From runways to red flags: hate always in fashion

While fashion brands parade progressive values, their silence or complicity on antisemitism reveals a disturbing double standard.

Four months ago, Kanye West, also known as Ye, released a music video titled Heil Hitler on X. The Nazi imagery and lyrics on the video are merely a continuation of West’s antisemitic behaviour. Previously, West released a clothing line with only one item in the collection, labelled HH-01: a white T-shirt with a swastika placed in the centre. Despite his overt expressions of antisemitism, West remains an influential figure in the fashion world.

This isn’t an isolated occurrence. Antisemitic acts in the fashion industry are often overlooked. Fashion has never been apolitical, but when brands flirt with fascist imagery, glamorise hate, or ignore antisemitism, it becomes complicit in the spread of dangerous ideologies.

Fashion’s ties to antisemitism have deep roots, and political complicity has long existed within the industry. Take Chanel, by Gabrielle “Coco” Chanel, as an example, a company worth millions of dollars which remains an iconic name in the fashion industry.

Coco Chanel’s story darkens as her ties to the Nazis during World War II are explored. Chanel was the lover of a Nazi officer named Hans Günther von Dincklage. However, Hal Vaughan, journalist and investigative reporter, claimed in his book, Sleeping with the Enemy, that she was also a Nazi intelligence operative and a rabid antisemite. Despite Chanel’s co-operation with the Nazis, when she died, she had a net worth of $10 million, clearly showing that being willing to co-operate and benefit from an oppressive political power, namely the Nazis, didn’t have a negative impact on her career.

Hugo Boss, another German company, had close ties to the Nazis. Peter Hayes, an expert on the conduct of Germany’s largest corporations during the Third Reich and emeritus professor of history at Northwestern University in the United States, said this was unsurprising.

“Every major firm that you’ve ever heard of in Germany that is still around and was around then, was implicated in the crimes of the Nazi state,” he said. This holds true for Hugo Boss, who joined the Nazi Party in 1931 and became a licensed supplier of uniforms to the Sturmabteilung (SA); Schutzstaffel (SS); Hitler Youth; National Socialist Motor Corps; and other party organisations, according to the Virtual Jewish Library.

Fashion’s political ties go way back: and they aren’t always progressive. Subtle, stylised hate can fly under the radar. Why, though, does the fashion industry get away with it?

While the industry loudly embraces certain political causes, it has a pattern of minimising or stylising hate, especially antisemitism, in ways that are dangerous, deliberate, or disturbingly aestheticised. The fashion industry’s love for shock value is clear, pushing boundaries and crossing the fine line into glorifying hatred towards Jews and other minority groups.

In 2007, Zara was forced to pull a handbag from its British stores after a customer noticed green swastikas embroidered on the corners. The company, owned by Inditex, the world’s second-largest fashion retailer, claimed it had been unaware of the symbol’s presence. According to Zara, the bags were produced in India and inspired by traditional Hindu motifs, which often include the swastika, but the approved design submitted to the brand didn’t feature the emblem, according to Reuters. Despite the clear knowledge that the swastika is a symbol of the Nazi Party to the Western world, Zara seemed to be making the excuse that it was a Hindu symbol. Zara knew its buyers were mostly Westerners, so why use the Hindu symbol as an excuse? And it vehemently claimed that it didn’t know that the swastika was there to begin with.

In another example from Zara, in 2014, the company withdrew a children’s striped T-shirt after widespread backlash on social media, where users pointed out its resemblance to the uniforms worn by Jewish prisoners during the Holocaust. The design, marketed for toddlers as young as three months, featured blue and white stripes with a six-pointed yellow star on the chest labelled “sheriff”.

Although the text wasn’t immediately visible in online images, many observers felt the shirt too closely echoed the infamous yellow-star badges and striped garments imposed on Jews in Nazi concentration camps.

A spokesperson for Inditex told The Guardian, “The garment was inspired by classic Western films, but we now recognise that the design could be seen as insensitive, and apologise sincerely for any offence caused to our customers.”

There is a clear glamorisation of hate under the guise of edgy or avant-garde fashion, and the line between provocation and prejudice is often ignored for the sake of trendiness or publicity.

Fashion brands often embrace causes like Black Lives Matter; LGBTQ+ (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer or questioning) rights; or Ukraine with public statements, social media campaigns, and donations. Yet antisemitism frequently prompts silence, or only perfunctory responses, revealing a troubling double standard: when confronting hate isn’t “marketable”, Jewish suffering is too often sidelined.

Take Ye’s controversy again, within the guise of Adidas. After Ye’s public antisemitic remarks, Adidas ended the lucrative Yeezy partnership, but only after weeks of mounting pressure, underscoring how business incentives can slow moral action.

“Adidas doesn’t tolerate antisemitism and any other sort of hate speech,” said the company, according to Reuters.

Forbes reported that cutting ties with Adidas wiped out the bulk of Ye’s wealth, slashing his estimated fortune from a $1.5 billion (R26 billion) stake in the partnership down to just $400 million (R6.9 million). If Ye were making comments about any other group, the backlash would have been louder than the outrage caused by Ye in this specific incident, showing how brands like Adidas will loudly embrace certain political causes, however, when it comes to antisemitism, it took a while for there to be a statement or certified action.

Fighting against antisemitism is simply not marketable or popular enough for brands to profit from it. This selective outrage underlines a disturbing pattern: Jewish pain is often excluded from fashion’s moral narrative unless it becomes a public relations liability.

Fashion has always been more than clothes; it’s a powerful voice in culture. But too often, that voice has turned a blind eye to antisemitism, or even used it as “shock value”. From Coco Chanel’s ties to the Nazis; to Zara selling designs that looked like Holocaust uniforms; to Adidas dragging its feet before cutting ties with Ye, the message is the same: antisemitism doesn’t get the same reaction as other causes.

This double standard shows that fashion isn’t as progressive as it claims to be. It’s quick to speak out for Black Lives Matter, Pride, or Ukraine, but when it comes to Jews, the silence is deafening. That silence isn’t harmless. It sends a message that Jewish pain doesn’t count unless it threatens profits.

Shoppers also play a role. Every purchase supports the values a brand chooses to stand for or ignore. If we don’t push back, the cycle of “edgy” designs and half-hearted apologies will just keep going.

If fashion really wants to stand for justice, it has to call out all forms of hate, not just the ones that are popular online. Otherwise, its silence isn’t neutral. it’s part of the problem.

If fashion is a language, then what message are we letting it create, and who is being silenced in the process?