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 castes correlate with indo-european admixture, but it's still too low to resemble anything you would call a direct descendant, in the way you wouldn't call a mestizo a direct descendant of Europeans. It's a case of ethnogenesis. I haven't seen PCA/clustering with the caste systems compared to European groups but I imagine that would demonstrate this point as well.
It's also likely the caste system was created in response to racial changes among the ruling class, so substantial changes likely happened before the formalization of the caste system. Where are the conquistadores today? Even if a caste system were created in Latin America today, the upper castes would still have a substantial amount of indigenous admixture.
It's interesting to consider how the Spanish intermixed with the natives which the Anglos did not.
Actually, from what I understand the political/cultural/financial elite in Mexico, Brazil, and the Southern Cone (Argentina, Chile, Uruguay) has very little non-European admixture at all. In Mexico they’re descended largely from conquistadors (hence Steve Sailer’s epithet “Conquistador-American” for people like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez), but in other parts of Latin America they’re just as likely to be of Italian and German ancestry. I can’t speak to the more undeveloped parts of Latin America.
More options
Context Copy link
What does “it’s still too low” mean in this context?
It means it's a mixed population, at least in the present day:
In that way modern western europeans aren't "Aryans" either, they have significant admixture from Anatolian farmers.
True, but the Yamnaya themselves had admixture from European Hunter-Gatherers and Anatolian Farmers (to a lesser extent). Norwegians/Finns have the most Yamnaya admixture IIRC (funny enough the Nazis were right about that).
But I'll fully admit that there's a mythological component to a name or racial identity. Modern Jews are admixed descendants (at best) from the Hebrews of the bible. I'm not adamant about the term "Aryan" but it contains the right ingredients of historicity and mythology to formulate a pan-European identity. If not that term, there must be a term that is better, but there is not so far as I can tell. "White" would be the closest but it has a lot of downsides. The biggest downside of "Aryan" is that that term is taboo, but that also gives it a sort of power. It invokes a feeling when people say it or hear it, and that might be the most important feature of the word.
I of course do not discount the Aryan contribution to Indian religion, language, culture, and civilization. Buddha is White by the way, don't @ me.
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