fashion

Historical background

Lots of critics today may point to globalization and the viral sharing capabilities of the internet and social media for the inevitable cases of cultural appropriation in fashion. Every year, both high and fast fashion brands are called out for “borrowing” from other cultures. Questions of ownership, copyright, and appropriation are unclear and often difficult to answer definitively. The Indian Act, which has been in place in Canada for over 140 years forbade indigenous groups from practicing their culture, participating in public dance or celebration, and from wearing traditional regalia (Joseph, 2016). It was once against the law to simply wear their traditional clothing. For marginalized groups that had all of their culture taken from them. Having clothing repackaged for a one sided benefit further perpetuates their oppression. They rarely if ever get compensation for their cultural fashion contributions in the form of payment, credit, or collaboration with designers. The culture rarely gets credit or any form of compensation - has a history of colonial and imperial rule, white people think they can keep taking stuff from them for their use and their benefit. Unlike in other industries, there are very few grounds to make copyright claims in the fashion world. Because garments are considered “useful items”, they are outside of intellectual property law and thus not eligible under the US Copyright Act (Atkinson, 2016). Borrowing inspiration from other cultures, brands, and styles and outright stealing walks a thin line when it comes to the law.

Who benefits/who loses

Basically, cultural appropriation is more clearly harmful when a “trend” takes from a minority culture and deems that trend more societally acceptable when the majority culture adopts it. Fashion cultural appropriation is harmful when a style taken from a minority culture is deemed socially acceptable and “trendy” when the dominant culture adopts it. Even worse, is when an element is taken out of context (ex. a religious garment like a turban or Native American war bonnet) to make a fashion statement. For these groups who were outright denied access to their own culture and garments, this is a one-sided show of white privilege. For the example of the war bonnet as sacred regalia, whenever a white celebrity wears one, many fellow rich white outsiders stand up to defend their actions. The standard for what is deemed offensive, isn’t coming from Native Americans, who aren’t even heard. This further extends white privilege to represent a “hyper-colonialist attitude that relinquishes rights to the Natives only if and when it is convenient to those in power” (White, 2017).

The verdict:

In some cases, this sharing of culture is ok. In many however, they are not. Religious artifacts are strictly off limits. In the best of cases , cultural sharing of fashion is done right. The group was given royalties, credit, and consulted with. Err on the side of caution when it comes to fashion, if in doubt, just put that kimono down.