Sneak Peek: MAC Vibe Tribe Photos & Swatches

I feel like there’s a bit of “macsplaining” going on…(y’know, like mansplaining but different). I’m finding it difficult to reconcile the fact that MAC seems to be such a progressive company overall, “all ages, all races, all sexes,” but is trying to rationalize their choice of motif and product names. “Arrowhead” is a direct reference to Native American peoples. Arrowheads do not show up in the desert of their own accord, they were used solely by Indigenous peoples, and even though they may not have “sacred” significance (which is also arguable, because North American Indigenous cultures are holistic, there is no compartmental separation of spiritual/non-spiritual, although certain items like headdresses do have more spiritual/sacred significance than others), it’s still a part of Native American culture. And the tribal motifs on the blanket, the fact that the lady is wearing Indigenous-inspired garb in her hair…it’s like we’re all looking at a picture of a rabbit, but MAC is saying, “That’s not a rabbit, nor was the picture rabbit-inspired in any way. Clearly, the theme of this collection was inspired by zebras.” Where does MAC think those tribal motifs came from? Does it think that after hundreds of years, those motifs have now entered the “commons” and are available for everyone to use? Native American tribes have not “died out,” they *still exist*, and consider those motifs part of their culture. The ethical/moral issue here, in my opinion, is that Indigenous cultures in North America have been systematically oppressed by non-Indigenous (white) people for hundreds of years with impunity, to the point where there have been times where those cultures have marginally survived (never mind the suffering, disease, death that has been inflicted on North American Indigenous tribes by non-Indigenous people – governments and citizens alike). North American Indigenous cultures are not available for non-Indigenous to use (appropriate) whenever they like, however they like. White people who do this are engaging in “white privilege.” There’s also now the added complication/ethical layer that MAC has presented these images in a quasi-sexualized manner – sexualization of Indigenous women has been a tactic of oppressive colonial agendas for hundreds of years. Even though it doesn’t *seem* like there are Native American models being used in the campaign, it’s still not appropriate to take these designs and use them in a quasi-sexualized way. I like your editor’s note, I think that MAC should have consulted with Native American people and that at least part of the proceeds should have gone to a Native American organization. In summary, my problem with this is that MAC probably figured that the profit that could be made off of this would be greater than the public outcry so they went ahead and did it anyway, and now they’re going to try to get away with it. I won’t be purchasing from this collection, and I’ll write them a letter. I know it’s just one letter, but I still think it’s important for them to know that they need to apologize. And not an “I’m sorry *if* we offended anyone, etc.” Clearly, they were not acting responsibly for a company, particularly one with such an enormous impact. They could have easily received consultation from Native Americans, or partnered with Native American designers. I probably would have bought a couple of items in that case. I’m looking forward to seeing them improve their approach in the future.