He won't admit it, but sure he does. "Wakanda forever!" "We wuz Kangs!" "Black Vikings rule!"
It's all rewriting and "appropriating black culture." Even when it's appropriating blacks into white European culture, it's still trying to rewrite and erase actual black culture and history (with better history).
Commies gonna commie.
EDIT: added context and sarcastic quotations for the retarded.
Retarded comment. There is virtually no historical black culture that is enviable enough to trigger a desire to “appropriate” it. Rewriting black culture to not be embarrassing is doing black culture a favor. That’s why a supermajority of blacks buy into the rampant and blatant revisionism. That’s why you see hardly any blacks coming forward and demanding that you correctly and accurately depict their historical cultures as primitive and barbaric.
Yep, you can easily tell black people don’t give zero shits about their “culture” when it constantly changes to fit whatever narrative gets them free shit
There was the one black girl who refused to be in the movie about black slaver female army movie. She looked up the actual history of the slavers and backed out of the movie
Writing it as “appropriating black culture” makes it sound like black history is the victim, instead of black “history” being the vandal. When they make black vikings or black samurai or whatever, they are not appropriating blacks into the culture. They are appropriating the culture onto blacks.
Writing it as “appropriating black culture” makes it sound like black history is the victim,
It's just turning their own language around on them.
instead of black “history” being the vandal.
What color are the people doing this again? It's far too powerful of a tactic to make it about blacks so you blame blacks, when the blacks are too busy shooting each other to be subverting video game companies.
I said black “history,” not “historians.” Although you shouldn’t entirely ignore the culpability of the race grifter academia blacks as well. They do exist.
As for “turning their language around,” I’m not disagreeing with your tactic, I’m disagreeing with your verbiage. When you say “appropriating black history,” you are saying that pieces of black history are being taken. “Appropriating black history” would be if Ubisoft made an Assassin’s Creed game in Africa but replaced the role the Zulu played with Europeans or something. But there’s no black history involved in this. It’s the blackwashing of someone else’s history. Thus, you should say “appropriating [Japanese] history for blacks.” That’s just grammar. My complaint is that you’re expressing the opposite of what I think you intend to express… unless you really are writing this from a perspective of “those poor dumb blacks, being taken advantage of by the liberals,” in which case, lol.
He won't admit it, but sure he does. "Wakanda forever!" "We wuz Kangs!" "Black Vikings rule!"
It's all rewriting and "appropriating black culture." Even when it's appropriating blacks into white European culture, it's still trying to rewrite and erase actual black culture and history (with better history).
Commies gonna commie.
EDIT: added context and sarcastic quotations for the retarded.
Retarded comment. There is virtually no historical black culture that is enviable enough to trigger a desire to “appropriate” it. Rewriting black culture to not be embarrassing is doing black culture a favor. That’s why a supermajority of blacks buy into the rampant and blatant revisionism. That’s why you see hardly any blacks coming forward and demanding that you correctly and accurately depict their historical cultures as primitive and barbaric.
Yep, you can easily tell black people don’t give zero shits about their “culture” when it constantly changes to fit whatever narrative gets them free shit
There was the one black girl who refused to be in the movie about black slaver female army movie. She looked up the actual history of the slavers and backed out of the movie
My comment is so retarded you didn't bother to actually disagree with it. Makes me wonder if you actually understood it.
Writing it as “appropriating black culture” makes it sound like black history is the victim, instead of black “history” being the vandal. When they make black vikings or black samurai or whatever, they are not appropriating blacks into the culture. They are appropriating the culture onto blacks.
It's just turning their own language around on them.
What color are the people doing this again? It's far too powerful of a tactic to make it about blacks so you blame blacks, when the blacks are too busy shooting each other to be subverting video game companies.
I said black “history,” not “historians.” Although you shouldn’t entirely ignore the culpability of the race grifter academia blacks as well. They do exist.
As for “turning their language around,” I’m not disagreeing with your tactic, I’m disagreeing with your verbiage. When you say “appropriating black history,” you are saying that pieces of black history are being taken. “Appropriating black history” would be if Ubisoft made an Assassin’s Creed game in Africa but replaced the role the Zulu played with Europeans or something. But there’s no black history involved in this. It’s the blackwashing of someone else’s history. Thus, you should say “appropriating [Japanese] history for blacks.” That’s just grammar. My complaint is that you’re expressing the opposite of what I think you intend to express… unless you really are writing this from a perspective of “those poor dumb blacks, being taken advantage of by the liberals,” in which case, lol.
I was writing from the perspective of "this would cause a dumb liberal to pause for a moment."
Facts and grammatically correct perspectives do not accomplish that, otherwise I wouldn't use their language at all.