>>2351>I think as someone earlier said this is the more academic usage
I should note the academics have had plenty of arguments among themselves about the definition and really who cares? Words are just words, so long as we can all understand each other.
No. Not at all. Sure xenophobia has been a thing in every culture but I still don't get what makes the west a "colonising" culture, while Japan is the "colonised" culture? What properties are there that don't apply both ways?
>Which the white dude is benefiting from.
Why does this matter? That any white guy would benefit generally from people favouring his race makes sense but there's still no connection between the stoner deciding to wear dreads and the boss deciding to be a racist. One is benign cultural appropriation, the other, just racism.
>Rich Japanese CEOs market anime as ~oriental~ is not a decision on the part of Japanese people
And I didn't have a say in the rich KFC CEOs marketing one of my cultural holidays to Japan, deliberately twisting it to include "eat KFC" in the process. Also the "Japanese people" is a very nebulous concept. It's not like they could ever actually make a decision like that, there's not even a cultural consensus. In light of that should they stop exporting/marketing it because they don't have the right? Who could they actually ask for that right?
>don't have to worry about, say, their increased value in human trafficking for being Japanese.
This is not a realistic concern. Japanese people marketing anime, or western people being weebs, has an utterly negligible impact upon human trafficking. Also, again, the KFC people are doing the same things and the value of any race as a slave has been the result of millennia of cultural motion from billions of actors. Pinning any real part of it on the KFC guys is just unfair and blaming anyone for subtly causing some other person to charge a different price for the human beings that they sell seems like stopping the buck in very much the wrong place.
Again, it's people doing normal benign things like exporting aspects of their culture and some other people performing a heinous practice with a marginal, non-causal connection between them.
>which I laid out earlier. Material colonization or exploitation seems to be present in all instances when cultural colonization also occurs
Right. Material colonization is clear but exploitation is a vague term. I'm still not sure how we've exploited the Japanese in ways that they haven't exploited us? What does "cultural colonisation" actually entail?