This definition is so broad you can basically classify anything you don’t like as “cultural appropriation” depending on how loosely you define “minority”, “majority” and “context”. And in fact that’s what usually ends up happening. Certain forms of blatant “cultural appropriation” are not criticized or even considered as such as long as they conform to the cultural zeitgeist of Western academia.

For example, famous BLM activist Blair Imani is convert to Islam. After her religious conversion she soon after came out as a proud queer woman and upon being questioned she claimed there is no conflict between homosexuality and Islam. She subsequently gave media tours proudly proclaiming to the world her marginal view of Islam. This idea obviously only exists in some marginal Muslim communities in the west and goes against the beliefs of 99% of Muslims in the global south. Is this not blatant cultural appropriation? She took Islam and warped it to fit her western morality much to the anger of its emotional adherents.

Obviously we will never see an article calling her or the Nation of Islam cultural appropriators.

Why are Americans the “majority” and Asian Buddhists the “minority” in this exchange? And what makes this “colonialism” ?

"majority" and "minority" are not about raw numbers but power dynamics in this context.

"colonialism" refers to extracting whatever idea or artifact is seen as valuable from a culture or a land without consent and/or without respecting the moral rights of who invented or made it.

Additionally, you can read the wikipedia page.

(edited for clarity: different people use majority/minority differently depending on the context. In this context it's not about raw numbers.)

(edit: an example of power dynamic could be a large multinational food chain that takes a lesser-known dish from some culture and sells a butchered version worldwide without clearly indicating the origin and/or that it's not the real thing. By doing this it can easily distorts the idea of the dish in the minds of millions of people.)

> "majority" and "minority" are never about raw numbers but power dynamics.

Sure, I’m aware of this distinction. I’m asking what are the power dynamics between Asian Buddhists and random American businessmen hypocritically adopting Buddhism? They don’t even live in the same countries, and there is not any colonial relationship or other power relationship between them as far as I can tell, so what makes one “majority”?

Sure, in general, the West has exploited Asia many times throughout history; is this the only reason? If so, then wouldn’t any cultural exchange whatsoever between Asia and the West count as appropriation?

> "colonialism" refers to extracting

This is a really vague and ahistorical definition of colonialism that seems made up to justify your point, but anyway, nothing has been “extracted” — people in traditionally Buddhist cultures have the same access to the same Buddhism that they did before. Unlike actual historical colonialism in which physical resources are stolen, people are forced to work, traditional culture is banned or heavily distorted in the places where it’s practiced, and so on.

I’ve heard the power dynamics argument before and admittedly it’s never held much weight for me. There are just too many edge cases for a heuristic like that to make any sense, in my mind.

So culturally powerless people may extract from culturally powerful people until what point? If a Ukrainian appropriates a part of Russian culture to be their own, who is the victim here? Recently, being Ukrainian has become a much more respected cultural identity than being a Russian, does that mean the power dynamic has shifted?

The more you pick away at the idea of cultural appropriation, you realize that the rules people set out for it make very little sense outside of the egregious examples of something like headdresses at Coachella, etc. My personal rule is just not to disrespect people and parts of their culture they find important. The color of my skin or the actions of either of our ancestors shouldn’t play into it, IMO.

> My personal rule is just not to disrespect people and parts of their culture they find important.

What even is named by the word “disrespect”?

Is disrespecting me just any behavior that I call “disrespectful”?

Seems like bullshit to me.

To me, disrespecting you is any behaviour which _I_ find disrespectful. If I was mistaken, I'd apologize. I can't control how you feel, burrows, I can only control what I say.

> My personal rule is just not to disrespect people and parts of their culture they find important

In the Simbari culture, it is considered important for young boys to be taken away from their families, be beaten and forced to fellate the older members of the tribe.

Does your personal rule of not disrespecting "people and parts of their culture" hold in their case?

Link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simbari_people

In Hebrew culture, it is considered important to remove part of the genitals of an infant boy in a long and bloody ceremony. Personally I'd never subjugate myself or my kin to it, but I know plenty of Jewish people and have never tried to debate them about it.

If a Simbari person wanted to have an earnest discussion about whether the practice you're describing was acceptable, I'd of course tell them that I think it's barbaric and insane. But if you're asking whether I'd seek out Simbari people out to tell them I feel that way? No, I would not. So my heuristic holds true, but I do appreciate the gotcha :)

> "majority" and "minority" are never about raw numbers but power dynamics.

So the concept "minority rule" is a contradiction in terms, since if a group rules it's per definition the majority?

If you are talking about power, it is an oxymoron.

If you are talking about numbers, it is not.

In this context it's the first.

The whole concept is absurd, reading Wikipedia won't fix that.