The incongruity expresses certain power relationships. If you only eat the "best parts" of the animal, you must have a high status. Poor people must be practic

The incongruity expresses certain power relationships. If you only eat the "best parts" of the animal, you must have a high status. Poor people must be practical in all respects, if they want to survive, but people who wish to signal will waste. Simultaneously, pointing to the practices of natives is used in support of a different kind of power relationship narrative: the old regime(colonizers, imperalists, racists) versus the new(liberalized, diverse, equal). The actual goal is not to say "and therefore we should be more like the natives" or enact genuine policy supportive of the ideals, but to say "and therefore we(the new kid political organization) are so good because THEY(the old regime) are so bad." It's a way of deflection towards a scapegoat. Thus you will frequently find examples of black-hearted activist types that copy-paste their ideology from some authentic source, but then reject it in their personal lives and mold the policy to be ineffectual. Because deep down, they see it as kayfabe to gain power. If they actually want to reach an elected office, prominent cultural role or significant appointment they have to knowingly compromise on the authentic and please existing stakeholders. Many would actually do the things they talk about(whether or not it's a good idea) except that the systemic forces are too strong most of the time; to get along with their political betters they have to live more like them, vote more like them, and so on.