Reacting to your American history hot takes
Вставка
- Опубліковано 4 жов 2024
- I asked on social media for your American history hot takes and now I'm gonna react to them live. So come join in the fun while we just how depraved your views of American history are. I will be giving away T-shirts to the first few of you who can correct me on something in the chat.
―――――――――
SUBSCRIBE FOR MORE VIDEOS: www.youtube.com...
Support the channel through PATREON: / cynicalhistorian
or by purchasing MERCH: cynical-histor...
LET'S CONNECT
Twitch: / cynicalhistorian
Facebook: / cynicalcypher88
Discord: / discord
Twitter: / cynical_history
Bluesky: bsky.app/profi...
Threads: www.threads.ne...
I have a hot take: the U.S. has never been an isolationist nation. We've always been involved in foreign affairs, whether those affairs have been wars of conquest against Native American tribes, imperialism in the Pacific, wars against Mexico, invasions into Mexico, or our business dealings in Central America and South America. A better way to describe the United States might be "disinterested in Old World Affairs," so long as we caveat "Old World" as Europe, because the U.S. has butted into Asian affairs quite frequently (The Boxer Rebellion, the Great White Fleet, the Philippines) and African affairs (the formation of Liberia). It wasn't until after World War II that we stepped into the role that Britian had occupied and discovered a newfound interest in European affairs.
So, in short, was the Trump administration lying about it? ;/
@@Archon3960 To say that administration had a poor understanding of history would be a magnificent understatement of nigh British proportions, but yes. They had a profoundly poor grasp of history.
@@TheWipeout32 That was the most amazing retort you could have written. Congrats. :)
The fact that Ike participated in the formation of the military industrial complex is why he wanted it controlled. The war was an extraordinary circumstance where America needed to sacrifice control for maximum output. But he planned on putting on the brakes after victory. He couldn't have anticipated the atomic arms race, the Iron Curtain and other reasons for maintaining the massive military infrastructure. He assumed there'd be a period of peace. Instead there was Korea, Vietnam, nuclear proliferation, the space race.
Also, we did largely slow down military spending in the 90s-10s, and now we are trying to find supply chains for things like artillery shells to send to ukrane
@@bradenkerr5784 the biggest problem is we let the military serving industry absolutely scam and rob the armed services and the American tax payer.
He did not anticipate how paranoid the US would become and how far it would be willing to go to undermine its own security and ideologies in order to uphold them.
@@subcitizen2012 Something tells me you'd say Ukraine is being paranoid of Russia too.
Especially Korea.
I haven’t even started watching the video, and you’ve already got me laughing at the premise! This is gonna be GOOD!
To be fair to the guy that said that the US was more technologically advanced than Germany. I agree. Germany was heavily investing in "science" but because they had to throw out the foundations of physics because they were "jewish science" meant they were never going to actually accomplish anything.
I would call Haiti a pretty solid example of a state that founded on an idea
That was a very fun stream, would love to see more!
Someone really thinks that the Soviets could have "had" Afghanistan if the US had "allowed" it. Also, the Mudjahedin actually did not cause any problems for the US at all.
What's up professor Patton! Love ur videos man they make me crack up.
The bonus army is also what made me completely lose respect for Douglas MacArthur, which , as a veteran, was not easy.
The claim that the USA is the only country founded based on an idea is definitly false.
Germany was too. Others probably, too. But in the case of Germany I know it for sure. Our national anthem was originally written as a song expressing this idea in the days, when what is known as Germany today were several seperate regions ruled by different nobels.
Germany wasn't "founded on an idea" nor were these other countries. These countries already existed before a political system was established and they would continue with another system. Ans yes, Germany was a country before 1870.
The German national anthem was written over 80 years before it was adopted as such and then it was not expressive of any political ideas beyond "Germany is great. These are the borders."
@@str.77 You're both wrong.
The notion that the meaning was "Germany is geat. These are its borders" is a completely ludicrous notion when there is no such thing as a "Germany" with defined borders. And no, Germany as such wasn't "a country" before 1870, because even the HRE had ceased to exist, and the Deutsche Bund wasn't a country but a supranational association of 39 sovereign states - which didn't even match the "borders" cited in the song.
The text was the expression of the wish for, above all other things, a united Germany at a point where no such thing existed. The "borders" were part of the expression of the wish for the people within this geographic area to unite. Written against the backdrop of the Rhine crisis, it was an expression of the notion that in order to survive, Germany had to unite.
But it wasn't alone in that notion, nor did it create that notion. The notion had arisen against the backdrop of Napoleonic occupation. The Rhine crisis merely reinvigorated it. And the song, at first, was only one of many advocating a coherent German nation.
@@ohauss You are confusing state and country. Germany wasn't a unified state before 1870 but it was a country. Other Hofmann couldn't have written that song or it wouldn't have resonated.
I have an entire episode about the various meanings of Germany, none of which I would call "an idea": ua-cam.com/video/FU00Ial96IM/v-deo.html
The US might be the only one now, but the USSRR was also built on an idea.
Seeing this made me so hype imma get through work
LOL ! Drinking beer during the live stream . This should be interesting !
You're from ABQ? No way! I used to live there. Big love to you and your channel from the UK!
From an economic standpoint the Military Industrial Complex ensures that procurement remains relatively more affordable that it would be otherwise. It costs a lot of money to buy things in smaller batches, or to re-tool manufacturing lines, and retrain workers to build equipment when it is needed. You lose institutional knowledge both by the workers on those lines, repair crews, and management as time goes by.
King Richard is sooo cute ~
The comment about Lee not being a good general is correct. As the general put in command of the CSA war effort overall, he totally failed. Also, should we call him a general? He never earned the rank of general in any military from a "real" country. And, I know, it's April, we aren't suppose to mock the neo-confederates for the month but somebody has to point this out. We have all read the letters, we all know about this. But of course, as well documented, Robert E Lee totally had a "special" relationship with Traveler.
One might even say, (though it may be too on the nose and uncouth to some) that Traveler was his favorite...mount.
Wait what...
What's a real country? And do you think the rank of general is earned?
@@str.77 Well, if a region of a country breaks away and tries to start a new country, starts a war against the country they broke away from, calls the other side the aggressor, and loses/stops existing. It wasn't much of a country. C. Robert E Lee would have been better off going on a four year romantic vacation with Traveler.
@@lukelee7967 What would have been better for Lee is beside the issue (and so are your seedy fantasies). A country is not a country because it succeeds. One could even say that the individual states were countries of their own. As long as the CSA existed it was just as "real" as the USA, then or now.
I think I have a much more positive view of FDR than you do. Sure, he did some bad things, such as the neutrality policy during the Spanish Civil War and the Japanese internment, but overall he was pretty much the best US president ever. If we had a president who was more sympathetic to fascism the Nazis might have won, and a lot of Republicans were sympathetic to fascism.
FDR was literally a fascist president
Starts at 0:50
No, I did not hear "Hail Columbia" ever in my life. It's fine, not a banger but pride inducing.
Hot Take, Hail Columbia for the American Anthem.
3:35:06 1832 First Sumatran expedition
Sorry, gotta disagree. Chancellorsville was a tactical masterpiece with zero strategic value.
@Cypher just an FYI. There are massive differences between prime-ministerial systems and presidential systems of governance. I am most familiar with the U.K./Canadian and German Systems so will be using those as examples. It sounds like you are aware in a prime-ministerial system the voters elect a party and whichever party wins a majority in the legislature the leader of said party becomes Prime Minister. However, if no party wins an outright majority the largest party must form a coalition with smaller parties that are ideologically aligned, this encourages the development of multiple parties and allows for parties like the Green Party and the socialist party to not only win elections but also hold significant political power in government. Understand prime-ministerial systems can have presidents as well both Germany and Israel have presidents however they are not politically significant. Another major difference in prime-ministerial systems is generally speaking the upper house is incapable of rewriting legislation only blocking legislation from passing or returning to the lower house. Now every system has its own idiosyncracies but I hope you now understand the superiority of the parliamentary model.
So, I know this was a long video, but I think some of these deserved a little more consideration.
Like, Jefferson was a founding father and is an important and overall positive (I said overall. He was a human being and did bad things that should be mentioned as a qualifier on all his accomplishments…but you still mention the accomplishments)
But he was not a good president, or maybe, to phrase it more neutrally, his actions as president were not consistent with what he advocated for and criticized other leaders for. Basically, Jefferson would not have approved of Thomas Jefferson as president.
To put a summary on what I mean, the Louisiana Purchase was only debatably constitutional
The argument that it was rests on the presidents role in treat negotiations, but it isn’t clear that the US has a right to conquer territory at all…my read of the constitution is that the US shouldn’t be able to conquer territory at all, and any expansion would be through settling of unowned lands or by people electing to join the US, so by that reasoning, Jefferson’s actions were unconstitutional, but I wouldn’t outright deny the validity of other thoughts
Either way, for someone who made his entire career throwing stones at people in power failing to live up to his standard of natural rights, it is at least hypocritical that he would just drop his principles because he wanted more land for his yeoman farmer dreams…
If the colonies had stayed a part of England during the war with France, if England was making considerable profit from the output of slavery work it would more likely delay the outlawing of slavery, at least for the same reasons some of the founders conceded in leaving it intact.
If not, then England outlawing it would become the reason for revolution, and and then you could forget about Emancipation happening when it did.
I’m already dreading the Knights of the Golden Circle in this timeline.
In my opinion, Redding is the only city in California that should have a professional hockey team. Let it represent the whole state if it has to; if anywhere is going to have a professional hockey team it ought to be someplace where it snows in the winter and Redding is probably the closest city of substantial size in California to that.
I know that that would mean a number of states would lose professional hockey teams. I’m from Georgia; I say fine by me. Certainly Florida shouldn’t have any. If Texas wants a hockey team, let it be in Amarillo, maybe also Lubbock or Dallas.
OK you have triggered my Socialist Drinking Game. Every time US socialism is referenced in media I take a drink.
I mean, it's not fault. Multiple takes focused on that, not me
@@CynicalHistorian The game helps me track public interest/ backlash. Started with Bernies 1st Presidential bid. I don't have numbers but I know this topic is a lot bigger now. The last Presidential debate I got hammered. Swear I heard Trump say that children are brought by Coyote and badly behaved people. Which makes a lot of sense!
We adopted war communism as a peacetime means towards economy and security against our own bourgeois paranoias. Most of the national debt we're always itching about, that arguably does weigh considerably on the neck of our prosperity, came from yesteryear's military spending. Also, subsidizing PTSD and the substance addictions that resulted in our population has had a notable social effect, especially over time. Imagine if we were as intent towards peace and prosperity as much as war and deprivating our real and perceived enemies. In hindsight, we could've won all the wars with soft power and cooperation, but that's harder to do than drop bombs and maintain materiel. Also, unfortunately, history's fog of war only revealed those possibilities after the fact. Much like today, war seems and feels necessary (aiding Ukraine for example is probably the easiest obvious foreign and security policy choice we've made in decades and decades, but it arguably resulted from 2 decades of fumbling potential policy and economic cooperation with Russia... we continue paying for our mistakes).
*Dang it* !! So,I guess your not gonna comment on my non streamed You Tube comment.
5-0-5!!
52nd.
Are you still interested in corrections?
Phoenix and its suburbs do not get municipal water from the Colorado River, with the exception of one very dumb municipality (Scottsdale). Phoenix's municipal water comes from the Verde River and the Salt River. The Colorado River water that gets diverted to the Phoenix area is for agriculture, and it's not agriculture to sustain the population--it's mostly agriculture for export.
The water consumption in the Phoenix metro area has been decreasing, even as the population has dramatically increased. That reduction is not water-per-capita, it is total water consumption going down as the population goes up.
As much as people like to say that Phoenix should not exist, there has been permanent human settlement in the Salt River Valley since prehistory. Humans are well-adapted to living in deserts, especially with modern water reclamation. As much as you like to tout Las Vegas' water reclamation and dump all over Phoenix, Phoenix's reclamation infrastructure is among the most effective in the world.
The Colorado River water crisis has little to do with people's lawns and even less to do with how long people shower; it's just a crisis for big agriculture (and for the dummies in Scottsdale who inexplicably didn't want their city to use the ample local water sources).
Those are tributaries of the Colorado River, forming that watershed negotiated in 1922
@@CynicalHistorian Sorry, you're right. I was referring to the upstream source of the Colorado River (i.e., the Central Arizona Project). The Salt River area municipalities (except for Scottsdale and some unincorporated bozos) get water that is generated relatively nearby, and nobody in the Phoenix area thinks of it as Colorado River water, even though that legally is the case. It's still true that Arizona's consumption of Colorado River water is mostly for agriculture, which is why I objected to (what I perceived to be) an implication that the population of the Phoenix area is somehow responsible for the tremendous amount of water that Arizona consumes. There are millions of people in the Phoenix Metro Area, but if they all stopped showering, drinking, and watering their lawns (which are usually varieties of grass that consume very little water), the Colorado River crisis would continue nonetheless.
I rankle when I see internet commenters who act like the people who live in areas affected by climate change are somehow stupid for living there. Places like Arizona and Florida should be fine places to live, as people have pretty much always chose to live there, but climate change is making life harder and harder, and it is ridiculous to think that everyone could just pick up stakes and go somewhere without a drought or a rising coastline. So why are there so many snarky comments about people who are currently living in Arizona or Florida? It's just victim-blaming the people who suffer from climate change, when we should be blaming the systems and high-power groups that have perpetuated climate change. At least Arizona has enough water to continue supporting the ongoing population growth. We'll have to wait and see how long the decrease in gross municipal water consumption continues...
I should note that it might be fair to victim-blame the people of Florida--back in 2000, if Floridians had voted for Gore in greater numbers, every nation on earth would be a green, sustainable utopia, and there would be coral reefs in Lake Mead.