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 -
Love it or leave it, but woke.
This weekend, The University of Texas played The Ohio State University in Austin, TX. A screen shot went viral on Twitter showing a crowd of Indian students celebrating the victory.
"Heritage Americans", the dissident right, the Woke Reich, or whatever you want to call them went crazy, pointing out the massive demographic changes in Texas that are happening. This is true. Anyone who has been to Texas knows whites are a minority here in any medium sized and larger city. The changes have been stunning and within 30 years, it is unrecognizable.
Critics rightfully pointed out that they were pretty much just being racist. You talk about integration, and here are immigrants and children of immigrants celebrating a victory in football wearing cowboy hats. What is more American than that? You clearly just don't like Indian people.
An Indian politician said that this is what Texas is. If you don't like it, LEAVE! There is some truth to this. This is what Texas is now, but historically the South Asian population has been tiny. This is a very recent development. Is 20 years all it takes for Texas to become something new? If you are 30 and above, you probably grew up with almost no Indians. Now this is what Texas is and you have to leave if you don't like the changes?
This reminds me of the UK. Pre-Windrush, the UK was 99.9% white. As recently as 1991, it was 95% white. Now though, if you complain, you are going against British values. For thousands of years, the UK was essentially 100% white. Within a few generations, it is a multi-cultural country and if you don't like that, LEAVE! We are not a white society, and actually never were. I could go on and on, but with the exception of Reform, that is the general consensus now.
Back to Texas. It's crazy how quickly this can happen. Mass migration can happen and within one generation, this is seen as the new default and any complaints about this are seen as against the new values. Of course, the biggest gatekeepers of this isn't the left. They really have no control over their outgroup other than canceling people and social pressure, but if you don't care what they think, what can they really do? The center-right has also rushed to condemn people criticizing the massive demographic replacement in Texas. People like Dan Crenshaw rushed to condemn the racism and call out this anti-Indian racism and essentially sided with the left, who hates them. They have essentially said the same thing as the left and that these aren't Texas values to be racist. So basically, love it or leave it, but woke. If you don't like the new Texas, leave.
But where will they go? You basically have to live in a state like Texas for access to the best jobs. schools, dating, etc. It's insane to me how fast we can accept something new that is unprecedented as the new normal without considering the consequences. Only weirdos and disagreeable people point this out, and by the time people start to see the consequences, it will be too late (assuming there are negative consequences, which should be obvious is my POV).
I suppose this is this week's race discussion thread; could someone actually steelman the "white supremacy" takes, for lack of a better way to put it after a minute's thought, that seem all the rage on the Motte lately? For example, this post from last week's thread, and the OP.
I can quite well understand the theory of mind of people who complain about mass immigration, or even immigration in general.
I can also understand the theory of mind of the HBD realists and the scientific racists who go on about the Hajinal line or Ashkenazi selection pressures or whatever. If you're actually a WASP nativist or something then alright, at least you have something cohesive going on there.
Yet when people start going on about whiteness it just seems really silly to me. Just in the last hundred years Greeks, Italians, Slavs, Irishmen went from distinctly "other" to "white" to all but the most dedicated haters. Likely in another hundred years assimilated Hispanics, Indians and East Asians will probably be considered "white" for all intents and purposes.
If "white" is just a Schelling point for the things you actually care about (culture, immigration, governance, whatever) then complaining about some dudes wearing cowboy hats just makes you sound like a base racist that misses the point entirely.
I wasn't alive a hundred years ago, so their categorisations mean nothing to me. I'm not inheriting their ideology, I'm not defining myself by their beliefs. That their beliefs bear superficial resemblance to mine doesn't matter at all to me.
What I am looking at is the reality of keeping these pet minorities around. The culture they bring with them, the habits they cling to, the enclaves they form to avoid dispensing with any of those things. The relapses their subsequent generations have when they "rediscover" their roots and reabsorb all the worst parts of their ancestral cultures. I look at these things and I see no benefit to myself or the people I care about, so I want them gone.
I don't want Indian hygiene culture in my nation. I don't want the Indian work culture of just lying about things. I don't want interethnic rivalries on my streets. I don't want to hear word one about Israel or Palestine or Pakistan or Somalia or any of those; nobody here should even be able to point to those places on a map. And I equally don't want minorities wearing my culture like a skinsuit, partaking in my traditions as if they're their own, I don't want to see ethnics morris dancing while the media propagandises to me about how they're the new face of Britain, just as British as me, these people who washed ashore five years ago, while I can show you my family name on war monuments and in town hall records and point out buildings my grandparents helped build. It is gross, debasing propaganda intended to humiliate.
It is simply not my problem that their forefathers weren't capable of building countries worth a shit; that doesn't entitle them to mine.
We can eliminate racism by simply removing the other races.
More options
Context Copy link
The steelman is that assimilation is not guaranteed. There are many instances of countries where assimilation hasn’t occurred over thousands of years. In America ADOS have not fully assimilated and right now we have zero signs assimilation will ever occur. India itself is not an assimilated country. Castes still exists. Brazil is an example of a country that is not assimilated. You end up with a result where different tribes in your society vote for group interests and not society interests. If assimilation fails then your end result is permanently worse politics.
This is bad for a lot of reason. High performers in unassimilated countries are less productive. Brazil had a lot of Italian and German immigrants and they are poorer and less productive than the groups that immigrated to America.
Once you have permanent groups that are not assimilating you can not unring that bell and will be stuck with poorer governance forever.
Also it seems weird to me to say that Hispanics will likely assimilate. Most Latin countries are not assimilated. And certainly to a far lesser extent than America had a dominant uniculture when I was a kid.
Assimilation basically only happens by interbreeding that that obviously means the results thereof is a mixture not entirely like its sources.
More options
Context Copy link
How do you define assimilation? I can’t think of a single LatAm country that has the European mass conformity into a single mold model. Beyond that, almost all of Latin America has an assumption of patron-client relations rather than atomized citizens unified only by the state.
That's the point, right? LatAm politics is characterised by a heavy understanding that We Are (Not) All In It Together.
That’s a different thing than assimilation, though. A failure of assimilation is failing to join the society. In LatAm, all of those groups are part of society; their society just has a lot of people in different roles.
It’s the same with AADoS in the US; they have always been a part of US society. The question has always been their place in it, not if they were an alien presence in it.
The problem with words is they can have different relatively similar meanings.
Most of Latam accepts a shared culture. The elites, middle class, and lower class all have an acceptance of what is Mexican Food or Music and they have the same understanding that a taco is Mexican and Sushi is not Mexican. But there is a bigger assimilation of seeing yourself as truly one people. They likely mostly lack that. The English of the European countries bonded a few people together but today I think they mostly view themselves as “one people”. You can still at times notice physical traits and faces from the prior population groups. That I consider a stronger form of assimilation.
Most of the new world has the looser form of assimilation. Pre-mass migration the US for most of its population developed the stronger form of assimilation. I would say in 1980 Italians probably being the last large migration had nearly fully accomplished the strong form of assimilation.
That makes sense. The ideal of a nation as being “A commonwealth for the benefit of its people. Its people being equal citizens operating as individuals, rather than corporate entities like guilds or villages. And the citizens being culturally uniform.” Is the culmination of the 19th century liberal project, and really only stuck in northwest Europe and Anglo America. Latin America, despite the dreams of some of its people, never really got there. It was never “individual <-> state/nation”. You always had some form of clientelism or corporate identity in between.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I don't think that's what I would call assimilation; I would call it more Balkanisation-In-One-Country.
Assimilation is (in my opinion) about feeling genuine companionship with strangers, trusting strangers, feeling cultural unity with strangers. Being willing to plant trees for some random guy's kids to sit under. It's the opposite of ethnic politics, gibs, "communities". If you can talk about "the X community" then the Xs haven't assimilated.
There is a historical portrait on the wall nearby me. No idea who it's of. But one of the reasons that the ethnic composition of immigration into the UK concerns me is that any non-white immigrant can look at it and know that they have no relationship to this person.
The National Citizenship model where you had the nation essentially be an extended family of homogenized citizens with the state/commonwealth representing them and citizens being equal under the law and socially, while never fully realized, was/is a real thing. Britain and France are the classic examples. This was the end goal of the 18th/19th century liberal/progressive project, and they got most of what they wanted in northwest Europe. This is being undone, partly but not entirely by immigration, and you are right to notice that.
My point is more that LatAm never had that. Individual liberals wanted it as an ideal, and some nations like Argentina arguably got closer than others, but you never had anywhere near the social cohesion and unification Europe had. LatAm always had clientelism, corporate privileges for Indios, or integration into the state via corporatism or parties in the 20th century.
Talking about the breaking of the liberal nationalist societies you see in Europe and/or assimilation in a LatAm context is a category error.
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
AADOS are assimilated fully. Not to the stratum you would like them to be, sûre, but they have nothing in common, culturally, with west Africans, and a lot in common, culturally, with poor southerners writ large. You don’t have to like that to note that it’s assimilation.
a key component of assimilation is the group being assimilated identifies with and becomes apart of the group they're assimilating to so there are no longer different groups with different interests who view themselves differently
there are no longer Scots-Irish, and English, and German, and Welsh, and Scottish, and others; there are simply Americans and they simply identify as Americans and see each other as the same group
American Blacks do not identify with or think of themselves as the same group as White Southerners or poor Southerners. In fact, for hundreds of years, they've explicitly and violently set themselves apart from White Southerners, poor or otherwise. They do this in every part of the country they go.
In such a context, claiming they've "assimilated fully," let alone assimilated meaningfully is just ridiculous. I really struggle to believe you would take more than a second to correctly identify which is which and so we're just left to speculate why you continue to smudge things enough and hope others squint enough they cannot also easily tell the difference and see them as different.
perhaps in the future when Americans have been so deracinated and so deconstructed and displaced by foreigners that no one has any identity outside of the most base forms of consumerism , you can claim everyone "assimilated"
but that's not assimilation, that is just the displacement and destruction of the old and creation of something new, except somehow more hollow and fake
More options
Context Copy link
What?
More options
Context Copy link
You would be using a definition of assimilation that is borderline meaningless. Sure we have some shared memes. But for the most part the communities are segregated. Wildly different income, crime, life expectancy, and voting records. Far different polling on in-group biases.
Both sides do have a sense of being American. But we have polling on things like juries and ADOS show significant bias towards other ADOS. If tribal loyalties exists then assimilation has at best been partial.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
The question is, didn't this already happen 100+ years ago with the aforementioned "Greeks, Italians, Slavs, Irishmen"? The Jeffersonian ideal gave way to Tammany Hall, the Mafia, union politics, etc. - so we see that that assimilation project was not successful either. Perhaps, the immigrants assimilated America to themselves, and not the other way around.
We used to insist on assimilation. That was why Greeks are now okay. I don’t know about the race angle, I don’t put much stock in that, but we have absolutely stopped even trying to assimilate all of these immigrants into Amerikaner culture. In 1900, leaving your homeland meant to give up all of that and become American. To give up dress and language and hygiene standards and traditions and to eventually absorb American culture— our language, culture, food, religion, sports, games, music, and so on. Now, it’s actually seen as a bad thing that a third generation Chinese or Nigerian kid acts mostly like an American. That they no longer speak the language or play the games or listen to the music. In fact, fashionable Americans were often insistent on practicing and celebrating those other cultures. They race to bring up pagan Hindu holidays, or Muslim holidays, or Indian, Korean or Japanese music. It’s partly that technology allows this. In 1950, you could not get those kinds of things in America.
The claim that immigrants have stopped assimilating is not really in evidence. Language acquisition, intermarriage rates, even religious adoption to a not-insignificant degree all point to assimilation proceeding apace. Insofar as there is substance to this point, it seems to be a complaint that immigrants are assimilating to the "wrong" American subcultures (e.g. East/South Asian immigrants mostly assimilating into urban white liberal culture), but even that is pretty mixed. There was never as much daylight between Latino and Southern American culture as nativists pretend, and Latinos have been assimilating pretty well.
Conversely, the period of "insistence" on assimilation yielded a number of distinct white-ethnic subcultures (e.g. Irish, Italian, Polish) over the course of the 19th and early 20th century. Most are still present to this day in attenuated forms. The big standout in both its presence at the time and lack of presence now is German American culture, which didn't survive the world wars.
What is "Amerikaner culture"? The only thing I can find is a group promoting white SA immigration to the US, but I'm guessing that's not what you're talking about.
More options
Context Copy link
Some would likely consider the ‘90s Affirmative Action push and some other programs as a strong attempt at getting full ADOS assimilation. When affirmative action failed then woke started since no interventions achieved the stated goal it must be that the other 85% have biases that holding back assimilation.
But now we are post-woke and genetic arguments are rising since the woke intervention also seems to have failed.
So maybe we actually have been trying assimilation and failed?
We aren’t trying. We don’t insist that immigrants learn English or anything at all about American culture. We don’t insist that they adapt to WASP ideals. For example, if we were to insist on Muslim assimilation, we would ban the hijab and other forms of Muslim dress. We would not allow for Muslim prayer times or build foot washes in public places to assist Muslims in praying. If we were insisting on Hispanic assimilation, then there wouldn’t be barios where several generations of Latinos have lived and barely any of them understand English.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I think that's a fair assessment. The gravity of each group pulls itself towards the other.
What people often get wrong about Italian immigration is the presumption that nothing was done about it and it all worked out in the end. That's not true at all. People were extremely upset about it and that's why we passed the National Origins Act in 1924 which all but banned further Italian immigration. We shut the border for 40 years. By 1970, the foreign born population of the US had fallen below 5% and most of the earlier groups were finally assimilated.
Even in 1965, when we opened the border again, it wasn't because people wanted more immigration. It was just assumed that is was no big deal and the overall composition of the immigrants wouldn't change much. And wow were they wrong about that.
Immigration advocates want to skip the step where we struggled for decades and move right to the part where everyone is assimilated. That's not going to happen with continuous waves of new migration.
This is if you have a good outcome. A slow painful assimilation. India has the highest genetic distance of its people. The solution they had to a lot of diversity was to create the caste system and just have the different groups legally and by custom live separately. The west seems like it might go down the path of India.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
It's also a lot easier to keep a balkanized social fabric and cultural landscape in today's smartphone era. I can continue using my language and speaking to my friends and family essentially anywhere on Earth now
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I think it isn’t white supremacist per se but a belief that culture and attitudes are in part inherited (probably both via nature and nurture).
Thus, white people writ large and Western Europeans more specifically may want to keep their culture because (1) it is familiar and (2) it has on the whole been one of the better cultures.
Now that doesn’t mean that aren’t other good cultures. For example, Japan and China have achieved a lot. I wouldn’t want to live in such cultures but it isn’t obvious they are overall worse and in some ways (but not all) are clearly better.
But some cultures are seemingly objectively inferior and/or some cultures have a hard timing blending. Indian culture seems to prioritize clannish behavior that prioritizes Indians at the cost of whites.
I know this is all generalities and I’m sure if we dug in at each premise there would be objections etc. But this is, in broad strokes, why I think reversing immigration is generally good while at the same time preserving some degree of immigration from populations with cultures that are on par with the western cultures and can blend well if numbers are small enough.
Japan is an odd example here because general claims of "Japanese success" happened mostly after a dramatic period in their history in which Western culture was aggressively adopted by (local!) top-down fiat.
I'd be remiss if I suggested that Western ideals were the only reason for this success, but it certainly complicates the example. China has also had its own run-ins and adaptations from Western ideas too (literally Communism! Although that's not the only one).
In Japan's case they had a period of self-imposed isolation, which was forcefully ended by the U.S. demonstrating how much they fucked themselves over militarily by refusing trade and technological advancement, and them scrambling to catch up.
Korea later similarly scrambled to catch up, but Japan had the lead and took over Korea in the run-up to WW2.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
'We are all the same brotherhood of man, we should let everybody in and kumbaya'-ism is an incredibly cheap value to hold when you're from a country that's essentially never going to be asked to actually let anybody else in. And the majority of countries that mass-immigration advocates are hailing from are actually super restrictive on naturalization with a very strong implied understanding of 'what a person from here is'. Sure, not every white sub-race is equally good and there'd be a bunch of arguments to be made regarding 'Would you rather have Japanese immigrants or Albanians' but the people who managed to build the nice things that outside groups are now trying to forcibly socialized should be able to say 'No, go build your own' without mass wailing and gnashing of teeth.
Okay, but this is the opposite of what we see. The most rabidly xenophobic nations are generally the ones people are least interested in migrating to, while the people most likely to embrace the brotherhood of man are the people most likely to be getting immigrants.
When a man's material health is taken care of, only then does he care for his spiritual health.
People have the luxury of virtue signalling when their lives are comfortable. It's a form of guilt amelioration.
More options
Context Copy link
This partly depends on your definition of xenophobia. I've known no shortage of weebs dismayed that Japanese immigration laws are basically "no". I'm sure there are KPop stans that have similar situations.
More options
Context Copy link
Yeah but the immigrants from those super xenophobic countries instantly turn on a dime the second it aligns with their interests.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
This is just not true. They were always considered white, and anything saying otherwise is just misinformation. A lot of people have been fed this lie, so I don't blame you for believing it, but it is objectively not true.
https://web.archive.org/web/20200612063842/https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/03/22/sorry-but-the-irish-were-always-white-and-so-were-the-italians-jews-and-so-on/
Maybe in the US, where Black in general has been its own distinct category. But in Europe, southern Europeans were seen as darker skinned, more temperamental, and just overall different from those in the north or west. People specifically started worrying about black people once we saw immigration from the middle east and Africa.
So this may simply be a cultural issue, where an American places different meanings on "Black" and "White" than Europeans do.
Yes, they were seen like this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alpine_race#/media/File:Passing_of_the_Great_Race_-_Map_4.jpg
But they were never seen as black. They were always seen as Europeans, just lesser white Europeans. It's also anachronistic to think about current racial categories in the "Irish became white" meme way because Europe was essentially 100% white during this time period and full of different white ethnic groups that saw each other as distinct. Winston Churchill for example talked about the Anglo-Saxon race.
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