Quote:
Originally Posted by Deepflow
example?
|
For example, his seemingly blase and generally awful appraisal of inter-war Japan. 'Japan waz Fascist and Hirohito was a a jap Hitler lolerz' Err, no. I've seen politics people who weren't even historians do better than that. So much of what his argument is based upon seems to be simplistic, and generally he seems to bring everything he touches into a fairly stark monochrome focus; he's stringing together the evidence to fit his theory of ethnic conflict and it predictably falls on it's arse most of the time for anyone who has an even remotely decent knowledge of the subjects concerned. It's probably the worst history programme I've seen on TV for donkey's years. I hope to god his book which the series promotes is a lot better than that.
tbh Niall Ferguson is a bit of a wanker and he goes out for controversy for controversy's sake if you ask me. He's the Lord Denning of historians.