http://www.change.org/petitions/ceo-urban-outfitters-remove-the-navajo-collection-from-stores?utm_medium=email&alert_id=loXRtXXcQH_hlUULaCUwp&utm_source=action_alert

some of it makes sense, claiming "navajo" and whatnot.... but read some of their reasons for signing. interesting.
  • TheUTee

    of course this happens as soon as make believe gets in people magazine. I can see why they dont like the trend though
  • Craig Robson

    what a stupid law.
  • Killer Napkins

    well i just saw that they didn't pull the products.. but they renamed them all to not include the word "navajo"
  • Jake Ward

    i don't understand what's so offensive?
  • cmeyers

    Jake Ward said:i don't understand what's so offensive?

    they think that anyone who has no native american blood has no right to use native american inspired art. I get the whole claiming "Navajo" when it really isn't, to an extent.... but still, the whole thing is ridiculous. one of the "reasons" mentioned that no other race would ever be used as a trend like that.... ha...
  • atomicchild

    Just imagine if your race was abused and discarded by every other race in the country you live in. They are treated like they don't exist in the country that is only truly theres. I can see reason for being upset.
  • Craig Robson

    remember when that place tried to get a similar law meaning pizza's could only be made there. everyone else had to rename "italian style flat breads" and shit.

    idiots.
  • Craig Robson

    its a little the same too.
  • cmeyers

    Craig Robson said:its a little the same too.

    yep. I understand to a certain extent... but if something is truly Navajo inspired, there's nothing wrong with calling it that. just like it shouldnt be an issue to call something the "NYC" line of it draws inspiration from that place. white people don't complain about Mexican restaurants having "gringo killer" sauce, so whats the big deal?
  • cityhall

    cmeyers said:
    Craig Robson said:its a little the same too.

    white people don't complain about Mexican restaurants having "gringo killer" sauce, so whats the big deal?

    *speed dials lawyer*
  • TRIBE

    I've personally been receiving a bit of flack for this and TRIBE hasn't even dropped yet. I can only imagine whats to come.
  • Joe Dirt

    reason for signing:

    we want money
  • 8-bit ZOMBIE

    atomicchild said:Just imagine if your race was abused and discarded by every other race in the country you live in. They are treated like they don't exist in the country that is only truly theres. I can see reason for being upset.

    I'm thinking this is the reason for the law. I mean, Native Americans have literally had EVERYTHING taken from them over the years. The law is probably there to try to protect the very little they do have left. If you drive through the southwest, you'll see stands a long the road where Native Americans are selling hand made jewelry and the like. Trying to scrape by any way they can. Now think if some high fashion brand in New York sees that stuff, copies it and sells them as a "Native American" style for big money. Super unfair.

    Yeah, it's a weird law. But it is a bit of a different situation.

    And as to why it's so offensive - Imagine if the group of people who raped, pillaged and destroyed your culture, then adopted parts of your culture for the sole purpose of making money from it. I'd be pissed too.
  • TRIBE

    8-bit ZOMBIE said:
    atomicchild said:Just imagine if your race was abused and discarded by every other race in the country you live in. They are treated like they don't exist in the country that is only truly theres. I can see reason for being upset.

    I'm thinking this is the reason for the law. I mean, Native Americans have literally had EVERYTHING taken from them over the years. I'm thinking this law is there to try to protect the very little they do have left. If you drive through the southwest, you'll see stands where Native Americans are selling hand made jewelry and the like. Trying to scrape by any way they can. Now think if some high fashion brand in New York sees that stuff, copies it and sells them as a "Native American" style for big money. Super unfair.

    Yeah, it's a weird law. But it is a bit of a different situation.

    I totally see this aspect. I have seen a great deal of accurate, native knockoffs.
  • Craig Robson

    Tender Branson said:Or not. The Native American culture has been cast aside and they are fighting for what little they have left.

    I can't believe the same people that argue with people constantly for having a similar style as someone else can't understand why the Navajo people would feel a little uneasy with some major corporation whoring out their culture.

    so, as artists are we confined to the symbolism and inspiration inherent in our own cultures only? should we be prohibited from drawing influence from cultures that are not ours? how far should that extend?
  • aaron.s

    hmmm....maybe I shouldn't print this then haha

  • cmeyers

    i see a reason for being upset, but i don't see a reason to take legal action over it. is urban outfitters really taking any profit away from them? highly doubtful. like i said, i get the whole thing about dropping the navajo name from the items, but still. just because something might offend someone, doesn't mean it should be removed from the shelves. i'm a christian and i don't get bent out of shape just because i see an upside down cross. i disagree with it, but i'm not gonna ask that it be removed from the shelves. even if it is cheap, and whoring, it shouldn't necessitate legal action.
  • Craig Robson

    also, just wanted to say i CAN understand the basis of the law, i just think its a little exaggerated and the native equivalent of "white guilt"
  • Make Believe

    We actually ran into some problems last summer. You can read a lovely blog post about it here :

    http://nativeappropriations.blogspot.com/2011/05/um-not-make-believe.html
  • Divine Beast

    I'm just kinda sick of this trend so mad support!

    aaron.s said:hmmm....maybe I shouldn't print this then haha


    This is dope though
  • cmeyers

    Make Believe said:We actually ran into some problems last summer. You can read a lovely blog post about it here :

    http://nativeappropriations.blogspot.com/2011/05/um-not-make-believe.html

    wait.... what? you mean to tell me that there are real ones?
  • dobi

    i get it.
  • RobotTiger

    shut the fuck up
    i'm fuckin disgusted by this. So disgusted that im not even going to bother correcting my spelling or grammar. So excited to by navajo shit from urban outfitters
  • RoboPickle

    It's kind of funny that they don't see these designs as inspired. I guess it has to be actually made from native americans for it to be ok..?
  • Decappuccino

    They liked it before it went mainstream.
  • Josh Elowsky

    dobi said:i get it.
  • Josh Elowsky

    Divine Beast said:I'm just kinda sick of this trend so mad support!

    aaron.s said:hmmm....maybe I shouldn't print this then haha


    This is dope though

    Normally the 'put a skull on it' design solution is benign, death is sexy and it sells.

    It's only when you apply it to a particular context that it's offensive or dangerous. In this case and in the case of at least 2 other designs on this site that feature skulls in headdresses the designs are capitalizing off of the image of a dead Indian. Someone even commented on one the designs "best native inspired design I've seen" as if out of everything 'native inspired' thats out there a dead indian is the best native motif they've come across.

    I'm also sure if someone put a skull anywhere near the Star of David people would have a shit fit. But Indians are cool though right? I'm saying just think about it first.
    Genocide and the rape of culture isn't something you can treat like movie posters from the 50's and just slap it on a shirt because, hey, it's been x amount of years and nobody cares anymore.
    Show a little sensitivity is all.
  • dobi

    Well said.
  • deekin

    I don't think as an artist I would treat any entity/religion/race as untouchable. That is what an artist is supposed to do. Break boundaries, make people uncomfortable, and make them think. If you can do that, your job is done.

    It is a slightly different story when that art is being used to sell products in a mass marketing kind of way. I suppose, for me, I would simply consider whether or not I believed in the moral standing of said company or companies. If I owned a company that directly took my inspiration from a group of people that could use help, I would see that I was doing my part to help them in some way. And I woul dlet that be known on the product itself and my website.

    And also what Josh said...^
  • cmeyers

    Josh Elowsky said:
    Divine Beast said:I'm just kinda sick of this trend so mad support!

    aaron.s said:hmmm....maybe I shouldn't print this then haha


    This is dope though

    Normally the 'put a skull on it' design solution is benign, death is sexy and it sells.

    It's only when you apply it to a particular context that it's offensive or dangerous. In this case and in the case of at least 2 other designs on this site that feature skulls in headdresses the designs are capitalizing off of the image of a dead Indian. Someone even commented on one the designs "best native inspired design I've seen" as if out of everything 'native inspired' thats out there a dead indian is the best native motif they've come across.

    I'm also sure if someone put a skull anywhere near the Star of David people would have a shit fit. But Indians are cool though right? I'm saying just think about it first.
    Genocide and the rape of culture isn't something you can treat like movie posters from the 50's and just slap it on a shirt because, hey, it's been x amount of years and nobody cares anymore.
    Show a little sensitivity is all.

    seriously? i see images of jesus mutilated with 666 and upside down crosses and pentagrams everywhere on this site and no one cares about that, not even the christians on this site, but if it's racial it's different? and since when is an indian with a skull considered a "dead indian" and inferring that the death of that indian is a positive thing? no one's putting indians in coffins and wishing them to be dead.
  • DanielAndHisArt

    I had an indian neighbor growing up.

    He fucking loved McDonalds.

    He was a good dude.
  • Craig Robson

    i mean, i get it, the navajos have a history of persecution and if someone put up an image of lots of jewish people with skulls for faces it would be viewed as risky.

    HOWEVER, this argument has nothing to do with the connotations of whatever symbolism or image is used, its about its use in general. that it is prohibited to use an indian symbol in any way, skull face or not. see that make believe got into bother for just having a piece of history depicted on his shirts. i find it strange that the indian community has such control over its part of world history and that its judged as off limits for the rest of the world.

    i get that traditional indian crafts are almost sacred and in danger of being hijacked, but to take a photograph or a drawing of an indian and put it onto a t-shirt or canvas should be fine.
  • Andrew Haines

    Make Believe said:We actually ran into some problems last summer. You can read a lovely blog post about it here :

    http://nativeappropriations.blogspot.com/2011/05/um-not-make-believe.html

    I think that that is the dumbest arguement/original thought I have ever seen. Even if I wasn't a designer I'm pretty sure that would never speak to me as saying "You think Geronimo was make believe!"
  • Divine Beast

    Josh Elowsky said:
    Divine Beast said:I'm just kinda sick of this trend so mad support!

    aaron.s said:hmmm....maybe I shouldn't print this then haha


    This is dope though

    Normally the 'put a skull on it' design solution is benign, death is sexy and it sells.

    It's only when you apply it to a particular context that it's offensive or dangerous. In this case and in the case of at least 2 other designs on this site that feature skulls in headdresses the designs are capitalizing off of the image of a dead Indian. Someone even commented on one the designs "best native inspired design I've seen" as if out of everything 'native inspired' thats out there a dead indian is the best native motif they've come across.

    I'm also sure if someone put a skull anywhere near the Star of David people would have a shit fit. But Indians are cool though right? I'm saying just think about it first.
    Genocide and the rape of culture isn't something you can treat like movie posters from the 50's and just slap it on a shirt because, hey, it's been x amount of years and nobody cares anymore.
    Show a little sensitivity is all.

    It's a fucking tee shirt

    I'm sick of this politically correct crap that goes on around America now

    I come from two races

    One which was slaughtered, conquered, and converted to Catholicism by the European blood that most likely flows through your veins

    and the other that was relocated off it's land by the very same European blood that most likely flows through your veins and the veins of pretty much everyone on this forum

    Still think it's a cool shirt and you will never see me complaining or calling for sensitivity over a bloody shirt
  • Josh Elowsky

    Craig Robson said:i mean, i get it, the navajos have a history of persecution and if someone put up an image of lots of jewish people with skulls for faces it would be viewed as risky.

    HOWEVER, this argument has nothing to do with the connotations of whatever symbolism or image is used, its about its use in general. that it is prohibited to use an indian symbol in any way, skull face or not. see that make believe got into bother for just having a piece of history depicted on his shirts. i find it strange that the indian community has such control over its part of world history and that its judged as off limits for the rest of the world.

    i get that traditional indian crafts are almost sacred and in danger of being hijacked, but to take a photograph or a drawing of an indian and put it onto a t-shirt or canvas should be fine.

    Dig it, if you are a graphic designer you make a living as a visual communicator. You have a responsibility to think about what you're communicating no matter what your work involves. And if you're sensitive to your market or your subject matter or your client then you would be sensitive to exactly what, if any, message you are communicating.

    So tell me, what message does a skull with a headdress communicate?
    I dare you to wear it to the rez, my friend.
    One small gesture, like a bit of proceeds benefitting whatever nation is being portrayed, would change the context completely.

    As for the Make Believe line the text is clearly the brand name, I'm not so sure that the image is Geronimo though. Brandon's design, while apparently contrary to the law, was at least respectful in appearance. And by the way even the smallest glimpse into Apache history or any Native history, I'm convinced, would make it that much harder to consider profiting from it in any way other than to educate.

    And for the record federally recognized tribes and reservations, like the Navajo, are sovereign nations so yeah, it's hands off to the rest of the world. Sorry you can't wear it on your shirt man.
  • DrewGliever

    wahh
  • Divine Beast

    DrewGliever said:WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH
  • Craig Robson

    Josh Elowsky said:
    Craig Robson said:i mean, i get it, the navajos have a history of persecution and if someone put up an image of lots of jewish people with skulls for faces it would be viewed as risky.

    HOWEVER, this argument has nothing to do with the connotations of whatever symbolism or image is used, its about its use in general. that it is prohibited to use an indian symbol in any way, skull face or not. see that make believe got into bother for just having a piece of history depicted on his shirts. i find it strange that the indian community has such control over its part of world history and that its judged as off limits for the rest of the world.

    i get that traditional indian crafts are almost sacred and in danger of being hijacked, but to take a photograph or a drawing of an indian and put it onto a t-shirt or canvas should be fine.

    Dig it, if you are a graphic designer you make a living as a visual communicator. You have a responsibility to think about what you're communicating no matter what your work involves. And if you're sensitive to your market or your subject matter or your client then you would be sensitive to exactly what, if any, message you are communicating.

    So tell me, what message does a skull with a headdress communicate?
    I dare you to wear it to the rez, my friend.
    One small gesture, like a bit of proceeds benefitting whatever nation is being portrayed, would change the context completely.

    As for the Make Believe line the text is clearly the brand name, I'm not so sure that the image is Geronimo though. Brandon's design, while apparently contrary to the law, was at least respectful in appearance. And by the way even the smallest glimpse into Apache history or any Native history, I'm convinced, would make it that much harder to consider profiting from it in any way other than to educate.

    And for the record federally recognized tribes and reservations, like the Navajo, are sovereign nations so yeah, it's hands off to the rest of the world. Sorry you can't wear it on your shirt man.

    i think you just argued against me when i agreed with you, read back my comments. i said i agree about context but that this issue isnt about context.

    i understand what putting a skull on the face of a person does (read my first sentence)

    this has nothing to do with disrespectful images or images that defile or subvert parts of any culture.

    and i fully understand about the fact that they are sovereign and according to US law out of bounds for other cultures. i said that i find it strange, not that it doesnt exist.

    read back what i wrote, we are arguing about nothing.
  • cmeyers

    One small gesture, like a bit of proceeds benefitting whatever nation is being portrayed, would change the context completely.

    ur kidding right? do you know how ridiculous that is? a nation or race should be compensated for a piece of their culture represented on a shirt? right
  • Josh Elowsky

    Craig Robson said:
    Josh Elowsky said:
    Craig Robson said:i mean, i get it, the navajos have a history of persecution and if someone put up an image of lots of jewish people with skulls for faces it would be viewed as risky.

    HOWEVER, this argument has nothing to do with the connotations of whatever symbolism or image is used, its about its use in general. that it is prohibited to use an indian symbol in any way, skull face or not. see that make believe got into bother for just having a piece of history depicted on his shirts. i find it strange that the indian community has such control over its part of world history and that its judged as off limits for the rest of the world.

    i get that traditional indian crafts are almost sacred and in danger of being hijacked, but to take a photograph or a drawing of an indian and put it onto a t-shirt or canvas should be fine.

    Dig it, if you are a graphic designer you make a living as a visual communicator. You have a responsibility to think about what you're communicating no matter what your work involves. And if you're sensitive to your market or your subject matter or your client then you would be sensitive to exactly what, if any, message you are communicating.

    So tell me, what message does a skull with a headdress communicate?
    I dare you to wear it to the rez, my friend.
    One small gesture, like a bit of proceeds benefitting whatever nation is being portrayed, would change the context completely.

    As for the Make Believe line the text is clearly the brand name, I'm not so sure that the image is Geronimo though. Brandon's design, while apparently contrary to the law, was at least respectful in appearance. And by the way even the smallest glimpse into Apache history or any Native history, I'm convinced, would make it that much harder to consider profiting from it in any way other than to educate.

    And for the record federally recognized tribes and reservations, like the Navajo, are sovereign nations so yeah, it's hands off to the rest of the world. Sorry you can't wear it on your shirt man.

    i think you just argued against me when i agreed with you, read back my comments. i said i agree about context but that this issue isnt about context.

    i understand what putting a skull on the face of a person does (read my first sentence)

    this has nothing to do with disrespectful images or images that defile or subvert parts of any culture.

    and i fully understand about the fact that they are sovereign and according to US law out of bounds for other cultures. i said that i find it strange, not that it doesnt exist.

    read back what i wrote, we are arguing about nothing.

    Sorry Craig I quoted you but was responding in general.

Advertise with us

Advertise with us


Sign Up

Forgot Your Password?