In today’s common usage, the phrase “cultural appropriation” usually refers to cross-cultural appropriation, rather than artistic appropriation between actors or artists within a culture. I’ll adopt the prefix “cross” rather than “inter,” following the distinctions drawn among (a) multi-, (b) cross-, and (c) inter-cultural relationships: (a) cultures existing alongside one another, (b) interactions across cultures, and (c) deep engagement and understanding among members of each culture [Spring Institute 2020].
Let me distinguish arguments against cross-cultural appropriation of physical objects, with much credit to philosopher and media-studies specialist Elizabeth Burns Coleman [2005].
a) People have the right to possess collectively those artifacts that define, protect, or promote their cultural and historical identities.
b) Nations and national governments, as the institutional representatives of a people, have the right and responsibility to possess institutionally those artifacts that define, protect, or promote their cultural and historical identities.
c) Individuals and national governments have the right to artifacts that were taken or purchased during war or colonial occupation.
d) Cultural artifacts are best appreciated in their cultural and geographic contexts – not as displaced objects.
_______________
Coleman, E.B. 2005. Cultural appropriation. Ch. 2 in Aboriginal Art, Identity and Appropriation. Aldershot: Ashgate.