I like the idea that fascism is a mood, not an ideology. Of course it's not an ideology, they're anti-intellectual. Anti-intellectual for real, not just as a theory.
And I like the trait cluster approach more than definitions for cultural things, though how we chose our trait clusters is a worthy topic that I haven't seen explored.
A fictional Nazi in "The Man in the High Castle" explains it like this:
> Listen, I'm not an intellectual. Fascism has no need of that. What is wanted is the deed. Theory derives from action. What our corporate state demands from us is comprehension of the social forces of history. (...) Explains the underlying actuality of every event. Real issue in war was: old versus new. Money - that's why Nazis dragged Jewish question mistakenly into it - versus communal mass spirit, what Nazis call Gemeinschaft - folkness. Like Soviet. Commune. Right? (...) Too much philosophy in Germanic temperament; too much theater, too. All those rallies. You never find true Fascist talking, only doing - like me.
Emotionally, fascism is a rejection of *complexity*. Instinctively, you feel that life is not supposed to be complex or frustrating. You support your (clearly defined) tribe unconditionally, the tribe supports you; anything other than that is aberration or enemy action.
In far mode, you worship Nature. But in near mode, everyone likes convenient food, hot water, a car, or the proverbial trains running on time. So instead of rejecting civilization as a whole, you reject the idea that civilization needs to be complicated. You reject competition, because it is frustrating, and because you assume that the world is ultimately simple; therefore the right decision can always be made by an expert, you just need to make sure that the expert's values are aligned with the tribe. (An expert saying that something is complicated is probably just insufficiently aligned and tries to get more power at everyone else's expense. Put a gun to his head, and ask again.)
There are things that need to be produced, so people need jobs; but most jobs can be reduced to following orders, which is simple. Market competition is bad, the industry should be organized top-down by guilds, who in turn serve the state. Science is just another kind of a job, perhaps more mysterious but ultimately not too complex from the expert perspective, and should be organized the same way.
At the top, there should be a leader who decides global strategy, because multiple people disagreeing with each other is complex and inefficient. The required traits of the leader are value alignment and strategic thinking. The strategic thinking is kinda implied by the fact that he succeeded to become the leader, so if you believe that his values are aligned with the tribe, all problems are solved and the glorious future awaits.
But how does fascism ensure that an aligned leader ends up in power? "Strategic thinking" can serve a smart selfish backstabber just as well, who may be aligned to his close circle at best.
Speaking as a fascist: You fool! When the leader is genuine, you instinctively feel it in your heart and so does everyone else... except for those damned intellectuals who always try to sow doubt and discord...
I wouldn't think of racism as a defining characteristic of fascism, just as one form that nationalism can take. Mussolini's Italy, as I recall, treated Jews who had fought in the Italian army in WWI as not Jews — because they were Italians.
The problem is that he chose a bad book to review. The book doesn’t give him any alternative other than just parroting it’s glowing worship, or criticizing it without any good alternative.
I don't sense any fear - I just sense that he's trying to be objective, and with a book like this, the only way to be objective is to give a lot of criticism of Modi without any supporting evidence. I'm not saying this is a bad book, that he should criticize - I'm saying that the book is not a useful one to review, because it provides such a one-sided picture of things, so his review ends up feeling one-sided the opposite way.
What's wrong with the latter choice? A simple pan serves a highly constructive purpose, id est warning other people off from wasting their time and money. I don't see why it's necessary to have a better suggestion to tack on at the end. I mean, it's nice, but the absence of that coda doesn't vitiate the core purpose.
If I were advising Scott, I would have said not to even bother publishing a review of this book. Or maybe to just give the first paragraph or two up to the point where he says this book turns out to be a hagiography like the others. Then he could have just stopped, and asked for recommendations of more useful books to review, rather than going ahead with this one.
I don't necessarily disagree with you, and *I* would probably have made that decision (and I assume you're saying you would've). But I can think of a few reasons why Scott might not and did not:
(1) He wanted to yell at the publisher and author: "Stop writing books like this! They're fucking useless! And you, publisher, find something to write a better book on Modi, the guy is running 1/6 of the planet, you know, so it's pretty important."
(2) He wanted to see what the commentariat would have to add. Maybe saying the name "Modi" several times in row, even if interspersed with only peevish ruminating, would conjure some demon, in the comments, who would have fascinating and powerful data to share about Modi (or even Modi-era India).
Franco had to fight his way to power- or let the Germans and Italians do the fighting for him while he concentrated on getting his soldiers to rape working class women who were assumed to be 'Republican'.
Modi has been lucky and dexterous. Because he represents the numerically very significant 'Backward Castes', he will enter the Indian pantheon alongside Mahatma Gandhi and Rabindranath Tagore and Dr. Ambedkar.
I think Hannah Arendt's definition of the difference between standard dictatorship and totalitarianism is relevant here. Standard dictators aim at killing or jailing political opponents. They want you to stay out of political life, to not think about politic, to obey what the government tells you without questioning. Propaganda is used to convince people that every thing is fine and the government does a beautiful job.
By contrast, a totalitarian state wants everybody to engage in politics, and they make sure this happens through propaganda, youth organisation and so on. Propaganda is used to convince people that the government is facing a dire crisis under the threat of powerful enemies both inside and outside, and to urge citizens to mobilize against those threats.
In this light, fascism is a proto-totalitarianism of the right-wing variety. When it falls back to traditional dictatorship, you get Franco. When it keeps going you get Mussolini and then Hitler.
Which is not a problem, as the question was not about the difference between left-wing and right-wing totalitarianism but about the difference between right-wing totalitarianism and right-wing traditional dictatorships.
(Let me amend what I said in my first comment by adding that for Arendt, Mussolini's fascism was not a real totalitarianism.)
I know very little about Modi, but even the hit pieces I've read don't make him sound *totalitarian*, as opposed to authoritarian. In particular, under Arendt's definition, you'd expect compulsory participation in elections and political parties, or at least heavy pressure for participation, for example, involving not only carrots but also sticks.
According to Wikipedia, only one Indian state has compulsory voting (doesn't specify which one):
It also seems unlikely that there is heavy pressure to participate in political parties.
How else might totalitarianism in Arendt's sense be manifested, if not from more or less compulsory participation in politics? If you include compulsory education, then most states would qualify as totalitarian.
Is liberal totalitarianism possible? I'm struggling to think of how it would present, given that pluralism is inherent in liberalism. The closest manifestations I can think of are things like the French ban on religious symbols in public life (ostensibly to stave off even a whiff of partiality) and various forms of free speech extremism.
I can't think of historical examples, but if you're happy with hypotheticals I think a sufficiently quota-obsessed state might qualify. I.e. the name of diversity the only thing that matters is your demographic, be it racial, sexual, or religious (or the intersection of all three), and people are obsessed with any group of individuals containing as much "diversity" as possible
French Laicite would seem to me to be about keeping religion out of secular life more than about demonising it - private religion is perfectly permissible - but maybe that's my atheist bias
Under Arendt's definition of totalitarianism, compulsory voting would be totalitarian, and that is common enough in both liberal and communist regimes. I haven't found information about fascist regimes, but wouldn't be surprised if it was common in those as well:
I would include compulsory education as a sufficient condition for totalitarianism. You could argue that insofar as compulsory education is about ensuring basic literacy and numeracy, and illiterate and innumerate people impose externalities on society, compulsory education is not about enforcing participation in politics. But I think it's clear that most compulsory education is not about literacy and numeracy. I also think it's clear, though a lot of people deny it, that in most places and at most times, compulsory education is mostly about ideology. Naturally, the ideology changes from regime to regime.
I suppose I was thinking more of classical liberalism than the vague American pejorative referring to social progressivism. So a political philosophy whose core values are individual freedom and vigilance against the tyranny of the majority.
Moving on, I have no choice but to join those many people who deny that the main objective of all compulsory education is political indoctrination (though it always manages to catch a ride). I also don't think compulsory education is sufficient by itself to earn a regime the label of 'totalitarian'. By that definition virtually all countries in the world are totalitarian, which I'm sure you'll agree is a bit silly.
Now, compulsory voting is interesting, and comes much closer in theory. But even according to the link you provided, it's fairly rare and the countries that embrace it (Australia, Costa Rica, Luxembourg) don't seem very totalitarian in other ways.
Stanley G. Payne made a similar point about Franco - that he had to compromise and blend original Falangist fascism with existing right-wing Catholic conservatism (embodied in the Carlists) in order to gain and maintain power.
I think both Franco and Trump can be defined as ideological (in Trump's case, more like instinctive, although I think people around him, like Bannon and Miller, were more explicitly ideological) fascists who failed to create fascist governments.
This seemed to fix itself somehow? I think sci hub load balances requests to different servers and zero. was broken for me but then it decided to do moscow. which worked
This is hardly ever discussed openly even in India but a lot of anger and pro-Modi flocking is driven by very high Muslim birthrates especially in very low SES and high religiosity Muslim households and Christian missionaries successfully converting a lot of lower castes and tribes (called SC/STs) into Christianity.
Muslims were ~ 9% of Indian population post partition. They are now ~ 16%. Hindus in Pakistan and Bangladesh combined, were ~ 23% post partition. They are now ~ 1.5 % in Pakistan and ~ 6% in Bangladesh with rapes and genocide happening each day.
Yet, Hindus are fascist. The privileges of being a white skinned guy with a burden of trying to reform us savage Hindoos.
Hmm. Sounds like one way of ameliorating those demographic changes, if they're so undesirable, would be for India to dump 70% Muslim Jammu and Kashmir on Pakistan while encouraging the Hindus who live there to move into India proper. And yet Modi seems to be going in the opposite direction. Guess he's anti-Hindu.
Pakistan's Hindu population has not decreased since 1947, it actually slightly increased. The reason people think it decreased is because they couple up the demographics of Pakistan and Bangladesh before they separated.
I think most Muslims in India would be happier in Pakistan, and most Hindus in Pakistan would be happier in India, but the transaction costs of moving (getting jobs, getting visas, etc) are inhibiting that self-segregation process. Both governments should work to reduce those transaction costs.
You realise plenty of Indian Muslims loathe Pakistan? Especially after the civil war that created an independent Bangladesh. It's not as if Pakistan is a liberal paradise after all.
If they want a relatively liberal muslim country there are options: UAE, Kuwait, Turkey. No muslim-majority country is exactly a liberal paradise either.
Instead of emigrating away from India's anti-muslim bias they also have the option of renouncing a stupid religion that was constructed self-servingly by a bronze age warlord.
Some amount of social disapproval of islam qua islam is appropriate and serves as an incentive for people to abandon that toxic bronze age superstition.
It was a relatively backward part of the world (why wouldn't God reveal himself to the Chinese instead of some illiterate desert nomad?) but technically they probably had iron swords with which to slaughter the infidels during their megalomaniacal quest for world domination.
Pretty certain that Mohammed was post-Bronze Age, the seventh century being definitely an iron-using period. And in itself Islam can be extremely liberal or extremely oppressive, just like any other religion. It's just a lot easier to spot, other or identify as victims the visibly more devout and likely more oppressive religion. I don't get the feeling you've actually met many Muslims (or many of the non-hegemonising types) though, and would advise you find out more rather than make yourself look foolish.
Wow. What hatred for Hindus. There was a planned genocide of 59 Hindu devotees who were burnt to death by ~ 2000 strong Muslim mob. The riots should'nt happened, but were triggered due to this event.
Commenting without the context is so "Liberal" and "Progressive".
Christianity has existed in India for millenia. Low caste people picking Buddhism or Christianity to escape the system that condemns them to menial careers is not a new phenomenon. It certainly isn't genocide.
That is what missionaries who come to India say. Christian evangelicals committed horrible genocides in India. Read about what they did in Goa for example.
And, there are "Dalit Christians" in India, who feel discriminated against by other castes of Christians.
People in India talk about this all the time. Some of my relatives are convinced that Muslims already outnumber Hindus in India and official statistics are just lying to cover it up. This is exactly how a lot of people in Europe feel about their countries too.
I don't know about Muslims in particular, but Sweden's three most populous municipalities are all <55% Swedish among males aged 15–44*. For the whole country, that number is 63%, down by 10% in the last decade. So population replacement is quite advanced in parts of Europe. But unlike in India, this is still mainly driven by immigration, so it's more of an active choice on the part of Europe's rulers.
Balakrishan Moonje was NOT a founder of RSS. You got this wrong. He was a leader of Hindu Mahasabha and RSS and Hindu Mahasabha disagreed a lot on many issues. From an Indian perspective, the Germans and Japanese were fighting British so it made complete sense to talk to those. It is easy to sit in judgement in 2021, but to look at what options did Indians have in 1930s?
Also, people seem to ignore the man made famine caused by British in 1940s that killed nearly 10 million Indians. That is a bigger figure than the Jews killed by Germans but then Indians are Brown skinned and Jews had white so I guess those murders are legit and Nazism is worse than British for a British colony.
You mean the Bengal Famine of 1943? This is generally regarded as being partly man-made with the usual assortment of natural disasters for that region also contributing, but it was not "caused by the British" in the same sense that the Holocaust was caused by the Germans. Food supplies were constantly being disrupted during this time due to World War 2. The British did not cause that!
From what I have read on the subject, the Japanese had a lot more to do with actually causing the famine than the British; the British simply failed to do much to alleviate it.
It would not be the first time the British did something like that. Ireland in the potato famine years was subject to food diversions from Ireland to Britain, Wikipedia states India in 1943 was subject to food and materials diversions (cloth, medicine) to British control in order to support the British war effort at great cost to the people of India. I can take a few minutes to put up references for this later today. A multi-year countrywide phenomenon would have multiple interacting causes but it seems to me fair to say that British actions of commandeering local materials did contribute to it.
At great cost? In the very short term perhaps, but if the Axis powers had won, do you think things would have worked out better or worse for the people of India? I'm pretty sure they'd have been worse. Neither Hitler nor the Japanese would have treated the "backwards races" well, as the Indians (and Africans etc) would have been perceived by them.
That's why I find it pretty grotesque to draw comparisons here, as Bharat Sharma is doing. The idea that Britain "caused" a famine and "murdered" Indians implies some sort of deliberate policy based on racism or dislike of India in some way. Obviously that's not even remotely true. At the time in question, the British were fighting total war against an opponent that intended to enslave the entire population and use them for forced labour. That same opponent was trying as hard as possible to create a famine in Britain too, hence the desperate supply situation. It is an absurd and foolish reading of history to claim that it was OK for Indians - of any political affiliation - to be supporting the Axis powers. If Britain hadn't won then India would have been wiped out as a country and quite possibly de-populated.
Enslaving populations and using them for forced labour was the nazi project concerning Eastern European peoples. I should be surprised to learn that such plans existed for Britons, too. AFAIK, Hitler and his crew were disappointed about all the Northern Europeans not aligning with them because they had included them in their aryan identity thing but still had hopes to win their hearts if they only killed and subdued enough of them. Sounds crazy, I know. As a matter of fact, British POW were treated comparatively humane in nazi Germany while Russians had much lower chances of survival.
Their plans changed throughout the war period. Hoping the British would join them and partition the world between them was the case up to about 1941. After it became clear that would never happen, detailed post-invasion plans were never drawn up, although they got as far as deciding on how the country would be partitioned, who they'd recruit for their Vichy government, who would run the secret police, and lists of hundreds of thousands of people who would be immediately sent to forced labour camps.
But that was the original plans. Remember that by 1945 the Royal Air Force had been levelling entire German cities. After the invention of chaff German air defences collapsed and Dresden was destroyed. It was worse than a nuclear attack, just done with traditional explosives: the firestorm alone destroyed six and a half square kilometers of the city. If the war had turned at that point and Hitler had won, he would not have treated the population at all kindly. A few sources attest to this:
"It's a common misconception that the Nazis would have somehow treated the population of Britain with more sympathy and respect than civilians in mainland Europe. While there may have been less of the visceral contempt they had for Jews and Russians, Hitler's top brass had brutal plans in place for Britons. Specifically, British men. If the invasion had succeeded, all healthy men from their teens to their mid-40s would have been eligible for being rounded up and sent across the channel to work in punishing slave labour camps and factories. Somehow, the Nazis would then have had to prop up the stricken economy and infrastructure of an abruptly-depleted Britain - perhaps by putting more women into work."
Speech by SS-Obergruppenfuhrer Richard Darre – 1940
"As soon as we beat England we shall make an end of you Englishmen once and for all. Able- bodied men and women between the ages of 16 and 45 will be exported as slaves to the Continent. The old and weak will be exterminated. All men remaining in Britain as slaves will be sterilised; a million or two of the young women of the Nordic type will be segregated in a number of stud farms where, with the assistance of picked German sires, during a period of 10 or 12 years, they will produce annually a series of Nordic infants to be brought up in every way as Germans. These infants will form the future population of Britain. They will be partially educated in Germany and only those who fully satisfy the Nazi’s requirements will be allowed to return to Britain and take up permanent residence. The rest will be sterilised and sent to join slave gangs in Germany. Thus, in a generation or two, the British will disappear.”
Would it have really happened? Nobody can know. But faced with this future it is not really surprising that a famine far away, in a place where 2/3rds of the population was malnourished even in normal times, was not the highest priority.
The British actively moved food supplies from Bengal to Britain. Churchil's hatred for Brown people in general and Hindus in particular, is well known.
Madhushree Mukherjee's book exposes the planned famine by White Anglo Saxon Protestant - Winston Churchill.
Look mate, I hate Winston Churchill as much as the next nationalist, but ease off on the accusations of "it's because we're brown". The Brits sat back and watched my people starve, and if we take some figures (it's hard to get accurate estimations of what the population of pre-Famine Ireland was), then nearly half our population died or emigrated. Estimations were that total population for the entire island was around eight million. Over the years since 1845-1847 (the official period of the Famine), the population of the Republic dropped to between three and four million.
The difference here between the British colonial famines is that they are allegedly natural disasters which were not part of policy, but the Holocaust was deliberate policy to get rid of the particular sets of undesirables that the Nazis marked out as wreckers, saboteurs, and generally not wanted in the Brave New World they were going to create.
I have never looked into it personally, but it was my understanding that 19th-century and early-20th century Britain *did* in fact treat "the Irish" as a race apart… I will grant that this may to some extent be a case of 21st-century identity politics trying to force a round peg into a square hole, but — I dunno. It's hard not to look at John Tenniel's caricatures of Irishmen as these ape-like subhuman brutes, and not think that "racism" fairly describes (part of) the anti-Irish sentiment.
It will be wonderfully post-modern and a fitting end to current trends if the word "racist" stops having anything to do with anybody's skin color and just because a generic synonym for "mean."
"Do your homework!"
" Mom! You're so racist!"
Maybe that conversation has already occured in some leafy suburban tract.
I see what you mean. That being said, let me nit-pick at your choice of words there: I think if you define racism as being primarily concerned with "skin colour" you're already some of the way to diluting the meaning. Racism strictly and conservatively defined refers to belief in the superiority of some perceived human "race"/ethnicity over another. Skin colour is one marker around which races are often drawn, but not by far the only one; anti-semitism in its 'classic', Nazi form is clearly a central example of "racism", but the perceived race is defined in a way having nothing to do with skin colour at all.
Hence my tentative reading of 19th-century anti-Irish sentiment as "racist"… If the English were caricaturing the Irish as a physically repellent "breed" of men, in part based on some stereotypical physical traits (e.g. red hair), then that seems pretty much the same thing as anti-semitism talking about the ‘Jewish race’ with its attendant caricatures of repellent rat-man with stereotypically hooked noses. I will grant that it is a more distant relative to the American-style white-versus-black sort of racism; but if we agree that the Nazis were racist in respect to Jews, I think we do in fact have to also say (a segment of) the English were racist with regard to Irishmen.
I would say a functional definition of "race" has to include a nontrivial collection of genetic distinctions *in addition* to whatever the "signal" distinction is. It so turns out this is most obvious when you compare people with black and white skin (where "white" pretty much just means "not black" so it includes brown, red, and yellow people).
There are characteristics We Do Not Discuss, to be sure, but that to one side, black women at age 75 on average live ~15% longer than white women, black women are more likely that whites women to suffer from eclampsia in pregnancy, black men are more likely than whites to have high blood pressure, and blacks are less likely to be born with Down's or cleft lip. That is, there are a range of differences that are purely (or mostly) genetic, which have very little to do with culture or individual choice. Taking note of these distinctions is functional: you can let it inform your medical models, for example, and be more aggressive in monitoring blood pressure in black pregnant women, and more aggressive about pushing genetic testing in white. You can also let it usefully influence your research priorities, for example being sure you test whether your new BP med works equally well in blacks and whites, 'cause you know can't extrapolate easily from one to the other.
But are there any such differences between Jewish Germans and Aryan Germans circa 1935? Were there any such genetic differences between Irish and Brits circa 1880? I haven't heard that there are.
So we have more than just public whimsy or political utility as a decision critierion. We can for example say it's positive and functional to identify "racial" differences when they are sufficiently strong and general that they can productively influence medical decisions trees (for the benefit of all races), and we can say it's just people being tribal assholes when they can't.
Even if we granted such genetic differences between races on medical matters — I fail to see what relevance this has to the question of defining racism. You still end up with a spectrum, where the exact boundaries will be arbitrary; some definitions of "race" will be medically useful and some will not, but (as per "The Categories Were Made For Man…") you can't really say some will be *true* and some will be *false*.
The way "race" categories are drawn in the context of "racism" (that is to say, people of a given ethnicity deciding another set of people are a disgusting outgroup who must not be allowed to interbreed with them because that would be icky, result in stupid children, and probably make God angry or something) seems to have precisely nothing whatsoever with HBD-type differences in immune systems; if we are analysing the psychology of racism, I do not think that whatever actual scientifically-verifiably "race differences" may allegedly exist even enter *into* it, doubly so if the races which they allow one to distinguish are different from the boundaries racists drew.
Furthermore, it seems to me that the word "race" is so tightly bound with "racism" (not just in a "race is what nasty racists care about" sense but in a "racisms are the ones who have largely defined the word race") as for it to be counter-productive to try to redefine it for something 'innocent'. I am fairly skeptical of HBD in any case, but I think the P.R. of "innocent" HBD that's only trying to talk about medical issues would be *much* improved if it just stopped talking about "race" and found its own coinage to talk about the clusters of populations which *it* defines. Their boundaries may resemble those of the classic "races" if you squint, but they are being defined based on fundamentally different criteria and for fundamentally different aims, and you're just shooting yourselves in the foot by tying yourselves to the word "race".
It's like, I dunno, if Lavoisier, having discovered the chemical phenomenon of "combustion", had still dubbed it "phlogiston". It's confusing even if loosely the same word had previously applied to loosely the same phenomenon — and it obscures the way in which the purported discovery is something radically new and scientific, rather than a survivance of old, "ick"-factor-based biases.
There's a book that argues that the Irish famine was actually a genocide: https://www.amazon.com/Famine-Plot-Englands-Irelands-Greatest/dp/1137278838. Admittedly, I've only read a summary of it, but I disagree that it was an intentional genocide in the same way the Holocaust was. I think we need another word for horrors like the potato famine and the Bangladeshi famine. To me, they are to genocides as manslaughter is to murder. They're still crimes against humanity, since the people in charge did less to ameliorate them than they could've due to prejudice, but they lack the same element of intention and pre-planning as the Holocaust.
"To me, they are to genocides as manslaughter is to murder." This is a very apt analogy and I will make a note of it for future use.
(The same could be said about the semantic argument over whether the British maintained "concentration camps" in the Zulu wars. Sure, they invented the name concentration camp for what they were doing, but they didn't have gas ovens.)
Thank you! I know less about the Zulu wars than I know about the Irish famine (perhaps partly due to ethnic narcissism, since I'm of mostly Irish heritage, and most of my immigrant ancestors came to the US in the wake of the famine). But I agree that it's also important to preserve distinctions between camps where people are forcibly rounded up and treated horribly and camps tailor-made for mass murder. It's certainly worth learning about all these crimes against humanity and trying to prevent them from re-occurring. But the focus on killing as many Jews and Roma as possible (also gays and disabled people, though killing them en masse isn't technically genocide) during the Holocaust was different than the other atrocities mentioned in the thread. And if we let the connotations of these terms creep beyond these terrible horrors, we might see a sort of "boy who cried wolf" effect whereby accusations of genocide are ignored even when it's legitimately happening.
It isn't true that the British "sat back and watched people starve" during the Irish famine years. Very large amounts of money were spent by the British government on imported maize from the USA and from Britain to help alleviate shortages in Ireland, not to mention the promise to buy any cure for the potato blight and supply to Irish farmers for free.
More could certainly have been done, but the claim that the brutal Brits callously and deliberately starved the Irish is just propaganda.
While the Irish Famine was a tragedy, I think it's seriously misleading to group deaths and emigration together as if they're remotely comparable - maybe if the only data available is gross population estimates before and after you have no choice, but I doubt there aren't estimates of the death toll specifically. It must be awful to need to migrate or starve, but migrating is definitely a much, much less bad fate than starving.
According to Edmund Spenser in 1596, we were Scythians. Now we debate: Are/were Scythians white? 😁
"Irenius
Before wee enter into the treatise of theire Customes, yt is first needfull to consider from whence they sproung, for from the sundrie mannors of the nations, from whence that people which nowe are called Irishe were derived, some of the customes which nowe remayne amongest them have benn fetcht, and since they have benn contynwed amongest them; for not of one nacyon was that people as yt is, but of sondrie people of different condicons and manners: But the chief which have first possessed, and inhabited yt, I suppose to be Scythians.
Eudoxus
How commeth it then to passe, that the Irish doe derive themselves from Gathelus the Spaniard.
Irenius
They doe indeed, but (I conceive) without any good ground. For if there were any such notable transmission of a colony hether out of Spaine, or any such famous conquest of this kingdome by, Gathelus, a Spaniard, as they would faine believe, it is not unlikely, but the very Chronicles ofSpaine (had Spaine then beene in so high regard as they now have it) would not have omitted so memorable a thing, as the subduing of so noble a realme to the Spaniard, no more then they doe now neglect to memorize their conquest of the Indians, especially in those times, in which the same was supposed, being nearer unto the flourishing age of learning and writers under the Romanes. But the Irish doe heerein no otherwise, then our vaine English-men doe in the Tale of Brutus, whom they devise to have first conqured and inhabited this land, it being as impossible to proove, that there was ever any such Brutus of Albion or England, as it is, that there was any such Gathelus of Spaine. But surely the Scythians (of whom I earst spoke) which at such tyme as the Northerne Nations overflowed all Christendome, came downe to the Sea coste, where enquiringe for other countryes abroade, and gettinge intelligence of this Countrye of Irelande, finding shippinge convenient, passed over thither, and arived in the North parte thereof, which is now called Ulster, which first inhabiting, and afterwardes stretchinge themselves forth into the Ilande as theire nombers encreased, named yt all of themselves Scuttenlande, which more briefly is called Scutland, [or] Scotland."
Though some of us were Spanish? Maybe?
"Irenius
After this people thus planted in the north or before, (for the certaintie of tymes in thinges soe farre from all knowledge cannot bee justlie avouched), another nation cominge out of Spaine aryved in the West part of Irelande, and findinge it waste, or weakelie inhabited, possessed yt; who whether they were native Spaniards, or Gaules or Affricans or Goaths, or some other of those Northerne Nations which did spread all over-spred all Christendome, it is impossible to affirme, onlie some naked conjectures may be gathered; but that out of Spaine certenlie they came, that doe all the Irishe Cronicles agree."
It is harde to saye: for whether they at theire first comminge into the land, or afterwardes by tradinge with other Nations which hade letters, learned them of them, or devised them amongest themselves, [it is very doubtful. But that they had letters anciently, it is nothing doubtful,] for the Saxons of Englande are saide to have theire letters, and Learninge, and learned men, from the Irishe; and that also appeareth by the likenes of the Carracter, for the Saxons carracter is the same with the Irishe. Now the Scythians never, I cann reade, of oulde had letters among them: therefore yt seemeth that they had them from the nacyon which came out of Spaine, for in Spaine there was (as Strabo wryteth) letters auncyently used, whether brought unto them by the Phenicians, or the Persians, which as yt appeareth by him) had some footinge there, or from Marseles, which is saide to have been inhabited by the Greekes, and from them to have had the Greeke carracter; of the which Marsilianns yt is said, that the Gaules learned them first, and used only for the furtherance of theire trades and private busines: for the Gaules (as is stronglie to be proved by many au ncyent and authenticall wryters) first inhabite all the sea coste of Spaine even unto Cales and the mouth of the Streights, and peopled also a greate parte of Italie, which appeareth by sundrie Citties and havens in Spaine called of them, as Portingalia, Gallecia, Galdunum; and also by sundrie nacons therein dwellinge, which yet have reseaved theire owne names of the Gaules, as the Rhegnie, Presamarie, Tamariti, Cineri, and divers others. All which Pompeius Mela, beinge himselfe a Spaniarde, yet saith to have descended from the Celtics of Fraunce, whereby yt is to be gathered, that that nacon which came out of Spain into Ireland were auncientlie Gaules, and that they brought with them those letters which they had learned in Spain, first into Ireland, the which some allso saye doe muche resemble the olde Phenicon carracter, beinge likewise distinguished with pricke and accent, as theires auncyentlie; but the further enquirie thereof needeth a place of longer discourse than this our shorte conference."
Shock, horror: an Elizabethan writer doesn't like the Spanish 🤣
"Eudoxus
Whence commeth it that the Irishe do soe greatlie covett to to fetch themselves from the Spaniards, since the olde Gaules are a more auncyent and much more honorable nation?
Irenius
Even of a very desier of newfanglenes and vanitie, for beinge as they are nowe accompted, the most barbarous Nation in Christendome, they to avoide that reproache woulde deryue them selves from the Spaniards, whom they now see to bee a very honorable people, and next borderinge unto them: But all that is most vaine; for from the Spaniard, that now is, is come from as rude and salvage nations as they, there beinge, as yt may be gathered by corse of ages and veiwe of theire owne histories (though they therein labored much to enoble themselves) scarse any dropp of the oulde Spanishe bloode left in them; for all Spain was first conquered by the Romaynes, and filled with Colonies from them, which were still encreased, and the native Spaniarde still cutt of. Afterwards the Carthaginians in all the longe Punicke Warres havinge spoiled all Spain, and in the ende subdued yt whollie tothem selves, did, (as yt is likelye) roote out all that were affected to the Romaynes. And lastly the Romaines, havinge againe recovered that countrye and beate out Hanniball, did doubtles cutt of all that had favored the Carthaginians, soe that betwixte them both, to and fro, there was scarse a native Spaniard left but all inhabited of Romaynes. All which tempests of troubles being overblowen, there longe after arose a newe storme more dreadfull then all the former, which over-ranne all Spain, and made an infinite confusion of all thinges; that was, the comming downe of the Gothes, the Hunnes, and the Vandalles, and lastly all the Nations of Scythia, which, like a mountaine flud, did overflowe all Spain, and quite drowned and washt away whatever relicts there were left of the land-bred people, yea and of all the Romaynes too. The which Northerne Nations findinge the complexion of that soile, and the vehement heate there farf different from theire natures, toke no felicitie in that country but from thence passed over, and did spread themselves into all Countries in Christendome, of all which there is none but hath some mixture or sprincklinge, yf not [thorough] peoplinge, of them. And yet after all those the Mores and Barbarians, breakinge over out of Africa, did finally possesse all Spain, or the moste parte therof, and treade downe under theire foule heathenishe feete what ever little they founde there yet standinge. The which, though afterwards they were beaten out by Ferdinando of Arragon, and [Isabell] his wife, yet they were not soe clensed, but that through the marriages which they had made, and mixture of the people of the land, during their long contynuance there, they had left no pure drop of Spanish bloode, nor of Romayne nor Scythian. Soe that all nacons under heaven, I suppose, the Spaniard is the most mingled, most uncerten, and most bastardlie; wherefore most foolishly doe the Irish thinke to enoble themselves by wrestinge theire auncestrie from the Spaniard, whoe is unable to deryve himselfe from any nacon certen."
Okay, now I am going to avow that we Irish *are* Spanish! Take that, Spenser!
According to whom? My mom has done a lot of genealogy research, and I've looked at the Census records for several of my ancestors who immigrated to the US from Ireland in the 19th century. They're all listed as white. Perhaps the British used a different classification, but I think the difference is that "white" in the 19th century didn't mean "amorphous blob of interchangeable European heritage" that it does today. Differences between "white" ethnicities were seen as a bigger deal.
I've always assumed Spenser is evidence that you could find strong narcotics in sixteenth-century Ireland. Although the Scythian ancestry thing is not one of his attempts to confuse the historical record, although it was the Picts in Bede and some Old Irish works. The confusion is understandable though: the Picts did stop off in Ireland and intermarried before the Irish helpfully pointed them in the direction of Scotland; and the Dal nAríada and a few other Ulster tribes were considered Cruithne, the Old Irish ethnonym for Picts.
I get the point you're aiming at here, and I even agree with it to an extent, but you really might want to ease up on the way you are putting it forward.
For one thing, people really weren't falling all over themselves to help the beloved "white" Jewish minority in the 1940s. For another, I don't think history does look all that kindly on the British colonization of India. But most of all, there actually is a meaningful distinction between a famine and a policy of rounding up an ethnic subgroup from across an entire continent and gassing them in ovens. I don't believe exercises in comparative suffering are generally all that useful, but there is a reason Nazis inspire a unique horror.
People aren't indifferent to the famine so much as ignorant of it. Americans, you may recall, actually fought in WWII. They have a lot of direct experience with Nazis. In contrast, we don't get a lot of Indian political history in school in the U.S. We don't get German political history either, for that matter. We get U.S. history. Maybe that's unfortunate, but it's also a more accurate and benign explanation of attitudes than "no one cares about brown people."
Yeah, its very much the historically literate American's view that 'yeah, the British were awful, but there was just something special about the Nazis', and the specialness of the Nazis isn't actually captured simply by numbers of dead, but about how they went about it. Though it wouldn't be special if it wasn't a death count that was at least in the mid 7 figures, and plausibly over ten million.
> and the specialness of the Nazis isn't actually captured simply by numbers of dead, but about how they went about it.
Humans have been exterminating other tribes who compete for their resources since the dawn of time. The subjective specialness you place on this event is part of your cognitive bias, nothing to do with reality unfortunately.
> But most of all, there actually is a meaningful distinction between a famine and a policy of rounding up an ethnic subgroup from across an entire continent and gassing them in ovens. I don't believe exercises in comparative suffering are generally all that useful, but there is a reason Nazis inspire a unique horror.
Every genocide is unique in some way, and there were other genocides that included gassing. I don't understand why you mention that it was an ethnic minority, as if that makes their lives more valuable. Obviously the extreme importance given to the killing of Jews in WW2 is at least in part due to all the movies, media etc. made about it, and because it was useful for other political purposes.
Bengal suffered two big famines because of a transition to elected Governments. Shurawardy must take the blame for the War famine but Mujib was innocent of the 1974 famine and was trying to take back control from corrupt elements when he and his family was massacred. The fact is the Muslim League was a disaster for Muslims of the sub-continent.
They’re not quite as numerous as the pro-CCP “wolf warriors” but I do notice that anything slightly critical of the BJP on the internet similarly attracts a legion of attackers.
I've just realized I'm the perfect Modi voter. I mean, apart from not being Indian.
I started out very anti-Modi - see the link below. I have to say that I've come to like him more and more. Largely because... well, to be honest, for the same reason that Modi says many of his supporters like him. He's hated by a media whose standards of honesty start with the hitpiece on Scott and go downhill from there. I've also become utterly disillusioned with liberal secularists - I go way back in the Atheism movement, back to the days of Hitchens & Dawkins and when it all started going to hell with A+. So that probably makes me less harsh on Modi than I might otherwise be. He seems to have been less the 'hard ass Hindu nationalist' that I feared.
So, I get why Scott is suitably skeptical of this book. But I found myself reading the review and nodding and going, "well, makes sense to me".
"I didn't intend this, and I don't consider it fair compensation for the level of reputational damage they did me."
Why would one care about this reputational damage? The NYT clearly jumped the shark crying wolf on racism and facism during the Trump years, and frankly anyone who is oblivious to this doesn't have an opinion on these issues worth caring about. (Obviously there are exceptions when it comes to career when you might have to care about about the reputation conferred by people whose opinions you don't respect. I am not aware that this is the case here.)
This piece by Freddie is instructive on just how insane the NYT has gotten on these issues:
If you read the NYT piece Scott was talking about you'll notice that it never once calls him a racist, sexist or an elitist. Scott is making a very basic mistake here.
It claimed Scott is "aligned" with a guy who argues that white people are genetically more intelligent than black people, and that he thinks feminists are the embodiment of evil. Tedious semantic games add no value here - his summary of the article was fair.
Scott clearly said "It accused me of being racist, sexist, elitist, all kinds of negative things". When you look at the evidence you'll see that the NYT never "accused" Scott of any of those things.
Saying that someone is aligned with Charles Murray isn't the same thing as calling them a racist. This is obvious, and it's obvious to anybody who reads things carefully.
If you disagree, you should be able to find some evidence that the NYT called Scott a "racist" or a "sexist" or an "elitist" - this is Scott's claim. It has no evidence. If Scott wants people to believe that the NYT did such a thing, he should easily be able to find some evidence. So far, no such evidence exists.
> This is obvious, and it's obvious to anybody who reads things carefully.
Please consider that not everyone 'reads things carefully'. Consider that it might be _misleading,_ i.e. that people, perhaps those people who don't read things carefully—might get misled, and often this is intentional.
The NYT can't be held responsible for someone who misreads their text and subsequently believes things that the NYT never said. In this case, Scott's audience seems to be mass misreading because Scott's priming them to be adversarial towards this particular article and saying that it "accuses" him of being racist, sexist and elitist, when no such accusations exist. In this case, responsibility for the misreading lies on Scott Alexander's shoulders, not the NYT.
(I didn't say misreading, I said misleading. I do not mean that someone might be _misunderstanding_ the text, it's that someone might be taking the writer's _implications_ at face value without bothering to determine if they are a correct interpretation of the facts.)
At any rate, what do you believe the author's intent was in including such paragraphs?
It is facially ludicrous and absurd to deny that the false parallels and ‘alignments’ being drawn between Murray and Scott, or Scott and Nazis, or Scott and eugenicists, or Scott and the alt-right, are being drawn just because they happen to be apt to make some other innocent point. It was done in bad faith with intent to smear him personally and mislead the ignorant, and to say they are not responsible for those interpretations is carrying water for the worst kind of yellow journalism.
This is, IMO, your fundamental error here. Communicating correctly is the responsibility of both parties in any exchange. If you write a text that is *very obviously* prone to misleading people, you do actually bear some responsibility for the misconceptions that creates.
The NYT wrote an article that was *very obviously* prone to being misread in such a way that people would think Scott agreed with Murray's racist opinion. I guess if you are very nitpicky, you could say that's not "calling" him a racist, but rather "insinuating" it and I would agree that's a better word (but is it "accusing"? Scott's original phrase. I'm not sure)
Regardless, they certainly bear responsibility for the misreading
> Saying that someone is aligned with Charles Murray isn't the same thing as calling them a racist.
Oh come off it. It's obvious to everyone what the NYT was trying to do.
Next you'll be telling us that if someone says "Can you pass the salt?" they're inquiring into your ability to pass the salt and not asking for the salt.
The NYT didn't even call Murray a racist. The emotional outrage that Rationalists are feeling here doesn't seem to be based on any actual statement that the NYT article made. It's all based on assumptions about the supposed intentions of the writers. Making up supposed nefarious-intentions of the writer based on zero evidence is not arguing in good-faith.
This is a much better suggestion than the one the are currently following of putting forth really sorry arguments against his position. I was pretty up in the air before. Pretty soon I'll be 100% marxist.
Thanks for the positive feedback. Often it feels like I am not making much progress here. I am happy to talk about Marxism if you have any questions about it.
> Scott clearly said "It accused me of being racist, sexist, elitist, all kinds of negative things"
Above, in the sentence after this, Scott links to his original post where he outlines in detail why he finds the article misleading and/or dishonest. If you follow the link, you'll see that Scott doesn't claim they accused him of any of these things, and that this is just shorthand for the bias the NYT used in their reporting. I think it is fair for him to use shorthand here to summarize what he references via link, though I can see why reasonable people may disagree.
For example, Scott is concerned in his original post that the NYT ties him to Peter Thiel and other (elite) tech figures. There is no falsehood in noting the relationship, but the NYT writer makes an editorial choice (reflecting their bias) to call out this relationship and not any others.
You may want to take your concerns to that discussion, as this post is about Modi, not about Scott and/or the NYT.
It's an inaccurate "shorthand" since the article never called Scott Alexander racist, sexist or elitist. Shouldn't we try to be precise in our language and be more charitable to the outgroup (the NYT in this case)?
Dogwhistles are for being racist, not for calling someone racist. The whole point of the dogwhistle is that you have to hide it. Why would someone have to hide an accusation of racism if, according to this community, it is as easy as ever to call someone racist?
Like, for the past four years I've been reading people in the SSC comments arguing that no, Donald Trump isn't actually a racist (at least by current Republican standards), none of the veiled references in his speeches should be taken as targeting a particular ethnicity, the fact that his most prominent supporters seem really racist shouldn't reflect on him personally, etc. etc.
But apparently if the New York Times makes a veiled reference, that's something we need to take extremely seriously.
I didn't know that, strictly speaking, a community can believe anything, or that if someone denies the existence of a dog whistle in a particular case, then that means that dog whistles don't exist.
Speaking personally, I suspect that Trump knew the effect of what he was saying.
Dude, the NYT never wrote a "retaliatory" hit piece on Scott, and the folks here are having a shared fever dream if they think the NYT gives a fuck about an obscure blogger one way or the other. But you'll never convince anyone here of that fact. "Rationalism" is just another tribe.
Well, the central point of that article was that some contrarian asshole directed (with a wink and a nod) his followers to attack a poor journalist and his paper, who only wanted to tell the whole truth to their readers, so in that sense it's fair to call it retaliatory. I agree that "rationalists" still perceive it as more adversarial than it really was, IMO mostly because of the "hostile media effect". It was amusing to read several replies here and on the subreddit from people who found out about the blog through the article and thought that it sounded interesting and felt that the overall tone was positive.
I don't think that's an accurate summary of the central point of the article at all, but even if it were, *it would still be a better representation of what transpired* than "world's most esteemed journalistic organization publishes hit piece to teach rando blogger a lesson." As Will Wilkinson has pointed out, it really does raise journalistic questions when some corner of the internet goes absolutely bananas for seemingly no good reason at all.
I am a person who started reading this blog due to the NYT piece (although I was vaguely aware of SSC already). I like Scott's writing. But I've worked in Silicon Valley long enough to know that the people who criticize others for not being as rational as they are are the first ones to go red-faced and screaming when their ego is even slightly threatened.
Thanks for pointing me towards Wilkinson's post. I haven't seen it before, decent critiques of "rationalism" are hard to come by, and this was better than most. I still think that the NYT would've easily indulged Scott's request for pseudonymity if he was more ideologically palatable to them (there are precedents), so claims about adherence to some lofty standards of journalism aren't too convincing. Of course, his reaction seemed unreasonable enough to warrant a story in it's own right, but I'd say that the New Yorker piece from the last year did a far better job at it, while still managing to avoid spitefully mentioning his full name.
The New York Times is still clearly influential among many people, and I don't think it's wise to immediately dismiss all those people as having opinions not worth caring about. At least not wise for a minor internet celebrity who doesn't like hateful comments and messages.
To me you de facto renounce your credibility on these issues when you take the NYTs word for it on them. You may have all sorts of other valuable opinions, but not on who is an awful person as defined by their racism, sexism, fascism etc.
Do recall that Scott is a practicing psychiatrist - if the NYT piece cost him patients, that would be real reputational damage. The opinion of the common man does matter even if you don't think it's likely to be correlated to reality.
Reputational damage included Scott having to reshape his career, since he wanted to keep his being a psychiatrist who also did counselling separate from his reputation as a blogger.
He's landed on his feet (money coming in from substack, private practice just prescribing so far as I know), but it was a big change that he wasn't looking for.
"Reputational damage"? Did Scott ever show any sort of evidence that there was any "reputational damage" beyond his feelings being hurt?
This incident is quickly becoming a founding mythology and religious conviction of internet Rationalism. So much so that Scott is claiming things like "It accused me of being racist, sexist, elitist" - if you read the NYT article in question you can very plainly see that this never happened.
Considering that Scott had himself revealed his name and that the information was easily available through a Google search I do not consider this a "dox" - just the printing of accurate information. Since there's a lot of inaccurate journalism out there, I think the NYT should be applauded for getting Scott's name correct.
I think outing his pseudonym was really a bad move by the NYTimes, but apart from that the article didn’t seem particularly problematic. It oversimplified some things, as one does in a short article, and I think it very much mischaracterized what I think of as my favorite essay (“I Cam Tolerate Anything Except the Outgroup”), but it’s also absolutely true that this blog is a safe space for anti-feminists and human biodiversity types.
Right, it wasn't lies but selective focus to "problematize" Scott to the NYTs 90+% liberal readership. There was a ton of areas of Scott's oeuvre the article could have focused on. The NYT chose those they knew would infuriate their readers.
Similarly, in their recent bio on Andrew Sullivan, they focused on his engagement with IQ and race, despite his long career writing covering a vast range of topics and his leadership on gay marriage.
> There was a ton of areas of Scott's oeuvre the article could have focused on. The NYT chose those they knew would infuriate their readers.
Yes. That's how the news - and media more broadly - works. And if you think that's bad, I invite you to open a newspaper from a century ago!
Being a savvy reader means knowing this going in when you read *anything* subject to the same selection pressures. Being a Bayesian means not discovering this fact for the first time, multiple times. Update and move on.
Doesn't that prove the point that his blog has in fact been a point of congregation for these people, and his views aren't a million miles from there? Probably "safe space" was an exaggeration, but it's far closer of a connection than the vast majority of blogs with this size of readership.
To be fair to Scott, he intended it to be a safe space for discourse, and when some topics are banned everywhere else decent, all the witches will flock to whatever "safe havens" still remain. And even though his own views may stray from leftist orthodoxy, I'd describe them to still be pretty far from "those people", in ways that count.
Yes, I think that is totally fair. I think it is both true that he is far from "those people" in ways that count, but he's also closer to them than nearly anyone that people reading the New York Times are likely to encounter (including mainstream Republicans).
In my observation (filtered through my own biases and memory, needless to say) the SSC readership has always seemed less political in general than the ACX readership.
And this community does have a certain temperament that might make the aforementioned folks feel more welcome, if nothing else. My most vivid impression of this came via the paroxysmal reaction (on the occasion of book review talk) to some poor bugger who tried to suggest that we read more women authors.
If it's the one I'm thinking of about the book reviews, they pointed out that only one out of 17 book reviews was of a book by a woman, and then refused to suggest any books.
This didn't go over well, though I don't remember the reaction as being all that strong.
In any case, I asked for recommendations for books by women which would be worthy topics for book reviews and got quite a few suggestions.
> Reputational damage included Scott having to reshape his career, since he wanted to keep his being a psychiatrist who also did counselling separate from his reputation as a blogger.
IMO, the privacy needs of a good clinician are fundamentally incompatible with being a high-profile blogger - doubly so when there's overlap in topics. The NYT article was the proximate effect in this timeline, but the pseudoanonymity was always unstable.
One problem a lot of readers forget is what Scott's circle was. He lives in San Francisco, nearly all his family members are very left leaning, and I'm sure several were long time subscribers of the NYT. I wouldn't be surprised if family gatherings got intensely awkward, and various people he considered friends cut him off.
"I'm not a far-right demagogue and I don't want to be a head of government. But I did manage to piss off the New York Times last year, and they wrote a retaliatory hit piece against me. It accused me of being racist, sexist, elitist, all kinds of negative things."
I searched for "racist" in the New York Times piece and here's what I got:
"He denounced the neoreactionaries, the anti-democratic, often racist movement popularized by Curtis Yarvin. But he also gave them a platform. His “blog roll” — the blogs he endorsed — included the work of Nick Land, a British philosopher whose writings on race, genetics and intelligence have been embraced by white nationalists."
Now, if you actually read this (have you actually read the article?) it never actually calls you a racist. It simply says that you have linked to another blog that they say is racist. Now, I notice that you've since deleted the link to Nick Land's blog, but it is a simple fact that you used to have his blog "xenosystems" linked prominently on your own blog roll and anyone can easily look at archives to confirm this, e.g.:
The article never says you are sexist, merely that you wrote an essay about the Blue Tribe and that liberals tend to get upset at sexists:
"The essay was a critique of what Mr. Siskind, writing as Scott Alexander, described as “the Blue Tribe.” In his telling, these were the people at the liberal end of the political spectrum whose characteristics included “supporting gay rights” and “getting conspicuously upset about sexists and bigots.”"
Is this what you're upset at? That they quoted your "analysis" of the "Blue Tribe"? Where did they call you a sexist?
The word "elitist" never seems to even be mentioned in the article ; let alone accusing you of being one! Where did they accuse you of being an elitist?
Anybody can read the article and see that your claims about the NYT calling you "racist", "sexist" or "elitist" are simply untrue. So the question here is; what are you actually upset about?
I'm asking where exactly is the passage that "accuses" Scott of being racist, sexist or elitist. He claimed that there were accusations there. Scott quoted no sections and I have already shown that the piece in question does not contain any such accusations.
"Nuance" does not involve completely inaccurate statements such as Scott Alexander's claim that the NYT accused him "of being racist, sexist, elitist, all kinds of negative things"
These are falsehoods that Scott is spreading, not "nuance".
But he did align himself with Charles Murray in that post. I'm not sure how it's implied that it means Scott agrees with Charles Murray's view on IQ and race. In any case, if Scott feels he has been misrepresented it here, it would be productive to write a longer piece about what he does and doesn't agree with Murray on, rather than simply complaining that someone wrote the true statement that he agrees with Murray.
I think that means you've read too many articles and they want you to pay for more. That's capitalism for you. I rarely read the NYT so I don't have this problem.
You're an academic, right? Maybe you have institutional access?
Carl Marks correctly observed that you need capitalism to generate wealth. He then said that there should be ' Revolution' (fancy way of saying mass murdering spree) to re distribute the wealth. But has he mentioned WHEN should the state pivot from capitalism to socialism and then communism? I have a communist friend who says that China's state capitalism is actually part of Marxist plan and once enough wealth is generated the communist party will start re distributing it
How does it imply that? It simply says that he aligned himself with Charles Murray, which he did. The NYT even links to the article in question for all their readers.
And the article never even calls Murray a racist, simply that he proposed there was a link between race and IQ. Again, nowhere does it say that Scott is a racist, which is what Scott claimed.
When writing, you don't actually begin by defining all the words you use. You rely on other people who speak the same language using many of the same definitions. That's why we call it "the same language". Pretending that they didn't call him racist because they didn't define their terms would be like me saying you have a very low IQ, then saying I never called you "stupid" because I use the word "stupid" in its original Latin sense of meaning "stunned".
Proposing a link between race and IQ is widely seen as racist. Maybe it shouldn't be, but we can't deny reality. Try arguing for such a link for any length of time in any mainstream discussion space, you'll be quickly branded a racist. (don't actually do that, or do it at your own risk). The wikipedia page on Charles Murray includes several citations for accusations of racism.
It can be "widely seen" as racist, but that's not what the NYT said about Scott Alexander and Charles Murray. Nowhere did they include the claim that Scott Alexander is racist. Scott Alexander claimed that the NYT contained such accusations, when a quick read will confirm that no such accusations are present.
Would you agree with me on this point? It seems as though Scott Alexander is making a very basic mistake.
For a less obvious example of dishonesty, the bit quoting me starts with a quote, then has "The voices also included white supremacists and neo-fascists. The only people who struggled to be heard, Dr. Friedman said, were “social justice warriors.”"
That makes it sound to a careless reader as though the white supremacist and neo-fascist is something I said, since it is put between a real quote and what purports to be a description of my views.
And I doubt I said "struggled to be heard," although I might have said that that was a position that most commenters were unsympathetic to. That's Metz's wording, although it is attributed to me, which is why the first part of the sentence is not in quotation marks.
This all looks above board and accurate to me. Where you are being directly quoted and where you aren't is clearly indicated using quotation marks.
Struggled to be heard is not in quotation marks, so he's not indicating that you directly said it. Anybody who knows how quotation marks are used will know that, which I assume is most English speakers. It's a paraphrase.
If you truly feel that you've been misrepresented I suggest that you contact the NYT and request a retraction.
Possibly he just had the content relayed to him by a friend or something like that. Either he didn't read it or his reading comprehension is quite low. These are actually good-faith interpretations of Scott's mistakes here. A less scrupulous person might accuse Scott of lying or something like that.
Your argument here reminds me of a passage in Mark Twain's essay "In Defense of Harriet Shelley."
The biographer says of Harriet, “If words of tender affection and motherly pride proved the reality of love, then undoubtedly she loved her firstborn child.” That is, if mere empty words can prove it, it stands proved—and in this way, without committing himself, he gives the reader a chance to infer that there isn't any extant evidence but words, and that he doesn't take much stock in them. How seldom he shows his hand! He is always lurking behind a non-committal “if” or something of that kind; always gliding and dodging around, distributing colorless poison here and there and everywhere, but always leaving himself in a position to say that his language will be found innocuous if taken to pieces and examined. He clearly exhibits a steady and never-relaxing purpose to make Harriet the scapegoat for her husband's first great sin—but it is in the general view that this is revealed, not in the details. His insidious literature is like blue water; you know what it is that makes it blue, but you cannot produce and verify any detail of the cloud of microscopic dust in it that does it. Your adversary can dip up a glassful and show you that it is pure white and you cannot deny it; and he can dip the lake dry, glass by glass, and show that every glassful is white, and prove it to any one's eye—and yet that lake was blue and you can swear it. This book is blue—with slander in solution.
Why do you appreciate it? What evidence did it contribute? It appears to be a quote by Mark Twain, yet I cannot see any relevant information about the NYT article in question. It's written well and everything, but we're looking for actual evidence here, not just nicely written passages that appeal to our emotions.
If you disagree with me you would be able to find evidence. Now David Friedman, you're clearly a very educated person, who can read well. So let's look at Scott Alexander's claim:
"I'm not a far-right demagogue and I don't want to be a head of government. But I did manage to piss off the New York Times last year, and they wrote a retaliatory hit piece against me. It accused me of being racist, sexist, elitist, all kinds of negative things."
Can you find for me the passage where the NYT accuses Scott Alexander of being "elitist". Since you're an academic this task should be easy for you. If you cannot find any such evidence, I hope you can admit that Scott is wrong and that I'm right.
If the New York Times is "insidious" with "slander in solution", then you should be able to easily find the section where they claim he is elitist.
If you cannot find such a claim, then perhaps you should consider that it is Scott Alexander's claims about the NYT that are possibly "insidious" with "slander in solution".
Remember that we are Rationalists, people who read carefully, people who don't get caught up in emotions. If you truly believe what Scott Alexander is saying about the NYT then I assume you will be able to find the required evidence; rather than just some flowery text by Mark Twain.
I suspect it won't take you long to find the evidence about "elitism" that is required in this case! Or you will be able to admit that Scott was plainly incorrect. I await your reply with some excitement.
Respectfully, I note that I would appreciate it if you did not continue to use Scott's full name so frequently. I say this not as a complaint about any of your arguments. But simply because I am sometimes interested in if Scott has posted in the comments of an article, which can most easily be determined by searching his name.
Yep. The American Legion invited Mussolini to address its national convention (he declined, possibly because you couldn't just hop on a 747 from Rome and be back in three days back then). Mussolini and even Hitler enjoyed some non-trivial degree of popularity in the US until, you know, the late unpleasantness.
I'd suggest the Lance Price book is less hagiographic, as well as more up to date (2016). I haven't read it myself, but Price is a former BBC correspondent and comms adviser to UK PM Tony Blair, who has written some good independent punditry on politics and electioneering and some very well-received books like 'Where the Power Lies (2010). See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lance_Price
I haven't heard of Andy Marino, and his author bio on Amazon notes only that he is author of 'American Pimpernel', anyway I'm slightly surprised Scott chose to read and review that one, and although it makes a convenient strawman, you might find the Price book more insightful and educational.
Modi was very successful in Gujurat, and he was one of the few Chief ministers in India who seemed to care about industrialization and free markets. Apart from this, he is a genuine centrist Hindu nationalist(The one who would abide by the constitution). This is why many hindu nationalists love him(be it center or far-right) because he will be able to bring change. But I'm sorry to say his popularity has been in a major slump since 2016. Since 2016 his economic policies have been stagnant and nationalists are genuinely petrified for his appeasement politics be it with the SC/ST Act or OBC Reservations and the curbing of hindu festivals. Overall many in the nationalist circles are disappointed.
One thing I have realised is that whenever we have video documentation available for any period or event, it is way more useful than reading up different versions of events. You can see the actual people who suffered or were perpetrators. I was just 15 when Gujarat killings happened and did not understand it too well, but I remember how so many people would justify killings of Muslims in the name of revenge of killings of Hindus in the train, and Modi was hailed because for letting it happen, that made him a hero of the Hindu right in India. In subsequent years, and eventually studying in Gujarat - Modi's governed state and then working there in a department of his government, I got even more interested in what all had really happened. I began looking for the places where Gujarat massacres had happened, and attended the 10th anniversary of Gulbarg Society massacre where people affected were telling their own stories. I then got to watch this documentary called Final Solution where both perpetrators and victims of Gujarat massacres are covered, and in a very thorough non-sensational manner. I strongly recommend this one: https://vimeo.com/329340055
I have never identified with left and there are huge problems with Congress, but I have grown up way more closer to RSS and even attended their training camps. What all is wrong with them has not been told to me by anyone else, but by their own words and actions. Modi is an extremely careful politician who knows what to say where. You will be hard-pressed to find direct anti-Muslim statements by him, and anti-Muslim violence and discrimination is societally driven through endless propaganda where all Muslims are clubbed as a monolith and defined through whatever worst has been done, therefore it makes much more sense for him to let such violence happen through society and Police, rather than openly call for it.
Modi had only been in power for a few months. 9/11 was a game changer. America pointed a nuclear gun at Pakistan to get it to cooperate against the Taliban. The Pakistanis launched a terror attack on the Indian parliament which led to a troop buildup on the border. The Indians' thought that Pak would try something in the Rann of Kutch (in Gujarat) just as they had done in 1965. Thus when the Hindus were massacred at Godhra (which was known to be linked to ISI criminals in Karachi) the Central Government saw this as a Pak scheme to create havoc and thus hinder troop movements. That is why George Fernandes, the popular Minister of Defense, himself turned up with troops to put down the rioting. Delhi also sent a senior Police officer to get rid of corrupt cops who were part of the 'riot economy' (which was about land grabbing and boot legging and extortion rackets)
Modi believed he would be made the scapegoat because he had no grassroots support in Gujarat (he belongs to a very small sub-caste) so he did a deal with the farmers by which they gave up 'free electricity' for actual electricity which they could use. This sort of smart thinking served him well. He was able to dominate Gujarat's fractious, faction ridden politics, and then- because Rahul Gandhi refused the top job- became Prime Minister.
Killing people won't get you power. If it did, everybody would be at it.
The Shah Rukh Khan film 'Raees' shows how a Congress Minister got ISI help to stage a terrorist incident in Surat so as to provoke communal rioting. That is the other side to the picture. Bootleggers, 'land-sharks' (who use riots to get control of 'chawls'), and corrupt SHOs had created a 'riot economy'. Gujarat needed to crack down on this nonsense to move forward. Sadly, there has been 'ghettoization'. Sunnis feel alienated. Mercantile Muslim castes- Bohras, Memons, Ismailis have done well but Sunnis too must be included for proper development. Let us see if the new CM can restore momentum for growth and fraternity.
The Franco thing makes sense. The Falangists were traditional fascists, Franco was a traditional military dictator who sometimes needed their support.
Wikipedia: "Although Franco adopted some trappings of fascism, he, and Spain under his rule, are generally not considered to be fascist; among the distinctions, fascism entails a revolutionary aim to transform society, where Franco did not seek to do so, and, to the contrary, although authoritarian, he was by nature conservative and traditional."
I was going to say this. Spanish apologists for Franco will often point out that Franco managed to keep the real Fascists from taking power (apologists for Orbán often say the same). Franco was really a 19th century style Catholic authoritarian who managed to get Fascist backing. Franco would have felt right at home with people like Metternich. That is not true of Mussolini.
As part of the EU Orban's anti democratic instincts are rather attenuated -- it is totally possible to imagine him losing popular support, and if he loses popular support he'll lose the next election. The real problem is that Orban both has authoritarian instincts, and has repeatedly been legitimately elected.
Yes, this is a very important point. Fascism was a populist, scientifically-based (in the eyes of its adherents) movement, which tried to replace the old-fashioned buddy-duddy hierarchies of family, religion and society with a modern hierarchy based on strength and power. More or less its only article of faith was "life is a struggle." The Falange was one of a series of neo-traditionalist movements which arose in response to the modernism post-WW1, and preached a return to a traditional society based on Church, Family and Army. You'd be hard put to find two movements that were more different. Franco could and did make tactical alliances with fascists (as did Pétain, Horthy and others) but that's all they were.
I live in Gujarat. We are originally from Kerala ( Ruled by communist party of India) there are no jobs in Kerala. The govt and labour unions in Kerala are like the mafia to whom we have to pay to get stuff done. Most men in Kerala go to middle east like Dubai to work as construction labourer in horrible working conditions. The situation is so bad that Kerala is the only state where there are more women than men, since a lot of men migrate to middle east for labour work. The entire state runs on remittances. When I have a discussion with a Marxist they come up with their standard "This is not real Marxism"
Anyways, we shifted to Gujarat when Modi was the chief minister. The facilities in Gujarat are good. My dad went from unskilled job to skilled job and then ended up establishing his own small business which is doing good. Like Trump, modi has a strong support in Rural areas. However he is very unpopular among the upper middle class and those influenced by American wokes. Fortunately for Modi, Most of the India is Rural and the opposition is weak. He has good support in media too. In US except fox news every outlet is anti republican. Here every outlet is pro modi except one or too
Lol! I think you have really warped view about Kerala!
People in Kerala go abroad for the same reason why everyone else go , mainly better salary compared to Indian ones.
Unfortunately for Modi and bjp, Keralites really love eating beef and despite all their efforts to sow communal division , they still can’t win a single seat there.
As to female to male ratio, I suspect it’s the only state where there is not much sex selective abortion. There is no automatic preference for male children like in north India
"Kerala has the lowest positive population growth rate in India, 3.44%; the highest Human Development Index (HDI), 0.784 in 2018 (0.712 in 2015); the highest literacy rate, 96.2% in the 2018 literacy survey conducted by the National Statistical Office, India;[8] the highest life expectancy, 77 years; and the highest sex ratio, 1,084 women per 1,000 men. Kerala is the second-least impoverished state in India according to the Annual Report of Reserve Bank of India published in 2013.[18][19] Kerala is the second-most urbanised major state in the country with 47.7% urban population according to the 2011 Census of India.[20] The state topped in the country to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals according to the annual report of NITI Aayog published in 2019."
Wow good numbers. However, I have lived in Kerala. You can't go out after dark specially if you are women. Political killings are rampant. Search about Nambi Narayan a ISRO scientist who was tortured for political gains. One day we decided to go to the beach but some jobless youth members of some party were blocking roads for a ' Hartal' It's a common occurrence there. And Most important part is that the state survives on remittances sent for the men toiling in middles east.
I request you to think instead of copy pasting random numbers. The fact that you mentioned 47% population is urban as a good thing made me facepalm. For Sex ratio, as I mentioned before is because men migrate for work outside Kerala. I have many aunts who live in Kerala but their husbands are in Dubai
Thank god at least you haven't copy pasted Wikipedia paragraphs this time.
I have given you real examples like nambi narayan the isro scientist who was tortured.
" My friends have not repeated any stories " does not mean it does not happen. This is simple logical fallacy. But I'm not expecting very logical arguments form you anyway
1. Argument by anecdote is not a logical fallacy. It is an argument from evidence, albeit in this case, a weak form of evidence.
But it is truly rich for you to complain that I made an argument from anecdote, when you did precisely the same thing.
2. I am glad that political violence apparently is isolated to Kerala. Either that or you arguing from anecdote again.
3. Speaking of logical fallacies, crying that I cut and pasted a portion of my argument has no bearing on whether it is correct or not. The wikipedia article I cited is itself well-sourced, and I noted that you do not dispute the statistics cited or their provenance. Only (in one case) their interpretation.
It's the equivalent of saying that an argument is invalid because a word was misspelled. When you are reduced to such a line of attack, I can conclude that you are just arguing in order to argue.
I think Westerners in general have a poor grasp of India. "Race" is not a salient hot-button issue in India the way it is in America: religion and caste is (though caste less so in recent years, as BJP has made inroads with "lower" castes in recent years).
I also think it is important to situate Modi in a context. BJP was on the margins of national life until the 1980s. The turning point was the razing of the Babri mosque in 1992, where there are now plans to build a Ram temple (conveniently scheduled right before next election). Jaffrelot's recent book on Modi and Hindutva is probably a better read, though even Jaffrelot has his flaws.
I think the comparison with Erdogan has a few flaws. For one, AKP strikes me as a one-man party. Modi does dominante the BJP (together with Amit Shah, a fellow Gujarati), but even if Modi were to resign tomorrow, there are other candidates, like Yogi in UP who is their Chief Minister. If you look at recent Turkish polls, the Erdogan looks to lose the next election. Modi is stll hugely popular.
In short, while it is understandable to focus on personalities (as US politics is very personality-driven) I think it makes more sense to view the Hindutva movement as a sleeping giant which slowly began to awaken in the 1980s and reached its crescendo with Modi but it won't end with him. This is a larger, more complicated, sociological story.
Well the article mentions various tangles Modi has had with what are generally categorised as "indigenous peoples" (I personally do not think the term is helpful) - that seems definitely rather race-based, though the term usually only gets brought out when there's a big culture difference as well.
There are various groups with different living styles (like the Adivasis mentioned, who live in small tribes in the North Eastern forests) but in India they would never be called a different 'race', merely a separate or minority group. I think the use of race by Scott and other English-language articles are just to make things easy to understand for Westerners.
Thanks for the review - great to know what book I can skip now ;-)
I recently picked up Malevolent Republic by Kapil Komireddi at a bookstore in Austin. I was able to read it in a day-ish and made for a good review of Modi’s tenure. I’d recommend it very much.
(1) Re: Fascism, I don't think people are really aware how *acceptable* it seemed in the early 30s; this was the period between the wars, when there was a sense of cultural decadence (just like every other time when people get rich and then the bubble bursts) and attitudes were something like "okay, it's a bit extreme, but hey - Mussolini is getting the trains to run on time" and it was perceived in its different forms as bringing some kind of discipline and order, even if it was in a very heavy-handed manner. Also bound up with youth movements like the Wandervogel movement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wandervogel and more conservative, traditional ones https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_Youth_Movement (which, ironically, were all banned when the Nazis did come to power and replaced them with the Hitler Youth).
Attitudes ranged from admiration to mild mockery ('oh well, foreigners, what do you expect?'). Nobody anticipated what was to come.
(2) I was sort of aware of Modi through seeing representations of him in various Indian movies. There's a 2019 movie (which I have no intention of watching) which is your full-on hagiographical biopic (trailer here to give you a taste of it): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ZjR2G2Qm8I
(3) Going down the rabbit hole of following links about Swami Vivekananda is fascinating to the point of distraction, but the guy probably was ecumenical and liberal (for the time), and the vexed question of nationalism is one that reads very familiarly to me as an Irish person when it's "do we kick out the Brits, and if we do, what follows?":
There was definitely cross-pollination going on, as the Swami was influenced by Western Esotericism and in turn "introduced Hinduism to the West":
"Swami Vivekananda; 12 January 1863 – 4 July 1902), born Narendranath Datta, was an Indian Hindu monk. He was a chief disciple of the 19th-century Indian mystic Ramakrishna. Influenced by Western esotericism, he was a key figure in the introduction of the Indian darsanas (teachings, practices) of Vedanta and Yoga to the Western world, and is credited with raising interfaith awareness, bringing Hinduism to the status of a major world religion during the late 19th century. He was a major force in the contemporary Hindu reform movements in India, and contributed to the concept of nationalism in colonial India. Vivekananda founded the Ramakrishna Math and the Ramakrishna Mission. He is perhaps best known for his speech which began with the words "Sisters and brothers of America ...," in which he introduced Hinduism at the Parliament of the World's Religions in Chicago in 1893."
(4) I'm surprised that you didn't know about the forced sterilisation programme under Indira Gandhi, but then again, this is a function of being old enough to remember when it was being talked about. As an aside, shit like this is why crochety old reactionaries like me get twitchy when all the bright and airy modern discussion of "why is eugenics a dirty word?" occurs, because this is the kind of shit that happens when theory turns into practice and "there are too many of you low-quality types clogging up the planet" gets turned from words to actions.
(5) Yeah, I think the correct conclusion is that he's a demagogue, a populist, and a dictator who is pushing Hindu nationalism very hard for several reasons, and stirring up partisan strife as a result of that. I don't know enough about Indian politics to comment any deeper than that, but he also seems to fit into the model of corruption, dysfunction, and building a dynasty (though, given his marital status, he doesn't seem interested in having kids and handing on the reins of power to him): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jashodaben_Modi
'educated elites cynically fanning racial discord so they could force minority groups to flee to them as "protectors"'
This is a tried and true political strategy, eloquently described by Emmanuel Goldstein:
"For long periods the High seem to be securely in power, but sooner or later there always comes a moment when they lose either their belief in themselves or their capacity to govern efficiently, or both. They are then overthrown by the Middle, who enlist the Low on their side by pretending to them that they are fighting for liberty and justice. As soon as they have reached their objective, the Middle thrust the Low back into their old position of servitude, and themselves become the High. Presently a new Middle group splits off from one of the other groups, or from both of them, and the struggle begins over again."
The first part seems to accurately describe the fascist, liberal, and socialist revolutions of the first half of the twentieth century, while the latter part about a new Middle group seems to apply to the present US-- the new woke Middle using the Low to drive down the old deplorable Middle and grab power from the High.
Scott: two comments. (1) The Western perception of Modi is mostly filtered through the English language Indian press&intelligentsia, and that group loathes Modi and his movement, so you're in the position of e.g. having your impression of Donald Trump based solely on reporting by the New York Times, or having your impression of Hillary Clinton based solely on reporting by Fox News. I don't know what can be done about it. Obviously `go learn a few Indian languages and read the local language press' is not particularly actionable advice, either for Western journalists of for you. and (2) you are missing the aspect of his appeal that's based on backlash against affirmative action viz. whether rightly of wrongly, Hindus feeling `Muslims (and other minority communities) get all these special privileges, how come we're discriminated against in our own country.' Again, this could have some analogs to US politics...
This is a great observation. The regional.language reporting in India vs English language reporting are generally 180 degrees apart.
Every single media outlet is owned by one political party or the other. Almost all the English language stuff, by Sonia and her cronies. Non-English, more and more, Modi and cronies.
Very good observation. Reputed Indian English media much like the English speaking Indian academia is very elite, so it would be difficult to understand an average Indian voter's perspective through them. But recently I've been seeing a rise in right-leaning publications in Indian English (eg: Swarajya), reading them along with the regular liberal media would help in balancing out the bias to some extent.
>He went on a fact-finding trip to fascist Italy, met Mussolini, decided he had the right idea
Mussolini had a lot more influence in the third world than is widely recognized. There are still significant parties in Latin America, the Middle East, and South Asia that were directly inspired by Italian Fascism. As in, "met with Mussolini, their founders wrote about how Fascism was pretty cool" inspired by. Interestingly many of them get coded as left wing now because they (like the Fascists) are pro-union and pro-welfare. Some of them are even genuinely pro-democracy at this point because they've realized "the poor people who are part of the national ethnic majority" is actually a pretty sweet electorate to have.
Also: I've been thinking about the portrayal of Hitler in Indian cinema recently. If you look at old WW2 cartoons Hitler's portrayed is kind of goofy. Yes, he's a villain. But he's not someone to be taken seriously. He's ridiculous. This changed in the 1950s as people became aware of the Holocaust. But this shift never really took place in India. To this day a lot of Indian cinema portrays Hitler analogs as incompetent and kind of goofy. It's not that they're sympathetic to him: he's always a villain. But there's no sort of deep reckoning with the people Hitler hurt. I suspect it's because India can (truthfully) claim to not be responsible for any of the horrors of WW2. They were British subjects fighting for independence and fighting the Axis. They had no agency and no involvement on the Axis side and therefore no responsibility.
But this creates a unique blindspot. One of the fuels of nationalism is the Innocence Myth. "Our culture is uniquely innocent and attacked by outsiders unjustly." Now, this can be true or it can be false. But the nationalists will never examine it that critically. The national innocence must be a matter of faith. Internal critique becomes siding with the outsiders. It's simultaneously a way to suppress internal dissent (out of touch hypercritical elites!) as a result and a justification to make demands of foreigners (colonizers!). This is why Holocaust Denial or Japanese War Crimes Denial is so important to their respective far rights. India really doesn't have an equivalent to those things but it's got skeletons in its closet. As any nation has.
Of course, this isn't unique to Modi. Nehru famously said Indians would never be dictators because they were too fair minded and humane.
> The real question is why she gave up her emergency dictatorship and called an election at all.
Because the Congress Party was not willing to support a dictatorship. Gandhi's choices were "call an election and probably lose" or "get replaced as party head." She chose the former. It was the right move: the party did manage to put her back into power eventually. Her rule ended because she was shot by her bodyguards after desecrating their holy site.
>Modi accuses the Congress Party of being the descendants of those Indians who did well under British colonialism, liked British colonialism a little too much, and basically Europeanized, - including a European-style semi-racist contempt for ordinary Indians.
This is a common charge against Indian elites. It's not true: they have an Indian-style totally racist contempt for ordinary Indians. (Or if you prefer, caste-ist/classist.) Again, national innocence myth. It can't be native to India. It has to be imposed from abroad.
>They survived as a democratic party by preventing any real opposition from forming, plus using their media connections to spread fear and division among people, plus occasionally just declaring martial law and imprisoning anyone they didn't like.
They survived because Social Democracy is a real and popular thing. They had a pretty standard left-democratic coalition of minorities and the poor plus the elites.
By the way, part of Modi's popularity is his right wing capitalist reforms have been really helping the economy. He says it's because of his economic brilliance. I say "hey, maybe you shouldn't have to fill out seven forms to install a toilet" is a really obvious reform. Though you do have to give him credit that he actually got it done.
This sounds suspiciously like what Republicans say about Democrats because it's the same critique. Modi even endorsed Trump.
>According to Modi, when he was growing up (the 1950s) there was little racial division.
I literally laughed out loud at this. Nope. No. Absolutely wrong. You should take this about as seriously as a white right wing politician saying there was little racial division in his childhood because he knew a Black person during the 1960s. See: the entire history of Pakistan.
Yes, there's riots and lynchings now. And that's bad. But even in colonial India there were serious tensions. The majority of the Indian Muslim leadership was so distrustful of the Hindu leadership they refused to support Indian independence until India promised they'd get their own independent state. Millions died in the immediate aftermath of independence.
>So how did Modi become famous enough to use the position as a springboard to national power?
Another reason they/you missed: Modi comes from a Backward Caste. There's a significant constituency of Backward Caste Hindus who almost default vote for the lesser caste candidate on the assumption they'll be more pro-low caste/less classist. (This was also probably the real reason he couldn't get into a monastery.)
>(questions about minorities and racism were less prominent in Erdogan's rise, making him a proof of concept that you can do this without them)
Turkey's minorities are grouped together in a coalition party that's dominated by the Kurds. They are in the unfortunate position that BOTH the left and the right are against them. Erdogan is no friend to the Kurds and he emphasizes this rhetorically from time to time. In India the Congress Party is pro-minority so there's a more clearly partisan bent. So no, they're both this way.
By the way, you know that English is an official language in India, right? If you want to know what's going on with Modi you can just... read contemporary Indian newspapers. Or watch their news shows. In English. It's not a translation, that's what the Indians listen to/read. You're going to get mostly elite views. But that's somewhat true everywhere.
Erusian: I think in India there is actually a bit of a sorting in the media landscape by language. If you read the English language press you are going to get mostly elite views. If you read/watch news in Hindi/Gujarati/Malayali/whatever...not so much. The Indian elite is heavily Anglophone.
Yes. Though there's also widespread illiteracy in India and relatively low media penetration in the countryside. So, to some extent, you're not going to get past that in India without going to India and talking to people.
Although India doesn’t have the World War II denialists that Germany and Japan has, it does have similarly non-reality-based conspiracists that deny things like Aryan languages entering India only a few thousand years ago, and claim all sorts of scientific insights in the Vedas and so on. This is often in service of some kind of Hindu (and perhaps even Hindi speaking) nationalism.
Now that you say this I regret how I phrased that. India doesn't have an equivalent mythology about how they didn't commit war crimes in World War 2 despite doing a lot of war crimes. It does (as you say) have far right conspiracy theories.
There's a very effective appeal of Hitler´s ideology. Other fascists did and do work with that appeal, too, but he seems to have perfected it. An appeal to the mindset of persons not quite ready for the adventure of life on their own and willing to sacrifice for guidance. There have been, are, and will be, always lots of those.
Also in 2015 there were two elections in Turkey - at the first one in June the AKP missed absolute mayority. Erdogan called for another election and let the situation with the Kurds escalalate. It was even tried to exclude the HDP which was mostly voted for by the Kurdish minority
Great review, one comment/question for the Indian readers and India experts here. The obvious counterexample to the "there was little sectarian resentment until Congress created it" is of course the partition violence. I don't know what Modi's or Rushdie's boyhood was like, but it seems relevant that ~1,000,000 people were killed in sectarian violence in 1947.
My very limited knowledge is that Congress actively suppressed sectarian identitarianism in the early days of India, then made some bad decisions in the 1980s, but I'd be curious what better informed readers think.
Several of the hindutva crowd do actually blame partition itself on the Congress. Partition was somewhat more complicated than just sectarian violence. It would make more sense for you to read the relevant wikis than for me to sketch out why.
Where I can add value is that the general narrative in Indian history books is (or was, back when Congress was still in power) that the British were responsible for all communal tensions to 'divide and rule', and the Muslim league was using this to grab power. The hindutva narrative would also like to blame the muslims, but it's far more useful to blame a political opponent for the policy mistake, and a community for the strife.
Congress tried to promote sectarian harmony in the early years - unity in diversity type of messaging, given that their early giants were committed to it, Gandhi in particular, but they were not above using sectarian identity for political gain, it's just that they were the only political game in town and didn't need to.
This article starts with Scott sharing his friend views Modi as fascist and then sorta just assumes this is true the rest of the article without justifying it at all...
I think Modi/BJP's popularity is not primarily caused by reactionary support due the media attacking him. My sense is that for almost all of India's history, the INC (and other Indians in academia, media etc) made it taboo for Hindu's to embrace high levels of ethnic nationalism when this is how a large percentage of Indian Hindu's actually wanted to feel. Eventually and especially with the change in media landscape, it became more acceptable for Hindu's to embrace ethnic nationalism and once this happened, the BJP was the obvious beneficiary of the change.
I really feel like the entire situation can be understood by looking at the Babri Masjid destruction/Ram temple situation. The reality is, for better or for worse, a large percentage of Indian Hindu's want India to be a Hindu prioritized country.
Yeah, this is my impression as well, although mine was formed almost solely from reading Shikha Dalmia columns in Reason kvetching about Modi and his brand of nationalism.
You could say religious nationalism though that also doesn’t fit, because for political purposes Sikhs, Jains etc function as Hindu adjacent. Maybe the common strand is a view of India as a civilization state (where the relevant civilization includes all of the Indian origin faiths but not Islam)
I believe they use the term "dharmic" to group those religions together (along with Buddhism, even though that's more associated with East Asia than South Asia nowadays).
Regarding college degrees at the monastery: This is a total anecdote from a random youtube person, but here he discusses how he tried to become a monk after high school and "give up" his material life. The monks told him he didn't have anything to give up yet, so he should come back when he was 30 and had a degree, because you have to have something material to give up for giving up your material life to be meaningful. https://youtu.be/mIHEtK3WktE?t=3043
On thing i didn't see mentioned that my Indian friend keeps telling me about: The difference between Modi and Trump (who by the way I think is definitionally a fascist) is that Modi has actually does have excellent PR. He isn't doing the 'all publicity is good publicity' in the same way Trump did. You will actually rarely ever see Modi in a conference or campaigning as much as Trump did. He has, I've heard, a group of people who basically handle his image for him. You often hear stories of Modi doing some ridiculous stunt in the news, but you wont hear those stories from him.
Modi has good PR in the sense that there are paid keyboard warriors who keep singing his praises on Twitter, and writing a mean comment on his Twitter profile might invite threats of murder and rape to your Twitter inbox.
Trump has worse PR only in the sense that he is constrained by free speech laws that most Indians are unaware of/don't care for.
I'm an Indian living in America. And I hate Trump as much as anybody else. But reading the mean comments people made below his Tweets still catch me by surprise. My first thought is always "I'm surprised he doesn't pay someone to take this guy out".
It's pretty disheartening that you automatically assume i don't have good reasons and that i'm just a silly liberal democrat who calls anything they don't like fascist. You didn't even ask me what my reasons were.
You're assuming I think you're a silly liberal democrat.
No, my assumption is that you don't know what fascist means.
I base that assumption on you going out of your way to uniquely ascribe the term to Trump. Now if you also apply it to Biden and most political leaders I'll rescind my assumption.
So what is your definition of "fascist", on what do you base this definition, and would this definition correctly identify the Fascist Manifesto as fascist and the Communist Manifesto as non-fascist?
I am skeptical of any account of Indian sterilisation that follows the standard academic account of portraying the population control movement as a bunch of scheming imperialist racists.
When American academics settled on the goal of "people across the world must reproduce less", any manifestation of that was going to look like (or arguably actually be) scheming imperialism - projecting their values abroad onto the lowest classes, castes, and races (who usually reproduce the fastest, and don't have the power to resist).
Were they "racist"? As I would use the term, probably not; they almost certainly thought they were doing this *for the benefit* of those people, ennobling them and setting them on a sustainable path and preserving their environs. But they also certainly held those people and the choices they made for themselves in low regard, and that would probably be enough for most people to apply the label.
Since the average low-caste Indian being forcibly sterilized experienced it as a crime and a tragedy, and well-intentioned Westerners decided not to care about that view, I would say they fit the bill of "scheming imperialists" extremely well. (Equally well as, e.g., Christians who saw any given colonial terror as a necessary evil in order to save souls. Were they racist? No, just monomaniacal.)
You are drawing straight lines that should not be drawn, and seemingly rejecting that any attempt by first world countries to influence the third world could be moral in any way.
"... educated elites cynically fanning racial discord so they could force minority groups to flee to them as "protectors". This is probably how Trump would describe the Democrats if he was smart enough to think of it." I didn't vote for Trump either time, although I have in the past voted R for president. Now that I've gotten that out of the way, I have to say that Trump absolutetly did this.
It's important for regional politics, but I'd suggest it isn't the most useful lens for thinking about national politics. For national politics, I'd offer the same intuition pump as in my comment to Scott above: think of it as American politics, with non-Dalit Hindus -> non-Hispanic Whites, Muslims -> Blacks and Dalits -> Hispanics. (Dalits being the lowest caste). Also, the BJP is the party of the red tribe, and the INC is the party of the blue tribe, and the sorting between tribes and parties is much more complete than in the US - we still have `blue tribe Republicans' but there are no longer any `blue tribe BJP' leaders. This will give you a good understanding of how Indian national politics worked 10-20 years ago...
This was pretty brilliant for someone who does not have much familiarity with India.
Even though it gets some big things exactly wrong, I am very impressed.
A minor point that reminded me of how unfamiliar the author is with India is when he says "...he gathered all his possessions in a bag and ran off to the Himalayas to find Truth.", as if it was a big deal.
This is a very Hindu thing to do. I have a relative and multiple friends who have done this. I read a book by a psychiatrist about 25 years ago (if I remember this correctly) called "Another way to live". By Rajiv Kapoor (spelling?). It saw this phenomenon as an Indian method of dealing with depression.
Also, riots in retain parts of India are extremely common. This one seems to have got out of hand very quickly, because he was a new chief minister (took office Oct 2001, riots in Feb-March 2002). It appears there have been no riots since. Certain groups involved in the riots don't seem to have been under his control at that time, as he was so new. This is my understanding after speaking with experts I trust, who studied this very carefully.
Overall, fantastic and insightful essay. Delightfully funny, such as the line on D&D.
Your characterization of this piece as misleading in parts is misleading for the readers. I am Indian, and I can vouch for the veracity of this piece.
Running off to the Himalayas, while certainly present in the popular conscience, is not very common at all, and your experience is certainly not the norm. I have not heard of anyone at all running off to the Himalayas, for instance (although I can't in good faith say that my n=1 evidence disproves your n=1 evidence).
There have also been many major riots since the 2002 massacre, including last year when Delhi Police helped Hindu goons kill ~50 Muslims in the capital New Delhi. Many more were injured and maimed, and multiple muslim colonies were burned down. Again, this was only last year.
Read his incoherent book "Swarajya". He is basically a communist. Quite talented at drawing media attention to himself. Wins in Delhi because of the vote from bureaucrats (who deeply despise Modi as he fired many of them) and Muslims (huge % of Delhi).
Sadly, people in India vote according to identity. I hear Muslim females are split with many voting Modi (his removal of "triple talaq" etc...the Congress made it very hard for Muslim women - read Scott's description of the Shah Bank case for an example why).
Identity politics basically is what Indian politics is about.
Scott: As an intuition pump for (national) Indian politics, I offer the following analogy. Think of it as American politics, with (non-Dalit) Hindus -> (non-Hispanic) Whites, Muslims -> Blacks and Dalits -> Hispanics. The numbers roughly work, and the political dynamics also work, at least for national politics (regional politics is a more complicated beast). Meanwhile, the BJP is the party of the red tribe, with a coalition that includes Hindu nationalists, social conservatives and small business people, and the INC is the party of the blue tribe, with a coalition of minorities, lower classes and urban/anglophone elites. Also the sorting between tribes and parties is much more complete than in America. The last `blue tribe BJP leader' is probably Vajpayee, who stepped off the stage in 2004.
Also, the comment that `all the recent trends in American politics also happened in Indian politics, but ten years earlier,' is one that I have repeatedly heard over the past decade, from people familiar with the politics of both countries. I think I first heard it at the time of the Obama/Romney election although I don't recall where. Sometimes people say `twenty years earlier.'
I should say this intuition pump will give you a feel for Indian politics ~10 years ago. Whether US politics over the next decade will follow the same trajectory as Indian politics over the past decade (DeSantis as Modi?) remains to be seen.
I don't think so, and I've heard this parallel from multiple Indian people. You are of course at liberty to disagree, but I think it is a useful frame for a zeroth order understanding.
The abstractions with which people in India who are not Westernized THINK, are entirely different.
It is good to be aware of it. I myself have this problem. I have to remind myself to put on a different hat. And I might still be quite wrong about many things India.
Sure, it's meant to be an analogy, not an exact parallel. As for the `people in India who are not Westernized' bit, well, that's the catch, right? Who counts as Westernized, bearing in mind that this is a continuum? And how is Scott supposed to grok the thinking of non-Westernized Indians, given that Anglophone Indians are all Westernized to a greater or lesser extent? (Erusian and I were having this same discussion elsewhere in this comment thread).
True. I thought this essay was very insightful, actually.
It is important to keep in mind, however, that you only know football and are trying to guess the rules of golf using that, and who is a good golf player and various nuances.
It is not that you should not try to understand golf.
Just because the analogy has held over the past few decades doesn’t mean it will hold over the next one. With that said:
Modi and the BJP win a national election by a landslide in 2014, while the INC crashes to its worst ever defeat, even falling below the threshold for constitutional recognition as the official opposition. Over the next few years the BJP wins a bunch of state houses as well. Modi is re-elected in another landslide in 2019.
Civil Society (English language press, judiciary etc) starts out vehemently opposed to modi. Over time he bends or intimidates all the above to his will.
On record in office my gestalt impression is his first term was much more focused on improving governance. The second seems to be much more culture war (Indian edition), although in the past year corona has dominated all.
Obviously this story is still being written and I don’t know how it ends (not that history ever ends)
It didn't happen all at once. But my gestalt impression is that Modi has been extremely skillful in placing loyalists into key positions, and those loyalists have been extremely skillful in using governmental power to intimidate journalists etc into line (e.g. journalists overly critical of the government tend to get busted for tax evasion, or for crimes that `everyone commits,' (totally unrelated to their journalism of course, nobody could imagine there was any connection but being a journalist doesn't give you license to break the law /s) and after a few went to jail the others got the message. In contrast the Trump regime was pretty incompetent at actually using the levers of power. Although I don't think Trump is a great parallel to Modi, in any respect other than original relationship to civil society.
The US has a better constitution. That's both in the sense of the written document and let in the body of values and customs that do all the real work.
But that gap is narrowing as the American elite discard their traditional enlightenment values. Heck, Indian Dharma might well turn out to be a stronger foundation for liberty. But that story is yet to be written.
The odd thing about "Muslims -> Blacks" is that Muslims were on top before the British took over. Razib Khan once compared the Syrian rebels against Assad to the KKK, in that they regarded the Alawites as a backward minority who should have never been in charge and only rose up via their alignment with colonial powers.
On the Indo-Gangetic plain, not nationwide. And `before the British took over' is quite a while ago. 1857 if you go by the start of the formal Raj, but 1757 if you date the start of British rule to Plassey (which puts it further into the past than the American declaration of Independence).
India today doesn't include Pakistan or Bangladesh (much less any of Afghanistan), so "nationwide" by its standard would be smaller than the Mughal empire. And to their south the Deccan sultanates were also ruled by Muslims. The Tipu Sultan of Mysore was also a Muslim, as were the Nizams of Hyderabad.
The Maratha conferedacy was not Muslim. Nor were the Rajput Princes. Nor was Ranjit Singh's kingdom in the Punjab. Even further back in the past all of those areas were under Mughal suzerainty, but for that you have to go back to the 1600s. Certainly at the time the British arrived the above were not under Mughal control. And IIRC modern Tamil Nadu was never under Muslim control, nor were the regions East of Bengal.
It is interesting though to ask about the counterfactual where the British (and more generally European) powers never arrive, and to ask who would have dominated the subcontinent in that alternative history. It seems safe to say it would *not* have been the Mughals. By the beginning of the 19th century the power of the Mughal emperor was mostly limited to Delhi and its immediate environs. Moreover, this decline had started nearly a century before Plassey, during the reign of Aurangzeb, and continued essentially monotonically, so it seems unlikely that things would have turned around at the 11th hour had the British not arrived. Who would have filled the power vacuum instead? The British seem to have thought the Marathas were their main competitors for hegemony on the subcontinent, but of course it doesn't follow that Maratha hegemony would actually have resulted, or that it would have been as complete. It seems unlikely that it would have been the Tipu of Mysore or the Nizam of Hyderabad, if only because it is difficult to project power into the Indo Gangetic plain from a base south of the Deccan.
If Dalits are like Hispanics, and sorting between tribes and parties is much more complete than in America, that means Dalits heavily favor the INC, right? But according to one of Erusian's comments, Modi enjoys support from people who always vote for the lowest-caste candidate.
I believe this (the BJP struggling with Dalits, who generally vote for either the INC or a third party that aligns with the INC) is historically true, and was true as recently as ~10 years ago, which is as close to the present as the analogy is supposed to apply. Modi has indeed scrambled this equation, but the rise of Modi to prominence on the national stage is more recent than 2011. (It is curious to note in this regard that American HIspanics also had something of a red shift in 2020, and it is plausible that if a future Republican is to win a landslide victory nationwide, this will require capturing the Hispanic vote, but now we might be pushing the analogy past the point where it is useful).
A very rough analogy: imagine if Trump were Black. That's not to say Modi's background is as disadvantaged but imagine a group that's relatively politically united as a pressure group and traditionally support the liberal party because they like welfare/affirmative action.
Would Black Trump shift all the Black votes? No, probably not even a majority. Would it create a constituency where there otherwise wasn't one? Yes, especially on a populist anti-establishment message that resonated with the idea the system is rigged.
Naturally there was the requisite scandal/conspiracy theory about how he was super duper secretly a high caste Indian that was breathlessly reported by the media and dropped after it turned out to be based on nothing.
I'd be curious to know how many subscriptions you lost after the NYT piece came out. If it was a significant number that was simply outweighed by all the new readers, your audience could have increased in size at the cost of becoming more homogenous, which I'm not sure is a net benefit.
The "buying votes with handouts to various ethnic groups" certainly sounds familiar. Jabbering about differing welfare statistics for various identity groups isn't unfamiliar to these Western ears, either. What a joyous multicultural future we have to look forward to.
"But if I ever want to become Prime Minister of India, I know what strategy I'm going to use."
next article, "If you're so smart, why aren't you Prime Minister of India?"
Maybe media exposure just increases the volatility of outcomes. You might become Prime Minister of India, but negative outcomes could happen too. It's like putting thousands of people in a room. Sometimes you get a particularly generous person to give you a ton of money, but you're much more likely to get a ton of angry people.
Be careful tracing the definition of Fascism this way. FDR made no secret of his admiration for (and willingness to copy) Mussolini too. Since FDR basically re-founded the Democratic Party . . .
I think that would be an annoyingly boring series, because discussion around it would inevitably devolve into "what do we mean by the word "fascism"?" rather than "what are the similarities and differences between Bolsonaro etc and previous rulers?".
Far better to taboo the word and work around it, I think.
Probably true. For example, Singapore's Lee Kuan Yew was more "authoritarian" and "fascist" than any of the current boogeymen. But no one would dare call him a "fascist" because that would be an admission that a little "fascism" can be good thing sometimes.
A combination of carrots and sticks, which modi wielded with considerable skill. High profile Critics just happened to get busted for tax evasion, or for breaking laws of the ‘every one does it’ variety, and the rest got the message…
I would call this an great review, in the same way that Americans say "Your English is great" to immigrants. (I don't mean this as snark, it is a genuine compliment)
A few qualifications
> If you look at size of the economy, Gujarat does slightly better; if you look at measures of equality or poor people’s ability to access services, Kerala does
Kerala is the only Indian state that never saw 1000 years of social and infrastructure erosion (no Islamic invasion, no British colonialism, mostly due to geographic location). Its entire economy is tourism (as a result of low erosion of HDI and literally being called "heaven on Earth") or working in the gulf. In terms of productivity being produced by the state, Kerala doesn't do that well.
> Modi's rise eerily parallels Erdogan's
I am so glad someone finally gets it to so degree. Erdogan is indeed the closest analogy to Modi. A few differences tho. Hinduism is ethnicity, history, native culture and religion. Because of this, the pro-Hindu movement is fundamentally different from religious movements in the west. The head of the RSS (Mohan Bhagwat) explicitly emphasizes nationalism, ethnicity and native culture as hinduism. They have been quite open to bringing other 'religions' into the fold as long as they accept the native culture aspect of things. This is a great summary by one of India's foremost traditional-journalist : Shekhar Gupta. (https://youtu.be/V_DXUd1MzCA?t=687). I would not be surprised if he was a reader here.
Indian politics 101 is incredibly complex. So, in 100% of cases, western people writing about Indian politics lacks all nuance. Hell, even Indian-Americans and many of the Indian academic elites do a terrible job. So for an American, this was Indeed a great review.
I am particularly impressed at how well you've grasped concepts around the deep rootedness of socialism in Indian politics and the self-destructive role of the Media in the rise of Modi later adopted by Trump.
On the definition of fascism, I'm curious, was Hitler a fascist? Did the Nazi party ever self-identify as a fascist party? Or did they say "Fascism is the name of what Mussolini has going on in Italy, but we are National Socialists, which is similar but not identical"
If anything it seems to me that we should use the term "Fascist" (which doesn't mean much) specifically for the Italian version and the descriptive term "national socialism" for the international movement as a whole.
One of my political science professors put it this way: The Fascists were all about creating the "best state" while the Nazis were all about creating the "best people".
It's possible that someone could end up creating a new fascist movement, but I suspect they're more likely to just create a new form of totalitarianism instead. A lot of what made fascism unique and would be exportable in other contexts is just plain weird to a modern audience. Privately owned and operated business monopolies with inputs, outputs, and pricing controlled by the government? Meh. Just have the state nationalize the company, or offer to pay cash for what you want.
Hard to tell if you wrote the above with tongue in cheek. Both major American parties meddle constantly with business monopolies and their inputs, outputs, and pricing. They don't "control" them, having realized that direct control breaks things. Just make suggestions: "Nice social media platform you have here; would be a shame if it got broken."
Maybe it makes sense to understand fascism as "communism with Italian characteristics"; as an attempt to create a movement as powerful as communism, while avoiding some obvious (at that time) mistakes of Soviet Union.
The good part of nationalization is that you get the control over the factory. The bad part is that you usually appoint as a new director someone who is... an expert in signaling loyalty to your party, but often sucks as a director, which results in an economical disaster.
What if you instead leave the original owner - who is obviously good at directing the company - at the wheel and only... put a gun to his head, make him swear allegiance to your party, and sometimes override his decisions for some greater goal? That should work better, at least for some time. (The long-term problem is, how would anyone start a new company in the fascist regime? Is that even legal?)
From what I've read, it took people a while to figure out that communism didn't work economically. As recently as the 1950s even hard-core anti-communists assumed it would work; they just thought it wasn't worth the loss of freedom.
> I have a friend who studied the history of fascism. She gets angry when people call Trump (or some other villain du jour) fascist. "Words have meanings! Fascism isn't just any right-winger you dislike!" Maybe she takes this a little too far; by a strict definition, she's not even sure Franco qualifies.
Well, Franco doesn't qualify either. Words have meanings, and there's a field called history. Historians don't consider Franco a fascist (while his side did merge with fascist fractions, he had not adopted a similar ideology, didn't follow one, and was basically a regular dictator. Not every dictator is a fascist - a term that describes a specific ideology and set of practices).
Trump doesn't qualify several times over. He hadn't enacted any fascist policy. At worst he was a populist. Calling him a "fascist" is dilluting the meaning of the term to the point of homeopathy (for the benefit of provincial US contemporary politics). If anything Reagan or Bush laws - e.g. the Patriot Act - were far more in the fascist vein (though even those weren't informed by any fascist ideology).
I think the most nearly fascist U.S. presidential policy was the First New Deal, seen as labor, capital, and the government cooperating. Fortunately it was abandoned early.
He banned transgender individuals from joining the army. When asked if he would implement a database system to track Muslims in the United States, Trump said: "I would certainly implement that. Absolutely."
Trump has attempted to transform the US government into a totalitarian state multiple times. Last year Trump held a rally where he "called for the election result to be overturned and urged his supporters to "take back our country" by marching to the Capitol to "show strength" and "fight like hell.""
He frequently goes on about going back to a mythical time when America was great. He has described himself as a nationalist.
All of these would sound off alarm bells for anyone who knows anything about fascism. I'm tired of this nonsense that the man isn't a fascist just because some stupid people overuse the word.
1) is not fascist at all. Having strict standards for who is recruited into the armed forces is a completely normal thing in all nations, although many of them disagree on exactly what the standards should be. The United States has for many decades had rules about various conditions that bar you from serving.
2) is kind of fascist, although he never actually did it or put any effort into doing it
3) is just false. He never once tried to transform the US government into a totalitarian state, and has done a lot less to make it totalitarian than all the presidents who exerted vastly more control over the country and its people such as Teddy Roosevelt, FDR, or George Bush with their creation of the FBI (a secret internal police force), reorganization of the entire nation to serve warfare, and the creation of the department of homeland security.
4) He held rallies exactly as every other democratic politician does and used totally normal political turns of phrase. "Fight like hell" is extremely common and not fascist at all.
5) going back to a better past is extremely NOT fascist, as fascism is fundamentally a futurist ideology.
I'm tired of people lying about Trump being a fascist.
enough of it is true, both good and bad. Congress does believe in giving special rights , that is its way to win by doing nothing, as India urbanises and moves away from elites, its hard for them, they want socialism, they want their coterie to rule the roost and avg Indian to beg them for permissions. They are trying to tear the country apart once again by promising reservations in private sectors. You can see this in their election manifesto 2019 and 2014, which would have catastrophic effect on us. Religious strife started much before british, India had partition on basis of religion for goodness sake. Indian muslims are far from secular,(pew survery, 74 % believe in sharia) many can sense their fundamentalism. And many suspect that once their population comes to a certain size, they might be back to what they did before, partition or make governance ungovernable . We had various terrorist attacks in India carried by Indian mujahadeen. busted by intelligence of gujarat police when they came to gujarat to carry out their attacks while modi was the cm. As Jinnah the founder of pakistan said in 1946 speech, " we will have India divided or India destroyed". Only Indian state that is muslim majority is kashmir, where people often use stones to attack army even as it tries to carry out operations to fight terrorists. Also responsible for ethnic cleansing of hindu minority from the state. And congress, left, elites pretend this bigotry is imagined and not true and went further down the path of trying to brainwash people by scrubbing midieval history of islamist zealotry, temples were raided and razed to ground for purely political and economic reasons we are taught. And if anyone speaks out, they are nazi. On issue of riots, many riots have happened in India before modi and yet it was under his tenure media went big on. Not bad thing in itself because we need accountability but people can see the duplicity. And it is this duplicity and promise of corruption free ,duplicity free, pro entrepreneur governance that people voted him in. You will struggle to find 10 articles by Indian muslims by 5 different authors over last 20 yrs that can be termed as secular within context of their own faith, even on issues outside of India. they seek to question others, but have succeeded to be mum about wrongs in and from their own community, anywhere , both inside India or outside. You should consider an Index of religions that allow for some self criticism, for ultimately this is the only measure for a better stable societies and see what happens if they you get the most regressive group to live beside some mid level group. So, people go to the other side that promises Hindu/dharmic position for many people buy the idea that secularism is a charade. Also, no one in India is liberal, it is claimed by elites and passed on to their western cohort to make noises on their behalf, no political party in India supports freedom of speech, which is important if one ever wants secular project to succeed. Nehru, India's first PM shot down free speech in First amendment, only person who stood for free speech was member of hindu mahasabha, shyama prasad mukherjee , also the leader of first version of bjp, bjs. he died under arrest for his protest in kashmir, under nehru govt. since then, no one else believes in free speech. : ( . India has 3 problems, 1) religion, 2 ) caste, 3) bad economics. There is no option of secular, meritocratic , capitalist option . so everyone picks their poison.
"As Jinnah the founder of pakistan said in 1946 speech, " we will have India divided or India destroyed""
That was before Pakistan existed. He got India divided — into India and Pakistan in 1947. Are you arguing that the fact he favored partition is evidence that Muslims are evil terrorists? Would you prefer that it not have happened?
The way you use that quote makes me less willing to take seriously the rest of what you write.
firstly, who cares for your judgement. Let me explain myself to rest of the people here. I am making a social dynamics argument. Islam is a closed tight social group. That distinguishes itself by rejecting secular forms of political expressions, it comes down to 4 ideas, sharia, blasphemy, jihad, straight up murder for criticism of Mohammad. So every time such tight group cultures grow in population , such antagonistic dynamics play out. Jinnah literally said, that he would have Indian muslims in hindu majority areas would allow themselves be smashed up so as to allow muslims in majority areas to gain freedom.His muslim league won the elections of Indian muslims (elites who voted) unanimously across India. He further came up with hostage theory, whereby the security of Indian muslims would be assured by holding non muslim minority in pakistan as hostages. You can put it simply in this way. 2 groups live side by side. Group A only allows partial use of secular political expressions. Group B does not make any use of secular political expressions. Group A allows criticism of religion to certain degree, group B kills and threatens to kill all those who do criticize their religion. What happens as population of B rises, would they be happy to live under a common secular framework, or would there be a phase transition to search for alternatives. That alone is enough to explain partition. That speech led to killings across many parts of India and forced Nehru and Gandhi and congress to accept partition. It was a product of mughal elites under british sense of loss of status and power and their atavistic fantasies. Hence pakistan names its missiles after medieval muslim invaders of India. ghazni,ghori,abdali. It is common sense to assume peace is product of common secular norms and values to become the corner stones between different religious groups. As I said earlier. Just map religious groups that do engage in some degree of criticism of faith vs those who dont. And left ,liberals in India have gone much further in this that they have manufactured history . Their failure in dealing with this has been the primary reason for rise of bjp. When people see double standards to the degree that left/liberal scholars find the need to cover up for medieval fanatics, it does not inspire trust. Would be same as democrats coming to defense of white slavers. Modi is just one cog in the wheel of time. There is a day beyond him, and this dynamic is actually what is playing out . It cant be solved by economics either, though it can offer some breathing space perhaps. Jinnah, modi etc are not the primary movers , the underlying dynamics is what allows them to find space to make something of situations they find themselves in. And at no point does it require me to believe all muslims as evil etc. you dont need many drops of poison in glass of water to die, you dont need majority of everyone either, what you need is the social norms be supported by majority even if the actors are a tiny minority. People have given congress many decades since 47 and once again, we face the same original dynamic that led to partition. Also, left/liberals in India dont make their arguments on basis of free speech or individual rights, they make their arguments in terms of group rights and the idea of peace between religions. To me this is lunatic. Group rights leads to people eventually taking tribal view in the end, peace between religions is nonsensical aim, aim should be to value civic rights and civic norms of individuals over all other competing ideologies.
One of the most important points about Modi that touched even me, was Modi truly rose from one of the lowest castes and true poverty, to PM.
It was a good moment to see that people across all castes obviously voted for him. He is not at all Anglicized, and speaks broken English with a thick Gujarati accent...unlike his opponents in the Congress party who prefer English and occasionally speak broken Hindi.
It made me feel that Indians are finally shaking off their inferiority complex about being Indian. That is something unique Modi offers. He seems comfortable in his own skin with no pretentions of even knowing English.
If you grew up in India, you might see many signs that this gladdens many hearts and equally, angers others.
I think it might be a class thing.
Yet, Modi is not crude or unrestrained like Trump, but a disciplined politician. Even his worst detractors agree he is not personally corrupt. He is not at all grubby like Trump seems to be.
Get over yourself. Has nothing to do with your nyt episode. The Congress is a party of elites. The BJP is a party of elites. There is no functional difference between the two. They are both parties of Hindu male chauvinists.
"When all these demagogues who succeeded against all odds tell you what strategy they used, maybe you should believe them."
Or maybe you should not believe them, exactly for this reason. Or at least take it with a huge grain of salt. Because if negative coverage actually was a problem for them, claiming that it was the source of their success is a very convinient thing to do. Also don't these people later make sure to take controll over press in order to ensure positive coverage of their actions?
The idea that negative coverage is still coverage seems to have some merit. But with caveats. There have to be some specific conditions like huge distrust to media and/or polarization in society so that one can use it to their benefit. It probably requires a lot of prebuilt social capital as well.
While marxbro somewhat overstate the claim that NYT didn't explicitly call Scott sexist, racist and bigoted, technically he is correct. The tone of the article was of a mild (dis)interest with some dogwhistles of Scotts views being problematic. Although it was totally unfair, purposely done in a bad faith and Scott's detaste of it is justified even without all the doxing stuff, it doesn't seem to be a complete condemnation or cancelling. I think considering it as a strong evidence in favour of "demagogues are right about negative coverage" isn't correct.
Yeah, it needs to be the right kind of negative coverage. The kind that tells "not our tribe" to the primary audience, and "he is one of you guys" to the outgroup.
Uniformly negative coverage... in a parallel reality where Jeffrey Epstein miraculously survived despite all the attention of suicide watch, he is probably *not* running for a president.
I didn't overstate my case, I stated it correctly. That's why nobody is able to find any evidence that the NYT called Scott "elitist", as Scott claimed. The evidence simply does not exist. Scott is either misreading the article or misremembering it.
This is a very basic error and I expect that Scott could fix it easily, if he was interested in fixing his mistakes.
For some context on what kind of laws the conservative Hindu party in India is now passing, I'd recommend reading or listening to the recent NPR story about laws against "love Jihad" which in effect involve using police power to prevent interfaith marriages. I found it pretty upsetting.
pew survey, 64% Hindus against inter religious marriage, 80% muslims against inter religious marriage, 60% against intercaste marriage. local politicians, groups and communities kill the spouses regularly, including muslim communities. https://www.opindia.com/2021/09/telangana-sharia-police-thrash-hindu-men-for-being-with-muslim-women/ the law was made to arrest people who pretend being other religion and marry and later try to convert their spouses. You dont trust your own news service when it comes to you, but will happily trust it when it comes to others. gellman amnesia effect.
Is it weird that I didn't see the NY Times or New Yorker articles as hit pieces? I did subscribe after they came out, but I was generally aware of SSC previously and occasionally read it. I just saw them as interesting articles about a guy who writes interesting articles.
The NYT piece used a plethora of hit piece techniques, implying falsehoods. A truly careful (or very skeptical) reader would not be deceived by this, but many people are not careful readers and will be deceived.
I am surprised by the lack of intelligent critique written in English from India's press about Modi. It mirrors the frothing coverage of a certain former American president. Maybe there is something better in Hindi?
Many of his campaigning techniques are innovative: social media, holograms and murdering Bear Grylls with his bare hands (he had it coming). Like a good politician, he seems obsessed by the appearance of things. How does he think? Who is he as a man? A power-hungry functionary? A genuine patriot?
"In unrelated news, there was a food shortage. Indians took to the streets protesting Prime Minister Indira Gandhi (no relation to Mahatma Gandhi). Gandhi was heavy-handed in crushing the protests, which caused more protests, one thing led to another, and finally Gandhi declared martial law, a period which has gone down in history as the Emergency."
This is factually wrong. Firstly, there was no martial law as that implies the army was called in. Gandhi "suspended" the constitution and used the police - arguably worse than calling in the army. Secondly, Gandhi's "reason" for declaring the emergency was a state court order requiring her to resign on account of election law violations. She could have appealed the order to the supreme court but resignation was a requisite which of course she did not want to do
"In unrelated news, there was a food shortage. Indians took to the streets protesting Prime Minister Indira Gandhi (no relation to Mahatma Gandhi). Gandhi was heavy-handed in crushing the protests, which caused more protests, one thing led to another, and finally Gandhi declared martial law, a period which has gone down in history as the Emergency."
This is factually wrong. Firstly, there was no martial law as that implies the army was called in. Gandhi "suspended" the constitution and used the police - arguably worse than calling in the army. Secondly, Gandhi's "reason" for declaring the emergency was a state court order requiring her to resign on account of election law violations. She could have appealed the order to the supreme court but resignation was a requisite which of course she did not want to do
For my first comment on AstralCodexTen, let me share some links.
Scott's review plus the comments by Deepa, Humphrey Appleby, and Erusian made me curious about English-language online media in India.
MediaBiasFactCheck.com claims The Hindu and Scroll.in are both 'mostly factual' (4/6) in terms of factual reporting. They have differing degrees of 'left-center' bias (beyond which there is 'left' and then 'extreme'). Times of India is described as 'mixed' (3/6) in terms of factual reporting, and has 'right-center' bias. Those are the three Indian news websites I've visited in the past which I could find rated on MediaBiasFactCheck. The other Indian news websites I've visited are ThePrint.in, TheWire.in, and Caravan Magazine. I believe all three are anti-Modi (i.e., MediaBiasFactCheck would call them 'center-left' or 'left'). Indian readers, does any of this sound inaccurate?
Some discussion I found about media bias and integrity in India:
By the way, Scott, what do you think of looking into the AllSides and AdFontes charts linked above, and writing an essay on how effective they are in capturing US media bias? I bet I'm not the only one who would appreciate your analysis of them.
Hindu and Scroll are left , except Scroll is left on social issues and some times it is centrist some times. Hindu owner was N ram, member of communist party of India. There is no such thing as bias free media, quicker you get this , the better it is. Better to see things in terms of principled positions . Free speech, Individual rights, welfarism, religion, pro capitalism, etc. What you measure is what you get. If you go down facts path, then smarter people make arguments by being selective with facts they report on. So pick facts that are true for their side and diss by again by presenting news on other side where the facts really are false. If it was simple, it would be easy, life is not easy.so you can say, x believes in ufo's, and go about dissing that, "look how stupid the other people are" and smearing as though everybody on other side endorse same stupidity, but when it comes to their own group, they select smarter view and say " our boy said something correct and others are wrong on it". Hindu has been consistently Left and hence consistently wrong on economics for all their entire existence, many bureaucrats read up on that, see how much damage they did to the country. Would you get that by factcheck or thinking in a principled manner?. Think of noam chomsky, he is smart enough to only quote on facts that are true but is selective to paint his aversion to capitalism, but is that the way you measure what is true?. Think in terms of dimensions(axis), not in terms of facts. principles are dimensions, and how media goes about its news gathering and what kinds of data gets picked up and what kinds of data never get picked up will tell you a lot. So, if there is a x community that riots, they never use the names, just say, different communities had a fight, but when some 5 people belonging to other side had a fight on issues that had nothing to do with identity, they give names, backgrounds and paint it as though it is as though it has to do with identity. example, the bizarre term of "vehicular terrorism". One example you can use is, see the same cases being reported by all sides on principled positions and see how it gets reported. Whether there is a steelmanning or not.
If I were building a general theory of modern right-wing populist leaders, I'd start with signaling.
Modern right-wing populism (MRWP) is premised on the idea that voters see elite institutions (media, academia, technocracy, etc) as untrustworthy and/or hostile to their interests. You don't have to believe this is actually the case to observe that both MRWP leaders and MRWP voters very consistently *act as if it is*. So it's in the interest of MRWP politicians, up to a point, to *get those institutions to attack them* as a costly signal of their commitment to the anti-elite cause.
But this gets weird fast, because elite institutions are mostly in the business of signaling themselves. They exert political influence mostly by saying to voters "this candidate is good" or "this candidate is bad", based on their interpretation of the signals the candidate is sending. Some of the things elite institutions want politicians to signal are good, like "I am definitely not a racist" or "I will respond to crises in a predictable and reasoned way". Other things they want politicians to signal are... less straightforwardly good, and more about what elites want as a class.
The thing is, if you as a MRWP want to signal that you're against the elites, you can't just be against them on the complicated questions. Those make bad signals; that's why they're complicated. The true costly signal of loyalty to an anti-elite agenda is *refusing to signal to the elites that you are good*. It kind of reminds me of the point from the "Mazes" sequence (https://thezvi.wordpress.com/2020/05/23/mazes-sequence-summary/) that managers in super-perfect competition eventually have to signal loyalty by actively destroying their values, i.e. being evil.
When a MRWP politician refuses to signal conclusively to elites that, say, he's not a racist, the following explanations are possible:
a) he's a racist
b) he's not a racist but he's appealing to voters who want him to be a racist
c) he's not a racist, and his voters (mostly) don't want him to be a racist, but they do want him to be definitely not on the side of the elites and he's sending a costly signal of that
My claim is that c) is actually the most parsimonious explanation here, and the one we should default to in the absence of other evidence. a) has nothing to do with how MRWP leaders actually get power; since MRWP politicians have an incentive to send quasi-racist signals anyway, it would be an odd coincidence if they also all happened to be racists in their heart of hearts. b) does sort of explain how the signal is part of a strategy to get power, but not very convincingly; the extreme-right factions that want the politician to be an actual racist are also the smallest and the least likely to have somewhere else to go. c) is the only one that explains the signaling behavior without requiring us to hypothesize any additional facts beyond "this is a MRWP politician who wants to gain power".
The first two explanations-- a) in particular-- seem like classic examples of "murderism" as Scott has presented it: people taking a pattern of behavior they (correctly!) dislike and misinterpreting it as an inherent, self-contained tendency rather than the outcome of a system of incentives. So I suggest we should distrust them as models of MRWP leaders' behavior. This is not much of a consolation insofar as the signaling game will probably also lead to MRWP leaders doing bad things once in office. But it does suggest that there are better strategies available for responding to MRWP than "these are bad people who want bad things for the sake of badness, therefore they must be destroyed". Signals are not the territory.
Signals are eusocial when they represent 'uncorrelated asymmetries' or 'oikeiosis'- i.e. 'natural' belonging or appropriation. The classic example is the 'bourgeois strategy' in hawk-dove. A guy who sends strong signals that he will do what it is in his natural interest do gets us to an Aumann type correlated equilibrium. The problem is 'cheap talk' of a virtue signaling type. The thing is not credible. This means there must be some sort of swindle or fraud going on. I recall reading Michael Crichton's Disclosure which came out in 1994. A male executive is sexually harassed by the female the Boss wants to promote. Is this really about sexual equality or is it part of a sinister scheme to swindle hard working folk? That's how ordinary people felt when elites started gassing on about universal human rights and a rules based global order. They felt in their bones that they would be the first to be shafted. It is better to have rights linked to incentive compatible remedies under a bond of law then speak airily of indefeasible entitlements for everybody.
I suppose, the breakdown of 'Director's law' (which says that the middle classes benefit from Govt. spending) in the Seventies caused this revolt against the elites. But a Hohfeldian analysis- or indeed a Game theoretic one- would confirm that it is perfectly rational. Agent Principal hazard genuinely arises. Instead of Rawlsian 'strains of commitment' to Liberal values the median voter wanted the opposite- leaders with essentially tribal values making deals of an economically beneficial kind.
Very well written! But talk of Fascism is silly- save in West Bengal where Mamta has beaten the shit out of the Commies who ruled it for 30 years. Now she and Modi monopolize the seats in the Legislature with the Left and Rahul Gandhi's Congress left completely out in the cold.
Fascism was only desirable when thugs were needed to beat up Communists in the streets. Gujarat was and remains Gandhian because the Communists never had a presence there. Sadly, from 1969 to 2002 there were recurring Hindu-Muslim riots which were politically instrumentalized. However, there is no need for any fairy story about Congress 'appeasing' minorities. The truth is that Rahul Gandhi refused to take over as PM while his supporters refused to let Manmohan pursue reforms. This meant that Modi was the only candidate for the top job in 2014. It was literally a case of Modi or nobody. Sadly, this remains true to this day. Congress won't put up a viable candidate for the PM. The various regional Chief Ministers won't get together to nominate a 'Federalist' candidate who could implement 'subsidiarity' and solve pressing grass-roots problems. So India is stuck with Modi as it was stuck with Nehru or Indira.
It must be said that Pakistan is like Turkey, but India isn't because the Army will never step in to unseat a civilian administration. Mussolini, of course, was greatly admired by Mahatma Gandhi and Tagore- but not Nehru. Modi's RSS was an imitation of the Congress Seva Dal whose founders knew about the Black Shirts. But it was the Socialit Netaji S.C Bose who ended up in Berlin getting Hitler's to send him by U boat to the Japanese.
Indira didn't care a damn about the Western Press. Her 'Emergency' was very successful whereas Ted Heath's Emergency in the UK was a shambles. The head of the British Civil Service took off all his clothes and rolled around on the carpet of Number 10 screaming about a Communist conspiracy. By contrast, Indira locked up all her foes and the pro-Moscow Commies sang her praises. The RSS was whimpering and pleading with Indira to let them out of jail. They praised her as 'Goddess Durga'.
Why did Indira hold elections? The answer is she was afraid of her son's cronies. They might arrange a convenient 'accident' for her- with the help of the CIA. That's right! Indira thought the Americans would use her right wing younger son to get control of India. Incidentally, her elder daughter in law, Sonia, had better credentials with the Indian Left. They pushed for her to take over Congress which she did with great success. Appointing Manmohan as PM was a masterstroke. Sonia promoted Left-Liberal intellectuals who sadly scuppered the big reforms Manmohan proposed in 2012. This turned him into a lame duck. Still if Rahul had become PM he'd have won in 2014. But his daddy and granny had both been killed. He was understandably gun-shy. The question was whether Modi- the first poor 'backward caste' P.M- could do as good a job as Cambridge & Harvard educated aristocrat. The answer, strangely enough, was that he did a better job. Anglophone Indians suddenly realized that they had been wrong to treat their own people with disdain. The fact is even I- a Tamil- can understand Modi when he speaks Hindi. I can't, for the life of me, understand Rahul's English. Indeed, I now find that everything written in English about India by learned Professors is just silly or meaningless. We had a national language and should have used it to talk sensibly to each other.
The RSS has become a well respected civic organization like the YMCA or the Boy Scouts. It doesn't want to appear to be part of a power nexus because that will damage its ethos. Modi too wants to retire in a few years time and enter the Indian pantheon alongside the Mahatma and Ambedkar. Had Nehru retired when he turned 70, History would remember him kindly. Hopefully, Modi will escape from high office with the same dexterity that he entered it. But this has nothing to do with Fascism. As I have repeatedly proved, it is the Spanish Inquisition which is secretly at work. Underneath Trump's combover you will find Torquemada. Erdogan is secretly a member of Opus Dei. Wake up sheeple! There's an auto da fe headed your way!
Scott, I know you love to write, sometimes without looking deeply into topics, but I believe you should have done some more research instead of publishing this. The most disturbing part is at the end you essentially declare yourself as some type of hero because you got more hits using a strategy just like Modi, but this ISN'T why Modi was elected. You should do proper research before writing something so disturbing.
> Four months after Modi became chief minister of Gujarat, there was a terrible riot. Muslims set a train car full of Hindu pilgrims on fire, and mobs of vengeful Hindus went around murdering Muslims for days, with further outbreaks continuing for weeks. By the time everything was done, 790 Muslims and 254 Hindus had died.
This train burning is contested. So are the death figures. And it doesn't mention why the "Hindus" died. It doesn't mention the amount of people displaced. It doesn't mention the continuing tensions which continued for years and still continue to this day. In other words, you are repeating a biased take as if it were fact. You shouldn't repeat a biased take with disclaimers, you should instead say "I don't know enough to comment on this topic".
> The Indian Supreme Court found him innocent of the specific charges they were reviewing, but the decision was controversial.
An outsider may consider this good evidence, it's not. The court is known to be extremely corrupt.
> In other words, he says the media's attacks on him after the riots were so vicious and baseless that they made ordinary Gujaratis, who didn't like or trust the media, think he was on their side. The part about yatras refers to giant parades that Modi held during his campaign. The media played these up as scary fascist rallies, but as per Modi everyone had a good time and celebrated their shared Gujarati pride. When the papers kept saying that having Gujarati pride was equivalent to being a violent terrorist, all the proud Gujaratis who liked the parades realized the media wasn't on their side, and voted for him out of spite.
This story is, to put it simply, insane. You have no idea what the actual climate is/was like. The election was, absolutely, driven by the shared hatred towards muslims.
> For me the most interesting Modi/Trump parallel was the former's insistence that Gujaratis loved him because they hated the media who hated him. On the one hand, this is a convenient self-serving thing for him to say, because the leading alternative explanation is that they loved him because he was a violent racist and they were pro-violent-racism. On the other, it's hard not to remember the 2016 primary, when this was one of the leading explanations for how Trump suddenly rose to the front of the pack: the media hated him so much that they couldn't stop giving him free airtime.
This comparison makes no sense to me. Trump isn't actually a hardline racist. Just because situations can seem analogous on the surface with your incredibly limited understanding, it doesn't mean they actually are.
> But if I ever want to become Prime Minister of India, I know what strategy I'm going to use.
The Gujarati media was not anti-Modi. Some English language outlets as well as left wing vernacular publications did demonize Modi a few months after the riots when it became clear that he could win- if Vajpayee didn't sack him first.
I think Gujarati Muslims saw Modi as being close to Parvin Togadia and that is the reason they felt the whole thing was orchestrated. However, once Togadia turned against Modi, many Muslims remembered that Modi himself is 'Ghanchi' (OBC) and that caste can trump creed for practical purposes. Furthermore, though communal tension in Gujarat- since 1969- was worse than in neighboring states, Gujaratis were sensible and wanted good governance and economic development. Modi focused on that while managing to keep the farmers on side. It was a difficult balancing act and sometimes- e.g. when he tried to get Muslim corporators elected- he fell flat on his face.
If 'hating Muslims' could get one a Chief Ministership or Prime Ministership, everybody would be doing it. The truth is Muslims are considered sober and hardworking. People want to get rich by trading in what they produce. Similarly, the extreme racists in the US didn't want to repatriate the African Americans because they make a disproportionate economic contribution. Indian diasporas were not viewed with great favor in Western countries till they gained a reputation for hard work and enterprise. Currently some Muslims in India- Ismailis, Bohras, South Indian Muslims- are 'more equal' while poorer Muslims face discrimination and caste-based violence. This will change as industrialization occurs because elites will value the productivity of hardworking and sober people. Look at Bangladesh. It has overtaken Pakistan and parts of Indian in per capita income. Prejudice melts away as productivity rises.
In India, as in America, prejudice is stronger among less educated and poorer people. The elites looked down on Modi because of his background. God alone knows the truth of what is in his heart. The only question facing the voter is- who is the Opposition's candidate for the top job? If we had confidence that there is a worthy rival, then we can make an informed choice. Sadly, no such rival has come forward. But, sooner or later, it will happen.
I'd like to point something out: Kerala government was basically playing life on easy mode, because they got (in fact continue to get) a large amount of money from remittances from people that immigrate to the Gulf, to spend on their welfare and socialist schemes.
1) B S Moonje's party was not precursor to Modi's party or its parent organization.
Moonje's Hindu Mahasabha is a different organization to RSS (BJP is political arm of RSS). Though both believed in ideology of Hindutva (which again is a very maligned word because people don't understand what it means)
And biggest leader of HMS, Veer Savarkar is a revered figure for all Hindutva followers. (To know more about him, do read Vikram Sampath's best selling 2 volume books)
2) Modi does not have any private helicopter. In fact he doesn't even have a private car.
Vehicles he uses are given to him by State in his capacity as Head of Government
Some people are bringing Franco into conversation. Others someone else.
None of those labels fits on any politician in India. There's no fascist in Indian politics. In fact closest we came to fascism was that Emergency episode of 1975. But even Indira was not fascist.
If u are looking for "free speech loving, liberal, democratic leader" type politician, there has only been one: Atal Bihari Vajpayee. He was the tallest leader of Modi's party.
Other than him, all have cracked down on dissent during their tenure. Some softly. Some ruthlessly.
As for "anti-muslim" narrative, people need to realize dt Hindu-muslim relations in India will never be good. History of Islam in India is history of genocides, mass murders, forceful conversions, destruction of Temples and then partition of Homeland of Hindus.
Let me put it this way: take Hitler, Nazis and death count during Holocaust.
Now multiply Hitler with 50 (dts approx no of barbaric Islamic rulers).
Multiply Nazis with 100 (dts approx no of entire elites of those Islamic regimes).
Multiply death count with 1000 (dts no of Hindus/Sikhs/Buddhists/Jains brutally killed for being non-muslims).
Entire civilizations wounded. Over 40000 Temples destroyed and mosques built upon.
U think these traumas can go away? Not a chance.
I'm not advocating for any violence against anyone but certain things can never heal unless other side acknowledge wrong was done.
I like the idea that fascism is a mood, not an ideology. Of course it's not an ideology, they're anti-intellectual. Anti-intellectual for real, not just as a theory.
And I like the trait cluster approach more than definitions for cultural things, though how we chose our trait clusters is a worthy topic that I haven't seen explored.
A fictional Nazi in "The Man in the High Castle" explains it like this:
> Listen, I'm not an intellectual. Fascism has no need of that. What is wanted is the deed. Theory derives from action. What our corporate state demands from us is comprehension of the social forces of history. (...) Explains the underlying actuality of every event. Real issue in war was: old versus new. Money - that's why Nazis dragged Jewish question mistakenly into it - versus communal mass spirit, what Nazis call Gemeinschaft - folkness. Like Soviet. Commune. Right? (...) Too much philosophy in Germanic temperament; too much theater, too. All those rallies. You never find true Fascist talking, only doing - like me.
Emotionally, fascism is a rejection of *complexity*. Instinctively, you feel that life is not supposed to be complex or frustrating. You support your (clearly defined) tribe unconditionally, the tribe supports you; anything other than that is aberration or enemy action.
In far mode, you worship Nature. But in near mode, everyone likes convenient food, hot water, a car, or the proverbial trains running on time. So instead of rejecting civilization as a whole, you reject the idea that civilization needs to be complicated. You reject competition, because it is frustrating, and because you assume that the world is ultimately simple; therefore the right decision can always be made by an expert, you just need to make sure that the expert's values are aligned with the tribe. (An expert saying that something is complicated is probably just insufficiently aligned and tries to get more power at everyone else's expense. Put a gun to his head, and ask again.)
There are things that need to be produced, so people need jobs; but most jobs can be reduced to following orders, which is simple. Market competition is bad, the industry should be organized top-down by guilds, who in turn serve the state. Science is just another kind of a job, perhaps more mysterious but ultimately not too complex from the expert perspective, and should be organized the same way.
At the top, there should be a leader who decides global strategy, because multiple people disagreeing with each other is complex and inefficient. The required traits of the leader are value alignment and strategic thinking. The strategic thinking is kinda implied by the fact that he succeeded to become the leader, so if you believe that his values are aligned with the tribe, all problems are solved and the glorious future awaits.
But how does fascism ensure that an aligned leader ends up in power? "Strategic thinking" can serve a smart selfish backstabber just as well, who may be aligned to his close circle at best.
Speaking as myself: of course.
Speaking as a fascist: You fool! When the leader is genuine, you instinctively feel it in your heart and so does everyone else... except for those damned intellectuals who always try to sow doubt and discord...
Good quote.
I wouldn't think of racism as a defining characteristic of fascism, just as one form that nationalism can take. Mussolini's Italy, as I recall, treated Jews who had fought in the Italian army in WWI as not Jews — because they were Italians.
The problem is that he chose a bad book to review. The book doesn’t give him any alternative other than just parroting it’s glowing worship, or criticizing it without any good alternative.
I don't sense any fear - I just sense that he's trying to be objective, and with a book like this, the only way to be objective is to give a lot of criticism of Modi without any supporting evidence. I'm not saying this is a bad book, that he should criticize - I'm saying that the book is not a useful one to review, because it provides such a one-sided picture of things, so his review ends up feeling one-sided the opposite way.
What's wrong with the latter choice? A simple pan serves a highly constructive purpose, id est warning other people off from wasting their time and money. I don't see why it's necessary to have a better suggestion to tack on at the end. I mean, it's nice, but the absence of that coda doesn't vitiate the core purpose.
If I were advising Scott, I would have said not to even bother publishing a review of this book. Or maybe to just give the first paragraph or two up to the point where he says this book turns out to be a hagiography like the others. Then he could have just stopped, and asked for recommendations of more useful books to review, rather than going ahead with this one.
I don't necessarily disagree with you, and *I* would probably have made that decision (and I assume you're saying you would've). But I can think of a few reasons why Scott might not and did not:
(1) He wanted to yell at the publisher and author: "Stop writing books like this! They're fucking useless! And you, publisher, find something to write a better book on Modi, the guy is running 1/6 of the planet, you know, so it's pretty important."
(2) He wanted to see what the commentariat would have to add. Maybe saying the name "Modi" several times in row, even if interspersed with only peevish ruminating, would conjure some demon, in the comments, who would have fascinating and powerful data to share about Modi (or even Modi-era India).
I second this. In particular, the comparison between Franco and Modi would be interesting.
Franco had to fight his way to power- or let the Germans and Italians do the fighting for him while he concentrated on getting his soldiers to rape working class women who were assumed to be 'Republican'.
Modi has been lucky and dexterous. Because he represents the numerically very significant 'Backward Castes', he will enter the Indian pantheon alongside Mahatma Gandhi and Rabindranath Tagore and Dr. Ambedkar.
I'd like to see it, too.
I think Hannah Arendt's definition of the difference between standard dictatorship and totalitarianism is relevant here. Standard dictators aim at killing or jailing political opponents. They want you to stay out of political life, to not think about politic, to obey what the government tells you without questioning. Propaganda is used to convince people that every thing is fine and the government does a beautiful job.
By contrast, a totalitarian state wants everybody to engage in politics, and they make sure this happens through propaganda, youth organisation and so on. Propaganda is used to convince people that the government is facing a dire crisis under the threat of powerful enemies both inside and outside, and to urge citizens to mobilize against those threats.
In this light, fascism is a proto-totalitarianism of the right-wing variety. When it falls back to traditional dictatorship, you get Franco. When it keeps going you get Mussolini and then Hitler.
That definition of totalitarian is fine as far as it goes, but it applies equally well to the fascist, liberal, and socialist varieties thereof.
Which is not a problem, as the question was not about the difference between left-wing and right-wing totalitarianism but about the difference between right-wing totalitarianism and right-wing traditional dictatorships.
(Let me amend what I said in my first comment by adding that for Arendt, Mussolini's fascism was not a real totalitarianism.)
You suspect that Scott's friend thinks Modi is a fascist and perhaps Franco wasn't because Modi is more totalitarian?
Yeah I suspect something like that.
I know very little about Modi, but even the hit pieces I've read don't make him sound *totalitarian*, as opposed to authoritarian. In particular, under Arendt's definition, you'd expect compulsory participation in elections and political parties, or at least heavy pressure for participation, for example, involving not only carrots but also sticks.
According to Wikipedia, only one Indian state has compulsory voting (doesn't specify which one):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compulsory_voting#Modern_era
It also seems unlikely that there is heavy pressure to participate in political parties.
How else might totalitarianism in Arendt's sense be manifested, if not from more or less compulsory participation in politics? If you include compulsory education, then most states would qualify as totalitarian.
Is liberal totalitarianism possible? I'm struggling to think of how it would present, given that pluralism is inherent in liberalism. The closest manifestations I can think of are things like the French ban on religious symbols in public life (ostensibly to stave off even a whiff of partiality) and various forms of free speech extremism.
I can't think of historical examples, but if you're happy with hypotheticals I think a sufficiently quota-obsessed state might qualify. I.e. the name of diversity the only thing that matters is your demographic, be it racial, sexual, or religious (or the intersection of all three), and people are obsessed with any group of individuals containing as much "diversity" as possible
French Laicite would seem to me to be about keeping religion out of secular life more than about demonising it - private religion is perfectly permissible - but maybe that's my atheist bias
Bake the cake, bigot.
Under Arendt's definition of totalitarianism, compulsory voting would be totalitarian, and that is common enough in both liberal and communist regimes. I haven't found information about fascist regimes, but wouldn't be surprised if it was common in those as well:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compulsory_voting#Modern_era
I would include compulsory education as a sufficient condition for totalitarianism. You could argue that insofar as compulsory education is about ensuring basic literacy and numeracy, and illiterate and innumerate people impose externalities on society, compulsory education is not about enforcing participation in politics. But I think it's clear that most compulsory education is not about literacy and numeracy. I also think it's clear, though a lot of people deny it, that in most places and at most times, compulsory education is mostly about ideology. Naturally, the ideology changes from regime to regime.
I suppose I was thinking more of classical liberalism than the vague American pejorative referring to social progressivism. So a political philosophy whose core values are individual freedom and vigilance against the tyranny of the majority.
Moving on, I have no choice but to join those many people who deny that the main objective of all compulsory education is political indoctrination (though it always manages to catch a ride). I also don't think compulsory education is sufficient by itself to earn a regime the label of 'totalitarian'. By that definition virtually all countries in the world are totalitarian, which I'm sure you'll agree is a bit silly.
Now, compulsory voting is interesting, and comes much closer in theory. But even according to the link you provided, it's fairly rare and the countries that embrace it (Australia, Costa Rica, Luxembourg) don't seem very totalitarian in other ways.
Add me to the undersigned on this request.
Stanley G. Payne made a similar point about Franco - that he had to compromise and blend original Falangist fascism with existing right-wing Catholic conservatism (embodied in the Carlists) in order to gain and maintain power.
I think both Franco and Trump can be defined as ideological (in Trump's case, more like instinctive, although I think people around him, like Bannon and Miller, were more explicitly ideological) fascists who failed to create fascist governments.
a paragraph in, already love it. You at your best. Your first sci hub link is broken - I think this is an alternate? https://ur.booksc.eu/dl/49215412/6b6cd0?openInBrowser or https://moscow.sci-hub.st/4804/2e0ba571e47b3f3d311829e07139660e/10.2307@4408848.pdf
This seemed to fix itself somehow? I think sci hub load balances requests to different servers and zero. was broken for me but then it decided to do moscow. which worked
This is hardly ever discussed openly even in India but a lot of anger and pro-Modi flocking is driven by very high Muslim birthrates especially in very low SES and high religiosity Muslim households and Christian missionaries successfully converting a lot of lower castes and tribes (called SC/STs) into Christianity.
Muslims were ~ 9% of Indian population post partition. They are now ~ 16%. Hindus in Pakistan and Bangladesh combined, were ~ 23% post partition. They are now ~ 1.5 % in Pakistan and ~ 6% in Bangladesh with rapes and genocide happening each day.
Yet, Hindus are fascist. The privileges of being a white skinned guy with a burden of trying to reform us savage Hindoos.
Source on genocides happening each day???
Damn , how do I learn more about these daily genocides
On another note , how do you like your beef
Well, in the post Scott describes a riot that killed 790 people as "genocide", so the bar has been set pretty low.
Putting aside the unreliably of that statistic, what exactly is the bar for genocide?
Hmm. Sounds like one way of ameliorating those demographic changes, if they're so undesirable, would be for India to dump 70% Muslim Jammu and Kashmir on Pakistan while encouraging the Hindus who live there to move into India proper. And yet Modi seems to be going in the opposite direction. Guess he's anti-Hindu.
Pakistan's Hindu population has not decreased since 1947, it actually slightly increased. The reason people think it decreased is because they couple up the demographics of Pakistan and Bangladesh before they separated.
The overall population of Pakistan has tripled since 1947.
Most Muslim countries are not nice to minorities. The Jewish population most Arab countries dropped by 99-100% since 1948:
https://mfa.gov.il/MFA/ForeignPolicy/Issues/Pages/Jewish-refugees-expelled-from-Arab-lands-and-from-Iran-29-November-2016.aspx
I think most Muslims in India would be happier in Pakistan, and most Hindus in Pakistan would be happier in India, but the transaction costs of moving (getting jobs, getting visas, etc) are inhibiting that self-segregation process. Both governments should work to reduce those transaction costs.
You realise plenty of Indian Muslims loathe Pakistan? Especially after the civil war that created an independent Bangladesh. It's not as if Pakistan is a liberal paradise after all.
If they want a relatively liberal muslim country there are options: UAE, Kuwait, Turkey. No muslim-majority country is exactly a liberal paradise either.
Instead of emigrating away from India's anti-muslim bias they also have the option of renouncing a stupid religion that was constructed self-servingly by a bronze age warlord.
Some amount of social disapproval of islam qua islam is appropriate and serves as an incentive for people to abandon that toxic bronze age superstition.
I know you mean Bronze Age metaphorically, but most of the world was well past bronze at that point.
It was a relatively backward part of the world (why wouldn't God reveal himself to the Chinese instead of some illiterate desert nomad?) but technically they probably had iron swords with which to slaughter the infidels during their megalomaniacal quest for world domination.
Pretty certain that Mohammed was post-Bronze Age, the seventh century being definitely an iron-using period. And in itself Islam can be extremely liberal or extremely oppressive, just like any other religion. It's just a lot easier to spot, other or identify as victims the visibly more devout and likely more oppressive religion. I don't get the feeling you've actually met many Muslims (or many of the non-hegemonising types) though, and would advise you find out more rather than make yourself look foolish.
I've met plenty of smart, nice people who were born into a muslim family, but none of them take the religion seriously because it's bonkers.
So the people the Hindu faith shits upon decide to opt out of being shit upon, and this is some national crisis justifying massive riots?
Wow. What hatred for Hindus. There was a planned genocide of 59 Hindu devotees who were burnt to death by ~ 2000 strong Muslim mob. The riots should'nt happened, but were triggered due to this event.
Commenting without the context is so "Liberal" and "Progressive".
Christianity has existed in India for millenia. Low caste people picking Buddhism or Christianity to escape the system that condemns them to menial careers is not a new phenomenon. It certainly isn't genocide.
That is what missionaries who come to India say. Christian evangelicals committed horrible genocides in India. Read about what they did in Goa for example.
And, there are "Dalit Christians" in India, who feel discriminated against by other castes of Christians.
Details!!
You might want to learn about the Goa Inquisition.
Right now Modi is passing laws banning interfaith marriage.
People in India talk about this all the time. Some of my relatives are convinced that Muslims already outnumber Hindus in India and official statistics are just lying to cover it up. This is exactly how a lot of people in Europe feel about their countries too.
I don't know about Muslims in particular, but Sweden's three most populous municipalities are all <55% Swedish among males aged 15–44*. For the whole country, that number is 63%, down by 10% in the last decade. So population replacement is quite advanced in parts of Europe. But unlike in India, this is still mainly driven by immigration, so it's more of an active choice on the part of Europe's rulers.
* https://affes.wordpress.com/2021/08/17/man-15-44-ar-i-kommunerna-2002-2020/
Balakrishan Moonje was NOT a founder of RSS. You got this wrong. He was a leader of Hindu Mahasabha and RSS and Hindu Mahasabha disagreed a lot on many issues. From an Indian perspective, the Germans and Japanese were fighting British so it made complete sense to talk to those. It is easy to sit in judgement in 2021, but to look at what options did Indians have in 1930s?
Also, people seem to ignore the man made famine caused by British in 1940s that killed nearly 10 million Indians. That is a bigger figure than the Jews killed by Germans but then Indians are Brown skinned and Jews had white so I guess those murders are legit and Nazism is worse than British for a British colony.
You mean the Bengal Famine of 1943? This is generally regarded as being partly man-made with the usual assortment of natural disasters for that region also contributing, but it was not "caused by the British" in the same sense that the Holocaust was caused by the Germans. Food supplies were constantly being disrupted during this time due to World War 2. The British did not cause that!
From what I have read on the subject, the Japanese had a lot more to do with actually causing the famine than the British; the British simply failed to do much to alleviate it.
As the British often do.
They have their own priorities, I guess.
How did the Japanese cause it?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bengal_famine_of_1943#Japanese_invasion_of_Burma
It would not be the first time the British did something like that. Ireland in the potato famine years was subject to food diversions from Ireland to Britain, Wikipedia states India in 1943 was subject to food and materials diversions (cloth, medicine) to British control in order to support the British war effort at great cost to the people of India. I can take a few minutes to put up references for this later today. A multi-year countrywide phenomenon would have multiple interacting causes but it seems to me fair to say that British actions of commandeering local materials did contribute to it.
And Deiseach posted this much more completely than I did, I did not see the comment.
At great cost? In the very short term perhaps, but if the Axis powers had won, do you think things would have worked out better or worse for the people of India? I'm pretty sure they'd have been worse. Neither Hitler nor the Japanese would have treated the "backwards races" well, as the Indians (and Africans etc) would have been perceived by them.
That's why I find it pretty grotesque to draw comparisons here, as Bharat Sharma is doing. The idea that Britain "caused" a famine and "murdered" Indians implies some sort of deliberate policy based on racism or dislike of India in some way. Obviously that's not even remotely true. At the time in question, the British were fighting total war against an opponent that intended to enslave the entire population and use them for forced labour. That same opponent was trying as hard as possible to create a famine in Britain too, hence the desperate supply situation. It is an absurd and foolish reading of history to claim that it was OK for Indians - of any political affiliation - to be supporting the Axis powers. If Britain hadn't won then India would have been wiped out as a country and quite possibly de-populated.
Enslaving populations and using them for forced labour was the nazi project concerning Eastern European peoples. I should be surprised to learn that such plans existed for Britons, too. AFAIK, Hitler and his crew were disappointed about all the Northern Europeans not aligning with them because they had included them in their aryan identity thing but still had hopes to win their hearts if they only killed and subdued enough of them. Sounds crazy, I know. As a matter of fact, British POW were treated comparatively humane in nazi Germany while Russians had much lower chances of survival.
Their plans changed throughout the war period. Hoping the British would join them and partition the world between them was the case up to about 1941. After it became clear that would never happen, detailed post-invasion plans were never drawn up, although they got as far as deciding on how the country would be partitioned, who they'd recruit for their Vichy government, who would run the secret police, and lists of hundreds of thousands of people who would be immediately sent to forced labour camps.
But that was the original plans. Remember that by 1945 the Royal Air Force had been levelling entire German cities. After the invention of chaff German air defences collapsed and Dresden was destroyed. It was worse than a nuclear attack, just done with traditional explosives: the firestorm alone destroyed six and a half square kilometers of the city. If the war had turned at that point and Hitler had won, he would not have treated the population at all kindly. A few sources attest to this:
https://yesterday.uktv.co.uk/hitlers-england/article/6-plans-hitler-had-britain/
"It's a common misconception that the Nazis would have somehow treated the population of Britain with more sympathy and respect than civilians in mainland Europe. While there may have been less of the visceral contempt they had for Jews and Russians, Hitler's top brass had brutal plans in place for Britons. Specifically, British men. If the invasion had succeeded, all healthy men from their teens to their mid-40s would have been eligible for being rounded up and sent across the channel to work in punishing slave labour camps and factories. Somehow, the Nazis would then have had to prop up the stricken economy and infrastructure of an abruptly-depleted Britain - perhaps by putting more women into work."
https://bbm.org.uk/the-battle/nazi-plans/
Speech by SS-Obergruppenfuhrer Richard Darre – 1940
"As soon as we beat England we shall make an end of you Englishmen once and for all. Able- bodied men and women between the ages of 16 and 45 will be exported as slaves to the Continent. The old and weak will be exterminated. All men remaining in Britain as slaves will be sterilised; a million or two of the young women of the Nordic type will be segregated in a number of stud farms where, with the assistance of picked German sires, during a period of 10 or 12 years, they will produce annually a series of Nordic infants to be brought up in every way as Germans. These infants will form the future population of Britain. They will be partially educated in Germany and only those who fully satisfy the Nazi’s requirements will be allowed to return to Britain and take up permanent residence. The rest will be sterilised and sent to join slave gangs in Germany. Thus, in a generation or two, the British will disappear.”
Would it have really happened? Nobody can know. But faced with this future it is not really surprising that a famine far away, in a place where 2/3rds of the population was malnourished even in normal times, was not the highest priority.
The British actively moved food supplies from Bengal to Britain. Churchil's hatred for Brown people in general and Hindus in particular, is well known.
Madhushree Mukherjee's book exposes the planned famine by White Anglo Saxon Protestant - Winston Churchill.
https://www.amazon.in/Churchills-Secret-War-British-Ravaging/dp/0143441639/
Look mate, I hate Winston Churchill as much as the next nationalist, but ease off on the accusations of "it's because we're brown". The Brits sat back and watched my people starve, and if we take some figures (it's hard to get accurate estimations of what the population of pre-Famine Ireland was), then nearly half our population died or emigrated. Estimations were that total population for the entire island was around eight million. Over the years since 1845-1847 (the official period of the Famine), the population of the Republic dropped to between three and four million.
https://www.wesleyjohnston.com/users/ireland/past/famine/demographics_pre.html
This year is the first time since the census of 1851 that our population has reached above five million (for the Republic of Ireland).
https://www.rte.ie/news/business/2021/0831/1243848-cso-population-figures/
And last I heard, we were regarded as white.
The difference here between the British colonial famines is that they are allegedly natural disasters which were not part of policy, but the Holocaust was deliberate policy to get rid of the particular sets of undesirables that the Nazis marked out as wreckers, saboteurs, and generally not wanted in the Brave New World they were going to create.
I have never looked into it personally, but it was my understanding that 19th-century and early-20th century Britain *did* in fact treat "the Irish" as a race apart… I will grant that this may to some extent be a case of 21st-century identity politics trying to force a round peg into a square hole, but — I dunno. It's hard not to look at John Tenniel's caricatures of Irishmen as these ape-like subhuman brutes, and not think that "racism" fairly describes (part of) the anti-Irish sentiment.
It will be wonderfully post-modern and a fitting end to current trends if the word "racist" stops having anything to do with anybody's skin color and just because a generic synonym for "mean."
"Do your homework!"
" Mom! You're so racist!"
Maybe that conversation has already occured in some leafy suburban tract.
I see what you mean. That being said, let me nit-pick at your choice of words there: I think if you define racism as being primarily concerned with "skin colour" you're already some of the way to diluting the meaning. Racism strictly and conservatively defined refers to belief in the superiority of some perceived human "race"/ethnicity over another. Skin colour is one marker around which races are often drawn, but not by far the only one; anti-semitism in its 'classic', Nazi form is clearly a central example of "racism", but the perceived race is defined in a way having nothing to do with skin colour at all.
Hence my tentative reading of 19th-century anti-Irish sentiment as "racist"… If the English were caricaturing the Irish as a physically repellent "breed" of men, in part based on some stereotypical physical traits (e.g. red hair), then that seems pretty much the same thing as anti-semitism talking about the ‘Jewish race’ with its attendant caricatures of repellent rat-man with stereotypically hooked noses. I will grant that it is a more distant relative to the American-style white-versus-black sort of racism; but if we agree that the Nazis were racist in respect to Jews, I think we do in fact have to also say (a segment of) the English were racist with regard to Irishmen.
I would say a functional definition of "race" has to include a nontrivial collection of genetic distinctions *in addition* to whatever the "signal" distinction is. It so turns out this is most obvious when you compare people with black and white skin (where "white" pretty much just means "not black" so it includes brown, red, and yellow people).
There are characteristics We Do Not Discuss, to be sure, but that to one side, black women at age 75 on average live ~15% longer than white women, black women are more likely that whites women to suffer from eclampsia in pregnancy, black men are more likely than whites to have high blood pressure, and blacks are less likely to be born with Down's or cleft lip. That is, there are a range of differences that are purely (or mostly) genetic, which have very little to do with culture or individual choice. Taking note of these distinctions is functional: you can let it inform your medical models, for example, and be more aggressive in monitoring blood pressure in black pregnant women, and more aggressive about pushing genetic testing in white. You can also let it usefully influence your research priorities, for example being sure you test whether your new BP med works equally well in blacks and whites, 'cause you know can't extrapolate easily from one to the other.
But are there any such differences between Jewish Germans and Aryan Germans circa 1935? Were there any such genetic differences between Irish and Brits circa 1880? I haven't heard that there are.
So we have more than just public whimsy or political utility as a decision critierion. We can for example say it's positive and functional to identify "racial" differences when they are sufficiently strong and general that they can productively influence medical decisions trees (for the benefit of all races), and we can say it's just people being tribal assholes when they can't.
> But are there any such differences between Jewish Germans and Aryan Germans circa 1935?
You've never heard of Tay-Sachs disease?
Even if we granted such genetic differences between races on medical matters — I fail to see what relevance this has to the question of defining racism. You still end up with a spectrum, where the exact boundaries will be arbitrary; some definitions of "race" will be medically useful and some will not, but (as per "The Categories Were Made For Man…") you can't really say some will be *true* and some will be *false*.
The way "race" categories are drawn in the context of "racism" (that is to say, people of a given ethnicity deciding another set of people are a disgusting outgroup who must not be allowed to interbreed with them because that would be icky, result in stupid children, and probably make God angry or something) seems to have precisely nothing whatsoever with HBD-type differences in immune systems; if we are analysing the psychology of racism, I do not think that whatever actual scientifically-verifiably "race differences" may allegedly exist even enter *into* it, doubly so if the races which they allow one to distinguish are different from the boundaries racists drew.
Furthermore, it seems to me that the word "race" is so tightly bound with "racism" (not just in a "race is what nasty racists care about" sense but in a "racisms are the ones who have largely defined the word race") as for it to be counter-productive to try to redefine it for something 'innocent'. I am fairly skeptical of HBD in any case, but I think the P.R. of "innocent" HBD that's only trying to talk about medical issues would be *much* improved if it just stopped talking about "race" and found its own coinage to talk about the clusters of populations which *it* defines. Their boundaries may resemble those of the classic "races" if you squint, but they are being defined based on fundamentally different criteria and for fundamentally different aims, and you're just shooting yourselves in the foot by tying yourselves to the word "race".
It's like, I dunno, if Lavoisier, having discovered the chemical phenomenon of "combustion", had still dubbed it "phlogiston". It's confusing even if loosely the same word had previously applied to loosely the same phenomenon — and it obscures the way in which the purported discovery is something radically new and scientific, rather than a survivance of old, "ick"-factor-based biases.
There's a book that argues that the Irish famine was actually a genocide: https://www.amazon.com/Famine-Plot-Englands-Irelands-Greatest/dp/1137278838. Admittedly, I've only read a summary of it, but I disagree that it was an intentional genocide in the same way the Holocaust was. I think we need another word for horrors like the potato famine and the Bangladeshi famine. To me, they are to genocides as manslaughter is to murder. They're still crimes against humanity, since the people in charge did less to ameliorate them than they could've due to prejudice, but they lack the same element of intention and pre-planning as the Holocaust.
"To me, they are to genocides as manslaughter is to murder." This is a very apt analogy and I will make a note of it for future use.
(The same could be said about the semantic argument over whether the British maintained "concentration camps" in the Zulu wars. Sure, they invented the name concentration camp for what they were doing, but they didn't have gas ovens.)
Thank you! I know less about the Zulu wars than I know about the Irish famine (perhaps partly due to ethnic narcissism, since I'm of mostly Irish heritage, and most of my immigrant ancestors came to the US in the wake of the famine). But I agree that it's also important to preserve distinctions between camps where people are forcibly rounded up and treated horribly and camps tailor-made for mass murder. It's certainly worth learning about all these crimes against humanity and trying to prevent them from re-occurring. But the focus on killing as many Jews and Roma as possible (also gays and disabled people, though killing them en masse isn't technically genocide) during the Holocaust was different than the other atrocities mentioned in the thread. And if we let the connotations of these terms creep beyond these terrible horrors, we might see a sort of "boy who cried wolf" effect whereby accusations of genocide are ignored even when it's legitimately happening.
Boer war rather than Zulu wars - we just burnt Zulu homes, rather than rounding them up and mistreating them...
(They were very different sorts of war to be fair).
I've heard the term "ethnicide" or "ethnocide" used to describe what you're referring to
It isn't true that the British "sat back and watched people starve" during the Irish famine years. Very large amounts of money were spent by the British government on imported maize from the USA and from Britain to help alleviate shortages in Ireland, not to mention the promise to buy any cure for the potato blight and supply to Irish farmers for free.
More could certainly have been done, but the claim that the brutal Brits callously and deliberately starved the Irish is just propaganda.
While the Irish Famine was a tragedy, I think it's seriously misleading to group deaths and emigration together as if they're remotely comparable - maybe if the only data available is gross population estimates before and after you have no choice, but I doubt there aren't estimates of the death toll specifically. It must be awful to need to migrate or starve, but migrating is definitely a much, much less bad fate than starving.
We weren't white at the time. We started being white in the 20th century.
According to Edmund Spenser in 1596, we were Scythians. Now we debate: Are/were Scythians white? 😁
"Irenius
Before wee enter into the treatise of theire Customes, yt is first needfull to consider from whence they sproung, for from the sundrie mannors of the nations, from whence that people which nowe are called Irishe were derived, some of the customes which nowe remayne amongest them have benn fetcht, and since they have benn contynwed amongest them; for not of one nacyon was that people as yt is, but of sondrie people of different condicons and manners: But the chief which have first possessed, and inhabited yt, I suppose to be Scythians.
Eudoxus
How commeth it then to passe, that the Irish doe derive themselves from Gathelus the Spaniard.
Irenius
They doe indeed, but (I conceive) without any good ground. For if there were any such notable transmission of a colony hether out of Spaine, or any such famous conquest of this kingdome by, Gathelus, a Spaniard, as they would faine believe, it is not unlikely, but the very Chronicles ofSpaine (had Spaine then beene in so high regard as they now have it) would not have omitted so memorable a thing, as the subduing of so noble a realme to the Spaniard, no more then they doe now neglect to memorize their conquest of the Indians, especially in those times, in which the same was supposed, being nearer unto the flourishing age of learning and writers under the Romanes. But the Irish doe heerein no otherwise, then our vaine English-men doe in the Tale of Brutus, whom they devise to have first conqured and inhabited this land, it being as impossible to proove, that there was ever any such Brutus of Albion or England, as it is, that there was any such Gathelus of Spaine. But surely the Scythians (of whom I earst spoke) which at such tyme as the Northerne Nations overflowed all Christendome, came downe to the Sea coste, where enquiringe for other countryes abroade, and gettinge intelligence of this Countrye of Irelande, finding shippinge convenient, passed over thither, and arived in the North parte thereof, which is now called Ulster, which first inhabiting, and afterwardes stretchinge themselves forth into the Ilande as theire nombers encreased, named yt all of themselves Scuttenlande, which more briefly is called Scutland, [or] Scotland."
Though some of us were Spanish? Maybe?
"Irenius
After this people thus planted in the north or before, (for the certaintie of tymes in thinges soe farre from all knowledge cannot bee justlie avouched), another nation cominge out of Spaine aryved in the West part of Irelande, and findinge it waste, or weakelie inhabited, possessed yt; who whether they were native Spaniards, or Gaules or Affricans or Goaths, or some other of those Northerne Nations which did spread all over-spred all Christendome, it is impossible to affirme, onlie some naked conjectures may be gathered; but that out of Spaine certenlie they came, that doe all the Irishe Cronicles agree."
No, hang on, the Spaniards were Gauls!
"Irenius
It is harde to saye: for whether they at theire first comminge into the land, or afterwardes by tradinge with other Nations which hade letters, learned them of them, or devised them amongest themselves, [it is very doubtful. But that they had letters anciently, it is nothing doubtful,] for the Saxons of Englande are saide to have theire letters, and Learninge, and learned men, from the Irishe; and that also appeareth by the likenes of the Carracter, for the Saxons carracter is the same with the Irishe. Now the Scythians never, I cann reade, of oulde had letters among them: therefore yt seemeth that they had them from the nacyon which came out of Spaine, for in Spaine there was (as Strabo wryteth) letters auncyently used, whether brought unto them by the Phenicians, or the Persians, which as yt appeareth by him) had some footinge there, or from Marseles, which is saide to have been inhabited by the Greekes, and from them to have had the Greeke carracter; of the which Marsilianns yt is said, that the Gaules learned them first, and used only for the furtherance of theire trades and private busines: for the Gaules (as is stronglie to be proved by many au ncyent and authenticall wryters) first inhabite all the sea coste of Spaine even unto Cales and the mouth of the Streights, and peopled also a greate parte of Italie, which appeareth by sundrie Citties and havens in Spaine called of them, as Portingalia, Gallecia, Galdunum; and also by sundrie nacons therein dwellinge, which yet have reseaved theire owne names of the Gaules, as the Rhegnie, Presamarie, Tamariti, Cineri, and divers others. All which Pompeius Mela, beinge himselfe a Spaniarde, yet saith to have descended from the Celtics of Fraunce, whereby yt is to be gathered, that that nacon which came out of Spain into Ireland were auncientlie Gaules, and that they brought with them those letters which they had learned in Spain, first into Ireland, the which some allso saye doe muche resemble the olde Phenicon carracter, beinge likewise distinguished with pricke and accent, as theires auncyentlie; but the further enquirie thereof needeth a place of longer discourse than this our shorte conference."
Shock, horror: an Elizabethan writer doesn't like the Spanish 🤣
"Eudoxus
Whence commeth it that the Irishe do soe greatlie covett to to fetch themselves from the Spaniards, since the olde Gaules are a more auncyent and much more honorable nation?
Irenius
Even of a very desier of newfanglenes and vanitie, for beinge as they are nowe accompted, the most barbarous Nation in Christendome, they to avoide that reproache woulde deryue them selves from the Spaniards, whom they now see to bee a very honorable people, and next borderinge unto them: But all that is most vaine; for from the Spaniard, that now is, is come from as rude and salvage nations as they, there beinge, as yt may be gathered by corse of ages and veiwe of theire owne histories (though they therein labored much to enoble themselves) scarse any dropp of the oulde Spanishe bloode left in them; for all Spain was first conquered by the Romaynes, and filled with Colonies from them, which were still encreased, and the native Spaniarde still cutt of. Afterwards the Carthaginians in all the longe Punicke Warres havinge spoiled all Spain, and in the ende subdued yt whollie tothem selves, did, (as yt is likelye) roote out all that were affected to the Romaynes. And lastly the Romaines, havinge againe recovered that countrye and beate out Hanniball, did doubtles cutt of all that had favored the Carthaginians, soe that betwixte them both, to and fro, there was scarse a native Spaniard left but all inhabited of Romaynes. All which tempests of troubles being overblowen, there longe after arose a newe storme more dreadfull then all the former, which over-ranne all Spain, and made an infinite confusion of all thinges; that was, the comming downe of the Gothes, the Hunnes, and the Vandalles, and lastly all the Nations of Scythia, which, like a mountaine flud, did overflowe all Spain, and quite drowned and washt away whatever relicts there were left of the land-bred people, yea and of all the Romaynes too. The which Northerne Nations findinge the complexion of that soile, and the vehement heate there farf different from theire natures, toke no felicitie in that country but from thence passed over, and did spread themselves into all Countries in Christendome, of all which there is none but hath some mixture or sprincklinge, yf not [thorough] peoplinge, of them. And yet after all those the Mores and Barbarians, breakinge over out of Africa, did finally possesse all Spain, or the moste parte therof, and treade downe under theire foule heathenishe feete what ever little they founde there yet standinge. The which, though afterwards they were beaten out by Ferdinando of Arragon, and [Isabell] his wife, yet they were not soe clensed, but that through the marriages which they had made, and mixture of the people of the land, during their long contynuance there, they had left no pure drop of Spanish bloode, nor of Romayne nor Scythian. Soe that all nacons under heaven, I suppose, the Spaniard is the most mingled, most uncerten, and most bastardlie; wherefore most foolishly doe the Irish thinke to enoble themselves by wrestinge theire auncestrie from the Spaniard, whoe is unable to deryve himselfe from any nacon certen."
Okay, now I am going to avow that we Irish *are* Spanish! Take that, Spenser!
Sure but according to the English we were an alternative human race, descended from dogs as white men evolved from apes. Racism is generally dumb
According to whom? My mom has done a lot of genealogy research, and I've looked at the Census records for several of my ancestors who immigrated to the US from Ireland in the 19th century. They're all listed as white. Perhaps the British used a different classification, but I think the difference is that "white" in the 19th century didn't mean "amorphous blob of interchangeable European heritage" that it does today. Differences between "white" ethnicities were seen as a bigger deal.
I've always assumed Spenser is evidence that you could find strong narcotics in sixteenth-century Ireland. Although the Scythian ancestry thing is not one of his attempts to confuse the historical record, although it was the Picts in Bede and some Old Irish works. The confusion is understandable though: the Picts did stop off in Ireland and intermarried before the Irish helpfully pointed them in the direction of Scotland; and the Dal nAríada and a few other Ulster tribes were considered Cruithne, the Old Irish ethnonym for Picts.
I get the point you're aiming at here, and I even agree with it to an extent, but you really might want to ease up on the way you are putting it forward.
For one thing, people really weren't falling all over themselves to help the beloved "white" Jewish minority in the 1940s. For another, I don't think history does look all that kindly on the British colonization of India. But most of all, there actually is a meaningful distinction between a famine and a policy of rounding up an ethnic subgroup from across an entire continent and gassing them in ovens. I don't believe exercises in comparative suffering are generally all that useful, but there is a reason Nazis inspire a unique horror.
People aren't indifferent to the famine so much as ignorant of it. Americans, you may recall, actually fought in WWII. They have a lot of direct experience with Nazis. In contrast, we don't get a lot of Indian political history in school in the U.S. We don't get German political history either, for that matter. We get U.S. history. Maybe that's unfortunate, but it's also a more accurate and benign explanation of attitudes than "no one cares about brown people."
Yeah, its very much the historically literate American's view that 'yeah, the British were awful, but there was just something special about the Nazis', and the specialness of the Nazis isn't actually captured simply by numbers of dead, but about how they went about it. Though it wouldn't be special if it wasn't a death count that was at least in the mid 7 figures, and plausibly over ten million.
> and the specialness of the Nazis isn't actually captured simply by numbers of dead, but about how they went about it.
Humans have been exterminating other tribes who compete for their resources since the dawn of time. The subjective specialness you place on this event is part of your cognitive bias, nothing to do with reality unfortunately.
> But most of all, there actually is a meaningful distinction between a famine and a policy of rounding up an ethnic subgroup from across an entire continent and gassing them in ovens. I don't believe exercises in comparative suffering are generally all that useful, but there is a reason Nazis inspire a unique horror.
Every genocide is unique in some way, and there were other genocides that included gassing. I don't understand why you mention that it was an ethnic minority, as if that makes their lives more valuable. Obviously the extreme importance given to the killing of Jews in WW2 is at least in part due to all the movies, media etc. made about it, and because it was useful for other political purposes.
Surely the famine was due to the Japanese invasion when Bengal became the front line in the Indian theatre? Why are the British mainly to blame?
Another way to ask the question is: would the Bengal famine have happened if the Japanese had not invaded the Raj?
Bengal suffered two big famines because of a transition to elected Governments. Shurawardy must take the blame for the War famine but Mujib was innocent of the 1974 famine and was trying to take back control from corrupt elements when he and his family was massacred. The fact is the Muslim League was a disaster for Muslims of the sub-continent.
One thing people might enjoy while they are thinking about India is to watch some Arnab Goswami; something like India's Tucker Carlson.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UXj4MvChMJ4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UirrsA0J6Wo
On a related note, this is the view from Pakistan - courtesy of one crazy guy who is supposed to be talking about variations in Pakistani regional cuisine but who has a tendency towards racist digression: https://www.quora.com/How-would-you-describe-the-cuisine-or-food-culture-of-Pakistan-Does-it-vary-from-one-province-to-another/answer/Ram-Patel-Sharma
I love how he never even tried to answer the question.
Buckle up and prepare to get flamed by Modi zealots :)
They’re not quite as numerous as the pro-CCP “wolf warriors” but I do notice that anything slightly critical of the BJP on the internet similarly attracts a legion of attackers.
Some alternatives to this book (more critical than this):
1. Gujarat Files by Rana Ayyub
2. Undercover by Ashish Khetan
I've just realized I'm the perfect Modi voter. I mean, apart from not being Indian.
I started out very anti-Modi - see the link below. I have to say that I've come to like him more and more. Largely because... well, to be honest, for the same reason that Modi says many of his supporters like him. He's hated by a media whose standards of honesty start with the hitpiece on Scott and go downhill from there. I've also become utterly disillusioned with liberal secularists - I go way back in the Atheism movement, back to the days of Hitchens & Dawkins and when it all started going to hell with A+. So that probably makes me less harsh on Modi than I might otherwise be. He seems to have been less the 'hard ass Hindu nationalist' that I feared.
So, I get why Scott is suitably skeptical of this book. But I found myself reading the review and nodding and going, "well, makes sense to me".
https://skepticink.com/prussian/2014/05/21/the-default-of-liberal-secularism/
This guy manages to misspell Gandhi right in the first paragraph, like really?
Apart from that he has hit the nail on its head...
Educated class confuses -
- Writing fluently with saying something truthful and original.
This is a very fluently written piece.
If our contemporary élite education teaches nothing else, it teaches symbol manipulation.
"I didn't intend this, and I don't consider it fair compensation for the level of reputational damage they did me."
Why would one care about this reputational damage? The NYT clearly jumped the shark crying wolf on racism and facism during the Trump years, and frankly anyone who is oblivious to this doesn't have an opinion on these issues worth caring about. (Obviously there are exceptions when it comes to career when you might have to care about about the reputation conferred by people whose opinions you don't respect. I am not aware that this is the case here.)
This piece by Freddie is instructive on just how insane the NYT has gotten on these issues:
https://freddiedeboer.substack.com/p/who-tells-them-what-they-dont-want
If you read the NYT piece Scott was talking about you'll notice that it never once calls him a racist, sexist or an elitist. Scott is making a very basic mistake here.
It claimed Scott is "aligned" with a guy who argues that white people are genetically more intelligent than black people, and that he thinks feminists are the embodiment of evil. Tedious semantic games add no value here - his summary of the article was fair.
Scott clearly said "It accused me of being racist, sexist, elitist, all kinds of negative things". When you look at the evidence you'll see that the NYT never "accused" Scott of any of those things.
Saying that someone is aligned with Charles Murray isn't the same thing as calling them a racist. This is obvious, and it's obvious to anybody who reads things carefully.
If you disagree, you should be able to find some evidence that the NYT called Scott a "racist" or a "sexist" or an "elitist" - this is Scott's claim. It has no evidence. If Scott wants people to believe that the NYT did such a thing, he should easily be able to find some evidence. So far, no such evidence exists.
> This is obvious, and it's obvious to anybody who reads things carefully.
Please consider that not everyone 'reads things carefully'. Consider that it might be _misleading,_ i.e. that people, perhaps those people who don't read things carefully—might get misled, and often this is intentional.
This is how dishonest smears often work.
The NYT can't be held responsible for someone who misreads their text and subsequently believes things that the NYT never said. In this case, Scott's audience seems to be mass misreading because Scott's priming them to be adversarial towards this particular article and saying that it "accuses" him of being racist, sexist and elitist, when no such accusations exist. In this case, responsibility for the misreading lies on Scott Alexander's shoulders, not the NYT.
(I didn't say misreading, I said misleading. I do not mean that someone might be _misunderstanding_ the text, it's that someone might be taking the writer's _implications_ at face value without bothering to determine if they are a correct interpretation of the facts.)
At any rate, what do you believe the author's intent was in including such paragraphs?
It is facially ludicrous and absurd to deny that the false parallels and ‘alignments’ being drawn between Murray and Scott, or Scott and Nazis, or Scott and eugenicists, or Scott and the alt-right, are being drawn just because they happen to be apt to make some other innocent point. It was done in bad faith with intent to smear him personally and mislead the ignorant, and to say they are not responsible for those interpretations is carrying water for the worst kind of yellow journalism.
This is, IMO, your fundamental error here. Communicating correctly is the responsibility of both parties in any exchange. If you write a text that is *very obviously* prone to misleading people, you do actually bear some responsibility for the misconceptions that creates.
The NYT wrote an article that was *very obviously* prone to being misread in such a way that people would think Scott agreed with Murray's racist opinion. I guess if you are very nitpicky, you could say that's not "calling" him a racist, but rather "insinuating" it and I would agree that's a better word (but is it "accusing"? Scott's original phrase. I'm not sure)
Regardless, they certainly bear responsibility for the misreading
> subsequently believes things that the NYT never said
It's perfectly possible to say things without saying them literally, as you well know.
> Saying that someone is aligned with Charles Murray isn't the same thing as calling them a racist.
Oh come off it. It's obvious to everyone what the NYT was trying to do.
Next you'll be telling us that if someone says "Can you pass the salt?" they're inquiring into your ability to pass the salt and not asking for the salt.
The NYT didn't even call Murray a racist. The emotional outrage that Rationalists are feeling here doesn't seem to be based on any actual statement that the NYT article made. It's all based on assumptions about the supposed intentions of the writers. Making up supposed nefarious-intentions of the writer based on zero evidence is not arguing in good-faith.
Marx bro, you’re still here!. . . People, don’t bother debating with him.
This is a much better suggestion than the one the are currently following of putting forth really sorry arguments against his position. I was pretty up in the air before. Pretty soon I'll be 100% marxist.
Thanks for the positive feedback. Often it feels like I am not making much progress here. I am happy to talk about Marxism if you have any questions about it.
> Scott clearly said "It accused me of being racist, sexist, elitist, all kinds of negative things"
Above, in the sentence after this, Scott links to his original post where he outlines in detail why he finds the article misleading and/or dishonest. If you follow the link, you'll see that Scott doesn't claim they accused him of any of these things, and that this is just shorthand for the bias the NYT used in their reporting. I think it is fair for him to use shorthand here to summarize what he references via link, though I can see why reasonable people may disagree.
For example, Scott is concerned in his original post that the NYT ties him to Peter Thiel and other (elite) tech figures. There is no falsehood in noting the relationship, but the NYT writer makes an editorial choice (reflecting their bias) to call out this relationship and not any others.
You may want to take your concerns to that discussion, as this post is about Modi, not about Scott and/or the NYT.
It's an inaccurate "shorthand" since the article never called Scott Alexander racist, sexist or elitist. Shouldn't we try to be precise in our language and be more charitable to the outgroup (the NYT in this case)?
> a guy who argues that white people are genetically more intelligent than black people,
Oh no! He claims something that is supported by decades of psychometric research, the horror /s
Hello back marxbro! Are you still claiming that North Korea is a good place to live?
The NYT piece doesn't come out and say, but one need not be a dog to hear that particular whistle.
Dogwhistles are for being racist, not for calling someone racist. The whole point of the dogwhistle is that you have to hide it. Why would someone have to hide an accusation of racism if, according to this community, it is as easy as ever to call someone racist?
I don't think veiled accusations (which is what a dog whistle is) are limited to racial accusations.
Dogwhistling is typically used when being racist, because you actually have to hide that behaviour in society. Obviously it's not limited to that.
But again why would they need to hide their accusation under a veil? It's easy to call someone racist in society and the NYT do it all the time.
Because they are insinuating that he is a racist, but also want to avoid a slander suit.
So what's the "accusation" then? Because I certainly don't see any accusations that Scott is racist, sexist or elitist in the piece.
Does this community even believe in dogwhistles?
Like, for the past four years I've been reading people in the SSC comments arguing that no, Donald Trump isn't actually a racist (at least by current Republican standards), none of the veiled references in his speeches should be taken as targeting a particular ethnicity, the fact that his most prominent supporters seem really racist shouldn't reflect on him personally, etc. etc.
But apparently if the New York Times makes a veiled reference, that's something we need to take extremely seriously.
I didn't know that, strictly speaking, a community can believe anything, or that if someone denies the existence of a dog whistle in a particular case, then that means that dog whistles don't exist.
Speaking personally, I suspect that Trump knew the effect of what he was saying.
Dude, the NYT never wrote a "retaliatory" hit piece on Scott, and the folks here are having a shared fever dream if they think the NYT gives a fuck about an obscure blogger one way or the other. But you'll never convince anyone here of that fact. "Rationalism" is just another tribe.
Well, the central point of that article was that some contrarian asshole directed (with a wink and a nod) his followers to attack a poor journalist and his paper, who only wanted to tell the whole truth to their readers, so in that sense it's fair to call it retaliatory. I agree that "rationalists" still perceive it as more adversarial than it really was, IMO mostly because of the "hostile media effect". It was amusing to read several replies here and on the subreddit from people who found out about the blog through the article and thought that it sounded interesting and felt that the overall tone was positive.
I don't think that's an accurate summary of the central point of the article at all, but even if it were, *it would still be a better representation of what transpired* than "world's most esteemed journalistic organization publishes hit piece to teach rando blogger a lesson." As Will Wilkinson has pointed out, it really does raise journalistic questions when some corner of the internet goes absolutely bananas for seemingly no good reason at all.
I am a person who started reading this blog due to the NYT piece (although I was vaguely aware of SSC already). I like Scott's writing. But I've worked in Silicon Valley long enough to know that the people who criticize others for not being as rational as they are are the first ones to go red-faced and screaming when their ego is even slightly threatened.
Thanks for pointing me towards Wilkinson's post. I haven't seen it before, decent critiques of "rationalism" are hard to come by, and this was better than most. I still think that the NYT would've easily indulged Scott's request for pseudonymity if he was more ideologically palatable to them (there are precedents), so claims about adherence to some lofty standards of journalism aren't too convincing. Of course, his reaction seemed unreasonable enough to warrant a story in it's own right, but I'd say that the New Yorker piece from the last year did a far better job at it, while still managing to avoid spitefully mentioning his full name.
How is mentioning someone's full name "spiteful"? Isn't that just an accurate reporting of the facts?
The New York Times is still clearly influential among many people, and I don't think it's wise to immediately dismiss all those people as having opinions not worth caring about. At least not wise for a minor internet celebrity who doesn't like hateful comments and messages.
To me you de facto renounce your credibility on these issues when you take the NYTs word for it on them. You may have all sorts of other valuable opinions, but not on who is an awful person as defined by their racism, sexism, fascism etc.
Do recall that Scott is a practicing psychiatrist - if the NYT piece cost him patients, that would be real reputational damage. The opinion of the common man does matter even if you don't think it's likely to be correlated to reality.
Reputational damage included Scott having to reshape his career, since he wanted to keep his being a psychiatrist who also did counselling separate from his reputation as a blogger.
He's landed on his feet (money coming in from substack, private practice just prescribing so far as I know), but it was a big change that he wasn't looking for.
"Reputational damage"? Did Scott ever show any sort of evidence that there was any "reputational damage" beyond his feelings being hurt?
This incident is quickly becoming a founding mythology and religious conviction of internet Rationalism. So much so that Scott is claiming things like "It accused me of being racist, sexist, elitist" - if you read the NYT article in question you can very plainly see that this never happened.
That was because of the doxing not the other stuff, right?
Fair point. I have no idea how things would have played out without the doxing.
Was there a "doxing"? I thought Scott Alexander was upset that they printed his name?
Revealing the real name of a person speaking under a pseudonym is the literal definition of "doxing"
Considering that Scott had himself revealed his name and that the information was easily available through a Google search I do not consider this a "dox" - just the printing of accurate information. Since there's a lot of inaccurate journalism out there, I think the NYT should be applauded for getting Scott's name correct.
I think outing his pseudonym was really a bad move by the NYTimes, but apart from that the article didn’t seem particularly problematic. It oversimplified some things, as one does in a short article, and I think it very much mischaracterized what I think of as my favorite essay (“I Cam Tolerate Anything Except the Outgroup”), but it’s also absolutely true that this blog is a safe space for anti-feminists and human biodiversity types.
Right, it wasn't lies but selective focus to "problematize" Scott to the NYTs 90+% liberal readership. There was a ton of areas of Scott's oeuvre the article could have focused on. The NYT chose those they knew would infuriate their readers.
Similarly, in their recent bio on Andrew Sullivan, they focused on his engagement with IQ and race, despite his long career writing covering a vast range of topics and his leadership on gay marriage.
> There was a ton of areas of Scott's oeuvre the article could have focused on. The NYT chose those they knew would infuriate their readers.
Yes. That's how the news - and media more broadly - works. And if you think that's bad, I invite you to open a newspaper from a century ago!
Being a savvy reader means knowing this going in when you read *anything* subject to the same selection pressures. Being a Bayesian means not discovering this fact for the first time, multiple times. Update and move on.
I thought Scott once banned the term human biodiversity, so much so that people started saying things like "buman hiodiversity".
Doesn't that prove the point that his blog has in fact been a point of congregation for these people, and his views aren't a million miles from there? Probably "safe space" was an exaggeration, but it's far closer of a connection than the vast majority of blogs with this size of readership.
To be fair to Scott, he intended it to be a safe space for discourse, and when some topics are banned everywhere else decent, all the witches will flock to whatever "safe havens" still remain. And even though his own views may stray from leftist orthodoxy, I'd describe them to still be pretty far from "those people", in ways that count.
Yes, I think that is totally fair. I think it is both true that he is far from "those people" in ways that count, but he's also closer to them than nearly anyone that people reading the New York Times are likely to encounter (including mainstream Republicans).
In my observation (filtered through my own biases and memory, needless to say) the SSC readership has always seemed less political in general than the ACX readership.
And this community does have a certain temperament that might make the aforementioned folks feel more welcome, if nothing else. My most vivid impression of this came via the paroxysmal reaction (on the occasion of book review talk) to some poor bugger who tried to suggest that we read more women authors.
If it's the one I'm thinking of about the book reviews, they pointed out that only one out of 17 book reviews was of a book by a woman, and then refused to suggest any books.
This didn't go over well, though I don't remember the reaction as being all that strong.
In any case, I asked for recommendations for books by women which would be worthy topics for book reviews and got quite a few suggestions.
> Reputational damage included Scott having to reshape his career, since he wanted to keep his being a psychiatrist who also did counselling separate from his reputation as a blogger.
IMO, the privacy needs of a good clinician are fundamentally incompatible with being a high-profile blogger - doubly so when there's overlap in topics. The NYT article was the proximate effect in this timeline, but the pseudoanonymity was always unstable.
One problem a lot of readers forget is what Scott's circle was. He lives in San Francisco, nearly all his family members are very left leaning, and I'm sure several were long time subscribers of the NYT. I wouldn't be surprised if family gatherings got intensely awkward, and various people he considered friends cut him off.
Has Scott said anything like this? I would like actual proof, not just speculation.
Any friends he lost he's better off without
"I'm not a far-right demagogue and I don't want to be a head of government. But I did manage to piss off the New York Times last year, and they wrote a retaliatory hit piece against me. It accused me of being racist, sexist, elitist, all kinds of negative things."
That's an interesting claim Scott. But let's have a look at the actual evidence. The article is here so that anybody can read it and confirm my analysis. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/13/technology/slate-star-codex-rationalists.html
I searched for "racist" in the New York Times piece and here's what I got:
"He denounced the neoreactionaries, the anti-democratic, often racist movement popularized by Curtis Yarvin. But he also gave them a platform. His “blog roll” — the blogs he endorsed — included the work of Nick Land, a British philosopher whose writings on race, genetics and intelligence have been embraced by white nationalists."
Now, if you actually read this (have you actually read the article?) it never actually calls you a racist. It simply says that you have linked to another blog that they say is racist. Now, I notice that you've since deleted the link to Nick Land's blog, but it is a simple fact that you used to have his blog "xenosystems" linked prominently on your own blog roll and anyone can easily look at archives to confirm this, e.g.:
https://web.archive.org/web/20200121045328/https:/slatestarcodex.com/2018/10/30/sort-by-controversial/
The article never says you are sexist, merely that you wrote an essay about the Blue Tribe and that liberals tend to get upset at sexists:
"The essay was a critique of what Mr. Siskind, writing as Scott Alexander, described as “the Blue Tribe.” In his telling, these were the people at the liberal end of the political spectrum whose characteristics included “supporting gay rights” and “getting conspicuously upset about sexists and bigots.”"
Is this what you're upset at? That they quoted your "analysis" of the "Blue Tribe"? Where did they call you a sexist?
The word "elitist" never seems to even be mentioned in the article ; let alone accusing you of being one! Where did they accuse you of being an elitist?
Anybody can read the article and see that your claims about the NYT calling you "racist", "sexist" or "elitist" are simply untrue. So the question here is; what are you actually upset about?
This piece is really great, a good point for the New-Yorker.
Ah, an "implication". An implication so subtle that nobody can find me the quote which Scott Alexander very clearly claims exists.
"It accused me of being racist, sexist, elitist"
If you believe that this is true you should be able to find a quote from the NYT where they make this accusation.
Where is the phantom implication you are talking about?
I'm asking where exactly is the passage that "accuses" Scott of being racist, sexist or elitist. He claimed that there were accusations there. Scott quoted no sections and I have already shown that the piece in question does not contain any such accusations.
I guess expecting a Marxist to get nuance is too much to ask.
"Nuance" does not involve completely inaccurate statements such as Scott Alexander's claim that the NYT accused him "of being racist, sexist, elitist, all kinds of negative things"
These are falsehoods that Scott is spreading, not "nuance".
You have been shown the quote multiple times now. You just chose to go "Lalalalala, don't wanna hear" when this happened.
Multiple people have been wrong and I have addressed their arguments each time.
We need a way to report comments.
I've been saying this for some time.
Ah, trying to censor and cancel me.
Do you understand what an implication is?
Yes
But he did align himself with Charles Murray in that post. I'm not sure how it's implied that it means Scott agrees with Charles Murray's view on IQ and race. In any case, if Scott feels he has been misrepresented it here, it would be productive to write a longer piece about what he does and doesn't agree with Murray on, rather than simply complaining that someone wrote the true statement that he agrees with Murray.
Your link goes to a paywalled text.
I think that means you've read too many articles and they want you to pay for more. That's capitalism for you. I rarely read the NYT so I don't have this problem.
You're an academic, right? Maybe you have institutional access?
https://web.archive.org/web/20210215053502/https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/13/technology/slate-star-codex-rationalists.html
I think this should get around the paywall, for those who wish to confirm that I am correct and that Scott is making a very basic mistake.
So have to pay to read the article which required the author's time and energy is ' Capitalism ' !
are you one of those who think socialism means everything is free ?
Just a little tongue-in-cheek joke. I hope Cade Metz is getting paid handsomely. I'm a Marxist.
Carl Marks correctly observed that you need capitalism to generate wealth. He then said that there should be ' Revolution' (fancy way of saying mass murdering spree) to re distribute the wealth. But has he mentioned WHEN should the state pivot from capitalism to socialism and then communism? I have a communist friend who says that China's state capitalism is actually part of Marxist plan and once enough wealth is generated the communist party will start re distributing it
"Carl Marks correctly observed that you need capitalism to generate wealth."
Can you quote where Carl Marks said that?
For one example of what you claim doesn't exist in the article:
"In one post, [Siskind] aligned himself with Charles Murray, who proposed a link between race and I.Q. in "The Bell Curve.""
That makes it sound as though Scott was agreeing with Murray about HBD, when in fact he was agreeing with him about UBI.
This is covered in more depth in Scott's response to the NYT article https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/statement-on-new-york-times-article
As far as I can tell that article does not say anything similar to "It accused me of being racist, sexist, elitist, all kinds of negative things."
These are new claims by Scott. They are the kinds of things that require evidence.
It was done implicitly, not explicitly. Scott writes "It accused me of being racist, sexist, elitist, all kinds of negative things."
Not "it contained explicit categorization of me as XYZ".
Where is this accusation?
How does it imply that? It simply says that he aligned himself with Charles Murray, which he did. The NYT even links to the article in question for all their readers.
And the article never even calls Murray a racist, simply that he proposed there was a link between race and IQ. Again, nowhere does it say that Scott is a racist, which is what Scott claimed.
"the article never even calls Murray a racist, simply that he proposed there was a link between race and IQ."
That is "racist" according to any definition you can find in use by US media today.
The NYT article didn't say that, though.
When writing, you don't actually begin by defining all the words you use. You rely on other people who speak the same language using many of the same definitions. That's why we call it "the same language". Pretending that they didn't call him racist because they didn't define their terms would be like me saying you have a very low IQ, then saying I never called you "stupid" because I use the word "stupid" in its original Latin sense of meaning "stunned".
"In one post, [Siskind] aligned himself with Charles Murray" is true
"Charles Murray who proposed a link between race and I.Q. in "The Bell Curve."" AFAIK is true
Putting that in one sentence suggests that he aligned with CM on exactly this topic, making it technically true but highly misleading.
How is that misleading? They even link to Scott's article in question.
The statements are both true and there is no implication that Scott is a racist there. There's not even an implication that Murray is a racist.
Proposing a link between race and IQ is widely seen as racist. Maybe it shouldn't be, but we can't deny reality. Try arguing for such a link for any length of time in any mainstream discussion space, you'll be quickly branded a racist. (don't actually do that, or do it at your own risk). The wikipedia page on Charles Murray includes several citations for accusations of racism.
It can be "widely seen" as racist, but that's not what the NYT said about Scott Alexander and Charles Murray. Nowhere did they include the claim that Scott Alexander is racist. Scott Alexander claimed that the NYT contained such accusations, when a quick read will confirm that no such accusations are present.
Would you agree with me on this point? It seems as though Scott Alexander is making a very basic mistake.
sure, but when you claim A,A->B so B and B bad, ~A doesn’t necessarily mean B is false.
For a less obvious example of dishonesty, the bit quoting me starts with a quote, then has "The voices also included white supremacists and neo-fascists. The only people who struggled to be heard, Dr. Friedman said, were “social justice warriors.”"
That makes it sound to a careless reader as though the white supremacist and neo-fascist is something I said, since it is put between a real quote and what purports to be a description of my views.
And I doubt I said "struggled to be heard," although I might have said that that was a position that most commenters were unsympathetic to. That's Metz's wording, although it is attributed to me, which is why the first part of the sentence is not in quotation marks.
This all looks above board and accurate to me. Where you are being directly quoted and where you aren't is clearly indicated using quotation marks.
Struggled to be heard is not in quotation marks, so he's not indicating that you directly said it. Anybody who knows how quotation marks are used will know that, which I assume is most English speakers. It's a paraphrase.
If you truly feel that you've been misrepresented I suggest that you contact the NYT and request a retraction.
Did you ever request a retraction, David Friedman?
This is pretty funny coming from a guy who aligned himself with Stalin, who supported killing millions of enemies of the State.
lol!
This is extremely rude. Asking Scott whether he actually read the article? I don't see any way to interpret this as being in good faith.
Possibly he just had the content relayed to him by a friend or something like that. Either he didn't read it or his reading comprehension is quite low. These are actually good-faith interpretations of Scott's mistakes here. A less scrupulous person might accuse Scott of lying or something like that.
Oh, so you do understand implications.
There's no implication in the article that Scott is racist, sexist or elitist.
You are _amazingly_ skilled at playing 'dense'!
I'm not being dense. Please don't insult me, that's not being charitable to my arguments. In any case, my arguments are correct, not dense.
LOL
Your argument here reminds me of a passage in Mark Twain's essay "In Defense of Harriet Shelley."
The biographer says of Harriet, “If words of tender affection and motherly pride proved the reality of love, then undoubtedly she loved her firstborn child.” That is, if mere empty words can prove it, it stands proved—and in this way, without committing himself, he gives the reader a chance to infer that there isn't any extant evidence but words, and that he doesn't take much stock in them. How seldom he shows his hand! He is always lurking behind a non-committal “if” or something of that kind; always gliding and dodging around, distributing colorless poison here and there and everywhere, but always leaving himself in a position to say that his language will be found innocuous if taken to pieces and examined. He clearly exhibits a steady and never-relaxing purpose to make Harriet the scapegoat for her husband's first great sin—but it is in the general view that this is revealed, not in the details. His insidious literature is like blue water; you know what it is that makes it blue, but you cannot produce and verify any detail of the cloud of microscopic dust in it that does it. Your adversary can dip up a glassful and show you that it is pure white and you cannot deny it; and he can dip the lake dry, glass by glass, and show that every glassful is white, and prove it to any one's eye—and yet that lake was blue and you can swear it. This book is blue—with slander in solution.
I just want to say I very much appreciate this comment.
Why do you appreciate it? What evidence did it contribute? It appears to be a quote by Mark Twain, yet I cannot see any relevant information about the NYT article in question. It's written well and everything, but we're looking for actual evidence here, not just nicely written passages that appeal to our emotions.
Marxbro, perhaps we could just cut to the chase.
Please give me an example of what you WOULD agree is someone implying someone else is racist.
Better yet, narrow it down to the issue we are discussing -- what would Metz had to have written for you to agree that he implied Scott is racist?
If you disagree with me you would be able to find evidence. Now David Friedman, you're clearly a very educated person, who can read well. So let's look at Scott Alexander's claim:
"I'm not a far-right demagogue and I don't want to be a head of government. But I did manage to piss off the New York Times last year, and they wrote a retaliatory hit piece against me. It accused me of being racist, sexist, elitist, all kinds of negative things."
Can you find for me the passage where the NYT accuses Scott Alexander of being "elitist". Since you're an academic this task should be easy for you. If you cannot find any such evidence, I hope you can admit that Scott is wrong and that I'm right.
https://web.archive.org/web/20210215053502/https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/13/technology/slate-star-codex-rationalists.html
If the New York Times is "insidious" with "slander in solution", then you should be able to easily find the section where they claim he is elitist.
If you cannot find such a claim, then perhaps you should consider that it is Scott Alexander's claims about the NYT that are possibly "insidious" with "slander in solution".
Remember that we are Rationalists, people who read carefully, people who don't get caught up in emotions. If you truly believe what Scott Alexander is saying about the NYT then I assume you will be able to find the required evidence; rather than just some flowery text by Mark Twain.
I suspect it won't take you long to find the evidence about "elitism" that is required in this case! Or you will be able to admit that Scott was plainly incorrect. I await your reply with some excitement.
I cannot find a passage where Metz accused Scott of being elitist. I have already pointed you at the passage where Metz implies Scott is a racist.
You object that Metz doesn't use the term "racist." I note that Metz does write:
"Some embraced the online writings of “neoreactionaries” like Curtis Yarvin, who held racist beliefs"
"Racist beliefs" is linked to an article by Yarvin about Carlyle. The article does not contain the word "racist." Do you conclude that Metz was lying?
"I cannot find a passage where Metz accused Scott of being elitist."
So you concede that Scott was incorrect when he asserted that the NYT called him "elitist", yes?
"You object that Metz doesn't use the term "racist.""
No, I said that Metz never calls Scott Alexander a racist, nor does Metz imply Scott is a racist.
It is fair to say Metz does not accuse Scott of being racist. It is not fair and quite obtuse to say he does not imply this.
Where does he imply it?
Respectfully, I note that I would appreciate it if you did not continue to use Scott's full name so frequently. I say this not as a complaint about any of your arguments. But simply because I am sometimes interested in if Scott has posted in the comments of an article, which can most easily be determined by searching his name.
Beautifully expressed.
"He went on a fact-finding trip to fascist Italy, met Mussolini, decided he had the right idea"
Quite a lot of people in the thirties thought well of Mussolini, including FDR and some of those around him.
Yep. The American Legion invited Mussolini to address its national convention (he declined, possibly because you couldn't just hop on a 747 from Rome and be back in three days back then). Mussolini and even Hitler enjoyed some non-trivial degree of popularity in the US until, you know, the late unpleasantness.
I'd suggest the Lance Price book is less hagiographic, as well as more up to date (2016). I haven't read it myself, but Price is a former BBC correspondent and comms adviser to UK PM Tony Blair, who has written some good independent punditry on politics and electioneering and some very well-received books like 'Where the Power Lies (2010). See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lance_Price
I haven't heard of Andy Marino, and his author bio on Amazon notes only that he is author of 'American Pimpernel', anyway I'm slightly surprised Scott chose to read and review that one, and although it makes a convenient strawman, you might find the Price book more insightful and educational.
Modi was very successful in Gujurat, and he was one of the few Chief ministers in India who seemed to care about industrialization and free markets. Apart from this, he is a genuine centrist Hindu nationalist(The one who would abide by the constitution). This is why many hindu nationalists love him(be it center or far-right) because he will be able to bring change. But I'm sorry to say his popularity has been in a major slump since 2016. Since 2016 his economic policies have been stagnant and nationalists are genuinely petrified for his appeasement politics be it with the SC/ST Act or OBC Reservations and the curbing of hindu festivals. Overall many in the nationalist circles are disappointed.
One thing I have realised is that whenever we have video documentation available for any period or event, it is way more useful than reading up different versions of events. You can see the actual people who suffered or were perpetrators. I was just 15 when Gujarat killings happened and did not understand it too well, but I remember how so many people would justify killings of Muslims in the name of revenge of killings of Hindus in the train, and Modi was hailed because for letting it happen, that made him a hero of the Hindu right in India. In subsequent years, and eventually studying in Gujarat - Modi's governed state and then working there in a department of his government, I got even more interested in what all had really happened. I began looking for the places where Gujarat massacres had happened, and attended the 10th anniversary of Gulbarg Society massacre where people affected were telling their own stories. I then got to watch this documentary called Final Solution where both perpetrators and victims of Gujarat massacres are covered, and in a very thorough non-sensational manner. I strongly recommend this one: https://vimeo.com/329340055
I have never identified with left and there are huge problems with Congress, but I have grown up way more closer to RSS and even attended their training camps. What all is wrong with them has not been told to me by anyone else, but by their own words and actions. Modi is an extremely careful politician who knows what to say where. You will be hard-pressed to find direct anti-Muslim statements by him, and anti-Muslim violence and discrimination is societally driven through endless propaganda where all Muslims are clubbed as a monolith and defined through whatever worst has been done, therefore it makes much more sense for him to let such violence happen through society and Police, rather than openly call for it.
Reminds me of Black Lives Matter.
Modi had only been in power for a few months. 9/11 was a game changer. America pointed a nuclear gun at Pakistan to get it to cooperate against the Taliban. The Pakistanis launched a terror attack on the Indian parliament which led to a troop buildup on the border. The Indians' thought that Pak would try something in the Rann of Kutch (in Gujarat) just as they had done in 1965. Thus when the Hindus were massacred at Godhra (which was known to be linked to ISI criminals in Karachi) the Central Government saw this as a Pak scheme to create havoc and thus hinder troop movements. That is why George Fernandes, the popular Minister of Defense, himself turned up with troops to put down the rioting. Delhi also sent a senior Police officer to get rid of corrupt cops who were part of the 'riot economy' (which was about land grabbing and boot legging and extortion rackets)
Modi believed he would be made the scapegoat because he had no grassroots support in Gujarat (he belongs to a very small sub-caste) so he did a deal with the farmers by which they gave up 'free electricity' for actual electricity which they could use. This sort of smart thinking served him well. He was able to dominate Gujarat's fractious, faction ridden politics, and then- because Rahul Gandhi refused the top job- became Prime Minister.
Killing people won't get you power. If it did, everybody would be at it.
The Shah Rukh Khan film 'Raees' shows how a Congress Minister got ISI help to stage a terrorist incident in Surat so as to provoke communal rioting. That is the other side to the picture. Bootleggers, 'land-sharks' (who use riots to get control of 'chawls'), and corrupt SHOs had created a 'riot economy'. Gujarat needed to crack down on this nonsense to move forward. Sadly, there has been 'ghettoization'. Sunnis feel alienated. Mercantile Muslim castes- Bohras, Memons, Ismailis have done well but Sunnis too must be included for proper development. Let us see if the new CM can restore momentum for growth and fraternity.
The Franco thing makes sense. The Falangists were traditional fascists, Franco was a traditional military dictator who sometimes needed their support.
Wikipedia: "Although Franco adopted some trappings of fascism, he, and Spain under his rule, are generally not considered to be fascist; among the distinctions, fascism entails a revolutionary aim to transform society, where Franco did not seek to do so, and, to the contrary, although authoritarian, he was by nature conservative and traditional."
I was going to say this. Spanish apologists for Franco will often point out that Franco managed to keep the real Fascists from taking power (apologists for Orbán often say the same). Franco was really a 19th century style Catholic authoritarian who managed to get Fascist backing. Franco would have felt right at home with people like Metternich. That is not true of Mussolini.
As part of the EU Orban's anti democratic instincts are rather attenuated -- it is totally possible to imagine him losing popular support, and if he loses popular support he'll lose the next election. The real problem is that Orban both has authoritarian instincts, and has repeatedly been legitimately elected.
Yes, this is a very important point. Fascism was a populist, scientifically-based (in the eyes of its adherents) movement, which tried to replace the old-fashioned buddy-duddy hierarchies of family, religion and society with a modern hierarchy based on strength and power. More or less its only article of faith was "life is a struggle." The Falange was one of a series of neo-traditionalist movements which arose in response to the modernism post-WW1, and preached a return to a traditional society based on Church, Family and Army. You'd be hard put to find two movements that were more different. Franco could and did make tactical alliances with fascists (as did Pétain, Horthy and others) but that's all they were.
True fascism has never been tried!
I live in Gujarat. We are originally from Kerala ( Ruled by communist party of India) there are no jobs in Kerala. The govt and labour unions in Kerala are like the mafia to whom we have to pay to get stuff done. Most men in Kerala go to middle east like Dubai to work as construction labourer in horrible working conditions. The situation is so bad that Kerala is the only state where there are more women than men, since a lot of men migrate to middle east for labour work. The entire state runs on remittances. When I have a discussion with a Marxist they come up with their standard "This is not real Marxism"
Anyways, we shifted to Gujarat when Modi was the chief minister. The facilities in Gujarat are good. My dad went from unskilled job to skilled job and then ended up establishing his own small business which is doing good. Like Trump, modi has a strong support in Rural areas. However he is very unpopular among the upper middle class and those influenced by American wokes. Fortunately for Modi, Most of the India is Rural and the opposition is weak. He has good support in media too. In US except fox news every outlet is anti republican. Here every outlet is pro modi except one or too
Lol! I think you have really warped view about Kerala!
People in Kerala go abroad for the same reason why everyone else go , mainly better salary compared to Indian ones.
Unfortunately for Modi and bjp, Keralites really love eating beef and despite all their efforts to sow communal division , they still can’t win a single seat there.
As to female to male ratio, I suspect it’s the only state where there is not much sex selective abortion. There is no automatic preference for male children like in north India
yeah you are right about beef point. May I ask, are you a Malayalee and have you lived in Kerela?
Kerala*
"Kerala has the lowest positive population growth rate in India, 3.44%; the highest Human Development Index (HDI), 0.784 in 2018 (0.712 in 2015); the highest literacy rate, 96.2% in the 2018 literacy survey conducted by the National Statistical Office, India;[8] the highest life expectancy, 77 years; and the highest sex ratio, 1,084 women per 1,000 men. Kerala is the second-least impoverished state in India according to the Annual Report of Reserve Bank of India published in 2013.[18][19] Kerala is the second-most urbanised major state in the country with 47.7% urban population according to the 2011 Census of India.[20] The state topped in the country to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals according to the annual report of NITI Aayog published in 2019."
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kerala
Wow good numbers. However, I have lived in Kerala. You can't go out after dark specially if you are women. Political killings are rampant. Search about Nambi Narayan a ISRO scientist who was tortured for political gains. One day we decided to go to the beach but some jobless youth members of some party were blocking roads for a ' Hartal' It's a common occurrence there. And Most important part is that the state survives on remittances sent for the men toiling in middles east.
I request you to think instead of copy pasting random numbers. The fact that you mentioned 47% population is urban as a good thing made me facepalm. For Sex ratio, as I mentioned before is because men migrate for work outside Kerala. I have many aunts who live in Kerala but their husbands are in Dubai
Funny, how nobody from Kerala that I know repeats these horror stories, or at least finds it any worse than anywhere else in India.
I suspect that if those numbers were coming from a state that you approve of, you would be trumpeting them as an example of wise stewardship.
Thank god at least you haven't copy pasted Wikipedia paragraphs this time.
I have given you real examples like nambi narayan the isro scientist who was tortured.
" My friends have not repeated any stories " does not mean it does not happen. This is simple logical fallacy. But I'm not expecting very logical arguments form you anyway
1. Argument by anecdote is not a logical fallacy. It is an argument from evidence, albeit in this case, a weak form of evidence.
But it is truly rich for you to complain that I made an argument from anecdote, when you did precisely the same thing.
2. I am glad that political violence apparently is isolated to Kerala. Either that or you arguing from anecdote again.
3. Speaking of logical fallacies, crying that I cut and pasted a portion of my argument has no bearing on whether it is correct or not. The wikipedia article I cited is itself well-sourced, and I noted that you do not dispute the statistics cited or their provenance. Only (in one case) their interpretation.
It's the equivalent of saying that an argument is invalid because a word was misspelled. When you are reduced to such a line of attack, I can conclude that you are just arguing in order to argue.
I think Westerners in general have a poor grasp of India. "Race" is not a salient hot-button issue in India the way it is in America: religion and caste is (though caste less so in recent years, as BJP has made inroads with "lower" castes in recent years).
I also think it is important to situate Modi in a context. BJP was on the margins of national life until the 1980s. The turning point was the razing of the Babri mosque in 1992, where there are now plans to build a Ram temple (conveniently scheduled right before next election). Jaffrelot's recent book on Modi and Hindutva is probably a better read, though even Jaffrelot has his flaws.
I think the comparison with Erdogan has a few flaws. For one, AKP strikes me as a one-man party. Modi does dominante the BJP (together with Amit Shah, a fellow Gujarati), but even if Modi were to resign tomorrow, there are other candidates, like Yogi in UP who is their Chief Minister. If you look at recent Turkish polls, the Erdogan looks to lose the next election. Modi is stll hugely popular.
In short, while it is understandable to focus on personalities (as US politics is very personality-driven) I think it makes more sense to view the Hindutva movement as a sleeping giant which slowly began to awaken in the 1980s and reached its crescendo with Modi but it won't end with him. This is a larger, more complicated, sociological story.
Well the article mentions various tangles Modi has had with what are generally categorised as "indigenous peoples" (I personally do not think the term is helpful) - that seems definitely rather race-based, though the term usually only gets brought out when there's a big culture difference as well.
There are various groups with different living styles (like the Adivasis mentioned, who live in small tribes in the North Eastern forests) but in India they would never be called a different 'race', merely a separate or minority group. I think the use of race by Scott and other English-language articles are just to make things easy to understand for Westerners.
I think in practical terms you can use terms like "race" there and not lose any meaning, in that case.
Hasn't Erdogan been in power longer than Modi?
Thanks for the review - great to know what book I can skip now ;-)
I recently picked up Malevolent Republic by Kapil Komireddi at a bookstore in Austin. I was able to read it in a day-ish and made for a good review of Modi’s tenure. I’d recommend it very much.
Some very scattered thoughts:
(1) Re: Fascism, I don't think people are really aware how *acceptable* it seemed in the early 30s; this was the period between the wars, when there was a sense of cultural decadence (just like every other time when people get rich and then the bubble bursts) and attitudes were something like "okay, it's a bit extreme, but hey - Mussolini is getting the trains to run on time" and it was perceived in its different forms as bringing some kind of discipline and order, even if it was in a very heavy-handed manner. Also bound up with youth movements like the Wandervogel movement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wandervogel and more conservative, traditional ones https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_Youth_Movement (which, ironically, were all banned when the Nazis did come to power and replaced them with the Hitler Youth).
Attitudes ranged from admiration to mild mockery ('oh well, foreigners, what do you expect?'). Nobody anticipated what was to come.
(2) I was sort of aware of Modi through seeing representations of him in various Indian movies. There's a 2019 movie (which I have no intention of watching) which is your full-on hagiographical biopic (trailer here to give you a taste of it): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ZjR2G2Qm8I
And it's not the only movie featuring/about him: https://thewire.in/film/bollywood-prime-minister-narendra-modi-films-series
(3) Going down the rabbit hole of following links about Swami Vivekananda is fascinating to the point of distraction, but the guy probably was ecumenical and liberal (for the time), and the vexed question of nationalism is one that reads very familiarly to me as an Irish person when it's "do we kick out the Brits, and if we do, what follows?":
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swami_Vivekananda
There was definitely cross-pollination going on, as the Swami was influenced by Western Esotericism and in turn "introduced Hinduism to the West":
"Swami Vivekananda; 12 January 1863 – 4 July 1902), born Narendranath Datta, was an Indian Hindu monk. He was a chief disciple of the 19th-century Indian mystic Ramakrishna. Influenced by Western esotericism, he was a key figure in the introduction of the Indian darsanas (teachings, practices) of Vedanta and Yoga to the Western world, and is credited with raising interfaith awareness, bringing Hinduism to the status of a major world religion during the late 19th century. He was a major force in the contemporary Hindu reform movements in India, and contributed to the concept of nationalism in colonial India. Vivekananda founded the Ramakrishna Math and the Ramakrishna Mission. He is perhaps best known for his speech which began with the words "Sisters and brothers of America ...," in which he introduced Hinduism at the Parliament of the World's Religions in Chicago in 1893."
(4) I'm surprised that you didn't know about the forced sterilisation programme under Indira Gandhi, but then again, this is a function of being old enough to remember when it was being talked about. As an aside, shit like this is why crochety old reactionaries like me get twitchy when all the bright and airy modern discussion of "why is eugenics a dirty word?" occurs, because this is the kind of shit that happens when theory turns into practice and "there are too many of you low-quality types clogging up the planet" gets turned from words to actions.
(5) Yeah, I think the correct conclusion is that he's a demagogue, a populist, and a dictator who is pushing Hindu nationalism very hard for several reasons, and stirring up partisan strife as a result of that. I don't know enough about Indian politics to comment any deeper than that, but he also seems to fit into the model of corruption, dysfunction, and building a dynasty (though, given his marital status, he doesn't seem interested in having kids and handing on the reins of power to him): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jashodaben_Modi
Where is the darned like button when you need one
https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/acx-tweaks/jdpghojhfigbpoeiadalafcmohaekglf
now a really great leader would have organized the villagers to build a boat....
Where is the darned like button when you need one
I don't get it. Noah?
Here's what real leadership looks like: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HoN5-ZpBWdg
"For thirty years, since its independence, India had been a socialist state....In unrelated news, there was a food shortage." ha
'educated elites cynically fanning racial discord so they could force minority groups to flee to them as "protectors"'
This is a tried and true political strategy, eloquently described by Emmanuel Goldstein:
"For long periods the High seem to be securely in power, but sooner or later there always comes a moment when they lose either their belief in themselves or their capacity to govern efficiently, or both. They are then overthrown by the Middle, who enlist the Low on their side by pretending to them that they are fighting for liberty and justice. As soon as they have reached their objective, the Middle thrust the Low back into their old position of servitude, and themselves become the High. Presently a new Middle group splits off from one of the other groups, or from both of them, and the struggle begins over again."
The first part seems to accurately describe the fascist, liberal, and socialist revolutions of the first half of the twentieth century, while the latter part about a new Middle group seems to apply to the present US-- the new woke Middle using the Low to drive down the old deplorable Middle and grab power from the High.
The liberal party in Canada were famous for this from the 70s on... multiculturalism...
As I recall, what attracted a lot of new readers/subscribers was the claim that there was discussion from people across the political spectrum.
Myself included.
I enjoy the comments at least as much as the text!
This place is the Lothlorien of the internet. People with different views generally exchanging ideas in good faith.
Scott: two comments. (1) The Western perception of Modi is mostly filtered through the English language Indian press&intelligentsia, and that group loathes Modi and his movement, so you're in the position of e.g. having your impression of Donald Trump based solely on reporting by the New York Times, or having your impression of Hillary Clinton based solely on reporting by Fox News. I don't know what can be done about it. Obviously `go learn a few Indian languages and read the local language press' is not particularly actionable advice, either for Western journalists of for you. and (2) you are missing the aspect of his appeal that's based on backlash against affirmative action viz. whether rightly of wrongly, Hindus feeling `Muslims (and other minority communities) get all these special privileges, how come we're discriminated against in our own country.' Again, this could have some analogs to US politics...
This is a great observation. The regional.language reporting in India vs English language reporting are generally 180 degrees apart.
Every single media outlet is owned by one political party or the other. Almost all the English language stuff, by Sonia and her cronies. Non-English, more and more, Modi and cronies.
Very good observation. Reputed Indian English media much like the English speaking Indian academia is very elite, so it would be difficult to understand an average Indian voter's perspective through them. But recently I've been seeing a rise in right-leaning publications in Indian English (eg: Swarajya), reading them along with the regular liberal media would help in balancing out the bias to some extent.
>He went on a fact-finding trip to fascist Italy, met Mussolini, decided he had the right idea
Mussolini had a lot more influence in the third world than is widely recognized. There are still significant parties in Latin America, the Middle East, and South Asia that were directly inspired by Italian Fascism. As in, "met with Mussolini, their founders wrote about how Fascism was pretty cool" inspired by. Interestingly many of them get coded as left wing now because they (like the Fascists) are pro-union and pro-welfare. Some of them are even genuinely pro-democracy at this point because they've realized "the poor people who are part of the national ethnic majority" is actually a pretty sweet electorate to have.
Also: I've been thinking about the portrayal of Hitler in Indian cinema recently. If you look at old WW2 cartoons Hitler's portrayed is kind of goofy. Yes, he's a villain. But he's not someone to be taken seriously. He's ridiculous. This changed in the 1950s as people became aware of the Holocaust. But this shift never really took place in India. To this day a lot of Indian cinema portrays Hitler analogs as incompetent and kind of goofy. It's not that they're sympathetic to him: he's always a villain. But there's no sort of deep reckoning with the people Hitler hurt. I suspect it's because India can (truthfully) claim to not be responsible for any of the horrors of WW2. They were British subjects fighting for independence and fighting the Axis. They had no agency and no involvement on the Axis side and therefore no responsibility.
But this creates a unique blindspot. One of the fuels of nationalism is the Innocence Myth. "Our culture is uniquely innocent and attacked by outsiders unjustly." Now, this can be true or it can be false. But the nationalists will never examine it that critically. The national innocence must be a matter of faith. Internal critique becomes siding with the outsiders. It's simultaneously a way to suppress internal dissent (out of touch hypercritical elites!) as a result and a justification to make demands of foreigners (colonizers!). This is why Holocaust Denial or Japanese War Crimes Denial is so important to their respective far rights. India really doesn't have an equivalent to those things but it's got skeletons in its closet. As any nation has.
Of course, this isn't unique to Modi. Nehru famously said Indians would never be dictators because they were too fair minded and humane.
> The real question is why she gave up her emergency dictatorship and called an election at all.
Because the Congress Party was not willing to support a dictatorship. Gandhi's choices were "call an election and probably lose" or "get replaced as party head." She chose the former. It was the right move: the party did manage to put her back into power eventually. Her rule ended because she was shot by her bodyguards after desecrating their holy site.
>Modi accuses the Congress Party of being the descendants of those Indians who did well under British colonialism, liked British colonialism a little too much, and basically Europeanized, - including a European-style semi-racist contempt for ordinary Indians.
This is a common charge against Indian elites. It's not true: they have an Indian-style totally racist contempt for ordinary Indians. (Or if you prefer, caste-ist/classist.) Again, national innocence myth. It can't be native to India. It has to be imposed from abroad.
>They survived as a democratic party by preventing any real opposition from forming, plus using their media connections to spread fear and division among people, plus occasionally just declaring martial law and imprisoning anyone they didn't like.
They survived because Social Democracy is a real and popular thing. They had a pretty standard left-democratic coalition of minorities and the poor plus the elites.
By the way, part of Modi's popularity is his right wing capitalist reforms have been really helping the economy. He says it's because of his economic brilliance. I say "hey, maybe you shouldn't have to fill out seven forms to install a toilet" is a really obvious reform. Though you do have to give him credit that he actually got it done.
This sounds suspiciously like what Republicans say about Democrats because it's the same critique. Modi even endorsed Trump.
>According to Modi, when he was growing up (the 1950s) there was little racial division.
I literally laughed out loud at this. Nope. No. Absolutely wrong. You should take this about as seriously as a white right wing politician saying there was little racial division in his childhood because he knew a Black person during the 1960s. See: the entire history of Pakistan.
Yes, there's riots and lynchings now. And that's bad. But even in colonial India there were serious tensions. The majority of the Indian Muslim leadership was so distrustful of the Hindu leadership they refused to support Indian independence until India promised they'd get their own independent state. Millions died in the immediate aftermath of independence.
>So how did Modi become famous enough to use the position as a springboard to national power?
Another reason they/you missed: Modi comes from a Backward Caste. There's a significant constituency of Backward Caste Hindus who almost default vote for the lesser caste candidate on the assumption they'll be more pro-low caste/less classist. (This was also probably the real reason he couldn't get into a monastery.)
>(questions about minorities and racism were less prominent in Erdogan's rise, making him a proof of concept that you can do this without them)
Turkey's minorities are grouped together in a coalition party that's dominated by the Kurds. They are in the unfortunate position that BOTH the left and the right are against them. Erdogan is no friend to the Kurds and he emphasizes this rhetorically from time to time. In India the Congress Party is pro-minority so there's a more clearly partisan bent. So no, they're both this way.
By the way, you know that English is an official language in India, right? If you want to know what's going on with Modi you can just... read contemporary Indian newspapers. Or watch their news shows. In English. It's not a translation, that's what the Indians listen to/read. You're going to get mostly elite views. But that's somewhat true everywhere.
Erusian: I think in India there is actually a bit of a sorting in the media landscape by language. If you read the English language press you are going to get mostly elite views. If you read/watch news in Hindi/Gujarati/Malayali/whatever...not so much. The Indian elite is heavily Anglophone.
Yes. Though there's also widespread illiteracy in India and relatively low media penetration in the countryside. So, to some extent, you're not going to get past that in India without going to India and talking to people.
Although India doesn’t have the World War II denialists that Germany and Japan has, it does have similarly non-reality-based conspiracists that deny things like Aryan languages entering India only a few thousand years ago, and claim all sorts of scientific insights in the Vedas and so on. This is often in service of some kind of Hindu (and perhaps even Hindi speaking) nationalism.
Now that you say this I regret how I phrased that. India doesn't have an equivalent mythology about how they didn't commit war crimes in World War 2 despite doing a lot of war crimes. It does (as you say) have far right conspiracy theories.
Are those, respectively, the "all languages descend from Sanskrit" and "cow pee is a miracle cure" crackpots?
I read Mussolini did nothing wrong (https://www.unz.com/akarlin/mussolini-did-nothing-wrong/?__cf_chl_jschl_tk__=pmd_L50q7AAQhyvKoOOts8lewEXLugHN7bcNiXjXBTwxi7Y-1631647435-0-gqNtZGzNAfujcnBszQiR), still doubt that. He surely had different ideas than Hitler, who seems to be quite popular with some Indians (https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/why-hitler-is-not-a-dirty-word-in-india/articleshow/63955029.cms). An aquaintance of a friend of mine, a German, met an Indian man in the Caribbeans, who showed enthusiasm for Hitler and, quite automatically, hit him down. Don't mention the war! Pakistanis like Hitler, too, like the Mufti of Jerusalem did, so it's not a religious thing.
There's a very effective appeal of Hitler´s ideology. Other fascists did and do work with that appeal, too, but he seems to have perfected it. An appeal to the mindset of persons not quite ready for the adventure of life on their own and willing to sacrifice for guidance. There have been, are, and will be, always lots of those.
Still doubt what? That Indian cinema has a negative view of Hitler? I've never seen a positive one.
Also in 2015 there were two elections in Turkey - at the first one in June the AKP missed absolute mayority. Erdogan called for another election and let the situation with the Kurds escalalate. It was even tried to exclude the HDP which was mostly voted for by the Kurdish minority
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/November_2015_Turkish_general_election
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/June_2015_Turkish_general_election
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controversies_during_the_November_2015_Turkish_general_election
Great review, one comment/question for the Indian readers and India experts here. The obvious counterexample to the "there was little sectarian resentment until Congress created it" is of course the partition violence. I don't know what Modi's or Rushdie's boyhood was like, but it seems relevant that ~1,000,000 people were killed in sectarian violence in 1947.
My very limited knowledge is that Congress actively suppressed sectarian identitarianism in the early days of India, then made some bad decisions in the 1980s, but I'd be curious what better informed readers think.
Several of the hindutva crowd do actually blame partition itself on the Congress. Partition was somewhat more complicated than just sectarian violence. It would make more sense for you to read the relevant wikis than for me to sketch out why.
Where I can add value is that the general narrative in Indian history books is (or was, back when Congress was still in power) that the British were responsible for all communal tensions to 'divide and rule', and the Muslim league was using this to grab power. The hindutva narrative would also like to blame the muslims, but it's far more useful to blame a political opponent for the policy mistake, and a community for the strife.
Congress tried to promote sectarian harmony in the early years - unity in diversity type of messaging, given that their early giants were committed to it, Gandhi in particular, but they were not above using sectarian identity for political gain, it's just that they were the only political game in town and didn't need to.
This article starts with Scott sharing his friend views Modi as fascist and then sorta just assumes this is true the rest of the article without justifying it at all...
I think Modi/BJP's popularity is not primarily caused by reactionary support due the media attacking him. My sense is that for almost all of India's history, the INC (and other Indians in academia, media etc) made it taboo for Hindu's to embrace high levels of ethnic nationalism when this is how a large percentage of Indian Hindu's actually wanted to feel. Eventually and especially with the change in media landscape, it became more acceptable for Hindu's to embrace ethnic nationalism and once this happened, the BJP was the obvious beneficiary of the change.
I really feel like the entire situation can be understood by looking at the Babri Masjid destruction/Ram temple situation. The reality is, for better or for worse, a large percentage of Indian Hindu's want India to be a Hindu prioritized country.
Yeah, this is my impression as well, although mine was formed almost solely from reading Shikha Dalmia columns in Reason kvetching about Modi and his brand of nationalism.
Is it really "ethnic nationalism" if there's a huge number of different languages they speak?
You could say religious nationalism though that also doesn’t fit, because for political purposes Sikhs, Jains etc function as Hindu adjacent. Maybe the common strand is a view of India as a civilization state (where the relevant civilization includes all of the Indian origin faiths but not Islam)
I believe they use the term "dharmic" to group those religions together (along with Buddhism, even though that's more associated with East Asia than South Asia nowadays).
the images don't display in the email version.
Regarding college degrees at the monastery: This is a total anecdote from a random youtube person, but here he discusses how he tried to become a monk after high school and "give up" his material life. The monks told him he didn't have anything to give up yet, so he should come back when he was 30 and had a degree, because you have to have something material to give up for giving up your material life to be meaningful. https://youtu.be/mIHEtK3WktE?t=3043
On thing i didn't see mentioned that my Indian friend keeps telling me about: The difference between Modi and Trump (who by the way I think is definitionally a fascist) is that Modi has actually does have excellent PR. He isn't doing the 'all publicity is good publicity' in the same way Trump did. You will actually rarely ever see Modi in a conference or campaigning as much as Trump did. He has, I've heard, a group of people who basically handle his image for him. You often hear stories of Modi doing some ridiculous stunt in the news, but you wont hear those stories from him.
Modi has good PR in the sense that there are paid keyboard warriors who keep singing his praises on Twitter, and writing a mean comment on his Twitter profile might invite threats of murder and rape to your Twitter inbox.
Trump has worse PR only in the sense that he is constrained by free speech laws that most Indians are unaware of/don't care for.
I'm an Indian living in America. And I hate Trump as much as anybody else. But reading the mean comments people made below his Tweets still catch me by surprise. My first thought is always "I'm surprised he doesn't pay someone to take this guy out".
Trump is "definitionally a fascist"?
I don't think you have a clear definition of fascist.
"Ick! I don't like him!" isn't really a good method for intelligent discussion.
Yeah; Trump's a lot closer to Ted Cruz than to any other major political figure.
Even Vox has had some awareness of that: https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/21521958/what-is-fascism-signs-donald-trump
It's pretty disheartening that you automatically assume i don't have good reasons and that i'm just a silly liberal democrat who calls anything they don't like fascist. You didn't even ask me what my reasons were.
You're assuming I think you're a silly liberal democrat.
No, my assumption is that you don't know what fascist means.
I base that assumption on you going out of your way to uniquely ascribe the term to Trump. Now if you also apply it to Biden and most political leaders I'll rescind my assumption.
So what is your definition of "fascist", on what do you base this definition, and would this definition correctly identify the Fascist Manifesto as fascist and the Communist Manifesto as non-fascist?
I am skeptical of any account of Indian sterilisation that follows the standard academic account of portraying the population control movement as a bunch of scheming imperialist racists.
What do you think was going on?
A lot of things, motivated by a lot more than racism.
When American academics settled on the goal of "people across the world must reproduce less", any manifestation of that was going to look like (or arguably actually be) scheming imperialism - projecting their values abroad onto the lowest classes, castes, and races (who usually reproduce the fastest, and don't have the power to resist).
Were they "racist"? As I would use the term, probably not; they almost certainly thought they were doing this *for the benefit* of those people, ennobling them and setting them on a sustainable path and preserving their environs. But they also certainly held those people and the choices they made for themselves in low regard, and that would probably be enough for most people to apply the label.
Since the average low-caste Indian being forcibly sterilized experienced it as a crime and a tragedy, and well-intentioned Westerners decided not to care about that view, I would say they fit the bill of "scheming imperialists" extremely well. (Equally well as, e.g., Christians who saw any given colonial terror as a necessary evil in order to save souls. Were they racist? No, just monomaniacal.)
You are drawing straight lines that should not be drawn, and seemingly rejecting that any attempt by first world countries to influence the third world could be moral in any way.
"... educated elites cynically fanning racial discord so they could force minority groups to flee to them as "protectors". This is probably how Trump would describe the Democrats if he was smart enough to think of it." I didn't vote for Trump either time, although I have in the past voted R for president. Now that I've gotten that out of the way, I have to say that Trump absolutetly did this.
A quick Google search for "Donald Trump outreach black voters" returns a bevy of headlines that tell us Trump had outreach efforts, they were all phoney, and they are probably racist. Here's an article with a bunch of quotes where Trump said basically this kind of thing: https://www.chicagotribune.com/nation-world/ct-donald-trump-black-voters-20160819-story.html
How does caste fit into Indian politics? Are the upper castes still elites? Who do they vote for?
It's important for regional politics, but I'd suggest it isn't the most useful lens for thinking about national politics. For national politics, I'd offer the same intuition pump as in my comment to Scott above: think of it as American politics, with non-Dalit Hindus -> non-Hispanic Whites, Muslims -> Blacks and Dalits -> Hispanics. (Dalits being the lowest caste). Also, the BJP is the party of the red tribe, and the INC is the party of the blue tribe, and the sorting between tribes and parties is much more complete than in the US - we still have `blue tribe Republicans' but there are no longer any `blue tribe BJP' leaders. This will give you a good understanding of how Indian national politics worked 10-20 years ago...
I had to chuckle when I read this
'In unrelated news, there was a food shortage'
This was pretty brilliant for someone who does not have much familiarity with India.
Even though it gets some big things exactly wrong, I am very impressed.
A minor point that reminded me of how unfamiliar the author is with India is when he says "...he gathered all his possessions in a bag and ran off to the Himalayas to find Truth.", as if it was a big deal.
This is a very Hindu thing to do. I have a relative and multiple friends who have done this. I read a book by a psychiatrist about 25 years ago (if I remember this correctly) called "Another way to live". By Rajiv Kapoor (spelling?). It saw this phenomenon as an Indian method of dealing with depression.
Also, riots in retain parts of India are extremely common. This one seems to have got out of hand very quickly, because he was a new chief minister (took office Oct 2001, riots in Feb-March 2002). It appears there have been no riots since. Certain groups involved in the riots don't seem to have been under his control at that time, as he was so new. This is my understanding after speaking with experts I trust, who studied this very carefully.
Overall, fantastic and insightful essay. Delightfully funny, such as the line on D&D.
I’d like to know what big things this piece got wrong
Your characterization of this piece as misleading in parts is misleading for the readers. I am Indian, and I can vouch for the veracity of this piece.
Running off to the Himalayas, while certainly present in the popular conscience, is not very common at all, and your experience is certainly not the norm. I have not heard of anyone at all running off to the Himalayas, for instance (although I can't in good faith say that my n=1 evidence disproves your n=1 evidence).
There have also been many major riots since the 2002 massacre, including last year when Delhi Police helped Hindu goons kill ~50 Muslims in the capital New Delhi. Many more were injured and maimed, and multiple muslim colonies were burned down. Again, this was only last year.
I left out "no riots IN GUJARAT state" since. Sorry, major error.
Do you hold Delhi CM Kejriwal accountable for the riots you refer to in Delhi?
India is a riot-prone violent country.
I don't hold CM Kejriwal responsible, because Delhi Police, by and large, is not answerable to him.
https://www.livemint.com/opinion/columns/why-governance-of-delhi-police-needs-a-relook-11582856773563.html
Bias alert: I am largely sympathetic to Kejriwal, although I have found out that I am much less informed about Indian politics than I'd like to be.
Read his incoherent book "Swarajya". He is basically a communist. Quite talented at drawing media attention to himself. Wins in Delhi because of the vote from bureaucrats (who deeply despise Modi as he fired many of them) and Muslims (huge % of Delhi).
Sadly, people in India vote according to identity. I hear Muslim females are split with many voting Modi (his removal of "triple talaq" etc...the Congress made it very hard for Muslim women - read Scott's description of the Shah Bank case for an example why).
Identity politics basically is what Indian politics is about.
*Bano
Scott: As an intuition pump for (national) Indian politics, I offer the following analogy. Think of it as American politics, with (non-Dalit) Hindus -> (non-Hispanic) Whites, Muslims -> Blacks and Dalits -> Hispanics. The numbers roughly work, and the political dynamics also work, at least for national politics (regional politics is a more complicated beast). Meanwhile, the BJP is the party of the red tribe, with a coalition that includes Hindu nationalists, social conservatives and small business people, and the INC is the party of the blue tribe, with a coalition of minorities, lower classes and urban/anglophone elites. Also the sorting between tribes and parties is much more complete than in America. The last `blue tribe BJP leader' is probably Vajpayee, who stepped off the stage in 2004.
Also, the comment that `all the recent trends in American politics also happened in Indian politics, but ten years earlier,' is one that I have repeatedly heard over the past decade, from people familiar with the politics of both countries. I think I first heard it at the time of the Obama/Romney election although I don't recall where. Sometimes people say `twenty years earlier.'
I should say this intuition pump will give you a feel for Indian politics ~10 years ago. Whether US politics over the next decade will follow the same trajectory as Indian politics over the past decade (DeSantis as Modi?) remains to be seen.
Such parallels make no sense to me.
I understand though people outside India can only understand it through abstractions they are familiar with. It seems worse than wrong - nonsensical.
I don't think so, and I've heard this parallel from multiple Indian people. You are of course at liberty to disagree, but I think it is a useful frame for a zeroth order understanding.
The abstractions with which people in India who are not Westernized THINK, are entirely different.
It is good to be aware of it. I myself have this problem. I have to remind myself to put on a different hat. And I might still be quite wrong about many things India.
Sure, it's meant to be an analogy, not an exact parallel. As for the `people in India who are not Westernized' bit, well, that's the catch, right? Who counts as Westernized, bearing in mind that this is a continuum? And how is Scott supposed to grok the thinking of non-Westernized Indians, given that Anglophone Indians are all Westernized to a greater or lesser extent? (Erusian and I were having this same discussion elsewhere in this comment thread).
True. I thought this essay was very insightful, actually.
It is important to keep in mind, however, that you only know football and are trying to guess the rules of golf using that, and who is a good golf player and various nuances.
It is not that you should not try to understand golf.
Ok so what’s happened since the book ended?
What should we expect to see next in the US?
Just because the analogy has held over the past few decades doesn’t mean it will hold over the next one. With that said:
Modi and the BJP win a national election by a landslide in 2014, while the INC crashes to its worst ever defeat, even falling below the threshold for constitutional recognition as the official opposition. Over the next few years the BJP wins a bunch of state houses as well. Modi is re-elected in another landslide in 2019.
Civil Society (English language press, judiciary etc) starts out vehemently opposed to modi. Over time he bends or intimidates all the above to his will.
On record in office my gestalt impression is his first term was much more focused on improving governance. The second seems to be much more culture war (Indian edition), although in the past year corona has dominated all.
Obviously this story is still being written and I don’t know how it ends (not that history ever ends)
In the case of Civil Society turning, why is that easier to do in India than the US? Are they vulnerable in some way that they wouldn’t be in the US.
It didn't happen all at once. But my gestalt impression is that Modi has been extremely skillful in placing loyalists into key positions, and those loyalists have been extremely skillful in using governmental power to intimidate journalists etc into line (e.g. journalists overly critical of the government tend to get busted for tax evasion, or for crimes that `everyone commits,' (totally unrelated to their journalism of course, nobody could imagine there was any connection but being a journalist doesn't give you license to break the law /s) and after a few went to jail the others got the message. In contrast the Trump regime was pretty incompetent at actually using the levers of power. Although I don't think Trump is a great parallel to Modi, in any respect other than original relationship to civil society.
The US has a better constitution. That's both in the sense of the written document and let in the body of values and customs that do all the real work.
But that gap is narrowing as the American elite discard their traditional enlightenment values. Heck, Indian Dharma might well turn out to be a stronger foundation for liberty. But that story is yet to be written.
The odd thing about "Muslims -> Blacks" is that Muslims were on top before the British took over. Razib Khan once compared the Syrian rebels against Assad to the KKK, in that they regarded the Alawites as a backward minority who should have never been in charge and only rose up via their alignment with colonial powers.
On the Indo-Gangetic plain, not nationwide. And `before the British took over' is quite a while ago. 1857 if you go by the start of the formal Raj, but 1757 if you date the start of British rule to Plassey (which puts it further into the past than the American declaration of Independence).
India today doesn't include Pakistan or Bangladesh (much less any of Afghanistan), so "nationwide" by its standard would be smaller than the Mughal empire. And to their south the Deccan sultanates were also ruled by Muslims. The Tipu Sultan of Mysore was also a Muslim, as were the Nizams of Hyderabad.
The Maratha conferedacy was not Muslim. Nor were the Rajput Princes. Nor was Ranjit Singh's kingdom in the Punjab. Even further back in the past all of those areas were under Mughal suzerainty, but for that you have to go back to the 1600s. Certainly at the time the British arrived the above were not under Mughal control. And IIRC modern Tamil Nadu was never under Muslim control, nor were the regions East of Bengal.
It is interesting though to ask about the counterfactual where the British (and more generally European) powers never arrive, and to ask who would have dominated the subcontinent in that alternative history. It seems safe to say it would *not* have been the Mughals. By the beginning of the 19th century the power of the Mughal emperor was mostly limited to Delhi and its immediate environs. Moreover, this decline had started nearly a century before Plassey, during the reign of Aurangzeb, and continued essentially monotonically, so it seems unlikely that things would have turned around at the 11th hour had the British not arrived. Who would have filled the power vacuum instead? The British seem to have thought the Marathas were their main competitors for hegemony on the subcontinent, but of course it doesn't follow that Maratha hegemony would actually have resulted, or that it would have been as complete. It seems unlikely that it would have been the Tipu of Mysore or the Nizam of Hyderabad, if only because it is difficult to project power into the Indo Gangetic plain from a base south of the Deccan.
If Dalits are like Hispanics, and sorting between tribes and parties is much more complete than in America, that means Dalits heavily favor the INC, right? But according to one of Erusian's comments, Modi enjoys support from people who always vote for the lowest-caste candidate.
I believe this (the BJP struggling with Dalits, who generally vote for either the INC or a third party that aligns with the INC) is historically true, and was true as recently as ~10 years ago, which is as close to the present as the analogy is supposed to apply. Modi has indeed scrambled this equation, but the rise of Modi to prominence on the national stage is more recent than 2011. (It is curious to note in this regard that American HIspanics also had something of a red shift in 2020, and it is plausible that if a future Republican is to win a landslide victory nationwide, this will require capturing the Hispanic vote, but now we might be pushing the analogy past the point where it is useful).
A very rough analogy: imagine if Trump were Black. That's not to say Modi's background is as disadvantaged but imagine a group that's relatively politically united as a pressure group and traditionally support the liberal party because they like welfare/affirmative action.
Would Black Trump shift all the Black votes? No, probably not even a majority. Would it create a constituency where there otherwise wasn't one? Yes, especially on a populist anti-establishment message that resonated with the idea the system is rigged.
Naturally there was the requisite scandal/conspiracy theory about how he was super duper secretly a high caste Indian that was breathlessly reported by the media and dropped after it turned out to be based on nothing.
Aren't Dalits arguably outside the normal caste system? Thus: "outcastes".
They're seen as not belonging to one of the four varnas but they do have a caste. In terms of the actual system they are avarna but belong to a jati.
that's just another way of saying lowest rung.
I'd be curious to know how many subscriptions you lost after the NYT piece came out. If it was a significant number that was simply outweighed by all the new readers, your audience could have increased in size at the cost of becoming more homogenous, which I'm not sure is a net benefit.
The "buying votes with handouts to various ethnic groups" certainly sounds familiar. Jabbering about differing welfare statistics for various identity groups isn't unfamiliar to these Western ears, either. What a joyous multicultural future we have to look forward to.
"But if I ever want to become Prime Minister of India, I know what strategy I'm going to use."
next article, "If you're so smart, why aren't you Prime Minister of India?"
Maybe media exposure just increases the volatility of outcomes. You might become Prime Minister of India, but negative outcomes could happen too. It's like putting thousands of people in a room. Sometimes you get a particularly generous person to give you a ton of money, but you're much more likely to get a ton of angry people.
Be careful tracing the definition of Fascism this way. FDR made no secret of his admiration for (and willingness to copy) Mussolini too. Since FDR basically re-founded the Democratic Party . . .
Silly person, you know that by Definition Democrats can't be fascists. The best wokists all believe that...
Gonna be honest. This piece gained zero value from having a mention of Donald Trump.
This book review series should be called "Are they fascist?" Next up: Bolsinaro, Orban and Putin.
Ofc.
Seconded
Also Xi, or the post-Communism Chinese Communist Party in general.
I think that would be an annoyingly boring series, because discussion around it would inevitably devolve into "what do we mean by the word "fascism"?" rather than "what are the similarities and differences between Bolsonaro etc and previous rulers?".
Far better to taboo the word and work around it, I think.
Probably true. For example, Singapore's Lee Kuan Yew was more "authoritarian" and "fascist" than any of the current boogeymen. But no one would dare call him a "fascist" because that would be an admission that a little "fascism" can be good thing sometimes.
How did the media switch and become pro-Modi? That seems like something tough to manufacture.
A combination of carrots and sticks, which modi wielded with considerable skill. High profile Critics just happened to get busted for tax evasion, or for breaking laws of the ‘every one does it’ variety, and the rest got the message…
Why was Kerala such a success story when it pursued socialist policies?
kerala is beneficiary of expatriate money coming in. a significant amount of money comes in from outside.
This letter appeared in The Economist in 2014.
Controversial Modi
SIR – Your leader on Narendra Modi, the front-runner to be India’s
next prime minister, repeated accusations that have been thoroughly
investigated and found to be without basis by no less than a Special
Investigation Team (SIT) appointed by the Indian Supreme Court (“Would
Modi save India or wreck it?”, December 14th).
You said that Mr Modi refuses to atone for a “pogrom” against Muslims
in Gujarat, where he is chief minister. But what you call a pogrom was
in fact a “communal riot” in 2002 in which a quarter of the people
killed were Hindus—170 of them from bullets fired by the police. By
contrast, the more numerous 1984 killing of Sikhs after Indira
Gandhi’s assassination was indeed a pogrom, directed exclusively at
the Sikhs. With not a single charge against Mr Modi standing up to the
SIT’s scrutiny, it is absurd to ask him to atone.
JAGDISH BHAGWATI
ARVIND PANAGARIYA
Professors at Columbia University
New York
I would call this an great review, in the same way that Americans say "Your English is great" to immigrants. (I don't mean this as snark, it is a genuine compliment)
A few qualifications
> If you look at size of the economy, Gujarat does slightly better; if you look at measures of equality or poor people’s ability to access services, Kerala does
Kerala is the only Indian state that never saw 1000 years of social and infrastructure erosion (no Islamic invasion, no British colonialism, mostly due to geographic location). Its entire economy is tourism (as a result of low erosion of HDI and literally being called "heaven on Earth") or working in the gulf. In terms of productivity being produced by the state, Kerala doesn't do that well.
> Modi's rise eerily parallels Erdogan's
I am so glad someone finally gets it to so degree. Erdogan is indeed the closest analogy to Modi. A few differences tho. Hinduism is ethnicity, history, native culture and religion. Because of this, the pro-Hindu movement is fundamentally different from religious movements in the west. The head of the RSS (Mohan Bhagwat) explicitly emphasizes nationalism, ethnicity and native culture as hinduism. They have been quite open to bringing other 'religions' into the fold as long as they accept the native culture aspect of things. This is a great summary by one of India's foremost traditional-journalist : Shekhar Gupta. (https://youtu.be/V_DXUd1MzCA?t=687). I would not be surprised if he was a reader here.
Indian politics 101 is incredibly complex. So, in 100% of cases, western people writing about Indian politics lacks all nuance. Hell, even Indian-Americans and many of the Indian academic elites do a terrible job. So for an American, this was Indeed a great review.
I am particularly impressed at how well you've grasped concepts around the deep rootedness of socialism in Indian politics and the self-destructive role of the Media in the rise of Modi later adopted by Trump.
TYPO
"though I’m also can’t ignore everyone else’s position that worsening relations are due to Modi and people like him."
should be
"though I also"
On the definition of fascism, I'm curious, was Hitler a fascist? Did the Nazi party ever self-identify as a fascist party? Or did they say "Fascism is the name of what Mussolini has going on in Italy, but we are National Socialists, which is similar but not identical"
If anything it seems to me that we should use the term "Fascist" (which doesn't mean much) specifically for the Italian version and the descriptive term "national socialism" for the international movement as a whole.
One of my political science professors put it this way: The Fascists were all about creating the "best state" while the Nazis were all about creating the "best people".
It's possible that someone could end up creating a new fascist movement, but I suspect they're more likely to just create a new form of totalitarianism instead. A lot of what made fascism unique and would be exportable in other contexts is just plain weird to a modern audience. Privately owned and operated business monopolies with inputs, outputs, and pricing controlled by the government? Meh. Just have the state nationalize the company, or offer to pay cash for what you want.
Hard to tell if you wrote the above with tongue in cheek. Both major American parties meddle constantly with business monopolies and their inputs, outputs, and pricing. They don't "control" them, having realized that direct control breaks things. Just make suggestions: "Nice social media platform you have here; would be a shame if it got broken."
Maybe it makes sense to understand fascism as "communism with Italian characteristics"; as an attempt to create a movement as powerful as communism, while avoiding some obvious (at that time) mistakes of Soviet Union.
The good part of nationalization is that you get the control over the factory. The bad part is that you usually appoint as a new director someone who is... an expert in signaling loyalty to your party, but often sucks as a director, which results in an economical disaster.
What if you instead leave the original owner - who is obviously good at directing the company - at the wheel and only... put a gun to his head, make him swear allegiance to your party, and sometimes override his decisions for some greater goal? That should work better, at least for some time. (The long-term problem is, how would anyone start a new company in the fascist regime? Is that even legal?)
From what I've read, it took people a while to figure out that communism didn't work economically. As recently as the 1950s even hard-core anti-communists assumed it would work; they just thought it wasn't worth the loss of freedom.
> I have a friend who studied the history of fascism. She gets angry when people call Trump (or some other villain du jour) fascist. "Words have meanings! Fascism isn't just any right-winger you dislike!" Maybe she takes this a little too far; by a strict definition, she's not even sure Franco qualifies.
Well, Franco doesn't qualify either. Words have meanings, and there's a field called history. Historians don't consider Franco a fascist (while his side did merge with fascist fractions, he had not adopted a similar ideology, didn't follow one, and was basically a regular dictator. Not every dictator is a fascist - a term that describes a specific ideology and set of practices).
Trump doesn't qualify several times over. He hadn't enacted any fascist policy. At worst he was a populist. Calling him a "fascist" is dilluting the meaning of the term to the point of homeopathy (for the benefit of provincial US contemporary politics). If anything Reagan or Bush laws - e.g. the Patriot Act - were far more in the fascist vein (though even those weren't informed by any fascist ideology).
I think the most nearly fascist U.S. presidential policy was the First New Deal, seen as labor, capital, and the government cooperating. Fortunately it was abandoned early.
> He hadn't enacted any fascist policy
He banned transgender individuals from joining the army. When asked if he would implement a database system to track Muslims in the United States, Trump said: "I would certainly implement that. Absolutely."
Trump has attempted to transform the US government into a totalitarian state multiple times. Last year Trump held a rally where he "called for the election result to be overturned and urged his supporters to "take back our country" by marching to the Capitol to "show strength" and "fight like hell.""
He frequently goes on about going back to a mythical time when America was great. He has described himself as a nationalist.
All of these would sound off alarm bells for anyone who knows anything about fascism. I'm tired of this nonsense that the man isn't a fascist just because some stupid people overuse the word.
1) is not fascist at all. Having strict standards for who is recruited into the armed forces is a completely normal thing in all nations, although many of them disagree on exactly what the standards should be. The United States has for many decades had rules about various conditions that bar you from serving.
2) is kind of fascist, although he never actually did it or put any effort into doing it
3) is just false. He never once tried to transform the US government into a totalitarian state, and has done a lot less to make it totalitarian than all the presidents who exerted vastly more control over the country and its people such as Teddy Roosevelt, FDR, or George Bush with their creation of the FBI (a secret internal police force), reorganization of the entire nation to serve warfare, and the creation of the department of homeland security.
4) He held rallies exactly as every other democratic politician does and used totally normal political turns of phrase. "Fight like hell" is extremely common and not fascist at all.
5) going back to a better past is extremely NOT fascist, as fascism is fundamentally a futurist ideology.
I'm tired of people lying about Trump being a fascist.
None of your arguments leads one to think Trump is a fascist. Unpleasant? Yes. Demagogic? Yes. Fascist? No.
No one wants to read posts written by the semi-educated with a smidgen of knowledge.
enough of it is true, both good and bad. Congress does believe in giving special rights , that is its way to win by doing nothing, as India urbanises and moves away from elites, its hard for them, they want socialism, they want their coterie to rule the roost and avg Indian to beg them for permissions. They are trying to tear the country apart once again by promising reservations in private sectors. You can see this in their election manifesto 2019 and 2014, which would have catastrophic effect on us. Religious strife started much before british, India had partition on basis of religion for goodness sake. Indian muslims are far from secular,(pew survery, 74 % believe in sharia) many can sense their fundamentalism. And many suspect that once their population comes to a certain size, they might be back to what they did before, partition or make governance ungovernable . We had various terrorist attacks in India carried by Indian mujahadeen. busted by intelligence of gujarat police when they came to gujarat to carry out their attacks while modi was the cm. As Jinnah the founder of pakistan said in 1946 speech, " we will have India divided or India destroyed". Only Indian state that is muslim majority is kashmir, where people often use stones to attack army even as it tries to carry out operations to fight terrorists. Also responsible for ethnic cleansing of hindu minority from the state. And congress, left, elites pretend this bigotry is imagined and not true and went further down the path of trying to brainwash people by scrubbing midieval history of islamist zealotry, temples were raided and razed to ground for purely political and economic reasons we are taught. And if anyone speaks out, they are nazi. On issue of riots, many riots have happened in India before modi and yet it was under his tenure media went big on. Not bad thing in itself because we need accountability but people can see the duplicity. And it is this duplicity and promise of corruption free ,duplicity free, pro entrepreneur governance that people voted him in. You will struggle to find 10 articles by Indian muslims by 5 different authors over last 20 yrs that can be termed as secular within context of their own faith, even on issues outside of India. they seek to question others, but have succeeded to be mum about wrongs in and from their own community, anywhere , both inside India or outside. You should consider an Index of religions that allow for some self criticism, for ultimately this is the only measure for a better stable societies and see what happens if they you get the most regressive group to live beside some mid level group. So, people go to the other side that promises Hindu/dharmic position for many people buy the idea that secularism is a charade. Also, no one in India is liberal, it is claimed by elites and passed on to their western cohort to make noises on their behalf, no political party in India supports freedom of speech, which is important if one ever wants secular project to succeed. Nehru, India's first PM shot down free speech in First amendment, only person who stood for free speech was member of hindu mahasabha, shyama prasad mukherjee , also the leader of first version of bjp, bjs. he died under arrest for his protest in kashmir, under nehru govt. since then, no one else believes in free speech. : ( . India has 3 problems, 1) religion, 2 ) caste, 3) bad economics. There is no option of secular, meritocratic , capitalist option . so everyone picks their poison.
"As Jinnah the founder of pakistan said in 1946 speech, " we will have India divided or India destroyed""
That was before Pakistan existed. He got India divided — into India and Pakistan in 1947. Are you arguing that the fact he favored partition is evidence that Muslims are evil terrorists? Would you prefer that it not have happened?
The way you use that quote makes me less willing to take seriously the rest of what you write.
firstly, who cares for your judgement. Let me explain myself to rest of the people here. I am making a social dynamics argument. Islam is a closed tight social group. That distinguishes itself by rejecting secular forms of political expressions, it comes down to 4 ideas, sharia, blasphemy, jihad, straight up murder for criticism of Mohammad. So every time such tight group cultures grow in population , such antagonistic dynamics play out. Jinnah literally said, that he would have Indian muslims in hindu majority areas would allow themselves be smashed up so as to allow muslims in majority areas to gain freedom.His muslim league won the elections of Indian muslims (elites who voted) unanimously across India. He further came up with hostage theory, whereby the security of Indian muslims would be assured by holding non muslim minority in pakistan as hostages. You can put it simply in this way. 2 groups live side by side. Group A only allows partial use of secular political expressions. Group B does not make any use of secular political expressions. Group A allows criticism of religion to certain degree, group B kills and threatens to kill all those who do criticize their religion. What happens as population of B rises, would they be happy to live under a common secular framework, or would there be a phase transition to search for alternatives. That alone is enough to explain partition. That speech led to killings across many parts of India and forced Nehru and Gandhi and congress to accept partition. It was a product of mughal elites under british sense of loss of status and power and their atavistic fantasies. Hence pakistan names its missiles after medieval muslim invaders of India. ghazni,ghori,abdali. It is common sense to assume peace is product of common secular norms and values to become the corner stones between different religious groups. As I said earlier. Just map religious groups that do engage in some degree of criticism of faith vs those who dont. And left ,liberals in India have gone much further in this that they have manufactured history . Their failure in dealing with this has been the primary reason for rise of bjp. When people see double standards to the degree that left/liberal scholars find the need to cover up for medieval fanatics, it does not inspire trust. Would be same as democrats coming to defense of white slavers. Modi is just one cog in the wheel of time. There is a day beyond him, and this dynamic is actually what is playing out . It cant be solved by economics either, though it can offer some breathing space perhaps. Jinnah, modi etc are not the primary movers , the underlying dynamics is what allows them to find space to make something of situations they find themselves in. And at no point does it require me to believe all muslims as evil etc. you dont need many drops of poison in glass of water to die, you dont need majority of everyone either, what you need is the social norms be supported by majority even if the actors are a tiny minority. People have given congress many decades since 47 and once again, we face the same original dynamic that led to partition. Also, left/liberals in India dont make their arguments on basis of free speech or individual rights, they make their arguments in terms of group rights and the idea of peace between religions. To me this is lunatic. Group rights leads to people eventually taking tribal view in the end, peace between religions is nonsensical aim, aim should be to value civic rights and civic norms of individuals over all other competing ideologies.
https://theprint.in/politics/not-cows-to-be-milked-muslims-in-bengal-kerala-assam-are-now-assertive-want-recognition/635205/ evidence, in all three states, muslim population has crossed 20% and we see assertion of those values again. simple, social dynamics playing out.
You're right in not taking this clown seriously.
One of the most important points about Modi that touched even me, was Modi truly rose from one of the lowest castes and true poverty, to PM.
It was a good moment to see that people across all castes obviously voted for him. He is not at all Anglicized, and speaks broken English with a thick Gujarati accent...unlike his opponents in the Congress party who prefer English and occasionally speak broken Hindi.
It made me feel that Indians are finally shaking off their inferiority complex about being Indian. That is something unique Modi offers. He seems comfortable in his own skin with no pretentions of even knowing English.
If you grew up in India, you might see many signs that this gladdens many hearts and equally, angers others.
I think it might be a class thing.
Yet, Modi is not crude or unrestrained like Trump, but a disciplined politician. Even his worst detractors agree he is not personally corrupt. He is not at all grubby like Trump seems to be.
*grabby
Get over yourself. Has nothing to do with your nyt episode. The Congress is a party of elites. The BJP is a party of elites. There is no functional difference between the two. They are both parties of Hindu male chauvinists.
"When all these demagogues who succeeded against all odds tell you what strategy they used, maybe you should believe them."
Or maybe you should not believe them, exactly for this reason. Or at least take it with a huge grain of salt. Because if negative coverage actually was a problem for them, claiming that it was the source of their success is a very convinient thing to do. Also don't these people later make sure to take controll over press in order to ensure positive coverage of their actions?
The idea that negative coverage is still coverage seems to have some merit. But with caveats. There have to be some specific conditions like huge distrust to media and/or polarization in society so that one can use it to their benefit. It probably requires a lot of prebuilt social capital as well.
While marxbro somewhat overstate the claim that NYT didn't explicitly call Scott sexist, racist and bigoted, technically he is correct. The tone of the article was of a mild (dis)interest with some dogwhistles of Scotts views being problematic. Although it was totally unfair, purposely done in a bad faith and Scott's detaste of it is justified even without all the doxing stuff, it doesn't seem to be a complete condemnation or cancelling. I think considering it as a strong evidence in favour of "demagogues are right about negative coverage" isn't correct.
Yeah, it needs to be the right kind of negative coverage. The kind that tells "not our tribe" to the primary audience, and "he is one of you guys" to the outgroup.
Uniformly negative coverage... in a parallel reality where Jeffrey Epstein miraculously survived despite all the attention of suicide watch, he is probably *not* running for a president.
"in a parallel reality where Jeffrey Epstein miraculously survived" shhhh
I didn't overstate my case, I stated it correctly. That's why nobody is able to find any evidence that the NYT called Scott "elitist", as Scott claimed. The evidence simply does not exist. Scott is either misreading the article or misremembering it.
This is a very basic error and I expect that Scott could fix it easily, if he was interested in fixing his mistakes.
Also there was never any "doxing". Scott's full name was already extremely easy to find.
For some context on what kind of laws the conservative Hindu party in India is now passing, I'd recommend reading or listening to the recent NPR story about laws against "love Jihad" which in effect involve using police power to prevent interfaith marriages. I found it pretty upsetting.
https://www.npr.org/2021/09/15/1037541945/indias-new-laws-against-love-jihad-give-hindu-conservatives-power-to-halt-weddin
pew survey, 64% Hindus against inter religious marriage, 80% muslims against inter religious marriage, 60% against intercaste marriage. local politicians, groups and communities kill the spouses regularly, including muslim communities. https://www.opindia.com/2021/09/telangana-sharia-police-thrash-hindu-men-for-being-with-muslim-women/ the law was made to arrest people who pretend being other religion and marry and later try to convert their spouses. You dont trust your own news service when it comes to you, but will happily trust it when it comes to others. gellman amnesia effect.
the term love jihad comes from southern most state in India, kerala, where the chuch made this allegation first, and there are instances of this happening and infact many leaving the state and going to join isis. https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/kerala-cm-reignites-love-jihad-theory/articleshow/6216779.cms kerala cm, a communist made this allegation as well, https://theprint.in/india/theyre-taking-our-girls-to-isis-how-church-is-now-driving-love-jihad-narrative-in-kerala/632324/
https://www.opindia.com/2020/11/muslim-man-from-noida-pretends-to-be-hindu-to-marry-a-hindu-woman/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ajmer_rape_case https://www.indiatoday.in/india/story/muslim-man-hindu-woman-missing-1539936-2019-06-01 https://www.timesnownews.com/india/article/love-jihad-in-uttar-pradesh-muslim-man-poses-as-hindu-on-social-media-to-marry-girl-arrested/696883 https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/lucknow/man-conceals-identity-marries-hindu-girl-in-temple-arrested/articleshow/81402328.cms https://www.republicworld.com/india-news/city-news/delhi-muslim-man-uses-fake-hindu-identity-to-marry-woman-rapes-and-assaults-her-absconds.html 5 different news publications, different cases, one from south indian church, this year. One simply does not know about this phenomena, because to even find out about such phenomena goes against the inbuilt narrative.
what is evidence of inbuilt narrative you ask, nytimes ads for jobs in India.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PndDZP0iKyo literally go and check their website for jobs ads in India.
Is it weird that I didn't see the NY Times or New Yorker articles as hit pieces? I did subscribe after they came out, but I was generally aware of SSC previously and occasionally read it. I just saw them as interesting articles about a guy who writes interesting articles.
The New Yorker article wasn't a hit piece.
What is your definition of "hit piece"?
The NYT piece used a plethora of hit piece techniques, implying falsehoods. A truly careful (or very skeptical) reader would not be deceived by this, but many people are not careful readers and will be deceived.
> But if I ever want to become Prime Minister of India, I know what strategy I'm going to use.
Come on – Scott Alexander for President of the United States of America!
I am surprised by the lack of intelligent critique written in English from India's press about Modi. It mirrors the frothing coverage of a certain former American president. Maybe there is something better in Hindi?
Many of his campaigning techniques are innovative: social media, holograms and murdering Bear Grylls with his bare hands (he had it coming). Like a good politician, he seems obsessed by the appearance of things. How does he think? Who is he as a man? A power-hungry functionary? A genuine patriot?
"In unrelated news, there was a food shortage. Indians took to the streets protesting Prime Minister Indira Gandhi (no relation to Mahatma Gandhi). Gandhi was heavy-handed in crushing the protests, which caused more protests, one thing led to another, and finally Gandhi declared martial law, a period which has gone down in history as the Emergency."
This is factually wrong. Firstly, there was no martial law as that implies the army was called in. Gandhi "suspended" the constitution and used the police - arguably worse than calling in the army. Secondly, Gandhi's "reason" for declaring the emergency was a state court order requiring her to resign on account of election law violations. She could have appealed the order to the supreme court but resignation was a requisite which of course she did not want to do
"In unrelated news, there was a food shortage. Indians took to the streets protesting Prime Minister Indira Gandhi (no relation to Mahatma Gandhi). Gandhi was heavy-handed in crushing the protests, which caused more protests, one thing led to another, and finally Gandhi declared martial law, a period which has gone down in history as the Emergency."
This is factually wrong. Firstly, there was no martial law as that implies the army was called in. Gandhi "suspended" the constitution and used the police - arguably worse than calling in the army. Secondly, Gandhi's "reason" for declaring the emergency was a state court order requiring her to resign on account of election law violations. She could have appealed the order to the supreme court but resignation was a requisite which of course she did not want to do
For my first comment on AstralCodexTen, let me share some links.
Scott's review plus the comments by Deepa, Humphrey Appleby, and Erusian made me curious about English-language online media in India.
MediaBiasFactCheck.com claims The Hindu and Scroll.in are both 'mostly factual' (4/6) in terms of factual reporting. They have differing degrees of 'left-center' bias (beyond which there is 'left' and then 'extreme'). Times of India is described as 'mixed' (3/6) in terms of factual reporting, and has 'right-center' bias. Those are the three Indian news websites I've visited in the past which I could find rated on MediaBiasFactCheck. The other Indian news websites I've visited are ThePrint.in, TheWire.in, and Caravan Magazine. I believe all three are anti-Modi (i.e., MediaBiasFactCheck would call them 'center-left' or 'left'). Indian readers, does any of this sound inaccurate?
Some discussion I found about media bias and integrity in India:
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-44280188 (news, UK)
https://southasianvoices.org/media-bias-and-democracy-in-india/ (analysis, Stimson Center, US)
For evaluating US media, the AllSides Media Bias Chart (https://www.allsides.com/media-bias/media-bias-ratings) and the AdFontes Interactive Media Bias Chart (https://adfontesmedia.com/interactive-media-bias-chart/) exist. I couldn't find a similar chart for Indian media. Has anyone seen one?
By the way, Scott, what do you think of looking into the AllSides and AdFontes charts linked above, and writing an essay on how effective they are in capturing US media bias? I bet I'm not the only one who would appreciate your analysis of them.
Hindu and Scroll are left , except Scroll is left on social issues and some times it is centrist some times. Hindu owner was N ram, member of communist party of India. There is no such thing as bias free media, quicker you get this , the better it is. Better to see things in terms of principled positions . Free speech, Individual rights, welfarism, religion, pro capitalism, etc. What you measure is what you get. If you go down facts path, then smarter people make arguments by being selective with facts they report on. So pick facts that are true for their side and diss by again by presenting news on other side where the facts really are false. If it was simple, it would be easy, life is not easy.so you can say, x believes in ufo's, and go about dissing that, "look how stupid the other people are" and smearing as though everybody on other side endorse same stupidity, but when it comes to their own group, they select smarter view and say " our boy said something correct and others are wrong on it". Hindu has been consistently Left and hence consistently wrong on economics for all their entire existence, many bureaucrats read up on that, see how much damage they did to the country. Would you get that by factcheck or thinking in a principled manner?. Think of noam chomsky, he is smart enough to only quote on facts that are true but is selective to paint his aversion to capitalism, but is that the way you measure what is true?. Think in terms of dimensions(axis), not in terms of facts. principles are dimensions, and how media goes about its news gathering and what kinds of data gets picked up and what kinds of data never get picked up will tell you a lot. So, if there is a x community that riots, they never use the names, just say, different communities had a fight, but when some 5 people belonging to other side had a fight on issues that had nothing to do with identity, they give names, backgrounds and paint it as though it is as though it has to do with identity. example, the bizarre term of "vehicular terrorism". One example you can use is, see the same cases being reported by all sides on principled positions and see how it gets reported. Whether there is a steelmanning or not.
If I were building a general theory of modern right-wing populist leaders, I'd start with signaling.
Modern right-wing populism (MRWP) is premised on the idea that voters see elite institutions (media, academia, technocracy, etc) as untrustworthy and/or hostile to their interests. You don't have to believe this is actually the case to observe that both MRWP leaders and MRWP voters very consistently *act as if it is*. So it's in the interest of MRWP politicians, up to a point, to *get those institutions to attack them* as a costly signal of their commitment to the anti-elite cause.
But this gets weird fast, because elite institutions are mostly in the business of signaling themselves. They exert political influence mostly by saying to voters "this candidate is good" or "this candidate is bad", based on their interpretation of the signals the candidate is sending. Some of the things elite institutions want politicians to signal are good, like "I am definitely not a racist" or "I will respond to crises in a predictable and reasoned way". Other things they want politicians to signal are... less straightforwardly good, and more about what elites want as a class.
The thing is, if you as a MRWP want to signal that you're against the elites, you can't just be against them on the complicated questions. Those make bad signals; that's why they're complicated. The true costly signal of loyalty to an anti-elite agenda is *refusing to signal to the elites that you are good*. It kind of reminds me of the point from the "Mazes" sequence (https://thezvi.wordpress.com/2020/05/23/mazes-sequence-summary/) that managers in super-perfect competition eventually have to signal loyalty by actively destroying their values, i.e. being evil.
When a MRWP politician refuses to signal conclusively to elites that, say, he's not a racist, the following explanations are possible:
a) he's a racist
b) he's not a racist but he's appealing to voters who want him to be a racist
c) he's not a racist, and his voters (mostly) don't want him to be a racist, but they do want him to be definitely not on the side of the elites and he's sending a costly signal of that
My claim is that c) is actually the most parsimonious explanation here, and the one we should default to in the absence of other evidence. a) has nothing to do with how MRWP leaders actually get power; since MRWP politicians have an incentive to send quasi-racist signals anyway, it would be an odd coincidence if they also all happened to be racists in their heart of hearts. b) does sort of explain how the signal is part of a strategy to get power, but not very convincingly; the extreme-right factions that want the politician to be an actual racist are also the smallest and the least likely to have somewhere else to go. c) is the only one that explains the signaling behavior without requiring us to hypothesize any additional facts beyond "this is a MRWP politician who wants to gain power".
The first two explanations-- a) in particular-- seem like classic examples of "murderism" as Scott has presented it: people taking a pattern of behavior they (correctly!) dislike and misinterpreting it as an inherent, self-contained tendency rather than the outcome of a system of incentives. So I suggest we should distrust them as models of MRWP leaders' behavior. This is not much of a consolation insofar as the signaling game will probably also lead to MRWP leaders doing bad things once in office. But it does suggest that there are better strategies available for responding to MRWP than "these are bad people who want bad things for the sake of badness, therefore they must be destroyed". Signals are not the territory.
Signals are eusocial when they represent 'uncorrelated asymmetries' or 'oikeiosis'- i.e. 'natural' belonging or appropriation. The classic example is the 'bourgeois strategy' in hawk-dove. A guy who sends strong signals that he will do what it is in his natural interest do gets us to an Aumann type correlated equilibrium. The problem is 'cheap talk' of a virtue signaling type. The thing is not credible. This means there must be some sort of swindle or fraud going on. I recall reading Michael Crichton's Disclosure which came out in 1994. A male executive is sexually harassed by the female the Boss wants to promote. Is this really about sexual equality or is it part of a sinister scheme to swindle hard working folk? That's how ordinary people felt when elites started gassing on about universal human rights and a rules based global order. They felt in their bones that they would be the first to be shafted. It is better to have rights linked to incentive compatible remedies under a bond of law then speak airily of indefeasible entitlements for everybody.
I suppose, the breakdown of 'Director's law' (which says that the middle classes benefit from Govt. spending) in the Seventies caused this revolt against the elites. But a Hohfeldian analysis- or indeed a Game theoretic one- would confirm that it is perfectly rational. Agent Principal hazard genuinely arises. Instead of Rawlsian 'strains of commitment' to Liberal values the median voter wanted the opposite- leaders with essentially tribal values making deals of an economically beneficial kind.
Very well written! But talk of Fascism is silly- save in West Bengal where Mamta has beaten the shit out of the Commies who ruled it for 30 years. Now she and Modi monopolize the seats in the Legislature with the Left and Rahul Gandhi's Congress left completely out in the cold.
Fascism was only desirable when thugs were needed to beat up Communists in the streets. Gujarat was and remains Gandhian because the Communists never had a presence there. Sadly, from 1969 to 2002 there were recurring Hindu-Muslim riots which were politically instrumentalized. However, there is no need for any fairy story about Congress 'appeasing' minorities. The truth is that Rahul Gandhi refused to take over as PM while his supporters refused to let Manmohan pursue reforms. This meant that Modi was the only candidate for the top job in 2014. It was literally a case of Modi or nobody. Sadly, this remains true to this day. Congress won't put up a viable candidate for the PM. The various regional Chief Ministers won't get together to nominate a 'Federalist' candidate who could implement 'subsidiarity' and solve pressing grass-roots problems. So India is stuck with Modi as it was stuck with Nehru or Indira.
It must be said that Pakistan is like Turkey, but India isn't because the Army will never step in to unseat a civilian administration. Mussolini, of course, was greatly admired by Mahatma Gandhi and Tagore- but not Nehru. Modi's RSS was an imitation of the Congress Seva Dal whose founders knew about the Black Shirts. But it was the Socialit Netaji S.C Bose who ended up in Berlin getting Hitler's to send him by U boat to the Japanese.
Indira didn't care a damn about the Western Press. Her 'Emergency' was very successful whereas Ted Heath's Emergency in the UK was a shambles. The head of the British Civil Service took off all his clothes and rolled around on the carpet of Number 10 screaming about a Communist conspiracy. By contrast, Indira locked up all her foes and the pro-Moscow Commies sang her praises. The RSS was whimpering and pleading with Indira to let them out of jail. They praised her as 'Goddess Durga'.
Why did Indira hold elections? The answer is she was afraid of her son's cronies. They might arrange a convenient 'accident' for her- with the help of the CIA. That's right! Indira thought the Americans would use her right wing younger son to get control of India. Incidentally, her elder daughter in law, Sonia, had better credentials with the Indian Left. They pushed for her to take over Congress which she did with great success. Appointing Manmohan as PM was a masterstroke. Sonia promoted Left-Liberal intellectuals who sadly scuppered the big reforms Manmohan proposed in 2012. This turned him into a lame duck. Still if Rahul had become PM he'd have won in 2014. But his daddy and granny had both been killed. He was understandably gun-shy. The question was whether Modi- the first poor 'backward caste' P.M- could do as good a job as Cambridge & Harvard educated aristocrat. The answer, strangely enough, was that he did a better job. Anglophone Indians suddenly realized that they had been wrong to treat their own people with disdain. The fact is even I- a Tamil- can understand Modi when he speaks Hindi. I can't, for the life of me, understand Rahul's English. Indeed, I now find that everything written in English about India by learned Professors is just silly or meaningless. We had a national language and should have used it to talk sensibly to each other.
The RSS has become a well respected civic organization like the YMCA or the Boy Scouts. It doesn't want to appear to be part of a power nexus because that will damage its ethos. Modi too wants to retire in a few years time and enter the Indian pantheon alongside the Mahatma and Ambedkar. Had Nehru retired when he turned 70, History would remember him kindly. Hopefully, Modi will escape from high office with the same dexterity that he entered it. But this has nothing to do with Fascism. As I have repeatedly proved, it is the Spanish Inquisition which is secretly at work. Underneath Trump's combover you will find Torquemada. Erdogan is secretly a member of Opus Dei. Wake up sheeple! There's an auto da fe headed your way!
Disclaimer: I'm from the gujarati muslim diaspora
Scott, I know you love to write, sometimes without looking deeply into topics, but I believe you should have done some more research instead of publishing this. The most disturbing part is at the end you essentially declare yourself as some type of hero because you got more hits using a strategy just like Modi, but this ISN'T why Modi was elected. You should do proper research before writing something so disturbing.
> Four months after Modi became chief minister of Gujarat, there was a terrible riot. Muslims set a train car full of Hindu pilgrims on fire, and mobs of vengeful Hindus went around murdering Muslims for days, with further outbreaks continuing for weeks. By the time everything was done, 790 Muslims and 254 Hindus had died.
This train burning is contested. So are the death figures. And it doesn't mention why the "Hindus" died. It doesn't mention the amount of people displaced. It doesn't mention the continuing tensions which continued for years and still continue to this day. In other words, you are repeating a biased take as if it were fact. You shouldn't repeat a biased take with disclaimers, you should instead say "I don't know enough to comment on this topic".
> The Indian Supreme Court found him innocent of the specific charges they were reviewing, but the decision was controversial.
An outsider may consider this good evidence, it's not. The court is known to be extremely corrupt.
> In other words, he says the media's attacks on him after the riots were so vicious and baseless that they made ordinary Gujaratis, who didn't like or trust the media, think he was on their side. The part about yatras refers to giant parades that Modi held during his campaign. The media played these up as scary fascist rallies, but as per Modi everyone had a good time and celebrated their shared Gujarati pride. When the papers kept saying that having Gujarati pride was equivalent to being a violent terrorist, all the proud Gujaratis who liked the parades realized the media wasn't on their side, and voted for him out of spite.
This story is, to put it simply, insane. You have no idea what the actual climate is/was like. The election was, absolutely, driven by the shared hatred towards muslims.
> For me the most interesting Modi/Trump parallel was the former's insistence that Gujaratis loved him because they hated the media who hated him. On the one hand, this is a convenient self-serving thing for him to say, because the leading alternative explanation is that they loved him because he was a violent racist and they were pro-violent-racism. On the other, it's hard not to remember the 2016 primary, when this was one of the leading explanations for how Trump suddenly rose to the front of the pack: the media hated him so much that they couldn't stop giving him free airtime.
This comparison makes no sense to me. Trump isn't actually a hardline racist. Just because situations can seem analogous on the surface with your incredibly limited understanding, it doesn't mean they actually are.
> But if I ever want to become Prime Minister of India, I know what strategy I'm going to use.
Hating muslims?
The Gujarati media was not anti-Modi. Some English language outlets as well as left wing vernacular publications did demonize Modi a few months after the riots when it became clear that he could win- if Vajpayee didn't sack him first.
I think Gujarati Muslims saw Modi as being close to Parvin Togadia and that is the reason they felt the whole thing was orchestrated. However, once Togadia turned against Modi, many Muslims remembered that Modi himself is 'Ghanchi' (OBC) and that caste can trump creed for practical purposes. Furthermore, though communal tension in Gujarat- since 1969- was worse than in neighboring states, Gujaratis were sensible and wanted good governance and economic development. Modi focused on that while managing to keep the farmers on side. It was a difficult balancing act and sometimes- e.g. when he tried to get Muslim corporators elected- he fell flat on his face.
If 'hating Muslims' could get one a Chief Ministership or Prime Ministership, everybody would be doing it. The truth is Muslims are considered sober and hardworking. People want to get rich by trading in what they produce. Similarly, the extreme racists in the US didn't want to repatriate the African Americans because they make a disproportionate economic contribution. Indian diasporas were not viewed with great favor in Western countries till they gained a reputation for hard work and enterprise. Currently some Muslims in India- Ismailis, Bohras, South Indian Muslims- are 'more equal' while poorer Muslims face discrimination and caste-based violence. This will change as industrialization occurs because elites will value the productivity of hardworking and sober people. Look at Bangladesh. It has overtaken Pakistan and parts of Indian in per capita income. Prejudice melts away as productivity rises.
In India, as in America, prejudice is stronger among less educated and poorer people. The elites looked down on Modi because of his background. God alone knows the truth of what is in his heart. The only question facing the voter is- who is the Opposition's candidate for the top job? If we had confidence that there is a worthy rival, then we can make an informed choice. Sadly, no such rival has come forward. But, sooner or later, it will happen.
Small typo: "Time his proved that"
Recommendation: Shashi Tharoor wrote a less loving biography of Modi. It's titled "The Paradoxical Prime Minister."
I'd like to point something out: Kerala government was basically playing life on easy mode, because they got (in fact continue to get) a large amount of money from remittances from people that immigrate to the Gulf, to spend on their welfare and socialist schemes.
Gujarat did not have any such luxuries.
I'm starting to read this post.
Will correct as I go along.
1) B S Moonje's party was not precursor to Modi's party or its parent organization.
Moonje's Hindu Mahasabha is a different organization to RSS (BJP is political arm of RSS). Though both believed in ideology of Hindutva (which again is a very maligned word because people don't understand what it means)
And biggest leader of HMS, Veer Savarkar is a revered figure for all Hindutva followers. (To know more about him, do read Vikram Sampath's best selling 2 volume books)
2) Modi does not have any private helicopter. In fact he doesn't even have a private car.
Vehicles he uses are given to him by State in his capacity as Head of Government
Some people are bringing Franco into conversation. Others someone else.
None of those labels fits on any politician in India. There's no fascist in Indian politics. In fact closest we came to fascism was that Emergency episode of 1975. But even Indira was not fascist.
If u are looking for "free speech loving, liberal, democratic leader" type politician, there has only been one: Atal Bihari Vajpayee. He was the tallest leader of Modi's party.
Other than him, all have cracked down on dissent during their tenure. Some softly. Some ruthlessly.
As for "anti-muslim" narrative, people need to realize dt Hindu-muslim relations in India will never be good. History of Islam in India is history of genocides, mass murders, forceful conversions, destruction of Temples and then partition of Homeland of Hindus.
Let me put it this way: take Hitler, Nazis and death count during Holocaust.
Now multiply Hitler with 50 (dts approx no of barbaric Islamic rulers).
Multiply Nazis with 100 (dts approx no of entire elites of those Islamic regimes).
Multiply death count with 1000 (dts no of Hindus/Sikhs/Buddhists/Jains brutally killed for being non-muslims).
Entire civilizations wounded. Over 40000 Temples destroyed and mosques built upon.
U think these traumas can go away? Not a chance.
I'm not advocating for any violence against anyone but certain things can never heal unless other side acknowledge wrong was done.