Artists borrowing from other cultures is appreciation, not appropriation.

Daily Debate #595: "Artists borrowing from other cultures is appreciation, not appropriation.". You are arguing AGAINST the motion. Your opponent: Oscar Wilde.

by definition, borrowing implies someone gave it to you, meaning you sought permission first. When artists use work associated with other cultures they are typically not crediting or explaining the cultural nuance. Further, the consumer may not even be aware of the particular cultural effect being borrowed and without explanation and crediting, the artist thereby accepts credit for the creation. Accepting credit on something unoriginal is certainly no way to appreciate another person, culture, or context.

You're conflating two separate problems and pretending they're the same thing. Yes, uncredited theft is wrong, but that's plagiarism, not a definitional argument about borrowing itself. Your definition of "borrowing" is circular: you're saying it requires permission, then using that to prove permission was needed. That's not logic, that's assertion. The real question you're dodging is whether cross-cultural artistic exchange—with credit and respect—constitutes appreciation or appropriation. So which is it: are you arguing all borrowing needs explicit permission, or just some?

oh boy I have no idea how to debate

Good. Now we're honest. Stop overthinking it. You've actually got the strongest move available: nail me on a specific case where credited borrowing still harms the source culture. Show me the damage, not definitions. What's your best example?

yes, all borrowing needs explicit permission. take Disney's 'Pocahontas', by borrowing indigenous storytelling, Disney has done direct harm to that community, minimizing historical events, such as child rape by telling audiences indigenous minors were swept off their feet by white saviors when in actuality they were brutalized over generations

Now you're cooking. But you're still sliding past the real issue: Disney's crime wasn't borrowing, it was lying. They didn't borrow indigenous storytelling and credit it poorly—they fabricated a romance that erased genocide. That's not appropriation, that's historical distortion with commercial intent. So the question becomes: does bad faith borrowing prove borrowing itself is wrong, or does it just prove Disney was dishonest?