Outrageous assertions and protests surrounding the metaphysically impossible act of ‘appropriation of culture’ have recently surfaced. They range from the BBC announcement that Monty Python is ‘too white’ for today’s British TV, to the cancellation of a Montreal play (SLAV) that featured songs ‘composed by slave cultures,’ something Leftists deemed ‘an appropriation of black culture.’
Meanwhile, the Left has now invented a collective called ‘intersectional’ feminism, a form of feminism that’s all about racism. This movement has led a charge against the classic television series Sex And The City, denigrating it for portraying ‘white’ women of ‘privilege,’ and for portraying a sexual orientation that was ‘orthodox’ – meaning heterosexual.
The arts and entertainment industry is but one target on a long list under attack by political correctness. It’s a list that has included university and college campuses, now intolerant environments where challenging viewpoints are no longer being heard.
‘Cultural appropriation’ is an anti-concept used as a weapon in the Left’s arsenal of political correctness, itself yet another anti-concept.
The term ‘political correctness’ holds true to the principle that when an adjective is placed in front of an already clearly defined concept, then that adjective means ‘Not.’ In other words, by its own frame of reference, ‘political correctness’ means ‘not correctness.’
So if ‘political correctness’ is not about correctness, then what is it about? That question forms the foundation of our discussion today, as we examine varying interpretations of political correctness that nevertheless share one thing in common – an acknowledgement that political correctness is not merely incorrect, but evil.
Staring into the face of evil is understandably difficult and uncomfortable but is essential to overcoming it. Even so, the harder part begins when the correct actions necessary to make this happen must be determined and followed through.
When those on the Left resort to anti-concepts like ‘cultural appropriation,’ their real objective is ‘reality appropriation.’ Since the light of reality is evil’s worst enemy, preventing reality from becoming part of the discussion is best accomplished by shutting down the discussion itself.
To borrow from an old saying originally used to contrast the insecurity of security with the security of freedom: “Those who value ‘cultural diversity’ more than ‘viewpoint diversity’ will achieve neither. Those who value ‘viewpoint diversity’ over ‘cultural diversity’ can enjoy both.”
Only in an environment of free discussion about the issues that matter, can the light of reality reveal the Left’s true face of evil in a way that is Just Right.