Niall Ferguson
- Thread starter RedRalph
- Start date
- Status
RedRalph
Deity
- Joined
- Jun 12, 2007
- Messages
- 20,708
Oh thank fluck... glad to hear it. The series was essentially a documentary which should be called 'Niall Ferguson and things he selectively likes'... 'Killer Aps'? It was like listening to your Dad trying to sound cool talking about Kanye East and Lady GooGoo... painful.
He made so many stupid remarks... "it's incredible to think that in ten years China could be 33% Christian". Yeah Niall, it's also incredible to think that in tend years the USA could be completely Muslim
He made so many stupid remarks... "it's incredible to think that in ten years China could be 33% Christian". Yeah Niall, it's also incredible to think that in tend years the USA could be completely Muslim
Sorry, Mr Skeptical McSkepticson, but no less an authority than Edgar Cayce predicted this in 1944, which is well over 50 years ago. He said China would become "the cradle of Christianity as applied in the lives of men" by 1968! 1968! So if you're going to insult Nialls Ferguson for being unfactual, you're about 40 years too late.
There's a reason, when I brought up "actual srs bzns historians who deal with counterfactuals", I didn't mention Ferguson.
ParkCungHee
Deity
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2006
- Messages
- 12,921
You know, there was actually a better chance of that in 1944.
When I was studying for A Levels, our class went to a lecture by Niall Ferguson on the Third Reich. He was incredibly good, although the only actual content I remember was him starting by showing a slide of Hitler and saying something along the lines of: "It's worth looking at this for a moment, to remind ourselves of just how ugly Hitler was." Good stuff.
Lone Wolf
Deity
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2006
- Messages
- 9,908
I've read his Empire. Ferguson is an entertaining writer, and can weave interesting narratives of cool facts. He's incredibly biased, though, and you should under no circumstance trust his overall thesis. I certainly didn't.
From what I've heard, the quality of his work had been degenerating recently, since he dropped whatever objectivity he had and started pandering to his demographics even more then before. Seems that the quality of his writing suffers accordingly.
His musings on WWI and WWII in Empire and the following Kipling-esque call to the USA are completely ridiculous, though. Apparently, he only got worse since that.
From what I've heard, the quality of his work had been degenerating recently, since he dropped whatever objectivity he had and started pandering to his demographics even more then before. Seems that the quality of his writing suffers accordingly.
His musings on WWI and WWII in Empire and the following Kipling-esque call to the USA are completely ridiculous, though. Apparently, he only got worse since that.
His thesis in that book did seem well though out, until you actually read other books
. But I remember that many people quote his chapter about the american colonists where he asks why was it the richest, healthiest, and least taxed people that revolted.
Quackers
The Frog
He is a Harvard professor so he isn't an idiot, but i think he is really going for celebrity historian mantra and that means commercialising al his work in Anti-Dachs + Anti-historian ways
aelf
Ashen One
This man holds the Philippe Roman Chair of history in my school. Shame 
RedRalph
Deity
- Joined
- Jun 12, 2007
- Messages
- 20,708
He's also an astounding egotist in his presenting style. Not a crime in and of itself, but the way he talks and addresses the camera is really distracting and infuriating...
I actually read one of his books years ago, and while I didn't like it much it was reasonably well-written. But this series was just ridiculous. Compare it to Neil Oliver's two recent series about Britain, and he just looks ridiculous.
I actually read one of his books years ago, and while I didn't like it much it was reasonably well-written. But this series was just ridiculous. Compare it to Neil Oliver's two recent series about Britain, and he just looks ridiculous.
Quackers
The Frog
RR, on his presenting style..
to me it comes across as a man really passionate about what he is saying and also a man who seems deadly earnest for the audience to understand precisely what he is saying.
to me it comes across as a man really passionate about what he is saying and also a man who seems deadly earnest for the audience to understand precisely what he is saying.
innonimatu
the resident Cassandra
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2006
- Messages
- 15,374
So, crappy researched but good communicator? I hate that combination!
ParkCungHee
Deity
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2006
- Messages
- 12,921
The thing is, there is well researched stuff in his books. I still find some of them to be a handy reference.
The problem is that nothing that is well researched is new. His books are great for informing you how, for example, there was not any sort of feeling that Europe was a powder keg in 1914. He documents this well and clearly, and if you've never done anything past History 102, this sounds fascinating and impressive. However, once he says something new, he goes off the rails entirely.
The problem is that nothing that is well researched is new. His books are great for informing you how, for example, there was not any sort of feeling that Europe was a powder keg in 1914. He documents this well and clearly, and if you've never done anything past History 102, this sounds fascinating and impressive. However, once he says something new, he goes off the rails entirely.
TrailblazingScot
I was kittenOFchaos
I really value some of Niall Ferguson's books, but he shouldn't be allowed to write and present TV.
'The Pity of War' remains a wonderful book.
'The Pity of War' remains a wonderful book.
- Status
