In an era where “woke” liberals often proclaim their dedication to representing the “marginalized” and “unheard,” one critical question tends to get lost in the shuffle: What do these self-proclaimed guardians of the downtrodden genuinely think about their interests?
A recent episode involving the Church of England offers an illustration of this question. As reported by the U.K.’s Independent, a project aimed at amplifying “marginalized communities” has led to the temporary graffiti-style defacement of the centuries-old Canterbury Cathedral, an institution founded in 579 AD by St. Augustine.
“I find it sacrilegious,” remarked one visitor, while another likened the sight to “an underground car park in Peckham.” Such thoughts naturally lead one to ponder the juxtaposition of artistry and respect for heritage.
However, letâs turn the spotlight to the positive aspects of this initiative. A spokesperson noted that the colorful graffiti poses “everyday theological questions,” such as “Are you there?” and “God, what happens when we die?” With the right presentation, these inquiries could have resonated with the profound anguish captured in the Psalms.
Yet, as it stands, the exhibition is more emblematic of a misguided interpretation of what it means to support the “marginalized.” Vice President J.D. Vance took to social media platform X to voice his thoughts: “Itâs strange to me that these individuals donât see the irony of honoring ‘marginalized communities’ by making a beautiful historical building really ugly.”
Itâs strange to me that these individuals donât see the irony of honoring âmarginalized communitiesâ by making a beautiful historical building really ugly. https://t.co/j7GEtCFsMY
— JD Vance (@JDVance) October 10, 2025
Another user pointedly referred to the act as “cultural vandalism,” asserting that it belittles all parties involved: “This isnât ârepresenting voicesâ; itâs cultural vandalism masquerading as social justice. Defacing a sacred, historic landmark to appear ‘inclusive’ is an affront to both history and the very communities you claim to honor.”
This isnât ârepresenting voicesâ; itâs cultural vandalism masquerading as social justice. Defacing a sacred, historic landmark to be âinclusiveâ is an insult to both history and the very communities you claim to honor.
— Thomas Antony (@ItsThomAnt) October 10, 2025
This discordant reaction from Vance and others allows us to explore a broader commentary on the behavior of those who claim to be champions of the “unheard.” Perhaps a scene from the classic 1989 film “Glory” might shed light on this dynamic.
In the film, Matthew Broderick portrays Col. Robert Gould Shaw, who leads the all-black 54th Massachusetts regiment. Unlike his counterpart, Col. James Montgomery (played by Cliff De Young), who encourages destruction and chaos among his troops, Shaw adheres to a disciplined training style, which allows his men to prove their worth as formidable soldiers.
As Montgomery displays a condescending attitude, belittling his troops as “little children” who require control, it becomes evident that the sycophants of wokeness exhibit analogous condescension toward the marginalized communities they claim to uplift.
The essence of “wokeness” often boils down to this perspectiveâseeing marginalized groups as inherently chaotic and requiring guidance from those in power. This misguided dynamic can lead to unfortunate outcomes, as illustrated in both historical and contemporary contexts.
This article was originally published on The Western Journal.
