this woman is obviously white. but, that's just the point - why should your ancestry give you property rights over ideas? it's an incoherent premise. of all of the bad arguments in favour of property rights, it's hard to come up with one that's worse. it's some kind of reverse-feudalism or something.

i don't need it explained to me; it's not well thought out, which is why it doesn't and shouldn't make sense to people. these are economic concepts that we did away with centuries ago...

she claims that her claimed indigenous ancestry means she has an exclusive economic right; i'd be more likely to argue that the reality that she's white doesn't take away her ability to speak.

but, what i wanted to say is that this is actually the correct argument. you don't win arguments by silencing opponents, you win arguments by convincing people that you're right. in this case, they're not right, in the sense that these different narratives can and should exist side by side. but, you only get to that realization by putting the narratives side by side and realizing that they're not in conflict with each other.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/the-cultural-appropriation-debate-is-over-its-time-for-action/article35072670/