Age of revolution a seminal work ,thankyou for uploading the clip. He was a great historian who witnessed the barbarism unleashed by both fascist and Marxists.
Hobsbawm’s dismissal of The Terror as being “relatively insignificant by modern standards “ in his book The Age Of Revolution as opposed to acknowledging it as the class genocide that it actually was is extremely problematic. Hobsbawm found it impossible to separate his political views from historical analysis, and used history to promote his own ideologies. This renders him a propagandist.
All history is tailored to ideologies and always has been. The only difference between Hobsbawm and other historians is that he is open about the ideology that compels him.
It's kind of absurd to accuse Hobsbawm (of all people) of ideological rigidity. The Age of Extremes makes no efforts to sugarcoat the failures of the Soviet Union, and by the end of his life he no longer even considered himself a Communist.
@@ethanmagnuson2988 Can't be that clever if it took him that long to figure out that Socialism sucks, and can be proved to suck. As Thomas Sowell said “Socialism in general has a record of failure so blatant that only an intellectual could ignore or evade it.”
@@ethanmagnuson2988 If took him that long to decide that he was no longer a communist I would say that the charge of ideological rigidity is a fair one.
@@samain11 why? Liberals and conservatives have no problem asserting their ideology. Why should communists not do the same? You, of course, have no idea what it means to be "a communist"...
Clearest, most creative and insightful historian ever. The Age of Revolution!
"Insightful", yes, but "creative" is something of an oxymoron when describing a historian.
Paxman: *mentions capitalism*
Hobsbawm: *slips into the 7th Void*
hahahaahhhahahahah
I think you have purple worms eating your VCR.
Age of revolution a seminal work ,thankyou for uploading the clip. He was a great historian who witnessed the barbarism unleashed by both fascist and Marxists.
This man saw all current problems coming
He is a proper historian.Like Chomsky he will tell what’s truly going on not newspaper fantasy cartoons.
Shame to post this interview with tecnical ptoblems
Malfunctioning video and squeaky audio. Sad, really.
Nice speech respected Emeritus professor , historian Sir,
Thanks
Regards
@simondrift and what makes your view so qualified?
biggest historian...of all time.......
the video is about Hobsbawn, not Stuart Hall
Hobsbawm is greatest historian ...ever born..
Hobsbawm’s dismissal of The Terror as being “relatively insignificant by modern standards “ in his book The Age Of Revolution as opposed to acknowledging it as the class genocide that it actually was is extremely problematic.
Hobsbawm found it impossible to separate his political views from historical analysis, and used history to promote his own ideologies.
This renders him a propagandist.
I think we can safely say he is the ugliest historian of the 20th century, quite possibly of all time.
lol
+BlueCheese747 That's entirely inappropriate and to be frank just rude
Radagast TheBrown I see the shantersaurus rex has worked out how youtube works
I think we can safely say that you're a pathetic, ignorant, small-minded moron.
Mike Williams Well he's a great historian but frankly I can't get over that face
I am not sure that a historian's job is to tailor history to meet the needs of an ideology, which pretty much what he did a lot of the time.
All history is tailored to ideologies and always has been. The only difference between Hobsbawm and other historians is that he is open about the ideology that compels him.
It's kind of absurd to accuse Hobsbawm (of all people) of ideological rigidity. The Age of Extremes makes no efforts to sugarcoat the failures of the Soviet Union, and by the end of his life he no longer even considered himself a Communist.
@@ethanmagnuson2988 Can't be that clever if it took him that long to figure out that Socialism sucks, and can be proved to suck. As Thomas Sowell said “Socialism in general has a record of failure so blatant that only an intellectual could ignore or evade it.”
@@ethanmagnuson2988 If took him that long to decide that he was no longer a communist I would say that the charge of ideological rigidity is a fair one.
@@samain11 why? Liberals and conservatives have no problem asserting their ideology. Why should communists not do the same? You, of course, have no idea what it means to be "a communist"...