Welcome to College Fashion’s biweekly column, Fashionably Informed. As a CF reader, it’s clear that you love fashion. But have you ever wondered about the drama that goes on behind the scenes? To keep you up to speed, this column aims to inform you about important issues and controversies in the fashion industry.
In case you missed them, see past posts on Retouching & Photoshopping, Tanning Promotion in the Media, Hypocrisy in Beauty Marketing, Racism in the Modeling Industry, “White-Washing” & Skin Lightening, and Homosexuality in the Fashion Industry.
Urban Outfitters’ “Navajo”-Inspired Clothing Line | Photo Credit
For this week’s post, we are returning to our series on racism in the fashion industry. Over the past few months, we have discussed Racism in the Modeling Industry and “White-Washing” & Skin Lightening. This time, we are tackling a slightly different topic: cultural appropriation andstereotyping of culture and ethnicity in retail fashion.
This topic idea was derived from a suggestion by CF reader Amanda. She commented on the last article in our series on racism, saying:
I would be interested in seeing an article on the appropriation of other cultures in the fashion industry. Especially prominent right now is the appropriation of Native American and Asian cultures. Anyway, thanks again!
Thank you, Amanda, for your excellent suggestion. Just last week, media outlets went wild about Victoria’s Secret’s “Sexy Little Geisha” costume,but we will get to the topic later in this post.
The Victoria’s Secret controversy is just one example among many: Numerous retailers have offended consumers by portraying races and cultures in stereotypical and negative ways, or trivializing cultures by turning them into “trends.” Native American and Asian cultures are perhaps appropriated and stereotyped the most in the US, however this issue affects a wide range of cultural groups.
Given that today is both Columbus Day and Indigenous People’s Day, it’s an ideal time to raise awareness about the topic, in hopes that we can all recognize these acts when they occur and work together to change the way cultures are portrayed in fashion.
While stereotyping and appropriation happen across the industry – in magazines and ads, and on the runways – today, we’re going to focus on controversies surrounding popular retail stores.
Table of Contents
First, a Few Definitions
Before we get started, let’s define a few terms so we’re all on the same page.
According to Wikipedia, “cultural appropriation” is defined as follows:
Cultural appropriation is the adoption of some specific elements of one culture by a different cultural group. It describes acculturation or assimilation, but can imply a negative view towards acculturation from a minority culture by a dominant culture. It can include the introduction of forms of dress or personal adornment, music and art, religion, language, or social behavior. These elements, once removed from their indigenous cultural contexts, can take on meanings that are significantly divergent from, or merely less nuanced than, those they originally held.
When we refer to “stereotypes,” we are using the following definition, again from Wikipedia. (Note the differences between stereotypes, prejudices, and discrimination):
Stereotypes, prejudice and discrimination are understood as related but different concepts. Stereotypes are regarded as the most cognitive component, prejudice as the affective and discrimination as the behavioral component of prejudicial reactions. In this tripartite view of intergroup attitudes, stereotypes reflect expectations and beliefs about the characteristics of members of groups perceived as different from one’s own, prejudice represents the emotional response, and discrimination refers to actions.
Although related, the three concepts can exist independently of each other. According to Daniel Katz and Kenneth Braly, stereotyping leads to racial prejudice when people emotionally react to the name of a group, ascribe characteristics to members of that group, and then evaluate those characteristics.
Now that we all understand what these terms mean, let’s talk about some recent examples of appropriation and stereotyping in retail fashion. Below, I’ll lay out a few different incidents affecting a number of cultural groups.
Urban Outfitters
Urban Outfitters has been accused several times of portraying cultures in a negative or inappropriate manner. Each time, they have stated that they had no intention of offending anyone. In many cases, UO has ended up removing the offending items from stores.
“Navajo” Clothing Line
About a year ago, Urban Outfitters came under fire for their “Navajo”-inspired clothing line. The fashion retailer featured several designs that they labeled as “Navajo” (see top photo above). These included a “Navajo Hipster Panty” and a “Navajo Print Fabric Wrapped Flask.”
While numerous people found these items offensive, perhaps no one was more insulted than the Navajo National Government. They were firstly offended by the portrayal of their culture as a mere fashion trend. However, an additional problem was that these “trendy” items were labeled “Navajo”.
According to The Globe and Mail, the Navajo National Government “holds a dozen trademarks on the name, encompassing clothing, textiles, household products and other items.” Consequently, the Navajo Nation Government sent a cease-and-desist letter to Urban Outfitters, demanding that they remove the trademarked name from the items in question.
In a statement to the Associated Press, the tribe’s attorney said,
“When products that have absolutely no connection to the Navajo Nation, its entities, its people, and their products are marketed and retailed under the guise that they are Navajo in origin, the Navajo Nation does not regard this as benign or trivial. It takes appropriate action to maintain distinctiveness and clarity of valid name association in the market and society.”
Along with the Navajo National Government, numerous Native Americans across the country were deeply offended. On the news blog, Racialicious, guest contributor Sasha Houston Brown wrote an open letter to Urban Outfitters’ CEO. In it, she said,
In all seriousness, as a Native American woman, I am deeply distressed by your company’s mass marketed collection of distasteful and racially demeaning apparel and décor. I take personal offense to the blatant racism and perverted cultural appropriation your store features this season as “fashion.”
In response to the demands of the Navajo National Government and other offended individuals, Urban Outfitters told the Associated Press,
“Like many other fashion brands, we interpret trends and will continue to do so for years to come. The Native American-inspired trend and specifically the term ‘Navajo’ have been cycling through fashion, fine art and design for the last few years.”
While Urban Outfitters denied any wrongdoing in their statement, they subsequently removed the word “Navajo” from the products in question. The Hufington Post reported that the offensive items were renamed.
Despite Urban Outfitters’ actions to re-name the products, according to The Guardian, the Navajo Government filed a lawsuit against the company. The fashion retailer removed the “Navajo” name from the products on their website – however, the lawsuit asserted that the names remained in other places. The Guardian explains:
But the lawsuit claims that products with the Navajo name were still being sold through other company brands, such as Free People, in catalogues and retail outlets.
The lawsuit is still ongoing, as is the controversy.
“Jewish Star” T-Shirt
Urban Outfitters’ shirt featuring “Jewish Star” | Photo Credit
Earlier this year, Urban Outfitters featured a shirt on their website that deeply insulted the Jewish community and others. The problem was that the shirt (pictured directly above) had a patch on its pocket that bore a strong resemblance to the Star of David, which Jewish individuals were forced to wear during the Holocaust.
The Huffington Post reported that the star outraged the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) of Philadelphia. In their statement about the controversy, ADL’s regional director wrote,
We find this use of symbolism to be extremely distasteful and offensive, and are outraged that your company would make this product available to your customers.
The shirt was deemed offensive due to the Star of David’s connection to the Holocaust and Nazism. However, the brand, WoodWood, who produced the shirt, denied any intentional representation of the Holocaust. In response to ADL’s statement, WoodWood stated the following:
First of all the graphic is not the Star of David, and I can assure you that this is in no way a reference to Judaism, Nazism or the holocaust. The graphic came from working with patchwork and geometric patterns for our spring/summer collection ‘State of Mind’. However when we received the prototype of this particular style we did recognize the resemblance, which is why we decided not to include the star patch on the final production T-shirt. I assume the image people have reacted to come from Urban Outfitters´ web site. This must be a photograph of an early sample, which is of course an error. Here is the actual T-shirt as it is in stores. I am sorry if anyone was offended seeing the shirt, it was of course never our intention to hurt any feelings with this.
As you can see from the statement, WoodWood denied that the star was a reference to Judaism, but also claimed that the shirt published on Urban Outfitters’ site was an early sample of the t-shirt. To WoodWood’s credit, the final product did not include the star in any way.
However, this was not the only time Urban Outfitters offended members of the Jewish community. According to the ADL, UO produced another shirt that many found offensive. This shirt included the phrase, “Everyone Loves a Jewish Girl,” surrounded by dollar signs. After a largely negative response, UO pulled the shirt.
St. Patrick’s Day Collection
Urban Outfitters’ St. Patrick’s Day T-Shirt
Urban Outfitters also came under fire for their portrayal of the Irish community, specifically because of their St. Patrick’s day mechandise. The fashion retailer was accused of supporting negative stereotypes of Irish and Irish-Americans. The offending collection included tanks and t-shirts with sayings such as “Kiss Me. I’m Drunk, or Irish, or Whatever.” (pictured above) and “Irish I was Drunk.”
Members of the Irish community demanded that Urban Outfitters pull the items, which they deemed offensive. According to Politicker, Joe Crowley, the co-chair of the legislature’s Ad Hoc Committee on Irish Affairs, wrote a letter to the company’s CEO demanding the products be removed. In his letter, Crowley explains the effects of the clothing items:
We recently learned of images used by Urban Outfitters in its St. Patrick’s Day clothing line that depict severe and negative stereotypes of Irish and Irish-American people as well as may promote binge drinking. We strongly urge you to end the sale of these items.
Urban Outfitters has not responded to this controversy.
Abercrombie and Fitch
Of course, Urban Outfitters is not the only brand to come under fire for their portrayals of cultural groups. Abercrombie and Fitch caused outrage when they began selling t-shirts that featured what some deemed a stereotypical portrayal of Asian individuals and culture.The San Francisco Chronicle reported that the shirts featured “caricatured faces with slanted eyes and rice-paddy hats.” One of the shirts also included the phrase, “Wong Brothers Laundry Service — Two Wongs Can Make It White.”
Abercrombie’s representation of Asian culture, to many, demonstrated the historic stereotypes often placed on the Asian community. This stereotypical representation outraged numerous people and many demanded the removal of these shirts. Despite the negative response, a spokesperson from Abercrombie’s PR firm told the SF Chronicle,
“We personally thought Asians would love this T-shirt. We are truly and deeply sorry we’ve offended people”
In a follow-up article, The SF Chronicle reported that after protests and threats of boycotts, Abercrombie and Fitch removed the shirts from their stores and website.
Victoria’s Secret and the “Sexy Little Geisha”
Victoria’s Secret “Sexy Little Geisha” Costume | Photo Credit
Last week, numerous media outlets reported about the controversy surrounding Victoria’s Secret “Sexy Little Geisha” costume (pictured above). The costume includes a sheer and floral printed body suit, a fan, and chopsticks meant for your hair. The lingerie company was accused by many blogs and news sites of perpetuating stereotypes of Asian women by selling this costume.
Racialicious cited the important historical context that surrounds this costume and the idea it represents. They stated,
Donning a “sexy Geisha” outfit to get the ball rolling in the bedroom remains offensive because it confirms a paradigm in which Asian people and their culture can be modified and sexualized and appropriated for the benefit of the West. This particular kind of racism has existed for a long time, and we’re far from moving beyond it.
The Frisky also refered to the long-standing stereotype of the “sexualized” Asian woman, saying,
It’s an entire outfit — a sex costume, really — based on the accoutrements of the Japanese geisha to make your lingerie “exotic” and signify the sexual submission and exploitation of Asian women.
Numerous other blogs and articles echoed Racialicious and The Frisky’s comments about the controversy. While the representation of the stereotype of Asian women as hyper-sexualized and submissive caused outrage, many were also upset by the use of the term “Geisha.” The Frisky pointed out the not-so-glamous past of geishas,
Considering the complicated history of geishas, repurposing the “look” for a major corporation to sell as role-playing lingerie seems a bit tasteless.
Due to the negative response, Victoria’s Secret has removed the costume from their website. As of this article’s publication, Victoria’s Secret has yet to release a statement regarding the controversy.
More Information
As this issue is incredibly multifaceted, it would be impossible to adequately explain it all in one post. For more information on cultural appropriation and stereotyping as it relates to all forms of fashion, we recommend the following web resources:
- Cultural Etiquette: A Guide for the Well-Intentioned, an essay by Amoja Three-Rivers, is a guide to the complex issue of cultural appropriation, and how to celebrate cultures you find beautiful in a respectful way.
- But What if I Want to Wear Indigenous Jewelry?, from Selchie Productions, explains the dos and don’ts of buying and wearing indigenous pieces.
- “We’re a culture, not a costume” this Halloween, from CNN, discusses cultural appropriation and stereotyping in Halloween costumes.
- Racialicious’ “Fashion” section is an excellent resource for in-depth info on all of the above controversies, plus many more.
What do you think?
What do you think about these incidents? Are you offended by the portrayal of certain cultures in stores? Have you noticed similar incidents of stereotyping? What do you think of the companies and brands’ responses to these controversies?
Would you like to see a follow-up post on this topic? If so, what incidents would you like to see covered?
Tell us your thoughts by leaving a comment.
I would point out that the main problem with the geisha outfit might not be that it badly represents specifically Asian women, but that it badly represents all women. Stores like Victoria’s Secret or La Senza also sell costumes such as the French Maid, which represent women as sexual objects. I don’t think the country from which the costume comes from matters in this case – it’s the sexualization that is offensive.
My mother is of Cherokee descent and I remember as a child she would tell me “just because it has a feather in it doesn’t mean it is made by Indians”. She did wear some silver dream catcher earrings that were cheap, but we were poverty level and she may have overlooked the made in china tag that one time. She didn’t like the brightly colored plastic tacky adornments found at every flea market in the south. I did not understand it at the time, but when I started seeing the hippie fashion re emerging on the social network sites, sometimes confused as “native” I understood. I don’t think it is necessarily offensive to be “inspired” by native and to wear colors or certain patterns woven into the “hippie” way of dressing. What is offensive to me is -again- brightly colored tacky adornments with a tag that says “made in china” and a title bearing a tribal name. Also don’t dress like a hippie and call yourself an indian. There is a line in the movie “Smoke Signals” that “the hippies were trying to be Indians anyway”…while that is true and maybe cool for the climate of the time, today both the hippie and native “look” is just that, a look. Youth are dressing “like” hippies and “like” natives. There is no cultural shift driving people to their roots, and unlike the sixties, there is mass production of these illegitimate items. I have resolved to not by “native inspired” I will just find native fashion from native creators, it is easy to do online. I may not buy as much, because of price, but at least it will be good quality and it will be real. I would never take a half naked picture of myself in a head dress and moccasins anyway-girls that want to do that, are probably just experimenting with photographic art-they aren’t making money off that. I think the Victoria’s Secret geisha outfit was distasteful, and I am a shopper…but in general I think role playing outfits are distasteful. There are many kimono inspired stye robes that are not offensive-a woman could get one and throw out over her lingerie and it would not be as immature as that get up was. The Irish shirt-I think that went a little far, distasteful? Maybe-but really I have seen sooo many distasteful shirts that have nothing to do with race or culture. I think if we are offended by the St. Patrick Day shirt featured here, then we should just be offended and not participate in any of the Holiday because it is filled with these “stereotypes” and I have never met one Irish person who was ever offended by it. The shirt seemed to be saying that they were so drunk they didn’t know if they were irish or were drunk-there are shirts that say both. I don’t know what to think about the star of David shirt, but if the Jewish community was offended then they have more of a say on that then anyone. The Asian shirt…well there are just no words-none-that is pretty obvious.
I think we live in a culture that is a melting pot, and we have to be careful what we will be deeply offended by, but I do understand the importance of small business shopping and therefore true native shopping. I also understand-from my mother-that every Midwestern pattern is not representative of Native”, feathers and fake suede are not either. I place of stopping appropriation, we should educate each other. If it is really so important that we get outraged and call each other cruel and hateful names on tumblr (a girl who posted a picture of herself as a “Sexy Indian” was raked over coals digitally) then we should be more open and educational about our cultures, our histories and where our “fashion” comes from and what some of symbolism means. A few years ago, wearing crosses was a very in vogue thing to do, and every kid I knew had one. Most of them were not Christian nor catholic…I don’t remember anyone hating each other for it, but I do remember explanations on the meaning of the cross and how it was not simply a fashion statement. This is something I can get behind, There are some arguments in the conversation of “cultural appropriation that I think could go a little too far, and only further divide us as people, but in the argument of sexism and economic and cultural value for the most part I can agree.
@Kelly The problem with the geisha outfit is that it eroticizes something that was, quite often, forced upon women because of their poor economic status.
@Val You can’t really compare your French maid outfit to the Geisha one, because French maids do not have the same history that Geishas do. There is a long history of oppression towards Asian women and many Geishas, like I mentioned to Kelly, were not the product of choice, but rather lack of other options.
I’m happy to see some intelligent comments here among the saddening ones saying to “lighten up.” I’ve seen CF link to items in the past that I would consider cultural appropriation, which made me kind of side-eye the site, so I’m glad to see this article.
None of this comes as a shock. Fast fashion retailers will rip off anything- the original work of a designer, the artistry of an entire culture, the very workforce that supplies their stores- for the sake of profits. Sadly we, as uninformed consumers, support this in almost every purchase we make.
Also, while well intentioned, the linked articles contain several flaws in their arguments and should be read with a critical eye. The one that stands out to me most is that persons of color cannot be racist……
I too am disturbed by the comments saying “lighten up.” Not personally offended? Well, okay, that’s fine for you. No one is making these things illegal to wear, like you all said, it’s a free country. You are, in fact, free to mock other cultures by wearing costumes of their clothing for sex or playing around with Instagram by claiming it’s “inspiration.” And people are also free to criticize you; that’s exactly what free speech means. Not that you can do offensive things and never get called out on it.
As for “I wouldn’t be offended by a white girl costume,” well, what would that costume look like? Anything I can think of would be misinterpreted as “preppy girl” or “rich girl” or “hipster girl” or some other stereotype about what people do, not who they are. That’s why it can’t be compared; white people are seen as individuals, while other races and cultures are stereotyped by their skin tone or culture.
Everybody does know that a geisha, while not a prostitute, sold her virginity to the highest bidder, right? The whole point of looking beautiful and being graceful dancers was so that men would be willing to pay more to have sex with them. Just sayin….
Well this is a very informative and important issue you have addresses. True, producing a line of “Navojo” clothing and accessories does offend me a little…even though I’m Iroquois and Cherokee. But I typically only buy real Native American pieces from real Native American shops (like those up north when my family visited New York.)
Anyways, the geisha costume looks stupid! I know I’m young and all, but even I wouldn’t buy that if I was 24 or over! It’s not even a costume! And Geisha’s were performers, not sex toys.
Well, I have a lot a research to do on this topic. There’s so much I still need to learn about! Thanks!
This is my favorite article in the series by far. It’s one thing to take inspiration from a culture, through colors and cuts, but another to make a profit off of stereotypes. Thanks for spreading light on this issue.
@ Sam Brilliant sarcasm. 🙂
If you aren’t a member of the ethnicity that’s being commodified, you have no business telling anyone to “lighten up”.
Some of these comments are astounding. My grandparents and great-grandparents grew up as itinerant wanderers in the mountains because they were afraid of being forcefully expelled from their land again. To this day, they are loathe to mention their heritage because they think Caucasians only want to harm indigenous Americans. The horror of the atrocities committed against the native American nations still reverberates throughout their tribes and peoples to this day. How do you think the various native American tribes feel when they see their sacred patterns and customs profaned by some corporation?
Navajo patterns are supposed to have a meaning; they are supposed to represent a region and its culture – they’re not just random geometric patterns (which is what UO should have called their ‘navajo’ line) Throwing colorful patterns under the blanket term ‘tribal’ is insulting in general. What tribe? What country???
As for all the insulting merchandise aimed at other cultures, I find it to be outrageous. Just to put it in context, I’ve also seen shirts that say “Jersey girls aren’t trash…trash gets picked up”. How does that feel? We should never disparage and marginalize another culture with generalizations, whether it’s ‘drunk Irishpeople’ or ‘servile Japanese women’. Think of the ‘fat, ignorant, stupid Americans’ trope and maybe you’ll understand. Let’s respect each other as individuals.
I enjoyed this article. Thanks for writing it.
Very good article, a lot to think about. I believe though that we often take these issues a little too personally. It seems that instead of being in some sort of grey zone, when it comes to stereotypes, we are directly in the “you’re not allowed to do/say/wear that” zone.
A next article suggestion, what about the fashion industry and child labor. I’m referring for example to the Benetton controversy (1998), Victoria Secret (2011), Zara (2011). A controversy that would definitely merit to be discussed.
Kisses from Switzerland
College fashion is a site that is a big believer that inspiration can be found everywhere. Is that not what these companies are doing? Regarding Urban Outfitters, I don’t think they were insinuating that these “Navajo Print Panties” were made by Navajo indians and are an authentic Navajo item. The print is one that is historically seen in Navajo art. Perhaps if they had said “Navajo inspired” it would have been less offensive. In regards to the Abercrombie and Fitch t-shirt: working in rice paddies has been a huge part of Asian culture since around 200 BC. In fact, rice production (in part) made China what it is today. Is that a stereotype? Yes!
The fact is stereotypes exist, and they aren’t always wrong. There are characteristics that go with every people group. That’s what makes every race different! I think what these people groups find offensive is when these characteristics are used in an inappropriate manner. A Navajo print flask? A geisha-inspired sex costume? A vulgar “drunken irish” t-shirt? Really? I can see how people could be offended by that. Especially a t-shirt with a reproduction of the Star of David as that has deep rooted religious and historical ties.
However, in the end, the producer is allowed to produce what they want, and the consumer is allowed to be offended by it. The producers are a reflection of the consumer. They make things that they know people will buy. They have whole teams of market researchers to tell them what people want! The truth is, “hipster” style involves a lot of Navajo inspired clothing. If these people groups want someone to blame, then blame society. If they want to make an out cry, let them. LIke I said, the job of the producer is to produce what people want, and the people are simply saying “Hey! We don’t want this!” But perhaps sometimes, we should try not to take ourselves so seriously.
What about the many clothing/accessories/home decor inspired by the Mexican culture? You don’t know how many times I’ve seen offensive t-shirts towards those of Hispanic decent. Mexicans and Hispanics in general are highly discriminated against in today’s society yet nobody seems to bat an eyelash. As a Hispanic women this deeply disgusts me and hurts to know that my culture and beliefs are looked down on by so many.
@ Madeline,
Thanks for linking to that article about D&G, as it was an interesting read. However, the writer of that article is really misinformed. (It has nothing to do with being racist toward african americans) Being Sicilian in origin myself and recently traveling around Sicily, those earrings are based on typical Sicilian pottery. (D&G are Sicilian) You see both white and black faced jugs in that style everywhere. (and you see both black and white earrings in the runway show if you flip through) Sicilians are not black or white, they are “brown” and being close to both Europe and Africa, have a mixed heritage that is being paid tribute to.