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 -
Australia doesn't want second-hand Somalians. In the event Somalia doesn't want second-hand Somalians either (and somehow can prevent it) Somaliland is right there angling for brownie points. Land flights of Somalians in Hargeisa while it still technically counts as repatriation, bribe Somaliland with an economic deal, and recognize the nation of Somaliland down the line. Pressure should build for Somalia to allow all the Somali refugees, cared for by the gracious and functional protection of Somaliland, to allow the repatriation of these individuals.
What is the reasoning for Somalia not wanting Somalians? I assume our Somalians are at a minimum somewhat filtered. They had to be smart enough to get the NGOs to fly them in. Is it just Somalia doing their own people a solid by refusing to let them come back?
My loose understanding of Somalia is there's a bunch of different ethnic/clan structures. A lot of the ones currently entrenched in the USA are from a ethnic subgroup that was dominant a couple decades ago but got overthrown, so the return issue gets complicated on both sides. Somalia doesn't want a bunch of relatively-rich, educated members of a clan that's not currently in vogue airdropped on the country. The US Somalians don't want to deal with the state of the country as-is.
This kinda thing complicates a lot of refugee population issues. My understanding of the Rohingya, for instance, is that they were essentially the Easternmost Bangladeshi population that expanded into the Westernmost part of Burma during the British control (since the British didn't meaningfully police immigration between the two). Once Burma became independent, they immediately did their best to kick the Rohingya out since they'd make up about 30% of the population and are distinctly good at breeding. Bangladesh refused to take them since they were a borderline failed state but the population is now kinda strung out between the two countries.
Also further complicated since my loose understanding is that the part of Myanmar that the Rohingya lived in historically swapped hands rather frequently between Muslim Bengali entities and Burmese entities. The Burmese were the last to hold it prior to the British annexation, but that was arguably due to the British breaking the Bengali entity first and the Burmese sweeping in on essentially undefended territory. Consequentially it's quite hard to allocate who actually has responsibility for the Rohingya population since there's distinct arguments that can be made for them being Bangladeshi, them being Burmese or even Rohingyastan
More options
Context Copy link
I don't know if Somalia does not want Somalians, but remigration generally agitates family who benefit from remittances sent to the homeland, the diaspora getting sent back, and nationalist or tribal offense to 'We don't want your kind.' All the same reasons Mexico's government has and will condemn mass deportation of its nationals working illegally in the US.
Also people forget that bailing to an affluent Western country is an expensive privilege that's generally only available to the upper echelons of society in the countries of origin. Cases like Ilhan Omar where she was daughter of a very important cog in the deposed military are extreme, but hardly unusual. Somalia doesn't want the deposed intelligentsia randomly dropped back on them, especially in a way that'd likely put them under an international microscope.
Having sufficient willpower, finances and clout to get through the various layers of bureaucracy, bribery and fleeing to get moving isn't easy. These people have sufficient clout in the homeland to get the narratives they want pushed.
More options
Context Copy link
For Mexico that changed sometime post 1980. I think it was post WW2 Mexico wanted remigration because they wanted the labor to industrialize.
But yes I can agree remittance etc is a strong argument for a country to refuse remigration.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link