Luxurious fashion houses have an illustrious legacy of embracing the myriad tapestries of diverse cultural aesthetics, yet the demarcation between a respectful tribute and an outright misappropriation remains crucial. Louis Vuitton now swirls amidst a tempest of discourse, with accusations of appropriating the vibrant designs and symbolic treasures of African tribes, all within a context where due recognition and compensation appear to have been overlooked. While undoubtedly inspired by the cultural legacies woven by these African tribes, the brand has encountered a wave of critique due to its perceived oversight in crediting and financially compensating these inspirational roots, thereby sparking profound ethical contemplations across the fashion landscape.
Kwele tribe mask from Gabon
Louis Vuitton has faced criticism for its appropriation of African symbols and aesthetics, specifically the Kwele tribe’s iconic monograms. The company has been accused of using the indigenous group’s distinctive symbols and designs without permission or compensation. The Kwele tribe, residing in a lush forest region at the intersections of Gabon, Cameroon, and the Republic of Congo, possesses a unique and intriguing cultural heritage. Their village communities, characterized by a lack of centralized authority, embody the essence of “headless” equatorial societies, functioning in a diffuse and informal manner.
Historical Context and Colonial Associations
Gaston Vuitton, the grandson of Louis Vuitton, is noted to have collected African masks in the 1930s. During this period, when Gaston Vuitton was collecting these African masks, the company was associated with a colonialist and fascist image. This is reflected in the controversial “pavillon nègre,” an exhibition or attraction set up by Gaston during the 1931 Expo. This pavilion, along with other elements of the Expo, was seen as an attempt to justify French colonial rule in West Africa and Indochina. The Expo included displays that romanticized colonialism and featured exoticized depictions of native cultures.
Cultural patterns of the Maasai tribe
Read also: Luxury Shopping in South Africa
Gaston and his son Henry had connections with the Vichy regime, which was the collaborationist government that ruled France during World War II while the country was under German occupation. This collaboration included lobbying to open a factory to make busts of Vichy leader Marshal Pétain. The Vichy connection helped the Vuittons navigate labor supply controls and maintain their boutique in Vichy’s Hotel du Parc, where the government was based.
The problematic history, including the colonialist and fascist associations and the collaboration with the Vichy regime, is relevant to the company’s past and has raised concerns when considering Louis Vuitton’s use of African iconography in its designs. The company’s use of period style and nostalgia, focusing on the glamorous aspects of the past, blinds people to the negative and problematic aspects of that history. This serves as a cautionary example of how companies and individuals can inadvertently overlook or downplay troubling historical associations while capitalizing on a romanticized view of the past.
The Kwele tribe was not the only tribe victimized by capitalization. In the case of the Maasai people, their distinctive cultural brand has also been exploited by luxury brands seeking to enhance their products’ allure. The Maasai people inhabit Kenya and Tanzania and are known for their distinctive cultural designs, including the Maasai shuka.
The Maasai Intellectual Property Initiative (MIPI)
The Maasai Intellectual Property Initiative (MIPI) has been established to challenge companies that use Maasai designs without a licensing agreement and advocate for fair compensation. MIPI, in collaboration with the community, aims to regain control over the cultural brand and ensure that funds are directed back to the Maasai people. It’s alarming to note that a significant portion of the Maasai population lives below the poverty line, making the need for compensation and control over their cultural brand all the more pressing.
The exploitation of their distinctive cultural brand contrasts with the progress made in protecting traditional designs in other industries. MIPI’s efforts aim to rectify this imbalance, and they have estimated that the Maasai are owed substantial compensation, with around 80 companies infringing on their intellectual property, leading to a potential annual licensing fee of $10 million.
Read also: Staying at Mahomed Khousbou Guest House
The appropriation of cultural aesthetics by luxury brands raises ethical concerns, particularly when these designs are taken without permission or compensation. It is important to acknowledge the cultural origins of designs and compensate the communities that inspire them.
Past Incidents of Cultural Appropriation
This phenomenon isn't new. Louis Vuitton is not new to this either. The label also released a range of Maasai-inspired clothing in 2012, called Maasai. Burberry's 2012 collection featured designs that drew heavily on East African kitenge textiles. However, when asked about the inspiration behind the clothing, Burberry's chief designer, Christopher Bailey, denied any African influence, claiming that the pieces were inspired, instead, by British sculptor Henry Moore.
In 2015, a Valentino show sparked controversy for its collection inspired by "wild, tribal Africa," as the label put it. Last year, the designer came under fire for sending white models down the runway with colourful dreadlocks during his Spring 2017 show.
Examples of Cultural Appropriation in Fashion
Here's a brief overview of some instances where fashion brands faced accusations of cultural appropriation:
| Brand | Year | Accusation |
|---|---|---|
| Marc Jacobs | 2017 | Using colorful dreadlocks on white models. |
| Louis Vuitton | 2012 | Releasing Maasai-inspired clothing. |
| Valentino | 2015 | Collection inspired by "wild, tribal Africa." |
| Burberry | 2012 | Designs heavily influenced by East African kitenge textiles. |
What’s the Difference Between Appropriation and Appreciation?
Virgil Abloh and the FW ‘21 Mens Collection
The presentation of Virgil Abloh’s sixth collection for Louis Vuitton-the FW ‘21 mens collection-christened Ebonics/Snake Oil/The Black Box/Mirror, Mirror, was an expression of artistry through poetry, visual imagery, and the powerful words imprinted on the clothing, directed in collaboration with performer Josh Johnson. The young Artistic Director sought to use the runway as a stage to tackle some of the most polarizing issues that have bubbled to the surface of the crucible that has been the past year. In an attempt to create a platform for the marginalized, did Abloh, however unintentionally, take up a space that was not his own to do, or worse still, yield power to the oppressor?
Read also: Weather in Port Louis
With this collection, through performance art and gender-effacing garments, Abloh seeks to challenge society’s perception of the individual as stems from the manner of one’s dressing. As he puts it in his show notes, “The Louis Vuitton Fall-Winter 2021 Men’s Collection investigates the unconscious biases instilled in our collective psyche by the archaic norms of society.” The collection was inspired by the 1953 essay, 'Stranger in the Village,' by novelist James Baldwin, which expresses the author’s experiences as an African-American man who moved from the United States to a Swiss village. This story draws a parallel to Abloh’s own journey as a black artist in a world dominated by white European creatives.
Certain pieces in the new collection have, however, resulted in conversations around cultural appropriation. One of the models donned a tracksuit wrapped with a swath of LV-monogram-peppered Kente. Kente is a textile that originates from and is closely linked to the people of modern-day Ghana. The toga-esque manner in which the colorful cloth is presented on the model mirrors the toga-esque manner in which Ghanaian men traditionally fra ntuma (the Twi language expression that directly translates as “wear cloth”). This is not the first time Louis Vuitton has incorporated another culture’s traditional textures into its design (see SS’12’s use of Maasai checks) nor the first time the brand is being accused of cultural appropriation.
The dangers of the appropriation of cultures, by luxury brands, however, should be acknowledged. Appropriation is problematic when one considers the intention (or lack thereof) behind it. Where there is no acknowledgement of the source material in a situation in which a power gradient already exists between the borrower and inadvertent “lender”, the question of theft and disrespect arises. Furthermore, in fashion, it is not uncommon for iconic runway moments to trickle into fast fashion trends. This trajectory could lead to the devaluation of iconography that an entire subculture holds as sacrosanct.
Globalization has been a large contributor of cultural exchange. The dynamics of the evolution of cultures is one of the reasons the lines may be blurred, so the question of ownership Abloh raises is a valid one. For many, fashion is a reflective tool of one's identity. But identity is complex.
Before criticizing the designer, it is essential to see the world from his perspective. As the child of two immigrant Ghanaian parents, Abloh admits that in his teenage years, it was difficult to find people he could relate to. He tells WWD, “I grew up feeling that design wasn’t for me, because I didn’t see anyone like me in design.” So when presented with an opportunity to highlight and honor African cultures on a global stage, it is only natural for one to take advantage of this to the best of their ability. By understanding this, we can also understand how these experiences and feelings may have shaped Abloh’s world view and why cries of appropriation in this instance lack nuance.
Abloh chose not to emulate Kente (which is understood not to be Kente at all if it is not woven in Ghana, though there is no official IP law governing Kente and its replication or propagation) in its traditional use, but rather to draw inspiration from and reimagine it in the context of the Louis Vuitton brand identity. However, does this use send the right message, given that “Kente is a royal and sacred cloth worn only in times of extreme importance as it signifies wealth and celebration”? In response, one might argue that Abloh is challenging the question of how Kente can be used, innovating from tradition. Besides, as a man of Ghanaian ancestry, is he not assimilating (rather than appropriating) his own culture into his artistic vision, and in choosing to do so, helping to shape the narrative of how the Kente can be adapted?
The intention of Abloh’s production was to challenge what normal looks like. As one of the few designers of color in a position as powerful as his, Abloh has created room for much needed conversation. He invites us all to re-evaluate our own stances on how each person should look. To claim cultural appropriation without attempting to understand the message behind the collection and show would be to disregard not only Abloh’s heritage, but his thought process.
The False Claim: Louis Vuitton Sponsored Racist Human Zoos
In observance of Black History Month, many Americans are reflecting on Black people's triumphs against racism through history. Some are using social media to call out past injustices. One viral post makes the unproven claim that fashion brand Louis Vuitton sponsored 19th- and 20th-century "human zoos" that put people of color on display for entertainment. The post describes human zoos that displayed Black people as “exotic creatures” in New York, St. Louis, Australia and other countries at the turn of the century.
This claim has reappeared on social media during Black History Month for several years. Snopes investigated the claim in March 2019 and could find no supporting evidence. Human zoos did exist in the 19th and 20th centuries in Europe and the United States. The BBC reported 35,000 people were part of the displays and most were paid. In fact, Louis Vuitton used booths at exhibitions to showcase products in the 1920s and 30s.
The first photograph is of Louis Vuitton’s booth at the Exposition Coloniale Internationale in Paris in 1931 in which the brand showcased trunks and beauty cases, among other objects. The blog was originally published in French and can be translated to English through Google, leaving room for confusion. It described Louis Vuitton’s African-influenced designs, which it presented at the 1931 World's Fair in Paris. Louis Vuitton presented products like leather trunks and ivory objects at the colonialism-themed event. The blog post does not say the fashion brand sponsored human zoos, although human zoos were part of separate exhibits. Snopes identified the building in the image widely shared with the claim as the pavilion from that 1931 fair.
Louis Vuitton had exhibit at 1931 fair. The 1931 Paris Colonial Exhibition featured an exhibit that displayed naked and semi-naked human beings in cages. According to Ferris State University, the exhibit had 34 million attendees in six months. The fair sought to celebrate colonialism and stimulate the French public’s interest in its colonial empire. Gaston Louis Vuitton, the grandson of Louis Vuitton’s namesake founder, presented an African-influenced mask collection in a separate Louis Vuitton pavilion at the exposition.
A company spokesperson confirmed the claim is not true. Louis Vuitton exhibited products that appropriated African culture at the 1931 Paris Colonial Exhibition, where Black people in cages were displayed at a separate exhibit. However, there is no evidence Louis Vuitton sponsored this separate exhibit or another human zoo at a different event.
