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 -
I'm not American, and know a limited amount about Tubman. I'm more interested in the art of mythmaking itself.
The public's reception of every currency-note-resident is colored by myth more so than historical facts. The choice to put a person on the note is an ideological statement. Does it matter if Tubman's story is fiction, if it was mean to be apocryphal anyways ? It's about what Tubman stands for, not her actual exploits. As a counter, the same argument applies for George Floyd, whose public portrayal and personal reality couldn't have been more distant. However, Tubman at her worst, was a perfectly normal person. George Floyd was a criminal and a drug addict. I endorse one, not the other. There is a difference.
I am sympathetic to oral history narratives. The culture of transmission through writing is more prominent among European (Christian) & Chinese peoples. It is no doubt a superior technology to oral history, but there are good reasons for why some groups didn't favor it. Slaves were illiterate. Indic peoples had already developed a strict culture of oral history, and had notorious tropical degradation problems. Nomadic peoples such as native Americans didn't maintain keepsakes at all, books or otherwise. Yes, their historic accounts are by definition less trustworthy. But, they aren't fictitious. The mean truthfulness of oral vs written accounts is probably pretty close, but the oral stories definitely have higher variance. The strong coupling of religion (Bible, Protestantism) with the written text, obviously accelerated the adoption of writing among the west's population like no other place. Even among the inventors of paper (Chinese), historic accounts of non-royals aren't preserved that well.
From that POV, I don't think it's fair to hold Tubman's muddled history against her. She wasn't illiterate by choice. The absence of first person written accounts shouldn't be a reason to keep her out of the currency-note.
There are other good reasons to not replace presidents with civilians, but I digress.
P.S: Every passing day, I sound more and more like a woke cultural relativist. I bet it's the contrarian in me. Now that the right is ascendant, I rush to the left's defense.
While a slave, yeah. But like... remaining illiterate till 91? She escaped when she was 27.
The state of her mental health probably precluded that at such an age.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
It absolutely does matrer, especially since there are so many other individuals whose involvement in abolition and the anti-slavery movements have much more concrete documentation. Why jump to hold up the apocryphal one?
I suspect it's the human tendency towards imagination that lets us place so much mythological importance on the unverifiable. Everyone wants to believe the heroic legend, that people existed who were larger than life itself and who did incredible things. The air of mystery may in fact be more tantalizing than the surety of reality, for some.
More options
Context Copy link
It's not apocryphal, it was just exaggerated by her biographer. Tubman was widely known in abolitionist circles in the 1850s and there is documentary evidence suggesting that she was involved in the Underground Railroad. That is beyond reasonable dispute. The scope and volume of her work is where the variance is between popular accounts and the accepted historical record. Tubman was interviewed for a Boston newspaper in 1863 and described nine rescue missions between 1850 and 1860 during which she helped about 70 people escape slavery. All of these trips were to the same part of Eastern Maryland where she was born, and all were family or other people she knew. Bradford later claimed 19 trips, and a magazine article estimated that she must have rescued at least 300, and thus we end up with 300 people over 19 trips, even if Tubman herself never made such a claim. Bradford did speak to Tubman, but she admits that Tubman had no recollection of some of the trips she (Bradford) was claiming and said that instead she got the information from unidentified "friends". Her activities during the war and afterward are well-documented.
You can choose not to believe Tubman, which is your prerogative, but keep in mind that the kind of first-hand account we get from her is par for the course in history. Having read her accounts, there's no reason to believe they are any more or less reliable than any other documentary evidence we have from the period. Certainly, corroboration of details would be desirable, but keep in mind that she was engaging in secret activity that had dire consequences if discovered. If we aren't willing to believe firsthand accounts without corroboration, then our evidence that the Underground Railroad existed at all is based on a rather shaky foundation. And this has implications for a lot of other things as well. We don't torch entire fields of history just because we're skeptical that people won't lie.
Shouldn’t there be, or shouldn’t there have been written evidence available of at least those 70 slaves escaping from a specific plantation? News published, notices put up, searches ordered? Diaries, journals mentioning it? Anything?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link