[SkeuomorphicBee]

I think the whole point of the original article is that those are not satirical examples, they are examples were the same anthropological practices used to describe "foreign" cultures were used to describe US American culture. The idea is that if you want to dismiss this examples as satirical, then you will also need to dismiss a huge chunk of all anthropological body of knowledge ever written as satirical. It is a tool for anthropologists to clearly visualize their bias, a more objective introspection, and hopefully start working to minimize the impact of said bias in their work.

[Karunamon]

They literally are described as satire, though? The problem with using satire in this way is that you need a solid understanding of something to satirize it effectively, but having that understanding in the first place causes the problem the satire pokes at!

As a result, it comes off as insincere and hard to take seriously, in a "It's obvious what has been done here, and it's really not that clever, and the author doggone well knows it" kind of way. Transparent lexical tricks are not sufficient to create the kind of mental distance or suspension of disbelief necessary.