Western Buddhism is based off an aesthetic interpretation of Zen Buddhism.
If Buddhism in East Asia is appropriation and people in East Asia have no authority to talk about it, defending western Buddhism, which is based off the customs of a Japanese interpretation (based off a Chinese branch), is a strange turn to take.
(hell is mentioned within the context of Theravada as well)
There is nothing well-defined as "Western Buddhism". The western buddhism I studied is based on Theraveda, and not Mahayana or Zen.
> If Buddhism in East Asia is appropriation and people in East Asia have no authority
No, they indeed do not. Western Buddhists or someone who learned from them don't tell these people that they are doing Buddhism wrongly, and should change. So, someone like you shouldn’t tell Westerners that their practice is wrong and baseless and East Asian is version is the one true one.
Have you even cracked open the Pali Canon upon which Theravada is based? It is rife with references to devas/demons and heavenly/hellish realms, purportedly spoken by the Buddha himself.
> hell is mentioned within the context of Theravada as well
As far as I'm aware, Theravada is a body of teaching that developed late - around the same time as Mahayana. It's not some kind of "what the Buddha actually taught".
If Buddhism in East Asia is appropriation and people in East Asia have no authority to talk about it, defending western Buddhism, which is based off the customs of a Japanese interpretation (based off a Chinese branch), is a strange turn to take.
(hell is mentioned within the context of Theravada as well)