Slanties Eyewear?

by Latoya Peterson

Am I the only one thinking this couldn’t possibly end well?

Here is the product’s description:

slanties are based on ancient Inuit eyewear. Each pair of slanties is handcrafted. Our light, durable finish shows off the natural wood grain. slanties are engineered to be sturdy and reliable, and each pair is reinforced with a layer of fiberglass. If cared for correctly, your slanties will last for 800 years. Wear slanties on the beach as functional sunglasses. Wear Slanties to the club. Wear slanties to visit your grandparents, they’ll love them too. We hope that each pair will bring you great happiness.

In addition to the stunningly racist name, those fuckers will set you back $75. If you look on the sites photo gallery, you get to see people wearing these in public.

Interestingly enough, when I did a search for Inuit eyewear to see what they were actually called, I came across this tidbit:

In the Arctic, the sun shines low on the horizon twenty-four hours a day for nearly 190 days during the summer. Snow blindness occurs when the sunlight reflecting off the surface of the snow combines with the light angled directly into the eyes to burn the retina. For the Inuit, snow blindness hindered hunting, travel, and trade. The painful condition could last for days. Ouch! Into the original classic sport.

According to the Canada’s National History Society, the Inuit constructed eyewear from caribou antlers, bone, leather or wood. Carved to fit the natural curve of the face, with a divot for the bridge of the nose and two slits for the eyes, it was held in place with sinew, the first snow goggles date back to the Thule Inuit, two thousand years ago. The slits allowed them to see, but blocked enough light to prevent snow blindness. As technology advanced, this Inuit design gradually evolved into the sunglasses and protective eyewear of today.

So if this is the legacy, why do we need a racist name slapped on the reinterpretation?

(Hat tip to Jessica for this one.)

Share and Enjoy:

Trackbacks & Pings

Slanties Eyewear… Hmm? | The Fashion Cult on 21 Oct 2009 at 11:38 pm

[...] at Racialicious pass it [...]

Comments

wynsters the tigress wrote:

seriously, ppl aren’t outraged over this? my goodness.

Posted 18 Mar 2009 at 10:08 am ¶
Leandra wrote:

What is wrong with people??? Who thought this was a good idea and HOW?

Posted 18 Mar 2009 at 10:14 am ¶
macon d wrote:

Yikes, definite eyewear FAIL.

Makes me wonder: is there a Fail Blog on racism?

Posted 18 Mar 2009 at 10:25 am ¶
The Cruel Secretary wrote:

Wow…racist name *and* expensive? Fashion FAIL. ::credit roll::

Posted 18 Mar 2009 at 10:27 am ¶
Deaf Indian Muslim Anarchist! wrote:

Lame.

Posted 18 Mar 2009 at 10:41 am ¶
Fiqah wrote:

::: rubs aching forehead :::

You know what hurts most about this?

A whole buncha people had to drop the cultural-awareness/common sense ball for this product to become a reality. That’s a LOTTA racism at product development meetings, working lunches, happy hours, etc.

Co-sign with macon d re: racism Fail Blog.

Posted 18 Mar 2009 at 10:46 am ¶
RJG wrote:

For what it’s worth, they seem to be called Iggaak (I did a search for Inuit snow goggles instead of Inuit eyewear).

http://www.civilization.ca/cmc/exhibitions/aborig/iqqaipaa/cultur-e.shtml

That said, good lord what a trainwreck of racism. I know it’s racist, and it shouldn’t be marginalized or anything, but I’d be a liar if I didn’t admit to laughing at how cartoonishly racist it is to call them Slanties. But if it helps, that’s me laughing at it, not with it.

Seriously, what the crap.

Posted 18 Mar 2009 at 10:54 am ¶
sejw wrote:

And, on top of the completely racist name, they’re not even fashionable (IMHO). The original Inuit ones are way cooler than these.

*sigh*

Posted 18 Mar 2009 at 11:09 am ¶
Lisa J wrote:

Wow, the original inuit ones RJG linked to look very cool, sci-fi and futuristic. The ones the company is selling look cheesy, but lots of fashion things look weird to me when they first come out, and the name, as macon d said, is a big time fail. Maybe if they had a different name and were being marketed for skiiers or for snow sports it might not be so bad. Sigh. More and more I become aware of the things that our Asian brothers and sisters have to put up with. SMH

Posted 18 Mar 2009 at 11:19 am ¶
Fiqah wrote:

Okay, related aside: I just clicked the link for Fail Blog. Nestled amongst the various “fail” tabs is a little piece of nasty with the heading “Engrish.” My jaw hit my chest: surely this couldn’t be what I thought it was? Long story short, it was. And how.

I’m not sure what else to say except that I did not need the tag-team racism moment. Anywho, heads-up to fellow posters who visit the site. Gird your loins and all.

Posted 18 Mar 2009 at 11:28 am ¶
Leila wrote:

They last 800 years? Why bother when the trend won’t even last until the end of this month?

But forget the name, it’s just another cherry of ignorance on the ice cream sundae that is appropriated “fashion.” Take something that had cultural, spiritual, or even just practical significance to an “ancient” (average time period=200 years ago) people, strip it of all authentic usefulness and charge the privilaged classes obscene amounts of money for it, all the while pretending that this somehow signifies a multi-cultural literacy.

Posted 18 Mar 2009 at 11:31 am ¶
sejw wrote:

@ Lisa J:

My first thought when I looked at the original Iggaak was, “Cool! It’s like Geordi La Forge’s VISOR!” *Star Trek: TNG geek squee*

Posted 18 Mar 2009 at 11:51 am ¶
Maysie wrote:

WTF. Ignorance, stupidity, racism and over priced fashion goods. Losers all around.

Posted 18 Mar 2009 at 11:56 am ¶
CDF wrote:

silly!

Posted 18 Mar 2009 at 12:06 pm ¶
Anlina wrote:

Not only is it incredibly racist, it’s not even descriptive… there’s nothing “slanted” about these – it’s all parallel lines. It’s pretty bad when the *only* reasonable explanation for a product name is a racist stereotype. Who the hell thought this was a good idea?

Posted 18 Mar 2009 at 12:40 pm ¶
Tracey wrote:

Hmmm.Yeah. I’m actually relieved they have a history b/c when I saw the picture and the title I was ready for a major head desk moment. That being said it’s still absolutely ridiculous and I am certain that no PR person could have came up with the name “slanties” without being deliberately racist.

@Lisa J: yeah, I agree. If they were named differently and being marketed for practical purposes with credit given to their origins I wouldn’t be so unnerved even though I’d know someone would make them a fashion thing (basketball shoes).

I know the argument is oftentimes that fashion changes, clothing items mean different things in different contexts, clothing from different times/countries/cultures often become a part of fashion and take on different meanings in other places, blah blah blah. My concern with these kind of fashion items is that instead of being a purely aesthetically/functionality based twist on something they seem to want to commercialize on the idea of the other/foreign/exotic and give the buyer the sense of being hip and cutting edge and also give them a cool story to tell about their latest accessory. This wasn’t some eye wear they learned about and thought would be cool, they seem to be deliberately marketing the exotification of the eye wear. What’s worse, as ludicrous as I think they look, I know that if they found a market for Shutter Shades and Oversize Sunglasses, this may very well be the next Vera Bradley ($100 handkerchief or quilt bags as I call them). Maybe it’ll replace the black and white fashion keffiyeh on urban outfitter’s shelves though.

Posted 18 Mar 2009 at 12:53 pm ¶
CEdwards wrote:

Not sure where to start: the product or it’s name. Is this for real?

Posted 18 Mar 2009 at 12:57 pm ¶
Amused0472 wrote:

800 years? “Slanties” is indeed a horrid and racist name choice. The other thing that came to mind was “Slitties,” but that just conjured up more nonsense to run amok in my head.

BIG FAIL

Posted 18 Mar 2009 at 1:14 pm ¶
JC wrote:

“We hope that each pair will bring you great happiness.” – a lame attempt at imitating Fortune Cookie fortunes in hope of getting racist laughs. Let me guess – a bunch of white folks did this right? Also curiously every single photo of people wearing these abominations are white. This is great! Another great way of shitting on the weak Asians by showing how UN-PC and Cool your white selves are. I’m sure white defenders of this “fashion accessory” will pop up and ask those humourless Asians to “get over it”. Anyday now….

Posted 18 Mar 2009 at 1:38 pm ¶
CMyers wrote:

It’s so obviously racist. As someone said, they’re not slanted. Marketing/Product Development FAIL.

Wouldn’t squinties be a better name?

Posted 18 Mar 2009 at 1:53 pm ¶
Andy Joe wrote:

these whatchamacallits, and the folks that sell or wear them, would make great fodder for Bruno a.k.a. Sacha Baron Cohen.

Posted 18 Mar 2009 at 1:54 pm ¶
gatamala wrote:

Why not just call them by their god damn name?

Considering I don’t see any pictures taken in Barrow the intent is pretty clear to me.

Posted 18 Mar 2009 at 2:04 pm ¶
RJG wrote:

I find it adorable that their website’s shoutbox has been cleared because a few people voiced that they felt the name was racist.

Posted 18 Mar 2009 at 2:07 pm ¶
Eva wrote:

Ugly, expensive and racist too. Triple threat. They fail.

Posted 18 Mar 2009 at 2:24 pm ¶
FilthyGrandeur wrote:

wow. i want to know what names they discarded when they came up with this racist gem. and who thought that it would be okay??
fail fail fail and more fail.
also, macon d: if there isn’t a failblog for racism, there certainly should be

Posted 18 Mar 2009 at 3:05 pm ¶
FilthyGrandeur wrote:

oh, and i must say the “start squinting” tagline only makes it more fail

Posted 18 Mar 2009 at 3:06 pm ¶
Jessica wrote:

what a dumb name. We used to make these as kids out of corrugated cardboard, but we didn’t call them by that name.

Posted 18 Mar 2009 at 3:06 pm ¶
jmn wrote:

I just posted a reply on their facebook launch party site. You have to click that you’re NOT attending the launch party before you can post something. Let’s shut this thing down!

http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=56473873779

Posted 18 Mar 2009 at 3:19 pm ¶
jmn wrote:

Wow that was fast. Someone already took my post down. Still is there another way to make our voices heard?

Posted 18 Mar 2009 at 3:21 pm ¶
Latoya Peterson wrote:

@jmn –

Hey, let me loop Angry Asian Man in on this. I’ll post an update in a bit.

Posted 18 Mar 2009 at 3:24 pm ¶
vodalus wrote:

hm, “ironic hipster racism” anybody?

Posted 18 Mar 2009 at 3:36 pm ¶
Monica Roberts wrote:

’shakes my head’

Would have loved to been in the room with the peeps who came up with the name for this fashion faux pas.

Posted 18 Mar 2009 at 3:56 pm ¶
Amused0472 wrote:

I say send in a complaint to their email which is listed as info@slanties.com

Posted 18 Mar 2009 at 4:04 pm ¶
Minotaar wrote:

Complaint sent. Accused them of racism. Completely intolerable.

Posted 18 Mar 2009 at 4:23 pm ¶
Minotaar wrote:

Another thing to do is to report them to facebook – there is a link on the site for it.

Posted 18 Mar 2009 at 4:33 pm ¶
The Cruel Secretary wrote:

Okay, so let’s me get this right: RJG says the company shut down their comments section ’cause folks, well, commented on this racist product. jmn says someone removed zie’s statement when zie stated this product is racist.

Just fucking wow.

Posted 18 Mar 2009 at 4:35 pm ¶
red wrote:

If cared for correctly, your slanties will last for 800 years.

If cared for correctly, your racism will last 800 years…

*sighs*

Posted 18 Mar 2009 at 5:23 pm ¶
jmn wrote:

Latoya, here’s AAM’s post: http://www.angryasianman.com/2009/03/what-hell-are-slanties.html

Posted 18 Mar 2009 at 5:42 pm ¶
jmn wrote:

I believe this is my very accurate interpretation of Slanties Eyewear in regards to hearing of complaints of racism: “LALALALALALALALALA! I can’t hear you! Go away now!”

Of course that last sentence could easily be replaced by “Go back to where you’re from.”

Posted 18 Mar 2009 at 5:51 pm ¶
Embarcadero13 wrote:

Lawd save us from the many tides of racism that came together the create this product, and the flaxen-haired hipsters who will scream that they are not racist by wearing them.

There is a hunger for “culture” in this, a starvation for authenticity that has completely taken over the Ironic Hipsters in San Francisco (where I live). I can hear it already– the lecture on Innuit culture that I’m going to receive from a 22 year old Caucasian girl from Minnesota.

What do I do? What do I say? I love the technique of “playing stupid” when someone makes a racist joke (”What does that even mean?”), but to combat the mix of cultural commodification, self-righteousness and denial? Holy Gwen Stefani! I’ve lived in SF for 10 years, and still never quite get over it.

Posted 18 Mar 2009 at 6:02 pm ¶
Whitney wrote:

Racist name? Check.
Ugly as all hell? Check.
Overpriced? Check.
Photos of people trying desperately hard to look cool? Check.

I think this is the perfect product for hipsters!

Posted 18 Mar 2009 at 7:10 pm ¶
Mania wrote:

My first thought: “Why the ’slant’ thing when it’s more of a slit? They should call them … ’slitties’!”

My second thought: “Hmm … That’s not so good either.”

I wonder if they ended up with the racism after swerving hard to avoid the sexism …

Posted 18 Mar 2009 at 7:56 pm ¶
Baiskeli wrote:

Intergalactic FAIL, now in a new and improved package, 30% more fail in each package!!!

Shake head

I have no words.

Posted 18 Mar 2009 at 8:49 pm ¶
JT wrote:

@Embarcadero13
I share your “Ironic Hipsters in San Francisco” pain. It’s quite the phenomena.

Seriously though?
On top of the totally racist name, those look horrible.
IMO, the original Iggaak looked pretty sleek, these look like those kiddie pin the tail on the Donkey blindfolds :\

Posted 18 Mar 2009 at 9:16 pm ¶
Nanuk of the North wrote:

Laugh all you want, but when your out seal hunting and you miss a catch because the sun bouncing off the snow blinds you at just the wrong moment, we’ll see who’s laughing. Wait. What? They aren’t for seal hunter. Well then in that case those are just stupid. Who cares if their racist or not. Stupid is stupid.

Posted 18 Mar 2009 at 10:31 pm ¶
Eli wrote:

Facebook protest group, anyone?

http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=59257676181&ref=mf

I’ve sent an email. I doubt I’ll get an answer, given that they’ve killed comments on the Event page for FB.

Posted 18 Mar 2009 at 11:13 pm ¶
RJG wrote:

As an update, it seems your article is right next to the website link when searching for Slanties on google.

I’ll enter armchair webmaster mode and say it might rock to change your article’s title to better draw attention to what you’re trying to say about the eyewear.

Posted 18 Mar 2009 at 11:25 pm ¶
dieHipster wrote:

Anyone else notice who the people on the pages are?!?! Food Network hipsters!!

Posted 18 Mar 2009 at 11:39 pm ¶
gogojojo wrote:

major fail. i hope people wearing those things know they’re painting a big “i am an asshole” sign on their foreheads.

Posted 19 Mar 2009 at 1:57 am ¶
ann wrote:

Re: FailBlog on racism

that would be awesome. first submission:
http://twitpic.com/28m17

Posted 19 Mar 2009 at 2:38 am ¶
Rob Schmidt wrote:

Stupid no. 1: Using a stereotype from the wrong culture. (Asian, not Inuit.)

Stupid no. 2: Using a stereotype that doesn’t match the product. (The slits aren’t slanted.)

Don’t the Inuit have enough stereotypes without having to borrow a stereotype about Asians? Sheesh. If I were an Inuk, I don’t know if I’d be mad or glad that some stupid marketer can’t even stereotype me correctly.

If you want a stereotypical name from the right culture, how about Icies (”I see” or “eye-see”)? Or Eye-Glues (like igloos)? Better yet, how about something nonstereotypical like Slitties or Snowgogs?

Posted 19 Mar 2009 at 2:57 am ¶
jacquib wrote:

You know, if they were to have actually done their homework, made these…’items’, look closer to the original (instead of trying to approximate aviator glasses because that’s what’s ‘in’ at the moment), used an Inuit name, hell, even made some attempt to include Inuit culture…that might have worked. Perhaps not terrifically, but a lot better than this. Or as suggested up thread, marketed as practical rather than fashionable.

How could it *not* occur to them that the message sent would be racist? How could they *not*? Fail, fail, fail…

Posted 19 Mar 2009 at 8:06 am ¶
Seance wrote:

Off topic: Does anyone know if this sort of eye wear is bad for the eyes?

Posted 19 Mar 2009 at 11:48 am ¶
Thea wrote:

The one thing that I like about these glasses is that they give Inuit/Aboriginal folks and East Asian folks a point of solidarity…

The photos of Real People! wearing the glasses look like a yellow face party. I hope those jerks get a splitting headache from wearing these glasses.

Posted 19 Mar 2009 at 12:04 pm ¶
A.D. Nix wrote:

@ Seance
I think these would be bad for the whole body. As in, wearer will run into poles, wearer will trip over coffee tables, wearer will flip over hydrants because wearer is not faced with the light created by blinding snow and sun and wearer has no peripheral vision and wearer deserves everything he/she gets in the way of injury for supporting such bullshit.

Posted 19 Mar 2009 at 12:37 pm ¶
Advocate wrote:

I don’t even know what to say. It is so clear that the name refers to Asians, and the context of why they created the glasses supports this assumption (even though they don’t know the difference and lumped us all together). I just don’t understand why they can’t call it what it is instead of tagging on a racist name.

And here’s the better part of the deal. We are probably all seen as playing the race card and can’t take a joke. I’m tired of the jokes and being silenced because I might offend someone who just doesn’t get it.

Posted 19 Mar 2009 at 12:38 pm ¶
more cowbell wrote:

I thought the name wasn’t real – I was about to take issue with the post title – when I started reading, I was floored that they actually named it that.

I would love to have been a fly on the wall when the marketing team was knocking this around. I’d love to know who’s on the marketing team.

Blatantly, inexcusably racist.

Posted 19 Mar 2009 at 1:20 pm ¶
gregor wrote:

I post to report site for using racist name, they only show folks attending, not those not attending which is most folks, gregor

Posted 19 Mar 2009 at 1:23 pm ¶
snuffy wrote:

The name is racist, obviously, but the whole concept is more idiotic than offensive… Inuit hunters wore these because they didn’t have glass, plastic, and tinting available. People today have no excuse for this fuggery.

Posted 19 Mar 2009 at 1:31 pm ¶
maatnofret wrote:

The glasses are indeed racist, as y’all have rightly pointed out. Slanties? really? Not ONE person in the entire company said, “Um, guys…naming a product after a hateful stereotype is *so* last century.” ? (Except that this example points out that it isn’t. Grr.)

Even if they didn’t have the hateful name, they’d still be butt-ugly. The original Iggaak looked way cooler, in that retro 80’s future sort of way. Why not keep the original name and design?

Posted 19 Mar 2009 at 1:39 pm ¶
NancyP wrote:

The name is racist, the actual goggles are not racist. Stupid, maybe, since modern optical materials make it possible to withstand the most intense light (welders’ goggles!).

Posted 19 Mar 2009 at 8:51 pm ¶
red wrote:

OK, I thought I’d have a look on the Slanties website. And look what I found:

NEWS >
ANCIENT SNOW GLASSES RETURN AS ICONIC FASHION ACCESSORY
WHAT: Product Launch Party for slanties : avant-garde wooden eyewear
WHERE: The Windup Space / 12 W. North Ave Baltimore, MD / http://www.thewindupspace.com
WHEN: April 17th 2009 9pm-close / All welcome, free entry.

Now sadly I live in London, several thousand miles and many time zones away from this wonderful opportunity to tell the Slanties people what I think about their product. I would also be hoping for free red wine and a pale coloured carpet…

I know this thread has dropped down the page a bit, but is there anyone still reading who lives in Baltimore?

Posted 20 Mar 2009 at 11:24 am ¶
RJG wrote:

@NancyP: “The name is racist, the actual goggles are not racist.”

While not racist, the goggles could easily count as appropriation.

Posted 20 Mar 2009 at 2:08 pm ¶
Janice wrote:

I just *had* to comment on this.. I’m half Inuk (Inuit), half Haitian.. dark skin, curly hair etc etc.. my mom is inuk and aside from my skin colour, people say i look exactly like her.. i never knew my haitian father so i was never introduced to the culture. therefore, i identify myself as an Inuk. I grew up in the north, speak the language, eat raw (yes, raw) meat and i throat sing among other traditional inuit activities.. But people, for whatever reason, decide that i cant possibly be inuk because of my skin colour, my hair and (believe it or not) my very good english. Even other inuit cant accept me (it’s ok in my own region, but people from other regions who dont know me or my family always make assumptions about me). I’ve had people say stuff about me in Inuktitut because they didnt realize i could understand them. The worst i’ve ever had tho was when me and a couple of classmates/friends were at a conference as cultural performers (as i said, im a throat singer) there were 5 of us, me -dark skinned, my roomates -blond hair blue eyes, good friend -brown hair fair skin, and two other very good friends that “look like Inuit”. we were asked to perform for the local news and the reporter didnt want me, my roomate, or my fair skinned friend to be recorded because we were “not Inuk enough” The woman actually, physically pushed my 2 friends out of the way. What kind of message is that to give to the world? that Inuit are just slanty eye’d blubber eating people even in this day and age? you are not going to find many inuit these days that fit that mold. and you are definatly not going to find many inuit who accept their stereotype as “smiling, passive eskimos”. This product name is an absolute insult to inuit. anyway.. i tend to blabber when it comes to this subject =P.. maybe the story at the begining was a bit irrelevant? i just had to share =P =)

http://www.facebook.com/topic.php?topic=7932&post=33184&uid=45006254532#/group.php?gid=45006254532 <– this is what inuit today look like.

Posted 21 Mar 2009 at 1:41 pm ¶
Deb wrote:

So, I’m Korean-American, and grew up in Alaska before moving to NYC, so this is a double fail in my book. I sent them an outraged email, sent another email to OCA, and will definitely be blasting these ridiculous glasses on my blog.

Posted 21 Mar 2009 at 3:28 pm ¶
Reiter wrote:

The makers of these ugly things should get together with the suits at Abercrombie & Fitch. They’d work so well together. I still give my cousin crap for working for A&F willingly during her summers off from school, and I personally refuse to wear their crap for the racist imagery they’ve used in the past.

EPIC FAIL.

Posted 22 Mar 2009 at 1:29 pm ¶
CVT wrote:

This is ridiculous on all kinds of levels, but is it wrong that my first reaction was: These are a complete rip-off of the sunglasses one of the Chinese gang members in Big Trouble in Little China is wearing when they kidnap MaoYin?

Sometimes things are so bad our mind just skips right over them . . .

Posted 23 Mar 2009 at 3:25 am ¶
Matthew W. Rice wrote:

AHHHHAHAHA! This is the funniest thing I’ve ever seen. Terribly ridiculous at best. The only thing worse is the price. People are seriously shelling out $75 to make themselves look mentally challenged. I should start a web site and start selling knockoffs. Tell ya what… I’ll only charge ya $20 a pair.

Posted 26 Mar 2009 at 8:25 pm ¶
adrienne wrote:

has anyone else noticed that the people wearing these stupid things in the gallery are really really very creepy looking?

Posted 03 Apr 2009 at 3:50 pm ¶
eyewear wrote:

These are the ugliest sunglasses that I have ever seen. I understand that most of us want to be in fashion, including items of sunglasses, but this is too much.

Posted 15 Apr 2009 at 6:08 am ¶