Another day, another example given about just how filthy with racism the social justice obsessed are.
Recently, you may have heard of an incident occurring at San Francisco State University, where a white male student by the name of Cory Goldstein was grabbed and pulled around by a black woman, and fellow student named Bonita Tindle.
The reason? Goldstein was wearing his hair in dreadlocks, which according to social justice adherents, belongs to black culture, and therefore is off-limits to white people.
Here’s the video if you haven’t seen it, yet.
Of course, the “social justice warriors” (SJWs) have taken up the argument that cultures must be respected, and that by donning a hairstyle seen to be worn by black people, Tindle was in the right to treat Goldstein like she did.
This sentiment reached peak absurdity with an article I came across at The Independent from a writer named Wedaeli Chibelushi. The articles title?
“I wasn’t surprised by the US dreadlocks row. White people never think they are guilty of cultural appropriation.” (Note: During this writing, they have since changed the title to appear less racist, but to little improvement.)
Don’t worry, the article is about as racist.
Before she begins, Chibelushi acknowledges that Goldstein is actually right about his claim that dreadlocks are a style seen across many cultures, and skin tones.
“Goldstein is, of course, quite right – dreadlocks are not the sole preserve of black culture. The style has been traced back toAncient India, Egypt and Greece. But the fact that dreads belong to many cultures doesn’t mean that Goldstein is automatically immune to the accusation that now surrounds him: that he is guilty of what is know as “cultural appropriation.”
She destroys her own argument before she even makes it, but in typical SJW fashion, logic and facts will not interfere with her “truth.” Goldstein has to be guilty despite his innocence, because he’s of the “oppressive culture,” or as SJWs really mean, “white skin.” It’s imperative to the narrative.
She goes on to explain why Goldstein is still in the wrong, despite his factuality.
“In the 1950s, a time of intense racial segregation and discrimination, African Americans adopted dreadlocks. As fellow black folk, they acknowledged its potential to reject white dominance other political, cultural and economic issues. Jamaican Rastafari’s, meanwhile, wore dreadlocks as a form of cultural resistance. They wanted to provoke society and rebel against an often white dominant culture.”
The logic she’s using is breathtakingly hypocritical. What Chibelushi has done here is essentially say that black people adopted the hairstyle themselves for political reasons, and therefor the style now belongs to black people solely…because politics. It doesn’t matter that she even acknowledged dreadlocks as having a vast, and diverse historical background. Dreadlocks were once a statement by black people in the 50’s, and now, no one else can have them, especially white people.
This completely flies in the face of the accusation that white people stole dreadlocks, and wholly kills the entire talking point of this being a case of cultural appropriation. By Chibelushi’s own argument, Goldstein stole nothing, but black people in the 50’s did.
Since this video has come out, the arguments regarding dreadlocks has bubbled to the surface, and par for the course, the social justice claims were swallowed whole by historical facts. This racism displayed by Chibelushi is a hamfisted attempt to move goalposts. To get the issue away from the reality of the hairstyle’s history, and toward the typical social justice adherent’s last line of defense: “I feel, therefore I’m factual.”
But she’s not done. Chibelushi jumps on Goldstein about his white “entitlement,” but the only sense of entitlement seen in the article comes from she and her vacuous social justice stances, which apparently entitle her to dictate what others may wear on their heads.
““My hair, my rules, my body”, Goldstein asserts, displaying a deep sense of entitlement. Sure, it’s only hair, and it is his hair to style. But does he have the right to style it in a way that has a deep cultural meaning to minority cultures? The ability to style your hair for fashion’s sake is a luxury, not a right. If it is offending others, Goldstein should consider giving up that luxury.”
Interesting that SJWs holds the stance of “my body, my choice,” as holy when it comes to something like abortion, but “my hair, my rules, my body,” on a white male is apparently dismissible.
I’d like to remind both Chibelushi and Tindle, that it is his head, and he’s more than entitled to wear whatever he wants on it. His scalp does not fall under the jurisdiction of the court of social justice, and he has every right. I repeat – every right.
If Goldstein wears his hair as a statement about himself, then his right to do so is protected under the First Amendment, or that pesky right to free speech. This right comes from God, not from Bonita Tindle, not from Wedaeli Chibelushi, and definitely not from a minority group, or faction.
But here’s what we all don’t have a right to do.
We don’t have the right to bar someone’s way, or pull them around because you don’t like what that person is wearing. Getting physical because you don’t like someone’s hairstyle isn’t protected like that person’s right to wear their hair as they wish. Violence against innocents has legal consequences, and I pray that university students remember that going forward.
An that is the point that worries me, and should worry you. If Tindle, and the recently fired Melissa Click are any indication, those inside the university bubble may be forgetting that physicality is not okay, and I fear we may see worse in the future.
But allow me to put one final nail in this article’s much deserved coffin. I’d like to end by reminding everyone that cultural appropriation – the centre of Chibelushi’s argument – is not real. Culture is a gathering of ideas, and a shared method over time – not a race. That a person with a certain level of melanin can lay sole claim to an idea is absurd. For one, even if the racial qualities of someone matches those typically associated with that culture, it doesn’t necessarily mean they were a part of that specific culture. My black neighbor may have as much family history with Jamaican culture as I do, but his black skin doesn’t automatically make him a part of it.
Furthermore, you can’t own an idea, and I’m not sure where SJWs get off thinking they can.
I explain more in detail on my video on “cultural appropriation” below.
Well done, Independent. You managed to publish the most racist article I’ve seen all week, and in a world of Salon and Gawker, that’s saying something.