As a mathematician, I have to say that a good definition comes first :) I don't know if my definition is good, but I have a working definition of 'cultural app

As a mathematician, I have to say that a good definition comes first :) I don't know if my definition is good, but I have a working definition of 'cultural appropriation' that says something can only be 'cultural appropriation' if it falls in the confluence of 1) erasure of the origins/failure to cite sources and 2) money being made, with additional penalties if it involves co-optation of a religious symbol or practice for the purpose of making money for people outside that culture. So for me, a white person running a generic sweat lodge for $2000 a visit would fit my definition. Generic yoga gets in there; Alison Roman's 'stew' would fit. Here's how I look at it: I can write a calculus textbook and sell it for money, but I can't claim I invented it and fail to give credit to Newton or Leibniz. For instance, I don't think Korean tacos fit my definition of cultural appropriation because they do not 1) erase the contribution of the cultures involved (the very name 'cites the sources' and if you want to go learn more about Korean food or tacos, you can follow that culinary history back!). The definition comes before you can debate whether the question belongs in our ethical systems. From there, how do you debate whether "Murder is wrong" belongs in our ethical systems? I would think you could follow the same path.