site banner
PaperclipPerfector  2mo ago (text post)   1386 thread views

Transnational Thursday for August 29, 2024

Transnational Thursday is a thread for people to discuss international news, foreign policy or international relations history. Feel free as well to drop in with coverage of countries you’re interested in, talk about ongoing dynamics like the wars in Israel or Ukraine, or even just whatever you’re reading.

1
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

From a white ethnonationalist perspective, any European expression of ethnonationalist sentiment is immediately suspect if the Washingtonian globohomo empire / GAE not only permits it to exist but actively encourages and bankrolls it as a local enforcer of its overseas aspirations. It's doubly suspect if it's justified by claims of ethnogenesis that have no basis in reality, unlike those of Polish, Baltic and Finnish nationalists, to be fair to them.

Western Ukraine(and the astroturfed "Ukrainian" identity is mostly Galician supremacy) was not, historically, part of Russia, it was part of Poland(well technically Austria for much of the period, but you get the point). Claiming there to be no real distinction from Russia is simply dumb; the closest culture is a western Slavic one.

Now anti-Americanism as a basis for supporting Russia at least makes sense, but 'Ukraine isn't really based' doesn't.

Correct. Galicia is certainly distinctive. Preserving Galician identity makes complete sense there. But the Crimea, the Donbass, Novorossiya are not Galicia.

Neither is the Chechen Republic Russia, yet if you say that in public in Russia you'll be charged with advocating for secession. Borders are even more fake than ethnicities. And certainly, the only reason the Russian government has started to trump up the "historical Russian cities" bullshit in the past few years is the geopolitical convenience.

False equivalence. Galicia was never a nation, not even a sovereign entity as far as I know, and probably shouldn't be one either (but that's another matter). You can say Chechnya was never a part of Muscovy, and that'd be correct.

Muscovy didn't spawn from the ether as an ethnic atom, either. The rules are made up and the points do not matter. What matters is that some countries take a bloody war to convince being/remaining a part of another country and some don't. Out of pure personal pragmatism, I consider only the latter arrangements legitimate.

Ethnicity is a meme. There is never any essential, objective "basis in reality". In that regard, if the Ukrainian nationalists can meme it like the Finns did, they they have it.

Unlike the Ukrainians, unfortunately (for this point of view, that is) the Finns aren't Slavs, aren't Orthodox Christians and have their own peculiar language.

And?

You're regurgutating Russian justifications for their very mundane geopolitical ambitions, not any real obstacles that would prevent ethnogenesis. Humans are evolved to break themselves apart into groups much smaller than a modern nation-state.

And?

And that means that Finns are markedly different from Russians in multiple aspects. Ukrainians, on the other hand, aren't.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats