Comments by "Stephen Jenkins" (@stephenjenkins7971) on "Bonaparte Bails - Napoleon in Egypt - Part 4 - Extra History" video.

For all the memes about it. At least Bush genuinely occupied Iraq for something like a decade. Issue was winning the peace. Napoleon didn't ever really fully occupy Egypt in any meaningful way.
24
@Merennulli Honestly, while EH is pretty good in giving bits of history, their obvious political slant is obvious whenever you compare videos on Western history and atrocities and compare them to non-Western history and atrocities. The former focuses on Western wrongs (justly), but the latter never focuses on non-Western atrocities and instead moves on. If they were more consistent in pointing out horrible acts by non-Western states, then there'd be nothing to complain about.
11
@Merennulli A few that stood out to me was their coverage of that West African Queen that eventually became Chritianized. Or the topic of the Mali Empire under Mansa Musa. A poignant one in this case was the coverage of the British conquest of India where EC just brushes off the incredibly cruel acts the Mughals perpetuated onto the British for rebelling against their rule. Meanwhile the Egyptians rebelling against French rule are given a whole minute of screentime to really show how cruel the French were being. And, really, you can find a dozen videos of Western nations acting horribly and you can't find a single one about a non-Western nation acting horribly. Japan is basically the exception to this, and that was in regard to the rise of Japanese militarism and didn't even get deep into any of the truly horrific stuff Japan got up to.
8
@Merennulli Neither in Japan or Ethiopia did they give weight to the atrocities done in their imperialist wars. It was a passing mention. Meanwhile in this episode, alongside episodes of British colonialism, they make sure to emphasize the human cost of imperialism; seconds spent talking about it in Japan, more than a minute when talking about it in this episode. There are whole episodes focused purely on Western atrocities like the US massacres on Native Americans just a few weeks ago but there is basically nothing of such focus on non-Western nations/peoples. I generally agree with you, though. But as it stands now, the dialogue is purely based on talking about Western atrocities. Everyone else gets a shrug in the shoulder, even if its horrendous.
6
@GödekeMichels_72 Your first bit is an interesting point, but as far as I was aware the Iraq War wasn't advertised as a war on terror, but as a way to remove a dictator that flaunted international law. Afghanistan was the war on terror bit. In neither the case of Iraq or Iran did the US build either up, the US aided the Iranian monarchy but it was overthrown later by religious fundamentalists; that's hardly the US' fault. With Iraq the US supported Saddam specifically against Iran, but that was it. That's not some kind of blank check of support. You can support nations in specific endeavors but not everything, like for example the Suez Crisis where the US went against its actual allies in UK/France.
3