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 -
Trudeau accuses India in killing of Sikh leader on Canadian soil
First of all, I want to state that my epistemic status is huh, rather an informed opinion, but I struggle to think of anyone in a better position on The Motte to discuss this, so bear with me.
India has had its share of irredentists, separatists and good old fashioned terrorists over the years. You have the Maoists still lurking in the north east, playing hot and cold with the government via their jungle boogaloo. Islamic terrorism was a serious issue in 2010s, though it's died down. There were the Tamil Tigers down south, who proved a severe PITA for a decade or so, and then the Khalistanis, who have been largely neutered in-country but find refuge in the numerous, prosperous Sikh diaspora abroad.
The last two have had the dubious distinction of getting confirmed kills on two Indian Prime Ministers (relatives to boot).
Khalistan is the supposed homeland of the Sikh peoples, largely surrounding Punjab in the west. Unable to get it during the original Partition of India, they waged a brutal war against the Indian government for decades, peaking in the 70s and 80s. There were quite a few pogroms and riots, with Hindu on Sikh violence in the rest of India, and vice versa in their population centers.
These days, the movement is moribund within India itself, most young Sikhs don't really pay it any heed, and the older aren't the demographic to go planting bombs for the large part. Sikhs are well integrated into Indian society, and haven't had that consistent friction that the Muslims have had with their Hindu co-ethnics.
Not that you'd know this abroad. Much like IRA sympathizers hanging around in New Jersey bars, the exodus of Sikhs in the 70s and 80s ossified in amber a large migrant population with a grudge to bear against the Indian government.
I'd draw a distinction between these first-wave migrants, and a more recent influx of Sikhs who are drawn more by the prospects of making it big in Canada, or the West in general, rather than any real grievance.
While Khalistan is dead in the water, it's a popular rallying cry there, with Western governments treating it with a mixture of bemused tolerance and kid-gloves for fear of pissing off the strong Sikh voting bloc. Speaking ill of them is, from what I've heard, a surefire way of losing a narrow election, but they're otherwise model citizens and nobody wants to press the issue.
Now, Modi stands accused of the shooting of this dude sometime in June, when he was shot by unidentified gunmen in the parking lot of a gurdwara in Surrey. If there's more substance to the accusation, they haven't been made public, but the heads of state have met to hash it out.
From what I can tell, Modi's response was "we didn't do it, but if it happened, he had it coming", strongly protesting the accusations while demanding Canada be less lenient in harboring terrorists.
Modi also stands accused of the assassination in Lahore of another Khalistan leader, not that anyone particularly cared at the time, and that's just the usual India-Pakistan bhai-bhai at play.
That's the gist of it, on one hand, we have the fact that India has largely refrained from extraterritorial assassinations, certainly not to the degree that the US, Russia or Israel are fond of. I struggle to think of a single example, not that I'm an expert.
On the other, who the fuck else has a motive to whack the dude? I don't think relations between India and Canada are bad enough for the latter to make entirely unfounded accusations, and they've even roped in a few other countries like the UK and US to bring diplomatic pressure to bear. The Head of Foreign Intelligence for India was kicked out from Canada, and some bloke named Oliver Sylvester was the tit to that tat.
I'd wager 50% odds that India was responsible based on the balance of evidence, and I wonder if this will be a flash in the pan that peters out when the Sikhs are mollified, or if Canada really wants to pick a fight with an otherwise neutral/positively inclined major nation.
But if you're curious, this means zilch in terms of impact on Modi's popularity of home, you think supporters of a strongman are going to be mad when he strongmans? Even the libs over at /r/India who foam at the mouth at the sight of Modi are of the opinion he had it coming.
The «[if we did it,] he had it coming» attitude is already almost as bad as if Indian state involvement gets confirmed.
I don't predict but weakly suspect that in 10 odd years Western progressives (if they still exist and aren't distracted by the extreme escalation of conflict with China, of course) will think about the Indophilic rhetoric with «fellow/largest/ democracy|«biggest/youngest English-speaking nation|Superpower by 20XX» etc with the same disdain they now express for that kind of stuff applied to Israel or (relative obscurity aside) Turkey or Azerbaijan. The vegetarian smiles of fast-talking wonks will become associated with repulsive alien menace as much as inarticulate, idiomatic Chinese saber-rattling is today. Charisma, managerial acumen and geopolitical alignment are important but can only go so far when there's a billion-strong and swelling mass of dimwitted hubris beneath, bolstered by a populist regime.
India is not Western, not liberal, not a democracy, and not on the track to become more of any of those things (unlike, say, Ukraine, flawed though it is). I don't judge. Were I more friendly to Indians, I probably should have.
I disagree. If you follow news from Western (mainly American) progressive news outlets, it is as far from Indophilic as it can get. Downright Indophobic is a better word.
Progressives have no love for India or its people. The rhetoric pushed by Progressive media already tries to frame relations with the country a la Saudi Arabia. A country America needs to partner out of great reluctance and needs to civilize, sanction wrongthink, fund Activism to teach Indians to vote the right way. Hell! why are we even partnering with this country? Do we even need them? They should be crushed under America's heel just like China.
I don't need to speak about Conservatives. I find their honesty (especially religious conservatives) at least as far as India goes admirable.
The Chinese hate us and even they don't have that bile that Progressives in the American political establishment have on a hair trigger. That the civilization at the core is considered to be irredeemable is only hidden beneath a thin veneer. Our plethora of ethnic fissures is a rich feast for those in search of nails to to wield their Oppressor/Oppressed hammer on.
I don't know what the US government thinks, but they seem to be onboard with the portrayal. Keeping public and political opinion of India under such tension gives the US significant leverage over the country. They can push or pull either way as needed which is harder to do with other "friendly" countries that they cannot give sermons to without being called out.
We're no saints. I am also not fully on board with the current administration. But, I can see the double standards.
Note: For brevity I used Progressives as a single grouping. Perhaps there is more diversity of opinion but in a discussion about Indian geopolitics, it makes sense to focus on the Progressives that are a part of the US Govt. geopolitical policy apparatus.
This meme by Razib comes to mind. You sure have the mentality to cut it in future interactions with Americans. Just like Vivek and Kamala Harris, two politicians of Indian descent with credible chances of running as VPs in the next POTUS elections. Like Sundar Pichai and Satya Nadella, two men in a position to choke the life out of both leading AGI projects on the planet. Like so many other respected and powerful figures in the Anglosphere – prejudice against Indians is curiously impotent – doesn't stop them from reaching authority in any ostensibly prejudiced group. But, I guess, that can be perceived as only speaking to your strengths, rather than to overestimation of your victimization. Anyway, I already see people reflexively stanning India in all cases, even this suspected murder. The Chakra-and-Aum will no doubt become the next Ukrainian Bicolor+Sunflower.
Regarding the US government… Well:
It will abide, at least until the war is over.
The issue for the Indians isn't that the Canadians can overrule the Americans, but rather that the Canadians can refuse to expand alliance-structures that they are a part of to include the Indians. The US has great influence, but there are plenty of contemporary examples of the US being unable to force allies to play ally to partners they really don't want to.
In some respects, Canada isn't at risk of this because it has (deliberatly) stayed out of alliance-like blocks that might have brought it into conflict with China, whose investments it was pursuing for much of the last decade. Canada isn't a part of the Quad, AUKUS isn't intended to encompass India, and India isn't exactly trying to join NATO. This lack of overlap is likely part of why India might have felt free enough to do this, if they did indeed do it- there wouldn't have been much institutional backlash from relevant institutions that India wanted access into.
But on the other hand, Canada absolutely can play the US lobbying game better, more skillfully, and more persistently than India can. The risk here isn't some sort of Indian Ocean reversal, but rather that on any meaningful major concession the Americans might consider to entice the Indians into something, Canada can play to the favor of the people looking for excuses to stop it as not worth the cost, and for any specific concessions the Indians really want, Canada could play the spoiler as well. Both factors limit the potential for integrated relationships of depth and scale, as Canada does have ability to spoil that.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
To be fair though, American elites tend to think that about everyone. They don’t want independent Allies so much as they want subservient obedient client states. Even European countries get this if they publicly go against what America wants to do or believe. When the rest of NATO wasn’t on board with the invasion of Iraq, they were castigated in the media as weak, effeminate and irrelevant. When France more recently questioned escalation in the Ukrainian proxy war, the media attacked them. For us, you either toe the lines we draw or be seen as backward.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link