In their ever-going quest of gaining power and controlling every single aspect of society and destroying and smothering everything related to Western culture and society, one of the many, many weapons that the far left has come up with is the concept of "cultural appropriation" which, like so many things, they have deemed to be one of the biggest crimes and sins of white people. If a white person in any way engages or uses anything from a non-white culture, no matter the context or the way in which it's used, that's "cultural appropriation" and thus that person can be "canceled", harassed and excommunicated from society. (And, rather obviously, only white people can do "cultural appropriation". It's a rule that only applies to white people. Obviously.)
Ironically, some leftist non-white people engage in actual bona fide cultural appropriation while trying to claim for themselves something they are trying to make white people stop using.
By far the most prominent example of this, something I have written previously about, is many leftist black people in the United States pushing and enforcing really hard the notion that dreadlocks are the exclusive property of black people and thus white people are not allowed to have dreadlocks (and any white person who does is free to be harassed and physically assaulted). This is, ironically, a quite real case of cultural appropriation... by these black people, because it's extremely evident from history that dreadlocks are in no way exclusive to Africa, and many ancient peoples all over the world have used them for way longer than they have had any contact with African people. Dreadlocks have been historically very common in many parts of Asia (most prominently India), and even the ancient Nordic people (who were as white as you could possibly get). Even from a historical perspective black Americans most definitely do not have exclusive "rights" to dreadlocks. Them claiming so is genuine cultural appropriation because they are claiming exclusive rights for themselves to something that's not historically exclusively theirs.
A more minor example of genuine cultural appropriation (at least if the school district representatives in question are telling the truth) happened recently in California, where the San Francisco Unified School District decided to remove the word "chief" from all job titles in order to, according to them, "avoid the word's connotation with Native Americans."
They announced: "While there are many opinions on the matter, our leadership team agreed that, given that Native American members of our community have expressed concerns over the use of the title, we are no longer going to use it."
If they had just made that decision on their own, even using that reasoning, it wouldn't have been a case of "cultural appropriation". It would have just been leftists once again being mental retards. However, if it's indeed true that "Native American members of our community have expressed concerns over the use of the title", then it is a genuine case of cultural appropriation.
(I wouldn't be surprised if the representatives of that school district are outright lying about that. Far-leftist social justice warriors lie almost as much as young-earth creationists. They pretty much cannot open their mouths without lies pouring out, and thus it wouldn't be in the least surprising if they completely made up that part about the "Native American members" being "concerned over the use of the title". However, I'm going to here assume that, unusually, they aren't lying in this instance.)
The reason why it would be a genuine case of cultural appropriation is that the word "chief" is not a Native American word, and has never been. It does not originate from any Native American language, and it's in no way any form of loanword from those, or in any way originally associated with Native Americans. It wasn't even coined to describe Native American leaders.
The word "chief" comes from Latin, through French, and has existed for thousands of years, way before Europeans had any sort of contact with America. It has always had the meaning of a leader or highest representative.
If Native Americans are "concerned over the use of the title", to the point that they want it removed from job titles, then they are appropriating that word for themselves. They are claiming exclusive rights to it even though the word does not originate from their languages nor their cultures, was not coined to describe them, and has never belonged to them. The word originates from Latin, and thus quite explicitly "belongs" to languages derived from Latin. If anybody, it would be the French, Italians and Spanish who have more "rights" to that word (even if we entertained the idea of cultures having "ownership" of and "rights" to words) than anybody else. If people from another continent with zero shared history go on and claim rights to the word, it's them who are trying to appropriate something from another culture.
Comments
Post a Comment