"Hey, do you find my outfit offensive?": An Anti-WOKE Fail

During a recent scrolling session on YouTube, I ran into a series of videos that attempted to ridicule the false usage of the term"cultural appropriation". Cultural appropriation is the inappropriate adaptation of a foreign culture's tradition (for instance, pretending to be Native Americans by mocking their dance and performing their war cries). Will Witt, the host of the channel PragerU, argued that assigning the label "cultural appropriation" has become a toxic trend propagated by the Left, giving rise to certain forms of hate crimes; for instance, in a 2022 episode of Dr. Phil named Appropriation Nation: Has It Gone Too Far?, a Caucasian student shared her experience of receiving death threats simply because she posted a picture on social media wearing a Chinese cheongsam to prom. To debunk this irrational labeling by the WOKE community, Witt decided to slip into traditional costumes of different cultures such as Chinese and Native American; he then proceed to visit several public spots to interview people about whether they found his presence offensive. Here is one of his videos.

Street-interview has become a popular trend that influencers use to "reveal" something about the public mind. Despite my dislike for some parts of the WOKE culture, I couldn't help but notice several flaws in Witt's videos. While the WOKE culture has certainly gone extreme in recent years, if the opposing influencers don't use an objective method to create their content, then not only is the healthy value of the message lost, but more unnecessary misunderstandings between both sides would be exacerbated. In this blog, I seek to point out three obvious "fails" that invalidate Witt's "social experiment".

The Location

We can all agree that what you wear can emit different messages at different places. Wearing an animal costume would blend right in at a Halloween event, but would definitely draw more attention in a church. If you pay close attention to the video, Witt chose two locations to shoot his video: the UCLA campus and (what appears to be) Chinatown; such choice of environment is very likely to result in contrasting yet biased responses from the interviewees. Wearing a Chinese costume in Chinatown blends in with the surroundings coherently, and thus is more likely to be perceived as an act of celebrating Chinese culture; this is similar to experiencing wearing Kimono in Japan or Hanbok in Korea at popular tourist spots: the objective is clear and straightforward. Now let's switch to the UCLA campus; the costume stands out, and the intention becomes questionable: why is a white guy wearing a Chinese costume at a location like this at a time when no related events are being held? Given this context, it is logical to assume that mockery is a likely intention. Thus, those offended responses can't be considered representative of the WOKE mind. If you wear a helmet and mask while riding a motorcycle on a hot summer day, nobody would question it because it fits with the environment. However, if you enter a bank and approach the counter wearing the same thing, would it be an irrational act for the security to raise suspicion?

The People

Bias is also created when you intentionally pick the type of people you interview. Based on the video, one category of interviewees is especially questionable: almost all people that Witt interviewed in Chinatown were elders who show very limited ability to speak English; I would also question whether they have adequate knowledge regarding politics to perceive cultural appropriation when it's subtly embedded. While those elders' peaceful, encouraging responses are heart-warming, they are invalid comments that Witt squeezes into the video just to make his agenda, "showing that Chinese people don't find this behavior offensive" seem more persuasive; I would argue that since the topic is on cultural appropriation, the minimum standard for the interviewee is having been exposed to this idea and being able to communicate their thoughts in fluent English. Cherry-picking your interviewees merely further diminishes the credibility of the content.

The Attitude

At 1:55 of the clip, when the camera transitions to Chinatown, we see Witt performing a dramatic kongfu kick in his outfit, while the stereotypical Chinese sound effect is played in the background (one that's commonly used in early Hollywood movies). This is the key evidence that allowed the verdict to be reached in my mind. Really, Witt? You decide to demonstrate cultural appropriation in a video where you claim to want to debunk cultural appropriation? Attitude is what brings meaning to neutral actions; Witt here is clearly treating this outfit as a comical prop, setting a strong tone of disrespect. Not to mention the racist background music being deliberately paired with this scene, which adds a condescending atmosphere.

It is important to distinguish Witt's case from that of the guest who appeared on Dr. Phil's show (the girl who wore a Chinese cheongsam to prom): a prom is an occasion where people want to look presentable and beautiful, so wearing a Chinese-styled outfit and posting that on social media expresses appreciation and fondness to the culture; on the other hand, the dramatic, stereotypical elements in Witt's video reeks of mockery. The "I'm celebrating the Chinese culture!" response Witt gave to a UCLA student who questioned his behavior now seems ironically hypocritical.

Concluding Thoughts

Cultural appropriation is heavily context-dependent. Wearing someone else's culture is undoubtedly a neutral action. However, we must pay attention to the devil in the details. Attitude is the key, and one's attitude can only be perceived by looking at the "how" behind someone's action, which involves who, what, when, and where. Witt's video demonstrates an example of how a biased, egoistic attitude can be sugar-coated into a seemingly harmless street interview; it is up to us to recognize the non-objective settings contaminated by its political agenda. While we shouldn't recklessly assign the label "cultural appropriation" like some radical social justice warriors, we also SHOULDN'T treat it as a mere myth propagated by the WOKE culture. Finally, don't take this kind of street interview seriously, because there are too many aspects where it can be edited and twisted. This kind of so-called "social experiment" usually has a biased agenda that's no better than the opponent that it seeks to ridicule.