Extra History: Dividing the Middle East

Reader mode
I keep forgetting this thread exists.

Anyways, I'd heard that this story was a bit bananas, but hearing about it is something else.
 
Greener223224 said:
Somehow the channel is still operating. Recently they did a series on King Friedrich II of Prussia:
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I'm already used to channel clearly in decline but still pumping out video.

I still remember that their first crusade is my first exposure to history channel but nowadays i just find their content to be way lacking compare to one that i regulary watched.
 
They recently split off their history and mythology from video game content. Video game content is now on the new channel, while history and mythology are staying in the same place.

And yes, quality of their writing has gone ever since Dan left.
 
As I understand it, Dan left for reasons related to the character, personality, and behavior of James Portnow. Since James is still there, it may well be that the influence of the reasons Dan left is making the channel worse, rather than the absence of Dan's labors. Conversely, if Dan had a positive influence on the culture of the channel, then that influence would have faded after he left.
 
cB557 said:
Which is weird because Dan wasn't a writer.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Dan might not be writer, but he had influence in how topics were approached. I think the best description I have heard, altough slightly biased, that while Dan was on the team, "videos were made to be good" while after him they have drifted to "videos were made for good". There is heart there, but it misses the goal of educating and telling a clear and consistent story.

They have gone back on their old stances. For example, they used to defend freedom of expression in video game and then went back, arguing that certain things should never be allowed in video games ("Stop normalizing Nazis" was especially bad). They also have gone from arguing against lootboxes to defending the, as well as defending 70 dollars as "low" price for video games

Simon_Jester said:
Since James is still there, it may well be that the influence of the reasons Dan left is making the channel worse, rather than the absence of Dan's labors. Conversely, if Dan had a positive influence on the culture of the channel, then that influence would have faded after he left.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

James has also left. None of the original team work at Extra Credits anymore. Under James, the video game side was really hurt but Extra History didn't suffer, but since he left both sides have had drop in quality.

So first loss was Dan, then James.
 
Last edited:
Mandemon said:
They have gone back on their old stances. For example, they used to defend freedom of expression in video game and then went back, arguing that certain things should never be allowed in video games ("Stop normalizing Nazis" was especially bad).
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
The past five to ten years have made it clear, except to the willfully blind who prefer not to see, that there are, in fact, more problems with encouraging people to drop themselves into the mindset of Nazi Germany and other genocidal states (and the agents of such) than we chose to admit in 2013 or 2003 or 1993.

They also have gone from arguing against lootboxes to defending the, as well as defending 70 dollars as "low" price for video games
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I cannot approve of defending lootboxes.

With that said, the days when a top-flight video game cost fifty dollars are long enough in the past that simple inflation would easily explain an increase to sixty and then to seventy. Just about nothing still costs exactly what it used to in 2005.
 
Simon_Jester said:
The past five to ten years have made it clear, except to the willfully blind who prefer not to see, that there are, in fact, more problems with encouraging people to drop themselves into the mindset of Nazi Germany and other genocidal states (and the agents of such) than we chose to admit in 2013 or 2003 or 1993.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Thing is, they argued that just by playing on German side in multiplayer game, you were a Nazi. That seeing an iron cross (you know, past and present symbol of Bundeswher) should elicit automatic disgust. That "bad guy side" in any game should be artificially restricted so that playing on that side is less fun, and that multiplayer games should be recontextualized as non-violent exercises.

That by merely playing on terrorist side in Counter-Strike, players will adopt terrorist attitudes.
 
Mandemon said:
Thing is, they argued that just by playing on German side in multiplayer game, you were a Nazi. That seeing an iron cross (you know, past and present symbol of Bundeswher) should elicit automatic disgust. That "bad guy side" in any game should be artificially restricted so that playing on that side is less fun, and that multiplayer games should be recontextualized as non-violent exercises.

That by merely playing on terrorist side in Counter-Strike, players will adopt terrorist attitudes.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
[Shrug]

Maybe they overreacted. Maybe they didn't. But as long as there are people who will get more upset about that than they do about all kinds of other shit out there, I'm not going to concentrate my negative attention on that particular overreaction.

If the worst you can say of someone is that they advocate punching too hard in the correct direction and that following all their advice uncritically will result in you getting bloody knuckles, then that's not so bad as all that in the scheme of things.
 
EC is still alive somehow. They've rebranded the whole channel to be named "Extra History".

They did a series on the Crimean War:

View: https://youtube.com/watch?v=yhudiiackzw&list=PLhyKYa0YJ_5D6vGpsszjUMKY3GwYIvhWT&index=1&pp=iAQB


And another series was on Henry Ford:

View: https://youtube.com/watch?v=tQAFS1d-0hY&list=PLhyKYa0YJ_5CKwJc94R967yc87alc2qqg&index=4&pp=iAQB

I'm bumping this thread because citing and checking sources for plagiarism became a topic of internet drama last week, and I'm wondering what sources they used for stuff like the South Sea Bubble, the Roman Christian schisms, or the Imjin War. We know the sources for Suleyman, but that's mainly because of an inquiry by a single Redditor feeling the sources were too orientalist to be trusted.
 
Last edited:
Greener223224 said:
I'm bumping this thread because citing and checking sources for plagiarism became a topic of internet drama last week, and I'm wondering what sources they used for stuff like the South Sea Bubble, the Roman Christian schisms, or the Imjin War. We know the sources for Suleyman, but that's mainly because of an inquiry by a single Redditor feeling the sources were too orientalist to be trusted.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

*Shrug*
This guy lists them pretty lowly on the accuracy rating, going over their issues, but IDK about his own accuracy. I personally watch them for entertainment and cute, fun anecdotes I can share, but for more serious looks at a historical subject I tend to turn to actual academic works over youtube videos to begin with.
 
Last edited:
Yeah, I would not take any critical post from r/badhistory as evidence of actual information being bad. 99% of the time it's people being nitpicky and complaining that 10 minute video didn't go deep enough.

Ironically, often r/badhistory complaints tend to be "they rely too much on X source" and then the post uses a single source as a refutal.
 
I do think accuracy is important, but history is a messy thing to sort through, so to me as long as they do make an honest best effort to read multiple sources and cite them, I don't mind history channels having not 100% armchair historian approved presentation.

I mean, if we're talking about academics then, sure, being dry and very source-heavy is important. But as an entertainment, the main value of history as edutainment is in being something people can learn from, and EH does pretty good job in presenting a story that people can take away lessons from AND also being very clear on how interpretative they're being with their Lies post-mortem episode. Honestly, most historical channels could do with a Lies-like post-mortem open-discussion videos as well.
 
The Lies is basically a very lite form of peer review, and you could probably fit something like it in most science media.
 
Reader mode
You must login or register to reply here.
Back
Top