In light of Rachel Dolezal, remember Iron Eyes Cody

Most people middle aged or older remember the "Crying Indian" campaign for Keep America Beautiful:

Most of them, by now, also know that Iron Eyes Cody was no Native American. Born to Sicilian Immigrants in southwestern Louisiana in 1904, Espera Oscar de Corti became an actor in his youth, and found that he could "pass" as a Native American in Hollywood.

de Corti, changing his name to "Cody," claimed to have Cherokee-Cree heritage. He played native roles in dozens of westerns, with John Wayne and other stars of the mid-20th century. His chanting was featured in the Joni Michtell song "Lakota." And, of course, he was the Noble Savage face of Keep America Beautiful. All while sharing more heritage with Christopher Columbus than with the people who got the shit end of the Columbian Exchange.

By all accounts Iron Eyes Cody tried to honour his assumed ancestry. He became an activist for Native American causes, and did lecture tours preaching against the harm of alcohol. He married a Seneca archaeologist, Bertha Parker, and they adopted two adopted two Dakota and/or Maricopa children. He even wrote a book about native sign language.

He also invented a backstory, quoted by Glendale News Press from  a 1951 local newspaper article:

“Iron Eyes learned much of his Indian lore in the days when, as a youth, he toured the country with his father, Thomas Long Plume, in a wild west show. During his travels, he taught himself the sign language of other tribes of Indians” 

The article said that the television star and his wife would appear at a Glendale Historical Society event to tell the story of the “Indian Sign Language in Pictures'' and would demonstrate Indian arts and customs. Plus, the couple would bring along their 3-month-old “papoose” Robin (Robert Timothy). All were to be attired in Indian regalia.

In 1996, three years before his death, Iron Eyes Cody was outed as European by his half-sister, May Abshire, who offered proof of the actor's Sicilian parentage to the Times-Picayune. Cody denied the allegations.

Today, such a shocking exposé, proving that an upstanding member of an ethnic community was really an outsider, would be all over social media. Just like Rachel Dolezal.

I'm having a hard time digging up any initial reactions to Iron Eyes Cody's outing from indigenous people in the United States or Canada. How is he remembered? Did he help make native issues more visible, or did he obnoxiously appropriate an oppressed culture that didn't belong to him?

Please comment below. It's moderated, but I'll approve it ASAP.

Is this Cavalli logo an appropriated Sufi symbol?

Via The Fashion Law

See that fake tattoo on Georgia May Jagger's neck?

Okay, now mentally rotate it 90 degrees. What does it look like? To an entire sect of Sufi Muslims, it looks like this:

Via MTO

Followers of The Maktab Tarighat Oveyssi Shahmaghsoudi School of Sufi Islam are outraged at seeing their emblem in a sexualized advertising campaign. They've launched a Twitter hashtag campaign, #takeoffjustlogo, as well as a petition.



I have written frequently about the problem of commercial appropriation of cultural symbols. And I think I've established myself as a critic of Islamophobia. But as a branding professional, I think this outrage is completely mistaken.

The logo is clearly a stylized "JC" monogram. There is no extra elaboration. "Just" JC.

I firmly believe that the logo designer was completely unaware of any similarity with the Sufi symbol, and it takes a concerted effort to see it:

Via Allvoices

So what's the big deal? One of the anti-Cavalli campaign organizers, American doctoral student Nasim Bahadorani, said "We have this sign that to us represents blessed peace. It's a refuge … To see it disgraced like this for a company to make money is heartbreaking."

But really? There are only so many ways to create symbols in the world. As much as this one means to The Maktab Tarighat Oveyssi Shahmaghsoudi School, and as much as their religious sensibilities are real, this accidental sort-of similarity ranks pretty low in the problems of the world. At least in my opinion.

Cavalli can choose to withdraw the logo if they want to, and they may if they feel the bad PR will influence their key target audiences. But for now, the brand is appealing to the European Union's trademark and design authority, the Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (OHIM).

From Reuters:

"Roberto Cavalli SpA is deeply saddened by the distress expressed by the Sufist School students, but hopes that the sentence emitted by a competent authority such as the OHIM, will convince the Sufist religion of the complete good faith and the groundlessness of their requests," the company said this week in a statement.

Ironically, Roberto Cavalli was the subject of some much more warranted religious outrage back in 2004, when he produced a line of bikinis featuring classical Indian images of Hindu gods. Cavalli apologized and withdrew the swimwear from stores following protests in the UK.

Diesel accused of "appropriation" over topless niqab ad

Diesel is certainly no stranger to controversy. So I doubt they're too worried about pissing off people outside of their target audience.

Nonetheless, piss them off they have:

It has always baffled me why the burka, niqab, or either veils are depicted as symbols of oppressive patriarchy in mainstream media, but when they are taken out of their religious context and appropriated like this they suddenly become “creative”, “bold”, and “edgy”. I read one comment describing this campaign as “fashionista meets terrorista.” This is monumentally fucked up.

That's the opinion of Hung Tran, a fashion blogger in Australia. It's shared by Daily Life's Candice Chung, who wrote:

Good one, Formichetti! Never has anyone ever captured cultural appropriation AND sexual objectification so succinctly with a patchy denim headscarf! 

Huffington Post bravely trolled Twitter for opinions on the image, part of Diesel's semi-crowdsourced #dieselreboot campaign, and they mostly came up negative.

But how bad is the image in terms of religious/cultural appropriation?

Christian symbols have been appropriated by fashion for decades. But then again, most of those designers come from Christian-dominated cultures. They're basically recycling their own culture.

It's when you play with the sacred symbols of other people's cultures that things get more rocky. Like when John Galliano stepped out with Hassidic curls. (American Apparel was smart enough to use an actual Hassidic model.) Or when Selena Gomez performed with a Hindu bindi on her forehead.

This kind of thing has been going on for a long time. Secular cultures see religious symbols as style, rather than substance, so borrowing elements of them for exotic fashion statements is old hat.

It was also his second-worst solo album.

Today, we face an increasingly sensitive multicultural landscape. Yesterday's Halloween costume is today's racist insult. But shouldn't fashion, like art, be free to mix-and-match diverse influences?

Well, it is free to do so. But people are also free to dislike it. The real question, for marketers, is if upsetting lots of people on purpose is good business or not. Especially when you're selling style.

Kenneth Cole says that it is, and that his insensitive Twitter strategy is helping his brand. I suspect Diesel feels the same way. Women who wear niqabs and burqas, and those who love them, are clearly not a consideration for a brand that recently promoted itself thusly:

Via The Guardian

Diesel wants to offend. It gets them noticed. And we play along by getting upset and telling everyone about it.

Yes, the topless denim niqab ad is cultural appropriation. It's also heavily sexualized. But until consumers — especially young ones — are ready to drop edgy brands over their marketing behaviour, we can expect to see much more of this in the future. Not despite the complaints, but because of them.

Dear Brands: please stop appropriating terrorism

Never Forget pic.twitter.com/74Br2rBL3A
— AT&T (@ATT) September 11, 2013

Update: They apologized and the embedded Tweet was removed.

Here's a screencap.

It was a terrible thing. It killed a lot of people. It started wars. It forced us to give up a lot of freedoms.

But one thing is for sure: It did not happen so that brands could borrow interest from death.

I'm only picking on AT&T because it just showed up in my feed. Please share any others you see at the contact form below.