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 -
Republicans are 'wannabe' whites, Democrats are 'wannabe' POC
Inspired by @ymeskhout 's thread below
The culture war in America is less religious, or even strictly ethnic, and more about whether a given group ‘identifies’ as white.
In America the GOP is the white party. That doesn’t mean it’s actually the ‘white party’ in some absolute anthropological sense, it’s entirely possible that largely native third-generation Central Americans might one day ‘identify as’ huwhite for the purposes of political alignment (cf Amerimutt memes). But certainly to be Republican has become to believe one is white, whether one is Scots-Irish, Italian, Cuban, Mayan, WASP, Jewish, Armenian or whatever else. Even black Republicans, even if they won’t overtly admit it, identify as white; Tim Scott was effectively raised by a neighborhood white businessman who owned the local Chick-fil-A franchise, Candace Owens is married to an English hedge fund manager and son of a peer, Clarence Thomas has a white wife etc. In several generations the modal black Republican with a white spouse will have white descendants.
Conversely, white progressives, even if they are literally as Nordic huwhite as it is possible to be under a Madison Grant-esque racial designation from 1890, do not ‘identify as’ white. Sure, they’ll tick white on a checkbox so they don’t get made fun of, Rachel Dolezal style, by their peers, but in the traditional, tribal sense they aren’t white. As the famous chart shows, white progressives are the only demographic in the entire western world (possibly the entire world) with out-group bias. Even if they would never admit it, they are transracial. Some part of Robin DiAngelo believes that, even if she knows she isn’t ‘black’ per se, she is on the PoC team in a tribal sense, just like Candace Owens, in marrying an Englishman, has declared her lineage to be ‘white’.
My grandfather, born in the 1920s, would never describe himself as a Jew, even though he, his parents, his wife, his children and (some of) his grandchildren were of course Jews. He would only describe himself as a “man of the Jewish religion”. He was a socialist in his youth, then became a Republican in the 50s and, in his final years on this earth, a devout Trump supporter. Before 9/11, when as is often stated, Muslims voted largely for the GOP (and pre-9/11 American Muslims were more Levantine/North African than they are today), they too identified as ‘white’, like my grandfather.
The political division in the US is and will remain between groups who ‘identify as’ white and those who do not, regardless of their actual ethnic origin. Religion won’t really come into it.
I am not so sure if it is simply a binary of "White" vs "Non-White".
I believe this is more akin to a Red Tribe vs Blue Tribe scuffle, as Scott commonly mentions. It is more of difference in which "type" of White person one is. Red Tribers, especially White Red Tribers, are depicted as having higher in-group biases shown through racism and discrimination, along with a host of other traits ascribed to your typical "back-country, red-neck" Republican. On the other hand, Blue Tribers are depicted conversely as understanding the history of racism and discrimination, and are accommodating in terms of cultural and ethnic acceptance, often to the point of their own self-detriment. These stereotypes are reified both in the media and in daily conversations, if one notices the subtle undertones of many people's speech.
While they may be just stereotypes, they still do have real cultural foundations and implications. An aversion towards racism, whether it be innate or learned, could steer White people towards the Blue Tribe because of these archetypes. Personally, I have witnessed in many peers and friends, either through direct mention of the unsavory stereotypes towards White Republicans, or through indirect methods such as jokes or sarcasm. This is used as a device to increase their status by showing moral superiority over the ignorant White Republicans/Red Tribers. A gander at current media and their attitudes towards Red Tribers should make it obvious that it is a low status identity, in certain areas at least.
This desire to gain status ultimately drives the now Blue Tribe members to convey values or even culture converse to the Red Tribers, effectively showing their membership to the group. However, much of culture ascribed to Red Tribers is traditional "White Culture". Whether it be Country music, Christianity, Meritocracy, and various forms of art, these cultural identifies must be rejected to not be mistaken as a Red Triber. Other cultural ideas must be used instead, especially those without the baggage of Colonialism, slavery, or other discrimination. Consequently, by identifying and pursing these cultural ideas and values leads the Blue Triber to feel closer to Non-Whites, since to the Blue Triber culture is a much stronger glue than race.
Another angle is that the moral significance of being White may be too much for some Blue Tribers to bear. Books such as "White Fragility" state that racism is the White man's original sin, unable to be saved from. The White Blue Triber may attempt to relieve some of the pent up guilt by loosening attachment to White culture.
The last angle I can think of comes from the stereotype that White people are uncool. This theory goes along with the first as they both use status to explain the repulsion from the White identity. In popular media, White people have been portrayed as less cool than their melanated brethren. An explain could be the reaction to White rappers, where many were said to be "corny". That is changing in the current atmosphere, but some of the sentiment is still alive. This reaction to the perceived lack of coolness from Whites could explain the motivations of the less politically active segment of Blue Tribers who are less likely to identify with their ethnicity.
On the other hand, this schism in White identity sort of strengthens the Red Tribers perceived Whiteness. A common theme among White Republican, whether view from the lens of someone like Trump or even red-necks, is the rejection of what the mainstreams prescribes for polite society and replacing it with a rebellion from those values. The sentiment, "You can't tell me what to do!" and then doing the action, even to self-detriment, encapsulates this phenomena. In the face of being told they are wrong, they do the opposite, many times in accordance to their in-group, as seem with "ugly" fashion styles such as mullets, camo, or even raised pick-ups. If sufficient push is given, many Red Tribers are likely to have this approach to race and become more White-centric.
TLDR:
White Liberals are trying to either:
Gain status from identifying opposite of White Republicans.
Escape the perceived shame and guilt from being White that surrounds racial politics.
Gain status from popularity, or from being seen as cool.
White Conservatives may form more White identity to gain status from their in-group, which sometimes defines itself counter to the prevalent liberal norms.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link