In November 2020, the Mexican Ministry of Culture filed complaints against French designer Isabel Marant for selling clothes decorated with traditional designs of indigenous Mexican peoples. One cape, featuring a pattern unique to the Purepecha community, was listed for sale on the label's site for €490, according to BBC. Fashion designer Carolina Herrera also appropriated designs from Mexican indigenous groups in her 2020 resort collection, as reported by itsartlaw. Such actions draw increasing global scrutiny to major fashion houses, revealing a pattern of profiting from indigenous cultural heritage without consent or compensation.
Fashion brands increasingly face public and governmental backlash for cultural appropriation, yet many continue to use indigenous designs without proper attribution or compensation.
Understanding Cultural Appropriation in Design
Cultural appropriation in design involves taking distinct elements from a culture not your own without credit or compensation. Prada faced criticism in June 2020 for presenting designs similar to Indian origins without acknowledgment, according to BBC. The criticism underscores a broader pattern of uncompensated cultural borrowing prevalent across the fashion industry.
Another clear instance involves KTZ's replica of a garment designed and worn by Aua, one of the last Shaman of the Canadian Inuit, cited as a standout example of cultural plagiarism by atmos. The CHANEL brand, in 2017, was also accused of cultural appropriation for manufacturing and marketing a boomerang engraved with art from Australia’s Aboriginal cultures, selling it for €2,000, according to alatis. This moves beyond textile patterns to the commodification of culturally significant artifacts.
These diverse examples illustrate how brands commodify profound cultural narratives and identities, often without understanding or acknowledging their deep significance. Such appropriation is not isolated; it is a global phenomenon, with incidents spanning continents and involving designs from various indigenous cultures.
Mexico's Proactive Stance and Legal Challenges
In late May 2021, the Mexican government targeted Zara, Anthropologie, and Patowl brands for appropriating graphic designs from indigenous peoples. Mexico accused these brands of cultural appropriation for using indigenous patterns without benefiting the communities, according to The Guardian. Mexico's accusation represents a significant, proactive governmental effort to protect cultural heritage, moving beyond mere condemnation.
Beyond governmental complaints, direct legal action also occurs. Neiman Marcus faced a lawsuit for impermissibly appropriating a coat design from Tlingit artist Clarissa Rizal, marketing it as a 'Ravenstail Knitted Coat', as reported by itsartlaw. The Neiman Marcus lawsuit marks a critical shift, demonstrating a willingness to hold international brands accountable for their use of indigenous cultural heritage through formal litigation.
Despite repeated and increasingly formal governmental complaints, such as those from the Mexican Ministry of Culture in 2020 and 2021, brands continue to engage in appropriation. The brands' persistence suggests current deterrents are either too weak, or brands are willing to absorb associated reputational costs as a business expense. The legal and diplomatic efforts, while growing, have yet to create a truly prohibitive environment for cultural theft.
Industry-Wide Ethical Blind Spots
Luxury houses like Prada and fast-fashion giants such as Zara consistently reveal the fashion industry's ethical blind spot regarding cultural intellectual property. The repeated pattern exposes a systemic practice where cultural intellectual property is treated as a free resource, rather than a protected heritage. The issue is pervasive, spanning high-end luxury and fast-fashion alike, indicating a deep-seated industry-wide disregard.
Incidents of appropriation span continents, involving designs from Mexican, Indian, Fijian, Canadian Inuit, Australian Aboriginal, and Tlingit cultures. The global phenomenon indicates a systemic lack of respect for diverse cultural intellectual property, rather than localized misunderstandings. Major fashion brands are strategically choosing to risk public and legal backlash by continuing to appropriate indigenous designs.
The industry's relentless pursuit of novelty and rapid trend cycles often prioritizes aesthetic appeal over ethical provenance. The industry's relentless pursuit inadvertently fosters an environment where rich cultural designs are reduced to fleeting trends, rather than respected as protected expressions of identity. Such a short-sighted approach not only harms indigenous communities but also limits the fashion world's own capacity for genuine, respectful innovation.
The Erosion of Cultural Identity and the Path Forward
The specific details of appropriation reveal more than just aesthetic borrowing; they expose the commodification of profound cultural narratives. Zara faced accusations for using a pattern distinctive to the indigenous Mixteca community for a midi dress, which the Mexican Ministry of Culture claimed reflected ancestral symbols and worldview, according to The Guardian. The accusations highlight the deep significance of designs that brands frequently overlook, reducing centuries of heritage to mere patterns.
Similarly, Anthropologie faced allegations of copying an embroidery design from the Mixe community for shorts. These patterns are a 'manifestation of identity, history and relationship with the environment', according to The Guardian. The uncredited use of such motifs undermines indigenous communities' identity and sovereignty over their ancestral knowledge and artistic expressions.
In 2012, Fiji Airways adopted masi motifs from iTaukei (Fijian indigenous) culture as its new brand mark, as reported by itsartlaw. The Fiji Airways case, like many others, underscores the economic exploitation inherent in cultural appropriation, where profit is extracted without equitable benefit to the originators. A fundamental shift towards ethical collaboration and respect is necessary to prevent this ongoing erosion of cultural identity.
What are examples of cultural appropriation in fashion?
In 2021, Mexican authorities accused adidas of cultural appropriation for its huarache sandal designs, which resembled those traditionally made in Oaxaca without proper acknowledgment or benefit to the indigenous communities, according to AP News. The adidas accusation joins incidents like CHANEL's 2017 boomerang controversy and Prada's uncredited Indian-origin designs. These cases highlight the broad range of items and cultures affected.
How to avoid cultural appropriation in design?
Designers can avoid appropriation by establishing collaborative relationships with indigenous communities, ensuring fair compensation, and obtaining explicit consent for the use of their designs. The collaborative approach ensures that cultural expressions are respected and that economic benefits directly support the originating communities, fostering genuine appreciation.
What is the difference between cultural appreciation and appropriation?
Cultural appreciation involves respectfully engaging with another culture, often through learning and exchange, while acknowledging the origins and significance of its elements. Appropriation, however, takes elements from another culture without understanding, credit, or consent, often for commercial gain, thereby stripping them of their original meaning and causing harm.
Moving into 2027, if the fashion industry fails to adopt ethical sourcing and truly collaborative practices, brands like Zara will likely face intensified governmental complaints and escalating reputational damage as global awareness of cultural intellectual property rights continues to grow.
