I've worked in all kinds of places over the last 20 years, and rigid commit standards are the least useful thing ever. If you don't know how to review code in any other way than the way that you know, then that really isn't my problem.

Large commits are difficult and lengthy to review and merge in.

We have different definitions of "large" and "small", no doubt, but large commits have never been a problem for me to review. I can read code, it's what I do. YMMV.

Again, I've worked at plenty of places in the last 20 years, before git, before github, and code reviews were not a problem then, and aren't a problem now, no matter what kind of commit history there is.

You're the git snob, because you're thinking you're better than other people because you have a specific way of using git that everyone else must use or they are somehow defective. THAT is how you are acting.