Even within borrowed/stolen motifs there’s a cultural/historical break. Chinoiserie and English Arabesques are European code for Oriental or “exotic”, but no one in China or Iraq would claim them as representative of their culture. Similarly, any mixed case alphabet would be nonsensical to a citizen of ancient Rome. To that end, I think the hybrid cultural elements are primarily the domain of the colonizers. Despite English adoption of pajamas, colonial subjects were second class citizens and barred from the mechanisms of power.

I don’t deny that the design authority are thieves, but that’s part of the story: no matter how flattering this sort of sampling is, its not empowering. No one could say that Elvis was providing an outlet for the authentic African American experience and to date no African American has sold more singles than “Hound Dog” in America. That’s bound to be upset soon in the world of music, but I don’t see it in any disciplines of design.

When have you ever done anything for the sake of brevity.

Okay, all kidding aside, I find this to be a very interesting topic from the point of view as a non-designer. As a kinda sorta student of history, however, I think your idea of a Design Authority to be a little simplistic and monolithic. Affluent, white society is, if nothing else, a thief of whatever they want from whatever culture they come across. Sure this stealing of ideas might be subconscious, accidental, and arbitrary, but everything from the columns, to domes, to number shapes, to letter design, to everything, was lifted wholesale from a non-white source. While I agree there is an exclusivity in the intentional shaping and crafting of what is called “design,” I think that minority groups have a voice in design in what could kindly be called inspiration and unkindly be called cultural cooption.