Jesse Jackson Now Protesting Ugly Shoes

What do you think of these shoes?

  • The are horribly offensive and I stopping them from being released is a service to humanity.

    Votes: 11 68.8%

  • They are horribly offensive and they are in poor taste due to their resemblance to slave shackles.

    Votes: 5 31.3%
  • Total voters
    16
holy king said:
this is my first association with foot chains...

Lucky%20Luke%201.jpg
Click to expand...
This looks very, very good. Is it available in English?
 
Typical Americans to think that they are the center of the universe. If someone in Europe makes shackels it must be a statement on American slavery. Guess what, most people in Europe don't know any American history and to be honest lack interest. American slavery is a very, very small part of the history of slavery, it might aswell be a statement on slavery in timbuktu.

I dislike them because they promote a controlling state. They are a symbol of the all knowing all controling state.
 
Shackles were used on virtually all slaves while they were in transit, and the shoes were made for the US market.
 
Formaldehyde said:
Shackles were used on virtually all slaves while they were in transit, and the shoes were made for the US market.
Click to expand...

I suppose fashion designers need to avoid cross stitches in order to not offend Christians in America?
 
I've yet to see many Christians be offended in even finding Jesus in a piece of moldy bread, much less finding an errant cross now and then. If anything, many of them would likely buy jeans that reminded them of their religion.

Is anybody really surprised that a commercial item aimed largely at the African-American market might receive a bit of criticism for reminding people of shackles used so commonly during the slavery period? If so, perhaps they too should stay out of marketing new products.

Again...

Even though Scott has denied any connection to slavery, the outcry is something that Adidas and the designer should have forecasted — particularly because this is just the latest in a series of events that demonstrate a history of racial insensitivity...
Click to expand...
 
Synsensa said:
I suppose fashion designers need to avoid cross stitches in order to not offend Christians in America?
Click to expand...
If a lot of Christians are offended by something, corporations usually pull them. A bunch of Christians got upset recently when an advert featuring a sort of "buddy jesus" from Dogma was put out; the ad was later pulled, and the company sent letters to everyone who wrote to complain. As a non-Christian, I don't really care; there are plenty of ways to advertise things that don't piss off Christians.
 
MisterCooper said:
This is just another case of liberals interfering in the free market.
Click to expand...

I'm going to have to call shenanigans on this statement. This is the free market working as it is intended without interference. This is a citizen's advocacy group creating a ground swell of opposition to a product and thereby causing the manufacturer to make an economic decision to pull that product from the market. That's the free market at work. Consumers making choices and companies adjusting to meet the needs and desires of consumers.
 
MisterCooper said:
This is just another case of liberals interfering in the free market.

They just want to rule you.

So many agree with them and fall in line that maybe they have a point.
Click to expand...
Actually, I think Adidas is interfering with the free market with their claims of various intellectual property rights here.
 
Mise said:
I don't see it as racist, but a lot of people did, and that's their right. It's Adidas's right to weigh the public relations impact against the cost and revenues and come up with their own decision on whether to push these shoes to market. (They decided to pull the shoes, btw.)
Click to expand...

Agreed. The problem I see, however, is that even after Jackson was given the perfectly good and plausible explanation for the origin of these shows he didn't continue with the line "these can be seen as reminding people of the shackles of slavery and thus may be offensive," he went with the "Adiddas purposely made these shoes to remind people of slavery and was consciously commercializing slavery."

With that false premise, he then demonized and actively turned public opinion against the design and company under false pretenses. Which is his right, I guess, I just don't see why the same end could not have been reached by the more intelligent objection.
 
Yeah, I find it hard to believe that Adidas would purposely piss off black people and I think some of the more shrill voices aren't very helpful. But again, he's entitled to voice his opinion. I think the outcome was a good one though - to remind people that making an offensive product will hurt your reputation and your bottom line. Like BvBPL said: Free market in action.
 
The reaction by some to outspoken people like Jesse Jackson is always good for some laughs. He and other prominent blacks frequently become the story as these individuals express their moral indignation over mere opinion.

While it certainly wasn't intentional on the part of Adidas, it again shows that many US companies continue to remain essentially clueless about racial sensitivities. They could probably almost completely eliminate it by merely hiring more ethnically diverse managers.
 
Well, it offended some people on the basis of race, so, yeah. Pretty much by definition :p EDIT: I think there's a difference between "racially offensive" and "racist".
 
When I was a racist, I wore Adidas some of the time, but I haven't ran a race in a couple of decades and can't remember if I have worn Adidas since I stopped being a racist.
 
holy king said:
you seriously think those shoes are "racially offensive"?
Click to expand...
I personally don't. But I can certainly see how some might perceive it that way, as they obviously did as Mise already pointed out. I would think a hallmark of marketing would be to not piss off a large segment of your buyers, even unintentionally.

But I really wonder what sort of parents would even buy them for their children. Having a King Kong-type toy wearing plastic chains is far different than wearing them yourself.
 
I have not seen the cartoon in question, but I can only assume it would allow the children to pretend they are the monsters depicted in the show.

Again, innocent premise, and not the first time something had to be pulled off the shelf due to self righteous idiots of *insert here* flavor.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

JohnRM
FORTUNE MAGAZINE: Here Comes $500 Oil
2
Replies
36
Views
3K
Perfection
Perfection
Back
Top Bottom