site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1yr ago (text post)   37192 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of April 10, 2023

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.

14
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

I've never actually understood why people are so obsessed with claiming Cleopatra. She was a puppet queen completely at the mercy of another nation. In fact, the entire reason she's known is due to the civil wars of the nation, her most important contribution being fleeing the field at actium.

Hardly someone worth fighting over.

Actually similar to Boudica in a way, although it stands out that the majority of people who are interested in Cleopatra are not Egyptian.

It's because she was female, supposedly hot, and relevant to the recorded history of the West.

She was a semi-important figure in the history of an empire that was the progenitor of Western civilization, thereby lending her a cultural prestige in the US and Europe that the likes of Nzinga Mbande will never have here. Hoteps have no interest in the culture of their ancestors because the West attaches no esteem to that culture; they latch on to the culture of ancient Egypt and its figures because the West's interest in it brings a chance of reflected glory.

Hoteps have no interest in the culture of their ancestors because the West attaches no esteem to that culture; they latch on to the culture of ancient Egypt and its figures because the West's interest in it brings a chance of reflected glory.

It makes me really sad, because I can't exactly blame them - all the hoteps I've seen were ADOS, so they don't know who their ancestors were and have no way of finding out. They could use DNA testing to find out what tribe their ancestors were, but they have no link to the culture and traditions of those people, and no sense of belonging. Sadly it doesn't work however, by latching onto Egypt they are only disrespecting actual Egyptians, although actual Egyptians don't seem to mind (I only know one Egyptian chick irl though).

Of course you can blame them. In 2023, it requires no effort whatsoever to flip open a book and read about west Africa if one chooses, and at some cost you can get a DNA analysis to find out where your ancestors came from.

I do occasionally see online Egyptians pointing out that claiming the pharaohs were black implies that they are themselves foreign invaders or colonialists, a charge they resent.

Also, not to invoke Godwin's Law, but this whole business reminds me a bit of prewar Germany's obsession with Aryans, as they were ashamed of their own ancestors' lack of sophistication at the same time the Greeks and Romans were building great empires and so had to find historical validation through an imagined descent from a comparable civilization that had nothing to do with them, in this case the Indo-Iranians.

While I can understand the impulse to find belonging in the great achievements of one's ancestors, such validation is ultimately hollow if the traditions being venerated are museum pieces rather than living and breathing culture. The wiser course if one lacks illustrious ancestors is to try to become one, and to make one's people thereby worthy of remembrance. Many scoff at "made-up holidays" like Kwanzaa and various other attempts to create a unifying black American culture from scratch, but culture is all made-up in the end and at those people are trying to build something new.

I do occasionally see online Egyptians pointing out that claiming the pharaohs were black implies that they are themselves foreign invaders or colonialists, a charge they resent.

I wonder how that plays with their Arab identification.

Many Arabs take some pride in their pre-Islamic ancestors in the same superficial sort of way that the French call themselves Gauls or the English commemorate King Arthur despite him being a Briton rather than a Saxon, though with the exception of a few Lebanese Christians all of them would still claim to be Arabs first and foremost.

Does Miriam count?

I’m confident that people could name Nefertiti, mostly because of her world-famous bust, and additionally because the second half of her name sounds hilariously like a certain word for, well, her… bust.

Might be falling into a history average familiarity trap. I don't people are going to be naming even second-rate pharaohs

Hatshepsut!

I only know her from edutainment, and can’t name any feats, so…half credit?

I bet very few people would even recognize the name

Which also doesn't code as probably female for US viewers.

deleted

Because Shakespeare wrote a play about her and Elizabeth Taylor played her in a popular movie. That being said, I've seen neither the play nor the film, and the subject was not covered when I was in school, so that's the best I can do considering I know nothing else about her.

I've never actually understood why people are so obsessed with claiming Cleopatra.

Now that all historical men are unsafe to use as role models (because some SJW will inevitably find an example of their being slavers or sexists or homophobes or Did A Racism once, leading to Cancellation) the historical-revisionism battle to claim historical women for one's cause will only pick up pace.

Now that all historical men are unsafe to use as role models (because some SJW will inevitably find an example of their being slavers or sexists or homophobes or Did A Racism once, leading to Cancellation)

The racism thing can be handled by choosing non-white figures or raceswapping them ("Why do you care?") the homophobia thing can just be glossed over, and the slavery thing can be either downplayed or one can add something like "And he questioned the institution of slavery," or "He treated his slaves like family - slavery was different in Africa/the Islamic world."

And that's just for the very woke.

No way.

The first new biopic which comes to mind is Oppenheimer. It’s getting a little flack on Twitter for being too white, and that’s it. Nothing about how the father of the atom bomb is Problematic. I find it unlikely that the race accusations will have any meaningful effect on cancelling Nolan, for that matter. Clearly there are still historical men available.

She rejected a power-hungry suitor. She outmaneuvered a wicked prince to become sole queen. She dunked on her annoying little brother constantly (same guy). She wrapped the most powerful man in the world around her... finger, twice. She nearly put her kids on the thrones of the entire east. Perhaps even rome, although that kid likely wasn't long for this world in any scenario.

The idea that Cleopatra had Mark Antony wrapped around her little finger was literally a lie that Augustus made up to justify starting yet another civil war. It was important to frame it as a war against that foreign seductress, Cleopatra, rather than what it actually was, a civil war between the two most powerful men in Rome for control of the whole empire (again).

The plan to put Cleopatra's children on the thrones of the East (the "donations of Alexandria") was an administrative strategy that Antony came up with to stabilize the eastern empire by centralizing power in Egypt. It wasn't some wicked scheme of Cleopatra's to usurp Rome.

Whatever, it happened. Let's assume this was entirely mark anthony's idea and decision. It's still a massive win for her egypt to become the eastern dominant kingdom he apparently needed, and to provide 50% of the genes of those kings. And again, it happened twice. Caesar made some questionable decisions for rome that ended up benefitting Cleopatra greatly. How does the saying go? Once is happenstance, twice is coincidence, well okay she missed the third time but only because octavian was as cold as they come.

Cleopatra was greek, not egyptian. She was a Lagid, descended from the subordinate of Alexander the Great who claimed Egypt after the great conqueror kicked the bucket at 33. Even the name "Cleopatra" is greek, which means "Father's Glory" ("Kleos" = glory, and "Pater" = father). The people she ruled were Egyptian.

I said 'her egypt', as in, egypt was her posession. Anyway, when you've ruled a country for 10 generations, they give you a passport, it's in the UN charter.

well okay she missed the third time but only because octavian was as cold as they come.

Or, more cynically, because the position of "woman who got romantically involved with Octavian to insure success for herself and her son" was already filled -- by Livia.

They were other impediments too: Augustus framed himself as the restorer of traditional Roman virtues, including sexual ones.

And then - as mentioned - he demonized Cleopatra as the opposite.

It was never really viable.

Marrying a Roman consul to their queen and putting Mark Antony's children on the thrones of all the neighbouring kingdoms would have solidified Roman rule over Egypt. If Egypt had become the lynchpin of Roman rule over the East as Antony intended, that would have meant that Rome would have controlled the East by controlling Egypt - note the part where Egypt gets to be controlled by Rome, not rise to become a co-equal partner. I don't think cementing your overlord's control over your kingdom is normally characterized as "[becoming] the eastern dominant kingdom." The dominant power was Rome. There are no points for being best-in-your-category.

Cleopatra's brother Ptolemy ('s scheming advisors) tried to pull away from Rome and exercise more independence - or at least more obstinance. Cleopatra smuggled herself into the palace and presented herself to Caesar as a more pliable alternative ruler, if he would just put her on the throne. Caesar had Ptolemy put to death and installed Cleopatra as queen. After Caesar died she picked up where she left off with Mark Antony, but that ended in disaster and she was deposed and committed suicide, after which Rome not only annexed Egypt but took it as the personal possession of the Emperor.

Every step she took led to less power for Egypt and more for Rome. Her path ended in the annexation of her kingdom and the end of her dynasty. Again, not seeing it.

Every step she took led to less power for Egypt and more for Rome. Her path ended in the annexation of her kingdom and the end of her dynasty. Again, not seeing it.

It was probably inevitable.

Dynastic conflict may have accelerated it but that was already happening: as you say she was already in the middle of a struggle for Egypt and Caesar had already showed up. One she probably would have lost. Getting out of that jam alone was a success.

Cleopatra lost in the end but it's hard to imagine predicting the deaths and losses of both Antony and Caesar. Especially since Caesar appeared to have tamed all opposition.

There's a very different but equally conceivable timeline where she stays the favored vassal/paramour of the leader of Rome or at least a Triumvir.

In a sense, marking her as particularly foolish would be reinforcing the Augustan propaganda that she was more of a protagonist than she probably was. She was probably savvy. It's more her fate wasn't in her hands.

I didn’t say she was an egyptian patriot who worked tirelessly for the good of the country. It’s her interests she advanced, and egypt's with it.

You can always find a reason why supporting her against her brother, giving away cyprus, subordinating the other client kingdoms to egypt etc makes sense for them somehow, but you’ve got to admit that caesar and anthony’s behaviour is unusual. The last time caesar went to a client kingdom, the king bequeated it to rome and it was incorporated as a province. I guess Cleopatra gave better head than Caesar.

The romans already controlled the east. A wily ruler would present himself as pliable, amass power and then do as he pleases once his greater power made him capable of challenging his overlord. Getting egypt from a client kingdom among many (slowly absorbed) to the junior partner in a dominating roman alliance is an upgrade. And the consequences of her and antony’s defeat can hardly be called a ‘step she took’.

The Romans were fascinated with her, so we all are.

But you're right: part of their fascination was almost certainly inflated by Augustan propaganda to hide his killing of other Romans behind combating the spectre of Greek degeneracy (which of course Antony was weak to succumb to). She needed to be bigger to sell the win.

We're all living in the shadow of highly successful imperial propaganda.

She's a cool historical figure who has a lot of cultural cachet and mystique (even in her time). It's not really anymore complicated than that.

Also she's a woman, which is rare enough among those circles and of particular interest to the obvious people who would care.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats