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 -
Historical injustice depends a lot on where you start the clock.
I'll try to keep this mostly general, because much of history is under debate, especially about culture war issues, and litigating ancient history for current politics is a fool's game (if potentially entertaining). This phenomenon is not relegated to any particular side, it is rather the method by which fact and fiction become myth. It is how partially-understood history becomes dogma, and drives our current politics and society.
The history of humanity is a history of injustice, conflict and strife. When we look to history to explain our modern world and inform our modern politics, much of the divide between us can be discerned by where we start our "clocks". One notices that, for instance, in the Jewish/Palestinian arguments, one side likes to start the clock in the 1970s and one starts it in the 1930s. Real history, of course, is not divided artificially. Every conflict leads to the next, every injustice to the next. Progress happens on a long enough timeline, but there are enough reverses along the way to outlive any of us.
This is something to watch in ourselves, as much as in others. To think about where we're starting the clock, and whether something important might have happened before that to produce that situation.
To take a silly hobby-horse theory/hot take of mine as example, I think the british fought on the right side of WW2, but the wrong side of WW1. I think the historical context WW2 is completely dependent on WW1, and that of WW1 is inextricable from the Franco-Prussian war, the countries, borders and alliances it produced, and thus the clock should start in 1870 rather than 1913. Anyone who starts the clock in 1913 is a Francophile.
I can see the claim that, say, Russia or Serbia bears the blame for WWI, that Austria was in the right, and even that Germany’s actions are understandable(although not praiseworthy) given the context. I can see assigning some blame to France.
What I can’t wrap my mind around is the idea that Britain was in the wrong- whether you have central powers sentiment or not, responding to an ally in time of need is almost definitionally a just war. It seems like Britain was the only major belligerent that didn’t do anything wrong.
I'm not really a fan of the argument, but it's Niall Ferguson's. The claim is that Germany had already stopped its naval buildup and didn't have an army big enough to really conquer Europe, so they probably just wanted to neutralize France and Belgium to stave off a two-front war, then withdraw under some kind of settlement. The precedent is the 1871 Franco-Prussian War where Britain stayed out (other than diplomatically) and this basically happened, with Germany withdrawing and only taking Alsace-Lorraine. Supposedly internal British documents show they didn't really take the Belgium Treaty seriously so their main motivation was crushing the eternal Kraut, and thus turned a small conflict into a huge one.
You can kinda squint and see it, but I'm not really a fan of counterfactual arguments that are just 90% conjecture, nor of blaming fights on anyone other than the guy who started them. (I haven't read the full book so the argument may be stronger than I'm portraying).
For not having an army big enough to 'really' conquer Europe, they sure did come pretty close more than once during WWI.
That was 1871. Wilhelmine Germany was not embarrassed about their ambition to dominate Europe, and they deliberately worked to that end.
And that's why the war started smack in the middle of Bava...................Kosovo.
1: Serbian-organized terrorists kill Austrian heir
2: Austrians demand massive concessions, on threat of invasion, which I think is understandable enough (in realpolitik terms). This is essentially what the US did with Afghanistan.
3: The Russians jump in with zero stake or justification other than Pan-slav ideology.
4: Germany tells Austria to go ahead, they got their back
5: France jumps in, although their treaty with Russia doesn't require it, as Russia is not defending itself.
6: Now facing a two-front war, Germany loses the game of chicken and starts fighting.
7: Britain looks at all that and goes with France and the Russians.
The result of the war will be a communist dictatorship in Russia, a fascist one in Germany, another world war, and a seventy-year cold war between the victors. Counterfactuals are impossible, but Nicky 2 is a strong contender for dumbest world power leader of all time.
Of course Germany wants to dominate Europe, so does France and everyone else. They do it with banks rather than armies now, which is better for everyone, but still resented.
Sure, it's understandable why the Austrians demanded those concessions - they anticipated that the Serbians would be unwilling to comply or unable to within the very small timeframe offered, which would justify a military invasion. As you say, it's very understandable realpolitik - which is to say, lies and disregard for the weak.
(I don't think this is really that similar to Afghanistan. The AH interest in Serbia and the Balkans was long-running, part of a grander expansionist policy. But Afghanistan did not fit all that well into American foreign policy. If anything, it has interfered with and muddled long-term State Department strategy.)
The Russians had just as much stake in the Balkans as the Austro-Hungarians did - it was there, and they wanted it for themselves.
I don't see how Germany having Austria's back is defensible and France having Russia's back is not. Fact is it's just moronic not to help your allies. Was France supposed to just twiddle their thumbs while the Germans defeated their ally, knowing that they would soon be next? This is always a problem with alliances and commitments - those that you commit yourself to alliance with might take advantage of your reliance on them to do what they wish. Of course, this was not a problem for Germany and Austria.
Germany wanted a general war in 1914. Germany's guarantee to Austria was intended to increase the likelihood of war. They were ready for war and confident of victory. France and Russia were not. In addition, many in Germany feared that Russia would become an unbeatable foe if their army was successfully modernized. German strategy sought to knock the French out of the war quickly in a repeat of 1870, and then settle in for a longer and more grueling conflict against the Russians.
All of which can be laid at the feet of the German militarists who sought in 1914 to dominate Europe through force of arms. The fact is that it was they who loosed Lenin on Russia. The fascists who arose in Germany were no aberration, for they were cut from the same cloth as the Prussian militarists who were the driving force in 1914. Had the Germans simply accepted the status quo in 1914, all these things and more could have been averted. Instead, they chose escalation. They chose to believe that war was inevitable, and made it thus. All they that take the sword shall perish with the sword.
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