chicote

Man, at first I thought that these jeans were going to need a two-year long commitment, but y'all are really giving 'em work!

Also, ridiculous music video Jared... but great song!

My 40601s don't use the exact same denim as the Okinawas, although they are both 50/50, so I'm fairly certain they should shrink similarly. Anyway, I found that the only shrinkage I saw after the first two machine washes (and passes through the dryer) was about an inch or so in the inseam and maybe a touch in the thigh/top block. The waist has stayed pretty much where it's at, along with everything else, through 10 or so washes since. Hope that helps!

Wow, those are coming along so well dhadha. I can't wait to see what that bright stitching will look like once everything's a bit more washed out.. though it also looks great as is!

Thanks for setting this up Flash!

The molecular structure in that first image suggests to me that they've altered something chemically with this fabric; maybe in the dyeing process, or in how the cotton is processed before weaving.

In fact, the chem structure diagram is of indigo (C₁₆H₁₀N₂O₂):

But as I understand, indigo generally has two extra hydrogen molecules attached to the free nitrogen (and occasionally oxygen) at either side. I wonder if there's been some manipulation of these hydrogens, as they would be the easiest to pull off without totally destabilizing the molecule. I'd guess that whatever they've done has artificially aged the indigo so as to replicate 100 years of chemical degradation. Who knows till they release any more info!

Sassafras, Decolonize, Pure Blue Japan, Quoddy

Happy Indigenous Peoples' Day everyone!

I'd look into the Stevenson 727 or 714, depending on how much room you'd like in the thighs. Stevenson makes the best jeans on the market right now in my opinion.

Self Edge's measurements:

727 raw measurements (size 34): 37-inch waist, 37.1 inseam, 12.6 thigh, 8.7 knee, 7.9 leg opening.

714 raw measurements (size 34): 37-inch waist, 37 inseam, 12.8 thigh, 9 knee, 7.6 leg opening.

I figure after washing and hemming the leg opening on either pair should be right in the range you're looking for. Hope this helps!

The reason I bought my first pair of Red Clouds was precisely because of the quality of its materials and construction.

There's a video here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CIuAe-6LmKk that shows pretty well the care that goes into making a pair of their jeans; the accuracy of the cutting and stitching, the high threadcounts, the measurements done by hand... it's certainly not the average made-in-China brand. The Turpan cotton they use is the same cotton as used by Fullcount for their Chinese-made models, and both this and the hemp were sourced personally by Red Cloud's owner in Xinjiang province (the source for this is somewhere earlier on in this thread).

I'd be hesitant to say that RC being a Chinese brand negates its value. In fact, the price is pretty reasonable for what's on offer. My R400H are made just as well as my Stevensons, Sugar Canes and Evisus, and they're cheaper than two of the three at retail (although Sugar Cane is ridiculously cheap on its own).

I've started slipping off the soles of my Quoddy's in the past few months.. it wasn't bad at first but has started to become rather painful. Not really sure how it happened. Here's what I'm talking about.

And my Red Wings for comparison:

Will a resole fix this? Is there some way I can line the heel to prevent it from folding in and pushing the sole off to the side? Sorry if this isn't the right place for this sort of question.

Wow, those shoes.. gonna be preordering for sure!

Hey everyone!

Here are some photos of repairs i did on my buddy Elijah's jeans. They are Levis 501XX, about six years old, very worn. More photos in the Evolution of Jeans thread.

Thanks for looking!

Hey everyone!

These are a pair of Levis 501XX worn by my friend Elijah for a little over six years.

I'm not sure what exactly he did in them, but they're pretty beaten up. Torn in the crotch, on the thigh, all over the back... but gosh they are nice looking.

Unfortunately I didn't think to take any photos before or during the repairs, but I'll make sure to do that with all of my future work.

Anyway, enjoy the photos below:

The top block here is where I did most of the repair work. I started by cutting and restoring the right back pocket, which is a repair I'd never done before. I couldn't decide which thread color or type of stitch to use so it's a bit messy, but I think it fits the aesthetic.

Here, from clockwise:

-Repaired belt loop (the old one was nearly shredded through) with old fabric from my Nudies, which is probably as old as the Levis are!

-Patch under the diagonal panels where the warp had worn away—mostly preventative.

-Repaired back pocket, sloppy stitching included. I used a cool piece of denim from some shredded overalls I came across in India. There's also a small circular patch above where the rivet used to be.

-Cutaway patch between the yoke and left back pocket, using some leftover fabric from the hem of my Tender jeans.

-Sashiko stitch over a hold beginning to form on the leftmost diagonal panel. I wonder what caused these areas to wear through so quickly?

Moving to the front now...

These went through the wash twice before I started working on them, if you can believe it! Although Levis aren't made in San Francisco anymore, it's apparent that a lot of this dirt is on rent control... it'll never leave! (sorry that was a bad joke)

[side note: if you're interested in learning about San Francisco's rent control laws, and general struggles with gentrification, check this article out!]

I made two main repairs in this area: the crotch (which I did very carefully in the spring) and the right thigh (which I did not-so-carefully this week). The crotch uses more of my old Nudie fabric, cut to size and hand-chainstitched from the inside. The right thigh uses some tweed fabric from a Supreme hat I had way back in high school... thank goodness that's over!

Some more sashiko stitching on the back of the crotch, which I did a bit halfheartedly on Wednesday. This may be temporary as I think the tearing in the crotch will require an actual patch pretty soon.

Finally, the knee patch, which I had a lot of fun with. I'd really like to do more of these types of repairs in the future!

And some other shots to finish it all off:

Thanks for looking!

Oh man, these are so beautiful. Is the Tender Stores the only place that reliably carries size 1 in shirts and jackets?

I have a pair of Hender Scheme 04's that I assumed would look significantly better after some wear... but after three months they just look kinda ridiculous. The suede that lines the sole is peeling and rolling, the outsole itself is super pockmarked and slippery, and the uppers are a strange pinkish-tan.. definitely not the color I imagined as a transition from the new off-white to the bronze color I've seen worn pairs take on.

I would just oil them, but they don't really need it...

Thank you both!! I totally forgot about White and Rocky Mountain Featherbed, will definitely look into one or the other. Appreciate the help!

Something good for a fall/winter with lots of rain and temperatures that hover around freezing. A waxed or oiled cotton jacket with some weight to it would work great too. I've been looking also at Engineered Garments, Filson, that sort of thing in between frenetic checking of japanese brands. Thanks for the links!

edit: Maybe a blanket-lined jacket too, never thought much about those...

Any recommendations for a Japan-made wool jacket?

I would imagine it being a combination of two things, at least concerning Mister Freedom.. It seems to be a very repro-driven brand in a way that I see as more concerned with capturing the spirit of a particular group of people in US (and I believe Mexican and French) history, and it does so in a way that most Japanese repro brands are somewhat more distanced from.

The other reason may be that Christophe Loiron has strong ties to the US, as he's based there, and this could influence how easily he can both visit and work with his production, the benefits of which might surpass those of manufacturing in Japan. I'd also imagine it could just be out of a spirit of patriotism

Anyway, most of that is me guessing from what I know of the brand, as well as http://www.misterfreedom.com/made-in-usa.htmlwhich gives some good hints too. Maybe someone else has a more conclusive answer!

^ I think the statement you quoted is saying that you don't use those words, not insinuating that you do. If I'm reading Aries' post right, he is saying that categorizing entire groups of people (ie. "millennials") as having certain unalienable traits is akin to dehumanizing somebody by calling them "homo" etc., in that it diminishes the person's ability to be seen as an entire, complex human being and instead as a number of labels, often with negative connotations attached to them. In essence, he argues that it is better to take each person as a unique combination of characteristics and experiences as opposed to the rather two-dimensional perspective offered by narrow categorizations.

In the same vein, I would argue it is equally unpalatable to base the perspectives of an entire group of people off of the perspective of a single person. I think this when I hear arguments along the lines of, "I am ___, or I have a ___ friend, and because I/they are not offended by my use of (x word), I am free to use (x word) as I please." Doing so may honor the experience of the referenced person, but it disregards the experience of everybody else in that particular group who may not feel the same way.

This doesn't mean that a person can never act in any way that may be perceived offensive... that would make for a horribly dull and anxiety-ridden life. Instead, it is best to make oneself aware of the different audiences they interact with over the course of a day, and to approach each interaction from a baseline of sensitivity and respect until they have received some sort of signal that makes it appropriate to do otherwise.

None of these suggestions are meant to be attacks on any person or their character; everything we have talked about is abstract and cannot logically be associated with the actions of anybody here. I would hope that if this conversation continues it can do so with this idea of abstraction in mind. Just as labeling somebody can negate their other qualities, personal attacks in a thread devoid of a tangible subject only distract from the possibility of a civil debate.

Nudie fabric runs from 12oz (most common) to 14oz (much rarer), so somewhere around 13oz seems right for the fabric on those SDAs.

I worry that some of what I've been posting might give the idea that I'm publicly condemning the owners of the clothing we've deemed controversial here, and even that I may be trying to stir some sort of negative sentiment about a certain brand or style or what have you. To be honest, that's not at all how I like to approach these things. If somebody is educated on a particular issue, they are welcome to make whatever decision they'd like about how to approach it. It is ignorance that creates problems. I think that Ben spoke along these lines very well:

...[Y]ou can enjoy and admire some of the aspects of a certain time/civilization without necessarily endorsing everything that happened at that time. It's the same reason why I enjoy Flat Head's obsession with the 50's... I love the clothing, big cars, opulence, cockeyed optimism if you will... but I also recognize that it was a really crappy time for a lot of people. But I don't let the presence of bad things affect my love for the good stuff.

This may well be the mindset of a lot of people here; it certainly is for me. I still own a number of SDA and Flat Head shirts, despite having written off any desire to own any of the particular pieces we've mentioned. It doesn't make me think any worse about either company, but it makes me think about what perspective the designers got when they researched the time period they are drawing inspiration from.

Early this year, for example, when Mr. Freedom released the Saigon Cowboy line, there was a lot of controversy around a specific jacket featuring what many considered to be a "stereotypical caricature of a Vietcong fighter" (taken from http://www.rawrdenim.com/2015/01/mister-freedom-pulls-patch-ss-15-saigon-cowboy-collection/).For a time, Christophe pulled the offensive material from the jacket, which I took to mean that he had maybe been introduced to a new perspective. That's not to say that I believe he was completely ignorant beforehand, but instead that he just thought he was not going to be significantly offending anybody with his design. In fact, the above article mentions the huge amount of research put into the season's pieces. It's clear to me, then, that Christophe had learned a more objective history of the time period than somebody who had never looked outside of what they had learned in school or from pop culture. So when the jackets rolled out and the offensive patch was back on, I couldn't say anything against it. Christophe was likely educated sufficiently on the issue to make an informed decision on how he wanted to proceed, regardless of the controversy that it had caused.

So Ben and Christophe are both equally justified in their decisions. They know both sides of the debate before taking a side. I would like to think I also know both sides of the debate we've been part of here, but have moved in the opposing direction. It's possible to feel justified with your opinion regardless, as long as you can understand the rationale behind the other possible stances. The situations in which I feel it is right to interfere are when somebody is likely not aware of the reasoning of their peers; I feel this because I often find it difficult to justify a position I am not educated on and enjoy the clarity that comes from getting to know both sides of an issue. And once both sides are known, then a person should be able to reasonably justify their position regardless of which side they take, which many here are doing.

Anyway, I'm open to speaking with people via PM from here but agree with Foxy that it's not best to continue this sort of debate in this thread.

"At The Flat Head, we preserve the spirit of the “good old days†of America: the independent spirit, the thirst for adventure" If this doesn't perfectly describe the Frontier spirit of those that struggled to even survive where no settler had been before, well I guess I can't convince you.

I don't disagree with you that The Flat Head's website offers a good description of the "Frontier Spirit" as they see it; most settler journals and historical references from the time use nearly the same words to talk about their lives and journeys, and I would venture to say that these are the words that come up in the mind of the average North American when asked about the period of the frontier, the settlers, the pioneers. That being said, I believe this perspective obfuscates a number of other aspects of the "frontier spirit" of the time.

One of the most common tropes of indigenous people from the Americas is that they were/are "savage", "animal", "bloodthirsty", "ruthless", yada yada. History textbooks describe bands of roving natives who attack and scalp settlers, rustle horses, destroy pioneer caravans, the whole lot. And sure, there are certainly accounts of these things taking place. But to say that the violence and, indeed, "savagery" of the time was exclusively, or even mostly, on the part of the indigenous people is to completely misunderstand the history of the time.

I guess I can start with Christopher Columbus, as he is who most people think of as the "first settler" of the now-US anyway. The above picture depicts Columbus and some of his fellow travellers feeding a number of native people to their hunting dogs, which Columbus not only did often but bragged about in his journal and reports to the Spanish royalty. Given that Columbus has been looked up to by most US Americans since his first voyage until, well, now, elements of his mindset towards native people have existed ever since. Here is an infographic that pretty accurately depicts Columbus' relations with the native people of the Americas, using excerpts from his journal and the reports of historians he travelled with: http://www.cleancutmedia.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Christopher-Columbus-Day-Infographic-.png

Of course, there were hundreds of massacres that took place between Columbus' time and the 17th century period of post-Mayflower early colonialism, but the Pavonia massacre of 1643 provides a good example of how history generally played out both before and after. In 1638, William Kieft assumed governorship of New Netherland, the Dutch colony that encompasses present-day New York state. His policies toward the formerly peaceful natives living on the colony's territory, including extreme physical intimidation and brutally high tax rates, led to an Indian killing a member of the colony in protest after five years of continually worsening subjugation. In response, Kieft organized a band of 129 soldiers to cross the Hudson River by night and attack the encampment the native was supposed to have come from; by the morning, they had massacred over a hundred natives without regard to age or sex, most of them in their sleep.

I'm sure you have heard of the Trail of Tears, which took place in the 1830s. Native relocations had been happening for hundreds of years already as a result of colonists' massive population growth and land grabs across the Atlantic coast, and as settlers began moving further across the country the natives that formerly occupied that land were forced to move further and further west. If they stayed and fought, they were either killed or taken as slaves. If they tried to assimilate, they were often forced into positions of extreme poverty due to pro-settler policies and a culture of institutional racism.

Anyway, the Trail of Tears resulted in the movement of over 17,000 natives from their ancestral lands across 1,000 miles of unfriendly territory. Obviously there was not enough food for everybody along the way, and disease and starvation ran rampant. The entire journey took more than six months, including a long stay through one of the harshest winters of the 19th century for which few natives were prepared. As a result, nearly one in four natives died along the trail, and the ones remaining lost over 90% of their new territory over the next hundred years as settlers pushed further and further west. (For more: http://www.warpaths2peacepipes.com/history-of-native-americans/trail-of-tears.htmor read A People's History of the United States by Howard Zinn, which is free here: http://www.historyisaweapon.com/zinnapeopleshistory.html )

Moving on to 1864 now...

The Sand Creek massacre is very similar to the Pavonia massacre mentioned earlier, except that it was completely unprovoked. I'll quote a bit from another website as I'm tired of writing: http://www.lastoftheindependents.com/sandcreek.htm

"Black Kettle was a peace-seeking chief of a band of some 600 Southern Cheyennes and Arapahos that followed the buffalo along the Arkansas River of Colorado and Kansas. They reported to Fort Lyon and then camped on Sand Creek about 40 miles north.

   Shortly afterward, Chivington led a force of about 700 men into Fort Lyon, and gave the garrison notice of his plans for an attack on the Indian encampment. Although he was informed that Black Kettle has already surrendered, Chivington pressed on with what he considered the perfect opportunity to further the cause for Indian extinction. On the morning of November 29, he led his troops, many of them drinking heavily, to Sand Creek and positioned them, along with their four howitzers, around the Indian village."

"The colonel was as thourough as he was heartless. An interpreter living in the village testified, "THEY WERE SCALPED, THEIR BRAINS KNOCKED OUT; THE MEN USED THEIR KNIVES, RIPPED OPEN WOMEN, CLUBBED LITTLE CHILDREN, KNOCKED THEM IN THE HEAD WITH THEIR RIFLE BUTTS, BEAT THEIR BRAINS OUT, MUTILATED THEIR BODIES IN EVERY SENSE OF THE WORD." By the end of the one-sided battle as many as 200 Indians, more than half women and children, had been killed and mutilated. 

   While the Sand Creek Massacre outraged easterners, it seemed to please many people in Colorado Territory. Chivington later appeared on a Denver stage where he regaled delighted audiences with his war stories and displayed 100 Indian scalps, including the pubic hairs of women."

This last part importantly shapes my view of the pioneers. Note that though the easterners (mostly earlier colonists) were outraged, the people in Colorado Territory (who had to have been pioneers themselves) were "pleased". I can link to some pieces later that describe the differences in mindset between the settlers and pioneers, but the above quote more or less sums it up really: pioneers were far, far more violent than former settlers had been, which is saying a lot.

--

While we're on the topic of scalping, the idea that it was only (or even mostly) practiced by Indians is not at all accurate. From http://www.hawthorneinsalem.org/ScholarsForum/MMD2263.html :

"John Brown, who is tribal historical-preservation officer for Rhode Island's Narragansett Indians, said that bodily mutilation [sic: i.e. scalping] was considered "dishonorable" until it was "learned" from Europeans in the mid-17th century."

There are a number of books and articles I can recommend that describe the complex role that scalping played in shaping the subjugation of Native Americans during the 17-19th centuries. Basically, once native people were introduced/forced into the money economy, they began to need some source of income to stay alive. Colonists (who not only didn't want to give jobs to natives, but had vendettas against most tribes) realized this, and began to promote scalping among the tribes they were allied with. They offered bounties to their allies for the scalps of their tribal enemies, then went and did the same thing with the tribe they had just set bounties upon. What followed was a very effective means of decreasing the native population: natives, desperate for some way to make a living, attacked and killed one another mercilessly, populations decreased, and when all was said and done settlers would move in and force the remaining Indians off their land. The bounties paid them for their scalps didn't even come close to equaling the value of their territories, of course. This way the settlers accomplished three tasks. They decreased the native population, increased their territory, and used stories of the Indian wars they provoked to further the idea that all natives were bloodthirsty savages.

"The idea of scalping continues to have powerful effects on the culture, particularly in its exclusive association with Indian warriors.

"Most people have bought into the concept that Indians are savages," says National Park Service archeologist Sam Ball.

"Prejudice over this sort of thing is just plain enormous," he says. "And it is being reinforced, rather than getting a clear, rational evaluation of what the evidence is and what reality is."

Calloway feels the misconceptions are part of a "complex process of dehumanizing Indians to justify taking away their land and culture, and attributing the brutality of frontier race wars to the `other side.' ""

I know all of this doesn't completely answer your question, Ben, but I hope that it starts to explain the weird feeling that I get when I see something that uses Native American cultural artifacts in a way that disregards the entirety of the historical context of the Americas. I agree that the frontier spirit embodies great individuality, adventure, and struggle in the experience of European settlers, but cannot forget that the "good old days" also encompass what is, to me, the worst human and cultural genocide in all of history, something that not only has been historically overlooked but that continues today in the forms of physical separation, denial of education/healthcare/access to media and the intense socioeconomic exclusion that comes as a result. I will get to the second part of your post later, right now i need to go think about something else.

Brad, here are some articles specifically relating to indigenous people in Canada:

http://docdro.id/gLlRjcI"The Criminalization of Indigenous People" (Cunneen, 2007)--looks at incarceration rates for indigenous people across various provinces and offers some insight into the horrific biases affected upon the Canadian justice system. What it doesn't mention is the apathy of law enforcement; specifically, the thousands of indigenous women (4,000+ on the Sea to Sky highway alone, in between where you and I live) that have disappeared in the past two decades and have not been acknowledged or searched for in any way by the provincial or federal governments, despite much of the indigenous movement repeatedly petitioning the government on the issue.

http://docdro.id/gCMfl3z"The State and the Contradictions of Indian Administration" (Wotherspoon and Satzewich, 2000)--explains why indigenous governance is so ineffective at actually bettering the lives of indigenous people...

http://docdro.id/x9qQNFG"The White Problem" (Lutz, 2005[?])--a brief economic overlook of white-indigenous relations in Canada from the 1800s to today.

Also, I would very strongly recommend the film "We Were Children", which tells the stories of two indigenous people who were students in one of the last residential schools in Canada. In my opinion, the residential schools are one of the most brutal and inhumane methods ever used to subjugate a population, and the film makes very clear why. Just as a warning, there are a few scenes of sexual violence.

Finally, just for general awareness, this is a excerpt from Tim Wise's brilliant book White Like Me, without a doubt one of the most powerful and challenging books I've ever read. In this chapter he uses some very powerful anecdotes to explain why racism is as damaging to whites as it is to everybody else. http://docdro.id/Zd1JnlE

Given that my work has to do with indigenous peoples I feel obligated to explain a bit about why a shirt like that is offensive.

Firstly, here is a link to the blog of a friend of a friend, a Métis woman who really knows her stuff. Within this post are a number of links to other sites which can further explain cultural appropriation, give examples, show debates, etc. http://apihtawikosisan.com/2012/01/the-dos-donts-maybes-i-dont-knows-of-cultural-appropriation/

One of the most offensive things you can do as far as cultural appropriation goes is take a piece of sacred iconography (for example, a feather headdress, which contrary to your claim, dwilson, is an intensely spiritual item, something that was never even shown to outsiders until bands of European settlers came across them in scientific study or in their settling of the West, both of which are mired in torture and genocide) and make it a fashion statement, in effect stripping it of any of its cultural value. To see something like this used in popular culture, whether on a T-shirt from Japan or the head of a drunk white girl at Coachella, is horrifying and offensive because it is a literal representation of more than five hundred years of indigenous relations with the Western world: explorers coming in, taking what they like, and destroying everything else.

This particular SDA shirt brings into cheerful light the entirety of native peoples' subjugation in that last statement. The same thing applies to the Flat Head's "Frontier Spirit" line, in my opinion. The idea of the "frontier" is inextricably tied with the idea of manifest destiny (read this for an explanation-->)https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manifest_Destiny#Native_Americans, the idea that white settlers were destined to move into and conquer the entirety of the North American continent, regardless of the rights of the people who were already living there. What followed has been a genocide, plain and simple. No, it's not taught in history books in US public schools, nor is it ever brought up in popular culture. Why would it be? Relatively few privileged people feel themselves obligated to learn about the imperialistic history of their ancestors, and even fewer take any interest in learning about indigenous history and culture, and because native people are systematically denied access to education, land and socioeconomic opportunity--in essence, any of the ways they could integrate into broader society and spread this message themselves--ignorance becomes the order of the day.

I'll recommend two books really quickly. Mark Dowie's Conservation Refugees is a worldwide look at the effects of the "frontier" mentality on indigenous people, especially as it manifests in areas of ecological conservation, i.e. national parks, wildlife sanctuaries, and the like--it is far and away one of the most powerful books I've ever read and I can't recommend it highly enough. Eduardo Galeano's masterful book Open Veins of Latin America boils down much of the history of those American countries that lie south of the United States, where 100% of the population was (and in many countries, over 50% still is) indigenous.

--

Seeing a mascot wearing them I don't view as offensive.  They take offense when certain sports teams take their imagery and slap offensive names or use obviously racist cartoon imagery.

A good friend of mine has countered this point of view very eloquently: "It doesn't matter if you don't find appropriating our culture offensive; what does matter is that we do." I don't mean to single you out, though, dwilson, especially as you said this in the same post:

But possibly it would be smart to err on the side of caution and respect even if I don't personally feel it offensive.

I believe that is exactly what most native activists would encourage us (non-native people) to do.

That being said, there are plenty of ways to wear clothing influenced by Native American culture and tradition in a respectful way. This blog http://alagarconniere.blogspot.com/2010/04/critical-fashion-lovers-basic-guide-to.htmlgets right to that, and a link on the sidebar of the first blog I linked goes to a number of sites where you can buy clothing that directly supports indigenous artisans.

I suppose the bottom line is that any non-native sporting tastelessly made Native-themed clothing is going to be offending indigenous people. But not all Native-themed clothing is tasteless, and most indigenous clothing manufacturers have no problem selling their goods to non-indigenous customers as long as the wearer acknowledges the history and significance of whatever they're wearing. I'd actually be really interested to hear from aho what the discussion is regarding cultural appropriation in the Navajo silver jewelry industry. Given that most of it is made by indigenous people themselves, it might be one of the more ideal ways to use native fashion in a supportive manner.

edit: great post above Blue Nemo!

And to respond to your last post dwilson, the fact that indigenous people have larger institutional problems than an offensive t-shirt or football logo doesn't mean that cultural appropriation isn't a big issue. I have seen women from a Canadian indigenous community crying while watching a "native-themed" Alexander Wang runway show. Afterwards, one expressed to me: "It is horrible that you can spend four hundred years telling us our culture is worthless, only to turn around and make millions of dollars selling it in shows like this." In essence, the SDA shirt we have been discussing is capitalizing on the same thing.

I'm just waiting for Jay-Z to make an account here so he can jump in and defend himself...