Why Are Free Market Conservatives Complaining About Nike?
Nike decided, as a business decision, to recall a shoe that has the colonial "Betsy Ross" flag as an on the heel decoration
It seems that Colin Kaepernick and others have prevailed on Nike that the shoe represents the era of slavery, modern day white nationalist groups, or both.
These two claims are both true, but also leave out the truth that the flag represented more than the slave era at the birth of the nation, and also represents more today than its rather miniscule use by white nationalists.
In other words, it is very easy to see both sides of this controversy. So what should be done?
One would think that would be purely Nike's decision based on it's expectations as to how the controversy would impact sales of the shoe. But, we have learned today, the Republican governor of Arizona wants to rescind state financial incentives for Nike to locate part of its operation in Arizona.
The logic behind Arizona telling Nike we don't want you? Political correctness, or rather the rebuke of political correctness, which the governor says is unAmerican.
What happened to the wisdom of business geniuses like the Nike Co. ? They are to be punished by a U.S. state governmental body because they did what they want with their own product? I thought government and business should be kept separate.
By the way, Betsy Ross didnt sew or create the first American flag, and there is no evidence that George Washington commissioned such a flag. I saw a couple super patriots on Fox News today claiming that Ross made that original flag in 1776.
. So who made the first flag? Well, I am not sure, but I am sure it wasn't Betsy Ross. Lets review the facts, there are no letters, diaries, newspaper accounts or bills of sale implicating Ross had anything to do with the creation or even making of the flag. Even the National Museum of American History's research has proven that there is no evidence supporting the Ross Flag and have deemed it just part of American folklore. Also Ross biographer Marla Miller said, Betsy Ross was one of several flag makers in Philadelphia, and her only contribution to the design was to change the 6-pointed stars to the easier 5-pointed stars. So, Facts 3, Ross 0. But lets remember Ross only gets the credit because her grandson claimed she made it first. Had any grandchildren of the other flag makers made the claim we'd be visiting their homes in Philadelphia and passing on their legend instead. However, Ross gets the credit and until some evidence arises that she didn't make the first flag she will continue to get the credit. But one can say even though she doesn't deserve it, Ross is still a great piece of legend that surrounds the American Revolution still some 237 years later.
https://mikethehistoryguy.blogspot.com/2013/05/who-made-first-american-flag-not-betsy.html
Tags
Who is online
67 visitors
This sounds like a trivial argument, but it actually conceals the tip of an iceberg. As the years and decades unfold, it is likely that more and more modern generations will want to minimize the legacy of the slaveowners that founded the United States. They had such an argument on CNN tonight, with one guy saying that the U.S. was built on the backs of black people and was born as a white supremacist nation, and the other guy saying racism has nothing to do with the founding of the United States. Its hard to imagine a bigger battleground over race than the very founding of the nation.
Why shouldn't they? Is it illegal to criticize massive multi national corporations?
Nike can abuse as many kids in their sweat shops and toady up to as many brutal dictators as they want, and progressives will still love them as long as they keep up their anti americanism.
I am no fan of Nike, but I don't think rescinding this shoe is evidence of "un-Americanism". The shoe became controversial and they chose to avoid the controversy.
rescinding the shoe is evidence of "un-Americanism"
Its pretty much textbook. Th original American flag is apparently too problematic to sell to nike customers. You know, the people who fork over hundreds of dollars to shoes made by people in sweatshops who get paid 20 cents an hour so Nike can give millions to A washed up mediocre QB to pontificate about social justice.
I'll give it to Nike, it's an amazing con job they pull.
They chose to avoid the controversy
Is that a joke? You just seeded an article about the controversy they caused.
There is nothing controversial about America’s first flag as designed by Betsy Ross. Nike offended all America by withdrawing that shoe design. I won’t buy anything from them and will sell my Nike stock and get Under Armor instead.
They chose to avoid the controversy that would come from continuing to sell the shoe.
Bwaa Ha Ha
Betsy Ross didnt design the flag.
The only real "controversy" is that some yahoos get offended WAY to easily.
Who knew an old flag would trigger them?
And, decided to accept the controversy of being perceived as being anti-American and weak-minded. If Nike had been smart, they would have EDUCATED people about the Betsy Ross flag and point out that the flag is NOT a symbol of slavery. The flag was a symbol of a country trying to keep itself together during its infancy. Truthfully, the flag was about throwing off oppressors (the British government) and to claim it is a symbol of slavery is a complete butchery of history. In the spring of 1776, when the flag was made, the country hadn't really been formed. The Declaration of Independence had yet to be written and ratified by the Continental Congress. And, the US Constitution had not even been a thought in the minds of the Founders. Heck, the Articles of Confederation had yet to be written. So, for Nike to cave to this foolishness shows they are not really in support of America, or its birthday.
Or, rightwing knownothing cranks could just not be such big babies...
The big baby here is Nike, listening to only a single, ignorant voice and not using any real thought about the situation.
What they really did was to accept a false narrative - that Betsy Ross or the flag on the 13 original colonies had something to do with "racism". That is what one does when one conforms to political correctness. The result is to perpetuate lying and retribution.
George Washington is a pretty good example of the problem that exists concerning the founders and slavery
George Washington is both the person who allegedly asked Betsy Ross to create the first American flag, and he was also the "father of our nation".
When Washington died 23 years after the declaration of independence 193 human beings who had been under his control remained slaves.
Here's more
Although Washington gradually came to believe slavery was wrong, he personally did very little to show disapproval or to free his own slaves. He freed some of them when he died, at which point presumably he didnt need them anymore.
It doesnt take a lot of twisting and turning of facts to see that people who object to the "founders" in terms of their slaveholding have an argument to make.
Now, Washington and many of the other founders had much to offer the young nation other than slavery, and I don't believe the colonial flag is tainted with racism, but it is there on the periphery, and those who want to bring it up as an issue certainly have both the right to and sufficient facts behind them.
Boy, that'll show 'em. I never buy Nikes anyway. I don't like the idea of using child labor in sweatshops to keep the price of a pair of shoes down to $100. These shoes are a violation of the US flag code and, as such, should not be worn anyway.
It is said that about 2/3 of the "prominent" founding fathers owned slaves. That is a big figure and it makes slavery a part of the era of the founding fathers and the founding of the nation. Period.
What the main takeaway from that fact becomes is a matter for interpretation. I wouldnt protest the shoe, but I understand why others might. We need to stop fetishizing the founding era, it is filled with societal contradictions which dont play in the 21st century, and potentially lend themselves to expressions of white supremacy nostalgia.
Slavery was a great sin. The Constitution & the Founding of the US was one of the Great moments in the history of the world. I'm afraid we have to accept the bad with the good.
That is a big figure and it makes slavery a part of the era of the founding fathers and the founding of the nation. Period.
No, John, that dosen't indict everyone & everything that existed in that period as "racist". Political correctness is evil! An evil as bad as slavery! How's that?
Pretty f'ing despicable, to tell you the truth.
One involves physical bondage the other thought control
Political correctness controls your thoughts? Yikes !
My advice to you is dont embarrass yourself any further by going down this road.
To me, bitching and whining about that flag would be like some yahoos getting all upset if they saw an American flag from 1945 because America used nuclear weapons.
Actually John, I'm going full steam ahead. Tell us why certain people risk their lives when speaking at such places as UC Berkeley?
Betsy Ross is regarded along with our founding fathers as having played a role in the nation's origins. Her name and that flag shouldn't be censored. It should be part of US History as taught to our children.
No, they are dragging Betsy Ross through the mud, since she was in Philadelphia and did not own slaves.
There is no evidence that Betsy Ross created that flag or was specifically asked to create a flag.
It is a story, sort of like Washington saying "I cannot tell a lie".
Sorry Vic, I'm not going to humor you when you say political correctness is as great an evil as slavery.
But go ahead and continue to embarrass yourself if that is your wish.
Very good.
Have a good one!
I think I will sell my profitable NKE stocks and make an emotional decision to sink it all into cannibus penny stocks.
Yeah that will show Nike who's boss !!
/s
The way things are these days.....that would be a Great Decision.
If the Uber Left are voted into the presidents office, the likes of Nike (big corp.) will be demonized, taxed, and put out of business !
In other words, there are good people on either side. That sounds so oddly familiar!
Good one!!!!
You asked why conservatives are complaining.
You have answered your own question.
Why is it that people of a certain political persuasion think governments should just hand out free stuff for the asking? Maybe Arizona made a business decision to avoid the controversy, too.
Is Colin Kaepernick a descendant of slaves? Or has he appropriated that history just to make a buck?
Amazing how popular corporate welfare is with some, as long as the company keeps up the "woke" facade for American consumption.
I love American history and read it pretty constantly.
I do wonder though about the fetish with "the founders" that we mainly see from the political right. It was 243 years ago and we can move away from it somewhat , it won't be breaking any taboo or sacred pledge.
Like it or not, the founding of the US is forever tainted by the shadow of slavery. Almost all the "big names" among the founding fathers owned slaves. It is incongruent in 2019 muliticultural America.
As long as "we" are playing that game, that forgettable genocide thing was pretty bad to, IMO.
That said, what about the Constitution do you suggest moving away from?
Yeah genocide is pretty bad. Which one do you have in mind?
The Constitution is the guideline for all our laws.
I see no reason 243 years later though to fetishize the "founders" as if they are some superhumanly perfect figures. And the principles in the constitution need to be adapted to modern life. Things have changed immensely since 1776. It is one thing for someone to own a musket that takes a minute to load between single shots and another thing entirely to own a gun that will shoot a hundred rounds in that minute.
I am thinking of the original Native population.
Certainly is.
1. Are you sure about your facts there? For example I know I can run off 3 rounds from a Brown Bess in a minute. Please, try to be honest with such claims. This is the kind of nonsense that ruins gun control discussions. Also, putting the modern weapon of a rifleman 243 years ago as the standard equivalent of today is not honest either.
So let's be honest with these things. BTW I am not in favor of everyone owning gun or any kind of gun for than matter.
So you think gun control should be handled better than currently. So do I.
2. What else would you see us moving away from in the constitution?
The institution of slavery was introduced into the British colonies by Spanish and Portuguese traders. The slave trade was supplied in Africa by Muslims. More African slaves were transported to South America than North America.
Multiculturalism, it seems, conveniently ignores its own history of slavery.
The New World was discovered and the first settlement was established when Leonardo da Vinci was alive. There was 276 years of colonial history before the United States was founded. And the United States began prohibiting slavery at the founding of the country. The midwest and the west have no shame for slavery.
I am thinking no one, absolutely no one will listen to history.
On the flip side, no one was twisting the arms of the British colonies to follow the islamic inspired Spanish and Portuguese slave trade tradition.
Barely material. Our nation is the United States of America, not some other.
The founding document of the nation, the Constitution, permitted slavery. And it wasnt brought to an end until about 80 years later.
OK , three rounds a minute, whoopee doopee.
You really think that is an important difference? Your definition of nonsense must be , well, nonsense.
Again and again, people say X and you twist it to Y.
I have to ask why? Why oh Y?
Basically you are saying it is Okay to be dishonest in discussion. Not a surprise. Been known.
Interesting, instead of seeing the common ground you chose to focus on a pretty stupid point to argue. If you want to have a discussion, remain honest. BTW, just out of curiosity what do you think of the odds of an M14 vs a T54 or T62
So, again, what else do you see us separating from the Constitution?
And, if you actually followed history as you claim, then you would know that the founding of the country and slavery are two separate issues. In fact, the only reason slavery remained legal was to keep the fledgling Union together. The northern colonies/states wanted it to be eliminated even during the time period between 1776 and 1787. The southern states heavily relied on slavery because they were agrarian and had little actual population compared to the northern colonies/states. In what would be The United States of America at that time in history, all farming was done by hand, there was no automation. For large plantations, slavery was the only means of finding labor in the quantities needed to make a profit in all forms of agriculture, unlike the North which had fairly large populations that could be hired.
You like to emphasize details that are not important to the point being made.
Perceptive people will get the point being made about muskets vs modern high speed rifles no matter what the exact numerical rate is. There is a distractionary tactic in complaining about the inaccuracy in saying one instead of three.
You uh, don't see the forest for the trees.
I agree that slavery and the actual founding are two separate issues.
Unfortunately your comment rationalizes slavery to the point that is simply not acceptable in 2019. If you were in a position of public notice people would possibly be protesting you for making such an excuse for slavery.
Then find some other way to put bread on your table. You've already said that it was realized at the time that slavery was wrong (the north wanted to end it), so the plantation owners persisted in what was a known evil , for profit.
Fine, let them protest me. I would point out the disservice they are doing themselves, their families, and their community about not wanting to know real facts and real history and that they are dooming their descendants into repeating those horrible mistakes.
A lot of people know real facts and real history.
You should try and sound less racist, that is my advice to you.
Arguing that slavery was inevitable because white people needed it in order to make money is not going to cut it as an argument.
The United States also made prohibitions on slavery a prerequisite for statehood specifically because the Constitution was ambiguous on the issue. The Constitution also provided authority for the US Congress to legislate, too. And the first Congress did address the issue of slavery by establishing prohibitions. And the United States prohibited the international trading of slaves very early in its history; one of the first government actions against laissez faire free trade by the United States.
The claim that the United States allowed slavery from the beginning is bogus; that claim is refuted by hard, verifiable facts. It's true the United States did not abolish the colonial practice of slavery where the institution had already been established. But that does not diminish the efforts to end slavery with the founding of the United States.
The story of slavery in the United States only shows that the country has had to fight laissez faire free trade, supply-side economics, and political favoritism toward the wealthy from the very beginning. And from the beginning, the political support for laissez faire free trade, supply-side economics, and political favoritism toward the wealthy came from Democrats, just as Democrats do today.
Democrats divided the country over the issue of slavery and caused a Civil War. Isn't that what today's Democrats are trying to do?
Well, you are correct there. Perceptive people will see that the right to bear arms includes arms in common use by the military, as I believe the Supreme Court has already explained. Perceptive people will see that the argument isn't really about the scary "high speed" rifles, because the scary rifles are used in fewer murders annually than hands and feet.
Not assuming your stance on marijuana, but where is the outcry with marijuana related traffic fatalities?
99 deaths in Colorado alone in 2015. Washington State's statistics show that 70 drivers involved in fatal crashes tested positive, resulting in 87 fatalities. That's 2 states, and almost 190 deaths. There may be more data available, if one wants to sit and dig for it. Regardless, 190 deaths, in just two states, and instead of outrage, we have a huge push for legalization. The data shows a clear trend that traffic accidents have significantly increased in states that have legalized marijuana. Blind eye though. Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain. We need to get those black guns, which account for the least of anything that is actually killing us.
BULLSHIT
If civilian small arms are going to be used for the same purposes as military small arms then it would be reasonable to require civilian small arms and ammunition to conform to military standards. Prohibitions on certain types of ammunition does not violate the 2nd amendment. Prohibiting soft points, hollow points, armor piercing, fletchettes, and bolos does not violate the 2nd amendment. Restrictions on muzzle velocity and chamber pressures does not violate the 2nd amendment. Restrictions on rate of fire and number of rounds does not violate the 2nd amendment.
Military small arms are subject to explicit restrictions; violating those explicit restrictions is a war crime. Prosecution for war crimes does not violate the 2nd amendment.
Racist? You mean stating the FACTS of why slavery was used in the South is now racist?
Title 10 of the US Code along with the 2nd Amendment and the Supremacy Clause makes any sort of regulation of ammunition and guns a violation of the 2nd Amendment, since it defines and organizes the makeup of the Militia.
Thankfully, despite the efforts of the left to disarm us, we maintain our right to defend ourselves against criminals and governments
"Their swords, and every other terrible instrument of the soldier , are the birth right of an American. ... The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or the state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people." -- Tench Coxe, noted federalist and friend of James Madison, writing in defense of the proposed Constitution, in the Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government"
Thomas Jefferson, 1 Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334
"The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of the republic; since it offers a strong moral check against usurpation and arbitrary power of the rulers." -- Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution
The danger (where there is any) from armed citizens, is only to the *government*, not to *society*; and as long as they have nothing to revenge in the government (which they cannot have while it is in their own hands) there are many advantages in their being accustomed to the use of arms, and no possible disadvantage.
Joel Barlow, "Advice to the Privileged Orders", 1792-93
If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no recourse left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual State. In a single State, if the persons entrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair.
-- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28
"[The Constitution preserves] the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation...(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms."
--James Madison, The Federalist Papers, No. 46
"That the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms ... "
-- Samuel Adams , Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, at 86-87 (Pierce & Hale, eds., Boston, 1850)
"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive."
--Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution (Philadelphia 1787)
Even an old liberal like Hubert Humphrey understood what you don't
"Certainly one of the chief guarantees of freedom under any government, no matter how popular and respected, is the right of citizens to keep and bear arms ... The right of citizens to bear arms is just one guarantee against arbitrary government, one more safeguard, against the tyranny which now appears remote in America but which historically has proven to be always possible." -- Hubert H. Humphrey Democratic Senator, 22 October 1959
Most importantly, like all other rights, they are inalienable and come not from Government but are our natural rights independent of Government
"The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress, and has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government." -- The Supreme Court of the United States, in U.S. v. Cruikshank 1876
"And yet the same revolutionary beliefs for which our forebears fought are still at issue around the globe -- the belief that the rights of man come not from the generosity of the state, but from the hand of God."
John F. Kennedy Inaugural Address delivered 20 January 1961.
From Heller
From District of Columbia v Heller, re-affirming US v Miller and Printz v US
United States v Miller concluded that citizens had a 2 nd amendment right to "ordinary military equipment" that could "contribute to the common defense.
We therefore read Miller to say only that the Second Amendment does not protect those weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, such as short-barreled shotguns. That accords with the historical understanding of the scope of the right, see Part III, infra.25
It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.
Militias are regulated by the same code of conduct as any other military organization. Pirates are not militiamen.
The use of armed force to coerce a civilian population is tyranny. The 2nd amendment may provide a check against government using military armed force against the civilian population. But the 2nd amendment provides no rights for a citizen militia to use armed force against the civilian population. The 2nd amendment does not provide any protections for armed resistance against civil authority, either.
Military use of arms against a civilian population is subject to explicit restrictions. The same applies to militias. Pirates are not militiamen.
Gee, I wonder which politician is known for that
Additionally, I wonder who on this board complains the most about that tactic?
I guess it is common these days to use exaggeration when making an emotional pitch.
When many see an "authoritative" statement being fundamentally wrong, the weight behind the argument tends to fall to the wayside. I see you doing it every day.
Back to your original statement:
It seems like you are having difficulty struggling to identify any other parts of the constitution from which we should separate ourselves.
Surely there must be other parts of the constitution you had in mind?
Or, was this a feeble introduction into an emotionally charged gun control discussion?
You are missing the key point of Title 10: All able-bodied males between the ages of 17 and 45 and women in the National Guard are members of the Unorganized Militia.
Which does not abrogate the obligation to conform to the same code of conduct and explicit restrictions on use of armed force as other military organizations. The use of small arms is highly regulated within the military and authorization to use military armed force is controlled by civil authority.
Pirates are not militiamen and nothing in the Constitution protects pirates.
that part is simple really.
we have no respect for anyone who runs from our flag and/or bends a knee to today's lunatic left.
nike should have sent that prick a free pair of betsy ross shoes and told him to have a nice day.
This is what I personally think about this issue.
I don't believe the colonial flag is "racist". There is too much more involved in the breaking away from England and the start of the new nation to fairly place so much emphasis on racism.
But, those who choose to do so have a case to make. Thats just the fact of the matter.
Which leads to my main point. We as an American society in 2019 should consider moving away from reverence for the founders as if criticizing them is a social sacrilege. It was 240 years ago. The "founders" held slaves, they deceived and cheated the native tribes out of land and ultimately out of their lives, they kept women in a lower position in the society, they had a classist political system where major landowners held all the power. So much has changed in America, and automatic reverence of "the founders" has to be put in a new perspective as well.
Or we can keep doing what is described in this story.
"Free Market"? They want to stop gays from buying cakes or scheduling weddings. They say "freedom isn't free" but our veterans fight for everyone's freedom regardless of political party, regardless of anything else.
As Americans we can choose to boycott or not buy anything we want, and that goes for anyone regardless of political party.
Most businesses want the business of every segment of society, without exclusions. So when any business makes a decision the result is their own making. Whether it pays off or whether it fails is up to them.
Because the spokesperson in question is black and Hispanic. They're not happy unless blacks are in chains and Hispanics are in detention centers.
So Kaeperdick speaks for all black people now.
He can just shut up and let people decide if the shoe offends them or not by not purchasing them.
[deleted]
Are you looking for a "Truth"....or just a "Bash" ?
John,
You are criticizing a governor who is removing incentives from a corporation to locate part of their business to their state? Who cares about the reason? I am surprised your cohorts haven't demanded you turn in your liberal card yet.
Last I check the left was against granting any business, much the less multinational corporation, any special incentives to do business in the US at the federal, state, or local level.
We are also free to mock Nike, boycott them, and generally disparage them for following the ramblings of an almost never was, washed up, former NFL QB- whose attitude, and inability to recover from injury that left his athletic ability diminished, or learn to adapt mentally cost him millions. Nike made a business decision, we will all see if it was a bad one or not.
Exactly
"Why Are Free Market Conservatives Complaining About Nike? "
I would have to say.....because Nike caved to the "Few" …. or the "one" !
Cowards !
It's kind of strange that Nike would come out with a "Betsy Ross" sneaker....hum....Lots of publicity, a chance to gain favor with the left....I wonder?
Kapercrap may have been in the loop all along on this. He seems to NEED attention.
Makes me wonder how "woke" the executives at Nike are.
And how much business sense they have for dropping it.
My complaint is their poor quality. My go to brands for athletic shoes are Salewa, Hoka and Run on clouds. I wear the Hoka's more than any other shoe.
I think Nike planned it this way from the start
Very possible, Nike has been savvy marketeers since the 70's.