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 nea