Crash Course World History

[Lordkaiser]

Its maybe even old and very well known I guess, but in case anybody did not watch it, yet,
watch the videos on this channel, its related to all the EU4 time period and nations:

(i really hope its legit to post it)

e.g.
the Dutch East India Company

the Holy Roman Empire

gives flavor and background knowlegde to playing the game.

 

[Apollo1784]

id rather not have john green spew his views my way thanks

 

[Dakka]

The information is ok, but John Green injects so much of his personal bias in it that I wouldn't consider it a credible source.

 

[PedroVargas]

Crash course is solid. I prefer Ten Minute History though due to a lot of detail put into the short run time - and the dry humor.

 

[JSparks101]

id rather not have john green spew his views my way thanks

The information is ok, but John Green injects so much of his personal bias in it that I wouldn't consider it a credible source.

What do you mean? He always seems quite unbiased and I believe he has other people do some research as well.

 

[tip001]

What do you mean? He always seems quite unbiased and I believe he has other people do some research as well.

I think there are other much better sources but him supposedly being biased is a new for me also and probably to do with some right wing conspiracy theory. I make this up out of the blue but would not be surprised

 

[Dakka]

What do you mean? He always seems quite unbiased and I believe he has other people do some research as well.

I don't have any specific examples to cite (as I haven't watched crash course in some time), but I can assure you it is there.
Some issues I have with the series:
-Misquoting quotes
-Misinformation (this is primarily because of the very short time limit used to cover very broad topics.
-Leaning heavily on the "Noble Savage" trope
-Being overly concerned with Anti-Eurocentricism to the point of glossing over, marginalizing, or misrepresenting European history, accomplishment, and/or perspective

It's an alright source for the very basics of their topics but I would not take them much deeper than face value. They should be used as a stepping stone into the subject you are watching and I would never use any of his videos as a source for either a paper, report, or argument. As said, there are other, better history channels available (that I would be happy to provide after work if you are interested).

I make this up out of the blue but would not be surprised

If you have no reason to believe this, then please refrain from making these kind of comments. It's demeaning, undermining, and is little more than mudslinging without any ground to stand on.

 

[gigau]

Fascinating as it may be, but it belongs in the History Forum.

 

[HaitiSpaceAgency]

Some nutters hear one word about something progressive and totally flip their shit

 

[Sarmatia1871]

Oh no, not more youtube history videos.

 

[AureliusBob]

The information is ok, but John Green injects so much of his personal bias in it that I wouldn't consider it a credible source.

In his defense, there was the controversial "Human Geography" series which stated that Jared Diamond was racist, which he eventually did take down and issued an apology after several complaints.

 

[Herbert West]

Oh no, not more youtube history videos.

They are sort of the granddady of the current generation, and they arent event that bad. Don't look for anything above HS level. View them as infotainment, and hope it spurs some people to look into issues more.

I don't really get your beef with the concept. If I look at my own field, I have no issues with stuff like MinutePhysics, or more in-depth physics channels. I welcome them.

 

[Health]

They are sort of the granddady of the current generation, and they arent event that bad. Don't look for anything above HS level. View them as infotainment, and hope it spurs some people to look into issues more.

I don't really get your beef with the concept. If I look at my own field, I have no issues with stuff like MinutePhysics, or more in-depth physics channels. I welcome them.

I think it may have something to do with ripping history out of context, I know I sure as hell commit that sin every once in a while, and feeding popular myths. The hard sciences might be a bit better for the short application format, however they're also very lacking.

 

[Dakka]

Some nutters hear one word about something progressive and totally flip their shit

If you have no reason to believe this, then please refrain from making these kind of comments. It's demeaning, undermining, and is little more than mudslinging without any ground to stand on.

 

[Graf Zeppelin]

Oh no, not more youtube history videos.

 

[Gathenhielm]

I watched them a couple of years. As far as I can remember I found the first season to be informative (on a high school level) and quite entertaining. You know, a crash course...

The second season is however all over the place and I guess that's where the controversial stuff is from?

 

[J66185]

Why do people even bother with posting this kind of quick stuff?

 

[Henry IX]

Crash course is a solid primer with a wide variety of topics covered. Unless you are extraordinarily well read there are areas of history that you will be lacking in knowledge of and a short and entertaining video is a great way to get into these topics. The Crash Course videos tend to stick to the consensus opinion for most topics, which I consider far more useful than those 10 min videos that attempt to put forward more 'marginal' views.

They are solid primer videos on a wide range of topics and they don't pretend to be anything else. Good for an introduction, don't rely on them.

 

[Herbert West]

Why do people even bother with posting this kind of quick stuff?

Oh, enlighten us, wise sensei, what ought they post?

 

[Health]

Oh, enlighten us, wise sensei, what ought they post?

For that guy? Anything that resembles Volksmarschall.