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 buy the concept of cultural appropriation. I've learned too much about things like Greco-Buddhist art and Daoist Christian syncretism to think there's anything wrong with "appropriating" cultures, even in the most sacred of contexts.
There's a difference between treating another culture or group with dignity and respect, and refusing to do anything with that culture's art, fashion or stories. I actually think it's a bit racist to refuse to let cultures mix and mingle as is their natural tendency historically. It would be much easier for humans if everything always stayed separated into Platonic ideals, but the reality is that especially in the Old World everything was very connected and ideas in one part of Europe might find their way to India or Japan given enough time historically.
I think you're seriously misreading the situation in a number of ways. You see victory, and call it defeat.
When the Greco-Bactrian kingdom started depicting Buddha in Greek-style statuary, was this a humiliation for the Buddhists or the Greeks? No, of course not. If anything it showed the strength of Greek culture and of Indian Buddhist culture that when these two great cultural groups mixed they produced something new.
Western culture has been so successful that a Puerto Rican man made a musical about one of America's Founding Fathers and it was wildly popular. Was it a humiliation that many of the cast in Hamilton were black or Hispanic? Of course not, this is a sign of American and Western culture's strength, not its weakness.
I'm sorry, but I honestly can't unlearn how artificial nations are. Modern Greeks learn about the Classics, even though a lot of Greeks are descended from the Ottomans and haven't got a bit of Hellenistic blood in them. The majority of French people didn't speak French until surprisingly recently in history. The drindl and lederhosen are the costume of specific regions of modern Germany, and not Germany as a whole.
It's all fake, fake, fake.
Not our nation of course. Our nation, uniquely among all nations, is autochthonous and authentic. It's totally real and wasn't the result of decades or centuries of nationalist agitation to make us think of it as primordial and true.
I think "nationalism" only makes sense if you are a nation. Yes, yes, I pointed out how nations are fake above, but the United States really isn't a nation. I like someone's description of it as a "civic state." Americans trace their origins to a common civic history, not a common birth like Japan or France.
At one point it might have been a proto-nation of primarily anglo origin, but today it is such a mess of ethnicities that I doubt if it can truly make itself a single nation, though the growing circle of those considered "Han" across Chinese history might provide an interesting template going forward. Certainly, "white American" has become somewhat of a group, as well as "black American" and those ties might be enough to call each group a nascent "nation." I just don't know if I buy that as a solid glue to hold together American society though.
Like, is it a humiliation to anglo Americans that many white Americans love institutions created by, of and for anglo Americans? Is it a humiliation that the anglo Founding Fathers can sometimes be depicted by people of obviously non-Anglo (if still white) actors?
I don't know - I think Western culture is pretty awesome, but I'm not a chauvinist about it. I also appreciate (in Kipling's sense of the word) many of the non-Western cultures I've been exposed to. None of those cultures are "pure", isolated islands for the most part. Oni from Japan might have some influence from Indian rakshasa, and so on and so on, the lists of cross-cultural pollination are endless.
I'm pro-race swapping because I'm a student of history and the humanities, and those fields show again and again that you just can't keep a "pure" form of a culture around for any length of time. New circumstances always arise. There's always another tribe or nation or people along the horizon, ready to throw your conception of the world into disarray, or who just has a really cool story that you can't wait to put your own spin on.
It is bothersome that you dodged in your support of race swapping the issue of discrimination, and how race swapping involves a heavy dose of a choice to discriminate against whites for blacks.
Actual history is full of ethnic cleansing and conquerors repressing the culture of the conquered, destroying its symbols, delegitimizing the native ethnic group and asserting the culture of the conquerors. Cultural appropriation to the extreme is a much different thing than the reality that nations have cultural influences with each other. It is distorting my view to think I am promoting no cultural interexchange. Although there does come a point that you don't have an evolution of the same influenced by the foreign, but something completly foreign non continuous to the past.
The reality is that the marxist nationalist and liberal nationalist movement promoting anti-identitarianism against its outgroup also includes black nationalists, jewish nationalists, in the USA hispanic chauvinists and others, and a direct part of its agenda is the threat of native identity and promoting foreign to it identities. The agenda of dissolution of national communities comes along with hatred and mistreatment towards them and flows from that very source.
This can not be seen as a procces that results in a continuation of the same civilization but a displacement of it that promotes hatred towards its symbols and distorts its history. And there is a real rise of Afrocentrism, not only with black cleopatra, and other depictions of historical european figures as black, but a general arguement that they were there first and were significant. This does fit into cultural genocide.
Modern Greeks are actually descended from ancient Greeks and so you promoted here nationalist propaganda against various ethnic groups. https://www.science.org/content/article/greeks-really-do-have-near-mythical-origins-ancient-dna-reveals
And you have confused the relationship with the Ottomans. Erdogan, the president of Turkey had a Greek grandfather. Most Turks in modern Turkey are historically descendant of turkified locals with some lower level of admixture by Turks. Actually Christian groups did not intermix much with the muslims but the muslims did get locals through conversion and through even methods like blood tax were they recruited from Christian families through force Janisaries.
And with some ancestry with other Ottoman subjects. It is more that some of the Ottomans were Turkified Greeks than the opposite. Plus at those times there was real seperation between groups.
Regional diversity has reduced among the development of modern nations that resulted in more homogenity. And yet the bonds that tie Frenchmen with each other and what they have in common are significant.
It isn't the same with those outside said nations which don't possess cultural, identity, ancestry, historical commonialities.
The biggest antinationalists towards other nations tend to be foreign nationalists who have mistreated them. However in modernity we also have another phenomenon. The hatred towards nations and religions in general has lead historically to a marxist movement that has lead to both attrocities and repression. Its a hatred and a prejudice, it isn't a good thing that you aren't able to respect people identifying with their national communities and try to undermine them.
It really is impossible to seperate antinationalism with the preferences of nationalists for nations they despise and with local antinationalism and self hatred. precisely because it is hatred it isn't a defense of western civilization since people of different identities outside of it, whose movements have talked negatively about western civilization as well, gets to put their identity front and center and also there is displacement of natives of western civilization with those outside of it which carry their own tribal different identities.
No there is a historical American nation. America was created by a particular people and there is even part of mythology about piligrms.
If there isn't enough glue to hold things together isn't your rhetoric part of what is destroying the glue? What should hold USA together? Wokenes? We also see this same agenda you have promoted for old world nations so don't tell me it is just for the USA. Its nations in general you call fake.
Actually Anglos were primarily the historical American nation. But there was some room for assimiliation of whites in general mainly north europeans into a wasp identity. Then there were others and yes that did undermine the anglo nation but there was also less undermining with people like the Italian Catholic Scalia who said he tried to assimiliate into Anglo culture, and more with those who didn't.
A white Italian pretending he is a white Anglo in a story representing the American founders is more respectful and less distorting of historical America than pretending that American founders were black. If we had a story of Irish, Jews, Italians, Greeks, and Russians pretending that the American founders were that and not primarilly Anglos, it would be culturally destructive.
The smoother actually evolution of USA as a multiethnic nation is after having made a lot of room for those outside of the historical American nation to also respect the historical american nation. Which also there has been some continuing white ethnogenesis of a different sort through white americans becoming more mutt.
The alternative is antinativist racism and a glue of non whites of the world unite. Its intersectionality. Its a form of racist tribalism that already includes a heavy dose of racist discirmination and demonization, and will end in even worse tragedies, no matter how people who support it try to focus on the positive side. I believe a multi-ethnic identity that respects historical America and its continuing peoples even if it has made room for others is the way to avoid conflict and make justice. But it does require limiting immigration to not further damage the historical American nation. A bit like what Putin said that Russians are the Russian forming people but Russia is not only for Russians.
Of course had they restricted migration in previous decades, the glue would be even stronger. In any case, black Americans like white Americans are an ethnic group, but they are an ethnic group who unlike white Americans, their ethnic identity is not repressed whatsoever and have a strong seperate ethnic identity. Even many of those on the right like Tucker Carlson tend to be pro those blacks who see blacks as their people but also see themselves as Americans and like white Americans.
Conflict can be avoided if we punish antinativist racists and enforce the necessity of respecting the interests and rights of groups that progressives disdain. Doing so would not encourage nativist extremist racism since the extremis attitutes are predominently on the antinativist side towards europeans and adjacent groups. Moreover there is no issue with promoting in general a consistent stance that relates to respecting your own nation and its rights and is existence while also respecting the rights to others. And since multi-ethnic societies often lead to conflict and attempt of different ethnic groups or coalition to dominate the rest, and it really does undermine the rights of native people this can work better with homogeneous societies which also try to respect others rights.
Practically yo uare going to have in certain places of the world multii-ethnic society and you don't side with dissolving it as a multiethnic society, then it is necessary in my view to try to maintain the peace and a certain mutuality of respect. This aspect exists to an extend although with much extreme far left dogma with intersectionality where there is some promotion of mutuality of respect among left wing groups.
I wouldn't enforce quotas based on population but it is a good norm for people to respect white Americans a group, and I say this who I am not an American.
We see quotas and a real slippery slope. No reason the race swapping can be just "sometimes". But yes it can be humiliation and more than that if done systematically enough it can be cultural genocide if there is an agenda to distort and delegitimize depicting ones ancestors with their own people.
Also, it is a fact that foreign peoples do not identify with the founding fathers in the same way historical Americans did and even some who successfully assimiliated to said nation. Nor do we see as with the Turks for example who are quite nationalistic, any attempt by the race swapping faction to force the newcomers to abadon old allegiance and align with the historical American nation. Rather, they legitimize a POC seperate identities and grievances against western civilization. And where the original story is changed as an appeasement it signifies that it can not be celebrated on its own merits precisely because who the founders were matter. A distorted picture is disrespectful of the historical American nation. Plus we can't forget the recent films that race swap europeans and propaganda from BBC how blacks were there from the start. There is an Afrocentrist agenda promoted that will only becomesmore pervasive and unquestionable and when that happens I don't expect you to argue against it.
You were critical of race swapping just recently, so I wouldn't take your claim that you are pro race swapping at face value absent of who is race swapped. Since the race swapping is from white to non white yes you are in favor, but otherwise I am not convinced you are pro race swapping as a general principle.
htps://www.themotte.org/post/667/culture-war-roundup-for-the-week/137944?context=8#context
Yourself have said in regards to a mod race swapping from non white to white:
So you are willing to think a sinister motive for race swapping in general when it is from non white to white but not for the opposite.
I am not going to personally attack you and call you names for it and it isn't an irrelevant outside the direct issue view. It really is the core of my claim that this faction is inconsistent so it would be unfair not to be able to quote since is the my central thesis about anti-identitarianism. So in a restrained manner about it without refusing to make the argument I do believe your previous stance does counter your current pro race swapping stance and reinforces my argument that the so called anti-identitarian faction is inconsistent and carries with it particular sympathies. It is for some ethnic groups and against others while its general view of being against identity in general does not apply in practice in how they operate. Its concern trolling the outgroup when it is convenient to do so.
If it was about opposing identity politics in general, there would be more support of race swapping in the ways that gores progressive mythology and that is controversial to the groups of the progressive stack.
Beyond this specific case, rather than waiting for proof before a shadow of a doubt, I would argue that based on experience of how the general faction has operated, we should not be giving the benefit of the doubt those who present as anti identitarian when it is harmful to non progressive ethnic groups, but consider them to be behaving by purer motives only if they themselves demonstrate to begin with an attitude that is itself indicative of someone disrespectful of also the identities that are especially indulged in American politics. Like the black one. Anti-identitarianism can be seen as the genuine and not motte and bailey, only if it promoted to begin with in a manner that disrespects the progressive sacred cows too, and also we see this movement and the people with this ideology operate in this manner for a long period of time so we can judge how it acts on the long term, and we can conclude that "yes, now this is not the same motte and bailey we are used to".
However, even a consistent anti-identitarian could end up having to content with the problem of what Trotsky called positively collectivism of individualism, and the ruinous consequences of this kind of ideology that even when followed sincerely often people end up victimized akin to foreign conquest with their culture and society disrespected and them hated for having a national or religious community. This marxist mentality does not lead to nationalist extremists or religious fanatics restrained, but hateful anti-identitarian tribalist extremists who hate more moderate people wanting their nations and their heritage to exist. I condemn the worst fanaticism of this anti-identitarianism which can't tolerate the continuing existence of nations which are part of the richness of humanity.
And there is a reason why even right wingers like Carlson are willing to tolerate a certain level of tribal identity for blacks for example. It isn't just appeasement, but there is a basic respect to their right to being part of their community.
You are not going to be able to impose this collective individualism without a heavy amount of repression, and it won't have good ends. But in practice this coalition does this against white ethnic groups and not against black and certain other progressive aligned ethnic groups. Maybe it is against Japanese too. Since race swapping in general sense is seen as more defensible than particular racism, and also it isn't accurate to claim that the issue is race swapping in the abstract, it isn't charitable to those negatively affected by this process to pretend that the debate is about race swapping in the abstract.
So in a very real sense we can see that the the nations you primarilly focused upon which were european nations are fake. Not whether all ethnic groups are fake. But much more so the real issue in regards to influential organizations that pretend indigenous europeans are not indigenous.
There are some more recent nations but plenty of ethnic groups with a long history. Also there are peoples who are descendants of the same people who lived in the area but assimilated into different ethnic groups. Like many Arabs in the near east, before arab invasion they were part of the native grecoroman culture, and before that conquest part of other local groups.
Actually both foreign conquerors and in modernity marxists and leftists have used plenty of heavy handed methods to oppress nations. Nations have survived and resisted even foreign occupation so it is a distortion to pretend it is all about nationalist repression and propaganda. These kind of heavy handed methods wouldn't be necessary if nationhood was a feeling inorganic, based on just propaganda and repression and not representing the bonds of people sharing culture, shared destiny, identity, ancestry, religion, history.
Nobody is autocthonous in a literal sense but in the way the term is applied, plenty are. It means in practice being part of your region for a rather long time. It is a loss of nuance and understanding to pretend this concept doesn't apply to plenty of peoples. And it is useful concept to recognize that there are those who rightfully belong in a place and more complicated cases and of course interlopers. One could use the same logic of all property being derived originally through some theft to justify stealing in regards to property rights. Or undermine property rights as marxists have done. So I refuse this logic of cultural marxism that leads to the destruction of nations and disrespects their rights and brought so much unnecessary misery in the world. Its a fundamentally broken ideology that fails under its own premises and can never bring the utopia it promises but only destruction against the targets it resents.
Fair enough, I stand corrected on this point. It doesn't fundamentally undermine my position that nations are artificial.
I considered including a few paragraphs on things like Hindutva in India, and the erosion of diverse languages and cultural groups in Indonesia, but I didn't think it was necessary.
My basic opinion is that humans are social primates with hardware designed for groups of ~150 individuals. Using this hardware, we've managed to create social technologies that allow for greater numbers to be part of organized wholes: religions, nations, etc. Really, it's remarkable that we've been able to create social technologies that allow millions or billions of humans to work together. Whatever else you might say about the current capitalist world order - its ability to coordinate the actions of billions of humans is truly remarkable.
Nations being a social technology does mean that they're "fake" - we did have to invent them. I don't deny the existence of "clans" or "extended families", but I do think once you've reached a certain size it is only ideology and centralization of power that allows us to conceptualize such things as "Han", "Yamato", "French" or "Mexican."
There is no contradiction between what I said there, and what I am saying now. I was then and am now in favor of people making and using mods for video games of any kind.
My post there was descriptive, not prescriptive. I was saying that media habits that become public are subject to public scrutiny. This is undoubtedly true. I said nothing about myself attributing "sinister motives" to other people either way. People's private "vices" are their own business.
Even if there were unabashedly white supremacist mods being made, they don't seem to have lead to any real world harm, and so I don't see a need to prioritize them as an issue.
I apologize if I've misread you, but I don't think you've understood where I'm coming from. My entry point into this topic is much more tied up in my aesthetic philosophy than any pro- or anti-identitarian sentiment.
I didn't omit discrimination in my argument because it somehow escaped my notice as a possible motivation for race swapping. I omitted it because it is completely immaterial to my reasons for supporting the creation of new artistic expression inspired by what has come before.
I'm fully in favor of roasting progressive sacred cows as well, if that is something someone wants to do. Nothing I said implied I wasn't, and I have consistently maintained that I would be in support of things like white Othello or white John Henry when pressed.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
If they had started out not having white characters at all, and then decided they had an interest in white people and started adding cultural elements with the race changed to something else, and if they did this out of a growing respect for the cultures with the whites in them, that's victory. If they had started out having white characters and then took them out, and they didn't respect the culture that those characters came from, that's defeat. It's especially a defeat if it's done under circumstances which don't allow anyone to legally create non-racelifted versions of the characters.
Japan creating a Japanese version of Spider-Man is victory for the culture that produced Spider-Man. Amazon changing races in Wheel of Time is a defeat.
More options
Context Copy link
Do you buy the concept of desecration? The idea of wishing to act upon that which others value, because you know it will dishonor or devalue that thing for them?
If you recognize this mode of behavior, do you think it is a good thing?
No, it is a humiliation that for many people, the founding fathers can only be respected if they are reimagined as black or Hispanic.
To the extent that I value the Founding Fathers, it is for specific reasons. If others value them for completely orthogonal reasons, that is not a victory for my values, and may in fact be a defeat.
To the extent that it was a symptom of the creeping racialization of American society, yes, it was in fact a humiliation.
Like our elections, amiright? ...Oh, shit, no, that's probably the super serious and absolutely unshakably real part that we're supposed to treat as sacred and beyond questioning, since that's the primary mechanism by which we keep the peace between ~350 million fractious, heavily-armed and not terribly sociable murder apes. I mean, you've correctly identified that the idea that we're some sort of common, cohesive culture and values-set to unify us is laughable, so it's a good thing we have indestructible, immortal rules-based systems that are impervious to defection or manipulation or loss of trust, right?
No, it's really not. And it's the sort of thinking you're displaying here that made that the case.
If we really are reducible to white Americans and black Americans, given that I'm not black, someone cheering for the black Americans isn't cheering for me or mine. This seems to me to be an absolutely fantastic reason not to reduce us to so ignoble a state as our race, and I will continue to resist all efforts to do so. That includes people deciding that the only way the Founding Fathers can be appreciated is if they're race-swapped and translated into rap.
One might be forgiven for observing that only a self-described "student of the humanities" would frame this fact as a hopeful, optimistic eventuality. Perhaps you should lean a bit harder on your history, and the record of how new tribes and nations and peoples usually affect those who came before.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link