YouTube Historians/HistoryTube/PopHistory

[JJLiautaud]

Read this article in the atlantic today:
What if Our Ancestors Didn’t Feel Anything Like We Do?

I'm very skeptical of any endevour which more or less renders a field impossible but I might pirate his books to see if there's any meat to his claims.

 

[VMM_]

This partially explains why there's so much wacky Christian lore in Japanese media.

 

[RSU 1741]

Read this article in the atlantic today:
What if Our Ancestors Didn’t Feel Anything Like We Do?

"The history of emotions and senses, a specialized branch that has grown significantly over the past two decades even as most others (such as military and medieval history) have been pruned."

Sigh.

It's mostly an act for getting grant money. Sounds interesting, then you realize that getting in the mind of a medieval carpenter is really fucking hard. Because we can theorize what the carpenter could have felt, but where are the sources that tell us exactly how he felt? Emotional history sounds cool and gets grants because it can do the social science 2.0, throwing out fashionable and sell-able ideas that have often small foundations because the sources are limited. But you can endlessly theorize about it, makes for good book material. Then you can discuss about it again and again because there's no good proof. Makes for some fun light literature, though.

Personally? Anyone who unironically writes "The universalism that Boddice mistrusts is a relatively new concept in human history. It comes to us from the Enlightenment. The presumption that all people share a common nature was dreamed up by European intellectuals sitting in their salons. " hasn't read enough: "Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto" is more than 2000 years old.

 

[Squanto Airi]

This partially explains why there's so much wacky Christian lore in Japanese media.

https://youtube.com/watch?v=osV4ZhFSTUs

Pseudiom's videos are quite nice

 

[Zyklon C]

He was mentioned in this thread a few years back and I'll do so today: History with Cy.

Specializes in Near East history -- Egypt, Babylon, Mesopotamia, Assyria, Greece, with a smattering of other ancient history and cultures from that part of the world. No modern politics, no polisperging, just history -- and often from primary sources (for whatever they're worth).

I have no shame in admitting I occasionally throw him some money to help support his work. Not a lot of other quality channels giving me 1 hour+ videos with good production values and well-researched topics.

 

[Rome's rightful successor]

 

[>IMPLYING]

"The history of emotions and senses, a specialized branch that has grown significantly over the past two decades even as most others (such as military and medieval history) have been pruned."

Sigh.

It's mostly an act for getting grant money. Sounds interesting, then you realize that getting in the mind of a medieval carpenter is really fucking hard. Because we can theorize what the carpenter could have felt, but where are the sources that tell us exactly how he felt? Emotional history sounds cool and gets grants because it can do the social science 2.0, throwing out fashionable and sell-able ideas that have often small foundations because the sources are limited. But you can endlessly theorize about it, makes for good book material. Then you can discuss about it again and again because there's no good proof. Makes for some fun light literature, though.

Personally? Anyone who unironically writes "The universalism that Boddice mistrusts is a relatively new concept in human history. It comes to us from the Enlightenment. The presumption that all people share a common nature was dreamed up by European intellectuals sitting in their salons. " hasn't read enough: "Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto" is more than 2000 years old.

The preserved graffiti in Pompei is enough for me to assert we're probably more alike than some people would like to admit.

I think some people want the difference between humans from now and humans from then to be greater than just our knowledge and material conditions, otherwise we could regress or something. I personally find it incredibly arrogant. Reminds me of that TNG episode where they pick up the cryo pods of humans from the 20th century and they just regard them with pretentiousness and contempt.

 

[Sleazy Car Salesman]

I think some people want the difference between humans from now and humans from then to be greater than just our knowledge and material conditions, otherwise we could regress or something.

Destroying our connection to our ancestors is the first step in getting us to allow unnatural modern ideals.

 

[Professor Donger]

Peak has arrived

 

[RSU 1741]

Destroying our connection to our ancestors is the first step in getting us to allow unnatural modern ideals.

I disagree.

My ancestors where incredibly different from me. Culturally, there's an abyss between their worldview and mine: only 150 years ago they lived in a different country, under a different government, with a different language and a different religion (of a sort). To realize that they were different and that the past is indeed another place is a good starting point: I do agree that some complex human feelings (like love, for example) can be culturally adjusted, but trying to dismantle everything and that nothing can be shared is going too far for Academia's sake.

The article struggles though with another point, skirting it very closely because it would be extremely inconvenient: if there's no common basis in the human condition, it becomes very easy to say that we can have nothing in common with another human from a different culture bar basic biology and thus Exterminate all the brutes is in full effect. After all, if they can't comprehend our line of thinking the only way to deal with them is by brute strength.

After all, we don't even share emotions with those brutes, don't we?

 

[Rome's rightful successor]

 

[Thescourer33]

https://youtube.com/watch?v=sQ0R-fcjM10

Mf had connections with three arrows

 

[Thescourer33]

The meme is true in a opposite case

 

[Professor Donger]

Wyświetl załącznik 8350796
The meme is true in a opposite case

Early T-34's were very much sacks of shit.

Also showing the Soviet flag shit is cringe. Say what you want about the Germans, it still took the allies years to end them, and if America didn't do lend lease the Soviets probably would have lost.

There's a reason Stalin basically begged Churchill and FDR to focus on Europe instead of Japan, without D-Day or the Invasion of North Africa the Germans would have been free to eventually beat the Russians.

 

[Sleazy Car Salesman]

There's a reason Stalin basically begged Churchill and FDR to focus on Europe instead of Japan, without D-Day or the Invasion of North Africa the Germans would have been free to eventually beat the Russians.

The only reason Dresden happened is because the Soviets begged us for it.

 

[Professor Donger]

The only reason Dresden happened is because the Soviets begged us for it.

Exactly, the Soviets desperately needed a second front in Europe to ease the pressure they were dealing with. This is well known

 

[JJLiautaud]

The only reason Dresden happened is because the Soviets begged us for it.

And then had the moxy to use it in their westerners bad propaganda whose main themes they stole from Nazi war time propaganda.

 

[Sleazy Car Salesman]

And then had the moxy to use it in their westerners bad propaganda whose main themes they stole from Nazi war time propaganda.

Yup, and that's on top of the fact that it did practically nothing insofar as shortening the war was concerned. The Soviets just wanted us to spite bomb the Germans for them because the Red Army had a shitty air force that overwhelmingly relied on American built aircraft and had no heavy bombers that were worth a fuck.

 

[Thescourer33]

And then had the moxy to use it in their westerners bad propaganda whose main themes they stole from Nazi war time propaganda.

That and civilian demoralization

 

[Slap47]

Destroying our connection to our ancestors is the first step in getting us to allow unnatural modern ideals.

What are the most natural ideals? God kings overseeing vast estates of peasants?

stop injecting your faggy political thoughts

One probem with the Cynical Historian is that his politics are very incoherent.

- Snowden should not have fled. He should have went to prison and become a martyr for free expression and transparency.
- Putin was right to censor the Death of Stalin for offending the sensibilities of the Russian people. Bad history belongs in the trash!
- Slava Ukraine! Putin is a tyrant! Snowden is traitor!
- Bigots who espouse violent ideologies should be banned!
- Kirk deserved it!!
- Fascism is when you oppose trans-rights
- I studied American violence. I am the final word on what violence is acceptable.

SirManatee is very clearly sympathetic to the German Social Democrats, Lavader is some kind of conservative monarchist and HistoriaCivilis is an American progressive/left-liberal. This all shines through in their work and they are pretty consistent. You can trace their politics to some noble greater good they believe in. Its not really the politics that are offensive, but retarded politics that only make arguments from authority. Politics based on hating and dominating others instead of some noble ideal are kinda just repulsive to most people.