site banner
ZorbaTHut  1yr ago (text post)   44963 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of September 5, 2022

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.

105
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

A neologism (or a new meaning for the word?) that I have begun to see everywhere and has really started to annoy me is 'anti-racism'.

The annoyance began when I noticed the term being used in places where it was anachronistic. Two instances that I remember were the Wikipedia pages of "Pepsi" and "J.R.R Tolkien". Pepsi's article describes Pepsi's early attempts to advertise to black people as an untapped market as an "anti-racism stance". Tolkien's article states that "scholars have noted... he was anti-racist." After some digging around in the edit history of Pepsi's article, I found that the term 'anti-racist' was only added to the Pepsi article in mid-2018, and to Tolkien's article in early 2021.

"Anti-racism" is a term popular within Critical Race Theory. It was particularly popularised and entered the public consciousness in large part due to Ibram X. Kendi's 2019 book How to be an Anti-Racist. Kendi defines "anti-racism" in that book as follows:

The opposite of “racist” isn’t “not racist.” It is “anti-racist.” What’s the difference? One endorses either the idea of a racial hierarchy as a racist, or racial equality as an antiracist. One either believes problems are rooted in groups of people, as a racist, or locates the roots of problems in power and policies, as an anti-racist. One either allows racial inequities to persevere, as a racist, or confronts racial inequities, as an antiracist. There is no in-between safe space of “not racist.” The claim of “not racist” neutrality is a mask for racism.

According to Kendi, any racial inequity, or anything that results in a racial inequity is by definition racist, and in order to be an "anti-racist" you must support racial equity (i.e. forcing equal outcomes) for everything. A similar quote is from Angela Davis: "In a racist society, it is not enough to be non-racist, we must be anti-racist.”

"Anti-racism" is a classic example of linguistic laundering/doubling, or linguistic motte-and-bailey, that is rife within woke/Critical Social Justice circles. The pattern is to take a word that has a plain meaning to the layman (anti-racist simply means against racism), and create a second specific, academic and ideological meaning for it. This second meaning is then smuggled into conversations and policy when the public naturally just assume the first, plain meaning. Ultimately, this is done for political and ideological ends. Manipulate people to get on board through the plain meaning (you're not a racist are you? You want to be an anti-racist!), then implement the ideological agenda, while maintain it is nothing usual because the word is the same. Other common words doubled in this way are the trio of diversity, equity, inclusion.

Critical Social Justice is the amalgamation of Neo-Marxism/Critical Theory, and Post-modernism/Post-Structuralism. Michel Foucault is the most cited scholar in history, and many other post-modernists, and Neo-Marxists top the list of most cited humanities scholars. It's hard to overstate how influential these ideas are currently in the humanities. Both Neo-Marxism but particularly post-modernism have an extreme focus on language. Language is the medium of power, and therefore, of oppression. It should not be surprising then that Critical Social Justice deliberately engages in such language manipulation as part of their political project, including engaging in historical revisionism to legitimise themselves.

Uh, what term are they supposed to use instead? Specifically serving a disfavored group, or writing letters about how dumb racists are, seems pretty anti-racist to me.

Your proposed "political and ideological ends" don't make a lot of sense, either.

1.Use "anti-racist" in the Tolkien article

2.Poor shmucks think that he's just neutral on racism

3.But those In The Know can tell he was actually supporting racial equity!

4.???

5.New era of racial equity

Not really seeing the payoff for them. Likewise for DEI--cui bono? What are those nasty CRT partisans getting from promoting a second meaning?

  • -10

Specifically serving a disfavored group, or writing letters about how dumb racists are, seems pretty anti-racist to me.

This whole idea only works when accepted as part of a bundle, together with their definition of racism (power+prejudice) and their definition of power – that involves some identity gerrymandering and jumping through hoops, but ends up pointing at white people as those wielding systemic power at the expense of non-whites, men at the expense of women, cis at the expense of trans and queer.

Alone, it's not clear how you can be like Kendi, i.e. consistently clamor for preferential treatment, and label yourself an antiracist.

Was Tolkien an anti-racist in the Kendi sense? Of course not, since those concepts didn't exist at the time. So was he a racist? In the same sense that we are all (supposedly) racists, because of Original Sin Systemic Racism, then yes. There are those who go further and claim he was a racist in the racist sense (see the quotes I used above).

The "anti-racist" language can be taken to be objectionable, because it yields the ground on "it's not enough not to be racist, you have to be actively anti-racist", especially since there is an implication that "not-racist" is functionally the same as "racist" if you're not out there being an anti-racist.

Tolkien was not a racist. Neither was he an anti-racist, and Ibram X. Kendi would not recognise him as such.

What do we know of his views? Very little, from the bits and pieces in the Selected Letters:

(1) From a letter of 1941:

Then I had to go and sleep (???) at C. HeadQ. I did not – not much. I was in the small C33 room: very cold and damp. But an incident occurred which moved me and made the occasion memorable. My companion in misfortune was Cecil Roth (the learned Jew historian). I found him charming, full of gentleness (in every sense); and we sat up till after 12 talking. He lent me his watch as there were no going clocks in the place: – and nonetheless himself came and called me at 10 to 7: so that I could go to Communion! It seemed like a fleeting glimpse of an unfallen world. Actually I was awake, and just (as one does) discovering a number of reasons (other than tiredness and having no chance to shave or even wash), such as the desirability of getting home in good time to open up and un-black and all that, why I should not go. But the incursion of this gentle Jew, and his sombre glance at my rosary by my bed, settled it. I was down at St Aloysius at 7.15 just in time to go to Confession before Mass; and I came home just before the end of Mass.

By the bye, using the term "Jew" instead of "Jewish" would get you in trouble today.

(2) From a letter of 1971:

Your reference to Samson Gamgee is thus very interesting. Since he is mentioned in a book on Birmingham Jewry, I wonder if this family was also Jewish. In which case the origin of the name might be quite different. Not that a name of French or Francized form is impossible for a Jewish surname, especially if it is one long established in England. We now associate Jewish names largely with German, and with a colloquial Yiddish that is predominantly German in origin. ‡ But the lingua franca of mediæval Jewry was (I was told by Cecil Roth, a friend of mine) of French or mixed French-Provencal character.

‡ Possibly the reason why my surname is now usually misspelt TOLKEIN in spite of all my efforts to correct this – even by my college-, bank-, and lawyer's clerks! My name is Tolkien, anglicized from To(l)kiehn = tollkühn, and came from Saxony in the 18th century. It is not Jewish in origin, though I should consider it an honour if it were.

(3) The best-known and most-quoted one, from a letter of 1938:

[Allen & Unwin had negotiated the publication of a German translation of The Hobbit with Rütten & Loening of Potsdam. This firm wrote to Tolkien asking if he was of 'arisch' (aryan) origin.]

I must say the enclosed letter from Rütten and Loening is a bit stiff. Do I suffer this impertinence because of the possession of a German name, or do their lunatic laws require a certificate of 'arisch' origin from all persons of all countries?

Personally I should be inclined to refuse to give any Bestätigung (although it happens that I can), and let a German translation go hang. In any case I should object strongly to any such declaration appearing in print. I do not regard the (probable) absence of all Jewish blood as necessarily honourable; and I have many Jewish friends, and should regret giving any colour to the notion that I subscribed to the wholly pernicious and unscientific race-doctrine.

You are primarily concerned, and I cannot jeopardize the chance of a German publication without your approval. So I submit two drafts of possible answers.

(4) One of the drafts mentioned:

30 To Rütten & Loening Verlag

[One of the 'two drafts' mentioned by Tolkien in the previous letter. This is the only one preserved in the Allen & Unwin files, and it seems therefore very probable that the English publishers sent the other one to Germany. It is clear that in that letter Tolkien refused to make any declaration of 'arisch' origin.]

25 July 1938 20 Northmoor Road, Oxford

Dear Sirs,

Thank you for your letter. .... I regret that I am not clear as to what you intend by arisch. I am not of Aryan extraction: that is Indo-iranian; as far as I am aware none of my ancestors spoke Hindustani, Persian, Gypsy, or any related dialects. But if I am to understand that you are enquiring whether I am of Jewish origin, I can only reply that I regret that I appear to have no ancestors of that gifted people. My great-great-grandfather came to England in the eighteenth century from Germany: the main part of my descent is therefore purely English, and I am an English subject – which should be sufficient. I have been accustomed, nonetheless, to regard my German name with pride, and continued to do so throughout the period of the late regrettable war, in which I served in the English army. I cannot, however, forbear to comment that if impertinent and irrelevant inquiries of this sort are to become the rule in matters of literature, then the time is not far distant when a German name will no longer be a source of pride.

Your enquiry is doubtless made in order to comply with the laws of your own country, but that this should be held to apply to the subjects of another state would be improper, even if it had (as it has not) any bearing whatsoever on the merits of my work or its suitability for publication, of which you appear to have satisfied yourselves without reference to my Abstammung.

I trust you will find this reply satisfactory, and

remain yours faithfully

J. R. R. Tolkien.

"Tolkien was heavily critical of people who discriminated based on race", there, no weirdly ambiguous and political word needed.

But that's not the path that they're trying, this is:

0.Define "anti-racist" ambiguously so that people not in the know think it's reasonable

1.Use "anti-racist" in Tolkien article

2.People not in the know associate Tolkien (a respected figure) with anti-racism

3.The prestige of specific anti-racist groups is increased

4.Specific anti-racist groups get more money

It isn't Tolkien that gains in prestige from being anti-racist, but the anti-racist orgs. It's like elevating yourself by claiming that all the greats of history agreed with you.

This is a plausible mechanism of action.

It’s just one that I find underwhelming. I suppose that would be the point.

The point is to normalize the term 'anti-racist', and obfuscate their ideology by hiding behind the plain language meaning of words. As I tried to point out, this term was pretty rare to use prior to the craziness of post-2016. It's part of why I found it so jarring, because I start seeing a word appearing everywhere all of a sudden, with strong association with a certain ideology that is grown in popularity, and very few people seem to notice. If they have those words used everywhere then they can smuggle their ideology into everywhere without anyone noticing.

Same with DEI, if they can get everyone to accept Diversity, Equity and Inclusion by only using the plain, agreeable meanings of the word to get everyone on board with their agenda, then it's harder for people to even realise when they actually are implementing their agenda. DIE sounds just like good old liberal colorblindness, welcome everyone! Who could disagree with that?

Control of language is extremely important to this movement. Hell, part of the problem is that that they don't have a clearly identifiable label, and being able to name your enemy is half the battle. I use the term 'Critical Social Justice' but really there's not any standardized term. 'Woke' and 'CRT' are only just starting to catch on, but they're quite limited in scope.

Don’t be so cute. You know what anti-racism is, and it’s not aww gee shucks I just think racism sure is bad. It’s classic motte & bailey feminism is just equality stuff.

Not being cute.

I know what anti-racism is, and Tolkien saying “I have the hatred of Apartheid in my bones” fits. Do you have an alternative?

I know what anti-racism is, and Tolkien saying “I have the hatred of Apartheid in my bones” fits.

No, that's being "not racist." Totally different than anti-racist. A "not racist" person believes in color blindness and treating people equally and putting the responsibility for differential outcomes on the individual. An anti-racist person believes in structural racism and fighting it by treating people differently in order to compensate. Where is the evidence that Tolkien acknowledged the existence of structural racism? Where is the evidence that he ever advocated or personally gave special dispensation to URM in order to counteract the effects of structural racism?

I think it's reasonably plausible that Tolkien was not racist, but I don't see much evidence that he was anti-racist.

Then I guess I’ve fallen for the CRT strategy. I don’t believe you have to subscribe to a particular structural theory to be anti-racist. Maybe Kendi wants to redefine it so that’s true; we aren’t obligated to go along.

Kendi and the rest of the CRT do want to redefine it that way, the same way that saying "I am not a fascist" is not at all the same thing as saying "I am anti-fascist", since "anti-fascist" has been given a specific definition. If you said "I am anti-fascist", it is plausible that someone would interpret that as meaning you are antifa, a completely different thing.

For Kendi, in his books and this TED talk, there are only two states; racist or anti-racist. "Not a racist" does not exist, it is merely "racist in denial of their racism". So if Tolkien is described as "not a racist", that merely means "he was in denial of his own racism", and the people accusing him of racism are correct.

From the book:

A racist policy is any measure that produces or sustains racial inequity between racial groups. An antiracist policy is any measure that produces or sustains racial equity between racial groups. By policy, I mean written and unwritten laws, rules, procedures, processes, regulations, and guidelines that govern people. There is no such thing as a nonracist or race-neutral policy. Every policy in every institution in every community in every nation is producing or sustaining either racial inequity or equity between racial groups.

From the talk:

In the most simplest way, a not racist is a racist who is in denial, and an anti-racist is someone who is willing to admit the times in which they are being racist, and how is willing to recognize the inequities and the racial problems of our society, and who is willing to challenge those racial inequities by challenging policy. And so I’m saying this because literally slaveholders, slave traders, imagined that their ideas in our terms were not racist. They would say things like, “Black people are the cursed descendants of Ham, and they’re cursed forever into enslavement.” This isn’t, “I’m not racist.” This is, “God’s law.” They would say things, like, you know, “Based on science, based on ethnology, based on natural history, black people by nature are predisposed to slavery and servility. This is nature’s law. I’m not racist. I’m actually doing what nature said I’m supposed to be doing.” And so this construct of being not racist and denying one’s racism goes all the way back to the origins of this country.

And no, simply saying "it's just this one bunch of activists" is no longer enough. You can't say "I don't care what this lot claim, I'm happy to use terms like 'not a racist', and ordinary people will know what I mean". Ordinary people are getting hit over the head with this stuff every day until they accept "not a racist is just as bad; you must be anti-racist".

If you believe Kendi is wrong, and there are more than two states, what would you call them?

I’m using “anti-racist” for direct opposition to racism, even if it doesn’t subscribe to postmodern structural theory. Getting upset when people use the reasonable version of the term instead of the academic one seems counterproductive.

I do believe Kendi is wrong,

I do not believe there are more than two states, or even two states as such; there is racism/being a racist and there is not being a racist. In a sane world, we would not need any term for "not a racist", since it would be sufficient that if we can say correctly "Peter is a racist" then it can be assumed "Paul is not, because nobody has said he is", but right now we are living in insanity rules.

You are going along when you use the term anti-racist. I am sure someone used the term anti-racist before Kendi's book, but it is almost inextricably linked with him now. Calling Tolkien anti-racist is an attempt to legitimise the term, as someone else mentioned - he was simply not racist.

And when you use the term anti-racist when you mean not racist you are also legitimising Kendi's world view, because you are presenting a dichotomy of racist vs anti-racist, when the real dichotomy is racist vs not racist, with the vast majority of anti-racist advocates falling into the first category.

Can you elaborate then on what you see as the difference between not-racist and anti-racist?

If Kendi's definition is more prevalent in academic, scientific and governmental discourse, would you at least acknowledge that your usage is nonstandard?

There are at least four categories: Racist, not racist, opposed to racism, and Kendi-approved.

Tolkien was in the third. Lots of Americans are. Telling your drunk uncle not to use the n-word is in this category, as is arguing with racists on the Internet. It would make sense, in a vacuum, to call this “anti-racist.”

Kendi is attempting to apply that legitimacy to his own category. As pointed out across this thread, Tolkien would likely not meet his seal of approval. It is rhetorically useful to call his category “anti-racist” precisely because many people would like to be in it.

Getting upset at the normal, sensible meaning of the word is ceding the battle.

Getting upset at the normal, sensible meaning of the word is ceding the battle.

At the same time, though, you don't get to write the dictionary, or at least, what goes into the dictionary.

Prior to the last several years, I would have interpreted "not racist" to mean "not discriminating or holding prejudice against persons or peoples on account of race" and "anti-racist" as meaning "making efforts to counter or thwart racism, or at the very least, opposed to the toleration of racism and racists". I haven't read Kendi's book, but I interpreted the title How to be an Antiracist as gesturing straightforwardly at the latter: "Yes, and here is how racism can be thwarted, and these are the efforts you need to make".

I'd agree though that edits to Tolkien's wikipedia page are made with the new sense in mind. I doubt the person meant it in ideological sense, though. They were just aware that in the new world Critical Social Justice has made, racism is a black and white struggle and you are either with the racists or you are "Anti-Racist". This bugs me about as much as it seems to bug you, ie, a lot.

They were just aware that in the new world Critical Social Justice has made, racism is a black and white struggle and you are either with the racists or you are "Anti-Racist".

Yeah, exactly. The ideologues have triumphed to that extent, that if you don't make Wiki edits in line with the New Orthodoxy, you get crushed or even the page gets deleted because it's full of wrongthink. The loud online minority of activists may only be a minority, but they are very loud and will go around claiming "So-and-so is bad because we say so!" and they get their way by being screeching nuisances.

Specifically serving a disfavored group

For this one it would be Racists, as they are discriminating on the basis of race.

writing letters about how dumb racists are

For this one it would be Activists or Political activists, but it would depend on to whom the letters are send and with what purpose.

If there is a need to encapsulate both terms in one umbrella, Progressive would suffice I think, that term has been poisoned enough that I don't think it is salvageable.

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