Why I Hate Abercromie & Fitch

In the article, Why I Hate Abercrombie & Fitch, Dwight McBride concludes that the clothing line, produce originally by David Abercrombie and Ezra Fitch as an outdoor sporting goods shop, utilized hiring practices and advertising strategies in order to promote white, privileged elite. The article begins with a historical outline of the company’s early products and practices. It initially served as a clothing and equipment line for professional outdoorsmen. The line exploded in popularity and became known as “the outfitter of the rich, famous, and powerful.” Many respected societal figures were recorded as shopping here from Teddy Roosevelt to Amelia Earhart. All of course white and of privilege. Throughout the changing of hands in management, the company has generally maintained a reputation as celebrating whiteness. In what the company calls the look book, the guide to how brand representatives should appear in order to make consumers wish to be like them and buy the products offered, required style of dress for employees generally excludes traditional African American hairstyles and jewelry preferences. Photos included in this publication are often lacking in any ethnic models. The one mentioned in this piece only displayed two in twelve photos. These also often tout such descriptions of typical Abercrombie employees as “natural” and “American” implying that white equals American which equals natural, an image not in accordance with what a “true” American is, and original native. One quote that serves as a perfect example of this presents itself on page 68: “A commitment to masculine whiteness, with its emphasis on territoriality exploitation of resources, and the perception of other non-whites as dependant and lacking in political and mental capacity, is part of the master narrative that formed an important foundation for out ideas of American citizenship.” The author concludes that the demographic appealed to by the company is one strictly of white race and wealth or power.
What I would have to ask the man is what do brands like “South Pole” and “Baby Fat” have to offer a white community? Are these not specifically geared toward African American communities and is that not in the same respect a form of racism?
After reading this article, I was a little angry. I have to say that Abercrombie is not the only company to appeal to white demographics and yes, this is wrong, but still—it is not as if the roles don’t reverse at some points. Granted, it’s not nearly as much of a problem but I honestly don’t think the issue deserves this much attention. People are welcome to shop wherever they please; it’s a huge part of “American” culture. That is, the tendency of people in general in this country to shop for pleasure and to do it often.

"The Tempest in the Wilderness"

This chapter initially details the reaction of the natives when confronted with the scene of the arrival of the settlers to the new world. They saw the white bearded men as ugly and deformed yet as gods or “Mannittowock.” The chapter describes accounts of prophetic dreams had by natives foreseeing the coming of the white men. The article then transitions into correlating the discovery of the new world to Shakespeare’s “The Tempest” which was first presented in London in 1611, around the same time as the discovery of “Strange inhabitants in new lands.” The chapter clearly defines the play as a fascinating tale that served as a masquerade for the creation of a new society in America. It gives way to not only the age old concept of imperialism but to the development of this “new English-American identity as based on race.” The play’s perfectly timed release further enforced English perception of the American natives as uncivilized savages. Not only were these people categorized but as a main character in the play resembled an Irishman and the English were also colonizing in Ireland, the people of that culture were also labeled “wild.” They were thought to be nomadic and simple people “living outside of civilization.” They were portrayed as lazy and idle because their society was not set up like the typical English living environment. As they were being conquered, the English put it out there that the Irish were controllable only through force. The English were portrayed as the disciplinarian that the Irish needed. Their villages and crops were burned and the people were forced onto reservations. Others were savagely murdered and their heads kept as trophies. The intolerance merely boiled down to difference in culture. And so both the Indian cultures and the Irish were lumped into one mass of seemingly uncivilized savages in need of structure and reform. “Initially ‘savagery’ was defined in relationship to the Irish, and the Indians were incorporated into this definition.” The goal of the English overall was to expand their way of life by any means necessary, violent or not.
The only question drawn to mind in reference to this piece is how would the world have progressed without these expansions and this brutality? It blows my mind that the world is even as stable as it is today if this is how certain events were brought about. And it makes me question human nature at that-is there no way to succeed without violence and oppression? And is the cost worth more than the end result?
This reading set my mind aback. Honestly, it seems like all that is plastered on the news today is carnage and heart break. Overexposure to this has hardened our cultures to the reality of what’s happening in society today, let alone what got us to this point. It makes me wonder about the future.

Ethnic Notions

The movie was a chronicle of history’s negative representation of African Americans in the media. In cartoons blacks were often, if not always, depicted as soulful, water-melon eating, laundry-doing characters. A common character, referred to as the “Sambo,” was put on the screen as a “simple, docile black man” who was almost always a carefree irresponsible individual possessing a sense of child-like contentment. One such Sambo was called Jim Crowe and was played by T.D. Rice. Rice was a black man who painted himself into a black man. While the show was merely comedic, the stereotype stuck causing people to believe that blacks were willing servants. It perpetuated the idea that “slavery was good for the negro” and that slaves were perfectly content to remain as such. Such images made people feel better about the horror that was slavery. It served as a sort of cop out for those allowing it to go on. The over-use of this stigma led to shifting perceptions within society causing people to see all African Americans in such a light regardless of the validity of the representation. The female version of the Sambo came to be called the “Mammy,” which was always a fat black woman who was also a loyal and docile servant who was protective of her white charges. She was portrayed so grossly in order to serve as the antithesis of the white woman. She was portrayed as good natured and benevolent with the white children in her care but controlling and strict with her own family which was not at all like the way whites ran their families. Whites saw this behavior as against societal norms and therefore incorrect. This was proof enough for whites that the black population would not last. Following the Civil War, the portrayal of blacks went from bad to worse as the old stereotypes were adapted to new governmental order. They were displayed as savages and brutes in need of control, namely by slaveholders. The film “Birth of a Nation” carried on this negative image by displaying the emancipation of the slaves a mistake and grotesquely exhibiting horrid crimes against whites committed by blacks. One example involved the hunting down of white virgin girls. At this point the days of slavery were referred to as “the good ol’ days,” while emancipation was deemed evil. Blacks began to be associated with animals in order for proponents of slavery to justify the abuse of these people. “Coon” jokes became commonplace black actors began to take the stage as despised “nigger” characters. They would take the work in order to eat and just live the most basic life but these actors only perpetuated the stereotypes. One such actor was Bert Williams who, although was perfectly articulate, took on the role of an illiterate plantation-bound black man. He couldn’t even be served a meal in public despite his fame. All that mattered was his skin color and to this effect he said, “There is no disgrace in being a black man, but it surely is inconvenient.”
After this, “black-face” began to dominate the film industry, especially cartoons which inadvertently lead young minds not only to naturally accept the stereotypes as truth, but to laugh at them. These images shaped notions of a black appearance as ugly. “To be natural is ugly.” Features were grossly distorted from reality into something grotesque and laughable.
As blacks began migrating from the country to the city and from the south to the north, they faced a resistant majority of whites who feared the expansion of a black labor force. Many tried to join the war but like in many other cases, this only reinforced their roles in society as servants as they were, more often than not, given low-level jobs such as cooks or maintenance men.
I would have to agree with the main sway of the video. The point of the video was to convey how easily swayed people are by media perceptions and how easily people believe things despite the credibility of the information at hand. I believe everyday life is an example of this. People have no trouble taking things at face value, myself included. It takes more effort to dig deeper into a situation than it does to accept that someone is being truthful and probably wouldn’t just “make something like that up.” The only thing I have to ask in reference to this piece is this; What sort of resistance did these media portrayals meet? I would just like to know if anyone tried to put an end to the madness or if it really and truly was swallowed whole by the public. The answer to that question would probably give people as a whole a little more credit.

Introduction

Hi all, my name is Emily. I decided to take this class in order to gain a better understanding of the interaction between, history of, and effects of different ethnicities in the US.

Rosenblum and Travis

Among the master statuses that form primary axes of difference in American Society are race, sex, social class, sexual orientation, and disability. These are considered to be the traits that will ultimately dominate their opposites. Often times, occupants of these statuses are unaware of their impact on the rest of society.
Essentialist and constructionist views are what set people’s perceptions of these indifferences apart. As in the case of the three umpires, some call them as they see them; some call them as they believe them to already be, and some make them into something they were not already. Some believe that differences exist yet mean nothing until assigned an importance by society or culture, which I tend to believe. People don’t choose to exist in one group or another therefore it is not as if one decides to be in the group that is judged or persecuted. They just are, and what spin the world decides to put on that placement is what gives it its controversy. Essentialists generally view differences as essential and inherent while constructionists generally view differences as socially invented and arbitrary. Either way, both sides try to look at what these differences actually mean in the scheme of things.
In accordance with the constructionist view, that says discussing differences not only points out aspects of that difference but create the difference itself, naming a difference is the first step in categorizing human beings. This refers to the names people give to themselves or others in a particular group, such as homosexuals. Asserting a name plays a role in constructionist views as well, especially when it comes down to who is doing the naming. Depending on how big the dispute over who names who, social conflict could likely erupt. Such tension arises when a name is applied to categories of people who, as individuals, may not agree with the term. Different events cause adjustments to terms. The book refers to the terms Negro, black, and African American as transcending from derogatory to more socially acceptable. Many of the terms like these came about as a result of conquest anyway though, so the dispute over which is “correct” is never ending. In order to keep such disputes at a minimum, the government gathers demographic information, such as the census, in order to overcome racial inequality. After this, the article continues to discuss the dichotomization of races into American and non American as synonymous with white and black. It also describes the origins of racial division and today’s dependency on appearance as a means by which to label a group. One quote that stuck out to me was this: “Race is a biological fiction, but a social fact.” This clearly illustrates today’s method of judgment by appearance.
Though I wrote on the wrong sections of the article, I have to say that I was pretty interested in the essentialist and constructionist views. I tend to go along with the constructionist side of things. The way I see it is that people were just born the way they were born and that those differences wouldn’t matter unless someone hadn’t drawn a line of so-called superiority somewhere along the road.

Columbus

This chapter, written by a Howard Zinn, focuses on the most negative aspects involved in American history, expressly the cruel and unusual treatment of the Arawack Indians who greeted Christopher Columbus on his first adventure to the Americas. The man, hungry for power, immediately oppressed the natives of his so called "new world". The people were extremely generous, far from modest, and "remarkably hospitable”, therefore highly subject to slavery and violence in the form of modern weapons and technology, so to speak. The author then proceeds to generalize the majority of the world's history into this monstrosity of war, tears, domination, poverty, oppression, and degradation. Zinn goes on to say that historians often enjoy glorifying heroic events yet smother truthful stories of murder and other shameful acts. “…One reason these atrocities are still with us is that we have learned to bury them in a mass of other facts, as radioactive wastes are buried in containers in the earth [Howard Zinn]”. While yes, many students miss out on hearing about this tragedy and that tragedy, yet, I somehow recall devoting entire curriculums in high school to the travesty that was Nazi Germany, to the interment camps Japanese Americans were forced to endure during the Second World War, to the injustice of slavery during the Civil War and before, and yes, even to the horrors faced by the Indians upon European invasion. While I do believe that it’s only fair to give the victims of past oppressive governments, I do not believe that it is absolutely necessary to focus only on the most heinous of history’s moments nor do I believe that it is necessary to leave them out entirely. What I do disagree with is the portrayal of the American government, though riddled with scandal, as a self-serving, brain-washing, power hungry institution. I happen to have a modicum of faith in the government. I like to think positively about the future of our nation. I mean, it’s obviously improved since the days of Columbus so how is it fair to say that we haven’t learned of the horrors of our history?