Fashion Trends That Are More Harmful Than Beautiful

Written by Summer Lake

 

 

Figure 1(Sauers 2011)

 

In 2012 Sasha Houston Brown, a member of the Santee Sioux Nation, wrote a letter to the popular fashion company Urban Outfitters (NPR 2012). In her letter, she brought to light that the company has been using the term “Navajo,” without the tribe’s permission, to sell a line of items that the tribe does not resonate with (NPR 2012). She felt that it was an embarrassment and insensitive gesture to the tribe to sell items such as “Navajo Hipster Panty,” “Vintage Handmade Navajo Necklace,” and “Navajo Print Fabric Wrapped Flask” (NPR 2012). Brown posted her letter online on Columbus Day, and it instantly went viral, bringing attention to the Navajo tribe that this misuse of their trademarked name and appropriation of their culture was happening (NPR 2012). In February 2012, the Navajo Tribe sued Urban Outfitters and its subsidiaries for “infringing on [the Navajo Tribe’s] trademarks by using the name ‘Navajo’ in connection with its sale of goods ranging from jewelry to underwear to flasks” (Fonseca 2012). This court case continued until September 2016, where the final verdict was a split between the Defendants and Plaintiffs each winning some rights (NAVAJO 2016). The Navajo Nation received some settlement pay, but Urban Outfitters was not required to remove the designs from their products (NAVAJO 2016). On the most positive side of the dispute, the tribe and company signed a supply and license agreement, so that the patterns could continue to be used, but in a much more appropriate way (Fonseca 2011).

            During the trials, the Navajo initially sued UO over the use of the registered trademark name “Navajo” (NAVAJO 2016). UO defended on the basis “that the ‘Navajo’ trademark has become generic or that [the tribe has] abandoned that mark (NAVAJO 2016). UO also felt “that the term “Navajo” is now “a generic name or designation for a fashion style or design,” because [the tribe has] allowed a multitude of third-parties to use that term” (NAVAJO 2016). They felt that because thousands of other companies use the term to describe that style of product, and that the Navajo tribe has not sued them for copyright infringement, UO is not at fault for following fashion trends (NAVAJO 2016). This product line simply began as a means of creating a trendy look for a trendy retailer.

These types of property infringement affects tribes in a few ways. Companies make huge profits from selling these products, none of which the tribe has power to obtain. With high poverty levels in reservations, it is very unfair that they do not profit from their culture, art, and name being used constantly to make millions. A lot of tribal people also feel that if these products do not represent their culture’s values and beliefs, the general society is being trained to have an incorrect, lesser, or negative perspective on tribes that are already suffering (NPR 2012). In her letter, Sasha Brown stated that the Navajo product labelling "has taken Indigenous life ways and artistic expressions and trivialized and sexualized them for the sake of corporate profit" (Fonseca 2011). Dwayne Clauschee, a designer from the Navajo town of Chinle in Arizona, said:

A Navajo flask is extremely insensitive considering the long history of alcohol abuse among Native tribes, many of which ban the sale and consumption of alcohol on their reservations. The Navajo Nation is among them. And branding underwear as "Navajo" goes against the tribe's spiritual beliefs of modesty and avoidance of indecency (Fonseca 2011).

It is not uncommon for this occurrence to happen to all types of tribes, and with the protection of the Indian Arts and Crafts Act, the tribes’ cultures should be legally protected when necessary (NAVAJO 2016). Even with laws and legislations protecting the tribes, it takes time, money, and resources to contact or sue every entity that violates those laws. For the cultures to maintain their individuality, it requires much more work than the general public assumes, and while the tribes work on fixing issues, the issues continue to affect the tribes meanwhile. Even though this particular trial has been closed, the stealing of art, designs, and ideas from tribal cultures is still happening and it is up to the legal system, tribes, and advocates to keep working at securing their separate cultural space in their home countries. 

            These types of conflicts, involving popular products that get sold worldwide, shed a lot of light upon the lack of cultural relativism within most companies. UO simply did not stop to think that their new line of items would offend the tribe from which their line’s name originated. They had completely disconnected the name with the peoples, for the sake of keeping up with fashion trends and making more money. Perhaps during their initial brainstorming meeting for new designs, if even one person had mentioned the possibility of offending the Navajo tribe, this court case may have never happened. Of course, it is important to consider the rights of other artists to take inspiration from other cultures and art, but the tribes were much more offended that the products were advertised as being made by the Navajo, and being representative of the tribe and its own beliefs (NAVAJO 2016). If UO had understood cultural relativism more, and respected the tribes by asking permission to use their aesthetic for promotion of goods, these issues could have been avoided. The Navajo tribe has worked with many other retailers, ranging from Mazda (NPR 2012) to Pendleton Woolen Mills (NAVAJO 2016), and generally does not mind the use of its designs or name as long as permission is sought and appropriate credit is given. The tribes do not want to be a separate part of this world, but rather a distinct and respected piece of the whole.

 

Figure 2 (Yannetta 2011)

 

 

Sources

Fonseca, F. 2011. Urban Outfitters Navajo line draws criticism from Navajo Nation. [online] The Christian Science Monitor. Available at: https://www.csmonitor.com/Business/Latest-News-Wires/2011/1017/Urban-Outfitters-Navajo-line-draws-criticism-from-Navajo-Nation [Accessed 23 Mar. 2019].

National Public Radio. 2012. Navajo Nation Sues Urban Outfitters Over Trademark. [podcast] Tell Me More. Available at: https://www.npr.org/2012/04/05/150062611/navajo-nation-sues-urban-outfitters-over-trademark [Accessed 23 Mar. 2019].

"NAVAJO NATION V. URBAN OUTFITTERS, INC.". 2016. Federal Courts. https://narf.org/nill/bulletins/federal/documents/navajo_nation_v_urban_outfitters_2016.html.

Sauers, Jenna. 2011. "Urban Outfitters And The Navajo Nation: What Does The Law Say?". Jezebel.Com. https://jezebel.com/urban-outfitters-and-the-navajo-nation-what-does-the-l-5849637.

Yannetta, Tiffany. 2011. "Could Urban Outfitters' Navajo Hipster Panty Actually Be Illegal?". Racked. https://www.racked.com/2011/10/10/7748429/could-urban-outfitters-navajo-hipster-panty-actually-be-illegal.