Rejecting Ethnic

“Naming things, breaking through taboos and denial is the most dangerous, terrifying and crucial work. This has to happen in spite of political climates or coercions, in spite of careers being won or lost, in spite of the fear of being criticized, outcast or disliked. I believe freedom begins with naming things. Humanity is preserved by it.”

                — Eve Ensler

In fashion, the words “ethnic” and “tribal” are pervasive. The popular fashion blog Refinery29 recently proclaimed Become A Tribal Princess With These Hot New Jewelry Collabs, and Fashion Salade’s shopping guide advised its readers on Ethnic Looks: Feel Authentic and Savage in a Heavenly Beach. The examples are numerous, even in a year when “ethnic” and “tribal” are not major trends. 

Why might these terms be problematic? To begin answering this question, let’s look at our current definitions.

The dictionary definition of ethnic is “Characteristic of or belonging to a non-Western cultural tradition” But that’s not exactly what we mean, is it? We don’t call Chinese silks ethnic, nor do we refer to paisley in this way, despite the fact that the pattern originated in the middle east. In fact, for many paisley is closely associated with Vera Bradley quilted totes rather than Iran or India. So what prints qualify as “ethnic”? The same question arises with the term tribal. According to the dictionary, “a tribe consists of a social group existing before the development of, or outside of, states: a social division of (usually preliterate) people.” Again, the relationship between this dictionary definition and what we think of as “tribal” is, at first glance, unclear. What do preliterate groups have to do with Marc Jacobs spring 2010 runway show? In a word, everything. 

It seems that ethnic and tribal refer more accurately to fabrics and patterns originating most prominently from Africa. In the article from Fashion Salade, the words authentic and savage appear in the byline. For anyone familiar with American history or Africana studies, these immediately throw up red flags. It was none other than Charles Dickens who wrote an article titled The Nobel Savage, in which he said, among other memorably disturbing quotes, “I call a savage something highly desirable to be civilized off the face of the Earth.” While Dickens was writing specifically about the Native Americans, it is by no means a stretch to say that these sentiments also applied to African communities at the time.

Can we draw a parallel between the brutal “civilization” of African peoples under colonial regimes and the modern appropriation of tribal designs in Western fashion? 

Perhaps the most telling example can be found in Vogue Italia. In August the magazine’s website ran a story about the new runway trend of “slave earrings.” Amidst international outcry, the magazine quickly substituted “slave” with the term ethnic.                                                                                                                                                        

In the aftermath of the incident, many argued that there is a distinct difference between the two terms. Although these voices of dissent are undoubtedly correct, the very fact that Vogue Italia thought the words “slave” and “ethnic” were close enough in meaning that they could be substituted for one another should tell us something significant.

Because the use of ethnic and tribal are intentional blurrings of place and people, the ways in which we use these words are just removed enough to escape feelings of overt racism. This article is not an indictment of the fashion industry, nor is it one more voice in the blame game of neo-colonialist political discussion. It is an exploration of the ways in which we as a Western society choose to name that which is falsely considered “other,” and the real consequences those names have on our perceptions of our global neighbors. 

Clearly Western society places great value on designs originating in Africa. Yet despite the broad-ranging use of these patterns, there does not exist any credit to the creators. The myriad of designs are adjusted to fit within a Western paradigm of fashion and then labeled ethnic or tribal, a gesture as we’ve seen to the traditionally offensive stereotypes of wild / untamed / savage / animal that allow disparate groups of people to be blended together into one indistinguishable mass.

Ultimately my question is, how far have we really come and, more importantly, how far can we expect to go when the very names we give to historically rich, deeply symbolic designs erase all but colonial conceptions of the Global South from representation? How might we begin to give due respect to the distinct mythologies and groups of people who created what we call today merely “ethnic” and “tribal”?

1 month ago  /  40 notes  /  Source: