site banner
PaperclipPerfector  19d ago (text post)   30927 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of December 2, 2024

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.

4
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

This doesn't seem to be the case in China. Even today, there are people who can trace direct male lineage to Confucius who lived around 500 BC.

I saw one of these guys in Qufu when I was a student. He was writing and selling calligraphic scrolls on the side of the road. He had a sign with his portrait on it and some official-looking, diploma-like certificate stapled to his sign. "Wow, is he really an actual descendent of Confucius?" I asked my professor, who was born and raised not far away. "Probably, I don't know. There are a lot of them." she replied. She seemed completely unimpressed. And that was when I began to wonder if I was a bit naïve.

Westerners often credulously believe claims like this because (1) Chinese have a radically different view of "lying" that Westerners don't have natural defenses against unless they've lived in China or a similar third world country, (2) Chinese (individuals too, not just the government) find it in their interest to promote stories that prove China's equality or superiority to the West, (3) all the sources that would debunk nonsense claims like this are written in Chinese and this unable to diffuse into the Western consciousness.

"China" does not have 5,000 years of history any more than "France" has 3,000 years of history.
Chinese did not invent soccer, or sashimi, or beer, or the seismograph.
Chinese cannot trace descent from antiquity with a level of confidence that would be taken seriously in the West.
"Truth" in China is not the same as "Truth" in the West.

"Truth" in China is not the same as "Truth" in the West.

Can you write more about this? It seems like a very important cultural distinction.

Truth is much more fluid than we often given it credit, even in the West. Yeah nerdy/sciency/rationalist types are going to focus on statements being made with "truth" but compare with "no defund the police doesn't mean defund the police" types or "don't take Trump literally" most people engage with reality in a more flexible way "this is the best meal/game/movie ever" is felt in the moment despite the hyperbolic content.

For non-Western examples, in many countries scamming is taken as a fault of the victim, and face saving activities are more important than literal truth (as is the case in China).

Not sure what OP is talking about specifically but it is likely the way that "lying" is considered more acceptable in China (with the idea that most people in the cultural milieu know what it is exaggerated, false, and accurate).

Probably, I don't know. There are a lot of them

The nature of exponential increase means that all modern Europeans are descended from Charlemagne (probably). Charlemagne lived about 600 years ago. Confucius lived about 2500 years ago. I would assume that all Chinese are descended from him, if not exclusively through the male line.

Charlemagne lived about 600 years ago.

1200 years ago.

@jeroboam

The Romans, the people who lived in the city of Rome circa 500 BC, essentially all died out.

If, as this article says, 80% of all europeans who lived a thousand years ago are ancestors of every single european living today, it’s almost certainly true of the europeans who lived two thousand years ago, ie romans.

If, as this article says, 80% of all europeans who lived a thousand years ago are ancestors of every single european living today, it’s almost certainly true of the europeans who lived two thousand years ago, ie romans.

That seems unlikely. What percentage of people at that time didn't have any children survive to adulthood and were immediately removed from the gene pool?

But let's say it's more like 50% or whatever. There's still important distinctions to be made from those within the 50%. Perhaps person A has 100x as much weight in the current gene mix as person B, even though their genes are both in gene pool somewhere.

In the Middle Ages in England, nobles often had many surviving children, the middle class had a couple, and the poor were lucky to have any. Over hundreds of years, this resulted in massive downward mobility and class replacement. By 1900, almost all of the gene pool of England came from people who were nobles in the year 1200. It was basically a slow-motion genocide of the lower classes, even if small amounts of peasant DNA are still in the mix.

But unlike those hearty English nobleman, Roman families had sub-replacement fertility due to disease and cultural factors. A person who lived in Rome circa 500 BC would have a very small contribution to the modern gene pool, mostly represented by descendants who left Rome at some point.

What percentage of people at that time didn't have any children survive to adulthood and were immediately removed from the gene pool?

Around 16%? The overwhelming majority of adults reproduce.

While in principle, I accept that even a small difference in reproductive fitness can have large consequences way down the generations, I’d like a source for the modern english being around 100 times “more descended” from 13th century nobles than commoners.

The end of old patrician family names means nothing. They had daughters and illegitimate children.

I also doubt that ancient chinese city dwellers managed to considerably out-reproduce the romans despite the same urban constraints and diseases. What’s different about the romans? The chinese were at various times also conquered by barbarian people, who proceeded to establish themselves as the new dynasty and nobility. Shouldn’t then, by your own reasoning, the modern chinese mostly be the descendants of steppe conquerors, while the han peasantry died out?

Plus that bit about the Romans dying out isn’t exactly true, at least not in the implied timeframe. The eastern Roman Empire didn’t fall until 1453 and those people and their descendants absolutely thought of themselves, correctly, as Roman.

There’s actually a famous story about this; in the Greek war of independence in the 1820s the Greek army liberated one of the islands between Greece and Asia Minor. The soldiers were marching through the streets and some boys came up to them and pointed and shouted “Look! The Greeks are here!” And one of the soldiers was utterly perplexed and stated “What are you talking about? You’re Greek! We are speaking Greek right now.” And the boys replied “No, we aren’t Greek. We’re Roman.”

That was almost 400 years after the de facto end of the Roman polity, one that had lasted in some form for about 2000 years.

That plus the modern Romanians are descendants of the Roman people after Dacia was heavily romanized by state decree, it was settled heavily by Latin speaking people who eventually became the Romanian people through ethnogenisis.

The eastern Roman Empire didn’t fall until 1453 and those people and their descendants absolutely thought of themselves, correctly, as Roman.

Whether or not they thought of themselves as Roman, they weren't. When your people haven't lived in the city of Rome for a millennium or so, calling yourself "Roman" is not remotely accurate. Put it this way - Taiwan considers themselves to be Chinese (and the legitimate Chinese government at that), but nobody else does. Possession matters.

No, what happened is what it is to be Roman simply changed. In the beginning it meant living in the city and surrounding area of Rome, then it denoted a status being a citizen of the empire, and after that it became essentially a sort of super-ethnic category that rested atop more specific ethnicity, much like “Latino” or “Arab” or “Desi”.

They went through a process of ethnogenesis. It’s a historically common process, ethnic groups don’t just spring from the earth.

After the 3rd century or so Rome wasn’t even the most important Roman city anymore in any given year.

I don't agree with that at all. To be Roman without involving the city of Rome is a completely incoherent idea. It didn't change.

I’m sorry to say, but you’re simply wrong about this, and any level of cursory knowledge of the Roman Empire would reveal this to you.

Literally millions of people living outside of Rome were considered Roman, even by the people living in Rome. They had the rights of citizens, they called themselves Roman, and other people called them Roman, including their enemies.

Contributions to Roman philosophy, literature and poetry frequently came from outside the city of Rome.

They followed and were subject to Roman law, practiced Roman rites of religion, when the empire converted to Christianity they did too, they had a “Roman way of life” that was particular to them ie culture.

It’s like thinking someone who lives in Dallas isn’t American just because at one point Texas was part of Mexico.

I'm willing to agree that people living in the Roman empire count as Roman. But once the polity doesn't include Rome, it isn't the Roman empire any more. Perhaps not immediately, but by the time the Byzantine empire collapsed it is absurd to call them "Roman" as they haven't had any relation to Rome for something like a thousand years.

Again, by your logic Taiwan is China - but they aren't, and if you refer to "China" nobody thinks you mean the little island of Taiwan too. Possession matters and you can't just ignore it.

More comments

Taiwan considers themselves to be Chinese (and the legitimate Chinese government at that), but nobody else does. Possession matters.

I’m not sure this supports the point you’re trying to make.

It is obviously true that (modulo a small population of foreigners and Taiwanese aboriginals) virtually all inhabitants of Taiwan today are descended from people who came from China. And if you’ve ever paid a visit to the National Palace Museum in Taipei, you’d know that there’s a very real sense in which the people of present-day Taiwan are the heirs to, and the custodians of, the Chinese civilizational patrimony. Perhaps not uniquely so—the overseas Chinese of Malaysia and Singapore, and of course the mainland Chinese, have similar claims, with varying degrees of plausibility—but then again, no one said that the Romanians or the inhabitants of minor outlying islands in the Aegean were the only surviving Sons of Romulus, either.

The difference is that the PRC only really cares about the KMTs dispute of continuity of government from the 1911 Xinhai revolution, which is the theoretical successor to the Imperial China polity and its associated territorial claims. Cultural successors to different time/regions of China include the San Francisco and Flushing Chinatowns which practice the Cantonese ways of the 1800s, the Thai Chinese who practice a syncretic Thai-Teochew pattern of especially gaudy taoism (other southeast Asians are migrants who hold little affection for the mainland), and even the Joseon who at one point proclaimed they were the successors/avengers of Ming China following the Manchu conquest of the Han. Yet all of these are unimportant to the PRC because no one else claims legitimacy over the mainland.

The KMT are in fact colonizers in the truest sense, being a foreign people (KMT nationalist government, soldiers and displaced Nanjing intellectuals) that displaced the local power structures and cultures (Ainu/Japanese colonial subjects+local bureaucrats) while acting as a disputed successor to a foreign regime that had not ruled over Taiwanese for half a century. These putonghua speaking nobles ran roughshod over the minnanyu speaking islanders who cared not for the squabbles of the mainland. That the KMT was entertaining thoughts of reclaiming mainland China through an Operation Revival style invasion of the Inner Sphere was the maim reason for the continual dispute between the PRC and ROC.

Fast forward about 60 years and a LOT of cultural upheavals roiling the world, and the PRC obsession with the ROC seems less like actual intra-Chinese dynastic succession politics that basically characterized the vast majority of Chinese imperial history and more a consequence of a heavily interconnected world with a force of first resort actually able to project power to its vassals. The eastern roman themes draped the livery of Constantinople on their standards, but no levy of Aleppo trained with a Hellenic muster. By contrast the Taiwanese Armed Forces practically beg to be placed under the command and responsibility of their US friends, for force competency and blame absolution purposes. Whether this assessment is accurate or even shared by the PRC is unknown, but it certainly seems that Taiwans irredentist claims to the Qing holdings would not be maintained if Taiwan did not have the US 7th fleet nearby.

Sure I would agree that the people in Taiwan are descended from the Chinese (as the Byzantines were from the Romans). But that doesn't make them Chinese, any more than Australians are English because most of the population is descended from English convicts. Like I said, possession matters. Perhaps the first generation or even second generation of the Byzantines after the fall of Rome could legitimately claim to be Roman. But at some point, it doesn't hold water any more.

Plus that bit about the Romans dying out isn’t exactly true, at least not in the implied timeframe. The eastern Roman Empire didn’t fall until 1453 and those people and their descendants absolutely thought of themselves, correctly, as Roman.

You are misinterpreting me. I made no claims about the Roman state (a rump of which survived until 1453).

But the people of Rome in 500 BC died out. Even the patrician lines vanished. Alexios I Komnenos was not a member of Gens Claudia or something. His ancestors were Greeks.

Does this mean that the Romans of 500 BC had literally zero descendants that survived to today? No, of course not. But hundreds of years of subreplacement fertility means their genetic contribution to the current mix is negligible.

I think most such claims should be taken with a large dose of salt, and I regard anything older than about 200 years so easy to fake that it’s not worth taking seriously. I’ve done my own tree and while the charts would allow me to “claim” William the Conqueror, there’s absolutely no way to prove the entire lineage. And the reason is that it’s easy enough to make mistakes and motivated changes in a genealogy before the widespread use of birth certificates and other documents. Even with them, there’s a fair chance that someone in your family was unfaithful and that ancestor is actually the child of a servant or some random person. It’s just silly on some level for people to take seriously the claims that they’re related to ancient people.

I don’t think for a second that this is something that only happens in China, the bias, I think, comes from growing up in a world where everything is documented by printed documents stored in safes or on a server somewhere. For most of history, that wasn’t true at all. The documents were written by scribes hired by people or organizations rich enough to afford to hire them. Inserting a famous ancestor into your family tree is easy to do when you’re the only people with that record and you want to be related to some great historical figure. The other thing is that because the documents are hand copied, barring a historical accident, most of the stuff that survives to this day is there because it supports those who eventually won. That’s not “a different kind of lying” it’s just history being history at a time when records were kept by hand.

Relatedly, there are a lot of descendants of Muhammed. Almost like such a thing is convenient to claim and you kind of lose track of things over thousands of years.

Have you considered that the reason she's completely unimpressed and said 'there are a lot of them' is, well, that there are indeed a lot of them? Given Confucius's birth in 550 BC and that his main lineage spans 80 generations (and that each main line descendant was given official titles, land, and privileges, so they likely had to be well documented), it's possible that a significant number of modern Chinese can trace their ancestry back to him.

I'm not sure the guy you saw was real, but it's a real thing, and it's been traced for thousands of years:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_tree_of_Confucius_in_the_main_line_of_descent

The current head of the Kong family lives in Taiwan.

it's a real thing

Yeah, real in that people make the claim. As @hydroacetylene pointed out, tons of people also claim descent from Muhammad. This lineage also has a wiki page, does that prove that it's "real?"

In China, it's real enough that the guy who was head of the Kong family in the 1930's was offered the chance to become Japan's puppet Chinese emperor (he wisely refused and fled) and later got to help draft the constitution for the Republic of China and was officially a senior advisor to the president of the ROC/Taiwan from 1948-2000.

I mean it was real enough that an occupation government thought it would be politically useful. I mean there are living descendants of Tsar Nicholas II who might be plausible heads of the Russian Empire. Whether or not they’re actually related is not nearly as important as that they’d be acceptable to the people of Russia and whatever power decides to put them on the throne. Claims to royal lineage are political claims and are thus vetted less through factual evidence than through the lens of acceptable political reality. If the Kong family were not seen as reliably pliant, the line would have been publicly discredited even if true.

A correction to point out, Nicholas II certainly has no legitimate living descendants, the communists killed all his family and the remains for all children were identified in and around the mine shaft (Anastasia's spurious survival is disproven). Current pretenders I think are descendants of Alexander III (father of Nicholas II) or Nicholas I (grandfather of Nicholas II).

Happy St. Nicholas (the bishop of Myra) Day all!

the guy who was head of the Kong family in the 1930's was offered the chance to become Japan's puppet Chinese emperor (he wisely refused and fled)

He knew that if King Kong came to Japan, Godzilla would surely follow.

Some of those guys are probably mythical, but I would expect that a lineage like that has had sufficient eyes on it over time that it's real. Obviously there's a chance of infidelity along the way, but that's almost missing the point in this context - it's clearly about who was recognized as the heir even if they were illegitimate.

I bet tons of guys claim descent from Confucius and it's bullshit, but that doesn't mean that every claim is bullshit.

Hell, my family claims descent from Jean Lafitte and tons of people I know claim descent from Washington, Lee, or both. Statistically, most of them are wrong, and nobody knows where Jean Lafitte went even if it isn't implausible that he retired to obscurity in southern Louisiana.

Claiming descent from illustrious figures is a cultural universal, I believe. No doubt people in England implausibly claim some incredibly diluted royal blood.

I am personally descended from William the Conqueror along with like half of England.

But the Romans essentially died out. Where is the line of Julius Caesar? Of the old patrician families? Gone, baby, gone.

Where is the line of Julius Caesar?

There were people who claimed it and their descendants are still alive today.

Julius's line died out with his children. But Augustus's line may survive; we don't have the information to know.

But the Romans essentially died out. Where is the line of Julius Caesar? Of the old patrician families? Gone, baby, gone.

How could one confirm this? Do we have ancient dna to run the analysis ?

Before modern sanitation cities were dens of disease and filth. They generally continuously took in population from the countryside.

The central and northern Italian countryside have strong genetic links to iron age Romans. They're basically the same people. We don't have records of the old patrician lines to modern times but I doubt they are actually extinct.

The central and northern Italian countryside have strong genetic links to iron age Romans

What do you mean by Iron Age Romans?

That would imply a time period before 700 BC when Rome was a village. Rome didn't expand into northern Italy until 250 BC at the earliest.

But yes, people who occupied the countryside of Italy in the Iron Age did not suffer subreplacement fertility and obviously remain extremely relevant to the genetic mix of Italy today, even if there was significant admixture from Germans (northern Italy) and Arabs (southern Italy).

Iron Age Romans would refer to the early republic or the monarchy, I'm guessing.

Yeah I doubt they are as well, OP seems over confident

They are functionally extinct in that their contribution to the gene pool is minimal.

More comments

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