Its established by a very specific circle of people who demand that it is true as otherwise no one would pay attention to them.
That very specific circle of people are subject matter experts who are professionals in this sort of topic, as opposed to some random person on the internet who doesn't want it to be true because it goes against their narrative. I.e., one "side" has a lot more credibility here. It's also interesting that you're describing the people who claim it to be true as people with bad motives and are just doing so for the attention. That's telling. I guess those Native Americans who have the gall to say how they are upset that a group of white people profiting over the misrepresentation of Native American culture(s) are just doing so for attention...
Too bad that just because you demand that something is true doesn't make it so. Notice how you didn't respond to any to the points in my last post? Or how your last post started with a combat term "white colonialism" in an effort to silence everyone who thinks differently as this term leaves no room for any debate or discussion? And here you are continuing to use racist combat terms with "white privilege".
I didn't respond point by point because your very first paragraph was fundamentally flawed as I explained, which subsequently implied all of your other points were also fundamentally flawed. But if you want a break down: I said cultural appropriation continues to reinforce white colonialism. That's a real thing too. When the British Empire took certain aspects of the Indian culture they liked (dress, art) that was cultural appropriation. And white colonialism when they forbade Indians from speaking their language or worshiping how they wanted. The white American government did the exact same thing to the Native Americans. That's not a combat term. That's the actual, official, term. What other term am I supposed to used besides the proper one? Cultural appropriation does exactly what I said it does in that context of White colonialism because it's still going on in the US, to this very day.
As far as my use of white privilege, that's not a racist term either. I've actually given corporate presentations on this topic; it's something I feel I'm pretty well researched on. It's not a racist term, but also an actual thing we can observe. It's not just the big things, but also the little things like:
- being assured that whenever you turn on the TV or open a paper, you're going to see people who look just like you
- no one ever telling you you're a credit to your race/gender just because you did something good
- not being the only person of your race in a college classroom
- being assured that no matter what town you go in, you're going to find a place of worship that fits your religious beliefs
- not having the police called because you're having a BBQ in a public place, or just hanging out at your own apartment
- not having people stare at you the entire time you're in a store
Etc, etc.
So...when you deny that white colonialism, or white privilege is a thing, or is only a "buzzword" meant to attack, do you deny those things I listed existed? If you agree they exist, then why are you arguing? Because then you agree that white colonialism, and white privilege are very real things. And they are the proper terms to use.
Color privilege certainly exist, but which one is privileged depends on the region. It is not a global concept. And what is racist is to use alleged global privilege of one color or the other as excuse to discriminate against people of the color which is what usual happens when someone cites white privelege.
Also, while there certainly is some overlap, the circle of people who claim that cultural appropation is a problem are not always the ones affected by it (at least in a way it is considered problematic).
See Sacrosanct himself. He describes himself as white and of european descent, but is very concerned about cultural appropation of native american cultures and somehow thinks he is qualified to speak for native americans and how their culture shall be handled.
That doesn't mean that european cultures are not subjected to cultural appropation as he defines it and some are also on their way to extinction. But as I said before that is usually not seen as a problem for people who otherwise claim to be very concerned about this. This just shows the hypocrisy and arbitrary drawn lines.
Not every black person is offended by every racist image or term. But that in no way means that the image or term isn't racist. People of minority cultures aren't some hive mind. If your line drawn before you accept something is "everyone impacted has to agree", then that's an awfully convenient way to justify your position of denying it's a thing. But to use your argument, it seems almost everyone denying that cultural appropriation is a thing are members of the majority who benefit from cultural appropriation. Awfully convenient, that.
I think the reason people are getting frustrated with it is because it feels like sacrosanct is just insisting that his view of Cultural Appropriation is correct, and objectively reflects reality.
I think this is your key mistake, if this is your assumption. I'm not arguing "my way", or "my view". I'm arguing the accepted view among professionals and experts, citing my argument with resources to back it up. So far, none of you arguing otherwise have provided solid citations that refute my own citations.