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 -
Being partly descended from people who lived in America before there was an America, my attitude toward native American grievances is: "Sucks to suck, git gud, gg no re." Black and brown BIPOC bodies of color can get in line right behind every other conquered/defeated people with a sob story. This is the Law of the Jungle. And this slimy conniving chipping away at the edges to guilt your oppressors into give you free shit is just pathetic. We need more Geronimos and fewer Charlene Red Bird Lovitz-Smiths, at least that sort of direct action is heroic and inspiring.
So I feel zero guilt about First Peoples (who were First, except for you know those other tribes that were First-er but got genocided before the white man made it ashore) and their ridiculous revanchism. You lost, get over it. And you're welcome for building one of the greatest nations the world has ever seen using the land we wrested from your ancestors so that we can today provide for their descendents. Would Imperial China or Czarist Russia have been so generous had they arrived first? I doubt it.
And yeah, one day, after the U.S. fractures and gets invaded by Greater North Korea or the Second Mexican Empire or the People's Republic of Canada, well, sucks to suck, we lost, that's the way of the world. Turn about's fair play, nothing lasts forever nor does it have a right to.
Minor historical point first, on your traducing of Russians' treatment of conquered peoples. It was by far the least harmful to those they conquered of any European power. The thing to remember about Russia is that it's a European country with its entire imperial possessions still 90% intact, and attached contiguously as the country streches east from its European heartlands. To see what would have befallen American indigenes under Moscow's cruel fist, look at Kamchatka today. People who are not ethnically Russian are a majority of the population east of the Urals, and their relative position to the dominant ethny is inestimably better than that of American indigenes, who are a sad and broken people.
Notably among Europeans, Germanics (of whom Anglos are a subset) have the taste for genocide in conquest. Spain, France and Russia tended to integrate conquered people to varying degrees, and the Dutch kept them entirely separate to the point of weird indifference.
Second important point: a huge tension you don't seem to have noticed here:
Okay, fair enough, but then:
"All's fair in love and war". If you're claiming groups that lost out historically should just accept it, how can you consistently criticise graft against your own group today? Either all conduct is fair or it isn't. "Oh no, using disease and a much higher population to swamp natives was great and mighty when Euro colonists did it back when, but it's pathetic and underhanded when other groups use the same techniques against us". How the hell can out-diseasing and out-breeding indigenous Americans be kosher, but non-whites doing, what, lawsuits and subversion of your institutions is verboten?
Considering you were ostensibly opposing whining, "it's not fair when they do it to us" sounds a lot like, well...
The Circassians would beg to differ, as would all the peoples in the westernmost part of the Russian Empire, namely, Poles, Balts and Ukrainians. This is only referring to the Russian Empire, not including the Soviet Union, which I suppose could be classified as a Russian empire. The reason why the natives east of the Urals were largely unmolested is that they didn't cause much trouble (as the Circassians did) and that the Russians were not particularly interested in the freezing tundra where the main industry was reindeer herding.
The title of "the least harmful to those they conquered" easily belongs to Austria. Again, referring only to the Habsburgs, not, ahem, any other empire controlled by an Austrian.
Austria is Germanic, as are the Dutch who you yourself mentioned. The German Empire was generally more brutal overall, though the only notable genocide they committed was the one in Namibia. I'm not aware of any genocides in the British Empire (overseas), unless you count the ludicrously one-sided battles against natives.
Spain and France both had highly assimilatory policies, which their subjects were not generally keen on; see, for example, the ETA and the Algerian War. Forcible assimilation is also referred to as "cultural genocide" by, for example, the Canadian government. The only empires with a policy of integration rather than assimilation were Austria (though not Hungary) and the UK (excluding the British Isles, where their policy ranged from cultural genocide to genocide full stop).
More options
Context Copy link
There's no tension at all, you're reading that into what I'm saying. You can simultaneously believe "all's fair in love and war" and "I find this particular tactic cowardly and dishonorable." Pearl Harbor was simultaneously a distasteful sneak attack (IMO) while being totally "fair."
Maybe the confusion is in the meaning of the word "fair" in "all's fair in love and war?" To me it means everything is possible, not that everything is morally equivalent. In fact, people seem to mostly invoke the phrase when does something shocking and morally dubious.
If your point is that American settlers did fair but dishonorable things at some point in the multi-century settlement of north America, then, well, yes of course, the number of people and the length of time mean that the odds were very high that things like that would happen. When American settlers pretended to give blankets as a gesture of goodwill that were actually carrying contagious diseases, or when they broke treaties and suddenly attacked peaceful natives, they were acting dishonorably and disgracefully. But most of the conflict was not like that. Hostilities were often open and direct.
Re. Russia's treatment of indigenous people, is that really a fair comparison? I don't think Russians want to live in, settle, develop, and convert Kamchatka into a core part of Russian civilization. Most of the Russian Far East seems to me to still be much more like a territory than actual "Russian land." It's a similar contrast as that between, say, Massachusetts and Alaska. Alaskan natives seem to be doing a lot better than the tribes of New England, many of whom no longer even exist. I think you'd need to look at how indigenous people who lived in Western Russia were treated.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Czarist Russia did arrive first in one part of America, no?
There's a reason why recently re-elected native Alaskan rep Mary Peltola (featured a few times in Finnish media due to her obviously-Finnish surname - it comes from her husband, she has no Finnish roots herself) belongs to the Orthodox Church...
And Greenland Danes founded L'Anse-Aux-Meadows, but like the Russians their interactions with the natives were brief and limited enough in scope that I don't think it's fair to extrapolate from them what the Czar of Russia or King of Denmark's policy woudlve been towards the Cherokee or Iroquois.
Russian Alaska was a rather more extensive project than Danes at L'Anse-Aux-Meadows. 5 % of Alaskans are Orthodox, and my understanding is that this due to conversion work among the natives, at least.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link