Everything you know about history is (probably) wrong

"Who built Thebes of the 7 gates ? 
In the books you will read the names of kings. 
Did the kings haul up the lumps of rock ? 
And Babylon, many times demolished, 
Who raised it up so many times ? 
In what houses of gold glittering Lima did its builders live ? 
Where, the evening that the Great Wall of China was finished, did the masons go?
Great Rome is full of triumphal arches. 
Who erected them ? 
Over whom did the Caesars triumph ? 
Had Byzantium, much praised in song, only palaces for its inhabitants ? 
Even in fabled Atlantis, the night that the ocean engulfed it, 
The drowning still cried out for their slaves. 
The young Alexander conquered India.
Was he alone ? 
Caesar defeated the Gauls. 
Did he not even have a cook with him ? 
Philip of Spain wept when his armada went down. 
Was he the only one to weep ?  
Frederick the 2nd won the 7 Years War. 
Who else won it ? 
Every page a victory. 
Who cooked the feast for the victors ? 
Every 10 years a great man. 
Who paid the bill? 
So many reports.  
So many questions."
-Bertolt Brecht 1935

No you lie🤨🤐🤨

I already knew school history education is bullshit after I have compared it to better sources at libraries.
All they teach us is memorizing event dates and blindly writing endless texts.

Anyone from lavender 🙋

Regarding the Stalin period in the USSR, it is 100% true, starting from the fictitious 700,000 victims of repression (if neither bodies nor burial schemes and accurate data on their location exist, and the statistics and “documents” issued by Yakovlev, who works for the CIA, are complete garbage, in these documents even the punctuation marks are written through the ass) and 27 million losses in the Great Patriotic War (according to the “secret documents” that Krivosheev found, that bastard, it seems like he was the one who wanted to justify Diniken) ending with the Holodomor as well as the murder of the “true Leninist guard” who are in fact Trotskyists, Mensheviks, careerists and other trash settled in the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks.
Damn it, Khrushchev’s rise to power was a military coup using units of the Red Army that were stationed near Moscow “in exercises.”
P.S. sorry for english i used google translator.

😊

I do understand and agree with what you are saying about these "greatmen". However, two things can be true. The people who have to actually do the work should get more credit (and compensation). But someone must be willing to steal other people's ideas and take all the credit. Someone must be willing to enforce consequences for those who step out of line (including murder if necessary). This person most probably is a narcissist who is willing to have the entire focus of history on them as much as possible. This person wants to be known as the "great man" and is willing to take the steps to make that happen.

This is a great point for a video. I've had this critique for so long, and I'm glad to see a critique of idealism in the psyche of the people in general. This came to a head recently when, after Palestinian liberation was becoming a big topic, that young Americans read Osama Bin Laden's "Letter to the American People" and started to identify with it saying that his cause was just. Ironically, the useful tool that ruling-class Americans had in isolating working-class Americans from materialist analysis and providing only idealistic analysis fundamentally made the blowback of many young people agreeing with Osama Bin Laden possible because they had no materialist analysis. The only thing young people heard here in America is "they [Al-Qaeda] hate our freedoms" and "they just want to behead people", so when even an ounce of material reasoning came out in that letter for Osama's operations, the idealistic narrative in the west just gives out. Leftists who actually practice materialist analysis then have to go back and correct these over-corrections because of the failures of Capitalism's attempts to manufacture consent.

Great episode ❤

You have literally no sources

WHAT?
We're being ... LIED TO?
Noooooooooooooo .... I do not believe it's true!
(sarcasm)

But BO, what if the great man is like, really great?

Brother, you have no idea what "Idealism" is.

Ohhh, I see. When you say "history", you mean "american individualistic caricatures and propaganda". Yes, that history is definitely wrong.
Some people might confuse marketing and propaganda with reality. The same few people might not immediately recognise that this video turns into communist propaganda right after the straw man arguments.

I find it incerdible that in French history lessons, we just pass on Vichy france in 2 hours like its an unfortunate event that should be forgotten and not the ultimate proof of french collaboration to the funding of Axis wars. I've finnished high school and learned more about Vichy France from HOI4 than from my history classes (I'm french). We just like to put up De Gaulle as the "great man" like it will just counterbalance the french collaboration. And I think this lack of education on this topic, fueled by the shame + the necessity to always pass as the "good guys" in the National narrative, is one of the main reason why the far-right is gaining so much power in France right now. How are we expected to learn from mistakes of the past if we don't even aknowledge these errors in history lessons?
On the same topic, I find it incredible how little we learn about the French colonial empire. Thankfully we're not in false claims such as "colonisation brought civilisation" or those types of thing but still, nowadays people are complaining that immigrants from all over ex french-Africa are coming to France but it is easily understandable with basic knowledge of the french colonial history and how we still steal from this country to this day (in an implicit political action known as Françafrique + "infrastructure depts" that newly independent countries were enforced to pay for the infrastructure the french state had constructed during the colonial era). And above this basic consideration of why french speaking people would come to the french speaking country that benefits off of there ressources, it is important for everybody to know the whole history of their country, the greatness as much as the awfulness.
If you want to teach the kids how brave french resistants were during the Nazi occupation, do it but don't forget to mention that
1) these people were majoritarely communist and socialist;
2) a large part of the population also collaborated, by either choosign inaction or action in favor of the Nazis, and the official french state (I just know that for a pretty long time, other Allied nations recognized Vichy France and not Free France as the legitimate one) collaborated with them by sending workforce into german factories, denouncing and then deporting jews and overall giving a full diplomtic cooperation with the nazi occupant.

It started out really strong but as soon as it got to the Soviet part it went off the deep end.
The holodomor wasn’t an accidental famine. It was a genocide that killed 11 million people. My grandparents survived it but many of their peers didn’t. It was only one of many waves of genocide under communist colonization.

How to be so wrong and idiot about life. You take Paterson as an example with his speech about Hitler when he support greatly the Zionist idea and ideology...your assertion is not wrong but truly Machiavellic and so obviously supremacyste.
Tell Paterson about the time of world history as it is wrong and his going to laugh at you because he believe in supremacy.

Major newspapers already started printing articles about the bad stuff Hitler supposedly did already when Hitler was only 15 years old. He must have been some kind of genius to to kill so many people so many decades before he actually killed them.

I appreciate the gist of the video greatly. My own studies began with a love of history. But I must point out that your characterisation of social sciences is mediocre. Social Sciences, more that anyone examine the social context of the historic events. The difference with history is that they proclaim their theoretical perspective from which they interpret history. None ever use this cult of the individual. The problem with history is that you do not state your underlying perspective at all, preferring to believe there is such a thing as a clean unbiased essentialist truth that, with enough non-indolence, you discover, when examining the ‘facts’. As if facts could speak for themselves. And there are many divisions in social science, some explicitly relying on the labour of individuals. Just as in hard science we don’t say we know the truth, but by holding out the underlying theoretical perspective, it is exposed to criticism and re thinking. You cannot say this about a hidden unconfessed historical perspective that exists, if we just rely on diligently examine the facts. We need to confess we ALL (including you) have a perspective bias.

The workers left to themselves wouldn't have come with anything, they wouldn't even be workers.

Viva la........

Most interesting. Of most importance. Of most possibility. Of most realism to you and me.

Spot on and very interesting as well as important I must say. This is what has been proclaimed against real possibility once << we >> dare share our own sphere of that wich do not adhere.

I knew it would be right now when you would read this

having lived in an authoritarian regime , and after becoming a democratic and free country with no centralized power onto one individual, i can safely say that dictatorships suck on all levels, f your propaganda

The only manner in which man can act upon nature is by motion. In this respect John Stuart Mill observed: “Man moves a seed into the ground; he moves an axe through a tree; he moves a spark to fuel; he moves water into a boiler over a fire; the properties of matter do the rest.” In other words, “This one operation of putting things into fit places for being acted upon each other by their own internal forces is all that man does, or can do, with matter.”

This is a statement of fundamental import, and John Stuart Mill so highly valued it that he claimed the credit of having first made it. Yet, with the usual shortsightedness of political economists, bounded in their views by their narrow, petty bourgeoise environment, he utterly fails to draw from it the only possible conclusion, viz., the social character of machinery and the stupendous wrong done to man, a social being, by the private ownership of the mechanical organs of motion.

Confined to the use of his own physical power, man is one of the most helpless animals. In proportion to his size and requirements, he is unquestionably very weak and slow. But the superiority of his organism consists precisely in the aptitude of his brain and the fitness of his hands for the contrivance and use of mechanical devices, through which he may take from nature, by artifice, those forces in which he is naturally wanting. Every such contrivance is to him like a new organ by which his power of motion is increased. But the point is soon reached in the development of these artificial organs, where a single individual can {can not?} produce or use them. Beyond the most primitive of hunting, fishing and cultivating implements, every tool, not to speak of the more complex machine, requires in its making, or in its handling, or in the purpose for which it is handled, the co-operation of several individuals. In other words, all the benefit of machinery lies in its social, co-operative use.

Give a man all the knowledge and machinery of this age, and place him on the richest land in a country isolated from the rest of the world. Of what benefit will all that be to him, as compared with the welfare which he can obtain among his fellows in exchange for what he can produce with an infinitesimal part of that knowledge and of that machinery? Mark, furthermore, that every tool, like every form or product of knowledge, is, in fact, a social growth, requiring the co-operation of successive generations. Show me a machine to-day whose patentee can claim freedom of indebtedness to some predecessors. From Archimedes to Watt; nay, from the first primitive man who made use of a stone axe to the most eminent of modern inventors, the social chain of observation, discovery and co-operation is unbroken.

From the comparative physical impotency of man in his natural state, and from his inability to invent, make and use, unaided by his fellows, all the tools he needs to multiply his power of motion in the degree required for his safety and welfare, comes the social state, in which the tool is necessarily a social organ; social in its origin, social in its growth, social in its purpose, social in its incorporation of natural forces which of right belong to all; set in motion by human muscles, for the good of the social body, under the direction of the social will. Hence the tendency of society itself to develop into a constantly higher organism as the differentiation, power and socialization of tools becomes more complete; while the social will, enlightened by a better knowledge of the requirements of the body in all its parts, becomes less uncertain, less undecided, less erratic, and, therefore, less arbitrary or tyrannical.

More evidence might be adduced to show the social character of machinery. Upon what precedes we may, however, safely rest the following generalization: “Each man has an equal social right to multiply his power of motion by all the social factors of civilization. Private property in any of these factors is inconsistent with this fundamental right; it must, obviously, prove a source of economic despotism and industrial slavery.”
American Socialist Daniel De Leon---September 9, 1894

BS. Great big heaps of BS.

Really appreciate you sharing your take away. I agree that we have built a fine set of fallacies with which to engage predictably at the expense of engaging reality.

I’m telling you living under Fidel Castro is not funny it sucks socialism sucks I still live in Cuba and is a F prison

Well….DOH! Of course history is all wrong because it’s all made up! And it’s
probably the aliens that did everything anyway. Human are, generally, too stupid.

I think you are right in concept, there are many strange things in history, things that tend to be omitted or as you say oversimplified.
I'm currently re-reading information on dictators, on wars, people who opposed international banking, and looking at both sides.
It seems at least odd to me that each and every "dictator" opposed international banking, or how many countries had concentration camps but we just speak of a few of them.

Shitler as a "world conqueror r" is ridiculous because he made war with all colonial powers which actually were occupying most of the world (Uk,France,Belgium, Netherlands ) and the next powers that would divide the world ( USA/USSR).Ironic.

This is a very interesting, thoughtful and educational video. It is nice to see people who discuss nuance rather than the Tik Tok like sound bites you normally hear which teach you nothing. I would argue that short form videos whether on television or on the Internet are destroying people's attention spans and desire to make things better for themselves. When people cannot focus on creating a better world because they're addicted to their telephone we end up with the sort of status quo maintaining governments around the world.

люди на западе едят пропаганду и им норм, а мы в России продолжим работать, защищать своих, и хрен мы врагам сдадимся, пусть придумывают что хотят, победить нас они не могут, у нас есть атомное оружие, история с развалом советского союза не повторится

The thing about communist critique of anything, in this case contemporary scholarship is that as James Lindsay pointed out, ‘communists don’t know how’. You’ve spent 30 mins dismantling piece by piece historical scholarship and left absolutely nothing in its place. The only tool of the communist is perpetual criticism of that which is or was; there is nothing positive to contribute as an alternative. Additionally, communists are the most fanatical religious zealots known to man. There is absolutely zero evidence that communism ever produced anything of value but zealots remains faithful that the utopia is just around the corner.
Lastly, your argument unwinds itself when you imply that the reason modern scholarship is still individual based is because a small group of powerful interests want it so. So a small group of powerful individuals is maintaining the historical narrative? This is the opposite of your argument.

Simple stories for simple minded masses.

Its all about controlling the narrative, regardless of the truth.

The number one history book and most significant was written by Barbara Touchman .The calamitous 14th century.

This why academics across the board( including Medics on lockdown) have lost any credence lavished on them. Disingenuous is apt.

Great man theory works

Bot video.

What capitalism? where is it? I only see mixed economies or fully communist economies.

History= His=story written by the victors. Jordan Peterson is a shill.

Great man theory is still reasonable. You're underestimating the role of vision, strategy, motivation and charisma. Without Steve Jobs, Apple dies and there's no iPhone, just Blackberries and Nokia's. Without HItler, there's no WW2 in1939, without Napoleon, there's no Napoleonic Wars, Without Clive, Britain does not come to dominate India. Without Rockefeller, no Standard Oil, without JP Morgan, no General Electric. no US Steel, no RMS Titanic (and even no JP Morgan or Morgan Stanley). To disregard there influence and impact is as silly as saying without Conan-Doyle there's no Sherlock Holmes., with JK Rowling, there's no Harry Potter. This 20th century rejection of the Great Man Theory has now been reversed. No underlying social currents are just going to spontaneously invent the iPod or iPad or kill King Charles I and replace the crown with a Dictatorship.

I always knew this was going to be another “capitalism bad am I right guys?” cope-essay yet I gave it a chance anyway.

So I guess we didn't saw Putin saying that invaded Ucrânia because they were nazis... although the only nazi they found was the right arm of that famous Putin's cooker (or maybe this is not that simple and actually he is a master strategic brain leading a democratic militar thing)

While the majority covet the lifestyle of the rich and famous 'they've got us,' somewhat like the native peoples who traded away real weath for shiny beads.