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 -
I've always found the claim against self-identification as White in the face of African American identity rather farcical. Because whites didn't trace their ancestry and maintain distinct European cultural traditions they can't identify as White? But it's ok for African Americans because many were descended from slavery, can't trace their ancestry at all, so they're allowed to create an identity? You're not allowed to identify as Chinese unless you specifically can trace your Han lineage back to a particular province?
It's just clear anti-White advocacy, I suspect based on a fear of the specter of Nazism and White ethno-nationalism. Divide and conquer with 30+ white identities who are never allowed to find common interest. But attacking them all as 'White' is fine and dandy of course.
It’s ok for African Americans because they’re an ethnic group. White Americans are not- white southerners and WASPs and midwestern Germans and Utah Mormons are, but you’ll notice those groups have not always gotten along and presented a United front.
Yes, the definition of ethnic group is somewhat arbitrary and you can draw a gerrymander to where white Americans to the exclusion of non-white passing individuals are an ethnic group, but it’s a suspicious gerrymander. You can argue that white southerners and wasps and Italian Americans and midwestern Germans and Utah Mormons and the like should cooperate against other ethnic groups, but I don’t trust no Yankee and the arguments for why I should pick Yankees over more culturally similar blacks need to be made instead of relying on white solidarity that doesn’t exist need to actually be made.
Like look, a lot of the distinguishing cultural markers for African Americans are stupid and destructive, but they do exist in a way that distinguishes African Americans as a whole from other Americans in a way that doesn’t for white Americans.
You could just as easily say that Germans aren't a real ethnicity with this argument. "Brandenburgers and Rhinelanders and Badenese and Bavarians and Austrians are, but you'll notice these groups have not always gotten along and presented a united front."
Americans can be an ethnic group, but any normal measure by which Americans are an ethnic group would include lots of non-white people, most notably african americans(not black Americans as a whole, there's lots of nigerians and haitians and the like here). "White Americans" are not an ethnic group by any measure that isn't a gerrymander, they're a collection of ethnic groups, and a normal way to measure which lumps them all together would lump African Americans in with them unless it's just motivated by anti-black racism. One needn't be a particular fan of blacks, and I am not, to recognize that for consistency's sake, African Americans are heritage Americans, and significantly more heritage than many white groups that are a major presence(eg Italian Americans).
Which is ironic because they're more likely to resent America. Anecdotally speaking. I'd have to see numbers to know for certain.
More options
Context Copy link
No, it wouldn't, because race is both a meaningful difference and historically where the line was drawn in American culture. Next you're going to tell me that Cape Coloreds and Afrikaners are the same ethnicity.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
This is just completely absurd. The very first Congress of the United States codified that naturalization of foreign-born citizens was restricted to "free whites of good character". It is unbelievable that you deny the existence of this ethnic group when one of the very first acts of the Congress of the United States was to explicitly restrict naturalization to white people.
Likewise, during slavery and segregation and ever since there has been a distinction between "Whites" and "colored" (or whatever term is being used at the time). In census data, the unit of distinction has always been "whites" and non-whites of different categories. Same goes for crime statistics tracked by the FBI. "White" is also treated as a coherent ethnic identity when it is subjected to criticism by Hollywood and academic institutions and affirmative action. There are many many cases where the existence of a "white" ethnic identity is accepted and taken for granted, it's only in the case of advocacy where people like you come out of the woodwork and deny that such a thing actually exists.
More options
Context Copy link
I'm not American, but I don't buy this at all. You talk about Gerrymandering, but there is clearly a 'just so' line drawn about what groups are allowed to assert a cultural identity and those that are not. Whites cannot, but Blacks can. For nebulous ill defined reasons that are seemingly asserted to prevent any defence against attacks against Whites as a whole.
If Whites aren't an ethnic group, why is the identification of and assault on them and their flaws largely uncontested in the overton window?
Part of that is surely that the vast majority of American blacks belong to a single ethnic group- African Americans- whereas there is no similarly dominant group for white Americans. And almost all "black cultural" celebrations are really just African American culture, which is far more similar to other American groups than to, eg, Nigerian culture, to the extent that American English uses "he's black" to mean "he's a member of the African American ethnic group" and would say "he's African/from Africa" to refer to a Nigerian as opposed to "he's black".
I agree that anti-white racism exists, but I don't think you really grasp how fringey the sorts of pan-Africanist ideas that would be used to back up "blacks can assert a cultural identity and whites cannot" are. American whites are a collection of different ethnic groups, some of them larger and some of them smaller, and most of them can assert a cultural identity. It's deplorable that southern whites aren't allowed to be proud of their heritage, but it's not really something that applies to, say, midwestern Germans.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link