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 -
What do you think about the concept of the Global North and South?
I never payed much attention to this way of looking at global economics. I don't know anyone from South America or Africa and only a handful of folks from Asia. My only economic reference comes from Fukuyama's "The End of History", where he spent a few pages describing dependency theory and then refuting it by showing how poor Asian countries were able to grow while South American countries, despite being in a similar situation, were not.
A few days ago, I had a chance to meet some people from South America. I believe they were from Brazil and Venezuela. Both worked for NGOs. They quickly turned the topic to colonization, blaming it for all the problems in their countries. I know their countries are not doing too well, both in terms of civic freedom and economics, but I was surprised by how strong their views were--they basically said the Europe and the US are to blame for the bad situation their countries are in. Europe, for colonization and "mass rape", and the USA for the Monroe Doctrine (and the associated string of interference) as well as extracting wealth from South America.
I didn't have time to query them for more details. I'm ambivalent on the question of colonization. I haven't studied it much nor thought about it. I can easily imagine that US interventions have had a destabilizing effect on SA, but I can't imagine how big of an effect that would be. I remember reading Noah Smith's piece on Cuba and how its failure is not the fault of the American embargo, but rather of obviously bad economic policy. I can't help but think that this is the case for other South American countries as well.
How much merit do you think there is in accusing US and Europe for inflicting poverty on the global south? What should I search for if I wanted to know more--thinkers, articles, etc.?
I think the entire concept of Global North and Global South is bunk.
How does it explain China going from Global South to Global North? Formally they're still supposed to be part of the Global South, yet they have a space station and roughly 28% of world manufacturing! They absolutely do not belong in the same geo-economic category as Columbia or South Africa. Europeans caused a lot of harm to China in the Opium Wars and various treaties, Japan killed around 20 million with bombing, bioweapons and conventional weapons, they addicted Chinese to heroin infused cigarettes.
https://allthatsinteresting.com/japanese-opium-trade-in-china
If anyone has an axe to grind about colonialism or imperialism, it should be China. Yet they're now an imperial, pseudo-colonial power themselves.
Or look at Ethiopia. They held off the Italians and maintained formal independence until 1937. The Italians only got to rule the country for 4 years until the British crushed them in 1941. They got to hold onto certain parts of Somaliland from 1949 until 1960. How could Italian colonialism be at fault for Ethiopia's problems today?
One counterargument is that Thailand was never colonized and is richer and more stable than its neighbours in Laos, Cambodia, Myanmar and Vietnam. But couldn't you also argue that Thailand wasn't colonized because it was inherently stronger as a polity, so of course it would remain more stable and develop faster? Before Europe arrived, they were the regional hegemon.
World Systems theory seems to point out 'here are the strong countries and here are the weak countries'. Then they say 'the strong countries are rich and the weak countries poor, because the strong are exploiting the weak'. Instead, I suggest the strong countries are rich because they are strong, because they become more or less capable. This is mostly down to internal policy and the fundamental geographic and demographic qualities of the country.
Arguably, the Chinese do indeed have an axe to grind about the "Century of Humiliation."
EDIT: Also, I learned from C&Rsenal that Thailand/Siam was actually being sort-of colonized, or at least were losing territory to the British and French and underwent a sort of "self-colonization" in order to modernize and (try to) get a modicum of respect.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link