Fredda is WRONG about History

Recently a YouTube channel by the name of Fredda put out a video titled "How Alt-History Can Be Dangerous", in which he claimed the genre was a pipeline for far-right propaganda, and was regularly utilized to skew history, however in this video Fredda goes on to produce his own warped take on history from a seeming lens of critical theory, arguing that the mainstream historic narrative cannot be trusted, and then proceeds to provide a clearly left-leaning take upon a major Cold War issue from a video pulled from Monsieur Z. Fredda's argument is not only false, but itself dangerous to history as a study by dismissing facts on the grounds that they MUST be biased, and this kind of thinking is a gateway to bad history.

MUSIC:

[HenrySalomonBlachman]

*Who will win?*
Person with a masters degree in history
VS
This guys gut feeling about what is and isn't "history"

[spelticup]

Hello. I wouldn't normally write a long comment on a video, but this video has such a huge misunderstanding on the topic that I feel the need to write about it here (if not for your sake, for the sake of others who may be confused by the video).


One of the main things you like to come back to in this video is your criticism of the phrase “history is subjective.” However, it seems like you do not fully understand what he means by that. It’s a difficult topic to unravel, but I think there’s a lot of value in understanding it. In your video, you claim that Fredda believes that anyone can just make up their own history, devoid of any facts that may exist. Now, I will assume that you actually believe Fredda actually thinks this, but it is a bit difficult because it is such a misunderstanding of what “history is subjective” means.

So what does he mean by History is Subjective? So let’s say we are historians, and we are trying to write a history paper about the Mongol Empire. As historians, we have many types of sources to look at. We have artifacts, letters, and other similar sources from the time, and then we have oral traditions which may be of use, but are not necessarily as reliable. We may also look back at some previous history papers to help guide us, but we do not necessarily need to reach the same conclusion. What is not technically not up to interpretation is that our artifacts are real. But interpreting what these artifacts mean, and what we can get from them /is/ up to our interpretation. The reason history continues to be updated and revised is because we find new artifacts, or perhaps a breakthrough is made that changes our entire narrative for the time period.

Now that I have hopefully made that clear, I want to talk about specific portions of the video.

[3:00] I think this is dishonest. Fredda doesn’t make the argument that history is a fiction in that sense. Again, what is subjective is how we use our evidence to reach conclusions about motivations, consequences, etc.

[7:21] I found this part interesting. I think you’re close to the right idea, but I feel like you simplified it too much. When there are multiple sources, yes, perhaps the most common viewpoint could be the closest in accuracy. However, this wouldn’t necessarily be true. Let’s say those 12 sources who describe Washington as ‘handsome’ are all from Washington’s friends, meanwhile the 1 source that describes the contrary was also one of Washington’s friends. This is a bit of a funny example, but in the real world, historians end up in difficult situations like this often. This is where history can be subjective as well, since our sources will have been made with a bias to begin with. This is why a historian in their work isn’t necessarily trying to prove a person, country, or empire is necessarily evil, but rather, try to show the motivations and results.

[9:59] Speculative History. I just flat out disagree. To me, Speculative History just seems like an act of hubris, and I will try to tell you why. No matter how much we try, or how much research we put into an analysis of “what-ifs, ” they still remain “what-ifs.” There’s no way to run a simulation of past historical events over again for us to observe. Therefore, all alternative history is fiction–with some closer to reality than others, but still ultimately fiction. There’s nothing wrong with viewing alternative history as fiction, but viewing it as some kind of science is more damaging. In the latter case, one would put their trust in an alt-history creator to construct some kind of objective narrative. However, this is impossible (unless you are God in disguise), and calling your alt-history an objective narrative allows the creator’s biases and worldview to seem like objective truths, when they are merely just interpretation.

[14:28] I am tempted to not argue about this, but I feel that a little bit of argument is necessary. I don’t plan on changing any hearts with this part, but I want you to recognize your own bias. Being presented in the previous section with an alternative interpretation of the American-Cuban relations until the Bay of Pigs invasion, you seem to not be receptive to it at all, and merely claim “bias” throughout. Here’s some examples. [11:55] It isn’t inherently biased to say that Cuba redistributed land to farmers. This is kind of like your previous example where you said claiming the American Revolution never happened was ridiculous, except now you’re seemingly calling events that happened biased. [12:49] At this point, the Cuban government under Castro had yet to side with the Soviet Union. The whole point of this section is that the United States could have cooperated with this new government if the U.S. government had not been so hawkish against any strain of socialism. [13:32] I am not sure why you want to focus on this detail so much. The seizure of American businesses only happened after the United States began to levy embargos on the country. Nationalizing the businesses of hostile countries is understandable, especially when much of the hostility is merely due to your type of government. [14:03] This blanket statement by you just seems dismissive, and signals you’re not willing to fully listen to interpretations that may be counter to your own. My point here is not to be pro-Cuban (since I don’t think that matters much), but rather to show you do have a bias–a bias towards a pro-American Cold War narrative.

One more thing before I go. [16:14] If you want to make claims like this, you should support them with evidence yourself. But besides that, Fredda’s point was not focused on the economic conditions of Cuba after socialism. His entire point was to show one main thing: even the base of an alternative history can have some bias. I don’t want to say that Fredda doesn’t take a more left wing perspective when discussing Cuba, but that is not necessarily the bad thing. I do not like Monsieur Z very much, but he has a perspective too, a more right wing perspective (or rather, a more pro-American Cold War perspective). The thing you can criticize Monsieur Z for is his lack of evidence to build his claims.

You can write your own history, but you should back it up with good historical research. Fredda in that segment did provide his list of evidence with his timeline. If you want to refute it, you need to justify that. Making assumptions that Cuba merely being socialist, or overthrowing the authoritarian Batista government is enough of a threat for the United States to (not just want, but) /NEED/ to eliminate the government is not the way to go. I do not want to overstay my welcome with this too much, but please consider what I say here.

If you’ve made it through this whole thing, thank you. I hope you better understood some of the arguments Fredda made (especially with the first half of the video). I’d be open to conversation if anything here seems questionable to you. Have a good day.

[Groggle]

While I disagree with Fredda with his views on History, slavery did play a major role in the Southern Secession. If those other factors didn’t exist, slavery would still likely drive southern secession.

Confederate leaders and Southern sympathizers spoke multiple times about how the abolition of slavery was abhorrent. Slavery is also a major reason given by Southern States for Secession. Slavery literally appears in official Southern state documents.

[kaviarnonsmoker]

Subjective doesn't mean that you completely make up what you want to believe, but interpret the information you have in a way you seem makes sense

[aaronTGP_]

The best alternate history channel is Possible History. Minimal bias, avoids going off the rails at all costs (unless it's obviously a joke), but still has interesting scenarios.

[YesntIAmIce]

In his WhatifAltHist video he linked Reddit as a source... I was listening and comprehending but when I saw Reddit in the description I just lost all good faith.

[haliteblade]

I’m sorry but the civil war part is hard to watch. 5:14 all of those things were absolutely exacerbated in part by slavery, and the Lost Cause is an example of an ideological narrative similar to holocaust denial.

[bigairports]

u say “the us bullying and blockading cuba was justified bc gommunism” but freddas point was that had they fostered friendly relations with socialist cuba they would’ve had a less likely chance of harboring soviet missiles. you seem to forget cuba got those missiles as a defensive measure since, yknow, the united states kept invading them. the missiles were the only threat cuba could ever pose to the united states, since it’s a tiny island nation and the us had the most powerful navy in the world, so cuba feeling the need to get nukes was a result of the united states’ hostilities.

[SwedishDrunkard]

he said alt history can be used as alt right propaganda not that it is.

[inzyniertv]

So alt history = angry mustache man?... Damn

[princebunnynutz]

Yes the American Civil War wasn't fought solely to protect slavery, however it was by and large the primary factor. Your perspective seems to be that slavery was a minor issue, and whilst I don't agree with most anything he says the civil war was by and far over the south THINKING that Lincoln would free the slaves.

[unhandthatscience]

interesting to note "fredda claims all alt-history is alt-right" is one of the only claims not substantiated by a clip from the origional video. obvious knee-jerk reaction to the title when to anyone watching in good faith will see fredda is discussing how alt-history Can be used to push a right-wing narrative rather than saying all alt-history is inherently a tool of propaganda

[MateodeJovel]

While I understand your point arguing that there is an objective component to historical events, the issue is that unless accurately recorded, all parties are lacking the full context to know the objective truth. Your example with the pyramids where you argue that one side has the truth while the other does not or that both operate from a lie/half truth obscures the fact that due to the march of time, much of the objective truth has been lost (e.g. full purposes of the tombs, materials stored therein, construction methods, etc.)

Fredda's argument about history being subjective has more to do with the fact that in many instances history as written is modified by "the victors". It can be intentionally obfuscated, destroyed, or lost, or simply forgotten. And that when rediscovered, ALL parties doing the rediscovery have to interpret what happened when the knowledge of the objective truth is lost, which means there will always be a bias; left, right, nationalist, chrono-centric, or speciesist (I could name endless biases). To dismiss the subjective aspect of history and historiography as simply perspective ignores how humans engage with the field as we currently do.

The facts may be the facts, but how you present the facts makes all the difference

[kaviarnonsmoker]

You can't be 100% objective, but more or less factual with your biases. Fredda used more facts and Monsieur Z used the major facts, so it's clear both sides will get diffrent results from diffrent sources.

[jimmu]

You fundamentally misunderstand the study of history, there is a separation between the ‘past’ (which is objective) and history (which is subjective)

[drekbleh]

Like we're told to be careful about bias but also he's telling a more truthful history more than anyone else? The guy is attacking the foundation of his own interpretation and doesn't even know it

[taylore.]

the lack of sources in this video, instead saying "well he's just *obviously* wrong about so and so" is rather telling

[WeberBittencourt]

According to fredda's logic i could say that: "Germany won WW1 and WW2 but proceeded to implode and become the holy jamaican empire of ULM, and today we live under the rule of the fifth Shintoist Empire of Christ the son of Allah because Monaco joined the Imperium of Man and caused World War Z against the Orcs of Gondor who served the patricians of the republic of OSTEA in the empire of Asteroth south of Pandaria within the Cinematic Universe of Nintendo."
And i would be right.

[mieszkoaders]

As an actual historian I fucking love, when people like Fredda have the patience to you know, have their sources when they talk about something. Because then I see channels like this, who not only claims to be "more grounded in history" than other alt-history YT, but he literally makes a video attacking an actual historian with a degree, who cites his sources and strawmans him into a McCarthyist version of a communist professor. How can you even approach this? How can you respond to the argument that are being pulled out of the least charitable, simplest insticts that will immiedietly get right wing viewership?
Josh Sullivan unfortunately seems to be in the same right wing isle, as WhatIfAltHist who created his videos based vibes. How can you claim to be a better historian than someone with a degree citing sources, without citing sources and conjuring the worst bad faith interpretation of what they're saying? Shamefull.

[brvhfvnny]

You misinterpreted his point, he doesn't claim "there are no objective events happening" his point is that the historic narrative is derived from the interpretation of primary sources and this interpretation is inevitably subjective to a degree.