Lacroix, Detroit, axolotl, karaoke: All of these are pronounced differently in English than in the languages of their origin.
I used to get quite pedantic about “karaoke”. Our pronunciation originates from a place of linguistic indifference (at best) or racism (at worst): We had a tendency to take Japanese words and give them a childish, sing-song feel. But… it was our forebears that did that to “karaoke” (and “hara-kiri” and others). I don’t think it’s indifferent or racist for a modern English speaker to pronounce a word in the way that it’s been pronounced in English for decades.
I spent a very brief window getting defensive about “axolotl”, then realized it was a different windmill, but it was still a windmill I was tilting at. The English pronunciation of “axolotl” is indeed significantly different than the Nahuatl pronunciation of “axolotl”, and the pronunciation shift comes from linguistic indifference (at best) or racism (at worst). But I think it would lead to communicative chaos if we reinstated every “native” pronunciation to every borrowed word (at least to the extent of English phonotactics: “karaoke” and “axolotl” both contain sounds in their native pronunciations that don’t appear in English).
And then there are words like “Lacroix”, a brand name that inherited its pronunciation from Wisconsin English. Do they retain that pronunciation, or do we “give back” a French pronunciation the brand name itself never had? I’m from Detroit, but we only say “day-twa” around here if we’re (mockingly or seriously) pretentious.
I’m certainly sympathetic to the colonialist mindset. English as a language has matched the behavior of its speakers: We have wandered globally and ransacked each culture as we please. Olive Garden and Benihana are as inauthentic as we could make them. I just don’t personally see the practicality of returning to all the original pronunciations.