This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
On a historical front, your long history of US-backed regime change is predominately the Cold War, when Latin America underwent a number of civil wars, with coups and attempted coups by various factions. If there is to be a chilling effect here, it would be because everything is chilling, not because the Americans are uniquely so.
More to the point, your list is anachronistic. There's a reason that only two cited events are after 1980, with one of them being the Panama invasion against a person who had functionally couped the Panamanian government, and the other being that time when the modern Venezuelan government ousted its own opposition-led legislature (which did not, in fact, involve a coup). This is neither a particularly long history, except by the short-history paradigm of Americans, nor is it particularly recent history, and the parts that are recent don't particularly mesh with the narrative of the past history. It does, however, miss all the other sorts of oustings / coups / palace maneuverings, which would be relevant to determine how much of something is a relatively important factor versus not.
On the agency-front, your framing is demonstrating the issue Nybbler was raising. Simply calling something like the Cold War military coups US-backed regime change is a framing device to re-characterize what would normally just be recognized as a internal government coup- which Latin America has had a history of without American involvement. While it fits a narrative, since it can imply that the coup governments wouldn't have occurred / wouldn't have been successful / wouldn't have done as they did without the Americans, this obscures rather than addresses the point that the post-WW2 Latin America had a number of civil wars and active insurgencies going on, for reasons the Americans were not responsible for, and that the Latin American governments have had a history of government instability- i.e. regime change- both before and after the American moment.
While Latin American nationalism, especially of the leftist slant, does like to rally against the Yankees, it doesn't really address that large parts of Latin American countries were willing to kill eachother, and that willingness or ability didn't come from the Americans.
This cultural chauvenism denies due credit to all the Latin Americans, who have a long and well established historical and contemporary records of turning regional countries into
breadbasketsbasket cases in further of personal or ideological interests, without needing the assistance of the Americans to do so and often in direct opposition to the yankees.Down with Yankee-centricism! Give the Latinos their credit!
More options
Context Copy link