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 -
Despite being harsh on Black Panther for other reasons, I decided to revisit this comment to at least defend the film on this specific point:
I don't think this is a fair take on what happened.
T'Challa wasn't unmoved. His girlfriend (who he was rescuing, not slaves - they were a byproduct) was constantly pushing him to intervene. He seemed ambivalent but didn't want to break with tradition and refugees would be a big break.
He specifically raises the issue with another high-ranking Wakandan (if he was unmoved why do so?) long before he changes his mind, and he defaults to the status quo only when he decides he doesn't like either option (either humanitarian aid/refugees who don't fit Wakandan tradition or "benevolent" imperialism, which doesn't either). Either way, events overtake him and he doesn't do anything. It's quite possible he would have done something eventually but the plot happened.
Then everything goes to shit and he discovers that his father - who he idolized - basically killed his own brother and abandoned his nephew to a harsh life in Oakland to maintain secrecy. This undercuts the moral authority of his ancestors as he sees it, and he's not willing to make the same harsh sacrifices - he is even noted by his father to be a
bleeding heartgood man and would therefore find it hard to rule so this character trait predates the events of the climax.Then the side of Wakanda that favored imperialism supported a coup and was totally discredited, so the only remaining voice pushing for intervening was the humanitarian one, and that voice also happened to be in the King's bed. Guess what happened.
It's laughable that he first intervenes in Oakland but the rest is far less tortured than you imply.
I think this interpretation - Black Panther as Prince Harry - definitely qualifies as revisionism (of a form I'm sympathetic to). But it's also quite different from the story the movie wants to tell, I think, which is Black Panther being influenced by Killmonger talking about random historical events in America.
I mean, I don't disagree that Black Panther's tipping point in the films was the revelations about Killmonger. But my second-to-last paragraph is arguing that it's reductive to sum it up as "Killmonger talking about random historical events in America"
Black Panther doesn't take action when he first learned about Killmonger. Or when he first speaks to Killmonger. Instead he dismisses his claim of pan-Africanism. By the time they fight again he's already made up his mind to change. And he does so at the meeting where his father confirms what he did. That is about Killmonger, but it's not about "random historical events in America".
TBH the whole "Killmonger was right" is sort of a self-perpetuating meme , for reasons I think I've laid out (and some that are obvious - of course Killmonger's plan is absolute nonsense*)
T'Challa was being pulled and pushed in multiple directions and was ambivalent, Killmonger's entry was the catalyst for major change. But he didn't get a powerpoint of Black History and suddenly decide to go fix the world. His girlfriend made the argument more consistently and rationally than Killmonger did (and she was actually helping Africans, unlike anyone else in this movie). And what he ends up doing is closer to her plan than Killmonger's (besides the Oakland thing, which could be argued to be familial guilt)
Ironically, your criticism applies better to another character in the film...Killmonger's father. Who goes to America, learns a bit about how hard others have it (not even that hard relative to his neighbors in Africa) and decides to betray his country and family to help them (again: not his neighbors in Africa)
* Why go to Hong Kong first? Seriously...What was the thinking here?
Chinese money probably.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link