조니 해리스의 잘못된 유럽 식민지배의 역사

### 조니 해리스의 단순화된 역사의 문제점: 비판적 분석
* 🗺 조니 해리스의 동영상은 **유럽 식민주의의 복잡한 역사를 단순화**하여 부정확하고 오해의 소지가 있는 내러티브를 제시합니다.
* 🌍 그는 르네상스나 농업 기술 발전과 같은 중요한 역사적 발전을 무시한 채 중세 유럽을 다른 지역의 번성했던 제국에 비해 **'비참한 곳'**으로 묘사합니다.
* 🚢 해리스는 콜럼버스의 항해 동기와 영향을 잘못 표현하여 **그의 행동을 유럽 제국주의 발전의 중추적인 순간**으로 극화합니다.
* 🏰 이 영상은 이후 정복의 본보기가 된 **스페인의 카나리아 제도에서의 행동**을 포함하여 유럽 열강들의 오랜 식민주의 역사를 간과하고 있습니다.
* 🌐 이 동영상의 내러티브는 역사적 행위자들의 주체성과 복잡성을 무시한 채 **유럽인은 본질적으로 우월하고 원주민은 수동적인 희생자**라는 고정관념을 강화합니다.
* 📚 해리스의 접근 방식에 대한 비판은 특히 많은 청중을 대상으로 하는 교육 콘텐츠에서 **역사를 정확하게 표현하는 것**이 중요하다는 점을 강조합니다.
* 🔍 이 분석은 **출처 인용의 투명성을 높이고 역사적 스토리텔링에 대한 미묘하고 맥락에 맞는 접근 방식**을 요구합니다.
* 이 사례를 통해 **정확한 역사적 표현의 중요성**과 단순화된 서술이 과거에 대한 대중의 이해에 미칠 수 있는 잠재적 영향을 살펴볼 수 있습니다.

조니 해리스는 역사를 부정확하게 단순화하여 주요 사건을 무시하고 콜럼버스의 영향력을 과장하여 역사적 신화를 영속화할 가능성이 있습니다.

This week, I saw this new video by Johnny Harris, and in it, he's lying to you. The video looks amazing. It has map roll porn, and it's also wrong. He simplifies events, screws up the timeline, and he's rewriting history. As a historian, it's painful to watch. Since leaving Vox, Johnny Harris has become a YouTube god. Just putting his name in a title guarantees views. What? But with these views also came criticism. He's been accused of putting out propaganda, not citing sources, and today of simplifying history so much it's harmful. So what's this video actually about? Johnny Harris discusses a subject that has been the base for countless of books and academic discussion. How did some countries from a relatively unimportant region in the world just rise up and dominate everyone else? It's a big question. A 500 year project of moving people and weapons and germs and language and violence.

And the outcome still influences our world today. So it's extra important to get the facts right. Don't get me wrong. I love Johnny Harris. He has inspired millions, including me. He's pretty much the reason map animation exists on YouTube, and he promotes therapy. I'm a giant fan of therapy. I like that. But he pushes storytelling far beyond the limits. Let me explain. Johnny sets the stage for his video. Europe was. But the fact is, there wasn't an abundance of anything in Europe. Instead, Europeans were just farmers, barely scraping by, constantly in debt to a few rich landlords. Life in Europe was scarce and miserable. That really pissed off people in the comments. He then goes on to talk about empires that, according to Johnny, were doing just fine in this time. Meanwhile, there was a bunch of other empires around the world that were thriving. All of these empires were trading with one another, making all of them even richer.

They all had better everything than Europe
did, and miserable Europeans eventually wanted in on all the trade. So what goes wrong here? Well, let's start with the whole wretched
place and landlord thing. Jonny voices this general idea
about Europe in the Middle Ages. Everything was shit,
and everyone went to bed without dinner. That sounds bad, right? Well,
the time period he discusses saw a lot new technological innovations
that made agriculture way better. With all this innovation, there was a lot more food,
and the population of Europe grew a lot. Between the year thousand and 1340,
the population of Europe grew from about 38 million people
to 73 and a half. And then the Black Death
killed 30% of Europeans. But this Black Death actually made things
a lot better for the survivors. It meant the end of serfdom
in Western Europe. That landlord thingy
Johnny Harris is talking about. Why? Well, labor was really scarce,
and that meant that workers

had a much better bargaining position
against their landlords. Of course, this didn't happen everywhere
at the same time, but even so, generally seen, the situation
of the farms in European states definitely wasn't worse than those
in the Empires Johnny Harris mentions. So then Johnny says there were no shiny
things in Europe. There wasn't an abundance
of anything in Europe. But trade with the empires he mentions
really existed for a long time. Since Roman times,
there was the Silk Road, you know, this network of roads, shipping lanes, and towns
that connected Asia with Europe. Just sometimes,
the trade broke down for a bit. This is what happens when the Ottomans
conquer Constantinople in 1453. They come in and introduce higher taxes. So Portugal and Spain, they didn't
really search a route over land. They wanted to cut out
the middlemen entirely. So the exploration of Spain and Portugal
actually had a long, long history.

Also, when he describes Europe in this time, he completely ignores one of the most pivotal moments in this time period, the Renaissance. This is a period after the Crusades where knowledge from the Middle East was brought back. Scholars in the Italian states saw Roman and Greek texts in new light. This led to flourishing culture improvement in architecture and art. I mean, the map that Johnny shows with the world. Yeah, that was rediscovered in the Renaissance. Okay, so Europe wasn't this awful place. There were shiny things, but Europe was geopolitically isolated. And yes, they did want in on the trade in the East. So Johnny then goes on to explain why Spain wanted in on all the trade because of Portuguese action. Portugal's work around was literally to go around the continent of Africa, and suddenly the Portuguese are dressing in luxurious fabrics. Okay, so now Spain sees Portugal hitting the jackpot and they're kind of jelly they want in on this, too.

They need to establish their own
trade route to Asia. Okay, so the Portuguese,
they were flaunting their goods. Spain wanted in on the trade. Let's look at a timeline here. So Columbus leaves in 1492. What is the first time the Portuguese
actually managed to reach India? Right. So, no, the Portuguese were not successful in reaching India by sea
until Columbus was well away. Well, were on to Columbus. This is what Jonny Harris says. They listen to a pitch
from this Italian sailor, and this sailor wants them
to fund his new startup called What If We Sailed West
to Get to Asia instead of east? Super promising name, remember? Okay, I actually kind of like that joke. And he is right. The world did look like this. There were maps around from people
that thought Asia was really close by. Take this map from Toscanelli. It shows Japan within reach. Columbus used this and other calculations
to say Japan is only 2500 sea

miles away, whereas in reality it's more like 10,000. Columbus was actually cherry-picking proof. And even though these maps existed, the general consensus still was that people didn't think you could reach Asia by sailing west. It was just too far away. And they were totally right. So Spain was like, Yes, great idea. High risk, high return. Do it. Columbus. Columbus put his findings before Spanish experts of the court twice, and he was rejected twice. Only the intervention of the Spanish king made it possible for Columbus to get his boats. Probably because he felt low risk, potential high reward. I mean, this Columbus dude is so sure he's right against all odds. He has a lot of confidence. Okay, now we move on to one of the most contested points for me in this video. And for that, I'm going to put on my Johnny Harris debunk hat. It's a moment he says Columbus changed the world.

This big epiphany. And this is where the biggest light bulb moment of the century goes off
in this guy's head. Change of plans, boys, says Columbus. We're going to claim this land. Columbus
realization was instead of trading, they could actually just
claim land for themselves. And this changed everything. After all,
no one was making any resistance. This moment is the foundation upon
which all European imperialism grows. So, Johnny, he admits in the comments
that he totally dramatized this event. I don't know why, because the truth is actually way more
interesting than his dramatized version. As many people have said in the comments:
his contract actually said he should claim land
he encountered and that he would become
some sort of governor of these lands. But even if we give Johnny some slack
for story purposes, he is still wrong. Let me tell you why. Okay. So before Columbus went sailing, there were basically two kinds
of colonial expansion that existed.

The first was the Portuguese way. You could plug into existing trade routes
by showing up, occupying
some land, build forts, and trading posts. This is what the Portuguese were doing
in Africa. Take the fort of Elmina that they built. They did this because there was
a lot of resistance from locals and B. everyone died in the interior of Africa. Seriously. Still in the 1800s, up to half of
the colonies could die in certain places. It's a fun field trip. The second kind of colonialism is not that
well known. Since the early 1400s, Spain had a colonial
project going in the Canary Islands. This has been called Europe's
first genocide. Over the course of a century due
to Spanish wars and enslavement,
the population of the Canary Islands dropped from estimates of 50 to 80,000
to just a thousand Canary Islanders. The Spaniards faced a lot of resistance,
but eventually

they made the islands into a plantation
economy. Does that sound familiar? This is a thing historians have called a template
for Spanish conquests in the new world. So this kind of colonialism
already existed when Columbus went to the Indies,
and he really didn't care if the people were subjugating to Columbus
or you had to conquer them by force. So what did Columbus realize
when he was on his first trip? Well,
his initial idea when he was selling out was to plug into existing trade networks,
just like the Portuguese did. Remember, his pitch had been
he would find the rich Asian cities the spices,
the cloth, the house with gold roofs. And what did he find of all these things? Nothing. So Columbus actually got nervous. He had to tell his bosses
something about this trip. How was he going to make this
successful enterprise from the initial idea of Portuguese
trading posts? He switches to the Spanish style
of colonialism.

that they had developed on
the Canary Islands, where they use locals or import other people
to start the plantation economy. So this is the big epiphany,
according to Johnny Harris, but it's not something
Columbus came up with. It followed from a
need to make something of this voyage, followed from experience of Iberian powers that were already colonizing
parts of the world for over a century. Imperialism wasn't developed there
and then with Columbus, and it was also not developed
in encounters with the New World. That's because history is almost
never decided by big men or women and their ideas. The truth is always more nuanced, and
there's always more history to a story. Columbus
also definitely never said the following. Forget trade with the East, said Columbus. There's a bunch of land that we can go
take over in the West. Because he died believing
he'd found islands east of Asia.

So in his mind, he was in the east. Okay, so after this, Jonny says that Spain
and Portugal quickly conquer the empires. This is how it all started. Under this new paradigm. Both empires expanded very quickly,
forcing the Spanish and Portuguese languages across the ocean. And I do want to highlight something here. Jonny doesn't really delve into this,
and maybe he will do it later. I want to tell you something about how
the Spanish actually became so successful. One important reason that the Spaniards were able to conquer
the empire was they found so quickly. It's that they befriended local factions
that were angry at the most powerful factions around. The Spanish were really trying
to exploit domestic divisions. If you explain this story in a way that the Spaniards
didn't really have any help at all, it makes them seem like these powerful European warriors
that were destined to take over. It directly feeds into later ideas of the racial superiority
of Europeans over all other peoples.

And if you do this, you also make these people
look like one blob of uncivilized tribes. But these people had allegiances,
politics, and agency. They chose to support the Spanish,
something that didn't really work out for them in the end, but they chose so themselves. Okay, so my rant is almost over. I am going to tell you why
this was so bad in a bit. But first, I want to compliment Johnny
on the start of the series. I saw quite a lot of people
in the comments complaining about him as a kind of a social justice warrior
about how conquest and subjugation of people
was normal in all of history. This is true. But I still think we have to talk more
about European colonialism
and the legacy of it for two reasons. First, the scope, and then the ideology. European powers dominated
almost the entire globe. They raped, pillaged,
and extracted resources. If China had taken over the world,
it would have been equally as bad.

But they just didn't.
And second is the ideology, that with the conquests was spread around
the world. People are moral persons. And to kill or enslave another human
being, you must dehumanize her. So from the start of the colonial project,
European scholars made a very big effort
to justify this behavior. Europeans, they knew murder was bad. They knew you had to have a just war. They knew slavery was bad.
It was forbidden in Europe. But when it's a whole different
kind of person. Not human at all. Not so civilized. Well, then maybe you can enslave them. So people have now complained that we're giving too much attention
to the European side of things. Well, I think after centuries of washing
our hands clean of this past, maybe it's time to own up to this and actually
really dove into this history. So for this,
I applaud Johnny Harris. Still. Why does he make this fictionalized.

simplified account of history
and why is it such a bad thing? I think Johnny generally wants people
to get interested in these stories. And you, yes you, the audience, you like to watch things
that are dramatized and flashy. So he finds a way to make it
as attractive as possible. But I think he goes too far
with the whole storytelling bit. It's a bit ironic
that the criticism Johnny has for the news
could also be leveled at his work. The news is too flashy,
not nuanced enough, and it makes you feel informed
for this piece. Cutting the context
gives you a worse reading of history. The education niche of YouTube. It's not like a peer review paper. It's also not as fictional as Hollywood
true stories. I think on YouTube, viewers have an
expectation that information is accurate, and many don't have the background tools
or time to check if it's really the case.

And so posing a simplified narrative is
maybe the only information people are going to get from a certain subject. So why should he care? Is this all nitpicking and jealousy
from a micro creator? Well, let me tell you a story about
something that I know Johnny cares about. It's the origin story of the myth
that people thought the world was flat in medieval
times. That's actually a total legend,
and I have no idea why I was taught that in elementary
school. How did that happen? I actually genuinely care. Like, how did that happen? This myth is mostly the blame
of the novelist Washington Irving. He wrote a fictional account of Columbus's
travels. Irving
really went to school on the storytelling. He puts down Columbus as a great visionary man that has to fight against Catholic
clergy at the Spanish courts. The book is ridiculously popular. 175 editions were printed in the 1800s. But Irving presented this story
as a struggle of scientific

method against medieval religious backwardness. And this epic struggle
has such an impact on his contemporaries, it soon morphs into a belief
these clerics thought the world was flat. Eventually, his historical fiction becomes an historic fact
that persists to this day. If some of these folks were around
when Columbus set sail, they must have been founding members
of the Flat Earth Society. They would not have believed
that the world was round. Let's be clear. Johnny is not as bad as Irving. But a story like that makes sure
that myths about history are born. This idea that Irving put forward soon became the idea
that medieval people were all stupid. And when history is used to present myths
that explain the modern world, we should be very wary. Okay, one last thing before we go. Johnny, if you ever see this, please,
please, please start citing sources. It gives more accountability. It's going to be a starting point
for people.

to read more about certain subjects. It can help academics
that write books to do more research that can eventually be an inspiration
for your videos. Okay, Randolph. I made this video
by using different sources. They are in description. YouTubers Imperial and Faultline
gave feedback on the script. All mistakes are, of course, still mine. Don't forget to check out their channel. I definitely didn't touch on everything
that was wrong with the video, so let me know in the comments
what I missed and be sure to check out my content which
I tried to make as truthful as possible. See ya.

How Johnny Harris Rewrites History

The Present Past

조니 해리스의 유럽 역사에 대한 의심스러운 견해

조니 해리스의 인기 동영상은 유럽의 역사를 단순화하고 왜곡하여 기술 발전과 흑사병의 영향을 간과하고 있습니다.

중세 유럽의 비참하고 궁핍한 삶을 묘사하는 그의 영상은 당시의 인구 증가와 농업의 발전을 무시한다는 비판을 받아왔습니다.

이 영상은 유럽 제국들이 세계 무역에 참여하기를 원했던 방법에 초점을 맞추고 있어 서유럽에서 농노제를 종식시킨 흑사병의 긍정적인 영향을 인정하지 않고 있습니다.

아시아와의 무역에서 유럽의 역할

유럽의 농업 상황은 앞서 언급한 제국들보다 나쁘지 않았고, 실크로드를 비롯한 아시아와의 오랜 교역 역사를 가지고 있었습니다.

르네상스 시대는 지정학적으로 고립되어 있었음에도 불구하고 문화적 번영과 고대 문헌의 재발견을 가져왔습니다.

스페인의 아시아 무역에 대한 관심은 포르투갈의 성공적인 아프리카 항해로 촉발되어 1492년 콜럼버스의 유명한 항해로 이어졌습니다.

크리스토퍼 콜럼버스와 그의 여정에 관한 진실

콜럼버스는 여러 차례 거절당했지만 스페인 왕이 높은 자신감과 잠재적 보상에 힘입어 마침내 항해 자금을 지원했습니다.

콜럼버스가 아시아에 도착했다고 생각한 것은 오해였으며, 실제로는 새로운 항로를 발견했다고 믿었기 때문입니다.

콜럼버스가 땅을 차지했다는 '깨달음'에 대한 이 비디오의 묘사는 계약서에 실제로 그렇게 하도록 되어 있었고, 그의 여정이 유럽 제국주의에 미친 영향이 과장되었다는 점에서 논란의 여지가 있습니다.

콜럼버스의 주현절과 스페인 식민지 템플릿

콜럼버스는 처음에는 기존의 무역 네트워크를 활용하려 했지만 아무것도 찾지 못했고, 결국 스페인 식민지 경제 모델인 플랜테이션 경제로 전환하게 됩니다.

이러한 접근 방식은 새로운 개념이 아니었으며 이베리아 열강이 세계의 다른 지역을 식민지로 삼은 경험에 영향을 받았습니다.

스페인과 포르투갈 제국의 급속한 확장은 현지 파벌과 우호 관계를 맺고 국내 분열을 이용함으로써 촉진되었고, 스페인과 포르투갈 제국의 유일한 힘과 우월성에 대한 이야기에 도전했습니다.

유럽 식민주의의 영향과 조니 해리스의 스토리텔링

유럽의 식민주의는 그 범위가 광대했으며 정복과 정복을 정당화하는 비인간적인 이데올로기에 의해 주도되었습니다.

조니 해리스는 역사를 보다 흥미롭게 전달하고자 했지만, 지나치게 단순화하고 허구화했다는 비판을 받기도 했습니다.

그의 화려한 스토리텔링 방식은 흥미롭기는 하지만 뉘앙스와 맥락이 부족하여 복잡한 역사적 사건에 대해 청중에게 잘못된 정보를 제공할 가능성이 있다고 여겨집니다.

중세 시대의 평평한 지구에 대한 신화는 사실 소설가 워싱턴 어빙이 콜럼버스의 여행에 대한 허구적인 이야기를 통해 널리 퍼뜨린 것입니다.

어빙의 이야기는 중세의 종교적 후진성에 대항하는 과학적 방법의 투쟁을 묘사한 것으로, 과거 사람들은 지구가 평평하다고 생각했습니다.

어빙의 역사 소설의 영향은 시간이 지나도 지속되어 신화가 역사에 대한 우리의 이해에 미치는 영향을 강조했습니다.