Offended and outraged because other cultures are being violated? Often a pattern that only serves its own advantage and harbors dangers.
Supposedly well-meaning outrage that appeals to our conscience can be a step toward thought policing, writes Caroline Fourest. Your critique writing is worth reading.
Appropriation of foreign cultures – the dangerous argument
Looking forward to your next yoga class? There are indignant voices who think that you are appropriating the culture of India.
Even if you shake your head and feel indignant that someone would presume to generalize the complex culture of the Indian continent, your yoga class may be cancelled.
The argument hit a yoga school in Canada that had been offering free yoga classes for people with physical disabilities for years.
The outrage over the appropriation of Indian culture was done with reference to colonialism, Western domination, oppression and genocide. The media picked up on the issue and the yoga classes stopped.
This pattern is repeated in many countries at the moment.
Caroline Fourest has written a book about it that we think is worth reading and would like to recommend to you.
Generation offended
The book “Generation Offended” by French journalist Caroline Fourest is subtitled “From the language police to the thought police. On the growing influence of left-wing identitarians”.
In this critical writing, she describes events at universities, in many cultural areas, and in the public sphere that give cause for concern.
Artists, lecturers, journalists and many others are attacked with the argument that they appropriate the identity of another culture with their expressions or activities.
In doing so, they would belittle the suffering done to these cultures and inflict pain and suffering on the outraged with their statements and actions.
It can hit anyone
Cooking star Jamie Oliver was attacked for publishing the recipe of a rice dish called “jerk rice.” It involves a spice blend that was used by African slaves to prepare chicken in the 17th century and is still popular in Jamaica today.
Jamie Oliver did not use all of the spice ingredients in the original spice blend. He was then accused by a Labor MP via Twitter of appropriating Jamaica’s cultural identity and trivializing the suffering of slavery. That had to stop.
Jamie Oliver responded with an official statement.
Madonna wore her blonde hair tied in pigtails during a television appearance to pay tribute to Aretha Franklin. She was accused of imitating “African braids” with this hairstyle. Likewise, she said, she should not talk about a black woman because she is far from being able to comprehend the difficult lives of black women.
Madonna could afford to just shrug her shoulders to this and not apologize.
Scarlett Johannsen was up for the role of a woman who wants to become a man. Due to the protest of the president of the NGO Transgender Europe, she did not get the role.
The cafeteria of an American university put a Vietnamese dish on the menu. An Asian student felt violated because the dish did not resemble the original in all elements.
The dish was removed from the menu.
Some American professors who had championed the right of free speech at their universities came under massive attack, were publicly defamed, and lost their tenure.
The pattern
The pattern is always the same: someone feels hurt, becomes outraged, is heard, and the majority of those attacked then issue a public apology and promise not to hurt the feelings of the self-appointed spokespersons of an outraged minority again.
Which, as a rule, the majority of them did not intend to do in the first place.
Because, of course, this article and Caroline Fourest’s book are not about derogatory language or actual violations of any kind.
It is about the danger of free speech and liberalism.
The danger
Under the guise of protecting the feelings of hurt minorities, a claim arises to concede all issues associated with cultural identity only to those who belong to that cultural group:
A Vietnamese dish may now only be cooked by a Vietnamese, the role of a black stage character may only be played by a black, a hairstyle attributed to an indigenous people may only be worn by members of that indigenous people.
The radicalism with which these demands are put forward and the linguistic and sometimes even physical violence inflicted on those who oppose them and wish to defend freedom of speech, freedom of art, and freedom of science remind us of the darkest times, when books were burned and art was labeled degenerate.
No minority is helped by this
The claim of the ostensibly offended leads to radical restrictions, which in the end hit minorities the hardest.
If black actors are only allowed to be voiced by black voice actors, you automatically exclude black voice actors from many other dubbing projects.
At the same time, these demands reduce minorities to their skin color, gender, ancestry, or sexual orientation.
You think this is exaggerated and far from your reality?
Unfortunately no. It’s not just universities in the U.S., Canada and England where these events are taking place.
In his article “Mein Abschied von Deutschland,” FAZ, July 17, 2021, the writer Matthias Politycki describes his discomfort with those in Germany who want to distinguish themselves as cultural guardians of language and who want to force him to write his literary works in gender-appropriate language.
Translator Marieke Lucas Rijneveld, who was originally commissioned to translate Amanda Gorman ‘s poetry into Dutch, was attacked for not having black skin.
Amanda Gorman had originally expressed her delight at the choice of the renowned translator. After the protests, the translation contract was reassigned by the publisher to a team of translators.
Gender-equitable language can be the harbinger of Cancel Culture
From your everyday professional life, you have been familiar with the discussions about gender-appropriate language for some time. In the meantime, you also experience the discussion about language in your club or in the newspaper kiosk on the corner.
Maybe they’re already a little tired of the discussion and just want to put the issue behind them.
Caroline Fourest’s book shows that the call for gender-appropriate language is often the first step toward a supposed claim to cultural identity. Critical attention to these issues is required.
Merely shrugging our shoulders can cost us all freedom and liberality.
An important book that raises awareness
The 143 pages of the small paperback are quickly read. The vivid examples in the book help to recognize the pattern and remain vigilant.
Often the sincere desire not to hurt others is mercilessly exploited. Not infrequently, to help themselves via outrage to a lucrative order or job.
Caroline Fourest worked for the French satirical magazine Charly Hebdo for several years and came under massive attack for her advocacy of marriage for all.
Your critical writing is courageous and should encourage us not to give in or wave off loud protests where they are not justified, but to show attitude.
Ten years after Utoya
The gruesome attack on the Norwegian island of Utoya has reached its 10th anniversary this year. The assassin murdered 55 participants of a vacation camp of the Finnish Labour Party and injured countless other victims. In the trial, he stated that he wanted to hit “multiculturalism.”
The then Prime Minister of Norway, Jens Stoltenberg, spoke at Oslo Cathedral two days after the assassination. A quote from his speech at the time: “Our Response is more democracy, more openness and more humanity. But never naivety”.
