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 don't think that is true at all. The USA has never been "homogeneous". Ironically, given much of the rhetoric here, the USA is kind of unique in having been founded as an "ideastan". Anglo, Dutch, French, and Spanish colonials choosing to forsake thier national identities in favor of identifying as colonists.
What French colonials chose to forsake their identity to become American? The Cajuns were willing to be ruled by America(not that we voted for it- Thomas Jefferson bought sovereignty over the land, with cash), but took a surprisingly long time to identify as Americans. There were French scattered on the Mississippi, who likewise did not vote to join America and took generations to assimilate. And the French population of New England were not there voluntarily in the early days, shifting eventually to be economic migrants who identified more with Quebec than New England until after they’d assimilated in the way of economic migrants.
There were some Spanish colonials who chose to join the US, but not many- the annexation of the southwest was largely by conquest, not self determination, and Texas’s Anglo population voted proportionally more for annexation than tejanos(to say nothing of the large number of tejanos who lived in disputed territories which were, once again, conquered).
The Dutch and anglos it seems did choose to become American, albeit I understand the former case had largely assimilated to be anglos first and later chose Americanism.
More options
Context Copy link
Look, I put qualifiers to exactly avoid this debate about whether USA was 100% homogeneous. The USA is not unique in ideastan, because it was also a nation and its ideas were NOT the ideas of liberals/neocons and current establishment. IIRC OP PMclassicmemes is some sort of far leftist Jewish marxist and he can correct me if I am mistaken so he might even be supportive of of the main form form of ideastan which were communist regimes. Which is relevant to the discussion of ideastan and really relevant to modern America. Because marxism and communism was also, perhaps even more so as a lasting influence and more motivating for some of its important supporters, a dogma about the general race, national and even gender question that fits within the lines of modern establishment.
The 20th century has had its own ideastans being created. We have seen cooexistence between ideas and nationalism, but of a different nature than your ideology in original America and we have also seen Left wing ideology dominate against nation with predictable consequences.
Rather than the ideology of the founders, ideastan should be understood more in line with a) foreign nationalists including locals who are foreign nationalist aligned b) far left ideology against nations that isn't the ideology of the founders.
This ideology is a creation of the 20th century with a lot of crossover with marxism. And certainly it is part of the legacy of the American project that it compromised with it. But it doesn't represent original founding however it is also true that 20th century ideology is an evolution of ideologies that existed in the past. Far leftists have existed in French revolution and all sort of revolutionary movements for a long time. However the USA was not a project created by and for them, but where some ideas of this type existed to an extend.
A George Washington figure who called for being jealous of foreign influence, avoid foreign entanglements, supported a country that wanted white men of good character as its citizens, also had some views related to the enlightenemnt but his intellectual tradition (which synergizes nationalist, conservative, religious ideology and even uses rationalism for conservative and nationalist purposes in addition to liberal) is quite different than neocon/modern liberals who share an understanding on ethnicity and identity more in line with Marxists.
At some point the left wing tendencies in the project, especially in reaction to slavery and its abolition and the idea of doubling down in a progressive arc of history, the tendencies of rich oligarchs who might have supported such changes for their own interests, as well as the influence of powerful jewish elites, and even of blacks and others let to a march on institution of left wing ideologues. I would consider the late 19th century and even 20th century marxism and left wing movements and 20th century elites as more fundamental to modern USA than its founding which yes as a project the USA did have certain elements that were somewhat less blood and soil than some other countries, but both in the USA and in Canada and Australia they had the white policy.
Additionally elements in the promises of liberalism already in American culture and constitution that undermined certain aspects of society did exist, but it wasn't inevitable that solving these issues would be so radical. Ideastan is about doubling down in radicalism in how one approaches questions like slavery, interethnic conflict, the existence of nations in a far left and antiwhite form. It sides with transparent foreign nationalists and tolerates them as part of its coalition. But while aspects of this intellectual tradition existed in the USA as well, it competed with more moderate traditions.
This radicalism and its combination with the agendas of tribalists who have a grudge against white christian males and their nations is a core part of such developments. Still, the development of this ideology that America belongs to everyone is a result of mainly late 19th century and 20th century development.
My preference is basically to not be liberal/ideastan and to reject their many failed ideas and excesses seeking a wiser perspective that doesn't destroy valuable ends but not to purity spiral in opposite direction. Just like I am anti communist both on economics and not only on their cultural and ethnic agendas, but support 8 hour work day.
Washington's version is different than mine since I dislike slavery, and not necessarily as isolationist but agree with the idea that is good governance not to put foreign allegiances first and be corrupted by them. I am not an American, but find plenty to respect in figures like Washington and I reject overly blaming figures of the past that were more nuanced and had a more sophisticated model for current predicaments. So a model that combines nationalism, conservatism, with some liberal elements works. In fact you can your own civilization rights as in nationalism and the preservation, betterment and prosperity of your people both through nationalist lenses and lenses that preexist enlightenment thinking, but also through the perspective that this is the superior way to treat the rights of man. So add that in combination with some elements of enlightenment thinking, and be careful to not allow treasonous and liberal purity spiral and you got a better model that is based on rejecting liberal dogmatism of the sort that shares its obsessions with marxists in seeing sexual differences, nations and tribes as illegitimate. And moreover tends to be infested by foreign nationalism that treats certain nations and tribes as much more equal than others.
To avoid errors of the past supporters of the superior model that also follows a historical trajectory and not just something I advocate, we should be more willing to gatekeep against those who have a Whig left wing purity spiral version of history, and/or those foreign tribalists whose agenda isn't to coexist with your nation, but to undermine and even end it.
Too much left wing purity spiral radicalism and on issues of nationhood, race, sex is at the core of the failed ideas that are destroying some of the most successful civilizations to have ever risen on earth and leads to the such peoples becoming hated second class citizens. Rise in failing relationships, large drop in fertility, etc, etc.
And while this is happening some of the factions who are for this radicalism not only redefine their own nation history in a subversive manner, but even falsely promote this idea of them as right wingers, moderates, when they are uncompromising on a very destructive radical agenda. Which is self destructive for their civilization.
TLDR Modern establishment ideologues share more with marxists on cultural, ethnic issues than with the American founders.
Are you are you arguing that these terms are exclusive? Because i don't think thats apperant at all.
If anything, all this nonsense about the enlightenment/blank slatism being a recent invention is itself a recent invention of woke degenerates looking to discredit the enlightenment.
Are you Hlynka?
Yes a nation is based on people while being a state that is based on ideas akin to new soviet man, is something quite different. Of course nationalism is exclusive to ideastan. It is possible to combine nationalism with the dominant ethos of the nation also coming along with certain traditions and ideas and even religion. In fact it is almost always the case that particular people also have a particular culture that reflect their character and development. They might even have things in common with other peoples on religion. But whether Japan with their own unique particularities or any other group these aspect combine with being a nation. Nationalism which is the english word for ethnos, without ethnicity, doesn't make sense.
Now, it is possible to have multiethnic empires but even those have some form of arrangement that takes in consideration the ethnic interests of its people and give them some representation. Unless the model is one of foreign occupation but then again you have a dominant ethnic group and an occupied people who aren't allowed the privileges of an independent people.
So various different ideologies and dogmas can combine with nationalism and tend to do so, but you can't have a nation that is based on only ideology and not a people and still have a nation. You are likely to lose the ideology that dominated when you were a nation too.
This applies even more so if you promote as core ideology an antinationalist ideology which is new soviet man teritory and the destruction of nations of course doesn't make a nation. Nor will it even lead to an utopia without ethnic groups and ethnic conflict. We have seen how it is used to concern troll in the case of the USA, what are white Americans, while its proponents have done nothing to stop other ethnic groups from organizing as ethnic communities and in fact have even advocated in favor of various identity groups. Even with the Soviets, there were periods with minorities on top, it had its pan-slavic phase, there is some national character that asserts itself and antinationalism tends to lead to foreigners taking over. Or the marxist cultural revolution is put in the back burner and a national character reemerges.
The enlightenment had different intellectual trends. One of which was far leftist extremists. In the French revolution you had people who were for cult of reason and behaved in a proto commie manner in totalitarian brutality and such elements had continued to exist in the 19th century.
The far left tradition of the enlightenment has continued to this day. This doesn't mean that French revolutionaries would support the great replacement today but there is a continuity in that intellectual current. The entire project of enlightenment and intellectuals however included more nuanced figures that had more sophisticated models (figures like Napoleon for example) and so I wouldn't throw together all thought that is part of modernity. Such people failed to restrain the more extreme elements. Although I wouldn't blame someone like Washington for what happened quite after he was dead. This happened mainly through intellectual currents of the 20th century. Marxism and especially its cultural tradition and those who share their ideology although granted the momentum might have started in late 19th century being far more important aspect of modern USA than the vision of the American founders. The vision of Jewish migrants who promoted concepts such as the melting pot and migrated at the start of the century have also proven more influential for modern America than the vision of its founders. But other migrants from early 20th century and late 19th century might also have played some role in this direction. And in general 20th century thinkers and some late 19th thinkers of marxist tradition have proven very influential.
The modern establishment ideologues of modern liberalism/neocons in societies like USA are part of the far left tradition and even the tradition of networks of foreign extreme nationalists. I will admit that categorizing things left or right becomes a bit tricky since what is far right nationalist for ones own people can support what might be considered more left wing for a group they are hostile towards. I would say the liberal/neocon elites are in large part the same with those you call "woke degenerates" on most important questions, and are either at times somewhat hiding their power level, or are fully that and just excused, or a component of them have some limited hangout differences.
For example lets examine the neocon Bret Stephens. He directly argues brazenly about replacing specifically the white American working class and promotes antinationalism as the core doctrine for the USA. At the same time he is supporting Jewish nationalism and talks about the bigotry of the MAGA base. Someone like him is substantially the same to others who promote this kind of agenda but paint themselves in more far left colors.
Someone tell France that they really ought to be Bretons, Acquitanians, Burgundians, etc. etc. After all, until fairly recently they didn't even speak mutually-intelligible dialects of the same language, let alone share common ancestry! The Bretons are Celts, the Ile-de-France folks are Germanic, and the Languedoc is Mediterranean!
Someone tell biologists that they should stop talking about "mammals" and instead start talking about individual species. For that matter they should also stop talking about species, and talk about races instead. Not to mention they should also stop talking about races, and...
I will never understand how "taxation is theft" ever passed for "the worst argument in the world" when this form of analysis is taken so seriously.
There's a big distinction between speciation and a nation that didn't even speak the same language in the 1800s. Almost like gross overgeneralizations are full of holes.
I don't think a nation has to speak the same language any more than all mammals have to give live birth.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Except that for most of that time, the vast majority of immigrants were white Western Europeans who were practicing Christians and Protestant Christians at that. Furthermore, the levers of power were reserved for those White Western European Protestants and Western European values, culture, and fashions were the ones enforced socially. Kids read the Western canon.
I don’t think I could consider a civilization founded by Anglo Saxons welcoming Dutch, German, Swedes and Scots immigrants is very much of a melting pot. The founding stock are germanoceltic, and the immigrants are germanoceltic. The current generation is much more diverse than that. We now import Hindus from India, Muslims from MENA, Buddhists from Asia, and Africans. The cultural differences between an Englishman and a Dutchman are tiny compared to the differences between an Englishman and a Pakistani Muslim. And worse, the influx of non-WEIRD immigrants means that transmission or enforcement of western culture and norms is now bigotry. In fact one proves bonifides by publicly disavowing and deconstruction and rejection of the white western culture of the country.
You know blacks make up a huge part of America’s founding stock, right? Like African Americans are not recent immigrants.
A whole bunch of Spanish and Natives too but don't let facts get in the way of a good narrative. 😉
Out of the eight(Dutch, French Canadian, borderer, puritan, Quaker, black, cavalier, native) major groups in the thirteen colonies, blacks were the plurality by far.
For some reason, this fact doesn’t get brought up in ‘founding stock’ discussion.
If you are going to separate out the whites out like that, it is only fair to split the blacks up into their respective ethnolinguistic groups too. In reality, most of of the whites underwent their own ethnogenesis the same way the blacks did.
The colonials themselves would have seen the whites as separate and the blacks as identical and interchangeable.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I know right? It's almost as if there is an agenda being pushed.
I mean, not to be unpleasant, but we’re talking slaves here, right? Definitionally not really responsible for America’s founding or culture.
People make arguments about Rome but that was a very different case.
Yes were talking about Slaves, freed-men, and Native Americans. Were they responsible for the founding? Not really. The American revolution was a predominantly upper class yankee white-boy game. But the founding culture, food, early breeding stock, etc... absolutely.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Fuck the immigrants.
The existence of Florida and the Carolinas as states proves that there was already a prepondererance of Niggers and Spaniards on site before the United States even came to be.
Is this a test, to see if you will be modded for saying "nigger"?
Yes, you can say nigger as long as you are not just nigger-posting to be edgy. But this is seems well past the use-mention distinction, and we have always modded people for casual derogatory references to other people who might also be posting here.
The entire tone of this post is high heat, low signal, an unfiltered expression of anger, and not the kind of discussion we're looking for.
A little bit yes.
If we can casually refer to non-whites and the "low castes" as subhuman surely a few harmless slurs wont draw any attention.
My point remains though, this notional homogeneous milk-white United States never existed because even before its founding there was already a significant population of Slaves, Natives, and Southern Europeans "poluting" your precious Anglo/Dutch gene-pool, and I would argue that rather than being a problem this is one of the US's strengths, we're mutants
Don't.
The point you are making is not the problem. How you make it is.
Im not, when i talk about "a prepondererance of Niggers and Spaniards" it is coming from a place of love.
Which is more than can be said for several of the users here.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link