John Galliano Is Stripped Of Legion Of Honour

[Bernice]

Oh my god everyone just needs to get over this.

 

[fashionista-ta]

i was kind of amazed by the hasidic outfit and curls ... i'm at a bit of a loss to interpret it, but one possible interpretation is that something is still off about john. i don't think he's from mars or venus ...

 

[YoninahAliza]

^I was quite shocked when I saw that outfit as well, I'm still trying to mull over what it all means though. That said, I think you are right though that something is still a bit off with Galliano. I mean, people aren't stupid, there are certain looks that are just part of a religious or cultural identity, and the look which Galliano wore does indeed look a bit Hasidic like. The big indicator with that outfit was the peyos-like hairstyle (ringlets in the front of his hair), which Hasidic men typically sport.

 

[Littleathquakes]

I think, as pointed out by the ADL, the Post wants to sell newspapers, and JG is as good a scapegoat as any.

The cover of today’s New York Post takes designer John Galliano, fresh from his “apology for anti-Semitic remarks” tour, to task for his outfit, which the Post deems a mockery of the garb worn by the Hasidic faithful. As befitting a tabloid not known for its subtlety, the headline reads “Schmuck!” But not so fast, says the Anti-Defamation League, which issued a statement defending the designer and bashing the Post story.



“The New York Post story is a ridiculous, absurd distortion. There is no truth to their accusation that John Galliano was dressed in Hasidic garb, and anyone familiar with the dress of traditional Orthodox Jews should not mistake what Galliano is wearing in the photograph as ‘Hasidic garb,’” wrote the ADL’s Abraham Foxman in a press release. “Hasidim do not wear fedora hats, pinstripe pants, blue jackets or an ascot tie.”


Come to think of it, we guess we have never seen any Hasid wearing an ascot. But we also can never remember what exactly an ascot is. In this, we defer to Mr. Foxman’s knowledge of haberdashery. And if the ignorant Post reporters don’t know their ascots from their elbows, well, Mr. Foxman contends, it’s either ignorance or something way worse.
“This is John Galliano being John Galliano. His dress is always eccentric and his hair is always worn long,” the press release continues. “This is, at the very least, ignorance on the part of the reporters and editors at the Post, or, at worst, a deliberate, malicious distortion in an effort to sell newspapers.”


Whoa, hold on. The Post tries to sell newspapers based on provocative covers. Let’s not make any crazy accusations. But not only is Mr. Foxman defending Mr. Galliano from the Post’s accusation that his style of dress is a deliberate dig at a segment of the chosen people, he defends Mr. Galliano and the efforts the designer has made to learn from his mistakes–including spending hours with Mr. Foxman himself.


“For the past year and a half, Mr. Galliano has been on a pilgrimage to learn from and grow from his mistakes. Now people are trying to distort and destroy him,” Mr. Foxman concludes. “He has spent hours with me and with others in the European Jewish community, including rabbis and Holocaust scholars, in an effort to better understand himself and to learn from his past mistakes. He is trying very hard to atone.”
Looks like that apology tour is working, if not with the Post, then with the ADL.

http://observer.com/2013/02/the-ant...ends-john-galliano-against-the-new-york-post/

 

[fashionista-ta]

^ and the VS model probably wasn't wearing an authentic warbonnet either, but you don't have to be Cherokee to figure out what she was dressed up as.

i don't believe for one second that he wasn't making a statement of some kind. the denials don't exactly ring true for me.

 

[Littleathquakes]

If anything, your analogy just went against your very intention. VS had no idea people would react that way - they were simply paying homage to the native Americans as it was a section of the show that celebrated the months of the year. So yes, it was deliberate - the intent to offend was not.

 

[fashionista-ta]

^ i didn't say his intent was to offend--i don't know that. what i do know is it wasn't just another day in high fashion.

 

[YoninahAliza]

Part of the issue with VS's warbonnet and with Galliano too, is that they felt a sense of entitlement, that they can do whatever they want with whatever type of garment they want. They disregard certain symbolism/meaning which the clothes hold for others and use it for their own means. So while maybe Galliano didn't intend to offend people (I don't know that), he still did.

 

[Littleathquakes]

Who is he offending? Those who continually crucify him?

VS's problem wasn't the warbonnet. They had to celebrate the month of November given the premise of the segment they were doing. Obviously, Thanksgiving is the biggest thing that comes to mind when thinking of November. Had they done a Quaker it would've conjured up grittier images of America's earlier history. They could've done a turkey...not sure how that would look. But the warbonnet, to me, was not as offensive as people were making it. I don't see anyone, particularly Irish people, making a big deal out of Hilary Rhoda's outfit in that very same segment (she was a leprechaun). It depends on your frame of reference, but I didn't think the warbonnet was that big of a deal, and clearly neither did VS until people made a big stink out of really what was intended as an homage to the Native Americans.

Going back to JG, as the the quoted article pointed out, he's not technically dressed as a Hasidic Jew. People are inferring that on him. And if you google images of JG, he's had long curly locks and paired them with a hat.

It's unfair for people to attribute what they consider inappropriate or offensive on someone who didn't have the intent to do so. That boils down to them and their own prejudices against him. I am certain he did not have the intent to offend because he has done everything within his power to redeem himself. And it's mind boggling to me why people would think he'd throw that all away by dressing up as a Jew when all signs clearly indicate he wants to resume his life/career. This goes back to my initial question - who is he offending? JG will never do anything right for people who want him to drop off of the face of the earth.

 

[fashionista-ta]

this is the point ... who in their right mind with galliano's history, going to new york (25% jewish population) where his fashion friends have moved heaven & earth to bring his career back from the cold ashes, would look in their closet ... what to wear, what to wear ... pirate? ringmaster? ah ... hasidic jew--perfect!!!

clearly he has a highly-paid if unconvincing publicist, but never in the 21st century has anyone been so much in need of a personal dresser.

hey john ... we have a Does this work? thread ... you might find it helpful.

 

[wild roses]

First Nations tribes have been speaking out for years, if not decades, about the co-optation by white culture of tribal fashion, so whoever at VS thought they were paying "homage" clearly hadn't done their research. I can't think of one single tribe that is actually ok with mainstream corporate culture co-opting tribal fashion.

 

[YoninahAliza]

Who is he offending? Those who continually crucify him?

VS's problem wasn't the warbonnet. They had to celebrate the month of November given the premise of the segment they were doing. Obviously, Thanksgiving is the biggest thing that comes to mind when thinking of November. Had they done a Quaker it would've conjured up grittier images of America's earlier history. They could've done a turkey...not sure how that would look. But the warbonnet, to me, was not as offensive as people were making it. I don't see anyone, particularly Irish people, making a big deal out of Hilary Rhoda's outfit in that very same segment (she was a leprechaun). It depends on your frame of reference, but I didn't think the warbonnet was that big of a deal, and clearly neither did VS until people made a big stink out of really what was intended as an homage to the Native Americans.

Going back to JG, as the the quoted article pointed out, he's not technically dressed as a Hasidic Jew. People are inferring that on him. And if you google images of JG, he's had long curly locks and paired them with a hat.

It's unfair for people to attribute what they consider inappropriate or offensive on someone who didn't have the intent to do so. That boils down to them and their own prejudices against him. I am certain he did not have the intent to offend because he has done everything within his power to redeem himself. And it's mind boggling to me why people would think he'd throw that all away by dressing up as a Jew when all signs clearly indicate he wants to resume his life/career. This goes back to my initial question - who is he offending? JG will never do anything right for people who want him to drop off of the face of the earth.

Errr... I find some of your statement about VS a bit problematic, especially the line about dressing up as a Quaker because "it would've conjured up grittier images of America's earlier history" because honestly, I think that Native American's have treated quite poorly since before America was a country and this treatment continues to today. It's a lack of awareness of such issues that make people think it's okay for companies like VS to have a model wear a war bonnet. And yeah, Quakers got dealt a bad hand as well, but I don't think they've been subjected to a continual disregard/lack of empathy for over 200 years. It's not much of a "homage" as so much an appropriation of items from indigenous cultures.

Anyways, since this is a Galliano thread, it's probably best to talk about that some more, you are right, he isn't technically dressed as a Hasidic Jew, but I think it's about context here. For a man who has deeply offended many people with his anti-semetic comments, it probably isn't a good idea to wear a look that bares some resemblance to a look that's common within the ultra-religious community of the religion which he said inappropriate things about. Like I said before, I don't think he meant to cause offense with the look, but I still think that he has offended some within the Jewish community.

 

[Fashion_Girl22]

I wholeheartedly agree with what you said in reference to the Galliano incident, Littleathquakes.

Not to be rude, but I find it quite bizarre that people are reading so far into his wardrobe as to say that he was actually trying to make some sort of a statement of any kind. You're seriously talking about a man that has a history which includes dressing up as a sailor, an astronaut, a matador and Napoléon Bonaparte (thrice). The clear actions of someone that strives for their sense of dress to be taken completely serious.

While I don't agree that the combination of the black fedora and ringlets was the smartest of ideas given the public's perception of him (as fashionista-ta pointed out); this was by far a non-event blown out of proportion to be some sort of a follow-up to what took place in 2011.

The style of hat that Galliano was wearing is not solely specific to the Jewish community and has even been in existence far before it was adopted by the Jewish community. And I don't believe that his bare head with curled hair would've caused much of a stir, as it's been in and out of curls for quit some time...and he also donned a similar get-up before (without controversy see here, here and here.

While this conversation can go on for ages, I think what Abraham H. Foxman of the ADL is something that should be remembered when it comes to moving forward, “he was punished because of what he said, and I think deservedly so, but if he’s punished for the rest of his life, he will become an anti-Semite.”

 

[Littleathquakes]

Errr... I find some of your statement about VS a bit problematic, especially the line about dressing up as a Quaker because "it would've conjured up grittier images of America's earlier history" because honestly, I think that Native American's have treated quite poorly since before America was a country and this treatment continues to today. It's a lack of awareness of such issues that make people think it's okay for companies like VS to have a model wear a war bonnet. And yeah, Quakers got dealt a bad hand as well, but I don't think they've been subjected to a continual disregard/lack of empathy for over 200 years. It's not much of a "homage" as so much an appropriation of items from indigenous cultures.

I'm not sure what you're referring to. Native American tribal warfare existed prior to the Europeans coming over. So if that's the poor treatment you're referring to, that was at the hands of native tribes on native tribes, not the Quakers and early settlers of America that I was referring to.

And it's not a lack of awareness - people just choose to pick what they find offensive and protest about it. The simple fact is, VS had a theme segment, they chose the Native American look for the November piece, it was a sincere good-hearted attempt at honoring a US holiday and its native inhabitants, and instead people whipped out their claws and would rather sh*t on VS for it.

And that's my point with JG - maybe it wasn't deliberate to offend? And like VS, he chose to wear something similar to a Hasidic outfit to honor or show reverence and atonement for his past offenses? but instead of giving him the benefit of the doubt, people would rather nail him once again.

 

[wild roses]

Native American tribal warfare existed prior to the Europeans coming over.

Wow. I'm just stunned at this statement. You truly missed the point YA was making. Yes, First Nations tribes fought each other. Yes, people died. However, population numbers didn't massively go down across the continent until after Europeans arrived, and Europeans found ways both small and big to make those numbers purposely go down (from giving blankets laced with smallpox to moving tribes onto land that was unlivable to scalping, etc, etc, etc). You really need to read up on your history. And read up on First Nations issues.

 

[YoninahAliza]

I'm not sure what you're referring to. Native American tribal warfare existed prior to the Europeans coming over. So if that's the poor treatment you're referring to, that was at the hands of native tribes on native tribes, not the Quakers and early settlers of America that I was referring to.

And it's not a lack of awareness - people just choose to pick what they find offensive and protest about it. The simple fact is, VS had a theme segment, they chose the Native American look for the November piece, it was a sincere good-hearted attempt at honoring a US holiday and its native inhabitants, and instead people whipped out their claws and would rather sh*t on VS for it.

And that's my point with JG - maybe it wasn't deliberate to offend? And like VS, he chose to wear something similar to a Hasidic outfit to honor or show reverence and atonement for his past offenses? but instead of giving him the benefit of the doubt, people would rather nail him once again.

I probably should have phrased my words better, but I was referring to the settlement of Europeans in North America, so basically, since "before" American independence. I can understand how that sentence would be a bit misleading though.

I still stand by the fact that a lot of these issues stem from a lack of awareness but I should also add that it can also stem from people lacking apathy. Some people honestly don't care about the fact that when they do such "homages" to indigenous people it does more harm then good. Often they just reinforce stereotypes that have existed for decades. I don't choose to be offended by it, I am offended by it. I am offended and I cannot with good conscious continue to sit by and watch particular cultural groups get treated poorly. It just isn't right.

And as for Galliano, I've also stated serval times, I don't think in this case he deliberately meant to offend anyone. Yet, I understand why people are offended, it does look awfully a lot like what a Hasidic man might wear. I've also stated elsewhere on tFS, it will take some serious atonement for me to even really forgive Galliano, his actions were vile and it upset me greatly that a designer I had respected said such nasty things about my people. And while I may not be ready to forgive Galliano just yet, in this situation, I'm not quite as upset with him as I could be. And I can see both sides of the story with this kerfuffle.

 

[fashionista-ta]

^ i think his intention probably was as littleathquakes suggested. however ...

kinda reminds me of when my mother asked me to color a picture to include in a sympathy card. i got out my black crayon & drew a picture of items found at funerals--the dead husband in his coffin, surrounded by flowers--all drawn in the color of mourning. a sincere gesture of stunning inappropriateness--but i was 4 years old & only allowed blunt scissors. (my mother, 27 at the time, chose not to send my art.)

john is 52.

 

[Littleathquakes]

^ I got in trouble in grade school when I colored a picture of Martin Luther King Jr in all black...because, as a 7 year old, I saw a man with black skin. The teacher didn't find it funny, because in her twisted mind, I was aiming for humor when in fact I just didn't know any better.

Yes, people of backgrounds have a right to feel offended if they presume they're being attacked. You cannot blame them for that. But my point has been that they might need to step back before they're so quick to judge and give the benefit of the doubt. Often, it's a misunderstanding. Like, I have no doubt VS did not intend to offend native Americans (I mean they only have millions of dollars at stake...), and that JG, in his oddball way, did not intend to offend people with his wardrobe. Obviously I cannot speak for JG, so while I am arguing that he is not intending to offend, I can see where someone else could argue that he was. I'm just giving my side of the reasoning.

 

[Melisande]

Poor JG. To me it seems obvious he was doing it on purpose to show reverence for Judaism in the only way he knows how to express himself wholly: through fashion.

But people don't like fashion, see. It's frivolous. It's petty. It's ridiculous, especially off the catwalk. How dare he represent a sacred religion through fashion, much less be creative with it? If it were a painting nobody would be offended. But to him that's his canvas. It's his medium...it's like his Last Supper.

He's just a little naive, and the world too ready to pounce.

Personally, I don't like outsiders going creative with religious/national clothing. It's a little tacky. But I don't think it's offensive, necessarily.

 

[Melisande]

Maybe it's been posted elsewhere. Watching this hour-long interview with John, so heartbreaking...
He is like a little child.

http://www.charlierose.com/view/interview/12975