What Katie Did.

Inside and out, Katie Hopkins is a repulsive individual. 

Tonight, her- I suppose you could call it- documentary "My Fat Story" airs. In it, Mrs Hopkins, 39 (astonishing, isn't it?), documents how she put on four stone, and attempted to lose it again. This is in hope of demonstrating that overweight and obese people are only that way because of their own actions and choices, and if they would only take control of their lifestyle, they wouldn't be that way. 

The main problem with this is the tone; but we will get to that. The first criticism that should be levelled is the complete ignorance shown. Many people simply eat too unhealthily, too often, and exercise too little, but not all people are fat due to diet. Our metabolisms all work at different rates- and there are an array of glandular problems that can cause a person's body to put on weight, despite eating quite well. People can also put on weight due to steroid and contraceptive medication, largely outside of their control. In that light, whilst it may or may not be easy for Katie, it won't be easy for everyone. However it's not really in what she is doing- it's the way she is doing it. She is highlighting only her own preconceived notions and prejudices- not anything of intellectual value.

But that's just Katie. Despite the backlash over this programme, she has dismissed her detractors as "angry chubsters". Most of the bile she coughs up in public appearances and social media is designed solely to shock; she is in-fact, a troll that ventures into the outside world as well as the online one. She fits the profile perfectly. Dim-witted, blundering and swinging with no regard for what's going on round about her. This is the same woman, we must remember, who professed on This Morning that she determined the class of a child by his or her name, and wouldn't allow her own children to play with kids she seemed of lower class. Asked to provide examples of such names, she included "any geographical names"; despite the fact her own daughter is named India, as Philip Schofield pointed out with baffled incredulity.

This week she has outdone herself though- taking to Twitter to proclaim that we in Scotland are "Sweaty little jocks" who are "sending Ebola bombs to London in the form of sweaty Glaswegians". This was referring to Pauline Cafferkey, the Scottish nurse who contracted Ebola whilst volunteering as a nurse to help victims of the virus in Sierra Leone, and was transferred to a London hospital from Glasgow. In a separate tweet, she remarked "Not so independent when it matters, are we Jocksville?"

So, I reported her to the police. I also posted a link to the Police Scotland report form for hate speech on several prominent newspaper articles on Facebook, to encourage others to do the same. 

After doing this, I received a number of reply comments on the threads, saying that it was a waste of time and police resources. It was suggested that instead, I should adopt the stratagem of "ignore her and she will go away", which likens her behaviour as a mere schoolyard bully. I was also accused of being too eager to cry offence, and along with the rest of the Scottish populace, accused of having a victim complex. 

Let's get one thing straight; to a Scot, the word "Jock" is a slur- it implies and imposes many negative stereotypes upon us. If Katie had used a similar derogatory word aimed at someone of a different ethnicity, ("Paki" for instance) there simply would be no debate. Indeed, substitute another nationality and its corresponding racial slur, and see how that sounds to you.

But that isn't the only reason. As well as using a slur against a nation of people, she didn't even acknowledge Pauline Cafferkey as a human being. Rather than the brave and selfless human being she is, having risked her life to save the lives of others, she has been held in the same regard as a plague rat. For that reason, Katie should receive the same treatment as that scumbag from Sunderland, who insulted the victims of the George Square tragedy. Why should her ill-gotten celebrity status make her exempt from the law? Reporting her online conduct is completely justified.

Katie Hopkins, you are an utter carbuncle. My sincere hope is that your next misadventure will be "My Jail Story", and that nobody but you will be subject to it. The next image of you I hope to see, is you being led away in handcuffs with that sanctimonious smile wiped right off your face. 

Appropriate this.

Something common to Tumblr (that hovel of online humanity) reared its ugly head recently. I read an article a few weeks back about how Hip-Hop is a music of black origin (true) and that it's wrong for white people to perform in this genre.

This is another example of what is referred to as supposed "cultural appropriation". Meaning you are taking a part of a culture that isn't yours and using it to entertain or as decoration etc. It's the same reason that people frown upon Native American head-dresses at Halloween, or white people getting certain tribal tattoos, or displaying a Zulu spear, or dream catcher in your house.

Now that I've explained it; allow me to to illustrate why I think the whole concept is complete bullshit:

Culture is what makes small groups of people different. By learning about it, we learn about the world. For that reason, it is something to be respected, but it's also something to be shared.

 There are plenty reasons why people shouldn't wear a Native American war bonnet- in a way it's like someone dressed in full military gear wearing a Victoria Cross or Congressional Medal of Honour- when they have never been in the armed forces. However, stating that you shouldn't wear it because you're white is complete nonsense. Used in a costume at Halloween, either is completely harmless- the person in costume is not trying to pass themselves off as what they're dressed as (I did not get people to refer to me as Solid Snake this year) and are not stating they are deserving of any honours or possessing of any skills their attire would suggest (I am in no way stealthy, and there's nothing wrong with my eye.)

Furthermore I imagine the vast majority of  Native American people don't really care if you have a dream catcher or tribal pipe in your house, so the idea of some white person on their high horse being offended FOR them just makes me laugh. People get replicas of these traditional items (because usually they aren't genuine) because they are somewhat interested in the culture. They can become a talking point, or simply be to study out of self interest. This is harmless.

Tradition is a vacuous concept. Because something is traditional does not make it acceptable or correct. Ancient Mayan cultures offered up human sacrifices to their gods at certain times of the year. It was tradition. Does that make it okay? This complacent "we've always done it that way" thinking is a load of rubbish. Like human beings and other life on Earth, culture evolves. It moves in the wake of the moral zeitgeist, and old useless traditions are thrown away- with new ones accepted in their place.

The idea of an object being sacred is also complete rubbish. An item is only valuable if people place value upon it. Therefore, how can a decorative African mask in a british living room be sacred? Furthermore, that something is sacred usually means that supernatural powers and superstition is ascribed to it- such as the mask granting the wearer the ability to travel to "the spirit world" or talk to a god. These are thoughts which no rational person would entertain for a moment without evidence. Such historical superstitions have long been debunked- and history is now the object's only value- because such relics come from a time when certain things could not be explained. Now, they can. Older cultures as a whole have only historical value in a modern world, and I firmly believe modern religions will be the same. I also am firmly of the opinion that if something is irrational, and continues to be, despite amassed evidence to the contrary; it does not deserve respect. In fact it should be disdained and ridiculed.

"The religion of one age, is the literary entertainment of the next."

However, as for music, with which I opened this post, I have to say only this- music has no colour or ethnicity. Music, like laughter, is a universal language. The fact that Requiem Mass has Christian religious themes sung in Latin, does not make it any less a beautiful piece of music- much as Wagner's Ride of the Valkyries is no less valuable or appealing being based on old Norse mythology. If you deny yourself music because it isn't part of the culture you were born in, you're an idiot. If that was the case, only people in the Mississippi delta would listen to Blues, and the rest of the world would have no Rock, no Metal, no modern Pop, no RnB and no Jazz. Music is to be shared and explored- in fact- today I urge you to go and find a piece of music on an instrument you've never heard of. Try the Guzheng, or the Harp-Guitar, or the Djembe, or the Hurdy-Gurdy. Go and do it right now, and you'll be all the better for it! 

As for my own culture- I am a Scottish person. I don't care who wears tartan, I don't care who wears a kilt. If say, an American citizen wanted to relocate over here, wear a Stuart tartan kilt every day of their life, eat haggis, drink single malt, attend and dance at ceilidhs, and learn how to bagpipe- I would have no qualms whatsoever. The vast majority of Scots would welcome them heartily. 

How you kill a culture, is not by allowing people to take inspiration from, and imitate it. How you kill a culture is by fencing it off and watching it slowly become extinct.