Definition of cultural appropriation
Cultural appropriation happens when members of one culture adopt elements from another culture without understanding, respecting, or crediting the source. For Native American communities, this has been an ongoing problem rooted in colonization and the systematic marginalization of indigenous peoples.
What makes appropriation different from simple cultural exchange is the power imbalance involved. When a dominant culture takes from a marginalized one, it often turns living traditions into commodities while the source community continues to face discrimination.
Origins of the concept
The term gained traction in academic circles during the 1980s as part of postcolonial studies, which critically examined how Western colonialism reshaped and exploited indigenous cultures worldwide. Earlier ideas like cultural imperialism (the imposition of one culture's values onto another) and cultural hegemony (dominance through cultural influence rather than force) laid the groundwork. By the 1990s and 2000s, discussions of racial and cultural politics in the U.S. brought the concept into mainstream conversation.
Key elements of appropriation
Not every instance of cross-cultural borrowing counts as appropriation. Scholars generally point to these defining features:
- Power imbalance between the appropriating culture and the source culture
- Lack of permission or collaboration from the source community
- Misrepresentation or stereotyping of the source culture's practices
- Commodification of cultural elements for profit or entertainment
- Decontextualization of practices, symbols, or artifacts stripped from their original meaning
Historical context
Cultural appropriation of Native American cultures didn't start with Halloween costumes or music festivals. It traces back to the earliest days of European colonization and has evolved through centuries of policy, entertainment, and commerce.
Colonial roots of appropriation
European colonizers frequently viewed Native cultures as "primitive" or "exotic," which set the stage for centuries of misuse. Forced assimilation policies, most notoriously the boarding school system, actively tried to erase Native cultures while simultaneously treating their artifacts as curiosities. Museums collected and displayed Native objects without consent. Meanwhile, literature and art romanticized Native peoples through tropes like the "noble savage", a stereotype that portrayed indigenous people as naturally virtuous but uncivilized. This combination of erasure and romanticization created a pattern that persists today.
19th and 20th century examples
- World's fairs and exhibitions put Native Americans on display as living exhibits for white audiences
- Hollywood Westerns cast non-Native actors in redface and reduced Native peoples to one-dimensional villains or sidekicks
- Non-Native authors wrote fictional accounts of Native life, sometimes fraudulently. The Education of Little Tree (1976) was marketed as a Cherokee memoir but was actually written by Asa Earl Carter, a white supremacist and former KKK speechwriter
- Advertising used Native imagery to sell products, as with Land O'Lakes butter, which featured a stereotypical Native woman on its packaging for nearly 100 years before removing it in 2020
- The New Age movement commercialized Native spiritual practices, packaging ceremonies and beliefs as self-help products for non-Native consumers
Forms of Native American appropriation
Mascots and sports teams
Sports mascots have been one of the most visible and contested forms of appropriation. Teams used Native American names, imagery, and caricatures for decades. The Washington Redskins (renamed the Commanders in 2022) used a term widely considered a racial slur, while the Cleveland Indians (renamed the Guardians in 2022) featured "Chief Wahoo," a cartoonish caricature.
These mascots reduce complex, diverse cultures to simplistic stereotypes. They also treat items with sacred significance, like eagle feathers and ceremonial face paint, as sports decorations. While several high-profile name changes have occurred, many schools and smaller teams still use Native-themed mascots, and legal challenges continue.
Fashion and clothing
- Mainstream fashion brands regularly use "tribal" prints and patterns stripped of their cultural significance
- Headdresses (war bonnets), which are sacred items earned through acts of great respect in many Plains nations, show up as fashion accessories at music festivals
- Halloween costumes like "Pocahontas" or "Indian brave" flatten entire cultures into a costume
- High-fashion brands have used Native-inspired designs without collaborating with or compensating Native designers
Art and artifacts
Non-Native artists sometimes create and sell "Native-style" art, undercutting actual Native artisans. Sacred objects like kachina dolls (spiritual figures in Hopi and Pueblo traditions) and dream catchers (originating from Ojibwe culture) are mass-produced and sold as generic decor. The art market also raises questions about authenticity and cultural ownership, while ongoing debates about repatriation focus on returning artifacts from museum collections to the tribes they belong to.
Spiritual practices
The commercialization of Native spirituality is one of the most harmful forms of appropriation. Non-Native people have charged money to lead sweat lodge ceremonies, sometimes with fatal results (a 2009 incident in Sedona, Arizona, killed three participants at a New Age retreat). Self-proclaimed "shamans" with no tribal affiliation sell spiritual experiences. Sacred plants like peyote, which is central to the Native American Church, get used recreationally. Concepts like "spirit animals" have been stripped from their ceremonial context and turned into casual pop-culture references.
Impact on Native communities
Economic consequences
When non-Native businesses mass-produce "Native-inspired" products, they undercut Native artisans who create authentic work. A factory-made dream catcher sold for $5 directly competes with a handcrafted Ojibwe piece that took hours to make. Native artists and craftspeople lose revenue, and protecting traditional knowledge under existing intellectual property law is extremely difficult since these designs belong to communities, not individuals.
That said, authentic collaborations where Native artists and tribes maintain creative control and receive fair compensation can create real economic opportunities.
Cultural identity erosion
Widespread misrepresentation confuses the public about what authentic Native cultural practices actually look like. Younger generations within Native communities may struggle to connect with their heritage when mainstream culture presents a distorted version of it. Sacred traditions get trivialized when they're turned into products. Some Native people even face pressure to perform stereotypical versions of their culture because that's what outsiders expect and will pay for.
Stereotypes and misrepresentation
Appropriation reinforces a set of damaging stereotypes:
- The "noble savage" or "warrior" tropes that define Native people by a romanticized past
- The flattening of over 570 federally recognized tribes into a single monolithic "Indian" identity
- Narratives that portray Native peoples as either primitive or extinct, ignoring thriving contemporary communities
These stereotypes affect the mental health and self-esteem of Native individuals and make it harder to have informed public conversations about the real issues Native communities face today.
Legal and ethical considerations
Intellectual property rights
Western intellectual property law wasn't designed to protect communal cultural heritage. Copyright protects individual creators for a limited time, but traditional designs, songs, and ceremonies belong to entire communities across generations. This creates a significant gap in legal protection.
- Trademark law has been used in some cases to protect specific tribal names and symbols
- Legal scholars have proposed sui generis (unique, purpose-built) protections specifically for indigenous cultural heritage
- A persistent challenge is determining who within a community has the authority to grant permission for cultural use
Cultural heritage protection
Several legal frameworks address cultural heritage, though none are comprehensive:
- NAGPRA (Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act, 1990) requires federal agencies and institutions receiving federal funding to return Native cultural items and human remains to affiliated tribes
- UNESCO conventions on safeguarding intangible cultural heritage provide an international framework, though enforcement is limited
- Tribal sovereignty gives tribes the legal right to control cultural resources on their lands
- Many museums and research institutions have developed ethical guidelines and cultural protocols for working with Native communities
Contemporary debates
Cultural exchange vs. appropriation
One of the most common questions in this area: where's the line between respectful exchange and appropriation? Context matters enormously. A few factors that distinguish the two:
- Who benefits? In genuine exchange, both cultures benefit. In appropriation, the dominant culture profits while the source culture gets nothing or is harmed.
- Is there permission and collaboration? Respectful exchange involves the source community as partners, not just as inspiration.
- Is historical context acknowledged? Borrowing from a culture your society actively oppressed carries different weight than mutual sharing between equals.
Globalization complicates these questions further, as cultures increasingly interact and blend. But the power dynamics and historical context can't be ignored.
Freedom of expression arguments
Debates about appropriation sometimes collide with First Amendment protections. Critics of appropriation restrictions argue they amount to censorship or excessive political correctness. Defenders argue that calling out appropriation is itself an exercise of free speech, not a legal restriction. No one is typically proposing laws against wearing a headdress to a festival; the conversation is about ethical responsibility, not criminal liability.
The tension is real, though, and finding ethical frameworks for cultural representation in art and media remains an ongoing challenge.
Resistance and reclamation efforts
Native American activism
Native communities have actively fought back against appropriation through multiple channels:
- The National Congress of American Indians (founded in 1944) has long advocated against harmful stereotypes
- The Change the Mascot campaign specifically targeted the Washington NFL team's name and built broader public pressure against Native mascots
- Legal challenges have been filed to protect sacred sites and cultural practices
- Social media has become a powerful tool for Native voices to call out appropriation in real time and reach wide audiences
- Native-led businesses that produce and sell authentic cultural products help reclaim economic control
Education and awareness campaigns
- Development of educational resources explaining the difference between appreciation and appropriation
- Collaborations with schools to improve how Native American history is taught, moving beyond the Thanksgiving narrative
- Cultural sensitivity training offered to businesses and organizations
- Public speaking and workshops led by Native educators
- Social media platforms like Instagram and TikTok amplifying authentic Native voices and perspectives
Media representation
Film and television portrayals
Native American representation in Hollywood has a troubled history, from early Westerns that cast white actors in redface to Disney's Pocahontas (1995), which romanticized a real historical figure. More recently, Native filmmakers and storytellers have gained visibility. Directors like Sterlin Harjo (co-creator of Reservation Dogs, 2021) and Taika Waititi have brought authentic Native and indigenous perspectives to mainstream audiences. Streaming platforms have created new opportunities for diverse Native storytelling that doesn't rely on old stereotypes.
Increasing Native American representation behind the camera, in writers' rooms and production roles, is just as important as on-screen representation.
Literature and publishing
Controversies have arisen over non-Native authors writing about Native experiences, raising questions about who gets to tell these stories. At the same time, Native American literature has grown as a distinct and celebrated genre, with authors like Tommy Orange (There There), Louise Erdrich (The Night Watchman), and Joy Harjo gaining wide readership. Efforts to support Native publishers and amplify Native literary voices continue, with social media playing a significant role in connecting Native authors with broader audiences.
Corporate responsibility
Marketing and advertising practices
Corporate appropriation has drawn increasing public scrutiny. Urban Outfitters faced a lawsuit from the Navajo Nation in 2012 for selling a "Navajo" product line (including a "Navajo Hipster Panty") without authorization, violating the Indian Arts and Crafts Act. Cases like this have pushed companies to develop cultural sensitivity guidelines and, in some instances, to partner directly with Native artists and tribes. Consumer activism, including boycotts and social media pressure, has proven effective at changing corporate behavior.
Product design and branding
Companies have begun reevaluating product names and logos that use Native American themes. The shift involves:
- Removing or redesigning stereotypical imagery
- Developing ethical sourcing practices for designs inspired by Native art
- Creating genuine collaborations where Native designers maintain creative control and receive fair compensation
- Balancing market demand with cultural respect
Successful examples tend to involve tribes or Native artists as true partners from the beginning, not as an afterthought.
Academic discourse
Anthropological perspectives
Anthropology itself has had to reckon with its colonial past. Early anthropologists often studied Native cultures as objects of curiosity, sometimes removing sacred items and human remains for research. The field has shifted toward collaborative and indigenous methodologies, where Native communities participate as partners in research rather than subjects of it. Concepts like cultural property and intangible heritage have become central to how anthropologists think about appropriation, and many anthropologists now play active roles in repatriation efforts.
Critical race theory approaches
Critical race theory (CRT) provides a framework for analyzing how power structures and systemic racism shape cultural borrowing. Through this lens, appropriation isn't just about individual acts of insensitivity; it reflects broader systems of racial inequality. Intersectionality, a concept developed by legal scholar Kimberlé Crenshaw, helps explain how appropriation affects different marginalized groups in overlapping ways. CRT scholars also critique colorblind ideologies that treat all cultural exchange as equal, arguing that ignoring race and power dynamics obscures the real harm appropriation causes.
Global context
International examples
Cultural appropriation isn't unique to the United States. Indigenous communities worldwide face similar challenges:
- Australian Aboriginal art and designs are frequently copied without permission
- Māori cultural symbols from New Zealand appear in commercial products globally
- Indigenous textiles from Guatemala and Mexico are mass-produced by fast-fashion brands
Globalization has accelerated these patterns, making it easier for cultural elements to be extracted and commodified across borders. Different countries take different approaches to cultural property rights, with some offering stronger legal protections than others.
UNESCO cultural heritage policies
UNESCO's Intangible Cultural Heritage program, established by the 2003 Convention, aims to safeguard traditions, oral expressions, performing arts, and rituals worldwide. While the program raises global awareness, it faces real limitations: enforcement is weak, and balancing preservation with the natural evolution of living cultures is inherently difficult. Critics also note that UNESCO's framework sometimes struggles to account for the specific needs and sovereignty of indigenous communities, as opposed to nation-states.