Cultural Appropriation: A Tool of Division
In recent years, the concept of “cultural appropriation” has taken centre stage in the ever-expanding lexicon of social justice. Initially presented as a means to foster respect for cultural differences, it has morphed into a weapon wielded by Marxist ideologues to divide societies, stifle creativity, and promote an insidious agenda. Far from being a benign critique of insensitivity, cultural appropriation is a tool for cultural fragmentation—a calculated move to erode liberal democracies and pave the way for chaos.
The Framework of Cultural Appropriation
The premise of cultural appropriation is deceptively simple: borrowing or adopting elements of a culture to which one does not belong is inherently exploitative. Proponents argue that such acts perpetuate systemic inequalities, erase marginalized identities, and commodify sacred traditions. Yet the underlying logic betrays a cynical motive. By framing culture as proprietary, immutable, and strictly segregated, this doctrine transforms shared human expression into a battlefield of grievance.
Consider the implications of this ideology: a white artist painting in an African style is an oppressor, but an African entrepreneur wearing a European business suit is exercising autonomy. A child dressing as a samurai for Halloween becomes a symbol of historical violence, while a K-pop star adopting hip-hop aesthetics is celebrated as global fusion. The inconsistency is not accidental; it is deliberate. Cultural appropriation is not about ethics—it is about power.
Marxism in a New Costume
The obsession with cultural appropriation is deeply rooted in the ideological playbook of Marxist social justice activism. The goal is not to protect cultural heritage but to dismantle shared values that bind diverse communities together. By amplifying divisions along racial, ethnic, and cultural lines, activists undermine the unifying principles of liberal democracy, creating a fertile ground for societal chaos.
Marxist theory traditionally pits economic classes against each other; the poor are encouraged to see the rich as exploiters. Today, cultural appropriation reframes this struggle along identity lines. By casting cultural exchange as theft, activists turn collaboration into conflict. They frame Western liberalism, with its commitment to freedom and multiculturalism, as a colonial relic, unworthy of preservation. The result? A fractured society where people are defined by immutable characteristics and encouraged to view others with suspicion.
The War on Multiculturalism
Ironically, the crusade against cultural appropriation destroys the very essence of multiculturalism. Liberal democracies thrive on the free exchange of ideas, traditions, and practices. The beauty of a multicultural society lies in its ability to incorporate diverse influences, creating a dynamic, evolving culture. Pizza, jazz, yoga, and sushi are not stolen artifacts—they are examples of how humanity thrives on cross-pollination.
But cultural appropriation activists reject this narrative. They impose rigid boundaries on cultural exchange, demanding that individuals “stay in their lane.” This mindset turns appreciation into appropriation and diversity into division. Worse, it teaches children that cultures are static, fragile, and inherently antagonistic—hardly the values needed to build a harmonious future.
The Infantilization of Society
One of the most insidious aspects of the cultural appropriation discourse is its impact on children. Kids, who naturally mimic, explore, and absorb elements from the world around them, are being taught to fear and police their curiosity. Dressing up as Moana or Black Panther becomes a moral transgression, rather than a celebration of beloved characters. This stifles creativity and discourages the very empathy that cultural exchange fosters.
The long-term consequences are dire. A generation raised on the belief that cultures cannot mix will grow up to inherit a divided world. Instead of finding common ground, they will be conditioned to see difference as a threat. This is not progress; it is regression, an erosion of the cultural openness that has driven human innovation for centuries.
Toward a New Cultural Revolution
At its core, the cultural appropriation debate is not about respect or justice; it is about control. By dictating who can engage with which aspects of culture, social justice activists assert their dominance over public discourse. They position themselves as arbiters of morality, defining what is acceptable and what is offensive. This authoritarian streak is at odds with the principles of a free society.
Liberal democracies must resist this ideological creep. We must reclaim the narrative, emphasizing that cultural exchange is a sign of respect, not exploitation. We must teach children that borrowing from other cultures is not theft—it is the foundation of human progress. And we must reject the divisive rhetoric of cultural appropriation, exposing it as a tool for social engineering.
Conclusion
Cultural appropriation is not about protecting cultures; it is about dismantling society. It weaponizes identity politics to erode the multicultural fabric of liberal democracies, replacing unity with division. By embracing cultural exchange and rejecting the dogma of appropriation, we can defend the principles that make our societies vibrant, resilient, and free. The time has come to celebrate our unity and reject the cynical agenda of those who seek to divide us.
