‪@TheKavernacle‬

[@Interbrigadist74]

It‘s actually the Byzantine Empire that played (possibly) the biggest role in preserving and replicating Greek works from the classic era. The Byzantine Emperors maintained a fairly centralized state with a bureaucratic apparatus in the tens (or hundreds?) of thousands until well into the second millennium. An apparatus in which it was very much possible to rise even to the highest civilian ranks purely on merit. Byzantium also saw itself (with a lot of justification) as a direct successor of not only Rome but even more the Hellenistic culture. As such, the upper echelons of the Empire took an obsessive interest in the Greek classics. Knowledge of said classics was therefore inevitably a major precondition for a successful career in the imperial government. As a result, classic greek works were widely studied and (crucially) replicated in the empire, not just among the elite, but by the entire state apparatus and beyond that any family with a bit of ambition and money hoping to educate their son in preparation for a hoped-for career in government. And all of those people made sure to have copies of the most important classic works in their homes. That‘s a lot of books. So even if many or most of these private collections still ended up being destroyed in the chaos of civil war, conquest and imperial decline: over almost a thousand years and with tens (or hundreds) of thousands of copies of these books existing, a solid number of them inevitably got out, were stolen or sold and found their way into the hands of merchants, collectors or scholars. There‘s actually a lot that the so-called West owes to the Byzantians. For at least half a millennium, the catholic world was arguably an relatively insignificant backwater under the shadow and indirect protection of the Emperors in Constantinople. Until that part of the world had it‘s own economic and cultural boom in the mid-to-late middle ages, Constantinople was still the center of culture for the entire christian world. And of course, it massively influenced the Islamic world as well. Heck, you could even argue that Islam itself is potentially a sect of the monophysitist, icnonoclastic branches of the Orthodox church which were always dominant in the eastern and southern parts of the Empire.

[@veritasetcaritas]

Great comments, thank you. I am pinning this comment.

[@erdood3235]

@@Interbrigadist74 the greek nationalists movement sees Byzantium as part of the greek continuum. Greeks were identified as Romans by the ottoman empire.

[@erdood3235]

@@Interbrigadist74 are there any reasons for why Byzantium wasn't a continuation of Hellenistic culture?

[@Onezy05]

There's also the fact that the Byzantines effectively CHOSE what Classics got passed down to us and which were left to time. They basically engaged in a form of memetics regarding what they considered the most valuable pieces to copy down and replicate.

[@vlasisv3415]

What's "byzantine empire"?

[@lucasmatiasdelaguilamacdon7798]

Ahh yes. I call this the “Adam something” syndrome. Being well informed on current events and policy but being absolutely clueless about history outside pop-history and what amounts to a twitter thread…

[@forodinssake9570]

Eh tbh a lot of his modern Events takes are also garbage

[@goose9515]

The ancient Rome statue video wasn't great but I like his other stuff

[@lucasmatiasdelaguilamacdon7798]

@@forodinssake9570Yeah, lately it seems it is the case

[@adorabell4253]

@@forodinssake9570Kav is pretty good at picking up on vibes but not always articulating why. He’s very young and he just needs more formal education or to read a lot more on history and politics in general.

[@MouldMadeMind]

Adam something is not well infomend on current events or policy. Look at how often he predicted the end of the ukraine war.

[@dillon1037]

Kavernacle is a guy I'd love to hang out with and chat about politics, etc but would never use as a primary source for anything. His channel feels a lot like gossip from a leftist perspective. As an aside, given your profile I have to ask; do you like/have you listened to mewithoutYou?

[@keyan1219]

The thing is I think he has actually got a really good intuitive understanding of good politics but he just doesn’t always adhere strongly to facts. Like you said he comes across as a good person with solid views but a bit gossipy

[@Drega001]

You're not supposed to use somebody in this historical figures primary source the first place. 😬

[@veritasetcaritas]

I am sure I would get along well with him socially, and we would have constructive conversations. I am not familar with "mewithoutYou".

[@page8301]

Gossip channel is actually a good term for such channels in general imho. Regardless of the topic, 10-20 minute videos can only ever scratch the surface of an issue.

[@dawn4383]

@@Drega001 I think that's a colloquialism, "Primary source" as in "My main source", rather than an actual citation.

[@berendboer8459]

I don't think you should be surprised a "better/more expensive/higher quality university" is as western centric as the Karvernacle said. Prestigious institutions can often be very resistant to change, thinking they're already doing everything right. To me, the education you received sounds incredibly progressive, despite it having happened in the 80's. I got my history degree from a well-regarded Dutch university in 2012, and my experience is far different. To start, my primary and secondary history education was mostly focused on purely Dutch history, expanding a bit to broader western history for the 19th and 20th centuries. The parts about “European expansion” were still told very much in the “we went out to explore and make money!” fashion, with maybe one lesson dwelling on the horrors of slavery as a concession to the fact that not everything was sunshine and roses, but that was about it. Nobody ever taught me anything from the point of view of, say, an Indonesian, despite all the colonizing the Duch did over there. Then I went to uni, and these are the courses we got in the first year: -Ancient History (1 lesson on Egypt and Mesopotamia, and then nothing but Greeks and Romans) -Medieval History (some stuff about the rise of Islam in the first chapter, after that we didn’t leave Europe except for the crusades and the first journeys of exploration at the very end.) -Early Modern History (almost half a year on Europe 1500-1800, except for 1 lesson on China and Japan in that period, and another on the Ottomans, Safavids AND Mughals.) -Modern History (The most cosmopolitan of the courses, but still almost entirely from a Western point of view, except for maybe 1 class on Japan and 1 on decolonization movements in Africa. -Dutch History -Social and Economic History (entirely focused on the West post 1500) After that first year I was so annoyed at the eurocentricity of what I had been taught so far that for my optional classes I picked nothing but “history of X” courses on the regions of the world that were still gaps in my knowledge. Which ended up being tremendously interesting, although it did nothing for my CV post-graduation… Obviously I haven’t done a survey of introductory history courses around the globe between watching your video and typing this comment, but from what I have picked up from my time at university and from friends who still work in academia I get the impression that while there is indeed loads of amazing, non-Eurocentric, post-Colonial history out there, you often have to go looking for it yourself, and it still hasn’t made it into the mandatory introduction courses, and certainly not yet into history lessons in primary and secondary schools.

[@veritasetcaritas]

Thank you for letting me know. I guess I was in school at just the right time. In the 1960s and 70s there was a significant change in how Australian history was studied, as a result of some influential Australian historians who insisted that Australian history had to be rewritten to center the Aboriginal Australian people and the history of their invasion, dispossession, and genocide. The way they had been largely ignored in previous professional historical accounts was described as "The Great Australian Silence". So when I was being taught history in a standard public school during the 80s, the national curriculum had already been heavily influenced by the work of historians such as Bill Stanner, Manning Clark, and in particular Henry Reynolds, who published important popular works on the subject. Today the Australian National Curriculum for years 7-9 is very broad, starting with ancient societies including the Aboriginal Australian people, and ending up investigating the influence of European imperialism and colonialism. www.australiancurriculum.edu.au/f-10-curriculum/humanities-and-social-sciences/history/?year=12318&year=12319&year=12320&year=12321&strand=Historical+Knowledge+and+Understanding&strand=Historical+Skills&capability=ignore&capability=Literacy&capability=Numeracy&capability=Information+and+Communication+Technology+%28ICT%29+Capability&capability=Critical+and+Creative+Thinking&capability=Personal+and+Social+Capability&capability=Ethical+Understanding&capability=Intercultural+Understanding&priority=ignore&priority=Aboriginal+and+Torres+Strait+Islander+Histories+and+Cultures&priority=Asia+and+Australia%E2%80%99s+Engagement+with+Asia&priority=Sustainability&elaborations=true&elaborations=false&scotterms=false&isFirstPageLoad=false

[@tomtech1537]

@@veritasetcaritas the outline you provided above was covered for my generation (~20 years ago), and sounds similar to your video description (until university which I have no point of comparison) in my experience (in suburban Melbourne)... Primary school also covered quite a bit of indigenous culture/beliefs. There was even a nuanced discussion about TJ Hickey's death and the potential role institutions created there (when we were ~10yo). I am quite confused when people talk about "truth telling" and how white Australia will be horrified (recent political commentary from the "yes campaign" on the voice to parliament given your hiatus ;))... I think the (mandatory) school system has done a pretty good job of describing the history and most people would be aware of the main issues.

[@veritasetcaritas]

Thanks for the comment.

[@whtalt92]

One of the challenges (Dutch) Universities have is that, to an extent, they do need to match up with the general curriculum. More recently however lecturers and profs are increasingly giving attention to non-European history in the 1st year, which - how unexpected! - has lead to reactions from politicians and reactionary groups that they're 'engaging in leftist, woke hobbies'. Ah well. 🤗

[@fenrirunshackled4319]

A lot of leftist pop culture just amounts to taking a group that is discriminated against in western countries, and giving them an outsized amount of credit for achievements that spanned across cultural and ethnic boundaries. It's largely symptomatic of our cultural tendency to assign total credit to a single person or group for advancements that were largely iterative and advanced across many people and groups. For example giving Newton an outsized amount of credit for calculus while ignoring the achievements of other mathematicians that set the stage for the discovery of calculus. This foundation is evident in Leibniz's independent discovery of calculus (and his better formulation of the ideas).

[@veritasetcaritas]

Yes, and I think it's also a case of over-correction. You're definitely right to idenitfy the "great man" tendency in this approach.

[@tomtech1537]

>For example giving Newton an outsized amount of credit for calculus while ignoring the achievements I really like the quote from Bezos "All overnight success takes about 10 years". Not directly applicable but if you extend this idea a little I think humans have a tendency to overemphasise the 'sudden success' (look at the apocryphal falling apple or bathtub) than the toil it took to get there (other than Edison and the lightbulb..). Not sure if this universal or differs in culture.

[@Taipei_103]

The medieval Catholic Church had an inconsistent attitude towards Bible translations. It was at times tolerated and at times banned. Several people were killed for translating the Bible and there were local councils that prohibited owning vernacular Bibles.

[@veritasetcaritas]

Yes.

[@willmosse3684]

On the “learning about history” section at the end, I grew up in London, UK, the same as Kav, though I’m older - a similar age to you it seems Veritas. And I have to say, my memory of history education at school was VERY Euro/Western-centric. I actually don’t remember learning about any other cultures at all. We did that social history style of learning you talk about, but it was all “what was it like to be an ordinary Anglo-Saxon farmer in Early-Medieval England” or whatever. It certainly wasn’t all positive. We learned about the evils of the trans-Atlantic slave trade for example, but it was still all very much from a European perspective. We didn’t learn anything about the cultures of the people’s in Africa BEFORE they were taken as slaves or anything like that. And while, based on what I hear from my nieces, things have changed somewhat to try and be more representative, I think it’s still more about trying to show the importance of Black or ethnic minority people in UK or Western history, rather than really studying other cultures as such, though I could be wrong. And, unlike Kav, I did go to a reasonably expensive, though very liberal and not super academic, private secondary (high) school. But the curriculum was standard. When you say his education was more expensive than yours, unless you mean that the UK government spends more per student on education than Australia (I would be surprised), I think he’s said that he went to a normal state school. He does talk about going to a Catholic school, but we have state funded religious schools here (for some reason…).

[@veritasetcaritas]

Thanks, that is genuinely surprising to hear. In Australia it's not possible for each state school to receive the same amount of money, and mine was a tiny country farm school which had only 300 students in grades 7-10 so it didn't get much in the way of funding. I would be very surprised if Kav went a government school which was that small. From what I can see online, the average UK secondary school has at least 1,000 students, and I doubt they were funded less than my school was in the 80s. I would certainly be surprised if his undergrad university was less prestigious than mine. I know the teaching of history in Britain has gone through different stages, especially when it came to the empire. 1. British empire was great, and you'll learn about how great it was. Result, you learn about many different countries and how it was good that they were colonized. 2. British empire was bad, and you'll learn about how bad it was. Result, you learn about many different countries on their own terms, and how it was bad that they were colonized. 3. British empire was bad, but talking about the British empire is Eurocentric so it needs to be de-prioritized, so stop talking about all those colonized countries. Result, you learn about British history WITHOUT learning much about the empire and WITHOUT learning about many different countries. It seems like British history is still stuck at stage three, according to various online articles. This Indian article says that stage three happened during the 80s when "empire" became a 'dirty word" so imperialism was largely removed from the curriculum. "By the 1980s, Empire had become a dirty word. At present, although it is mentioned as a non-statutory topic in the national curriculum, it is hardly ever taught." indianexpress.com/article/research/why-history-of-british-empire-is-not-taught-enough-in-uk-schools-8327905/ These articles suggest the UK curriculum is still at that stage. theconversation.com/school-curriculum-continues-to-whitewash-britains-imperial-past-53577 www.ucl.ac.uk/ioe/news/2024/mar/how-british-empire-and-its-legacy-being-taught-schools www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/dec/05/britain-colonial-history-curriculum-racism-migration I found that second article particularly astonishing because it says British school children should learn about the British suppression of the Mau Mau, which means they very clearly DO NOT learn about it at present. In my very first year of an undergraduate history course in Australia, I learned all about the British colonization of Kenya, all about the Kikuyu, the Mau Mau, Jomo Kenyatta, and the Kenyan independence movement, from primary and secondary sources. On the other hand, while I agree that ideally Western schools should teach the history of as many non-Western countries as possible, in practice there are serious time limits preventing this being done comprehensively. There are 54 nations in Africa alone. If schoolchildren had five history classes a week, it would take 54 weeks to spend just five classes on each nation, which is obviously not very much. Then there's 5,000 years of Chinese history to cover, then a couple of thousand each for Korea and Japan, another few thousand on India, another 3,000 just on Mesopotamia, and that is barely scratching the surface of non-Western nations. Egypt alone has a good 6,000 years, and how can you cover 80,000 years of Aboriginal Australian history in any detail while teaching about anyone else as well? Obviously certain history has to be prioritized over other history, and exactly which history gets how much time will always be a matter of argument. Exactly how that balance is to be achieved, I really don't know. In Australia I think this is done partly through compulsory introduction courses to regions and periods, and partly through optional courses on more specific areas and eras. But the wider the diversity of your population, the more countries you need to cover, so you'll run up against that time limit sooner or later. In Asia, they have a very straight forward approach to this problem; they overwhelmingly teach the history of their own nation and almost nothing else. If you're an immigrant you can forget about learning your country's history. In Taiwan, where I lived for 20 years, schoolchildren are taught mainly the history of China, some history of Korea and Japan as it relates to Chinese history, then Taiwan's history. They are barely even taught anything about World War 2, despite the fact that Taiwan actually fought in that war on the side of Japan. A surprising number of university aged students I used to teach, couldn't even tell me the dates of World War 2. In Korea they not only teach World War 2, they teaching their kids to hate the Japanese as people. I was quite alarmed when I visited my friends' chidlren's high school and found they had been drawing posters of Korean soldiers killing Japanese soldiers, or even just Korean people killing Japanese people in various gruesome ways. There were also plenty of pictures of Japanese flags being destroyed. So I guess that's one way to teach kids about other countries.

[@willmosse3684]

@@veritasetcaritas Lol - yeah, I wouldn’t recommend teaching about other cultures in some of those ways you mentioned there. I think if we are serious about wanting to teach “black history”, which we say we are, and I think probably is important in a place like London, even that on its own is ridiculously expansive to teach in the time available. But, I think that it would be possible to teach about one or two key West African civilisations from before the time of the trans-Atlantic slave trade, rather it starting with black people on slave ships, and then highlighting three or four black people who were important within the context of teaching explicitly British history. In terms of school funding, I am sure any state funded school in London gets more money overall than a tiny country farm school because they would be so much bigger, that’s for sure. But, on a per pupil basis, I wouldn’t be so sure. Some schools in London are very underfunded. It’s a problem actually. That said, the Church affiliated schools often seem to fare somewhat better in this regard, so I expect his school was decent. But, definitely nothing particularly grand either. Cheers 🍻

[@veritasetcaritas]

@@willmosse3684 yes I agree, good points.

[@chrisball3778]

The bit about Christian superstition makes a fair point, in that medieval Christians certainly weren't uniquely or even unusually superstitious, but you do cherry-pick your sources a bit. Some classical writers express scepticism about omens, portents and other superstitions, whilst some medieval and early modern Christian writers harp on about them endlessly. I think its more a case that superstitious belief has always varied immensely in every culture over time and between individuals. Just look at modern times... you can find endless written material on astrology or psychics, alongside endless written material debunking them. As you say elsewhere in the video, societies are never monolithic. Also, although vernacular translations of the Bible weren't completely banned in the medieval period, it is still true that they were often strictly regulated, and people who spread unauthorised translations were severely persecuted, with the overall result that few people had unmediated access to the Bible unless they could read Latin. I present a couple points of comparison. Firstly, the USA's prohibition on alcohol sales during the 1920's contained exceptions for medicinal and religious use, but it'd still be wrong to claim that there was no widespread prohibition of alcohol during the period. Secondly, today, you can be prescribed fentanyl by a doctor if you are assessed as having a medical need for it, but that doesn't mean that it's not effectively a banned substance. You can still be imprisoned if you possess it without the relevant prescription. Likewise, periods of relative tolerance of vernacular translations of the Bible, alongside individual exceptions to the general rule even during periods of greater orthodoxy doesn't mean that it's inherently inaccurate to describe vernacular translations as effectively banned in medieval Europe. They were never banned absolutely, but they were very much effectively banned for much of the era, and I don't think Kav's necessarily wrong to use the description. As to the Eurocentric teaching of history... well Kav grew up in the UK, like me. I think I'm about 10 years older than him. The history syllabus I learned in school did definitely contain some anti-colonialist aspects. We were definitely taught about the transatlantic slave trade and some British colonial atrocities, but it was done in a political environment that generally dismissed such teaching as 'politically correct' (I.e. 'Woke' in today's language). There were also a lot of people around at the same time with big media platforms, constantly screaming about how the British Empire abolished slavery before anyone else did, and that colonialism was a net benefit to the colonised because they got railways. Both of those idiotic talking points remain extremely popular in Britain today. Which is to say that Kav is 100% wrong to blame Historians or the educational establishment for the widespread belief in nationalist pseudohistory in the UK, but he's still 100% right to call out popular nationalistic historical myths. You're still indisputably right to hold him to a higher standard than the average nationalist slop-pedlar, and he should definitely try to do better. Anyway, really liked the video, and learned a lot from it. I really felt you made a lot of arguments really well that are applicable to a lot of progressive-leaning pop history that I've felt for a long time, but haven't been able to express nearly as well as you have. My criticisms are just quibbles.

[@veritasetcaritas]

Thansk for the detailed comment. 1. I did point out that Christians weren't uniformly skeptical. To avoid cherry picking I made a point of noting that Christians and even educated Christian leaders, even well into the medeival period, could be very supersitious and adopted uncritically the superstitions of the Romans, providing a number of examples across the period. * "In the medieval era (from the 5th century), Christian leaders throughout the disintegrated Roman empire experienced great difficulty overcoming the pagan beliefs of their new converts, beliefs which in many cases were more suppressed than abandoned." * "Archbishop Isidore of Seville of the sixth century, SHOWED GREAT CREDULITYin accepting the writings of earlier Greek and Roman authors who spoke of mythical animals and supernatural portents (which Isidore attempted to harmonize with Christianity)." * "Additionally, even some reasonably educated Christians (such as the literate monks who were the historians of the era), RETAINED THE SUPERSTITIONS OF THEIR ORIGINAL CULTURE AND RELIGION. Consequently, they had a tendency to interpret a wide range of natural phenomena as indicative of supernatural events or signs from God." * "In particular, certain events WERE ATTRIBUTED TO SUPERNATURAL EVIL, such as evil spirits, demons, and witches." I realise there were ancient Greek and Roman skeptics as well, but not only were they in a minority, they didn't increase in number. In contrast, we see a distinct trend in Christian history towards a less superstitious belief system, replaced by an orderly set of impersonal natural laws. 2. I agree access to vernacular Bible translations throughout the medeival period was very limited, and in some cases restricted by law, but I didn't comment on the entire period or all of Europe. I was addressing only this very specific claim of Kav's. * "YOU WEREN'T EVEN ALLOWD TO WRITE THE BIBLE IN ENGLISH, by the way. FOR A LONG LONG TIME. A guy called John Wycliffe WAS THE FIRST GUY TO TRY AND DO THIS so the masses could actually read the Bible, because back in MEDIEVAL ENGLAND, only the elite and the church and people who could read Latin and Greek, they were the only ones allowed to." That is an extremely specific claim, and there is no way to spin it as true. If Kav had said "Throughout much of medieval Europe, reading the Bible in a vernacular was so inaccessible it was effectively banned, and socio-economic and religious pressures discouraged it", I would hardly have quibbled, but his claim was far more specific. The reason for this is that in his video he was trying to draw an equivalence between modern Britain and its Christianity, and the oppressive Muslim religious environments of places like Iran and Afghanistan. He was trying to draw fire from these Muslim environments by saying there was nothing special about modern Britain and Christianity, since the same things had happened in the British Christian past. This is why his claim was so specific; Britain and its Christianity was the target. He wasn't interested in commenting generally on all of medieval Europe. 3. Thanks for your comments about education systems. I totally agree Kav is right to call out the flaws in the education he received. I guess I was in school at just the right time. In the 1960s and 70s there was a significant change in how Australian history was studied, as a result of some influential Australian historians who insisted that Australian history had to be rewritten to center the Aboriginal Australian people and the history of their invasion, dispossession, and genocide. The way they had been largely ignored in previous professional historical accounts was described as "The Great Australian Silence". So when I was being taught history in a standard public school during the 80s, the national curriculum had already been heavily influenced by the work of historians such as Bill Stanner, Manning Clark, and in particular Henry Reynolds, who published important popular works on the subject. Today the Australian National Curriculum for years 7-9 is very broad, starting with ancient societies including the Aboriginal Australian people, and ending up investigating the influence of European imperialism and colonialism. I appreciate your good faith commentary, thank you!

[@hive_indicator318]

Thank you, sincerely. We shouldn't just hold people accountable for their claims when we know their goals don't align with our own. Especially with all the bad stuff that's actually been done for power, there's no reason to make stuff up

[@veritasetcaritas]

Thank you.

[@BlisaBLisa]

"blood rain" being explained as blood from battlefields evaporating and raining back down to earth is sick as hell. im amazed this was the scientific explanation of the time it sounds more poetic than anything. im tempted to use this in some kind of writing in the future lol

[@BlisaBLisa]

i really cant blame people for attributing supernatural causes to it, if i saw what looked like blood raining down id probably assume it was gods wrath too

[@veritasetcaritas]

It's actually at least in some way para-scientifically plausible; it makes the blood rain a part of the evaporation/condensation cycle. Certainly better than appealing to demons.

[@breadpilled2587]

Im a fan of both of your channels. I like kav's commentary on current events, but i hope he can grow when it comss to properly learning about and talking about history. I hope he will take this video in good faith and maybe even spark a dialogue.

[@veritasetcaritas]

Thank you!

[@rebelmango2141]

His takes on current events is worse than his history

[@breadpilled2587]

@rebelmango2141 if you don't like Marxism, you probably won't like his takes. It's expected.

[@rebelmango2141]

@breadpilled2587 Fair enough

[@page8301]

@@rebelmango2141 Name some of them.

[@martinsriber7760]

This pales in comparison to some stuff he said about more recent history.

[@CraftsmanOfAwsomenes]

Wow, I think I made a comment on your last video on the topic of him saying how he was always confident in his claims to an unwarranted degree. I was almost thinking no one in this series would get a “Bad”. Also, I don’t know if you saw it, but a portion of Miniminuteman’s latest video was dedicated to Christian syncretism. Wondering if you would be interested in looking into it since that’s one of your recurring topics on BadHistory

[@veritasetcaritas]

Thank you. I haven't seen that video from Miniminuteman but I will take a look. I am currently making a video on Miniminuteman’s claims about the Great Pyramid not being built by slaves.

[@willmosse3684]

I’m not sure you’re comparing apples to apples when it comes to Kav’s statements on Sati in British ruled India, and the situation in Israel-Palestine today. I think your argument overall about how Kav is incorrect about how the prohibition of Sati came to be is very very solid, so I’m just referring to this one aspect. In the former case, we are talking about a Western colonial power intervening to end an indigenous practice deemed to violate human rights (in current terminology), whilst in the latter, we are talking about a Western colonial power itself carrying out human rights violations against an indigenous population, and other Westerners campaigning to make them stop. So think one could have a logically and ethically coherent position that opposed the former and supported the latter - I’m not saying that this SHOULD be the position, just that it is a coherent position. I think this analysis probably also applies to slavery and Jim Crow in the US (though perhaps not quite as starkly?).

[@veritasetcaritas]

Thanks for the good faith comment. My objection to Kav's claim was that he thought the British abolished sat TOO EARLY, and did not take into account the feelings of the local ELITES who were enforcing it, despite the fact that NON-ELITE Indian reformers were REPEATEDLY requesting the British to help. I was objecting to the idea that the preferences of the elite oppressors must be prioritized over the requests of the non-elite oppressed. My point of comparison therefore was situations in which non-elites who are being oppressed by elites, are asking for help. So in this case it maps to the situations I described thus: 1. US slaveholders = oppressing elites, slaves = non-elites asking for help from the US government and white people, asking specifically that slavery be abolished. So was the correct action to tell the slaves "Sorry we can't just abolish slavery immediately, you have to consider the culture, feelings, and objections of the slaveholders, you have to wait until this happens organically, you need to do the work to abolish slavery yourselves", or was the correct action for the US government to tell the slaves "Yes, we are abolishing slavery IMMEDIATELY and we don't care what the slaveholders think"? 2. Israeli government = oppressive elites, Palestinian people = non-elites asking for help from ANYONE, including even white people. So is the correct action to tell the Palestinians "Sorry we can't intervene, we have no power to abolish Israeli law and we have no authority over the IDF, and anyway the settlements can't be removed immediately, these things take time, and you have to consider the culture, feelings, and objections of the settlers, you have to wait until this happens organically, you need to do the work to save yourselves", or is the correct action to tell the Palestinians "Yes, this must stop IMMEDIATELY, we will do whatever we can to help, and we don't care what the Israeli government and settlers think"? 3. US government = oppressing elites, segregated black people without civil rights = non-elites asking for help from the US government and white people, asking specifically that segregation end and they be given civil rights. So was the correct action to tell black people "Sorry we can't just abolish segregation and give you civil rights immediately, these things take time, and you have to consider the culture, feelings, and objections of the racist white people, you have to wait until this happens organically, you need to do the work to change the law yourselves", or was the correct action to tell them "Yes, this must change IMMEDIATELY, and we don't care what the racist white people think"? I don't think it matters that the British government in India was a Western colonizing power, the fact is local reformers were asking them to do something IMMEDIATELY, and they were REFUSING to do so because they wanted to placate the oppressing elites who were the COLLABORATORS in the colonization of India. So they were refusing to help an oppressed group out of a bad motive, and they were empowering the oppressor group out of a bad motive. Ironically, Kav thought the British helped immediately, when they actually didn't and he explicitly says they SHOULD NOT have helped immediately anyway. So he literally defends the course of action which was in fact taken by the British. On a related point which I suspect is also behind Kav's position, if a member of an oppressed group is asking me for help, I'm not going to say "Sorry I can't help you because my skin is the wrong color and I'm ethnically related to the oppressors".

[@seanbeadles7421]

18:09 I’m fascinated by Christian religious dissection how have I not heard of this

[@veritasetcaritas]

It was often used to preserve body parts from saints. I have more on it in this video. kzbin.info/www/bejne/bnbNmo2po7WGetE

[@raylast3873]

The real problem with the way history is taught is that it‘s massively idealistic and basically ignores production as a cause of class composition and societal development. If it covers class relations at all, it‘s always at an extremely superficial level.

[@neoqwerty]

The amounts of people who think we know history from a rando average guy's viewpoint and not from the elite for most of that history gets me so mad each time. I'm so glad that there's academic fields rising to actually investigate the randos' lives by poring through letter caches, even if it's shit as mundane as people's grocery lists and wishlists.

[@adorabell4253]

@@raylast3873 I did not experience that at all. Large survey courses won’t go deep into class relations, no, but they are meant as general intro courses to give students an overview of the subject or time period. For in depth stuff you need to select courses that cover that. All courses need to do that, a course on Chinese medicine doesn’t need to cover class relations beyond a few mentions.

[@raylast3873]

@ you are dead wrong. It‘s not about not going into detail, but about ignoring class makeup and production as a primary cause of historical events, in favor of completely idealistic nonsense about this or that particular decision taken by this or that historic figure. The social makeup of a society is determined by how it produces and distributes resources and this then determines it‘s internal and external conflicts as well as the limits of what it can do. But this is something that is basically never taught, never mind sensibly applied, other than by a handful of fringe historians.

[@veritasetcaritas]

This is why I think social history is so important.

[@veritasetcaritas]

When you talk about "completely idealistic nonsense about this or that particular decision taken by this or that historic figure", you're referring to the "Great Man" theory of history. By the time I was in school that historical method had been long debunked and replaced by social history, which focused very closely on class relations.

[@tmsphere]

The story of The Kacernacle like that of so many who came before him is he found out he could read Wikipedia entries and has a pleasant voice, ppl dont like to read not even Wikipedia entries and that's when the "essay man" appears, to do what we've all been taught to do in primary school, summarizing. Only at school we couldn't do it straight off the paper we had to remember that shit.

[@tomtech1537]

I think one thing that we all forgot (or atleast I did until I thought about it thanks to hbomberguy) was that this is normally considered plagiarism in academic circles and it is very much the duty of the presenter to produce sources (even when they are synthesizing multiple). It is literally so normalised and common on YT that it takes a minute to realise this... the frog has been boiled...

[@TheLetsRead]

@veritasetcaritas bro this comment is rude as shit, and liking it is suspect as hell. who, with a busy schedule trying to earn a living, is going to parse through an hour long critique? i repeat myself for the 1087th time, this video could have been an email/discord dm.

[@PlatinumAltaria]

@@TheLetsRead If you are going to make a KZbin video discussing a topic you are morally obligated to do more research than just reading what's on the first page of google, otherwise you are not adding anything to the conversation.

[@TheLetsRead]

@@PlatinumAltaria Good thing that's not the Kavernacle's process.

[@PlatinumAltaria]

@@TheLetsRead Did you watch the video or read any of the comments before white knighting for some guy on the internet?

[@bengreen171]

On the topic of superstition - I have some doubts. I want to preface this by saying I haven't studied this academically at all, so it's just a musing. Listening to all the quotes from religious figures denouncing superstition in favour of what we would consider today to be more 'naturalistic' explanations, it strikes me that these are all Christian leaders condemning 'folk' superstition of the sort that would have been around for centuries (possibly, though I'm aware that like all cultural memes they might pop up from nowhere). So it occurs to me that what we're seeing here is an attack on what would have been considered pagan or animistic traditions and culture. So it's not an attack on superstition per se, but an attack on non Christian superstition. I don't think you can consider the medieval Christian world 'anti superstition' when you can go to the nearest church and find St Peter's thumb or Mary's blanket or some such other relic stashed away in some cubbyhole. Only yesterday I was reading about the Basilica della Santa Casa - a house supposedly transported by Angels from Nazareth to Italy - via a stop off in Croatia. It seems to me that one person's superstition is another person's evidence of God's hand working his mysterious ways. I know it's not quite the same thing, but depending on what we mean by superstition, it doesn't seem unreasonable to claim that medieval Christian Europe was a place full of superstition - not to mention weird outbreaks of dancing mania. And I can't help thinking that these constant admonitions from church leaders seem to suggest that there was a lot of it about - after all, you don't have to keep reminding people not to indulge in something if it's not actually something being indulged in (ok, yeah, that doesn't necessarily hold water given the fact that certain people like pushing certain narratives that aren't true reflections of society, but you get the point). I dunno. Just a thought. I'm wary of the whole 'new atheist' revisionist history of religion, but cautious about apologetical responses that want to give credit where it isn't necessarily warranted (and to be clear I'm not making any accusations here of any bias in your critique).

[@ohauss]

"the Church" was actually a complex entity and neither the medieval nor the early modern Christian world was a coherent block. E.g. people like to point at Heinrich Kramer, author of the Malleus Maleficarum, and his getting papal sanction as evidence of the Church being a driving factor behind the witch craze but ignore that he was chased out of Innsbruck by the bishop once the latter realized what Kramers ideas of interrogation looked like and on what kind of "evidence" his sentences were founded. Even Kramer's first witch trial in Ravensburg was done upon request of the city council, not clerical authorities. And one of the most vocal critics of the persecution of witches, Friedrich Spee, was a Jesuit.

[@bengreen171]

@@ohauss yeah, to paraphrase an old adage, I'm a rational theist, you are superstitious - they are in a cult. I think 'generalisms' are somewhat unavoidable in any discourse, especially one that encompasses so much time and across a vast swathe of people, but we always need to be careful when creating a narrative.

[@bengreen171]

@@ohauss annoyingly, youtube has hidden my reply to you - it's visible if you change settings to 'newest first'.

[@veritasetcaritas]

Thanks for your comment. I want to make it clear that I wasn't saying Christians were condeming "superstition" as such, and I didn't intend to identify them as "anti-superstition" in the broadest sense. As I menioned, as as you note, many of them were certainly still superstitious, or held religious beliefs we would call supersitious. The point was that they gradually stopped becoming so credulous, which reduced their level of superstition. A large part of this was the way they stopped attributing supernatural causes to natural events they could not explain, and started calling THAT supersition. This wasn't simply an attack on folk beliefs, this was a rethinking of how the universe actually works, and a deliberate departure from a specific form of supersitious thinking which had been very popular, including among Christians themselves. But that aside, Kav's claim was that the science advanced better in the Muslim world due to the Christian world being wrapped up in Christian supersition. This is demonstrably untrue since the Christian world saw significant scientific advancement during the medieval period, and since the Christian world steadily became less superstitious.

[@bengreen171]

@@veritasetcaritas Fair enough. His argument doesn't hold up given that there was just as much superstition in the Islamic world as in Christian Europe. I do wonder (and I haven't seen Kav's video so this is mere speculation) that he was - perhaps rather carelessly - using 'superstition' as a placeholder for 'religion' generally - but this would render his unfavourable comparison between Christianity and Islam just as flawed. I think maybe a better argument to make is that as superstition in the Christian world declined, it was able to overtake the Muslim world, over the course of the Medieval period.

[@jloiben12]

Kav is basically what you get when you are a well-intentioned team sports guy. His worldview, his politics, don’t emerge from his principles. He is largely just adopting a certain aesthetic because of how it makes him feel. There is nothing inherently wrong with this in and of itself. Just, as you point out, this can lead to issues which Kav personifies pretty well. Dude means well. He doesn’t seem to be a bad faith actor. Just the team he decided to be on, without regard to principles, causes Kav to make errors

[@rdblk9710]

Lol what "team" is that? And your worldview necessarily emerges from your principles, beliefs, values, etc. Anything that doesn't isn't your actual worldview, even if you think it is.

[@jloiben12]

@ (1) “[W]hat team is that?” (Internal quotations omitted). Leftism/progressive/whatever-specific-label-you-want-to-call it. (2) “And your worldview necessarily emerges from your principles, beliefs, values, etc. Anything that doesn’t isn’t your actual worldview, even if you think it is.” Awww. Look at you go! Next you are going to say that the rationality assumed by neoclassical economics (aka standard fundamental economics) is descriptively accurate

[@erdood3235]

I disagree with the assertion that kav is well intentioned. He clearly should a disregard for afab people in India.

[@Josue-mv2fo]

​@@erdood3235*women in India

[@erdood3235]

@@Josue-mv2fo 🏳️‍⚧️

[@DermoNONE]

It should be obvious that anyone who read the works that made Dawkins famous (Selfish Gene, God Delusion) that he's a cultural Christian

[@veritasetcaritas]

Yes very much so.

[@neongrey333]

I suspect your had a much better experience of school than he did in terms of subject matter. I'm in Canada and while I had a slightly similar experience in the structural broad strokes (late 80s/early 90s), we definitely a lot... milder than what you got in terms of covering our treatment of our own indigenous peoples. And Canada wasn't any less awful to them than Australia. We got fed stories of cooperation between white settlers and the first nations, or fur traders, etc. You could easily have come away from those lessons thinking the settlers never did anything wrong. I suspect an American education legitimately would be even more whitewashed than that. I think the much-publicized American horror that their kids learning about anything bad in America's past is real and descriptive of that only _now_ are we starting to get even hints of that in their school curriculums. I can't speak for what he would have learned at university though, I took electronics.

[@veritasetcaritas]

Thanks for the comment. I think I was fortunate to be educated during the 80s when post-colonial studies entered the curriculum, just before the so-called History Wars which took place in Australia during the 90s, when there was a conservative backlash against a critical perspective of Australian history, and the curriculum was accordingly watered down. Additionally, in terms of comparing US and Austrlaian education, it seems to me that the Australian Federal government has more influence over what is taught in schools through the national curriculum, whereas in the US the states have far more influence, which would definitely explain why some people in the US receive a much beter education than others, depending on where they live.

[@willmosse3684]

I don’t think it’s fair to call Kavernacle “a leftist history KZbinr”. I don’t think he’s a history KZbinr at all. He’s a leftist current affairs commentator who occasionally references history as part of his analysis of current affairs.

[@veritasetcaritas]

I didn't call him a leftist history KZbinr, I said he's "a leftist KZbinr creating historical, political, and social commentary". The main issue with regard to his historical commentary is that he claims to be better at history than other people, and has specifically attempted to correct other people on history, citing his history degree, while making errors in history himself.

[@willmosse3684]

@ you did call him that. It’s the first sentence of the video. Watch it back. Only just started on the rest of the video. All seems good 👍🏻

[@veritasetcaritas]

@@willmosse3684 I didn't call him that. I already quoted directly from the first sentence of the video; I said he's "a leftist KZbinr creating historical, political, and social commentary". That's a diret quotation.

[@willmosse3684]

⁠@@veritasetcaritasyou did call him that. I think you must be quoting your script. But if you play it back, you will hear that you say he’s “a leftist HISTORY KZbinr, creating…”. I just listened again, and it’s definitely what you say. I think you must have said it accidentally during the recording

[@veritasetcaritas]

@@willmosse3684 thanks, I have edited the audio to remove the word "history"; the video should update in a bit.

[@jjose7410]

Considering how the sources referred here are western, I don't think you are refuting Kavernacle's claim of our current knowledge of scientific history being western centric. Case in point, 'eastern' scholars are 'Muslim' scholars while western are not 'Christian' scholars; they are assumed to be secular or in your word 'western'. Even when the discussion admits of people reducing things reduced as a monolith, the video inadvertently does the same. Orientalism is not unique to general history or social science, very much to science as well. edit: on Sati It was not a prevailing 'Hindu' practise, it was a practise in northern India among a small sect of upper caste. Again the video is treating it as a monolithic and prevalent practise than actual reality; it is bad history. There is no historical evidence suggesting the former, which is again, colonial recordings in parliamentary papers and available. I don't know Rakhi Bose as a historian, but if you are interested I will suggest prof. Vinay Lal, who is an academician and has written/taught on this. While there were local reformers for its abolition, there was also local elite for it. So much that memorials were raised at privy council by said parties after ban, the very parties in power British were trying to please. Paraphrasing Raja Ram Mohan Roy's biographer (historian Amiya P. Sen), "compared to Bentinck, Roy was more for 'restraint and caution' " when it came to 1829 regulation of Sati. Though it went through further iterations, Bentick's was a big step up from Minto's 1813 partial legality on the practise and there is nothing wrong in giving credit where its due. This was later revoked to 1813 one by Maucalay, ironically, the one credited as a reformer among governer general. Referring the unaplogetic nature of Bentick's 1829 doesn't invalidate colonial powers using women as excuse for asserting their civilizational heirarchy on subjects. On this subject, I will suggest you the chapter on it in Manoj Mitta's recent history of caste pride in India from legal perspective. While its easy to shut the arguement by making it singular - 'British abolished Sati fullstop' as some sort of gotacha, the sentiment of 'native treatment of women' being used a scale by imperialists to legitimize their 'white man's burden' is well documented and studied. If that's the point Kav was making, I don't find it as an omission of british compliance in caste practises of upper elite and would argue that such an interpretation is rather childish and wilful. Lata Mani put it correctly "women are neither subjects nor objects, ...that women themselves are marginal to the debate. Instead, the question of women's status... becomes the occasion for struggle over the divergent priorities of officials and the indigenous male elite." Also, I am rather appalled to see rightwing nut jobs referred alongside actual historians.

[@NickyDusse]

tl;dr

[@lawrencehan463]

Well that’s why we need many ppl working together, no? Each filling in gaps with our specialities. Sources are still a step up either way but you make great points

[@seanbeadles7421]

For your first paragraph; veritas does mention non Muslim Arab scholars

[@page8301]

"rightwing nut jobs" like whom? Please do not tell me that you mean Dawkins.

[@jjose7410]

@@page8301 one at 48'20''

[@gutti7814]

Sometimes i feel like you've made your point convincingly 15 minutes ago and anything more is just overkill. I appreciate the thouroughness but this video could've been like 30 minutes long lol.

[@SomasAcademy]

Most Veritas et Caritas videos COULD be a lot shorter, but the thoroughness is what makes them Veritas et Caritas videos; he doesn't leave any room for people to interpret his data as insufficient. I made my own debunking video earlier this year and found that tons of people went to the comments to argue conclusive points I'd made pretty efficiently in the video; Veritas' approach of hammering every point home to an arguably excessive degree is more efficient in the long run than doing so across dozens of comment replies lol

[@ItsJustCartier]

Eh considering how many people view the Kav as legit source somehow. An hour vid dissecting his claims is kinda warranted.

[@veritasetcaritas]

For some people, yes much of what I include is overkill, but I prefer to provide "more than enough" specifically for those people who I know will come and comment "but what about X?", "why didn't you mention Y?", and "you omitted Z". Soma's comment below is exactly why I take this approach.

[@delve_]

@@veritasetcaritas It's absolutely not overkill IMO. As you said in the video description, this isn't a "takedown" video, it's a critique. Could you do a 15 minute hit piece, show how The Kavernacle has been wrong about history, call him a hack, and leave it at that? Yeah, sure, but that's wouldn't be a robust critique of his errors and methodology as you presented here.

[@veritasetcaritas]

@@delve_ thank you so much! I strongly agree. I think the amount of work I put into this video is evidence that I am acting in good faith. The hours and hours I spent on research don't earn me any money since I don't monetize any of my videos, and if I wanted to just bash him or post lazy reaction content I wouldn't have needed to spend the time making a 70 minute video backed by a couple of pages of sources.

[@zaidahmedkhan4103]

Hello Veritas, I have two questions: From 21:15 to 32:18, you provided a detailed explanation of how superstition gradually faded in Europe, thanks to Christian theology that framed the universe as being guided by divine law. You mentioned that Christians believed, even if they didn’t fully understand the cause behind a phenomenon, it was better to attribute it to a lack of knowledge about causality rather than viewing it as a direct act of God. I really appreciated the depth of that discussion. My question is: do you know if there was a similar progression in the Islamic world regarding the understanding of causality and superstition? I know some people point to Al-Ghazali and claim he contributed to a decline in rational thinking by dismissing causality, but I believe there is nuance in his philosophy. Even if we assume he did hold such views, I wonder if further research could show whether his actions directly led to a decline on a case-by-case basis. So, I’m asking if you're aware of any significant contributions from Islamic scholars to the understanding of causality or efforts to eliminate superstition? In the satī part of your video, you mentioned how a Hindu nationalist provided an explanation for the origin of satī, claiming it was motivated by a fear of sexual violence from Islamic invaders. While you didn’t directly address or refute this claim, you did counter the Hindu nationalist's other claims, his "whataboutism" concerning witchburning in England. If you're familiar with the historical context of Islamic invasions and their relationship to the practice of satī, could you share your thoughts on whether there is any validity to this claim?

[@TheLetsRead]

Would appreciate a response to this inquiry, bruv.

[@veritasetcaritas]

Thanks for the question. I don't know if there was a similar progression in the Islamic world, but I do know the influeneo f Al Ghazali has been greatly overstated, and that the concept of causality in Muslim thought existed very much as it did in the West. There are still debates over the reasons for the apparent decline of scientific thought in the Muslim world, but Al Ghazali does not appear to be one of them. As for the Hindu nationalist I cited, I don't think there is any historical validity to his claim that "The Sati practice became prominent only after the Islamic hordes descended on India", or his claim that "widows were left with no choice but to self-immolate". I haven't seen any evidence for this whatsoever. As far as I am conerned this is just anti-Muslim propaganda.

[@odothedoll2738]

I’m American and my experience with learning history in school as a kid is similar to yours. We were taught about the Native American genocide from a young age. We also learned about the holocaust in the same grade school. I went to a hippie environmental school in the late 2000s but still.

[@veritasetcaritas]

Thank you.

[@page8301]

There seems to be a wide range of quality of education in the US. I remember the KZbinr "Knowing Better" talking about his education both in high school and later college giving a very white washed version of US history, severely downplaying both first contact and later settling of the west showing the European settlers in a much more favourable light and the "savage natives" as much worse.

[@veritasetcaritas]

@@page8301 yes, perhaps there's little federal oversight of the curriculum, with the result that state curricula may differ widely in quality.

[@TheLetsRead]

@@veritasetcaritas There is little federal oversight (source: I'm an American). Do YoUr ReSeArCh

[@Manole5500]

Will you do other videos by him? I am sure it's a gold mine of "history to debunk.

[@veritasetcaritas]

I will finish my cyberpunk series on him first.

[@tomtech1537]

I know we all like to think we would be on the right side of history, but Kav would be unlikely to have the opinion on slavery provided, especially if he was born in the south. I think its important for anyone considering motivations and agency to consider how much that is the product of the enviroment/context.

[@willmosse3684]

Well maybe. But if you consider his strong anti-capitalist anti-liberalism position today, I think it’s fair to say that he is a guy that is comfortable taking a strong position against the current paradigm, rather than buying into the status quo socio-political-economic order because it’s the current normative moral framework. So in the American antebellum South, that might well manifest as being against the institution of slavery.

[@tomtech1537]

​@@willmosse3684 I don't disagree, the impact of society (on his morals and values) in the scenario is unknowable. I was taking the position that if it's unknowable then it's reasonable to assume that his values would be mostly driven by society at the time, with my main point being people commonly apply their own morals/views to historic figures (or when imagining themself living in that time). If you assume that his values that drive his today views are innate then yep it's reasonable to assume he would adopt the views through the mechanism you presented, if not then a good chance (anti-slavery activism was < 10%?) he supported/was ambivalent to slavery. I don't know too much about the guy but I'm not convinced by the "strong position" argument when he is "rewarded" for having that position with an income for something that is very cushy (I am of course assuming that the bulk of his work is online with YT/discord) -- bit of a different picnic being anti-slavery in the south pre civilwar. Similarly anti-capitalism creators are hardly swimming up river in the history/politics sphere of YT (or online in general), so I don't think that is particularly strong argument.

[@tomtech1537]

@@willmosse3684 (and raised because the video said he would be absolutely would be against slavery. hardly a point of significance and the polite thing to do, but good to keep in mind imo).

[@willmosse3684]

@ he doesn’t make much money I don’t think. He lives a fairly frugal life. He does make his money from being a KZbinr. But he’s not got a massive following, and he’s not got any corporate backing like all the right wing “alternative media” KZbinrs do. He does run ads for a VPN service to supplement his income, but he ain’t getting no Ferraris for that. And he takes political positions that are way less than 10% of the population supported. Tbf, I think a reasonable number of people would agree with most of what he says. But he openly and repeatedly calls himself a communist. I don’t know what percentage of the population would identify with that label, but I would guess it’s less than 0.01%. That’s a friggin stupid thing to publicly identify yourself with if you’re in it for the money. I don’t know a single other KZbinr who does that. So I think he’s the kind of guy who would be fine taking a moral stand on something with less than 10% support across the population at large. And sure, if you’re gonna say maybe it’s nurture not nature and we don’t know what his nurture would be, then on that basis, we just have to take the mean average political opinion of a given time and assume EVERYONE would have that opinion. But that makes the whole conversation redundant, and doesn’t even make sense, because everyone didn’t have the same position back then, it’s just an average. So based on the kinds of positions he has now - super off the charts progressive - then if we transpose that to the pre-civil war South, he would be a radical abolitionist. Obviously the whole thing is a fantasy scenario anyway, so there is no “objective truth” of the matter. But I would say if anyone today is the heir of the abolitionists of a bygone age, it’s him and his ilk.

[@tomtech1537]

@@willmosse3684 Yeah wasn't saying he is full champagne like Hassan, and I'm sure I live a more hedonistic life than he does, but seems like he lives comfortably because of his opposing views, not in spite of them. Maybe he could sell out for Raid sponsorships or whatever and earn more, but from my recollection he says he turns down a bunch (like most YT'ers), so that's likely more self imposed than him being punished for his political views (kinda between the lines of what you are saying) >Tbf, I think a reasonable number of people would agree with most of what he says. Yeah, it's a little horseshoe-y, but one thing I find really common is that most people agree on the problems but they differ on the solutions. >gonna say maybe it’s nurture not nature and we don’t know what his nurture would be, I don't think anyone seriously considers this binary in general or when it comes to values/morals, but in this framework I would say nurture outweighs nature which is why I pointed to it being more likely that he wouldn't be anti-slavery. > 10% support across the population at large I'm not sure that's true equivalency; having an opinion online is one thing, going out and putting your life and ability to feed yourself on the line for it is another. >makes the whole conversation redundant your response yes, not my point though >there is no “objective truth” of the matter. Yeah that was one of my points.

[@letxgf]

The link for the "media myths" video in the Muslim Golden Age article is broken.

[@veritasetcaritas]

Thanks, I have now corrected that.

[@Onezy05]

Would you ever be interested in covering BadEmpanada? I find his work very well sourced, but I'd be interested in hearing a second opinion about his research process/ultimate conclusions from someone like you. He made what I'd consider to be an excellent video about how our modern conception of 'race' and 'races' originated from European colonialism in the 16th century, but at the same time I've heard folks such as Benjamin Isaac trace such a development back to classical antiquity instead. Not trying to start drama, just interested in getting a second opinion that's well versed in critical analysis and will actually bother to give an in depth, good faith critique of him.

[@Vic92084]

Not qualified to comment on the origins of race, but I can tell you as an ideologically sympathetic specialist in politics and legal history that BadEmpanada is not a good faith presenter and consciously avoids bringing up topics and sources that disagree with his particular brand of Marxism. Also not a fan of the way he comports himself as a public figure -- I've politely raised counterfactuals with him a few times and BE in each case immediately cast extremely toxic aspersions on my motives and directed his fanbase to harass me. I don't think that's behavior compatible with someone who has a primary interest in presenting an evidence-based worldview.

[@veritasetcaritas]

I've never seen a BE video on his main channel which wasn't get carefully researched and presented. There's a legitimate argument to be made about pre-modern concepts of race and racism, and I have read some of the literature on this, but I'm not yet knowledgeable enough to speak definitely.

[@seanbeadles7421]

I don’t think there’s a way to post critique of BE without receiving drama from his end sadly. Videos are well researched tho, just very sensitive to disagreement

[@Vic92084]

@@seanbeadles7421 his stuff is all SOURCED, but it's also all HEDGED. He'll roll out a bunch of details about subsidiary democratic discourse in Cuba to rebut allegations it's an authoritarian society, while neither addressing nor even mentioning how Cuba's documented tendency to imprison dissident artists complicates the idea that it's some maligned haven of free thought. BE's a great example of why it's important to look at consensus opinions of field specialists and not just get your info from amateur essay commentators. Unless you're reasonably well educated in a specific area, his wall of citations just looks compelling and intimidating even if it's blatantly misrepresenting or ignoring key items.

[@seanbeadles7421]

@@Vic92084 I have a background in anthropology and archaeology and can def agree he picks and chooses what he discusses, like most other “Tankie” types. (I’m sympathetic like you as as I am a leftist). I’ve also posted on his vids and received the toxic vitriol he’s deservedly known for.

[@krulidn]

Tbh, trying to apply the standards and rigor of the historical method to a channel that explicitly doesn't attempt to seems a little... Absurd, especially at the start and I wondered why you didn't Adjust your method accordingly. That's why is seems like you're beating down on him. Towards the middle and end though, I think it does drive home how casual he is with making historical claims. So I see the value in that.

[@veritasetcaritas]

This isn't about me holding him to a standard he explicitly doesn't attempt, it's about me holding him to the standard he does explicitly attempt. As I showed in the first part of the video, he cites his own academic background in history and makes explicit criticisms of other people's interpretations of history. I even made the point that in his twitter posts he doesn't need to maintain an academic standard, including citing scholarly sources. I just said that if you want to claim other people are wrong about history, you need to be sure that your criticisms of them are accurate and your own claims about history are accurate. That is a very low bar, and clearly a standard to which he aspires. But more than that, as I demonstrated, in one of his videos he does appeal to a scholarly source in support of his argument, demonstrating very clearly that he is aspiring to a higher standard of research. So again, I think it's entirely reasonable to hold him to his own standard.0 The fact is he made several statements about history which are very obviously wrong, while attempting to correct others. Consequently I believe it's entirely legitimate to hold him to the same standard he holds, and to critique his historical claims. I see no reason why his historical claims must not be criticized, but I am open to any argument for this. I am glad you found value in the middle and end of the video.

[@krulidn]

@veritasetcaritas He makes 2-3 videos a week and is mostly just reacting to people on the spot and hasn't done much if any research. Largely contemporary political and cultural commentary. He does mention in a few of his videos that he's interested in history a fair bit and that he's done a degree. But in those videos he also mentions that his isn't a history channel and he doesn't want to try to pretend that he's even doing History, so he steers clear of it even though it's as much of an interest as it is to him. He's made more videos explicitly on Taylor Swift than he has history, is what I'm sort of getting at. You did pick the most appropriate ones of his to review though, but I'd imagine you had to sift through a lot of Elon musk videos to get to them! And like I said, he does tend to make passing casual claims and bases some of his ideology on his general knowledge of world history. So I think your video will make him take some pause when doing the same in the future. And certainly some of his views when evaluating his political commentary. Definitely value in that.

[@veritasetcaritas]

@@krulidn I agree that he mostly hasn't done any research, and I don't represent him as a history channel. But he does represent himself as someone educated in history, knowing more about history than others, and someone who is good at correcting other people's misrepresentations of history. I didn't really have to trawl through his videos to find this one; he has three videos on cyberpunk which also have bad history, and most of the bad history of his in this video was taken from his tweets. As I showed, he made a string of tweents in which he decried other people's misrepresentation of history and aimed to correct them. Anyone doing this is opening themselves up to the same criticism. I like to think he might watch this video and take more care in his future research. I have seen him change his mind and acknowledge error in the past.

[@tmsphere]

I'm sorry but "my man is too stupid for you to call him on his non-understanding of history" is a really bad defense.

[@TheLetsRead]

@@tmsphere Good thing that's not what the commenter wrote, loser.

[@johncarroll772]

I remember having a disagreement with kavarnacle about Roman Emperor Severus ,he maintained he looked like a Zulu 🤔

[@veritasetcaritas]

Quite unlikely.

[@Obri55]

You should response videos to a guy by the name of "Zoomer Historian"

[@veritasetcaritas]

He is on my list. I have already drafted a plan to address several of his videos.

[@dayalasingh5853]

46:29 nevermind the fact that Chaddis themselves were collaborators. As always, nationalists are hypocrites.

[@veritasetcaritas]

Good point.

[@dayalasingh5853]

​@@veritasetcaritas you'll see Indian nationalists complain about Western influence until it comes to Fascist ideology and Fascist aesthetics at which point they love it.

[@JasterViewer]

There were some other historical claims that The Kavernacle has made that I was curious about the historical accuracy of: 1. In a comment that he made on one of his own videos, he said, "Vikings regularly bathed so you’d think the Far-Right wouldn’t like them that much - both the Spartans and Vikings also had same-sex relationships - and there were Muslim Vikings" I was mainly curious about the Vikings part, where he claimed that Vikings had same-sex relationships and that there were Muslim Vikings. Does this have any hint of truth to it or not? How frequent or widespread would either of these have been if they existed at all? What were the Vikings' actual attitudes towards both of these things? 2. He made a video where he said that the idea of Anglo-Saxon heritage doesn't exist and that it's a right-wing myth. I was wondering if this has any truth to it or not. 3. He claimed that there were often black Roman emperors. To my knowledge, the only African Roman emperor that ever existed was Septimius Severus, but he was North African and not black. Am I correct?

[@veritasetcaritas]

This is a pretty good example of how Kav uses his channel to produce rage bait. In these cases he's baiting the far right with rather dubious interpretations of history. Also bear in mind that "viking" is not an ethnic descriptor, and includes people from a variety of northern European cultures, but I'll use it for convenience to answer your question. 1. Vikings were not more regular bathers than other people, and I don't think the far right are averse to bathing. Neither the Vikings nor the Spartans "had same-sex relationships" in the modern sense. They had no concept of gender, certainly no concept of homosexual identity, and they accepted pederasty, which is NOT homosexuality. Similar to other ancient cultures, they believed that a man who was penetrated was submissive, weak, and "womanly", whereas the man penetrating was masculine, dominant, and strong. They thought of homosexual acts, but not in terms of homosexuality. So it was ok for a masculine man to penetrate a submissive male, but the submissive male was considered effeminate and looked down on. There was no concept of homosexuality as "normal", or homosexuality as a sexuality, it was not possible for two men to live in a homosexual relationship, and there was certainly no homosexual marriage. Men were always required to fulfill traditional masculine roles. As far as I know, we have practically no evidence for any Viking discussion of homo-erotic acts between women. There's a good article here, which is well referenced. norsemythology.substack.com/p/loki-gender-and-sexuality-in-norse As for Muslim Vikings, to the best of my knowledge that is based on this fabric find which was interpreted as a Viking textile product with the word "Allah" embroidered on it. www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-41567391 We know the Vikings had contact with Muslim people, mainly through trade. It's technically possible for Vikings to have converted to Islam or Muslims to have converted to Viking beliefs, though I don't know if we have any actual historical evidence for this. More importantly, as even that article to which I have linked indicates, there is considerable uncertainty as to whether the word "Allah" actually appears on this artice; there's a good chance it was simply a mis-intepreted or wrongly copied pattern used for decoration rather than a religious statement. We would expect more corroborating evidence if it was a religious statement, including more evidence for religious beliefs. 2. I can't answer that since I have no idea what he means by Anglo-Saxon heritage. 3. If he claimed there were "often" black emperors, he is certainly wrong. That there may have been some black emperors is entirely possible. This depends heavily on how we define "black". I don't think he would have been "black" as the Romans defined "black". We have evidence from painted statuary that the Romans typically consiered their skin color to be pink or slightly off-white, like cream. This is covered in this video of mine; I've included a time stamp. kzbin.info/www/bejne/amPVn5KuZb2JbNk&ab_channel=veritasetcaritas

[@JasterViewer]

​@@veritasetcaritas I'm not totally sure if he's "baiting the far right" as his videos seem to be mostly targeted towards people that already agree with him for the sake of circlejerking. I know that Vikings are not an ethnic group, but I used them anyway since they were predominantly Scandinavian and I feel like the question could apply to general Scandinavian society during that time as well. 1. I know that the idea of "homosexuality" or "bisexuality" didn't exist as a formal concept at that time, but I am using the words based on if their sexual attractions would have been considered homosexual/bisexual by today's standards, and if they would have been considered "same-sex relationships" by today's standards. I'm still kind of confused as to whether you are referring to the Spartans, the Vikings, or both when describing how attitudes towards same-sex "activity" was. I was generally under the impression that the only "same-sex activity" that existed in Spartan society was pederasty, and that both parties were not persecuted or stigmatized (I thought this applied to most of Ancient Greece in general as well). In Viking society, I was under the impression that the dominant partner would have been seen in an either neutral or masculine way, and that the passive partner would have been stigmatized and seen as weak and feminine. On the other hand, I have also read before that same-sex relationships were totally stigmatized all together. Are these correct or am I missing something here? I'm also confused by what you mean when you say that pederasty was not homosexuality. If one or both of the parties are of the same sex and are sexually attracted to each other, wouldn't that be homosexual by the modern definition? Or was pederasty something else? 2. When he says Anglo-Saxon heritage, I think he is referring to the people in modern times who claim to be capable of tracing their ancestry to the Anglo-Saxons, or claim that they are mostly Anglo-Saxon ethnicity/ancestry (I only saw parts of his videos on that, but that's what it seemed like he meant). 3. If we are using the modern definition of "black" I'm guessing that Septimius Severus would not be classified as "black" since he was from North Africa, right? Is there any historical evidence there were any other emperors from any parts of Africa besides him? When you say it's "entirely possible" that some emperors could have been black, are you saying that there is historical evidence that other emperors were from Africa?

[@veritasetcaritas]

​@@JasterViewer yeah it's fair enough to talk about "the Vikings" when we both know what we mean. I think Kav is definitely baiting the far right with his Tweets and his videos, especially his video titles, and one of the reasons why I think that is that he is well aware that he is followed by a number of right wing channels, some of which make video responses to him, and all of which cite his arguments as examples of what they consider to be left wing lunacy. 1. It is inredibly hard to define their attractoins by our standards because we have virtually no information about their attractions at all. I mean literally almost nothing. No Vikings were wriiting about their inner gender dialogue or their personal sexuality. Virtually none of them could write anything, and their runic alphabet had a very limited lexical range. No one was using runes to explain their sexual attraction. I have no idea what they felt, let alone how they understood it, so it's impossible for me to even guess how it maps onto our categories. Given the unviersality of human homosexual experience, they very likely had people we would consider homosexual, but that's probaby the best we can say. They only seemed to think in terms of actions not identities, so they pretty much only recorded information about actions not identities. I don't have enough knowledge about Vikings to say more than I've already said, and recommend again the article to which I linked. I didn't say anything specific about Spartans because I don't have a lot of knowledge about the Spartans on this issue, but I will post what I do know in a separate comment. It is absolutely not true to say "both parties were not persecuted or stigmatized" in most of the Ancient World; in most of the Ancient World the active partner was considered masculine and it was the passive partner who was stigmatized and considered feminine. Complicating our understanding of ancient sexuality is the fact that many ancient societies seem to have felt that a man actively having sex with another man was TOTALLY WITHIN the scope of the traditional masculine role. For them it was just something a normal man might do, not something only special men did. Pederasty is sexual activity between an adult and a child. That's it. The word is defined by the action, and the ages of the people involved. It has absolutely nothing to do with sexual identity, and it is VIRTUALLY ALWAYS described in ancient sources as sexual attraction ON BEHALF OF THE ADULT, not the child. This is NOT a case of two people being sexually attracted to each other. It's a case of an adult being sexually attracted to a child, and then engaging in sexual activity with them REGARDLESS OF CONSENT (which a child cannot give anyway). This is nothing to do with homosexuality. In modern terms it's just child sexual abuse. An adult having sex with a child doesn't mean the child is attracted to the adult, it just means the adult is an abuser. I really don't know how I can make this clearer. 2. There are probably modern people who can trace their ancestry to original Anglo-Saxons, but the Anglo-Saxons don't exist as a group anymore so I don't see what the point of that is. 3. Severus would probably not be identifiable as black according to today's categories. I have no idea if there were any other emperors from other places in Africa. I said it is "entirely possible" in the sense that it was something which could have happened historically, but I have no idea if it ever did.

[@veritasetcaritas]

@@JasterViewer Scott Rubarth's "Competing Constructions of Masculinity in Ancient Greece" explains that although "there existed significant differences between expectations and ideals of manhood among Athenians, Spartans, and Stoics to justify speaking of ancient Greek masculinities", these three groups nevertheless shared a specific model of gender essentialism in which masculine and feminine were defined in contrast. He provides a table of 14 traits he describes as "essentializing oppositions", among which are these.[1] * Left side of the table, masculine: 1) active, 2) hard, 3) hairy, 4), consumer of beauty * Right side of the table, feminine: 1) passive, 2) soft 3), smooth, 4), object of beauty He then says this. "Insofar as a man’s behavior is inclined to the left side of the table, he was believed to be more masculine. If his actions inclined to the right, he was considered effeminate or womanly. This essentialist paradigm especially influenced the Athenians and (to a lesser extent) the Stoics." [2] Note how passive, soft, smooth, and object of beauty, are all repeatedly used in the description of young boys who are the object of pederastic love. They are coded as feminine. More specifically, Bromberger identifies the role of hair in gender differentiation in Greece. Firstly he makes the point that certain kinds of body and facial hair were regarded as gender signifiers, so that a boy growing this hair indicated he was TAKING ON the male gender, meaning he didn't have it previously. "An obvious characteristic of sexual dimorphism, the beginning growth of particular kinds of facial and body hair often marks a boy’s “entry into gender” and is comparable to a girl’s first period." [3] Similar to Rubarth, he then observes that concepts such as "feminine smoothness and masculine roughness" were part of the normal beauty paradigm "in the history of Mediterranean societies", and that these societies used hair as a gender differentiator.[4] Physical features such as skin which is light, soft, or smooth, lack of body hair, and especially lack of a beard, were associated with the feminine. Thus Dorian Hansen observes the presentation of Dionysius in a play is explicitly coded as effeminate through the presentation of these physical characteristics. "For the purposes of this essay, the most important part of this representation of Dionysus is his femininity. In the play, Pentheus directly calls the god effeminate: “Your curls are long. You do not wrestle, I take it. And what fair skin you have-you must take care of it-no daylight complexion; no, it comes from the night when you hunt Aphrodite with your beauty.”"[5] Likewise, Toerein and Wilkinson observe how "hairlessness serves, this paper argues, both to demarcate the masculine from the feminine" in a range of cultures from ancient Greece to the modern era,[6] and Lee says the same; "For the ancient Greeks, body-hair functions on a fundamental level as an indicator of the division between male and female".[7] Harlow explains how body and facial hair was gender coded in the biological essentialist categories of Greece, using Aristotle as an example. "Women, like other “failed” men, do not have the requisite heat to produce secondary hair, particularly facial and body hair"[8] She connects this with Greek pederasty, explaining that the youth's lack of such hair indicated they were "not yet a full male", and could therefore take the passive, feminine role in sex. "In the world of classical and, to a certain extent, Hellenistic Athens, the eroticization of the youthful male body was expressed in the first appearance of secondary hair, particularly on the face. The youth was not yet a full male and could take the passive role in sexual activity." [9] This association was preserved in adult life. Ken Dover observes that this feminine coding of the body, particularly lack of body or facial hair, along with behavior considered feminine, was taken as a sign that a man "also seeks to play a woman's part sexually in his relation with other men".[10] Further supporting the point that young boys were coded as feminine, David Leitao's paper explains "men in gender-segregated societies think of boys as feminine themselves", using ancient Greek society as just one example of several he provides.[11] He explains how boys, stating life coded as feminine, must undergo transformation rituals at puberty in order to convert them into males.[12] He provides several examples from ancient Greece, including this one. "There is also good evidence to suggest that this ritual change of dress, at least in Phaistos, was gender-coded, meaning that the boy cast off feminine clothes and put on masculine clothes in their place. That the boy's prior dress was feminine is suggested by the etiological myth of Leukippos son of Lampros." [13] Finally, Bukli's thesis "Vile Effeminate Boylove”: Pederasty in Greek Culture and Aristophanes‟ Attitude Concerning It", states explicitly "Most lovers preferred the effeminate look", citing the growth of hair as the reason why the boy is no longer considered attractive; he no longer looks feminine. "Most lovers preferred the effeminate look, and as soon as the beard showed on the boy‟s face, many pederast relationships ended. Aristophanes‟ comedies supported the idea that lovers liked the effeminate look because of the numerous references to youthful boys."[14] ____________ [1] Scott Rubarth, “Competing Constructions of Masculinity in Ancient Greece,” Athens Journal of Humanities & Arts 1.1 (2013): 30. [2] Scott Rubarth, “Competing Constructions of Masculinity in Ancient Greece,” Athens Journal of Humanities & Arts 1.1 (2013): 30. [3] Christian Bromberger, “Hair: From the West to the Middle East through the Mediterranean,” Journal of American Folklore (2008), 187. [4] Indeed, feminine smoothness and masculine roughness, with a few remarkable exceptions that I will return to below, make up the paradigm of beauty and normality in the history of Mediterranean societies. These societies-and society in general-have tended to exaggerate hairiness in characterizing gender differences.", Christian Bromberger, “Hair: From the West to the Middle East through the Mediterranean,” Journal of American Folklore (2008), 187. [5] Dorian Hansen, “An Androgynous God: Beardless Dionysus in Ancient Greek and Roman Art,” Mid-Atlantic Humanities Review 1 (2023): 152. [6] Merran Toerien and Sue Wilkinson, “Gender and Body Hair: Constructing the Feminine Woman,” Women’s Studies International Forum 26.4 (2003): 333. [7] Mireilla M. Lee, “Body-Modification in Classical Greece,” in Body-Modification in Classical Greece (De Gruyter, 2010), 168. [8] Mary Harlow, “Gender and Sexuality,” in A Cultural History of Hair in Antiquity, ed. Mary Harlow, vol. 1 (Great Britain: Bloomsbury Academic, 2019), 98. [9] Mary Harlow, “Gender and Sexuality,” in A Cultural History of Hair in Antiquity, ed. Mary Harlow, vol. 1 (Great Britain: Bloomsbury Academic, 2019), 101. [10] "Attic comedy generally assumes that a man who has female bodily characteristics (e.g. sparse facial hair) or behaves in ways categorised by Athenian society as feminine (e.g. wearing pretty clothes) also seeks to play a woman's part sexually in his relation with other men and is sought by them for this purpose.", Ken J Dover, Greek Homosexuality (Great Britain: Bloomsbury Academic, 2016), 73. [11] David D. Leitao, “The Perils of Leukippos: Initiatory Transvestism and Male Gender Ideology in the Ekdusia at Phaistos,” Classical Antiquity 14.1 (1995). [12] "Men in these societies are often heard to claim that the son's close bond with his mother and/or other women will impede his development of a masculine gender identity, if not his biological development as a male. ...Adult men in societies of this sort typically manage their anxiety about boys' intimate association with women by requiring boys to undergo a combination of defeminization and masculinization rituals. ...Ritual separation is not the only means of defeminizing boys.", David D. Leitao, “The Perils of Leukippos: Initiatory Transvestism and Male Gender Ideology in the Ekdusia at Phaistos,” Classical Antiquity 14.1 (1995): 152, 153. [13] David D. Leitao, “The Perils of Leukippos: Initiatory Transvestism and Male Gender Ideology in the Ekdusia at Phaistos,” Classical Antiquity 14.1 (1995): 132. [14] Buckli, Christina, “‘Vile Effeminate Boylove’: Pederasty in Greek Culture and Aristophanes’ Attitude Concerning It” (Bachelor, University of Wisconsin, 2011), 23.

[@JasterViewer]

@@veritasetcaritas I want to apologize if I made it wound like pederasty was some kind of "mutual attraction" since it would have been abuse no matter what the child thinks of it. I was just trying to emphasize the different possibilities on how both parties could have possibly "felt" about it at the time. My original question was particularly about if these ADULTS engaging in pederasty actually felt real sexual attraction towards the child, and if these ADULTS would have been considered homosexual by modern standards (this has nothing to do with what the child thinks since they cannot consent). Based on your response, it seems like these adults did feel real sexual attraction, and for this reason, I'm guessing they would have been considered homosexual by the modern definition, right?

[@johnmanole4779]

I fu*king love you for doing this! Ohhh how much have I wasted for this!!!

[@Drega001]

He's a history KZbinr? That's news to me

[@veritasetcaritas]

He isn't a history KZbinr, he's a political and social commentator who mainly makes videos on the culture wars, but who also makes videos on politics. In the service of these videos, he often makes appeals to history, and sometimes attempts to correct what he believes are inaccurate representations of history.

[@flavius2884]

Those who are too much into politics shouldn't talk about history because they are biased. I see on all political channels that try to talk about history and I can't help but observe they are cherry picking facts and spreading myths.

[@veritasetcaritas]

Yes if they can't present facts without distortion they should keep silent.

[@Manole5500]

Could you do a video on the right wing neo nazist Asha Logos? He's so terrible.

[@veritasetcaritas]

He is on ny list, along with a few other right wing channels such as Zoomer Historian, History Debunked, and Paxtube.

[@Manole5500]

@veritasetcaritas cool! Good luck!

[@veritasetcaritas]

@@Manole5500 thank you!

[@BlisaBLisa]

13:14 ig authors racefaking isnt a modern phenomenon lmao

[@veritasetcaritas]

True!

[@doomdimensiondweller5627]

The Kavernacle is such a slop tuber.

[@swifts6879]

He’s like Kraut for edgy middle class uni kids from London

[@doomdimensiondweller5627]

@@swifts6879 IKR that is honestly the impression I get

[@BlisaBLisa]

i want to go back in time and ask someone what they think the term "slop tuber" could possibly mean

[@tomtech1537]

"Melbourne" Did you move back? Wanted to vote? :P

[@veritasetcaritas]

Yes I've moved back. No, I don't vote at all; as a Christian anarchist I've never voted. I returned after being given a career-advancing job position.

[@tomtech1537]

@@veritasetcaritas Ah congrats. That was a bit tongue in cheek from a comment I saw saying you didn't even know when the next election would be 😅

[@veritasetcaritas]

@@tomtech1537 thanks! And yeah I am very behind on Australian politics, even now.

[@panchoxxlocoxx9638]

You know this is not a takedown because of how boring it is. Which honestly is how this stuff works, nothing wrong with it.

[@veritasetcaritas]

Yeah my content isn't known to be exciting.

[@panchoxxlocoxx9638]

@@veritasetcaritas Its honestly much better than just a standard youtube takedown though, infinitely more honest and good faith plus we get to learn a thing or two.

[@veritasetcaritas]

@@panchoxxlocoxx9638 thank you.

[@normtrooper4392]

We don't need to lie as leftists. We are right. Yet kavernacle strikes as me someone who lets his agenda get in the way of seeking the actual truth.

[@veritasetcaritas]

I think he actually has a very liberal approach to history.

[@normtrooper4392]

@veritasetcaritas the obsession with team sports is one of the major failures with people in general. Seeking the truth, shouldn't change the morals of a person. We don't need to lie pr mislead people. I have seen his videos. He presents himself as more scholarly than casual

[@TheLetsRead]

what do you even mean, norm?

[@georgesos]

i have only recently followed kavernacle and didnt realize he does history,i thought he is commenting abt recent events.

[@adorabell4253]

He doesn’t do history specifically but he will give background when talking about current events

[@ItsJustCartier]

@@adorabell4253lol he will give you very bias background on current events. Examples such as I/P or Ukraine are solid choices.

[@veritasetcaritas]

He typically only comments on history when he feels its relevant to his topic. He isn't a history KZbinr, nor does he represent himself as one.

[@tmsphere]

Background thats as correct as his video about Sati.

[@adorabell4253]

@@tmsphere OK? Not relevant to whether he is history youtuber or not.

[@thevenbede767]

Hello I was mentioned?

[@veritasetcaritas]

Yes indeed.

[@vapaus831]

Thanks for your explanation.

[@veritasetcaritas]

You're welcome.

[@mathewkelly9968]

Kavernacle should stick to politics and bagging out Elon .

[@veritasetcaritas]

Yes.

[@MilanKos-rh4zy]

What about his video on Rhodesia.

[@veritasetcaritas]

I haven't seen it, but I wouldn't be surprised if it was fine. You'd have to be pretty terrible at history to get Rhodesia wrong.

[@islandred]

looking into this

[@ngibson3730]

Sati was only an Upper caste / Indian elite phenomena 😅5% only 😂….plus Sati was in order to maintain caste system and control the surplus women problem that they don’t marry someone else…Johar is the warrior caste thing and usually used to blame Muslims “hordes”…even though Mughal Rajput alliances are well known 🙃

[@veritasetcaritas]

In the video I made the point specifically that sati was an upper caste/elite phenomenon. I quoted these words from Lata Mani. "Although discernible among poor and lower caste families, SATI WAS PREDOMINANT AMONG THE BRAHMINS, KAYASTHS, VAIDYAS, SADGOPS, AND KALIBARTHAS. These groups accounted for 64 PERCENT OF RECORDED INCIDENTS BETWEEN 1815 and 1827.", Lata Mani, Contentious Traditions: The Debate on Sati in Colonial India (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1998), 22

[@mathewkelly9968]

Ben Shapiro one day please

[@veritasetcaritas]

I typically avoid low hanging fruit like Shapiro and PragerU.

[@mathewkelly9968]

@@veritasetcaritas lol

[@TheLetsRead]

@@veritasetcaritas dude, you'd be doing people a favor unpacking crap of that nature instead of being grist for those goobers' machines in targeting criticism at a leftwinger who is doing majority good work in his field. this is almost as embarassing as my white knighting in your comments first thing in the morning; hopefully the engagement means that this makes it his way. can't wait to see a response where he needles your catalog as well, good grief. this could have been an email. edit: i can't doubt your thoroughness, but i'm not sitting around for this whole video. happy to leave engagement with my ~screeds~, but i'm bewildered at this content being a production priority on your end. i'm sure this will change no one's mind, but fuck did i need to write it.

[@TheLetsRead]

Can't you take *on* other, more problematic examples of this phenomenon? Could have engaged with Kav one on one instead of turning this into content, dude; this is overkill.

[@veritasetcaritas]

I could have engaged with Kav one on one if he had responded to the comments I made to him directly on his channel. If you look at my channel you''ll find plenty of examples of me criticizing "other, more problematic examples of this phenomenon". I am not "turning this into content", raising the bar for history KZbin is the main aim of my channel. Additionally I do not monetize my videos, because I don't do this for cash.

[@Brslld]

@@TheLetsRead This is not overkill lmao, this is just Veritas et Caritas being Veritas et Caritas. If you want overkill, watch his vids on TIKhistory. Besides your attitude is distasteful. You are acting as if people like Veritas are utterly incapable of being able to fight misinformation from both left and right. You can dunk on Kav and rightoids like TIKhistory, it's not impossible, it's not gonna ruin your tribe or political team, so why are you acting like a baby and crying about overkill?

[@TheLetsRead]

@ lmao

[@TheLetsRead]

@ “attitude is distasteful,” ok buddy.

[@jorndebello7317]

Another great video. Thanks for putting out real history and you're interview videos where more people putting out real history. It was great to see them on your channel

[@veritasetcaritas]

Thank you, I'm so glad you're enjoying that series.

[@misuvittupaa8068]

Well well well said american when he fell in a well.

[@electroflame6188]

wot

[@Tom_Bee_]

My Grandad used to say: "Well, well, well..." *Dramatic pause* "Three holes in the ground" Then look deeply satisfied and highly amused. I guess it was pretty funny the first few hundred times 😂

[@misuvittupaa8068]

@@electroflame6188 it's a joke from a joke book i read as a child and it is stuck in my head.

[@misuvittupaa8068]

@@Tom_Bee_ I like your grandpa

[@lampb0obs]

A lot of your arguments seem minor and there is a lot worse historical misinformation on KZbin it seems weird when you zero in on this guy it seems personal lol

[@Novaroma2728]

Did you read the video description at all or is that beneath you?

[@jaykaye594]

The last fifteen minutes or so sure seemed to be very personal.

[@ItsJustCartier]

So your not going to point any these claims your making just to blindly defend Kav?

[@lampb0obs]

@ no I'm not lol, I don't think the discrepancies are necessarily that harmful or worth this effort

[@veritasetcaritas]

I have not zeroed in on this guy. Look at my channel; I have more than a dozen videos on much worse historical information from much larger channels. I have a single video critizing nine channels at once. So I am not zeroing in on this channel. If there's one channel I have zeroed in on, it's TIK History; I've made five different videos critiquing his views. I chose to address The Kavernacle because he represents himelf as knowing history well, and correcing the historical misinformation of others. I am demonstrating he is not as accurate as he likes to think.

[@skepticalbaby7300]

U have such a blindspot that u cannot reflect on the eurocentric biases in your own education. I suggest u read 'destiny disrupted'. In that book, the Afghani author discusses how history was taught in Afghanistan. For example, the whole framework of your argument with kav regarding christian and islamic science is subject to eurocentric periodization, i.e. medieval times. This is explicitly eurocentric. U even deceptively manipulate the nature of this periodization in your argument. 1. U say by the end of the period christian science was well ahead. Ur evidence for this are advances well into the 1200s or later. The period at maximum ranges from the late 400s to 1500. So, u take advances that come at the tail end of the period to show that kav was wrong. To be fair, u are right in letter but not in spirit. As an analogy, would it be fair to say that France was a monarchy in the 18th century. Well, yes. But ur reading would be 'no' because of the French Revolution occurred in the last decade. This is how you are reading Kav's opinion. This is very disingenuous. 2. If u wanted to make such a thorough reply to educate u would first define ur terms. What is medieval? What is advancement? How will u measure the two? 3. U compare Ibn Sina of the late 9th century to christian scholars of the 16th. The obvious point would be that the 16th century is not in 'medieval times'. So the comparison is irrelevant to the argument. U try to preempt this challenge by citing that the anatomical sketch was still in use. But what u hide (yes, hide) is that Ibn Sina's texts were still taught by Christians as late as the 1700s. Furthermore, anatomy is not the totality of medical science and the use of Ibn Sina's text is proof of that. 4. U refer to Paul of Taranto in the 1200s on alchemy. But, once again fail to inform ur viewers that his authorship is in dispute AND it is not clear that the work is not at least partially copied from earlier Arabic sources. 5. U refer to the Oxford calculators. But, once again, u fail to note critical details like that they did not know algebra. They used geometric proofs, just like u can prove the Pythagorean theorem with geometry and not algebra. Which is more 'advanced'? U must define ur terms and measures in advance. 6. U refer to Al-Battani and others as Sabean and not muslim. This one statement betrays ur goal with video. It is not good history, but pushing an ideology. Who cares if they weren't Muslim? Does Einstein's religion not make him part of the German intellengsia? Are his contributions not 'western'?This is an odd claim. The religious background does not matter. 7. Superstitions. Once again, how do u measure this? U reference quotes, but there are many opposing quotes. I actually agree with ur sentiment, but I don't see how u proved the point that Christians were not superstitious. 8. Were vernacular bible translations "allowed" or not? Public urination is not allowed but it still happens. I don't know if Kav's claim is accurate history, but u have failed to even challenge it. 9. Sati. U made a good case on this one. Kav overreached.

[@TheLetsRead]

@veritasetcaritas respond to this critique, or Your Perspective Is Bad History(tm) LMAO

[@veritasetcaritas]

Thanks for taking the time to make a detailed comment, but much of what you say is a misrepresentation of my video or a misunderstanding of history. 1. The period in question cannot be from the late 400s to 1500, since the topic Kav raised was "in the medieval time, ISLAMIC societies were better for a lot of this stuff than Christian ones". Islam did not exist in the late 400s; it didn't even exist until the seventh century. Yes I said by the END of this period Christian science was well ahead, and yes my evidence for this was from well into the 1200s, because that IS NEAR THE END OF THIS PERIOD. I did NOT say that just because Christian science was ahead at the END of this period then we can say Christian science was ahead during the WHOLE period. I even said the opposite, noting that during the Islamic Golden Age Christian science was ahead in SOME ways, and science in the Muslim world was ahead in OTHER ways. You didn't even mention this. Your analogy of the French Revolution is invalid since it is not comparable to what I said, and I would certainly never say France was not a monarchy in the eighteenth century. 2. I did define my terms. I defined the period in question as "the ninth to the twelfth centuries". I did that precisely because it is the start of the period when science and mathematics in the Muslim world was more advanced than the West in various ways, which was the topic Kav raised. As for what it means to be advanced, I cited scholarship explaining this. Note that Kav didn't define anything, or cite any evidence, yet you have no issue with what he said. 3. I did not compare Ibn Sina in the late ninth century to Christian scholars of the sixteenth AS IF THEY WERE CONTEMPORARIES. I simply pointed out that by the sixteenth century HIS ANATOMICAL MODELS were still being used in the Muslim world, whereas in the West MUCH BETTER ANATOMICAL MODELS were being used. Your statement that "Ibn Sina's texts were still taught by Christians as late as the 1700s" Is misleading because HIS ANATOMY was not still being taught by Christians in the late 1700s. The idea that I am hiding anything is ridiculous, since I have an entire video on the contributions of the Muslim Golden Age, in which I observe that Ibn Sina's work remained a standard treatise in the West for centuries. I only referred to his ANATOMICAL models. Your comment "anatomy is not the totality of medical science" is irrelevant, since I wasn't talking about the totality of medical science, I was ONLY talking about anatomy. 4. You don't provide any evidence that Paul of Taranto's Theorica et practica is of disputed authorship. Where is your source for this? Perhaps you are confusing this with the proposal that the Summa perfectionis, traditionally attributed to Jabir Ibn Hayyan, was actually written by Paul of Taranto. Regardless of whether Taranto's work is or is not "partially copied from earlier Arabic sources", you completely avoid the point that Taranto DISAGREED with earlier Arabic sources, and the significance of his work was to take a DIFFERENT approach to alchemy which brought it closer to chemistry. 5. You object to me not saying the Oxford Calculators didn't know algebra. This is a weird complaint since I stated explicitly that algebra was invented in the ninth century by the Persian mathematician Al-Khwarizmi, and cited that as an example of how the Muslim world was ahead of Western mathematicians during the Islamic Golden Age. I also quote Huff saying "“Arab mathematicians in the eleventh and twelfth centuries achieved mathematical innovations that were not accomplished by Europeans until the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries". Why would I need to mention that the Oxford Calculators didn't know algebra? I cited them for a completely different topic; advances in "velocity, acceleration, and other important concepts in mechanics". 6. I referred to Al Battani and others as Sabeans, because Kav had obscured this. Why do you object to me identifying them as non-Muslim? I identified far more scholars as Muslim. How is this bad history and "pushing an ideology"? 7. I was not attempting to prove "Christians were not superstitious". I actually gave plenty of evidence for medieval Christians being superstitious. As for how I measured the diminution of superstition, I not only gave a clear explanation for this, but also cited primary sources, and scholarly sources saying the same. 8. The question Kav raised was not "were vernacular Bible translations allowed or not?". His claim was "You weren't even allowed to write the Bible in English, by the way. For a long, long time. A guy called John Wycliffe was the first guy to try and do". I proved this was false, citing numerous translations into English before Wycliffe. These translations were not illegal. You haven't even addressed any of the evidence I provided. It was not until 1401 that a law was made in England banning an English translation, and that was WYCLIFFE'S translation. It was still legal to translate the Bible into the English vernacular, just as it had been before Wycliffe. I note that you accept Kav's claim uncritically despite the fact that he presented no evidence for it.

[@alexhubble]

As a Marxist, he can take history to mean exactly what he needs it to mean. And he can know the future by looking into the past. I know, I know....

[@Benjamin-y5b-d4x]

watch kavernacle and he's not really history channel he'll give a brief summary to help give context about what he's going to talk about but that's about as deep as the history part goes. He does current events and politics mixed with pop culture . This video comes off as wanting to throw the baby out with the bath water. He didn't do something the way you wanted so now he's bad history youtuber which he never really was in the first place. You cite Frederick Copleston for one of your sources on Muslim preservation and he says "modern investigation shows" o.k a modern investigation from who? Why not cite this investigation instead of Frederick Copleston who is not even really seen as a historian in most academia but a philosopher and the spark notes version of western philosophy history? Your coming off as a disingenuous person looking for their gotcha moment and looking at your older vidoes isn't helping.

[@tmsphere]

He sells himself as a history buff with a degree..

[@Benjamin-y5b-d4x]

@@tmsphere he has stated he majored in politics with a minor in history. Not exactly a history buff. grasping at straws here my guy.

[@TheLetsRead]

@@tmsphere God forbid he mention an interest and his educational background. You sound like you have an axe to grind, do you need help locating a whetstone?

[@veritasetcaritas]

Throwing the baby out with the bathwater would be saying something like "Kav was wrong about these historical facts, so his channel is junk and you shoudn't watch it". If you agree with me that he isn't a history KZbinr you shouldn't object to the fact that despite touting his history degree, claiming history is taught wrongly, and claiming to have corrected pop history myths, he isn't very good at historical research. This is not a matter of him not doing something the way I wanted, this is a case of him attempting to set the historical record straight and ironically making mistakes in the process. I cited Copleston only AFTER I had already cited several other sources providing that "modern investigation" to which he referred. Maybe you missed me quoting: 1. Cristina D'Ancona: “At the end of the fifth century and during the sixth, within a Christian environment both in Alexandria and in Athens, the Neoplatonic schools continued to comment upon Aristotle and Plato.”, Cristina D’Ancona, “Greek into Arabic: Neoplatonism in translation,” in The Cambridge Companion to Arabic Philosophy, ed. Peter Adamson and Richard C Taylor (Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 2005), 16. 2. Edward Grant: “Boethius’s importance for the early Middle Ages was immense”, adding “With a reasonable knowledge of Greek, he translated a number of Greek works into Latin and was thereby instrumental in preserving and making available numerous works that would otherwise have been unknown in the West”, Edward Grant, God and Reason in the Middle Ages (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001), 40. 3. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: “Still, while it is important to emphasize this absence of primary texts of Greek philosophy in the Latin Middle Ages, it is also important to recognize that the medievals knew a good deal about Greek philosophy anyway. They got their information from (1) some of the Latin patristic authors, like Tertullian, Ambrose, and Boethius, who wrote before the knowledge of Greek effectively disappeared in the West, and who often discuss classical Greek doctrines in some detail; and (2) certain Latin pagan authors such as Cicero and Seneca, who give us (and gave the medievals) a great deal of information about Greek philosophy.”, Paul Vincent Spade et al., “Medieval Philosophy,” in The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, ed. Edward N. Zalta, Summer 2018. (Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University, 2018). So yes, I provided precisely that "modern investigation" to which you refer. Copleston was not only a philosopher, he was also a historian of philosophy, so he's a perfectly legitimate source. Additionally his statement is supported by the multiple sources I cited before citing Copleston. I notice you haven't provided any evidence that D'Ancona, Grant, the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, and Copleston, are all wrong in their statements.

[@Benjamin-y5b-d4x]

@@veritasetcaritas @veritasetcaritas and for your "research" in this video your mostly citing philosophy majors not historians, anthropologist, or archaeologist ." 1.Scott Peter Adamson, Professor of Philosophy at Ludwig Maximilian University."(.whatisitliketobeaphilosopher---/#/peter-adamson/) 2."Richard C. Taylor is Associate Professor of Philosophy at Marquette University."(richardctaylor.----info/) 3."Edward Nouri Zalta Edward N. Zalta is a Senior Research Scholar in the Philosophy Department at Stanford University. His research specialties include: Metaphysics and Epistemology, Philosophy of Mathematics, Philosophical Logic/Philosophy of Logic, Computational Metaphysics" (mally.stanford.edu-----/zalta.html) Delete the - in the sources and search. cant post links in youtube comment without them getting deleted. Your trying to dismiss kavernacle for doing the same thing you and your sources are doing, which is "based off the research I did this is the general consensus" When they aren't historians. My argument is kavernacle never claimed to be a history youtuber like YOU are claiming . You want college professor level of research and citation when most of the sources you cite don't do it themselves. If I was majoring in Mathematics and my final thesis citied nothing but Computer Science majors that study math for fun I probably fail. It depends on how much of a pain my professor wants to be and what's the point I'm trying to make. If you wanted me to take your sources seriously than I'm going to need to see SOME historians, archeologist, and anthropologist, not just philosophy majors doing this as a hobby. Because based off the argument you're making that's not acceptable. Bad historians citing bad historians isn't a good argument you're right. But it's acceptable when you do it?

[@knavishknight]

"that last section might have seemed like a rather overenthusiastic and unnecessary critique of Kav" "it came across too vehemently" Totally. And so *outright gross* that even I, an anarchist, just unsubscribed. British imperialists' abolishing sati are *not* "analogous" to the US government's abolishing race-based chattel slavery & desegregating _within the US_ and non-Palestinians calling for ceasefire, arms embargo, boycott, divest, & sanction against Israeli settler-colonialism, occupation, apartheid, & genocide. Indian conservatives in British-imperialist-ruled India were *not* "analogous" to White Supremacists in the US South & Israeli settler-colonists, occupiers, & genocidaires.

[@veritasetcaritas]

This video does not say British imperialists abolishing sati is analogous to those things. Nor does it say "Indian conservatives in British-imperialist-ruled India were not "analogous" to White Supremacists in the US South & Israeli settler-colonists, occupiers, & genocidaires". I don't understand the argument you're trying to make. This video CRITICIZES British imperialists for the way they abolished sati, noting that they behaved in the same self-serving way as when the American government outlawed slavery. In both cases the government powers acted predominantly out of self-interest and IN CONTRADICTION TO the requests of the reformers. This is criticism, not praise. My comments on the abolitin of slavery, abolition of segregation, institution of civil rights, and BDS against Israeli-settler colonization, apartheid and genoncide were to pose the question "Is it right for outsiders to help those suffering in such situations, when the sufferers are begging them to help?". My answer is yes, precisely because this is NOT like the British imperialists. So my question for you is simple; was it moral to respond with help and support to the requests of the enslaved American population, the anti-segregation activists, and the civil rights proponents? Is it moral to respond with help and support to the Palestinians calling for ceasefire, arms embargo, boycott, divest, & sanction against Israeli settler-colonialism, occupation, apartheid, and genocide? If you say "yes" to these questions, then you are agreeing with this video.

[@tmsphere]

Bye Felicia.

[@TheLetsRead]

@@tmsphere lmao, that didn't sound forced

[@knavishknight]

@@veritasetcaritas "This video does not say British imperialists abolishing sati is analogous to those things." veritasetcaritas: "that last section might have seemed like a rather overenthusiastic and unnecessary critique of Kav and I apologize if it came across too vehemently I also don't want him to take it personally I spent time on it because I believe the *analogies to the past* are relevant and also because I believe the *analogies to the present* are relevant." (boldface added) "This video CRITICIZES British imperialists for the way they abolished sati, noting that they behaved in the same self-serving way as when the American government outlawed slavery. In both cases the government powers acted predominantly out of self-interest and IN CONTRADICTION TO the requests of the reformers. This is criticism, not praise." Where have I, even accidentally, asserted that your video praised British imperialists for doing so in such manner & US government for doing so in such manner? Again, I re-iterate my point: the US government's self-interested abolition of base-based chattel slavery _within the US_ is *not* equivalent to British imperialists' self-interested abolition of sati _in the Indian subcontinent which British imperialists invaded and made a colony_ . US government officials were _insiders_ ; British imperialists were _outsiders_ . While BDS activists are outsiders like British imperialists, I'm not aware that military invasion into Israel is among BDS's agenda (see Hitchcock's 2020 dissertation A Rhetorical Frame Analysis of Palestinian-Led Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions (BDS) Movement Discourse, p. 9) "'Is it right for outsiders to help those suffering in such situations, when the sufferers are begging them to help?'. My answer is yes, precisely because this is NOT like the British imperialists." So if British outsiders abolished sati by following the requests of the Indian reformers to the letter, then British outsiders would be justified in invading the Indian subcontinent?

[@veritasetcaritas]

​@@knavishknight as I've explained previously, you're missing the specific analogy I am drawing. You're saying I'm drawing an analogy between X and Y, when I am drawing an analogy between X and Z. You say "Again, I re-iterate my point: the US government's self-interested abolition of base-based chattel slavery within the US is not equivalent to British imperialists' self-interested abolition of sati in the Indian subcontinent which British imperialists invaded and made a colony". I don't know what you mean by "not equivalent", but the analogy I drew was that in both cases an elite power was being called on by local reformers for assistance, and REFUSED to do so for years, because they privileged their own interests and the interests of the oppressing class. In my view that is the way that they are equivalent. The British government did NOT abolish sati out of self-interest, just as the US government did NOT abolish slavery out of self-interest. In both cases something was abolished AGAINST the self-interest of the power which abolished it. Why do you think it took so long for the US and UK governments to enact their respective aboltions? Because they DID NOT WANT TO, since it was AGAINST their self-interest to do so. That is why in both cases they delayed abolition as long as they possibly could. You seem to agree that the US government was right to end slavery as reformers requested, but you also seem to think it was wrong for the British to abolish sati as local reformers requested. Is that your view? Further, is it your view that the Indian reformers were wrong to call on the British government for assistance? My point of comparison was situations in which non-elites who are being oppressed by elites, are asking for help. So in this case it maps to the situations I described thus: 1. US slaveholders = oppressing elites, slaves = non-elites asking for help from the US government and white people, asking specifically that slavery be abolished. So was the correct action to tell the slaves "Sorry we can't just abolish slavery immediately, you have to consider the culture, feelings, and objections of the slaveholders, you have to wait until this happens organically, you need to do the work to abolish slavery yourselves", or was the correct action for the US government to tell the slaves "Yes, we are abolishing slavery IMMEDIATELY and we don't care what the slaveholders think"? 2. Israeli government = oppressive elites, Palestinian people = non-elites asking for help from ANYONE, including even white people. So is the correct action to tell the Palestinians "Sorry we can't intervene, we have no power to abolish Israeli law and we have no authority over the IDF, and anyway the settlements can't be removed immediately, these things take time, and you have to consider the culture, feelings, and objections of the settlers, you have to wait until this happens organically, you need to do the work to save yourselves", or is the correct action to tell the Palestinians "Yes, this must stop IMMEDIATELY, we will do whatever we can to help, and we don't care what the Israeli government and settlers think"? 3. US government = oppressing elites, segregated black people without civil rights = non-elites asking for help from the US government and white people, asking specifically that segregation end and they be given civil rights. So was the correct action to tell black people "Sorry we can't just abolish segregation and give you civil rights immediately, these things take time, and you have to consider the culture, feelings, and objections of the racist white people, you have to wait until this happens organically, you need to do the work to change the law yourselves", or was the correct action to tell them "Yes, this must change IMMEDIATELY, and we don't care what the racist white people think"? 4. British governmet and Indian elites = oppressing elites, local Indian women and reformers = non-elites asking specifically that the British government abolish sati. So was the correct action for the UK government to say "Sorry we can't just abolish sati immediately, you have to consider the culture, feelings, and objections of the elites who want to enforce it, you have to wait until this happens organically, you need to do the work to abolish sati yourselves", which is how the Britsh government ACTUALLY responded for years, or was the correct action for the UK government to tell the reformers "Yes, we are abolishing sati IMMEDIATELY and we don't care what the local elite enforces of sati think"? That is how I am drawing the analogy. I don't think it matters that the British government in India was a Western colonizing power, the fact is local reformers were asking them to do something IMMEDIATELY, and they were REFUSING to do so because they wanted to placate the oppressing elites who were the COLLABORATORS in the colonization of India. So they were refusing to help an oppressed group out of a bad motive, and they were empowering the oppressor group out of a bad motive. Ironically, Kav thought the British helped immediately, when they actually didn't, and he explicitly says they SHOULD NOT have helped immediately anyway. So he literally defends the course of action which was in fact taken by the British. "Where have I, even accidentally, asserted that your video praised British imperialists for doing so in such manner & US government for doing so in such manner?" When you represented me as saying British imperalists abolishing sati are equivalent to non-elite non-imperialist reformers who supported oppressed people during the slavery, segregation, and civil rights eras. You've done it again by asking "So if British outsiders abolished sati by following the requests of the Indian reformers to the letter, then British outsiders would be justified in invading the Indian subcontinent?" You already know my answer to that is "no". Are you saying that once an invading power has taken over a nation, it must never accept the requests of local reformers? If the British had taken that route then they would never have granted India independence. "US government officials were insiders ; British imperialists were outsiders." So what? How does that absolve the British government from doing what local Indian reformers asked them to do? "While BDS activists are outsiders like British imperialists, I'm not aware that military invasion into Israel is among BDS's agenda" Of course it isn't. So what? Invading India wasn't the motive for the British abolition of sati either. As I've shown, the British were EXTREMELY RELUCTANT to abolish sati, because it DID NOT serve their interests to do so since they wanted to keep the privileged elites on side, which made local Indian reformers very frustrated. Even when the British did abolish it, they did so in the same way as the US abolished slavery; dragging their feet, privileging the views of the oppressor elites, creating loopholes and limitations, and avoiding enforcing it as much as possible.

[@andrewkelley9405]

Another W.

[@skipperson4077]

he's a classic know-it-all young leftist who ignores actual history especially when it doesn't support his politics-based outlook... he's got millions of subs while actual history sites struggle.

[@ignatiushazzard]

I'm pretty sure he doesn't have millions of subs lmao

[@InfiniteDeckhand]

He has less than 200k subs, but hey, truth doesn't matter when raking on people, huh?

[@veritasetcaritas]

He doesn't have millions of subs, he has around 200,000. I don't believe he is in bad faith. As I said in this video I believe he honestly tries to correct dangerous misrepresentations of history.

[@tmsphere]

No he isn't evil or bad faith he's just stupid and VERY lucky.

[@TheLetsRead]

@@tmsphere Shut UP you WEIRDO

[@mididoctors]

As an occupying power you own everything . You have no right to maintain or ban any cultural practice. You simply shouldn't be there

[@veritasetcaritas]

Yes.

[@tmsphere]

This is stupid, the locals had every right to use the British to ban a barbaric native practice. Just bc something is native doesn't mean we lefties must safeguard it. Jesus it's WIDOW BURNING.

[@TheLetsRead]

@@tmsphere who is responsible for safeguarding these practices? unless you're involved, it's none of your business. this is a colonialist mindset, pure and simple. do you intend to be a missionary in the amazon next?

[@Benjamin-y5b-d4x]

would really like to finish my point if you don't mind

[@Benjamin-y5b-d4x]

part 4! . ​ @veritasetcaritas You: "I cited Copleston only AFTER I had already cited several other sources providing that "modern investigation" to which he referred. " Well based off YOUR sources Copleston wrote that in 1999 and your other sources come from peter adamson and richard c Taylor 2005, Edward Grant 2001, and Edward N Zalta 2018. Is Copleston a time traveling wizard who can see into the future? You're taking somewhat modern and dubious sources to support a dated Eurocentric point of view which is quite frankly....stupid. This is on top of the fact that they aren't even talking about the same literature. Copleston is talking about Aristotle, Grant about Boethius. Zalta about Ambrose, cicero, Tertullian, Boethius, and Seneca. Your sources are changing the goal post so much it's very jarring and frankly poorly constructed. If you want to make the argument that Arabian Muslims didn't do anything to preserve THESE SPECIFIC authors than your going to have to make that clear from the start and stick to one at a time.

[@Benjamin-y5b-d4x]

Recap: You: kavernacle is a bad historian youtuber because he doesn't cite properly and does poor research. Me: He never claimed to be a historian youtuber and I think your being disingenuous person looking for your gotcha moment. You: nuh uh I provided sources to back Copleston claim of a "modern investigation" now refute my sources. Me: o.k 1. All your sources are from philosophy majors. Not historians, anthropologist, or archaeologist and they didn't cite any. 2. You and your sources didn't cite ANY middle eastern Islamic academics to help support yours or their claims. 3. Your sources are talking about different authors and literature Going from Boethius to Aristotle. It isn't very specific and isn't well put together. 4. Copleston is most likely biased and unreliable dew to his background as a Jesuit priest and upbringing of the times. conclusion: you're literally doing the same thing kavernacle is doing but you cant adhere to the standards that you yourself want.

[@veritasetcaritas]

Write all you want, I am doing nothing to stop you.

[@Benjamin-y5b-d4x]

@@veritasetcaritas thanks it only took like 50 times before it went through. But hey classic alt right meme boy. Start losing and they play dirty. Feel free to "refute" my arguments instead of changing the goal post.

[@veritasetcaritas]

@@Benjamin-y5b-d4x I am a leftist, not alt-right. I have plenty of videos on my channel opposing the right and the alt-right, and even more on my other channel. I did nothing at all to your posts except respond to them. I did not delete or suppress them in any way. Don't worry, I will respond to your posts. I can tell you didn't bother reading my list of references, did you? It's linked in the video description. Here it is in case you missed it. veritas-et-caritas.com/index.php/2024/07/10/the-kavernacle-is-bad-at-history/ Did you have any objections to these statements of mine? You have ignored them. 1. "from the ninth to the twelfth centuries the Muslim world was ahead of Western Europe in a range of subjects, such as mathematics, optics, and alchemy". 2. "During the Islamic Golden Age, the Muslim world did enjoy several intellectual advantages over Europe, such as in mathematics, in particular with the invention of complex algebra in the ninth century by the Persian mathematician Al-Khwarizmi, and they were ahead in alchemy, which Arab and Persian scholars developed to a new degree, drawing knowledge from earlier Greek and Byzantine works which had only a primitive understanding of what we would call chemistry." 3. "In some cases Western scholars such as Adelard of Bath, in the twelfth century, even traveled to Muslim lands, seeking out Arabic texts on a range of academic subjects, specifically with the intention of translating them into Latin so European scholars could learn from them." 4. "From the ninth to the twelfth centuries, the Muslim world was ahead of Western Europe in mathematics, optics, and alchemy, while Western Europe was ahead in anatomy, astronomy, and physics." 5. "In the twelfth century European scholars were well aware of how far ahead the Muslims were in mathematics. Charles Burnett, History of Islamic Influences in Europe of the Warburg Institute, says “Stephen the Philosopher lamented the poor knowledge of geometry among the Latins, and John of Salisbury reckoned that the only place where the study flourished was in (Islamic) Spain”." 6. "Likewise, sociologist Toby Huff writes “Just how far advanced the Arabs were in the field of mathematics has recently been stressed by Roshdi Rashed”, adding “Arab mathematicians in the eleventh and twelfth centuries achieved mathematical innovations that were not accomplished by Europeans until the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries”." 7. "Alchemy was brought to Western Europe through Arabic texts. Principe writes “Alchemy, we are told, arrived in Latin Europe on a Friday, the eleventh of February, 1144”, explaining that it was on this day that the English monk Robert of Chester translated an Arabic work on alchemy, into Latin because, in Roberts words, “our Latin world does not yet know what alchemy is and what its composition is”.". 8. "It is certainly a fact that Western European scholars considered the Arabs to be not only the originators but also the masters of alchemy. For a century, Arabic works on alchemy were sought out, translated, and distributed throughout Europe. Almost the entire Western alchemical vocabulary was borrowed directly from Arabic, as Arabic alchemical terms were adopted by Western scholars directly without translation." 9. "Arab alchemists were so greatly respected and admired that some Western scholars even wrote their own works on alchemy under false Arabic names, in order to give them an air of authority which even a Latin name could not command." 10. "The science of optics in the Muslim world was pioneered by Ibn Sahl, an Arab polymath whose work attempted to understand the physics of sight. His work compared and contrasted the views of Aristotle and Euclid, and concluded the Euclidean explanation was correct. Ibn Sahl’s work was influential on subsequent studies of optics in Western Europe. Persian mathematician al-Kindi made the next important contribution, writing on refraction and convex lenses in the tenth century, after studying Ptolemy’s book on optics."

[@badrhetoric5637]

When it comes to history and knowledge of other nations, he is very....american 😅

[@BS-cc4ks]

"Israeli occupation of Palestine"? My dude, you are a great historian but current events are, evidently, something you have a blind spot in. Fact is, you cannot claim to want to "liberate Palestine" without, essentially, tying the hands of a strong guy so that a weaker one, one you feel is a victim, can then bully them. Perhaps you don't feel that Oct 7 justifies the Gaza war, but 'liberating Palestine" absolutely does nothing to keep other Oct 7s from happening. If Palestinians being free to unalive Israeli civilians is something that bothers you, "feeing Palestine" isn't and shouldn't be your end goal because that doesn't end the conflict.

[@veritasetcaritas]

Nothing I said has anything to do with tying the hands of a strong guy so that a weaker one can bully them. I made the incredibly short and simple statement that Israel is occuppying Palestine, a fact which is literally recognized by international law and the UN. news.un.org/en/story/2024/10/1155861

[@Abcdefg-tf7cu]

Everything you said is a lie. Fitting that you have "BS" in your username.

[@BS-cc4ks]

@@Abcdefg-tf7cu You can't attack the argument so you attack the person. Fitting for someone who has nothing but faith that their side is right.

[@Abcdefg-tf7cu]

@@BS-cc4ks I did attack your "arguments." They are lies. That is my attack against the argument. Your arguments are lies. Boom. You got owned.

[@Abcdefg-tf7cu]

@BS-cc4ks You make up lies to justify comitting genocide against Palestinians. Fitting for someone who has nothing but faith in their far right terrorist ideology.

[@sunnyrainyday6820]

Why are you attacking Islam and pretending to hide behind historical analysis?

[@veritasetcaritas]

I am not atttacking Islam. Where did I attack Islam?

[@sunnyrainyday6820]

@ you claimed the idea that Muslims preserved Greek philosophy was wrong in the basis that Christian monks transcribed many of the manuscripts of the Greeks. That’s disingenuous, under that ridiculous standard the Quran is a Jewish book because many of the verses of the Quran were written down by Jewish scribes. You miss the point that it is Islam itself and the sharia that the Christian monks lived under that inspired the Muslims to pursue knowledge and to see the Christians as brothers in faith and ask for their assistance in affairs of knowledge. I believe this mercy to other faith s and the pursuit of knowledge is unique to Islam, take for example what the Christians did when they took Jerusalem, they killed the non Christians. I’m trying to illustrate that the custom of the era was to slaughter the enemy (which the Christians participated in) and the only reason why the Arabs didn’t preform that custom was because Islam and the constitution of the prophet ﷺ guided them otherwise. One of the greatest examples of Islam’s greatest in the eyes of the secular world is the true history of Muslim preservation of Greek philosophy because it indicates the pursuit of knowledge and intellectual curiosity that Islam inspires. I feel that you are attacking this narrative because you don’t like the insinuation that Muslims are anything other than violent conquerers. You compare the Muslims taking books from Christian libraries to the British stealing relics from ancient cultures like how the jewels in the crown are stolen valuables from India and Pakistan, these are not equivalent because books are not icons that are valuable in their possession but are valuable in their use. To imply (as you have) the barbarism of European colonialism to the Islamic expansion is dishonest and inaccurate and I believe you know that because you are nitpicking these points in the first place.

[@veritasetcaritas]

​@@sunnyrainyday6820 no I did not say "the idea that Muslims preserved Greek philosophy was wrong in the basis that Christian monks transcribed many of the manuscripts of the Greeks". I did not say "the idea that Muslims preserved Greek philosophy was wrong" AT ALL. I made it clear that during the Muslim Golden Age the Muslims DID preserve much Greek philosophy. Please go back and note the actual claim I was arguing against, wihch was "“The ONLY REASON WE STILL KNOW ABOUT MUCH OF ANCIENT GREEK PHILOSOPHY is because Muslims preserved it and let European monks translate them (mainly in Iberia)”. That statement is false. Yes I did "compare the Muslims taking books from Christian libraries to the British stealing relics from ancient cultures", beause when armies invade countries, then raid cultural centers and remove from them books they cannot even read, and store them in their own libraries back home, that's exactly what it is. I said absolutely nothing about any crown jewels stolen from India or Pakistan. I find it strange that you didn't comment at all on all the comments I made about how scholars during the Muslim Golden Age were ahead of Western scholars, or how they made unique scientific and mathematical contributions, or how Western scholars visited Muslim lands to bring back knowledge to inform the West. Here are some examples from the video. 1. "from the ninth to the twelfth centuries the Muslim world was ahead of Western Europe in a range of subjects, such as mathematics, optics, and alchemy". 2. "During the Islamic Golden Age, the Muslim world did enjoy several intellectual advantages over Europe, such as in mathematics, in particular with the invention of complex algebra in the ninth century by the Persian mathematician Al-Khwarizmi, and they were ahead in alchemy, which Arab and Persian scholars developed to a new degree, drawing knowledge from earlier Greek and Byzantine works which had only a primitive understanding of what we would call chemistry". 3. "In some cases Western scholars such as Adelard of Bath, in the twelfth century, even traveled to Muslim lands, seeking out Arabic texts on a range of academic subjects, specifically with the intention of translating them into Latin so European scholars could learn from them." 4. "In the twelfth century European scholars were well aware of how far ahead the Muslims were in mathematics. Charles Burnett, History of Islamic Influences in Europe of the Warburg Institute, says “Stephen the Philosopher lamented the poor knowledge of geometry among the Latins, and John of Salisbury reckoned that the only place where the study flourished was in (Islamic) Spain”." 5. "Likewise, sociologist Toby Huff writes “Just how far advanced the Arabs were in the field of mathematics has recently been stressed by Roshdi Rashed”, adding “Arab mathematicians in the eleventh and twelfth centuries achieved mathematical innovations that were not accomplished by Europeans until the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries”.". 6. "Alchemy was brought to Western Europe through Arabic texts. Principe writes “Alchemy, we are told, arrived in Latin Europe on a Friday, the eleventh of February, 1144”, explaining that it was on this day that the English monk Robert of Chester translated an Arabic work on alchemy, into Latin because, in Roberts words, “our Latin world does not yet know what alchemy is and what its composition is”.". 7. "It is certainly a fact that Western European scholars considered the Arabs to be not only the originators but also the masters of alchemy. For a century, Arabic works on alchemy were sought out, translated, and distributed throughout Europe. Almost the entire Western alchemical vocabulary was borrowed directly from Arabic, as Arabic alchemical terms were adopted by Western scholars directly without translation.". 8. "The word alchemy itself from the Arabic al-chymia, alkaline from the Arabic al-qali, borax from the Arabic buraq, azurite from the Arabic lazaward, sodium from the Arabic suwwad, realgar (which is ruby sulfur), from the Arabic rahj al-gar, aniline from the Arabic annil, natron from the Arabic natroon, alcohol from the Arabic al-kohl, elixir from the Arabic al-iksir, alembic from the Arabic al-inbiq, and many others.". 9. "Arab alchemists were so greatly respected and admired that some Western scholars even wrote their own works on alchemy under false Arabic names, in order to give them an air of authority which even a Latin name could not command.". 10. "The science of optics in the Muslim world was pioneered by Ibn Sahl, an Arab polymath whose work attempted to understand the physics of sight. His work compared and contrasted the views of Aristotle and Euclid, and concluded the Euclidean explanation was correct. Ibn Sahl’s work was influential on subsequent studies of optics in Western Europe. Persian mathematician al-Kindi made the next important contribution, writing on refraction and convex lenses in the tenth century, after studying Ptolemy’s book on optics.".

[@Tom_Bee_]

​@@sunnyrainyday6820books before movable type and the revolution of printing were very much valuable "in their possession" So much so, that they were commonly chained to shelves in Europe.

[@sunnyrainyday6820]

@ Islam is based on destroying the practice of peace through cultural domination in the fashion that “stealing artifacts” participates in. For example how Britain has the stolen artifacts of the countries it has destabilized as a way of saying “we are better” Islam destroyed the Arab practice of stealing idol gods and piling them up in the kaba to say “we are better” to others. I’m refute the assertion that the value of a book chained in a library is the same type of value of an artifact or relic. If Muslim conquests stole the true cross of Christ or something like that then I’ll listen to your refutation of my original argument (more of a sub argument to my main point) that “Muslims taking books is the same as British stealing artifacts” Muslims took books from territories that they rightfully governed and treated them with the reverence that they deserved, how could anyone possibly have a problem with that?

[@erdood3235]

Who does kav prefer, hindus or Muslims?

[@InfiniteDeckhand]

Really dumb question.

[@erdood3235]

@InfiniteDeckhand why? He clearly doesn't look at the world with complexity

[@InfiniteDeckhand]

@@erdood3235 Your question has nothing at all to do with the topic at hand. That's why it's dumb.

[@veritasetcaritas]

He is an atheist and has made it clear he doesn't support any religion. He has stated explicitly he has no more time for Islam than he does for Christianity.

[@erdood3235]

@veritasetcaritas i didn't think he was either Muslim or Hindu. Rather, in his campist worldview, who would he side over in a conflict, Muslims or Hindus? Because many of his prescious Indians hate Muslims. Muslim hatred is a common ground for Indians and many Asians and the west