Take a look at any of the Churches that developed outside the Greco-Roman paradigm. The Coptic and Syriac for starters, and then branch out even farther from those to the Ethiopian and the Malabar/Malankara. The Churches in Ethiopia and India had virtually no contact with Europe until the Age of Discovery.
Take a look at the liturgies of these indigenous Churches. You see archaic liturgical languages (Coptic, Syriac, Ge'ez), you see extremely florid, ceremonial liturgical expressions that make the Latin Rite look boring by comparison. What you don't see is...well..let's be blunt...your average liberal's idea of a liturgy.
Let's also mention that when the Novus Ordo was imposed in North America, it swept aside authentic native American liturgies that were half Latin, half native languages (Mohawk, Huron, Abenaki, Algonquin), and imposed on the northeastern Indian missions a liturgy in English that many of them flatly didn't want.
When it comes right down to it, liberals don't give a rat's rear about these "world cultures" they pretend to represent. To them, indigenous cultures are only useful as a launch point for their own foolish notions of liturgical reform. If they really cared about indigenous liturgy, they would be calling for a return to the traditional Roman Mass, which is far closer to the native ones.
This discussion is an old one ... at least as old as the Venerable Bede. Rome never saw a rite it didn’t want to suppress, correct, or at least manage. Our via, or the high via!