Or, wherein Jerry Coyne completely fails to understand the concept of cultural appropriation.

First, I'll say that cultural appropriation can be a nebulous term to some extent. Here is a brief pamphlet from the Intellectual Property Issues in Cultural Heritage project (IPINCH).

But to avoid a Potter Stewart definition, let's go back in time to look at some very overt cases. In the early 20th century and prior, it was completely acceptable to use flesh-and-blood people as museum pieces, such as Ishi or freak show attractions, such as Saartjie Baartman, known as the "Venus Hottentot." This also accompanied a phenomenon Catherine Russell called "playing primitive." Russell remarks on the trend of early 20th c. documentary producers presenting idealized forms of indigenous peoples as if they were still disconnected from the influence of modern, industrialized nation-states.

However, the term is also a perfect descriptor of entertainment in which the colonizer can temporarily take on an idealized character of the "Other" and then safely set it aside. This applies beyond playing cowboys and Indians. Blackface and minstrel shows, which played on racial stereotypes and was aimed at demeaning African-Americans. This is really no different (redface?) than the recent trend of "hipster headdresses" or the iconography of sports teams like the Washington Redskins or Cleveland Indians.

The negative effects of appropriation, however, are not limited to symbolism. Material culture and economic exploitation also plays a role. Before archaeology became a formalized discipline, the people who filled the role of recovering material culture were known as "antiquarians." Recovering and selling artifacts with disregard to their context or ownership was the order of the day. Today, this is officially frowned upon but looting still presents a major problem. Commodification of and profiteering from indigenous culture is something that has never come to an end, even where legislation appears to be protecting native rights. In some cases, cultural appropriation may be dangerous to your health, as with incompetently run sweat lodges or "traditional" Chinese medicine.

Why is this different than selling bagels? Let's return to IPINCH's definition:

In certain circumstances, appropriation may be deemed inappropriate, contrary to Indigenous customary law, offensive, and even harmful. This is particularly the case when the appropriated form is spiritually significant, or its intended use is contradicted or threatened; it may be exacerbated if it is then also commodified.

Bagels were invented by Slavic Jews and popularized in America by Harry Lender and his company. Lender was a Jew and, so far as I know, there was no outcry by Jews against the sale of bagels (with or without lox and schmear). Yes, Jews have historically been and are an oppressed population, but this has nothing to do with the sale of bagels. Bagels are not spreading harmful stereotypes. Bagels are not being commodified by gentiles against the wishes of Jews nor are they sacred symbols. Selling them is not a contradiction of Halakha. The closest analogue would be bagel manufacturers fraudulently mass producing "kosher" bagels that were not in fact blessed by a rabbi. However, this is not the example -- Coyne demonstrates he has no idea what he's talking about.