site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1yr ago (text post)   32274 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of July 17, 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.

11
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Do you know of any resources that make the history of Hinduism legible to a westerner? I got curious reading about Indo-European languages and then Indo-European religion. The parallels between Germanic mythology and early Vedic religion are fascinating. But the early Vedic religion has clearly been transformed and subsumed. (No cattle sacrifices in modern Hinduism!) I am curious what the different proto-Hinduisms were and how they met and fought and syncretized.

Books I've read on the history of Indo-European religion (admittedly years ago) were light on the Indo-Iranian branch.

Don't look at history, look at population genomics. Razib Khan is your best resource for this.

That being said, genomics data on India is an evolving field, so confidence in some findings is not as iron-clad as the stamp of science might suggest. Genomics tells you the 'what', but it doesn't tell you much about the 'how'. This means that you're stuck drawing equivalencies from known events in history from other regions. They might be informed guesses, but that's all they are.

For example: Does the appearance of a new - mostly male genetic branch over a few hundred years guarantee 'invasion, murder & rape', or could it also indicate a large male immigrant population. Note: in the modern era of peaceful immigration, most immigrants are still young men. We don't really know what happened here, and all political/academic groups are happier promoting their own conjecture, than digging in and finding out who got it right.

The verdict on the supposed violence of ancient proto-Hindus will influence political will to demonize colonizing muslim invaders of the last 1000 years. It provides historical backing/debunking for the sharp line that supposedly distinguishes the southern Indian Dravidians from the northern Indian Aryans. It allows inquiry into whether India's central philosophical work (Rigveda) was even composed in South Asia.

Indians have been a defeated people for a whole millennium. Post-socialism India has tried to reclaim a confident image of itself, carved from great ancient kings, who are the supposed ancestors of the modern inhabitants of this land. The Govt. senses a great deal of risk in even allowing research that might imply that the genetic ancestors of a huge portion of Indians have always been a defeated people. To them, there is nothing to gain and a lot to lose. I don't blame them. It's a hard choice.

How does it make them anymore a defeated people than the Europeans. Were the Etruscans a more or less defeated people after they gladly accepted Roman citizenship during and after the Social War? Despite being genetically identical to the Romans for over 1000 years at that point.

There are 2 difference.

The first is that the European male lineage was almost entirely wiped out. If everyone is the child of the winners, then you're a child of the winners. If that genetic breakdown is more of spectrum, then some are more children of winners than the others. Second, Europe kept winning. They do not have an issue of cultural inferiority. The Europeans do not have their own white man to look up to, to borrow from and to integrate into.

This topic is part of a very contentious and visceral cultural war here in India with a lot of parties having vested interest in each interpretation. The whole subject is quite political. Academic Indology is extremely dominated by left leaning ideologues both in West and in India. Indology would either comprise of a postmodernist analysis of caste based power dynamics or a marxist histographical (again very anti-brahmanical) view of history which surprisingly is very pro-islamic. For example, Aryan Invasion Theory (proposed by the brilliant but very euro centric Indologist Max Weber) was defended very vigorously both through gate keeping and politicisation of any attenpt to challenge it, despite overwhelming evidence regarding a very gradual introduction of what is thought to be proto-hindu tribes Y chromosome in India(over 1000 years).

The Indic Right isn't much better as they subscribe to Out of India theory despite bery little arguments in support of it, though not many take them seriously. Currently the accepted view is Aryan Migration theory.

The fact that much of the archaelogical evidence that could have helped has been destroyed in over 500 years of Islamic invasion of India.

I'm not sure what the difference between Aryan Invasion Theory and Aryan Migration Theory is supposed to be. The genetic evidence matches pretty closely what we see in historical events that are universally considered invasions e.g. the Spanish conquest of the New World, which in terms of demographic impact took nearly 400 years to conclude during a time with much more advanced military technology and social organization than possessed by Bronze Age tribal peoples.

I thought Wendy Doniger’s book was pretty good when I first read it.

Wendy Doniger is the kind of person who reads about Zarte Piet and sees that as proof that chattel slavery of black men dates back 1000 years in the Netherlands. Her 'fit my observations onto my own western priors' approach leads to conclusions that would confuse even the most illiterate Indian.

It would be like an Indian studying Abrahamic religion saying that Jesus, Moses and Muhamed were all avatars of the same person, who reincarnated in different space-times to enlighten that space-time of the dharmic way. The Indian would say: "They believe in a similar system Trimurti system as us. The creator is God who is Brahma. The one who interacts with the humans, is the son, who is Vishnu. However, because they do not have the same cyclic system as us, they've replaced the destroyer: Shiva with a Holy Spirit which feels kinda redundant."

Now imagine if this commentary was considered the preeminent scholarship on Abrahamic religions...... that's Wendy Doniger. She isn't malicious, it's simply that she isn't capable.

I find it very hard to take Wendy Doniger seriously as an expert of Hinduism. It is very apparent to people born and brought up in Hindu tradition to see the inherent misunderstandings in her view regarding Hinduism.

For example, she wrote a book Shiva trying to reconcile how he is viewed as both a householder and ascetic in India. She theorized that tribes in war to attain peace adopted both opposite elements to describe the same deity, completely ignoring not only the available literature and tye depth of this contradiction. Ignoring the fact that all mythology invloving Shiva has depicted him always of being a walking contradiction, destroyer of the world acting as a protector of creation by consuming the poison with the threatening the existence of the universe, an ascetic with ash smeared all over his body despite adorning the holy river Ganga and the Moon on his head, with a nature described as calmness and yet having a fiery (would be an understatement) temper. All commentaries on Hindu thought historically starting from Vedas points to this and yet her academic assumption ignores this widely accepted fact.

Yeah. I was expecting someone to mention that at some point. I’m aware of what makes her controversial. But aside from an orthodox book like “What Is Hinduism?” or “Dancing with Siva” that’s trying to induct you into the religion, there isn’t much I could point to to recommend to a westerner that has zero familiarity with it.

I get that completely, I would point someone towards S Radhakrishnan, a respected scholar who also served as president of India.

The whole CW surrounding Hinduism in this current era is very fascinating and I hope I would be able to cover that in future threads.

I would love to read it.

I appreciate your and @screye's replies on the culture war aspects. As an American I am used to reading western history with the bias of the author in mind. But that's hard to do for parts of the world where I don't have the context; I can sometimes intuit the author's biases, but their implications are not clear to me.

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