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 -
Lynchings were also as much a cultural practice as anything else. For most of US history, most lynching victims were white. It's just that as the late-20th century cultural changes saw lynching as a whole decline, it declined last in the south and actually increased for blacks as overall numbers trended downwards, even as African Americans who went from being demographically-disproportionate victims to actual majority victims as lynching faded from common use.
I'll pass a relevant source that seems to be mostly in the middle-of-the-pack for year-by-year showings, but if you look at year-by-year breakdowns, black lynchings weren't as, well, consistently allocated as one would think for a 'maintaining control' policy. Civil War reconstruction generally ended in 1877, when federal troops were removed and local political dynamics re-asserted, but black lynchings were actually lower in the 80s (50-70) than they were in the 1910s.
In so much that lynching was a policy tool to cow and terrify into subservience, it was mostly a specific decade of about 1891-1901, where the only 9 years of triple-digit-a-year african-american lynchings occurred, most of that in the early 1890s. This certainly corresponds to the dismantling of the last of the reconstruction-era state governments and the imposition of disenfranchising Jim Crow, but this was far more about asserting control than maintaining control. Once control was taken, lynchings generally decreased over time to a point that they were more living memory than practical, following the white trend of generally declining numbers about 20-30 years late.
Lynchings gradually declined to in the 50s a year in 1920, to basically halving to the 20s or below in 1922, and dropping below 10 a year around 1936. By the time of the Civil Rights movement of the US in the 1950s-1960s, when the average American lifespan in 1960 was 60-70 but the average age was 30, for most people lynching had been a terror-policy in their parents or grand parents age, not in their lifespan.
While the history and use of lynching against African Americans is a real and terrible thing, it's often used anachronistically. Lynching-as-culture predated Jim Crow, and was in no way reserved for African Americans. Lynching-as-control-tactic was far more about establishing Jim Crowe than maintaining it, and absolutely did see African victims raise even as white victims declined as lynching in general became less accepted. By the time of the civil rights era in the 50s and 60s, lynching hadn't been any sort of meaningful policy for decades, which is to say since before the Baby Boomers were even born after WW2.
https://famous-trials.com/sheriffshipp/1084-lynchingsyear http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/shipp/lynchingyear.html
Not intended to be a disagreement! It was intended as more an elaboration/expansion, with a point of a personal pet peave (historical anachronisms).
There was a period when the fear being the point is true, but the anachronism is when that was- which was not mid-century Jim Crow as known or protested against in the mid-Century US. Fear of lynchings ceased to be a point when lynchings stopped being any sort of coordinated or even common point, which it hadn't been for the better part of a generation by the time the modern conception of Jim Crow south was cemented in popular memory. No one alive today has any living memory of lynching as an organized suppression policy in the American South (or anywhere else).
To draw back a few posts higher, the people deriving eliminationist intent in the current era are even further removed from a period when lynching was a point, and lynching as a means of social control wasn't even living memory for most of the US during the period most contemporary progressives are thinking off as the Jim Crowe South that the Civil Rights were against. Appealing to modern fears of Jim Crowe returning and/or lynchings as a means to subjugate blacks and/or eliminationist fears is as historically illiterate as trying to frame, oh, muslim immigration into Europe as related to the Crusades. The later may have been more generations ago, but it was generations ago, and is neither living memory or lived experience to justify current concerns.
There wasn't a statement that the fear was extinguished by the 1950s. There is a statement that lynchings were not happening as a social control measure in the 1950s, and hadn't been for decades, and wasn't living memory for much of the relevant generational cohort (including, sadly, Emitt Till).
That depends on what the fear was, precisely. If the fear was simply dangers from racism, sure, not unjustified. If the fear was specifically lynching, that would have been unjustified, even as that's what ended up happening, because the data did not (and does not, even with advantages of hindsight) support that specific fear at the time, and even less so since.
That Emitt Till was killed by lynching does not change that he was one of only 3 african americans lynched in a 5-year period (52-56), all three of them in the year of his own murder. It was shocking precisely because it was so abnormal, even for area and not just the era, not because it was even a quietly-tolerated norm. Emitt Till form of murderer was not some deliberate community act of social control- Emitt Till's murder was an asocial act even within the society that it occurred within, even one as unsympathetic and bigoted and fuck-the-outsiders as that town.
Sure. And the proper course of action since the abduction panics has still been to have children go outside and touch grass, and for people consumed by visceral horror at the extremely unlikely to be disabused of the disproportionate focus and weight they assign to it. Likewise, the appropriate response to any other unsupported fear is to... not support it.
This is true regardless of whether it's fear of COVID, or fear of muslim extremists, or fear of germs. People absolutely have died from all of these- tens of thousands more than were ever lynched in the United States- but no matter how visceral the fear, it's not valid just because it's closely held and driving changes in behavior and perception. It's precisely because it drives changes in behavior and perception that it's so harmful to the people who hold such views, because despite what post-modernists theories imply, perceptions are not reality.
The fear of lynching was not the social control in the 1950s, unless you want to diminish the concept of social control to a nothingism.
This is where we get back into anochronisms, and the difference between popular memory and actual policies, which we've already bantered on, particularly in relation to the original higher-level post, which was about fears cited in the 21st century.
If we ignore banal insider-outsider cultural insularism dynamics, sure, but I'm not sure why we would if we're concerned about truth and accuracy.
It's not exactly hard to find societies or contexts who will disapprove of a behavior on their own terms, but simultaneously band together against a hostile outsider who points at the same thing. We're not even a month past one of the most notable examples of this in recent memory, and while I find the recent widespread support of Hamas disgusting, I'd be pretty unsupported to accuse, say, the average pro-Palestinian Ivy League student who insists we shouldn't judge how people fight against colonialism of having a social norm of killing jews. I'd have many well supported negative descriptors, but not that one.
Culturally insular communities circling the wagons against outsider attention and opinions in the face of known and acknowledged sins is incredibly common social behavior that can be found across geography and time periods when people prioritize group-affiliation over universal-level principles when the two conflict. But prioritizing group dynamics doesn't mean that the principle violation is in fact a norm- it just means that behaviors changed based on who is perceived to be watching/affecting the context. When the group-affiliation context subsides, the norms of the, well, normal society reassert themselves.
As ugly as 'I'm not going to conceed they're wrong to you' can be, it has relatively little to do with the specific sins at hand being socially acceptable, and far more to do with the fact that there isn't a shared sense of society between the insider and the outsider watching and accusing. Unsurprisingly, when outsiders come in significant numbers and profile to make a major media event, social dynamics may be different than after the leave and are no longer making a spectacle of it. Just as the expression 'you are what you do when no one else is looking' is a description of individual character norms, there is an inverse to it as well, where you are also what you do when the out-group you hate/who hates you is not looking.
When loathing to concede to the loathed outgroup outweighs moral consistency, I'd certainly agree that's a moral failing in and of itself, but in such contexts the specific immoral act is often irrelevant. The people who would reject in-group culpability for a murder would likewise reject in-group culpability for stealing candy from a child. This doesn't mean they also have a quietly-tolerated norm for stealing candy from babies- it means they have a very-strong norm of not conceeding moral faults to the outgroup(s).
Fortunately, our statements are not in conflict. Unfortunately, Emitt Till was murdered despite how rational expecting him to return home alive and well would have been.
As I'm not intending to be condescending, I would not know, though I am aware that saying that can itself come across as condescending, which itself is a no-win situation. If I do not contest the characterization of myself, I implicitly concede the accusation, but if I try to contest on my own views, it can be perceived as condescending. Such is life.
My point of framing is that I dispute part of earlier claims (that lynching was used as policy tool of social control into the mid-century), dispute the relevance of a supporting argument to that claim (the fears of the afraid do not themselves support claims of any particular policy by the persecutors absent other evidence), and disagree of your analysis on social dynamics of norms and value (that the acquittal representing a norm for murder as opposed to an in-group/out-group conflict tribalism). Reminders for truth and accuracy matter for all of these, as subjectivity and emotion can compromise assessments, and an original point of my own is that common popular understandings of the crime, and the period, are significantly compromised by anachronisms born of modern emotive politics.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link