YouTube Historians/HistoryTube/PopHistory

Computer God Autism said:
Historiography did not stop with Howard Zinn
Click to expand...
Didn't he written that shitty predecessor history book to the 1619 project with him complaining why America hasn't had a communist revolution yet? But most people took away from it is the claims that Columbus commited a genocide,
 
Smashed & Slamed said:
It seems our Chuddy historian is keeping at it:
Click to expand...
I have been enjoying it so far, better than Dovahhatty imo. Though I generally prefer the more granular elements of history, and I appreciate taking the time to talk about the little micro-conflicts of the Second Punic War instead of shotgunning crossing the alps, Cannae, Fabian, Zama. Also, citing of sources and explaining a contrary interpretation is appreciated.
 
ATPH said:
Man is still making content on YouTube. I thought he was banned years ago and the buck broke himself trying to make a fallout 4 mod.
Click to expand...
It surprised the fuck out of me when I was listening to this in the car, and he's going over some murder that happened in England back in the 1920's, and he just casually drops the word nigger like it's nothing. My brain was like "Did I get transported back to 2007 YouTube?"
 
Smashed & Slamed said:
It seems our Chuddy historian is keeping at it:
Click to expand...
LovisXVI said:
I have been enjoying it so far, better than Dovahhatty imo. Though I generally prefer the more granular elements of history, and I appreciate taking the time to talk about the little micro-conflicts of the Second Punic War instead of shotgunning crossing the alps, Cannae, Fabian, Zama. Also, citing of sources and explaining a contrary interpretation is appreciated.
Click to expand...
Thanks, the reason I started in the first place was because as a kid I was always interested in what happened between Cannae and Zama and couldn't really find anything about it except books which my (then) rotten brain didn't allow me to read, so now I'm kinda making this for the child/teenager version of myself, so I'll get into as much detail as possible.
 

Peak.

Computer God Autism said:
but if he's pointing out that the United States government usually treated the Amerindians with more dignity than they usually treated each other
Click to expand...
The issue massively depends on on who the group is.

The Cherokee were basically pacified and harmless. They weren't raiders like the Comanche or other groups out west. Its one thing to subdue an aggressive raider and conquer them. Its another thing to ethnically cleanse a group that is clearly on its way to peacefully integrating.

I don't think the way the federal govt handled the Cherokee is really defensible.
 
Slap47 said:
Its another thing to ethnically cleanse a group that is clearly on its way to peacefully integrating.
Click to expand...
They still insist on maintaining reservations 2 centuries later. I wish they'd hurry up and do this integrating you speak of, I can't think of any other racial group that maintains government-sanctioned ethnostates in the US other than injuns.
Slap47 said:
I don't think the way the federal govt handled the Cherokee is really defensible.
Click to expand...
They replaced a Stone Age society with one that builds spacefaring rocket ships and space stations. What could be more justified?
 
The Secret Sauce said:
They replaced a Stone Age society with one that builds spacefaring rocket ships and space stations. What could be more justified?
Click to expand...
Motherfucker, the Cherokee had wholly adopted the European settler way of life for decades by that point, and were so fully integrated into the American world that whites often lived among them. The whole reason for their removal wasn't because they were violent, but because Jackson's base wanted gibsmedats, and the Cherokee were sitting on prime land they had the temerity to actually be productive with. If anything, the Indian Removal practically ensured the vicious and wholly unnecessary hostilities going forward because it demonstrated that playing along and integrating were not guarantees that the federal government would actually make good on its promises.
 
LovisXVI said:
the Cherokee had wholly adopted the European settler way of life for decades by that point
Click to expand...
Oh, so they were equal to their conquerors? They probably should've fought back then, seems odd to just bend over and take it if you're on equal footing with the aggressors.
LovisXVI said:
The whole reason for their removal wasn't because they were violent, but because Jackson's base wanted gibsmedats, and the Cherokee were sitting on prime land they had the temerity to actually be productive with.
Click to expand...
The reason they were removed is that they were a conquered people, and were therefore at the mercy of their conquerors. Way she goes. I don't get why morality is only a factor in this conquest, and no others. I didn't see you kvetching about how the peoples in India or Pakistan were productive with the land they were occupying before Alexander conquered them.
 
The Secret Sauce said:
Oh, so they were equal to their conquerors?
Click to expand...
The Cherokee were literally not conquered, there was never a war between the US and the Cherokee. In fact, up to that point the US government and the Cherokee had been exceptionally friendly. Saying that the Cherokee could be removed would be akin to saying the US government could depopulate Connecticut because Rhode Island voted for the president and they wanted Connecticut's land.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom