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 -
Hey nice to see you came over from the sub. Yes I am saying the subjects did maim themselves*. Belgium and Britain were in a propaganda war over African control, so Britain used yellow journalism to tar the image of Leopold. One of these allegations was that the Belgians either directly participated in, or directed their subordinates, to maim natives who did not obtain the monthly required rubber tax.
Leopold replied to the propaganda by creating a commission composed of members from different European nations. This is less biased than a British journalist interviewing people at behest of the British government. The commission found that the Congolese natives who were employed by Leopold, the “sentries”, were abusing the locals and maiming them for their own greed when out on patrols. The commission actually demanded that Leopold no longer permit natives to do their own patrols, in order to reduce the number of native maimings.
This is also backed up by 19th century travel literature on the Congo region which mentions that maiming was the native punishment for all kinds of infractions. The maimings were not due to Leopold’s colonialism, but an absence of Leopold’s colonialism; he inadvertently permitted a savage Congo practice because he didn’t want his (very few, iirc <500?) Belgians to do patrols deeper into the Congo.
In typical language of the time,
https://newspapers.bc.edu/?a=d&d=BOSTONSH19051111-01&e=-------en-20--1--txt-txIN-------
https://archive.org/details/congoreportofcom00congrich
Roger Casement was responsible for much of the information gathered in the report, and he is not your typical British official, given that he was later executed for treason for supporting the Irish rebellion. After the Congo, he was sent out to Peru to investigate reports of abuses by a British company, so again - not just Brits versus Belgians:
Yes, native Congolese tribes were often savage. But the report also states that the Belgian administration was not concerned with governing the territory, but rather extracting the maximum profit from rubber. The territory was vast, the white officers relatively few in number, so they relied on native soldiers to act as police, and when the soldiers committed atrocities - well, that was how the cookie crumbles.
The Belgian administration anticipated the defence above - that the maimings were due to the savage natures of the natives:
The administration itself was forced to regulate matters:
From the report:
More options
Context Copy link
Thanks for the links!
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link