So much of our culture that we love has been cross-pollinated from elsewhere over thousands of years, it makes me sad that some people want to end that.
The current nationalism (rather mild by historical comparison) is a counter reaction to opening up and "equalizing" everything.
I don't want a world culture where everything is the same everywhere. It's boring and the good/quirky/interesting traits of individual nations get lost.
I know that wasn't meant literally. We want to keep song and food and fashion distinctive, kind of like how Renaissance Fairs simulate the 1400's but without the plague and smells. But isn't that what's happening in the world anyway? Meet people from Africa or India, they are very very different from where I grew up and still very interesting. I don't think that will be lost, no matter how many internet cartoons we share.
It occurs to me that many of the most interesting cultures today exist almost exclusively because of they were nationalist and were not afraid to appropriate parts of other cultures into their own national identity.
>According to critics of the practice, cultural appropriation differs from acculturation, assimilation, or cultural exchange in that this appropriation is a form of colonialism: cultural elements are copied from a minority culture by members of a dominant culture, and these elements are used outside of their original cultural context—sometimes even against the expressly stated wishes of members of the originating culture.[0]
I'm skeptical of the idea that culture is formed through cultural appropriation, except in the most superficial sense. What culture has been formed by the use of the images of traditionally Native American icons and practices in football, for instance?
Also, this isn't a post-modernist idea; post-modern thinking might reject the distinction cultural appropriation makes between essence and appearance.