Susie O’Brien: Woolworths’ ‘racist’ boomerang chicken fiasco proves PC madness has gone too far

The latest fiasco of the super-woke unfolded because one Twitter user accused Woolworths of “disrespectful cultural appropriation” over the name of a popular cut of chicken.

I threw out my boomerang chicken wings on learning they were racist, but they kept coming back.

Boom tish!

The great chicken fiasco of 2021 unfolded this week because someone on Twitter accused Woolworths of “unnecessary and disrespectful cultural appropriation” over the name of the popular cut of chicken.

Like many of you, I wasn’t aware that the grossly offensive item of “boomerang wings” even existed until this week’s horror racist expose.

I had no idea my local supermarket chicken freezer cabinet was harbouring a racist item so objectionable, so heinous, it had to be renamed after just one complaint.

“We’ve reviewed the feedback and decided it’s appropriate to change the description of this particular cut to ‘V wings’,” a Woolworths spokesperson said.

“While [boomerang wings] is a commonly used term to describe this cut of chicken in the poultry industry, we appreciate the customer’s perspective.”

Note that they refer to a singular customer. These days only one objection can change a chicken cut forever.

A Twitter user accused Woolworths of “unnecessary and disrespectful cultural appropriation” over the name of a cut of chicken Picture: David Crosling

The now infamous tweeter suggested that “surely chicken wing” would suffice?

Little did they know that this is not an option in today’s super-woke climate, which has already demanded chicken breast be renamed chicken chest in order to boost gender-diverse and minority sexuality animals.

Chicken wing is offensive to those who are aerially challenged and can’t fly. Chicken appendage is surely better.

It’s just a matter of time before all cuts of meat are subject to the same PC lens.

Blade steak? Too violent.

Short loin? Discriminatory to those who are height-challenged.

Strip fillet? Offensive to those who take off their clothes for a living.

Thin rib? Objectionable to those who are weight-challenged.

And don’t get me started on the US, where there’s a fully-fledged movement against the use of “white” and “dark” to describe different cuts of chicken and turkey.

I shouldn’t be surprised. These days watermelons are seen as racist (symbols of slavery), salads are sexist (seen as women’s food) and people are pushing for Egg and Bacon Bay to be renamed Apple and Cherry Bay.

Even throw-about food terms like “food porn” are on the nose.

As one commentator noted, it’s because mainstream pornography “is created by and for men in a highly misogynist cis-homo-patriarchic manner, that exploits womxn, their bodies and minors”. Yes, womxn. Sadly, that’s not a typo.

And there’s also a discussion underway about whether non-Asians should be able to cook Asian food, with some suggesting it’s cultural “micro-aggression”.

It’s absurd.

While I do not object to some renaming of clearly racist items of food, such as Coon cheese, the mere use of terms associated with one race or culture shouldn’t be enough to sustain a claim of racism.

Today’s super-woke climate has already demanded chicken breast be renamed chicken chest in order to boost gender-diverse and minority sexuality animals

For instance, the term “boomerang” is descriptive rather than pejorative. So what’s the big deal?

Surely people who care about Indigenous rights have more pressing things to worry about than the name of a piece of chicken, like youth incarceration rates and family violence in remote communities?

In any case, if we get rid of boomerang wings, then surely, it’s just a matter of time before we have to stop using other Indigenous names, even if they’ve been in common use for decades. This would mean no more Billabong boardies, Easter bilbies or Wallabies rugby team.

Some people also believe white people wearing Indigenous-designed clothing brands is cultural appropriation.

The madness doesn’t end there.

These days, animal activists are keen to stop us from being speciesist as well — to make sure we don’t discriminate on the basis of species.

In the eyes of PETA, this means we stop using terms like “kill two birds with one stone,” “beat a dead horse,” and “bring home the bacon”.

They don’t want us to be drunk as a skunk, eat like a pig or to be “too chicken” go out at night. They also want people (aka non-animal beings) to stop using terms like critters, beast and wild animals because they are “derogatory” and position humans as superior.

One PETA school-based instruction sheet tells teachers to make sure kids use “him/he” and “her/she” for animals so they are not objectified. They even go so far as to suggest that educators use their “professional judgment to determine whether your students are ready to use ‘they’ and ‘them’ as singular personal pronouns to refer to individual animals whose sex is unknown”.

The world has just tilted on its axis. Now even animals need to have gender-neutral pronouns.

No doubt someone from the military has already tweeted their objection to the new Woollies chicken term “V wing”. Discriminatory to veterans, perhaps?

I think I need a little lie-down ...

Susie O’Brien is a Herald Sun columnist

@susieob