To me, it's similar to the dichotomy that exists with a lot of etiquette. When it comes to certain events/milestones, it's rude to ask someone for a gift, but it's also rude not to give one.
I am not personally offended by a lot of things, but I try my hardest not to give offense.
@Annabel Lee, I think you’re so right. These things are covered by etiquette and empathy. I don’t believe in a right not to be offended but I would always try not to give offence.
While everybody has a voice, whether part of any supposed minority group concerned in any given discussion or not, this discussion seemed to be started with a presumption that ‘cultural appropriation’ is an unassailable and coherent concept, which is actually not so clear. That concept seems to get given privileged position. Perhaps the question could be put not “Is this
Fashionphile marketing email cultural appropriation?” but “This marketing email looks like something some people will and some people will not call ‘cultural appropriation’: is cultural appropriation a valid or helpful concept, and if so, in which contexts?” The trouble is that it may ultimately not be a liberal concept at all (I’ve just seen that
@fabuleux ’s reference to his position has been deleted so I hope this still makes sense). I don’t know if this was the discussion he intended to spark, perhaps? Was this intended as a tPF community activity, or to gather research material with the members here as subjects? I mean this as a genuine question with no judgement implied. ‘Appropriation’ also implies a taking of ownership so that the original owner of what is appropriated no longer owns it. Is that even possible, with a belief, even if it is intended (and it’s probably not intended)?
The term ‘cultural appropriation’ and the linked term ‘micro aggression’ are arguably distorting concepts that shut down debate and promote mutual
misunderstanding. The latter imputes intent to hurt or to override people’s sensibilities, which may be a false implication, and both terms also simultaneously infantilise and give a moral upper hand to one group or another, demoting other people’s rights to free expression, and thus creating an unnecessarily relationship of opposition. They both freeze how we relate to each other. It’s hard to see how that can be very positive because its effect is divisive. Far from being liberal, the danger is that it quickly becomes dictatorial and dominant. We all need to have an equal voice and equal right to be heard in order to
be equals; if a group is given special protections against notional offence, that group is not being treated as equal.
@Sheikha Latifa very rightly points out this effect. And the other group, which is being told how it must communicate with the specially protected group, is also being infantilised.
I wonder whether the terms may be so incoherent that it might even be possible to see the very concept of ‘cultural appropriation’ as an example of a ‘micro aggression’, lol! If we understand both terms as we are urged to, and take the examples of that little animated film earlier in the thread as our model. Because it becomes condescending in itself. That is not to deny that hurt may be felt. The examples in that film are nothing more than basic inconsiderate interpersonal behaviour that are covered by normal etiquette and empathy, and any more serious cases would be covered by law. There’s no need for this special and misleading concept of micro aggression, but there may be an argument for avoiding using it because it’s ultimately divisive. It is a dubious behavioural concept linked to the equally divisive concept of cultural appropriation. These two concepts are not really liberal, but rigid and simplistic, and are frequently used to shut down one set of voices. They can amount to a form of censorship.
@SomethingGoodCanWork made some pertinent observations. And most of us don’t know where we come from, many generations back. Most of us have been subject to
some sort of discrimination or stereotyping and we can address it with our own voices, supported by the human rights protections already in law. We have laws to combat actual discrimination and incitement to hatred. In some parts of the world that needs work. The most important thing as
@Dooneysta says is to see who has been disadvantaged and needs material help with food, housing, healthcare and education, and we can aim to ensure that everybody has access to their full entitlement and equal opportunity including payment of reparation to restore equality of opportunity where past events may have reduced it. But at some point we will move beyond that too because we are all equal. Of course this doesn’t preclude examining the nature of cultural interactions, but doing that would be a lot more useful without concepts which only serve to limit openness between equals and tie us in self-defeating knots. The idea of cultural appropriation is probably not for ‘real life’ use; perhaps it can really only be useful in a limited way for academic analysis and should always be carefully questioned.
(I know, where's the rainbow heart when you need one 
) 
