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 -
Isnt it weird how you never hear about the gypsies? They sure look like they count as a capital-M Minority: Very poor, very uneducated, very bad relations to the police, they even were in the Nazi camps. But in political discourse they might as well not exist. Im vaguely aware that our eastern neighbors have more of them and its more of a topic there, but this doesnt make it to me either. I just searched for it and best I found is this, from 2020. Theres sightly more in german, but compared to the media volume dedicated to telling me that Orban is mean to the gays, it might as well not exist. While I was at it I also looked for the "list of gypsies that made important contributions to science", and that actually doesnt exist. The only thing that remotely looks like a hit is this, which has three people on it: one with a possible nth-generation ancestor, and two that google isnt even sure exist.
I find this interesting as a point of comparison. Theres lots of people out there of even opposing ideologies giving mechanistic explanations of how the shared characteristics of Minorities lead to the political discourse around them, and then heres a case where it just didnt.
Speaking from this side of the pond, there is certainly a sense among American progressives that gypsy is a slur that should be replaced by Roma or Romany, and that they are mistreated in Europe. Occasionally someone will tell their less than politically correct parents that they are going on vacation to a place like Italy or Croatia, be warned about "gypsy thieves in European cities" and lament to their friends about the ignorance of the older generation, but it is certainly taken less seriously than other racial or minority issues simply because there aren't enough of them here. I will say that I am curious as to what role they will play in the future of Europe, given their higher birthrates than most of their neighbors.
They do also show up occasionally in popular media, the examples that come to mind being the anime Cowboy Bebop, one of the Assassin's Creed games, and the TV show Peaky Blinders. If I recall correctly the two former make a point of using the term Roma rather than Gypsy (being quite ahead of the curve for when they were released), while the latter throws the word gypsy around liberally but manages to get so confused as to the identity of Irish Travellers that at one point they are portrayed as speaking Romanian (presumably a scriptwriter searched for a "Romani" translation and was autocorrected).
More options
Context Copy link
Irish “gypsies” or travellers were top of the oppression Olympics in Ireland for decades, largely because there wasn’t much else for sociology professors to concentrate on. Although disliked, they were always considered Irish by everybody so it was the Irish left that led the defining of travellers as a separate racial group, getting racial laws on the books. All to be be anti racist.
How does that even work? I thought Irish travelers were literally phenotypically just Irish?
They are still easily identifiable to people here. Accent, dress, surnames (shared with other Irish people but it's still a useful hint) are all pretty solid tells, and paired with the fact that most people know the traveller families in their area and might even have an idea of what their faces look like (I know a few families that look very distinctive) you'll guess right most of the time.
Discrimination by restaurants, bars, hotels etc is easy to do and very common, although false accusations of discrimination are even more common.
More options
Context Copy link
They are. And their surnames (which is a good clue) are Irish. And they speak English with a few idiosyncrasies
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
The comparison between American anti-black racism and European anti-gypsy racism (and English anti-pikey racism, although that is usually lumped in with anti-Gypsy) is a meme
More options
Context Copy link
Are they ?
The police article makes America to be something like a paradise for Roma. So many marks, so much anonymity, no one knows them. I'm fairly sure in central and eastern Europe, the mere sight of combo of shabby or loud clothing and dusky skin has people getting wary, checking their wallets, etc.
Jews would probably take offence at this, but I believe it's fair to say the Gypsies are the most persecuted ethnic group ever:
It's really hard to find any other ethnic group treated this harshly in history - even Jews were treated better.
It's all extremely mysterious and depressing until you get some personal experience.
Personally, I'm happy every time I see an assimilated gypsy, just being a normal person, participating in economy other than the metal trade.
In America, they'd barely stand out, perhaps people would take them for half-Indians or so.
Goddamn, I didn't expect this level of racial insensitivity in an American magazine. I can't imagine an article like this being written about the Blacks even back in 2001.
It's a 2001 article, and by retired police - guy with a cushy pension and not much to lose. (Also check out the comments to the article - pretty interesting too).
Roma are extremely factional, so they can't really muster any serious lobbying effort even in countries where they're a large fraction of the population. If you talk to them, they usually intensely resent other Roma groups in the immediate area.
It probably has to do something with the clan structure of Roma society.
So, in the US, where they probably don't even make up .5% of the population.
Blacks aren't like this and have ethnic solidarity, thus are much better organised.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I have always found it amusing when the topic of gypsies get brought up on American websites like Reddit.
Users in the big main subreddit will ask questions like 'why do Europeans hate gypsies?' after seeing news about gypsies getting deported or what not.
Interestingly, similar posts were made around the BLM ruckus on the European websites 'why are Americans always killing black people for no reason?'.
I found that Europeans were even quicker to come up with explanations than the Americans.
More options
Context Copy link
The current taste for identity politics is an American export, and we don't have many gypsies.
I don't think "shared characteristics of Minorities" dominate the discussion outside of ethnonationalist or HBD circles.
German progressives have indeed moved towards bundling all non-natives in the "migrantisch" category. It's still a little too hip for mainstream politics, but the left, greens, urban and online circles are already making ample use of this new label.
More options
Context Copy link
I think many progressives would say that blacks and hispanics being poor, uneducated, and having bad relations with the police causes the kind of politics they have in the US, and potentially extend this schema to other groups.
I see what you mean, but I would bundle those as class. Perhaps it's a fig leaf, but America is the land of temporarily embarrassed millionaires. Class is viewed as a choice and thus as a more acceptable angle of attack than race, at least historically.
My point is just, people think the bundle leads to a certain kind of politics, and heres an example where it very much didnt.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I mean, Tumblr people did try to talk and care about the Rroma/Romani, but it just never took off beyond Tumblr (probably because We All Live In America, where they pretty much don't exist, or at least not as a distinct ethnicity).
More options
Context Copy link
They exist in America in a "you can't use that term anymore" way, but America really doesn't have an alternate term for them (since "Romani" or similar is imprecise), so there's not really much to work with. There was a recent D&D dust-up where a group of fantasy knock-offs (the Vistani, I believe) were referred to as drunkards and a few other negative terms, which apparently are negative gypsy stereotypes, and therefore had to be removed.
I personally had no idea that "drunkard" was a stereotype associated with gypsies prior to the kerfluffle, but you learn something every day, I suppose.
"No, you see, every time you say 'monkey' I immediately think of black people, so you need to stop using such racist language."
The Vistani wagons are called Vardos. This was an intentional pastiche, not pareidolia or hypersensitivity.
No, wait. Looking up older sources, it wasn't even a pastiche. The first module with them just calls them "Gypsies", and the main "Realm of Terror" introduction labels their chapter as "Gypsies: Startling revelations about Ravenloft's Vistani, who are unlike the vagabonds of any other world". I suppose that "unlike" phrase gives some room for plausible deniability, "No, we're just saying that Ravenloft's gypsies are drunkards, not our own world's", but at least they're very specific about who it is they'd have to deny insulting.
I withdraw my snark
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I don't follow. Is your argument that they aren't talked about as commonly as black people or the LGBTQ+ in America? The gypsy population in America is incredibly small.
Where exactly are you expecting to hear about gypsies that you think you aren't?
Sorry if this wasnt clear, Im austrian. But I think its somewhat surprising you dont hear about them in america as well. You certainly heard about the "syrian" refugees, and I would guess youre at least aware that the turks are a topic here?
In America, I don't really see them on the news as their own group. Typically, discourse is centered on the use of the word gypsy or gypped. The group is just too small in America.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Gypsies are well and alive in progressive lingo in Germany. Not as actual people, mind you, but as a minority in need of protection. "Antiziganismus" is one of the sins that natives must repent of, regardless of whether they've ever seen, spoken to or thought of a gypsy in their lives.
Yes, but its a thing far-lefties write about and thats kind of it. Can you remember a polititian being accused of Antiziganismus by a relevant opponent or a major newspaper? Now compare antisemitism, racism vs MENA.
True, the former does not happen whereas the latter sometimes does.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I get that, I've seen the discourse on the word "gypped" in American-centric website. But if that's the type of thing we're expected to hear about, then Whoopi Goldberg was recently called out for using "gypped" on The View just a few days ago.
More options
Context Copy link
I find it rather weird how Zigeuner (gypsy) is a no-no word only used by racists, but the five dollar word to describe said racists literally has the term in it.
The NAACP has a similar issue.
There's also the UNCF, and the N does not stand for National.
More options
Context Copy link
I thought the N stood for "National"?
Look at the wit on you! Nor does the “AA” stand for African-American. It could be retooled to National African-American Coalition for Prosperity.
More options
Context Copy link
You might be joking, but if not, or anyone else is confused, I think Duplex is talking about the CP part - Colored People.
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
Gypsies(as in actual roma) in america and Britain don’t seem particularly discriminated against and prefer to grift through con artistry than to make claims about race, and other countries may as well not exist.
A lot of them in North America also just seamlessly integrate. I was very surprised halfway through my first year of university when I found the guy next door in my dorm was a gypsy. He was there on a football scholarship.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Being obsessed with minority identities is an American thing. It is produced in American academia and politics and later exported to the rest of the World through the extreme penetration power of American media. Gypsies don't really exist in America (or just blend in with the rest of the white trash population as far as I could understand from watching My Big Fat American Gypsy Wedding) so they aren't a part of minority politics. This is very much in accordance with how average German, British or Hungarian liberal will be obsessed with black people but ignore or even just dislike the (sometimes much larger) Turkish Arab or Albanian populations in their midst.
Having constant positive concern for some foreigners living among your group and generally acting anti-social even violent towards you is not the normal state of any society and cannot be sustained without constant elite or outside pressure.
I vividly remember backpacking through Europe during the refugee crisis and being approached by random old people who tried to tell me random positive things like how beautiful my eyes are etc. I am a guy and not particularly handsome so I was pretty confused at the time but later I realized this was happening because they thought I was a Syrian refugee with my tattered clothes and backpack and the European media was choke full of the innocent plight of Syrian refugees. It is not anymore, and needless to say I don't get approached by random olds to be told about my beautiful eyes anymore.
The turks do have a kind of minority politics. Its a lot less intense than the US with blacks, but they have their highly credentialed representatives that get a good bit of stage time and diversity-grants, and theyre a topic in political discussion. The mindset you describe exists and is something you might filter into as a visitor from anglostan, but its pretty niche. So I dont think the atlantic fully explains the situation with the gypsies.
I don't think the minority politics of Turks in Europe fit in with the model of American blacks at all to be honest. I am Turk in Europe myself so I will share how I see this phenomenon citing myself as the source.
By and large there are 2 types of Turkish politicians in Western Europe.
The first kind is Dilan Yesilgoz (Minister of Interior from center-right Dutch government party) or Cem Ozdemir (Minister of Agriculture from German Greens). These are people who are nominally Turkish, but very well integrated such that they carry this identity typically as a burden and would probably be happier if they didn't have such funny foreign names. It is generally considered a tad bit racist to remember that they are Turks when discussing their performance as politicians, even though it is obviously in everyone's minds for better or worse. Usually they can't actually attract a sizable Turkish community to vote for their parties, or if they do, it is because of idiosyncratic internal diasphora reasons opaque to the broader population.
The second, and more controversial kind is most clearly exemplified by DENK in the Netherlands, but also most Turkish politicians in social democratic parties used to fit this type. These are mostly recruited and promoted internally in these parties because of their "minority advocate" status, practically subject to different standards than native members. They bring in a substantial amount of Turkish voters with them, and are typically rather conservative Muslims who know how to talk around the European taboos and avoid getting into trouble for their actual views. Their campaigning usually happens in mosques or cultural centers funded by the Turkish government*, in Turkish. The existence of such people make Europeans quite uncomfortable, and they often really want to confirm you aren't one of them when you enter a conversation before going further in more or less polite ways depending on their education level.
The business model of the second kind I have described has collapsed around the time when a lot of European countries were passing Armenian genocide recognition bills through their parliaments. When pressed to make a clear display of their loyalty, they either chose voting no and losing access to the social Democratic Party networks, or they vote yes and lost their constituents, effectively making them useless. Up until this point they pattern-matched much more successfully to the American-black model of minority organizations (i.e. mostly subservient voting crowds for the left in exchange for some gibs). Since then, there is total chaos as to what to do with these people. They are being forced to choose a clear side before being given national prominence. Many of the formerly exemplary "Euroturks" like Mesut Ozil got cancelled when they refused to do so.
Meanwhile you don't see such problems with Jamaicans in Germany for example. They might not be a net benefit to the society, but politically it is basically given that when they are given grants, positions and organizations, they will become adjunct to the prevailing progressive narrative.
The model of the second kind was indeed a big part of what I had in mind. I wasnt aware of the changes. Around when would you say this happened, and how are the supporting organisations that dont have to take a position doing? I would love some more details; so far this sounds to me more like an accidental hiccough than the model not fitting at all.
Until 2010s Erdogan was the sweetheart of many euro politicians and it was imagined that he would usher in an era of Islamic democracy similar to Christian democratic parties, rapidly integrating Turkey to Europe economically politically and socially. Then the euro crisis happened, destroying any pull power European economic model had on a country like Turkey. In aggregate, the EU has seen almost nil economic growth for a decade now and their insane fiscal policies are clearly hurting peripheral countries. So EU has become a very tough sell in Turkish politics. More importantly the Arab spring has turned into a total massive disaster and this unleashed geopolitical chaos where Turkey found itself often competing against European countries in core interest areas.
This bit is my opinion but I think at this point the European countries made a massive strategic mistake, attributed Turkey's hostile turn to Erdogan himself, and burned through their political capital in Turkey (media and academia contacts, NGO networks, more covert agents etc) trying to get rid of him in favor of a more "moderate" leader. What they couldn't identify well is that these new hostile policies had a large support base among the traditional Turkish state, foreign policy and army establishment. So he could survive the attempts on his power through making deals with the establishment and drawing from his massive personal charisma and support base.
Ever since, there is a Cold War between the EU and Turkey and therefore the first type of euroturk politicians had to come out directly against their homeland and alienate themselves, while the second type became vulnerable to attacks of ideological non-conformity. It is considered racist to purge someone because he is Turkish, but totally acceptable to do so if this compels him to violate some newfound taboos about Armenian genocide remembrance or LGBTQ or Erdogan.
I believe at the root of all of this lies the fact that American style minority identity doesn't cover minorities like euroturks very well. Turks themselves can't really identify with it, and the German primal brain doesn't pattern match these people to the blacks/jews minority victim matrix. But the European countries are largely unable to imagine other ways of maintaining minority population relations (like the Russian or Iranian models, who also have lots of Turkic minorities but Turkey has very little pull on those people) and they are stuck to the American progressive liberal democracy model. This creates a wide opening for the Turkish state to maintain a connection with the Diaspora.
So I thought the Armenian is just a collision without deeper meaning, the sort of dissonance that all ideologies have to paper over occasionally. But because the Turkey in the loop not only provides resources for the activism in Europe but still actively sets the agenda, the Germans use it as an indicator of loyalty in their conflict with Turkey, which is the actual problem. I knew euroturks have their nationalist shibboleths that they care about; I didnt notice they were still so responsive to the situation in Turkey. Am I understanding you right?
From the austrian end myself, it doesnt feel like the discourse around the turks has changed much since the 2000s. I still do have the impression that we match them into the minority pattern in some sense. Admittedly it rare to meet someone whos very serious about this without being selected for it. Certainly poking at the associated PC taboos is much less serious then with the jews. With the turks, someone "correcting" you might imply that he knows we just have to pretend to believe this - but it still is there. I can see though how that difference might look much smaller on our end then the receiving one.
For most Turkish people the Armenian genocide represents mainly a time period when outside powers set out to destroy or dominate us, and used the ethnic fractures of the Empire for their ends. The feeling is that they were treacherous at our time of need, and things that happened were unpleasant but deserved and just. So when the topic is brought up it is done so in bad faith and as a tool of domination and therefore the response must be harsh and uncompromising because that is what high asabiyyah communities do when they are under attack. So there is no dissonance in people's minds. I can write further later about how this attitude has formed since until 70s-80s it was well known and accepted by virtually everyone what happened in 1915 and there was no such fighting over history.
Yes I think so. People still vacation back in Turkey almost every summer, watch Turkish TV at home, find marriage partners from back in the village (even instead of other local Turks), socialize their kids at mosques etc. There is very strong emotional connection. I think in the case of America, the cultural and economical power of the country is so immense that no immigrant group can resist almost total assimilation in a generation. Germany, Belgium etc lack such a strong culture and the will to create one so they are failing to break the cohesion of most groups who can't find themselves a place in the overarching American superstructure. It creates a large opening for the Turkish state to exploit. Often it is not even that cynical, the immigrants themselves really want the attention and the sense of belonging and will complain how Turkey should do even more to stay connected with them!
Is it your opinion that it was deserved and just to kill all those armenians? Your empire wasn't seriously threatened at the time, shit you went to war for two german tubs. Okay perhaps some light ethnic cleansing/population exchange was necessary in some sense, but referring to
genocideindustrial scale killing of civilians as just and deserved?I quite like the turks I know, but I chalk that up to he influence of their ‘father’, who rightly despised Islam. I thought perhaps the turks could secularize the rest of the muslim world, show them how it's done. But when Erdogan seemingly decided to roll back his influence, for me the prospect of letting turkey into the eu lost all appeal.
More options
Context Copy link
I meant within german progressives, or the overall coalition. As in, turkish opinions on the treatment of the armenians is something progressives would have a problem with, but is not immediately relevant here and now, so absent the loyalty conflict they could have ignored it.
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
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link