> It's of note that while there about 20% muslims in Israel, there's about zero jewish person in Gaza (there are some israelo-palestinian though) and zero jewish person in Iran. Or close to that.
Not only are there Jews in Iran, they even have a seat permanently reserved in the Iranian parliament.
The ethnic cleansing isn't totally complete, but it's quite close. It's nice that the Ayatolla made a fatwa to protect them though. But if I were Jewish in Iran I would expect that protection to fall the second the Ayatolla dies.
Navalny has some pretty ugly views, but I guess Mandela just never got the chance to implement Marxism or his version of socialism. That also has a habit of turning ugly as soon as it comes in contact with reality.
Trying to remember where I've read this in the past. I used to follow AskHistorians on Reddit and a quick search shows questions about him being asked quite a bit, for example here: https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1ppmsm/comme... (it's not all negative!). There are a ton of other threads too.
That doesn't seem to support "Carlin is discredited by most serious historians in general." Reading that comment, it sounds like I shouldn't treat Carlin as a definitive source on anything. Which seems fine? And the closest thing I can see to a specific criticism there is "oversimplification of the Roman Republic." Which I'm not even sure is a criticism. I generally expect lay history to oversimplify things.
Also... that comment was written 10 years ago.
I also follow and read r/askhistorians. I love it.
> I shouldn't treat Carlin as a definitive source on anything
Isn't this a key lesson in the study of history? There are no "definitive sources." Primary, Secondary, and Tertiary sources have their own biases, limitations, and cultural influences, sometimes to the point that they say more about their own lives than the history they portray. Sometimes it takes centuries for anyone to notice.
Your best hope for assembling an accurate picture of the past is to characterize how the biases you're aware of may have influenced the evidence available to you.
I agree..? Still, there is a difference between Carlin and a "real" historian. That's what I was trying to capture with pithy phrasing. I'll leave it to you to come up with the words to draw that distinction, if you think there is one at all. (And this is actually the point of contention in this thread, which I believe your comment isn't really addressing. I'd consider your comment more of a truism IMO.)
> Still, there is a difference between Carlin and a "real" historian.
You’re not wrong but that’s also something he openly reminds listeners of about 9 times per episode.
I just listened to one of his early episodes and he voiced an opinion that is entirely wrong, but he couched it by basically saying “this is a crazy idea but maybe…” so I have no problem with it.
I don't see how that changes anything I've said. And I don't see how anything I've said is in conflict with that. Moreover, not all critiques of Carlin are limited to specific sections where Carlin fastidiously points out he might be wrong.
Carlin does of course remind everyone that he isn't a historian quite regularly. And that's a good thing and a good reminder. But that doesn't mean his content cannot be critiqued for accuracy.
You may consider reading my comments on this thread again. I was defending Carlin.
Like I said, that comment was by no means exclusively negative and I don't recall where I read the more critical take, but it might have been one of the other (many!) posts about Carlin on r/askhistorians.
Yeah I've read a lot of the more critical takes in r/askhistorians. They don't seem overly bad in broad strokes to me at least. And I think some of the critics may overstate their conclusions, even if I agree with their analysis.
But even with that background knowledge, I think your claim is far too strong.
What if you were denied opportunities because of your race or gender or something else? Wouldn't you want to know that there barrier is now gone?
(Ignore the Saudi case, since this is almost certainly a cynical gesture to foreigners so we can be more accepting of MBS as being actually a really great guy after all considering what he's doing for women)
That's only if you look at the population of the named cities themselves rather than the population of the city plus the surrounding populates areas.
In Geneva's case, it is composed of several different named cities/towns/etc and those taken together are bigger than Spokane plus the municipalities that comprise its urban area.
Spokane metro is 579k. Geneva metro population is 633k. So Geneva metro has slightly more people than Spokane metro. Of course, the metro areas are wall to wall (so Geneva metro is adjacent to Lausanne metro) but they both have their own healthcare systems and aren’t gaining much more from scale than American metros.
And Spokane is a small case. There is nothing comparable to the Seattle metro in Switzerland. The closest you get is Paris in France or Milan in Italy.
Not only are there Jews in Iran, they even have a seat permanently reserved in the Iranian parliament.