The Issue with the Concept of Cultural Appropriation and Appreciation
Beyond Appreciation: Reframing Cultural Exchange Through the Lens of Assimilation
In this article, I want to shift the focus from my artistry to something equally important to me: academia. More specifically, I have spent nearly a decade in higher education studying the complexities of culture, cross-cultural influences, and transnationalism. My journey did not begin with textbooks or classrooms; it began with my lived experiences engaging with various popular culture phenomena such as K-pop, anime, Japanese game shows and broadcasts, Japanese metal music, K-hip hop, and much more.
For me, engaging with so many culturally significant elements from other communities did not feel like mere appreciation. It felt as though I was part of those cultures—that the only difference between myself and Korean or Japanese individuals was that I was a Black child living in America. I was neither simply appreciating nor appropriating; I was culturally assimilating.
During my time at Kean University, I wrote numerous midterm and final papers exploring the complexities of this duality. My academic interests and written work ultimately led me to pursue a master’s degree at Rutgers University. I find discussions of transnationalism, cultural assimilation, and cross-cultural influence to be essential in understanding our global society.
Whenever I consume entertainment—especially genres like K-pop, K-hip hop, or K-R&B—I encounter frequent accusations of cultural appropriation from individuals both within and outside my community. K-pop, in particular, is often criticized for placing idols in clothing, hairstyles, or music video aesthetics that reflect elements of Black/African American culture in the United States. The tone-deaf decisions made by some K-pop companies and creative teams—behind artists such as All Day Project, (G)I-DLE (formerly (G)-Idle), G-Dragon, Jessi, Jay Park, Kiss of Life, Nature, and many others—contribute to a misguided and oversimplified conversation around cultural appropriation versus appreciation.
I use the term “tone-deaf” intentionally, as these creative choices are often conceptualized and consumed within a national and global context that does not reflect the racial and cultural inclusivity embedded in the very elements being adopted—such as dance, music styles, hairstyles, fashion, and language.
Countries like Korea and Japan are largely culturally homogeneous, which provides context for their perspectives on race, inclusivity, interracial relationships, and cultural exchange. Even in a culturally diverse country like the United States, debates about what constitutes appreciation versus appropriation vary significantly depending on region, city, and community.
Based on both research and personal experience, I argue that the terms “cultural appropriation” and “cultural appreciation” are insufficient for describing how culture is adapted and lived. Instead, I propose “cultural assimilation” as a more comprehensive framework—one that allows for nuance, interpretation, and lived context, rather than a rigid, binary perspective.
For example, when survivors of the Khmer Rouge emigrated from Cambodia to the United States in the 1970s, their children experienced multiple layers of cultural assimilation. Many families settled in Long Beach, California, where poverty and gang violence were prevalent. These children were often required to learn English quickly, serving as translators for their families while navigating complex social environments. This exposure contributed to the formation of groups such as the Asian Boyz and the Tiny Rascal Gang—two of the most prominent Asian gangs in Long Beach and beyond, known for their intense rivalry.
Cambodian American rapper Stupid Young provides a compelling example. His use of language, including the n-word (ending in “-a”), his mannerisms, and his navigation of diverse communities—including the Black community—reflect a lived experience shaped by his environment. His cultural expression is not adequately explained by appropriation or appreciation; rather, it is rooted in cultural assimilation.
Our environments—both within and beyond the home—profoundly shape how we engage with culture and politics. Cultural assimilation allows individuals the autonomy to define their identities, regardless of racial, national, or cultural origins. It does not erase the realities of racial stereotyping or marginalization but instead offers a framework for understanding how people are shaped by prolonged exposure, lived experience, and social context.
In contrast, cultural appropriation and appreciation often function as surface-level, temporary judgments of an individual’s presentation, history, and identity. Cultural assimilation, however, considers the full spectrum: time, environment, exposure, and lived experience.
Even when individuals adopt stereotyped aesthetics as trends, this exists on a spectrum within cultural assimilation. While assimilation can be a conscious choice, it is often involuntary. For instance, a White American woman raised in South Philadelphia may naturally adopt speech patterns, behaviors, and cultural norms reflective of the Black/African American community around her. This is not appropriation or appreciation—it is the result of immersion and environment.
Similarly, a Black/African American woman raised in a predominantly White suburban neighborhood may reflect the norms of that environment. In both cases, identity is shaped through involuntary cultural assimilation.
This phenomenon extends globally. Individuals who move to countries such as Korea, Japan, the United Kingdom, France, Brazil, or Peru inevitably assimilate into aspects of those cultures over time. Cultural assimilation is fundamental to human adaptation and survival. Importantly, one does not need to physically reside in a place to experience cultural assimilation; through media, globalization, and transnational exchange, assimilation itself becomes a transnational phenomenon.
