I see a t-shirt. I see a message on the t-shirt. The message supports 5 things, at least 4 of which are closely aligned with the history or rights of our country. Love Trump or hate him, he IS the President. He was ELECTED. Get over it. Personally, I read the Bible, I own 3 handguns, and I love liberty and BBQ! Where’s the “hate”? As soon as word of the t-shirt, a marketing tactic by the bbq food truck, got a wider distribution than their own customers, what do you think happened? Predictably, the other lgbtq fan base got their metaphorical guns out and started blasting away.
The owners of the bbq truck, the “haters”, were soon awash in threats of violence and calls for boycotts and…..stuff that looked like hate. Real hate! I don’t see any hate in the message, I see some things to love. Do the homosexuals, transsexuals, lesbians, and queers—whatever the hell that means—own the lgbtq trademark? Is there even one? The word hate seems to work like a truncheon to stifle speech, disagreement or, in my case (with regards to the other lgbtq base), distaste. Yes, distaste. Have you ever seen a “gay pride” parade? Now imagine that distasteful public display without the restraining influence of the public. But that reality never gets talked about, does it? It’s always about love and alternative family and tolerance, never about anal sex and other lgbtq manifestations.
I am beyond sick of capitulation to the hate truncheon. This is my blog and I’ll say what I want. The real haters are those who threaten harm to anyone who disagrees with them, and use EEOC’s and lawsuits to smother dissent, or religious principles that have upheld civilization that gives even the real haters rights. The real haters are those self righteous Pharisees who cry “hater” at anyone who believes in upholding the traditional nuclear family and God’s ordained sexual differences. Oh, how unkind of me, who purports to follow Jesus Christ. Really? In Matthew 23, Jesus enumerates the guilt of the Pharisees,with “woe to you, hypocrites” six times. He criticizes them for their willful blindness. Like people who cry “hater”, then threaten violence and gleefully harass anyone they disagree with. That’s a hypocrite.
From The Daily Mail, U.K.: “No one could accuse actress Charlize Theron of following the crowd. Take, for example, the case of her elder child, seven-year-old Jackson, who was adopted as a baby and introduced to the world as a boy. For years now, rumors have swirled that Charlize has, in fact, been raising Jackson as a girl. As photographs have appeared of the child wearing skirts and dresses and with long, braided hair, Hollywood gossips have wondered what on earth Jackson’s mother thought she was doing. But when asked about it on a sunny morning in Beverly Hills, Charlize is matter-of-fact. Not only is she raising Jackson as a girl–in fact, she says, Jackson is every bit as much a girl as her three-year-old sister, August. ‘Yes, I thought she was a boy, too,’ Charlize agrees, briskly. ‘Until she looked at me when she was three years old and said: ‘I am not a boy!’ ‘So there you go! I have two beautiful daughters who, just like any parent, I want to protect and I want to see thrive.
‘They were born who they are and exactly where in the world both of them get to find themselves as they grow up, and who they want to be, is not for me to decide.’My job as a parent is to celebrate them and to love them and to make sure that they have everything they need in order to be what they want to be.’ And I will do everything in my power for my kids to have that right and to be protected within that’.”
What is conspicuously missing from the article is how did Charlize think she was adopting a boy? Since she adopted Jackson (is it now Jacqueline) 7 years ago, and the kid is now 7, presumably she was changing diapers during much of that time. Further, Charlize, or so I’ve heard, is very experienced sexually, so presumably she is well versed in the difference between boy and girl naughty bits. Therefore, my conclusion is that Jackson has, I hope not had, boy equipment. So when Jackson said, at age three, “I’m not a boy,” Charlize didn’t seem to think a parent’s role involved resolving gender confusion. Instead, she accepted the greater wisdom of three year old. Note that entire sentence I put in bold. A three year old tells Charlize that his sex isn’t what she sees, and she defers to the greater wisdom. How did so many people become so stupid so rapidly?
From Refinery29:The actress added: “My job as a parent is to celebrate them and to love them and to make sure that they have everything they need in order to be what they want to be. And I will do everything in my power for my kids to have that right and to be protected within that.” Theron’s comments are prompting plenty of discussion – and plenty of praise – on Twitter today. Author Juno Dawson, a role model for LGBT charity Stonewall, who is trans, tweeted: “This made me tear up. My life would have been so different if my parents had just let me be me as a kid. Adopt me, Charlize.”
From Fox News: Theron has been an LGBTQ activist for many years. In 2009, she announced on “The View” that she wouldn’t get married to her then-boyfriend Stuart Townsend until everyone in the United States had a right to marry.” I have so many friends who are gays and lesbians who would so badly want to get married, that I wouldn’t be able to sleep with myself,” she said while on the show.
The story started in The Daily Mail, which included an abbreviated history of Charlize (including watching, as a child, her mother shoot and kill her father, an abuser one assumes) and was picked up by all manner of publications, most less liberal than the Mail, and mostly passed on without editorial comment, which is unusual in this day and age. Her background was presented, depending upon which publication, as either an explanation for her wanting to allow her child complete freedom to be whatever he/she/it/they/xe wanted to be in lieu of parental guidance, or an excuse for how unwilling she was to provide adult guidance. Lest anyone mistake Charlize for a man-hater, some articles reminded us that a few years ago, she famously wrote, “I am shockingly available. I have been single for so long, I wish more men would ‘grow a pair’ and ask me out for a date.”
Obviously, “growing a pair” only applies to dating. When it comes to child raising, apparently, it’s “snipping off a pair.” Poor Jackson…..or is it Jacqueline?
I have often wondered why the U.K. seemingly has succumbed to the pernicious influence of liberal/progressive elites in even greater measure than our country. A recent book, The Noble Liar, by Robin Aitken, has helped me understand. Why should we in the U.S. care about the downward spiral of the BBC? Did you read my previous post, Celebration Constipation? I said I would try to explain what lies underneath the domination of the national media by Perfectionist Progressives.Before answering that question, here are some relevant excerpts from the book:
“The newspapers share of influence has dwindled while that of the broadcasters, and now the online newsites, has grown ever stronger.”(Page 16). “The left dominance of the airwaves has had profound consequences.”(Page 18)” 92% of UK adults use a BBC service at least once a week and 80% of UK adults consume BBC News each week; BBC online is browsed by 30 million unique UK users weekly and 51.5% of UK adults are regular users”(Page 21). 57% of people say that they put trust in the BBC compared with other main news providers. The BBC has a weekly worldwide audience of 372 million people. The BBC is the U.K.’s most important cultural export by a very large margin.“The BBC gets a pass because most people take it for granted that it is a benign influence. In BBC world we are all liberals now. At the heart of the story, is a nexus of media interests which is militantly liberal in outlook, and which has systematically destroyed the foundational beliefs and practices which informed the lives of previous generations. This process started in the post-war years, gathered strength in the 1960’s and, since then, has enjoyed virtually uninterrupted success in the furtherance of its goals. There have been many players in this long game– crusading lawyers activist judges, organize pressure groups– but the most important by far has been the BBC itself.”(Page 40).
In the U.K., there is no national broadcaster which champions a conservative social agenda. “So completely has the social conservative view been eclipsed in media-land that I suspect many program makers do not even understand that there might be a valid view different from their own. The BBC is an organization whose staff are, overwhelmingly, drawn from a particular strategy of society –the meritocratic elite– and that strata is becoming evermore ossified in terms of social mobility… This wouldn’t matter so much for the BBC were it not for the fact that, along with membership of this class, goes a set of assumptions and values that turns out identikit opinions.” You might say, “well that’s Britain, how’s it relevant? We don’t have that kind of dominance by a single media outlet. The NPR is the closest thing structurally to the BBC—a quasi government assisted/funded media—but far from dominant.” That’s true. The United States might be too large, too diverse for that kind of dominance of any one thing, but lest we breathe a sigh of relief, we might have something just as relentless for homogenizing public opinion.
The following is essential for understanding our own political and cultural divide. John Marini, author, Unmasking the Administrative State: The Crisis of American Politics in the Twenty-First Century: “The Ethics in Government Act, passed by Congress in 1978, established the Independent Counsel statute. This legislation was justified on the ground that executive discretion must be subordinate to law. But that masked its political purpose, which was to insulate the permanent, unelected government from political control. The Independent Counsel statute was devised to stand as a bulwark against any president or senior executive branch official who dared threaten the centralized executive bureaucracy put in place by the Democratic Party majorities of the 1960s and ’70s. It weakened the president’s political control of that sprawling bureaucracy and strengthened Congress’s hand in managing it. Ultimately, it had the effect of transforming political and policy disputes—adjudicated by the elected branches of government, and thus by the people—into legal disputes in which the people have no part.
“For nearly two centuries of our nation’s history, prior to passage of the Ethics in Government Act, there existed no legal mechanism of government outside the political and legal authority granted by the Constitution to the legislative, executive, and judicial branches. The Constitution established the separation of powers as the ground of adjudicating all political disputes. Members of the elected branches would defend their institutional interests, motivated by self-interest and by differing opinions regarding the public good. In the most serious political disputes, the legislature had the constitutional power to impeach the president—in which case both sides could make their case to the public and the people could decide.
“Today, by contrast, the political branches, rather than defending their institutional interests, tend to accommodate the administrative state. The centralized executive bureaucracy has become the central feature of government, administrative rulemaking has replaced general lawmaking, and rule by bureaucrats has replaced rule by elected officials. Nationally organized interests were well equipped to adjust to this new way of governing, and they continue to have access to, and be well served by, the Washington establishment. Citizens who exist outside those organized interests, on the other hand, seem to sense that they have been disenfranchised and that government no longer operates on behalf of a public or a common good. This explains the deep social and cultural division underlying the 2016 election results that shocked and awed the Washington establishment.
“We see today, in the two-year Mueller investigation and its aftermath, yet another attempt to destroy an anti-establishment president using a legal rather than political process of adjudication. The most notable difference between this scandal and Watergate is that President Trump has so far succeeded—largely through his relentless characterization of most of those in the media as dishonest partisans rather than objective reporters—in preventing the scandals surrounding him from being defined, by his enemies, in legal rather than political terms.”
I cheered August 9, 1974, when President Nixon resigned, under the relentless media assault, and in the face of almost certain impeachment, because I simply accepted those opinion makers of the national networks as truthful, rather than agenda-driven. It could not have occurred to me that 42 years hence, another media-unpopular President would also be subjected to a similar national media—driven campaign to find reasons for impeachment. Now I understand Trump’s strategy for his war with the national media. Could it be that HE understood all along that this ideological war was necessary, because the administrative state, the powers-that-be, could only defeat the constitution with the help, even collusion, of the national media, the Mediated Reality establishment?
Whether or not he understood this, one only needs to look across “the pond”, as they say, to see the depressing homogenization of public opinion from the country that brought us Monty Python and other fantastic humor that might never again be allowed to have an audience.
I read newsfeeds daily from aggregators Google news, Apple news, and Flipboard, and try to mix what the aggregators call “conservative view” and “liberal view”. Sometimes I just rapidly flip through the Flipboard feed, looking for headlines that appear interesting. Today something suddenly hit me, so I went back and checked my perception. I look at the headlines, and try to guess the media outlet pushing them. While the following list is certainly not definitive, it is representative. The following outlets are almost entirely leaning in one direction on what they report and especially how they report it.
“Conservative view” (“Right-leaning “) outlets include Fox News, Daily Signal, Redstate, Townhall, the Resurgent, The Blaze, Dailywire, New York Post, thefederalist.com, newsbusters.org. Some of the more in-depth and analytical publications/websites include National Review and Imprimis, a publication of Hillsdale College. I can’t think of any “entertainment” and sports related outlets that discuss or promote conservative thought or ideas. In radio is where conservative ideas have a huge following: Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Dennis Prager, Glenn Beck.
“Liberal view” (“Left-leaning”) outlets include Slate, Vox, CNN, MSNBC, Washington Post, VICE, Quartz, New York Times, DailyKos, LA Times. In-depth publications include The Atlantic, The New Yorker, New York magazine. “Entertainment” and Sports publications/websites include ESPN, Rolling Stone, Mother Jones. Since I never listen to the radio anymore, I don’t know who’s big in the liberal radio space.
There’s enough outlets to promote any point of view, but of all the conservative view outlets, only one has a TV network, Fox. The liberal view has three TV networks, NBC, ABC and CBS, and three of the major newspapers in the country. There’s no question that the left-leaning outlets as a group have the money, infrastructure and technology to reach multiple more people than right-leaning as a group, though Fox is competitive with the liberal TV outlets. Radio is much more egalitarian. It doesn’t take a cable TV subscription to listen, getting a radio show is less expensive and rigorous than a TV show, and there are far more radio stations than TV networks and their affiliates. Forbes had an article focusing on why conservative radio so dramatically outpaces liberal or progressive radio, and even the writer’s obvious prejudice against conservative radio could not adequately explain, though there was lots of speculation. The one reason is the one they left out. Love is stronger than hate, celebration is better than denigration.
Both conservatives and progressives spend more of their time and verbiage criticizing each other than complimenting each other, but mark the differences in criticism: most conservative criticism of progressives is about their policies rather than attacks on them personally, though Rush in particular offers many humorous aphorisms and nicknames, thinking of himself as an entertainer more than commentator; progressives often attack conservatives personally, and their minions’ behavior is emblematic, like MAGA hat harassment. Conservatives generally criticize progressive policies because they love our country and want to protect it against bad policies; progressives demonstrate repeatedly contempt for our history, traditions and freedoms, especially the most basic freedoms of speech and life. I believe that many, if not most, progressives actually hate our country. Perhaps the most important distinction is between celebration and denigration.
I spend hours reading headlines and articles from both points of view, and I am struck, or as I said in my third sentence it hit me, how little, closer to nonexistent, is celebration of anything or anyone in progressive/liberal/left media. Personal attacks abound. “Trump screws this up, Trump lies, Trump is guilty, the Rich suck, the U.S. sucks….and on” dominate their headlines. I went back over days worth of headlines and couldn’t find a single one celebrating anything except imagined defeats for Trump or doxing some helpless senior for MAGA hatcrime. While many conservative/right headlines were also negative about opponents, there were many that celebrated achievements of individuals, regardless of skin color or nationality or ethnicity. Speaking for myself, I love to follow stories of achievements, in sports and otherwise. Rising above adversity, after a long period of wounding, even self-inflicted, is inspiring. Tiger Woods winning the Masters, years after he crashed and burned, battling back after injuries and an avalanche of negative publicity, was riveting for me, even though I have no interest in golf or Tiger personally. I never even liked him. But this is different.
Celebration of achievement creates a brotherhood/sisterhood of sorts. It unifies. Criticism divides, the even when it leads to improving what was criticized. I believe the essential difference between most conservative and most liberal media is the pleasure they get from celebrating vs. criticizing, respectively. Even what is perceived by the other side as negative, differs in tone. Here’s a typical headline from Thefederalist.com: “School climate survey” tells students “gender is how a person feels.” It’s straight reporting, but the facts are damning of liberals to conservatives. Here’s a typical headline, on the same page of my Flipboard feed, from Rolling Stone: “Notre Dame burning feels like an act of liberation.” The most critical conservative headline I could find today was from theamericanconservative.com: “Do Democrats even care about the Purple States?” But the actual article itself was factual reporting rather than mere opinions.
With the last 3 years of daily news feed reading, I can’t recall a single headline from the progressive/liberal/left media space celebrating any individual achievement. There was lots of celebrations: more laws liberalizing abortion, more investigations of Trump, more harassment of MAGA hats, more lawsuits restricting individual freedoms, but nothing that was good for this country. There’s no laxative for celebration constipation.
MY NEXT POST WILL ATTEMPT TO EXPLAIN WHAT’S BEHIND THE DIFFERENCES IN THE MEDIA POINTS Of VIEW.
This phrase “Burn The Ships” comes from a historic conquest of history when, in 1519, Spanish Conquistador Hernando Cortez landed in Mexico on the shores of the Yucatan, with only one objective…seize the great treasures known to be there, hoarded by the Aztecs. You might say that Cortez’s order represented one of the shortest and most effective motivational speeches in history. Yeah, I know, he was a colonizer and an almost white guy who subjugated the proud indigenous Aztecs. More likely, the myriad slaves and future human sacrifices preferred Cortez and the Spaniards, but I digress. This weekend, General Social Survey data revealed that Americans who profess to have “no religion,” 23.1%, now exceed Catholics, our largest religion with 23%, and Evangelicals at 22.5%. And the “nones” have grown by 266% since 1991. SO WHAT?
What is more effective in a war, a 400 pound diabetic with emphysema, or a 90 pound Olympic gymnast? At one time, self professed Christians and Roman Catholics were the majority of citizens in this country, now they are losing ground to the “nones”. I say again, so what? “Jonathan said to the young man who carried his armor, ‘Come, let us go over to the garrison of these uncircumcised. It may be that the LORD will work for us, for nothing can hinder the LORD from saving by many or by few’.” 1 Samuel 14:6 Jonathan and his armor bearer routed a garrison of philistine soldiers. “And the Midianites and the Amalekites and all the people of the East lay along the valley like locusts in abundance, and their camels were without number, as the sand that is on the seashore in abundance.” Judges 7:12. This was the abundance of the army the Israelites were facing. “So the people took provisions in their hands, and their trumpets. And he sent all the rest of Israel every man to his tent, but retained the 300 men. And the camp of Midian was below him in the valley. – Judges 7:8 Judges 7:8. God sent thousands of Israelites back home, except for 300, who routed the Midianite and Amalekite armies. Why did God sent all those soldiers back? The LORD said to Gideon, “The people with you are too many for me to give the Midianites into their hand, lest Israel boast over me, saying, ‘My own hand has saved me.’ Judges 7:2
God wants His sons and daughters, His soldiers, to conquer enemy territory by proclaiming the gospel and His kingdom! So what that the western world is losing “professors”, Africa, China, Korea and others are gaining believers faster than we are losing them, but what is the nature of what we are losing, and the nature of those who are growing in Africa and Asia? The losers are flabby, smug and spoiled, the gainers are more taut, seasoned by persecution, in comparative fighting trim. I learned this lesson personally. Years ago I was participating in a six day retreat with 199 others, and we played an abbreviated version of something called The Samurai Game.
The marketing blurb for it says: “Participants in The Samurai Game cross a psychological line and step into the unfamiliar simulated world of the medieval Japanese Samurai. They form two competing samurai armies and engage with their teammates and opponents in symbolic battles that eventually determine the simulation’s finale. These battles call upon participants to exercise resourcefulness, decisiveness, dignity, integrity, respect and personal commitment. The pace is fast and unpredictable, and the outcomes are highly uncertain. No two productions of the simulation are ever quite the same, making each learning experience unique! While involving no significant physical contact, The Samurai Game demands much in the way of centeredness and teamwork. Participants are encouraged to summon forth their ‘warrior’ spirit with courage and determination.”
Our 200 participants were divided into two armies, and we each had to pick our leader, called the daimyo, without speaking a word. I won’t get into details of how my team did this, but I was leader by assent. It felt like a different kind of spirit descended on me, and without any thought I ordered my army to bow as a symbolic gesture of fealty. Those who hesitated, I ordered “executed” immediately, the daimyo having complete power. We began the “battle” down by one third of our troops. I must have been channeling the lessons of Cortez, because the remaining army conquered our opponents with a third of our army left after the contests. Burn the ships left no choice but commitment to victory. While God can certainly conquer this world for His kingdom without human aid, He wants to train us to rule in heaven. The training is Kingdom thinking and spreading the gospel in word and deed. The flabby and spoiled need not apply.
The infighting between tribes of Canada’s First Nations over throat singing and “cultural appropriation” is sad. Sadder still is the elevation of toxic junk to the classification of wokeness. Jay-Z said on Ophrah that “hip-hop, through its music and its culture, has had more impact on race relations than any figure or any entity other than Martin Luther King Jr. and the Civil Rights movement. He talked about how whites and blacks can come together in the clubs—even though they might not get together outside the club” (Loc. 291).” What kind of deep and creative art brings them together? Warning ⚠️ the following lyrics are from Jay-Z, if you find them as disgusting as I do, then I guess that means neither of us is truly woke!
”Yo Yo J-A-Y, I flow sick Fuck all y’all haters blow dick I spits the game for those that throw bricks Money cash hoes money cash chicks what Sex murder and mayhem romance for the street Only wife of mines is a life of crime And since, life’s a bitch in mini-skirts and big chests How can I not flirt with death That’s life’s a nigga, long as life prevent us We gonna send a lot and pray to Christ forgive us Fuck it Ice the wrists and raise the price on these niggaz Y’all cant floss on my level I’ll invite you all to get wit us if ya ball is glitter When I go all the harlem playaz wall my picture If you get close enough you can read the scripture It reads money cash hoes how real was that nigga what”
Are you tempted to tell me I just don’t understand “black culture?” If hip-hop like that truly represents black culture, even reparations won’t cure that disease. Other than pseudo-blacks like Eminem and Vanilla Ice, there is no issue of appropriation of that manifestation of culture. I sure don’t want it. The apostle Paul said, in a letter to Timothy, “For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions, and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander off into myths.” He wasn’t talking about hip-hop per se, or he would have said “burning ears” rather than “itching.” A different kind of cultural conflict is highlighted by a court decision.
Last week, U.S. District Judge Richard Seeborg halted the Trump administration’s policy of forcing some asylum seekers to wait on the Mexican side of the border until their claims can be heard by a U.S. immigration court. The judge’s reasoning was pretty shocking: He wrote that the U.S. cannot tell asylum seekers to wait in Mexico because of the threat of violence against them on that side of the border. But wait a darn minute here, aren’t these immigrants Latin Americans, just like Mexicans are Latin Americans, and the people on our side of the border are mostly white racists, but they pose less danger to Salvadorans, Guatemalans, Hondurans than Mexicans???
To be clear, Seeborg was not claiming that these immigrants (and specifically the ones who were plaintiffs in the case before him) were fleeing a repressive system. This isn’t East Germans escaping to the West. No, the claim is that they’re fleeing a threat that comes from their neighbors, their local cops, their teenagers. Is murder and violence and corruption a cultural phenomenon? According to this judge, it’s more of one below the border than above. But no one has yet accused a murderer, rapist, or assaulter of cultural appropriation….I don’t think. Unless it isn’t about culture or skin color at all. Maybe nationalism? Or good old fashioned criminality.
Too often, the publication The Guardian is a mouthpiece for Perfectionist Progressives, but this article on a twist on “cultural appropriation”, one of the stupidest and self contradictory ideas to be generated by Outrage Central (the factory where the Perfectionist Progressive machine formulates stupid ideas).
“Another week, another row over cultural appropriation. But this one is different. It’s not a white artist being accused of appropriating the cultural forms of a minority community but an Indigenous Canadian artist being condemned for using the musical style of another Indigenous community. Indigenous musicians in Canada are at one another’s throats over the Cree artist Cikwes’s use of a traditional Inuit singing technique.
“Connie LeGrande, who performs under the name Cikwes, was nominated at the Canadian Indigenous Music awards in the best folk album category. LeGrande is a Nehiyaw, or Cree, one of Canada’s First Nations. On her album Isko, she uses katajjaq, a style of throat singing culturally and historically linked to Inuit groups. First Nations are Indigenous groups south of the Arctic Circle, Inuits those who live in the Arctic. For her Inuit critics, Cikwes did not have “permission to… take something that isn’t hers and make an album, and put it on iTunes, and have it for sale”. A number of Inuit artists are boycotting the awards in protest.Lisa Meeches, who oversees the awards, insists that cultural appropriation is not possible within the Indigenous community. Her critics accuse her of “pan-Indigenising” and speaking from a First Nations point of view rather than from an Inuit perspective.
”What the row exposes is that such controversies are less about equity and opposition to racism than about cultural gatekeeping – self-appointed guardians licensing themselves as arbiters of the correct forms of cultural borrowing. Such policing is deeply problematic, both artistically and politically. It’s true that cultural engagement does not take place on a level playing field but is shaped by racism and inequality. Confronting that requires us, however, to challenge racism, not police cultures. It’s difficult to see how creating gated cultures, and fragmenting struggles, helps promote social justice or who it empowers beyond the gatekeepers.”
That last paragraph illustrates the blindness of The Guardian’s point of view. The writer seems to think that “creating gated cultures, and fragmenting struggles” is a phenomenon apart from the idea of cultural appropriation. No, it is an integral part, in fact the foundation of C.A. Once a “people group” i.e. a group of people either self-identified or outside-identified by a label (Inuit, Mexican, Asian, homosexual, Black, White, etc.) are more than two strong, and engage in common behaviors or common customs or arts in common, they can be said have a culture. How did their culture come about? Did they not borrow something from those around them? Were they not somewhat influenced by a different culture? If they existed in total isolation and were not even aware of the existence of any other group, and no one else was aware of them, they might develop a unique indigenous culture. However, I don’t know of any culture in the world which fits the description of the previous sentence. Therefore, no culture or people group “owns” the customs, language, behavior, arts or cuisine that they enjoy. C.A. gatekeepers are simply jealous, or power hungry. It’s sad.