I think this calls for a more nuanced distinction than I think your comment draws. Yes, cultural exchange and transformation is fundamentally how culture happens. Buddhism started from one guy in what we'd now call India, built on some ideas that were already in the area, and has shifted and changed as it moved across time and space. Buddhism isn't owned by any one people or place.

But that doesn't mean that there's no such thing as appropriation, or that it doesn't occur in Silicon Valley.

I've participated in multiple work-place meditation trainings. In each case, the teacher was American, spoke English as a first language, and had done teacher-trainings at American institutions, and I think they were always white. Would my company have been equally willing to hire a Thai immigrant who spoke English but not with an American accent, whose credentials were years of monastic training? Or, is there an institutional preference for hearing Buddhist practices from someone who, as Chen says, looks just like the people they are teaching?

If one population is able to profit off of communicating the cultural practices of others who are not able to access the same opportunities, would you agree that could be called "appropriation"? If not, what should it be called?