When Gap changed its Twitter background to the picture of Sikh model Waris Ahluwalia, many commentators claimed a victory not only for social media, but for South Asians and Muslims as well. One blogger claimed the change was “to show solidarity and support” with those who were offended by the racist graffiti. But if solidarity simply means changing a Twitter background, then we have not only failed in some fundamental way in understanding the politics of that term, but we have also relegated our identity to merely that of a consumer. Gap has purposefully chosen to demonstrate solidarity with its brown consumers, but not with its brown factory workers. We have compromised our sense of racial solidarity for consumer solidarity, a solidarity between a corporation and its consumers that invites a racialized minority community to become rightful customers. Yet this image of inclusivity means little when the actual practices of the company continue to exclude Bangladeshi workers from having basic human rights. Changing a Twitter background is easy. Seeing through the smoke and mirrors, organizing to put pressure on Gap and policymakers, and demanding better working conditions for sweatshop laborers in Bangladesh–that is hard work.