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 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:
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.
With regards to Tolkien, the anti-racism thing has become a necessary defence because of people accusing him of anti-Semitism (the Dwarves are coded Jewish, you see, and only care about gold) and racism (the Orcs are black-coded, a thing I only read the other day). These people claim flat-out he was a racist (because old, white, Catholic, English guy who didn't write in trans queer BIPOC differently-abled characters in polyamorous gender-queer relationships, and I wish I was exaggerating greatly instead of only a little about that, See what Amazon thought would sell "The Rings of Power" to an audience with their English version of the superfans video. Would be a decent interview if all the references to 'representation' and 'queerness' were stripped out).
That's not even taking the quotes that we do see in the Selected Letters, which slightly better critics have used (the critics above just took a general statement that 'of course Tolkien is racist' and ran with it):
See? He said the Dwarves were Jews (no, he didn't, but that doesn't stop the critics) and look what he says about Dwarves in "The Hobbit":
There you go: the stereotype of the Jews being money-grubbers! Anti-Semitism!
That one will get you, whoever you are, into trouble. Is he saying that Orcs are Central/East Asians? No, but if someone reading that doesn't make allowances for "least lovely types", "to Europeans", and "degraded versions" of "corrupted human form", then they will get "Tolkien says Orcs are East Asians because East Asians are ugly slant-eyes". I honestly don't know where the "Orcs are black" thing came from, unless it's from the movie versions which are dark-skinned (some of them).
Racism simpliciter is also attributed to him because of the Haradrim and Easterlings: all the good guys are white, all the bad guys are black (or at least brown and yellow). We don't get any black or brown people on the side of the heroes. Never mind that he wrote a sharp letter to his publishers about a Swedish translator who was putting in his own interpretation of events everywhere:
And from a letter of 1954
So was he a racist? By current 21st century progressive standards, yes (and sexist and homophobic, no doubt). Was he a racist by the standards of his day? I don't think so, but of course Bad Things Are Always Bad and there is no context, so he has been tried in the court of public opinion and found guilty. Hence the necessity to use the shibboleth of "anti-racist" when trying to defend, or at least be neutral about, him.
Well, there's a bit more to it when you remember that, for instance, the battle of the Pelennor Fields is at least to some degree modelled on the Battle of the Catalaunian Plains, a battle fought by the last remnants of the Western Roman Empire (Gondor) aided by Visigoths led by king Theodoric who dies on the battlefield (Rohan, led by Théoden, who does the same) against Attila's Huns, the prototypical Asian invader of Europe. It's not a complete match, but it's enough to say that there's some harkening to the idea of saving the Western civilization ("Men of the West!") from the threat of the invading Asians.
Sure, he definitely has references in other work to Wainriders who are reminiscent of the Huns. But there's a difference between using a model of an historical battle in your own fictional battle scene, and being full-on Yellow Peril.
But that's a difference that makes no difference, for the knuckleheads, so this is probably why whoever is editing the Tolkien Wikipedia article is forced back on "anti-racism".
Here's a piece of "I read it but I didn't understand it" from an academic:
Tolkien made statements against Nazis and also apartheid, but this is not the same as being anti-racist or pro-equality. His condemnation of Hitler, he wrote in the same letter, was for
See? Tolkien is a racist, or close to it. Because "Northern Spirit". Which our 'lecturer at Deakin University', a public university in Geelong, Australia which boasts "We're a progressive, innovative and open-minded university, with the highest student satisfaction in Victoria" can't seem to understand does not mean he was going "Yay Nordic supremacy, Asatru foreva!" while spinning his Viking Metal platters.
If you're not an anti-racist (like, say, a lady professor who wrote a whole book about Race and Popular Fantasy Literature: Habits of Whiteness ), then you a racist. No such thing as 'not a racist'. After all, her book uses as reference one Paul Firchow, who seems to have written quite a bit about how Tolkien is fascist.
Did you know Hobbits are Fascists? Oh yes.
Now, for our lady lecturer who read it (or most likely, an extract) but didn't understand it, what did Tolkien say about Nordic Spirit?
Quotes below from various letters of the Selected Letters. Let's kick off with the one she mentioned:
Jawohl, Ich thinken zer Nordics are zer superior race! NOT.
Ja, Ich bin ein Fascist who loves zer racialist theories! NOT.
Achtung, when fighting zer German armies (which Ich should have been loving not fighting since Ich bin zer Nordic racialist, nich wahr?), Ich invented zer core of mein mythology out of which all mein books were written which was about - lovers dancing in a glade of hemlocks. Hm. Maybe Ich should have included some talk about how Ich loved zer Kaiser und zer Nordic spirit?
Blast, this is not sounding properly Nordic Supremacism, is it? Where is the denial of the individual or extermination of inferior groups by superior? Languages??? What have they got to do with being a Fascist Genocider?
Oh, come off it, where is the blood-thirst of the Anglo-Saxon colonialist? This is very weak tea for the propagator of an "anti-democratic, elitist, and even genocidal stance".
Parents, don't let your children grow up to be Fascists. Here's the easy way to prevent that: stamp out all interest in linguistics! Read below the sorry tale of the development of a not-racist-means-racist with underlying, if unconscious, fascist tendencies about racial superiority and hierarchy:
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
The issue I had was the specific word choice of "anti-racist" and its ideological association. There are plenty of ways to word it without having to use the term "anti-racism", e.g. "he opposed racism," "condemned racist attitudes".
Prior to the changes to the page in 2021, that section on Tolkien just had examples of things he contemned, including his anger at the Nazis and his condemnation of the treatments of blacks in South Africa.
But I guess it might be some coded language. Maybe like another commenter suggested it was done by Amazon, maybe in an attempt to get activists of their back and signal to them "hey, we're on your side! Please don't attack us!"
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link