site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  1yr ago (text post)   35037 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of November 28, 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.

16
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Rhodesia is an interesting case in that it is a 60 year old mirror of modern day progressivism. White rule is unacceptable, for equality's sake we will support Mr. Mugabe. We all know how it turned out, but that hasn't stopped the same thing from happening 30 years later in South Africa.

My question is, who at the time was the major force against Rhodesia? Was it the UK and/or Harold Wilson, was it the US and/or Lyndon Johnson? Was it instead a political party? Were these governments happy with the end result, or did they ever say that they made a mistake with Rhodesia? I would guess not, given that they continue to do the same things. Anyone have any extra insight on the who and the why for the putting down the most effective African regimes, which just happened to be white?

I don't think there's any reliable way other than repression for a minority racial group to rule over a majority in the long run.

We can argue over the manner in which white rule in various countries was wound down/overturned/revolted against, and whether the short and medium term consequences were worth it, but on a long time scale, there's just no good way for Europe to rule Africa without repression, and no good reason why they should try.

Self determination means self determination even if the economic and social metrics important to westerners fall rather than rise.

Is there any reliable way other than repression for any minority to rule over a majority in the long run?

Well, yes. I think most if not all countries are ruled by a small minority of upper-crust aristocrats/bureaucrats/generals/rich dudes. Many are repressive to some degree, but not all.

Well then I'm confused by either what "repression" means or "long term" means. Which countries? Because there have been racial minorities in various parts of north africa and asia which have lasted many decades (some even centuries). I'm struggling to figure out a way to differentiate between these examples and yours. To me, your "racial" condition either isn't necessary or we're really splitting hairs about our perception of what "repression" means.

State your thesis and stop playing dumb.

prodding your "thesis" isn't playing dumb (but I already did state mine anyway)

To me, your "racial" condition either isn't necessary or we're really splitting hairs about our perception of what "repression" means.

you conditioned the statement on "racial," I don't think it's necessary and already gave examples where racial minorities ruled "without repression" for the "long term"

long term every single society trends towards repression to stave off collapse/regime change because power is necessarily held by a minority

What's the long run? The Manchus ruled over China for centuries, through integrating with and co-opting majority power structures. Same story with the Mughals over a Hindu-majority population.

And though they were repressive by modern standards, given the standards at the time, their repression was in line with what every government did to survive.

Yes, that's a good question. There are also examples with Arabs (and others) in North Africa and Greeks across Alexander the Great's collapsed empire. The "racial" condition on minorities ruling either isn't necessary or simply isn't true.

Pre Nationalism examples are sorta beside the point, but also we'd have to examine the social structure of Ptolemaic Egypt a lot more deeply to compare it in any way to apartheid. The ruling family was Greek, and some notables in the gov probably were as well, but I'm not under the impression that all positions of economic power were occupied exclusively by Greeks, that ownership was entirely vested in Greeks, etc. Foreign ruling families and even ruling cliques can exist in societies that aren't apartheid.

Yes, we would. Would all economic power be required to be held by Greeks in order for it to be "minority" rule?

Foreign ruling families and even ruling cliques can exist in societies that aren't apartheid.

is apartheid the metric for "repression"? where do you get your perception of what apartheid was like in South Africa? or the "repression" of the violent communists from mozambique in rhodesia?

Well our metric under discussion seems to be what is the point that the natives are unwilling to live under foreign/minority rule. I'm not really arguing repression so much as what constitutes an unacceptable foreign/minority rule. There's a distinct spectrum from the titular head of state being of foreign blood, such is the case for the majority of English history; to the entire upper class, say the top 5-10%, being a closed set of foreigners that a native could never enter.

The Ptolemaic dynasty and associated Greek ruling class was much closer at the outset, from my knowledge of it, to the former than the latter. Greeks and the Greek culture and language constituted a privileged and powerful position; but they adopted many Egyptian customs (notably sibling marriage), syncretized religious matters, intermarried extensively with the natives, and allowed native customs and religion to carry on as before when they first arrived.

What's the long run? The Manchus ruled over China for centuries, through integrating with and co-opting majority power structures. Same story with the Mughals over a Hindu-majority population.

Also depends on how you qualify repression. The Qing were very avid censors, the queue edict was not popular and was enforced in some cases with the death penalty, and my understanding is that the Ming-Qing transition involved very notable losses of historical texts in China (I recall being told that it was one of, if not the greatest, loss of Chinese historical texts recorded, but I don’t recall where I got that from - certainly there was a lot of purging of Ming-era texts). Much of this required considerably more coercion than in the Ming, for example, even though the Ming were if anything more dysfunctional. The Han Chinese also retained the resentment towards the Manchus through generations, culminating in the spectacular collapse of Qing power especially during the Taiping rebellion, the bloodiest civil war in history.

At the same time, the Kangxi and Qianlong emperors (early-mid Qing) are still remembered fondly as competent rulers, and the Qing would’ve been abortive if the Han did not, at large, choose to co-operate with the Qing during the Three Feudatories revolt. The banner forces performed badly on all levels compared to the Han-dominant (and larger) Green Standard Army during the revolt; nevertheless, there didn’t seem to be widespread appetite for Ming restoration (and joining with the revolt) from the population, the army, or the gentry.

So perhaps there is something of a middle ground? Minority rule requires a higher degree of coercion and repression, and is more precarious, though legitimacy can nonetheless be sustained for some time with good behaviour competent leadership.

Gosh, I'm embarrassed by how little I know of Chinese history. Do you have any recommendations for a good place to start? I would appreciate it, but don't waste a bunch of effort if you don't have it handy.

I’m not sure if you would get this through university access or some other way, or if you‘re looking for a shorter overview, but a good place to start reading in English is History of Imperial China. The series is an overview of China between the Qin and Qing periods (from the “unification of China” to the fall of empire), and is quite readable for a layman; though, necessarily as an overview text, it tend towards the broad rather than the deep.

If you want something else that‘s shorter or that’s, uh, more easily accessible please DM me!

Thanks! I'm sure I can get access through the local library. I'll start here and then figure out a period I want more depth in.

I’ve just learned that the Cambridge Illustrated History of China came out with a new edition in September so I had a scan of a preview of the book; I think that might be actually a better introduction. Or A Brief History of Chinese Civilization.

History of Imperial China is probably a more interesting text overall, but it tends towards being a bit less narrative in focus, and it is some 2000 pages long in six books…

(Also note that it’s the Cambridge Illustrated History of China, not the Cambridge History of China, which is a 18-volume-and-counting behemoth)

I’m happy to help! What are you interested in particular, and how much detail do you want?

Psyop'ing the majority into self-hate?

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