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 -
Why only White Americans? If we assume, for the sake of this discussion, that there was "violent extermination of Native Americans" (I personally think it was a bit more complex than that, but let's not argue that and accept it as a premise) and it, in whatever ways, produced substantial profits, Black Americans and Asian Americans, those that live in America, may have profited by it too. Surely, for example, Black Americans profited less, since many of them were enslaved, and received little economic benefits at all back then, but many White Americans also did not receive direct benefits, and if we talk about indirect benefits, such as using the resources to develop the economy, using the lands to build and resources on the land, etc. - then at least some non-White Americans benefitted from it also. Surely, one can argue that non-White Americans, due to various factors, benefitted less, proportionally - but they still did, even if unequally. If we accept the premise of every economic transaction somehow connected to something that can be traced back to Native Americans being tainted by guilt, then no American, regardless of the race, will escape the guilt. Then, we either have to add a new, openly racist, premise, that the guilt only ever attaches to certain races, but not others, or give up on the "White" part.
On the other hand, a lot of White Americans have come to America much later than any events that can be described as "violent extermination of Native Americans" took place. And even after coming in, as fresh immigrants, they could have little influence on the events and can not bear guilt for what was happening when they just came in or long before that. The only way any guilt could be attached to them is "the overall economy benefitted, thus they benefitted". But then again, why would it only be Whites? If every person of European descent, since stepping foot on American soil, is deemed automatically and forever "benefitting", why not a person of Chinese descent stepping foot on the same soil at the same day, and all his descendants forever? Why not Black people, after all - yes, they suffered terrible injustices, which in no way ended after slavery was officially banned, but still they were participating in the economy, even if handicapped by multiple disadvantages, as as such also benefitting from better economical conditions? Should the guilt attach to them too, maybe lesser amount, but still some of it? What about a refugee who just came into America a week ago? Surely, the level of support they receive depends on economical condition - better economy means better support and better opportunities. So should the guilt instantly attach to them too - or does it depend whether it is a refugee from Ukraine, or Syria, or Honduras, or Somali?
More options
Context Copy link