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 -
The underlying tension is the definition of "The Nation" that is being protected or promoted through these wars.
Attalus III deeded his kingdom to Rome in his will, knowing that inevitably Rome would subsume his kingdom regardless, and this avoided violence and death in his population. He protected his population, and while initially they weren't Roman citizens, their descendants likely became citizens later. I don't have the classicist juice to be able to trace Pergamese(?) families through time, but maybe it's been done. Maybe, genetically, those families were better off over time, with more and better off descendants as a result?
The modern Nationalist view, on the other hand, is that cultural extinction as a unique ethnic group is just as bad as genetic extinction. Zionists would not consider a future in which genetic descendants of Jews were numerous, but they didn't identify as Jews or practice Judaism. Zionists would prefer a future of a million practicing Jews to a future of fifty million undifferentiated Jewish descended people.
Ukrainian nationalists would prefer a future of a smaller Ukraine with fewer Ukrainians, to a future with more numerous Ukrainian descendants who speak Russian.
Were that true, that'd have at least meant a nationalist policy of tolerating the idea of autonomy and general otherness of the Donbass as a predominantly Russian region in character, at least before 2014. In other words, a compromise with Russian separatists. But, as far as I know, not only did this never happen, in fact the opposite was happening.
They'd prefer, even more, a future with more Ukrainians in a larger Ukraine, and they might not be averse to reeducating misguided Russian-speakers, or expelling them. Certainly, they aren't going to accept reduction of their borders.
Borders that were drawn up by Communist functionaries, ironically.
Bias disclosure: I am not convinced of the sacred uniqueness of the Ukrainian people, and think they probably should have stayed part of Russia after the fall of the USSR.
The problem with any national border is that it wants to be a bunch of things at the same time. Administratively convenient, contiguous, following clear natural boundaries, and containing all the X on one side and all the Y on the other. This can only be achieved by violence.
This war could be the violent birth of a real Ukrainian nation.
But redrawing boundaries and announcing they are not sacrosanct is equally fraught with danger.
It's also an extremely common trope of nationalists from Magyars to Israelis to seek larger borders.
Noted.
Anyway, since I replied to only one half of a sentence, I think it makes sense to reply in a bit more detail: what I described would have readily been available to Ukrainian nationalists (at least before 2014) without firing a single shot or wasting even 1$ of US aid. When weighing past options, I think we need to take this into account.
We should, but I don't know how to weight it, as an American big L Liberal, because I don't know if that deal was ever considered credibly on the table, or if it was just a salami slice to Ukrainian subjugation. Also, Crimea is a concern, as it ruins the contiguous map of Ukraine, it's a dagger through the heart of Ukraine.
Nationalists all want France's Frontières naturelles de la France, the mountain ranges rivers and seas that form France's modern boundaries, that create a contiguous country without strong external threats. Few countries resemble such things naturally, they require something like the Napoleonic wars to produce.
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