Shopping with Squaws: Irregular Choice Gives Itself a Bad Name

by Special Correspondent Wendi Muse

I have to give companies credit for coming up with unusual names for the merchandise. One such company that comes to mind is Irregular Choice, a flamboyant Britain-based shoe company who goes all out to wow consumers. With asymmetrical heels, bizarre accessories, and designs that stop traffic, Irregular Choice is the Lady Gaga of the shoe world. The company has worked diligently to combine a little humor, a lot of fun, and heaps of quality in its lines, year after year. With its flagship NYC Soho store, it graced American shores with one of the best British invasions since the Beatles. Let’s just say I’ve always been a big fan.

But every now and then, in their attempt to be cute, they sometimes go over the border of taste. And I am not just talking about the shoe designs. I am talking about the names.

On occasion, shoes pop up with ethnic names. Take, for example, their “Latin Lady” shoe from a previous collection. The black shoe was covered in tropical fruit (a la Carmen Miranda) and, while appealing to the eye, the name seemed a little off.

For this season’s collection, the mouth-open moment came with a (hideous) purse I noticed on the site. With its blue shredded shingles and background of miniature prints of cartoon natives, the “Squaw Shopper” takes the cake, winning an A+ in offensive. Maybe if this were the 1950s and this bag were geared to children it wouldn’t be so shocking, but in 2009, the jig is up. What’s most offensive is that they used the word “Squaw” in the name. They could have named it something else that touched on the whimsical indigenous theme without resorting to an offensive term. Maybe this is some sort of Thanksgiving joke I missed?

Although, offensive bag name aside, kudos for their snarky jab at MTV via men’s shoes “Justin Bobby” and “Prattster” (in reference to the “reality” show The Hills) and “Gangsta Grill” (referring to almost any popular rap song from 2006-07 that came out of the South).

Can anyone else think of a better name for this bag, if that’s even worth it?

Share and Enjoy:

Trackbacks & Pings

Bonne Vie - Wholestyle on the Web: Week of 12/04/2009 on 05 Dec 2009 at 9:03 am

[...] Racialicious: Shopping with Squaws – Irregular Choices Gives Itself a Bad Name [...]

Comments

the UNchecked other wrote:

As a young woman whose maternal great-grandmother was full-blooded Tsalagi (Cherokee), I propose the bag to be re-named “(the) irregularly non-sensical fringed choice.”

Seriously, my culture is NOT a trend; it is a continuation and revitalization of my ancestral history, and my bridge that connects their past and my future so I may fully understand the significance of what I am able to achieve through their sacrifices.

Thank you for posting this contribution by Wendi Muse.

Posted 02 Dec 2009 at 8:26 am ¶
sweeterjuice wrote:

My gut reaction: “That is one genuinely ugly bag.”

Perhaps the Geuinely Ugly?

Posted 02 Dec 2009 at 9:50 am ¶
A.D. Nix wrote:

Between this and the ‘head dress” montage over at Look At This Fucking Hipster I’m at a loss. It never ends.

(Very timely as I walk past the Irregular Choice on Lafayette in order to get to my Wednesday office.)

Posted 02 Dec 2009 at 9:53 am ¶
Irene M. wrote:

“Housewife’s Diversion”?

Also, that bag is seriously ugly. It looks like something Deb from Napoleon Dynamite made and tries to sell door to door.

Posted 02 Dec 2009 at 10:10 am ¶
Fiqah wrote:

Terrible “post-post-racial irony” racism. Shitty concept. Ugly-assed bag. Chuck it altogether.

Posted 02 Dec 2009 at 10:24 am ¶
Eva wrote:

Fugly fringe bag or FFB. That’s a better name.

Posted 02 Dec 2009 at 10:54 am ¶
Louise wrote:

As an Englishwoman, i roll my eyes shake my head at this piss-poor company….. for exploiting the identity of aborignal americans and using inappropritate language in such a hipster fashion.

The trying to tie A whole ethnicity of people to their FUGLY bag….

The shame!!

Posted 02 Dec 2009 at 11:26 am ¶
Deaf Indian Muslim Anarchist wrote:

Yeah, that bag is fucking ugly.

I had speech therapy 2 weeks ago and I was reading some old poems out loud. There was, in fact, “squaw” in one of the lines and I stumbled over the word.

Posted 02 Dec 2009 at 12:28 pm ¶
Wendi Muse wrote:

btw, just as a point of reference on the history of the word and its connotations, go here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Squaw

Posted 02 Dec 2009 at 12:33 pm ¶
Thea Lim wrote:

I wish you hadn’t posted this Wendi…now I can no longer lust after Irregular Choice stuff sans guilt. Dammit. Why do people have to be so clueless?

Posted 02 Dec 2009 at 2:23 pm ¶
Thea Lim wrote:

Btw those people who are clueless are “Irregular Choice,” not Wendi for drawing attention to this grossness.

Posted 02 Dec 2009 at 2:24 pm ¶
Wendi Muse wrote:

i mean, i kind of wonder if it’s a negative term in the UK? does anyone know!?

Posted 02 Dec 2009 at 2:33 pm ¶
Adrienne wrote:

A butt ugly bag named a racial slur. Were they testing out the ones that not everyone would identify as a racial slur?

Posted 02 Dec 2009 at 2:36 pm ¶
Jenny wrote:

Ho. Lee. Crap.

I live in Canada, in a city with a large Aboriginal population. To me, that word is one of the most offensive slurs I could possibly hear — not only is it incredibly racist, but deeply misogynist as well (the two combined here to form a powerful expression of colonial oppression).

I realize Brits probably don’t have the same understanding of the origins and continued context of the word, but in the end that’s no excuse.

I’m too mad, actually, to come up with any quippy rename for the product.

Posted 02 Dec 2009 at 3:03 pm ¶
WestEndGirl wrote:

I’m from the UK, and it is *only* because I have read Racialicious regularly that I know the background to US-oriented problematic words/phrases like squaw etc and why many POC find them offensive.

However, most UK people would literally be totally clueless to this as a racial slur, a sexist slur or even as as slur at all.

So when you say ‘resorting to something offensive’, it just doesn’t compute to me. The term is very infrequently used and is synonymous with Native American woman so much so that I was taught it as the *correct* word in school!

Most people in the UK don’t even know that many(most?) Native Americans prefer to be called that, by their tribe specifically, or as First Nations or Indigneous, rather than Indians! It’s just not on their mental radar in the way that the concerns and needs of the minority communities in the UK are (not that they are always taken care of though, ahem).

To me, cultural knowledge and context is everything with terms/names. I’ve seen unbelievably dodgy, allegedly positive uses of the phrase ‘to Jew’ in countries were there hasn’t been a history of anti-Semitism (mainly in Asia) but they had no idea it was offensive. The word ‘Paki’ used in the UK is totally offensive (was/is used as a derogatory, often racist, term to all people from India/Pakistan/Bangladesh/Sri Lanka etc). However, I have known people actually from Pakistan self-describe themselves that way in *other countries*. If they, or people that have heard them self-describe used that term in the UK, you would definitely end up with open mouths and in some cases possibly employment and/or criminal implications!

In this case, education for the company is vital so that they are brusquely pulled out of their ignorance. A letter or email explaining what’s what and why it is unacceptable is needed. I’m happy to send one from here to the UK office. Ignorant offensiveness is still bl**dy offensive obviously!

Posted 02 Dec 2009 at 3:14 pm ¶
WestEndGirl wrote:

Btw, I’m pretty sure that UK children today (i.e. the noughties) are not taught that word as appropriate and *are* taught to say Native American and learn wider, more accurate history. I know that Black History Month, for example, is marked in schools now, which wasn’t the case when I was in school in the 80s/90s. And it is likely my aged people or older who are responsible for the Irregular Choice naming. Thankfully things are moving in a better direction!

Posted 02 Dec 2009 at 3:22 pm ¶
Deaf Indian Muslim Anarchist wrote:

@Wendi: I honestly doubt it. I was born in England and I never heard the word “squaw” until I came here to the States.

Native/Indigenous Americans aren’t that common in the UK. It seems like an American issue, don’t you think?

Posted 02 Dec 2009 at 3:45 pm ¶
Val wrote:

I really think that some of these companies do this stuff hoping for controversy thinking it will bring them free publicity.

Posted 02 Dec 2009 at 4:19 pm ¶
Sixwing wrote:

It’s not important that the word used is or is not a negative term in the UK – it’s a racial slur.

From Wikipedia:
Apart from the linguistic debate, the word “squaw” has become offensive to many modern Native Americans because of usage that demeans Native women, ranging from condescending images (e.g., picture postcards depicting “Indian squaw and papoose”) to racialized epithets (Green 1975). It is similar in tone to the words “N–ress” and “Jewess,” (Adams 2000) which treat ethnic women as if they were second-class citizens or exotic objects.”

Posted 02 Dec 2009 at 4:42 pm ¶
Wendi Muse wrote:

yeah, one of the reasons why i asked about the term’s use (if at all) in the UK is precisely because of cultural relativism when it comes to terms. i mean “fag” has a totally different meaning there vs. here, so i don’t think it’s too out of the ordinary to question cultural context in reference to terminology. the same thing applies to say, terms for the same racial groups in different countries. if you were to literally call someone “black” (”preto”) in Brazil, for example, it’s generally not too well received, even though that’s the term used in the census. meanwhile, “negro” is the term of choice…but if you called a black person “negro” in the states, you can imagine the response, particularly if the one using the term is someone who is not black.

so while i recognize it’s a slur, and that is the basis of this post, i had to question its use elsewhere.

Posted 02 Dec 2009 at 5:11 pm ¶
Sam wrote:

On the one hand, as a Brit, I was not aware until literally 2 weeks ago of the negative connotations of this word.

On the other hand, I also can not remember a time in my entire life where I have ever had to use the word, felt the need to use the word, or encountered anyone else who would use it. As such, I can’t imagine it would occur to me to use it as a name for something I’d designed, and if it did, simply googling the word would tell me all I need to know about its (in)appropriateness. So all in all, it’s still a fail from Irregular Choice.

Here in the UK the level of education we have regarding any sort of American history is pretty much zero, so using that word here would likely elicit no reaction – on the other hand, it’s not really difficult to find out the negative connotations of a word, especially when you’re marketing something in a country where it is blatantly known to be offensive. Fail fail fail.

Posted 02 Dec 2009 at 6:24 pm ¶
GüeraLola wrote:

Omg, I thought those were flowers on the bag. Honesltiy if one is going tom market goods in a another country isn’t someone has to know about what taken to be offensive by groups in that country? Oh, wait even some Americans don’t know. care that the word “Squaw” is offensive. Like right in my home state of Liberal California Squaw valley. http://www.squaw.com/I‘m not trying to justify their actions but I want to point out some American don’t know that it is offensive.

Posted 02 Dec 2009 at 7:31 pm ¶
WestEndGirl wrote:

‘on the other hand, it’s not really difficult to find out the negative connotations of a word, especially when you’re marketing something in a country where it is blatantly known to be offensive’

Well, Irregular Choice should clearly not be using offensive terms for their products.
But frankly most of the brand/marketing/product people I’ve ever worked with (in multiple countries/companies) are young(ish), thoughtless people whose urge to be ‘different’ in any which way is not backed up by enough brains to even *think* about checking things like that. I mean Umbro’s Zyklon trainer much? That’s not even vaguely country-specific!

So clearly we can just have a scenario where people use “cool” words and phrases entirely thoughtlessly in business. I’m not sure we should even bother to vexed about these cross-cultural or historic snafus. Just when they happen, educate, educate, educate and yell, yell, yell so that *that* company and *those* marketing people and the others that read about it in PR Week or Brand Monthly, think twice and thrice when they get their latest cerayzee idea!

Posted 02 Dec 2009 at 7:55 pm ¶
mk wrote:

@GüeraLola I was going to point out Squaw Valley but you beat me to it. It makes me so mad that they still have that name.

Posted 02 Dec 2009 at 8:17 pm ¶
Laura wrote:

How clever of them to produce something that’s as hideous for its racist name as it is for its assault on the eyes. *sigh*

Posted 02 Dec 2009 at 8:24 pm ¶
Jen wrote:

@Wendy Muse – I only know that “squaw” is an offensive word because of Racialicious. I just thought it meant “wife” in one of the Native American languages. I doubt I’ve ever used it, since it’s not like there are a lot of Native Americans in Australia but if I have the past I had no idea it was inappropriate, other than figuring it was probably a word from one language group that shouldn’t be used in reference to another. I knew that the image of the quiet Native American woman with a kid strapped to her back was probably something of a stereotype.

On a related note, is it offensive to refer to Native Americans as Indians? I remember being told it was during school (we studied the Trail of Tears and the dispossession of native Americans in a unit following on from Aboriginal history in Australia) but since then I’ve seen (presumably native) Americans use it here and elsewhere.

I vote that bag be called “The Inappropriate Halloween Costume”.

Posted 02 Dec 2009 at 8:57 pm ¶
Raven wrote:

I’m not going to lie, I was going “WTF is everyone offended about” until someone said squaw is a racist slur. Wow…that is…I don’t even know why they would use that to name a fugly bag. Thats just low and nonsensical. Whats next, the Mammy mocassins? How friggin dumb can they be?!

Posted 03 Dec 2009 at 1:46 am ¶
Louise wrote:

As an Englishwoman i have to disagree with my fellow English commentators, Anyone who has read a book, or cares about anything other than their hermetically sealed ethnic bubble, would have read the papers, and realised that

“oh!! well look at that our colonialism, has effed up soooooo many people around the world and debased many….. corrupted languages et al.”

This is not new, i’m 25 and it has been my thinking for a long time, it’s called learning outside of the school system

Posted 03 Dec 2009 at 3:59 am ¶
m. wrote:

Wait, do people really think this is just about the name of the bag? If so, and if the word ’squaw’ holds no weight in other countries, does this mean that in others’ minds it’s okay for a bunch of non-Indigenous people to walk around with an accessory that has little cartoon stereotyped Indian women on it as if Native people are cutesy things to draw from? I hope not.

This is so everyday and common, it’s too tiring care. Big sigh.

@Wendi:
Totally not trying to get on you, and I know a lot of people do this, but just for future reference: it’s probably best to use ‘Native people/women/men/et cetera’ (capitalize the ‘n’, because a lot of us use it when referring to ourselves as a race) rather than “natives” – it’s offensive to many of us, a lot like the way ‘Aboriginal’ and ‘Aboriginal Australians’ is and should be used instead of “aborigine” or “aborigines/als”. Just a suggestion, not trying to nitpick, I swear.
(Also, no, I cannot provide concrete evidence that it’s “wrong”. This wording just bothers a lot of us. Hopefully this doesn’t come off as stupid.)

Posted 03 Dec 2009 at 5:26 am ¶
dersk wrote:

Seems to me like the obvious name – given that it’s a trendy company trying to be post-ironic but just being offensive – would be the “hipster douchebag”.

No offense intended either to ladyparts or urban kids in their 20s with no job and skinny jeans…

Posted 03 Dec 2009 at 8:05 am ¶
Louise wrote:

Just to re-iterate something, Modern America, this anglophone, largely white country was largely inspired by white people from england and so we have no get out clause, that disbars us from not knowing about America’s colonial brutal past regarding the treatment of it’s Aboriginal people.

Posted 03 Dec 2009 at 10:20 am ¶
gail wrote:

@ m. : I was just about to note the same thing! It’s not just the bag’s name, it’s the bag.
@ dersk: I vote for the proposed name change.

Posted 03 Dec 2009 at 10:26 am ¶
bdsista wrote:

Deaf Indian, its not a UK thing, if I am going to use someone else’s culture, how long does it take to look it up and make sure I don’t use a word that also means Uterus in some Native Tribes to market an ugly ass bag!

Posted 03 Dec 2009 at 10:54 am ¶
Wendi Muse wrote:

to m (comment 29): i used “natives” on purpose to point out my sarcastic view on the print. i don’t refer to people of indigenous/Aboriginal descent as “natives” when i speak/write of them. it’s kind of like if we had a bag with prints of little black Sambo….i would say the purse has a print of “darkies.” so to make it clear, that was on purpose.

to jen (comment no. 26): good question. the debate surrounding what terminology is appropriate to refer to americans of indigenous descent has been going on for a while. i have heard both sides (some people say use “Indians,” as the term has been reclaimed by indigenous people themselves and that Native American is overly PC, others say use “Native American” because of its accuracy and exactly because it’s PC. some people prefer terms like “indigenous” or “Aboriginal” (even though it’s often used to refer to indigenous Australians. i usually use “indigenous” + whatever the country is in which the people live OR the specific nation name if i know it (like “Cherokee” or “Apache,” etc). if the person, in some way, designates a specific term, then i use that. i think there are cues you can follow to figure that out if it comes up in a conversation (written or live).

but if you think of it, this issue comes up with various ethnic/racial groups and varies region to region, country to country, etc. so beyond indigenous groups, this issue is pretty relevant.

Posted 03 Dec 2009 at 11:52 am ¶
WestEndGirl wrote:

To Louise:

“white people from england…. have no get out clause, that disbars us from not knowing about America’s colonial brutal past regarding the treatment of it’s Aboriginal people.”
“Anyone who has read a book, or cares about anything other than their hermetically sealed ethnic bubble”

and etc.

Well since I’m mixed Jewish (half Mizrahi and half Ashkenazi) and nicely brown does that mean I get a pass from your oh so righteous indignation?

It’s not a question of ethnicity or history as to why Brits of all colours don’t know all specific words and phrases that are used in a derogatory manner in *another country*.

It’s a question of the fact that Ameria is a different country. I mean the word kike for Jew, is never used in the UK, most people wouldn’t even know the word. Does that make them ignorant and in a ‘hermetically sealed ethnic bubble’? If an American doesn’t know the word pikey does that make them ignorant and in a ‘hermetically sealed ethnic bubble’?

I’m really trying to get my head around your assertion that because Modern America sprang partially from England (ignoring the Swedish, Norwegian, Dutch, German, Spanish etc settlers), then Brits today should be fully conversant with all and every aspect of its culture and word usage. Just mind boggling.

I learnt at school in the 80s about “Indians”. And then I then learnt about Native Americans in the 90s in my American history module (as well as about Jim Crow, Civil Rights movement) as the country and the school system improved its knowledge and understanding of issues around civil rights and social justice. So just in a decade, things improved.

But the fact is that there is a whole other world other than America to be learnt about by British children. Like Britain’s own forays into the Indian sub-continent, into Africa and etc etc. Given that there are actually children from those places in British schools *right now*, it is clearly more pressing to ensure that that history is taught properly using appropriate, thoughtful language as the main priority. Clearly Australians need to have as their main priority their history with their Aboriginal peoples, likewise Canada. It’s about relevance and therefore priority. It is clearly more relevant for British children to be taught about Mary Seacole than about Sacajawea.

No-one here from the UK is saying that the word usage is correct and is not offensive.
But your assertion that the ignorance, from British people of all ethnicities, religions, races and otherwise, is somehow deliberately malicious is way off the mark.

I can’t be sure but most likely children today in school do not get taught the word squaw. But the people from Irregular Choice are older and didn’t know. And given that there are Americans here saying that *they* didn’t know the word was a racist/misogynist slur until v.recently clearly indicates that it is an ongoing issue and hardly a case of a given truth for everyone apart from those evil Colonial White Englanders.

Irregular Choice f*cked up. And they should be told why. And everyone, whatever country they are in, should endeavour to edcuate and pull up people when they use terms/languages/memes which are thoughtless/offensive. That’s what’s needed rather than hyperbole.

Posted 03 Dec 2009 at 12:09 pm ¶
WestEndGirl wrote:

Bdsista
“if I am going to use someone else’s culture, how long does it take to look it up and make sure I don’t use a word that also means Uterus in some Native Tribes to market an ugly ass bag!”

You’re right that it’s international. And it’s just as long as when a major international sporting goods manufacturer decided that it was a great idea to name a range of sneakers after the gas used to kill Jews, Roma and others in concentration camps. In fact, I found this useful link:
http://www.i18nguy.com/translations.html

….which demonstrates that marketing people from all countries are idiots.

So back to the education then.

Posted 03 Dec 2009 at 12:16 pm ¶
A.D. Nix wrote:

A lesson that probably works in all cases: when looking for thoughtful ways to refer to the marginalized and oppressed, it’s a good idea to be suspicious of language offered and preferred by the oppressor.

Posted 03 Dec 2009 at 12:47 pm ¶
SuperAmanda wrote:

“Also, that bag is seriously ugly. It looks like something Deb from Napoleon Dynamite made and tries to sell door to door.” hahaha so true!

I live in England we have enough John Wayne afternoon movies and rich boys wearing Geronimo T-shirts going to nightclubs to know using the word “squaw” is like saying “bitch”, though in actuality its far worse.
But come on it’s hard to design cute handbags when your teeth are growing their own eco-system and look like picket fences caked with mud.
Oops, did I stereotype ?

Sorry but eating a lime for vitamin C and restoring your teeth is just a tad easier than replacing entire races of people who were liquidated…

Posted 05 Dec 2009 at 1:44 am ¶
SuperAmanda wrote:

PS: I was not addressing you specifically WestEndGirl but for the record just the romanticism of native American cultures that many British people have which ranges from well intentioned to bizarre and fetishistic. I know where you are coming from and that you mean well but:

“It is clearly more relevant for British children to be taught about Mary Seacole than about Sacajawea. ”

It is relevant for ALL children in ALL countries to be learning about ALL colonialist invasions and liquidations of POC.

“But the people from Irregular Choice are older and didn’t know. ”

Oh mofo they KNEW what they were doing! Upper class Sloaney Brits have a long tradition of cheerfully copying the style of what they call “savages” After all, it wasn’t until the mid 70’s that the term “nigger brown” fell out of COMMON use to describe home furnishings and leather shades.

I’m originally from California, live in E2, so I can spot this a mile away.

Posted 05 Dec 2009 at 1:57 am ¶
tk wrote:

I note that the “Squaw” designation is gone from the web page featuring the bag. It’s still part of the URL though.

Congratulations on a partial victory.

A more daunting quest, but a useful one, would be to start in on the place names in the US.

I hail from Buffalo, NY where we still endure the name Squaw Island just offshore in the Niagara River and I run into a lot of Squaw this-and-that (creeks and rivers in particular) on my drives across the country.

Posted 06 Dec 2009 at 10:36 am ¶
Wendi Muse wrote:

yeah, as an update, a reader sent us an email to alert us that the “squaw” part of the name has been removed, seconding your comment, tk (comment no. 40). this is great!

i agree with you big time on the naming…pretty sad that these have yet to be corrected

Posted 06 Dec 2009 at 7:07 pm ¶