A & F pulls it catalog!

[bootdad]

Now that we are all so busy and pre-occupied with this PC crap and all this discussion about how white and all American A+F is, we should take a moment to remember that being white also comes with some inherant negative realities - like - WHITE TRASH - and at the end of the day - remember that there is more of that than anything else on the planet. All you have to do is turn on your TV any day of the week to witness/experience the dumbing down of America . . . so to live vicariously through the A+F catalog as our good friend Martha would say . . . IT'S A GOOD THING !!!

[dick_nyc]

I could see somebody having a problem with A&F and its all-caucasian advertising if that same person had a problem with the Phantom Clothing Store or with FUBU because of the all-black advertising. If you are not venting at both, then you are by definition racist in outlook if you vent at either. To try to use euphemisms to cover it up is just trying to hide you true beliefs. This is ridiculous.

 

A&F has a market niche. They advertise to that market niche. That market niche considers itself all-American. A&F therefore advertises its clothing as all-American. That therefore means that their advertising hits the market they are aiming for and is therefore successful. You may not like that market. You are therefore out of that niche and they are not marketing for you. Somebody else is marketing for you and you buy their products. Why not just let A&F market and sell to their niche and you buy the products of somebody who markets and sells to the niche you want and forget the whole bloody thing. It is their company to market where they want and how they want and they do. Your company markets where it wants, which is you, and how it wants and they sell that way. Simple!!

 

If you don't like it then I suggest you picket A&F as long as you also picket FUBU. If you don't do both then you are just as racist as you claim they are.

[VaHawk]

FINALLY a voice of reason. Well stated and I agree 100% with everything you said (does this mean you'll erase another of my deficts? )

 

It's all about marketing to a niche, just like every other company doing the same, whether it's FUBU, Victoria's Secret, Plus Sizes or any other fashion merchandiser.

 

And what is all the ranting PC bs about the models, rather than the employment policies? And why does doug69 keep ranting about only hiring models who appeal to those who are attracted to the All-American male. Isn't this a catalog aimed at their customer base and not some kind of porn mag aimed at gays?

 

I bet FUBU has never had a white model, or Victoria's Secret a heavy or older model, or Plus Sizes a slim model, so raging at A&F is ridiculous! A variety of model types are usually found in catalogues aimed at the mass public, like department store catalogues.

[Doug69]

>And what is all the ranting PC bs about the models, rather

>than the employment policies? And why does doug69 keep

>ranting about only hiring models who appeal to those who are

>attracted to the All-American male. Isn't this a catalog

>aimed at their customer base and not some kind of porn mag

>aimed at gays?

 

Apparently, you didn't understand a single word I wrote. I wasn't ranting against A&F for hiring the models whom they hire nor was I ranting against them for anything else. I was merely pointing out that - just like "urban" companies which promote to a black audience and/or promote the appeal of black culture or a black asthetic - A&F plainly promotes whiteness and is targeting those who love white males.

 

Although others condemned this, and although there is a lawsuit based on this complaint which I summarized for the readers here, I never said there was anything was wrong with anything A&F is doing. To the extent I condemned anything, it is the dishonesty of people such as those in this thread who pretend that "all-American" and the A&F appeal has nothing to do with race. That claim is outright dishonest.

 

>I bet FUBU has never had a white model, or Victoria's Secret a

>heavy or older model, or Plus Sizes a slim model, so raging at

>A&F is ridiculous! A variety of model types are usually found

>in catalogues aimed at the mass public, like department store

>catalogues.

 

Exactly - and A&F basically uses no non-white models (although they do throw in a token here and there, barely), and thus is no different than other companies that appeal to other demographics. A&F's appeal just happens to be based, in large part, on race - the white race.

 

Many people think there's something wrong with that - as is clear from what they said here. Others think there's nothing wrong with it. I think that's an interesting debtate - namely, whether there is something different about appealing to, say, old consumers as compared to appealing to those who think whites are the supreme asthetic - which is why I raised the issue. I never said I thought there was anything wrong with A&F's campaign, nor did I defend it. I merely pointed out the obvious racial overtones of this campaign, and also pointed out that it has given rise to a lawsuit.

 

Since you raised this distinction, though, I will ask you - if it's permissible, as you seem to think, for A&F to use only whites in its advertising campaign in order to create a "white asthetic" brand identity, what's wrong with having only the same type of faces working in its store?

 

Most nice clothing stores won't hire old people or fat people or ugly people because those people aren't consistent with their brand image - and they only want young hot people in their stores. So what's wrong with A&F hiring only those people for "face" positions consistent with ITS brand - which, in the case of A&F - happens to be white males?

[VaHawk]

Doug, I most certainly did read what you wrote, and I wasn't disputing your ideas about the marketing strategy (I think we agree on that). The only thing I was questioning was your statement about their catalogue being aimed at those who only find All-American (your description btw is on target, imo) attractive. I disagree, in that the catalogue is not aimed at those who find them attractive, but at the All-American customers themselves.

 

There is nothing racist or wrong in using models that are synonymous with their target audience. There is something wrong with the store personnel who sell the merchandise being required to be the All-American type as it is against the employment laws. I don't believe

A&F is guilty of this.

 

The A&F stores have personnel of all races, not just All-American white boys and girls. If I recall correctly, the lawsuit was initiated by a Latino applicant who was not chosen because the local store in a predominantly Latino community had many Latino employees and was trying to diversify it's staff to meet the federally mandated quotas. IMO, blame the quotas, not this store and above all not A&F.

[Ethan_NYC]

Years ago, I would browse the A&F store located off Water St, by NYC's South St. Seaport. What I noticed was preppy clothing, priced slightly higher than other chains like, Banana Republic, GAP, etc. However, the quality of the clothing is not better, the material and fabrics are not better, yet hordes of 'cool kids' and poseurs would buy the rugby shirts, plaids and cargo pants just to sport the "A&F preppy image". Since then that image has been transformed into a distinctly 'Caucasian, fit, clean-cut mold'.

Then the infamous Wong's Laundry t-shirt appeared. Asian groups demanded a boycott of the store and their "racist" agenda. The offensive shirt was pulled and I personally decided that as consumer with mixed heritage (Cherokee, Asian, black) that I would no longer shop at A&F. It merely raised my level of consumer consciousness.

 

Walk into a Chelsea bar and chances are you'll see plenty of Abercrombie muscle tees worn by gay/bi men. Cotton shirts with numbers and logos on them. What justifies shelling out $34 for shirt with no sleeves? Perhaps all marginalized groups, (gay men, Latino, black, and other ethnicities) are just branding themselves as A&F types. WAnting to fit in to a norm that does not accept difference is highly damaging, in my humble and personal opinion.

 

hope this sparks no flames, gentlemen...

[guyinsf]

Some of the details of the legal complaints I read about involved minority employees being relegated to the stock room instead of the sales floor, being denied the opportunity to serve as a live model at a store, and other things like that. It wasn't about not getting hired at all or not getting hired at a store that was already heavily staffed by non-white people. That being said, I also recall that the newspaper article contained quotes by some people stating that that they did not believe A&F had a policy of putting only white people in positions that interact with its customers.

 

I truly have no impression about what A&F is like. I've seen some hot guys on their posters as I go by one of their stores, but I never go into A&F and don't know what it's like. I went in with a friend once, probably five years ago.

 

 

>The A&F stores have personnel of all races, not just

>All-American white boys and girls. If I recall correctly, the

>lawsuit was initiated by a Latino applicant who was not chosen

>because the local store in a predominantly Latino community

>had many Latino employees and was trying to diversify it's

>staff to meet the federally mandated quotas. IMO, blame the

>quotas, not this store and above all not A&F.

>

>

[dick_nyc]

I can only repeat what I said. If you criticize A&F and don't criticize FUBU for doing exactly the same thing except in replacing all white with all black, then you are racist by definition. You should therefore not buy any FUBU either or buy any clothes at Phantom shops.

 

I find that the shop that fits my taste the best if Eddie Bauer. I have absolutely no idea of their catalog has both black and white models or not. I know that their store in Forest Hills employs both as store clerks and as security and their clothes wear well and fit well. That is all I need to know.

[+ Hoover42]

>I have absolutely no idea [if the Eddie Bauer] catalog has both

>black and white models or not.

 

There are no black models in the last three Eddie Bauer catalogs that I've received.

 

...Hoover

 

p.s. There are also no black models in the last Patagonia catalog I received.

[+ glutes]

I am suprised my original post has taken on such a racial spin. But it got me thinking, it is interesting that if you follow the news only good looking - all american girls get kidnapped and killed. I am following the news piece out of Grand Forks ND, wonder if the victim was black would the news cover with such relish.

[Guest jeffOH]

RE: A & F 'Lookism' addressed on 60 minutes!

 

Two former managers for New Albany-based (Columbus,OH) retailer Abercrombie & Fitch say that corporate executives of the chain routinely had them reduce the hours of less attractive salespeople, 60 Minutes will report on Sunday.

 

The two former managers-who say they were hired for their good looks-

appear in a Morley Safer report on the trendy retail chain to air this Sunday.

 

Abercrombie & Fitch, which has denied the accusations, would not respond on camera.

 

Yet black conservative radio host and lawyer Larry Elder defends the company..

 

He likens unattractive people failing to be hired by A&F to white people failing to be hired for on-air work by BET.

 

What they observed, according to former managers Dan Moon and Andrea Mandrick, was "lookism" rather than racism.

 

From the Columbus Dispatch

 

JEFF

jeff4men@aol.com

[Guest DevonSFescort]

>I can only repeat what I said. If you criticize A&F and

>don't criticize FUBU for doing exactly the same thing except

>in replacing all white with all black, then you are racist by

>definition. You should therefore not buy any FUBU either or

>buy any clothes at Phantom shops.

 

Well, do we know that FUBU does "exactly" the same thing? Have they been sued for racial discrimination? Are white applicants who have been turned away complaining? It'd be interesting to see what happens if 'wiggaz' start applying to work for FUBU in significant numbers. If I'm not mistaken white consumers buy more hip-hop CDs in real numbers than African Americans, and there are certainly plenty of white kids, even in rural areas, buying urban fashions. It's becoming an alternative "All-American" look in its own right (Snoop Dogg has his own clothing line at Macy's). The film 'Black and White' humorously and astutely depicts gangsta rappers schmoozing with rich Upper East Side wiggaz. The message is clear: nothing promotes racial harmony (or at least the desire to promote the appearance of racial harmony) like the prospect of making money.

 

So there would certainly be a compelling case for FUBU to start adding a few white faces to their ad campaigns (and I don't know that they haven't). I could see them worrying about reaching a tipping point of too MANY white faces, but not insisting on an all-black lineup forever (and again I don't know that their models ARE all black.) If they didn't I would tend to think it was less for commercial reasons, and more out of genuinely felt identity politics (whatever one may think of those politics). They would, I suspect, be relegating themselves to a permanent "hard-core" niche-market status if they pursued discriminatory policies in the manner of Abercrombie and Fitch.

 

But A&F doesn't have to make a similar choice for the time being because notwithstanding the rise of "alternative All-American" looks like 'urban clothing,' the corn-fed, Midwestern preppy/jock/collegiate smooth, defined look is still THE All-American look. While this look is, yes, mostly white, other retailers will include at least a smattering of minority, especially biracial, models in their campaigns and hire non-whites in their stores. A&F doesn't even bother with the pretext of multiculturalism; rather, it's trading off a nostalgia for all-white (instead of mostly white) All-Americanism and furthermore branding itself as a politically incorrect company. They're always at the center of the kinds of controversies (MADD is boycotting them! Asian American groups are boycotting them! They were selling suggestive clothing in their kids' catalog! They're homoerotic and promote group sex!) that keep their name out in the media and lends a sense of guilty pleasure and/or defiance to buying their products. Best of all, the fact that the criticism comes from both left and right positions them in the center and dovetails with their good ol' frat boy image.

 

What bothers me about the A&F aesthetic are its shades of Leni Riefenstahl. The racial uniformity of the imagery, the neurotic insistence that its customers not be subjected to having to look at anything so unsightly as a plump or non-white person. The same mindset you find in people who only want to surround themselves with pretty people. What is perhaps most vexing about fascist aesthetics is that, if successfully executed, they ARE very beautiful -- powerfully so; they absolutely have aesthetic merit and genuine, compelling appeal. No one claims Riefenstahl wasn't a great filmmaker and photographer. That her work WAS so beautiful is partly what makes it troubling, even creepy. (Creepiness does sell in the world of fashion. Think of any number of Calvin Klein ad campaigns.)

 

And its appeal is NOT limited to white customers. Take a walk around San Francisco and you'll see plenty of gay Asian and Latino boys on their way home from the gym in their Abercrombie. For many Asian guys especially white boys are THE prize, which is understandable since the media is starved of images of Asian men -- there is no Asian Ricky Martin, for example. So they will painstakingly copy the A&F aesthetic and view each other as competition for the scarce supply of available white boys whose profiles DON'T say "sorry, no Asian."

 

And unfortunately, they're not just being paranoid: living in smug, "liberal" PC San Francisco, I have heard more unabashedly racist comments out of the mouths of white gay men (many, if not most of them sporting the A&F look or an equivalent) then I ever heard growing up among Texas rednecks. (Example: "I stopped going to that club. Too many Asians started going.") It's not just a matter of preferring to date within one's own race. (Hey, you like what you like.) It's this accompanying icky sense of entitlement; a genuine revulsion at having to occupy a space with too many people who aren't pretty (and race, for many, is one of the major qualifying factors in what counts as pretty). This mentality, I believe, is what Abercrombie is effectively pandering to, and I hate that I, too, love their ads. I'm not a big boycotter but somehow I've arbitrarily decided not to give them any of my money, and if the reports of their discriminatory activities are borne out in court I hope they ARE taken to the cleaners. No, I don't hold it against anyone if they do wear Abercrombie (in fact, if they're my size I ask to try them on -- sigh), and I don't assume any particular political beliefs about the wearer; and yes, the aesthetic I cash in on is certainly much closer to A&F than FUBU (those doo-rag shots just didn't come out :+ ). And it's just a gesture. But there IS something creepy about Abercrombie & Fitch and the way they chose to market themselves. The powerful hold they have over so many gay men (myself included) is a little disturbing and very interesting to try and understand.

[BuckyXTC]

Frankly, I find the public obsession with buying "branded" clothing a sure sign of the utter shallowness of consumers and consumerism. Can people really be so vacuous to think that because they're wearing a shirt emblazoned with A&F or CK or Tommy or FUBU that somehow their desirability will increase? Yes, that's what they believe.

 

I dare say that if someone made a new facial masque out of dog shit and put an Armani label on it, there would be legions of idiots smearing it on their faces and saying how wonderful it is.

 

In the quest for what really matters in life, the search for meaning, most consumers don't even begin to have a clue.

[dick_nyc]

Do you really believe that if a white man called a black company racist anyone would print it as other than weird news? One of my problems with people like Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Charlie Rangel and others is that they can get away with talking about all the racism and then turn around and make totally racist remarks and not get called on it by the major media. It seems to be possible to call any criticism of a black person or group or point of view racist but not to call the same criticism of any other like group racism. That was my point about FUBU.

 

It had nothing to do with any racist views at all. It had to do with the idea that any group can be and often is guilty of racism and should legitimately be called on it. I remember when I was on a trip to Dallas on business that I turned on the TV and saw a black comic at a black club. He was talking about Oreos and Uncle Toms and he was dissing white girls who went out with black men and dissing white men who went out with black girls and dissing black girls and men who went out with whites. It was Honky this and Honky that.

 

If a white man had done a corresponding routine, he would probably be treated as a total pariah, labeled a racist and have trouble getting a job. He also would stand a good chance of getting his head handed to him on a platter. To me the black comic was just as racist as the white man doing the same type of routine and that was my whole point about the A&F brouhaha. If you say that about a white company, then you should by rights do the same for a black company or an Asian company or a Martian company. Whether that has ever been done is totally beside the point. It is the principle of the thing. We are all supposed to have the same rights. We are all supposed to have the same responsibilities. We should all be subject to being called for the same infractions.

[Guest DevonSFescort]

>Do you really believe that if a white man called a black

>company racist anyone would print it as other than weird news?

 

In the year 2003? After the explosive growth of conservative media outlets? Yes. One of the drawbacks of a movement's being so successful at proliferating its point of view is that you can't really keep complaining that that viewpoint is no longer being heard. There are too many news stories about allegations of "reverse racism" and lawsuits by white plaintiffs alleging discrimination for me to doubt for a minute that FUBU would attract controversy if it discriminated in its hiring policies.

 

>One of my problems with people like Jesse Jackson, Al

>Sharpton, Charlie Rangel and others is that they can get away

>with talking about all the racism and then turn around and

>make totally racist remarks and not get called on it by the

>major media.

 

I can hardly think of three worse examples to illustrate your point. Those guys can't get away with ANYTHING -- they're constantly being "called" on something (in Jackson's case, one of the Chicago papers, the Tribune I think, has been on his ass all year -- and I'm not suggesting without justification) -- and of the three, only Rangel has any power (less these days with the Democrats in the minority), not least because he's the only one who can get elected because his district is in a safe seat. Sharpton is, to put it mildly, WIDELY lampooned. I don't know if he even dreams of being taken seriously.

 

>It seems to be possible to call any criticism of

>a black person or group or point of view racist but not to

>call the same criticism of any other like group racism. That

>was my point about FUBU.

 

I understand that that was the point you were trying to make, but I don't see how a FUBU/Abercrombie comparison provides even a shred of evidence to support that point. For one thing, FUBU is a TINY company compared to Abercrombie. At the end of 2001 FUBU had 75 employees to Abercrombie's 22,000. A&F has 600 stores in the US alone compared to FUBU's 45 franchised stores WORLDWIDE. (I assume if they're franchised it means FUBU has no say over the hiring either, though I guess they could impose conditions on the sale of their franchise.) So one reason you might not be hearing the same criticism about them might be that white applicants haven't yet shown up in sufficient numbers for a discernible pattern of discrimiation to have emerged. FUBU is so "niche-y" by comparison that the pool of white people interested in working for them is almost certainly much smaller than the pool of minority applicants trying to break through A&F's color barrier. And I also think that in the age of Eminem FUBU would stand a lot more to lose (even if they were never caught) by discriminating against wiggaz than Abercrombie does by discriminating against minorities.

 

>It had to do with the idea that any group can be and often is guilty of racism and should legitimately be called on it.

 

In this case, Abercrombie IS being called on racism, and not for the first time. They're also being sued. I don't know about you, but doing Internet searches I wasn't able to find any information on ANY controversy associated with FUBU, despite their active participation in hip-hop culture, a subculture that seethes with, and thrives on, controversy. So I don't understand what it is you're accusing them of, or how you heard they were doing whatever it is you think they're doing.

 

If, as I'm starting to believe, there is no evidence that FUBU discriminates in their hiring, or makes T-shirts insulting other racial groups, or promotes an quasi-fascist looksism, then that would suggest that they are NOT doing "the exact same thing" as Abercrombie. And even if they were it would deserve to be a bigger story in Abercrombie's case because their hiring policies effect many more people.

 

I think people just bring up FUBU because they've seen a few ads, heard they're a black-run company and have decided to let some assumptions flow that might not have any basis in reality. It's not really anything personal against FUBU; they're just someone you bring up to take the attention off Abercrombie. It's as though they're so uncomfortable hearing a white company criticized that they feel we ought to bash a black one at the same time for "balance." But shouldn't it matter whether the black company actually HAS done "the same thing?" If they haven't, then aren't you, in effect, smearing them by using them to make your point?

[Guest ncm2169]

RE: A & F Catalog

 

Yo. Maybe it's time to get back to the thread Glutes started. :o

 

Two questions. First, has anyone here actually SEEN it? :9 Second, where can you buy one? (I haven't seen it on eBay yet). }(

[shy]

RE: A & F Catalog

 

<<First, has anyone here actually SEEN it? Second, where can you buy one? >>

 

i've seen it...and i'll sell you my extra copy of the two copies i received in the mail...want to start the bidding at $20?

[dick_nyc]

The "reverse racism" suits are almost totally restricted to academic matters referring to admission to colleges. There are almost no suits concerning business "reverse racism" although the major black "leaders" use the boycott card as a mechanism to get their way.

 

Who are you kidding about Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton and Charlie Rangel not getting their way. In the 2000 election Sharpton refused to back Hillary or Gore unless they came to his office in person and asked him to back them. They came. When you look at the stunts he has pulled such as the Brawley case, he still refuses to admit that that was a false accusation and he still has not been forced to pay up for ruining the lives and reputation of the officers and politicians in Westchester County. You seem to equate power with being elected to office. In New York, the real power is not in the offices but in the ones behind the offices - the borough leaders of the parties or the "leaders" who will get out the vote, even the union leaders who will get out the workers. With these 3 people Rangel is probably the least powerful. He has a safe seat because no one runs against him.

 

You can lampoon Sharpton all you want, the man still gets credibility from the press and the party. Jackson calls a meeting to discuss "racism" in the big companies to be held at Wall Street and even Donald Trump shows up as does the head of AT&T, Western Union, and many of the big stock brokers. He tells them that if they don't pony up for his "pac" he will call for a boycott. They pony up - a lot. That is where the power is and it is strictly based on playing the racist card. The Crown Heights riot occurred after Sharpton paid a visit to the father of the kid who was hit and killed. Until Sharpton showed up the father accepted the explanation and the apology of the driver. After Sharpton arrived, suddenly the father claimed that it had to have happened because the driver was a racist and meant to hit the kid. The riot happened and the rabbinical student from Australia was killed. The boycott of the Korean grocer in Brooklyn was set up by Sharpton. The woman had picked up a lot of merchandise and was walking out the door. The owner stopped her and demanded she pay. Sharpton shows up and proclaims that the Korean grocer was acting for racist reasons and the shop was boycotted for months and the guy finally went out of business. The bombing of the white owned store on 125th St was done after Sharpton complained that there should not have been a white owned store on 125th St, the street should belong to the blacks. A couple of his followers firebombed the store and killed a couple of clerks and injured some customers - all black. These things get written up but nothing happens about them. If a white man did any of these things, he would be tarred and feathered and being called a racist would be the least that would happen.

 

As to the FUBU/A&F comparison, the relative size has absolutely nothing to do with it. If both use only models of one race then both are racist or neither is. As to franchises, the person settin g up the franchise has a lot to say about what goes on with the franchises. They can have restrictions as to how things are set up, as to hiring practices, almost anything to do with the franchise. After all, if you are licensing someone to use your name, your reputation, your products, you have a say in how that is done. It really does not matter how niche-y the store is. For that matter, A&F is niche-y if anyone is. They are playing to a very well defined group of people with their products. That there are a lot of these people does not change the fact that they are marketing to a niche. It is like Ferrari in that they are marketing to a group who wants to live a particular lifestyle (horrible word but you get the meaning). FUBU does the same. THey are marketing to a particular lifestyle, group of people, whatever. Their products would probably not appeal to a group of 60 year old farmers.

 

As to the lookism, try to be an overweight 40+ year old white man and dress the FUBU way and tell me about lookism. THey are selling a look, a style and by definition that is lookism. If you don't fit that style, you will be ridiculed.

 

The problem with your trying to paint me as using FUBU to take the heat of A&F is that the heat should be on both or on neither. Regardless of size, the point is obvious. Do you see A&F advertising that they are marketing for a white only or that if you want to apply for a sales job you have to be white only? The actions are what speak and the FUBU actions are the same as the A&F actions and that is the whole point. That is not smearing. That is also not what is going on in that they are being let go by because of their "minority" status. I may not want to buy FUBU clothes but if they are marketing in a racist manner and their competition is being raked over the coals for racism, then FUBU should be also, regardless of their size.

[Guest DevonSFescort]

>There are almost no suits concerning business "reverse racism"

>although the major black "leaders" use the boycott card as a

>mechanism to get their way.

 

The one hasn't got much to do with the other. If white job applicants feel they are being discriminatd against but choose not to seek legal relief, that's not the responsibility of black boycott organizers. And there's nothing to stop white people from organizing their own boycotts against companies they feel are discriminating against them. They would attract plenty of press and could probably use the Internet quite effectively to mobilize. I suspect the main reasons you don't see much litigation from white job-seekers, especially against black-owned businesses, are 1) despite a fairly widespread belief among whites that affirmative action is discriminatory, only a tiny fraction of whites actually believe that they personally have ever been denied a job because of their color and 2) for the most part, white job applicants self-select away from working at predominantly black companies (especially firms whose market is an hip-hop-oriented niche of consumers). To the best of my knowledge the discrimination white people do perceive and complain about is not coming primarily from minority business owners, but from predominantly WHITE firms that are trying to diversify their staffs.

 

>Who are you kidding about Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton and

>Charlie Rangel not getting their way.

 

I said they don't "get away" with anything, not that they never get their way. The point is that they attract plenty of media scrutiny and do get accused of pusing a racist agenda. Their antics are not getting a free pass. The media isn't treating them with kid gloves for fear of being labeled racist. It's true that Sharpton has clout within the New York Democratic Party, but there's a definite ceiling on his power and his presidential run is drawing about as much support as Alan Keyes gets when he runs for the GOP nomination. Jackson's tactics have drawn sustained, blistering criticism; his status as a black leader has been in steady decline for well over a decade and I believe Operation PUSH is under investigation.

 

>As to the FUBU/A&F comparison, the relative size has

>absolutely nothing to do with it. If both use only models of

>one race then both are racist or neither is.

 

Well, I don't necessarily believe that running ads with an all-white cast or an all-black cast, by itself, is evidence of racism. (Although as hip-hop becomes more mainstream, frankly it WILL seem strange not to see white faces in FUBU ads.) But when you take that together with A&F's deliberate use of offensive Asian stereotypes to sell t-shirts (and promote controversy) and their widespread discrimination, then you have powerful evidence of racism. I'm not sure what more they'd have to do to convince you that something's wrong. Browsing through FUBU's collection online and looking for articles on the Internet, I was unable to find evidence that they have made T-shirts mocking other races (despite the legendary tension between black urban youth and Korean store owners), or that even a single white applicant has been denied a job with them.

 

And the relative size has plenty to do, not with whether it's right or wrong to discriminate, but with whether the circumstances have yet materialized to create a situation where FUBU is even having to choose whether or not to discriminate. As I suggested in my first post, as FUBU keeps growing and becomes less niche-y and more mainstream, and as whites continue to integrate the hip-hop world (which, so far, seems receptive to that trend), then FUBU will be likely to attract more white applicants -- enough for a pattern of discrimination, if it exists, to be identified, and it will be interesting to see how they respond.

 

> It really does not matter how niche-y the store is. For that

>matter, A&F is niche-y if anyone is.

 

Of COURSE it matters, and of course A&F isn't "niche-y." They are about as mainstream as you can get. They've been around for a century; they're an institution. They much more ubitqitous than FUBU and epitomize what is widely known as the All-American look. That doesn't mean they don't have competition, of course (though FUBU isn't it), or that they don't have to distinguish themselves, but the ways they do so are to court controversy, to sell nostalgia for the days of white-only fraternities, and to make sure that feel permeates their shops. It is so important to them to do this that they'll dramatically narrow the pool of job applicants they'll seriously consider. In most major cities the retail workforce is disproportionately people of color. We're not talking about the board of directors here -- I could see claiming that there weren't enough qualified black fashion executives and that's why the board's all-white (if it is) -- we're talking about STORE CLERKS. They're getting plenty of qualified minority applicants (in contrast to FUBU, who I'm suggesting is NOT getting plenty of qualified white applicants). They're just either not hiring them, or they're sticking them in the backroom or having them to the overnight inventory.

 

>As to the lookism, try to be an overweight 40+ year old white

>man and dress the FUBU way and tell me about lookism. THey

>are selling a look, a style and by definition that is lookism.

> If you don't fit that style, you will be ridiculed.

 

I don't know any overweight 40+ year-old white men who try to dress the FUBU way, do you? White 40+ year-old consumers tend to take their fashion cues from different places than black urban youth. Still, if you want to claim ageism I guess you can, but I think your definition of looksism is too broad. Looksism specifically involves standards of beauty, and the hip-hop aesthetic for men is about as democratic as you can get. Hip-hop sportswear tends to be worn oversized and to conceal the body. There are plenty of fat rappers and ugly rappers that FUBU would be thrilled to have wear their label and mention it in their tracks. (And not only black ones -- Bubba Sparxx is white and pretty chunky.) FUBU even has a Fat Albert line!

 

>The actions are what speak and the FUBU actions

>are the same as the A&F actions and that is the whole point.

 

But as I've noted above, their actions are NOT the same.

 

>I may not want to buy FUBU clothes but if they are

>marketing in a racist manner and their competition is being

>raked over the coals for racism, then FUBU should be also,

>regardless of their size.

 

IF they are marketing in a racist manner! But there's no evidence that they are. And to the best of my knowledge, their competition ISN'T being raked over the coals for racism. FUBU's competition is other hip-hop sportswear retailers like Karl Kani Infinity, Phat and Rocawear, not Abercrombie & Fitch. If you think A&F is being unfairly singled out, the thing to do would be to compare their hiring practices to those of J. Crew or The Gap and other stores that are actually competing with them. I see no reason to bring up FUBU in the first place.

[shy]

RE: A & F Catalog

 

<<I haven't seen it on eBay yet>>

 

i just saw a CNN news item last night that is had been bid up to as high as $48 on ebay. i havn't gone to ebay to double check. btw, i don't think the latest christmas catalogue is any racier or "better" than previous ones. if anything, i was less impressed than usual; perhaps because, as benjamin nicholas pointed out, a different photographer was used for this issue.

[Guest showme43]

RE: A & F Catalog

 

http://money.cnn.com/2003/12/09/news/companies/abercrombie/index.htm?cnn=yes

[Guest ncm2169]

RE: A & F Catalog - R.I.P.

 

Mark my words. The catalog may be gone for now, but A & F isn't going to stop using sex to sell clothes. }(

 

The "family values" crowd may think they've scored a victory, but they haven't figured out a way to eliminate hormones.

[+ glutes]

RE: A & F Catalog - R.I.P.

 

I just saw on Peter Jennings ABC News, some of the pictures from the catalog - much different photography - not so stimulating - many 'fish'.

[Guest ncm2169]

RE: A & F Catalog - R.I.P.

 

< many 'fish' >

 

LMAO

 

Would that be as in "the only thing that smells worse than dead fish is..." ?? x(

 

If so, don't complain. You don't seriously expect A & F to survive by just marketing to the non-"fish" lovers, do you? :7