So what is 'cultural misappropriation'? Wikipedia describes 'cultural misappropriation' as:

"Opponents of cultural appropriation view many instances as wrongful misappropriation when the subject culture is a minority culture or is subordinated in social, political, economic, or military status to the dominant culture or when there are other issues involved, such as a history of ethnic or racial conflict. This is often seen in cultural outsiders' use of an oppressed culture's symbols or other cultural elements, such as music, dance, spiritual ceremonies, modes of dress, speech, and social behaviour, notably when these elements are trivialized and used for fashion, rather than respected within their original cultural context. Opponents view the issues of colonialism, context, and the difference between appropriation and mutual exchange as central to analyzing cultural appropriation. They argue that mutual exchange happens on an "even playing field", whereas appropriation involves pieces of an oppressed culture being taken out of context by a people who have historically oppressed those they are taking from, and who lack the cultural context to properly understand, respect, or utilize these elements."

As we can see in this passage, some commentators call 'cultural appropriation' the pendant to 'cultural exchange' and do not use the term cultural _mis_appropriation, such as this writer:

"So what makes cultural exchange different from cultural appropriation? As with most points of cultural contention, the difference is power. In particular, the power of the privileged to borrow and normalize a cultural element of another group, while the appropriated group is often demonized and excluded because of that very cultural element.
...
"Shriver, like so many others, misses the point of cultural appropriation. A sombrero is a cultural artifact of a culture she does not belong to, and without understanding it carefully and approaching it cautiously, she can misuse this artifact to archaically represent or misrepresent a culture. (It’s often done; see any American city on Cinco de Mayo.) But what Shriver and others miss is not only the power they hold in their interactions of cultural exchange; it is that many Mexicans have been demonized for these artifacts, and an entire nation of people is symbolized only by that artifact because of the power of those from privileged cultures to exchange in such a manner." source

Or again

"In short: Cultural appropriation is when somebody adopts aspects of a culture that’s not their own... A deeper understanding of cultural appropriation also refers to a particular power dynamic in which members of a dominant culture take elements from a culture of people who have been systematically oppressed by that dominant group." source. (In context this author, as do many others, makes it explicit that only "white people" can exercise cultural misappropriation).

As we can see, the definitions above all vary to some degree, but essentially postulate that appropriation is the opposite of appreciation and can more appropriately be termed wrongful misappropriation, exploitative appropriation or some derivative thereof. For the purposes of this treatment, the term 'misappropriation' will be applied.

As an aside, the following video tries to explain cultural appropriation at the pop culture level - this is what youth are being exposed to, just for a comparative reference for the discussion below: "White Party - A Lesson in Cultural Appropriation"

There are a number of difficulties with cultural misappropriation theory as formulated above, not the least of which is that it is apparently intended to establish a global framework for misappropriation based on what people in the United States do or, perhaps more specifically, based on what non-Latina people of European descent do. And this distinction is important, because cultural appropriation theory is a logical extension of what in academia has been termed the Cultural Turn and its derivational Postcolonial Studies, both of which have firmly established themselves on American campuses. To understand the cultural misappropriation narrative, it is important be aware of the basic tenants of these two fields:

The Cultural Turn describes a transition in the liberal arts and sciences away from a positivistic epistemology and towards a relativist construction of meaning. Positivistic epistemology is the approach that contends knowledge is (best) constructed through reason and the application of logic to sensory experience, i.e. facts are best based on empirical evidence. The Cultural Turn in effect embraces Nietzsche's contention that the truth is what we agree it is, as he argued in his essay "On Truth and Lies in a Nonmoral Sense" (I cannot recommend reading this text enough, I would contend it plays an essential role for relativism as we know it today).

Postcolonialism seeks to understand knowledge as a function of the relative dynamics between social and political power based on the creation, control and distribution of resources. In doing so it divides the world into colonializers and colonialized (more simply formulated as oppressors and oppressed) and, through the implementation of Critical Theory, "questions and reinvents the manner in which a culture is being viewed." This is a form of relativist historical revisionism (for good or ill) that also actively seeks application in the contemporary world. For a primer on the influence of Critical Theory in the modern educational landscape, please revisit my article Frankenstein's Monster, Social Justice & Higher Education and more specifically David Galland's: "The Birth of Cultural Marxism: How the "Frankfurter School" Changed America.

Viewing the cultural misappropriation theory in light of its relativist foundations helps bring things into focus. Cultural appropriation theory is interested in constructing relativistic cultural "truths" based on the interplay of power between oppressors and the oppressed - for this model to function there has to be an oppressor and there has to be an oppressed. It is quite literally impossible to claim cultural misappropriation exists without an attendant victim class, even if it has to be created on the spot. Sound familiar? If not, see my articles: Safe Spaces - The Dystopian Infantilization of America's Youth 1 and 2.

This also necessitates an oppressor, but unlike previous categories of oppression against groups or individuals (racism/sexism/ableism/transphobia/ageism etc.), this new oppression takes the form of adopting or repurposing ideas as manifested in the form of cultural constructs (be it food, fashion, technology etc.). The reasoning behind this is that by availing oneself of ideas developed within discrete cultural spheres that others judge one not to be party to, one oppresses all individuals who consider those ideas constitutive of their cultural heritage and self-identity.

This oppression is not an overt physical oppression, rather it is the oppression of disrespect, described in cultural misappropriation terms as the repurposing or enjoyment of some_thing_ without caring about its origins, degree of cultural authenticity or its original cultural context. Thus not caring¬ about how other people feel (and falsely equating it with active disrespect) is being stigmatized in order to socially ostracize those that do not conform to the social justice ideological narrative. This is consistent with the approach of socially constructing truths based on emotional relativism and the general trend of identity politics.

The goal of this rationale appears to be that culturally anchored ideas, their derivatives and their physical manifestations are being redefined as forms of cultural property that belong to the members of those cultures and have been unjustly usurped by colonialists, i.e. misappropriated. Such a redefinition of 'culture' to include 'cultural property' would suggest three consequences:

1. Ideas and things must be indelibly associated with their culture of origin to avoid transgressing against or oppressing others.

2. A mechanism for reparations or compensation to members of the culture whose ideas or manifestations are being appropriated should be developed.

3. Each individual should be assigned a cultural designation so as to enable the compensatory mechanism to function.

I know the three points above seem far off, however, as the introductory paragraph has shown, point 1 is already in full swing. Point 2, the argument for compensation, is already being discussed as a possible remedy and Point 3 is already ubiquitous in the constant conflation of race and culture, i.e. white people have white culture, black people have black culture etc. All of these aspects are summed up beautifully in this response to the news about the Mexican restaurant owners being bullied out of business because they were not Mexican:

First, reverse racism is not a thing. It matters when the person taking from another culture is white versus a person of color. Second, cultural appropriation is a symptom of a racist and oppressive system. See this article - https://theestablishment.co/when-we-talk-about-cul... - for more information. I agree that appreciation is not appropriation and I encourage true appreciation. Taking another culture's food, clothing, speech, etc. instead of raising up the people creating those things is a form of colonization (sic. should read 'colonialization'). Raise up the people whose food/clothing/etc you enjoy instead of taking it for yourself. And do not turn a profit on it unless you are returning the money you earn to those you learned from. Even better, ask their permission first. Food is only a unifier if everyone participating is equal. Our racist systems prevent that from being possible so far. source

Taking this line of thought to its logical conclusion, multiculturalism - without a compensatory mechanism for those appropriated or misappropriated from - becomes a form of theft. The answer then is to reject multiculturalism unless it is strictly policed in terms that are accepted by and benficial to the cultural group being appropriated from. This is largely antithetical to the belief that the USA can serve as a melting pot for people of all races and creeds, out of which a unified force for good can arise, i.e. E pluribus unum.

Given the political climate of the day, it is worth noting that the tendency to divide people on the basis of race and cultural origin within the United States is historically a position of the left and its socialist urge (e.g. the KKK was founded by Democrats). Here a brief supporting argument taken from "When Do Anti-Racist Socialists Begin Vandalizing Monuments to Racist Socialists?":

Appeal to Reason, the most successful publication in the history of the American Left (published from 1895-1922) whose pages gave birth both to Upton Sinclair’s The Jungle and Eugene Debs’s presidential campaigns, unabashedly maintained that socialism meant separatism and capitalism meant integration. The publication that eclipsed the million-reader mark in its brief history informed subscribers that while "private ownership of industries mixes up the races, reducing blacks, whites, and yellows to a common level…socialism would separate the races and lift them up to the highest level each were capable." The weekly, using ALL CAPS to emphasize its outrage, complained: "IN THE SIGHT OF THE CAPITALIST ALL WORKERS LOOK ALIKE."

Demographic trends in the USA strongly suggest that the European-descendent majority will become a racial and ethnic minority by the year 2040 to 2050 at the latest. The continued propagation of the cultural misappropriation theory, should it be adopted by the larger social consciousness, bodes ill for the American way of life. Currently, the majority demographic is being treated to a smorgasbord of shame, harassment, discrimination and oppression by a very vocal minority that is aligned with the increasingly radical principles (which includes the cultural misappropriation narrative) of the social justice movement.

Should this trend continue or escalate over the next 30 years, what exactly does the current minority believe will happen when it becomes the "new majority"? This is all the more worthwhile to consider given the current trend of escalating discrimination against the white cis-gender Christian male. It appears likely that come 2040, the "new minority", i.e. straight white guys, would be best served by embracing the social justice narrative of minority oppression and all of its trappings.

Should one of these trappings be the cultural misappropriation theory, the logical consequence would be its realignment to insist that the new majority is not entitled to use the cultural artifacts or achievements of the new minority without the introduction of a compensatory mechanism. Considering the entire edifice of western civilization as we know it is founded on the cultural achievements (both good and bad) of the myriad European cultures, it is worth contemplating what the new majority could be criticized for misappropriating.

Looking around today, it is child's play to argue that huge tracts of European culture are trivialized by the failure to respect them within their original cultural context (by pretty much everybody, people of European decent included). The list should likely start with the concept of democracy, developed by some old Greek guys. Then perhaps the Roman alphabet, followed up by the European languages, French, Italian, German and English, just to name a few. How about the fruits of the Renaissance? Or better yet, the results of the industrial revolution: automobiles, airplanes, telephones, computers etc...? Not to mention the literal buffet of European cuisines. As far as I can tell, literally all of these cultural achievements could be considered "misappropriated" if they are "trivialized" for non-essential lifestyle choices such as fashion, entertainment and personal expression (none of which can be considered essential to life) or if profited from by the new majority without providing recompense to the new minority.

As an example, albeit a humorous one: baseball caps. What could be more "white guy" Americana? How absurd would it be, as a member of the new majority in 2040, to have to pay a cultural appropriation tax to buy a baseball cap or buy a license to wear one? Could the new majority be shamed for wearing a baseball cap while not playing baseball, or be bullied for failing to appropriately bend the rim, or for wearing it backwards or sideways? Should the new majority be assaulted for daring to wearing a baseball cap as a fashion statement? According to the current reasoning of the cultural misappropriation narrative, the answer to all of the above questions would be a resounding "yes".

This being the case, I just don't see the cultural misappropriation narrative ending well for anybody. Does anyone else see the horror cresting the horizon?

The concept of cultural appropriation is multifaceted, and while it is possible to see the potential for good in it, namely learning to appreciate the historical significance of cultural artifacts or behaviors, the concomitant insistence on categorizing people as oppressed or oppressor, victim or victimizer, completely undermines any socially redemptive quality it may possess. Demonizing people is never a path to a just society, peaceful reconciliation and mutual respect, it just doesn't work. What is being advanced under the guise of the cultural misappropriation narrative is just another form of identity politics oppression.

Indeed, the accelerating trend of the social justice movement to create ever more categories of victimhood will (ironically enough) inevitably be seized upon by those being demonized to declare themselves victims as a form of self-defense, which in turn will likely lead to an escalation of resentment and ultimately violence - if history is any measure of things to come. With cultural misappropriation outrage on the rise, the social justice movement has embraced yet another divisive tactic that can only lead to a pyrrhic victory.