Pinker makes this argument in his book on violence: He makes violence per capita and lumps all state/non state violence together (so essentially how likely are you to die a violent death). Since modern states really do provide an incredible amount of security to individual persons (tribal societies are incredibly violent)

it's really not that convincing (though the "crash course" doesn't really seem to make this claim. Based on my quick skim of the video: it seems the author is justifying his claim by pointing out the 20th century saw the emergence of peace movements and that's a horrible argument for his position so i'm going to ignore it). It neglects the ability of the state to launch massively destructive attacks such as the cultural revolution or Khmer Rouge atrocities while removing the power of individuals to do harm to other individuals without state license. That being said it is an interesting way to look at state violence.

If it was on crash course and it's an "interpretive statement" it's likely wrong. This is the same series that said, in the same sentence as Hitler, that Stalin's Russia was "like, the least democratic place ever."