ITT: Historical red flags

triggered

this is why this board is irrelevant and excruciatingly slow.

You don't have to be french, you just have to believe in them

>main interest is military history/world war 2
Explain yourself, OP

>Is OP
/thread

>Colonialism was so evil

>studies the facts of history but not the method of viewing it
>cares about the "importance" of understanding history rather than accepting it for what it is
Congratulations, OP, you're a contrarion retard

/pol/ pls go

prove that those things are bad

if you spent even one day in a history classroom, you'd realize that epistemology and methodology are far more important than whatever facts historians choose to cherry pick in a given epoch to explain their place in the universe

if you spent a whole semster (ooooo!!! scary!!!!) in one, you'd realize that the "importance" of history is not some objective value but is crafted in the minds of students of history, sometimes emerging as a widely held belief across groups of intellectually or nationally aligned people. for a basic example that even you could understand, consider the fact that for a long time, history was employed to justify colonialism ("Europeans are the torch bearers of civilization, so it only makes sense that we should reclaim the origin of civilization in Mesopotamia and have jurisdiction over how it's divided") that doesn't mean that you don't add value judgments to history and find it important; it just means that there isn't some universal here.

bored since i finished my book early and have to wait for tomorrow for my new one to show up in the mail:

>goes on Veeky Forums or /pol/
given
>plays strategy games
people who play strategy games don't get that the internal dynamics contributing to success or failure are predetermined by people who make the game. this actually plays well into arguments about historical epistemology in general - no one view of the past is correct or objective. with strategy games, you end up attracting lots of systems-loving autists who project that whatever engine they have running their game, if it's informed by some random history people, is going to teach them the details of military or civilizational development strategy in an applied setting
>studies the facts of history but not the method of viewing history
I explained this here >decries academic institutions as biased
this is the go-to defense of "auto-didacts" who are insecure that they don't have a thorough understanding of historical methods. strangely, a lot of these same nerds will evoke academic writers (or, more often, pop "academics" like Jared Diamond) to prove their points. they also seem to love Sam Harris, who last I checked, was an academic
>says that women had little relevance or influence in history
this should be obvious, too, why this is wrong

>applies anachronistic concepts to the past (national identity, capitalist ideas of economy, etc)
this indicates, again, auto-didacticism and a lack of a general framework or understanding of historical process and methods. i would qualify this, personally, though, and say that this is a red flag, not a disqualifier. if you're someone who does have a grasp on the history of history as a discipline and you just have an idiosyncratic perspective, you're liable to proving yourself right if you're smart enough. it's just that most people who garner that understanding of the discipline tend to quickly dismiss these outdated ideas because of the thorough critiques theyve withered to
>applies a eurocentric scope when viewing non-european cultures (such as going on about how a society didn't make the wheel)
this almost always indicates that someone is ranking systems hierarchically. some groups just didn't need fucking wheels or the Protestant work ethic. this multilinear evolution is almost universally accepted in history and archaeology and has been for decades.
>thinks history follows a set linear course (such as Marx's conception of history)
goes with the last one - if history was linear, you wouldn't have a thousand years of European Dark Ages or the huge amount of cultural variability you have across ancient civilizations and modern cultures (even if our political economy has begun to standardize globally)

>main interest is military history
indicates a disinterest in the lives of past people, projects a modern understanding of conflicts to the past (e.g. thinking Spanish entradas set up national borders that were anything but fictive on ancient New World landscapes)
>main interest is nazi germany
should be obvious
>main interest is WWII
>main interest is the crusades
both of these are reddit/history channel/popular media as fuck. strangely, people with interest in Crusades are giant anti-christians and people with big interest in WWII can name fifteen different kinds of tank or jet or whatever the fuck but can't explain where German nationalism came from besides muh economy and muh Versailles
>is a historical determinist
>is a nationalist
>is a marxist
rigid historical frameworks that are constantly undermined by empirical evidence
>buys into the great man theory
>buys into absolute collectivist theories
no room in head for nuance, kind of important when you're considering the actions of humans and not robots (or computer simulations; refer back to the strategy game thing)
>isn't formally educated in history
again, this is a red flag more than a disqualifier, but most people without some rigorous understanding of historical methodology tend to take facts from sources as given, misunderstand the robustness of dating methods and things, don't have a long-term view of historical developments
>says history is a 'cycle'
this is patent nonsense that betrays a desire to project Roman/British/American history onto the past
>posts the 'hard men good times soft men hard times' meme
annoying, pithy adages do very little to elucidate history
>cares about the 'importance' of understanding history rather than appreciating it for what it is
addressed here

>judges a society based on it's inventions
besides being a nerd, this means you also don't have any understanding of idealism
>is American
>is Greek
>is Russian (or eastern European in general)
>is English
>is Turkish
nationalities that are most egregious offenders at navel-gazing, self-interest, blatant revisionism to suit their egos or to justify their war crimes

>american revisionism justifying war crimes
I'm sorry that you're literally mentally disabled, user

every country does it, but the US has been egregious in covering up or putting wall decorations on some really heinous shit. once it stops being the world superpower, i think it'll get better about letting the introspection that already goes on in academic circles to be more widely distributed, but there is intense ideological programming of Americans from a young age to support everything Americans have ever done

t. American

I'm really not sure what you mean. The average american is aware of the messed up shit we did to the native americans, that we killed some civillians in vietnam and used chemical weapons on them, and that the CIA really fucked over south america.

>Quebecois
>goes on Veeky Forums and /int/
>main interest are Napoleon and the 1066 French colonisation of the shithole called England

Am I a good historian yet?

>justify their war crimes
>greece
lmoa

Why do Veeky Forums fags get so fucking triggered with military history? I don't understand.

>browses Veeky Forums and /pol/
>plays strategy games
>is nationalist
>is american
>mainly interested in military history

How fucked am I?

yes, i think that given the historical epoch we're in, where these things are going to be revealed regardless, historians have done a better job of elucidating and American school systems have done a better job of internalizing these things.

HOWEVER, i think that the introspection on topics like this that goes on in, say, Germany, where they continue to disclaim and defame and disown their Nazi past, is not equalled in America. i think that the narrative of American exceptionalism means that all of these factors are regularly downplayed as "necessary" or "regrettable but impossible to repeat because we say so." i think this is evidenced by the rhetoric - Truman "had to" drop nuclear bombs, American presidents "had to" resist Soviet sphere of influence expanding, etc. it makes Americans simultaneously sure they're the biggest cocked, most powerful people on the planet and that whenever they do anything bad it's just a horrible accident of circumstance

i mean, come on, there's still regular exposure to the idea that the Civil War was about anything but slavery at its core. there's all this appropriate historical nuance heaped onto this period so that we can avoid talking about the fact that slavery literally was so fucking popular that half the country was willing to die for it. meanwhile, none of that nuance is applied to any other conflict at the high school level except maaaaaaybe the Vietnam war since boomers are still pissed they got drafted into that one. but even then, the core idea of containment and resistance of the Soviet enemy is still propagated enough that you have millennials who were born after its collapse with enough latent anti-Russian sentiment to be manipulated by Democrats to think that le Drumpf is a Russian agent and we should be at war with them yesterday. that's fucking stupid.

Woah, we're basically the same person…

>or their war crimes
>or
Greeks i think have an outsize opinion of their ancient ancient past that contributes to a national attitude of historical ego. but i'm not OP. you need to ask him what he meant, 'cause i wouldn't include Greece on that list, personally, before i would include, say, France or something.

>is nationalist
>is american
that's embarrassing

I'll give you that most of these criteria are correct, but stuff like:
>main interest is military history
>indicates a disinterest in the lives of past people, projects a modern understanding of conflicts to the past (e.g. thinking Spanish entradas set up national borders that were anything but fictive on ancient New World landscapes)

is less about the subject matter and about what you think people who are into it think about. For example, I'm a fan of military history in antiquity, because I find the different tactics and different compositions on the military (citizen army, mercs, etc.) interesting, especially when considering the Roman war machine and how that all worked out, with the citizenry and political system all being extremely intertwined with the military.

Plus, its possible to argue that war & conquest is one of, if not the single most driving factor in human history, and examining its causes, its running its course, and why it ends is interesting.

oh, don't get me wrong. i am a professional archaeologist who literally studies military history myself (though i focus more on cultural impacts than on body counts, tactics, strategy, and what have you). i think all of OP's "red flags" (and we should really focus on the fact that they are red flags and not disqualifiers of opinion) are meant to be taken in a sort of cartoonish and stereotypical way. i would say that the average military history thread on Veeky Forums is either speculative fantasy about revisionist history (in the sense of revising events or figures, not attempting to alter the "actual" historical record) or a circle jerk about the might or brilliance of one army or another. that kind of stuff is more like fantasy football with dates than it is actually history, imo.

These would only be a problem if the person in question was an actual published historian, which disqualifies 99% of Veeky Forums.
This is a hobbyist board through and through, and there's nothing wrong with that.

>Goes on Veeky Forums or /pol/
Given
>Plays strategy games
currently purging Teuton fucks in Stainless Steel 6.4
>Main interest is military history
Battles, Wars, technologies and tactics are all pretty interesting
>is a nationalist
I can see why that would be bad for a historian but I try to be as unbiased as possible even when talking about my country. being 100% unbiased is impossible though, everyone has subconcious biases.
>Is Eastern European
as a matter of fact I'm a proud central european sarmatian. don't lump me in with hivemind zerg slav ruskies

I'm sorry, user, but I'm just not seeing it. I think that america is just as introspective as any other nation. Eveyone is aware that slavery was bad, the trail of tears was worse, and most of them know something about My Lai or the contras. Hell, there's a ton of introspection on the atomic bombs, and whether or not the US should have dropped them.

>tfw I'm a turkish-english-russian-greek-american man that judges societies by their inventions and cares about the importance of understanding history rather than appreciating it for what it is that posts the 'hard men good times soft men hard times' meme while talking about how history is a cycle who isn't formally educated in history that buys into absolute collectivist theories and the great man theory who is a marxist, nationalist historical determinist with an interest in military history applying to the second world war, nazi germany and the crusades who also believes that history follows a set linear course and applies a euro-centric scope when viewing non-european cultures and applies anachronistic concepts to the past who believes that women had no relevance in history who says that academic institutions are biased while studying the facts of history but not the method of viewing history all while playing strategy games while browsing Veeky Forums and /pol/

if this level of introspection about spurious wars is so strong, why is it so easy to sell Americans on new conflicts? clearly there's some disconnect here if Americans are deeply thoughtful, introspective people and also wildly supportive of the government invading all those countries that the average American can't even find on a map

I see what you mean. Yeah, generally, discourse on this board regarding military history is pretty low level, but every once in a while there's a good thread, like this one (at least in the beginning) and yeah, I shouldn't really be taking op's stuff as serious, unmovable law or anything, its mostly just poking fun at these stereotypes, like you said.

That said, I'm kind of curious now: what / where's your main field of study? Could you elaborate on what you mean by cultural impacts of military history?

I meant that its more of a recent thing, post iraqi freedom

I think the same sometimes

Why the nationalities? Pretty much 95% of the shit listed applies to me, but I assume most people on /pol/ and Veeky Forums are this way, since the post is designed to gather replies. But why the nationalities? I am Turkish myself. The only think I can think of is the statut of an empire once. But if that applies where is Spain, or Portugal or any of the other empires? Or maybe highly nationalistic countries? OP explain.

As triggering as some of this can feel if you ARE a Marxist or Nationalist or English chauvinist (or you just think wombyn are stupid), this is all pretty much true.

Tbh, I'd go as far as to say something like this should be included in the Veeky Forums sticky, although I think it should come with a disclaimer that says you can still BE a nationalist/marxist/etc., but that you should clear your mind of those things during the historical process.

I mean you can go study the economy of the past to serve your Marxist view, or study some war because you think it's something glorious your nation did, but once you start actually doing the historical work you need to be a historian and not a nationalist.

>the post is designed to gather replies.
No, I'm a big /pol/ack guy myself but this is all actually legit stuff that a historian should keep in mind. Most normies are shit tier at understanding how history works, and far-rightism is, despite its currently verboten status, the most normie of ideologies.

>It is a red flag to have political opinions
>It is a red flag to be from a specific country
>It is a red flag to be interested in a specific era or concept
>It is a red flag to be on the board you are currently on

I'm an American who's mostly interested in the ancient culture and how people (ie the folk) expressed themselves and thought about the world and their place in it in Ancient Rome, Medieval India, and Gilded Age America. So thankfully I only have one strike

>it is a red flag to have political opinions
It is, yes. You should really try to put them to the side while you study or write as a historian.
>it is a red flag to be from a specific country
Those countries tend to be much less critical of their own jingoism, even in an academic setting
>specific era or concept
Only certain ones that are big memes for normies. WWII people are a lot of history channel watching retards.
>it is a red flag to be on the board you are currently on
Veeky Forums is pleb tier, but fun

I'll take the bait

>goes on Veeky Forums or /pol/
Guilt by association? How does candid discussion reflect poor intellect?
>plays strategy games
Perhaps its a bigger red flag if one isn't interested in strategy
>studies the facts of history but not the method of viewing history
Elitist at best
>decries academic institutions as biased
Can you name an unbiased historian? Are institutions not made up of biased men?
>says that women had little relevance or influence in history
I would ask that you define "little" because women as a whole have of course been important but individual women, less so
>applies anachronistic concepts to the past (national identity, capitalist ideas of economy, etc)
Is there something wrong in utilizing contemporary knowledge to study the past?
>applies a eurocentric scope when viewing non-european cultures (such as going on about how a society didn't make the wheel)
Only wrong if it's to rank, otherwise it's okay because we are using what is familiar to relate to what is foreign which is perfectly fine
>thinks history follows a set linear course (such as Marx's conception of history)
Do you mean dialectic views? Because that's not Marx alone
>main interest is military history
There is nothing wrong with this unless you want to suggest Heroditus was a bad historian
>main interest is nazi germany
Agreed unless they take a critical stance and simply take interest to look past the mythology
>main interest is WWII
With the depth of knowledge and each front being a war in its own right, there is no reason this is a bad thing
continued

>main interest is the crusades
Same as Nazi Germany, is okay if it's just to critically look at the mythology
>is a historical determinist
Typically just a sign that they're young and just need to read more
>is a nationalist
Only an issue if it's unwavering (e.g. Lindy insists Britain won the Hundred Years' War)
>is a marxist
Agreed
>buys into the great man theory
While posting a picture of Caesar lol
>buys into absolute collectivist theories
Any absolute ___ theory is susceptible to being fallacious
>isn't formally educated in history
Elitist to an alarming degree
>says history is a 'cycle'
Really only said by those who don't even read history, just ask them what's cyclical about the Punic wars or the Golden Horde
>posts the 'hard men good times soft men hard times' meme
History memes are usually just for fun anyways
>cares about the 'importance' of understanding history rather than appreciating it for what it is
Why study anything if you believe it is only meritable as a field and not useful otherwise?
>judges a society based on it's inventions
Heirarchy of societies is flawed in general

>is American
>is Greek
>is Russian (or eastern European in general)
>is English
>is Turkish
These are usually the most likely to be unwaveringly nationalist so I semi agree

Overall, 4/10 apply yourself old timer

The only red flag I have on this list is that I browse Veeky Forums

How is it more normie then liberalism?

What's wrong with Jared Diamond?
Also isn't he an anthropologist?

op went to pol and got out argued about something without mercy and hes crying about it

Can someone explain what is wrong with Marxism? I'm getting hints that it's okay to hold Marxist opinions as long as you don't apply them to history, but that seems like a ridiculous qualifier, because Marxism is obsessed with history.

I would also say that the "history can be understood through class conflict" meme is often misunderstood. It isn't a lense with which to view everything in detail, but everything broadly. You can understand aspects of history and its conflicts by looking at the characteristics and motivations of the ruling class. No need to perform a psychological analysis on the main actors of the French Revolution, but an understanding of the main players' class and the system within which they function might provide an interesting take on the event. There is obviously so much about the French Revolution you'll lose by applying only one perspective, but then again, what history of anything is complete?

You can use the Marxist perspective without being a Marxist, and I'd say that the Marxist perspective is actually critical to understanding some, especially modern, conflicts. How could you possibly understand the labor movement without Marx? To tie it down to a specific event, how could you possibly understand the Coal Wars of 1900s West Virginia without understanding the class of the participants? Whereas nationalism and chauvinism seem very arbitrary and add little to the discussion — "MY nation, MY people, MY gender are always influential and in the right" — Marxism can add at least some understanding to many historical events, and is even absolutely necessary to understand a few.

>goes on /pol/ or /leftypol/
>gives their subjective views a pseudointellectual gloss and claims they are more valid even than raw facts
>"that's not what I was taught so its wrong, ur stupid" mentality
>ties their ego to a demographic group then has difficulty accepting marginalized groups were actually marginalized and so rarely had power and influence over events
>throws around terms like "anachronistic", "eurocentric", "great man theory" and "linear interpretation of history" rather than pinpointing what they disagree with
>doesn't support the public's interest in the more entertaining/controversial/memetic periods of history and help them make the stepping stone to saying "neat film/game/perspective, but what really happened"
>doesn't realize you show your appreciation for history by valuing and understanding historical accuracy
>has a chip on their shoulder about technological and economic disparity, demanding people not make comparisons
>lacks a suitable level of lighthearted national pride and banter
fix'd

>what's wrong with Marxism
Labor theory of capital, taking a teleological view of dialectics
>motives of the ruling class
Give me one citation of Marx dissecting the bourgeois motives other than pure greed
>French Revolution meme
Even Wikipedians know it's more complex than poor v. Rich
>understanding the labor movement
Oh you mean the movement that was INSPIRED BY Marxist doctrine? Like saying the Quran is useful because you can understand the Caliphates using it, you're not wrong but its useless on its own
>nationalism isn't useful in understanding history
It's a decent motivation to study history, you're right that it can be an obstacle but if not for "we wuz" types, we wouldn't have early historians like Xenophon or Heroditus

And Marxism isn't useful as a lens because it oversimplifies class dynamics as "the workers get fed up with aristocrats and revolt".

Depends on what you mean by liberalism, but far-right nationalism is basically just the id. It's human nature, with nothing else covering it.
Classical liberalism is enlightenment ideology and not v. natural imo, very philosophical thing with some self-denial involved on behalf of most parts of society.
"Liberalism"/"SJW shit" or whatever you wanna call it is the most unnatural and weird ideology that's ever existed.
Go to college, nigger.

PEOPLE NEED TO LIKE WHAT I LIKE AND THINK WHAT I THINK OR THEY ARE DUMB IDIOTS UNLIKE ME IM SUPER SMART IM NOT INSECURE