Gucci's controversy over blackface design is about racism, not about ignorance.

"I am a black man before being a brand," said designer and beloved tailor Dan Dapper last week after the revelation of a $ 890 Gucci-like mesh top with a black pull-up and a grotesque red. caricature -lip. "Another fashion house is terribly mistaken," he continued. "There is no excuse or excuse that can erase that kind of insult."

Dapper Dan once remixed and matched imitation Gucci prints and materials for members of the black community, many of whom had little or no access to the luxury brand. Last year, as part of what was perceived as an effort to lessen the influence of his influence, Gucci revived Dan's ideas and integrated him into the fold of society with the company's launch of his workshop based in Harlem. Shortly after, we are there. On Friday, Gucci CEO Marco Bizzarri went to Harlem to meet Dan and a group described by Dan as "90% of people of color" about the controversy over blackface. Subsequently, Gucci said it would enhance diversity in hiring, including an Inclusive Framework in New York and a scholarship program in 10 cities.

While it is clear that Gucci acknowledges the crisis it faces, there is reason to be skeptical about its openness. Over the past decade, the brand has become obsolete: vintage bags were selling at incredibly low prices on eBay and gradually losing the influence it had had as a luxury leader.
In 2015, Gucci appointed Bizzarri as General Manager. He quickly hired creative director Alessandro Michele, who took a more whimsical and inclusive approach to design. Attached to its historical roots in street culture through personalities such as Dapper Dan and hip-hop stars, Gucci has made huge gains in popularity and profits, thanks largely to the black talent that adopted the mark.

Now the hip-hop community – some of Gucci's most dedicated followers, many of whom have expressed enthusiasm for the brand – are in a tumult. 50 Cent ignited a Gucci t-shirt. T.I. turned to Instagram to launch a call to boycott the brand. Soulja Boy – who was so fond of the Gucci logo that he tattooed on his forehead – announced that he was pulling it off. Other consumers have taken their other anger to social media. The Gucci incident occurred shortly after recent allegations that Prada would have used blackface images when publishing their Pradamalia figurines, and as a Blackface in one of the brand's previous collections Moncler luxury coats, have also resurfaced. Gucci, it is clear, is not the only one, but he is exceptional in the way he has cheered the return of his black fans while managing to pull out a jersey featuring some of the oldest racist tropics in America.

Blackface controversies in fashion are not sporadic anomalies. They are activated by several levels of fashion industry.

All of these brands claimed that racism in their designs was unintentional. But as a former fashion executive having worked both in retail and in a fashion office, I found this defense a bit peculiar. Designers and retailers spend months planning, researching and studying colors, trends and silhouettes well in advance, to capture their vision and ensure the sale of the product. Each article goes through a series of meetings, analyzes and approvals before arriving near a store shelf. Blackface controversies in fashion are not sporadic anomalies. They are activated by the multiple levels of a fashion industry that encourages consumers to buy again and again.

In addition, as Elaine Nichols, curator of fashion at the National Museum of Afro-American History and Culture in Washington, explained to me, the fashion industry was designed to prevent produce. "Part of the issues that have been raised recently in the fashion industry is a vision of seeing and not seeing the past and its connection to the present," she said. "We are constantly repeating the same mistakes. There is also a well-established process of exclusion, in which fashion houses include a small group of select and selected people to make decisions about historical and cultural ideas.

"In a number of cases, the designers or decision-makers who sit in the room to determine what will be released this season do not know the history of racism, sexism, religion," she said. added. "Ask someone! There are scholars who study these subjects, people who have had experiences, librarians who are doing research on the subject and can contribute to their knowledge with valuable background information. "

"Ask someone" is not the fashion, especially if this person is neither rich, nor white, nor genealogical. That's why, even with Dapper Dan in the corporate family, Gucci stumbled so blatantly. Can this change? Brands want that we think. At the recent end of New York Fashion Week, many seemed to recognize the crossroads that awaited them. Prada has announced the launch of a Diversity Council in partnership with Ava Duvernay to "raise the voices of color within the society and the fashion industry in general". At the same time, Gucci CEO Bizzarri wrote in an internal letter to employees: "We made a mistake. A large. Because of cultural ignorance, but ignorance is not an excuse. And we accept responsibility for this error. Bizzarri still does not seem to recognize that this is more than a simple mistake; it is the perpetuation of a system that will end only when the brands truly commit themselves to offering a darker and more diverse voice, not only on the catwalks, but also inside the fashion houses.

And if they do not, well, there are many more t-shirts to burn. If we learned one thing in this sordid saga, it is that fashion consumers are already recovering the power from outside the gilded walls of the industry. They will watch.