Words and symbols have meaning, and the dictionaries often categorize the meanings in terms of priority of use. The first meanings of standing for the National Anthem and the wearing of a flag (current or historic) is a show of patriotism. The 800th meaning might be that they show a lack of compassion for African American youth at the hands of law enforcement or that they show underlying racist attitudes.

It is therefore reasonable for someone who subscribes to the primary definition of these acts to interpret an objection to them as being unpatriotic. That is, I have a more reasonable basis, based upon my understanding of the terms and symbols, to say that objecting to the Betsy Ross flag is unAmerican than does Kaepernik have in saying it a is showing of civil rights activism.

And all of this is a bit more obvious than we're willing to admit. It is no coincidence that Kaepernik only finds racism in patriotic acts. His aim is to irritate his political opponents, and so he is able to sniff out racism only in acts that those to the right of him find sacred. It's all politics for some purpose I can't exactly follow because I was totally aboard the train that leads to racial harmony and greater justice already, but I'm totally not aboard whatever train he's conducting.

It just seems like he's fagging away unnecessarily. I'm, of course, using the 800th meaning of that term, which I now insist is its primary use.

None of you are Nike's target audience so it's really funny that you think they should give a shit what you think — Maw

The Nike marketing execs aren't omniscient, and so it's reasonable to question whether their decision to embrace one sector of the shoe buying public while turning their back to another part will ultimately be successful.

If Kapaernick is looking for mountains in molehills, then his critics are doubly-so. Nike's job is to make money any way they can. K is apparently helping them do that. All sounds very American to me.

The word I was thinking about isn't 'nigger' but rather 'negro' (or, in French 'nègre'). They weren't originally pejoratives and indeed were routinely used by black people to refer to themselves in a neutral way. Still, complaining about contemporary uses of them (especially by white people) because of recently acquired connotations isn't a case of objectionable political correctness. — Pierre-Normand

"The N Word" is not "negro." Never was, never will be. When I was growing up, "negro" was the respectable, respectful word used to describe black people. It was a more dignified replacement for "colored people" or "coloreds." And even those were not considered disrespectful, although it was condescending. NAACP stands for "National Association for the Advancement of Colored People." I don't really like the word and some of the black people I know don't like it either.

What makes x a symbol representing y is that S thinks about x as a symbol representing y.

Any S could think about any x as a symbol representing y for any imaginable reason. Of course, the reasons are usually not going to be very arbitrary, but they're also not usually going to be very elaborate or educated or obscure, either. And insofar as any S doesn't think about x as a symbol of y, x is not a symbol of y to that S. Meaning is always to some S.

So a way to determine how many S's are thinking x as a symbol of some particular y is to survey S's, preferably outside of some other S trying to presently persuade them to see x as a symbol of y (because then we might instead only be learning about the influence, or about how S wants to position themselves socially, re alignments and so on, rather than learning whether S was really thinking about x as a symbol of y). — Terrapin Station

Exactly. So S interpreting symbol x as representing y has to do with what their particular goal is. Kapernick's goal is to show that this is a racist country built upon racism. Nike's goal is to sell shoes, not to show that this is a racist country. By adopting Kapernick's interpretation, they are unwittingly adopting Kapernick's goals. Did Nike do a survey to find out if more people would buy their shoes than boycott their company? Or did they simply accept Kapernick's interpretation as the majority interpretation? Essentially, Nike let Kapernick speak for all Americans as if this country is still a racist country built on a history of racism.

Nike are legally obliged to maximize profits for their shareholders. If anyone believes anything matters to them that doesn't ultimately serve that goal then they don't understand how business works. Ergo, criticizing them for having the "wrong" attitude re the flag is silly. Their obligation is to take whatever attitude is more profitable.

Nike are legally obliged to maximize their profits for their shareholders. If anyone believes anything matters to them that doesn't ultimately serve that ultimate goal then they don't understand how business works. Ergo, criticizing them for having the "wrong" attitude re the flag is silly. Their obligation is to take whatever attitude is more profitable. — Baden

Isn't that what I said?

How is it that Kapernick is allowed to speak for all of Nike's potential customers and shareholders? Did Nike do a survey? This is just one of those cases where the squeaky wheel gets the grease.

I presume they ran it through some focus groups and decided they needed him and his fellow travelers more than the opposition. Hardly surprising a youth-oriented company would take the edgier route anyhow. The flag will continue to symbolise what people believe it symbolises, no more and no less. K's chances of winning the wider argument on it are roughly zero. And Nike I expect already have the damage-limitation PR ready for whatever Fox News etc. throw at them (which in any case will probably be only to their advantage—"Help, we're being attacked by some old white guys on media most of our customers hate, what ever shall we do?").

Nike are legally obliged to maximize profits for their shareholders. If anyone believes anything matters to them that doesn't ultimately serve that goal then they don't understand how business works. Ergo, criticizing them for having the "wrong" attitude re the flag is silly. Their obligation is to take whatever attitude is more profitable. — Baden

And part of the Darwinian approach is to deal with the fall out and hope their survival is increased by this move. Just like if another business decided to take a homophobic stance (for example) in the hopes it would increase its sales, it should expect boycotts and whatever else, and I seriously doubt it would reduce the clamoring to tell the objectors that they should quiet down because the sales tactic is working and such objections are therefore silly..

No fall for ideological sales tactic, eh? Nike are going to want their bribe back. Fair point, anyhow. I suppose my major objection here would be to the criticism that the kinds of things K does or Nike are doing in following his advice are unAmerican as, apart from the idea that the profit motive is American as Apple Pie sprinkled with grits and baseballs, the freedom to be unpatriotic is too. That's what separates you from those countries where what is done to people who don't bow before the flag is exactly what the unAmerican critics of Kaepernick would like done to him.

(Not that all criticism of him is unAmerican, but the more extreme is. And fwiw my position on the flag is just that I prefer green to red and blue and potatoes to stars).

And Nike I expect already have the damage-limitation PR ready for whatever Fox News etc. throw at them (which in any case will probably be only to their advantage—"Help, we're being attacked by some old white guys on media most of our customers hate, what ever shall we do?"). — Baden

Then Nike is marketing their products to a particular group with a particular political ideology. Doesnt sound very profitable to me. Some companies don't need to make a profit in the stores when their profit comes in handouts to limit their tax burden thanks to the politicians they lobby.

Who are known as, by and large, their customers. That's showbiz.

I presume they ran it through some focus groups and decided they needed him and his fellow travelers more than the opposition. Hardly surprising a youth-oriented company would take the edgier route anyhow. The flag will continue to symbolise what people believe it symbolises, no more and no less. K's chances of winning the wider argument on it are roughly zero. And Nike I expect already have the damage-limitation PR ready for whatever Fox News etc. throw at them (which in any case will probably be only to their advantage—"Help, we're being attacked by some old white guys on media most of our customers hate, what ever shall we do?"). — Baden

You give far too much credit to marketing departments in knowing what they're doing. Whether this plan will ultimately be successful, I don't know. I worked for corporate America long enough to know how much politics, ego, and arrogance play into decisions.

We'll see. I don't have a dog in the fight. Nike plimsolls are overpriced crap and I wouldn't wear one even for a big wet kiss from a beefy American ballplayer.

That's what separates you from those countries where what is done to people who don't bow before the flag is exactly what the unAmerican critics of Kaepernick would like done to him. — Baden

No one is suggesting his right to free speech should be curtailed.

Doesnt sound very profitable to me but then some companies don't need to make a profit in the stores when their profit comes in handouts to limit their tax burden thanks to the politicians they lobby.

In other words they can afford to promote a political ideology as opposed to making a profit in the stores.

Not true. It has been more than suggested by the big orange among others on several occasions.

https://www.vox.com/2018/5/24/17389288/donald-trump-nfl-kneeling-protest-national-anthem

OK, so maybe you know best or maybe a company that spends multi-millions on knowing best, knows best. We'll see.

Why didn't Nike involve Kapernick when this shoe was in the conception phase? If Kapernick is their ambassador and has the power to cancel a product that is already past the conceptual phase, then why didn't they involve Kapernick from the beginning? How come no one that took part in the conceptual phase thought "this shoe is racist"? It actually took a racist (Kapernick) to tell Nike their shoe is racist.

It appears to me that Nike wanted this to be a public story just to get their name in the conversation. Its not that Nike is opposed to racism. Its simply that both Nike and Kapernick need to be talked about to remain legitimate. Neither really care about racism. They only care about themselves.

And Nike I expect already have the damage-limitation PR ready for whatever Fox News etc. throw at them (which in any case will probably be only to their advantage—"Help, we're being attacked by some old white guys on media most of our customers hate, what ever shall we do?"). — Baden

The really rather disgusting thing is that however you see Betsy Ross' flag
what the hell is it doing on a sneaker. Frankly I think those who see the flag as a postive symbol would also be miffed, not because it's a symbol of something bad to them, but because a company is using the symbol to sell its products. It is branding through the symbol, which is different from someone selling flags. And the controversy only helps Nike.

Oh, they didn't get to use a historical symbol as manipulative meaningless branding that probably would have been effective with some people for no reason at all.

Nike are legally obliged to maximize profits for their shareholders. — Baden

Yeah, well, that's not true. The officers and board members are legally obligated to act in accordance with their fiduciary duties. That may or may not include maximizing profits. On the other hand, if they don't maximize profits, they are likely to get their assess kicked.

5. Colin Kaepernick put 2+2 together and got 5. He identified the Betsy Ross flag as a symbol associated with slavery and racism. — Bitter Crank

Did he? Then eh, it's a free country. You're just irritated because your cause doesn't get the press it deserves.

Or wait, do you really feel that way, or did I just make that up?

Sorry, everybody else gets to do blatant and aggressive personal attacks on this website. I just felt like I'm being left in the dust.

Not true. It has been more than suggested by the big orange among others on several occasions. — Baden

Yeah, well, when I said "no one," I think it's clear I didn't mean it literally, as there's always that guy who'll say most anything. I also don't take Trump literally, as if he means to say that he wants to amend the Constitution to allow the prohibition of certain speech and certain speech acts and then to pass legislation that results in banishment of the offenders. He's speaking in a moralistic sense (to the extent one can decipher what his actual intent is) where he means one is not deserving the privilege of living in this great nation if they're not going to afford it the proper respect, damn it.

I sort of agree with him in a 3rd or 4th beer sort of way, but upon more sober reflection, I do see certain difficulties in decreeing such rules and even more in carrying out the punishment, especially in light of the new wall that might make ejection more difficult.

Some people are offended by a flag that was co-opted by racists, some people are offended by the pulling of a product that displays a flag that is mostly known as a symbol of America's history.

You can't please everyone. I guess Nike did the math and decided that pulling the product was best for the business. That's capitalism.

Going by the headline in the New York Times which is, after all, the newspaper of record (so they say), the Betsy Ross flag was a design associated with the Revolutionary War, the Philadelphia seamstress Betsy Ross and, for some people, a painful history of oppression and racism.. The headline on the day the story appeared said the flag was associated with slavery. But then, everything about the Revolution of 1776 was connected with slavery directly or indirectly.

None of you are Nike's target audience so it's really funny that you think they should give a shit what you think — Maw

And they only give a shit about what their target audience thinks so that they can manipulate them into buying their shoes. That was the whole purpose of putting this story out. What reason would Nike have to report the existence of a shoe that they planned to release but then won't thanks to the "wisdom" of Kapernick? Attention America: Nike's conceptual department is unwittingly racist so we have Kapernick to filter out any racist products that we might conceptualize before we put them on the market. :roll:

Further shouldn't we patriots dislike someone putting the flag on a sneaker. It's not illegal, but it is parasitic. — Coben

Correct. Nike and patriotism have no connection. If Nike wanted to prove their patriotic fides, they could start manufacturing their shoes here instead of SE Asia, and pay their American employees a living wage. Nikes aren't expensive because of labor cost. They are expensive because of high profit margins and expensive promotion costs.

So if someone puts on a Betty Ross flag sticker on their shoe, does that make them racist?

Should we be looking to Kapernick to define what is offensive and racist for everyone?

If the answer is "No" to these questions, the what is the real reason Nike put out this story?