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 -
Last night I watched the absurdly stupid and awful-looking surprise hit movie of 2022, the Tollywood epic RRR. While slogging through this 3-hour parade of xenophobic melodrama, incoherent action, and kindergarten-level sentiment was a struggle, it did make me wonder about two ideas that I’ve always thought should be in direct conflict with each other but aren’t treated as such: “Anti-Colonialism” and “Open Borders.”
As I understand it, the principle behind “Anti-Colonialism” is that Group A is never entitled to move into Group B’s space and take it over, replacing Group B’s preferred culture and/or method of governance with Group A’s preferred culture and/or method of governance, thereby subjugating Group B as second class in their own space. However, this school of thought seems to be most popular among the same political/intellectual cohort that also champions very loose immigration controls, commonly referred to as “Open Borders” (even though that phrase suggests no control whatsoever, whereas the reality is probably something closer liberal immigration controls). With an “Open Borders” mindset, there is no stopping Groups B-Z from moving into Group A’s space and altering its culture or assuming control of its institutions if any of those Groups does so with enough numbers or organization. “Open Borders,” on principle, refutes the very notion of any group’s ownership of any space, which more or less dismantles the paradigm of “Anti-Colonialism.” How do these two ideas co-exist in the same mind without producing uncomfortable cognitive dissonance?
It seems uncharitable to suggest that the salve for this cognitive dissonance is simply racism; or, to put it how I suppose the “Open Borders Anti Colonialist” would think of it, “intersectionality.” That is, the principle behind “Anti-Colonialism” is not really the wrongness of generic groups subjugating each other but rather the wrongness of one static “Bad Group” (that happens to be largely defined by skin color/geographical origin) subjugating other Groups (of other skin colors), who by the nature of their subjugation and opposition to “Bad Group” are thereby “Good Groups.” “Open Borders,” too, is a policy only sought after when the same “Good Groups” are immigrating into the space of the same “Bad Group,” rather than vice versa. These are intended as strictly one-way ideological roads, and not as equal-use roadmaps for Groups A-Z.
I don’t get the impression that this intersectional solution to the “Open Borders Anti Colonialism” knot is oft-contemplated by the typical “Open Borders Anti Colonialist,” who rather thinks of both notions as having sprung from the same well of humanist good intentions. Is the racial/intersectional question actually essential to this paradigm, or is there some other less invidious key that unlocks the conflict between “Open Borders” and “Anti Colonialism?” in the progressive mindset?
I’ll hand this to RRR: It aptly confounds Western culture-warring by presenting its own set of ideas that may be difficult for some Western progressives to reconcile: It pits noble indigenous revolutionaries against the cartooniest of all racist villains and does so with a strident rallying cry against gun control. One of the protagonists has the stated goal of “putting a rifle in the hand” of every colonial subject, and suggests that a bullet only attains its true value when it kills an immigrant (or, in this exact case, any white person).
The obvious difference between colonialism and immigration (as these two concepts are generally understood by average modern Westerners) is that colonists tend to primarily be interested in exploiting and expropriating a nation's resources (natural and human) for the benefit of the colonist's home country (even if they do temporarily move to the colony in question to run a business, they aren't intending to make it their home, nor do they expect their children to be natives of the colony). Immigrants, even if they do end up changing the culture of the nation they move to, are invested in the success of their new home country, and the value they create stays in that country, modulo a few small cash transfers back to their relatives in their native country.
I expect, however, if you were to bring up any counterfactuals to this way of thinking to your bog-standard progressive, they would fall back on "Who, whom?" (or, as you put it, intersectionality). The mass migration of British people to its colonies (e.g. Australia and the USA before 1776), replacing the native culture with their own? Bad, because it was bad for non-whites. Mass migration of natives of former and current British colonies (e.g. India and Jamaica) to the UK, changing the culture of the UK? Good, because it's good for non-whites. (Also, curry and kebabs are better than steak-and-kidney pie.)
Even without considering the racial aspect of things, a simple rule might be "If a person moves from country A to country B and is immediately wealthier and more powerful than natives of country B, that's colonialism and that's bad. If a person moves from country B to country A and is immediately a member of the poor working classes, that's immigration and that's good."
As a sidebar, one of the things that fans of immigration might need to come to grips with is that the modern world of cheap air travel, global telecommunications and electronic banking makes it much, much easier for immigrants to avoid assimilating into their new country and put down roots there. They can still talk to their friends and family back home every day, travel back home once a year at least, and send them whatever is left of their income after covering their living expenses, invalidating my claim in the first paragraph about immigrants being invested in and benefiting their new country of residence. This is radically different from the immigration of the 1800s that American history textbooks look back upon so favorably.
This is definitely not true in the case of British colonialism in India (to go with the example of the movie being discussed). They invested massive amounts into India over long periods of time. For example, many iconic buildings were built by the British over hundreds of years:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chhatrapati_Shivaji_Terminus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Museum,_Kolkata https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Paul's_Cathedral,_Kolkata
As another example, consider the fact that the British spent 70+ years turning the 7 islands of Bombay into 1 island, and then built a city that currently has a population bigger than the Netherlands and accounts for about 20% of Indian GDP.
https://indianculture.gov.in/stories/bombay-joining-seven-islands-1668-1838
A third example is India Gate, which memorializes the Indian soldiers killed in WW1.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/India_Gate
Any claim that the British were not invested in the long term success of India is profoundly ahistorical.
I don't think this captures the mood pushed by the zeitgeist. Indian immigrants to the US today and Jewish immigrants in the post-WW2 era both fall into the "is immediately wealthier and more powerful than natives" bucket.
Seems unlikely, given that 1) Jewish immigration post WWII was quite small; 2) most such immigrants were refugees, and hence unlikely to be either wealthy or powerful. And note that this article on Jewish immigrants from the Soviet Union post-1960 indicates that, although they were highly educated, they earned less than native whites.
Do you have a citation for your claim?
I could be wrong about Jews specifically. I was mainly inferring from the fact that Jews have, for all of my lifetime, been considerably wealthier than others. It's possible that this only happened to the children of immigrants. I'll take your word for it that my example should be reduced to only cover Indians.
(Or at least Indians are the only easily identifiable group, due to self-identification with the "Hindu" religious grouping in surveys that also include income.)
Also worth checking whether - by this stated standard - immigration is colonialism in basically every country that uses a merit based system (e.g. Canada, Australia).
Yeah, since most Jewish people in the US are the descendants of people who arrived well before WWII, it seems likely that most in your lifetime are indeed not first generation immigrants.
But TBH I don't see how "immigration is colonialism" works at all; as others have pointed out, colonialism involves political domination, esp the supplanting of political elites and the replacement of political systems. That does not describe immigration.
Left wing Americans routinely brag about how immigration will grant them a permanent majority. So basically, the theory is that an alliance between colonialists and domestic factions will result in political domination.
Or, if you are a right wing person and want right wing mood affiliation, take the same facts and attach the words "great replacement".
Is it your belief that a few thousand British managed to conquer India all by themselves? Indians may not be natural warriors but be realistic. (I know it is a bit difficult to square the Maratha empire with contemporary stereotypes of Marathis.) In all cases it is a story of small numbers of British together with considerably larger numbers of locals conquering a different group of locals. From what I understand of colonialism in the Americas, it was pretty similar - Pizarro certainly did not wage a 20 year campaign and conquer Peru all with only 180 people. He aligned himself with the right locals and tipped the balance.
Right, it was outsiders enlisting (or hiring) locals to help the outsiders take over. That is what colonialism is, by definition: outsiders taking over.
Re immigration, you are positing something completely different: Locals enlisting outsiders to allow those ** locals **to gain political advantage. And note that there is nothing inherent in immigration that gives one group of locals an advantage; nothing prevents right wingers from convincing immigrants to vote for them, as Cuban immigrants do, and as Vietnamese immigrants used to. And, as non-Cuban Hispanics used to in larger numbers, until conservatives pursued policies seen as hostile to them.
I understand now.
Assumption: non-whites lack agency.
When the Nizam of Hyderabad allies with the British for mutual advantage, this is outsiders enlisting locals since Indians lack agency.
When white American Democrats enlist Mexican immigrants to ally with them for mutual advantage, this is locals enlisting outsiders since Mexicans lack agency.
I don't know what you mean by "taking over". In terms of control over daily life that is demanded, certainly American Democrats and their Mexican allies want far more control over my life than the British ever did. All the British wanted was for my local ruler to send them some tax money, and maybe they'd build roads and schools.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link