YouTube Historians/HistoryTube/PopHistory

[Jonkinator]

Andrew Rakich / Atun-Shei Films
===============================================================

Ta treść jest prywatna.

 

[Breadbassket]

Animated historical entertainment channel Mitsi Studio released a video on the American Civil War.

It's a pretty simplified explanation of what happened but makes a few jabs at the Union and brings up the inconvenient fact that the conflict didn't exactly end slavery at all on the global scale.

 

[Slap47]

Atun Shei is probably my favorite left-leaning youtuber. His videos are generally based in fact and cover unique topics. Him being comically wrong about stuff like protesters destroying non-Confederate monuments was hilarious and I am able to enjoy the content of people I consider weirdos. He is also able to avoid "Bread-tube speak" so I do not find his content insufferable despite being almost certain that he dresses up in Antifa garb and smashes stuff during protests.

 

[Corpun]

I always enjoy these well-shot videos of ancient settlements.

 

[JJLiautaud]

It isn't "No replacement or genetic influx", it is "Some replacement or genetic influx" since it is opposed to the traditional historiographical view of total extermination that was promoted since the Medieval era. It is that the adoption of Anglo-Saxon culture and religion by the native Britons in addition to settlement largely in the eastern part of the island was what happened, not the wholesale genocide of the Britons. There is very high genetic continuity with all English people and the Britons, with the lowest being in the East at around 70-50%. You should actually watch the video first, since he actually mentions genetic studies being in support of this view.

His argument is retarded special pleading, which as a vague welsh nationalist probably makes him feel better that the ancestors of his people didn't get completely smashed by a bunch of Germanics, but doesn't do much for the truth

 

[Quarterback Rex Grossman]

Agreed. I could find the papers I was taught on, but the prevailing academic theory is that the Celts more or less wiped out the indigenous Britons sometime in the early Bronze Age, if I recall correctly. The Romans had little genetic impact on Britain, same with the Vikings, same with the Normans. The Anglo-Saxons are the only group to have a really massive genetic impact on Britain since the Celts.

So that's where all the bruthas went. Hmm, very interesting.

 

[AstaSilva]

If he went back a couple of decades and replaced "WWII" with "WWI" then his whole schpeel would have an actual leg to stand on. It's fairly agreed upon that the Empire began its slow death spiral after 4 years of Trench Warfare and poor planning sapped them of their manpower, stored wealth, and goodwill within the Commonwealth. They then spent the 20s relying on the Americans to help keep them afloat with the Washington Naval Conference more or less confirming their demotion to "Little Brother" status within the Anglo-Alliance they had going on with the United States. Yanks literally dictating Royal Naval policy.

It also didn't help that Winston Churchill fucked up the proposed return to the Gold Standard in 1925, fixing it at the pre-war rate instead of the actual current value because his pride refused to accept the reality the pound had begun depreciating. So he more or less guaranteed it would lose out to the Dollar. All of this was happening before Hitler even became chancellor and demanded land. Winning that conflict with Nazi Germany may have been the only thing keeping the "Britannica" illusion alive for another decade and a half, however, that's another debatable topic.

They basically became Spain after the War of the Spanish Succession, which itself is sometimes considered "WW0".

Unfathomably based. I didn't know about that but you're right.
Back to the topic of Zoomer though. I don't think he's being intentionally dishonest. He's just a proud Brit who would rather blame Churchill 100% for the end of British prestige, rather than attribute it to wider factors. Overall Zoomer Historian has good info but as with all history, the difference between truth and opinion lies in what facts are often set aside or left out. RIP Britain.

 

[Amerikaner Teddybär]

Unfathomably based. I didn't know about that but you're right.
Back to the topic of Zoomer though. I don't think he's being intentionally dishonest. He's just a proud Brit who would rather blame Churchill 100% for the end of British prestige, rather than attribute it to wider factors. Overall Zoomer Historian has good info but as with all history, the difference between truth and opinion lies in what facts are often set aside or left out. RIP Britain.

He did try to say that the Nazis didn't hate the Slavs outright or that they were pro-Christian when their actions to both mentioned parties weren't exactly friendly to say the least. Regardless I find it ironic that ZH hates Churchill for being "anti-British" when he did the most British thing of all, telling the continent to go fuck itself.

 

[Rome's rightful successor]

 

[Candlelight Desolation]

He did try to say that the Nazis didn't hate the Slavs outright or that they were pro-Christian when their actions to both mentioned parties weren't exactly friendly to say the least. Regardless I find it ironic that ZH hates Churchill for being "anti-British" when he did the most British thing of all, telling the continent to go fuck itself.

Winston Churchill along with Abe Lincoln are two people the e-right doesn't like for bad reasons.

 

[grump]

Winston Churchill along with Abe Lincoln are two people the e-right doesn't like for bad reasons.

Churchill was the smartest of the major Allied Leaders which isn't a high bar but still. Modern white Supremacists and far right hate Lincoln for some reason even though he stood almost like a lone figure for what they claim they want against both the South and North who wanted to import blacks into society in their own way.

 

[LovisXVI]

far right hate Lincoln

It's because Libertarianism. They (correctly) view him as a statist who made the role of President more monarchal than before. I am however a Federalist through and through so I see that as a good thing.

 

[Smashed & Slamed]

Winston Churchill along with Abe Lincoln are two people the e-right doesn't like for bad reasons.

Churchill was a very big retard and stuck his nose into too many places where it didn't belong.
While the RN fucked up a lot in the Med and Scandinavia he shares the blame with them. I mean this is the sped that described Italy as the soft underbelly of the Axis and was responsible for Gallipoli.
He also was a terrible negotiator. He gave the Yaks a lot of shit for free while the Yanks wouldn't piss on the bongs without at least a written contract.
He is only remembered fondly do to being on the winning side and being measured against Chamberlain and Clemet Attlee. If you look deep down no matter if you are an Empire-boo, the remnant of the BUF or really hate Germans, Churchill didn't really do that well.

 

[Computer God Autism]

Winston Churchill along with Abe Lincoln are two people the e-right doesn't like for bad reasons.

So what would the good reasons be?

 

[Corpun]

It's because Libertarianism. They (correctly) view him as a statist who made the role of President more monarchal than before. I am however a Federalist through and through so I see that as a good thing.

I hold a lot more hatred for Wilson and FDR than Lincoln, even though Lincoln laid the foundations for further entrenchment and expansion of the Federal Government. It's that demon and crypto-communist that fucked shit up a lot more than Lincoln ever did.

 

[Willie B. Hardigan]

Churchill was the smartest of the major Allied Leaders which isn't a high bar but still. Modern white Supremacists and far right hate Lincoln for some reason even though he stood almost like a lone figure for what they claim they want against both the South and North who wanted to import blacks into society in their own way.

Winston Churchill wasn't the smartest, at least in terms of raw brain power. He and FDR were about equal, but he was just slightly wiser than the others. He had been in major politics since 1899. Still, that didn't stop him from doing a lot of retarded things in a similar vein such as censoring information about the Soviet's atrocities during the late 30s when they were still flirting with the Nazis because they didn't want the public to start hating their one continental ally still (barely) standing.

George Orwell was gonna publish a book about them until it was disavowed by the government. This led him to write Animal Farm which was one big allegory to the Soviet Union. He also lost most of Ireland during the late 10's and early 20's, which can be considered a plus or minus depending on your stance on Micks.

I hold a lot more hatred for Wilson and FDR than Lincoln, even though Lincoln laid the foundations for further entrenchment and expansion of the Federal Government. It's that demon and crypto-communist that fucked shit up a lot more than Lincoln ever did.

I think a good 90% of right-leaning people who hate Wilson today would probably not even remember he existed had he not created the Federal Reserve. Left-leaning people don't like him because of his Confederate sympathies and pro-segregation stance. He once threw a Civil Rights activist out of the Oval Office in 1914. That's the kind of "Based" stuff Twitter conservatives praise nonstop nowadays.

 

[Computer God Autism]

I think a good 90% of right-leaning people who hate Wilson today would probably not even remember he existed had he not created the Federal Reserve.

There is a lot of criticism to be had with Wilson over his handling of America's involvement in WW1 and its role in the post-war settlement, and even were the Federal Reserve and its consequences just a footnote in American history and not something with that still has very significant consequences on the day-to-day economic wellbeing of most Americans, his expansion of the income tax would be more than enough to make up for it.

Not every criticism needs to be backed by some nuanced historical dialogue to be salient, and behaving as if it does is more ridiculous than implying that whining about the Federal Reserve's antics are plebian.

 

[Willie B. Hardigan]

Not every criticism needs to be backed by some nuanced historical dialogue to be salient, and behaving as if it does is more ridiculous than implying that whining about the Federal Reserve's antics are plebian.

I'm not saying that you can't hate the man just for the Federal Reserve because its creation has indeed become a massive thorn in the side of honest Americans for decades. My point was that the average person with basic historical figures knowledge would not know anything beyond the big talking points being thrown around in common discourse. One of those now is an aversion to current or historical government expansion when previously, at least in the 90s "liberal" mainstream, it was viewed as a sort of "good". See the shifting attitudes towards FDR from reverence to disdain, at least in ever-growing right-wing circles.

I can't seem to recall much popular discussion over Wilson before the 2010s or anything about America's involvement in WWI. It was always viewed as some European prelude to the more famous second round just 20 years later, at least in the States. That explains my assumption on why most people who aren't dedicated history autists would be unread about the subject. I guess it's probably elitist gatekeeping as you said but better safe than sorry since there is so much pop history going around fucking up with actual historical perception. I'd rather they come to their newfound Wilson hatred through self-discovery and not because the Youtuber/Twitter man said "Federal Reserve" bad. You gotta know why it was created, how it was created, then why it fucking sucks dick, to get the ball rolling toward making proper changes so we don't keep suffering from Woody's big mistake.

I'll be honest, I'm not even safe from hating figures for "simple" reasons. Fucking despise Arthur Wellesley mainly because he was an arrogant asshole who took too much credit for accomplishments he had minimal part in. The guy's ego was so big he chimped out over some guy who dared to make a Waterloo recreation using sources that weren't British propaganda essentially.

 

[Computer God Autism]

My point was that the average person with basic historical figures knowledge would not know anything beyond the big talking points being thrown around in common discourse.

Okay, but this is a truism.

One of those now is an aversion to current or historical government expansion when previously, at least in the 90s "liberal" mainstream, it was viewed as a sort of "good". See the shifting attitudes towards FDR from reverence to disdain, at least in ever-growing right-wing circles.

The American right did not revere FDR in the 90s, and open expansion of the government has never been popular with them save for the most die-hard neocons (many of whose thinking heads were disillusioned Trotskyites, mind you). Criticism of FDR's admin and government overreach might be more vociferous now but acting as if the paleocons and libertarians holding their tongues in an era of political consensus is indicative that they were viewed as anything more than a necessary evil is out of touch; 90s talking heads like Pat Buchanan and Ron Paul led the charge in giving voice to these changing attitudes in the late aughts.

I can't seem to recall much popular discussion over Wilson before the 2010s or anything about America's involvement in WWI.

Probably because the hundred year anniversary of WW1 was in the 2010s and it renewed a lot of interest in a war that had previously been buried under the WW2 creation mythos.

Opinions and talking points on historical subjects shifting with time is fairly natural and not always nefarious. I'd trust someone who criticizes the Wilson/FDR/Lincoln/Churchill/etc. admins to be more historically literate than someone who doesn't, simply because surface level state education fosters a hagiography of them.

I'd rather they come to their newfound Wilson hatred through self-discovery and not because the Youtuber/Twitter man said "Federal Reserve" bad.

As opposed to credentialed book man saying "Federal Reserve bad/good"?

I'm all for people actually reading books and investigating primary sources, but pretending that one medium is somehow inherently less credible or propagandistic than the other is ridiculous, and using that to gatekeep self-discovery of historical positions or to tell someone they can't criticize or dislike something without having complete knowledge of its context is bloody absurd.

 

[Rome's rightful successor]