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 -
I watched RRR last night, a 2022 Telugu-language film directed by S. S. Rajamouli, starring two revolutionary Indian heroes of old, but re-imagined to make them meet and have cool adventures together.
It was a very fun movie. The dance numbers were quite impressive, I liked the "bromance", and the action scenes were pretty funny. Everything was pretty over-the-top, especially the British, which is why I'm writing this right now.
The British were not kind to India. I don't really know any specifics on what all horrible things they did, though I am familiar with the "Blowing from Guns in British India" painting that depicted the punishment they gave for some rebellion or other. However, even so, it is kind of odd how they portrayed the British in the movie. The movie opens with a British governor paying a few coins to purchase a child from a village because he liked how she painted and sang, and when the mother tearfully tries to stop the British convoy from leaving, a soldier is about to shoot her, but is stopped because the British governor considers Indians to not be worth the cost of the bullet. Other scenes of similar callous viciousness are common: an Indian man is brutally beaten by a British soldier because the soldier felt embarrassed and wanted to save face, the heroic sepoy who carried out the governor's orders is not promoted because only three white dudes were chosen to be promoted, or a man being flogged is made to be flogged much more than usual because the wife of the governor didn't consider him submissive enough.
The movie is really fun, but interspersed with this kind of atrocity porn, with Englishmen commonly saying that Indians are totally worthless subhuman trash, considering any Indian in the governor's palace a servant, or warning the nice British woman that cavorting with one is dangerous. It came across as an ethnic caricature. I don't think there are any British men favorably portrayed. The only British people favorably portrayed are the beautiful British women at the dance party, and the beautiful British woman who takes a liking to the protagonist. This sends the message to me "all you evil Brits, get out of India, except for your women, we'll definitely be taking those." Which, fair! That's definitely a natural inclination of many people throughout history, but it isn't really brave enough to come out and say it like that.
I was left wondering what other ethnic groups it would be appropriate to give this treatment to. I feel like if you swapped the British caricature with a caricature of any other (non-white) group of people, this movie would never have gotten so popular. People would be afraid to even mention it. I liked the movie, but I wish it didn't have this ugly portrayal in it. It made it less good. Also it was 3 hours long, what the hell.
I dislike white as an umbrella term, because Indian distaste is clearly towards a specific type of upper-class British oppressor. They are white. But more importantly, they are:
All 5 together, create a caricatured evil. Make a small change, and the resulting individual isn't considered evil anymore. As you observed, gender is easiest to change, and a 'white 18th century upper-class British woman' becomes a protagonist.
Hollywood does this all the time. White isn't inherently evil.
1970s white Slavic USSR communist is evil. 19th century southern low-class slaver ? Shoot away. You have to tick all the check boxes. Even the Nazis are always in uniform. Among black people, the quintessential African warlord with a child army is obviously evil. The mountain dwelling bearded Islamist in traditional garb with ak-47s ? evil. Wrinkled old cougar with small dog and leopard print jacket ? Evil. In India, old & fat god man turned politician rings all types of alarm bells.
As bad as British atrocities were (the famines aren't talked about enough), the Catholics (Portuguese inquisition) and Mughals (specifically Aurangzeb) were leaders on cruelty. However, given that India has a large catholic & muslim population, it is difficult to portray them as explicitly evil without ruffling a few feathers. Not a lot of protestant whites in India. The British are an easy consensus target.
Depends on the era. Take Rambo III, where Rambo fights with the brave and gallant Mujaheddin against the evil Soviets in Afghanistan.
More options
Context Copy link
Portraying the British as villains is normal. My issue is that they are complete caricatures. Yes, confederates were frequently caricaturized as well. However, I can't really tell you any modern media where it would be acceptable to make a caricature of even an African warlord with a child army. What would it look like, if we use RRR's portrayal as the standard? Team America: World Police got away with caricatures of mountain-dwelling bearded Islamists in traditional garbs with AK-47s, because it was a different time (just 20 years ago!) and because they caricaturized everyone.
I could say that the easy formula for who you can caricaturize and who you can't is about skin color, since it's acceptable to do it to communists, slavers, and Nazis, but perhaps there is another element here. Communists, slavers, Nazis, and the British are known worldwide quite well, discussed at length and recognized as generally quite bad. It could be that one is only allowed to caricature that which they understand very well, and due to the West's recent ascent to power, every notable example is white.
Pre-perestroika and all that, the Russians/Soviets were the go-to villain for every Hollywood action blockbuster. You didn't need deep exploration of characterisation, they're Russians? They're the Bad Guys!
More options
Context Copy link
Modern media sure, but Indian media obviously has different standards. I can't say I particularly mind it, Indian movies like that are just over the top about everything. Adult cartoons in the West still have those but they've mainly fallen off. Blood diamond and Lord of War had pretty over the top depictions of Africa but movies set in African civil wars just aren't that common these days.
More options
Context Copy link
Sinners came out pretty recently and their portrayal of the local white Southerners is a pretty insane caricature. Like a ton of the narrative hinges on them deciding to lynch the black community just 'cause with no particular provocation after selling them an old mill.
More options
Context Copy link
Naah, we don't realize they're caricatures because they don't get portrayed with the over-the-top characterization that's common in Indian media.
A Hollywood equivalent would be Tarantino. Hanz Landa and Calvin Candie are comically evil. The African warlord in Lord of War is straight out of a caricature. Indian movies definitely portray local (Indian) villains as having a similar level of cruelty. Rocky 4's Ivan Drogo was as much a caricature of communist evil as Rocky was a quintessentially American.
To me, RRR is best understood as a Rocky movie. And it's a damn good one at that.
Now, you may argue that the British were never as evil as the Nazis, Stalinists or African warlords. But, there is little video evidence in support or against.
What we know is that India was a rich nation turned destitute over centuries of colonialism. India suffered from preventable famines that killed millions in a few decades. Famines of magnitudes that the nation hadn't seen for centuries prior. Indians and Hindus were treated as if they were sub-human (though nowhere as bad as chattel slavery). We know that the British decision makers of that time (Churchill, Dyer) are viewed as heroes of their home nation. Add all that up, and you can see how the British could be imagined to be as evil as the Nazis or African warlords.
I don't think the British were as evil as the movies portray them. Not even close. But, I think it's a fair price to pay in exchange for 3 centuries of winning.
Pardon me, but I don't think we do know that. I would be surprised if we have such complete and accurate data about famine in pre-British India that we can confidently state that they didn't have famines that were as bad as the ones they had under British rule. Furthermore, do we all know that these famines were preventable? I don't.
Finally, did British rule actually cause India's economic growth to slow down? Because if so I was also not aware of that.
Naively, I would assume that being ruled by one of the earliest countries to industrialize (Britain) would mean that India had better access to the technologies of the Industrial Revolution than a country outside the British sphere. Since industrialization turns every other variable into a rounding error, I would expect early access to British technology to similarly drown out any damage the East India Company or the Raj were capable of doing. Bear in mind that the number of British people on Indian soil was always tiny, and for the most part the British were just occupying the top rung of a pre-existing power structure that was, and remained, populated almost entirely by Indian people who were carrying on day-to-day business as they always had. I would be surprised if such a small number of people could have a significant impact on India's economic growth.
Population growth was faster under the Raj than under the Mughals (and faster under the Mughals than any other pre-Raj government). Given that mass living standards in India remain at bare subsistence (with negligible growth in GDP per capita) until India escapes the Malthusian trap in the 1990's, we can reasonably assume that most of GDP goes to keeping peasants alive, and that the faster population growth under the Raj corresponds to faster GDP growth.
The claim that India was a rich nation turned destitute by colonialism (Mughal + British or just British according to factional ID) is the Big Lie of Indian nationalism. India was dirt poor when the British arrived, and slightly less dirt poor when we left. Its just that if you go far back enough everyone was dirt poor, so the working definition of "rich country" was "dirt poor country where the elites can afford blinged-out throne rooms with big shiny diamonds". By that definition, Mughal India was the richest country in the world. And it is indeed the case that the biggest, shiniest diamond was no longer in India at independence.
More options
Context Copy link
I mean ironically the post of colonial overlord had historically bounced between a bunch of non-Indian invaders prior to the British. Mughals et al. It's not like Britain came in and were the only ones to ever subjugate the Indian people.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Would you agree with this in mind that immigration from India to the UK is probably not a good idea for the British?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Chinese Communists are also known worldwide.
Hmm, now that you metnion it, Fallout 3 had Chinese soldiers in it that were hostile, and I guess they were kind of caricatures. I might just be entirely wrong, on every front. It happens.
Weren't a bunch of those Chinese soldiers in-universe holograms created to exacerbate stereotypes?
Yes, they were. But aren't they identical in voice lines to the real Chinese soldiers you meet in some factory or other? I don't remember. I do think putting in some caricatures (or, really, just throwaway characters that aren't fleshed out and don't need to be fleshed out because they have a specific purpose, "angry and want to kill you in a language you don't understand") with a handful of voice lines is probably different from making a movie with caricatures that take a ton of screentime. But it did disprove my notion that you can't make caricatures of non-white ethnicities.
I think Fallout 3 does interesting things sometimes, so I'm glad it exists, but Bethesda sucks at writing, so I can't recommend it to anyone. Sad!
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