Wow those clothes are really ugly. And tacky, and racist.

not nearly as offensive as the intrusive Dove commercial on your website that I can't figure out how to minimize! Yeah, AA is sexist and racist (I still love their damned clothes), why the diss to hipsters? The most creative hipsters shop at used clothing places anyways, more affordable.

Samhita-

How is this racist? Not arguing, I just don't follow the reasoning...

Plenty to not like about American Apparel, regardless.

Wait, animal prints are racist? Or is it the naming the line of animal prints after the continent said animals live that is racist? You do realize that these absurd stretches of logic have a "boy who cried wolf" effect and make even the legitimate claims of racism less meaningful, right?

I'm not seeing the racism either. The only thing I could think of was that a black model might have been more appropriate for the spread, but it's a bit of a stretch from that to racism. It's not exactly clever or original, but... zebras live in Africa. How does that have anything to do with race? How is it any different than naming a line that includes penguin prints (please tell me such a thing exists) "Artika"?

Yeah, I do think this is shady, but I don't think that the racism is readily obvious.

Still, as has already been said, there's plenty of reason not to patronize American Apparel.

AA is going to go Out of Business if they keep doing stuff like this...ick!

P.S. Jessica, looks like we posted at the same time. I went and looked at the Racialicious post and I still think it's a different. It's one thing to co-opt the culture of African tribes, and create meaningless pendants that are supposed to be "African" out of diamonds that no member of those tribes will ever see (except perhaps in horrible mines) in designs that no member of those tribes ever had anything to do with (made by a company that is a human rights violator), and another thing to create a line using animal prints and name it after the continent those animals live on.

What is racist here is the combination of elements in the picture- as in putting the word Afrikan and animal print ( think black =exotic/ animal= subhuman), and then putting a white woman in the picture in a somewhat sexy pose on top of that.

I also hate AA for the racism and sexism, but there really isn't any other place that I know of where one can biy socially responsible made clothes...although even that is a little shaky. Neither will likely get better as AA was partly bought out by an investment group of sorts- see the link below.

I read the Racialicious post...I still don't get it. Is my friend's leopard print couch racist? Does it matter that she's white? She Just loves leopard and tiget print...it's kind of a thing with her. I'm not trying to be a wise-ass, I honestly don't get the connection. Samhita posted something similar before - that awful slacks add with the man standing on the tiger rug with a woman's head on it. It was obviously sexist, but she said it was racist and I didn't get it then either. (And I posted a question asking Samhita to explain and didn't get an answer.) What's racist about animal prints?

Maybe it's a tribute to Toto.

It's similar to calling a line that incorporates white faux fur here and there "Esquimaux".

They should have just called the line "Wildside" or something.

Samhita:

Would "American Eagle" count as an example?

I don't know that they ever use an eagle-feather pattern, but they use the bird itself -- an American icon -- as its logo.

Someone will of course have to explain to me why it is ironic and hip for whites to don this print, but if a black man puts on a Dashiki, he's being archaic, corny, and clinging to "racist" and nationalist worldviews.

Or maybe we whites are supposed to indulge our Tarzan fantasies of educated white women doing our bidding far from civilization clad in the skins of the animals we killed on the hunt today. If so, the stench from that outfit must be god awful.

When it comes to clothing, we do have an association that tiger and leopard prints = sexy. You can definitely make the argument (and I would) that this association is at least somewhat related to exoticism and racism towards African women ("jungle fever").

However, many people love animal prints just because they're pretty, or because they have a strong fondness of big cats and anything associated with them. So I think it is an overreaction to assume that something like this is as blatantly and offensively racist as the post suggests. I also don't see the argument being made about the "sexy" association, so I have to wonder, Samhita, and I would enourage you to ask yourself if this isn't just a kneejerk reaction that says that anytime white people evoke Africa it's automatically racist.

Furthermore...things like the "sexy" association are examples of very subtle racism, so subtle and far removed from the original source that I think it's difficult to say whether they really still have the power to hurt women of color in any significant way. Should we still point them out? Yes, absolutely, but there are times when crying out in righteous outrage is less appropriate then merely pointing something out for the sake of educating people about the history of bigotry and how you can still see its signs in modern life.

Not all cultural expressions that are originally based in opression need to be eradicated or responded to with anger, unless you think it's appropriate to attack anyone who uses the phrase, "rule of thumb."

I have to come in here and support the argument that this is definitely a racist fashion move. It's probably not even all that intentional, just the product of massive ignorance (such as is demonstrated in this comment thread) and unwillingness to learn about the history behind animal prints being connected to "Africa."

Look at the AA website. There are no Black models in the "Afrika" section, just zebra print and some design influenced by an amalgam of African textile design.

Among other things, most people in the West have a really misguided concept of what Africa is. Among other things, it's a continent made up of hundreds of nations, each with metropolitan centers and unique cultural, political, spiritual and national identities.

To reduce Africa down to a concept of the exotic and wild "other" allows westerners to continue to avoid the reality that there is a political discourse going on about relationships between the North and South, between the East and West... that real people live in real cities and townships in the continent and it's not just a vague concept for Europeans and North Americans to bastardize and profit from.

Yeah, so not every time Africa is evoked is it racist... but I would venture to say that a majority of the time it is. Africa is one of the most misunderstood places on this fine earth and our unwillingness to even recognize that white people's exotification and simplification of the continental reality is a really big problem with really big implications (see diamond mining, coltan production, clearcutting, small arms dealing, and on and on and on).

Bottom line: "Afrika" without any Africans and with a clear connection to the "animal" and "exotic."

It's pretty darned clear that's racist and a bit more...

Let's just call up Bono, self-appointed delegate from Africa to the rest of the world, and ask him about this. I'm sure he could enlighten us.

Wearing zebra or any other animal print is not racist, because dressing in an animal print is not dressing like the "other". Stylist Clinton Kelly explains it well, saying something like it's a person's way of showing appreciation for such a lovely animal. Appreciation for the animal, not appreciation for the person wearing the animal.

The fact that people don't wear prints of animals that live in America isn't racism either. Name an animal that is indigenous to the United States that actually has a print. I'm pretty sure I'd get a few laughs if I told my coworkers the other day that I was wearing raccoon-print and proceeded to point at my gray v-neck. That's why Americans wear the actual animal fur or faux fur instead of the print inspired by the animal.

Your explanation as to why this could be racist is misplaced. You only talk about the zebra print, but not the "tribal" print. Tami explained in the Racialicious post that DeBeers most likely has no clue what the masks even look like or mean and that it's simply a representation of what an exploitive corporation thinks. What if the "tribal" Afrika print is only worn in some sacred ritual? Then, yes, I would say that using the print for a fashion trend is racist and extremely disrespectful to the people's culture. Designers take inspiration from a lot of different places and use different styles without really getting its significance, and it's not uncommon that certain styles have to be modified because it offends people. There's no evidence of that here, but I'll see if I can find out.

It can be hard to walk the line between admiring a culture not your own and exoticizing it as "the other", albeit perhaps in a nominally positive fashion. I looked up the line of clothing on AA's site, and it's basically just zebra prints and a sort of vaguely African-looking textile print that doesn't look like any specific regional style or tradition.

I would label this as culturally ignorant, maybe historically insensitive, and definitely butt ugly clothing, but I personally choose to save the "racist" label for things like Congressman Westmoreland calling Obama "uppity". This doesn't quite reach that line for me.

Hmm, I thought my post was more snarky than disrespectful. I happen to thoroughly disagree with the conclusion that this is racist. FWIW, Africa being a continent, not a country, the parallel would not be United States but "Amerika" and I could see that being used if I could think of distinctly Western Hemisphere animal prints. I'm not sure we have the animals here that have patterns that make good clothing, and I say this seriously, someone help me out.

But looking at that picture I just don't see it as a comment on the people of Africa. I'm not sure I exactly understand the notion that seeing appeal in the exotic is racist. I like Indian food and Italian food, it is exotic in that it isn't from my culture (Scandinavian food leaves something to be desired). Why is liking fashion from outside one's own culture worse than food from outside one's own culture? We don't complain when people elsewhere adopt Western styles do we?

If you approach everything through the lens of "what racist or sexist implications are here" you will usually find them, but that doesn't mean that they actually exist. I imagine both the designers with AA and the teenagers shopping there are thinking entirely about "this looks nice and fun" and not about historical precedents of racism.

I still don't entirely see it (although I will give you the "jungle fever" connection, that makes sense to me), so allow me to ask a few more questions:

1. If it is racist for white women to wear prints called "Afrika," is it racist for white women to wear clothing that was made in India? Indians were certainly an exoticized other at one point (if not still), and I'm sure you know about those Kariza wrap skirts that are made from sari-print silk by now - they're freakin' everywhere. I'm half Indian and half Western European, so when I wear those, is it only half racist? What if I wear the one that I made out of my grandmother's old saris? Does that give me sufficient grasp of the cultural context to be allowed to wear them?

2. I am having a hard time thinking of any animals in the United States that have a nice coat pattern that people would want to imitate. My immediate reaction was American Eagle, but they don't sell eagle-print clothes, but everything they have does have that eagle on it. I am not very up on my zoology, though.

I just think that trying to dictate the prints that people can and cannot wear in order to be or not be racist is over the top. I have seen white women in salwar kameez. They probably just think the clothes are pretty. I'm inclined to agree with them.

Now, if you were to come at this from the angle of "do you pay the people who made these garments a livable wage, give them enough time off, and ensure that they have workable days and access to decent health care," then we could talk.

(don't take this wrong, it's an honest question)
Not really getting it either, I know you've explained it- but it doesn't account for things like snake, cow, etc prints that are marketed as "cowboy" wear, and the use of "americana" in the rest of the world. Are those considered racist as well, or is this a phenomena relating to only the white use of so-called exotic prints?

The article on the diamonds I got- but diamonds are a little more in the ill-gotten category, they aren't equatable to tacky fabric choices.

i am so glad the white people on this site have figured out that animal and "tribal" prints called "Afrika" with white models made for white hipsters isn't racist. that's really cool. you guys are AWESOME.

here's to opening up your eyes some day and actually listening to someone who doesn't look like you without reacting with a mix of fear and guilt to the idea that maybe you don't know everything.

no rush, though... wouldn't want you to be uncomfortable or anything.

by the way, legba, i totally missed the bono comment. that's hell of funny.

I just e-mailed them about the print. I asked them if the print was original or authentic and asked about the possible cultural significance of the print if it's authentic and if it looks like any sacred authentic print. Hopefully they'll get back to me in a few days. They're good about that.

AUF,
really? you think that, if the print is either an amalgamation of various "tribal" designs or a secular design... it's no longer vapid cultural appropriation built on an exotified concept of a rich and diverse continent which is still reeling from past and ongoing colonialism?

I personally find AA ads more offensive to women than others because of their sneakiness in selling their brand to us, feminists, civil rights advocates, conscious consumers, as a responsible corporate citizen, making everyone know that they do no use “airbrushed models, ” they follow the same line of deception that “Jews for Jesus” does. When I read a story on Dov Charney, it reminded me so much of Joe Francis. How can women patronize this pig? Check their photo collections, (more on that further below)
http://americanapparel.net/gallery/photocollections/models/index.html

The main argument for AA consumers is they don’t run sweatshops overseas as other companies do. For those of you, I will recommend you to further dig up AA’ labor practices, they are known for their union busting tactics as well as they sweatshop like work premises in the US. Also a note on the perception of SOME sweatshops, I come from a “sweatshop” country in Latin America and in most of the clothing factories in my country, the factories are located in the garment district in the capital, which is also a large garment market. Those factories job in that district are the preferred jobs to have. American companies share space with other national factories, competing for workers. Thus, competition and high regulation led to the improvement of working conditions. You buy clothing made in my country and you are also supporting the livelihood of a dedicated worker and his or her family. Not every single overseas factory is the worst thing in the world. I’m afraid I can‘t say the same for China or other factories. But what I am trying to say is that if you buy at AA because of the sweatshop issue, there are other options. Companies who don’t use your idealism as a marketing hook to make profit, but are in business because they actually believe in it. Think, how much of the money you paid for that overpriced clothe goes to the workers vs. Dov Charney. You are paying his legal fund for future harassment complaints.

*Also a note on how forthcoming AA is about the righteousness of their ads. In another post in Feministing, a member sent an email to AA about the lewdness of their ads. They replied saying “Unlike almost everyone in the fashion industry, American Apparel doesn't use professional models and agencies. Our models are mostly people who work here at the factory.” Don’t let yourself be deceived. AA hires models and even porn actresses, who look, as other people more articulate pointed out, anorexic and sexual available. Two of its models, Lauren Phoenix, and Xochielt are in fact porn stars, Xochielt (you can find her in the link above) "runs a site where she is a “Trixie Teen” who covers herself with bath foam, sports fake braces and does a great job at looking like a 15 year old playing with a camera when her folks go away."*

I have heard that AA has some pretty sketchy practices, but I don't really know the specifics. Does anybody have any links to articles that I could check out?

I have to go with UnFunnyFeminist and Bondo on this.

Samhita, here's a question I would put: Can you find clothing inspired by non-European styles and colors or whatever that isn't racist?

Think carefully. I can find racist associations with just about anything if I look hard enough. Do you ever wear chamois? How about cotton? The former exploits people in the Andes. The latter has a long racist history here. It's racist and exploitative therefore, right? Drink coffee? Same thing. Smoke tobacco ever? Ditto.

When everything is racist, nothing is.

I think there is a discussion to be had about the exotic(isation) of other cultures, and how that gets used. But the connotations of racism don't quite fit here, I think.

Again I ask, could anyone design clothing using kente cloth and not be racist (assuming they aren't Africans)? Does it mean that nobody can ever touch, design, use anything from another culture ever? And just what does it mean to be from another culture anyway? Animal prints are a pretty specific European and American fad, as I remember. (I never liked them much, I keep thinking of a 70s bachelor pad).

Or look at it this way: I bet, Samhita, that whatever ancestry you happen to be, whatever culture you grew up in, you use, designed, and appropriated from someplace else. Of course, in my case, what would be my culture? My mom is half-Japanese and my dad is from Yonkers (Jewish) and his dad was Catholic. So if I become a fashion designer do I get to use Japanese designs or not? Am I limited to traditional Hungarian fabrics?

I'm also approaching this -- as I try to do any analysis -- with the idea that for an analysis to work it has to be falsifiable. You aren't offering a falsifiable statement, at least not as currently set up.

Like I said, I understand that these relations are complicated. But too often I see this kind of stuff bandied about and leading to absurd conclusions. Ignorance is not the same as racism. Even insensitivity isn't the same. Otherwise I could simply call the whole second/third-wave feminist movement racist and be done with it. Obviously it isn't (or people try not to be).

Not really getting it either, I know you've explained it- but it doesn't account for things like snake, cow, etc prints that are marketed as "cowboy" wear, and the use of "americana" in the rest of the world.

Snakes and cows! Horses, too, maybe! They certainly do have prints. And people wear them without wearing the actuall animal. I couldn't think of a single one.

Anyway, I would assume that the difference is that nobody is really stealing those styles. Those are being exported to other countries by the companies who make them.

"Among other things, most people in the West have a really misguided concept of what Africa is. Among other things, it's a continent made up of hundreds of nations, each with metropolitan centers and unique cultural, political, spiritual and national identities."

puckalish, it sounds like you might have a misguided concept of what Africa is. It is not made up of "hundreds of nations" but rather 53. also, who says the posters who disagree with you (and manage to do it without your condescension) are white?

Bondo--

There's something called appropriation. I remember a lecture I had last quarter where my professor (Asian American Studies) was talking about the popularization of Indian clothing and the bindi. Appropriation is taking something from another culture that does not belong to your own and using it to be cool or whatever without bothering to examine the history and connotations behind it. This was related to a magazine spread in which Madonna was wearing a sari and the bindi. The problem is, around the time, there was a racist anti-South Asian gang called the Dotbusters (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dotbusters) in New Jersey. So on one hand, it's not cool if you're Indian and wear a sari and have a bindi because you're seen as foreign and un-American (and at that time, risked being beaten up where this gang was), but on the other hand it's cool if a white person (Madonna) does it. THAT'S racist.

Lili Marlen--
About the sketchiness of AA--

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14082498/

I'm kind of torn on this because, on the one hand, I feel like not putting a black model in the ads is probably the better move-I think it'd be seen as more anamalizing, if that's a word. and I realize that points to a whole lot of issues in our society(or maybe just me)-why would that pose be anamalizing for a black woman but not for white? because of racist stereotypes, I know. and I didn't see the "tribal" pattern, which could be at the very least unacceptable appropriation. but I don't agree that animal prints are inherently racist. which kind of seems to be the argument here. Unfunny feminist does have a good point about who gets to control the image and who is selling the clothing. Once again, I'd say extremely topical and relevant to "tribal" design-from wherever. I'm not seeing it with the animal prints though-other than the zebras, is there any particular group of people who should be able to say "this is our style, we should be involved if it's going to be sold?" maybe I just don't know, but I can't think of one.

cy,

you're right... 53... i should have said dozens of nations - hundreds of cultures... i'm at work, i was writing really fast... there are hundreds of nations in the entire world... not on any one continent and i'm well aware of that... there are, however, almost a dozen distinct languages spoken in South Africa alone, which is really what i was trying to get at - that there are hundreds of cultural identities in the continent of Africa. i've written angry before and it's gotten me into plenty of trouble, so i appreciate the correction and i'll be more measured next time (unless, in the heat of the moment, i forget again).

i am guessing that the posters who are arguing this isn't racist are white because that's the only thing that makes sense to me... as a white person. the kind of defensive posturing and looking to survey AA and see where they got the designs from to determine whether or not it's validly racist are the kinds of things i used to do when i thought my progressive credentials were being challenged due to the sort of obliviousness that goes along with my whiteness.

since then, i've decided that, once in a while, it's crucial to take a step back, listen, and not tell people of color they're "crying wolf" just because my "colorblind" eyes can't see the racism in an act, practice or phenomenon.

further, i don't see how these other posters aren't being condescending and that's why i got frustrated. i see sami trying to make a decent point and a bunch of people reacting, frankly, to defend their own ignorance.

check out these remarks and tell me which are not condescending:

Bondo:

You do realize that these absurd stretches of logic have a "boy who cried wolf" effect and make even the legitimate claims of racism less meaningful, right?

Lauren:

there are times when crying out in righteous outrage is less appropriate then merely pointing something out for the sake of educating people

Jess:

Can you find clothing inspired by non-European styles and colors or whatever that isn't racist? Think carefully.

i mean, seriously...

as a white person who is really committed to having a progressive dialog emerge around race before i die, it really irks me to see people who use typically white rhetorical tools to lecture a person of color on whether or not her manner of speaking or analysis is "appropriate."

Not to mention the lengths to which folks are going to defend their ability to wear animal prints... this isn't about animal prints. It's about a white north american company marketing animal prints and vague "tribal" patterns as "Afrika"... which is clearly built off of a long history of associating Africa with savagery, tribalism and primitiveness... and yet folks are really taking it to heart that Sami sees a problem with it.

and no, none of that goes anywhere near all the other overwhealming problems with AA. Which I know are many

really? you think that, if the print is either an amalgamation of various "tribal" designs or a secular design... it's no longer vapid cultural appropriation built on an exotified concept of a rich and diverse continent which is still reeling from past and ongoing colonialism?

I think you can appreciate something beautiful without exploiting the people who make or wear it or thinking that those people are "exotic" and weird. I think the print is pretty. I don't know if I would wear it, but I certainly want to make sure that if I decide to wear it, I know that it's safe to wear. I wouldn't wear it to make some point that I love Africa or think Africans are one exotic bunch o' black folk. I simply appreciate the print.

And I doubt anyone on such a rich and diverse continent that is still reeling from past and ongoing colonialism is going to say, "Thank you, people of America, for not buying this bra with a an amalgamation of various tribal designs that is a vapid cultural appropriation built on the exotified concept of a rich and diverse continent which is still reeling from past and ongoing colonialism. Your decision to refuse to wear this print will help me unreel from all that past and ongoing colonialism. God bless the U.S.A."

i am so glad the white people on this site have figured out that animal and "tribal" prints called "Afrika" with white models made for white hipsters isn't racist. that's really cool. you guys are AWESOME. here's to opening up your eyes some day and actually listening to someone who doesn't look like you without reacting with a mix of fear and guilt to the idea that maybe you don't know everything.

And here's to not assuming what color we are based on the opinions we share: kiss my beautiful brown ass.

cool, accept the ass kiss...

the point is not that african people will thank u.s. citizens and europeans for not buying a bra...

the point is that continuing to treat africa as a mysterious continent from which to draw exotic inspiration feeds into a lot of the misconceptions people have about the realities on the continent.

i don't think people in africa give a shit about what clothing aa makes. and that's not the point. the point is that aa is continuing a tradition of othering an entire continent because it's easy, it's been done and no one's going to raise objection.

sure, you can wear whatever you want for whatever reason you want... and if you research it and find out that it's "okay," then you can even feel good about it.

however, the message of having a clothing line made up of vaguely tribal prints and animal prints that's called "afrika" is one which reinforces stereotypes about an entire continent of people... can you see how that may be problematic regardless of the origin of the specific print of which you wrote to them?

i am guessing that the posters who are arguing this isn't racist are white because that's the only thing that makes sense to me... as a white person. the kind of defensive posturing and looking to survey AA and see where they got the designs from to determine whether or not it's validly racist are the kinds of things i used to do when i thought my progressive credentials were being challenged due to the sort of obliviousness that goes along with my whiteness.

And that's the kind of stuff I do to actually form my own opinion, you know, become informed. It's not a defense mechanism. It's called forming my own opinion, instead of swallowing the opinions of others to gain approval from people who don't look like me in an attempt to not come off as racist. Now that's defensive posturing . . . if I ever saw it.

Some random points, in no order -

1) Jaguars are native to North America and have a beautiful pattern on their coat. Isn't it funny how leopard prints are popular, but jaguar, not so much.

2) Africa is composed of 53 countries whose borders were mostly established during colonial and post-colonial times. "Hundreds of countries" might just be a more accurate description since that's what might be there if borders had been drawn by the people who originally populated the continent, but I'll go along with insisting on counting by legal border b/c I am post-racial.

3) Someone who grew up isolated from all contact with or exposure to other humans, dropped into the African plains, and started weaving, dying, and wearing zebra prints can claim that she wears them b/c they are pretty and that there are no associated racial politics. Everybody else is stuck with the baggage of humanity's colonial heritage and should just acknowledge it without defensiveness.

oh, god, AUF... now i guess i have to take it because i came off a little harshly, but, seriously... that's some bullshit...

the point i'm making, which is not "swallowing the opinions of others to gain approval" is that, whether or not the pattern used is of religious significance doesn't change that the net effect is one of position Africa as an exotic object from which to draw inspiration, not as a diverse and complex location full of individuals and communities with agency and perspectives from which we could all be enriched if we actually accepted their reality a little bit.

and it's really fucking insulting for you to suggest that why i'm suggesting white folks should shut up and listen once in a while is for "approval." on the other hand, it's because we're really good at shouting people down, which i think i've been a little too guilty of on this thread... so i guess it's your turn, now, huh?

the point, there, is that we white folks spend a lot of energy justifying perspectives and behaviors rather than genuinely listening to what people of color experience. you can take that as you will, but i can't even believe that your insulting tone can even be all that genuine.

but, hey, go ahead and pretend i'm regurgitating a bunch of bullshit... write me off... i really don't give a fuck what you think about me, because this is the internet and things get out of hand really fast without all the nonverbal cues we use in real life... so cool, ignore every point i've made because it offends how much you want to wear the spandex... pretend that it's not my genuine perspective and go ahead and feel good about yourself.

i'm going back to work.

puckalish, you think a zebra is somehow a symbol of colonization. I don't. You can talk about zebras being co-opted by dirty American pro-imperialist clothing companies until the cows come home.

You and I don't disagree on the "tribal" print. The only answers that AA could give me that I would find acceptable are, "Indeed, this is an authentic print. It's a rather common one that women wear on a regular day." Or, "One of our designers is from [this particular African nation], and they designed it." Otherwise, it's either an attempt to simply look "African" by people who know nothing about any African culture, or it's something spiritually or culturally significant that's being belittled for fashion's sake. Unless you think that wearing anything from any other country that looks anything that is worn in any other country because you like the way it looks on you is wrong. Then we disagree on that.

things like snake, cow, etc prints that are marketed as "cowboy" wear, and the use of "americana" in the rest of the world.

Actually, speaking as someone who spent 11 years living in Texas, cowboys are sort of othered in other states of the union. However, this is a discussion about the othering of non-white cultures within the Western legacy of colonialism, not a discussion about intra-US, class-based othering.

Anyone, no matter their cultural background, should be allowed to point out something that seems racist to them without being told they're overreacting or "crying wolf". That's just patronizing.

"Unless you think that wearing anything from any other country that looks anything that is worn in any other country because you like the way it looks on you is wrong."

But AUF, we're not talking about "any country". We're talking about the continent of Africa, which is a constant target for Western condescension, and a continent that holds specific cultural meaning for Westerners. This isn't Finland or Canada. It's a continent that's mined for everything it's worth, then co-opted by the West for it's pretty symbols and traditions.

I writing to comment on the inconsistency with which comments on Feministing are moderated. I really appreciated Puckalish's first comment, which added to and explained Samhita's post in a really helpful way. But as the thread progressed, Puckalish became quite rude (see post at 1.45pm, followed by fucking and bullshit), much more so than Bondo, who was (I choose to say) reprimanded by Jessica.
If context is needed, I hate AA and see Samhita's point after this explication by Puckalish. I just think the moderation is inconsistent.

look, i was rude, obnoxious, inappropriate... i was kind of frustrated at the way things were being framed (see the quotes i pulled out)... it just goes to show that, as i said above, one shouldn't write angry...

apologies...

i just don't think it's too much to ask that folks take a look at the ways in which popular culture frames the ways in which we view others without calling it "crying wolf" automatically... and i was surprised to see such a reaction in a "progressive" space, so i reacted even more absurdly than i would have in another context.

apologies...

also, it is important to note what FrumiousB pointed out... that most hipsters who wear cowboy boots and Italian designers who make snakeskin cowboy hats have no idea of the experiences of people whose livelihoods have actually become more and more difficult even as their "fashions" have become more popular.

there are really strong class issues going on there... and it's not just africa... it's also when kids play around with henna and bindhis because it's "cool" to appropriate aspects of expression from some "exotic" place while the real relations between the haves and the have nots become even more strained.

and the producers of such cultural phenomena need to be help responsible for the ways in which they portray people who don't have the resources to represent themselves to the same audience.

is that too much to ask?

again, i'm sorry for the harshness of my tone before... i hope that it doesn't completely eclipse what i was actually trying to say.

and, regarding cussing... i was raised in a household that didn't really regard cussing too poorly and i'm sorry for whatever offense that has brought out. i'll make an effort to be more civil in the future...

again, hope that doesn't entirely detract from the actual points raised.

I was a middle-class white kid in the suburbs, and what got me interested in Africa was actually a Northern Exposure episode, which led me to the African music section at my local music store, then to a few books, becoming friends with people from Africa, etc.

I'm not saying I'm an expert on Africa. I am, in fact, hugely ignorant. But I am saying that sometimes it's the shallow stuff that gets us interested, and leads to learning more. And if some suburban white kid wants to wear a swimsuit with a pattern to it that's sort of a riff on kente cloth, we can cry racism, or we can try to lead them to a deeper understanding of what is, to westerners, probably the least understood continent on the planet.

Heck, I learned stuff I didn't know about African textile patterns in trying to see if the pattern AA was using was a recognizable one, and I'd imagine I'm not the only person on this thread who did so.

oh, and i don't "think a zebra is somehow a symbol of colonization." i DO think that zebra prints, coupled with "tribal" patterns, all under the product line title of "Afrika" is a symbol of colonization and appropriation and a continuing tradition of seeing AfriCa as the Dark Continent and i think that's pretty crappy... especially if you consider the ways in which many nations there are still being stripped of mineral wealth, flooded with small arms and, otherwise, pretty much ignored - or given the same "up by the bootstraps" line that the ruling class world-over has grown so fond of.

Puckalish makes great points and i can understand the frustration they feel.

The point ISNT that animal prints are bad; if you have a zebra print called "zebra print" its not commodifying an entire continent. Calling a line of clothing "Afrika" that includes animal prints and generalized "tribal" prints is racist, its very bad business on AAs part.

If its hard to understand at first apply it to other continents say.. Asia. American Apparel would probably call it AZIA and put models in trendy cotton Kimonos. If that doesnt seem horrible to you, at least look at a map of Asia (its HUGE and encompasses a TON of countries cultures and people). By generalizing an entire continent within a line of clothing AA is selling everyone short; the culture their bastardizing and the culture their selling it to.

I just wanted to say, I signed up to comment for the first time today mainly ask for clarification on this but never got around to it because work is busy. The answers already offered help a lot, but I think it'd be a mistake to consider everyone asking questions "defensive" - sometimes you just have to fish around for that explanation that makes you say, "OH, I see, now that you put it like that."

Honestly, I think I'd find the use of a black model more offensive, unless the model or her family recently immigrated--just because she's black means she knows something about zebras?

And there is a lot of clothing, especially cow print, that is sold in other countries as "Western" clothing. I'd agree with previous posters that this is probably a class issue, but I've seen lots of truck drivers in Europe and Japan with American eagle and confederate flag posters or hangings in their cabs. It seems a little ignorant, but not necessarily offensive. They just think it looks cool.

However, context is everything: although a comment stereotyping men might be meanspirited, it doesn't have the weight of the patriarchy behind it the way a comment about women might; appropriation of African prints is a little sketchier than exporting cow prints, knowing the history of colonialization. Still, a lot of people I know, growing up the midwest, associate leopard and zebra prints with poor white women (and all the negative sexual stereotypes that might go along with that, ie "trashy"). Do with that what you will...

For those of you looking for a non-controversy-driven version of American Apparel, check out Alternative Apparel: http://alternativeapparel.com/

Sweatshop-free, environmentally conscious, and without the creepy CEO or offensive marketing.

Yes, I agree with the assessment that anyone who disagrees with a brown person on whether something is racist is white.

*looks down at self* HOLY SHIT!!

Okay, I've changed my mind. I totally agree with Samhita on every point she has ever made, because brown people are a monolith. Just like women.

... okay, puckalish, you apologized while I was posting, so I apologize for the mean-spiritedness of my above comment, although the point I was making still standse.

I don't see any mention of tribal prints in the original post - where are people getting the tribal prints thing from?

I also will probably never agree that using animal prints and naming the clothing line after the continent that the animals are from is racist.

I still don't get pissed at white people who play with mehndi and bindis though. I think it is kinda cool that they are interested. I honestly have a hard time seeing it as an insult. I also think that blocking them from those things and saying it's wrong to do that kind of stuff will create more strained relations. It just seems downright mean-spirited to me.

to all the people saying "what about using western prints", you're completely ignoring the history of oppression that has made it so that we can go around the world and pick and choose whatever fashions and prints and aesthetics we wish to appropriate. it doesn't make sense to say that.

maybe it would make sense if you replaced "afrika" with "east asia" or even "the orient". these regions have distinctly colonial pasts, and you cannot ignore the relationships of power that make westerners feel "entitled" to pick and choose aesthetics.

also, isn't "afrika" the dutch way of spelling africa? if so, then it's another way of reinforcing the colonial past. and that would make AA even more effed up.

TBH, i was irked by the whole afrika line of clothing and the way that it's presented, and i agree with samhita and puckalish. i'm kind of disappointed by all of these, "oh, you're just crying wolf" reactions. i don't think that you can ignore the histories of colonialism(s) when you're looking at these clothes in our advanced capitalistic age, ESPECIALLY if they are packaged in such a wholesale way, like their selling point is that they look like they're "african".

marketing the clothes as distinctly "african" rather than as simple prints is a STATEMENT.

@getoffmyskittle: according to the AA website, there are four designs. Only one of them, the zebra print, is an animal print. The rest are "tribal" designs.

As to what tribes they took this designs from, or if they actually are designs used by tribes, is to be determined. (I'm going to make an educated guess and say that they probably made them up).

getoffmyskittle,

i really appreciate that you actually considered what i was trying to say instead of caricaturing it. what i did say was that i saw some pretty typically white rhetorical tools being used to shut down sami's argument...

perhaps i should have been more specific... the "crying out in righteous outrage is less appropriate" comment reeks of "know your place"-style shutting down... "Think carefully" is a statement of superiority...

further, i shouldn't have just said that the things which irked me were about whiteness... they're about privilege... there's a difference there. there are people of color who are really privileged and dismiss the points of view of others and i didn't mean to downplay that.

i guess i oversimplified because most of the times i've silenced people, it's been due to my obliviousness around being white... but it is really a privilege thing... picking nits and trying to reason away the problematic aspects of certain behaviors and such is not something unique to white people and i didn't mean to rob you of that.

i mean, heck, there are plenty of indian people in africa who choose to ignore the realities of life for black africans... and that's not because those indian people are white, it's because they're privileged...

anyways, i'll just apologize again - this time, because i wasn't ever talking to you... and you asked a bunch of questions... but i was speaking to those folks who really got a rise out of me - enough of a rise that i misbehaved, used foul language and was dismissive. so, hey, go ahead and judge me - you're probably right.

when you're done, maybe you can look at the 25-50% of what i was saying that acutally had merit, if you can bear to dig through the cussing and whatnot...

to getoffmyskittle, i think it's just about having a heightened sense of cultural sensitivity. i'm a person of color, and i have that sense, and my other PoC friends have it too. there are certain things that are cherished and special to "cultures", and when people wear things with a limited knowledge of its cultural significance, then i think there's a very subtle line that is crossed. it's like a girl wearing chopsticks in her hair. i'm chinese, and i can't help but feel offended when i see that... or when someone's wearing a cheongsam. my friend got really mad when a girl was wearing moccasins to an native american studies class.

also, i think it's pretty safe to say that people of color or other nationalities or what have you ~don't~ tend to appropriate things from other cultures in the same way that white people do. does that make sense? in a way, white people are more entitled to do the cultural cross-over things.

also -- if you don't see the tribal prints thing: http://store.americanapparel.net/afrika.html i think people went to the original website before they wrote about the "collection".

LASTLY, i was a geography major in college, and a nation is not the same as a country (a term that we use to refer to a nation-state, or a state). a nation is a group of people with a shared origin, history, culture, or language, and people of a nation do not always live within the confines of their own state. see: kurds. see: quebecois.

also getoffmyskittle -- note all the comments in my last post were directed @ you. they were just general messy ramblings!!

But you can tell it's authentic. They spelled "Africa" with a K.

Ok, although many of you missed why I mentioned "western" prints, you managed to somewhat explain (I hope)... so thanks.

It's really not about the clothes, just history and the choice of naming the line. In essence, the clothing itself isn't racist, it's the fact that white people called it Afrika- and white people buy it- and white people historically exploited what they are now using to make a profit?
Basically, calling a line of clothing "Honkey" and making it cow print wouldn't be racist because the persons being used for profit are considered powerful/unexploited?

Is that it, or did I completely miss the mark?

I don't think people here who are questioning whether animal print is in fact racist are being condescending or refusing to listen to people of color. They just don't find the argument convincing. I don't either.

What's racist is the fact that models of color are disproportionately shown in animal prints or on all fours in fashion spreads, implying that they are more animalistic and less human.

However, I think animal print (even a line named 'Afrika') isn't racist in and of itself. There's animals and plants native to Africa, and then there's the people. The existence of clothes for humans inspired by native fauna doesn't imply that the people are animals. More context and marketing would need to be taken into account.

The argument objecting to cultural appropriation is more relevant, but it's one I've always had a problem with. I find the debeers tribal jewelry offensive mostly because of that company's track record in Africa. But I don't think that culture should be tightly sequestered to different groups of people based on their heritage. Much great American art comes from blending and borrowing from different cultural traditions.

Of course, one can always ask, is American Apparel really making "art" by mass marketing animal print? But moreover, is Zebra print ONLY a cultural design element of African art and not inspiration from nature? Is Zebra print pubic domain, but as soon as one refers to it as African it suddenly isn't?

I know Feministing isn't anyone's dissertation and a complete analysis and unpacking of ads isn't practical for a blog (maybe just the commenters) but I feel that there hasn't been an adequate connection or clarification between either the dehumanization of Africans or the appropriation of a cultural tradition in this post. That's all. And rolling one's eyes and calling me an imperialist isn't going to make me accept this failed thesis.

alixana,

again, i should have been more clear that i wasn't responding to everyone... not even to everyone who disagreed with sami... just to those folks who really went out of their ways to dismiss that this could possibly be a racist or colonialist appropriation of design and framing of an entire continent of people who are just like you and me.

there were people who posed some certainly valid questions... they didn't piss me off or surprise me as much as the other folks... and i'm making this about me because i'm the only who's called anyone "defensive" (save for AUF who called me defensive, but that's not what you were talking about). but saying someone's "crying wolf" is not fishing around for an explanation, it's silencing a point of view.

Would everyone feel the same way if the animal prints came from a different country, say tigers from Asia? Or is it just that blacks are so often equated to animals that has most people upset?

I think the new AA line is guilty of race bias and exotification (Is that a word?)...er..."othering." The problem is not zebra print. The problem is distilling a continent of many nations, cultures, languages and peoples down to its wildlife and faux tribal print. What other continent is viewed this way? When is the last time you saw a fashion collection of brown bear fur and Celtic prints labeled "Europe!" and sold as something hip and exotic?

(P.S. I wrote the DeBeers post on Racialicious. Not that it matters, but maybe gives some context on how I think.)

A couple of comments on here are making some very confusing arguments. I'm seeing people try to counter Samhita's pointing out that the cultural signifiers ("Afrika", the animal theme, the white female model, and the notions of the white exotic imaginary present among the "zoo" that is Africa in our minds) involved here are racist with a straw man argument that many of us wear textiles manufactured in the Global South. "Isn't wearing materials made in India racist?"

No wearing clothing made in the Global South isn't racist. The means of production and distribution involved in textile production in the Global South and out relative ability to consume those textiles is racist. It is racist insofar as people of color are disproportionately exploited as producers of goods and whites are disproportionately the ones with the wealth to consume said goods. But that's an argument of economic racism; Samhita is making an argument of racism based on cultural signifiers.

Trying to play off one kind of racism against another in a context in which the two aren't even competing is basically a bunch of nice white liberals trying to exonerate themselves from examining their consumptive patterns by saying "Hey! This racist shit's all over the place! I'm powerless! You're just a nitpicker! Shut up!"

My shorter comment is to say that y'all got some weaksauce arguments on your side. Try again.

Just one more thing: Trying to play the game of saying that someone is just as racist for wearing clothing made in the Global South is up there with people who attack the fact that I'm an anti-capitalist by saying I'm a hypocrite for wearing Diesel jeans (although the corollary is that people who try to disconnect from society are labeled irrelevant hippies).

I'm pretty sure that in the current world, there's no possibility for extracting yourself as an individual from the global dynamics around us--like resource and labor exploitation on a mass scale. So criticizing people for trying to agitate for collective change or a change in how we culturally exploit others and reinforce our cultural power on the grounds of our forced individual participation in part of the process is basically trying to play the White Guilt game and excuse yourself from thinking hard about this shit.

Also, for the record, that v-cut neck is fucking ugly. Anyone wearing that would look like an unabashed douchebag.

!

bravo legba! well said

The saying is that those who do not know history are doomed to repeat it. Sometimes I figure that those who know history too well are either doomed to repeat it or be stuck in it. I'd say this is most specifically represented in geographic disputes such as China's insistence to a right to Taiwan, but it can also be seen when drawing deep into history of colonialism to highlight what might be seen as implicit racism. From this approach, it is hard to escape race because racism is such a terrible element of our past. Thus because "catch a tiger by the toe" or "rule of thumb" have a racist/sexist origin they are deemed inappropriate even in their non-racial contexts, used by people who have no knowledge of such historic contexts. Far from helping to lessen the role of race in society, it keeps race a focus.

Now, you can certain disagree with me, but to me the ideal goal is that of a post-racial world, one where race is an irrelevant factor. As such, clinging to history too much makes a brighter future hard to accomplish. To me, only intentional (whether admitted or not), especially codified, racism/sexism needs to be called out. I think it would be hard to claim this clothing line represents intentional racism. It is at best negligent in its treatment of racial concerns.

So when I use "crying wolf" it represents what I perceive as the ability of the former approach to inhibit a more united reaction to those overt incidents of racism that the latter approach is concerned of. I think most people truly want to move beyond race and they resent being told their innocent intentions are racist. Far from enabling racism, withholding comment in these cases can allow it to fade away.

a) "it is hard to escape race because racism is such a terrible element of our past."
- and it's not a terrible element any more?

b) why shouldn't race be a focus in society?

Ok, I see why the title of the collection and the advertising is racist, although I agree with JM that it would have come off worse if they'd used a black model, that would have been directly playing up to a stereotype.

What I really, really don't get though, after reading all 73 comments is why just wearing animal print could be perceived as racist. I own loads of leopard print clothes. Like a coat that I wear every day for example, and I would be really upset if someone thought I was a racist because of that. I don't wear leopard print because I want to make some statement about how different and exotic I think Africa is. I wear it because (don't laugh, I know it sounds tragic) my favourite band used to wear a lot of it and now it's a big thing among their fans, along with feather boas and glitter, which I really hope aren't offensive also. And I wear it because I genuinely like it. I have never considered it to be representative of any particular culture, I see it as representative of leopards, and of the cult of consumerism in the 80s that said band's appropriation of above mentioned items was supposed to be subverting.

Also, is wearing any type of clothing associated with another country/culture questionable? It was quite fashionable a while back in the UK to wear saris and so-called "ethnic-print" is still around a lot - is is not sometimes a good thing if we're influenced by other cultures? The world would be a boring place if we all had a national dress and weren't allowed to deviate. I recently came back from Amsterdam, where I bought a pair of clogs. It wasn't because I wanted to take the piss out if Dutch people, it was because wooden shoes are awesome!

Vickie wire, I think whattamisaid and others explained it very well.

You yourself acknowledge that your clogs are from the Netherlands. You most likely recognize the Dutch culture as one of many places where wooden clogs are found. But most people would never suggest that clogs are an accurate representation of the whole European continent and culture.

There is a tendency to lump the whole of Africa, which is extremely diverse in every way, into a few simplistic hackneyed ideas and images.

A certain level of ignorance can be forgiven, but when it comes to history (especially the slave trade--oh that burns me up, grrrr, lumping all people together on that one) and hawking stuff like clothing and books, it gets old really soon.

Anyone remember that recent book, "Its a jungle out there?"

Really.annoying.

vicki,
you should read the comments a bit more closely, no one said that wearing leopard print in and of itself was racist. leopard print marketed under the label "Afrika" and sold to wealthy white hipsters is what is racist here.

Zebras are from AFRICA? you bitches have way too much time on your hands. Go get your braids done or something...

"When is the last time you saw a fashion collection of brown bear fur and Celtic prints labeled "Europe!" and sold as something hip and exotic?"

I was thinking of the bit in The Indian in the Cupboard where Omri makes a tipi for Little Bear, who rejects it because it's not a longhouse. But in this context, your simile works better.

Now, as a person with some British Isles ancestry, I think it'd be cool to see non-European models wearing Celtic knotwork and armbands. But I think it would be appropriate to name the designs properly.

What offends me more than the feminist and racial stuff is that the clothing is really bad! It doesn't suit the model (I doubt it would suit anyone actually)and it is a really cheap-looking, bad quality ad! Hating the lack of fabuloisty, my friends, hating it...(lol)

I'm going to settle on calling the ad campaign of a white woman looking "sexy" and "wild" with the word "Afrika" superimposed... well, on second thought, that kind of speaks for itself, unfortunately. I don't consider the clothes themselves to be a problem. Yes, there are all the issues of exoticism, etc. cited above - but animal prints are a long-established phenomenon, and as noted, cow/horse prints and "Western" attire are a cultural export as well. People have been borrowing each other's design motifs pretty promiscuously for millennia. That's not to say that appropriation doesn't exist in the world of fashion, just that animals/geography, and vague use of some general design motifs, don't strike me as an example of it. The clothes in this particular instance of it do, however, strike me as really ugly.

"Yes, there are all the issues of exoticism, etc. cited above - but animal prints are a long-established phenomenon, and as noted, cow/horse prints and "Western" attire are a cultural export as well."

So why do we describe certain animal or animal inspired designs as belonging to "Western" attire? Western means western North America, no? Is it because we acknowledge the connection between geography, history and a that lifestyle? So generous we are, but only when we are talking about our own shit.

I have to say after reading this that I agree with both Salad and whattamisaid.

I saw the Racialicious post sometime back and I felt like the issues of appropriation were on a pretty firm footing there. And I think there is a whole discussion one could have there, about its history and effects, even.

But I don't think it's as simple a power-relation as it first appears. And Legba, it isn't because I am a white person (something I didn't ask for, by the way) who doesn't want to think hard, it's because I was thinking hard about it.

Appropriation can happen in all sorts of ways for all sorts of reasons. Look at the give and take between Japan and the US. My relatives in Japan wanted t-shirts with English on them because it was cool to have. I don't think you could really make an argument that Japan is economically subordinate to the US or the reverse.

Also, not all that many Japanese people are literate in English. One of my cousins had a shirt that said "Teenage Power Up World" on it, and he asked me to translate. He thought it was cool anyway even after I told him it made no sense whatsoever.

On the flip side, Japanese norms in animated art (and in a lot of industrial design) have spread all over and have been "appropriated" in the US. And yet I don't think anyone here would call Giant Robot racist per se (or that store in SoHo that sells Japanese toys, it escapes me at the moment).

My uncle builds high end Japanese furniture, and he "appropriates" the culture in the sense that he uses Japanese techniques to make it and Japanese woods. People buy it because it is "exotic" and beautiful. But he can't help why people buy it, he's just thankful they'll pay $20-30K for a table that he spends a year building.

So it doesn't have to be this exploitation thing people talk about here. Not saying it isn't in this case, but it needn't be looked at that way all the time.

Again I ask, is there a way to do this that isn't racist by the definition Samhita gave? How would you market an animal print? How would you sell any clothing that was from an "exotic" place?

What of the Native Americans who sell jewelry to white tourists? Yes, the Natives are selling stuff so white folks can buy "native design" but they also benefit from it (in fact it's their livelihood) so when they use the same marketing tools what does that mean? They don't have any control over the perception of the jewelry by the surrounding culture, and even the buyers don't really control that either. Should they not buy it? Many of the Native designers and artists sell through white-owned outlets. They do that because they make more doing it that way. Should I not buy it from the outlet? I want to support local artisans where possible.

I was also asking what happens when you take certain theses to their logical conclusions. Hence my question about falsifiability.

This is why I don't automatically drop into the "that's racist because of its use of certain cultural signifiers" bit the way I did years ago. Because unless you could offer an alternative way to do it -- in this case sell animal-print clothing-- then you run into the problem of "everything you do is racist." If I can't ever not be racist that leaves me with no way to change my behavior by definition.

(I'm not saying there is no way to do it, but in a similar vein, those of us close to environmental issues have to offer other ways to do things or risk losing any support because most people don't want to live like the Amish. Many posts on feministing have offered precisely such alternatives before).

Lord knows I can think of a lot of things this ad could have done that would have tipped it into full-on racist territory for me. A sexualized black model, perhaps. Another one of those pictures with the white model surrounded by people in "traditional" dress. This doesn't quite make it, though it comes close.

Hmm, a lot of good points have been made here, so I can't say for sure whether or not this is racist, or to what degree. If anything I think this comes from the ingrained, subtly racist Western obsession with the exotic. Though, I wonder if the marketing had been with a Black model, if that would have seemed more or less racist.

One thing, however, is for certain: Those clothes are friggin' ugly.

Something very disturbing I noticed...

Note how much the accusatorial climate concerning racism has made people frightened of their own shadow to the point they have to apologize for challenging the views of the main contributors.

Example No. 1:
How is this racist? Not arguing, I just don't follow the reasoning...
Zardoz | September 9, 2008 12:14 PM

Because "arguing" would be so terrible???

Example No. 2:
(don't take this wrong, it's an honest question)
Not really getting it either,
Halo | September 9, 2008 1:44 PM

When people feel the need to preface any disagreement with an apologetic, that is a sign of a hypersensitive climate where rote agreement is valued more than analysis/diversity of opinion.

Also for all the ostensible concern about racism and perceptions of Africa, why do white people born in Africa (many of whom would spell it 'Afrika') not count?

Or do people plan to employ some outrageous sins-of-the-fathers argument which blanketly disparages 400 years of heritage and a unique culture (even if yes it did have many horrible aspects)?

No one ever seems to recognize the issue of anti-white racism which many people here exhibit with the ironic intent of combating other forms of racism.

Oh god, I know!
I usually avoid flipping over my alternative weekly for just this reason, but these new ads are just too much!
I guess American Apparel feel like since it's supposedly "sweatshop-free," it has the right to colonize and exoticize other cultures and women as it sees fit. At least the chain is called "American" apparel; clearly its advertising follows in the continuing tradition of American imperialism.
The white model - she is called "Tessa, the Dutch model" (Exoticism redux!) in the caption on the back of the Philadelphia Weekly - is purposely placed out of context in her "wild" Afrika print.
I'm so sick of "edgy" American Apparel ads colonizing women's bodies. I guess the shock value of that wore off, so they're going to start exploiting other cultures. Watch out, Asia!
-Jess D.

"I writing to comment on the inconsistency with which comments on Feministing are moderated. I really appreciated Puckalish's first comment, which added to and explained Samhita's post in a really helpful way. But as the thread progressed, Puckalish became quite rude (see post at 1.45pm, followed by fucking and bullshit), much more so than Bondo, who was (I choose to say) reprimanded by Jessica."-salmonarm

I have to agree with this statement. I thought Bondo was trying to make some valid points in a snarky tone not unfamiliar to this site, not be offensive. I can see some of the problems with appropriation and the ignorance often behind it is annoying. I especially have a problem when the item/image being appropriated is religious because depending on the manner in which it is being used it can be disrespectful and belittling to other's religions. That said, I don't find anything inherently wrong with different cultures adopting items/customs/etc. from others, in fact that is how cultures historically have grown and survived. "American" things are becoming popular in many other countries so why shouldn't "African" things? If the African woman was being likened to an animal then I would have a problem with this, but that isn't the case. The zebra and the tribal print are from Africa (or resemble those originating in Africa) and are being called "African". What is so racist about that?

Wow. I like how, rather than address the dismissive and privileged comments "think carefully," we have folks justifying them. Puckalish made some great points and apologized for the dismissive, harsh language, only because it did detract from the discussion at hand.

"So when I use "crying wolf" it represents what I perceive as the ability of the former approach to inhibit a more united reaction to those overt incidents of racism that the latter approach is concerned of."

Are you kidding me? Intellectualizing it does not make it any less dismissive.

I agree that this is straight up racism. I also see it along the lines of the way people sometimes view Native Americans in our country: sexualized and exotic, in a sense. There is no distinction between the different tribes that lived here, no knowledge of the many and vast cultures, just a fairy tale version of Pocahontas. (You can look at Halloween costumes stores are selling to see what I mean.) The same thing is done with people from Asia as well. Many depictions of Asian people in our media are limited to some kind of kung fu fighting, ninja representation (among other stereotypes). We do this othering and exotification ALL THE TIME.

Ok, just to remember the company we are dealing with here, doesn't anyone remember this? http://www.racialicious.com/2007/08/17/american-apparel-trumpets-blackface-fashion-spread-in-i-d-magazine/?

For people who have not been exposed to critical race theory or the study of colonialism and cultural appropriation, the new Afrika line probably doesn't look racist to you. The reason it doesn't look racist to you is because the attractiveness of the line is meant to play on the unconscious attitudes that non-african westerners have about africa. Here's a set of association words:

exotic
primitive
tribal
jungle
wild
animalistic
hypersexual

I can go on, but you get the point.

Africa is a continent, not a country. If they called the line "Cameroon", people would say "what"? Most americans don't know anything about africa, and probably couldn't point out Cameroon on a blank map. "Tribal" is a loaded word, which I could write like ten pages about, especially in relation to the western perception of african societies. There is just so much ignorance, I don't know where to start.

The word Africa is connected with a westernized idea of the continent, and has nothing to do with the people or cultures within it. This is nothing new.

What bothers me is that they don't actually import fabric from african countries and make THAT a selling point. That would be great. Instead, they make these crappy patterns themselves and call it African. They don't know the first thing about Africa.

They could have called it a bunch of other things, but they chose what they chose for a reason.

@Victorianox: the reason nobody raises the idea of anti-white racism is because it is a moot point, and a hypocritical idea. there has never been, nor will there ever be, aparteid or segregation against whites that is/was established for profit through force by non-whites. white colonialism created the dynamic of oppressing non-whites, and whenever the non-whites gain a foothold of power, its going to be seen as "anti-white" by whites because they are at the top of the power structure. When white people are being made slaves by non-whites, then I will agree with you that that is anti-white racism, but until that day, the whole idea is ridiculous and hypocritical.

@spike the cat: how about just "wild prints"? they could have done it many different ways. this is also different than your example of using japanese techniques, because these clothes aren't CLOSE to authentic. It's like calling David Carradine chinese.

Also, skunks are from America, but nobody wears its skin as clothes. Zebra pelts were brought back as trophies by game hunters, but clothing is made from CLOTH. Nobody goes around wearing animal skins like that.

Real african fabrics look like this: http://africanandsilkfabrics.com/

surprised? no animal print. I rest my case.

American Apparel is awful. I say let's make our own clothes. DIY is so post-hipster!

Hello everyone. Long time reader, first time commenter of feministing. Finally went ahead and went through the extremely-minor-but-just-irritating-enough-to-put-it-off-as-long-as-possible process of making myself an account so that I could comment on this specific thread.

A little bit about me so you know where my perspective on this is coming from: I'm a 19 year old college student living in suburban northern Virginia, and my race is black, or if you want to be exact, "mulatto" - my mother is a Swedish/English mix from a bourgeois military family, my father is African-American working class. Or, for all intensive purposes, and since neither of them are first-generation immigrants, my heritage is one part white and one part black. I was raised primarily by my white mother (my dad worked all the time) but I usually self-identify as "Black" on those stupid government forms, because that's the race most people see and treat me as. Not that what other people think completely determines my self-identity, but we all know what a large influence the treatment of society can have on the creation of the self. /end rant

I can't tell you if the AA ad is racist, but I can tell you my feelings about it as a black person - or at least, a mixed person who is too black to "pass" as white, if that helps my "ethnic credibility".

Though I abhor the rampant hypersexualization of their ads, I often browse the AA site. There's something strangely compelling about their ugly, overpriced clothes.

The very first time I saw the "Afrika" line, I immediately felt uncomfortable with it. My gut reaction as a person of a dark complexion was an anxious discomfort and an immediate sense of unease.

I don't know exactly why I felt agitated so suddenly, but I can speculate.

Maybe it was the intentional misspelling of the continent's name, a misspelling which looks like it's meant to make the continent look more primitive. Maybe it was the blatant cultural oversimplification. Maybe it was a flashback to when I was in grade school, and I felt expected to know much more about slavery than anyone else - as if the condition of all black people throughout history was my birthright-burden to bear. Maybe it was the implication that these are the sorts of things all people in modern-day Africa wear, and, by extension, the kinds of things I would wearing if I were there. Maybe it was me being afraid that white people would subconsciously think that these were the clothes all black wanted to/ought to wear. Maybe it was that when most people in America hear the word "Africa", it's in the context of the term "African-American," and I felt scared that people would start subconsciously associating me with traditionally "savage" things like wearing animal skins. Maybe it was the fact that I personally always feel the need to shy away from wearing anything remotely like these prints, for fear of looking too "wild" or too (and it pains me to say this, but I've spoken to other blacks who have expressed the same fear) "native." Much in the same way I often feel uncomfortable wearing gingham print, a print traditionally given to slave women to make their clothes from. Maybe it's that these "Afrikan" clothes are so clearly meant for white people. Maybe it's that society has taught me to abhor looking "too black." Maybe it's because it's American Apparel, a company which takes beautiful ideas and then makes them sexual and dirty and commercial, and I'm afraid that they'll (unironically) do the same with beautiful African cultures. Maybe I'm afraid people will see it and begin to think "Ahah! Just as I always suspected about Afrika! Black people are wild, lustful, uncivilized beasts who wear tacky animal-print porn-star outfits!" Maybe it's that as a black person, I have to go through so much to distance myself from "traditional" black behavior, which some people seem to believe includes doing a voodoo dance around a fire while wearing an animal skin, if I want to be accepted as a valuable member of society, and this feels like a huge psychological step back. Maybe it's the fact that AA made a line about African clothes that they absolutely could not hire a black model for.

That's my long list of conjectures, and like I said, I can't tell you if it's racist, period, but speaking as a black person, I can tell you that it felt racist to *me*.

Just so you know, I'm not implying that simply wearing an animal print is racist, as it's obviously not. It's a combination of all the facets (as listed in my previous comment) of this particular advertising campaign that made me feel all weird and uncomfortable.

this style is not fashionable at all. I am not sure what they were thinking when they came out with this. As far as racism i do not see it.

japanese fashion

this has to be the ugliest think that i every saw. Who would wear something like this. I know i would not wear this. What would this go with.
Home Improvement Tips