Cultural Appropriation in a Globalized World
THE RESEARCH
November 29, 2024
Abstract
This research critically examines cultural appropriation, exploring its definitions, historical roots, and contemporary implications in a globalized world. As globalization and digital platforms blur cultural boundaries, tensions around appropriation persist. The paper distinguishes between cultural appropriation and appreciation, analyzing the role of political power, commodification, and historical context in shaping perceptions. Case studies—such as the rebranding of Uncle Ben’s rice and the controversy over the Washington Redskins logo—illustrate how cultural appropriation intersects with race, identity, and societal change. Through an analysis of public opinion, social media reactions, and online activism, the paper critiques cancel culture while advocating for a more nuanced understanding of cultural exchange. Ultimately, it calls for a future of inclusive cultural exchange that celebrates diversity and upholds cultural integrity.
Keywords: Cultural appropriation, cultural exchange, globalization, power dynamics, cancel culture, cultural appreciation, identity, social media.
Introduction
Cultural appropriation is one of the most polarizing topics in contemporary society, situated at the intersection of art, politics, and identity. Defined broadly as the adoption of elements from one culture by members of another, often without permission or understanding, it is increasingly scrutinized under a lens of historical and systemic oppression (Scafidi, 2005). However, this research seeks to move beyond entrenched dichotomies of “right” and “wrong” appropriation to reframe the discourse through a critical lens of acceptance and collaboration. This shift emphasizes the possibilities for mutual respect and creative fusion while addressing power imbalances that fuel controversies.
In today’s interconnected world, cultures are constantly in flux, shaped by global communication, trade, migration, and digital platforms (Cruz et al., 2024). This era of rapid cultural exchange provides opportunities for shared understanding but also amplifies tensions surrounding appropriation. The traditional framework, which often frames cultural borrowing as an act of theft, may be inadequate for addressing the complexities of global interactions. Instead, a balanced and nuanced perspective—one that acknowledges both harm and the transformative potential of cultural exchange—is needed (Morton, 2020).
This research critically examines whether the discourse around cultural appropriation has been co-opted by political movements that exploit cultural divides to serve their agendas. At the same time, it questions whether contemporary debates leave room for cultural appreciation and collaboration. With heightened sensitivities about identity and representation, it is essential to explore how cultural exchange can become an inclusive and respectful process, rather than a divisive battleground.
Relevance in a Globalized World
The internet and social media have enabled unprecedented access to cultures worldwide, from indigenous art forms to global fashion trends. Yet, this accessibility often occurs without proper context or consent, leading to accusations of commodification and erasure (Sarkar, 2019). For instance, practices such as wearing indigenous clothing or adopting hairstyles associated with marginalized groups are frequently criticized as appropriation. However, critics like Ellison and Murray argue that cultural exchange has always been a cornerstone of societal evolution, highlighting the impossibility of maintaining “pure” cultural identities in a world of constant interaction (Morton, 2020).
This tension raises critical questions: Is cultural borrowing inherently harmful, or can it serve as a bridge to understanding? Advocates of multiculturalism argue that blending traditions enriches both parties, while critics warn that power imbalances often convert these exchanges into acts of exploitation (Cattien & Stopford, 2021). For example, the controversy over the Washington Redskins logo illustrates how differing cultural interpretations can provoke fierce debate, with some Native American groups viewing the term as offensive while others reclaim it as a symbol of pride (Native American Guardians Association, n.d.). Such conflicts underscore the necessity of considering context, intention, and the voices of the affected communities.
Research Questions
This study aims to address the following critical questions:
1. What is cultural appropriation, and how is it defined?
This question explores the evolution of the term from its historical origins, when it described colonial and imperial dynamics, to its contemporary use in debates about representation and respect (Christy, 1945; Sarkar, 2019). It also examines divergent interpretations in academic, cultural, and political contexts.
2. How does cultural appropriation intersect with politics and power dynamics?
Many contemporary debates on cultural appropriation are fueled by political movements seeking to amplify cultural divides. This question investigates whether such movements genuinely advocate for justice or manipulate these tensions for ideological or electoral gain (Stewart, 2020). For instance, some political groups use accusations of appropriation to galvanize support, while others dismiss these concerns as “wokeism” to reinforce narratives of cultural superiority (Durden, 2024).
3. Can cultural appreciation and enjoyment coexist with cultural appropriation in today’s society?
This question examines whether admiration for another culture’s practices, such as enjoying foreign cuisines or adopting artistic traditions, can avoid accusations of appropriation. It also considers how globalized access to culture has blurred boundaries, creating both opportunities for collaboration and risks of exploitation (Cruz et al., 2024).
Defining Cultural Appropriation
Historical Context
The term “cultural appropriation” first emerged in academic and cultural discourse in the mid-20th century, building on earlier ideas about cultural exchange, colonialism, and power dynamics. The concept has roots in the work of anthropologists and scholars studying colonialism, particularly the ways in which colonizers would seize elements from indigenous cultures while disregarding their value, significance, and the people behind them. In this context, appropriation was seen as an exploitative process, rooted in the asymmetrical power dynamics between colonizers and colonized peoples. This early understanding emphasized the commodification of cultural symbols and practices, reducing them to mere objects of consumption without regard for their deeper meaning or history (Christy, 1945).
While the term itself was not used widely until the late 20th century, the idea of cultural appropriation can be traced back to colonial encounters between Europeans and indigenous populations. In his analysis of the colonial history, Morton (2020) reflects on how practices like language, religion, and land were forcibly appropriated, thus erasing entire cultural landscapes. The appropriation of cultural elements became more than just a matter of taking physical items; it was about the destruction of meaning and the creation of a hegemonic narrative that prioritized the colonizer’s view of the world over the lived experiences and practices of marginalized groups.
The contemporary term, however, was popularized in the 1980s and 1990s in connection with social movements such as the Civil Rights Movement and the feminist movement, which began to question established structures of power. These movements began to critically examine how cultural products were often taken from minority groups and used by the dominant groups, often without acknowledgment of the source. This was particularly evident in popular culture, with examples ranging from the appropriation of African American music and fashion by white artists, to the mass commercialization of indigenous cultural symbols (Scafidi, 2005).
Contemporary Definition
In its contemporary form, cultural appropriation refers to the act of taking or borrowing elements from a marginalized culture without permission or understanding of their significance, often with little or no benefit to the original creators of the cultural products (Scafidi, 2005). The term has evolved beyond a simple question of “taking” to encompass a broader critique of power, colonial legacies, and commodification in an increasingly globalized world. Modern discourse on cultural appropriation emphasizes several key elements:
1. Power Imbalance: One of the fundamental aspects of cultural appropriation is the unequal distribution of power between the appropriating group and the appropriated culture. Critics argue that when dominant groups appropriate elements of marginalized cultures, it reflects and perpetuates a power imbalance, where the voices and experiences of marginalized communities are silenced or erased (Sarkar, 2019). For example, when Western fashion companies appropriate traditional African prints without acknowledging their cultural significance, it not only strips the designs of their historical and spiritual meaning but also capitalizes on these elements without benefiting the original creators.
2. Lack of Consent: A critical aspect of cultural appropriation is the lack of permission from the culture being appropriated. This differs from cultural exchange, which is typically reciprocal and involves mutual respect and acknowledgment of significance. In the case of appropriation, the dominant group takes what it wishes from the marginalized culture without regard for the wishes of the community or individuals whose culture is being borrowed (Scafidi, 2005). For instance, indigenous groups have long criticized the use of sacred symbols, such as headdresses or dreamcatchers, in fashion and décor, arguing that these elements hold deep spiritual meaning and should not be used as accessories or commodities.
3. Commodification: Cultural appropriation often involves the commodification of cultural practices, objects, and symbols. This process transforms cultural artifacts into products to be bought, sold, and consumed, frequently without consideration of their original context or significance. Morton (2020) explains that this commodification is a key feature of global capitalism, where the value of cultural practices is often reduced to marketability rather than their intrinsic cultural or historical value. The commercialization of “ethnic” foods, clothing, and music without regard for the cultural context is a clear example of this.
4. Erasure of History: Another central critique of cultural appropriation is that it contributes to the erasure of the histories and identities of marginalized cultures. As appropriation occurs, the deep history and significance of the cultural elements are often forgotten or ignored. This dynamic can contribute to the further marginalization of the appropriated culture, as the original context is removed in favor of a more marketable or palatable version (Cattien & Stopford, 2021). For example, the adoption of African American Vernacular English (AAVE) by mainstream white artists is often disconnected from the historical roots of the language, erasing the struggles of the Black community and how AAVE developed as a form of resistance to oppression.
The Evolution of the Term in Academic and Social Contexts
As cultural appropriation became more prominent in academic and social discourses, it began to take on new dimensions, particularly as globalization and digital technology facilitated the rapid exchange of cultural products across borders. The growth of global capitalism and the widespread use of social media has accelerated the visibility of cultural appropriation, as practices, once confined to specific local or national contexts, are now being disseminated and consumed by a global audience. In this new context, the traditional binary of “appropriator” and “appropriated” culture becomes increasingly blurred.
Critics of the contemporary discourse on cultural appropriation argue that the term has been politicized and weaponized to promote certain ideological agendas. Scholars like Morton (2020) and Stewart (2020) highlight that political movements, particularly those centered around social justice, often use cultural appropriation as a tool to divide and categorize people based on their cultural identity, sometimes without considering the complexity or nuance of these cultural exchanges. According to Morton (2020), such debates are often driven more by the need to create a divisive issue for political gain than by a genuine concern for cultural harm.
Furthermore, some scholars and critics argue that the fear of cultural appropriation may be overblown and that a focus on cultural purity may stifle creativity and the natural flow of cultural exchange. As illustrated by figures like Ralph Ellison and Albert Murray, cultural appropriation has historically been a part of the process of cultural innovation and transformation, with groups borrowing and adapting elements from others in ways that contribute to broader societal change (Morton, 2020).
Thus, the debate around cultural appropriation is as much about power and politics as it is about culture. The modern understanding of cultural appropriation often overlooks the complexities of cultural exchange, instead framing it as a zero-sum game where one group’s gain is another group’s loss. The challenge moving forward is to navigate these complex dynamics with an understanding of both the historical legacies of oppression and the need for ongoing cultural dialogue and collaboration.
Cultural Exchange or Cultural Appropriation?
Distinguishing Between Appropriation and Appreciation
Cultural appropriation has often been framed as the “uninvited” taking of cultural elements by a more dominant group, typically resulting in the commodification of culture and the perpetuation of power imbalances. However, an emerging debate suggests that the distinction between cultural appropriation and cultural appreciation is more nuanced than often portrayed. Cultural appreciation refers to a respectful engagement with and understanding of another culture, recognizing its significance and context, while appropriation is frequently seen as a more exploitative act where cultural elements are taken without understanding or acknowledgment, often stripping them of their meaning (Cattien & Stopford, 2021).
The question arises: can admiration or enjoyment of another culture cross the line into appropriation? Some critics argue that, when done responsibly, the incorporation of cultural symbols or practices into one’s life—whether in art, fashion, or food—can be seen as an acknowledgment and celebration of cultural diversity. For instance, adopting culinary traditions or fashion choices from different cultures can be viewed as a form of cultural exchange, a mutual process of learning and adaptation. In a globalized world, such exchanges are inevitable, and the fusion of diverse cultural elements has historically shaped societies in transformative ways (Morton, 2020). Yet, when these practices are taken without acknowledgment, or when the underlying cultural significance is ignored, appreciation can devolve into appropriation, with potential negative consequences for the marginalized group whose culture is being appropriated (Sarkar, 2019).
One example of this dynamic is found in the ongoing debate about the use of Indigenous symbols or practices, such as headdresses or sacred artifacts, in non-Indigenous contexts (e.g., fashion or festivals). While some argue that these practices should be celebrated and recognized for their richness, others point out that such acts are often devoid of the cultural context and meaning that are integral to these symbols. This highlights a key tension: Can we honor different cultures and ethnic habits as they flow into contemporary society and ultimately shape it? Or does this process risk oversimplifying, misrepresenting, or even undermining the integrity of those cultures (Stewart, 2020)?
The challenge lies in defining the boundaries between cultural borrowing that respects the original context and appropriation that exploits or commodifies cultural elements for personal or commercial gain. In an increasingly globalized world, these lines are becoming increasingly blurred, and the rise of digital platforms amplifies both the access to and the potential for misappropriation of cultural symbols.
Permission and Acknowledgment
Does cultural appropriation depend on seeking permission from specific groups or is it simply about gaining attention? One common critique of cultural appropriation is the lack of consent—especially when dominant groups appropriate cultural elements from historically marginalized communities. This has led to the view that permission, or at least some form of acknowledgment, is necessary before borrowing cultural symbols. However, in a globalized world, where access to cultures and ideas is widespread through the internet and social media, the notion of “permission” becomes increasingly complex. Who grants permission? Can a cultural group, as a collective, speak for the authenticity or legitimacy of their cultural symbols in modern contexts? The complexities of this issue are compounded by the fact that in many cases, cultural practices have already spread and blended over time, leading to a shared cultural heritage that cannot always be neatly attributed to one group (Cattien & Stopford, 2021).
Another important aspect of this debate concerns the commercialization and commodification of culture. While many see the use of cultural symbols as a way of paying homage or showing appreciation, others argue that it can devolve into exploitation, especially when cultural elements are “mined” for profit without adequate compensation or respect for their origins (Mosley & Biernat, 2021). The desire for attention or profit can exacerbate the negative impacts of appropriation, as cultures become commodified for the consumption of others without regard for the people whose culture is being used.
Thus, it is not simply a question of permission, but of recognizing the broader historical, social, and economic dynamics at play. In an era of global access to culture and information, where ideas, symbols, and practices are more easily shared, how do we navigate the line between cultural appreciation and appropriation?
Political Dimensions
The political dimensions of cultural appropriation cannot be ignored. The concept of cultural appropriation has evolved alongside movements advocating for racial and cultural justice, often framed as part of a broader critique of systemic power imbalances. Activists argue that cultural appropriation is symptomatic of larger patterns of exploitation, where dominant groups take from marginalized cultures without reciprocation, perpetuating cycles of inequality (Sarkar, 2019). This critique aligns with the view that appropriation is inherently linked to colonial histories, where the cultural expressions of colonized peoples were extracted, commodified, and often misrepresented by colonial powers (Morton, 2020).
However, the politicization of cultural appropriation also raises important questions. Some argue that the intense focus on appropriation, especially in the context of entertainment and fashion, may obscure broader issues of economic exploitation and political disenfranchisement. Critics of the term argue that it can be weaponized by political movements to stoke division, rather than foster genuine dialogue and understanding (Stewart, 2020). In this sense, cultural appropriation can sometimes serve political agendas that benefit from heightened cultural divisions. By focusing on the symbolic acts of appropriation, these movements may shift attention away from the more complex and systemic issues of economic inequality and racial injustice.
The role of power and privilege in the appropriation of cultural symbols further complicates the debate. While cultural appropriation is often framed as an act of dominance, it also reflects the dynamics of cultural capital, where certain groups have the social, political, and economic power to commodify and mainstream cultural elements. In this context, it is not just about “who owns” a cultural symbol, but also about who gets to profit from it, and who has the power to control the narrative around it (Mosley & Biernat, 2021).
Subconscious Influence and Globalization
The Role of Information Access
In an era where access to information is widespread, cultural exchange occurs at an unprecedented pace. The global reach of the internet, social media platforms, and digital content has created an interconnected world where cultures, ideas, and symbols cross borders in real time. While this interconnectedness provides opportunities for cultural enrichment and learning, it also presents significant challenges when it comes to understanding the nuances of cultural appropriation and appreciation. In particular, the subconscious influence of exposure to different cultures raises questions about how individuals interact with and borrow from other cultural expressions—often without fully recognizing or understanding the implications.
The phenomenon of cultural appropriation becomes more complicated in this digital age, as people may not consciously intend to appropriate cultural symbols but may do so inadvertently due to the overwhelming influence of media, advertisements, and social platforms. This unintentional appropriation often occurs at a subconscious level, as individuals may consume and replicate cultural symbols without fully appreciating the historical and social significance behind them (Mosley & Biernat, 2021). The digital era amplifies the ease with which cultures are commodified and stripped of their meaning as images, practices, and symbols are rapidly circulated without context.
For example, cultural practices such as wearing traditional clothing, adopting certain hairstyles (e.g., dreadlocks), or using specific rituals may be taken out of their cultural context and reinterpreted by individuals from different backgrounds. These practices may be shared widely on social media, where the line between respectful engagement and appropriation becomes increasingly blurred. In this context, individuals may not be fully aware of the harmful effects of their actions, especially when influenced by trends or the normalization of specific cultural expressions through online platforms (Stewart, 2020).
However, one must ask: does this widespread access to cultural information inevitably lead to more appropriation, or can it foster greater understanding and mutual respect? While many individuals may not consciously seek to appropriate culture, the accessibility of cultural elements through digital platforms often lacks the deeper acknowledgment of the power dynamics at play. The problem, then, is not solely one of intention but of the broader social structures that undergird these exchanges. When cultural symbols are commodified for mass consumption, they are often deprived of their original significance, leading to the erasure of cultural histories and the perpetuation of stereotypes (Sarkar, 2019).
New Ideas and Cultural Hybridization
As cultural exchange accelerates in a globalized world, new ideas and cultural fusions emerge as natural byproducts of this cross-pollination. In a rapidly globalizing society, the blending of cultures is inevitable. The exchange of ideas, music, fashion, food, and art results in the formation of new, hybrid cultural expressions that challenge traditional boundaries. While this hybridization can be seen as a celebration of cultural diversity and creativity, it also raises important questions about where collaboration ends and appropriation begins.
In a globalized world, cultural fusion has become increasingly common in artistic practices, whether in music, fashion, or food. The advent of global platforms like YouTube, Instagram, and TikTok allows artists and creators to access and draw inspiration from a wide array of cultural influences. This has led to the emergence of new art forms, genres, and aesthetics that combine elements from multiple cultures. For instance, genres like reggaeton, which blends Caribbean, Latin, and American hip-hop influences, have become global phenomena. Similarly, in the fashion world, Western designers have frequently incorporated African prints or Indigenous patterns into their collections, sometimes leading to debate over whether these practices constitute appreciation or appropriation (Cattien & Stopford, 2021).
In this context, the line between collaboration and appropriation is often difficult to discern. When cultural elements are integrated into creative works, it is crucial to ask whether this fusion is done with respect and acknowledgment of its origins or if it involves the exploitation of these elements for profit and status. For example, Western designers may incorporate traditional African textiles into their collections but fail to credit the communities that have produced these fabrics for centuries. This can result in the commodification of cultural symbols without recognition of their significance, reducing them to mere aesthetic choices (Mosley & Biernat, 2021).
The commodification of cultural elements is a central concern in the debate over cultural appropriation. In the case of cultural hybridization, the commercialization of these newly formed cultural expressions often results in a paradox: on one hand, they allow for the celebration and dissemination of diverse cultures; on the other, they can lead to the erasure of the original cultural context and meaning. In this sense, cultural hybridization—while fostering creativity and exchange—can inadvertently perpetuate inequalities and power imbalances by allowing dominant groups to profit from marginalized cultures without giving credit or compensation to those whose cultural expressions are being used (Stewart, 2020).
Furthermore, when new cultural forms emerge, there is the risk that the most marginalized voices are left out of the conversation. Often, dominant cultural industries, such as Hollywood, fashion, or the music industry, co-opt and commercialize elements of marginalized cultures while sidelining the communities from which these elements originated. The result is that the process of cultural hybridization becomes, in many cases, a one-sided exchange where the cultural capital of marginalized groups is extracted and commodified for the benefit of wealthier, more powerful groups (Sarkar, 2019). In this light, the global exchange of cultural ideas, while fostering collaboration, often masks deeper issues of exploitation and inequality.
Cultural Appreciation vs. Appropriation: Can We Admire Another Culture?
Fear of Being Labeled
In a globalized world where cultural exchange is ubiquitous, many individuals and groups seek to admire and celebrate cultures outside of their own. Yet, as the discourse around cultural appropriation intensifies, the fear of being labeled as culturally insensitive or guilty of appropriation has become a significant concern. The lines between admiration and appropriation have grown increasingly blurred, leading to a growing anxiety about engaging with cultural practices that do not belong to one’s own community.
The fear of being labeled as an appropriator is especially acute in the age of social media, where public opinions are formed rapidly, and online activism plays a significant role in shaping discourse. Public figures, influencers, and everyday social media users alike find themselves scrutinized for acts that may have once been seen as mere cultural appreciation but are now subject to judgment in light of shifting societal norms. For instance, celebrities who wear traditional attire or engage in cultural practices from communities different than their own may quickly face backlash if their actions are perceived as “disrespectful” or “exploitative” (Stewart, 2020). This fear of being labeled an appropriator often stifles genuine efforts to celebrate and appreciate other cultures, as individuals may feel hesitant to engage in cross-cultural practices without the risk of facing public condemnation.
For example, the recent backlash against a white actress playing a Black character in the video game adaptation The Last of Us (Miller, 2023) illustrates how the act of honoring a different culture—through performance or portrayal—can be misconstrued as cultural appropriation. This complex and often punitive environment leaves individuals fearful of expressing admiration for cultures outside their own, worried that they may be accused of undermining the culture they seek to celebrate. The resulting effect is that some may opt to remain silent, withdraw from cultural engagement, or avoid certain practices altogether, ultimately preventing the very type of exchange that globalization is supposed to foster.
This fear has broader implications for personal and societal engagement with culture. The restrictions placed by the fear of appropriation do not just impact individuals, but also influence broader cultural exchanges. The rapid spread of digital content and the global interconnectedness of individuals and ideas create an environment where genuine curiosity about other cultures can be perceived as problematic (Sarkar, 2019). As a result, some individuals, particularly in the public eye, are increasingly cautious about expressing any admiration or joy for cultural artifacts that are not their own, because doing so risks being branded as “culturally insensitive.” This dynamic stifles the very essence of cross-cultural appreciation and the free flow of ideas.
Impact on Freedom of Expression, Cultural Engagement, and Self-Expression
The fear of being labeled “culturally insensitive” often results in a restriction of cultural engagement and personal expression. This is particularly evident in the arts, entertainment, and fashion industries, where creators may hesitate to express admiration for another culture out of fear that their actions will be misinterpreted. In the case of media portrayals, the debate over cultural appropriation has sparked concerns about whether certain roles or narratives are “off-limits” to individuals outside specific cultural or ethnic groups. For instance, the notion that only members of a specific group can accurately or authentically portray characters from that group has raised critical debates about the role of creative freedom and representation in film, literature, and art (Jackson, 2023).
The growing concern surrounding cultural appropriation also impacts how individuals engage with cultural practices in their personal lives. Fashion choices, hairstyles, language, and food, all elements of cultural identity, have increasingly become areas of contention. Wearing certain types of clothing or adopting specific hairstyles, such as dreadlocks or wearing a cheongsam for prom, can be deemed appropriative if the person engaging in these acts is perceived to have no legitimate connection to the culture in question (Stewart, 2020). Consequently, individuals often self-censor, fearing that their enjoyment of certain cultural symbols will be misinterpreted as disrespectful or exploitative. The very idea of self-expression through the celebration of other cultures is now seen as fraught with ethical peril.
This fear of cultural missteps leads to a broader conversation about how society values cultural expression and appreciation. The increasing sensitivity to cultural appropriation raises a question: how can we create spaces for the sharing and celebration of culture without stifling creativity or genuine admiration? When the potential for cultural appropriation is exaggerated or misunderstood, it undermines the free exchange of ideas and experiences.
While caution is necessary in understanding the power dynamics at play when cultures interact, overemphasizing the risk of appropriation creates an environment where people are hesitant to share their genuine admiration for other cultures. By focusing solely on negative aspects of cultural exchange, we fail to recognize that, in many cases, people simply want to celebrate or learn about other traditions, often in ways that are both respectful and enriching. The process of cultural fusion, which has been occurring throughout history, can lead to innovation and creativity when it is rooted in mutual respect and understanding (Cattien & Stopford, 2021).
Public Opinion on Social Media
The power of social media in shaping public opinion on cultural appropriation cannot be overstated. Online platforms have amplified the speed at which accusations of cultural appropriation can spread, making individuals, especially celebrities, accountable to a global audience. As social media users actively participate in shaping cultural conversations, the line between cultural appreciation and appropriation often becomes blurred in the public sphere.
However, social media also provides an avenue for alternative voices and counter-narratives. In many cases, social media activism has raised awareness about the injustices associated with cultural appropriation, such as the commercialization of sacred cultural symbols by corporations without any recognition or benefit to the cultures from which they originate. At the same time, the same platforms often become breeding grounds for backlash, where individuals are publicly shamed for what are perceived as cultural missteps, regardless of their intent (Stewart, 2020).
In a social media-driven world, the debate about cultural appropriation is no longer confined to academic or activist circles but is actively debated in the public eye. The challenge lies in distinguishing between valid critiques of cultural exploitation and broader, more generalized accusations that may stifle free expression. As social media and online platforms continue to evolve, the question remains: How do we create an inclusive, respectful environment for cultural appreciation without turning it into a moral battleground that discourages collaboration and creativity?
Events and Examples of Cultural Appropriation
Uncle Ben’s Rebranding: A Case Study in Cultural Sensitivity
The decision to rebrand Uncle Ben’s rice and change its long-standing logo, which featured a Black man in a tuxedo, serves as a powerful example of how cultural appropriation can spark public debate. Originally created in 1943, the Uncle Ben’s brand depicted a smiling Black man, widely viewed as a symbol of servitude and subjugation, reflecting the racial hierarchies of the time. The rebranding decision in 2020 to transform Uncle Ben’s into “Ben’s Original™” and remove the image of the Black man from its packaging was motivated by an effort to confront racial stereotypes and better align with modern values of inclusivity (Ben’s Original, 2020).
The move to change the brand’s identity was met with mixed reactions. On the one hand, the rebranding was lauded as a necessary step toward eradicating harmful, outdated imagery. For many, it symbolized a positive shift toward acknowledging and confronting historical racial injustices. On the other hand, a vocal group of detractors argued that the rebranding was an example of “cancel culture” and the erosion of traditional symbols. Social media platforms were flooded with divided opinions, reflecting the deep polarization on issues of racial representation. As one Facebook commenter noted, “Why change the name? The woke snowflake brigade is at it again. They will not give up until they have ruined everything” (Facebook, 2020). Others, however, pointed out the hypocrisy of removing a figure that many believed to be a positive representation of Black people’s contributions to society.
The decision to rebrand Uncle Ben’s was therefore not just a marketing shift; it was a public reckoning with the complexities of race, historical representation, and the power of consumer-driven change. Social media activism played a significant role in pushing brands to confront the legacies of racial stereotyping, but it also sparked backlash from individuals who felt that the move was an overcorrection.
The Washington Redskins: A Controversial Name and Logo
The case of the Washington Redskins football team illustrates another key example of how cultural appropriation becomes a flashpoint in discussions of racial and ethnic representation. The name “Redskins” has been a source of controversy for decades, with many Native Americans and activists condemning it as a racial slur. In 2020, after years of mounting pressure, the team announced it would retire the name, replacing it with “Washington Commanders.” The decision followed protests from Native American groups, calls from major sponsors like Nike and FedEx to drop the name, and increased awareness about the damaging effects of racial stereotypes in sports.
However, the rebranding sparked a different kind of backlash. Many fans and some members of the Native American community argued that the name and logo were not inherently offensive, and some even felt that the logo, which was designed by Native American artist Walter “Blackie” Wetzel, was a respectful tribute to Native American heritage. According to the Native American Guardians Association (NAGA), a significant portion of Native Americans viewed the term “Redskins” as a symbol of honor and pride, and they rejected the notion that it was inherently racist (NAGA, 2020). The NAGA argued that the logo, which was designed in collaboration with Native American leaders, represented a form of self-identification and cultural respect rather than a demeaning portrayal.
The decision to retire the name sparked a passionate debate about cultural sensitivity, with proponents of the change arguing that the term had become tainted by its historical misuse and associations with colonialism. On social media, many fans voiced their disapproval, accusing the NFL of caving to political correctness, while others supported the rebranding as a necessary step toward addressing racial inequities (Facebook, 2020). For instance, one comment on the NFL’s Facebook page read, “Seems like an ‘own goal’ by woke society” (Facebook, 2020), highlighting the division between those who see the name change as a positive step and those who view it as an overreaction.
The Washington Redskins controversy underscores the role of power dynamics in the appropriation and commercialization of cultural symbols. While the logo was intended to honor Native Americans, it was not universally accepted as such. This example highlights the complexity of cultural appropriation, where intentions and interpretations collide, and power dynamics play a crucial role in how cultural symbols are appropriated and understood.
Other Examples of Cultural Appropriation
Cultural appropriation is a pervasive issue in contemporary society, extending far beyond sports and food. Fashion, music, and film have also been frequent battlegrounds for debates over cultural exchange and appropriation.
In fashion, the adoption of Indigenous and African-American cultural symbols, such as feathered headdresses or African prints, has sparked significant debate. The appropriation of these symbols by high-end designers or celebrities is often criticized as a form of commodification, stripping the symbols of their cultural significance and reducing them to fashion trends without acknowledging their historical and political context. For example, the fashion industry has been repeatedly called out for using Native American headdresses in runway shows, an item that holds deep spiritual and ceremonial significance in many Native cultures.
In music, artists like Elvis Presley and Led Zeppelin have been accused of cultural appropriation for incorporating elements of Black musical traditions into their work. While some argue that their adoption of these musical forms helped bring them into the mainstream, others contend that these artists profited from the labor and creativity of Black musicians without offering appropriate recognition or compensation (Stewart, 2020). Similarly, in the hip-hop world, the appropriation of rap and urban culture by non-Black artists has raised questions about who gets to control and profit from Black cultural forms.
Film has also been a site of cultural appropriation debates, particularly with the casting of white actors in roles that traditionally belong to people of color. The casting of white actors in traditionally Black roles, or the portrayal of non-white cultures by non-white actors, has been criticized for perpetuating racial inequality and erasing authentic cultural representation (Jackson, 2023). This is evident in the backlash against the casting of a Black actress in a role originally written as white, as seen in the TV show The Last of Us (Miller, 2023), where fans and critics debated whether such casting decisions were an example of inclusivity or an act of racial pandering.
Cancel Culture and the Decline of Cultural Expression
The Rise of Cancel Culture and Its Intersection with Cultural Appropriation
Cancel culture, a term commonly used to describe the public shaming, boycotting, or ostracizing of individuals or entities for their perceived transgressions, has become a defining characteristic of modern social and political discourse. It has particularly intersected with discussions surrounding cultural appropriation, with public figures, brands, and even everyday individuals facing intense backlash for engaging with cultural elements outside their own. The relationship between cultural appropriation and cancel culture is complex, as both concepts challenge traditional boundaries of cultural exchange, identity, and expression.
Cancel culture advocates argue that it serves as a necessary tool for holding individuals and organizations accountable for their actions, particularly when those actions perpetuate harmful stereotypes or cultural insensitivity (Cattien & Stopford, 2021). For instance, the backlash against high-profile cases such as white celebrities wearing dreadlocks or profiting from cultural symbols without understanding their significance has led to calls for greater sensitivity and awareness. However, the increasing power of cancel culture has raised concerns about its potential to stifle cultural exploration and expression.
Critics argue that the rise of cancel culture creates a chilling effect, where people are hesitant to engage with cultures outside their own for fear of being accused of appropriation or insensitivity. The decision to remove culturally significant symbols, such as the Uncle Ben’s rebranding or the Washington Redskins name change, often ignites widespread debate about where the line should be drawn. As one social media commenter expressed in relation to the rebranding of Uncle Ben’s, “Why change the name? The woke snowflake brigade is at it again. They will not give up until they have ruined everything” (Facebook, 2020). This sentiment reflects the frustration felt by many who believe that efforts to address cultural appropriation have gone too far, leading to the erasure of cultural symbols and traditions in the name of political correctness.
While cancel culture has brought much-needed attention to issues of inequality and historical injustice, it also has the potential to foster division and fear. The fear of being labeled as culturally insensitive has caused some individuals to shy away from engaging with other cultures altogether, even when their intentions are respectful. This fear may, ironically, contribute to the decline of cultural exchange by creating an environment in which people are afraid to learn about or celebrate the richness of other cultural traditions, fearing they will be accused of appropriation or misappropriation.
Fear of Expression and the Decline of Culture
The backlash against cultural appropriation, fueled by cancel culture, has led to concerns that it may inadvertently suppress open cultural exchange and the free flow of ideas. In a globalized world where cultures intersect and influence one another constantly, creative expression often thrives on the blending of traditions and the reinterpretation of cultural symbols. However, when individuals are afraid of crossing boundaries or being accused of appropriation, they may be discouraged from exploring other cultures in their work, which can lead to stagnation in art, music, fashion, and other forms of creative expression.
As a result, cultural exchange risks being limited by the very movements that aim to protect marginalized cultures. For instance, a recent debate surrounding the casting of a Black actress in a role originally written for a white character sparked controversy, with some labeling it as a form of “tokenism” rather than an authentic form of representation (Miller, 2023). This raises the question: when does the act of embracing a culture cross the line into appropriation? And when does fear of appropriation suppress the natural flow of creativity that has historically led to the mixing and evolution of cultural forms?
The concern is that cancel culture is evolving into a form of “cultural policing” that limits the scope of cultural engagement. As social media activism increasingly focuses on identifying and condemning perceived instances of appropriation, individuals and creators may become more wary of exploring cultural practices or symbols from outside their own backgrounds. A crucial element of this fear is the pressure to obtain permission or gain validation from specific cultural groups before engaging with their symbols or traditions. While permission is important to respect in cases where cultural practices hold sacred significance, the idea that all cultural exchange must be formally sanctioned by the community in question creates unnecessary barriers to learning and personal exploration.
This issue is further complicated by the fact that many of the conversations around cultural appropriation are rooted in political agendas that seek to frame cultural exchange as a power struggle between the oppressed and the oppressors. While the political context of cultural appropriation is essential to understanding its broader societal implications, it can sometimes overshadow the creative and educational potential that cultural exchange offers. In a world where globalization has made cultural influences more accessible than ever before, the fear of appropriation can lead to an artificial separation between cultures that have long influenced each other.
For example, fashion trends such as the adoption of African prints by non-African designers have been criticized for appropriating cultural symbols without proper acknowledgment of their origins. Yet, others argue that the global exchange of fashion and style is an essential part of the creative process, allowing different cultures to influence one another and push the boundaries of artistic expression (Morton, 2020). In this context, cancel culture’s tendency to frame cultural exchange in terms of guilt and appropriation risks stifling the very creativity that has fueled much of the world’s cultural innovations.
Future of Cultural Exchange
Balancing Appreciation and Respect: A Call for Collaboration, Not Division
The future of cultural exchange hinges on our ability to strike a delicate balance between appreciation and respect. While cultural appropriation has become a buzzword in contemporary discussions around identity and global exchange, it is essential to rethink how we engage with cultures beyond our own. Instead of falling into the trap of viewing cultural exchange solely through the lens of appropriation, we should foster a mindset that emphasizes the collaborative nature of cultural interaction and mutual respect.
At the heart of cultural exchange is the idea that ideas, symbols, and practices from different cultural groups have always interacted, influenced, and enriched one another. Throughout history, the blending of cultural elements has resulted in some of the most celebrated innovations—whether in the form of cuisine, music, art, or fashion. However, the concept of cultural appropriation often overlooks the fact that such exchanges have always been part of human history and should not be demonized but instead approached with care and acknowledgment.
One solution to balancing appreciation and respect is the promotion of education, dialogue, and collaboration. The practice of cultural exchange should not be about taking but rather about learning, sharing, and giving credit where it is due. The problem arises when cultural symbols or practices are commodified or adopted without acknowledgment of their significance or historical context. This is where education comes into play. By educating people about the historical, social, and political contexts behind cultural symbols, we can encourage a more nuanced understanding of when cultural borrowing is respectful and when it crosses the line into appropriation.
Dialogues around cultural exchange should focus on collaboration, not restriction. In many ways, the creative and innovative potential of cultures lies in their ability to collaborate and draw from one another’s strengths. Rather than viewing cultural elements as “property” to be guarded, we should view them as sources of inspiration that can lead to collective growth and new ideas. As cultural theorist Brian Morton (2020) argues, cultural mixing should be seen not as a theft but as an expression of shared humanity and solidarity.
Importantly, cultural exchange should also avoid erasing history. To properly appreciate the significance of any cultural tradition or symbol, one must first understand its origins and context. Acknowledging the historical struggles of marginalized communities and giving them a voice in the conversation around their cultural expressions is essential. A true appreciation of culture does not only involve celebrating its surface elements but also recognizing the struggles, triumphs, and contributions of the people behind those cultures. This understanding can inspire innovation rather than perpetuating historical injustices or reducing cultures to stereotypes.
For example, the recent controversy over Uncle Ben’s rebranding or the Washington Redskins name change highlights a critical issue: how do we navigate the fine line between cultural respect and cultural erasure? Uncle Ben’s decision to rebrand sparked backlash from both sides of the debate. Some viewed the change as a necessary step toward inclusivity, while others saw it as an overreaction that undermined the brand’s history. The sentiment on social media was divided, with some commenting, “Removing it is racist, we should educate, not pander” (Facebook, 2020), while others supported the change as a step toward more respectful representation.
The key issue here is not whether the name or symbol should be abolished but how we can move forward in a way that honors both the culture and the history it represents. The same principles apply to the Washington Redskins controversy. While some Native American groups, including the Native American Guardians Association, argue that the name and logo are revered and not offensive (NAGA, 2020), the broader societal debate points to a growing need to include a diversity of perspectives and ensure that cultural symbols are not appropriated for the sake of profit or political correctness but are respected in their true context.
Toward a More Inclusive Society: Navigating the Complexities of Cultural Exchange
In a globalized world, inclusivity, mutual respect, and understanding are paramount in navigating the complexities of cultural exchange. The sheer interconnectedness of societies today means that cultural ideas, trends, and practices flow more freely across borders than ever before. Yet this also means that the potential for miscommunication, misunderstanding, and misappropriation is greater than before.
One of the critical issues that arise in discussions of cultural appropriation is the way it has become politicized. Political groups often use cultural appropriation as a tool to draw lines between “us” and “them,” creating divisions rather than fostering unity. The idea that one culture can “own” certain practices or symbols can fuel cultural nationalism and exclusionary thinking, limiting the free exchange of ideas. At the same time, the focus on appropriation can obscure the broader issue of social and economic inequality that often underpins cultural imbalances.
To navigate these complexities, societies need to focus on building an inclusive future where cultural exchange is encouraged, but with care and recognition of the power dynamics at play. The real question is not whether cultural exchange should happen but how we can ensure it is done in a way that is mutually beneficial and respectful. Education and open dialogue must be the cornerstones of any future cultural exchange. Individuals and organizations must be willing to learn about the cultures they engage with, acknowledging not only the aesthetic value of cultural practices but also their historical and social significance.
Furthermore, cultural expression should not be stifled out of fear of offending or crossing boundaries. Fear of cultural appropriation has the potential to lead to a kind of cultural isolationism where individuals and communities retreat into their own cultural silos, preventing genuine cross-cultural interactions. As Morton (2020) suggests, creativity often thrives when cultures mix, and this creativity should be nurtured rather than suppressed.
To truly foster a more inclusive society, it is essential to move beyond the binary framework of “appropriation” versus “appreciation” and embrace a more nuanced understanding of cultural exchange. This involves recognizing the historical context and power dynamics that shape cultural interactions while also promoting the idea that cultural engagement, when done with respect and mutual understanding, can be a force for unity and collective innovation.
Conclusion
The topic of cultural appropriation is undeniably complex, interwoven with historical, political, and social dynamics that affect every aspect of our globalized world. Through this research, we have explored how the term “cultural appropriation” has evolved, from its early uses as a critical concept focused on power imbalances and exploitation, to its current place as a contested and politicized term. At its core, cultural appropriation addresses the appropriation of cultural elements—be it language, art, food, or symbols—without acknowledgment or respect for the cultural context and the historical struggles of the marginalized groups from which these elements originate (Mosley & Biernat, 2021; Stewart, 2020).
Yet, as we have seen, defining cultural appropriation is far from straightforward. In many instances, what is labeled as appropriation is part of the natural, human drive for cultural exchange and innovation. This is especially true in a globalized world, where cultures are constantly interacting, evolving, and shaping one another in ways that may not always fit neatly within traditional definitions of appropriation (Morton, 2020). The role of political groups in fueling the debate and shaping public perception has added layers of complexity, further complicating our understanding of cultural boundaries and ownership (Cattien & Stopford, 2021). Social media and online activism play significant roles in this discourse, amplifying voices and creating both opportunities for awareness and potential for division.
Key examples, such as the controversies surrounding Uncle Ben’s rebranding and the Washington Redskins name change, highlight the tension between cultural appreciation and appropriation. While some argue that these symbols are forms of honor and respect for the cultures they represent (Native American Guardians Association, 2020), others see them as rooted in historical harm and exploitation. Social media reactions to these issues reveal the polarizing nature of these debates, as well as the role of online platforms in shaping public discourse (Facebook, 2020; KOLO 8 News, 2020). Through these case studies, we can see that cultural symbols are not static but are constantly reinterpreted through the lens of contemporary values and social movements.
Despite the polarization, we must recognize that the global exchange of culture is not inherently negative. Cultures have always influenced one another, and the borrowing and blending of ideas and traditions is central to human innovation (Ellison, 1966; Morton, 2020). However, the challenge lies in how we navigate this exchange in a way that is respectful and recognizes the histories and power dynamics that shape cultural expressions. By fostering education, dialogue, and mutual respect, we can begin to mitigate the harmful effects of cultural appropriation while encouraging meaningful cultural exchange.
Final Thoughts
As we reflect on the balance between cultural exchange, appropriation, and respect, it becomes clear that the path forward lies in embracing a more inclusive, thoughtful approach to cross-cultural interaction. The conversations around cultural appropriation often fall into binary thinking—either appreciating or appropriating—and this division prevents us from recognizing the potential for mutual growth and understanding that comes from cultural exchange. Rather than policing culture, we must learn to honor and celebrate the richness of diverse traditions while acknowledging the complex histories that underlie them.
The challenge is not to halt the flow of cultural ideas but to ensure that this flow is based on recognition, understanding, and mutual respect. Education and dialogue must remain central to this process. It is not enough to label actions as “appropriation”; we must engage in meaningful conversations that explore the complexities of cultural interactions and the histories of those involved. Rather than creating divisions, we should seek to build bridges that encourage the sharing of stories, experiences, and traditions in a way that respects their significance and promotes collaboration.
In a world that is increasingly interconnected, the future of cultural exchange is both exciting and uncertain. The key question that remains is: How can we, as global citizens, engage with each other’s cultures in a way that celebrates diversity while acknowledging the histories that shape them? Is it possible to move beyond the fear of appropriation and towards a more inclusive and creative world where cultural exchange fosters innovation, empathy, and solidarity?
The future is in our hands. Let us be mindful of the power we have to shape the way cultures interact and be conscious of the potential we hold to create a more harmonious and inclusive world. By fostering mutual respect and understanding, we can build a society where cultural exchange is not something to fear, but something to celebrate.
References
Cattien, J., & Stopford, R. J. (2021). The appropriating subject: Cultural appreciation, property, and entitlement. Philosophy and Social Criticism, 49(9). https://doi.org/10.1177/01914537211059515
Christy, A. E. (1945). Cultural appropriation: First mention - The Asian legacy and American life (pp. 38–39).
Ellison, R. (1966). The little man at Chehaw Station. In Essays on cultural appropriation and the creation of American identity (pp. 255–270).
Facebook. (2020). Comments on Uncle Ben’s rebranding. [Facebook post]. Retrieved from https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=695002971425842
KOLO 8 News Now. (2020, July 13). Did you support Washington retiring the Redskins name and logo? [Facebook post]. Retrieved from https://bit.ly/3j1zxjq
Manigault-Bryant, L. S. (n.d.). The politics of cultural appropriation.
Mosley, A. J., & Biernat, M. (2021). The new identity theft: Perceptions of cultural appropriation in intergroup contexts. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 121(2), 308–331. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/01914537211059515
Morton, B. (2020). All shook up: The politics of cultural appropriation. Dissent Magazine. https://www.dissentmagazine.org/article/all-shook-up-the-politics-of-cultural-appropriation
Native American Guardians Association. (2020). Misconception: “Redskins / Redmen is racist.” Native American Guardians Association. Retrieved from https://www.nagaeducation.org/misconception-redskins-is-racist
Scafidi, S. (n.d.). Who owns culture? Appropriation and authenticity in American law.
Stewart, M. (2020, January 3). Multiculturalism, or cultural appropriation? City Journal. https://www.city-journal.org/article/multiculturalism-or-cultural-appropriation
The Native American Guardian’s Association. (2020). Misconception: “Redskins / Redmen is racist.”
The Newport Institute. (2024). How cancel culture psychology and toxic tribalism impact young adult mental health. Retrieved from https://www.newportinstitute.com/resources/mental-health/cancel-culture-psychology
The Guardian. (2019, April 29). Why we need to pause before claiming cultural appropriation. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/apr/29/cultural-appropriation-racial-oppression-exploitation-colonialism
Zero Hedge. (2024, November 28). “Good faith” discussions underway to un-cancel NFL Redskins logo. Zero Hedge. https://www.zerohedge.com/political/good-faith-discussions-underway-un-cancel-nfl-redskins-logo
All Rights Reserved | Vesselina Davenport | 2024
