Urban Controversies

Nava-no!

Urban Outfitters is the hipsters' brand of choice: strange dress forms, see-through material and interesting prints.  Said interesting prints however have landed UO in a political storm, moreover one that is debatably racial.  A couple of months ago the store brought in the Navajo print, one that takes its name from a real, proper Native American tribe and to add insult to injury, directly copies their traditional prints.

After a young Native American woman wrote an open letter to the CEO of UO (on a website called 'Racialicious' I kid you not), the culture and fashion blogosphere apparently imploded with anti-racial good intentions.  Petitions circulated demanding the line, which includes amongst other harmless products knickers and a hipflask, be discontinued.  In one blogger's words: "The arrogance of this company should make other groups wary of their products, lest their culture is the next to be satirized for a quick hipster buck."  Oh dear UO.


Maybe it's because WWP is of British refinement, maybe it's because WWP is an ignorant bigot, but the point that could crucially be missing here is that these outcries are coming from America, and Urban Outfitters is a global brand.  It is entirely possible that the designs were dreamt up by a Danish design genius who hadn't even watched Pocohontas, let alone known who the Navajo were.  And in a wider context, where would this debate put George Michael's cross earring, Marlene Dietrich's turban or every Islamic rug that decorates the parquet flooring of middle-class Surrey?  Every fashion design will have been influenced by religion somewhere along the line, as that was the first thing in history to give humanity self-identity.  Except in the case of Jack Wills.  Which I suppose could be classed as Satanic.