Okay, you have lots of reasons to dislike him, and I never did say I agreed with his conclusions. I don't.
But in this one specific video, the only thing I have ever seen of the man or cared to, he brings plenty of receipts to prove the very simple point that the WW was not anywhere near as dangerous and lawless as many have been lead to believe through nothing more than repetition of the worst of it.
In the United States we have massive amounts of records, genealogies, newspapers, biographies, contracts, legal and court records, to trace the entirety of the so called wild west, and in those records we have the safest cities, with the lowest crime levels, to have ever existed on earth.
Exemplifying the "wild" part of the wild west has served at different points: the advancement of federalism, the marxist 'noble savage" narrative, and the push for "progress" in the form of degeneracy and the welfare state.
If I cared to make videos I would have linked you mine. But I can separate presented facts from the presenters bias without much issue and it is a failure of mine to expect the same of others.
And in this discussion on the mindless savagery of the Indians, and Mexicans, of the time we have countless proof that there were times and places where that was not the case as well. The West was a massive chunk of land. Both sides of this coin can be true with all the proof necessary to do so.
The Presenter's Bias is more than just what conclusions they bring. Its also which facts they bring and which they don't. The same way that any crying about how Jews were treated by Nazis will leave out the degeneracy they were promoting and pushing at the time. And given Stefan's ideology, he will undoubtedly bring the facts that paint history as sympathetic to his belief's and very unlikely show the ones that disprove him.
As in, what he has always done. But I guess if its what you want to hear you'll believe anything from any charlatan without a second thought or wonder if they are credible
In case my passive aggressive snark is not translating correctly, I am trying to have a civilised discussion with you.
times and places where that was not the case as well.
And those times and places were overall, a very small part of the two centuries we call the wild west. As well as being localised to specific territories, while other territories experienced very little problems.
And given Stefan's ideology, he will undoubtedly bring the facts that paint history as sympathetic to his belief's and very unlikely show the ones that disprove him.
Since he completely ignored Christianity entirely, I agree with you here.
However, the crime statistics he brought for places that are known from western movies as hotbeds of crime, do shine a light on the narrative many of us were fed in school. Even the worst cities were safer than any modern US city even adjusted per-capita.
You have successfully illuminated a lot of the issues I did have with that video and the presenter, and will say you are right about him. But it still remains that over the 2 centuries of the "wild west" and the millions of square miles it consisted of, over 90% of the time it was peaceful and prosperous.
I had relatives who lived through the final decades of it, and heard about the WW from the horses mouth so to speak. So I always took issue with those who claimed it was some barbaric time where everything sucked. I can appreciate when even someone I may ideologically disagree with can point to factual information and say "that's just not what it was really like, for most of the people, for most of the time."
Forgive me then, I am far too used to people who are much more unwilling to even hear the criticisms that I skipped over civility.
As well as being localised to specific territories, while other territories experienced very little problems.
Right, but the places where Indian savages were running amok, I'd wager were also the places with white guys also being less than noble. I'd even say they'd be retarded to not be given the circumstances, with the coyotes howling at their doors.
Which was the point of conversation, Indians were creatures of horror in the deserts and in the stories to be told about about that fact you could have plenty of less than noble white men too because it was a place where an Outlaw could exist. And they were still less bad than the red men.
If there was no peace and prosperity to be had, it would have never been settled. But I also have lived in towns that were devoid of crime or madness 90% of the year, and then a local nigger gang would sweep through and turn it into a lawless nightmare for a few weeks until the cops could catch up and drive them out.
I've never doubted most of it was just normal frontier living. But on the flipside, all the "lawless wild west" stories are also the most interesting and fun parts of that time, even if they were 0.1% of it. Its why Westerns appealed to people so much regardless of the Elite's intentions with them.
I will respond to this in full later; things to do and all that.
I think we actually agree on much of the basics, we merely approach the "entirety" of the WW differently. As a whole I think it was one of the best times to be alive in all of human history, but it was a very unique period of time and place where their was no real external threat. The savagery of the natives and the mexicans (both contained to specific locations and times) was nothing compared to the competing nations of other periods and times, such as the shifting tides of the Moorish invasions and the Crusades and the "total war" period of Europe.
Okay, you have lots of reasons to dislike him, and I never did say I agreed with his conclusions. I don't.
But in this one specific video, the only thing I have ever seen of the man or cared to, he brings plenty of receipts to prove the very simple point that the WW was not anywhere near as dangerous and lawless as many have been lead to believe through nothing more than repetition of the worst of it.
In the United States we have massive amounts of records, genealogies, newspapers, biographies, contracts, legal and court records, to trace the entirety of the so called wild west, and in those records we have the safest cities, with the lowest crime levels, to have ever existed on earth.
Exemplifying the "wild" part of the wild west has served at different points: the advancement of federalism, the marxist 'noble savage" narrative, and the push for "progress" in the form of degeneracy and the welfare state.
If I cared to make videos I would have linked you mine. But I can separate presented facts from the presenters bias without much issue and it is a failure of mine to expect the same of others.
And in this discussion on the mindless savagery of the Indians, and Mexicans, of the time we have countless proof that there were times and places where that was not the case as well. The West was a massive chunk of land. Both sides of this coin can be true with all the proof necessary to do so.
The Presenter's Bias is more than just what conclusions they bring. Its also which facts they bring and which they don't. The same way that any crying about how Jews were treated by Nazis will leave out the degeneracy they were promoting and pushing at the time. And given Stefan's ideology, he will undoubtedly bring the facts that paint history as sympathetic to his belief's and very unlikely show the ones that disprove him.
As in, what he has always done. But I guess if its what you want to hear you'll believe anything from any charlatan without a second thought or wonder if they are credible
In case my passive aggressive snark is not translating correctly, I am trying to have a civilised discussion with you.
And those times and places were overall, a very small part of the two centuries we call the wild west. As well as being localised to specific territories, while other territories experienced very little problems.
Since he completely ignored Christianity entirely, I agree with you here.
However, the crime statistics he brought for places that are known from western movies as hotbeds of crime, do shine a light on the narrative many of us were fed in school. Even the worst cities were safer than any modern US city even adjusted per-capita.
You have successfully illuminated a lot of the issues I did have with that video and the presenter, and will say you are right about him. But it still remains that over the 2 centuries of the "wild west" and the millions of square miles it consisted of, over 90% of the time it was peaceful and prosperous.
I had relatives who lived through the final decades of it, and heard about the WW from the horses mouth so to speak. So I always took issue with those who claimed it was some barbaric time where everything sucked. I can appreciate when even someone I may ideologically disagree with can point to factual information and say "that's just not what it was really like, for most of the people, for most of the time."
Forgive me then, I am far too used to people who are much more unwilling to even hear the criticisms that I skipped over civility.
Right, but the places where Indian savages were running amok, I'd wager were also the places with white guys also being less than noble. I'd even say they'd be retarded to not be given the circumstances, with the coyotes howling at their doors.
Which was the point of conversation, Indians were creatures of horror in the deserts and in the stories to be told about about that fact you could have plenty of less than noble white men too because it was a place where an Outlaw could exist. And they were still less bad than the red men.
If there was no peace and prosperity to be had, it would have never been settled. But I also have lived in towns that were devoid of crime or madness 90% of the year, and then a local nigger gang would sweep through and turn it into a lawless nightmare for a few weeks until the cops could catch up and drive them out.
I've never doubted most of it was just normal frontier living. But on the flipside, all the "lawless wild west" stories are also the most interesting and fun parts of that time, even if they were 0.1% of it. Its why Westerns appealed to people so much regardless of the Elite's intentions with them.
I will respond to this in full later; things to do and all that.
I think we actually agree on much of the basics, we merely approach the "entirety" of the WW differently. As a whole I think it was one of the best times to be alive in all of human history, but it was a very unique period of time and place where their was no real external threat. The savagery of the natives and the mexicans (both contained to specific locations and times) was nothing compared to the competing nations of other periods and times, such as the shifting tides of the Moorish invasions and the Crusades and the "total war" period of Europe.