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 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).
The line about "copper bullets" instantly jumped out to me, because it's obvious bullshit. The US only just introduced a copper rifle round in an attempt to go lead-free, and regular jacketed bullets are only like 15% copper
The Manhattan project did get the majority of its uranium from the congo mine though, because it had already been dug and stockpiled in New York before the war. Without that one specific mine with the magically high purity of uranium, I'm not sure how practical a bomb by '45 would be. Historically the limiting factor was enrichment, but maybe it would have been mining if they'd had to source it domestically.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link