Chanel Pre-Fall 2014 Dallas

[kokobombon]

^I think that people have trouble with white people creating anything based on native american and/or black culture because they have been subjugated by white people.

 

[Deleted member 7575]

I don't see what this fuss is about.

First of all, Warbonnets, as they are specifically called, were worn only by a dozen or so Native American tribes who resided in the plains so they are not synonymous with all Native Americans (which is already a blanket term for a vast array of different cultures and traditions and languages that none of you have bothered to separate out). They are also some of the most elaborate and decorative pieces to be found among the North American tribes. That they would be referenced by Chanel for their Metiers D'Art collection, in a collection inspired by North Texas, to me, makes perfect sense.

 

[CATO]

Chanel meets Ralph Lauren only hella few single pieces who are adorable.
Much
bullsh*t sadly

OMG - pls when will you stop this boring "chanel costume theme parties area"

 

[Littleathquakes]

I find this collection quite impressive considering it's only a pre-fall collection, it's very full scale for what it is. There are some hideous pieces (namely the fringed ones), but there are a handful of individual pieces that are spectacular on their own right.

 

[Urban Stylin]

When was the last time people who hold crosses so sacred were the victims of genocide? When the last time they were made to live on some of the worst pieces of land in a huge nation? When is the last time the government actively refused to provide any type of social and financial aid to said group? Hmmm?

Religious war happens everyday

 

[LolaSvelt]

^I think that people have trouble with white people creating anything based on native american and/or black culture because they have been subjugated by white people.

Yes, that's pretty much it. Quite similar to blackface, actually. But that's a different story.

 

[mackos]

Chanel in Dallas is something I need to erase from my memory as quickly as possible.

There are literally two looks I like, and by that I mean actually separating the pieces from the revolting styling. Sadly, any appreciation for the details is lost when I'm looking at this.

 

[LUXXX]

The accompanying film is probably his least shallow and best yet -- story-wise. He's definitely grown as a filmmaker.

As for the fashion, as a Native American, I'm not offended pesonally -- but I can see why people are. Just as they were when he did his collection of models wearing rice paddy hats.

 

[VersaceVixen009]

I love the sweaters and ponchos. Stylish and comfy.

 

[masquerade]

I'm sorry, but I keep seeing the word "homage" used to justify this. How in the world is this an homage? How is taking a sacred item from people who were stripped of their land, traditions, self sufficiency, identity, and heritage, then stripping that item of its sacred meaning, throwing it on a female model (these are meant for males) and putting it in a fashion show as a novel reference to the american southwest an "homage"? How is it an homage when first nations people have spoken out about how harmful this is to them?

How are they being honored when their wishes are being ignored and disrespected? Thats really the point of it. This is a group that has historically been disrespected, demeaned, abused, etc. This is just a continuation of the lack respect for these people. Its not an homage, its an insult. It's telling them that their opinions and feelings and culture don't matter as long as white people can use it to make money.

TBH, if he stuck with the jewelry and omitted the warbonnets and warpaint, it would have been a nice reference without using sacred material.

 

[YoninahAliza]

You know perhaps if Karl had actively sought to get artists and designers from within the Native American communities to help work on this collection, then as a whole I don't think it would be so awful. At least then he would have looked to see how people from within the culture see themselves. But that's not what he did. Instead he took a cheap, appropriative way out and just used the same stereotypes about native people that have been around for centuries. The native identity has been boiled down to basically one trope, which is that basically everyone dresses/acts/etc like those from the southwest. And this isn't true at all. I'm from an area of the country which has several tribes in the area, from Mohawk to Onedia and beyond, and I have never once seen a designer take inspiration from these groups. It is collections that include warbonnets and outfits like these that only continue to perpetuate particular ideas. And it's sad really, because perhaps if designers like Karl actually took time to learn a little bit they would see just how beautiful and interesting the different native groups are. Plus, it speaks volumes about his design work too, that he has to resort to tired old stereotypes to create a "nice" collection, where is the invention and ingenuity??? I'd also like to point out, that I do believe there is a way to honor a culture or particular group in a right way and this pre-fall collection really wouldn't have been as terrible as it is if the warbonnets and whatnot had not been included.

 

[before]

I'm sorry, but I keep seeing the word "homage" used to justify this. How in the world is this an homage? How is taking a sacred item from people who were stripped of their land, traditions, self sufficiency, identity, and heritage, then stripping that item of its sacred meaning, throwing it on a female model (these are meant for males) and putting it in a fashion show as a novel reference to the american southwest an "homage"? How is it an homage when first nations people have spoken out about how harmful this is to them?

How are they being honored when their wishes are being ignored and disrespected? Thats really the point of it. This is a group that has historically been disrespected, demeaned, abused, etc. This is just a continuation of the lack respect for these people. Its not an homage, its an insult. It's telling them that their opinions and feelings and culture don't matter as long as white people can use it to make money.

TBH, if he stuck with the jewelry and omitted the warbonnets and warpaint, it would have been a nice reference without using sacred material.

What else can you expect, this is the same industry in which wearing black face to parties is fine. Feathers tacked together, there possibly couldn't be any deeper meaning than ornamentation.

 

[before]

And why is paying an homage to a culture a bad thing? When did it become a bad thing? Are people in Europe as trigger-happy to start complaining about it, or is this just an American thing?

Karl did a Russian collection a few years back. Russian/Slavic people have suffered all kinds of tragedies too, did anyone complain about that? And as a Slavic person myself, I personally wasn't offended by it either. Why is it usually the people who aren't even in the given group that seem to be the most 'offended' by the whatever currently hip insensitivity taking place?

There's nothing "hip" about finding this insensitive. For numerous years many Native American tribes, diverse as they are, have asked bonnets and stereotypical imagery to be taken down in various entertainment industries, from American sports to, yes, even fashion.
What part of the Russian Chanel show belittled past eastern European hardships? Was there an outfit, an accessory? I see plenty in this collection that does so for Native Americans.
Does one have to be part of said group to know a sacred item shouldn't be a bauble in someone's unremarkable fantasy?
This shows the difference between American and European expectations. It might surprise some, but most Americans do have a self-awareness of their own history, which to you may seem like being "trigger happy". The presence of such an item conveys a lack of thought and unwillingness to recognize someone's identity and history, which is disappointing if not disgusting. This applies to all other misuses of other cultures, particularly when their communities wish it to be not so, as the majority of Native Americans have.

 

[Excentrique]

I like the collection, not all of it but some of it, but ummm, don´t get why so sensitive about the headress?? I don´t see anything disrespectful here

 

[CrisGalaxy]

I read somewhere that headdresses are earned and not just given away. I'm not very familiar with Native-American culture but some things should remain untouched especially if they have a strong meaning behind them and are not just worn cus they look pretty and fashionable.

This sums it up pretty well:

someliberalopinions.tumblr.com

 

[Idyll]

I don't want to repeat what others have already said, but I am truly shocked by this collection, as well as the reaction to it. If you do not find this shameful, I suggest you do some research and educate yourself about the colonial genocide and cultural appropriation regarding the indigenous peoples of North America.

Some people think this is all in the "past," but I can assure you that Native Americans (itself a problematic term) are still facing subjugation in a land that was theirs thousands of years before Europeans showed up.

Likewise, the flattening of the THOUSANDS of indigenous cultures that existed in North America into one stereotypical "Indian" is all too obvious here. The warbonnet, which someone noted, is only worn by a few select Plains tribes. The turquoise jewelery is only a part of a few Southwest tribes cultures. The warpaint, the patterns, the list goes on of the use of religious and sacred symbols being appropriated and flattened in this collection.

And in regards to the whole "cross" analogy, crosses are not meant to be spiritually private. The goal of Christianity has long been to convert people, so spreading its iconography was ENCOURAGED. The difference here is that most Native Americans hold their respective religious symbols very close to their hearts. If you don't understand their cultures, there is no way you can understand the meaning of the symbols being taken from them. These symbols belong to the people who understand and respect them. They do not belong to Chanel, who clearly has no respect and no understanding of the cultures they are exploiting for profit.

 

[yesitsdagny]

While the denim pieces are quite ugly, I think the collection as a whole is rather nice. Some of the jackets are truly beautiful. And I also don't find anything offending about this collection. Some people are probably just too sensitive.

What part of the Russian Chanel show belittled past eastern European hardships? Was there an outfit, an accessory?

And for your knowledge there were plenty of Soviet symbols (the red star for example, all the pins on the bags were inspired by the Soviet pins etc) used in that particular collection. Being a citizen of a former Soviet occupied country I possibly could find it insulting or stuff. But I don't. Past is past and people shouldn't take everything so seriously.

 

[RaisinBoy]

First, I really LOVE the collection, it's one of the Karl's best Métiers d'Art défilés, probably ready-to-wear collections in my opinion.

Second, I'm really surprised by the reactions I read here or see on various servers. I think it's really funny that while Ann Demeulemeester or her kins can come up with collections inspired by the Nazis and no one really cares on either side of the Atlantic Ocean, when a part of the american history - a part you are not really proud of as I see - is revived, there's a strong reaction to it.

My advice? Get over it. I think it's only healthy to get reminders of what happened - that's why many designers come with themes like communism, fascism (Prada hello?) and others. And that the picture may be chaotic? Well, it's the post-modern era.

 

[Deleted member 116819]

People here take everything too seriously!
It's fashion, Karl isn't trying to offend anyone, he just doing what he loves, having fun with it, and doing his best to represent Coco's vision in the best and classiest way possible!
I'm baffled with the comments in this thread, don't be so upset, it's just a collection that celebrates culture & fashion together!
In my country we have a saying that is: 'you're making a storm in a glass of water', that means, don't make a big deal out of it.

Finally, I loved this collection, was so well presented, the venue splendid, and the collection is perfect, the clothes are so beautiful! I really love it!

 

[kokobombon]

I personally don´t find the cultural appropriation offending when done with taste but I think that most of you who say don´t make a big deal out of it and citing certain examples are missing the point of why some people are offended, put bluntly: it´s about the white oppressor taking symbols of the subjugated minority and making them their own, in some cases as mockery. I´m sure that wasn´t Lagerfeld´s goal but imo this time it comes across that way.
I think it´s great to not be politically correct and another to be insensitive towards other people´s feelings by arguing that it´s the past, get over it and so on...