Could I ask which username you use on r/AskHistorians? It would be useful to mention some particularly reliable contributors to the subreddit in a pinned comment on this video.
Maybe not directly associated with this: But I think one of the biggest problems in history is that to many just copy secondary sources without anyone actually checking if they are actually true. Heck, even what can be called "tertiary sources"(really summing up of secondary sources) are used way to much.
Yes I agree with this. A number of my videos are corrections of pop history myths, or even corrections of historical errors in academic works, which are the product of an early secondary source making a mistake which is subsequently cited uncritically by later authors.
@@veritasetcaritas Besides repeating misconceptions from secondary sources ,I also notice dogmatism and unjustifiable deference in academia, One of my professors said that "seventy five percent of the historiography of this country are just a bunch of parrots , repeating the work of the "big ones of the twentieth century" The more time passes ,the more I tend to agree with him. People shouldn't be afrafid of going against another source if they have better evidence or a better argument. And they can say "oh but that happens , you're lying." Bullshit! Just look at that frankly disgusting show of arrogance and stupidity that was the "pre clovis cultures in america" debate, Careers were risked , Cinq Mars was treated like a fool and lost funding. Recently heard Paulette Stevens , an archeologist who wrote a book I've yet to read , "The Indigenous Paleolithic of the Western Hemisphere". She said there is solid evidence of people being here for 60 thousand years, a lot for a 100 , maybe even 200 thousand. And she mentioned how there was a lot of racism and white supremacy involved in it , in insisting that for instance , oral histories from indigenous people cannot possibly be relied on , using that stupid metaphor of "game of telephone" , despite the fact that indigenous oral histories have been validated by archeological evidence before , like the Klamath Creation story , and that it's a terrible metaphor. People deliberately distort the information in a game of telephone to be funny. Now , she could be right , she could be mistaken , some of it , some of the other. But the point is this shouldn't be the reaction. If you have a problem with someone's methodology , actually address the evidence and suspend your disbelief for a moment to see if it holds any water. Act like a rational , respectful person. Here's an idea , fkn go there and do some research together with them. If you're right , you get a better appreciation for the truth , if not , then now you're closer to it. if neither of you were , same thing. Going against the consensus shouldn't be vilified , if anything it should be encouraged , with rigour and evidence and proper adressing of the majority arguments. It should be the norm. Science should not advance one obituary at a time. Yes , a lot of stuff that's new will be proven incorrect in the future. But that's a good thing. If you're not making mistakes , you're not learning. Sticking to what you (think) you know , or what the "consensus" says isn't how science advances, It's how it stagnates. There is value in listening to the consensus ,and there is a good chance that if a lot of people are saying something , it could very well be right. it could also very well be total BS. Point is , the evidence needs to be considered in its own merit and this culture of deference ,ended Or at least that is my impression. I am only a history student haflway through graduation. But it certainly seems to me that this is a problem , basde on my own experience and that of other academics I've spoken to. But I could be wrong,
@@veritasetcaritasUnwarranted deference and deference to "consensus" by default is another. Not analysing sources in their own merit amd automatically defering to other historians and even attacking someone's character for going against the grain. Great example would be the sheer abuse and frankly disgusting attacks endured those who propposed pre-clovis cultures in america. For decades people had evidence against it, but the field refused to actually evaluate the evidence. Archeologists like Niede Guidon dismissed with no attempt to actually consider and adress her position despite her having evidence, and Cinq Mat,for instance,nhas his funding cut and having been chased out of academia for it. Not to mention that archeology still dismisses.indigenous oral history as a legitimate source despite them having been validated before,such as in the case of the Klamath creation story. Paulette Steeves,an indigenous archeologist laid a case on the seriously wrong podcast and a book called The Indigenous Paleolithic of the Western Hemisphere of how academia refused for decades to engage with contradictory evidence. All of this to say that this is terrible. Science should not advance one funeral at a time. We should still engage with and analyse evidence on its own merits,somethinf many scholars pay lip service to but don't actually do. And this is a problem on AskHistorians. Maybe people should just use primary sources more and state their case using them instead of leaning on secondary sources so much. With intelectual honesty,with effort to mitigate bias and adressing existing scholarship when needed to state why their case is the better one. And not ,as another commenter posted here,just check if a list of books is pesented ar rhe end of a comment, regardless that a) they're wrong too, b)rhey don't say what you think they do,c) there is good reason why a better argument goes against them. Actual science instead of its appearance. To paraphrase Bakunin: in maters of shoe making, go to the shoe maker and in houses,the architect or engineer. But reserve your right of censure, compare many opinions and see which one seems the soundest to you and allow neither ro impose rheir authority on you.
Despite the stricter requirements r/badhistory is generally lower quality than AskHistorians. The rules can sometimes hamper addressing certain users with recurring agendas I’ve seen. Such as the guy with the Order of the Star of India on his Reddit profile who constantly made posts minimizing British imperialism. It seemed like an issue where the rules against “talking politics” made it difficult to articulate that there was a clear pattern in the quality and subject matter of his posts. Still probably one of my favorite subreddits tbh. Wouldn’t know about you or former poster BadEmpanada without it.
Generally speaking I think the subreddit does a pretty good job of calling out bad actors. I think the mods try to view comments charitably and in good faith, and it can take time for a disruptive posting pattern to emerge. But that Star of India guy was called out specifically for imperialism apologia by the mods.
BadEmpanada does have some high quality videos, but his behaviour on social media is nothing short of unhinged sometimes. Good thing he's banned on reddit and a "former" poster now.
BadEmpanada just does not value social media that much tbh & I understand why. He's just kind of does not believe in civility against his ideological opponents. I generally agree with him there that civility is a waste of time, but I would like to know what he's said that seems genuinely unhinged? I've not seen anything that bad.@@seekangaroo
R/askhistorians is good on Western/Asiatic history, but not so good when it comes to some African history. I'm seeing improvements though, and hope it gets better.
If I want to learn about WW1 and WW2 could you give me a comprehensive list (as long as you want) of books, articles, websites? I ask because often I find that browsing the web a lot of books are recommended that are then destroyed by more knowledgeable people (such as Guns, Germs and Steel). So which could be good?
A good method is to look at scholarly bibliographies compiled by universities or subject experts. For example, the International Society for First World War Studies has an online bibliography. www.zotero.org/groups/55813/first_world_war_studies_bibliography/library The scholarly publication A World at War, 1911-1949 has its bibliography online here. brill.com/display/book/9789004393547/back-1.xml?language=en Here's a historian's recommended reading list for World War I. stephenambrosetours.com/historian-chris-andersons-wwi-reading-list/ Here's a historian's recommended reading list for World War II. scottmanning.com/content/50-books-on-world-war-ii-recommended-by-john-keegan/
What do you think about the criticism of some history channels on r/badhistory? When I was there I saw repeated posts by a user criticizing OSP, but the user got a huge number of replies that they were overly critical or even nit picky. I ask that, because it would make r/badhistory worse when users can use it as a platform for their personal vendetta. Their critique may not be factual wrong, but if you watch a YT video and lay every word they are saying on a gold plate it goes at least for me against the purpose of the sub.
r/badhistory tends to be fine about this, because there are few enough posts due to vetting that most of those that do get through can have knowledgeable users who give high quality commentary will be able to watch/read the source critiqued alongside the critique itself and provide feedback in the comments. I have read those same posts, and do think that the poster is a little over-zealous: there's a lot to critique about Blue's content, particularly his older content, without being so uncharitable. There have been moments where I think VEC can be overzealous, but not to the extent of that poster.
@@godminnette2 Thanks for your response. I mean when it is just a single user that who does something like that I guess it is fine. But it would still be nice if the mods would look at little closer at least imo.
That’s just ByzantineBasileus. While OSP is generally not seen that positively there people get tired of him beating the same dead horse for 3 gazillion posts. A lot of his criticisms are often hollow and disingenuous. When he steps out of his Byzantine/Persian lane he does also tend to go really off the rails. Look out for him in the comments of posts about contemporary issues and he’s almost guaranteed to have some bizarre political take.
I guess you are thinking of ByzantineBasileus. One reason why he is called out by community members is that he has a track record of being overly critical of OSP and the channel Kings & Generals, and of posting numerous small critiques in a pattern which looks more like karma farming than good faith criticism. Within his narrow field of historical knowledge he can be very good, but when he steps outside that, and especially when he's posting on those channels, you'll find he's less reliable and more critical. Generally speaking I think the subreddit does a pretty good job of calling out bad actors. You may already be familiar with it, but in case you aren't I made a video on history RUclips channels which are legitimately repeatedly critiqued on r/badhistory. ruclips.net/video/V7qV7QBxmTE/видео.html
@@veritasetcaritas But i heard the chinese people support him and recently not sure if he was the one who passed it, but there was a lot of chinese officials purged because they were corrupt. What is your advice for him if you were a party member ?
@@looiyuanjieyuanjie1451 it is unclear how many Chinese people support him or why. I am willing to bet a large number do support him, because he wants to make China a superpower, recapture Qing era territory by taking over sovereign nations, and making China's economy very strong. I wouldn't have any advice for him because I am an anarchist I don't believe the state should exist. If I was an anarchist party member I would tell him to dissolve the government, dissolve the state, and return the territory stolen from indigenous people to its original owners.
@@veritasetcaritas So you believe the state should not exist, well tell that to the jewish people who have been persecuted for thousands of years until the holocaust happen which lead to the creation of the jewish state. This is what i'm told though. The palestinians are also pushing for a state. I'm gonna assume you do know that indigenous people do have some form of state or hierarchy right ?
@@looiyuanjieyuanjie1451 there is a difference between a people and a state. People have a right to existence; states do not. Indigenous people had no difficulty living for thousands of years without states. Certainly many of them had hierarchies.
If it's reporting on an event, the further away in time it is from the original event the less likely it is to be reliable. However, paradoxically if it's a scholarly source analyzing a historical event then it maybe much more accurate than some sources close in time to the original event, since it may be taking advantage of a greater number of corroborating sources and may apply better critical analysis methods.
A good example if you are looking for a source on what happened to say X person in 1340. As source from 1600~ is likely worse in quality than say a source from 1340-1440. However, a source from 1960s onwards that is academic in nature is likely to present a more critical picture and draw on a range of primary sources including the primary sources mentioned. If you are not equipped with the experience and knowledge to critique the provenance and reliability of a primary source, you should fall to the support of an academic text that can do that for you (if possible). I will always give more weight to an analysis that draws upon a range of these texts. However, if left with just 1 reference, looking at the date of the source is one of many factors you should use to critique its reliability.
Human memory degrades over time, so sources written closer to the event are less likely to include misremembered details. A person's diary entry from the day after the event is generally closer to the truth than their recounting of the incident 20 years afterwards, as an example. More recent academic works however have access to a wide range of primary sources and information on the historical context, so they have a lot more to go on when trying to extrapolate what actually happened than earlier academic works do. Academic works written too long ago may be working on an assumption that has since been debunked with new discoveries and without reading more recent work there's no way to learn about such new discoveries, so you'll possibly end up coming away with outdated information.
On WW2 and USSR history, for example, it matters if the secondary source was written before the archive was opened. Much, if not most, of the popular opinions on WW2 are formed WITHOUT the Soviet sources, which weren't available for most of the time.
I avoid Reddit in all its forms , and I will continue I heard the term "Dutch historian" that's enough to ring alarm bells with me , like the Dutch are a cross between the Germans and Belgians but get away with it because of clogs , windmills , painters and weed .
Is anyone else annoyed by that user [deleted] on r/AskHistorians who always posts the same thing?
That user should just be banned.
I was mostly worried my askhistorians answers would be used as an example of why it's bad, so it's refreshing to see that wasn't the case.
Could I ask which username you use on r/AskHistorians? It would be useful to mention some particularly reliable contributors to the subreddit in a pinned comment on this video.
Maybe not directly associated with this: But I think one of the biggest problems in history is that to many just copy secondary sources without anyone actually checking if they are actually true. Heck, even what can be called "tertiary sources"(really summing up of secondary sources) are used way to much.
Yes I agree with this. A number of my videos are corrections of pop history myths, or even corrections of historical errors in academic works, which are the product of an early secondary source making a mistake which is subsequently cited uncritically by later authors.
@@veritasetcaritas Besides repeating misconceptions from secondary sources ,I also notice dogmatism and unjustifiable deference in academia,
One of my professors said that "seventy five percent of the historiography of this country are just a bunch of parrots , repeating the work of the "big ones of the twentieth century"
The more time passes ,the more I tend to agree with him.
People shouldn't be afrafid of going against another source if they have better evidence or a better argument. And they can say "oh but that happens , you're lying."
Bullshit! Just look at that frankly disgusting show of arrogance and stupidity that was the "pre clovis cultures in america" debate, Careers were risked , Cinq Mars was treated like a fool and lost funding. Recently heard Paulette Stevens , an archeologist who wrote a book I've yet to read , "The Indigenous Paleolithic of the Western Hemisphere". She said there is solid evidence of people being here for 60 thousand years, a lot for a 100 , maybe even 200 thousand. And she mentioned how there was a lot of racism and white supremacy involved in it , in insisting that for instance , oral histories from indigenous people cannot possibly be relied on , using that stupid metaphor of "game of telephone" , despite the fact that indigenous oral histories have been validated by archeological evidence before , like the Klamath Creation story , and that it's a terrible metaphor. People deliberately distort the information in a game of telephone to be funny.
Now , she could be right , she could be mistaken , some of it , some of the other. But the point is this shouldn't be the reaction. If you have a problem with someone's methodology , actually address the evidence and suspend your disbelief for a moment to see if it holds any water. Act like a rational , respectful person. Here's an idea , fkn go there and do some research together with them. If you're right , you get a better appreciation for the truth , if not , then now you're closer to it. if neither of you were , same thing.
Going against the consensus shouldn't be vilified , if anything it should be encouraged , with rigour and evidence and proper adressing of the majority arguments. It should be the norm. Science should not advance one obituary at a time. Yes , a lot of stuff that's new will be proven incorrect in the future. But that's a good thing. If you're not making mistakes , you're not learning. Sticking to what you (think) you know , or what the "consensus" says isn't how science advances, It's how it stagnates.
There is value in listening to the consensus ,and there is a good chance that if a lot of people are saying something , it could very well be right. it could also very well be total BS. Point is , the evidence needs to be considered in its own merit and this culture of deference ,ended
Or at least that is my impression. I am only a history student haflway through graduation. But it certainly seems to me that this is a problem , basde on my own experience and that of other academics I've spoken to.
But I could be wrong,
@@veritasetcaritasUnwarranted deference and deference to "consensus" by default is another. Not analysing sources in their own merit amd automatically defering to other historians and even attacking someone's character for going against the grain.
Great example would be the sheer abuse and frankly disgusting attacks endured those who propposed pre-clovis cultures in america.
For decades people had evidence against it, but the field refused to actually evaluate the evidence. Archeologists like Niede Guidon dismissed with no attempt to actually consider and adress her position despite her having evidence, and Cinq Mat,for instance,nhas his funding cut and having been chased out of academia for it. Not to mention that archeology still dismisses.indigenous oral history as a legitimate source despite them having been validated before,such as in the case of the Klamath creation story. Paulette Steeves,an indigenous archeologist laid a case on the seriously wrong podcast and a book called The Indigenous Paleolithic of the Western Hemisphere of how academia refused for decades to engage with contradictory evidence.
All of this to say that this is terrible. Science should not advance one funeral at a time. We should still engage with and analyse evidence on its own merits,somethinf many scholars pay lip service to but don't actually do. And this is a problem on AskHistorians. Maybe people should just use primary sources more and state their case using them instead of leaning on secondary sources so much. With intelectual honesty,with effort to mitigate bias and adressing existing scholarship when needed to state why their case is the better one.
And not ,as another commenter posted here,just check if a list of books is pesented ar rhe end of a comment, regardless that a) they're wrong too, b)rhey don't say what you think they do,c) there is good reason why a better argument goes against them. Actual science instead of its appearance.
To paraphrase Bakunin: in maters of shoe making, go to the shoe maker and in houses,the architect or engineer. But reserve your right of censure, compare many opinions and see which one seems the soundest to you and allow neither ro impose rheir authority on you.
Despite the stricter requirements r/badhistory is generally lower quality than AskHistorians. The rules can sometimes hamper addressing certain users with recurring agendas I’ve seen. Such as the guy with the Order of the Star of India on his Reddit profile who constantly made posts minimizing British imperialism. It seemed like an issue where the rules against “talking politics” made it difficult to articulate that there was a clear pattern in the quality and subject matter of his posts.
Still probably one of my favorite subreddits tbh. Wouldn’t know about you or former poster BadEmpanada without it.
Generally speaking I think the subreddit does a pretty good job of calling out bad actors. I think the mods try to view comments charitably and in good faith, and it can take time for a disruptive posting pattern to emerge. But that Star of India guy was called out specifically for imperialism apologia by the mods.
BadEmpanada does have some high quality videos, but his behaviour on social media is nothing short of unhinged sometimes. Good thing he's banned on reddit and a "former" poster now.
BadEmpanada just does not value social media that much tbh & I understand why. He's just kind of does not believe in civility against his ideological opponents. I generally agree with him there that civility is a waste of time, but I would like to know what he's said that seems genuinely unhinged? I've not seen anything that bad.@@seekangaroo
R/askhistorians is good on Western/Asiatic history, but not so good when it comes to some African history. I'm seeing improvements though, and hope it gets better.
Every reddit video I’ve seen has a split screen with some random video gameplay footage so this video was hard to follow ;)
I know what you mean!
I‘m 90% sure Reddit can be a useful source for almost anything, if you know where to look.
Reddit mods, however, are the w o r s t .
Reddit mods all over the site can be very irritating.
If I want to learn about WW1 and WW2 could you give me a comprehensive list (as long as you want) of books, articles, websites? I ask because often I find that browsing the web a lot of books are recommended that are then destroyed by more knowledgeable people (such as Guns, Germs and Steel). So which could be good?
A good method is to look at scholarly bibliographies compiled by universities or subject experts. For example, the International Society for First World War Studies has an online bibliography.
www.zotero.org/groups/55813/first_world_war_studies_bibliography/library
The scholarly publication A World at War, 1911-1949 has its bibliography online here.
brill.com/display/book/9789004393547/back-1.xml?language=en
Here's a historian's recommended reading list for World War I.
stephenambrosetours.com/historian-chris-andersons-wwi-reading-list/
Here's a historian's recommended reading list for World War II.
scottmanning.com/content/50-books-on-world-war-ii-recommended-by-john-keegan/
Cool resource, thank you!
Thanks!
Bro everyone gangsta until they hear the typing sound at the start kf the video 💀💀💀💀
What do you think about the criticism of some history channels on r/badhistory? When I was there I saw repeated posts by a user criticizing OSP, but the user got a huge number of replies that they were overly critical or even nit picky. I ask that, because it would make r/badhistory worse when users can use it as a platform for their personal vendetta. Their critique may not be factual wrong, but if you watch a YT video and lay every word they are saying on a gold plate it goes at least for me against the purpose of the sub.
r/badhistory tends to be fine about this, because there are few enough posts due to vetting that most of those that do get through can have knowledgeable users who give high quality commentary will be able to watch/read the source critiqued alongside the critique itself and provide feedback in the comments. I have read those same posts, and do think that the poster is a little over-zealous: there's a lot to critique about Blue's content, particularly his older content, without being so uncharitable. There have been moments where I think VEC can be overzealous, but not to the extent of that poster.
@@godminnette2 Thanks for your response. I mean when it is just a single user that who does something like that I guess it is fine. But it would still be nice if the mods would look at little closer at least imo.
That’s just ByzantineBasileus. While OSP is generally not seen that positively there people get tired of him beating the same dead horse for 3 gazillion posts. A lot of his criticisms are often hollow and disingenuous.
When he steps out of his Byzantine/Persian lane he does also tend to go really off the rails. Look out for him in the comments of posts about contemporary issues and he’s almost guaranteed to have some bizarre political take.
I guess you are thinking of ByzantineBasileus. One reason why he is called out by community members is that he has a track record of being overly critical of OSP and the channel Kings & Generals, and of posting numerous small critiques in a pattern which looks more like karma farming than good faith criticism. Within his narrow field of historical knowledge he can be very good, but when he steps outside that, and especially when he's posting on those channels, you'll find he's less reliable and more critical. Generally speaking I think the subreddit does a pretty good job of calling out bad actors.
You may already be familiar with it, but in case you aren't I made a video on history RUclips channels which are legitimately repeatedly critiqued on r/badhistory.
ruclips.net/video/V7qV7QBxmTE/видео.html
Thank you!
Actually, this is very useful!
Thank you!
Hey veritas et caritas, what do you think of xi jinping and his policies ?
Standard revisionist, state capitalist and imperialist.
@@veritasetcaritas But i heard the chinese people support him and recently not sure if he was the one who passed it, but there was a lot of chinese officials purged because they were corrupt. What is your advice for him if you were a party member ?
@@looiyuanjieyuanjie1451 it is unclear how many Chinese people support him or why. I am willing to bet a large number do support him, because he wants to make China a superpower, recapture Qing era territory by taking over sovereign nations, and making China's economy very strong. I wouldn't have any advice for him because I am an anarchist I don't believe the state should exist. If I was an anarchist party member I would tell him to dissolve the government, dissolve the state, and return the territory stolen from indigenous people to its original owners.
@@veritasetcaritas So you believe the state should not exist, well tell that to the jewish people who have been persecuted for thousands of years until the holocaust happen which lead to the creation of the jewish state. This is what i'm told though. The palestinians are also pushing for a state. I'm gonna assume you do know that indigenous people do have some form of state or hierarchy right ?
@@looiyuanjieyuanjie1451 there is a difference between a people and a state. People have a right to existence; states do not. Indigenous people had no difficulty living for thousands of years without states. Certainly many of them had hierarchies.
Huge fan!!!
How does the date of a source influence its reliability?
If it's reporting on an event, the further away in time it is from the original event the less likely it is to be reliable. However, paradoxically if it's a scholarly source analyzing a historical event then it maybe much more accurate than some sources close in time to the original event, since it may be taking advantage of a greater number of corroborating sources and may apply better critical analysis methods.
A good example if you are looking for a source on what happened to say X person in 1340. As source from 1600~ is likely worse in quality than say a source from 1340-1440. However, a source from 1960s onwards that is academic in nature is likely to present a more critical picture and draw on a range of primary sources including the primary sources mentioned. If you are not equipped with the experience and knowledge to critique the provenance and reliability of a primary source, you should fall to the support of an academic text that can do that for you (if possible). I will always give more weight to an analysis that draws upon a range of these texts. However, if left with just 1 reference, looking at the date of the source is one of many factors you should use to critique its reliability.
Human memory degrades over time, so sources written closer to the event are less likely to include misremembered details. A person's diary entry from the day after the event is generally closer to the truth than their recounting of the incident 20 years afterwards, as an example.
More recent academic works however have access to a wide range of primary sources and information on the historical context, so they have a lot more to go on when trying to extrapolate what actually happened than earlier academic works do. Academic works written too long ago may be working on an assumption that has since been debunked with new discoveries and without reading more recent work there's no way to learn about such new discoveries, so you'll possibly end up coming away with outdated information.
On WW2 and USSR history, for example, it matters if the secondary source was written before the archive was opened. Much, if not most, of the popular opinions on WW2 are formed WITHOUT the Soviet sources, which weren't available for most of the time.
14:53 - Thanks for reminding us. Never forget
I avoid Reddit in all its forms , and I will continue I heard the term "Dutch historian" that's enough to ring alarm bells with me , like the Dutch are a cross between the Germans and Belgians but get away with it because of clogs , windmills , painters and weed .
I'm not sure I understand what you mean here
I think he's just having a giggle.@@billyrandell