Cultural Appropriation Should be Based on Intention Rather Than Race

First, there is a major contradiction where you specifically separate out the definition of cultural appropriation as follows: "Cultural appropriation - adopting and using aspects of another culture in an incorrect or out of context manner, especially if said culture considers doing so offensive or otherwise immoral." The question is whether this should be based on intention (intention to offend?) versus ethnic background (race) which is covered in the definition for cultural exchange. Despite the fact that the entire debate is inherently rigged as you can't argue with the definitions I've chosen to overlook this anyway. -------- Cultural appropriation should not be based on intention, nor necessarily should cultural exchange, since exposure is required first to bring about an understanding of whether one should or should not begin the process of seeking to change and acclimate to that culture's ways to begin with. The simplest term for this is "Conversion" where in many cases philosophical ideals are expressed and then a party chooses to seek out that philosophical ideal and possibly engage in the cultural aspects surrounding that philosophy. The noteworthy element here however is that it is not intentional but rather somewhat by chance and curiosity which terminates the idea that it should be based on intention. The second element relative to the discussion is passing judgment against those who are curious or seeking; for instance a "white person" wearing garb that is traditionally of another culture far from their own should indeed be scrutinized; I would say that there is a distinct difference between being aware and even wary of a person's sincerity versus being discriminatory against them on the grounds of the color of their skin or perceived sociological background. To substantiate this I would like to use your own example: "A white person getting a Maori tattoo because they have studied and contributed to Maori culture and society in some way and have been given permission to do so by an authority within said community = cultural exchange = perfectly acceptable." The notion that someone has to literally contribute to the culture and society and then be granted permission by an authority is by it's very nature absolutely discriminatory; who sets this bar and how high can it be set? Where is the regulation? If the official or authoritative powers that be simply by whim refuse to acknowledge the works of one person but then completely acknowledge the works of another even if equivalent what is to combat this? Ironically this solution which you call "Cultural Exchange" leaves the curios person at the mercy of literally an any-man team of persons who can project their own distrust as they see fit. A simple "I do not like you." is sufficient and without a truly centralized authority who can and will allow for repeals what can one do? Instead one should be able to justify, rather than answer to, their choice for said tattoo or other instrument just as they do with anything else. Let merit, not whim, be the guiding force of cultural exchange; learning the language and helping the people should mean more than donating to the power's that be and gaining an honorary title.