Write a six paragraph answer full of fluff and smart-sounding words about how the liberal critical theory view is the...

People who actually understand and research history enough to elaborate on an interesting subject for more than a Veeky Forums meme tier response call out my /pol/ understanding of history as having no basis in reality and it makes me mad: the post

This. I could literally have a book in front of me and be told I'm wrong.

hes right tho

You go to AskHistorian if you want a historian's answer in an academic fashion. Its limited but its atleast sourced so you can't go wrong with it.

You go to his or other non-formal historical boards for more general understanding of the history. Most are not sourced but could very well be valid.

ITT reddit newfags

Good job. You worked out what 95% of people who have been on reddit a couple of times worked out

>Argueing with someone
>He writes a full critical essay about the flaws of my statement
>Call him a cuck
>Tfw won the debate

For serious discourse the fucking real world is better.

The entire problem with reddit is it takes itself to seriously and actually thinks it's an intellectual platform. Veeky Forums is for talking shit to anonymous strangers; it's also worse than having real world interactions, but at least is has a level of self-awareness.

It's not that he's wrong, it's that he's beating a dead horse. It's like saying "Does anyone else think Empire Strikes Back was a better movie than Phantom Menace?", or "I think the Beatles had a bigger impact on music than Nickleback did."

Everyone here knows reddit is shit, that's why we're not on reddit

It's the same with the answers. If the answer isn't autistic or "correct" enough they'll delete it. It's annoying searching for something, seeing the number of comments and then seeing half of them deleted with some asshole mod's post stuck at the top chastizing everyone.

I really only use it to get ideas from the book list as a starting point but even that is worthless after a point i.e. absolutely nothing on southeast Asia or barely any ancient history but I sure as shit can find examples of books about gender roles and sexuality in medieval France or whatever.

spotted reddit

>im mad that my nord theories got BTFO waaah

It should use the stackoverflow model

Seriously, white people = lame is super reddit/normie.

>muh white people can't dance
>muh white people don't have culture
>muh white people are racist
>muh white people are boring

>Why can't I say that Ancient Greeks has blue eyes and blonde hair

>why can't I say ancient Greeks and ancient Romans were both made and led by Africans without being made fun of

yeah they have some decent book list posts

but then so does quora and other places so

>I really only use it to get ideas from the book list as a starting point

That actually makes that site 10x more better then Veeky Forums

the best part is when in the multiple, ultra spergy "what-if" threads people double down on their fantasy scenario that is totally divorced from any semblance of what happened in history

>you don't understand, if the japanese ignored their own interests entirely and invaded the middle of bumfuck nowhere in soviet siberia and the soviet army in the far east didn't exist at all, the germans could have totally defeated the soviet union

I KNEW IT
Veeky Forums is a reddit colony

The problem with reddit is that it's community cares more about autistic trivia than actually having an understanding of history. It's for bored women to look at lunch, sustained conversation is near-impossible due to the nested comment system and the upvoting system.

Sometimes the misinformation is purposeful in the case of trolling.

Veeky Forums is a reddit colony at this point, no need to single out Veeky Forums

Reconquista when

we have better book lists at this point desu

In my experience as a nonwhite in the US all of that is true. Not all of them of course but generally I find that. Maybe they're different in europe I've never been.

Veeky Forums certainly generates more interesting discussion than reddit and is a lot more entertaining, but if you think the actual quality of knowledge isn't better on AskHistorians than on Veeky Forums, you're retarded. Most people on Veeky Forums don't show shit and get their history from wikipedia articles, stormfront posts, and /pol/.

>muh long comments
Ironically short and serious generalizations are the essence of why a lot of people here hate lot of redditors. Long ones are often necessary for fully explaining their answer. Pretty much any answer written by a academic historian whose answering one big central question is going to be longly written to fully justify their position and not create any confusion, and is going to be all 'flowerly' written so that people can bear reading it.

>liberal critical theory

I've only answers like this with questions regarding events in the modern era, or with topics like 'sex', 'race', and 'historic nationalism' with them focusing on a narrative that's politically motivated rather than being non-partisan. For the rest of the answers (which is probably 95% of them) they're helpful and very useful for the laymen or for people who don't have the time to survey various academic papers on a particular question that they're just casually curious to find answers to.

>Anything else will be deleted.

I haven't seen this. Even with political sensitive questions a poster can at-least go against the liberal zeitgeist of the other most likely replies to the topic by simply using neutral language, give criticisms to both sides, and cite a lot of sources to justify your view. Veeky Forums-esqe replies don't fall under that, and aren't tolerated anywhere with serious historical discussion. The purpose of this board is mostly just recreational discussion of history.

Fuck you racist trash.

>87 different etnicities in Europe
>Each with their own language, customs, morals, norms, values, cuisine, dresses, folklore and dances
>Maybe they do have culture in Europe hurrhurr

Veeky Forums does not even have a a book list.

The ui really isn't that bad unless the subreddit itself is badly made or you have cognitive issues.

First we get rid of the t_d cucks.

we have a pastebin full of bibliographies on all conceivable history subjects. someone has already made a dozen or so chart pics on book recommendations which put together is rivaling the amount of books on the reddit list. it's not that hard

White people can't dance for shit. They are way too fucking self-conscious to have a good time.

You have to go fucking back.

i should also mention the library of alexandria project and now this

And it's not like their bullshit cited shit amounts to an actual answer.

pastebin.com/WGqYYVGS

>discussion
>on askhistorians

Discussion is specifically against the rules.

>>Anything else will be deleted.
>I haven't seen this.

I posted answer to questions on Askhistorians that related to my period of interest when nobody else was answering them (a period of military history that isn't very popular). Somebody asked a pretty obscure question and I responded, citing a famous military historian from about 70 years ago. OP thanked me, lots of upboats (who cares), and then a mod comes in and deletes my post because the source is too old. Lots of posters replied that that's bullshit, and even an actual military historian called them out on it, and all of those posts were deleted as well. Of course, none of the mods bothered to answer the OP's question.

Askhistorian mods are up their own ass with their little bit of power, but what can you expect from somebody who was stupid enough to get a degree in history?

wrong thread

>White people can't dance for shit
You realize this was literally first said in 1980s to 1990s United States, right? As in, no one had ever said "white people can't 'dance" before like 20 or 30 years ago, which is nothing in historical terms. Even in the fucking 1970s John Travolta was killing it and if you go back to real European civilization and not post WW2 Americanized bullshit the million dances of European civilizations are all "white people" dances.

>muh reddit is bad
>i only get my information from pol

And as a White in the US I find it the opposite and I'm extremely dumbfounded that White people like your awful music and dancing so much. The good music is all composed by Ashkenazi Jews desu.

You can't deny that Reddit is just liberal echo chamber at this point, full of fake news and promoting dubious academic research.

>full of fake news and promoting dubious academic research.
that also describes /pol/ very well

To reflect how bad Veeky Forums is I'm going to post a response I got on /r/AskHistorians when I asked why Late Roman sculptures usually have massive eyes:

Late Roman Emperors, especially those of the Tetrarchy and the following Constantinian dynasty, are indeed very often depicted with very large and intensely staring eyes, with this larger than life portrait of Constantine the Great at the Capitoline Museum in Rome just as one very famous example. While this emphasize on the eyes certainly is part larger stylistic trends of the age it most probably also has some kind of symbolic meaning. It is also not necessarily limited to imperial portraits but also shows itself on other depictions like those of provincial grandees or local administrators. For example this marble head from Ephesos probably shows a man called Eutropius who was honored around the middle of the 5th century AD for providing the funds for the marble pavement of one of the city’s streets. It is quite stylized and an emphasize on the eyes is again noticeable.

Previous generations of scholars have tended to explain this feature as a sign that the depicted emperor is supposed to be especially in tune with the spiritual world that lies beyond the material. This fits with a larger pattern to explain stylistic changes in Late Roman art with a heightened spirituality of the age that also manifested itself in the rise of Christianity and the new influence of Holy Men and Women on society.

>/r/the_donald
You need to go back

A famous exhibition from the years 1977/78 at the Metropolitan Museum in New York that showcased some of the most important pieces of Late Antique art was even called “The Age of Spirituality”. According to the great Ernst Kitzinger our portrait from Ephesos “conveys with great power the consuming intensity of one man’s awareness of the supernatural world” (E. Kitzinger, Byzantine Art in the Making (1977) p. 80). The equally influential André Grabar ascribes to it “a spiritual grandeur of quite exceptional order” (A Grabar, Byzantium (1967) p. 226). And viewpoints like this are indeed corroborated by ancient sources. For example Eusebius of Caesarea explains Constantine the Great’s uplifted gaze on his coin portraits like this:

>How deeply his soul was impressed by the power of divine faith may be understood from the circumstance that he directed his likeness to be stamped on the golden coin of the empire with the eyes uplifted as in the posture of prayer to God. (Eusebius, Vita Constantini 4,15)

However modern scholarship is a lot more careful with such sweeping statements that are able to explain all kinds of stylistic trends with an all encompassing zeitgeist. For example in 1999 R. R. R. Smith wrote about these older methods of explanation the following:

>A wide range of late antique portraits and other images have intense expressions and large staring eyes for which the traditional view seeks an all-embracing interpretation in the period's changed relationship with the divine. Thus enlarged eyes come to mean the same thing for emperors, philosophers, generals, governors, and anybody else. But visual expression of this kind did not have absolute meaning - the same images, signs, and styles could and often did mean different things according to the time, place, and context of their use. (R. R. R. Smith, Late Antique Portraits in a Public Context: Honorific Statuary at Aphrodisias in Caria, A.D.300-600, Journal of Roman Studies 89

To gain insight into the context in which the great imperial portraits of the fourth century AD were commissioned it helps to look at some literary sources which describe how Late Roman emperors wanted to be seen by their subjects. The following is an excerpt from an oration that was probably held in 289 AD at the court in Trier before emperor Maximian

>But far greater are those services which you have rendered in place of thanks when the imperium was bestowed upon you: […] to stand on such a lofty summit of human affairs as to gaze down, as it were, on every land and sea, and to survey in turn with eyes and mind where calm weather is assured, where storms threaten, to observe which governors emulate your justice, which commanders maintain the glory of your courage […] (Panegyrici Latini 10,3)

A later oration held around the year 310 AD also at Trier in front of Constantine the Great includes this passage:

>For it is a wonderful thing, beneficent gods, a heavenly miracle, to have as emperor a youth whose courage, which is even now very great, nonetheless is still increasing, and whose eyes flash and whose awe inspiring yet agreeable majesty dazzles us at the same time as it invites our gaze. (Panegyrici Latini 6,17)

And the entrance of Constantius II into the city of Rome from the year 357 AD is described by Ammianus Marcellinus like this:

>Accordingly, being saluted as Augustus with favoring shouts, while hills and shores thundered out the roar, he never stirred, but showed himself as calm and imperturbable as he was commonly seen in his provinces. For he both stooped when passing through lofty gates (although he was very short), and as if his neck were in a vice, he kept the gaze of his eyes straight ahead, and turned his face neither to right nor to left, but (as if he were a lay figure) neither did he nod when the wheel jolted nor was he ever seen to spit, or to wipe or rub his face or nose, or move his hands about. (Ammianus Marcellinus)

From the end of the third century AD onwards it had become increasingly important for emperors to portray themselves as larger than life, remote figures that towered above their subjects. Their unflinching and all seeing gaze is an integral part of this picture which is repeated several times in the sources. It is very likely that this was also intended to be reflected in the official portraits of the rulers.

Now the local grandees that were honored with their own statues couldn’t adopt this style of imperial self representation wholesale as showing themselves on equal footing with the emperor would have become dangerous for them very soon. However, like the oration in honor of Maximian describes it, they were supposed to “emulate the emperor’s justice”. Working tirelessly for the common good is a virtue that Late Roman honorary inscriptions ascribe to local governors all the time. For example the inscription which accompanied the portrait of Eutropius from Ephesos praised his “sleepless labors”. The emphasize on his large open eyes on his portrait was probably supposed to reflect this very quality.

For reference, when I asked the same question on Veeky Forums I got two responses

One was a joke about anime, and another was, and I quote, "Christianity meant that sculptors were less willing to spend time practicing their art since they were waiting for heaven so it got less realistic"

What is your point?

That's a lot of words to not say anything

>guys they had big eyes cuz they looked forward
>guys they had big eyes cuz they looked into the supernatural
>guys they had big eyes cuz they didn't sleep much

So they have no fucking clue why they have big eyes

I guess that Veeky Forums is terrible in terms of historical knowledge. It's alright for jokes but nobody has any idea what they're talking about.

>So they have no fucking clue why they have big eyes
How can you read all that and reach this conclusion? Are you slow?

sort of this desu. he explained how the eyes were interpreted but he didn't sufficiently explain why this stylistic change occured, unless his point was that styles are simply a matter of ephemeral tastes and have no meaning

> It's alright for jokes
sub-par at best, actually

They just cherry picked quotes and used those random quotes to project whatever meaning they wanted into the sculpture, they have not explained anything.

/His managed to ruin every meme within days.

That only happens on the fast/trouble boards.

Well the question I asked specifically was
>In Late Roman sculpture, Emperors are depicted with almost grotesquely huge eyes. Was there a symbolic reason for this or was it a purely stylistic choice?
I guess he didn't say why it occured because I didn't really ask in my question.

I remember hearing somewhere that it was because the style was innovated by Constantine and since he was regarded as the greatest emperor of recent times his successors tried to emulate him.

I mean it's the historical consensus. You can go read guys like Grabar and Kitzinger if you want the full explanation, obviously a 6000 character reddit posts isn't going to be able to encapsulate all the hows and whys of Late Roman art.

>One was a joke about anime
This is Veeky Forums in a sentence. Christ. Thank you for this.

It's another "my Holocaust Denial post that was well sourced with /pol/ infographics got deleted" episode.

like r/the_donald?

In my experience all niggers and non-whites are sub-human trash.

And that makes it okay for Reddit to be retarded because some board on the cesspool of the internet is also retarded?

> last bastion of free speech
> retarded
never change leftypol, out autistic brother

Whites are "boring" because they've been pacified through decades of brainwashing, they're too scared to even fat thinking the fart might sound racist. They consciously avoid conflict, thinking if they back down and discuss things instead they'll be spared.

Seriously though Jamal you should be happy it's this way, you don't want the sort of whites from 100+ years ago to return, because that would be your end.

So what's your excuse for not being able to dance?

>historians
>a person with one opinion
>will be upvoted if it sticks to the narrative
>anyone else with a different scholarly opinion who's a historian must be downvoted
>anyone who tries to give a rebuttal to an opposing opinion is upvoted.

r/askhistorians may be more informative, but it's literally a circlejerk of people with smug opinion, rigged in their favour. The whole upvoting system is pure cancer, recognition should be by quality and assessment if serious not mob rules.

>anyone else with a different scholarly opinion who's a historian must be downvoted
when does this happen

yes

>it gets ignored
this
i always wonder if my grammar is shit, because im not native english speaker, so the others do not understand what i write.
or i just make a fucking good point to which they cant casually make a shitpost, so they dont bother replying

>citing sources is misinformation
>he says in the defense of the historical integrity of Veeky Forums

user you just made his argument for him