The chauvinism involved is the assumption that a type theory is the only legitimate way to assess the quality of a programming language's type system. Haskell is, of course, a near-ideal language when judged by the values of its creators and advocates. The inability to recognize that those values are subjective is chauvinism.
I know some people really want programming to just be an application of the lambda calculus. It's a model that really appeals to people who prefer a top-down, deductive model to their work. It's similar to the appeal that draws people to Austrian economics.
And yet that is not the original model for thinking about software, nor the only valid one. Haskellers who rely solely on deductive arguments in favor of their method are going to be stuck forever wondering why so few people are using their clearly superior tool.
Less accurate "models" for "thinking about software" are less accurate, and whether they were thought of first or last has no bearing on that. The fact that you're using "earliest date of discovery" as supporting evidence demonstrates that you're not approaching the question as an objective observer.
This isn't a popularity contest, though if you were measuring popularity based on positive impact, that of Haskell has been substantial.
The only advantage to leveraging simpler and less accurate models is that they're easier for the people using them to understand at a micro scale -- at the cost of systemic accuracy and verifiability.
In being less accurate, they create systems that are more difficult to understand, more difficult to abstract and compose, more difficult to optimize, and more difficult to measure.
There's something destructive and anti-intellectual about trying to convince the world that deductive reasoning is just a matter of opinion.
