This story was written by Irene Mairemí Pita Vaca and Isabel Collazos Gottret for Muy Waso (Bolivia). It is republished by Global Voices under a media agreement. Cultural appropriation is a sensitive topic, prone to endless misinterpretations, because it touches the heart of who we are: a mixture of cultures difficult to unravel. Questioning “the cultural” in Bolivia provokes resistance, due to its strong intimate and identity component and, above all, because we do not know the histories of the cultures that surround us. The history of political and economic struggle is reflected on the map of cultural inequalities of our territory. Thinking about cultural appropriation reveals the power imbalances between cultures, between the tangible worlds and intangible subjectivities that build our identities. Therefore, it reveals aspects that are difficult to face: our racism, our classism, our prejudices. Especially in a country like ours, with its multiple nations, its infinite layers of exchanges and historical struggles. Globally, we find the same phenomenon that not all cultures enjoy the same recognition. A “gringo” blockbuster will be famous around the world, while the distinctive Ayoreo songs fade away. Any Bolivian will know who The Avengers are, but will not know that the Indigenous Ayoreo people are divided into seven clans, each with their own animals, objects, natural phenomena and patterns. And nobody questions this disparity, because it reflects the order of the world. The power of hegemonic cultures over minority ones. But what happens when members of hegemonic cultures copy and appropriate elements of minority cultures? In our current globalized economic model, governed by the laws of a capitalist system that commercializes everything, cultures are also sold, but not at the same price — because some cultures have market access and others don't. This causes situations of improper cultural appropriation, in which members of a hegemonic culture use elements of other cultures for their own benefit and empty them of their meaning. Intentionally or not, this renders the members of cultures invisible, as they disappear behind promotional campaigns of “whitening” and “hegemonization” of copied cultural objects and practices. To counteract this phenomenon of cultural appropriation, activists and leaders denounce and make visible culture keepers to promote social justice. An example of this recovery is the development of fair trade in handicrafts to guarantee a fair price and remuneration for the artisans. Museums are increasingly repatriating objects to their communities of origin, demonstrating the immense potential that objects have as agents of memory, connection and justice. There are also campaigns to denounce fashion designers who take designs and techniques from Indigenous groups to launch new collections at sky-high prices. However, these complaints give rise to ideals that seek to protect cultures based on their authenticity, origin or ownership. These concepts seem problematic when they try to categorize culture. Some possible consequences of this narrative are new differentiations and classifications between groups of people, aiming to exclude through sociocultural control. This position seems to strengthen reactionary and conservative proposals that reinforce the otherness between human beings. As if, by seeking to protect cultural expressions, we arrive at a representation of the world where cultures are immovable, rigid and inflexible. We don't understand culture like that. On the contrary, we think that if a cultural expression is so reduced to its rules and norms that an external influence calls it into question, it is because it has lost its soul. But it is very difficult to question the discourses of cultural reaffirmation that are based on ideas of fixed and closed cultures. We are aware that they are claimed by historically discriminated individuals and populations, whose cultures continue to be marginalized. The revaluation coming from self-determination is powerful. It is a resistance struggle, which responds to the current urgency. However, in the global context of cultural capitalism and the expansion of creativity as an industry or individual company, we find it hard to imagine how such a defensive and exclusionary vision of culture could allow the inheritors of these cultures to flourish and prosper. Cultures are constantly changing and in this process, certain cultural elements are dying. This is difficult to accept, especially when it comes to cultural expressions that reflect the meaning of life, the place occupied in the world by the people who belong to those groups, from unique and different ways of being, feeling and acting.