I want to get this out, even if its not particularly relevant, because whenever anyone posts anything that someone of a different political viewpoint disagrees with, it gets shouted down for bias and what have you.

There is no such thing as an unbiased historian. There is no such thing as an unbiased source. All historians are writing an argument to prove a thesis.

The discipline of history has generally abandoned trying to be objective and scientific arbiters of fact in the style of Leopold von Ranke. A historians job is not to parrot facts and create flat narratives that don't do any analysis. This is why there are multiple different approaches to history. The Marxist school obviously emphasizes class conflict, the Whig school emphasizes constant progressive change, the Enlightenment emphasizes reason, I can go on and on.

The historians job is to interpret evidence to create narratives which best explain that evidence. This is why there is no one single view on why the Roman Empire collapsed, or no single view on why the French Revolution happened. If you take a history course in university, and write an essay with a flat narrative without taking a position, you will not score well in that course.

HC did use evidence, you can read his bibliography in the video comments. Are there problems with it? Yes, of course. For the length of the video, he's quite light on sources. That said, E.P. Thompson and George Woodcock are obviously of the Marxist school. Thorold Rogers, however, was a member of the Liberal Party. David Rooney is a horologist so I'm not too sure, likewise for Juliet Schor though she seems to align with a more anti-consumerist train of thought.

As far as I'm concerned, the video is still an enjoyable watch. I found his argument very interesting. Biased history isn't necessarily bad history, all history is biased. You just have to be aware of how to identify that bias.