I'm genuinely disappointed this boiled down to 'they Ignored my MRA issues' The title was good, the review is excellently written and feels knowledgeable and insightful... and then the central thesis is someone with a very very strong ideological bias accusing someone else of being biased the other way and doesn't really mention issues with huge main stream importance/acceptance.
If the skipped areas really do have a lot of historical significance, I think you need to actually go into that and explain why it's significant in your review. It's painful for me to suggest that, because it's well written and you manage to cover a huge amount of info inside the 300 word limit already and I wouldn't want to lose that. But as it stands I don't think you're going to influence people who don't already agree with you. It's easy to believe you think the Greens are too left-wing/SJW in all their videos
There's only so much word space someone can have, and I have to cover everything. If you wish for a significant example, there is the moon landing, which John Green doesn't even remotely explain during his episode on the 60's.
I don't understand what you mean with "strong ideological bias." My biases have nothing to do with this: John Green presents his history narratives with historical bias, particularly in the vein of a social justice warrior. Specific problems are mentioned in the YMMV Section and others.
My biases have nothing to do with this: John Green presents his history narratives with historical bias, particularly in the vein of a social justice warrior. Specific problems are mentioned in the YMMV Section and others.
That's funny, because you repeatedly complain about John focusing on women's issues, while that doesn't show up at all in the YMMV section. It just comes off like you're annoyed that his biases don't match your own
I'm sorry you feel that way. You are wrong, friend. There is no trope for what you're describing, that's actually what reviews are for.
The other problem is that "social justice warrior," like "white knight," has long-since become an utterly useless term, so tainted by assholes grumpy about being called out for being assholes that no one can tell whether or not it is being used to describe the phenomenon it once did, or simply to complain when people have displayed political views you don't share or asked other to stop being dicks.
Rather than use it, it would behoove you to say that he focuses exclusively on social history to the utter exclusion of other, more-concrete historical disciplines, such as geopolitics or military history.
And, frankly, while I agree with Tom's assessment, being forthright and honest about your own personal politics would improve the article simply by dint of helping any readers understand where you are coming from. If you are trying to say, for instance, that while feminist readings of history have their place they overpower other potentially-salient facts, it fails to come across. The first time I read this review, I actually had trouble understanding whether you were complaining of too much feminism or too little.
And, frankly, virtually any discussion of discriminatory policies towards white men in human history must of needs contrast with the barbaric ways in which white men were the discriminators during the same time periods.
Any reading of history, friend, will tell you that race, sex, and all such things were all secondary to power. It's no excuse to the people John ignores, like the Qing dynasty or Andrea Dworkin.
Constructive criticism, like stating a focus on social history, is helpful, but there is a lot of ground to cover in a limited word count, and the review was for an entire series, not just the history episodes.
The Qing dynasty only discriminated against whites in the aftermath of several brutal massacres conducted by the would-be colonialists salivating over the idea of carving up their nation and violating their sovereignty. When people open fire on crowded streets, mowing down innocent people, they have lost the ability to present themselves as some persecuted victim in the situation.
And listing every dangerous radical in every movement is pointless and counter-productive. I would agree, for instance, that talking about the American Civil Rights movement without talking about Malcolm X or other militant radicals would present an incomplete picture, but arguing that any discussion of civil rights should always stop and mention them to mollify potential racists in the audience is disingenuous. Designed to stifle criticism with meaningless nonsense rather than legitimately asking for a balanced picture.
As it stands, your review has a weak spot. We have all pin-pointed it and offered way to re-write it rather than ignore it.
You have a definite point in that we're harping on one part of the larger review, and that you had a lot of ground to cover. But deleting that part and rewriting it as we suggest, focusing on how it weakens his articles rather than how it offends your sensibilities, would improve your review and make you sound a good deal less petty.
I don't think I wrote this as my sensibilities being offended, only that Green is quite biased. But I did try a re-write.
Leave a Comment:
A somewhat light-hearted take on many subjects, but beware inaccuracies
Crash Course, as a whole, is an impressive and bevied series of web videos, covering a wide variety of topics, in usually 40 separate videos per broad topic, such as World History, United States History, Astronomy, Biology, Anatomy, and Economics.
The presentation is very engaging, and has a very artful use of editing and digital graphics, with only a few minor problems. This makes it fun and tends to be very accurate.
The hosts of the show, John Green and Hank Green, with a few guest hosts for a few other subjects, have their strengths and weaknesses. Hank, who tends to host hard sciences, is very knowledgeable and quite accurate, but his voice can grate, and attempts at personality or humor often feel forced.
John, by contrast, is a natural in front of the camera and in general, does a decent job at making his topics easy to understand. However, he frequently taints his narratives with his own biases, focusing on social history almost exclusively. In his two-part episode on American History in the 1960s, the Cuban Missile Crisis and JFK's assassination are each given one sentence, and the Apollo 11 moon landing isn't mentioned at all. By contrast, he spends 8 of the 12 minutes railing about social justice for minorities and women, often repeating himself. During his World History course, Western Europe during the thousand-year Middle Ages is reduced to complaining about the use of the term "Dark Ages", a brief paragraph about feudalism, and a rant about how an abbess isn't an official saint, leaving out Charlemagne and the Black Death. He somehow finds time to do a whole episode about Haitian independence, despite not being historically noteworthy.
There are other hosts for different series. "Bad Astronomer" Phil Plait teaches an astronomy course, and brings knowledge and passion in high doses. Adriene Hill's Large Ham acting talent, charm, and knowledge of practical economics play well with Jacob Clifford's theory in the Economics course. But Craig Benzine's nasally voice and wooden presentation make the Government course painful to watch.
Crash Course's graphics, and the Astronomy and Economics videos are delightful and educational. But the other hard sciences have a wooden (if intelligent) presentation, the history courses are massively biased, and don't even bother with the Government course.