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 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.
No I don't think so. But I also find the special place this event is starting take in European consciousness quite absurd. It was just an iteration in a very long and bloody series of ethnic violence that has been taking place due to dissolution of the Empire. Almost any ethnic group found themselves on the receiving and giving ends of the violence at different times, and it is still going on in some ways in Balkans, Caucasus and Levant. I wish my fellow countrymen could be a bit more honest about our near history but I am also aware that massive portions of my fellow countrymen were recent refugees of very cruel ethnic cleansings in Balkans and Caucasus at the time when these events were taking place, so the appeal of creating a safely homogenous country and their ruthlessness is not difficult to understand. The current push to recognize the events of 1915 as a uniquely sacred and punishable minor holocaust is politically motivated revisionism.
This is entirely historically illiterate so I don't know how to respond to be honest. Just to make it clear, the event that is considered the start of the genocide (the rounding up of Armenian intelligentsia and MPs in Istanbul) took place literally the day before the Allied naval operation to force through Dardanelles and decapacitate the Empire has started. At the time everyone in Istanbul believed the assault would succeed and the government would fall in the coming weeks with the victorious Allies partitioning the Empire along ethnic lines quite favorable to certain ethnicities. "Seriously threatened" indeed.
Sorry but it sounds like your love is more for a neo-con fantasy land rather than a real people.
The day before? Usually, consequences happen after causes. They had crushed an allied fleet the previous month. If they were finished and expected to be judged by the allies in a few weeks, launching a series of mass murders was not the best legal defense.
And they didn't have to go to war in the first place. The austrians and hungarians didn't kill minorities en masse when it started to look like their empire was on the way out. Choices were made, this was not self-defense against incomprehensible franco-english aggression. Turkey started the war stupidly, and then compounded it with great evil.
My 'quite like' is not some unconditional love for the people, regardless of what they do or believe. Are you denying that erdogan and his supporters have chosen to move away from the french model and towards the islamic model? I'd rather have a secularized turkey in the EU than nothing, but I'd rather have nothing than your usual muslim country. I expect future eu countries to broadly adhere to european values.
I will stop here because you are either not arguing in good faith or have absolutely no clue what you are talking about and just do cursory wikipedia checks before coming up with very confident responses.
Typically when the two most powerful navies in the World announce their plans to force themselves through your waterways and take over your capital, and then do months long build up of massive armadas, you don't learn about the event on the literal day it starts.
What are you even talking about? This isn't some internet gotcha fight between twitter anons.
Serbians, Russians, Greeks, Bulgarians, Croats, Romanians, and even Armenians themselves were very much killing minorities in their midst en masse wherever they managed to. Even the countries you are mentioning as "didn't kill minorities" literally formed the Nazi Germany/Axis 20 years later when they decided they got a bad deal, very much catching up on killing their minorities bit.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
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.
Yes indeed, and this is exactly what has happened for a very long time. Until 1974 (Turkish invasion of Cyprus) the whole Armenian genocide story was virtually unknown in the West. It was "remembered" afterwards and ever since served as a way of regulating the Western public opinion about the country by periodically discussing it or forgetting all about it depending on the relations between countries.
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