By John Q. Hosedrinker 
A Washington, D.C. judge awarded the Proud Boys’ trademarks to the Metropolitan African Methodist Episcopal Church, effectively prohibiting the group from using its name and associated logos. This decision follows a 2021 lawsuit filed by the church after the Proud Boys’ destruction of Black Lives Matter signs and their subsequent failure to pay over $1 million in damages. The ruling allows the church to pursue financial remedies from any Proud Boys merchandise sales. Proud Boys leader Enrique Tarrio condemned the decision as a “betrayal of justice.”
Read the original article here
A historic Black church in DC now owns the name “Proud Boys,” a fact that’s sparked a wave of reactions, ranging from amusement to outrage. The irony isn’t lost on many: a name originally inspired by a song from Disney’s *Aladdin*, written by a gay Jewish man, now belongs to an institution diametrically opposed to the group’s hateful ideology. This unexpected twist highlights the absurdity of the Proud Boys’ self-image and the inherent flaws in their chosen moniker.
The situation brings to mind other instances where symbols of hate have been reclaimed, like the Pepe the Frog case, where the creator successfully fought against the far-right’s appropriation of his creation. This legal precedent demonstrates the power individuals have in reclaiming their intellectual property and combating hateful uses of their creations. The Proud Boys, lacking such foresight, now find their identity stripped away, a consequence of their actions and ill-considered choices. Their failure to consider the implications of their name, coupled with their violent actions and disregard for court orders, has led to their downfall.
The origins of the name itself are strangely fitting, considering the group’s actions. The “Proud Boys” title, inspired by the *Aladdin* song “Proud of Your Boy,” ironically underscores the group’s immaturity and the childish nature of their violent posturing. The song’s creator, a gay man, would likely find the appropriation of his work profoundly unsettling. The inherent contradiction between the song’s message of pride and the Proud Boys’ hateful rhetoric is striking, and serves to further highlight the absurdity of their chosen name.
Furthermore, the initial composition of the Proud Boys wasn’t exclusively white. However, racist elements infiltrated and ultimately hijacked the group, perverting its original intent. This evolution mirrors many extremist groups which initially attract members through vague promises of camaraderie before becoming increasingly intolerant and violent. The transformation highlights the inherent dangers of extremist groups and the need for vigilance in combating their recruitment strategies.
The church’s acquisition of the name presents an opportunity for reclaiming the narrative. It allows for a positive reimagining of the term, stripping it of its hateful connotations and associating it with an institution focused on community and positive change. This shift in ownership could become a powerful symbol of redemption, showcasing how hate can be overcome through constructive action.
However, the reaction to the church’s acquisition of the name suggests that simply owning the name doesn’t automatically erase its history. The name itself remains controversial, and the association with violence and hate will likely persist for some. The church’s choice to use the name is thus a risky but potentially powerful statement, requiring careful navigation of the complexities involved in reclaiming a deeply problematic symbol.
In the end, the story of the Proud Boys’ name being acquired by a Black church is a multifaceted one. It’s a tale of irony, of reclaimed narratives, of the consequences of violent actions, and the potential for redemption. The church’s ownership of the name presents both challenges and opportunities, potentially signaling a transformative shift in the narrative surrounding the controversial moniker. It also underscores the need for a critical examination of the groups that use hateful ideologies to build their identities and rally their members, and the dangers of such affiliations. The outcome, however, remains to be seen, as the full implications of this unusual acquisition are yet to unfold.