"Me Chief. Sleep with all women. Big, small, fat, tall."

There are a few Halloween traditions that need to end. A decade ago I wrote about two of the worst (at the time) offenders: tainted candy scares, and UNICEF boxes.

Flash forward to 2016 and there's a far, far worse trend that comes with the Halloween season. No, not pumpkin spiced products. No, not even those silly inflatable decorations they sell at Walmart.

No, I'm talking about the myth of "cultural appropriation". You see, retarded millennials and their constantly-offended demeanor have decided that dressing up as a Red Indian Chief or Pocahontas is now highly offensive because you are insulting their culture by wearing costumes from that culture.

It is, of course, ridiculous. Which is why the modern left has embraced it so wholeheartedly. The logic isn't too far removed from their patent insanity over the Cleveland Indians. You see, "People Who Are Marginalized"TM are harmed when people who aren't "marginalized" "steal" their culture. You can't ask how this works, by the way, because no mechanism is ever presented. One of the reasons, as I again discussed vis a vis the Cleveland Indians, the very term "marginalized" is not very well defined, nebulously applied, and subject entirely to the whim of the person deciding. Tell these people that white Canadian taxpayers are highly marginalized by far-left governments and NGOs, and they sputter in shock and horror when you dare use their precious terms of victimhood against them.

So don't ever let them use the "marginalization lie" to excuse this ridiculousness. The fact is, every Halloween costume is both based on simplistic stereotypes and using a specific culture or class of persons. That's what a costume is. Whether it's a businessman or an Indian, it doesn't make any difference.

Let's take the example of the Indian Chief. This apparently bothers people because Indians simultaneously didn't wear crazy feathered headdresses, and the are signs of tremendous honour and it's insulting for somebody else to wear them. (As with so many things related to Red Indian activism, the argument requires them to hold two competing beefs simultaneously). If they did wear crazy feathered headdresses, then that alone makes it a perfectly acceptable item to accessorize your Indian Chief costume. In exactly the same way, if you're dressing as an army officer for Halloween, you should definitely accessorize with a bunch of medals on your chest. After all, you don't just want to dress up as "random grunt", you want to be George S. Goddamned Patton. You don't want to dress as "Haida nobody who lived in the Queen Charlotte Islands from 1164-1208 A.D.," you want to be the Chief. The Indian Chief got all the perks, he was the top dog, and you could tell who he was because of the (historically accurate) headdress. You bought one at a costume shop and your headdress may not be historically accurate, anymore than the army medals you are wearing aren't historically accurate. In both cases, wearing the real thing when you didn't actually do anything in your life to earn them might be a big issue, but how can a cheap ripoff be offensive? Much like those racks of plastic "medals" you can buy for your uniform at Supply Sargeant, the $24.99 headdress (Made in China) you picked up at an online store isn't authentic either.

But what if you're with a retarded leftist who claims the headdress isn't authentic and therefore is now offensive because it "perpetuates a stereotype?" The first thing to remember, of course, is that stereotypes exist for a reason. If you don't think blacks tend to have trouble being on time for work, try attending the Edmonton Carribean Parade (except in 2015). If you don't think Indians have a serious problem with alcoholism, ask yourself why there are dry reserves where you can't even buy Lysol at the convenience store. The second is, if you read the bit about "if its true" then the stereotype is a positive one: a strong authoritative culture with a specific and codified authority structure, defined via prowess in competitions. So what's the harm? That it paints a picture of Red Indian culture superior to the reality of that culture?

So after this became a big deal, I decided to go down to one of the Spirit of Halloween stores in Edmonton to look at some of the other costumes that are available. Let's see if any "perpetuate stereotypes" and if we can insist that only specific cultural groups are allowed to wear them.

Are you Egpytian or Italian? No? Then you have no business wearing these costumes! Also notice it "perpetuates the stereotype" of Egyptians and "Romans" being toga-wearing goddesses. You may also note that even if you're Italian, if you're from Venice or Florence then you aren't a "Roman". No word yet if you're "allowed" to co-opt your neighbour's culture like this. Much like faded leather-wearing Pocohontas, this is a costume of a racial group based on a historical and/or faux-historical outfit.

Ah! Bonjour Mademoiselle! This French maid costume may make you want to voulez-vous coucher avec moi but wait! Who's wearing it? Is she actually French or is she a Belgian dressing up like a French maid? I bet they'll even use an exaggerated French accent too! (I hear this is something that bothers people about Indian Chief costumes, making bad Brocket 99 impressions)

One girl. One girl from Kansas dressed like this, and now it's "Kansas Beauty" to costume makers? Sure Dorothy was a fictional character, but mostly Pocohontas was one too. Are you from Kansas? If not, isn't it offensive to wear the costume and perpetuate negative stereotypes about Kansasians? Bonus points to those who argue that only Judy Garland's relatives are allowed to wear this costume. Consider that's literally the same argument against why non-Indians can't wear Indian costumes.

Didn't we just cover the Italians? How many negative stereotypes can you perpetuate? Guess what, asshole: Italians aren't a bunch of comically dressed plumbers jumping through pipes. Mario is #NotYourCostume, isn't he? Also, he's a man. Double hate crime here, and that's before we get to the false stereotype that every asian knows kung fo. This is also the first costume we've seen where the model on the bag doesn't match the ethnicity of the costume...even here, she's not authentic.

Can white men be victims of cultural appropriation? Apparently so! They just let anybody buy this costume, without first ensuring that the purchaser is both white and German. (Though, like with the Roman/Italian issue above, we aren't sure if Germans from Berlin or Bremen are allowed to dress like Bavarians). And how stereotypical can you get? Outside of Oktoberfest or a trip to Barb and Ernies back when Ernie still owned the place, you will never see Germans actually dress like this. I bet when you picture a German in your head you either see this guy or Hitler. And if you do, you're perpetuating stereotypes and therefore you are worse than Hitler.

Again, ninjas are a specific sub-group of asians and therefore not suitable to dress up as just like "Mohawk warrior" is a specific sub-group of Red Indians. So obviously if one is a disgusting embarrassment, so is the other.

#MexicanCulturesMatter. So this pair of costumes may or may not get a pass since it's specifically depicting the Mexican iconography related to Halloween. If you're a "cultural appropriations" expert, please go into the comments and help us out with this one. Does it make it better? Or (somehow) even worse?

We've moved from ethnic stereotypes to religious stereotypes: here we see a Rabbi, a more sacred costume than any Red Indian Chief ever could be, being shamelessly co-opted for a cheap laugh at Halloween. Do Jews get upset about this? Well, maybe a few of them. But apparently there's no big traction about this. There aren't CBC news articles calling for the banning of Rabbi costumes being sold at Halloween stores. And that's way before we get to an actual costume being marketed as "Jesus". He's more sacred a symbol than every Indian who has ever lived combined and somehow Christians aren't angry that their Saviour is being depicted as a cheap Halloween costume. What if an atheist dressed up like Jesus (they probably would be the only one)? Yet somehow there are no calls to remove this costume from the shelves. And it's only appropriate at this point that it's noted that there's a couple major religions missing from the costume rack. Where are the niqab costumes? Where is the Mohammed costume? Even poor Buddha somehow doesn't get a costume (though, if you want to be pedantic, Buddhists believe in reincarnation so every costume could technically be a Buddha one)

Here are a couple more religious costumes that presumably are offensive unless a Catholic is wearing it. The Pope costume is worth noting, because it's an actual human being who is currently alive.

Finally, because Halloween always comes right around the same time as the U.S. Presidential elections, candidate costumes have always been popular. But aren't they also offensive? Like the Pope, Donald Trump is a real person (there's also a Hillary Clinton mask, but to save you all the sight of that disgusting witch I didn't take a picture of it) and probably should only be worn if you are actually a Trump supporter. You don't get to wear it ironically. This one I'll grant, I know a girl who actually was offended to learn that her favourite candidate is being made fun of in costume form, and refused to come to a Halloween party on Monday because the host is planning on going as Trump for Halloween.

So there you go, easily offended Red Indian activists. Every other culture and group has their symbols be used as Halloween outfits. Even "tranny" is a common and popular one (K'mpec dressed as a chick a few years ago and it was a great success).

It's Halloween. Get over it. Your backwards culture needs to grow up and join the rest of us at the adult table.