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 -
To be blunt to the point of ungraciousness, I do not care. What I mean is that I really don't care about old world ethnic grievances coming to the new. India sending assassins through their embassies to deal with their separatists is, definitionally, not what a model minority gets up to. I don't get into knife fights with Japanese or mainland Chinese or Koreans in Canada. I come to this country, founded by Anglos, and I cause no trouble. I speak their language and respect their values.
And that is not what the Indians are doing.
When Indians show up to fight with the Pakistanis on the streets of London, one must think of the native Britons, who think to themselves: how the hell is this my problem? I am forced to have a opinion on Khalistan, on Kashmir, because loud and rude foreigners come over and make it my problem in Canada. Indians are not a model minority. I'm not demonizing them. They bring trouble to the country I was born in. As an Chinese-Canadian, my opinion of them is very low for good reason. If they want to be a model minority, they can change how they goddamn behave.
You should cuz they're yours. The Khalistani garden was planted, watered and nurtured in your nation. You made your bed, you can lie in it. You can't kick them out. It's a you problem.
Maybe the native Britons shouldn't have colonized the subcontinent ? If they'd made it their problem, they would've have known that even in India, Pahari Muslims exist as un-integrated tribes and they are very likely to ghettoize once they come here.
Leaving khalistanis & paharis aside, I am going to stick to talking about the median Indian immigrant in North America.
You're allowed to have an opinion. But if you want it to be a good opinion, by definition, it must be well informed. You can rely on anecdotes and one-offs, but when the statistics disagree with you, you better have a good justification on why it is so.
That's a interesting contrast in how Indians and Chinese integrate. Indians believe what the White Americans told them. Their global media, their immigration forms and their constitutions. They said: "Work hard and this meritocratic capitalistic paradise will reward you with wealth and a voice. The land of the free, where anyone can be American."
Indians (I'm projecting a bit) will keep their heads down until they become citizens. But after naturalization or in the 2nd generation, they start feeling the entitled to free expression. Chinese Americans in comparison continue to stay quiet, as if they're guests in their own country.
You're a citizen. You pay taxes. Your right to impose your will on the nation is no less than a 'Heritage American'. Honestly, if you don't feel entitled to shape the nation in your own image, then you haven't integrated sufficiently enough. If you feel insecure about your place in your nation's racial totem pole, then you'll always find some group to be mad about. Indians today, someone else tomorrow. I'd respect you more for saying "I don't want Indians in my Canada because it doesn't align my idea of Canada". Why cares what the anglos think ?
(I know I'm mixing Canada and the US. I view Canada as a vassal state of America. I am sorry, I do not see Canada's culture as independent from America. So I will treat them as the same)
I'm a little confused by @crushedoranges talking about immigrants importing tedious internecine conflict or even assassins and you talking about free expression.
I mean, harping about khalistan is free expression, it's true, but it's crazy to suggest that you're not really integrated unless you're agitating against some other group from the old country, and it's especially absurd when you're talking about the second generation who often hasn't even set foot in the old country.
Integration isn't about doing what your grandparents did, except in the new country. Integration is about doing as the locals do. And it would really be unconscionable for Americans of German extraction to go on and on about Alsaceshit. Nobody wants to hear that.
It's because we're talking about different groups.
Crushed oranges insists that:
My comment mostly addresses #2. I edited my previous comment to make the distinction between both sections clearer.
There is lies our disagreement. To me, the American identity isn't ethnic. I can immigrate to Germany, and I will never be German. Once I am American, I am American. (esp those born here.)
America is a cultural identity: Pluralism, sanctity of work, free speech, can do attitude, reckless optimism, suing people, thanksgiving and christmas. That's how America markets itself. But also, that's how the American mythos is written.
Yes, an immigrant should integrate by imbibing the pre-established cultural values of America. But, the immigrant and modern Anglos should have an equal say in how the culture of America evolves going into the future.
To me, no American is more American by race and history alone. I read Crushed Oranges's comment as a implication that non-angos (them and my presumed future children) should defer to heritage white anglos on what it means to be American/Canadian. I have an issue with that.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I refuse to accept responsibility for Khalistan. Khalistan happened because stupid Indian politicians commanded their army stormed their holy of holies. India has exported this problem to my country. This does not please me. Just because white people are stupid enough to let the problem does not make me any happier - or more willing to accept the blame.
If you invite a guest into your house, and they have recently come from a fight, and wish to continue it, the host can ask them to leave, and not get involved. This is common sense. No, I don't have to become a citizen of the world. No, I don't have to accept tribal fighting from Bumfuckistan or grudges from the Actual Country They're Loyal To. They can go and sing their song of letting their brother, their cousin, their uncle, their entire Bollywood backup dancer squad into other people's countries.
If they are a net benefit to the people who are here, and cause no trouble? Good. If not, kick them out! That is a good opinion, a universal opinion. I don't need statistics to back that one up. For the same reason you don't want infinity Muslims in India, I don't want infinity Indians in my country. If that is not sufficient to clear things up, others will explain in my stead.
You still owe duties to guests you invite into your house and then ask to leave but who refuse to leave, or at least you do in the UK under the Occupier's Liability Act 1984. They're not as stringent as those you owe to guests you continue to give permission but your not giving permission to be on your property doesn't give you an automatic right to treat them in whatever way you want until they leave.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link