals 'unified' India for a few decades at best). Probably plenty of other stuff too.

Most of the actual problems with it just get ignored in favour of zebras (which aren't even a significant part of the book), irrelevant complaints about credentials (even though world history is an interdisciplinary subject) and that godawful screencap that always gets posted, which says shit like 'Europe and China didn't interact with or influence each other before the 15th century'.

Fuck I hate hearing about this book, it generates so much stupidity from everyone.

David Irving-Dresden bombing
Lenin-where Marx went wrong

FUCK OFF WITH YOUR BULLSHIT
pastebin.com/nqzsAWX8

>Zehra can only be tamed
>plants aren't domesticated
>I'm ignoring the scientific version of domestication

He is routinely incorrect on specific aspects of Native American interaction, not just the sweeping generalizations.

aeon.co/essays/how-did-the-introduction-of-guns-change-native-america

I have no idea what you're saying. Zebras have never been domesticated, they've only been tamed. Plants have been domesticated.

Yeah, that's another legitimate criticism. It's most just the stuff spouted in that screencap I hate. You know the one. It says shit like 'Europeans always had a technological advantage over everyone everywhere after the 16th century.'

...

Yeah darwin actually made a lot of mistakes and incorrect assumptions but his general theory is correct

I sense a white's ego been hurt by what the book proposes

See

He made reasonable assumptions based on what he observed. Later some of the technical aspects of his understanding of evolution turned out to be wrong, but in general his work is quite impressive. But yeah, technically the book has its place here.

I don't think I've ever read a book that isn't.