I still don’t see anything noteworthy. I do notice a common thread of far left types pushing this narrative though. It doesn’t shock me that people are more sensitive about this in the US due to the history regarding race relations.

I would wear a Indian headdress as a costume just as I’d wear a military uniform or other religious garb. Just because offensive is felt it doesn’t mean it is intended; it is almost like people are being primed to be offended and assume the worst in people.

I don’t accept this as a monetary issue either. If people produce bad copies of authentic art and get caught they should be prosecuted - false advertising. If they make bad copies of traditional art and sell them at a huge profit then good for them!

The fact that there are prejudices in the market place does not make the producer of goods guilty - when such items become mainstream you do tend to find people seeking out the ‘origin’ of this or that movement so even though the original pioneers are often celebrated after death they are still generally celebrated (this is a common feature of the most prominent artists in history).

False advertising is false advertising. If something doesn’t do what it says in the tin the buyer has the right to take their money elsewhere and inform the seller about the problem.

The west isn’t particularly great at replicating eastern food and the east isn’t particularly great at replicating western food. Such is life. Slowly people will adjust. My friend looked for traditional eastern food in Canada and couldn’t find anything like the original taste (cooked by people from the east).

Note: the most popular dish in the UK is Chicken Tikka Masala ... are Indian/Bangladeshi chefs offended by this?

All in all I don’t see anything of note that has any real application outside of a general anthropological investigation into how cultures blend and change over time. Sadly the idea has been strongly pushed to favour ideological views on racism and prejudice - was the phrase coined originally for political means or has it been appropriated by the extreme political ends of the spectrum as a platform for screaming? I don’t know of its original intent and how it became an issue of contention.

I found this article to be particularly useful in understanding the nuances of 'cultural appropriation', and I strongly recommend reading it. The author understands cultural appropriation as twofold: "first, an issue of cultural exploitation, and second, an issue of cultural disrespect". It does not mean that a culture "owns" something that cannot be adopted or re-purposed by another culture. — Maw

I'll read it, thanks. I do actually recognize what is meant by cultural appropriation in the context of disrespect and ignorance. I don't really think it's just eating burritos. I take your point. Still, what we read in the papers is the silliness of certain SJWs. Perhaps they'd make their own case stronger by not being parodies of themselves.

if my school had 'New York Pastrami Sandwiches' but it was served on potato bread instead of traditional rye bread, I would seek to have it corrected. — Maw

LOL, Well I've had plenty of "New York pizza" on the left coast, but never any actual New York pizza. But you don't actually go into Togo's or Subway and thoughtfully explain to them that the meat product they sell as pastrami is to actual pastrami as cardboard is to steak. Do you?

I guess this is nothing more than a conflation of intellectual property. Perhaps if we outlined what that means it would shed light on how and where to apply this in other contexts regarding how ideas mutate into different forms completely separate from their original intent - our control is limited.

I still don’t see anything noteworthy. I do notice a common thread of far left types pushing this narrative though. It doesn’t shock me that people are more sensitive about this in the US due to the history regarding race relations. — I like sushi

Well, I think using other people's work without compensating them fairly due to it being another cultural group one looks down on as cultural appropriation. It's not a sensitivity thing, though sensitivity may end up making mountains out of mole hills in cases where that is the case.

I would wear a Indian headdress as a costume just as I’d wear a military uniform or other religious garb. Just because offensive is felt it doesn’t mean it is intended; it is almost like people are being primed to be offended and assume the worst in people. — I like sushi

Some on the right will be offended by someone wearing priest outfits, going as Jesus, wearing certain military uniforms if they are not earned, burning a flag, wearing the flag as part of an outfit, going as certain historical figures (per se or if there is something mocking about it) and so on. Hell, you can get beat up for wearing what is considered weird or the wrong clothes by conservatives.

I don’t accept this as a monetary issue either. If people produce bad copies of authentic art and get caught they should be prosecuted - false advertising. If they make bad copies of traditional art and sell them at a huge profit then good for them! — I like sushi

Only bad copies? What if they are good copies being sold as authentic? If you make good or bad copies of powerful people's works of art, they will come after you and force you to stop, including jail time. A difference is that in one situation you have a group that has come up with something, which makes it harder to patent/copywrite. The other difference is the power. Regardless it is parasitic.

Some on the right will be offended by someone wearing priest outfits, going as Jesus, wearing certain military uniforms if they are not earned, burning a flag, wearing the flag as part of an outfit, going as certain historical figures (per se or if there is something mocking about it) and so on. Hell, you can get beat up for wearing what is considered weird or the wrong clothes by conservatives. — Coben

How about if we (a) try to not be offended by anything, and (b) don't treat it as taboo to offend the offendable?

Well, I think using other people's work without compensating them fairly due to it being another cultural group one looks down on as cultural appropriation.

If that is how you define the term great. It seems reasonable enough. How on earth this can be proven is a more confusing matter. Also, “using” meaning plagiarism is already considered bad news.

I don’t quite see how using an artistic style of another person/s - short of copying - is necessarily bad though. If things are being relabelled and repackaged with an intent to deceive then I am against it.

As to your second comment, I don’t care much really. Right, left, extreme conservatives, or zealous contrary liberalism ... they’re all equal prey to their own stupidity and I’ve no qualms about wearing any kind of garb if it suits me to do so for the reasons I choose - those offended can be offended.

Only bad copies? What if they are good copies being sold as authentic?

I specifically said ‘bad’ because if they were good, or better, in quality then I doubt anyone would mind too much as it would draw attention to something great for everyone to benefit from. If they were falsely presented as being produced by someone that hadn’t produced them though that would be plagiarism/lies.

With exchanges between cultural traditions there will always be some degree of misrepresentation due to misunderstandings because the more distinct a culture the more room there is for such to happen. We certainly should remain aware that there are individuals out there who wish to purposefully misrepresent and demean others - that should be something to keep in mind and expand our perspectives rather than to double down imo.

I can understand that people feel ‘their cultures’ are being ‘stolen’ and twisted beyond recognition. Such positions are conservative not liberal - finding balance between traditionalism and fruitful exchanges is the heart of politics so I doubt we’ll see these kinds of discussions abate anytime soon (be this due to religion, cuisine, art or concepts).

When it comes to intellectual property I struggle to work out what is ‘just’ on ‘individually owned items’ let alone some supposed ‘cultural ownership’. I find that people who “own songs” having bought them from other artists to be a sorry state of affairs, yet I imagine some artists would defend still as a means to make a quick buck rather than being dismissed.

How about if we (a) try to not be offended by anything, and (b) don't treat it as taboo to offend the offendable? — Terrapin Station

Would it be considered being offended if one got upset when others got offended? Then, I'm in. It would be lovely because I find that those with power are oddly the least able to deal with being their sacred cows and themselves being offended. IOW it is not just a negative rule for them. Then don't just need not to be offended, but they must shown respect and fawned over in ways they feel no obligation to aim at others.

So, sure, I am in. And I want everyone to also not treat people feeling offended as taboo either. A total free for all. With no economic punishments for any breaches. It can't hurt your job or your grades at all, for example, if some authority figure thinks you offended them. They can jsut be as offended as loudly and emotionally as they like, since this also would no longer be offensive. We all could. We could all be honest.

If that is how you define the term great. It seems reasonable enough. How on earth this can be proven is a more confusing matter. Also, “using” meaning plagiarism is already considered bad news.

I don’t quite see how using an artistic style of another person/s - short of copying - is necessarily bad though. If things are being relabelled and repackaged with an intent to deceive then I am against it. — I like sushi

It's certainly going to be a tough set of guidelines. Adn we haven't even separated out what are issues of law and what are merely moral breaches.

As to your second comment, I don’t care much really. Right, left, extreme conservatives, or zealous contrary liberalism ... they’re all equal prey to their own stupidity and I’ve no qualms about wearing any kind of garb if it suits me to do so for the reasons I choose - those offended can be offended — I like sushi

That's fine that you don't care and are consistant. Just wanted to point out that it's not just a left thing to get offended.

I specifically said ‘bad’ because if they were good, or better, in quality then I doubt anyone would mind too much as it would draw attention to something great for everyone to benefit from. If they were falsely presented as being produced by someone that hadn’t produced them though that would be plagiarism/lies. — I like sushi

Right to the last. The problem is, I think, that groups are not protected against plaigarism, though individual writers, say, are.

We certainly should remain aware that there are individuals out there who wish to purposefully misrepresent and demean others - that should be something to keep in mind and expand our perspectives rather than to double down imo. — I like sushi

Or people who don't really care. Stepping very quickly in and out of the issue I said I wanted to avoid, I would say that I don't think it should be a legal issue when someone mocks through lack of care or intention another culture in a way that is demeaning. I do think it can be an immoral act and one that should expect outrage and even boycotts and the like. Freedom there with consequences.

I think the relations between the target that is demeaned and the one demeaning does matter. Like making all asians look like glasses wearing morons or evil criminal geniuses was more offensive than any vaudville type shows asian americans might have put on for their own community making fun of whites. Back then. Now Asians are much more integrated and the myths around them have some balance between negative and positive ones. But earlier in history that kind of stuff was more obnoxious.

At some level it becomes a kind of propaganda that actually affects the people who are mocked in their sense of self. But that's another can of beans. The hot topic today of CA seems more about piecemeal instances of rudeness or perceived rudeness and not systematic demeaning stuff.

Would it be considered being offended if one got upset when others got offended? — Coben

If one's offended when others are offended. Equating "upset" with "offended" is questionable. "Upset" is broader than "offended," as, for example, one is upset when one is worried about one's health, or when one is sad, but neither makes much sense to characterize as "offense."

They can jsut be as offended as loudly and emotionally as they like, since this also would no longer be offensive. — Coben

If you're trying to not be offended, then sure, ideally that wouldn't be offensive to you. It's not that no one is going to be offended, but why don't we try not to be, and also not treat it as taboo when someone offends the offendable?

If one's offended when others are offended. Equating "upset" with "offended" is questionable. "Upset" is broader than "offended," as, for example, one is upset when one is worried about one's health, or when one is sad, but neither makes much sense to characterize as "offense." — Terrapin Station

I agree it's broader, but is there a reason that expressing upsetness would be a taboo?

If you're trying to not be offended, then sure, ideally that wouldn't be offensive to you. It's not that no one is going to be offended, but why don't we try not to be, and also not treat it as taboo when someone offends the offendable? — Terrapin Station

I am trying to put it in a wider context, where I find taboos on all sorts of perceived as not respectful enough interactions as widespread and for me most troublesome when the other person has the ability to hurt me, withhold something I need, punish me in practical ways. So in that context I don't see a reason to focus on one kind of getting upset about the way someone seemed to be implying or was implying something about me I didn't like.

Given that we are emotional creatures I would like to free up our ability to respond emotionally, but minimize the consequences where people actually get damaged for seeming to offend/upset someone. There is excess on the side of the PC around feeling offended. But then in my day to day life I encounter - in beauracries, in various authorities, in bosses, in police, and in the upper classes - for example as customers - extreme hypersensitivity to being insulted, offended or upset. I wish this was more central to the people who are upset that people are so easily offended. I want to see what people are willing to put on the table and are willing to experience themselves, especially when it affects some people in extremely damaging ways and also creates a culture of fear, where it is the rule to inhibit ourselves in the face of potential abuse and even just customary use of power.

If some people get offended by Miley Cyrus twerking I think it is fairly silly. On the other hand getting enraged about that in a context where there are all sorts of things most of us have to do and have to avoid doing to keep ourselves from being seen as offending or upsetting certain people in key positions or having certain kinds of power, I find that getting enraged at the people offended by Miley Cyrus fairly silly also.

If any starts making moves to put her in prison, ok, now we are getting into something.

I wonder if we are so used to not offending/upsetting in certain ways, since they just seem the natural consequences of power relationships in our societies (capitalist or communist) we focus on areas where we can vent and have some hope of shutting someone up.

The problem is, I think, that groups are not protected against plaigarism, though individual writers, say, are.

It doesn’t make much sense to me to apply ‘plagiarism’ to demographic groups. The individuals, in teams or otherwise, produce items. The indigenous folk of Australia don’t have any right to claim they are artists of any value because some person on the other side of the country - who’s also indigenous - produces a work they deem part of them ... if you look at things like this it is clearly quite ridiculous.

I don’t quite see how national stereotypes are a big deal? All countries taunt each other playfully to some degree. I don’t see the harm in it and I have no issue with mocking Americans, French, Italians, Pakistanis, Indians, Germans, Japanese or Vietnamese attitudes ... it is the manner that matters. Such things are even apparent between different cities and different city districts AND even right down to what street you happen to live on.

Just because some idiots, and they are idiots, don’t get the joke or fail to laugh at themselves I’m not obliged to pander to their opinion or any publicized perception of what is ‘appropriate’ or otherwise. I also find many of these claim of ‘protecting the weak’ are often viciously condescending. As for Asians and glasses, a much larger proportion of Asians do need glasses - it is thought to be something genetic (stereotypes often carry some factual substance to them).

Still, what we read in the papers is the silliness of certain SJWs — fishfry

But as I point out, many of these stories are actually fairly innocuous. In this example, minority college students from other countries were upset at how their traditional cuisines were presented, and simply wanted to work with their university's food services to better prepare them. That's it. No one was trying to ban food. It's not even a noteworthy of a story. People just raised a hubbub because it's fashionable to get angry at students.

LOL, Well I've had plenty of "New York pizza" on the left coast, but never any actual New York pizza. But you don't actually go into Togo's or Subway and thoughtfully explain to them that the meat product they sell as pastrami is to actual pastrami as cardboard is to steak. Do you? — fishfry

Well New York pizza is a style of pizza, which can be made anywhere, just as Chicago style pizza is simply deep-dish pizza and can also be made anywhere. My point is is that food can be a very vital and proud expression of one's culture, and if someone finds that someone is treating a culturally important cuisine haphazardly or indifferently, people, across cultures and ethnicities, can rightly get upset.

They upset about not getting what they paid for. If I ordered a traditional Vietnamese banh mi and got that I’d demand a refund. You’re maybe confusing bring ripped off with so-called ‘cultural appropriation’?

My point is is that food can be a very vital and proud expression of one's culture, and if someone finds that someone is treating a culturally important cuisine haphazardly or indifferently, people, across cultures and ethnicities, can rightly get upset. — Maw

It's normative enforcement with a dose of purism/conservatism (in the sense of "resistance to change") to it, without the realization that there are no factual norms--no facts about what people should be doing, how they should behave. It's an endorsement of over-the-top peer pressure, as if that's unquestionably positive.

You seem to be willfully missing the point. Even in this case, which is not all that serious, it's possible for a culture to be proud of a particular dish and not want a different inferior dish represented as it. Suppose Irish stew actually tasted good and that certain ingredients were vital for it to be considered Irish stew and some restaurant in a foreign country started selling some other crap that they called "Irish Stew" but that wasn't. An Irish person might feel that this restaurant had appropriated an aspect of their culture and misrepresented it causing people to think that a national dish of ours was of a lower quality than it is, and might feel somewhat aggrieved. It's not something you should necessarily go to court over or that most people would necessarily worry about, but it could be seen as an unwelcome appropriation, and the situation can be clearly distinguished from intellectual property rights (which do not apply to cultural traditions) and not getting what was paid for (we didn't buy the damn stew). Why is that difficult?

First off, there is no objective quality in that value sense of the term. The dish that someone feels is inferior someone else might feel is superior. There's not a right answer there as to which is the better-quality dish. It's just whatever one an individual prefers.

Secondly, "a culture being proud" is a very loose way of speaking at best. Cultures do not have unified minds. They're comprised of individuals and different individuals in the culture feel different ways about various things.

Willfully missing a non-point maybe. I don’t feel my culture is being ‘appropriated’ when people spell ‘colour’ as ‘color’. It irks me a little, that is all. It irks me a little when people give me a plastic bag to put a single pen in more.

According to CDS management, these dishes are a result of Bon Appétit’s foray into nutritional diversity. The food service company has recently been upping their output of cultural dishes in an attempt to diversify students’ options in taste and flavor profile.

Joshi is plainly an idiot. Confusing misrepresentation with willful theft is unhelpful. It isn’t ‘appropriative’ it’s ignorance/laziness in an attempt to do something adventurous and of value. I can imagine the chefs in that canteen were perhaps not all that well educated and would’ve happily changed the dish if approached in a respectful manner; then there is no story though.

They upset about not getting what they paid for. If I ordered a traditional Vietnamese banh mi and got that I’d demand a refund. You’re maybe confusing bring ripped off with so-called ‘cultural appropriation’? — I like sushi

The students clearly articulated the issue they had with the food and it wasn't because they weren't "getting what they paid for". That's not even how meal plans typically work on college campuses. You're just making shit up.

Cultural transmission occurs. Most of it unconsciously and without permission granted nor asked for. Some of that transmission might be seen crass appropriation. Most may not.

It's all irrelevant since it is unpolicable.

Making shit up? Really? What exactly did the Vietnamese student say. Just out of curiosity do you know if these students were studying social sciences and aware of the term ‘cultural appropriation’? Clearly the Japanese student has learnt the term whilst the Vietnamese student expressed a poor representation of their food.

Have you asked people if they would feel it to be a slur against their culture to be served a bad approximation of their traditional food?

There needs to be consistency in how the term is used. For historical reference into how cultures have shifted and reached around the globe the term likely has use. As a term used by individuals to make claims of disrespect on behalf of their ‘owned culture’ and everyone under its umbrella; no thanks!

Hyperbole is used to show the madness of these terms. When it leads to people being bullied for a hairstyle or item of clothing they like then it is just some bunch of idiots. The culture of ‘cultural appropriation’ spread in universities has serious faults attached to it. Just like the term ‘eugenics’ the original intent can be put to bad use - that appears to be what is happening with the term ‘cultural appropriation’ where people claim it to mean whatever suits their purpose at the time.

Where does the term originate?

Where it becomes an ideological tool of intolerance, it's being misused and that has happened, but the term as originally introduced (in the 70s) in its anti-colonialist sense has value. And it's intellectual laziness on both sides to misapply it: on the left to harass those engaged in harmless cultural cross-fertilisation, and on the right to dismiss the idea out of hand due to an inability to see past these misapplications or appreciate the importance of others' cultural behaviours, practices, symbols, and artefacts and their vulnerability to abuse. There's plenty of nuance there for those who want to look.

the term as originally introduced (in the 70s) in its anti-colonialist sense has value — Baden

Yes, but apparently it isn't limited to that anymore. I just love it when these blossoms of American Leftist-culture are copy pasted in the exact same form to everywhere around the Globe. Hence you can find the same discussion everywhere.

So "Cultural Appropriation", that you earlier told more directly to be " the real damage to people and their way of life that can potentially be done by stupidly fucking with stuff that is very serious to them" is indeed used in different context. It's not about Americans getting upset about some other people taking in American mainstream culture (and doing stupidly fucking stuff with it), but namely that the culture of indigenous people or minorities is copied by the majority (or typically, by whites).

This discourse has popped up also in my country.

Yes, also we have the only indigenous people found in the EU, the Sami, and there has been also the discussion of cultural appropriation of Sami culture in this country. The argument has been around the wearing of the Sami traditional costume. And some in the Sami community (and others people supporting them) have argued that only Sami ought to use the costume. As the dress (or crude versions of something like it) is one typical thing tourists can buy as a souvenir when visiting Lapland, a brew for a heated debate is ready.

A Sami mother with her children in traditional dress, the gakti:


Of course the American discussion simply assumes with indigenous people same kind of situation as with the native Americans in the US: a traumatic history of persecution (equivalent to genocide), segregation, a huge racial wealth gap and strained relations between various people continuing to this day. A divide between natives and the colonizers. If copy pasted to the Sami and the Finns, it becomes quite funny, actually. In Finland Finns and Sami have lived beside each other for thousands of years. If there has been open hostility between the two, it happened in Antiquity/Bronze Age and has left no historical traces (other than the Sami live nowdays in the North). There is no wealth gap between the Sami people and Finns living in Lapland. There is absolutely no racial difference between them: the Sami are just as blonde and blue eyed as Finns are and according to the American insistence of putting people into separated racial groups, they (the Sami) would be considered white. This upsets the whole racism and intersectionality viewpoint of this debate, because the only ones that would be fond of "a white nomadic people" likely would be some loonie white-supremacists!

And as there hasn't been any kind of segregation between Finnish and Sami people, it means that the Sami actually have a huge row about just who can say he or she is Sami. How it is established that someone is or isn't Sami is a major problem. This makes even the estimates of Sami to differ from 50 000 to 100 000 people (here in Finland the estimates are that there are 6 000 to 9 000). The question has significance more than just who ought to have the right to wear the dress, it is a question of who can vote in the Sami parliament. The general Nordic model would give voting rights to any person that has learnt as mother tongue (first language) Sami or who's one or both parents, grandparents or great grandparents would have learnt it. The present Sami parliament (here) opposes this adamantly and wants a a far more stricter definition to being Sami. If the Sami get priviledges, thanks to them being an indigenous people, this creates some bitterness among the Finns living in Lapland, especial those that are in reindeer herding business too. And as there is no "Wounded knee" incident, not even the infamous eugenics programs that Swedes had against the Sami, hence there simply isn't the fuel of shame of past treatment that woke people surely would use in the issue. The only issue I know is that the Sami language wasn't taught at schools before 1992 (which could be argued by some as persecution), yet one has to understand that this is about this really is a small minority: there are far larger minorities in Finland (like the Roma or Russians) that don't have minority language status like the Sami (which they got earlier here than in Sweden).

But who cares about the small details when you can have a debate like "in the Big World" about cultural appropriation!

I don't think anyone here said this had something special to do with Americans or race. I didn't mention race once and the examples given were about Australia, America and other places. But it normally is a minority culture, as you agreed, complaining about a dominant culture degrading their practices and traditions through misuse. So, your example fits in well. As to whether their complaint is justified, that could be debated. So, an interesting example, but I'm unsure of the target of your critique.

misapplications or appreciate the importance of others' cultural behaviours, practices, symbols, and artefacts and their vulnerability to abuse. — Baden

No one is obligated to "see the importance" of anything, especially since importance is subjective. Likewise no one is obligated to conform to what anyone feels is the "proper application" of anything.

And some in the Sami community (and others people supporting them) have argued that only Sami ought to use the costume — ssu

Just curious what the heck their argument would be for that.

This sort of thinking is the exact opposite of my disposition. I dont think that only category x ought to do anything. I hate ageism (only people of age (range) x ought to do y) sexism/genderism (only people of gender x ought to do y), etc. I'm fine with anyone doing whatever the fuck they want to do (anything that we allow some people to do). The big evil in my view is trying to control/restrict what other people can choose to do.

When it comes to something like clothing restrictions, the only thing I can see having some merit is clothing restrictions for practical reasons, such as only police officers being allowed to wear police uniforms of the locale in question, or clothing and other items necessary for hygienic purposes--for example, I can see restricting someone from bleeding all over public places.

Defining ‘culture’ is nuanced enough without this. If we’re talking about misuse, misapplication and misrepresentation of other cultures fair enough. I don’t see the need to refer to ‘theft’ of culture though.

When people talk about ‘theft,’ ‘murder,’ ‘violence’ or ‘rape’ in metaphorical terms (applied to abstract concepts) I am wary.

Without a thorough discussion on what ‘culture’ means and what ‘intellectual property’ is I don’t see how we can sensibly deal with another level of ambiguity - here or anywhere else.

The OP has opened up an interesting topic. I’m still confused about the meaning of the term; regardless of any political position being pushed by this or that zealous/naive group/s.

If we’re talking about misuse, misapplication and misrepresentation of other cultures fair enough. — I like sushi

I don't think there's anything fair about that. You can't "misuse" or "misapply" a culture, and no one has a responsibility to represent a culture in any particular way. That seems related to what I call the "realism fetish" in aesthetics, which I hate especially when it comes to fictions.

And yeah, some of this seems related to the stupid arguments that people have been forwarding about intellectual property.

Just curious what the heck their argument would be for that. — Terrapin Station

I wouldn't refer to 'they' here to the Sami in general, as I think majority don't care about if someone else uses their traditional dress or a cheap copy of it.

How do these things get to be debated? The media has to invent things to be scandals. This time the outcry was such a typical media event (as usual these things are): miss Finland wore a cheap costume bought from a masquerade-shop that looked like a Sami outfit. Media people were outraged. Oh, was she really, really sorry about it. And what ensued later was a debate about 'cultural appropriation'. It's only few 'woke' people who basically want to be in the media and have no problem of being a spokesperson for an indigenous people. Or in this case, a Sami artisan that makes herself the dresses who made the argument that nobody else than the Sami ought to use the costumes.

The basic argument is the typical one. That the dress/costume is important for their cultural identity and since how it looks is based on your family ties (hence when you marry you can change your costume to the new family's one), the details are important. Yet it's being used as a comical outfit and the culture is deprecated and not respected with improper use of the costume. Typically with bad "Made in China" copies of the costume.

So, an interesting example, but I'm unsure of the target of your critique. — Baden

I think you got the hang of it, but I'd say it's this lazyness of how the 'woke' journalists takes the a controversial media debate from the US and then tries to make a similar "controversy" in the domestic scene. So when the debate in the US has been about 'cultural appropriation', doesn't take long for the similar discussion to 'erupt' here too. That it never has been a problem before tells something.

I don’t say such things without a reason. I can give perfectly valid examples of these of those. I can only assume you misunderstood.

1) Cannibals in Papua New Guinea can be falsely portrayed, and have been, as blood thirsty savages who kill people to eat them. The reason for this is actually to do with the belief that if they didn’t consume the brain of someone who’d murdered and/or raped another that the evil spirit with live on. The common view people used to have of them was due to misrepresentation and/or misunderstanding/ignorance of their traditional beliefs.

2) Because of the kind of misunderstandings as above such views of cannibal activity can be misapplied to others who practice cannibalism for various other reasons.

3) Misuse is simple enough. This is by misnaming/misrepresenting a cultural item or tradition. There are multiple examples of this you can probably think of yourself.

Note: MOST importantly I DO NOT view any of the above as ‘theft’.

I don’t see the need to refer to ‘theft’ of culture though. — I like sushi

Neither do I, I'd rather keep the original term 'appropriation' which has a different sense. I also like 'stupidly fucking with' but maybe that's a bit emotive. :)

Without a thorough discussion on what ‘culture’ means and what ‘intellectual property’ is I don’t see how we can sensibly deal with another level of ambiguity - here or anywhere else.

The OP has opened up an interesting topic. I’m still confused about the meaning of the term; regardless of any political position being pushed by this or that zealous/naive group/s. — I like sushi

We're not going to get a thorough discussion of culture here. It's too broad an issue. But cultural practices or artefacts that don't 'fit' in well with a modern connected capitalist super-culture can be vulnerable or at least seen as vulnerable by their cultural guardians to assimilation/degradation. Whether you care about that and how much you do is likely to be at least partly defined by your own cultural background. Getting a bird's eye view is difficult, but I think it's worth trying to see through the fog.