Nationalism and Culture

[Nachtswalbe]

Religion is also a part of the culture wars.
I argue that for Christian hegemony in the US to be minimized,
Christmas must be removed from the list of public holidays along with all other religious holidays, for starters.

[Linguoboy]

I don’t know all that much about either Chinese or American history (most history, in fact), so I can’t really comment about this. But I’m not sure that Alexander would describe China’s political system as anything close to that of Universal Culture: for one thing, it’s not democratic. I think the prediction he makes is that, eventually, it will assimilate to Universal Culture in its political system as well. (i.e. democracy, egalitarian gender roles, probably others I’ve forgotten as well. In a way, this reminds me to some extent of the idea of Whig history, except less black-or-white.)

Isn't this just repackaged Fukuyama?

[hwhatting]

Religion is also a part of the culture wars.
I argue that for Christian hegemony in the US to be minimized,
Christmas must be removed from the list of public holidays along with all other religious holidays, for starters.

I can't speak for the situation in the U.S, but in Germany, Christmas is celebrated by lots of people who are not in the slightest religious. It's a time for families to get together and exchange gifts (if you want to put it that way, it's more a celebration of consumerism than christianity), and the time between Christmas and the New Year is a period where life gets a bit slower and work takes second stage. Why take that away from people? I'd rather be more inclusive and add the religious holidays of all groups who represent more than X% of the population.

[Nachtswalbe]

I don’t know all that much about either Chinese or American history (most history, in fact), so I can’t really comment about this. But I’m not sure that Alexander would describe China’s political system as anything close to that of Universal Culture: for one thing, it’s not democratic. I think the prediction he makes is that, eventually, it will assimilate to Universal Culture in its political system as well. (i.e. democracy, egalitarian gender roles, probably others I’ve forgotten as well. In a way, this reminds me to some extent of the idea of Whig history, except less black-or-white.)

Isn't this just repackaged Fukuyama?

Cue rationalism’s tendency towards “spherical cow” theoretical thinking. Decoupling may reduce bias in discussing hot-button issues by removing the social and historical context, but in this case, trying to analyze the “direction” of big history ends up smoothing everything out to a line

[bradrn]

I don’t know all that much about either Chinese or American history (most history, in fact), so I can’t really comment about this. But I’m not sure that Alexander would describe China’s political system as anything close to that of Universal Culture: for one thing, it’s not democratic. I think the prediction he makes is that, eventually, it will assimilate to Universal Culture in its political system as well. (i.e. democracy, egalitarian gender roles, probably others I’ve forgotten as well. In a way, this reminds me to some extent of the idea of Whig history, except less black-or-white.)

Isn't this just repackaged Fukuyama?

I can’t say I’m all that familiar with his ideas, but my understanding is that (a) he was talking specifically about politics, and (b) he predicted that it has already taken over. (In which respect he was proven badly wrong.) Alexander’s post is somewhat unclear, but I believe it differs in both respects.

Cue rationalism’s tendency towards “spherical cow” theoretical thinking. Decoupling may reduce bias in discussing hot-button issues by removing the social and historical context, but in this case, trying to analyze the “direction” of big history ends up smoothing everything out to a line

On the contrary, I have found rationalists some of the only people online who are not willing to oversimplify things. (I even recall a recent post of Alexander’s where he said that he was uncomfortable quantifying the impact of COVID-19 lockdowns given that he would have to simplify too much.) The idea is supposed to be that if you oversimplify a complex system, then you’re no longer being properly rational about it.

[Travis B.]

Religion is also a part of the culture wars.
I argue that for Christian hegemony in the US to be minimized,
Christmas must be removed from the list of public holidays along with all other religious holidays, for starters.

I can't speak for the situation in the U.S, but in Germany, Christmas is celebrated by lots of people who are not in the slightest religious. It's a time for families to get together and exchange gifts (if you want to put it that way, it's more a celebration of consumerism than christianity), and the time between Christmas and the New Year is a period where life gets a bit slower and work takes second stage. Why take that away from people? I'd rather be more inclusive and add the religious holidays of all groups who represent more than X% of the population.

Things are the same way for myself here in the US - my family is not religious at all, yet we have always celebrated Christmas in its secular form. We have even celebrated Easter which, IMO, is a far more religious holiday than Christmas. (Note, though, that my mother grew up in a Catholic family and my father grew up in a Lutheran family.) I'm with hwhatting here in that I'd be open to recognizing (e.g. giving time off for and like) other religions' religious holidays rather than negating historically Christian ones.

[Nachtswalbe]

I tend to lean towards a more hard-core secularism partly due to growing up evangelical and my leaning towards technocracy. That being said, recognition of all major religions' holidays does defuse tensions.

On another front, what can historically imperial or genocidal nations do to make up for their past behavior?
There are two main arguments advanced:
1) Nothing. Time causes people to forget, and as Venkatesh Rao said, do people still care about Genghis Khan's atrocities?

2) Reparations - details about these are unspecified

I mean the reprecussions are so severe that Armenia refuses to have diplomatic relations with Turkey for starters

[Travis B.]

On another front, what can historically imperial or genocidal nations do to make up for their past behavior?
There are two main arguments advanced:
1) Nothing. Time causes people to forget, and as Venkatesh Rao said, do people still care about Genghis Khan's atrocities?

2) Reparations - details about these are unspecified

There is the middle option, recognizing and apologizing for their past behavior while not actively making reparations except to people who were affected directly who are still alive today. This is significant because for many things there is nothing really that can be done now anyways, both the perpetrators and the victims and survivors are all long dead, and reparations would only enrich those in the right place and would not actually help anyone directly hurt by what happened. At the same time denying, minimizing, or ignoring what happened only entrenches bitterness over the whole matter.

[Linguoboy]

There is the middle option, recognizing and apologizing for their past behavior while not actively making reparations except to people who were affected directly who are still alive today. This is significant because for many things there is nothing really that can be done now anyways, both the perpetrators and the victims and survivors are all long dead, and reparations would only enrich those in the right place and would not actually help anyone directly hurt by what happened.

So the lesson potential war criminals should take away is this: If you don't want to have to pay reparations, make sure that when you slaughter, brutalise, or ethnically cleanse a population, you either:
1. Kill everyone dead on the first try, or:
2. Keep running out the clock on negotiations until everyone directly affected is dead of other causes.
I can't see any negative consequences arising from such a policy, can you?

Man, it sure is convenient that severe trauma simply dies out when the person who experienced dies and doesn't get passed on to their descendants or anything, right? 'Cause imagine how that might complicate this nice simple formula for quickly absolving wrongdoers of all responsibility. Someone should write a scifi story about that.

[Travis B.]

There is the middle option, recognizing and apologizing for their past behavior while not actively making reparations except to people who were affected directly who are still alive today. This is significant because for many things there is nothing really that can be done now anyways, both the perpetrators and the victims and survivors are all long dead, and reparations would only enrich those in the right place and would not actually help anyone directly hurt by what happened.

So the lesson potential war criminals should take away is this: If you don't want to have to pay reparations, make sure that when you slaughter, brutalise, or ethnically cleanse a population, you either:
1. Kill everyone dead on the first try, or:
2. Keep running out the clock on negotiations until everyone directly affected is dead of other causes.
I can't see any negative consequences arising from such a policy, can you?

Man, it sure is convenient that severe trauma simply dies out when the person who experienced dies and doesn't get passed on to their descendants or anything, right? 'Cause imagine how that might complicate this nice simple formula for quickly absolving wrongdoers of all responsibility. Someone should write a scifi story about that.

So I take it you believe that Iran and many other nations deserve reparations from Mongolia due to ravages of the Mongol hordes, even though that happened centuries ago and everyone involved, perpetrator, victim, and survivor, are all long dead.

[Ketsuban]

Man, it sure is convenient that severe trauma simply dies out when the person who experienced dies and doesn't get passed on to their descendants or anything, right?

Of the instances of legacy trauma listed in this article all but two (the Holodomor, 1932-3; the Khmer Rouge, 1975-9; the Rwandan genocide, 1994) are within living memory, and the ones that aren't (displacement of American Indians, 1830-47; the enslavement of African-Americans, 1776-1875? 1941? present?) are things which continue to echo today in the inequality of American society. If Genghis Khan had created an underclass from the peoples he slaughtered which continued to face discrimination and unequal status in Mongolia or its imperialist successor states then people would absolutely remember his atrocities.

[hwhatting]

We have even celebrated Easter which, IMO, is a far more religious holiday than Christmas.

Again, in Germany it's celebrated by a lot of non-religious people; I assume if you asked the average kid, they would say it's the day when the Easter bunny brings the eggs and sweets, and would be a bit hazy about that resurrection thing (that would also be true for a lot of adults). There's other traditions non-religious people can share in, like the Easter bonfires in many rural areas. The big Christian holiday that most people don't celebrate in Germany is Whitsun / Pentecost - only a religious minority goes to church; the rest just take it as a nice day off in late spring.

(Note, though, that my mother grew up in a Catholic family and my father grew up in a Lutheran family.)

For me it's the other way round - mother Lutheran, father Catholic; back in the 70s, that's what people thought of when they talked about a mixed marriage in Germany. But my parents never were very religious; my mother is vaguely Deist, my father an outright Atheist.

[Ares Land]

I tend to lean towards a more hard-core secularism partly due to growing up evangelical and my leaning towards technocracy. That being said, recognition of all major religions' holidays does defuse tensions.

On another front, what can historically imperial or genocidal nations do to make up for their past behavior?
There are two main arguments advanced:
1) Nothing. Time causes people to forget, and as Venkatesh Rao said, do people still care about Genghis Khan's atrocities?

2) Reparations - details about these are unspecified

I mean the reprecussions are so severe that Armenia refuses to have diplomatic relations with Turkey for starters

I don't think there's any simple rule. What makes relations impossible between Turkey and Armenia is that Turkey flat out denies that anything ever happened to the Armenians -- and the Turkish state gives strong vibes of 'We'd totally do it again if nobody's looking.'

Reparations would be ideal. A good model is West Germany, which immediately confronted its Nazi pasts and paid reparations. The devil is in the details, and it helped that the reparations were bearable. (The WWI reparations were another story.)
After a few generations it gets a lot harder. Even getting past the denial stage can be difficult. A surprising number of French people think we really did a service to Algeria by colonizing it.

I really wish we'd pay reparations to Haiti. But nobody even knows about the story.

[zompist]

If Genghis Khan had created an underclass from the peoples he slaughtered which continued to face discrimination and unequal status in Mongolia or its imperialist successor states then people would absolutely remember his atrocities.

Well, indirectly he did, and it absolutely caused trouble.

Babur, founder of the Mughal (= 'Mongol') empire in 1526, was ethnically Turkish, but claimed descent from Genghis. The Mughals were a strange mixture of tolerance and intolerance, and were more empathetic rulers of India than the British. They didn't simply stomp on the Hindus— many Hindus served in the state— but on the whole it was Muslims on top. Hindus (sometimes) paid an extra tax, and dozens of Hindu temples were destroyed.

And you'd better believe Hindus today remember and resent all this— it's the foundation of Hindutva nationalism, which repudiates the harmoniousness Gandhi and Nehru tried to foster.

It's also perhaps a warning that historical grievances can't be simply indulged forever, especially if the 'victims' are the majority. Hindutva is eager to punish Muslims for Mughal crimes. Muslims are now on the whole poorer than Hindus. Who owes who reparations here?

[Travis B.]

Man, it sure is convenient that severe trauma simply dies out when the person who experienced dies and doesn't get passed on to their descendants or anything, right?

Of the instances of legacy trauma listed in this article all but two (the Holodomor, 1932-3; the Khmer Rouge, 1975-9; the Rwandan genocide, 1994) are within living memory, and the ones that aren't (displacement of American Indians, 1830-47; the enslavement of African-Americans, 1776-1875? 1941? present?) are things which continue to echo today in the inequality of American society. If Genghis Khan had created an underclass from the peoples he slaughtered which continued to face discrimination and unequal status in Mongolia or its imperialist successor states then people would absolutely remember his atrocities.

Reparations are more appropriate IMO when there are continuing consequences of such past actions in the present, i.e. the treatment of black people in Amercan society today, as opposed to it just being something in the past that people happen to still be bitter about. Even then, though, I don't believe in reparations for slavery itself - the former slaves and slaveowners themselves are long dead - but rather I think actions should be taken to compensate black people in America today for their treatment within their own lifetimes.

[Travis B.]

And you'd better believe Hindus today remember and resent all this— it's the foundation of Hindutva nationalism, which repudiates the harmoniousness Gandhi and Nehru tried to foster.

It's also perhaps a warning that historical grievances can't be simply indulged forever, especially if the 'victims' are the majority. Hindutva is eager to punish Muslims for Mughal crimes. Muslims are now on the whole poorer than Hindus. Who owes who reparations here?

Agreed completely.

[Linguoboy]

Reparations are more appropriate IMO when there are continuing consequences of such past actions in the present, i.e. the treatment of black people in Amercan society today, as opposed to it just being something in the past that people happen to still be bitter about. Even then, though, I don't believe in reparations for slavery itself - the former slaves and slaveowners themselves are long dead

But the families of those who owned slaves still own fortunes.

but rather I think actions should be taken to compensate black people in America today for their treatment within their own lifetimes.

Again, I'm not sure why that should be the absolute cutoff. Heirs regularly receive compensation allocated to individuals who were harmed during their lifetimes and happen to be deceased now.

The wealth of the average Black household in the USA is about one-eighth that of the average white household. This is due not just to continuing discrimination but to the ongoing effects of systematically excluding African-Americans from wealth accumulation for most of our nation's history, beginning with enslavement, persisting through sharecropping and disenfranchisement, then exclusion from the GI bill and redlining. Why should those lucky enough to have an ancestor still alive who served in WWII be lucky enough to receive compensation for a deliberate act of racial exclusion on the part of our government while those whose ancestors are dead get nothing (or only compensation for such discrimination as they can provide proof of in their lifetimes)?

Obviously we have to have some sort of time limit on claims so as not to be constantly litigating the past four hundred years of history or more, but I don't get what's so magical in this respect about a single human lifespan.

[hwhatting]

So the lesson potential war criminals should take away is this: If you don't want to have to pay reparations, make sure that when you slaughter, brutalise, or ethnically cleanse a population, you either:
1. Kill everyone dead on the first try, or:
2. Keep running out the clock on negotiations until everyone directly affected is dead of other causes.
I can't see any negative consequences arising from such a policy, can you?

I still think one can ask the question how far and how far back that should go? The longer it goes, the harder it will be to separate the descendants of victims from the descendants of perpetrators. And then the victims often had ancestors who did the same thing to others - e.g., if the descendants of the conquistadors should pay reparations to Native Americans, should then the descendants of the Aztecs or Incas give their share to the descendants of other indigenous people they oppressed? Call me cynical, but I'm relatively sure that anyone alive today is so because their ancestors robbed, oppressed, displaced or killed some other people at some point. What about people with mixed heritage? Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying reparation shouldn't happen, but I don't think that looking for cut-off points or for rules when to pay or not to pay reparations is wrong. After all, our law systems also have statutes of limtiations.

[Travis B.]

So the lesson potential war criminals should take away is this: If you don't want to have to pay reparations, make sure that when you slaughter, brutalise, or ethnically cleanse a population, you either:
1. Kill everyone dead on the first try, or:
2. Keep running out the clock on negotiations until everyone directly affected is dead of other causes.
I can't see any negative consequences arising from such a policy, can you?

I still think one can ask the question how far and how far back that should go? The longer it goes, the harder it will be to separate the descendants of victims from the descendants of perpetrators. And then the victims often had ancestors who did the same thing to others - e.g., if the descendants of the conquistadors should pay reparations to Native Americans, should then the descendants of the Aztecs or Incas give their share to the descendants of other indigenous people they oppressed? Call me cynical, but I'm relatively sure that anyone alive today is so because their ancestors robbed, oppressed, displaced or killed some other people at some point. What about people with mixed heritage? Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying reparation shouldn't happen, but I don't think that looking for cut-off points or for rules when to pay or not to pay reparations is wrong. After all, our law systems also have statutes of limtiations.

If one believes in hereditary guilt, one runs into problems with things like reparations for slavery in that a large portion of the white population of America is descended from people who immigrated after the end of slavery. Certainly these people still benefited from the massive inequality of American society, but can one blame them for slavery when they themselves had no part in it and are not descended from anyone who did?

In the end for the reasons you outline above I do not think that hereditary guilt is a good doctrine to follow, as practically everyone is probably descended from someone who did something nasty to someone else or who benefited from someone else who did so at some point along the line. It is better to just focus on the here and now, and recompense people alive today for things done to them rather than pay reparations to people because someone's ancestors did something nasty to someone else's ancestors.

[Linguoboy]

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying reparation shouldn't happen, but I don't think that looking for cut-off points or for rules when to pay or not to pay reparations is wrong. After all, our law systems also have statutes of limtiations.

I think you may have missed my follow-up where I say exactly this. My disagreement with Travis seems to be that he thinks the cutoff should be a single human lifetime and I think that's too short. If I grow up deprived and traumatised because of something done to my parents, why should I be denied compensation?

Moreover, I think all of this talk about sorting people into categories is a willful conflation of personal responsibility with institutional responsibility. When it comes to something like genocide or redlining, we're talking a whole different class of crime than your dad robbing my dad. These were actions taken by institutional actors--either governments or private agents with the approval (tacit or explicit) of governmental authorities--whose actions impacted all of society. The US government of today is a direct successor of the US government which enabled widespread segregation of and discrimination against Blacks and other people of colour; it doesn't get to shrug off its responsibility just because the people running it today decide they don't want to shoulder it. Nobody who signed the Webster–Ashburton Treaty is still alive today; does that mean we get to seize whatever bits of Canada we want?