Comments by "Not Today" (@nottoday3817) on "Can YouTubers EVER be ‘Proper’ Historians? TIK history Q&A 22" video.

  1. Hello house. I had a small insight into the 'academic publishing' world thanks to some history teachers and private tutors I had in high school. Let me tell you, the moment you become 'official', like academic, you are getting tied up, hands, feet and neck. Like those guys were writing some books on a subject, taught something different (almost completely) in schools and in private talks, mentioning full picture, they said something else as well, because when you go public, you anger a lot of people. And it's not only history. It happens also in the 'scientific/engineering world'. I and a few other guys had a chance to sit at a table with the dean of our faculty (We study aerospace engineering) and he told us about how tough life really is and why the progress in technology has slowed so down in the past decades. It's because there is a huge image problem. If you publish something and get it slightly wrong or even if somebody else gets something wrong and money or worse are lost, then people will get angry and they will start going after the ones that supported you. I might not agree with TIK in everything, but this time he's correct, the academic world is a meatgrinder
    3
  2. Dude, there are historians not accepting other 'book publishing' historians. What makes you think they shall be more open towards others. It does not matter what platform you use, it's the view, aka agenda in most cases, that you try to push forward
    3
  3. Wait, it was the aliens who poisoned their tea?
    3
  4.  @rrobb9853  Hmm, well a debate on the Balkans would be interesting. The best way I would describe it would be Hitler Clearing Mussolinis mess. The Balkan campaign HAD TO BE DONE. Greece was an important strongpoint for the UK. Had they left Greece alone, they would have had their flank open to their biggest enemy.
    2
  5. Well, depends.
    1
  6. I have to say, it really depends. I remember elementary/ middle-school it was just a teacher dictating what the book said. And a few funny jokes. In highschool we got another teacher. An old and crazy lady. But she did teach us critical thinking of history. Funnily enough, she also believed in Aliens.
    1
  7.  @chefren77  The one constructing a 'straw man argument' was TIK in all his 'Hitler was a socialist' videos. 1st of all, in his view of Socialism-Capitalism system, there has never been a capitalist society since the stone age. 2. He implies National-Socialism and Marxism were the same. While NaZi might be 'socialism', it's totally different than Marxism and Nazis themselves declared that they were enemies of marxism. But because he implies that they are the same, then he proceeds to attack Marxism with arguments used for Nazi Germany. Also, it seems that the fact of marxism-socialism being implemented in many variations seems to ellude him completely.
    1
  8. My favorite counter to 'Winter won the war' is 'Which winter? The 41-42 one? The 42-43 one? the 43-44 one? the 44-45 one?
    1
  9. Well, when it comes to history, which is a 'secondary science' (because it implies scientific methods and research and all those processes) I doubt you can apply 'amateur' and 'professional' the same way you can with, let's say an 'athlete' or a scientist. In the general meaning, I believe the distinction between 'amateur' and 'profi' is determined by what can you do with what you know/practice. An amateur athlete knows how to run, but can he independently develop himself or teach others to get closer to his level? Doubt so. An amateur scientist can be a guy in a lab doing the same thing over and over again, while a professional goes and does research of his own, trying to bring novelty into the field. For historians, I believe YouTube historians are on the border. Of course, we can have 'shit tier' with things like The InfoGraphics show that can't get the general drawing of an Iow class battleship right. Many, even though going as much in depth as possible, (Kings and Generals, Baz Battles, History Marche for examples) do very little apart from research and publishing what they found out in a video. Other Channels like Invicta or Historia Civilis go quite in a detail explaining how ancient societies worked and possible reasons why they were like that. Because they explain why they were like that, an analogy can be made with the modern world. As well as you TiK. What makes the big difference between a 'proper' historian and a great YT one is how the system works. A proper historian usually teaches a course or takes part in conferences, while living of book sellings or paid by university. This means he needs to do one or two great things to be accepted and then he can engage in discussions with others. A YouTuber needs to constantly publish videos. This means he needs to constantly do research. And Animations. And uploading and so on. This means little time to get in depth exposure to different perspectives. That's what big channels might need. A proper medium to exchange ideeas. As for History Channel, I have to give them credit for two shows: Soviet Storm: WW2 in the east (Whenever I hear your Battlestorm seires I think of this title) and Battle 360. And there were some shows like Pawn Stars and Storage Wars which were quite engaging and might teach you some useless stuff like the market value of different things. But whent they started with how guys cut trees, yeah, I was done for it
    1