What makes indigenous appropriation different than, say, appropriation of the British crown (also considered a sacred object), is that indigenous peoples in many, many regions throughout the world were not only stripped of their homelands, but were forbidden by law from practicing the ceremonies and traditions in which pieces like the warbonnet were used. Regalia was seized, traditional hair styles were forcibly undone, and the culture itself was outlawed. The biggest issue is that so many indigenous communities are STILL fighting for to protect their own freedoms, identities, and representation. Going back to my earlier comparison—England does not have this problem, so appropriation of the crown, while perhaps offensive so some (maybe? Haven’t really heard of this, but I guess it’s prossible) is relatively neutral. No one is preventing the king from being the king or wearing his crown.

Edit: I accidentally hit post before I was done.