The History Thread!

Do not ask a belgian what they did in the congos in the 1880s

but dont ask the same with the 1960s

(source: we didnt start the fire)

Speaking of Yotube "historians" and the former Belgian Congo, how's Bisi? I saw his video on the 1960s Congo Crisis and he was able to cite the following as his sources:

• King Leopold's Ghost: A Story of Greed, Terror, and Heroism in Colonial Africa by Adam Hochschild

• European Atrocity, African Catastrophe: Leopold II, the Congo Free State and its Aftermath by Sir Martin Ewans and Martin Ewans

• Death in the Congo by Emmanuel Gerard

• Katanga 1960-63 by Christopher Othen

• The Assassination Of Lumumba by Ludo de Witte

• The Diplomacy of Decolonolisation by Alanna O’Malley

Edited by HallowHawk on Mar 7th 2024 at 10:35:46 AM

What great accomplishment did King Matthias Corvinus of Hungary achieve that they made a nice Shout-Out to him in the national anthem of Romania?

RE: David Irving, there are reports that he recently died, but I don't believe them. In fact, do we know he even existed in the first place?

Speaking of nazi apologia and bad history, on Xitter, Owen Benjamin (a longtime internet far right figure who used to work for Alex Jones) made this incredulous tweet where he claimed taht thanks to AI we can now know what Hitler actually said in his speeches, and he, "as a WWII historian" had been unaware so far, and claimed it's illegal for Germans to translate his speeches.

This all, to claim that a Hitler speech where he says "he doesn't want to go to war" and "wants help dealing with Jewish refugees" proves that he wasn't responsible for WWII and idk what the flavor of the week for holocaust denial is, but I'm guessing "they were just internment camps for their protection and it was allied bombing that caused them to starve to death".

All in all, I'm not sure how many of his reply guys actually believe that no one knew what Hitler said in his speeches before AI, Benjamin absolutely is lying that he didn't, and I know one of the nazi tactics in discourse is to act like something is brand new information etc. and I hope no one is actually dumb enough to believe the tweet.

For his followers and the general alt-right it doesn't matter if it is true or not, it is another tool to whitewash Hitler and the Nazis as "not being as bad as (((they))) told"

Granted people who have functional critical thinking and know history wouldn't be fooled, but there are plenty of people who consume this kind of rage bait content without a second thought invested.

Here's a fascinating video I came across. Not only does he explain the difference between alehouses, inns, and taverns, he also adds some fascinating insight about what rural and city life in the Middle Ages was like.

Modern History TV is an excellent channel, especially regarding daily life and food, even if there is seldom any cooking involved. I love how Jason is independently wealthy enough to do this for fun, including doing educational equestrian demonstrations at outdoor events.

How long did it usually take for zeppelins to fly across the ocean?

Google tells me that the Hindenburg broke the record of crossing the Atlantic with 43 hours, which is quite impressive for something of that design.

Double-post: Albert Barille is probably the main reason I became interested in history at a very young age, especially through the series Il était une fois... l'Amérique. I really recommend this show and the others as tools to teach children about history, because even though things are simplified for the sake of presentation, they still do an admirable job at explaining why people and societies act the way they do. I'm quite glad that the series on the Americas was my first exposure to US history, because it tells things from a different perspective than usual, generally avoiding any Eagle Land patriotism I've seen in some American productions. My personal favourites are the pre-Columbian episodes that show the Native Americans as people, more complex than just Savage Indians or Noble Savages. Ditto with the Conquistadors and other white groups, who are also shown as people of all sorts.

I actually used to watch a kind of British equivalent when I was living in England since my ex-stepfather was stationed on a US airforce base there before he went to prison called Horrible Histories. It focused mostly on European history but occasionally it would make some jabs against Americans as well or talk about cave people. edit: One nice thing about that show was that it focused moreso on how people lived than just events, of course it would occasionally talk about events like the Wars of the Roses or such but that was often moreso to point out the audacity of how stuff used to work. It was just nice since classes didn't usually mention that kind of stuff.

Edited by Informer on Apr 8th 2024 at 5:17:33 AM

Horrible Histories is fantastic. I also appreciate that whenever the skits go too over-the-top, the little rat appears with a sign saying that they are exagerating or making stuff up for comedic effect, allowing it to work both as a comedy (with jokes both kids and adults will enjoy) and a genuine piece of educational media. I mean, yes, the comedy comes first, but it's still useful to get kids into History, teach them a bit (and it's very rarely incorrect about historical facts) and can even teach adults a thing or two.

Also, a good bit of the songs they had were unironically kinda good tbh

I've not yet watched Horrible Histories, but I'll give it a go at some point.

Some of the Il était une fois episodes are available in their entirety on Youtube, though only with the English dub. Among these are episodes from the show about America. One of my favourite episodes from that series was just released.

Edited by Mara999 on Apr 10th 2024 at 10:33:20 PM

I think I'll try to watch that episode later as well. Also, if you're wondering I'm pretty sure that all of Horrible Histories UK can be found on Hulu and maybe Netflix although I'm unsure if they might be region locked.

I read a bunch of Horrible Histories as a kid in the library, but I didn't know them by that name, because they were Finnish translations.

They did help me get a more nuanced view of history than the usual pop culture version, but I was also an avid student at history in school. But also Finnish history education doesn't really cover the world that broadly. Hell, I think most of the middle ages are not really talked about at all.

During my elementary school years I remember an illustrated history book, which had brief dramatized interludes set during the time period covered in that section. Like a young boy learning how to read Latin at a Medieval monastery. From what I remember, the book covered Finland's Medieval history in broad-strokes, beginning with a quick summary of the two Swedish Crusades and the general effect of Christianity on society, as well as the Treaty of Nöteborg. Then I remember that it pretty quickly jumped ahead to Gustav Vasa and the later Swedish kings.

Refresh my memory. What was it that caused people to change their minds about Australia? I remember for a very long while, the British Empire considered Australia to be little more than a dumping ground to send its least favorite prisoners to. Then something happened down the line that caused people instead to greatly admire the continent/country.

Those early penal colonies became full-fledged colonies within a few decades. Farmlands run by convict settlers expanded; inconvenient Indigenous residents were massacred or swallowed up by the mission school system; and most importantly, the booming textile industry in Britain created a huge demand for wool that drove the expansion of sheep-rearing in the colonies' hinterlands. By the mid-19th century, new, freeborn settlers were starting to outnumber convicts and their descendants, and the gold rush in NSW and Victoria both brought in even more people and kick-started the development of inter-colony rail and telegraph lines.

The new settlers were increasingly unhappy about their crime-adjacent reputation and rising land prices, so in 1868, the transportation of convicts stopped. At the same time, people in the colonies began to increasingly identify with the idea of "Australia", and there was a growing movement to federate the six main colonies — Queensland, New South Wales, Victoria, Tasmania, South Australia and Western Australia — into a single entity, which at first saw opposition from labour movements and the large Irish/Catholic population, which feared that the move would consolidate the power of conservative forces. The six colonies eventually voted to join a federation in 1899-1900 (leaving out New Zealand and Fiji, though the former is still mentioned in the Australian Constitution today, funnily enough), and the Commonwealth of Australia was officially founded on New Year's Day, 1901.

Oh, and the new federal government passed an Immigration Restriction Act that same year, which mandated the use of a dictation test to keep non-white immigrants out without explicitly mentioning their race. So, that growing idea of "Australia" above? Always had a "White" implicitly attacher in front of it. Most white citizen settlers simply weren't thrilled to share a country with non-white settlers, be they Chinese gold miners, Afghan camel drivers working in the Outback, or trepangers from eastern Indonesia whose trade with the Yolngu predated European arrival. You might want to compare that policy with those of Argentina, another pastoral settler nation on a similar economic tier that nonetheless encouraged immigration (if mostly to drown out native elements with those of "civilised" countries).

Individual colonies already had their own racially-targeted immigration restrictions for decades, but the White Australia policy would define the country's self-image as an autonomous state, until the Whitlam government repealed the last of its vestiges in the '70s.

Edited by eagleoftheninth on Apr 11th 2024 at 10:27:39 AM

Awwwwwrite, my family will go on a 10 days~2 weeks long trip to Italy, which would be my very first visit to Europe!

Whenever I go to trips, I make sure to bring books to read along the way. For a roughtly 2 week long trip, I will probably need at least around 7 books or 4 really thick ones.

Since it's a trip to Europe, I'm gonna take books about - directly or indirectly - European history, one way or another, and here're my picks so far:

• The Global Cold War: Third World Interventions and the Making of Our Times, by Odd Arne Westad
• Postwar: A History of Europe Since 1945, by Tony Judt
• A History of the Roman People by Allen Mason Ward and Fritz Heichelheim
• A History of Contemporary Italy: Society and Politics, 1943-1988, by Paul Ginsborg
• The Cold War's Killing Fields: Rethinking the Long Peace, by Paul Thomas Chamberlin

Not necessarily a selection of the most recent or/and accurate works, but those are some of the better known (and translated) titles in my country. xP

Unless things have changed since I was in grad school Westad's still pretty relevant.

Ayyyy, good to hear that!

I just remembered this historical thought.

I remember reading that hot oil was actually not poured onto enemy soldiers attacking a castle, since it was too expensive to waste like that. So how did the idea of using oil as a weapon get started in the first place?

Is it possible they poured different hot liquids instead? I've heard mention of hot tar being used iirc

They would usually pour tar or pitch, which can be derived from crude oil and even kept flammable. Tar and pitch would have been very commonplace liquids, needed for many types of projects dealing with wood. So in the case of an invasion, there would probably be stores of the stuff to take from and use as a weapon.