I’ve enjoyed Dan Carlin and Darryl’s work for a very long time. I view their work as a 21st Century version of oral history. When I listen to Darryl’s storytelling I appreciate how accessible it is to the average listener. This is good quality and allows those to learn broad historical narratives. However, I also have serious disagreements with some of Darryl’s interpretations of history. This largely stems from my background from grad school at an elite University. Darryl’s medium is inherently restrictive and relies on narratives of mainly first person resources to build out a story. This in itself is fine, however it is also susceptible to the same flaws of myth building and narratives Darryl sometimes complains about. The main issue I see is Darryl creates his narrative somewhat isolated and then seems to think the accepted historical narrative is wrong vs built over time by those that dedicate their lives to historical study. Darryl hasn’t found a new thread of thought, but highlights an area that professional historians have studied but discount or deemphasize based on evidence from holistic research. The other area that confounds me about Darryl is his desire to pick fights on social media. He’s very talented and quite frankly should be above that, but isn’t. It’s like a talented prize fighter getting bar fights.
I think you nailed it. I said that I don’t believe Darryl is trying to shift loyalties but I do think it’s fair to say that he’s trying (however unconsciously) to create/spread counter-mythologies. And yeah, that’s not really history. That’s as you (and as he to be fair) say, storytelling. And very good storytelling. But if you can’t puncture holes in your own stories then it just won’t pass muster for a lot of people.
That’s where going through formal graduate programs forces you to expose your analysis to very competent peers and professors. When I listen Darryl’s content I don’t get too bent out of shape since my disagreements are those that I would have had with colleagues in my grad program in either formal settings or over beers. The big difference is Darryl seems to go through that process of external examination on X or in the podcast-sphere. Which is strange because he’s a BJJ guy, if you want to be super good at BJJ you go to a world-class gym and train with the best. You don’t go into an alley and pick a fight with randoms. Just head scratching to me.
Your article reminded me of a history from 30 years ago by Gerhard Weinberg titled A World at Arms. I was a book I enjoyed a lot. Apparently Weinberg is still alive at the age of 97. He was involved in academic arguments in the 1960s with historians (mainly German) who said that the war was started by the Allies and Poland and not by the Germans (sound familiar?).
It sounds like sloppy/borderline deceitful historiography is the only serious issue you have with Darryl. What are your thoughts on the fact that he fully agrees, in his own words, with multiple people in his comments section who believe that the Jews are a malign influence on the word who are responsible for most of the bad things that have happened to the US in the last century and the Western world writ large?
Not that these opinions mean you have some obligation to drop him as a friend or denounce him, but it should surely color your view of his historical commentary and narrative..
For myself as a Jewish listener of his, I am still able to enjoy his work where it touches upon Jews as a sort of anti-Jewish steelman that forces me to think through my understanding of history more carefully, and where it doesn't really interact with Jewish people (like his Aztec episode or the Jonestown series or the labor rights series) as just a good yarn that leads me down different historical rabbit-holes and the addition of dozens of new books to my thriftbooks wishlist.
But as someone doing critical analysis of his work, this really is something that needs to be confronted and integrated.
I honestly haven’t seen that in his comment section so I can speak to that (any links would be appreciated!). I have not heard him make any claims like that in his work, and in fact, I distinctly remember him outright refuting some Great Replacement BS in his second Whose America series where he makes it clear that it just because one of the judges involved in increasing immigration was Jewish doesn’t indicate anything about Jews, especially because the people it negatively affected WERE Jews. But that’s just one example and there could be plenty I haven’t seen. I know he isn’t particularly fond of Israel, which can easily manifest for most people in tolerance for pretty noxious views.
I'm not sure how to link Substack comments, will give it a shot if I have some time tonight. In the meantime if you have 5 minutes you really should just scroll through the comments on the "housecleaning" piece you mentioned and look for all of his replies. A good half of them are him agreeing with the JQ premise of the commenter but saying "nevertheless anger and hate are unproductive"
Ahh okay. I’ll give that one a look, and maybe jump back to his other antisemitism related posts to see if I can find anything. In regards to the housecleaning post he told me his goal with that was to try to pull people back from the brink of obsession so that’s why he’s willing to indulge them, which on the one hand I respect but on the other see it as perhaps naive/pointless.
This humanising, empathising, sympathising is a red herring. Cooper is simply providing more detail, so that simplistic caricature is replaced with greater understanding of events.
And the NYT are hypocrites, because when they do this, it’s called “nuance”.
Wait which humanizing, etc? That the NYT is supposedly doing? Or what Darryl is trying to do? I do think that’s what Darryl is trying to do—provide greater broader context—but his presentation of that as unique doesn’t really hold water if you even give a cursory look into Third Reich historiography, especially post-1992. Again I’m not sure what he means when he says “court history of WWII” because most mainstream historians would likely agree that a simplistic view is incorrect. If he means like Hollywood movies, then sure, but that’s a cultural critique not a historical one.
Hey, those of us who know your work are not particularly impacted by this kind of thing. The NYT editorial page is inhabited by intellectual lightweights who assume that because they paid for a really expensive education they know more than the rest of us.
Can’t fully disagree with that characterization there, though I’ve become far more convinced that NPR has an even worse problem with that kind of consumer and staffer.
I’ve enjoyed Dan Carlin and Darryl’s work for a very long time. I view their work as a 21st Century version of oral history. When I listen to Darryl’s storytelling I appreciate how accessible it is to the average listener. This is good quality and allows those to learn broad historical narratives. However, I also have serious disagreements with some of Darryl’s interpretations of history. This largely stems from my background from grad school at an elite University. Darryl’s medium is inherently restrictive and relies on narratives of mainly first person resources to build out a story. This in itself is fine, however it is also susceptible to the same flaws of myth building and narratives Darryl sometimes complains about. The main issue I see is Darryl creates his narrative somewhat isolated and then seems to think the accepted historical narrative is wrong vs built over time by those that dedicate their lives to historical study. Darryl hasn’t found a new thread of thought, but highlights an area that professional historians have studied but discount or deemphasize based on evidence from holistic research. The other area that confounds me about Darryl is his desire to pick fights on social media. He’s very talented and quite frankly should be above that, but isn’t. It’s like a talented prize fighter getting bar fights.
I think you nailed it. I said that I don’t believe Darryl is trying to shift loyalties but I do think it’s fair to say that he’s trying (however unconsciously) to create/spread counter-mythologies. And yeah, that’s not really history. That’s as you (and as he to be fair) say, storytelling. And very good storytelling. But if you can’t puncture holes in your own stories then it just won’t pass muster for a lot of people.
That’s where going through formal graduate programs forces you to expose your analysis to very competent peers and professors. When I listen Darryl’s content I don’t get too bent out of shape since my disagreements are those that I would have had with colleagues in my grad program in either formal settings or over beers. The big difference is Darryl seems to go through that process of external examination on X or in the podcast-sphere. Which is strange because he’s a BJJ guy, if you want to be super good at BJJ you go to a world-class gym and train with the best. You don’t go into an alley and pick a fight with randoms. Just head scratching to me.
Thrilled to see it and well deserved!
Your article reminded me of a history from 30 years ago by Gerhard Weinberg titled A World at Arms. I was a book I enjoyed a lot. Apparently Weinberg is still alive at the age of 97. He was involved in academic arguments in the 1960s with historians (mainly German) who said that the war was started by the Allies and Poland and not by the Germans (sound familiar?).
I’ll check it out, thanks!
it is a long book
Consider that a challenge 😁
i will be interested to hear what you think of the book.
It sounds like sloppy/borderline deceitful historiography is the only serious issue you have with Darryl. What are your thoughts on the fact that he fully agrees, in his own words, with multiple people in his comments section who believe that the Jews are a malign influence on the word who are responsible for most of the bad things that have happened to the US in the last century and the Western world writ large?
Not that these opinions mean you have some obligation to drop him as a friend or denounce him, but it should surely color your view of his historical commentary and narrative..
For myself as a Jewish listener of his, I am still able to enjoy his work where it touches upon Jews as a sort of anti-Jewish steelman that forces me to think through my understanding of history more carefully, and where it doesn't really interact with Jewish people (like his Aztec episode or the Jonestown series or the labor rights series) as just a good yarn that leads me down different historical rabbit-holes and the addition of dozens of new books to my thriftbooks wishlist.
But as someone doing critical analysis of his work, this really is something that needs to be confronted and integrated.
I honestly haven’t seen that in his comment section so I can speak to that (any links would be appreciated!). I have not heard him make any claims like that in his work, and in fact, I distinctly remember him outright refuting some Great Replacement BS in his second Whose America series where he makes it clear that it just because one of the judges involved in increasing immigration was Jewish doesn’t indicate anything about Jews, especially because the people it negatively affected WERE Jews. But that’s just one example and there could be plenty I haven’t seen. I know he isn’t particularly fond of Israel, which can easily manifest for most people in tolerance for pretty noxious views.
I'm not sure how to link Substack comments, will give it a shot if I have some time tonight. In the meantime if you have 5 minutes you really should just scroll through the comments on the "housecleaning" piece you mentioned and look for all of his replies. A good half of them are him agreeing with the JQ premise of the commenter but saying "nevertheless anger and hate are unproductive"
Ahh okay. I’ll give that one a look, and maybe jump back to his other antisemitism related posts to see if I can find anything. In regards to the housecleaning post he told me his goal with that was to try to pull people back from the brink of obsession so that’s why he’s willing to indulge them, which on the one hand I respect but on the other see it as perhaps naive/pointless.
This humanising, empathising, sympathising is a red herring. Cooper is simply providing more detail, so that simplistic caricature is replaced with greater understanding of events.
And the NYT are hypocrites, because when they do this, it’s called “nuance”.
Wait which humanizing, etc? That the NYT is supposedly doing? Or what Darryl is trying to do? I do think that’s what Darryl is trying to do—provide greater broader context—but his presentation of that as unique doesn’t really hold water if you even give a cursory look into Third Reich historiography, especially post-1992. Again I’m not sure what he means when he says “court history of WWII” because most mainstream historians would likely agree that a simplistic view is incorrect. If he means like Hollywood movies, then sure, but that’s a cultural critique not a historical one.
Hey, those of us who know your work are not particularly impacted by this kind of thing. The NYT editorial page is inhabited by intellectual lightweights who assume that because they paid for a really expensive education they know more than the rest of us.
Can’t fully disagree with that characterization there, though I’ve become far more convinced that NPR has an even worse problem with that kind of consumer and staffer.