When Dumb Americans Shocked about the History of Europe.. It gets worse

Why did the Romans build the Eiffel Tower so far away from Rome? Actually, the Romans didn't build the Eiffel Tower at all. The Eiffel Tower was built in Paris, France in 1889, long after the Roman Empire had ended. What? I thought it was like thousands of years old. It might feel iconic, but the Eiffel Tower is a little over 130 years old. It was built for the 1889 World's Fair. Not ancient, but still quite an impressive piece of history. What? Okay, how old is Rome? Isn't it like 200 years old? Rome is far older. It dates back to around 753 BCE. What? That's almost older than America. It sure is. In fact, it's way older. Rome has been around for millennia, while the United States is just a couple of centuries old. Different parts of the world have different timelines. What? If you're thinking, what? Because history is surprising? That's completely normal. Yeah. History is so surprising. It really is. More things I learned about Europe from living in the U.S. The capital of Europe is Paris. The only European country I had been to was England. Unfortunately, I didn't get to see the Eiffel Tower when I was there. But, you know, next time. I think the only alcohol they have over there is beers and wines. And they mainly eat, I think, pasta and pizza. Like in Rome. Sorry, Rome isn't in Europe. I'm so stupid. I'm not 100% sure, but I don't think they have cars over there. They have trains, and then they walk around. They love wearing, like, bedazzled clothes. Like, bedazzled jeans is so European. I mean, they have Amsterdam, the fashion capital of the world. I know Europe has a king and queen. No! Wait, she just died. Who do they have now? What do you mean the British only studied history for about five years in school? Like, their entire formal schooling, they only spent around five years of that learning history? Like, is that seriously correct? Because that explains so much. Because obviously you can't study all of history in five years. That's like one hour a day, I imagine, for five years. That's not going to teach you everything. Americans learn history for 13 years straight. From the very first day of kindergarten all the way to the last day of 12th grade, you will have a history class. It is one of the core classes that you must take. English, history, science, math. Every single year you have to get at least one of those classes. No matter what. So this means that we have 13 years, sometimes two semesters in a class, somewhere between 13 to 20 different history classes that we must complete to get our diploma. And each of these history classes is a completely different perspective. So it's like U.S. history, state history, local history, world history, specifically English history. It might be art history. So you're looking specifically at a very niche form of history, specifically through the lens of art. There's a lot of different ways you can look at history, but if you only have five years, yeah, it's going to be a simplified version. And that actually really does explain a lot why the standards for you guys might seem different for us. Because I can see why you guys assume we don't learn foreign history if you guys only learn English history because that's all you have time for. I can totally see why you'd assume we only learn American history. But we don't. Because I've had so many people in my comments trying to pull like, well, you guys didn't have to learn about the Tudors of the Stone Age or the Iron Age. It's like, yeah, we did. Every single one of those we did. We actually had to write a report for literally all of those. So I can tell you a lot about all of those. But I understand why there seems to be that disconnect. Because if you guys are only learning about your history, it's safe to assume that everyone else is probably learning about their history too. But that's not the case in America. We literally spend 13 straight years learning history. So it's wild to me that people think that Americans don't know history because we're definitely taught history. In the video I posted yesterday about how easy it is to rage bait English people, a lot of them were commenting the whole, like, well, Americans are stupid. You guys, half of you think Europe is a country. And you know what? I'll bite. You successfully baited me into this argument. I don't care about most things that European people think Americans are stupid about. But this is just the one that bothers me in particular because it's not a matter of Americans not knowing geography. It is a cultural difference in the way that we travel. So in Europe, it is, in my experience, much easier to travel from one country to the other than it is in North America, for example. Because most of the countries in Europe are much smaller and because they are all connected to each other, it is very easy to just pay $100 for a train ticket, ride two hours, and boom, you're in another country. I have also learned online that people in most European countries get much more vacation time than we do here in the U.S. Now, us over here in America, we get very little vacation time, first and foremost. Second of all, it costs a lot of money to fly over to any country in Europe, hundreds if not sometimes thousands of dollars. And when I traveled from South Florida, a state on the eastern coast of the U.S., to Spain, a country on the western coast of Europe, it took like seven hours, eight hours, something like that. So imagine how long it would take if somebody from further west in the U.S. was traveling to Europe, especially a country further east in Europe. All this to say, when most Americans travel to the European continent, yes, I know that it's a continent, they're visiting more than one country when they go. They're not just going to one country. And so yeah, when Americans talk about their vacation, and they say, oh yeah, when I went to Europe, they're not going to say, oh yeah, when I went to France and Germany and Belgium and the Netherlands and had a stop in England. They're going to say when I traveled to Europe, obviously. And also because many of the countries in Europe are connected through the EU, yes, I know that England is not part of the EU, I know an American knows that too. It also means that certain infrastructure, policy, so on and so forth, is going to be more consistent from country to country, which is not the case here in North America at all. Between Canada, the US, Mexico, all the other smaller countries, we don't have the same currency. We don't have the same infrastructure. We don't have really anything that connects us in that way. So no, Americans are not stupid. We don't think that Europe is a country. We just travel to multiple countries at a time when we go to Europe, and it's easier to just say we went to Europe. And mind you, if you came to the US and visited only one state in America, which in America our states are much more similar to smaller countries than they are to one giant country, hence why each state even has its own constitution and its own legislative body, they are all extremely culturally different from one another, and yet an American would never tell you, you didn't go to America, you only went to California. Even though we'd be justified in saying it because America is such a diverse place and every single state is so different from one another that you can't judge America based off of one state. But we wouldn't say that to you because we're not assholes. Most Americans don't realize that without France, America very well might still be part of England. At the end of the Revolutionary War, to the later history, France sent a platoon of ships over to help finish off the British. And they did that at the perfect time. So, I think us Americans, we all need to be a little more historically grateful, if you will, to France. Why does Europe use Celsius when the rest of the world uses Fahrenheit? Actually, most of the world uses Celsius. It's the standard in nearly every country except a handful. No, no, America uses Fahrenheit. Yes, exactly. The US is one of the few countries that uses Fahrenheit, along with a couple of others in limited contexts. Yeah, but Fahrenheit is better than Celsius. Yeah, but who cares about science? No, America is behind that. No doubt about that. Like America. The stupid thing that a lot of Europeans have said is that their countries have existed for so much longer, the history is so much longer there than it is in the Americas. While that is directly not true because there were people here for just as long, essentially, as people in Europe, also, their government structures are younger than the United States of America. In case you didn't know, the US Constitution is the longest-running constitution. It is the longest-running republic or democracy, depending on how you want to say it, even though the United States is a republic, in the world. This map right here shows all the different countries and how long their government structure has existed. Many of them had existed after World War II, post-1940. Well, I think government structures, it doesn't really matter. There's obviously a lot of really awesome history in Europe. Lots of history. I love European history. Don't get me wrong. I love the history there, but it's a really weird thing to say. It's like, well, your country doesn't exist. Well, what's a country? A country is technically the Constitution because country borders are constantly changing. The people in a country are constantly changing. So technically, you guys are younger than us. Even the United Kingdom technically changed in 1922 from the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland when they freed Ireland. Before that, they united as Great Britain and Ireland in 1801. Now, I definitely would say this one or this one is also a very accurate assessment of when your government started over there in the UK. So I don't know if I believe it. However, technically, the formation of the government was 1922. Does any of this matter? No, not at all. It doesn't matter at all. But when I hear a stupid argument that people say a lot of like, your country doesn't exist, the history doesn't exist. One, you're completely ignoring all the people who are native to this land. But then also, you're ignoring the fact that your country's government structure technically is younger than ours. Unless you live in the Vatican or San Marino, but those aren't real countries anyways. Can we agree on that? Those aren't real countries. The only reason that Europeans can afford health care and long vacations is because Americans pay for their defense and medical research and development through taxes, two of the most expensive things. You know what? Every time you post, you make a fool out of yourself. It's just total bullshit, all the time. Here's a fun fact. Many Europeans can't afford a vacation right now because the U.S. started a war with Iran. That would be an ignorant question, but is it egotistical for Americans to think that Europeans should know our historical figures? Before y'all get riled up, let me explain. Today in my English class, my teacher almost lost his crap. Literally, this man was having an aneurysm. He was so shocked. Because he made a comment referencing Babe Ruth, and no one knew who it was. For reference, I go to IE. It's a very international school, and I think I was the only American in the class. Then in Spanish class, our teacher gave us a list of women and said, okay, describe them in Spanish. And there was genuine confusion on who Amelia Earhart was. And yes, I know this is Spain, so knowing about American figures doesn't really do much for Spanish life, Spanish society. But here's where I get a bit lost. Y'all have a history that is at least five times longer and more extensive than mine. All with different kings, leaders, bishops, knights. Pretty much everyone is super important all of the time. You'll judge me if I don't know who Louis V's dog walker's aunt was because apparently she was pivotal in signing a treaty. But yet you can't tell me who Sacagawea was. Amelia Earhart. I actually think that's where I'm more screwed up. Amelia Earhart. And obviously, yes, it's impossible to know everyone everywhere. I'm not saying any of this to ---- on y'all. I just find it funny. If you watch our movies, are inspired by our lifestyle, know who our famous people are. I promise there's more to us than just burgers and pew-pews. But I don't know. Is it egotistical of me to say this? Let me know. First impressions of seeing euros for the first time. Here we go. Money has different sizes. Like what? Like the smaller the value, the smaller the bill. Wait a daggone tootin' minute. What? I didn't know they were different sizes. Like I knew the colors were crazy and the design's really cool. I did a whole video over on MoreJTReacts learning about the euros. I don't think once did they mention their different sizes. That makes so much sense. It's a dollar. It's gonna be a smaller bill. What the heck? If you see here, the $10 is the smallest one. And then the $20 is the second in size. And then the $50 and then the $100. Dude, the euro makes American money look like dookie. Like dude. But yeah, we got a couple little different colors. Like we got one that's supposed to be blue. Then like a 10 has like some orange to it. But for the most part, they're just a dull green. And there is just so much that goes into the euros. Like little details that nobody would ever realize unless you actually like deep dove into what every single thing on the euro means. Because every single thing on these bills means something. Like it has a purpose. $5 looks. Is the $5 gonna be even smaller than this? I'm used to like money having national heroes or presidents or something. What are on you guys' money? What is this? Just like a building. What looks like a bridge at the back here. I'm pretty sure. Like I said, I watched a whole video about it. I'm pretty sure all of the like the buildings and little structures that are on the euro aren't even real buildings. Like they're all like AI generated pretty much. Because like the big thing since so many different countries use the euro. They didn't want to like show favoritism to one specific country. I like putting like one specific building from one country on the bill. Then all these other countries have to use it. So instead they literally just created like random structures to put on it. So I think that's really cool. Not showing favoritism in just like the little simplest ways like that. The money itself feels very... It feels like monopoly money. If I'm being honest. Really? Because ours almost feels like a t-shirt. Like our money, yeah, it's paper. But it's like a weird feeling paper, you know. It's pretty. It's nice and colorful. But the sizes just threw me off. Like why do you have different sizes? Yeah, I did not know that. The images on the bills are actually a very cool concept. They represent bridges equals means of connection with the different architectural styles. There we go. Among all European countries, Roman, Romantic, etc. Does he mean et cetera? Or is that a country? I don't know. That's pretty cool though. The bridges mean, hey, we're all connected. Or is there just like, yeah, throw George Washington on it. Why not? Why does Belgium exist? Belgium. It's a country which often has to justify its own existence. Sandwiched between France, Germany and the Netherlands. Its population is divided amongst those who speak well, French, German and Dutch. Oh, is this a thing? Is this because that's like I've never really heard of a country described in that way. Like having to justify its existence. Like, really? Is that something that people think about Belgium? And I certainly didn't know about this language. Like, really? In Belgium, it's literally geographically split between speaking what languages? Its population is divided amongst those who speak well, French, German and Dutch. French, German and Dutch. So it's not like I've actually never heard of that before. I was about to say, so what's the, you know, the main language of Belgium? Like, what's the language? It's actually, is it split evenly between three? Or more so like two of them? And that, how does that work? I am so confused. I've never heard of anything quite like this. Since about six seconds after its foundation, other nations have often spoke of dividing Belgium up. So given how often its existence has both been questioned and threatened, there's an obvious question to answer. Why does Belgium exist? The first thing to answer. Why does Belgium? I gotta say, like I said at the beginning, I've heard the name of this country before, Belgium. But I don't know anything about it. And I certainly didn't know. This is very strange to me. Maybe if you're like European or if you know more about this stuff, this is like, oh yeah, Belgium. Three languages, people debating over whether it should be separated into different countries. What? The first thing to answer is how Belgium came into existence in the first place. After the Napoleonic Wars, Europe was a drastically changed continent. And one of the major changes that occurred was that the Austrian Netherlands was incorporated into the brand new United Kingdom of the Netherlands. King William I of the Netherlands was a Protestant who had little interest in preserving the rights of the South's Catholic residents. He used much of the South's industrialized economy to fund the North. And he was also a bit of a despot. This was obviously a problem. And in 1830, when riots broke out, talk soon turned to secession. William tried to crush the revolt, but many troops in the South quickly defected. William needed help. And so he asked the great powers for assistance. And the great powers did help. But they helped the South and recognize the new country's independence. And the new country was called Belgium. Wow. So this was like a revolution. Like a part of this country just wanting to become independent. And a bunch of other countries came in and kind of helped with it. Very interesting. It seems like kind of a complicated situation, to be completely honest. Why do Americans think we won World War II and saved the world? Before I answer this question, I want to point out two interesting things from these surveys. First, we are not alone in thinking that our country did the most to defeat Nazi Germany. The British are apparently just as bad. Around 50% of Brits think that they did the most. And depending on the survey, between 47% and 55% of Americans think that the U.S. did the most. And this comment I just got while making this video is one of those Americans. But in Russia, as many as 60% of all Russians, according to one poll at least, think that they could have won World War II, or the Great Patriotic War as they call it, without help from the other allies. So obviously we're all biased as ****. Second interesting survey-based point. The U.S. is not the only country that thinks that the U.S. did the most to win the war. Germans and Scandinavians also think that, although their percentages are lower than the U.S., of course. But France, their percentage is even higher than the U.S. Wow. But what's more interesting is that that changed over time. French people who were asked in May 1945 who did the most to defeat Nazi Germany said it was the Soviets. Why did that change happen? I'd argue the same reason, generally, why the U.S. over-emphasizes its role and under-emphasizes the role of the Soviet Union. The Cold War. For decades, the Soviet Union was the West's nemesis, and they wanted to downplay the significance of the Eastern Front, or simply not talk about it. And in the U.S., that dovetails, of course, with American exceptionalism. The idea that the U.S. is inherently different, and the greatest, and destined to be the leader of the free world, and yes, a wonderful addendum to that narrative is the idea that the U.S. saved the world from fascism. And to speak cynically, but also accurately, the U.S. is the perfect storm of ignorance and arrogance. Which is connected to the third reason the U.S. education system, spoiler alert, is garbage. In my high school, we talked a lot about the U.S.'s role in World War II, both in the Pacific and in Europe. The usual Pearl Harbor D-Day, Rosie the Riveter, the atomic bombings, but also the crucial role of Lend-Lease. And in my school, we also focused a lot on the Holocaust. And it's of course a nice thought to think that we saved Europe from this genocidal maniac. We sometimes call World War II the Good War, and the generation that fought it, the greatest generation. The greatest generation. We hardly talked about the Eastern Front, but I do remember reading in my textbook, 25 million Soviets dead. And I thought to myself, what? How did we not talk about this? We spent weeks talking about the Holocaust, and rightly so, but we didn't spend any time talking about 25 million dead? And the final reason I'd mention why we think the U.S. won World War II is saving Private Ryan. It's become the most popular World War II film. It's powerful. It profoundly impacted me when I first saw it. It got me interested in World War II history. And when Americans think about World War II, that's often the image they have. But there is no saving Private Ryan for the Eastern Front. But a very powerful Soviet war film that is not nearly as well known is this one. And if you were to mention to Americans Stalingrad, Leningrad, the Battle of Berlin, the Battle of Kursk, they'd be like, who's Kursk? So, who won World War II and what role did the U.S. play? I'll try to make a video about that sometime. But it was the Allies. The Allies won. Studies have shown that only 11% of Americans that went to public school in the United States have an understanding of Eastern Europe. This is obviously a simplified version, but this is what you need to know. Post-World War II, the Soviet Union was massive. And all of the countries in this orange region weren't technically part of the Soviet Union, but it was under Soviet rule. And the Berlin Wall is crazy to think about because a city was cut in the middle and East Germany was Soviet and the other part was Germany. This yellow region was considered Yugoslavia and their vibes didn't really align with the Soviet Union. This was like a relationship that wanted the same things but were just on different parts of their journey. Because they were obviously both communists, but they just couldn't get things to align at the same time. But what still makes this region significantly different today than Western Europe is their economic structure. Let's think about the school lunch system in the United States. Students don't have a say what's going to be on the lunch menu. The school board decides that. This is obviously complex because there's so many different walks of life coming to school lunch. But school lunches are typically calorie-dense because they are tailoring towards students that don't get a lot of food at home and know that school lunch is their number one meal. Which means this isn't the best system for students that maybe are overweight or need a little bit different diversity in their diet. This would be considered a government-based economy because the school system is trying to decide what's best for the people. Versus students taking it into their own hands and one person saying that I can make the best peanut butter and jelly sandwich, my mom works for the chip factory, I have an abundant supply of apples, and I literally know how to make Kool-Aid jammers. Two apples equals one peanut butter and jelly sandwich. Chips and Kool-Aid jammers are a one-to-one ratio. But almost all of these countries gained independence in 1991 which means every single one of these economies was shifting from government to market-based economies. Basically overnight they went from being told what was best for them to figuring out how to create their own form of economy. In some ways this is like being a millennial where we're all just trying to figure it out at the same time. Europeans have never been independent. Never. Not politically. Not economically. Not intellectually. Not spiritually. Not materially. Europe was never some self-made civilization standing alone on the edge of history. Europe was a peninsula of Asia. Surrounded by older worlds. Fed by older trade routes. Instructed by older sciences. Enriched by older labor. And rescued again and again by people it later pretended were beneath it. And that did not stop when Europe crossed the ocean. The United States was not independent. It was a European settler colony built on indigenous land. African labor. Stolen Mexican territory. Caribbean extraction. Asian exclusion. Pacific expansion. And global empire. It declared independence from Britain while depending on enslaved Africans to produce its wealth. Indigenous dispossession to expand its borders. And imported European political myths to justify itself. Australia was not independent. It was a British settler colony planted on aboriginal land. Built through invasion. Massacres. Forced removals. Stolen children. Prison labor. Imperial law. And the fantasy of Terra Nullius. They called it settlement because organized theft with a flag and bad paperwork sounded too honest. Canada was not independent. It was a French and British settler project built on First Nations. Métis. And Inuit lands. Held together by treaties broken by the state. Residential schools. Resource extraction. And a monarchy still sitting in the background like a powdered wig landlord pretending to not smell the basement. New Zealand was not independent. It was a British settler colony imposed on Maori land. Wrapped in treaty language. Land courts. Military campaigns. And colonial law. Then polished into a postcard so the theft could look scenic. South Africa was not independent. Dutch and British settlers did not build freedom. They built racial capitalism. Land theft. Mining empires. Pass laws. Apartheid. And a whole architecture of domination that needed African labor while denying African humanity. Rhodesia was not independent. It was a settler colonial tantrum in a stolen house. Declaring sovereignty over land that was never theirs. And then acting surprised when history came to collect rent. Israel is not independent in the way settler states pretend to be independent. It depends on displacement. Militarization. Western backing. U.S. aid. European guilt. Colonial borders. And the constant denial of Palestinian existence. Every European settler state carries this same contradiction. They scream independence while depending on the people they dispossessed. They wave flags over land they did not create. They build capitals on graves. Write constitutions over theft. Call invasion settlement. Call dependence sovereignty. And occupation civilization. The USA. Australia. Canada. New Zealand. Rhodesia. Israel. And every other European settler project inherited Europe's oldest habit. Surviving off the world while pretending the world owes them respect. Europeans were never independent. They were networked. Supplied. Taught. Fed. Financed. Carried. Protected. Settled on stolen land. Enriched by stolen labor. Armed by empire. Excused by myth. When the world remembers that, the whole settler-colonial fantasy starts shaking. Cope.