Green Fur?
photos Christina Pal
The Fur Council of Canada presents a controversially sensuous show of designers working in fur including the The Canadian Aboriginal Designers Group and other Canadian fashion designers.
Nunavut designer Rannva Simonsen re-interprets old school parkas with antler toggles while established designer D'Arcy Moses sets Victorian colonialism on its head with deliciously beaded deerskin corsets. Zuki's colorful sheared beaver opera coats evoke Poiret's 1930's Paris nights, and Sidney Holloway, not yet out of Ryerson, is off to the races in furs mixed with Swarovski crystals (but unlike Joeffer Caoc, not with pony). The fur was aggressively presented as a sustainable material that supports the culture of First Nations people. The show actually ended with pseudo-protesters carrying signs supporting fur as an eco-friendly fabric.
Many fashionistas have mixed feelings about the material - with most supporting the use of vintage skins or fur trapped by aboriginal folks in a sustainable manner, but feel uncomfortable about fur farms and corporate trapping.
One style veteran irritated by appropriation of the green movement, remarked, "This is not a perspective - its a marketing spin." A photographer who lived in an Innu community was more comfortable with the fur saying, "This is how the Inuit make their living - how else are they supposed to support themselves?"
What do you think??
Labels: canadiandesigner, fashionweek08, fur
posted by Liza at
5:32 PM
8 Comments:
See: Greenwashing
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenwash
Green doesn't mean anything, it's a marketing catch term. There are many different factors that would dictate if the fur was 'sustainable' or not. How was it tanned? How was it sewn? What Where was it shipped from? What are the working conditions? What is the end use?
I'd like to see the fur board become fair trade certified or approved by an organic certification board or SOME sort of 3rd party organization like GreenBlue.
And 'respect the Innu people?' What does a skinny blond model wearing an impractical fashion trend have to do with the rights of the Innu to hunt? This is tokenism. How many 6 Nations people are on the executive board of the council?
And the signs are an offensive slap in the face to activists who give up so much to fight the good fight.
My friend worked for Fashion Crimes, and got mad about them gushing over how fur is environmentally friendlier than fake fur. But then %80 of their dresses are a synthetic polyesters of some sort.
Give me a break, and f*ck you Fur Council. You make a joke out of people who are honestly trying to make things better.
Fur is still better for the planet than synthetic fur... but I agree, the FCC needs to be certified Sustainable if they're going to promote themselves as green. Someone should interview them for this site... maybe you should, ms. Orlinski???
Ms Orlinski's comments are very insulting to the thousands of decent people working in every sector of the Cdn fur trade. It is precisely to answer this sort of misinformed diatribe that we have launched www.FurIsGreen.com -- where we explain exactly why we say that "Fur is Green". We need to tell our side of the story, because too many well-meaning people have been misled by one-sided animal-activist campaigns -- including, perhaps, even Ms. Orlinski? Fur is Green because: (1) the fur trade is based on the sustainable use of wildlife (a principle supported by ALL respected conservation agencies, including the World Conservation Union (IUCN), WWF, UNEP. 2: because the trade supports aboriginal and other Cdns living close to the land -- people who have a direct interest in protecting vital wildlife habitat. (The destruction of habitat is the main threat to wildlife today.) And 3: because fur apparel lasts much longer than most other clothing -- and "cheap" throw-away fashion is becoming a serious environmental threat as millions of tons of short-lived clothing (80% petroleum-based synthetics) are tossed in the trash each year. Farmed fur animals are fed left-overs from our own food-production -- meat and fish-packing wastes -- that would otherwise clog landfills. And fur farms support farm families while producing a valuable natural high-quality (long-lasting) product. Canada is also a world-leader in researching and implementing humane practices on fur farms or in the wild. The furs we use are abundant; never from endangered species. When you look at the facts, you will see that this is actually a very responsible industry. If you want to be vegetarian and wear plastic, fine. But there is no justification for the vicious campaigns against our small heritage industry. How can you claim to have compassion for animals when you are ready to attack the livelihoods and cultures of people you have never even met??!! Please look at our website with an open mind before swearing at us!
Dear Alan,
I suggest you look up the term greenwashing. Your comments are very insulting to the thousands of decent people who work in the sustainable design feild. I also suggest you learn how to debate. You argument leaves much to be desired. While you have valid points, and I do agree with some of them, you, never directly answered any of the points I brought up.
And I am sorry for cursing. It was unprofessional and did not add to the argument.
I did look at your website. That's what actually made me respond to the article. The fur council seems to have a sever lack of understanding when it comes to what is sustainable and what is not. And once again, I use the word sustainable, and not green. Green means nothing Alan. Once again, it's a vague new age marketing term, that can be used without actually having to have any evidence to back it up. (And your 3 arguments are not valid as to what makes the industry one that values ecological inteligence. I could not find any policy about the sustainable use of wildlife. You might want to post it. While I agree it supports the hunters, I would also like to bring this back to a tokenistic argument. And if you look back at historical records, the fur trade exploited the natives, not helped them. They gave us fur, we gave them alcohol, diseased blankets then took their land. How are you proud of this? They can be proud of their heritage, Hudson's Bay needs to apologize. And yes- creating lasting pieces that people will cherish is important, but not a good enough claim to validate your 'green' campaign. Sorry. Try again.)
As I put, I suggest you hire a 3rd party to consult on how you CAN made the fur industry more sustainable, and not just run a marketing campaign based on a subjective term.
From what I've read, your work with fur is mainly about activism and animal rights- or rather countering it.
My argument never touched on compassion for animals, or animal activism. I dealt directly with the production and the design of the fur products. Are you ensuring that all the furs are vegetable tanned, and dyed with environmentally friendly products? What is the fur treated with? How are the factories and slaughter housese run? Where is it being produced? How are the furs shipped?
I never implied that you hunted endangered animals. I would also like you to define "abundant". Our Cod stalk used to be abundant. So did our oil resources. And our timber... do you see where I'm going with that?
You keep talking about how the campaign helps native communities. Are you actually helping Native communities like you claim? What is the Fur Council's official stand on Sharbot lake, or Caledonea? Do you stand in solidarity with these communities you claim to support? Do you lobby for land-claim rights and social improvement of reservations? If destruction of habitat is the main threat to wildlife, then what action is the Fur Council taking to deal with that problem?
Helping people doesn't just involve handing them a check for raw resources. How many Innu do you have working in the offices of the council, having say and direction of their traditional industry? Environmental justice is a complicated and hard issue. Once again, hiring a 3rd party member to professionally review and create an official policy would greatly help to validate your claims.
To sum it up,this is from an article about you:
"But if Matthews and Best are right, perhaps it's time that animal activists were held more accountable for the accuracy and impact of their campaigns - just like any other industry."-
http://www.maninnature.com/Management/ARights/Rights1a.html
I would like the Fur Council to be held more accountable for the accuracy and impact of their campaign. If you demand it of the activists, then you should take charge and lead by example.
Hmmm.... interesting points on both sides. thanks for both of your comments. I agree that the FCC should have a third party review them to substantiate their claims that they are sustainable or "green". Alan - what are hides tanned with in Canada? Can you tell us more about that? And how are furs treated? Are they bleached, dyed, etc with sustainable inks?
On the other hand, it looks like hunters and environmentalists seem to have pretty similar goals in regards to wildlife conservation and responsible land use... Meaghan - is it the "green" campaign that you find insulting, or are there other reasons you dislike fur?
... you got it out of me anonymous. I'll never forget where I was when I found out Bambi's mother was shot.
But in all seriousness, It's the Green campaign. It's false advertising, and since it's new industry there are no regulations. There were other lines at Fashion Week that did fur- but not one of them claimed to be green or did a whole marketing campaign on it. Know why? Because unless fur is properly dealt with and tanned, along with the trappers being fairly paid, it's NOT. On the website it actually says they use formaldehyde on the fur. It's a carcinogen! They are telling us the materials they have dipped in cancer causing chemicals are Green?
It's like how the government banned cigarette companies from calling their products 'light'.
Sustainability is a VERY serious issue. If the Fur Council wants to call themselves 'Green', they should actually BE it.
Ew...
Innuits people didn't make animals suffer as we do. They killed them THEN they skinned them. But now people beat them, elektrochok them, and skin them ALIVE. Also, Innuits did that cuz they can't make clothes like us. We can, so the question is why. Yes, why do we wear fur? we don't NEED to! We can survive without it. So leave animals in peace!
www.furisdead.com/feat/chinesefurfarms <---- IS THIS A WAY TO TREAT ANIMALS?
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home