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 -
You seem to have spent a lot of words on justifying the fact that Untermensch as originally employed by the Nazis did not have a racial connotation - which I already agreed with - and then simply swerved into reasserting the claim I originally questioned, ie that the misleading translation subhuman was "deliberately manipulative" (or "deliberatively" manipulative, as you had erroneously written) as if you had refuted my counter in any way.
I will admit it is interesting to learn that the term was originally coined in English as "Under-Man" before it was translated into Untermensch and backtranslated into "subhuman"; but this is, as you say, esoteric. I find it pretty likely that whoever coined "subhuman" as a translation was simply unaware of Stoddard's writings. My assumption is that they coined "subhuman" based on "superman", with no deliberate intent of introducing a racial connotation at the time, and that this neutrally-intended English translation went on to be misunderstood.
Besides, I suspect we now associate "subhuman" with racial bigotry at all because of the widespread belief that the Nazis used Untermensch as a term of racial abuse. I'm not entirely convinced that "subhuman" is innately more scientific-racism-coded than "under-man". Had "under-man" remained the accepted English translation from the start, we might simply find ourselves in a place where most people mistakenly assume the Under-man is an inherently racism-based concept. That is, after all, what happened with "the Superman", spandex-clad Kryptonians aside.
I have explained how the mistranslation is used to propagate false information- namely that the enmity of the Nazis towards the Soviet Union was derived from their race science and belief that the Slavs were subhuman. But the enmity was driven by Nazi hostility towards Bolshevism, and "Untermensch" understood in its correct context provides strong evidence for that fact. Instead the mistranslation is absolutely iconic in falsely propagating German motives with respect to their posture towards Russia and "Subhuman Slavs".
This is used in conjunction with the mistranslation and overemphasis of "Master Race" which was not a term that was written or would have been familiar among the public. Rosenberg himself accused the prosecutors at Nuremberg of mistranslating his work and mincing translations for misleading purposes. So at least the chief creator of this propaganda claimed the translations were misleading, and the motives for that are clear in this setting.
I think you are underestimating how carefully that i.e. prosecutors at Nuremberg would be very careful to pick how they translated text in order to bolster their case (i.e. deceptively). The mistranslation of "untermensch" is not obviously deceptive in itself, but because of how that translation is used to propagate other widely believed but false lies.
No you have not. You have shown how that mistranslation led to the propagation of false information, but this does nothing - nothing at all, zilch - to prove that the mistranslation was intentionally coined or used for that purpose by people who knew they were engaging in deceptive behavior. My null hypothesis is that the original mistranslation was an innocent mistake, which led to earnest misunderstandings. Translation is a difficult business, translating esoteric philosophical coinages all the more so, and I have explained at length how the translation "subhuman" could have arisen in good faith.
It doesn't matter how much evidence you provide that "subhuman" went on to be misunderstood as racially connotated; it does nothing to change my mind about the probable mens rea of the translator. At most they may have been sincerely biased by their starting premise that the Nazis were all about scientific racism, and mistakenly-but-sincerely understood the German text to have spurious racial implications. But you have not provided any credible evidence of intentional conspiracy as a result of those slightly-off-kilter premises. You just keep pointing to subtle misunderstandings and asserting that therefore the translators were bald-faced liars.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link