naraburns nihil supernum
1yr ago
(text post)
29415 thread views
Israel-Gaza Megathread #1
This is a megathread for any posts on the conflict between (so far, and so far as I know) Hamas and the Israeli government, as well as related geopolitics. Culture War thread rules apply.
A tangent, but the "Native American population" by self-identification has never been higher. At 10 million, it is more than double the pre-Columbian population of the United States. It has grown by a factor of 30 since 1950, at an incredible rate of nearly 5% per year, which is far greater than even the Amish.
With such a large and growing population, I expect ever more battles to obtain special carve-outs and privileges. I also expect more people to repudiate their majority European DNA in an effort to claim these privileges for themselves.
I am not particularly informed about this topic, and nor am I American, but are these genuine cases?
Most "Native Americans" I come across on Social media are a bunch of functionally white women making noises about feeling under represented. I often find out that they have a a native great grandmother from a poor financial background who married a well off white man and had kids who were raised white.
So, based on what I said above it is no surprise that I find their claims weak and superficial, the tiny bits of Native American cultural practices they perform in the name of reconnecting with their roots more close to putting on the stereotypical feathered Native American costume than genuine practice. And I find it hard to believe anyone would believe the spin.
Now, I am biased by Social media which often platforms performative hacks over genuine products, so I may be way way off on this.
I am not particularly informed about this topic, and nor am I American, but are these genuine cases?
No. Full blooded native Americans exist, but there’s probably less than a million of them and almost none of them are Cherokee or whatever other tribe is popular to claim membership with.
An easy test is to ask if a ‘native American’ is an actual member of a federally recognized tribe- all of them require blood quanta.
A lot of them live on reservations and are impoverished, which is a great context for maximizing birth rates. They have nothing better or more appealing to do than breed. No career prospects to sacrifice fertility for, no Molochian god of GDP maximization to care about, just civilizationally robust cigarettes and booze.
The native birth rate in Canada is 2.2, dipping to 1.4 for those not living on reservations and climbing to 2.5+ for those on reservations, compared to the overall Canadian birthrate of 1.4.
A tangent, but the "Native American population" by self-identification has never been higher.
It is a tangent, but Palestinians and Native Americans have a lot in common, geopolitically. For example, in my experience there tends to be a lot of talk about the "ongoing genocide" against both groups, which are growing and have never been larger. That's a remarkable accomplishment in the face of "ongoing genocide!" To say nothing of their selective endorsement of ethnonationalism and feudal notion of binds between blood and land, but only for non-whites...
I also expect more people to repudiate their majority European DNA in an effort to claim these privileges for themselves.
This process is well underway. The so-called "civil rights movement" transformed racialism from a legal and social liability to a legal and social advantage. For those who lack a plausible race claim, novel takes on sex and sexuality offer an alternative. And yet in most places I've seen this pointed out, someone inevitably trots out the strawman: "you think someone would just choose to belong to an oppressed minority? Hah!"
Except that's exactly what the numbers seem to be telling us. People follow the incentives, and flee the costs. We've incentivized fracture and factionalism, so fracture and factionalism is what we are getting.
I think you are significantly downplaying the motivations for Civil Rights. African-Americans were literally born into their oppressed minority status. Of course they weren’t choosing it. This is the motte behind the entire edifice—that fundamentally, a significant number of Americans were deprived of their rights purely on the basis of their birth. By all means, argue against the bailey of self-identification. It’s much harder to assume away the fight against segregated buildings, voter suppression, blatant disregard for the word and spirit of the Constitution.
I think you are significantly downplaying the motivations for Civil Rights.
I think maybe you misunderstand my criticism. Most sources suggest the civil rights movement spans the mid-1950s to the mid-1960s. You are correct that, during that time, a lot of people were motivated by genuine infringement on their genuinely civil rights. The story of desegregation is the one that is most often retold because it is, I suspect, the clearest case: state actors harming citizens by violating their rights directly, and state laws explicitly requiring private individuals and companies to impose racial apartheid whether they wanted to or not. But "affirmative action"--preferential treatment on the basis of race--was also demanded early and often.
I do not think preferential treatment is a civil right--to the contrary. And so almost from its very inception the movement was deeply self-contradictory. And maybe that would have been okay, but--slowly at first, and accelerating through the end of the 20th century--the demand for preferential treatment for black Americans became, by far, the most important, visible, influential, and imitated aspect of the civil rights movement as it extended beyond the goal of ending the oppression of blacks. Consider: segregation, voter suppression, and the like was limited to a handful of places, but affirmative action was not! Today, racial minorities demand segregation with some regularity. Fewer than 3/5ths of black voters bother to show up at the polls. So what is the true and lasting legacy of the civil rights movement, then, if not preferential treatment--which is not a civil right?
I think the civil rights movement changed American culture for the better in some ways--more in some parts of America than others. Abolishing state-mandated segregation was, on my view, purely good. State-mandated segregation was a huge and serious violation of many rights I regard civil. But the people to my political left do not appear to agree with me about that, not anymore, and they definitely advocate for preferential treatment for groups they regard as political allies. These are the people who most often claim to be the inheritors of the civil rights movement, and they appear to me the people most opposed to genuine civil rights.
If by "civil rights movement" you just mean Martin Luther King, Jr., then sure, I can drop the "so-called." But I'm not sure how to extend the motte and bailey metaphor when the people in the bailey clearly regard themselves as holding the motte.
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.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
A tangent, but the "Native American population" by self-identification has never been higher. At 10 million, it is more than double the pre-Columbian population of the United States. It has grown by a factor of 30 since 1950, at an incredible rate of nearly 5% per year, which is far greater than even the Amish.
With such a large and growing population, I expect ever more battles to obtain special carve-outs and privileges. I also expect more people to repudiate their majority European DNA in an effort to claim these privileges for themselves.
I am not particularly informed about this topic, and nor am I American, but are these genuine cases?
Most "Native Americans" I come across on Social media are a bunch of functionally white women making noises about feeling under represented. I often find out that they have a a native great grandmother from a poor financial background who married a well off white man and had kids who were raised white.
So, based on what I said above it is no surprise that I find their claims weak and superficial, the tiny bits of Native American cultural practices they perform in the name of reconnecting with their roots more close to putting on the stereotypical feathered Native American costume than genuine practice. And I find it hard to believe anyone would believe the spin.
Now, I am biased by Social media which often platforms performative hacks over genuine products, so I may be way way off on this.
No. Full blooded native Americans exist, but there’s probably less than a million of them and almost none of them are Cherokee or whatever other tribe is popular to claim membership with.
An easy test is to ask if a ‘native American’ is an actual member of a federally recognized tribe- all of them require blood quanta.
More options
Context Copy link
It must be. No way the actual Native American population is growing faster than the Amish.
A lot of them live on reservations and are impoverished, which is a great context for maximizing birth rates. They have nothing better or more appealing to do than breed. No career prospects to sacrifice fertility for, no Molochian god of GDP maximization to care about, just civilizationally robust cigarettes and booze.
Native American birth rate is about 2.1, which is near replacement levels.
The native birth rate in Canada is 2.2, dipping to 1.4 for those not living on reservations and climbing to 2.5+ for those on reservations, compared to the overall Canadian birthrate of 1.4.
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
It is a tangent, but Palestinians and Native Americans have a lot in common, geopolitically. For example, in my experience there tends to be a lot of talk about the "ongoing genocide" against both groups, which are growing and have never been larger. That's a remarkable accomplishment in the face of "ongoing genocide!" To say nothing of their selective endorsement of ethnonationalism and feudal notion of binds between blood and land, but only for non-whites...
This process is well underway. The so-called "civil rights movement" transformed racialism from a legal and social liability to a legal and social advantage. For those who lack a plausible race claim, novel takes on sex and sexuality offer an alternative. And yet in most places I've seen this pointed out, someone inevitably trots out the strawman: "you think someone would just choose to belong to an oppressed minority? Hah!"
Except that's exactly what the numbers seem to be telling us. People follow the incentives, and flee the costs. We've incentivized fracture and factionalism, so fracture and factionalism is what we are getting.
“So-called”?
I think you are significantly downplaying the motivations for Civil Rights. African-Americans were literally born into their oppressed minority status. Of course they weren’t choosing it. This is the motte behind the entire edifice—that fundamentally, a significant number of Americans were deprived of their rights purely on the basis of their birth. By all means, argue against the bailey of self-identification. It’s much harder to assume away the fight against segregated buildings, voter suppression, blatant disregard for the word and spirit of the Constitution.
I think maybe you misunderstand my criticism. Most sources suggest the civil rights movement spans the mid-1950s to the mid-1960s. You are correct that, during that time, a lot of people were motivated by genuine infringement on their genuinely civil rights. The story of desegregation is the one that is most often retold because it is, I suspect, the clearest case: state actors harming citizens by violating their rights directly, and state laws explicitly requiring private individuals and companies to impose racial apartheid whether they wanted to or not. But "affirmative action"--preferential treatment on the basis of race--was also demanded early and often.
I do not think preferential treatment is a civil right--to the contrary. And so almost from its very inception the movement was deeply self-contradictory. And maybe that would have been okay, but--slowly at first, and accelerating through the end of the 20th century--the demand for preferential treatment for black Americans became, by far, the most important, visible, influential, and imitated aspect of the civil rights movement as it extended beyond the goal of ending the oppression of blacks. Consider: segregation, voter suppression, and the like was limited to a handful of places, but affirmative action was not! Today, racial minorities demand segregation with some regularity. Fewer than 3/5ths of black voters bother to show up at the polls. So what is the true and lasting legacy of the civil rights movement, then, if not preferential treatment--which is not a civil right?
I think the civil rights movement changed American culture for the better in some ways--more in some parts of America than others. Abolishing state-mandated segregation was, on my view, purely good. State-mandated segregation was a huge and serious violation of many rights I regard civil. But the people to my political left do not appear to agree with me about that, not anymore, and they definitely advocate for preferential treatment for groups they regard as political allies. These are the people who most often claim to be the inheritors of the civil rights movement, and they appear to me the people most opposed to genuine civil rights.
If by "civil rights movement" you just mean Martin Luther King, Jr., then sure, I can drop the "so-called." But I'm not sure how to extend the motte and bailey metaphor when the people in the bailey clearly regard themselves as holding the motte.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link