A bonus post, before I sign off!
I just saw this story, which is sort of old news, but who cares?:
Rachael Ray ad pulled as pundit sees terror link
Basically, the stylist at a Dunkin’ Donuts commercial shoot put a keffiyeh on Rachael Ray. Michelle Malkin, who is convinced that the keffiyeh is “hate couture,” drummed up a mini-controversy on the right-wing web and got Dunkin’ Donuts to capitulate.
A couple things about this drive me crazy: First, the vast majority of people most likely have no clue about where the keffiyeh comes from, other than “Urban Outfitters,” or maybe “Balenciaga.” Among those people is probably the stylist for the commercial who just knows that the pattern is trendy, which it of course is. Second, for people who do know where it comes from geographically, they most likely don’t associate it with any political statement at all. The only people who see a keffiyeh and think “terrorist supporter” are right-wing bloggers and people who read them (who, of course, are all right wing bloggers themselves).
The biggest problem here, however, is Michelle Malkin’s insistence that the keffiyeh is “hate couture”–where that racist misconception comes from, and what it signifies about the way some people interact with other cultures.
Historically, the keffiyeh is a scarf worn by Arab men. That’s it. It wasn’t invented by Osama bin Laden or designed to kill Americans. This alone does not excuse the keffiyeh. The swastika predated the Nazis by centuries, but any use of it now is irrevocably a reference to Hitler and the Third Reich.
More recently, Palestinians wore the keffiyeh as a symbol of Palestinian nationalism. Initially, some people wore the scarves in solidarity with Palestine. Now, these people are certainly not advocating terrorism just by wearing a scarf, just as support for a Palestinian state does not automatically mean support for terrorism. (Directed at these people, Malkin’s screed, while still inane, is the most coherent: she just thinks that any support of Palestine is a tacit support of suicide bombers.)
Even more recently, the fashion industry has picked up on the keffiyeh and its aesthetically appealing pattern. One of the appeals of the scarf is undoubtedly its pre-existence in another culture; reappropriation in design is an often wonderful shortcut to introducing new items to the market. Instead of designing something from the ground up, you can find an article of clothing or a piece of furniture that already existed elsewhere and transplant it. You gain the novelty of design and the pleasure of cross-cultural reference in one package!
So why did the fashion industry pick up the keffiyeh? Nice pattern? (Black and white was so in right then) Subversiveness? (Supporting Palestine, tres outré) Transplanting cultural artifacts for fashion gain? Probably a little bit of all three. These three reasons probably also sum up the reasons why consumers picked up the scarves for themselves. You might note that none of these reasons include “blowing people up.”
Malkin’s “hate couture” label relies on the keffiyeh being a symbol that supports terrorism, which is in no case entirely true. Even if you go to Palestine, only a miniscule portion of the people in keffiyeh would actually be terrorists, and even a terrorist-supporter might wear the keffiyeh, not because he supports terror, but because IT IS A SCARF.
The biggest problem with Malkin’s BS is that she has a fundamental misunderstanding about how symbolism works in culture. A symbol, just like a word, only means anything through the the mutual understanding of people. If I draw some crazy squiggle and say that it means “Michelle Malkin is an idiot,” it only means that if other people start using the squiggle themselves. Even more, if I took my symbol to another country, it would no longer mean anything, because no one there has heard of it before. (“Perro” doesn’t mean dog in China.) The swastika symbolizes Nazism because it had worldwide, terrifying dissemination. The keffiyeh may have sporadic local significance as a symbol of Arab nationalism (though not specifically terror-support), but it has most assuredly unlinked from that meaning in the vast majority of its uses (i.e. Rachael Ray is not besties with al Qaeda). Malkin’s failure to notice that symbols do not have inherent significance, and her insistence on linking any support for the Arab community with hate speech make her claims as meaningless as a keffiyeh on an Olsen twin. (hehehe)
and with this, I start the “Politics” category of the blog, which will hopefully stay underpopulated because I hate this stuff
