These are all excellent examples for their complexity
@Cosmik, good choices
Firstly though, I'd like to take you up on one of your statements, that "the accusation of racism (because that's what it is) is, these days, the ultimate slur against someone; far more wounding and clinging than a stupid remark regarding race/sexuality that can often be shrugged off without psychological damage".
As someone who has experienced relatively very mild racist remarks - exactly the kinds of comments you describe, I presume - occasionally but repeatedly and over many years (although thankfully barely at all in recent years), I can assure you that the psychological damage is very real, and to have it dismissed by someone who (I presume; correct me if I'm wrong) hasn't experienced it fills me with not only a dreadful sense of being misunderstood, but also, to be frank, a feeling of quite some disgust. And the racism I've experienced is extremely mild compared to what many others go through.
So to me, the difference between an accusation of cultural appropriation and a racist comment is not that the former is somehow more damaging; it's that it probably hasn't been experienced by the recipient again and again, throughout their lifetime, from the time they were a small and vulnerable child.
And my experience is absolutely mild in comparison to others.
But putting that to one side, I do think these are excellent, nuanced examples and I think in all of these cases my view is that the artists' actions, despite not being immune from some critical discussion, are nevertheless worthwhile and meritorious - in other words, they don't cross the line.
Let me give my view on each example specifically.
Amanda PL: In this case, I don't have a problem with the artworks per se, but I do think that in order to display them responsibly, some acknowledgement needs to be made, not only of the influences, but in particular, of the fact that this artist has a greater opportunity to "show and sell work in the same style as Indigenous artists who don't have similar opportunities" (assuming this is true of course - I don't know anything about the geo-economics of Aboriginal art in Canada). But yes, I think the critics went over the top and the gallery overreacted by pulling the show in this case. It would have been better to use the show as a platform to draw attention to the injustice from the beginning.
Kate Bush: this one to me is really just about slightly tasteless exoticisation. Surely everyone knows by now that the "50 words for snow" thing is bullshit and that "Eskimo" is not even a language... I mean, come on Kate, wise up a little (I'm a big fan of hers, and even more so of Eno and Byrne, btw).
Eno and Byrne: I can't really sum it up better than the author of the article (my underlines): "In my conversations with musicologists over the years on these issues
the lines are drawn along solely economic grounds. The artists and record companies of the first world have the resources to defend their rights, the poor do not... Borrowing, reference, and collage are fair play among equals, but perhaps deeply questionable between rich and poor.... Also
depth and quality of thought in using material not self-generated is important. At best you have a respectful integration of cultures and method leading to valuable new material. At worst you have tourism and exploitation.
To make that judgement involves taking each case separately..."
I would replace the too-strong phrase "deeply questionable" with "worth thinking about", and would add that borrowing is fine; the important thing is recognising the socioeconomic realities and dealing with them with care and sensitivity.
Lastly, do you really think this article on Bush and this other article on Eno and Byrne are "mean-spirited and nasty"? Do you think these articles have shattered these artists' confidence and thrown their sense of self and creative process into disarray? Perhaps they've simply read them, reflected, agreed and/or disagreed with aspects of what's been written, and moved forward.
