Woke liberalism often claims to champion the voices of those who are marginalized. However, a closer examination reveals a troubling disconnect between their intentions and the realities faced by the very communities they profess to support. A recent endeavor by the Church of England highlights this contradiction, as the historic Canterbury Cathedral—a site established in 579 AD—was allowed to be defaced with graffiti in an effort to give a platform to these “unheard” voices. Visitors were quick to voice their disapproval; one described the act as “sacrilegious,” while another likened the cathedral’s appearance to that of “an underground car park in Peckham.”
There’s an attempt here to honor marginalized communities through colorful expressions presented as “everyday theological questions.” A spokesperson claimed that queries such as “Are you there?” and “God, what happens when we die?” form part of a reflective dialogue. Beautiful on its surface, this notion quickly fades when the context of the act comes into play. What should be a meaningful inquiry instead resembles a misuse of sacred space that many feel diminishes the essence of historical and cultural significance.
As Vice President J.D. Vance noted, it is perplexing that advocates fail to recognize the irony of their actions. Their quest for inclusion—intended as a gesture of goodwill—actually results in an irreverent alteration of a treasured landmark. The sentiments echoed by Vance were mirrored by others on social media, with one user referring to the act as “cultural vandalism,” masking the degradation of history under the guise of social justice.
This scenario prompts a critical question about how conservatives can articulate the dissonance in woke liberal claims. To illustrate further, the film “Glory” provides an apt analogy. The character Col. Robert Gould Shaw, portrayed by Matthew Broderick, embodies the disciplined engagement necessary for uplifting the soldiers under his command, an all-black regiment. In contrast, the character of Col. James Montgomery—a fellow officer—exhibits a paternalistic view that infantilizes the very troops he leads. Montgomery’s lack of respect leads to chaos, viewing those he commands as “little monkey children” who require controlling.
It is this mindset that resonates with aspects of woke liberalism. Their elitist approach fosters an environment where they perceive marginalized communities as incapable of self-determination, requiring intervention in the form of misguided attempts to elevate their voices. The historical and cultural richness of these communities risks being overshadowed by superficial displays of inclusivity that fail to respect or honor their true essence.
Ultimately, the attempts to wrap such actions under the banner of compassion expose a superficial understanding of what it means to truly support marginalized individuals. The disconnect between intention and action raises vital concerns that need addressing, particularly when the outcome is detrimental not only to the historical narrative but also to the communities being represented. Reducing this complex issue leads to one sobering conclusion: the essence of wokeness, in its misguided form, can perpetuate the very stereotypes it seeks to dismantle, leaving a legacy of ugliness rather than clarity and respect.
"*" indicates required fields
