Mexico wants Adidas to pay up after Mexican-American designer launches Indigenous-inspired shoe
Chavarria, who has been hailed in the United States for his work bringing Latino issues to light - including his controversial collection touching on the alleged gang members locked up at El Salvador's notorious CECOT prison - recently dropped the "Oaxaca Slip On" shoe, a sneaker sole topped with the weave of Mexico's huarache sandals.
Critics in Mexico argued that the shoe uses the name of the southern Mexican state, a major manufacturer of the traditional leather sandals, while Chavarria's design is manufactured in China and Indigenous artisans received no credit or benefit from the multinational firm.
"Big companies often take products, ideas and designs from Indigenous communities," Mexico President Claudia Sheinbaum said in her morning press conference. "We are looking at the legal part to be able to support them."
Deputy Culture Minister Marina Nunez confirmed that Adidas had contacted Oaxacan officials to discuss "restitution to the people who were plagiarized." The dispute is the latest by Mexico to protect its traditional designs from global fashion firms, having previously lodged complaints against Zara -owner Inditex and Louis Vuitton.
Chavarria said in a statement on Saturday that he was "deeply sorry that the shoe was appropriated in this design and not developed in direct and meaningful partnership with the Oaxacan community."
His approach fell short of the respect the community deserved, he said, stating that his intention had always been to "honour the powerful cultural and artistic spirit of Oaxaca and its creative communities," the statement added.
Adidas did not respond to a request for comment.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Euronews
5 hours ago
- Euronews
Fact checking Fox News about crime rates and migration in Ireland
A segment that aired on right-wing American channel Fox News in early August has sparked a controversial debate in Ireland, leading the country's former Prime Minister Leo Varadkar to post on X, directing his followers to a thread fact-checking the broadcaster's claims. In the TV piece, Fox alleged that Dublin has gone from being one of the safest cities in Europe in 2003, to one of the most dangerous in 2024. To support this claim, Fox showed a screenshot of an article published in 2024 by the Irish newspaper Sunday World titled "Dublin ranks among the top ten most dangerous major cities in Europe, survey claims." However, when investigating the claim, EuroVerify found that the article uses data sourced from a survey carried out by online betting platform the OLBG (Online Betting Guide). "The main reason why this research was conducted was to reveal the best cities in Europe for nightlife, and as part of the study, safety scores for each city were analysed", a spokesperson for the OLBG told EuroVerify. The reliability of the survey is questionable given that OLBG sourced its data from Numbeo, a platform which relies on crowd-sourced data and warns there is no "assurance that any statement on the website is correct or precise." Meanwhile, the Global Peace Index, which is produced by the Australian-based NGO, the Institute for Economics & Peace, has consistently ranked Ireland as one of the safest countries in the world, placing it in second position in 2025. Rising crime in Ireland During the piece, the channel aired two graphs side by side on screen — on the left one showing rising immigration in Ireland, while the one on the right displayed figures for rising crime — in turn implying that there is a causal link between migration and crime. Contacted by EuroVerify, Ireland's Department of Justice said that it was not "aware of any credible evidence that would suggest a causal link between immigration and crime in Ireland." "Over the past 10 years there has been a large increase in the numbers of non-Irish people employed in Ireland. They bring essential skills and experience that are much needed in the current labour market. There has been no corresponding change in crime levels over this period," the spokesperson added. Ireland experienced unprecedented levels of immigration in the year leading up to April 2024, with a population increase of 98,700, which amounts to positive net migration of 79,300, meaning that more people have been arriving in Ireland, than those leaving. Fox News also stated that robberies had increased by 18% and violent crime by 10%. However, these selected crime and robbery statistics are misleading because the country's statistics office does not classify crimes under the broad labels of "robbery" and "violent crime." More specifically, the 18% figure cited by Fox appears to refer to an increase in "robbery, Extortion & Hijacking" from the first quarter of 2023 to the first quarter of 2024, while the 10% figures refer to an increase in crime incidents involving "weapons and explosives offences." What the segment fails to mention is that other crimes decreased between the first quarter of 2023 and the same period of 2024, with homicide and sexual offences dropping by 8% and 12% respectively. How disinformation is fuelling hate crimes in Ireland Over the course of the summer, a spate of brutal attacks predominantly targeting South Asian migrants occurred in Ireland. "A series of highly publicised, very violent attacks targeting members of Ireland's Indian community have spread fear. A lot of the attacks were initiated by misinformation and disinformation, for instance through lies spread about crime", Teresa Buczkowsa, the CEO of Immigrant Council of Ireland told Euronews. On 19 July, an Indian man was attacked by a group of men in southwest Dublin, who beat him and accused the man of inappropriate behaviour with children. While Irish authorities stated that the allegations against him were unfounded, footage of the aftermath of the attack spread online according to Irish broadcast RTE, leading the footage to gain traction as anti-immigration accounts reshared it. This led the country's Indian embassy to issue a safety warning to its citizens following what it qualified as "an increase in the instances of physical attacks reported against Indian citizens in Ireland recently." "Everything changed after the Dublin riot in 2023, when we saw a huge level of violence erupting in Dublin city centre against migrants and that really kind of was the starting point for the physical violence we are seeing today", said Buczkowsa. "The shifting narrative we are hearing in politics and false allegations that migrants are raising crime rates are leaking into everyday conversations and opinions, which is a worrying trend", added Buczkowsa.
Fashion Network
7 hours ago
- Fashion Network
Modi's trade dilemma: protect textiles or cotton
With two weeks to avoid US President Donald Trump 's punitive 50% tariffs, Prime Minister Narendra Modi has drawn a red line. India, he says, 'will never compromise on the interests of its farmers, livestock producers, and fisherfolk.' That commitment is partly dictated by realpolitik. Nearly half of India's workforce relies on agriculture, a degree of dependence that has increased since the pandemic. It is very hard for a leader to make any concession that appears to let down the very people who have, starting in the 1960s, made the world's most-populous nation self-sufficient in food and dairy — in the face of tremendous constraints. But paeans to the farmer do nothing to alter the harsh economic reality. Even if New Delhi says that a trade war with the US is the price it would pay for shielding growers from a deluge of American corn, soy, and cotton, it isn't clear that local farmers will be grateful for the protection. For the most vulnerable among them won't benefit from it. Already, international apparel buyers are canceling or suspending orders, thanks to Trump's 50% tariff threat. How would India deliver decent returns to farmers on their cotton crop if demand swoons in its biggest overseas market for shirts, trousers and T-shirts? Modi wants his fellow citizens to buy things made with the 'sweat of our people.' But with a belligerent Washington threatening to upend a vast swathe of local factory jobs, there will be less money at home to buy domestically produced goods. Tamil Nadu's garment-exports hub in southern India alone is responsible for 1.25 million paychecks. Losing access to the US consumer may hurt India's farm economy more than slashing its 39% average tariff on imported produce. In fact, Pakistan may have played Trump better. It has a significant cotton-growing population as well. But last year it became the world's largest buyer of US cotton, which it imports duty-free. It might take in more now to appease the White House. India's textile industry, too, has asked the government to let go of the 11% duty on short-staple fiber if it helps sell more of locally manufactured garments at Walmart and Target. After all, this tariff isn't really helping the farmer. Domestic cotton production is languishing at a 15-year low even though 44% of the output hitting the market is being scooped up by a state agency at government-assured minimum prices. The crop in neighboring Pakistan has fared even worse. But at least with a competitive 19% tariff, the apparel industry there can hope to expand its market share in the US. Indian exporters, meanwhile, are staring at a much higher tax — after paying nearly 13% more for the main raw material than the prevailing international price. Cotton is just one example. Domestic prices of most agricultural produce are higher than internationally. While lavish farm subsidies in rich nations make their surpluses globally competitive, New Delhi's elaborate apparatus of state intervention largely channels the difference between local and international prices toward middlemen. Crop yields are abysmal, and climate change is making farm incomes increasingly erratic even behind high trade barriers. The poultry industry is struggling with feed costs, yet tariffs of 45%-56.5% make US soy meal too expensive. If India allows its farmers to grow genetically modified food, they may be able to hold their own against American corn and soybean. At $32 billion, agricultural imports are low for a country of 1.4 billion people; and even this figure is padded by palm oil brought in from Indonesia and Malaysia. The US accounts for less than $2 billion of the total. Why not switch sourcing to US soybean oil and make it duty-free to give Trump a win? More broadly, why not exploit Trump's tariff shock to rewire unproductive agriculture and lift stagnant manufacturing? India has 126 million people answering to the description of farmers even though their landholding is less than five acres.(1) As a 2023 survey of marginal producers showed, their 60,000 rupees ($700) average annual income from selling crops is often less than what they earn from a second occupation as daily-wage labor. They're stuck on the land because of food security — and because the urban economy has nothing for them. Just about one in 10 families has someone in a salaried job, and only a third of these farmers take advantage of state procurement at pre-announced prices. Others sell to private traders. The most popular government support program for this group is straight-up cash in bank accounts; it would stop if they were no longer holding on to the land. Yet the taxpayer is picking up the bills for keeping the land cultivated when imports would be cheaper; and for shielding urban workers from the high costs of locally grown produce. Lest expensive food crush the country's dream of industrialisation, the government gives free rice and wheat to 800 million people so that their employers don't have to pay them high wages. Throw everything into the mix, and the annual cost was in excess of $100 billion during the pandemic. If the tariff-related disruption turns out to be worse than Covid-19, as some exporters fear, then the fiscal drag might only become heavier. Four years ago, Modi was forced to withdraw legislation whose basic premise was to give farmers more freedom to discover free-market prices. If that was a poorly designed makeover, striking a defiant note against a mercurial US president in the name of agricultural interests is also ill-conceived. But with the prime minister's political opponents stepping up their campaign against his 11-year-old rule, it's irrational to expect meaningful reforms. Politics will triumph over economics.
Fashion Network
7 hours ago
- Fashion Network
Modi's trade dilemma: protect textiles or cotton
With two weeks to avoid US President Donald Trump 's punitive 50% tariffs, Prime Minister Narendra Modi has drawn a red line. India, he says, 'will never compromise on the interests of its farmers, livestock producers, and fisherfolk.' That commitment is partly dictated by realpolitik. Nearly half of India's workforce relies on agriculture, a degree of dependence that has increased since the pandemic. It is very hard for a leader to make any concession that appears to let down the very people who have, starting in the 1960s, made the world's most-populous nation self-sufficient in food and dairy — in the face of tremendous constraints. But paeans to the farmer do nothing to alter the harsh economic reality. Even if New Delhi says that a trade war with the US is the price it would pay for shielding growers from a deluge of American corn, soy, and cotton, it isn't clear that local farmers will be grateful for the protection. For the most vulnerable among them won't benefit from it. Already, international apparel buyers are canceling or suspending orders, thanks to Trump's 50% tariff threat. How would India deliver decent returns to farmers on their cotton crop if demand swoons in its biggest overseas market for shirts, trousers and T-shirts? Modi wants his fellow citizens to buy things made with the 'sweat of our people.' But with a belligerent Washington threatening to upend a vast swathe of local factory jobs, there will be less money at home to buy domestically produced goods. Tamil Nadu's garment-exports hub in southern India alone is responsible for 1.25 million paychecks. Losing access to the US consumer may hurt India's farm economy more than slashing its 39% average tariff on imported produce. In fact, Pakistan may have played Trump better. It has a significant cotton-growing population as well. But last year it became the world's largest buyer of US cotton, which it imports duty-free. It might take in more now to appease the White House. India's textile industry, too, has asked the government to let go of the 11% duty on short-staple fiber if it helps sell more of locally manufactured garments at Walmart and Target. After all, this tariff isn't really helping the farmer. Domestic cotton production is languishing at a 15-year low even though 44% of the output hitting the market is being scooped up by a state agency at government-assured minimum prices. The crop in neighboring Pakistan has fared even worse. But at least with a competitive 19% tariff, the apparel industry there can hope to expand its market share in the US. Indian exporters, meanwhile, are staring at a much higher tax — after paying nearly 13% more for the main raw material than the prevailing international price. Cotton is just one example. Domestic prices of most agricultural produce are higher than internationally. While lavish farm subsidies in rich nations make their surpluses globally competitive, New Delhi's elaborate apparatus of state intervention largely channels the difference between local and international prices toward middlemen. Crop yields are abysmal, and climate change is making farm incomes increasingly erratic even behind high trade barriers. The poultry industry is struggling with feed costs, yet tariffs of 45%-56.5% make US soy meal too expensive. If India allows its farmers to grow genetically modified food, they may be able to hold their own against American corn and soybean. At $32 billion, agricultural imports are low for a country of 1.4 billion people; and even this figure is padded by palm oil brought in from Indonesia and Malaysia. The US accounts for less than $2 billion of the total. Why not switch sourcing to US soybean oil and make it duty-free to give Trump a win? More broadly, why not exploit Trump's tariff shock to rewire unproductive agriculture and lift stagnant manufacturing? India has 126 million people answering to the description of farmers even though their landholding is less than five acres.(1) As a 2023 survey of marginal producers showed, their 60,000 rupees ($700) average annual income from selling crops is often less than what they earn from a second occupation as daily-wage labor. They're stuck on the land because of food security — and because the urban economy has nothing for them. Just about one in 10 families has someone in a salaried job, and only a third of these farmers take advantage of state procurement at pre-announced prices. Others sell to private traders. The most popular government support program for this group is straight-up cash in bank accounts; it would stop if they were no longer holding on to the land. Yet the taxpayer is picking up the bills for keeping the land cultivated when imports would be cheaper; and for shielding urban workers from the high costs of locally grown produce. Lest expensive food crush the country's dream of industrialisation, the government gives free rice and wheat to 800 million people so that their employers don't have to pay them high wages. Throw everything into the mix, and the annual cost was in excess of $100 billion during the pandemic. If the tariff-related disruption turns out to be worse than Covid-19, as some exporters fear, then the fiscal drag might only become heavier. Four years ago, Modi was forced to withdraw legislation whose basic premise was to give farmers more freedom to discover free-market prices. If that was a poorly designed makeover, striking a defiant note against a mercurial US president in the name of agricultural interests is also ill-conceived. But with the prime minister's political opponents stepping up their campaign against his 11-year-old rule, it's irrational to expect meaningful reforms. Politics will triumph over economics.
