site banner

Culture War Roundup for the week of October 30, 2023

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.

8
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

I'm aware that it was a local decision, a product of a political milieu that, as far as I know, was one of the long-term consequences of a large and recent demographic shift in Northern Virginia, namely that a great number of white liberals have settled in the region after getting jobs in the enormously expanded federal bureaucracy in the capital.

I'm not surprised they don't want Lee around.

Regarding "myths", I'm not aware of any, I've only read that Lee was regarded as a true Southern gentleman his whole life. I don't see that as a myth.

Lee was regarded as a true Southern gentleman

And Rommel was regarded as a true German gentleman. But if a statue of Rommel stood in a place of honour in central Stuttgart as part of the pantheon of military heroes of Baden-Wurttemberg, and it was melted down at the request of the local synagogue, we wouldn't be complaining about "teabagging the outgroup". In fact, part of the "Reconstruction" process in post-WW2 Germany was the removal of Nazi monuments.

But if a statue of Rommel stood in a place of honour in central Stuttgart as part of the pantheon of military heroes of Baden-Wurttemberg, and it was melted down at the request of the local synagogue, we wouldn't be complaining about "teabagging the outgroup".

I would.

In fact, part of the "Reconstruction" process in post-WW2 Germany was the removal of Nazi monuments.

Isn't it weird how Lee statues only became equivocated with Nazi ones over a hundred years after the war, rather than immediately after alike actual Nazi statues?

Well it’s also weird that the statues were erected decades after the war ended. The Confederacy lost too fast to put up monuments to their glory while they existed.

You're underestimating the national divide that existed post-Civil War.

Up until World War 1, there was an honest question among those that considered such on wether or not any of the Southern states would actually fight for America, period. (Instead, they turned out in droves that carried a consistent trend... up until very recently. Funny, that.) Most statues were put up as a meager act of concession, allowing pride to a defeated foe who nevertheless gave a good fight.

It's not as if the South had anything else in the aftermath.

As I understand it from comments here (might be wrong! I have no idea!), part of the Civil War was that it ended in a sort of "okay, let's both now calm down and work together, you lost but that isn't the end" agreement. And whereas the same thing happened, sort of, with World vs Germany, it certainly did not happen with World vs the Nazi movement - that lost, and was destroyed, and eradicated, and all its flags destroyed, and the Earth salted and so on, already after the second World War ended. There was never anything like a truce with the Nazis; the most that occurred was "alright, if you completely repudiate the Nazi project and also are useful, we're going to keep using you and not look too closely." And that was more a matter of civil necessity.

The equivalent here would not be "US vs the South" but "US vs. the Southern secession movement", with the secession movement indeed having been conclusively defeated and buried by the war.

Two completely different historical contexts, those two are. To argue that those two are anything but completely different is indeed leftist revisionism in action.

Charlottesville isn't a part of Northern Virginia.

It's got some standard southern city dynamics going on. Most of the city population itself is black. The county that surrounds it, the college (UVA), and most of the rich people are white.

The city is a separate political entity from the county. So you often get a very extreme liberal core in the city. And it has no brakes. I grew up in the surrounding county, and this sort of racial politicking has been happening for decades. City council members get elected by finding and igniting racial grievances. Most of the time people just ignore them. It was probably their dream come true for this to be a flashpoint for the nation.

From what I have heard, similar things happen in Richmond and Atlanta and other large southern cities.

Northern Virginia is strange in that the population of their cities are not predominantly black. (aside from DC, where similar racial politicking takes place). Usually the newer a city the more functional the political system is within that city.

I've only read that Lee was regarded as a true Southern gentleman his whole life. I don't see that as a myth.

You could (with or without 'Southern' depending on the case) say that, no doubt, about a whole host of basically contemptible people. Between fighting a war to preserve slavery, and being a good chap, the latter struggles to be a minor footnote in his legacy.

The personal character of Lee is the Motte to the Bailey of broader Confederate apologia. These statues of Lee (and Jackson and Davis and Forrest and almost anyone but Longstreet) are first and foremost celebrations of the Confederate cause.

More or less.

I think the inverse is true, too, and most statue-detractors don’t know a thing about the personal character involved. Toppling the statue is first and foremost about denying that cause, not about being jealous of Lee’s great social skills.

No doubt. As far as I can tell, there isn't a particular ire for Lee statues. There's just a lot of Lee statues.

If the locals are saying “nah we don’t need this statue, we want to make mediocre abstract art out of the pieces”…

And you don’t have any skin in the game, except for the vibe that Lee was a pretty gentlemanly guy…

Then what’s wrong with the locals going on ahead?

But it's obviously not just a pragmatic decision to reuse bronze that is contained in some old useless statue that nobody likes. People responsible didn't even try to pretend that it was, calling it"grim act of justice", "haunted spectacle" or "destruction of icon of hate" instead.

And I think that’s their prerogative, not mine, and not OP’s.