So, a new way of doing business. Stir the country up with issues of racism, then watch the stock market.

If true it’s a dangerous precedent. Well, interesting, anyway, especially if you look at target audiences and their political views based on identity politics.

So, a new way of doing business. Stir the country up with issues of racism, then watch the stock market. — Brett

The example was set by the present day American president, except the polls were being watched rather than the stock market (not much difference there though).

This whole story was obviously planned by Nike for name recognition. — Harry Hindu

Quite unlikely. The obvious answer is Nike just trying to manage a somewhat surprising situation in the best possible way. The idea that they 'planned' this all along is quite silly. You don't make a shoe that is then planned to be pulled off out of negative feedback from an athlete that is promoting your stuff. That isn't cunning marketing plan.

I won't say whether or not Colin Kaepernick is correct his view of the Betty Ross flag, or if Nike is correct in yielding to him, and pulling the product out of market, mostly because I don't care, but also because it is irrelevant to Nike's overarching brand strategy. — Maw

And this actually just shows the absurdity of the whole issue.

Has anybody here actually agreed or defended Colin Kaepernick's view that the Betsy Ross flag is a symbol of hate and an offensive slave-era emblem?

Has anybody here actually agreed or defended Colin Kaepernick's view that the Betsy Ross flag is a symbol of hate and an offensive slave-era emblem? — ssu

It's easy enough to understand. All the descendants of those who were here, but not included in the "all men" who were supposed to be created equal would see it as a symbol of slavery (not necessarily hate, though).

It's easy enough to understand. — frank

Is it? You see it's also easy to 'understand' why people would fall for communism or fascism or whatever. It's a different matter to agree with the ideas.

So are you saying all US national emblems / symbols prior to the abolution of slavery are symbols of slavery?

How about the era before women's emancipation and universal suffrage? Shouldn't then the symbols before 1920 in the US be offensive towards women as women hadn't equal rights to men?

So are you saying all US national emblems / symbols prior to the abolution of slavery are symbols of slavery? — ssu

Could be. All it takes is a community that sees it that way.

How about the era before women's emancipation and universal suffrage? Shouldn't then the symbols before 1920 in the US be offensive towards women as women hadn't equal rights to men? — ssu

Again, could be. I think women's issues stand apart because a woman's relationship to her oppressors was so intimate: it was her sons, father, brothers, and lovers.

Could be. All it takes is a community that sees it that way. — frank

Could be? Seems that all it takes is a hypothetical community for you not to answer what you yourself think about it.

Again, could be. I think women's issues stand apart because a woman's relationship to her oppressors was so intimate: it was her sons, father, brothers, and lovers. — frank

Was so intimate?

So from your I take it that you believe that women's families oppressed them earlier and this oppression has ended. :roll:

FYI; Women not having the ability to vote in national elections wasn't a family issue, it was indeed a political/legal issue.

(Besides, where on Earth comes this idea of sons oppressing their mothers?I think earlier people respected their mothers more than now)

So, a new way of doing business. Stir the country up with issues of racism, then watch the stock market.

If true it’s a dangerous precedent. Well, interesting, anyway, especially if you look at target audiences and their political views based on identity politics — Brett

Like I said, hilarious over-analyzing over what's in actuality a straightforward answer. One of Nike's biggest brand ambassadors criticized the design of a product and Nike pulled it. That's it. This isn't even about "identity politics". Nike's core audience is simply younger and more liberal than the general population.

And this actually just shows the absurdity of the whole issue. — ssu

A shoe was pulled from the market. It's not an actual "issue".

Seems that all it takes is a hypothetical community for you not to answer what you yourself think about it. — ssu

When in Rome, do as the Romans do. That's what I think.

When in Rome, do as the Romans do. That's what I think. — frank

I believe that when you are actually in Rome surrounded by Romans. Yet even there it doesn't mean you change totally what you think and become a different person. Being diplomatic doesn't mean you change your beliefs just to appease people you talk to. At least in a democracy you can speak freely. In a totalitarian state you do watch what you say, just not to get your hosts into an awkward situation or in trouble.

Now it's like: Uh, there might be Romans here… better act as if we would be in Rome, even if Rome is very far from here. Above all, better yet not to answer as a Roman might get upset.

A shoe was pulled from the market. It's not an actual "issue". — Maw

Yes, obviously in the category of Maw answers: "I don't care at all about this… but I'll still actively participate in this thread."

I'm simply explaining why Nike decided to pull the shoe from market, which is categorically different from being in favor of the decision or complaining about it, the latter of which is what most people here are doing.

Like I said, hilarious over-analyzing over what's in actuality a straightforward answer. One of Nike's biggest brand ambassadors criticized the design of a product and Nike pulled it. That's it. This isn't even about "identity politics". Nike's core audience is simply younger and more liberal than the general population. — Maw

I think you’re partly right about the absurdity. But the issue is that the flag has been seen as a ‘racist symbol’. So someone is attempting to rewrite history, as we’ve seen with other issues. If the flag is a symbol of racism, and the flag is representative of the USA, then ergo America is a racist country. I think this idea of racism and symbols, as an example, is definitely about identity politics. It’s part of the whole virtue signalling aspect of segments of society today. Everything, everyone, becomes over sensitised and common sense gets thrown out with it. It’s quite common these days for groups to retroactively describe history according to their political position (and I’m not sure ‘political is even the right word anymore). So it flows into ideas about relativism and the subjectivity of morals.

This is part of my position regarding my post on ‘the common man’, where is the centre to hold things together? How much longer can we function under these existing terms, or is it actually over, for some anyway.

Quite unlikely. The obvious answer is Nike just trying to manage a somewhat surprising situation in the best possible way. The idea that they 'planned' this all along is quite silly. You don't make a shoe that is then planned to be pulled off out of negative feedback from an athlete that is promoting your stuff. That isn't cunning marketing plan. — ssu

I agree with Harry. To create a controversy is one of the oldest publicity tricks in the book. And, since the negative feedback was from an insider, that's more evidence that it was a planned event. What's more, is that there are now limited edition collector item shoes out there, and whoever has a pair is set to make a big profit.

Has anybody here actually agreed or defended Colin Kaepernick's view that the Betsy Ross flag is a symbol of hate and an offensive slave-era emblem? — ssu

I did.

The flag represents the political state, and the political state exists as the ideology, which is gone because we do not support it. Why ought we support that flag? — Metaphysician Undercover

Really, if you just calm down and think, what is this really all about?

If everything is just a variation on a theme: God exists, God does not exist, then what’s really going on here?

At least in a democracy you can speak freely. In a totalitarian state you do watch what you say, just not to get your hosts into an awkward situation or in trouble. — ssu

In context this is interesting to me ironically. Here the corporations listen. If something might cost them sales they may back down, change approach. Freedom of speech causing change, rightly or wrongly. But otherwise corporations assume a right to control what is called a democracy via campaign contributions, trade organizations, lobbying and control of media and their own oversight. by the relevant government agencies. They do not mind their power and the application of it meaning that they get vastly more than one vote per issue and then control a mass of things that cannot or need not come to a vote.

So here we had, possibly, a corporation change tack based on people getting upset, about a shoe. While some other corporations are busy trying to get us to go to war with Iran. They may not succeed, but they have before and they will again. And yes, when they succeed again a bunch of people will get to go out and march in the streets.

I agree with Harry. To create a controversy is one of the oldest publicity tricks in the book — Metaphysician Undercover

Taking Colin Kaepernick to be the face of Nike was the 'controversial' trick that you refer to. That was indeed intensional: that made Nike look good, progressive and active to the younger crowd they are after.

I did. — Metaphysician Undercover

That's great. At least someone takes a direct position. Not "I don't mind, but someone else..."

The flag represents the political state, and the political state exists as the ideology, which is gone because we do not support it. Why ought we support that flag? — Metaphysician Undercover

Really? I thought the reason was that you simply have more states belonging to the Union. And that it didn't I think become an official flag. And what do you mean that it's not supported? Here's the flag prominently displayed at the Capitol Building during a second inauguration of an US President.



That being President Obama, that is.

So sorry if I'm confused as a foreigner on just when did this flag come to be a symbol of racism.

So sorry if I'm confused as a foreigner on just when did this flag come to be a symbol of racism. — ssu

Well it hasn’t, has it, and this is the idiocy of the whole thing. Why is this idiocy prevailing?

As I said, there is good reason not to support old flags. But I never said that any flag was a symbol of racism.

the political state exists as the ideology, which is gone because we do not support it. — Metaphysician Undercover

I may not support it, and you may not support it, but who all is in this WE you are talking about?

Nike has seen a 2% stock increase and added nearly $3 billion in market value since cancelling the kicks

Hey some of you should probably call the marketing department over at Nike and tell them how this doesn't make sense

Colin Kaepernick: 1, Conservative Karma: 0.

The article said, "Kaepernick’s concern over the shoe’s “Betsy Ross Flag” designs connection to an era of slavery resonated with investors"

That may be. And from listening to many years of reports on stocks going up and down (like a hooker's drawers) one can conclude that "investors" are a rather flighty bunch, scattering and flocking together at the slightest hint of negativity or positivity (however interpreted). "Oil stocks are down amid investor fears that Santa Claus may again use reindeer to power his sleigh."