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 -
My point is that observably other people in the world are not doing that by choice. One identity has to win over the others. Even within Britain, the English identity being the dominant one is still not a settled issue. and then even within England the dominance of the South over the North is a live issue. So expecting it will be throughout Europe is just not going to happen.
Why are you so against keeping the unique identities of Europe and replacing it with some homogeneity? Within the US it may make sense for some kind of shared American identity to form, but America is so big, what you instead get are groupings that are very different from one another, I simply do not see that as a model for some kind of shared whiteness. I identify somewhat with the Appalachian borderers being as my family is Ulster-Scots and I identify somewhat with WASPs because another part of my family is English Protestants. And indeed within the black community, I can see the strand of where they inherited some of that borderer honor culture. My wife's uncles and my uncles have some very similar points of view despite being from different continents and being different races (both disowning gay sons!). I have more in common sometimes with those black firefighters than I do with my white Blue Tribe colleagues.
Alliances are a very different thing than identity. It's absolutely fine to have alliances over political needs, and desires, but that doesn't mean you have a shared identity. Alliances are practical and can shift and change depending on circumstances.
I’m not sure what you mean by “it isn’t a choice, one identity has to win out.” I’m trying to think of an example of what you mean but I only find counterexamples in the context of enlarged group dynamics. Someone could grow up in Pakistan where tribes matter, and then move to America and join the Desi student organization or a Southeast Asian networking society, while internalizing a story about colonialism and racism (anti-white) that may no even apply to their tribe. This example can just as well apply to a Native American who usefully identifies as “indigenous”, or a Saudi tribal member who begins to identify as Arab, or any other group. Even Korean descendants in America may cease to hate Japan and affiliate with Asian Umbrella organizations from middle school even to their job at Google, where they may advocate for more Asian employees without regard for Koreans specifically. All of this is volitional and the choice is informed by an intuitive allegiant identity, an organic understanding that you and your kin are better positioned by combining together related groups. This is, in fact, the very story of Europe until 21st century philosophers desperately tried to revise it. Your “English” identity came about through a useful amalgamation, but of course, Cornwall will always be unique culturally right? But if you had British members stationed in India in 1910, the obvious group dynamic would be that the Welsh and Scottish and British are one group — even if at home they have separate interests.
Is that not immaterial? Even within my household the dominance of the Apple TV between me and my sibling was a live issue. Even within my grandparents’ progeny the dominance over a house may be a live issue. This can apply in infinitely large or infinitely small directions, but whenever we look at group dynamics we clearly see the allegiant identities I mention above. Eg, where India is concerned, the petty squabbles of Pakistani tribes no longer matter.
Keep them until they get boring, it doesn’t matter, but
is absolutely essential unless you want zero power, demotivated children and probable replacement. In other words, if you genuinely love your unique identity, you must understand that it’s a small branch of a larger tree, and there is already someone with an axe trying at the trunk beneath you.
I disagree, even the earliest identity in Europe was the conscious decision by an old tribal leader, and even the identity “Welsh” or “Scottish” is the consequence of an old alliance. And Anglo-Saxon and all the other hyphenated-Brits… The clearest example of an allegiant identity is maybe Italian, which had different languages and customs at the time of its unification. Really I think it’s some sort of intuitive utilitarian formula. You can interbreed your identity but it will eventually become irrelevant, or you can combine it prudently and have a defensible identity, not unlike a country — or a union of “Greek” states.
But that is just temporary. Take them back home and they split. That is my point, it's an alliance not an erasure of the identity in the first place. If there were one identity. they would all just be British.
Temporary alliance based upon the situation is an entirely different animal than having one singular identity as you claim they must if they are to survive. The Scot and the Welshmen may then ally against the Englishmen in other situations. Temporary alliances based upon the situation seem to provide the benefit you want, without having to set aside the unique identities.
And in some circumstances perhaps the Scot and a Frenchman would ally against the Englishman, or a Jamaican and an Irishman against the Englishmen. (There is perhaps a pattern here.)
Keeping your options open as to which group is best to ally with, seems much the best choice, because it may not be those physically closest to you, or even culturally so, dependent on the situation.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link