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.
“Arguing” from the perspective of “actually, you’re the racist” is exactly the sort of “arguing” that the conservative movement has been doing—and losing at—for about 50 years now. Is there ever a point where it leads to saying anything about the actual flaws in black culture, history, or the issues with our great societal nigger-worship?
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.
“Arguing” from the perspective of “actually, you’re the racist” is exactly the sort of “arguing” that the conservative movement has been doing—and losing at—for about 50 years now. Is there ever a point where it leads to saying anything about the actual flaws in black culture, history, or the issues with our great societal nigger-worship?