Would the concern of the cultural identity activists seem less compelling if the Fusion Cuisine incorporated elements from a neighboring,...

Arguments that center on cultural identity and power still retain their compelling nature even if they are placed in contexts that might be perceived as trivial.

Discussions about cultural rights and identity are rooted in power.  These discussions focus on how culture is defined, where individual and social voice lies, and in how the homogenization of culture has been historically embedded. Such profound implications make these arguments quite compelling.  

Some context is needed regarding the food examples. There has been a re-ignition of interest in "microaggressions."   According to Derald Wing Sue, PhD, microaggressions are "everyday insults, indignities and demeaning messages sent to people of color by well-intentioned white people who are unaware of the hidden messages being sent to them."  There has been renewed interest in discovering where these messages exist and their potential meaning.  Food-based cultural appropriation can be seen as an example of a microaggression that might reflect an "everyday insult." For example, it is valid to suggest there are microaggressions in confusing Salvadoran culture with Mexican culture and labeling it as "Tex-Mex Night" at the cafeteria.   Those who are in the position of power to decide what to serve in the cafeteria might not be of Salvadoran or Mexican descent.  In this regard, there is a definite display of power imbalance because those who are making culturally reflective decisions are unaware of cultural differences.  The same criticism can be seen in lumping different cultures together and packaging it as "Fusion Cuisine" or confusing Laotian and Vietnamese identities.  These food-based examples remove the intricacy and nuance of cultural identity, suggesting that distinct realities can be melded into one entity. This reduces cultural voice, and replaces it with homogenization. Microggression theory suggests that an examination of these elements reminds us that cultural sensitivity and the power that accompanies it are worthwhile to examine.

It is very easy to look at the cuisine examples and suggest that it reduces the compelling nature of "cultural colonialism" arguments.  Some look at it and suggest that it shows that cultural sensitivity has gone too far. However, if looking at food choices makes us evaluate what power looks like and underscores the importance of generating more voice in what we all come to define as "cultural identity," then it cannot be that bad of a thing. In the end, we seek to gain a greater field where more voices can be heard. Our history speaks to the results of silencing cultural voices. To encompass more voices and to hear more people is a complex and intricate process. Sometimes, those discussions take on different forms. Fixing cuisine labeling in a cafeteria will not by itself lead to greater social change and transformation.  However, it might spawn conversations that focus on the imbalance of power and the ways it can be rectified, avenues where change can be realized.