YouTube Historians/HistoryTube/PopHistory

LovisXVI said:
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 thy 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.
Click to expand...
There's a reason we had the 5 civilized tribes in the Cherokee, Choctaw, Chickasaw, Creek (Muscogee), and Seminole. They were the tribes that were pretty chill with whites, and we kind of did them dirty.
 
Professor Donger said:
There's a reason we had the 5 civilized tribes in the Cherokee, Choctaw, Chickasaw, Creek (Muscogee), and Seminole. They were the tribes that were pretty chill with whites, and we kind of did them dirty.
Click to expand...
That really could be an understatement. By the time they were sent to Oklahoma, the Cherokee especially had become nearly-indistinguishable from the white settlers from decades of intermarriage and assimilation, to the point that they probably could have been incorporated as states if not for their desire for autonomy. A large percentage of the Five Civilized Tribes even fought for the Confederacy during the Civil War, mostly because Tribal leadership had embraced the planter culture and hoped to achieve a more independent Oklahoma than they had at the time. Truthfully, you could argue that our mistreatment of the Five Tribes got worse after the Civil War as punishment for their attempts at secession, since it “showed” that granting them any autonomy was going to lead to more insurrection.
 
The sequel to Work by Historia Civilis has arrived (IE Repeating Lewis Mumford's book on the history of cities while emphasizing the "30" minute city + Progressive Talking Points/Myths about the Industrial Revolution and the "capitalist" being at fault):


Archive of Work here:
 
Last edited:
Shell Shocked Zoomer said:
The sequel to Work by Historia Civilis has arrived (IE Repeating Lewis Mumford's book on the history of cities while emphasizing the "30" minute city + Progressive Talking Points/Myths about the Industrial Revolution and the "capitalist" being at fault):
View attachment 8878950

Archive of Work here:
View attachment 8878954
Click to expand...
Dovahhatty shared this meme:
23480.jpg
 
LovisXVI said:
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.
Click to expand...
I think that forcefully moving a people from their homeland to the other side of the continent while you establish a government in their (now former) homelands is more than enough to qualify as conquest, don't you?
What is this website referring to when they say "Cherokee-American Wars"? What about this? Or this?
Furthermore, who cares? Why do you kvetch about aggression against injuns, but admire Alexander for his aggressive conquests?
 
The Secret Sauce said:
The reason they were removed is that they were a conquered people, and were therefore at the mercy of their conquerors.
Click to expand...
I'm not a fan of conquest, but my critique of the Cherokee ethnic cleansing was not about that. It was about doing conquest improperly. Punishing the group that got closest to truly integrating into the larger American culture was a mistake.

Shell Shocked Zoomer said:
The sequel to Work by Historia Civilis has arrived (IE Repeating Lewis Mumford's book on the history of cities while emphasizing the "30" minute city + Progressive Talking Points/Myths about the Industrial Revolution and the "capitalist" being at fault):
Click to expand...
So his thesis is that capitalism lead to the creation of cities that are anti-human by having them grow beyond the point where they are comfortable and have a distinct identity.

It is true that cities and industrialization made peoples lives worse for first 200 years of the process, but you could say that the urbanization process is inherently painful. Cities grow too quickly to not be chaotic experiments. Even pre-capitalism the city was a shithole where more people died than were born and in Maoist China their solution to housing was to have people sleep in their factories.

Also, this 30 minute community is literally the idea that lead to the creation of suburbia. Creating separate communities around the city all trying to practice autarkic Juche? This was actually bad - especially if you like urbanism.
 
Slap47 said:
I'm not a fan of conquest, but my critique of the Cherokee ethnic cleansing was not about that. It was about doing conquest improperly. Punishing the group that got closest to truly integrating into the larger American culture was a mistake.
Click to expand...
Well that's perfectly fair. My criticism of your post was the characterization of the Cherokee as "clearly on their way to peaceful integration", when they still maintain their own quasi-sovereign lands and their own separate identity two centuries later. If you had said "closest to truly integrating", I wouldn't have objected. Sorry if that seems like pedantry to you.
I don't think it was ever realistic for such wildly different societies to coexist, and I don't think it was realistic for a Stone Age society to exist unmolested in the 18th century. Especially when there had been violence between the Cherokee and white settlers in the past. I also think that the white settlers created a society on their lands which provides much more value to humanity than the Cherokee would've been capable of for millennia, if ever. For those reasons, I don't really spend any time bemoaning the rough treatment they received from whitey. It's history, this scenario had played out hundreds of times to hundreds of different peoples before it happened to the Cherokee, and most were treated far worse by the dominant society. I don't get why some people get so emotional and sympathetic when discussing injuns, then discuss far more brutal conquests without feeling the need to castigate the victor for being too mean.
 
Shell Shocked Zoomer said:
The sequel to Work by Historia Civilis has arrived (IE Repeating Lewis Mumford's book on the history of cities while emphasizing the "30" minute city + Progressive Talking Points/Myths about the Industrial Revolution and the "capitalist" being at fault):
View attachment 8878950

Archive of Work here:
View attachment 8878954
Click to expand...
You know, thinking back on it, I really should have started noticing how weird Civilis was when he got to Augustus and just started shitting on him in his videos. He was relatively okay with Julius Caesar, but Augustus? Fuck him.

The same thing kinda tipped me off about Dan Carlin a few years ago, but during his Caesar in Gaul episodes, where he just demonizes Caesar the whole time. A lot of leftists or leftist adjacent people can't help but demonize people for almost everything.

Like, yeah Caesar "genociding" the Gallic tribes wasn't cash money, but to spend so much time painting him as this demon instead of a man is kind of insane.
 
Professor Donger said:
You know, thinking back on it, I really should have started noticing how weird Civilis was when he got to Augustus and just started shitting on him in his videos.
Click to expand...
Wasn't HC always a fag? I remember watching a video of him like 10 years ago, in which you could clearly tell that he tries to make Caesar look as bad as possible.
 
Professor Donger said:
Like, yeah Caesar "genociding" the Gallic tribes wasn't cash money, but to spend so much time painting him as this demon instead of a man is kind of insane.
Click to expand...
Yeah I remember that episode.
Thing is what Caesar did was not unique to him. Pretty much every general in history did it. To lesser or greater extent pillaging, slaughter of enemy population, destruction of infrastructure, rape....
We may pretend that in 21st century we are more enlightened and civilized, but we are not.
Syria: "Former" ISIS and Alqueda head chopper is being paraded around Europe and US as guy who will bring democracy to Syria.
Sudan : Rapid Support Forces, Proxy of UAE ,who are US ally , is currently enacting TND in the region.
Burma: All sides are using scorched earth tactics...
I could continue , but you get the idea.
Nobody really gives single fuck.
Caesar is remembered for being Brilliant general, politician, statesman, orator... Should we forget that time he buck broke Gauls so much that he laid foundation of modern France?
No!
But it is retarded to clutch our pearls , because of it.
One last point . Subjugation of Gaul was brutal, but after region was pacified, Caesar spent lot of time and energy integrating it into Rome .He was (Re)Building infrastructure, political integration of Gallic elites, etc .
And please let's not pretend that Pre Roman Gaul was some kind of Hippie paradise.
 
ShittlerNiggler said:
Wasn't HC always a fag? I remember watching a video of him like 10 years ago, in which you could clearly tell that he tries to make Caesar look as bad as possible.
Click to expand...
Yeah, but I think he's right that he hates Augustus more. Him saying that Augustus was "a sick man" for the high crime of not granting the same clemency that got Caesar killed springs to mind. Especially considering that he seemingly had no problem with Cicero executing civilians with no trial. God, I fucking hate HC.
 
Shell Shocked Zoomer said:
The sequel to Work by Historia Civilis has arrived (IE Repeating Lewis Mumford's book on the history of cities while emphasizing the "30" minute city + Progressive Talking Points/Myths about the Industrial Revolution and the "capitalist" being at fault):
Click to expand...
Allah please, strike down political scientist faggots who intrude upon history.
People need to spend more time contemplating the physical, rather than the "philosophical/ideological/political" aspects of history.
First of all, I find it weird that he began with Eurocentrism by masturbating to Greek democracies (even ignoring the entire period of monarchy in Greece, alongside the whole Mycenian period), but I also vaguely remembered a certain tidbit from a book (History Begins at Sumer) I skimmed through:
The First Bicameral Congress

Man's social and spiritual development is often slow, devious, and hard to trace. The fullgrown tree may well be separated from its original seed by thousands of miles and years. Take, for example, the way of life known as democracy and its fundamental institution, the political assembly. On the surface it seems to be practically a monopoly of our Western civilization and an outgrowth of recent centuries. Who could imagine that there were political congresses thousands and thousands of years ago, and in parts of the world rarely associated with democratic institutions? But the patient archaeologist digs deep and wide, and he never knows what he will come up with. As a result of the efforts of the "pick and spade" brigade, we can now read the record of a political assembly that took place some five thousand years ago in—of all places—the Near East.

The first political "congress" in man's recorded history met in solemn session about 3000 B.C. It consisted, not unlike our own congress, of two "houses": a "senate,"

or an assembly of elders; and a ''lower house," or an assembly of armsbearing male citizens. It was a ''war congress," called together to take a stand on the momentous question of war and peace; it had to choose between what we would describe as "peace at any price" or war and independence. The "senate," with its conservative elders, declared for peace at all cost, but its decision was "vetoed" by the king, who then brought the matter before the "lower house." This body declared for war and freedom, and the king approved.

In what part of the world did the first "congress" known to man meet? Not, as you might surmise, somewhere in the West, on the continent of Europe (the political assemblies in "democratic" Greece and republican Rome came much later). Our hoary congress met, surprising as it may seem, in that part of Asia now generally designated as the Near East, the traditional home of tyrants and despots, a part of the world where political assemblies were thought to be practically unknown. It was in the land known in ancient days as Sumer, situated north of the Persian Gulf between the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers, that the oldest known political assembly was convened. And when did this "congress" meet? In the third millennium B.C. In those days, this Near Eastern land Sumer (it corresponds roughly to the lower half of modern Iraq) was inhabited by a people who developed what was probably the highest civilization in the then known world.

Sumer, some four to five thousand years ago, boasted of many large cities centering about monumental and worldrenowned public buildings. Its busy traders carried on an extensive commerce by land and sea with neighboring countries. Its more serious thinkers and intellectuals developed a system of religious thought which was accepted as gospel not only in Sumer but throughout much of the ancient Near East. Its gifted poets sang lovingly and fervently of their gods, heroes, and kings. To crown it all, the Sumerians gradually developed a system of writing by means of reed stylus on clay, which enabled man for the first time to make a detailed and permanent record of his deeds and thoughts, his hopes and desires, his judgments and beliefs. And so it is not surprising to find that in the field of politics, too, the Sumerians made important progress. Particularly, they took the first steps toward democratic government by curbing the power of the kings and recognizing the right of political assembly.

The political situation that brought about the convening of the oldest "congress" recorded in history may be described as follows: Like Greece of a much later day, Sumer, in the third millennium B.C., consisted of a number of citystates vying for supremacy over the land as a whole. One of the most important of these was Kish, which, according to Sumerian legendary lore, had received the "kingship" from heaven immediately after the "flood.'' But in time another citystate, Erech, which lay far to the south of Kish, kept gaining in power and influence until it seriously threatened Kish's supremacy in Sumer. The king of Kish at last realized the danger and threatened the Erechites with war unless they recognized him as their overlord. It was at this crucial moment that Erech's two assemblies were convened—the elders and the armsbearing males—in order to decide which course to follow, whether to submit to Kish and enjoy peace or to take to arms and fight for independence.

The story of the struggle between Erech and Kish is told in the form of a Sumerian epic poem whose chief characters are Agga, the last ruler of the first dynasty of Kish, and Gilgamesh, the king of Erech and "lord of Kullab." The poem begins with the arrival in Erech of Agga's envoys bearing an ultimatum to its king Gilgamesh.

Before giving them his answer, Gilgamesh goes before "the convened assembly of the elders of his city" with an urgent plea not to submit to Kish but to take up arms and fight for victory. The "senators," however, are of a different mind; they would rather submit to Kish and enjoy peace. Their decision displeases Gilgamesh, who then goes before ''the convened assembly of the men of his city" and repeats his plea. The men of this assembly decide to fight rather than submit to Kish. Gilgamesh is delighted, and seems confident of the results of the expected struggle. In a very short time—in the words of our poet, "It was not five days, it was not ten days"—Agga besieges Erech, and the Erechites are dumfounded. The meaning of the remainder of the poem is not too clear, but it seems that Gilgamesh in some way succeeds in gaining the friendship of Agga and in having the siege lifted without a fight.

Here, now, are the ancient Sumerian poet's actual words dealing with the Erech "congress"; the translation is quite literal, but omits a number of lines whose contents are still unintelligible.

The envoys of Agga, the son of Enmebaraggesi,
Proceeded from Kish to Gilgamesh in Erech.
The lord Gilgamesh before the elders of his city
Put the matter, seeks out the word:
"Let us not submit to the house of Kish, let us smite it with
weapons."
The convened assembly of the elders of his city
Answers Gilgamesh:
"Let us submit to the house of Kish, let us not smite it with
weapons."
Gilgamesh, the lord of Kullab,
Who performs heroic deeds for the goddess Inanna,
Took not the words of the elders of his city to heart.
A second time Gilgamesh, the lord of Kullab,
Before the fighting men of his city put the matter, seeks out the
word:
"Do not submit to the house of Kish, let us smite it with weapons."
The convened assembly of the fighting men of his city
Answers Gilgamesh:
"Do not submit to the house of Kish, let us smite it with weapons."
Then Gilgamesh, the lord of Kullab,
At the word of the fighting men of his city his heart rejoiced,
his spirit brightened.

Our poet is all too brief; he merely mentions the Erech "congress" and its two assemblies, without giving any further details. What we would like to know, for example, is the size of the membership of each body, and just how the "congressmen" and "senators" were selected. Could each individual voice his opinion and be sure of a hearing? How was the final consensus of the body as a whole obtained? Did they have a device corresponding to the voting technique of our own day? Certainly there must have been a "speaker'' in charge of the discussion who ''spoke" for the assembly to the king. Then again, in spite of the poet's lofty language, we may rest assured that there was considerable "politicking" and "wirepulling" among the old political "boys." The citystate of Erech was evidently split wide open into two opposing camps, a war party and a peace party. There was probably more than one behindthescenes conference of our own "smokefilled room" type, before the leaders of each "house" announced the final and seemingly unanimous decisions.

But of all these ancient political bickerings and compromises we will probably never recover a trace. There is little likelihood that we will ever find any written historical records from the days of Agga and Gilgamesh, since, in their time, writing was either altogether unknown or had only just been invented and was still in its early picture stage. As for our epic poem, it must be borne in mind that it is inscribed on tablets written many centuries after the incidents it describes took place—probably more than a thousand years after the Erech "congress" had met and adjourned.

There are known, at present, eleven tablets and fragments inscribed with our politicalassembly poem. Four of the eleven pieces were copied and published in the past four decades. But the significance of their contents for the history of political thought and practice was not realized until 1943, when Thorkild Jacobsen, of the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, published a study on Primitive Democracy. Since then it was my good fortune to identify and copy the remaining seven pieces in Istanbul and Philadelphia. As a result, the poem, consisting of 115 lines, is now complete. A scientific edition of its text, together with a newly revised translation, appeared in 1949 in the American Journal of Archaeology.

The two political events described here and in Chapter 3 took place about 3000 B.C. They are known to us not from contemporary historical documents but from epic poems written down at a much later date, and these poems contain only a kernel of historic truth. It is not until some six centuries later that we come upon a number of inscriptions recording and interpreting social and political events in a style which stamps them as man's first attempt at historywriting. One of these documents is described and analyzed in Chapter 6, after an introductory comment on the intellectual and psychological limitations of our first "historians." It is primarily concerned with a bitter and tragic civil war between two Sumerian citystates that ended in a temporary and uneasy stalemate, the only victors being death and destruction.
Click to expand...
The TL;DR is that the "democratic" institutions in Mesopotamia predate those in Greece by millennia.
Next is the 30min point, to which I raise the question of feeding the populace and the capability of the local populace to be replenished by the surrounding countryside - pre-modern (i mean this as in pre-18-20th century range for a massive chunk of the world) cities regularly had their populations massively diminished by plagues, ensuring that the populace only remained at a level at which the surrounding rural populations could sustain by migration, while the lack of advanced transportation ensured that, except in very rare cases, food was also a major limiting factor of the population growth. Take, for an example, the biggest cities of the pre-modern times - universally be it Rome, Constantinople, the various Chinese capitals through their various dynasties, all were located either on the coasts or on major rivers, which could be used to transport, through subsidies, massive quantities of cheap grain - be it from north Africa, Egypt, or the plains around the two great rivers in China. The Romans famously had their naval guild (Peter Heather's work on the fall of Rome)
Shipping problems were similarly handled. By the fourth century the Empire had built up a powerful guild of shippers, the navicularii, who had to fulfil certain obligations to the state (though not every shipper was a member of the guild). The law codes make clear the broad principles on which the relationship between state and shippers was organized. The provision of shipping – operating not just out of Africa, but also in other parts of the Empire, particularly Egypt – was the first priority. With typical subtlety, therefore, the imperial authorities made membership of the guild an hereditary obligation, legislated against all possible means of exemption, and required that any land that had once been registered to a shipper should always be retained by a member of the guild, even if sold on, so that the guild’s financial base could never be eroded. In return, the state then proceeded to buttress the shippers with financial and other privileges. They could not be liable to any additional tax or public service obligations, and were protected against any claims on their property by relatives. Guild members were eventually awarded equestrian rank (equivalent to the status of a medium-level civil servant); they were allowed tax reductions on their own transactions, and had up to two years to fulfil a state commission. Sometimes they also received state assistance in refurbishing their ships. The state thus generated a powerful masonry of shipping magnates, with wide-ranging financial and legal privileges.
Click to expand...
While the Han dynasty collected taxes in grain and in forced labour to transport said grain to the local capitals, even oftentimes sentencing criminals to work in transporting grain to the capital. Arguably, the Sui built the great channel to permit for southern rice and northern grain to be transported as needed. (Edward Mark Lewis mantions such things over his 3 works on the Chinese dynasties, but I don't have it on hand).
Now, as for the land speculation, I don't really know enough to comment.
 
To hopefully :lol: put an endcap on the recent civilized tribes discussion so we can get onto something else :optimistic: ; it's over. We can debate back and forth on what we did to the Native Americans ad astra. We may or may not have done something wrong, but in the intervening time the American, Canadian, and yes even the Mexican governments (specifically in relation to people like the Zapatas, amongst many) have paid their dues many times over in foreign aid and development programs. In The Autobiography of a Winnebago Indian, he describes in the early 20th century how Indian men would essentially drug (ply with whiskey) and cajole Indian women into giving them payment money from the Federal Government. The Feds gave the money to the Indian women because they thought the money would be more likely to go to stable households and children. What ended up happening is that the men gang up in small groups to extract money from the women by getting them drunk and making them all sorts of loving promises before moving up country to the next woman they know. Does that sound familiar to anyone? The Canadian government has spent billions of dollars on setting up and maintaining Inuit (Eskimo) villages. Hell, even the Mexicans have spent a century acting like they haven't been putting down nativist uprising in the Yucatan (currently subsidized by remittances from the US btw; seriously lookup how remittances are completely fucking Latin American economies; it's wild).

TLDR: America and Canada have more than paid their dues in what's owed to Native Americans, right or wrong. Hell, even Mexico and other Latin countries have basically made their peace. The only people who really want to kick up shit are the people who still economically benefit from it. That being American/Canadian Indian tribes that can bilk the government out of more stuff or the Latin American "tribes" that can bilk American NGO's out of more grants, and that can oppose certain edicts from the central government.
 
Professor Donger said:
You know, thinking back on it, I really should have started noticing how weird Civilis was when he got to Augustus and just started shitting on him in his videos. He was relatively okay with Julius Caesar, but Augustus? Fuck him.

The same thing kinda tipped me off about Dan Carlin a few years ago, but during his Caesar in Gaul episodes, where he just demonizes Caesar the whole time. A lot of leftists or leftist adjacent people can't help but demonize people for almost everything.

Like, yeah Caesar "genociding" the Gallic tribes wasn't cash money, but to spend so much time painting him as this demon instead of a man is kind of insane.
Click to expand...
I have two thoughts on Civilis
1. City (and perhaps Work though I haven't watched it yet) are experiments in sociology content, which is cool but obviously the crypto-communism begins to creep out as a result. It seems likely that urban slumming was a systematic phenomenon, but throwing "capitalists" around without sourcies will make people rightfully worried.
2. Him and Tribunate are both diehard believers that Roman politics is a 1:1 match with the rise of the Orange Man, and so they both get more vicious with people they perceive as non-populist tyrants (like Sulla)

I don't think either of them are going to go nuclear as libshits, but be for-warned of their political messaging
 
Nobusuke Kishi said:
I thought they were AI vids because they were being produced very quickly considering how much scripting and editing usually needs to be done for video like these.
Click to expand...

I couldn't tell from listening to it...but I don't really have an ear for this shit unless it's obvious
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom