Fraternity was told it was appropriating culture. Administrators won’t say which

[Mr. Reactionary]

So when was the fixed time at which point all culture was supposed to have solidified into the current caste system? If several black rappers were to incorporate bagpipes into their beats, is that some sort of oppression too? What if they had been incorporated into hiphop 20 years ago? Does that matter? Because very often, (as in the OP) culture that is purportedly being appropriated has already been appropriated from earlier cultures. Like how dreadlocks were popular among Egyptians, then Vikings  but now apparently a newer, different group "owns" that hairstyle.

[Mr. Reactionary]

So when was the fixed time at which point all culture was supposed to have solidified into the current caste system? If several black rappers were to incorporate bagpipes into their beats, is that some sort of oppression too? What if they had been incorporated into hiphop 20 years ago? Does that matter? Because very often, (as in the OP) culture that is purportedly being appropriated has already been appropriated from earlier cultures. Like how dreadlocks were popular among Egyptians, then Vikings  but now apparently a newer, different group "owns" that hairstyle.

Exactly how are dreadlocks in Viking and Egyptian culture relevant to contemporary society? This is a ridiculous analogy, and you know it

So if dreadlocks decline in popularity among black people in the next ten years, and grungy white hippies continue to wear them, does that mean a new cultural group "owns" the style? Because your answer suggests that cultural appropriation is only a thing when a current and trendy piece of culture is being appropriated. I mean, we still describe democracy as a greek innovation, even though they stopped being democratic for a few millenia. Copying is copying, whether you copy from the guy down the street or from an old old book on ancient civilizations. I mean, who gets to define what is "relevant to contemporary society" in the first place.

[Mr. Reactionary]

So when was the fixed time at which point all culture was supposed to have solidified into the current caste system? If several black rappers were to incorporate bagpipes into their beats, is that some sort of oppression too? What if they had been incorporated into hiphop 20 years ago? Does that matter? Because very often, (as in the OP) culture that is purportedly being appropriated has already been appropriated from earlier cultures. Like how dreadlocks were popular among Egyptians, then Vikings  but now apparently a newer, different group "owns" that hairstyle.

Exactly how are dreadlocks in Viking and Egyptian culture relevant to contemporary society? This is a ridiculous analogy, and you know it

So if dreadlocks decline in popularity among black people in the next ten years, and grungy white hippies continue to wear them, does that mean a new cultural group "owns" the style? Because your answer suggests that cultural appropriation is only a thing when a current and trendy piece of culture is being appropriated. I mean, we still describe democracy as a greek innovation, even though they stopped being democratic for a few millenia. Copying is copying, whether you copy from the guy down the street or from an old old book on ancient civilizations. I mean, who gets to define what is "relevant to contemporary society" in the first place.

You can't draw a strict a line, but it's safe to say that a cultural group from 1,000+ years ago in another part of the world holds little to no relevance in contemporary American society.

Merely copying is not appropriation. The fact that you are using both words interchangeably suggests you don't understand the distinction.

Appropriation is not necessarily bad, BUT the intent, context, and results matter on a case-by-case basis.

Positive Example: The LGBT community appropriating "Queer," which was used a pejorative term. This is ameliorating appropriation and has a positive and empowering effect on the original target group.

Negative Example: Rachel Dolezal. She, as a White woman, has the ability to pick and choose whatever aspects of Black culture she found alluring and benefit from those without actually living the negative experiences associated with the culture and characteristics she appropriated.

Regarding your example with dreadlocks, yes, but it wasn't an intentional act of pejoration on the original group. Dreadlocks, in your example, transitioned as a group marker from one group to another.

What do you see as the difference between copying and appropriating? It sounds like you are arguing that appropriation is just copying with some sort of negative perception. I mean, why is Dolezal only allowed  to adopt cultural traits if she assumes both positive and negative? This argument assumes that a group can claim collective ownership over ideas, even if living members of that group had no actual participation in the discovery of those ideas. A 20 year old black woman has no more claim over dreadlocks than a 20 year old white man, other than that she looks more similar to those who claim to have pioneered it in the "contemporary" era.