It’s not just preposterous to spend roughly $600 on pret a porter “distressed” sneakers, complete with scuffs, dirt and duct tape—it’s now “poverty appropriation,” says Twitter.
The uproar machine roared into gear last week, as one Twitter user discovered shoe brand Golden Goose’s latest offerings at super high-end retailer Barneys.
Lmao wait one minute pic.twitter.com/o97SzUqynI
— Swedish Montana (@fergnerduson) August 27, 2016
The reaction ranged from well-justified mockery to self-righteous outrage.
Poverty appropriation – $585 'distressed shoes' at Barneys New York promoted by Jay Z and Justin Bieber pic.twitter.com/DrXPgO2PUr
— Paul Baldovin (@PaulBaldovin) August 30, 2016
This is poverty appropriation. https://t.co/HvxpReUd06
— Limmy (@DaftLimmy) August 28, 2016
https://twitter.com/leahmcelrath/status/769943808452681728
"Appropriation of poverty culture" I guess https://t.co/qs5eEwc9H4
— Jeff Yang (@originalspin) August 27, 2016
Hi @BarneysNY. On behalf of poor Americans: You and your $585 "distressed" shoes w/ duct tape can fuck right off. pic.twitter.com/ShpPA3mdqF
— Sarah Smarsh (@Sarah_Smarsh) August 27, 2016
@fergnerduson @mattdpearce im distressed
— Gavia Baker-Whitelaw (@Hello_Tailor) August 27, 2016
https://twitter.com/LoveThePounds/status/770051025571020800
It’s tough to find anything defensible about spending so much money on sneakers. And it’s a high (low?) point of lazy to outsource making shoes look crappy.
But appropriation?
The whole notion of cultural appropriation is bad enough. While once we appreciated how the enjoyment and inspiration derived from other cultures’ finest enriched the human experience, we now condemn it as theft. That dubious claim to cultural ownership is devastatingly narrowing. It relegates people to cultural ghettos, making them afraid to consider different viewpoints.
“Poverty appropriation” is absurd for similar reasons.
But it’s also close to a contradiction in terms. The whole point of poverty is a lack of ownership of valuable goods, as well as cultural power. How can someone appropriate what is nonexistent?
For what it’s worth, Golden Goose at least appears to have done its research on worn-out sneakers, probably providing a grad student somewhere with much-needed employment. After all, SJWs say the only safe way to engage in cross-cultural consumption is to write, or at least intently read, a dissertation to fully grasp the proper meanings and contexts of a potentially appropriated item.
In a statement to Us, Golden Goose said that their dusted-up, duct-taped pink sneakers actually “pay homage to the West Coast’s skater culture — professional skaters, who inspired the brand’s shoe collections from the beginning, use to repair their shoes with the same kind of tape.” It also apparently “expresses the variety of personal experiences of those choosing the label’s creations.”
… OK, if you say so. But it’s still dumb to spend that much on worn-out shoes.
