Well, I think you'd agree that abuse is bad. So, in the cases where cultural "borrowing" is driven by the intent to abuse, rather than the actual desire to assi

Well, I think you'd agree that abuse is bad. So, in the cases where cultural "borrowing" is driven by the intent to abuse, rather than the actual desire to assimilate the practice into one's own culture, would you agree that that is bad, also? Because that is the only point I'm making - that that is what the original definition of appropriation was about - where willful abuse was the point of it. Where it's a method of abuse. Beyond that, it's a spectrum and a matter of degree. Mason jars is not appropriation. A silly pop star wearing cornrows is probably not appropriation, although some valid counterpoints might exist. Someone wearing a native american headdress to sell cars, or the Washington Redskins refusing to rename, or the KC Chiefs singing the tomahawk song at their stadium... those debates get a bit meatier.