Why? Where is the connection here? I mean, I just happen to recently read the 4e take on Baba Yaga (Dungeon 196 to be exact) for my campaign. Where is the appropriation? The legend seems to have been brought into D&D pretty much whole cloth, without any attempt to obfuscate or change where the idea came from.
See, that's where the "Cultural appropriation" arguments go off the tracks. It's perfectly fine to use some culture's trappings or whatnot, so long as it's done respectfully and without any attempt to hide where the ideas come from.
I think you literally just made my point! There isn't any material difference which you can name, no line, between writing about Baba Yaga, a legend of a particular culture, and writing about Samurai, a topic germane to a different culture. Nor is D&D's take on Baba Yaga any more authentic than its take on Samurai, believe me, you can go check out sources on Baba Yaga pretty easily. I think in both cases D&D created a recognizable interpretation which was adapted to the goals at hand (IE creating an RPG).
OA is problematic because it paints a picture of "Oriental" which is massively skewed towards Japan and then viewed through the lens of 1980's pop-culture understanding of the history and culture of an incredibly diverse range of peoples. I mean, seriously, WHY THE HECK is a yakuza considered a class? Oh, hey, let's really annoy people and whack a great big rising sun flag on the bottom of page 30. That's not offensive to people at all. ((Little hint, that would be the equivalent of putting a Confederate Flag in a D&D book)) Oh, and let's draw almost exclusively from Japan when talking about armor and weapons, right down to the names. Scanning the book, I can find exactly ONE art piece that isn't pulled straight from a Japanese art history book.
In other words, it's not really cultural appropriation so much as just wildly inaccurate.
I don't think either one of us has an issue with this. I agree, OA is not a very accurate book. It was hastily written, and it makes no real attempt to cover any non-Japanese material, but instead (lazily if one must cast aspersions on it) simply projects its already cartoonish Japan onto the mainland. OTOH, to give it a bit of defense, I've watched a LOT of these Chinese historical/fantasy dramas, its a whole genre (my wife happens to be Chinese, so its something we can watch together that she likes). A LOT of the sorts of heroic ideals and attitudes are very parallel, as is a lot of the mythology. I don't think OA got it 'right' exactly, but I do think that you can draw strong parallels and that if the OA material had been more diligent about providing both Chinese and Japanese names for things, and maybe a bit stronger Chinese 'spin' on some of the material, that the provided mechanics and subsystems and themes are useful in both 'Fantasy China' and 'Fantasy Japan'. I also think it is a bit harsh to pillory OA for being a game supplement, produced by a GAME COMPANY and not having the levels of historical and cultural fidelity of an encyclopedia or text book. If it promulgated some offensive tropes, which I am utterly convinced is true, that's less excusable, but I am pretty sure that was at least unintentional (and to be fair, I haven't heard anyone throwing dirt at the authors, beyond 'you guys were naive', which I can fully endorse).
And really, why wouldn't Yakuza be a class? In China they may go by names like 'Tongs' or whatnot, but the same idea exists. It exists in Europe too, and we have the Thief class, who band together into 'guilds', etc. (this could be interpreted to be something like 'The Black Hand' if you want, though the idea is more generalized than that). I think one of the big differences between D&D's treatment of East and West actually stems from the different sources. Most western material is drawn from actual fantasy. The Thief class is basically 'Grey Mouser' or something similar, the Ranger is Aragorn, the Barbarian is Conan, etc. The Eastern material is much more "we just read about this in some reference, or saw a TV show where someone said this." So, the western classes are more generalized and less specific. They are designed to represent ANY Wizard, Priest, Warrior, Thief, etc. from pretty much any myth, legend, or fantasy. You can trace them back into stories as archetypes, and etc. but in general they're not too specific. Now and then you get a class that is more so, like Barbarian, Assassin, Druid, or Monk, but that doesn't undermine the general concept. With OA you get these very specific classes which fill very specific niches in a pretty limited conceptual space. TBH, my main criticism of OA, as a game, is more that it would have been a lot more successful if they had simply described how a fighter, priest, rogue, or wizard would be flavored to work in either Japan or China. Then they could have added some sub classes to represent more specific tropes (the Eastern equivalent of Assassins and Druids essentially). The page savings could have been spent on exploring China and presenting a more inclusive and interesting milieu for it.
However, it is what it is, and we've long since moved on from 1e anyway. WotC put a disclaimer on it, which I think is awesome. If they choose to demonitize it, that is up to them, but it wouldn't be a bad gesture. My guess is that the revenue from this book is minuscule anyway, so it is more a cheap way to win a few hearts and minds than anything else, business-wise.
