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 -
A while back I read this book about the Catholic/Protestant strife in Sweden in late 1500s which eventually culminated into a Game of Thrones -like civil war between two claimants of the house of Vasa, the Catholic Sigismund and the Protestant Charles, to the crown of Sweden, the latter eventually usurping the former and confirming Sweden's status as a Lutheran nation. The book concentrates on the Finnish side of it (Finland having been a part of Sweden) but covers the entire realm.
One of the things the book shows is that there was both a political and a religious side of it. Obviously when you have a war between two kings like this there's going to be politics beyond religion involved and Lappalainen portrays, for instance, Klaus Fleming (the chief Finnish noble of the time, a chief supporter of Sigismund's claim) as a person who didn't really give a rip about any of this religious stuff and just supported his King out of bullheaded loyalty. At the time, it is also made clear that the two royal claimants, for instance, genuinely believed that their side was correct, even if this didn't stop them from engaging in all manner of scheming and occasionally portraying their intentions otherwise than they believed.
The culture war aspect is also in there; even though the county initially was quite favorable to retaining Catholicism or at least much of it, the Lutherans worked hard to convince the city folk of Stockholm that the Pope was the Antichrist, and this crucially limited Sigismund's field of action at the times when he should have been able to work to stabilize his rule. And the economic side; there was a localized civil war in Finland, the Cudgel War, technically about the kings but really about Fleming (the implicit viceroy of Finland at this time) taxing the peasants in order support King Sigismund so much they eventually rose up against him.
Likewise, the strength of Lutheranism meant that Charles had to acquisce to Lutheranism becoming the specific flavor of Protestantism Sweden would adopt for good, even though his personal sympathies were towards Calvinism. And, of course, trying to be a centrist won one no favors; king John (Sigismund's father, Charles's brother) had tried to create a middle-ground version between Catholicism and Lutheranism, and it just meant that everyone assumed he was secretly supporting the other side.
Of course, the eventual victory of Charles and Protestantism in Sweden would have huge consequences for Europe and the world, since Sweden would go on to fight 200 years of unrelenting Protestant holy war and operate as the sword of Protestantism. If Sweden had fallen into the Catholic camp, it might have meant that at least the Lutheran side of reformation would have been eventually quashed. And there were more immediate consequences; Sigismund also ruled Poland-Lithuania (as king Zygmunt III Waza) and, after losing in Sweden, concentrated on ruling that country, leading to a host of consequences for that country.
Henry IV of France spent years waging war against Catholic lords before giving up and converting. This secured him the crown, which he used to instill religious tolerance and wind down the French wars of religion. It also drew the ire of everyone from betrayed Huguenots to the English monarchy. Catholic radicals weren’t impressed, either, and one of their assassins would eventually succeed. These intrigues spanned decades, and I have no reason to believe they were unusual for the period.
More options
Context Copy link
At the same time in France, you’ve got the aptly named Politiques, elite supporters of the french monarchy who didn’t care that much about religion. It appears they were in the minority though, because King Henry III was involved in the ‘War of the three henrys’ with Henry, Duke of guise, chief of the catholic party, and Henry, King of navarre, chief of the protestant party(future french King Henry IV). It did not go well for Henry III, even though he had the easy central position. He lost control of most regions and paris, while the other two would just go at it, while ignoring him.
Fun fact : all of the henrys were assassinated, the second by order of the first, and the two kings by catholic zealots.
Fun connection: Henry III was actually King of Poland-lithuania for 2 years, 13 years before your guy Sigismund III Vasa. When he inherited the french throne he just up and left.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link