Another Q&A video in which I run my mouth. Support Atun-Shei Films on Patreon ► / atunsheifilms Leave a Tip via Paypal ► www.paypal.me/atunsheifilms Buy Merch ► teespring.com/stores/atun-she... Official Website ► www.atunsheifilms.com/
I feel like the saying "history is written by the victors" does work, but only for the short time after a conflict. Just like with the history books from 1920, 1960 and later, it takes a little bit of time after a great conflict for it to gain nuance in my opinion. In the long term historians always write history
@@liamnade9099 the problem is just about every surviving Nazi wrote a memoir after WWII, and many of those have been incorporated into today's popular (and often inaccurate) conceptions about WWII. Hell, much of this channel is devoted to debunking all of the myths that persist because of the Lost Cause Narrative. The point is, history most certainly can be written by the loser.
@@kadecase7470 he said how the confederate sympathizers didn't write that quote and how its true otherwise, because we believed in Columbus. Even though we recognize we will never fully understand columbus due to us adopting a Eurocentric view of history in our past.
I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that destroying the laptop was infact answering the question via interpretive dance. This dance; filled with aggressive and angry themes, obviously means you think Braxton Bragg, or maybe Meade, were in fact the best generals. Bold choices, my guy.
Roger D, the Who and those guitars "It was costly in glue because as fast as we were smashing it, we had four sets but as one got smashed it then got glued. And by the time we got to smash it again the glue got set. "But they weren't prop-guitars. They were real guitars. We worked out very cleverly that very rarely did the neck break. "As long as the neck didn't break you could glue the body back. Even with holes in it, it didn't matter - we could make it work." www.theguardian.com/music/shortcuts/2020/oct/14/the-u-who-why-pete-townshend-glued-together-his-smashed-guitars?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other
@CommandoDude I didn't even connect that, brilliant, it's gotta be Meade, but still, the hammering may represent the direct and costly offensive style of Bragg.
As he says, people have always been bad with nuance and historical events have always been simplified if not by a bias then just for time, but the idea that it's somehow worse now than ever before as the question implies doesn't make sense to me. We now have the knowledge of all mankind at out fingertips and historical information is the easier to access than it ever has been. If someone lacks a full picture of an historical event it's on them in this day and age, and given how much discussion of historical events happens online people are much more exposed to new ideas from other people challenging their worldviews than ever before. If anything nuance is seeing a general rise overall. Sure there are echo chambers people lock themselves into, but in 2020 they're doing it to themselves and anyone who wants to know more can very easily. Good video dad, love you.
@@theoneandonlydetraebean8286 Thanks man! Not as soon as I want because other time sensitive videos keep getting in the way, I had to take a break after part 1 but am ready to come back and finish. It will most likely be the video right after the veterans day video if my plan for that one works out.
Fellow historian: "polysyllabic rhetorical question meant purely to communicate I know stuff too." Andrew: "Get fucked!" Definitely the most satisfying question of this video.
While I agree that "polysyllabic rhetorical questions" are often come from assholes appearing to sound intelligent, the points they raised have actually some merit. The theoretical lenses through which we look should always be examined. However, I understand that I only received an education in the philosophy and theories of history due to one European-educated professor and that such theoretical concerns rarely interest non-academic historians and even some academic historians find such discussions unfruitful. Was the question inappropriate to expect RU-vid to answer it? Absolutely yes. Was Atun-Shei right to dismiss it? Mostly yes. Did the commenter raise an interesting point relevant to historians? Sadly yes.
Public historian here: we learned about repatriating artifacts in my graduate courses. I recommend the book Plundered Skulls and Stolen Spirits. This is specifically about American Indian artifacts. The big takeaway I remember from the book, is this curator from Colorado said they were worried if they tried to repatriate all the tribal artifacts, whether human remains or otherwise, they wouldnt have anything left in the museum. But the opposite was true, they actually obtained more artifacts, given to them directly by local tribes, after they started building partnerships with the local communities and asking how these indigenous nations wanted their history preserved. P.S. I also did living history for NPS just south Gettysburg in Harpers Ferry.
It's kind of sad that so many historians are reluctant to just...ask native Americans how they want their culture presented and bittersweet how many are coming to the simple conclusion that native Americans are frequently fine with museums as long as the native Americans actually have some say in how their own cultures are presented. I'm a graduate student in history and I've heard that something like 120,000 objects out of 130,000 objects are unaffiliated with any tribe, a suspiciously high percentage given that unaffiliated objects are not returnable and many tribes see little if any cooperation from museums. I get wanting to retain these objects in museums for education and presentation to the public but it seems wrong to prioritize museum wishes over the wishes of native Americans.
Personally, I'm always more interested in like, contemporary artifacts made by these peoples. The MFA in Boston has a few of those on display, like, Native artworks that were made to be sold to tourists and were bought directly from the crafter. It's simultaneously really sad to see and also a little uplifting, because it implies that A, these people are still here (which they are), and B, that museums might be moving more in the direction of direct cooperation of the peoples whose plundered shit they have on display.
@@Kobolds_in_a_trenchcoat This is kind of what I was screaming in my head while he asked if the British Museum should take on the burden of repatriation. 1 - they should get funding from the government/community to be able to do so, but 2 - yes. The museum got to profit from stolen objects, it has to pay for returning them.
Should we care how a group wants their history preserved or care only to preserve fact? Like should we ask Greeks if they want their statues on display or just put them there and display the facts we know? For example the French might want a Napoleon preserved as a artifact of a glorious leader
@@Kobolds_in_a_trenchcoat the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act is supposed to govern this. The best way to do this is to open the collections to Federally Recognized Tribes that are affiliated with where the object was documented to have been found and have their Tribal Historic Preservation Officers determine what to do with them, so it's really up to them to determine what objects have some cultural affiliation. But your point, that the reality is that people who have been the stewards of the objects hate to let go of them, is too often the case. What's also often the case is that those folks who flout the law are those who make the publicity and the successes, because they are usually uneventful, don't get attention. There are other challenges. Places I've worked have 13 or more affiliated Federally recognized tribes spread across large geographic areas, from Florida to Arizona in one case. Some don't have THPOs, and some just don't have the time and money to head to every collection storage area that may have affiliated artifacts. At least some of these defer to other tribes who have the capacity to determine affiliation and travel to collections storage areas which can make things easier. All that said, NAGPRA is still law, and offering the opportunity to identify and arrange for the repatriation of artifacts is not a one time offer. Since it's really up to the tribe to determine affiliation I think the figures you offer are really inflated.
"History is written by the victors." Heck, most of the Hebrew Bible was written during the Babylonian exile as a retrospective on Israelite history. At the time of writing, the Jews were anything but the victors.
Yeah dude when you reread the Old Testament with a better understanding of the Jewish people. It’s basically just a whole book of “ MY DAD IS STRONGER THAN YOUR DAD AND WE WUZ KINGZ AND SHIT “ one thing that really made me start to question the Bible when I was younger was the exodus. How there was no evidence for it and no evidence for mass Jewish enslavement in Egypt. How they never referred to the pharaoh by his name. I do like Jewish understanding of god much more than Christians though.
@@oopsiepoopsie2898 "No evidence" Apart from the Bible itself being evidence, since it is a historical document like any other, you may also want to look into the Hyksos people.
A professor told me a good general rule of judging people in the past: Don't use terminology in your critique that the people at the time would not have understood. Most often, there were people at the time who were critical, and they can be our "voice" of criticism.
That's a good way of measuring it. For his example of Greeks doing little boys, others did critique them a lot, particularly the Judeo-Christians whose morality we are heavily influenced by.
I gues that depends. Are you judging the person or the system. You can hardly blame an person for not living up to standards that he didn't understand. However when you want to gain insight into the systems of the past. Not taking modern understanding into account is a bit unhelpful
@@elf-lordsfriarofthemeadowl2039 I would disagree, the ancient Jewish people were horrible, especially toward women, also they weren’t Democratic. I would say more of our morals would come from Greece. Especially how we accept a lot of difference and don’t kill women for being raped, or make her to marry their rapist if he had just 5 shekels.
@@punkwrestle that's why it's referred to Judeo Christian, and even there there was more context on why the daughter had to marry the guy who raped her. He was to be responsible for caring and loving her. Remember they were critical towards those who hurt their own.
I agree that Forrest’s character (or lack thereof) is irrelevant to a conversation about his military prowess, but I don’t see how it “isn’t a debate”. You can claim, I would say fairly, that he was one of the most innovative and successful cavalry commanders of the war, but to simply say he was the Civil War’s best general overall? I’m not even sure that question can be answered period, but it certainly can’t be decided in one comment.
Grant won the western theater, then he won the eastern. He force a surrender from Lee. The South didn't have to win the war, the North HAD to win it outright. Sherman crushed the south's ability and willingness to wage a war, Grant finished it.
I grew up in west Texas in the 80's and I was a lost causer up until I was like 16 and living in Miami and I started actually learning history :D So, I would say that the Lost Cause has been firmly intrenched in the South for a really long time :D
I grew up in far far-west Texas in the 00's, so I was really confused by this comment until I remembered our eastern neighbors. It's crazy how a few miles and decades change things.
@@johnfraire6931 I believe it :) I lived in Del Rio, and there was constant stuff between "kickers" and "cholos" and so on ... But my family is CUban so ... I kind of didn't fit in with anyone :) So I read a lot and loved books and cowboy movies-- like the Outlaw Josie Wales and others... :D
@God Emporor of Florida Rick Scott that must be a thing, because I had my first gator tail in the pan-handle at a wild game supper :) Strange thing with churches in north florida and game meat eating :D
I think a lot of the problem with a lot of more modern leftist takes(Like Zinn's) on historiography is that assigns too much conscious intent to what are ultimately sort of unconscious/systematic/possibly deterministic actions or events.
@@someguy3167 Yeah exactly leftists scholars usually apply history with historical materialism, so the point of their class-based analysis is whether it is each particular bourgeoisie's conscious intentions or not, they're still gonna act with the base to protect their interests, which aligns with other bourgeoisie as well. It's not a conscious intent where they wring their hands and do an evil laugh. They're just bound to make decisions that protect their interests. But I do think leftists scholars have a problem of simplifying their arguments IMO like they frame the history of the bourgeoisie like it's a conscious individual evil intent to suppress the workers maybe to attract popular readers but it just comes off as a huge oversimplification for people more familiar with history.
@@kynanreihan5581 I actually think Marx talks more about that being an effect of class structure rather than a very conscious intent, but I might be wrong on that
One of George Orwell's best takes is on the ubiquity of the notion that all the evil in the world is due to individual wickedness in left - wing thinking. Considering how long historical materialism has been a thing it's pretty weird.
Hot take, history can be pretty bad about how inter related events are or even conveying that they happen at the same time. For instance the American Civil War is an important part of colonialist policy in India by causing large scale cotton operations removing land from food production.
I totally agree. It was only recently I was able to wrap my head around this idea, since historical events seem to be taught as if they occurred in isolation. But once you understand they don’t, everything makes so much more sense
@@user-ct9tc4lw9h Yeah... My Revolutionary Europe class had to be prefaced with mentioning the American Revolution because obviously the French influenced the Americans and vice versa.
@@user-ct9tc4lw9h It also cause problems like modern day conservatives not understanding the long lasting economic impacts of slavery and then Jim Crow. We're taught that the past is in the past, emphasis is placed on memorizing pointless facts that are easily searchable today instead of actually understanding the historical throughline
I once had an AP History teacher in a good public school in New York refer to the Polish Lithuanian Commonwealth as unsettled tribes without a country, she compared them to the Kurds. So I'd say yes, Eastern Europe is neglected.
I can at least see where that comes from. Poland went from being the largest country in Europe to no longer existing in less than two centuries because the central government was almost completely powerless. All decisions had to be made unanimously meaning next to nothing could be done if one person disagreed on how it should be done. It's kind of like a bunch of settled tribes pretending to have a country.
Adams is without a doubt my favorite revolutionary. He had a lot of flaws but his passionate fight for freedom and justice has inspired me greatly. Opposed slavery, represented the British soldiers charged for the Boston Massacre, was very well read and would study with his wife and children, became an ambassador(even though he didnt do well with the king of France) ended up creating an embassy in the Netherlands etc etc. Adams helped lay the groundwork for the mechanisms of change for a better future for all people. I was sold at an early age of the mythology of how great the U.S. was. Upon learning for myself about the atrocities our country has taken part of has left me jaded. But there are people like Adams who are a beacon of light in the founding of our country. Jefferson also helped even though he owned slaves. I guess its wise to not hold your heroes on a pedestal, everyone is flawed and we need to learn how to appreciate good things that people have done while also condemning the wrongs that they have done.
Adams was definitely one of the more ethnically and politically defensible founding fathers, even though he absolutely had flaws (like any historical figure) especially the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798. Thomas Paine is my favorite. He didn't own slaves, in fact, he was an ardent abolitionist, penned "Common Sense" one of the most influential pieces of revolutionary literature, supported the French Revolution and its aspirations of Republicanism, and he was so progressive for the time that he was literally written out of history before coming back into common knowledge in the 1980s. He wasn't perfect either, but he's still my favorite.
Was playing War of Right (Civil War first person shooter game) and while the Cornfeds were charging the Yanks. One of them played a clip from you. I heard your voice yell "Checkmate Lincolnites" then Dixie. Loved it.
It's not really my area of expertise, but didn't the American Revolution kind of start by accident as tensions in Massachusetts boiled over? Wasn't the original goal of the American Founding Fathers to petition Parliament for redress, not to incite war? I don't think men like John Adams would have started a war for slavers.
That was an element of the revolution and your evaluation of Massachusetts itself is correct, but Virginia's role (who I would argue was equally as significant as Massachusetts), for example, was certainly promoted by those with an interest in slavery. The Carolinas even more transparently so. My own opinion regarding seeing the American Revolution as a war to preserve slavery isn't so much grounded in American hypocrisy but needing a convincing argument that the British were a force for aboliton in the 1770s. I personally haven't seen a convcing argument that they were such a force. The British freed slaves in America certainly for tactical reasons, but it was also nearly 1840 before they freed the last slaves in Jamaica, after all. Personally, I believe it was the loss of the American colonies that helped accelerate the British abolitionist movement, if anything. One of the leading MPs in the British Parliament fighting to keep slavery legal was Banastre Tarleton, who fought ardently for the British cause in the American Revolution. I imagine he'd have had much more support had the British won the war.
People like to bring up the American Revolution as some sort of defense to the Civil War being about slavery. But a fundamental difference between those two war is that, the Civil War was clearly (and in the words of all the leaders) about slavery. The American Revolution, though, was very much caused by different groups motivated by different things with different goals (some of these are good and noble and others not so much) that worked together against a single opponent. There were people that legitimately were out for freedom, they were those that viewed rebellion as a chance for personal political and/or financial benefits, and plenty more. There were probably some that supported it because they feared the British public would push to restrict or abolish slavery. But that would be a small issue among many larger ones.
What I recall about Tarleton (books around here somewhere...) was that even before the war nobody liked him. Many in England also considered the brutal ways he fought the war to be disgraceful. Win or lose, he would still likely have been detested in parliament. I'd venture that some MPs might have agreed with him on slavery but voted for abolition simply out of spite.
@@88porpoise Spot on - many different factors because the colonies just a few short year s before the war got along worse with each other than they did with Britain. In fact, in the French and Indian war, some colonies detested the idea of providing men and supplies to protect another colony against the French and Indians, and they argued so much and got so little accomplished Britain had to step in and incentivize the colonies to even defend themselves. The poorer, rural inhabitants of the west were constantly under threat and the large aristocratic base in the east couldn’t care less. Land owners vs laborers was another huge divide. Merchants vs planters as well. There wasn’t even one type of aristocracy - and they all fought each other for dominance. TLDR - early colonial life was very messy.
The UN defines genocide by 5 parameters: 1. Killing members of the group; 2. Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; 3. Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; 4. Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; 5. Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group All with physical and mental elements being considered in said definitions. All of these have been deliberately committed against all groups of Native Americans at different times in history, so while the ravages of disease that wiped out 90% of the native population of the western hemisphere can't be considered genocide (at least when not considering small pox blankets.), you can certainly call the European colonization, and the expansion of post colonial powers to have committed genocide.
Have you ever thought about doing a "Clean Hands Wehrmacht" myth take down? I was shocked to find how pervasive this myth is online so it would seem like there would be an audience, I would certainly love to see it. Its similar to confederate revisionism in many ways too and might lend itself to the format of your "Check-mate Lincolnite" videos?
Here's some videos on the subject. (There are more to be found if you search): ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-OBRuf8Sl1Oo.html ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-oy_Rj8qLcyo.html ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-EEraxud7vZ4.html
Not only that but the myth that the Wehrmacht was this uber-mechanized military powerhouse with almost sci-fi tech that was defeated by the Soviet "Asian Hordes"
I'd love to see an analysis of that narrative, and specifically how much of it is attributable to the writings of Heinz Guderian. He is a strong contender for WW2's Biggest Fraud.
I was pretty shocked at how widespread it is too. The main view I see a lot is people are trying to portray WWII as like this "both sides were equal" conflict, which just isn't true, and I'd love to see more people debunk it. The biggest way I've seen it is people demonizing the Allies (especially the Soviets) and then humanizing the Germans. Trying to make both sides seem equal. Which is just ridiculous and also dangerous.
@@MollymaukT Didn't you know that the Soviet victory was 50% "Human-wave tactics" and 50% lend-lease; unlike say, the British victory, which was all about plucky engineering and stiff upper lips.
Two things: A) You seem to have rifles in the background in the back of you videos. What types are they, and do they play any sort of part in you family history? B) Do you think you will ever make a video about prison camps in the civil war, such as Andersonville? It would be cool to see you talk about that part of history.
He's a former historical reenactor, he worked at Gettysburg. He has many, many costumes from different periods as well as weapons to go with those costumes.
Shorter rifle is a 2 band 1858 Pattern Enfield. Generally the least expensive Civil War ear reproduction you can get in a fully functional state. Tends to be looked down upon in reenacting circles because they weren't really used here at the time. The longer arm is a non-functional Brown Bess replica. The gold band in the middle is an anachronism added to cover up a take-down joint in the middle for easier transport. The originals have no barrel bands, they're pinned to the stock instead. You'll see them a lot as a low cost prop in historical films. The British Marines at the end of Amistad are carrying them for example.
I think the question B is the most interesting. I guess you also are thinking of the US prison camps? Another interesting aspect of this is how this was important in how POW’s should be treated and how USA contributed to Geneva convention. In later years USA seems to have more stepped back on international law towards military war crimes that may have been done or how prisoners have been treated as seen in Iraq and Guantanamo? What happened here, from being in the forefront, preserver and an ideal of democratic and human rights, becoming an international “bad guy” on these subjects?
@James Harding I agree that there is a problem about NON-uniformed combatants, which always have been a problem. You can think about the Roman legions against the Germanic tribes, the freedom fighters against the Nazis and go on from there. I also agree that there have been done things by persons in Iraq, not to mention 9.11. that are criminal actions by international law and extreme actions in any way you see it. BUT still. Leaving the path we’re you put criminals to court and recognize “freedom fighters” as combatants without an uniform, you also loose important points and momentum. There is also the fight between a democratic system based on human rights, law and court against an opponent that do not consider that. The whole world is watching (I am a Norwegian by the way) and the Americans let the high standards they invented themselves go and seemingly (does not mean that you did), let themselves into their barbaric level. I understand very well that it is very hard to stick to the Geneva conventions in the heat of battle or when terror hits (we had our own terror here I 2011), but you loose the belief that we, the Democratic world, represent something better with higher standards they do not have. I understand that it is easy to write this when you are not in a war zone or in the middle of a terrorist attack, and I hope I do not offend anyone by it, but still I ask the question on how it happened and how wise it has been. And to take one example: our terrorist was taken to court and by doing that it showed what we are, the victims were seen, the crime was judged and he was sentenced in a way that seemed correct. And it showed to all that our standards are higher than his. That is how we want to look at our ideal, the Americans and your democratic system based on human rights and law. 1776 can never been forgotten.
Regarding your answer re: The 1619 project, would you consider making a video about that whole issue? Because as someone who's never really had the time to get into the whole debacle and has been put off by the apparent nit-picking, it's deeply refreshing that you seem to be able to call out its obvious flaws while also calling out the critics who obsess over trivial semantics.
I always love it when history teachers make their lessons engaging and interesting like that. I remember the one teacher who really got me into history was my first year high school Advanced Placement History teacher, and he emphasized how stories make remembering history so much easier. He did this by telling us the Epic of Gilgamesh on the first day, and then on the last day asked us if we remembered what happened, which we did, because the way he told the story was dramatic and interesting. He also introduced me to the parts of history that the school system never talked about, like China, Mongolia, and the Islamic Empires, which I had never heard about before, and this has led to me kind of loving Genghis Khan.
I remember the first time I was taught about segregation and all that. The teacher seprated us into groups based on eye colour then had one group of us sit on chairs whilst the other sat on the floor.
My sisters' teacher taught about the class differences pre-revolutionary France by giving one half of the class more candy than they could possibly eat, and the other half nothing. They had to sit on the floor under their desks and watch the others eat, and when they were finished, the teacher threw the rest of the candy away.
I'd like you to add a series of videos on Bleeding Kansas and Civil War on the frontier. I think the whole story is loaded with both hyperbole and slaughter, noble aims and petty revenge, and personalities on both sides who were completely off the charts. It's right up your alley!
I've had arguments with Zinn "followers" about their conclusion as well. I typically ruin their whole argument with one question. "If you're correct then why was the South largely more loyal to the British? I mean these states had larger slave populations"
I like Zinn, but he's very very simplistic. The revolution was by and for middle and upper classes, but the lower classes weren't excluded. Slaves and natives were, but the socioeconomic system was more complex that that. The fact is that farmers joined both sides of the war for ideology, and the conflict was about the rights of British citizens vs the authority of the British government. How much gratitude should the governed have? How much say should the governed have? Of course the Revolution was mostly about the rich in America claiming their fair share, but the fact that they were supported by underlings shows a shared anxiety. Washington wasn't this man of the people. The Continental Congress was made of the social elite. But the common soldiers fought because they saw their rights under attack as Parliament had imposed laws without the consent of the colonies. Many of them felt threatened by British troops occupying cities. And many British officers treated the entire colonies as an open rebellion, and thus destroyed property in rebel territory to be rather safe than sorry. The war was perpetuated by mutual fear; to call it the UK's Vietnam I think is absolutely a fair take, as the Vietnamese revolutionaries included both educated and peasants who wanted the exploitative system removed and would do anything to remove it. It's interesting to see the split in Lost Cause rhetoric: on one hand you do have people saying Lincoln was tyrannical and blaming him for the war. On the other, we do have another current seen in "Birth of a Nation", with Lincoln shown as this saintlike figure forgiving and saintly towards the Confederates, a golden mean figure who was just a helpless victim of abolitionists and carpetbaggers And of course Lost Cause itself is the losers writing the history. I think "victors write history" doesn't apply to only military aspects, but also political, social, and economic. The elites have the power to say their side and lower classes do not, especially since most of history with a literacy gap. Do we get much in the narrative of the Hussites and Cathars from their proponents? More than expected but still vastly outnumbered even before military force was imposed. Or the church councils; the less popular, less "politically correct" theologies and gospels were destroyed, suppressed, or simply not repeated. And of course only recently in the history of slavery do slaves actually get to say their piece. . Ah yes, the judgement. We should judge them by both moralities. Charles Darwin and Abraham Lincoln were super progressive for the 19th century, but they were still racist. Clara Barton was a feminist in the 1840s, but she's absolutely misogynist a few decades later. Spartan rights for women were unique in Greece, but that doesn't make them feminist. The Athenians created democracy. That doesn't make them progressive. Yes, these actions should be taken in context, but that doesn't mean justification in a modern context. Genghis Khan and Alexander Megas were absolutely courageous and brilliant figures, but that doesn't stop them from being mass murderers. George Washington deserves admiration, but he also deserves condemnation.
Foote repeated a lot of myths, but that's because he was comprehensive. He deserves praise for his effort of scholarship, but criticism as well. Doesn't make it worthless I remember reading a book that had defenses and critiques of the Ken Burns Civil War documentary; some of them are unfair, others absolutely fair. Is it accurate? No. Is it fair? Yes. Is it biased? Yes. Is it ambitious and well made? Yes. Does it have a lot of thoughtful truths? Absolutely. Does it perpetuate myths and misunderstandings? Yes.
Then there's the fact that the same Liberal Democratic ideas that underpinned the American Revolution also sparked a wave of revolutions through Europe based around the same ideals. And these were NOT salve holding societies... And in Europe the "lower classes" often supported these revolutions, though they had separate, more radical goals. (The point being that they weren't being "played off") I suspect that the Bourgeois/Proletarian division wasn't anywhere near as severe in the US, being a bit less rigid about the classes than Europe... and available farm land probably helped. Mike Duncan Revolutions Podcast rules!
Yes I'd really recommend reading Radicalism in the American Revolution, its a great antidote to Zinn. I like the guy but I don't think his historiography on the American Revolution is very good, and borders on negationist, and needs to be opposed.
Holy Shit, I'm in an Atun-Shei video! I feel both happy and kinda embarrassed. 😅 It was interesting to hear your remarks about the Witcher franchise (honestly, I wasn't expecting it in a video about historiography), particularly the books that started it. Sapkowski was clearly influenced and inspired by Anglophone authors, from Tolkien through Michael Moorcock to Raymond Chandler. He is also very into the Arthurian legends and all Celtic stuff. It's nice to hear that despite it (even in English translation) his prose has some refreshingly different "Eastern European" flavour for western readers. BTW the whole Chapter 8 of _The Lady of the Lake_ is like one big commentary on history and historiography. I remember it making a strong impression on me when I read it as a teenager. Also, somebody needs to use the line "to what degree do you agree?" in a musical, assuming that it wasn't done already.
Assuming class-awareness in a mostly pre-industrial society a good 7 decades before Marx started writing, is indeed a bit of a desperate one by Mr. Zinn. The American Revolution took place in the 1770's, not the 1870's.
Atun gave an interesting observation that many historians, Zinn included, look at the results and work backwards to explain how those results came to be. Controversially, I am going to say there is nothing wrong with this as long as it is clear what the historian is doing. Zinn isn't wrong (to my knowledge) that the aristocracy largely benefitted from the revolution, though I am unaware of much that would support the idea that the revolutionaries deliberately set out to do this. It's a different approach but I don't see that as a good reason to denounce it as long as it's clear whether the approach is standard forward looking history or Zinn backward looking.
Class awareness in the sense that they were systematically oppressed because of their class? No. But the identification of aristocracy in the colonies - absolutely. They were largely targets of mob violence when a competitor class could use the hardships and prejudices faced by yeoman farmers, laborers and slaves to frenzy them into attacking them, and subsequently, the Crown/ Parliament.
@@Kobolds_in_a_trenchcoatI think the main criticism isn't that the Americsn aristocracy didn't benefit from the war and independence, but that their sole reason for specifically and knowingly instithing the war was to oppress and distract the lower classes. Not to mention it's kinda bad rhetoric, if you go looking for evidence to prove a point then you're probably gonna find some, but if you gather evidence then analyze it all into a conclusion, then that's just a more naunced and considered approach to history which can provide better insight than working backwards already deciding what you want to support.
I'd say the idea that ruling classes don't have any understanding of the class character of their rule seems a little shaky, even if their perceptions of it might have been couched in different terms. The Romans were fully aware of class power, for example. Not saying Zinn was correct in his specific assertions (I've read his book but I'm not at all informed about the American Revolution), but I'd argue the history of all society is the history of class struggle in some form.
0:10 It was of course the greatest Virginian soldier ever. Hell, the greatest Virginian ever. The great, the beloved, the patriotic, the heroic... drum roll... . . . . . . . . . George Henry Thomas
I need to brush up on my Zinn but when I read that a while back the way I take it is less "The Founding Fathers explicitly planned to punch down on the working class" and more the existing power structures would remain intact. Said power structures being exploitative. And I really don't think it's a broad jump to say that the founders of America were looking after their own economic interests. Not to say that they didn't or couldn't hold wider ideals, the revolution in general sparked the idea that would grow throughout the years and the FF for all their faults had a couple who were strong enlightenment thinkers and believers. I mean we shouldn't be shocked that the upper class of a rebelling colony put *themselves* in charge.
I did my capstone for my history BA on the role of class in the origins of the American Revolution, specifically in New England, and Zinn was one of my big secondary sources, but the conclusion I came to was that it was really the northern merchant class more so than the slave owners that were the group with the most serious grievances with the British crown more so than southern slave holders, keeping in mind that the first serious grievances were the sugar act and the stamp act, which greatly benefited more affluent folks with royal appointments, aristocratic connections, and Caribbean and English economic interests, as opposed to the domestic merchants who were basically just smuggling and wanted the development of domestic industrial . The working class in New England also played a big role, as the development of the domestic industry would mean employment opportunities (keep in mind many of the colonies, but especially in New England were in prolonged recession).
Having done a lot of reading about the Harrisons for Indiana Studies reasons, I think Zinn is attributing _a_ reason for revolt - particularly that Benjamin Harrison V convinced some other landed Southerners to sign the Declaration and support revolt by citing the British crackdown on slavery and westward expansion - to everyone who participated, which is simplification to the point of misinformation. Southerners didn't drive the calls for revolution, and while Washington was a Virginian, he wasn't the one front-and-center ideologically before the Revolution started. On top of that, there were a lot of Southerners that denies Harrison's pleas, and it was much more likely a working class Northerner join up with the Revolution than a working class Southerner. The political reality is more complicated than that. Harrison V _did_ believe that he'd have a better chance at upholding slavery under a new government, but many Southerners thought he was wrong, and regardless, he was trying to capitalize on a movement for revolution that had already sparked.
Thanks for the vid, Atun-Shei, I enjoy watching more history vids in quarantine. You and Cypher have been putting out some informative and entertaining content. Thanks again & be well.
I'm so happy about this new trove of RU-vid channels who aren't just about retelling history for the 10-13 minute crash course. People who know their shit, who have read the sources and the interpretations done with them, and who don't pretend to be experts on everything (looking at you, Simon Whistler). You make me trust that there's a place for academia (a non-rancid, lively and vibrant academia) in the popular media, and that complexity and nuance aren't dead. Keep up the good work.
You are my favorite American history youtuber because you make me think about the history of our country. You make me question my own ideas, both reaffirming them, disagreeing, and brining up concepts I haven't thought of before. Every time I watch a video of yours, I learn something new and think about my perception of certain events. You truly are great!
I think the idea of "Manifest Destiny" is inherently supremacist and racist as well as being a pretty fundamental ideal in the founding to the US (even though the phrase itself came some time after)
White supremacy was certainly unique in American foundations. Many Empires throughout history gave high positions and marry off family members to other ethnicities in exchange of loyalty. Even in Mongol Empire there were non-Mongols like Chinese,Persians etc. in high positions of Government and Military and influenced Mongol culture and religion(some Mongols later became Muslims). It's unheard of that Blacks and American Indians could do the same in most of US history and interracial marriage was criminalized and their cultures and religions were dismissed as inferior by most white Americans
@@zainmudassir2964True but at the same time plenty of other empires or states were even worse. Spain had the whole Encomienda system where even the highest of Spainish royalty born in the colonies were considered lesser than those born in Spain itself, Rome infamously had a weird fluctuating relationship with the idea of barbarians and their class system, where at times you could be a Roman citizen, one of the most important things to be for a Roman, but also be a Plebian which meant in practice you had less ability and rights than even Gaulic kings. I think the point is that America's relationship to marginalized people's, while horrible and to always he remembered and investigated, isn't unique in it's extremes to either the time period or in history itself. Just because there have been more accepting societies doesn't mean that they were the norm, either at their time or at the time of the revolution.
This might be one of the best historical talks I’ve seen in a bit. Thanks to Atun-Shei for the interesting analysis in so many subjects but also thanks to the people posting such great questions! I clearly got more reading to do Also shoutout to pineapple pizza with white sauce and sausage!
I actually love your voice, I would love to hear a podcast type deal, where you made conversation with other history enthusiasts for my morning jog, cheers from Scotland :))
I humbly request more videos on Historiography. One of my favorite classes I ever took was one on studying this topic and I've been chomping at the bit to hear more about how others think about it.
I'm surprised that you didn't note that 'victors' in the who-writes-history is more about the groups that prosper being more able to spread the history they right long term, because they have the agency, or are just the ones left standing, rather than it just being 'we won, so we get to say what happened'. In that light, it doesn't take a war, rather prosperity, to be the victor; it just so happens that winners of wars tend to fare better long term than losers.
I really value your opinion because you demonstrate an expansive knowledge on on each subject you focus on in each video you present. You even go back and make corrections on old videos you have made. I love it! Now to my question: what do you think about added status instead of removing them. We can add context. We can add when and why and by whom they were erected. We can add status that add context to the Northern soldiers and African-American historical view point and experiences, as well.
The way your teacher demonstrated the issue people don’t see with sourcing was awesome, and I wish I had seen something like that in middle or elementary school. Really cool
It's funny, I'm a descendent of Benjamin Church and we grew up hearing stories of him as a hero, like you said. As an adult doing my own research I'm pretty damn horrified by him.
@@alexmuller6752 They mostly considered themselves Yugoslavs, though they seem to have been highly incoherent ideologically. They were apparently inspired by a mixture of anarchism, romanticism, socialism, and some Great Serbian ideas relating to myths about the Battle of Kosovo (despite some of the group being Muslims). Of course they were nearly all teens
So thrilled that you mentioned blood meridian in a video, didn’t catch it until now. By far one of my favorite books, I would be absolutely amazed to see a breakdown of it by you in the style of your ‘Metamorphosis of the Prime Intellect’ video, although that would take much effort. I love your content, keep up the videos!
Beyond the fact that all of his comments are interesting and well said I must also mention how freaking awesome it is to hear his opinions with the Spyro soundtrack in the background.
I'd love a video on Adams, he's pivotal to the birth of our nation and just a great story overall, I think your take on his contribution to our political climate during the revolution would make a great video
On Zin's point: Looking at the economic impact of the Navigation Acts, and the end of Salutary Neglect on the American Colonies, the founding fathers being largely made up of merchants (Hancock, Morris), tobacco planters (Jefferson, Washington, Madison), rice planters (Laurens), and artisans (Franklin, Revere) is far from a coincidence. Nor is it coincidental that yeoman farmers (outside Massachusetts), slaves, and factors tended to be loyalists. (Sawyer) Those unaffected by British mercantilist policies, namely re-exportation, did not take up the cause of independence because they did not stand to gain from severing economic and political ties with Great Britain. (Sawyer) It’s no secret that planters and those reliant on maritime trade resented the series of Acts passed after the period of Salutary Neglect. The Townshend Acts and The Sugar Act were key to the formation of the early opposition to British rule and its no wonder that the main output of the First Continental Congress was largely economic. It declared a boycott of trade with Great Britain and put the onus on local Committees of Safety to enforce said boycott and set local prices. This was the third volley in the trade war with Great Britain that ultimately sparked the American Revolution; the first being the destruction of British goods in the Boston Tea Party, and the second being the resulting Intolerable acts that shut down Boston harbor and stripped local autonomy from Massachusetts. When you get down to the bare facts, the American War of Independence ultimately stemmed from a rejection of Mercantilism that disproportionately impacted the Merchants, Artisans, and Planters- the rising American Bourgeoisie. Its no wonder, that this end of colonial mercantilism allowed the budding United States to flourish during the Industrial Revolution. Sawers, Larry. “The Navigation Acts Revisited.” The Economic History Review, vol. 45, no. 2, 1992, pp. 262-284. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/2597623. Accessed 22 Oct. 2020.
I think its mostly the opposite. Especially when we talk about the Townshend and Tea Acts because this was when nonimportation took place and many merchants did not like this policy because then they couldn't traid while the average colonist did support this. Not to mention they were angry at the British for a number of other reasons like the vice admiralty courts, navy impressment, and many other small things that took place over the decade like when Massachusetts was no longer able to pay the salaries of superior court justices and things like that. The average colonist was way more invested in this stuff than the merchant colonists. Many times merchants tried to speak against nonimportation but were scared into making a public apology like with Theophilus Lillie and many other people.
Who is this Zinn person? I was a bit confused because Atun called his "followers" "acolytes" and I'm seeing a lot of people talking about leftist historians being bad or wrong.
@@howedaddy6122 But the merchants hated the stamp act, and any attempts of Britain to force them into mercantilism. French and Spanish had better specie for a better price. Also, merchants funnily enough wanted a return to the requisition system, because they were so good at avoiding it. One thing I don’t think is brought up enough about the early colonialists - smuggling was huge. It’s fine to break the law I guess if the ones who made the law were thousands of miles away….
20:52 - I don't know if the same criteria applies today, but in 2000 one of my history profs told us that when he was talking to his publisher about how to sell his book, the publisher told him that the best way to get a history book sold was to put a US Flag, swatsika, or U-Boat on it. Bonus points if you could get all three.
I've had history professors explain that they often cannot control what the cover image or title of their books are. It varies depending on seniority, I know some can definitely control or at least heavily influence it, but I've had history professors working toward tenure that had their cover determined for them, and couldn't fully control their title. Pretty sure content is fine as long as it meets peer review. Source: grad student in history
Love your videos. Also, the bit where you speak to the challenges of evaluating the relative veracity of extent sources recalled similar experiences of those youtubers who focus on understanding the reality of the earlier Christian church. Close reading of 2nd century CE docs hints at the great diversity doctrinal beliefs that were vital and accepted at that time, although few of the written works of these unorthodox churches survived until now. My interest in the earlier christian history is not devotional, but humanist. Reminding people how this country tore itself apart and the blood sacrifice that was made on the alter of ideology seems an important lesson to recall right now.
I didn’t ask for your amazing Adams administration take but I’m happy you said it. Adams is by far my favorite “Founding Father” and I believe he is massively under-appreciated.
Yet another early Acoustic recording! Awesome! I've been listening to Marching Tro(ugh) Georgia ever since the Checkmate Lincolnites Video about William Tecumseh Sherman was released.
OOH! I see Atun-shei talking historiography, I click. It was one of my history professors' favorite subjects to nerd out about, and actually a rather fascinating subject. Lol. Someone told me once that "history doesn't change." I couldn't resist explaining to her why that wasn't accurate.
Oh god, "history doesn't change" might be the worst understanding of history I've heard... The past doesn't change but history is our understanding of the past, not the past itself.
As someone who just finished their History Masters degree - well done. This is a good video on a topic I rarely see addressed in a generally engaging way.
Good history teachers are the best! I am privileged to have had exposure to many wonderful teachers who made learning history one of my favorite aspects of high school. To this day I still remember the most random stories from my AP European history class because it was taught by the best teacher at my high school.
"You think Britain has their Shit together *Now*" Oof. As a Brit. That Hurts. I mean. You're not wrong; though there is an irony that the worst aspects of British society seem to be taking their beats from the US... Still hurts though. Here's hoping we'll both pull through.
They have their problems but I don't think the museums are being destroyed or ransacked like the ones in Iraq, Syria and Egypt have been in recent years.
Writing history is rather like putting together an enormous jigsaw puzzle: only anywhere from 1/3 to 2/3s of the pieces are missing and the pieces you do have are all from different angels. Once you’ve got all of those different pieces you take a step back, look at the whole, and basically your guess is as good as mine.
Historiography is surprisingly hard to explain well. I'm a graduate student in history and it is definitely something a lot of students struggle with. I guess it's just hard to remember that a Historiography does not focus on the past, instead it focuses on how historians have presented the past.
As always this was a great video. If I wanted to ask a question for the next video on this topic where should I comment? As always have a great day man and keep making great content
Very new sub here and I'm going through as much of your content as I can - I hear your thoughts and insights about Eastern Europe history not being represented properly (or at all) transfers over to many others things and I COMPLETELY agree. When it comes to popular media (of any form, be it film, literature, music, anything) there may as well be a metaphorical Berlin Wall that never really fell - sometimes the EXTREMELY popular things make it over to North America but they are absolutely the exception. Even taking into account common language barriers, compare the amount that reaches NA from places like Germany, France, Italy to anything farther east and the difference is staggering.
I have to agree, as an Art History major I’ve probably studied more about oppressed voices than victorious ones so history is definitely not always written by the winners. On a completely different note, have you ever read The History of the World by H.G. Wells? It’s fantastic!
Glad to hear you mention how ignored Eastern European history is in the US. I’m half Czech myself ( granted it’s more Central Europe but still it’s a Slavic country) and even in my very Czech-American section of Nebraska few know the history of that area anymore even if they still try to keep some of the culture alive ( mostly it’s just beer drinking and eating roast pork or duck and listening to polka a couple times a year.)
I know commenting on a multiple-year old video can be cringe, but I just wanted to share my sympathies. Until college, my beloved Romania was a footnote in the 1400s (guess who) and then never mentioned again.
@@theemeraldboars484 agreed, at best the Czech Republic gets brief mentions with Jan Hus being the first Protestant reformer, then maybe a brief mention in the wars of religion and the revolutions of 1848 and then the invasion of the Sudetenland by the Nazis and then a brief mention of the Prague Spring and some revolutions and that’s it and it’s all just blips
What’s gets translated also plays an important part in what gets canonized and considered relevant. I would even add that to your teachers activity (which I’m totally stealing for my next class this coming fall).
The idea of the witcher beeing a slavic take on mythology was a desicion made by CD project for the games. The books have that element, but not exclusivly.
