In today’s culture of consumerist society, many apparel companies compete for shoppers’ attention. Some corporations have used controversial clothing to generate publicity. Recently, many brands, including H&M, Adidas, Urban Outfitters, and Zara, have produced examples of such controversial clothing.
Specifically, Urban Outfitters has produced many pieces of clothing that could be deemed controversial; according to The Week Magazine, there are at least thirteen examples of apparel that are deemed culturally insensitive. A tee-shirt reading “Eat less” by Urban Outfitters was eventually pulled from shelves. In 2012, Urban Outfitters created a “Navajo hipster panty”; consequently, the Navajo Nation filed a lawsuit against Urban Outfitters, alleging breach of trademark and violations as per the federal Indian Arts and Crafts Act.
Other retailers, such as Zara and Adidas, have also featured controversial clothing. Zara recently featured a t-shirt many saw as reminiscent of the clothing worn in concentration camps. In 2012, Adidas introduced the “shackle shoes” which are sneakers with shackles around the ankles. Critics brought attention to the fact that these sneakers were reminiscent of the shackles used to restrain slaves. The question remains if companies are aware of such connections or are ignorant of their clothing’s stigmatizing effects?
Most notably, Urban Outfitters fashioned a sweatshirt with the Kent State logo covered in faux bloodstains (referring to the Kent State Massacre). The draw, according to the website, was its vintage quality. We must ask ourselves, should a horrific tragedy be branded as “vintage”? Is it disrespectful to label something as vintage when it represents a serious, tragic moment of our nation’s history?
Only one Kent State sweatshirt was created, which begs the question, why would a company only make a single sweatshirt? Perhaps it was to provoke a conversation that would lead to an increase of consumer traffic to their website.
Consumer power comes with our knowledge. If we know the deal with clothing, we can make more thoughtful choices for apparel in the future. The danger comes with accepting these heteronormative, racist, insensitive, and culturally appropriated ideas as part of edgy fashion. We must challenge the idea of controversial clothing as a part of the modern market and instead increase our consumer sensitivity.