The notion that language is not simply a politically neutral medium of communication, but a social practice that determines power relations and shapes subjectivity has become widely accepted in critical language and literacy studies. Within any socio-linguistic community, certain ways of using language are considered "proper," "educated," "standard" or "legitimate," while others are not. According to this theoretical framework, legitimacy is determined not so much by intrinsically superior linguistic features, but by power relations: the language of the elite is imposed as the norm and functions as a gate-keeper. Language rights activists have been pushing for a greater use of marginalized languages in domains of power in order to reduce socio-economic inequality. In this paper, I argue that changing attitudes about the ownership of the dominant language is just as important. Drawing on a critical analysis of the corpus and on a case study, I show the importance of moving from a "birthright paradigm" to an "appropriation model" when thinking about who owns English in the context of discussions about language, identity and power relations. (Contains 11 tables.)