Skip to main content

Why I'm indifferent on the Colin Kaepernick-Nike relationship

I find the high octane bickering about former San Francisco 49ers quarterback Colin Kaepernick becoming the new face of Nike interesting, yet perplexing. While I've long supported Kaepernick and those like him using their first amendment rights to peacefully protest, I'd also be the first to point out Kaepernick is anything but the perfect role model for the cause. On the other side of the deal, Nike also doesn't have a perfect reputation when it comes to measures of equality.

I give Colin Kaepernick credit for trying to walk the talk after basically getting blackballed by the NFL. He's appeared to devote a great deal of his time doing charity events, volunteer work, and donating to charitable causes. However, his march for awareness and equality has been anything but a smooth ride. This bumpy road peaked, in my opinion, when he admitted to not voting in the 2016 presidential election. Look, I get it - there's more that can be done to implement change than to get involved in the political arena. However, it's also difficult to be a stalwart for change when we don't partake in one of our civic duties of electing leaders who are most likely to implement that change. So while I respect Kaepernick's fight and believe in his right to peacefully protest without repercussion, I also don't think he's the best role model for this cause.

All of that in conjunction with Nike's history leaves me feeling indifferent about this budding relationship. Those hailing praise on Nike or threatening to boycott the company/brand should probably take a step back, attempt to garner the full picture, and take this for what it is - an imperfect company teaming up with an imperfect representative, attempting to stir the pot; generate revenue; and bring awareness to social issues. I respect Nike for their decision, but am not going to be buying ten new pairs of Nike shoes as a result.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Boycotting jukeboxes because of TouchTunes

I love music and enjoy hitting the bar(s) over the weekend, so naturally, when the mood strikes me, I've never been coy about playing some songs on the jukebox. This past Thursday, a friend of mine turned 50, so several friends of her's, including myself, all met up to celebrate the occasion. At around 9:30, a friend of mine and I both chipped in $5 to play some songs on the jukebox. Four hours and 231 skips later, we gave up on hearing the songs we had selected, and went home knowing we had just wasted $5. This wasn't the first time such a thing had happened to me (and many others), and due to that, I'll be boycotting jukeboxes. Why? The scam known as TouchTunes. You see, here's how the plot typically breaks down. A person (or group of people) downloads the TouchTunes app on his/her phone, consumes one too many adult beverages, and due to this, has less care for spending extra money to hear the songs of their choosing right NOW. That's the thing with TouchTun

The difference between "looking" and "checking out"

I may be way off with these numbers, but it's my approximation that at least 75% of individuals whom are involved in a serious relationship feel it's perfectly acceptable to "check out" members of the opposite sex they're not involved with. Meanwhile, approximately 25% either don't feel this is acceptable or aren't sure about the matter. I hadn't thought about this matter for a while, but since I've been dating a woman for about 8 months, the topic has been pondered about some. When reading or hearing others discuss this very issue, I often times hear comments similar to the following: "It's human nature to look." "There's nothing wrong with checking others out. I'm sure he/she does it too!" "It's fine to do it. Just don't tell your boyfriend/girlfriend about it or do it in front of them!" "It's natural to find people attractive." When observing the array of comments, I i

The verdict is in. To no one's surprise, Jonathan Hoenig has been found guilty of being an idiot.

Just recently, when discussing the Michael Brown shooting and whether or not race had anything to do with it, Fox News contributor Jonathan Hoenig said, "You know who talks about race? Racists." One moment while I provide Mr. Hoenig with the well deserved slow-clap. :: slow-claps for two seconds :: So, that was quite the line by Mr. Hoenig, wasn't it? "You know who talks about race? Racists." Well, wasn't he just talking about race? So, by his own words, I guess that makes him a racist. Also, if he wants to be consistent, does this mean that people whom talk about gender are sexists and people whom talk about sexual orientation are homophobes? With that line of thinking, Hoenig would engage in the following back-and-forths: Hoenig: "So, who are you voting for?" A woman: "The Democratic candidate, because he's been adamant about his support for equal rights for women." Hoenig: "You sexist feminist nazi!"