A thoughtful exploration of the difference between cultural appreciation and appropriation, with guidelines for respectful engagement.

Introduction: Beyond “Inspiration”

In a world of fast fashion and endless digital feeds, it’s easy to encounter a “Native-inspired” design on a handbag, a “tribal print” on a yoga mat, or a “ceremonial” headdress at a music festival. For many, these are moments of aesthetic appreciation. But for Indigenous peoples, they are often painful reminders of a long and ongoing history of extraction.

This is not a debate about “political correctness”. It is a critical conversation about respect, power, economic justice, and the fundamental right of Indigenous peoples to self-determination—the right to control how their cultures are represented and shared. This guide will move beyond simple definitions to explore the tangible harm of cultural appropriation and, more importantly, provide a clear framework for a more ethical path forward: one of genuine appreciation, reciprocal relationships, and conscious support.

The Anatomy of Harm: What is Cultural Appropriation?

At its core, cultural appropriation is the act of taking or using elements from a culture that is not one’s own without permission, credit, or understanding. Crucially, it is not a neutral exchange; it is a manifestation of a power imbalance that occurs when a dominant culture borrows from a minority culture it has historically oppressed. This is not cultural exchange; it is cultural extraction.

This harm is twofold:

• Economic Harm: The market for authentic Indigenous art in the U.S. is valued at approximately $1 billion, yet a staggering portion of that is captured by inauthentic goods. Counterfeit “Native-style” jewelry and souvenirs, often mass-produced overseas, can undersell genuine, handmade work by as much as 50 percent. A 2022 report in Australia found that two-thirds of the Indigenous-style souvenir market—up to $54 million—was “fake,” with no benefit flowing back to Indigenous people. This directly displaces income from artists and communities who depend on it for their livelihood.
• Cultural & Spiritual Harm: When sacred items like headdresses are worn as costumes, or when cosmological symbols are printed on liquor flasks, their meaning is trivialized and erased. This act of decontextualization is deeply offensive, reducing profound spiritual and historical significance to a mere fashion statement. As Kanien’kehá:ka (Mohawk) journalist Jessica Deer asks, “How many times have Indigenous people expressed that headdresses are sacred items that need to be earned, rather than acceptable attire for Coachella?”.

This dynamic creates a painful asymmetry: the dominant culture gets the “cool” aesthetic, while the source community is left to fight for the survival of the culture that aesthetic was taken from.

The Law’s Limited Reach: The Indian Arts and Crafts Act (IACA)

To combat the most overt forms of fraud, the U.S. government enacted the Indian Arts and Crafts Act (IACA) of 1990. This “truth-in-advertising” law makes it a federal crime to falsely market and sell an art or craft product as “Indian produced” when it is not.

However, the IACA has profound limitations:

• A Controversial Definition: The Act legally defines an “Indian” as someone who is an enrolled member of a federally or state-recognized tribe, or an artist certified by such a tribe. This political definition excludes thousands of artists with undisputed Indigenous heritage who are not enrolled for complex historical reasons, often stemming from the very colonial policies that disrupted their communities in the first place.
• Lack of Enforcement: The law has been chronically underfunded and underenforced. Between 1996 and 2018, only 22 federal prosecutions resulted from over 1,700 complaints.
• The “Inspired By” Loophole: The IACA is designed to prevent consumer fraud, not cultural harm. A brand can often evade the law by carefully labeling a product as “Native-inspired” instead of “Native-made,” even if it directly lifts a specific design.

While the law is an important tool, it is not enough. The responsibility for ethical engagement ultimately rests with creators, brands, and consumers.

The Path of Appreciation: A Framework for Ethical Action

The opposite of appropriation is not avoiding other cultures. It is genuine appreciation, an active process rooted in respect, learning, and reciprocity. To move from a consumer to an ally requires shifting from passive taking to active, ethical participation. Here’s how:

1. Seek Understanding, Not Just Aesthetics: Before engaging with a cultural design, take the time to learn its story. What does this pattern mean? Who does it belong to? Is it sacred or meant to be shared? A core tenet of appreciation is understanding the cultural context of what you are engaging with.
2. Center Permission and Credit: The most fundamental question is: “Whose story is this to tell?”. If a design comes from a specific artist or community, have they given their permission for it to be used in this way? Is the artist or community clearly and respectfully credited?
3. Ensure Fair Compensation: A core principle of appreciation is reciprocity. This means ensuring that the source community receives tangible benefits from the exchange. When you purchase an item, can you be sure the artist was compensated fairly for their time, skill, and irreplaceable cultural knowledge?
4. Buy Authentic, Support Sovereignty: The most powerful way to practice appreciation is to buy directly from Indigenous artists and Indigenous-owned businesses. This ensures your money supports the artists and communities who are the rightful keepers of their traditions. Brands like Eighth Generation, founded by Louie Gong (Nooksack), are built on the principle of being “Inspired Natives®, Not Native-Inspired,” creating an ethical alternative by licensing designs and paying royalties to Indigenous artists.

A clear example of this principle in action is the contrast between the “Steak on the Stone” restaurant trend and the “Cooks with Stones” culinary program. The restaurant trend appropriates an ancient technique, stripping it of all cultural context for commercial novelty. The “Cooks with Stones” program, a collaboration with the Stoney Nakoda Nation, does the opposite: it empowers Indigenous youth, revitalizes traditional foodways, and centers the cultural knowledge of Elders, turning a cooking method into a vehicle for community resilience. One is an empty transaction; the other is a rich relationship.

Conclusion: Weaving a Better Relationship

Choosing to engage with Indigenous culture ethically is an active practice. It requires moving beyond the role of a passive consumer and becoming a conscious ally. It means asking questions, valuing authenticity over convenience, and using your purchasing power as a tool for economic justice.

By supporting Indigenous creators directly, you are doing more than buying a beautiful object. You are honoring a lineage of knowledge, supporting a family’s livelihood, and investing in the ongoing resilience of a sovereign people. You are becoming part of a reciprocal exchange, helping to ensure that these ancient and living traditions continue to thrive for generations to come.

Please, see a more-in depth educational analysis at:
> Honoring the Source <