+Cathal O'Maoilste Nice example for the ineptitude of the authors to talk seriously about history. Their science videos may be good, but the history stuff is extremely poorly done.
I'm going to leave a question here: is Latin America part of what we call "the Western World"? I'm a Latino from Chile, and from our culture, education and political system, I can tell you that we are not much different from the countries is Southern Europe. We also speak European languages and most of people follow European religions. At school, when they teach us world history, we learn about ancient Greece and Rome, the Renaissance, French Revolution, Industrial Revolution, Colonialism, etc. Of course there’s also a focus in the history of our side of the world: the Pre-Columbian civilizations, native Americans, the Spanish/Portuguese conquest, the colonial period, our independence and so on. For sure we are not 100% Europeans, we are a heterogeneous group of "mestizos" (mixed blood) people living in a whole continent, but the foundations of our nations' social system are all European, and has been like that for a longer time than in other countries that are considered "Western", like Australia or the US. Even in countries with deep Native American culture and populations, like Bolivia or Paraguay (which are by far more the exception rather than the rule in the region), the institutions, the legal system, the main language and the political system, are all European. So why is that that many people, like you John Green in your video, don’t consider us part of the West World? Maybe because we are not considered a “successful” or “developed” region? That might be an omission, very favorable by the way, for the whole “the western system is better” thesis. Maybe because we are a little “different”? Well, even without us, “the West” is culturally very heterogeneous: you are putting together Finland, Portugal, the US, Poland, Italy, New Zealand and Iceland! I’m pretty sure that some Southern European countries like Portugal and Spain have more cultural similarities to some Latin American countries than to, let’s say, Scandinavian countries or New Zealand. Or maybe is all about “the race”? In that case, I thought that people stopped dividing the World into different races a long time ago (cof cof, Nazism!) I would like to read different opinions about this subject, thanks for reading ;)
Exactly, you have a perfect point there. Am Latino and i do consider ourselves Westerns. If ifs cuz of race then we are of European descent, vast majority Latinos. I dont understand how Australia is considered "western" when they are even more far away, if we include Geography. If its cuz of main power and military, then Australia and New Zealand arent nothing and many Europeans countries too. Maybe they consider Western those who were pro Alies during WW2 and Democracy Aliies during the Cold War, then thats isnt enough argument since we no longer in the C.W.
Juan Manuel Salamanca Totally see your point, when they were pointing the Western regions I was waiting for LATAM but got nothing, then I thought - why latam is not there? I thought we were from the West, uhmm maybe I was considering myself from the West because all my education is Western - The answer is NO. It's freaking segregation, same with "I'm from America". Dude, I'm from Ecuador, and I'm from America.
The west means something different to everyo e. I dont know of anyonehere inspain thatwould thinkof south america as the west .... perhaps because of the real or perceived political instability there. Erm, also,,, The idea of thewest, well, its geographical, if you coukd move meditereanian countries physically somewhere else, i bet noone would incljde them in the west. Thewest is like, the guarantee of certain freedoms, soending power, political stability, longlastingpolitical stability, ie spain and franco were not long ago, civil war etc, greece is or is almost a failed state, italia is about as corrupt as th eu gets at governmental level, etc ... sadly, true or not, northern europeans would oftenassociate thesecountries more with south america..... they getcalled the west because of theiR location and. Ecause theh seem to be trying to follow the nort/. Sorry. Please not, ive only talkedabout perception, ot about what is or is not true
+Juan Manuel Salamanca There are people & historians that do count most if not all Latin nations as well as Russia as part of the Western Civilization. It has it's Greek/Roman/German roots. So in the Classicist or Medievalist sense or standard yes the Western Civilization is bigger than what they named in crash course. In American Cold war rhetoric than it is what it showed in crash course. Western Civilization is a culture, not sort of a culture, it is one.
+Juan Manuel Salamanca Latin America is very westernized,, yes. Yall have a blend of native cultures as well though, so it's a mixed bag - but given my experiences in Latin America I would say it's "mostly western."
In which John Green talks about the methods of writing history by looking at some of the ways that history has been written about the rise of the West. But first he has to tell you what the West is. And then he has to explain the Rise of the West. And then he gets down to talking about the different ways that historians and other academics have explained how the West became dominant in the world. He'll look at explanations from Acemoglu and Robinson's "Why Nations Fail," Francis Fukuyama's "The Origins of Political Order," and Ian Morris's "Why the West Rules, for Now."
"Judeo-Christian thought" is highly problematic. This article covers why, as well as linking to other sources that do so as well. www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jan/13/australias-judeo-christian-heritage-doesnt-exist
Daniel Salmon The relentless pursuit of pleasing its customers and fulfilling their demands, how evil! (also maybe the heroin would help people cope with the perpetual long waits at the checkout lines)
to be honest just cause someone dose drugs does not make them stupid i tend to do drugs on occasion but i know my limits and i never take them alone also i dont do anything that involves a needle, smoking weed eating mushrooms or taking the occasional line of coke at a party is one thing but i would not be caught dead taking something that has a chance of me mixing blood with someone else
Daniel Salmon It does. You're intentionally ruining your own health. Drug addicts are complete idiots, we don't need them. And you make drug cartels happy
1 i am not ruining my health by occasionally partaking of recreational drugs 2 i am not addicted to drugs as i do not activly crave them or seek them out unless under very specific circumstances 3 i doubt the weed i buy has anything to do with drug cartels since i buy it stright from a friend who grows it and occasionally gives it to me for free when we go out to party's 4 and dont try to say that its a waste of money ether if anyone makes that argument i have a million other things i could point out that people dont need but still buy or pay for to do in there own free time since i make 80k a year 5 also agin i restate doing drugs dose not make you an idiot unless you cannot control yourself well doing so just like with alcohol, i was a straight a student all through high school and never got anything short of a b in my collage courses
Love that he recognized the importance of institutions and the role they play in the development. Douglass North would be proud! I know this channel is called crash course but I really wish John would do some longer segments, allowing him to elaborate more on the concepts he puts forth
Dear Crash Course team, Will you please do the seven years war in Europe? It's really a missing piece from the other history series, seeing as there are two videos detailing the other theaters. You really should do it justice, and I think a lot of people would learn from that. Sincerly, a Fan.
I think its very important to understand that the rise of the west is a result of ideal circumstances and not the differences between the people in different countries. That thinking leads to racism and xenophobia. There are people in rich countries who think they are successful because of their superiority to the people in poor countries. This kind of thinking becomes apparent when you hear people talking about refugees driven by poverty.
Absolutely. Everyone needs to understand that the Western nations have just been very very lucky over and over again for a long long time, purely by chance. There own talents had zero to do with it. I cannot stress enough how important it is that all are aware of this. Any day now the laws of probability will catch up to them and some other group will get lucky and they will be on top. We must all combine our efforts to make sure that everyone knows this. No one must be permitted to believe anything else.
Chad Vader Luck how? That they themselves made a system wherein being a monarch is done with divine sanction, that they themselves fought each other for their own feudal greed, and that they bettered themselves with the pressure of innovation caused by war with the adoption of gunpowder and its refining into the musket, thus allowing them to subjugate other peoples of the world for their own benefit?
Chad Vader I highly doubt that human work is as influenced by outside influences as much as you say they are. You are discrediting all those people have done to just "luck" like someone would refer to God or fate.
"The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do." - Samuel P. Huntington
I would like to note that kind of thinking only encourages and perpetuates a cycle of violence. The West has a very steady trend of moving towards multiculturalism, tolerance and an elimination of bigotry. There's no reason to be conscientious of other places in the world if our only reward is a hypothetical mob of angry foreigners ready to punish us for the crimes of our ancestors. From a pragmatic viewpoint of course. The only way out of that cycle would be collapse or forgiveness. As someone who doesn't like perpetual cycles of violence and societal collapse, I'd rather aim for forgiveness.
Quite the opposite, only by acknowledging the past can we learn from it and possibly end the cycles. For example the British told themselves that spreading their Empire was spreading the rule of law, order and civilisation. Does that sound familiar at all? Now we're spreading Freedom and democracy but only if you are sitting on a shit load of oil. So, I ask by "that kind of thinking" do you mean trying to understand history?
I am entirely for trying to bring the global standard of living up a few notches and stopping American Imperialism. However, people need incentive to do that and if history has proven anything we cannot rely entirely on our sense of right and wrong. Much of the world hates us and would do harm to us if it could in retaliation for the actions of the West. For the more pragmatic and ruthless among us, they have no incentive to try to elevate people who could do us harm in the future. I really believe that the West is capable of and naturally inclined towards acts of compassion. Reminding us about how the rest of the world sees us can only inspire guilt and fear. I think those emotions make us a more rigid and conservative people who are less likely to continue to give charity to the world. That would help no one.
Why not considered latin america Western? Their language, law, religion and among other things are Western. And I do not think because not participate in the Cold War and world wars, Countries like Switzerland or Spain did not participate in the world wars or in the cold war, yet they are Westerners. Nor is capitalism, all the Latin American countries (except Venezuela, Cuba and Nicaragua) are capitalists. And those three countries has a high influence of capitalism, are socialist form of government, but the rest is very capitalist. The western World is much older than the world wars and capitalism. It comes from ancient Greece, its values are present in Latin America. Also the independence of this country was based in the Western world in the American Revolution and the French Revolution.
Javitoux Couple of things Spain was in the Cold War a NATO and EU member and the Western nations all are on the highest ranking tier on human development only Argentina and Chile make it Latin America and while Latin America will hopefully join the west they are not yet there ind HDI GDP Corruption rates and democracy
Just taking a guess, but perhaps because the culture of the indigenous people is still present/somewhat prevalent? While the US and Canada had our natives beaten off and literally genocidally murdered, South American colonies tended to be assimilated more and erm... murdered less. The culture of Central and South America was actually shaped by the natives, while the US and Canada are a result of relocation of Europeans.
There's a very good book/TV miniseries called "Guns, Germs, and Steel" by a man named Jared Diamond. He basically removes any supposed variances in human intelligence and states that the West rose to it's position of dominance because they were located closest to the kinds of resources and environment that would allow them to develop deadly diseases like smallpox, cheaper steel, and more advanced weapons much more quickly than everyone else. Also, if you ask me the biggest reason the West has been deemed "superior" is because the metrics and criteria being used to determine success are Western. Basically, the entire world is playing a game and the West is the only group that knows the rules because the West created them.
How does he know that there aren't differences in intelligence between different groups? It sounds to me like he just assumed that, but correct me if I'm wrong. And what do you mean they "developed" deadly diseases like smallpox? I think what you meant to say is that they developed _immunity_ to diseases like smallpox.
That book also spends a large chunk of the first quarter of it explaining the domestication of animals and plants that we eat and the latitudes they survive at. Cows, pigs, sheep, goats, wheat, barley, peas, etc were mainly domesticated in the Fertile crescent and then migrated with the trade routes to Europe, where the plants would grow in similar latitude ranges. No other places in the world had as many domesticated species as the Fertile Crescent. Because of that advantage, less work was needed on getting food to eat. Thus, economics takes over and people specialized. *note corn, squashes, beans, and potatoes all came from the Americas. The "standard" Native American diet was corn beans and squashes, supplemented by game hunting. The three grown together is actually pretty sustainable and nutritious.
While Diamond gives some interesting and convincing arguments why Eurasia gained dominance over the Americas, Australia and to a lesser extend Africa south of the Sahara, he can't explain why a part of Eurasia, Europe, gained dominance over other parts. He explains it by stating that some part had to become dominant (so why not Europe), and he talks a bit about Europe being political divided most of the time while China has been unified normally, but those are much weaker arguments, IMO.
That is exactly the point. Trying to compare countries success, or how good a culture is, is always going to be biased towards their home countries. It's similar to the crap thrown about whenever I look up Islam and try to understand what the big bad IS want. To say that Islam is a bad religion because it supports harsh punishments, or that it says that one is not to speak ill of Muhammad (which Christianity has too. Thou shall not use the lords name in vain. You're a naughty boy if you use gods name in bad ways), is all metrics we use to compare them to us, in a manner that will always show use better because of what we hold as values and what's important. It is devoid of taking into account the culture people grow up in, just saying it is lesser because it is different from our own by forgetting that we aren't them. We don't have their experiences, their mind sets, their history.
I loved Guns, Germs and Steel, but there seems to be a lot of head shaking from historians, mostly because he's an ornithologist and not a historian, and a few bits of ecological imperialism that seems to come up. I loved 1491 and 1493 by Charles Mann, they tell an interesting tale, and while they don't have the same goal they are somewhat on the same subject.
João Paulo Bochi I think that's a different issue. with 'the west' being a weird vague idea about cultures, who's in and who's out is a little arbitrary.
ProfAwesomeO I read your comment again now. I know that "the West" is a culture idea, and not necessarily geographical, Australia and NZ being considered part of it. The thing is that South America was colonised by Spain and Portugal. It's full of descendants of Europeans. We are part of the Western culture.
New Zealand can be distinguished from Australia by its superior natural beauty and its government's willingness to suspend labor laws to get The Hobbit made.
@@jpbochi - I agree that South America is part of the West. It's weird that with so much of Latin American culture and the conduct of its institutions is based on European-derived principles and philosophies -- with all that, people still try to treat Latin Americans as something separate. That's weird and wrong.
Well in South America they speak Latin languages... except for Suriname & the Dutch Caribbean. In North America they speak Germanic languages... except for Mexico, Quebec, most of Central America & most of the caribbean
Well, that's not how it goes, but surely Africa is closer to being a part of the west than Latin America is to not being a part of it! (my opinion) Let's just remember that South America (which by many people, including most of those who live in it, is not considered a continent) was colonized by the Europeans BEFORE the US and Canada. It is obvious that South and North America are kind of different, though that difference you were pointing out is not the center of it, since: A) The fact that people speak languages from different branches of the same family(actually, quite close languages, that is) does not mean that they are different "civilizations": no one would consider that for the European case or for French-speaking Canada; besides B) The linguistic difference is better accounted with the idea of a Latin vs an Anglo-Saxon America, not by the division of a North and South America, which is quite arbitrary since it's all the same landmass (unless you consider the shallow man-built Panama Canal a "division") and we share such a close history etc. Now the thing is, it is pretty obvious that Latin America IS different from the US, or from France, or from Germany, or from Iceland. Put then, the obvious question to arise is: How can you include all those different places in "the West", but not Latin America? That is: What differences between Latin America and those places justify it not being a part of the West, while connecting all of those places as being a part of this same entity? And from this question alone we can already have some answers: 1- It cannot be language or language family, since some the same difference between the Latin American and Germanic exits (and comes from, originated etc) in Europe; 2- It cannot be geography, since AUSTRALIA and the USA can be considered part of the west (!); 3- It is probably not religion, since the same things that can be said about language can be said about religion, PLUS most countries are not as uniform religiously as their are linguistically, which would mean the absurd that American people form X religion are Western, but not Brazilian people of the same religion, for example; 4- For the reason state above, it is hard to make any "racial" argument, unless you do not consider everyone within the western countries, western. Just for the recap, the question is: What differences between Latin America and "the West" justify it not being a part of "the West", while connecting all of the places belonging to it as being a part of this same entity?
I have watched every single history video he has made, and he got a 2 in AP world history!? I haven't taken world history, but I got a 5 in AP US history. Probably, at least in part, because I watch his videos...
John has never hidden the fact that he was a generally poor student and that he didn't try hard in school. Also, while he has become a thoughtful, hard-working, and intelligent man, he's not a historian or a teacher. Crash Course is made by many people, including Raoul Meyer, his former teacher. They also consult with educators on what they should cover in order to be useful (at least they did in previous series).
David Quintana That's is a very unfair statement to make. John has said multiple times on other channels that he was not a dedicated student, but that his teachers didn't give up on him, giving him many opportunities that he feels he didn't really earn.
Nonamearisto I see you here on every video talking about how wrong John is (with varying levels of civility). If you disagree with him so vehemently, why are you here?
var1ables Yup, this is why I did so badly in high school (well not bad 3.6 GPA, but you know could have been much better if I weren't getting B's instead of A's for refusing to regurgitate information), but I am doing so well in college. Completely different learning technique. The American high school system prepares children to learn how to take orders and work in a factory setting while American college teaches people to *think* for themselves and evaluate information
I'm surprised you didn't include education. Technical skill and scientific knowledge is clearly what made the west dominant. No matter how good your political institutions are, you can't build a power grid if you don't know what electricity is. Or build a tank with an internal combustion engine without any knowledge of thermodynamics. Most of the west was less politically stable than places like China for essentially all of history, with wars that spanned the european continent, so I really would not give too much credit to european political institutions. Imho, ultimately what made the west powerful is precisely the cultural urge to measure things with numbers that you criticized in your video. It allowed the scientific revolution to happen, but it also had less obvious consequences such as providing demand for very accurate watches and measuring apparatus. The body of skilled watchmakers also used their experience to build very sophisticated automata, which evolved into the machinery that made the industrial revolution possible. It really becomes apparent when you look up biographies of the great inventors during the first industrial revolution. Almost all of them had a background as scientific instrument makers/watchmakers, even though these were a tiny portion of the population. But the interest of the elite in measuring things allowed some people to make their living making sophisticated machines, which ended up being a big deal.
***** Not to the extent you found in Britain. Even when you consider technical skill among craftsmen, there is a difference between being able to hammer out a shape, and being able to make that shape exactly the size you want to the millimeter. The latter was very much enabled by experience from making scientific instruments. Without it, making a large, properly sealed cylinder for a steam engine is impossible. It is interesting to see what the trade balance between China/India and Europe looked like in the 1700s. Generally, China had access to everything Europe produced within their borders, *except* for automata. There are trade records of ships selling clockwork automata to the chinese for a very high price.
"Until recently religion was far more important to most people then ... you know nation states" Unless you are the Mongols (insert forgotten Mongoltage)
YOU MENTIONED AUSTRALIA FOR 1 1/2 SECONDS THANK YOU JOHN GREEN! Although I don't think the New Zealanders will appreciate not being mentioned.... Just hope that they're too busy marching to Isengard, skiing or hanging out with sheep at the Green dragon inn.
Hi John/Crashcourse! I think all your videos are great. Entertaining, informative and difficult to not watch lol. Some of the subjects are things I never knew anything about until I watched them and thought they were really interesting. Is there any chance of doing one on The Celts. Thanks.
Way to bring home the point of critical thinking. That alone can change the world in a generation. Big big ups for this video, and thank you for your work.
I feel like this is really missing a discussion of the seminal book "Orientalism" by Edward Said. When that book came out back in the 1970/early 80s it rocked the world of political science and history in altering our thinking about how we think about others. Which John went into a bit of detail in towards the end of the video. Anyhow, great video keep it up!.
I will forever thank my 7th grade social studies teacher for teaching me to think this way. And thank you, John, for bringing it up here. Everything should be thought about this complexly, imo.
Lol, they didn't even co-exist. And pizza was first made in Naples. And neither Napoleon or Julius were ever in Naples at the same time. So shame on you for not knowing your history.
I want to say that I find your videos amazingly informative as an introduction, and I often find myself wanting to know more. When it comes to this subject of how nations become powerful and why they behave as they do, I find myself especially liable to completely losing track of what I'm doing trying to puzzle it out for myself t hat I think I might have found something I want to pursue for a lot of my life. Thanks very much for helping me discover my interests Stan, Raoul, John and co, your part is much appreciated.
I think Latin America is not considered part of the West more or less because it wasn't that involved in WW1 or WW2 (except in harboring Nazis @Argentina)
I think he's just taking a stab at the STEM people, because in academia math oriented people tend to belittle every other field of academia. As in because we can't put stuff like psychology into accurate numbers means that psychology is less of a science than math is. While I understand where his viewpoints are coming from, I don't agree that he should include them in this video because he is acting as sort of a "teacher", and thus he's teaching his own bias as fact.
This video is packed with deep concepts and leaves the viewer with tools to question all historical claims. It's the best episode of either history Crash Course. Maybe one of the best educational UA-cam videos ever.
John Green is so successful I used to watch his videos everyday but now he wrote a book which became a popular movie also he is the founder of vidcon this guy is my hero.
Fukuyama was dumb though, as he actually stated that history would end after The Cold War. He thought that the existence of one powerful ideology (like democracy and free rights) over The whole World would render social differences and thereby history obsolete. Then 9/11 happened, and The Syrian Civil War, and IS, and The Crimean Crisis etc..
Seeing as how more countries are becoming more democratic and more free, I don't think you can call him off yet. His argument is that the end of the Cold War made the End of History, whereby all states will be under a peaceful unifying liberal democratic ideology, inevitable. He didn't say that that would happen tomorrow, but that there are no challengers to liberal democratic hegemony. He wrote at a later date what he thinks of Islamist Ideologies and he, even after everything, is very dismissive of them and does not believe they can threaten the dominance of liberal democracy. I think he is right about that, but we'll see.
Maxben L Asia in alienates western intellectuals because their postmodern societies are less consumed by universalist ideals like liberalism and more by old-fashion ethnic nationalism. Fukyama is right about one thing, institutions are hugely important. For enlightened despots in Asia have developed meritocratic institutions whereas the weak democracies in Africa have not. An election is a 24-48 hours affair, an institution has to run 365 days a year. Story never ends. He recognized later on that there are threats to his view. Personally I think that ideologies as we know them today will go the way of the dodo without ever achieving their historical missions like Catholicism/Protestantism etc, never achieved supremacy over the other. God is dead.The questions of the future might by more like this: Is is right for mankind to be immortal? Is it right for machines to rule over men? Should a man be allowed to have poisonous glands or replace their limbs by cybernetic machine-guns?
I've never understood what he meant by 'the end of history'. Does he mean nothing will ever happen? Or that nothing important will ever happen? Because I (and I imagine many others) would disagree about that. F.E. I can easily imagine that with improved space tech, humanity will create space colonies and start exploring the galaxy. So that wouldn't be "history"?
Robbert-Jan merk It mean that history has been settled. Capitalism + democracy has been discovered to be the definitively best form of government. i.e. whenever a stupid moron says "omg, its 2014 and there's still xxx," or "wow, just wow, its 2014, blah blah blah" Its a feeling that history will no longer be made. There will no longer be any major conflicts (aside from a couple minor ones) and its full steam ahead to the future. This, however, hasn't held true for a while now, since many leftists (Scandis esp.) are starting to embrace the socialistic values and ideology of the early 20th century over classical liberalism of the enlightenment. They're questioning capitalism in favor of socialism. To call Fukuyama a "moron" for proposing this concept is extremely arrogant, forgettable and stupid in of itself! "The end of History" is an attitude that has only been recently, partially dropped since Russia's invasion of Ukraine + China being predicted to surpass USA as superpower + recession in most of Western World. Many people still hold the idea of "The end of history" even now.
Smoothbluehero I've never called Fukuyama a moron or even implied he is: I'm just asking a question, as I genuinely don't understand his idea. And I still do not see why everything would be settled. May be the politcal aspects of history, but even then that would mean assuming we can never invent a better government even in thousands of years. Sounds unlikely to me. And as I said, there can be plenty of social and technological issues popping up in the future. Will these all minor issues, unimportant compared to the invention of liberal democracy? I doubt that, personally.
"The writing of history would be a more pleasant task were one not always constrained in remembering exactly when each event has taken place." -Anton Schindler, BEETHOVEN AS I KNEW HIM
My senior history teacher (in Canada) was an American and the class was entirely focused on Canadian history, so it made for really interesting discussions of political perspective.
Imperialism was clearly not just luck, as some complete buffoons are suggesting in the comments. It's not racial superiority either though. It is simply that western nations were shaped by a different philosophy and compelled by religion to expand. Great leaders developed education so that great minds could rise and thus invent technology that would render their civilisation able to conquer great lands. Saying it was all just luck (luck did play a small role in the development of imperialism, but only a small role) is completely stupid and shows the comparatively tiny grasp your mind has on your own history (even if you are not from the west, imperialism still had a large impact on your ancestors, without exception).
Mr. Green! Mr.Green! You make learning so much fun! I always watch a handful of videos everyday after work. Your production value is priceless and the content accurate and void of personal opinion disguised about fact! You are a boss!
Dude, brilliant. It is so totally unusual for a source of information to speak to its inherent bias. And it is nearly unique for one encourage the audience to be mindful of bias in the world around them. Bravo.
I think the question of why Eurasian civilizations in general were always ahead of native American, African and and Oceanian civilizations (I'll count North Africa as an honorary part of Eurasia here) is different from the question of why _Western Eurasian_ civilizations shot ahead of other Eurasian Civilization from around 1400 AD -1990 AD, which is also different from the question of how Anglo society became so dominant relative to other European societies.
Dude, give it up. There's really no valid justification to exclude Latin America from the so called "West". All Latin American countries are capitalist democratic republics, founded on 18th century liberal values, and speak western languages as their main tongues. There's no logical reason to include Australia or New Zeland while excluding Argentina and Uruguay, for example. It's just very weird for Crash course to ignore Latin America because it simply cannot be excluded from the western world, since almost every life aspect we have in this part of the world is essentially western, or western centered. It's as if Crash Course's only standard to separate the western world from other places were race, which is just weird!
Luis Camilo The West is practically Europe plus the most the most sucessful colonies of England that got enough economic power. Latin America has been the playground for USA and only got not that long ago enough economic development to get into the "big" countries party. You can't deny that many south american countries had or has socialist ideologies and has opposed USA domination (that makes them anti-west in some way, for example, they weren't aligned in the cold war with any superpower). Latin America hasn't had a strong media/cultural power in the last decades also. To finish, the definition of the west has many years, today it isn't really that important to get into the club.
From a Chinese perspective, the success of the West is driven mainly due to colonialism, slavery, and proximity of coal from industrial centers. In short, exploitation of land, people, and resources. Before the industrial revolution, China and India had roughly the same GDP per capita as the west, China surpassed the west in standard of living up until the 1600-1700's. However, China did not practice colonization, chattel slavery (a specific form of slavery only the West practiced), and their cities were far from coal mines. Thus, they were not able to kick-start their own industrial revolution. Source: "When China Rules the World" by Martin Jacques When the West criticizes China on their "exploitation of land, people, and resources", they should realize that no industrialized country in the world achieved industrialization with as much protection of property rights, human rights, and environmental protection as China.
"When the West criticizes China on their "exploitation of land, people, and resources", they should realize that no industrialized country in the world achieved industrialization with as much protection of property rights, human rights, and environmental protection as China." You make a good point in the first part of your comment. But the last bit here is certainly not true today.
Being an engineer who likes numbers and enjoying history and future technology, I just was very pleased when I discovered Ian Morris's books a few months ago. His writings makes you want to think and learn more about the topic he writes about (even if you do not agree entirely with with his conclusions). A great goal of any author or teacher - to motivate the student to learn and understand on his or her own. John Green does the same. One quote I liked is from Morris's book is: “Talking to the Ghost of Christmas Past leads to an alarming conclusion: the twenty-first century is going to be a race. In one lane is some sort of Singularity [Technology Solves Problems]; in the other, Nightfall. One will win and one will lose . There will be no silver medal. Either we will soon (perhaps before 2050) begin a transformation even more profound than the industrial revolution, which may make most of our current problems irrelevant, or we will stagger into a collapse like no other.” Morris. Why the West Rules--for Now
I really enjoyed this video. I am taking a political science class called Fundamentals of Research Methodology, and this is an issue that has recently become much more relevant in my life. I too value being able to quantify things so that we can approach a more objective truth, but I also recognize that bias can play a part. How you phrase the question can influence the response, and therefore the quantification of that response; how you to choose to categorize and quantify variables can also be influential. My project involves testing how income level, and changes in income level, affect people's opinion of governmental trustworthiness. I am already finding that different groups make different choices when dealing with polls. How one think-tank words the question may differ from how the US census asks it, and they might also differ how income is measured. Even if they agree on how to measure income, they might differ on what ranges constitute each income level. Each of these differences will definitely change how you view and interpret the resulting data, and the differences may or may not be the result of bias. For instance, perhaps the think-tank is located in a relatively rich region of the country, and they measure the income levels based on local standards, but the US census takes a more national approach to what ranges of income values constitutes each income level. Or perhaps it is a more liberal/conservative think tank, and they ask the question in such a way as to elicit a more liberal/conservative response, while the Census made an effort to pose the question in a more neutral way. Examples: 1a) On a scale from 1 to 10, how trustworthy is the government (1=untrustworthy, 10=trustworthy)? 1b) On a scale from 1 to 10, how untrustworthy is the government (1=slightly untrustworthy, 10=very untrustworthy)? 2a) Income level determined by percentage of the median income. 2b) Income level determined by percentage of the Federal Poverty Line. 2c) Income level determined by finding the mean, standard deviation,and variance, and then using those to establish a middle income level, with anything above being upper income level, and anything below being lower income level.
Siddiq Ismail ibn ibn ibn ibn ibn ibn ibn ibn ibn ibn ibn ibn ibn ibn ibn ibn ibn ibn ibn ibn ibn ibn ibn ibn ibn ibn ibn ibn ibn ibn ibn ibn ibn ibn ibn ibn ibn ibn ibn ibn ibn ibn ibn ibn ibn ibn ibn ibn ibn ibn ibn ibn ibn ibn ibn ibn ibn ibn ibn ibn ibn ibn ibn ibn ibn ibn ibn ibn ibn ibn ibn ibn ibn ibn ibn ibn ibn ibn ibn ibn ibn ibn ibn ibn ibn ibn ibn ibn ibn ibn ibn ibn ibn ibn ibn ibn ibn ibn ibn ibn ibn ibn ibn ibn ibn ibn ibn ibn ibn ibn ibn ibn ibn ibn ibn ibn ibn ibn ibn ibn ibn ibn ibn ibn ibn ibn ibn ibn ibn ibn ibn ibn
Brian Carter Okay, okay. I won't capitalize the "i" in "ibn" anymore. Though, he is known as ibn Sina in the Middle East. Wonder how many people know his full name.
Seanathon James Not really, considering the fact that the Mongols did completely destroy the East. Baghdad was the intellectual center of the world until they came.
Why don't we measure the successes and failures of nation states by the happiness of their people, instead of the number of goods they produce? Granted, that's hard to measure historically, but not in present time.
I wanted to mention Bhutan but I wasn't quite sure that was the right country! The prince of Bhutan actually came to my school (KU) and did a talk on this same thing. It was pretty cool.
I live in Kansas City now but KU is in Lawrence. In your first semester in the engineering department they have you attend a seminar each week where they bring in people to talk about their careers. Most of them were good, some of them were boring, but the prince of Bhutan was easily the highlight.
What i missed in this explanation of west's success was the tremendous scientific achievements which the rationalization and the systematisation of the scientific method brought. Pretty much all of modern Physics, Chemistry, Medicine, Biology, Engineering etc. on all continents is thought in the way that Europe coined in the past few centuries and through the prism of European and American scientists from the 17th to the 20th century. This scientific edge is what gave westerners their extreme military advantage, boosted their population growth and put them into the Industrialisation era. In my view Western Science from the Enlightment onward is the greatest factor in West's rise, with western Political Philosophy and Economics second and third.
Terry Lazar I'm totally confused. As far as I know Howard Zinn is a (white) person (not that it means anything one way or the other) who wrote about the little known parts of our American History (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howard_Zinn). I'm just saying that Zinn covers history that most other people don't. And I was wondering if Crash Course might start doing that too?
Beorn Borg Howard Zinn meant to cover the history of minorities and other disadvantaged populations in the US. History is usually written by those in power, often not recognizing various events that probably should be taught, but are left out. Zinn wrote this book with the intention of furthering equality by revealing these historical figures and events that were previously ignored. To this day though, it still doesn't seem to have worked that much because we are still plagued by historical illiteracy of even the elitist view of the world, much less the perspective of poorer folk. It would be cool if CrashCourse did something similar, but we have to take into account of what influenced Zinn to take up this perspective. Zinn was a socialist, which unfortunately is too extreme for even liberals (who are technically center-right). CrashCourse doesn't really seem to fit the bill of criticizing the nationalist and capitalist nature of the US, so it doesn't seem likely that they'll do anything on par with "A People's History".
My problem with the book Why Nations Fail was that it took the assumption that "Inclusive" states were sustainable and "Exclusive" (the opposite, small base of people) states were naturally unsustainable. It did this by listing lots of examples of exclusive states that failed. However, when it came to inclusive countries failing, (I think it used Venice) it assumed they failed because they became exclusive. It did nothing to address the fact that there has really never been a long term inclusive state because they tend to always go towards exclusive states
Ode to a Small Lump of Green Putty I Found in My Armpit One Midsummer Morning, by Grunthos the Flatulent. Putty. Putty. Putty, Green putty-Grutty peen, Grarmpitutty-Morning! Pridsummer-Grorning utty, Discovery... Oh, Putty? Armpit? Armpit... Putty, Not even a particularly nice shade of green, As I lick myself and agree, That this putty is green.
Taxrenn93 If it was objectively bad, why does that teen then write it and enjoy it? The moment you use the word "bad" or "good" intrinsically, you throw the word objective out the window. You can say "objectively bad for health" or "objectively bad for becoming recognized as an artist" but you can't simply say that something is intrinsically and "objectively bad"
Why would you not considered them Western? I mean Honduras and Cuba are both ex Spanish colonies, the people of both countries speak european languages, in both countries the mayority of the population believe in a predominally western (judeo Christian) religion with western values. Both Countries Independence were inspired in other revolutions of the Western World...
+Daniel RRNC The reasoning for this was because for a long time, When referring to the West the whole world was talking about England, Spain, France, Prussia, The Holy Roman Empire, Italy and Austria-Hungary. Then, as they 'discovered' and colonized the new world, More of the Western European Culture stuck with the US, Canada and a few other nations, whereas Latin America kept more traditional Culture, but adopted 'Western' technology. So when saying the West, they mean the Euro-NA cultured Natinons.
You need to do an episode on Eurocentricism, postmodernism and perspective in history. There were so many times you got extremely close to a very interesting and valuable deconstruction of why we consider empiricism and economics in our society (the west, I'm assuming here) important, but the opportunity was missed. We often reveal more about our own attitudes and values when communicating than what we are trying to write about. The comparison used by my professor was Jacob Burckhardt and Stephen Greenblatt.
In this video: John Green acknowledging that even Crash Course has its own inherent biases. Achievement gained: Newfound respect for Mr. Green.
"I always thought that Canada was America's hat, but it turns out we [America] are Canada's pants."GOLD!!
"In 1776 Columbus sailed the ocean blue"- John Green 2015
*2014
+Cathal O'Maoilste
Nice example for the ineptitude of the authors to talk seriously about history. Their science videos may be good, but the history stuff is extremely poorly done.
ColHoganGer90 a bit of sarcasim can go a long way
+ColHoganGer90 you know he was joking right?
Actually, that was said in 2014.
I'm going to leave a question here: is Latin America part of what we call "the Western World"? I'm a Latino from Chile, and from our culture, education and political system, I can tell you that we are not much different from the countries is Southern Europe. We also speak European languages and most of people follow European religions. At school, when they teach us world history, we learn about ancient Greece and Rome, the Renaissance, French Revolution, Industrial Revolution, Colonialism, etc.
Of course there’s also a focus in the history of our side of the world: the Pre-Columbian civilizations, native Americans, the Spanish/Portuguese conquest, the colonial period, our independence and so on.
For sure we are not 100% Europeans, we are a heterogeneous group of "mestizos" (mixed blood) people living in a whole continent, but the foundations of our nations' social system are all European, and has been like that for a longer time than in other countries that are considered "Western", like Australia or the US. Even in countries with deep Native American culture and populations, like Bolivia or Paraguay (which are by far more the exception rather than the rule in the region), the institutions, the legal system, the main language and the political system, are all European.
So why is that that many people, like you John Green in your video, don’t consider us part of the West World? Maybe because we are not considered a “successful” or “developed” region? That might be an omission, very favorable by the way, for the whole “the western system is better” thesis. Maybe because we are a little “different”? Well, even without us, “the West” is culturally very heterogeneous: you are putting together Finland, Portugal, the US, Poland, Italy, New Zealand and Iceland! I’m pretty sure that some Southern European countries like Portugal and Spain have more cultural similarities to some Latin American countries than to, let’s say, Scandinavian countries or New Zealand. Or maybe is all about “the race”? In that case, I thought that people stopped dividing the World into different races a long time ago (cof cof, Nazism!)
I would like to read different opinions about this subject, thanks for reading ;)
Exactly, you have a perfect point there. Am Latino and i do consider ourselves Westerns. If ifs cuz of race then we are of European descent, vast majority Latinos. I dont understand how Australia is considered "western" when they are even more far away, if we include Geography.
If its cuz of main power and military, then Australia and New Zealand arent nothing and many Europeans countries too.
Maybe they consider Western those who were pro Alies during WW2 and Democracy Aliies during the Cold War, then thats isnt enough argument since we no longer in the C.W.
Juan Manuel Salamanca Totally see your point, when they were pointing the Western regions I was waiting for LATAM but got nothing, then I thought - why latam is not there? I thought we were from the West, uhmm maybe I was considering myself from the West because all my education is Western - The answer is NO. It's freaking segregation, same with "I'm from America". Dude, I'm from Ecuador, and I'm from America.
The west means something different to everyo e.
I dont know of anyonehere inspain thatwould thinkof south america as the west .... perhaps because of the real or perceived political instability there. Erm, also,,,
The idea of thewest, well, its geographical, if you coukd move meditereanian countries physically somewhere else, i bet noone would incljde them in the west.
Thewest is like, the guarantee of certain freedoms, soending power, political stability, longlastingpolitical stability, ie spain and franco were not long ago, civil war etc, greece is or is almost a failed state, italia is about as corrupt as th eu gets at governmental level, etc ... sadly, true or not, northern europeans would oftenassociate thesecountries more with south america..... they getcalled the west because of theiR location and. Ecause theh seem to be trying to follow the nort/.
Sorry.
Please not, ive only talkedabout perception, ot about what is or is not true
+Juan Manuel Salamanca There are people & historians that do count most if not all Latin nations as well as Russia as part of the Western Civilization. It has it's Greek/Roman/German roots. So in the Classicist or Medievalist sense or standard yes the Western Civilization is bigger than what they named in crash course. In American Cold war rhetoric than it is what it showed in crash course. Western Civilization is a culture, not sort of a culture, it is one.
+Juan Manuel Salamanca Latin America is very westernized,, yes. Yall have a blend of native cultures as well though, so it's a mixed bag - but given my experiences in Latin America I would say it's "mostly western."
In which John Green talks about the methods of writing history by looking at some of the ways that history has been written about the rise of the West. But first he has to tell you what the West is. And then he has to explain the Rise of the West. And then he gets down to talking about the different ways that historians and other academics have explained how the West became dominant in the world. He'll look at explanations from Acemoglu and Robinson's "Why Nations Fail," Francis Fukuyama's "The Origins of Political Order," and Ian Morris's "Why the West Rules, for Now."
Crash course Lit. 3 should have The Portrait Of Dorian Gray
In this episode, John admits he can't stop making stuff up. I suspect he was making that up though.
TheFireflyGrave
jeez this is the 100th time ive seen you in the comments sectiojn
"Judeo-Christian thought" is highly problematic. This article covers why, as well as linking to other sources that do so as well. www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jan/13/australias-judeo-christian-heritage-doesnt-exist
TheFireflyGrave isnt that a paradox due to the fact that if he made up him making things up thus cancelling out the first.
You know whats great? playing civ 5 and watching back to back crash course for hours.
Are-Are you me?
i bet Walmart would sell heroin if it could....
Daniel Salmon The relentless pursuit of pleasing its customers and fulfilling their demands, how evil! (also maybe the heroin would help people cope with the perpetual long waits at the checkout lines)
Daniel Salmon At least stupid people would buy it and kill themselves off. natural selection
to be honest just cause someone dose drugs does not make them stupid i tend to do drugs on occasion but i know my limits and i never take them alone also i dont do anything that involves a needle, smoking weed eating mushrooms or taking the occasional line of coke at a party is one thing but i would not be caught dead taking something that has a chance of me mixing blood with someone else
Daniel Salmon It does. You're intentionally ruining your own health. Drug addicts are complete idiots, we don't need them. And you make drug cartels happy
1 i am not ruining my health by occasionally partaking of recreational drugs
2 i am not addicted to drugs as i do not activly crave them or seek them out unless under very specific circumstances
3 i doubt the weed i buy has anything to do with drug cartels since i buy it stright from a friend who grows it and occasionally gives it to me for free when we go out to party's
4 and dont try to say that its a waste of money ether if anyone makes that argument i have a million other things i could point out that people dont need but still buy or pay for to do in there own free time since i make 80k a year
5 also agin i restate doing drugs dose not make you an idiot unless you cannot control yourself well doing so just like with alcohol, i was a straight a student all through high school and never got anything short of a b in my collage courses
Love that he recognized the importance of institutions and the role they play in the development. Douglass North would be proud! I know this channel is called crash course but I really wish John would do some longer segments, allowing him to elaborate more on the concepts he puts forth
Dear Crash Course team,
Will you please do the seven years war in Europe?
It's really a missing piece from the other history series, seeing as there are two videos detailing the other theaters. You really should do it justice, and I think a lot of people would learn from that.
Sincerly,
a Fan.
One of my favorite wars of all time.
J H. Booth
It's pretty cool.
Why is 1990's John Green wearing a 2013 GMM shirt?
crash course has biggest impact on the world in recent decade. it changes the way we see UA-cam technology and education. thanks to green brothers
I think its very important to understand that the rise of the west is a result of ideal circumstances and not the differences between the people in different countries. That thinking leads to racism and xenophobia.
There are people in rich countries who think they are successful because of their superiority to the people in poor countries. This kind of thinking becomes apparent when you hear people talking about refugees driven by poverty.
Absolutely. Everyone needs to understand that the Western nations have just been very very lucky over and over again for a long long time, purely by chance. There own talents had zero to do with it. I cannot stress enough how important it is that all are aware of this. Any day now the laws of probability will catch up to them and some other group will get lucky and they will be on top. We must all combine our efforts to make sure that everyone knows this. No one must be permitted to believe anything else.
Chad Vader Lucky? You seem to be denying the efforts of countless people as nothing more than sheer luck.
TheSonOfDumb That's exactly what I'm doing because that's exactly what it is. Luck and luck only.
Chad Vader Luck how? That they themselves made a system wherein being a monarch is done with divine sanction, that they themselves fought each other for their own feudal greed, and that they bettered themselves with the pressure of innovation caused by war with the adoption of gunpowder and its refining into the musket, thus allowing them to subjugate other peoples of the world for their own benefit?
Chad Vader I highly doubt that human work is as influenced by outside influences as much as you say they are. You are discrediting all those people have done to just "luck" like someone would refer to God or fate.
UA-cam comments are like Mos Eisley in star wars. "A wretched hive of scum and viliany"
Where's south America in all of this? In another dimension?
"The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do." - Samuel P. Huntington
I would like to note that kind of thinking only encourages and perpetuates a cycle of violence. The West has a very steady trend of moving towards multiculturalism, tolerance and an elimination of bigotry. There's no reason to be conscientious of other places in the world if our only reward is a hypothetical mob of angry foreigners ready to punish us for the crimes of our ancestors. From a pragmatic viewpoint of course. The only way out of that cycle would be collapse or forgiveness.
As someone who doesn't like perpetual cycles of violence and societal collapse, I'd rather aim for forgiveness.
Quite the opposite, only by acknowledging the past can we learn from it and possibly end the cycles. For example the British told themselves that spreading their Empire was spreading the rule of law, order and civilisation. Does that sound familiar at all? Now we're spreading Freedom and democracy but only if you are sitting on a shit load of oil. So, I ask by "that kind of thinking" do you mean trying to understand history?
I am entirely for trying to bring the global standard of living up a few notches and stopping American Imperialism. However, people need incentive to do that and if history has proven anything we cannot rely entirely on our sense of right and wrong. Much of the world hates us and would do harm to us if it could in retaliation for the actions of the West. For the more pragmatic and ruthless among us, they have no incentive to try to elevate people who could do us harm in the future.
I really believe that the West is capable of and naturally inclined towards acts of compassion. Reminding us about how the rest of the world sees us can only inspire guilt and fear. I think those emotions make us a more rigid and conservative people who are less likely to continue to give charity to the world. That would help no one.
TheSaylesMan ...
Yeah cause the rest of the world has never had a war lol
Why not considered latin america Western? Their language, law, religion and among other things are Western. And I do not think because not participate in the Cold War and world wars, Countries like Switzerland or Spain did not participate in the world wars or in the cold war, yet they are Westerners. Nor is capitalism, all the Latin American countries (except Venezuela, Cuba and Nicaragua) are capitalists. And those three countries has a high influence of capitalism, are socialist form of government, but the rest is very capitalist. The western World is much older than the world wars and capitalism. It comes from ancient Greece, its values are present in Latin America. Also the independence of this country was based in the Western world in the American Revolution and the French Revolution.
Javitoux Couple of things Spain was in the Cold War a NATO and EU member and the Western nations all are on the highest ranking tier on human development only Argentina and Chile make it Latin America and while Latin America will hopefully join the west they are not yet there ind HDI GDP Corruption rates and democracy
+Heath Blasted Two thirds of Europe is Catholic so what's your point?
Just taking a guess, but perhaps because the culture of the indigenous people is still present/somewhat prevalent? While the US and Canada had our natives beaten off and literally genocidally murdered, South American colonies tended to be assimilated more and erm... murdered less. The culture of Central and South America was actually shaped by the natives, while the US and Canada are a result of relocation of Europeans.
LatinAmerica Has developed It’s own culture identity that is separate from the west
@@caesar0frome950
What identity, I may ask?
I got a 3 on my AP US History exam back in High school, probably would have gotten higher if crash course was out back in 2007-2008.
There's a very good book/TV miniseries called "Guns, Germs, and Steel" by a man named Jared Diamond. He basically removes any supposed variances in human intelligence and states that the West rose to it's position of dominance because they were located closest to the kinds of resources and environment that would allow them to develop deadly diseases like smallpox, cheaper steel, and more advanced weapons much more quickly than everyone else. Also, if you ask me the biggest reason the West has been deemed "superior" is because the metrics and criteria being used to determine success are Western. Basically, the entire world is playing a game and the West is the only group that knows the rules because the West created them.
How does he know that there aren't differences in intelligence between different groups? It sounds to me like he just assumed that, but correct me if I'm wrong. And what do you mean they "developed" deadly diseases like smallpox? I think what you meant to say is that they developed _immunity_ to diseases like smallpox.
That book also spends a large chunk of the first quarter of it explaining the domestication of animals and plants that we eat and the latitudes they survive at. Cows, pigs, sheep, goats, wheat, barley, peas, etc were mainly domesticated in the Fertile crescent and then migrated with the trade routes to Europe, where the plants would grow in similar latitude ranges.
No other places in the world had as many domesticated species as the Fertile Crescent. Because of that advantage, less work was needed on getting food to eat. Thus, economics takes over and people specialized.
*note corn, squashes, beans, and potatoes all came from the Americas. The "standard" Native American diet was corn beans and squashes, supplemented by game hunting. The three grown together is actually pretty sustainable and nutritious.
While Diamond gives some interesting and convincing arguments why Eurasia gained dominance over the Americas, Australia and to a lesser extend Africa south of the Sahara, he can't explain why a part of Eurasia, Europe, gained dominance over other parts.
He explains it by stating that some part had to become dominant (so why not Europe), and he talks a bit about Europe being political divided most of the time while China has been unified normally, but those are much weaker arguments, IMO.
That is exactly the point.
Trying to compare countries success, or how good a culture is, is always going to be biased towards their home countries.
It's similar to the crap thrown about whenever I look up Islam and try to understand what the big bad IS want. To say that Islam is a bad religion because it supports harsh punishments, or that it says that one is not to speak ill of Muhammad (which Christianity has too. Thou shall not use the lords name in vain. You're a naughty boy if you use gods name in bad ways), is all metrics we use to compare them to us, in a manner that will always show use better because of what we hold as values and what's important.
It is devoid of taking into account the culture people grow up in, just saying it is lesser because it is different from our own by forgetting that we aren't them. We don't have their experiences, their mind sets, their history.
I loved Guns, Germs and Steel, but there seems to be a lot of head shaking from historians, mostly because he's an ornithologist and not a historian, and a few bits of ecological imperialism that seems to come up. I loved 1491 and 1493 by Charles Mann, they tell an interesting tale, and while they don't have the same goal they are somewhat on the same subject.
woo we new zealanders love being thrown in with australia in things
... and we South Americans love to be dismissed as not being part of the West
João Paulo Bochi I think that's a different issue. with 'the west' being a weird vague idea about cultures, who's in and who's out is a little arbitrary.
ProfAwesomeO I read your comment again now. I know that "the West" is a culture idea, and not necessarily geographical, Australia and NZ being considered part of it. The thing is that South America was colonised by Spain and Portugal. It's full of descendants of Europeans. We are part of the Western culture.
New Zealand can be distinguished from Australia by its superior natural beauty and its government's willingness to suspend labor laws to get The Hobbit made.
@@jpbochi - I agree that South America is part of the West. It's weird that with so much of Latin American culture and the conduct of its institutions is based on European-derived principles and philosophies -- with all that, people still try to treat Latin Americans as something separate. That's weird and wrong.
Doesn't the West include both Americas since they're both the result of European colonization?
As a Brazilian, I'd like to hear more about that since I'm not convinced.
In which ways is it different? Elaborate.
Well in South America they speak Latin languages... except for Suriname & the Dutch Caribbean. In North America they speak Germanic languages... except for Mexico, Quebec, most of Central America & most of the caribbean
But by that logic the Africa (minus Ethiopia) is also in the West since it's also from Europeon colonization
Well, that's not how it goes, but surely Africa is closer to being a part of the west than Latin America is to not being a part of it! (my opinion)
Let's just remember that South America (which by many people, including most of those who live in it, is not considered a continent) was colonized by the Europeans BEFORE the US and Canada. It is obvious that South and North America are kind of different, though that difference you were pointing out is not the center of it, since:
A) The fact that people speak languages from different branches of the same family(actually, quite close languages, that is) does not mean that they are different "civilizations": no one would consider that for the European case or for French-speaking Canada; besides
B) The linguistic difference is better accounted with the idea of a Latin vs an Anglo-Saxon America, not by the division of a North and South America, which is quite arbitrary since it's all the same landmass (unless you consider the shallow man-built Panama Canal a "division") and we share such a close history etc.
Now the thing is, it is pretty obvious that Latin America IS different from the US, or from France, or from Germany, or from Iceland. Put then, the obvious question to arise is: How can you include all those different places in "the West", but not Latin America?
That is: What differences between Latin America and those places justify it not being a part of the West, while connecting all of those places as being a part of this same entity?
And from this question alone we can already have some answers:
1- It cannot be language or language family, since some the same difference between the Latin American and Germanic exits (and comes from, originated etc) in Europe;
2- It cannot be geography, since AUSTRALIA and the USA can be considered part of the west (!);
3- It is probably not religion, since the same things that can be said about language can be said about religion, PLUS most countries are not as uniform religiously as their are linguistically, which would mean the absurd that American people form X religion are Western, but not Brazilian people of the same religion, for example;
4- For the reason state above, it is hard to make any "racial" argument, unless you do not consider everyone within the western countries, western.
Just for the recap, the question is: What differences between Latin America and "the West" justify it not being a part of "the West", while connecting all of the places belonging to it as being a part of this same entity?
I see history as a series of interconnecting web of events spiraling inward in increasing complexity. I wonder what that makes me?
A thinking human.
Bill or John McNeill? See _The Human Web_
The Doctor.
Right?
A person with an opinion and worldview.
John Green always got on a fresh Polo. Swaggin'
BUT IT AINT RALPH THO
I'm pretty sure it is Ralph.
John green in a good mythical morning shirt! My life is complete!
Have you heard his and Hank's ear biscuits?
Although his anachronism is showing again.
Dear John Green,
Sir you are the definition of being awesome.
I have watched every single history video he has made, and he got a 2 in AP world history!? I haven't taken world history, but I got a 5 in AP US history. Probably, at least in part, because I watch his videos...
Nonamearisto or more likely how dumb his teachers where.
John has never hidden the fact that he was a generally poor student and that he didn't try hard in school. Also, while he has become a thoughtful, hard-working, and intelligent man, he's not a historian or a teacher. Crash Course is made by many people, including Raoul Meyer, his former teacher. They also consult with educators on what they should cover in order to be useful (at least they did in previous series).
David Quintana
That's is a very unfair statement to make. John has said multiple times on other channels that he was not a dedicated student, but that his teachers didn't give up on him, giving him many opportunities that he feels he didn't really earn.
Nonamearisto
I see you here on every video talking about how wrong John is (with varying levels of civility). If you disagree with him so vehemently, why are you here?
var1ables Yup, this is why I did so badly in high school (well not bad 3.6 GPA, but you know could have been much better if I weren't getting B's instead of A's for refusing to regurgitate information), but I am doing so well in college.
Completely different learning technique.
The American high school system prepares children to learn how to take orders and work in a factory setting while American college teaches people to *think* for themselves and evaluate information
I'm surprised you didn't include education. Technical skill and scientific knowledge is clearly what made the west dominant. No matter how good your political institutions are, you can't build a power grid if you don't know what electricity is. Or build a tank with an internal combustion engine without any knowledge of thermodynamics. Most of the west was less politically stable than places like China for essentially all of history, with wars that spanned the european continent, so I really would not give too much credit to european political institutions.
Imho, ultimately what made the west powerful is precisely the cultural urge to measure things with numbers that you criticized in your video. It allowed the scientific revolution to happen, but it also had less obvious consequences such as providing demand for very accurate watches and measuring apparatus. The body of skilled watchmakers also used their experience to build very sophisticated automata, which evolved into the machinery that made the industrial revolution possible.
It really becomes apparent when you look up biographies of the great inventors during the first industrial revolution. Almost all of them had a background as scientific instrument makers/watchmakers, even though these were a tiny portion of the population. But the interest of the elite in measuring things allowed some people to make their living making sophisticated machines, which ended up being a big deal.
How education came up in europe? There is always cause of the root cause.
excactly. In many societies once you solve the problem on education it would be a lot easier to solve slmost everything else
There was plenty of technical skill and scientific knowledge in China, India, or the Middle East.
*****
Not to the extent you found in Britain. Even when you consider technical skill among craftsmen, there is a difference between being able to hammer out a shape, and being able to make that shape exactly the size you want to the millimeter. The latter was very much enabled by experience from making scientific instruments. Without it, making a large, properly sealed cylinder for a steam engine is impossible.
It is interesting to see what the trade balance between China/India and Europe looked like in the 1700s. Generally, China had access to everything Europe produced within their borders, *except* for automata. There are trade records of ships selling clockwork automata to the chinese for a very high price.
Johnathan Pierce No.
It would be awesome if there was a CrashCourse video series on Greek Mythology.
What was said at the end. Was the most important thing you ever said. It really needs to be ingrained in ppls brains
"Until recently religion was far more important to most people then ... you know nation states" Unless you are the Mongols (insert forgotten Mongoltage)
YOU MENTIONED AUSTRALIA FOR 1 1/2 SECONDS THANK YOU JOHN GREEN!
Although I don't think the New Zealanders will appreciate not being mentioned.... Just hope that they're too busy marching to Isengard, skiing or hanging out with sheep at the Green dragon inn.
Whenever he said something like "rise of the west", all I could really think about was the end of LOTR, where they sail into the west.
I think he meant Australasia
TheWulf899 LOL rip new zealand
This is so far one of the best videos of Crash Course. Thanks for your work!
Hi John/Crashcourse! I think all your videos are great. Entertaining, informative and difficult to not watch lol. Some of the subjects are things I never knew anything about until I watched them and thought they were really interesting. Is there any chance of doing one on The Celts. Thanks.
"often times, we conflate what is important with what is easily quantifiable"
Canada will welcome your awesomeness with open arms, John and Stan! :)
Way to bring home the point of critical thinking. That alone can change the world in a generation. Big big ups for this video, and thank you for your work.
This guy has 3 and a half million subscribers!!!
He needs to have a college named after him.
Yes
Now he has 4.2 million.
+Antonio Lopez Definitely, sad thing is Trump had one for a little bit. Just shows how great the west is!!!
Very interesting
I feel like this is really missing a discussion of the seminal book "Orientalism" by Edward Said. When that book came out back in the 1970/early 80s it rocked the world of political science and history in altering our thinking about how we think about others. Which John went into a bit of detail in towards the end of the video. Anyhow, great video keep it up!.
I will forever thank my 7th grade social studies teacher for teaching me to think this way. And thank you, John, for bringing it up here. Everything should be thought about this complexly, imo.
1. infrustructure
2. institutions/ organizations
3. how they organize it
This is cool and all, but when are you going to talk about the time that Napolean invented pizza with his buddy Julius Caesar?
Lol, they didn't even co-exist. And pizza was first made in Naples. And neither Napoleon or Julius were ever in Naples at the same time. So shame on you for not knowing your history.
Don't forget Abraham Lincoln!
or even that time Aristotle wrote that one book, i think it was called the Mona Lisa
How about that time that buddha took a selfie with george bush?
Dr. Astrô Nauth It was clearly a joke.
I want to say that I find your videos amazingly informative as an introduction, and I often find myself wanting to know more. When it comes to this subject of how nations become powerful and why they behave as they do, I find myself especially liable to completely losing track of what I'm doing trying to puzzle it out for myself t hat I think I might have found something I want to pursue for a lot of my life. Thanks very much for helping me discover my interests Stan, Raoul, John and co, your part is much appreciated.
As a Super Smash Bros. player, 5:27 made my day.
I think Latin America is not considered part of the West more or less because it wasn't that involved in WW1 or WW2 (except in harboring Nazis @Argentina)
I think you need a refresher on the word 'objective', because I don't think it means what you think it means.
I think he's just taking a stab at the STEM people, because in academia math oriented people tend to belittle every other field of academia.
As in because we can't put stuff like psychology into accurate numbers means that psychology is less of a science than math is.
While I understand where his viewpoints are coming from, I don't agree that he should include them in this video because he is acting as sort of a "teacher", and thus he's teaching his own bias as fact.
History is told by 3 people in the world.
The victors
The writers
The readers
Interpret it as you will, as John is.
I have heard many people include Japan and South Korea as western nations also. I am guessing that is because of the heavy American influence there.
This is probably the most important video Crash Course has made
This video is packed with deep concepts and leaves the viewer with tools to question all historical claims. It's the best episode of either history Crash Course. Maybe one of the best educational UA-cam videos ever.
Wow, I'm really liking this series...
That thumbnail hits different in December, 2022
John Green from the past is wearing a "Good Mythical Morning" shirt. SWEET!!!
John Green is so successful I used to watch his videos everyday but now he wrote a book which became a popular movie also he is the founder of vidcon this guy is my hero.
Fukuyama was dumb though, as he actually stated that history would end after The Cold War. He thought that the existence of one powerful ideology (like democracy and free rights) over The whole World would render social differences and thereby history obsolete. Then 9/11 happened, and The Syrian Civil War, and IS, and The Crimean Crisis etc..
Seeing as how more countries are becoming more democratic and more free, I don't think you can call him off yet. His argument is that the end of the Cold War made the End of History, whereby all states will be under a peaceful unifying liberal democratic ideology, inevitable. He didn't say that that would happen tomorrow, but that there are no challengers to liberal democratic hegemony. He wrote at a later date what he thinks of Islamist Ideologies and he, even after everything, is very dismissive of them and does not believe they can threaten the dominance of liberal democracy. I think he is right about that, but we'll see.
Maxben L
Asia in alienates western intellectuals because their postmodern societies are less consumed by universalist ideals like liberalism and more by old-fashion ethnic nationalism. Fukyama is right about one thing, institutions are hugely important. For enlightened despots in Asia have developed meritocratic institutions whereas the weak democracies in Africa have not. An election is a 24-48 hours affair, an institution has to run 365 days a year.
Story never ends. He recognized later on that there are threats to his view. Personally I think that ideologies as we know them today will go the way of the dodo without ever achieving their historical missions like Catholicism/Protestantism etc, never achieved supremacy over the other. God is dead.The questions of the future might by more like this: Is is right for mankind to be immortal? Is it right for machines to rule over men? Should a man be allowed to have poisonous glands or replace their limbs by cybernetic machine-guns?
I've never understood what he meant by 'the end of history'. Does he mean nothing will ever happen? Or that nothing important will ever happen? Because I (and I imagine many others) would disagree about that. F.E. I can easily imagine that with improved space tech, humanity will create space colonies and start exploring the galaxy. So that wouldn't be "history"?
Robbert-Jan merk
It mean that history has been settled. Capitalism + democracy has been discovered to be the definitively best form of government.
i.e. whenever a stupid moron says "omg, its 2014 and there's still xxx," or "wow, just wow, its 2014, blah blah blah"
Its a feeling that history will no longer be made. There will no longer be any major conflicts (aside from a couple minor ones) and its full steam ahead to the future. This, however, hasn't held true for a while now, since many leftists (Scandis esp.) are starting to embrace the socialistic values and ideology of the early 20th century over classical liberalism of the enlightenment. They're questioning capitalism in favor of socialism.
To call Fukuyama a "moron" for proposing this concept is extremely arrogant, forgettable and stupid in of itself! "The end of History" is an attitude that has only been recently, partially dropped since Russia's invasion of Ukraine + China being predicted to surpass USA as superpower + recession in most of Western World. Many people still hold the idea of "The end of history" even now.
Smoothbluehero I've never called Fukuyama a moron or even implied he is: I'm just asking a question, as I genuinely don't understand his idea.
And I still do not see why everything would be settled. May be the politcal aspects of history, but even then that would mean assuming we can never invent a better government even in thousands of years. Sounds unlikely to me.
And as I said, there can be plenty of social and technological issues popping up in the future. Will these all minor issues, unimportant compared to the invention of liberal democracy? I doubt that, personally.
"The writing of history would be a more pleasant task were one not always constrained in remembering exactly when each event has taken place."
-Anton Schindler, BEETHOVEN AS I KNEW HIM
This is so helpful
My senior history teacher (in Canada) was an American and the class was entirely focused on Canadian history, so it made for really interesting discussions of political perspective.
Number of tanks is merely a measure of how behind the times a nation's military approach is.
Imperialism was clearly not just luck, as some complete buffoons are suggesting in the comments. It's not racial superiority either though. It is simply that western nations were shaped by a different philosophy and compelled by religion to expand. Great leaders developed education so that great minds could rise and thus invent technology that would render their civilisation able to conquer great lands.
Saying it was all just luck (luck did play a small role in the development of imperialism, but only a small role) is completely stupid and shows the comparatively tiny grasp your mind has on your own history (even if you are not from the west, imperialism still had a large impact on your ancestors, without exception).
I'd call the "luck" as "Situational superiority" for political correctness.
Do a series on Irish history, I think it would be very interesting and get a lot of views.
Liking this off the strength of the screen shot alone. Now back to watching the video.
You go to math parties? I go to math debates. Say it out loud.
Math debating. Ohh god
1+1=11 wanna fite?
Is no one going to talk about that John Green from the past is wearing a GMM shirt??
I saw it XD
I was just looking for someone who'd noticed that too!
same!
Saw it. GMM and Crash course should do some videos together
An open letter to John Green,
Dude, fuck the haters bro. You talk WAY faster in your old videos and it's WAY better. Don't change.
Yours Truly,
Fanboi
Mr. Green! Mr.Green! You make learning so much fun! I always watch a handful of videos everyday after work. Your production value is priceless and the content accurate and void of personal opinion disguised about fact! You are a boss!
I'd love to read a John Green historical novel
john green seems less enthusiastic than the first series
He became a dad and is therefore more tired all the time.
nismo510 bed head? You're referring to his messy hair?
At 0.6 seconds John from the past is wearing a good mythical morning tee shirt and wow! I’m a huge fan of both these channels!
I love how "level playing field" is Dream Land.
these animations are adorable
This summer... in a world where Canada was America's Hat.... One youtuber dared to think differently... Murrica: Canada's Pants, Coming Summer 2016
John from the past is wearing a Good Mythical Morning t-shirt!!!
That GMM cameo at the beginning though.
Why don't Guns Germs and Steel get a mention
As an American i can confirm that Walmart sells guns
Dude, brilliant. It is so totally unusual for a source of information to speak to its inherent bias. And it is nearly unique for one encourage the audience to be mindful of bias in the world around them. Bravo.
One of the best youtube channels ever, i love your videos, you explain everything so clear and entertaining!
greetings from germany
I think the question of why Eurasian civilizations in general were always ahead of native American, African and and Oceanian civilizations (I'll count North Africa as an honorary part of Eurasia here) is different from the question of why _Western Eurasian_ civilizations shot ahead of other Eurasian Civilization from around 1400 AD -1990 AD, which is also different from the question of how Anglo society became so dominant relative to other European societies.
*siberian
How did you not mention Niall Ferguson's book "The West & The Rest"??? You should really read that.
Niall Ferguson, psshhhttt. Jared Diamond "Guns, Germs and Steel."
He was a total idiot and seriously I can write better book than him. go for jared.
"Number of tanks". I think you nailed it right there John.
I'm a senior in high school, and I got a 5 on my AP World test. I just watch this out of curiosity.
If Latin America is not part of the west, I don't know what is.
It's part of the Latin Civilzation ! duh!
There's no such thing called "the Latin Civilization"
Luis Camilo Maybe not Latin 'civilization' but Latin culture is a thing.
Dude, give it up. There's really no valid justification to exclude Latin America from the so called "West". All Latin American countries are capitalist democratic republics, founded on 18th century liberal values, and speak western languages as their main tongues.
There's no logical reason to include Australia or New Zeland while excluding Argentina and Uruguay, for example. It's just very weird for Crash course to ignore Latin America because it simply cannot be excluded from the western world, since almost every life aspect we have in this part of the world is essentially western, or western centered. It's as if Crash Course's only standard to separate the western world from other places were race, which is just weird!
Luis Camilo The West is practically Europe plus the most the most sucessful colonies of England that got enough economic power. Latin America has been the playground for USA and only got not that long ago enough economic development to get into the "big" countries party. You can't deny that many south american countries had or has socialist ideologies and has opposed USA domination (that makes them anti-west in some way, for example, they weren't aligned in the cold war with any superpower). Latin America hasn't had a strong media/cultural power in the last decades also. To finish, the definition of the west has many years, today it isn't really that important to get into the club.
From a Chinese perspective, the success of the West is driven mainly due to colonialism, slavery, and proximity of coal from industrial centers. In short, exploitation of land, people, and resources. Before the industrial revolution, China and India had roughly the same GDP per capita as the west, China surpassed the west in standard of living up until the 1600-1700's. However, China did not practice colonization, chattel slavery (a specific form of slavery only the West practiced), and their cities were far from coal mines. Thus, they were not able to kick-start their own industrial revolution.
Source: "When China Rules the World" by Martin Jacques
When the West criticizes China on their "exploitation of land, people, and resources", they should realize that no industrialized country in the world achieved industrialization with as much protection of property rights, human rights, and environmental protection as China.
If you were Chinese you wouldn't be on UA-cam.
***** This is not North Korea mate.
Soren G Lol k, keep on believing CNN and Fox News there.
"When the West criticizes China on their "exploitation of land, people, and resources", they should realize that no industrialized country in the world achieved industrialization with as much protection of property rights, human rights, and environmental protection as China."
You make a good point in the first part of your comment. But the last bit here is certainly not true today.
Cifyra UA-cam has been banned in China since 2009
Being an engineer who likes numbers and enjoying history and future technology, I just was very pleased when I discovered Ian Morris's books a few months ago. His writings makes you want to think and learn more about the topic he writes about (even if you do not agree entirely with with his conclusions). A great goal of any author or teacher - to motivate the student to learn and understand on his or her own. John Green does the same. One quote I liked is from Morris's book is: “Talking to the Ghost of Christmas Past leads to an alarming conclusion: the twenty-first century is going to be a race. In one lane is some sort of Singularity [Technology Solves Problems]; in the other, Nightfall. One will win and one will lose . There will be no silver medal. Either we will soon (perhaps before 2050) begin a transformation even more profound than the industrial revolution, which may make most of our current problems irrelevant, or we will stagger into a collapse like no other.” Morris. Why the West Rules--for Now
I really enjoyed this video. I am taking a political science class called Fundamentals of Research Methodology, and this is an issue that has recently become much more relevant in my life. I too value being able to quantify things so that we can approach a more objective truth, but I also recognize that bias can play a part. How you phrase the question can influence the response, and therefore the quantification of that response; how you to choose to categorize and quantify variables can also be influential. My project involves testing how income level, and changes in income level, affect people's opinion of governmental trustworthiness. I am already finding that different groups make different choices when dealing with polls. How one think-tank words the question may differ from how the US census asks it, and they might also differ how income is measured. Even if they agree on how to measure income, they might differ on what ranges constitute each income level. Each of these differences will definitely change how you view and interpret the resulting data, and the differences may or may not be the result of bias. For instance, perhaps the think-tank is located in a relatively rich region of the country, and they measure the income levels based on local standards, but the US census takes a more national approach to what ranges of income values constitutes each income level. Or perhaps it is a more liberal/conservative think tank, and they ask the question in such a way as to elicit a more liberal/conservative response, while the Census made an effort to pose the question in a more neutral way.
Examples:
1a) On a scale from 1 to 10, how trustworthy is the government (1=untrustworthy, 10=trustworthy)?
1b) On a scale from 1 to 10, how untrustworthy is the government (1=slightly untrustworthy, 10=very untrustworthy)?
2a) Income level determined by percentage of the median income.
2b) Income level determined by percentage of the Federal Poverty Line.
2c) Income level determined by finding the mean, standard deviation,and variance, and then using those to establish a middle income level, with anything above being upper income level, and anything below being lower income level.
Can't we just admit the West rose because the Mongols destroyed the Eastern Empires?
***** You're comment made me laugh.
I guess Ibn Sina and Confucius can go screw themselves.
Siddiq Ismail ibn ibn ibn ibn ibn ibn ibn ibn ibn ibn ibn ibn ibn ibn ibn ibn ibn ibn ibn ibn ibn ibn ibn ibn ibn ibn ibn ibn ibn ibn ibn ibn ibn ibn ibn ibn ibn ibn ibn ibn ibn ibn ibn ibn ibn ibn ibn ibn ibn ibn ibn ibn ibn ibn ibn ibn ibn ibn ibn ibn ibn ibn ibn ibn ibn ibn ibn ibn ibn ibn ibn ibn ibn ibn ibn ibn ibn ibn ibn ibn ibn ibn ibn ibn ibn ibn ibn ibn ibn ibn ibn ibn ibn ibn ibn ibn ibn ibn ibn ibn ibn ibn ibn ibn ibn ibn ibn ibn ibn ibn ibn ibn ibn ibn ibn ibn ibn ibn ibn ibn ibn ibn ibn ibn ibn ibn ibn ibn ibn ibn ibn ibn
Brian Carter Okay, okay. I won't capitalize the "i" in "ibn" anymore.
Though, he is known as ibn Sina in the Middle East. Wonder how many people know his full name.
Siddiq Ismail Western philosophy was just superior, that doesn't make other philosophies absolute shit, just not _as_ successful.
Seanathon James Not really, considering the fact that the Mongols did completely destroy the East. Baghdad was the intellectual center of the world until they came.
three worlds: guns, germs and steel
Ohh arcane traveler. Please tell me of the world of Steel.
+nachoolo well technically China had those too.
+nachoolo I read "Guns, Germs, and Steel." and i could not tell anyone what it was about.
+Katie Abiri I heard the guy who wrote that is kind of a piece of shit
props for using the Dream Land image
I'm a teenager but I'm really just watching this because I love history.
#HistoryIsLife
#HistoryIsForever
same
Houston Hagler same here
Noice.
Hello i is Rassia
Why don't we measure the successes and failures of nation states by the happiness of their people, instead of the number of goods they produce? Granted, that's hard to measure historically, but not in present time.
Actually, the government of Bhutan did introduce a measure called GNH (Gross National Happiness) as an alternative to GNP/GDP :)
I wanted to mention Bhutan but I wasn't quite sure that was the right country! The prince of Bhutan actually came to my school (KU) and did a talk on this same thing. It was pretty cool.
Really? Where do you live haha He seems like a pretty cool guy :L I'd love to see him
I live in Kansas City now but KU is in Lawrence. In your first semester in the engineering department they have you attend a seminar each week where they bring in people to talk about their careers. Most of them were good, some of them were boring, but the prince of Bhutan was easily the highlight.
Because you can't bottle and sell happiness, an ersatz drug at best.
This is the best channel I have ever subscribed to. Interesting, unbiased, well researched and thought provoking. Love it.
Love that shout-out to AP World students
What i missed in this explanation of west's success was the tremendous scientific achievements which the rationalization and the systematisation of the scientific method brought. Pretty much all of modern Physics, Chemistry, Medicine, Biology, Engineering etc. on all continents is thought in the way that Europe coined in the past few centuries and through the prism of European and American scientists from the 17th to the 20th century. This scientific edge is what gave westerners their extreme military advantage, boosted their population growth and put them into the Industrialisation era. In my view Western Science from the Enlightment onward is the greatest factor in West's rise, with western Political Philosophy and Economics second and third.
Did they ever do anything like _"A People's history of the United States"_ (Howard Zinn)?
I don't think so.. Wouldn't that be considered racist in this political correctiveness society.?
Terry Lazar Zinn is racist?
Beorn Borg
So it's ok to be racist if you are black?
Terry Lazar I'm totally confused. As far as I know Howard Zinn is a (white) person (not that it means anything one way or the other) who wrote about the little known parts of our American History (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howard_Zinn). I'm just saying that Zinn covers history that most other people don't. And I was wondering if Crash Course might start doing that too?
Beorn Borg Howard Zinn meant to cover the history of minorities and other disadvantaged populations in the US. History is usually written by those in power, often not recognizing various events that probably should be taught, but are left out.
Zinn wrote this book with the intention of furthering equality by revealing these historical figures and events that were previously ignored. To this day though, it still doesn't seem to have worked that much because we are still plagued by historical illiteracy of even the elitist view of the world, much less the perspective of poorer folk.
It would be cool if CrashCourse did something similar, but we have to take into account of what influenced Zinn to take up this perspective. Zinn was a socialist, which unfortunately is too extreme for even liberals (who are technically center-right). CrashCourse doesn't really seem to fit the bill of criticizing the nationalist and capitalist nature of the US, so it doesn't seem likely that they'll do anything on par with "A People's History".
My problem with the book Why Nations Fail was that it took the assumption that "Inclusive" states were sustainable and "Exclusive" (the opposite, small base of people) states were naturally unsustainable. It did this by listing lots of examples of exclusive states that failed. However, when it came to inclusive countries failing, (I think it used Venice) it assumed they failed because they became exclusive.
It did nothing to address the fact that there has really never been a long term inclusive state because they tend to always go towards exclusive states
A Rhett & LInk shirt? That John Green from the past was cool!
poems which are objectively good or bad? Not sure i agree with that.
Ode to a Small Lump of Green Putty I Found in My Armpit One Midsummer Morning, by Grunthos the Flatulent.
Putty. Putty. Putty,
Green putty-Grutty peen,
Grarmpitutty-Morning!
Pridsummer-Grorning utty,
Discovery... Oh,
Putty? Armpit?
Armpit... Putty,
Not even a particularly nice shade of green,
As I lick myself and agree,
That this putty is green.
Still think a poem can't be objectively bad?
I don't agree with you not agreeing.
or read any emo teenager's poetry book and then say there is no objectively bad poetry.
Taxrenn93 If it was objectively bad, why does that teen then write it and enjoy it? The moment you use the word "bad" or "good" intrinsically, you throw the word objective out the window. You can say "objectively bad for health" or "objectively bad for becoming recognized as an artist" but you can't simply say that something is intrinsically and "objectively bad"
Why is Latin America not considered part of the West in this video?
Why would you not considered them Western? I mean Honduras and Cuba are both ex Spanish colonies, the people of both countries speak european languages, in both countries the mayority of the population believe in a predominally western (judeo Christian) religion with western values. Both Countries Independence were inspired in other revolutions of the Western World...
+Daniel RRNC The reasoning for this was because for a long time, When referring to the West the whole world was talking about England, Spain, France, Prussia, The Holy Roman Empire, Italy and Austria-Hungary. Then, as they 'discovered' and colonized the new world, More of the Western European Culture stuck with the US, Canada and a few other nations, whereas Latin America kept more traditional Culture, but adopted 'Western' technology. So when saying the West, they mean the Euro-NA cultured Natinons.
+Zelrius not in the souther cone ( argentina, chile and uruguay), he complains about eurocentrism, and does the same thing
+lucas ruano the same for southeast brazil
+Daniel RRNC Cuba has a white majority and most are descended from the Spanish..
You need to do an episode on Eurocentricism, postmodernism and perspective in history. There were so many times you got extremely close to a very interesting and valuable deconstruction of why we consider empiricism and economics in our society (the west, I'm assuming here) important, but the opportunity was missed. We often reveal more about our own attitudes and values when communicating than what we are trying to write about. The comparison used by my professor was Jacob Burckhardt and Stephen Greenblatt.
That Fukuyama book, and the sequel, are really good, highly recommended if you ever wondered how countries ended up as they did.