Why I Hate Abercrombie & Fitch

In Chapter 2: “Why I Hate Abercrombie & Fitch” McBride concludes that A & F “successfully crystallizes a racism that is only rumbling beneath the surface of other stores’ advertising,” (72).

“Successful corporations must primarily produce brands, as opposed to products,” (59). People need to want the brand and feel that they will fit it or belong if they have and wear this certain brand. A & F started out as an outdoorsmen store, and was soon known as the “outfitter of the rich, famous, and powerful,” (63). Also, this brand was closely tied with white men, of the higher classes. Even furthering this tie with the upper class white men, A& F related its label to a collegiate lifestyle. “The racist thinking of its consumer population was depended upon in order to thrive,” (66). And racist thinking was quite popular, or rather not unusual for the times. A & F used pictures of young white models, all smiling, to create “The A & F Look.” Also, their brand was said to be “natural, classic, current, and American,” (67). An A & F dress code stated what was supposed to be acceptable or unacceptable, and unacceptable appearances were mainly what nonwhites would wear or do, favoring whiteness as acceptable. So how is A & F different from other stores? “Ralph Lauren ‘diversified’ its ad campaigns in the 1990s,” and “Neither Banana Republic nor Ralph Lauren participate in the kind of social engineering in terms of their store employees that A & F does,” (72). Still today, A & F does not really diversify ad campaigns very well, if at all. Most models are still white, and most store employees are white. A good working African American employee was fired because the district manager said he “did not fit the look,” and “He’s not Abercrombie,” (81). Not having the “A & F Look” is important enough to fire or not hire someone, and race was a consideration. Good looks also played an important role in being able to work for A & F. Employees were supposed to have an “all-American” look, meaning to be in good shape, and a big deal in being white (82). “African Americans and Asian Americans ‘can be A & F if they act white, have white friends, and are very assimilated,’” (82). Being in the A & F “group” has privileges, and people want these privileges, and to be able to live the good life. A & F discriminates through ads, employment, and by producing this image of the good life, in which whites are portrayed.

With this book published in 2005, and a discrimination case against A & F’ s hiring practices, how is A & F still appear to be so racially discriminating? Good question. When I have gone into A & F stores in the past two years, which has not been very much, but still…I remember most, if not all employees being white, and fitting the “A & F Look.” Also, ads and their website portray almost all whites that do have the so-called “A & F Look.” Are there politics involved...probably. Are there any non-white district managers, or A & F workers higher than just store employees?

I think A & F is dumb! Selling a brand is dumb. I want good clothes, not a brand. If I find a two dollar no brand hooded sweatshirt that appears to be made well, then I am going to buy it. Brands cost so much more than clothes too. “The A & F Look,” and what is acceptable or unacceptable… yeah right. They cannot say what hairstyles, etc. are unacceptable. Also, “All-American”…no. All-American should be a representation of all of America. Last time I looked not everyone was white. Maybe I truly am colorblind? Once again, just like skin color, it should not matter what the cover looks like. It is all about what is inside the book!