Is cultural appropriation harmful or appreciation?

Welcome to the debate arena! Today's topic: "Is cultural appropriation harmful or appreciation?". Your opponent's style: Devil's advocate

Cultural appropriation is appreciation. Whilst some people may go too far, or paint other cultures in distinctly racist and incorrect lights, that does not diminish the fact that the majority of people in these situations have the goal of celebrating and spreading different cultures foods, and dances, and traditions. Cultural appropriation is simply making money by selling items or services that are rooted in another groups culture. In many countries, specifically the poorer ones with minimal immigration, experiencing foreign cultures is dependent on these cases of cultural appropriation.

You're conflating two completely different things. Yes, genuine exchange happens, but "appreciation" requires understanding and credit—cultural appropriation strips both. A white chef profiting off "elevated" ramen while the Japanese technique gets zero attribution isn't appreciation, it's theft dressed up as flattery. And your argument about poor countries? That works both ways. Why should a Kenyan artisan watch American fast fashion rake in billions copying their patterns while they stay broke? Appreciation pays the source. Without that, it's just extraction. What happens when the original creators can't afford to participate in their own culture's market?

Your arguments are set into any fixed definition. As you have not provided your own definition, I assume we can stick with mine. Which I shall reiterate, "Making money by selling items and services rooted in another groups culture." You are cherry picking. Where in the definition of Cultural appropriation does it include white people selling "Elevated" versions of things. It doesn't. Yes, it certainly can happen. And it does, but that does not define everything. There are feminists that say that feminism is all about hating men and making society a Matriarchy, does that magically stop feminism being about gender equality? No. And it is the same principle with this. You picked two examples of the worst of the worst, white chefs selling "elevated" ramen and American corporations stealing from Kenyan designs. They do not define the whole collection of businesses. Also your final example does not even work. The Kenyan artisan would be making clothing at a slow rate and it would be expensive. All the customers that buy from the American Corporation would not be able to buy from the Kenyan artisan.

Fine, your definition stands. But it proves my point harder. "Making money by selling items rooted in another culture" without crediting or compensating the source—that's literally the problem. Your Kenyan example backfires: those customers *could* know the artisan exists if corporations credited them. Instead, the corporation erases the origin, pockets the profit, and the artisan stays invisible and broke. You're arguing the poor benefit from being undercut and forgotten. They don't. Where's the appreciation if nobody knows who created it?

That is simply incorrect. You are claiming that businesses do not give credit. Where can you give credit? There was a massive news scandal that there was a group of people selling Tacos outside of a University. Can you give me the exact person to credit for the invention of the taco? Who were they meant to credit? There have also been calls that white people having dreadlocks is problematic. If they do have them, are they meant to shave the name of the Black person who invented dreadlocks into their head? I understand if there is a specific pattern that someone made that gets stolen and used, however, using an individual and specific style isn't to do with a culture. Just because someone of a foreign culture has a patterns stolen does not make it a cultural pattern, and even then, because it is so unique that there is one individual creator, there are laws in place all around the globe which helps you copyright and prevent the stealing of imagery. Your argument is based on one specific type of business plan of stealing something. If we assume you are entirely right, then you have proven that cultural appreciation in a specific form about a specific thing could be harmful. You are not proving that across the whole of cultural appreciation is harmful.

You're moving the goalposts. Nobody credits "the first taco maker" because tacos are collective culture, not individual IP—that's exactly when appropriation works fine. But when a specific pattern, technique, or name gets stolen and profited from without acknowledgment, that's different. Your dreadlock example proves it: if credit mattered, people would know the Black origins instead of treating them like a trendy white hairstyle. You've actually admitted the harm exists in specific cases. So we agree harm happens. The real question is whether appreciation requires preventing that harm or just hoping it doesn't occur.

I haven't moved the goalposts at all. You are simply misunderstanding the question entirely. Cultural appropriation is about making money of another's culture. Individual IP is not part of a culture unless it reaches a certain status. Take American culture, Mickey Mouse is part of American culture due to the success, and widespread facets that Mickey Mouse has infected. It is in games, books, shows, movies, attractions, toys etc. A single American artist getting their design stolen and sold on by a foreign entity is not cultural appropriation. That is the issue with giving credit. Majority of new entries into the wider cultural zeitgeist are protected by numerous laws. Even now, you can only freely sell Steamboat Willy, it is still illegal to touch Mickey Mouse without Disney Corporation's say so. The majority of culture that can be stolen and used has no longer got a person to credit since they were lost to history. You also misunderstand the point you have made. Yes harm can happen. I admitted that in my first message. But as I pointed out, just because some cases cause harm it does not mean the entirety of Cultural appropriation is harmful. You still have to make a case for that.

You're right—I haven't proven the whole thing is harmful. But you haven't proven it's appreciation either. Your definition is just "making money from another culture." That's neutral at best, extractive at worst. Appreciation requires something extra: respect, credit where possible, benefit flowing back. A taco stand thriving? Good. A corporation erasing origins and undercutting the source community? Bad. You've defined appropriation so broadly it includes both. So which is it—is appropriation inherently appreciation, or does it depend entirely on execution?

Well, the first point I would like to make, is that you did not respond to a thing I said. You did not respond to a point, or my question. Am I then to assume that you have no counter-argument to my point? But since I do have counter arguments, I will happily respond. The question that was asked is "Is cultural appropriation harmful or appreciation?" It is presented as one or the other. And you want to know why it is appreciation, because you have to look at it as a whole. Many cases of appropriation is in food. You admit there is no way of paying credit, but what about your other metrics. The next metric you said was respect. I do not see what is inherently disrespectful in someone simply selling food. The majority of places that are run selling another cultures food, are normal everyday restaurants. Another metric you offered is undercutting the source community. Simply opening a taco stand does not stop Mexican people from achieving things, nor does it make it harder for Mexicans to live especially in Mexico. Look at hairstyles as well, you cannot give credit, you cannot let benefit flow back to the community. There is nothing disrespectful about it, and it does not undercut a community. Therefore, all but specific cases of appropriation to do with hairstyles and restaurants are appreciation. If majority are appreciation with only specific cases of disrespect and harmfullness. And you have to answer that Cultural appropriation is either harmful or appreciation. The only answer is appreciation. Now would you like to respond to any point I just made, answer any question I asked? Or would you like to dodge it all again and just ask me a question since you have no ground to stand on

You're right—I dodged. Here's the direct hit: respect *does* mean acknowledgment, not just permission. A restaurant serving tacos without mentioning Mexican origins erases the culture while profiting from it. That's disrespect. And undercutting works subtly—when a corporation's "elevated ramen" becomes what people think ramen is, the actual Japanese restaurants lose customers to the knockoff. Your metric of "appreciation" is just "doesn't actively ban the culture from existing." That's a floor, not appreciation. Appreciation requires centering the source, not erasing it.

I struggle to understand your point. You say that you have to acknowledge origins of a product. But to what extent. You have not illustrated that. There are certainly multiple eateries that have some food named after certain themes. A popular name for drinks and food is Baja. Which is the name of a state in Mexico. Is that enough? What is some eateries decided to decorate their restaurant in Aztec designs? Although some may argue that that would be harmful since it would be classed as stereotypical imagery. So what needs to happen? As I say, most places have themed names for food and drink. Do all of those class as not erasing the origins and are therefore safe? Or do they need more?

You're asking the right question and proving my point. "Baja" on a menu doesn't acknowledge—it just borrows the aesthetics. Real acknowledgment means telling customers *why* the dish matters, *who* created it, *where it comes from*. Most restaurants don't do that. They use the cultural brand without the cultural context. That's erasure wrapped in theming. A restaurant that says "authentic Oaxacan mole, recipe from [actual family/region]" is different from one that just slaps "Mexican" on the wall. The difference is visibility of the source, not decoration.

That is simply being disingenuous. You claim to have a problem with taco trucks but then say there isn't a problem at all if they give you the world. At the end of the day, these are businesses. How can a business profit if you go through all those hoops. If I turn up to a taco truck and order a chilli and a drink, and I get a ten minute lecture on the history of the dish, I am not coming back. You cannot say that what you care about is respect, but restaurants are not showing respect unless they do something that drives all their customers away. And also, you are going round in circles. You admitted that origins for many things are not known. Can you tell me where the taco comes from? Who made it? No, of course you cannot. You are making the standards simply far too high. How can naming meals and drinks after the origins erasure? You are directly referencing where they come from. Also your claim that slapping "Mexican" on the wall is not acknowledgment is correct. But I did not say that was what needed to happen nor did I say it was acknowledgment.

You're right—I'm demanding the impossible. But here's what you're actually saying: appreciation requires nothing. A taco truck can profit endlessly from Mexican culture with zero obligation to the source. That's not appreciation, it's permission to extract. If respect costs customers, then respect doesn't matter to you. And "Baja" *is* erasure—it references a place, not the culture that built the food. You want appropriation defined so loosely that anything counts as appreciation. That's not a standard, that's a blank check.