ITT: Historical red flags I'll start with some obvious ones

>Isn't objective

File: IF.jpg (39KB, 916x648px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 916x648px

>>2536209
If wheels are Eurocentric, explain India.

>>2536209
>>cares about the 'importance' of understanding history rather than just enjoying it for what it is
But it is important, at least in the realm of politics and international relations.
It's like a fucking guide book.

>He isn't able to hold a disagreeable theory, idea or concept in his head, to play with it, dabble in it, make love to it, consider it, and then reject it
This is a key historical skill but most people immediately dismiss something if it appears to be contrary to their worldview.

>>2536209
You realize cyclical history"is more common, right? The idea that history is progressive isn't shared in much of the world. Including your precious shitskins.

>>2536256
See OP for an example.

>>2536260
>since most people believe it it must be true
>uses the word "shitskins" and "progressive" instead of saying the more neutral "linear"
redflag desu

>>2536260
>if history isn't cyclical it must be progressive
How about we look at this with proper nuance rather than trying to come up with a system that paints all human history ever in such broad strokes?

But women did contribute next to nothing.

Go tip your fedora on plebit.

History isn't inherently progressive, but so far it has been progressive.

>>2536270
They have a vital role in society, how did they contribute nothing?

>>2536275
Oh, if this is what you mean then fine.

As long as you don't try to pull a womiz wuz kweenz n shit.

>>2536286
That wasn't me, but it is what I meant.
Denying women's involvement in society is usually great man bullshit.

>>2536286
Literally only women can be queens.

>>2536209
>>is a marxist

I dunno bruv, depends on what you mean by this. If you mean "Marxist" as in someone who subscribes to the notion of praxis and that communism is part of an inevitable and idealized social process, fine.

But Marxism can be a pretty useful lense for analyzing history if you separate it from the ideological wing. You don't have to think of it as right or wrong, just one explanation amongst many in the dialectic. Marxism as a system for understanding historical materialism can be quite useful if you don't become an demogogue with it.

File: image.jpg (20KB, 313x470px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 313x470px

>>2536290
>>2536293
>m'lady

>>2536298
Historical materialism I like, though I don't agree with it. I mainly don't like the deterministic aspects.
>>2536303
Not an argument.

>>2536293
check your privilege you absolute shitlord

>>2536306
>Historical materialism I like, though I don't agree with it. I mainly don't like the deterministic aspects.

That's fine! And probably sound thinking, to boot. I don't really agree with the concept of enshrining these theories as absolute truths that can explain everything, they're simply methods of understanding. And sometimes, you're going to justifiably find these methodologies to be inadequate or even wholly false in their diagnosis.

File: 1337756267557s.jpg (8KB, 192x245px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 192x245px

>>2536209
>>buys into conspiracy theories about agendas leaking into academia

>the conspiracy theory buzzword conspiracy

>>2536209
>isn't formally educated in history

So you want to talk only to archivists and burger flippers?

>>2536209
>Subjective lists.

>>2536286
By definition, all queens were Women.

So your meme is pretty stupid.

>>2536209
>is a historical determinist
>is a marxist
>is a nationalist
>is a historical determinist
>is a marxist
>is a nationalist
>talks about how history comes in 'cycles'
>posts that 'hard men, hard times, weak men, good times' meme
>cares about the 'importance' of understanding history rather than just enjoying it for what it is
>main interest is the crusades
>main interest is WWII
>main interest is Nazi Germany

nothing wrong with these

>>2538764
>>cares about the 'importance' of understanding history rather than just enjoying it for what it is
>>main interest is the crusades
These are the only ones sparable in my opinion. Though the rest you cited are genuine shit historian redflags.

File: 2yuf311.gif (3MB, 400x228px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 400x228px

>>2538764

And of course the big one

>& Humanities

How big of a role did women play in history? Certainly a lot less of them ended up in books than males.

>>2536306

When you see "deterministic" are you saying something along the lines "economy > ideology"?

>>2540561

As big as peasants and slaves. Just because you don't know their names doesn't mean they are useless or don't have interesting backgrounds, you know? Politics and war are rich and powerful men business, which for obvious reasons are more easily recorded and known about because, well, it's written. You only know about poor and uneducated when you're looking into judiciary records, like the Inquisition's.

>>2536209
Basically unless you accept liberal progressive theories as understood in contemporary america, you're a bad historian.

>>2536209
>>is a nationalist
Nothing wrong with that.

>>2540561
Renaissance Italy is good if you want to see plenty of female powerhouses

>>2536209
t. Francis Cuckuyama

>>2536209
>is an Anglo
That's the biggest red flag.

File: 1486099750425.jpg (19KB, 480x362px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 480x362px

>>2536209
>>is a nationalist

>>2540787
>>2540846
OP here
Nationalists often like to colour their historical views with nationalism. I've seen people apply modern nationalist ideals to the Medieval period, or sometimes even earlier, which is absurd.

>>2542329
That falls into the whole
>applies anachronistic ideas to the past
though.

>>2536209
>says that women contributed little throughout history

well they did contribute very little throughout history compared to men

>>2536209
A lot of people who are formally educated in history apply racial theories to the past (and a good bit are Marxists).

>>2540846
He said red flag, not "guaranteed fuckass."

>>2536256
On this note: he doesn't seriously consider the possibility that his position is wrong.

>>2540714

Woman are literally more genetically homogenized than men because natural selection doesn't pressure them to do anything beyond drop babies.

>>2542397
>There are a lot of marxists with delusional fantasies in higher education

Gee, who would've thunk!

>appealing to authority without even citing authorities

>browses /his/ isn't the biggest red flag

DROPPED

>>2538801
>main interest is the crusades
If someone is genuinely interested in the Crusades, that's alright, as it's really a very broad part of history covering a long time period and many parts of Europe and the Near East.
The problem is that 99% of crusade "discussion" these days is by underage /pol/ kiddies who go around yelling "Deus vult kill the shitskins praise kek!!!! xd" who couldn't tell you anything about the crusades beyond a surface level, and likely don't even know that there were more than 4 crusades, and that crusading went far beyond just the Levant.

>>2536209
>main interest is the crusades
This one 2bh. Most of them are embarrassing Catholic LARPers. I guess when your interest is mostly in such a specific conflict and time period your worldview is bound to be set in those terms.

>>2542686
>>2543095
>>2536209
We get it OP. You're butthurt people have views which go out of your perceived realm of acceptability.

>>2543108
Terrible detective work, Deus Vultard.

>>2536209
>Is OP

>>2542680
I wasn't trying to argue in favor of Marxism. I was just trying to point out that OP was asking for a lot.

>>2536209
So you reject cyclical theory, marxist determinism and great man theory, are you some whiggian retard?

>thinks communism killed 94/100/150/200 million/billion people

>>2540720
>>2543108
>Having this much of a victim complex

File: nefas.png (347KB, 413x590px) Image search: [Google]

347KB, 413x590px

ITT: Historical red flags
>things that i dont like

>>2536209
Sorry OP but I fall into a few of these as my master's is in European history

Looking at history and literature through the lens of Marxism isn't bad. Cultural Marxism probably isn't good, but there's nothing wrong with Marxist theory

>>2536209
>isn't formally educated in history
So he has a real job?
>talks about how history comes in 'cycles'
seeing certain patterns in the way a species behaves over time is a legitimate point of view
>>posts that 'hard men, hard times, weak men, good times' meme
That's actually true if not seen as an exclusive paradigm but rather a factor
>buys into conspiracy theories about agendas leaking into academia
"professional" history student confirmed, I want fries with my cheeseburger m8
Rest of what you wrote is correct.

>>2536209
>>cares about the 'importance' of understanding history rather than just enjoying it for what it is
this is the only one that applies to me, although I will admit that I have an extremely Eurocentric point of view but I don't really see that as a problem

File: nottodaymoloch.png (775KB, 694x500px) Image search: [Google]

775KB, 694x500px

>>2536235
>he thinks history is objective
>he doesn't understand or appreciate the fact that all historical accounts are a subjective interpretation of whatever they're written about, sort of like how a painting is a subjective interpretation of whatever they're a painting of
>he is clueless to the fact that historical accounts can tell us a lot about the time and the person from which it is written due to this subjectivity
>he probably thinks when he writes history, he is being objective, and when people disagree they're "wrong"
Wake up man. Reality itself is subjective, because it is a hologram projected onto our senses for our benefit.

>>2536209
>>buys fully into collectivist theories
Such as?

>>2545899
>That's actually true if not seen as an exclusive paradigm but rather a factor
Uh huh. If you're trying to say that hard=good and weak=bad enlighten me as to how post WWI Germany led to strong/good men.

>>2546030
He's an idiot that judges everything in history on how badly it fails when compared to his perspective, which is probably classical liberal or full libertarian.

That's probably what he means by collectivist theories, as in any that it is not his.

>>2546067
DESU senpai it's very, very hard to study history and not walk away with a classical liberal perspective

>>2536209
What's wrong with being interested in ww2 or crusades?

>>2546134
It's not specifically just being interested in those subjects that's the problem but the type of person usually into them. Y'know the "D-deus vult, the fall of Constantinople was the WORST thing to befall humanity EVER!!! DA WEST IS BEING INVADED BY MUDSLIMES AGAIN!!!"
"WHAT COULDA HITLER DONE TO WIN?!?!?! FREAKING COMMIES JUST MASS ASSAULTED THE GERMANS!! WERTAMENCH WAS THE BEST EVER!!

>>2546031
You seem to misunderstand the concept.
Hard times lead to strong men - so the generations (not only in Germany) that went trough ww1 and ww2 were hardy and experienced horrible war. They build a better world, more prosperous and peaceful. This new world had bread weak winy unresolute men that are less capable to defend the world they inherited.

>>2546128
it's almost like a lot of history was written by enlightenment or enlightenment influenced classical liberals! So weird...

>>2546454
youre right the marxists would have erased mentions of failed socialist societies from the dawn of civilization to the present

to this very day they push narratives such as
>Lenin was good and would have made the USSR prosperous, it was Stalin who was bad and ruined communism for the world!

>>2536209
>Post naked chicks for your attention
>Is elitist fuck

OP here.
>>2545899
>So he has a real job?
I love wageslaves who boast about wasting their life.
>seeing certain patterns in the way a species behaves over time is a legitimate point of view
Saying 'muh cycles' is extremely reductionist, and is kind of determinist. It doesn't take into account numerous complicated factors.
>That's actually true if not seen as an exclusive paradigm but rather a factor
It's garbage.
>"professional" history student confirmed, I want fries with my cheeseburger m8
I'm a NEET who hasn't been to university
>>2546806
I like the art, nudity doesn't really turn me on
so sorry if it seem clickbaity

>>2547074
>I'm a NEET who hasn't been to university

So that's why you're such an idiot and can't see the nuances and complexities of the discipline of history

Not saying that anyone is better by attending the university or can't learn about history without formally studying it, but the probabiliy that you'll get some shit wrong is pretty high and you certainly fall into the demographic that's affected by that factor

Tl;dr shit's way more complicated/complex/nuanced than it seems m8

>>2547378
I'm seeing a distinct lack of arguments here.

>>2547378
It might depend where you live, but history can often times be skewed up and put into ways to make the impressionable demographic of a society conform to a certain point of view which helps push a narrative. Teaching yourself is often times better, especially nowadays.

>>2536293
Explain drag queens then, idiot.

>>2536209
>obsessed with inventions
you mean the invention of writing, engraving, pottery and other ways of preserve ideas/events so we may know of them centuries after they happened?

>>2547378
>says OP isn't nuanced
>subscribes to cyclical history and the "hard times good men" bullshit

I have a BA in philosophy of science and history of technology,* is that adequate training to be considered a 'historian'?

*and did grad work in a completely unrelated field, lol

>>2551339
> & hist of tech

Damn well almost fell of my chair.

>>2546021
>>2536209
These two things are in direct conflict with each other.
Also I think it's kind of stupid that you'd discount any historian as a non-historian simply because they studied World War Two as the center of their thesis paper or rather some aspect of World War Two.
It seems as though you've got some major cognitive dissonance going on here. Like the rest of this retarded board.

>>2551339
>history of technology
>adequate training to be considered a 'historian
no

File: image.jpg (43KB, 480x480px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 480x480px

>>2536209
>women contributed little throughout history
But that's true. Sure they raised and gave birth to everyone, but they didn't do dick in terms of actually affecting history. There are no female Gaius, Temujins, or Alexanders. Yes, those people were all made possible because a woman conceived them, but men have a 50% role in reproduction as well, so that is a stupid argument to make.
It's like saying that the water you use to boil pasta has a huge impact on the meal you prepare. Sure, the meal isn't possible if the water just didn't exist, but which water you use doesn't change jack shit. Women facilitate history, they do not impact it in nearly the same way men do.
Think of the examples that get paraded around. Cleopatra (seductress of nobility, gave world-class blowjobs to the most powerful Roman she could find to leech their power), Joan of Arcadia (religious symbol that was carried around with an army, glorified standard), any English monarch (figureheads of state from post-magna carta Enlgand, cultural icons at the very most) Marie Curie (gifted scientist who worked with her husband to advance radiology, won a Nobel prize along with her husband, then spent eternity being shouted about and exaggerated by gender studies majors as the one good example of women in science)
Maybe an argument could be made about late 19th century and onward politicians, but the idea that women could impact history in the ancient world is ridiculous. You couldn't be a politician back then without participating in the military, and women have never been the first choice in military service. Always last-resort resistance fighters, if anything.
Mulan isn't a documentary, by the way.

>>2542433
Guaranteed fuckass is now my favourite combination of words.

>>2551757
women has always to some degree represented about 50% of world population. The fact that they for the most part didn't have influence on political history, doesn't exclude women from being a part of history. The problem for the main part is that you're trying to base about 50% of the world population disregarding social/economical standing to have all the same interests and wants.

>>2551863
Yeah, that was my point. The woman's role throughout history was to look after the home and raise the kids, while the man was out changing the world, fighting, inventing, philosophizing, and conquering. I know that they were half the population, they just happened to be the half that breastfed Alexander while Philip II was out preparing his Kingdom for him.
The necessity for women to be baby factories for 9 months out of a year during their fertile years, and always within earshot of their children just kinda crippled their ability to go change shit and make it into the books. Also the whole military thing.

>>2551943
Women could make have influence is their use as a political tool. In medieval times for example a widowed wife could wield extensive influence by her her inheritance, and the women managing the salons in revolutionary France could also change the political process to some degree. While it's true that they were tied to a great degree as babymakers, that doesn't exclude them from being able to influence the institutional political system, even if they could never be a part of it.

File: ladda ned.jpg (11KB, 284x177px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 284x177px

>posts that 'hard men, hard times, weak men, good times' meme

It is true though

>>2536209
>doesn't lift iron
>can't dl or squat atleast 3 pl8
>is currently in some liberal arts indoctrination concentration camp
>has colored hair
>or piercings
>or tattoos
>has never done any physical labor work in his life
>can't drive
>thinks everything is dependent on environment instead of genetics

>says that women contributed little throughout history

That's true though and you know it.

>>2552250
It literally isn't. It takes no account into the length of time of hard times or good times. It's backtracking for a pattern.

File: bong.jpg (34KB, 373x280px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 373x280px

>>2552340
>it doesn't work unless it slides with my subjective opinions

>>2552358
How would you even define what makes a man a hard man, because by in your eyes there most be an empirical measurement in which we all can agree.

>>2538371
B-but there were also female kings!

>believes that ideas are accurate representations of reality in anyway
>believes in a discrete 'reality'
>believes that beliefs matter
>thinks mattering is more important than not mattering
>thinking about anything at all

>>2552340
>It takes no account into the length of time of hard times or good times.
Why would that matter?
Just because it can take decades for a house built in a floodzone to be washed away doesn't mean building a house in a floodzone is safe,

>>2552369
Possessing discipline, intelligence, physical strength, and moral virtue.

>>2552369
Oh and by the way it's not "hard men", it's strong men.

>>2536290
>Denying women's involvement in society is usually great man bullshit.
You have to be a retard to think that's what "great man" history means.

This is literally the gayest thread i've seen on this shit board.