> If one population is able to profit off of communicating the cultural practices of others who are not able to access the same opportunities, would you agree t

> If one population is able to profit off of communicating the cultural practices of others who are not able to access the same opportunities, would you agree that could be called "appropriation"? No. Let me answer your second question first before formulating the answer. > If not, what should it be called? Getting lucky —- So, I don’t understand how “Buddhism isn't owned by any one people or place” can go together with “communicating the cultural practices of others”. Is buddhism “owned” by a people or not? I am going to assume the answer is no. This transforms your statement into: If one population is able to profit off of communicating an idea and another population is not able to access the same opportunity, would you agree that could be called "appropriation" Certainly you can see now why no, it is not “appropriation”. Some people have an opportunity to do something, others do not. The conversation on access to opportunities is a separate topic. Hence the answer to the second question. The first population got lucky.