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 -
Until about 5 minutes ago they were the undisputed heroes of the Independence era - Washington, Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, Patrick Henry, George Mason, Peyton Randolph, John Marshall, Edmund Randolph ... 4 of the first 5 presidents, architect of the Constitution, author of the Declaration of Independence, some of the most prolific speakers, demagogues, and essayists in defense of independence and the notion of a unified "America," First Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, first Attorney General, and the first President of the Continental Congress.
And many of the major figures associated with other states were actually Virginians of the upper rank - just transplanted: William Henry Harrison, John Tyler, Stephen Austin, Sam Houston... the list goes on and on.
In many respects, they were the political elite of the first 30 years of U.S. independence; New England was frigid and pietistic, and the Middle States were a wishy-washy after-thought.
Well, insofar as they were key to forging political compromises and coalitions which (1) kept the 13 colonies together as a single polity, and prevented splintering and disunion through which European superpowers could have played diplomatic puppet-games as happened in Latin America, and (2) were early adopters and frequent boosters of the idea of westward expansion and continental (sometimes even hemispheric - see the Ostend Manifesto for a late-period example) dominance, which ensured the U.S. its present enviable geographic, resource availability, and strategic position (at the expense of a lot of natives getting displaced or killed), yes - absolutely.
I agree. Slavery in one sense enabled America, because the indispensible figures of the Revolutionary era were only able to be "statesmen" on the backs of the surplus produced by slave-driven latifundia. However, slavery did not drive American industrialization, because the areas where the slaves were had been set up such that industrialization just wasn't in the cards, and the areas which did industrialize had no need of the institution - free workers were actually cheaper, and africans didn't have a mortality advantage over european immigrants in the north anyway.
More options
Context Copy link