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 -
What an impressive propaganda technique. That's my one-line review to the "Soundtrack to a Coup d'Etat", and I mean it most sincerely. I really am impressed.
This quote from a New York Times film critic serves both as a quick plot summary and as the main impression the film conveys:
Let's focus on the "well-researched" part, the part that lends the film a documentary gravitas, the propaganda technique I so admire.
The documentary is a collage of footage, archival audio and video clips, and quotes with careful citations that briefly appear on screen. It doesn't have a narrator--except occasionally it does, like from 22:56 to 24:19, where English text quoting In Koli Jean Bofane's Congo.Inc overlays archival footage while the said author reads his work in original French:
Here's the beauty: "Congo Inc." is a work of fiction. It is a novel. It is not, and never claimed to be, an accurate and contextualized account of history, nor is it subject to the kind of critique for accuracy that a work of non-fiction would receive.
The technique allows the film to convey the impression of historical gravitas while absolving it of any responsibility for truth, accuracy, or context. What is there to criticize? All the film does is feature a Belgian writer connected to Congo by birth and some years of residence, reading from his work. It's a work of fiction--so what, when the main theme of the film is to suggest the interweaving of art and politics. The film's omission of the category of the work is completely in line with their omission of such information about their other sources. Surely the film has done its due diligence by accurately citing the sources, thus providing any interested viewer with the requisite information to establish the necessary level of epistemology for the content of any citation it happens to feature. If anything, it's a mark of respect for the sophistication of the viewer that the film doesn't bother contextualizing these works, since surely the viewer is quite familiar with both the history of Sub-Saharan Africa in general, and prominent literary works of authors with Sub-Saharan African ties in particular.
Yes, its Sundance Festival Special Jury Award for Cinematic Innovation is well-deserved. I look forward to future adaptations of this technique, where documentaries about the CIA quote John Grisham's novels, and documentaries about the Catholic Church quote "The Da Vinci Code".
So what's the problem? Where is the historical inaccuracy? Yes, it's a work of fiction, but works of fiction are often based on real historical facts. The producers probably included it because it elucidates their point better than some dry as dust historical tract about how raw materials from The Congo were often used to produce military equipment. They didn't alert you that it was a work of fiction, but is this really necessary? If a documentary about WWI were done in the same style but quoted "For Whom the Bell Tolls" instead, would you insist that they flash "Work of Fiction" in yellow Impact font on the screen just to remove any ambiguity? And who are they supposed to be propagandizing, anyway? You can't stream it without paying extra, unless you have Kanopy, which most people technically have access to for free but don't know about and probably wouldn't be interested in. I'd be more concerned about historical movies that clean up the plot for narrative convenience and leave the viewer with an incorrect impression. These aren't even trying to pretend to be documentaries, but the fictionalized movie version ends up being cultural canon.
I'm aware of and have in the past used Kanopy.
More options
Context Copy link
I did watch it on Kanopy, through my local library.
I am watching a film about a subject about which I have, at best, a cursory knowledge; how much can I rely on its factual claims? If it's a work of fiction: not at all. Just enjoy the story. Some historical background might be rooted in fact, but I am not in a position to tell. If it's a documentary: I expect that factual claims are, to a large extent, true. Sure, I expect a documentary to cherry-pick its facts to present a compelling narrative, but that's what distinguishes a documentary from a work of fiction: the narrative is constrained by at least a few asserted facts. It's common for a film-maker to outsource the actual statement of facts to an expert. The expert bears the cost of getting the facts wrong; the film-maker bears the cost of choosing experts poorly.
So here I am, watching this acclaimed documentary about a topic I know little about. It shows archival-looking clips, with meticulous citations -- I trust that those clips are what they appear to be. It shows quotes from diplomatic archives, with meticulous citations -- I trust that those quotes are from actual diplomatic archives. Twenty minutes in, it (for the first time) appears to have an expert contextualizing the main subject, again with citations. Do I continue to extend my trust to the presented facts, confident that a meticulously researched documentary would feature solid expertise in the subject matter?
The two-minute narration is a mixture of factual claims and narrative spin; yes, I understand that "Congo Inc." is a metaphor, but: Did Congo's rubber really "smooth[ed] the way to World War I", or is that a terrible pun? Was Congo's uranium key to US bombing Hiroshima, or was it just the most convenient source? How much did Congo copper contribute to the devastation of Vietnam, and how much of that devastation would have happened with other sources if Congo's copper was not available?
What is this guy's expertise in, anyway? Fiction. He is a writer of fiction. He may be a very good writer, and he may even meticulously research the background setting for his novels. But he claims no historic expertise. And the work he's reading in claims no historical accuracy.
There was a saying from this past election, something like "Trump lies like a used car salesman, Harris misleads like a lawyer." (No offense to lawyers.) The film didn't lie, it misled, and it misled subtly; it misled about the apparent level of expertise.
If I were already an expert in DRC history, it wouldn't matter. As an expert myself, I would evaluate any claims by their content not provenance. But I am the opposite of an expert; I can point to DRC on the map and I have some vague knowledge of the 20th-century history of Sub-Saharan Africa in terms of de-colonization and a tug-of-political-influence between USA and USSR (and later China). So I cannot possibly evaluate these claims by their content, and I must cautiously rely on expertise. That's why presenting someone as an expert when he's not is a big deal for me.
So, maybe, this film just isn't for me? Maybe it's aimed at people who are far more knowledgeable about the subject matter, who would not possibly mistake the expertise of Bofane? The film-maker is, after all, Belgian, and maybe the local audience is far more steeped in the history of the country's former colony. But I don't buy it. The film premiered at the Sundance Film Festival, it's clearly shooting for a broad audience.
I would therefore like to make a prediction, even if I am too lazy to actually carry it out. Let's say that a poll is conducted among the film's audience. The poll takers watch the two-minute clip of Bofane talking (22:56 to 24:19). Then they respond to a question like this one:
My prediction is that less than 10% would choose (c).
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link