"Cultural appropriation" is a contradictory concept.

Obviously, as a concept, cultural appropriation has existed since well before the 2007 South Park episode With Apologies to Jesse Jackson. The episode wasn't about cultural appropriation; but, it made a valid point.

So, in the episode, Randy Marsh says the N-word on Wheel of Fortune. This results in him trying to make an apology tour. At one point, Jesse Jackson forgives Randy publicly after he gets Randy to literally kiss his ass.

Stan tries to reconcile with Token (Tolkien) as a result. Stan tells Token (Tolkien) that Jesse Jackson said it was okay. Token (Tolkien) responds, "Jesse Jackson is not the emperor of black people." and walks off. Stan mutters, "He told my dad he was."

The thing is, the earliest explanations of what cultural appropriation is, and what makes it different from appreciation, is projecting a culture that isn't your own "without permission."

Just try this whenever anybody evokes cultural appropriation unironically in a conversation in order to condemn a certain speech, or action, or dress -- ask the question, "Who gets to give permission?"

I've been engaging with people on this issue for years. The question, "Who gets to give permission?" in the cultural appropriation space is the same as the, "What is a woman?" question in the leftist, trans space. You'll never get an answer.

I mean, one of my top three best friends in the whole world is an Israeli Jew. When I participated in his wedding, I was given a yarmulke, which I wore. My friend gave me permission, at least in that context. If I were to ever wear it again (I haven't), as somebody who isn't Jewish, and a Jewish person flipped his or her lid as a result, I don't think that I could tell them that my friend is the emperor of Jewish people; so, you can't get mad.

The thing is, cultural appropriation falls apart as a concept on this point. It would make more sense if it simply omitted the permission factor; but, if it weren't for that factor, it would blur the lines between appropriation and appreciation even further. Cultural appropriation would turn into a transparently, openly racist philosophy of segregation.

With the qualification of permission, however, it creates a new problem that seemingly nobody who espouses the idea will deal with -- either you need permission from somebody, or everybody.

If you need permission from everybody, then it's still a transparently racist, segregationist concept.

If you need permission from somebody, then we need an emperor of black people, a king of Mexicans, a sultan of Muslims -- we need somebody that we can go to to sign off on our actions so, when somebody is offended, we can just say, "Jesse Jackson said it was okay; so, it's appreciation, not appropriation."

They'll never give you that person, because they're authoritarians. They want a world where everybody is a potential, social Stasi member so that you're pressured to segregate under the fear that you'll offend the one person who didn't give you permission.