History channels.

[athanaric]

To be honest, I have never run across anyone with their comments disabled. I have seen disabled comments, but no one dedicated to any particular content.

Well, one example I can remember was about misconceptions about "slavery" (no regional or temporal qualifiers added), which focused entirely on CSA slavery as if the word itself were not a general concept applicable to the entire world (BTW, rule of thumb on how to spot a retard: he writes "slavery" with a capital "S"). That was some movie critic IIRC, so perhaps no surprise there.

One guy that deals with sensitive topics is Masaman. He is more of an Cultural Anthropologist than Historian. I do not know if he is a "professional" or not. I do know he received positive feedback from whatever ethnic/ cultural group he covers. He did pretty good job on the people of southern Louisiana (Creoles and Cajuns).

Yeah he seems level-headed and just genuinely fascinated with the subject matter without major partisan bias. That always helps.

@Abdul, I don't watch "World War Two" because it isn't as good as The Great War. Aside from that I don't believe in General Plan Ost.

I think both wars have been done to death. While I'm glad that as long as there's a major public interest in the topic, there are also some serious historians involved in researching it and busting myths and misconceptions, I do wish those guys would be able to focus on more interesting topics instead.

@athanaric, It was intended to be a back handed compliment. Lindybeige comments on a lot of stuff... too much I would say. His expertise is in having opinions but not providing any answers. A lot of the time I am scratching my head at some of the obviously opinionated things he says, or when he gets something wrong.

Well that's easy, Lindybeige's rationale is always "British stuff is the best".

[Lord Oda Nobunaga]

It does seem that the quality of their channel seriously declined from what it was during The Great War. Their research seems really basic for the most part.

[PikeStance]

Well that's easy, Lindybeige's rationale is always "British stuff is the best".

This guy cracks me up.

It does seem that the quality of their channel seriously declined from what it was during The Great War. Their research seems really basic for the most part.

I am actually enjoying the approach of doing a week by week of the war. You are not going to get an in-depth look at any specific battle. A suggested channel above did a really nice job on Operation Market Garden. However, what it lacks in details it makes for providing a perspective on multiple worldwide events as far as time, place and space. If they were to give too much detail, then the videos would be very long.

[Lord Oda Nobunaga]

I was just watching some videos which feature Spartacus Olsson. Calling his presentation style eccentric sounds like the easiest way to put it... does he have autism?

[Roma_Victrix]

Quoted for truth and plus rep !!!
For example, a Chinese scholar's account of the Roman Empire:



And, by contrast, a Roman aristocrat's account of the Chinese Empire:



(Note the difference in tone.)

An absolutely lovely history channel providing excellent readings of primary sources in English translations. Not at all averse, by the way, to the prosaic and the mundane which, after all, is the vast majority of history:



Well worth consideration.

I really do love this channel, largely because narrating a bunch of primary sources means there's basically no room for inserting any modern biases, aside from presenting the viewer with a stream of suggestive pictures and video clips to emphasize what these ancient authors are saying. Apparently the channel is run by the brother of that Pete Kelly guy on Youtube who runs another channel: HistoryTime.

[PikeStance]

I was just watching some videos which feature Spartacus Olsson. Calling his presentation style eccentric sounds like the easiest way to put it... does he have autism?

Somber

It seems very appropriate.

[Vladyvid]

To be honest, I have never run across anyone with their comments disabled. I have seen disabled comments, but no one dedicated to any particular content.

One guy that deals with sensitive topics is Masaman. He is more of an Cultural Anthropologist than Historian. I do not know if he is a "professional" or not. I do know he received positive feedback from whatever ethnic/ cultural group he covers. He did pretty good job on the people of southern Louisiana (Creoles and Cajuns).

Masaman produces videos about different ethnic groups, or generally on human ethnic variety. Is that sensitive? I guess depends. Never seen him doing anything else than a dispassionate analysis. From what i know he is primarily interested in the subject of ethnicity because of his multi ethnic background and experiences that come with it.

Dont know if these YT channels were mentioned, but i would give some examples i can remember now:

The Armchain Historian,
Invicta,
Kings and Generals,
Ten Minute History,
History Matters.

[saxdude]

I really do love this channel, largely because narrating a bunch of primary sources means there's basically no room for inserting any modern biases

Reading excerpts out of context presents it's own issues I find, as ancient biases and misinformation are also presented in a matter of fact way. While they present their own value I hesitate to say that isn't a problem equal in scope.

Also, it'd be worth qualifying what partisansanship or moral bias actually means in the context of some of the commentors criticisms, I hesitate to think why certain subjects can or should only be treated in an "objective way", as if such a thing were possible.

[athanaric]

Reading excerpts out of context presents it's own issues I find, as ancient biases and misinformation are also presented in a matter of fact way. While they present their own value I hesitate to say that isn't a problem equal in scope.

Good point, especially as many people take primary sources at face value.

Also, it'd be worth qualifying what partisansanship or moral bias actually means in the context of some of the commentors criticisms, I hesitate to think why certain subjects can or should only be treated in an "objective way", as if such a thing were possible.

Well, IMO it makes a huge difference whether the content creator in question is genuinely fascinated by the topic (as Masaman seems to be), or whether he's politically motivated and/or trying to prove a moral point.
Attitude is also a factor (some people are just really smug, especially those who have no reason for that). The reason why I'm not so keen on non-historians (or students of history in their first semesters) presenting these topics is that they're usually not aware of the many pitfalls.

[PikeStance]

Masaman produces videos about different ethnic groups, or generally on human ethnic variety. Is that sensitive? I guess depends. Never seen him doing anything else than a dispassionate analysis. From what i know he is primarily interested in the subject of ethnicity because of his multi ethnic background and experiences that come with it.

I would like to think you are not kidding, but i can tell you are not. I am guessing you haven't read the comment section of some of these types of videos.

Dont know if these YT channels were mentioned, but i would give some examples i can remember now:

The Armchair Historian,
Invicta,
Kings and Generals,
Ten Minute History,
History Matters.

These are mostly entertaining channels. Kings and Generals disappointed me when they did the Battle of New Orleans. The treatment was less detail than if you went to the battle site yourself. Others have complained about their lack of details and sometime incorrect information. BazBattles is by far a better channel. Though way less prolific in production of videos.

Anyway, I subscribed the the "fun" less detail oriented one because I teach history, and these short little videos are a great way to enliven the class.

[skh1]

The History Guy: a channel with no particular focus that wanders over a vast range of topics.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

If I may bend the rules of the thread somewhat; not a history channel but a historian:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

[saxdude]

Good point, especially as many people take primary sources at face value.


Well, IMO it makes a huge difference whether the content creator in question is genuinely fascinated by the topic (as Masaman seems to be), or whether he's politically motivated and/or trying to prove a moral point.
Attitude is also a factor (some people are just really smug, especially those who have no reason for that). The reason why I'm not so keen on non-historians (or students of history in their first semesters) presenting these topics is that they're usually not aware of the many pitfalls.

Fair enough, though it might also be a valid criticism to check one's own biases and be at least partially aware at how they're making you percieve those of the content creator. But at face value, yeah I agree.

Sounds like we need some dedicated Meso-american historians learn how to edit videos.

Indeed, anyone with time to edit? :'(

[Basileos Leandros I]

It does seem that the quality of their channel seriously declined from what it was during The Great War. Their research seems really basic for the most part.

The size, scale and scope of WW2 greatly encompasses that of World War I. Doing an in-depth take on every major event would require a colossal amount of work and resources.

And in fact, they do go in-depth, because they have a lot of other videos they call "specials" (special episodes), some of which were filmed on site (Maginot line) and some which focus on other topics such as War Against Humanity.

I love the channel, for what they intend to do, they do a great job now. Yes, in the beginning it was a bit shaky, that's why they even redid the first 8 episodes, but it's great great work now.

[saxdude]

Stephan Milo does videos on general anthropology and history, he does pretty good work for the general public (nothing too indepth, but the trade off is that his videos are pretty approachable.) while being in that nebulous area of having been or having taken archaeology/anthropology classes some non-specific time ago like Matt Easton, from Schola Gladitoria. I encourage you guys to check him out.

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCZ9...J-Nmaj8dSQdEYA

[Sir Adrian]

The size, scale and scope of WW2 greatly encompasses that of World War I. Doing an in-depth take on every major event would require a colossal amount of work and resources.

And in fact, they do go in-depth, because they have a lot of other videos they call "specials" (special episodes), some of which were filmed on site (Maginot line) and some which focus on other topics such as War Against Humanity.

I love the channel, for what they intend to do, they do a great job now. Yes, in the beginning it was a bit shaky, that's why they even redid the first 8 episodes, but it's great great work now.

While it's true that the war is bigger and their resources are limited they also seem to be using a smaller set of material for their videos. The Great War was based on multiple authors and perspectives and Indy often compared the various sources, now it's mainly just Martin Gilbert and a few other sources for stuff Martin Gilbert does not cover.

The Great War just had better production value imho.

[Cookiegod]

It does seem that the quality of their channel seriously declined from what it was during The Great War. Their research seems really basic for the most part.

not just basic but all too frequently plainly wrong. Their research is out of date and they ultimately rely on people such as Halder, who simply lied.

[Lord Oda Nobunaga]

not just basic but all too frequently plainly wrong. Their research is out of date and they ultimately rely on people such as Halder, who simply lied.

This is what I was referring to. This is hearsay but supposedly their main source is one book that covers the entire war. By far the worst way to approach WW2.

[Cookiegod]

yeah I wasn't going to say this directly, since I stopped quickly after a few vids to watch it, but I remember vaguely getting the impression that they only read one book, as they seemed to quote the same historian all the time.

[Sir Adrian]

This is what I was referring to. This is hearsay but supposedly their main source is one book that covers the entire war. By far the worst way to approach WW2.

It's not hearsay their main and in 90% of the cases only source is Martin Gilbert WWII A Complete History.

[Lord Oda Nobunaga]

It's not hearsay their main and in 90% of the cases only source is Martin Gilbert WWII A Complete History.

A friend of mine told me this but he didn't tell me what book it was.
Anyway using one book as a main source is a terrible idea. The sources are not really conducive to doing WW2 week by week. This works okay with static warfare like in WW1 but not so much with mobile warfare where a few localities don't really matter. I am not even going to say that it is admirable of them for attempting it. What good is this information if most of the time it is wrong or not in a proper context? Their research is also very average because all they do is use a bunch of outdated books, repeat already debunked myths, and use source material that is so bad most people should not be reading it. They have no primary source analysis either and rely on other people's work. But they don't even have the self awareness that they are doing it.

Have they tried to use Rauschning or Shirer as sources? Shirer is by far the worst because he still has credibility. But some of Shirer's claims I can only conclude that he invented a lot of it because I have no idea where he gets some of this stuff. It is pretty absurd but Shirer is still the go to writer for a lot of people.