‘Cultural appropriation’ is a term which is currently doing the rounds among ethnic minority advocates and liberal-Marxists, and which is being used to abuse White people who have adopted some method of doing something, or some artifact or style that has in recent times become associated with non-White, predominantly sub-Saharan African or African-American culture.
As an article on The Root website states, the term “cultural appropriation” is normally thought of as “white people taking an interest in some aspect of minority culture and profiting from it”. Notice here, that just as with racism, according to those who use the term, ‘cultural appropriation’ is something that only White people can exhibit. It is a concept that is intended to be used as a verbal weapon with which to shame and abuse White people and White people only.
Let us examine an incident that has been widely publicised within the last few days, based around a video which has gone viral, and in which a black woman, allegedly identified on social media as San Francisco State University student employee, Bonita Tindle, verbally harasses and physically assaults a young White man, named as Cory Goldstein, for wearing his hair in dreadlocks.
Tindle, together with a black male, confronts Goldstein at the foot of a stairwell and accuses him of ‘appropriating her culture’ for wearing his hair in dreadlocks and following an exchange in which Tindle blocks Goldstein’s path as he attempts to escape from her, and despite his protestations pulls him back down the stairs by the sleeve of his clothing, Goldstein succeeds in freeing himself exiting the scene.
My first impression of watching this video was of how feebly Goldstein behaved throughout, but the robustness of his demeanor is not the real issue here, it is the feebleness of his verbal response.
Setting aside the argument that dreadlocks have throughout history been a feature of many cultures, European, Asian and African, an argument that most commentators have voiced in response to this incident, the hypocrisy of Tindle’s accusation of cultural appropriation has not so far been exposed.
Goldstein’s response should have been to state that he would be happy to remove his dreadlocks if Tindle and her companion would also divest themselves of all of the European cultural artifacts they were using – like their European clothing, their purses and wallets and bags and their money, credit cards, keys and cell phones. Furthermore he should have asked them to walk home instead of driving their cars, or riding on the bus or train, and he should have asked them in future to stop attending the SFSU, the European institution of learning that they currently attend, and to eschew ‘White man’s medicine’ the next time they are ill.
If non-Whites want to invent a concept such as ‘cultural appropriation’, and to use it as a weapon to denigrate and attack White people, then they should at least have the integrity to abide by that principle themselves. As we all know of course, they are unlikely to want to do that.
To conceive of a principle such as ‘cultural appropriation’, to use it to attack White people and not be prepared to have it ‘cut both ways’, is to be both a hypocrite and a racist, and what the advocates of minority rights tend to forget and would do well to remember, is that in the inventiveness stakes, we Whites hold a position that is at least an order of magnitude greater than any of our rivals.