I'd highly recommend reading the comments posted on this topic through the link provided, as they're really fascinating.
Also, I didn't intend for that post to be quite so long. I always start a post thinking "This'll be a relatively short one." As it turns out, I have a lot to say...pretty much all the time. Who'd have thought?
;)
Friday 29 June 2007
More belated commentary
I suddenly like Nicholas Kristof a little less.
I’ll let go of the fact that his voice is nothing short of squeaky and I was so profoundly disappointed when I heard it for the first time. I was expecting a mysterious-stranger-in-a-trench-coat-and-fedora-smoking-a-cigar-
while-leaning-against-a-lamppost-in-the-dark-of-the-night kind of voice. A voice – to steal a description from Dan Brown – that is like “chocolate for the ears”. Anyway, not the point.
Mr. Kristof (yeah, no more informal “Nick” – at least not for awhile) wrote a column and filmed a video a couple months ago comparing the relative growth and potential of India versus China, asking readers to place their bets on which country will be on top in 2100. Kristof, predictably, picks China. I’m not surprised by that fact, as he’s more invested in China than he is in India, and not just because he’s married to a Chinese-American. What bothers me, though, is that the idealistic and moral appeal that Kristof usually applies to his writing is absent from this particular column.
Though he has brought up China’s human rights and free speech failures in recent weeks, these factors are strangely absent while he’s weighing the strengths and shortcomings of both countries. It’s easy to dismiss India’s democracy by calling it corrupt and chaotic – or “functioning anarchy” as one enlightened [sarcasm] poster dubbed it – but the fact remains, and it matters. I’m aware that I’m not completely objective here, but neither is Kristof. That said, I’ll try to make my point as objectively as possible.
Kristof pinpoints the fact that India has a long way to go in terms of making the most of its human capital and widening the base of people that reap the benefits of the economic boom. Fair enough. We all know that the Indian system reeks of corruption, lack of discipline and overall inefficacy. Social conduct values that are conducive to efficiency (e.g. punctuality) are seriously lacking in the overall cultural consciousness. Still – the story of India over the past sixty years is a gripping one, and it’s full of successes.
If you’re a young student in China, you can’t Google the truth about what your government did in Tiananmen Square in 1989, or to the Falun Gong throughout the last decade. You can’t get full access to BBC News. You can’t find out what Buddhism really is, or what the Dalai Lama is really about. You can’t have a sense of humour about your people, because sites that mock anything near and dear to the hearts of the Chinese are censored. That. Is. BAD. And I’m pretty disappointed that none of this came up in Kristof’s speculation. The Indians may have issues with sex toys, but as far as I’m aware, there are no comparable instances of censorship. Call me idealistic or what you will, but I value an open society and I take it as a sign that a community or a country is doing well. We have enough problems at the moment with the US government being secretive (DOWN WITH DICK/KARL/ALBERTO) – we don’t need to condone it in other societies as well.
In a different vein, India’s recent history has been ignored in this account. If you’re going to make this sort of comparison, that’s something that you can’t neglect. India came out of imperialism with a fierce dedication to democracy, a truth stranger than fiction, when you consider that democracy had no foundation there previously. The panchayat system hardly counts as a predecessor. It also managed to bounce back from the 1970s Emergency, an event that could've easily destabilised many other post-colonial nation-states. These facts are indicative of how absorbent Indian society is when it comes to outside influence (sometimes annoyingly so, when it comes to Bollywood and pop culture in general). It’s the reason that Indians have maintained a strong sense of identity even after centuries of foreign rule. China, by comparison, retreats further into its introverted and autocratic regime and states for the official record that it is 100% atheist. By deduction, India’s more likely to be a trustworthy ally, either to the US or whoever else is a major player in 2100.
I’m well aware of how idealistic all of this sounds, and I don’t necessarily believe that it’ll be India on top in 2100 for the reasons outlined by Kristof and several bloggers. I just think that the issues outlined above are wrongly overlooked by many when making this comparison.
Much of this can be summarised using Olympic athletes as an example. The Chinese hand-pick young children who show athletic prowess and breed them into successful Olympians through rigorous single-minded training. The Indians, despite all their genuine interest, always fall short of the Olympic dream. So it’s really a question of priorities – do you want to create a society of clones that still bring home the gold, or do want your society to value personal freedom of choice above a superficial, though somewhat glamorous, gauge of success? I think I've made it clear where I stand.
I’ll let go of the fact that his voice is nothing short of squeaky and I was so profoundly disappointed when I heard it for the first time. I was expecting a mysterious-stranger-in-a-trench-coat-and-fedora-smoking-a-cigar-
while-leaning-against-a-lamppost-in-the-dark-of-the-night kind of voice. A voice – to steal a description from Dan Brown – that is like “chocolate for the ears”. Anyway, not the point.
Mr. Kristof (yeah, no more informal “Nick” – at least not for awhile) wrote a column and filmed a video a couple months ago comparing the relative growth and potential of India versus China, asking readers to place their bets on which country will be on top in 2100. Kristof, predictably, picks China. I’m not surprised by that fact, as he’s more invested in China than he is in India, and not just because he’s married to a Chinese-American. What bothers me, though, is that the idealistic and moral appeal that Kristof usually applies to his writing is absent from this particular column.
Though he has brought up China’s human rights and free speech failures in recent weeks, these factors are strangely absent while he’s weighing the strengths and shortcomings of both countries. It’s easy to dismiss India’s democracy by calling it corrupt and chaotic – or “functioning anarchy” as one enlightened [sarcasm] poster dubbed it – but the fact remains, and it matters. I’m aware that I’m not completely objective here, but neither is Kristof. That said, I’ll try to make my point as objectively as possible.
Kristof pinpoints the fact that India has a long way to go in terms of making the most of its human capital and widening the base of people that reap the benefits of the economic boom. Fair enough. We all know that the Indian system reeks of corruption, lack of discipline and overall inefficacy. Social conduct values that are conducive to efficiency (e.g. punctuality) are seriously lacking in the overall cultural consciousness. Still – the story of India over the past sixty years is a gripping one, and it’s full of successes.
If you’re a young student in China, you can’t Google the truth about what your government did in Tiananmen Square in 1989, or to the Falun Gong throughout the last decade. You can’t get full access to BBC News. You can’t find out what Buddhism really is, or what the Dalai Lama is really about. You can’t have a sense of humour about your people, because sites that mock anything near and dear to the hearts of the Chinese are censored. That. Is. BAD. And I’m pretty disappointed that none of this came up in Kristof’s speculation. The Indians may have issues with sex toys, but as far as I’m aware, there are no comparable instances of censorship. Call me idealistic or what you will, but I value an open society and I take it as a sign that a community or a country is doing well. We have enough problems at the moment with the US government being secretive (DOWN WITH DICK/KARL/ALBERTO) – we don’t need to condone it in other societies as well.
In a different vein, India’s recent history has been ignored in this account. If you’re going to make this sort of comparison, that’s something that you can’t neglect. India came out of imperialism with a fierce dedication to democracy, a truth stranger than fiction, when you consider that democracy had no foundation there previously. The panchayat system hardly counts as a predecessor. It also managed to bounce back from the 1970s Emergency, an event that could've easily destabilised many other post-colonial nation-states. These facts are indicative of how absorbent Indian society is when it comes to outside influence (sometimes annoyingly so, when it comes to Bollywood and pop culture in general). It’s the reason that Indians have maintained a strong sense of identity even after centuries of foreign rule. China, by comparison, retreats further into its introverted and autocratic regime and states for the official record that it is 100% atheist. By deduction, India’s more likely to be a trustworthy ally, either to the US or whoever else is a major player in 2100.
I’m well aware of how idealistic all of this sounds, and I don’t necessarily believe that it’ll be India on top in 2100 for the reasons outlined by Kristof and several bloggers. I just think that the issues outlined above are wrongly overlooked by many when making this comparison.
Much of this can be summarised using Olympic athletes as an example. The Chinese hand-pick young children who show athletic prowess and breed them into successful Olympians through rigorous single-minded training. The Indians, despite all their genuine interest, always fall short of the Olympic dream. So it’s really a question of priorities – do you want to create a society of clones that still bring home the gold, or do want your society to value personal freedom of choice above a superficial, though somewhat glamorous, gauge of success? I think I've made it clear where I stand.
Monday 25 June 2007
Has Feministing heard about this?
Yesterday, rather than making the trek out to Southall to get my eyebrows threaded, I wandered around my neighbourhood looking for something similar. I found a salon owned and operated by a bunch of Arab men, but I realised too late that I was the only female in sight. They were well-behaved, and my initial apprehension subsided. But I didn’t really want the threading done by a dude. Is that sexist? Anyway, I had already walked in and asked how much they charged, so I decided to give it a try since I already felt invested. It turned out well enough- not as good as the girls in Southall, but everything’s a trade-off.
Speaking of sexism, though, I’m reminded of a book I came across while browsing in Soho over the weekend. I don’t often find myself getting up on the feminist soapbox, but the title of this book, along with the credentials of the authors versus its content, distressed me. It’s called “Skinny Bitch,” and it’s something of a guide to healthy eating written by a former model and a modelling agent (insert hysterical laughter here). I didn’t think too much of it at first glance, but after picking it up and reading something to the effect of “The authors might be bitches, but at least they’re skinny bitches” on the back cover, I got a little ticked off.
Why does being skinny mitigate bitchiness? Why is it necessary to use a title like that to draw people to your cause? If anything, I’m repulsed. That title validates anyone who believes that women have a tendency to be more petty and shallow (not to mention anyone that judges LA on its ostensible superficiality).
As far as the actual content of the book is concerned, I’ve come across some contradictory reviews after some cursory research. It’s worth noting that the authors are vegan, and therefore dish out some of the typical “If slaughterhouses had glass walls, everyone would be a vegetarian” rhetoric. I think that quotation is from Linda McCartney, if anyone cares. The negative review focused on some of the things that caught my attention – the stupid title and the authors’ complacency, or even pride, after dubbing themselves “skinny bitches” – in addition to the gratuitously graphic accounts of slaughterhouses and the folly of veganism in principle. The positive review, sourced from the objective site www.vegparadise.com, praised the book for constructing a “thoughtful argument for adopting a vegan diet and lifestyle” and goes on to say “Rory Freedman and Kim Barnouin are to be commended for their unique approach in bringing the vegan message to young women.” The review brushes off the stigma inherent in the title as plain and simple “attitude” – convenient, since they’re primarily concerned with the vegetarian/vegan agenda.
The most pathetic thing is that the authors confess in the end that they “conceived the title ‘to get attention and sell books,’" that they don’t advocate bitchiness, that they realise that kindness is important, blah blah blah. Hilarious. Seems quite typical of the bitchy persona – a two-faced approach that’s really just a publicity ploy to get ahead. It’s pretty obvious that these model types aren’t interested in helping young women with their self-esteem if 1) they’re equating skinny with healthy, and 2) they’re playing off stereotypical female insecurities so they can make a buck.
Speaking of sexism, though, I’m reminded of a book I came across while browsing in Soho over the weekend. I don’t often find myself getting up on the feminist soapbox, but the title of this book, along with the credentials of the authors versus its content, distressed me. It’s called “Skinny Bitch,” and it’s something of a guide to healthy eating written by a former model and a modelling agent (insert hysterical laughter here). I didn’t think too much of it at first glance, but after picking it up and reading something to the effect of “The authors might be bitches, but at least they’re skinny bitches” on the back cover, I got a little ticked off.
Why does being skinny mitigate bitchiness? Why is it necessary to use a title like that to draw people to your cause? If anything, I’m repulsed. That title validates anyone who believes that women have a tendency to be more petty and shallow (not to mention anyone that judges LA on its ostensible superficiality).
As far as the actual content of the book is concerned, I’ve come across some contradictory reviews after some cursory research. It’s worth noting that the authors are vegan, and therefore dish out some of the typical “If slaughterhouses had glass walls, everyone would be a vegetarian” rhetoric. I think that quotation is from Linda McCartney, if anyone cares. The negative review focused on some of the things that caught my attention – the stupid title and the authors’ complacency, or even pride, after dubbing themselves “skinny bitches” – in addition to the gratuitously graphic accounts of slaughterhouses and the folly of veganism in principle. The positive review, sourced from the objective site www.vegparadise.com, praised the book for constructing a “thoughtful argument for adopting a vegan diet and lifestyle” and goes on to say “Rory Freedman and Kim Barnouin are to be commended for their unique approach in bringing the vegan message to young women.” The review brushes off the stigma inherent in the title as plain and simple “attitude” – convenient, since they’re primarily concerned with the vegetarian/vegan agenda.
The most pathetic thing is that the authors confess in the end that they “conceived the title ‘to get attention and sell books,’" that they don’t advocate bitchiness, that they realise that kindness is important, blah blah blah. Hilarious. Seems quite typical of the bitchy persona – a two-faced approach that’s really just a publicity ploy to get ahead. It’s pretty obvious that these model types aren’t interested in helping young women with their self-esteem if 1) they’re equating skinny with healthy, and 2) they’re playing off stereotypical female insecurities so they can make a buck.
Friday 22 June 2007
Utter ramblish
Man, I had hastily jotted down a list of things I wanted to write about. As it turns out, I can’t read my own handwriting and my short-term memory sucks.
Actually, I can still think of a couple of things worth writing about. But they’re incredibly profound topics, and I’m not in the mood for profundity.
That was meant to be taken with a grain of salt and a dash of irony.
“Jow”? WTF did I mean when I scribbled down “jow”? This is grinding on my nerves.
It seems I’ve picked up a base of loyal readers who yell at me when I don’t post for days on end. I find this simultaneously flattering and disturbing…don’t you lot have anything better to do with your time? Kidding. Cheers to you- you know who you are and so do I, even if you aren’t leaving comments :)
This is ridiculous and it pisses me off.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men, no matter their creed, colour or native continent, will inevitably pick out the most trivial aspects of their societies to wax moralistic about.
And then this old related article. I love how the dude at the end of the article jumps to his desi brothers’ defense by citing India’s population growth.
That’s not the point, buddy. It’s time to stop pretending that successful procreation is the only factor to consider.
Crazy Indians. At least no one can ever say we’re boring.
Actually, I can still think of a couple of things worth writing about. But they’re incredibly profound topics, and I’m not in the mood for profundity.
That was meant to be taken with a grain of salt and a dash of irony.
“Jow”? WTF did I mean when I scribbled down “jow”? This is grinding on my nerves.
It seems I’ve picked up a base of loyal readers who yell at me when I don’t post for days on end. I find this simultaneously flattering and disturbing…don’t you lot have anything better to do with your time? Kidding. Cheers to you- you know who you are and so do I, even if you aren’t leaving comments :)
This is ridiculous and it pisses me off.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men, no matter their creed, colour or native continent, will inevitably pick out the most trivial aspects of their societies to wax moralistic about.
And then this old related article. I love how the dude at the end of the article jumps to his desi brothers’ defense by citing India’s population growth.
That’s not the point, buddy. It’s time to stop pretending that successful procreation is the only factor to consider.
Crazy Indians. At least no one can ever say we’re boring.
Wednesday 20 June 2007
On the Obama kerfuffle.
Does Obama hate Indians?
Does it matter?
No, it really doesn’t. That title is ridiculous, and to the people that started when they read it: you’re taking the bait and playing into the sleazy side of politics. Don’t waste your time.
For the record, it was Hillary’s campaign that started the negative campaigning by targeting Obama’s relative inexperience and alleged “ambivalence about Iraq.” The Obama camp had the upper hand for a minute, because their candidate responded to his more seasoned competitors with exceptional grace- something that’s pretty much unheard of in this business. But then some of his idiotic junior staffers decided that they wanted to fight fire with fire, and voilà, “Punjabgate” was born.
“[The memo] severely contradicts the tone that Obama has tried to set in his speeches of a unified America.” Hypocrisy in politics. Shock of my life, that is. This strategy is geared to appeal to the emotions of those who don’t bother to think about the issues that matter. No sensible person actually buys into the “content” of the memo. People who do use their logical faculties to consider the big picture shouldn’t get bogged down in this tripe.
Did people really expect the Obama camp, with its efforts to tout its candidate as a breath of fresh air in American politics, to be immune to lowly mud-slinging? That just seems a bit naïve to me.
As an aside- Indian-Americans are hardly in a position to play the victim card. From the FT:
Alienating Indian-Americans is an increasingly expensive prospect in US politics. With a median income of $61,000 (£31,700, €45,500) compared with a national median of $41,000 according to the US census bureau, Indians are the richest ethnic group in America. More than 300,000 Indians work in Silicon Valley, where their average income is $200,000.
Can you honestly blame people if they are a little jealous? ;)
Tuesday 19 June 2007
Please excuse the gratuitous profanity.
British accents.
Not hot, contrary to popular belief. Ask a Brit to pronounce the word “momentarily” and you’ll see (hear) what I mean. It’s so ridiculously accented that they have no ability to spread the emphasis across a word evenly. Which is why they SUCK SO MUCH at pronouncing Indian (Asian) names, even more so than their American counterparts. What’s worse is that UK born and bred Indians are consequently incapable of pronouncing their own names and shorten seemingly easy names to “Dal,” “Sanj”etc. Most second generation Indian-Americans are at least able to pronounce their own names properly, and most Americans I know are perfectly capable of shortening the vowel to say “sun-jiv.” Brits, though, will inevitably say something to the effect of “SAN-jeeeev.”
Yes, I know I often tell people to shorten my name as well. I’m so sick of hearing people butcher the fuck out of it. I like my name when it’s pronounced the Bengali way. Very few people are able to pronounce it the Bengali way. Which brings me to another dilemma: what do you do when senior people at work completely fuck up your name, and by the time they’ve finished talking, it’s too late to do anything about it? This isn’t a rhetorical question, by the way- I’m genuinely pondering. Ideally, these people should ask how to pronounce an unusual name rather than assume they got it right/know they’re fucking it up but continue to do so regardless. Sometimes they do, but more often, they don’t. At which point you (I) pretty much suck it up and try not to care.
“Yeah…my name is actually Sony Batterycharger. Yeah, my parents really were that cruel.”
People I work with directly have it down tolerably well by now, but they seem to get confused all over again whenever they hear someone else fuck it up. Then it’s back to square one. I give up. I’ll answer to anything by now. Some guy said “shaky” earlier and I looked over my shoulder to see if he was talking to me. True story.
Not hot, contrary to popular belief. Ask a Brit to pronounce the word “momentarily” and you’ll see (hear) what I mean. It’s so ridiculously accented that they have no ability to spread the emphasis across a word evenly. Which is why they SUCK SO MUCH at pronouncing Indian (Asian) names, even more so than their American counterparts. What’s worse is that UK born and bred Indians are consequently incapable of pronouncing their own names and shorten seemingly easy names to “Dal,” “Sanj”etc. Most second generation Indian-Americans are at least able to pronounce their own names properly, and most Americans I know are perfectly capable of shortening the vowel to say “sun-jiv.” Brits, though, will inevitably say something to the effect of “SAN-jeeeev.”
Yes, I know I often tell people to shorten my name as well. I’m so sick of hearing people butcher the fuck out of it. I like my name when it’s pronounced the Bengali way. Very few people are able to pronounce it the Bengali way. Which brings me to another dilemma: what do you do when senior people at work completely fuck up your name, and by the time they’ve finished talking, it’s too late to do anything about it? This isn’t a rhetorical question, by the way- I’m genuinely pondering. Ideally, these people should ask how to pronounce an unusual name rather than assume they got it right/know they’re fucking it up but continue to do so regardless. Sometimes they do, but more often, they don’t. At which point you (I) pretty much suck it up and try not to care.
“Yeah…my name is actually Sony Batterycharger. Yeah, my parents really were that cruel.”
People I work with directly have it down tolerably well by now, but they seem to get confused all over again whenever they hear someone else fuck it up. Then it’s back to square one. I give up. I’ll answer to anything by now. Some guy said “shaky” earlier and I looked over my shoulder to see if he was talking to me. True story.
Monday 18 June 2007
I love pocket-size apple pies.
Oh my god, it’s such a Monday.
Dreary grey weather? Check.
Disastrous tube journey? Check.
Spilled all over a crisp white shirt? Check.
Angry e-mails from all sides that I was totally unprepared for? Check.
Existential crisis re: where my life is going? Check…but that’s every day lately.
For some reason, I got it into my head that a McDonald’s lunch would make me feel better. I did enjoy the chicken nuggets quite a lot- and they’re all white meat, which makes them perfectly nutritious.
I don’t indulge in McD’s all that often, but lately, I’m overcome by a tidal wave of guilt whenever I do so. Actually, I can trace it back to when I moved back to the UK. It might not be all that healthy. Whatever, everything in moderation.
But more than that small fact, it’s the assumption that I’m somehow promoting American soft imperialism that seems to trigger the judgemental looks. Yes, I’m paranoid, but there’s no doubt that people are more snobbish about Big Macs and the like on this side of the pond. It’s irritating, and frankly, these people are fighting a losing battle when they whine about the golden arches blighting their neighbourhood charm. For every food snob you find, I’d guess there are at least 5 people waiting to get their McDonald’s fix at any given time. And it’s not because these people have particularly bad taste; it’s just so damn convenient…and satisfying.
This is not unlike the mainstream media. I realise I still haven’t posted my thoughts on integrity in journalism. It’s because I have too much to say.
Why did I just write “not unlike”? That’s pretty Brit.
Anyway. Yeah, same goes for Starbucks- only it’s not particularly cheap. Coffee snobs shudder and run around with petitions when they get wind of a Starbucks moving in (as some of the boho residents of Baltimore did when the plans for Charles Commons were released - you can imagine how much worse it is here). Does anyone think that will change the course of the extremely successful franchise that is Starbucks? Hate it all you want, but it’s going to continue to attract customers with its solidly established brand. Imperialism, hard or soft, happens for a reason. In the case of these companies, someone provides a product/service in a novel and convenient way, and no one can compete straight away. If you don’t like it, treat it as incentive to come up with a better idea. No one likes a hegemonic power.
I was suddenly reminded of that movie “You’ve Got Mail” when Tom Hanks puts Meg Ryan’s antique bookshop out of business with his huge conglomerate. Yeah, that kinda sucks. In an ideal world, these two would co-exist through marketing to a specific type of consumer. I know that’s not always the case. I just want to eat my McNuggets in peace.
Dreary grey weather? Check.
Disastrous tube journey? Check.
Spilled all over a crisp white shirt? Check.
Angry e-mails from all sides that I was totally unprepared for? Check.
Existential crisis re: where my life is going? Check…but that’s every day lately.
For some reason, I got it into my head that a McDonald’s lunch would make me feel better. I did enjoy the chicken nuggets quite a lot- and they’re all white meat, which makes them perfectly nutritious.
I don’t indulge in McD’s all that often, but lately, I’m overcome by a tidal wave of guilt whenever I do so. Actually, I can trace it back to when I moved back to the UK. It might not be all that healthy. Whatever, everything in moderation.
But more than that small fact, it’s the assumption that I’m somehow promoting American soft imperialism that seems to trigger the judgemental looks. Yes, I’m paranoid, but there’s no doubt that people are more snobbish about Big Macs and the like on this side of the pond. It’s irritating, and frankly, these people are fighting a losing battle when they whine about the golden arches blighting their neighbourhood charm. For every food snob you find, I’d guess there are at least 5 people waiting to get their McDonald’s fix at any given time. And it’s not because these people have particularly bad taste; it’s just so damn convenient…and satisfying.
This is not unlike the mainstream media. I realise I still haven’t posted my thoughts on integrity in journalism. It’s because I have too much to say.
Why did I just write “not unlike”? That’s pretty Brit.
Anyway. Yeah, same goes for Starbucks- only it’s not particularly cheap. Coffee snobs shudder and run around with petitions when they get wind of a Starbucks moving in (as some of the boho residents of Baltimore did when the plans for Charles Commons were released - you can imagine how much worse it is here). Does anyone think that will change the course of the extremely successful franchise that is Starbucks? Hate it all you want, but it’s going to continue to attract customers with its solidly established brand. Imperialism, hard or soft, happens for a reason. In the case of these companies, someone provides a product/service in a novel and convenient way, and no one can compete straight away. If you don’t like it, treat it as incentive to come up with a better idea. No one likes a hegemonic power.
I was suddenly reminded of that movie “You’ve Got Mail” when Tom Hanks puts Meg Ryan’s antique bookshop out of business with his huge conglomerate. Yeah, that kinda sucks. In an ideal world, these two would co-exist through marketing to a specific type of consumer. I know that’s not always the case. I just want to eat my McNuggets in peace.
Friday 1 June 2007
A Stain on Savile Row
The new UK Abercrombie & Fitch store on Savile Row has been open for over a month now. I was doing a pretty good job at ignoring the huge adverts on the sides of double-decker buses, but I got a wake-up call today when I ran into a fellow coming out of the lift. He was wearing a lurid blue polo shirt with that evil moose logo on it. I promptly decided that this made him a perfect target on which to practice my black belt vital strikes and proceeded to disable all his limbs in a matter of seconds. Then I ducked into the lift and made a quick escape- I’m stealth like that.
I can’t, however, continue to do that to every Brit that chooses to wear Abercrombie. I can only hope that most of them have the good sense not to do such a thing. After all, the name “Savile Row” evokes a proud tradition of bespoke tailoring. The name “Abercrombie & Fitch” evokes a less-than-proud tradition of mass producing rubbish. Oh, and maintaining discriminatory policies while promoting mass-produced rubbish.
Let me just say that this is not moral high ground. If Abercrombie made nice stuff, I would probably buy it irrespective of their penchant for exclusion. But they don't. Their clothes are fucking fugly. Yes, I needed the repetition for emphasis. The brand reeks of threadbare, uncreative crap that is probably quite similar to the wardrobes of the workers manufacturing on its behalf in third-world countries. Oops, I mean developing countries.
The models are hot, though. Thought I'd give credit where credit is due.
Good people of Britain, please do what you do best and turn up your noses, this time at Abercrombie & Fitch and its attempt to make a mockery of Savile Row. Keep up the tradition of macs, caps and brollies and continue on down the road to Henry Poole.
I can’t, however, continue to do that to every Brit that chooses to wear Abercrombie. I can only hope that most of them have the good sense not to do such a thing. After all, the name “Savile Row” evokes a proud tradition of bespoke tailoring. The name “Abercrombie & Fitch” evokes a less-than-proud tradition of mass producing rubbish. Oh, and maintaining discriminatory policies while promoting mass-produced rubbish.
Let me just say that this is not moral high ground. If Abercrombie made nice stuff, I would probably buy it irrespective of their penchant for exclusion. But they don't. Their clothes are fucking fugly. Yes, I needed the repetition for emphasis. The brand reeks of threadbare, uncreative crap that is probably quite similar to the wardrobes of the workers manufacturing on its behalf in third-world countries. Oops, I mean developing countries.
The models are hot, though. Thought I'd give credit where credit is due.
Good people of Britain, please do what you do best and turn up your noses, this time at Abercrombie & Fitch and its attempt to make a mockery of Savile Row. Keep up the tradition of macs, caps and brollies and continue on down the road to Henry Poole.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
