Is it reasonable to distinguish between civil wars of the Russian type on one side, and American type on the other in that in the former case all warring parties fought to rule over the entire country, while in the latter one side also sought this, but the other only wanted independence? So the Chinese civil war would be binned together with the Russian as both Mao and Chiang wanted the same thing, but Serbian-Kosovo war would belong to the American as while Serbs wanted to rule Serbia and Kosovo, the Kosovars didn't desire dominion over Serbia and only sought independence.
I've never heard it before, but that seems more due to 'war of independence' having inherited positive connotations which people don't want to grant to an unpopular loser rather than it being an incoherent label.
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.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Is it reasonable to distinguish between civil wars of the Russian type on one side, and American type on the other in that in the former case all warring parties fought to rule over the entire country, while in the latter one side also sought this, but the other only wanted independence? So the Chinese civil war would be binned together with the Russian as both Mao and Chiang wanted the same thing, but Serbian-Kosovo war would belong to the American as while Serbs wanted to rule Serbia and Kosovo, the Kosovars didn't desire dominion over Serbia and only sought independence.
Isn't that the space 'war of independence' covers?
How often does the American Civil War get called a war of independence?
I've never heard it before, but that seems more due to 'war of independence' having inherited positive connotations which people don't want to grant to an unpopular loser rather than it being an incoherent label.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link