jim360 - // hilst I'm not necessarily expecting people to agree with this woman, it would be nice if Andy-Hughes and company could at least bother to think more critically about that which they are dismissing so out-of-hand.
I've explained Cultural Appropriation, in its real sense, before -- it's disappointing to see that A-H hasn't taken any note of it; nor of kvalidir's answer, which also properly captures the point Ms Butler is trying to make. //
If you have offered your explanation (as opposed to what you infer is your delivery of the definitive definition) of what 'cultural appropriation' is - then I have either not read it, or it made insufficient impact on me to remember it.
As I see it, culture is a vast and ever-changing set of circumstances, it cannot be 'appropriated' by anyone because it is not owned by anyone.
By definition, culture belongs to everyone, and everyone is free to borrow and assimilate anything from any culture, because that is how culture develops.
If we had 'appropriated' culture from the cultures who visited our shores - Vikings, Romans and so on, we'd probably still be living in mud huts!
It's only because you have 'culturally appropriated' the Internet that we are having this conversation.