Victoria Secret

Victoria Secret runway shows are known for being very sexualized and representative of the clothes and garments that Victoria Secret associates with. Three years ago, however, at the annual Victoria Secret show in New York, something happened that stirred up more controversy than was ever intended.

Karlie Kloss, who at the time of this show was twenty years old, was supposedly representing the month of November as she walked down the catwalk. However, Kloss did so by offending many, many people. Kloss wore a Native American costume complete with a headdress. Instantly, there was an outrage among viewers.

People who identify as or with Native Americans claimed that Kloss's outfit at the show was horribly offensive. Below, I posted an article that illustrates why this model's costume became such a scandal.

Hollywood Reporter

Here's another article with more pictures of Kloss sporting her costume.

Huffington Post

One of the biggest points to take away from this article is the fact that Victoria Secret was essentially endorsing cultural appropriation. Cultural appropriation is when something (businesses) or someone takes elements of another culture, often sacred and symbolic, and presents it in a shallow manner. It's turning someone's culture into a trend or commodity.

Cultural appropriation is the main issue we are presented with here. Although Victoria Secret did apologize and ended up removing the costume from the show completely, it doesn't change the fact that they did it in the first place. Their image was severely tainted in the public eye because of this mishap. Let's break down how this New York scandal is the exact definition of cultural appropriation.

First of all, Kloss is seen wearing a headdress (war bonnet). The headdress is said to be one of the most symbolic and sacred aspects of the Native American culture/attire. As Ruth Hopkins from the Hollywood Reporter article writes, a war bonnet is only something worn if earned. In addition, it is traditionally worn exclusively by men and each feather comprising the war bonnet is symbolic of an act of braveness committed by those men. Hopkins was tremendously offended by Kloss's headdress and for a very valid reason.

Second of all, Victoria Secret is doing exactly what the definition of cultural appropriation says, turning someone's culture into a trend or commodity. Victoria Secret runway shows are fashion shows. These shows that are put on every year are intended to exhibit fashion, clothes, and trends.

So what is the solution when we witness cultural appropriation?

Don't endorse it. It's important to recognize when you see cultural appropriation. When you see it, don't act like it's normal. It's very offensive. In this 2012 fashion show, many viewers thought it was normal and nothing was offensive about it. But it's important to think about how it's affecting people other than you. It's key to look at this front other people's perspectives. As I was reading what Ruth Hopkins was saying in the first article, it made absolute sense as to why there was such an outrage created. And lastly, don't be afraid to say something. I can only imagine how many people thought in the back of their minds that this could possibly be offensive and could be marginalizing Native Americans. The majority of people who spoke out against it were Native Americans, however. I'm not implying that everyone needs to take a stand, but little differences in what is seen as acceptable in today's society can lead to a bigger change than you might have thought possible.

All-American Muslim

Arabs and Muslims are commonly misrepresented in the media. They are often associated with negative connotations because of the events that happened on 9/11. There's one specific show that aired on TLC that raised a lot of controversy within North America. This show, called All-American Muslim, lasted one season before it was cancelled and taken off the network. It followed the lives of five Muslim families in Dearborn, Michigan. This area of Michigan is known for being a very active Muslim community or "hot spot" in the country and is home to the largest mosque in the US.

Below, I listed an article that explains the show in further detail and features a video illustrating what the aim of the show was.

All-American Muslim

As you read in this article, this show originally attracted millions of viewers but as controversy began to unfold, it dropped to 900,000 by the first season's finale episode. I thought this show was interesting to say the least because of the mere idea behind it. The fact that producers of the show thought it would be a good idea to put the lives of Muslims on display to the public is one that I don't understand. Regardless of the fact that the Muslim religion is seen as being a negative religion and people heavily criticize it, there seems no point to this show.  I began to wonder if they would start a show that centers around other religions? For example, would TLC air a television show that follows the lives of five Christian families or five Catholic families? Most likely not. But because there is a socially constructed definition of the Muslim religion being negative or "evil", it provides us with a great opportunity to create a new television series?

This show, like I stated earlier, created a vast amount of controversy. But people weren't upset about the same things I was upset about, as I mentioned in the previous paragraph. I listed another article below that discusses why this show was cancelled and the type of controversy that surrounded it.

The Attack on "All-American Muslim"

As the article reads, the show was primarily cancelled because of the audience's reception of it. Many people, specifically the Florida Family Association (FFA), believed that this show was merely "propaganda that riskily hides the Islamic agenda's clear and present danger to American liberties and traditional values". The FFA is a very pessimistic group that campaigns against homosexuality and Islamic-American relations. They argued that this show is distracting society from the present-day concerns that the US faces from the Islamic religion.

To tie back to my original thought, why was this show created in the first place?

This show was most likely created to illustrate to society that Muslims are "just like us". They're American, they're funny, they have children, they have jobs and lead lives other than their religious affiliations, etc. It's very sad to me that there has to be a show created like this one to essentially persuade Americans that there isn't an imminent threat to the US because of their presence in North America. This show could have been created to promote diversity, too. Diversity is the awareness and acceptance of difference. If this show was created to promote diversity, it unfortunately failed. Americans possess this evil representation of Muslims and although the events that happened on 9/11 were abominable and horrendous, it doesn't mean that all Muslims are planning to subjugate the US.

My final question is what is our responsibility as consumers when we see discrimination against religion in the media?

We need to become more diverse ourselves. Whether or not the purpose of the show was to promote diversity and whether or not they were successful with doing so, is beyond us. It's our responsibility to ensure that WE, ourselves, are diverse. We also need to avoid buying into these socially constructed definitions of religion. A big contributor as to why Muslims are seen as a potential threat is because we all agree with each other instead of questioning it. Instead of wondering what's wrong with this scenario, we go along with it. Society and people are what create meanings. It is up to us to construct different, more diverse meanings and to better society the best we can.

Hitch

There are many shows and movies today that depict different types of races in a different way than what is commonly seen in reality. This is often referred to as what Sut Jhally calls, enlightened racism. Enlightened racism promotes the myth that blacks who don't "make it" have only themselves to blame. One of the first movies that came to mind when I was trying to think of an example of enlightened racism was the movie Hitch, starring Will Smith. In this movie, Alex Hitchens (played by Will Smith) is "The Date Doctor" of New York. He makes a living off of helping men land the women of their dreams with just three dates. Below, I attached the trailer from Hitch.



This movie provides us with two specific aspects of enlightened racism to talk about. First, Alex Hitchens is depicted as being a successful business man merely because he helps men get dates with the women of their dreams. This is not essentially realistic. Will Smith's character in this movie hides and distorts how most black people live. His character could also possibly distort how any person lives. In today's world, it would be almost impossible to be a "date doctor" and be necessarily well-off. While watching this movie, you can see that Alex Hitchens has a nice home, dresses well, provides for himself, and leads a lavish lifestyle. This is not very logical.

Second, because Alex Hitchens is depicted as being a handsome, successful man of New York, it makes his character easily relatable to viewers. His character is portrayed to be "like us".This is another common aspect of enlightened racism. The fact that he's a smooth-talking and good looking resident of New York is very aspiring to some people. Smith's character is the portrayal of the idealistic man. Smith's character is portrayed as upper middle class.  This potentially obscures the connection between race and class.

So, what can we do about enlightened racism? What do we do when we see it?

It's important to remember that enlightened racism is something very commonly used in media devices when it comes to different races and other various groups of people. It's important to stay aware of the use of enlightened racism in the media. When you see examples of enlightened racism, don't just acknowledge it, think about how the use of enlightened racism completely changes the scenario of how things really are. It's important as consumers of media to be aware and be able to discuss our findings within the media. You should know that just because a person or a group of people are depicted a certain way within the media, doesn't mean that all people/groups of people are like that, too. There's real hardships and struggles that are placed throughout people's lives and with the use of enlightened racism, these hardships can be overlooked. There's a false front to what, in reality, is really happening.

Martin v. Zimmerman

There are a lot of times in the media where the wrong story is given to the public. The story that a lot of people hear is often the best story, not the truth.There is unfortunately a lot of distortion that occurs in the media because of this.

Below, I listed an article that puts what I am talking about into perspective.

Trayvon Martin Case

When this case was a bigger spotlight in the media, there were many controversial aspects that surrounded it. One of them,is referred to as framing. Framing is essentially when the author of the article chooses an aspect of a topic and makes it stand out more. It has four elements; the problem, the cause, moral evaluation, and the solution. The problem in the article that I linked is that they talk about the pictures of the victim and the perpetrator. The victim, Trayvon Martin, is depicted in his picture taken by his family as a sweet and innocent teen. On the other hand, Zimmerman's picture shows him from a previous mugshot and the article states that he looks "puffy and downcast". This is the cause of the problem. The news station framed Zimmerman to clearly look like he was completely guilty. There is another problem that lies within this article. For instance, the article reads that NBC altered some of Zimmerman's comments during a phone call to make it sound as though he is racist. This is another cause for the problem because the news station is clearly framing Zimmerman again.

Our moral evaluation would consist of a couple of things. There are many people who think that the only reason that Trayvon Martin was shot is because he was black, and Zimmerman was racist. Other people believe that Zimmerman had a right to be suspicious and he had the right to shoot him. There are multiple sides to the story. There are other examples where different authors switched the scenario, changed the story, and altered what really happened that night between Martin and Zimmerman.

The treatment would be that people stop assuming what happened and what didn't happen. It's important to consider trying to stop assuming things about situations that you haven't educated yourself about.

It is clear in many articles written on this case that the author has chosen a side an is inevitably biased in his writing, which makes framing more likely in his/her writing. Framing is very misleading to the public. So what do we do about this?

We, as viewers, need to be skeptical when reading stories from the media. It is beneficial to us, as consumers, to read different sides of the story and educate ourselves about what's really happening. There will always be some sort of controversy that is associated with the Martin and Zimmerman case. There will always be some sort of framing that occurs, as well. What's important is to be educated. It's important to be able to identify framing and to know that there's always two sides to the story.