This is a problem affecting progressive politicians Proceeds to mention RBG, Michelle Obama and Elizabeth Warren, the latter being the only one that can be defined as an atleast basic progressive Its something I thought I ought to point out, not a take down of the video.
Well, it's still amazing that your toddler knows what a meter is, but yes it is also funny that he knows what a meter is before he knows what his age is 😂.
@@monotheisticmortal5122 I mean that’s probably the standard used where they live. in all reality it’s likely just a made up situation anyway. i doubt this even happened
I work in a children's library. In my anecdotal experience, kids are almost never interested in biographies unless they have to read one for a school assignment or unless a parent borrows one for them. They like nonfiction - just not usually biographies. Their parents, however, love to borrow them. I suspect it has to do with a difference between the things kids and adults care about: adults want to Teach their kids Important Things about the World, whereas kids are following their natural interests. So, parents look for books about Good Role Models, but the adult world of politics and celebrity isn't usually something that kids care about at all.
To be honest, when I was a kid, I did get interested in those, but only the most macabre book series that appealed to my 3dgy 12yo tastes like Wicked History or Horrible Histories. And it was one of the few things about that phase of my life I don't regret, since I got to see a non-sanitized view on world history at a young age that I would never have gotten from a teacher.
Wow, that's so interesting. Back in my day (mid 2000s-early 2010s), the boys, autistic girls, and girls who wanted the boys to notice them would always check out biographies on their own. They *all* grew to be pretty politically inclined later on, which I find to be cool
That first book about Hitler vs. Churchill seems like exactly the type of book that causes some middle schoolers to become so infatuated with Hitler and Nazism.
Honestly I'm so glad my dad didn't give me the "children's book" explanations for things, he gave me the straight up military style explanation for things, it definitely rounded me out as a kid to hear him tell me how messed up war can make you and how fragile we are as human beings, it might have immediately scared me as a kid but it grounded me and gave me a more accurate perspective of things relating to military service, and even his more grounded logical explanations for things. Like he explained Occam's Razor to me at like age 4 and I definitely used it when I was alone and scared. The shit in these kids books definitely borders on propaganda, nobody is perfect everyone has flaws and its important for kids to know that so they dont think they have to be perfect too.
I mean that all depends on the individual child and their age I’d say. How are you gonna explain the hells of heroin addiction to a 4 year old, and is there a benefit because I’m not sure they could even grasp it well. But the one thing I didn’t see J.J. Fully touch on is, what kinda child wants to read a book about some random boring politician. I’d think they’re pretty much intended to be propaganda for parents at the disdain of kids everywhere lol
@@monhi64 this is a good point to make honestly bc how would you know how to explain addiction to a child??? the method ive found is you dont have to go into the nitty gritty of the lifestyle that accompanies addiction but instead psychological aspects such as how the drug interacts with your synapses and what is happening internally to a human body during addiction and/or drug use. information like this is very beneficial especially obtaining it as a young child because it helps foster understanding and empathy for this disease :) anyway sorry i know it was a rhetorical comment but i felt the need to ramble
@@enahs1350 people want things so much all the time, and it's very hard for them to stop wanting them then you lead the kid on to give an example "like my toys" or whatever and then you tell them it's not really like that because they'll get hurt or hurt themselves if they don't get what the are addicted to etc etc etc
I think it's fair to say that you can treat Hitler as an extremely evil figure without inherently lionising Churchill as a hero. Because after all, Hitler was an incredibly evil person who committed some of the greatest crimes against humanity ever and Churchill was a flawed historical figure like most figures are, certainly preferable to Hitler but in no way a pure hero. Churchill was a committed colonialist and also committed some serious crimes against the Indian people. To leave out those facts and treat Churchill as only a hero is the same propaganda you mentioned within the video. In many ways Churchill has committed greater crimes than the lions share of world leaders, not being as bad as the person you're fighting against doesn't make one a hero.
Incorrect, majority of colonialist damage done to India was done pre ww2, unless you count the Indian recruits into the army, but that’s not on Britain for hitlers war path. India gained its independence in 1947. 7 years after Churchill even became prime minister. Along side the independence of Ireland.
@@crispy_retrodude9463 Go do some research into the Bengal famine. And specifically look into Churchill's role and some of his comments about the Indian people. "Some Indian recruitment" isn't how I would characterize those years.
The British empire committed the crimes against Indian subcontinent, and in Africa. Churchill is just a figure of the empire. If people keep seeing the empire as a good thing, which did some bad things...that won't change.
I would never give a child a book about a modern day politician anyway. Most of the time, anyone who’s inspired to write a book about a modern day politician has an agenda, especially if it’s about Trump. And anyone inclined to give a book about a modern day politician to a child probably just wants to indoctrinate them. Trump is honestly such a strange President, who is uniquely popular and uniquely unpopular at the same time. There’s too much context and nuance for a children book to really cover.
CGK I agree, kids should not be learning about politics until at least middle school. If it's done earlier kids will understand political ideas as values, and it's very important that they understand the distinction between them.
I agree that anyone giving a book about politics to a kid probably wants to indoctrinate them, which is why the actual books JJ examines are so odd to me - who's going to give these utterly dispassionate books about Donald Trump to anyone? What's the target audience? Are they just meant to be decorative pieces in a school library?
The only things a kid should now in regards to politics are simple facts. Like who the president is. I think history books are preferable for children anyways.
I agree, and the same goes for quite a few other modern or recent politicians. Attempts to depict AOC and Kamala Harris or Ronald Reagan and John McCain as these heroic, empowered, dynamic, christ like figures just trying to "do the right thing" and "fix all the problems everyone else is causing" are just so blunt, un-nuanced, and lacking in educational value. I think giving kids these kinds of books depicting real people as simple "good guys and bad guys" is not very healthy for society.
I read an adolescent book on Kurt Cobain back in the day and that book did a good job at highlighting his drug addiction and his problems in life, not just his successes, his strong relationships with his band members and musical ability. It tried to give a lesson from his life, pointing how even someone who is at one point in the bottom of their life can find success, meaning, and purpose through their pain. I don't mind that in biographies for children and teens.
@Coffee-drinking Zubat honestly love you hope so much that you can keep carrying on, been there and it's so hard- just keep doing what you can with what you have, today
@@Velvet.Unicorn i don’t think so, if you’re talking about the one by Lindsey Sagar. There’s a youtube video reading the book and it only briefly mentions Nirvana
“If someone says it's raining & another person says it's dry, it's not your job to quote them both. Your job is to look out the fucking window and find out which is true.”
@@kyokyodisaster4842 The big example here would be the second amendment in the US. Guns are bad is a fact in urban environments. Guns are good is a fact in rural environments. You can't have a sweeping legislation to say yes or no to gun control.
@@EvilParagon4 You do realize this isn't an actual situation that was happening right? That it's a hypothetical to demonstrate how non-bias actually works in reporting? Or do you think some reporter out there is going around asking random people living in entirely different towns what the weather is like and they're confused as to why they're getting different answers?
@@charlieparker5346 Are you daft? In what world would you think someone wouldn't get that? It's playing along with the metaphor to tear it down because it sucks as a metaphor and promotes the idea only one idea is correct.
I remember in elementary art class the art teacher read us a book about Vincent Van Gough where he gets bullied by childeren and then he makes friends with a little girl and there's a happy ending where they paint together. Very accurate.
most kids in the sixth grade today have never even heard of the holocaust, so to give them a "fair and balanced" view of hitler is irresponsible at best. great video, JJ!
@@MrDemonWorm It wasn't when I went to school. I suspect that's why there are so many clueless communists around who just give you a blank stare when you talk about communist atrocities.
@@Anonymous-wp7lm Thank you for proving my point that people aren't taught about this stuff in school. Intentional or not, the famine was caused by the idiotic collectivist policies of the communist regime. Certain "class enemies" (e.g. Kulaks/land owners) were purposely starved out by the government. They used the famine as an excuse to exterminate them and take control of their farms. The atrocity was 100% the fault of communism, both from an economic and political perspective.
Anon In a capitalist country which is not suffering a crop failure, it would be very difficult to starve millions of farmers to death. The source of the food is right there on their farms after all. But if you impose unrealistic quotas and only let farmers keep food above those quotas, you can literally take all of a farmer's food and starve his whole family within sight of grain silos full of food. Explain to me how that could have happened under a different form of government than communism.
I do feel like picture books about modern politicians is a bit “iffy” to me. I like many of them but it just feels so weird to try to put the life of a still living person into a book for young children
To me, it's a big NO. Politics is complicated, far more complicated than kids could typically even begin to understand until they're in their late teens, and even then... I just don't think kids should be reading books about politicians, no matter which side they're on, especially if those books lean heavily into "good vs bad" dynamics, and are very biased, painting the politicians they're about as good and noble people, while their opposers are evil horrible and nasty, and all children should hate them. That doesn't seem right to me. Kids shouldn't be involved in these kinds of conversations at all. So that's why all those kids books about politicians just... Disturb me...
@@leirawhitehart1236 If a child is interested in a political figure or topic I would say it's perfectly valid for one to openly discuss it with them. Politics is an omnipresent subject after all and it's only natural that they grow curious about it. I mean, I feel like "I'll tell you when you're older" is not a valid answer to "who is the president?" or something like that. Not that I approve of books for kids dealing with modern politicians or political affairs, not only are they creepily propagandistic but it also feels to me like those who buy them for their children are squirming out of their duty in a way. In the sense that if one wants their kids to learn about such complex topics then one should make the effort to teach them personally, or at least delegate the task to another human being.
@@leirawhitehart1236 Plus, it's just harder to simplify a person without even waiting until they're dead, you don't know how much more info you will get in time.
Adults are not inherently better prepared to handle tough subjects unless they've practiced when they were kids. I started to get interested in politics around age 14, which I think is a reasonable age to start learning about all aspects of life. And it's not like the adults could stop me, so the best you can do is recommend good sources to read/watch. There's plenty of time to course correct if children have naive political ideas a decade before they can vote. I don't like the idea that children should be shielded from things that adults find messy - that if anything makes them bad voters and citizens later on. But for the kids that are not interested yet, that's fine. Definitely don't buy an Obama book for a kid that doesn't care about that stuff.
@@mollistuff Agree, it's probably best try to educate your kids in politics at least a year or two before they can vote. Starting at 18 I felt like I had to do a lot of catching up, but at least I had a lot of motivation then and could understand the concepts well.
You didn't answer the question! It's almost as if you want ALL OF US to think deeply about it. How dare you! lol Seriously, though. Well done tackling this topic by looking at a wide range of children's books. I have a Journalism degree, Education degree, and History degree (and a lot of student loan debt). In my humble opinion, "fair and balanced" is good as long as we remain steadfastly factual. If you have to literally make up stuff to make one "side" look better, you are hurting society. For example, if you are saying Trump "drained the swamp" when he literally did not, or that he "brought the troops home," when troops are still fighting wars around the world, or that there was "widespread voting fraud," you are literally making stuff up, and in doing so whitewashing history. That said, we should indeed acknowledge the positive things that Trump did during his Presidency. It is ridiculous how some media outlets just choose to ignore any accomplishment he had. And I just realized I may be guilty of the "teach the controversy" way of making my videos. lol oops
If the msm would have even just occasionally covered some of the positive things trump did (and, as terrible a person and leader as he is, he did do *some* good things) then they would not have completely delegitimized themselves and pushed his supporters toward propoganda networks like fox and straight up fake news like newsmax and oann which turned them into the cult of personality we have now.
That video is also doing a huge service. They really like to LOOK all friendly and like they want to free the Chinese people but in reality they’re nothing more than an insane cult.
I started talking about politics with my classmates in 5th grade, in the wake of the 2016 election. One of my classmates thought voting for Trump was good because he would get rid of school. Kids shouldn’t learn about politics until late middle school.
I was in 5th or 6th grade during the 2008 election. I paid a lot of attention to it, mostly through my parents, who were fired up for Ron Paul, who ultimately lost the Republican nomination that year. The only other "politically aware" classmates were ones who treated it like sports teams, acting like the people and ideas matter a lot less than wearing the right colors, or edgy kids who called themselves neo-nazis or communists, and that they would vote for Hitler or Stalin in a heartbeat. They were middle schoolers, inherently cringe. Even when the 2012 election rolled around, most high-school kids were doing the sports-teams thing, though they had slightly more refined it off of just "whatever side my parents say" to "the side my parents say for these reasons," or "the opposite of my parents, cause they grounded me earlier this week and I hate them for it." 2016, I was finally old enough to vote, and was still in line with my dad's libertarian views, though, I had a slightly harder edge to them, supporting the death penalty and tighter border control. I had no illusions of Trump or Hillary going in. Trump had been a longtime Dem, and was a big ticket supporter of Hillary in the 2008 primaries. I also remembered her and Joey B throwing some pretty rough stuff at a younger Obama, before he got enough support to have them dropout. I fully believe that it Obama hadn't put Hillary and Biden in his cabinet, the two of them, alongside Trump would've continued fighting against him. But, H and B got cabinet appointments, and Trump was outside their circle. He flipped on them, continuing the same "birther" push that had originally started during the primaries, and had been very embraced by the Repubs in the main race. Over the next 8 years, Trump had burned all his bridges with former Dem establishment, able to put it all behind him, even his failed ~2000 race. 2016, I voted in the Repub primary for Rand Paul, Ron Paul's son. He still dropped out later to the juggernaut that was what I call the "Trump protest vote," the massive number of people flooding in due to dissatisfaction with the establishment politicians, picking Trump cause his was on the news the most, even in negative light. (See: all press is good press/bad press is still free advertising) In the fallout of that 2016 election, I saw the truth of how many adults still treat politics like sports teams. 2020 was even worse. 2016 was Russian Collusion, but 2020 was the most secure election in history, despite an absolutely astonishing number of mail-in votes. Or: 2016 was absolutely fair, and 2020 was thoroughly rigged. My thoughts? No 2-party election has ever been fair. Both have a vested interest in keeping other, better alternatives out. Even the actual politicians only play it like sports teams.
When I was a kid, I got really upset and locked myself in my room because my parents didn't vote for Al Gore. I had no idea who Al Gore was, just that he was in some sort of election (a word I might not even have understood) and people were talking about him in terms I recognised as "good guy terms". I'm from Wales.
@@trianglemoebius ---- This is funny because it's so very relatable. I got into politics when Jimmy Carter was in the middle of his term, about '79 or so, when I was 9 lol. Kids can be goofy, but I miss the passion I had for anything back then. Good luck to you.
Fourth or fifth grade seems reasonable to me, as that's about the time when kids stop focusing on "baby stuff" and start asking legitimately good questions about the world in general.
Being fair and balanced is good.. as long as you remember that it doesn''t mean being 'neutral' but 'objective'. Being objective is being willing to go where the evidence takes you, regardless of your personal preferences, rather than creating a false equivalence between unequally sustained positions in the name of neutrality and concluding that "Oh well, both sides have a point, both could be right" when it's not true. If one side provides ample evidence that the Earth is round, and the other just argues that "The Earth is flat, because it's obvious, duh!", the only true fair and objective take here is to agree with the former and against the latter, because only the former made a strong case for their position.
@@crazymanmapping3610 scientific journals are strong evidence of the truth. I have never a peer reviewed study or scientific paper that supports extreme right wing beliefs. Anything that does exist, is either not peer reviewed, written by a disgraced or disbarred former science practitioner or fully retracted by the science community. Your comment has no valid criticism as it is not supported by any facts, it is simply a statement of your opinion. Which you came to without an open mind regarding what the facts are.
@@ysodora8030 Until 2020, when Fauci went nuts with his 15 minutes of fame, and all the sci journals fell in line or were labeled misinformation. Fauci repeatedly lied, to Congress, on TV, particularly Rand Paul, who is himself a doctor. Every one of Fauci's claims went against historic knowledge of how viruses and vaccines work, and all we get when we point it out is "peer-reviewed studies" that did not actually duplicate the study, but looked at the information provided to them, from the original, which would include biases of the original, and say "yeah, I'd come to a roughly similar conclusion." Studies that excused any negative health concerns as "unrelated" to the thing we're testing, so we'll label it "safe and effective." Only for people to still catch it, and die, and be told "would've been worse if they hadn't got the shot." I had it before the lockdowns even started, one of the joys of living in Vegas, came out the other side mostly fine, just two weeks winded with an annoying itch. No one acted soon enough on travel shutdowns to actually stop it, which would've been November, maybe December when it began to leak out of China that something was going on. Remember when Dem politicians were encouraging you to visit your local Chinatown, in roughly Jan-Feb? Cause I do. Then we pretend like blowing our economy out of the water and putting everyone out of work will somehow fix it? Then we transition to discussion on morality of forcible medical procedures, with these studies as "safe and effective" being used as a fulcrum to force it on us. They don't do anything that a vaccine actually should do. They didn't make us immune. Smallpox, and polio did. They didn't stop us from being contagious. TB did. This was the big one to force it on those that didn't want it. Turned out to be as false, but there seems to be no guilt in taking an unethical and immoral stance "for the greater good." Gee, I wonder if other evils have been sold as "for the greater good" before? They didn't even lesson the symptoms, I had Rona again Feb of this year, way worse than Feb 2020. Way worse, after I had capitulated to having the shot forced on me by the DoD in Oct 2021. And I caught it from a guy who had a different brand of shot, about as soon as they had come out. And with these stories of "Sudden Adult Death Syndrome" and "peer-reviewed studies" blaming "climate change" for heart problems, I'm pretty sure that if it hadn't been forced on so many, we could've actually had decent control groups to see if it was actually safe, or even just safer than naturally catching Rona. We have no control group, so I'm doubtful they'll ever actually connect it. Especially when they know their credibility within the community hangs on agreeing with the nonsensical consensuses of Rona already established. "Peer-reviewed studies" isn't the definite, factual, unbiased thing you think it is. Hasn't been for awhile, Rona and Fauci's madness helped strip away the last of the veneer. It's biased in favor of who is paying for it. And what do you know? The government is a big time grant writer, so OF COURSE the studies are gonna come out supporting more of it. Also, Fauci, back on May 6th, 1983, helped spread the false claim that AIDS could transfer within a home, or from a subway handrail. www.nytimes.com/1983/05/06/us/family-contact-studied-in-transmitting-aids.html The academic scientific community had been slowly eroding their own credibility for years, but by tossing in with Fauci, they broke the cliff they were hanging on.
I also try my best to keep my educational videos fair and unbiased, but honestly if someone’s trying to describe Hitler in a fair, unbiased light, they‘re probably not as “unbiased“ as they want you to think
@@randomperson2078 It does not help that his logo is also the logo of the early-1940s "America First Committee", which opposed US intervention in World War II. Unfortunately, many of it's members were a bit... too sympathetic to the fascists. Read for yourself: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/America_First_Committee
Not true. As I said in a previous comment it isn't difficult at all to be fair and balanced when describing N. Germany as a whole. Like the fact a large number of German soldiers were drafted and had no choice but to fight . And kids should be reminded nobody is born evil..even Hitler. He was once an innocent child and somewhere along the way either through nature or nurture he became the tyrant we know of today
I disagree. A court that is sentencing a criminal is supposed to be fair and unbiased. That doesn't mean that they are supposed to find excuses for the criminal on trial - quite the opposite. It can be very useful to analyze the dynamics of what led to a calculated genocide in an as unbiased manner as possible. Doing so doesn't mean that you cannot judge this genocide as the unbelievable cruelty that it was. There is also a point in teaching children or adolescents to make their own conclusion. If you only learn which person in history was bad, but never how to spot actions with terrible consequences, then you will not be able to judge contemporary public persons.
Great video! Here's where things get interesting though, right? Certain figures like Hitler can indeed universally be painted evil, but others have more complicated legacies. You spoke about Winston Churchill for instance in very glowing tones. Here in India however, he is widely hated as the man who ordered the murder of over 4 million Indians as a matter of documented, minuted, Cabinet policy. In the West he is rightly viewed as the saviour of the free world, but in India he is seen only as an ardent racist and imperialist.
This is why Hitler was not uniquely evil. His racial policies were inspired by and followed in the footsteps of colonial regimes ran even by his contemporaries.
@@sethmweber Hitler even directly cited Jim Crow and the US as part of his inspiration, as well as Genghis Khan and the Young Turks when justifying his attack on Poland. "Who, after all, speaks today of the annihilation of the Armenians?"
Yes exactly, Churchill was really so much like hitler. He just didn’t want his power to be taken over. I feel the world wars were really more over shallow reasons of power and not for peoples civility. A lot of colonised countries I would say don’t know their full history
Thats the kind of nationalist propaganda that Upper Caste Indian elites brainwash ordinary Indians with. During the WW2, Indian Leadership and Indian People were not supporting the war against Fascism. Indians openly admired Fascist Japan and Aryan Supremacy appealed to them. What was Churchill or the HMG supposed to do in that case? Regarding the so-called evils of British Colonialism, what exactly happened to India in 75 years since the Britishers left. Its more filthy, more dirty place and no one wants to live there. All the Indian elites have their kids studying in the Western Countries and everybody wants to come over to US, Canada or Australia. And what applies to Indian Elites, applies to Third-World Elites in general. They brainwash their population with anti-Western and anti-White rhetoric while all they want for their kids is to settle in the West. My bigger point is that due to extreme PC in the west, we can only discuss about bad things done by white western people. Third World elites were and are as much disgusting and we need to focus on their culpability as well.
Good video but I think JJ is overlooking Churchill's own faults, such as his ignorance towards famine in South Asia, imperialist attitudes, and own racism.
I think the important caveat to what he said was he only described Churchill as "heroic" in relation to Hitler- what he did to stop hitler certainly was heroic. But he did not call Churchill a hero himself- or say that he never did any wrong, or even that the good he did outweighed the wrong, only that he did some thing good. signed, someone who does not in anyway like Churchill or the nationalistic tone he's described in so. gd. much
As a progressive/socialist I've never understood the phenomenon of biographies of politicians for kids. An eight year old, let alone a four or two year old, has no context or way of understanding any of these people, regardless of their political leanings. There are plenty of figures we can and should hold up as exemplars for kids that aren't politicians.
Because those politicians pay for an opportunity to more impactfully influence a generation of voters 10-15 years from now. Some of those politicians might not be alive, but a good portion of those others will be and will likely still be running for office in that amount of time. If you were raised with an exposure to an exemplar story of a heroic man and that very man is a candidate for presidency then you will be more likely, whether you realize it or not, to vote for that person. I call it corrupting the youth, but I also feel bad for Socrates so who knows.
Hero worship is a core idea in fascism, and everyone is trained to want to be a hero. The “what would Jesus do?” mentality of not thinking for yourself, but rather just obeying (for what it’s worth Jesus answered that question with the Golden Rule rather than a formulaic answer so you have to think and understand to do what Jesus would do).
As a center-libertarian right winger, I've never understood pushing politics or politicized topics onto children in general. Teach children how to research properly and spot biases and how the branches of government work and they'll be able to form their own informed political ideology. 💪
Posting life stories again. I was taught in late primary school, rural town, deep south around 6th grade ('98 maybe) that the "things we heard about Hitler" were overblown and to think for ourselves about it. Our teacher came across like that book putting Churchill and Hitler on sort of the same scale and "balancing" them out. The teacher didn't come across as a wacko conspiracy theorist or anything, and otherwise seemed like a calm, rational person. I remember getting access to the internet a year or so after that, going onto message boards and posting about how "Hitler wasn't actually that bad, just think about it" and I was torn apart. I'm glad I was I ended up changing schools later to a bigger city that had an AP program. I took the test and qualified to go into AP Histories. That cold backlash I got ended up fueling this desire to know as much as I could about history and wanting to know how I was lied to. Fast forward to today and while I have an advanced degree in engineering, I have a bachelors level of knowledge of US History and World History and it's still one of the most fascinating topics I can seek out. This isn't to defend teaching that angle. That angle was wrong and predatory.
When I was growing up I occasionally came across a teacher or adult who encouraged us to think about Hitler as a “complex” figure, particularly as one who “did a lot of good” for the German people even if he did a lot of bad things for everyone else. I don’t think that these people were necessarily Hitler apologists per se, but they were under the spell of a kind of phony pretense of moderation. It wasn’t until I went to the World War II museum in Germany that I fully came to realize that no, in fact Hitler’s dictatorship was hell for the people of Germany as well. In some ways, I think the existence of pure evil is harder for a lot of people to accept. It’s more intellectually satisfying to believe that there is nuance in everything, and that a clever enough person can find the hidden upside of just about anything.
@Steele Crusader 2020 Wow we have a Neo Nazi here. This is why you only be neutral for people who actually are neutral. Hitler was not neutral. He was extremely racist and one sided. He looked at the world and saw individuals who have thoughts and dreams like him and decided to treat them like animals. This is abject evil and it should be called that everywhere.
A neutral text should absolutely NOT spoonfeed moral opinions to its readers. It should, however, present ALL the facts, allowing readers to reach their own conclusions. Thus, the Hitler book could get away with not explicitly calling him an "evil bastard", so long as it presented all of his atrocities in their gory details (which I assume, it did not).
Well to do so with a book filled with all these facts would require very dark graphics to illustrate his atrocities which doesn't belong in a children's book or even middle school for that matter. Plus would lead to a few facts that would put Hitler in a favorable light such as his charismatic and leadership skills which even adults deftest acknowledging between themselves.
@@Salidin111 Correct, but then they're gonna have to call him an "evil bastard" (by hiding the gruesome facts behind a moral opinion), or risk incorrectly conveying history (which is what they did).
Morally, yeah, sometimes you should draw a line in the sand. Everything should be subservient to our moral conscience. We cannot forget that Hitler was inept, and we cannot relax on calling out his wickedness. Even when we're really on top of that, we still have Neo-Nazis cropping up. Have you met Neo-Nazis? If you give them an inch, they will take a mile. It's baked into their Social Darwinist outlook. We can't do the dirty work of normalizing fascism for them.
3 Problems: Problem1: You can't teach all the facts. Simply too many things you could mention. Problem2:You can't say "Hitler thought the Jews were behind a giant conspiracy" , without saying he's wrong. But writing "And then Trump tried to stay in power despite losing the election, telling his supporters, that the vote was rigged. Eventually he incited an insurrection where a mob of Trump supporters made it into the capitol, wanting to stop the ratification of the election Biden had won." and you'll have a lot of people angry. Problem3: The information makes the conclusion YERY clear in most cases. (Like, nobody would be seriously debating if we should switch to renewables, if everyone would stick to the facts(damage of climate change, renewables not being more expensive when compensating for subsidies, etc.) )
The one book about Trump it just glossed over the anti immigrant issues. It's not just about how he felt about immigration but how he felt immigrants and minorities. I'd think you'd really haft to mention the "shithole" comment the quasi racist remarks he made about AOC and "the squad" the rapist comment. It's just wrong to leave it at "he wanted tough immigration policies".
"Fair and Balanced" isn't meant to say that both sides have equal merit and should get equal consideration. Journalism and news should be about fact-finding and the reporting of those findings. Regardless of opinions, it should always be about the truth.
The media often mistakes false neutrality for objectivity, when it's actually the opposite. If you're objective, you point out the facts without having a bias. If you're trying to be neutral for the sake of looking neutral, you have a bias towards looking "fair and balanced ". It's crazy to see when one politician gets a ton of tough questions about one thing because the media has to obsess over something, while his/her opponent gets the same amount of criticism, despite having way more skeletons in their closet. Things like how much money someone takes from corporations or how often they lie can be measured.
I think books should be crystal clear on what are facts and what are opinions. Children should learn both facts and opinions, but more importantly they should learn how to differentiate them.
When I was young my older sister had to do a research paper about a person or event that could be considered "horror" in history like Elizabeth Bathory or something and her topic was Hitler and my mom and I went to the library to pick up adult nonfiction books about Hitler and I was just looking thru them all casual and being funny thinking he was just some edgy serial killer or cartoon villain trying to take over the world and my mom couldn't get it into my thick skull how much I should not be amused at the things I was looking at. I cringe so hard at my past self.
I got upset my parents didn't vote for Al Gore, because I'd heard the news describe him what I recognised as "good guy terms". First off, I'm not even sure I was totally aware what an 'election' is, or what 'voting' is, beyond some kind of superficial level of "it means they like this person". Second, I'm from Wales. You're not the only one cringing at your younger self.
To be fair, kids brains aren't made to be able to take things like Hitler, and other large-scale ideas, seriously. If they still do that when they're grown, it's big problem, but if they grow out of it, like you did, then it's all good. Good luck to you.
As a German person myself with an interest in History and a Friend that enjoyed the glorious Idaho Public School System for a year. I do have to say somehow Americans have a lot more problems with just saying it as it is. We watched real footage of corpse piles made by american soldiers at 14 to illustrate what went on there and spent years in multiple subjects micro analysing every detail of what was, how it came to be and that it could easily happen again (we read and watched the wave in about 15 interpretations). While comparing other historical antisemitic events and basically agreeing Germany was a historical pile of shit one way or the other. Some times giant hills of shit other times a few piles. Until relatively recently although it is still pretty shit if slightly less so than at any other point in History. My Friend was quite shocked to find her teacher apparently thought that 1 Hitler was still the chancellor and the whole family were hugly celebrated celebs here 2 The German Chancellor Merkel was one of the best world leaders. Apperently no one noticed that curiously both countries are named Germany and ocupy roughly the same area? They had some more quite sad if slightly hilarious alternative facts but that one stuck out the most. I mean come on its not even your shit you're analysing there at least make it accurate. Its alright you can dunk on us we do it daily ourselves. Hell Ill freely admit that my grandpa was hella antisemitic after growing up under the Nazis. When I was born he pretty much kicked my mum out for choosing a Jewish Name and then daring to spell it the english way instead of the German one oh and baptising me protestant. (my grandma also had some fun stories of their polish salve labourer) pretty much everyone here has a f*d up family history. If we can tell it so you can you as the morally superior victors of WW2. Add on: As I said at the start we analysed everything and I mean everything. That included how someone like Hitler came to be why people followed him and quite crucially that he was for one extremely easily replacable and his rise to power quite easily replicable. His own character wasnt really all that important I mean there are hundreds of homeless would be art students from bad homes that radicalise themselves. Evil is hard to put into words and not really a character trait people just casually have. And his success also wasnt entirely his own there were lots of people like Goebbls that had a massive influence. Not to say that he didnt comit one of the worst crimes in history and was definitly the Evil guy but just leaving it at that makes it easy for it to happen again bc theres much more to it than just one evil guy with a racist plan for world domination. But History is in some ways easier to describe and in others harder than current topics. History is far more removed you have a majority opinion without much personal involvement but you also cant capture it all and bias is rife in sources. In current politics it may be possible to get good info for all sides but just writing it down like that is complicated and you have a personal stake/involvement that leads to bias. If anyone ever reads this sorry this got way to long and rambely.
yes, I wish Americans did this with slavery and civil war at the least. I always admired Germany's analysis of its own past to not repeat it. My school was very clear to paint our past as horrible and look at propaganda, but did not really explain WHY people believed such nonsensical garbage. I hope that mine could get away with it because it was a liberal town and we hopefully all will never fall into an extremism like this, but most places really do need to sit kids down and say "this is the line of thinking that allowed people to think this was okay. these are the signs." especially with what we are experiencing right now in this country... we could really use it.
In Thailand, they make children’s book about Suthep Thaugsuban, the conservative political figure whose appearance in Thailand’s political arena unconstitutionally overthrew the democratically elected government and thereby held accountable for the subsequent half-decade-long military ruleover. Yet, there was a genuine children’s book after him, praising him as a national hero. How about that?
I remember when I was little I was fascinated by the differences between Irish children's books dealing with Churchill and their British counterparts. Due to Churchill's role in the Irish War of Independence (being the founder of the Ulster Special Constabulary, the Black and Tans and the Auxiliaries) the Irish books took a more nuanced take on him. Highlighting his role in the persecution of colonised people like the Irish, Indians and Kenyans.
As a fellow Irishman, I also remember the huge dissonance between reading English history books that described Oliver Cromwell as a great leader and tactician and Irish history books that considered him a brutal bloodthirsty conquerer. It’s interesting to say the least.
@@jonathanmaccumhaill-binros5895 exactly--churchill's animus was comparable, and an objective book would compare and contrast the imperial structures that birthed them, rather than simply depict them as "rivals".
Learning should be continuous. You introduce the main idea of a figure to a child when they are young, and develop complexities about their lives as the child grows. Yes, introduce toddlers to important figures, even if they can't understand the accomplishments. But make sure to come back to them later. It's history's version of knowing 2+2 before knowing the square root of 4.
You just happened to be in my reccomended once and I just clicked out of curiosity. (as a fellow Fraser valley dude) I'm so glad I clicked. I'm binge watching EVERYTHING and I cannot stop. This has also one of the most civilized comment sections on TH-cam.
oh my god this was such a phenomenal video. Your analysis of bias genuinely changed how I think about the subject in the context of literature and I am eager to share this with some of my friends to hear their thoughts on the topic. Keep it up :)
Back when I was in 2nd grade, I had a big Japanese book discussing famous world people mostly with neutrality, even with figures like Stalin. I had this assignment where I had to write Japanese diaries every week, and when I couldn't think of anything, I did a pseudo book report using a figure from that book. Not understanding the nuance, one time I did Hitler because he looked cool, drawing a swastika and all. My mom freaked the fuck out.
I'm waiting for a children about Abraham Lincoln that reads: "Abraham Lincoln is a boxer in the WWE Hall of Fame. And he did some other things but who cares."
When dealing with controversial topics, education should focus on telling actual facts, leaving opinions out, allowing the student to make up their own mind. It also, however, should emphasize the student being able to rationally defend their position on the controversy.
Our neighbours got our kids several books from the same series you showed on camera. They are just fantastic! And no, I wish we had these kind of books when I was younger... EDIT - ugh. And also, quite thought-provoking and insightful topic you found as well! Oddly, I've never felt like I learned much about our government and society past 1930 in high school social studies.... you're filling in so many gaps and making me curious enough to read more about our more recent history and connect threads our newspapers pluck but don't provide much context for. Thank you for your channel!
I think the thing about being "fair" is that to do it, you have to acknowledge harm where it happened. Like, saying Hitler's ideas were merely "political" is technically not a lie, but it also fails to acknowledge that they were also bigoted and malicious. In theory, if you want to be "fair" without failing to acknowledge harm, one way of doing that is going into more depth about why the harm might have been perpetrated by that person (without framing that explanation as an excuse for committing the evil). This is often the case when contextualizing the actions of serial killers and the like; talking about their often brutal upbringing makes their portrayal more "fair" in that it shows contributing factors ... a much more worthwhile tactic than minimizing what they did or highlighting positive things about them (say, being intelligent or physically attractive).
@@gabrielethier2046 Yes! He is a figure that American children should learn more about. He and Harvey Milk end up being very obscure figures because they were assassinated before they could become more prominent in politics. And this comment also demonstrates how easy it is to set up a bad equivalency like that Churchill v. Hitler book.
From some of the stuff I’ve heard against Churchill, it feels unfair to describe their character with “unique heroism”. Unless the point was that it was uniquely heroic to defeat Hitler, which is fair.
@@sigmascrub Out of curiosity, are the "auto-generated" subtitles JJ's English translated to Korean, or does TH-cam actually think this video is in Korean, trying to pick out Korean words from JJ's English speaking and making complete gibberish?
When I was growing up we didn't really read about current politicians or leaders. Only older ones. Mostly like a 30 year rule of separation. I think the most recent leader we read about was Nelson Mandela at the time. I mean growing up in the 2000s people had a much more idealistic view of political leaders. I think we saw a wave of historical politicians like Obama who was the first black president which put book writers into a back and fourth battle of propagandizing children with their own divisive views of the United States. It's the whataboutism of children's literature.
After watching at least a dozen of your videos, I want to thank you for not talking down or trying to convince the viewer. Your approach leaves us to figure it out for ourselves, and it’s refreshing in a time when everything tries to interject an opinion or judgement
Things like this should be “fair and balanced” most of the time, though there are times when bias is inherently necessary. Plus, kids shouldn’t learn modern political history until they’re more mature, like middle school. Teaching about the American civil war should be somewhat biased in favor of the union, and that owning people is a bad thing. We should be teaching kids to treat everyone equally, and teaching them that the people who supported OWNING PEOPLE are as valid as the ones who fought for slaves’ freedom is dangerous. Learning about basic history in elementary school is a good thing, and it should be taught in a simple but balanced way. However, getting in-depth into things like slavery and taxation without representation should really wait until the kids are more mature. Btw, this all comes from the POV of an American, so I’m thinking of American kids and American public schools
Have you read about the "Lost Cause Movement"? In the South we were literally taught that slavery was not the main cause of the Civil War and a lot of pro-Confederacy and "states' rights" rhetoric in public school.
One thing about the civil war is that legitimate separatist grievances in the south among the mostly lower classes had been brewing for years. Slave owners more or less co opted that to use to their own end of defending slavery.
I mean, it depends how old you count "toddler" as, but some kids have gay parents and probably by the time they get to kindergarten they've probably noticed that's not the norm.
@Steele Crusader 2020 There are 300,000 children living with gay couples in America, and that number is rising fast and irreversibly. It's not a hypothetical.
"When one person sais it's snowing outside and the other person sais it's sunny outside, a fair journalist shouldn't broadcast them both. His job is to look out the window and find out the real answer."
I very much agree with Marty Baron's quote, but at the same time think that "fair" coverage is always a good early (maybe not first) step to that end. As an older kid and teen, feeling bombarded with "unchallenged" opinions, I went through a phase of questioning the validity of popular views on the good/evil nature of certain things. I looked for the good in the "bad", looked for the bad in the "good". For example, once I made the mistake of thinking that Richard Nixon resigned as a means of apology, basically admitting he had acted criminally; I hadn't heard the "I'm not a crook" quote, and was giving him the benefit of the doubt. Interestingly, I wouldn't have tried to defend him in my mind if I had actually heard his side of the story. Similarly with more extreme examples, as a teen I would have much more quickly understood, and agreed with, the popular moral stance if I knew better what the motivations of the losing side were, so I could see their logical/moral weaknesses and disagree. So sure, teach about what Hitler's motivations were. Mention what he believed. But add: 'Do you think these ideas have any basis in reality?', or similar. Mention right afterward the suffering and injustice those views led to, perhaps with a word or two of frank but not over-the-top condemnation. That is "fair", but also has a definite conclusion, which it earns. The reader/viewer can then accept the right conclusion without any misgivings, without feeling like they're being prodded, and may even know enough to explain the whole matter to others without being a parrot. Even better, they won't feel any obligation to side with immoral things out of a false sense of oppression or underdog status. Gotta admit, I see that mindset a lot more than I'd like to nowadays.
I think the progressive picture books are probably appealing more to the parents than the children. Many millennials are now at the age where a lot of them have young children, so something that's celebrating LGBT or ethnic minority public figures is probably going to play well with those into social justice issues. The kids aren't going to care either way of course, and I doubt many of them would understand the content well enough at that age for it to affect their views later in life, but it's going to make the parents happy.
I work with elderly people, many of whom have dementia. I’ve actually read several of these propaganda-ish children’s books to clients who were politically active before they lost control of some of their faculties. Their loved ones know what kinds of politicians their family member would have supported, and get these books as gifts. There actually is a market for books written at a lower reading level about more grown-up topics.
@@elijahculper5522 That's a nice secondary target market that honestly I hadn't thought of. I don't doubt that this demographic weren't what these books were intended for, though.
I remember reading about gengis khan when i was a child and i thought he was so cool because he crossed deserts and the great wall and he wad a warior. Then i grew up and damn that didnt age well.
To be fair, Churchill was also kind of a monster, to the point you can very credibly argue he perpetrated a genocide in India, similarly to Stalin and holodomor
The BBC is widely mocked here in the UK for its particular understanding of “fair and balanced”, which is to give equal time to both sides of an argument no matter what it is. Dara Ó Briain has a good bit in his stand up about them bringing on a flat earther during a segment about the International Space Station. This is an exaggeration but only barely... I’m particularly disturbed by how COVID conspiracy theorists have recently been allowed on major news programs in the name of “balance”
@@calebbarnhouse496 the thing is without being objective you're just doing propaganda and now you support it if it's against something you already disagree but would you feel comfortable if the same was done against something you believe in? It's horrible that any media or person could silence a side so objectivity is a necessity to guarantee freedom of speech.
I remember, when I was younger, instead of reading specific Biographies my parents always gave me history books related to a specific time frame. That way I could generally get a picture of the interactions between historical figures, and generally I think (from my grown up perspective) that it’s a less biased way to look at things. Anyone interested in a part of history enough to write a book about it obviously will have a bias; but I don’t think they’ll be as biased as a book about a specific person. In terms of favourites, I remember the Horrible History books being particularly good, since they didn’t really shy away from all the nasty things that people do to each other while still presenting them in a way palatable to children.
I'm new to your content. That cream soda history mini got me. This is fantastic. I think you can expand on this topic in several ways. Some ideas, biased in all presentation (undeniable bias), the approaches to attempting objectivity, and finally perhaps a video covering the history and manifestation of the myth of childhood innocence. I'm truly impressed. Looking forward to watching more.
That was a good vid J.J., especially the timing. Right after Trump's book, I thought, "hmm, how shitty it'd be to portray Hitler objectively" a. BOOM, you explored that topic.
I recall having a "Who was" book about Henry Ford when I was a kid. Looking back, it's kind of weird because I don't recall it mentioning any of the bad things he did or said. It feels like we're entering an era where historical figures' flaws are more likely to be criticized, but then again that Hitler vs Churchill biography sounded very bizarrely... disconnected so maybe that's an incorrect assumption on my part, at least as it pertains to childrens' biographies. The problem with answering this question is that even if everyone in the world could agree "you should teach the facts even if that means, in some cases, aligning yourself with one side" and people would still disagree on the extent to which certain facts matter or even which are "facts". Despite it being flawed, that is in my mind our best option.
When I was a kid, I loved biographies but like for Helen Keller and Clara Barton. I don't think I had any books about current people, just historic. I think it was very helpful for me to learn history because it tied everything together in stories rather than memorizing dates.
I read a book series called “Childhood of Famous American” while in elementary school. I loved them so much. Never really thought of them as propaganda as it tells the story before they became who they where. Had the likes of George Washington, Walt Disney, and Martin Luther King Jr.
I do think it is important for children to realize that every source that gives them news has its own biases. While it may be difficult for children to understand at first, I think it ultimately helps them analyze and evaluate the information that they learn later.
Doubt you’ll see this comment since it on an old video. But thought id say your content is soooo f-ing good. Ive been on a binge of all of ur stuff dor the past week, and cant stop watching
I used to watch the news with my parents. I think that's the best way to educate kids on politicians, cause you see what's happening and you ask questions and then your parents answer them for you in ways that they know you'll understand and that are age appropriate. During the Trump era, some of the stuff on the news was stuff that was ... uhh ... harder to ask parents to sit their kids infront of, like pornstars and racism and violence, but hopefully that will die down more now. I used to love watching president Bush and Obama speak, I didn't understand like, 80% of what they said but it felt exciting to be part of a process and included on this grown up thing. I think it really helped me grow up into an adult who is politically active and seeks to be informed, and I highly recommend it.
You forgot media bias though, there's a large difference between watching something about a politician in a left or right centered channel, so basically you're just doing propaganda. At least nowadays it's hard to find media that doesn't incline to either side.
@@steveluna1627 that’s why you ask questions. Don’t take the media on face value but there is a very significant difference between bias and propaganda. If you have media literacy skills then it is still very helpful to at least know what other people around you are talking about even if you can see the biases and politics at play.
I think that children's books should really not discuss politics at all. While I of course agree with for example Hitlers depiction in the wicked history series I had to come to that conclusion through the facts given to me by my education. The philosophy of race and hatred is quite complex and there is no short cut for kids to acquire morals
@@JJMcCullough I would honestly really enjoy that I always find actively seeking out propaganda to be a fun activity in a both cringe but also inciful way.
Idk, I'd be weary of lauding Churchill as a unilateral hero. He did some extremely heinous things. Stalin also played a role in the defeat of the Nazis; certainly doesn't make him a hero
I had a professor in college who was very forthcoming in expressing he was incredibly biased when teaching history, in this case US history, which was already evident by the way he set up his curriculum, discussions, reading assignments and conclusions. To him, he said it was more authentic to embrace this bias, as those who try to mask their bias have 'something to hide' and are inherently inauthentic and potentially untrustworthy. I thought this was rather off-putting though, and saw it as a teacher who was teaching students what to think, not how to think. Since that seemingly exaggerated experience I've been cautious in my studies and with what professors teach. He has every right to teach his class the way he wants, but since then didn't taken another class with him.
I don't think politics should be discussed with small kids. Like my son who is in Kindergarten. One day after school it was the day of the election. I voted. I picked my son up from the school bus and my son says to me "Daddy, did you vote for Trump?" to which I replied "No". I had never talked to him about politics but my son says to me "Why?! I like Trump because he made America great again!" And I'm left confused and wondering where he got this from. I say "Where did you get that from?" and sure enough he points to the kids who ride his bus who have a Confederate flag on their home. My son then asked me about Joe Biden and I didn't say much there either because I don't want to push my political beliefs on my son. At the same time it's a bit inescapable because so much on TV, the internet, everyday conversations, yard signs etc have been so politically charged that it's hard to escape that and eventually it'll pass to someone's kids even if they don't understand and can't comprehend what's being discussed.
I'd say objectivity means presenting the facts without a personal value judgement. The 'rivals' book between Hitler and Churchill is not objective because it does not go into detail or describe what Hitler actually did in detail, hiding the facts to appear 'fair'. The other book is better but a truly objective piece would not have value judgements that outright say Hitler is evil, you should be able to come to the conclusion on your own. If anything a lot of the books that just go 'Hitler evil' don't go into great detail on the many evils of his regime because it's just assumed you know how evil he is, but then they still perpetuate other myths like """"Nazi Efficiency"""" that Neo-Nazis latch onto.
That Marty Baron quote is exactly why people don't trust reporters anymore. In most controversial topics there isn't an exact "right" vs "wrong" position, which is why they're controversial. So his take is that we should only be presented with the conclusion held by him and his staff.
I think the clear conclusion here is that books about politicians should not have chewable pages.
scratch and sniff
actually that would perfectly target the educational level of the typical Trump voter.
This is a problem affecting progressive politicians
Proceeds to mention RBG, Michelle Obama and Elizabeth Warren, the latter being the only one that can be defined as an atleast basic progressive
Its something I thought I ought to point out, not a take down of the video.
Anything's chewable if you try hard enough.
@@kiritugeorge4684 RBG was very progressive for the time
I asked my toddler how old did he think I was and he responded with “5 meters”. I don’t plan on introducing him politics anytime soon haha.
Well, it's still amazing that your toddler knows what a meter is, but yes it is also funny that he knows what a meter is before he knows what his age is 😂.
@@jackalenterprisesofohio 5m is more or less 15'
Idk, he sounds like a republican
srry y'all I had to
In my country children are exposed to politics from an early age. I remember in elementary school I used to "debate" about politics with my friends.
@@monotheisticmortal5122 I mean that’s probably the standard used where they live. in all reality it’s likely just a made up situation anyway. i doubt this even happened
Imagine a 3rd or 4th grader reading the Hitler vs Churchill book and arguing with his friends about who was better.
💀
something I would have done
Or imagine
Someone at my middle school made a 9/11 self insert fanfic in 3rd grade
@@aqswd6825 omg I wish I could read it.
If there was anytime to portray someone as "literally Hitler" it is when you are literally talking about Hitler.
I mean uh, your not wrong lol
That is technically the truth
For what it’s worth, Godwin himself clarified that Godwin’s Law is irrelevant when talking about actual Nazis or neo-Nazis.
Hitler was indeed, literally hitler.
Ah yes, great vid.
I work in a children's library. In my anecdotal experience, kids are almost never interested in biographies unless they have to read one for a school assignment or unless a parent borrows one for them. They like nonfiction - just not usually biographies.
Their parents, however, love to borrow them. I suspect it has to do with a difference between the things kids and adults care about: adults want to Teach their kids Important Things about the World, whereas kids are following their natural interests. So, parents look for books about Good Role Models, but the adult world of politics and celebrity isn't usually something that kids care about at all.
To be honest, when I was a kid, I did get interested in those, but only the most macabre book series that appealed to my 3dgy 12yo tastes like Wicked History or Horrible Histories. And it was one of the few things about that phase of my life I don't regret, since I got to see a non-sanitized view on world history at a young age that I would never have gotten from a teacher.
@@starkillersneed I still read those
the only biographies i voluntarily read in elementary school were about taylor swift lol
Wow, that's so interesting. Back in my day (mid 2000s-early 2010s), the boys, autistic girls, and girls who wanted the boys to notice them would always check out biographies on their own. They *all* grew to be pretty politically inclined later on, which I find to be cool
Also politicians are not good role models and no parent should hope for their child to become a politician
The Amazon delivery driver who had to suddenly deliver over 30 children’s books to a single man’s apartment in a week.
They wouldn't know because it's packaged LOL
Single?? My wife might take issue with that
@@JJMcCullough That’s right, you and Julie Payette got married last week. It got buried in the controversy apparently.
@@JJMcCullough Tell us all about your wife and her 'issues' in your next video - I guarantee, your viewers will be fascinated.
@@JJMcCullough I think they might mean that these books were delivered to one person rather than many.
Typical centrist, being so centrist about centrism that you're centrist on the issue of centrism
**c e n t r i s m**
At least my videos don't normalize Nazism for a quick chuckle. That's right, a CHUCKLE AT BEST.
@@JJMcCullough ok JJ tell me when you release content as good as anprim anthem
@@JJMcCullough So centrist you being an ass
@@fistofice dw it’s fake beef, it means he laughs at Jreg’s vids
That first book about Hitler vs. Churchill seems like exactly the type of book that causes some middle schoolers to become so infatuated with Hitler and Nazism.
For real. People that age think of politics like some sort of sports teams.
@@skejeton Ages 16-80 you mean?
@@skejeton I think of political parties like sports teams; I don't like any of them but some are certainly much worse than others
and start playing hoi4
Especially neurodivergent kids. It’s always ww2 they get obsessed with
Honestly I'm so glad my dad didn't give me the "children's book" explanations for things, he gave me the straight up military style explanation for things, it definitely rounded me out as a kid to hear him tell me how messed up war can make you and how fragile we are as human beings, it might have immediately scared me as a kid but it grounded me and gave me a more accurate perspective of things relating to military service, and even his more grounded logical explanations for things. Like he explained Occam's Razor to me at like age 4 and I definitely used it when I was alone and scared. The shit in these kids books definitely borders on propaganda, nobody is perfect everyone has flaws and its important for kids to know that so they dont think they have to be perfect too.
I mean that all depends on the individual child and their age I’d say. How are you gonna explain the hells of heroin addiction to a 4 year old, and is there a benefit because I’m not sure they could even grasp it well. But the one thing I didn’t see J.J. Fully touch on is, what kinda child wants to read a book about some random boring politician. I’d think they’re pretty much intended to be propaganda for parents at the disdain of kids everywhere lol
@@monhi64 this is a good point to make honestly bc how would you know how to explain addiction to a child??? the method ive found is you dont have to go into the nitty gritty of the lifestyle that accompanies addiction but instead psychological aspects such as how the drug interacts with your synapses and what is happening internally to a human body during addiction and/or drug use. information like this is very beneficial especially obtaining it as a young child because it helps foster understanding and empathy for this disease :) anyway sorry i know it was a rhetorical comment but i felt the need to ramble
@@enahs1350 people want things so much all the time, and it's very hard for them to stop wanting them then you lead the kid on to give an example "like my toys" or whatever and then you tell them it's not really like that because they'll get hurt or hurt themselves if they don't get what the are addicted to etc etc etc
@@monhi64 yeah, I wouldn’t want to read a book about a fucking politician.
"Son, there's no such thing as a good war." - Mr. Universe from Steven Universe
I think it's fair to say that you can treat Hitler as an extremely evil figure without inherently lionising Churchill as a hero. Because after all, Hitler was an incredibly evil person who committed some of the greatest crimes against humanity ever and Churchill was a flawed historical figure like most figures are, certainly preferable to Hitler but in no way a pure hero.
Churchill was a committed colonialist and also committed some serious crimes against the Indian people. To leave out those facts and treat Churchill as only a hero is the same propaganda you mentioned within the video. In many ways Churchill has committed greater crimes than the lions share of world leaders, not being as bad as the person you're fighting against doesn't make one a hero.
Incorrect, majority of colonialist damage done to India was done pre ww2, unless you count the Indian recruits into the army, but that’s not on Britain for hitlers war path. India gained its independence in 1947. 7 years after Churchill even became prime minister.
Along side the independence of Ireland.
@@crispy_retrodude9463 Go do some research into the Bengal famine. And specifically look into Churchill's role and some of his comments about the Indian people. "Some Indian recruitment" isn't how I would characterize those years.
@@crispy_retrodude9463 Churchill's involvement in the Bengal famine was monstrous.
The British empire committed the crimes against Indian subcontinent, and in Africa.
Churchill is just a figure of the empire. If people keep seeing the empire as a good thing, which did some bad things...that won't change.
@@CountingStars333 but Churchill decision was directly responsible for Bengal famine.
I would never give a child a book about a modern day politician anyway. Most of the time, anyone who’s inspired to write a book about a modern day politician has an agenda, especially if it’s about Trump. And anyone inclined to give a book about a modern day politician to a child probably just wants to indoctrinate them. Trump is honestly such a strange President, who is uniquely popular and uniquely unpopular at the same time. There’s too much context and nuance for a children book to really cover.
It probably wouldn’t be made in at least 10 years when the facts get simplified
CGK I agree, kids should not be learning about politics until at least middle school. If it's done earlier kids will understand political ideas as values, and it's very important that they understand the distinction between them.
I agree that anyone giving a book about politics to a kid probably wants to indoctrinate them, which is why the actual books JJ examines are so odd to me - who's going to give these utterly dispassionate books about Donald Trump to anyone? What's the target audience? Are they just meant to be decorative pieces in a school library?
The only things a kid should now in regards to politics are simple facts. Like who the president is.
I think history books are preferable for children anyways.
I agree, and the same goes for quite a few other modern or recent politicians. Attempts to depict AOC and Kamala Harris or Ronald Reagan and John McCain as these heroic, empowered, dynamic, christ like figures just trying to "do the right thing" and "fix all the problems everyone else is causing" are just so blunt, un-nuanced, and lacking in educational value. I think giving kids these kinds of books depicting real people as simple "good guys and bad guys" is not very healthy for society.
I read an adolescent book on Kurt Cobain back in the day and that book did a good job at highlighting his drug addiction and his problems in life, not just his successes, his strong relationships with his band members and musical ability. It tried to give a lesson from his life, pointing how even someone who is at one point in the bottom of their life can find success, meaning, and purpose through their pain. I don't mind that in biographies for children and teens.
You know the book title and ISBN number?
@@paisleepunk I Googled And It Might Be
"The Story Of Rock"
@Coffee-drinking Zubat honestly love you hope so much that you can keep carrying on, been there and it's so hard- just keep doing what you can with what you have, today
@Coffee-drinking Zubat ilu
@@Velvet.Unicorn i don’t think so, if you’re talking about the one by Lindsey Sagar. There’s a youtube video reading the book and it only briefly mentions Nirvana
“If someone says it's raining & another person says it's dry, it's not your job to quote them both. Your job is to look out the fucking window and find out which is true.”
Who says either is lying? They could simply be in two different towns with two different weathers/realities.
Because Evil, nine times out of ten they are in the same village if that makes sense?
@@kyokyodisaster4842 The big example here would be the second amendment in the US. Guns are bad is a fact in urban environments. Guns are good is a fact in rural environments. You can't have a sweeping legislation to say yes or no to gun control.
@@EvilParagon4 You do realize this isn't an actual situation that was happening right? That it's a hypothetical to demonstrate how non-bias actually works in reporting? Or do you think some reporter out there is going around asking random people living in entirely different towns what the weather is like and they're confused as to why they're getting different answers?
@@charlieparker5346 Are you daft? In what world would you think someone wouldn't get that? It's playing along with the metaphor to tear it down because it sucks as a metaphor and promotes the idea only one idea is correct.
I remember in elementary art class the art teacher read us a book about Vincent Van Gough where he gets bullied by childeren and then he makes friends with a little girl and there's a happy ending where they paint together. Very accurate.
I was there, I was the girl. And we used yellow paint to make sunflowers in vases. His was really cute
most kids in the sixth grade today have never even heard of the holocaust, so to give them a "fair and balanced" view of hitler is irresponsible at best. great video, JJ!
Most adults have never heard of Holodomor, so to give them a "fair and balanced" view of communism is irresponsible at best.
@@MrFreeGman "But what about the commies?!" EDIT: That's also just not true; it's in high school textbooks all over the country.
@@MrDemonWorm It wasn't when I went to school. I suspect that's why there are so many clueless communists around who just give you a blank stare when you talk about communist atrocities.
@@Anonymous-wp7lm Thank you for proving my point that people aren't taught about this stuff in school. Intentional or not, the famine was caused by the idiotic collectivist policies of the communist regime. Certain "class enemies" (e.g. Kulaks/land owners) were purposely starved out by the government. They used the famine as an excuse to exterminate them and take control of their farms. The atrocity was 100% the fault of communism, both from an economic and political perspective.
Anon In a capitalist country which is not suffering a crop failure, it would be very difficult to starve millions of farmers to death. The source of the food is right there on their farms after all. But if you impose unrealistic quotas and only let farmers keep food above those quotas, you can literally take all of a farmer's food and starve his whole family within sight of grain silos full of food. Explain to me how that could have happened under a different form of government than communism.
I do feel like picture books about modern politicians is a bit “iffy” to me. I like many of them but it just feels so weird to try to put the life of a still living person into a book for young children
To me, it's a big NO.
Politics is complicated, far more complicated than kids could typically even begin to understand until they're in their late teens, and even then...
I just don't think kids should be reading books about politicians, no matter which side they're on, especially if those books lean heavily into "good vs bad" dynamics, and are very biased, painting the politicians they're about as good and noble people, while their opposers are evil horrible and nasty, and all children should hate them.
That doesn't seem right to me. Kids shouldn't be involved in these kinds of conversations at all.
So that's why all those kids books about politicians just... Disturb me...
@@leirawhitehart1236 If a child is interested in a political figure or topic I would say it's perfectly valid for one to openly discuss it with them. Politics is an omnipresent subject after all and it's only natural that they grow curious about it. I mean, I feel like "I'll tell you when you're older" is not a valid answer to "who is the president?" or something like that.
Not that I approve of books for kids dealing with modern politicians or political affairs, not only are they creepily propagandistic but it also feels to me like those who buy them for their children are squirming out of their duty in a way. In the sense that if one wants their kids to learn about such complex topics then one should make the effort to teach them personally, or at least delegate the task to another human being.
@@leirawhitehart1236 Plus, it's just harder to simplify a person without even waiting until they're dead, you don't know how much more info you will get in time.
Adults are not inherently better prepared to handle tough subjects unless they've practiced when they were kids. I started to get interested in politics around age 14, which I think is a reasonable age to start learning about all aspects of life. And it's not like the adults could stop me, so the best you can do is recommend good sources to read/watch. There's plenty of time to course correct if children have naive political ideas a decade before they can vote. I don't like the idea that children should be shielded from things that adults find messy - that if anything makes them bad voters and citizens later on.
But for the kids that are not interested yet, that's fine. Definitely don't buy an Obama book for a kid that doesn't care about that stuff.
@@mollistuff Agree, it's probably best try to educate your kids in politics at least a year or two before they can vote. Starting at 18 I felt like I had to do a lot of catching up, but at least I had a lot of motivation then and could understand the concepts well.
You didn't answer the question! It's almost as if you want ALL OF US to think deeply about it. How dare you! lol
Seriously, though. Well done tackling this topic by looking at a wide range of children's books. I have a Journalism degree, Education degree, and History degree (and a lot of student loan debt). In my humble opinion, "fair and balanced" is good as long as we remain steadfastly factual. If you have to literally make up stuff to make one "side" look better, you are hurting society. For example, if you are saying Trump "drained the swamp" when he literally did not, or that he "brought the troops home," when troops are still fighting wars around the world, or that there was "widespread voting fraud," you are literally making stuff up, and in doing so whitewashing history. That said, we should indeed acknowledge the positive things that Trump did during his Presidency. It is ridiculous how some media outlets just choose to ignore any accomplishment he had.
And I just realized I may be guilty of the "teach the controversy" way of making my videos. lol oops
Mr Beat and JJ collab soon? You two are my favorite youtubers!!
@@jimmymcmanus9467 they already did i think
If the msm would have even just occasionally covered some of the positive things trump did (and, as terrible a person and leader as he is, he did do *some* good things) then they would not have completely delegitimized themselves and pushed his supporters toward propoganda networks like fox and straight up fake news like newsmax and oann which turned them into the cult of personality we have now.
@@FirstnameLastname-jz1ux All mainstream news in the us is propaganda, whether CNN, MSNBC, or Fox
I mean the teach the controversy approach isn’t a bad one
My favorite JJ video is actually "This Chinese Cult is Not Your Friend," which wasn't really that fair or balanced. JJ is at his best when he's spicy
He was equally negative to their main opposition which is the Chinese Communist Party.
Oh and the debate one about the Mandella Effect
That video is also doing a huge service. They really like to LOOK all friendly and like they want to free the Chinese people but in reality they’re nothing more than an insane cult.
@@leepreston9637 Very fair.
@@joshuafan4419 my favourite is when he brings up Quebec
I started talking about politics with my classmates in 5th grade, in the wake of the 2016 election. One of my classmates thought voting for Trump was good because he would get rid of school. Kids shouldn’t learn about politics until late middle school.
I was in 5th or 6th grade during the 2008 election. I paid a lot of attention to it, mostly through my parents, who were fired up for Ron Paul, who ultimately lost the Republican nomination that year.
The only other "politically aware" classmates were ones who treated it like sports teams, acting like the people and ideas matter a lot less than wearing the right colors, or edgy kids who called themselves neo-nazis or communists, and that they would vote for Hitler or Stalin in a heartbeat. They were middle schoolers, inherently cringe.
Even when the 2012 election rolled around, most high-school kids were doing the sports-teams thing, though they had slightly more refined it off of just "whatever side my parents say" to "the side my parents say for these reasons," or "the opposite of my parents, cause they grounded me earlier this week and I hate them for it."
2016, I was finally old enough to vote, and was still in line with my dad's libertarian views, though, I had a slightly harder edge to them, supporting the death penalty and tighter border control. I had no illusions of Trump or Hillary going in. Trump had been a longtime Dem, and was a big ticket supporter of Hillary in the 2008 primaries. I also remembered her and Joey B throwing some pretty rough stuff at a younger Obama, before he got enough support to have them dropout. I fully believe that it Obama hadn't put Hillary and Biden in his cabinet, the two of them, alongside Trump would've continued fighting against him. But, H and B got cabinet appointments, and Trump was outside their circle. He flipped on them, continuing the same "birther" push that had originally started during the primaries, and had been very embraced by the Repubs in the main race. Over the next 8 years, Trump had burned all his bridges with former Dem establishment, able to put it all behind him, even his failed ~2000 race.
2016, I voted in the Repub primary for Rand Paul, Ron Paul's son. He still dropped out later to the juggernaut that was what I call the "Trump protest vote," the massive number of people flooding in due to dissatisfaction with the establishment politicians, picking Trump cause his was on the news the most, even in negative light. (See: all press is good press/bad press is still free advertising)
In the fallout of that 2016 election, I saw the truth of how many adults still treat politics like sports teams. 2020 was even worse.
2016 was Russian Collusion, but 2020 was the most secure election in history, despite an absolutely astonishing number of mail-in votes.
Or:
2016 was absolutely fair, and 2020 was thoroughly rigged.
My thoughts? No 2-party election has ever been fair. Both have a vested interest in keeping other, better alternatives out. Even the actual politicians only play it like sports teams.
thats funny
nowadays there are books available in school libraries with explicit content...
When I was a kid, I got really upset and locked myself in my room because my parents didn't vote for Al Gore. I had no idea who Al Gore was, just that he was in some sort of election (a word I might not even have understood) and people were talking about him in terms I recognised as "good guy terms".
I'm from Wales.
@@trianglemoebius ---- This is funny because it's so very relatable. I got into politics when Jimmy Carter was in the middle of his term, about '79 or so, when I was 9 lol. Kids can be goofy, but I miss the passion I had for anything back then. Good luck to you.
Fourth or fifth grade seems reasonable to me, as that's about the time when kids stop focusing on "baby stuff" and start asking legitimately good questions about the world in general.
Being fair and balanced is good.. as long as you remember that it doesn''t mean being 'neutral' but 'objective'.
Being objective is being willing to go where the evidence takes you, regardless of your personal preferences, rather than creating a false equivalence between unequally sustained positions in the name of neutrality and concluding that "Oh well, both sides have a point, both could be right" when it's not true.
If one side provides ample evidence that the Earth is round, and the other just argues that "The Earth is flat, because it's obvious, duh!", the only true fair and objective take here is to agree with the former and against the latter, because only the former made a strong case for their position.
Uh no left and right has both good things and its not about 1 topic
@@crazymanmapping3610 scientific journals are strong evidence of the truth. I have never a peer reviewed study or scientific paper that supports extreme right wing beliefs. Anything that does exist, is either not peer reviewed, written by a disgraced or disbarred former science practitioner or fully retracted by the science community. Your comment has no valid criticism as it is not supported by any facts, it is simply a statement of your opinion. Which you came to without an open mind regarding what the facts are.
@@ysodora8030 Until 2020, when Fauci went nuts with his 15 minutes of fame, and all the sci journals fell in line or were labeled misinformation.
Fauci repeatedly lied, to Congress, on TV, particularly Rand Paul, who is himself a doctor. Every one of Fauci's claims went against historic knowledge of how viruses and vaccines work, and all we get when we point it out is "peer-reviewed studies" that did not actually duplicate the study, but looked at the information provided to them, from the original, which would include biases of the original, and say "yeah, I'd come to a roughly similar conclusion." Studies that excused any negative health concerns as "unrelated" to the thing we're testing, so we'll label it "safe and effective." Only for people to still catch it, and die, and be told "would've been worse if they hadn't got the shot."
I had it before the lockdowns even started, one of the joys of living in Vegas, came out the other side mostly fine, just two weeks winded with an annoying itch. No one acted soon enough on travel shutdowns to actually stop it, which would've been November, maybe December when it began to leak out of China that something was going on. Remember when Dem politicians were encouraging you to visit your local Chinatown, in roughly Jan-Feb? Cause I do.
Then we pretend like blowing our economy out of the water and putting everyone out of work will somehow fix it? Then we transition to discussion on morality of forcible medical procedures, with these studies as "safe and effective" being used as a fulcrum to force it on us.
They don't do anything that a vaccine actually should do.
They didn't make us immune. Smallpox, and polio did.
They didn't stop us from being contagious. TB did. This was the big one to force it on those that didn't want it. Turned out to be as false, but there seems to be no guilt in taking an unethical and immoral stance "for the greater good." Gee, I wonder if other evils have been sold as "for the greater good" before?
They didn't even lesson the symptoms, I had Rona again Feb of this year, way worse than Feb 2020. Way worse, after I had capitulated to having the shot forced on me by the DoD in Oct 2021. And I caught it from a guy who had a different brand of shot, about as soon as they had come out.
And with these stories of "Sudden Adult Death Syndrome" and "peer-reviewed studies" blaming "climate change" for heart problems, I'm pretty sure that if it hadn't been forced on so many, we could've actually had decent control groups to see if it was actually safe, or even just safer than naturally catching Rona. We have no control group, so I'm doubtful they'll ever actually connect it. Especially when they know their credibility within the community hangs on agreeing with the nonsensical consensuses of Rona already established.
"Peer-reviewed studies" isn't the definite, factual, unbiased thing you think it is. Hasn't been for awhile, Rona and Fauci's madness helped strip away the last of the veneer. It's biased in favor of who is paying for it. And what do you know? The government is a big time grant writer, so OF COURSE the studies are gonna come out supporting more of it.
Also, Fauci, back on May 6th, 1983, helped spread the false claim that AIDS could transfer within a home, or from a subway handrail. www.nytimes.com/1983/05/06/us/family-contact-studied-in-transmitting-aids.html
The academic scientific community had been slowly eroding their own credibility for years, but by tossing in with Fauci, they broke the cliff they were hanging on.
I also try my best to keep my educational videos fair and unbiased, but honestly if someone’s trying to describe Hitler in a fair, unbiased light, they‘re probably not as “unbiased“ as they want you to think
@Steele Crusader 2020
Is that really the point you feel like you should be making here?
@Steele Crusader 2020
Just a piece of advice, to accuse anyone calling Hitler evil of bias makes you sound like a Nazi.
@@randomperson2078 It does not help that his logo is also the logo of the early-1940s "America First Committee", which opposed US intervention in World War II. Unfortunately, many of it's members were a bit... too sympathetic to the fascists.
Read for yourself: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/America_First_Committee
Not true. As I said in a previous comment it isn't difficult at all to be fair and balanced when describing N. Germany as a whole. Like the fact a large number of German soldiers were drafted and had no choice but to fight .
And kids should be reminded nobody is born evil..even Hitler. He was once an innocent child and somewhere along the way either through nature or nurture he became the tyrant we know of today
I disagree. A court that is sentencing a criminal is supposed to be fair and unbiased. That doesn't mean that they are supposed to find excuses for the criminal on trial - quite the opposite.
It can be very useful to analyze the dynamics of what led to a calculated genocide in an as unbiased manner as possible. Doing so doesn't mean that you cannot judge this genocide as the unbelievable cruelty that it was.
There is also a point in teaching children or adolescents to make their own conclusion. If you only learn which person in history was bad, but never how to spot actions with terrible consequences, then you will not be able to judge contemporary public persons.
Great video! Here's where things get interesting though, right? Certain figures like Hitler can indeed universally be painted evil, but others have more complicated legacies. You spoke about Winston Churchill for instance in very glowing tones. Here in India however, he is widely hated as the man who ordered the murder of over 4 million Indians as a matter of documented, minuted, Cabinet policy. In the West he is rightly viewed as the saviour of the free world, but in India he is seen only as an ardent racist and imperialist.
This is why Hitler was not uniquely evil. His racial policies were inspired by and followed in the footsteps of colonial regimes ran even by his contemporaries.
@@sethmweber Hitler even directly cited Jim Crow and the US as part of his inspiration, as well as Genghis Khan and the Young Turks when justifying his attack on Poland.
"Who, after all, speaks today of the annihilation of the Armenians?"
Yes exactly, Churchill was really so much like hitler. He just didn’t want his power to be taken over. I feel the world wars were really more over shallow reasons of power and not for peoples civility.
A lot of colonised countries I would say don’t know their full history
I'm an American and I was disgusted by how he talked about Churchill. Let's hope he never does a video about the First Nations.
Thats the kind of nationalist propaganda that Upper Caste Indian elites brainwash ordinary Indians with.
During the WW2, Indian Leadership and Indian People were not supporting the war against Fascism. Indians openly admired Fascist Japan and Aryan Supremacy appealed to them. What was Churchill or the HMG supposed to do in that case?
Regarding the so-called evils of British Colonialism, what exactly happened to India in 75 years since the Britishers left. Its more filthy, more dirty place and no one wants to live there. All the Indian elites have their kids studying in the Western Countries and everybody wants to come over to US, Canada or Australia.
And what applies to Indian Elites, applies to Third-World Elites in general. They brainwash their population with anti-Western and anti-White rhetoric while all they want for their kids is to settle in the West.
My bigger point is that due to extreme PC in the west, we can only discuss about bad things done by white western people. Third World elites were and are as much disgusting and we need to focus on their culpability as well.
"... a more reasonable age than B A B Y"
Fantastic as always JJ
(timestamp 7:23)
Uncivilized is the Baby
@@zacharyreynolds4303 about 7:23
@@kaiserreichempireofohio834 Reject Modernity Embrace Baby
Good video but I think JJ is overlooking Churchill's own faults, such as his ignorance towards famine in South Asia, imperialist attitudes, and own racism.
well sure but it doesn't compare to killing 11 million jews
everybody at that time period was racist
I think the important caveat to what he said was he only described Churchill as "heroic" in relation to Hitler- what he did to stop hitler certainly was heroic. But he did not call Churchill a hero himself- or say that he never did any wrong, or even that the good he did outweighed the wrong, only that he did some thing good.
signed,
someone who does not in anyway like Churchill or the nationalistic tone he's described in so. gd. much
J.J. overlooked a quite a few things in this video.
As a progressive/socialist I've never understood the phenomenon of biographies of politicians for kids. An eight year old, let alone a four or two year old, has no context or way of understanding any of these people, regardless of their political leanings. There are plenty of figures we can and should hold up as exemplars for kids that aren't politicians.
Because those politicians pay for an opportunity to more impactfully influence a generation of voters 10-15 years from now. Some of those politicians might not be alive, but a good portion of those others will be and will likely still be running for office in that amount of time. If you were raised with an exposure to an exemplar story of a heroic man and that very man is a candidate for presidency then you will be more likely, whether you realize it or not, to vote for that person. I call it corrupting the youth, but I also feel bad for Socrates so who knows.
Kids do NOT care about biographies unless it is something that they have an already vested interest in.
Hero worship is a core idea in fascism, and everyone is trained to want to be a hero.
The “what would Jesus do?” mentality of not thinking for yourself, but rather just obeying (for what it’s worth Jesus answered that question with the Golden Rule rather than a formulaic answer so you have to think and understand to do what Jesus would do).
@@hopefullyhelping6664 A biography presenting a person as cool can very easily create an interest.
As a center-libertarian right winger, I've never understood pushing politics or politicized topics onto children in general. Teach children how to research properly and spot biases and how the branches of government work and they'll be able to form their own informed political ideology. 💪
Posting life stories again. I was taught in late primary school, rural town, deep south around 6th grade ('98 maybe) that the "things we heard about Hitler" were overblown and to think for ourselves about it. Our teacher came across like that book putting Churchill and Hitler on sort of the same scale and "balancing" them out. The teacher didn't come across as a wacko conspiracy theorist or anything, and otherwise seemed like a calm, rational person. I remember getting access to the internet a year or so after that, going onto message boards and posting about how "Hitler wasn't actually that bad, just think about it" and I was torn apart. I'm glad I was
I ended up changing schools later to a bigger city that had an AP program. I took the test and qualified to go into AP Histories. That cold backlash I got ended up fueling this desire to know as much as I could about history and wanting to know how I was lied to. Fast forward to today and while I have an advanced degree in engineering, I have a bachelors level of knowledge of US History and World History and it's still one of the most fascinating topics I can seek out.
This isn't to defend teaching that angle. That angle was wrong and predatory.
When I was growing up I occasionally came across a teacher or adult who encouraged us to think about Hitler as a “complex” figure, particularly as one who “did a lot of good” for the German people even if he did a lot of bad things for everyone else. I don’t think that these people were necessarily Hitler apologists per se, but they were under the spell of a kind of phony pretense of moderation. It wasn’t until I went to the World War II museum in Germany that I fully came to realize that no, in fact Hitler’s dictatorship was hell for the people of Germany as well.
In some ways, I think the existence of pure evil is harder for a lot of people to accept. It’s more intellectually satisfying to believe that there is nuance in everything, and that a clever enough person can find the hidden upside of just about anything.
Sounds stereotypically anectdotal to a fault.
@Steele Crusader 2020 how old are you? Please answer me.
@Steele Crusader 2020 Wow we have a Neo Nazi here. This is why you only be neutral for people who actually are neutral. Hitler was not neutral. He was extremely racist and one sided. He looked at the world and saw individuals who have thoughts and dreams like him and decided to treat them like animals. This is abject evil and it should be called that everywhere.
@Steele Crusader 2020 Fine, don't answer his question, let the rest of us see you as a coward.
A neutral text should absolutely NOT spoonfeed moral opinions to its readers. It should, however, present ALL the facts, allowing readers to reach their own conclusions. Thus, the Hitler book could get away with not explicitly calling him an "evil bastard", so long as it presented all of his atrocities in their gory details (which I assume, it did not).
Well to do so with a book filled with all these facts would require very dark graphics to illustrate his atrocities which doesn't belong in a children's book or even middle school for that matter. Plus would lead to a few facts that would put Hitler in a favorable light such as his charismatic and leadership skills which even adults deftest acknowledging between themselves.
@@Salidin111 Correct, but then they're gonna have to call him an "evil bastard" (by hiding the gruesome facts behind a moral opinion), or risk incorrectly conveying history (which is what they did).
Morally, yeah, sometimes you should draw a line in the sand. Everything should be subservient to our moral conscience. We cannot forget that Hitler was inept, and we cannot relax on calling out his wickedness. Even when we're really on top of that, we still have Neo-Nazis cropping up. Have you met Neo-Nazis? If you give them an inch, they will take a mile. It's baked into their Social Darwinist outlook. We can't do the dirty work of normalizing fascism for them.
3 Problems:
Problem1: You can't teach all the facts. Simply too many things you could mention.
Problem2:You can't say "Hitler thought the Jews were behind a giant conspiracy" , without saying he's wrong. But writing "And then Trump tried to stay in power despite losing the election, telling his supporters, that the vote was rigged. Eventually he incited an insurrection where a mob of Trump supporters made it into the capitol, wanting to stop the ratification of the election Biden had won." and you'll have a lot of people angry.
Problem3: The information makes the conclusion YERY clear in most cases. (Like, nobody would be seriously debating if we should switch to renewables, if everyone would stick to the facts(damage of climate change, renewables not being more expensive when compensating for subsidies, etc.) )
The one book about Trump it just glossed over the anti immigrant issues. It's not just about how he felt about immigration but how he felt immigrants and minorities. I'd think you'd really haft to mention the "shithole" comment the quasi racist remarks he made about AOC and "the squad" the rapist comment. It's just wrong to leave it at "he wanted tough immigration policies".
Ah yes, my favourite kids book:
Mein Kampf
de.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutter,_erz%C3%A4hl_von_Adolf_Hitler! This is the fifth time I am inspired to reference this awful book in comments here
@@fionafiona1146 Your right though, it is a special type of terrible...
@@kyokyodisaster4842 Her advice on childrearing is similarly spartan /terrible
"Fair and Balanced" isn't meant to say that both sides have equal merit and should get equal consideration. Journalism and news should be about fact-finding and the reporting of those findings. Regardless of opinions, it should always be about the truth.
This was stated in the video but I suppose it's worth reiterating.
Look no farther than the recent Fox News news to prove your point.
This is so off topic, but it's so refreshing to see someone so animated and springy while they talk. I love your demeanor
The media often mistakes false neutrality for objectivity, when it's actually the opposite. If you're objective, you point out the facts without having a bias. If you're trying to be neutral for the sake of looking neutral, you have a bias towards looking "fair and balanced ".
It's crazy to see when one politician gets a ton of tough questions about one thing because the media has to obsess over something, while his/her opponent gets the same amount of criticism, despite having way more skeletons in their closet. Things like how much money someone takes from corporations or how often they lie can be measured.
do you love music perchance?
The conclusion that I took from this video is that people who buy books about recent political figures for their children are terrible parents.
I think books should be crystal clear on what are facts and what are opinions. Children should learn both facts and opinions, but more importantly they should learn how to differentiate them.
When I was young my older sister had to do a research paper about a person or event that could be considered "horror" in history like Elizabeth Bathory or something and her topic was Hitler and my mom and I went to the library to pick up adult nonfiction books about Hitler and I was just looking thru them all casual and being funny thinking he was just some edgy serial killer or cartoon villain trying to take over the world and my mom couldn't get it into my thick skull how much I should not be amused at the things I was looking at. I cringe so hard at my past self.
Real war is even worse than horror movies, nothing is scarier and sadder than reality
cringing at your past self means you've grown. we all do cringy things, but not all of us grow out of it. good on you for learning better
I got upset my parents didn't vote for Al Gore, because I'd heard the news describe him what I recognised as "good guy terms". First off, I'm not even sure I was totally aware what an 'election' is, or what 'voting' is, beyond some kind of superficial level of "it means they like this person". Second, I'm from Wales.
You're not the only one cringing at your younger self.
To be fair, kids brains aren't made to be able to take things like Hitler, and other large-scale ideas, seriously. If they still do that when they're grown, it's big problem, but if they grow out of it, like you did, then it's all good. Good luck to you.
@@trianglemoebius honestly the US might be better off if the Welsh had a say in our elections, just as long as the English don't get a say.
As a German person myself with an interest in History and a Friend that enjoyed the glorious Idaho Public School System for a year. I do have to say somehow Americans have a lot more problems with just saying it as it is.
We watched real footage of corpse piles made by american soldiers at 14 to illustrate what went on there and spent years in multiple subjects micro analysing every detail of what was, how it came to be and that it could easily happen again (we read and watched the wave in about 15 interpretations). While comparing other historical antisemitic events and basically agreeing Germany was a historical pile of shit one way or the other. Some times giant hills of shit other times a few piles. Until relatively recently although it is still pretty shit if slightly less so than at any other point in History.
My Friend was quite shocked to find her teacher apparently thought that 1 Hitler was still the chancellor and the whole family were hugly celebrated celebs here 2 The German Chancellor Merkel was one of the best world leaders. Apperently no one noticed that curiously both countries are named Germany and ocupy roughly the same area? They had some more quite sad if slightly hilarious alternative facts but that one stuck out the most.
I mean come on its not even your shit you're analysing there at least make it accurate. Its alright you can dunk on us we do it daily ourselves. Hell Ill freely admit that my grandpa was hella antisemitic after growing up under the Nazis. When I was born he pretty much kicked my mum out for choosing a Jewish Name and then daring to spell it the english way instead of the German one oh and baptising me protestant. (my grandma also had some fun stories of their polish salve labourer) pretty much everyone here has a f*d up family history. If we can tell it so you can you as the morally superior victors of WW2.
Add on: As I said at the start we analysed everything and I mean everything.
That included how someone like Hitler came to be why people followed him and quite crucially that he was for one extremely easily replacable and his rise to power quite easily replicable. His own character wasnt really all that important I mean there are hundreds of homeless would be art students from bad homes that radicalise themselves. Evil is hard to put into words and not really a character trait people just casually have. And his success also wasnt entirely his own there were lots of people like Goebbls that had a massive influence. Not to say that he didnt comit one of the worst crimes in history and was definitly the Evil guy but just leaving it at that makes it easy for it to happen again bc theres much more to it than just one evil guy with a racist plan for world domination.
But History is in some ways easier to describe and in others harder than current topics. History is far more removed you have a majority opinion without much personal involvement but you also cant capture it all and bias is rife in sources. In current politics it may be possible to get good info for all sides but just writing it down like that is complicated and you have a personal stake/involvement that leads to bias.
If anyone ever reads this sorry this got way to long and rambely.
yes, I wish Americans did this with slavery and civil war at the least. I always admired Germany's analysis of its own past to not repeat it. My school was very clear to paint our past as horrible and look at propaganda, but did not really explain WHY people believed such nonsensical garbage. I hope that mine could get away with it because it was a liberal town and we hopefully all will never fall into an extremism like this, but most places really do need to sit kids down and say "this is the line of thinking that allowed people to think this was okay. these are the signs." especially with what we are experiencing right now in this country... we could really use it.
I 100 percent agree with you. Kids should understand the truth of a situation regardless of how shitty it is
Excellent comment thank you for posting
In Thailand, they make children’s book about Suthep Thaugsuban, the conservative political figure whose appearance in Thailand’s political arena unconstitutionally overthrew the democratically elected government and thereby held accountable for the subsequent half-decade-long military ruleover. Yet, there was a genuine children’s book after him, praising him as a national hero. How about that?
There was "Mumy tell me about Hitler" in the 30s, children being part of public live are subject to adults politics
Unbiased book on fascist leaders:
- The trains ran on time!
Did they though? I've always heard Mussolini did this, but I think it prudent to be skeptical of fascist propaganda.
In fact they did not. The added security measures substantially delayed the speed of travel by rail.
@@michaelpattie9248 italians are never on time, but always get on time for themselves
@Steele Crusader 2020 Just be Islamist Nation or race doesnt matter only Allah
He was elected
I remember when I was little I was fascinated by the differences between Irish children's books dealing with Churchill and their British counterparts.
Due to Churchill's role in the Irish War of Independence (being the founder of the Ulster Special Constabulary, the Black and Tans and the Auxiliaries) the Irish books took a more nuanced take on him. Highlighting his role in the persecution of colonised people like the Irish, Indians and Kenyans.
As a fellow Irishman, I also remember the huge dissonance between reading English history books that described Oliver Cromwell as a great leader and tactician and Irish history books that considered him a brutal bloodthirsty conquerer. It’s interesting to say the least.
@@colmryan9289 my family were FF on my dad's side and SF on my mom's. They ensured my reading material were republican in nature
@@AnCoilean cool
Yea, I was just going to say, to an Irish or Indian would view Chichill & Hitler in the same way, both racist imperialists,
@@jonathanmaccumhaill-binros5895 exactly--churchill's animus was comparable, and an objective book would compare and contrast the imperial structures that birthed them, rather than simply depict them as "rivals".
Learning should be continuous. You introduce the main idea of a figure to a child when they are young, and develop complexities about their lives as the child grows. Yes, introduce toddlers to important figures, even if they can't understand the accomplishments. But make sure to come back to them later. It's history's version of knowing 2+2 before knowing the square root of 4.
You just happened to be in my reccomended once and I just clicked out of curiosity. (as a fellow Fraser valley dude)
I'm so glad I clicked. I'm binge watching EVERYTHING and I cannot stop.
This has also one of the most civilized comment sections on TH-cam.
I agree!
Someone should make a children's book about J.J McCullough.
this
@@bruhz_089 how can a toddler simply understand the non-existence of canadians
@@carly.1672 Just say h's frm Alaska.
@@bruhz_089 wHAT'S A cANADA?
@Steele Crusader 2020 this is just so funny
Those toddler books about recent politicians seem disgusting.
Ya both the ones that are left and right
Indeed. Kids have no place in politics...period.
Books for about current politicians are pretty stupid.
@Katelyn Weber there were always stupid politicians.
I wonder if there's a children's book on jk rowling before she went down the transphobic rabbit hole.
Like "no no honey, don't read that book anymore"
oh my god this was such a phenomenal video. Your analysis of bias genuinely changed how I think about the subject in the context of literature and I am eager to share this with some of my friends to hear their thoughts on the topic. Keep it up :)
Back when I was in 2nd grade, I had a big Japanese book discussing famous world people mostly with neutrality, even with figures like Stalin.
I had this assignment where I had to write Japanese diaries every week, and when I couldn't think of anything, I did a pseudo book report using a figure from that book. Not understanding the nuance, one time I did Hitler because he looked cool, drawing a swastika and all.
My mom freaked the fuck out.
Are you Japanese?
I'm waiting for a children about Abraham Lincoln that reads: "Abraham Lincoln is a boxer in the WWE Hall of Fame. And he did some other things but who cares."
What ?
@@blikizz9355 Abraham Lincoln was in is youth a boxer and he lost only one fight. He is also in the Wrestling Hall of Fame.
@@segevider3566 wow i dont know that can you send me the link to the source you found
@@blikizz9355 I think I heard it from some teachers over the years. I think you can find it easily by doing a google search.
@@segevider3566 oke
I loved how you gradually extended the gamut of your examples, and like any good internet argument - you ended with Hitler comparisons. 10/10!
Are you planning a third Falun Gong video? we gotta complete the trilogy.
I am!
@@JJMcCullough excited!! Those are some of my favorite videos of yours!
Can you tell us more about Falun Gong relation with China Uncensored?
@@JJMcCullough yay i love those videos
Falun Gong Is god
When dealing with controversial topics, education should focus on telling actual facts, leaving opinions out, allowing the student to make up their own mind. It also, however, should emphasize the student being able to rationally defend their position on the controversy.
"let's get even more controversial"
hmm, Bush?
"I got a couple books about Hitler"
Fr I was expecting Nixon or George Bush
As a leftist, I genuinely appreciate hearing your take on things like this.
As a moderate centrist (or more accurately, anti extremist), I do as well.
@@cortster12 I'm an anti extremist but because I want a totally different economic system, worker co-ops everywhere, I'm called "far left"
@@gamermapper I mean that sounds like a leftist postion ngl
I apreciate hearing his take as someone one who wants nothing to do with either party lol.
Fix your party
I'm looking forward to the next edition of the History's Greatest Rivals series; "Nancy Pelosi vs The Q-Anon Shaman".
lol
Two evil forces...
ahh yes. my favorite children's book is "The Communist Manifesto" and "Mein Kampf"
In my country (India) Churchill is remembered as the guy who couldn't stop a mass famine which killed 3 MILLION people
Even bad people do good things sometimes.
@@lukebell4738 You said that backwards right?
@@abramgafford2404 Yeah lol. Musta had a stroke writing it.
@@lukebell4738 :concern:
@@lukebell4738 More like bad people doing bad things. Churchill was not the greatest guy around.
Our neighbours got our kids several books from the same series you showed on camera. They are just fantastic! And no, I wish we had these kind of books when I was younger... EDIT - ugh. And also, quite thought-provoking and insightful topic you found as well!
Oddly, I've never felt like I learned much about our government and society past 1930 in high school social studies.... you're filling in so many gaps and making me curious enough to read more about our more recent history and connect threads our newspapers pluck but don't provide much context for. Thank you for your channel!
Marty Baron has a nice timbre to his voice
Destiny destroyed you in that debate
Aye nice usage of the word timbre. Didn't hear that word until I majored in music. Cool.
that's not how you pronounce timbre
@@bkatz1480 He won't answer cause he knows he got destroyed lol
@@teddyjones3093 are you guys talking about me, or this nuance bro guy. I dont know him.
I think the thing about being "fair" is that to do it, you have to acknowledge harm where it happened. Like, saying Hitler's ideas were merely "political" is technically not a lie, but it also fails to acknowledge that they were also bigoted and malicious. In theory, if you want to be "fair" without failing to acknowledge harm, one way of doing that is going into more depth about why the harm might have been perpetrated by that person (without framing that explanation as an excuse for committing the evil).
This is often the case when contextualizing the actions of serial killers and the like; talking about their often brutal upbringing makes their portrayal more "fair" in that it shows contributing factors ... a much more worthwhile tactic than minimizing what they did or highlighting positive things about them (say, being intelligent or physically attractive).
PLEASE tell me there's a children's book about Rob Ford.
You can’t really make up an underdog story
I want a Huey Long book
@@gabrielethier2046 this. This a thousand times.
@@gabrielethier2046 Yes! He is a figure that American children should learn more about. He and Harvey Milk end up being very obscure figures because they were assassinated before they could become more prominent in politics. And this comment also demonstrates how easy it is to set up a bad equivalency like that Churchill v. Hitler book.
Lol lol, really
Those English subtitles are amazing, thank you.
From some of the stuff I’ve heard against Churchill, it feels unfair to describe their character with “unique heroism”. Unless the point was that it was uniquely heroic to defeat Hitler, which is fair.
I was gonna watch the vid with captions but turns out they’re Korean lol
i wonder why? Korean cult maybe?
Ha yup. That’s weird.
I want to cry for the semi bilinguals like me that need caption to clearly understand the vid 😂
@@013aanikhfds we're all over the place, actually. Most of us just don't look like K-Pop idols
@@sigmascrub Out of curiosity, are the "auto-generated" subtitles JJ's English translated to Korean, or does TH-cam actually think this video is in Korean, trying to pick out Korean words from JJ's English speaking and making complete gibberish?
When I was growing up we didn't really read about current politicians or leaders. Only older ones. Mostly like a 30 year rule of separation. I think the most recent leader we read about was Nelson Mandela at the time. I mean growing up in the 2000s people had a much more idealistic view of political leaders. I think we saw a wave of historical politicians like Obama who was the first black president which put book writers into a back and fourth battle of propagandizing children with their own divisive views of the United States. It's the whataboutism of children's literature.
th-cam.com/video/9gtfizIbBDI/w-d-xo.html
JJ will never be balanced
He sits on a yoga ball
After watching at least a dozen of your videos, I want to thank you for not talking down or trying to convince the viewer. Your approach leaves us to figure it out for ourselves, and it’s refreshing in a time when everything tries to interject an opinion or judgement
Love this. I have no good answers to this conundrum. I believe that both directions open the door to either propaganda or effectively revisionism.
I'm quite shocked there are children's books about politicians, usually it's eyebrow raising as it is seen as "early campaigning" at times.
Things like this should be “fair and balanced” most of the time, though there are times when bias is inherently necessary. Plus, kids shouldn’t learn modern political history until they’re more mature, like middle school.
Teaching about the American civil war should be somewhat biased in favor of the union, and that owning people is a bad thing. We should be teaching kids to treat everyone equally, and teaching them that the people who supported OWNING PEOPLE are as valid as the ones who fought for slaves’ freedom is dangerous.
Learning about basic history in elementary school is a good thing, and it should be taught in a simple but balanced way. However, getting in-depth into things like slavery and taxation without representation should really wait until the kids are more mature.
Btw, this all comes from the POV of an American, so I’m thinking of American kids and American public schools
Have you read about the "Lost Cause Movement"? In the South we were literally taught that slavery was not the main cause of the Civil War and a lot of pro-Confederacy and "states' rights" rhetoric in public school.
@@FirstnameLastname-jz1ux Do you understand what the word "nuance" means?
@@badlaamaurukehu no, i stupid.
One thing about the civil war is that legitimate separatist grievances in the south among the mostly lower classes had been brewing for years. Slave owners more or less co opted that to use to their own end of defending slavery.
@@P7777-u7r good point. This article sums it up pretty well: www.history.com/news/5-myths-about-slavery
What toddler can conceptualize A: what being gay even is B: why a gay man winning an election in the 70’s is important?
I think the intention is just to create a positive connotation.
I mean, it depends how old you count "toddler" as, but some kids have gay parents and probably by the time they get to kindergarten they've probably noticed that's not the norm.
It would be useful to those families whose 1. parents are gay or 2
Aunt/ Uncle/ cousin is gay.
@Steele Crusader 2020 Maybe the homosexuals in question are their parents. Should a child not idolize their parents?
@Steele Crusader 2020 There are 300,000 children living with gay couples in America, and that number is rising fast and irreversibly. It's not a hypothetical.
"When one person sais it's snowing outside and the other person sais it's sunny outside, a fair journalist shouldn't broadcast them both. His job is to look out the window and find out the real answer."
I very much agree with Marty Baron's quote, but at the same time think that "fair" coverage is always a good early (maybe not first) step to that end. As an older kid and teen, feeling bombarded with "unchallenged" opinions, I went through a phase of questioning the validity of popular views on the good/evil nature of certain things. I looked for the good in the "bad", looked for the bad in the "good". For example, once I made the mistake of thinking that Richard Nixon resigned as a means of apology, basically admitting he had acted criminally; I hadn't heard the "I'm not a crook" quote, and was giving him the benefit of the doubt. Interestingly, I wouldn't have tried to defend him in my mind if I had actually heard his side of the story. Similarly with more extreme examples, as a teen I would have much more quickly understood, and agreed with, the popular moral stance if I knew better what the motivations of the losing side were, so I could see their logical/moral weaknesses and disagree.
So sure, teach about what Hitler's motivations were. Mention what he believed. But add: 'Do you think these ideas have any basis in reality?', or similar. Mention right afterward the suffering and injustice those views led to, perhaps with a word or two of frank but not over-the-top condemnation. That is "fair", but also has a definite conclusion, which it earns. The reader/viewer can then accept the right conclusion without any misgivings, without feeling like they're being prodded, and may even know enough to explain the whole matter to others without being a parrot. Even better, they won't feel any obligation to side with immoral things out of a false sense of oppression or underdog status. Gotta admit, I see that mindset a lot more than I'd like to nowadays.
I bet this video wins more awards than all those children's books put together.
*Short Answer:* No
*Long Answer:* Noooooooooooooooo
I think the progressive picture books are probably appealing more to the parents than the children. Many millennials are now at the age where a lot of them have young children, so something that's celebrating LGBT or ethnic minority public figures is probably going to play well with those into social justice issues. The kids aren't going to care either way of course, and I doubt many of them would understand the content well enough at that age for it to affect their views later in life, but it's going to make the parents happy.
What's the old saying, "the fishing lure isn't made to attract the fish, but the fishermen"?
I work with elderly people, many of whom have dementia. I’ve actually read several of these propaganda-ish children’s books to clients who were politically active before they lost control of some of their faculties. Their loved ones know what kinds of politicians their family member would have supported, and get these books as gifts. There actually is a market for books written at a lower reading level about more grown-up topics.
@@elijahculper5522 That's a nice secondary target market that honestly I hadn't thought of. I don't doubt that this demographic weren't what these books were intended for, though.
@@elijahculper5522 Interesting!
Shame because I want my kids to not make a big deal over someone’s sexuality or ethnicity. Not celebrate it because they happened to be a minority.
I remember reading about gengis khan when i was a child and i thought he was so cool because he crossed deserts and the great wall and he wad a warior. Then i grew up and damn that didnt age well.
Plus he had skull cups!
To be fair, Churchill was also kind of a monster, to the point you can very credibly argue he perpetrated a genocide in India, similarly to Stalin and holodomor
The BBC is widely mocked here in the UK for its particular understanding of “fair and balanced”, which is to give equal time to both sides of an argument no matter what it is. Dara Ó Briain has a good bit in his stand up about them bringing on a flat earther during a segment about the International Space Station. This is an exaggeration but only barely... I’m particularly disturbed by how COVID conspiracy theorists have recently been allowed on major news programs in the name of “balance”
Ha
@@calebbarnhouse496 the thing is without being objective you're just doing propaganda and now you support it if it's against something you already disagree but would you feel comfortable if the same was done against something you believe in? It's horrible that any media or person could silence a side so objectivity is a necessity to guarantee freedom of speech.
I remember, when I was younger, instead of reading specific Biographies my parents always gave me history books related to a specific time frame. That way I could generally get a picture of the interactions between historical figures, and generally I think (from my grown up perspective) that it’s a less biased way to look at things. Anyone interested in a part of history enough to write a book about it obviously will have a bias; but I don’t think they’ll be as biased as a book about a specific person. In terms of favourites, I remember the Horrible History books being particularly good, since they didn’t really shy away from all the nasty things that people do to each other while still presenting them in a way palatable to children.
Hey JJ: Have you ever thought about writing a children’s book? You’ve already got the cartoons down.
I have!
@@JJMcCullough Do ittttt
But on what topic??
@@JJMcCullough Canadamon 2: 2 Canada 2 furious
@@JJMcCullough maybe on historic world leaders?
I'm new to your content. That cream soda history mini got me. This is fantastic. I think you can expand on this topic in several ways.
Some ideas, biased in all presentation (undeniable bias), the approaches to attempting objectivity, and finally perhaps a video covering the history and manifestation of the myth of childhood innocence.
I'm truly impressed. Looking forward to watching more.
The idea of Mike Huckabee helping any children is terrifying
The final 20 seconds of the video: when life is stranger than satire
That was a good vid J.J., especially the timing.
Right after Trump's book, I thought, "hmm, how shitty it'd be to portray Hitler objectively" a. BOOM, you explored that topic.
Thanks! I tried to do an escalation
I recall having a "Who was" book about Henry Ford when I was a kid. Looking back, it's kind of weird because I don't recall it mentioning any of the bad things he did or said. It feels like we're entering an era where historical figures' flaws are more likely to be criticized, but then again that Hitler vs Churchill biography sounded very bizarrely... disconnected so maybe that's an incorrect assumption on my part, at least as it pertains to childrens' biographies. The problem with answering this question is that even if everyone in the world could agree "you should teach the facts even if that means, in some cases, aligning yourself with one side" and people would still disagree on the extent to which certain facts matter or even which are "facts". Despite it being flawed, that is in my mind our best option.
When I was a kid, I loved biographies but like for Helen Keller and Clara Barton. I don't think I had any books about current people, just historic. I think it was very helpful for me to learn history because it tied everything together in stories rather than memorizing dates.
I remember reading biographies for Helen Keller, Mark Twain, and the young Abraham Lincoln.
Your content is IMMENSELY creative. I didn't know how rich and interesting the problem of portraying controversial historical figures was.
I read a book series called “Childhood of Famous American” while in elementary school. I loved them so much. Never really thought of them as propaganda as it tells the story before they became who they where. Had the likes of George Washington, Walt Disney, and Martin Luther King Jr.
I’d watch a whole series of you talking about political children’s books
I do think it is important for children to realize that every source that gives them news has its own biases. While it may be difficult for children to understand at first, I think it ultimately helps them analyze and evaluate the information that they learn later.
Doubt you’ll see this comment since it on an old video. But thought id say your content is soooo f-ing good. Ive been on a binge of all of ur stuff dor the past week, and cant stop watching
I used to watch the news with my parents. I think that's the best way to educate kids on politicians, cause you see what's happening and you ask questions and then your parents answer them for you in ways that they know you'll understand and that are age appropriate. During the Trump era, some of the stuff on the news was stuff that was ... uhh ... harder to ask parents to sit their kids infront of, like pornstars and racism and violence, but hopefully that will die down more now. I used to love watching president Bush and Obama speak, I didn't understand like, 80% of what they said but it felt exciting to be part of a process and included on this grown up thing. I think it really helped me grow up into an adult who is politically active and seeks to be informed, and I highly recommend it.
You forgot media bias though, there's a large difference between watching something about a politician in a left or right centered channel, so basically you're just doing propaganda. At least nowadays it's hard to find media that doesn't incline to either side.
@@steveluna1627 that’s why you ask questions. Don’t take the media on face value but there is a very significant difference between bias and propaganda. If you have media literacy skills then it is still very helpful to at least know what other people around you are talking about even if you can see the biases and politics at play.
I think that children's books should really not discuss politics at all. While I of course agree with for example Hitlers depiction in the wicked history series I had to come to that conclusion through the facts given to me by my education. The philosophy of race and hatred is quite complex and there is no short cut for kids to acquire morals
It amazes me how unbiased you are and I love it! Good job.
I'm waiting for JJ to do a book review on woke childern's books like Anti-racist baby and Feminist baby.
I thought you were joking with those titles. But no, feminist baby is $10 on amazon...
I've thought about doing a sequel where I compare right and left wing kiddie propaganda books.
@@JJMcCullough I'd say go for it. Left or right you have to indoctrinate them while they are young.
@@JJMcCullough I would honestly really enjoy that I always find actively seeking out propaganda to be a fun activity in a both cringe but also inciful way.
I've been laughing for 3 minutes reading the reviews for them, thank you
Idk, I'd be weary of lauding Churchill as a unilateral hero. He did some extremely heinous things.
Stalin also played a role in the defeat of the Nazis; certainly doesn't make him a hero
I had a professor in college who was very forthcoming in expressing he was incredibly biased when teaching history, in this case US history, which was already evident by the way he set up his curriculum, discussions, reading assignments and conclusions. To him, he said it was more authentic to embrace this bias, as those who try to mask their bias have 'something to hide' and are inherently inauthentic and potentially untrustworthy. I thought this was rather off-putting though, and saw it as a teacher who was teaching students what to think, not how to think. Since that seemingly exaggerated experience I've been cautious in my studies and with what professors teach. He has every right to teach his class the way he wants, but since then didn't taken another class with him.
yet again J.J. must justify his depiction of Ontario.
The wha
I don't think politics should be discussed with small kids. Like my son who is in Kindergarten.
One day after school it was the day of the election. I voted. I picked my son up from the school bus and my son says to me "Daddy, did you vote for Trump?" to which I replied "No". I had never talked to him about politics but my son says to me "Why?! I like Trump because he made America great again!" And I'm left confused and wondering where he got this from. I say "Where did you get that from?" and sure enough he points to the kids who ride his bus who have a Confederate flag on their home. My son then asked me about Joe Biden and I didn't say much there either because I don't want to push my political beliefs on my son. At the same time it's a bit inescapable because so much on TV, the internet, everyday conversations, yard signs etc have been so politically charged that it's hard to escape that and eventually it'll pass to someone's kids even if they don't understand and can't comprehend what's being discussed.
I'd say objectivity means presenting the facts without a personal value judgement. The 'rivals' book between Hitler and Churchill is not objective because it does not go into detail or describe what Hitler actually did in detail, hiding the facts to appear 'fair'. The other book is better but a truly objective piece would not have value judgements that outright say Hitler is evil, you should be able to come to the conclusion on your own. If anything a lot of the books that just go 'Hitler evil' don't go into great detail on the many evils of his regime because it's just assumed you know how evil he is, but then they still perpetuate other myths like """"Nazi Efficiency"""" that Neo-Nazis latch onto.
That Marty Baron quote is exactly why people don't trust reporters anymore. In most controversial topics there isn't an exact "right" vs "wrong" position, which is why they're controversial. So his take is that we should only be presented with the conclusion held by him and his staff.
Churchill should not be framed as a hero, but sure he definitely also shouldn't be implied to be the same as Hitler