YouTube Historians/HistoryTube/PopHistory

Prester John said:
I refuse to click it, but feel free to give us a summary after you watch it.
Click to expand...
He lost his shit when Walsh stated that American slaves had it better. If you were to use that metric based on suffering, it's absolutely true and he does not refute it.

If people are interested the book, African Slavery in Latin America and the Caribbean, depicts the horrors that slave in the Caribbean faced.

Let me just add that he gets mad that Walsh doesn't care about the Africans enslaved and traded through Zanzibar as Europeans getting kidnapped and enslaved.

Sorry Atun-Shei, some white people don't hate themselves nor have preferences for those outside their race.
 
Last edited:
LovisXVI said:
When was the last time a Plains Indian raided your town? How about the last time you had to deal with some parasitic foreigner in the country? When was the last time you had to deal with some obstinate subcon imported to do a worse job cheaper? Tell me: which is more pressing of a concern to the American people? Some stuff that happened a hundred years ago, or something happening now? That is the problem at hand; it is a waste of air, time, energy, and only serves to alienate people who might agree with you on what is really important, even if you are right!
Click to expand...
The Secret Sauce said:
Yet there are still reservations in the US today where it is illegal to do business as a white man, unless you find some prairie nigger to take a cut of the profits in exchange for the legal right to do business there. Show me the Gallic reservations where Romans were forbidden to do business. Show me any example of a conquered people who enjoy rights privileges like this. The natives here got, by a wide margin, the nicest treatment any conquered people have ever received throughout all of human history. If the Chinese had discovered the Americas, they would've all been turned into soup.
Click to expand...

“Get off this land."
"What for?"
"Because it's mine."
"Where did you get it?"
"From my father."
"Where did he get it?"
"From his father."
"And where did he get it?"
"He fought for it."
"Well, I'll fight you for it.”

 
Flaming Insignias said:
doesn't mean that it is somehow wrong to note that the Plains Indians were generally horrific such that their brutal subjugation was probably a good thing altogether, even if we may find things like retaliatory scalping (as a proof-of-death bounty system, mind you) horrific as well. That point is important because invoking the Indian Wars is still a regular tool used by American leftists to promote anti-white struggle sessions, condemn the history of many of America's Great Men, and to justify illegal mass migration through claims of “stolen land.” Being able to refute your opponent's claims is important as to convince undecided and/or wavering individuals to support you, since most things are decided more by getting otherwise apathetic people to support your cause rather than sheer numbers of diehards.
Click to expand...
Where in did I ever imply that acknowledging their depredations was bad or wrong or even inadvisable? I straight said that neither group had a monopoly on that sort of behavior, which was not abnormal. What you seem to be missing is the part about moralizing intensely about what was fundamentally a matter of self-interest and conquest, both of which are completely fine, even laudable in some circumstances. Moralizing wars after the fact is the very seed upon which the very leftists who invite foreign hordes justify their "no illegals on stolen land" bullshit arose. By passing moral judgment and crafting a narrative of righting some past wrong, you have invited into the view of history the right, or obligation, to view it through moralizing terms. The masses don't care about claims or truth, but narratives, and diving headfirst into a moralizing war, when the left has a much easier time of it, is at best an inadvisable course of action. Or in short: moralizing that the injun had it coming "because they were mean" is substantially indistinct from when leftists say that white people have it coming "because they were mean". Never mind the fact that the plains indians might as well not even exist in the minds of most people, and as a pitiable, fallen race to those who do. It is just fucking pathetic to kick some useless drunkards while they are down in some vain attempt to absolve your nation of wrongdoing, when conquest isn't even evil to begin with!
Willie B. Hardigan said:

“Get off this land."
"What for?"
"Because it's mine."
"Where did you get it?"
"From my father."
"Where did he get it?"
"From his father."
"And where did he get it?"
"He fought for it."
"Well, I'll fight you for it.”

View attachment 8798774​
Click to expand...
Honestly, no disagreement, and I wish more people could take a sober view of war and conflict. Maybe most people just aren't equipped to deal with that reality.
 
LaxerBRO said:
He lost his shit when Walsh stated that American slaves had it better. If you were to use that metric based on suffering, it's absolutely true and he does not refute it.

If people are interested the book, African Slavery in Latin America and the Caribbean, depicts the horrors that slave in the Caribbean faced.

Let me just add that he gets mad that Walsh doesn't care about the Africans enslaved and traded through Zanzibar as Europeans getting kidnapped and enslaved.

Sorry Atun-Shei, some white people don't hate themselves nor have preferences for those outside their race.
Click to expand...


I stopped listening to Atun Shei when he made that terrible second civil war video a few weeks back when he spent a decent chunk of it blaming the average civilian for climate change, basically repeating the carbon footprint propaganda that isn't actually true. Because god forbid we eat, or have to go places or buy things. Atun Shei is just another tool for jews.

That said, Matt Walsh is still a nigger.


LovisXVI said:
I was going to call you a libtard, but with Atun-Shei as the best you're going to get, I can't in good conscience kick you while you're down. Any time some pinko moron repeats the idea that the culture war is some elaborate distraction, I lose a little more sanity, because it is pure deflection from the fact that the people are, in some sense, rejecting them and it can't be THEIR fault, no, it is some conspiracy. No different than RW conspiritards, but given it is less grandiose, I hold them in greater contempt, because it isn't even entertaining!
Click to expand...

The culture war didn't start as a distraction, but THEY quickly seized the opportunity to make it one. And it worked. Do not be fooled, the communist, the nigger is your enemy as much as the conservative and jew are. They're too far gone.
 
Last edited:
Path Wanderer said:
2. History and historiography are two different things. If Walsh had shown up with actual proof of how the transatlantic history is selectively used to distill a narrative it would be far more believable than this “secret history” trying to run over that reality
Click to expand...
If you can't already see the how the transatlantic slave trade and its consequences have been curated as a narrative and the pedestal it is placed on in American historiography, education and intellectual discourse then you're either living under a rock or willfully ignorant (shitlib). The onus should not be on Walsh to read through a dozen academic papers to demonstrate something that anyone with half a brain can understand through basic lived experience, it should be on the naysayers to prove that this is not the case.
 
Flaming Insignias said:
The argument is less that the reds were evil to each other and thus deserved to be killed on sight and more that they terrorized both white settlers and their fellow natives until they were eventually were wiped out when people had enough. I truly believe it is fair to reiterate that a defeated enemy brought their destruction upon themselves when they start crying about “genocide” because they lost a war they started.
Click to expand...

1. Native Americans were systemically impoverished and in cases hunted down across the centuries, though each tribe has its own story.

2. America is (or was) the greatest civilization state yet achieved and was done through the pioneering spirit that first brought industry and upstanding communities to the New World

Both of these statements are correct, because the actions and transactions in one moment should not define all of them for all time
 
Last edited:
I don't know why people would want to tear down the United States who lived in and only really had benefits from it l. Whenever the fall of the American Empire happens, it will honestly be lamentable as without it, I don't see anyone carrying the torch of Democratic/Republican ideas in the concept of representation.
 
IVE always liked history with pop-history(not the current version) helping me get into history though it is funded by the cia to indoctrinate children into UN-critically believing everything the government says
 
Kyria the Great said:
I don't know why people would want to tear down the United States who lived in and only really had benefits from it l. Whenever the fall of the American Empire happens, it will honestly be lamentable as without it, I don't see anyone carrying the torch of Democratic/Republican ideas in the concept of representation.
Click to expand...
Because they are quite frankly retarded and fetishize other totalitarian regimes because they are anti West and anti America. They have no skills, soft or hard, yet think they are on the same level as the elites.
 
CallMeEzekiel concluded his series on Napoleon III. with a shorter video on Prince Lou-Lou as an epilogue

First video:

I am now fairly convinced that Louis Napoleon would've been remembered as a good or even great ruler if it wasn't for the German-French War or if he lived 50 years earlier.
I also personally like him a lot more than his uncle who ruined not only France but also the rest of western Europe.
 
Kyria the Great said:
I don't know why people would want to tear down the United States who lived in and only really had benefits from it l. Whenever the fall of the American Empire happens, it will honestly be lamentable as without it, I don't see anyone carrying the torch of Democratic/Republican ideas in the concept of representation.
Click to expand...
The American Empire is not the United States.
 
Path Wanderer said:
Native Americans were systemically impoverished and in cases hunted down across the centuries, though each tribe has its own story.
Click to expand...
They are far, far richer now than they would've been if left to their own devices. They were literally hunter-gatherers. Now they're in an industrialized society, and the richest one in the world at that. There are also way more of them now than there were before whitey came along, since they now enjoy the benefits of modern agriculture instead of being hunter-gatherers. If your "systemic impoverishment" and genocide results in you being way richer and more numerous than you were before, you've really got nothing to bitch about.
 
Path Wanderer said:
1. Native Americans were systemically impoverished and in cases hunted down across the centuries, though each tribe has its own story.

2. America is (or was) the greatest civilization state yet achieved and was done through the pioneering spirit that first brought industry and upstanding communities to the New World

Both of these statements are correct, because the actions and transactions in one moment should not define all of them for all time
Click to expand...
The core thesis has always been about the Plains Indians, who are the ones who whine the most about how horribly the White Man treated them and whose plight is often used as a cudgel to justify open borders and demonization of American history. I feel it is an extremely fair assessment to note that their misfortune was largely wrought upon themselves through their repeated acts of violence against settlers for having the gall to exist in places they claimed belonged to their tribes simply because of some ancestral legend, even if they did little to actually utilize or prove ownership of said land. You can criticize things like Wounded Knee or the Trail of Tears (different group of Indians, but still bad) as overkill, but to try to ignore the evils of the Indians and how it led to their current miserable state is wrong and encourages the continued use of “Indigenous Rights” as a cudgel to hurt the American people.
 
Flaming Insignias said:
The core thesis has always been about the Plains Indians, who are the ones who whine the most about how horribly the White Man treated them and whose plight is often used as a cudgel to justify open borders and demonization of American history. I feel it is an extremely fair assessment to note that their misfortune was largely wrought upon themselves through their repeated acts of violence against settlers for having the gall to exist in places they claimed belonged to their tribes simply because of some ancestral legend, even if they did little to actually utilize or prove ownership of said land. You can criticize things like Wounded Knee or the Trail of Tears (different group of Indians, but still bad) as overkill, but to try to ignore the evils of the Indians and how it led to their current miserable state is wrong and encourages the continued use of “Indigenous Rights” as a cudgel to hurt the American people.
Click to expand...
Well, the non-Plains Indians either integrated somehow (the Creek) or bailed after the Revolution and settled in Canada because they sided with the British (with whom many tribes, like the Mohawk, were longtime allies of). The Plains Indians were kind of the only ones left. Many Plains Indians decided to make a fight of it, which was honorable but a losing proposition.

The reason historians are cautious to call what happened a genocide is because for every Wounded Knee, you can find shit like the Apaches full on teaming up with whites to slaughter Comanches. Once you start looking into the Comanches, you start getting the impression that maybe white settlers had a point about Indians being savages because the Comanche were particularly brutal - and not just to whites, but to literally everyone.

Then you get into the Hopi, which were actually protected by the US Army against the Navajo. It wasn't until whites wanted Hopi children to attend white schools that relations soured and, even then, it was an issue that split the Hopi with some supporting the schools and others outraged at the cultural assimilation demands.
 
The Secret Sauce said:
They are far, far richer now than they would've been if left to their own devices. They were literally hunter-gatherers. Now they're in an industrialized society, and the richest one in the world at that. There are also way more of them now than there were before whitey came along, since they now enjoy the benefits of modern agriculture instead of being hunter-gatherers. If your "systemic impoverishment" and genocide results in you being way richer and more numerous than you were before, you've really got nothing to bitch about.
Click to expand...
I mean... most people who have been colonized have been "better-off" after getting colonized. Getting conquered by a more advanced civilization by its very nature means getting access to more technology and adminstration. The problem is that you take responsibility for them once you get them into your country. Although perhaps whether its better is subjective since many would trade that stuff for other things.

You lifted them up from the stone age in some cases, but now they have astronomical amounts of poverty from historical oppression. There is also the question of whether or not that justifies the pain of the actual process of conquering and dominating them. Racial grievances will happen when you colonize people so you should not be colonizing people.

Hey Johnny Bravo said:
The reason historians are cautious to call what happened a genocide is because for every Wounded Knee, you can find shit like the Apaches full on teaming up with whites to slaughter Comanches. Once you start looking into the Comanches, you start getting the impression that maybe white settlers had a point about Indians being savages because the Comanche were particularly brutal - and not just to whites, but to literally everyone.
Click to expand...
People hate the stereotype of the noble savage and the savage savage, but some groups unironically lived up to the stereotypes.

I honestly find it funny when people play Fallout New Vegas and completely miss the social commentary about the Khans and settler/native relations. "They're savages that cause trouble" -progressive liberal guy
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom