ShesElectric
Member
- Joined
- Jan 24, 2006
- Messages
- 920
- Reaction score
- 0
Perhaps it's not so much the wearing of the Keffiyeh without knowledge of its cultural significance that offends, but a complete disregard for it...
Urban Outfitters
The Use of Cultural Appropriation in Fashion
- Thread starter YoninahAliza
- Start date
Perhaps it's not so much the wearing of the Keffiyeh without knowledge of its cultural significance that offends, but a complete disregard for it...
Urban Outfitters
ScarlettLover
Member
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2008
- Messages
- 925
- Reaction score
- 2
^that is just ridiculous! 
I can't believe Urban Outfitters would put something out like that. I loved Karl's collection b/c I love Indian inspired things but I suppose my idea of India is a very Western-ized view. I never thought about the implications or how the clothes represent an oppressive period. I do think a a certain glamourized representation of different cultures in inevitable in fashion, but it does ask the question of where the line should be drawn between tasteful and offensive.
I can't believe Urban Outfitters would put something out like that. I loved Karl's collection b/c I love Indian inspired things but I suppose my idea of India is a very Western-ized view. I never thought about the implications or how the clothes represent an oppressive period. I do think a a certain glamourized representation of different cultures in inevitable in fashion, but it does ask the question of where the line should be drawn between tasteful and offensive.ShesElectric
Member
- Joined
- Jan 24, 2006
- Messages
- 920
- Reaction score
- 0
^that is just ridiculous!
...and that's an especially difficult line to draw in fashion where offensive is considered artistic and distasteful is considered avant garde.
ScarlettLover
Member
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2008
- Messages
- 925
- Reaction score
- 2
^That's so true! It is very difficult, I think there is no winning unfortunately since everyone interprets things differently. This thread has really made me think, sometimes I feel like i view fashion too 2-dimensionally, or take it at face value when really there is more of a psychological undercurrent that people don't realize til they're made aware of it.
YoninahAliza
Active Member
- Joined
- Apr 28, 2010
- Messages
- 3,384
- Reaction score
- 2
^Well... Urban Outfitter's has never been a very politically correct brand so I'm not surprised. They got a lot of heat a few months ago because they were labeling everything that was a Native American "print" as Navajo which is a complete disregard to the Navajo culture and traditional patterns used on fabric. And, besides, Navajo is a trademarked name by the Navajo Nation, which mean's UO couldn't use it to sell the products. Even though they certainly tried too. I just find it appalling how companies like UO try to water-down a culture, a group of people and turn them into a poster image of what that culture is "suppose to be like."
Here is a few links to articles about this issue.
http://jezebel.com/5849637/urban-outfitters-and-the-navajo-nation-what-does-the-law-say
http://jezebel.com/5851441/urban-outfitters-gets-rid-of-all-its-navajo-products
Also, I thought I would share these posters from STARS (students teaching against racism) which circulated around the internet around Halloween time. I think they are brilliant and certainly get the message across.
lissawriting.wordpress.com
Here is a few links to articles about this issue.
http://jezebel.com/5849637/urban-outfitters-and-the-navajo-nation-what-does-the-law-say
http://jezebel.com/5851441/urban-outfitters-gets-rid-of-all-its-navajo-products
Also, I thought I would share these posters from STARS (students teaching against racism) which circulated around the internet around Halloween time. I think they are brilliant and certainly get the message across.
lissawriting.wordpress.com
Last edited by a moderator:
I don't have a problem with the Chanel show, I think that one of the by-products of globalization is exposure to culture and Indian history and culture is well-known, not just because of what goes on in India but also because of the migration of East Indians to other continents / countries. I would probably have an issue if a more obscure culture or sacred but not ubiquitous religious symbols were "appropriated" without deeper research being done.
An example of this is the swastika.
Don't know if this is going slightly off topic but you can throw the rosary beads into this discussion. The trend has died down now but at its height thanks largely to its use by Dolce and Gabbana in their collections, they were everywhere you turned. It went from a very private, meaningful spiritual to the wearer to become a fashion accessory worn by everyone.
David Beckham, Lindsay Lohan, Nicole Ritchie, Lady GaGa are a few celebrities I can remember wearing them. Granted I don't know whether they were it for spiritual reasons or otherwise but its a classic example "religious appropriation"
David Beckham, Lindsay Lohan, Nicole Ritchie, Lady GaGa are a few celebrities I can remember wearing them. Granted I don't know whether they were it for spiritual reasons or otherwise but its a classic example "religious appropriation"
YoninahAliza
Active Member
- Joined
- Apr 28, 2010
- Messages
- 3,384
- Reaction score
- 2
^Oh no, rosary beads aren't off topic at all. It's still a form of appropriation. I remember when that trend started I was kinda appalled because half of the people wearing them didn't understand the significance of them. Like you said, Mdankwah, it's a private and spiritual thing for the wearer. For some it probably was a spiritual thing but for others who were just jumping on the bandwagon it was certainly a "ooohh.... this looks pretty" moment. I would never wear rosary beads because it's not part of my religion. Even though I have seen some really beautiful rosary beads and when I went to the Vatican they sold them everywhere. They are gorgeous but that doesn't necessarily give anyone the right to wear them. I just think that a lot of people who aren't aware of culture/religious appropriation. That there is this mentality that they can take whatever they want and use it until they get bored, and then they move onto the next big thing.
MulletProof
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Apr 18, 2004
- Messages
- 28,530
- Reaction score
- 6,695
I'm trying to think of the term "right" when it comes to using certain items. The idea that you have to earn the right to wear something either through knowledge or cultural background or ethnicity and while you earn it, abstain from using it is just completely absurd to me. I think the efforts to respect the many faces of diversity have once again been misinterpreted and taken into such a literal if not pedantic context where you're not really doing a specific ethnic/religious group any favor or paying any respect but reducing it to an exclusive institution when perhaps they see themselves as a little more than that? or wish the cultural elements they identify with were widespread and not necessarily through UN programs but in popular culture too just so the segregation many experience would migrate into 'integration' territory in a more natural way, without the solemnity some programs choose when approaching them.
Another thing that is similar and that I also see here and in certain 'western' viewpoints is the reduction of third-world countries as merely oppressed nations that should be handled with extreme sensitivity because that's all they are, oppressed countries. Many forget that developing countries are still young, with not just a lot of history that has not even been integrated and social structures coming into place and trying to be sorted out so everyone's in tune with the direction to take, but also with the overwhelming presence of developed countries that through an empire or through a small factory, keep slowing down any progress made in their own favor, while the poor/rich and gender gaps keep growing bigger and bigger despite any local effort. It's a long explanation, but where I'm trying to get by this, is that the oppression (there must be a less martyr-esque word for this..), the continual resistance and the internal conflicts are constant and not synonymous of a cultural paralysis or a point in history that should preferably be forgotten or that is just someone else's fault.. it is all part of a context and everyone has a role, even if it's a minor one, to pretend they don't is to reduce them to an unfair level of weakness, when their 'weakness' is merely just a result of the clashing between a country that's established itself enough to 'check out' others, and a country that's barely recognising the components of its own culture in order to establish itself.
Having explained that, oppression is a result that's existed and will continue for as long as a government chooses to conceive its economy as the origin of a country's welfare and not the consequence of inclusive growth through measures like labour reforms that respond to its own people, issues, potential and is not just the adaptation of European or American reforms. Same goes for health care, education and women's rights. And while you get that in order, oppression will continue, it may be through British hands or through local hands (and I'd venture to say the latter if far more dangerous because of its chances to be covered up), but a more affluent social group will always be on top of it and growing richer, while the rest grow poorer. One may blame foreign interests at all times but a majority has its share of responsibility, down to the people that choose not to pursue education, or work for foreign factories or support romantic movements based on nothing or either refuse any involvement with the government because it's all dirty and downgrading or choose to worship it because you can always get something from it.
Finally getting into my original point
, the 100-500 years of developing countries have not been in vain, it breaks my heart when people suggest so (I know nobody did in this thread, but I do get to hear it), resistance and criticism and collective consciousness may come secondary but always manifest themselves to a certain degree, and even when no one would document it, you can still perceive it now through sense of humor, approach to social matters, songs, food, things that people with a history in common do and that does influence the way they react or act in present time. In short, every phase in history that's 'oppressive' comes with culturally 'introspective' sides too. Nothing is just oppression. And even when it's resistance what unifies and strengthens a group of people, the machinery of oppression itself also tends to create benefits that outlive periods in time and scars that must be confronted regularly, which is no comfortable task but you do that that through condemnation and even celebration in order to generate ideas and questions.
And that brings me back to the 'rights', this time for the foreign 'oppressor' (and that's such a ridiculous term, I know) to fantasize about its empires (Karl is not British and I guess the point was that it's all Western) or feel inspired by a European system in an 'exotic' land. I think anyone should be free to refer to it, history may be split into many hands but it's still the trace of all human beings, no matter how unrelated you think it is to you, I don't think anyone should feel like they cannot be inspired by what they know or dream about because there is a cultural or ethnic barrier. Secondly, although there are various ways to project a culture through a fashion show and I feel like it should be done with respect, I don't think we should expect a National Geographic report, and not because fashion cannot give one (I would argue it's perfectly capable of that) but because fashion has the liberty to dive straight into overlooked, microscopic areas like beading techniques, fabrics, silhouettes, colors, aesthetics or myths. Territories that are deemed as too banal to become subjects but that should be revisited and be appreciated by people.
As for rosary beads, I still have mine and love it, I was raised Catholic and hated everything about its organization, I don't hate it now but I still detest it a great deal. I wore my rosary bead cause I thought it was great and yeah, because I liked the idea of making it meaningless. So, in some cases, it's sometimes better not knowing than knowing.
Sorry this is a little too long, I tried to reply to this for days, more as a general sentiment than a specific reply, and this is what happens.
Another thing that is similar and that I also see here and in certain 'western' viewpoints is the reduction of third-world countries as merely oppressed nations that should be handled with extreme sensitivity because that's all they are, oppressed countries. Many forget that developing countries are still young, with not just a lot of history that has not even been integrated and social structures coming into place and trying to be sorted out so everyone's in tune with the direction to take, but also with the overwhelming presence of developed countries that through an empire or through a small factory, keep slowing down any progress made in their own favor, while the poor/rich and gender gaps keep growing bigger and bigger despite any local effort. It's a long explanation, but where I'm trying to get by this, is that the oppression (there must be a less martyr-esque word for this..), the continual resistance and the internal conflicts are constant and not synonymous of a cultural paralysis or a point in history that should preferably be forgotten or that is just someone else's fault.. it is all part of a context and everyone has a role, even if it's a minor one, to pretend they don't is to reduce them to an unfair level of weakness, when their 'weakness' is merely just a result of the clashing between a country that's established itself enough to 'check out' others, and a country that's barely recognising the components of its own culture in order to establish itself.
Having explained that, oppression is a result that's existed and will continue for as long as a government chooses to conceive its economy as the origin of a country's welfare and not the consequence of inclusive growth through measures like labour reforms that respond to its own people, issues, potential and is not just the adaptation of European or American reforms. Same goes for health care, education and women's rights. And while you get that in order, oppression will continue, it may be through British hands or through local hands (and I'd venture to say the latter if far more dangerous because of its chances to be covered up), but a more affluent social group will always be on top of it and growing richer, while the rest grow poorer. One may blame foreign interests at all times but a majority has its share of responsibility, down to the people that choose not to pursue education, or work for foreign factories or support romantic movements based on nothing or either refuse any involvement with the government because it's all dirty and downgrading or choose to worship it because you can always get something from it.
Finally getting into my original point
, the 100-500 years of developing countries have not been in vain, it breaks my heart when people suggest so (I know nobody did in this thread, but I do get to hear it), resistance and criticism and collective consciousness may come secondary but always manifest themselves to a certain degree, and even when no one would document it, you can still perceive it now through sense of humor, approach to social matters, songs, food, things that people with a history in common do and that does influence the way they react or act in present time. In short, every phase in history that's 'oppressive' comes with culturally 'introspective' sides too. Nothing is just oppression. And even when it's resistance what unifies and strengthens a group of people, the machinery of oppression itself also tends to create benefits that outlive periods in time and scars that must be confronted regularly, which is no comfortable task but you do that that through condemnation and even celebration in order to generate ideas and questions. And that brings me back to the 'rights', this time for the foreign 'oppressor' (and that's such a ridiculous term, I know) to fantasize about its empires (Karl is not British and I guess the point was that it's all Western) or feel inspired by a European system in an 'exotic' land. I think anyone should be free to refer to it, history may be split into many hands but it's still the trace of all human beings, no matter how unrelated you think it is to you, I don't think anyone should feel like they cannot be inspired by what they know or dream about because there is a cultural or ethnic barrier. Secondly, although there are various ways to project a culture through a fashion show and I feel like it should be done with respect, I don't think we should expect a National Geographic report, and not because fashion cannot give one (I would argue it's perfectly capable of that) but because fashion has the liberty to dive straight into overlooked, microscopic areas like beading techniques, fabrics, silhouettes, colors, aesthetics or myths. Territories that are deemed as too banal to become subjects but that should be revisited and be appreciated by people.
As for rosary beads, I still have mine and love it, I was raised Catholic and hated everything about its organization, I don't hate it now but I still detest it a great deal. I wore my rosary bead cause I thought it was great and yeah, because I liked the idea of making it meaningless. So, in some cases, it's sometimes better not knowing than knowing.
Sorry this is a little too long, I tried to reply to this for days, more as a general sentiment than a specific reply, and this is what happens.
Last edited by a moderator:
pennyroyaltea
Member
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2011
- Messages
- 52
- Reaction score
- 0
I love it when people know how to incorporate cultural influences + are especially aware of where their pieces are influenced from & it's cultural significance etc. I'm middle eastern and did not mind when the keffiyah caught on in the west... Just as long people are not ignorant of what they're wearing then it's fine by me. I especially like it when the pieces are not too literal, examples"
Arabian Influences:
Sources: hommetimes.com, pasticheproject.blogspot.com & carbon-vi.com
Japanese Influences:
Sources: style.com & refinery29.com
Arabian Influences:
Sources: hommetimes.com, pasticheproject.blogspot.com & carbon-vi.com
Japanese Influences:
Sources: style.com & refinery29.com
I think it's great that we can use fashion and style to connect between cultures, but it shouldn't be taken too far. Some [i.e religious] inputs being used as influence could easily be offensive to the origins, and we need to keep a level of respect, and do our research. But globalization is a fact, and fashion being transferred over national borders is as obvious as transferrals of any other thing.
models_vlada
Active Member
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2009
- Messages
- 2,634
- Reaction score
- 18
I think Fashion and Culture are definitely connect, and it has been all over the years since the beginning, what happens now is that with Globalization (60s onwards), "Western Brands" trying to get good inspiration are crossing borders between countries with the intention of making better products or consumer-friendly ones. Which ends up, in the stealing of specific cultural elements by a dominant country from a poorer/weaker/different one. I say stealing, because they're not asking for permission and second is that the other culture is practically not getting any retribution, i don't know if it's right or wrong, everyone can have their own opinions, but I think that we have 2 cases:
First, when the culture is a really-known by everybody, or it has practically non-religious/traditional significance, for example "Harajuku Girls Concept by Gwen Stefani", which i think can be worked by any artist/company they way he/she thinks it's better for marketing.
And second, we have the other type, which it's when the culture it represents a whole group of people, and it really has religious/traditional significance. When a designer is working with a specific cultural background, these people don't earn anything but recognition, so i think the
least you can do, is to work it right by showing an element o truth (as someone stated), and not just crappy commercial looks that the masses will like, you must get into the culture and get really inspired so you can pull what's really about, and show it always with respect.
If you're working with an ethnic background, i think it's to at least have respect, and that you can show it by doing a serious job/research, and show what's really all about, and not just a fantasy of how i imagine it would be. That way you won't have mistakes showing garments and elements in a wrong/disrespectful way.
To make my point clearer, i'm from SouthAmerica, and here there are tons of indigenous groups really rich in culture (in every sense), if some designer decides to get "inspiration/work with" some group, if i think the work is real and serious, i would feel flattered and probably proud of all the right recognition, but if it's done with the idea of stealing a few items, and trying to make it work in a commercial aspect, but not in a serious way, i would probably feel disrespected.
I don't know if i explain well my point ahahah
First, when the culture is a really-known by everybody, or it has practically non-religious/traditional significance, for example "Harajuku Girls Concept by Gwen Stefani", which i think can be worked by any artist/company they way he/she thinks it's better for marketing.
And second, we have the other type, which it's when the culture it represents a whole group of people, and it really has religious/traditional significance. When a designer is working with a specific cultural background, these people don't earn anything but recognition, so i think the
least you can do, is to work it right by showing an element o truth (as someone stated), and not just crappy commercial looks that the masses will like, you must get into the culture and get really inspired so you can pull what's really about, and show it always with respect.
If you're working with an ethnic background, i think it's to at least have respect, and that you can show it by doing a serious job/research, and show what's really all about, and not just a fantasy of how i imagine it would be. That way you won't have mistakes showing garments and elements in a wrong/disrespectful way.
To make my point clearer, i'm from SouthAmerica, and here there are tons of indigenous groups really rich in culture (in every sense), if some designer decides to get "inspiration/work with" some group, if i think the work is real and serious, i would feel flattered and probably proud of all the right recognition, but if it's done with the idea of stealing a few items, and trying to make it work in a commercial aspect, but not in a serious way, i would probably feel disrespected.
I don't know if i explain well my point ahahah
YoninahAliza
Active Member
- Joined
- Apr 28, 2010
- Messages
- 3,384
- Reaction score
- 2
^Also along that point I think it's fair to mention that some designers are using other cultures for inspirations but they are giving them retribution. Some have the clothes made by people from that group or a percentage of the sales goes back to an organization focused on improving their lives. One example I can think of is Suno which has a lot of it's clothes/cloth designed in Kenya. Which is where much of the line's inspiration comes from. Granted one of the designers is Kenyan but still, this is one way to use a culture in an appropriate manner.
I love it when people know how to incorporate cultural influences + are especially aware of where their pieces are influenced from & it's cultural significance etc. I'm middle eastern and did not mind when the keffiyah caught on in the west... Just as long people are not ignorant of what they're wearing then it's fine by me. I especially like it when the pieces are not too literal, examples"
Arabian Influences:
Sources: hommetimes.com, pasticheproject.blogspot.com & carbon-vi.com
Remember when middle eastern influence was mainstream style! I spent most of high school wearing kaftans, sari printed skirts, and salwar dresses. I always LOVED arab and indian influence in fashion (and straight from Mid east and Indian fashion). Being from NY, I would thrift shop in ethnic neighborhood to find some really fabulous rare clothing from different countries. I even paired my dresses occasionally with hip scarves or bangled bedouin hair wraps. I never felt like it was a racist style though. If anyone ridiculed me, I would just tell them "It is clothing- get over it!"
I completely agree with models_vlada. Fashion is apart of globalization, one of my favorite parts! I am polish and I also love to wear my own ethnic traditional clothing! (Though much harder to come by and I've never seen slavic-like outfits worn off the runway, save for the festivals) I get super excited and proud when I see slavic influence in designer's works.
I think that using a certain culture as an influence in design is a great way to celebrate the beauty and unique aspects that this culture has. Celebrating the differences. But I believe that designers must put in large amounts of research before using it as an influence. I feel that the navajo prints that are so popular nowadays are being used solely for their visual appeal. I think that designers should try to not only show the sartorial side, but also try to portray the traditions and deeper meaning behind the clothing.
Bonbonenata
Member
- Joined
- Nov 11, 2010
- Messages
- 167
- Reaction score
- 0
I think most of the people overreact. When I was younger, I was learnt that the culture of my ancestors is syncretic. Syncretism is the combining of different (often contradictory) beliefs, often while melding practices of various schools of thought. (Wikipedia) So by definition my culture steals from other culture - should I understand it that way? I don't think so. And I'm pretty sure my ancestors hadn't given credit to other peoples.
Culture is something dynamic and nobody owns it! In fact many culture aspects are considered as native by many nations. It's almost impossible to tell who the source is. And it's not bad! People and nations should share their traditions and so on.
I don't find anything offending in Karl Lagerfeld's work or someone else's. They're just designers, not scientists who research cultures. Yes, it would be wonderful if they research and make an effort to make a truthful image, but I don't think it's a must.
Culture is something dynamic and nobody owns it! In fact many culture aspects are considered as native by many nations. It's almost impossible to tell who the source is. And it's not bad! People and nations should share their traditions and so on.
I don't find anything offending in Karl Lagerfeld's work or someone else's. They're just designers, not scientists who research cultures. Yes, it would be wonderful if they research and make an effort to make a truthful image, but I don't think it's a must.
This thread is absolutely fascinating. I agree with a lot of points already mentioned and believe this is an extremely sensitive issue. However, it'd be interesting to think about fashion as a whole and to offer this question for 'debate':
Isn't all fashion a form of cultural appropriation?
What we wear is closely linked to our culture whether it be Western blue jeans or traditional Japanese dress. Is it impossible not to include some form of culture in a collection? Is it only appropriate for a designer to adopt another culture's dress if they fully understand it's origins or if they're a part of that culture themselves? In a globalised world culture is interchanged and shared at a rapid rate.
It's a really interesting topic. The Halloween costume campaign is absolutely brilliant, too, because that form of appropriation is very offensive. I just wonder where we draw the line...
Isn't all fashion a form of cultural appropriation?
What we wear is closely linked to our culture whether it be Western blue jeans or traditional Japanese dress. Is it impossible not to include some form of culture in a collection? Is it only appropriate for a designer to adopt another culture's dress if they fully understand it's origins or if they're a part of that culture themselves? In a globalised world culture is interchanged and shared at a rapid rate.
It's a really interesting topic. The Halloween costume campaign is absolutely brilliant, too, because that form of appropriation is very offensive. I just wonder where we draw the line...
YoninahAliza
Active Member
- Joined
- Apr 28, 2010
- Messages
- 3,384
- Reaction score
- 2
That is a really good point. I hadn't really thought about cultural appropriation and fashion in this way before.
However, I do think there is a line between wearing blue jeans and wearing a kimono. Certain items seem to transcend one culture, like blue jeans, they were created around the time of the gold rush in California and have been adopted by people around the world. But I think the reason why this is okay is because it doesn't have a religious/spiritual/cultural significance. Whereas if I saw someone wearing a Native American headdress or something I would be highly offended because it is a sacred item within the culture. Anyways, I've always thought people sort of look like they are playing dress-up when I see them wearing something that's been culturally appropriated. They are borrowing from the culture without understanding the true meaning of the clothing's significance.That's definitely a tricky opinion. Being a Native American myself (Menominee) and an artist that utilizes various aspects of my background, I don't find someone (regardless of their race) simply wearing a headdress to be offensive. Most people usually find such items 'beautiful' and appreciate the artistry that's involved in making such accessories. For me, it only becomes offensive when said person decides to wear "warpaint" and do a "rain-dance" or something crazy like that. Now THAT is offensive to me because not every Native American walks around wearing paint or tapping their mouths with their hands to call for rain.
I just don't like when people automatically assume any type of NA inspired look is "offensive". The culture from various tribes should be appreciated in a respectful way, not automatically looked at in a negative way. But that's just my humble opinion.
Similar Threads
