Inspired by the discussion generated by Mark Kingsley’s Hazardous Freedom post (before it de/evolved into type geek wars!) I thought I would extend the debate around the commercial appropriation of radical icons with another, even more blatant, if a little dated, example.
On New Years Day 1994, a group of mostly indigenous Mayan rebels, calling themselves the Zapatista National Liberation Army(in spanish, wikipedia description here), rose up against the Mexican Government, occupying San Crist�bal de las Casas and six other towns in the South-Eastern state of Chiapas. Although the occupation of the towns was, with few exceptions, peaceful (since the Zapatistas had taken the authorities by surprise), the first ten days of the uprising became very violent when the Mexican army attacked the towns and the air force started to bomb Zapatista villages. On the tenth of January, a massive demonstration in Mexico City calling for an end to the violence led to a declaration of cease-fire by the government, which was accepted by the rebels.
The cease-fire did not establish peace however, as the Zapatistas were far from conceding their demands for indigenous rights, but it forced them to recognise that other means of struggle, beyond armed conflict, would be necessary. Nor did the cease-fire last long and sporadic armed conflict in Chiapas continues to this day. Yet what came out of that brief cease-fire, is what has since made the Zapatista movement so unique and relevant, they began to truly use communication, language as their weapon. They were the first revolutionary group to take full advantage of the internet to disseminate their communiqués , thus connecting their local struggles to activists around the world. They used poetic language, abandoning the weighty rhetoric of traditional class struggle, arguing for inclusiveness, dialogue and dignity. In so doing they revealed themselves as a community in rebellion, a community of men, women and children, more than a revolutionary ‘group’.
In 1996, from the mountains of the Mexican Southeast, the Zapatistas organised the First Encounter for Humanity and against Neoliberalism, which was attended by thousands of people from around the world. In the opening address, they declared:
Behind our black mask,
behind our armed voice,
behind our unnameable name,
behind what you see of us,
behind this, we are you.
behind this, we are the same simple and ordinary men and women who are repeated in all races, painted in all colours, speak in all languages and live in all places.
Fast forward to 2001….
Box Fresh, a trendy AUS and UK based clothing brand launches a new street campaign:
They obviously realised that this whole zapatista thing was getting pretty cool, and felt in desperate need of some street cred. And in the store, they began selling “Zapatista Kits” for �30 which included a t-shirt, a stencil, and a can of grafitti. Boxfresh, leaders of the new revolution!
The interesting part of this story is that a local group of grassroots “troublemakers”, the space hijackers, took offense to this appropriation and started a campaign against the store handing out leaflets and defacing Boxfresh’s grafitti.
Eventually the Head of Marketing met with the group and to their surprise agreed to some interesting concessions:
1 - They would from this moment on donate every penny of profit from there Zapatista merchandise to the Zapatistas themselves.
2 - They would install a computer in the shop with a range of Zapatista sites on it.
3 - They would no longer put their logo on the adverts with Sub Comandante Marcos’s words on them.
4 - They would have a leaflet in the store explaining the history of the Zapatista’s and in all further marketing attempt to spread information about the Zapatista cause and their ethics as opposed to simply using them in soundbites and as an aesthetic.
Strange, good, bad, right, wrong? it’s hard to say… the eternal question of selling out to reach a broader audience.
But in the end it seemed that anti-capitalism was a hard sell for Boxfresh’s bosses and clientelle and they soon dropped the campaign. They still use the “we are you” slogan, but now they’re simply identifying with sexy youth, not revolutionary movements.
Of course graffiti is still cool, and harmless….
The question here is really just one of appropriation, nothing new. The criticism of the effectiveness of Adbusters type tactics of “détournment” with corporate logos/imagery has always interested me. But it seems even more intriguing when seen in reverse.
Kevin, this is a great post and obviously one that hits close to home (no pun intended). Also, I feel guilty about having turned Mark's discussion into the type-geek fest you mention. Anyhoo…
When the EZLN was born in Mexico, I was a very young and apathetic teenager. I could have cared less about what they did or how they did it or even why they did it. Remember, I said I was apathetic. Nonetheless, I did live through it and as I reflect on what it was then and what it is now I see their importance and feel like I ignorantly missed on history in the making. But reminiscing in the past doesn't do the body (or mind) good.
Between 1996-2000 Comandante Marcos' image became a fashion statement in Mexico just like the image of Che Guevara around the world. Although wearing a ski mask proved less fashionable than Che's star beret. Back then it still "meant" something to wear a t-shirt with the haunting image of the faceless leader. Seeing it appropriated by Box Fresh is indeed depressing — but not surprising.
I guess when it is something I can identify with (in this case I certainly do) it is quite more bothersome than seeing P. Diddy's appropriation of the black power salute.
Thanks for bringing this forth Kevin.
On Jul.29.2004 at 09:00 AM